Posted on 09/05/2021 11:30:11 AM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
grey_whiskers wrote: “From Karl Denninger’s Market Ticker site recently: “And don’t kid yourself — those arguing that Jacobson, a USSC decision centering on smallpox from 1905, a disease with a 30% fatality rate, are flat-out wrong on several levels.”
Why am I not surprised that you would use “Karl Denninger’s Market Ticker site” as a source for both medical and legal advice? There are a plethora of other medical and legal sites that offer a much more scholarly analysis of this question. IOW, Karl Denninger is an American technology businessman, finance blogger, and political activist, sometimes referred to as a founding member of the Tea Party movement. Not the kind of resume that would lend credence to this article. I would suggest a google search of Jacobson v. Massachusetts to get more reliable and credible analysis. FWIW, Jacobson v. Massachusetts has been the law of the land for over 100 years. It has been challenged multiple times citing essentially the same arguments made by the anti-vaxxer community against the COVID vaccines and has that community has lost each challenge.
As usual for a troll.
Lie, deny, attack the source.
Is he wrong that the fatality rate for smallpox was 30% (100 TIMES more than the coof)?
Is he wrong that the penalty for refusing a shot was $5 back then?
Is he wrong that a jury trial was given to the guy he mentioned who refused the shot, which resulted in the Court Case giving precedence?
Is he wrong that the penalty was not exacted on the spot by unaccountable public “servants” (har!) ?
and “founding member of the Tea Party Movement?” Why does it sound like you’ve been playing tonsil-hockey with Peter Hotez “Russian disinformation” “associated with right wing extremists who think Trump won the election” “Call in the UN”?
IF it has been challenged essentially on the same grounds, cite the references. Was it challenged in State or Federal Courts? Federal Court precedent is binding only in the district under which the decision was made (think challenges to “qualified immunity”).
Denninger has demonstrated competence in many areas.
Dismiss him as a “blogger” at your own peril.
DuncanWaring wrote: “Denninger has demonstrated competence in many areas.”
Where did he obtain his medical credentials?
grey_whiskers wrote: “IF it has been challenged essentially on the same grounds, cite the references. Was it challenged in State or Federal Courts? Federal Court precedent is binding only in the district under which the decision was made (think challenges to “qualified immunity”).”
Why not do your own research? It isn’t difficult. Google is your friend.
Where did you obtain yours?
He generally cites research by those who do have formal medical credentials.
Here, for example:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243495
Does one need medical credentials to do that?
Like I said before, ignore him at your own peril.
I’m perfectly capable of doing my own research which is why I regularly handed 2ndtrollprotectstherest defeats on his propaganda.
Goolag is NOT my friend. Goolag wants us dead or enslaved.
Rosa Parks? The last time this analogy was used for a less noble purpose it was for Linda Tripp. You’ve done it even better.
grey_whiskers wrote: “I’m perfectly capable of doing my own research which is why I regularly handed 2ndtrollprotectstherest defeats on his propaganda.”
Rather delusional of you.
grey_whiskers wrote: “Goolag is NOT my friend. Goolag wants us dead or enslaved.”
Such beliefs explain your delusions.
Google is Evil.
DuncanWaring wrote: “Where did you obtain yours? He generally cites research by those who do have formal medical credentials.”
I’ve never claimed to have the medical credentials to interpret studies. Dinninger does not have the credentials to support the claims he makes which are little more than the standard anti-vaxxer talking points.
Not only that but Dinninger claims that the JAMA study proves that:
-The jabs are worthless to inhibit the spread of Covid-19.
-If you are jabbed you are just as likely, if not more-likely, to give the virus to others.
- The insistence of jabs in medical settings is now, on the science, converted from “will protect patients” to will, with scientific certainty, screw unvaccinated patients, some of whom cannot be vaccinated and thus now constitutes gross negligence and depraved indifference to human life.
There is nothing in the JAMA study to support those claims. Here are the ‘key points’ and ‘abstract’ from the JAMA Study:
Key Points
Question Based on blood donations in the US from July 2020 through May 2021, how did infection- and vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence vary over time by demographic group and by geographic region?
Findings In this repeated cross-sectional study that included 1 443 519 blood donation specimens from a catchment area representing 74% of the US population, estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence weighted for differences between the study sample and general population increased from 3.5% in July 2020 to 20.2% for infection-induced antibodies and 83.3% for combined infection- and vaccine-induced antibodies in May 2021. Seroprevalence differed by age, race and ethnicity, and geographic region of residence, but these differences changed over the course of the study.
Meaning Based on a sample of blood donations in the US from July 2020 through May 2021, estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence increased over time and varied by age, race and ethnicity, and geographic region.
Abstract
Importance People who have been infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 have reduced risk of subsequent infection, but the proportion of people in the US with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from infection or vaccination is uncertain.
There is nothing there that supports Dinninger’s outlandish claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.