the supposed flu-during-pregnancy/autism link - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 04:37 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Excepti do think we have adequate surveillance.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#62 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 05:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Excepti do think we have adequate surveillance.

I think the experts disagree with you.

For example, Steven Rosenthal, MD, MPH, and Robert Chen, MD, AM wrote in 1995:

"The utility of passive surveillance has several potential limitations.For example, underreporting is often a problem,limiting the system's ability to detect new or rare events.'" Clinical information obtained on report forms is often inadequate for assessment, and reports may be biased to prevailing concepts of adverse events and changing publicity."

They go on to say something which many of us have been saying here on MDC, only to be shouted down by the defenders of the pharmaceutical industry:

"Outcomes with delayed onset after vaccination or outcomes not generally recognized to be associated with vaccination often have significantly lower reporting sensitivities. Narrative report forms and reporting by parents/caretakers decrease diagnostic accuracy. Unlike diseases for which distinct case definitions exist, many adverse events are poorly defined clinical syndromes.Clinical information reported is often dificult to categorize and encode."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615747/pdf/amjph00450-0108.pdf
Taximom5 is offline  
#63 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 05:47 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Except passive surveillance is not the only kind of surveillance we have.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#64 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 06:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Well, if you're looking for excuses for the vaccine industry, you can say whatever you want.

However, this:

"Outcomes with delayed onset after vaccination or outcomes not generally recognized to be associated with vaccination often have significantly lower reporting sensitivities. Narrative report forms and reporting by parents/caretakers decrease diagnostic accuracy. Unlike diseases for which distinct case definitions exist, many adverse events are poorly defined clinical syndromes.Clinical information reported is often dificult to categorize and encode."

is true for any kind of reporting system.

If doctors miss a delayed adverse event, or are unable to recognize it even when it occurs soon after the vaccination, they will not report it.

And that's exactly what has been happening.
Taximom5 is offline  
#65 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 06:46 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Except only passive surveillance systems rely o doctors reporting. And from the context of that quote it's pretty clear they're critiquing passive surveillance.

I'll ask you again to please refrain from making comments about me and instead discuss the issue at hand.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#66 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 07:15 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

If doctors miss a delayed adverse event, or are unable to recognize it even when it occurs soon after the vaccination, they will not report it.

 

I often wonder how many of them don't even know about VAERS.


Chicharronita is offline  
#67 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 08:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

I often wonder how many of them don't even know about VAERS.

Or how many know, but don't bother reporting, because it's voluntary...
Taximom5 is offline  
#68 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 08:56 PM
 
HappyHappyMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,920
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)

Hi All, There's been some reports about posts in this thread that addressed a member posting, not a topic. Please edit any posts you've made that address another member and revise them so that they stick to the topic. Thank you!


hh2.gif Head over to the Holiday Helper forum and be a part of this wonderful Mothering tradition! joy.gif

Wondering about Mothering in general? Check out Mothering's User Agreement! smile.gif

HappyHappyMommy is offline  
#69 of 87 Old 11-21-2012, 11:45 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Anyone can make a report to VAERs. You do not need your doctor to do it for you.

And as Rrrrrachel has been trying to point out there have also been active surveillance to look for trends in chronic diseases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated which do not find any strong link. They've been posted on here several times before.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#70 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 12:05 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Anyone can make a report to VAERs. You do not need your doctor to do it for you.

 

Sure anyone can...but you'd need to know what it is to even report it. I wonder how many people do?

 

An acquaintance of mine on Facebook had a vaccine reaction, and when I told her to report it to VAERS, she didn't say anything or ask any questions about it. I wonder if she didn't want to reveal her ignorance?

 

I assume everyone knows what the acronym stands for, but I guess I shouldn't do that. Next time I'll be sure to spell it out so there's no confusion. 


Chicharronita is offline  
#71 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 02:50 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Well here's a repomse - the second link you provided (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2010-04-20/industries/30682060_1_novartis-profit-novartis-shares-cancer-drug-sales) actually makes my point.
2.4 billion on cancer drugs, 2.2 billion on cardiovascular drugs - two items both more than twice the only vaccine sales they mention (1.1 billion for flu pandemic vaccine in the h1n1 scare year). and this is sales, not profits which must remove the cost of developing, licensing, and safety testing the products. Flu vaccine change annually right so I presume have fairly expensive ongoing development costs.


2.4 billion on cancer drugs -- multiple drugs, group together

2.2 billion on cardiovascular drugs -- again, multiple drugs, grouped together

1.1 billion for the H1N1 vaccine -- a single vaccine

How much for all the rest of the vaccines?

How much in ongoing development costs for dtap, mmr, or cp?


Vaccines look pretty lucrative, actually.
pek64 is offline  
#72 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 03:28 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post


1.1 billion for the H1N1 vaccine -- a single vaccine
 

 

 In the year of the H1N1 pandemic......


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#73 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 04:05 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 In the year of the H1N1 pandemic......

If you are saying that that is not a typical amount, then the article contains zero relevant information on the profits from vaccines. So the profit/loss of vaccines point remains in dispute.

If you are saying something else, then it's pretty clear that if half the amount of cardiovasular drugs can be made on a single vaccine, how much can be made on all the vaccines together?
pek64 is offline  
#74 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 07:26 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,306
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

Well Pfizer made a tidy sum on Prevenar, a cool $1.847 billion in the first half of 2012. 

 

http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25

Taximom5 likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#75 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 08:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 In the year of the H1N1 pandemic......

Except there was no pandemic. It was a hoax created by the vaccine industry, to sell the ineffective, side-effect-causing flu shot and the ineffective, side-effect-causing Tamiflu.

 

It was, obviously, a very lucrative hoax.

Taximom5 is offline  
#76 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 08:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post


If you are saying that that is not a typical amount, then the article contains zero relevant information on the profits from vaccines. So the profit/loss of vaccines point remains in dispute.
If you are saying something else, then it's pretty clear that if half the amount of cardiovasular drugs can be made on a single vaccine, how much can be made on all the vaccines together?

Excellent point, particularly when multiple doses are required for the vaccines, when the vaccines are MANDATED,  when the vaccine manufacturers enjoy liability protection. They pay out ZERO, even if you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mr. X died from a vaccine and you win in vaccine court.

Chicharronita and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#77 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 08:13 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,843
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Except there was no pandemic. It was a hoax created by the vaccine industry, to sell the ineffective, side-effect-causing flu shot and the ineffective, side-effect-causing Tamiflu.

 

It was, obviously, a very lucrative hoax.

Allow me.

Ahem.....

 

 It would have been a pandemic, had it not been for the H1N1 vaccine. Thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic was avoided!

Vaccines and vaccine manufacturers are always right.

Taximom5 and kathymuggle like this.

               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#78 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 08:19 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It was posted somewhere yesterday that even if there is a payout from vaccine court, that money comes out of tax dollars, not vaccine manufacturers pockets.
pek64 is offline  
#79 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 09:27 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Human vaccines, earlier considered as a low profit yielding business, have transformed into cash cows for global pharmaceutical giants.

 

Nice work if you can get it.

 

From "Vaccine Markets A Refuge for Big Pharma" in Drug Discovery and Development.


Chicharronita is offline  
#80 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 12:10 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)

[Mod Note 11/25: Edited to remove reference to content in mods that have now been removed.]

 

About Pfizer - their total sales (note the difference between sales and profits please) were $14 billion in the last quarter, and prevnar sales dropped to below $1 billion (so around 7% of the total sales for that company - how that translates to profits I do not know)

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/01/us-pfizer-results-idUSBRE8A00JU20121101

 

Quote:
Sales of Prevnar 13 fell 14 percent to $868 million, while sales of its older Prevnar 7 vaccine dropped 17 percent to $81 million.

 

I'm actually not interested in defending these companies, which, particularly in the US I believe get up to some pretty dubious sales practices (direct marketing to consumers for example makes me very uncomfortable). I am also disappointed that the way things work mean they're not interested in developing drugs for third world diseases which kill millions, while they spend millions on advertising things like viagra (holding hands in two different baths - honestly!).

 

But representing vaccines as their major cash cow and something they're willing to risk being exposed to fraud for (which is what many anti-vaccine claims about the companies amount to) is I think unrealistic. And if I'm honest about it I can't see any other way of making these potentially life saving vaccines. It's very expensive to develop and safety test new vaccines, so I can't see any governments or small businesses ever being able to absorb the risk of doing that. And the companies are only willing to do it so they can make some profit out of them.

 

So I'll say it again - I don't deny they make profits on vaccines, and in numbers which may sound huge, but they are fractions of the total profits of these companies. That's all I'm trying to get across. I've provided more than enough evidence for it in my opinion.


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#81 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 12:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

But representing vaccines as their major cash cow and something they're willing to risk being exposed to fraud for (which is what many anti-vaccine claims about the companies amount to) is I think unrealistic. 

Nobody has claimed that vaccines are the only cash cow of the pharmaceutical industry.  We have, however, had to argue many times against posters who claimed that vaccines were not a money-maker for the pharmaceutical industry, and the that the pharmaceutical industry is in the business of providing life-saving vaccines out of the goodness of their heart, etc.

 

As far as vaccines being something they are willing to risk being exposed to fraud for, that's chilling flippin' REALITY:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120622-710001.html  "

 

Two former Merck & Co. Inc. (MRK) employees have sued the company in federal court alleging Merck overstated the effectiveness of a mumps vaccine for which the U.S. government paid hundreds of millions of dollars." " According to the lawsuit--filed by former Merck virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski--the company allegedly defrauded the U.S. for more than a decade by hiding the fact the vaccine had become less effective."

 

http://www.bostoninjurylawyerblog.com/2012/06/virologists_file_whistleblower.html "The vaccine manufacturer began manipulating its clinical lab trials of the MMR-11 vaccine as early as the late 1990’s so that it could retain its monopoly as the manufacturer and seller. (In order to do this, the vaccine had to test as 95% effective.) The whistleblowers claim that they were asked to participate in Protocol 007, which is the name of this modified testing. Meantime, millions of children ended up not getting the full immunization they required."

 

Merck has a nice little history of fraud:  

http://www.drugfraudsettlement.com/ "Between 1998 and 2004, Merck employed several schemes with doctors and hospitals to defraud Medicaid and maintain market share for Vioxx®, the discontinued arthritis drug, and Zocor®, the statin whose patent protection expired in 2006, it was alleged.

When Dean Steinke, a Merck district sales manager, was unable to get management to stop its improper drug marketing tactics, he brought evidence to a team of experienced qui tam whistleblower attorneys. They took his case under seal to federal and state Governments.

After seven years of investigation and litigation, it was settled today, returning more than $400 million to federal and state taxpayers."

 

Pfizer, the maker of drugs that help alleviate arthritis and other ailments, has paid almost $3 billion in fines since 2002 and entered into three corporate integrity agreements with the Department of Health and Human Services aimed at preventing future fraud. It and other companies are fighting attempts by Congress to exclude them from government business because of their history of fraud."

Merck is not the only vaccine manufacturer to be caught engaging in fraud: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-05/health-drugmakers-fraud-fines/53372792/1 "

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/pharma-giant-gsk-pay-3b-illegally-marketing-drugs/story?id=16695205

Healthcare giant GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to an unprecedented $3 billion settlement with the U.S. government over allegations that the company advertised drugs for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and then used lavish gifts to convince doctors to prescribe the drugs."

"In one instance, a drug was widely promoted to help treat depression even though the FDA had never tested it for such a use, according to the Department of Justice. "

"The government also said that GSK failed to report relevant safety information about the popular diabetes treatment Avandia to the FDA and even directly paid medical professionals to push the product on doctors for its alleged benefits for the heart -- even though GSK had no scientific data to back up that claim."

 

http://www.newser.com/story/148854/celebrex-fraud-docs-reveal-deception-at-pfizer.html

A federal judge has unsealed documents in a long-running fraud case against Pfizer, maker of the arthritis drug Celebrex—and selected quotes are none too pretty. "They swallowed our story, hook, line and sinker," wrote a research director at Pfizer, which had said Celebrex was safer for the stomach than other arthritis drugs. But Pfizer was only using data from 6 months of a yearlong study. The drug giant was "cherry-picking the data," said a company medical director."

 

 

And it looks like the government is caught in this web of deceit:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-05/health-drugmakers-fraud-fines/53372792/1

Last September, we reported “Pfizer slapped with $2.3 billion fine for illegally dealing drugs.” No one went to jail and Pfizer paid a tiny portion of its profits from illegally dealing Bextra from 2001 thru 2005.  In 2005 alone, Pfizer made $1.7 billion on that drug. Now, CNN has revealed that the Department of Justice allowed Pfizer to set up a dummy corporation to take the rap, so that Pfizer could maintain its Medicare and Medicaid contracts."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/?hpt=Sbin

"But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to nail."

applejuice and Chicharronita like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#82 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 08:11 PM
 
HappyHappyMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,920
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)

Hi All, Attacks on other members is not something we allow. I'm temporarily closing this thread so that we can review the recent posts. Thank you, HHM.


hh2.gif Head over to the Holiday Helper forum and be a part of this wonderful Mothering tradition! joy.gif

Wondering about Mothering in general? Check out Mothering's User Agreement! smile.gif

HappyHappyMommy is offline  
#83 of 87 Old 11-22-2012, 08:12 PM
 
heatherdeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Everywhere... thanks, technology!
Posts: 4,888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Mod Note 11/25: Quote removed as original post was removed.

 

Well, then there is also the option to ignore it...?  Feel you're being baited?  Don't bite--but that's not against the UA.

 

It's an online debate forum.  If you don't care for someone's posting style (where it is not in direct violation of the UA) then you have the option of ignoring it.  There is a function where you are able to block seeing posts by specific users if you choose.  It's a good option when you are sick of seeing someone's input on things but not all of their posts violate the UA.


Heather - Wife , Mommy  & Health & Wellness Educator, Speaker & Consultant 
 
Dairy, soy & corn free with limited gluten... yes, really. And journeying towards peace.  Blogging about both.
 
Let me guide you to find the food and lifestyle choices...
heatherdeg is offline  
#84 of 87 Old 11-24-2012, 09:33 PM
 
HappyHappyMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,920
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)

Hello All,

 

I've reviewed this thread and deleted several posts that were in violation of the User Agreement or that were responding to those posts. I have issued warnings to those who have posted in violation of the User Agreement. If you have any questions about this, please do not post the questions to this thread, but PM me and an MDC admin.

 

I'm reopening the thread for discussion. Please discuss the topic and refrain from personal attacks or comparisons that are not conducive to supporting respectful conversations; posts that contain such content will be removed and further action (such as removal for ability to post in the thread) may be taken. Finally, if you are finding a particular member's posts bothersome to you and you would prefer not to see them, please follow heatherdeg's excellent advice in the post before and block or ignore that member's posts.

 

Thank you,

HHM

 


hh2.gif Head over to the Holiday Helper forum and be a part of this wonderful Mothering tradition! joy.gif

Wondering about Mothering in general? Check out Mothering's User Agreement! smile.gif

HappyHappyMommy is offline  
#85 of 87 Old 11-25-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

It was posted somewhere yesterday that even if there is a payout from vaccine court, that money comes out of tax dollars, not vaccine manufacturers pockets.

The money comes from an excise tax on vaccines.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#86 of 87 Old 11-25-2012, 12:03 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

It was posted somewhere yesterday that even if there is a payout from vaccine court, that money comes out of tax dollars, not vaccine manufacturers pockets.

The money comes from an excise tax on vaccines.

 

I've read that from around 1989 to 2010 petitioners were compensated around two billion dollars.

 

Does anyone know where that number comes from? I'm having trouble finding it.


Chicharronita is offline  
#87 of 87 Old 11-25-2012, 07:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The money comes from an excise tax on vaccines.

That tax is paid by the consumer, not by the vaccine manufacturers.
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off