or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Debate this meme
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Debate this meme - Page 2

post #21 of 73

You're still not answering the question.

 

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MANUFACTURER OF THALIDOMIDE WAS DELIBERATELY TRYING TO HARM CHILDREN?

 

You had time (while making your son's lunch!) to write several paragraphs.

 

Surely you have time to answer yes or no to the above question.

post #22 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 In fact, there’s a perfectly valid position that Monsanto is a bad company, but GMO crops are still safe. It’s possible to say that Monsanto is a polluter, but GMO crops are safe.
 

SkepticalRaptor has struck again! I can't seem to get away from this guy.

 

It is true--GMO crops might indeed be safe, while Monsanto is still a bad company. HOWEVER, how are we to really know if GMOs are safe, when Monsanto conducts its own safety studies???? Their safety assurances mean nothing to me. I trust the independent studies more than I trust Monsanto's studies, simple as that.

 

Moving on.  I Hate the argument that corruption happened in the past, like with Thalidomide. You acknowledge it did happen, but assume it does not happen anymore. Yet, when presented with more recent examples (Vioxx), what is your response?  As for the MMR,  2 whistleblowers alleged that Merck lied about the vaccine's efficacy. This means that children receiveng the MMR were possibly denied full protection--as a vaccinating parent, this should outrage you. Unless you think the whistleblowers are lying, and Merck is telling the truth. Merck and truth....do they belong in the same sentence lol?

post #23 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Moving on.  I Hate the argument that corruption happened in the past, like with Thalidomide. You acknowledge it did happen, but assume it does not happen anymore. Yet, when presented with more recent examples (Vioxx), what is your response? 

 

As I already stated in my last post you can believe that pharmaceutical companies sometimes hide evidence while also believing that vaccines are safe and effective. 

 

The vast majority of those who perform and publish studies on vaccine safety and efficacy are not in any way tied to any pharmaceutical companies.  Here are some other reasons why this idea/conspiracy theory about pharmaceutical companies hiding vaccine evidence is not true. 

 

"..You might not be familiar enough with the medical literature to know this, but studies come out regularly which are really bad for the pharmaceutical companies. Let's start with vaccines themselves. Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is one of the biggest killers of infants and young children in the U.S. For years, pharmaceutical companies have tried to make a vaccine. If a pharmaceutical company could get an RSV vaccine licensed, it would make millions! However, one has never been approved. Why? Because the studies done on the vaccines that have been made demonstrate that they are not safe enough or effective enough to be considered a reliable medicine1,2.

Now if the pharmaceutical companies were able to "rig" things to make their products look good so as to cash in on the misery of the American people, why didn't they "rig" these studies to show that the RSV vaccines were safe and effective?" 

 

This came from a great post that gives examples and explains why pharma companies have not buried evidence about vaccine safety. Although I don't agree with his second "reason". It's not super long and I encourage you to read it. I am curious what the response would be.  http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_pharm

 

@Taximom can you please calm down? I tried answering your question on the first page. I really don't know enough about the scandal to say one way or the other whether or not I believe they purposefully harmed children. The information I have read so far indicates they did not. 

 

I did respond and say that if that company did what some allege big pharma has done with vaccine safety I would consider that purposefully doing something that harms children. I encourage you to read the link I posted to understand why I do not believe pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence of vaccine harm.  As I stated in another post, vaccines are held to a much higher safety standard than other medications. 

post #24 of 73

Your last statement is not true if you actually look @ how the trials are done. I have a relative that participates in PharmTrials on a career basis (as do all of his compadres, they just wait long enough between trials to test clean and are mostly healthy young men). 

 

I can always tell if he is doing a drug trial: he will be in a facility for 2 weeks, have his diet rigidly controlled, be observed for side effects by doctors & nurses (like no 'self report'), receive medical exams, blood tests, etc. He will be paid 2-3 thousand dollars for his 'time'. He will sometimes receive a placebo.

 

I can also always tell if he is doing a Vax trial: he will go to an office, there won't be a placebo, he will be there for an hour, he will receive the shot and call in his OWN self reported side effects. He will only get paid 2-3 HUNDRED dollars.

 

IDK one clearly seems more scientifically rigorous to me.

post #25 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

@Taximom can you please calm down? I tried answering your question on the first page. I really don't know enough about the scandal to say one way or the other whether or not I believe they purposefully harmed children. The information I have read so far indicates they did not. 

 

I did respond and say that if that company did what some allege big pharma has done with vaccine safety I would consider that purposefully doing something that harms children. I encourage you to read the link I posted to understand why I do not believe pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence of vaccine harm.  As I stated in another post, vaccines are held to a much higher safety standard than other medications. 

You haven't answered the question at all.

 

I asked you to do a bit of research and tell us whether you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies.  I gave you some links to help you research it.

 

Here is one more question.  It's an easy one, requiring only a yes or no answer:  do you acknowledge that there is no doubt that the manufacturer of thalidomide engaged in a coverup of the harm from thalidomide?

 

And, back to the original question (also requiring only a yes or no answer), do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?

 

2 very simple, direct questions, with a request for a direct  answer, with no BS.

 

We all anxiously await your answer.

:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk 

post #26 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

As I already stated in my last post you can believe that pharmaceutical companies sometimes hide evidence while also believing that vaccines are safe and effective. 

 

Well, if you believe a pharmaceutical company hides evidence then that makes them somewhat untrustworthy.  I understand rolling the dice when you have a nasty illness of some kind.   OTOH, if your child is in good health, there is no epidemic or outbreak of a VAD and/or the disease in question is mild, why would you roll the dice with a company that is not trustworthy?

 

The vast majority of those who perform and publish studies on vaccine safety and efficacy are not in any way tied to any pharmaceutical companies. Please post a link to quantify this "vast majority."   I do not think it is correct.   

 

post #27 of 73

Yeah Kathy, I thought the Pharma companies conducted their own studies. After all, who else has enough money to conduct the studies?

 

Teacozy, I would also like to know the answers to Taximom's questions. I did not see where they were answered on the first page.

 

1. Do you acknowledge that there is no doubt that the manufacturer of thalidomide engaged in a coverup of the harm from thalidomide?

2. Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?

 

My answers:

1. Yes

2. Yes. By withholding info, they knew it would result in harm, yet continued with the coverup. Sad!

post #28 of 73

I thought it might be helpful to do a recap of a direct question that was asked in response to teacozy's statement in the OP, and the answers.  Well, actually, they weren't really answers.  They look more like evasions to me.  It's a bit easier to follow when all the off-topic conversation is edited out.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I just think it's silly when people try to argue that pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence about vaccine dangers and purposefully harming children for money when vaccines are really just a drop in the bucket for them.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Well, I think it's silly when people try to convince us that the argument is about pharmaceutical companies "PURPOSEFULLY harming children for money."

 

Nobody has said that here (except for the provaxxers who misquote the vaccine critics).

 

Were the pharmaceutical companies PURPOSEFULLY harming children when they pushed thalidomide?  No, of course not. Did they want to admit their error?  No, of course not--they did everything possible to deny the harm.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

We talked about this on another thread. I even gave several examples where members of this forum believed the government/big pharma were purposefully trying to harm children...  

 

... no one has claimed that pharma has never done anything wrong. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Let's see if teacozy can provide a direct answer to a direct question:

Teacozy, do you believe that the pharmaceutical industry WAS purposely harmful to children when they attempted to cover up the effects of thalidomide?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I'll admit I am not extremely knowledgeable about the thalidomide scandal but I do know a little. I wasn't able to find any evidence that the pharmaceutical company knew ahead of time that it would cause birth defects. ...

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Duh.

 

Here is short Thalidomide timeline for your education:

 

April 1961: Australian doctor, W.G. McBride notified the representatives of Distillers (manufacturer of Thalidomide in Australia) about his suspicions of the link between Thalidomide and malformations. Distillers in England claimed they never recieved the written report and sales promotion of the drug was stepped up and a quarter of a million leaflets distrubuted saying Thalidomide was "Harmless even over a long period of use" and "completely harmless even for infants".

 

May 4 1961: Dr McBride reported further malformations due to Thalidomide and succeeded in convincing his bosses at his hospital to withdraw the drug. He reported more malformed babies in October and November.

 

November 27 1961: Thalidomide was withdrawn from the UK market.

 

January 6 and February 3 1962: Prof. Widijung Lenz who had warned against Thalidomide in Germany published evidence of deformities in the Lancet.  Chemie Grunenthal continued prescribing Thalidomide, stepping up its advertising and intensive marketing despite criticism of doctors.


March 4 1962 Thalidomide was removed from the shelves in Germany because of public opinion and against the wishes of Chemie Grunenthal.  News of the dangers of Thalidomide was played down by the media.  In many cases malformed births occurred after the drug was withdrawn as mothers, in posession of the drug, took it never realising the risks involved.  At the time of withdrawl of Thalidomide in Germany thousands of malformed babies had been born, thousands of women required extensive psychiatric treatment and there were many suicides.  (Thalidomide continued to be prescribed to pregnant women in Canada until August 1962.)

 

Interesingly Dr McBride was stuck off for "scientific fraud" for claiming another anti-morning sickness drug, Debenox, also caused birth defects. IN a book he claimed during that the US pharmaceutical company Marion Merrell Dow which marketed Debendox, worked with an unnamed 'mole' in Australia to stop him from speaking out against the drug. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/thalidomide-doctor-alleges-plot-to-gag-him-1424275.html

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

 

...You didn't really answer the question, did you?  
 

Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

 

Take your time.  Look it up. Here are a few places to start.  The first 3 discuss the evidence that the manufacturer covered up data that indicated harm from their product.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/01/thalidomide-cover-up

http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-50year-global-coverup-20120725-22r5c.html

http://www.theage.com.au/national/i-am-afraid-all-companies-are-pretty-heartless-20120725-22r16.html

 

and even
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_182.html

"Dr. Frances Kelsey took her stand against thalidomide during her first month at the Food and Drug Administration, on her first assignment. The task was supposed to be a straightforward review of a sleeping pill already widely used in Europe, but Kelsey was concerned by some data suggesting dangerous side effects in patients who took the drug repeatedly. While she continued to withhold approval, [b]the manufacturers tried everything they could to get around her judgement."[/b]

 

And then please answer the question.  Do you think the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

 

Please don't try to change the subject to whether the manufacturer should be held accountable.  That was not the question.

 

Do you think the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

I don't have time to respond to everyone and I don't have time to read all the links, I'm trying to make my son's lunch...

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

You're still not answering the question.

 

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MANUFACTURER OF THALIDOMIDE WAS DELIBERATELY TRYING TO HARM CHILDREN?

 

You had time (while making your son's lunch!) to write several paragraphs.

 

Surely you have time to answer yes or no to the above question.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

As I already stated in my last post you can believe that pharmaceutical companies sometimes hide evidence while also believing that vaccines are safe and effective.... 

 

 

@Taximom can you please calm down? I tried answering your question on the first page. I really don't know enough about the scandal to say one way or the other whether or not I believe they purposefully harmed children. The information I have read so far indicates they did not... 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

You haven't answered the question at all.

 

I asked you to do a bit of research and tell us whether you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies.  I gave you some links to help you research it.

 

Here is one more question.  It's an easy one, requiring only a yes or no answer:  do you acknowledge that there is no doubt that the manufacturer of thalidomide engaged in a coverup of the harm from thalidomide?

 

And, back to the original question (also requiring only a yes or no answer), do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?

 

2 very simple, direct questions, with a request for a direct  answer, with no BS.

 

We all anxiously await your answer.

:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

 

Teacozy, I would also like to know the answers to Taximom's questions. I did not see where they were answered on the first page.

 

1. Do you acknowledge that there is no doubt that the manufacturer of thalidomide engaged in a coverup of the harm from thalidomide?

2. Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?

 

 

And...we're still waiting for teacozy to take a look at the provided evidence and state whether she believes that the manufacturer of thalidomide was "trying to purposefully harm children."  

post #29 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
"Well, if you believe a pharmaceutical company hides evidence then that makes them somewhat untrustworthy.  I understand rolling the dice when you have a nasty illness of some kind.   OTOH, if your child is in good health, there is no epidemic or outbreak of a VAD and/or the disease in question is mild, why would you roll the dice with a company that is not trustworthy?" 
 

 

Because there are thousands of studies on the safety and efficacy of vaccines.  Do you think that most studies conducted on vaccines from all over the world are done by the pharmaceutical companies? They aren't. 

 

"The vast majority of those who perform and publish studies on vaccine safety and efficacy are not in any way tied to any pharmaceutical companies. Please post a link to quantify this "vast majority."   I do not think it is correct.   "

 

The ethical rules of the scientific journals require the investigators to state any ties they have to any organization or person who would benefit financially from their research.  They must state that in the paper itself.  You can look at virtually any of the papers related to vaccines, and you will not find hardly any statements indicating any ties to big pharma.  Also, as the article I linked points out, several authors on scientific papers that find problems with some vaccines are also on papers that find no problems with other vaccines.  It is clear those authors aren't "shills" for big pharma. I encourage you to check out the link. Many good points. 

post #30 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

The ethical rules of the scientific journals require the investigators to state any ties they have to any organization or person who would benefit financially from their research.  They must state that in the paper itself.  You can look at virtually any of the papers related to vaccines, and you will not find hardly any statements indicating any ties to big pharma.  Also, as the article I linked points out, several authors on scientific papers that find problems with some vaccines are also on papers that find no problems with other vaccines.  It is clear those authors aren't "shills" for big pharma. I encourage you to check out the link. Many good points. 

 

Have you heard of Dr Marcia Angell, the former editor of th NEJM? She wrote a book entitled "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive US and What to Do About it" I encourage you to check it out, I am sure your local library has it.

 

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

post #31 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Because there are thousands of studies on the safety and efficacy of vaccines.  Do you think that most studies conducted on vaccines from all over the world are done by the pharmaceutical companies? They aren't. 

 

"The vast majority of those who perform and publish studies on vaccine safety and efficacy are not in any way tied to any pharmaceutical companiesPlease post a link to quantify this "vast majority."   I do not think it is correct.   "

 

The ethical rules of the scientific journals require the investigators to state any ties they have to any organization or person who would benefit financially from their research.  They must state that in the paper itself.  You can look at virtually any of the papers related to vaccines, and you will not find hardly any statements indicating any ties to big pharma.  Also, as the article I linked points out, several authors on scientific papers that find problems with some vaccines are also on papers that find no problems with other vaccines.  It is clear those authors aren't "shills" for big pharma. I encourage you to check out the link. Many good points. 

I would like a link on the "vast majority."   You need to be able to back up what you say.  

 

I can let it go for now, though, if you are contemplating thalidomide ;)

post #32 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I would like a link on the "vast majority."   You need to be able to back up what you say.  

 

 

What do you mean a link to the vast majority? Just typing in "vaccine safety" into pubmed comes up with over 11,000 results.  Do you mean a link to a place where someone goes through every single study on vaccines ever conducted to look for a pharma connection? That seems pretty silly since, as I stated above, the ethical rules of scientific journals require you state any COI you may have on the paper itself.  In any case, I can simply edit my post to make it say " many many many studies published on the safety and efficacy of vaccines are not in any way tied to pharmaceutical companies."  and my point still stands. Would that make you feel better?  The article had many good examples of why thinking big pharma is hiding or burying evidence is illogical.  


Edited by teacozy - 10/10/13 at 1:33pm
post #33 of 73
Thread Starter 

@Taximom. I have said that I do not know much about that particular scandal. Most people don't have the time/desire to research and obsess over what a pharmaceutical company in Germany did over 60 years ago.  If the company did try and bury evidence, they certainly didn't do a good job because, as I have stated multiple times, when an strong link between a certain medicine and a bad side effect occurs it tends to be pretty obvious. 

 

In any case, I am still not sure what your point is.  You said:

 

"Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Well, I think it's silly when people try to convince us that the argument is about pharmaceutical companies "PURPOSEFULLY harming children for money."

 

Nobody has said that here (except for the provaxxers who misquote the vaccine critics).

 

Were the pharmaceutical companies PURPOSEFULLY harming children when they pushed thalidomide?  No, of course not. Did they want to admit their error?  No, of course not--they did everything possible to deny the harm. " 

 

But then in post #27 BeckyBird states that yes, she DOES believe that by hiding/withholding evidence they DID purposefully harm children.  (Multiquotes don't seem to work for me, sorry) 

 

You asked "

2. Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?"  to which Beckybird replied " 2. Yes. By withholding info, they knew it would result in harm, yet continued with the coverup. Sad!" 

 

So how am I "misquoting" or misrepresenting when I state that  by many people alleging pharmaceutical companies are hiding or burying evidence about vaccine harm or side effects they are saying that pharma companies are harming children for money? 

 

It is totally possible I am completely missing what you are trying to say, and if I am, I apologize.  But I really just do not get your point.  How is it possible to think that a huge company hiding evidence (for over 50 years in the case of MMR) on the scale required in the case of vaccines that their product results in thousands or maybe even millions of children having debilitating medical conditions is not harming children? 


Edited by teacozy - 10/10/13 at 2:34pm
post #34 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

@Taximom. I have stated multiple times that I do not know much about that particular scandal. Most people don't have the time/desire to research and obsess over what a pharmaceutical company in Germany did over 60 years ago.  If they did try and bury evidence, they certainly didn't do a good job because, as I have said multiple times, when an strong link between a certain medicine and a bad side effect occurs it tends to be pretty obvious. 

 

In any case, I am still not sure what your point is.  You said:

 

"Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Well, I think it's silly when people try to convince us that the argument is about pharmaceutical companies "PURPOSEFULLY harming children for money."

 

Nobody has said that here (except for the provaxxers who misquote the vaccine critics).

 

Were the pharmaceutical companies PURPOSEFULLY harming children when they pushed thalidomide?  No, of course not. Did they want to admit their error?  No, of course not--they did everything possible to deny the harm. " 

 

But then in post #27 BeckyBird states that yes, she DOES believe that by hiding/withholding evidence they DID purposefully harm children.  (Multiquotes don't seem to work for me, sorry) 

 

You asked "

2. Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?"  to which Beckybird replied " 2. Yes. By withholding info, they knew it would result in harm, yet continued with the coverup. Sad!" 

 

So how am I "misquoting" or misrepresenting when I state that  by many people alleging pharmaceutical companies are hiding or burying evidence about vaccine harm or side effects they are saying that pharma companies are harming children for money? 

 

It is totally possible I am completely missing what you are trying to say, and if I am, I apologize.  But I really just do not get your point.  How is it possible to think that a huge company hiding evidence (for over 50 years in the case of MMR) on the scale required in the case of vaccines that their product results in thousands or maybe even millions of children having debilitating medical conditions is not harming children? 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

@Taximom. I have stated multiple times that I do not know much about that particular scandal. Most people don't have the time/desire to research and obsess over what a pharmaceutical company in Germany did over 60 years ago.  If they did try and bury evidence, they certainly didn't do a good job because, as I have said multiple times, when an strong link between a certain medicine and a bad side effect occurs it tends to be pretty obvious. 

 

In any case, I am still not sure what your point is.  You said:

 

"Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Well, I think it's silly when people try to convince us that the argument is about pharmaceutical companies "PURPOSEFULLY harming children for money."

 

Nobody has said that here (except for the provaxxers who misquote the vaccine critics).

 

Were the pharmaceutical companies PURPOSEFULLY harming children when they pushed thalidomide?  No, of course not. Did they want to admit their error?  No, of course not--they did everything possible to deny the harm. " 

 

But then in post #27 BeckyBird states that yes, she DOES believe that by hiding/withholding evidence they DID purposefully harm children.  (Multiquotes don't seem to work for me, sorry) 

 

You asked "

2. Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?"  to which Beckybird replied " 2. Yes. By withholding info, they knew it would result in harm, yet continued with the coverup. Sad!" 

 

So how am I "misquoting" or misrepresenting when I state that  by many people alleging pharmaceutical companies are hiding or burying evidence about vaccine harm or side effects they are saying that pharma companies are harming children for money? 

 

It is totally possible I am completely missing what you are trying to say, and if I am, I apologize.  But I really just do not get your point.  How is it possible to think that a huge company hiding evidence (for over 50 years in the case of MMR) on the scale required in the case of vaccines that their product results in thousands or maybe even millions of children having debilitating medical conditions is not harming children? 

teacozy, please just answer the question.

 

Do YOU (not BeckyBird, not Big Bird, not any Bird) believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children by pushing to sell a product that, according to every single source I was able to find, they KNEW was causing terrible harm?

 

It was very nice of BeckyBird to offer her own answer, but really, the question was for YOU, teacozy.

 

As for your comment that "most people don't have the time/desire to research and obsess" about thalidomide--well, ignoring your insulting little dig about obsessing, Mirzam and I have provided you with a substantial amount of research already--without any obsessing whatsoever.  All you have to do is click on the links.  I reposted them for you in post # 28, above.  No excuses, now!  Shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes! 


Try to remember, now: the question is not about the MMR causing harm to thousands of babies. The question is about the harm caused to thousands of babies about THALIDOMIDE.  Do please try to keep to the topic, and answer the question that was already asked (several times), okay?

 

Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm babies by continuing to sell it after they already knew that it was causing harm?

post #35 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

As with any drug, there are risks and side effects with vaccines, although serious side effects are rare. However, there is a much higher standard of safety expected of preventive vaccines than for drugs because vaccines are given to many people most of whom are healthy.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

There have been thousands of studies in many many countries that show that severe vaccine reactions are rare and that the risk of a severe reaction from the vaccine is much lower the risk of severe reactions from the diseases they protect against.

This kills me.  Every. Single. Time.  If they are so "rare" why then is there money set aside to pay for the vaccine reactions?  Why do so many children have so many issues?  And really, why the hell if I'm so damn "rare" and lucky to have one of those reacting kids, have I not won powerball yet?!  Because seriously, the way you talk about it my odds at hitting the jackpot should be far better than the odds of my child having a vaccine reaction.

 

And where does this higher standard of safety come from if there is no testing done on vaccines?  Pharmaceuticals are tested on animals (which has it's own set of issues because it's a best guess match as to what animal to use for what testing but it's still not apples to apples) but what kind of testing do vaccines get?  It's illegal to "test" on humans, therefore we test things on animals to see they are reasonably safe before enlisting human guinea pigs on a volunteer basis (aka offer them $$)...but where are the placebo vs vaccine tests?  And who in their right mind ever decided it would perfectly safe and acceptable to inject monkey kidney cells into a human??  Love to have been a fly on the wall for THAT conversation....

post #36 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

In any case, I am still not sure what your point is.  You said:

It is totally possible I am completely missing what you are trying to say, and if I am, I apologize.  But I really just do not get your point. 

This is the *Point*--we are waiting to hear your answers to the Thalidomide questions. I answered to show how easy it was! Now it's your turn. You have deliberately avoided answering the 2 simple questions, and I'm now very curious.

 

Do you have any answers to the 2 Thalidomide questions?

?

post #37 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

If what BeckyBird says is true, and vaccines generate 10% in revenue, here is what I'd like to know from Teacozy. Let's say for the sake of argument that none of us should worry about conflicts of interest in vaccine research or policy decisions because drug companies don't make enough money for our concerns to be warranted or relevant. We're talking only 10%, after all.



At what percentage point in pharmaceutical earnings should we start to be concerned? How high do vaccine-related earnings need to be before it's justifiable to raise an eyebrow over, say, Merck funding or ghost-writing a study on one of its vaccines? Or a paid consultant trying to push for more vaccine recommendations and requirements? 15% of revenue? 20%? . . . . 95%? In your mind, what does the break-down in quarterly earnings need to look like before it's reasonable to cry foul on a conflict of interest?

 



Teacozy, if you don't want to address Taximom's questions, how about mine?

Namely, if drug companies don't make enough on vaccines for conflicts of interest to matter, how much would be "enough" for those conflicts to start mattering?
Edited by Turquesa - 10/10/13 at 4:26pm
post #38 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Do you mean a link to a place where someone goes through every single study on vaccines ever conducted to look for a pharma connection? That seems pretty silly since, as I stated above, the ethical rules of scientific journals require you state any COI you may have on the paper itself.   

 



That's not at all silly. She's just asking you to back your statement. But that's OK. If you won't play, I will. smile.gif

From 2010: http://www.thenation.com/article/big-pharma-bad-science#

"In June, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.

The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 from companies whose work they judge. Isn't that comforting?"

And here's some fun bedtime reading for you: http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Conflicts%20of%20Interest%20in%20Vaccine%20Safety%20Research%2C%20Gayle%20DeLong.pdf

"Compounding the COls inherent in the business of manufacturing vaccines is the fact that vaccine manufacturers sponsor research. The influence of industry is widespread: It affects individuals as well as institutions and study outcomes as well as research initiatives. In a survey of faculty at top US medical research institutions (Tereskerz et al 2009) found over two-thirds of researchers (338 out of 506) received some support from industry."

"Vast majority?" Really? :headscratch
post #39 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Do you mean a link to a place where someone goes through every single study on vaccines ever conducted to look for a pharma connection? That seems pretty silly since, as I stated above, the ethical rules of scientific journals require you state any COI you may have on the paper itself.   

 



That's not at all silly. She's just asking you to back your statement. But that's OK. If you won't play, I will. smile.gif

From 2010: http://www.thenation.com/article/big-pharma-bad-science#

"In June, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.

The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 from companies whose work they judge. Isn't that comforting?"

And here's some fun bedtime reading for you: http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Conflicts%20of%20Interest%20in%20Vaccine%20Safety%20Research%2C%20Gayle%20DeLong.pdf

"Compounding the COls inherent in the business of manufacturing vaccines is the fact that vaccine manufacturers sponsor research. The influence of industry is widespread: It affects individuals as well as institutions and study outcomes as well as research initiatives. In a survey of faculty at top US medical research institutions (Tereskerz et al 2009) found over two-thirds of researchers (338 out of 506) received some support from industry."

"Vast majority?" Really? :headscratch

That's so good, I think it deserves a thread of its own:  http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1391316/vaccine-research-financial-conflict-of-interest-is-the-norm-not-the-exception

post #40 of 73

Still waiting for teacozy to answer the questions....

 

:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Debate this meme