I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research! - Page 10

[Rrrrrachel]

And to be clear, I think all corporations are to be viewed with suspicion.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Sounds like you have a more moderate view. That's great. That's not the way this usually goes, though. What happens is any and all research is dismissed as worthless because its "funded by the pharmaceutical industry," (even if its not really) and all lack of evidence is being suppressed.

I have no doubt all the women here are regular people. I'm sure they're lovely to talk to on a variety of topics. However, 2500 posts worth of experience tells me that once this conversation goes here (which it has many times before) there's really nothing productive left to get out of it.

Fair enough but I have 10 years of experience here and enough to know that the culture ebbs and flows as members come and go and learn and evolve. When discussions become polarized to extremes it can have the effect of drowning out the voices in the middle. But in a community like this one, where everyone ultimately wants a dialogue where we can all have a voice and where we can learn from each other,nthe conversation will eventually shift to a more productive space. 

[pek64]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

Fair enough but I have 10 years of experience here and enough to know that the culture ebbs and flows as members come and go and learn and evolve. When discussions become polarized to extremes it can have the effect of drowning out the voices in the middle. But in a community like this one, where everyone ultimately wants a dialogue where we can all have a voice and where we can learn from each other,nthe conversation will eventually shift to a more productive space. 

If one person feels the discussion has become polarized, then she, or he, should step back and make sure she, or he, is not contributing to the problem.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 



I have no doubt all the women here are regular people.

How trusting of you.  I certainly have my doubts.  Many websites employ "shills" to post in order to increase conversation, and thus hits.  Many industries, including the pharmaceutical industry, employ shills to post on others' sites, to talk up the industry's products, and to vilify the competition.

I'm sure they're lovely to talk to on a variety of topics.

They may or may not be lovely to talk to. I honestly don't think that that is particularly relevant to this discussion.  Many of us here are more interested in the truth, rather than how lovely it is to talk with someone.

However, 2500 posts worth of experience tells me that once this conversation goes here (which it has many times before) there's really nothing productive left to get out of it.

2600 posts?  My goodness, that's quite a lot! And that's only in the course of 13 months!  So that's...about 200 posts per month, right?  Wow.

And I guess your point is that, if you've posted 200 times a month, then that means you are a good judge of what's productive and what isn't?  Or is it that (s)he who posts most frequently is always right? Does posting 200 times a month confer knowledge that less frequent posters don't have?

[prosciencemum]

I think it's quite clear pharmaceutical companies (especially in their US based dealings) are totally reprehensible. I suspect they have a lot less power than many people seem to assume though.

Particularly I'd they're trying to get scientists to do what they want. Might as well try to herd cats! The only thing that's sure in a room full of scientists is that they'll enjoy a vigorous debate, and would love to disprove the status quo.

Sure the industries tried to hold back recognition of the harm of thalidomide and smoking (and other examples). Thing is they failed....

Sadly for vaccines (and other life saving medicines) we have no choice but to deal with them. There's really no way to make them otherwise. But we place numerous checks in place to prevent them from cutting corners on safety. Perhaps we need more....

What would convince you? Could anything?

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 


Sure the industries tried to hold back recognition of the harm of thalidomide and smoking (and other examples). Thing is they failed...

Seems like there is a difference of opinion as to where we fall on the timeline of a similar event with respect to vaccines.  There are many parents who are concerned that we are in the middle of the 'industries' holding back of recognition' of the chronic illnesses created and exacerbated by the ever increasing administration of complex injectable drugs to prophylactically treat healthy babies for diseases to which they may or may not be exposed.  We're still waiting for the "failure" and the "recognition" to happen. When concerned parents ask questions, we get a "these are not the droids you're looking for" type of response from health authorities- and while this simplistic appeal to authority is enough for some, for a lot of people, it just isn't good enough.  When enough anecdotal evidence mounts to create legitimate concern, we want good, solid studies to explore the connections we are seeing and those have not been forthcoming.  The VSD is a joke.  That data has been manipulated and watered down so much in the so called "studies" that have examined it, it's just another tool for propaganda.

[Rrrrrachel]

There are also drastically different opinions on the quality of the available science, apparently.

[Jennyanydots]

Not only the "quality" but whether the available research actually asks the right questions.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I think it's quite clear pharmaceutical companies (especially in their US based dealings) are totally reprehensible. I suspect they have a lot less power than many people seem to assume though.

Particularly I'd they're trying to get scientists to do what they want. Might as well try to herd cats! The only thing that's sure in a room full of scientists is that they'll enjoy a vigorous debate, and would love to disprove the status quo.

Sure the industries tried to hold back recognition of the harm of thalidomide and smoking (and other examples). Thing is they failed....

Sadly for vaccines (and other life saving medicines) we have no choice but to deal with them. There's really no way to make them otherwise. But we place numerous checks in place to prevent them from cutting corners on safety. Perhaps we need more....

What would convince you? Could anything?

Bal-der-dash!!!

I know a lot more about drug research and the like than I have been willing to reveal, and I'm still not comfortable saying much, but scientists are human, and research jobs are lucrative only if certain results are achieved.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Sure the industries tried to hold back recognition of the harm of thalidomide and smoking (and other examples). Thing is they failed....

The issue is not only whether they "failed" or not - but also what it takes, or rather how many injuries/suffering it takes, before the problem is acknowledged.

If a problem exists, those "data" that will constitute evidence ... are ... people - little kids in case of vaxes.

Are they doing anything to minimize this possible collateral damage?  Not sure, and more than likely not at all.  Not unless they're willing to face the possibility that these anecdotes may be vax injuries. 

There are 2 scenarios - these problems are

- vax injuries

- not vax injuries.

Let's assume they're vax injuries, why not minimize them?  If that turns out wrong and they turn up to be - not - vax injuries after all, the whole process might make vaxing safer at the end anyway.  Why is that a problem? 

Why all the resistance to make vaxes safer?  Especially for those who vax.

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin 

Let's assume they're vax injuries, why not minimize them?  If that turns out wrong and they turn up to be - not - vax injuries after all, the whole process might make vaxing safer at the end anyway.  Why is that a problem? 

Why all the resistance to make vaxes safer?  Especially for those who vax.

I am entirely in favor of making vaxes safer.  All for it!

That being said, I don't believe they are as dangerous as some other people believe they are.  I believe that as it stands, the evidence shows that the benefits outweigh the risks.  I'd still be all for weighing that even more heavily.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I think it's quite clear pharmaceutical companies (especially in their US based dealings) are totally reprehensible. I suspect they have a lot less power than many people seem to assume though.

In view of the facts that they are one of the most powerful lobbies in the US, that their board members include the CEO's of the major media, and that they fund the science departments of the universities, particularly medical schools, I think your suspicions are just wishful thinking.

Particularly I'd they're trying to get scientists to do what they want. Might as well try to herd cats! The only thing that's sure in a room full of scientists is that they'll enjoy a vigorous debate, and would love to disprove the status quo.

You can get employees to do almost anything if you pay them well enough. And guess what?  That's exactly what the pharmaceutical industry does!

Sure the industries tried to hold back recognition of the harm of thalidomide and smoking (and other examples). Thing is they failed....

Sadly for vaccines (and other life saving medicines) we have no choice but to deal with them. There's really no way to make them otherwise. But we place numerous checks in place to prevent them from cutting corners on safety. Perhaps we need more....

According to insiders, like the virologists who launched the whistleblower suit against Merck, the "numerous checks" you mention are a joke, and easily gotten around.

What would convince you? Could anything?

pek64 answered better than I could:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pek64 


Bal-der-dash!!!

I know a lot more about drug research and the like than I have been willing to reveal, and I'm still not comfortable saying much, but scientists are human, and research jobs are lucrative only if certain results are achieved.

 

[serenbat]

Quote:

I am entirely in favor of making vaxes safer.  All for it!

That being said, I don't believe they are as dangerous as some other people believe they are.  I believe that as it stands, the evidence shows that the benefits outweigh the risks.  I'd still be all for weighing that even more heavily.

this just double talk

How can you say you want something safer if you don't believe they are dangerous and risk out weigh benefits? 

[chickabiddy]

That makes absolutely no sense, serenbat.  Of course something can be safer than the alternative, and still have room to be even safer.

I acknowledge that there are risks to vaccines, and would like to see some of those risks ameliorated.  I can also believe that the evidence shows that even now, the benefits outweigh the relatively small risks.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

I am entirely in favor of making vaxes safer.  All for it!

That being said, I don't believe they are as dangerous as some other people believe they are.  I believe that as it stands, the evidence shows that the benefits outweigh the risks.  I'd still be all for weighing that even more heavily.

Those benefits and risks are claimed by the industry that profits from their sale.  All statistics pertaining to those benefits and risks are collected by employees of that industry.

That would be like employees of the tobacco companies collecting statistics on cigarette safety in order to determine whether there is a link between cigarettes and cancer.

Oh, that's right.  That's exactly what happened.  And they said that cigarettes were safe, and healthy, and recommended by doctors to calm one's nerves, and to help one lose weight, etc.

Then they got caught--because the government didn't have a stake in it; the government was not mandating or even recommending that people smoke.  So the government had no problem saying, "oh, you bad boys," to the tobacco companies, and publicized the fact that cigarettes do in fact cause lung cancer.

Strange, though--it hasn't stopped the government from subsidizing tobacco farmers, and exporting their products to developing countries, where they become addicted to tobacco.

Even stranger, the government is subsidizing vaccine companies, and exporting vaccines that are no longer considered safe in the US (like oral polio, and thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines) to developing countries...

[prosciencemum]

It's just not true that only pharmaceutical company employees are checking safety. They might do most of it - since they are in fact required to safety monitor their own products. But there are independent scientists also studying these things.

Of course scientists are human, and of course they are partially motivated by money. But a lot of them are also fairly ideological, could make a lot more money by becoming bankers (e.g), and geniunely care about or even love the subject they study. Scientific integrity for those people is a huge deal, and they would not hide major safety concerns.

Someone asked if we could still be in the phase where the industry is managing to hide safety concerns - I don't think so because vaccines have been around so long. Also remember there are examples of vaccines being withdrawn due to safety concerns (e.g. OPV, the brand of flu vaccine used in Europe which has been tied to increase incidence of narcolepsy) I think I could even argue that the removal of thimerosl from pediatric vaccines demonstrates the system is working (although that seems to be based less on evidence of any harm from thimerosol, more that publi perception of it was so bad many more people wold decline vaccines of it were left in).

But none of this means vaccines are 100% safe. No medicine is. So I agree absolutely with the statement that we need to keep monitoring vaccines for safety, especially as they are also slowly being changed to improve efficacy, so they don't stay exactly the same forever. where I disagree is that many of you seem to think this isn't already happening.

[serenbat]

Quote:

That makes absolutely no sense, serenbat.  Of course something can be safer than the alternative, and still have room to be even safer.

I acknowledge that there are risks to vaccines, and would like to see some of those risks ameliorated.  I can also believe that the evidence shows that even now, the benefits outweigh the relatively small risks.

it must make absolute no sense to you to define dangerous with the definition of it meaning - exposure or vulnerability to harm or risk.

again you can't have risk if you don't have danger but you are not defining it like the word means

[Rrrrrachel]

There are reasons those vaccines are sent to other countries. They better suit the needs there. It's not just "meh, these aren't safe enough for American kids, send em to Africa"

[Rrrrrachel]

Serenbat is English your first language? There seem to be some major communication barriers lately.

[serenbat]

Quote:

There seem to be some major communication barriers lately.

sure dangerous means something different to you as well- it comes through time again in your posts