No, I don't "know for a fact" that he doesn't. I don't "know for a fact" that you aren't lying about being a concerned parent, or that you are someonne from a rival drug company, or a person who has sold Merck stock short and is trying to push the price down.
Of course, I don't think for a second either of those things are true or relevant. Too much of the debate on FR has been crap like that lately, not only here but in any thread discussing the BP agents, or immigration policy.
People are getting lazy. Instead of discussing the merits of a proposal, they attack the person proposing it.
If giving the vaccine is the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do whether or not Perry will get rich by it. If it's the wrong thing to do, it's wrong even if he returned every dime of money from the drug company.
And in fact, if all we had was Rick Perry's opinion, it would be the wrong thing to do, because Perry is a politician and hardly in a position to issue medical judgements on the efficacy of a treatment.
Since the only point of an ad-hominen attack is to cast doubt on an argument by authority, and since the argument by authority itself can be dismissed here, it simply serves to lower the level of discourse.
SO what happens is instead of having an impartial discussion of the facts, you just force Perry supporters to back him up against your political attack, when otherwise they might agree with your position.
Our legislature is trying to pass this mandatory vaccine bill, and so I need the facts. My representative could care less if Ric Perry got money from the drug companies, he needs to know by what study or authority the ACP makes it's judgment that the vaccine is not worth the risk.
And in fact, I got into this stupid argument because people used it to attack the Governor instead of discussing the merits, and I wanted to point out that there are conditions under which it is appropriate to make a vaccine mandatory.
I have no idea if this is such a case. I don't know if medically the vaccine's safety is high enough to make the risk/reward tradeoff work in favor of giving it to low-risk girls.
But I do know that arguing over why Perry pushed this doesn't help me one bit in my decision, because my decision needs to be what is best for my daughter, NOT what people with political agendas are pushing.
..I'm speaking as a parent......pure and simple
Yes, being informed is a good thing :^
...when my county was pushing a sex-ed curriculum (straight from the pit of Planned Parenthood, btw)...parents had little recourse as it was a done deal....already mandated....but still to be voted on by the local school board.
.. they fought against it, when it became known.
And I was one of those naive parents who didn't understand the politics of this, but aggressively pursued information and spent time/energy informing other parents across the county.
We did make a difference..... and we did effect change.....to the good of our children....our children...
...and did not accept their concept but pursued/won and installed ours.
Parents aren't always informed or educated to the latest political ploy involving their children...
..but parents are their children's guardians/protectors......
..and regardless of whether you think they understand the 'talking points', does not negate their rights as parents to protest someone mandating a vaccine, a sex-ed curriculum, or etc., for their child.
And you didn't answer my question....
Are you a parent?