The Pharmacuitical Industry Is Letting People Die For Profit - but muh vaccines

[TECSHARE]

I have a question here for everyone who agrees that pharmaceutical industries often sell over priced drugs which many can not afford, and often sell poorly tested and dangerous drugs, all for profit. Everyone seems to be in agreement on this point. It is clear even thought they hold legal liability for dangerous drugs, dangerous drugs still manage to hit the market regularly.

Why is it that some how these same companies are suddenly more trustworthy to people when they are manufacturing vaccines where they hold ZERO liability? What is so different about vaccines that implicitly makes them safer than all of these dangerous recalled and overpriced drugs that these companies produce? Why is it that they are willing to put people's lives and health at risk with pharmaceuticals, but some how not when they manufacture vaccines? How do you think the population would respond to compulsory drugging of the people? What makes compulsory vaccinations any better?

[1714131389]

1714131389

[1714131389]

1714131389

[1714131389]

1714131389

[squatz1]

I've never heard any of the information relating to vaccines not being able to hold liability on the company that created them. Though I'm assuming this comes from the fact that Government is heavily subsidizing the process and is involved in creating these vaccines. There may be little to no profit in creating something like this (This is an assumption, I don't know about profit in this field) so the government must get involved in order to bring a common good to people.

That's my take on the whole matter, though I do truly want to see the liability info on vaccines (as I know there are people that have some pretty bad side effects from certain vaccines)

[TECSHARE]

Privatization of profits, socialization of costs.

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

[coins4commies]

Who said the companies were more trustworthy when it comes to vaccines?  Sounds like a strawman.  Vaccines are essential.  Just because you consume a basic need doesn't mean you find the producer trustworthy.  It just means there is no better option. 

[TECSHARE]

Who said the companies were more trustworthy when it comes to vaccines?  Sounds like a strawman.  Vaccines are essential.  Just because you consume a basic need doesn't mean you find the producer trustworthy.  It just means there is no better option.  

You aren't addressing any of my points or questions or points, and using a straw man in the same breath as you accuse me of using a straw man. Considering that I raised the premise to begin with, strawmanning my own premise would be a neat trick. I asked why compulsory vaccinations are ok when people would find compulsory medication reprehensible, especially in light of the fact that they have repeatedly shown to put profit over risk to human health and life.

[coins4commies]

Who said the companies were more trustworthy when it comes to vaccines?  Sounds like a strawman.  Vaccines are essential.  Just because you consume a basic need doesn't mean you find the producer trustworthy.  It just means there is no better option.  

You aren't addressing any of my points or questions or points, and using a straw man in the same breath as you accuse me of using a straw man. Considering that I raised the premise to begin with, strawmanning my own premise would be a neat trick. I asked why compulsory vaccinations are ok when people would find compulsory medication reprehensible, especially in light of the fact that they have repeatedly shown to put profit over risk to human health and life.

Vaccines are compulsory medication. The main thing that separates vaccines from other types of medication such as pain killers is because something like pain only affects the individual patient while a virus incubates/breeds in your body to a point where it can easily spread to other people. 

In short, the viruses for which vaccines are compulsory are contagious and have devastating effects, while the consequences of manufacturers cutting corners pale in comparison.   

[TECSHARE]

Who said the companies were more trustworthy when it comes to vaccines?  Sounds like a strawman.  Vaccines are essential.  Just because you consume a basic need doesn't mean you find the producer trustworthy.  It just means there is no better option.  

You aren't addressing any of my points or questions or points, and using a straw man in the same breath as you accuse me of using a straw man. Considering that I raised the premise to begin with, strawmanning my own premise would be a neat trick. I asked why compulsory vaccinations are ok when people would find compulsory medication reprehensible, especially in light of the fact that they have repeatedly shown to put profit over risk to human health and life.

Vaccines are compulsory medication. The main thing that separates vaccines from other types of medication such as pain killers is because something like pain only affects the individual patient while a virus incubates/breeds in your body to a point where it can easily spread to other people. 

In short, the viruses for which vaccines are compulsory are contagious and have devastating effects, while the consequences of manufacturers cutting corners pale in comparison.   

You still aren't responding to any of my points. You are answering the questions you wish I had asked rather than the ones I actually asked. What gives you the right to decide to put individuals at risk against their own will so that you can feel protected? Additionally the list of compulsory vaccinations continues to grow. Are you really arguing vaccinations like those for chickenpox and the flu would result in consequences that "pale in comparison" to the personal risk and loss of autonomy over ones own body? Also, who are you to decide acceptable risks for others? For some one who sees Nazis behind every bush, you are very eager to erase informed consent laws which directly resulted from the horrors of Nazi medical experimentation.

[PrimeNumber7]

The value of Vaccines vastly outweighs the costs/risks both to the individual and to society. Vaccines have nearly eradicated many diseases only to see them come back in packets of areas in which groups of people have declined to have their children vaccinated. Please remember that not everyone is healthy enough to receive every vaccine and there are legitimate medical reasons for some people to not receive a particular vaccine.

Vaccines have shown themselves to be safe after decades of research, and multiple studies over many decades.

When a pharmaceutical company sets the price of a drug, they take several factors into consideration:
*R&D cost of the drug in question
*R&D costs of drugs that will never be released to the public (failed research)
*Production costs of the drugs
*Estimated sales volume while the drug is protected by patient
*Estimated subsidies to be given to consumers of the drug, domestic and international
*Profit

Above all, if a drug is priced above what the market will support, it will not sell.

As to your concerns about some drugs being dangerous, drugs are often needed when a person is very sick, often to the point at which if the person does not receive treatment, they will all but certainly die in the semi-near future. Cancer for example is going to kill a person without treatment, and many cancer treating drugs are what amounts to poison. This poison kills the cancer, but it also affects the rest of a person's body, and the patient is made aware of the risks and side affects of taking the drug, so they can be informed when they consent to treatment. Over time, new treatments for some deadly ailments have become less harmful than previous treatments due to advances in technology and additional research.

There is no reason to hold a drug company liable for a side effect of a drug if the risk of the side effect was disclosed ahead of time. I don't think anyone is being compelled into taking drugs that has a real risk of serious negative side effects. 

[TECSHARE]

The value of Vaccines vastly outweighs the costs/risks both to the individual and to society. Vaccines have nearly eradicated many diseases only to see them come back in packets of areas in which groups of people have declined to have their children vaccinated. Please remember that not everyone is healthy enough to receive every vaccine and there are legitimate medical reasons for some people to not receive a particular vaccine.

Vaccines have shown themselves to be safe after decades of research, and multiple studies over many decades.

When a pharmaceutical company sets the price of a drug, they take several factors into consideration:
*R&D cost of the drug in question
*R&D costs of drugs that will never be released to the public (failed research)
*Production costs of the drugs
*Estimated sales volume while the drug is protected by patient
*Estimated subsidies to be given to consumers of the drug, domestic and international
*Profit

Above all, if a drug is priced above what the market will support, it will not sell.

As to your concerns about some drugs being dangerous, drugs are often needed when a person is very sick, often to the point at which if the person does not receive treatment, they will all but certainly die in the semi-near future. Cancer for example is going to kill a person without treatment, and many cancer treating drugs are what amounts to poison. This poison kills the cancer, but it also affects the rest of a person's body, and the patient is made aware of the risks and side affects of taking the drug, so they can be informed when they consent to treatment. Over time, new treatments for some deadly ailments have become less harmful than previous treatments due to advances in technology and additional research.

There is no reason to hold a drug company liable for a side effect of a drug if the risk of the side effect was disclosed ahead of time. I don't think anyone is being compelled into taking drugs that has a real risk of serious negative side effects. 

Another case of answering the questions you wish I had asked, not the questions I actually asked. I never advocated for getting rid of vaccines. I asked why is it ok to remove people's bodily autonomy and make vaccines compulsory in violation of informed medical consent? You make claims to their safety, but you also argue they shouldn't hold liability. If they were that safe, why do they need government protection from liability? This is usually the part where you spew platitudes about "the greater good" and make unsupported claims of safety with zero substantiation.

[coins4commies]

The claims that vaccines with their health risks are the greater good compared to the diseases they prevent are totally substantiated but this is a case of you wanting to be taught the pre-vaccine history of deadly viruses and it hasn't happened.  It should be common knowledge for anyone who has the time to get this far into a discussion.  You have done so much research potential harms of vaccines but should have done background research that the history of flu epidemics
 and the need for vaccines before doing so.  It just seems like you have gotten all of your information from an anti-vaccine source. 

 Spanish flu wiped out about 5% of the world population in a few years.  This should be your biggest fear.  We know the vaccines aren't as bad simply by the fact that life expectancy is going up with them instead of going down with these diseases.  If large amounts of people start dropping dead from a vaccine, we can revisit that question but right now, its a homerun. 

The main problem with vaccines is that they have been so effective at preventing viruses that we now live in a world where no one knows how bad viruses were

You don't HAVE to get vaccinated.  No one is forcing it but its required for school and childcare.  Individuals do not have a right to spread deadly viruses to others. 

[TimeBits]

The "doctors" do not even realize they are drug dealers, it`s sad.

[TECSHARE]

The claims that vaccines with their health risks are the greater good compared to the diseases they prevent are totally substantiated but this is a case of you wanting to be taught the pre-vaccine history of deadly viruses and it hasn't happened.  It should be common knowledge for anyone who has the time to get this far into a discussion.  You have done so much research potential harms of vaccines but should have done background research that the history of flu epidemics
 and the need for vaccines before doing so.  It just seems like you have gotten all of your information from an anti-vaccine source.  

 Spanish flu wiped out about 5% of the world population in a few years.  This should be your biggest fear.  We know the vaccines aren't as bad simply by the fact that life expectancy is going up with them instead of going down with these diseases.  If large amounts of people start dropping dead from a vaccine, we can revisit that question but right now, its a homerun.  

The main problem with vaccines is that they have been so effective at preventing viruses that we now live in a world where no one knows how bad viruses were

You don't HAVE to get vaccinated.  No one is forcing it but its required for school and childcare.  Individuals do not have a right to spread deadly viruses to others.  

Again, you are just talking about what you want to talk about rather than addressing the premise of the topic which is compulsory vaccinations. You keep wanting to shift the debate to a pro vs anti vaccination argument which is a false choice fallacy. I highlighted the self contradictory statement you made. Yes, vaccinations are becoming compulsory. Education is compulsory, as well as the vaccinations to attend being compulsory. They are literally passing laws in some places saying you can't even be in public without vaccinations. You aren't at all addressing the topic, and when you pretend to briefly at the end you are literally lying about it to avoid addressing the conflict in logic.

Vaccines are compulsory medication.

You don't HAVE to get vaccinated.

Your level of debate is so basic, sloppy, and self contradictory I am ashamed I live in a nation where you can be called an educator.

[Jet Cash]

Big pharma is not just looking for profits. Several of the known members of the ruling deep state have stated that their aim is to reduce the world population by 80%. Wars, vaccines, killer drugs, economic deprivation, social unrest, and localised climate change are just a few of the weapons they use.

[TECSHARE]

Big pharma is not just looking for profits. Several of the known members of the ruling deep state have stated that their aim is to reduce the world population by 80%. Wars, vaccines, killer drugs, economic deprivation, social unrest, and localised climate change are just a few of the weapons they use.

Clearly I am trying to stick to factual base level information here. People can barely handle that, and this is an important topic people need to be made aware of. Please save the rest for the other vaccination thread.

[PrimeNumber7]

The value of Vaccines vastly outweighs the costs/risks both to the individual and to society. Vaccines have nearly eradicated many diseases only to see them come back in packets of areas in which groups of people have declined to have their children vaccinated. Please remember that not everyone is healthy enough to receive every vaccine and there are legitimate medical reasons for some people to not receive a particular vaccine.

Vaccines have shown themselves to be safe after decades of research, and multiple studies over many decades.

When a pharmaceutical company sets the price of a drug, they take several factors into consideration:
*R&D cost of the drug in question
*R&D costs of drugs that will never be released to the public (failed research)
*Production costs of the drugs
*Estimated sales volume while the drug is protected by patient
*Estimated subsidies to be given to consumers of the drug, domestic and international
*Profit

Above all, if a drug is priced above what the market will support, it will not sell.

As to your concerns about some drugs being dangerous, drugs are often needed when a person is very sick, often to the point at which if the person does not receive treatment, they will all but certainly die in the semi-near future. Cancer for example is going to kill a person without treatment, and many cancer treating drugs are what amounts to poison. This poison kills the cancer, but it also affects the rest of a person's body, and the patient is made aware of the risks and side affects of taking the drug, so they can be informed when they consent to treatment. Over time, new treatments for some deadly ailments have become less harmful than previous treatments due to advances in technology and additional research.

There is no reason to hold a drug company liable for a side effect of a drug if the risk of the side effect was disclosed ahead of time. I don't think anyone is being compelled into taking drugs that has a real risk of serious negative side effects. 

Another case of answering the questions you wish I had asked, not the questions I actually asked. I never advocated for getting rid of vaccines. I asked why is it ok to remove people's bodily autonomy and make vaccines compulsory in violation of informed medical consent? You make claims to their safety, but you also argue they shouldn't hold liability. If they were that safe, why do they need government protection from liability? This is usually the part where you spew platitudes about "the greater good" and make unsupported claims of safety with zero substantiation.

>i asked why is it ok to remove people's bodily autonomy and make vaccines compulsory in violation of informed medical consent?

alue of Vaccines vastly outweighs the costs/risks both to the individual and to society. Vaccines have nearly eradicated many diseases only to see them come back in packets of areas in which groups of people have declined to have their children vaccinated. Please remember that not everyone is healthy enough to receive every vaccine and there are legitimate medical reasons for some people to not receive a particular vaccine.

The lack of nearly the entire population being vaccinated, who is healthy enough, does great harm to society in the form of epidemics of preventable, deadly diseases. The question of if a person is able to receive a vaccine is very straightforward, and actual side affects that are severe are very rare among those who can receive vaccines.

>You make claims to their safety, but you also argue they shouldn't hold liability
I didn't say vaccine manufacturers should not be held liable for real harm they cause. I am not aware of any special protections given to vaccine manufacturers. Vaccines are administrated by doctors, usually pediatricians. It is up to the vaccine manufacturer to determine in which criteria patients should not receive a vaccine due to high risks of severe negative side effects. If a patient receives a vaccine despite should not have received the vaccine per manufacturer guidelines, that it not the manufactuer's fault it is the pediatricians fault for not running the prerequisite tests (not reading the tests correctly, not disclosing that it is inappropriate to give the vaccine, etc), or the parent/patients fault for receiving the vaccine despite being disclosed that receiving the vaccine is inappropriate. If the pediatrician does not follow the manufacturer guidelines, it is the pediatricians fault, and should be held responsible.

If manufacturer guidelines are followed for providing the vaccine, and a patient has real, severe side effects, the manufacturer should be held responsible.