That analogy is fundamentally problematic. The documentary is a single source, so a more-appropriate analogy would be: "If someone cites 100 pieces of information as fact, and only 20 of those "facts" actually prove to be true or valid, then would you regard that person as a reliable source of information?"
My answer is no. 20/80 is a crap signal-to-noise ratio, especially for something that purports to be a documentary.
Looking at the research field, if 20% of scientists hold a perspective that is contrary to the mainstream, then that's a huge minority, and would be the seed of much vigorous debate. In the case of vaccines vs. autism, however, you won't even find 0.2% of scientists siding against vaccines. The idea is extremely fringe, on the scale of flat earthers.
And no, I haven't seen the movie, but I work in the field of vaccine research, so I have no intention to. Wakefield and his buddies are public health menaces and I refuse to contribute any money to his war chest or his yacht fund.
An aside: it cracks me up when people discuss how much money is at stake with respect to the vaccine industry. An efficacious vaccine brings in practically nothing compared to an efficacious drug. Think about it: if a vaccine is effective, you receive it only once over the course of your life. Maybe twice. Now think about how often you take aspirin, or allergy medication, or vitamin supplements, or cholesterol-lowering medication, or antidepressants, or birth-control pills, or erectile dysfunction medication, or ... Financially speaking, if a drug company were to create a dream product, it would be a treatment that you would take every day to relieve your symptoms, but would not actually cure you of your ailment. Vaccines are the antithesis of this. Sure, a novel vaccine can be a profitable enterprise (such as Sanofi's current motivations for marketing a dengue vaccine -- a vaccine that's desired by literally billions of people), but it's nothing compared to creating a new Viagra or Lipitor.
Big pharmaceutical companies get involved in vaccine work largely for the PR, and because this kind of work more easily obtains grant-based funding from the federal government, so their work can be subsidized. And don't forget that a massive amount (perhaps the majority) of vaccine research is done through educational and non-profit medical research institutions, who don't have the same financial motivations that the big for-profit companies have.
A final aside: yes, vaccines can sometimes be harmful. There are people who are sensitive/allergic to certain vaccines, and these side effects can be as severe as death. This is undeniable, not just with vaccines, but with all types of medication, even vitamin supplements, even other so-called "natural" remedies. However, in the case of (most) vaccines, the rates of these severe side effects is exceedingly small, and is typically far outweighed by the population-wide health benefit. In the numbers game of global health, if you discontinue use a drug that saves the lives of millions (yes, millions) of people simply because of the side effects that emerge in a few hundred people, then you need to need to find a new line of work. Yes, it sucks if you're in that small minority, but you have a greater chance of being killed in a car accident during a single outing than you have of dying from receiving a vaccine, and people never think twice about driving. Outside of sanitation, vaccination has reduced more human suffering around the world than any other medical development.
Only in very exceptional cases does the issue of side effects cause a re-think of vaccination strategies. For example, polio is still prevalent in some isolated regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. We could eradicate polio forever with a widespread vaccination effort throughout those regions, but not everyone is at equal risk of catching the disease, and a mass-vaccination campaign would likely generate more vaccine-related medical complications (deaths, etc.) than the disease itself. So this makes the global polio eradication strategy more complicated, and right now they're using a targeted approach -- identifying the highest-risk populations and only vaccinating them -- to minimize the total amount of human suffering, at the cost of delaying the eradication of the disease.
If you're refusing to get your kids vaccinated, but you're still driving them around in your car, or you keep guns in your house (even locked up), of you let them ride a bike, or you have a swimming pool in your back yard, or you don't keep your medication and household cleansers in a locked cabinet, etc., then you need to re-evaluate your notions of how to manage risk.
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
This is a very stupid post by a disingenuous poster.
First, you admit that you have not seen the film. You have no business on this board.
Second, your entire post assumes that Vaxxed is an anti-vaccine film; it is not. You have no idea what you are writing about.
Third, your claims that vaccines are not profitable for Big Pharma is pure nonsense.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-and-big-profits-the-multibillion-dollar-vaccine-market/5503945.
Watch the film or stay off of this board.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share
Zwergin
8 years ago
But they are a very very small part of the overall profits and treating the illnesses instead of preventing them would most likely bring in more.
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
The article shows clearly that the vaccine profits are anything but small.
You did not read the article; you have not watched the film.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share
Zwergin
8 years ago
One estimate puts the vaccine market now at $24 billion—huge, but a mere 2 to 3 percent of a trillion-dollar worldwide pharmaceutical industry.
For me that is a small part of the overall profits.
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
That "trillion dollar" pharmaceutical industry that you claim includes OTC drugs and pretty much anything that a pharmacy can sell.
The market is expected to be $61 billion by 2020.
But it's your argument that is absurd. Whatever percentage of profits accounted for by vaccines, the bottom line margins are still enormous and growing. Saying that Big Pharma may make more money on other products does not mitigate the profit-motivation argument made in the film - which you have not watched.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share
Zwergin
8 years ago
In the U.S., a study looking at the benefits of vaccination between 1994 and 2013 estimated a net savings of $295 billion in direct cost.
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
Once again, change the tactics when you've painted yourself into a corner. Now you want to discuss a cost-benefit analysis of vaccination programs.
In the U.S., a study looking at the benefits of vaccination between 1994 and 2013 estimated a net savings of $295 billion in direct cost.
A study conducted by whom and paid for by whom?
A net savings over what? What is being compared to produce this number?
Also, please keep in mind that, whether your claim has merit or not, it is irrelevant to the subject of Vaxxed.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share
Zwergin
8 years ago
It was mentioned in the article that your article quoted from, that should be a good source for you, or not?
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
Whether it is or not, your point is still irrelevant to the discussion. Vaxxed is not an anti-vaccination film.
Watch the film.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share
megarat-799-414878
8 years ago
This is a very stupid post by a disingenuous poster.
Oooh, name calling. We're off to a good start.
First, you admit that you have not seen the film. You have no business on this board.
Oooh, trying to control the dialogue. It gets better.
Second, your entire post assumes that Vaxxed is an anti-vaccine film; it is not.
This might sound strange, but I sort of believe you on this. But only sort of. What I do believe is that the goal of this film is to further the agenda of Andrew Wakefield, and that agenda is to keep the vaccine controversy alive. And Rule #1 in media studies is that if you want a directed message to appear objective, then introduce some confusion and complexity by ceding a few minor points to the opposition.
Andrew Wakefield was someone who spent decades of study and hard work, perhaps even amassing a considerable student debt in the process (he schooled in the UK, and I'm not sure how medical school costs are handled there), and then, in the relatively early days of his career, he -- by account of everyone who was involved with the situation, except for Andrew Wakefield himself -- made an egregious mistake that resulted in the loss of his medical license, and thus the loss of his livelihood.
So he's gotta make a living somehow, and a 40-something ex-physician isn't going to start running the meat slicer at his local Arby's. Leveraging his assets, he has been profiting from the very controversy that he perpetrated, and that means stoking the fires by keeping people enraged and confused. This film -- apart from being an Andrew Wakefield for-profit vehicle -- is solely designed to maintain or even increase the momentum of the controversy, which will in turn generate more speaking fees and donations.
As someone who once received almost a half-million British pounds to create fraudulent research, Andrew Wakefield has demonstrated that he's not above mendacity for the sake of his own benefit, even at the ancillary cost of human lives. If that alone doesn't discredit any of the major messages in this film -- not to mention make him an enemy of the people -- I don't know what does.
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
As someone who once received almost a half-million British pounds to create fraudulent research, Andrew Wakefield has demonstrated that he's not above mendacity for the sake of his own benefit, even at the ancillary cost of human lives.
I believe that this entire statement is a lie; at the very least, it is a misrepresentation. Please provide substantiation.
Until you watch the film, all of your comments are meaningless.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share
megarat-799-414878
8 years ago
I believe that this entire statement is a lie; at the very least, it is a misrepresentation. Please provide substantiation.
Andrew Wakefield's backstory is very easy to find via multiple, credible places on the internet, starting with the Sunday Times investigation and additional articles in the British Medical Journal, followed by the UK's General Medical Council hearings, the documents that were obtained by journalists through Freedom of Information requests, the journal retractions, Wakefield's dismissed libel and defamation lawsuits, etc.
The situation about Andrew Wakefield is pretty cut and dry: you either believe that he's the victim of a dark, horrific conspiracy on an extremely massive scale, or that he's a sociopathic, avaricious, mendacious charlatan. The evidence is vastly, vastly, vastly overwhelming in support of the latter.
Until you watch the film, all of your comments are meaningless.
Hardly. The man is a famous established liar, so viewing his film will be a waste of time and money. I have no desire to see his lies and propaganda repackaged for the big screen.
By providing this information on the forum, potential viewers can use it to decide whether or not they should see the movie for themselves.
It sounds like you're trying to censor me because I'm not in line with your message.
reply
share
Zwergin
8 years ago
But I bet all the credible places have some nebulous, sinister ties to Big Pharma, just like the journal that first published and then retracted Brian Hooker's paper (I still wonder why they published it in the first place with all their Big Pharma ties...).
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
You keep trying to make this suject float away in a cloud of meaningless drivel and unsubstantiated claims. You have never once addressed the main point of Vaxxed the documentary.
You haven't addressed the point because you are stupidly trying to discuss a film that you have not seen.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
All you had to do to substantiate your point about Wakefield taking money to do a deliberately fraudulent study was provide a link. Instead, you just rehash assertions already made and disputed on this board. Your failure to follow up on this point is a virtual admission that it's a lie.
The situation about Andrew Wakefield is pretty cut and dry: you either believe that he's the victim of a dark, horrific conspiracy on an extremely massive scale, or that he's a sociopathic, avaricious, mendacious charlatan. The evidence is vastly, vastly, vastly overwhelming in support of the latter.
No, it is not "cut and dry (sic)" and you have mischaracterized the situation.
The only "evidence" is reprobation from official channels, all of them heavily under the thumb of Big Pharma.
The man is a famous established liar, so viewing his film will be a waste of time and money.
It has never been established that Wakefield has lied about MMR and autism. He has simply been accused of doing so by people who stand to benefit from his discreditation.
It sounds like you're trying to censor me because I'm not in line with your message.
Call it whatever you want. What I'm doing is showing "potential viewers" that your posts reflect an industry-sympathetic view of the giant pharmaceutical firms and a blatant attempt to sort-circuit an important discussion.
I will continue to point out that you have not watched the film and have no idea what it is about. Vaxxed is not an anti-vaccination film.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share
megarat-799-414878
8 years ago
Wow, you're jumping to so many random conclusions that this would be hilarious if unvaccinated kids weren't dying from otherwise preventable diseases.
If you're willing to bet the lives of your children on your blind faith in someone who claims to be the victim of an absurd conspiracy that requires the culpability of tens of thousands of people in disparate parts of society, over the massive amounts of clear evidence, testimony, and documentation indicating that this person is an unscrupulous liar and practitioner of scientific misconduct, then there is no point in trying to continue any sort of logical discussion.
Send your kids my sympathies.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
Zwergin
8 years ago
Or maybe Big Pharma doesn't care about him. I don't think they are shaking in their boots because of the things he and his friend in the paper-retraction-club have to say about the topic.
reply
share
jesusofjonesboro
8 years ago
Once again, Vaxxed is not an anti-vaccination film. Period.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
reply
share