4 ms·

>"But then opponents spoke out: self-described ‘vaccine victims’ — perhaps similar to people today who claim the MMR vaccine causes autism. Back then, they said

>"But then opponents spoke out: self-described ‘vaccine victims’ — perhaps similar to people today who claim the MMR vaccine causes autism. Back then, they said that the Lyme vaccine gave them arthritis." Okay, vaccines can harm people. It's a fact, get over it, now let's see an honest discussion with more facts and less name-calling. >" There were a number of East Coast lawyers who started putting together class-action lawsuits." So? Vaccine manufacturers are immune from lawsuit. Cases are tried in vaccine court[1]. Awards are paid by the gov't. > "many drug companies say not they’re not interested in working on one." There is no excuse for this. If we have to suffer the perversion of market forces seen in our vaccine industry, there should be no excuses for companies who don't want to produce an existing product merely because it isn't profitable enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

nknighthb 13y ago
As far as I know, the immunity only applies for the vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, which is comprised mostly or entirely of vaccines specifically recommended by the CDC for children. The lyme vaccine, like many other vaccines, isn't on the VIT.
some_guy_there 13y ago
FDA did not clear the vaccine for children, so from this one probably isn't on the list of covered vaccine. The entire vaccine court system was established so that drug companies can make vaccines with minimum headaches. Why would any company produce vaccine when there are other profitable things to make?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >Why would any company produce vaccine when there are other profitable things to make? They wouldn't. But if my gov't is going to give out immunity that benefits a particular industry, then I want my gov't to also demand/subsidize products like Lyme vaccines from that industry.
  - pc86 13y ago
    Are you reading the comments or just pasting text from a form letter? The industry does not have "blanket immunity." There are specific vaccines on the VIT that the CDC has specifically recommended for children (of which the Lyme vaccine is NOT one) and those are the only ones which the company cannot be held liable for. You keep talking about looking at the CDC data, perhaps you should start. So your entire argument that class actions against Lyme manufacturers don't matter because "the government will pay the fine" is baseless, wrong, and intentionally misleading.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      Of course lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies matter. They are pretty much the only corrective feedback protecting people against negligence and/or abuse.
jussij 13y ago
> Okay, vaccines can harm people. It's a fact, get over it It's also a known fact Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 research paper, that tried to discredit the MMR vaccine by linking it to other complications is fraudulent and wrong. That research paper was nothing more than a work of fiction. The problem is, decades on 'vaccine victims' still quote Andrew Wakefield’s research paper as a reason to not vaccinate. Those are the 'vaccine victims' he was referring to and they are alive and well, working hard to bring back the iron lung hospital wards of the 1950s with their stupidity and ignorance. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/wonder/Archive/Images/Iron%20Lungs.jpg http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/wonder/Archive/Images/Ir... http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/what-america-looked-like-polio-children-paralyzed-in-iron-lungs/251098/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/what-ame...
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >It's also a known fact Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 research paper, that tried to discredit the MMR vaccine by linking it to other complications is fraudulent and wrong. 1. Straw man 2. The paper didn't "try to discredit the MMR vaccine" it said: "We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." and recommended/asked for further studies. It may have been dead wrong. I don't care. It was never the sort of thing that a reasonable person would base a decision to vaccinate solely upon. >That research paper was nothing more than a work of fiction. Did you read it? It's a pretty low quality paper, it was a "study" of 12 patients. Hardly enough statistics to make any strong conclusion. No reasonable person would consider it such a strong statement. >The problem is, decades on 'vaccine victims' still quote Andrew Wakefield’s research paper as a reason to not vaccinate. They don't need to do that. They can just use the CDC data or the NVIC data. Or the drug companies' own data (when they've been forced to release it) >Those are the 'vaccine victims' he was referring to and they are alive and well, working hard to bring back the iron lung hospital wards of the 1950s with their stupidity and ignorance. I like your links to photos of Polio victims. Thankfully, people back then weren't afraid to notice that the first generation of Polio vaccines actually gave Polio to some who took them. Instead of denying the possibility that their vaccine was imperfect, or telling everyone "our vaccine is good enough!, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet", they improved/perfected the vaccine. Good for them. Shame on their successors.
cromulent 13y ago
> let's see an honest discussion with more facts and less name-calling I don't see any name calling or dishonesty.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >self-described ‘vaccine victims’ — perhaps similar to people today who claim the MMR vaccine causes autism. Back then, they said that the Lyme vaccine gave them arthritis. It's the air-quotes, and the unfair comparison to "people today who claim the MMR vaccine causes autism."
  - cromulent 13y ago
    That's not name calling, nor dishonesty, and I think the comparison is fair.
scythe 13y ago
>Okay, vaccines can harm people. Yeah, so can lightning, bathtubs, and aspirin. The risk from vaccines is miniscule, and "vaccine victim" is an appropriate way to castigate people who don't understand statistics. Your kid is at more risk of SIDS than vaccine complications. Or, y'know, a bicycle accident. Pretty much everything is more dangerous than vaccines, from McDonald's to driving to drinking -- even smoking marijuana, for that matter, looking at you Bill Maher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination >So? Vaccine manufacturers are immune from lawsuit. From the article: >Subsequently, hundreds of vaccine recipients reported they had developed autoimmune side effects. Supported by some patient advocacy groups, a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline In effect, your claim appears to be without basis. The thing is, a certain proportion of people will develop autoimmune issues randomly at any time. If they've been vaccinated recently, there's a chance they'll blame it on the vaccine, but that does not mean the vaccine caused their autoimmune disorder. That is why science is performed by using randomized controlled trials to study the side-effects of treatments, and these scare tactics are absurd and damaging to society. The actual incidence of problems caused by vaccines is much lower than the incidence of problems incorrectly ascribed to vaccines. From a later post of yours: >They can just use the CDC data or the NVIC data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed Vaccines are by and large rigorously tested before entering the marketplace. Here's an example of the tests done on the Lyme disease vaccine: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X0000520X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X00... >A clinical trial of over 10,000 adults showed [...] Only mild or moderate, transient vaccine-associated adverse events have been reported after immunization. Is ten thousand people not enough for you? How many would convince you? A hundred thousand? A million? Are you willing to pay for this, or do you think science falls out of the sky? >I like your links to photos of Polio victims. Thankfully, people back then weren't afraid to notice that the first generation of Polio vaccines actually gave Polio to some who took them. Instead of denying the possibility that their vaccine was imperfect, or telling everyone "our vaccine is good enough!, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet", they improved/perfected the vaccine. Good for them. Shame on their successors. Consider the previous statement about failing to comprehend statistics. Consider also that your statement is blatantly false: the oral polio vaccine developed in the 1950s remains in use today, and has successfully contributed to the eradication of polio in most of the world. Unless of course you mean the disastrous 1936 "vaccine" that didn't actually prevent anything and was basically the virus itself, but I'm sure you're not intent on being so... misleading. The injected polio vaccine, itself still on its first generation, never carried such risks, but it's hard to get people to agree to an injection -- maybe because of vaccine scaremongry? Anywho, statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vaccine-induced.29_polio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vac... >The rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) varies by region but is generally about 1 case per 750,000 vaccine recipients. That means that VAPP is one of the only things that is actually less likely to happen to you than a terrorist attack. The existence of VAPP at all is due to the use of a live attenuated virus vaccine for poliomyelitis, which itself is due to the fact that polio is just a real bastard to culture and the vaccine was developed a long time ago. Vaccine reactivation is fun to worry about because it's scary, but in all conceivable circumstances presents far less risk than the disease itself. >There is no excuse for this. If we have to suffer the perversion of market forces seen in our vaccine industry, there should be no excuses for companies who don't want to produce an existing product merely because it isn't profitable enough. I dunno, the existence of people who are willing to spread pseudo-"cautionary tales" based on misrepresented data who can make marketing the vaccine a largely fruitless endeavor seems like it very well might be enough to discourage even a benevolent nonprofit organization. I'm glad we don't have such people around here. Also: it's a "perversion of market forces" when a product that doesn't sell is withdrawn from the market? >It's a fact, get over it, now let's see an honest discussion with more facts and less name-calling. Fact #n+1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Impact_on_society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Impact_...
pc86 13y ago
I'd love to see you actually respond to scythe (the top reply to this comment) instead of spreading your misinformation elsewhere in this thread.

nknighthb 13y ago

As far as I know, the immunity only applies for the vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, which is comprised mostly or entirely of vaccines specifically recommended by the CDC for children. The lyme vaccine, like many other vaccines, isn't on the VIT.

some_guy_there 13y ago

FDA did not clear the vaccine for children, so from this one probably isn't on the list of covered vaccine. The entire vaccine court system was established so that drug companies can make vaccines with minimum headaches. Why would any company produce vaccine when there are other profitable things to make?

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Why would any company produce vaccine when there are other profitable things to make? They wouldn't. But if my gov't is going to give out immunity that benefits a particular industry, then I want my gov't to also demand/subsidize products like Lyme vaccines from that industry.
- pc86 13y ago
  Are you reading the comments or just pasting text from a form letter? The industry does not have "blanket immunity." There are specific vaccines on the VIT that the CDC has specifically recommended for children (of which the Lyme vaccine is NOT one) and those are the only ones which the company cannot be held liable for. You keep talking about looking at the CDC data, perhaps you should start. So your entire argument that class actions against Lyme manufacturers don't matter because "the government will pay the fine" is baseless, wrong, and intentionally misleading.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Of course lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies matter. They are pretty much the only corrective feedback protecting people against negligence and/or abuse.

jussij 13y ago

> Okay, vaccines can harm people. It's a fact, get over it It's also a known fact Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 research paper, that tried to discredit the MMR vaccine by linking it to other complications is fraudulent and wrong. That research paper was nothing more than a work of fiction. The problem is, decades on 'vaccine victims' still quote Andrew Wakefield’s research paper as a reason to not vaccinate. Those are the 'vaccine victims' he was referring to and they are alive and well, working hard to bring back the iron lung hospital wards of the 1950s with their stupidity and ignorance. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/wonder/Archive/Images/Iron%20Lungs.jpg http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/wonder/Archive/Images/Ir... http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/what-america-looked-like-polio-children-paralyzed-in-iron-lungs/251098/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/what-ame...

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>It's also a known fact Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 research paper, that tried to discredit the MMR vaccine by linking it to other complications is fraudulent and wrong. 1. Straw man 2. The paper didn't "try to discredit the MMR vaccine" it said: "We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." and recommended/asked for further studies. It may have been dead wrong. I don't care. It was never the sort of thing that a reasonable person would base a decision to vaccinate solely upon. >That research paper was nothing more than a work of fiction. Did you read it? It's a pretty low quality paper, it was a "study" of 12 patients. Hardly enough statistics to make any strong conclusion. No reasonable person would consider it such a strong statement. >The problem is, decades on 'vaccine victims' still quote Andrew Wakefield’s research paper as a reason to not vaccinate. They don't need to do that. They can just use the CDC data or the NVIC data. Or the drug companies' own data (when they've been forced to release it) >Those are the 'vaccine victims' he was referring to and they are alive and well, working hard to bring back the iron lung hospital wards of the 1950s with their stupidity and ignorance. I like your links to photos of Polio victims. Thankfully, people back then weren't afraid to notice that the first generation of Polio vaccines actually gave Polio to some who took them. Instead of denying the possibility that their vaccine was imperfect, or telling everyone "our vaccine is good enough!, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet", they improved/perfected the vaccine. Good for them. Shame on their successors.

cromulent 13y ago

> let's see an honest discussion with more facts and less name-calling I don't see any name calling or dishonesty.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>self-described ‘vaccine victims’ — perhaps similar to people today who claim the MMR vaccine causes autism. Back then, they said that the Lyme vaccine gave them arthritis. It's the air-quotes, and the unfair comparison to "people today who claim the MMR vaccine causes autism."
- cromulent 13y ago
  That's not name calling, nor dishonesty, and I think the comparison is fair.

scythe 13y ago

>Okay, vaccines can harm people. Yeah, so can lightning, bathtubs, and aspirin. The risk from vaccines is miniscule, and "vaccine victim" is an appropriate way to castigate people who don't understand statistics. Your kid is at more risk of SIDS than vaccine complications. Or, y'know, a bicycle accident. Pretty much everything is more dangerous than vaccines, from McDonald's to driving to drinking -- even smoking marijuana, for that matter, looking at you Bill Maher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination >So? Vaccine manufacturers are immune from lawsuit. From the article: >Subsequently, hundreds of vaccine recipients reported they had developed autoimmune side effects. Supported by some patient advocacy groups, a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline In effect, your claim appears to be without basis. The thing is, a certain proportion of people will develop autoimmune issues randomly at any time. If they've been vaccinated recently, there's a chance they'll blame it on the vaccine, but that does not mean the vaccine caused their autoimmune disorder. That is why science is performed by using randomized controlled trials to study the side-effects of treatments, and these scare tactics are absurd and damaging to society. The actual incidence of problems caused by vaccines is much lower than the incidence of problems incorrectly ascribed to vaccines. From a later post of yours: >They can just use the CDC data or the NVIC data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed Vaccines are by and large rigorously tested before entering the marketplace. Here's an example of the tests done on the Lyme disease vaccine: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X0000520X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X00... >A clinical trial of over 10,000 adults showed [...] Only mild or moderate, transient vaccine-associated adverse events have been reported after immunization. Is ten thousand people not enough for you? How many would convince you? A hundred thousand? A million? Are you willing to pay for this, or do you think science falls out of the sky? >I like your links to photos of Polio victims. Thankfully, people back then weren't afraid to notice that the first generation of Polio vaccines actually gave Polio to some who took them. Instead of denying the possibility that their vaccine was imperfect, or telling everyone "our vaccine is good enough!, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet", they improved/perfected the vaccine. Good for them. Shame on their successors. Consider the previous statement about failing to comprehend statistics. Consider also that your statement is blatantly false: the oral polio vaccine developed in the 1950s remains in use today, and has successfully contributed to the eradication of polio in most of the world. Unless of course you mean the disastrous 1936 "vaccine" that didn't actually prevent anything and was basically the virus itself, but I'm sure you're not intent on being so... misleading. The injected polio vaccine, itself still on its first generation, never carried such risks, but it's hard to get people to agree to an injection -- maybe because of vaccine scaremongry? Anywho, statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vaccine-induced.29_polio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vac... >The rate of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) varies by region but is generally about 1 case per 750,000 vaccine recipients. That means that VAPP is one of the only things that is actually less likely to happen to you than a terrorist attack. The existence of VAPP at all is due to the use of a live attenuated virus vaccine for poliomyelitis, which itself is due to the fact that polio is just a real bastard to culture and the vaccine was developed a long time ago. Vaccine reactivation is fun to worry about because it's scary, but in all conceivable circumstances presents far less risk than the disease itself. >There is no excuse for this. If we have to suffer the perversion of market forces seen in our vaccine industry, there should be no excuses for companies who don't want to produce an existing product merely because it isn't profitable enough. I dunno, the existence of people who are willing to spread pseudo-"cautionary tales" based on misrepresented data who can make marketing the vaccine a largely fruitless endeavor seems like it very well might be enough to discourage even a benevolent nonprofit organization. I'm glad we don't have such people around here. Also: it's a "perversion of market forces" when a product that doesn't sell is withdrawn from the market? >It's a fact, get over it, now let's see an honest discussion with more facts and less name-calling. Fact #n+1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Impact_on_society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Impact_...

pc86 13y ago

I'd love to see you actually respond to scythe (the top reply to this comment) instead of spreading your misinformation elsewhere in this thread.