Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
Thanks for the clarification. I do not know which specific vaccine mandates you are referring to, but if you were to find the answer and post it I would be interested to learn that information.
As I pointed out, it seems to have been on the order of at least decades if not centuries between variolation of smallpox as a concept and when Washington mandated it (started in Asia, spread to Europe over time iirc). So in that sense, I did answer your question, while also pointing out how archaic the practice seems to modern people, considering it wasn't necessarily approved in the same way modern vaccines are. I would take a modern certification method over any amount of time without actual scientific study.
|
My question in and of itself has no implication, even if the answer possibly might.
But again even posing a question immediately gets people triggered.
You would need to ask @
reni in which mandates he was referencing specifically, but he stated in the last 200years (not 500) and posted a link to 1 article. Although i did find “ 1905, ruling 7-2 in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that they were constitutional.” so I limited my initial search to 1900s-present.
I guess the people that liked his post could answer which mandates unless they just blindly liked something they have no idea what the poster was even referencing because they blindly believe and follow anything they think is in support of there side/opinions.
But I digress.
Based on some research the few I had time to dive deeper into weren’t mandated before or even immediately after they had been FDA approved. Maybe some where? Hence the question.
My example I had stated was if something had 20years of testing before approval and then at least 10years of full release after approval before being mandated (polio vaccine seemed to be along those lines?) then. one: people would be less apposed and two: that it is not a good comparison to try to argue the justification for mandating a covid vaccine, when covid vaccine had maybe 1 year of testing and wasn’t even FDA approved when some mandates started rolling out. If in 5-10yrs it was mandated it would be a more comparable comparison/argument. But again I don’t know the full timeline history breakdown of all mandated vaccines since 1905 let alone 200yrs (his claim) so there very well could have been mandates pre vaccine approval. In which case his argument could have some validity. But again I’d still want to know as much context to see if it’s an equal comparison.
I had stated obvious advancements in tech/resources could speed up timetables a lot for certain aspects, but they where not a replacement for time, meaning 5-10 yr long term side effect and effectivity testing.
This isn’t/wasn’t even an argument for or against the vaccine. It was merely to see if @
reni was doing the very same thing he shamed others for doing in the very same post. My hunch and initial research points to yes, but I don’t have all the information to say for certain and my hunch could be wrong. Hence the initial question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reni
it's willfully ignorant at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.
|
Maybe this clarifies some of the confusion?