Benjamin Franklin on Vaccines

[flyingiguana]

Sorry.  Not seeing the hysteria on the science side.  I am seeing a lot of face palming when reasonable scientific evidence is ignored.

 

The "hysteria" reference in many articles and perhaps posts here is likely due to the willful ignoring of evidence.  Strictly speaking, I suppose that's not hysteria, but perhaps a *result* of hysteria -- in that the person who is hysterical isn't thinking clearly.

[amyk]

Here is my question, and it could be really dumb, but it is something I don't understand. Those who vaccinate have protected their children against the diseases we are talking about, right? So why does anyone say that if you don't vaccinate you are putting other people's children at risk? You are only putting at risk those who have chosen NOT to vaccinate, not those who have vaccinated. But it is the pro-vaxxers that are up in arms about their children being at risk. Am I missing something?

[Lady Florida.]

Here is my question, and it could be really dumb, but it is something I don't understand. Those who vaccinate have protected their children against the diseases we are talking about, right? So why does anyone say that if you don't vaccinate you are putting other people's children at risk? You are only putting at risk those who have chosen NOT to vaccinate, not those who have vaccinated. But it is the pro-vaxxers that are up in arms about their children being at risk. Am I missing something?

 

The people being put at risk are those who, for medical reasons, can't be vaccinated. Babies, cancer patients, people with conditions that leave them with compromised immune systems, people with life threatening allergies to a component of the vaccine. Also a small number of people don't develop immunity even when vaccinated, so they too are at risk.

 

I don't know any people whose children have been vaccinated who are worried about their own children being put at risk (unless of course they have a child in one of the above categories).. They're worried about those who can't get a vaccine for any of the above reasons.

[JeanM]

Here is my question, and it could be really dumb, but it is something I don't understand. Those who vaccinate have protected their children against the diseases we are talking about, right? So why does anyone say that if you don't vaccinate you are putting other people's children at risk? You are only putting at risk those who have chosen NOT to vaccinate, not those who have vaccinated. But it is the pro-vaxxers that are up in arms about their children being at risk. Am I missing something?

 

Definitely not a dumb question. The answer is that no vaccines (yet) are 100% effective. For example, according to the CDC, "One dose of MMR vaccine is about 93% effective at preventing measles if exposed to the virus, and two doses are about 97% effective." So out of 100 people who are fully vaccinated, only 97 are totally protected. Then there are a few individuals, I have no idea how many, can't get vaccinated either at all or on schedule. For instance, my 3 year old distant cousin who has leukemia and has been undergoing many treatments, couldn't receive some of his vaccines on schedule. So let's say we're down to 96% who are vaccinated. If someone who is infected with measles exposes these 100 people, it is very likely that the 4 who are not fully protected will get the measles, since the measles are incredibly contagious.

 

Also for a lot of diseases, babies and young children are more vulnerable to the disease and/or to complications from the disease. Like pertussis is very dangerous for babies who are too young to be vaccinated.

 

The trouble with a lot of diseases is that it can spread before you realize you (or your child) has a seriously contagious disease. You can have the measles, and spread the measles, for several days before the rash appears. And measles is so contagious that if somebody coughs and then leaves the room, you can catch the measles from the airborn virus after they are gone. Pertussis too often is undiagnosed initially. So you can expose many people, including unvaccinated babies, before you realize that you have pertussis.

[TranquilMind]

Yes. When people appeal to fear, rumors, and are limited to what they can imagine rather than relying on objective, factual information, conversation is stunted. I can't address someone's fears, but I can address their information. In context, if DesertRose is going to cite public worry as evidence there is need to worry, the conversation has stopped before Tibbie can contribute.

Oh, you mean like when people do this?

 

Quote

 

albeto:  "There's reason for that. Parents who opt out of vaccinations because they research at the School of Google with Professor Jenny McCarthy are putting others at needless risk."

[TranquilMind]

I understand you to confirm that yes, you do glean information from various sources as they correlate with your personal experiences. Those that do, can be trusted. Those that don't, cannot, and so are dismissed. I recall from an earlier conversation Tanaqui offered the following ideas as general guidelines (in addition to some very solid, informative information in general about the scientific method),

 

1. If the source doesn't have a degree in a relevant field, you should not trust their opinion as much as a source who does.

 

2. If they do not provide the full information they are working with, or a way for you to easily find it, you should be wary about accepting what they say.

3. If they do not put their name to their work, you should not trust them.

 

When scientists compile information about vaccines, one of the pieces of information they gather is the consequences of the vaccines. Experiences like yours are, in fact, compiled and analyzed and utilized throughout the process. These experiences are not passed off as "delusional," either in the research, or here. As a matter of fact, doctors are required to hand out specific information alerting parents and patients of the risks that exist with vaccines. This illustrates the very practical application of collecting and analyzing this information.

 

Earlier you said people who share their personal experiences are treated as though they are delusional. If you can share a post in which someone is being treated as delusional, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, why would you make such accusations? To what end? To stop people from questioning you? To encourage people to censor their comments to avoid putting you in a position to explain yourself? What's expected here?

4.  If attributed to a source who has a significant financial interest in promoting his "impartial view" and ties to an industry, then tread carefully. 

[TranquilMind]

The people being put at risk are those who, for medical reasons, can't be vaccinated. Babies, cancer patients, people with conditions that leave them with compromised immune systems, people with life threatening allergies to a component of the vaccine. Also a small number of people don't develop immunity even when vaccinated, so they too are at risk.

 

I don't know any people whose children have been vaccinated who are worried about their own children being put at risk (unless of course they have a child in one of the above categories).. They're worried about those who can't get a vaccine for any of the above reasons.

I have a legitimate question.  Are these same people who claim interest in the immunocompromised or those too young to be vaccinated willing to keep their children away from others when they have been newly vaccinated with a live vaccine, as strongly advocated on the inserts, in order to protect them?  Just curious.

 

I see no evidence or advocacy of that, which would seem to be inconsistent with the view that we protect all the immunocompromised. 

[TranquilMind]

Here's the big thing with the vaccine debate --

 

Everyone should be making their vaccination decision from an INFORMED position. 

 

In other words, all this garbage that Wakefield and McCarthy and Mercola and Sears and all of them put out there should be banned from the internet.  And it's that information (and it's derivatives) that's got everyone upset.

 

That's the real issue.  All that we've been arguing about here is the right to be informed and make a decision based on correct information.  EVERYONE should have access to that information -- including the people in this discussion who clearly don't want it. 

 

Everyone should be making decisions based on well researched information, not something that some liar put out there (I'm talking Wakefield here and his ilk, so keep the panties in position, everyone)

 

Unfortunately, there's a lot of bad information out there.  Some of it is outright lies that someone made up.  (Maybe a lot of it is?)  It does no one any good to make health decisions based on lies or cooked statistics.

 

I guess what is so staggering, though, is that there are a certain number of people who refuse to be educated on this issue.  The information is out there.  Much of it has been posted in one form or another on this thread.  Admittedly, it's hard to find if you google and only look at the first page of hits, because the anti-vaccine people have been promoting their misinformation very well. 

 

But... just because more of that stuff comes up on the first page of google doesn't make it right.  It just means that someone running those web pages is making money off of stoking the hysteria.

 

Trust me, it ain't Big Pharma.  They're making plenty off of Advair and Viagra, thank you very much.  If vaccines were any sort of moneymaker, we'd be inundated with TV ads for them.  And they wouldn't be badly produced PSA's.

I'm not going to snip out a small portion of this nonsense, in fairness (I hate when people do that, because they can't address the meaningful part, so they take a small snippet of a phrase-not even a sentence- of what you said and only address that). 

 

But Good Lord.  People who advocate silencing others who simply have alternative viewpoints are the really dangerous ones, as they realize that their view cannot withstand clear-eyed scrutiny from all directions, so they rush to silence others.  Why on earth would anyone care about less than a handful of sites that give attention to alternative views out of the millions of vaccine promoters out there?    Those are really fighting words, when you insist on silencing opposing viewpoints. 

 

Sears is a PRO-vaccine doctor, by the way.  McCarthy is an actress, so not a legimate source here to include at all, but you did it for distracting reasons, much as albeto does. 

We shouldn't agree on the information from some liar like Paul Offit, who benefits by the millions in pushing his own vaccines under the guise of "necessity", you mean?    I so agree. 

 

Vaccines are indeed moneymakers (though some are not the largest moneymakers) , and more importantly, the producers are shielded from ALL LIABILITY when it comes to vaccines. 

We will take this from CNBC, not an alternative site:  Vaccines were a 25.5 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY in 2014.   Here:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/102423927

 

I can't even believe what I read here sometimes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Sorry.  Not seeing the hysteria on the science side.  I am seeing a lot of face palming when reasonable scientific evidence is ignored.

 

The "hysteria" reference in many articles and perhaps posts here is likely due to the willful ignoring of evidence.  Strictly speaking, I suppose that's not hysteria, but perhaps a *result* of hysteria -- in that the person who is hysterical isn't thinking clearly.

Oh, if only we could post statements we find out there....

 

I've read amazing things I thought I would never see in my lifetime, regarding how parents who didn't happen to give the MMR yet should lose their kids to CPS, be fined, be imprisoned, or even die.  Oh, and they should be sued and lose all their assets if their kid gets measles and has not yet had the vaccine, though if he gets measles and has had the vaccine, that's just fine. 

 

I've seen blather just today in the paper about how "some unvaccinated kid spread measles all over Disney", even though they have NO IDEA who may have been infected or who patient zero is, even today.    Just a bald-faced lie, completely without factual basis, but it didn't stop the doctor who wrote it from blathering on.  That sort of nonsense simply detracts from credibility. 

 

If one cannot even understand that one should be factual about summarizing an incident, I don't even know what to say.   

[Joker]

Here is my question, and it could be really dumb, but it is something I don't understand. Those who vaccinate have protected their children against the diseases we are talking about, right? So why does anyone say that if you don't vaccinate you are putting other people's children at risk? You are only putting at risk those who have chosen NOT to vaccinate, not those who have vaccinated. But it is the pro-vaxxers that are up in arms about their children being at risk. Am I missing something?

 

I am pro-vaccine because I only have one fully vaccinated child. My other cannot be for medical reasons. There is no choice involved on my side because it is the doctors who refuse to vaccinate her fully. That is why I have a problem with those who just choose not vaccinate if there is no legitimate reason.

[EmseB]

We will take this from CNBC, not an alternative site: Vaccines were a 25.5 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY in 2014.

This is an example of using hysteria or logically fallacious tactics in order to make something sound like something it's not.

 

Just because something is a $25 billion industry does not mean anyone is making money hand over fist in said industry. A $25 billion industry could still be losing people money overall. Amazon, for example, has a huge amount of revenue, but usually posts losses each quarter. $25 billion is a meaningless number without knowing how much of that is actually profit, cost, etc. Plus, you have to know percentages of actual income. Drug companies have a lot of divisions. Where one division could be breaking even or showing little profit, they may use other divisions to make up for it so they can make needed drugs even though they aren't money makers.

 

So, that's just one example of how discussion becomes hysterical and exaggerated based on one statement that means very little, or at least does not mean what you want it to say without further specifics.

[TranquilMind]

This is an example of using hysteria or logically fallacious tactics in order to make something sound like something it's not.

 

Just because something is a $25 billion industry does not mean anyone is making money hand over fist in said industry. A $25 billion industry could still be losing people money overall. Amazon, for example, has a huge amount of revenue, but usually posts losses each quarter. $25 billion is a meaningless number without knowing how much of that is actually profit, cost, etc. Plus, you have to know percentages of actual income. Drug companies have a lot of divisions. Where one division could be breaking even or showing little profit, they may use other divisions to make up for it so they can make needed drugs even though they aren't money makers.

 

So, that's just one example of how discussion becomes hysterical and exaggerated based on one statement that means very little, or at least does not mean what you want it to say without further specifics

No hysteria here.  I'm a business owner and understand how profit works.

 

 Merck made 1.4 billion on Pro-Quad, and 1.7 billion on HPV in 2014, but made 42.2 BILLION DOLLARS overall.   Merck intentionally cloaks the profits, but it is suggested by analysts that the profit margin is between 10 to over 40% on vaccines, especially in America and Europe, where price gouging occurs. 

 

Money IS being made hand over fist, though it is true that the lifestyle drugs they push on TV are more lucrative than vaccines. 

[Wheres Toto]

From the article Tranquil Mind posted:

 

Kalorama has estimated markets for vaccine products for decades, and says the market is relatively small compared to the overall pharmaceutical market, and production costs and discounts are challenges in the industry.

 

Kalorama notes that vaccine revenues do not reflect profits to the companies and that while profits can be difficult to calculate, they are lower than traditional pharmaceutical products. Kalorama says that vaccines are expensive to make, in-house facilities are expensive and outside suppliers such as egg farms and contract biomanufacturers can often be at capacity in peak seasons. Since the largest payers are governments with high volume negotiating power, discounts are a part of the business. Still, Kalorama says, companies in vaccines want the dependable revenue lines and presence in the traditional vaccine markets give them possible entre when they launch a novel vaccine product or vaccine mechanism from their pipelines.

 

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

I have a legitimate question.  Are these same people who claim interest in the immunocompromised or those too young to be vaccinated willing to keep their children away from others when they have been newly vaccinated with a live vaccine, as strongly stated on the inserts?  Just curious.

 

I see no evidence or advocacy of that, which would seem to be inconsistent with the view that we protect all the immunocompromised. 

 

It's stated on the inserts because it can happen and they're required to tell you that. It is however, rare. Much more rare than someone with the actual disease transmitting it to the non-vaccinated person.

 

Most vaccines are not live and don't shed. The live ones are attenuated, making them significantly weaker in terms of infecting others.

 

The recommendations are to avoid contact with the fecal matter of the recently vaccinated. In the same household if there are young children, it's entirely possible they can come in such contact. In the general population it's highly unlikely.

 

To answer your question, I don't know anyone who would refuse to keep their newly vaccinated child away from an immunocompromised person if they were asked to do so. I can only answer for myself and people I know of course, but I've never heard a pro-vaxer say "too bad", as several anti-vaxers have said publicly.

[JeanM]

No hysteria here.  I'm a business owner and understand how profit works.

 

 Merck made 1.4 billion on Pro-Quad, and 1.7 billion on HPV in 2014, but made 42.2 BILLION DOLLARS overall.   Merck intentionally cloaks the profits, but it is suggested by analysts that the profit margin is between 10 to over 40% on vaccines, especially in America and Europe, where price gouging occurs. 

 

Money IS being made hand over fist, though it is true that the lifestyle drugs they push on TV are more lucrative than vaccines. 

 

The article you linked does not show that Merck made 1.4 billion on Pro-Quad, they say, "sales of ProdQuad (a vaccine for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella), MMR II (for measles, mumps, rubella), and Varivax (a chicken pox vaccine) together came in at $1.4 billion." Sales, not profit. They take in more money on Gardasil, btw.

 

And the article does not say that the profit margin is between 10-40% on vaccines. They say the profit margin for giant pharmaceutical companies in general is 10-40%, and they link to this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223. Generally vaccines are less profitable than other pharmaceuticals.

 

Regardless, I'm sure they are making money. Is that a bad thing? Would it be better if they made no profit? They would stop manufacturing if there was no profit. This is an article discusses the profit issue:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/

[EmseB]

No hysteria here. I'm a business owner and understand how profit works.

 

Merck made 1.4 billion on Pro-Quad, and 1.7 billion on HPV in 2014, but made 42.2 BILLION DOLLARS overall. Merck intentionally cloaks the profits, but it is suggested by analysts that the profit margin is between 10 to over 40% on vaccines, especially in America and Europe, where price gouging occurs.

Interesting, because I can't find any of your claims verified in the article you posted. And, understanding how profit works surely means you understand, then, why a statement claiming that the vaccine industry is a $25 billion industry is meaningless without further context.

[TranquilMind]

The article you linked does not show that Merck made 1.4 billion on Pro-Quad, they say, "sales of ProdQuad (a vaccine for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella), MMR II (for measles, mumps, rubella), and Varivax (a chicken pox vaccine) together came in at $1.4 billion." Sales, not profit. They take in more money on Gardasil, btw.

 

And the article does not say that the profit margin is between 10-40% on vaccines. They say the profit margin for giant pharmaceutical companies in general is 10-40%, and they link to this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223. Generally vaccines are less profitable than other pharmaceuticals.

 

Regardless, I'm sure they are making money. Is that a bad thing? Would it be better if they made no profit? They would stop manufacturing if there was no profit. This is an article discusses the profit issue:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/

Yes, I know it is sales.  I clarified that.  There is profit built in, which I also clarified, though they keep the profit under wraps.  You restate it as if I didn't understand what I cited.  I should have simply quoted, since others did, but I thought we were not supposed to do that here now. 

 

But I will do it now from that article:  While a spokesperson for Merck told The Atlantic that vaccines remained one of its key areas of focus—it generated $5.3 billion in sales in 2014—she did not comment on the profit margins. Analysts peg the profit margin of giant pharmaceutical companies at anywhere ranging between 10 to over 40 percent. “Nobody knows exactly how much it costs for them to make it, because they don’t want to reveal that,†says Halsey. They fear that they would face pressure to lower prices in the U.S., Europe, and the developing world.

 

So you can take that as you will, whether you believe the profit margin overall for pharmaceuticals is 10-40% or whether the vaccine industry contains that profit.  The article is entitled in part, "Vaccines are profitable", so I think it is pretty clear that the implication is that the reference to "how much it costs to make it" is to vaccines. 

 

Quibble if you like, but vaccine making/pushing not an altruistic move, so do not mistake that.  People should use their own best judgment, taking their family histories into consideration. 

 

Do whatever you like.  Just permit others to do the same. 

[TranquilMind]

Interesting, because I can't find any of your claims verified in the article you posted. And, understanding how profit works surely means you understand, then, why a statement claiming that the vaccine industry is a $25 billion industry is meaningless without further context.

You might want to read it again.   I would cut, paste, and highlight, but that is frowned upon now. 

[JeanM]

Yes, I know it is sales.  I clarified that.  There is profit built in, which I also clarified, though they keep the profit under wraps.  You restate it as if I didn't understand what I cited.  I should have simply quoted, since others did, but I thought we were not supposed to do that here now. 

 

But I will do it now from that article:  While a spokesperson for Merck told The Atlantic that vaccines remained one of its key areas of focus—it generated $5.3 billion in sales in 2014—she did not comment on the profit margins. Analysts peg the profit margin of giant pharmaceutical companies at anywhere ranging between 10 to over 40 percent. “Nobody knows exactly how much it costs for them to make it, because they don’t want to reveal that,†says Halsey. They fear that they would face pressure to lower prices in the U.S., Europe, and the developing world.

 

So you can take that as you will, whether you believe the profit margin overall for pharmaceuticals is 10-40% or whether the vaccine industry contains that profit.  The article is entitled in part, "Vaccines are profitable", so I think it is pretty clear that the implication is that the reference to "how much it costs to make it" is to vaccines. 

 

Quibble if you like, but vaccine making/pushing not an altruistic move, so do not mistake that.  People should use their own best judgment, taking their family histories into consideration. 

 

Do whatever you like.  Just permit others to do the same. 

 

I never said that vaccine making was altruistic. I said that I was sure that they were making money. In the link that you include, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223, it clearly states that Merck's profit margin (overall, not from vaccines) is 10%. Call it quibbling if you like, but I value accurate information.

 

You didn't actually answer the question though, is it bad to make a profit?

 

[TranquilMind]

Maybe there is a land somewhere between trusting the whackadoodles and trusting the vaccine manufacturers?  I don't know on this.

 

"How Independent are Vaccine Defenders?"

 

Very interesting article.  Of COURSE there are conflicts of interest, which some contend are completely irrelevant.  But they are not.

 

"A spokesman told CBS News: "There are simply no conflicts to be unearthed." But guess who's listed as the group's treasurers? Officials from Wyeth and a paid advisor to big pharmaceutical clients.

 

Then there's Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely-quoted defender of vaccine safety.

 

He's gone so far as to say babies can tolerate "10,000 vaccines at once."

 

This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview: "I'm the chief of infectious disease at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penn's medical school," he said.

 

Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject but like others in this CBS News investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider.

 

Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children's Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.

 

And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown."

 

All makers and profiteers should be required to publicize their take of the profit when advocating something as a matter of public health. 

[TranquilMind]

I never said that vaccine making was altruistic. I said that I was sure that they were making money. In the link that you include, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223, it clearly states that Merck's profit margin (overall, not from vaccines) is 10%. Call it quibbling if you like, but I value accurate information.

 

You didn't actually answer the question though, is it bad to make a profit?

 

Last year, five pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20% or more - Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly.  Ok, Merck is listed at 10%. 

 

And this:   But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs - in some cases twice as much - than on developing them. And besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs.

 

Is making a profit bad?  No, not standing alone. Goodness, people throw money at Apple for the latest iphone every year.  But it isn't obligatory, nor are people demonized for failing to purchase one. 

 

 Is profit bad when you force people to purchase the item (or force one to jump through hoops if one can decline), hide its bad effects, and lie/obfuscate/bully, and when the item is inherently invasive and dangerous to some percentage of those forced to utilize it?   I think so.  Your values may differ. 

 

See if you can find the profit on vaccines alone.   I found one report that cost $3,995.00, an obvious attempt to minimize access to that information. 

[TranquilMind]

Up here it's hard to be in the middle. I would've been a delayed/selective vaxer but they won't allow me to split up any of the shots or take them further apart.

Who are "they" and why do they have authority in the first place over your children's bodies and medical risks? 

 

That's just wrong on so many levels. 

 

This "we won't separate vaccines" stuff , which I discovered a few year ago myself,  is just wrong too.

[Tanaqui]

Here is my question, and it could be really dumb, but it is something I don't understand. Those who vaccinate have protected their children against the diseases we are talking about, right? So why does anyone say that if you don't vaccinate you are putting other people's children at risk? You are only putting at risk those who have chosen NOT to vaccinate, not those who have vaccinated. But it is the pro-vaxxers that are up in arms about their children being at risk. Am I missing something?

Aside from the fact that there are some people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, no vaccine is 100%. Sometimes, for whatever reason, the immunity doesn't take, or it wears off. (This can happen with the disease as well. I know of a woman who got measles three different times, and that was after being vaccinated!)

 

If you have a population of 100 people, and 1 of them could not be vaccinated against $DISEASE and another 5 were vaccinated but it didn't take, you still have a large percentage of immune people... so many that is unlikely that you will have a significant reservoir of $DISEASE.

 

But if, in addition to those 6 people, you have another 10 who could have been vaccinated but weren't, well, now the numbers are ripe for an outbreak... especially if some of those people are simply too young to have been vaccinated against $DISEASE. (And that, btw, is why we vaccinate babies, to get them protected as soon as possible.)

 

[albeto.]

4.  If attributed to a source who has a significant financial interest in promoting his "impartial view" and ties to an industry, then tread carefully. 

 

As I recall from the latest Cosmos series, the first time scientists were used to defend erroneous information for profit was back in the mid 20th century when leaded gas was found to be a source of toxins into the general public. These toxins could be avoided, but companies that made their profit from the sales of leaded gas didn't want to spend the money to design and sell unleaded gas and engines. They paid good money to find scientists who would stand up in a court of law to say leaded gas is just fine. The evidence was shared, explained, and eventually found persuasive. This trend hasn't stopped. There will always be people and groups who care more about profit, or convince themselves the arguments against whatever they're selling aren't so strong. But the evidence itself is without bias. The evidence itself has no desire, no function. It just is. Tanaqui offered a brief summary for simplicity sake, but this is covered in her second point:

 

#2: "If they do not provide the full information they are working with, or a way for you to easily find it, you should be wary about accepting what they say."

 

The idea that pharmaceuticals are conspiring to slowly kill people so they can profit off selling them cures is quite an accusation to make. It requires consistent, objective evidence. Correlation is not evidence. Anecdotal stories from select groups is not evidence. But nevertheless, regardless of the reasons corporations create vaccines, the science itself is clear - vaccines are an effective means by which certain diseases are preventable to a reliable degree.

[albeto.]

This is an example of using hysteria or logically fallacious tactics in order to make something sound like something it's not.

 

Just because something is a $25 billion industry does not mean anyone is making money hand over fist in said industry.

Nor does it mean the accusation is valid. Just because an organization makes money doesn't mean it functions make money unethically by knowingly selling useless medicine that poses a danger to society.

[albeto.]

double post

[albeto.]

You might want to read it again.   I would cut, paste, and highlight, but that is frowned upon now.

You can copy and paste, just don't copy and paste images, most particularly of celebrities or others from whom you do not have consent to share their face or artwork. Attribute your source, and you should be fine.

[Reflections]

Here's the big thing with the vaccine debate --

 

Everyone should be making their vaccination decision from an INFORMED position. 

 

snip

 

I'm sorry, but I got stuck on this statement.

 

Please define "an informed position"?

 

Many "truths" that have been espoused by scientists and doctors have proven false or at least misguided - it just took decades or additional research to finally come around to the (more) right answer. So who was the "informed position" then - the critics whom we were told not to listen too?

 

Again I site the idea that there was a time when they thought that vaccines conferred LIFETIME immunity to the disease they were inoculated against and they now know this is NOT true for a variety illnesses and vaccines.  

 

And to think that "now-a-days" doctors and scientists and researchers are more informed or smarter or better equipped and that the fallacies of old would not happen in this day and age is folly, imo. (and before you get upset, I know you said nothing of the kind, but in my mind, saying that I should accept "informed position" from those in authority NOW is, in a way, telling me that)

 

There is a  place, imo, for critics even if the conventional wisdom of the time disagrees. 

[Tanaqui]

There is a  place, imo, for critics even if the conventional wisdom of the time disagrees.

 

There's a difference between "I'm not sure about this for this well-thought-out reason" or "I'm continuing to look into research" and covering your ears and engaging in argument for argument's sake. There is no place for people who insist the world is not round, for example.

 

[JeanM]

Last year, five pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20% or more - Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly.  Ok, Merck is listed at 10%. 

 

And this:   But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs - in some cases twice as much - than on developing them. And besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs.

 

Is making a profit bad?  No, not standing alone. Goodness, people throw money at Apple for the latest iphone every year.  But it isn't obligatory, nor are people demonized for failing to purchase one. 

 

 Is profit bad when you force people to purchase the item (or force one to jump through hoops if one can decline), hide its bad effects, and lie/obfuscate/bully, and when the item is inherently invasive and dangerous to some percentage of those forced to utilize it?   I think so.  Your values may differ. 

 

See if you can find the profit on vaccines alone.   I found one report that cost $3,995.00, an obvious attempt to minimize access to that information. 

 

I can't find the profit on vaccines alone either. Mostly articles just say that they are "less profitable" than other drugs, which isn't very helpful. I do know that the number of companies manufacturing vaccines has gone down. This article (http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2002/fall/vaccines.html) says:

 

in 1967, the "FDA had licensed vaccines made by 26 different manufacturers. By 1980, the number had fallen to 17. Today it stands at 12, of which only four are large pharmaceutical companies."

 

On the other hand Russia has as many as 20 manufacturers of one childhood vaccine. Maybe making vaccines *more* profitable would encourage more competition? I'm not sure if that would be better or worse.

 

I'm curious about your statement, "Is profit bad when you force people to purchase the item (or force one to jump through hoops if one can decline), hide its bad effects, and lie/obfuscate/bully, and when the item is inherently invasive and dangerous to some percentage of those forced to utilize it?" If the pharmaceutical companies are lying and hiding bad effects (and I'm not saying that they aren't), what would be the best means to address this? We do already have government oversight of vaccine development and manufacture. Do we need more regulations?

[Wheres Toto]

Part of the "problem" with vaccine prices is that there aren't really any generics.  Because they are biologics, the process for entering the market with a bioequivalent or biosimilar "generic" (it's not really a true generic) is more time consuming and more expensive than most generics.   Because the profit margin is not that high, most generic companies are not willing to put the time and money into that development.  (It's similar to Synthroid - the "generics" aren't true generics, they are biosimilars/bioequivalents, but in that case the possible profits were considered worth the effort).

 

There's a reason only the huge pharmaceutical companies are still in the vaccine business.  They already have the labs, access to bulk API's, and facilities they need that keep the costs lower and make the profit worthwhile.  It would not be worth it for a smaller company to enter the vaccine business or for a company to be just in the vaccine business (for reference, there are a bunch of small companies in the generics business, or in the devices business, or just doing cardiovascular products).  Part of the reason the big 5 or 6 companies are the main players is because so many pharma companies go out of business or are absorbed into the bigger, multi-national companies.

 

I'm curious about the people who seem to feel it's wrong for the pharmaceutical companies to profit from vaccines.  Do you also feel they shouldn't profit off other drugs?   Do you feel the government should get into the vaccine business as a social service?

 

I am NOT claiming that the pharma companies are altruistic, and I'm not denying that some of them have certainly behaved unethically

[CaffeineDiary]

Many "truths" that have been espoused by scientists and doctors have proven false or at least misguided - it just took decades or additional research to finally come around to the (more) right answer. So who was the "informed position" then - the critics whom we were told not to listen too?

What you describe is called "science". Science is never a guarantee against being wrong; it's just a description of what you do when new evidence comes in: you reevaluate your position in light of that evidence. It's the best way any human culture has found to eventually reach objective truth that we know of. If you can suggest a better one *that actually works* you'll be a very rich woman.

 

If it helps you, think of the things mainstream science says not as "truths" but rather "true based on the best currently available evidence."

 

There is a place, imo, for critics even if the conventional wisdom of the time disagrees.

A critic is "informed" not because they were right (which for any given yes/no fact can be no better than a coin flip) but because their opinions were based on evidence, and not magical thinking. The problem with vaccine deniers is not simply that they're generally wrong, but that their opinions are not science-based.

[Reflections]

There's a difference between "I'm not sure about this for this well-thought-out reason" or "I'm continuing to look into research" and covering your ears and engaging in argument for argument's sake. There is no place for people who insist the world is not round, for example.

 

I do not disagree with you. Yes, covering one's ears and singing "lalalalala" is getting us no where.  I'm "just" disagreeing with the sentiment that we should only listen to the conventional wisdom authoritative powers that be and none of the (educated scientists who also happen to be) critics.  That's all.  Failing to listen to a dissenting opinion is a path I'm not going to down.

[Reflections]

What you describe is called "science". Science is never a guarantee against being wrong; it's just a description of what you do when new evidence comes in: you reevaluate your position in light of that evidence. It's the best way any human culture has found to eventually reach objective truth that we know of. If you can suggest a better one *that actually works* you'll be a very rich woman.

 

If it helps you, think of the things mainstream science says not as "truths" but rather "true based on the best currently available evidence."

 

A critic is "informed" not because they were right (which for any given yes/no fact can be no better than a coin flip) but because their opinions were based on evidence, and not magical thinking. The problem with vaccine deniers is not simply that they're generally wrong, but that their opinions are not science-based.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  There is no guarantee that the conventional scientific "theory" of today will hold up tomorrow.  My post did not ask to cast aside the scientific process.  I only disagree with that we should not listen to disagreeing/dissenting opinions.

 

I just don't want to be told that I have to listen to ONLY a certain subset of scientists that are deemed to be the most mainstream which has been determined to have the best, most right idea - based on whose opinion?  Yours?  Your colleagues?  Why should I think that your opinion is the best opinion? How are your credentials, your degree, your experiences better than the scientists down the street?

 

 

As a side note, your condescending tone in your post to me is without merit.  I do not actually disagree with "current available evidence" and a "reevaluation of opinions"  I DO however disagree with using that tone and suggesting that I might be listening to critics who use "magical thinking" in order to negate and belittle my statement that we should listen to dissenting opinions.  Because to not listen to them is folly, imo.  Spanish Inquisition, much?

[SKL]

Of course vaccines are less profitable than other drugs.  They have guaranteed sales to an extremely large market, thus no real risk of sales fluctuations, and they have very little liability risk since the government has shielded them from this.  Low risk, low return.  That's basic economics.

 

But even a very low return on hundreds of millions of guaranteed sales is a considerable profit.

 

They can use this guaranteed cash cow to fund their more risky, potentially more profitable developments.

 

Of course it is in their best interest to keep this stream of money coming in.  "Low profitability" is just a distraction.

[JeanM]

Of course vaccines are less profitable than other drugs.  They have guaranteed sales to an extremely large market, thus no real risk of sales fluctuations, and they have very little liability risk since the government has shielded them from this.  Low risk, low return.  That's basic economics.

 

But even a very low return on hundreds of millions of guaranteed sales is a considerable profit.

 

They can use this guaranteed cash cow to fund their more risky, potentially more profitable developments.

 

Of course it is in their best interest to keep this stream of money coming in.  "Low profitability" is just a distraction.

 

That makes sense. I'm wondering then, why so few companies are making vaccines. It seems like more companies should be getting into the business, but that isn't the case. Maybe even though they are a guaranteed cash cow, the bad publicity doesn't make it worth it?

 

[CaffeineDiary]

 

As a side note, your condescending tone in your post to me is without merit.  I do not actually disagree with "current available evidence" and a "reevaluation of opinions"  I DO however disagree with using that tone and suggesting that I might be listening to critics who use "magical thinking" in order to negate and belittle my statement that we should listen to dissenting opinions.  Because to not listen to them is folly, imo.  Spanish Inquisition, much?

 

Which people oppose vaccination as a general matter of public policy who aren't engaged in magical thinking and who don't disregard the current best evidence?  Can you name one?

 

I don't believe that any exist.

 

At no point in my comment did I say anything at all about what you personally believed about vaccines, I just disagreed with your implication that science changing its mind was somehow representative of a problem.  Science changing its mind is in fact what it's all about, and why it's a better way to find truth than (for example) extrapolating from personal experience.

 

I think we should listen to dissenting opinions.  I also think that we should judge them.  I reject your characterization of judging poorly-informed opinions as being like the Spanish Inquisition(*).  If simple disagreement hurts your feelings then that's on you, not on the people who disagree with you.

 

(*) I also think you should seriously consider how offensive this comparison has the potential to be.  I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but, y'know, people were tortured and murdered by Church and State for their beliefs during that period, so maybe you should find a less overwrought way of saying "I feel attacked."

 

 

[TranquilMind]

As I recall from the latest Cosmos series, the first time scientists were used to defend erroneous information for profit was back in the mid 20th century when leaded gas was found to be a source of toxins into the general public. These toxins could be avoided, but companies that made their profit from the sales of leaded gas didn't want to spend the money to design and sell unleaded gas and engines. They paid good money to find scientists who would stand up in a court of law to say leaded gas is just fine. The evidence was shared, explained, and eventually found persuasive. This trend hasn't stopped. There will always be people and groups who care more about profit, or convince themselves the arguments against whatever they're selling aren't so strong. But the evidence itself is without bias. The evidence itself has no desire, no function. It just is. Tanaqui offered a brief summary for simplicity sake, but this is covered in her second point:

 

#2: "If they do not provide the full information they are working with, or a way for you to easily find it, you should be wary about accepting what they say."

 

The idea that pharmaceuticals are conspiring to slowly kill people so they can profit off selling them cures is quite an accusation to make. It requires consistent, objective evidence. Correlation is not evidence. Anecdotal stories from select groups is not evidence. But nevertheless, regardless of the reasons corporations create vaccines, the science itself is clear - vaccines are an effective means by which certain diseases are preventable to a reliable degree.

Well, we agree on the bolded, anyway.

 

I won't snip just a tiny segment of what you said, though, like is typically done to me. 

 

I don't think anyone is even arguing that the existence of vaccines is a problem.  Use them if you like, all 69 doses recommended from birth (if you have a baby today; the number jumps exponentially on a regular basis). Or use the ones that make sense to you, given the important factors.  Make those decisions in conjunction with doctors who actually listen. 

 

Simply allow others the same freedom to analyze their own risks, given their family history, and any reactions to date.  There are some who fear giving other people the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, which I don't really understand.

 

Everything has risks.  Choose your risks.  People will fall on different lines there, and that is ok. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That makes sense. I'm wondering then, why so few companies are making vaccines. It seems like more companies should be getting into the business, but that isn't the case. Maybe even though they are a guaranteed cash cow, the bad publicity doesn't make it worth it?

 

 

A guaranteed low profit margin often isn't worth the initial investment to enter a market.

[TranquilMind]

That makes sense. I'm wondering then, why so few companies are making vaccines. It seems like more companies should be getting into the business, but that isn't the case. Maybe even though they are a guaranteed cash cow, the bad publicity doesn't make it worth it?

 

The cashflow is there, especially when you get laws passed to require people to take your drug, but the lifestyle drugs are actually more lucrative. Basic Econ 101.   Those lifestyle drugs aren't (yet) granting complete immunity to the makers, however, so it is more of a hedge-your-bets kind of thing. 

[TranquilMind]

Of course vaccines are less profitable than other drugs.  They have guaranteed sales to an extremely large market, thus no real risk of sales fluctuations, and they have very little liability risk since the government has shielded them from this.  Low risk, low return.  That's basic economics.

 

But even a very low return on hundreds of millions of guaranteed sales is a considerable profit.

 

They can use this guaranteed cash cow to fund their more risky, potentially more profitable developments.

 

Of course it is in their best interest to keep this stream of money coming in.  "Low profitability" is just a distraction.

Exactly. 

I'm thinking of this AWESOME Realtor I used on more than one occasion.  Not your typical, hold-your-hand kind of Realtor who tells you everything to do (that you could easily read online), but one who provides what you actually need:  Access to the MLS for an up front, reasonable cost, and any advice you happen to need along the way (we needed almost none, given our professions - we renovated, priced, and sold quickly - one of them in ONE day at over list price).

 

Most in-the-box 7% Commission (common here) Realtors have a few listings per year, the top ones, maybe 15-20.  Mine had 60, last time I looked.

 

Low return on 6-10 times the sales of other Realtors.  She's doing fine. 

[TranquilMind]

I can't find the profit on vaccines alone either. Mostly articles just say that they are "less profitable" than other drugs, which isn't very helpful. I do know that the number of companies manufacturing vaccines has gone down. This article (http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2002/fall/vaccines.html) says:

 

in 1967, the "FDA had licensed vaccines made by 26 different manufacturers. By 1980, the number had fallen to 17. Today it stands at 12, of which only four are large pharmaceutical companies."

 

On the other hand Russia has as many as 20 manufacturers of one childhood vaccine. Maybe making vaccines *more* profitable would encourage more competition? I'm not sure if that would be better or worse.

 

I'm curious about your statement, "Is profit bad when you force people to purchase the item (or force one to jump through hoops if one can decline), hide its bad effects, and lie/obfuscate/bully, and when the item is inherently invasive and dangerous to some percentage of those forced to utilize it?" If the pharmaceutical companies are lying and hiding bad effects (and I'm not saying that they aren't), what would be the best means to address this? We do already have government oversight of vaccine development and manufacture. Do we need more regulations?

More regulations don't seem to help, when billion dollar interests control everything and corruption is rife. 

 

That's exactly why this cannot be forced on people;  if you have a desirable product, they will line up and run to get it (Apple iPhones, for example.  Also loss leaders every Christmas.)

 

But then I'm not a control freak about what others do to their own bodies.  Use common sense and wisdom, and do what you deem best. 

 

Americans are such hypocrites anyway.  The same ones screaming about the dangers of that perfectly healthy kid who hasn't had a vaccine yet, and how he must be forced, and his parents arrested or sued if he does happen to get sick (and someone else catches it too), are the same ones who simultaneously scream that they need to be free to abort their babies and make their own decisions about a child's LIFE (not just a potential illness that could occur, or not). 

 

I can't even wrap my head around that. 

[Reflections]

I think we should listen to dissenting opinions.

 

There.  Was that so hard?

[albeto.]

Well, we agree on the bolded, anyway.

 

I won't snip just a tiny segment of what you said, though, like is typically done to me. 

 

I don't think anyone is even arguing that the existence of vaccines is a problem.  Use them if you like, all 69 doses recommended from birth (if you have a baby today; the number jumps exponentially on a regular basis). Or use the ones that make sense to you, given the important factors.  Make those decisions in conjunction with doctors who actually listen. 

 

Simply allow others the same freedom to analyze their own risks, given their family history, and any reactions to date.  There are some who fear giving other people the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, which I don't really understand.

 

Everything has risks.  Choose your risks.  People will fall on different lines there, and that is ok. 

 

What argument are you addressing with the bolded? Are you talking about the hypothetical but nonexistent mandatory vaccination program now? Who is being denied the freedom to analyze their own risks and respond accordingly?

 

I was replying to your comment that suggested profit is evidence vaccines are a scam. That's a different thing, and no one is restricted from using a profit=scam argument in the equation for personal risks. Their argument however, is likely to be ridiculed, as it's arguably a ridiculous argument. But that shouldn't be mistaken for restricting freedom.

[EmseB]

The same ones screaming about the dangers of that perfectly healthy kid who hasn't had a vaccine yet, and how he must be forced, and his parents arrested or sued if he does happen to get sick (and someone else catches it too), are the same ones who simultaneously scream that they need to be free to abort their babies and make their own decisions about a child's LIFE (not just a potential illness that could occur, or not). 

 

I can't even wrap my head around that. 

 

I see that you've tried to bring abortion into this thread on several occasions and no one has bitten, but I'll just say that you are mistaken on this line of thinking.  I'm about as pro-life as one can get, and I'm also pro-vax requirements for public schools.  I haven't seen anyone screaming about arrests or lawsuits though, so my thought is that all of this is this is simply a baiting tactic to get the thread shut down.  Why not go play in another sandbox where people aren't trying to have a serious discussion and would rather scream about abortion and lawsuits as it relates to vaccines?  I know there are places on the internet where that sort of stuff is welcomed, if not encouraged.

[SKL]

I agree that ridiculing is not equal to restricting freedom.  However, I still think ridiculing has no place on this forum.