The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science
The availability of reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), combined with the drug makers' aversion to careful study of this data, as well as commonly experienced side effects of vaccine, are important reasons for the decline in the confidence of the public in mass vaccination programs. That public health authorities have been largely absent from the scientific debate about the merits of vaccination, while engaging in co-marketing alongside the pharmaceuticals (whose former executives often make up the ranks of management at those bureacracies), has not inspired the public to take a different view. Here are some facts about vaccine effectiveness and safety that you may not know.
Researchers have found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in infectious disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was concomitant with use of vaccine.(1,2) Aside from the fact that use of vaccine *after* those declines does not represent a proven association to treatment, the remainder of the decline must be largely attributed to factors *other* than vaccine since it cannot be that such factors already in play during a longstanding downward trendline in severe morbidity suddenly ceased just because vaccine came into use. For obvious reasons, the absence of evidence that vaccine was responsible for a substantial decline in infectious disease mortality means that vaccine can hardly take credit for reductions in severe morbidity that lead to death. What little evidence there may be for vaccine efficacy (much less safety) outside the laboratory where the value of antibody titres is largely theoretical (antibody titres are not equivalent to immunity), remains highly suspect. That antibody levels induced by vaccine are demonstrably lower than those following natural infection has also been scientifically documented.(3)
Estimates of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity (when it occurs) are based on little more than field surveys, not controlled studies that adjust for factors unique to a particular demographic, such as nutritional status, age, or prior disease history. Any risk-adjusted outcomes related to mass vaccination (especially in terms of adverse health effects attributable to vaccine) remain largely unknown. According to MerckSource, "many cases of mumps are subclinical," whereas numerous studies have documented vaccine induced symtpoms, including fever, rash, hearing loss, chills, headache, and other flu- like effects. (5,6,7) This is perfect cover for the drug makers, who haven't been required to demonstrate a risk-benefit analysis of MMR through a careful study of vaccine despite millions of willing subjects.
Remember that when industry Pharma hoods talk about the necessity for "herd immunity," they are broadcasting a promotion for vaccine, not science. When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't cite real evidence documenting their claims. It's because it doesn't exist.
1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay. The Questionable Effect of Medical Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century. Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.
2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live, attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a field situation. N Engl J Med 1967;276:245-51
4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med 1979;162:328-32.
5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.
6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Reports of sensorineural deafness after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.
7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further Australian reports." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.
Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over a period of time. The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th century. In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were *not* ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine (which were largely non-existent during that time frame.) Their statement that various health measures were of “major importance” to public health is clearly a reference to overall morbidity and to medical measures in total, not to a particular program or intervention, whereas vaccine could not have been relevant in reducing mortality as noted, thus the statement cannot be used to void the earlier observation. Resident Pharma-hoods, however, *will* attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their sponsors require of them, but it won’t ‘t change the fact that vaccine was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality during the last 100 years.
news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6-8f56-1e75e13cf467@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________ .................................................................
So tell me, using some actual evidence and avoiding name calling: how exactly in the MMR a big money maker?
It has been in use in the USA since 1971, and has never contained thimerosal. Since uptake has declined more people are coming down with the actual disease (and measles). Not terribly far from where I live eight kids from an unvaccinated family came down with measles, with three of them ending up in the hospital.
So I did some digging and came up with some numbers. From here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/cdc-vac-price-list.htm ... I found out that giving a child two doses of the MMR costs $100 (that is the private sector price, not the cheaper public one).
It seems the hospitalization costs for measles (in 1990 dollars) range from about $4000 to over $10000, with the average at around $8000 (in 1990 dollars, it would be much more now!).
Now Generation Rescue has put out a recommended vaccine schedule which does not include the MMR at all (even though their big thing is to call autism another form of mercury poisoning, but there is no thimerosal in the MMR!). So if the public decided to do what they said, measles would come back and everyone would get it! Just like the good ol' days (and what is happening now in Canada, Switzerland, USA, Japan, Austria, UK... etc, etc). Remember, the new anti-vax spokesmommy Jenny McCarthy said she would rather have had her son get measles than the MMR.
So... If a community decided to NOT spend the $100000 to vaccinate 1000 children with the MMR, then when they did get the disease approximately 60 (6% of 1000) would end up in the hospital for pneumonia (not counting the smaller percentage for meningitis nor encephalitis). If you multiply $8000 by 60, then the costs associated with the disease (not counting the costs of the 1 to 3 who would need further assistance due to blindness and/or deafness, nor the funeral expenses of the estimated one or two who don't get to go home) would be $480000.
Or about 4 to 5 times more than it cost for the vaccines would go to hospitals for medication, monitoring equipment, respiratory support (much of it sold by "Big Pharma") and medical care professionals. Remember, I used 1990 for hospitalization costs, with 2008 numbers for vaccine costs. The actual ratio between letting kids end up in the hospital versus giving them the vaccine may be 10 to 15 times more.
This does not take into account infections from mumps (four out of less than 3000 mumps cases became deaf, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5520a4.htm ... plus over 800 young men may be sterile), or from problems with pregnant women getting rubella, causing congenital rubella syndrome.
I really would like to know why in PeterB's Bizarro World why it is cheaper to not prevent diseases. (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want more recent stuff check out Japan and Austria).
I would also like to remind him that VAERS is a passive reporting system, and is not really a good statistical measure. Especially since after investigation the cause is often found to be something else (like extreme prematurity, congenital heart condition, rolling off a couch or turning into Wonder Woman: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=342 ).
The availability of reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), combined with the drug makers' aversion to careful study of this data, as well as commonly experienced side effects of vaccine, are important reasons for the decline in the confidence of the public in mass vaccination programs. That public health authorities have been largely absent from the scientific debate about the merits of vaccination, while engaging in co-marketing alongside the pharmaceuticals (whose former executives often make up the ranks of management at those bureacracies), has not inspired the public to take a different view. Here are some facts about vaccine effectiveness and safety that you may not know.
Researchers have found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in infectious disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was concomitant with use of vaccine.(1,2) Aside from the fact that use of vaccine *after* those declines does not represent a proven association to treatment, the remainder of the decline must be largely attributed to factors *other* than vaccine since it cannot be that such factors already in play during a longstanding downward trendline in severe morbidity suddenly ceased just because vaccine came into use. For obvious reasons, the absence of evidence that vaccine was responsible for a substantial decline in infectious disease mortality means that vaccine can hardly take credit for reductions in severe morbidity that lead to death. What little evidence there may be for vaccine efficacy (much less safety) outside the laboratory where the value of antibody titres is largely theoretical (antibody titres are not equivalent to immunity), remains highly suspect. That antibody levels induced by vaccine are demonstrably lower than those following natural infection has also been scientifically documented.(3)
Estimates of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity (when it occurs) are based on little more than field surveys, not controlled studies that adjust for factors unique to a particular demographic, such as nutritional status, age, or prior disease history. Any risk-adjusted outcomes related to mass vaccination (especially in terms of adverse health effects attributable to vaccine) remain largely unknown. According to MerckSource, "many cases of mumps are subclinical," whereas numerous studies have documented vaccine induced symtpoms, including fever, rash, hearing loss, chills, headache, and other flu- like effects. (5,6,7) This is perfect cover for the drug makers, who haven't been required to demonstrate a risk-benefit analysis of MMR through a careful study of vaccine despite millions of willing subjects.
Remember that when industry Pharma hoods talk about the necessity for "herd immunity," they are broadcasting a promotion for vaccine, not science. When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't cite real evidence documenting their claims. It's because it doesn't exist.
1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay. The Questionable Effect of Medical Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century. Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.
2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live, attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a field situation. N Engl J Med 1967;276:245-51
4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med 1979;162:328-32.
5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.
6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Reports of sensorineural deafness after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.
7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further Australian reports." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.
Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over a period of time. The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th century. In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were *not* ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine (which were largely non-existent during that time frame.)
PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they remain the main reason for the rareness of death (and serious disability) from these sources in the USA today.
PM >The ease with which we get colds, influenza, venereal and and enteric infections *proves* there has been no other fundamental change in our susceptibility to infectious disease.
... .... When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing
>more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't >cite real evidence documenting their claims. It's because it doesn't >exist.
That is an interesting accusation, especially in this post. While I used references that had actual URLs to real papers (not just the abstracts), PeterB chose to just list the name of the paper. I looked at them, and some could not be found, but others by the same authors were. The references are classic cases of cherry picking. For a further explanation of this kind of tactic see: http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm
Let's see what we have here...
>1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay. The Questionable Effect of Medical >Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the >Twentieth Century. Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.
Ooooh, a paper from what looks like a mutual fund write-up, dated over 30 years ago! Let me put the title into Google and see what pops up... Exactly one hit, a Jan Drew post citing this paper: http://www.archivum.info/sci.med/2006-09/msg00393.html
>2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by >Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
Page 43 is not online, but acording to the Amazon page peek, it is the page before a new chapter. According to Google books it is a sectioncalled "Explaining Trends in Mortality".
PeterB did not specify which edition.
>3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live, >attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a >field situation. N Engl J Med 1967;276:245-51
Yet another timely paper, only 41 years old. It even predates the MMR!
>4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up >surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated >measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med >1979;162:328-32.
This is even though searching for "Weibel RE" brings up papers with abstracts like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/263873 that say "The patterns of antibody persistence 7.5 years after administration of combined measles-mumps-rubella (M-M-R) and mumps-rubella (Biavax) vaccines, 6 years after administration of measles-rubella vaccine (M-R-VAX), and 4 years after administration of measles-mumps vaccine (M-M-VAX) were the same as for the monovalent vaccines, indicating no alteration in the retention of immunity. Subclinical reinfection evidenced by increase in homologous antibody titer was observed to follow vaccination the same as occurs after natural infection."
>5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with >immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy >Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.
I had to dig deep for this! Dr. Sakaguchi has been very prolific, I had to the 25th page of PubMed hits to find this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7560672 ... again, no abstract available. Yet, he (or she) is the primary author of this fully available paper on allergic reactions to vaccine components: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubme... ... and it is basically the same subject! (by the way, Japan uses a different MMR than the one used in the USA, and now the UK, so even if you were trying to baffle with bullshit, you chose the wrong bovine!).
>6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Reports of sensorineural deafness after >measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of >Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.
It is a series of case reports. In six of the cases the MMR was the older UK version with the Urabe strain of mumps, not the Jeryl Lynn of the version approved for use in 1971 in the USA and now used in the UK.
>7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further >Australian reports." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.
So in summary: While I found papers and references that were fully online and included the URLs, PeterB chose to just list the paper title. That is not so bad, except he chose obscure papers from an author who had a full paper online on the same subject. He also listed stuff on vaccines not available in the USA (when Japan had an MMR, it was not the same as the American version), and he chose some papers that were case reports from decades ago.
Okay, I confess, I used a paper that showed the costs of measles infection from 1990. But in my defense, that was the last time we had a major measles outbreak. Though, through the diligent efforts of PeterB, JB Handley and the
And while you are at it: please explain why the numbers of measles has been going UP in Japan, Austria, the UK and Switzerland (along with the USA and Canada).
>Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a >discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over >a period of time. The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the >decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures >introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th >century. In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were *not* >ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine >(which were largely non-existent during that time frame.) Their >statement that various health measures were of “major importance” to >public health is clearly a reference to overall morbidity and to >medical measures in total, not to a particular program or >intervention, whereas vaccine could not have been relevant in >reducing mortality as noted, thus the statement cannot be used to void >the earlier observation. Resident Pharma-hoods, however, *will* >attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their >sponsors require of them, but it won’t ‘t change the fact that vaccine >was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality >during the last 100 years.
I was interrupted by family members and did not finish a thought...
...> Okay, I confess, I used a paper that showed the costs of measles infection
> from 1990. But in my defense, that was the last time we had a major > measles outbreak. Though, through the diligent efforts of PeterB, JB > Handley and the new autism anti-vax spokesbimbo Jenny McCarthy we shall > soon repeat the experience we had between 1989 and 1992 when over 120 > Americans died from measles.
It seems you guys forget that there was a reason for the development of vaccines in the first place. Have you ever seen a case of diphtheria? Do you know that it is one of the reasons for the Iditarod dog sled race in Alaska? Or that a child died from diphtheria recently in the UK? See http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/12102317001...
> The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science
> The availability of reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting > System (VAERS), combined with the drug makers' aversion to careful > study of this data, as well as commonly experienced side effects of > vaccine, are important reasons for the decline in the confidence of > the public in mass vaccination programs. That public health > authorities have been largely absent from the scientific debate about > the merits of vaccination, while engaging in co-marketing alongside > the pharmaceuticals (whose former executives often make up the ranks > of management at those bureacracies), has not inspired the public to > take a different view. Here are some facts about vaccine > effectiveness and safety that you may not know.
> Researchers have found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in > infectious disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was > concomitant with use of vaccine.(1,2) Aside from the fact that use of > vaccine *after* those declines does not represent a proven association > to treatment, the remainder of the decline must be largely attributed > to factors *other* than vaccine since it cannot be that such factors > already in play during a longstanding downward trendline in severe > morbidity suddenly ceased just because vaccine came into use. For > obvious reasons, the absence of evidence that vaccine was responsible > for a substantial decline in infectious disease mortality means that > vaccine can hardly take credit for reductions in severe morbidity that > lead to death. What little evidence there may be for vaccine efficacy > (much less safety) outside the laboratory where the value of antibody > titres is largely theoretical (antibody titres are not equivalent to > immunity), remains highly suspect. That antibody levels induced by > vaccine are demonstrably lower than those following natural infection > has also been scientifically documented.(3)
> Estimates of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity (when it occurs) > are based on little more than field surveys, not controlled studies > that adjust for factors unique to a particular demographic, such as > nutritional status, age, or prior disease history. Any risk-adjusted > outcomes related to mass vaccination (especially in terms of adverse > health effects attributable to vaccine) remain largely unknown. > According to MerckSource, "many cases of mumps are subclinical," > whereas numerous studies have documented vaccine induced symtpoms, > including fever, rash, hearing loss, chills, headache, and other flu- > like effects. (5,6,7) This is perfect cover for the drug makers, who > haven't been required to demonstrate a risk-benefit analysis of MMR > through a careful study of vaccine despite millions of willing > subjects.
> Remember that when industry Pharma hoods talk about the necessity for > "herd immunity," they are broadcasting a promotion for vaccine, not > science. When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing > more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't > cite real evidence documenting their claims. It's because it doesn't > exist.
> 1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay. The Questionable Effect of Medical > Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the > Twentieth Century. Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.
> 2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by > Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
> 3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live, > attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a > field situation. N Engl J Med 1967;276:245-51
> 4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up > surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated > measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med > 1979;162:328-32.
> 5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with > immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy > Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.
> 6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Reports of sensorineural deafness after > measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of > Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.
> 7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further > Australian reports." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.
> Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a > discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over > a period of time. The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the > decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures > introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th > century. In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were *not* > ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine > (which were largely non-existent during that time frame.) Their > statement that various health measures were of “major importance” to > public health is clearly a reference to overall morbidity and to > medical measures in total, not to a particular program or > intervention, whereas vaccine could not have been relevant in > reducing mortality as noted, thus the statement cannot be used to void > the earlier observation. Resident Pharma-hoods, however, *will* > attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their > sponsors require of them, but it won’t ‘t change the fact that vaccine > was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality > during the last 100 years.
On May 9, 10:41 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles > vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they > remain the main reason for the rareness of death (and serious disability) > from these sources in the USA today.
> PM >The ease with which we get colds, influenza, venereal and and enteric > infections *proves* there has been no other fundamental change in our > susceptibility to infectious disease.
> PM
USING a tiny "disabled" virus to stimulate the body's immune system? How ASTONISHING that you should advocate this since YOU see NO benefit in Homeopathy. How primitive! How unscientific! Surely you can't possibly understand the EXACT method of how this works and are going ONLY by the positive results that vaccine SEEM to provide.
In fact, since the viruses are "disabled" there is really NOTHING IN the vaccine other than the dangerous preservative chemicals.
When they do appear to work... it MUST be PLACEBO EFFECT!!!!!!!!
