CDC’s Own Expert Vaccine Court Witness Confirms Vaccines Can Cause Autism - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14982270
ness31 wrote: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.


Mandatory vaccination with manufacturer indemnity can't even be justified on utilitarian grounds. It would create the mother of all perverse incentives and it would definitely lead to massive fraud, waste, and abuse that would imperil the health and safety of hundreds of millions of people . Especially in a corrupt crony capitalist system like ours. The people who mindlessly support those policies are just nitwits that haven't thought it through all the way.
#14982272
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well since no one here is advocating this, I suppose its just irrelevant.


If you are advocating fir a significant reduction in vaccine use, then you are advocating for an increase in avoidable suffering, illness, and death.

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


I know where ancaps get this idea.

Please present evidence for this claim.

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.


So no evidence.

You seem to have this idea that any logically possible claim you make must be true unless it is shown to be wrong.

By this logic, I can claim to have a billion dollars, and if you do not disprove this claim, it must be true. Which would be nice, using my hypothetical example.
#14982282
All the facts and evidence point to that.

The almost complete lack of polio, measles, etc. is a huge reduction in illness and death.

The fact that the only iron lung in my city is in the museum instead of a hospital shows a significant reduction in suffering.

Meanwhile, adverse reactions to vaccines are so rare that governments automatically compensate people who suffer them without demanding that the complainant show that it was actually caused by the vaccine.
#14982283
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are advocating fir a significant reduction in vaccine use, then you are advocating for an increase in avoidable suffering, illness, and death.


I never advocated for this. Strawman.

I've only ever claimed that people should have the right to litigate for damages and no one should be mandated to buy a product (especially if they can't litigate for damages).

How this would effect rates of consumption for vaccines as a product is quite irrelevant.

If vaccines are essential for public health, are safe, and laudable; then there should be no fear that vaccine rates would drop significantly if we removed the chrony state protections fo these billion-dollar corporations.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I know where ancaps get this idea. Please present evidence for this claim.


Its A Priori, so its validity is not dependent on evidence.

Your lack of education here is not my responsibility.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to have this idea that any logically possible claim you make must be true unless it is shown to be wrong. By this logic, I can claim to have a billion dollars, and if you do not disprove this claim, it must be true. Which would be nice, using my hypothetical example.


You being a billionaire is not an economic law. Supply and demand are.


Fallacy of the False Anaology.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sivad wrote:You don't know that the benefits of the current vaccine schedule outweigh the harms. You're just talking out your ass.


This is also true.
#14982288
Sivad wrote:This whole thread is evidence to the contrary. We don't know how many adverse reactions vaccines are causing because it hasn't been properly studied. You just admitted as much yourself.



Lets start doing shots every time Pants contradicts himself or does his whole sea-lioning schtick.
#14982310
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I never advocated for this. Strawman.


Then it is a good thing that I said “if”.

I've only ever claimed that people should have the right to litigate for damages and no one should be mandated to buy a product (especially if they can't litigate for damages).

How this would effect rates of consumption for vaccines as a product is quite irrelevant.


Not really.

People who do not vaccinate their children are relying on herd immunity to keep their children safe. If this significantly reduced consumption rates, these children would be significantly affected.

If vaccines are essential for public health, are safe, and laudable; then there should be no fear that vaccine rates would drop significantly if we removed the chrony state protections fo these billion-dollar corporations.


This seems to assume perfect knowledge in the mind of the consumer, which is not a true assumption. It also assumes that judges in civil lawsuits are good arbiters of medical questions. This assumption is also incorrect.

Its A Priori, so its validity is not dependent on evidence.

Your lack of education here is not my responsibility.


No, this assumption that the free market is capable of delivering every single effective and useful good or service is not independent of experience. That is reserved for things like math, definitions, and deductions from pure reason. This is none of those things.

You being a billionaire is not an economic law. Supply and demand are.

Fallacy of the False Anaology.


Well it served the purpose of you making any sort of argument at all for it.

So, if you are not goung to provide evidence for it, then you should at least provide a logical argument for it.

——————————

Sivad wrote:We don't know how many adverse reactions vaccines are causing because it hasn't been properly studied. You just admitted as much yourself.


Then it is a good thing I never said that we know for certain that these reactions are incredible rare.

Instead, i said that the available facts and evidence indicate that.

And that is true.

And I never said these things have not been properly studied. I said that scientific knowledge is contingent, so nothing can ever be completely studied. But that does not mean that the science we have studied has not been done properly.

Thank you for this opportunity to clarify my claims.
#14982313
34 genes have been linked with autism spectrum disorder, according to a presentation yesterday (October 16) at the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting in San Diego.

Harvard Medical School graduate student Jack Kosmicki and his colleagues studied exome sequences of 37,269 individuals with autism and pinpointed 99 genes that could play a role in causing the disorder, 65 of which had previously been identified. The new result builds on work from the last decade and provides a “very accurate list” of genes that Kosmicki and his colleagues are confident play a role in the disorder.

“Autism is a common condition, but we don’t know its cause. We think it is predominantly genetic, so if we can understand the underlying biology, we can develop a therapy for the symptoms of the disorder,” Stephan Sanders, a geneticist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, and Kosmicki’s colleague, tells The Scientist.

In addition, the team found that patients with variants in the genes more strongly tied to intellectual disability and developmental delay walked 2.6 months later and had an 11.7-point lower IQ, on average, than patients with variants in ASD genes not tied to intellectual or developmental issues. Parsing the genes in such a way helps to explain why individuals with autism differ widely in their development and behavior.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... fied-64957


There are 99 ASD genes that could play a role in causing the disorder and ASD is predominantly a genetic disorder. ASD genes are also linked to higher intelligence. I think vaccination has nothing to do with ASD. But if a patient has a high fever in excess of 104 F after vaccination, the child could be left with severe brain damage, which could cause intellectual disability and developmental delay. This is why vaccination is risky.
#14982336
Pants-of-dog wrote:People who do not vaccinate their children are relying on herd immunity to keep their children safe.


Yeah, but how much do you really owe to a mindless herd that doesn't demand due diligence and allows rampant corruption in its public health establishment to go unchecked?

The other thing is people who demand mandatory vaccination are relying on an unknown and possibly large number of children to be sacrificed to severe debilitation in order to guarantee the safety of their own children.


Then it is a good thing I never said that we know for certain that these reactions are incredible rare.

Instead, i said that the available facts and evidence indicate that.

And that is true.


The available facts and evidence indicate that there might very well be a large number of people who are prone to severe adverse vaccine reactions so what in the hell are you talking about?

And I never said these things have not been properly studied. I said that scientific knowledge is contingent, so nothing can ever be completely studied. But that does not mean that the science we have studied has not been done properly.


I remember you making that retarded equivocation, at the time I read it I thought 'what a retarded equivocation'.

Thank you for this opportunity to clarify my claims.


Thank you for further demonstrating Noemon Edit: Rule 2, it's always helpful when you do that.
#14982341
Sivad wrote:Yeah, but how much do you really owe to a mindless herd that doesn't demand due diligence and allows rampant corruption in its public health establishment to go unchecked?

The other thing is people who demand mandatory vaccination are relying on an unknown and possibly large number of children to be sacrificed to severe debilitation in order to guarantee the safety of their own children.


My point was about how anti-vaxxers rely in those of us who do vaccinate our children to protect their children from those avoidable diseases.

Tryin to cast aspersions on others is not a reply to that. At best, it is a whataboutism, or tu quoque fallacy for those who like Latin.

The available facts and evidence indicate that there might very well be a large number of people who are prone to severe adverse vaccine reactions so what in the hell are you talking about?


It depends on what you mean by “a large number”.

And if you define “a large number” as meaning “all the possible people who could be adversely affected if all the current possible hypotheses are true”, it would still be true that this number is far smaller than the people who already benefit from widespread vaccination.

I remember you making that retarded equivocation, at the time I read it I thought 'what a retarded equivocation'.


How is it equivocation to say that something can be studied some more and simultaneously say that the studies already done are properly done?

.. it's always helpful when you do that.


Please explain how I am lying. Thanks.
#14982359
Sivad wrote:You'd don't really need booze with pofo, just being on pofo is like huffing glue.


Don't go autistic on me buddy, people will begin to think you were fully vaccinated. :excited:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it is a good thing that I said “if”.


Good thing. We'd hate for you to act in accordance with your typical pattern of behavior. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really. People who do not vaccinate their children are relying on herd immunity to keep their children safe. If this significantly reduced consumption rates, these children would be significantly affected.


No.

the effect on the rates of consumption are not relevant to the claim that vaccines should not be mandated by the tyranny of bougeouis and that the billionaire capitalist class should not be protected from damages they cause to the working classes.

If you are discussing anything else other than this claim that I made several times already; then you are clearly debating a point that I am not.

Quit talking to yourself, it makes you look crazy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems to assume perfect knowledge in the mind of the consumer, which is not a true assumption. It also assumes that judges in civil lawsuits are good arbiters of medical questions. This assumption is also incorrect.


How does the recognition that a product is essential and safe require perfect knowledge? Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

(I never made this assumption FYI).

Likewise, a judge is not obligated to be an expert in medical science for his rulings to be just. This argument is reductio ad absurdem, as it would imply that a civil judge could not rule on anything outside of his own expertise, hence no automotive suits, religious suits, gun suits, food safety suits, etc could ever be litigated.

:lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this assumption that the free market is capable of delivering every single effective and useful good or service is not independent of experience.


That wasn't my assumption, that is your strawman make-believe going hay-wire again.

My assumption is the law of supply and demand; which is a priori.

If a product is essential, then it is always in demand (otherwise it wouldn't be essential); thus, supply will always rise to meet this demand irrespective of government controls. Similarly, if a cure for black plague was offered in A.D. 1400, we don't have to speculate, we KNOW that the demand would cause supply to rise because the need for such a cure would be "essential." This does not require perfect knowledge on the part of medieval peasant, only that the cure exists and that it works and that someone is out there to provide it.

If a company provides such an essential service (as you claim); so long as they are ethical, they can expect guaranteed business. If they fuck up and are sued for damages ruled upon in a court of law, then competitors can replace them with similar services with less of the damages. If they ALL go out of business, this is likely because the product was either non-essential to begin with and/or the drawbacks outweighed the benefits and such could not be avoided by any of the companies in question.

This is all a priori, its FACT.

Indeed, that the government is protecting these companies will guarantee that they will be less safe as they are protected from being sued from hurting people and have a guaranteed monopoly secured by the State.

In the free-market, the possibility of being sued out of existence is an incentive to make a safer products, given the current circumstance, there is no praxeological reason to believe that any such incentive exists for them now, AT ALL.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Well it served the purpose of you making any sort of argument at all for it.So, if you are not goung to provide evidence for it, then you should at least provide a logical argument for it.


So we agree that you gave a false analogy then? Good.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 24 Jan 2019 01:30, edited 1 time in total.
#14982360
anti-vaxxers rely in those of us who do vaccinate our children to protect their children from those avoidable diseases.


These people exist. No doubt. I’m not sure anti-vaxxer was the best way to describe them and I’m not sure why these people don’t vaccinate. I wish the word ‘inoculate’ had been used instead. It would have been a more a more honest discussion from the get go :hmm:

Perhaps a study of who the hard core non-inoculators are would shed some light on the topic.

Who are the vulnerable people who cannot receive vaccines? It clearly can’t be any children cos they’re all being vaccinated the moment they exit the womb :hmm:

Edit - besides the whooping cough newborns who can’t get the vaccine. Old news.
#14982488
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Good thing.


As long as we agree that vaccinations prevent a lot ofmillness and suffering as well as death, and that a reduction in vaccines would lead to an increase in these negative effects.

No.

the effect on the rates of consumption are not relevant to the claim that vaccines should not be mandated by the tyranny of bougeouis and that the billionaire capitalist class should not be protected from damages they cause to the working classes.

If you are discussing anything else other than this claim that I made several times already; then you are clearly debating a point that I am not.


Since your “argument” is merely an ad hominem or red herring used to deflect the topc away from the effect of vaccines onto some weird idea you have about Marxism, I thought I would keep the conversation on topic.

And I suppose you agree that anti-vaxxers rely on herd i munity to keep their kids safe,

How does the recognition that a product is essential and safe require perfect knowledge? Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

(I never made this assumption FYI).

Likewise, a judge is not obligated to be an expert in medical science for his rulings to be just. This argument is reductio ad absurdem, as it would imply that a civil judge could not rule on anything outside of his own expertise, hence no automotive suits, religious suits, gun suits, food safety suits, etc could ever be litigated.

:lol:


It is simple economics. Market failure occurs when there are significant discrepancies between the knowledge of consumers and the knowledge required to make intelligent purchases. Look up “adverse selection” and “supplier induced demand”.

And this contradicts your assumption that all effective and useful products would be successful on the open market.

That wasn't my assumption, that is your strawman make-believe going hay-wire again.

My assumption is the law of supply and demand; which is a priori.

If a product is essential, then it is always in demand (otherwise it wouldn't be essential); thus, supply will always rise to meet this demand irrespective of government controls. Similarly, if a cure for black plague was offered in A.D. 1400, we don't have to speculate, we KNOW that the demand would cause supply to rise because the need for such a cure would be "essential." This does not require perfect knowledge on the part of medieval peasant, only that the cure exists and that it works and that someone is out there to provide it.


This is not proof. This ismere speculation about behaviour if your assumption is true. Try again.

If a company provides such an essential service (as you claim); so long as they are ethical, they can expect guaranteed business. If they fuck up and are sued for damages ruled upon in a court of law, then competitors can replace them with similar services with less of the damages. If they ALL go out of business, this is likely because the product was either non-essential to begin with and/or the drawbacks outweighed the benefits and such could not be avoided by any of the companies in question.

This is all a priori, its FACT.

Indeed, that the government is protecting these companies will guarantee that they will be less safe as they are protected from being sued from hurting people and have a guaranteed monopoly secured by the State.

In the free-market, the possibility of being sued out of existence is an incentive to make a safer products, given the current circumstance, there is no praxeological reason to believe that any such incentive exists for them now, AT ALL.


Again, this is you simply explaining what would hapoen if your assumption were true and is not actually a logical proof. Try again.

Do you think that the mechanisms required for enforcing and supporting capitalism are on the free market? They are not. According to your assumption, this means they are not essential or useful.

So we agree that you gave a false analogy then? Good.


You seem to believe that you are good at logical argument. Please make one.

It seems odd that I have to go to such lengths to get you to make one.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 20

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]