Newsgroup: it.salute
Titolo: Medici Pagati

Quanto sono pagati i medici australiani per vaccinare i bambini ?  News
Vaccinetwork :
" i medici (australiani,ndt) sono pagati 24,50 dollari (circa 44.000
lire,ndt) ogni volta che vaccinano un bambino...., più un bonus alla fine
dell'anno che aumenta col numero di vaccinazioni fatte " (1)
Commento:
la maggior parte dei medici australiani (come nel resto del mondo ) è
nettamente favorevole alle vaccinazioni
poichè il consiglio da parte dei medici di vaccinare i bambini ( e gli
adulti) è un consiglio che riguarda una materia complessa e delicata, è
indispensabile che chi dà questo consiglio non abbia nessun interesse
economico legato alla somministrazione dei vaccini
viceversa, come si legge, i medici australiani guadagnano somministrando i
vaccini ; anzi, come si legge, più vaccinano più hanno diritto ad un premio
economico a fine anno !!! Sarebbe come se , per es., un omeopata fosse
pagato dal governo ogni volta che prescrive un farmaco omeopatico !!!
l'indipendenza da condizionamenti economici è una delle caratteristiche di
ogni corretta pratica medica. I pazienti od i genitori hanno il diritto di
sapere se il medico che pratica le vaccinazioni trae o meno un guadagno ogni
volta che vaccina le persone. Suggeriamo quindi di chiederlo al medico , per
poter valutare se il consiglio di fare le vaccinazioni è indipendente o meno
da condizionamenti economici
(1) " Doctors are the ones who are getting paid a $24.50 bounty every time
they vaccinate a child and report that vaccination to the Australian
Childhood Immunisation Register, plus a bonus at the end of the year based
on their practice vaccination rates. "
Meryl W. Dorey, President The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc.
http://www.avn.org.au
AUSTRALIA: VACCINE DEBATE
I write concerning the May 19 article published in the Northern Star,and
headed OSeven rubella cases spark outbreak fears, based on a media release
issued by the Northern Rivers Division of General Practice. The Division,
and the local Public Health Unit, were concerned to see the Anti-Vaccination
Network's Meryl Dorey quoted at the end of the article, claiming 23 per cent
of people who receive the MMR vaccine contract some form of arthritis.
This is an outrageous claim, and another example of Meryl misrepresenting
the facts to suit her own purposes. It is true that some vaccines can cause
transient joint pains, but true arthritis and other autoimmune illnesses
such as lupus are not increased by vaccination. In the best interests of
professional integrity, we believe
Meryl should be asked to verify her figures and statements before they are
published. We would be happy to furnish your journalists with the scientific
data to back up any media releases we issue on immunisation or any other
topic. Vaccination is a difficult subject and Meryl takes advantage of the
average person's lack of detailed knowledge.
It is very easy to selectively present figures that scare people away from
vaccination. In reality, any risks associated with vaccination are
outweighed by the benefits. Immunisation is without doubt one of this
century's most important public health initiatives. I believe the sheer
number of lives saved and disabilities prevented obligate us to vaccinate,
not only for the benefit of our own children, but also for the common good.
Meryl's finishing quote saying that people should make a decision based on
fact, not fear, when she has just claimed a child has nearly a one-in-four
chance of contracting arthritis from the vaccine, raises the fear element at
the expense of fact.
Sue Page, GP
Immunisation Program Manager,
Northern Rivers Division of General Practice
my reply:
Sue Page says that the Northern Rivers Division of General Practice and the
local Public Health Unit were concerned to see the Australian Vaccination
Network's (not the Anti-Vaccination Network) quote that 23 percent of the
post pubescent recipients of the rubella vaccine contract some form of
arthritis or arthralgia. I am astounded that Sue is not aware of this fact
since it is clearly stated in the manufacturer's package insert! Sue may not
be aware of her legal requirement to fully inform parents of all side
effects and risks of vaccination? She can't possibly do this if she hasn't
read the package insert Sue says that I have misrepresented the facts to
suit my own purposes.
What are those purposes? Doctors are the ones who are getting paid a $24.50
bounty every time they vaccinate a child and report that vaccination to the
Australian Childhood Immunisation Register, plus a bonus at the end of the
year based on their practice vaccination rates. I do not stand to benefit
personally no matter what vaccination decision parents make.
Sue, however, stands to lose quite a bit of money if parents choose not to
vaccinate. I believe this constitutes a gross conflict of interest and as
people with financial interests in vaccination, it is only ethical that
doctors should absent themselves from this debate entirely. Lastly, Sue said
that I should be asked to verify my figures and statements before they are
published. I did and the AVN always provides complete medical references for
any media release it publishes. It is heartening to see that Sue states she
would be happy to furnish scientific data to back up her claims. This would
indeed be a refreshing and necessary change. "Trust me, I'm a doctor?, is
just not good enough any more.
(su : "VIA", del 01.07.99)

 Quanto sono pagati i medici australiani per vaccinare i bambini ?  News
Abbastanza

