Debate this meme - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 09:15 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,934
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Anyway, that's what independent regulatory agencies are for.

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

What are the independent agencies that regulate vaccines?
 


 
 
 "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  
#62 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 10:17 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

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

Translation:  Drug companies are shady, greedy, and profit-driven!  But some of their products are good!  Therefore vaccines must be good! And we have government agencies that are supposed to be independent regulatory agencies!  So let's ignore the fact that they are staffed with drug company employees!  Because the government agencies tell us that we should trust them!"

 

Notice how that argument completely sidesteps several key facts?  Like

1) the non-reported severe adverse reactions,

2) the independent science showing adverse effects of vaccine ingredients, resulting in seizures, encephalopathy, autoimmune disorders, paralysis, etc.

3) the fact that many vaccines are unnecessary for the vast majority of the population

4) the fact that the vaccine industry has a history of lying about their vaccines (and many other products) (according to their own employees)

 

In fact, teacozy sidesteps pretty much every relevant fact with a recommendation that we stop worrying.

Taximom5 is online now  
#63 of 73 Old 10-18-2013, 07:56 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
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."   
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/offit.html 


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

*Less than* 10%? Oh good. I feel so much better now. winky.gif So then, assuming this figure is even correct, 11% would be too much? Or more like 90%?

When does a conflict of interest become significant enough for you to declare it problematic? I'd really like to know because right now, the line you are drawing sounds arbitrary, irrational, and ill-defined.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#64 of 73 Old 10-19-2013, 07:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


*Less than* 10%? Oh good. I feel so much better now. winky.gif So then, assuming this figure is even correct, 11% would be too much? Or more like 90%?

When does a conflict of interest become significant enough for you to declare it problematic? I'd really like to know because right now, the line you are drawing sounds arbitrary, irrational, and ill-defined.

 

Honestly? It wouldn't matter if vaccines made up 90 percent of pharmaceutical companies profits.  A product or medication's safety is not based on how much money it makes the company producing them.  Their safety is determined by studies and constant monitoring of possible side effects. As the quotes I posted earlier stated, big pharma makes  IV antibiotics that have been shown to be extremely safe and effective. I really don't know how else to explain it.  There isn't some committee that sits around calculating a medications safety and efficacy based on how much profit it makes. It just doesn't work that way. Science doesn't work that way. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#65 of 73 Old 10-19-2013, 07:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Translation:  Drug companies are shady, greedy, and profit-driven!  But some of their products are good!  Therefore vaccines must be good! 

 

That's the translation you got from that? Interesting. That line of thinking is just as illogical as saying X company produced Y drug that turned out to be unsafe, therefore all drugs that X company produce are unsafe and can't be trusted.  Funny how you think the reverse is so illogical but don't seem to acknowledge that it's illogical both ways.

 

A product or medication is safe if it has been shown to be safe through testing and constant monitoring.  And yes, vaccines *are* constantly monitored. An example Offit gave: 

 

"There was a rotavirus vaccine that was introduced in the United States in 1998. It had been tested in 10,000 children before licensure, where it was found to be safe. But when it was then given to a million children, it was found to be a rare cause of something called intussusception, which is an intestinal blockage where your small intestine telescopes into itself and can compromise blood flow to the intestinal surface, which can lead to severe bleeding [and] can also lead to invasion of bacteria. It's a medical emergency.

And of the million children then that got that vaccine, about 100 developed this intussusception, which is to say, one per 10,000. One child died from that vaccine. And it was immediately taken off the market. But it shows you, I think, how quickly and well we were able to respond to an unanticipated side effect. And again, even though the vaccine was tested in 10,000 children pre-licensure, you weren't going to be able to detect an event that occurred in 1 per 10,000 children. Obviously, that was only going to happen post-licensure. It was picked up in 10 months and was off the market." 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/offit.html


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#66 of 73 Old 10-19-2013, 07:52 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

What are the independent agencies that regulate vaccines?

 And this answer is????? Oh t
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

That's the translation you got from that? Interesting. That line of thinking is just as illogical as saying X company produced Y drug that turned out to be unsafe, therefore all drugs that X company produce are unsafe and can't be trusted.  Funny how you think the reverse is so illogical but don't seem to acknowledge that it's illogical both ways.

A product or medication is safe if it has been shown to be safe through testing and constant monitoring.  And yes, vaccines *are* constantly monitored. An example Offit gave: 

"There was a rotavirus vaccine that was introduced in the United States in 1998. It had been tested in 10,000 children before licensure, where it was found to be safe. But when it was then given to a million children, it was found to be a rare cause of something called intussusception, which is an intestinal blockage where your small intestine telescopes into itself and can compromise blood flow to the intestinal surface, which can lead to severe bleeding [and] can also lead to invasion of bacteria. It's a medical emergency.

And of the million children then that got that vaccine, about 100 developed this intussusception, which is to say, one per 10,000. One child died from that vaccine. And it was immediately taken off the market. But it shows you, I think, how quickly and well we were able to respond to an unanticipated side effect. And again, even though the vaccine was tested in 10,000 children pre-licensure, you weren't going to be able to detect an event that occurred in 1 per 10,000 children. Obviously, that was only going to happen post-licensure. It was picked up in 10 months and was off the market." 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/offit.html
Tea your reply is also wanted on the other thread/ we are all waiting for you to avoid that questionS too!!

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#67 of 73 Old 10-19-2013, 12:00 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Honestly? It wouldn't matter if vaccines made up 90 percent of pharmaceutical companies profits.  A product or medication's safety is not based on how much money it makes the company producing them.  Their safety is determined by studies and constant monitoring of possible side effects. As the quotes I posted earlier stated, big pharma makes  IV antibiotics that have been shown to be extremely safe and effective. I really don't know how else to explain it.  There isn't some committee that sits around calculating a medications safety and efficacy based on how much profit it makes. It just doesn't work that way. Science doesn't work that way. 

Then what on earth was the point of posting your meme when you admit that it wouldn't make a difference either way?? dizzy.gif

The above response completely misrepresents my point, so let's try this again. There are conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy-making. Your meme conveys that they are not a big deal because "only" a certain amount of drug company profit comes from vaccines. Would conflicts of interest be a problem for you if *more* of drug company profits came from vaccines?

Should we look at these conflicts of interest with an attitude of, "Ladee-dadee-da! I can't see that, I can't hear that!?" Is it that COI's are not a big deal until they are? And if so, at what specific point should we deem them a big deal? When drug companies make a certain amount from vaccines? When Merck hires 15 more lobbyists, funds 12 more political campaigns, hires 100 more doctors as "consultants?"

Or is your claim that there is no such thing whatsoever as conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy-making?

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#68 of 73 Old 10-19-2013, 03:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Then what on earth was the point of posting your meme when you admit that it wouldn't make a difference either way?? dizzy.gif
 

 

I meant it doesn't make a difference *to me* how much profit vaccines make pharmaceutical companies. If studies and science have proved them to be safe, how much money they bring in is irrelevant.  

 

I posted the meme because I see the argument being made a lot online that vaccines are some kind of cash cow for the pharma companies, or the bread and butter of pharma companies etc and it just isn't true.  Other than the flu vaccine, most vaccines are given just a few times in a persons life. There just isn't a ton of money to be made in that. Anti depressants, or medications for high blood pressure or medications for diabetes that can be taken everyday for decades are far more lucrative. As the meme pointed out, annual sales for just one drug, Lipitor, are greater than the entire worldwide revenues for all vaccines.


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#69 of 73 Old 10-19-2013, 08:34 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Honestly, and I'm speaking strictly for myself here, the "cash cow" aspect doesn't bother me. Whether you weave baskets or manufacture vaccines, there's nothing wrong with making money. But here's the hitch. Money-making needs to be done ethically.

So I ask again: Do you agree that there are conflicts of interest in vaccine research and vaccine-related policy-making? If so, to what extent are they significant and problematic?

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#70 of 73 Old 10-19-2013, 08:57 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,934
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

That's the translation you got from that? Interesting. That line of thinking is just as illogical as saying X company produced Y drug that turned out to be unsafe, therefore all drugs that X company produce are unsafe and can't be trusted.

It's not the fact that Y drug turned out to be unsafe. It's that X company withheld evidence of harm, and that is where I draw the line. Once X company has been caught  lying, then I lose faith in them.  See, this is what happens when someone lies--how can you know when they are telling the truth and when they are not?

 

Most pharmaceutical companies depend on a vaccine program for a reliable source of earnings. It may be a small percentage, but reliable is the key here. If anything threatens the vaccine program, then all the companies will take a loss. Now, one or two novelty vaccines, like rota, might fall through the cracks, but the main ones on the schedule are too "big to fail". I don't think any pharmaceutical company wants to lose their steady, reliable, important revenue generated by vaccines.

 

Quote:
Do you agree that there are conflicts of interest in vaccine research and vaccine-related policy-making? If so, to what extent are they significant and problematic? 

Good question!

Pookietooth likes this.

 
 
 "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  
#71 of 73 Old 10-20-2013, 07:42 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

It's not the fact that Y drug turned out to be unsafe. It's that X company withheld evidence of harm, and that is where I draw the line. Once X company has been caught  lying, then I lose faith in them.  See, this is what happens when someone lies--how can you know when they are telling the truth and when they are not?

 

Most pharmaceutical companies depend on a vaccine program for a reliable source of earnings. It may be a small percentage, but reliable is the key here. If anything threatens the vaccine program, then all the companies will take a loss. Now, one or two novelty vaccines, like rota, might fall through the cracks, but the main ones on the schedule are too "big to fail". I don't think any pharmaceutical company wants to lose their steady, reliable, important revenue generated by vaccines.

 

Good question!

 

"See, this is what happens when someone lies--how can you know when they are telling the truth and when they are not?" 

 

I think the fairly recent GSK scandal is a great example of the system working as it's supposed to. The FDA found the fraud. The US Department of Justice prosecuted the company that perpetrated the fraud. And GSK paid a huge price for its criminal and civil liabilities. Working as intended. 

 

"If anything threatens the vaccine program, then all the companies will take a loss." 

 

I actually disagree with you on this point. Pharmaceutical companies would make a lot more money treating the diseases than they would producing vaccines. This is a good explanation. 

 

"Let’s take an example of just one infectious disease, measles. According to the CDC, one hospitalization for a serious measles complication costs more than US$142 thousand. Typical cost breakdown of hospital billing indicates that pharmaceuticals and other consumables (syringes, IV’s, saline, etc.) are around 35-40% of the total cost to the patient. Now, a hospital marks up the costs to the patient, so let’s just go with 20% revenue from one measles case flows to Big Pharma, or around US$28,000.

 

Let’s assume that Big Pharma ended production of all vaccines today. According to the CDC (pdf), there are about 4 million births in the USA every year. Starting today, those 4 million children annually will not be vaccinated.

 

Let’s say in 2016, there’s an outbreak of measles that hits the 12 million US kids who are not vaccinated. Again, according to the CDC, about 30% end up being hospitalized, so of the 12 million or so kids who catch the measles (it’s very contagious, so I’m just going to assume that everyone catches it, which is not far from what would really happen), about 3,600,000 would end up being seriously hospitalized. That would mean one outbreak of one disease in one country would end up giving about 100 billion dollars to Big Pharma. 

 

Again, one disease. In one country. Multiply these numbers out over all countries and all diseases, and those Big Pharma execs would be rolling gold bars into their corporate headquarters. So, if Big Pharma were only interested in making money in the most unethical way possible, they’d be funding the anti-vaccine movement. " 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/big-pharma-supports-antivaccine-movement-conspirac-vaccines-maybe-not/

I know a lot of you don't like SR, but his claims are sourced to links from the CDC, and I think he makes some great points. 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#72 of 73 Old 10-21-2013, 04:03 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"See, this is what happens when someone lies--how can you know when they are telling the truth and when they are not?" 

I think the fairly recent GSK scandal is a great example of the system working as it's supposed to. The FDA found the fraud. The US Department of Justice prosecuted the company that perpetrated the fraud. And GSK paid a huge price for its criminal and civil liabilities. Working as intended. 

And this is an example of a fallacious alibi: pointing to one sham example as "proof" of an entire modus operandi.

One only has to look at history for well-known examples.

It's just another way to switch the focus.
Taximom5 is online now  
#73 of 73 Old 10-21-2013, 05:29 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

"See, this is what happens when someone lies--how can you know when they are telling the truth and when they are not?" 

 

I think the fairly recent GSK scandal is a great example of the system working as it's supposed to. The FDA found the fraud. The US Department of Justice prosecuted the company that perpetrated the fraud. And GSK paid a huge price for its criminal and civil liabilities. Working as intended. 

 

 

That they were deceitful and they were caught does not change the fact they were deceitful.

Pookietooth likes this.

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  
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