Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Are "Vaccine Refusals" To Blame for High Vaccine Costs? (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1429274-vaccine-refusals-blame-high-vaccine-costs.html)

Turquesa 07-07-2014 11:40 PM

Are "Vaccine Refusals" To Blame for High Vaccine Costs?
 
This is among the more absurd things I've read in awhile. Is there anything for which *they* DON'T blame non-compliant parents? Pretty soon, we'll shoulder the blame for fracking and honeybee extinction. :eyesroll

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkro...-costs-prices/

Quote:

So while vaccine costs may have gone up 21-fold since 1986, the costs of doing clinical trials have gone up by tens to hundreds of times, primarily as a regulatory overreaction response to concerns of various vaccine refusal communities about potential adverse effects that have either proven extremely rare are not at all causally related to vaccination.
Did you catch that? It's not pharma's fault that vaccine costs are so high. It's YOUR fault for demanding more rigorous research. Shame on you, you naughty consumer of mandated, indemnified pharmaceutical products!

(By the way, better research doesn't come simply in the sense of a larger sample size. It's much more complex than that--who's in the sample, what are the controls, etc. etc.)

Also, do you remember our discussion about misleading headlines? Not only does the author dedicate just a mere paragraph to the evil-anti-vaxxer issue, but he also confuses "vaccine refusal" with a call for better research. There are vaccines that I DON'T refuse, but I still want better research. (Good luck explaining this to the black-and-whitiest among them).

Finally..."vaccine refusal myths?" Ideally, research is addressing unanswered questions. Even vaccine-autism research is going to address more than simply, "Do vaccines cause autism?" So how can something be a "myth" if if hasn't yet been researched?

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

rachelsmama 07-08-2014 03:52 AM

Wanting to cut back on the amount of scientific research being done on vaccines? Now that is anti-science.

I didn't read the article, but based on the source and your description, I'm thinking that it would be very bad for my bloodpressure.

serenbat 07-08-2014 05:00 AM

It's called being desperate!

You have run out of scare so now you turn to money! all BS!

The NYTimes story I posted showed clearly how one MD can pay one price another within the same city another pays a different, private negations, etc - that is not about parents and their choice/demand for better testing, what ever! It's pure desperation!!!!!!!!!

kathymuggle 07-08-2014 05:47 AM

What a title!!

While Forbes likes to go on regular "anti-vaccine" rants - we need to keep in mind they are primarily a business magazine. Their stake in this fight squarely lies with corporate interests.

Deborah 07-08-2014 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17763730)
What a title!!

While Forbes likes to go on regular "anti-vaccine" rants - we need to keep in mind they are primarily a business magazine. There stake in this fight squarely lies with corporate interests.

Yes, Forbes is the most insanely pro-vaccine source other than the pro-vaccine blogosphere that I've come across. Truly extreme.

I thought this one was so crazy as to be funny. At least a few of the readers, who trust vaccines, had to be saying to themselves "too much safety testing on a product that is given to babies? Isn't that a bit over the top?"

serenbat 07-08-2014 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17763730)
What a title!!

While Forbes likes to go on regular "anti-vaccine" rants - we need to keep in mind they are primarily a business magazine. There stake in this fight squarely lies with corporate interests.

And let's not forget, they need traffic! They need the big girl (and the boys) who are PRO to comment and thus drive traffic to their site....numbers = MONEY!

Money, money $$$$$$$$$$$$ health & well being without vaccines means no profit!!

Shareholders $$$$$$$

kathymuggle 07-08-2014 06:33 AM

The article Serenbat posted a few days ago made a similar claim, although it discussed other reasons for high prices as well:

"There are, of course, some good reasons vaccines like Prevnar are more expensive than previous offerings. Vaccine trials, which once included thousands of volunteers, must now include tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people, as fears about side effects like autism have grown…."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/he...urts.html?_r=1

The thing is - vaccine rates are high and fairly stable. It isn't like plummetting vaccination rates are driving more extensive testing. Maybe fear of vaccine rates plummetting is driving testing - but that is hardly a bad thing. More extensive testing is a good thing and it benefits those who vaccinate the most.

I wonder if other pharmaceutical products are also facing having to test larger groups of people than they once did? My guess is yes.

The history of medicine and pharmaceuticals has changed in the last 40 years or so. The old model of medicine was quite authoritarian: you went to the doctor and did as he said. Many people no longer want that, they want informed choice, and demand quality information to help them make that choice. We also do have the internet to help disseminate research, studies, etc…As a culture we are also well aware that sometimes pharmaceutical products end up being not so great or even dangerous. All this is to say that the heyday of doing minimal research, flogging your wares to doctors and having them easily push it on people are over or near over.

I also wonder if the nature of some of the newer drugs play into this?

Take varicella. Chicken pox has a child death rate of 1/100 000. Lets say it has a long term complication rate of 1/10 000 and acute/severe (but ultimately surmountable) complication rate of 1/100. A drug company should test (or follow) several 100 000's to make sure the death rate from the vaccine is not higher than the death rate from the disease. It is also going to need to test in the tens of thousand to get a decent "long term complcation" rate. The milder the disease, the more testing is required to justify it.

All of the above being said, I suspect what really drives prices is wanting profit. If high testing costs were the main reason for high vaccine costs, you would see more consistant pricing from doctor to doctor, which you do not have according to the article Serenbat posted, and consistant pricing between countries - which you also do not have. Wanting profit is the bottom line for companies. They should own that, rather than whine about a very small but stable group of non-vaxxers.

kathymuggle 07-08-2014 07:06 AM

I read the article.

The Forbes article basically discusses the New York Times piece.

The Forbes article makes two interesting statements:

1: "So, vaccine developers truly need to be sensitive and responsive to the criticism of opportunistic vaccine pricing. This April at the Association of Health Care Journalists annual meeting in Denver, I watched as keynote speaker and academic vaccine developer, Paul Offit, M.D., dismissively answered a question from Rosenthal about corralling vaccine costs by spouting the dated chestnut that vaccines don’t bring profits, calling them “the ‘stepsisters’ of the pharmaceutical industry.”

So - are we finally admitting vaccines make money? Good!


2: "But in the middle of Rosenthal’s piece, I found a tidbit that I had not fully appreciated previously:

There are, of course, some good reasons vaccines like Prevnar are more expensive than previous offerings. Vaccine trials, which once included thousands of volunteers, must now include tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people, as fears about side effects like autism have grown, even though many studies have concluded that such worries are unfounded.

So while vaccine costs may have gone up 21-fold since 1986, the costs of doing clinical trials have gone up by tens to hundreds of times, primarily as a regulatory overreaction response to concerns of various vaccine refusal communities about potential adverse effects that have either proven extremely rare are not at all causally related to vaccination."

Reread the quote in italics from the New York Times. It does not quantify the cost of the trials (as the Forbes author does - where is he getting the tens to hundreds of times from?) nor does the article say that regulatory over-reaction to vaccine refusal is the primary reason for increased costs in trials. The author seems to have taken a quote and assumed a fair bit from it.

serenbat 07-08-2014 07:40 AM

Kathy that is how I see it and apparently a few MD's do too!! Those don't seek the typical kook ones the PRO side calls out either!!!:grin:



Very well said Kathy!!:thumb

samaxtics 07-08-2014 08:25 AM

Anyone can go to clinicaltrials.gov and look up the kind of clinical trials in the works. A fair bit seem to be to be so they can expand the demographic for the vaccine. Saw one for giving senior citizens RotaTeq.:roll eyes

In other news, WOW, bribing and ensuing fines if caught sure do add up.

Quote:

In the Panorama programme Jarek Wisniewski, a former GSK sales representative in the Polish region of Lodz, said GSK staff paid doctors to give speeches which did not take place. "We pay agreement for a speech, we pay £100 but we expect more than 100 prescriptions for this drug."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/...doctors-poland
Quote:

The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday.
Psychiatrists and their partners were flown to five-star hotels, on all-expenses-paid trips where speakers, paid up to $2,500 to attend, gave presentations on the drugs. They could enjoy diving, golf, fishing and other extra activities arranged by the company....GSK also paid for articles on its drugs to appear in medical journals and "independent" doctors were hired by the company to promote the treatments, according to court documents.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/...harmaceuticals
Quote:

At a news conference today, the investigators said the drugs maker had earned millions in what it called “illegal revenues” in China because the cost of the alleged bribes was passed directly on to Chinese consumers. They said the cost of the drugs sold by Glaxo in China was much higher than similar drugs sold in other countries. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/glax...ndal-1.2643062
That's just GSK.
But you know, SHAME on YOU ANTI-VAXXERS for costing drug companies money!!!!

samaxtics 07-08-2014 11:39 AM

And Darn those anti-vaxxers, they must have taken over Health Canada and the FDA too :cuss

Quote:

GlaxoSmithKline ($GSK) is under pressure from not one, but two regulatory bodies to get problems under control at a flu vaccine plant in Canada. After the FDA handed the company a warning letter late last month, Health Canada now says the pharma giant has a month to lay out a plan for resolving issues there.http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/ca...der/2014-07-07

Deborah 07-08-2014 02:06 PM

I think it is the high costs of:
1) hiring ghostwriters AND Key Opinion Leaders as front-writers
2) setting up enough studies for each vaccine and/or drug so they can toss the ones that don't give the results they want (or at least not need to publish them)
3) researching ways to distort the science to get the desired results
4) advertising and marketing
5) funding fake grass-roots (astro-turf) organizations to promote vaccines and attack people who criticize vaccines AND covering up the connections between pharma and funding

Did I miss anything?

kathymuggle 07-08-2014 07:33 PM

How about pharmaceutical CEO salaries?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-...b_3236641.html

"According to corporate filings analyzed by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), in 2012 the drug companies' CEOs drew total compensation of $199.2 million, two and a half times the total in 2003."

samaxtics 07-09-2014 06:54 AM

I don't know if this would go under #3 or have its own number but...

Endowment of chairs..

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...y#.U71I8Rb41Fw

Deborah 07-09-2014 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samaxtics (Post 17767634)
I don't know if this would go under #3 or have its own number but...

Endowment of chairs..

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...y#.U71I8Rb41Fw

Both, depending on the who sits in the chair. Offit has certainly worked hard at marketing vaccines and judging by some of what I've found at CHOP science distortion does occur under his watch. See thread on aluminum during pregnancy for an example.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 7.14%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.