Debate this meme - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 10:19 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
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 ;)


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#32 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 12:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
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.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#33 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 01:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)

@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? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#34 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 02:49 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
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?

Taximom5 is online now  
#35 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 03:16 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
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....

Pookietooth, Mirzam and BeckyBird like this.
sassyfirechick is offline  
#36 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 03:28 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
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?

?


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#37 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 04:06 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,072
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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?
Pookietooth and BeckyBird like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#38 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 04:23 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,072
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#39 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 06:14 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
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

Taximom5 is online now  
#40 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 01:13 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)

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

 

:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk

Taximom5 is online now  
#41 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 01:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
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. 

BeckyBird likes this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#42 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 01:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
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. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#43 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 03:17 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
nm - OT

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#44 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 03:24 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)

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.

Taximom5 is online now  
#45 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 04:07 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)

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.

BeckyBird likes this.
sassyfirechick is offline  
#46 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 04:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
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


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#47 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 04:39 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
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)


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  
#48 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 04:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
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? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#49 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 05:03 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
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.

BeckyBird 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  
#50 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 05:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
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.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#51 of 73 Old 10-11-2013, 05:20 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

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


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  
#52 of 73 Old 10-12-2013, 12:52 PM
 
Songy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

:lurk


bftoddler.giffemalesling.GIFfamilybed1.gifcd.gif  novaxnoIRC.gifmom to 1 DD (4/13) luxlove.gif

Songy is offline  
#53 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 05:56 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,072
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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
Mirzam and Taximom5 like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#54 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 06:02 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

: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/

Pookietooth and BeckyBird like 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  
#55 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 06:31 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
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.

Taximom5 is online now  
#56 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 07:41 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
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. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#57 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 08:22 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)

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."

 

 

 

 

Taximom5 is online now  
#58 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

Taxi, excellent post. Bravo. :clap


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  
#59 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 08:50 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)

I agree, that post is amazing Taximom!


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#60 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 09:10 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)

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


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
Reply

Tags
Vaccines , Vaccinations

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