27 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidAre you saying that is what caused liability problems? A tiny subset caused a big liability problem? That makes no sense.
Already explained.
That a vaccine might trigger an adverse reaction in a tiny subset of those who receive it doesn't make it not "safe" - otherwise no vaccine would be "safe".
No vaccine is 100% safe. Even you seem to agree with that, because of a tiny subset of people. Maybe Kennedy should have wrote a book called "vaccines: unsafe at any number of jabs".
I think you are confusing "safe" with the reality, "relatively safe" because no vaccine is completely safe.
27 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidWhat is your source of information?
It's even more ironic considering that RFK Jr's first article claiming a link between vaccines and autism was published in Rolling Stone.
27 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidThat is another untrue hit piece on Kennedy. That quote is false. It is a myth being plagiarized by other untrue hit pieces. Much like Abe Lincolns quote about the internet.
It's a direct quote.
The same quote is here as well as him dodging the question are there any safe vaccines. https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kxkxq/robert-f-kennedy-jr-gives-the-game-away
Stop posting ridiculous quotes he would never say unless you can source them.
@metal-brain saidOf course it makes sense; even one large jury award could make a product unprofitable never mind the legal costs to defend others.
Are you saying that is what caused liability problems? A tiny subset caused a big liability problem? That makes no sense.
No vaccine is 100% safe. Even you seem to agree with that, because of a tiny subset of people. Maybe Kennedy should have wrote a book called "vaccines: unsafe at any number of jabs".
I think you are confusing "safe" with the reality, "relatively safe" because no vaccine is completely safe.
"Safe" doesn't mean what you are implying it does i.e. 100% certain to never cause any type of adverse reaction. No vaccine, medicine or any other product for that matter meets such a nonsensical standard.
27 Jul 23
@metal-brain saidI sourced it; twice and could do so in other pieces.
That is another untrue hit piece on Kennedy. That quote is false. It is a myth being plagiarized by other untrue hit pieces. Much like Abe Lincolns quote about the internet.
Stop posting ridiculous quotes he would never say unless you can source them.
He said it no matter how much you lie about it.
27 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidI mean the original source moron.
I sourced it; twice and could do so in other pieces.
He said it no matter how much you lie about it.
27 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidSo it has nothing to do with being sued? You sound increasingly stupid. You just implied it has nothing to do with liability when it had everything to do with it.
Of course it makes sense; even one large jury award could make a product unprofitable never mind the legal costs to defend others.
"Safe" doesn't mean what you are implying it does i.e. 100% certain to never cause any type of adverse reaction. No vaccine, medicine or any other product for that matter meets such a nonsensical standard.
You are such an idiot. You said "safe" and I corrected you by saying "relatively safe" which is what you meant. It was you that claimed "safe" which is a nonsensical standard, not me.
Your wheels are falling off as you go. Give it up before you look even more pathetic than you already do. You are embarrassing yourself.
@metal-brain saidActually you just sound more and more like an uninformed, happily ignorant idiot with every post you make.
So it has nothing to do with being sued? You sound increasingly stupid. You just implied it has nothing to do with liability when it had everything to do with it.
You are such an idiot. You said "safe" and I corrected you by saying "relatively safe" which is what you meant. It was you that claimed "safe" which is a nonsensical standard, not me.
Your wheels are falli ...[text shortened]... o. Give it up before you look even more pathetic than you already do. You are embarrassing yourself.
Somehow your first paragraph managed to get what I actually said completely backwards; I assume that's stupidity on your part. Sure the threat of ruinous litigation which would curtail the supply of life saving vaccines was the main reason for the 1986 law which if you had ever bothered to do minimal research (like say glancing at links others provided you) you'd know.
I'll stick with the standard definition of "safe" which bears no resemblance to yours. What you are trying to do is called the Fallacy of Equivocation though I doubt you are educated enough to know what that means.
EDIT: From the CDC: "Medicines are generally safe when used as prescribed or as directed on the label, but there are risks in taking any medicine."
https://www.cdc.gov/medicationsafety/index.html
27 Jul 23
@metal-brain saidWell you could look at the last paragraph of the Rolling Stone article I already cited to.
What is your source of information?
Or you could have someone teach you how to use Google, type in "RFK Jr. Rolling Stone article 2005" and you'd find this: https://www.bridges4kids.org/articles/2005/6-05/RollingStone6-05.html
27 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidIf you meant one jury award of a "safe" vaccine could ruin profitability that equally makes no sense at all. I simply did not think you were that stupid. Now explain how vaccine makers stayed in business before 1986 and how foreign vaccine makers are making a profit. You backed yourself into a corner.
Actually you just sound more and more like an uninformed, happily ignorant idiot with every post you make.
Somehow your first paragraph managed to get what I actually said completely backwards; I assume that's stupidity on your part. Sure the threat of ruinous litigation which would curtail the supply of life saving vaccines was the main reason for the 1986 law which i ...[text shortened]... bel, but there are risks in taking any medicine."
https://www.cdc.gov/medicationsafety/index.html
"Medicines are generally safe when used as prescribed or as directed on the label, but there are risks in taking any medicine."
Generally safe is the same thing as relatively safe, but you said "safe" and they are not completely safe and you know it. The CDC knows it and the CDC quote you posted says it!
You have already been smacked down. Mostly by yourself out of frustration. You are clearly not thinking properly because you are so stressed from losing this debate. I don't even have to say anything more. You've hoisted yourself by your own petard. Thank you for beating yourself up. LOL
29 Jul 23
@no1marauder
Via RFK Jr.’s Twitter account:
“Since the assassination of my father in 1968, candidates for president are provided Secret Service protection. But not me. Typical turnaround time for pro forma protection requests from presidential candidates is 14-days. After 88-days of no response and after several follow-ups by our campaign, the Biden Administration just denied our request. Secretary Mayorkas: “I have determined that Secret Service protection for Robert F Kennedy Jr is not warranted at this time.” Our campaign’s request included a 67-page report from the world’s leading protection firm, detailing unique and well established security and safety risks aside from commonplace death threats.”
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/brandon-administration-denies-rfk-jr-secret-service-protection-assassination-coming/
Are you hoping Kennedy will be assassinated?
@metal-brain saidRFK Jr. lied. Not all Presidential candidates are provided Secret Service protection and he has not met the criteria: https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024
@no1marauder
Via RFK Jr.’s Twitter account:
“Since the assassination of my father in 1968, candidates for president are provided Secret Service protection. But not me. Typical turnaround time for pro forma protection requests from presidential candidates is 14-days. After 88-days of no response and after several follow-ups by our campaign, the Biden Administra ...[text shortened]... k-jr-secret-service-protection-assassination-coming/
Are you hoping Kennedy will be assassinated?
Notably:
"Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. "
"Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days;
Whether the candidate is the formal or de facto nominee of a major party for President or Vice President;"
So it's not yet one year before the general election, we're more than six months away from any primary, he's below 15% in the RCP aggregate and he is certainly isn't the "de facto" nominee of the Democratic Party (though Ron DeSantis thinks he'd make a peachy head of the CDC or FDA).
Therefore, he's not qualified to get protection on the public's dime.
@no1marauder saidNeither is Anthony Fauci, but both received death threats. Kennedy's father and uncle were both assassinated. An assassination attempt was probably made on his uncle Ted too. His plane crashed and 2 of his friends died in that crash. His cousin JFK jr. died in a plane crash in the ocean after he expressed political ambitions.
RFK Jr. lied. Not all Presidential candidates are provided Secret Service protection and he has not met the criteria: https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024
Notably:
"Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. "
"Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party pr ...[text shortened]... hy head of the CDC or FDA).
Therefore, he's not qualified to get protection on the public's dime.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/01/fauci-coronavirus-security-160901
Face it. If you serve the oligarchy you get protection. If you are against the oligarchy you get none. And you condone this crap. And knowing you if RFK jr. does get assassinated you will have no remorse and even place blame on him for being (your words) a nutjob.
Right?
@metal-brain saidIf you're done with the ranting, you can now just admit RFK Jr. lied and he's not entitled to Secret Service protection according to long established guidelines.
Neither is Anthony Fauci, but both received death threats. Kennedy's father and uncle were both assassinated. An assassination attempt was probably made on his uncle Ted too. His plane crashed and 2 of his friends died in that crash. His cousin JFK jr. died in a plane crash in the ocean after he expressed political ambitions.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/01/f ...[text shortened]... ted you will have no remorse and even place blame on him for being (your words) a nutjob.
Right?
He's been making public appearances spewing the same crap for decades and no one's tried to assassinate him yet. And if anyone is part of the "oligarchy", he is.
@no1marauder said"Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. "
If you're done with the ranting, you can now just admit RFK Jr. lied and he's not entitled to Secret Service protection according to long established guidelines.
He's been making public appearances spewing the same crap for decades and no one's tried to assassinate him yet. And if anyone is part of the "oligarchy", he is.
That is nowhere in the link you posted. You lied.
Furthermore, Fauci is not entitled to any protection yet has it anyway. Your own link said death threat are supposed to be taken into consideration.
You have not proven Kennedy lied at all. In fact, your own link says this:
"Major candidates and their spouses began receiving protection after the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968. PL-90-331 was passed June 6, 1968. (Language since adopted into 3056)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" And if anyone is part of the "oligarchy", he is"
LOL!!!!That has to be the most stupid thing you have said in months.
What oligarchy do you claim he is part of?