Debate this meme - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 08:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)

 

Source: 

 

"For example, a one-year supply of Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering agent, costs about $1,6oo; a one-year supply of influenza vaccine costs about $8.oo. It is, therefore, not surprising that annual sales for Lipitor are greater than the entire worldwide revenues for all vaccines."

"For the four companies that still make vaccines, gross annual revenues from vaccines are less than 10 percent of total revenues; internationally vaccines account for about 1.5 percent of total revenues. Pharmaceutical companies are businesses, not public health agencies; they could stop making vaccines tomorrow without much of an impact on their bottom line"

Dr. Paul A. Offit M.D.. The Cutter Incident: How America's First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis (Kindle Locations 2215-2216). Kindle Edition.

The reference Dr Offit used:
Vaccine revenues: Interview with Kevin Connelly, Merck Vaccine Division, February 2003.

 

I just think it's silly when people try to argue that pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence about vaccine dangers and purposefully harming children for money when vaccines are really just a drop in the bucket for them.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#2 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 08:39 AM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It makes me wonder...and I really have no idea what the answer to this is...how much the pharma companies would make from OTC and prescription meds & treatments if children still got all the usual childhood diseases...mumps, measles, CP, etc.  I'm thinking (just as an example), that if they don't already have an anti-viral that would help treat CP (like the ones that treat cold sores), no doubt someone would develop one.  Seems like as long as diseases exist to prevent and/or treat, pharma companies will make $$$ from it. 

applejuice and teacozy like this.
moderatemom is offline  
#3 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 09:13 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)

What if I told you that "Merck held data for three years that proved Vioxx caused an alarming increase in the risk of heart attacks and strokes. And yet Merck chose not to release that data. In fact, it took three more years of patients dying from heart attacks before Vioxx was pulled off the market, and even then, Merck insisted the drug was not dangerous."


If vaccine sales only amount to 10% of total revenue, that is still a large amount. Businesses strive for profit, and even a fraction of a percent in losses is a huge deal. Losing 10%, or even 1% of revenue is unacceptable to any large business. Vaccines are a reliable cash cow for the pharmaceutical companies, and the ever-expanding US schedule assures future revenue.
 
I wonder what lengths a pharmaceutical company will go in order to prevent loss. Vioxx is one example of dishonest practice, yet I am expected to trust in the integrity of these companies. No thanks!
For the record, I disagree with the liberal use of statins too. It's ironic the meme uses Lipitor as a defense. Overuse of Lipitor (and other statins) might be shown to be harmful in the years to come, just wait and see.
Pookietooth, Mirzam and applejuice 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  
#4 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 09:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

It makes me wonder...and I really have no idea what the answer to this is...how much the pharma companies would make from OTC and prescription meds & treatments if children still got all the usual childhood diseases...mumps, measles, CP, etc.  I'm thinking (just as an example), that if they don't already have an anti-viral that would help treat CP (like the ones that treat cold sores), no doubt someone would develop one.  Seems like as long as diseases exist to prevent and/or treat, pharma companies will make $$$ from it. 

 

I'm not sure either but I bet it would be a lot.  But can you imagine how much hospitals would make treating the diseases? I believe it's 1 out of every 25 kids with measles gets pneumonia (can't remember the exact number) and just a 5 day hospital stay in the US could cost 10s of thousands of dollars.  Or whooping cough. I've heard of infants being hospitalized for weeks and weeks.  That could easily run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range for just one baby.  

 

I've also wondered why, if pediatricians push vaccines for money as some claim, more of them wouldn't be open to a delayed schedule? More visits would = more money right?  Doesn't seem to make sense.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#5 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 10:06 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
TeaCozy: Subscribe to FiercePharma & FierceVaccines today. (these are industry publications for the Pharma & Vax industries, targeted @ prospective employees, investors, etc). Then you will see that Pharma now regards vaccines as a *major* growth area.

This statement may have been true @ the time Dr. Offit wrote it, but it is no longer true. It is deeply ingenuous IMO to characterize Vaxes as a 'public service offering'. They are definitely still a business.

It also involves FAR less risk, which is part of the equation. Drug trials pay a guinea pig (human) 2-3G & require in house observation. Vax trials pay 2-3 HUNDRED & do not require the company to house OR feed participants. Then you can still have million dollar drug payouts, which is no longer true for ANY scheduled Vax.

So um, no.
dinahx is offline  
#6 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 10:13 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And most Peds do not charge for shot only visits, beyond the cost of the shot. My (regular corporate) Ped *never gives any shots* he has his nurses/MAs do it & only charges for the cost of the shot, not an office visit.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#7 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 02:54 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

I just think it's silly when people try to argue that pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence about vaccine dangers and purposefully harming children for money when vaccines are really just a drop in the bucket for them.  

My primary concern with pharmaceutical companies and their studies is not that they "hide" evidence.  I am pretty sure they do on occasion (MMR and Merck, IIRC).  My issues are with conflict of interest, revolving doors between CDC and pharmaceutical companies, selection bias in publishing, people  not doing the kind of studies I would like to see. 

 

Pharmaceutical companies are absolutely in this for the money.  What you are calling a drop in the bucket is millions if not billions of dollars in profit.  They want that profit.

 

The whole "they would not do anything unethical (your words, not mine) for small amounts of profit"  implies they are buyable for a price.

 

Either pharmaceutical companies will or will not deceive for any price (in which case it is irrelevant how much they make, and your point is invalid)

or

Pharmaceutical companies will deceive at a certain price - in which case everyone needs to be extra wary if their profit goes up, or with certain vaccines which make decent money, such as HPV.


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  
#8 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 03:18 PM
 
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)

Let's say a pharmaceutical company knows of a problem, but does not disclose it (Vioxx is such a great example). How is this any better than harming people on purpose? Either way, the consumer was harmed, right?

 

OP, You're saying that a company would never intentionally harm people, and I'm saying that withholding important info is just as bad as intentionally harming.  Deceiving at any price is equivalent to intentional harm, at least in my opinion! The end result is the same.

 

I agree with Kathy about the revolving door problem. The system is less than ideal!

applejuice and Taximom5 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  
#9 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 04:51 PM
 
pinkpeony7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The patents of blockbuster drugs eventually expire, so pharmaceutical companies need to keep churning out new drugs to make a profit. Vaccines are exempt from this so they are a steady stream of revenue, especially once added to the childhood schedule, for decades. Vaccine manufactuers are actively seeking to expand their markets throughout the world. I only see the vaccine market getting more and more lucrative for them.

It also helps their bottom lines that they don't have to spend money on legal fees when their products have adverse effects. They are shielded from litigation.

No wonder there are currently hundreds of vaccines in development. It seems like there's lots of money to be made and very little risk compared to traditional drugs
pinkpeony7 is offline  
#10 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 08:28 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
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?

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#11 of 73 Old 10-08-2013, 09:00 PM
 
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 teacozy View Post
 

 

 

 

I just think it's silly when people try to argue that pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence about vaccine dangers and purposefully harming children for money when vaccines are really just a drop in the bucket for them.  

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.

 

How about damage from Vioxx? And Lipitor?  For that matter, how about the tobacco companies? Yup, same thing.  The manufacturers did everything they could to deny harm, including fabricating studies that supposedly indicated safety.  Indeed, the tobacco manufacturers still don't admit that cigarettes cause cancer.

 

And that's exactly what has happened with vaccines.

 

Please, teacozy, let's get this straight once and for all, okay?  I'm getting awfully tired of correcting the same misquoting over and over again.

Taximom5 is offline  
#12 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 06:10 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

 

How about damage from Vioxx? And Lipitor?  For that matter, how about the tobacco companies? Yup, same thing.  The manufacturers did everything they could to deny harm, including fabricating studies that supposedly indicated safety.  Indeed, the tobacco manufacturers still don't admit that cigarettes cause cancer.

 

And that's exactly what has happened with vaccines.

 

Please, teacozy, let's get this straight once and for all, okay?  I'm getting awfully tired of correcting the same misquoting over and over again.

 

We talked about this on another thread. I even gave several examples where members of this forum believed the government/big pharma were purposefully trying to harm children.  In any case, the kind of cover up that has been alleged is happening with vaccines would be purposefully harming children.  IE pharma knows vaccines cause autism, diabetes, asthma etc and are just hiding the evidence. It's not alleged that they are accidentally hiding evidence is it?  So it is purposeful. 

 

As far as the examples with other drugs... no one has claimed that pharma has never done anything wrong. I have even provided quotes from sciencebasedmedicine where they talk about the fact that pharma has done corrupt things in the past.   When there is a strong link between a certain drug and side effects, they tend to be found out just like the examples you gave me. 

 

Vaccines are also held to a *much* higher standard than other drugs due to the fact that they are given to almost all children when they are healthy.  "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.

For example, people tolerate far less risk from the vaccine used to prevent infection with Haemophilus influenzae type b than they do the antibiotics that are used to treat the infections it causes."   http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-safety/concerns-about-vaccine-safety

Also, when a link between vaccines and certain conditions is found it *is* reported.  There was a thread recently about rotavirus causing intussusception in a small percentage of babies. It wasn't hidden and actually gave me more confidence in knowing that vaccine side effects are monitored closely and are taken seriously by the CDC and other organizations.  You can find the information on the CDC website, clearly they are not trying to hide it. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#13 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 06:46 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Taximom, the psychology of self-deception and cogntive dissonance plays a powerful role in what you're describing.

No one in their mother said, "Let's produce thalidomide, harm babies, and then cook the evidence." Unethical things don't happen immediately, following some conspiratorial board meeting and symbolic pinky swear. FIREdevil.gif They creep up on us, (all of us!), quite gradually. It's the banality of evil on a smaller scale.

First, a politician has lunch with a lobbyist. Why not? The politician is tired and hungry. Legislative sessions do that to a person. The lobbyist seems nice. It's just a sandwich. Besides, isn't this just an inevitable piece of how politics work? Isn't it a good idea to learn about the issues, and isn't this a convenient way for a busy senator to do just that? Then lunch turns to a steak dinner because, really, since lunch is OK, how is dinner much different? And since you're dining at a country club, is it really a terrible thing to sneak in a round of golf...? One year later, Senator So-and-So is off on a corporate-sponsored ski trip to the Poconos, constituents are outraged, and the senator can't fathom why. But if, at the beginning of his/her rookie term, some corporate lobbyist had just cold-turkey offered up that ski trip, the Senator probably would have declined. (A multi-term senator then would have probably laughed at the naivete. "You're new here. You'll soon learn how things work." )

I think it was a couple of years ago that The Story, a show on public radio, interviewed a former pharmaceutical sales rep. The guy was fascinated by science and medicine, and he went into the job eager to put those passions to work. Then the pressure to sell crept in. No problem. He still cared about people. Then he realized that his position had nothing to do with science. They could have just as easily hired somebody with a background in art history. Then he realized he had a gift for manipulation. That gift gave him a sense of power. Selling became a fun game of conquest . . . and down and down the spiral he went. I wonder if the Guardasil salespeople undergo a similar moral erosion.

It's interesting stuff. But those who employ the disingenuous strawman, "You think they're purposefully harming children!," have no clue how this complex process is.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#14 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 06:54 AM
 
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 teacozy View Post
 

 

 In any case, the kind of cover up that has been alleged is happening with vaccines would be purposefully harming children.  

Let's see if teacozy can provide a direct answer to a direct question:

Teacozy, do you believe that the pharmaceutical industry WAS purposely harmful to children when they attempted to cover up the effects of thalidomide?

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#15 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 07:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Let's see if teacozy can provide a direct answer to a direct question:

Teacozy, do you believe that the pharmaceutical industry WAS purposely harmful to children when they attempted to cover up the effects of thalidomide?

 

I'll admit I am not extremely knowledgeable about the thalidomide scandal but I do know a little. I wasn't able to find any evidence that the pharmaceutical company knew ahead of time that it would cause birth defects.  The safety testing standards in the 50s was much lower than it is now and they had never tested the drug on pregnant animals. The harmful effects of the drug were noticed pretty quickly and it was pulled from the market in most countries just a few years after it was approved. Again, the link between the drug and harmful side effects was obvious (by contrast, the links between vaccines and the many conditions that are blamed on them are not). 

 

If there was evidence that the pharmaceutical knew the effects of thalidomide, hid or destroyed the evidence, didn't try to stop or prevent legislation to make it mandatory for virtually everyone (like vaccines), kept it on the market for 50 years (MMR) while knowing the damaging effects it had on children then yes, I would say they deliberately did things that harmed children and should be held accountable for it. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#16 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 08:08 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I keep telling you: watch the film Bad Blood. Pharma knowingly shipped HIV contaminated, untreated Factor overseas to Hemophiliacs after 10,000 in the US had been infected. Yes, @ first they didn't know & underestimited the severity of HIV, but then they did know. They also did not recall the untreated factor after the problem became obvious, allowing it to stay in Dr offices & refrigerators. If the argument here is that there has always been no real malfeasance from Pharma, well that argument would fail . . .

Thalidomide is still prescribed, just not to pregnant women. But we know that Pharmaceuticals get into the water supply.
dinahx is offline  
#17 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 08:17 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)

Look into Vioxx, a very recent example of Merck intentionally withholding evidence of harm. Was this acceptable?

 

 Most of the large pharmaceutical companies manufacture vaccines. While each company has its own individual drugs, vaccines are a  product they all have in common. If anything happened to threaten vaccine sales, then ALL of the companies involved would suffer. For that reason, I believe all companies involved would want to protect vaccines. 10% is not so small when you think about it. 

applejuice likes 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  
#18 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 08:29 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:

 

I'll admit I am not extremely knowledgeable about the thalidomide scandal but I do know a little. I wasn't able to find any evidence that the pharmaceutical company knew ahead of time that it would cause birth defects.  The safety testing standards in the 50s was much lower than it is now and they had never tested the drug on pregnant animals. The harmful effects of the drug were noticed pretty quickly and it was pulled from the market in most countries just a few years after it was approved. Again, the link between the drug and harmful side effects was obvious (by contrast, the links between vaccines and the many conditions that are blamed on them are not). 

 

If there was evidence that the pharmaceutical knew the effects of thalidomide, hid or destroyed the evidence, didn't try to stop or prevent legislation to make it mandatory for virtually everyone (like vaccines), kept it on the market for 50 years (MMR) while knowing the damaging effects it had on children then yes, I would say they deliberately did things that harmed children and should be held accountable for it. 

 

Quote:
"I wasn't able to find any evidence that the pharmaceutical company knew ahead of time that it would cause birth defects."

Duh.

 

Here is short Thalidomide timeline for your education:

 

April 1961: Australian doctor, W.G. McBride notified the representatives of Distillers (manufacturer of Thalidomide in Australia) about his suspicions of the link between Thalidomide and malformations. Distillers in England claimed they never recieved the written report and sales promotion of the drug was stepped up and a quarter of a million leaflets distrubuted saying Thalidomide was "Harmless even over a long period of use" and "completely harmless even for infants".

 

May 4 1961: Dr McBride reported further malformations due to Thalidomide and succeeded in convincing his bosses at his hospital to withdraw the drug. He reported more malformed babies in October and November.

 

November 27 1961: Thalidomide was withdrawn from the UK market.

 

January 6 and February 3 1962: Prof. Widijung Lenz who had warned against Thalidomide in Germany published evidence of deformities in the Lancet.  Chemie Grunenthal continued prescribing Thalidomide, stepping up its advertising and intensive marketing despite criticism of doctors.


March 4 1962 Thalidomide was removed from the shelves in Germany because of public opinion and against the wishes of Chemie Grunenthal.  News of the dangers of Thalidomide was played down by the media.  In many cases malformed births occurred after the drug was withdrawn as mothers, in posession of the drug, took it never realising the risks involved.  At the time of withdrawl of Thalidomide in Germany thousands of malformed babies had been born, thousands of women required extensive psychiatric treatment and there were many suicides.  (Thalidomide continued to be prescribed to pregnant women in Canada until August 1962.)

 

Interesingly Dr McBride was stuck off for "scientific fraud" for claiming another anti-morning sickness drug, Debenox, also caused birth defects. IN a book he claimed during that the US pharmaceutical company Marion Merrell Dow which marketed Debendox, worked with an unnamed 'mole' in Australia to stop him from speaking out against the drug. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/thalidomide-doctor-alleges-plot-to-gag-him-1424275.html

 

applejuice 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  
#19 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 08:41 AM
 
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 teacozy View Post
 

 

I'll admit I am not extremely knowledgeable about the thalidomide scandal but I do know a little. I wasn't able to find any evidence that the pharmaceutical company knew ahead of time that it would cause birth defects.  The safety testing standards in the 50s was much lower than it is now and they had never tested the drug on pregnant animals. The harmful effects of the drug were noticed pretty quickly and it was pulled from the market in most countries just a few years after it was approved. Again, the link between the drug and harmful side effects was obvious (by contrast, the links between vaccines and the many conditions that are blamed on them are not). 

 

If there was evidence that the pharmaceutical knew the effects of thalidomide, hid or destroyed the evidence, didn't try to stop or prevent legislation to make it mandatory for virtually everyone (like vaccines), kept it on the market for 50 years (MMR) while knowing the damaging effects it had on children then yes, I would say they deliberately did things that harmed children and should be held accountable for it. 

Interesting response, teacozy!  VERY interesting.

 

You didn't really answer the question, did you?  
 

Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

 

Take your time.  Look it up. Here are a few places to start.  The first 3 discuss the evidence that the manufacturer covered up data that indicated harm from their product.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/01/thalidomide-cover-up

http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-50year-global-coverup-20120725-22r5c.html

http://www.theage.com.au/national/i-am-afraid-all-companies-are-pretty-heartless-20120725-22r16.html

 

and even
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_182.html

"Dr. Frances Kelsey took her stand against thalidomide during her first month at the Food and Drug Administration, on her first assignment. The task was supposed to be a straightforward review of a sleeping pill already widely used in Europe, but Kelsey was concerned by some data suggesting dangerous side effects in patients who took the drug repeatedly. While she continued to withhold approval, [b]the manufacturers tried everything they could to get around her judgement."[/b]

 

And then please answer the question.  Do you think the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

 

Please don't try to change the subject to whether the manufacturer should be held accountable.  That was not the question.

 

Do you think the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

Mirzam and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#20 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 09:12 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)

I don't have time to respond to everyone and I don't have time to read all the links, I'm trying to make my son's lunch. 

 

The argument that since pharmaceutical companies have done bad things in the past that means vaccines are unsafe is a  logical fallacy anyway.  SR explains it well while talking about GMOs " This is the False Dichotomy logical fallacy, which states that there are only two possible, and usually opposite, positions from which to choose. You will hear many times from GMO refusers that “either you’re against GMO’s or you support Monsanto’s plan to do XYZ.” In fact, there’s a perfectly valid position that Monsanto is a bad company, but GMO crops are still safe. It’s possible to say that Monsanto is a polluter, but GMO crops are safe. But the worst part of the False Dichotomy fallacy is that the GMO refusers wants you to believe that if one argument is shown false (or true), the other argument is true (or false). In fact, one form of this argument has been renamed argumentum ad Monsantium, that is, if you support genetically modified foods, you must love Monsanto. "  http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/bad-science-checklist-gmo-opponents/

 

Or in this case "Either you believe that pharmaceutical companies are never corrupt or you admit vaccine reactions have been hidden"  I can believe that pharmaceutical companies can be corrupt but also believe that vaccines are safe. 

 

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.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#21 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 09:24 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)

You're still not answering the question.

 

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MANUFACTURER OF THALIDOMIDE WAS DELIBERATELY TRYING TO HARM CHILDREN?

 

You had time (while making your son's lunch!) to write several paragraphs.

 

Surely you have time to answer yes or no to the above question.

Taximom5 is offline  
#22 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 11:16 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 teacozy View Post
 In fact, there’s a perfectly valid position that Monsanto is a bad company, but GMO crops are still safe. It’s possible to say that Monsanto is a polluter, but GMO crops are safe.
 

SkepticalRaptor has struck again! I can't seem to get away from this guy.

 

It is true--GMO crops might indeed be safe, while Monsanto is still a bad company. HOWEVER, how are we to really know if GMOs are safe, when Monsanto conducts its own safety studies???? Their safety assurances mean nothing to me. I trust the independent studies more than I trust Monsanto's studies, simple as that.

 

Moving on.  I Hate the argument that corruption happened in the past, like with Thalidomide. You acknowledge it did happen, but assume it does not happen anymore. Yet, when presented with more recent examples (Vioxx), what is your response?  As for the MMR,  2 whistleblowers alleged that Merck lied about the vaccine's efficacy. This means that children receiveng the MMR were possibly denied full protection--as a vaccinating parent, this should outrage you. Unless you think the whistleblowers are lying, and Merck is telling the truth. Merck and truth....do they belong in the same sentence lol?

Pookietooth and Mirzam 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  
#23 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 12:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Moving on.  I Hate the argument that corruption happened in the past, like with Thalidomide. You acknowledge it did happen, but assume it does not happen anymore. Yet, when presented with more recent examples (Vioxx), what is your response? 

 

As I already stated in my last post you can believe that pharmaceutical companies sometimes hide evidence while also believing that vaccines are safe and effective. 

 

The vast majority of those who perform and publish studies on vaccine safety and efficacy are not in any way tied to any pharmaceutical companies.  Here are some other reasons why this idea/conspiracy theory about pharmaceutical companies hiding vaccine evidence is not true. 

 

"..You might not be familiar enough with the medical literature to know this, but studies come out regularly which are really bad for the pharmaceutical companies. Let's start with vaccines themselves. Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is one of the biggest killers of infants and young children in the U.S. For years, pharmaceutical companies have tried to make a vaccine. If a pharmaceutical company could get an RSV vaccine licensed, it would make millions! However, one has never been approved. Why? Because the studies done on the vaccines that have been made demonstrate that they are not safe enough or effective enough to be considered a reliable medicine1,2.

Now if the pharmaceutical companies were able to "rig" things to make their products look good so as to cash in on the misery of the American people, why didn't they "rig" these studies to show that the RSV vaccines were safe and effective?" 

 

This came from a great post that gives examples and explains why pharma companies have not buried evidence about vaccine safety. Although I don't agree with his second "reason". It's not super long and I encourage you to read it. I am curious what the response would be.  http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_pharm

 

@Taximom can you please calm down? I tried answering your question on the first page. I really don't know enough about the scandal to say one way or the other whether or not I believe they purposefully harmed children. The information I have read so far indicates they did not. 

 

I did respond and say that if that company did what some allege big pharma has done with vaccine safety I would consider that purposefully doing something that harms children. I encourage you to read the link I posted to understand why I do not believe pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence of vaccine harm.  As I stated in another post, vaccines are held to a much higher safety standard than other medications. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#24 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 12:24 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Your last statement is not true if you actually look @ how the trials are done. I have a relative that participates in PharmTrials on a career basis (as do all of his compadres, they just wait long enough between trials to test clean and are mostly healthy young men). 

 

I can always tell if he is doing a drug trial: he will be in a facility for 2 weeks, have his diet rigidly controlled, be observed for side effects by doctors & nurses (like no 'self report'), receive medical exams, blood tests, etc. He will be paid 2-3 thousand dollars for his 'time'. He will sometimes receive a placebo.

 

I can also always tell if he is doing a Vax trial: he will go to an office, there won't be a placebo, he will be there for an hour, he will receive the shot and call in his OWN self reported side effects. He will only get paid 2-3 HUNDRED dollars.

 

IDK one clearly seems more scientifically rigorous to me.

Pookietooth likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#25 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 03:33 PM
 
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 teacozy View Post
 

 

@Taximom can you please calm down? I tried answering your question on the first page. I really don't know enough about the scandal to say one way or the other whether or not I believe they purposefully harmed children. The information I have read so far indicates they did not. 

 

I did respond and say that if that company did what some allege big pharma has done with vaccine safety I would consider that purposefully doing something that harms children. I encourage you to read the link I posted to understand why I do not believe pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence of vaccine harm.  As I stated in another post, vaccines are held to a much higher safety standard than other medications. 

You haven't answered the question at all.

 

I asked you to do a bit of research and tell us whether you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies.  I gave you some links to help you research it.

 

Here is one more question.  It's an easy one, requiring only a yes or no answer:  do you acknowledge that there is no doubt that the manufacturer of thalidomide engaged in a coverup of the harm from thalidomide?

 

And, back to the original question (also requiring only a yes or no answer), do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?

 

2 very simple, direct questions, with a request for a direct  answer, with no BS.

 

We all anxiously await your answer.

:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk 

Taximom5 is offline  
#26 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 03:43 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

As I already stated in my last post you can believe that pharmaceutical companies sometimes hide evidence while also believing that vaccines are safe and effective. 

 

Well, if you believe a pharmaceutical company hides evidence then that makes them somewhat untrustworthy.  I understand rolling the dice when you have a nasty illness of some kind.   OTOH, if your child is in good health, there is no epidemic or outbreak of a VAD and/or the disease in question is mild, why would you roll the dice with a company that is not trustworthy?

 

The vast majority of those who perform and publish studies on vaccine safety and efficacy are not in any way tied to any pharmaceutical companies. Please post a link to quantify this "vast majority."   I do not think it is correct.   

 

Pookietooth and BeckyBird like 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  
#27 of 73 Old 10-09-2013, 05:15 PM
 
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)

Yeah Kathy, I thought the Pharma companies conducted their own studies. After all, who else has enough money to conduct the studies?

 

Teacozy, I would also like to know the answers to Taximom's questions. I did not see where they were answered on the first page.

 

1. Do you acknowledge that there is no doubt that the manufacturer of thalidomide engaged in a coverup of the harm from thalidomide?

2. Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?

 

My answers:

1. Yes

2. Yes. By withholding info, they knew it would result in harm, yet continued with the coverup. Sad!


               "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  
#28 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 06:53 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)

I thought it might be helpful to do a recap of a direct question that was asked in response to teacozy's statement in the OP, and the answers.  Well, actually, they weren't really answers.  They look more like evasions to me.  It's a bit easier to follow when all the off-topic conversation is edited out.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I just think it's silly when people try to argue that pharmaceutical companies are hiding evidence about vaccine dangers and purposefully harming children for money when vaccines are really just a drop in the bucket for them.  

 

Quote:

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.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

We talked about this on another thread. I even gave several examples where members of this forum believed the government/big pharma were purposefully trying to harm children...  

 

... no one has claimed that pharma has never done anything wrong. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Let's see if teacozy can provide a direct answer to a direct question:

Teacozy, do you believe that the pharmaceutical industry WAS purposely harmful to children when they attempted to cover up the effects of thalidomide?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I'll admit I am not extremely knowledgeable about the thalidomide scandal but I do know a little. I wasn't able to find any evidence that the pharmaceutical company knew ahead of time that it would cause birth defects. ...

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Duh.

 

Here is short Thalidomide timeline for your education:

 

April 1961: Australian doctor, W.G. McBride notified the representatives of Distillers (manufacturer of Thalidomide in Australia) about his suspicions of the link between Thalidomide and malformations. Distillers in England claimed they never recieved the written report and sales promotion of the drug was stepped up and a quarter of a million leaflets distrubuted saying Thalidomide was "Harmless even over a long period of use" and "completely harmless even for infants".

 

May 4 1961: Dr McBride reported further malformations due to Thalidomide and succeeded in convincing his bosses at his hospital to withdraw the drug. He reported more malformed babies in October and November.

 

November 27 1961: Thalidomide was withdrawn from the UK market.

 

January 6 and February 3 1962: Prof. Widijung Lenz who had warned against Thalidomide in Germany published evidence of deformities in the Lancet.  Chemie Grunenthal continued prescribing Thalidomide, stepping up its advertising and intensive marketing despite criticism of doctors.


March 4 1962 Thalidomide was removed from the shelves in Germany because of public opinion and against the wishes of Chemie Grunenthal.  News of the dangers of Thalidomide was played down by the media.  In many cases malformed births occurred after the drug was withdrawn as mothers, in posession of the drug, took it never realising the risks involved.  At the time of withdrawl of Thalidomide in Germany thousands of malformed babies had been born, thousands of women required extensive psychiatric treatment and there were many suicides.  (Thalidomide continued to be prescribed to pregnant women in Canada until August 1962.)

 

Interesingly Dr McBride was stuck off for "scientific fraud" for claiming another anti-morning sickness drug, Debenox, also caused birth defects. IN a book he claimed during that the US pharmaceutical company Marion Merrell Dow which marketed Debendox, worked with an unnamed 'mole' in Australia to stop him from speaking out against the drug. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/thalidomide-doctor-alleges-plot-to-gag-him-1424275.html

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

 

...You didn't really answer the question, did you?  
 

Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

 

Take your time.  Look it up. Here are a few places to start.  The first 3 discuss the evidence that the manufacturer covered up data that indicated harm from their product.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/01/thalidomide-cover-up

http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-50year-global-coverup-20120725-22r5c.html

http://www.theage.com.au/national/i-am-afraid-all-companies-are-pretty-heartless-20120725-22r16.html

 

and even
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_182.html

"Dr. Frances Kelsey took her stand against thalidomide during her first month at the Food and Drug Administration, on her first assignment. The task was supposed to be a straightforward review of a sleeping pill already widely used in Europe, but Kelsey was concerned by some data suggesting dangerous side effects in patients who took the drug repeatedly. While she continued to withhold approval, [b]the manufacturers tried everything they could to get around her judgement."[/b]

 

And then please answer the question.  Do you think the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

 

Please don't try to change the subject to whether the manufacturer should be held accountable.  That was not the question.

 

Do you think the manufacturer of thalidomide was purposely trying to harm children?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

I don't have time to respond to everyone and I don't have time to read all the links, I'm trying to make my son's lunch...

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

You're still not answering the question.

 

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MANUFACTURER OF THALIDOMIDE WAS DELIBERATELY TRYING TO HARM CHILDREN?

 

You had time (while making your son's lunch!) to write several paragraphs.

 

Surely you have time to answer yes or no to the above question.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

As I already stated in my last post you can believe that pharmaceutical companies sometimes hide evidence while also believing that vaccines are safe and effective.... 

 

 

@Taximom can you please calm down? I tried answering your question on the first page. I really don't know enough about the scandal to say one way or the other whether or not I believe they purposefully harmed children. The information I have read so far indicates they did not... 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

You haven't answered the question at all.

 

I asked you to do a bit of research and tell us whether you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies.  I gave you some links to help you research it.

 

Here is one more question.  It's an easy one, requiring only a yes or no answer:  do you acknowledge that there is no doubt that the manufacturer of thalidomide engaged in a coverup of the harm from thalidomide?

 

And, back to the original question (also requiring only a yes or no answer), do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?

 

2 very simple, direct questions, with a request for a direct  answer, with no BS.

 

We all anxiously await your answer.

:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk:lurk 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

 

Teacozy, I would also like to know the answers to Taximom's questions. I did not see where they were answered on the first page.

 

1. Do you acknowledge that there is no doubt that the manufacturer of thalidomide engaged in a coverup of the harm from thalidomide?

2. Do you believe that the manufacturer of thalidomide was TRYING to harm babies?

 

 

And...we're still waiting for teacozy to take a look at the provided evidence and state whether she believes that the manufacturer of thalidomide was "trying to purposefully harm children."  

Pookietooth and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#29 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 09:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,329
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
"Well, if you believe a pharmaceutical company hides evidence then that makes them somewhat untrustworthy.  I understand rolling the dice when you have a nasty illness of some kind.   OTOH, if your child is in good health, there is no epidemic or outbreak of a VAD and/or the disease in question is mild, why would you roll the dice with a company that is not trustworthy?" 
 

 

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 companies. Please 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. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#30 of 73 Old 10-10-2013, 10:14 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

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. 

 

Have you heard of Dr Marcia Angell, the former editor of th NEJM? She wrote a book entitled "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive US and What to Do About it" I encourage you to check it out, I am sure your local library has it.

 

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”


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  
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