[Sivad]

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

First off that's not what you said so what you're doing here is equivocating on an equivocation. You said since science is "contingent"(whatever the hell that means) anything can always be studied more so there's no such thing as thoroughly studied. That's just retarded. Thorough means sufficient, not complete. Something is thoroughly studied when all reasonable methods and tests available to science have been applied to it. This is not the case with vaccines, they haven't been thoroughly studied, they haven't been subjected to a reasonable or sufficient level of scrutiny and the studies that have been conducted were not properly done in that their conclusions are not justified by their data.

The claim that vaccines are safe and effective is almost entirely based on epidemiology and here's what the book on epidemiology has to to say about the reliability of epidemiology:

Controlling for unknown co-causal factors, genetic susceptibility or mutli-step causation is outside the scope of current biostatistical practice. Teasing out the effect of confounding variables is fraught with difficulty and lends to error.

See DONA SCHNEIDER AND DAVID E. LILIENFELD, LILIENFELD’S FOUNDATIONS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, Oxford University Press 4th
Edn. (2015) at 63-68.

[Pants-of-dog]

First off that's not what you said so what you're doing here is equivocating on an equivocation.

As long as we agree that something can be studied some more and simultaneously say that the studies already done are properly done.

You said since science is "contingent"(whatever the hell that means) anything can always be studied more so there's no such thing as thoroughly studied. That's just retarded. Thorough means sufficient, not complete. Something is thoroughly studied when all reasonable methods and tests available to science have been applied to it. This is not the case with vaccines, they haven't been thoroughly studied, they haven't been subjected to a reasonable or sufficient level of scrutiny and the studies that have been conducted were not properly done in that their conclusions are not justified by their data.

1. Contingent means “dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional (often followed by on or upon )“.

In the case of science, that means that all theories, laws, hypotheses, etc. are dependent on our current knowledge of facts, and that these laws, theories, and hypotheses can change when new facts are discovered that contradict our current knowledge.

2. If you are claiming that all reasonable methods and tests available to science have not been applied to vaccines, please present evidence for this claim.

The claim that vaccines are safe and effective is almost entirely based on epidemiology and here's what the book on epidemiology has to to say about the reliability of epidemiology:

A single out of context sentence is not a good piece of evidence for anything.

You seem to be saying that claims about vaccines are wrong because there are inherent limitations to epidemiology.

This is illogical brcause it is possible for current theories about vaccines to be more or less correct despite these limitations.

[Sivad]

1. Contingent means “dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional (often followed by on or upon )“.

That's not a good word for what you're trying to say.

In the case of science, that means that all theories, laws, hypotheses, etc. are dependent on our current knowledge of facts, and that these laws, theories, and hypotheses can change when new facts are discovered that contradict our current knowledge.

Yeah, science is never settled. And it's wrong more often than not. Science isn't contingent(whatever the hell that means), it's just unreliable. Drawing strong conclusions from a limited and flawed science is completely dishonest.

2. If you are claiming that all reasonable methods and tests available to science have not been applied to vaccines, please present evidence for this claim.

I have posted the IOM statements and the Cochrane Review findings multiple times now. I posted videos of Spitzer and Healy explicity stating as much and I just posted a direct quote from the textbook saying epidemiology is insufficient in this area. Your obtuse denial is not an argument.

A single out of context sentence is not a good piece of evidence for anything.

That's not out of context, it's categorical.

You seem to be saying that claims about vaccines are wrong because there are inherent limitations to epidemiology.

No, I'm saying the claims about their safety and effectiveness aren't substantiated by the science.

This is illogical brcause it is possible for current theories about vaccines to be more or less correct despite these limitations.

Whatever mr equivocator, your crazy bullshit is not going to change the fact that the evidence doesn't support the establishment's conclusions.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's not a good word for what you're trying to say.

Yeah, science is never settled. And it's wrong more often than not. Science isn't contingent(whatever the hell that means), it's just unreliable. Drawing strong conclusions from a limited and flawed science is completely dishonest.

Everything I have said about scientific knowledge being contingent is like the first thing you are taught about philosophy of science. I remember it from grade 10 science.

Here is a course outline froma course about it:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/mart.nos.pdf

I have posted the IOM statements and the Cochrane Review findings multiple times now. I posted videos of Spitzer and Healy explicity stating as much and I just posted a direct quote from the textbook saying epidemiology is insufficient in this area. Your obtuse denial is not an argument.

I highly doubt those sources support your claim that all reasonable methods and tests available to science have not been applied to vaccines.

That's not out of context, it's categorical.

Until you provide the context, we cannot know that.

I predict you will not supply the context.

No, I'm saying the claims about their safety and effectiveness aren't substantiated by the science.

And that is not supported by the out of context quote you cited.

Whatever mr equivocator, your crazy bullshit is not going to change the fact that the evidence doesn't support the establishment's conclusions.

I have no idea what the “establishment’s conclusions” are. I am merely supporting my own.

[Victoribus Spolia]

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.

So long as we agree that your implication regarding my claim was a strawman.

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.

This is an accusation, not an argument. I am neither making an ad-hominem nor am I using a red-herring: This remark has been my position this entire thread:

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.

This has been part of the discussion since the start of the thread and my use of Marxist terminology to translate my position into language you would understand is my prerogative, if you feel this is a rule 2 or off topic, feel free to report me.

Otherwise, this is not an argument.

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.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Look up “adverse selection” and “supplier induced demand”.

Please provide evidence of this regarding "essential products," specifically.

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

False, praxeological analysis is not speculation, its based on axiomatic propositions and is fundamental to economic calculation.

Try again.

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

False, This a priori evidence via praxeological analysis. Its requires a response from you to demonstrate how its invalid.

Try Again.

Do you think that the mechanisms required for enforcing and supporting capitalism are on the free market? They are not.

Yes, your delusions are quite extensive.

[Pants-of-dog]

So long as we agree that your implication regarding my claim was a strawman.

This is an accusation, not an argument. I am neither making an ad-hominem nor am I using a red-herring: This remark has been my position this entire thread:

This has been part of the discussion since the start of the thread and my use of Marxist terminology to translate my position into language you would understand is my prerogative, if you feel this is a rule 2 or off topic, feel free to report me.

Otherwise, this is not an argument.

Let me know whn you have an actual argument about vaccines. Thanks.

You have previously tried to limit the discussion of effects of non-vaccination to death. We now agree that not vaccinating leads to ither negative results as well, such as illness, suffering, needing to use a wheelchair, etc.

Your weird thing about Marxism is irrelevant.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Please provide evidence of this regarding "essential products," specifically.

No.

You have repeatedly rfused to supoort your assumptions about economis in this thread.

You have not provided evidence for them, nor have you shown how they are supported by logic.

False, praxeological analysis is not speculation, its based on axiomatic propositions and is fundamental to economic calculation.

Try again.

False, This a priori evidence via praxeological analysis. Its requires a response from you to demonstrate how its invalid.

Try Again.

Again, if you do not know about economic issues like information asymmetry, then your economic speculation is limited to that of a first year sociology student.

Yes, ....

So we agree that I provided an example of an essential and useful service that is not available on the free market.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Let me know whn you have an actual argument about vaccines. Thanks.

Nah, I was never really discussing them, only the legal and economic implications.

We now agree that not vaccinating leads to ither negative results as well, such as illness, suffering, needing to use a wheelchair, etc.

Non-Sequitur; the inference lacks the data to be viable as a conclusion regarding my alleged "agreement."

Your weird thing about Marxism is irrelevant.

I am using Marxist language, that has nothing to do with relevance.

Again, if you do not know about economic issues like information asymmetry, then your economic speculation is limited to that of a first year sociology student.

Ad-Hominem.


So no evidence then? Thought so.

So we agree that I provided an example of an essential and useful service that is not available on the free market.

No, because you have failed to provide evidence for such. You gave no examples.

You have repeatedly rfused to supoort your assumptions about economis in this thread.

Uh oh. Your misspelling stuff again.

You should probably take a break from this subject until you calm down enough to maintain correct grammatical form.

No.

So then we agree that you have no evidence for the claim that essential products can have zero market demand apart from government interference?

[Pants-of-dog]

Nah, I was never really discussing them, only the legal and economic implications.

Non-Sequitur; the inference lacks the data to be viable as a conclusion regarding my alleged "agreement."

I am using Marxist language, that has nothing to do with relevance.

Ad-Hominem.

So no evidence then? Thought so.

No, because you have failed to provide evidence for such. You gave no examples.

Uh oh. Your misspelling stuff again.

You should probably take a break from this subject until you calm down enough to maintain correct grammatical form.

So then we agree that you have no evidence for the claim that essential products can have zero market demand apart from government interference?

Again, you have not supported your claims about economics.

I have provided a counter example to show you are incorrect.

And I was nice enough to explain to you where your economic knowledge is lacking.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Again, you have not supported your claims about economics.I have provided a counter example to show you are incorrect.And I was nice enough to explain to you where your economic knowledge is lacking.

I have used a priori economic laws for my argument that need no further support.

You have not provided any relevant examples.

You used an ad-hominem, but not an argument, regarding my alleged knowledge or lack thereof regarding economics.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have used a priori economic laws for my argument that need no further support.

No. You claimed your assumption was a priori, but it is not a fact, or a defintion, or something deduced by logical proof.

You have not provided any relevant examples.

Yes, I did. You failed to notice it.

You used an ad-hominem, but not an argument, regarding my alleged knowledge or lack thereof regarding economics.

Your economic speculations fail becuase they do not take into account information asymmetry, supplier induced demand, and other economic concepts.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. You claimed your assumption was a priori, but it is not a fact, or a defintion, or something deduced by logical proof.

No. The Laws of Supply and Demand are A Priori.

Yes, I did. You failed to notice it.

Please link or copy the relevant example. Thanks.

Your economic speculations fail becuase they do not take into account information asymmetry, supplier induced demand, and other economic concepts.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

So then we agree that you have no evidence for the claim that essential products can have zero market demand apart from government interference?

[Pants-of-dog]

No. The Laws of Supply and Demand are A Priori.

...and since that is not the assumption you mentioned in your argument, this is irrelevant.

Please link or copy the relevant example. Thanks.

It is on this page, as part of my text that you quoted.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

So then we agree that you have no evidence for the claim that essential products can have zero market demand apart from government interference?

Again, you need to supoort your assumption that all Essential and useful services would work well being sold on the free market.

When you make your argument for this, please focus on how information asymmetry works in health care. Thanks.

[Victoribus Spolia]

..and since that is not the assumption you mentioned in your argument, this is irrelevant.

I did, go back and read it.

It is on this page, as part of my text that you quoted.

I see no such thing, please quote it for me.

Again, you need to supoort your assumption that all Essential and useful services would work well being sold on the free market. When you make your argument for this, please focus on how information asymmetry works in health care. Thanks.

No, you need to argue how the simple laws of supply and demand would not account for essential services having a necessary demand.

In fact, you may feel free to use another essential product in your argument. Go ahead and use water.

Please provide an example where in a country lacking water, water being provided by a company would drop to zero demand without a state.

If vaccines do not follow this pattern, then they do not meet the criteria of being "truly essential."

Take as much time as you need.

Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

I did, go back and read it.

No.

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.

No, you need to argue how the simple laws of supply and demand would not account for essential services having a necessary demand.

In fact, you may feel free to use another essential product in your argument. Go ahead and use water.

Please provide an example where in a country lacking water, water being provided by a company would drop to zero demand without a state.

If vaccines do not follow this pattern, then they do not meet the criteria of being "truly essential."

Take as much time as you need.

Thanks.

Supply and demand does not cover the issue because that is just one economic idea at play here. There are others, such as information asymmetry.

Please provide examples of essential water supplies being provided by the open market. Stories like Cochabamba show that water privatisation can fail miserably.

When you explain, please focus on how the free market deals w8th the natural monopoly of water privatisation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Supply and demand does not cover the issue because that is just one economic idea at play here. There are others, such as information asymmetry.

People don't need to be informed that they need food and water to survive.

If vaccines were essential, they would follow this same pattern.

Please provide examples of essential water supplies being provided by the open market.

Every privately drilled well in the world.

tories like Cochabamba show that water privatisation can fail miserably.

We are not talking about the transfer of a state monopoly to a private monopoly. We are talking about a state monopoly being protected by the state.

Apples and Oranges.

Likewise, this is not evidence of the demand for water dropping to zero or being feared of dropping to zero. Which is what I requested as such was the state's justification for protecting vaccine companies.

So, Please provide an example where in a country lacking water, water being provided by a company would drop to zero demand without a state.


Your example shows the opposite, as the restriction in supply and raising of prices is what outraged the community given both the demand and the essential nature of the product. For a parallel example, you would need to show people in a community like this NOT wanting water or suing the water company for some sort of damages and the supply of water permanently disappearing as a result.

please focus on how the free market deals w8th the natural monopoly of water privatisation.

That would be easy, but its WAY off topic.

Besides, I don't see how its consistent for you to oppose a monopoly on water when that is what you are defending regarding vaccines: a state protected corporate monopoly.

[Pants-of-dog]

People don't need to be informed that they need food and water to survive.

If vaccines were essential, they would follow this same pattern.

Yes, but food and water are qualitatively different from medical treatments and health care.

I have the required knowledge to gonto the supermarket and buy food that is not spoiled and is healthy. I can turn in my tap and see and smell that the water is fine.

I cannot intelligently decide (for example) which antibiotics would be best for me during or after an operation, or when it is appendicitis or just a stomach ache.

Every privately drilled well in the world.

The market for well-drilling is not the same as the market for water.

We are not talking about the transfer of a state monopoly to a private monopoly. We are talking about a state monopoly being protected by the state.

Apples and Oranges.

Likewise, this is not evidence of the demand for water dropping to zero or being feared of dropping to zero. Which is what I requested as such was the state's justification for protecting vaccine companies.

So, Please provide an example where in a country lacking water, water being provided by a company would drop to zero demand without a state.


Your example shows the opposite, as the restriction in supply and raising of prices is what outraged the community given both the demand and the essential nature of the product. For a parallel example, you would need to show people in a community like this NOT wanting water or suing the water company for some sort of damages and the supply of water permanently disappearing as a result.

I am not providing any argumnets about water until you support the assumption that you have so far failed to support.

That would be easy, but its WAY off topic.

Besides, I don't see how its consistent for you to oppose a monopoly on water when that is what you are defending regarding vaccines: a state protected corporate monopoly.

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.

[XogGyux]

People don't need to be informed that they need food and water to survive.

If vaccines were essential, they would follow this same pattern.

That is an idiotic statement. It is like saying "People don't need to be informed that they need to wash their hands and they should avoid throwing their feces to the street" to avoid infections and die.

[Sidewinder]

Don't most drugs cause side effects in some people.
I was prescribed sleeping pills once that had me sleepwalking and even eating in the middle of the night and not remember it the next morning.
Good thing I didn't go for a drive in my pajamas, or maybe I did and there was no evidence like dirty dishes on the kitchen table in the morning

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, but food and water are qualitatively different from medical treatments and health care.I have the required knowledge to gonto the supermarket and buy food that is not spoiled and is healthy. I can turn in my tap and see and smell that the water is fine.I cannot intelligently decide (for example) which antibiotics would be best for me during or after an operation, or when it is appendicitis or just a stomach ache.

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.

The market for well-drilling is not the same as the market for water.

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.

I am not providing any argumnets about water until you support the assumption that you have so far failed to support.

So no argument then? Thought so.

I already provided the arguments for my point.

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.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is like saying "People don't need to be informed that they need to wash their hands and they should avoid throwing their feces to the street" to avoid infections and die.

So are you saing that you need to be educated in order to know that you need water and food to survive?

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