Well said USAF.

Exposed as what, contrarian? Smart enough to see through your bullshit?

On the measles thread you never provide a link to back your claim that the Protecting America in the War on Terror Act prevents payments to people who have been injured by vaccines. All you say is this:

The Protecting America in the War on Terror Act of 2005. Inexplicably included with this legislation was a new law to revoke any future vaccine claim against any pharmaceutical company for injury or death!

and

Then you later explain away my ascertion that the Patriot Act trumped any possible compensation: That's because it's not drawing its funding from lawsuits against the pharmaceutical companies.

In your first statement you assert it prevents lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, not lawsuits in general. Then you say it prevents ANY compensation. You're not even internally consistent (not surprising to everyone else, I know...).

In the doctors thread, you claim you debunked the notion that the Vaccine injury board is still hearing cases and giving out compensation by siting the other thread and ignoring requests for links.

So how about you post the link to the bill with the section sited for everyone to read. You haven't debunked shit until you do and you'll continue to talk out your ass until you do.

But I'm guessing you'll revel in your delusions of grandeur and continue to believe you've won any debate.

go away, jpw. you're exposed.

As what?

BTW no link=talking out your ass

Your star "doctor" is an anonymous self-proclaimed eccentric named Orac!

Why do you put doctor in quotes? Unlike Tenpenny, he's an actual MD.

And I never called him my star doctor. I gave the link with the admission that it wasn't the greatest but was what I had off the top of my head.

This is from the site you provided as your key evidence to debunk the "anti-vaccine whackos".

No, just Tenpenny.

Also, see above.

Wow, you really are off the deep end.

In regards to Orac and respectful insolence, I actually listed it because I read the blog periodically because it is predominantly about various pseudo-science claims out there and often about vaccines. I admitted it wasn't the greatest, but was the easiest and quickest one to come off the top of my head.

On top of all of that, you still can't deny the Patriot Act disallows reimbursement from any pandemic vaccine injury or death.

Until you provide more than your assertion that this is in fact true, I absolutely can deny it. I looked up the bill, but didn't really feel like reading it all. Considering you're the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to do all the leg work. You haven't. At least own up to that.

You posted the link trying to pass off a story on a reward by the compensation fund - - and try to falsely discredit my statement saying it was 2008 when in fact it was awarded in 2008, but the case preceded the Patriot Act (vaccination in question was in 2000) provision which I clearly repeatedly stated was the case and that it was in 2005.

I presented the case as it was-a judgment handed down in 2008. It contradicts your assertion that the Patriot Act prevents compensation for vaccine injuries and yet you STILL haven't brought any sort of link or evidence that your assertions are true to contradict or clarify the story.

You have never admitted your error, but continue to cover it up.

Because I made no error. You made a claim which I found was contradicted by a recent news story. You've continued to make that claim based on nothing more than your word while denying the story I posted as contradictory evidence.

In fact, to hide this, you want to put the onus on me, saying I haven't posted my link.

Because it IS on you to support your claims and you STILL haven't posted your link. Hell, I'll even take a link to something other than the bill that states what you are stating along with the citations for the sections of the bill it supposedly is contained in. You've yet to provide either.

You showed you could Google. I gave you the exact title of the bill that passed as law in 2005. Certainly you could find it, no? Ok, no, actually I made it up, LOL.

I did find it. Again, it is not my responsibility to find evidence to back or discredit your claim.

Are you not posting the link because one doesn't exist? Did you read that on some quack site and take their word for it? You're doing an awful lot of dancing over a point you seem awfully confident in making. Could it be you've been caught talking out your ass? I think so.