This man died a few years ago.
Posted on 09/17/2017 3:36:49 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Please don’t post that fraudulent crap about colloidal silver.
If you are taking immune suppressors or steroids, then a live vaccine is probably contraindicated.
I would say that is probably because no other drug or procedure has the central role in preserving public health that vaccines have. Without vaccines, we would shoot right back up to the tens of thousands of childhood deaths per year, just like we had in the pre-vaccine days. If the Tylenol company were sued out of existence, no one would die. So the Tylenol company does not have that protection.
You’re welcome.
You are really stretching there. Pointing out that frivolous lawsuits are bad is not equivalent to claiming that any corporation should be able to harm consumers with impunity. Likewise, standing up against anti-vax propaganda does not make me a liberal stooge.
You are engaging in straw men [non] arguments and ad hominems.
NAH...I don’t take stuff like that.
Please don’t post that fraudulent crap about colloidal silver. It makes us all look like nuts. Take it to some crazy homeopathic health forum.
I didn't post the original, just said that I would try it. How does that affect you?
This man died a few years ago.
As someone who can now take the vaccine and who became very sick from the flu, I am glad I can now have it. The last two years have been awesome avoiding the flu.
I said nothing of the sort. This is another of the straw men arguments that you have already provided several examples of. FYI, a straw man argument is one in which you misrepresent someone's position and then criticize them for that misrepresentation. In this case, you are claiming that I have said things I have not said.
The free market approach that would respect individual rights would be to remove the special legal protections vaccine manufacturers have been granted (by those that know better than us according to you) and defend their products in open court just as every other drug manufacturer does.
Again, a straw man, in that you both misrepresented what I said and what the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is all about. The deal with the vaccine manufacturers is that no pharmaceutical company can survive if it is being bombarded with multi-million dollar lawsuits. It is irrelevant that very few of the suits actually have any evidentiary basis, and the ruling in any particular suit is irrelevant. The legal fees alone can ruin a company, regardless of the ultimate outcome. When you add in to the mix that young children are often involved, and that the outcome on many lawsuits is not based on the evidence, but on how skillfully the plaintiff's legal team can pull heartstrings, it becomes clear that some mechanism must be put in place to stop that existential threat to the vaccine industry. So Congress set up the vaccine fund, which allows parents who believe that their child suffered an adverse event from a vaccine to receive a payout--and there is almost no burden of proof required. They just get the money.
This open exposition of facts about vaccines would probably go a long way towards tamping down the internet conspiracy theories concerning them that are so popular these days, but as a good statist you prefer to just take the easy route and deny the public this information because you and our other betters know best what should be done and we are incapable of rendering the "proper" decisions when vaccine cases are taken to court.
As many of the other posters around here are aware, I take a great deal of my own time to educate people on the facts about not just vaccines, but about many medical issues. I have, many times, explained the many reliable resources that people can use to get scientifically accurate information. I am not a medical doctor, so I always disclose that I am in no position to render a diagnosis or recommend a treatment--but I can explain medical issues. I feel very strongly that it is necessary to counter anti-vax propaganda with facts and information.
So, once again, you provided an example of a straw man. You characterized me as somehow trying to deny the public information, when my history for years (which you would know if you were a long-time denizen of health-related topics on FR) has been to inform and educate. I have thousands of posts in my history that attest to this fact. You are free to peruse them.
You have taken what I said and then expanded it to, "any corporation should be able to harm consumers with impunity," in order to accuse me of "stretching." Nice work there Mom - you may not vote like a Democrat but you certainly do argue like one.
Um, yeah. Let me go back to your original comment to which I was replying:
Your previous comment: You seem to be fine with people not being allowed to seek remedy for harms caused to them by a corporation (a fundamental right under common law) because it would just be a better thing for all of us, is that right?
My previous answer: You are really stretching there. Pointing out that frivolous lawsuits are bad is not equivalent to claiming that any corporation should be able to harm consumers with impunity. Likewise, standing up against anti-vax propaganda does not make me a liberal stooge.
So, taken in context, it appears that my assessment that you were implying that I believe that no corporation should ever be held accountable for real harms that it commits is accurate. Again, a straw man--and also an ad hominem, since you additionally took the opportunity to claim that I am still basically a Democrat. [Despite my screen name, I have never been a registered Democrat. But that's another story.]
You might want to take a look at your previous post where you used "slick lawyer who knows squat about science to convince a jury who knows squat about science" as a good example of an ad hominem.
That is not an ad hominem attack. Most of us are aware that there are plenty of lawyers who are in it for the money and care not a bit about the facts. It seems that the legal profession draws that type of money-grubber. Does pointing out that some lawyers are shysters equate to claiming that all lawyers are shysters? I don't think so. But I also see no reason to withhold my opinion of scum ambulance-chasers and their ilk.
It amazes me that the anti-science people who come on FR spouting various forms of medical quackery all behave so similarly when challenged.
I don’t recall seeing you before, and this time, I thought that instead of challenging you to come up with actual evidence to support your claims, I would, instead, point out a couple of the more obvious logical fallacies you have been committing.
The result has been interesting, to say the least.
What I’m getting is that the type of person who falls for scams and cookery is incapable of ever admitting that they were wrong when faced with contrary evidence. They, instead, double down on where they are wrong.
It’s a fascinating psychology going on, there.
You are a smug one, aren’t you Mom? I have noticed that those that believe that the ends justify the means do tend to believe they are smarter than the rest of us. I am so glad that you are out there doing your best to take care of us - we would never be able to get along with out you!
Without people like me, we wouldn't have physicians or any treatments/preventives for any diseases. I know that people like you don't care about preventing deadly infectious disease, but *most* people do, especially when it's their kids' lives at stake.
Well... okay, then. Take your belief that medical researchers are not essential for the development of treatments modalities used by physicians to Congress, because they're the ones giving us the research funding. An awful lot of money--to the tune of billions per year--is spent on medical research, on supporting people like me. But it looks like you think it's all a waste of money. Okay, that's your opinion.
I think that if you went back and read my posts you would find that my problem with the vaccine manufacturers and the people that profit in their trade is that Congress wrote a law that gave them legal immunity from civil suits and that the facts as to the benefit/harm ratio of the current childhood vaccination regime are being hidden from public scrutiny.
There are a lot of problems with this.
First of all, it appears that you get your "information" directly from anti-vax websites, and not from any reliable source. And, judging from some of your earlier posts, it appears that you think that every single lawyer is completely honest and not at all motivated by big payouts. It is precisely because of the crooked lawyers that Congress felt it was necessary to create the vaccine injury compensation fund. It is NOT because vaccines are inherently dangerous, because they are not. And there is plenty of data to support the safety and efficacy of vaccines. You can look up any vaccine you want in PubMed (www.pubmed.gov) and find the original research literature that describes its development, the early in vitro testing, the pre-clinical animal testing, and the clinical phase trials that all had to be conducted prior to FDA licensing the vaccine for sale. You can look up the status of vaccine clinical trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov. I would mention that product inserts tell you the side effects that can occur from vaccine administration--except that product inserts tend to list a number of non-specific side effects, as well as mention adverse effects observed during clinical trials that had nothing to do with the vaccine, but occurred during the trial.
This information is all public. As I mentioned in a previous post, you are free to peruse my post history, since I have discussed this topic in probably thousands of posts over the nearly two decades I have been frequenting this forum.
I take my own personal time to relay this information and educate people on medical matters, in part because doing so is returning the investment on my education that was ~80% taxpayer (e.g. Freeper) funded. I'm *not* a physician, so I do *not* diagnose conditions, but I can explain what is going on in the body. And, just in case you're wondering--a Ph.D. in a life science actually includes quite a bit of study of physical properties of molecules.
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.