Anti-vaxxers

Timberrrrrrrr

Amantine wrote: »

Pharmaceutical Giant GlaxoSmithKline “Accidentally” Released 45 Liters of Concentrated Live Polio Virus in the Environment

https://www.globalresearch.ca/pharmaceutical-giant-glaxosmithkline-accidentally-released-45-liters-of-concentrated-live-polio-virus-in-the-environment/5405801

GlaxoSmithKline fined over trials on the babies of Argentinian poor

"GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Britain's biggest drug firm, has been fined by an Argentine court over clinical trials of a pneumonia vaccine which was tested on thousands of babies from poor families."

The firm failed to get proper consent from the children’s parents before injecting Synflorix, one of its bestselling vaccines"

https://www.independent.ie/business/world/glaxosmithkline-fined-over-trials-on-the-babies-of-argentinian-poor-26810081.html

GlaxoSmithKline fined $490m by China for bribery


"The record penalty follows allegations the drug giant paid out bribes to doctors and hospitals in order to have their products promoted."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-29274822

Exclusive: GSK faces new corruption allegations, this time in Romania

The company is already probing alleged bribery in Poland, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

"The latest allegations say GSK paid Romanian doctors hundreds, and in one cases thousands, of euros between 2009 and 2012 for prescribing its medicines"


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gsk-romania-corruption-exclusive-idUSKCN0Q32A920150729

GlaxoSmithKline faces bribery claims in Syria

"It also accuses the company of bribing officials at Syria's Ministry of Health to obtain vaccines for illegal resale."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28748558

But of course that would never happen in Ireland! ...except when it does and all the document disappear...

"The order that ran the Bessborough mother and baby home has claimed it was instructed in 2013 to destroy “all documents” it held in relation to vaccine trials carried out on children."


https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bessborough-order-claims-it-was-told-destroy-vaccine-files-in-2013-370082.html

Now take a wild guess as to which company we're talking about here...

Special investigation - Vaccine trials on children worse than first thought

"Indeed, recent revelations have shown that, far from carrying out just four vaccine trials on children in care here, Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) sponsored trials in Ireland now span almost half a century — involving dozens of institutions and thousands of children."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/special-investigation--vaccine-trials-on-children-worse-than-first-thought-300247.html

The same GSK that the anti vax hero Gemma got an award from thet she proudly boasts about :pac:

Amantine

Legal actions on way as toxic 3-in-1 vaccine identified

"The 3-in-1 vaccine was manufactured by pharmaceutical giants Wellcome in 1968, but failed two crucial lab tests for potency and toxicity. It was eight times more potent than the recommended strength highly toxic for an infant. Yet, it was released by Wellcome for general use."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/legal-actions-on-way-as-toxic-3in1-vaccine-identified-26177787.html

Erik Shun

Amantine wrote: »

Legal actions on way as toxic 3-in-1 vaccine identified

"The 3-in-1 vaccine was manufactured by pharmaceutical giants Wellcome in 1968, but failed two crucial lab tests for potency and toxicity. It was eight times more potent than the recommended strength highly toxic for an infant. Yet, it was released by Wellcome for general use."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/legal-actions-on-way-as-toxic-3in1-vaccine-identified-26177787.html

Yep..an Irish independent article from 21 years ago is quite relevant....

martingriff

Amantine wrote: »

Legal actions on way as toxic 3-in-1 vaccine identified

"The 3-in-1 vaccine was manufactured by pharmaceutical giants Wellcome in 1968, but failed two crucial lab tests for potency and toxicity. It was eight times more potent than the recommended strength highly toxic for an infant. Yet, it was released by Wellcome for general use."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/legal-actions-on-way-as-toxic-3in1-vaccine-identified-26177787.html

So your evidence is a news report from 1998 from a vaccine used 30 years previous to that.

Quandary

Erik Shun wrote: »

Yep..an Irish independent article from 21 years ago is quite relevant....

And the particular batches of toxic vaccination in question which caused the harm were produced 51 years ago. The relevance of this a half century later is zilch.

Grasping at straws as usual, but not surprising.

VicMackey1

Amantine wrote: »

"GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Britain's biggest drug firm, has been fined by an Argentine court over clinical trials of a pneumonia vaccine which was tested on thousands of babies from poor families."

What snobbery!

Amantine

Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness,
or permanent brain damage happen extremely
rarely after DTaP vaccination

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/dtap.pdf

ancapailldorcha

Amantine wrote: »

Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness,
or permanent brain damage happen extremely
rarely after DTaP vaccination

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/dtap.pdf

VicMackey1

Amantine wrote: »

Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness,
or permanent brain damage happen extremely
rarely after DTaP vaccination

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/dtap.pdf

If 1000 people get diphtheria, 50 will die!

If 1000 people get tetanus, 100 will die!

Igotadose

California moving along regulating 'medical exemptions.' Sheeple anti-vaxxers invade the state capitol, hopefully to no avail.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article229590264.html

Amantine

VicMackey1 wrote: »

What snobbery!

“These are people who depend entirely on the state apparatus and who are most often illiterate.

“They are vulnerable sections of society. They are unable to read any kind of consent form. GSK's recruitment of these people was absolutely unethical.”

Interesting! Why would GSK always do their trials on vulnerable people , usually people who don't have a voice?

https://www.independent.ie/business/world/glaxosmithkline-fined-over-trials-on-the-babies-of-argentinian-poor-26810081.html

waxmoth

Igotadose wrote: »

Anonymity is important when debating anti-vaxxers. They're violent.
When retractions of bad papers are done, Skepticalraptor links to those as well. He's a medical-industry professional with years of experience

"
The old dinosaur has an undergraduate degree in Biology from a top US research university and a graduate degree in Biochemistry/Endocrinology from a major US research university. This was during the early Cretaceous, of course."


Ancaipailldorcha's shredded your misunderstanding of aluminium the common element and it's use in compounds vaccines. Skeptical Raptor talks about this as well, try harder next time.

Being anonymous it is not possible to check his credentials so you have to rely on content. It reads like propaganda complete with childish personal attacks and bad language.
His analysis of contribution of aluminium adjuvants to body burden of aluminium ignores toxicokinetics which renders it meaningless.

Amantine

They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.
But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.

The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.

A $342,000 payment from Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine - which makes $2 billion a year in sales.
A $433,000 contribution from Merck, the same year the academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine - which made $1.5 billion a year in sales.
Another top donor: Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines and a new five-in-one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.
Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry, too - but wouldn't tell us how much.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/

Dohnjoe

Amantine wrote: »

They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety

Can you answer those questions I asked when you have time

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Amantine, quit the soapboxing or you'll find yourself threadbanned.

This is a discussion forum; not a platform for you to throw links out and ignore other posters ad nauseum.

AtomicHorror

Amantine wrote: »

“These are people who depend entirely on the state apparatus and who are most often illiterate.

“They are vulnerable sections of society. They are unable to read any kind of consent form. GSK's recruitment of these people was absolutely unethical.”

Interesting! Why would GSK always do their trials on vulnerable people , usually people who don't have a voice?

For the ultimate reason large companies do anything: cost. The regulators are forcing them to do something, so they will do it, grudgingly, for as little cost as they can get away with.

It's not a shadowy conspiracy to exploit the vulnerable or voiceless per se, that's just a side effect of their pursuit of dollars. Think of it as a variant of Hanlon's Razor. Never ascribe to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity (on in this case, greed and stupidity).

Pharma companies are frequently unethical for sure, but rarely as sinister (nor as intelligent) as you'd expect.

Amantine

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Can you answer those questions I asked when you have time

Will we actually have a constructive conversation if I do? I've seen how you reply to anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you. I might as well just say what you want to hear:

All vaccines are great, they only save peoples lives, never hurt anyone. Pharmaceutical companies only want to the best for everyone. ( I really shouldn't "dump" links by the BBC, Irish Examiner and the Independent proving otherwise, I apologies, they really are all "crap")
The CDC only ever has the purest of intentions.
Astroturfing propaganda doesn't exist, so self-appointed expert “science” bloggers like LeftBrainRightBrain, ScienceBlogs, NeuroSkeptic, ScienceBasedMedicine, LizDitz, ScienceBasedMedicine, CrooksandLiars, RespectfulInsolence, HealthNewsReview, SkepticalRaptor, Skepticblog, Skeptics.com, Wired, BrianDeer, SethMnookin, Orac are all correct in citing one another’s flawed critiques as supposed proof that each study has been “debunked,” even though the studies continue to appear in peer-reviewed, published journals and in the US government’s own National Institutes of Health library.
These studies are by disparaged scientists like well-published neurologists, pharmacists, epidemiologists, immunologists, PhD’s, chemists and microbiologists from places like Boston Children’s Hospital, Horizon Molecular Medicine at Georgia State University, University of British Columbia, City College of New York, Columbia University, Stony Brook University Medical Center, University of Northern Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Al Azhar University of Cairo, Kinki University in Japan, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Poland, Department of Child Health Care, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University in China, Utah State University and many more who are all just loony anti-vaxxers. So are the 50000 members of the Recovering Kids | Biomedical Healing facebook group who encourage discussions about healing from vaccine injury, because vaccine injury doesn't exist.

ancapailldorcha

The childish tone really isn't helpful.

Amantine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The childish tone really isn't helpful.

I agree and neither is the lack of intelligent discussion.

Dohnjoe

Amantine wrote: »

Will we actually have a constructive conversation if I do?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You wrote:

Me personally, I am not against all vaccines and do use them in certain circumstances.

Which circumstances would you not use vaccines and why?

And also, which vaccines are you against and why?

ancapailldorcha

Amantine wrote: »

I agree and neither is the lack of intelligent discussion.

Calling out nonsense such as spamming and dumping is perfectly valid and reasoned.

NIMAN

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48039524

In a 7/8 years period in the UK, 500,000 kids missed their measles vaccine.


Worrying.

Amantine

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You wrote:



Which circumstances would you not use vaccines and why?

And also, which vaccines are you against and why?

Indiscriminate vaccination should be avoided. The necessity of each vaccine should be discussed in every case. Consider the possible harm that may be caused vs. its benefit. Every case should be considered individually. When one child in the family has suffered some vaccine damage, greater care must be taken with the other children. It really depends on genetics, autoimmunity in the family, the risk of being exposed to the pathogen that is being vaccinated against and the risks of the vaccine according to the latest research. Certain adjuvants come with an inherent risk, especially for vulnerable populations.

CramCycle

Amantine wrote: »

Consider the possible harm that may be caused vs. its benefit. Every case should be considered individually.

For the majority of established vaccines that have been around for years then, this is a no brainer, you should take it, nay would be negligent to yourself and your surrounding population.

When one child in the family has suffered some vaccine damage, greater care must be taken with the other children.

Vaccine damage is misleading here, a small number of people will have a reaction to most established vaccines, this percentage is small and well documented. The issue here is that these should be the only people excluded from further vaccinations, ie they fit in the 5% bubble that herd immunity helps facilitate, and they get included with those who are non reactors to vaccines, ie those who take vaccine but they have no immune response at all. With these two populations taken into account, it is borderline criminally negligent not to take an established vaccine.

It really depends on genetics, autoimmunity in the family, the risk of being exposed to the pathogen that is being vaccinated against and the risks of the vaccine according to the latest research. Certain adjuvants come with an inherent risk, especially for vulnerable populations.

Which adjuvants in supply currently are you referring too, seen alot of phase 4 trials (not vaccine related) which would identify these issues and have that drug / compound noted as not being suitable for that population.

AtomicHorror

Amantine wrote: »

Indiscriminate vaccination should be avoided. The necessity of each vaccine should be discussed in every case. Consider the possible harm that may be caused vs. its benefit. Every case should be considered individually. When one child in the family has suffered some vaccine damage, greater care must be taken with the other children. It really depends on genetics, autoimmunity in the family, the risk of being exposed to the pathogen that is being vaccinated against and the risks of the vaccine according to the latest research. Certain adjuvants come with an inherent risk, especially for vulnerable populations.

Speaking of cost to benefit, how much would such complex assessments for every person, for each and every vaccine, cost? And how many adverse reactions would be avoided as a consequence?

CramCycle

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Speaking of cost to benefit, how much would such complex assessments for every person, for each and every vaccine, cost? And how many adverse reactions would be avoided as a consequence?

Adverse reactions are rare, but also, typically minor in the first instance. It is the main reason nurses and doctors ask you have you had them before, so they exclude you from follow on vaccines and report it back as part of Phase 4 trials, even with established vaccines.

The issue here, is that some people don't report them or don't notice them, so they only remember the one that caused a worse reaction, which even then, are typically not terrible.

I can understand people avoiding new vaccines, but once they are established and there are no negative findings of note coming through, there are no excuses for putting yourself or others at risk.

AtomicHorror

CramCycle wrote: »

Adverse reactions are rare, but also, typically minor in the first instance. It is the main reason nurses and doctors ask you have you had them before, so they exclude you from follow on vaccines and report it back as part of Phase 4 trials, even with established vaccines.

Well, no they'd report it back to the manufacturer as part of their non-solicited post-marketing surveillance, or to the local health authority. Only trial participant data gets reported within the scope of Phase 4 trials.

But yeah, ideally all that safety data feeds back into the SPC, PIL etc. eventually. Not sure what the rate of reporting would be though, particularly if the doctor or nurse considered it to be non-serious, or non-novel.

CramCycle wrote: »

The issue here, is that some people don't report them or don't notice them, so they only remember the one that caused a worse reaction, which even then, are typically not terrible.

Yep there's definitely severity bias, and also novelty bias in the data. Which serves to make the reactions lists (e.g your SPC section 4) broaden in scope as more terms are added, but tends not to result in existing risks being reassessed over time. So it makes vaccines look worse in some ways, better in others.

CramCycle wrote: »

I can understand people avoiding new vaccines, but once they are established and there are no negative findings of note coming through, there are no excuses for putting yourself or others at risk.

Fully agreed. What I'm wondering is how many lives (or healthy days) are saved per dollar of investment in Amantine's hypothetical screening process.

DublinWriter

While I'm not doubting the safety of products that have been around for years (Thimiserol aside), what I do doubt is the 'more and earlier' approach to the schedule itself.

Here's the Irish schedule showing the changes from just 1995 to 2016:



Note particularly the changes in schedule from 12 to 15 months in the timeframe.

Is it really a case where we just load up 'more and earlier' until the system breaks?

(Interestingly enough, we haven't been administering the anti-TB BCG vaccine for past three years because "we're out of stock"...huh?!?)

AtomicHorror

DublinWriter wrote: »

Note particularly the changes in schedule from 12 to 15 months in the timeframe.

Is it really a case where we just load up 'more and earlier' until the system breaks?

What's "the system" in this case, and what does it look like when it "breaks"?

Children are exposed to thousands (probably millions) of brand new (new to them anyway) environmental antigens in their first few years. Some will promote tolerance, many will provoke immune responses. Look at any 18 month old. At any given moment there's a high probability they'll be dripping snot, coughing and running a moderate fever.

Are we really suggesting an additional 20 or even 100 antigens would be significant?

Igotadose

DublinWriter wrote: »

While I'm not doubting the safety of products that have been around for years (Thimiserol aside), what I do doubt is the 'more and earlier' approach to the schedule itself.

What's wrong with Thimerosal?

Here's the Irish schedule showing the changes from just 1995 to 2016:

Note particularly the changes in schedule from 12 to 15 months in the timeframe.

Is it really a case where we just load up 'more and earlier' until the system breaks?

No, as new vaccines come available the HSE determines their schedule. https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/pubinfo/pcischedule/commonqs/#Why%20are%20vaccines%20given%20at%20such%20an%20early%20age?