[Sivad]

It’s more complex than that

It is. It's greed, ignorance, stupidity, fear, power, all the stupid shit that makes this world go round.

[Pants-of-dog]

S
o, I can’t really find any online literature that shows litigation over vaccines is US specific Post some links POD and I’d gladly read them.

I am on my phone right now, but I will look into it when I am at a better computer. If I forget, please remind me. Thanks.

Off the top of my head though, I’d say the vaccines are triggering adverse reactions to people with certain genetic markers. My opinion is, our species is compromised. We don’t even reproduce naturally anymore. We’re weak, and getting weaker, ‘snowflakier’.

http://instructor.mstc.edu/instructor/s ... terfly.htm

This is possible. And as people like Dr. Zimmerman study this rigorously, we should know more.

Now, I’ve hung out on this board long enough to know that you will probably reject that outright. And that’s fine. It’s about as valid a point as saying people who smoke cannabis are predisposed to psychosis

I do not know enough about medicine or biochemistry to comment intelligently on the relative validity of these two hypotheses.

---------------

Another thing is certain common contaminates in vaccines like mycoplasmas can cause mitochondrial damage, so vaccines might be doing more than just triggering these disorders.

PoD claims that natural infections are just as likely to trigger a disorder as vaccination but that's not at all clear either. The adjuvants and contaminants vaccines contain could very well provoke a far more powerful immune response than the natural infections they're designed to prevent.

The bottom line to all of this is that we don't know. We don't know because it hasn't been properly studied.

These hypotheses are possible, and as you say, this has not been studied so we do not actually know if these hypotheses are true.

Speaking as a parent, I can only make decisions based on what we do know. And we know that vaccines help prevent a lot of suffering, illness and death.

And we do know certain facts, like the fact that measles causes a fever almost every time.

[Sivad]

These hypotheses are possible, and as you say, this has not been studied so we do not actually know if these hypotheses are true.

That means the IOM and the CDC are corrupt junk science babbitt outfits that have been lying out their fucking asses for decades. They claimed vaccines were thoroughly studied and they knew the risks, that was a total fucking lie. These scumbag babbitt fucks have done nothing but lie and deceive and now they want to do away with informed consent. Those people belong in prison.

[ness31]

It is. It's greed, ignorance, stupidity, fear, power, all the stupid shit that makes this world go round.

If your list were an ingredient label I’d change it up somewhat...

*ignorance - Powers that be are intellectually lazy.
*fear - they love themselves some News and current affairs
*power - They are powerful by virtue of their cohort status
*stupidity - their ignorance, fear and power enables stupid policy.

I can’t bring myself to believing the main motivation is greed cos I may as well slash my wrists and be done with it

[Pants-of-dog]

That means the IOM and the CDC are corrupt junk science babbitt outfits that have been lying out their fucking asses for decades. They claimed vaccines were thoroughly studied and they knew the risks, that was a total fucking lie. These scumbag babbitt fucks have done nothing but lie and deceive and now they want to do away with informed consent. Those people belong in prison.

No.

Scientific knowledge is inherently contingent. There is no such thing as “thoroughly studied” when it comes to science.

At best, you can get to a situation where all the observed phenomena have been adequately explained, and the explanations have withstood rigourous examination.

And in the case of medical treatments, waiting until we had rigourously examined every hypothesis that would have occurred to us would have been the equivalent of condemning thousands of children to avoidable suffering, illness and death.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Are you asking to support the claim that iron lungs were used as treatments for polio, or for the claim that polio users were often cinfined to wheelchairs, or that illnesses cause autism?The first two are well known, and the third can be supoorted if you are really not familiar with it.

I am asking you to prove that MASS wheelchair dependency and iron-lung dependency WILL ensue from NOT mandating vaccines or for allowing vaccine companies to be litigated against.

If you are claiming that goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market, then you have the burden of proof to supoort it. Please do.

NO, you are not free to switch the burden of proof, which is a fallacy. You claimed that there exists essential and efficacious products which are not economically viable. This requires proof or atleast some examples. Please provide them. Thanks.

Then you agree that the MMR vaccine and/or thimoseral do not cuase autism.And you agree that the vaccine/fever/encephalopathy claim is not currently supoorted by science.

How does that follow from anything I said?

All that I said was that it appears that you agree with my claim that these vaccines under discussion should not be mandated.

Is this the case? Yes or No?

[Sivad]

No.

Yes.

Scientific knowledge is inherently contingent.

But the babbitts didn't state that, they said they were sure, and they attacked anyone that questioned the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

There is no such thing as “thoroughly studied” when it comes to science.

Yes there is, thoroughly studied means all due diligence(the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property). They didn't perform all due diligence, they repeatedly recommended against further study even despite all the many criticisms by top experts that pointed out the flaws and limitations of the studies they had undertaken and despite all the outcry from "stakeholders" alleging their children's regressive autism had been caused by vaccines.

So don't pretend like they couldn't have known, they didn't know because they didn't look hard enough. They didn't look hard enough because they didn't want to know. But they assured the public at every opportunity that they had performed all due diligence and that they were reasonably sure that vaccines did not cause autism.

At best, you can get to a situation where all the observed phenomena have been adequately explained, and the explanations have withstood rigourous examination.

Yeah, you should just stop. Don't embarrass yourself trying to explain science, you know precisely dick about science.

And in the case of medical treatments, waiting until we had rigourously examined every hypothesis that would have occurred to us would have been the equivalent of condemning thousands of children to avoidable suffering, illness and death.

That's ahistorical bullshit. They had the time and the resources to study it thoroughly, they just didn't do it and then they fucking lied and told everyone they did.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am asking you to prove that MASS wheelchair dependency and iron-lung dependency WILL ensue from NOT mandating vaccines or for allowing vaccine companies to be litigated against.

My claim was that we do not need to have children dying or suffering from easily avoidable illnesses just so you can achieve some ideological point.

Now, you seem to have added some things to my claim that I never said, like there would be MASS wheelchair dependency and use of iron lungs. By this, I assume you agree that many people who were not vaccinated against polio would be using iron lungs and/or wheelchairs, but you are quibbling about the number of people who would be affected. Since I never made any claim about the number of people, I will not be providing evidnece of MASS use of either of these things.

There is, however, evidence that the polio vaccine is very effective at stoppoing polio (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25316835).

NO, you are not free to switch the burden of proof, which is a fallacy. You claimed that there exists essential and efficacious products which are not economically viable. This requires proof or atleast some examples. Please provide them. Thanks.

No, you are not free to switch the burden of proof, which is a fallacy.

You made the claim “that if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”, which assumes that all goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.

Since this assumption is part of your claim, you have to support it. Please do.

How does that follow from anything I said?

All that I said was that it appears that you agree with my claim that these vaccines under discussion should not be mandated.

Is this the case? Yes or No?

Again, I claimed that the MMR vaccine and/or thimoseral do not cause autism.

And I claimed that the vaccine/fever/encephalopathy claim is not currently supoorted by science.

This is what I am discussing, not mandates or litigation. You can discuss these claims with me if you want. If you have no problem with these claims, that is fine too.

———————————

Yes.

But the babbitts didn't state that, they said they were sure, and they attacked anyone that questioned the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Yes there is, thoroughly studied means all due diligence(the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property). They didn't perform all due diligence, they repeatedly recommended against further study even despite all the many criticisms by top experts that pointed out the flaws and limitations of the studies they had undertaken and despite all the outcry from "stakeholders" alleging their children's regressive autism had been caused by vaccines.

So don't pretend like they couldn't have known, they didn't know because they didn't look hard enough. They didn't look hard enough because they didn't want to know. But they assured the public at every opportunity that they had performed all due diligence and that they were reasonably sure that vaccines did not cause autism.

Yeah, you should just stop. Don't embarrass yourself trying to explain science, you know precisely dick about science.

That's ahistorical bullshit. They had the time and the resources to study it thoroughly, they just didn't do it and then they fucking lied and told everyone they did.

Since this is all just insults and unsupported claims about “what they said”, this is all irrelevant and can be ignored.

[Sivad]

Since this is all just insults and unsupported claims about “what they said”,

No it isn't. It's all supported, every bit of it.

this is all irrelevant and can be ignored.

You mean obtusely denied. You can't rationally ignore it, you can dishonestly ignore it because you can't think of a bullshitty response and that's pretty much what I expect from you.

[ness31]

we do not need to have children dying or suffering from easily avoidable illnesses just so you can achieve some ideological point.

And yet this is where we find ourselves now with this coercive vaccination stuff. Parental guardianship is not ideological. It is in our DNA.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it isn't. It's all supported, every bit of it.

No. You did not even mention where “they” said anything, let alone provide a link and quote.

———————————

And yet this is where we find ourselves now with this coercive vaccination stuff. Parental guardianship is not ideological. It is in our DNA.

How does the “coercive vaccination” system have children dying or suffering from easily avoidable illnesses just to achieve some ideological point?

[ness31]

How does the “coercive vaccination” system have children dying or suffering from easily avoidable illnesses just to achieve some ideological point?

omg. I need to ask Beren if this is an example of sealioning!

We are having this very discussion because the safety of vaccines for indiscrimate use is being contested.

[Pants-of-dog]

We are having this very discussion because the safety of vaccines for indiscrimate use is being contested.

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you mean here.

[ness31]

Indiscriminate sorry

[Pants-of-dog]

But vaccines are not used indiscriminately. They are used in a targeted and intelligent manner in order to protect as many people as possible.

[ness31]

Oh! Are they? My bad.

[Suntzu]

Ain't nothin' without some degree of risk. Hell, water can kill you!

[ness31]

I guess it’s all trivial until you are the parent of a child that has had a bad reaction to a vaccine. I’m sure you won’t mind being collateral damage then for some utilitarian principle.

[Suntzu]

Your child is retarded, someone is to blame!

[Victoribus Spolia]

My claim was that we do not need to have children dying or suffering from easily avoidable illnesses just so you can achieve some ideological point.

Well since no one here is advocating this, I suppose its just irrelevant.

No, you are not free to switch the burden of proof, which is a fallacy. You made the claim “that if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”, which assumes that all goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market. Since this assumption is part of your claim, you have to support it. Please do.

Its not an assumption, its a claim based on the economic laws of supply, demand, and man as homo economus.


Hence, if you have a challenge to this claim via counter-argument, please present it. Otherwise, the principle that essential goods and services would always have demand because they are, well, essential is simply an a priori fact.


To challenge a principle of economic law, requires a counter-argument or counter-proof.

Its not my responsibility to teach you how discourse works.

This is what I am discussing, not mandates or litigation. You can discuss these claims with me if you want. If you have no problem with these claims, that is fine too.

Ok.