Why anti-vaxxers are twisting the facts behind the Chantix recall

a reply to: loveguy

Antivaxer is a word that's intended to put shade on people that will survive the experiment... 
Hindsight is nothing without reflecting upon the present, or vice versa? 

This. ☝

I remember years ago, I was reading about anti-vaxers and I thought "why are the media making a huge deal out of this? Jehovah's Witnesses are nothing new. Perhaps they can cause Autism, wtf do I know? I was fine after my vaccines."

Fast forward to today, the term "Anti-vaxers" is being used to the full extent of the MSM's influence.

What really pisses me off about it most is that the mRNA jabs aren't even vaccines...

Imagine trying to beat Smallpox with a jab that doesn't even stop you carrying it and potentially still kills you...?

...

Umm, something is horribly wrong with this picture.

There's been several just in the car industry over the years.

"On the ropes after paying out millions to victims of the Pinto debacle, Ford faced another disastrous recall in 1980 after the NHTSA announced after a three-year investigation it found that Ford automatic transmissions built between 1966 and 1980 contained a defect where they could slip from park into reverse, causing them to roll unexpectedly.

After reports by Mother Jones and the Detroit Free Press, it came out that the company had known about the defect since at least 1972, and rejected a design improvement that would have cost $0.03 per car to fix the issue. Instead, the company chose to quietly pay $20 million to victims and their families.

After finding that the defect was the cause of 777 accidents, including 259 injuries and 23 deaths, the NHTSA was on the verge of issuing a 23-million-car recall — a move that would have likely bankrupted Ford. In 1981, company executives pleaded poverty to the Reagan administration, and a compromise was struck: The company would mail out 23 million stickers to Ford owners to put on their dashboards, reminding them to “make sure the gear selector lever is fully engaged in Park,” and to “fully engage the parking brake” before turning the car off."

There's a fair few more.

I think the world has changed over the past 20-30 years really.

These big companies don't take the same kind of shady risks like they did in the past as getting caught is almost inevitable, look at the VW emmisions scandal.


a reply to: Wide-Eyes

a reply to: nonspecific

With all respect and what Ford did there was just ruthless for the sake of money....please stop spreading misinformation.

and rejected a design improvement that would have cost $0.03 per car to fix the issue.

That's not factual and a common misconceptions by customers or amateur wanna be mechanics. The part may have cost 3 cent. Not the fix itself. Depending on where the part sit's, the transmission has to be pulled and opened and reinstalled. That's a few hours of work. You can figure now how much it really costs.

Even if it's just a fix to a lever on the steering wheel, it's not just 3 cents.

So while it's unquestionably unmoral what Ford did, the calculation in the text posted is intentionally wrong. Also, where is your source, that's bad posting style (remember?)

originally posted by: HawkEyi
Just because 43.5 percent of the world has now has two or one doses many in those countries their adverse reactions and side effects arent being counted nor reported.

Or maybe they are not being counted or reported because there isn't any to count and report and it is all smoke and mirrors.

I'm under no obligation to you remember?

It's a quote from a website that's using the same sources as most of the articles about the scandals, I just searched for "car recall scandal" on Google and picked one at random.

You are under no obligation to believe the article but your opinion has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

Make it 10 dollars if you feel better about it, I don't care either way.


a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

But only all of DC are invested in phizer. Why wouldn't you believe them when they force you to take it?
a reply to: butcherguy

a reply to: nonspecific

Double standards... Request others to post sources all the time but you're exempt form it.

Regardless, all I wanted to point out a huge untruth, not for you, for everyone else reading it. Wouldn't you agree the truth is more valuable than your ego?

You are just nitpicking as you don't like me because of previous disagreements.

Here's the link to the one I used but there's plenty of almost identical ones and I imagine a whole heap of old news reports from the time they occoured.

www.motorbiscuit.com...

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

a reply to: nonspecific

Ford automatic transmissions built between 1966 and 1980 contained a defect where they could slip from park into reverse, causing them to roll unexpectedly.

Thats interesting. I had a 55 mercury rat rod, had a 390 and tranny from a late 60s truck..it would pop into reverse on occasion, one time we were doing the timing, dropped the hood, and it popped into reverse and rolled into my buds 65 stang..not a great afternoon..this car spelled danger..lol

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: wlee48868


I Quit Covid-19 and Chantix with Smoking ................

That explains why Charlie Sheen's still alive then.

a reply to: nonspecific
First, posting more inaccurate articles won't change what's wrong.

Second, why do you take everything personal? me me me... mimimimi. This is something reocuring with you. If someone else posted this, I would have written the same. No need to victimize yourself all the time when you loose an argument.

I've not lost any argument as there's no argument here?

You are the one with issue with the article I quoted. It's not the topic of discussion it's a side topic and if you have an issue with the cost quoted then it's up to you to show it to be wrong.

It doesn't change the fact that ford has done this type of thing and deaths have been a result at least twice, how many more times not discovered is anyone's guess.



a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

We're going way to much offtopic with this crying, fact is the cost of replacement is not 3 cent.

Keep fueling the lie

And nothing you imply is what I wrote. Nice try.

Play the game properly then and show me that it's not 3c.

As it stands it's only your opinion and that means diddly remember?


a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

a reply to: nonspecific
I charge more than 3 cent an hour, you are talking to someone owning a shop. I do warranty cases on BMW engines even.

Don't be ridiculous.

It's even linked to the article it was taken from though.

An independent safety watchdog for the auto industry that's been in operation for over 50 years now.

I'll share the link to save you having to go back and click on the actual words you are disputing are real.

www.autosafety.org...


a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

all irrelevant nonspecific
are you intentionally trying to drift the thread from the topic?

NEW CARS COME WITH WARRANTY AND THE MANUFACTORERES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM ANY LIABILTY IF A FAULT IN THEIR VEIHCLES KILLS PEOPLE

How is the warranty on the vaccine going?
does it get the mileage the manufacturer claimed in the brochure?

This started from a comment I made regarding the trust in big companies people have and how they soon forget bad things that happen.

It's that duck thats taking it off track with nitpicking, I even said that earlier.



a reply to: oddnutz

a reply to: nonspecific
You don't get it. The article is intentionally written that way. The part costs a few cent, yes maybe.

Then there's additional shipping and the time to replace that part. The replacement cost is not 3 cent, the part costs are 3 cents.

So it's not accurate to say replacement cost (that's material and time) is 3 cent. That's all.


Add:
Please I said let's stop because offtopic but you can't admit you're wrong. But actually this serves as a good example about what is done around the topics of vaccine, so it's kind of ontopic. You demonstrated a lot of "qualities" with your replies though.

Let's end this drift now.

Quoted from the article linked above from the auto watchdog.

"Further support for a recall came in the June, 1980 issue of Mother Jones Magazine which provided evidence indicating Ford knew for "at least 10 years" that transmission slippage was "killing people." Yet, in 1971, it "rejected design improvements" which would have cost 3 cents per car and would have resulted in an estimated 90% reduction in park-to-reverse repairs"

The cost was 3c and could have been done at the time of manufacturing.

Let's move forward regarding the topic of the thread and leave this be.



a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain