Since When Do Vaccines have MERCURY in Them?!

Post Reply New Topic

What's your point jjstar? Is this just more of your generic anti-vaccination stuff?

apparently every single sustance with mercury in it, whether or not that mercury is bonded to another element, is poison. Dispite the fact that bonding with other elements fundementally changes both elements and what they do.

Just signed up, eh? You look kind of familiar. Something in phrasing there. Or maybe it's just my active imagination, eh? LOL!

The point is there. You're being so new to the forum, scroll back and catch up.

Ah, uninformed Psuedoscience tieing into his anti-vaccination sillyness. Gotcha.

Why? This arguement hasn't changed any, you wont listen to facts and spew the same anti-government anti-vaccine nonsense over and over again.

THAT hasn't been proven. You're saying so (though for the life of me I can't understand what motivates you to do so) STILL doesn't make it true. Till this very day - and it's day 4 now - you consistently show up with so-called refuatations on the evidence presented yet you have nothing - zilch - zero - nada - to support your claims. NOT A THING other than exclamation marks!

ROTFL.

Which *facts* GOCHE21? The ones you've been posting here? The ones with the caps and exclamation marks about ELEMENTS? Bring on the evidence, dude. Just do that. It's not so hard once you give it a try. Come on. For the sake of Aspies everywhere who need a boost of confidence that ALL IS WELL in Vaccination Land.

Whaddya say?

I don't want to call you an idiot, but you kind of are. It has been proven. It's basic chemistry. It was proven hundreds of years ago and nobody but you denies it. I learned about this stuff when I was in ninth grade. How old are you? What level of schooling have you achieved? Because I don't know of any educated person who would claim with a straight face that basic chemistry is unproven.

EDIT: You see what I did there? I used the edit button. It's there so you don't double post. This information has been brought to you at a great cost, so for all of our sakes, use it well.

Last edited by Ben_Cardwell on 23 Oct 2007, 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

All elements change when bonded to other elements. The properties change, as do the effects to the human body. even substances that have the same ellements, but bonded differently have remarkably different properties. Like the difference between O2, what we exhale, and O, a deadly gas. Or salt, made of Chlorine, also known as mustard gas, and sodium, which can't even be exposed to moisture without exploding. Chlorine in salt is even different from chlorine we use in pools, or to clean with.

See how elements can be very, very different with these tiny changes?

Sir, Hemoglobin contains Iron which as you can see in here is a highly toxic chemical. We should therefore cleanse ourselves of hemoglobin.

Water contains Hydrogen, which is a highly flamable substance and caused the destruction of the Hindenburg. Clearly it must be banned as well.

Scandals - 02/06/06
Ethylmercury Shmethylmercury

I just finished reading David Kirby’s thoughtful, well-written and compelling book, Evidence of Harm. Anyone who hasn’t gotten their hands on this book should order the updated paperback version as soon as it is published, sometime this month.

Unless you have been on Mars for the past few years, you are aware of a huge controversy surrounding the use of thimerosal in vaccines and the possibility that it has been a cause of autism. In his book, Kirby provides a detailed and riveting account of the controversy.

Mercury is a known neurotoxin, often said to be the second most toxic substance on the planet.

One of the weirdest aspects of this battle has been the fact that the “experts” have put themselves in the ridiculous position of saying pregnant women and children should not eat certain mercury-tainted fish or use mercury thermometers, but it is okay to inject mercury directly into the bodies of babies.

All this because ethylmercury (the form of mercury found in thimerosal) and methylmercury are different.

Of course taking this position is absurd. In the absence of proof that ethylmercury is safe, the assumption should be that it might be unsafe. One could go so far as to say that in all likelihood, merely because it is mercury, it probably IS unsafe and should be treated as such.

In fact, “mercury in any form is toxic”. So why was any mercury in any form ever allowed in vaccines?

The FDA, as reported in the Federal Register, even declared thimerosal to be unsafe in 1982, calling for its removal in over-the-counter products. Why didn’t they do the same for vaccines, which unlike the topical products removed are injected directly into the body?

Meanwhile, more recently (2004), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) attempted to close the book on this issue, in spite of compelling biological evidence that thimerosal is likely involved. Why would they use epidemiological data which in the case of their autism data did not include any comparisons to children exposed to zero mercury in vaccines? Why did they do this when it contradicted their own earlier worrisome (and until recently secret) data that did include such comparisons? And why did they use this suspect epidemiological data to trump solid biological evidence?

How could they so cavalierly dismiss evidence that not only implicated thimerosal in autism, but explained how thimerosal could damage some children and not others?

Moreover, if they were so enamored with epidemiological studies, why didn't the “experts” insist that studies comparing the vaccinated to the never vaccinated be conducted? (Instead they lumped those with allegedly zero exposure to thimerosal with those with as much as 37.5 micrograms.)

Even if the evidence against there being a relationship, however, was as strong as the IOM contended, there was still no reason to discourage research into this area, as the IOM so callously did. After all, little is ever “proved” in science. Evidence, more or less strong or weak, is usually simply presented which supports or contradicts a hypothesis. Even under the best of circumstances, one might never be able to say with absolute certainty that the mercury in thimerosal causes autism. That doesn’t mean, however, that evidence does not exist.

Or that it doesn’t cause autism.

But there is evidence. And plenty of it.

Aside from Kirby’s outstanding book outlining the evidence both for and against thimerosal being linked to vaccines, among the growing number of studies and reports confirming a possible link are the following:

Children with autism appear to be unable to rid their bodies of the mercury that they are exposed to. (Deth et al, Holmes et al)

Some populations that have not been exposed to vaccines experience little, if any, autism. (Olmsted 1, 2)

Thimerosal has been shown to be toxic to brain cells. (Haley)

Mice injected with thimerosal develop autism-like symptoms. (Hornig)

Some children who have mercury chelated (chemically bound and removed) from their bodies show a reduction in autism symptoms. (Rimland)

“Children with autism excrete more mercury than controls.” (Bradstreet via Congressman Dave Weldon)

Coincident with the decline in thimerosal use in vaccinations for infants and children, the incidence of autism appears to be declining as well, at least in California. (safeMinds)

One of the most frustrating aspects to all this is how often an "instant" study is published purporting to vindicate thimerosal. Any such "study", coming right on the heels of a study demonstrating an adverse thimerosal effect, should be met with skepticism. In an earlier column I examined one of them and found the arguments to be seriously flawed.

There is something mercury-contaminated fishy about all this.

A lot is riding on the so-called experts convincing the public that the mercury in thimerosal is safe. Little things like “confidence” in the immunization program and liability for damage caused.

Beyond the clamor, though, about vaccines and autism lies a broader, even more ominous question. When something this obvious is fought so hard by the “experts”, what does it say about the other vaccine-associated side effects they fight so hard to discredit, like the relationship between vaccines and SIDS, to name just one?* What does it say about their credibility in these other crucial areas?

Whether or not other vaccine-associated adverse effects are similarly being ignored and dismissed, with the autism issue at least, there are just too many parents convinced that vaccines played a role. And they simply cannot be made to go away.

More and more, the science is suggesting they may be right. No matter what the “experts” say.

*If you are interested in learning more about the vast array of possible vaccine side effects and why many of us remain concerned, despite “expert” protestations to the contrary, click here.Click

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals ... ndal76.htm

Use small words, jjstar doesn't read long or complicated posts, or the links he's given.

I want studies. I want research. I want documents GOCHE21. I want EVIDENCE - I want molecular structures broken down into atoms - PROOF. Do you know what proof is? If not, I will gladly send you the definition.

Still waiting.

Why bother, you wont read it, it's too hard for you. I don't want to stress you any. You already said you don't read our links.

Ad hominem troll

Ad hominem troll at its simplest, will attack people personally, rather than the merits of their statements or methodologies.

The ad hominem troll often has already lost a rational argument about a topic, and thus its goal is to change the argument from being about a topic, to being about the people opposed to the troll (which could mean any/all rational person(s) in the discussion), in the hopes of both discrediting people's ideas indirectly by discrediting the people, and engendering an emotional reaction from the people by attacking their egos / self-image. The "getting a reaction out of" goal is common to most troll types.

The simple ad hominem troll is easily detected and dealt with by calling them on their ad hominem attacks.

However, often ad hominem troll will start its discourse with seemingly reasonable commentary, perhaps an analogy etc. Using rational tone, they may lull you into thinking that they are rational in general and thus their entire message should be considered rational. Once they have established such an impression, then they will then descend into personal attacks which may even sound reasonably worded, until you recognize them for what they are, nothing more than personal attacks.

Example: thacker. thacker starts by ignoring the previous comment (which itself was a rational challenge to thacker's earlier statements), repeating himself (see the section below on Repeating themselves), then moves onto an analogy. Afterwards he continues with personal attacks, starting subtly worded, then increasingly harsh:
"some here, yourself included, will not see nor understand the parallels"
"Your noses are simply buried too deeply into the proverbial bark."
"Or you lack the courage, will, ability to step away and ask the truly difficult questions. That is a shame."
The best tactic to take with such a troll is as stated. Quote and point out the ad hominem attacks and the fact that they are inappropriate.

If you have already done so, then you have a few options:
If this is a moderated forum, point out the abusive behavior to the forum moderator and get them to ban the troll. Congratulations, you've won.
Ignore the troll. And no longer respond to them. You are depriving the troll of their goal of "getting a reaction out" of you and thus again, you've won. Others in the forum will recognize the troll's insults, your restraint, and you'll be afforded respect for being cognizant enough to ignore the troll.
Offhandedly point it out when responding to a separate topic in the discourse. If you have already pointed out how it is inefficient to respond to trolls in previous discourse, you may, while following up on another issue, just briefly point out that per your previous statement(s), you're not following up to other commentary due to them being of a trollish nature. You may even link "trollish nature" to the specific type of troll here in the TrollTaxonomy and people will put two and two together as far as the specific troll type characterization you linked to, and the trolls in the discourse whom you are ignoring.

http://tantek.pbwiki.com/TrollTaxonomy