Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Vaccines, $$$ & "fight the virus NATURALLY"! 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)
10-03-2014 06:07 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Heard this (or a version thereof) today on the radio:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...spat-1.2786214
thanks for posting that Kathy

IMHO I don't think you sent a "clear" message when you say one thing and simply do another........no threat if no signs, OK, so why all the hazmat suites ??? OH............
10-03-2014 04:46 PM
beckybird "You already have people who don’t trust the West coming in, people who are hiding because they believe that the westerners are bringing the virus in."
Smart people. They need to keep hiding.
10-03-2014 01:28 PM
kathymuggle Heard this (or a version thereof) today on the radio:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...spat-1.2786214
08-26-2014 01:38 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
Replying in text makes it very hard to reply to you.



Yep. But pointing out that one ingredient is chemically identical and in less quantity than people get from natural sources still is not in any way the same as claiming that vaccines are totally natural substances.



Reason there is less risk to people in the West. Of course people from these areas are getting on planes including Aid workers returning home, but the typical person at risk of ebola is much less likely to get on a plane and come here than say a person in an area of England or France where there is a measles outbreak. Any look at travel statistics and where our visitors are statistically likely to be coming from/people returning from shows this.




Yep. People survive - thanks to antibiotics! Rheumatic fever was the occasional result of untreated strep.



I'm well aware of that. It's why I said up to 90%.






And that all is why there is a potential for few cases, there is no risk of a large outbreak.

With measles, a person can be contagious before they start showing symptoms, and if say they take a bus ride, they can expose not just the people sitting next to them but many people sitting on the same bus breathing the same air.

Ebola, on the other hand, is not contagious before symptoms and is not airborne and while the person sitting next to someone actually showing symptoms on a bus might be at a little bit of risk if there is bodily fluid contact, anyone sitting farther a way is not, and it is primarily close contacts caring for a sick person who are at risk. So ebola can be controlled by identifying and quarantining cases as quickly as possible and then identifying close contacts. That they are preparing for this and working quickly to do so is a large part of why we the general population has no reason to fear ebola.



And that is exactly what I and others here have been saying.

Your posting style is very hard to reply to, as I stated prior.

I think I made my opinions very clear and others can read them. Same way people can see and read news reports and draw their own conclusions and they do!
08-26-2014 11:29 AM
pers Replying in text makes it very hard to reply to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Pointing out time and time about it being just like in a pear (a drop in the ocean, etc) has been done on here and saying it's natural like in a pear has occurred and equating it to being no biggie either. I think others can take it how they want.
Yep. But pointing out that one ingredient is chemically identical and in less quantity than people get from natural sources still is not in any way the same as claiming that vaccines are totally natural substances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Time will tell. Teacozy said about the same - She also told us people aren't getting on planes from remote villages and coming here (NY) but we know that isn't true either, the government has managed to test several already.
Reason there is less risk to people in the West. Of course people from these areas are getting on planes including Aid workers returning home, but the typical person at risk of ebola is much less likely to get on a plane and come here than say a person in an area of England or France where there is a measles outbreak. Any look at travel statistics and where our visitors are statistically likely to be coming from/people returning from shows this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
lives, and by the way, how often do people die of rheumatic fever these days? again there was no vaccine for that either and still we do survive!
Yep. People survive - thanks to antibiotics! Rheumatic fever was the occasional result of untreated strep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers
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.
That is not totally accurate about that 90% figure. Also wanting a vaccine also doesn't seem to be a popular or shown to be needed by many - poster on here don't see the need.

Latest figures from the World Health Organization (WHO) record 1,603 cases of Ebola in the West African outbreak and 887 deaths - giving a death rate of just over 55 percent.

That is well below the 78.5 percent average death rate over 14 past outbreaks of the same virus - called the "Zaire strain" after the former name of the Democratic Republic of Congo where it was first detected in 1976. In some outbreaks the rate was up to 90 percent, according to WHO data.
I'm well aware of that. It's why I said up to 90%.




Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I do find it a bit unusual, (I also completely get it too! ) this "assumption" that ebola is not easy to spread being put of by those who happen to also be PRO vaccine. Funny thing is, the US govt really seems to be taking a different approach. It was posted in #22 by applejuice the govt is taking a bit different take by that order.

Currently there are six that have been tested thus far in the US, they are not (by all accounts) show signs of "bleeding", simply illness - Well fever and common flu-like symptoms alone and where you have been, seems to be about enough to get you tested.
http://nypost.com/2014/08/05/6-peopl...-ebola-in-nyc/
And that all is why there is a potential for few cases, there is no risk of a large outbreak.

With measles, a person can be contagious before they start showing symptoms, and if say they take a bus ride, they can expose not just the people sitting next to them but many people sitting on the same bus breathing the same air.

Ebola, on the other hand, is not contagious before symptoms and is not airborne and while the person sitting next to someone actually showing symptoms on a bus might be at a little bit of risk if there is bodily fluid contact, anyone sitting farther a way is not, and it is primarily close contacts caring for a sick person who are at risk. So ebola can be controlled by identifying and quarantining cases as quickly as possible and then identifying close contacts. That they are preparing for this and working quickly to do so is a large part of why we the general population has no reason to fear ebola.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...803-story.html

“I don’t think it’s in the cards that we would have widespread Ebola in this country,” he said. He acknowledged that other travelers might bring back the disease, leading to “a case or two.” But in Africa, hospital and burial practices are feeding the spread of Ebola, and such practices are different in the United States, he said.

The key, therefore, is not to keep the virus out of the U.S. but to address the epidemic abroad, he said. “We know how to protect ourselves, but the single most important thing we can do is stop it at the source in Africa. That’s going to protect them and protect us.”
And that is exactly what I and others here have been saying.
08-20-2014 05:18 AM
emmy526 And more money
Quote:
Global Influenza (Flu) Vaccine Market 2014 Trends and 2019 Opportunities Now Available at MarketReportsOnline.com
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2126393#ixzz3AvyTD5kA
08-16-2014 02:03 PM
emmy526 speaking of making money...
Quote:
Pfizer, Merck, pick up hefty vax sales bump with CDC nod in seniors
August 14, 2014 | By Carly Helfand
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/pf...ors/2014-08-14
Quote:
Pfizer's ($PFE) Prevnar 13, the world's best-selling vaccine, scored a big win Wednesday, nabbing a CDC committee nod for universal use in adults over the age of 65. And once payer coverage kicks in, that's a nod that could be worth $2 billion for Pfizer, analysts say--with Merck's ($MRK) Pneumovax getting a boost, too.
08-15-2014 04:24 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
@
"For the drug to be used in Liberia, it would have to be approved by the country's Ministry of Health Ethical Committee, said Bernice Dahn, Liberia's chief medical officer.

Dr. Dahn said she wasn't aware of the committee approving any experimental Ebola treatment, though she also wasn't aware of any being disapproved. It is conceivable a treatment was approved without her knowledge, she said. Liberia's assistant health minister, Tolbert Nyenswah, didn't know of any approval. Liberia's presidency also wasn't aware, said Information Minister Lewis Brown. "
http://online.wsj.com/articles/niger...rug-1408034006 Nigerians are getting too.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...he-way-from-us
08-11-2014 05:27 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Theres a lot of public money spent promoting breast feeding in the UK (and no school requirements on vaccines).

The US health system is a messed up thing - but don't make the mistake of blaming scientists or vaccine "pushers" for that.
You think it's limited to school requirements in the US? What about job requirements?

Let's look at the real ramifications for a minute.

Unvaccinated children--and remember, "unvaccinated" refers to anyone not COMPLETELY caught up on all recommended vaccines, including the flu shot--are restricted from daycare, school, all school-related extra-curricular activities (sports, music, theatre, clubs), and camps. New moms are threatened that their babies will be taken away if they don't agree to the hep b vaccine at birth.

Unvaccinated adults are restricted from university, and jobs in many sectors, including education, food service, hotels, health care,band government. Those working for companies with group health care insurance rates see higher health care rates for their entire companies; in other words, their companies are under financial pressure from the vaccine industry, via the insurance industry.

This doesn't end with school mandates. This is a caste system based on vaccination status.
08-11-2014 12:22 AM
beckybird I just found this......

"TEKMIRA Pharmaceuticals, a company working on an anti-Ebola drug, just received a $1.5 million cash infusion from none other than Monsanto."

Monsanto.
08-10-2014 05:31 PM
lilitchka I think that this ebola epidemic could easily be stopped and the world has the resources for it. But the 1st world doesn't want it to stop. We want it to become big enough to get the rich world population (us) scared. And once we are scared, we are ready to pay. Ready to pay for a vaccine even if the disease is very unlikely here. Likely to pay for preventive drugs.
Also, if enough africans (that no one really cares about) get sick, it will be an excellent experimental ground for vaccine and medications, yet, it will look like humanitarian care....but really, it is using africans as Guinea pig . (I guess they are really from Guinea, except they are not pigs).
we have been there and done that with HIV.
we are scared of it here, but the mortality is low. In sub-saharian Africa the mortality is high and it is an excellent laboratory.
08-10-2014 05:20 PM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Theres a lot of public money spent promoting breast feeding in the UK (and no school requirements on vaccines).

The US health system is a messed up thing - but don't make the mistake of blaming scientists or vaccine "pushers" for that.
Why is it a mistake to blame the corporations/agencies and the people who head them (and work for them) when they have the biggest influence on how the health care system is run, particularly with the revolving door between government and industry and the obscene amount of lobbying dollars?

Is it the average mum's fault?
08-10-2014 08:13 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

The US health system is a messed up thing - but don't make the mistake of blaming scientists or vaccine "pushers" for that.
Since many of us are US if we see fit, we have the right to point fingers in the direction we see fit.

Vaccine "pushers" are evil to many of us here. Not directly dealing with things on the same level as us here in the US, maybe that alters your true prospective, I don't know.

What I DO know is the rest of the world is not like the US.
Vaccine pushers are rampant in women's magazines, BIG Pharma is all over the media. The rest of the world doesn't need to "ask your dr. If X is right for you" like we need to here.
Vastly different!
08-10-2014 07:14 AM
prosciencemum Theres a lot of public money spent promoting breast feeding in the UK (and no school requirements on vaccines).

The US health system is a messed up thing - but don't make the mistake of blaming scientists or vaccine "pushers" for that.
08-10-2014 02:07 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
Nowhere in the post you quoted of mine did I say that profit was a reason. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of something I never said.

In my post I stated that it made sense to focus research dollars on diseases that affect the largest number of people - a vaccine that could save thousands seems more logical as a priority than one which takes, on average, less than 100 lives each year. In *MY* opinion the focus should be on diseases that are most prevalent regardless of profit potential.
I had included your comment because you only wanted it for largest number of people, I think clearly others can see that. That is why I highlighted it in red too. I think other can read for themselves what you wrote and decide for themselves.

I happen to have a problem with "health" care that is only for certain number of people and your remark says it should only be for the largest, I call that discrimination. Again, others can view it how they want. I feel it's awful to say things should just be limited and I feel that is discrimination when one suggests it.


ETA- anthrax vaccine IMO is one very, very few need but I don't see that or the money surrounding it an issues for the PRO vac community either.
Again no one says a peep about the Defense dept. and how they do fund vaccines.
08-09-2014 08:48 PM
applejuice Exactly, Deborah.

I remember a doctor telling me that the missionaries and doctors who go into villages in the third world provide potable water, wash the people, their food, clothes, eating utensils, burn and replace their bedding, teach hygiene, boost the nutrition of these poor people,

AND then, at long last, line these poor people up and give them vaccines.

AND the vaccines get all of the credit.

In the very last smallpox epidemic in Yugoslavia in 1972, vaccinations were given, BUT quarantine was strictly observed. So which public health measure was most effective?

Vaccination never works alone. Vaccination relies on other variables to be successful, but vaccination alone always gets the credit, because doctors invented it.
08-09-2014 07:27 PM
Deborah Actually, one of my major concerns about the way vaccines are pushed is that I suspect sometimes they are used instead of public health measures that might have better results.

For example, the evidence is pretty good that increasing breastfeeding rates improves all sorts of outcomes across the board. But for various reasons, using public health resources to push breastfeeding doesn't happen very much. On the other hand, a vaccine that "might" save a relatively small number of lives per year, or that "might" eventually decrease mortality of a fairly rare illness, is pushed--this vaccine MUST be added to the schedule.

I think vaccines, especially in the current atmosphere, are being over-promoted and over-used.
08-09-2014 07:17 PM
TCMoulton
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Besides the links I provided that explain several different ways the same thing as to why there can't be a vaccine all mention "profit" as major component in the equation.

Those who are on here and also happen to vac also mention "profit" as a reasoning.











DO you mean - "let them eat cake"?

IF one "claim" contagious diseases are to be eradicated thus one must be showing they have compassion?? That is how I think most view things, at least that is how it comes off-IMO

IF one's view point is disease are to be eradicated via vaccines, why should cost (profit) factor in it at all?

The "irony" many see is a double standard by those who support vaccines because they "claim" they do so for the benefits but when a disease such as Ebola comes into play so does money! Money, only meaning PROFT seem to trump over all. I have not heard anyone say the defense dept doesn't have the cash for the research, clearly they do.

It comes off IMO obliviousness as to the condition of the people effected because the bottom line is PROFT.

That makes many of us on the other side really wonder in general about the "reasoning" for these so-called necessary vaccines, are they really for the good or is it the PROFIT?
Nowhere in the post you quoted of mine did I say that profit was a reason. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of something I never said.

In my post I stated that it made sense to focus research dollars on diseases that affect the largest number of people - a vaccine that could save thousands seems more logical as a priority than one which takes, on average, less than 100 lives each year. In *MY* opinion the focus should be on diseases that are most prevalent regardless of profit potential.
08-09-2014 01:18 PM
cynthia mosher Let's drop the personally pointed posting and negative sarcasm. Keep your posts respectful, please.
08-08-2014 05:38 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

DO you mean - "let them eat cake"?


Good one, lol
08-08-2014 05:23 PM
serenbat Besides the links I provided that explain several different ways the same thing as to why there can't be a vaccine all mention "profit" as major component in the equation.

Those who are on here and also happen to vac also mention "profit" as a reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post
On money:

I've said there are practical AS WELL AS economic reasons why there isn't an established vaccine or specific treatment for ebola. Money is part of it.

But now, please, step back and think of money a little more broadly.

Imagine you are a researcher who wants to make a positive difference in people's lives. You know that a variety of diseases cause untold suffering in low-income nations. Do you work in your lab on ebola - an odd little hemorrhagic fever that has a small outbreak every few decades - or do you go to work on Lassa fever, a hemorrhagic illness which infects 100, 000 to 300, 000 people per year? Or on malaria or dengue, which affect millions? Is market size just about money, or is it also measure of how much good you can do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
As per the profit line of questioning, I thought this statement made by someone named Todd W summed it up nicely.

"I really don't understand why you (non vaxxers) villify someone getting paid for the work that they have done. I assume that none of you get paychecks and just altruistically donate your time to your employers. That's the only explanation I can think of. "

The above was in response to a comment about Paul Offit, but the same idea applies to vaccine manufacturers. They are a company that has to make money. Trials cost millions and take years.

Ebola is scary and gets a lot of media attention when there is an outbreak, but malaria kills more people in a single day than ebola has in close to 30 years. 3,000 children die A DAY from malaria, or one child every 30 seconds.

Years can go by without a single Ebola death. When there are outbreaks it's usually between 50-200 deaths. To again put these numbers in perspective, it is estimated that between 6,000-24,000 people die a year from getting struck by lightning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
Although if there is a finite amount of money available for research and development of vaccines it would make most sense to focus on those diseases that affect the largest number of people, and Ebola simply doesn't affect the numbers annually like other diseases do. Wouldn't surprise me if there is work going on now in light of recent events but I doubt that anything will make a difference in Liberia at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
This tread takes the cake!
DO you mean - "let them eat cake"?

IF one "claim" contagious diseases are to be eradicated thus one must be showing they have compassion?? That is how I think most view things, at least that is how it comes off-IMO

IF one's view point is disease are to be eradicated via vaccines, why should cost (profit) factor in it at all?

The "irony" many see is a double standard by those who support vaccines because they "claim" they do so for the benefits but when a disease such as Ebola comes into play so does money! Money, only meaning PROFT seem to trump over all. I have not heard anyone say the defense dept doesn't have the cash for the research, clearly they do.

It comes off IMO obliviousness as to the condition of the people effected because the bottom line is PROFT.

That makes many of us on the other side really wonder in general about the "reasoning" for these so-called necessary vaccines, are they really for the good or is it the PROFIT?
08-08-2014 04:42 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
The very OP of this thread is about who should deliver pharmaceuticals with sarcasm about profits.
NO it was not, it was to show the views of many who do vaccinate and the pure irony many of us who don't see with those views regarding diseases.
08-08-2014 01:19 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
Who here said that - show me one post where someone here said that the only vax that is worth it is one that makes the company a profit.
If you read what I wrote, NO place did I say "someone" on here directly said that.
08-08-2014 01:14 PM
applejuice I believe you mean, "thread".
08-08-2014 01:02 PM
tadamsmar This thread takes the cake!
08-08-2014 12:59 PM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I do not support a vaccine for Ebola or other diseases.
08-08-2014 12:40 PM
TCMoulton
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I find it hypocritical to feel you can vax your way out of a disease ....only if there is profit to be made!!
.
Who here said that - show me one post where someone here said that the only vax that is worth it is one that makes the company a profit.

Although if there is a finite amount of money available for research and development of vaccines it would make most sense to focus on those diseases that affect the largest number of people, and Ebola simply doesn't affect the numbers annually like other diseases do. Wouldn't surprise me if there is work going on now in light of recent events but I doubt that anything will make a difference in Liberia at this point.
08-08-2014 10:24 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
I love it how the OP took time off from complaining about vaccines to complain about the the lack of vaccines!
Well you got that all wrong.
First I certainty didn't take time off!

I find it hypocritical to feel you can vax your way out of a disease ....only if there is profit to be made!!

I do not support a vaccine for Ebola or other diseases.

You seem to be confused about how profit factors in here- Kathy put it very well -IMO.
08-08-2014 09:38 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
No.

Do you avoid vaccines to protest this? Me neither.
I don't think this matters. An organisation, product, etc, is not free from limitations or criticisms just because you choose to use it.
08-08-2014 09:07 AM
tadamsmar I love it how the OP took time off from complaining about vaccines to complain about the the lack of vaccines!
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