Originally Posted by serenbat
The PRO vaccine side has on here and elsewhere said vaccines are not made for profit but because of the need! Apparently profit is a factor.
I didn't "claim" vaccines are natural but there have been several threads on here where those who are PRO vaccine have made that claim that ingredients are and comparable to nature in exposure! I certainly do not think they are! Natural is also something the PROvaccines side does not seem in any way support of, thus why we have vaccines, because we no longer allow nature to act, thus the reason we have vaccines for what was normal and natural. In this case (with the links I provided) there is such irony because of the treatment is natural...only until a vaccines? Irony!
It's been stated (I did provide a link too) on here numerous times that vaccines do not make money and thus are not made to make money. The ANTI vaccines has always disputed this and said it is about money and that vaccines DO make money. In this thread (on Ebola) and with the links I provided, it shows that for a vaccines it IS about money. No profit, no desire, that flies in the face of all the other PROvaccines message out there on it. Irony!
.......a plane ride away.......just what the PROside says and now got with the help/blessing of the CDC Irony!
You are mixing arguments. No one here has ever claimed that vaccines are natural. Pointing out that the amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine is only a small fraction of the amount of formaldehyde naturally present in our bodies, even among infants, is not the same as claiming that vaccines are natural, nor is pointing out that we get formaldehyde in even larger doses from food a claim that it is natural.
Also - where has anyone said that pharma provides vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts? Where has anyone even said that big businesses have hearts?
Certain individuals, sure, such as Jonas Salk who worked to cure polio because he wanted to save people from it and refused to patent his vaccine, sure, or even Bill Gates who uses his own money to try to wipe out disease. But big business?
The point that has been made is that while they are not being overly generous, they do not make a significant profit from old vaccines such as measles and tetanus and such. There is more money in new vaccines and they are looking at vaccines as cancer treatment and such, but still that potential proffit is a drop in the bucket compared to their big money makers such as cholesterol or blood pressure treatment or viagra - things that people take regularly for years.
Ebola vaccine development costs millions and millions and how are they going to make the money back? Most vaccine research for ebola has been funded by the department of defense based on a concern that ebola could someday be an actual risk to us if used in a bio terrorism attack where they figured out a method to infect a lot of people quickly.
Originally Posted by serenbat
Isn't this anti-PRO vaccine??
I mean time after time we hear how polio is "just a plane ride away", that too is very hard to spread in a first world nation with a non-third world
sewer system yet that doesn't stop the PRO vaccines mantra from being repeated. From what I am reading on comments (on news stories) seems the PRO vaccine side sees no different between Ebola or polio when it comes to brining out the fear and saying it's the same threat. We are told we have such a great health system here in the US, that too seems odd that the fear factor for disease is so great coming from far away lands is so prevalent.
Maybe it's all to instill fear not reality
Yep, ebola did indeed come to the US by plane. In this case though, since everyone knows they have ebola, it can be done safely. There are a lot of safeguards in place, the only people at risk are those who have direct contact with them, and the risk even to those people is very small. This is not going to set off an ebola epedemic in the US.
Polio, on the other hand, is a risk to us. While there have been improvements to sewer systems since the 50's, even back then they were not really worried about cholera or typhoid any more because modern sanitation problems had already taken care of those. Ironically, modern sanitation may have worsened the polio problem - one theory is that back in the day before sewage treatment, people were exposed to polio fairly regularly, so mothers had strong immunity to it which they passed on to their babies, who typically were exposed to polio while very young and still benefiting from this protection. Then sanitary practices slowed the spread of the disease, so infants and children often weren't exposed to it until they were older and no longer had the help of maternal antibodies, and thus had far worse outcomes and a lot more cases of paralysis or death than before. Polio does not depend on sewage to spread, all it takes is kids or other people who are infected and don't do a great job washing their hands after using the bathroom. (the other diseases can spread this way too, but apparently not so easily, since modern sewer systems did take care of them).
In addition, the problem with polio is that people can spread it for many weeks with many of them never even knowing that they are infected since a lot of cases ore asymptotic. People with ebola are not contagious before showing symptoms, and get very sick and many of them die very quickly. It is possible to spread it for a while after recovery for survivors, but it doesn't spread very easily and would need contact with bodily fluid, and they would know they had had it and be warned to take precautions.
Originally Posted by serenbat
I provided two links that talk directly about blood transfusions, it does make it quite clear IMO
I do think natural is always better
ETA- I will repeat, if one actually reads the link(s) I provided the word natural
is used to describe the treatment being given. I DID NOT nor DO I FEEL vaccines are natural in any way, shape or whatever but referring to vaccines as natural
(not what this thread is about!) have been what the PROvaccine has said, on here and elsewhere. Natural in ingredients and natural in that those ingredients are just like nature - I disagrees with that line of thought regarding vaccines.
One of my grandmothers nearly died of an ear infection as a child, and my other grandmother lost a relative to diabetes. Back then, all that could be done for either was let the body act naturally. True, most kids with ear infections recovered, though some did not, but the natural course didn't work so well with diabetes. I prefer today when bacterial ear infections can be treated quickly with antibiotics, insulin means that people with type 1 diabetes can live long and healthy lives, and by the way, how often do people die of rheumatic fever these days? If you like the old way better though, well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.
With ebola, since letting the body fight it naturally results in the deaths of up to 90% of people infected, I do hope that someday there can be have the option of an unnatural intervention of either a vaccine to prevent it or a medicine that greatly improves survival rate.