Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Debate this meme Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-21-2013 05:29 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

10-21-2013 04:03 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

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

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

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

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

It's just another way to switch the focus.
10-20-2013 07:42 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

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

 

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

 

Good question!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

10-19-2013 08:57 PM
beckybird
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Good question!

10-19-2013 08:34 PM
Turquesa Honestly, and I'm speaking strictly for myself here, the "cash cow" aspect doesn't bother me. Whether you weave baskets or manufacture vaccines, there's nothing wrong with making money. But here's the hitch. Money-making needs to be done ethically.

So I ask again: Do you agree that there are conflicts of interest in vaccine research and vaccine-related policy-making? If so, to what extent are they significant and problematic?
10-19-2013 03:19 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


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

 

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

 

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

10-19-2013 12:00 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

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

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

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

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

Or is your claim that there is no such thing whatsoever as conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy-making?
10-19-2013 07:52 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

What are the independent agencies that regulate vaccines?

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/offit.html
Tea your reply is also wanted on the other thread/ we are all waiting for you to avoid that questionS too!!
10-19-2013 07:29 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

10-19-2013 07:21 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


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

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

 

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

10-18-2013 07:56 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

The quote from the OP clearly stated "*less than* 10 percent." Not 10%.  And I guess my point is that COI and unethical practices don't have to mean that a product is "unacceptable."   Especially when that product is tested  and monitored over and over by people that have no financial COI or any ties to those unethical practices.  In the interview I posted with Offit in another thread he explains it well I think

"What isn't OK is that the profit motive gets in the way of explaining what vaccines are and how they work and how they're made; that the profit motive obscures real information about vaccine. ... I think this whole discussion about conflict of interest, profit motive, who's saying what, is irrelevant. The question is, what do the data show, and what has been the impact of vaccines, and have vaccines been as safe and effective as they've been claimed to be? And frankly, they consistently have been."   
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/offit.html 


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

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

When does a conflict of interest become significant enough for you to declare it problematic? I'd really like to know because right now, the line you are drawing sounds arbitrary, irrational, and ill-defined.
10-18-2013 10:17 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

I don't think I am explaining this well.  That, or you just disagree.  There is a reason I know that even if I had wanted to, I could have never been a teacher ;)    I did remember there being a similar discussion is another thread and pepperedmoth explaining what I am trying to say very well. (PM, if it's not Ok for me to quote you just let me know and I'll edit this post) 

 

"Back to GSK, I totally agree that they (and most drug companies) are shady, greedy, and profit driven, but I consider the safety profile of their cefazolin (for instance---another common med---given IV not IM like vaccines, but still inside the body) to be something else entirely. I personally have never hesitated to prescribe a parenteral med (any med given by a non-oral route) from one of these companies JUST BECAUSE it was manufactured by them. It truly seems like two separate issues to me." 

 

"I think we should be equally skeptical of the safety of all new drugs and other medical treatments, and that all pharmaceuticals from all companies should be rigorously tested and checked on an ongoing basis. But just like I don't think an auto industry financial scandal necessarily calls into question the safety of cars, I don't think a pharmaceutical scandal necessarily calls into question the safety of drugs. 

 

Anyway, that's what independent regulatory agencies are for. I make my living treating illness and prescribing meds, and try to be pretty well aware of the safety profiles of what I prescribe. Cefazolin, again: a med I prescribe almost daily as pre-op antibiotic prophylaxis. Made by big pharma. Has an excellent safety record. In lieu of evidence showing me that cefazolin has become less safe, I don't see that I should stop prescribing it based on a relatively unrelated scandal. If I had to prescribe medications based on the ethics of the company rather than on the safety profile of the product, I wouldn't be able to give any medications at all." 

 

"Yeah, I dislike and distrust big pharma. That's part of the reason I'm so wholeheartedly in favor of testing, testing, testing. CONSTANT VIGILANCE! so say I. But when our vigilance seems to be saying something is safe, I don't think that each new example corporate misconduct is reason to throw out all prior data, yanno?

Again, like cefazolin---it's been checked before and it will be checked again, and so it is and so it should be, but/so I don't think new corporate malfeasance means we need to stop using it or worry more than we already do." 

 

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

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

 

Notice how that argument completely sidesteps several key facts?  Like

1) the non-reported severe adverse reactions,

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

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

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

 

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

10-18-2013 09:15 AM
beckybird
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

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

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

What are the independent agencies that regulate vaccines?
 

10-18-2013 09:10 AM
teacozy

I don't think I am explaining this well.  That, or you just disagree.  There is a reason I know that even if I had wanted to, I could have never been a teacher ;)    I did remember there being a similar discussion is another thread and pepperedmoth explaining what I am trying to say very well. (PM, if it's not Ok for me to quote you just let me know and I'll edit this post) 

 

"Back to GSK, I totally agree that they (and most drug companies) are shady, greedy, and profit driven, but I consider the safety profile of their cefazolin (for instance---another common med---given IV not IM like vaccines, but still inside the body) to be something else entirely. I personally have never hesitated to prescribe a parenteral med (any med given by a non-oral route) from one of these companies JUST BECAUSE it was manufactured by them. It truly seems like two separate issues to me." 

 

"I think we should be equally skeptical of the safety of all new drugs and other medical treatments, and that all pharmaceuticals from all companies should be rigorously tested and checked on an ongoing basis. But just like I don't think an auto industry financial scandal necessarily calls into question the safety of cars, I don't think a pharmaceutical scandal necessarily calls into question the safety of drugs. 

 

Anyway, that's what independent regulatory agencies are for. I make my living treating illness and prescribing meds, and try to be pretty well aware of the safety profiles of what I prescribe. Cefazolin, again: a med I prescribe almost daily as pre-op antibiotic prophylaxis. Made by big pharma. Has an excellent safety record. In lieu of evidence showing me that cefazolin has become less safe, I don't see that I should stop prescribing it based on a relatively unrelated scandal. If I had to prescribe medications based on the ethics of the company rather than on the safety profile of the product, I wouldn't be able to give any medications at all." 

 

"Yeah, I dislike and distrust big pharma. That's part of the reason I'm so wholeheartedly in favor of testing, testing, testing. CONSTANT VIGILANCE! so say I. But when our vigilance seems to be saying something is safe, I don't think that each new example corporate misconduct is reason to throw out all prior data, yanno?

Again, like cefazolin---it's been checked before and it will be checked again, and so it is and so it should be, but/so I don't think new corporate malfeasance means we need to stop using it or worry more than we already do." 

 

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

10-18-2013 08:50 AM
beckybird

I agree, that post is amazing Taximom!

10-18-2013 08:32 AM
Mirzam

Taxi, excellent post. Bravo. :clap

10-18-2013 08:22 AM
Taximom5

The vaccine industry was formed to address a real problem: severe, highly-communicable communicable illness.  From the very beginning, there was one major problem: the vaccines that addressed the severe illnesses had significant risks of their own.  This was considered acceptable only because the illnesses involved had such a high death rate.

 

In the century-plus since the beginning of the vaccine industry, there have been many changes.  Among the good changes: there were major efforts to reduce the risks of the vaccines.

 

But, over the last several decades, the CEOs of the industry have realized what enormous profit there is in vaccines.  And slowly, they have begun to shift the focus of vaccines. Instead of only a few vaccines for the most severe, most easily transmissable diseases, they have produced vaccines for many illnesses, most of which are not serious to the vast majority of people who get them. At the same time, they have put in place formidable propaganda, which has convinced both medical professionals and the general public alike that these vaccines are absolutely necessary for everyone.

 

It's interesting to observe HOW this propaganda has been put in place.  Not only are there vaccine industry employees in charge of education at medical schools and continuing medical education facilities (required for board certification), but the CEOs of the major media networks are shareholders and board members of the vaccine industry.

 

The Murdoch family even owns and runs its own vaccine testing facility.

 

To make matters even worse, the government agencies that were put in place to guard against unethical behavior from the vaccine industry are at least partially staffed by vaccine industry insiders.

 

The result has been absolutely shocking.

 

Vaccines for many different diseases--diseases that are mild in the vast majority of people who contract them--are mandated, first for public school students, for health care workers, and soon for everyone.

 

Severe adverse reactions are not identified, and therefore go unreported, which means that well-meaning health care workers believe that they rarely if ever happen.

 

Health care workers who turn down even the unnecessary and ineffective flu shot are fired.  Parents who turn down the unnecessary and often dangerous birth hep B vaccine risk having their newborn taken away.  Parents who choose to delay vaccines are refused treatment for their ill children by pediatricians, who face losing bonuses from the health insurance industry if their patients aren't all vaccinated according to government schedule.  Children who aren't fully vaccinated according to government schedule are denied access to school, and their parents face fines and imprisonment.

 

Doctors and researchers who speak out against these practices are vilified.  Researchers are denied funding (which is largely given by the pharmaceutical industry) if their work looks like it could identify problems with vaccines.  The results of independent medical review, such as the Cochrane Collaborative, are ignored and buried when possible when their results indicate lack of efficacy and/or elevated risk.  News media deliberately doesn't report the US government compensating recent cases of children (or even adults) severely injured by vaccines. Nor have they reported on the recent whistle-blower lawsuit launched against Merck by its own virologists, who allege that Merck engaged in a cover-up of efficacy problems with the MMR.

 

And teacozy would have us believe that this is all acceptable.  Teacozy would even have us believe that there is no conflict of interest in vaccine testing and monitoring, that conflict of interest is irrelevant (according to Paul Offit !!!!!!), and that the only important thing is what the data (collected, analyzed, and  tweaked by those who profit from vaccine sales) shows:

 

(bolding mine) Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The quote from the OP clearly stated "*less than* 10 percent." Not 10%.  And I guess my point is that COI and unethical practices don't have to mean that a product is "unacceptable."   Especially when that product is tested  and monitored over and over by people that have no financial COI or any ties to those unethical practices.  In the interview I posted with Offit in another thread he explains it well I think

 

"What isn't OK is that the profit motive gets in the way of explaining what vaccines are and how they work and how they're made; that the profit motive obscures real information about vaccine. ... I think this whole discussion about conflict of interest, profit motive, who's saying what, is irrelevant. The question is, what do the data show, and what has been the impact of vaccines, and have vaccines been as safe and effective as they've been claimed to be? And frankly, they consistently have been."

 

 

 

 

10-18-2013 07:41 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

My own take on it:  honesty and ethical behavior should have nothing whatsoever to do with earnings.  Conflict of interest and unethical practices are exactly that, no matter what percentage of profits are earned by the unethical behavior. And we should be calling them on it, even if the percentage of profits were nil (which they aren't), because the point is not how much profit they are making from the COI/unethical practices.  The point is that the COI and unethical practices result in an unacceptable product.

 

Teacozy's argument is a total straw man.

 

The quote from the OP clearly stated "*less than* 10 percent." Not 10%.  And I guess my point is that COI and unethical practices don't have to mean that a product is "unacceptable."   Especially when that product is tested  and monitored over and over by people that have no financial COI or any ties to those unethical practices.  In the interview I posted with Offit in another thread he explains it well I think

 

"What isn't OK is that the profit motive gets in the way of explaining what vaccines are and how they work and how they're made; that the profit motive obscures real information about vaccine. ... I think this whole discussion about conflict of interest, profit motive, who's saying what, is irrelevant. The question is, what do the data show, and what has been the impact of vaccines, and have vaccines been as safe and effective as they've been claimed to be? And frankly, they consistently have been."   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/offit.html 

 

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

10-18-2013 06:31 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa :

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?

Anyone?

If Teacozy can't answer, anyone else? The answer could make or break the whole crux of this thread. lurk.gif

My own take on it:  honesty and ethical behavior should have nothing whatsoever to do with earnings.  Conflict of interest and unethical practices are exactly that, no matter what percentage of profits are earned by the unethical behavior. And we should be calling them on it, even if the percentage of profits were nil (which they aren't), because the point is not how much profit they are making from the COI/unethical practices.  The point is that the COI and unethical practices result in an unacceptable product.

 

Teacozy's argument is a total straw man.

10-18-2013 06:02 AM
Mirzam

:lurk

 

FWIW, Merck has the same guy that manged the EXXON VALDEZ spill, and that handled the VIOXX 'situation' to do a bit of Gardasil 'clean up'.

 

http://sanevax.org/gardasil-carefully-hyped-vaccine-hurting-families/

10-18-2013 05:56 AM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

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?

Anyone?

If Teacozy can't answer, anyone else? The answer could make or break the whole crux of this thread. lurk.gif
10-12-2013 12:52 PM
Songy

:lurk

10-11-2013 05:20 PM
Mirzam

So, next time someone posts a fact or 'public record' on an anti vaccine website, I assume you won't attack the source, right? 

 

teacozy, you have made my night. :laugh

10-11-2013 05:15 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

Thanks for the laugh, "Or was this anti vaccine site not being truthful?", if a non-vaxer had posted a link from Rense (and you had a clue about the site), you would have likely dismissed it because of the "source".

 

PS: the story originally ran in the New Jersey Record.

 

Things that are public record aren't in dispute. If this is something that isn't public record and there isn't any real source, then yeah, I have to look at the intentions of the author. I assume it would be, though.  In other words, I didn't consider this an opinion, but a fact.  

10-11-2013 05:03 PM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Haha, you are linking to Rense, an anti vaccine, conspiracy theory, UFO believers website. (Couldn't resist)

 

Funny. I've never been to or heard of the site before. It was just the first link I saw.  I would assume this would be public record though? Or was this anti vaccine site not being truthful? 

Thanks for the laugh, "Or was this anti vaccine site not being truthful?", if a non-vaxer had posted a link from Rense (and you had a clue about the site), you would have likely dismissed it because of the "source".

 

PS: the story originally ran in the New Jersey Record.

10-11-2013 04:57 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Haha, you are linking to Rense, an anti vaccine, conspiracy theory, UFO believers website. (Couldn't resist)

 

Funny. I've never been to or heard of the site before. It was just the first link I saw.  I would assume this would be public record though? Or was this anti vaccine site not being truthful? 

10-11-2013 04:39 PM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

http://www.rense.com/general28/jers.htm

 

Haha, you are linking to Rense, an anti vaccine, conspiracy theory, UFO believers website. (Couldn't resist)

10-11-2013 04:25 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

From http://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation.aspx

 

"If the U.S. Court of Claims awards compensation to the vaccine injured person:

  • The VICP will offer to pay up to $250,000 for a vaccine associated death.
  • The VICP will offer to pay for all past and future unreimbursed medical expenses, custodial and nursing home care; and up to $250,000 pain and suffering as well as loss of earned income.
  • If an individual rejects the award or is denied compensation, a lawsuit may be filed in civil court but with certain restrictions.
  • Claims must be filed within 24 months of a death and 36 months of an injury."

 

Deaths = up to $250,000

Claims must be filed within 36 months of an injury;  many people don't even realize that their vaccine-induced autoimmune disorder or seizure disorder had anything to do with vaccination until well after the time frame is up.

 

Most compensations are for medical expenses etc.  Not for death from a vaccine which is extremely extremely rare. 

 

"

  • The VICP will offer to pay for all past and future unreimbursed medical expenses, custodial and nursing home care; and up to $250,000 pain and suffering as well as loss of earned income." 

 

But this is what usually ends up being in the millions. Just a google search of vaccine injury compensation came up with this as the first result " 

A New Jersey girl whose mental development stopped at 2 months old after a routine immunization has received a $4.7 million settlement from a national trust fund.

 

More than $3 million of the award will go to an annuity that will pay for the child's care as long as she lives. Its payout could exceed $61 million if she lives to 71, said Mindy Michaels Roth, the Glen Rock attorney who brought the case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

 

The payment to the girl, now 9 years old but with the mental ability of a 2-month-old, comes from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, funded by a 75-cent tax on each vaccination. " 

 

http://www.rense.com/general28/jers.htm

10-11-2013 04:07 PM
sassyfirechick

Yah, not in the millions.  MY child will be 2 in November, had her last vaccines at 5mos.  There is no way of knowing what issues could crop up in her lifetime that could be attributed to vaccines because these studies don't exist.  I like to think I got lucky stopping when I did and she thankfully never had a seizure (that I was aware of, and especially since my own father is epileptic) but most certainly had the encephalitis cry - and there are no studies out there about consequences associated with this in the long term.  36 months time frame to file a claim is pretty short in the bigger picture.  I'm sure all those families of children who developed "rare" brain tumors as a result of the original tainted polio vaccines would have been much happier knowing they could apply for compensation.  And yet, the same protection that surrounds vaccines, surrounds drugs.  For an industry that rakes in billions of dollars a year, and yet has zero legal accountability for their actions (setting aside a few million for vaccine court to be distributed among a handful of individuals does absolutely nothing to their bottom line) - where does it end?  Even when they admit wrong doing years, decades even, down the road, it has no effect in many cases on the original scientists who clearly were blinded by $$$, and once again minimal change to their checkbooks at the end of the day.

 

Backtracking to the original post - sure vaccines might be a drop in the bucket in terms of money.  But they are also a catalyst for which millions of individuals end up bogged down with numerous prescription drugs - a pill for every ill. For every vaccine side effect, there's a drug to "fix it" which is a joke in itself because drugs don't fix, they mask the real problem.  But the more they push vaccines, the more they profit from the damages they do.

10-11-2013 03:24 PM
Taximom5

From http://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation.aspx

 

"If the U.S. Court of Claims awards compensation to the vaccine injured person:

  • The VICP will offer to pay up to $250,000 for a vaccine associated death.
  • The VICP will offer to pay for all past and future unreimbursed medical expenses, custodial and nursing home care; and up to $250,000 pain and suffering as well as loss of earned income.
  • If an individual rejects the award or is denied compensation, a lawsuit may be filed in civil court but with certain restrictions.
  • Claims must be filed within 24 months of a death and 36 months of an injury."

 

Deaths = up to $250,000

Claims must be filed within 36 months of an injury;  many people don't even realize that their vaccine-induced autoimmune disorder or seizure disorder had anything to do with vaccination until well after the time frame is up.

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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