Trump taps Vacine Skeptic RFK Jr. to lead safety commmision

[Dr. Evil]

They mandate them to protect people from themselves and from succumbing to misinformation. And it isn't only the unvaccinated who may catch measles, the flu, pertussis or whatever else. MANY vaccines provide what is called active immunity . They subject your body to a weakened, dead, or similar antigen for your body to recognize and fight and this recognition can wear out over time, or your body may not provide a substantial enough immune response in the case of an infection for whatever reason. Not to mention the likelihood of those too young to be vaccinated and the infirm being especially vulnerable. But who cares if they get caught in the crossfire of the malinformed who choose to use healing crystals instead of vaccines to stave off long eradicated diseases?

I don't discuss firearms much because there are many many on here that know way more than me and have experience that I don't. The one thing I am competent in saying, based on my experience of 20+ years in the healthcare field and raising two sons differently than many do is that this isn't even close.

 

[Shadow2]

I've been getting flu shots for the past 11 years, I haven't had the flu in 11 years ... striking coincidence. Now can it increase autism in kids, it's very possible, no reason why somthing shouldn't study it further. I don't doubt for a second that a company will sweep negative findings under the rug for profit. Studies and Long term effects arnt covered by FDA testing.

 

[SigLady]

I don't discuss firearms much because there are many many on here that know way more than me and have experience that I don't. The one thing I am competent in saying, based on my experience of 20+ years in the healthcare field and raising two sons differently than many do is that this isn't even close.

Somebody que Cartman: " You will respect my authoritah!"

I'm with you, sir.

What i find intriguing is how the powers-that-be go about not only discrediting the doctors and scientists who challenge vaccine safety (*cough* global warming *cough*) but also the parents who question it. On the lighter end you have the perpetrated stereotype of people who question the safety of vaccines as being crystal healing whacked out hippies, or ditzy celebrities (a tactic gun owners- especially conservative ones- should be familiar with). On the extreme other end if that you have publicly outspoken opponents of vaccines being threatened with the prospect of having their children taken away from them if they don't sit down and shut up (as is the case with a family acquaintance.)

Bottom line is that there is massive incentive- maybe on the part of big pharma, maybe the gov't, maybe the medical eatablishment (maybe all of tbe above) to silence the dissent and sweep unflattering evidence under the rug. It is happening.

The question remains that if there's nothing to see here and vaccines are perfectly safe, then why? Why the smear campaigns and the mandates and the particular efforts to shut up the opposition. This is the kind of things Communist governments do.

 

[Justincase]

I don't discuss firearms much because there are many many on here that know way more than me and have experience that I don't. The one thing I am competent in saying, based on my experience of 20+ years in the healthcare field and raising two sons differently than many do is that this isn't even close.

I'm right there with you regarding my somewhat limted firearms experience compared to others on this forum, but I can assure you that's not the case here.

 

[Darth]

20 years in a medical field focused on alternative medicine is perhaps why you feel the need to criticize and ignore the facts surrounding the real stuff perhaps?

Yep, it's the same circle. Yep, same appeal to authority.

I know people with 35 years in the weed business that assure me it kills cancer.

Nothing to do with being an expert, but given the data presented, more of an expert than one just using a one sided view based on their job?

Since we started this little back and fourth years ago at the other place, my opinions have changed. More facts have been presented, and they all back exactly what the scientific data shows.

 

[Darth]

Somebody que Cartman: " You will respect my authoritah!"

I'm with you, sir.

What i find intriguing is how the powers-that-be go about not only discrediting the doctors and scientists who challenge vaccine safety (*cough* global warming *cough*) but also the parents who question it. On the lighter end you have the perpetrated stereotype of people who question the safety of vaccines as being crystal healing whacked out hippies, or ditzy celebrities (a tactic gun owners- especially conservative ones- should be familiar with). On the extreme other end if that you have publicly outspoken opponents of vaccines being threatened with the prospect of having their children taken away from them if they don't sit down and shut up (as is the case with a family acquaintance.)

Bottom line is that there is massive incentive- maybe on the part of big pharma, maybe the gov't, maybe the medical eatablishment (maybe all of tbe above) to silence the dissent and sweep unflattering evidence under the rug. It is happening.

The question remains that if there's nothing to see here and vaccines are perfectly safe, then why? Why the smear campaigns and the mandates and the particular efforts to shut up the opposition. This is the kind of things Communist governments do.

If gun ownership is so safe, why the "smear campaigns and the mandates and the particular efforts to shut up the opposition?"

It couldn't be because it's a public safety risk that directly contradicts decades of tangible evidence, no it must be a conspiracy.

And I already discussed the mandate thing. I feel the same about mandatory gun ownership laws, which, by the way, some on here cheered when GA (or was it AL?) had a city pass one.

 

[freddy]

Nothing is perfectly safe. Occasionally vaccines are implicated in causing human suffering. Far, far, FAR more common is the opposite.

 

[Dr. Evil]

20 years in a medical field focused on alternative medicine is perhaps why you feel the need to criticize and ignore the facts surrounding the real stuff perhaps?

Yep, it's the same circle. Yep, same appeal to authority.

I know people with 35 years in the weed business that assure me it kills cancer.

Nothing to do with being an expert, but given the data presented, more of an expert than one just using a one sided view based on their job?

Since we started this little back and fourth years ago at the other place, my opinions have changed. More facts have been presented, and they all back exactly what the scientific data shows.

Spend a month in my office talking with my patients. Spend a month with my family seeing what we do. I don't take your condescending attitude lightly regarding my experiences and consider it pretty insulting quite frankly. You know nothing about what I do and how I live. Sad that it is beyond the realm of possibility in your reality. You really can't admit there are other answers, can you. No need to answer. You already admitted in the last line you are even more close minded than before which I didn't think was possible. Sad and pathetic that's what you are related to this. And things were going so well. I didn't want to go here but you really don't know when to leave well enough alone. Different forum, same result. Congrats man. I'm popping my cherry on this forum with you.

 

[Darth]

My condescending attitude!?

I've posted fact upon fact in this thread and all I get is "20 years", "my kids", and "spend a month in my shoes." You cut me down for not having your particular "experience", you called me a know it all, you've PMed stuff so that those unworthy couldn't see it, and you've called me a liar despite no evidence to the contrary!

You're totally correct, same result.

 

[holdover]

I've been getting flu shots for the past 11 years, I haven't had the flu in 11 years ... striking coincidence. Now can it increase autism in kids, it's very possible, no reason why somthing shouldn't study it further. I don't doubt for a second that a company will sweep negative findings under the rug for profit. Studies and Long term effects arnt covered by FDA testing.

I have never had a flu shot in my life, and haven't had the flu since I was kid.

 

[holdover]

The FDA has been corrupted by BIG $$$$$$$$$$ , Laws suits are baked into the cake. Health care in a now big business . Fear sells.
You guys heard of fake news? fake political polls? Guess what, there is fake science too.

 

[Darth]

The FDA has been corrupted by BIG $$$$$$$$$$ , Laws suits are baked into the cake. Health care in a now big business . Fear sells.
You guys heard of fake news? fake political polls? Guess what, there is fake science too.

Like "vaccines contain mercury, and are therefor dangerous", or "vaccines cause autism", or "you are a human PINCUSHION!" or "Big pharma just wants your money!" ?

Seems to be working I guess.

Fake news != peer reviewed, falsifiable, repeatable, science.

 

[holdover]

Is that your argument? ""Oh Like this? ""Did I say that?

 

[holdover]

Its not that people don't believe in science. That's absurd. Its that people believe the scientific process has been compromised for profits. Drugs are now business decisions now . What is the return on investment? xxxx, but its only 65% effective. if we make 85% effective it will cost XXX much more. and ROI will be only xx. The stock will drop, money will dry up ,if we don't satisfy the stockholders. That's how people in the fucking board room see your health. Its a matter of dollars . and if you think they don't fudge the numbers for billions in profit you need to lay off the Zoloft.

 

[Darth]

Its not that people don't believe in science. That's absurd. Its that people believe the scientific process has been compromised for profits.

People don't "believe" in the scientific method. They accept it or not.

Do I accept that there is some huge conspiracy going on that the government, which can clearly take whatever money it wants just by saying 'boo', and "Big pharma", who itself not only makes plenty of money (and doctors make nearly no money off of vaccinations, so that's a moot point) on legitimate medications, but in fact is often the biggest "leak" when it comes to drugs going awry (like in the aforementioned VIOXX case), in order to kill their only source of income and/or control the population based on nothing whatsoever?

No, no I do not.

 

[holdover]

you don't belive money corrupts? that's what Im talkin about.The conspiercy Im talking about is Immoral people who don't give a flying fuck about anybody but themselves see a huge opportunity, to make obscene amounts of cash if they only fudge the science .

 

[holdover]

They're not ""trying"" to kill anybody that's absurd, They're trying to make a buck . They're under the gun to produce for the stockholders, now maybe this new drug will kill some old people or young people, we can reject it and start all over and lose our investment on it or we can make massive profits by go forward with it , what do you think Wall is going to do? They are going to send it to their stock holders in the FDA and ask them . the FDA is bought and paid for they OWN the FDA

 

[Darth]

you don't belive money corrupts? that's what Im talkin about.

Source?


This is exactly what I am taking about with the intellectual honesty. And I personally don't understand it. Unless I really had some sort of dire ulterior motive in this, why would I take this stand? You all have know me for years at both forums, and we're (at least Internet) friends, but when you get a topic we disagree on, it's "you have no idea what you are taking about", "you are a know it all", *other generic intellectually dishonest response.

Is that how you respond to someone you disagree with instead of debating? Just making stuff up and sending PMs because an open debate would be unheard of?

Reminds me of this great pic I saw of 2 people conversing about scientific topics, and they both were high fiving eachy other at each one, until one challenged their beliefs, despite being wrong. I have to find that one. It's the epitome of this and all the previous threads.

But this one topic really brings out the best (worst) in all of us I guess.

 

[holdover]

Harvard University
Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted

July 17, 2013

by Donald W. Light

A forthcoming article for the special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), edited by Marc Rodwin and supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, presents evidence that about 90 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years are little or no more effective for patients than existing drugs.


All of them may be better than indirect measures or placebos, but most are no better for patients than previous drugs approved as better against these measures. The few superior drugs make important contributions to the growing medicine chest of effective drugs.

The bar for “safe” is equally low, and over the past 30 years, approved drugs have caused an epidemic of harmful side effects, even when properly prescribed. Every week, about 53,000 excess hospitalizations and about 2400 excess deaths occur in the United States among people taking properly prescribed drugs to be healthier. One in every five drugs approved ends up causing serious harm,1 while one in ten provide substantial benefit compared to existing, established drugs. This is the opposite of what people want or expect from the FDA.

Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death. Deaths and hospitalizations from over-dosing, errors, or recreational drug use would increase this total. American patients also suffer from about 80 million mild side effects a year, such as aches and pains, digestive discomforts, sleepiness or mild dizziness.

The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulation, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths. New FDA policies are likely to increase the epidemic of harms. This will increase costs for insurers but increase revenues for providers.

This evidence indicates why we can no longer trust the FDA to carry out its historic mission to protect the public from harmful and ineffective drugs. Strong public demand that government “do something” about periodic drug disasters has played a central role in developing the FDA.2 Yet close, constant contact by companies with FDA staff and officials has contributed to vague, minimal criteria of what “safe” and “effective” mean. The FDA routinely approves scores of new minor variations each year, with minimal evidence about risks of harm. Then very effective mass marketing takes over, and the FDA devotes only a small percent of its budget to protect physicians or patients from receiving biased or untruthful information.34 The further corruption of medical knowledge through company-funded teams that craft the published literature to overstate benefits and understate harms, unmonitored by the FDA, leaves good physicians with corrupted knowledge.5 6 Patients are the innocent victims.

Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted

 

[holdover]

Corruption of FDA Clinical Trials Reports: The Problem and a Proposed Remedy
Posted on June 22, 2016 by Yves Smith
By Bernard J. Carroll, Professor and Chairman Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, and a former chairman of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, Food and Drug Administration, U.S Public Health Service. E-mail: bcarroll40@comcast.net. Cross posted from Health Care Renewal

There is a disconnection between the FDA’s drug approval process and the reports we see in medical journals. Pharmaceutical corporations exploit this gap through adulterated, self-serving analyses, and the FDA sits on its hands. I suggest we need a new mechanism to fix the problem – by independent analyses of clinical trials data.

When they analyze and publish their clinical trials in medical journals, pharmaceutical corporations have free rein to shape the analyses. The FDA conducts independent analyses of the data submitted by the corporations, and it may deny or delay approval. But the FDA does not challenge the reports that flood our medical journals, both before and after FDA approval. It is no secret that these publications are routinely biased for marketing effect, but the FDA averts its gaze. That failure of the FDA – a posture known as enforcement discretion – has been well documented. The question is why? At the same time, exposing the biases has been difficult for outsiders because the data are considered proprietary secrets.

A Case Study

Now, a detailed example of deliberate corporate bias has finally been documented, through materials released in litigation. This exposé was reported by Drs. Jon Jureidini, Jay Amsterdam, and Leemon McHenry. Their findings were recently published, and their article is freely available on-line. This example concerned a clinical trial of an antidepressant drug in children and adolescents.

The drug, citalopram, was already approved for use in adults, and its off-label use in children would spread if there was published supportive evidence. An Investigational New Drug (IND) protocol and plan of analysis were filed by Forest Laboratories with the FDA in 1999. The trial was completed in 2002, and the results were publishedin American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 – but the FDA did not accept the results as sufficient to approve this drug for use in children or adolescent patients. By that time the patent on citalopram had expired and Forest Laboratories introduced a virtual twin drug, escitalopram (single active enantiomer). That more expensive version of citalopram was heavily promoted, and it was approved in 2009 for use in children, but even then the FDA specifically noted that safety and efficacy were not established in children under age 12. Since then, new analyses suggest that most antidepressant drugs have little evidence of efficacy even in older children.

Corruption of FDA Clinical Trials Reports: The Problem and a Proposed Remedy | naked capitalism

 

[holdover]

WASHINGTON -- In an unusually blunt letter, a group of federal scientists is complaining to the Obama transition team of widespread managerial misconduct in a division of the Food and Drug Administration.

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scientific review process for medical devices at the FDA has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk," said the letter, dated Wednesday and written on the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health letterhead.

The center is responsible for medical devices ranging from stents and breast implants to MRIs and other imaging machinery. The concerns of the nine scientists who wrote to the transition team echo some of the complaints from the FDA's drug review division a few years ago during the safety debacle involving the painkiller Vioxx.

The FDA declined to publicly respond to the letter, but said it is working to address the concerns.

In their letter the FDA dissidents alleged that agency managers use intimidation to squelch scientific debate, leading to the approval of medical devices whose effectiveness is questionable and which may not be entirely safe.

"Managers with incompatible, discordant and irrelevant scientific and clinical expertise in devices...have ignored serious safety and effectiveness concerns of FDA experts," the letter said. "Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid."

A copy of the letter, with the names of the scientists redacted, was provided to The Associated Press by a congressional official.

"Currently, there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around," the scientists wrote.

FDA spokeswoman Judy Leon said in response: "We have been working very closely with members of the transition team and any concerns or questions they have on any issue, we will address directly with the team. Separately, the agency is actively engaged in a process to explore the staff members' concerns and take appropriate action."

FDA Scientists Complain to Obama of 'Corruption'

 

[Darth]

They're not ""trying"" to kill anybody that's absurd, They're trying to make a buck . They're under the gun to produce for the stockholders, now maybe this new drug will kill some old people or young people, we can reject it and start all over and lose our investment on it or we can make massive profits by go forward with it , what do you think Wall is going to do? They are going to send it to their stock holders in the FDA and ask them . the FDA is bought and paid for they OWN the FDA

The FDA should not even exist. They hold back lifesaving cures because of BS government "testing" required.

Thankfully, due to massive lawsuits that Merkel LOST due to screwing around with a relatively safe drug by trying to experiment with "side benefits" (VIOXX), this has become less and less, and as such "Big Pharma" themselves are killing their own drugs because of it.

Killing a bunch of people tends to tarnish your image, and your stockholder image, in the public eye. Look at Tiger Woods, and all he did was screw around.

 

[Darth]

Corruption of FDA Clinical Trials Reports: The Problem and a Proposed Remedy
Posted on June 22, 2016 by Yves Smith
By Bernard J. Carroll, Professor and Chairman Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, and a former chairman of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, Food and Drug Administration, U.S Public Health Service. E-mail: bcarroll40@comcast.net. Cross posted from Health Care Renewal

There is a disconnection between the FDA’s drug approval process and the reports we see in medical journals. Pharmaceutical corporations exploit this gap through adulterated, self-serving analyses, and the FDA sits on its hands. I suggest we need a new mechanism to fix the problem – by independent analyses of clinical trials data.

When they analyze and publish their clinical trials in medical journals, pharmaceutical corporations have free rein to shape the analyses. The FDA conducts independent analyses of the data submitted by the corporations, and it may deny or delay approval. But the FDA does not challenge the reports that flood our medical journals, both before and after FDA approval. It is no secret that these publications are routinely biased for marketing effect, but the FDA averts its gaze. That failure of the FDA – a posture known as enforcement discretion – has been well documented. The question is why? At the same time, exposing the biases has been difficult for outsiders because the data are considered proprietary secrets.

A Case Study

Now, a detailed example of deliberate corporate bias has finally been documented, through materials released in litigation. This exposé was reported by Drs. Jon Jureidini, Jay Amsterdam, and Leemon McHenry. Their findings were recently published, and their article is freely available on-line. This example concerned a clinical trial of an antidepressant drug in children and adolescents.

The drug, citalopram, was already approved for use in adults, and its off-label use in children would spread if there was published supportive evidence. An Investigational New Drug (IND) protocol and plan of analysis were filed by Forest Laboratories with the FDA in 1999. The trial was completed in 2002, and the results were publishedin American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 – but the FDA did not accept the results as sufficient to approve this drug for use in children or adolescent patients. By that time the patent on citalopram had expired and Forest Laboratories introduced a virtual twin drug, escitalopram (single active enantiomer). That more expensive version of citalopram was heavily promoted, and it was approved in 2009 for use in children, but even then the FDA specifically noted that safety and efficacy were not established in children under age 12. Since then, new analyses suggest that most antidepressant drugs have little evidence of efficacy even in older children.

Corruption of FDA Clinical Trials Reports: The Problem and a Proposed Remedy | naked capitalism

It's wrong in literally the first Paragraph!

"The FDA has been sitting on it's hands!? WTAF!?

And, as I said, I hate the FDA and oppose it.

 

[Darth]

The twisted illogical gambits of the antivaccination cult

"But once again, the Vioxx story is extremely complex, and not quite what you think it is. The FDA moved rather swiftly to deal with issue. The FDA withdrew Vioxx from the market, event though once all the issues were known, there was a slight positive benefit to risk computation that could be made for the drug. Was Merck clean? No, but they weren’t exactly pushing a snake oil that didn’t do anything and killed everyone. (Like not vaccinating your kids can.)The regulatory and clinical trial system actually worked, just maybe not fast enough."

Sitting on their hands!?

Why TF am I standing up for a government agency!?

First Confirmed Measles Death of 2015

 

[holdover]

Agreed , but they do, and that door swings both ways , They have failed on massive level, They allow drugs to be sold to the public that they shouldn't be. Not because they want to take over the world, for the reptile people, But because unscrupulous people are in high positions in The FDA with the ability to not notice things are taking large pay offs .

 

[holdover]

DUDE the FDA is the problem! We agree on that, what your not recognizing is that the FDA is corrupt. They are allowing drugs to be sold that shouldn't be sold. The reports or ""science "" are being fudged .

 

[Darth]

Agreed , but they do, and that door swings both ways , They have failed on massive level, They allow drugs to be sold to the public that they shouldn't be. Not because they want to take over the world, for the reptile people, But because unscrupulous people are in high positions in The FDA with the ability to not notice things are taking large pay offs .

They failed because they shouldn't even exist!

Shouldn't be? But whatever snake oil or real medicine you want to in your kids or yourself, but be prepared, if they die because of it, you are responsible.

 

[Darth]

DUDE the FDA is the problem! We agree on that, what your not recognizing is that the FDA is corrupt.

WHAT!?

I'm sorry, I have to call that a night.

I just can't even with this thread anymore.

 

[holdover]

(I know, Im tired too) I was trying say that your acknowledging the FDA is fucked up because
""They hold back lifesaving cures because of BS government "testing" required. ""

But to fail to realize that a lot of drugs they approve ends up hurting or killing people. You absolutely deny that , and its a fact , people die all the time from drugs hell they even have disclaimers on the fucking bottles.

(Sorry about that last post .)

 

[SigLady]

It couldn't be because it's a public safety risk that directly contradicts decades of tangible evidence, no it must be a conspiracy.

Respectfully, Darth, please try explaining that to the parents who have children that have been harmed by the vaccines. People Who have perfectly normal children on one day and within 24 hours of receiving the vaccine experience reactions- some of which are permanent.

Frankly, why are we having this discussion? What is the point if you're not going to even accept the remote possibility that the people who are in the middle of this debate-- the people who have done the research, the people who have children that have been harmed, the doctors on the ground-- are speaking up (at great personal and professional risk) because they have something valid to say?


That is what drives me absolutely bonkers about this forum. It's more often more about dominating and proving the other person wrong and than about having a good, solid discussion.