or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › do you vaccinate?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

do you vaccinate? - Page 14

post #261 of 345

I just read this week's Huffington article, The CDC to Study Vaccines, and I am very happy some more research is being undertaken.  Really, they have been going on outdated science for too long.  Independent studies are showing the whole shabang is in need of serious reconsidering.  

 

The issue should not be this debatable... not when babies are involved!

post #262 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy F View Post



 


Not true...It varies by vaccine; however,whether it is intramuscular (in muscle) or subcutaneous (below top layers of skin into fatty layers that is rich in blood vessels) , the vaccine will quickly get into the bloodstream via tiny blood vessels in the muscle or subcutaneous tissue.   Either Either
 

 


Again, sorry to be pedantic, but there are no vaccines given intravenously which was the point I was commenting on in the post I quoted. Although, yes, some are given sub.cut. I should have been more specific there.

 

post #263 of 345

Yes, I see your point katelove. I'm not a nit-picky person,but since you were reclarifying that it was not injected intravenously, I wanted to clear that up that not all vaccines are intramuscular, and it sounded like your post was saying it does not enter the blood.  I just wanted to clarify that all types of vaccines, whether oral, nasal, intramuscular, or subcutaneous, enter the bloodstream in some way or another, as some people may not know that.


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/23/11 at 6:12am
post #264 of 345



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post





I agree, follow the money trail. Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of manking money and they're good at it. That's why in the last few decades we've gone from having dozens of manufacturers of vaccines to now just four. They're not big money makers. If they were, you'd better believe that the pharm companies would be jumping all over them.

 

To the bolded - they are.


It may have been the case in years past (partly because of of the fact that companies were losing money on vaccines because they were held liable and being sued) but this is certainly not the case today. Vaccines have been steadily growing as revenue stream in the last  10+ years and will continue to do so since many of the companies drug patents are expiring and there are not a lot of new drugs in the pipeline (compared to years past). Im not saying that pharmaceutical companies don't make a load of money off of their drugs - cause they certainly do - but to say that vaccines are not an important (and growing) revenue stream for the companies that produce them is wrong.

 

 

Quote:
 The vaccines market, which was once considered a low-profit segment of the top players' portfolios, showed a turnaround after the resounding success of Prevnar, the first blockbuster vaccine. The ability of vaccines to generate high revenue and profits despite being priced at a premium has proven attractive to both existing players in the market and to big pharmaceutical companies who have been watching the development of the market with interest.

 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100115005381/en/Research-Markets-Future-Global-Vaccines---Market

 

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Global-Vaccine-Market-Exceeds-20-Billion-Kalorama-1304184.htm

 

http://www.mydigitalfc.com/news/big-pharma-looks-vaccines-fill-revenue-gap-949

 

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/spotlight-booming-vaccine-market-swells-sanofi-s-revenue/2008-02-14

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-20/novartis-profit-rises-on-h1n1-flu-vaccine-revenue-update1-.html

 

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/a_shot_in_the_arm_for_the_vaccine_industry.html

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/61874.php

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/big-business-swine-flu/story?id=8820642

 

I could post a few dozen more articles about the growth and promise of the vaccine industry's revenue stream but.....I won't

 

 

 

post #265 of 345


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post

Why vaccines are not big money-makers for pharmaceutical companies and fewer and fewer and making vaccines:

 

Oh wow.  Goodness!  Did you and I enter the terms in the search engine, or is there a little bit of cherry picking going on?  Your links, the second of which requires registered membership, are more than five years old.  Let's look at some more recent news.  It is a statement of fact--not a conspiracy theory--that pharmaceutical companies profit significantly from vaccines.

 

http://www.theledger.com/article/20091117/NEWS/911175021/1023/LIFE?Title=Drug-Makers-Rake-in-Vaccine-Profit

 

Quote:

 

Contrast that with five years ago, when so many companies had abandoned the vaccine business that half the U.S. supply of flu shots was lost because of contamination at one of the two manufacturers left.

 

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/61874.php

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/170093.php

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703908704575433470792980944.html

Drug stores pushing flu vaxes for profit.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/vaccines-new-drugs-push-novartis-profit-up-by-49-2010-04-20

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIcx84hDuY_0

 

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/show/pfizer-launches-pneumonia-prevention-vaccine-prevanar-13-81440

 

The company may be looking to be part of the $1.5 billion of peak annual global sales that Prevenar-13 is expected to generate.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wyeth-profit-rises-12-vaccine-sales-strong

 

 

Quote:

First-quarter revenue for Prevnar, Wyeth's vaccine to prevent invasive pneumococcal disease in infants and young children, rose 43% to $617 million. U.S. net revenue increased 16% due to improvement in compliance rates, the addition of 250,000 doses to the CDC vaccine stockpile, as well as price increases.

 

 

 

This is just swine flu:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/big-business-swine-flu/story?id=8820642

 

http://www.moneynews.com/Companies/EU-France-Earns-Sanofi/2010/02/10/id/349458

 

http://www.physorg.com/news183705900.html

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-17/csl-s-annual-profit-falls-8-percent-as-currency-losses-undercut-drug-sales.html

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575056532348632108.html?mod=WSJ_topics_obama

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Novartis-Q4-profit-down-as-apf-732552449.html?x=0&.v=2

(If pharmaceuticals didn’t profit from vaccines, then you’d think that ceasing the manufacturing of a vaccine wouldn’t have any impact.  Not so_.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575211762250714190.html

 

http://www.finchannel.com/news_flash/Pharmacy/57586_GlaxoSmithKline_profit_up_66_Pct_boosted_by_swine_flu_vaccine_strong_sales/

 

 

 

 

 

post #266 of 345

How did I miss your post, Marnica?  I probably was spending that 20 minute lapse putting those links together.  Oh well, you know what they say about great minds... wink1.gif

post #267 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

I just read this week's Huffington article, The CDC to Study Vaccines, and I am very happy some more research is being undertaken.  Really, they have been going on outdated science for too long.  Independent studies are showing the whole shabang is in need of serious reconsidering.  

 

The issue should not be this debatable... not when babies are involved!



The CDC isn't really the place I'd go to look at an unbiased study of vaccines. Unfortunate it might be but they are biased in a big way and I am happy too that more research is being done but it won't make up for the major lack of long term studies, as well as studies considering the implications of giving multiple injections/oral vaccines in one office visit.


Edited by Ldavis24 - 3/23/11 at 8:10am
post #268 of 345


 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post





The CDC isn't really the place I'd go to look at an unbiased study of vaccines. Unfortunate it might but they are biased in a big way and I am happy to that more research is being done but it won't make up for the major lack of long term studies, as well as studies considering the implications of giving multiple injections/oral vaccines in one office visit.

 

I have to agree with this.  Although I'm happy they are doing more research, I don't feel real confident that they will come back with anything other than continuing to favor vaccines and stating they cause no damage.  I don't trust their "studies" and I'm not confident that they will not skew their numbers to favor vaccinations. I wish it was unbiased, but I don't think it is and never will be.   Either way, it's set up so the pharmaceutical companies are covered.

post #269 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy F View Post


 

 

 

I have to agree with this.  Although I'm happy they are doing more research, I don't feel real confident that they will come back with anything other than continuing to favor vaccines and stating they cause no damage.  I don't trust their "studies" and I'm not confident that they will not skew their numbers to favor vaccinations. I wish it was unbiased, but I don't think it is and never will be.   Either way, it's set up so the pharmaceutical companies are covered.

So what kind of study will satisfy you? And who should do it?
post #270 of 345

 

 

Quote:
I had blood tests for communicable diseases when pregnant and I am immune to all of them apparently.  So somehow, I am protected, yet I never got sick, not even one little spot.

Same here. I remember my mom trying to get my brother and I to come down with chicken pox many times. Neither of us ever got them. My bloodwork shows that I am indeed immune though.

post #271 of 345

 

 

Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy F View Post


 

 

 

I have to agree with this.  Although I'm happy they are doing more research, I don't feel real confident that they will come back with anything other than continuing to favor vaccines and stating they cause no damage.  I don't trust their "studies" and I'm not confident that they will not skew their numbers to favor vaccinations. I wish it was unbiased, but I don't think it is and never will be.   Either way, it's set up so the pharmaceutical companies are covered.



So what kind of study will satisfy you? And who should do it?



Just thinking out loud here, but maybe an unbiased partyROTFLMAO.gif. I don't know of any, so if you know of one, let me know. 

 

I'd be surprised if they come back with any other evidence other than saying how wonderful vaccines are.  Although, I am very hopeful that they will do an actual thorough study.  If they do the actual true research/studies properly, then they certainly should come back with more evidence suggesting vaccines can cause damage. Just look at all of the damaged children due to vaccines, and that is NOT speculation.  I also don't think the study should be confined to just autism either. 

 

Don't get me wrong.  I am happy they are doing the study, but why does it have to take this long and so much time goes by before they conduct these kinds of studies?  They've been fighting off this study for a long time now,stating it was environmental factors, etc, causing autism.  It shouldn't be that much of a fight. 


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/23/11 at 9:12am
post #272 of 345

We will vaccinate, as it is required by law here.

 

Is anyone planning on watching The Greater Good documentary about vaccines? It's linked on the Mothering homepage, and is premiering April 2 at the Dallas Film Festival: http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/ . It seems to at least try to present several sides of the story.

post #273 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy F View Post


 

 

 

I have to agree with this.  Although I'm happy they are doing more research, I don't feel real confident that they will come back with anything other than continuing to favor vaccines and stating they cause no damage.  I don't trust their "studies" and I'm not confident that they will not skew their numbers to favor vaccinations. I wish it was unbiased, but I don't think it is and never will be.   Either way, it's set up so the pharmaceutical companies are covered.


Wow, that is incredibly offensive to all the scientists out there who work their rear ends off to make this world a better place. My husband goes into the lab before it's light out and routinely comes home long past 5 pm, most of the time bringing work home with him- not necessarily because he has to, but because he loves it. I can assure you that he's never skewed data in his life. All the scientists I know LOVE science and would never lower themselves to making up data to please anyone, because making stuff up is not at all what science is about. Data is data. If it doesn't say what you were hoping, it's back to the drawing board and you start over. How offensive that you just discount all scientists as liars and frauds.

 

And FTR, not all labs are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most are funded by MULTIPLE sources. 

 

post #274 of 345


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafty View Post




Wow, that is incredibly offensive to all the scientists out there who work their rear ends off to make this world a better place. My husband goes into the lab before it's light out and routinely comes home long past 5 pm, most of the time bringing work home with him- not necessarily because he has to, but because he loves it. I can assure you that he's never skewed data in his life. All the scientists I know LOVE science and would never lower themselves to making up data to please anyone, because making stuff up is not at all what science is about. Data is data. If it doesn't say what you were hoping, it's back to the drawing board and you start over. How offensive that you just discount all scientists as liars and frauds.

 

And FTR, not all labs are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most are funded by MULTIPLE sources. 

 



I wasn't referring to all scientists and certainly was not referring to your husband. Let's stick with the topic at hand. Don't know what your husband does, but we're talking about vaccine research/studies here..You have your opinion, I have mine. 

 

I'm done here because people are way to sensitive and take things way to personal. It's difficult to even voice an opinion withoiut getting jumped all over.

post #275 of 345

Marnica and Turquesa- Thanks for the updated information. It is very interesting.

 

P.S. Turquesa- I didn't type anything into a search engine, those were just a couple of articles I already had links to. I'm sorry the second link didn't work for you, I was able to see it just fine and I don't have a membership or paid subscription. I don't know why you got that message?

post #276 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandy F View Post


 

 

 

I have to agree with this.  Although I'm happy they are doing more research, I don't feel real confident that they will come back with anything other than continuing to favor vaccines and stating they cause no damage.  I don't trust their "studies" and I'm not confident that they will not skew their numbers to favor vaccinations. I wish it was unbiased, but I don't think it is and never will be.   Either way, it's set up so the pharmaceutical companies are covered.



So what kind of study will satisfy you? And who should do it?


I think that the CDC, ideally would be able to do the studies.  The problem is that they're heavily funded by the pharmaceutical companies and they won't say how much, only that it's over a certain amount.  The former head of the cdc just landed a top job at Merck last year.  There are conflicts of interest there that should not be.  The cdc shouldn't be allowed to receive money from pharmaceutical companies.  So, take the conflicts of interests between the researcher and the thing being researched  and add the confirmation bias of non-vaxxers (vaxxers as well) and you've got a study that's going to be doubted by non-vaxxers unless it's critical of vaccines and considered gospel by people who already trust vaccines .  But it's a start and we'll all just have to see the research once it's presented.  Who should do it?  Someone who doesn't have major conflicts of interest.  I hope it's real, not like the "study" that only left out the antigen, but left in all of the other stuff.    In my house, the two non-vaccinated kids have been much healthier than the vaccinated ones, so that makes me even more curious about what a major study would show.   I didn't even know it was possible for children to not have ear infections.  I just thought they all did, but my two non-vaccinated have had none (knocking on wood).  We never dealt with colds, croup, snotty noses, unexplained fevers, frequent 24hr stomach bugs, like my first two.  It's a big difference and it would be hard for me to open my mind enough to trust anything that doesn't show what I've seen, not just with my own children, but with several children that I know. 

post #277 of 345

I would say, in my ever so humble opinion that I have ZERO issue with the actual scientists do the work. Their job is to be all scientificy...

The problem I have is that once they are done doing their science thing, those results are shunted over to the bureaucrats and politicians who get to look at the data and then do whatever the hell they want with it. Skew it however they want, use it to draw any conclusion they want etc...

 

So to the PP whose DH is a scientist please understand I don't think your DH or any true scientist is the issue at all. Unfortunately they are not making policy though. The people who make the policies are the ones who skew the numbers to fit their agendas, thus I can't take a study the CDC does as anything truly valid...It is unfortunate but that is the way it is!

post #278 of 345

Of course the CDC is biased. They are trying to CONTROL disease! Vaccines control disease.

post #279 of 345

So, it doesn't bother you that the cdc takes undisclosed amounts of money from pharmaceutical companies and gives the people responsible for regulating their safety lucrative jobs after they leave the cdc?  Would it bother you for the FDA to take undisclosed amounts of money from food and drug manufacturers?  The cdc is responsible for the vaccine schedule.  They're supposed to be responsible to the citizens to make decisions regarding our safety.  They're supposed to work for us to ensure our safety.  How can they put people first when their bottom line is affected.

 

Here's one article about fda conflicts of interest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12483353/ns/health-health_care/

 

 

post #280 of 345

In regards to the CDC schedule- it's what is good for the PUBLIC at large, not necessarily the health of an individual child. Maybe some kids should have their vaccines delayed or spread out a bit but that does not mean that the vaccines themselves are not good for disease control.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › do you vaccinate?