or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Pro-Vaxxers, Talk to Me About Conflicts of Interest
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pro-Vaxxers, Talk to Me About Conflicts of Interest - Page 2

post #21 of 86
Thread Starter 
I can't even do that red-blue thing here, so I'll just put DC's statements in quotes and respond below them.

Thank you for dedicating some time and thought to these complex questions.

1. Based on the above definition, are there conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy-making?



"Yes, there are conflicts of interests based on that definition in absolutely everything that involves research and/or policy.  By that definition I honestly think pretty much everyone has a conflict of interest."

I won't argue here.

"I know this is fishing for Paul Offit has a ROTA vaccine patent. and scientists go from the CDC to private industry and vice versa, so we must ignore everything because COI COI COI. I get that. Yes, I see that by this definition he has a conflict of interest. But I will also point out some other specific conflict of interests."

I'm really not trying to entrap anybody. What I'd like to see is a candid admission that this is going on instead of the rampant denialism of which I see entirely too much. I appreciate that you concur. I disagree, however, with your statement, " . . . so we must ignore everything because COI COI COI." That is not at all my argument. We just know, as cited in the "Debate This Meme" thread, that studies based on COIs are more likely to show results favorable to a product, so it is more than fair to lift a skeptical eyebrow when drug companies are involved in research.

"Pharmaceutical companies and medical establishments would make a lot more money treating VPD than they do for vaccines.  For example, paying full price for a polio vaccine is listed at $82 at CVS the profit is likely less than the total charge.  However, an Iron lung to treat polio I am sure is much more than $82 (though I truly have no idea).  The Daptacel DTAP vaccine costs $25.98 according to the CDC.  Hospitalization for Whooping Cough cost is around $3000/day.  So this could be a clear conflict of interest that those profiting from treating vaccine preventable diseases could in fact by the definition provided have a COI because it would benefit them for more people to contract VPD."

I am talking specifically about vaccine-related research and policy-making. The tu-quoque approach doesn't really work here because, (as just one example), despite Wakefield's clear COI, his intent was arguably to advance his personal interests in a lawsuit and not to impose a pharmaceutical product from which he profits on an entire population. If people refuse the MMR vaccine, Wakefield makes no money. Neither does Mercola, McCarthy, etc. And none of these parties have lobbied for exemption restrictions and other just-shut-up-and-do-as-you're-told policies.

The other problem with the tu-quoque tactic is that it's shifting the subject a wee bit. :-) Yes, I acknowledge that they exist, but the ramification are much, much different. (More on that momentarily).

Also, everybody from Offit to Sears to the Dalai Lama gets a profit from producing a book. When I review the BMJ definition linked above, I don't consider a book publication in and of itself a COI.

Still, I see your point, and it does sound compelling...at least initially. Treating a smattering of the population for a disease, in aggregate dollars, may actually amount to less than vaccinating millions and millions. From our neighbors across the pond, we see this: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101123545

"Several pharmaceutical companies made a conscious decision to chase and develop the vaccines market towards the end of the last decade, as it became clear that the traditional blockbuster drug treatment model for the industry was changing. Vaccines were seen as promising from a business perspective because they could be applied to huge swathes of the population, and because the economic case for payment could be made to governments. AstraZeneca, the U.K. pharmaceuticals giant, paid $15.6 billion for MedImmune, the U.S vaccines specialist, in 2007 to get a foothold in the vaccines market.

Chris Viehbacher, chief executive of Sanofi, explained part of the appeal of vaccines earlier this year. 'The nature of vaccines is such that generally you have a better feeling for the success of a vaccine than you do for a new drug,' he said."


"I don’t view most them as problematic for me personally."

What about on a more global level? I know I'm not the only parent who doesn't obey orders to vaccinate on schedule out of concern for COIs. I would think that the pro-compliance camp would be at least somewhat concern that COIs erode away at trust in public health programs.


"I value the scientific method and I am familiar with the manner in which research is disseminated. I have been through the peer-review process myself and I understand that it is grueling. I do not believe that the conflict of interests will impact the research that policy is based on, nor do I accept research that has not been tested through peer review impact my health decisions . I think that if someone truly was trying to present fraudulent research for personal gain it would be discovered during the peer review process. Since I do not research using blogs or websites without scientific rigor personally those Conflicts of interest do not impact me."

I have a little bedtime reading on the topic. smile.gif

http://www.labnews.co.uk/features/peer-review/


"I don’t think anything can be done to address COIS as we are defining it in this discussion. We have a first amendment right to free speech."

Do you see any potential ethical issues in vaccine-related research--specifically, that which shows favorable results for vaccine safety and/or efficacy? Again, we can tu-quoque in another thread. Right now, I am concerned that medical recommendations and mandates that directly affect me and my children are based at least in part on COI, rendering them at least suspect.

My last question was mostly to gauge how seriously people take these COIs.

My pipe dream is to have a pro-vaxxer address these COIs candidly and unflinchingly without feeling that these COIs somehow pose a threat to their stance. They actually don't necessarily.

It's fair to admit that COIs are behind vaccine research, recommendations, and mandates. It's OK to acknowledge that these COIs are ethically questionable, at best, and downright unethical, at worst. It's reasonable to call for an end to COIs to ensure that the science is sound and the public's trust in public health programs is rock solid. You can do ALL of this and still fully vaccinate yourself and your children with the unwavering confidence that you've made the right decision. But instead, (and this isn't addressed at you, just in general), I've heard pro-vaxxers bristle in defense at this topic and respond with sophist pageantry instead of honest answers.

(Rrrrrachel, back when she posted here, may have been the exception. I may be thinking of the wrong poster, but it seems that she openly and honestly acknowledged the systemic flaws).

The questions that started this thread aren't going away. The more they get ignored, dismissed , mocked ("you conspiracy theorist!"), and explained away, the louder these questions will be asked by an increasingly skeptical public. smile.gif
post #22 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

* I disagree with MDC's block of this website, because it hosts some obscure (sound) sources not found anywhere elsewhere on the web. I feel members here have enough intelligence and discernment to make the call on what is and isn't acceptable information, we don't need to be coddled.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here, Mirzam.

 

If the Ku Klux Klan were the only host of an obscure source that supported my point, I still wouldn't quote them, or even click on their site, if that were to result in any increased funding for them.  And whale.to is an anti-Semitic hate site.

 

At the very least, you should be able to click on title, author, first few lines, etc. of whatever they're quoting, and find another source.  Or at least, do a search for the author of whatever you want to quote and ask the author directly for a copy, and for permission to post it.

post #23 of 86
Taxi, then we have to agree to disagree. If you consider whale a hate site then Rense, which Teacozy linked to should also be considered the same and also be banned. I still think we are discerning enough to make our own judgements on which websites we wish to frequent without the MCD censorship.

You hold a strong opinion of whale which I do not.
post #24 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
 

I apologize for the length of my response.  

No apology necessary!  I think we all appreciate the time and thought you put into this.

Pharmaceutical companies and medical establishments would make a lot more money treating VPD than they do for vaccines.  For example, paying full price for a polio vaccine is listed at $82 at CVS the profit is likely less than the total charge.  However, an Iron lung to treat polio I am sure is much more than $82 (though I truly have no idea).  The Daptacel DTAP vaccine costs $25.98 according to the CDC.  Hospitalization for Whooping Cough cost is around $3000/day.  So this could be a clear conflict of interest that those profiting from treating vaccine preventable diseases could in fact by the definition provided have a COI because it would benefit them for more people to contract VPD.

 

I don't agree with you here.  

Most VPDs are not anything like polio.  Laboratory-comfirmed influenza is, according to the Cochrane Review, quite rare, yet the flu shot (which causes hospitalizations of its own) is being pushed on everyone, with repeat shots every year. And the other shots on the schedule also have their own hospitalization rates, and may also cause or at least trigger many different medical conditions, such as asthma, diabetes, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, seizures (sometimes resulting in brain damage), narcolepsy, and other autoimmune and neurological conditions. 

 

Andrew Wakefield- his subjects for his discredited (scientifically at least) study were received through a personal injury attorney hoping to collect money for the autism/MMR link. COI.

 

No, they were referred to him at the Royal Free Hospital because they had inflammatory bowel conditions.  The parents have gone on record as saying that he and Dr. Walker-Smith were the  first doctors to actually take seriously the fact that these children HAD severe intestinal problems. And they all say that they went to Wakefield FOR TREATMENT OF THEIR CONDITION, not to be part of a lawsuit.

 

Really? Do you have proof that any of those authors are searching for lawsuits, looking for vaccine-injured patients as clients, or doing ANYTHING that is the least bit shady?

Then there are the COI involved in organizations treating what they promote as vaccine diseases.  Generation rescue does this as does Joseph Mercola.  Selling many supplements, treatments etc. that they would not sell if they didn’t first promote the idea that Vaccines have caused you harm whether your know it or not.  The total cost of Chelation therapy that I could find is $3350.  When I add up the supplements recommended by Mercola and others it as high as $1000/month. COI.  They stand to profit from for the most part unregulated therapies to treat having been vaccinated.  To get that money you first have to convince people that vaccines are the root cause of there medical problems.  This is a huge COI.

 Dr. Sears vaccine book gets a royalty for every copy of the book that is purchased.  I don’t know what it is, but it does exist.  There is a COI because for any research that is done to show that a selective/delayed schedule isn’t beneficial takes money directly out of pocket for selling this schedule.

 the vaccine epidemic book has glaring COI every here you look.  The book is edited by someone with a masters in international policy and an attorney, not people with scientific backgrounds.  Inside you will find 5 different attorney’s writing multiple articles about the dangers of vaccine.  Huge COI because what they are looking for is lawsuits.

Really? Do you have proof that any of those authors are searching for lawsuits, looking for vaccine-injured patients as clients, or doing ANYTHING that is the least bit shady?  And can you find ANYTHING stated in that book that is not true?

 

 

 

  And the biggest way to make bank is to keep pushing the idea that vaccines cause autism. And working to try to get people to ignore ALL other research on autism as if it is a done deal that vaccines are the real cause, even though the peer reviewed and scientific research does not point in that direction.

 

 

Really? Do you have proof that any of those authors are searching for lawsuits, looking for vaccine-injured patients as clients, or doing ANYTHING that is the least bit shady?

 

Then we can look at the National vaccine Information Center.  They make  over 800K  per fiscal year in donations to their organization (which sounds like a federal agency and that in and of itself is problematic).  If vaccines safety is shown, that research damages the NVIS. Their salaries depend on people being skeptical of vaccines.  They also have research grants, which clearly will only show problems with vaccines given the Barbara Lou Fishers career depends on the idea that vaccines are damaging more children than they are helping.  She also has three books and is paid for appearances.  That also is a huge conflict of interest.    .

As for rivalries. JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Rob Schneider, Barbara Lou Fisher and others have put everything they have professionally and otherwise into the idea that vaccines are the cause of Autism, and every disease that is increasing in the world.  They cannot ever back down from that, it has become all encompassing.  Any research that illustrates a different cause for anything, or that demonstrates safety in any vaccine is bad for them professionally.  No one likes to be wrong.  Each and every one of them has a COI because they have put their reputation on the line that vaccines are causing all of our problems from diabetes, to adhd, to autism, to lupus and on and on. 

Ok, you raise some interesting points.  Let's apply this standard to both sides equally. Why don't you ask these same questions and aim them at the pro-vax side? 

Some questions of my own:

If NVIC is correct about vaccine safety, how should they go about proving their point?  How should they fund things?  Why is wrong for people whose friends and families have suffered severe vaccine reactions to donate money to an organization devoted to publicizing those facts?  Why should anyone back down from a position if they are convinced that they have proof that they are correct, and the supposed "proof" that they are supposedly wrong is severely flawed, and they know it?

What if vaccines ARE contributing to diabetes, adhd, to autism, to lupus, and on and on?  Why do you seem to believe that it's already proven that they aren't, when studies and case reports exist linking them? 

 

post #25 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Taxi, then we have to agree to disagree. If you consider whale a hate site then Rense, which Teacozy linked to should also be considered the same and also be banned. I still think we are discerning enough to make our own judgements on which websites we wish to frequent without the MCD censorship.

You hold a strong opinion of whale which I do not.

Issue #1 is that clicking on whale results in increased $$ for them.

 

Issue #2: It's not a question of whether *I* consider whale a hate site.  It IS a hate site.  They have a whole section devoted to Holocaust denial, and the things that they say about people with Jewish and African roots are just horrible.

 

Issue #3:  They do not have exclusive publication rights to anything.  For example, if you can't find an on-line source for any of their quotes of Robert Mendelsohn, you can purchase his books, used, from Amazon. So I don't agree that they are the only source.

 

If Rense puts out vitriol against any particular race or religion, then yes, MDC ought to not allow it to be linked here, either.

post #26 of 86

Never thought I'd utter these words but I agree with Taximom on this one. 

 

Mirzam, I'm not sure why you keep harping on this Rense thing. It was an honest mistake. I had never been to that site and have never gone back. I was in a rush and it was the first link I saw. I had no idea it was an anti vax or a conspiracy site.  By contrast, you knew you were pasting from whale.to and you purposefully hid the source. Big difference.  I could have just as easily posted this story about Hannah Poling and the point would have still been made. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html) She received 1.5 million dollars from the vaccine court. 

 

You really are like a dog with a bone about this. I think this is the third thread you have brought this up in. Seriously, let it go. 

 

Ok I am not going to derail the thread anymore because Dakotacakes made a great thorough response and I hope others feel like making a contribution. 

 

Carry on! 

post #27 of 86

Hello All, please review our copyright policy, specifically:

 

Quote:
Please refrain from posting:
  • Private emails and Private Messages (PMs)
  • Messages from other discussion boards or blogs
  • Articles, images and video that were not created by you without written permission to reproduce at our site

 

You may post:

  • A link directing readers to a discussion or article instead of the actual content itself.
  • 100 words or less from an article as long as those 100 words are not a substantial part of the piece. If you are quoting from a short work such as a poem or a short article, 100 words may not be an acceptable fair use allowance. You should restrict yourself to a minimal quote from the piece. Anything more requires permission to print/reproduce in written form by the copyright holder and placed within your post.
  • Images or content that you have personally created, paid the the rights to publish or have express written permission from the copyright holder.

 

@teacozy, please edit your posts accordingly.

post #28 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Mirzam, what an interesting double standard!  Do you remember this thread from last week? http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1389557/vaccination-a-mythical-history/20

 

You not only copy and pasted from whale (which you are technically not even allowed to do on these forums as far as I am aware) you didn't disclose the source and only admitted it once someone called you out on it.  You also a few posts later posted a link to a blog post about snake oil by greenmedinfo.com which is hardly an unbiased source either.

 

Very interesting....

 

Edit: @Kathymuggle, at least you are consistent. I know many people on this board are not. The vitamin/supplement industry is a multi BILLION dollar industry and anyone who doesn't take drugs because of big pharma's unethical practices should definitely stop taking any vitamins or supplements. 

No I don't think I will

post #29 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

@Kathymuggle, at least you are consistent. I know many people on this board are not. The vitamin/supplement industry is a multi BILLION dollar industry and anyone who doesn't take drugs because of big pharma's unethical practices should definitely stop taking any vitamins or supplements. 

I gave up long ago on getting your answers to COI-related questions, (you opted not to address mine in the Debate-This-Meme thread), but I did have to respond to this.

It's a pretty rare bird who will never, ever consume a pharmaceutical product because of the industry's unethical practices. Calling out breeches in ethics makes one a watchdog, not a Luddite.

To paraphrase Louise Kua Habakus, I support airline safety measures. It would be unethical for a pilot to, for example, fly the plane while taking mind-altering substances. None of this makes me anti-aviation.

Both the pharmaceutical and supplement industries make some pretty wild and questionable claims about their products, and both have an incentive to peddle these products at any cost. Here's the difference. The supplement industry doesn't enjoy insurance coverage, Medicaid coverage, corporate subsidies, or even mandates, as is the case with vaccines and, in some settings, psychiatric meds. The supplement industry also doesn't have the wherewithal to purchase research at high-profile institutions. Meanwhile, if Pharma cut off all funding to Emory University, its med school, public health program, and, yes, probably its Vaccine Center would close their doors. I can't C&P the link, but go here and enter Emory in the search bar.

http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

Eye-opening, isn't it? Academic freedom at its finest. eyesroll.gif

Anyway, I can't say it enough times: Pulling a tu-quoque just won't work here. You can put apples and oranges in the same basket, but it's still obvious that they're different fruit.
post #30 of 86
I am someone who is open to learning more about vax, am suspicious of it, would like to be convinced one way or the other. I was considering responding to your initial question from my pro-vax parts of my brain but further reading reminded me that the reason you are not getting many pro-vax responses is because this forum is a place where things fall apart and become personal attacks quickly. I have had reasonable debates about vax in my DDC, TTC, etc with people on both sides chiming in. That doesn't happen here. You are fishing for reasons to attack pro-vax, and there is nothing I would say that would change your mind, nor would I be trying to change your mind. I realize you may feel attacked as non-vaxxer IRL, and this is a place where you are not, but just as you wouldn't hang out in a pediatrician office to debate vaxxing for fun, most people with any pro-vax thoughts don't hang out here.
post #31 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

I am someone who is open to learning more about vax, am suspicious of it, would like to be convinced one way or the other. I was considering responding to your initial question from my pro-vax parts of my brain but further reading reminded me that the reason you are not getting many pro-vax responses is because this forum is a place where things fall apart and become personal attacks quickly. I have had reasonable debates about vax in my DDC, TTC, etc with people on both sides chiming in. That doesn't happen here. You are fishing for reasons to attack pro-vax, and there is nothing I would say that would change your mind, nor would I be trying to change your mind. I realize you may feel attacked as non-vaxxer IRL, and this is a place where you are not, but just as you wouldn't hang out in a pediatrician office to debate vaxxing for fun, most people with any pro-vax thoughts don't hang out here.

That is your interpretation and you are welcome to it.

 

I have seen pro-vaxxers respond on numerous other threads.  I have seen far more contentious thread than this one where they respond in droves (or what passes for droves on the MDC vaccine debate forum).  There is a bit of a lull in terms of pro-vaxxers posting at the moment, but blink and they will be back.  I remember saying to a fellow non-vaxxer in a pm within the last year that I felt like pro-vaxxers had completely taken over the board.  

 

Really, I think they are not responding because there is no good response on how do you justify COIs (my wording, not the OP's).  


Edited by kathymuggle - 10/26/13 at 4:50pm
post #32 of 86

The popcorn smilies aren't particularly conducive to a respectful, serious discussion.

post #33 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

The popcorn smilies aren't particularly conducive to a respectful, serious discussion.

And?  I suppose we could sit around and talk about how not-nice the other side can be, but I would prefer to talk and read about COI in vaccines.  That is the topic and it is an important one.  

post #34 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

I am someone who is open to learning more about vax, am suspicious of it, would like to be convinced one way or the other. I was considering responding to your initial question from my pro-vax parts of my brain but further reading reminded me that the reason you are not getting many pro-vax responses is because this forum is a place where things fall apart and become personal attacks quickly. I have had reasonable debates about vax in my DDC, TTC, etc with people on both sides chiming in. That doesn't happen here. You are fishing for reasons to attack pro-vax, and there is nothing I would say that would change your mind, nor would I be trying to change your mind. I realize you may feel attacked as non-vaxxer IRL, and this is a place where you are not, but just as you wouldn't hang out in a pediatrician office to debate vaxxing for fun, most people with any pro-vax thoughts don't hang out here.

There is no reason to make this personal. I won't "attack" anyone, but I will definitely debate people. This is the debate forum, after all. I've asked some fair questions, and the lack of candid answers to them is quite telling. But then, the COI issue tends to be the Achilles heel for the vaccine compliance apologists.

What makes you think I'm non-vaxxing?
post #35 of 86
"Lack of candid answers". Maybe I do t know the history but I thought Dakota and tea fairy made reasonable answers.

The popcorn smilies set a tone which has been continued and perhaps you don't see that. But the pro-vaxxers you are fishing for do.

I see now with your signature that you are selective vaxxing, I couldn't see that on my phone. But there is a lot of "them" "they" "the other side", maybe not from you particularly. Hence the us-vs-them. "What I want to see is a candid admission that this is going on." You have your answer. You know what you know, you are looking for someone to disagree so you can pick a fight. Or i guess really it is just debate for debates sake, so i cant complain. You know COI is an issue, why do you need a pro-vaxxer to come here and confirm this for you?

To answer your OP:
I clearly don't spend anywhere near as much time researching this topic as you all do. So this might sound very simplistic. But...
Of course there are huge COI In every aspect of western medicine. If you are an expert in the field, you likely get a paycheck from someone in the field, and having a blog and picketing don't pay your med school bills or get you published. There is lots of research that shows exactly what you talk about with bias- it influences what gets published, professional and governmental guidelines, and thus what the future doctors of the world learn and counsel their patients. Duh. this is in no way a secret. Everything, from management of your heart attack, to how to put you back together after a car accident, to treatment for ear infections, to vaccines is affected. Elsewhere: the safety of the air you breath, the water you drink, the taxes you pay, etc is all paid for by someone. And of course we all know that. It is a disaster. But I don't think antibiotics and vaccines and cardiac surgery not helpful and life saving just because there is bias. I wish we could know even more about when they are appropriate, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

But I don't know what else to do. Why isn't anyone else researching it appropriately? What kind of a change do you expect to make? Not to be so negative, but for example when 50 percent of the US doesn't believe in global warming, you can use all the canvas shopping bags you want, the earth is still warming. "Let's just get big corporations' money out of government." Sure, you get started on that. Just let me know when your done.

And this is life or death. You have seen (or have), perhaps, vaccines injured children (you believe). I work in an emergency dept, and thus i have seen (I believe) a huge decrease in disability and death from h flu meningitis, and respiratory failure from epiglotitis with vaccinations. I have seen children who developed cancer, successfully treated with chemo (whatever you believe about that), who would have been killed by benign diseases like chicken pox if they were exposed while immune compromised (but could be reasonable expected to have milder illness due to vax back when they were a healthy low risk kiddo) Or women who end up with fulminant genital warts as a result of being on immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis, (which otherwise completely saved their quality of life, as compared to the experience of women decades ago, again another topic of debate in many ways). And I worked in primary care, where I never saw a clearly (or even maybe) vaccine-caused adverse event, except for rare rare allergic reaction. And my DD was a 27-weeker, whose life was saved by antibiotics, who I believe really needed RSV protection (breastfeeding helped but would not have saved her). Which is I know not a vaccine but in the same screwing-with your-immune system category.

So of course that is all personal bias, and I KNOW you are all personally biased too, and the researchers, etc.

So then I look to research studies, where the ones done with any semblance of scientific rigor (not to imply that they are good) are not, IMO, nor in the opinion of the many medical professionals around me (who want nothing more than to take care of babies and kids, don't take so much as a pen from Big Pharma, and are years distant from the indoctrination of med school) confirming the risks nor the complete lack of efficacy of vaccines as is often quoted here (not to imply that they have no risks). And I know there are studies on the non-vax side, which to me are not as impressive, more related to correlations, and honestly very well debated elsewhere, and i am not interested in bringing that up here b/c it isnt the topic exactly. So where are the big, randomized, COI-free studies to reassure me? They don't exist, I don't know how to make them exist, and neither do you, so we make our biased decisions. If I could say "that vaccine is too conflicted, I'm not going to do it" I would but I have seen the consequences of that (I believe) and it is sometimes awful. This is not just choosing where your gold or diamond ring comes from. So here we are in perfect world. then add in the co-mentioned issues of, for example, debate of germ theory and I decide that maybe we do all just exist in different realities.
Edited by Ratchet - 10/26/13 at 7:21pm
post #36 of 86
Ratchet, you make good points.

Life is full of contradictions. When we make decisions, it is never ever black and white...we tend to take everything into consideration and decide which is most important for each of our situations. We have to decide which side of the coin we are most comfortable falling on. We cant stay stuck in the middle. Because of our unique life experiences we may aver change others minds..and that should be ok. Because we all come from a different place, if that makes sense. (general) you do you, and I'll do me...if you will. Just my two cents. :-)
post #37 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by midstreammama View Post

 Because we all come from a different place, if that makes sense. (general) you do you, and I'll do me...if you will. Just my two cents. :-)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJq6D5pIG4

 

Cat Stevens :love

post #38 of 86
You don't need to justify your use of BigOil , and have made the decision to continue benefiting from it when you need to. I'm not justifying big Pharma, it's not like I donate money to them or wear t shirts promoting them. I would love for them to "clean up their act" too but it's jus about as likely as Big Oil doing so. My sister works in research for Novartis, she loves her job, works mostly with cancer, diabetes, and vaccine research (mostly delivery methods for the vaccines) and evn she doesn't get a flu shot, partly b/c she is a lw risk person and partly b/c she thinks it doesn't work, although she as no concerns about safety. So, it's not like were all blind to the complexities of this. It's fine to opt ou for whatever reason, of course, but I am thankful that the majority don't because I know many people who desperately need the herd immunity which I know not every one believes in but I do. I guess I think that asking for vaxxers to justify COI is like asking people with a car to explain why they like killing polar bears. Sort of.
post #39 of 86

A couple relevant memes. This point has been brought up multiple times and I don't think I've really seen it addressed. If it has been, I missed it.  Pharma would make *more* money if they stopped producing vaccines. Treating the complications from diseases would give them many many many many times more profit..  This is not to say that making vaccines produce NO profit, that's clearly not true. It's just not much profit.  This is a big part of why the vaccine court was introduced. A few lawsuits made most companies just stop producing vaccines. It just wasn't worth it for them.  I just don't see a lot of evidence or validity in the idea that pharma companies are paying millions and millions of dollars controlling the media, paying of researchers, fabricating tons of data and research, infiltrating all reputable medical journals and peer reviewers for a product that just isn't that profitable for them. 

 

 

post #40 of 86
Well, it probably is a bit of a tried and true income stream, esp flu shots, and a lot of the treatment for these illness is supportive and using pretty cheap meds (like, the cost of the ED visit for measles involves very little money going to a pharmaceutical company).I think they really make their $$ in heart and diabetes care b/c the meds don't work well, people end up on a lot of them, and b/c surgical cardiology Is so successful, people live for a long time being really unhealthy. But I have no facts to back that up. But seeing what they pay my sister, they are clearly making a huge profit off of something, and is not off of us eating our veggies and washing our hands.

Healthcare in our state is moving towards more and more restrictions on big Pharma. Legislation outlawed any gifts and most doctors offices have stopped accepting samples. We know they are at least naughty and probably a bit evil. But we still believe firmly in vaccinating.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Pro-Vaxxers, Talk to Me About Conflicts of Interest