Social Despite Overwhelming Evidence Vaccines Safe & Effective, "Hysteresis" Endures

[MikeMcMann]

Yeah, if my argument could have been both summarized and refuted by a cat meme, I'd probably be embarassed too...

lol. You need to stay out of the conversation and let the adults talk.

I am not anti Vax and your meme did not, in any way address my view.

One can both think Vax and Big Pharma do good while also recognizing that Big Pharma also has a profit motive which leads them to want to push increasingly more medicines and Vax each and every day for citizens.

 

[VivaRevolution]

This topic (the persistence of ignorance re vaccines) is a great microcosm for how the internet age has not panned out at all like we had hoped (like a great liberator for thought and knowledge).

We thought that, with everyone now having access to limitless knowledge and facts, our citizens and voters would become more informed than they were before when they most received limitd information through agenda setters in the media. It turned out the exact opposite, as citizens' personal consumption of information abandoned all the best practices of mass media consumption, and people just chose to seek out information that confirmed what is easiest or most convenient to believe. So, even if we're less uninformed that years past perhaps, we're definitely more misinformed than ever before. So, with vaccines, we were effectively smarter when we knew less and before we realized that stupid people thinking for themselves is often just stupid people outsourcing their thought to other stupid people.

Frankly, it's a win for paternalists the world over, and a giant drop kick in the balls to anti-paternalistic libertarians like myself.

The problem Isn't that information becomes misinformation easily. The problem is that no one has legitimacy in the eyes of the public, because they are constantly caught not telling the truth.

Let's look at vaccines.

You got kids Trotsky?

Would you vaccinate your kids under the current vaccination schedule?

I can tell you right now, that if I had kids, I would vaccinate them under the 1989 schedule.

If I had a daughter I would let her decide as a teenager if she wanted the HPV vaccine.

No one tells the truth. That is the problem with the information age.

 

[Deleted member 263856]

Japan suspends vaccinations after five dead
https://www.news.com.au/breaking-ne...d/news-story/5f69631913e713dcdb25f12ddb4a7ced

Must have been a bad batch.

Did you read the article?

 

[Lubaolong]

Further to my prior post is the discussion we have had in other threads about big Pharma and the video expose of the profit motive.

The one video which stands out (and I cannot find now) was the one showing their approach to High Blood Pressure medicines. Make no mistake as @Kalitaur is, as the suggestion in the video is not that High Blood Pressure does not exist and does not need medication, the expose showed how Big Pharma had internal documents showing that in the 1960's they determined if they could get the 'SAFE' blood pressure levels lowered that would result in millon's more requiring Blood Pressure medicine and in those millions they mapped how many would have "Adverse Reactions' and require other medicines and they mapped the NEW profits they would make for each and every medicine.

They then set out to pay for a number of studies to show why the High Blood Pressure level should be lowered, which they got, and they lobbied gov't based on that data and they got the change. They interviewed doctors from that time period who said they had a real problem with it as they had all sorts of patients who were considered Healthy one day and the very next day considered "At Risk' and now needing medication. As a Doctor it was considered negligent and you could lose your license if you did not then recommend to your patient to go on these medicines since they were in the 'danger zone'.

At the end of the video segment they showed some closing notes and those showed that decades later BIg Pharma was looking to get another lowering of the "High Blood Pressure' limits. It was a complete re-do of the 1960's efforts and they again had profits in the main medicines and 'Adverse Reaction' medicines all planned out to the dollar. If they could get the Safe limits lowered by X they would make this much. If they could get them lowered 2X they would make even more.

So while we can accept that Blood Pressure medicine is good and needed it is very naive to do as @Kalitaur does and think Big Pharma may not ALSO have a profit motive that could see them push potentially more medicines on us than required.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Further to my prior post is the discussion we have had in other threads about big Pharma and the video expose of the profit motive.

The one video which stands out (and I cannot find now) was the one showing their approach to High Blood Pressure medicines. Make no mistake as @Kalitaur is, as the suggestion in the video is not that High Blood Pressure does not exist and does not need medication, the expose showed how Big Pharma had internal documents showing that in the 1960's they determined if they could get the 'SAFE' blood pressure levels lowered that would result in millon's more requiring Blood Pressure medicine and in those millions they mapped how many would have "Adverse Reactions' and require other medicines and they mapped the NEW profits they would make for each and every medicine.

They then set out to pay for a number of studies to show why the High Blood Pressure level should be lowered, which they got, and they lobbied gov't based on that data and they got the change. They interviewed doctors from that time period who said they had a real problem with it as they had all sorts of patients who were considered Healthy one day and the very next day considered "At Risk' and now needing medication. As a Doctor it was considered negligent and you could lose your license if you did not then recommend to your patient to go on these medicines since they were in the 'danger zone'.

At the end of the video segment they showed some closing notes and those showed that decades later BIg Pharma was looking to get another lowering of the "High Blood Pressure' limits. It was a complete re-do of the 1960's efforts and they again had profits in the main medicines and 'Adverse Reaction' medicines all planned out to the dollar. If they could get the Safe limits lowered by X they would make this much. If they could get them lowered 2X they would make even more.

So while we can accept that Blood Pressure medicine is good and needed it is very naive to do as @Kalitaur does and think Big Pharma may not ALSO have a profit motive that could see them push potentially more medicines on us than required.

 

[Kalitaur]

Further to my prior post is the discussion we have had in other threads about big Pharma and the video expose of the profit motive.

The one video which stands out (and I cannot find now) was the one showing their approach to High Blood Pressure medicines. Make no mistake as @Kalitaur is, as the suggestion in the video is not that High Blood Pressure does not exist and does not need medication, the expose showed how Big Pharma had internal documents showing that in the 1960's they determined if they could get the 'SAFE' blood pressure levels lowered that would result in millon's more requiring Blood Pressure medicine and in those millions they mapped how many would have "Adverse Reactions' and require other medicines and they mapped the NEW profits they would make for each and every medicine.

They then set out to pay for a number of studies to show why the High Blood Pressure level should be lowered, which they got, and they lobbied gov't based on that data and they got the change. They interviewed doctors from that time period who said they had a real problem with it as they had all sorts of patients who were considered Healthy one day and the very next day considered "At Risk' and now needing medication. As a Doctor it was considered negligent and you could lose your license if you did not then recommend to your patient to go on these medicines since they were in the 'danger zone'.

At the end of the video segment they showed some closing notes and those showed that decades later BIg Pharma was looking to get another lowering of the "High Blood Pressure' limits. It was a complete re-do of the 1960's efforts and they again had profits in the main medicines and 'Adverse Reaction' medicines all planned out to the dollar. If they could get the Safe limits lowered by X they would make this much. If they could get them lowered 2X they would make even more.

So while we can accept that Blood Pressure medicine is good and needed it is very naive to do as @Kalitaur does and think Big Pharma may not ALSO have a profit motive that could see them push potentially more medicines on us than required.

My God, you're right, this goes deeper than we think!!

And since cat memes seem to be about your speed...

 

[MikeMcMann]

My God, you're right, this goes deeper than we think!!

And since cat memes seem to be about your speed...

The funniest part is that you think tthere is no profit motive in Big Pharma.

My position = Vax are needed but we must also be careful of Big Pharma pushing the profit motive

Kalitaur position = its crazy cat stuff to think Big Pharma has a profit motive

LOL

 

[Kalitaur]

The funniest part is that you think tthere is no profit motive in Big Pharma.

My position = Vax are needed but we must also be careful of Big Pharma pushing the profit motive

Kalitaur position = its crazy cat stuff to think Big Pharma has a profit motive

LOL

Please quote where I stated there is no profit motive for the pharmaceutical industry.

Go ahead. Take your time. We'll wait.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Please quote where I stated there is no profit motive for the pharmaceutical industry.

Go ahead. Take your time. We'll wait.

You first.

Quote even once where I questioned the efficacy or need for Vax or in any way was a Vax denier.

My argument was Vax are needed and good but we must WATCH Big Pharma as there is a competing profit motive which you tried to spin into Vax denial.

But go ahead. Take your time. We'll wait.

 

[all caps]

You first.

Quote even once where I questioned the efficacy or need for Vax or in any way was a Vax denier.

My argument was Vax are needed and good but we must WATCH Big Pharma as there is a competing profit motive which you tried to spin into Vax denial.

But go ahead. Take your time. We'll wait.

All I'm seeing here is a crazy anti vaxxer conspiracy theorist who needs his kids taken from him and a long jail sentence

 

[chardog]

this is a blanket view of vaccinations. Chicken pox doesnt cost anything to treat and I dont consider the threat the same as Hep B. HPV has no bearing on kids until they are adults, and even then, it's a problem with girls yet boys are required. Big pharma doesnt care about the overall costs, they only care about what they can get now. I mean since we're the most vaccinated country on earth, why does HC cost the most in the modern world?

the heavy handed everything is required approach is why people resist.

lack of transparency, it's a simple you must get it, or you cant go to school. Uhhh yeah, where's my brochure on the severity of each disease? What do I do in case of an allergic reaction? What should I do if my kid gets sick from said shot? We have a zillion food labels, but for diseases, sometimes active live shots..... not a peep, ignorance is bliss.

when your kid gets sick off of a shot, blame coincidence, blame the kid, and I pay for it. I've posted my story on the H1N1 shot, my wife having poor judgement, got one of our daughters with that shot, and she had all the symptoms of what the Vac was suppose to fix. There was one very distinct behavior of that shot, it wouldnt infect others, and it didnt.

my grandfather, was given the flu shot when he was 80+ years old (again, bad advice). That same day, he fell badly ill, hospitalized, and bedridden for the next decade or so. Who took care of his bills? certainly not anyone that advised him to get the shot.....

 

[MikeMcMann]

All I'm seeing here is a crazy anti vaxxer conspiracy theorist who needs his kids taken from him and a long jail sentence

lol.

yes @Kalitaur thinks that if you say Vax are good, but lets make sure we watch Big Pharma that, that means you are anti Vax. In his mind only a totally naive view to the profit motive is acceptable. Never question big pharma. lol

 

[Kalitaur]

You first.

Quote even once where I questioned the efficacy or need for Vax or in any way was a Vax denier.

My argument was Vax are needed and good but we must WATCH Big Pharma as there is a competing profit motive which you tried to spin into Vax denial.

But go ahead. Take your time. We'll wait.

Lol, nice dodge.

But sure, I'll play. Let me refresh your memory. Here you go:

Big Pharma identified the area of "Preventative Medicine' as a multi Trillion dollar boon for them as just a few decades ago medicine was Reactionary or you only really took it when you got sick which meant only a small percent of the population took anything. Now every single person takes numerous medicines to prevent something that may happen and that is awesome for sales.

You've insinuated that the pharmaceutical industry has an agenda to push preventive medicine such as vaccines, and that said agenda is profit driven.

The meme I posted specifically makes fun of the Antivax claim that "BigPharma" only develops vaccines to get rich, while pointing out that treatment of preventable disease is waaaaaay more costly (i.e. profitable to "BigPharma") than vaccination. I don't quite know how this could be more plain for you.

And of course your text was already quoted for you in my original post. But you already knew that. Sorry, my friend. You don't get to use Antivax rhetoric in an Antivax thread while still trying to play off the "I'm totally Provax, but..."

Your turn. Still waiting.

 

[Kalitaur]

lol.

yes @Kalitaur thinks that if you say Vax are good, but lets make sure we watch Big Pharma that, that means you are anti Vax. In his mind only a totally naive view to the profit motive is acceptable. Never question big pharma. lol

Lol, you are beating the he'll out of that straw man! It looks like you have another homework assignment. Go ahead and quote where I posted any of that as well.

Still waiting...

 

[MikeMcMann]

Lol, nice dodge.

But sure, I'll play. Let me refresh your memory. Here you go:



You've insinuated that the pharmaceutical industry has an agenda to push preventive medicine such as vaccines, and that said agenda is profit driven.

The meme I posted specifically makes fun of the Antivax claim that "BigPharma" only develops vaccines to get rich, while pointing out that treatment of preventable disease is waaaaaay more costly (i.e. profitable to "BigPharma") than vaccination. I don't quite know how this could be more plain for you.

And of course your text was already quoted for you in my original post. But you already knew that. Sorry, my friend. You don't get to use Antivax rhetoric in an Antivax thread while still trying to play off the "I'm totally Provax, but..."

Your turn. Still waiting.

Yes thx for proving my point.

My position is that Vax are good but that Big Pharma ALSO has a profit motive and that profit motive leads them to want people taking more medicines than less.

BOTH CAN BE CORRECT. Vax can be good and needed and yet Big Pharma can be pushing for us all to take more medicines than needed to drive profits.

So again I ask you to show where I ever held an Anti Vax position as you did not here. I am still waiting.

 

[Kalitaur]

Yes thx for proving my point.

My position is that Vax are good but that Big Pharma ALSO has a profit motive and that profit motive leads them to want people taking more medicines than less.

BOTH CAN BE CORRECT. Vax can be good and needed and yet Big Pharma can be pushing for us all to take more medicines than needed to drive profits.

So again I ask you to show where I ever held an Anti Vax position as you did not here. I am still waiting.

Yet another dodge. Shocking.

Still waiting

 

[MikeMcMann]

@Kalitaur view that because Vax are good and necessary (a view I share) that no one should doubt that Big Pharma has a Profit Motive that could lead them to not always putting peoples best interests first is just naive.

Anyway I am still waiting.

 

[MikeMcMann]

For those who do not know what @Kalitaur is trying to deny, the profit motive in Big Pharma has been a big question of debate for a long time.

Again Kalitaur will say 'if you question the profit motive that means you must be anti Vax' and that simply is stupid. All of my posts, for instance have been very pro Vax but with a corollary warning that we need to be vigilant and not trust Big Pharma in this and other areas.

You can be BOTH pro Vax and yet understand how the profit motive affects Big Pharma at the same time and those two positions are in no way in conflict. My position echos exactly what the Duke study below says.

There are literally dozens of prominent studies citing this below so don't let Kalitaur's ignorance or denial of it sway you.


DIVORCING PROFIT MOTIVATION FROM NEW DRUG RESEARCH: A CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE THE FDA WITH RELIABLE TEST DATA*

...Under present federal regulation, a pharmaceutical company that is attempting to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for marketing a new drug is responsible for conducting the necessary drug experimentation.' It has been forcefully argued that because the company has a financial interest in successful test results, the present drug testing system contains an inherent bias that adversely affects the accuracy and acceptability of drug research. Concern about these effects has led to proposals that pharmaceutical research be conducted by independent parties with no financial interest in the outcome of the research. ...

 

[Fawlty]

This topic (the persistence of ignorance re vaccines) is a great microcosm for how the internet age has not panned out at all like we had hoped (like a great liberator for thought and knowledge).

We thought that, with everyone now having access to limitless knowledge and facts, our citizens and voters would become more informed than they were before when they most received limitd information through agenda setters in the media. It turned out the exact opposite, as citizens' personal consumption of information abandoned all the best practices of mass media consumption, and people just chose to seek out information that confirmed what is easiest or most convenient to believe. So, even if we're less uninformed that years past perhaps, we're definitely more misinformed than ever before. So, with vaccines, we were effectively smarter when we knew less and before we realized that stupid people thinking for themselves is often just stupid people outsourcing their thought to other stupid people.

Frankly, it's a win for paternalists the world over, and a giant drop kick in the balls to anti-paternalistic libertarians like myself.

I didn't see this shit coming and I'm a little disappointed that I didn't. Not that predicting it could have changed it, but yeah, it's nuts. I think the main thing I missed was that I didn't expect people to upload their social lives and then be fulfilled by that. I expected the literal human touch to win out over virtualization of relationships.

Also the vax nutters and nutters of all kinds used to be isolated from each other, where social pressures would change their minds or isolate them. That will never be true again - the crazies will always find large groups that share their craziness and rev each other up, like the opposite of a support group.

 

[Kalitaur]

@Kalitaur view that because Vax are good and necessary (a view I share) that no one should doubt that Big Pharma has a Profit Motive that could lead them to not always putting peoples best interests first is just naive.

Anyway I am still waiting.

Once again, show my post where I say or, hell, even vaguely insinuate that the two are mutually exclusive. Let me save you a few dozen more "NoYou!" posts: you can't, because I didn't. Hence your constant dodging.

And once again, let me boil this down even further for you:

Antivax position: BigPharma's vaccination agenda is profit driven!
@MikeMcMann: Show where I ever held an Antivax position!
Also @MikeMcMann: BigPharma's vaccination agenda is profit driven!

I'd ask if you were able to comprehend that any better than my prior reply, but I already know the answer...

 

[Trotsky]

I didn't see this shit coming and I'm a little disappointed that I didn't. Not that predicting it could have changed it, but yeah, it's nuts. I think the main thing I missed was that I didn't expect people to upload their social lives and then be fulfilled by that. I expected the literal human touch to win out over virtualization of relationships.

Also the vax nutters and nutters of all kinds used to be isolated from each other, where social pressures would change their minds or isolate them. That will never be true again - the crazies will always find large groups that share their craziness and rev each other up, like the opposite of a support group.

I'm not sure I understand the significance re life-uploading and human touch, but I can certainly admit that I overestimated the personal constitution -- not intelligence -- of the average person. I overestimated the humility (first and foremost), principle, honesty, self-respect, self-awareness, and intellectual curiosity.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Once again, show my post where I say or, hell, even vaguely insinuate that the two are mutually exclusive. Let me save you a few dozen more "NoYou!" posts: you can't, because I didn't. Hence your constant dodging.

And once again, let me boil this down even further for you:

Antivax position: BigPharma's vaccination agenda is profit driven!
@MikeMcMann: Show where I ever held an Antivax position!
Also @MikeMcMann: BigPharma's vaccination agenda is profit driven!

I'd ask if you were able to comprehend that any better than my prior reply, but I already know the answer...

Eh. You are a deflecting joke who won't own his own position.

Now you are trying to echo my position but claim it as your own LMAOF.

This is my very first sentence in my very first post.


"i absolutely believe that the benefit of Vaccines outweighs the harms."

And in almost every post thereafter I re-affirm that I think Vax are good and needed.

HOWEVER,

I also say that on a separate note we should all be vigilant and understand that Big Pharma has a profit motive that may make their interests in SOME cases diverge from ours.

BOTH CAN BE AND ARE TRUE.

And yet you keep saying if I believe the second then I must be anti Vax because you were such a dupe to Big Pharma and thinking them saintly,a position you are now trying to back away from.

Again I am waiting for you to show me anywhere I said anything anti Vax, and pointing out that I stated the proift motive exists for Big Pharma is not proof of being anti vax.

I am waiting.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Up thread I pointed to a prior expose on Big Pharma's role in getting the Dangerous Cholesterol levels lowered which over night required Doctors to tell people they were at risk and in need of medication one day when the day before they were considered within healthy levels.

Big Pharma paid for all sorts of research to substantiate that view and then lobbied the gov't and got the change.

I have no personal view on the science and no reason to not believe it. Many doctors however did not like it and particularly that they could lose their licenses if they did not recommend patients get on these drugs to lower their cholesterol.

That said, the expose showed all sorts of internal doc's that Big Pharma showing all the profits they would make if they could get the new 'healthy' level implemented. As expected this is an area that contributes about $30B annually to Big Pharma.

But what was pointed out as most alarming was the internal doc's from Big Pharma where they showed that immediately after the getting the change and new lower limit they had it mapped out that if they could get another 5%, 10% and 25%, etc in 'safe cholesterol limits' that it would correlate in another X% in new profits in each level. And due to what they learned in the first change they knew that X% of new patience now put on these medicines would have side effects that would require secondary and third medicines and so on. And they had all of those profit lines meticulously mapped out.


There is nothing wrong with questioning the profit motive as Kalitaur suggests in this thread and doing so does not mean you doubt the science. You can both support the science and yet keep a healthy skepticism of Big Pharma's profit motives. There is no inconsistency and that is all I have said in this thread.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not sure I understand the significance re life-uploading and human touch, but I can certainly admit that I overestimated the personal constitution -- not intelligence -- of the average person. I overestimated the humility (first and foremost), principle, honesty, self-respect, self-awareness, and intellectual curiosity.

The significance is that face-to-face interaction with a physically limited local group within a greater culture is more socially grounding, and less often results in the crazy person being socially rewarded for crazy beliefs. But as we increasingly virtualize our social groups, those people find social rewards easily by searching out crazy groups with almost no effort. The normal group can't apply any social pressure to the crazy person once he's free to roam the Internet.

My mistake was in thinking that people would generally prefer physical interaction (that seeing, hearing, feeling people in person was greatly preferable to our senses), like in the early MySpace days, when it was commonly understood to be kind of a harmless joke and it didn't seem like it was threatening our entire social order. But the truth is that people can lead socially fulfilling lives online now (with some nasty side effects but the system works). And if that's true, that virtual relationships are fulfilling enough, then there is no chance that the crazies can be kept in the fold.