This is disgusting of course. Merck has an effective monopoly and is limiting it to MMR. That the whole MMR protocol was pushed through with falsified science remains unaddressed.
What we also know is that some of the adjuants or carriers used are the likely source of serious adverse effects including autism. In short the whole Merck regulatory platform is itself deeply suspect. An open competition would quickly sort all this out through consumer engagement.
Universal compliance is not attainable without expensive coercive actions and will never likely be.
Back to common sense. The protocol works well enough for several specific diseases. They need to be applied singly and safely. The only one demanding universal attention are the childhood diseases as long as we dump MMR. It has never been free of controversy because people have died from it or gravely injured.
This is not hard to oversee through schools as has been done forever.
Why One Corporation Can Dictate Measles Policy in America
Why So Few Choices in Vaccines?
[The AAP] was very concerned that availability of monovalent measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines would increase the number of at-risk children by enabling parents to elect to spread out immunization...
Merck's Government-Created Monopoly
Perhaps the most important long-run solution to the fragility of vaccine supplies is to ensure that multiple companies have access to the U.S. market. Although a large number of small domestic R&D firms and foreign companies have applications pending for vaccine licenses in the United States, regulatory and cost barriers may inhibit the entry of many of these producers. For example, a company that has had a successful vaccine product in use for many years in Europe and Canada must conduct full clinical trials as part of its U.S. license application rather than drawing on efficacy and safety data from its current product experience. GAO (2002) has recommended expedited FDA review procedures. Implementing this recommendation would accelerate approval of new and competitive vaccines in the case of shortages and also reduce the total cost of bringing a vaccine to market.2
- 1. See table 5-1 in Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221811/
- 2. See chapter 5, "Vaccine Supply." Available online through the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Chapter 5 also describes how market concentration toward a small number of providers has been significant in recent decades. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221811/
- 3. See Caves, Kevin W. and Singer, Hal J., "Bundles in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Case Study of Pediatric Vaccines" (August 11, 2011). "the FDA’s requirement that vaccines currently sold in other markets undergo costly additional clinical trials before entering the U.S. market (to meet potentially more stringent regulatory requirements) 'often discourages manufacturers from launching vaccines in the U.S.'" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1908306
- 4. See Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability: "Much current R&D and product testing is directed toward expansion of combination vaccines because they generally reduce the number of doses and the administration costs of vaccination, even though they may be more expensive."