# 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:** 45
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/881 "2010-09-10T03:24:45Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > **Does anyone else here see the absurdity of me being held accountable for each and every story posted on each website I link to?** Not when you say things like, I dunno, this? > [@jrodefeld](#): > > It is impossible for me to undo all this programming and propaganda in one post (or many posts), so allow me to suggest some resources and individuals you may follow to become more astute as well as cautioning you from looking at certain mainstream outlets that will not inform you. That’s from your magnum opus that started this whole thing. Part 3 to be exact. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/882 "2010-09-10T03:25:26Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > As for Ron Paul, he is obviously not a racist. Nobody has EVER found him saying anything racist in his career. At the risk of dragging myself headlong into this trainwreck of a thread, I refer the poster to the [previous trainwreck of a thread initiated by himself](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=561794&highlight=rand+paul), in which Mr. Paul’s racist pedigrees were examined in detail. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/883 "2010-09-10T03:28:54Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Nope, the Austrians and classical economists dispute your cites. It is not inherently wrong to say that inflation is rising prices because that is when people KNOW there is inflation and feel its effects. But the precipitating event that causes the rise in prices is the creation of money. > > > > You have to read Mises and the Austrians to understand the harm caused by inflation. > > > > I wouldn’t recommend you read anybody else in regards to learning about inflation other than the Austrian economists. > > Unfortunately for you, the Austrians have ignored the fact that language evolves, and **inflation** is now synonymous with **price inflation**. You want it to be synonymous with **monetary inflation** , and though that may have been true at one point, it is not used nor defined in that fashion any longer. [Cite](http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/1997/1015.pdf) (PDF warning). > > You can continue to deny the actual definition of the word “inflation”, as it is used by speakers of English and defined in the dictionary, and you’ll continue to be wrong. If you want to speak of monetary inflation and why we should worry about it, feel free. Just don’t try to deny reality on this any longer. And as long as you continue to use the notion of rising prices to define inflation, the true harm attributable to inflation will be hidden. I am not making a big deal of the fact that people term inflation as rising prices, but the point I am making is that we should limit inflation by reducing the growth in the monetary base. The focus should be on monetary policy, not rising prices. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/884 "2010-09-10T03:32:29Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > > [@Oldeb](#): > > > > Are these two because of Ron Paul’s belief that the government has secretly been stealing from itself to fund CIA black ops and periodically dumping gold on the market to keep the price of gold low for the sinster purpose of… um… sinster stuff? > > Boy, if the CIA has been dumping gold to keep the price down, then the _real price_ would have to bee $2000-3000/ounce. :eek: Oh, the CIA isn’t doing the dumping. Sorry if I was unclear. According to the esteemed Mr. Paul the CIA is stealing it. The Federal Reserve is the one secretly dumping it on the market through shell companies because, um, just because, okay? The CIA and the Reserve are basically in a race to see who can loot the place first. Ron Paul even claims that it might already be all gone. We clearly should have stored it somewhere safer. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/885 "2010-09-10T03:34:12Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > No, but they relied on the people to nominate judges that would interpret the Constitution the right way. They gave us plenty of information that would leave us with no doubt on the proper interpretation. > > > > They also supported Nullification as a way for the states to OVERRULE the Supreme Court, so they thought of that as well. > > > > What is your opinion of nullification? The founder did advocate it to protect the people from unconstitutional laws, after all. > > I’ll probably regret this, but I have to point out this [libertarian fantasy](http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/) is balderdash. Yes, there was a concept of nullification bandied about by a few during the early days of the Republic, but it was a distincly minority view and firmly repudiated. Wikipedia gives a pretty decent summary. See [Nullification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)), [the Kentucy and Virginia Resolutions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions) and [the Nullification Crisis of 1832](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis). What is wrong with the concept of Nullification? You are right that it was practiced sparingly and effectively ended in conversation after the Civil War, but the Founders saw it as a much more moderate step short of secession. It was another way to restrain the power of the Federal Government and protect the liberties of the inhabitants. So tell me, in your own words what is wrong with ressurrecting the concept of Nullification? What about California effectively nullifying Federal laws against Marijuana? Surely you support that? What is your view on the concept of Nullification? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/886 "2010-09-10T03:35:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You can pretty much dismiss out of hand _any_ claim that presents the founders as a monolithic entity as balderdash. > > Maybe not “the founders believed in gravity”. I never said that. But there were certain consensus issues that emerged in their writings that can be verified with only a slight bit of effort. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/887 "2010-09-10T03:37:14Z")
No, there aren’t, since we have little or no writings to reflect the beliefs of the majority of the founders… and regardless of whether you “said” it, you phrased your statement that way. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/888 "2010-09-10T03:38:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Much of the Constitution doesn’t have any inherent merit or logic. For example, the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination; it’s there to ensure that torturing people to wring confessions from them is pointless. > > Well, people simply don’t get tortured anymore, and when they do, we come up with a useful legal fiction (or several) to deny them civil rights anyway. > > However, the Constitution _itself_ has come to hold intrinsic value; things are rights because they’re in the Constitution (or aren’t because they’re not). That means the views of the Founders are relevant to some people, since the Constitution and its amendments are vague. > > I’m not one of them, and I think looking for the original intent of people who’ve been dead 250 years is a fool’s errand, but there you go. No, we should change the Constitution to keep up with the times. But we shouldn’t ignore it. Is that so hard to understand? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/889 "2010-09-10T03:42:59Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > > [@rogerbox](#): > > > > No, you’re not. Also, it is unusual for black folk to use the phrase “our founding fathers”, I guess because they question the wisdom and ethics of people who kept other human beings as work animals. > > There were numerous Founding Fathers who were anti-slavery (including some who had owned slaves). [Ben Franklin](http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/franklin/) was one; others included James Madison, John Jay and Thomas Jefferson. > > There are reasons for questioning whether the Founders > opinions should be sacrosanct today; dismissing them all on the grounds that they were pro-slavery is not a valid justification. Yes, I agree with this. The founders had many faults but the nation they founded and the documents they provided are superior to any nation in the history of the world. THIS is why we respect the opinions of the founders. Respect for human liberty has been rare throughout history. An expressly limited government and properly delegated powers and respect for private property and contracts was rare as well. Everything that we have accomplished and come to be in the world is due to the framework laid out by the founders. Some of them owned slaves and had personal faults. They were certainly products of their era. But these did not diminish their accomplishments. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/890 "2010-09-10T03:47:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > There are also biases and agendas even among scientists. This manifests when Insurance companies demand “proof” of success before they will cover a procedure. Frequently there IS proof and abundant studies, however some non partial entity will rule that there is no “scientific” validity to the procedure, or it “requires more study”. > > Isn’t this the free market at work, though? This isn’t a scientific issue, necessarily, it’s a question of what the insurance companies want to pay for. Yes it is. My only point was not to put to much faith in “scientific” consensus because of the biases that exist and the protection of the market for certain types of medical procedures. In a true free market most people would pay out of pocket for most medical expenses and insurance would be for major medical procedures. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/891 "2010-09-10T03:49:58Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > I want to add one more thing in response to this post. I think it is ridiculous to have such an overwhelming emphasis on arbitrary tests and double blind studies as the only criteria for the validity of a medical procedure or health product. > > > > The true criteria is the results that patients receive. With Prolotherapy more than 90% of patients typically get mostly better or all the way better. This is FAR higher than any surgery or conventional medical treatment and without any risk whatsoever. > > You demonstrate a shocking ignorance about how clinical studies work, and the scientific method in general. How can you dismiss controlled studies, then claim that 90% of patients get better with prolotherapy? Why? Just because the ones you happened to talk to say so? How can you draw an informed conclusion from totally random data? You might as well predict efficacy by looking at tea leaves. > > You clearly think anecdotal evidence is superior to clinical evidence. If you demonstrate such lack of rigor in biology, why should we have any more confidence in your knowledge about economics? I don’t think your method is capable of discerning what economic theory will lead to the greatest prosperity for the largest number of people. Your devotion to libertarianism has more in common with the blind faith of a religion than a rational, informed economic theory based on empirical data. No, you misunderstood me. The doctors who perform the procedure keep data on who gets better and who doesn’t. And there have been many tests done to prove to effectiveness of the procedure. However, if insurance companies and Medicare don’t want to cover it, they claim their doctors haven’t verified it, so it has no merit. I am objecting to this. If you work in a clinic and see people getting better all the time, you wouldn’t need a study to confirm what you are seeing in front of your eyes. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/892 "2010-09-10T03:53:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > > [@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. I don’t think my concerns are unfounded. Sometimes there is only one company manufacturing the vaccine to treat a number of people. I don’t think it would be as hard as you think to pull off. People don’t pay attention anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Page\_Fault](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ad7895/32.png) [@Page\_Fault](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Page_Fault)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/893 "2010-09-10T03:54:55Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > No, you misunderstood me. The doctors who perform the procedure keep data on who gets better and who doesn’t. And there have been many tests done to prove to effectiveness of the procedure. However, if insurance companies and Medicare don’t want to cover it, they claim their doctors haven’t verified it, so it has no merit. > > I am objecting to this. If you work in a clinic and see people getting better all the time, you wouldn’t need a study to confirm what you are seeing in front of your eyes. Thalidomide worked pretty well, too. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/894 "2010-09-10T03:56:02Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > No, they were full of contradictions and faults. I am not one to deify the founders. But lets be real for a minute. I substantially believe that most of the founders were closer to libertarianism than modern liberalism. How can you dispute this? This is why people have so much trouble with your “debating” style. I never made the claim that the founders were closer to either libertarianism or modern liberalism, so how can I be disputing that idea? Instead of actually responding to the statements I actually made, you ignore them, and then decide to respond to something you’ve created in your head. What I stated (and this is now the 3rd time I’m stating it) is that there are a number of philosophical constructs which claim as their basis the idea of “personal liberty.” Simply saying that someone believes in personal liberty does not mean that they are a libertarian (and your proof for their libertarianism is a bunch of dodgy quotes apparently, so now you don’t even have the proof of your idea to argue with). And I have also pointed out to you that they did a number of things which completely contradict libertarianism. Slavery is such a violation of the fundamental principles of libertarianism that owning slaves or tolerating slavery is enough to disqualify someone. However, they just didn’t do that. They purchased land or seized it and then gave it away for free or at reduced-market rates. This is wealth redistribution, plain and simple. They used government money to finance canals and roads which were turned over to the private sector. This is centralized industrial policy. They restricted economic or political activity based on gender or race or other arbitrary construct. This again, violates basic libertarian principles. Remember, the government would actually prevent private individuals from forming voluntary economic relationships with each other because of race/gender/ etc. (primarily on the state level, but since the Feds owned so much land, it happened on the Federal level as well). And since **tomndebb** brought up the Whiskey Rebellion, I should also point out that this whiskey tax was levied in part as a sin tax to get the backing of the temperance movement. That sort of moral economic manipulation by the government is completely antithetical to libertarianism. Your argument is like saying you can be a vegan and still eat meat. Or you can be a feminist and practice female genital mutilation on infants. If you can practice slavery, industrial policy, economic restriction, wealth redistribution and industrial policy and still be a libertarian, then anyone can be a libertarian. I guess everyone who has ever lived is a libertarian under this definition. They were, in a nutshell, aristocratic mercantilists and crony capitalists, with many of them believing that government should be used to achieve a “greater good” (however they defined it). They certainly did not take the approach that an unregulated market was a greater good in and of itself (which is an approach that many modern libertarians take). They were quite happy to use the government as a means to an end (although they may have disagreed about the wisdom or morality of certain ends). ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/895 "2010-09-10T04:04:27Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > **Does anyone else here see the absurdity of me being held accountable for each and every story posted on each website I link to?** > > Not when you say things like, I dunno, this? > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > It is impossible for me to undo all this programming and propaganda in one post (or many posts), so allow me to suggest some resources and individuals you may follow to become more astute as well as cautioning you from looking at certain mainstream outlets that will not inform you. > > That’s from your magnum opus that started this whole thing. Part 3 to be exact. Yes but ITRChampion was picking things out from threads I created a long time ago. Most of the websites I linked to are free of any and all controversial material. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/896 "2010-09-10T04:06:58Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > As for Ron Paul, he is obviously not a racist. Nobody has EVER found him saying anything racist in his career. > > At the risk of dragging myself headlong into this trainwreck of a thread, I refer the poster to the [previous trainwreck of a thread initiated by himself](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=561794&highlight=rand+paul), in which Mr. Paul’s racist pedigrees were examined in detail. Nope, the only thing anyone ever says is in reference to a newsletter Ron Paul lent his name to in the early 90s. Some other people wrote the articles. Nobody has ever heard Ron Paul say anything remotely close to the quotes in the newsletter. Nobody believes that those reflect his views. So, unless you have something else, you fail. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/897 "2010-09-10T04:09:28Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > > [@samclem](#): > > > > Boy, if the CIA has been dumping gold to keep the price down, then the _real price_ would have to bee $2000-3000/ounce. :eek: > > Oh, the CIA isn’t doing the dumping. Sorry if I was unclear. According to the esteemed Mr. Paul the CIA is stealing it. The Federal Reserve is the one secretly dumping it on the market through shell companies because, um, just because, okay? > > The CIA and the Reserve are basically in a race to see who can loot the place first. Ron Paul even claims that it might already be all gone. We clearly should have stored it somewhere safer. You have this tone that implies believing such a thing is ludicrous. In fact to an educated mind, it is highly believable. You think all the gold is in Fort Knox? Shouldn’t we know? Shouldn’t we reign in the power of the CIA? What are they doing of benefit to us? ---
**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 10, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/898 "2010-09-10T04:13:07Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > The doctors who perform the procedure keep data on who gets better and who doesn’t. Please explain the concept of double-blinding, and why is is important in collecting unbiased data. Extra credit if you can do so without linking to [mises.org](http://mises.org) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/899 "2010-09-10T04:20:44Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Yes it is. My only point was not to put to much faith in “scientific” consensus because of the biases that exist and the protection of the market for certain types of medical procedures. So far you’re showing no understanding of that market. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > I don’t think my concerns are unfounded. Sometimes there is only one company manufacturing the vaccine to treat a number of people. Give me an example. For instance [the CDC says six companies make the seasonal flu vaccine.](http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxsupply.htm) > [@](#): > > I don’t think it would be as hard as you think to pull off. People don’t pay attention anyway. People would pay attention if someone reported that the government was putting poisons in vaccines. They certainly paid attention to a lot of garbage about thimerosal and autism! Like I said, you’re positing a big conspiracy and one that doesn’t make any sense. It’s not in a drug company’s interests to keep the population down. The strict definition of conspiracy (a group of people working together toward a goal) does not apply here; we’re talking about an enormous government conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/900 "2010-09-10T04:29:20Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I don’t think my concerns are unfounded. Sometimes there is only one company manufacturing the vaccine to treat a number of people. I don’t think it would be as hard as you think to pull off. This reminds me of the 9/11 nutter who think it would be ‘easy’ to wire the twin towers for explosive demolition without anyone noticing. A few posts ago jrod was complaining about vaccines were a big profit source and that pharmaceutical companies were adding more and more. When it was pointed out the number of vaccines has been dropping dramatically and only a few companies make them anymore he comes up with the switcheroo conspiracy you see above. Anything to keep hating that damn evil vaccines that only saved millions of lives. > [@](#): > > People don’t pay attention anyway. Do you have any idea how drugs are manufactured and tested? (rhetorical question, BTW, we know from your other comments that the answer is ‘not in the slightest’). In production you can’t just add another pipet to the holder labeled “SEKRIT X” and tell the workers to use it. You can’t tell the people in QA to just ignore that cyanide, and you can’t hope the outside independent lab that does the batch inspection won’t notice you have added ‘Nad-shrinker permanent baby preventer #9’. Even if you ignore all the issues that makes jrod’s claims such a bad joke, the idea of putting poison into vaccines to do something to people’s health seems to come under that Trope of ‘needlessly complicated’. Somewhere I see an agent of the Sinister Intelligence Agency stroking a white cat and saying “Thanks to the clever additions to the vaccine these people will have…possible theoretical long term health complications!!! Mwahahahahaha!!!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=46)