Posted on 09/05/2025 8:08:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Yes, it’s a money trail. Just follow the money.
My brother was a GP, General Practitioner. He never recommended the stuff from big farmasutical companies, outside of the basic MMR shots. There are incentives to promote other shots. This is well documented.
My pharmacy doesn’t even make enough per RX (on average) to paybfor the bottle we put it in, but vaccines are where all of the money is made. Without them, we’d close.
Allowing them to get sick. And, if pediatricians were solely driven by profit motives, this is the path they would take. Treating sick children is significantly more profitable than merely giving them a vaccine.
The cost of treating measles, for example, runs to tens of thousands of dollars. It was over $32k in this review: Estimating the impact: How much does a measles outbreak cost? But an MMR vaccine costs about $26 per dose. That means that the profit from treating measles is 1,231 times the profit from vaccinating against measles.
Likewise, a diphtheria vaccine costs about $25, but the treatment of diphtheria runs from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars.
Each of these diseases have the potential to allow the funeral industry to profit in addition to the medical industry. When a kid dies from a vaccine-protectable disease, a funeral is typically several thousand dollars.
With all of the profit to be made from refusing to vaccinate children, it's puzzling why pediatricians would choose the least profitable route of vaccinating kids. That is, it's only puzzling if one believes that the only motivation for pediatricians is profit, rather than saving lives.
Before the modern age of vaccinating children, most kids died before the age of five. Those who spread antivax propaganda don't care about the well-being of children. They want to return to the days of high child mortality. No, thanks.
After Covid, I realized that doctors can be as greedy as bank robbers.
RCK Jr is kicking ass!!
If most kids died before age 5 how did we get so populated today? Your math doesn’t add up.
Many children died before 5.
Sanitation, refrigeration, and better nutrition were the top factors in childhood health.
Clarification request. Do you consider people questioning the safety and efficacy of the covid vaccine as an anti-vax propagandist?
DOJ silent on this issue since the Bush years
Update.
Liz Churchill
@liz_churchill10
The more they uncover…the more appalling it gets…
“We’ve recently uncovered that more than 36,000 Doctors had their Medicare reimbursements altered based upon childhood vaccination rates. That’s not medicine. That’s coercion…”
From
Secretary Kennedy
2:10 PM · Oct 16, 2025 763.6K Views
https://x.com/liz_churchill10/status/1978886330139521351
With respect, Mr. Secretary, if those were in fact incentives and not penalties, I’d call that BRIBERY.
Your analysis is deeply flawed.
The more interesting question is whether you are intentionally lying or just ignorant of the facts.
The wild increase in the quantity of vaccinations is relatively recent and has zero connection with the reduction of child-hood diseases and fatalities.
Prior to widespread vaccination, women gave birth to many children. In my family tree, I can find women who had 13, 14, or 15 children. Women had so many children because they wanted at least one or two to survive to adulthood. It didn't always work; I learned about one family in Williamsburg, VA who lost all of their 19 children to a cholera outbreak.
When vaccines were introduced, people still had the habit of having large families. With the vaccines, most of those kids actually grew up. It took a generation or two to change the mindset about having kids. Instead of having large families, people could have small families and spend their energy on raising their two or three children as well as they could. It was during that shift in thinking about the optimal number of children that we had a population boom.
These days, the birth rate is below the replacement rate. It will probably remain low until the population decreases and people think they need to have larger families.
I've no idea what you are trying to say. Once a child has developed an infectious disease, a vaccine is useless. At that point, the child must be given antibiotics (for a bacterial disease like diphtheria) or pumped full of various medications to try to keep them alive during a viral infection. These treatments are far more costly than vaccinating the child.
Zero connection? Really?
A child who never catches measles because he/she was vaccinated is not going to die from measles. A child who is unvaccinated and catches measles has about a 1 in 500 chance of dying, and if they don't die immediately, measles can reemerge several years later and cause a fatal encephalitis in about 1 out of 1,000 survivors. In addition, measles can destroy the immune system, making the affected child susceptible to every disease, even if he/she has been vaccinated against that disease.
And measles is just one infection that killed children. There were also polio, influenza, chicken pox, streptococcus infections, diphtheria, tetanus (I probably missed a few) that also killed children.
There is a direct correlation between the number of vaccines and the decreased childhood death rate. And in this case, correlation actually does relate to causation, since there is a mechanism tying the cause (vaccination) to the effect (increased childhood survival).
I saw a grave once, of a two year old who died in the 1800s. It had this inscription: "Maggie, darling, you have left us. And your troubles are at rest. No one knew you but to love you. But God loved you the best." I'll never know which disease killed little Maggie, but I've never been able to look past the pain of these parents who lost their little girl. And these kinds of losses were common in the 1800s. Better sanitation had only a limited effect. Preventing diseases through vaccination was a much larger factor in the decrease of child deaths.
Bwahaha. You again.
There is a long list of childhood vaccines these days.
Most of them exist only to enrich big pharma and doctors—with highly debatable health benefits.
Highly debatable health benefits? Like all but eliminating childhood fatality and disability?
Your being the kind of person who thinks that protecting children is not a laudable goal... well, I can't say my thoughts on that here, this is a polite forum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.