Protect vaccine manufacturers... or make better vaccines?

Discussion in 'Science' started by modernpaladin, Sep 15, 2018.

  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Likes Received:
    3,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the US, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out $3.8 Billion in damages for vaccine injuries since it was created in 1986 by Ronald Regan.

    This $3.8 Billion did not come out of corporate vaccine manufacturer profits. It was taken out of a sales tax that you and I pay when we buy vaccines (or when we pay for insurance that pays for vaccines). Vaccine manufacturers are protected from product liability by the NVICP.

    Regan created this program because leading up to 1986 there were so many lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers for vaccine related injuries that the industry was becoming unprofitable and the manufacturers were threatening to stop making vaccines altogether. This would be bad, of course, because without vaccines, we would be more susceptible to viral epidemics.

    This $3.8 Billion (~$119M/year) is the numerical representation of one solid fact that more and more Americans are becoming aware of every day- vaccines are risky.

    There are a multitude of reasons that vaccines are risky to ones health. Most fundamentally, and in simplistic terms, the purpose of vaccination (or inoculation) is to introduce a virus to the human immune system in a fashion that will allow the immune system to 'learn' resistance or immunity to the virus without the virus overwhelming the immune system. Most typically, this is done by weakening the virus prior to introduction. The risk comes from this being a statistics game. Everyone has a slightly different immune system- some weaker, some stronger. Creating a vaccine that is going to immunize the most people while infecting the least amount of people is very tricky and very expensive. It is simply not possible to create an effective vaccine that is 100% safe, because if it isn't 'strong' enough to infect those with weaker immune systems, those with stronger immune systems may not have the chance to 'learn' an immunity. So, at the bare minimum, a vaccine is likely to infect at least a few people with the very illness that its immunizing most others from, and its not guaranteed to immunize everyone else. The goal is to reach 'herd immunity.'

    Herd Immunity is the 'magic number' where epidemic spread of a virus is deterred by a high enough majority of people being resistant or immune to it that a 'breakout' will be easily managed and/or prevented. This is one of those situations where we as a society sacrifice a few for the good of the rest. We knowingly infect a small percentage of people so that a large percentage will be protected and the structure of society as a whole remains intact. We take further protections by attempting to ascertain and shield those with weak immune systems prior to inoculation. The effect is: it is very unlikely that you will be infected by a vaccine, probably somewhere similar to getting stuck by lightning or falling down a well.

    But infection isn't the only risk associated with vaccines. As is the case with all manufactured products; cost, shelf-life and quality control are also factors. In an ideal world, vaccines would all be 'top-of-the-line,' that is:
    -they would have no unhealthy preservatives
    -they would each have been individually tested for adulterants/defects
    -they would all be 'fresh-off-the-assembly-line'
    -there would be variants tailored to different individuals immune systems and biochemical makeups
    -and everyone would be able to afford them

    But this isn't an ideal world. In order to maintain Herd Immunity without bankrupting society, sacrifices must be made:
    -affordable manufacturing processes that may not have the highest degree of quality control
    -generalized products and dosages that are not ideal for all individuals
    -potentially dangerous preservatives that maximize shelf-life (decrease cost)
    -and a management of liability for manufacturers who produce an essential product that by its very design is going to adversely effect some people- the NVICP.

    However.

    Are we really getting the best we can afford? How much are we sacrificing to maintain Herd Immunity... and how much are we sacrificing to corporate profit margins?

    It should be no surprise to anyone paying attention that corporations and government agencies are not as separate as we would prefer. Whether you see it in 'big oil,' 'big tech,' the MIC or Monsanto, 'revolving door' relationships between regulators and the regulated permeate the upper echelons of our establishment and undermine the protections we try to build into our economy. Big Pharma is not immune from this dynamic, nor is the CDC or the FDA.

    The following article has just a few of many examples of news reports highlighting the corruption within the establishment that is supposed to be protecting us from dangerous products, especially vaccines given the protections afforded vaccine manufacturers by the NVICP. This is not a partisan issue, btw. News sources from across the political spectrum from HuffPo to Natural News and even the New York Times are cited exposing dangerous corruption within our medical regulatory establishment.

    Look through it before you respond- are our vaccines really as safe and effective as they should be?

    https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/03/02/cdc-who-and-big-pharma-a-network-of-corruption/
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2018
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,150
    Likes Received:
    3,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More unscientific anti-vax scare garbage.
     
    ESTT likes this.
  3. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Likes Received:
    3,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What specifically is 'unscientific'?

    How is it 'anti-vax'?
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,150
    Likes Received:
    3,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, it's hard to round up all the cases where someone attempted to prove that vaccinations did some harm and then to discuss what the real issue was.

    One of the key problems here is that it is vaccinations that are being singled out. So, we see conspiracy theories concerning someone with some sort of corporate connection making what should be independent scientific determinations, etc. (Generally speaking). But, the catch is that all pharmaceuticals as well as medical devices have the exactly same type of exposure.

    Overall the existing process of testing and otherwise safeguarding pharma products has had good results. Maybe an argument could be made that we should do a better job of testing - which is always a balancing act between producers, the vast testing that is used, and the need for reasonable pricing.

    Another problem is that for some reason unknown to me, accusations against vaccines have lasted for decades without there being scientific justification. Remember that all forms of mercury have been removed from vaccines for a long time. Plus, removing them has not made any difference in the number of cases of those problems that vaccines supposedly were causing. Specifically, the rate of autism has not changed. Yet, you can still find anti-vax propaganda that uses mercury to scare parents away from protecting our youth from diseases that have an unfortunately high rate of causing serious and lasting harm.

    Also, let's remember that the reason "herd immunity" is important is that there ARE children for whom vaccination is not recommended - due to immunosuppression, or whatever. These children are put at serious risk when we ignore "herd immunity".


    As a sidelight, the specific info about vaccines in your post seems weak in that many vaccines (such as flu) use totally dead material - not material that has simply been wounded.
     
  5. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You want them not to take the vaccinations. Trust me. Look at the demographics of people who are "anti-vax".
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
  6. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The trouble is that "herd immunity" protects us all - even those of us who have been vaccinated.
     
  7. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    24,428
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup, and most importantly, the herd immunity protects those who medically cannot be vaccinated.
     
  8. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nonsense. They are not very risky at all, nor is that attempt to "wow" people with a large number any indication of the risk of vaccines. Saying so is specious at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst.

    Every medical treatment comes with a measurement of risk. Vaccines are so incredibly safe as to render this topic overwrought and, really, a bit dishonest. Tonsillectomies are far riskier.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2018
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Likes Received:
    3,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What was dishonest?
     
  10. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Throwing out a "large" dollar amount and trying to say it illustrates a risk probability, when it does not. Like I said, maybe it was just specious. But, if you knew it was specious, then it was dishonest.
     
  11. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Likes Received:
    3,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, I'll rephrase...

    What was 'superficially accurate, but actually wrong' about what I said?
     
  12. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That the dollar amount so.ehow demonstrates unacceptable risk. That was not correct.
     
  13. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Likes Received:
    3,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, its subjective.

    I consider it an unacceptieble risk in certain circumstances given that the risk could be mitigated, as do many others.

    Just because you don't, doesnt mean that it applies to everyone.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2018
  14. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What "risk" is that? For all your bluster, you brought not one statistic of cases of ill effects of vaccines to the table, much less any effort whatsoever to compare this risk tto the benefits, much less any effort whatsoever to compare this risk with that of other, valuable medical procedures.

    In fact, you are now doubling down on the specious reasoning that your "big" dollar amount informs anyone in any way about the risk or the risk versus the benefits.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2018
  15. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Likes Received:
    3,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This was already addressed.

    Either the $3.8B is representative of actual damages by vaccines (constituting a risk) or FedGov is getting fleeced by fraudsters in its own court.

    You can decide which is more likely for yourself.
     
  16. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    False. You brought not one statistic to the table, not one ounce of effort to compare the statistical risk to the benefit, and not one effort ro compare this analysis to that of ither medical procedures.

    And you just tripled down on your specious reasoning that a simple dollar amount represents any of these things.

    This is not surprising, as an honest effort to present or analyze any of the things I mentioned will quickly undermine your specious fear mongering. And it will do so utterly and decisively. So, understandably, you no desire to undertake these efforts.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2018
  17. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Likes Received:
    3,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please don't edit my comments for content. If you would like to emphasize a particular point for specific rebuttal, emboldening, italicising or underlining are all great ways to do that without editing me.
     
  18. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay. Now, all complaints aside: do you plan to produce any of the evidence i mentioned?

    The answer is "no", because all of it with undermine the point you are trying to make.
     
  19. Battle3

    Battle3 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    14,909
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Trophy Points:
    113

    "all forms of mercury have been removed from vaccines for a long time" - not true.

    There is no law banning mercury from vaccines. The federal govt decided Thimerasol (a preservative in vaccines, its 50% mercury by weight) was safe and no ban was needed.

    Federal law requires all multidose vials of vaccine contain a preservative to prevent bacteria growth. Many use thimerasol even today.

    Others dropped the thimerasol due to the publics concern over mercury and now use formaldehyde, phenol, 2-Phenoxyethanol, benzethonium chloride. Some are very questionable.

    Formaldehyde is toxic and causes cancer, its banned in the EU,Japan, Sweden. Its use is restricted in the USA. Its normal means of entry into the body is through the lungs, from there it enters the blood. In a vaccine, its injected directly into the bloodstream. Formaldehyde is used in many USA vaccines including DTaP, polio, Hib, meningitis, flu. Many childhood vaccines contain formaldehyde.

    Some vaccines such as the MMR and inactivated polio are in single use vials and never had mercury. Single dose flu vaccine and the nasal spray does not contain thimerasol.

    So you are wrong. Vaccines do contain mercury as well as other nasty ingredients.
     
  20. Battle3

    Battle3 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    14,909
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Trophy Points:
    113

    In the interest of short posts, following up on my last.....mercury as well as other nasty items (such as formaldehyde) are still in vaccines so its no surprise that the rate of autism has not changed. Its true that pharma has reduced the amount of thimeraosl (mercury) where possible, and replaced it with something else where possible - but the number of vaccinations a child receives has gone up. In some states a child will receive 20+ vaccinations plus the annual flu vaccine. Less mercury in vaccines, but many more vaccinations, means there is still a lot mercury (and other stuff) going into people.
     

Share This Page