Pro-Vaxxers, Talk to Me About Conflicts of Interest - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 86 Old 10-20-2013, 02:55 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
For those of you who call yourselves pro-vaccine, I have some questions.

But before I get started . . . the underlying assumption is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with making money from vaccines, provided that it's done ethically.

The other underlying assumption is that we are discussing conflicts of interest (facts), and not conspiracy theories, (theories). Nobody is speculating on evil plots to harm children and citizens, nor is anyone speculating on the motives and character of those who get caught up in COIs. We are looking only at COIs themselves.

The British Medical Journal defines a conflict of interest (COI), or competing interest, in the following way. http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests

"A competing interest—often called a conflict of interest—exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors of a BMJ article when they have a financial interest that may influence, probably without their knowing, their interpretation of their results or those of others."

So...

1. Based on the above definition, are there conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy-making?

2. If no, what gives you this impression? If yes, what specific COIs do you see?

3. How problematic do you consider these COIs? What, if any, consequences do you see emerging from these COIs?

4. What steps, if any, should be taken to address COIs? What would you personally be willing to do (e.g. speak out against them, write letters to policy-makers, etc.)?

Vax critics/skeptics, try to wait for 2-3 thoughtful responses before you hit the Reply button for a debate. Sit on your hands, if you have to. lol.gif I'd like to hear some different views before this thread potentially explodes into 1001 different directions.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#2 of 86 Old 10-21-2013, 03:48 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
lurk.gif
Taximom5 is offline  
#3 of 86 Old 10-21-2013, 03:52 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,266
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

lurk.gif

pass some pop-corn this way 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  
#4 of 86 Old 10-21-2013, 05:35 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,378
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

lurk.gif

pass some pop-corn this way too!

 

I'll have some too, provided it's non GMO of course.

 

:lurk

Turquesa and Marnica 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  
#5 of 86 Old 10-21-2013, 06:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
crochetsmilie.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#6 of 86 Old 10-21-2013, 09:29 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)

My hands hurt from sitting too long! Lol!

applejuice 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  
#7 of 86 Old 10-21-2013, 09:36 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

For those of you who call yourselves pro-vaccine, I have some questions.

But before I get started . . . the underlying assumption is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with making money from vaccines, provided that it's done ethically.

The other underlying assumption is that we are discussing conflicts of interest (facts), and not conspiracy theories, (theories). Nobody is speculating on evil plots to harm children and citizens, nor is anyone speculating on the motives and character of those who get caught up in COIs. We are looking only at COIs themselves.

The British Medical Journal defines a conflict of interest (COI), or competing interest, in the following way. http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests

"A competing interest—often called a conflict of interest—exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors of a BMJ article when they have a financial interest that may influence, probably without their knowing, their interpretation of their results or those of others."

So...

1. Based on the above definition, are there conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy-making?

2. If no, what gives you this impression? If yes, what specific COIs do you see?

3. How problematic do you consider these COIs? What, if any, consequences do you see emerging from these COIs?

4. What steps, if any, should be taken to address COIs? What would you personally be willing to do (e.g. speak out against them, write letters to policy-makers, etc.)?

Vax critics/skeptics, try to wait for 2-3 thoughtful responses before you hit the Reply button for a debate. Sit on your hands, if you have to. lol.gif I'd like to hear some different views before this thread potentially explodes into 1001 different directions.

 

Edited

Backroads 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  
#8 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 04:51 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,266
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

For those of you who call yourselves pro-vaccine, I have some questions.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I had sent a message to Skeptical Raptor asking if he had ever covered the topic of conflict of interest since I didn't see anything on his site about it and attached the questions you asked. This was his response, since you guys seem so eager to hear at least something :) 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

 
 
Again, these are not my answers, they are written by SR.  Enjoy! 
 

Why can't you answer for yourself, you profess to be pro-vaccine? :W I also had questions in the other thread for you.


 

 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  
#9 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 05:20 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,378
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)

teacozy, I don't think there is any one here on the other side of the debate, be they non or select/delayed vaxers, that would have the slightest respect for Skeptical Raptor's opinoins. If you couldn't answer the questions you should have said so. It's like getting another kid to do your homework for you, and you know what grade you get for that if caught- F.

applejuice and serenbat 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  
#10 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 05:34 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)

I already talked about COIs last week in another thread. I am tired of talking about it, honestly.  No one else (pro vax) was responding and you guys sounded antsy so I posted a reply I received from SR. Getting someone else to do my homework for me implies cheating which implies deception. I stated upfront that the response wasn't mine. Analogy rating F. 

 

Good luck with the thread :thumb 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#11 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 05:49 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,378
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

I already talked about COIs last week in another thread. I am tired of talking about it, honestly.  No one else (pro vax) was responding so I posted a reply I received from SR. Getting someone else to do my homework for me implies cheating which implies deception. I stated upfront that the response wasn't mine. Analogy rating F. 

teacozy, I can't speak for others, but asking SR to help you out, whether you 'fessed up or not, is automatic disregard.  Major FAIL. If you were unable to anwer the question further yourself, you should have said so and told everyone here to take a running jump (in the nicest possible way).

applejuice 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  
#12 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 05:58 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

teacozy, I can't speak for others, but asking SR to help you out, whether you 'fessed up or not, is automatic disregard.  Major FAIL. If you were unable to anwer the question further yourself, you should have said so and told everyone here to take a running jump (in the nicest possible way).

 

Nope, I didn't ask him for help at all. I recently discovered his blog and I was just curious what his opinions on COI was since he has direct experience dealing with it in his line of work. How prevalent he thought they were, what impact they had etc. Since he does have so much direct experience I was curious if he had ever written anything on the topic on his blog that I somehow missed while searching for it. Again, I was just curious.  I have already addressed the issue in another thread, multiple times and have stated my opinion on the matter.  I was surprised he directly answered the questions, since I only posted them as a guideline.  I thought I would post the response here, there was no deception, no cheating, no "helping me out".   Again, I have said all I care to say on this subject in other threads.  Goodbye and good luck! 


“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 86 Old 10-22-2013, 06:13 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,266
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Nope, I didn't ask him for help at all. I recently discovered his blog and I was just curious what his opinions on COI was since he has direct experience dealing with it in his line of work. How prevalent he thought they were, what impact they had etc. Since he does have so much direct experience I was curious if he had ever written anything on the topic on his blog that I somehow missed while searching for it. Again, I was just curious.  I have already addressed the issue in another thread, multiple times and have stated my opinion on the matter.  I was surprised he directly answered the questions, since I only posted them as a guideline.  I thought I would post the response here, there was no deception, no cheating, no "helping me out".   Again, I have said all I care to say on this subject in other threads.  Goodbye and good luck! 

 

It's one thing to link it's a far other thing to paste a personal reply-IMO

 

ETA- isn't consent needed here to post this?

Mirzam likes this.

 

 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  
#14 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 07:19 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,378
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Teacozy, you are not obligated to answer any post. There really is nothing you could write on this forum that would change my opinion of the pharmaceutical industry ( I used to work in public relations for the industry). But I am sure you are not here to set me (or any other vaccine skeptics) right. I presume your targets are the undecided lurkers, but SR, is really not an acceptable source of opinion on this debate board, as you have been reminded many times. And you sought out his opinion and directly quoted him. Keep those posts for the Vax on Schedual board and we will keep AoA (etc) to INV. K?
applejuice 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  
#15 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 07:26 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,022
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)

This is what SR said about Mercola:

 

"Orac, in his blog post, Joe Mercola: Proof positive that quackery sells : Respectful Insolence, hits the nail on the head about Mercola, one of the biggest quacks on the internet.  I don’t know if Mercola actually believes in his particular brand of science-denialism, but he uses it for one reason:  to have people with legitimate medical concerns send their money to him.  In case you don’t click on the outlink above, here are some precious quotes from Orac."

 

So, SR says  "I intentionally ignore COI’s for one reason: I do not assume bad faith that anyone who is funded by or works for Big Pharma is automatically unethical and immoral."  yet he claims Mercola only pushes stuff for money.  Interesting.  

 

Now, I am sure some pro-vaxxer is going to come along and say "non-vaxxers listen to Mercola and he has COI, too!"  They might even post that meme showing his mansion.  To that I preemptively respond:

 

1.  I look with a critical eye at any entity who purports something is great and also sells it:  Mercola, Big Pharm, etc.  Reason?  COI.

 

2.  Are the products Mercola sells covered by insurance or taxes - which we all pay for?  Are they mandatory for school enrollment?  Why no, they are not.  Anything the government pays for or insists someone have for school/employment is deserving of extra special scrutiny.  


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  
#16 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 07:53 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Teacozy, you are not obligated to answer any post. There really is nothing you could write on this forum that would change my opinion of the pharmaceutical industry ( I used to work in public relations for the industry). But I am sure you are not here to set me (or any other vaccine skeptics) right. I presume your targets are the undecided lurkers, but SR, is really not an acceptable source of opinion on this debate board, as you have been reminded many times. And you sought out his opinion and directly quoted him. Keep those posts for the Vax on Schedual board and we will keep AoA (etc) to INV. K?

 

Mirzam, what an interesting double standard!  Do you remember this thread from last week? http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1389557/vaccination-a-mythical-history/20 

 

You not only copy and pasted from whale (which you are technically not even allowed to do on these forums as far as I am aware) you didn't disclose the source and only admitted it once someone called you out on it.  You also a few posts later posted a link to a blog post about snake oil by greenmedinfo.com which is hardly an unbiased source either. 

 

Very interesting....

 

Edit: @Kathymuggle, at least you are consistent. I know many people on this board are not. The vitamin/supplement industry is a multi BILLION dollar industry and anyone who doesn't take drugs because of big pharma's unethical practices should definitely stop taking any vitamins or supplements. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#17 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 08:37 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,378
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)

I quoted from written documents from various historical sources and unfortunately the only source was a certain website* (which incidentally pales in comparison to Rense when it comes to conspiracy theories which you linked to. I did not post the opinions of [said] website owner, unlike you with your cut n past of SR's opinion on COI.

 

* I disagree with MDC's block of this website, because it hosts some obscure (sound) sources not found anywhere elsewhere on the web. I feel members here have enough intelligence and discernment to make the call on what is and isn't acceptable information, we don't need to be coddled.

 

Greenmed info, is a website largely for practitioners, that has a database of published, peer reviewed research on natural substances, and is way more credible than the rantings of a so call skeptic, IMO. But I am happy to refrain from posting research articles from greenmedinfo on this debate board from now on.

 

So teacozy, are you for banning all vitamins and supplements, in hospitals, like your guru Paul Offit has done at CHOP because they are much too dangerous for children? Pay no attention to the fact prescription pharmaceuticals kill at least 100,000 people a year and vitamins next to none. And let's ignore the fact our foods contain GMOs, dyes, hydrogenated oils, aspartame, MSG and our vaccines include toxic heavy metals.

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  
#18 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 08:48 AM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I apologize for the length of my response.  But since a pro-vaccine voice has been requested I want to oblige with my personal viewpoints. And this isn't a topic that lends itself to a short answer.

1. Based on the above definition, are there conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy-making?

Yes, there are conflicts of interests based on that definition in absolutely everything that involves research and/or policy.  By that definition I honestly think pretty much everyone has a conflict of interest.

2. If no, what gives you this impression? If yes, what specific COIs do you see?

I know this is fishing for Paul Offit has a ROTA vaccine patent. and scientists go from the CDC to private industry and vice versa, so we must ignore everything because COI COI COI.  I get that.  Yes, I see that by this definition he has a conflict of interest.  But I will also point out some other specific conflict of interests.

Pharmaceutical companies and medical establishments would make a lot more money treating VPD than they do for vaccines.  For example, paying full price for a polio vaccine is listed at $82 at CVS the profit is likely less than the total charge.  However, an Iron lung to treat polio I am sure is much more than $82 (though I truly have no idea).  The Daptacel DTAP vaccine costs $25.98 according to the CDC.  Hospitalization for Whooping Cough cost is around $3000/day.  So this could be a clear conflict of interest that those profiting from treating vaccine preventable diseases could in fact by the definition provided have a COI because it would benefit them for more people to contract VPD.

Andrew Wakefield- his subjects for his discredited (scientifically at least) study were received through a personal injury attorney hoping to collect money for the autism/MMR link. COI.

Then there are the COI involved in organizations treating what they promote as vaccine diseases.  Generation rescue does this as does Joseph Mercola.  Selling many supplements, treatments etc. that they would not sell if they didn’t first promote the idea that Vaccines have caused you harm whether your know it or not.  The total cost of Chelation therapy that I could find is $3350.  When I add up the supplements recommended by Mercola and others it as high as $1000/month. COI.  They stand to profit from for the most part unregulated therapies to treat having been vaccinated.  To get that money you first have to convince people that vaccines are the root cause of there medical problems.  This is a huge COI.

 Dr. Sears vaccine book gets a royalty for every copy of the book that is purchased.  I don’t know what it is, but it does exist.  There is a COI because for any research that is done to show that a selective/delayed schedule isn’t beneficial takes money directly out of pocket for selling this schedule.

 the vaccine epidemic book has glaring COI every here you look.  The book is edited by someone with a masters in international policy and an attorney, not people with scientific backgrounds.  Inside you will find 5 different attorney’s writing multiple articles about the dangers of vaccine.  Huge COI because what they are looking for is lawsuits.  And the biggest way to make bank is to keep pushing the idea that vaccines cause autism. And working to try to get people to ignore ALL other research on autism as if it is a done deal that vaccines are the real cause, even though the peer reviewed and scientific research does not point in that direction.

Then we can look at the National vaccine Information Center.  They make  over 800K  per fiscal year in donations to their organization (which sounds like a federal agency and that in and of itself is problematic).  If vaccines safety is shown, that research damages the NVIS. Their salaries depend on people being skeptical of vaccines.  They also have research grants, which clearly will only show problems with vaccines given the Barbara Lou Fishers career depends on the idea that vaccines are damaging more children than they are helping.  She also has three books and is paid for appearances.  That also is a huge conflict of interest.    .

As for rivalries. JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Rob Schneider, Barbara Lou Fisher and others have put everything they have professionally and otherwise into the idea that vaccines are the cause of Autism, and every disease that is increasing in the world.  They cannot ever back down from that, it has become all encompassing.  Any research that illustrates a different cause for anything, or that demonstrates safety in any vaccine is bad for them professionally.  No one likes to be wrong.  Each and every one of them has a COI because they have put their reputation on the line that vaccines are causing all of our problems from diabetes, to adhd, to autism, to lupus and on and on. 


3. How problematic do you consider these COIs? What, if any, consequences do you see emerging from these COIs?
I don’t view most them as problematic for me personally.   I value the scientific method and I am familiar with the manner in which research is disseminated.  I have been through the peer-review process myself and I understand that it is grueling.  I do not believe that the conflict of interests will impact the research that policy is based on, nor do I accept research that has not been tested through peer review impact my health decisions .  I think that if someone truly was trying to present fraudulent research for personal gain it would be discovered during the peer review process. Since I do not research using blogs or websites without scientific rigor personally those Conflicts of interest do not impact me.

I do not view the potential COI regarding pharmaceutical companies hoping more people get VPD to profit from treating them as serious  because I don’t think it actually happens (though it theoretically could).  I also understand they make far far far more money on products that are neither vaccines nor treatments for VPD and I think at the base they want to focus on what makes them the most money (Cancer drugs for one).

I also am concerned with the COI to keep pushing the vaccines are the cause of autism.  The reason this COI concerns me is it manifests as people trying to discredit all other Autism research.  I think that it can set us back for actually understanding the causes of Autism more clearly when every step towards that understanding that doesn’t focus on vaccines has to deal with “this is just part of a conspiracy to hide the truth”.  For example, the hearings on autism that took place in congress, that wasn’t about autism at all, it was about vaccines.    While I am not concerned about the COI of this in terms of people choosing not to vaccinate (because that is there decision to make and whatever they want to base that on is actually fine with me).  But I am concerned about what this COI means for autism research.


4. What steps, if any, should be taken to address COIs? What would you personally be willing to do (e.g. speak out against them, write letters to policy-makers, etc.)?

I don’t think anything can be done to address COIS as we are defining it in this discussion.  We have a first amendment right to free speech.  All I am willing to do personally is educate on the peer review process and encourage people who are doing research on health decisions (or any other decisions) to investigate the source and make sure it has been through peer review and has rigor before accepting it as truth  However, for the most part I am finding individuals who are claiming to do research on in fact looking for affirmation and not information.  They don’t care about COI unless it is a COI from the viewpoint of that which they dislike, they are only looking for ammunition to support what they already believe not actually looking for scientific validity.

Dakotacakes is online now  
#19 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 09:59 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,022
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
all sides.  Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
 

 

2. If no, what gives you this impression? If yes, what specific COIs do you see?

I erased a bunch of COI you listed - mostly so this post does not end up being huge.

Yes, there are COI involved in parts of the non-vax community. This does not negate the COI's in the vaccine program.  I say "parts of" because (unlike vaccines - whereby if you are pro-vaccine, you buy vaccines) one can be non-vax without ever laying down a penny or an extra penny due to your non-vax status.   

As for rivalries. JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Rob Schneider, Barbara Lou Fisher and others have put everything they have professionally and otherwise into the idea that vaccines are the cause of Autism, and every disease that is increasing in the world.  They cannot ever back down from that, it has become all encompassing.  Any research that illustrates a different cause for anything, or that demonstrates safety in any vaccine is bad for them professionally.  No one likes to be wrong.  Each and every one of them has a COI because they have put their reputation on the line that vaccines are causing all of our problems from diabetes, to adhd, to autism, to lupus and on and on. 

Pro-vax apologists  are unlikely to back down, etiher.  Unlike someone like Rob Schneider, an apologist backing down could be professional suicide. 


3. How problematic do you consider these COIs? What, if any, consequences do you see emerging from these COIs?
I don’t view most them as problematic for me personally.   I value the scientific method and I am familiar with the manner in which research is disseminated.  I have been through the peer-review process myself and I understand that it is grueling.  I do not believe that the conflict of interests will impact the research that policy is based on, nor do I accept research that has not been tested through peer review impact my health decisions .  I think that if someone truly was trying to present fraudulent research for personal gain it would be discovered during the peer review process. 

While respecting your personal view on COI's. I submit this study for consideration by you and any lurkers.  I consider it pretty damning.  

"Most U.S. clinical trials are funded by industry. Opportunities exist for sponsors to influence research in ways that jeopardize research objectivity. The purpose of this study was to survey U.S. medical school faculty to assess financial arrangements between investigators and industry to learn about investigators' first hand knowledge of the effects of industry sponsorship on research. Here we show first-hand knowledge that compromises occurred in: research participants' well-being (9%), research initiatives (35%), publication of results (28%), interpretation of research data (25%), and scientific advancement (20%) because of industry support. Financial relationships with industry were prevalent and considered important to conducting respondents' research."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19353387

 

I also am concerned with the COI to keep pushing the vaccines are the cause of autism.  The reason this COI concerns me is it manifests as people trying to discredit all other Autism research.  I think that it can set us back for actually understanding the causes of Autism more clearly when every step towards that understanding that doesn’t focus on vaccines has to deal with “this is just part of a conspiracy to hide the truth”.  For example, the hearings on autism that took place in congress, that wasn’t about autism at all, it was about vaccines.    While I am not concerned about the COI of this in terms of people choosing not to vaccinate (because that is there decision to make and whatever they want to base that on is actually fine with me).  But I am concerned about what this COI means for autism research.

Ditto - but in a completely different way.  Almost any time someone says they think autism is predominantly a genetic condiditon and that the real numbers of autism have not gone up, I know that they are very pro-vax, and sure enough, some sort of pro-vax spiel always follows.  This is what I think is going on:  some people love vaccines so much (or are so invested in confirming their choices) that they are unwilling to let vaccines come into question.  If one believes autism is primarily genetic, then there are no need to look at the environment - and no need to call vaccines into question.  

As someones whose life has been affected by severe autism, I find this refusal to look at environmental concerns because of fears it will dredge up the autism/vaccine connection repugnant and very non-scientific.

The downside of this "autism is primarily genetic and the numbers have not gone up" is not only that the possible autism-vaccine connection is not properly looked at,  but that other areas of research into possible environmental triggers are also not looked at.  If autism numbers have not gone up, and autism is just a "brain difference" then there is no need for research into environmental triggers, right?

 

I also (somewhat) disagree that those who think there is a vaccine-autism connection only want to look at vaccines.  I said "somewhat" because I occasionally do run into people who only want to look at vaccines, but many people and organizations want to look at much more than that!  Many people are also concerned with such things as antibiotics, early cord clamping, anesthesia, acetaminophen, anti-depressants during pregnancy, etc, etc.  None of this gets looked at, though, if the party line is "autism is primarily genetic"


4. What steps, if any, should be taken to address COIs? What would you personally be willing to do (e.g. speak out against them, write letters to policy-makers, etc.)?

 However, for the most part I am finding individuals who are claiming to do research on in fact looking for affirmation and not information.  They don’t care about COI unless it is a COI from the viewpoint of that which they dislike, they are only looking for ammunition to support what they already believe not actually looking for scientific validity.

Confirmation bias is an issue with all sides.  

Dakota in red, I am in blue


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  
#20 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 01:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

I had sent a message to Skeptical Raptor asking if he had ever covered the topic of conflict of interest since I didn't see anything on his site about it and attached the questions you asked. This was his response, since you guys seem so eager to hear at least something smile.gif 

 
 

 




I will not be addressing this post because I need to debate MDC members, not MDC members representing non-members. The "Skeptical" Raptor is welcome to get an account here if s/he so chooses. smile.gif
applejuice likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#21 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 01:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
I can't even do that red-blue thing here, so I'll just put DC's statements in quotes and respond below them.

Thank you for dedicating some time and thought to these complex questions.

1. Based on the above definition, are there conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy-making?



"Yes, there are conflicts of interests based on that definition in absolutely everything that involves research and/or policy.  By that definition I honestly think pretty much everyone has a conflict of interest."

I won't argue here.

"I know this is fishing for Paul Offit has a ROTA vaccine patent. and scientists go from the CDC to private industry and vice versa, so we must ignore everything because COI COI COI. I get that. Yes, I see that by this definition he has a conflict of interest. But I will also point out some other specific conflict of interests."

I'm really not trying to entrap anybody. What I'd like to see is a candid admission that this is going on instead of the rampant denialism of which I see entirely too much. I appreciate that you concur. I disagree, however, with your statement, " . . . so we must ignore everything because COI COI COI." That is not at all my argument. We just know, as cited in the "Debate This Meme" thread, that studies based on COIs are more likely to show results favorable to a product, so it is more than fair to lift a skeptical eyebrow when drug companies are involved in research.

"Pharmaceutical companies and medical establishments would make a lot more money treating VPD than they do for vaccines.  For example, paying full price for a polio vaccine is listed at $82 at CVS the profit is likely less than the total charge.  However, an Iron lung to treat polio I am sure is much more than $82 (though I truly have no idea).  The Daptacel DTAP vaccine costs $25.98 according to the CDC.  Hospitalization for Whooping Cough cost is around $3000/day.  So this could be a clear conflict of interest that those profiting from treating vaccine preventable diseases could in fact by the definition provided have a COI because it would benefit them for more people to contract VPD."

I am talking specifically about vaccine-related research and policy-making. The tu-quoque approach doesn't really work here because, (as just one example), despite Wakefield's clear COI, his intent was arguably to advance his personal interests in a lawsuit and not to impose a pharmaceutical product from which he profits on an entire population. If people refuse the MMR vaccine, Wakefield makes no money. Neither does Mercola, McCarthy, etc. And none of these parties have lobbied for exemption restrictions and other just-shut-up-and-do-as-you're-told policies.

The other problem with the tu-quoque tactic is that it's shifting the subject a wee bit. :-) Yes, I acknowledge that they exist, but the ramification are much, much different. (More on that momentarily).

Also, everybody from Offit to Sears to the Dalai Lama gets a profit from producing a book. When I review the BMJ definition linked above, I don't consider a book publication in and of itself a COI.

Still, I see your point, and it does sound compelling...at least initially. Treating a smattering of the population for a disease, in aggregate dollars, may actually amount to less than vaccinating millions and millions. From our neighbors across the pond, we see this: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101123545

"Several pharmaceutical companies made a conscious decision to chase and develop the vaccines market towards the end of the last decade, as it became clear that the traditional blockbuster drug treatment model for the industry was changing. Vaccines were seen as promising from a business perspective because they could be applied to huge swathes of the population, and because the economic case for payment could be made to governments. AstraZeneca, the U.K. pharmaceuticals giant, paid $15.6 billion for MedImmune, the U.S vaccines specialist, in 2007 to get a foothold in the vaccines market.

Chris Viehbacher, chief executive of Sanofi, explained part of the appeal of vaccines earlier this year. 'The nature of vaccines is such that generally you have a better feeling for the success of a vaccine than you do for a new drug,' he said."


"I don’t view most them as problematic for me personally."

What about on a more global level? I know I'm not the only parent who doesn't obey orders to vaccinate on schedule out of concern for COIs. I would think that the pro-compliance camp would be at least somewhat concern that COIs erode away at trust in public health programs.


"I value the scientific method and I am familiar with the manner in which research is disseminated. I have been through the peer-review process myself and I understand that it is grueling. I do not believe that the conflict of interests will impact the research that policy is based on, nor do I accept research that has not been tested through peer review impact my health decisions . I think that if someone truly was trying to present fraudulent research for personal gain it would be discovered during the peer review process. Since I do not research using blogs or websites without scientific rigor personally those Conflicts of interest do not impact me."

I have a little bedtime reading on the topic. smile.gif

http://www.labnews.co.uk/features/peer-review/


"I don’t think anything can be done to address COIS as we are defining it in this discussion. We have a first amendment right to free speech."

Do you see any potential ethical issues in vaccine-related research--specifically, that which shows favorable results for vaccine safety and/or efficacy? Again, we can tu-quoque in another thread. Right now, I am concerned that medical recommendations and mandates that directly affect me and my children are based at least in part on COI, rendering them at least suspect.

My last question was mostly to gauge how seriously people take these COIs.

My pipe dream is to have a pro-vaxxer address these COIs candidly and unflinchingly without feeling that these COIs somehow pose a threat to their stance. They actually don't necessarily.

It's fair to admit that COIs are behind vaccine research, recommendations, and mandates. It's OK to acknowledge that these COIs are ethically questionable, at best, and downright unethical, at worst. It's reasonable to call for an end to COIs to ensure that the science is sound and the public's trust in public health programs is rock solid. You can do ALL of this and still fully vaccinate yourself and your children with the unwavering confidence that you've made the right decision. But instead, (and this isn't addressed at you, just in general), I've heard pro-vaxxers bristle in defense at this topic and respond with sophist pageantry instead of honest answers.

(Rrrrrachel, back when she posted here, may have been the exception. I may be thinking of the wrong poster, but it seems that she openly and honestly acknowledged the systemic flaws).

The questions that started this thread aren't going away. The more they get ignored, dismissed , mocked ("you conspiracy theorist!"), and explained away, the louder these questions will be asked by an increasingly skeptical public. smile.gif
applejuice, japonica and BeckyBird like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#22 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 07:51 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

* I disagree with MDC's block of this website, because it hosts some obscure (sound) sources not found anywhere elsewhere on the web. I feel members here have enough intelligence and discernment to make the call on what is and isn't acceptable information, we don't need to be coddled.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here, Mirzam.

 

If the Ku Klux Klan were the only host of an obscure source that supported my point, I still wouldn't quote them, or even click on their site, if that were to result in any increased funding for them.  And whale.to is an anti-Semitic hate site.

 

At the very least, you should be able to click on title, author, first few lines, etc. of whatever they're quoting, and find another source.  Or at least, do a search for the author of whatever you want to quote and ask the author directly for a copy, and for permission to post it.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#23 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 08:12 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,378
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Taxi, then we have to agree to disagree. If you consider whale a hate site then Rense, which Teacozy linked to should also be considered the same and also be banned. I still think we are discerning enough to make our own judgements on which websites we wish to frequent without the MCD censorship.

You hold a strong opinion of whale which I do not.
applejuice 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  
#24 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 08:19 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
 

I apologize for the length of my response.  

No apology necessary!  I think we all appreciate the time and thought you put into this.

Pharmaceutical companies and medical establishments would make a lot more money treating VPD than they do for vaccines.  For example, paying full price for a polio vaccine is listed at $82 at CVS the profit is likely less than the total charge.  However, an Iron lung to treat polio I am sure is much more than $82 (though I truly have no idea).  The Daptacel DTAP vaccine costs $25.98 according to the CDC.  Hospitalization for Whooping Cough cost is around $3000/day.  So this could be a clear conflict of interest that those profiting from treating vaccine preventable diseases could in fact by the definition provided have a COI because it would benefit them for more people to contract VPD.

 

I don't agree with you here.  

Most VPDs are not anything like polio.  Laboratory-comfirmed influenza is, according to the Cochrane Review, quite rare, yet the flu shot (which causes hospitalizations of its own) is being pushed on everyone, with repeat shots every year. And the other shots on the schedule also have their own hospitalization rates, and may also cause or at least trigger many different medical conditions, such as asthma, diabetes, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, seizures (sometimes resulting in brain damage), narcolepsy, and other autoimmune and neurological conditions. 

 

Andrew Wakefield- his subjects for his discredited (scientifically at least) study were received through a personal injury attorney hoping to collect money for the autism/MMR link. COI.

 

No, they were referred to him at the Royal Free Hospital because they had inflammatory bowel conditions.  The parents have gone on record as saying that he and Dr. Walker-Smith were the  first doctors to actually take seriously the fact that these children HAD severe intestinal problems. And they all say that they went to Wakefield FOR TREATMENT OF THEIR CONDITION, not to be part of a lawsuit.

 

Really? Do you have proof that any of those authors are searching for lawsuits, looking for vaccine-injured patients as clients, or doing ANYTHING that is the least bit shady?

Then there are the COI involved in organizations treating what they promote as vaccine diseases.  Generation rescue does this as does Joseph Mercola.  Selling many supplements, treatments etc. that they would not sell if they didn’t first promote the idea that Vaccines have caused you harm whether your know it or not.  The total cost of Chelation therapy that I could find is $3350.  When I add up the supplements recommended by Mercola and others it as high as $1000/month. COI.  They stand to profit from for the most part unregulated therapies to treat having been vaccinated.  To get that money you first have to convince people that vaccines are the root cause of there medical problems.  This is a huge COI.

 Dr. Sears vaccine book gets a royalty for every copy of the book that is purchased.  I don’t know what it is, but it does exist.  There is a COI because for any research that is done to show that a selective/delayed schedule isn’t beneficial takes money directly out of pocket for selling this schedule.

 the vaccine epidemic book has glaring COI every here you look.  The book is edited by someone with a masters in international policy and an attorney, not people with scientific backgrounds.  Inside you will find 5 different attorney’s writing multiple articles about the dangers of vaccine.  Huge COI because what they are looking for is lawsuits.

Really? Do you have proof that any of those authors are searching for lawsuits, looking for vaccine-injured patients as clients, or doing ANYTHING that is the least bit shady?  And can you find ANYTHING stated in that book that is not true?

 

 

 

  And the biggest way to make bank is to keep pushing the idea that vaccines cause autism. And working to try to get people to ignore ALL other research on autism as if it is a done deal that vaccines are the real cause, even though the peer reviewed and scientific research does not point in that direction.

 

 

Really? Do you have proof that any of those authors are searching for lawsuits, looking for vaccine-injured patients as clients, or doing ANYTHING that is the least bit shady?

 

Then we can look at the National vaccine Information Center.  They make  over 800K  per fiscal year in donations to their organization (which sounds like a federal agency and that in and of itself is problematic).  If vaccines safety is shown, that research damages the NVIS. Their salaries depend on people being skeptical of vaccines.  They also have research grants, which clearly will only show problems with vaccines given the Barbara Lou Fishers career depends on the idea that vaccines are damaging more children than they are helping.  She also has three books and is paid for appearances.  That also is a huge conflict of interest.    .

As for rivalries. JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Rob Schneider, Barbara Lou Fisher and others have put everything they have professionally and otherwise into the idea that vaccines are the cause of Autism, and every disease that is increasing in the world.  They cannot ever back down from that, it has become all encompassing.  Any research that illustrates a different cause for anything, or that demonstrates safety in any vaccine is bad for them professionally.  No one likes to be wrong.  Each and every one of them has a COI because they have put their reputation on the line that vaccines are causing all of our problems from diabetes, to adhd, to autism, to lupus and on and on. 

Ok, you raise some interesting points.  Let's apply this standard to both sides equally. Why don't you ask these same questions and aim them at the pro-vax side? 

Some questions of my own:

If NVIC is correct about vaccine safety, how should they go about proving their point?  How should they fund things?  Why is wrong for people whose friends and families have suffered severe vaccine reactions to donate money to an organization devoted to publicizing those facts?  Why should anyone back down from a position if they are convinced that they have proof that they are correct, and the supposed "proof" that they are supposedly wrong is severely flawed, and they know it?

What if vaccines ARE contributing to diabetes, adhd, to autism, to lupus, and on and on?  Why do you seem to believe that it's already proven that they aren't, when studies and case reports exist linking them? 

 

Taximom5 is offline  
#25 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 08:29 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Taxi, then we have to agree to disagree. If you consider whale a hate site then Rense, which Teacozy linked to should also be considered the same and also be banned. I still think we are discerning enough to make our own judgements on which websites we wish to frequent without the MCD censorship.

You hold a strong opinion of whale which I do not.

Issue #1 is that clicking on whale results in increased $$ for them.

 

Issue #2: It's not a question of whether *I* consider whale a hate site.  It IS a hate site.  They have a whole section devoted to Holocaust denial, and the things that they say about people with Jewish and African roots are just horrible.

 

Issue #3:  They do not have exclusive publication rights to anything.  For example, if you can't find an on-line source for any of their quotes of Robert Mendelsohn, you can purchase his books, used, from Amazon. So I don't agree that they are the only source.

 

If Rense puts out vitriol against any particular race or religion, then yes, MDC ought to not allow it to be linked here, either.

applejuice and Turquesa like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#26 of 86 Old 10-22-2013, 08:52 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)

Never thought I'd utter these words but I agree with Taximom on this one. 

 

Mirzam, I'm not sure why you keep harping on this Rense thing. It was an honest mistake. I had never been to that site and have never gone back. I was in a rush and it was the first link I saw. I had no idea it was an anti vax or a conspiracy site.  By contrast, you knew you were pasting from whale.to and you purposefully hid the source. Big difference.  I could have just as easily posted this story about Hannah Poling and the point would have still been made. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html) She received 1.5 million dollars from the vaccine court. 

 

You really are like a dog with a bone about this. I think this is the third thread you have brought this up in. Seriously, let it go. 

 

Ok I am not going to derail the thread anymore because Dakotacakes made a great thorough response and I hope others feel like making a contribution. 

 

Carry on! 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#27 of 86 Old 10-23-2013, 09:50 AM
 
HappyHappyMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,920
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)

Hello All, please review our copyright policy, specifically:

 

Quote:
Please refrain from posting:
  • Private emails and Private Messages (PMs)
  • Messages from other discussion boards or blogs
  • Articles, images and video that were not created by you without written permission to reproduce at our site

 

You may post:

  • A link directing readers to a discussion or article instead of the actual content itself.
  • 100 words or less from an article as long as those 100 words are not a substantial part of the piece. If you are quoting from a short work such as a poem or a short article, 100 words may not be an acceptable fair use allowance. You should restrict yourself to a minimal quote from the piece. Anything more requires permission to print/reproduce in written form by the copyright holder and placed within your post.
  • Images or content that you have personally created, paid the the rights to publish or have express written permission from the copyright holder.

 

@teacozy, please edit your posts accordingly.


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

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

HappyHappyMommy is offline  
#28 of 86 Old 10-23-2013, 12:16 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Mirzam, what an interesting double standard!  Do you remember this thread from last week? http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1389557/vaccination-a-mythical-history/20

 

You not only copy and pasted from whale (which you are technically not even allowed to do on these forums as far as I am aware) you didn't disclose the source and only admitted it once someone called you out on it.  You also a few posts later posted a link to a blog post about snake oil by greenmedinfo.com which is hardly an unbiased source either.

 

Very interesting....

 

Edit: @Kathymuggle, at least you are consistent. I know many people on this board are not. The vitamin/supplement industry is a multi BILLION dollar industry and anyone who doesn't take drugs because of big pharma's unethical practices should definitely stop taking any vitamins or supplements. 

No I don't think I will

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#29 of 86 Old 10-23-2013, 07:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

@Kathymuggle, at least you are consistent. I know many people on this board are not. The vitamin/supplement industry is a multi BILLION dollar industry and anyone who doesn't take drugs because of big pharma's unethical practices should definitely stop taking any vitamins or supplements. 

I gave up long ago on getting your answers to COI-related questions, (you opted not to address mine in the Debate-This-Meme thread), but I did have to respond to this.

It's a pretty rare bird who will never, ever consume a pharmaceutical product because of the industry's unethical practices. Calling out breeches in ethics makes one a watchdog, not a Luddite.

To paraphrase Louise Kua Habakus, I support airline safety measures. It would be unethical for a pilot to, for example, fly the plane while taking mind-altering substances. None of this makes me anti-aviation.

Both the pharmaceutical and supplement industries make some pretty wild and questionable claims about their products, and both have an incentive to peddle these products at any cost. Here's the difference. The supplement industry doesn't enjoy insurance coverage, Medicaid coverage, corporate subsidies, or even mandates, as is the case with vaccines and, in some settings, psychiatric meds. The supplement industry also doesn't have the wherewithal to purchase research at high-profile institutions. Meanwhile, if Pharma cut off all funding to Emory University, its med school, public health program, and, yes, probably its Vaccine Center would close their doors. I can't C&P the link, but go here and enter Emory in the search bar.

http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

Eye-opening, isn't it? Academic freedom at its finest. eyesroll.gif

Anyway, I can't say it enough times: Pulling a tu-quoque just won't work here. You can put apples and oranges in the same basket, but it's still obvious that they're different fruit.
japonica, BeckyBird, ssun5 and 1 others like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#30 of 86 Old 10-26-2013, 11:35 AM
 
Ratchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
I am someone who is open to learning more about vax, am suspicious of it, would like to be convinced one way or the other. I was considering responding to your initial question from my pro-vax parts of my brain but further reading reminded me that the reason you are not getting many pro-vax responses is because this forum is a place where things fall apart and become personal attacks quickly. I have had reasonable debates about vax in my DDC, TTC, etc with people on both sides chiming in. That doesn't happen here. You are fishing for reasons to attack pro-vax, and there is nothing I would say that would change your mind, nor would I be trying to change your mind. I realize you may feel attacked as non-vaxxer IRL, and this is a place where you are not, but just as you wouldn't hang out in a pediatrician office to debate vaxxing for fun, most people with any pro-vax thoughts don't hang out here.
manysplinters likes this.
Ratchet is offline  
Reply

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

Register Now

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

Log-in

Human Verification

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



User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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