Mothering Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Can you please explain your thought processes regarding corporations, specifically Merck, who manufactures a number of vaccines, who have found themselves undergoing criminal charges regarding several pharmaceuticals, regarding providing false data, misbranding, covering up and hiding pertinent data that would affect their bottom line if word got out, and causing death in thousands of people? Pharmaceuticals should be used under the discretion of the "customer," and should never been forced, due to the many dangers we have seen regarding vaccines and everyday medications as well, especially due to the fact they are manufactured by greedy groups of people:

Vioxx, for example, a somewhat oldie, but biggie: let's take a look at how Merck handled incoming information about the medication causing A significant heart risk to patients, killing thousands of people before they pulled it from the market. It sounds all too familiar to what is going on with Gardasil, except we haven't quite reached the point where they admit to the vaccine causing harm quite yet. It seems to take many years, many deaths, and many illnesses before the truth comes out.

Merck continued to claim that the medication was "safe and effective'unless proven otherwise." Sound familiar? Funny thing is is that they rejected conducting studies on the increased chance of heart attacks because it seemed too inconvenient for them to study it solely as they were busy studying what other conditions Vioxx could be used for. Greed? Absolutely. Care for the welfare of their patients? Absolutely not. In addition, they completely dismissed incoming data from outside researchers that the drug was dangerous. And guess what? It was found to be dangerous!

In May 2000, executives at Merck, the pharmaceutical giant under siege for its handling of the multibillion-dollar drug Vioxx, made a fateful decision.

The company's top research and marketing executives met that month to consider whether to develop a study to directly test a disturbing possibility: that Vioxx, a painkiller, might pose a heart risk. Two months earlier, results from a clinical trial conducted for other reasons had suggested such concerns.

But the executives rejected pursuing a study focused on Vioxx's cardiovascular risks. According to company documents, the scientists wondered if such a study, which might require as many as 50,000 patients, was even possible. Merck's marketers, meanwhile, apparently feared it could send the wrong signal about the company's confidence in Vioxx, which already faced fierce competition from a rival drug, Celebrex.

"At present, there is no compelling marketing need for such a study," said a slide prepared for the meeting. "Data would not be available during the critical period. The implied message is not favorable[/I]."

Merck decided not to conduct a study solely to determine whether Vioxx might cause heart attacks and strokes -- the type of study that outside scientists would repeatedly call for as clinical evidence continued to show cardiovascular risks from the drug. Instead, Merck officials decided to monitor clinical trials, already under way or planned, that were to test Vioxx for other uses, to see if any additional signs of cardiovascular problems emerged.

It was a recurring theme for the company over the next few years -- that Vioxx was safe unless proved otherwise. As recently as Friday, in newspaper advertisements, Merck has argued that it took "prompt and decisive action" as soon as it knew that Vioxx was dangerous.

But a detailed reconstruction of Merck's handling of Vioxx, based on interviews and internal company documents, suggests that actions the company took -- and did not take -- soon after the drug's safety was questioned may have affected the health of potentially thousands of patients, as well as the company's financial health and reputation..But the company never directly tested the theory that it used to explain the worrisome results of the clinical trial in 2000. Merck was criticized for what some charged was playing down the drug's possible heart risks; in one case, it received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration for minimizing "potentially serious cardiovascular findings." And when outside researchers found evidence indicating Vioxx might pose dangers, Merck dismissed their data..
And here is the kicker... This is what @Deborah has been stating about Gardasil all along:

"They should have done a trial like this," Dr. Bhatt said. "If they internally thought this drug was safe in patients with heart disease, there was no reason not to do it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/b...iant-took-long-path-to-vioxx-recall.html?_r=0

If they believe Gardasil is so safe, why aren't they looking into all of the claims and proving that it's not Gardasil causing the issues. Nothing of the sort. They are using the same old "safe and effective until proven otherwise" statement as usual. They will not be looking into three issues with Gardasil as they are too busy making money elsewhere. Sadly, Gardasil may turn out just like Vioxx, after its too late and many more are injured.

Seriously, who do you trust? People who have nothing to gain by telling their story of vaccine injuries, or pharmaceutical companies like Merck who commit such crimes, lie to their customers, and try to get away with murder, literally, to continue against the competition and make money at any cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,724 Posts
I strongly recommend Big Pharma by Ben Goldacre. That book explains the concerns I have, and the reasons I still think vaccines are a good idea.

I do agree they shouldn't be forced on people, I just think that with the correct understanding of the issues almost everyone would decide to vaccinate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I strongly recommend Big Pharma by Ben Goldacre. That book explains the concerns I have, and the reasons I still think vaccines are a good idea.

I do agree they shouldn't be forced on people, I just think that with the correct understanding of the issues almost everyone would decide to vaccinate.
I've never read that book. Thank you for the suggestion. I'm always open to seeing it from both sides. I noticed the book is actually called "Bad Pharma." Since you've read it and indicate it explains the reasons you still think vaccines are a good idea, could you provide what those reasons would be, considering vaccines are manufactured by "Bad Pharma," which is indicated in the title? Let's not forget too, in the case of Vioxx, the FDA was in hot water as well for failure to protect the public and not behaving proactively to save the lives of those that were lost due to the medication and were criticized for ineffective regulation. So, there are obviously many problems, along with regulatory agencies slowly but surely dropping the ball.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
I strongly recommend Big Pharma by Ben Goldacre. That book explains the concerns I have, and the reasons I still think vaccines are a good idea.

I do agree they shouldn't be forced on people, I just think that with the correct understanding of the issues almost everyone would decide to vaccinate.
There is very little evidence that those who do not vaccinate by choice lack an understanding of the issues.

Indeed, as a demographic non and sel/delayed vaxxers are fairly well educated and know more about vaccine and their related diseases than most who choose to vaccinate. I can cite if you like.

Most non-vaxxers are not immunologists ...but if you subscribe to the POV that only certain scientists should get to decide what we do and do not put in our bodies, then you give too much power to scientists for my liking. There isn't anything correct or incorrect about failing to automatically heed an authority - just different world views.

I have read Ben Goldacre. I agree he is a good read, but I do not think he successfully reconciles his sweeping criticism of Big Pharma with his beliefs around vaccines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
I do agree they shouldn't be forced on people, I just think that with the correct understanding of the issues almost everyone would decide to vaccinate.
With each and every vaccine recommended on the US schedule and at the exact recommended age?

Why do I have the feeling that "correct understanding" translates to "unquestioningly accepting" whatever the pharmaceutical companies say about vaccines? Do the doctors, scientists, researchers, and other HCPs that don't agree with any or all of the vaccines simply suffer from incorrect understanding of the issues?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
Yes, let's start with the Hep B at birth.
@prosciencemum
I just think that with the correct understanding of the issues almost everyone would decide to vaccinate.
Even pro-vaccine people sometimes step back from doing this one. In Vermont, most people comply with the schedule, more or less. But the Hep B rate at birth was pathetic, last time I checked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
Another one where a significant number of pro-vaccine people seem to have concerns are the HPV vaccines. See the fuss in Rhode Island and the generally unsatisfactory uptake in the US. Although the vaccine supporters try to make it all about "sex", safety seems to be a common concern. The attempts to suppress stories of problems following doses of these vaccines don't seem to be working well.

I just think that with the correct understanding of the issues almost everyone would decide to vaccinate.
Would they? What would it take to convince the parents with concerns about the safety of the HPV vaccines to go ahead and give their teens one or the other of these vaccines?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
See, it is hardly ever "vaccines" in general. Most people have concerns about particular vaccines. And if they get picked on enough they do begin to wonder about vaccines in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
I strongly recommend Big Pharma by Ben Goldacre. That book explains the concerns I have, and the reasons I still think vaccines are a good idea.

I do agree they shouldn't be forced on people, I just think that with the correct understanding of the issues almost everyone would decide to vaccinate.
This must be some sort of well guarded secret left to those who hold it. :eyesroll





Since you've read it and indicate it explains the reasons you still think vaccines are a good idea, could you provide what those reasons would be, considering vaccines are manufactured by "Bad Pharma," which is indicated in the title?
With each and every vaccine recommended on the US schedule and at the exact recommended age?

Why do I have the feeling that "correct understanding" translates to "unquestioningly accepting" whatever the pharmaceutical companies say about vaccines? Do the doctors, scientists, researchers, and other HCPs that don't agree with any or all of the vaccines simply suffer from incorrect understanding of the issues?

the sounds of silence..................:2whistle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
the sounds of silence..................:2whistle
I notice provaxers are not joining this thread, aside from PSM's one post.

I'm interested in what other others have to say, particularly others who defend and support the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, especially what @teacozy's thoughts are since she stands so strongly by and defends the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, indicating that the vaccine is in no way responsible for any harmful effects. What are the opinions/thoughts/conclusions regarding Merck and their disgraceful activities and behavior regarding Vioxx and the similarities we now see with Gardasil?

I see @teacozy claiming the deaths and illnesses after Gardasil are coincidental. I wonder if all of those thousands and thousands of deaths and heart attacks from Vioxx would also have been claimed as a coincidence too by the same types of people who support big Pharma, that's of course before the truth came out about Vioxx (by outside researchers, not Merck by the way) years later and there were no coincidences. I wonder if people who defend such giants like Merck and their products would have discredited those outside researchers who actually confirmed the links to Vioxx and heart attacks, in the same way they discredit other countries in the case of Gardasil indicating they "don't know how to do math" and are counting incorrectly and others claiming the vaccine is dangerous. just looking for some discussion around this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
I notice provaxers are not joining this thread, aside from PSM's one post.

I'm interested in what other others have to say, particularly others who defend and support the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, especially what @teacozy's thoughts are since she stands so strongly by and defends the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, indicating that the vaccine is in no way responsible for any harmful effects. What are the opinions/thoughts/conclusions regarding Merck and their disgraceful activities and behavior regarding Vioxx and the similarities we now see with Gardasil?

I see @teacozy claiming the deaths and illnesses after Gardasil are coincidental. I wonder if all of those thousands and thousands of deaths and heart attacks from Vioxx would also have been claimed as a coincidence too by the same types of people who support big Pharma, that's of course before the truth came out about Vioxx (by outside researchers, not Merck by the way) years later and there were no coincidences. I wonder if people who defend such giants like Merck and their products would have discredited those outside researchers who actually confirmed the links to Vioxx and heart attacks, in the same way they discredit other countries in the case of Gardasil indicating they "don't know how to do math" and are counting incorrectly and others claiming the vaccine is dangerous. just looking for some discussion around this.
I know what you mean! Happens soooooo often there appears to be a pattern here- IMO

We ALL get the notification when we are quoted or mentioned.

When one makes a statement and a few ask for clarification and that poster goes on to post in other threads, clearly it's a deliberate attempt to dodge!

PRO agenda seem more about talking points not substance or back-up......IMO

PRO agenda- just keep saying no problem with vaccines & hope no one notices when you don't respond! How convenient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
It's only fair that if someone is going to deny that vaccines like Gardasil are causing severe adverse reactions and debilitating disease that that person state their reasons as to why they trust the system, and why others should to, when the system has failed the public in fatal ways. Of course if no one wants to respond that's their prerogative but it's also evidence then that they prefer to keep their discussions one-sided and they have no interest in discussing the real and true problems. That speaks volumes IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
That speaks volumes IMO.
Repeating it thread after thread too! I know it's not just us regular posters that see this pattern.

Zealous PRO pushing of super-safe at all costs isn't the reality most people adhere to in real life, thus why the tone towards ANTI/selective vaccers as of late is the way it is.

To be clear many who do post here are clearly PRO as they come off on here & some do post elsewhere on the web. Some "do" question vaccines outside of here (& make mention they are members here) - seeing how other PRO vaccers tell them off is amusing- IMO They think most of us simply to dumb to know what else goes on!!!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top