Merged: Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Alareth

Using anti-vaxxer standard data analysis methods, I have come to the following conclusion:

Autism rates increased after the removal of thimiserol from children's vaccines, therefore thimiserol must prevent autism in vaccinated children.

Keep that up and you'll never eat with grownups on Thanksgiving.

Do you really think decisions concerning the health of Americans should be dictated by lobbyists whose concern is profit. Is there a counterbalancing patient lobby?

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Do you really think decisions concerning the health of Americans should be dictated by lobbyists whose concern is profit.

So you've switched your stance from 'vaccines are evil because they cause autism' to 'vaccines are evil because a company wants to make a profit.'

While living in the idealist universe you've concocted in your head would be wonderful, we live in a capitalist society. Almost every company is motivated by profit. This is not enough reason to dismiss a product, especially one that makes essentially nothing when compared to major medications like say...Viagra. I don't even think it's possible to run a pharmaceutical company without seeking to make profits, how else are you going to fund research and development costs?

Quote:

Is there a counterbalancing patient lobby?

People dying/not dying tends to make a very strong counterbalance to pharmaceutical lobbying. And then there's you know...the FDA?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Do you really think decisions concerning the health of Americans should be dictated by lobbyists whose concern is profit. Is there a counterbalancing patient lobby?

I'm in Britain, where decisions on healthcare provision are made by NICE, a body set up to provide cost-effectiveness in the NHS; in other words, to minimise the cost of healthcare, an aim diametrically opposed to the maximising of profit to pharmaceutical companies. And yet NICE backs MMR vaccination. It's almost as if it had nothing to do with the profits of pharmaceutical companies, and was only a matter of what's the most effective way of maximising the health of the population. But that can't really be true, can it?

Dave

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Is there a counterbalancing patient lobby?

There's no money in being a patient.

But yes, consumer advocate groups do have lobbyists as well.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by excaza

So you've switched your stance from 'vaccines are evil because they cause autism' to 'vaccines are evil because a company wants to make a profit.' Decisions concerning the health of Americans isn't dictated by lobbyists, it's dictated by experimentation.

While living in the idealist universe you've concocted in your head would be wonderful, we live in a capitalist society. Almost every company is motivated by profit. This is not enough reason to dismiss a product, especially one that makes essentially nothing when compared to major medications like say...Viagra. I don't even think it's possible to run a pharmaceutical company without seeking to make profits, how else are you going to fund research and development costs?


People dying/not dying tends to make a very strong counterbalance to pharmaceutical lobbying. And then there's you know...the FDA?

Try and focus. The reason there over a thousand lobbyists isn't because isn't because their widgit is better than the other widgit. They are telling the government what should be mandatory. They are convincing the FDA that the drugs and vaccines they sell are safe. They even convinced the government to set up a court that was/is the only place persons can take legal action against vaccine makers.

4 or 5 times a day I see law firms virtually ambulance chase on TV asking for perspective victims of specific drugs that, of course, have been approved by the FDA per documentation from big pharma. I live in a small town and I can walk, less than a mile to THREE CVS drug marts and a Rite Aid. Stretch it to two miles and 2 Wallgreens and 2 or 3 others kick in.


Quote:
The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]

...

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste large tracts of text from other sources. Instead, just cite a short quote and post a link to the other source.

Posted By:LashL

Realizing of course that the Democrats get money, just not as much. They still owe Big Pharma.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

4 or 5 times a day I see law firms virtually ambulance chase on TV asking for perspective victims of specific drugs that, of course, have been approved by the FDA per documentation from big pharma.

Given the fact that every human being has a slightly different physiology, it's not surprising that some people have an adverse reaction to any given drug. Add to that the willingness to sue based on post hoc, propter ergo hoc reasoning in an extremely litigious society, and the lawsuits need no explanation.

There are risks to taking perscription medication. In general, the risk isn't quite as high as in crossing the street, but it is slightly more than in drinking a glass of water.

It's in the best interests of lawyers and the media to exaggerate these risks.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Try and focus. The reason there over a thousand lobbyists isn't because isn't because their widgit is better than the other widgit. They are telling the government what should be mandatory.

And yet vaccines are not mandatory.

Quote:

They are convincing the FDA that the drugs and vaccines they sell are safe.

Actually, no. They have to go through a lot of trials and work to convince the FDA that a drug is safe. It has been argued that the FDA's requirements are so stringent that if asprin were developed today it would never make it to the market.

Quote:

They even convinced the government to set up a court that was/is the only place persons can take legal action against vaccine makers.

And the government thought it was a good idea because the lawsuit happy nature of people vs. the low profitability of vaccines would mean that the pharma companies would just drop the whole line - and then we'd have a problem.

Quote:

4 or 5 times a day I see law firms virtually ambulance chase on TV asking for perspective victims of specific drugs that, of course, have been approved by the FDA per documentation from big pharma.

The FDA's testing is not perfect, and a lot of drugs may turn out to have long-term effects. Go to Europe some time and look at their drug approval standards. A few greedy lawyers and a couple of drugs that turned out to have long term side effects in a tiny fraction of the population does not mean vaccines are causing autism.

Quote:

I live in a small town and I can walk, less than a mile to THREE CVS drug marts and a Rite Aid. Stretch it to two miles and 2 Wallgreens and 2 or 3 others kick in.

This is the USA, our drug stores sell a lot of things besides prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Try and focus.

So you tell me to focus, then talk about 3 different topics?

Quote:

The reason there over a thousand lobbyists isn't because isn't because their widgit is better than the other widgit. They are telling the government what should be mandatory. They are convincing the FDA that the drugs and vaccines they sell are safe.

Vaccines aren't mandatory.

Quote:

They even convinced the government to set up a court that was/is the only place persons can take legal action against vaccine makers.

Do you actually understand why this was set up? Or are you just going to attribute it to some massive conspiracy to make all Americans autistic?

Quote:

4 or 5 times a day I see law firms virtually ambulance chase on TV asking for perspective victims of specific drugs that, of course, have been approved by the FDA per documentation from big pharma.

Since every person is different, it's almost impossible not to eventually have someone who has an adverse reaction to a drug. This is why all medications have documented side effects. How many of those ambulance chasers actually win anything?

Quote:

I live in a small town and I can walk, less than a mile to THREE CVS drug marts and a Rite Aid. Stretch it to two miles and 2 Wallgreens and 2 or 3 others kick in.

Congratulations? What does that have to do with...anything?

[Travis]

If the FDA is really in their pocket then why does the FDA refuse to license so many of the expensive drugs they produce?

You do realize that one of the reasons that prescriptions cost a lot of money is because the companies have to try and recoup all the money they spend on drugs the FDA refuses to approve.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by excaza

Congratulations? What does that have to do with...anything?

It means he only has to walk a mile to get a 12 pack of sodas or some shampoo.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by excaza

Congratulations? What does that have to do with...anything?

He just thought it was a good opportunity to brag about his walking skills.

[Travis]

I think we scared him away!

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by excaza

Vaccines aren't mandatory.

They are if you want your child to attend school.

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They are if you want your child to attend school.

Seems reasonable to me, since most schools would want to reduce any potential risk of bringing together hundreds, if not thousands, of children together in a relatively small space.

The alternative is homeschooling, which as I understand it, is still a perfectly viable and legal alternative in the US.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They are if you want your child to attend school.

You want to enjoy the benefits of schools, you have to take some basic precautions to prevent outbreaks and epidemics

BTW, thanks for the outbreaks.

[Travis]

Clayton what does the FDA do that makes you think they are in the pocket of Big Pharma? And I mean what actions by the FDA makes you think this?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They are if you want your child to attend school.

That's bullplop. I recall a few years ago having a debate with my wife about vaccines for our kids. We had to choose whether to accept or decline the vaccine. point being we had to CHOOSE whether or not to vaccinate.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by abaddon

That's bullplop. I recall a few years ago having a debate with my wife about vaccines for our kids. We had to choose whether to accept or decline the vaccine. point being we had to CHOOSE whether or not to vaccinate.

What does that have to with having to show a record of your child's shots to the school nurse to make sure all the required shots have been received?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by abaddon

That's bullplop. I recall a few years ago having a debate with my wife about vaccines for our kids. We had to choose whether to accept or decline the vaccine. point being we had to CHOOSE whether or not to vaccinate.

Care to elucidate on that debate?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

What does that have to with having to show a record of your child's shots to the school nurse to make sure all the required shots have been received?

Ah, you think there is nothing outside the US of everything.
One of those. Right.

[Travis]

*cough*

Originally Posted by travis

clayton what does the fda do that makes you think they are in the pocket of big pharma? And i mean what actions by the fda makes you think this?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Care to elucidate on that debate?

Sure. The myth was at the time that the MMR vaccine combo could cause autism. The debate was do it or not. Said debate was carried in favour of vaccination by science, and also by the vacuous anti-vax arguments. So my two beautiful daughters were vaccinated with, I believe, a 5 fold vaccine.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Ah, you think there is nothing outside the US of everything.
One of those. Right.

That's why, I presume, he didn't have anything to say about why NICE recommends MMR vaccination despite their interests being very different to those of the pharmaceutical companies. Since NICE is outside the USA, it doesn't exist.

Dave

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They are if you want your child to attend school.

So home school your kid.

[Travis]

He'll have to home school his kids because sooner or later they'll enter biology and physics classes that will teach them stuff that contradicts his worldview.


Or grandchildren in Clayton's case.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Sure. The myth was at the time that the MMR vaccine combo could cause autism. The debate was do it or not. Said debate was carried in favour of vaccination by science, and also by the vacuous anti-vax arguments. So my two beautiful daughters were vaccinated with, I believe, a 5 fold vaccine.

So you chanced it knowing you could get the vaccines individually a couple months apart? Insurance wouldn't pay for it?

So you believe their should be no childhood illnesses?

And 20 vaccines or more is absolutely a good thing for a baby under 2 years old with an immature immune system? And who the medical community says shouldn't take an aspirin before adulthood?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

So you chanced it knowing you could get the vaccines individually a couple months apart? Insurance wouldn't pay for it?

No chance was involved, just science.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

So you believe their should be no childhood illnesses?

Where did I or anyone else say that?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

And 20 vaccines or more is absolutely a good thing for a baby under 2 years old with an immature immune system? And who the medical community says shouldn't take an aspirin before adulthood?

Yup, vaccines are a good thing. Aspirin is not a vaccine. What's your point?

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by abaddon

No chance was involved, just science.


Where did I or anyone else say that?


Yup, vaccines are a good thing. Aspirin is not a vaccine. What's your point?

I'm not allowed to criticize any posts so I can't answer you.

[Supermac]

Quote:

And 20 vaccines or more is absolutely a good thing for a baby under 2 years old with an immature immune system?

Babies need the protection given by vaccines because they have an immature immune system.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I'm not allowed to criticize any posts so I can't answer you.

You're not allowed personal attacks. You can criticize an argument to your heart's content.


Oh, and did I miss your answer to Dave Rogers question, namely why NICE recommends MMR vaccination despite their interests being very different to those of the pharmaceutical companies?

[Travis]

AHEM!

Originally Posted by Travis

*cough*

Originally Posted by Travis

Clayton what does the FDA do that makes you think they are in the pocket of Big Pharma? And I mean what actions by the FDA makes you think this?

I mean seriously.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I'm not allowed to criticize any posts so I can't answer you.

Where did you get that idea? You can criticize his arguments as much as you can. Just leave the personal jabs out of it.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by twinstead

You're not allowed personal attacks. You can criticize an argument to your heart's content.


Oh, and did I miss your answer to Dave Rogers question, namely why NICE recommends MMR vaccination despite their interests being very different to those of the pharmaceutical companies?

I made no personal attack.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I'm not allowed to criticize any posts so I can't answer you.

You're in luck, we have a cross vacant >>>> T

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I made no personal attack.

Good, then you're free to answer my question.

Dave

[AmandaM]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

What does that have to with having to show a record of your child's shots to the school nurse to make sure all the required shots have been received?

Unfortunately in Indiana a parent can opt out of ALL immunizations by citing "religious objection."

A school child may not be required to undergo any immunization when the child's parent objects on religious grounds. A religious objection must be:
(1) Made in writing;
(2) Signed by the child's parent; and
(3) Delivered to the child's teacher or to the individual who might order an immunization.

Even more unfortunate is that now we've extended that "opt out" option to daycare.

Other states also have religious objection exclusions to required immunizations, something I wish more EDUCATED parents would lobby against.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I made no personal attack.

Reread what twinstead said.

Try answering the questions posed to you.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They are if you want your child to attend school.

Why would we want our kids to attend school? They'll just fill their heads with nonsense like "Muslim terrorists carrried out 9/11" and "the Nazis started WWII" and "the moon landings really happened."

Next, they'll be teaching them that Obama is human, when he's clearly a reptilian overlord in disguise!

*spit*

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by twinstead

You're not allowed personal attacks. You can criticize an argument to your heart's content.


Oh, and did I miss your answer to Dave Rogers question, namely why NICE recommends MMR vaccination despite their interests being very different to those of the pharmaceutical companies?

Did NICE run a study that compared the autism rate of children under 2 years old who received 20 or more vaccines to the autism rate of children under 2 years old who did not receive any vaccines?

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Did NICE run a study that compared the autism rate of children under 2 years old who received 20 or more vaccines to the autism rate of children under 2 years old who did not receive any vaccines?

Of course not, they just approved it, donned their monocles, and ran to the bank with comically large sacks of money from the vaccine producing supercompanies.