the supposed flu-during-pregnancy/autism link - Page 3

[Vacunas Autismo]

One thing is for sure, pregnant women are the cash-cow of the pharmaceutical industry: HIV tests, HPB tests, antiretrovirals, vaccines, unnecessary caesareans, unnecessary episotomies... an overmedicalization that has increased the infant mortality in the EU and the US.

[fruitfulmomma]

Catagory C drugs are drugs which are only to be taken when the benefits clearly outweigh the potential risks. Can you name another drug where this rule is universally disregarded? Especially when mom has no known condition which is *very* risky to her or the baby so that the benefits to both clearly outweigh the risks.

Rachel, really??? No doctor worth anything is going to prescribe a category c drug to a pregnant momma with the reasoning that since they don't have evidence proving it can cause harm, it therefore must be safe. No, they give alternatives which are known to be safer and only use those drugs as a last resort. 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Vacunas Autismo 

One thing is for sure, pregnant women are the cash-cow of the pharmaceutical industry: HIV tests, HPB tests, antiretrovirals, vaccines, unnecessary caesareans, unnecessary episotomies... an overmedicalization that has increased the infant mortality in the EU and the US.

You are kidding right. Cancer drugs. Viagra.... pregnant women are nothing compared to these things.

[kathymuggle]

dbl post

Edited by kathymuggle - 11/20/12 at 12:11pm

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Kathy while you're correct this is the same standard that almost all medications used in pregnant women are held to. It is not some special thing unique to vaccines. Pregnant women are not precluded from getting a vaccine with thimerosal, where's the evidence showing its dangerous to the fetus? When I tried to get a flu shot at my pharmacy when I was pregnant on their little mini health history it does ask if you may be pregnant and when I said I was the pharmacist explained tht their shots had thimerosal and the risks to me, though. Fwiw.

We are discussing vaccines, so I commented on vaccines (shrug).  I am really not thrilled with any drug being prescribed to a pregnant women, unless there is a strong need.  We know medicines can hurt and have hurt fetuses.  

I am not convinced there is a strong need for flu shots in pregnancy.  I would need to figure out the flu rate (done!  somewhere between 5-20%) then the chances of something nasty happening to a pregnant women because of the flu versus the risks of flu vaccine during pregnancy.  The flu rate efficacy would also have to be thrown in.  

I am glad the pharmacist told you about thim free shots.  Thim free shots are not availible in all countries, moreover there is no legislation that thim free shots have to be given to pregnant women. It comes down to whether or not the doctors/pharmaicst chooses to promote the existence of thim free shots, or patients asking for them.  It is buyer beware…which is not good enough when it comes to women's and children's health.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Vacunas Autismo 

One thing is for sure, pregnant women are the a cash-cow of the pharmaceutical industry: HIV tests, HPB tests, antiretrovirals, vaccines, unnecessary caesareans, unnecessary episotomies... an overmedicalization that has increased the infant mortality in the EU and the US.

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

You are kidding right. Cancer drugs. Viagra.... pregnant women are nothing compared to these things.

If you change the word "the" to "a," the point holds.  I don't know if her last line is completely true, but I do think over medicalisation has adversely affected health.

Here is an example of where medicalising pregnant women is probably harmful (SSRI):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9632588/Thousands-of-pregnant-women-at-risk-from-antidepressants-doctors-warn.html

Surely most people think we should be cautious around prescribing, promoting and accepting drugs in pregnancy?

[Rrrrrachel]

I"m not sure I understand what c sections nad episiotomies have to do with the pharmaceutical industry?  I'm not sure how common some of those other things are and I'm certainly not sure how much extra money pharm companies make off of pregnant ladies.  I mean lots of people get HIV tests, not just pregnant ladies.  A pregnant lady who gets a flu shot probably would've gotten one anyway, wouldn't they?

I do think it's especially important in pregnancy to weigh the potential benefits and risks of any potential medication.  Someone everyone has to do for themselves.

[prosciencemum]

I definitely agree that most pregnancy is over medicalised. But like Rrrrrachel points out I'm not sure it's the pharmaceutical companies who are mostly benefiting - I think the main "cash cow" (if you want) of pregnancy is for the hospitals and doctors during birth. But this is a bit off topic for this board. 

Everything I've read suggests that vaccines are one of the worst money makers for pharmaceutical companies. They have some of the highest development costs and safety testing requirements of all drugs. These companies honestly are making the big bucks elsewhere (cancer drugs, lipitor, viagra etc). 

 For example: 

This article: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/magazine/archive/Mag_Fall02/vaccines.html

from John's Hopkins (about vaccine shortages) claims: 

Quote:

Vaccines are dramatically less profitable than other drugs. In March, Science reported that GlaxoSmithKline, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer, enjoyed worldwide vaccine sales of $4.3 billion. Contrast that figure with the profits of one drug, the cholesterol-lowering Lipitor, which grosses $6 billion a year. According to IMS Health, a pharmaceutical intelligence service, vaccines comprise only 1 to 2 percent of global pharmaceutical sales.

I've also read about how doctors loose money on vaccinations. For example here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/6/1319.full

Quote:

“More than half (53% [n = 310]) of the respondents reported that their practice had experienced a decrease in profit margin from providing pediatric immunizations in the previous 3 years… A “significant decrease (>20%)” in profit margin was reported by 21% (n = 123) of respondents overall and by more decision-makers than non–decision-makers.”

Quote:

“A key finding from our study is that, in the previous year, 5% of pediatricians and 21% of family physicians (11% of all respondents) have seriously considered whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured patients."

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Everything I've read suggests that vaccines are one of the worst money makers for pharmaceutical companies. They have some of the highest development costs and safety testing requirements of all drugs. These companies honestly are making the big bucks elsewhere (cancer drugs, lipitor, viagra etc). 

I agree with you.

None-the-less, as long as they (Big pharm) are making money on vaccines, they have a vested interest in promoting it.  

My Dh once worked in a very large corporation - their goal was to make as much money as possible from all their lines of products - even the smaller ones.  

[pek64]

A decrease in profit margin is not the same as loosing money. Loosing money means no profit. A decrease in profit margin simply means making less money.

[chickabiddy]

A "decrease in profit margin from providing pediatric immunizations" means that doctors' offices are "loosing" money on vaccines, but the practices remain profitable overall.  If they are making less money because they are losing money on vaccines, then vaccines are not a moneymaker for them.

[pek64]

The gross profit margin would be the profit of the practice. It did *not* say there was a decrease in the gross profit margin. It said there was a decrease in the profit margin from vaccinations. It did *not* say vaccinations had become a loss. I stand behind my previous remark.

[chickabiddy]

Did you read the entire study?

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I definitely agree that most pregnancy is over medicalised. But like Rrrrrachel points out I'm not sure it's the pharmaceutical companies who are mostly benefiting - I think the main "cash cow" (if you want) of pregnancy is for the hospitals and doctors during birth. But this is a bit off topic for this board. 

Everything I've read suggests that vaccines are one of the worst money makers for pharmaceutical companies. They have some of the highest development costs and safety testing requirements of all drugs. These companies honestly are making the big bucks elsewhere (cancer drugs, lipitor, viagra etc). 

 For example: 


This article: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/magazine/archive/Mag_Fall02/vaccines.html
from John's Hopkins (about vaccine shortages) claims: 





I've also read about how doctors loose money on vaccinations. For example here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/6/1319.full

Prosciencemom, we already had this conversation months ago, when you made the same argument and cited the same isolated article written over a decade ago (the Johns Hopkins link). I responded with a long list of links proving just the opposite. Namely, vaccines are NOT profitable for most doctors and clinics but remarkably profitable for the manufacturers. How about this to jog your memory:

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1358190/the-vaccine-bubble

I notice that you did not address my post then (#5), so I'm inviting you to do so now.

[prosciencemum]

I won't deny the manufacturers make money from vaccines. But then no one would develop any vaccines if they couldn't make any money at all out of them.

The point I'm making is that they are not as profitable as other drugs.

[prosciencemum]

Turqueza - what response were you expecting? The post you linked was just a post of links to the profits made for vaccines, which I've never claimed did not exist, just that they're smaller than for other drugs.

I reported for people who weren't around months ago and because it was relevant to this discussion.

[prosciencemum]

Well here's a repomse - the second link you provided (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2010-04-20/industries/30682060_1_novartis-profit-novartis-shares-cancer-drug-sales) actually makes my point.

2.4 billion on cancer drugs, 2.2 billion on cardiovascular drugs - two items both more than twice the only vaccine sales they mention (1.1 billion for flu pandemic vaccine in the h1n1 scare year). and this is sales, not profits which must remove the cost of developing, licensing, and safety testing the products. Flu vaccine change annually right so I presume have fairly expensive ongoing development costs.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I won't deny the manufacturers make money from vaccines. But then no one would develop any vaccines if they couldn't make any money at all out of them.
The point I'm making is that they are not as profitable as other drugs.

When you consider that vaccines can cause/trigger asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune thyroid disease, seizure disorders, food allergies, brain damage, etc., the secondary profit from the lifetime of medication then required, the profits increase substantially.

[Rrrrrachel]

Only if you assume they trigger those disorders in any kind of significant numbers, which has absolutely not been demonstrated.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Only if you assume they trigger those disorders in any kind of significant numbers, which has absolutely not been demonstrated.

Rrrrachel, you don't know if it's been demonstrated in any significant numbers or not, because there is no adequate surveillance mechanism.

We do know that they have been triggered; given the lack of adequate surveillance, the likelihood is that the numbers affected are far greater than previously suspected.  The researchers who have come out with the most recent studies are alarmed enough to call for further studies.

Those who have suffered such reactions are coming forward, and learning that they are not nearly as small a number as they'd been told.

The biggest danger seems to be assuming safety based on past "generally regarded as safe" assumptions, many of which have turned out to be incorrect.