# This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784 "2010-08-19T20:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 43
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/841 "2010-09-09T20:56:04Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Could someone tell me why it is not possible that a harmful substance could be added to the vaccines that are then injected in the arms of huge segments of the population for unknown motives? It would be quite easy to do. The idea that something like that could be kept a secret is fanciful. Adding a substance to a vaccine isn’t hard. On the other hand you are talking about collecting and altering millions of doses of vaccines (perhaps tens of millions or more) made by a variety of private companies who cooperate for unknown reasons. (Why do the companies want to go along with this?) And everybody involved in the program needs to keep quiet about it. MMR and flu shots and such are mostly given by people’s individual doctors, you know. Not that many people get their vaccinations from the government. The government might mandate them but you appear to be imagining they are in control of the vaccine supply, which is not true, and that the government makes the vaccines, which is also generally untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/842 "2010-09-09T20:57:05Z")
What is the topic of this thread again? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/843 "2010-09-09T20:57:05Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Could someone tell me why it is not possible that a harmful substance could be added to the vaccines that are then injected in the arms of huge segments of the population for unknown motives? For one thing, the government does not manufacture vaccines. They are manufactured by private corporations. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/844 "2010-09-09T20:57:41Z")
Once again; there are no mandatory vaccinations. You always have an alternative. Excercise your prerogative; that’s the libertarian way. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/845 "2010-09-09T21:00:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What is the topic of this thread again? It’s about how Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that FDR knew in advance that the Jews were planning to uses vaccines to inject gold into the NAFTA Superhighway. Or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/846 "2010-09-09T21:03:59Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > We disagree here. I don’t want government involved in medical care in any way shape or form. \ > What if the wrong group of people were to become in charge or in positions of power in our government and wanted to inject the population with drugs that they knew would have deleterious effects on the people?\ I don’t see how I can possibly comment on this when \*\*tomndebb \*\*has enjoined me from discussing woo, vaccination, and racism back in Post 535: > [@](#): > > CannyDan, ITR champion, Jackmannii, and any other poster to this thread: > the issues of woo, libertarian views of universal vaccination, and racism are really not pertinent to this thread. (I agree that giving voice to some of those beliefs casts a particular light on the quality of the reasoning behind other assertions by a poster, but they are really off topic to the issue of the economy and President Obama that is the ostensible purpose of this thread.) So I guess I’ll just sit back and watch the fun. (gets popcorn) (Thinks better of it and substitutes scotch and branch water.) ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/847 "2010-09-09T21:46:20Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Leaving aside homeopathy for a minute, how can you fail to see the abuse that a government with that much power over medical care can cause? > > > > You really think the government is always looking out for you? Maybe they are protecting the drug companies profits? Ever think of that? > > To be fair I think you misunderstand me here. Like most other people I’m perfectly happy for Homeopathy to be legal and for people to waste their money on it if they like, but proponents must be prevented from making false claims about it’s effectiveness without any scientific evidence. That is the role for government. Okay, this is fair. I’m glad you don’t think that the government should ban medical treatments. > [@](#): > > Please, less condescention. I don’t have to read a long quote to know that setting the minimum wage at $100 is fucking retarded. I also won’t dispute that the minimum wage destroys the lowest of low-paying jobs. Jobs that didn’t pay a living wage, jobs that people had to work at for 70+ hours a week just to get by. > > The difference seems to be that you think bringing these jobs back is a good idea, I think it’s an affront to human dignity. Fair enough. > > The thing is, I’m not ideologically attached to a minimum wage. I just want the best solution the problem of worker explotation by employers. YOU on the other hand don’t seem to believe that worker exploitation can even exist, but sadly the history of the human race (particularly since the Industrial Revolution) completely disagrees with you. > > Once again, it’s a situation where Libertarian ideology is willfully ignorant of the way the world works. I would happily listen to your ideas if you actually proposed solutions to real world problems, but you don’t even acknowledge that they exist. Your ideology blinds you. There should be no minimum wage. What you are failing to understand is that specific low skilled jobs are not undesirable for everyone. The VERY low skilled labor that would be available would be fine for certain people. Teenagers, recent immigrants, and people just starting out use these very low skilled jobs as stepping stones for better jobs. They gain work experience, and go on to bigger and better things. For these people, at this stage in their lives, they are happy to work for this amount of money. Nobody is claiming you can make a living, and raise a family for that amount of money. Nobody is expected to stay at that wage rate for very long. There is a very fast turnover of new people at such a job. The issue is that poor people today and the unemployed would be thrilled to have more jobs available so they could make some money, even if it is a very little amount. It is not exploitation. If there is no minimum wage there would be MORE jobs available. Also, if we had sound money, minimum wage laws would become meaningless because the money would maintain value (even increase in value). If the value of the money went up, people making five dollars an hour would be living better than those making eight dollars and hour today. We could also stop robbing people through inflation, eroding their standard of living. And if we reduced the federal regulations drastically, allowing small business to flourish and the cost of running a business to fall, then prices for goods and services would fall. Thus a lower income would buy far more. We should remove the barriers to economic growth. I am opposed to worker exploitation, but why is this a greater threat than exploitation by the government? The people I work for are very nice and treat everyone with dignity. I don’t believe they are serving black customers and providing for handicapped people because the government forced them to. Some people are assholes and will treat people bad under any circumstances. The way we should deal with these people is through boycotts, protests and freely available competition. By the way, do you really believe that if we got rid of the federal regulations business’ would try to make their workers work 70 hours a week all of a sudden? That massive numbers of stores will start refusing to serve black customers? If you believe this, then you are far more removed from reality than you accuse me of being. I never said there wouldn’t be any problems. There certainly would. However, the fundamental cause of poverty in this society, in my opinion, is the systematic elimination of economic opportunity for certain segments of the population through repressive regulations and limits on the peaceful economic activity of the poor and middle classes. We need to allow the poor to become entrepreneurs, hiring more poor people, lifting them out of poverty. Recent history is replete with examples of brilliant young men and women living in poverty whose dreams and ambitions are crushed through a government that does not allow them the economic opportunities that more well to do Americans have. On the other end of the spectrum is the very rich, corporations bankers and Wall Street traders. These people don’t produce anything anymore and are engaged in corporatism and dealing with the government. They understand the complex regulatory mess and take advantage of loopholes and insider information to make money regardless of whether the economy goes up or down. They make money trading derivatives and pushing paper. This is wrong. In a libertarian society people make their money by being entrepreneurial, creating a product that fills a gap and satisfies a need in society, simultaneously employing people and raising the standard of living of the masses. Corporate profits directly correlate to the satisfaction of the consumers. This ADDS to society. This type of entrepreneurial activity is discouraged today. Our society has become one of insiders who exploit everyone else, acting like parasites on the US economy. And the outsiders, average people who are getting screwed, are unable to start a business or make ends meet and therefore are forced into dependence on government largess. I don’t want you to think that there won’t be societal problems to a degree under a libertarian society. But there will be FAR LESS than we have today. People will be much wealthier. Once we have sound money and a stable currency, a low regulatory burden on business (particularly on small business), respect for property rights and a balanced budget with long term solvency of our obligations, THEN we can deal with the problems in society that still exist. I promise you that there will be far fewer to deal with. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You and many liberals focus on feel good concepts like “ending poverty” through redistribution and helping the poor without understanding the harm done through the actual implementation of said policies. > > For the record I’m not for ending poverty because under a capitalist society it is an unobtainable and undesirable goal (capitalism _requires_ poor people to function properly). I do however believe that people have a certain right to dignity and being looked after by the wider society of which they are a part. _I_ am open minded enough to consider any policies that further humanity and improve the welfare of citizens. I would rather pay taxs to support the poorest than have them work like slaves for a pitance. Is this a perfect situation? Of course not, but so far it’s the best compromise we have. > > The problem is that your policies are essentially to transport everybody back to a an age where poor people were exploited and left to starve. Or do you deny that this ever happened in America? > > **Oldeb** post #756 sums up my feelings on the fundamental flaws in Libertarianism pretty well. You are absolutely wrong when you say that capitalism requires poor people to function properly. This is completely false. Poverty can be virtually eliminated in a free market based society and it has been. People don’t have equal income, but that does not matter. Equality is not a goal that is even desirable. People are not equal. In true socialist countries everyone becomes impoverished as this failed philosophy runs its course. Free Enterprise and voluntary association and enforced contracts is the system which can eliminate poverty for its citizens. I believe that people have a right to dignity and people should look after the less fortunate among us. Without a doubt. What I don’t understand is how a more liberal person can see the problems of society and think that a federal bureaucracy can adequately addressed societal problems, given their track record. Our politicians are self serving, egotistical assholes who don’t give a fuck about society as a whole. They care about getting reelected and bringing home the bacon to their district. The truth is we will not make any serious inroads into dealing with social problems until we admit that government is wholly inadequate in addressing the problems we are facing. Only then, will more of us get off our asses and maybe volunteer and help some people ourselves. If we keep deluding ourselves into thinking the federal government can address poverty, give us medical care, educate our children well, fight wars, and provide various forms of welfare and actually make society better through these efforts. It hasn’t worked. If we wake up and limit the role of the federal government in those areas, and encourage local governments, private citizens and bolstered local economies to aid the people who need assistance we could actually make some progress. The truth is, as stated eloquently in my OP, the government policies over time are encouraging poverty. Then a politician says, “look at all the poor who need our help”, announces some new government program and we get more problems and more poverty and the cycle continues. We need to break from that cycle and rediscover the way we build up prosperity in this country in the first place, and it wasn’t through redistribution. It was through free enterprise and smaller government with a low public debt that created the atmosphere where true wealth could emerge and a healthy middle class could flourish. So, I DO care about the social problems you correctly point out. I just believe we should solve these problems in a different way. Lets try more State power and less Federal power. Lets try free enterprise and allow people to keep the money they make. Lets unleash the creative energies of the marketplace. Perhaps we could even limit the Federal tax burden and cut spending significantly. Before you write off libertarianism, you should be willing to try some of the sensible immediate policy ideas of Ron Paul, which would move us in the right direction. I think you would be quite surprised by the results if you gave it a chance. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/848 "2010-09-09T22:06:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Why should you care? Its none of your business if people want to spend their money on homeopathy and “faith” healing (which, I agree, is total bullshit). > > > > Leave these people alone to spend their money how they see fit. > > It is both unethical and bad for society in general to stand by and allow people to be exploited and killed for profit. Personally, I think that homeopaths and faith healers deserve prison for medical fraud and in many cases attempted murder, instead of being cosseted by the government the way they are. I see no moral difference between giving someone medicine that doesn’t work for profit and poisoning them for profit. You see no moral difference between someone giving someone medicine (that they believe works) for profit and poisoning them for profit? Are you serious? Nobody is asking you to believe in homeopathy. The issue is why do you trust the government to be involved in medical care. By the way, who is suggesting that the government shouldn’t intervene when someone is being harmed or killed? I know of no person who thinks it isn’t the governments job to protect people from aggression committed by another. Der Trihs, you clearly believe in authoritarian government and like to have your life directed from a central authority. In fact, you demand it. Our government is not doing its job unless it is interfering in any and all peaceful activities, interfering with contracts, regulating all manner of personal behavior and criminalizing consensual behavior. Liberals such as yourself are full of contradictions. I’m sure you vehemently believe in your own liberties to engage in the type of activity you are interested in. Except you repeatedly wish to use the force of government to violate another’s liberty simply because they are doing something that you disapprove of, even though they are not harming you. This attitude leads to the destruction of all liberty. Today it may be the government forcing people not to use homeopathy, tomorrow they may criminalize some activity you engage in. You should read some history to comprehend the end result of the type of authoritarianism you apparently support. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/849 "2010-09-09T22:11:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I sense an overly-miserly definition of the word “fraud”. What does this mean? The people I have talked to really believe in homeopathy and swear to its results. I have talked to people who claim to have gotten results from homeopathy too. You may think it is a placebo and is not scientifically validated. Okay. Fine. But the voluntary, consensual exchange of money for a treatment that both the practitioner and patient believe in is not fraud. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/850 "2010-09-09T22:14:56Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > > [@DoctorJ](#): > > > > The studies so far on prolotherapy have been small, with conflicting but generally positive results. The studies have not been similar enough to put together into much meta-analysis. There are some larger randomized controlled trials going on. I think there’s probably something to it, but we won’t be able to say for sure until those new trials are done. > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > There have been quite a few exhaustive studies on prolotherapy that should be sufficient. > > Hmm. Who to believe? Well, I’ve gotten the treatment and have talked to a number of doctors who practice it. The insurance companies will resist paying for anything so they will likely say any amount of evidence is “not sufficient”. The evidence is clearly on the side of proving its effectiveness. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/851 "2010-09-09T22:30:44Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Well Hellestal, you go quite a way towards actually acknowledging that what we have today is not competing currencies in the manner that I, Ron Paul and FA Hayek are arguing for. It is your foolish insistence that what we have today with e gold (give me a break) constitutes the competing currencies that I advocate for. This is hardly the case, > > **jrodefeld** , you somehow seem not to realize that the ridiculous things you wrote in the past are still available for me to read. I don’t need to “foolishly insist” that you were advocating for a system of voluntary exchange using gold or silver. All I have to do is quote your own words. Here’s a trip down memory lane: Emphasis added. You were advocating for a legal system allowing gold and silver to be traded for goods and services. A system like e-gold or GoldMoney or one of the others. How do I know this? > > Because I have you on record advocating for a legal system allowing gold and silver to be traded for goods and services. In other words, you were advocating for something that is _already legal_. > > Those are your words. That’s what you said. You, the expert, were bitching about not being allowed to do something that you are, in fact, allowed to do. Is that the _only_ thing you were advocating for? No, it’s not. But I don’t need to document every error from a three post OP to show the gaps in your knowledge. I just need to choose a few particularly egregious fuck-ups, point them out, and then watch as you dig yourself deeper into nonsense instead of admitting how much you fucked-up. Here’s another error, more recent, this jewel of a post from our present thread: > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > The point was, and I should have made this more clear, that competing currencies ARE illegal. That doesn’t stop some people from doing it anyway. The fact that some people have so little faith in the dollar that they would ignore the law and use competing currencies gives credence to my larger point about the economy. > > > > But yeah, the point is competing currencies ARE illegal. These small town experiments are very small scale and infrequent because otherwise the participants get arrested. The point is that despite government prohibitions, a sufficient demand creates an underground market for things that are desired. > > Assuming that you’re not suffering some tragic mental disease, you should remember writing these words. > > I certainly remember reading those words. I was laughing at the time. > > Your argument, to remind you in the likely case that you’ve already conveniently forgotten it again, is that these competing currencies are “very small scale and infrequent because otherwise the participants get arrested”. Er, no. That’s still embarrassingly wrong. GoldMoney has more than a hundred million dollars worth of bullion in its vaults. That’s hardly small-scale. It’s not alternative currencies themselves that are illegal. I mean, money laundering? Sure, [that’s illegal.](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/e-gold/) But not alternative currencies. > > Did you mention Ron Paul with respect to competing currencies? Sure. Is that related to Hayek’s proposal of bank deregulation? Again, yes. But the thing is: **You didn’t know that.** It’s crystal clear that you didn’t understand the distinctions that Hayek was making, because you fucked up your explanation and started writing ALL CAPS about how ALL alternative currencies are illegal. Do you remember writing this? “The government DOES NOT allow competing currencies PERIOD.” Do you remember writing this? “But yeah, the point is competing currencies ARE illegal. These small town experiments are very small scale and infrequent because otherwise the participants get arrested.” These are your words. You are _on the record_ not knowing the difference between Hayek’s proposal of competing currencies and the currencies that are currently allowed. You are _on the record_ claiming that the only reason that alternative currencies are allowed is that they’re so small that they haven’t got caught yet. If you truly understood Hayek’s proposal, you wouldn’t have made these stupid, silly mistakes. If you truly understood what you were talking about, you wouldn’t have chosen examples of legal transactions when you wanted examples of illegal transactions. You got it reversed, and now you can’t admit it. > > Your words are recorded. The whole world and sunny Jesus can still read them. > > And then, my absolute favorite part, is your response when your errors are pointed out. It’s not that you just ignore your fuck-up. That wouldn’t be art. Instead, you try to remind the audience, again, of what a super-duper-special _expert_ you are. You’re just killing me with that. If you patted yourself on the back any harder, you’d dislocate a shoulder. I can’t get enough of it. Even if I were allowed to edit your post with malicious filler, I genuinely doubt I could make your arguments any worse than they already are. > > It’s a real hoot. Hellestal, you are fucking delusional. You are nitpicking on quotes which only emphasizes the point that YOU didn’t understand what I was saying. In you efforts to deal with a well thought out argument you scan back throughout everything I have posted here in an effort to find some error or contradiction instead of using your own brain power to understand the totality of my argument. When I said government does not allow competing currencies I was referring to the system that Hayek and Ron Paul are advocating for. E Gold does not restrain the federal government or allow competition to the federal reserve. It does nothing about Legal Tender Laws and a bunch of other problems. So to be clear for you: **When I advocate for competing currencies I am advocating for the proposals by Ron Paul and FA Hayek. The purpose of this is to provide competition to the Federal Reserve system and allow freely circulating currencies to exist, _not internet or electronic versions_. Read Hayek and Ron Paul on this issue for more information on why what we have now is far from satisfying the purpose of moving in the direction of Sound Money.** Your insistence in knowing what I know and did not know is beyond annoying. If you had even bothered to read Hayek or Ron Paul’s writings on the subject you would know where I stand and what form of competition of currencies would provide for increased economic liberty which Hayek, Paul, and myself all desire. If you want to continue to contribute here, you should drop the condescending tone and “gotcha” tactics of straining to show contradictions over hundreds of posts and different threads and focus on the larger issues I am referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/852 "2010-09-09T22:37:48Z")
Telling a poster what kinds of comments he must post if he wishes to continue posting in this thread … Doesn’t seem like it’s based on liberty as a value. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/853 "2010-09-09T22:41:37Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Your mind is closed and you defend the medical establishment with a religious zeal. There is NO downside to vaccines at any quantity, period. That is your stance. You dismiss doctors who take my side as “quacks”. You dismiss studies I post as “junk science”. You dismiss all links I post as fear mongering hysteria with no merit whatsoever. > > Because it is. Have you followed up or researched any of the references in the links you provide?! Ever? The last bit you quoted (and did not attribute) was a perfect example - they cited a case study done in Sweden and it concerned a reaction to the vaccine that effected a single digit number of children (the vaccine had been given universally and yet the article cites the study as if it were proof that everyone reacts horribly to vaccines. > > That is propaganda and hysteria - you are unwilling to look any further than the shiny webpages to se the lies and deception behind it. This is not a failing on my part. > > Funny, I keep sending paleontologists pictures of Jesus riding dinosaurs and they won’t budge an inch on the idea that Jesus rode dinosaurs. Poor evidence has a habit of not doing what you want, in case you hadn’t noticed. > > > [@](#): > > > > You can support vaccinations but acknowledge the potential risks. If you did you would have more credibility. > > :rolleyes: I know the freaking risks -oh mighty beater of straw. They are minimal in comparison to the benefits. What you are supporting is a sickening fearmongering group of people who would have us abandon some or all of them via a campaign of lies, hatred, intimidation, fear-mongering, horrible science and propaganda. You’ve linked to their articles several times and said things that might as well have come out of their mouths. > > Meanwhile while you bawl and whine and pout about me not budging and inch you hypocritically ignore how people with your attitude have caused Pertussis breakouts that have killed children. > > But hey, I must be the bad guy with no credibility because when I look at the stuff you spray here like a fleeing squid I actually bother to look into it and see how studies are being misused and risks grossly exaggerated - all you have to do is ignore some preventable kid’s deaths to be credible in your own mind. What is the motivation of people who have concerns about vaccinations? There is a lot out there. There are many people who have expressed concerns, many MDs and Phd’s. I am trying to move away from this subject because it is a distraction from the thread, but I want to know what you think of the motivations behind those that feel there are dangerous side effects. Also, how can we be certain that new chronic health problems that have shown up in the last twenty years or so are not related to vaccinations? I am not claiming that they are but maybe there are links that are not being made. Being close minded to the notion is contrary to the scientific method. Keep an open mind. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/854 "2010-09-09T22:42:04Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Well, I’ve gotten the treatment and have talked to a number of doctors who practice it. The insurance companies will resist paying for anything so they will likely say any amount of evidence is “not sufficient”. The evidence is clearly on the side of proving its effectiveness. Do you have a unique definition for ‘evidence’ as well? It seems all of our disagreements turn on how you define all the critical terms. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/855 "2010-09-09T22:44:39Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > So to be clear for you: > **When I advocate for competing currencies I am advocating for the proposals by Ron Paul and FA Hayek. The purpose of this is to provide competition to the Federal Reserve system and allow freely circulating currencies to exist, _not internet or electronic versions_. Read Hayek and Ron Paul on this issue for more information on why what we have now is far from satisfying the purpose of moving in the direction of Sound Money.** > Your insistence in knowing what I know and did not know is beyond annoying. If you had even bothered to read Hayek or Ron Paul’s writings on the subject you would know where I stand and what form of competition of currencies would provide for increased economic liberty which Hayek, Paul, and myself all desire. This isn’t Hayek or Ron Paul’s thread - it’s _yours_. So don’t expect them to make their points to us - you need to. Summarize their positions if you like, but don’t expect us to go hunting for the argument which is _your_ responsibility to make. Regarding the multiple currency thing, I’d appreciate if when you explain it (if you do), that you also address the seven questions in my prior post. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/856 "2010-09-09T22:45:40Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Well, I’ve gotten the treatment and have talked to a number of doctors who practice it. The insurance companies will resist paying for anything so they will likely say any amount of evidence is “not sufficient”. The evidence is clearly on the side of proving its effectiveness. Which sounds great, except for all that testicluar cancer. It must be true, as I read about it a few minutes ago. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/857 "2010-09-09T22:49:03Z")
> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Well, I’ve gotten the treatment and have talked to a number of doctors who practice it. The insurance companies will resist paying for anything so they will likely say any amount of evidence is “not sufficient”. The evidence is clearly on the side of proving its effectiveness. > > Which sounds great, except for all that testicluar cancer. It must be true, as I read about it a few minutes ago. I’m quite sure I read some quotes by the Founding Fathers on the subject also. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/858 "2010-09-09T22:51:32Z")
[QUOTE=jrodefeld] Could someone tell me why it is not possible that a harmful substance could be added to the **vaccines that are then injected in the arms of huge segments of the population** for unknown motives? [/QUOTE] Why would the government want to harm Kirstie Alley? And before you get all hot and bothered and accuse me of mocking your beliefs, I freely acknowledge doing so, as they are eminently worthy of mockery. The bit about vaccination being part of a dastardly plot to reduce the population is a staple on websites like [whale.to](http://www.whale.to/v/biowarfare.html) (which you recommend as believable). The genocide angle is a toughie for me, since on the one hand we’re supposed to think that the Big Pharma/Medical Industrial Complex is a giant megalomaniacal octupus intent only on making money in any way possible, but on the other hand they’re trying to kill off large segments of the populace so there won’t be people to sell drugs to. That this evidently makes sense to you speaks volumes about your credibility, not that we didn’t already have an enormous library of incredulity at our disposal. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/859 "2010-09-09T23:13:57Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > There are many people who have expressed concerns (about vaccination), many MDs and Phd’s. I am trying to move away from this subject because it is a distraction from the thread, but I want to know what you think of the motivations behind those that feel there are dangerous side effects. Apart from your continuing to cite “many” MDs and PhDs (when the reality is “a small fringe which includes virtually no one with expertise in infectious diseases and immunology”), I’ll answer the question, noting that you’re not really referring to anyone who has a specific question about the usefulness/cost-benefit ratio or well-defined risk of a particular vaccine, but who think that vaccination in general is harmful. “Motivations” for being antivax include lack of knowledge (deliberate ignorance in the case of the handful of professionals who have no excuse for not knowing better), a paranoid mindset, apparent desire for revenge against the Establishment (i.e. having been disciplined by a medical board for bad or unethical practices), and a general love of the role of Brave Maverick who defies the Powers That Be (like Galileo, who gets mentioned frequently). The Brave Maverick may just be after adulation, but can also rake in dough from admirers. Some start out as respected practitioners in their (largely unrelated) fields but go off the rails late in life and discover the dire perils of vaccination, water fluoridation and the like. So senility may play a role as well. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/860 "2010-09-09T23:18:19Z")
[QUOTE=jrodefeld] There have been quite a few exhaustive studies on prolotherapy that should be sufficient. [/QUOTE] > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Well, I’ve gotten the treatment and have talked to a number of doctors who practice it. Do you even know what a “study” _is_, let alone an “exhaustive study”? Your talking to doctors who practice questionable therapy who tell you what you want to hear _does not qualify as a study!_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=42) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=44)