Their response was published in the Bulletin of the Association of Swiss Physicians (FMH), and was subsequently distributed by CFV to physicians. Available on the Internet, it informs the public on the non-objectivity of the brochure

as it relates to vaccination questions. Indeed, a group of experts made up of members of the CFV has provided Ku-0059436 order responses to questions raised by the brochure in a document titled Guide sur les vaccinations: évidences et croyances [3] (a guide for vaccinations: evidence and beliefs). Preparation of meetings, including setting agendas and proposing areas of work, is shared between the committee and the Secretariat under the auspices of FOPH, within the Federal Department of Home Affairs. FOPH and external bodies can make suggestions but cannot impose them; theoretically, proposals can come from different political or medical groups, such as medical societies concerned with occupational health. At each meeting, the CFV identifies issues for future discussion. These issues may be identified

during the commission’s work meetings, or be requested by other commissions, specialist groups, physicians or other involved parties. All topical requests that fall under the competencies of the CFV, in particular those concerning vaccines, prevention Libraries strategies and applications, p53 inhibitor can be brought to the CFV’s attention through the Secretariat. Vaccination recommendations must be based on scientific evidence, integrating whenever possible a hierarchical classification system for study validity. This analytical framework is used as a foundation for discussions within the CFV, as well as for approaching the federal commission concerning the benefits of compulsory health insurance. The potential benefits of each vaccine for individual and public health are identified by the CFV, in collaboration with the FOPH, after a rigorous assessment of numerous parameters

in response to a series until of analytical questions. The working group for new vaccines has decided to develop an analytical framework allowing for a systematic and exhaustive assessment of all factors pertinent to the decision-making process and ultimately for the recommendation of a vaccine. A similar process was already established in Quebec and was made available to the commission. Quebec’s process was adapted to Swiss needs and is comprised of a series of essential questions as well as a list of elements requiring analysis. The questions are as follows [4]: • Do the properties of the vaccine allow for the establishment of an efficacious and safe recommendation? Using answers to these questions as a basis, the CFV has established four categories of vaccines for recommended use: 1. Basic vaccines – they are essential to individual and public health, and offer a level of protection that is indispensable to people’s well-being (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, MMR, HBV, HPV).