Re: More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Schlafly said:

"Mark Probert" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever - Report

And yet the drug lobby is still trying to eliminate vaccine exemptions.

I'd like to see some evidence of this. I doubt any will be
forthcoming, however.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And yet the drug lobby is still trying to eliminate vaccine

exemptions.

Quoted message said:

I'd like to see some evidence of this. I doubt any will be
forthcoming, however.

I'll do some checking regarding the pharmas, but it's undeniable that
medial associations are working to see religious and philosophical
exemptions removed:

H-440.970 Religious Exemptions from Immunizations.

Since religious/philosophic exemptions from immunizations endanger
not only the health of the unvaccinated individual, but also the health
of those in his or her group and the community at large, the AMA (1)
encourages state medical associations to seek removal of such exemptions
in statutes requiring mandatory immunizations; (2) ....

(http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyf
iles/HOD/H-440.970.HTM)

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
say, Merck. And please don't respond that the AMA is merely acting in
the service of the drug companies unless you have evidence.

Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?
<g>

In article <[email hidden]>,

JG said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
say, Merck. And please don't respond that the AMA is merely acting in
the service of the drug companies unless you have evidence.

Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?

I was thinking more in terms of Roger's original accusations. If
you're going to go changing the subject, you're going to have to
expect to be misunderstood.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
say, Merck.

Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?

I was thinking more in terms of Roger's original accusations.

Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
and post them.

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
and post them.

Sorry, Rog - You made the accusation and so the burden of proof rests with
you.

In said:

Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
exemptions?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
exemptions?

I have no reason to believe that they do.

Quoted message said:

If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
and post them.

Ah, the old Schlafly shift-the-burden-of-proof dodge.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
say, Merck. And please don't respond that the AMA is merely acting in
the service of the drug companies unless you have evidence.

Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?
<g>

Roger's claim was that the "drug lobby" was doing this.

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
> say, Merck.
Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to

see

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?

I was thinking more in terms of Roger's original accusations.

Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
and post them.

Another failure of Roger to provide evidence for his claim.

Jeff

WoW

What a surprise !

As the population increases so will the absolute numbers.

The percentages will remain fairly constant within one standard
deviation however.

Prove me wrong alties.

WB

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Schlafly said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
> say, Merck.
Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?

I was thinking more in terms of Roger's original accusations.

Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
and post them.

Ah, Roger, I see the long layoff from the newsgroup has not dulled
your well-honed weaselling abilities. But I'm not going to let you
get away with it. It's not up to me to disprove your assertions,
it's up to you to prove them. If you had any actual evidence, you'd
have posted it by now. Instead, I get the usual Schlafly drivel:
"are you doubting <blah blah blah>". Doesn't matter. You're making
a claim -- either back it up, or be revealed, once again, as the
windbag you are.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It's not up to me to disprove your assertions,
it's up to you to prove them.

Sorry, but I am not obligated to prove everything I post. If
Merck put all its lobbying positions on its web site, then I
would just refer you to its web site. It doesn't. If you want
to doubt what I say, go ahead. If you have contrary evidence,
then post it.

"Happy Dog" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry, but I am not obligated to prove everything I post.

those who haven't, I present two examples of your BS debating tactics for
the enjoyment of anyone who thinks that you do a great disservice to

mankind

Curious examples. One of them appears to be an example of David
Wright being unable to substantiate a claim that he made.

The other is H.Dog trying to badger me into saying that peds are
evil. Then he accuses me of being evasive when I deny that peds
are evil. I repeat: I do not think that peds are evil!

I have answered many questions from H.Dog, but he never
seems to be able to get to the point.

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Happy Dog" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry, but I am not obligated to prove everything I post.

those who haven't, I present two examples of your BS debating tactics

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the enjoyment of anyone who thinks that you do a great disservice to

mankind

Curious examples. One of them appears to be an example of David
Wright being unable to substantiate a claim that he made.

Only to you.

Quoted message said:

The other is H.Dog trying to badger me into saying that peds are
evil. Then he accuses me of being evasive when I deny that peds
are evil. I repeat: I do not think that peds are evil!

You're such a loser. Unless you deny saying the following, you have no
case...

"For the most part, those promoting vaccines here are pediatricians and
drug company lobbyists. They are acting in their financial interests."

Quoted message said:

I have answered many questions from H.Dog, but he never
seems to be able to get to the point.

Godlike.

le moo

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It's not up to me to disprove your assertions,
it's up to you to prove them.

Sorry, but I am not obligated to prove everything I post. If
Merck put all its lobbying positions on its web site, then I
would just refer you to its web site. It doesn't. If you want
to doubt what I say, go ahead. If you have contrary evidence,
then post it.

I interpret the above paragraph as: "I cannot prove or support what I said,
but somehow it is your fault."

Wrong Roger. You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
failed to provide evidence that it is.

When you make a claim and others question it, it is up to you to provide
evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, your claim is essentially
disproven.

Jeff

Roger Schlafly said:

The other is H.Dog trying to badger me into saying that peds are
evil. Then he accuses me of being evasive when I deny that peds
are evil. I repeat: I do not think that peds are evil!

Well what about Pez© are they evil ?

Evil Organized Candy...

"Jeff Utz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
failed to provide evidence that it is.

Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
against the vaccine mandates?

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jeff Utz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
failed to provide evidence that it is.

Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
against the vaccine mandates?

I don't know. They could be against them, because they fear a backlash or
lawsuits from people and realize that the vast majority of parents
understand that their kids are protected by vaccines and are better off with
them than without them. I am not in the legal, marketing or lobbying
department (or any other department) of any of the vaccine companies.

Anyway, you made a claim, so it is up to you to back up your claim. Your
unsubstantiated guess does not count.

All the best,

Jeff

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Schlafly said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It's not up to me to disprove your assertions,
it's up to you to prove them.

Sorry, but I am not obligated to prove everything I post.

Anyone who has taken even a casual interest in your posting
history is well aware that you are a blowhard who likes to
make sweeping statements that he can't back up. When called
on this behavior, as you invariably are, you invariably attempt
to muddy the waters. This never fools anyone, but you keep
trying anyway.

Quoted message said:

If Merck put all its lobbying positions on its web site, then I
would just refer you to its web site. It doesn't. If you want
to doubt what I say, go ahead.

Oh, I doubt most everything you say. Your consistent lack of
evidence is one of your defining traits.

Quoted message said:

If you have contrary evidence, then post it.

The fact that you have no evidence is enough for me. I don't
doubt that Merck would be pleased if there were fewer vaccine
exemptions, but whether its worth their while (on a cost/benefit
basis) to lobby for such changes is an open question. A question
that Roger the Blowhard will do nothing to answer.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)