This Just in! Vaccines STILL Do Not Cause Autism

[erimir]

Originally Posted by F-X

No, it can't. Well, I guess if a container of it fell on you it might. Your stupid claim is still stupid.

You're the one who already said that chlorine aka elemental chlorine aka Cl2 is toxic.

Are you that stupid?

Your error of thinking of chlorine as a toxic gas is the problem. There is no such thing as chlorine gas in nature.

What does that have to do with anything? Whether it occurs in nature or not has nothing to with whether chlorine gas is toxic.

You even said it was toxic yourself.

That you use it to try and explain away mercury being a toxic heavy metal, a known poison, in any form, is amusing.

That is not what I'm arguing. That you think it is, is well, more sad than amusing.

Originally Posted by F-X

Again, you posted this after I showed you the amounts decided by OSHA and the WHO for exposure.

Ummmm... yes, amounts that are considered minimal risk aka "safe."

Saying that those are significantly different things is pointless. Very few things are completely 100% safe. "Minimal risk" basically means safe. If you have an issue with the amounts they suggest, if you think they're not minimal risk, that's one thing.

Of course as soon as it enters the body it is diluted, hopefully damn fast. If you put the same ratio of Thimerosal into your body as in the vaccine, it would be catastrophic to your system. Especially the nerves. You would simply die, painfully.

And? Who gives a shit? The question isn't whether injecting large amounts of thimerosal is dangerous, it's whether the amounts in vaccines are dangerous. Something that you have not proved in any way.

Nobody is going to say they are good for you

Which is fine and all, cuz I haven't said that. Your reading comprehension is very poor if you think that's what I said.

But this is why I ignore stupid, it leads down rabbit holes with out end. No doubt you will dig yet another one after reading this.

This is why I normally converse only with people whose brains have never taken a trip to "the outside."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by F-X

Again, there is no safe level of mercury. None. No amount is considered safe.


Don't confuse safe with low risk, the two are not the same.

Great, so is the amount found in thimerasol low or high risk?
Is the amount found in one flu vaccine per year low risk or high risk?
Is there any known correlation between mercury (from any source) exposure and autism?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by F-X

You don't benefit from arsenic, you just benefit, (hopefully) from it killing the cancer before you die. That same specious argument could be used with radiation, or radium pellets.

Nobody is going to say they are good for you, they are good for killing something in you, but they are in no way good to inject, as in it benefits healthy tissue.

Thus distinguishing them altogether from thimerosal, which, as so many people have argued on this thread, is medically used to "benefit healthy tissue".

[The Lone Ranger]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's take a break here.

Originally Posted by F-X

Chlorine won't kill you, in fact, it is an essential element, and we are dependent on it for life. It is abundant in nature, and is in salt water. It is in most of our tissues in our bodies. The mistake you are making is confusing chlorine with dichlorine, the elemental form of chlorine. But even dichlorine is tolerated because we have defenses against it, some of our cells even manufacture it as a weapon. That's why the amount in drinking water or a pool doesn't make you sick. Or why it doesn't blind you when you open your eyes under water in a pool.

Enough chlorine most-definitely will kill you, as will enough dichlorine, as will enough of the chloride ion.

Originally Posted by F-X

Stop right there. Chlorine isn't a toxin, the statement, "more toxic" is a complete fallacy. Mercury is a toxin. Chlorine is not. If you can't grasp that, you are stupid.

In sufficient concentration, chlorine most-definitely is toxic.

Originally Posted by F-X

The specious argument about sodium in salt also falls apart for the same reason. Sodium is an essential element for life, and is not toxic.

Sodium, like chlorine (more precisely, the chloride ion) is essential for life. But, like chlorine, it most-definitely is toxic in sufficient concentration.

I've watched this same stupid argument show up for the last twenty years online. (the other one is about water, which is so much more stupid, it isn't worth talking about). No really, when you see somebody drag out the water fallacy, you can pretty much give up talking to them.

Water, too, if its concentration in body tissues rises too high, is toxic.

Back to sodium/chlorine as poisons. Some half educated self proclaimed genius always shows up with this argument.

They actually think that sodium and chlorine are toxic dangerous elements, and the only thing that saves us from them is that they are combined as salt.

That is stupid squared. They get this ridiculous notion because they think of sodium as Elemental sodium, an artificial metal we create, which is highly reactive and dangerous. This metal does not exist in nature, it is our creation. They confuse that metal with sodium ions.

Same for chlorine. The stupid think chlorine is "chlorine gas" or elemental chlorine (dichlorine), and that somehow because chlorine has become salt it is safe. That the only reason chlorine is safe is due to it being combined with sodium. That is a fallacy, an error, it is 100% dead wrong.

Utter nonsense. It is the mark of somebody who didn't study science, or is very young. Or just stupid.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Are you seriously suggesting that Cl-, Na+ and H2O are not toxic in sufficient concentration?

Because if you seriously think so, I can explain in great detail why you're mistaken.


Just a friendly note (honestly): Don't try the "I understand 'science' better than you do" line on me. It's not very convincing, and the results won't be pretty.


Cheers,

Michael

[F-X]

Who was that masked man?

[F-X]

As for the questions about rates, rising rates, increasing rates, this study from England is most interesting.

The NHS Information Centre found one in every hundred adults living in England has autism, which is identical to the rate in children.

If the vaccine was to blame, autism rates among children should be higher because the MMR has only been available since the early 1990s, the centre says.

This is the first time the rate in adults has been evaluated.

Now if we could get America to do some evidence based research like that, we might have a clue about what is going on.

If that data is correct, then there has been no drastic increase in autism. And, as they say, no vaccines are involved.

[F-X]

As to thimerosal, while many look to the yearly figures as evidence (both that rates are still rising, or they are falling, it depends on who is looking at the data), looking at yearly figures isn't enough data for some.

And if the rates of autism are flat, have always been the same, as the England study suggests, then the whole idea that autism rates were rising is an error.

These kinds of things make it impossible to know what is actually going on. Because there isn't a scientific basis for most of it.

Don't ask me why, I don't have any idea.

When it was suggested that we do a large study on vaccinated vs non-vaccinated children, those opposed said there wasn't a large enough non-vaccinated population to compare to.

Then when it turns out there is, the opponents said it would have so many other factors it would be meaningless.

And yet, some of those same voices claim that the rising rates since thimerosal was removed shows it can't be thimerosal!!

So a non science based look at data on reported autism is enough to prove it wasn't thimerosal. But a large scale study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated wouldn't be worthwhile??

The same can be said if autism rates somehow started going down, that would be pointed to as proof it was thimerosal.

Confusion.

Meanwhile, we don't even know if thimerosal can even cause damage to a developing mammal brain. We know almost nothing about thimerosal and it's effects on the young.

And vaccines, while unethical to do studies where they are withheld, there are plenty of kids who didn't get vaccinated, more than enough to do a study.

If vaccines don't cause problems, and if Thimerosal doesn't cause problems, it is easy enough to show this, by using science.

As I said plainly early on, it is the fact that we don't have complete scientific evidence on both, that is the only reason these kind of arguments even take place.

Well, maybe not, even things that are scientific fact beyond any doubt, some people still argue over that. Stupid people. They will argue about anything.

[Doctor X]

I know more science than you, Lone Ranger.

show spoiler

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

But . . . yeah . . . the stupid--to claim things like "Sodium is an essential element for life, and is not toxic"--it burns!

Especially whilst trying to engage in semantic irrelevance.

'tis hypocritical.

In the rain.

--J.D.

[Clutch Munny]

Learned from cycling: once you go in for a freewheel, back-pedaling doesn't do a damn thing.

[ZEZOZE]

first! (of many)

[biochemgirl]

Originally Posted by F-X

Thimerosal is in the vaccine because of it's properties. And those properties are well known, in fact, it is exactly why it is used.

Get this through your stupid head, and just admit it now, save yourself the grief.

It is in there because it kills any and all organisms that come into contact with it. Nothing, no virus, no bacteria, nothing can survive contact with that level of mercury.

That is the purpose of it being there. That is what it does. You can argue all day, it won't change the facts. The level of thimerosal in a vaccine is the level to kill anything that could possibly come into contact with the vaccine.

Uh really? Thimerosal kills all viruses? Not precisely true. If it were then the viruses in modified live virus vaccines containing thimerosal would also be dead which I can assure you is not the case. Especially when you're talking about a particularly hardy virus like Parvo. You can't take a statement like that and apply it across the board. And thimerosal isn't used because it kills whatever it comes into contact with, it's used because it kills target organisms, mainly bacteria and fungi.

[rigorist]

Mercury in fillings lets the aliens send signals.

[Clutch Munny]

Thanks, bcg, for reminding that FX's rambling wasn't just wrong, but incoherent.

Originally Posted by F-X

Thimerosal is in the vaccine because of it's properties. And those properties are well known, in fact, it is exactly why it is used.

Get this through your stupid head, and just admit it now, save yourself the grief.

It is in there because it kills any and all organisms that come into contact with it. Nothing, no virus, no bacteria, nothing can survive contact with that level of mercury.

That is the purpose of it being there. That is what it does. You can argue all day, it won't change the facts. The level of thimerosal in a vaccine is the level to kill anything that could possibly come into contact with the vaccine.

There is one medical use for arsenic, and that is chemo, because it kills cancer faster than it does you. A lot of very poisonous chemicals are used for chemo. Nobody thinks that makes them safe.

You don't benefit from arsenic, you just benefit, (hopefully) from it killing the cancer before you die. That same specious argument could be used with radiation, or radium pellets.

Nobody is going to say they are good for you, they are good for killing something in you, but they are in no way good to inject, as in it benefits healthy tissue.

See, thimerosal is used to kill harmful stuff, not to benefit healthy tissue. Whereas arsenic is used to kill harmful stuff, not to benefit healthy tissue. You can see what a specious comparison it is.

[rigorist]

Body thetans are made of thimerosal.

[Clutch Munny]

No, dumbass. Thetans stick to you naturally. Thimerosal isn't even in nature; it was made by humans or something.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

No, dumbass. Thetans stick to you naturally. Thimerosal isn't even in nature; it was made by humans or something.

Well, everybody knows humans ain't natural.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by F-X

Does that mean the stupid will ignore me? It can't happen too soon.

No, the forum software won't let you ignore yourself.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[JoeP]

Also, F-X is the same as X.

[JoeP]

Additionally also, the second Goggle hit for 'neoplastigen' offers

Neoplastigen makers. The premiere source for neoplastigen. Product directory for neoplastigen makers sale leads.

We invites [sic] you to explore world’s largest directory of Neoplastigen companies and business to business (B2B) portal.

[Doctor X]

How can you argue with Neoplastigen?

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Water intoxication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water intoxication (also known as hyper-hydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by over-consumption of water.

There are reports of people dying from water intoxication, so yeah in significant amounts, water is toxic.

[F-X]

Oxygen toxicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures. It is also known as oxygen toxicity syndrome, oxygen intoxication, and oxygen poisoning. - Severe cases can result in cell damage and death, with effects most often seen in the central nervous system, lungs and eyes.

There are reports of people dying from oxygen, so yeah in significant amounts, oxygen is toxic.

[LadyShea]

Okay, so in sufficient quantities, some things are toxic that you said weren't toxic. What exactly is your argument, then?


Here's a bunch of studies for your review Autism Studies
One of them indicates that autistic children may not excrete mercury normally, so in those cases vaccines may have contributed, along with other mercury exposures.
Another shows autistics have higher levels of coproporphyrin, again indication non excretion .
Oxidative stress has been correlated (Oxidative stress is caused by an imbalance between the production of reactive oxygen and a biological system's ability to readily detoxify the reactive intermediates or easily repair the resulting damage).

All this seems to point to some kind of congenital condition that prevents normal clearing of various toxins and normal repair of damages.

And yet, some of those same voices claim that the rising rates since thimerosal was removed shows it can't be thimerosal!!

So a non science based look at data on reported autism is enough to prove it wasn't thimerosal. But a large scale study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated wouldn't be worthwhile??

The same can be said if autism rates somehow started going down, that would be pointed to as proof it was thimerosal.

Well, if what I see in those studies holds true, thimerosol would contribute in those with the congenital condition that prevents them clearing mercury and other heavy metals and oxidants. However, as there are other sources of toxins, someone whose body can't clear them normally might end up with autism with or without vacines, so that rates probably wouldn't change.

In this survey http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/survey.pdf
4% of unvaccinated children were ASD and 5% of fully vaccinated children were ASD