5 ms·

It’s not odd at all. And the vaccine is safe. Your only plausible argument would be that it’s useless, which we know is not true generally.

by sjg007 5y ago

ThunderSizzle 5y ago
> And the vaccine is safe. Are you willing to stake liability on that? Is anyone willing to stake their liability on that point? The answer is no. No one has liability, which means theirs no incentives for honesty, accuracy, or transparency. Without the threat of lawsuits and bankruptcy, why would a vaccine company be more transparent and honest, than say Microsoft?
- sjg007 5y ago
  Huh? I don’t get your point? No vaccine provider has ever taken liability which is why we have the vaccine National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The threat of lawsuits is not the only nor the best way to enforce quality. In fact we have regulations and the FDA for this reason.
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    Liability isn't something to take. A liability exists as the nature that there is a cost that someone else is responsible for. E.g. if I start a fire in my kitchen, even unintentially, and it spreads to another's home (or apartment), I'm liable for the damaged of that fire to those affected by the fire. I can't just say "oh, you can't sue me. I don't take liability". But I can lobby the government to say "you can't sue him" which is what these vaccine companies did and continue to do.
    - sjg007 5y ago
      Liability is defined by the law.
      - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
        Liability is a concept. If the vaccines cause you harm, then the vaccine company is liable. And as with all concepts, yes - they are defined by laws and statues so that society can function and the rules of the game can be determined. Vaccine companies changed their rules so they don't play the liability game like everyone else. Maybe fast food restaurants shouldn't be liable when they poison people too?

5 ms·

It’s not odd at all. And the vaccine is safe. Your only plausible argument would be that it’s useless, which we know is not true generally.

by sjg007 5y ago

It’s not odd at all. And the vaccine is safe. Your only plausible argument would be that it’s useless, which we know is not true generally.

ThunderSizzle 5y ago
> And the vaccine is safe. Are you willing to stake liability on that? Is anyone willing to stake their liability on that point? The answer is no. No one has liability, which means theirs no incentives for honesty, accuracy, or transparency. Without the threat of lawsuits and bankruptcy, why would a vaccine company be more transparent and honest, than say Microsoft?
- sjg007 5y ago
  Huh? I don’t get your point? No vaccine provider has ever taken liability which is why we have the vaccine National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The threat of lawsuits is not the only nor the best way to enforce quality. In fact we have regulations and the FDA for this reason.
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    Liability isn't something to take. A liability exists as the nature that there is a cost that someone else is responsible for. E.g. if I start a fire in my kitchen, even unintentially, and it spreads to another's home (or apartment), I'm liable for the damaged of that fire to those affected by the fire. I can't just say "oh, you can't sue me. I don't take liability". But I can lobby the government to say "you can't sue him" which is what these vaccine companies did and continue to do.
    - sjg007 5y ago
      Liability is defined by the law.
      - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
        Liability is a concept. If the vaccines cause you harm, then the vaccine company is liable. And as with all concepts, yes - they are defined by laws and statues so that society can function and the rules of the game can be determined. Vaccine companies changed their rules so they don't play the liability game like everyone else. Maybe fast food restaurants shouldn't be liable when they poison people too?