RFK Adjusts Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendations; Democrats Lose Their Minds
- By probinson
- American Politics
- 57 Replies
Ah, the old guilt by association.
Simply pointing out that your contention that it's not "just" Democrats is somewhat less than honest, since the organizations you cited are primarily Democrat.
Medical associations receive funding from medical companies.
And you don't see a problem with that?
Objective To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support.
...
Results 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality.
Conclusion Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review - PMC
Objective To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in ...
This next article is talking specifically about the food industry, but it illustrates just how much finance bias factors into these studies:
One study detected that research articles sponsored exclusively by food and beverage companies were 4-8 times more likely to have conclusions favorable to the financial interests of the sponsoring company than articles that were not sponsored by food or beverage companies. A subsequent comprehensive review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examining sponsor influences on the quality and independence of health research cited that industry-sponsored studies were about 30 times more likely than non-industry sponsored studies to report statistically significant findings in favor of the sponsor.
Navigating Industry Funding of Research • The Nutrition Source
Scientific research is costly. However, a concern with industry funding is a potential influence on study outcomes, even if unintended.
Industry-sponsored studies are about THIRTY TIMES more likely than non-industry sponsored studies to report findings in favor of the sponsor. You're in denial if you think that pharmaceutical companies' funding doesn't impact the findings of their studies and the recommendations that the medical organizations make that are funded by them.Except that the medical associations ARE concerned.
Hand-wringing seems more appropriate.
Because this decision will "lead to more childhood hepatitis B infections, will lead to more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood, and will complicate vaccine access for children".
So they say.
Has anyone asked them why other countries that don't recommend a universal birth-dose don't have these issues?
Those are VERY GOOD reasons to be "deeply alarmed".
Sure they are, if they were evidence-based.
There is also a broader reason to be "deeply alarmed".
Here comes the slippery slope...
This decision was taken with no new evidence with an ACIP board that has been concocted for its ideological purity rather than its independent expertise.
That's amusing. Prior ACIPs have been in the pocket of the industry for years. They weren't selected for their "independent expertise". They were selected for their willingness to rubber-stamp things. They have all been selected for their ideological purity. It's just now they're "concerned" because the "ideological-purity" in place now isn't the one that puts financial gain first.
The presentations around the vaccination established no causal link to any injury beyond "death following anaphylaxis", based on a 1994 study. There was not a single public-health based reason given supporting the decision to revise the schedule. Instead, what there was was a lot of picture of sad babies with needles and insinuations about phamecutical firms.
It's funny you should mention that there was not a single public-health based reason to support this, because when the universal birth-dose was instituted, there also was not a single public-health based reason to recommend it to newborns at low-risk. Prior to the 1991 recommendation, it was common practice to only vaccinate newborns whose mother tested positive for Hep B. That was evidence-based and logical. No evidence was presented that there was a public-health benefit to indiscriminately vaccinating all newborns. Someone just decided that an evidence-based, risk-stratified approach was not as easy as a universal approach. It's odd that only now people are upset that recommendations are changing without evidence.
And for crying out loud, if you want the Hep B vaccine for your child, you can still get it. Just because it's not recommended does not mean it's not available. "Talk to your doctor". Works for just about everything else.
The complaint that there were "randomized, placebo-controlled, extended follow-up trials" is just so telling. As is the admission that "The safety concern may be more theoretical than real".
Did you watch the 20/20 clips I posted from January 1999 about the Hep B vaccine? The parents of the children who died and are permanently injured from the vaccine are not "theoretical". That was at a time when industry capture wasn't nearly as pervasive as it is today and mainstream media wasn't afraid to do real investigations. Alas, that is no longer the case today.
This is the thin edge of the wedge. RFK Jnr and his pack of cronies are out to destroy one of the greatest achievements in human health.
There's the slippery slope I was waiting for!
Upvote
0