Big Pharma vaccine profits – the real conspiracy

Editor’s note: Note – this article has been updated and published here

One of the ongoing memes, tropes and fabrications of the vaccine deniers is somehow, somewhere, in some Big Pharma boardroom, a group of men and women in suits choose the next vaccine in some magical way, and foist it upon the world just to make billions of dollars. And while magically concocting the vaccine brew, these pharmaceutical execs ignore ethics and morals just to make a profit on hapless vaccine-injured victims worldwide.

The Big Pharma profits conspiracy trope ranges across the junk medicine world. Homeopathy, for example, claims that Big Pharma suppresses the data that shows water cures all diseases. Like Ebola.

But the Big Pharma vaccine profits conspiracy is still one of most amusing myths of the antivaccination world.

The vaccine denier myths

The vaccine deniers pollute the internet with their screeds about the Big Pharma vaccine profits. One of them said, “measles expert Offit has already made millions of dollars profit from his ties to vaccines and the measles MMR vaccine maker Merck.” Using a childish ad hominem, the article calls him, Dr. Paul “For Profit” Offit. Seriously, that’s how you’re going to “prove” that vaccines are a Big Pharma conspiracy? A 3rd grade playground tease? That’s the best you can do.

You can find whole threads of tedious commentary about Big Pharma vaccine profits on any typical anti-vaccine forum. One of the more illogical claims is that “maybe vax companies see vaccines as more of an investment? Break mostly even on what the vaxes cost to make and sell, but make a bank load of money on treating all the chronic problems they cause!” Of course, that would be a business strategy that would be laughed out of the secret Big Pharma boardroom, because they know that vaccines don’t cause chronic problems. The vaccines prevent it.

What is infuriating about these rants by the antivaccine cult is that not only that their scientific knowledge about vaccines is ridiculous, so is their business knowledge. Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised given that almost all vaccine deniers exhibit the same characteristic–a few hours googling is equivalent to a Ph.D., or, in this case, and an MBA.

A cheap psychological analysis of these claims

It’s a perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect‎, a cognitive bias in which unskilled, and uneducated, individuals suffer from an illusory superiority of their knowledge and skills, which causes them to overestimate their abilities in critical thinking abilities and knowledge of a field as much higher than average.

It continues to amaze me that these deniers (in whatever science, evolution, global warming and vaccines) think that reading a few pages on the internet is somehow equivalent to years of study. Attacking Paul Offit by calling him childish names must make the science deniers believe that brings Offit down to their level of knowledge, except that it doesn’t. Offit has been researching infectious diseases and vaccines for over 25 years, and probably laughs at these people.

I used to think that the Dunning-Kruger effect was only about the deniers science skills in vaccines. Apparently, it extends to their business knowledge of how a real corporation is managed. So I thought I’d look at the great Big Pharma vaccine profit conspiracy and deconstruct it as best as I can.

For once, I’m going to set aside the science side of this discussion and stick to the business side. I actually have 15 years of background in accounting and financial analysis of biomedical companies, which requires high level mathematical skills, while still understanding and critiquing the science of these companies. So, don’t be accusing me of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Reserve that accusation for my understanding of baseball.

Let’s take a look at these profits from two different perspectives. First, are vaccines as profitable as other Big Pharma endeavors? And second, if Big Pharma execs were truly immoral and corrupt, would selling vaccines actually be the best business strategy?

You can also support this website by making your Amazon purchases – just click on the link above. A small portion of each purchase goes to the Skeptical Raptor, without any additional cost to you.

Are vaccines really profitable?

It would be insane for anyone to claim they are not highly profitable. But here are some facts that might temper your expectations that vaccines are that valuable:

But even though vaccine revenues are a tiny percentage of Big Pharma revenues, it is still a huge number. And new companies are entering the vaccine market, because as new vaccines are developed and as more adults get vaccinated, the market growth of vaccines is substantially higher than other pharmaceuticals.

The worldwide revenue growth rate for all pharmaceuticals is around 6-7% per year, but around 10-15% per year for vaccines. Now, this type of growth rate will not last forever, because eventually the market becomes saturated, and much of the growth will be in lesser developed countries, where the market value for vaccines is substantially less than in developed countries.

Let’s look at that US$24 billion in worldwide vaccine revenues more carefully. All of the numbers below are in billions of US dollars and were estimated based upon Vaccines: Expert Consult (page 41).

Revenues   24.0
Cost of goods sold (manufacturing, distribution, returns) 7.7
Gross margin (often called gross profit) 16.3
Administration (corporate overhead) 1.7
Sales and marketing 4.1
Net profit 10.5
Research &  Development 2.7
Taxes 4.2
Depreciation 1.1
True profits 2.5

So vaccines generate about US$10.5 billion in “net profits,” or about 43.8% of revenue. Most non-vaccine pharmaceuticals would generate about US$11.1 billion in net profit, or 46.3%,  from the same revenue–thus, vaccines produce around 5% less profits than do other pharmaceuticals.

This lower profit for vaccines is because non-vaccine pharmaceuticals have a lower cost of goods as a result of fewer returns due to spoilage and change in antigens (like from flu season to flu season). Regular pharmaceutical products rarely change from year to year, so something manufactured in 2013 can be sold in 2014 as long as it still has shelf life remaining. Moreover, distribution is a lot more expensive for vaccines, because they need to be shipped more carefully (which is much more expensive) to prevent spoilage.

Analysis of Big Pharma vaccine profits

Still, US$10.5 billion sounds like a boatload of cash, but let’s see what happens to that boatload.

  • Every drug, whether a new vaccine or new drug for erectile dysfunction, costs from US$3.8 to 11 billion dollars each to fully develop, depending on the drug and the market. But despite what some believe about Big Pharma, drug development is not a slam dunk. For example, in cancer drugs, less than 10% gain final approval from the FDA, so the vast majority are miserable failures. Since Big Pharma funds its own R&D, it has to pay for both its successes and its failures. A typical broad based pharmaceutical company like Johnson & Johnson spends about 11.4% of REVENUES (not profit) on R&D (pdf). So out of the US$24.0 billion in vaccine revenue, about US$2.7 billion is removed from the net profit, so we’re down to US$7.8 billion.
  • One of the mistakes made by individuals with no experience in business finance assume two things: risk capital, that is, the money to finance operations, including R&D, is free. And it is freely available. But it’s not. Big Pharma needs to finance its own R&D operations from its own cash (or borrow at high rates). And remember that’s all types of research from initial laboratory studies up through large clinical trials.
  • Big Pharma also has to pay taxes on the net profit. And because Big Pharma has manufacturing, R&D, and administration facilities in modern nations (need access to intelligent, well trained employees), they have a more difficult time in moving revenues outside of taxing authorities. They usually pay around 40% in taxes on the net profit. And they have to depreciate all of their capital, whether its buildings or equipment, because eventually they have to replace it
  • Companies need to acquire technology too, which costs money. Back to Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). They weren’t much of a player in vaccine manufacturing and sales until 2011, when they paid US$2.4 billion for Crucell, a manufacturer of vaccines. In other words, one year of profits for all vaccines was spent to purchase one vaccine manufacturer.

When all is said and done, that US$24 billion becomes around US$2.5 billion in earnings, which is usually paid to shareholders, who took the risk in investing in the company. It may actually be quite a bit less, because I’m ignoring things like cost of risk capital (even though Big Pharma is mostly self funded, it’s not always so, and if that capital could make more money invested in gold or something, it’s a lost opportunity). Given this level of profit, and spread over 50 or so vaccines, it’s hard to imagine that Big Pharma executives are sitting in that Boardroom laughing at how they’re taking over the world with vaccines.

Just some more perspective. Lipitor, probably the #1 drug in revenues ever, sold US$10 billion worldwide in 2011. That’s one drug, with one type of manufacturing facility. In just a few locations. Those Big Pharma execs would rather have Lipitor once or twice over than vaccines. By a long shot.

But are vaccines a good business strategy?

Going back to the laughing, unethical Big Pharma executives sitting in their boardroom, are they really conspiring to push vaccines on us, because it makes so much money? Or, as we saw above, would investing in another kind of medication make more money? Or would they make more money not even selling vaccines?

Let’s take an example of just one infectious disease, measles. According to the CDC, one hospitalization for a serious measles complication costs more than US$142 thousand. Typical cost breakdown of hospital billing indicates that pharmaceuticals and other consumables (syringes, IV’s, saline, etc.) are around 35-40% of the total cost to the patient. Now, a hospital marks up the costs to the patient, so let’s just go with 20% revenue from one measles case flows to Big Pharma, or around US$28,000.

Let’s assume that Big Pharma ended production of all vaccines today, because the evil Big Pharma execs wanted rapidly increase their profits. According to the CDC (pdf), there are about 4 million births in the USA every year. Starting today, those 4 million children annually will not be vaccinated, and the vaccine deniers will be dancing in the streets.

Staying with this imaginary scenario, in 2016, there’s an outbreak of measles that hits the 12 million US kids who are not vaccinated. Again, according to the CDC, about 30% end up being hospitalized, so of the 12 million or so kids who catch the measles (it’s very contagious, so I’m just going to assume that everyone catches it, which is not far from what would really happen), about 3,600,000 would end up being seriously hospitalized. That would mean one outbreak of one disease in one country would end up giving about 100 billion dollars to Big Pharma. Let’s say that only 10% need serious hospitalization. That’s still over 30 billion dollars.

Actually there are other issues that become problematic if we suddenly had this size of an epidemic. For example, the number of ICU beds per capita has dropped by 75% since the 1960’s partially as a result of the reduction in numbers of children with infectious diseases. If we suddenly stopped vaccinating because Big Pharma wanted to make billions more, our hospitals would be overwhelmed. And guess who’s making money then. Big Mortuary. Because children will die in much higher rates than in the 1950’s because we couldn’t handle it.

Again, one disease. In one country. Multiply these numbers out over all countries and all diseases, and those Big Pharma execs would be moving gold bars into their corporate headquarters. So, if Big Pharma were only interested in making money in the most unethical way possible, they’d be funding the anti-vaccine movement.

So, all of you people at Age of lying about Autism, how much money are YOU receiving from Big Pharma to create the illusion that vaccines are dangerous. Because, now I have uncovered the real goal of Big Pharma–get rid of vaccines. Best conspiracy theory ever.

But the truth is that pharmaceutical companies manufacture vaccines because they are able to make a decent profit, the goal of any corporation, and the goal of every human who needs to survive. They are not trying to harm humanity, because if they were truly ruthlessly profit motivated, they’d crush vaccines and wait for huge epidemics to strike the planet. Maybe they still have the specs to manufacture iron lungs for polio victims.

Is Big Pharma perfect? Hell no, and I’ve said it before.

But vaccines save lives. And Big Pharma makes sure that happens.

Key citations:

The Original Skeptical Raptor
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!
  • Pingback: 5 Things You Should Know About Vaccines | publichealthwatch()

  • Pingback: Correcting a Blogger who Thinks She’s Smarter than the FDA | Correcting the Misconceptions of Anti-Vaccine Resources()

  • Pingback: MindSoap | Pam Ragland Is Dangerous for Pets()

  • Pingback: The myth of Big Pharma vaccine profits – updated()

  • Richard

    Mr. Raptor presents a very interesting argument. As an admitted shill for Bigpharma-perhaps a paid one-his arguments are weak. He resorts to emotional angry diatribes and name calling and mixes it with spurious false argumentation. He calls his hated enemy “childish” but engages in the exact same behavior.

    1. I am confused about his resume. He’s a long time financial expert, and a long time medical researcher in science, and an academic altogether. Is he all those, or is he a group of people working for drug companies?

    2. His tricky and improper and misleading arguments in this post are not designed to educate, but to deceive. There are many little tricks and deceptions:

    a) He nets income after the cost of drug research and then says that the NET profit has yet to be encumbered by the huge cost of drug development having already subtracted that development cost in the NET profit.

    b) Drug companies look at lines of business like vaccines differently than simply looking at net profits; they also look at the incremental value added. If a company like Pfizer has a sales team and staff that would be nearly the same if they had the vaccine revenues or not, they look at the addition of vaccine revenues as completely accretive to their profits. So that revenues and profits are roughtly the same amount.

    c) Looking at it this way, the revenues from vaccines are accretive to the bottom line of the drug industry and amount to approximately 10-15% of the total profits of the drug industry-which could be some $150-300 Billion per year (the profits, not the accretive amount).

    d) FALSE ASSERTION BY MR. RAPTOR: Mr. Raptor argues that the revenues from vaccines are insignificant-they are extremely significant.

    e) In Mr. Raptor’s argument, is an interesting example of a J&J acquiring vaccination company Crucel for billions of dollars. J&J certainly did standard M&A analysis, and looked at the duplicative expenses that could be eliminated in buying Crucel. That is the more correct analysis-not the false analysis Mr. Raptor used.

    f) Mr. Raptor after declaiming non-experts for some “syndrome”, used the analsysis of a complete non-financial experit-Dr. Paul Offit, to prove that vaccines are an insignificant revenue source. Mr. Offit is not a financial expert, and so by Mr. Raptor’s logic should not be considered as credible.

    g) FALSE CITATIONS: Mr. Raptor uses a 30% hostpitalization rate from the CDC. This is absurd. In actuality the CDC information showed a 1-2% hospitalization rate in the 1960s during the measles outbreak.

    h) FALSE ANALOGY: Mr. Raptor used a cost of $140,000 or more for a measles stay. The study he cited was based upon some college students who had to be found and quarantined after returning from India. The costs were substantially caused by the need for quarantine and auditing costs of the plane manifests. Raptor has cited a study which has no relationship to the cost of a measles stay in the event of a massive outbreak.

    i) FALSE ESTIMATES: Mr. Raptor assumed that 20% of the measles treatment costs would be for drugs. There is no basis for the 20% estimate that has been presented.

    j) FALSE CAUSATION: His argument assumes that the company that received this false number would actually be the very same company that could profit from the person’s sickness. There is no proof of that particular relationship between the measles vaccine providers and the drugs used to treat measles.

    k) FALSE STATEMENT: It was $2.7 Billion, not the $2.4 Billion that Mr. Raptor incorrectly asserts. He simply “Googled” the wrong information.

    l) FALSE ANALYSIS OF DRUG COMPANY MOTIVATION: Mr. Raptor incorrectly understate the attractiveness of vaccination business to big Pharma. The vaccine business is very attractive to Pharma. While bigger drug revenue sources are very attractive, the patent doesn’t last very long, and the risks of generic offerings is quite high and quickly forthcoming. Vaccines are very high barrier to entry and high cost of manufacturing. It reduces the “generic” risk. So drug companies are attractied to this line of business.

    m) MORE FALSE NUMBERS: Mr. Raptor uses a 12 million cases of measles. Two problems. The number comes from nowhere. The CDC says that there were 3 MM cases maximum in the 1960s. The maximum outbreak, rate assuming that EVERYONE catches the measles without a vaccination program is equal to the birthrate-about 4MM per year. Everyone else will be immunized naturally. When you catch an illness, you either die or become inoculated.

    n) FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENT: The real question, is does the vaccine cause more harm than having measles. There is insufficient data to analyse that despite the false assertion that it’s been proven. In the past 10 years, there have been 6000 measles cases in the U.S. No deaths. There are over 100 deaths from the vaccine. While this is insufficient data to prove anything, it begs very important questions. If no one is vaccinated, does measles kill people at a greater rate? Also, are vaccine reactions actually mostly non-reported as many claim. So VAERS data has become largely unreliable and vastly unreported.

    o) THE BIG PROBLEM WITH RAPTOR: By relegating people who want to exercise caution about vaccines or any treatment to the status of “cult” or other name calling by people like Raptor, prevents a real dialogue from occurring. So the only conclusion I can make is that Raptor is a paid “shill” (his term). He is not looking for science, but merely acting as advertising for the drug industry. , based upon a well documented medical industry subject to an immense number of “medical reversals” in which treatments considered safe are discovered to have been improperly accepted

    p) MR RAPTOR FALSIFIES AND MISLEADS ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION: We don’t know if he’s a scientist, a consortium of drug company experts, a business man, a marketing expert. His website has a lot of disclaimers and is well populated with information. So my guess is that this is well funded by some source-and it’s not from google “pay per click” apparently. So he is not saying what this really is-an advertisement, which may be paid for directly or indirectly.

  • Johnson and Johnson, the boobie company….used salesmen posing as doctors (or the other way around, I can’t remember) to increase sales of Risperdal to nursing home residents and boys with behavior problems. The Schizophrenia market was too small. What happened is sales went from 1 million to 4 million per year, even though the FDA had warned them repeatedly to avoid sales to those markets. To think they are incapable of crime is kind of naive. Kind of like me writing on Skeptical Raptors blog. No, really…

    I read most of the book via audiobook here

    Here’s another unbelievable study that makes me wonder whose actual needs are taken into consideration regarding the safety of antipsychotics to the developing fetus. Look at the COI…it reads like a list of all major companies. How can real scientists do this? I’m leading you to my blog here, with limited remarks, or you can go to the actual study here, or see the press release with super cute picture of mama here:
    Now I’m not one to believe in woo, or black helicopters, but I think we’re f@#$%.

  • Pingback: 100 bad arguments against vaccines | The Logic of Science()

  • Pingback: Why You Can’t Change a Vaxxer’s Mind | Warning: The Truth About Child Protective Services and The Staggering Impact on Society()

  • Ian Price

    If vaccine skeptics are right, then vaccines aren’t the main source of profits for the medical industry, but rather, the diseases that vaccines cause.

  • Pingback: Debunking myths about vaccine testing and safety()

  • Pingback: [Trad] Vaccins : Big Pharma, ses études financées et ses milliards… | La Théière Cosmique()

  • Pingback: Medicine, Money, and Mortality Rates | The Sound of Science()

  • David Theil

    I want to use your” profits from no vaccine” argument with my anti-vaxxer friends, but I want to make sure the case I make is correct. Where did you see on the CDC page about measles that 30% of cases require hospitalization? This page on measles history implies that only around 1.25% to 1.5% are hospitalized. That factor of 15-20 significantly weakens the $$ argument for why drug companies would see more money from hospital treatment related drug sales than vaccinations. Now, you were looking at the profit from vaccine sales overall, not just a single vaccine, but without that breakdown for say, measles, it will be hard to do an apples to apples to comparison

    • Ian Price

      5% of measles requires a visit to the clinic, and if that 5%, all that is usually prescribed is some antibiotics. Measles is more of a problem in 3rd world countries in the middle of nowhere where there’s no medical care available nearby. Then, yes, you will get 2-3 in 1,000 kids dying. But you also have to consider proper nutrition, because these kids in the middle of nowhere might be deficient in several nutrients and their immune system should be compared to immune systems of kids of other countries.

      • John Gray

        Why yes, all those who suffer from measles and other preventable diseases really just suffer from a lack of proper nutrition. I’m sorry to tell you, but getting the right nutrients in your diet doesn’t protect you from bacterial and viral infections, but vaccination can.

        • Ian Price

          I don’t completely disagree, but I don’t totally agree either. I think we can both agree that good nutrition plays an important role in natural immunity, as well as in healing if one does come down with a disease. And we also agree that vaccines work. What we disagree on is how efficacious and how safe vaccines are, and whether or not it’s worth it to vaccinate everybody with the full gamut of the CDC schedule recommended today. You follow a one-size-fits-all approach, based on science, but I am claiming that the science and studies that you and other fully pro-vax researchers (you’re a scientist like me, right?) are using to promote 100% vaccination against all diseases currently touted by the CDC, quite frankly, are flawed or even intentionally manipulated. I’m saying lets redo some studies not backed by big pharma, because I and others suspect there’s something there.

  • Pingback: » 22 Things We Should Be Saying to Mums Who Don’t Vaccinate: Part 2()

  • Pingback: Misinformation, lies, and memes from the anti vaccine cult()

  • Pingback: 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail. | Kembang Gula()

  • Pingback: Doctors are just shills for Big Pharma!()

  • Pingback: 10 Reasons Why Hidden Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories Fail. - The Credible Hulk()

  • Pingback: 10 Snags in the “Hidden Cancer Cure” Conspiracy Theory | I fucking hate pseudoscience()

  • John Gray

    Net : After all necessary subtractions. Net profit should be after taxes, R&D and depreciation. Also to judge how truly profitable a corporation or any venture is you need to consider and compare the return on your investment with a company against other possible investments. If you invest in “Big Pharma” and come out with x dollars as your return then you compare that with other investments to determine if any of them could have given you y dollars more than your investment in “Big Pharma”.
    As far as the anti-vaxxers go, they are immune to facts and logic as well as science. Never mind that polio has been almost wiped out in the US, they don’t and won’t accept that is due to the near universal rate of immunization against polio. Cases of measles, mumps, whooping cough, rubella etc are rising some as rates of vaccination go down, but you can’t and won’t be able to persuade the anti-vaccine crowd that this is due to the falling rate of immunization against these diseases. I suspect that the only way you could convince them is both unethical and illegal: deliberately infect them of their children with a disease that a vaccine could have either prevented the disease.

    • I’m sorry, no. EBITDA is what you’re describing, and it wasn’t a term I was willing to describe here, because it is not relevant. Yes, I have extensive education and experience in Finance, so I’m not your typically ignorant anti-science bullshit pusher.

      • John Gray

        Reaching into the “wayback machine” and recalling something from a micro economics class that I took more years ago than I care to remember; I recalled that economists and accountants had different definitions of profit. I wouldn’t say that you’re anti-science at all; quite the opposite,actually. Unfortunately you’re dealing with the type of people who believe the moon landings were faked and that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of a secret government plot and involved the use of explosives or “nanothermite”. Conspiracy nuts won’t be convinced by reason or evidence.

        • I know. I defined it in a way that I thought the casual SCIENCE reader would understand what I was saying. But there has to be people like Kir who are so obsessed they forgot to read the whole article. I was trying to make a point about Big Pharma. Net profit actually has several meanings, and if Kir had the intellect of an amoeba, he would know he cherry-picked the one that met HIS argument, rather than real life accounting.

          In fact, EBITDA was invented as a method to standardize financial statements, specifically the income statement, of public companies. In reality, some company’s net profit differs from others, and some companies occasionally abuse it. I was writing for the finance amateur, who might have heard of “net profit” and might not understand what it may or may not mean.

          Kir, because he’s an arrogant and condescending individual, thinks he’s right, which indicates his utter lack of education in finance and accounting. But I’ve learned one thing from Kir. I now know that there are people with Dunning Kruger cognitive biases who not only think they can be physicians based on a couple of hours on the internet, but someone can have an MBA based on reading one, poorly written, definition.

          Kir….you really are over your head.

      • “I have extensive education and experience in Finance…”

        Uh… did you just say that EBITDA (Earnings BEFORE Interest TAXES, interest, depreciation, and amoratization) is what you get AFTER taxes, R&D, and deprecitation?

        • John Gray

          No he was replying to me when I said that net profit should be defined as the money you earned after taxes etc. and then to really determine your true profit you compare your earnings to other investments to determine if they would have given you a higher return.
          If you’d actually read his article you’d know how he defined profit.I mean, he did lay it out in a table, you could read it.

          • Net profit IS after taxes. You are correct. He’s saying that EBITDA is after taxes. It’s not.

            • John Gray

              Yes, and if you’d look c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y at what he posted in the body of the article you notice that he puts “net profit” before taxes.Net profit, then taxes, depreciation, R&d expenses. Try reading sometime!

            • Yes. And as I said, net profit is profit after the deduction of taxes, etc.

              Net profit represents the number of sales dollars remaining after all operating expenses, interest, taxes and preferred stock dividends (but not common stock dividends) have been deducted from a company’s total revenue.


              There’s a reason why net profit is also referred to as the bottom line. It’s because it appears at the end of the profit and loss statement.

            • You can argue all you want, but I know exactly what I described. And it is accurate. You’re not.

            • I’m not accurate? That’s an interesting assertion. Net profit is the BOTTOM LINE of the profit and loss statement. It does not come before taxes. Any finance source will tell you that.

          • I thought I was clear.

      • Max Xam

        “The World Bank is the leading institution for investments in health and development and thus plays a critical role in shaping global health policy. Other regional development banks may provide new opportunities to address specific global health issues in the future. CDC has had assignees at the Bank since 1997. ”

        let’s start here. the world bank is a blatantly corrupt institution. this is a well known fact ( along with their cohorts; the “federal” reserve ,wall street; etc) with your extensive education in finance; i am sure you know this though 🙂 .

        so from the CDC themselves automatically; they are lying. ( and received mass support from liars) saying the world bank cares about humanitarian wellbeing is like saying hitler was unbiased toward all men.

        2 )” The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently has given high priority to its global health programs. Its areas of emphasis, including vaccine delivery, maternal mortality reduction, malaria, and TB are aligned with CDC’s interests, leading to many collaborative efforts. ”

        ohhh the humanitarian bill gates…. ( with those mass shares in monsanto; looking out for the health of all humans; undoubtedly !!)

        3) “In the private sector, several U.S. foundations demonstrate an interest in global health issues and projects by supporting programming in areas important to CDC. For example, the Rockefeller Foundation, with the help of consultants trained in the CDC EIS program, implemented the Public Health Schools Without Walls program, which shares the mission and competency-based field epidemiology training approach used by the Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP). ”

        wow; really? the rockefeller terror family? some of the most evil people in the world. boy; do i feel safe.
        well. it looks like the CDC has openly allied themselves with some of the world’s most openly evil people. the goal of all of course ; profit.

        no vaccines for me ; thanks. 🙂
        not from those currently in power anyway

  • nuncha

    wow good job big pharma troll why dont you post your vaccination record for you and your brats assuming you were sadly able to reproduce

    • Thank you. Thank you very much.

    • John Gray

      Perhaps you should read history sometime. The first successful preventive measure against small pox was developed by Edward Jenner. He noticed that those who had been infected with a non-fatal disease called cowpox didn’t develop smallpox. He then deliberately infected people with cowpox and they subsequently didn’t develop smallpox. Smallpox can be fatal in up to 50% or more of cases, depending on the type.
      Again though, as these are facts and you live in a fact free world, they won’t persuade you.

      • nuncha

        why dont you read history about the polio hoax that was ddt poisoning but merck already had the vaccines. then read about hitler bayer and all the other germany big pharma and get back to me. Modern day vaccines have cancer cells in them and more. Educate yourself better John they we can speak. I hold a degree in microbiology what degree do you hold?

        • John Gray

          Oh my, if you hold a degree in microbiology then you would understand that poliomyelitis was and is a real disease. One not caused by exposure to DDT.DDT was banned in 1972, yet the greatest drop in polio cases came b-e-f-o-r-e 1972. As a matter of fact, in the US an average of 65,000 cases were reported in the 1940′ and 1950’s; with the introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1955 the number of reported cases dropped rapidly. By 1957 the number of reported cases dropped to under 2,500, by 1965 the number of reported polio cases dropped to 61.
          Nice try, but you really should try to ground your beliefs and assertions in facts, after all, you’re supposed to be a scientist.

          • Slam

            The link between DDT and polio is still compelling, however. Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but this time, it points to it with a big fat finger. But it’s not only that. DDT does cause symptoms related to the nervous system. Also, there’s other pesticides that were massively used in the same time period, like BHC, and arsenic and lead compounds.

            Laboratory analysis from 1958 shows that “polio” was more or less an umbrella term for polio, encephalitis, meningitis and acute flaccid paralysis. Starting from the 60s, “polio” was less and less used in favor of other terms, mainly meningitis. This is what contributed to the apparent descent of polio cases. The cases were actually “recycled” into other diseases.

            • John Gray

              Sorry, wrong again.Polio was identified by 1958 as poliomyelitis.As noted cases of polio went down b-e-f-o-r-e DDT was banned.
              Strange that a “scientist” would hold such unscientific views; then again anti-vaccination types are unpersuaded by actual science.

            • Slam

              The vaccine started being mass used after 1958, anyway. To help polio cases go down, the diagnostic changed gradually, mostly towards meningitis.

              DDT did contribute to disease. Don’t deny it.

            • John Gray

              No DDT didn’t contribute to polio. DDT is a chemical, polio is a virus. Polio was well identified by 1958 and incidence of the disease went down before DDT was banned.

            • Slam

              WTF? DDT was not scented deodorant or something. It was toxic. Toxic means exposure causes symptoms and disease. Jesus Christ.

            • John Gray

              Yes, cyanide is toxic too and yet signs and symptoms of cyanide exposure differ from signs and symptoms of polio. Your argument makes no sense at all.
              DDT is different than polio and polio declined BEFORE DDT was banned.

            • Slam

              This graph shows otherwise. Explanations included.

              What’s your opinion on this graph?

            • John Gray

              That it confirms my point. Polio cases went down b-e-f-o-r-e DDT was banned and thus no correlation between DDT and polio.
              Shame that a ‘scientist’ can’t follow along and understand something that is self evident according to the graph.

          • nuncha

            and if your got your head out of your ass you would not be lead around by your snout by big pharma dumb ass

            • John Gray

              If you had the faintest clue or evidence to back up your assertions then you wouldn’t be a dumbass yourself. The plain fact is that vaccines are not terribly profitable but the do prevent diseases.
              DDT doesn’t cause polio; the two are d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t things. One is a chemical that banned in 1972 and the other is a virus. When you’ve learned the difference between the two then perhaps you can add something to the debate. If vaccines really caused autism then you’d have seen a spike in autism when the vaccines were first introduced, not decades later.

        • DDT poisoning? You’ve got to be kidding me. You really need some help.

        • Do you really believe what you just wrote? You should demand a refund for that micro degree of yours.

          • nuncha

            you have no education and you need to mind your own business in your own country. Clearly you are either that stupid or you are a troll.

            • Well, since I can’t read the comment i was responding to 4 days ago because it was deleted, and since you went full Godwin on us, I’m going to ignore your pointless comment. Mind my own business on a public comment thread? Can you make yourself look any more ridiculous?

            • nuncha

              you posted that you are a muslim troll and if they are censoring your comments here is your sign

            • I’m not Muslim or a troll. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • nuncha

        you read history and tell me you don’t know that Hitler used the jews to experiment with vaccines and Farben and Bayer. You really are not the brightest bulb on the tree. go and get vaccinated and take your family with you. enjoy!

        • John Gray

          True Jews and other concentration camp inmates were used for medical experiments by the Nazis. However, that does not undermine or negate the medical knowledge gained from these experiments. The real problem with the concentration camp experiments was the lack of voluntary participation by the inmates and the associated unnecessary deaths.
          Vaccines today are tested on volunteers, whose health is monitored and who are informed of what any risks are.
          As for myself, I was vaccinated as a young child against polio, diphtheria and a host of other diseases that are, due to vaccination, not as prevalent as they once were. I was also vaccinated against smallpox in the Army and again, a host of other diseases. Unlike you, if I had childrwen I would not put them or others at risk for serious and often potentially fatal diseases by refusing to face facts and not vaccinating them.

          • nuncha

            if you have that much faith in immunization then your children won’t be at risk if they are vaccinated. you still look like a big pharma troll to me

  • Pingback: 5 Things To Know About Vaccines | publichealthwatch()

  • Oppose Senate Bill 277 – Protect Your Rights​

    The Health committee has a hotline – 916-651-4111 – you can leave a yes or no vote on SB277 on their recording. Don’t tie it up with arguments – just say you are against it. That’s it. Apparently they are counting these up and that may influence the meeting. They will stop counting soon, so call now!!!

  • Pingback: “Follow the money”: the finances of global warming, vaccines, and GMOs | The Logic of Science()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

  • Mike Stevens

    You failed to account for the several $billion that Pharma supposedly pays its shills each year.

    • lilady R.N.

      I’ve been shilling for “Big Pharma/Big Vaccines” for years and I never got paid. 🙂

      • Mike Stevens

        You are doing something wrong.
        I have a Monaco condo and 3 beamers all from pharma paying me to post comments on the internet.

        • wzrd1

          Wow! And all I got was this lousy tee shirt.

          • I didn’t even get a “Thank you.”

            Seriously, who’s got the number for Big Pharma HR? I’m about to go on strike for wages unpaid.

      • Bo Jangles

        How about the money paid to medical teachers, it helps remove the chance that a doctor wanting to do right might do right.

  • Pingback: Us and Them | ERblog()

  • roscoe

    On facebook yesterday (in a post polio page) a post was made by an anti vaccination group. It showed a girl slumped over dead from an overdose. The caption stated that as the young girl had been vaccinated as a child this started her on her drug journey. I thought this was a new low.

    • The image was actually created to mock them. They took it as real.

  • Pingback: Following the money | Thoughtscapism()

  • Joy

    Hello, I enjoyed your article and appreciate the information. I know a person that keeps throwing the “Big money in vaccines” comment around all the time and it’s nice to have some numbers to throw back.

    I was wondering about the R&D. I’ve heard (and I can’t remember from where) that Pharmaceutical companies routinely buy research that is halfway completed from universities and then patent them, or something along these lines. I apologize for sounding so vague but I couldn’t find any info just doing a search. I was wondering if there was any truth in that. Have you hear of anything like this?

    Thank you

    • Niegol

      I think what you’re referring to is the way big Pharma fills its pipeline these days. In the past they had large internal R&D teams. Since the easy targets have all been hit by now, they changed tactics. What now happens is that a small company (university spinnout/doctor with a good idea/father of sick child starts company to cure kid (ProQR for example)) is started. This starts with patents in place (usually from universities or research centers who get handsomely paid for their IP) is funded from venture capital (VC) until the proof of concept phase (that we know their lead compound seems to work and therefore has a higher chance of succes).

      No successful PoC? –> small company goes bust and VC lose their money. End of story,

      Successfull Poc? –> a large pharma company may invest in your company, agree milestone payments to help further the development of your lead compound, and enable the small company to push that compound to clinical phase 1 or 2. Somewhere around this point, the big pharma company will likely buy the small one, adding the compound to its own pipeline. The small company was never financially able to get the product on the market (phase 3 trials are terribly expensive) and the big pharma would not have been able to do the development as efficiently. So this marriage ensures that new products get developed at optimal speeds.

      Important to note that the universities who generate the original knowledge already file the patents and in that way get their fair share of the pie. Typically in royalties or a lump sum when the small company gets bought. This cash is than used for the next round of research, while the fruits of academia are in this way made to serve the public.

      Hope this helps.

      • Joy

        It does help Nieogol and thank you for your reply.

  • Bo Jangles

    I have a problem with the preservatives they are using. Thimerosal has a density of 2.5 times that of water. Its already been shown that doctors have a shockling low rate of hand washing..failure to shake up the vaccine prior to administration could result in a big fat dose of ethyl mercury in a baby who has limited ability to excrete heavy metals. Now aluminum a known neurotoxin is replacing mercury. The only reason these are used is because they dont want to make single dose containers anymore. Yeah everything for the safety of babies right?

    • lilady R.N.

      Thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines 15 years ago. For the past 15 years, all childhood vaccines are packaged in single dose vials or in preloaded single dose syringes and there are single dose seasonal influenza vaccines available (approximately 70 % of the killed virus vaccine shots are single doses). The LAIV seasonal influenza vaccine does not contain Thimerosal.

      Fifteen years ago, there was a paucity of safety studies for the organo-mercury compound Thimerosal. Since that time, multiple studies have been conducted which prove that Thimerosal is a safe and effective preservative for multidose vials of vaccines.

      Thimerosal in the small amounts in vaccines is not “neurotoxic” and does not cause “heavy metal toxicity”.

      BTW, doctors and nurses who administer vaccines to adults using multidose vials (or single dose vials for children and adults), always inspect the vial and any vial which is cloudy is tossed and a new vial is opened to administer the vaccine.

      • Bo Jangles

        And it was replaced with an aluminum preservative..wanna bet it has the same separation and toxicity issues? Doctors compliance for handwashing has generally found to be between 40 and 70 percent in studies..why would we expect it to be higher with vaccine shaking or inspections ?

        • Lila Vinçot-Abiven

          Wait, how has aluminium “replaced” thiomersal ? “Antiseptic” is not at all the same thing as “adjuvant”.

          • lilady R.N.

            The only similarity is that Antiseptic and Adjuvant both begin with the letter “A”.

            • Mike Stevens

              No…you are wrong; they also have a “t” and an “n” in them!

        • lilady R.N.

          You didn’t open the link I provided to Thimerosal which was a preservative formerly used in multi dose vials of children’s vaccine…and removed 15 years ago.

          Aluminum is an adjuvant used in some vaccines which enhances the immune response to a vaccine:

          That MedScape article you provided has absolutely nothing to do with with Al used in as an adjuvant (which does NOT cause aluminum “toxicities”). If you actually read the article, the author discussed Al toxicities in patients on parenteral (IV) feeding and patients who require renal dialysis because they are in kidney failure.

          The fact that some physicians do not wash their hands in between seeing patients is not germane to the topic. Vaccinating patients does not require “sterile” gloves and does not require “clean” gloves if there is no anticipation that the hands will come into contact with infectious bodily fluids (or if the person administering the vaccine has a rash or an open sore on their hands), according to OSHA:

          • Bo Jangles

            Wow you really do sound like a shill. Is this the non-neurotoxic ethyl mercury you were talking about? Its interesting to note that the wikipedia entry has been modified to state that it was a methly mercury accident. Gee but at least we can trust all the saintly people making those studies that we rely on for our health and well being. or my favorite quote from this “However, over 33% of the respondents described involvement in research misconduct that would necessitate investigation by the institution or federal agencies.”

            • lilady R.N.

              I think you need to get some basic science education before you post on this science blog.

              When I explained the difference between a preservative and an adjuvant and provided links for you to read you turn around a label me a “shill”…the fallback position for ignorant, uneducated people who are in over their depth and who have an agenda.

            • Bo Jangles

              I really don’t care their reasoning for adding it. If i give you a big shot of lead and explain its major xray blocking benefits are you happy or do you want me to stop giving you heavy metal poisoning.? I guess studying physics didnt count i should have added a rn or md to my name like you for instant fake internet creds.

            • Slam

              Here’s a question I’m pondering a lot about adjuvants. How do you make the distinction between immune response from toxicity, as opposed to immune response that is “enhanced” by adjuvants? If something foreign enters your bloodstream, your immune system will react, but it will not necessarily lead to better immunity or production of antibodies. It just reacts to a foreign susbstance, or an object, like a splinter.

          • Slam

            Is aluminum toxic, yes or no? I presume it is because the body doens’t need it? Or it needs a very small amount daily.

        • seniorcraig
          • lilady R.N.

            Still shilling for that crank anti-vaccine group and Suzanne Humphries, Ms. Craig?


            • seniorcraig

              Still using the designation of RN to which you are not entitled.

              Still spending time on attacking people and not content. Your link has nothing to do with aluminum. How about watching what Suzanne has to say and refuting that? I know why. You can’t.

            • lilady R.N.

              Have you sought serious professional help for your fixation on me and my Registered Nurse professional licensing, Ms. Craig?

              I’ve read the pseudo-science research done by Christopher Shaw (who is not an immunologist) and Dr. Hang Sin Lee (whose employment in a hospital laboratory was terminated). I also read the coroner’s report re Renate, where Shaw’s and Lee’s testimonies was found to be not credible.


            • seniorcraig

              People need to know you are a fraud.

              Typical idiotic response from you — no comment on the research but on the researcher. Are you saying that only immunologists are capable of researching vaccines? Stupid woman.

            • lilady R.N.

              People need to know you are a cyber stalking deranged woman, who is fixated on me.

              You keep linking to that crank anti-vaccine, anti-science organization where you and your colleagues publish articles that are not evidence-based, chock full of false information about infectious diseases and vaccines, and full of conspiracies.

              Dr. Mark Crislip, who is a respected science blogger and an Infectious diseases specialists has reviewed Suzanne Humphries body of work. Dr. Crislip has also reviewed the book you authored on smallpox:


              “6. Smallpox Vaccine: Origins of Vaccine Madness, by Jennifer Craig, BSN, MA, Ph.D

              The first two thirds of this entry is a recounting of the early history of the smallpox vaccine. It is an entertaining read, but not being a historian I cannot vouchsafe the information. The author does not bother to note that the vaccinations of Jenner’s time, transfer of pus, is not the same as modern vaccine production techniques. Then it gets weird.

              There has been no human small pox in the world since 1976 (well, kind of). There are many pox viruses, a family of related viruses that preferentially infect different hosts. There is cow pox and monkey pox and squirrel pox. The cow pox was used in the vaccine to eradicate smallpox because there is enough similarity between the two viruses that infection with cow pox prevents infection with small pox, but there is enough difference that it is very rare for the cow pox to spread beyond the inoculation site.

              The fact there has been no small pox since 1976 is, it would seem, reasonably good evidence that there is no longer human small pox in the world and that vaccination was the cause of its eradication. However, Dr. Craig has a clever solution. Her nut? Small pox is still around but
              has been renamed as either chicken pox or monkey pox. Really. The essays on Medical Voices induce a need to qualify that the quotes from the site are the real deal and are not meant as a joke on my part.

              It is akin to saying that the dodo is not extinct, it has been renamed the chicken or turkey; after all, they are all flightless birds.”

              Here’s your chance Ms Craig, to provide actual proof that the smallpox vaccine, which was old in the form of lyophylized freeze dried powder stored at the CDC and reconstituted with new glycerine diluent was still potent NYC Health Department Dryvax vaccine (which did not contain any smallpox virus) and which was used to vaccinate the last civilian doctors and nurses involved in Emergency Preparedness during the run-up to the WMDs scare….actually contained smallpox virus.

              Sorry Ms. Craig…you’ve been busted…again.

              lilady, R.N., BSc-Nursing, Public Health Nurse Clinician-Epidemiologist (retired)

            • seniorcraig

              Once again you’ve demonstrated your inability to read with comprehension. Have you thought of a remedial reading course?

              This is the second time you’ve posted this. And your point is?

              Give us all a break and eliminated the words, crank, anti-science, anti-vaccine, pseudo-science — it get SO boring.
              People need to know you are a fraud who drivels these words like pablum and think they mean something. But then you haven’t many credentials have you?

            • lilady R.N.

              I’ve got more credentials than you have…or ever had. You have a certificate in homeopathy and you are part of this rogue’s gallery of anti-vaccine, anti science individuals, associated with the International Vaccination Council.


              Would you care to explain to us how wild smallpox is still circulating as chicken pox, cowpox and monkey pox?

              Do you still believe that Dryvax used to vaccinate civilian doctors and nurses involved with the Emergency Preparedness team contained smallpox?

              Got any more information germ denialist?

            • John Gray

              I’m very capable of reading. I read exceptionally well, and I found her posting to be on point, well written and informative. Three things that cannot be said of your postings.

            • John Gray

              Everything that anti-vaccination nuts like you have said has been proven to be false. So when all else fails attack ad hominen.

            • Slam

              How many refutations does it take to make something “proven false”? I’d say 10, or maybe 20, but each person has its own limits. Add to that that “refutation” does imply “proof”. It’s just refutation.

            • John Gray

              Well, the proof is in the pudding. Those who have been vaccinated against a disease have immunity from it, those who haven’t become ill when exposed to a disease. Every piece of “evidence”, every “proof” that vaccines cause autism or are otherwise dangerous has been shown to be false.

            • Slam

              The pudding?

              There are statistics about vaccinated people who get sick, and vice-versa. Yesterday, I was not sick. Does it mean my non-vaccinated status confers immunity?

            • John Gray

              No. but since scientists can determine if you have immunity to a disease and you haven’t been exposed to the disease itsself, but have received a vaccination for it, it can be stated within a reasonable scientific certainty that vaccination is the cause of your immunity.

        • Mike Stevens

          If you don’t even know what the constituents of vaccines are for – why are you posting here?

        • John Gray

          Sorry bud, hoist by you own petard. “They only reason these are used is because they don’t want to make single dose containers anymore.” A statement that has bee “refudiated” and then you ignore and throw out another red herring.

  • Pingback: The hidden costs of vaccine denial, co-starring Rand Paul()

  • Ben William

    An even bigger ‘conspiracy’… pigs really DO fly and the pharma giant’s are paying the government to suppress this information.

    WOW! talk about grasping for straws on a topic. This one on anti-vacciners and big pharma really takes the cake.

    • Slam

      If conspiracies didn’t exist, history would be essentially inintelligible. Every event, past and future, would be considered flukes resulting from random actions and phenomenons happening at the same time.

      • John Gray

        Yes I’m sure that the moon landings were faked, that the British Royal family is part of the international drug trade and that Kennedy was shot by the man on the grassy knoll. Conspiracy theories are unscientific and the last refuge for those who cannot live in a rational world.

        • Slam

          Conspiracy theories are perfectly legitimate and most of them emanate from sane doubt and rational thinking.

          If conspiracies didn’t exist, we’d have to attribute the explosion of the WTC towers to a random coincidence. That’s absurd.

          • John Gray

            Randon coincide3nce? The towers fell because an airliner filled with jet fuel slammed into them; thus causing fires that raged out of control for hours, weakening the steel to where it could no longer support the load placed on them. It’s called s-c-i-e-n-c-e, something you don’t understand.

            • Slam

              That’s a conspiracy theory, sir. Do you think the alleged hijackers would have called the shot in advance in all major media? They did it in secret, so, conspiracy. Same for the conspiracy theory that says it was a plan concocted by several US agencies. They did it in secret, therefore, conspiracy.

            • John Gray

              Except that no US agencies concocted a plan to crash planes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon; therefore not a conspiracy.

            • Slam

              If you think it’s 19 hijackers from middle-eastern countries who slammed the planes into the WTC towers ans the Pentagon, it’s also a conspiracy theory. Can you understand that?

              Do think the mafia or any other organized crime group never kills people as a result of a secret plan? You think they do everything in clear daylight and tell the newspapers about their plans in advance?

  • Pingback: All That Vaccine Ugliness | So Here's Us...()

  • Kim Noreen

    Now in my sixties, I remember clearly agonizing over whether to get my children vaccinated ~ because I personally knew of people whose children had been brain damaged afterwards ~ and I had known their children before. Since then, I have met many people whose children have been adversely affected. This is not just one child. I imagine having been in the “medical industry” affects your opinion and I wonder if you have met any of the people that you out of hand dismiss. It might prove beneficial to you, and the people who read your blog, to actually do some serious research into BOTH sides of the issue, because it is not a black and white issue, even though the powers that be would have you believe so. It is curious, too, that we, the American people, have to protect this industry and what goes wrong and how much they control the conversation and our choices in all areas of medical care. It is clearly an industry that is motivated by profit and does great damage all in the name of “science” – there is clear and overwhelming evidence that this is NOT an industry to be trusted and we are right to be skeptical.

    • Tom Thomas

      Evidence? Any evidence that there is a link to vaccines damaging or causing brain damage? Show me some damage.

      • Slam

        We never tried to NOT vaccine entire generations of people for long enough to compare. So the “evidence” you’re looking for doesn’t exist, because it was never attempted to refute it.

        • Tom Thomas

          Really? We never tried to not vaccinate entire generations? How about every single generation in human existence before vaccinations? How about the thousands of people in the US much less the world that are not vaccinated? Did you actually put any thought into your response?

          Here…I’ll direct you towards where all of the non-vaccinated people are so we can see if they have less damaged brains than us crazy enough to avert eradicated diseases.

          • Slam

            Sometimes, unvaccinated people get sick. Sometimes, vaccinated people get sick. Sometimes, people die of disease, vaccinated or not.

            It seems every time someone gets long term damage from a vaccine, there’s always a pro-vaccine that casts a doubt on the situation, trying to steer the fault to something else. They always find an excuse.

            Well, it works both ways, then.

            • Tom Thomas

              That is why we use the scientific method and leave it to experts to differentiate between causation and correlation.
              But, every region that vaccinates, sees a dramatic drop in the disease it vaccinates against. Every time. The reduction in those crippling diseases that often end up in death and disability are far beyond any risk of the side effects that are indicated, by so much that it’s ridiculous to not take the chance. I would challenge anyone to show that the risk of vaccines outweigh the risk of any possible side effect.

            • Slam

              No, not every time. Maybe not that often. And when it happens, it has multiple causes. Why isolate vaccines when it goes well, but put the blame on something else when it goes bad? Sounds like a double standard.

              Nowadays, most scientific evidence for vaccine efficacy is not based on double-blind placebo-controlled studies that compare vaccined and unvaccinated. They usually compare two types of vaccinated cohorts.

            • Tom Thomas

              Not every time? Can you give me an example of when vaccines were introduced and they did not greatly reduce the incidence and mortality of the disease against which they vaccinate?

            • Slam

              I think I should asking that. When we see a graph showing the progression of a disease before and after the introduction of a vaccine, the decline always start many years prior.

              Other than that, there’s no way to be sure that the vaccine is the sole cause of a disease decline or stagnation. If it happens, someone can always invoke the “correlation doesn’t imply causation” excuse.

            • Tom Thomas

              I know what you mean. You’ve probably seen mortality rates dropping significantly for most diseases before the introduction of vaccines. Of course, as our ability to treat diseases gets better, mortality falls dramatically. That is very different from incidence of the disease. Just because people are not dying of it, does not mean people are not suffering from it.

              So, from a public health professional, I ask you to look up incidence, not mortality. That is how you see the effects.

            • Slam

              Yes, I prefer counting deaths, because being sick is not the end of the world, and it builds immunity. I doubt the other risks and side-effects associated to vaccines are a good trade-off for not falling sick as often. That is, assuming vaccines work.

            • Tom Thomas

              So gettin polio is ok if you don’t die because being crippled is ok. Gettin encephalitis from measles is ok if you don’t die. You get the point.
              Counting only deaths and not incidences is silly because vaccines reduce incidence.
              Show me any region of the world that vaccinated but still has diseases against which they vaccinate. Please.

            • Slam

              I see your point, but polio is a lot more preventable externally than, say, flu. You usually get flu when 2 or 3 factors happen at the same time (ex.: eating junk, bad sleep, cold weather, too much smog, too much alcohol on Christmas, etc.).

              On the other hand, polio is specifically a disease of intoxication, so if we avoid the intoxicating substances in the first place, the disease essentially disappears. Think of the asbestosis case, for a similar example.

              Remember also than treating diseases must be done correctly to avoid complications. Seems obvious, but many cases of mild diseases like flu will complicate following a bad treatment (or no treatment at all). Good treatment is also part of a good health framework.

            • John Gray

              No polio is NOT a diseases of intoxication. Polio is caused by a virus, not a poison (intoxicant).

            • Slam

              We have to consider the hypothesis until it is clarified, because the isolation of the alleged polio virus is not confirmed at all. Some specialists think that the photos we can see (assuming they are real, untempered black and white electron photographs) are of something else, maybe some homogenous mass that was forced through a fine filter.

              Visual and chemical analysis of the polio virus are also to be determined. So until now, we should prefer the intoxication theory, since at least we have some interesting observations on that side.

            • John Gray

              What a fucking idiot you are. Polio has been isolated in the lab, it’s structure is known, its effects on humans are well documented and yet you still refuse to believe.

            • Umm, wow. I’m left kinda speechless with this one. The poliovirus genome was published in 1981! Wtf are you even going on about?

            • Slam

              You can’t detail the genome of something that was not isolated in the first place. To claim the existence of any virus, there are very precise conditions that need to be satisfied, and isolation is the crux of this process. And if it comes out to be positive, then the experiment must be repeated many times (like in any science) to make sure that it’s not a fluke or an error in measurement, or anything else.

            • What part of “the poliovirus genome was published in 1981” did you not get? I really do not understand this response.

            • Slam

              Most (alleged) cases of polio (>99%) or polio-like diseases (there are more than one) resorb normally, with flu-like symptoms. Only certain cases, caused by many environmental factors, and maybe some genetic ones, will degenerate into something dangerous.

              Nothing more dangerous than flu, with the normal exceptions.

            • Tom Thomas

              It’s amazing how just a small amount of time passes and we forget. If you don’t see it, it does not, and never existed. Ask your grandparents about polio and if any of their friends had it. They will paint a very different picture than the flu you describe.

              Look up polio in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The vaccine campaigns have been incredibly effective and that is as recent as the late 1990s. No old style diagnoses, no change in hygiene, none of the typical excuses. Vaccines work.

            • John Gray

              Oh, please! Good god, the number of people who are alive and healthy today because of vaccinations prove they work. Movie theaters, public swimming pools, schools, libraries had to close and quarantine signs were posted on numerous houses during polio epidemics. Yet, after the introduction of the vaccine all that went away. Poliomyelitis is a disease that doesn’t just resolve itself with no more ill effects than the flu. There are still polio survivors in the US, perhaps you could ask them if their polio resolved with no more ill effects than the flu. As the take a deep breath from their ventilator or look up from their wheelchair they’d tell you the answer was “NO!”

            • John Gray

              I prefer being healthy, vaccination gives immunity to disease and prevents you from being sick in the first place. Also some diseases (Smallpox just for one example) can be fatal, hard to “build immunity” from a disease if it kills you.

  • Agg

    I wish everyone would read this. There have been numerous people who came forward confessing to fueling the antivax movement by provoking debate and non-stop flooding social media with unproven theories of the damage vaccines cause. What is the real conspiracy? I wish I could find the xerox paperwork I have previously seen showing a well known celebrities bank account recieve a hefty 4 million dollars after publicly claiming their child “contracted” autism after having a vaccine. Maybe the hair dye, nail chemicals, and countless plastic surgeries have caused issues in your child. Not to mention smoking while pregnant. And people actually took that seriously. If you don’t want to vaccinate your kids then don’t but if diseases mutate and affect the children who are vaccinated you should be held responsible as you believe the pharma companies should.

    • wzrd1

      Well, the *real* conspiracy is the one against those poor, hard working and honest pathogens, who are only obeying the orders of the Almighty to “be fruitful and multiply”, thereby culling the herd of tiny children.
      Isn’t that a terrible conspiracy? Why, poor smallpox was murdered by vaccines!
      And then, there is the conspiracy of “Big Pharma” making a profit. How horrible of them! Don’t they know that corporations are supposed to lose money, not make profits?

      More seriously, autism is still rather a mystery, largely because it involves brain operation and we don’t know a vast amount on how the brain operates in total. Each year or so, we learn a little bit more, but a little bit in the massive and complex sets of cells that make up a brain shows that we need to know a *lot* more.
      Franky, if I were designing a brain, I’d never go with the system we have. Too many moving parts, it’ll never work.

      Still, I wonder if anti-vaxers evacuate their home and call in a hazmat clean up team, out of an abundance of caution, whenever they break a CFL bulb in their home?

      • Slam

        The article make a reference to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Remember, though, that this effect works for everyone, including pro-vaccinationists.

  • Bella Dahna

    Vaccines are a guarenteed paycheck. Each year approx 4 million babies born in the US. The number of vaccines given before starting school adds up to a lot of money for Big Pharma.

    Now if your child is harmed by vaccines, you’ll be lucky if you can get compensation. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Vaccine manufacturers (and doctors!) get COMPLETE IMMUNITY from any legal liability if your child is harmed by their vaccine(s). No other industry enjoys this level of protection from a product that could injure a child!

    Through public law, these corporations have been made too big to fail, just like the banks. They make a hefty profit from government contracts. It’s a guaranteed paycheck for them – there is no incentive to change the process.

    Since 1989, pharmaceutical companies have paid only 2.3 billion dollars for vaccine injuries. Given the total lifetime care of a vaccine-injured child, many parents believe this figure should be substantially higher. Some pharmaceutical companies have even been charged with criminal acts by the Department of Justice.

    Remember pharmaceutical companies are in business to make profits and ensure shareholder value.

    In 2011, the US Federal government awarded 6 pharmaceutical corporations over 5.7 Billion to manufacture children’s vaccines alone.


    Sanofi Pasteur…………200-2011-38199……………..$1,142,400,000.00

    Glaxo Smith Kline……..200-2011-38201…………….$786,456,400.00




    Mass Biologic’s………. 200-2011-38202……………..$11,250,000.00


    • wzrd1

      How horrible of those corporations doing business with the government when the government wants to stockpile any drug! Why, nobody should be allowed to sell anything whatsoever to the government!
      Try learning *where* the contracted for vaccines go. They go to the government, who distributes them to people like the military, federal hospitals and clinics, national emergency stockpiles, etc.

    • Niegol

      have you also looked up how much R&D and manufacturing costs these companies had to shoulder before they could hit the market?
      Ie, you’re posting their revenue, but without the associated costs, its meaningless numbers.

      Oh and as for the immunity from prosecution, not sure where you heard that, but its complete rubbish. Just because non-FDA approved drugs are not allowed on the market, does not mean the producers of FDA approved drugs are free from liability.

      Finally, the conservative attitude to progress in the Pharma industry is mainly due to regulators (FDA, EMA, etc) being squeamish about new techniques. Pharma companies are amongst the most innovative in the world, as evidenced by the number of new drugs and vaccines created. But Im kinda guessing you have little idea of the extreme complexity of creating a new therapeutic option which might very well one day save you or a loved one (lets just say that building a car or a computer is peanuts in comparison).

      Honestly, please learn about the things your are saying instead of parroting cheap propaganda.

    • John Gray

      A drop in the bucket compared to the total profits of “Big Pharma” and as the man showed, it would be more profitable NOT to make the vaccines. Treatment for whooping cough would be more profitable than prevention; more drugs used to treat the disease than to prevent it.

  • Pingback: 10 grunner til å ikke vaksinere barna dine | SAKSYNT()

  • Pingback: Switching Sides: From Anti-Vaccine to Pro | MOMmunizations()

  • Pingback: What the anti-vaccine movement means for pharmaceutical companies | BeatMed Blog()

  • rollog

    Why all the focus on the WORLDWIDE profit numbers? That is a very misleading number since not all pharmaceutical companies actually produce vaccinations. Yet you are adding those companies into the mix just to dilute the statistical goal. You need to look at some of the companies that actually do produce vaccinations. Merck for example. A GOOD portion of their global pharmaceutical profits come from vaccinations. Here is their profit chart on Pharmaceuticals. As you can see their number 2 best seller is one of the more controversial ones.

    Source, Merck:

    • You seem to have either not read my article, or you just made my point. Whatever.

      • rollog

        No, I read it quite fine. Offered you proof of your bias through the citation and of course, it is ignored. My point, Pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines rely on it’s profits to survive.

        Why are you adding corporations who make manufacture only Aspirin into the same category?

        Is that why you removed the article?

        Nice try.

        • Simon

          You’re not very bright are you? The point being made is that if vaccines re so freaking profitable then ALL the Big Pharma companies would be producing them. Basic profit motive economic theory will tell you that.

          • rollog

            Wow are you that clueless? There are PLENTY of pharmaceutical companies that do not work with vaccines, some do not work with opiates etc. The cost of infrastructure vs current marketplace competition comes into the decision as well. For Merck it makes up 20% of overall profit. The company would fail if it were not for the profit from vaccinations. Some pharm companies opt not to enter this arena. You are bordering on lying to the public. Is that why you deleted the article?

            • Niegol

              So what are you saying? That its strange that companies which make vaccines are making a profit off of them? Wow Einstein, thats the way we chose to oprganise the world, its called capitalism. And in the same way, if they would be overpricing their product, competitors would step in and undercut their prices. Nothing secret about it, nothing wrong about it. This makes sure all that money stuck in wall street etc gets used to create new drugs and vaccines, instead of only public funds (academia) being there for medical research.

            • wzrd1

              Not the entire world. We still have a few communist nations, who most certainly are not capitalistic.
              Oh, crap! I probably confused the poor rollog now.

            • Slam

              Cuba, Russia, North Korea and China are not communist. Did I miss one?

            • wzrd1

              Odd, as Cuba, China and North Korea claim marxism-leninism as the root of their system of government (although North Korea is a bit bizarre in their implementation).

            • Slam

              It’s just a claim.

            • wzrd1

              Ah, so “it’s just a claim” dispatches the argument?
              Each of those nations state what government form that they are using, every other nation on the planet agrees.
              But, you’re a god or something, so you can discard anything an entire planet agrees upon.
              Troll somewhere else.

            • Slam

              North Korea is clearly a dictatorship, saying anything else is down right absurd. A man “claiming” he’s a dog doesn’t change the fact that he’s a man.

            • wzrd1

              The CIA World Factbook also lists North Korea.
              You omitted one word. Communist dictatorship is the full term for their government.
              But then, you know more than all of the experts, in any field in the world.

            • Slam


            • wzrd1

              I don’t know, is he a socialist, a communist or a village idiot?
              After all, he’s complaining that a company is earning a profit.

            • Slam

              Well, if a company puts profits #1 on the list, then it means people’s health is, at best, #2. At best.

          • Slam

            Vaccines are about leverage on a population’s health, not immediate profits from sales.

      • Laughingfan

        I read it and you have taken significant liberties with the numbers. Pharmaceutical companies pay an average of 2.2% on profits of all their drugs. Many of these companies park their headquarters and profits overseas to hide the billions made off American children. Also, there are numerous peer reviewed studies that prove a link between vaccines and leukemia, asthma, and neurological deficits. Of course they must do this research in other less corrupt countries such as Canada and Great Britain. I am curious how much Big Pharma pays you to keep this site going.

    • az

      I dont see where do you read what you claim to read in this link. What I see is that all the vaccines together provide about 10 % of Merck’s revenue. Out of this, the standard childhood vaccines like MMR acount for about 4%, or 400 million dollars. It is a large sum of money but definitely a very small share of their profits. But all you people are missing the main point. ALL drugs a profitable – thats why they produce them; this is how economy works. Would you refuse taking a cancer or stroke or pain medication just because a company that makes it benefits from it?? Would you refuse to go to surgery to remove the inflamed appendix or a malignant tumor because the company that produced the equipment made money on it?? These are absurd arguments and many childred are going to die because of people like you.

      • rollog

        If you know much about business, you will KNOW that 10% is enough to make a business or sink it. High stakes.

        • wzrd1

          Now, now. Please don’t go on with confusing the issue with silly little things like facts.

          Anti-vaxers are fact free zones.

          • Slam

            It’s not about facts, it’s about intentions.

      • Luis, FNP

        I don’t see where you are seeing 10%. The total sales were approx 11 billion in 2013 and (if you look at the fine print in the bottom, you’ll see “Other Vaccines sales included in Other Pharmaceutical were $53 million, $86 million, and $127 million for the first, second, and third quarters of 2013”) the sales of all of their vaccines was over 4 billion in 2013. This actually equates to more like 36% give or take. That is a huge number. 10% was a huge number… this is an unfathomably large number.

      • Slam

        The argument that vaccines don’t make a lot of profit is interesting, but the anti-vaccinationists’ point is mostly about leverage. In a capitalist context, in which pharmaceuticals operate and abide to, it makes sense. You research a certain type of treatment, and pour a lot of money in it, but you use it as leverage for other treatments. The treatment (vaccine) garantees future revenue through averages and probabilities. If you vaccine population X and as a result, and this population becomes sick, say, 5.7% more often, you get leverage from that and you get more revenue from other treatments.

        Other non-vaccine drugs have a similar effect, except it’s not really about leverage, only about chronic usage.

  • Pingback: Episode 3 – Top Ten NeuroMyths Show Notes | High Proof Blog()

  • “I actually have 15 years of background in accounting and financial
    analysis of biomedical companies, which requires high level mathematical

    There’s the Dunning-Kruger effect right there. High level math skills? No. It requires being good with numbers. But at least now I know what it is that you did in the medical field. You were in finances.

    • NO dumbass. Apparently you know nothing of finance. But that’s all right. It’s hard to learn much graduating from the first grade and then going to live in your mom’s basement while getting fat eating Cheetos.

      See how this works?

      • Yeah. I have a degree in mathematics. You know, the author sets the time for comments. Try doing more than slinging childish insults.

        • wzrd1

          I’ll give him due faith. It’s easy to become frustrated when attempting to educated the willfully ignorant village idiot.

          • He’s inept and an egotistical prick. He doesn’t have half the understanding on the topic that he thinks he does.

      • Guest

        A very unprofessional comment that diminishes your credibility.

    • John Gray

      Well he is showing that “Big Pharma” isn’t making much money off of vaccines. I tend to trust the fellow who has the education and experience on the subject. I mean, just like when an oncologist tells you that you have cancer and tells you exactly what type of cancer you have and then lays out a plan of treatment for it, I tend to trust that person instead of somebody who looked up something on Wikipedia about lymphoma. I also trust the mechanic who tells me that I need to replace the brakes on my car, for the very same reason as above.

      • I’m questioning his experience. EBITDA is certainly not earnings less interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Would someone who has such education and experience make such a mistake?

        Not to say that I’m an expert or anything, so don’t take my word for it:

        Profit and Loss Statement (Revenues)

        P&L statements measure the firm’s performance over a period of time (over a financial year)

        Revenues = What the company earns

        Net sales = Gross sales – Deductions

        Deductions = customer discounts + returns + allowances

        Profit and Loss Statement (Expenses)

        Expenses = What the company spends

        Net Sales – Costs of Goods Sold = Gross Profit

        Gross Profit – Indirect Costs = Operating Profit

        Operating Profit + Other Income = EBITDA

        (Earnings before Interest and Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization)

        EBIT = EBITDA – Depreciation/Amortization

        EBT = EBIT – Interest

        Net Income (profit/earnings) = EBT – Tax

        Source: The Language and Tools of Financial Analysis, by Paul Kofman, Sean Pinder (Coursera Specialization Course through the University of Melbourne

  • Pingback: Cine face bani de pe urma vaccinurilor in Romania | lunguldrumpanadeparte()

  • Pingback: Hey vaccine deniers–using Hitler's Big Lie is a laughable strategy()

  • Tardis1

    The anti-vaccers often site the lawsuit shield. What they don’t get and what is clear from the financial analysis is the pharma would stop making vaccines if they could be sued. One sick child out front of a sympathetic jury would lead to millions in damages. It wouldn’t take too many of these cases for vaccine manufacture to no longer be worth it.

  • Pingback: Another flu vaccine myth–Big Pharma profits()

  • carpeveritas

    You’re title led me to believe I was going to find evidence that Big Pharma is backing the anti-vaccine movement, but everything you said seemed to suggest the opposite. I’m disappointed at the disservice of this blog post as a result of its deceptive title. A very poor attempt of a bait and switch, if that’s what you were trying to do. Perhaps what some might call the most successful global pro-vaccine organization, Task Force for Health, is financially backed by four major Big Pharma corporations in 2013 alone: Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck. (Reference: It seems like data such as this which most relevant to the answer of your title of your blog posting is a bit inconvenient for your talking points.

  • Pingback: OK, why aren't kids getting vaccinated with Gardasil?()

  • Pingback: Vaccines, $$$ & "fight the virus NATURALLY"! - Mothering Forums()

  • dr tony cellini

    Correct, Taleen. This author has done no research – sounds like a high school junior journalism major. Break even? Guess he never saw the 2005 study from Harvard Medical School which showed that vaccine manufacturing on average ran 18% in the black. He’s actually trying to float the argument that vaccines are created and legistlated into use … why? For humanitarian, altruistic, benevolent reasons? Please. Here’s a collection of actual sources : Vaccination Is Not Immunization, 2013

    • That’s the best you can do “dr”? Claiming I have no research. LMFAO.

      1. You don’t get parody. Dumbass.
      2. Immunization = vaccination. Unless you flunked immunology. Dumbass.
      3. No one claims that vaccines were legislated into use. Dumbass.

      • wzrd1

        On point three, I advocate for it to be legislated into mandatory use, save for those for whom it is contraindicated.

  • Pingback: Prices of vaccines–an uncomfortable discussion()

  • Virtually all licensed vaccines in the United States are produced by just a handful of pharmaceutical companies: GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Wyeth. These companies account for 80 percent of the worldwide vaccine market. With a limited number of manufacturers and many recommended vaccines produced by only a single company, vaccines are actually quite profitable. When you consider that a single FDA vaccine approval guarantees years and years of profits and with now no risk of any legal liability. Pharmaceutical drugs still carry some obvious risk of legal liability. Ask yourself what other product on the planet earth enjoys the benefit of having abslutely no rsik for anyone involved in its sales and so called professional usage? There are none.

    Vaccine Makers Profit from Government-Granted Immunity

    The Vaccine Industry – An Overview

    It’s Spreading: Manufacturing of vaccines is becoming big business, paying off for drugmakers

    Although prescription-drug sales are forecast to rise by a third in five years, vaccine sales should double, from $19 billion last year to $39 billion in 2013, according to market research firm Kalorama Information. That’s five times the $8 billion in vaccine sales in 2004.

    “What was essentially 25 years ago a rounding error now has become real money,” said Robin Robertson, the director of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority.

    That jump is because of two new blockbuster vaccines and rising use of existing ones. The government’s list of recommended vaccines for children has more than doubled since 1985 to 17. It now also calls for a half-dozen vaccines for everyone over 18 and up to four more for some adults.

    Read more:

    How vaccines became big business

    Why vaccines spread disease and vaccine science is flawed

    The Current Failure of Pertussis and Measles Vaccine

    Failure Of The Continued Polio Vaccine Campaign

    Parents Who Do Not Vaccinate Are Not Ethically Negligent

    • Niegol

      the single largets vaccine maker in the world is actually the Serum Institute of India.
      By volume there simply is nothing in its league.

      FDA approval does NOT confer immunity from prosecution. It simply states that as far as the FDA can investigate, the vaccine (or drug for that matter) was developed and manufactured according to current law (GxP) and met all legal efficacy and safety rules and regulations.
      If (like in the case of NECC for example) the manufacturer breaks rules or laws, they are personally liable, just like in any other business.
      If a drug or vaccine is proven to cause harm, the manufacturer is definitely liable under US law. If this is not something they could have anticipated (based on the evidence of the safety studies, clinical trials and manufacturing data), than (just like in any other case) the punishment is less severe than if its negligence or fraud. But the company is in all cases responsible for the effects of their product.

    • wzrd1

      Jesus H. Christ!
      Virtually all prescription medications licensed in the United States are only produced by a small number of pharmaceutical companies.
      Each company has specializations and general products. Few companies want to spend the phenomenal cost to discover the new drug, test it on animals, eventually, go to two different human testings for the drug and prove efficacy. A hell of a lot of drugs fail to make it to testing, many also fail for various reasons during testing, driving the total research cost to incomprehensible prices.
      Now, if it’s only a few companies developing drugs in general, there are only a few specialized for certain types of drugs, vaccines are considered a drug, only a few are going to have the equipment and specialized packaging and storage required for those vaccines.
      Nobody’s about to go out and build a production facility for low profit items like vaccines today.

  • Pingback: The Rationality Unleashed! ProjectMedicine, Money, and Mortality Rates » The Rationality Unleashed! Project()

  • Pingback: Vaccines | streptomycetaceae()

  • koala

    Never have I seen an antivac article that is “about the profits of vaccines”! ?

  • Pingback: Medicine, Money, and Mortality Rates | The Rationality Unleashed! Project()

  • Pingback: Why we immunize–protect children from hospitalization for diarrhea()

    • John Gray

      Well, if vaccines are unproven you’ll be the first to sign up to exposed to , say smallpox or measles? Vaccines ARE proven. Your MBA doesn’t make you an authority on vaccination and the science has been done and shows that vaccines are safe and effective.

    • wzrd1

      WhEvEr iS wItH the random capitalization?
      Sorry, had to stop. It was hurting my eyes too badly.

  • Pingback: It's simple math–vaccines save 700,000 children's lives()

  • Pingback: Je očkovanie výnosným biznisom? Prečo sa farma firmám oplatí viac dotovať antivax, než vyrábať vakcíny? | Očkujeme svoje deti()

  • Pingback: 8 Reasons Why the CBCP’s Anti-Vaccination Article Is Mind-Blowingly Irresponsible()

  • Pingback: Vaccines prevent 42,000 children's deaths in the USA every year()

    • kellymbray

      You sound like a paranoid chiropractor. Did you go to the Alex Jones School of Medicine?

  • Pingback: Australian vaccine denier group changes name–still a lie()

  • Pingback: Head Tale - Don’t Want To Get Sick or Possibly Die? Get Vaccinated.()

  • Pingback: Why we vaccinate–the cost of catching the flu()

  • Pingback: Developing and supporting a scientific consensus()

    • Dan Kegel

      I suspect very little of the medical marijuana sales at the several dispensaries in walking distance from my house are actually medical, and most are recreational. I’m tired of picking up empty (and sometimes not empty) vials of marijuana from the street. There are an awful lot of young, healthy looking people walking into that place.

  • Pingback: Why we vaccinate–debunking flu vaccine myths in 25 easy steps()

  • Pingback: Vaccinurile – un pericol? Partea a 6-a. Follow the money! | Insula Îndoielii()