or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Profits from vaccines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Profits from vaccines - Page 3

post #41 of 86

It could be GM foods eaten daily combined with vaccines. Never mind all the environmental toxins kids are exposed to. 

post #42 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

They can both be more likely?  I think that's mathematically impossible, but what do I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

They can both be more likely?  I think that's mathematically impossible, but what do I know.

not how it reads but anyway...I don't have time to argue semantics with you.

post #43 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Taxi - so I'm curious, do you think GM foods eaten daily or vaccines given a handful of times mostly in childhood are more likely to cause the apparent rise in chronic allergies and other conditions?

It's not?

post #44 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

not how it reads but anyway...I don't have time to argue semantics with you.

 

Do you agree with what I said, that it could be a combination of several factors?

post #45 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

 

Do you agree with what I said, that it could be a combination of several factors?

yes that's what I said in my initial response to prosciences post

post #46 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonas1999 View Post

I think its stupid to ridicule the manufactures. Of course they are on the hunt for profits, but they only get it if they can prove the value of their product. Vaccination is not a bad think at all, it safes thousands of lives every year! 

All things pharmaceutical can have value and still not be safe. I also don't think anybody is ridiculing the manufacturers (by definition that would be making fun of them). What people have issue with is that the safety testing is done by the same company that stands to make a fortune off their product. A legitimate concern IMO.

post #47 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There math is a little funny there. I'm not sure you can just add all those up, since there are people who fall in more than one category. Interesting how many of those are considered to be caused primarily by weight and diet.

 

Many also become more common after the age of 50 or so, an age which a hundred years ago only about half the population lived to see.  As average life expectancy goes up, so do the diseases of old age.  

post #48 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonas1999 View Post

I think its stupid to ridicule the manufactures. Of course they are on the hunt for profits, but they only get it if they can prove the value of their product. Vaccination is not a bad think at all, it safes thousands of lives every year! 


But if people claim to be harmed by the product, the manufacturer is even more obligated to defend their product and tout its effectiveness...because if sued at least they can pretend they didn't know better--they can pretend to have believed their own hype.  It gets complicated when money and liability are involved.

 

Look at the dental industry's persistent use of mercury fillings.  Do they honestly not know mercury is poisonous?  I just can't believe this.  Yet US society still supports mercury use in teeth.  Insurance companies accept it as the standard of care.  For the dental industry to admit mercury is harmful would raise HUGE liability issues for them, going years back!

post #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by rush2ady View Post

Look at the dental industry's persistent use of mercury fillings.  Do they honestly not know mercury is poisonous?  I just can't believe this.  Yet US society still supports mercury use in teeth.  Insurance companies accept it as the standard of care.  For the dental industry to admit mercury is harmful would raise HUGE liability issues for them, going years back!


Along with fluoridated water!

post #50 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post


Along with fluoridated water!

I'm sorry. I just can't help thinking of Dr Strangelove when you say that. "No fighting in the war room" and all that! Are you being serious or joking? Honest question - I misunderstood a joke on another thread recently.
post #51 of 86

There is a growing controversy over the safety/effectiveness of fluoridating water: http://www.fluoridation.webs.com/

 

Some countries have stopped, rejected, or outright banned the practice of fluoridating water: http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm

post #52 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


I'm sorry. I just can't help thinking of Dr Strangelove when you say that. "No fighting in the war room" and all that! Are you being serious or joking? Honest question - I misunderstood a joke on another thread recently.


I am 100% serious. It is a terrible practice.

I will not argue about this with any of you, period. 

post #53 of 86
For those of you who believe that competing interests in vaccine research and policy-making are not a big deal because "vaccines don't make a lot of money," I'm curious: At what profit margin would you start to consider these competing interests unacceptable?
post #54 of 86

Not vaccines, but I found this tidbit while looking for something else:

 

"Aspirin consumption by children with viral illnesses increases the risk of Reye’s syndrome — fatal in one third of all patients — by 4,000%.

When this evidence became known, the aspirin industry geared up a counter-campaign that delayed the introduction of simple warning labels on their products about the risk of Reye’s syndrome by more than five years."

http://theconversation.edu.au/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050

Of course pharmacy companies bottom line is the bottom line…and of course they will  dismiss worrisome things to maintain that profit.

post #55 of 86
Thread Starter 
The issue, for me, is more can they be successful in that effort indefinitely interface of numerous independent studies and governed oversight. All the examples; vioxx, aspirin, opv, etc; show they can't.
post #56 of 86

nm

post #57 of 86

Actually, the claims that companies make large amounts of money on immunisation are false.  They simply don't.   The cost of the dosage of the vaccines are too low to make a large profit, and some of the companies want to pull out of it and focus on the high yield medications.

post #58 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

Actually, the claims that companies make large amounts of money on immunisation are false.  They simply don't.   The cost of the dosage of the vaccines are too low to make a large profit, and some of the companies want to pull out of it and focus on the high yield medications.

 

Wrong.  They might not make a lot of money compared to other pharmaceutical products - but they still make lots and lots of money on vaccines.  The amount they make off of vaccines has been rising, I believe.

post #59 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

Actually, the claims that companies make large amounts of money on immunisation are false.  They simply don't.   The cost of the dosage of the vaccines are too low to make a large profit, and some of the companies want to pull out of it and focus on the high yield medications.

Which companies want to pull out of vaccine production?

And how much do the doctors get paid for vaccinating? Insurance companies reimburse them for the vaccines, and the administration, true?
post #60 of 86

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173477

 

 

Quote:

RESULTS:

Variable costs per shot (excluding vaccine cost) were 8.15 dollars for pediatric practices, 5.79 dollars for family practices, and 5.41 dollars for public health agencies. Total costs per shot, including fixed costs, were 10.67 dollars for pediatric practices and 7.57 dollars for family practices. Average reimbursement for pediatricians and private family practices was 8.27 dollars and 6.68 dollars, respectively. For pediatric practices, average variable costs were barely exceeded by average reimbursement, and reimbursement was 22% less than average total costs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Profits from vaccines