Vaccine Inserts

One of the most commonly cited reasons for not vaccinating is the side effects read in the vaccine inserts. But, if you are only reading the vaccine inserts and assuming that they cite what vaccines cause, you are misreading them.

Vaccine inserts have specific language about causality because they are saying that just because XYZ happened during the trial does not mean it was caused by the vaccines.

Here is what Pediarix states: "This list includes serious adverse events or events which have a suspected causal connection to components of Pediarix. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure." Which does not mean that XYZ is caused by the vaccine and we have no clue how common it is. It is saying that the data in this insert is not going to tell you about vaccine safety, you have to look further in the research literature.


And they all say pretty much the same thing. So, you need to look further, into safety studies, to find out what is really going on and how the data is interpreted. And then, you find out, for example, that autism is just as prevalent in the unvaxed as vaxed, that SIDS death rates are lower in vaxed kids, and so on.

Vaccine inserts tell you everything that occurred during a vaccine trial, without regard to causation.  They are not implying the vaccines caused anything and should never be read as such. If you are only reading vaccine inserts for information on vaccines, you are most definitely not well informed or educated.


http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

Drug company profits

It is often claimed, by those against vaccination, that vaccines are big money makers for drug companies. This is, supposedly, the main reason drug companies make vaccines.  However, the cost of making a new drug is truly staggering and vaccines are not really the biggest money makers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/

"The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion."

Between 1997 and 2011, Merck spent $67 billion on research and development and got 16 drugs approved.  Sanofi spent $63 billion and got 8 drugs approved. Pfizer spent $108 billion and got 14 drugs approved.

"There are lots of expenses here. A single clinical trial can cost $100 million at the high end, and the combined cost of manufacturing and clinical testing for some drugs has added up to $1 billion. But the main expense is failure. AstraZeneca does badly by this measure because it has had so few new drugs hit the market. Eli Lilly spent roughly the same amount on R&D, but got twice as many new medicines approved over that 15 year period, and so spent just $4.5 billion per drug."


"Right now, fewer than 1 in 10 medicines that start being tested in human clinical trials succeed."

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/industries/21/index.html

In 2010, Merck reported $861 million profit, down 98% from 2009.
In 2010, Pfizer reported $8 billion in profit, down 8% from 2009


And what are the most profitable drugs for pharma companies?

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/medication/10-most-profitable-drugs.htm

Not one vaccine in that list.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43025869/America_s_Top_Selling_Prescription_Drugs

Not a vaccine on that list either.


Vaccines are NOT the huge moneymakers the antivaxers would like you to believe. Vaccines are NOT created solely for the purpose of profit.  They are far too expensive to create for that purpose.  Don't fall for the antivaxer BS on this issue. It is not truthful.