• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Emerging Republican Advantage

BigTreeDeac said:
Even excluding kids that are prevented from getting vaccines due to other reasons, you should still care because your kid getting stuck with a shot doesn't mean they are actually vaccinated against that pathogen. As I said above, vaccines don't work all the time and the level of immunity they provide varies. The idea is that whether your individual child is immune or not, those around them will be for the most part. Take a school for instance. Let us say Vaccine A is effective 95% of the time. That means 1 in every 20 kids would still be potentially susceptible. Even if a kid gets the disease, the likelihood that they transmit it is low because most of the other kids around them are protected. If 10% of people stop vaccinating, now the susceptible population goes up from 5% to 15%. Transmission rates increases because now the sick kid only has to sneeze on 7 kids to have the odds of finding somebody that can be infected instead of 20. I could go on and on but suffice it to say not vaccinating your child is making a decision that negatively impacts other people around you, not just you and your family (the general you, not specifically you W&B).
Click to expand...

makes total sense. I would never have even considered not vaccinated young Wakefield Anderson, but we were talking about this last night and this is exactly what his mom said too.
 
ONW said:
"In 1986 when the VICP was first created vaccine makers were protected from lawsuit by the public. The VICP insulates vaccine manufacturers from liability and requires that petitioners bring their petitions solely against HHS. They may not sue manufacturers or healthcare practitioners. The rationale for this industry and professional protection was to ensure a stable childhood vaccine supply and to keep prices affordable.

The 1986 Law also permits the vaccine makers the right to not disclose known risks
to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. Based on something called the “learned intermediary” doctrine, manufacturers bear no liability for giving, or failing to give, accurate or complete information to those vaccinated."


Did not know this.
Click to expand...

This is, in a twist some may not see coming, the single greatest stifler of innovation in vaccines especially wrt adjuvants. Because you cannot be sued if their are unintended side effects, it is almost impossible to get a vaccine approved unless if uses current adjuvants known to be safe. This is a good thing because flooding the market with drugs for which their is no recourse if they are dangerous is a really bad idea. Unfortunately it also serves the purpose of shelving a bunch of innovation. I'd be happy to be held liable if my designed adjuvant has unintended side effects because as it stands I can't get any traction on it despite it being effective as a component of vaccines against a range of pathogens. In fact, not only does it provide protection in animal models to diseases we currently don't have vaccines for it promotes more efficacious vaccination to a number of vaccines currently being used. In the end, though, there is simply no way to know if it will have major side effects without undergoing extensive research nobody is going to pay for if its unlikely to be approved in the end whether it is found to have side effects or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
Wakeforest22890 said:
Probably similar to the frustration when clients disagree with a strategy because they heard from a friend or googled the best way to handle a legal matter. Happens a lot though apparently. Basically people are horrible judges of when to delegate and not delegate duties IMO
Click to expand...

Yeah, except this decision can kill other people's children. For the most part, taking unsound legal strategy just affects you and by extension those close to you.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
Yeah, except this decision can kill other people's children. For the most part, taking unsound legal strategy just affects you and by extension those close to you.
Click to expand...

Yep.

If I had even an inkling of an idea that the woman I want to have kids with wouldn't want them vaccinated for basic things like MMR I would immediately call into question my actual desire to procreate with that person.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
This is, in a twist some may not see coming, the single greatest stifler of innovation in vaccines especially wrt adjuvants. Because you cannot be sued if their are unintended side effects, it is almost impossible to get a vaccine approved unless if uses current adjuvants known to be safe. This is a good thing because flooding the market with drugs for which their is no recourse if they are dangerous is a really bad idea. Unfortunately it also serves the purpose of shelving a bunch of innovation. I'd be happy to be held liable if my designed adjuvant has unintended side effects because as it stands I can't get any traction on it despite it being effective as a component of vaccines against a range of pathogens. In fact, not only does it provide protection in animal models to diseases we currently don't have vaccines for it promotes more efficacious vaccination to a number of vaccines currently being used. In the end, though, there is simply no way to know if it will have major side effects without undergoing extensive research nobody is going to pay for if its unlikely to be approved in the end whether it is found to have side effects or not.
Click to expand...

Very true. Once you take away accountability, the downside of your actions become irrelevant.
 
Why is cuba gooding jr. a tag on this thread btw?
 
Oh Rand

[h=1]Rand Paul decades-long member of group opposed to forced vaccines[/h]By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI
2/4/15 11:19 AM EST
Updated 2/4/15 2:51 PM EST


Rand Paul, who has been mired in controversy over whether child vaccinations should be mandatory, has long been associated with a medical group that opposes mandatory vaccinations and has published reports promoting a handful of other dubious positions.
The Kentucky Republican’s association with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons dates back to at least 1990, though the group’s executive director, Dr. Jane Orient, told POLITICO that Paul stopped paying dues when he was elected to the Senate in 2010.
Story Continued Below


“We consider him one of us, but he hasn’t paid his dues recently,” she said. Paul’s Senate office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

...

In 2000, when Paul was a member, AAPS called for “a moratorium on vaccine mandates and for physicians to insist upon truly informed consent for the use of vaccines.”
Orient bristled at the notion that the group is anti-vaccine, but forcefully defended its stance against policies that make them mandatory.
“We are opposed to forcing people to have medical interventions; we believe we have the right to turn them down,” she said. “We don’t believe in human sacrifice, to put it bluntly.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...physicians-surgeons-114902.html#ixzz3Qtqp56fi
 
Sure but can't treat someone pregnant differently than someone who isn't regardless of the underlying offense. Interesting case though.

Really hinges on whether or not she actually had a record of poor work habits or not I think. Obviously will be contested by the employer as to whether or not they ever fire employees for losing a coupon without a prior warning but seems to me relatively straight forward on the pleadings unlike a lot of employment cases which seem doomed from the get go. EEOC will likely just issue a right to sue notice.
 
Last edited:
BigTreeDeac said:
In the end, though, there is simply no way to know if it will have major side effects without undergoing extensive research nobody is going to pay for if its unlikely to be approved in the end whether it is found to have side effects or not.
Click to expand...
From what I've been told by big pharma people that since you can't really test an adjuvant by itself and that means there is no money in the adjuvant itself. It's hard to protect. There are quite a few proprietary adjuvants being developed though. Everyone is really hush hush about it....treating them more like trade secrets. My vaccine collaborator is using one and he's paranoid about saying anything at all.

I saw some DOD data on Toll receptor agonists (Toll 6??) that ramped up the immune system so much the rodents were immune from Ebola. 100%. N = 12 IIRC. People don't seem to want to develop that sort of thing independently though. Do you know why? Is the risk just too high?
 
pourdeac said:
From what I've been told by big pharma people that since you can't really test an adjuvant by itself and that means there is no money in the adjuvant itself. It's hard to protect. There are quite a few proprietary adjuvants being developed though. Everyone is really hush hush about it....treating them more like trade secrets. My vaccine collaborator is using one and he's paranoid about saying anything at all.

I saw some DOD data on Toll receptor agonists (Toll 6??) that ramped up the immune system so much the rodents were immune from Ebola. 100%. N = 12 IIRC. People don't seem to want to develop that sort of thing independently though. Do you know why? Is the risk just too high?
Click to expand...
That is certainly a concern. Many adjuvants are already existing compounds so you are forced to apply for use patents and those are no bueno for Big Pharma. Mine is fully patentable, it is just tough to get money committed because the FDA is reluctant to approve new ones for the reasons I outlined.

As far as Toll agonists as adjuvants, the biggest problem is generating long lived immunity. They work well for creating robust short term immunity but are pretty hit or miss for long term protection. They would be great as immune boosters during active infections but the jury is out on them in traditional vaccines. Plus the patentability is problamatic for the reason you mentioned. You cant patent the natural ligands for TLRs, so again it is a use patent and nobody is putting money into those types of patents anymore.
 
Did pour and BTD just have a civil exchange about something relevant? :hug:
 
BigTreeDeac said:
That is certainly a concern. Many adjuvants are already existing compounds so you are forced to apply for use patents and those are no bueno for Big Pharma. Mine is fully patentable, it is just tough to get money committed because the FDA is reluctant to approve new ones for the reasons I outlined.

As far as Toll agonists as adjuvants, the biggest problem is generating long lived immunity. They work well for creating robust short term immunity but are pretty hit or miss for long term protection. They would be great as immune boosters during active infections but the jury is out on them in traditional vaccines. Plus the patentability is problamatic for the reason you mentioned. You cant patent the natural ligands for TLRs, so again it is a use patent and nobody is putting money into those types of patents anymore.
Click to expand...
It's never been clear to me how to even run an adjuvant clinical trial. I suppose the FDA would make you run one arm with a known vaccine and one arm with the new adjuvant and the same vaccine conjugate. They might even want an arm with just the vaccine conjugate. But the adjuvant would have to improve the existing vaccine I believe..the "gold standard" issue. That might be hard to do with a lot of the standard vaccines because they work so well now. It would be hard to improve them. It would probably be best to use the new adjuvant with a new vaccine, but the vaccine makers want the new vaccine to work as well so it's a bit of a risk. They'd rather stick to Alum and make sure the new vaccine worked. It's tricky.

Congress needs to do something about the natural product issue...at least as it pertains to small molecules. I suspect the recent rulings will force reliance on use patents but...there needs to be labeling protections too.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
the GOP war on intellectuals continues
Click to expand...
A "war" the left is manufacturing. Science is what created the entire controversy in the FIRST place.

Scientists claimed autism rates are rising rapidly and it's a major health concern. It's trumpeted by the media.
Scientists claimed it has to be due to something man has done driving more media hysteria...the "man has fucked things up" meme.
Finding the source meant being the autism hero so everyone was in hot pursuit..to stop evil man.
A scientist published the vaccine link in one of the biggest peer reviewed medical journals Lancet...so science was arguing the safety of vaccines (a concept that's now being ridiculed).
The media trumpeted the link as the biggest science story of the year...as a huge science WIN...that stopped evil man!!!!!

But...

There is no link between autism and vaccines. Autism rates aren't increasing either, it's the way we define it. But most people still believe autism is a major health problem and that's OK to believe...even though the flaws in the original studies were glaring and subsequent real analysis shows it was diagnosis, not disease. People still cling onto the latter though because they want to believe man fucked up everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top