CDC, Vaccines and Autism

[shank hawk]

"There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety... No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge." "I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation." - Dr Bernadine Healy, MD (Former Director, National Institute of Health and Former President, American Red Cross)

"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good." "The manufacturers of these vaccines know they are worthless but they go on selling them anyway." - Dr J Anthony Morris, PhD (Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer and Research Virologist, US FDA)

"The only safe vaccine is one that is never used." – Dr James A Shannon, MD (Former Director, National Institutes of Health)

“The chief, if not the sole cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination.” – Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President, International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital

“Nobody needs to be confused but everybody better be darn well frightened about taking any vaccine, under any circumstance, for any reason, at any time in their life.” – Dr. Daniel H. Duffy Sr., DC (retired air force officer – 21 yrs., family doctor – 28 yrs., vaccination researcher – 49 yrs.)

"I am and have been for years a confirmed anti-vaccinationist. Anti-vaccination has no backing from the orthodox medical opinion. A medical man who expresses himself against vaccination loses caste. Tremendous pecuniary interests too have grown around vaccination." - Mahatma Gandhi

“There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.” – Dr. J. Anthony Morris, Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer, US FDA

“Nothing but the natural ignorance of the public, countenanced by the inoculated erroneousness of the ordinary general medical practitioners, makes such a barbarism as vaccination possible. Recent developments have shown that an inoculation made in the usual general practitioner's light-hearted way, without previous highly skilled examination of the state of the patient's blood, is just as likely to be a simple manslaughter as a cure or preventive. But vaccination is nothing short of attempted murder. A skilled bacteriologist would just as soon think of cutting his child's arm and rubbing the contents of the dustpan into the wound, as vaccinating.” – George Bernard Shaw

“"Childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of a crusade for universal vaccination..."” – Association of American Physicians & Surgeons

https://www.google.com/

The FDA and CDC have failed miserably in their stated (and legally obligating) goals of protecting the health and safety of the American people. They exist to do the bidding of corporate interests. They have eliminated safe and competing products from the marketplace that could cut into Pharma's profits, they have buried damning evidence and allowed dangerous products - that have killed thousands of citizens - to be sold. (Tylenol, Vioxx, etc.)

Any one who would attempt to justify their qualifications, actions or mere existence is, to quote Joes Place, 'full of shit.'

Keep shillin' boys, just keep shillin'.

 

[Joes Place]

It is the position that science has definitively spoken once and for all that I find perplexing, coupled with the anger spewed towards anyone unwilling to concede with the same certitude.

Who said 'science has spoken once and for all'? I'm simply referring to the science that has been performed TO DATE.
And there have been dozens of studies. That does NOT mean there are not more studies to perform, or that someone should NOT be looking for ways that viruses or viral vaccines MIGHT trigger behavioral or developmental changes.

We have many MANY very clear precedents where viruses absolutely impact development - perfect example is the Zika virus making headlines and the neonatal risks for microencephaly.

I'm really not aware of any scientist or CDC verdict that says 'the science has spoken once and for all'; they simply are using the BEST science available to date to make the most prudent recommendations. When someone SERIOUS from the Anti-vaxx crowd can run a legitimate double-blinded study and show there is a problem, CDC and other worldwide entities will probably need to alter their positions. But UNTIL that happens, we have the answers right now and they do not show clear or definitive risks.

 

[Raglefant]

Who said 'science has spoken once and for all'? I'm simply referring to the science that has been performed TO DATE.
And there have been dozens of studies. That does NOT mean there are not more studies to perform, or that someone should NOT be looking for ways that viruses or viral vaccines MIGHT trigger behavioral or developmental changes.

We have many MANY very clear precedents where viruses absolutely impact development - perfect example is the Zika virus making headlines and the neonatal risks for microencephaly.

I'm really not aware of any scientist or CDC verdict that says 'the science has spoken once and for all'; they simply are using the BEST science available to date to make the most prudent recommendations. When someone SERIOUS from the Anti-vaxx crowd can run a legitimate double-blinded study and show there is a problem, CDC and other worldwide entities will probably need to alter their positions. But UNTIL that happens, we have the answers right now and they do not show clear or definitive risks.

I respect your post, but think you are understating the certainty with which those who understand your arguments typically speak. In my opinion, being more right than those anti-vaxxers who propose to know with certainty the link is real, does not excuse the condescension towards others who respect science and simply want more research to be done. I'd like to think we all want the same thing, to find the cause. I won't be upset if we find it, and it's not at all vaccines... Although I'm sure some will be disappointed if their fantasy of nailing big pharma doesn't happen.

 

[Joes Place]

I respect your post, but think you are understating the certainty with which those who understand your arguments typically speak.

Not sure what you mean here. I've stated that there are absolutely examples of viruses (which are essentially what vaccines are) causing behavioral or development issues in humans and other species. No scientist or medical professional is arguing that does NOT occur.

What I am saying is that the risk rates for vaccines are far lower than for most medical interventions or devices; that really sucks for those w/ genetic makeup or whatever IF they really are creating a trigger that causes problems. But the knee-jerk reaction to stop vaccinating people, and going back to mortality rates for children in the tens of percents, along with all of the associated complications and morbidities associated with even surviving those diseases, is utterly nonsensical with the data we have now and the success that vaccines have provided us. We have eradicated smallpox, something that killed thousands upon thousands of people. We are preventing thousands more diseases where the side effects are very well known and well established. To compare that to the level of complications we MIGHT be seeing from vaccines is apples/oranges here. Equating the two makes zero sense, and that is what the anti-vaxx crowd WANTS you to believe = they are EQUAL risks. They are clearly not.

 

[Raglefant]

Not sure what you mean here. I've stated that there are absolutely examples of viruses (which are essentially what vaccines are) causing behavioral or development issues in humans and other species. No scientist or medical professional is arguing that does NOT occur.

What I am saying is that the risk rates for vaccines are far lower than for most medical interventions or devices; that really sucks for those w/ genetic makeup or whatever IF they really are creating a trigger that causes problems. But the knee-jerk reaction to stop vaccinating people, and going back to mortality rates for children in the tens of percents, along with all of the associated complications and morbidities associated with even surviving those diseases, is utterly nonsensical with the data we have now and the success that vaccines have provided us. We have eradicated smallpox, something that killed thousands upon thousands of people. We are preventing thousands more diseases where the side effects are very well known and well established. To compare that to the level of complications we MIGHT be seeing from vaccines is apples/oranges here. Equating the two makes zero sense, and that is what the anti-vaxx crowd WANTS you to believe = they are EQUAL risks. They are clearly not.

I agree. People who understand this don't have to be dicks to people who do not believe the risk is equal, but simply want more research in hopes that whatever tie might exist becomes better understood. You have been very respectful, my previous post was simply pointing out that not all who understand this are. That's all.

 

[Joes Place]

I agree. People who understand this don't have to be dicks to people who do not believe the risk is equal, but simply want more research in hopes that whatever tie might exist becomes better understood. You have been very respectful, my previous post was simply pointing out that not all who understand this are. That's all.

I appreciate and completely understand your points here, and welcome the type of honest questioning you've injected into the conversation. Clearly, we should not only be setting up vaccination schedules on the sole premise that "they've always seemed to be safe", and we do need to be vigilant in looking out for problems. Now that genetic screening is becoming cheaper and cheaper, it would be a useful study to obtain genetic info from randomized sets of kids being vaccinated and look for any possible correlations between certain markers and bad reactions - acute or chronic/behavioral. Obtaining a clear link between some genetic marker and documented vaccine risks would be a major step in resolving this debate.

 

[shank hawk]

It would also be useful for the CDC to conduct a study on the health of vaccinated v. unvaccinated children, which they have failed to do (http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/st...-children-healthier-than-vaccinated-children/).

Foreign agencies conducted these studies and they show a clear difference in the two groups. With an extremely large, and growing - population of unvaccinated in this country it would be a simple thing to do.

However, it might upset those with a financial stake in game (and reveal the conflict of interest involved). Truth be damned I guess.

 

[Joes Place]

It would also be useful for the CDC to conduct a study on the health of vaccinated v. unvaccinated children, which they have failed to do (http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/st...-children-healthier-than-vaccinated-children/).

Foreign agencies conducted these studies and they show a clear difference in the two groups. With an extremely large, and growing - population of unvaccinated in this country it would be a simple thing to do.

However, it might upset those with a financial stake in game (and reveal the conflict of interest involved). Truth be damned I guess.

Did you read your own article/publication (the first one cited in the news brief)? That 'study' was a VERY small dataset (115 kids) and ONLY referred to flu vaccines (which are NOT mandatory) and says NOTHING about MMR and other required vaccinations. It is also from a fairly obscure source (Univ. of Hong Kong); has ANYONE in another region replicated this result since 2011? In a FULLY randomized study?

The 'citations' in that article are simply pointing to OTHER articles, and it seems the actual journal publications are not available. Were they retracted because they were found to be improperly performed? The 'journal' does not appear to even exist - perhaps an 'Open Source' journal where there is no peer review anyway (which equals 'junk', in case you don't understand that point).

Or are these questions too complicated for you to understand, and you need to resort to news Op Eds to 'think' for you?

 

[Joes Place]

...And WHAT do the doctors say about vaccines...??? Do you listen to your doctor, or to Op Eds and random Google links for your medical advice?

Physicians agree: Vaccination crucial to public health

As physicians, we know the importance of keeping each individual patient as healthy as possible. With the issue of vaccinations getting increased attention in political discourse, now is a good time to review the AMA’s policies so you can talk to your patients using scientific facts.​

The AMA has long supported the nation’s science-based immunization policies and recommendations. We have extensive policy on immunizations—voted on by physicians after debate and consideration—but in a nutshell, here are the facts:

• • We endorse the recommendations of both the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on how to use vaccines to control diseases in the United States, including the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine for children.

• • We support efforts toward the prevention of childhood disease through immunizations and encourage continued innovation in the development of immunization products.

• • We advocate for resources and the programs necessary, using the recommendations of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee and in accordance with the provision set forth in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, to ensure the optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through vaccine development, and to promote vaccine safety.

We know that vaccinations are safe and effective. We know their benefits far outweigh any risks. And we know that as physicians, we must encourage our patients to listen to the science and facts behind this issue.​

Use this list of resources for answering patients’ questions about vaccinations, supported with information from the CDC. In addition, the AAP has more resources on immunization for patients.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/ama-wire/post/physicians-agree-vaccination-crucial-public-health

PLENTY of links in the AMA statement for you to find ACTUAL science on vaccines and vaccine safety, vs. the BS that you keep linking here from erratic and unscientific sources. WHEN you can find a national society of physicians that advocates your position on vaccines, we can have a conversation. But absent that, you are simply a loon with a child's level of understanding on this topic, being swayed by other loons posting complete BS on their websites, and self-linking their own articles as 'sources'. Same strategy that the AnswersInGenesis idiots use to support their crap.

/thread

 

[shank hawk]

...And WHAT do the doctors say about vaccines...??? Do you listen to your doctor, or to Op Eds and random Google links for your medical advice?

Physicians agree: Vaccination crucial to public health

As physicians, we know the importance of keeping each individual patient as healthy as possible. With the issue of vaccinations getting increased attention in political discourse, now is a good time to review the AMA’s policies so you can talk to your patients using scientific facts.​

The AMA has long supported the nation’s science-based immunization policies and recommendations. We have extensive policy on immunizations—voted on by physicians after debate and consideration—but in a nutshell, here are the facts:

• • We endorse the recommendations of both the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on how to use vaccines to control diseases in the United States, including the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine for children.

• • We support efforts toward the prevention of childhood disease through immunizations and encourage continued innovation in the development of immunization products.

• • We advocate for resources and the programs necessary, using the recommendations of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee and in accordance with the provision set forth in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, to ensure the optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through vaccine development, and to promote vaccine safety.

We know that vaccinations are safe and effective. We know their benefits far outweigh any risks. And we know that as physicians, we must encourage our patients to listen to the science and facts behind this issue.​

Use this list of resources for answering patients’ questions about vaccinations, supported with information from the CDC. In addition, the AAP has more resources on immunization for patients.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/ama-wire/post/physicians-agree-vaccination-crucial-public-health

PLENTY of links in the AMA statement for you to find ACTUAL science on vaccines and vaccine safety, vs. the BS that you keep linking here from erratic and unscientific sources. WHEN you can find a national society of physicians that advocates your position on vaccines, we can have a conversation. But absent that, you are simply a loon with a child's level of understanding on this topic, being swayed by other loons posting complete BS on their websites, and self-linking their own articles as 'sources'. Same strategy that the AnswersInGenesis idiots use to support their crap.

/thread

The journal I linked also talked about a German study with 13,222 unvaccinated children. Stop changing the subject and answer the question: why won't the taxpayer funded group that is responsible for vaccine safety (the CDC) actually do a study that could link vaccines to an epidemic of dangerous side effects? The answer is obvious: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I posted several quotes from actual doctors, some of whom held positions of power in the FDA and the National Institutes of Health, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, etc. They all said the same thing: vaccines don't work and cause more harm than good.

Instead, you provide 'science' p) from financially and ethically compromised organizations such as the AMA, CDC, AAP, etc. to make your case.

/thread? You'll have to do better than that.

 

[shank hawk]

And more examples of "follow the money."


They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.

But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.

The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.

• A $342,000 payment from Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine - which makes $2 billion a year in sales.

• A $433,000 contribution from Merck, the same year the academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine - which made $1.5 billion a year in sales.

• Another top donor: Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines and a new five-in-one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/

 

[Joes Place]

The journal I linked also talked about a German study with 13,222 unvaccinated children.

You didn't link 'a journal'; you linked at Op Ed puff piece REFERRING to alleged journal articles, which I cannot find the actual journal paper for (giant red flag there).

Do you understand the DIFFERENCE between an actual peer-reviewed journal article and an Op Ed summary of alleged journal papers? Apparently not, and that seems to be the main problem here.

 

[Joes Place]

Instead, you provide 'science' p) from financially and ethically compromised organizations such as the AMA, CDC, AAP, etc. to make your case.

Ah....the old 'conspiracy theory' argument yet AGAIN. Why do you even trust your doctor for ANYTHING at this point. CLEARLY you can find far better DIY medicine via random Google links!!!

 

[shank hawk]

Ahhh, yes. The watchdog for vaccine safety, the CDC, buying up BILLIONS of dollars worth of snake oil from Big Pharma as they promote the hell out these products. Nope, no humongous conflict of interest here.

CDC PR flack Nowak, on National Public Radio, explained the real crisis at the CDC by referring to the CDC’s client—every PR firm has a client for whom they work: “… the manufacturers were telling us that they weren’t receiving a lot of orders for vaccine for use in November or even December … It really did look like we needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot.”

That should tell you everything you need to know about how ethical the CDC is. That is the very definition of 'shilling for Big Pharma.' No conspiracy there, they freely admit it.

https://www.google.com/

 

[Joes Place]

Ahhh, yes. The watchdog for vaccine safety, the CDC, buying up BILLIONS of dollars worth of snake oil from Big Pharma as they promote the hell out these products. Nope, no humongous conflict of interest here.

CDC PR flack Nowak, on National Public Radio, explained the real crisis at the CDC by referring to the CDC’s client—every PR firm has a client for whom they work: “… the manufacturers were telling us that they weren’t receiving a lot of orders for vaccine for use in November or even December … It really did look like we needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot.”

That should tell you everything you need to know about how ethical the CDC is. That is the very definition of 'shilling for Big Pharma.' No conspiracy there, they freely admit it.

https://www.google.com/

OMG....they're PROMOTING flu vaccines which have DEMONSTRABLY saved lives!!!
And AMA has been (allegedly) duped by them, too!!! Clearly, YOU know MORE than all the physicians in America (and worldwide) do.

 

[Joes Place]

Ahhh, yes. The watchdog for vaccine safety, the CDC, buying up BILLIONS of dollars worth of snake oil from Big Pharma as they promote the hell out these products. Nope, no humongous conflict of interest here.

CDC PR flack Nowak, on National Public Radio, explained the real crisis at the CDC by referring to the CDC’s client—every PR firm has a client for whom they work: “… the manufacturers were telling us that they weren’t receiving a lot of orders for vaccine for use in November or even December … It really did look like we needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot.”

That should tell you everything you need to know about how ethical the CDC is. That is the very definition of 'shilling for Big Pharma.' No conspiracy there, they freely admit it.

https://www.google.com/

Not ONLY are you woefully incompetent on the SCIENCE side of this debate, you are ALSO incompetent with regard to the BUSINESS side.

Vaccines are VERY low margin products for drug makers - they prefer much pricier prescription drugs for their portfolios. This has been one of the main reasons for vaccine shortages over the years, resulting in several government investigations as to why this could possibly happen in a country with the vast resources we have.

Regulatory changes affected supply as well. In 1999 the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended removing a mercury-based preservative from all vaccines, which caused several companies to stop production.

It can take a year from start to finish to make a batch of vaccine, said Sara Radcliffe, a research director for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents drug companies.

There is not a lot of incentive for companies to make older vaccines, Modlin said. As a result, during the last 40 years, fewer manufacturers have produced them, Radcliffe said.

Two other vaccines still are in limited supply, Allen said. Shortages of chicken pox vaccine should be alleviated by the end of July or the beginning of August. And the recently approved pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, which prevents childhood pneumonia and meningitis, may not be ready until year's end, the CDC spokesman said.

Wyeth Lambert, the only manufacturer of the pneumococcal vaccine, has not met its demand since it was approved in October, Modlin said.
​

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jul/12/nation/na-shot12

Dr. Rodewald said it is unfortunate that at a time when the safety profile of recommended vaccines is “incredibly high,” there should be shortages. But there is no one factor to blame, he said. “Unlike the shortages of DTP vaccine in the early to mid-1980s that had the single cause of liability, the current shortages have several different causes that vary from vaccine to vaccine and manufacturer to manufacturer,” he said. He said among the reasons for the recent vaccine shortages are these:

* No incentives for pharmaceutical companies to manufacture vaccines because it is more lucrative to sell prescription drugs.

* Insufficient stockpiles of vaccines in pharmaceutical companies.

* Business decisions by corporate chief executives not to manufacture vaccines.

* Production problems at manufacturing plants.

* The costs of compliance with federally required regulations on good manufacturing practices.

Dr. Rodewald said the General Accounting Office (GAO), a watchdog agency that reports to Congress, is currently studying the vaccine shortage problem and should issue its report soon. In addition, he said the National Vaccine Advisory Committee is studying strategies for HHS to prevent vaccine shortages in the future. The CDC official said there are a number of ways to ensure an adequate supply of U.S. vaccines, including:

* Creating financial incentives for research, development, production, and administration of vaccines.

* Streamlining the regulatory process.

* Expanding stockpiles of routinely recommended vaccines.

* Working toward better communication among key government and private sector agencies and providers with a stake in vaccine policy and practices.
​

The last bullet point clearly addresses your "concerns" over CDC tracking flu vaccine use, as improving communication is one of the primary GAO recommendations to minimize disruptions in vaccine supplies.

http://journals.lww.com/em-news/Ful...cine_Shortages__U_S_.14.aspx?trendmd-shared=0

AND, here are some numbers for you on those "Big Pharma Profits" from vaccines:

Worldwide sales of flu vaccines in 2013 was around $3.1 billion, according to estimates of a healthcare market research firm. Yes, that may appear to be large, may drive strategic interests of the main companies that manufacture influenza vaccines: Sanofi Pasteur, Glaxo SmithKline and Novartis.

But let’s put this in context of the worldwide sales of all pharmaceutical products in 2013–nearly US$1 trillion. In other words, various flu vaccines make up less than 0.3% of worldwide sales of Big Pharma, so from a strategic point of view, it’s not that interesting. Just for context, cholesterol lowering drugs, like statins,sold more than $33 billion two years ago. If I were a Big Pharma executive, I’d be telling my R&D and Marketing divisions to invest in new statins, because the potential return on investment could be 10X higher.

Leaving the meta level review of flu vaccine sales, let’s examine those sales in context of the individual Big 3 companies in this particular vaccine sector:

• Sanofi Pasteur (division of Sanofi). Total sales $41.6 billion. Flu vaccine sales $1.3 billion. In other words, flu vaccine makes up around 3% of their sales
• Glaxo SmithKline. Total sales $32.3 billion. Flu vaccine sales $420 million, or 1.3% of their total sales.
• Novartis. Total sales $57.9 billion. Flu vaccine sales $215 million, or 0.4% of their sales.

Note: the remaining $1.1 billion in flu vaccine sales is spread over 15 other manufacturers, none of whom have a major market share.

Also note that the competition among manufacturers means there is a healthy market to keep vaccine prices at reasonable and low costs to people!
​

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/flu-vaccine-myth-big-pharma-profits/

Your conspiracy theories of Big Pharma clearing giant margins and profits on vaccines is a completely false narrative. There is no 'follow the money', because the money is virtual PEANUTS compared to their prescription drug sales. How many prescription ads do you see on TV during bowl games and at night when older people watch TV? TONS!!!
How many vaccine ads do you see those drug companies running? ZERO!!! - because they don't make any money off those products in comparison. Even though they probably sell thousands more doses of those vaccines vs. their fancy prescription drugs.

So, follow the SCIENCE, not the fake conspiracies.

​

 

[shank hawk]

OMG....they're PROMOTING flu vaccines which have DEMONSTRABLY saved lives!!!
And AMA has been (allegedly) duped by them, too!!! Clearly, YOU know MORE than all the physicians in America (and worldwide) do.

You just don't get it, do you? It's not the job of an agency who is legally obligated to insure vaccine safety to be buying, selling and promoting these products. It's a blatant conflict of interest but it doesn't matter because of the big boys that are involved. The foxes (or in this case, rabid, overgrown wolves) are guarding the hen house.

So ALL the doctors in America (http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/do...he-other-side-of-the-story-is-not-being-told/) and ALL doctors worldwide (http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/us-media-blackout-french-oppose-vaccines.html) are in favor of mass vaccination, huh?

Couldn't you at least pretend to be somewhat truthful in your attempt to engage in an honest debate?

 

[shank hawk]

Not ONLY are you woefully incompetent on the SCIENCE side of this debate, you are ALSO incompetent with regard to the BUSINESS side.

Vaccines are VERY low margin products for drug makers - they prefer much pricier prescription drugs for their portfolios. This has been one of the main reasons for vaccine shortages over the years, resulting in several government investigations as to why this could possibly happen in a country with the vast resources we have.

Regulatory changes affected supply as well. In 1999 the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended removing a mercury-based preservative from all vaccines, which caused several companies to stop production.

It can take a year from start to finish to make a batch of vaccine, said Sara Radcliffe, a research director for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents drug companies.

There is not a lot of incentive for companies to make older vaccines, Modlin said. As a result, during the last 40 years, fewer manufacturers have produced them, Radcliffe said.

Two other vaccines still are in limited supply, Allen said. Shortages of chicken pox vaccine should be alleviated by the end of July or the beginning of August. And the recently approved pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, which prevents childhood pneumonia and meningitis, may not be ready until year's end, the CDC spokesman said.

Wyeth Lambert, the only manufacturer of the pneumococcal vaccine, has not met its demand since it was approved in October, Modlin said.
​

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jul/12/nation/na-shot12

Dr. Rodewald said it is unfortunate that at a time when the safety profile of recommended vaccines is “incredibly high,” there should be shortages. But there is no one factor to blame, he said. “Unlike the shortages of DTP vaccine in the early to mid-1980s that had the single cause of liability, the current shortages have several different causes that vary from vaccine to vaccine and manufacturer to manufacturer,” he said. He said among the reasons for the recent vaccine shortages are these:

* No incentives for pharmaceutical companies to manufacture vaccines because it is more lucrative to sell prescription drugs.

* Insufficient stockpiles of vaccines in pharmaceutical companies.

* Business decisions by corporate chief executives not to manufacture vaccines.

* Production problems at manufacturing plants.

* The costs of compliance with federally required regulations on good manufacturing practices.

Dr. Rodewald said the General Accounting Office (GAO), a watchdog agency that reports to Congress, is currently studying the vaccine shortage problem and should issue its report soon. In addition, he said the National Vaccine Advisory Committee is studying strategies for HHS to prevent vaccine shortages in the future. The CDC official said there are a number of ways to ensure an adequate supply of U.S. vaccines, including:

* Creating financial incentives for research, development, production, and administration of vaccines.

* Streamlining the regulatory process.

* Expanding stockpiles of routinely recommended vaccines.

* Working toward better communication among key government and private sector agencies and providers with a stake in vaccine policy and practices.
​

The last bullet point clearly addresses your "concerns" over CDC tracking flu vaccine use, as improving communication is one of the primary GAO recommendations to minimize disruptions in vaccine supplies.

http://journals.lww.com/em-news/Ful...cine_Shortages__U_S_.14.aspx?trendmd-shared=0

AND, here are some numbers for you on those "Big Pharma Profits" from vaccines:

Worldwide sales of flu vaccines in 2013 was around $3.1 billion, according to estimates of a healthcare market research firm. Yes, that may appear to be large, may drive strategic interests of the main companies that manufacture influenza vaccines: Sanofi Pasteur, Glaxo SmithKline and Novartis.

But let’s put this in context of the worldwide sales of all pharmaceutical products in 2013–nearly US$1 trillion. In other words, various flu vaccines make up less than 0.3% of worldwide sales of Big Pharma, so from a strategic point of view, it’s not that interesting. Just for context, cholesterol lowering drugs, like statins,sold more than $33 billion two years ago. If I were a Big Pharma executive, I’d be telling my R&D and Marketing divisions to invest in new statins, because the potential return on investment could be 10X higher.

Leaving the meta level review of flu vaccine sales, let’s examine those sales in context of the individual Big 3 companies in this particular vaccine sector:

• Sanofi Pasteur (division of Sanofi). Total sales $41.6 billion. Flu vaccine sales $1.3 billion. In other words, flu vaccine makes up around 3% of their sales
• Glaxo SmithKline. Total sales $32.3 billion. Flu vaccine sales $420 million, or 1.3% of their total sales.
• Novartis. Total sales $57.9 billion. Flu vaccine sales $215 million, or 0.4% of their sales.

Note: the remaining $1.1 billion in flu vaccine sales is spread over 15 other manufacturers, none of whom have a major market share.

Also note that the competition among manufacturers means there is a healthy market to keep vaccine prices at reasonable and low costs to people!
​

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/flu-vaccine-myth-big-pharma-profits/

Your conspiracy theories of Big Pharma clearing giant margins and profits on vaccines is a completely false narrative. There is no 'follow the money', because the money is virtual PEANUTS compared to their prescription drug sales. How many prescription ads do you see on TV during bowl games and at night when older people watch TV? TONS!!!
How many vaccine ads do you see those drug companies running? ZERO!!! - because they don't make any money off those products in comparison. Even though they probably sell thousands more doses of those vaccines vs. their fancy prescription drugs.

So, follow the SCIENCE, not the fake conspiracies.

​

How many vaccine ads do you see those drug companies running? ZERO!!! Why should they spend money when they have the AMA, AAP and the CDC in their back pocket. These outfits do a great job pimping the products for them.

As far as there being no profits in vaccine peddling, nothing could be further from the truth. One can only hope that someday they would all just lose interest and stop making the stuff, but we both know that won't happen because again, you're pushing lies.



The price to vaccinate a child is now a colossal 68 times more expensive than it was in 2001.

One of the new vaccines Gavi is tasked with introducing is the pneumonia vaccine (PCV), which aims to combat a major childhood killer in developing countries. A dramatic 37 per cent (or US$2.8 billion) of the total amount raised for Gavi last week from taxpayers and private foundations will go to pay for just this one high-priced vaccine, which today is produced by only two pharmaceutical giants: GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. The two companies have made more than US$19 billion in sales off of the vaccine since its launch, yet still charge developing countries unaffordable and unsustainable prices. It's important to point out that this vaccine was initially developed for children in wealthy countries, and its research and development costs have long been recovered.

Nope, no profit incentive in vaccines. Not a penny to be made for these poor pharmaceutical giants: is there any way we could pass the proverbial hat for them? http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephen-cornish/vaccine-prices-_b_6614010.html

I have to say I do love the red highlights you use in pushing the company line: it seems to make your 'argument' sooo much more persuasive. All caps can be highly effective as well, as long as you don't overdo them.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

They don't get those doses of bacteria, viruses, etc. along with a dose of Thimersol, or whatever chemical agent they add into the vaccines though do they? No, that only comes from how they decide to administer them.

Moms used to swab thiomersol on cuts and scrapes - it was called merthiolate. Beginning in the late 1920's it was found in antiseptic ointments, creams, jellies, and sprays. It was used by consumers and in hospitals in nasal sprays, eye drops, and contact lens solutions. ALL of those uses would have exposed the user to far higher doses than would be found in a vaccine.

Another blow to your theory is the fact that thiomersol hasn't been used in routine childhood vaccines in well over a decade...which means the incidence of diagnosed autism should be dropping. It isn't.

"There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety... No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge." "I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation." - Dr Bernadine Healy, MD (Former Director, National Institute of Health and Former President, American Red Cross)

"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good." "The manufacturers of these vaccines know they are worthless but they go on selling them anyway." - Dr J Anthony Morris, PhD (Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer and Research Virologist, US FDA)

"The only safe vaccine is one that is never used." – Dr James A Shannon, MD (Former Director, National Institutes of Health)

“The chief, if not the sole cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination.” – Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President, International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital

“Nobody needs to be confused but everybody better be darn well frightened about taking any vaccine, under any circumstance, for any reason, at any time in their life.” – Dr. Daniel H. Duffy Sr., DC (retired air force officer – 21 yrs., family doctor – 28 yrs., vaccination researcher – 49 yrs.)

"I am and have been for years a confirmed anti-vaccinationist. Anti-vaccination has no backing from the orthodox medical opinion. A medical man who expresses himself against vaccination loses caste. Tremendous pecuniary interests too have grown around vaccination." - Mahatma Gandhi

“There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.” – Dr. J. Anthony Morris, Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer, US FDA

“Nothing but the natural ignorance of the public, countenanced by the inoculated erroneousness of the ordinary general medical practitioners, makes such a barbarism as vaccination possible. Recent developments have shown that an inoculation made in the usual general practitioner's light-hearted way, without previous highly skilled examination of the state of the patient's blood, is just as likely to be a simple manslaughter as a cure or preventive. But vaccination is nothing short of attempted murder. A skilled bacteriologist would just as soon think of cutting his child's arm and rubbing the contents of the dustpan into the wound, as vaccinating.” – George Bernard Shaw

“"Childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of a crusade for universal vaccination..."” – Association of American Physicians & Surgeons

https://www.google.com/

The FDA and CDC have failed miserably in their stated (and legally obligating) goals of protecting the health and safety of the American people. They exist to do the bidding of corporate interests. They have eliminated safe and competing products from the marketplace that could cut into Pharma's profits, they have buried damning evidence and allowed dangerous products - that have killed thousands of citizens - to be sold. (Tylenol, Vioxx, etc.)

Any one who would attempt to justify their qualifications, actions or mere existence is, to quote Joes Place, 'full of shit.'

Keep shillin' boys, just keep shillin'.

I'm not going to go through and check the creds of every one of your mass email contributors but I think we can immediately dismiss the musings of Shaw and Gandhi (without even questioning the veracity of the quotes). As for the "Association of American Physicians & Surgeons"...these guys claim that Obama used mass hypnosis to coerce people to vote for him in 2008. They also deny that the HIV virus leads to AIDS. Bet you wouldn't go out having unprotected sex with HIV-positive women or men based on THEIR "science".

 

[shank hawk]

Moms used to swab thiomersol on cuts and scrapes - it was called merthiolate. Beginning in the late 1920's it was found in antiseptic ointments, creams, jellies, and sprays. It was used by consumers and in hospitals in nasal sprays, eye drops, and contact lens solutions. ALL of those uses would have exposed the user to far higher doses than would be found in a vaccine.

Another blow to your theory is the fact that thiomersol hasn't been used in routine childhood vaccines in well over a decade...which means the incidence of diagnosed autism should be dropping. It isn't.




I'm not going to go through and check the creds of every one of your mass email contributors but I think we can immediately dismiss the musings of Shaw and Gandhi (without even questioning the veracity of the quotes). As for the "Association of American Physicians & Surgeons"...these guys claim that Obama used mass hypnosis to coerce people to vote for him in 2008. They also deny that the HIV virus leads to AIDS. Bet you wouldn't go out having unprotected sex with HIV-positive women or men based on THEIR "science".

By all means heel, dismiss away. I only included Shaw and Gandhi because of Americans obsession with celebrity. Pro vaxxers would never be so disingenuous as to use celebrities to promote injections now would they?
http://www.parenting.com/gallery/celebs-and-vaccines?page=3

I realize now we should blindly trust official, well meaning government agencies that only have our health and well being in mind......like the U.S. Public Health Service, the CDC, and the AMA. In other words, agencies that carried out and covered up the Tuskegee experiment. Am I being naive, or can we expect the same sort of compassion and concern for 'the children' out of these clowns that they had for those poor black folks? Try and let that sink in for a bit then read these words real slow: Follow the money. If is still doesn't sink in it's probably not your fault; just a few too many injections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

 

[tarheelbybirth]

By all means heel, dismiss away. I only included Shaw and Gandhi because of Americans obsession with celebrity. Pro vaxxers would never be so disingenuous as to use celebrities to promote injections now would they?
http://www.parenting.com/gallery/celebs-and-vaccines?page=3

I realize now we should blindly trust official, well meaning government agencies that only have our health and well being in mind......like the U.S. Public Health Service, the CDC, and the AMA. In other words, agencies that carried out and covered up the Tuskegee experiment. Am I being naive, or can we expect the same sort of compassion and concern for 'the children' out of these clowns that they had for those poor black folks? Try and let that sink in for a bit then read these words real slow: Follow the money. If is still doesn't sink in it's probably not your fault; just a few too many injections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

Well, you just completely ignored the fact that thiomersol had been in wide use for decades before it was ever included in vaccines - and at far higher exposures. Well done. Right out of the anti-vaxxer playbook. Try following the facts for a change.

BTW, putting it in bold doesn't make it any more true - Dr J Anthony Morris, PhD is nowhere listed as Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US FDA...former or otherwise. He was, apparently, a microbiologist who supervised the standardization of some of the viruses used for research at the NIH. He published exactly twice in his career - both times on bacteria - and both prior to 1970. There is also no record that he made the statements quoted...could you provide valid citations?

There is zero evidence that Dr. Shannon made the quote attributed to him. He died in 1994 at the age of 89. At least he WAS NIH Director...so they got that right...but he retired in 1968. That quote, btw, has been attributed to Rr. James R Shannon - also NIH Director - in 2004 by some anti-vaxxer sites. There was never a Dr. James R. Shannon leading the NIH. Tell me again about trusting liars, if you don't mind.

Dr. Robert Bell, huh? I am sad to report:

LONDON,Jan. 21

The death is announced of Dr Robert Bell, vice president of the lnternational Cancer Research Society, and superintendent of Cancer Research at Battersea Hospital.

Dr. Bell died...in 1926.

Damn...I said I wasn't going to do this and here I am doing it.

Dr. Duffy was...a chiropractor, not a researcher. Died a few years ago. Never published a single paper - on anything. He also claimed:

I hope you are aware of the following facts:

1. There is not now and never has been, an epidemic of AIDS.

2. HIV does not cause AIDS.

3. AIDS is not an infectious disease.

4. AIDS is not a transmissable disease.

5. No vaccine has ever prevented, cured or ameliorated any epidemic disease.

6. Every vaccine is an insult to the immune system.

7. Vaccination is a superstition of antiquity that was revived by renaissance medical quacks, which was then supported and promoted by the drug industry.

8. Every vaccination is a form of Russian Roulette.

Did you mention something about trust?

 

[shank hawk]

Well, you just completely ignored the fact that thiomersol had been in wide use for decades before it was ever included in vaccines - and at far higher exposures. Well done. Right out of the anti-vaxxer playbook. Try following the facts for a change.

BTW, putting it in bold doesn't make it any more true - Dr J Anthony Morris, PhD is nowhere listed as Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US FDA...former or otherwise. He was, apparently, a microbiologist who supervised the standardization of some of the viruses used for research at the NIH. He published exactly twice in his career - both times on bacteria - and both prior to 1970. There is also no record that he made the statements quoted...could you provide valid citations?

There is zero evidence that Dr. Shannon made the quote attributed to him. He died in 1994 at the age of 89. At least he WAS NIH Director...so they got that right...but he retired in 1968. That quote, btw, has been attributed to Rr. James R Shannon - also NIH Director - in 2004 by some anti-vaxxer sites. There was never a Dr. James R. Shannon leading the NIH. Tell me again about trusting liars, if you don't mind.

Dr. Robert Bell, huh? I am sad to report:

LONDON,Jan. 21

The death is announced of Dr Robert Bell, vice president of the lnternational Cancer Research Society, and superintendent of Cancer Research at Battersea Hospital.

Dr. Bell died...in 1926.

Damn...I said I wasn't going to do this and here I am doing it.

Dr. Duffy was...a chiropractor, not a researcher. Died a few years ago. Never published a single paper - on anything. He also claimed:

I hope you are aware of the following facts:

1. There is not now and never has been, an epidemic of AIDS.

2. HIV does not cause AIDS.

3. AIDS is not an infectious disease.

4. AIDS is not a transmissable disease.

5. No vaccine has ever prevented, cured or ameliorated any epidemic disease.

6. Every vaccine is an insult to the immune system.

7. Vaccination is a superstition of antiquity that was revived by renaissance medical quacks, which was then supported and promoted by the drug industry.

8. Every vaccination is a form of Russian Roulette.

Did you mention something about trust?

Good for you heel, someone actually gets the 'google.com' as a link. For doing the homework you get a star for the day.

Why don't you go back and read the entire thread and get back to me. At one point I said that you all should feel free to vaccinate.......I don't care. I have a problem with government agencies trying to force people to vaccinate.

I have a problem with said agencies using my tax dollars to promote vaccination - especially when they are legally obligated to be a watchdog, not a freaking pimp. And when they buy 4 billion dollars worth of vaccines to peddle to the public from the very people they are supposed to be supervising? Yep, big red flag. Or when they ignore a product that kills 500 people a year (Tylenol) or kills 55,000 people (Vioxx) you absolutely have to know that they're nothing but whores.

Oh, by the way, if you don't understand the difference between ingesting/inhaling/absorbing all the nasty things in your environment (neurotoxins, viruses, bacteria, preservatives, proteins, etc.) and having them injected directly into your bloodstream then this is really a pointless 'conversation.' Cancer, autism and autoimmune disease vs. measles and chickenpox. Money vs. science. Propaganda vs. reality. Guinea pigs vs. patients. That's what passes for medicine these days.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Good for you heel, someone actually gets the 'google.com' as a link. For doing the homework you get a star for the day.

Why don't you go back and read the entire thread and get back to me. At one point I said that you all should feel free to vaccinate.......I don't care. I have a problem with government agencies trying to force people to vaccinate.

I have a problem with said agencies using my tax dollars to promote vaccination - especially when they are legally obligated to be a watchdog, not a freaking pimp. And when they buy 4 billion dollars worth of vaccines to peddle to the public from the very people they are supposed to be supervising? Yep, big red flag. Or when they ignore a product that kills 500 people a year (Tylenol) or kills 55,000 people (Vioxx) you absolutely have to know that they're nothing but whores.

Oh, by the way, if you don't understand the difference between ingesting/inhaling/absorbing all the nasty things in your environment (neurotoxins, viruses, bacteria, preservatives, proteins, etc.) and having them injected directly into your bloodstream then this is really a pointless 'conversation.' Cancer, autism and autoimmune disease vs. measles and chickenpox. Money vs. science. Propaganda vs. reality. Guinea pigs vs. patients. That's what passes for medicine these days.

Feel free to "trust" someone who tells you HIV is harmless. Expose yourself to the body fluids of HIV+ people. And feel free to forego EVERY medical procedure or treatment that presents ANY risk. Get all your anti-vaxxer friends on board. No surgeries of any kind. No medications of any kind. It would improve the gene pool - you might even qualify for a low-level Darwin Award.

But stop trying to peddle your nonsense as truth.

BTW, I like the way you phrased this:

Cancer, autism and autoimmune disease vs. measles and chickenpox. Money vs. science. Propaganda vs. reality. Guinea pigs vs. patients.

The risks associated with failure to vaccinate against diseases like measles and chicken pox are science...they are reality...they do apply to patients. Your BS, on the other hand, will cost us lots of money...is propaganda...is total BS...and makes children guinea pigs to idiots.

 

[shank hawk]

So much butthurt. And for the millionth time (or so it seems), I am not anti vaccination. I am anti forced vaccination. I am also against federal agencies (FDA, CDC, etc) acting like slutty cheerleaders for the financial betterment of their sugar daddies (Merck, GSK, etc) when they are supposed to be concerned about safety.

You want your children to suffer a lifetime of health problems for the sake of missing a few days of school with a fever, go right ahead. In fact, why not heed Dr. Paul (Pr)offit's advice and give them 10,000 at once. If one shot is good then more is better, right?

Oh, and please watch this documentary on the diabolical origins of the anti-vaxx movement from the 60's and 70's. Those dirty Hollywood liberals were already poisoning the minds of our dear children back then: mocking the deadly seriousness of childhood 'diseases.' Hope they rot in hell.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So much butthurt. And for the millionth time (or so it seems), I am not anti vaccination. I am anti forced vaccination. I am also against federal agencies (FDA, CDC, etc) acting like slutty cheerleaders for the financial betterment of their sugar daddies (Merck, GSK, etc) when they are supposed to be concerned about safety.

You want your children to suffer a lifetime of health problems for the sake of missing a few days of school with a fever, go right ahead. In fact, why not heed Dr. Paul (Pr)offit's advice and give them 10,000 at once. If one shot is good then more is better, right?

Oh, and please watch this documentary on the diabolical origins of the anti-vaxx movement from the 60's and 70's. Those dirty Hollywood liberals were already poisoning the minds of our dear children back then: mocking the deadly seriousness of childhood 'diseases.' Hope they rot in hell.

Both of my boys had all their vaccines on time. They are 15 and 20. They have zero health problems - lifetime or otherwise. So if a collection of personal anecdotes is somehow equatable to scientific evidence as Jenny McCarthy seems to think - there's your absolute proof that your claim is total BS. You could also peruse the overwhelming bulk of scientific study on the issue but we already know where that leads.

Like I said, turn down any medical procedure or treatment that presents an adverse risk. THAT'S your argument against vaccines...apply it across the board or you're a hypocrite.

 

[Raglefant]

Like I said, turn down any medical procedure or treatment that presents an adverse risk. THAT'S your argument against vaccines...apply it across the board or you're a hypocrite.

I'm not on his side, but why wouldn't an individual hold the right to weigh risk on a case by case basis? Why all or nothing? That's a strange notion imho. A hypocrite would be someone that thinks it's wrong for the government to force you to do something when you don't happen to agree with that specific thing, but thinks it's fine to force everyone to do something else just because you happen to agree with that specific thing.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm not on his side, but why wouldn't an individual hold the right to weigh risk on a case by case basis? Why all or nothing? That's a strange notion imho. A hypocrite would be someone that thinks it's wrong for the government to force you to do something when you don't happen to agree with that specific thing, but thinks it's fine to force everyone to do something else just because you happen to agree with that specific thing.

The govt isn't forcing anyone to get a vaccine. There are idiot parents today refusing to vaccinate their children. They can be barred from putting others at risk by preventing them from attending public schools...but they can always look for a private school that doesn't require vaccination. I look at that as the govt protecting people from the stupidity of others - a perfectly reasonable use of govt. power. You might as well argue against traffic laws if your objection is based on the use of govt force to compel behavior. Can Tony Stewart weigh the risks of driving public roads at 130 mph and decide he can handle that speed?

Shank's entire premise is based on the idea that vaccinations produce adverse affects. That is unassailable - there is no medical procedure or treatment that is risk-free. So if he opposes vaccines due to the risks they do present, he must object to any other procedure that carries risk.

 

[Raglefant]

The govt isn't forcing anyone to get a vaccine. There are idiot parents today refusing to vaccinate their children. They can be barred from putting others at risk by preventing them from attending public schools...but they can always look for a private school that doesn't require vaccination. I look at that as the govt protecting people from the stupidity of others - a perfectly reasonable use of govt. power. You might as well argue against traffic laws if your objection is based on the use of govt force to compel behavior. Can Tony Stewart weigh the risks of driving public roads at 130 mph and decide he can handle that speed?

Shank's entire premise is based on the idea that vaccinations produce adverse affects. That is unassailable - there is no medical procedure or treatment that is risk-free. So if he opposes vaccines due to the risks they do present, he must object to any other procedure that carries risk.

No, he holds the right to decide on a case by case basis. Sorry for derailing with the forced Gov example. Why can't someone decide on a case by case basis? Silly to think one couldn't oppose one based on their perceived risk and agree to another. Hell, that's basically how it works now. People have options on how to treat any number of health issues. Dumb to say rejecting any one requires one must reject all.

 

[Joes Place]

I'm not on his side, but why wouldn't an individual hold the right to weigh risk on a case by case basis? Why all or nothing? That's a strange notion imho. A hypocrite would be someone that thinks it's wrong for the government to force you to do something when you don't happen to agree with that specific thing, but thinks it's fine to force everyone to do something else just because you happen to agree with that specific thing.

Once we allow random 'outs' for anti-vaxxers, we absolutely end up w/ things FAR WORSE than the Disneyland measles outbreak.

I've stated it on here many many times now. If 'freedom to vaccinate or not' is SO important to people, then allow them to do so with the following caveats:

• Opting out means you take FULL responsibility when you contract ANY vaccinatable disease and spread it to any other individuals. There is no need for 'proof' you directly passed a disease along, only a preponderance of evidence, being that you were in the vicinity of someone else who then contracted the disease. This is primarily focused on those who CANNOT be vaccinated due to legitimate health reasons, NOT religious or random objection/voluntary reasons.
• You accept that NO insurer will cover ANY expense for you under ANY health plan if you contract a vaccinatable disease; YOU will be 100% responsible for your own healthcare costs associated with the disease and ANY long-term effects. No insurer or other insured should have their premiums wasted on paying for your fully preventable condition.
• Full responsibility means YOU will pay IN FULL for all costs associated with any contractable disesaes that you were more than likely responsible for spreading. No insurer will be responsible for cost of care for another individual contracting one of the diseases from you, and they will have full financial power and resources to foreclose on ANY asset you have to recoup their costs when covering another individual. NO asset you have, not even a separate trust you have control over, foreign stock, etc. can be shielded from foreclosure. You decide if you want to risk everything you have over non-vaccination - your personal choice.
• If you are exposed to anyone with a disease for which you have not been vaccinated, YOU have the responsibility to sequester yourself to prevent transmission to another. Failure to take action will not only result in full financial liability, but criminal liability as well (just like those who knowingly have unprotected sex when they have HIV/AIDS).
• You AND your children must be registered in a database of UN-vaccinated persons, which is PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Others, who may NOT be able to be vaccinated, have the right to know if they are putting themselves at risk by hanging around you.
• This requirement is limited to only certain vaccines (MMR, etc) , NOT flu or HPV vaccines.

This is a fully Republican stance on this issue: take and OWN personal responsibility for your actions, particularly when they can and will impact others. There are MANY who cannot be vaccinated due to legitimate health conditions/reasons, and those people RELY ON the herd immunity to protect them. By arbitrarily NOT vaccinating yourself, you put THEM at risk, and YOU should be held responsible for putting them at risk, just as any other reckless actions are handled by our society (e.g. drunk driving). People lose hearing from things like measles - that is a LONG TERM care cost, that YOU will be responsible for if you fail to vaccinate and then pass that disease to someone else who legitimately could not be vaccinated.

 

[Joes Place]

So much butthurt.

You're right. You are being totally OWNED by the facts in this thread.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

No, he holds the right to decide on a case by case basis. Sorry for derailing with the forced Gov example. Why can't someone decide on a case by case basis? Silly to think one couldn't oppose one based on their perceived risk and agree to another. Hell, that's basically how it works now. People have options on how to treat any number of health issues. Dumb to say rejecting any one requires one must reject all.

If someone has a treatable heart disease and turns down the surgery because of the risk of anesthesia - that decision impacts only their life. That is most certainly NOT the case with vaccines. In the Cali outbreak, at least 12 of the children infected were infants too young to be vaccinated. They were put at risk due to the behavior of others. Can those who created the problem be held accountable? Someone who violates traffic laws and causes an accident is certainly subject to consequences.

 

[Raglefant]

Once we allow random 'outs' for anti-vaxxers, we absolutely end up w/ things FAR WORSE than the Disneyland measles outbreak.

I've stated it on here many many times now. If 'freedom to vaccinate or not' is SO important to people, then allow them to do so with the following caveats:

• Opting out means you take FULL responsibility when you contract ANY vaccinatable disease and spread it to any other individuals. There is no need for 'proof' you directly passed a disease along, only a preponderance of evidence, being that you were in the vicinity of someone else who then contracted the disease. This is primarily focused on those who CANNOT be vaccinated due to legitimate health reasons, NOT religious or random objection/voluntary reasons.
• You accept that NO insurer will cover ANY expense for you under ANY health plan if you contract a vaccinatable disease; YOU will be 100% responsible for your own healthcare costs associated with the disease and ANY long-term effects. No insurer or other insured should have their premiums wasted on paying for your fully preventable condition.
• Full responsibility means YOU will pay IN FULL for all costs associated with any contractable disesaes that you were more than likely responsible for spreading. No insurer will be responsible for cost of care for another individual contracting one of the diseases from you, and they will have full financial power and resources to foreclose on ANY asset you have to recoup their costs when covering another individual. NO asset you have, not even a separate trust you have control over, foreign stock, etc. can be shielded from foreclosure. You decide if you want to risk everything you have over non-vaccination - your personal choice.
• If you are exposed to anyone with a disease for which you have not been vaccinated, YOU have the responsibility to sequester yourself to prevent transmission to another. Failure to take action will not only result in full financial liability, but criminal liability as well (just like those who knowingly have unprotected sex when they have HIV/AIDS).
• You AND your children must be registered in a database of UN-vaccinated persons, which is PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Others, who may NOT be able to be vaccinated, have the right to know if they are putting themselves at risk by hanging around you.
• This requirement is limited to only certain vaccines (MMR, etc) , NOT flu or HPV vaccines.

This is a fully Republican stance on this issue: take and OWN personal responsibility for your actions, particularly when they can and will impact others. There are MANY who cannot be vaccinated due to legitimate health conditions/reasons, and those people RELY ON the herd immunity to protect them. By arbitrarily NOT vaccinating yourself, you put THEM at risk, and YOU should be held responsible for putting them at risk, just as any other reckless actions are handled by our society (e.g. drunk driving). People lose hearing from things like measles - that is a LONG TERM care cost, that YOU will be responsible for if you fail to vaccinate and then pass that disease to someone else who legitimately could not be vaccinated.

Right on and not the point. Whether vaccines SHOULD be a choice is one issue, and thank you for the education. A separate issue would be the statement that if you want to opt out of vaccinations, then you must opt out of any medical procedure that posed a risk, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

It sounds like a compelling argument that vaccines should not be a choice, and if it is, one with costly repurcussions. I'm continually learning more about why libertarians fail so hard within the Republican party.

 

[Raglefant]

If someone has a treatable heart disease and turns down the surgery because of the risk of anesthesia - that decision impacts only their life. That is most certainly NOT the case with vaccines. In the Cali outbreak, at least 12 of the children infected were infants too young to be vaccinated. They were put at risk due to the behavior of others. Can those who created the problem be held accountable? Someone who violates traffic laws and causes an accident is certainly subject to consequences.

You are quite the dancer. All great topics of discussion but irrelevant to the point at hand. Silly to say that someone is a hypocrite who desires to make medical decisions about risk on a case by case basis. Perhaps vaccines should not be optional, or should come with significant liabilities when opted out of, but it is not hypocritical to reject one treatment due to one's perceived risk and to accept another. I guess I should stop trying to sugar coat it, it's a fvcking retarded notion and it's really not even debatable if we're all normal people with a shred of cognitive logic. Are we?

 

[Joes Place]

Right on and not the point. Whether vaccines SHOULD be a choice is one issue, and thank you for the education. A separate issue would be the statement that if you want to opt out of vaccinations, then you must opt out of any medical procedure that posed a risk, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

It sounds like a compelling argument that vaccines should not be a choice, and if it is, one with costly repurcussions. I'm continually learning more about why libertarians fail so hard within the Republican party.

I disagree that it's not the point or not related to the 'are vaccines safe crowd' issues.

That is really their whole argument - that they should be allowed to 'opt out' of vaccination because they personally think the vaccines are unsafe, despite ample evidence to the contrary. So, the safety argument is simply a tactic used to claim they should have freedom to not vaccinate (or be 'forced to vaccinate).

Only that pushes risks onto OTHERS in society, who have no control over those choices (and per the Disneyland example, there were several who ended up on the wrong end of those risks who never had that choice).

So, if you truly don't want to vaccinate, simply accept the financial consequences of those risks, 100%, for those that you are putting at risk.

This is just like drinking and driving - you want to drink, fine, but call a cab, or wait until you are sober to get behind the wheel so that you do not put someone other than yourself at risk for your actions. The Party of Personal Responsibility should not be defending people who want to use their irresponsible actions to impose risks on others. And it is NOT just libertarians/anti-science Republicans who are guilty of being anti-vaxxers - there are MANY more on the granola/Dem side who believe vaccines are 'unnatural' and 'unsafe'.

None of those people should be allowed to place others in society at risk of contracting a completely preventable disease just because 'they feel like it'. If you feel that strongly against vaccines, then put your money where your mouth is and accept 100% of the financial liabilities for your actions. Period. If you go broke paying out damages and end up homeless on the street, that was the result of your personal choice. Own it.

 

[Raglefant]

I disagree that it's not the point or not related to the 'are vaccines safe crowd' issues.

That is really their whole argument - that they should be allowed to 'opt out' of vaccination because they personally think the vaccines are unsafe, despite ample evidence to the contrary. So, the safety argument is simply a tactic used to claim they should have freedom to not vaccinate (or be 'forced to vaccinate).

Only that pushes risks onto OTHERS in society, who have no control over those choices (and per the Disneyland example, there were several who ended up on the wrong end of those risks who never had that choice).

So, if you truly don't want to vaccinate, simply accept the financial consequences of those risks, 100%, for those that you are putting at risk.

This is just like drinking and driving - you want to drink, fine, but call a cab, or wait until you are sober to get behind the wheel so that you do not put someone other than yourself at risk for your actions. The Party of Personal Responsibility should not be defending people who want to use their irresponsible actions to impose risks on others. And it is NOT just libertarians/anti-science Republicans who are guilty of being anti-vaxxers - there are MANY more on the granola/Dem side who believe vaccines are 'unnatural' and 'unsafe'.

None of those people should be allowed to place others in society at risk of contracting a completely preventable disease just because 'they feel like it'. If you feel that strongly against vaccines, then put your money where your mouth is and accept 100% of the financial liabilities for your actions. Period. If you go broke paying out damages and end up homeless on the street, that was the result of your personal choice. Own it.

Agreed.

If a person thinks they should be allowed to opt out of vaccines, and would if they could, are they a hypocrite if they don't opt out of heart surgery even though there are risks associated with heart surgery? Of course not.

Similarly, if someone opted out of a particular cancer treatment because of their perceived risk of said treatment, would we call them a hypocrite if they opted into another treatment that they perceived to hold less or a reasonable risk? Of course not.

That is the single point that I am debating at this time, which is an assertion made by Tarheel that anyone who would opt out of vaccinations must also opt out of any procedure with risk or be a hypocrite. That's dumb.

You're making sense and I appreciate the information you are providing.

 

[shank hawk]

You're right. You are being totally OWNED by the facts in this thread.

Wow - when the self-proclaimed intelligentsia on HROT are confronted their fascist blood really rises to the surface, huh?

Owned by facts, JP? You have no facts, just propaganda that would make all of Madison Avenue proud. But don't worry, I'll keep checking in from time to time just in case you would happen to stumble across a modicum of truth to support your hysteria.

The immune system was designed/evolved to recognize and neutralize viruses. Some 'genius' thinks, "Hmm, maybe we should inject viruses into said immune system to recognize and neutralize viruses (Uhhhh, it already does that). But to make it really awesome we will load up this injection to make it a toxic soup of neurotoxins, proteins, etc. A stupid enough concept in and of itself, but the fact that you and your fascist buds not only believe the snake oil sales pitch but are rabid pushers is quite puzzling.

States are rapidly removing vaccination exemptions, and with dutiful little mouthpieces like you and tar, the day is fast approaching when the feds will attempt to impose a mandatory policy across the country.

 

[Joes Place]

The immune system was designed/evolved to recognize and neutralize viruses. Some 'genius' thinks, "Hmm, maybe we should inject viruses into said immune system to recognize and neutralize viruses (Uhhhh, it already does that).

Just more unbridled stupidity here. Sure, the immune system 'recognizes and neutralizes viruses', but it does so fairly inefficiently, with large percentages of the population dying from said viruses.

You are so completely naive about what life was like BEFORE vaccines were available. People LINED UP to get the polio virus vaccine when it came out. Sadly, we cannot send you back to those days where you can live the wonder of an age of double-digit mortality rates from diseases we have since mostly eradicated.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Right on and not the point. Whether vaccines SHOULD be a choice is one issue, and thank you for the education. A separate issue would be the statement that if you want to opt out of vaccinations, then you must opt out of any medical procedure that posed a risk, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

It sounds like a compelling argument that vaccines should not be a choice, and if it is, one with costly repurcussions. I'm continually learning more about why libertarians fail so hard within the Republican party.

I reject vaccines because - even though the benefits of vaccines are great - there is a small risk present.

I accept penicillin because - even though there is a small risk present - the benefits of penicillin are great.

A hypocrite is defined as "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings".

Now you can certainly claim that they have "weighed the risks" but if the risks in two cases are equitable and you reject one but accept the other...you're not really weighing the risks, are you? So it's not the risk...yet that's what Shank has spent many posts arguing. If he wants to argue that the govt shouldn't be "forcing" people to vaccinate, that's a completely different argument. The govt "forces" us to do all kinds of things for the greater good - some of them entail a high level of risk.

Call it whatever you want...but those two stances above are in complete opposition to each other.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The immune system was designed/evolved to recognize and neutralize viruses. Some 'genius' thinks, "Hmm, maybe we should inject viruses into said immune system to recognize and neutralize viruses (Uhhhh, it already does that). But to make it really awesome we will load up this injection to make it a toxic soup of neurotoxins, proteins, etc. A stupid enough concept in and of itself, but the fact that you and your fascist buds not only believe the snake oil sales pitch but are rabid pushers is quite puzzling.

Now we're getting to the crux of the problem. You don't have a clue how vaccines actually work.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Now we're getting to the crux of the problem. You don't have a clue how vaccines actually work.

There is nothing wrong with what he said actually. Vaccines can in fact help to lessen symptoms by providing resistance training if you will. The body can though work it out on it's own though. The effects of vaccines work a undetermined amount of time, if at all. Getting sick sucks, but you can guarantee that your body did in fact get a lesson in how to deal with it.

The fact that there are/were unknown agents in the vaccines was/is still a problem to be avoided and prodded. It's better to be too careful, rather than simply trusting just because Big Pharma, Big Gov tells you to be.