Vaccines are a plot by big pharma!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Fact - it's 100% safe regarding autism proven beyond all reasonable doubt through multiple studies over successive decades.

NOTHING is 100% safe. Don't be silly now Fidel, come on, you're better than to claim absolutely certainty.

There are always always always common, uncommon, and rare side effects.

The scientific consensus is that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks. But there are still risks involved.

With regards to autism - it's 100% safe. There is no link between autism and MMR. None. Nadda. Not a single study every conducted has found a link.

Anyone who claims there is any sort of link is lying and has no evidence to back it up in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Fact - the MMR 'controversy' was invented by a fraud who was given backhanders to find an issue with MMR and conducted unethical, illegal experiments with unnessesary invasive treatments on minors.

Wakefield's claims were unsupported by scientific evidence.

It's worse than that though. His claims were fabricated, and his research methods unethical and boarder img on illegal. Paying the parents of children to perform lumbar punctures on them? Being backhanded by vested interests to find issues with MMR?

Not someone with the concerns of parents on his mind but rather how much money he could extort out of people. His claims were akin to saying that getting the MMR jab gives you devil horns. There is no link.

That's not the problem. Its the lack of choice. The government treat us and parents in general like we're fucking vegetables or something. By making it compulsory, they've stripped us of any decision making at all.

I agree there should be choice. But not on the NHS. The single vaccination is the epitome of a waste of money. More expensive and arguably less effective. Indeed the only reason this is even being debated is because people still fall the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy propagated by wacky-field.

But beware private organisations offering the single vaccinations. SEE:

http://www.babyjabs.co.uk/

Run by a hack fraud of a doctor called Dr. Richard Halvorsen, a guy who has come out in support of that cunt Wakefield insisting that the medical establishment is "hounding him to the grave".

He earns a mint from the unfounded cynicism over MMR. He's also said in the past that measles isn't that bad. Well, nevermind the children that were made seriously ill or died from it a couple of years ago. Sure it wasn't that bad for them and their families.

Fact - it is cheaper than doing it separately and a LOT more efficient. You nail 3 vaccines in one. And what's cheaper for the government is cheaper for us as taxpayers.

That's pretty much what I just said isn't it?

Yes but there is no reason to get them done seperately. None. MMR is actually more effective than seperate vaccinations because it's cheaper and more efficient and reduces the risks of people missing on subsequent vaccinations.

Again, there is no medical or cost reason why people should get the single vaccination. The only reason this is an issue is because of the murderer Wakefield.

In any other instance, the NHS would be crucified by public opinion for buying something more expensive and less effective than another widely available treatment.

There Is no reason to get them done separately unless you have extenuating circumstances (where on the NHS you can get them done). If it's cheaper and just as safe (if not more safer), then it would be illogical to do that any other way.

You are having a laugh. You cannot get the jabs done separately on the NHS. Single vaccines are not licensed in the UK. You have to go private, which of course costs hundreds.

You're right and I apologise. The NHS did offer single vaccinations after the introduction of MMR but now it does not.

I agree people should have choice, and if people want to waste money going private for a set of vaccinations that are not as effective as the MMR job nobody should stop them.

But I wholeheartedly agree with the NHS's stance. The MMR is proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be as effective if not more effective than single vaccinations with side effects that are no worse than the single jabs.

Honestly, the only reason I can see for people to object is because of the lies and hysteria created by that cunt Wakefield or that they object to vaccinations per se because they subscribe to a dangerous, murderous woo based mythology about how vaccinations are evil.

Fact - pharmaceutical companies get very, very little money from immunological research and the implementation of vaccination programmes relative to the majority of their other drug treatments.

I think you're trying to wind me up now. The British Society for Immunology published that in 2003, pharmaceutical companies had invested £3 BILLION into R&D. A quarter of a billion went to universities and the whatever else left for in-house research.

Do you realise how much money this industry makes?

The answer. A lot.

I stated:

Id be interested to see what figures you've found for money generated by companies like GSK for sales of MMR relative to research input and cost of production.

Aside this being a different debate entirely from the efficacy of MMR, All I wanted to know was mow much revenue they generate from vaccinations and immunological research relative to their other investments. According to Forbes (2006: http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/21/pfizer-...drugs.html), the best selling drug as of publication was Lipitor, a cholesterol reducing drug. It's easy to see why. You don't cure cholesterol issues by taking one pill. Generally you have to change your lifestyle, eat less fatty foods and exercise more. But swallowing a pill, potentially for decades, is a win win in revenue terms.

WHO estimate from 2010 (http://who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/r...kaddar.pdf) seems to show that vaccine sales equate to 2% of global pharmaceutical market sales although that figure is rising.

Being engaged to someone who works in the medical field and having a lot of friends who are pharmacists and doctors, not to mention being a researcher myself, I am indeed aware of the net worth of the pharmaceutical industry. But my point is that vaccinations actually gain the pharmaceutical industry very little relative to their other programmes and research interests. Antidepressants alone probably eclipse the entirety of immunological research linked to virology. I know that Pfizer in the early naughties was making tens of billions of dollars a year, solely on the production of a few ADs.

And £3 billion invested in immunology is far too small. It's nothing. I would like to see 10 x that if it meant things like HIV and even measles could be wholly eradicated like smallpox was. Again, I'm willing to bet without looking at the figures (I will do so later on my lunch) that the amount gained following their investment was very small relative to their other research interests.

And really, they should be earning loads from research into virology, immunology and microbiology. Our current stock of antibiotics could be ineffective against a whole new wave of gram negative bacteria within this century if money isn't pumped into it.

The reason why these fields are drastically underfunded is because there is no money to be made in single treatment paradigms. One course of antibiotics or a few jabs and you're done. A lifetime of ADs nets them much more.

I want to ask, what are your actual objections to MMR? You've cited choice but that's generally a smoke screen for people who believe there is something more nefarious. I can't believe you're objecting to something that's cheaper for the NHS and by reduction you, so what is it?