|
|
"PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1127579280.621893.224010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Rich wrote:
>> "PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1127501322.817942.96420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > David Wright wrote:
>> >> In article <1127495900.944407.203520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >David Wright wrote:
>> >> >> In article <1126881518.967447.32960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
>> >> >> >Monopolies
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >To : All participants and readers of misc.health.alternative +
>> >> >> >other
>> >> >> >health-related newsgroups
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this
>> >> >> >forum
>> >> >> >are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange.
>> >> >> >A
>> >> >> >number of individuals with ties to industry are engaging an effort
>> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine
>> >> >> >while
>> >> >> >denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OK, PeterB, I see there is actually some value to your presence
>> >> >> here.
>> >> >> Many of our readers may never have seen a genuine paranoid in
>> >> >> action.
>> >> >> Now they can observe you, if they wish.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks, Dr. David.
>> >>
>> >> Don't mention it. I didn't want people to think you lacked any
>> >> redeeming social value, even if you did retire ignominiously from
>> >> our little chat about the value of vaccination.
>> >
>> > I so appreciate your generosity. I didn't retire from the debate about
>> > vaccine, though. The readers were told in item 3 of my "warning" post
>> > that pharma bloggers work hard to have the last word, and so you did.
>> > There is only so much time available to repeat oneself and show that
>> > cathy was struggling to come up with shreds of evidence in defense of
>> > vaccine. My call for randomized, double-blind, long-term studies
>> > proving the effectiveness of vaccine went unasnwered, by you, cathy, or
>> > anyone else. I understand, of course. There are no such studies. I
>> > can only hope that readers had an opportunity to sift through a hundred
>> > posts and find the 3 or 4 paragraphs that really mattered.
>> >
>>
>> "Randomized, double-blind" studies are not the only valid research tools
>> available. You demand for such studies of vaccines displays an ignorance
>> of
>> how scientific research is really done. Those modalities are particularly
>> useful for testing medications whose results must be evaluated
>> subjectively,
>> such as self-report of pain levels, or observation of cold symptoms, but
>> in
>> the case of vaccines, perfectly valid research studies can be done
>> statistically. Once a vaccine has been shown to have protective value
>> against a serious illness, it would be unethical to use placebos and
>> withhold that benefit in further research.
>
> That's certainly the view promoted by the makers of vaccine.
> Unfortunately, anti-body titres don't tell us how effectively vaccine
> confers immunity in the real world. Contrary to the shrill voices of
> your fellow pharma bloggers, I accept that vaccines work, the problem
> is we don't know how WELL they work, and that's important.
Perhaps YOU don't know how well they work. The rest of us have a pretty good
idea. Titres are an excellent marker for immunity, by the way. When
vaccination doesn't "work" it's because it didn't stimulate the body to
produce the antibodies, not because the antibodies didn't do their job.
> The article
> I posted on flu vaccine demonstrates the dispute over study results by
> various health agencies and whether we should be stock-piling. This is
> happening because the drug makers don't want to disrupt their global,
> bread and butter vaccine franchise. When the science of marketing
> replaces the science of medicine, everyone loses in the end.
There you go again, perpetrating the myth of huge vaccine profits and
marketing. ALL of the "global" market for vaccines represents less than the
market for the impotence meds alone. A Viagra pill is a lot cheaper to
produce and has a higher markup by far than an MMR shot.
As for flu vaccines, "stock-piling" does not make sense for a vaccine that
is defferent every year to keep up with the variation in the world's
predominant strains. The distribution issues can get tricky when, like last
year, there is a rare vaccine shortage due to a manufacturing glitch.
Distribution is also going to be a problem when a vaccine is developed for
the avian flu virus, because the pandemic may be well underway before the
morhpology of the virus is determined and the vaccine is in full production.
But those are issues about how to protect the most people from the disease,
not how to protect the profits of the pharm companies.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
www.acahf.org.au">http://www.acahf.org.au
www.quackwatch.org/">http://www.quackwatch.org/
www.skeptic.com/">http://www.skeptic.com/
www.csicop.org/">http://www.csicop.org/
|
|