the supposed flu-during-pregnancy/autism link - Page 4

[Rrrrrachel]

Excepti do think we have adequate surveillance.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Excepti do think we have adequate surveillance.

I think the experts disagree with you.

For example, Steven Rosenthal, MD, MPH, and Robert Chen, MD, AM wrote in 1995:

"The utility of passive surveillance has several potential limitations.For example, underreporting is often a problem,limiting the system's ability to detect new or rare events.'" Clinical information obtained on report forms is often inadequate for assessment, and reports may be biased to prevailing concepts of adverse events and changing publicity."

They go on to say something which many of us have been saying here on MDC, only to be shouted down by the defenders of the pharmaceutical industry:

"Outcomes with delayed onset after vaccination or outcomes not generally recognized to be associated with vaccination often have significantly lower reporting sensitivities. Narrative report forms and reporting by parents/caretakers decrease diagnostic accuracy. Unlike diseases for which distinct case definitions exist, many adverse events are poorly defined clinical syndromes.Clinical information reported is often dificult to categorize and encode."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615747/pdf/amjph00450-0108.pdf

[Rrrrrachel]

Except passive surveillance is not the only kind of surveillance we have.

[Taximom5]

Well, if you're looking for excuses for the vaccine industry, you can say whatever you want.

However, this:

"Outcomes with delayed onset after vaccination or outcomes not generally recognized to be associated with vaccination often have significantly lower reporting sensitivities. Narrative report forms and reporting by parents/caretakers decrease diagnostic accuracy. Unlike diseases for which distinct case definitions exist, many adverse events are poorly defined clinical syndromes.Clinical information reported is often dificult to categorize and encode."

is true for any kind of reporting system.

If doctors miss a delayed adverse event, or are unable to recognize it even when it occurs soon after the vaccination, they will not report it.

And that's exactly what has been happening.

[Rrrrrachel]

Except only passive surveillance systems rely o doctors reporting. And from the context of that quote it's pretty clear they're critiquing passive surveillance.

I'll ask you again to please refrain from making comments about me and instead discuss the issue at hand.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

If doctors miss a delayed adverse event, or are unable to recognize it even when it occurs soon after the vaccination, they will not report it.

I often wonder how many of them don't even know about VAERS.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

I often wonder how many of them don't even know about VAERS.

Or how many know, but don't bother reporting, because it's voluntary...

[HappyHappyMommy]

Hi All, There's been some reports about posts in this thread that addressed a member posting, not a topic. Please edit any posts you've made that address another member and revise them so that they stick to the topic. Thank you!

[prosciencemum]

Anyone can make a report to VAERs. You do not need your doctor to do it for you.

And as Rrrrrachel has been trying to point out there have also been active surveillance to look for trends in chronic diseases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated which do not find any strong link. They've been posted on here several times before.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Anyone can make a report to VAERs. You do not need your doctor to do it for you.

Sure anyone can...but you'd need to know what it is to even report it. I wonder how many people do?

An acquaintance of mine on Facebook had a vaccine reaction, and when I told her to report it to VAERS, she didn't say anything or ask any questions about it. I wonder if she didn't want to reveal her ignorance?

I assume everyone knows what the acronym stands for, but I guess I shouldn't do that. Next time I'll be sure to spell it out so there's no confusion. 

[pek64]

Originally Posted by 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.

2.4 billion on cancer drugs -- multiple drugs, group together

2.2 billion on cardiovascular drugs -- again, multiple drugs, grouped together

1.1 billion for the H1N1 vaccine -- a single vaccine

How much for all the rest of the vaccines?

How much in ongoing development costs for dtap, mmr, or cp?


Vaccines look pretty lucrative, actually.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by pek64 


1.1 billion for the H1N1 vaccine -- a single vaccine
 

 In the year of the H1N1 pandemic......

[pek64]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

 In the year of the H1N1 pandemic......

If you are saying that that is not a typical amount, then the article contains zero relevant information on the profits from vaccines. So the profit/loss of vaccines point remains in dispute.

If you are saying something else, then it's pretty clear that if half the amount of cardiovasular drugs can be made on a single vaccine, how much can be made on all the vaccines together?

[Mirzam]

Well Pfizer made a tidy sum on Prevenar, a cool $1.847 billion in the first half of 2012. 

http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25

Edited by Mirzam - 11/22/12 at 8:23am

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

 In the year of the H1N1 pandemic......

Except there was no pandemic. It was a hoax created by the vaccine industry, to sell the ineffective, side-effect-causing flu shot and the ineffective, side-effect-causing Tamiflu.

It was, obviously, a very lucrative hoax.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by pek64 


If you are saying that that is not a typical amount, then the article contains zero relevant information on the profits from vaccines. So the profit/loss of vaccines point remains in dispute.
If you are saying something else, then it's pretty clear that if half the amount of cardiovasular drugs can be made on a single vaccine, how much can be made on all the vaccines together?

Excellent point, particularly when multiple doses are required for the vaccines, when the vaccines are MANDATED,  when the vaccine manufacturers enjoy liability protection. They pay out ZERO, even if you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mr. X died from a vaccine and you win in vaccine court.

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Except there was no pandemic. It was a hoax created by the vaccine industry, to sell the ineffective, side-effect-causing flu shot and the ineffective, side-effect-causing Tamiflu.

It was, obviously, a very lucrative hoax.

Allow me.

Ahem.....

 It would have been a pandemic, had it not been for the H1N1 vaccine. Thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic was avoided!

Vaccines and vaccine manufacturers are always right.

[pek64]

It was posted somewhere yesterday that even if there is a payout from vaccine court, that money comes out of tax dollars, not vaccine manufacturers pockets.

[Chicharronita]

Quote:

Human vaccines, earlier considered as a low profit yielding business, have transformed into cash cows for global pharmaceutical giants.

Nice work if you can get it.

From "Vaccine Markets A Refuge for Big Pharma" in Drug Discovery and Development.

[prosciencemum]

[Mod Note 11/25: Edited to remove reference to content in mods that have now been removed.]

About Pfizer - their total sales (note the difference between sales and profits please) were $14 billion in the last quarter, and prevnar sales dropped to below $1 billion (so around 7% of the total sales for that company - how that translates to profits I do not know)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/01/us-pfizer-results-idUSBRE8A00JU20121101

Quote:

Sales of Prevnar 13 fell 14 percent to $868 million, while sales of its older Prevnar 7 vaccine dropped 17 percent to $81 million.

I'm actually not interested in defending these companies, which, particularly in the US I believe get up to some pretty dubious sales practices (direct marketing to consumers for example makes me very uncomfortable). I am also disappointed that the way things work mean they're not interested in developing drugs for third world diseases which kill millions, while they spend millions on advertising things like viagra (holding hands in two different baths - honestly!).

But representing vaccines as their major cash cow and something they're willing to risk being exposed to fraud for (which is what many anti-vaccine claims about the companies amount to) is I think unrealistic. And if I'm honest about it I can't see any other way of making these potentially life saving vaccines. It's very expensive to develop and safety test new vaccines, so I can't see any governments or small businesses ever being able to absorb the risk of doing that. And the companies are only willing to do it so they can make some profit out of them.

So I'll say it again - I don't deny they make profits on vaccines, and in numbers which may sound huge, but they are fractions of the total profits of these companies. That's all I'm trying to get across. I've provided more than enough evidence for it in my opinion.