Yes. Clearly a superior system would declare something true and then *never change* no matter where the evidence goes. If it changed it could be fallible right? We can’t have people believing in fallible beliefs! That’s how you get protestants!
-
-
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @SteveTiger999 and
You mean like the inquisitorial defenders of the CDC's Holy (and infallible) Vaccine Schedule?
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jorient @MarkHoofnagle and
Time to weigh in. I’m not affiliated with any organization in this thread, just pursuing objective facts that can have context & nuance. Can we all agree vaccines work for immunization AND they can have serious adverse reactions? Here’s one
#RealityCheck: https://youtu.be/ERu-CSTQGSI1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Corazon17Fuerte @jorient and
Everyone in mainstream medicine already agrees that clinical trials and postlicensing vigilance are required to measure vaccine risks, and that vaccines which aren't quite safe should not be on the market. Do you feel a particular serious risk hasn't been measured and is high?
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @dkegel @Corazon17Fuerte and
Yeah, no one is arguing those points. Orient has basically argued natural immunity to measles from the recent outbreaks is good for those patients despite our knowledge that measles natural immunity comes with destruction of your memory B cell population and increased mortality.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @dkegel and
Further she has argued against public health measures generally as she believes they conflict your freedumb to fight your own individual battles with communicable diseases. It’s not reasonable concern, it’s ideologic idiocy.
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @dkegel and
An example of obsession with freedom/rights/liberty with total disregard for intellectual integrity and civic responsibility.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @SteveTiger999 @dkegel and
They also inevitably turn out to be grifters, which I think is a feature of this extreme libertarian ideologue that thinks markets should determine everything including what is fraud. They’re saying they think there is nothing wrong with fraud except when it’s not profitable.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @SteveTiger999 and
One prominent member of their organization you might remember was Tom Price. He was so corrupt he was the first cabinet official that had to leave the Trump administration. Once it was him in govt, he was more than happy to waste tax payer money. Then there’s his stock trades...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @SteveTiger999 and
Preet Bharara was apprently criminally investigating him before getting fired. Grifters, all the way down. And the funny thing is they tell you who they are. Money first. Everything else is secondary.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
It's entitlement. They believe, in an Ayn Randian fashion, that if they can take it, they deserve it—and then deserve to take some more—because they're "makers."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.