Profiteering at its worst?

Pross

I see some private medical company is going to start running clinics in Swansea charging over £100 for a stand alone measles jab. The company were even showing links on their website to the discredited Wakefield link between MMR and autism and are claiming the single jab is safer. Surely there has to be some case for a false advertising prosecution against them profiteering from people's fear using information that is no longer considered to have any basis?

danlikesbikes

Complain to the ASA as they often have strong 'teeth' and are willing to rule when a governing body that the company works in will not.

They have pulled lots of adverts & continue to do so and seem very quick at making a decision.

In answer to your question though, yes it is.

Pross

It's on a documentary about the measles epidemic now. Apparently Public Health Wales and others are looking into it. I just find it disgusting that companies are so prepared to play on fear. People are paying £50 to register with the company and then £110 for the jab. Part of me thinks it's their own fault for still believing the autism link after the originator of the claim has been struck off for his work but then the media hype was so strong it probably brainwashed people especially as the reporting of the discrediting was never as vocally reported. Listening to the woman speaking for the company justifying herself saying the link has never been proven wrong and that they were doing it for health reasons not business reasons just made me want to slap her :evil:

danlikesbikes

It does seem very wrong to me as I recall there was an outcry when the Wakefield story came out the first time which effected parents quite badly.

Well you never know other people watching might complain too?

Tom Butcher

Can't see that's it's wrong to offer the single jab - if it gets more kids immunised surely that's a good thing ? You can argue it's playing on people's fears to make money but if people want to pay it it's their money after all.

Playing up a discredited bit of research linking the MMR to autism is another matter.

danlikesbikes

Advertising it with a report that was proven to be wrong is in itself adding fuel to the fire. Plus if you think that a lot of young parent these days may well be too young to remember the report coming out the first time round?

Pross

Tom Butcher wrote:

Can't see that's it's wrong to offer the single jab - if it gets more kids immunised surely that's a good thing ? You can argue it's playing on people's fears to make money but if people want to pay it it's their money after all.

Playing up a discredited bit of research linking the MMR to autism is another matter.

Yeah, the problem for me is they are undoing the work of the NHS / public bodies who are trying to convince people that the (free) combined jab is safe and effective in the pursuit of making money off people's unfounded fears.

rolf_f

Isn't this just entrepreneurilism at its best? Company identifies a group of idiots (parents who didn't have their children vaccinated) and takes the opportunity to exploit them. It's how much business works at various levels!

The Little Onion

Rolf F wrote:

Isn't this just entrepreneurilism at its best? Company identifies a group of idiots (parents who didn't have their children vaccinated) and takes the opportunity to exploit them. It's how much business works at various levels!

And who cares about the broader social consequences?

mamba80

In 2000 my daughter had the separate MMR, the press were full of stories about Wakefield and Autism, i think i paid about £75 for all 3 jabs.
With hindsight it has turned out to have been a waste of money (she subsequently had the 2nd MMR aged 5) but for the peace of mind at the time it was worth many times more than £75.

Its no more profiteering than bike hire charges in Majorca or utility companies charging so much that elderly folk cant heat their houses and no one comes after them do they?
its a free market and i guess the parents paying for this can easily afford the cash, bare in mind none of this would be necessary if the NHS offered the single jabs in the first place, the extra costs of providing this have easily been out stripped by the recent out breaks.

danlikesbikes

mamba80 wrote:

In 2000 my daughter had the separate MMR, the press were full of stories about Wakefield and Autism, i think i paid about £75 for all 3 jabs.
With hindsight it has turned out to have been a waste of money (she subsequently had the 2nd MMR aged 5) but for the peace of mind at the time it was worth many times more than £75.

Its no more profiteering than bike hire charges in Majorca or utility companies charging so much that elderly folk cant heat their houses and no one comes after them do they?
its a free market and i guess the parents paying for this can easily afford the cash, bare in mind none of this would be necessary if the NHS offered the single jabs in the first place, the extra costs of providing this have easily been out stripped by the recent out breaks.

Surly your own example is one of scaremongering to get you to pay out £75 following the press stories and you said with hindsight it turned out to be a waste of money? Which is what this company are doing now to others not to protect them but stirring up the hype and generating profits for their company?

mamba80

yes that is true BUT the knowledge available now wasnt then.... so anyone going down the "paying" single jab root, is doing it with their eyes open.
Of course some people think we immunise too much and combined jabs carry greater risks to general health so that maybe another reason why the parents are doing this, either way, they r gettng their kids immunised and thats no bad thing is it? + free ing up clinic space for more sensible people !

what do private schools do but play on peples fears that the state sector is bad and If you REALLY care about your kids future you ll pay us 30k ayr to educate them.

danlikesbikes

mamba80 wrote:

yes that is true BUT the knowledge available now wasnt then.... so anyone going down the "paying" single jab root, is doing it with their eyes open.
Of course some people think we immunise too much and combined jabs carry greater risks to general health so that maybe another reason why the parents are doing this, either way, they r gettng their kids immunised and thats no bad thing is it? + free ing up clinic space for more sensible people !

what do private schools do but play on peples fears that the state sector is bad and If you REALLY care about your kids future you ll pay us 30k ayr to educate them.

I'm going to be controversial with this next bit but you sound like you older & wiser now than you were back then. BUT and this is a big but, we appear to be in a bit of an epidemic (though we might not be at this stage) & I know a lot of younger mother/fathers who are worried about this and if they saw an ad linking the 2 things together from a medical professional (such as this company) I think they would not know that the research has been discredited as they were too young to remember it first time around.

The Little Onion

I think a few things need to be clarified here
-the original scare was NOT based on any scientific evidence, but rather by a doctor (with vested financial interests in single jabs) sounding off. There has never been any published science which has shown evidence for a link (the Wakefield stuff was about a handful of anecdotes, not data), and plenty of studies which have looked for a link have come up blanks
-for those who view vaccinations as a personal responsibility, read about "herd immunity"

ballspondroad

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Infectious ... formation/

pinno

This whole episode has been mind boggling. Having experienced the crippling effects of things like Polio and diseases that are systematically controlled by vaccinations here, in Africa, I cannot comprehend the thinking behind those who turned the vaccinations down.
At the time of the alleged link to Autism and Crohns disease, the spurious link gave a risk percentage that was pretty minimal anyway. The side effects of measles surely outweigh the percentage of risk - even if the research had been well founded. I agree with Pross, it is profiteering and from a certain angle it is fraudulent. I hope the company is closed down.

airbag

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Complain to the ASA.

This, without a doubt.

Tom Butcher

The Little Onion wrote:

I think a few things need to be clarified here
-the original scare was NOT based on any scientific evidence, but rather by a doctor (with vested financial interests in single jabs) sounding off. "

I haven't checked this but at the time didn't he have a paper on all this published in the BMJ ?

mamba80

Danlikesbikes wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

yes that is true BUT the knowledge available now wasnt then.... so anyone going down the "paying" single jab root, is doing it with their eyes open.
Of course some people think we immunise too much and combined jabs carry greater risks to general health so that maybe another reason why the parents are doing this, either way, they r gettng their kids immunised and thats no bad thing is it? + free ing up clinic space for more sensible people !

what do private schools do but play on peples fears that the state sector is bad and If you REALLY care about your kids future you ll pay us 30k ayr to educate them.

I'm going to be controversial with this next bit but you sound like you older & wiser now than you were back then. BUT and this is a big but, we appear to be in a bit of an epidemic (though we might not be at this stage) & I know a lot of younger mother/fathers who are worried about this and if they saw an ad linking the 2 things together from a medical professional (such as this company) I think they would not know that the research has been discredited as they were too young to remember it first time around.

well im definately older
At the time Wakefields research was well read (published in the BMJ, as Tom says) featured fairly positively on Panarama, given very great prominance in the press and was general felt to be worthy of merit, Autism has for what ever reason become very common, the causes not really explained.

IF at the time, the nhs had allowed single jabs, this present epidemic would not have occurred.
whether current parents are aware of the research is neither here nor there, we live in a corrupt capitalistic society and as such a few fools throwing away £100 or so is neither here nor there, get on a high horse about bankers or how come former politicians become millionaires ? or google doesnt pay tax etc
As i said these parents are at the very least doing a socially responsible thing, if single jabs were not available to them, maybe they d not take up the combined mmr anyway?

sungod

Tom Butcher wrote:

The Little Onion wrote:

I think a few things need to be clarified here
-the original scare was NOT based on any scientific evidence, but rather by a doctor (with vested financial interests in single jabs) sounding off. "

I haven't checked this but at the time didn't he have a paper on all this published in the BMJ ?

he did, it was fraudulent, he was in the pay of lawyers, he faked research data, he was struck off

afaik he still claims he's done nothing wrong and has been mistreated, imho he needs mistreating with a cricket bat

The Little Onion

sungod wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

The Little Onion wrote:

I think a few things need to be clarified here
-the original scare was NOT based on any scientific evidence, but rather by a doctor (with vested financial interests in single jabs) sounding off. "

I haven't checked this but at the time didn't he have a paper on all this published in the BMJ ?

he did, it was fraudulent, he was in the pay of lawyers, he faked research data, he was struck off

afaik he still claims he's done nothing wrong and has been mistreated, imho he needs mistreating with a cricket bat

There was a paper, but the claims made by Wakefield on TV and in the press cited arguemnts and evidence which were way beyond what was in the published paper. The stories in the press were not based so much on the paper as on Wakefield's interviews.

danlikesbikes

mamba80 wrote:

well im definitely older
At the time Wakefields research was well read (published in the BMJ, as Tom says) featured fairly positively on Panarama, given very great prominance in the press and was general felt to be worthy of merit, Autism has for what ever reason become very common, the causes not really explained.

IF at the time, the nhs had allowed single jabs, this present epidemic would not have occurred.
whether current parents are aware of the research is neither here nor there, we live in a corrupt capitalistic society and as such a few fools throwing away £100 or so is neither here nor there, get on a high horse about bankers or how come former politicians become millionaires ? or google doesnt pay tax etc
As i said these parents are at the very least doing a socially responsible thing, if single jabs were not available to them, maybe they d not take up the combined mmr anyway?

But in the sprit of the question asked in this thread your points are all very valid yet miss the point that @Pross is in wales where the outbreak seems to be more prevalent, where there are greater queues for immunisation from quite rightly or wrongly scared parents & we have medical company using advertising practices that are questionable at best by the use of a report that has been proven to be so far wrong that the poster of the report was struck off.

Richard_D

My other half is a subscriber and can not remember any 'paper' in the BMJ by Wakefield. To be issued as a paper it would have had to go through scientific scrutiny which as soon as it was scrutinised it failed. It may have appeared as a letter suggesting the possibility of a link. There is a vast difference here one . The article highlighted earleir, links to Health England, explains why the single Vaccine was removed.
If you are offering a paid alternative to a free option that gives poorer cover then yes it is profiteering.

MisterMuncher

Wakefield was originally published in The Lancet. The BMJ carried Brian Deer's excoriation of his work. The paper only listed his (faked) results and noted them as something worth pursuing. Wakefield's seemingly boundless capacity for self-promotion took care of the rest. I seem to recall every attempt to replicate the results failed miserably, as well they might given the results were fudged and fabricated, even within the tiny, non-random, unblinded sample.

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

yes that is true BUT the knowledge available now wasnt then.... so anyone going down the "paying" single jab root, is doing it with their eyes open.
Of course some people think we immunise too much and combined jabs carry greater risks to general health so that maybe another reason why the parents are doing this, either way, they r gettng their kids immunised and thats no bad thing is it? + free ing up clinic space for more sensible people !

what do private schools do but play on peples fears that the state sector is bad and If you REALLY care about your kids future you ll pay us 30k ayr to educate them.

The thing is they don't appear to be. They interviewed parents paying who were still quoting the 'link to autism' as the reason they wouldn't have the triple MMR. There are plenty of additional clinics being provided to ensure people have access to the triple jab free. The company involved were linking to the Wakefield claims on their website even at the start of this week until the media started asking them tricky questions and even on the documentary their spokeswoman kept saying no-one has proved his claims are wrong (classic case of impossible to prove a negative) and that the single jab is the only safe method.

rolf_f

The Little Onion wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Isn't this just entrepreneurilism at its best? Company identifies a group of idiots (parents who didn't have their children vaccinated) and takes the opportunity to exploit them. It's how much business works at various levels!

And who cares about the broader social consequences?

Well quite. Though in this case there probably aren't any aside from slightly poorer idiots; if people want to tax themselves then let them. The real social consequences were down to the MMR scandal. That might have been mitigated by responsible reporting.

ooermissus

Rolf F wrote:

The Little Onion wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Isn't this just entrepreneurilism at its best? Company identifies a group of idiots (parents who didn't have their children vaccinated) and takes the opportunity to exploit them. It's how much business works at various levels!

And who cares about the broader social consequences?

Well quite. Though in this case there probably aren't any aside from slightly poorer idiots; if people want to tax themselves then let them. The real social consequences were down to the MMR scandal. That might have been mitigated by responsible reporting.

Single vaccinations require more jabs over a longer period of time - so take up rates will be lower. The social consequences are a lower chance of achieving herd immunity, plus - possibly - other parents being persuaded that MMR is not safe.

Tom Butcher

That would be the case if they offered single jabs to everyone as the norm. That's different to allowing private companies to offer the single jab where parents have already turned down MMR. Arguably in that case it'd be a way of increasing take up by getting kids immunised where they otherwise wouldn't be.

rolf_f

ooermissus wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

The Little Onion wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Isn't this just entrepreneurilism at its best? Company identifies a group of idiots (parents who didn't have their children vaccinated) and takes the opportunity to exploit them. It's how much business works at various levels!

And who cares about the broader social consequences?

Well quite. Though in this case there probably aren't any aside from slightly poorer idiots; if people want to tax themselves then let them. The real social consequences were down to the MMR scandal. That might have been mitigated by responsible reporting.

Single vaccinations require more jabs over a longer period of time - so take up rates will be lower. The social consequences are a lower chance of achieving herd immunity, plus - possibly - other parents being persuaded that MMR is not safe.

Yes, but the presumption here is that either people are being sensible and getting the vaccinations done on the NHS or they are going to the private clinics for the single jabs. The people who are paying the £100 here are those who have already chosen to take that option up though you may have a point. Given that the current fuss is about measles, it will probably require separate mumps and rubella outbreaks for these people to get those vaccinations done....... :roll:

tiredofwhiners

mamba80 wrote:

IF at the time, the nhs had allowed single jabs, this present epidemic would not have occurred.

Or as most sensible people would say, if people had just stopped talking b*llocks and just carried on with the existing system, there would have been no epidemic of any kind.

There was no problem with the existing system and no need for single jabs. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

PS Most parents are utterly incapable of making an informed decision. Most have not yet worked out that x factor and dancing with the Stars on Ice rot your brain, and as such, they should never be allowed to make medical decisions. Should you disagree, then I volunteer to take your appendix out in surgery next week as I am about as qualified to do that as the average parent is to understand medical issues.

mamba80

tiredofwhiners wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

IF at the time, the nhs had allowed single jabs, this present epidemic would not have occurred.

Or as most sensible people would say, if people had just stopped talking b*llocks and just carried on with the existing system, there would have been no epidemic of any kind.

There was no problem with the existing system and no need for single jabs. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

PS Most parents are utterly incapable of making an informed decision. Most have not yet worked out that x factor and dancing with the Stars on Ice rot your brain, and as such, they should never be allowed to make medical decisions. Should you disagree, then I volunteer to take your appendix out in surgery next week as I am about as qualified to do that as the average parent is to understand medical issues.

Ah! you again...talking boll$x...... again.

so the parents that shunned Thalidimide were wrong? the single jab vaccines served the general population very well, it was its replacement that caused the confusion and allowed the doom mongers space to pursue their own agendas.
when (at the time) a trusted Dr comes along and says xyz and a politician says "no he is wrong" who do you trust????
Had the single jab been offered along side the MMR, then parents who wrongly distrusted the MMR would have had their kids done and those like you that are of a very trusting nature would have gone along with the MMR (this approach is what many other EU countries did at the time) the nhs didnt because the mmr is cheaper at administer.
TBH im abit surprised at your response here, i took you to be a free marketeer and as such would have welcomed choice in all its forms, then again maybe you just like an argument?