It's 2005, and Howard Dean is President of the USA

[Saint Johnny B]

Dean, Hilliary, Gephart, Kerry, Clark, Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich, Edwards, any one of them would be superior to Bush. Anyone but Bush and Cheney, these two criminals have been a diasater.

[alcohol_]

GZ, The Hillary is responsible for vaccine shortages is an opinion and an opinion so poorly constructed it appears contrived. The WSJ is a right wing rag. Doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. In this case they are wrong, so I mention their bias to point out their motivation for disinformation. No, I didn't refer to any sources for claiming that the reason there is a shortage vaccine is the unanticipated demand because it's been mentioned in the newspaper, the tv and the radio quite frequently. The idea that it's Hillary's fault is a uniquely right wing phenomenon. Nevertheless, if you just think about it a little. There has been no reported shortage until this year. There has been large media coverage of this year's strand of flu because of the unusual deaths of children. There has been a reported increase in demand because of these media reports, there has always been a mortality rate because of flu even when there is no shortage of vaccine and the evidence is out on the flu vaccine's effectiveness. (I made some references). I see a Republican Senator on TV (can't remember his name) talk about the federal government buying vaccine above anticipated demand so that we won't have an experience of shortage again and if they don't use all the vaccine the government takes the loss and not a business. I could go on, but the evidence against the idea that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the vaccine shortage is substantial and cogent. It appears that those wanting to believe Hillary is responsible have some kind of disability when it comes independent and critical thinking.

[Saint Johnny B]

Alch You're right that unsupported assertion about Hilliary is totally riduculous on its face. I vote for Hilliary. I'd vote for ANYONE who opposes Bush and Cheney. Lord knows, these 2 criminals have been a diaster.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b]Nope, sorry, but mercury poisoning is a real issue, and no amount of "one in 200,000" bullshit is going to fly with me. 35,000 kids die of the flu every year because their parents can't afford to get them proper medical attention. Vaccinations, OTOH, do quite a bit of damage on their own, simply because the companies refuse to use safer versions that currently exist, simply because they cost a little more to manufacture. Each year, 2-4 kids die from DPT vaccinations - and as many as 900 are suspected fatalities incorrectly attributed to SIDS. Since 1979, the only cases of polio in the US have been the result of an oral vaccine which contains live polio virus. 10 children or their caregivers per year get polio from the oral vaccine. 48,743 adverse reactions to immunizations were reported in this country between '91 and '96. According to a 1995 CDC study, fewer than 1% of severe reactions (such as loss of consciousness after a DPT shot) were reported. A 1994 survey of doctors' offices by the NVIC found that only 28 of 159 offices surveyed actually file reports after a patient has an adverse reaction to an immunization. Not a single lot of vaccine has ever been recalled due to adverse reactions - and looking at the figures above, it doesn't surprise me why. When an epidemic exists, vaccines are a tolerable corrective measure, even when 1 in 60,000 die from the vaccine. When the epidemic no longer exists (as in the case of smallpox) it is a logical step to stop immunizing - unless the risk factor is near zero. There are plenty of other problems associated with vaccinations that I haven't even touched upon - do a google search and find out for yourself. Tort reform was the best thing that could have happened to the vaccine industry (it already happened in 1986, guys) but the worst thing that could happen to the American public. What justification can you possibly offer to support limiting a company's liability on a product it sells, when that product causes a child to die, become permanently brain damaged, or any number of other debilitating, lifelong complications?[/b][/quote]Griff, Thanks for posting the FACTS and letting the wind out of the F**K HILLARY AT ANY OPPORTUNITY crowd's ludicrous assertions.

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote] Sharpton, Kucinich, Edwards, any one of them would be superior to Bush. [/quote]Sharpton?

[Saint Johnny B]

Yeah even Sharpton would be better than Bush and Cheney, if you listen to the man, he makes a lot of sense. Plus, he's more entertaining and a much better speaker than Bush. Bush gets an "F" in that regard, and Bush lacks any street cred, now that we all know Bush is a liar on the big issues. So it's still: ANYONE but Bush and Cheney!

[Griffinator]

Nope. I disagree, Johnny - Sharpton would definitely NOT be a superior alternative to Bush. The last thing I need as a W.A.S.P. is a psychotic black man with a "get whitey" agenda in the White House.

[Saint Johnny B]

Grif, I was not aware of that bit, but have you listened to him on the democratic debates, the guy is great on TV. Much better than Bush, Sharpton uses real sentences too, plus he can turn a niffy phrase. The points he made during the debates made a lot of sense. In my view, ANYONE, ANYONE at all, is better than Bush and Cheney. Congress needs some rehab too. We need more liberals to balance the extreme right-wing out. It's shifted way too far to the right and toward totalitarianism. Example: The un-Patriot Act.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [b]Griff, Thanks for posting the FACTS and letting the wind out of the F**K HILLARY AT ANY OPPORTUNITY crowd's ludicrous assertions.[/b][/quote]Here's another fact that I left out of that post (since I wanted to demonstrate BROAD realities and leave my personal bias out) My son nearly fucking died from intussusception - an often-fatal GI tract disorder where the small intestine telescopes in on itself - at 6 months. My wife rode with him in the helicopter to UVA Med Center that night, and I sat in my apartment freaking out, wondering what the hell was going on. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that this disorder is caused almost exclusively by the administration of Rotavirus vaccine - specifically, Rotoshield - manufactured by our friends at Wyeth Labs, who also manufacture the oral (live virus) polio vaccine, along with a host of other questionable quality vaccines on the market. Wyeth Labs has consistently put profit over public safety with their vaccine manufacturing, and spent big bucks lobbying Congress and the White House making sure their methods were not questioned.

[Griffinator]

Oh - and in case you were wondering, Rotashield has been taken off the market forcibly by the FDA since my son nearly died. Furthermore, my son was the one in 2,000, on average, infants who were stricken with intussusception as a result of this vaccine.

[Saint Johnny B]

Grif, If I were you I'd be more inclined to blame the insurance and drug industries, they are the ones running the federal agencies and making all the policy decisions. "Follow-the-dollar" analysis works on the domestic level as well as on the foreign policy level.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: Griff, good post.[/quote]Thanks. [quote] I wonder if you did any research into mercury poisening deaths? [/quote]Quite a bit. Also the reason why, in an anti-environmental law state (Virginia) and right down the river from a notorious environmental offender (A printed circuit board manufacturer by the name of Waytech), I use a heavy-duty water filtration system on my tap. [quote]And I gather your premise is that fewer companies making vaccines and no tort reform for those companies has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of vaccine?[/quote]The refutation of your argument had already been made by Dan South. Simple supply and demand issues - coupled with the long production time of the vaccine in question (3 weeks). I was merely stating the case against tort reform. If McDonalds started selling hamburgers that killed one out of every 60,000 people who ate one (and this was not common public knowledge), and your wife/girlfriend or son/daughter died from eating one, you'd be up in arms, ready to sue them for everything they're worth. Why should Wyeth Labs, makers of these wonderfully unstable vaccines, be any different. They have demonstrated repeatedly that, given the opportunity, any corporation will kill as many people as they can get away with in order to increase their bottom line. [quote]As I suggested to Alcohol, I think the Wall Street Journal could use your facts.[/quote]Whatever. The WSJ doesn't recognize facts that don't directly involve stock market trends. [quote]And Alcohol... what kind of a rational thinking human being believes that the only media that tells the truth or the facts is the media that supports his political partisan views? [/quote]Ridiculous. That's why I read (and watch) media from all circles. From ABC World News Tonight all the way to the McNeil-Lehrer news hour on PBS, from Newsweek to the National Review, I read them all, and sum my fact base out of the parts that agree. My point is still made. Vaccines kill a lot of people - nearly as many as those who die from the diseases of which they claim to protect us. How much is your son's life worth?

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Griffinator: I was merely stating the case against tort reform. If McDonalds started selling hamburgers that killed one out of every 60,000 people who ate one (and this was not common public knowledge), and your wife/girlfriend or son/daughter died from eating one, you'd be up in arms, ready to sue them for everything they're worth. Why should Wyeth Labs, makers of these wonderfully unstable vaccines, be any different. They have demonstrated repeatedly that, given the opportunity, any corporation will kill as many people as they can get away with in order to increase their bottom line.[/b] Griff, you miss the point of my post. My question can also be linked to McDonalds. Do you think lack of tort reform has anything to do with the products they make? Do you think lack of tort reform has anything to do with the higher cost of a cup of coffee at McDonalds? Now, let's get the government involved in hamburgers. Let's have the government set the price for hamburgers. My understanding is the price set was not sufficient to allow the vaccine manufacturers to make a profit. Then let's have the government make hamburger makers manufacture as many hamburgers as needed..at a fixed price..with no protection for any problems that might arise from people getting bad reactions from the hamburgers. Would there be more or fewer hamburger manufacturers around today? I don't know, just a thought. [b]Whatever. The WSJ doesn't recognize facts that don't directly involve stock market trends.[/b] And drug manufacturers aren't public traded companies on the stock market? [b]And Alcohol... what kind of a rational thinking human being believes that the only media that tells the truth or the facts is the media that supports his political partisan views? [/QUOTE]Ridiculous. That's why I read (and watch) media from all circles. From ABC World News Tonight all the way to the McNeil-Lehrer news hour on PBS, from Newsweek to the National Review, I read them all, and sum my fact base out of the parts that agree.[/b] That's why my post was not directed at you. I have never claimed you only post quotes from the liberal media and refuse to accept any information from media you presume to be "right wing". Alcohol is famous for this activity. You are not. [b]My point is still made. Vaccines kill a lot of people - nearly as many as those who die from the diseases of which they claim to protect us. How much is your son's life worth?[/b] Interesting question. Since I have a 27 year old son with epilipesy that has nearly died fifteen or sixteen times, been in and out of hospitals for most of his life, was never expected to live past ten, was expected to be institutionalized if he lived to be 13, has been on every anti seizure drug ever invented and frequently put on "cocktails" of those drugs, has been scheduled for brain surgery four times in the last ten years, tried to jump out of moving cars repeatedly, fallen down stairs multiple times, I guess I don't know how to answer your question. All I know is that now he works as a bag boy at a grocery store..a job he has had for seven years. He has very minor seizures now and although he still lives with his mom, is a productive tax paying all around neat kid. All because somebody at some drug company spent the money to research new drugs, hire the best chemists, go through the FDA hoops, the human trials, etc. to get medication out on the market that saved my son from brain surgery that was at best a crap shoot. They deserve all the profit they can get. His lifetime dependency on anti seizure drugs will not cost us even one half what brain surgery would have cost and might have turned him into a vegetable. And they get better every year. And if a bad batch of the drug killed him, would I sue? That drug gave me at least 15 years with someone who should have died at 13.. I really don't know. I have never suggested a free ride for any company. Make the injured person "whole". In the case of my son, maybe lost wages. I don't know..But millions and millions for "pain and suffering"? What other kid with epilepsy wouldn't get medication if I run the company out of business? What dad would not get those extra years with his son because I'm sleeping on a bed of money..and I still don't have my son. I don't know Grif..I do not know.

[Saint Johnny B]

You know it's regular people like you a me that serve on juries that make the awards to the injured of "millions and millions." That's 9 or 12 people who agree that the injured person needs to have that much? Why. Usu because they have to spend most of it on round the clock care for the rest of their lives or some other major expense that they would not have had to face if they had not been injured by some defective product. The jury only tries to compensate the victims and make them as whole as they can. They don't fall for phony arguments and fake claims. They just try to do what is right. Tort Reform is nothing more than a propaganda scam by insurance companies to make more profits. Lawyers are an easy target, but it is the insurance companies who have the executives that are making the "million and millions." What, for pushing paper around and playing golf all day. Check out the Insurance Companies Exec's comp packages sometime, you'll be amazed at how much they clear. As for the lawyers who do product liabily or personal injury cases, they have done more to help victims and get rid of unsafe products than any other group in America. I say, they deserve every penny they can get for themselves and their victims. Otherwise, guess what?, the government is gonna pay to deal with quardraplegics and those unable to ever work again or be productive. Tort Reform = Insurance Company Scam

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: Griff, you miss the point of my post. My question can also be linked to McDonalds. Do you think lack of tort reform has anything to do with the products they make? Do you think lack of tort reform has anything to do with the higher cost of a cup of coffee at McDonalds? [/quote]No, I don't. There are not enough lawsuits against McDonalds in any given year to put even a tiny dent in their bottom line. Why? Because they practice good self-preservation. The ground beef McDonalds uses for their hamburgers is of a higher grade, produced under much stricter testing standards, than what you and I buy off the supermarket shelves. That's good business sense - protecting themselves from lawsuits stemming from E Coli and food poisoning cases. Why did they do that? Not because they give a shit about the consumer, only because they don't want to get sued. You introduce tort reform and they no longer have the financial incentive to maintain those high standards. [quote]Now, let's get the government involved in hamburgers. Let's have the government set the price for hamburgers. My understanding is the price set was not sufficient to allow the vaccine manufacturers to make a profit. Then let's have the government make hamburger makers manufacture as many hamburgers as needed..at a fixed price..with no protection for any problems that might arise from people getting bad reactions from the hamburgers. [/quote]Not sufficient to make a profit? Vaccine production is a $500 million industry! Wyeth labs has plenty of profit margin in their vaccines. 100% markup on the influenza vaccine they produce - even under the price controls implemented by the USG. What, 50% profit ain't enough? You protect Wyeth with tort reform, and they have even LESS incentive than they do under the ALREADY EXISTING (passed in 1986) tort limitations to introduce safer vaccines! [quote]Would there be more or fewer hamburger manufacturers around today? I don't know, just a thought. [/quote]Nonsense. See above. [quote]Interesting question. Since I have a 27 year old son with epilipesy that has nearly died fifteen or sixteen times, been in and out of hospitals for most of his life, was never expected to live past ten, was expected to be institutionalized if he lived to be 13, has been on every anti seizure drug ever invented and frequently put on "cocktails" of those drugs, has been scheduled for brain surgery four times in the last ten years, tried to jump out of moving cars repeatedly, fallen down stairs multiple times, I guess I don't know how to answer your question.[/quote]Well let me ask you a different question. If your son's epilepsy was caused by a vaccine he was given as an infant, wouldn't you expect the manufacturer of that vaccine to pay your son's medical bills? Wouldn't you be horrified if someone put a short cap on how much compensation you could get from that manufacturer, despite the fact that he now has a lifelong illness that will require constant medical expenses? When you talk about tort reform, you're looking strictly at frivolous lawsuits. Fine. Let's do something about the idiot juries who award people ridiculous sums of money for idiotic, self inflicted injury! Don't start talking about caps on damage awards until you sit and think long and hard about how much money you spent each year on your son's medical care while he was a minor, and then think about the thousands of kids with equally debilitating illnesses that they got from a shot that they're LEGALLY REQUIRED to have in order to enter public school. That's the other difference - these kids don't have a choice - they have to get the vaccines. Wyeth has a captive consumer base - that's one of the reasons why the price controls were implemented. [quote]All I know is that now he works as a bag boy at a grocery store..a job he has had for seven years. He has very minor seizures now and although he still lives with his mom, is a productive tax paying all around neat kid.[/quote]That's really cool, man. I'm glad to know he's reached a point where he's functioning at least close to normal. [quote]All because somebody at some drug company spent the money to research new drugs, hire the best chemists, go through the FDA hoops, the human trials, etc. to get medication out on the market that saved my son from brain surgery that was at best a crap shoot. [/quote]Yep. And that company, knowing full well the liability risks of releasing a product that did more harm than good, made sure they got one to market that worked, without killing and/or permanently disabling 10-15% of the people who used it. [quote]They deserve all the profit they can get. His lifetime dependency on anti seizure drugs will not cost us even one half what brain surgery would have cost and might have turned him into a vegetable. And they get better every year. [/quote]Fair enough. Prescription drug companies have not been subject to price caps. As you see now, we have a much bigger problem with these companies - runaway markup ($3 a pill for Vioxx - which is in the same class as aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen, but is supposedly gentler on the GI tract) and very little, if any, scrutiny by the FDA in the new "streamlined" approval process. You take away or limit a consumer's right to sue a company for damages done by their product, you take away the only thing that prevents them from killing us with cures. [quote]And if a bad batch of the drug killed him, would I sue? That drug gave me at least 15 years with someone who should have died at 13.. I really don't know. [/quote]What if a bad batch of the drug turned him completely into a vegetable? Wouldn't you expect some help with the medical expenses? How about if it just crippled him? Either way, you're paying for the damage they did to him. [quote]I have never suggested a free ride for any company. Make the injured person "whole". In the case of my son, maybe lost wages. I don't know..But millions and millions for "pain and suffering"? What other kid with epilepsy wouldn't get medication if I run the company out of business? What dad would not get those extra years with his son because I'm sleeping on a bed of money..and I still don't have my son. [/quote]The millions and millions aren't for "pain and suffering" - they're called "punitive damages" - and that means exactly what it says. If you wound up in the hospital from eating a bad hamburger at Jack in the Box (a notorious offender) and all they had to deal with was your hospital bills and your time off work, they'd gleefully pay the suit and keep on poisoning people - because it's cheaper than implementing better quality control and training processes. You add on a big fat punitive sum to that total, and suddenly McDonalds is paying top dollar to the IBP conglomerate to make sure their hamburger meat is thoroughly screened for E Coli and Salmonella before it ever leaves the plant (something the crap ground beef you buy at Wal-Mart ISN'T) and implement strict training policies at their restaurants to make sure their workers understand the hazards of cross-contamination and how to properly cook a hamburger to 180 degrees so any bugs in it will be dead before they serve it. Sure there are abuses in the legal system - people sue people for stupid reasons and get outrageous awards all the time. What you're proposing, however, is NOT the answer. The answer is reforming the jury trial system to make sure that idiotic verdicts are not returned by idiotic jurors who don't understand what "reasonable doubt" and "probable cause" are really about.

[GZsound]

Griff, I admit I have a hard time arguing against your prepositions. You make some really valid points. I suppose in my mind what I would hope for is much what you also want. Some form of system that keeps the honest and honorable honest and honorable while punishing the criminal or those who cause harm with intent. The problem we have in American is the out of control problem with both sides. Million upon millions of dollars in court ordered damages for a 75 year old guy that died from lung cancer because he smoked for 40 years. Millions in damages for someone who spills a hot cup of coffee on her lap at McDonalds. We had a suit in Portland recently brought by two "homeless" panhandlers. They won their suit against the city and were awarded $1,000.00 each. Their attorneys each received $39,000. Pain and suffering or punitive damages are the issue. I stated it would always be fair to make the injured person "whole". That means compensation for a lifetime of medical care if a drug causes someone to become a vegetable. But what about multi millions of dollars for Loss of companionship for the wife? And what if the drug were administered improperly? The attorneys will still sue those with the deepest pockets regardless of real blame. Maybe I just have a chip on my shoulder because of the loss of a company because of a frivilous lawsuit, an over zealous attorney and our current judicial system. Like I said.. I don't know. Maybe you are right. We need more attorneys, fewer limits on lawsuits, stiffer penalties and larger awards for other than actual damages.

[Saint Johnny B]

You know a lot of that stuff you are quoting are nothing but talking points and things distilled from insurance company press releases. What do you really know about the old lady who was scalded by the coffee? Do you have any idea of the burns she suffered. Do you know if she had any kind of pre-existing condition that was severly aggravated by the injury? Do you know what her doctors told the jury? Do you know that the company had been warned that this was a problem because it happened to other people but they just ignored the warning. You see most juries have a lot more eveidence before tham than ever gets distilled down to sound-bite level for the press by a biased industry source. They do it in a way to grab a headline and they sensationalize the content out of all proportion. And we have appeals in this country and panels of judges to reduce awards by juies if they are too far out of line which is rare. Most jurors are smart people, very practical and wise in the ways of the world. Overall, they do a very good job and public service for all of us. In fact, it's un-American to attack the jury system.