I think sponge brain (hawkeye) is the same bloke who refuses to pay for home insurance (I think). You will not get any sense or reason out of him. He's little more than a troll.
Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The point being a commercial company is going to fund schemes which complement their profit focus/incentives. The more vaccinations they get to sell the more money they get to make, and you expect impartiality in these matters ??? ..... The naivety of some people I find staggering. You actually reinforced my point without even realising it
Let's take measles as an example then...
A serious illness, which can lead to all sorts of complications, and even death.
Child A gets measles, and Big Pharma gets to sell a variety of drugs, and consumables (syringes etc.), all of which require little RnD, as they are well established items, so potentially a healthy profit. Even assuming child does not go blind, there are a whole host of issues that can arise, which cost money.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Complications.aspx
Child B gets MMR, and does not get measles. Vaccines are less than 2% of Big Pharma profits, and child gets on with life.
So the claim that they are doing it for profit does not hold water. In fact this just touches on the subject, and the idea they do it for profit is even more wrong than this simple example:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...e-myth-of-big-pharma-vaccine-profits-updated/
There is another child though - Child C.
Child C cannot have said vaccine, as they are allergic to the medium that the vaccine is made on (egg). As a result, Child C depends on herd immunity, and any anti-vaxxer who thinks they are being clever should consider that they are putting said child at un-necessary risk. You are more than just trolling a forum here, you are spreading lies and misinformation, which put kids at risk.
If you doubt this, consider that anywhere where vaccine rates have dropped, they have nearly always resulted in increases in the relevant illness.
Sponge brain doesn't have any kids and is unlikely to have any, so has zero experience in what it would be like to care for a child. There are no sane parents who would opt out of available vaccinations. Sponge brain will continue to set his stall out in terms of arguing against vaccination and dredge up any old rubbish in support of it.
Ignore him he is a childless troll and clueless about parenting.
Ignore him he is a childless troll and clueless about parenting.
My point was that research would drop to 10% to 20% of that currently underway due to lack of funding.The point being a commercial company is going to fund schemes which complement their profit focus/incentives. The more vaccinations they get to sell the more money they get to make, and you expect impartiality in these matters ??? ..... The naivety of some people I find staggering. You actually reinforced my point without even realising itIt was actually to illustrate that without commercial funding of scientific research, the funding would fall to about 10% to 20% of that now available.Thanks for helping prove my pointWho do you think funds scientific research?A link to ''The College Of Physicians of Philadelphia'' - a non-profict organisation that just happens to recieve corporate grants....
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/donors
Oh look, none other than glaxosmithkline (a British pharmaceutical company)
Oh
But of course they wouldn't have a vested interest in influencing ''our aim to educate the public on the history of vaccines.'' ...
''Corporate contributions are in the form of educational grants. Agreements with corporate contributors specify that donors do not have review of or control over the content or policies of The History of Vaccines.''
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/donors
.... and Tony Blair was the peace keeper of the middle east ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science
BTW, Very eloquently put, wobs, especially the point about 'reliance on herd immunity.'
Sponsored Links
You spend more time trolling general than anyone else I've seen. Don't worry about refuting my points, it's fine.
The point being a commercial company is going to fund schemes which complement their profit focus/incentives. The more vaccinations they get to sell the more money they get to make, and you expect impartiality in these matters ??? ..... The naivety of some people I find staggering. You actually reinforced my point without even realising it
Let's take measles as an example then...
A serious illness, which can lead to all sorts of complications, and even death.
Child A gets measles, and Big Pharma gets to sell a variety of drugs, and consumables (syringes etc.), all of which require little RnD, as they are well established items, so potentially a healthy profit. Even assuming child does not go blind, there are a whole host of issues that can arise, which cost money.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Complications.aspx
Child B gets MMR, and does not get measles. Vaccines are less than 2% of Big Pharma profits, and child gets on with life.
So the claim that they are doing it for profit does not hold water. In fact this just touches on the subject, and the idea they do it for profit is even more wrong than this simple example:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...e-myth-of-big-pharma-vaccine-profits-updated/
There is another child though - Child C.
Child C cannot have said vaccine, as they are allergic to the medium that the vaccine is made on (egg). As a result, Child C depends on herd immunity, and any anti-vaxxer who thinks they are being clever should consider that they are putting said child at un-necessary risk. You are more than just trolling a forum here, you are spreading lies and misinformation, which put kids at risk.
If you doubt this, consider that anywhere where vaccine rates have dropped, they have nearly always resulted in increases in the relevant illness.
Ah a serious reply. So let's have a look...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
''Child A gets measles, and Big Pharma gets to sell a variety of drugs, and consumables (syringes etc.), all of which require little RnD, as they are well established items, so potentially a healthy profit. Even assuming child does not go blind, there are a whole host of issues that can arise, which cost money.''
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Complications.aspx''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It can, it also cannot. The mortality rate of measles is approximately 1 in 5,000, according to your link to a generic, general info NHS page. Sounds statistically similar to that of the complications a child WILL develop from having the vaccination. I would need to see a statistical comparison, but oh, we can't, again, nobody has done a credible and long-term study into vaccination death/injury rates. Don't rock the money boat.
''Child B gets MMR, and does not get measles. Vaccines are less than 2% of Big Pharma profits, and child gets on with life.
So the claim that they are doing it for profit does not hold water. In fact this just touches on the subject, and the idea they do it for profit is even more wrong than this simple example:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...e-myth-of-big-pharma-vaccine-profits-updated/''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is someones blog, who is using a pseudonym ''Skeptical Raptor'' instead of his real name.... Cute.... I read his entire article looking for a credible source on which he bases his aspersions. All I can find is speculative bias and attacking people who oppose vaccinations without any scientific data to weigh against them.
I do find it interesting that this unknown face has based his accounting analysis on a book called '' Vaccines: Expert Consult'', on sale at amazon no less lol, and written by a man called Stanley A Plotkin MD, a consultant for.... drum roll...... Sanofi Pasteur, a choclate company ??? Nope.... sadly not, a multinational pharmaceutical company (in fact the largest in the world).
Let's have a look at Sanofi Pasteur.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanofi_Pasteur
''Sanofi Pasteur is the vaccines division of the multinational pharmaceutical company Sanofi. Sanofi Pasteur is the largest company in the world devoted entirely to vaccines.''
According to wikipedia a company that with net sales of almost 4 billion US dollars per year, and rising. A company that is home to 13,000 staff and distributes more than 1 billion doses of vaccines every year. Not to shabby. Relevance of this ? Well I'm just connecting the dots you give me.
So let's examine your 2% claim.. where exactly is this mentioned within your anonymous blogger's article ?
Does it happen to be related to this sentence ? :
''According to the World Health Organization, estimated 2013 global revenues for vaccines is around US$24 billion. In other words, from the Big Pharma perspective, vaccines make up around 1.82% of their total expected revenues in 2013. That’s essentially a rounding error in estimating revenues, that is, the errors around the means of the total Big Pharma revenues could have a value greater than US$24 billion from vaccines.''
So the claim that they are doing it for profit does not hold water. In fact this just touches on the subject, and the idea they do it for profit is even more wrong than this simple example:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...e-myth-of-big-pharma-vaccine-profits-updated/''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is someones blog, who is using a pseudonym ''Skeptical Raptor'' instead of his real name.... Cute.... I read his entire article looking for a credible source on which he bases his aspersions. All I can find is speculative bias and attacking people who oppose vaccinations without any scientific data to weigh against them.
I do find it interesting that this unknown face has based his accounting analysis on a book called '' Vaccines: Expert Consult'', on sale at amazon no less lol, and written by a man called Stanley A Plotkin MD, a consultant for.... drum roll...... Sanofi Pasteur, a choclate company ??? Nope.... sadly not, a multinational pharmaceutical company (in fact the largest in the world).
Let's have a look at Sanofi Pasteur.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanofi_Pasteur
''Sanofi Pasteur is the vaccines division of the multinational pharmaceutical company Sanofi. Sanofi Pasteur is the largest company in the world devoted entirely to vaccines.''
According to wikipedia a company that with net sales of almost 4 billion US dollars per year, and rising. A company that is home to 13,000 staff and distributes more than 1 billion doses of vaccines every year. Not to shabby. Relevance of this ? Well I'm just connecting the dots you give me.
So let's examine your 2% claim.. where exactly is this mentioned within your anonymous blogger's article ?
Does it happen to be related to this sentence ? :
''According to the World Health Organization, estimated 2013 global revenues for vaccines is around US$24 billion. In other words, from the Big Pharma perspective, vaccines make up around 1.82% of their total expected revenues in 2013. That’s essentially a rounding error in estimating revenues, that is, the errors around the means of the total Big Pharma revenues could have a value greater than US$24 billion from vaccines.''
Your blogger continues..., in only his next paragraph...
''But even though vaccine revenues are a tiny percentage of Big Pharma revenues, it is still a huge number, there’s no debating that point. And new companies are entering the vaccine market, because as new vaccines are developed and as more adults get vaccinated, the market growth of vaccines is substantially higher than other pharmaceuticals.''
.... couldn't have put it better myself. Oh look, the next paragraph...
''The worldwide revenue growth rate for all pharmaceuticals is around 6-7% per year, but around 10-15% per year for vaccines. Now, this type of growth rate will not last forever, because eventually the market becomes saturated, and much of the growth will be in lesser developed countries, where the market value for vaccines is substantially less than in developed countries.''
Pulling these numbers... lol ....I'm sure they will go broke in no time.. lol. You didn't even bother to read your own link did you ?
Anyway, let's continue with this ...
''Every drug, whether a new vaccine or new drug for erectile dysfunction, costs around US$2.8 from discovery to regulatory approval (although other analyses show a cost of US$3.8 to 11 billion) each to fully develop, depending on the drug and the market. But despite what some believe about Big Pharma, drug development is not a slam dunk. For example, in cancer drugs, only around 13% gain final approval from the FDA (pdf), so the vast majority of drugs that enter clinical trials end up as failures.
Since Big Pharma funds its own R&D, it has to pay for both its successes and its failures. Using financial data from a typical broad-based pharmaceutical company like Johnson & Johnson spends about 11.4% of REVENUES (not profit) on R&D (pdf). So out of the US$24.0 billion in Big Pharma vaccine revenue, about US$2.7 billion is removed from the net profit for R&D expenses (which are not counted in the administrative expenses for this exercise), so we’re down to US$7.8 billion.''
Ahhh.. so R&D eats into their profit margins to manufacture new vaccines? Shock horror. These companies are using their own profits to develop new vaccines to pump into children.. Makes good business sense.
''Big Pharma also has to pay taxes on the net profit. And because Big Pharma has manufacturing, R&D, and administration facilities in modern nations (they need access to intelligent, well trained employees), they have a more difficult time in moving revenues outside of taxing authorities. They usually pay around 40% in taxes on the net profit. And they have to depreciate all of their capital, whether its buildings or equipment, because eventually they have to replace it''
God forbid.. a multinational company paying tax on its profits? Whatever next !!?!?! So far this blogger is doing an excellent job at describing how big pharma creates more product to increase it's sales. IT'S A BUSINESS, just like any other. YOUR LINK, NOT MINE
''But even though vaccine revenues are a tiny percentage of Big Pharma revenues, it is still a huge number, there’s no debating that point. And new companies are entering the vaccine market, because as new vaccines are developed and as more adults get vaccinated, the market growth of vaccines is substantially higher than other pharmaceuticals.''
.... couldn't have put it better myself. Oh look, the next paragraph...
''The worldwide revenue growth rate for all pharmaceuticals is around 6-7% per year, but around 10-15% per year for vaccines. Now, this type of growth rate will not last forever, because eventually the market becomes saturated, and much of the growth will be in lesser developed countries, where the market value for vaccines is substantially less than in developed countries.''
Pulling these numbers... lol ....I'm sure they will go broke in no time.. lol. You didn't even bother to read your own link did you ?
Anyway, let's continue with this ...
''Every drug, whether a new vaccine or new drug for erectile dysfunction, costs around US$2.8 from discovery to regulatory approval (although other analyses show a cost of US$3.8 to 11 billion) each to fully develop, depending on the drug and the market. But despite what some believe about Big Pharma, drug development is not a slam dunk. For example, in cancer drugs, only around 13% gain final approval from the FDA (pdf), so the vast majority of drugs that enter clinical trials end up as failures.
Since Big Pharma funds its own R&D, it has to pay for both its successes and its failures. Using financial data from a typical broad-based pharmaceutical company like Johnson & Johnson spends about 11.4% of REVENUES (not profit) on R&D (pdf). So out of the US$24.0 billion in Big Pharma vaccine revenue, about US$2.7 billion is removed from the net profit for R&D expenses (which are not counted in the administrative expenses for this exercise), so we’re down to US$7.8 billion.''
Ahhh.. so R&D eats into their profit margins to manufacture new vaccines? Shock horror. These companies are using their own profits to develop new vaccines to pump into children.. Makes good business sense.
''Big Pharma also has to pay taxes on the net profit. And because Big Pharma has manufacturing, R&D, and administration facilities in modern nations (they need access to intelligent, well trained employees), they have a more difficult time in moving revenues outside of taxing authorities. They usually pay around 40% in taxes on the net profit. And they have to depreciate all of their capital, whether its buildings or equipment, because eventually they have to replace it''
God forbid.. a multinational company paying tax on its profits? Whatever next !!?!?! So far this blogger is doing an excellent job at describing how big pharma creates more product to increase it's sales. IT'S A BUSINESS, just like any other. YOUR LINK, NOT MINE
Last edited:
On we go...
''Let’s take an example of just one infectious disease, measles. According to the CDC, one hospitalization for a serious measles complication costs more than US$142 thousand. Typical cost breakdown of hospital billing indicates that pharmaceuticals and other consumables (syringes, IV’s, saline, etc.) are around 35-40% of the total cost to the patient (see Note 1).''
Measles... ah. So one hospitalisation for a serious measles complication costs more than $142,000, ... how does this unverifable (on the spot figure) relate in cost terms to a complication from the vaccination itself ??... AGAIN, we don't know, because there have been no credible, long-term studies. Once again.
Now we come to that spreadsheet your blogger threw together....He references ''notes 1 & 2''as sources :
'' 1. Determining cost breakdowns of hospital bills is a complex, bewildering, and frustrating process. So, I estimated it based on several hospital bill breakdowns I found on the internet, including a personal one (for way too much money). I promise to revise these estimates if I can find actually good information .somewhere. In addition, if there was a range of estimates, I used a mean, or, better still, original data from the source.''
These are his words... ''I estimated it based on several hospital bill breakdowns I found on the internet, including a personal one (for way too much money).''
So let's take a look at note 2 then ...
''The data for this chart was adapted from a CDC study of the Vaccines for Children Program, which I have discussed previously. It only includes data for vaccines on the current schedule for babies and infants, and does not include other vaccines such as for HPV and meningitis. The estimates use the CDC estimate of 4 million live births per year in the USA. The data does not include other costs, like lost income for caretakers, pre-hospitalization costs (which is listed in the CDC study), or death. Big Mortuary would surely profit from the 40,000 deaths a year that would suddenly be added to the cost of eliminating vaccines.''
A CDC study I'll get onto in a moment.... ''Big Mortuary would surely profit from the 40,000 deaths a year that would suddenly be added to the cost of eliminating vaccines'' - and a stupid quip at the end there to make light of the situation...
Here is the actual link from the CDC, I'll ignore the other link he posts within his ''note 2'' as he is linking his own webpage as a source, for christ sake.
So this is a link to THAT study from the CDCP..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24759657
''The Vaccines for Children (VFC) program was created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and first implemented in 1994. VFC was designed to ensure that eligible children do not contract vaccine-preventable diseases because of inability to pay for vaccine and was created in response to a measles resurgence in the United States that resulted in approximately 55,000 cases reported during 1989-1991. The resurgence was caused largely by widespread failure to vaccinate uninsured children at the recommended age of 12-15 months. To summarize the impact of the U.S. immunization program on the health of all children (both VFC-eligible and not VFC-eligible) who were born during the 20 years since VFC began, CDC used information on immunization coverage from the National Immunization Survey (NIS) and a previously published cost-benefit model to estimate illnesses, hospitalizations, and premature deaths prevented and costs saved by routine childhood vaccination during 1994-2013. Coverage for many childhood vaccine series was near or above 90% for much of the period. Modeling estimated that, among children born during 1994- 2013, vaccination will prevent an estimated 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, at a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs. With support from the VFC program, immunization has been a highly effective tool for improving the health of U.S. children.''
So a study referencing the years 1989-1991 of 55,000 reported cases, that's appoximately 11 estimated mortalities according to your NHS link of 1 in 5,000. Claiming ''the resurgence was caused largely by widespread failure to vaccinate uninsured children at the recommended age of 12-15 months.''... ON WHAT IS THIS ASSERTION BASED ?? This is pure hearsay and speculation.
''Let’s take an example of just one infectious disease, measles. According to the CDC, one hospitalization for a serious measles complication costs more than US$142 thousand. Typical cost breakdown of hospital billing indicates that pharmaceuticals and other consumables (syringes, IV’s, saline, etc.) are around 35-40% of the total cost to the patient (see Note 1).''
Measles... ah. So one hospitalisation for a serious measles complication costs more than $142,000, ... how does this unverifable (on the spot figure) relate in cost terms to a complication from the vaccination itself ??... AGAIN, we don't know, because there have been no credible, long-term studies. Once again.
Now we come to that spreadsheet your blogger threw together....He references ''notes 1 & 2''as sources :
'' 1. Determining cost breakdowns of hospital bills is a complex, bewildering, and frustrating process. So, I estimated it based on several hospital bill breakdowns I found on the internet, including a personal one (for way too much money). I promise to revise these estimates if I can find actually good information .somewhere. In addition, if there was a range of estimates, I used a mean, or, better still, original data from the source.''
These are his words... ''I estimated it based on several hospital bill breakdowns I found on the internet, including a personal one (for way too much money).''
So let's take a look at note 2 then ...
''The data for this chart was adapted from a CDC study of the Vaccines for Children Program, which I have discussed previously. It only includes data for vaccines on the current schedule for babies and infants, and does not include other vaccines such as for HPV and meningitis. The estimates use the CDC estimate of 4 million live births per year in the USA. The data does not include other costs, like lost income for caretakers, pre-hospitalization costs (which is listed in the CDC study), or death. Big Mortuary would surely profit from the 40,000 deaths a year that would suddenly be added to the cost of eliminating vaccines.''
A CDC study I'll get onto in a moment.... ''Big Mortuary would surely profit from the 40,000 deaths a year that would suddenly be added to the cost of eliminating vaccines'' - and a stupid quip at the end there to make light of the situation...
Here is the actual link from the CDC, I'll ignore the other link he posts within his ''note 2'' as he is linking his own webpage as a source, for christ sake.
So this is a link to THAT study from the CDCP..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24759657
''The Vaccines for Children (VFC) program was created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and first implemented in 1994. VFC was designed to ensure that eligible children do not contract vaccine-preventable diseases because of inability to pay for vaccine and was created in response to a measles resurgence in the United States that resulted in approximately 55,000 cases reported during 1989-1991. The resurgence was caused largely by widespread failure to vaccinate uninsured children at the recommended age of 12-15 months. To summarize the impact of the U.S. immunization program on the health of all children (both VFC-eligible and not VFC-eligible) who were born during the 20 years since VFC began, CDC used information on immunization coverage from the National Immunization Survey (NIS) and a previously published cost-benefit model to estimate illnesses, hospitalizations, and premature deaths prevented and costs saved by routine childhood vaccination during 1994-2013. Coverage for many childhood vaccine series was near or above 90% for much of the period. Modeling estimated that, among children born during 1994- 2013, vaccination will prevent an estimated 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, at a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs. With support from the VFC program, immunization has been a highly effective tool for improving the health of U.S. children.''
So a study referencing the years 1989-1991 of 55,000 reported cases, that's appoximately 11 estimated mortalities according to your NHS link of 1 in 5,000. Claiming ''the resurgence was caused largely by widespread failure to vaccinate uninsured children at the recommended age of 12-15 months.''... ON WHAT IS THIS ASSERTION BASED ?? This is pure hearsay and speculation.
Last edited:
On we go...
''Modeling estimated that, among children born during 1994- 2013, vaccination will prevent an estimated 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, at a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs.With support from the VFC program, immunization has been a highly effective tool for improving the health of U.S. children. ''
Ahahahaha a ''VFC'' program which ''helps provide vaccines to children whose parents or guardians may not be able to afford them.'' .... see below...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/about/index.html
Although it's not all kindness from the heart is it ?... ''CDC buys vaccines at a discount and distributes them to grantees—i.e., state health departments and certain local and territorial public health agencies—which in turn distribute them at no charge to those private physicians' offices and public health clinics registered as VFC providers.''
Ah.. So they make a bit less money from selling a portion of their product at a small discount .. how nice and contientious of them. Oh, and look there's ACIP mentioned again on the same page... Where have we seen them before...
Let's look at how VFC providers make a bit more money on the side ... Hmmm...
From the same link, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/about/index.html
''There is no charge for any vaccines given by a VFC provider to eligible children. But there can be some other costs with a vaccination:
Doctors can charge a set (or standard) fee to administer each shot. But if the family can't afford the fee per shot, the fee must be excused. A VFC-eligible child cannot be refused a vaccination due to the parent's or guardian's inability to pay for shot administration.
There can be a fee for the office visit.
There can be fees for non-vaccine services, like an eye exam or blood test.''
Seems legit. No room for skullduggery there then....
Here is the full report your from which your annonymous blogger takes reference:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a4.htm
Let's take a look at the second paragraph from that source ...
''Data from the 1980s suggested that measles outbreaks were linked to an ongoing reservoir of virus among high-density, low-income, inner-city populations (2).''
''Modeling estimated that, among children born during 1994- 2013, vaccination will prevent an estimated 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, at a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs.With support from the VFC program, immunization has been a highly effective tool for improving the health of U.S. children. ''
Ahahahaha a ''VFC'' program which ''helps provide vaccines to children whose parents or guardians may not be able to afford them.'' .... see below...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/about/index.html
Although it's not all kindness from the heart is it ?... ''CDC buys vaccines at a discount and distributes them to grantees—i.e., state health departments and certain local and territorial public health agencies—which in turn distribute them at no charge to those private physicians' offices and public health clinics registered as VFC providers.''
Ah.. So they make a bit less money from selling a portion of their product at a small discount .. how nice and contientious of them. Oh, and look there's ACIP mentioned again on the same page... Where have we seen them before...
Let's look at how VFC providers make a bit more money on the side ... Hmmm...
From the same link, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/about/index.html
''There is no charge for any vaccines given by a VFC provider to eligible children. But there can be some other costs with a vaccination:
Doctors can charge a set (or standard) fee to administer each shot. But if the family can't afford the fee per shot, the fee must be excused. A VFC-eligible child cannot be refused a vaccination due to the parent's or guardian's inability to pay for shot administration.
There can be a fee for the office visit.
There can be fees for non-vaccine services, like an eye exam or blood test.''
Seems legit. No room for skullduggery there then....
Here is the full report your from which your annonymous blogger takes reference:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a4.htm
Let's take a look at the second paragraph from that source ...
''Data from the 1980s suggested that measles outbreaks were linked to an ongoing reservoir of virus among high-density, low-income, inner-city populations (2).''
... and then we have ..
''Among 78.6 million children born during 1994–2013, routine childhood immunization was estimated to prevent 322 million illnesses (averaging 4.1 illnesses per child) and 21 million hospitalizations (0.27 per child) over the course of their lifetimes and avert 732,000 premature deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses (Table). Illnesses prevented ranged from 3,000 for tetanus to >70 million for measles. The highest estimated cumulative numbers of hospitalizations and deaths that will be prevented were 8.9 million hospitalizations for measles and 507,000 deaths for diphtheria. The routine childhood vaccines introduced during the VFC era (excluding influenza and hepatitis A) together will prevent about 1.4 million hospitalizations and 56,300 deaths.
Vaccination will potentially avert $402 billion in direct costs and $1.5 trillion in societal costs because of illnesses prevented in these birth cohorts. After accounting for $107 billion and $121 billion in direct and societal costs of routine childhood immunization, respectively, the net present values (net savings) of routine childhood immunization from the payers' and societal perspectives were $295 billion and $1.38 trillion, respectively.''
In reply to these speculative aspersions I present you with this :
http://vaxtruth.org/2011/09/how-can-it-be-about-the-money-immunizations-are-free-right/
.... which successfully refutes your bloggers nonsese ...The above article sources CDC prices ... ! Yup the same source your blogger uses to make his analysis. AND MAKE REFERENCE OF THE OTHER SPREADSHEETS SOURCING DATA DIRECTLY FROM CDC, AS WELL !! Enjoy :
So back to your annoymous blogger.... (almost all the way through this shyte) ...
''Outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics would soon occur within the first 1-2 years after we end vaccination. Based on information developed by the CDC and others, the total worldwide economic burden if we suddenly ended vaccines would exceed US$50 billion (and this ignores flu pandemics that might suddenly ravish the pediatric population).''
Complete speculative B.S nonsense. Referencing ''the CDC and others'' without statistical data and analysis makes this paragraph worthless. Not even CDC themselves, as respectable as they are lol, would make outlandish baseless claims like this.... or would/have they ? Hahaha
On we go again ....
''And most of the products used to treat these diseases don’t require the research and capital investment that vaccines require. In other words, the income derived from vaccine preventable diseases would be more profitable than vaccines.''
So at the heart of this blogger's arguement is that pharmaseutical companies stand to gain more money from treating vaccine preventable diseases than selling the vaccinations themselves. That's all I've understood so far because the rest of his analysis appears to be a lot of tosh with not one credible source.
''If we suddenly stopped vaccinating because Big Pharma wanted to make billions more profits, our hospitals would be overwhelmed. And guess who’s making money then. Big Mortuary. Because children will die in much higher rates than in the 1950’s because we couldn’t handle it.''
Total rubbish.
Here : http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102510_vaccines_did_not_save_us.shtml
''The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute.
This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research:
“The questionable contribution of medical measures
to the decline of mortality in the United States in the
twentieth century“. McKinlay JB, McKinlay SM, Milbank
Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Summer; 55(3): 405-28.
“Symposium: Accomplishments in Child Nutrition
during the 20th Century. Infant Mortality in the
20th Century, Dramatic but Uneven Progress” Myron E.
Wegman School of Public Health, University of Michigan:
J. Nutr. 131: 401S–408S, 2001.''
''Among 78.6 million children born during 1994–2013, routine childhood immunization was estimated to prevent 322 million illnesses (averaging 4.1 illnesses per child) and 21 million hospitalizations (0.27 per child) over the course of their lifetimes and avert 732,000 premature deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses (Table). Illnesses prevented ranged from 3,000 for tetanus to >70 million for measles. The highest estimated cumulative numbers of hospitalizations and deaths that will be prevented were 8.9 million hospitalizations for measles and 507,000 deaths for diphtheria. The routine childhood vaccines introduced during the VFC era (excluding influenza and hepatitis A) together will prevent about 1.4 million hospitalizations and 56,300 deaths.
Vaccination will potentially avert $402 billion in direct costs and $1.5 trillion in societal costs because of illnesses prevented in these birth cohorts. After accounting for $107 billion and $121 billion in direct and societal costs of routine childhood immunization, respectively, the net present values (net savings) of routine childhood immunization from the payers' and societal perspectives were $295 billion and $1.38 trillion, respectively.''
In reply to these speculative aspersions I present you with this :
http://vaxtruth.org/2011/09/how-can-it-be-about-the-money-immunizations-are-free-right/
.... which successfully refutes your bloggers nonsese ...The above article sources CDC prices ... ! Yup the same source your blogger uses to make his analysis. AND MAKE REFERENCE OF THE OTHER SPREADSHEETS SOURCING DATA DIRECTLY FROM CDC, AS WELL !! Enjoy :
So back to your annoymous blogger.... (almost all the way through this shyte) ...
''Outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics would soon occur within the first 1-2 years after we end vaccination. Based on information developed by the CDC and others, the total worldwide economic burden if we suddenly ended vaccines would exceed US$50 billion (and this ignores flu pandemics that might suddenly ravish the pediatric population).''
Complete speculative B.S nonsense. Referencing ''the CDC and others'' without statistical data and analysis makes this paragraph worthless. Not even CDC themselves, as respectable as they are lol, would make outlandish baseless claims like this.... or would/have they ? Hahaha
On we go again ....
''And most of the products used to treat these diseases don’t require the research and capital investment that vaccines require. In other words, the income derived from vaccine preventable diseases would be more profitable than vaccines.''
So at the heart of this blogger's arguement is that pharmaseutical companies stand to gain more money from treating vaccine preventable diseases than selling the vaccinations themselves. That's all I've understood so far because the rest of his analysis appears to be a lot of tosh with not one credible source.
''If we suddenly stopped vaccinating because Big Pharma wanted to make billions more profits, our hospitals would be overwhelmed. And guess who’s making money then. Big Mortuary. Because children will die in much higher rates than in the 1950’s because we couldn’t handle it.''
Total rubbish.
Here : http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102510_vaccines_did_not_save_us.shtml
''The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute.
This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research:
“The questionable contribution of medical measures
to the decline of mortality in the United States in the
twentieth century“. McKinlay JB, McKinlay SM, Milbank
Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Summer; 55(3): 405-28.
“Symposium: Accomplishments in Child Nutrition
during the 20th Century. Infant Mortality in the
20th Century, Dramatic but Uneven Progress” Myron E.
Wegman School of Public Health, University of Michigan:
J. Nutr. 131: 401S–408S, 2001.''
''The Measles mortality graphs are enlightening and contradict the claims of Government health officials that vaccines have saved millions of lives. It is an unscientific claim which the data show is untrue. Here you will also learn why vaccinations like mumps and rubella for children are medically unethical and can expose medical professionals to liability for criminal proceedings and civil damages for administering them.''
''The success of the City of Leicester, England was remarkable in reducing smallpox mortality substantially compared to the rest of England and other countries by abandoning vaccination between 1882 and 1908
This contrasts how the drug industry has turned each child in the world into a human pin-cushion profit centre. ''
''[ED Note 15 Oct 2009: As information like that here has become available health officials are changing from scaremongering parents into vaccinating with claims their child could die. Now they claim vaccinating reduces the numbers of cases of disease [ie. instead of deaths] and produce graphs of dramatic falls in reported cases (instead of deaths) when measles vaccine was introduced.
This is again misleading. A dramatic fall in the numbers of reported measles cases would be expected. Doctors substantially overdiagnose measles cases especially when they believe it is a possible diagnosis.Doctors were told the vaccine prevented children getting measles when introduced in the late 1960′s so after that time a substantial reduction in diagnoses would be expected.
Examples of recent overdiagnoses of measles when there are measles “scares” are proportionately up to 74 times (or 7400% overdiagnosed). Figures and sources follow the next paragraph.
What health officials are also doing is relying on very old and unreliable data which ignores that measles has become progressively milder so the risks of long term injury have diminished – (and death is the most extreme form of long term injury – shown here by official data to have diminished rapidly and substantially over the past 100 years without the risks posed to children’s health by vaccines).''
------------------------------ YOU ...ARE ....WRONG. READ AND DIGEST THE INFORMATION I'VE POSTED HERE AND EDUCATE YOURSELF PROPERLY. It's for yours and others benefit, not mine. I already know I'm right.
Gasbanni should be thanking me for doing his work for him, and it is fcking work getting through to thick-headed people. Love you lots xxx.
''The success of the City of Leicester, England was remarkable in reducing smallpox mortality substantially compared to the rest of England and other countries by abandoning vaccination between 1882 and 1908
This contrasts how the drug industry has turned each child in the world into a human pin-cushion profit centre. ''
''[ED Note 15 Oct 2009: As information like that here has become available health officials are changing from scaremongering parents into vaccinating with claims their child could die. Now they claim vaccinating reduces the numbers of cases of disease [ie. instead of deaths] and produce graphs of dramatic falls in reported cases (instead of deaths) when measles vaccine was introduced.
This is again misleading. A dramatic fall in the numbers of reported measles cases would be expected. Doctors substantially overdiagnose measles cases especially when they believe it is a possible diagnosis.Doctors were told the vaccine prevented children getting measles when introduced in the late 1960′s so after that time a substantial reduction in diagnoses would be expected.
Examples of recent overdiagnoses of measles when there are measles “scares” are proportionately up to 74 times (or 7400% overdiagnosed). Figures and sources follow the next paragraph.
What health officials are also doing is relying on very old and unreliable data which ignores that measles has become progressively milder so the risks of long term injury have diminished – (and death is the most extreme form of long term injury – shown here by official data to have diminished rapidly and substantially over the past 100 years without the risks posed to children’s health by vaccines).''
------------------------------ YOU ...ARE ....WRONG. READ AND DIGEST THE INFORMATION I'VE POSTED HERE AND EDUCATE YOURSELF PROPERLY. It's for yours and others benefit, not mine. I already know I'm right.
Gasbanni should be thanking me for doing his work for him, and it is fcking work getting through to thick-headed people. Love you lots xxx.
Thanks for your (possibly) interesting graph. Sadly I find it impossible to read the numbers or dates, not because they are small, they are still illegible if I enlarge it. I don't know why you have posted an illegible graph.
Please provide the URL of the ONS source.
I also find it curious that you post a graph, and then say that the number are wrong because they used to be overestimated and are now underestimated. It would be interesting you know how you have found out that the true numbers are different. What are your true numbers, and where did you get them?
http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102510_vaccines_did_not_save_us.shtml
Not my fault you can't read properly John... It's right there. Here it is again ^^^
Here it is AGAIN ... for your conveniance :
http://preventdisease.com/images/mmp55eqd-1.jpg
That is not an ONS URL.
I'm disappointed that you didn't read my post before throwing in your smart-alec non-reply.
You asked to see the measles mortality graph you couldn't make legible. If not this graph, which graph are you referring to ? I posted just this one ...
Sponsored Links
