parents who dont vaccinate your babies??

[My_First]

It's not in the drug companies' interests to release vaccines that are ineffective or unsafe. Perhaps in the past they would be less rigorous in tests than they are now but the real money is in making/licensing something good that works well for decades, worldwide. I maybe sound quite naive about this... But I hope not!

I do agree with this too. They are in the business to make money, yes, there is no denying that. It takes decades of research and millions of pounds/dollars and then validation from whichever countries scruitneers before its even given human trials. If they got it wrong or knowingly produce something that damaged it has catestrphic consequences, not only for the people who are vaccinated, but the company looses shareholders and ultimately collapses. It's not in their interests at all.
I don't see what the alternative is? Goverments and individuals can't afford studies and research at that level.

They make HUGE amounts of money (i.e., between 10 and 15 billion dollars from the swine flu vaccine in 2009 alone). Isn't it fair to question the motives of companies that profit to such a high degree over people's health? The safety trials are also not very strenuous and do not account for long-term effects. Sadly, if they get it wrong or produce something that does damage people, they face absolutely no liability (kind of like banks, lol) due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Consumers pay taxes on vaccines, and these taxes are used to pay people who are injured from vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies are not liable at all -- they face no financial repercussion -- so they don't really have an incentive to conduct effective safety trials.

(Ugh, I'm against animal testing entirely though -- I don't think anything is worth putting animals through such torture, I don't care what it is. This is a separate issue altogether though. Sorry for the rant!)

I agree with you that I don't see much of an alternative for effective studies. It's just unfortunate. Everything is so complicated!

Sorry you mis understood. I realise that they are not culpable for damage, but if they were to produce something that had catastrophic consequences, they would lose shareholders, and money. Investment stops and consequently go under. Much like many of the banks.

I think a healty debate is good thing.

 

[BlueHadeda]

I also believe that the big companies tries their best to bring out safe and effective vaccines. BUT, I also think they don't always get it right. For example, if you do some research on the rotavirus vaccines, you'd notice that one was detracted from the market AFTER it's been used on babies! And another is given to babies even though it's contaminated with another virus!!

Here's excerps from wiki (I know, not the best source, but I just don't have the time to look for something better now).

In 1998, a rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield, by Wyeth) was licensed for use in the United States. Clinical trials in the United States, Finland, and Venezuela had found it to be 80 to 100% effective at preventing severe diarrhea caused by rotavirus A, and researchers had detected no statistically significant serious adverse effects. The manufacturer of the vaccine, however, withdrew it from the market in 1999, after it was discovered that the vaccine may have contributed to an increased risk for intussusception, or bowel obstruction, in one of every 12,000 vaccinated infants. The experience provoked debate about the relative risks and benefits of a rotavirus vaccine.[8]

In 2006, two vaccines against Rotavirus A infection were shown to be safe and effective in children: Rotarix by GlaxoSmithKline[9] and RotaTeq by Merck.[10] Both are taken orally and contain disabled live virus

On March 22, 2010, the detection of DNA from porcine circovirus types 1 and 2 within RotaTeq prompted the FDA to suspend the use of rotavirus vaccines while conducting an investigation in collaboration with the 12 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).[14] On May 6, 2010, the FDA announced its decision to revoke the suspension, asserting that porcine circovirus types 1 and 2 pose no safety risks in humans and concluded that health risks involved did not offset the benefits of the vaccination.[14]

What gets to me, is the fact that this vaccine was administered to tiny BABIES for FOUR YEARS without them realising it's not sterile as it should've been, but contain ANOTHER virus!!!!! And then, they suspended it for only TWO MONTHS to study before declaring it safe! How can they say that another virus they're giving to the babies, are safe to do, after only studying it for 2 months? What about the long term effect of this virus on babies? What about the chances of this virus one day mutating?

This is why I declined the rotavirus. And when the nurse wanted to know why, I tried to explain, and her answer was "these things are studied for YEARS before it's put on the market".

 

[Piper84]

I agree that we all want what is best for our babies and that the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of questions to answer, but when it comes to things like MMR, which has been proven to be the most effective way of combating these childhood diseases and almost eradicating them, I have no understanding for non-vaccination.

LO's childcare centre regularly has infections going round, usually less serious than measles or rubella, but if a newborn who hasn't been vaccinated is put in an environment where some children aren't vaccinated, which could happen when parents are dropping off older kids at nursery, and contracts one of these illnesses they could die from other people's decisions. I can't get behind that.

 

[Feronia]

They make HUGE amounts of money (i.e., between 10 and 15 billion dollars from the swine flu vaccine in 2009 alone). Isn't it fair to question the motives of companies that profit to such a high degree over people's health?

Given that the companies that make vaccines also make a huge range of drugs that are used as treatments for all the illnesses they can vaccinate against, would they not make more money if people just got sick? That way they wouldn't have to invest any money in making or testing vaccines, but could just reap the profits of illness.

The majority of profits that pharmaceutical companies make are from vaccines and they're frequently trying to come up with new vaccines. Why? Because they make a lot more money by having everyone vaccinate compared to only treating people who get sick. It's in their best interests to push vaccines and NOT treat illnesses.

It's one of the reasons that a cure for cancer was found at the University of Alberta and pharmaceutical companies will not touch it because it won't make them money. If it were a vaccine they'd be all over it though. These companies don't give a shit about people!

 

[tinytabby]

Thanks for coming back with the reasons why you understand safety trials on vaccines to be inadequate. I have to say, I'm not convinced.

You say things like 'the majority of pharma profits come from vaccines' - where do you get this evidence from? It seems highly unlikely to me. Vaccines are such a small part of medicine.

As for aluminium damage, yes, sure, this could be a concern. But so might fluoride in the water or sweeteners in food and a whole bunch of other stuff that its very hard to judge the safety of.

 

[Feronia]

Thanks for coming back with the reasons why you understand safety trials on vaccines to be inadequate. I have to say, I'm not convinced.

You say things like 'the majority of pharma profits come from vaccines' - where do you get this evidence from? It seems highly unlikely to me. Vaccines are such a small part of medicine.

As for aluminium damage, yes, sure, this could be a concern. But so might fluoride in the water or sweeteners in food and a whole bunch of other stuff that its very hard to judge the safety of.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be convinced that the safety trials are inadequate if they do not test any long-term effects. As BlueHadeda pointed out, some vaccines are on the market for years being used on children until a terrible side effect is discovered. Children are basically the test subjects of any new vaccine (and we saw this as recently as 2009 when the insufficiently-tested h1n1 vaccine was causing miscarriages and other terrible effects).

About the profits, here's a link to an article from the Globe and Mail: https://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/...me-big-business/article572731/?service=mobile and here's a quote from it:

Between 2004 and 2007, vaccine sales across the industry soared an average of 32 per cent each year, with flu vaccine leading the way. That is roughly four times faster than any other pharmaceutical product.

It's not that hard to see how something that (almost) everyone gets doesn't make them the most amount of money.

Fluoride is a known toxin and should not be in the water supply. Thankfully I live in a city that does not fluoridate the water, and plenty of people buy filters to remove fluoride. Many sweeteners are known to be bad, too. Obviously vaccines aren't the only things that contain toxins and nobody said they that they were. Yes, other things are toxic; they're also not "required" to get into school, a job, a daycare, etc. We are, after all, talking about vaccines in this thread, and ultimately it doesn't make sense to say "there are other toxins as well so let's not worry ourselves about aluminum even though it's a neurotoxin."

 

[MillieJoan]

Fluoride is a known toxin and should not be in the water supply. Thankfully I live in a city that does not fluoridate the water, and plenty of people buy filters to remove fluoride. Many sweeteners are known to be bad, too. Obviously vaccines aren't the only things that contain toxins and nobody said they that they were. Yes, other things are toxic; they're also not "required" to get into school, a job, a daycare, etc. We are, after all, talking about vaccines in this thread, and ultimately it doesn't make sense to say "there are other toxins as well so let's not worry ourselves about aluminum even though it's a neurotoxin."

Yes!

 

[Tasha]

The majority of profits that pharmaceutical companies make are from vaccines and they're frequently trying to come up with new vaccines. Why? Because they make a lot more money by having everyone vaccinate compared to only treating people who get sick. It's in their best interests to push vaccines and NOT treat illnesses.

It's one of the reasons that a cure for cancer was found at the University of Alberta and pharmaceutical companies will not touch it because it won't make them money. If it were a vaccine they'd be all over it though. These companies don't give a shit about people!

is that true? Where can I read about it?

 

[lhancock90]

They make HUGE amounts of money (i.e., between 10 and 15 billion dollars from the swine flu vaccine in 2009 alone). Isn't it fair to question the motives of companies that profit to such a high degree over people's health?

Given that the companies that make vaccines also make a huge range of drugs that are used as treatments for all the illnesses they can vaccinate against, would they not make more money if people just got sick? That way they wouldn't have to invest any money in making or testing vaccines, but could just reap the profits of illness.

The majority of profits that pharmaceutical companies make are from vaccines and they're frequently trying to come up with new vaccines. Why? Because they make a lot more money by having everyone vaccinate compared to only treating people who get sick. It's in their best interests to push vaccines and NOT treat illnesses.

It's one of the reasons that a cure for cancer was found at the University of Alberta and pharmaceutical companies will not touch it because it won't make them money. If it were a vaccine they'd be all over it though. These companies don't give a shit about people!

I'm sorry but without any evidence thats a brash and dangerous remark to throw out.

 

[My_First]

Thanks for coming back with the reasons why you understand safety trials on vaccines to be inadequate. I have to say, I'm not convinced.

You say things like 'the majority of pharma profits come from vaccines' - where do you get this evidence from? It seems highly unlikely to me. Vaccines are such a small part of medicine.

As for aluminium damage, yes, sure, this could be a concern. But so might fluoride in the water or sweeteners in food and a whole bunch of other stuff that its very hard to judge the safety of.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be convinced that the safety trials are inadequate if they do not test any long-term effects. As BlueHadeda pointed out, some vaccines are on the market for years being used on children until a terrible side effect is discovered. Children are basically the test subjects of any new vaccine (and we saw this as recently as 2009 when the insufficiently-tested h1n1 vaccine was causing miscarriages and other terrible effects).

About the profits, here's a link to an article from the Globe and Mail: https://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/...me-big-business/article572731/?service=mobile and here's a quote from it:

Between 2004 and 2007, vaccine sales across the industry soared an average of 32 per cent each year, with flu vaccine leading the way. That is roughly four times faster than any other pharmaceutical product.

It's not that hard to see how something that (almost) everyone gets doesn't make them the most amount of money.

Fluoride is a known toxin and should not be in the water supply. Thankfully I live in a city that does not fluoridate the water, and plenty of people buy filters to remove fluoride. Many sweeteners are known to be bad, too. Obviously vaccines aren't the only things that contain toxins and nobody said they that they were. Yes, other things are toxic; they're also not "required" to get into school, a job, a daycare, etc. We are, after all, talking about vaccines in this thread, and ultimately it doesn't make sense to say "there are other toxins as well so let's not worry ourselves about aluminum even though it's a neurotoxin."

It takes between 10 and 15 years to design and test a vaccine, that's fairly medium term at least. This is of course apart from the flu one, however only one thing changes in that and that's the antigen, which will be to focus on that strain that year. Beyond that I think there is pretty rigorous testing.

Would you be able to provide me a link that demonstrates the that that vaccine caused miscarriages?

 

[Natsku]

https://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp

 

[Feronia]

Brash and dangerous? Are you serious? A simple google search will confirm what I'm saying. Here's one such article: https://www.arbitragemagazine.com/topics/science-technology/cancer-3dca-4world-7debut/

Here's another: https://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/the-cure-for-cancer-has-been/

and another: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

Every link says that pharmaceutical companies won't use this cure because they can't make money off of it. Again, these companies do not care about you or your family! I'm not sure so many people are defending them as saviours who only care about your health!

 

[staralfur]

And I think if pharmaceutical companies were the only ones promoting vaccines this would be a different conversation entirely.

But various organizations who ARE responsible for the health and well-being of communities, nations, the world, also promote vaccines.

 

[Feronia]

Thanks for coming back with the reasons why you understand safety trials on vaccines to be inadequate. I have to say, I'm not convinced.

You say things like 'the majority of pharma profits come from vaccines' - where do you get this evidence from? It seems highly unlikely to me. Vaccines are such a small part of medicine.

As for aluminium damage, yes, sure, this could be a concern. But so might fluoride in the water or sweeteners in food and a whole bunch of other stuff that its very hard to judge the safety of.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be convinced that the safety trials are inadequate if they do not test any long-term effects. As BlueHadeda pointed out, some vaccines are on the market for years being used on children until a terrible side effect is discovered. Children are basically the test subjects of any new vaccine (and we saw this as recently as 2009 when the insufficiently-tested h1n1 vaccine was causing miscarriages and other terrible effects).

About the profits, here's a link to an article from the Globe and Mail: https://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/...me-big-business/article572731/?service=mobile and here's a quote from it:

Between 2004 and 2007, vaccine sales across the industry soared an average of 32 per cent each year, with flu vaccine leading the way. That is roughly four times faster than any other pharmaceutical product.

It's not that hard to see how something that (almost) everyone gets doesn't make them the most amount of money.

Fluoride is a known toxin and should not be in the water supply. Thankfully I live in a city that does not fluoridate the water, and plenty of people buy filters to remove fluoride. Many sweeteners are known to be bad, too. Obviously vaccines aren't the only things that contain toxins and nobody said they that they were. Yes, other things are toxic; they're also not "required" to get into school, a job, a daycare, etc. We are, after all, talking about vaccines in this thread, and ultimately it doesn't make sense to say "there are other toxins as well so let's not worry ourselves about aluminum even though it's a neurotoxin."

It takes between 10 and 15 years to design and test a vaccine, that's fairly medium term at least. This is of course apart from the flu one, however only one thing changes in that and that's the antigen, which will be to focus on that strain that year. Beyond that I think there is pretty rigorous testing.

Would you be able to provide me a link that demonstrates the that that vaccine caused miscarriages?

Oh my gosh I am sick of providing links. Here's a quick one about h1n1 and miscarriages. I think this may be an anti-vax site so I haven't had time to analyze the validity, but I've read about the link between this vaccine and miscarriages in many other more reputable places (I don't have all the links on me right now). How about you provide me a link with evidence that it takes between 10 and 15 years to design and test a vaccine.

First of all, it's highly variable how long it takes to design a vaccine, and that phase does not count towards testing. Then there are years of animal testing (highly unfortunate), but that kind of testing doesn't say much about what the vaccine will do to humans. So no, they don't do between 10-15 years' worth of human testing on each vaccine, which is what it takes (at least) to determine long term adverse effects. Long term adverse effects are gathered from consumers, as in the case of DPT and others that were previously mentioned.

 

[My_First]

https://www.merck.com/investors/financials/form-10-k-2011.pdf

Also vaccine do not generate the most for a Pharma company. Take the annual report of Mereck, out of 9 sections of drugs vaccines is 6th.

 

[Tasha]

Thank you links Natsku and Feronia. Sorry for annoying you with the request Feronia, I hadnt heard of it before and didnt want to find unreliable information. I will go read now.

 

[My_First]

Link are important, because as I read it the amount of women that miscarried was no more that the base 15-20%

 

[Natsku]

Link are important, because as I read it the amount of women that miscarried was no more that the base 15-20%

Yeah I remember reading that too

 

[Tasha]

Link are important, because as I read it the amount of women that miscarried was no more that the base 15-20%

That is interesting. It also depends on the gestation of the miscarriage because miscarriages are quoted as between 20% and 50% depending on what you read, but that is first trimester I think. Second trimester loses and 15%-20% would be a big increase, I think.

 

[tinytabby]

About the profits, here's a link to an article from the Globe and Mail: https://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/...me-big-business/article572731/?service=mobile and here's a quote from it:

Between 2004 and 2007, vaccine sales across the industry soared an average of 32 per cent each year, with flu vaccine leading the way. That is roughly four times faster than any other pharmaceutical product.

It's not that hard to see how something that (almost) everyone gets doesn't make them the most amount of money.

Thanks for answering my question. I'm British so I'm not sure what kind of source the Globe and Mail is. However, nowhere does it say that vaccines make pharma companies the biggest profits. It just says they grew faster. They're talking about the flu vaccine in particular as 'leading the way' in driving growth but presumably because it is new on the market and more expensive. Other vaccines will have been on the market longer, some generic, so even less expensive, not really profitable.

Additionally, not everyone does get all the vaccines. As well as those who can't or won't vaccinate at all, people are selective. In addition, vaccines are rationed. In this country flu vaccines are only offered to the vulnerable.

I really don't think you can generalise in the way you have been without all the proof.