On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:28:59 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:19:00 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:47 am, Doug wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


And if you want to talk about idiots, you can't even get your facts
straight about the CDC. LOL

Now you're just shuckin' n' jivin' like a fool...


You sound like you are trying to hard to make a point without making
one.

Oh
I made my point all right
You just didn't get it.


Okay