4 ms·
Fine, but obviously it's not only the vaccine manufacturers who are pushing for things like mandatory vaccinations for public school enrolment (except where una
by jamestnz 12y ago
Fine, but obviously it's not only the vaccine manufacturers who are pushing for things like mandatory vaccinations for public school enrolment (except where unable, e.g. immunocompromised children unable to tolerate the vaccination itself). It's also, y'know, people with an interest in promoting public health, people who understand the concept of herd immunity, and people who have a reasonably tuned sense of social responsibility. So, sure: Big Bharma employs lobbying as part of their business strategies. This is both unsurprising and irrelevant to the overall societal benefit of high immunisation rates.
> edit: obviously lobbying is not 100% responsible for all vaccinations laws, but it's partly so and increasing
But how can you tell that the number of vaccination laws passed due to lobbying is increasing? Or possibly you just meant that lobbying dollars are increasing. But higher dollar values alone would tell us nothing about the relative success of that lobbying in getting laws passed. For example, perhaps the laws were going to be passed regardless, and the increased spend is illusory, being attributable to a general trend of increased lobbying spend in US big-business, inflation, or other factors. In an environment where lobbying is the norm, I think gauging the "effectiveness" of lobbying spend, especially for something which lots of people generally seem to support anyway, is a hard problem.
- logn 12y agoI don't really disagree with you too much except that lobbying is relevant when considering regulatory capture. And if you want hard numbers to analyze the impact of lobbying, you're not going to get it, because lobbyists have lobbied against transparency laws. Anyhow, the impact is real such as with Merck and Gardasil. Further, it's not only laws that matter but court precedent and CDC policies. But certainly you're right that many unbiased/disinterested people agree with pharma. It's definitely not an issue only related to profits.
- hga 12y agoAnd people freaking old enough to remember when the only vaccination was for smallpox. I just discussed this with my 81 year old father, who along with everyone else stood in line for the first polio vaccinations; that was the big fear for adults who'd survived the other things children are immunized for like measles, e.g. FDR lost almost all the use of his legs from it when he was 39 and counted himself lucky. I myself was born early enough that I got a lot of vaccinations as they first became available, and my parents, my mother a former RN, were very happy about this state of affairs. Seriously, you might as well read Kippling's The Gods of the Copybook Headings in favor as anything else about this rank insanity. As well as gain a much more sympathetic view of the "less enlightened" of the world and history, as we arrogantly view them.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- hga 12y agoFair enough; my comment was intended as an addition to your list of "It's also, y'know, people with an interest in promoting public health, people who understand the concept of herd immunity, and people who have a reasonably tuned sense of social responsibility." with examples in living history. Plus you can't get away from the concept of "good science" and people who don't accept the concept at all in this domain, especially the ones who can be accurately plotted by Whole Foods locations and otherwise claim to respect "science". Let me add that at least in theory, vaccines receive the strictest regulation of all drugs, since the they're given to ostensibly healthy people.
- logn 12y agoYes, I deleted my comment above shortly after leaving it because I figured it was a relevant discussion afterall unless I'm splitting hairs. (In the deleted comment I claimed this was all off topic to my original post).