If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Do you get an annual Flu Shot?
In article ,
Greegor wrote: If the government and the vaccine injury fund are cloaks to protect these companies from those liabilities, hasn't this (legal shield) been a huge disservice to the citizen public? =A0 Indirectly INVITING sloppy work that normal liability concerns would have prevented.. Exempting them from concerns for liability seems insane. There are adverse reactions one can get from flu shots. =A0A weak allergy to eggs can suddenly become a strong one to the flu shot, and there are other adverse immune reactions. =A0The risks are sufficiently great, and the profit sufficiently low, that without these guarantees the flu shots would not be available. But shouldn't the pharmaceutical company lose any immunity when they defraud the FDA to obtain drug approval, or cover up problems? If they defraud the FDA, they can be prosecuted for that. Likewise, if they cover up problems. We are talking about vaccines only; the manufacturer of VIOXX, or any of the other drugs of that type, does not have such protection. What are the limits to the immunities granted to the pharmaceutical companies? There are limits on vaccines. In my opinion, if the drug company has been honest about the drug, there should be immunities in any case. There is no way that a drug manufacturer can even guess that a chemical will increase the risk of cancer 10 years later, and by that time the drug becomes generic in most cases. Now there is considerable disagreement about the value of flu shots, with arguments on both sides. =A0It is necessary to balance the risks against the benefits, and as benefiting from the flu vaccine is not the same as taking it, the public health issue requires the government to take a stand, and it has, recommending the vaccines. And of course government is wise, responsible and loves us. (sarc) I assume none of these. Would you be willing to manufacture something which, if made ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS, would subject you to enormous lawsuits? Who wrote specifications allowing all of the byproducts, chemicals and preservatives? The government. Are they accepting RESPONSIBLITY? To a considerable extent in the case of vaccines, yes. Certain consequences are definitely covered. For other consequences, one must make a good case. Our legislation, and reasoning, for situations where one cannot ascertain a definite single cause, is lacking. When there is considerable randomness, which is the case, few people are even thinking that way. I can discuss the statistical problems involved, and I definitely do not agree with the FDA's misuse of statistics. They are aware of the problems of balancing risk against benefits, but also do not seem to understand that in the final analysis it should be the risk to the patient and the benefits to the patient which need ot be considered. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FLU SHOT DANGERS FAR OUTWEIGH BENEFITS ... WHAT'S IN THOSE FLU SHOT THEY SAY ARE 'SAFE' ? ? ? | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 2 | March 24th 08 02:50 PM |
Sigh-Annual appointment with OB | Irene | Breastfeeding | 59 | November 29th 05 10:02 AM |
Annual Repost (In case you need help) | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | October 25th 05 01:06 PM |
My bi-annual pop-in | Nikolette | Twins & Triplets | 24 | June 10th 04 09:18 PM |
The annual Xmas message | StuKa | Child Support | 4 | December 17th 03 03:29 PM |