Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

What is really interesting is that in 1990 - the FDA considered the evidence at the time and did not find it sufficient to warrant a policy change - 6 year later, they are in communication with the manufacturers about an increase that they were noticing. 7 years later (presumably after more research into the increase) - they issue a warning.

It's almost like that as new evidence came to light, they evaluated the evidence and made changes accordingly.

Then they probably didn't evaluate the evidence carefully enough back in 1990.

(Or maybe the drug company just hadn't made enough money out of it at that point).

[bogan]

It's ok Drew, I'm sure the array of prescription pills you pop are perfectly safe.

Oh no, maybe not.

https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/

There goes your final shred of decency

Just because there's a keyboard and pc between you and the wider world, doesn't mean there isn't real people on the other side.

[Katman]

There goes your final shred of decency

Just because there's a keyboard and pc between you and the wider world, doesn't mean there isn't real people on the other side.

It's ok, Drew knows where to find me if he's that bothered by it.

[TheDemonLord]

Then they probably didn't evaluate the evidence carefully enough back in 1990.

(Or maybe they just hadn't made enough money out of it at that point).

Your blind fanaticism knows no bounds.

Of course - the only reason you are capable of suggesting is that of Conspiracy.

It couldn't be that the evidence was insufficient at the time, probably due to insufficient time scales and sample sizes (which would account why they did more studies, which eventually lead to policy changes).

[bogan]

Ummm actually, I think they do make it. No expert but a chemical engineer and so bulk manufacture of serums is part of my discipline. My understanding is that production of vaccines is a major part of their cost. The hygiene requirements alone are a major hurdle.

I'm very much pro vaccination. Plan to ride in the Himalayas next year and will be vaccinated to the hilt. I have no problem with companies who take major risks in their research investments etc also making major profits when they get it right. I actually hope they continue to do so because we all need some serious research in the area of antibiotics and soon. However, there are well known examples out there of these guys putting business before safety. Thalidomide is probably the best known.

It's a balance and I have no idea how you weigh caution against starting a panic that causes more harm than taking pharmacy at face value would have done.

I think he was making the point that those at the top of the company who would be responsible for evil shit^TM don't create the cures, don't invent them. They still depend on scientists; the same one who are intimately familiar with the process, effects, etc, and the same ones who can identify risk and propose studies to investigate it (ie, the way all the vaccine problems come to light).

[Katman]

Your blind fanaticism knows no bounds.

[mada]

How about a real discussion and looking at things objectively....

1. The MMR vaccine may cause autism. The causes of Autism are not well understood. On this basis though it is possible that anything may cause Autism.
2. Character and motives aside, Wakefield's study was small involving a small sample of 12 hand picked cases. Of those 8 developed Autism.
3. He believed there was an association. An association is not the same as causation.
4. He suggested further research be undertaken on the issue. Further research was undertaken, a shitload in fact by a variety of sources - all over the world from countries that use the MMR vaccine to those that do not (Japan).
5. Much larger and better run studies were undertaken - eg. those comparing hundreds of thousands of un-vaccinated kids to hundreds of thousands of vaccinated kids.
6. All the research to date has shown there is no proof of MMR causing Autism.
7. The Health Departments and World Health Organisations make recommendations based on research. Each country has it's own approach to health and disease as they all have different needs. There is no "one size fits all" approach to health.
8. If research suggests something is safe or unsafe it is evaluated by Health Departments / Pharmac before being used or disused.
9. Every year research is published which questions and compares the effectiveness and safety of treatments (vaccines/drugs/other). This often results in more research and changes to treatments.
10. Vaccines have been withdrawn in the past based on research.
11. Such changes occur continuously every year and can result in treatments being changed and thus a pharmaceutical company's treatment may no longer earn them as much money.
12. Big pharma are big and have a lot of money and do a lot of lobbying. Just like in every other industry that has big companies there are those that try to manipulate others. This doesn't mean all the companies and everyone in the industry or within the medical fraternity is corrupt or operates in a sinister manner and all their products are shit.
13. Doctors use their clinical experience and research when making medical decisions. If in their experience they came across MMR causing Autism there would be a lot more publicity and calls for further research than is present. Instead there is significant consensus from those at the front line not just those looking at data and stats that there is no proof of MMR causing Autism.
14. Children, particularly infants are at increased risk of death and morbidity (major life long disease) from the 3 viruses. Not immunizing children substantially increases their risk but also the risk of those who are immuno-compromised.

The clear question that begs answering is what would be gained from a conspiracy in relation to MMR? As I've pointed out before $$$ wise it would be more beneficial for big pharma to have three separate injections than one. So what is the logic?

And what is the "establishment"?

- All Pharmaceutical companies?
- All medical technology companies?
- The World Health Organisation?/ UN?
- Parliament?
- The Media?
- Pharmac?
- The Ministry of Health in every country? - who change and evaluate the safety of medicines?
- The Medical Council of every country?
- Your local DHB and hospitals?
- All registered health professionals?
- Your local GP? - who would have seen effects?
- Your local nurse administering the vaccination? - who would have seen effects?
- The doctors and nurses unions? - who speak up about safety issues in hospitals?
- All epidemiologists, researchers, and statisticians? - who have proven drugs/vaccines ineffective/unsafe before.
- The judiciary?

How many millions of people are involved in persecuting one man?

Why is big pharma big?

Probably has nothing to do with the time and the cost of making a new drug and the billions that need to be poured into R&D, scientists, lab rats, safe storage of bacteria/viruses, trials, and the regulations.

Maybe we could leave it to charity groups... get the sallies do it? I wonder who they would test on?

Can any governments afford to do this and have the means? Going from history, maybe North Korea can follow the footsteps of Japan and Nazi Germany, King Leopold of II Belgium?

Maybe we could all try R&D at home, as we all have the chemical knowledge, sterile lab equipment, and safety measures to ensure the stuff we are testing doesn't escape or hurt ourselves or anyone else.

How many treatments are investigated and have billions spent on them that do not actually get approved and do not make it to the market?

How much will a drug company need to cover themselves if some unknown side effect occurs during the trial stage, or better yet at a later date once it is approved and being used by the public. I'm sure we'd be happy to just let ACC pick up the bill?

Perhaps consider that it is no longer lawful or ethical to experiment on slaves, prisoners of war, and poor minority groups. That volunteers need to be recruited and that in itself can impact on how things turn out given people have different motivations for joining trials.

So what exactly would be gained from having small pharma?

Biology isn't a simple black and white... it's often a big hazy cloud of grey, where the approach is to have benefits outweighing risks, but also that doing something is often better than doing nothing. The internet turns it into a thunderstorm with the countless "expert" opinions available left right and centre that join dots and associations that don't exist. Words and statements can be construed to mean different things and manipulate opinions.

Case and point the other day a Lobby group in NZ for promoting medicines was saying on facebook that NZ spends lowest per GDP out of most countries on medications.... without acknowledging our outcomes are generally on par if not better than most other Western countries for what we spend.. every tom dick and harry jumps on commenting that it's shocking, fk JK, the TPPA Actually our "establishment" aka Pharmac works hard to keep the cost of medicines low and the efficacy of medications high... eg. not overprescribing.

It would be great if we had an endless pit of money to spend on everything and magic pills with no side effects.

[Katman]

I notice you left out any mention of Dr Thompson's allegations.

[TheDemonLord]

I notice you left out any mention of Dr Thompson's allegations.

When he makes his Evidence Public, then we can discuss it - till then - that which is submitted without evidence....

[mada]

I notice you left out any mention of Dr Thompson's allegations.

Because it is "he said, she said" limp biscuit.

All the "suppressed" data and documents are in the public domain. A perfectly logical explanation for exclusion of a statement on "association" has been provided, namely that of confounding to do with less information being available in regards to birth weights (which has a strong association with Autism) for those children who did not have birth certificates.

Dr Thompson's allegation shows more concern that the study method was not that great - which it wasn't. As I said before, better study design is either a Random Controlled Trial (good luck with that) or more realistic Observational with one group of non-vaccinated vs one group of vaccinated kids. Numerous large scale Observational studies have been done (including the one in Japan) which show no association.

Again, what would be gained from CDC "suppressing" and "hiding" information that they have actually kept records of?

[Katman]

Because it is "he said, she said" limp biscuit.

Can I respectfully direct you back to your point No.1 in your previous post?

[mada]

Can I respectfully direct you back to your point No.1 in your previous post?

"he said, she said" as in someone else is stating what he said.

It's like me quoting someone posting about you as evidence of what you have said... rather than quoting you.

[Katman]

"he said, she said" as in someone else is stating what he said.

It's like me quoting someone posting about you as evidence of what you have said... rather than quoting you.

Dr Thompson has made at least two written statements regarding the deliberate covering up/destruction of "statistically significant information".

[TheDemonLord]

Dr Thompson has made at least two written statements regarding the deliberate covering up/destruction of "statistically significant information".

And has he released any evidence that would back up these statements?

[Drew]

Oh no, maybe not.

https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/

Not on the antidepressants at the moment, and they were a different type to those listed.

There goes your final shred of decency

Just because there's a keyboard and pc between you and the wider world, doesn't mean there isn't real people on the other side.

It's cool. I was completely open on the bookface when my mental got the best of me and I was peaking out three or four times a day. Lot of bikers might be surprised at some of the other people that described suffering the same shit for years.

Back to the quack next week to discuss some stuff, if he suggests pills, I'll knock 'em back happily (well...as happy as an axious depressed freak can be).