I'm just curious if you've ever been exposed to immunology, epidemiology, or even biology.
But, if you dodged even that question, like all my previous ones, I guess your strategy is akin to putting your hands over your ears and shouting at everyone loudly.
I'm just curious if you've ever been exposed to immunology, epidemiology, or even biology.
But, if you dodged even that question, like all my previous ones, I guess your strategy is akin to putting your hands over your ears and shouting at everyone loudly.
Here I thought you've been around long enough to know the @brents logical fallacy. I can explain it for you, if you like. And what it means in relation to this thread. LMK
I'm just curious if you've ever been exposed to immunology, epidemiology, or even biology.
But, if you dodged even that question, like all my previous ones, I guess your strategy is akin to putting your hands over your ears and shouting at everyone loudly.
Here I thought you've been around long enough to know the @brents logical fallacy. I can explain it for you, if you like. And what it means in relation to this thread. LMK
Cheers.
I'm just curious why you've never responded to my other posts. I'm guessing because you can't fathom a though beyond "vaccines are bad".
Oh, and yes, and you're still avoiding my question.
I'm just curious if you've ever been exposed to immunology, epidemiology, or even biology.
But, if you dodged even that question, like all my previous ones, I guess your strategy is akin to putting your hands over your ears and shouting at everyone loudly.
Here I thought you've been around long enough to know the @brents logical fallacy. I can explain it for you, if you like. And what it means in relation to this thread. LMK
Cheers.
I'm just curious why you've never responded to my other posts. I'm guessing because you can't fathom a though beyond "vaccines are bad".
Oh, and yes, and you're still avoiding my question.
I honestly don't recall any of your other poasts outside of this thread.
I'm not wantonly saying "vaccines are bad" either. I'm saying there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest the issue needs another thorough look. And given there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics", I want to see evidence from an entity that doesn't have a billion dollar revenue stream to protect.
For fucks sake, look how "successful" the flu and hpv vaccines have been, and those aren't even being pumped into under developed/developing young people (infants/toddlers).
I haven't responded to your question because the underlying premise is fallacious in that it imputes if someone doesn't have a certain modicum of experience in a field they are not entitled to an opinion.
Since you need a clue on how far out in front of your question I was, @brents (rip) was famous for for saying "if you haven't coached/played college football, you have no right to an opinion on what you see out on the field".
I'm just curious if you've ever been exposed to immunology, epidemiology, or even biology.
But, if you dodged even that question, like all my previous ones, I guess your strategy is akin to putting your hands over your ears and shouting at everyone loudly.
Here I thought you've been around long enough to know the @brents logical fallacy. I can explain it for you, if you like. And what it means in relation to this thread. LMK
Cheers.
I'm just curious why you've never responded to my other posts. I'm guessing because you can't fathom a though beyond "vaccines are bad".
Oh, and yes, and you're still avoiding my question.
I honestly don't recall any of your other poasts outside of this thread.
I'm not wantonly saying "vaccines are bad" either. I'm saying there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest the issue needs another thorough look. And given there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics", I want to see evidence from an entity that doesn't have a billion dollar revenue stream to protect.
For fucks sake, look how "successful" the flu and hpv vaccines have been, and those aren't even being pumped into under developed/developing young people (infants/toddlers).
I haven't responded to your question because the underlying premise is fallacious in that it imputes if someone doesn't have a certain modicum of experience in a field they are not entitled to an opinion.
Since you need a clue on how far out in front of your question I was, @brents (rip) was famous for for saying "if you haven't coached/played college football, you have no right to an opinion on what you see out on the field".
Hope this helps.
I don't remember how long ago it was, but I posted the Danish MMR study in one of the previous vaccine threads. It should satisfy the outside perspective you requested. Here's the link again: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134
And maybe it's just me, but I don't see the rationale for why it's just vaccines and not all pharmaceuticals or healthcare in general. I mean, take a look at this list: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm and compare it against numerous other classes of drugs. They're actually pretty safe compared to some of the other things we give people. Or hell, if it's drug safety in general, look at all the opioid overdoses going on around the US, which reached about 25,000 deaths this year.
As for brent's logical fallacy, it wasn't so much whether you can have an opinion or not, but how you were interpreting the evidence. For example, the $2 billion in damages that you cited earlier was over a 21 year period paid by every vaccine manufacturer for every type of vaccine. Compare that to Takeda's and Lilly's $9 billion lawsuit over Actos http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/business/international/japanese-drug-maker-ordered-to-pay-6-billion-over-cancer-claims.html And that's just one drug from one manufacturer (Lilly was US distributor). I mean, yeah $2 billion seems like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to healthcare in general.
For fucks sake, look how "successful" the flu and hpv vaccines have been, and those aren't even being pumped into under developed/developing young people (infants/toddlers).
a 77% reduction in HPV types responsible for almost 75% of cervical cancer
almost 50% reduction in the incidence of high-grade cervical abnormalities in Victorian girls under 18 years of age
a 90% reduction in genital warts in heterosexual men and women under 21 years of age.
Go fuck yourself - I don't give a fuck what you were referencing.
I'M referencing you being a stupid asshole, and that IS on topic.
As always, another pleasant discourse. It's too bad you can't stay on track, this is clearly a hot-button topic for you that may require closure.
My only regret is that I couldn't get you to drop the 'fucking goat' bomb. That would have been a success.
Have another jack-and-coke. Hold the coke.
Holy shit you got destroyed and you don't even realize it. Here's another example. The lady that spilled McDonald's coffee on her and win millions.
The point he's making that's clearly lost on you, is that using settlements to show someone was right is fucktarded.
Okay, some dumbass had to bring it up, so here you go:
McD's Hot Coffee Facts: 79 y.o. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. (Scorched pussy takes awhile to heal.)
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about.
Lieback offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. Jury awarded 2.86 million. Judge reduced it to 640k. McDonald's appealed & settled case during appeal.
No matter how you feel about the outcome, that's one dumbass corporation begging to have the fuck sued out of it.
Comments
I just fucking told you.
The courts should have taken sackless and sawed off his fuckin head, but instead he probably got a check from Stihl to go the fuck away.
You seem to be struggling here. Perhaps drimnking a fifth would help - or at least give you an excuse.
I'M referencing you being a stupid asshole, and that IS on topic.
But, if you dodged even that question, like all my previous ones, I guess your strategy is akin to putting your hands over your ears and shouting at everyone loudly.
My only regret is that I couldn't get you to drop the 'fucking goat' bomb. That would have been a success.
Have another jack-and-coke. Hold the coke.
Cheers.
*faggoty wink*
The point he's making that's clearly lost on you, is that using settlements to show someone was right is fucktarded.
Oh, and yes, and you're still avoiding my question.
I'm not wantonly saying "vaccines are bad" either. I'm saying there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest the issue needs another thorough look. And given there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics", I want to see evidence from an entity that doesn't have a billion dollar revenue stream to protect.
For fucks sake, look how "successful" the flu and hpv vaccines have been, and those aren't even being pumped into under developed/developing young people (infants/toddlers).
I haven't responded to your question because the underlying premise is fallacious in that it imputes if someone doesn't have a certain modicum of experience in a field they are not entitled to an opinion.
Since you need a clue on how far out in front of your question I was, @brents (rip) was famous for for saying "if you haven't coached/played college football, you have no right to an opinion on what you see out on the field".
Hope this helps.
The only reason this poast concerns me in the least, is you sure the fuck are the expert on this phenomenon.
And maybe it's just me, but I don't see the rationale for why it's just vaccines and not all pharmaceuticals or healthcare in general. I mean, take a look at this list: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm and compare it against numerous other classes of drugs. They're actually pretty safe compared to some of the other things we give people. Or hell, if it's drug safety in general, look at all the opioid overdoses going on around the US, which reached about 25,000 deaths this year.
As for brent's logical fallacy, it wasn't so much whether you can have an opinion or not, but how you were interpreting the evidence. For example, the $2 billion in damages that you cited earlier was over a 21 year period paid by every vaccine manufacturer for every type of vaccine. Compare that to Takeda's and Lilly's $9 billion lawsuit over Actos http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/business/international/japanese-drug-maker-ordered-to-pay-6-billion-over-cancer-claims.html And that's just one drug from one manufacturer (Lilly was US distributor). I mean, yeah $2 billion seems like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to healthcare in general.
a 77% reduction in HPV types responsible for almost 75% of cervical cancer
almost 50% reduction in the incidence of high-grade cervical abnormalities in Victorian girls under 18 years of age
a 90% reduction in genital warts in heterosexual men and women under 21 years of age.
http://www.hpvvaccine.org.au/the-hpv-vaccine/has-the-program-been-successful.aspx
Sounds horrible.
Flu-vaccine is basically a crap-shoot since the virus evolves every year (guessing evolution isn't your cup of tea either).
McD's Hot Coffee Facts: 79 y.o. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. (Scorched pussy takes awhile to heal.)
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about.
Lieback offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. Jury awarded 2.86 million. Judge reduced it to 640k. McDonald's appealed & settled case during appeal.
No matter how you feel about the outcome, that's one dumbass corporation begging to have the fuck sued out of it.