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 such an association does
not represent a link, even the remainder of that decline must be
largely attributed to factors *other* than vaccine, as one cannot
suppose that such factors already in play during a longstanding
downward trendline in severe morbidity suddenly ceased simply 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 the risk-adjusted outcome of
MMR through a careful study of vaccine despite millions of willing
subjects.

Remember that when industry PR grunts talk about the necessity for
"herd immunity," they are propagating a sales pitch, not science. When
you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing more than tally
stroking neighborhood 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.

Also see http://www.vran.org/vaccines/doctors/blaylock-covup.htm.

In misc.health.alternative PeterB, liar extraordinare
<pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: 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)

That is not even remotely what the researchers are claimed to have said.
And it's pretty stupid, to boot, since not all diseases for which vaccination
is performed are necessarily fatal. For instance, what was the number of
reported cases of polio in the U.S. in 1952? What was the number in 1972?
(The answer can be found at http://www.post-polio.org/ipn/ir-usa.html)
To what do you attribute the difference?

: 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.

You have never read this paper, and hence do not know what it says.

: 2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by
: Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.

You seem to have forgotten that I quoted that page of that book, and
the sentence following the reference to McKinlay and McKinlay specifically
lists vaccinations as one of the things that *did* lower disease mortality.
I have quoted the passage at least twice. I'll do it again, at least
until such time as PeterB tells us on which page McKinlay and McKinlay
are quoted as saying that vaccinations did not lead to a decline in
mortality.

There is one mention of McKinlay and McKinlay (reference 72) on page
43 of _Public Health at the Crossroads_:

For example, it has been estimated that, at most, only
3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the United States
of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
medical measures introduced for the major infectious
diseases[72]. On the other hand, targeted public health
interventions including vaccination [sic], personal
hygiene campagins, and improved child health care services,
were of major importance [3,85].

Reference 3: Powles, J. Changes in disease patterns and related social
trends. Soc. Sci. Med. 35 (1992) 377-87.

Reference 85: Szreter, S. The importance of social intervention in Britain's
mortality decline c. 1850-1914: a re-interpretation of the role of public
health. Soc. History Med. 1 (1988) 1-37.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I love people. But I don't suffer fools gladly."
-- Deborah Lipstadt

Richard Schultz wrote:
Personal attack noted. You seem to be on a mission, which is rather
odd for someone who "accidentally stumbled onto mha." Due to time
constraints, I'll have to respond to your distortions a bit later.

Richard Schultz wrote:
Full stop. What, exactly, are you claiming the researchers have said?

Non sequitur. The researchers are explicity addressing the decline in
infectious disease mortality.

Also irrelevant. I see you struggling to reconnect the reader to the
incidence of infection. The point is that the majority of polio's
mortality decline occured prior to introduction of the vaccine, and
that relates directly to the severity of response to the disease. You
simply can't give vaccine credit for a trendline in progress for many,
many years.

Your tree-slapping routine has become quite amusing, pharmboy. If you
want to make your case, argue the facts.

No, they simply acknowledge that a portion of the 3.5% decline might be
attributable to vaccine. They clearly state that vaccine could *not*
be responsible for at least 96.5% of the mortality decline. But
obfuscation noted.

Still trying to imply that vaccine could be responsible for more than
3.5% of the mortality decline? You're wrong.

I've pointed this out to you before, Schultzie. They are speaking of
morbidity in the second half of the paragraph, accepting your sponsors'
claims to efficacy in terms of lowered infection rates. In the first
portion, they are expressly referring to mortality. There is no
contradiction.

PeterB wrote:
Yes, you've got to wonder about all these campaigns for certain
vaccinations to be made free such as miningacocel which has recently
been included in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. It is being made
free etc to children in a certain age group.
Of course we all know of the horrific effects that this disease can
cause, and such a move would seem to be serving the public well.
However, I'm sure there would be some simple remedy to treat or prevent
miningococel disease which has been suppressed.

The pharmaceutical companies make a killing every time they provide an
effective vaccine to treat some disease which no doubt could be
prevented quite easy and simply if more information was available to
the public, information which is suppressed.

Carole
http://www.cellsalts.net
http://www.conspiracee.com

PeterB wrote:
Coming from you, that is hypocrisy.

You seem to be on a mission, which is rather
Sure you will...by avoiding them, redefining words, referring to people
as a mythical pharmablogger (whatever that is), and being your usual self.

carole wrote:

Carole, can you please explain why pharmaceutical companies would care
wether they made their money on A) the vaccine preventing the disease,
or B) the cure for the disease. And wouldn't you agree that, given the
choice between A and B, preventing the disease in the first place is
always better than curing it?

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:4582555a$0$3240$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl. ..

Well which of these vaccinable diseases do they have a cure for? I know of
none for measles, mumps or rubella and the like!

In message <els4vj$chg$4@news.iucc.ac.il>, Richard Schultz wrote:

It obviously had to do with improvements in sanitation.
When you consider the near-total absense of indoor plumbing in
the USA in 1952 and the fact that the population was dependent
on untreated stream water, it is hardly surprising that poor
people like Franklin Roosevelt fell victim to polio.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

In message <1166129609.938019.204180@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups .com>, PeterB wrote:
Of course, this is from someone who accuses anyone who disagrees
with him of being a paid shill.

Yes, the margins really are too small to write in, aren't they?

Conveniently responding to the introduction and ignoring the
substance of the post. One might be tempted to suspect that's
due to a total lack of ability *to* respond to the substance.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

In message <4582555a$0$3240$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl>, JohnDoe wrote:

That depends on your point of view. There's always *much* more
money in treating a disease than in preventing it, so from the
POV of a pharmaceutical shareholder a cure is much better than
prevention.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

In message <vbahh.493463$5R2.454176@pd7urf3no>, vakker wrote:

That's because, according to carole, they've suppressed the
discovery so that they can continue to sell the preventive.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

JohnDoe wrote:
Johndopey, can you please explain why the drug makers cannot A) provide
evidence that vaccine actually prevents disease, B) provide evidence
that treatment is equivalent to "cure," or C) provide evidence that
vaccines are safe.

PeterB

On 18 Dec 2006 07:56:51 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Sigh--I think you're both partly right.

Vaccines are not all the same. Some work REALLY well. Polio and
smallpox for example. Others are pretty effective. The diseases in
question didn't have a lucrative market that may be thwarted by the
development of a vaccine.

The drug market for flu was never much and the annual profits from flu
vaccines are substantial for little start up cost--so these are to the
advatage of companies.

Saftey and efficacy of other vaccines--well, the data are out there.
They could be probably rendered safer by not using mercury-containing
thimerosal. And ANY intervention will result in adverse reactions in
some people. Aspirin can kill some folks--that doesn't make aspirin
bad or something we should take off the market, does it? If so, better
get rid of peanuts and shell fish too.

And efficacy data are out there.

But pharma is ONLY in it for the money and they do not give a rat's
ass about efficacy--which is why we see, for example, so little
research and development around infectious diseases like Chagas,
schistosomiasis--even TB. They just don't care (or haven't been shown
there is a financial reason to care).

Discovery arising solely from greed has its extraordinary and dramatic
limitations.

George M. Carter

GMCarter wrote:
Based on what -- field data? Where are the RCTs? Do you think the
trend in force prior to vaccine simply stopped when artificial
immunization came along? By what magical theorum could that have
happened? With so many vaccine tragedies and zero safety data after
decades of FDA "oversight," the best we can say is that some of us have
been sacrificed for the good of the vaccine franchise.

Really. Where? We hear the claim often. The only "evidence" appears
to be charts showing trendlines moving strongly south before most
vaccines came along. You can't assume that vaccine is magically
responsible for the 3.5% nosedive in severe morbidity on the heels of
an existing decline that occured over several decades. Nor can you
rely on reported cases because that's like hanging your hat on a drunk
at a turkey shoot. Think.

Availability of aspirin in no way compares to vaccination campaigs,
although drug commercials are similarly a disservice to the public.

Over a rainbow, perhaps?

Then whose efficacy "data" are you referring to? Where is it?

They are in business to make a profit, but unfortunately, their
business model is resting on bodies.

So does referring to data that you can't cite.

JohnDoe wrote:
There probably is a cure for things like meningococcal but the
knowledge is suppressed.
These diseases are probably due to imbalance of the bloodstream, blood
acidity, auto-intoxication and the like. These days there is virtually
nothing known of such things in the general population.

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net

GMCarter wrote:
Vaccines are not all the same. Some work REALLY well. Polio and
smallpox for example.

Based on what -- field data? Where are the RCTs? Do you think the
trend in force prior to vaccine simply stopped when artificial
immunization came along? By what magical theorum could that have
happened? With so many vaccine tragedies and zero safety data after
decades of FDA "oversight," the best we can say is that some of us have
been sacrificed for the good of the vaccine franchise.

Really. Where? We hear the claim often. The only "evidence" appears
to be charts showing trendlines moving strongly south before most
vaccines came along. You can't assume that vaccine is magically
responsible for the 3.5% nosedive in severe morbidity on the heels of
an existing decline that occured over several decades. Nor can you
rely on reported cases because that's like hanging your hat on a drunk
at a turkey shoot. Think.

Availability of aspirin in no way compares to vaccination campaigs,
although drug commercials are similarly a disservice to the public.

Over a rainbow, perhaps?

Then whose efficacy "data" are you referring to? Where is it?

They are in business to make a profit, but unfortunately, their
business model is based on commodization of disease. Ultimately,
that's going to fail.

So does referring to data that you can't cite.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

:> Vaccines are not all the same. Some work REALLY well. Polio and
:> smallpox for example.
:
: Based on what -- field data?

How many people contracted polio in the U.S. in 1932? How many people
contracted polio in the U.S. in 1972?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

carole wrote:
Can you please try again Carole, and this time answer the question?

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:19:05 +0000 (UTC), schultr@mail.biu.ack.il
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

Well, there ARE field data. Did you bother to look? For example:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7167/1233