CDC’s Own Expert Vaccine Court Witness Confirms Vaccines Can Cause Autism - Page 15 - 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

#14985807
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If the former are essential, but the latter is "qualitatively different," then how is it essential?

If essential means something different for the latter category than it does for the former, than you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

otherwise, you would need to use a different word than "essential" for the latter category which would then undermine your argument which rested on this term.


Two things can be essential, and yet be qualitatively different at the same time.

Irrelevant, this is an example of an essential water supply being provided on the open market via private exchange; regardless of whether I decide to sell this water or just keep it for myself.

If I created a town on my property and provided the water for this town; I own the water and can decide the rate for this water because its my water. If the rate is too high, you are free to leave and go somewhere else.

Its simple as that.


No, it is an exampke of a drilling service being provided on the open market. The fact that younuse this service to get yourself water is what is irrelevant, when we are looking at economics.

So no argument then? Thought so.

I already provided the arguments for my point.


You argued that “if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”.

The inherent assumption is that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.

Now, please provide evidence for, or a logical argument for, this assumption.

Sure, I have shown that food and water never go to zero demand, even if several providers of such are sued out of existence or go bankrupt. This is because demand will ALWAYS remain high and Supply will ALWAYS rise to meet demand (the law of supply and demand).

This is true, no counter-examples exist. The law is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary.

If vaccines don't meet this criteria under the law of supply and demand, that would mean that they are not essential (which is what food and water are).

If they are not essential, then your justification for government protection of said industries is invalid.


You argued that “if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”.

The inherent assumption is that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.

Now, please provide evidence for, or a logical argument for, this assumption.

By the way, I have already provided counter examples.
#14985812
Pants-of-dog wrote:Two things can be essential, and yet be qualitatively different at the same time.


Are they essential in the same way? Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is an exampke of a drilling service being provided on the open market. The fact that younuse this service to get yourself water is what is irrelevant, when we are looking at economics.


I am not discussing the drilling service, I am discussing the well. A drilling service can drill anything not just wells, and I can drill my own well without a service at all.

You asked for an example of an essential water supply being provided on the open market via private means. I fulfilled the criteria of that definition.

Water can be appropriated via a free market quite easily.

You are not free to dismiss my example because you don't like it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You argued that “if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”.

The inherent assumption is that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.

Now, please provide evidence for, or a logical argument for, this assumption.


I did, the laws of supply and demand.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You argued that “if vaccines were as efficacious and essential as a product; they would be economically viable on the open market”.

The inherent assumption is that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.

Now, please provide evidence for, or a logical argument for, this assumption.

By the way, I have already provided counter examples.


Sure, I have shown that food and water never go to zero demand, even if several providers of such are sued out of existence or go bankrupt. This is because demand will ALWAYS remain high and Supply will ALWAYS rise to meet demand (the law of supply and demand).

This is true, no counter-examples exist. The law is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary.

If vaccines don't meet this criteria under the law of supply and demand, that would mean that they are not essential (which is what food and water are).

If they are not essential, then your justification for government protection of said industries is invalid.

BTW, you have not provided any counter-examples.
#14985815
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Are they essential in the same way? Yes or No?


I have no idea what you mean by this question.

Is food essential the same way safe shelter is essential, the same way medical treatment is essential, the same way defnse is essential?

I am not discussing the drilling service, I am discussing the well. A drilling service can drill anything not just wells, and I can drill my own well without a service at all.

You asked for an example of an essential water supply being provided on the open market via private means. I fulfilled the criteria of that definition.

Water can be appropriated via a free market quite easily.

You are not free to dismiss my example because you don't like it.


Younused the example of a well drilling service. That is drilling. Are you now changing your example to well water? If so, please note that I cannot buy well water.

I did, the laws of supply and demand.


No, the laws of supply and demand are not an argument, especially since you never showed how one relates to the other.

Sure, I have shown that food and water never go to zero demand, even if several providers of such are sued out of existence or go bankrupt. This is because demand will ALWAYS remain high and Supply will ALWAYS rise to meet demand (the law of supply and demand).

This is true, no counter-examples exist. The law is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary.

If vaccines don't meet this criteria under the law of supply and demand, that would mean that they are not essential (which is what food and water are).

If they are not essential, then your justification for government protection of said industries is invalid.

BTW, you have not provided any counter-examples.


Yes, I have. More than once.

You have yet to provide an argument to supoort your claim that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.

Did you ever look up information asymmetry?

Until you do, there is no point discussing how medical services are sold.

——————————————

Here are examples of goods and services that I needed and was not able to purchase on the free market:

Medical treatment.
Government.
Fire protection.
Electricity.
Water.
Military defense.
Air.
Liberty.
State support for capitalism, if you consider capitalism essential.
Vaccines.

Now, since you keep mentioning supply and demand, do you think that the simple law of supply and demand explains ALL economic transactions perfectly?

Obviously not. Sometimes it does not work that way.

From the (almost certainly not leftist at all) faculty of economics at the University of Iowa:

    Economists distinguish broadly among three types of goods along the private to public continuum. Purely private goods are purchased and used by individuals and families. Another way of explaining a private good is to say that my use (or consumption, in economist language) excludes your ability to consume the same good. Food is the best understood example. Food is eaten by one person. A family may purchase and cook for the family and their friends. People may share food with friends or with needy families through food banks, but only one person can eat a particular serving of food. Because private goods are purchased and consumed, traditional supply and demand analysis describes the market for private goods very well. The intersection of private demand curves and production supply curves correctly predicts the appropriate market price and quantity.

    Public goods are at the opposite end of the continuum. Classic examples include national defense and the internet. The characteristic that distinguishes a pure public good from a pure private good is that one person’s use does not diminish the ability of someone else to use the same good at the same time. You and I are equally protected by U.S. national defense. My consumption does not exclude your consumption. For that reason, traditional supply and demand analysis does not correctly identify how much defense to “produce” and how much each person should pay for his or her defense. In fact, since no business could charge each person for their defense, there is no market mechanism to identify how much each individual is willing to pay. Economists generally agree that pure public goods are properly provided by government and paid for by taxes. There are complicated ways to discern how much each person is willing to pay, but it is much simpler and more acceptable politically to use the tax system.

    Many goods, including the examples of mail delivery and schools, involve both public and private benefits. There is an expressed private demand for mail delivery and schools. Individuals are willing to pay private delivery services, such as Federal Express and UPS, to deliver mail and packages outside the postal service and families send their children to private schools at high costs, while still paying taxes for public schools. Even sending mail through the postal service is not free and students at primary and secondary schools pay more for many extras that enhance their education.

    Before government provision of mail service and schooling, private mail service and private schools were the only options. The reason that mail service and schools are also provided by the government is that having universal mail delivery and universal schooling have large public benefits in addition to their private benefits. Let’s look at schooling, in particular. If only the wealthy are educated, most of the population is confined to low-wage, low-skill jobs. The economy suffers and the country does not prosper. Moreover, if only the wealthy are educated, they will control the political agenda. Universal primary and secondary education, combined with subsidized higher education ensures the possibility of equal opportunity for all to move into high-skill, high-wage jobs and to effectively participate in politics. A larger population of high-wage earners contributes to economic growth.

    Economists refer to goods like schooling, mail service, vaccinations against communicable diseases, roads, and bridges, just to name a few, as having positive externalities. They would be provided privately for those who could pay, but having them available benefits many more people than those willing to pay privately. If large numbers of people are vaccinated, we can prevent pandemics, such as the 1918 flu epidemic. Everyone benefits from having roads and bridges. There is also an important coordination benefit from public support for the production of goods with positive externalities. The public mail service maintains a database of all addresses and zip codes that private mail services also use. The Centers for Disease Control coordinates information on diseases and adjusts vaccinations to account for changes in diseases. The National Weather Service coordinates information on weather that everyone can use to plan for everything we do in our lives, from weekend picnics to airline travel to agricultural planning to disaster preparation.

    Just as in the case of pure public goods, the private market does not have a mechanism for determining each person’s benefit from having such goods available. And, as in the case of public goods, there are complicated ways to figure out what each person or family is willing to pay. However, it is simpler and more acceptable politically to fund such goods (or the subsidies in addition to private payments) through the tax system.

https://www.econ.iastate.edu/node/710

Information asymmetry:

    In contract theory and economics, information asymmetry deals with the study of decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. This asymmetry creates an imbalance of power in transactions, which can sometimes cause the transactions to go awry, a kind of market failure in the worst case. Examples of this problem are adverse selection,[1] moral hazard, and monopolies of knowledge.[2]

    Information asymmetry extends to non-economic behavior. International relations theory has recognized that wars may be caused by asymmetric information[3] and that "Most of the great wars of the modern era resulted from leaders miscalculating their prospects for victory".[4] There is asymmetric information between national leaders, wrote Jackson and Morelli, when there are differences "in what they know [i.e. believe] about each other's armaments, quality of military personnel and tactics, determination, geography, political climate, or even just about the relative probability of different outcomes" or where they have "incomplete information about the motivations of other agents".[5]

    Information asymmetries are studied in the context of principal–agent problems where they are a major cause of misinforming and is essential in every communication process.[6] Information asymmetry is in contrast to perfect information, which is a key assumption in neo-classical economics.[7] In 2001 the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics was awarded to George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Joseph E. Stiglitz for their "analyses of markets with asymmetric information".[8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry

And...

    ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION AND HEALTHCARE OUTCOMES
    Akerlof’s “lemon” theory applies in all markets where asymmetric information exchange exists between buyers and sellers. A sick individual’s superior knowledge of their medical needs gives them an asymmetric information advantage in purchasing health insurance. Sicker consumers are willing to pay higher prices for medical insurance based on higher anticipated medical costs. In response, private health insurers screen customers to eliminate high medical users (i.e. to avoid “adverse selection”), establish coverage limits and increase premiums to cover perceived financial risk. Higher premiums distort the health insurance market for healthy consumers and many exit. In these ways, information asymmetry contributes to the U.S. health system’s high absolute costs, high administrative costs, its large uninsured population and the inability of many Americans to afford needed care.

    Less documented is the impact information asymmetry has on healthcare delivery once patients enter the system. Information asymmetry helps cause “lemon-like” outcomes in the following three ways:

    Doctors and other caregivers overwhelm patients with information and deliver treatments that often are unnecessary;
    Doctors and other caregivers do not engage patients sufficiently and fail to provide necessary care; and
    Uniformed patients demand unnecessary treatments (often based on anecdotal experience, social media conversations or faulty research).
    In the same way that used-car buyers question a seller’s motivation, Americans increasingly question whether providers act in patients’ best interests. They turn first to the internet, not doctors, with medical questions. They are exhibiting higher levels of innate distrust toward providers. Negative media coverage, like Time Magazine’s “Bitter Pill” cover story, fuels consumer distrust. As health companies adapt to health reform in a cloud-based world, they must find ways to build customer trust/loyalty and signal their alignment with patients.

http://www.4sighthealth.com/when-health ... t-failure/

Now, this shows why it is incorrect to assume that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.
#14985964
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So are you saing that you need to be educated in order to know that you need water and food to survive? :eh:

Or better yet, are you arguing that practices like hand-washing are not essential for human survival like water and food clearly are?

False equivalence, animals (including humans) developed methods to overcome the most absolute and basics of needs. Breathing, for instance, is not even a cognitive function. Babies are not "aware" that they need oxygen yet they are automatically breathing... it is a simple machine-like function. Hunger and thirst is slightly more complex, we don't need water and food all the time constantly like we do oxygen but we do require them regularly so we have very rustic but effective circuits that provide for means for this basic activity.
While washing your hands and getting vaccines are all very important, they are nowhere near the other categories you compared them to. However, they are fairly similar to each other. We don't require to wash our hands or get vaccines to live (like you do require water, food and oxygen) but you would certainly have a much higher chance of surviving and doing so in a healthy matter if you do wash your hands and get vaccines. There was a time in the past that taking a bath was seen as unhealthy. So if people needed to be taught that washing the hands is important, they also need to be told other stuff, such as getting vaccines is important. Your original point is nonsensical.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I did, the laws of supply and demand.

The current arrangement of pharma companies and society as a whole does not violate "supply and demand" as you are proposing. Society has placed a demand, the pharma companies keep the supply. You might say that our demand is "falsely elevated" but this whole thread is the explanation why it is not the case and this demand is justified.
#14986476
XogGyux wrote:You might say that our demand is "falsely elevated" but this whole thread is the explanation why it is not the case and this demand is justified.


Yes, the demand is not a market demand, its forced at gunpoint, or atleast, people think it should be. Which is fine with me, that makes things simple for me: A glorious death.

XogGyux wrote:False equivalence,


You can't be guilty of false equivalence if you never made a claim, I asked you questions by way of clarification, so you are making arguments against things no one said....chimeras of your own making.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If so, please note that I cannot buy well water.


Sure you can, I will sell you some right now, how much do you need for your first order, send me your address via PM and I'll hook you up.....for a fee of course.

Also, you can move out to the boonies and drill your own well, your decision not to do is not anyone else's problem but yours.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea what you mean by this question.


Yes you do, if vaccines are not essential the same way as water, than you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation in your use of that term.

Its that simple.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Here are examples of goods and services that I needed and was not able to purchase on the free market:

Medical treatment.
Government.
Fire protection.
Electricity.
Water.
Military defense.
Air.
Liberty.
State support for capitalism, if you consider capitalism essential.
Vaccines.


That is correct, because for almost all of these the state has monopolized them to prevent market availability. This actually proves my point, not yours.
#14986487
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Sure you can, I will sell you some right now, how much do you need for your first order, send me your address via PM and I'll hook you up.....for a fee of course.


Why would I do that since I can get free water that I know is clean?

You are offering a product for which their is no demand (unregulated water) at a price higher than the cheaper (i.e. free) alternative that is better.

Also, you can move out to the boonies and drill your own well, your decision not to do is not anyone else's problem but yours.


This seems like a generalisation from your own experience.

Yes you do, if vaccines are not essential the same way as water, than you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation in your use of that term.

Its that simple.


If you want to show how vaccines are so different from other essential services that I have already listed, and explain how this difference is relevant, please do.

I mean, they are. All of these are different from each other, and there are different reasons why each of them do not work well on the free market. Air is efficacious and essential, and no one buys the fresh air they need on the open market. But the reasons why air is not sold (i.e. it is not a scarce commodity) are different from the reasons why vaccines do not work (information asymmetry, etc.).

So, merely saying “they are different” is not an argument.

That is correct, because for almost all of these the state has monopolized them to prevent market availability. This actually proves my point, not yours.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

——————————

Now, you have yet to provide an argument to support your assumption that ALL goods and services that are efficacious and essential as a product are economically viable on the open market.

I have provided as explanation why simple supply and demand does not adequately describe the market dynamics of medical goods and services like vaccinations, which are efficacious and essential.
#14986492
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would I do that since I can get free water that I know is clean?

You are offering a product for which their is no demand (unregulated water) at a price higher than the cheaper (i.e. free) alternative that is better.


I can guarantee a superior product, well worth the price.

Point is, water can be provided on the market. no monopolies required.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems like a generalisation from your own experience.


No, its a fact.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to show how vaccines are so different from other essential services that I have already listed, and explain how this difference is relevant, please do.


I has asked you this as a question, you have not answered it.

"that they are different" is an argument, and your air example changes nothing; air has extremely high supply, but it will never and can never lose demand....why? because its essential.
Same thing for food and water. Is this same term applicable to vaccines in the same way as with these former categories?

Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.


:eh:

Your post was my evidence. Your welcome.
#14986500
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I can guarantee a superior product, well worth the price.

Point is, water can be provided on the market. no monopolies required.


Yes, it can be provided on the free market. It is just that it does not always work well, such as the formation of natural monopolies.

And your product is not superior. I drink water that has been tested.

No, its a fact.


I doubt a person living off welfare checks and using a wheelchair is going to buy land and drill themselves a well.

I has asked you this as a question, you have not answered it.

"that they are different" is an argument, and your air example changes nothing; air has extremely high supply, but it will never and can never lose demand....why? because its essential.
Same thing for food and water. Is this same term applicable to vaccines in the same way as with these former categories?

Yes or No?


I have explained why different economic factors cause market failure for these different essential goods and services. If you want to ignore that and simply repeat your assertion, please do.

Are vaccines the same as food and water? No, vaccines may not be good on the free market for totally different reasons than why water may not be good on the free market. Food, of course, also differs from water.

Also, your are forgetting what your actual argument is: that all essential and efficacious goods and services will work on the free market.

The essential air that you breathe every day has no demand on the free market.

Do not switch the goalposts from “demand in the free market” to “demand” in every way, shape or form.

:eh:

Your post was my evidence. Your welcome.


So no evidence.

Okay, my claim is that these different essential and efficacious goods and services are not always on the free market for various reasons. Many of these reasons are economic, such as positive externalities, information asymmetry, lack of scarcity, etc.

I have cited evidence in the form of articles by economists.

You just made an unsupported assertion about how they would all work if that pesky state hadn’t gotten in the way.

If you want to leave it at that, please do.
#14986512
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it can be provided on the free market


Thus I fulfilled your requirement.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And your product is not superior. I drink water that has been tested.


How do you know mine wont be tested?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt a person living off welfare checks and using a wheelchair is going to buy land and drill themselves a well.


Not an argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are vaccines the same as food and water? No, vaccines may not be good on the free market for totally different reasons than why water may not be good on the free market. Food, of course, also differs from water.


So we agree that you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation then? Good.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, your are forgetting what your actual argument is: that all essential and efficacious goods and services will work on the free market.

The essential air that you breathe every day has no demand on the free market.


False, air has constant demand, the reason its cost is at zero is only because the supply is so high.

Air is a wonderful example of an essential product on the free market.

You simply lack the knowledge to understand this if you think otherwise.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do not switch the goalposts from “demand in the free market” to “demand” in every way, shape or form.


I haven't.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to leave it at that, please do.


Nah. You are guilty of equivocation and an attempt at asymmetry theory is only proof of this as such does not apply to things that are actually essential like food, water, and air. Demand for these things can never drop to zero without everyone dying, this is not true for vaccines, thus you are guilty of equivocation.

Period.
#14986519
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Thus I fulfilled your requirement.


And since you wereunable to sell water on the free market, you have provided an example of how an essential and efficacious product could not be sold on the free market.

How do you know mine wont be tested?


Because it would be a contradiction of your beliefs and stated claims to have state officals come on your land and test your waters.

Not an argument.


And that is not even a full sentence.

But I think we can agree that a person facing significant financial and physical difficulties can not just move to the country and have a well.

So we agree that you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation then? Good.


Since I said they were different, it is impossible for me to be saying they were the same.

False, air has constant demand, the reason its cost is at zero is only because the supply is so high.

Air is a wonderful example of an essential product on the free market.

You simply lack the knowledge to understand this if you think otherwise.


No. I know what “scarcity” means.

And I also know that the air I need to survive is not acquired on the free market.

I haven't.


So we agree that your original claim and the one you need to support is that all essential and efficacious goods and services will work on the free market.

And so examples of demand that have nothing to do with the free mariet are not examples of demand thatbsupport your claim.

Nah. You are guilty of equivocation and an attempt at asymmetry theory is only proof of this as such does not apply to things that are actually essential like food, water, and air. Demand for these things can never drop to zero without everyone dying, this is not true for vaccines, thus you are guilty of equivocation.

Period.


Food is different from water when it comes to market forces. Food does not tend to a natural monopoly like water does. So, if you think food an wtaer are the same because they are both essential, you are making a false equivalence.

Information asymmetry does not apply to food or water, and I never claimed it did.

It does apply to vaccines and other medical treatments.

So yes, information asymmetry is one of the ways that vaccines and medical treatments are different from food and water.

If you think that all essential goods and services are all subject to the exact same set of economic laws, then you are falsely assuming they are all equal.
#14986526
Pants-of-dog wrote:And since you wereunable to sell water on the free market, you have provided an example of how an essential and efficacious product could not be sold on the free market.


No, I have show that water can be sold on the free market. Obligation fulfilled.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because it would be a contradiction of your beliefs and stated claims to have state officals come on your land and test your waters.


you don't need state officials to test water. Non-Sequitur.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But I think we can agree that a person facing significant financial and physical difficulties can not just move to the country and have a well.


Is this supposed to prove something?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I said they were different, it is impossible for me to be saying they were the same.


Well, you used "one same word;" namely, "essential." Thus you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I know what “scarcity” means.


Image

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I also know that the air I need to survive is not acquired on the free market.


So you get it from the state then?

If not, then you get it from the free market as such is no different than a state of nature.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that your original claim and the one you need to support is that all essential and efficacious goods and services will work on the free market.

And so examples of demand that have nothing to do with the free mariet are not examples of demand thatbsupport your claim.


This makes no sense. A free market only means no state interference; thus the exchanges therein are soley governed by the laws of economics and certain definitions (like "essential").

Pants-of-dog wrote:Food is different from water when it comes to market forces. Food does not tend to a natural monopoly like water does. So, if you think food an wtaer are the same because they are both essential, you are making a false equivalence.


They are both essential, without equivocation, without either one, you will definitely die. This is not true of vaccines, so they are not essential. Thus your argument false, and your previous use of the term essential was fallacious.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So yes, information asymmetry is one of the ways that vaccines and medical treatments are different from food and water.

If you think that all essential goods and services are all subject to the exact same set of economic laws, then you are falsely assuming they are all equal.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

If they are all equally subsumed under a common definition of essential, then the laws of economics would apply equally; namely, that demand can and would never drop to zero.
#14986537
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, I have show that water can be sold on the free market. Obligation fulfilled.


Really? You can find someone to buy a lower quality product when a higher quality product is available for less? How?

you don't need state officials to test water. Non-Sequitur.


I would not accept water that was not inspected by a certified and regulated body.

Is this supposed to prove something?


You claimed that anyone could go and buy land and get a well drilled.

I provided a counter-example that disproved that claim.

Well, you used "one same word;" namely, "essential." Thus you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.


Yes, because that was one of your criteria. “Essential” and “efficacious”. So, all the things I listed were essential.

And then I claimed that they were all qualitatively different when it came to how they operated economically.

Specifically, all these essential and efficacious goods and services can and have experienced market failure, and have done so for different reasons because if thier qualitative differences.

So you get it from the state then?

If not, then you get it from the free market as such is no different than a state of nature.


I get it from the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is not the free market.

This makes no sense. A free market only means no state interference; thus the exchanges therein are soley governed by the laws of economics and certain definitions (like "essential").


Please define “the free market”. Thanks.

Breathing air is not an economic transaction.

They are both essential, without equivocation, without either one, you will definitely die. This is not true of vaccines, so they are not essential. Thus your argument false, and your previous use of the term essential was fallacious.


Yes, some people do die because they caught an illness that could have been avoided by a vaccine.

And food and water and vaccines and air are all essential and all are different too, and each one acts differently in terms of economics.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If they are all equally subsumed under a common definition of essential, then the laws of economics would apply equally; namely, that demand can and would never drop to zero.


No, this would mean ignoring the differences between different essential goods and services.

It would be a fallacy, the one where you think two things are equal when they really are not.
#14986573
Pants-of-dog wrote:Really? You can find someone to buy a lower quality product when a higher quality product is available for less? How?


My product is actually better quality; and I and others would probably be able to pipe and sell water more efficiently to urban areas than the state monopoly if that monopoly didn't exist.

Once again, I can acquire my own water and I can sell it. Thus, water can be sold of the free market; and the water you drink could likewise have a free market solution.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I would not accept water that was not inspected by a certified and regulated body.


What do you think differentiates the state from a private inspection group? Like collegiate accreditation, certification can come via peer-to-peer institutional recognition; it doesn't require a state; further, states are just as prone to corruption and poor standards as corporations; in fact, those people have even less incentive to do a good job because their failure will never lead to bankrupty, you can't sue and bankrupt the state because they gave you bad water that harmed your child.....you can do this if the water was sold to you by a private company.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You claimed that anyone could go and buy land and get a well drilled. I provided a counter-example that disproved that claim.


That is a caricature of my argument; not everyone can live in a house with a running water either; some people are homeless even in very progressive cities that have municipal water. The point is, there are other options that are very accessibile for the vast majority of people; this is true even in rural areas like the appalachian zone where I live; which is one of the poorest in the entire nation and where most of the water comes from drilled wells; and we have a lot of people out here who get welfare checks and are in wheel-chairs.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, because that was one of your criteria.



If you knew that, then you should never have agreed to define vaccines as essential as that has caused you to commit a serious fallacy that undermines your whole argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please define “the free market”. Thanks.


A state of nature; wherein, the acquisition and appropriation of goods and services is not restricted, regulated, or interferred with by a state.

a free market would exist if there were only two people left on earth; even if that implied everything was basically free because of the lack of relative scarcity.

HOWEVER, certain demands would never drop to zero so long as those two people existed; namely the demand for that which was essential for survival.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I get it from the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is not the free market.


Sure it is; its not regulated by the state; thus it exists on the free market.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And food and water and vaccines and air are all essential and all are different too, and each one acts differently in terms of economics.


No, they are not all essential; you can live without vaccines, you cannot live without food, water, and air. Because this is the case; food, water, and air CAN NEVER drop to zero demand; however, this is not true of vaccines; which has been my point against your claim of state justification for protecting (and creating) the crony vaccine monopoly (to protect an essential product); however, if the product is not actually essential, then the argument disappears.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this would mean ignoring the differences between different essential goods and services. It would be a fallacy, the one where you think two things are equal when they really are not.



No, we can acknowledge every single difference you want between food, water, and air and it will change nothing regarding them all being essential in the same way; that is, without them death is a FACT; thus it is impossible for their demand to EVER go to zero. EVER.

This not true for vaccines; thus you are either equivocating by calling it essential, or its not essential. So either you are guilty of a fallacy, or your argument justifying state monopolization of vaccine companies is false.

Either way, your argument is horseshit.
#14986604
Victoribus Spolia wrote:My product is actually better quality; and I and others would probably be able to pipe and sell water more efficiently to urban areas than the state monopoly if that monopoly didn't exist.

Once again, I can acquire my own water and I can sell it. Thus, water can be sold of the free market; and the water you drink could likewise have a free market solution.


No, it is not better because it has not been tested and shown to meet requirements.

To pipe it, or even bottle it and mail it, would require cost, and you would have to charge money to make up this cost. This would make your product more expensive than the competition.

So, you would be charging more for an inferior product. Theoretically, youncould offer it on the open market, but you would not be able to sell it.

What do you think differentiates the state from a private inspection group? Like collegiate accreditation, certification can come via peer-to-peer institutional recognition; it doesn't require a state; further, states are just as prone to corruption and poor standards as corporations; in fact, those people have even less incentive to do a good job because their failure will never lead to bankrupty, you can't sue and bankrupt the state because they gave you bad water that harmed your child.....you can do this if the water was sold to you by a private company.


If you have examples of non-state run inspectors who would do the work for free, please let me know.

If not, you would have to pay these people, driving up the cost, and making it even less likely that anyone will pay for it.

That is a caricature of my argument; not everyone can live in a house with a running water either; some people are homeless even in very progressive cities that have municipal water. The point is, there are other options that are very accessibile for the vast majority of people; this is true even in rural areas like the appalachian zone where I live; which is one of the poorest in the entire nation and where most of the water comes from drilled wells; and we have a lot of people out here who get welfare checks and are in wheel-chairs.


You are the ine who made the absurd claim. I merely pointed out that it was not realistic for a lot of people who have had sdifferent experiences than you.

If you knew that, then you should never have agreed to define vaccines as essential as that has caused you to commit a serious fallacy that undermines your whole argument.


Vaccines are essential.

A state of nature; wherein, the acquisition and appropriation of goods and services is not restricted, regulated, or interferred with by a state.

a free market would exist if there were only two people left on earth; even if that implied everything was basically free because of the lack of relative scarcity.

HOWEVER, certain demands would never drop to zero so long as those two people existed; namely the demand for that which was essential for survival.


That definition is not correct. I will use the commonly accepted definition instead.

Sure it is; its not regulated by the state; thus it exists on the free market.


Not if we use the actual definition of free market, which is an economic system that is not regulated by the state.

I do not get air through an economic system.

No, they are not all essential; you can live without vaccines, you cannot live without food, water, and air. Because this is the case; food, water, and air CAN NEVER drop to zero demand; however, this is not true of vaccines; which has been my point against your claim of state justification for protecting (and creating) the crony vaccine monopoly (to protect an essential product); however, if the product is not actually essential, then the argument disappears.


You keep shifting the goalposts with the vague use of demand.

And vaccines are essential. Ask the thousands who died from the flu or measles.

No, we can acknowledge every single difference you want between food, water, and air and it will change nothing regarding them all being essential in the same way; that is, without them death is a FACT; thus it is impossible for their demand to EVER go to zero. EVER.

This not true for vaccines; thus you are either equivocating by calling it essential, or its not essential. So either you are guilty of a fallacy, or your argument justifying state monopolization of vaccine companies is false.

Either way, your argument is horseshit.


You really want me to be guilty of making this fallacy.

I have not.

Again, different goods and services can be essential and still act differently when you try to sell them on the free market.

Vaccines are one example of this.

Now, you can repeat “equivocation” again, or you can address my points about positive externalities and information asymmetry. If you choose the former, you are basically conceding.
#15006980
The reason why more doctors don't tell the truth about vaccine safety:

Merck Created Hit List to "Destroy," "Neutralize" or "Discredit" Dissenting Doctors

Merck made a "hit list" of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained

According to The Australian, Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said:

We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live ...

The plaintiffs' lawyer gave this assessment:

It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and thought leaders ... if (they) say things you don't like to hear, you have to neutralise them ... It does suggest a certain culture within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who disagree with you.

The Australian:

The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.

"Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation," he wrote, ... "This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators ... I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or written on these issues."

The allegations come on the heels of revelations that Merck created a fake medical journal -- the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine -- in which to publish studies about Vioxx; had pop songs commissioned about Vioxx to inspire its staff, and paid ghostwriters to draft articles about the drug.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/merck-crea ... g-doctors/



New Merck Allegations: A Fake Journal; Ghostwritten Studies; Vioxx Pop Songs; PR Execs Harass Reporters

Merck allegedly:

Had a doctor sign his name to an entirely ghostwritten journal article even though a Merck staffer had complained that the data within it was based on "wishful thinking."
Created a fake "peer-reviewed" journal, the "Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine," in which to publicize pro-Vioxx articles.

Created a Ricky Martin-style pop song to get Merck sales reps all jazzed up about Vioxx (lyrics below!).

During the trial, Merck has employed an unusually aggressive set of PR consultants, some of whom have even followed reporters into the bathroom to make sure they got the story "right."

Hatched a Blackadder-style "cunning plan" to seed seminars with speakers who were sympathetic to Vioxx but under instructions not to mention the brand name too often.

Regarding the "wishful thinking" study, The Age reports on these emails turned over in the trial:

Email from Merck senior researcher Briggs Morrison, August 2001:

"That seems wishful thinking, not a critical interpretation of the data ... The data appears to have been interpreted to support a preconceived hypothesis."

The claim was nonetheless included in the final version of the article, which Merck employees sent to US cardiologist Dr Marv Konstam for approval.

Dr Konstam was named as the article's lead author when it was published in the medical journal Circulation in October 2001

The Australian describes the fake journal. And The Age notes that the journal was "designed to resemble a peer-reviewed publication and reprinted previously published articles."


Here's The Australian's description of the Merck PR team's over-the-top "handling" of reporters at the trial:

... a hired crisis management team sits in court every day, under the guidance of Merck & Co's media spokeswoman flown out from the US, watching what journalists write, who they talk to and where they go in the court breaks.

The team from prominent media relations firm Kreab & Gavin Anderson follow journalists out of court, ask them what they are writing, hand out daily press releases and send "background" emails they say should not be attributed to the company but which detail what they think are the "salient points" from the evidence presented in court.

The team rings reporters first thing in the morning, accuses them of "cherry-picking" the evidence and bombards newspapers with letters to the editor arguing their case in detail based on the day's evidence - five were sent to The Australian in just seven days.
Last night, The Australian received a sixth letter - signed by Colin Loveday, a partner from Merck's law firm, Clayton Utz.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-merck- ... reporters/
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15

I will happily sacrifice any of you for capitalism[…]

about great ring

@cherry I am sorry I cannot help you with your q[…]

Feel free to call out the lies, dude who threaten[…]

Another school shooting

@Drlee No, @BigSteve is right. I am going to […]