Anti-vax

[irmerk]

I did not read the entire article by Jim Carrey, but I kind of skimmed to get the idea. It does not seem to be that he opposed vaccines, but was merely saying two things: We are over vaccinating children and we are not researching every vaccine enough which makes the less researched ones seemingly more dangerous. Both seem quite plausible since it is all a market and pharmaceutical companies would love for more vaccines to be used with less effort. But hey, maybe I am wrong. I would not be surprised to find out that diseases were just made up for the sake of being able to vaccinate it, much like the entire drug market. Are you depressed? Take this! Are you now taking this? Well, there are side effects so now you have to take this too! Are you taking these two at the same time? Well, our brand new product is just what you need to keep you from blowing up! Buy more of our products!

Speaking on this subject, I would like to know, if anyone does, about vaccines. Would what it does to our immune system - which I do not know what it does - be a kind of micro-micro evolution or something? Or what exactly... Does... It do?

 

[Ozymandyus]

It's not like microevolution or anything - it simply takes attenuated (non-deadly, nonreplicating) forms of diseases and injects them into our blood to make our immune systems 'aware' of that particular foreign organism. Once our immune systems are primed to attack things like this, we can easily fight off infections that our immune systems would have recognized too slowly.

The immune system basically has a database of all the external substances/organisms it can run into that it should respond to quickly. This list is built up from the time we are young, whenever our immune systems come across foreign proteins in the body. Occasionally our immune systems do a bad job of this, like with peanut allergies for example.

Vaccines add germs to this database without us having to actually get sick.

 

[irmerk]

Ahh, okay.

Speaking of peanut allergies, I have heard that the only reason why more and more people are allergic to them is because parents have become more and more controlling and trying to shield the children from everything, and that if children are exposed to it more often at a younger age, it would not be a problem. Is this true at all?

 

[Mazzerkhan]

I did not read the entire article by Jim Carrey, but I kind of skimmed to get the idea. It does not seem to be that he opposed vaccines, but was merely saying two things: We are over vaccinating children and we are not researching every vaccine enough which makes the less researched ones seemingly more dangerous. Both seem quite plausible since it is all a market and pharmaceutical companies would love for more vaccines to be used with less effort. But hey, maybe I am wrong. I would not be surprised to find out that diseases were just made up for the sake of being able to vaccinate it, much like the entire drug market. Are you depressed? Take this! Are you now taking this? Well, there are side effects so now you have to take this too! Are you taking these two at the same time? Well, our brand new product is just what you need to keep you from blowing up! Buy more of our products!

Speaking on this subject, I would like to know, if anyone does, about vaccines. Would what it does to our immune system - which I do not know what it does - be a kind of micro-micro evolution or something? Or what exactly... Does... It do?

I have worked in pharma for nearly 14 years, the last 5 being exculsivly in steriles (injectables). Whist big pharma has ethics that make the arms trade look Gandi like, people tend to forget that its the most regulated industry on the planet. The regulatory bodies of each country are excellent (trust me you don't know stress till you've had the FDA on site). The amount of documentation you need to produce is huge (you are usually looking at 3-4 years from submission to reg approval for market). You need to provide tracibility for everything in your process (From the disenfectents you use to the raw ingredients to the labels..). Clinical trials are extremely well regulated and you have to get regulatory permission to move up through the phases. The main things that reg. agencies look for is efficacy and safety, before they grant a ML (manufacturing licence) they will pour over the clinical trial data to check that a) the drug is effective and b) its safe. The after approval they check every production batch on yearly basis plus the contra indications.This data has to be constantly trended and if the reg bodies don't like the look of a trend they immediatly suspend the licence. Bear in mind this is so regulated that you can not change from the licensed process with our prior approval, I am talking about something as trivial as different disenfectant for your cleaning or even a change of supplier.You also have to remember the ladder of accountability, in the states the CEO of a pharma company is legally responsible for any mishaps, the FDA can walk on site without a warrant or forewarning (they often do). In the EU the QP who signs of the batch is responsibe. So its in everybodies intrest to do the job right. Top and bottom of it is that whist I don't trust big pharma I do trust the regulators.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Yes, it is at least possibly true. We don't have a full understanding of the immune system, but there is a theory with growing support that our overhygenic hyper-protective culture may actually harm our immune system, in that we are much more rarely exposed to illnesses and foreign bodies. We starve our immune systems of information, making it look harder for any foreign body proteins.

 

[irmerk]

Well, I guess he is wrong then.

I understand the regulation is very strict, but it still seems like the pharmaceutical companies do want us to take more drugs and will try to make more for us to take. It just seems that like a fourth of drugs out there are just to counteract another drug, or some crap. It sounds plausible to me, since the companies are in the money making business, they would go out of their way to try and lobby and influence the regulators...

 

[Mazzerkhan]

You can't bribe the regulators (bear in mind that most guys will work for the regulators for 5-10 years for crappy money,..then resign and make up to $1000 dollars a day as consultants,)(I know one who is a sterilisation specialist and she charges a flat rate of $10,000 a week). There are very strict protocols about what you can give the regulators (even down to their lunch whist they on site). You have to also understand that if something is approved by the regulator they are also legally responsible and can be sued. When you make a submission for a new drug you also have to prove that its novell (that there is nothing outthere on the market that is doing the same job). That why you constantly see newer headache tablets that dissolve faster etc. To be fair the system works well, there are fewer and fewer recalls every year, the last big scandal was Merck and that all but destroyed the company. You've got to bear in mind that the FDA/MHRA walk onto site assuming that you are commiting fraud. The audits are all about proving that your not. Please don't think that I am in any way pro big pharma but I do know the regulators do an excellent job. If your really interested go to at www.fda.gov and look at the warning letters that they send, it will give you a flavour of how deep they dig.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I would not be surprised to find out that diseases were just made up for the sake of being able to vaccinate it, much like the entire drug market.

Yeah, polio was just made up so that drug companies can sell vaccines. :roll:

 

[irmerk]

Yeah, one example completely discredited my guess of a hand full of current smaller health problems. Good job, Joe.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah, one example completely discredited my guess of a hand full of current smaller health problems. Good job, Joe.

Glad to be of service! :lol:

Maybe you needed a reminded that there's a difference between vaccines and medications for depression. Maybe you needed to have it pointed out to you that whatever the drug companies have as a motive for promoting drugs, most doctors want to see people get better, and aren't in on a conspiracy to hurt people for a quick buck. And in case you didn't know, life is significantly better for a larger majority of people than it has ever been in the history of humanity, and we have pharmaceutical companies to thank for their contribution to that.

In reality, part of the reason you have the luxury of complaining about drug company profits and over how the market their goods is because they have been so incredibly successful in making our lives better in the first place. Yeah they charge too much, and yeah sometimes they don't do enough testing or whatever... but where would we be without our medications? Back to dying young, being crippled by things we have cures for, and living much less fruitful lives than we currently enjoy.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

Let me see... with out the wonders of modern medicine BOTH of my brothers would be dead. Severe allergies as an infant + asthma = bye bye eldest brother. Then my other brother (fun thing to say... other brother) had seizures and even had an attack so bad he was in a coma for a week.... well he'd be dead too.

Me. I'd still be in a mental ward of a hospital hiding under tables screaming at people.

Good times. Good times.

<3 modern medicine.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Let me see... with out the wonders of modern medicine BOTH of my brothers would be dead. Severe allergies as an infant + asthma = bye bye eldest brother. Then my other brother (fun thing to say... other brother) had seizures and even had an attack so bad he was in a coma for a week.... well he'd be dead too.

Me. I'd still be in a mental ward of a hospital hiding under tables screaming at people.

Good times. Good times.

<3 modern medicine.

Yeah, and I don't hate them for wanting to make some money at it. Why should they save lives and not get paid for it? Why should they be demonized for mistakes made, when the benefits so very outweigh those mistakes?

Nobody is perfect, and corporations certainly deserve to come under scrutiny... but it is ridiculous to suggest conspiracies about doctors and other medical professionals, when we KNOW that they are human beings with families and friends who get sick, and I'm sure they have compassion for their patients as well. When we see a drug come under legitimate fire, we should remember that it is coming under fire from other members of the medical and scientific community! There's no conspiracy or cover-up going on. They aren't prescribing drugs just to fuck you with. They don't get a thrill from cutting off foreskins. They don't sit around chuckling about all the autistic kids they knowingly creating by prescribing vaccines they knew were dangerous. It just isn't so.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

Man I hate all those conspiracy theories. So illogical! These people are well... people too! They have families and feelings and emotions.

Companies like Umbrella Operation only happen in fiction because that's the only place they work.

Rules and regulations exist for a reason and they work! Somethings may slip through the cracks, mistakes can be made but it takes a lot of faith to assume that a huge group of people are so evil they want to make babies sick to make money!!!


NUTZO!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Man I hate all those conspiracy theories. So illogical! These people are well... people too! They have families and feelings and emotions.

Companies like Umbrella Operation only happen in fiction because that's the only place they work.

Rules and regulations exist for a reason and they work! Somethings may slip through the cracks, mistakes can be made but it takes a lot of faith to assume that a huge group of people are so evil they want to make babies sick to make money!!!


NUTZO!

The part they miss is that when we find out that something slipped through the cracks, it was because the problem was caught by the system that they are attacking. The system works... not perfectly, not as efficiently as it could, not without room for criticism. But it DOES work.

On some level, the people who attack the medical profession are making the same type of claim that creationists make about biologists. In both instances, to believe their claim is to believe that an entire field of research is in on a giant conspiracy to prevent us normal folks to know the truth, and that they are willing to hurt all of us in order to keep their secrets. It just doesn't wash... and that goes DOUBLE for the medical field. You could say that the evolution discussion is mostly academic, and that there's no real harm done if scientists were all in a giant conspiracy. The anti-medicine conspiracies assume that the medical community has no problem murdering people though mistreatment and prescribing poisons to maintain their secrets.

ETA: Umbrella is dead... long live TriCell!

 

[Kennethah81]

The biggest critisizm of the pharma-industry is probably aimed at WAHT medicines the choose to develop.

For the big industry, it is far more profitable to develop a drug that people have to use for years and years (such as drugs that keep people with problems with their hearts alive) then it is to develop a new antibiotic that a person seldom has to use for more than a week.

It is, ofcourse, perfectly logical. The development costs would be relativly similar. But you would make much more money from the drug that keeps the person with the heart problems alive than you would from a specialized antibiotic.

As more and more multi-resistent bacterias has evolved, this is starting to become a problem.

Eventualy, the need for a new antibiotic will be so great that the pharma-industry will find it a more profitable field of research. But for many that will be to late.
Somehow, we must find an incentive to get the pharma-industry to adress this problem now instead of waiting until it becomes profitable enough.

 

[Giliell]

Did you know that the MMRV vaccination makes your child have 4 molars within days of the vaccination, virtually painless?
No? You didn't?
Funny, happened to my daughter and since one thing happened after the other, the first one must clearly be the cause of the second one, doesn't it?
And that's all there is to the anti-vaccination claims.
MMR Vacciantion is usually administered twice at the age of 12 and 18 months. This is also the time when often first signs of autism can be noticed.
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occurs by definition in the child's first year. During their first year there'll always be a vaccination close by, and since we still don't know the cause of SIDS, only risk factors, some people attribute SIDS to vaccination.

Anti-Vaccinationists should be shot on sight.
Although I'm concerned about herd-imunity, adults can die of any dissease they choose, but to deny children the protection of vaccination is a crime. We don't let parents decide whether their kids should wear a seatbelt or not, we do we do that with vaccination?

And yes, there are children who shouldn't be vaccinated because of medical preconditions. But especially for their protection, we need a high herd immunity, so they wont contract the dissease either.

 

[borrofburi]

When first saw the post/poll I thought you meant the VAX computer architecture. I admit this was kinda an obscure response.. but yeah... I'm randomly sharing.

That's what I thought about, or more precisely multivax from asmiov's "last question" (or it greatest question?).

 

[paradigm667]

Anti-Vaccinationists should be shot on sight.

Really? I thought this forum was called League of REASON. I would never shoot someone who wants to inject themselves with:

ALUMINUM: a neuro-toxin which has been associated w/ Alzheimers, dis-ease, dementia and seizures; aluminum is carcinogenic in laboratory mice and added to vaccines to "promote antibody response."

THIRMERSOL: a sodium salt derived from the deadly poison mercury and used as a disinfectant and preservative; thirmersal has been linked to brain and kidney damage as well as immune and neurological dis-orders; it is a component of vaccines for DPT, tetanus, hepatitius B and Hib.

FORMALDEHYDE: a major component of embalming fluid, which of course is pumped into dead people to keep them dead; a known cancer-causing chemical, this toxic substance is used to "inactivate" viruses and detoxify bacterial toxins; formaldehyde has also shown to be injurious to the liver and to trigger gene mutations.

CARBOLIC ACID (PHENOL): believed to cause gender mutation; a deadly poison used as a disinfectant, dye;

ANTIBIOTICS : Neomycin, Streptomycin and a variety of other drugs - to which increasing numbers of the population are demonstrating serious allergies and to which increasing numbers of microbes are developing genetically-transmitted tolerance;

ACETONE: used in fingernail polish remover and as a solvent;

ALUM: used as a preservative;

GLYCERIN: a tri-atomic alcohol extracted from natural fats which are putrefied and decomposed; toxic effects damage the kidneys, liver, lungs and "pronounced local tissue damage, gastrointestinal damage and death"; and

TOXIC CHEMICALS & DRUGS: trace elements of other chemicals such as sodium
hydroxide, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin, benzethonium chloride, methylparaben; some of which are known or suspected of causing cancer.



Feel free to inject yourself with these things. And your children. I don't think you should be shot. Nor would I ever advocate such notions. That's personal choice. But my goodness, you want to shoot me just because I choose to not vaccinate myself?

The only reason could be because you can say that I am compromising "herd immunity." I would simply ask for some SCIENCE behind it. You know...something a REASONED person would do.

It's amazing the amount of slander that is produced by people who claim to be speaking in the name of science.

Often times you fail MISERABLY at making common sense decisions. I agree that creationists are idiots and are wrong. I agree that alternative medicine is bogus. I agree that science is our friend. But holy cow, when it comes to some other issues, I am at a loss for words. How can you say you think "anti-vaccinationists" should be shot on site. That is about as UNreasoned as it gets if you ask me.

Incredible.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It's amazing the amount of slander that is produced by people who claim to be speaking in the name of science.

Find one bit of slander ANYWHERE in this thread. I dare you!

You're a conspiracy theorist. Face it, we're the League of Reason... we see right through you. You're anti-medicine and anti-science.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Anti-Vaccinationists should be shot on sight.

... shot with vaccines, right?