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:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    2,824
    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:
    21,133
    Likes Received:
    2,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More unscientific anti-vax scare garbage.
     
    ESTT likes this.
  3. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    2,824
    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:
    21,133
    Likes Received:
    2,882
    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:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    274
    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 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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:
    23,725
    Likes Received:
    2,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup, and most importantly, the herd immunity protects those who medically cannot be vaccinated.
     

Share This Page