More Merck Tricks with HPV Vaccine - Page 5

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by insider

That the vendor is not obliged to tell pharmaceutical manufacturers which lots are contaminated has got to be helping sales of BVDV-containing batches. KWIM?

Ewww! insider, when you say "if you knew what was in the special sauce..." is this what you are talking about?

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by Science Mom

I understand what you are saying and why that would make sense but think of it this way; 'Pharma Big' is working with say a novel cell culture line or vaccine seed strain and egads! they find human pathogen X contaminating every batch of whatever they had. If 'Pharma Big' just report that they found pathogen X but not where and how, so what? How will this help their competitors and the scientific community to investigate this and avert future potential catastrophes by others? So you see they would have to divulge the source material that they found the pathogen x in and then that would give their edge away in a highly competitive market. I hope this makes more sense.

Science Mom

Does this dodge (on the part of the pharmas, not you!) make the potential problems even more alarming? Sort of a "since we can't tell you how to fix it, we aren't going to tell you it's a problem, rest your pretty little head" kind of thing?

ETA: Science Mom, your posts are very helpful and understandable for a non lab-rat! Thanks!

[insider]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

Ewww! insider, when you say "if you knew what was in the special sauce..." is this what you are talking about?

No, not really. It's more the cumulative knowledge of all sorts of things. With that quote I didn't mean to imply that there's some secret physical 'thing' in vaccines that, if you knew about, would make you worry. I was referring to the business-first nature of the science that occurs in industry - and there's no mistaking that it's a business. I don't think anyone is out to intentionally harm anyone else. I just think that all parties involved are trying to protect their own business interests. And that sometimes leads to mischaracterizations of the product. Or at the very least, when potential safety concerns arise, they are not always pursued.

[Science Mom]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

Does this dodge (on the part of the pharmas, not you!) make the potential problems even more alarming? Sort of a "since we can't tell you how to fix it, we aren't going to tell you it's a problem, rest your pretty little head" kind of thing?

ETA: Science Mom, your posts are very helpful and understandable for a non lab-rat! Thanks!

Wallacesmum, that certainly is another way to phrase it. As long as adventitious agents with human health implications don't end up in the final product, legally pharma aren't obligated to publically disclose a potential problem that was averted. Ethically, they should divulge this information so that companies involved in all aspects of biological production can improve their screening methodologies and acquisition of source materials. Idealistic I know but plausible. Thanks for the compliment.
Science Mom

[Cello]

Originally Posted by insider

I was referring to the business-first nature of the science that occurs in industry - and there's no mistaking that it's a business. I don't think anyone is out to intentionally harm anyone else. I just think that all parties involved are trying to protect their own business interests. And that sometimes leads to mischaracterizations of the product. Or at the very least, when potential safety concerns arise, they are not always pursued.

This is true, that in the end it is a business. I remember reading that the CEO of Merk said that even his wife took VIOXX as a defense for why he felt the drug was safe. I don't think you would intentionally take a drug that would harm you, but then again pharma has a long history of data cover up. In a way, it seems that vaxes are immune to the level of bad press that drugs get.