Anti-vaxxers

Igotadose

hcf500 wrote: »

Im not defending nor attacking the swine flu vaccine.

Why not defend it? It saved many lives. Ireland rushed a version into use that had questions about its efficacy and side-effects that turned out to be a real problem, this obligated the state under Irish law to make reparations.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pandemic-flu-vaccine-narcolepsy-an-analysis/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/narcolepsy-drug-firm-got-indemnity-and-government-refuses-to-step-in-37205393.html

hcf500

Igotadose wrote: »

Why not defend it? It saved many lives. Ireland rushed a version into use that had questions about its efficacy and side-effects that turned out to be a real problem, this obligated the state under Irish law to make reparations.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pandemic-flu-vaccine-narcolepsy-an-analysis/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/narcolepsy-drug-firm-got-indemnity-and-government-refuses-to-step-in-37205393.html

Why are they fighting claims and denying liability if they are obligated to make reparations? Do they think a few medical cards is enough in the way of compensation?

Erik Shun

hcf500 wrote: »

Why are they fighting claims and denying liability if they are obligated to make reparations? Do they think a few medical cards is enough in the way of compensation?

What reparations do the anti-vax groups make to the families of their murdered victims?

hcf500

Erik Shun wrote: »

What reparations do the anti-vax groups make to the families of their murdered victims?

That's a silly argument. I don't know what their views are right now but when those people took the swine flu vaccine, they obviously were not anti vax. Are they not deserving of compensation now because of the actions of anti vax groups?

Erik Shun

hcf500 wrote: »

That's a silly argument. I don't know what their views are right now but when those people took the swine flu vaccine, they obviously were not anti vax. Are they not deserving of compensation now because of the actions of anti vax groups?

So you're waffling as usual

hcf500

Erik Shun wrote: »

So you're waffling as usual

Very simple question that you ignored so Ill ask again. Are they not deserving of compensation now because of the actions of anti vax groups?

Igotadose

hcf500 wrote: »

Why are they fighting claims and denying liability if they are obligated to make reparations? Do they think a few medical cards is enough in the way of compensation?

Perhaps I went a little fast here.

Claims were made.

Legal proceedings begin

State reaches agreement on compensation.

This is how the rule of law works in the civilized world. As to the agreed terms, the recipients agreed, and it may very well be that there were more than 'a few medical cards' in the compensation. You don't know, your anti-vax sites don't know, and we'll never know.

The state *should* contest claims against it. No different here, than the cervical check scandal, those claims were debated as well and settlements reached.

Clear now?

Erik Shun

hcf500 wrote: »

Very simple question that you ignored so Ill ask again. Are they not deserving of compensation now because of the actions of anti vax groups?

So.. you believe the group's that kill people deserve praise?!

hcf500

Igotadose wrote: »

State reaches agreement on compensation.

As to the agreed terms, the recipients agreed, and it may very well be that there were more than 'a few medical cards' in the compensation.



Clear now?

Where are you getting that from?

hcf500

Erik Shun wrote: »

What reparations do the anti-vax groups make to the families of their murdered victims?

None that I know of

hcf500

Erik Shun wrote: »

So.. you believe the group's that kill people deserve praise?!

No I don't. Now maybe you could answer my question? Ive answered both questions from yourself. Are they not deserving of compensation now because of the actions of anti vax groups?

Igotadose

Good news. Washington State now has disallowed personal and philosophical exemptions from vaccination. About time.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-limits-exemptions-for-measles-vaccine/

Erik Shun

hcf500 wrote: »

No I don't. Now maybe you could answer my question? Ive answered both questions from yourself. Are they not deserving of compensation now because of the actions of anti vax groups?

Because of the actions of anti-vax groups? Absolutely not

Igotadose

hcf500 wrote: »

Where are you getting that from?

From reading the story in the link I gave above.

hcf500

Erik Shun wrote: »

Because of the actions of anti-vax groups? Absolutely not

Im sorry if Im reading it wrong! You think they don't deserve compensation? And the reason they don't deserve compensation is because anti vax groups don't compensation?

Erik Shun

hcf500 wrote: »

Im sorry if Im reading it wrong! You think they don't deserve compensation? And the reason they don't deserve compensation is because anti vax groups don't compensation?

You are indeed reading it incorrectly

hcf500

Erik Shun wrote: »

You are indeed reading it incorrectly

Do they deserve compensation?

Erik Shun

hcf500 wrote: »

Do they deserve compensation?

Because of the actions of anti-vax groups? Absolutely not

hcf500

Igotadose wrote: »

From reading the story in the link I gave above.

It does state in the link you gave "To date, the Government has contested all compensation or support claims"


There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the state agreeing on compensation or the recipients agreeing on anything!

Quoting your post below

"State reaches agreement on compensation."

"As to the agreed terms, the recipients agreed, and it may very well be that there were more than 'a few medical cards' in the compensation."

hcf500

Erik Shun wrote: »

Because of the actions of anti-vax groups? Absolutely not

OK. Do they deserve compensation because of the negative effects they suffered from the vaccine?

banie01

From this,

hcf500 wrote: »

While I certainly wouldn't consider myself an anti vaxxer,

To having deep views and inside knowledge of the usual Anti-Vax tropes.
The usual I'm not a.... But.
Amazingly from another low post count "new" member.

On the bright side at least this isn't one of those long dormant accounts that suddenly sparked back into life to join in the "debate".

The duplicity engaged in by the Anti-Vax brigade in addition to the fright tactics and psuedo-scientific BS is maddening.
Every few days a "new" poster pops up who "has no opinion" but thinks "both sides" deserve to be heard!

It's complete bolloxology!

hcf500

banie01 wrote: »

From this,


To having deep views and inside knowledge of the usual Anti-Vax tropes.
The usual I'm not a.... But.
Amazingly from another low post count "new" member.

On the bright side at least this isn't one of those long dormant accounts that suddenly sparked back into life to join in the "debate".

The duplicity engaged in by the Anti-Vax brigade in addition to the fright tactics and psuedo-scientific BS is maddening.
Every few days a "new" poster pops up who "has no opinion" but thinks "both sides" deserve to be heard!

It's complete bolloxology!

Discredit me by labeling me as one of the anti vax brigade. That way none of my post will be taken seriously. When I ask direct questions, posters her just ignore or are ambiguous with their answers

I will go away if anyone here can back up Igotadose claims that

"State reaches agreement on compensation."

"As to the agreed terms, the recipients agreed, and it may very well be that there were more than 'a few medical cards' in the compensation."


Ive asked Igotadose to back it up and they pointed me to a link where there was no mention of what they were backing up! I guess the only people here not taken at there word are those labelled as antivax

hcf500

hcf500 wrote: »

Why are they fighting claims and denying liability if they are obligated to make reparations? Do they think a few medical cards is enough in the way of compensation?

Erik Shun wrote: »

What reparations do the anti-vax groups make to the families of their murdered victims?

Also, what does your post have to do with my question?

Igotadose

hcf500 wrote: »

Why are they fighting claims and denying liability if they are obligated to make reparations? Do they think a few medical cards is enough in the way of compensation?

The state *becomes* obligated should the courts decide it is obligated. These cases were taken to court, the courts obligated the state to make reparations. So, here was the sequence:

Allegations (by the plaintiffs)
Defense (refusal - the State doesn't take the word of a plaintiff)
Court decides state is obligated to make reparations
State and plaintiffs agree on what the state will do (or, it was imposed by the courts.)

Does this make it clearer for you? That the state simply didn't roll-over at the first sign of a complaint, but investigated, chose to defend, and settled in court?

Here is another link talking about the process that the state and the courts went through: https://www.thejournal.ie/swine-flu-narcolepsy-court-cases-4578353-Apr2019/

hcf500

Igotadose wrote: »

The state *becomes* obligated should the courts decide it is obligated. These cases were taken to court, the courts obligated the state to make reparations. So, here was the sequence:

Allegations (by the plaintiffs)
Defense (refusal - the State doesn't take the word of a plaintiff)
Court decides state is obligated to make reparations
State and plaintiffs agree on what the state will do (or, it was imposed by the courts.)

Does this make it clearer for you? That the state simply didn't roll-over at the first sign of a complaint, but investigated, chose to defend, and settled in court?

Here is another link talking about the process that the state and the courts went through: https://www.thejournal.ie/swine-flu-narcolepsy-court-cases-4578353-Apr2019/

What are you talking about? I know how the process works but NONE of these cases have been settled in court!

Igotadose

hcf500 wrote: »

What are you talking about? I know how the process works but NONE of these cases have been settled in court!

Glad you understand the process. Latest information I can find on these cases, here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/minister-accused-of-delaying-proceedings-allegedly-linked-to-swine-flu-vaccine-1.3374437

shows they're still in progress. So, we await the resolution. Maybe the courts will find the State has no liability. That's always a possibility. It's also common (at least in the US) for court proceedings to move along awhile and then a settlement is reached rather than going all the way through.

But, please explain to me why court proceedings matter to you? Should people be vaccinated?

hcf500

Igotadose wrote: »

Glad you understand the process. Latest information I can find on these cases, here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/minister-accused-of-delaying-proceedings-allegedly-linked-to-swine-flu-vaccine-1.3374437

shows they're still in progress. So, we await the resolution. Maybe the courts will find the State has no liability. That's always a possibility. It's also common (at least in the US) for court proceedings to move along awhile and then a settlement is reached rather than going all the way through.

But, please explain to me why court proceedings matter to you? Should people be vaccinated?

Yes, people should be vaccinated.

Court proceedings don't really matter to me but you were the one explaining how they worked and how the state reached agreement on compensation from those proceedings!


Thank you for that extra link. I know they're still in progress! But where did you get your claims from. There is no mention of it in any of your links. I couldn't even read in between the lines and get this from it!!!

"State reaches agreement on compensation."

"As to the agreed terms, the recipients agreed, and it may very well be that there were more than 'a few medical cards' in the compensation."

Igotadose

hcf500 wrote: »

Yes, people should be vaccinated.

Court proceedings don't really matter to me but you were the one explaining how they worked and how the state reached agreement on compensation from those proceedings!


Thank you for that extra link. I know they're still in progress! But where did you get your claims from. There is no mention of it in any of your links. I couldn't even read in between the lines and get this from it!!!

"State reaches agreement on compensation."

"As to the agreed terms, the recipients agreed, and it may very well be that there were more than 'a few medical cards' in the compensation."

Apologies if not clearer earlier. I was (I should've been more clear) explaining how it works in general. your post seemed to indicate you weren't aware of the process. We both agree, these cases are indeed following accepted process and are still in the courts.

hcf500

Igotadose wrote: »

Apologies if not clearer earlier. I was (I should've been more clear) explaining how it works in general. your post seemed to indicate you weren't aware of the process. We both agree, these cases are indeed following accepted process and are still in the courts.

Doesn't explain your quote "As to the agreed terms, the recipients agreed, and it may very well be that there were more than 'a few medical cards' in the compensation." at all. That sounds like you thought that the state reached agreement on compensation!

Igotadose

hcf500 wrote: »

Doesn't explain your quote "As to the agreed terms, the recipients agreed, and it may very well be that there were more than 'a few medical cards' in the compensation." at all. That sounds like you thought that the state reached agreement on compensation!

Because your source mentioned 'discretionary medical cards' from the state. Where is your source, actually? Seems they have some more insights into this case than I can easily find.