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.
I never said that there is anything wrong with making money. I do think some are blind to the fact that these companies are highly motivated by profit, not by health and that they use all of the tools in their tool basket, including lobbying to get more customers.
Preventing measles but creating more autoimmune disease? Is that cheaper? You think we have all of the answers? You really believe that scientific research cannot be used as a tool to show what the people with the biggest bank accounts want it to say? You think there is never any bias or people controlling what gets funding and what does not? Do you really believe the ridiculous claim that “the science is settled”? If so, I’d say you’re pretty naive.
Do you agree that every vaccine on the current schedule is necessary for every child?
You do not think that the people who develop, make, sell, and administer vaccines have children, too?
There is no evidence that vaccines cause autoimmune disease, and you immediately have to invoke a conspiracy theory to hide behind in order to justify that statement: the research is manipulated and biased.
The research has been done worldwide. Such a conspiracy would have to involve every researcher in every country. That means that you are the one who is naive. You have been manipulated by the anti-vax gurus, and, make no mistake, they have financial interests in promoting anti-vaccinationism.
Even if you accept that there is a small risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome with flu vaccine, the risk is greater with flu infection, so by preventing flu the vaccine prevents more GBS than it causes.
References at the link.
Every vaccine on the schedule is there because it can potentially maim and kill. In the absence of a valid medical contraindication, there is no reason to treat the schedule like a Chinese menu and pick what you want and do not want.
Everything we do in life can maim and kill. Yes, we can pick and choose what we put into our bodies.
You may pick and choose but there is no scientific reason to do so unless there is a medical contraindication to a vaccine.
Strange. I do not see the word vaccine used in that article at all. Maybe you could quote it for me?
It does mention measles virus infection in the discussion. I assure you there is overwhelmingly more antigen presented to the immune system by infections than vaccines.
"No matter how you slice it, the vaccine schedule represents a miniscule exposure to antigens and organisms compared to what people encounter as part of life. Worrying about the exposure from the vaccine schedule is like worrying about a thimble of water getting you wet when you are swimming in an ocean."
You have no problem trampling on the rights of people who refuse to inject every vaccine the government says they must inject into their bodies. I guess you’re not as “live and let live as you make it seem.
Are there any vaccines you do think are ok to skip? Or you 100% on board with all of them, inlcuding whatever comes down the pipe?
I’m fine with you not giving your kid 1 vaccine. You have that choice. Not one state forcibly vaccinates. But, I’m also fine with your unvaccinated kid being excluded from daycare, brick and mortar K-12 and even college if you refuse the vaccines your state mandates and you don’t have a waiver.
In others words, I support following the law. I don’t agree that online or homeschool should require vaccines. Just educational venues where unvaccinated kids pose a risk to those who can’t medically be vaccinated or those who are too young to be vaccinated.
Your choice is yours to make and the consequences of that choice are yours as well.
And yes, I’m good with the current vaccines my state mandates. All prevent easily spread via casual contact VPDs (with the exception of Tetanus but that’s in with Diphtheria and Pertussis so I’m ok with that). Preventing these diseases is a good thing and making sure kids have a safe environment to be educated matters as well.
You do not think that the people who develop, make, sell, and administer vaccines have children, too?
Even if you accept that there is a small risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome with flu vaccine, the risk is greater with flu infection, so by preventing flu the vaccine prevents more GBS than it causes.
nt.
So they all work for free out of the goodness of their hearts? No. It's a billion dollar a year INDUSTRY. Some perspective is in order. They create a product TO SELL. If it didn't sell? They wouldn't make it. If they get it on the schedule? OMG ... guaranteed customers FOREVER. The companies operate like every other company .. looking for ways to profit.
I'll let my friend know. She had GB from a flu vaccine and was hospitalized for almost 2 weeks. I'm sure your compassion for her AE will make her feel much, much better about it. /facepalm/
You may pick and choose but there is no scientific reason to do so unless there is a medical contraindication to a vaccine.
"No matter how you slice it, the vaccine schedule represents a miniscule exposure to antigens and organisms compared to what people encounter as part of life. Worrying about the exposure from the vaccine schedule is like worrying about a thimble of water getting you wet when you are swimming in an ocean."
No that's YOUR opinion. You are entitled to it. None of us has to agree with you.
"No matter how you slice it, the vaccine schedule represents a miniscule exposure to antigens and organisms compared to what people encounter as part of life. Worrying about the exposure from the vaccine schedule is like worrying about a thimble of water getting you wet when you are swimming in an ocean."
There are people who have had shingles before age 50 who would love to take the shingles vaccine.
Yes, pharmaceutical companies need to make a profit, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But if you are going to talk about money spent on vaccines you must also talk about money spent on vaccine preventable diseases. To do otherwise is a bit dishonest, don't you think?
Yes, there is not the pressure to develop a vaccine for Zika that there was when the problems with it first emerged, but research is continuing. I have to wonder why you are so dead set against a vaccine for an infection that can cause serious birth defects.
"Currently, there is no treatment for Zika. Women who contract the virus are, if they are of childbearing age, at risk of giving birth to children with severe health problems including microcephaly, eye problems (including vision loss), epilepsy, nervous system defects, and hearing defects. An August 2018 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report from the CDC revealed that of 1450 children born to mothers known to have the Zika virus during pregnancy, 1 in 7 had a birth defect associated with the virus or a neurological abnormality possibly linked to the virus (or both)."
Preventing birth defects is not a Good Thing? Quite a bit of money will be spent on them, and I would just as soon that money be spent on a vaccine instead.
I highly doubt my SIL (at 32) and my daughter (at 38) would want to blow $300 on a shingles vaccination when that money can be used to bills despite having shingles. Money definitely is a factor when insurance won't pay for it, or there is a high co-pay. Hubs won't get the new one either. Paid a $100 copay and said "it didn't work and not spending another $100".
You did not address Lyme vaccine. Not contagious and not enough people wanted to get it. It will not be profitable enough if no market for it. We shall see how many people will get the new one in development, or under 45's get their HPV vax.
I highly doubt my SIL (at 32) and my daughter (at 38) would want to blow $300 on a shingles vaccination when that money can be used to bills despite having shingles. Money definitely is a factor when insurance won't pay for it, or there is a high co-pay. Hubs won't get the new one either. Paid a $100 copay and said "it didn't work and not spending another $100".
You did not address Lyme vaccine. Not contagious and not enough people wanted to get it. It will not be profitable enough if no market for it. We shall see how many people will get the new one in development, or under 45's get their HPV vax.
Yep.
No one is preventing ANYONE from getting the vaccines that they want to get. Except the prices from the pharma manufacturer and insurance un/willingness to cover.
Because ... it's a business. And they will charge/cover what they want. Unless it gets on the school schedule. Then it's a win-win for both Cha CHING.
Actually it’s the opinion of the scientists who wrote the article Suzy linked. The link you purposely removed from your reply.
Scientists? Mark Crislip wrote the article and he is one person and he is not a scientist. And if Paul Offitt has yet to put his money where his mouth is and get 100,000 vaccines in one day. If he thinks it is safe for infants, he should show us all by doing it himself, since he’s such a big man. A man who helped get the rotavirus approved and who profited from it.
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 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.
Quite a bit of money will be spent on them, and I would just as soon that money be spent on a vaccine instead.