Thank You SL

This is my most favorite SL thread EVER!

I wasn't referring to the vaccine debate, my own personal jury is still out on that one ... this was what I was responding to ...


but more generally, the idea that a commercial company, who WILL be held liable for things that occur on their platform, have no right to know who their customers are.

I wasn't diagnosing her, I was using the word "paranoid" in terms of its more everyday usage. Probably wrong of me to do so, I apologise.

Well if personal anecdote is all you are after, I have family members who took flu vaccine and it was the only time they GOT flu - the same flu.

And by the way I never said the 1970s swine flu vaccine had more ADR than there were actual flu deaths. Are you confusing Debra and myself? But I'm not sure she said that either.

What I said was that that vaccine was also touted as necessary - the guilt inducing tv ads are available online - and scare tactics were also used to induce people to get the vaccine - and that the vaccine did cripple some people for life. The story by 60 Minutes (tv show) is also available online. I'm not making these things up out of my tin hat.

Look, there are stories online about the current vaccine and I believe Debra also gave you some facts about the current vaccine in one of her posts. You only have to take off the blinders to see it.

'It didn't happen to me' is not a sturdy foundation to build debate upon, any more so than someone saying everyone will become ill from the vaccine, because some became ill. But I didn't say everyone would, or that it was more likely than catching flu naturally. I said the risk was not something anyone should be forced to take.

I still do not see a pandemic worthy of the scare mongering the drug co's are using to sell their fluid petri dish injections. ;p All this mandated health decision crap is for the bird... flu.

Okay.

/me hugs spinster

Sorry too.

I guess I flinched at the word, I dislike it being used, or tin foil hat, etc. I think those are thread godwins that are worse than mentioning Nazis. People here seem intelligent enough to debate without accusing people of something as awful as that.

For what it's worth - airports seem to single out those people who are least likely to be a profiling victim. I've seen them pull aside people in wheelchairs, with canes, little kids, and housewives. Not the person who acts strangely necessarily and not the 'profile' type i.e. a guy in robes.

Where've you been? Took you a long time getting here.

I was a bit tied up.

Did you bring your tin foil hat?

Point bv point: No, personal anecdote's not enough. You got sick, I didn't. Again: numbers, please.

No, you didn't mention the 1970's swine flu vaccine and its problems. I did, because it's often used (as a "scare tactic" by anti-vaccinationists.

"Guilt-inducing TV ads". "Profit mongering drug companies". TV news shows like "60 Minutes". This is all biased phraseology and biased reporting. Surely you're aware that the TV "news", on both sides, goes for the sensational rather than the factual?

Yes, there are risks. You risk your life daily just by crawling out of bed and stumbling to the bathroom.

Again: What are the facts? What are the odds? From what I know, your odds of staying healthy are a lot better if you get the vaccination. And for darn sure, I want my health care workers to have been vaccinated, so they don't pass on what the previous patient has to me.

Documented proof of something or other..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XLlACrhLDE&feature=related

Lindal - I was making a point based upon YOUR use of anecdote. Now you're claiming (as I said), that a personal anecdote isn't proof enough. If that was your original point it was not clear in your prior post.



Actually, I did. How closely are you reading the posts you are replying to? I never said I didn't mention it. And why shouldn't it be used as a cautionary tale?



Ok there is a lot going on in that paragraph. But if you are talking about evocative phrases, how about "tin foil hat" - "tea bagger" (although they meant tea party) - "wingnut" - "paranoid" - "scare tactics" - "9/11 truther" - etc., etc.

Have you seen the tv ads for swine flu vaccine in the '70s? Don't deny they attempt to induce guilt until you have, please. Also, an ad is not tv news.

Sensational does not necessarily preclude factual, by the way. It's only when things are hidden or lied about outright that people should worry, and there's a lot of evidence Big Pharma does and has done exactly that. There are too many clips on you tube alone to list, from various documentaries. There are entire websites devoted to researching harm done by vaccines. Why do you want me to do the work for you? Go look them up yourself.

It isn't until you try to force ME into those things I have already read about and researched and found harmful that I have a problem with what you think - so if you want facts, you are responsible for finding them yourself.

I only need to hear about a certain risk before I deem it too risky. What level of "numbers" and "odds" would be satisfactory to risk your future life and health - especially in the future, when govt. mandates health decisions to citizens whose recourse has been completely stripped from them?



I don't see the correlation to an everyday occurence and a necessity in which I can manage my own risk to some extent vs. being forcibly injected with a viral cocktail.



There is no vaccination for *everything* - and you can catch it on the way out simply by touching the doorknob, if that's your worry.

You did too. You said, "And by the way I never said the 1970s swine flu vaccine had more ADR than there were actual flu deaths. Are you confusing Debra and myself? But I'm not sure she said that either." Read your own posts.



I did not use ANY of those words. And they meant "tea bagger". A liberal politician used that term to diss the grass roots Tea Party protest movement. [EDIT: I did use "scare tactics", but only in quoting your remarks.]



You're the one making the (to me) absurd claims. I've asked you to support them. You've yet to do so.



I'm not sure where you're going with this one. If I have a one in a million chance of dying from the flu, and a one in fifty million chance of dying from the vaccination, I think the choice is pretty clear. As for "government mandates" "completely stripping citizens' recourse from them", that has not yet been determined. Personally, I think mandatory vaccination for health care professionals is a good idea, but I expect that that decision will be decided in the courts. I will certainly admit that there are two equally laudable sides to the issue: freedom of choice, which I am in favor of, and public health, which I am also in favor of.

Right now, unless someone presents better statistics and arguments, I have to side with public health on this one.

I think you're misunderstanding the point of Godwinning a thread. Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMCDQZEBAQc

Lindal - for godwin sake, please read more closely.

I did mention the flu and its problems.



For cheetohs sake. I still never said what I just said that I never said.

You are giving me a headache.



I did not say that you did - you mentioned sensationalism on 'both sides,' and seemed to imply that evocative phrases were not fair - I listed a lot of evocative phrases just as unfair as those you had quoted. I was talking about the entire debate, though, and not only here. You did say "scare monger," correct; which is what prompted my response.

If you are going to criticize a tactic don't use the same one, was my point.

You might be getting the flu!

LOL

Actually I think I already had it, this year.

I still don't see what they are basing all the new laws and fear mongering upon. People catch and even die from the flu every year.

Since you can't seem to differentiate between what I actually said or didn't say, I don't take your insult very seriously.



First you'd have to believe you have any chance at all of dying from this latest scaring up billion$ for big pharma. Whatever happened to bird flu?



You left out where I said "in the future." Pretty important point to leave out.

There is talk about quarantines being forced on anyone who refuses the vaccine. Since many people are susceptible to side effects (myself included) and others reject on religious grounds, whatever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?



If you rely upon statistics you will never change your opinion. Those are falsified all the time. If you refuse to read and research more into the opposing viewpoint, you are basing your staunchly held position upon little more than you accuse others of doing.

Fox News need for ratings.

Please... FAUX News.

I needed to fix that for you.

Because it makes them look like they are doing something besides avoiding the real issues they should be addressing.

You'll wanna get vaccinations before you go to Zindra, too.

so if we already had it are they still gonna make us take this silly shot?
i mean no sense in wasting something my body has already identified..
save it for someone who wants it hehehehe

Nobody's going to MAKE you take any shot, unless (allegedly) you're working as a nurse or EMT or something in New York, or (allegedly) if you're in the military.

For those who don't believe in pandemics, google "Spanish flu"