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

Debate this meme - Page 3

post #41 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

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

 

:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk

 

I had a chance to read one of the links you posted.  Before I answer your question I want to make it clear that this is just in response to the article I read.  News articles are not evidence and they didn't provide any sources for the claims they made. At least the ones I read didn't. So this is all just based on the assumption that what they said was true (I have no idea if it is actually true that they hid evidence knowing it cased birth defects and continued to push doctors to use it for patients) 

 

So *based on the assumption that what the news articles claim is fact*  I would say yes, they hid evidence.  2. Yes, there actions directly and intentionally harmed children. 

post #42 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

 

 

This kills me.  Every. Single. Time.  If they are so "rare" why then is there money set aside to pay for the vaccine reactions?  

 

Because rare does not mean never.  There are over 300 million people in the US alone. Rare reactions are going to happen, and those people should be compensated.  And when they are compensated, it tends to be in the millions of dollars range.  So that is why money is set aside. 

post #43 of 73
nm - OT
post #44 of 73

From http://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation.aspx

 

"If the U.S. Court of Claims awards compensation to the vaccine injured person:

  • The VICP will offer to pay up to $250,000 for a vaccine associated death.
  • The VICP will offer to pay for all past and future unreimbursed medical expenses, custodial and nursing home care; and up to $250,000 pain and suffering as well as loss of earned income.
  • If an individual rejects the award or is denied compensation, a lawsuit may be filed in civil court but with certain restrictions.
  • Claims must be filed within 24 months of a death and 36 months of an injury."

 

Deaths = up to $250,000

Claims must be filed within 36 months of an injury;  many people don't even realize that their vaccine-induced autoimmune disorder or seizure disorder had anything to do with vaccination until well after the time frame is up.

post #45 of 73

Yah, not in the millions.  MY child will be 2 in November, had her last vaccines at 5mos.  There is no way of knowing what issues could crop up in her lifetime that could be attributed to vaccines because these studies don't exist.  I like to think I got lucky stopping when I did and she thankfully never had a seizure (that I was aware of, and especially since my own father is epileptic) but most certainly had the encephalitis cry - and there are no studies out there about consequences associated with this in the long term.  36 months time frame to file a claim is pretty short in the bigger picture.  I'm sure all those families of children who developed "rare" brain tumors as a result of the original tainted polio vaccines would have been much happier knowing they could apply for compensation.  And yet, the same protection that surrounds vaccines, surrounds drugs.  For an industry that rakes in billions of dollars a year, and yet has zero legal accountability for their actions (setting aside a few million for vaccine court to be distributed among a handful of individuals does absolutely nothing to their bottom line) - where does it end?  Even when they admit wrong doing years, decades even, down the road, it has no effect in many cases on the original scientists who clearly were blinded by $$$, and once again minimal change to their checkbooks at the end of the day.

 

Backtracking to the original post - sure vaccines might be a drop in the bucket in terms of money.  But they are also a catalyst for which millions of individuals end up bogged down with numerous prescription drugs - a pill for every ill. For every vaccine side effect, there's a drug to "fix it" which is a joke in itself because drugs don't fix, they mask the real problem.  But the more they push vaccines, the more they profit from the damages they do.

post #46 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

From http://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation.aspx

 

"If the U.S. Court of Claims awards compensation to the vaccine injured person:

  • The VICP will offer to pay up to $250,000 for a vaccine associated death.
  • The VICP will offer to pay for all past and future unreimbursed medical expenses, custodial and nursing home care; and up to $250,000 pain and suffering as well as loss of earned income.
  • If an individual rejects the award or is denied compensation, a lawsuit may be filed in civil court but with certain restrictions.
  • Claims must be filed within 24 months of a death and 36 months of an injury."

 

Deaths = up to $250,000

Claims must be filed within 36 months of an injury;  many people don't even realize that their vaccine-induced autoimmune disorder or seizure disorder had anything to do with vaccination until well after the time frame is up.

 

Most compensations are for medical expenses etc.  Not for death from a vaccine which is extremely extremely rare. 

 

"

  • The VICP will offer to pay for all past and future unreimbursed medical expenses, custodial and nursing home care; and up to $250,000 pain and suffering as well as loss of earned income." 

 

But this is what usually ends up being in the millions. Just a google search of vaccine injury compensation came up with this as the first result " 

A New Jersey girl whose mental development stopped at 2 months old after a routine immunization has received a $4.7 million settlement from a national trust fund.

 

More than $3 million of the award will go to an annuity that will pay for the child's care as long as she lives. Its payout could exceed $61 million if she lives to 71, said Mindy Michaels Roth, the Glen Rock attorney who brought the case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

 

The payment to the girl, now 9 years old but with the mental ability of a 2-month-old, comes from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, funded by a 75-cent tax on each vaccination. " 

 

http://www.rense.com/general28/jers.htm

post #47 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

http://www.rense.com/general28/jers.htm

 

Haha, you are linking to Rense, an anti vaccine, conspiracy theory, UFO believers website. (Couldn't resist)

post #48 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Haha, you are linking to Rense, an anti vaccine, conspiracy theory, UFO believers website. (Couldn't resist)

 

Funny. I've never been to or heard of the site before. It was just the first link I saw.  I would assume this would be public record though? Or was this anti vaccine site not being truthful? 

post #49 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Haha, you are linking to Rense, an anti vaccine, conspiracy theory, UFO believers website. (Couldn't resist)

 

Funny. I've never been to or heard of the site before. It was just the first link I saw.  I would assume this would be public record though? Or was this anti vaccine site not being truthful? 

Thanks for the laugh, "Or was this anti vaccine site not being truthful?", if a non-vaxer had posted a link from Rense (and you had a clue about the site), you would have likely dismissed it because of the "source".

 

PS: the story originally ran in the New Jersey Record.

post #50 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

Thanks for the laugh, "Or was this anti vaccine site not being truthful?", if a non-vaxer had posted a link from Rense (and you had a clue about the site), you would have likely dismissed it because of the "source".

 

PS: the story originally ran in the New Jersey Record.

 

Things that are public record aren't in dispute. If this is something that isn't public record and there isn't any real source, then yeah, I have to look at the intentions of the author. I assume it would be, though.  In other words, I didn't consider this an opinion, but a fact.  

post #51 of 73

So, next time someone posts a fact or 'public record' on an anti vaccine website, I assume you won't attack the source, right? 

 

teacozy, you have made my night. :laugh

post #52 of 73

:lurk

post #53 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?

Anyone?

If Teacozy can't answer, anyone else? The answer could make or break the whole crux of this thread. lurk.gif
post #54 of 73

:lurk

 

FWIW, Merck has the same guy that manged the EXXON VALDEZ spill, and that handled the VIOXX 'situation' to do a bit of Gardasil 'clean up'.

 

http://sanevax.org/gardasil-carefully-hyped-vaccine-hurting-families/

post #55 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa :

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?

Anyone?

If Teacozy can't answer, anyone else? The answer could make or break the whole crux of this thread. lurk.gif

My own take on it:  honesty and ethical behavior should have nothing whatsoever to do with earnings.  Conflict of interest and unethical practices are exactly that, no matter what percentage of profits are earned by the unethical behavior. And we should be calling them on it, even if the percentage of profits were nil (which they aren't), because the point is not how much profit they are making from the COI/unethical practices.  The point is that the COI and unethical practices result in an unacceptable product.

 

Teacozy's argument is a total straw man.

post #56 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

My own take on it:  honesty and ethical behavior should have nothing whatsoever to do with earnings.  Conflict of interest and unethical practices are exactly that, no matter what percentage of profits are earned by the unethical behavior. And we should be calling them on it, even if the percentage of profits were nil (which they aren't), because the point is not how much profit they are making from the COI/unethical practices.  The point is that the COI and unethical practices result in an unacceptable product.

 

Teacozy's argument is a total straw man.

 

The quote from the OP clearly stated "*less than* 10 percent." Not 10%.  And I guess my point is that COI and unethical practices don't have to mean that a product is "unacceptable."   Especially when that product is tested  and monitored over and over by people that have no financial COI or any ties to those unethical practices.  In the interview I posted with Offit in another thread he explains it well I think

 

"What isn't OK is that the profit motive gets in the way of explaining what vaccines are and how they work and how they're made; that the profit motive obscures real information about vaccine. ... I think this whole discussion about conflict of interest, profit motive, who's saying what, is irrelevant. The question is, what do the data show, and what has been the impact of vaccines, and have vaccines been as safe and effective as they've been claimed to be? And frankly, they consistently have been."   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/offit.html 

 

Again, I think it's a great interview you should read. 


Edited by teacozy - 10/18/13 at 7:51am
post #57 of 73

The vaccine industry was formed to address a real problem: severe, highly-communicable communicable illness.  From the very beginning, there was one major problem: the vaccines that addressed the severe illnesses had significant risks of their own.  This was considered acceptable only because the illnesses involved had such a high death rate.

 

In the century-plus since the beginning of the vaccine industry, there have been many changes.  Among the good changes: there were major efforts to reduce the risks of the vaccines.

 

But, over the last several decades, the CEOs of the industry have realized what enormous profit there is in vaccines.  And slowly, they have begun to shift the focus of vaccines. Instead of only a few vaccines for the most severe, most easily transmissable diseases, they have produced vaccines for many illnesses, most of which are not serious to the vast majority of people who get them. At the same time, they have put in place formidable propaganda, which has convinced both medical professionals and the general public alike that these vaccines are absolutely necessary for everyone.

 

It's interesting to observe HOW this propaganda has been put in place.  Not only are there vaccine industry employees in charge of education at medical schools and continuing medical education facilities (required for board certification), but the CEOs of the major media networks are shareholders and board members of the vaccine industry.

 

The Murdoch family even owns and runs its own vaccine testing facility.

 

To make matters even worse, the government agencies that were put in place to guard against unethical behavior from the vaccine industry are at least partially staffed by vaccine industry insiders.

 

The result has been absolutely shocking.

 

Vaccines for many different diseases--diseases that are mild in the vast majority of people who contract them--are mandated, first for public school students, for health care workers, and soon for everyone.

 

Severe adverse reactions are not identified, and therefore go unreported, which means that well-meaning health care workers believe that they rarely if ever happen.

 

Health care workers who turn down even the unnecessary and ineffective flu shot are fired.  Parents who turn down the unnecessary and often dangerous birth hep B vaccine risk having their newborn taken away.  Parents who choose to delay vaccines are refused treatment for their ill children by pediatricians, who face losing bonuses from the health insurance industry if their patients aren't all vaccinated according to government schedule.  Children who aren't fully vaccinated according to government schedule are denied access to school, and their parents face fines and imprisonment.

 

Doctors and researchers who speak out against these practices are vilified.  Researchers are denied funding (which is largely given by the pharmaceutical industry) if their work looks like it could identify problems with vaccines.  The results of independent medical review, such as the Cochrane Collaborative, are ignored and buried when possible when their results indicate lack of efficacy and/or elevated risk.  News media deliberately doesn't report the US government compensating recent cases of children (or even adults) severely injured by vaccines. Nor have they reported on the recent whistle-blower lawsuit launched against Merck by its own virologists, who allege that Merck engaged in a cover-up of efficacy problems with the MMR.

 

And teacozy would have us believe that this is all acceptable.  Teacozy would even have us believe that there is no conflict of interest in vaccine testing and monitoring, that conflict of interest is irrelevant (according to Paul Offit !!!!!!), and that the only important thing is what the data (collected, analyzed, and  tweaked by those who profit from vaccine sales) shows:

 

(bolding mine) Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The quote from the OP clearly stated "*less than* 10 percent." Not 10%.  And I guess my point is that COI and unethical practices don't have to mean that a product is "unacceptable."   Especially when that product is tested  and monitored over and over by people that have no financial COI or any ties to those unethical practices.  In the interview I posted with Offit in another thread he explains it well I think

 

"What isn't OK is that the profit motive gets in the way of explaining what vaccines are and how they work and how they're made; that the profit motive obscures real information about vaccine. ... I think this whole discussion about conflict of interest, profit motive, who's saying what, is irrelevant. The question is, what do the data show, and what has been the impact of vaccines, and have vaccines been as safe and effective as they've been claimed to be? And frankly, they consistently have been."

 

 

 

 

post #58 of 73

Taxi, excellent post. Bravo. :clap

post #59 of 73

I agree, that post is amazing Taximom!

post #60 of 73
Thread Starter 

I don't think I am explaining this well.  That, or you just disagree.  There is a reason I know that even if I had wanted to, I could have never been a teacher ;)    I did remember there being a similar discussion is another thread and pepperedmoth explaining what I am trying to say very well. (PM, if it's not Ok for me to quote you just let me know and I'll edit this post) 

 

"Back to GSK, I totally agree that they (and most drug companies) are shady, greedy, and profit driven, but I consider the safety profile of their cefazolin (for instance---another common med---given IV not IM like vaccines, but still inside the body) to be something else entirely. I personally have never hesitated to prescribe a parenteral med (any med given by a non-oral route) from one of these companies JUST BECAUSE it was manufactured by them. It truly seems like two separate issues to me." 

 

"I think we should be equally skeptical of the safety of all new drugs and other medical treatments, and that all pharmaceuticals from all companies should be rigorously tested and checked on an ongoing basis. But just like I don't think an auto industry financial scandal necessarily calls into question the safety of cars, I don't think a pharmaceutical scandal necessarily calls into question the safety of drugs. 

 

Anyway, that's what independent regulatory agencies are for. I make my living treating illness and prescribing meds, and try to be pretty well aware of the safety profiles of what I prescribe. Cefazolin, again: a med I prescribe almost daily as pre-op antibiotic prophylaxis. Made by big pharma. Has an excellent safety record. In lieu of evidence showing me that cefazolin has become less safe, I don't see that I should stop prescribing it based on a relatively unrelated scandal. If I had to prescribe medications based on the ethics of the company rather than on the safety profile of the product, I wouldn't be able to give any medications at all." 

 

"Yeah, I dislike and distrust big pharma. That's part of the reason I'm so wholeheartedly in favor of testing, testing, testing. CONSTANT VIGILANCE! so say I. But when our vigilance seems to be saying something is safe, I don't think that each new example corporate misconduct is reason to throw out all prior data, yanno?

Again, like cefazolin---it's been checked before and it will be checked again, and so it is and so it should be, but/so I don't think new corporate malfeasance means we need to stop using it or worry more than we already do." 

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1384366/bioethicist-says-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-should-face-liability-for-consequences/100

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