Posted on 09/20/2011 9:22:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Might want to do those studies before issuing an EO forcing people to use it.
Or starting a massive marketing campaign.
Boy I’ve been attacked for saying the same thing. But you said it better. I bet you’ll be asked for sources.
That is because of her willingness to take an unsubstantiated comment as the gospel truth.
$11,000? Pikers.
When the Government is forced to pick up the tab for the acts of the irresponsible I believe they do have some say. For example, welfare. When women keep getting pregnant as a source of income, the Government should have a right to say no more children. Why should the taxpayer be stuck paying the bill. The same could be said in this case. We have a lot parents out there that have no idea what their kids are doing, like having sex, or maybe they do know and just don’t care. Whatever the result is the same. That being more sex will equal more diseases. The Government will have to pick up the tab for those that get the virus and don’t have insurance. Rather then say you must buy health insurance a better way is to say we are immunizing you so you don’t get sick. As long as people are looking for the Government to help them out they will always have a say.
No it was because some people will look for any reason to attack a candidate they don’t like
That is emphatically untrue. Nobody is born a Democrat.
Ever hear of “post hoc ergo propter hoc?”
This article doesn’t win the prize.
This article has been posted before and leaves many questions unanswered. It also provides little information so little as to be useless.
If this drug was so dangerous the Democrat lawyers would be swarming on the victims like flies on a cow pie.
Another moral: document your claims before making them, and the attacks would diminish. When I heard what she said, I was dismayed that she would say something like that based simply on the word of a woman in the crowd. There should have at least been a mention of this paper—at the very least.
And the jury is still out, unless and until we know all the facts of this case, and if there are others, and so on.
Politicians are not doctors or scientists, and I know it’s hard to ignore something that appears to be a danger. But before it’s stated as fact, there really are some important steps to follow. Remember the the false hype about DDT, just for instance?
This article does not show mental retardation.
>>Problem is the wording. You can be born with “mental retardation”. You cannot acquire it after birth.<<
Then explain all people who join the democrat party...
Thank you—real voice of reason at last.
True, but not really relevant. It was an explosive claim, and Bachmann was irresponsible for relaying it without making an effort to verify it.
Yes, driftdiver, they have. Oddly enough, they always start out calm and considerate - a disagreement with Bachmann over vaccine. But I can guarantee it will morph into something strange and awful. I want to wean myself away from it because it’s so draining to be drawn into the fight.
First, you are simply wrong - a VAST majority of Americans have health insurance - we are talking upwards of 85% of Americans have health insurance. So, the Gov't will NOT be picking up the tab.
My view is diametrically opposed to yours, you see - I feel that I am NOT the property of the Gov't. You feel that you, and your children are property of the Gov't.
Is this a good vaccine? Yup, I'd strongly urge my kids to get it. But, I will fight to the death to prevent anyone from forcibly administrering it to me, or my family. This is OUR choice, because WE are free people.
You apparently feel the need to be chattel.
Not true. I was a fan before this. Now I’m on the fence until more facts come in.
Come on Bachmann has a history of this kind of thing. And it won’t be the last example.
However, it does sound like you are describing the Perry-phobic.
I doubt very much that you would take the word of a stranger about any important issue then trumpet it as the truth.
It’s stunned me how many “good conservatives” have rallied around the pharma industry vs. Bachmann and supported the right of the government to mandate that you put something into your or your child’s body.
How those same people can oppose the Obamacare mandate with a straight face, I’ll never tell you.
I have a question for anyone in the medical field that might know. Can a patients’ medical history be taken into consideration when dealing with HPV? Could it be possible that the patients’ in the examples given(or even the girl in Bachmann’s story)that suffered brain damage have had other medical issues that would raise a red flag that they may have adverse reactions to the drug? There are statistics out there that Asprin causes hunderds of deaths a year yet millions of people take Asprin on the daily basis. Most of these deaths would be from pre-existing conditions known or unknown. I’m just curious as to what the pre-existing health was of the patients’ that are used as examples.
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.