Vaccinations - Poll

[QuietObserver]

This thread has been somewhat helpful to me. Starting out, I had some misgivings about the vaccines linked to aborted fetal tissue. I thought those vaccines were only possible because of aborted fetal tissue. I've learned that's not the case, and I now feel comfortable with those vaccines.

I would like to see as many people get vaccinated as possible. But I get the feeling some pro-vaccine folks are attempting to bind others consciences to their own beliefs and questioning their faith. Frankly, I think this is spiritually abusive. I hope these comments are just over-the-top rhetoric.

[Wade]

But I get the feeling some pro-vaccine folks are attempting to bind others consciences to their own beliefs and questioning their faith. Frankly, I think this is spiritually abusive. I hope these comments are just over-the-top rhetoric.

Whether the comments are sin or rhetoric or something else, they have really helped me to seriously re-evaluate my time spent here and the other pressing priorities. For that I am thankful.

I believe it would be better for me to refocus on things more productive in building the kingdom of God.

So, take 2 on some time away...

God bless you all!

[JohnHurt]

Do Doctors really get "kickbacks" from Big Pharma?

"It's illegal to give kickbacks to a doctor to prescribe drugs, but it is legal to give money to doctors to help promote your drug. Some doctors make tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year beyond their normal practice just for working with the industry." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-your- ... -find-out/

"Payments to clinicians from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are extremely common. In 2015, almost half (48%) of all doctors in the US received some kind of payment from the drug or medical device industry, according to a JAMA study. Kickbacks are illegal, but it’s not illegal for pharma to pay physicians fees for speaking, consulting, meals, travel, and more. " https://lowninstitute.org/news/industry ... p-iceberg/

"In 2015, 449 864 (approximately 48%) of US physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments" JAMA Network - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... ultClick=1

[Judas Maccabeus]

Do Doctors really get "kickbacks" from Big Pharma?

"It's illegal to give kickbacks to a doctor to prescribe drugs, but it is legal to give money to doctors to help promote your drug. Some doctors make tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year beyond their normal practice just for working with the industry." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-your- ... -find-out/

"Payments to clinicians from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are extremely common. In 2015, almost half (48%) of all doctors in the US received some kind of payment from the drug or medical device industry, according to a JAMA study. Kickbacks are illegal, but it’s not illegal for pharma to pay physicians fees for speaking, consulting, meals, travel, and more. " https://lowninstitute.org/news/industry ... p-iceberg/

"In 2015, 449 864 (approximately 48%) of US physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments" JAMA Network - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... ultClick=1

I was hoping not to answer any more posts on this thread, but I would be irresponsible if I did not get the truth into this truth challenged discussion.

These are not "kickbacks" and have nothing to do with payments for prescribing. FULL DISCLOSURE-I have received such payments in the past, for work in the dosemetery of Tc99m Pyrophosphate as a blood pool agent. I was paid for doing the "legwork" of counting roughly 100 blood and urine samples to record the amount of the tracer present over time, to determine how quickly the drug was excreted.

Drug companies cannot develop drugs on their own. They need patients for three phases of trials, analysis of the data and medical advice on how they are or are not working. They sponsor much of the drug related research being done, and need the expertise that can generally cannot be found outside of the faculties of major teaching hospitals, Drug companies do not have hospitals, patients or for that matter the credentials to get a study proposal through a review board.

They also reimburse the expenses of people who present the research that they have sponsored to national and regional meetings. It is the only way the profession at large can learn what is being developed. These conferences are a means of getting peer review in real time. (FULL DISCLOSURE-I've done this too) IF you receive grant support from a drug or equipment company, that must be disclosed at the beginning of your talk, or in any paper you write for publication.

It would not be possible to develop a drug without the external expertise that this brings to bear. A drug company does not have the patients, facilities or the trained experts, both medical and technical on their staff. This is the good side of this.

Marketing and promotion is where you have the potential for abuses of the system. A company can legitimately have someone they feel is an expert give company sponsored "education seminars" on a new drug. Of course the proper disclosures are made. There is a state-by-state crackdown happening here. In many states, even free meals are out. I feel this is a good step. I really have a problem with the financial/marketing side of the pharmaceutical industry. I have said this before on a number of occasions.

So 3 points here:

1. Ingeneral, most of that money is payment for work that is done on the companies behalf. Do you expect people to work free?

2. If you think that attending a meeting and getting a free dinner, which is normally chicken, is going to cause someone to risk their license by intentionally overprescribing you have a weird view of what can influence a 250,000-1,000,000$ a year doctor. One of what I feel the downside of these "meetings" is that the information is seldom unbiased and the speaker is generally chosen by the sponsor to be favorable to their product. As always, a disclosure is given. Of note, I have really gotten one of these companies a bit upset at me, I ask too many tough questions. I seldom go to them, preferring the national meetings sponsored by our professional society.

3. Vaccines are seldom the choice of the provider. These are based on recommendations from the Center for Disease Control. It is not like "oh, I just got lunch from XXX company, I guess I will vaccinate everyone for measles today." It does not work that way. They follow the schedule.

Of note, I have read of a few practices that will not see patients of parents that refuse to vaccinate children. It is the right of any physician to choose to treat, or not to treat patients in a non emergency situation. Rational appears to be if the child is not vaccinated, gets measles and is brought into the office for treatment, this sick child will likely infect every well infant in the office. I see their point, If you won't follow advice, find someone that supports your choices. I don't know if I support this, but be aware, it is out there.

Oh, yes. What was one of the single thing that reduced the population of the pacific islands?

J.M.

[violet]

An interesting rabbit hole to follow is if one googles "whistleblower of MMR"...or try Dr. Thompson.

to the best of my knowledge the case is ongoing.

[Judas Maccabeus]

An interesting rabbit hole to follow is if one googles "whistleblower of MMR"...or try Dr. Thompson.

to the best of my knowledge the case is ongoing.

Yep. Found this.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-medicine/

Seems they failed to account for an obvious data skew.

J.M.

[violet]

there are always two sides to a coin.

and, sometimes, where there is smoke, there is fire.

I think I will wait and see the outcome before judgement.

and, while on the issue, any thoughts on the Mumps portion of the MMR? I am sure snopes has an interesting take on that one as well.

[ohio jones]

2. If you think that attending a meeting and getting a free dinner, which is normally chicken, is going to cause someone to risk their license by intentionally overprescribing you have a weird view of what can influence a 250,000-1,000,000$ a year doctor. One of what I feel the downside of these "meetings" is that the information is seldom unbiased and the speaker is generally chosen by the sponsor to be favorable to their product. As always, a disclosure is given. Of note, I have really gotten one of these companies a bit upset at me, I ask too many tough questions. I seldom go to them, preferring the national meetings sponsored by our professional society.

You are better off avoiding those free chicken dinners anyway. They probably serve fluoridated water and use pasteurized milk in the mashed potatoes.

[RZehr]

2. If you think that attending a meeting and getting a free dinner, which is normally chicken, is going to cause someone to risk their license by intentionally overprescribing you have a weird view of what can influence a 250,000-1,000,000$ a year doctor. One of what I feel the downside of these "meetings" is that the information is seldom unbiased and the speaker is generally chosen by the sponsor to be favorable to their product. As always, a disclosure is given. Of note, I have really gotten one of these companies a bit upset at me, I ask too many tough questions. I seldom go to them, preferring the national meetings sponsored by our professional society.

You are better off avoiding those free chicken dinners anyway. They probably serve fluoridated water and use pasteurized milk in the mashed potatoes.

These sound like industry conventions the world over. Most industries have this type of meetings where companies speak, and introduce new products and relevant industry news. Most attendees take any new product performance claims with a grain of salt.

If our company makes a presentation, and mixes the topical subject matter with our product, you can bet our customers will slice the truth from any self serving fluff. For example, say we are talking about the importance of cover crops and what it does for soil, and then we say our clover is great for this application. Mark it down, the listeners will investigate all we say. They will check if clover is good; then they will check what the best kind of clover is; then they will see if we are the best supplier or if our competitors are better.

I can easily imagine the pharmaceutical industry operating in a similar way.

[JohnHurt]

there are always two sides to a coin.

and, sometimes, where there is smoke, there is fire.

I think I will wait and see the outcome before judgement.

and, while on the issue, any thoughts on the Mumps portion of the MMR? I am sure snopes has an interesting take on that one as well.

Here is the Huffington Post article on Merck's MMR vaccine, that shows how the vaccine was exposed by scientists at Merck as the vaccine claims were overstated and fraudulent:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence- ... 81914.html

Here is the Snopes article:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-medicine/

Snopes is run by a husband and wife team with no medical background who provide their own information to "debunk" topics that are clearly outside of their field of experience. Snopes is similar to "Quackwatch", a site where a retired psychiatrist "debunks" topics in areas of alternative medicine that are clearly outside his area of expertise as a shrink. Snopes has no credibility concerning medical issues, they need to stick to debunking urban legends for entertainment purposes.

The Snopes "debunking" article hinges on a statement by Thompson - backed up with a link that no longer exists.
http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27- ... nd-autism/

The other links Snopes provides are inconclusive, such as a link to a retracted document that only Snopes has and provides to us as proof. https://translationalneurodegeneration. ... -9158-3-22

The Huffington Post article is based on information from several Merck scientists who quit their jobs to expose the problems at Merck. It also links to several other articles. The HuffPost article is several years old, and if Merck later won the lawsuit due to their tremendous wealth and power, it does not change what these Merck scientists said or did to bring these issues to the public. No one would give up their career to create an urban legend that was not true. But these men will definitely be disgraced in some way.

The problem is not doctors, it is Big Pharma. They need to be sued when they hurt people with what they manufacture.