click the pic
help keep the lights on
donate today!
Posted on 07/01/2014 7:29:27 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
You’ve said there are studies that “contend that all vaccines are 100% safe”. So where are those studies? What you mentioned about studies not finding a link to autism do not fit the description you gave earlier of these studies.
Also, as for studies that did find a link to autism, where are those studies? As far as I know, not a single scientific study has ever found a link between thiomersal and autism.
Strange that the court paid out “$2,569,336,538.59 for compensable claims and $104,202,681.85 for attorneys’ fees representing those claims” from FY 1989 to FY 2013, if it is so hard to win a claim in that court
*********************************************
That’s really not much. That averages 758,578.00 per person.
Especially, since you can bet most of those kids are dead, or permanently damaged for the rest of their lives.
Plus, you left out the main part of the article that proved my point.
“There were 3,387 compensable claims, meaning those claims that received compensation or money, and 9,651 claims that were dismissed.”
That tells me that only about 1/3 got any compensation.
That doesn’t even count the countless number of kids that were harmed, but never even made it to court because there wasn’t enough proof or a doctor to back them up.
“Plus, you left out the main part of the article that proved my point.”
I fail to see how 1/3 of the people who filed claims getting compensation equates to “nearly impossible” to get compensation from that court.
click the pic
help keep the lights on
donate today!
Yes, really. Your claim that “anti-vaxxers” are emotional thinkers and not rational, is a statement and not a prediction. Actually, it is only an opinion and bears a derogatory stench that I’d expect from a left winger. It is easy to see that your opinions are one-sided and truly rational people will not be swayed by such narrow mindedness.
“Your claim that “anti-vaxxers” are emotional thinkers and not rational, is a statement and not a prediction. Actually, it is only an opinion and bears a derogatory stench that I’d expect from a left winger.”
Correct, that one part was a statement (the other was a prediction), and yes it’s my opinion. I really don’t care if you think it’s derogatory, because I consider it an accurate opinion, and I don’t tailor my opinions as to whether they will offend someone or not.
“It is easy to see that your opinions are one-sided and truly rational people will not be swayed by such narrow mindedness.”
Ooh I’m narrow-minded? Are anti-vaxxers a protected group like the homos now? We’re not allowed to observe their behavior and state that they aren’t swayed by scientists telling them that their claims are unfounded, and are therefore not thinking rationally?
I am thinking my tinfoil hat works really well…but Thanks for your concern.
Booger, you need to do your own research.
“Booger”
Well, how mature of you. Have your pubes grown in yet?
” you need to do your own research.”
Ha! So, you make a claim, and when I ask you to provide the proof of YOUR claim, you said that I need to the research.
Nope, that’s not how it works. If YOU can’t back up YOUR claim, then YOUR claim is simply dismissed as rubbish.
Bite me Booger. If you’re so mature, then you won’t won’t need directions when I tell you to go to hell, AHOLE!
Awww, looks like someone got their wittle feelings hurt. I’m sure mommy will put some bactine on that for ya and make it all better.
Get with your handler and put your head together - together they MIGHT make an double digit IQ, though I doubt it.
My handler? What a paranoid you are.
Someone needs to be watching you - quit wasting my time - go shave your back hair.
“I really don’t care if you think it’s derogatory, because I consider it an accurate opinion, and I don’t tailor my opinions as to whether they will offend someone or not.”
That’s ok by me. It ‘works’ when you are right about an issue, but it makes you look foolish when you are wrong.
“Ooh I’m narrow-minded? Are anti-vaxxers a protected group like the homos now? We’re not allowed to observe their behavior and state that they aren’t swayed by scientists telling them that their claims are unfounded, and are therefore not thinking rationally?”
Yes, you are narrow minded and the other stuff you say is weird, you kinda went off into the weeds there. My niece was OBVIOUSLY damaged by a MMR shot. Do you want to tell her Mother that she is irrational for observing the obvious?
This article is really big pharma B.S. But, you’d have to have studied both sides of this issue to know that. You apparently have not, but seem to claim some weird superiority over the issue.
“Yes, you are narrow minded and the other stuff you say is weird, you kinda went off into the weeds there. My niece was OBVIOUSLY damaged by a MMR shot. Do you want to tell her Mother that she is irrational for observing the obvious?”
No, saying vaccines can have side effects, when those side effects are well known and even the manufacturers disclose them, is not what I am talking about as “anti-vaxxer” rhetoric. I’m talking about the people who say “vaccines cause autism”, when they have zero evidence to back it up. Those people are not rational.
“This article is really big pharma B.S. But, you’d have to have studied both sides of this issue to know that. You apparently have not, but seem to claim some weird superiority over the issue.”
I’ve asked anti-vaxxers to produce the “other side” and show the studies that prove their claims, but they never pony up. How am I supposed to study both sides when one side won’t offer any evidence to back up their claims?
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.
