Internet Censorship.

[tigermud]

so the judge had to order him to submit to the depos... ie he was refusing and contesting them.

he keeps contesting and losing motions. That's usually when a defendant sees the writing on the wall, and realizes it's time to open up the checkbook and settle before you spend $100,000's more in legal bills. and keep your mouth shut.

and if he's needlessly delaying depos and what not in bad faith, and the other side has to go back to court just to get him to show up and do what he's legally obligated to, he could get stuck paying THE OTHER SIDE's attorneys fees as well.

I'm not 100% sure but I think he already tried to settle sometime back and they refused. He's going to get raked over the coals on this one. I'd still be interested in knowing just who or whoms harassed those parents and if they were influenced by him or not. I still haven't seen that evidence and we all know there have been plenty of cases of lefty group provocation against anything trump and all those who support him, ends justify the means crap.


And I don't want any your snake oil. The current snake oil I have works just fine thank you very much.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm guessing he - assuming he had a better case then he did - offered to settle for too little.

this is also one of three cases.

I'm amazed he's wealthy enough, after his divorce already which must've been expensivd, to keep paying his attorneyS.

 

[tigermud]

well they are a private company they can ban whoever or whatever they want lines starting to blur as expected

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ys-it-may-remove-anti-vaccine-recommendations

Fascist! your right to express views that differ from the Establishment not allowed. under pressure from libtard intolerant tyrants.


Fake news!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XUM2gvfbW8#action=share


And how dare those C2C assholes think their should still be open debate on the subject

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2019/02/07

Ban them! Silence them! throw em all into re-education camps along with the climate change deniers, Shift shit and the sci guy would agree.

And in other fake news it looks to be official now Smollett staged his attack and tried to blame it on trump supporters

Chicago PD says not so fast that’s not confirmed by them yet

But...it’s been well more than 48 hours now on that item and I’m going to conclude it was staged, videos cameras don’t collaborate his story he faked it and tried to pin it on the MAGA hat. Dispicable libtards

 

[Michchamp]

To no one in particular... if you are anti-vaccination, you are:
1) dumb as shit
2) actively harmful to the rest of society.

 

[Spartanmack]

To no one in particular... if you are anti-vaccination, you are:
1) dumb as shit
2) actively harmful to the rest of society.

aren't they really only harmful to themselves or their unvaccinated kids? If I'm vaccinated, what do I care if some idiot isn't? There is the risk to newborns but we didn't take our newborn kids anywhere they would be at risk until they were vaccinated.

 

[Gulo Blue]

aren't they really only harmful to themselves or their unvaccinated kids? If I'm vaccinated, what do I care if some idiot isn't? There is the risk to newborns but we didn't take our newborn kids anywhere they would be at risk until they were vaccinated.

It's about herd immunity and the fact that some people can't get vaccinated (due to compromised immune systems or allergies). If we don't hit whatever the magic % is (which is a different % for different diseases), then the likelihood of it getting spread around goes way up and people that can't get vaccines for medical reasons are at risk.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Also, other Americans being sick, is bad for America. Like fundamentally. If you need medical care and are less productive, that terrible for you, but also bad for the community.

 

[Michchamp]

aren't they really only harmful to themselves or their unvaccinated kids? If I'm vaccinated, what do I care if some idiot isn't? There is the risk to newborns but we didn't take our newborn kids anywhere they would be at risk until they were vaccinated.

does this mean you kept your newborn kids at home in a bubble until they had all their first round shots, like around age 2 or whatever?

I don't remember every vaccine my oldest got, but I remember reading through the chart and noting a number of them (notably MMR) couldn't be given until 12-15 months of age. And a few of the multiple-shot vaccines aren't complete until age 4 or 6.

long time to keep your kids isolated...

 

[Michchamp]

Imagine being a father, and helping your wife through nine months of pregnancy, going through the emotional stress of birth alongside your wife.

then caring for your newborn child for several months, changing diapers, singing to them goodnight, watching them experience the world for the first time, start to crawl, etc. And you want to take them places, like you should... the park, a restaurant, visiting friends and family, etc.

Only to have them contract the measels, suffer in front of you for a week, and die, all because some self-important nincompoop who's willing to buy health supplements from a blathering drunk conspiracy theorist online, but thinks he or she knows better than a medical doctor when it comes to common sense medical procedures that are pretty much free, doesn't get their kids vaccinated?

If that happened to me, I'd want to go strangle every anti-vaxxer I came across with my bare hands.

 

[TheVictors]

Hey, what the hell happened to my post?!






Michchamp are you ratting out other posters again????

 

[Michchamp]

Hey, what the hell happened to my post?!






Michchamp are you ratting out other posters again????

Whoops, I meant to report spartanmack's post, but must've clicked yours instead!

I like to report one of his posts every once and a while. not all of them, just one, here and there.

mods, please go back and delete the other post.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's about herd immunity and the fact that some people can't get vaccinated (due to compromised immune systems or allergies). If we don't hit whatever the magic % is (which is a different % for different diseases), then the likelihood of it getting spread around goes way up and people that can't get vaccines for medical reasons are at risk.

but aren't vaccinated people possible carriers/transmitters of these diseases? If that's true, it's the unvaccinated that are at risk so people with compromised immune systems or allergies aren't more at risk from unvaccinated than they are vaccinated people. Is that not correct?

 

[Gulo Blue]

but aren't vaccinated people possible carriers/transmitters of these diseases? If that's true, it's the unvaccinated that are at risk so people with compromised immune systems or allergies aren't more at risk from unvaccinated than they are vaccinated people. Is that not correct?

No. I don't know where you heard that, but it's wrong.



I don't think it's even theoretically possible in dead virus vaccines and in the case of live virus vaccines, even if there's a window where it's possible, the benefit of herd immunity >> the risk of not achieving herd immunity.


Are you for real with this or are you just entertaining yourself?

 

[Spartanmack]

does this mean you kept your newborn kids at home in a bubble until they had all their first round shots, like around age 2 or whatever?

I don't remember every vaccine my oldest got, but I remember reading through the chart and noting a number of them (notably MMR) couldn't be given until 12-15 months of age. And a few of the multiple-shot vaccines aren't complete until age 4 or 6.

long time to keep your kids isolated...

My kids got 6 major vaccinations by 6 months. It's not that difficult to avoid big crowds before then, 6 month olds don't go to school, they don't get much out of concerts and we never go to malls. and they got MMR at 12 months but we still weren't taking them to concerts, raves, sporting events, etc at that age. The biggest crowds they were exposed to were at church and maybe the grocery store. I guess we were taking some risk, but we don't live in a part of the country where there are a lot of anti-vaccers. If we had a newborn, we did avoid 1 family on the wife's side when they were in town visiting my in-laws because the wife was an anti-vaccer.

 

[Spartanmack]

No. I don't know where you heard that, but it's wrong.



I don't think it's even theoretically possible in dead virus vaccines and in the case of live virus vaccines, even if there's a window where it's possible, the benefit of herd immunity >> the risk of not achieving herd immunity.


Are you for real with this or are you just entertaining yourself?

so a vaccinated person travels to a 3rd world country where they're exposed to mumps or measles or polio - they can't have that virus on their body, clothing, personal effects and transmit it to someone who isn't vaccinated? The only way to get it is from an unvaccinated host? That doesn't seem like such an outrageous question.

 

[Gulo Blue]

so a vaccinated person travels to a 3rd world country where they're exposed to mumps or measles or polio - they can't have that virus on their body, clothing, personal effects and transmit it to someone who isn't vaccinated? The only way to get it is from an unvaccinated host? That doesn't seem like such an outrageous question.

What?


You were asking if vaccinated people are a danger to people with compromised immune systems relative to unvaccinated people. Now you want to send that person to a 3rd world country to get virus on their body or clothes?


No - I don't see how having or not having a vaccine impacts a person's ability to carry pathogens on their body or clothes.


I'm a sucker for having responded to this, aren't I?

 

[Spartanmack]

What?


You were asking if vaccinated people are a danger to people with compromised immune systems relative to unvaccinated people. Now you want to send that person to a 3rd world country to get virus on their body or clothes?


No - I don't see how having or not having a vaccine impacts a person's ability to carry pathogens on their body or clothes.


I'm a sucker for having responded to this, aren't I?

No, but you're missing the point by quite a bit. I wasn't asking that. I was asking if that risk existed. It's the same point, I'm just giving an example of how a vaccinated person could be a potential carrier - it doesn't have to be a third world country, it's just that they'd be more likely to be exposed in a place where the virus is more common. Can you not be infected and not be a carrier? Even the unvaccinated person has to be exposed to the virus somehow in order to spread it, don't they?

Is there no risk to an unvaccinated person in a crowd of vaccinated people or just less risk and how much less risk? To me it seems the anti-vaccers aren't really compromising the herd because 99% of it is vaccinated, they're compromising themselves unless they increase the probability of viral mutations.

 

[Gulo Blue]

No, but you're missing the point by quite a bit. I wasn't asking that. I was asking if that risk existed. It's the same point, I'm just giving an example of how a vaccinated person could be a potential carrier - it doesn't have to be a third world country, it's just that they'd be more likely to be exposed in a place where the virus is more common. Can you not be infected and not be a carrier? Even the unvaccinated person has to be exposed to the virus somehow in order to spread it, don't they?

Is there no risk to an unvaccinated person in a crowd of vaccinated people or just less risk?

Are you hanging on absolutes with this argument or no? I can't technically say "no risk" since the risk is non-zero and we're now talking about pathogens on clothing.



But what is the point of discussing this non-zero chance in the context of and increase in people not vaccinating their children and the effectiveness of herd immunity?

 

[Spartanmack]

Are you hanging on absolutes with this argument or no? I can't technically say "no risk" since the risk is non-zero and we're now talking about pathogens on clothing.



But what is the point of discussing this non-zero chance in the context of and increase in people not vaccinating their children and the effectiveness of herd immunity?

no, I'm not arguing absolutes. I'm asking 2 questions. the first is so long as anti-vaccers are a tiny % of the herd, are they really compromising the herd given that a large % of the herd is vaccinated or are they just compromising themselves and other unvaccinated members of the herd? So long as 99% of the herd is vaccinated, 99 percent survives, right?

the other question is, are the antivaccers significantly increasing the risk for those who can't be vaccinated. How much does infection vs simple exposure increase the risk of transmission? I suppose the answer depends on the virus among other factors.

 

[Gulo Blue]

no, I'm not arguing absolutes. I'm asking 2 questions. the first is so long as anti-vaccers are a tiny % of the herd, are they really compromising the herd given that a large % of the herd is vaccinated or are they just compromising other unvaccinated members of the herd? So long as 99% of the herd is vaccinated, 99 percent survives, right?

the other question is, are the antivaccers significantly increasing the risk for those who can't be vaccinated. How much does infection vs simple exposure increase the risk of transmission? I suppose the answer depends on the virus among other factors.

OK. That helps. 1) correct. So long as you're far from the tipping point herd immunity %, no, 1 more unnvaccinated person doesn't increase risks much for other unvaccinated people and the vaccinated people should mostly be fine anyway.


Part 2 is conditional. The risk of infection spreading is very non-linear. There's a tipping point, that's different from place to place (population density is a factor) and from disease to disease. Let's say the magic number for a certain population is 78% Then (and I'm making up these numbers) if 90% get the vaccine, 0.1% get sick in a given year.

85% -> .2% sick.

80%-> .5% sick.

78%->1% sick.

77%->5% sick
76%->10% sick(epidemic among the unnvaccinated)


Again, I made up the numbers, but that's what I mean by 'tipping point'. If enough member of the herd are immune, we have 'herd immunity', meaning the disease is unlikely to spread through the herd because a sick person isn't likely to run into another unnvacinated person. When the number of anti-vaxxers gets too high, we lose herd immunity. But that assume a random distribution of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.



This effect is compounded by the fact that anti-vaxxers tend to be in the same social groups. So if you have a compromised immune system and you pass someone on the street that's not vaccinated but is in a group that has herd immunity and unvaccinated people are evenly distributed, there's not much of a chance they will be infected. But if a group of unvaccinated people all have their kids in the same school, there's a much higher chance when you walk by them that they will be infected.


Proof is in the news with these outbreaks.