Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Would you please shut up with your better than thou attitude? I was referring to the new world. In this world the courts are needed to solve disputes. But in the new world there will be no authority making these decisions just as there will be no authority mandating vaccines, which is unethical (or morally unjustifiable) especially when they really don't know whether vaccines are completely safe and which child could be adversely affected.
|
It's unethical and morally unjustifiable to prevent children having vaccines because a parent is crazy and refuses to acknowledge the mounts of evidence suggesting vaccines are not just safe, but orders of magnitude safer than not having the vaccine.
In the new world, everyone will be vaccinated! |
No Dragar, mounting evidence is beginning to reveal that vaccines are not as safe as once believed. |
No peacegirl, evidence is mounting that vaccines are safe and these 'studies' and 'experts' you quote are fraudulent and frauds. |
Added to previous post:
You continue to accuse everyone who is an anti-vaxer as being fraudulent. You say there is evidence mounting that vaccines are safe. Oh really?
Nearly two dozen medical studies prove that vaccines can cause autism |
Why not take a read and see how many are fraudalent junk papers, hm?
For example, #10:
Quote:
|
This is the infamous Poling paper, which was published without Poling's disclosure of conflict of interest.
|
Uh-oh, what did he do?
Quote:
|
It is simply incredible that a doctor who convenes a press conference to announce the favorable outcome of his child’s legal case, and internationally broadcasts her photograph and story — including in a two-page spread in People Magazine — would suggest that he sought to “protect” her by failing to disclose his relevant personal relationship and financial interests in a report submitted to a specialist scientific journal.
|
That sounds pretty bad! But at least there was no money involved, right? |
I agree that my answer to you was defensive. Let's start over.
Of course there was money involved, that's how people get compensated by the legal system. I didn't read the whole article because you have to subscribe to a journal. I would if it's that important. Aren't you jumping to conclusions that his ulterior motive was unpure just because he didn't admit his personal relationship? And even if he made money off of the case, how does that discredit him in terms of his findings and the findings of those who are investigating the case? Just because it was his child does not mean he had a conflicting financial interest and that he was out to exploit her. Doesn't he deserve compensation for the pain and suffering he and his child had to endure, let alone the medical expenses? This is the least the courts could do, since government is given immunity.
Quote:
|
Equally incredible is his suggestion that he should be excused for his failure to disclose an unquestionably relevant legal claim — a claim with a potential value exceeding $1 million — because it had not yet reached the hearing stage, and because his attorney was navigating the slowly-moving procedural waters for him.
|
I'll guarantee you that if he could get his healthy child back, he would happily give back the money.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragar
Aw, crap.  |
And why shouldn't he be excused for not revealing the amount he would be compensated for? People immediately assume that he is hiding something (he probably felt that announcing his award was inappropriate and would be used against him, which it would have in all probability) when the real money grubbers are pharmaceutical companies and government officials who have a huge financial stake in vaccines (in the billions), which makes his financial award look like a drop in the bucket.