/signed
Should Obama stop this?
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
/signed
I apologize for not being clear. Extant pharmeceutical companies, who are still in business making other products, have been dropping their vaccine lines becasue they are insufficiently profitable.
There are pharmeceutical lobbyists, and I'm sure they dovote some of their time to vaccines, but I have never heard of a vaccine lobbyist.
You seem to forget there is push-back against price-point changes in medical services from health insurance companies. They work very hard to keep vaccination costs as low as possible, and they also have plenty of money and lobbyists.
No, I did not assume you were "the honcho" (did you mean committee chair?). I just thought that you might be basing your claims of knowledge on how/why grant money is distributed based upon actually being in a committee where itis distrubuted. I read a couple of blogs from people whoactually write grants, and they seem to feel their awards, or lack of awards, are merit-and-presentation-based, not political.
Actually, the article states that the standards of proof are the same as in civil court (preponderance of evidence), and that in practice, this means that is you suffer the routine side effects of a vaccine you are compensated pretty much automatically. The upside for vaccine manufacturers in the no-fault aspect: punitive damages are not awarded, avoiding million-dollar judgements. The courts are fair, and in practice, the standards are even easier to meet than in a normal civil court.
I think your interpretation of the article is a good example of your general accuracy in evaluating reality.
You are correct that the legislature was worried that the manufacturers would stop making vaccines entirely. Why would someone make a product that earns minimal profits and exposes them to huge amounts of risk?
I think losing your license to practice medicine (which is one possible result of these sanctions) would hurt. I think being forced to submit all your cases to another doctor for review (another possible sanction) would hurt.
Actually, "naturopath" is a term they have chosen for themselves, and I called what they sold "garbage", not the people (although some of the people might deserve such a description).
Even after the patent expires, you can still make money, although less of it.
However, the reason people buy the patented medicines, instead of using older rememdies or going without, is because they work better than the older rememdies, or going without. Insurance companies, which are not owned by harmaceuticals, cover the cost of my monthly $180 for Advair, but won't cover $20 for some naturopath brew. Do you think that's because Anthem/Wellpoint likes to throw away money?
You can sneer, disparage, and engage in emotional attacks and conspiracies. You will not be able to explain why billion-dollar corporations with huge government lobbies willingly pay more to provide patented medicine that naturopathic garbage, until yo uacknowledge that it is because the former works and the latter does not.
But are you someone they would go to when their conscience is troubled, and spill their guts?
Look, the world over, even tyrants like Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot clamor for turf in the line of credibility, public acceptance, and reputation. Even Naturopathic practitioners, for that matter. At the other end of your schema of credibility, even scholars will toot their own horns and strike poses designed to strengthen their case. I've sat through a lot a seminars or research presentations and had the time of day to evaluate the behavior. There are definitely a lot of scientists who try to honor the higher ideals of integrity, but the ones who don't won't smile a wicked little smile and wink at you if they think you might be on to their racket.
The ones who scratch the backs of Big Pharma or milk other cash cows sometimes believe their own results, too.
It's not about character or reputation or credentials in my judgment. It's not about Who you are, or what you think you are, or being on top of the hill, so to speak, doing what's best for mankind. It's about the right to question anything, to think for yourself, and to make your own choices. If the powers that be were just offering their services on a free-will arms'-lenght transaction basis, I would have half as many questions to ask.
But the present "authorities" don't have that attitude, and that's what is just plain wrong.
patronizing Science, and just accepting the offerings wholesale is to me the same thing as patronizing a Church, and accepting the authoritative offerings wholesale. I've seen a lot of very bright folks in both church and science, and in government as well, who have made it their life to go with the flow.
When I go to scientific literature I usually learn something I didn't know before, and come away feeling edified a little, just like when I go to Church. Or even come in here and try to discuss anything. I just don't need to hang my hat on the institution. I think your observation about the insurance company impacts on the medicine show are pretty good, too. . . . except those insurance companies have some very negative impacts in some points too. It gets to be a rush towards limiting the doctors' judgment and lattitude in their work. Lock down every variable, standardize every routine. . . . and creativity goes to zero.
You obviously have a large body of information and experience behind your point of view, but you have your blind spots too.
Sometimes you blow by some actually significant information and just don't get the drift.
Last edited:
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
The former only works better than the latter in some instances.
I guess we will never understand each other.
Science will never create anything better than the earth can.
Why didn't you address the millions of side effects?
When I see prescription drug commercials on TV, I laugh my *** off.
Side effects ranging anywhere from a stomach ache to death lol.
So if you're willing to risk the side effects of these drugs, go for it.
It doesn't change the fact that they are not safe, and most are extremely addicting.
I would say living with a certain condition outweighs the side effect of dropping dead. Wouldn't you??
Just wondering. . . .
why the dogma about "natural" and the assertion that science is incapable of improving anything. . . .
Even herbal remedies and tinctures are mucked up with alcoholic solvent extraction or some other human technology. Even naturopaths have their little protocols.
And there are plenty of toxic effects due to ingestion of completely natural stuff.
I guess I'm gonna have to lock you and OB in this little thread and let you both resist the opportunity to learn anything.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
All you have to do is look at how sick everyone that are on these drugs and get these vaccines are.
Especially the kids.....
I swear, these kids get sick every single week. (Sometimes it seems like more than that)
These drugs and vaccines actually inhibit your immune system from doing it's job at fighting the virus.
My 2 year old daughter has been sick maybe 3 or 4 times in her entire life, whereas all the kids at her daycare are constantly getting sick.
But interestingly enough.... she rarely gets what the other kids have, and if she does it is very mild compared to the others.
You don't need much scientific evidence to see it with your own eyes.
"Some instances" being "actual diseases".
I understand you on this topic fairly well. You're wrong, but not incomprehensible. YOu have to be "better" at something, and science has definitely come up with medicines that are better at treating specific conditions than any known natural remedy.
Real medicine causes changes in body chemistry. Any time body chemistry actually changes, there are effects. Some of these effects are not helpfulto fighting the disease, these are "side effects". Any putative treatment that does not have potential side effects is not medicine.
If I had to choose between living for thirty years breathing as I do without my medicines, or twenty years with my medicines, I'll take the twenty. In fact, I could go even say that for 20 and 10. They improve my life that much. However, the truth is that without my medicine, I might not be alive right now.
I agree.
Here's a thought: maybe individually, the other kids at the daycare don't get sick more often than your daughter, and it only sems that way because you lump them all into a single group, and any time one or two of them is sick, you think of the group being sick.
The primary difference between you and me does center on our acceptance of two different models of reality. It appears to me that perhaps when you go grocery shopping you read the labels on the cans, and feel secure in the notion that nobody would lie in a label like that. I, on the other hand, have worked in manufacturing plants and have done analytical work, and formulation work, on products, and written labels myself. Yes we have serious efforts at quality control, and hopefully very few products get out the door that aren't what is stated on the label.
The government, on the other hand, is all about spin. Yes the labels sound good, but who is watching the actual product. It's all about creating desired results for the most important clients.
I wish you were correct in your belief that a "special" court will maintain all the characteristics of a court that will justly serve the public. But the reason why the founders of this nation wanted to secure the right to a trial before a jury of common citizen "peers" for any issue where the value at stake was more than $20 bucks is precisely because they already had had plenty of experience with stacked courts staffed by servile patrons of corporate interests who had the ear of the King.
And the fact is, this "special court" that does not allow jury trials is unconstittutional.
If I believed that, and the more general things that would say about human behavior, I would be a libertarian calling for defunding the FDA. Any trust I have is in the limited benefit to lying (very few people carefully read labels) compared to the limited potential to face fines if caught lying. People will buy Sugar-Soaked Crunchies no matter what the label says, as long as Jim the Jaybird tells their kids how yummy it is.
Before the Progressive Era, when companies self-policed, it was much worse.
As you could have read in the article, some plaintiffs are bypassing vaccine court. However, if you want to be compensated fully and quickly for your expenses, and are not interested in punitive damages, you really can't do better than go to vaccine court.
I see you missed my transition from corporate realities to government realities.
I guess one example of mislabeled legislation would be the Utah "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" passed about twenty years ago, which gave the taxpayer no rights and carefully corraled the citizens in an administrative process for dealing with complaints. It should have been labeled "State Perogatives In Collecting Taxes". Took the whole system out of any judicial jurisdiction.
A more recent example is the "Homeland Security Act" and the NDAA provisions for deconstructing what's left of human rights in this country, rendering citizens vulnerable to the whole gamut of government assaults. I consider the Healthcare legislation in the same light, in the name of budgetary priorities you lose actual rights to have health care of your choosing.
Oh, and back in those pre-progressive era days it was cartel interests/robber baron corporates operating without bothering to meddle with the government in the first place. It was a pure Machiavellian operation, creating the need for "help" from the government. And now, the reality is, those same interest, their contemporary equivalents, are managing our government very well, and maintaining their cartel interests and cash cow operations unabated, and even more lucratively than ever before.
I realize there are some things that the public is still having some inputs on, but it takes a lot of rabble noise to keep any of our interests noticed and protected. And, incredibly, the corporate interests have co-opted most of our Public Interest groups, and adroitly use them to keep the hurdles very high, well above what entry-level competitors can afford.
And in point of fact, my views/apprehensions are precisely why I agree with many Libertarian positions.
Last edited:
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Un-natural changes that will never be understood until years from now.
I trust mother earth, and you trust man.
We can agree to disagree here.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
I'd hit it.
