Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Ye olde anti-vaxxers ...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RestoreTheJoy" data-source="post: 76430470" data-attributes="member: 411383"><p>No, declining from consuming a product never carries the risk that consuming it does, especially in this case where there is ZERO long term data and lots of reports of side effects. </p><p></p><p>Pfizer paid out 1 billion in settlements and 1.3 billion in CRIMINAL FINES just a decade ago for false promotion of several drugs. And now you have changed the goalposts, meaning you are grasping here, not me. </p><p></p><p> The refuted position was the relative risk of forcing a drug on unwilling people vs. declining a drug on your own. You have now added additional criminal behavior (drinking and driving) in an attempt to make your case. Granted. Drinking and driving is already criminal. There is not point to adding that fact. </p><p></p><p>By sharp contrast, NO one is a risk from a drug and its side effects if he declines it; if he consumes it, he must have full knowledge and consent of all possible outcomes and he must be FREE to take the risk or not, upon full knowledge. That is merely a rational position. </p><p></p><p>You are unaware of the case law here too. Here is a list of a few of the recent settlements, many including criminal fines: </p><p></p><p>Let’s take a look at the top<a href="https://www.enjuris.com/blog/resources/largest-pharmaceutical-settlements-lawsuits/" target="_blank"> 10 pharmaceutical settlements, i</a>n order of dollar amounts (highest to lowest). These can include a combination of <a href="https://www.enjuris.com/personal-injury-law/civil-vs-criminal-law.html" target="_blank">criminal fines and civil settlements</a>:</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Company</strong> <strong>Amount of penalties</strong> <strong>Year</strong></p><p>GlaxoSmithKline $3 billion 2012</p><p>Pfizer $2.3 billion 2009</p><p>Johnson & Johnson $2.2 billion 2013</p><p>Abbott $1.5 billion 2012</p><p>Eli Lilly $1.42 billion 2009</p><p>Merck $950 million 2011</p><p>Amgen $762 million 2012</p><p>AstraZeneca $520 million 2010</p><p>Actelion $360 million 2018</p><p>Purdue Pharma $270 million 2019 </p><p></p><p>The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. </p><p></p><p>Now we know full well that taking the vaccine does nothing to prevent transmission to others OR to prevent contraction. The only weak argument remaining, as the facts come out, is "Well, you probably won't die if you take it". Ok, that is fine. Each, based on his risk factors should determine whether or not he should take it. Older people have mostly complied. Young healthy people are a much smaller percentage. Virtually everyone is getting it - or some cold symptoms, which are all the top symptoms of Omicron, regardless of status. So do what you deem best, since you are the only one who will benefit, should it help you. And leave everyone else to make his own decision. Autocracy is really unconstitutional.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RestoreTheJoy, post: 76430470, member: 411383"] No, declining from consuming a product never carries the risk that consuming it does, especially in this case where there is ZERO long term data and lots of reports of side effects. Pfizer paid out 1 billion in settlements and 1.3 billion in CRIMINAL FINES just a decade ago for false promotion of several drugs. And now you have changed the goalposts, meaning you are grasping here, not me. The refuted position was the relative risk of forcing a drug on unwilling people vs. declining a drug on your own. You have now added additional criminal behavior (drinking and driving) in an attempt to make your case. Granted. Drinking and driving is already criminal. There is not point to adding that fact. By sharp contrast, NO one is a risk from a drug and its side effects if he declines it; if he consumes it, he must have full knowledge and consent of all possible outcomes and he must be FREE to take the risk or not, upon full knowledge. That is merely a rational position. You are unaware of the case law here too. Here is a list of a few of the recent settlements, many including criminal fines: Let’s take a look at the top[URL='https://www.enjuris.com/blog/resources/largest-pharmaceutical-settlements-lawsuits/'] 10 pharmaceutical settlements, i[/URL]n order of dollar amounts (highest to lowest). These can include a combination of [URL='https://www.enjuris.com/personal-injury-law/civil-vs-criminal-law.html']criminal fines and civil settlements[/URL]: [B] Company[/B] [B]Amount of penalties[/B] [B]Year[/B] GlaxoSmithKline $3 billion 2012 Pfizer $2.3 billion 2009 Johnson & Johnson $2.2 billion 2013 Abbott $1.5 billion 2012 Eli Lilly $1.42 billion 2009 Merck $950 million 2011 Amgen $762 million 2012 AstraZeneca $520 million 2010 Actelion $360 million 2018 Purdue Pharma $270 million 2019 The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Now we know full well that taking the vaccine does nothing to prevent transmission to others OR to prevent contraction. The only weak argument remaining, as the facts come out, is "Well, you probably won't die if you take it". Ok, that is fine. Each, based on his risk factors should determine whether or not he should take it. Older people have mostly complied. Young healthy people are a much smaller percentage. Virtually everyone is getting it - or some cold symptoms, which are all the top symptoms of Omicron, regardless of status. So do what you deem best, since you are the only one who will benefit, should it help you. And leave everyone else to make his own decision. Autocracy is really unconstitutional. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Ye olde anti-vaxxers ...
Top
Bottom