U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 02-10-2015, 09:51 PM
130 posts, read 120,968 times
Reputation: 252


Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
A drug needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not on any hanky panky by the manufacturer. Other people with no ties to the drug maker study medications, too. Frankly, the people in drug companies who try the hanky panky are stupid. They get caught.The current charges against Merck apparently have nothing to do with the safety of the MMR, and if they fudged the results of the mumps vaccine, it apparently makes no clinical difference. The vaccine is preventing mumps. It works.
(red, mine)

...The second court case, Chatom Primary Care v. Merck &
Co . relies on the same whistleblower evidence. This class
action suit claims damages because Merck had fraudulently monopolized the mumps
market. Doctors and medical practices in the suit would be able to obtain
compensation for having been sold an overpriced monopolized product, and a
defective one to boot, in that the mumps vaccine wasn't effective (indeed, the
suit alleged that Merck expected outbreaks to occur
and, as predicted, they did -- mumps epidemics
occurred in 2006 in a highly vaccinated population and again in
(bold, mine)
Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims*|*Lawrence Solomon

You were saying...?

There are not two sides on the science. The vaccine is safe and highly
Science is impartial. People are not. People can be biased and fallible, subject to outside pressures, and so forth.

As I said before, when the dust settles, we shall see...and that may not be for a good many years.

Yes, uncommon complications may not show up in early trials. Drug trials are
expensive, and it is just not possible to include hundreds of thousands of
people in those trials. That is why Rotashield is out and we have a better
rotavirus vaccine now.
So, basically MILLIONS of children are guinea pigs. (again, CDC website used the word MILLIONS)

What is ironic to me is that there are people dying of certain conditions, desperate for a cure, willing to be guinea pigs for this or that drug because it truly is their last chance - but those cases are refused because of the risks. No one knows for sure what the side effects will be. This is for people who are dying and will not survive until the questionable medicine passes every test. They understand the risk and are willing, even eager, to accept that risk.

And yet, new vaccines are administered to millions of healthy children whose parents don't realize their children are at increased risk for unknown, serious side effects that can lead to injury or death. They assume and are told that the vaccine is necessary and has very few side effects. They are given that CDC paper about the vaccine that tells them very little - many do not even think to ask for the actual vaccine insert, and then they're expected to sign off on their acceptance.

Recipients of new vaccines should be told they are on the early list of receivers. They should also be monitored more closely for side effects. And if they choose to forgo the vaccine because it is too new, that decision should be supported and respected.

Again, this is a deceptive practice.

Here are the "better" choices...
The first rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, was found to have an association with
intussusception. Two newer vaccines, Rotateq and Rotarix, were thought not to
carry that risk, but two new trials have shown that they do. Still, the risk is
small and the benefits of the vaccines are great.
Risk of Intussusception with Rotavirus Vaccines Science-Based Medicine

But still...the mantra remains the same..."the risk is small and the benefits are great" .


There is a very powerful reason that companies should want to make safe and
effective drugs and vaccines: share price.

That complications do not always show up in early studies is inherent in the
process. It is not due to deliberate misrepresentation.
SHOULD is the key word there.

See my above remarks about informing patients of increased risk in reference to your second sentence.

You are the one who injected aborted cells into the discussion. There is no
reason for vaccine manufacturers to produce lines of vaccines just because some
people object to use of cells derived from an abortion 40 years ago. Those who
want vaccines that are not made that way need to finance them. Start your own
My focus in this entire thread has been about pharmaceutical companies being honest and forthright regarding their practices (in relation to the OP, MMR = Merck). My original statements were in reference to this. Your statements are off topic and aimed personally at me - a complete stranger.

You have also ignored the links I provided to keep from derailing the thread. That is your prerogative. It is my prerogative to ignore any further comment on the matter to keep the thread on point.

The choice to vaccinate should be made on the merits of the vaccine, not dislike of the company that makes it.
The decision to vaccinate, or not, or something in-between is based on different things for different people. Consumer confidence is one legitimate concern. If vaccine makers are lying about one thing, it naturally leads to further suspicion. But drug makers have already lost lawsuits (plural) over their integrity, naturally leading to increased suspicion among people who care about what goes into their bodies or into their children.

I liked this interview with a WHO medical anthropologist that talks about people who refuse to vaccinate or who hesitate. She talks about some of the many underlying reasons for refusal/delay worldwide.
Communications can’t fix a problem you don’t understand. I had a sign saying
this on my desk at UNICEF, because people tend to think that when there is a
lack of public acceptance of a vaccine, you just need to explain the risks and
the benefits to them. But sometimes the lack of confidence in vaccines is not
just about communicating more effectively, but about delivery issues or
different belief systems or, for example in the case of polio, needing security
and diplomacy strategies, which the IMB also recognizes.
WHO | Underlying issues are key to dispelling vaccine doubts

(red, mine)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 02-10-2015, 10:20 PM
26,163 posts, read 14,560,505 times
Reputation: 17235
Thumbs down  

Originally Posted by AksarbeN
MMR measles vaccine clinical trial results FAKED by Big Pharma - shocking U.S. court documents reveal all.
No surprise at all.....

They are upset people are not falling for this as much anymore SO THEY TRY AND SAY "MEASLES IS COMING BACK BECAUSE PPL ARENT VACCINATING" and most of the sheep will respond thus MAKING THEM TONS OF $$$$$$$$$!!

Its just a scam!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2015, 10:40 PM
130 posts, read 120,968 times
Reputation: 252
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Meh. It's Angell's opinion, and not everyone agrees with her.


"A spirited diatribe can educate and entertain, but in The Truth About the Drug Companies, Dr. Angell does neither. Her diagnoses are wrong, and her remedies -- which are reminiscent of the government controls and centralized planning of the old Soviet Union -- are far worse than the disease."

Marcia Angell's Attacks on Pharma Have Lost all Credibility - Forbes

"Her book attacked the industry essentially saying that it produces little innovation and that its primary mission is to exploit consumers. That’s a pretty serious accusation. The problem with Angell’s arguments is that they are rife with inaccuracies and fallacies. Furthermore, she makes no accounting for changes in the industry that have occurred over the last decade."

Marcia Angell’s Mistaken View of Pharmaceutical Innovation

"Angell makes some good points about publication bias in clinical trials and the sometimes too-close-for-comfort connections between the FDA, pharmaceutical firms, and researchers. But in making these points she misses the truly important picture. Namely that new pharmaceuticals have driven increases in life expectancy but pharmaceutical productivity is declining as the costs of discovering and bringing a new drug to market are rising rapidly (on average ~1.8 billion per each NME to reach market). In my view, the network model pursued on a global scale and a more flexible and responsive FDA, both of which Angell castigates, are among the best prospects for an increase in pharmaceutical productivity and thus for increases in future life expectancy. Nevertheless, whatever the solutions are, we need to focus on the big problem of productivity if we are to translate scientific breakthroughs into improvements in human welfare."
Let me try again...

You and I are nobodies. We are nameless, faceless, anonymous posters on an internet forum, one of countless others all over the internet. What are our qualifications? Even if we have some, why should anyone believe us if we list them?

Do people disagree with Dr. Angell? You betcha'! But there are posters, dogged in their own viewpoint, that are unwilling to consider another opinion because it comes from a nobody from an unrelated field of work - simply not qualified to speak on any subject they deem irrefutable.

Well, Dr. Angell is qualified to speak. People may disagree with her statements, her books, her articles, her very existence - too bad, she has earned the right to speak. She can't be accused of being stupid or ignorant as it relates to her field - obviously, if she was either of those things, she would not be where she is today.

People will always disagree. People look at that like it's a bad thing. It is not always. Disagreements can lead to positive changes that benefit all. There is a need in the medical/pharmaceutical field for voices that hold the industry accountable.

As for your links...

The Forbes blog is written by Dr. John L. LaMattina, the former Senior Vice President, Pfizer Inc and President, Pfizer Global Research and Development. Someone who is suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry is, quite frankly, not going to listen to him.

The last article is written by Dr. Alex Tabarrok (Ph.d), an economist...if one is looking for a medical expert, an economist would probably not be their first choice.

However, if one is not suspicious of the government, the top article by Dr. Henry I. Miller should be worth a read. He is a medical researcher who once worked for the FDA. I've skimmed it, but will have to read it thoroughly at another time.

Last edited by CHAIN5; 02-10-2015 at 10:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2015, 10:51 PM
130 posts, read 120,968 times
Reputation: 252
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl View Post
I don't doubt that some of Dr. Angell's complaints about the pharmaceutical industry are true. Pushing unnecessary drugs on the public? Of course. Manipulating the price of drugs for their own financial success? No doubt. Lying about how they need to charge high prices or R&D would disappear? Probably. I would love to see them challenged and reined in by having their right to lobby the government eliminated.

But is there any publication where Dr. Angell makes a valid medical argument that people should not vaccinate their children? Plenty of bottled water is over-priced and a waste of money. Does that mean I should stop drinking water?
I cannot say for sure, but would assume she is pro-vax. I linked the article because of her comments about the medical/pharmaceutical industry, not because of her stand on vaccines.

However, if you are interested in reading about doctors who are anti vax, you might try this site. I just discovered it tonight, so I cannot speak about it at length. It looks to be an interesting one though.

The International Medical Council on Vaccination is an association of medical
doctors, registered nurses and other qualified medical professionals whose
purpose is to counter the messages asserted by pharmaceutical companies, the
government and medical agencies that vaccines are safe, effective and harmless.
Our conclusions have been reached individually by each member of the
Council, after thousands of hours of personal research, study and observation -
See more at: About | International Medical Council on Vaccination
About | International Medical Council on Vaccination
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2015, 11:07 PM
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,874 posts, read 12,990,243 times
Reputation: 28963
Originally Posted by CHAIN5 View Post
I cannot say for sure, but would assume she is pro-vax. I linked the article because of her comments about the medical/pharmaceutical industry, not because of her stand on vaccines.

However, if you are interested in reading about doctors who are anti vax, you might try this site. I just discovered it tonight, so I cannot speak about it at length. It looks to be an interesting one though ...
NO. I'm not interested in anti-vax. I thinks vaccinations are vital.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2015, 11:10 PM
130 posts, read 120,968 times
Reputation: 252
Originally Posted by believe007 View Post
Lol you're quickly turning out to be one of my favorite posters on here

Keep up the concise, accurate & amazing posts--
It's a breath of fresh air on these types of threads......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2015, 11:13 PM
130 posts, read 120,968 times
Reputation: 252
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl View Post
NO. I'm not interested in anti-vax. I thinks vaccinations are vital.
Well, there are other threads discussing that.

If I have interpreted the OP's intent correctly, s/he is interested in the integrity of the industry and used the MMR vaccine lawsuit as a starting point for discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-11-2015, 12:30 AM
1,825 posts, read 1,357,128 times
Reputation: 1373
Also, look at how many Big Pharma had gotten locked up for using a competing plant drug (cannabis) that helps hundreds of conditions & causes no deaths. 6 of today's pill cos. sold cannabis oil, tincture of cannabis, etc, for about a century, until 1937. They just realized they would make more money if they sold someone 10-20 patented prescriptions (monopoly for 15 years at 1,000% mark-up?), rather than 1-2 unpatentable plant drugs.

Look at the lies we got for 3/4 of a century about cannabis, that it killed, that it made people insane, etc. Then there was the racist part & the changing of the name from cannabis to marijuana to fool people into believing it was a drug new to the US. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 said it was a very dangerous drug, highly addicting, with no medical value. Sounds like a description of many pills! Like arthritis medicine. Allegedly at first they didn't know it caused deaths. Now they admit they know, but it doesn't get made illegal & they can still advertise on TV: kills people 4 different ways!

Imagine if Big Pharma owned the alcohol & tobacco industries! Maybe they could convince us that we would die if we didn't drink gallons of alcohol a day, & that we must smoke cartons of cigs every day!

A lawyer for a cannabis re-legalization group filed FOIA years back & got a list showing that over half of Dems & over half of Reps in Congress got bribes of $100,000-$500,000 each from Big Pharma to not pass legislation that would do them harm, like cannabis re-legalization. Presidents get millions. Police union lobbyists bribe govs to veto medical cannabis. Seems most in govt (Dems & Reps) are for sale to highest bidder. Electric cos. report sudden major increases in electricity use to police. CPS takes away kids from pot-smoking parents. Employers don't hire cannabis users. Big pharma cares-about trillions!

Here's some fun facts about psychiatric pills: They told us depression was caused by a chemical imbalance. That was a theory, never proven. But that didn't stop them from selling pills based on that, for half a century! Who needs facts as long as the public is trusting & pols get the bribes? Now, they admit that these pills can make people suicidal (also responsible for homicides & other violence, according to many researchers). Also, fatal overdoses are possible, & quitting abruptly can kill, too. Some people are never able to quit these pills, or even cut down, but cannabis is too addicting?

As for vaccines, I haven't had a flu shot for decades & I haven't had the flu for decades, coincidence? If they say a flu shot prevented 1/4 of the people from getting the flu, why couldn't it be the other way around, that the shot gave 3/4 of the people the flu?

Originally Posted by AksarbeN View Post
anti-vaccine crowd or not, I just want the truth.. and I think I can people can handle the truth.

Why is there any need for false information from Pharma and the Government ? ?????????????? What do they have to hide?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-11-2015, 03:28 AM
Location: Georgia, USA
21,622 posts, read 26,322,884 times
Reputation: 26725
In 2013, there were 438 cases of mumps in the US.

It does not look like the mumps vaccine is ineffective.

The 2006 mumps outbreak:

Mumps | Outbreak Questions and Answers for Healthcare Providers | CDC

"During mumps outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities, the proportion of cases that occur among people who have been vaccinated may be high (see example below). This should not be interpreted as meaning that the vaccine is ineffective. The way to assess the effectiveness of the vaccine is by comparing the attack rate in people who are vaccinated with the attack rate in those who have not been vaccinated. In outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, the relatively few people who have not been vaccinated against mumps usually have a much greater mumps attack rate than those who have been fully vaccinated. During the outbreak in 2006, most of the mumps cases occurred in those who had received 2 doses of the MMR vaccine because most of the affected population had received 2 vaccine doses. However, the attack rate was much higher in the unvaccinated people, and 2 doses of the vaccine were estimated to be 88% (range: 66-95%) effective in preventing mumps."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-11-2015, 09:21 AM
2,200 posts, read 1,459,443 times
Reputation: 2663
From the thread title, I thought this was about Italian cheese...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top