Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[SomeRandom]

Yes so they claim, and you believe that claim, but I don't, can you handle that ??.

A scientist doesn't claim anything. They must first prove something through testing, that proof must then be sent to a bunch of other independent scientists for verification. These independent Scientists test this evidence vigorously. If it passes that strenuous test, then it is published as evidence of something. These are the supposed "claims" you are denying. Verified pieces of evidence given by a number of people in a number of Scientific Disciplines around the world.

 

[psychoslice]

A scientist doesn't claim anything. They must first prove something through testing, that proof must then be sent to a bunch of other independent scientists for verification. If it passes that strenuous test, then it is published as evidence of something. These are the supposed "claims" you are denying. Verified pieces of evidence given by a number of people in a number of Scientific Disciplines around the world.

Yes so you believe, and that's up to you to believe, but not me.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes so you believe, and that's up to you to believe, but not me.

I don't believe anything in this scenario. I trust in the Scientific Method to weed out stupid pseudoscience. It's like "believing" in Newton's Laws of Physics. I don't believe in them so much as accept that Scientists far smarter than I and more knowledgeable in a specific Intellectual Discipline have tested and retested these laws in order to comply with the Scientific Method. I certainly trust Physicists to know more about Physics than laymen who know nothing of Science beyond High School and some Google searches. Or like how I would not go to a plumber for their opinion on a medical condition! Or like how I trust that NASA people are trained in some sort of Scientific background. Or like how I would trust a retail worker to know more about the store they work in than a regular ****ing customer.

It has already been pointed out that in many cases Vaccines are either chump change to big corporations or actually an out of pocket expense for Governments. So where is this money coming from? Who exactly stands to profit? How much do they make? Who exactly is running the show?
If you can't give any real factual answers to these questions, or provide evidence to your claims, then don't make arguably slanderous claims against people. Simple.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't believe anything in this scenario. I trust in the Scientific Method to weed out stupid pseudoscience. It's like "believing" in Newton's Laws of Physics. I don't believe in them so much as accept that Scientists far smarter than I and more knowledgeable in a specific Intellectual Discipline have tested and retested these laws in order to comply with the Scientific Method. I certainly trust Physicists to know more about Physics than laymen who know nothing of Science beyond High School and some Google searches. Or like how I would not go to a plumber for their opinion on a medical condition! Or like how I trust that NASA people are trained in some sort of Scientific background. Or like how I would trust a retail worker to know more about the store they work in than a regular ****ing customer.

It has already been pointed out that in many cases Vaccines are either chump change to big corporations or actually an out of pocket expense for Governments. So where is this money coming from? Who exactly stands to profit? How much do they make? Who exactly is running the show?
If you can't give any real factual answers to these questions, or provide evidence to your claims, then don't make arguably slanderous claims against people. Simple.

So you believe, that's it.

 

[SomeRandom]

So you believe, that's it.

I don't believe, kindly stop throwing words around like they mean what you're implying. To tweak a popular meme, either back up your position with evidence that withstands the same stringent regulations that we expect of Science (and Medical Science) or STFU.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't believe, kindly stop throwing words around like they mean what you're implying. To tweak a popular meme, either back up your position with evidence that withstands the same stringent regulations that we expect of Science (and Medical Science) or STFU.

Listen. I don't give a damn what you believe, Ok /, you have made up your mind and I have made up my mind, now deal with it !!

 

[SomeRandom]

Listen. I don't give a damn what you believe, Ok /, you have made up your mind and I have made up my mind, now deal with it !!

Whatever. Don't come complaining again when people ask for hard evidence, then.

 

[philbo]

There is big money to be made in the pharmaceutical industry, if you believe it or not.

Please, I'm sure you have a brain in there somewhere, why are you so stubbornly refusing to use it? The people doing that research aren't part of the pharmaceutical industry, I even posted where they come from, FFS. Even if you could show that the university & the autism research institute concerned were financed solely, or significantly by drugs companies, that still wouldn't explain how they ended up getting the results they did & why they'd be so willing to put their professional reputations on the line if a fraud got out.

The money in vaccination is about 1 or 2% of the turnover of the big pharma companies, less in some cases. And there's a lot more money to be made letting people get diseases and selling them medicine, if you think about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes so they claim, and you believe that claim, but I don't, can you handle that ??.

No, actually, I can't. Your opinion puts children at a far greater risk than what vaccines do; vaccines that have underwent rigorous and numerous scientific inquiries.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please, I'm sure you have a brain in there somewhere, why are you so stubbornly refusing to use it? The people doing that research aren't part of the pharmaceutical industry, I even posted where they come from, FFS. Even if you could show that the university & the autism research institute concerned were financed solely, or significantly by drugs companies, that still wouldn't explain how they ended up getting the results they did & why they'd be so willing to put their professional reputations on the line if a fraud got out.

The money in vaccination is about 1 or 2% of the turnover of the big pharma companies, less in some cases. And there's a lot more money to be made letting people get diseases and selling them medicine, if you think about it.

If big pharma would want to make money, they just quit making the product.
Each and every year, approximately 3,000 children—typically between the ages of 2 to 5—are diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Once a death sentence, this deadly disease can now be cured for 80 to 90 percent of those afflicted thanks to an injectable drug called methotrexate. As a result of this wonder drug, tens of thousands of children—who would have died before they even got started in life —are alive and well. And let’s not forget the indescribable benefit to the families of these children who have been spared the ultimate in misery.
Yet, despite this fantastic success rate, kids are now in danger of facing this disease without this life saving drug—all because manufacturing the medicine is no longer as profitable for the pharmaceutical companies as it once was.
With methotrexate having been around long enough to no longer qualify for the patent protections that permit drug manufacturers to charge big prices as a result of their exclusive ownership of a protected formula—and with the generic version of the drug unable to produce enough profit to inspire drug companies to manufacture this critical chemotherapy—the nation now faces a deadly shortage of this drug.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, exactly: you've shown claims. That isn't evidence of anything.

Compare this to a study of nearly a hundred thousand children, which showed no statistical difference in autism rates between those vaccinated and those not. Sorry if it sounds like I'm a broken record, but all you've done about that is make vague assertions that the people doing the study are somehow part of the group making money from vaccines, which is a complete fabrication in the hope that you can maintain your frankly ridiculous position.

This ^^^

 

[psychoslice]

Please, I'm sure you have a brain in there somewhere, why are you so stubbornly refusing to use it? The people doing that research aren't part of the pharmaceutical industry, I even posted where they come from, FFS. Even if you could show that the university & the autism research institute concerned were financed solely, or significantly by drugs companies, that still wouldn't explain how they ended up getting the results they did & why they'd be so willing to put their professional reputations on the line if a fraud got out.

The money in vaccination is about 1 or 2% of the turnover of the big pharma companies, less in some cases. And there's a lot more money to be made letting people get diseases and selling them medicine, if you think about it.

Yea more lies.

 

[psychoslice]

No, actually, I can't. Your opinion puts children at a far greater risk than what vaccines do; vaccines that have underwent rigorous and numerous scientific inquiries.

Oh the children, always the children, ha, that old guilt trick doesn't work on me.

 

[InChrist]

Vaccines provide huge profits for pharmaceutical manufacturers ...

“The global vaccines industry was valued at $24 billion in 2009 and is expected to reach $52 billion in 2016 at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 11.5%. The vaccines market, which was once considered a low-profit segment of the top players’ portfolios, showed a turnaround after the resounding success of Prevnar, the first blockbuster vaccine. The ability of vaccines to generate high revenue and profits despite being priced at a premium has proven attractive to both existing players in the market and to big pharmaceutical companies who have been watching the development of the market with interest."
http://centerforvaccineethicsandpolicy.net/2010/01/17/global-vaccines-revenues-projected-to-more-than-double-by-2016/


And a real conflict of interest for the sake of profit and bias concerning testing and safety...

"Lest anyone suspect that this kind of cynicism about the scientific establishment is confined to anti-vaccination activists, here is what Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in 2009:

“…(C)onflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine.” [Emphasis mine.]

Angell adds:

“No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.”

Likewise, in his 2013 book “Bad Pharma”, physician (and vaccine advocate) Ben Goldacre writes:

“Overall, the pharmaceutical industry spends around half a billion dollars a year on advertising in academic journals. The biggest – NEJM, JAMA – take $10 or $20 million each, and there is a few million each for the next rank down.”

Goldacre adds that “(a)dvertising is not the only source of drug company revenue for academic journals”, and cites “supplements” – special editions sponsored by drug companies – and reprints of individual academic papers that can bring in up to a million dollars each. And he cites a 2009 study demonstrating that industry-funded studies are more likely to be accepted by journals.

The real-world impact of this control has been well documented, from the FDA concealing fraud in medical trials, to built-in biases in studies, to pharmaceutical companies misleading practitioners as to the safety and efficacy of their products, to allegations of fraudulent misconduct brought by scientists turned whistleblowers.

Recently, two former Merck scientists charged that the pharmaceutical giant “…fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine…” And in August of last year, senior CDC scientist William Thompson came forward with the statement that he and other researchers had omitted statistically significant data from a 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. (It is worth noting that Dr. Thompson’s earlier studies at the CDC were hailed as “definitive” in refuting the Thimerosal-autism link by none other than Dr. Paul Offit.)

According to Thompson’s statement “(t)he omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

In a secretly recorded conversation, Dr. Thompson told with Dr. Brian Hooker, “I have a boss who is asking me to lie. The higher ups wanted to do certain things and I went along with it.” He told Dr. Hooker that “…the CDC has not been transparent, we’ve missed ten years of research, because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing. They are afraid to look for things that might be associated…”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/04/bretigne-shaffer/first-they-came-for-the-anti-vaxxers/

 

[Poisonshady313]

Vaccines provide huge profits for pharmaceutical manufacturers ...

“The global vaccines industry was valued at $24 billion in 2009 and is expected to reach $52 billion in 2016 at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 11.5%. The vaccines market, which was once considered a low-profit segment of the top players’ portfolios, showed a turnaround after the resounding success of Prevnar, the first blockbuster vaccine. The ability of vaccines to generate high revenue and profits despite being priced at a premium has proven attractive to both existing players in the market and to big pharmaceutical companies who have been watching the development of the market with interest."
http://centerforvaccineethicsandpolicy.net/2010/01/17/global-vaccines-revenues-projected-to-more-than-double-by-2016/


And a real conflict of interest for the sake of profit and bias concerning testing and safety...

"Lest anyone suspect that this kind of cynicism about the scientific establishment is confined to anti-vaccination activists, here is what Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in 2009:

“…(C)onflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine.” [Emphasis mine.]

Angell adds:

“No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.”

Likewise, in his 2013 book “Bad Pharma”, physician (and vaccine advocate) Ben Goldacre writes:

“Overall, the pharmaceutical industry spends around half a billion dollars a year on advertising in academic journals. The biggest – NEJM, JAMA – take $10 or $20 million each, and there is a few million each for the next rank down.”

Goldacre adds that “(a)dvertising is not the only source of drug company revenue for academic journals”, and cites “supplements” – special editions sponsored by drug companies – and reprints of individual academic papers that can bring in up to a million dollars each. And he cites a 2009 study demonstrating that industry-funded studies are more likely to be accepted by journals.

The real-world impact of this control has been well documented, from the FDA concealing fraud in medical trials, to built-in biases in studies, to pharmaceutical companies misleading practitioners as to the safety and efficacy of their products, to allegations of fraudulent misconduct brought by scientists turned whistleblowers.

Recently, two former Merck scientists charged that the pharmaceutical giant “…fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine…” And in August of last year, senior CDC scientist William Thompson came forward with the statement that he and other researchers had omitted statistically significant data from a 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. (It is worth noting that Dr. Thompson’s earlier studies at the CDC were hailed as “definitive” in refuting the Thimerosal-autism link by none other than Dr. Paul Offit.)

According to Thompson’s statement “(t)he omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

In a secretly recorded conversation, Dr. Thompson told with Dr. Brian Hooker, “I have a boss who is asking me to lie. The higher ups wanted to do certain things and I went along with it.” He told Dr. Hooker that “…the CDC has not been transparent, we’ve missed ten years of research, because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing. They are afraid to look for things that might be associated…”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/04/bretigne-shaffer/first-they-came-for-the-anti-vaxxers/

One big problem is that the article you posted cites studies that cite Andrew Wakefield, a known fraud on this very topic, and boasts about these studies as if they prove the anti-vaxxers case and pro-vaxxers are just turning a blind eye to the truth.

You can't go on about fraudulent misconduct and misleading information while waving Andrew Wakefield in our faces and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[psychoslice]

One big problem is that the article you posted cites studies that cite Andrew Wakefield, a known fraud on this very topic, and boasts about these studies as if they prove the anti-vaxxers case and pro-vaxxers are just turning a blind eye to the truth.

You can't go on about fraudulent misconduct and misleading information while waving Andrew Wakefield in our faces and expect to be taken seriously.

Dear dear, everything is a fraud to you, no matter what is presented to you, and hence why I don't wast my time. showing you and other here anything

 

[Poisonshady313]

Dear dear, everything is a fraud to you, no matter what is presented to you, and hence why I don't wast my time. showing you and other here anything

1. The same could be said for you.
2. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud. Not to me. To the universe. You can't introduce him without using the word fraud at least once.

 

[McBell]

Dear dear, everything is a fraud to you, no matter what is presented to you, and hence why I don't wast my time. showing you and other here anything

Sad that you have set your standards so low.

Even sadder is your blatant standards hypocrisy.

You take what you want to hear as gospel truth and whine when what you want to hear does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[psychoslice]

Sad that you have set your standards so low.

Even sadder is your blatant standards hypocrisy.

You take what you want to hear as gospel truth and whine when what you want to hear does not stand up to scrutiny.

I don't, but lets face it most of us do if truth be known.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't, but lets face it most of us do if truth be known.

If I did that I'd still believe in Jesus.