This Just in! Vaccines STILL Do Not Cause Autism

[JamesBannon]

Don't get me wrong, if it was a penetrating wound, say, I had trodden on a rusty nail, then of course I would have taken the booster. Tetanus is not a disease I would wish on my worst enemy: it is extremely unpleasant, difficult to manage well and quite often fatal.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by seebs

The point, FX, is that your argument that a little of something toxic can't possibly be anything but horribly toxic especially over a long period of time, has been shown to be a stupid argument.

If you want to argue that even microdoses of mercury are particularly toxic, you actually have to show that there's a toxic effect, you can't just appeal to "but it would be toxic in larger amounts".

Methinks he did not actually read any of the material and represented one of my examples of broken critical thinking.

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Waluigi

Anti-vaccine rhetoric is big amongst social conservatives. A few of my friends are anti-vaccine, and out of that group, all but one of them homeschool their kids (they wouldn't be allowed in public schools without a vaccination record, anyway).

I just don't get it.

It's big amongst the far left ultra crunchies too. Natural living folks, ya know

Hey F-X, you have made a lot of assertions without providing any evidentiary support. Hows about some links or citations?

[erimir]

Hey, F-X you do realize that thimerosal is a compound, not just mercury, right?

You realize there's a large difference between a compound and the element by itself, right? You realize that just because a compound contains a metallic element, that doesn't make it "a metal", right? I mean, is salt a metal? It's NaCl. Sodium chloride. Sodium is a metallic element, so salt must be a metal right? I love sprinkling metal on my fries. Ingesting sodium (Na) on its own would be a bad idea. Sprinkling NaCl (i.e. table salt) on your food is just fine.

So just pointing out that there's mercury in a compound doesn't mean that you can say that it's necessarily all that similar to putting mercury by itself into your body. The Mad Hatter got the name because hatters worked with mercury (plain mercury) and it caused brain damage. Nobody is going to say that drinking mercury would be a good idea. But thimerosal is not plain mercury, so its properties are different.

Water is not "basically oxygen" just because it's mostly oxygen by weight, you know.

[F-X]

I'm very familiar with mercury, and the many many many compounds of it.

You know why Thimerosal is such a good chemical to use in a multidose vaccine package? Because it kills anything. Instantly.

It is a poison. It is a neoplastigen and teratogen. It is harmful by inhalation and ingestion. It can cause reproductive damage. It can even poison you through skin contact.

Those are the facts about it. It does all those things because of the mercury in it.

The only reason it is used in a vaccine is to prevent contamination of the vaccine. Nothing can live in a vaccine that has thimerosal added to it. It's purpose is to kill.

Each molecule of it has one mercury atom. That one mercury atom is all it takes. Like every other mercury compound that is deadly.

The absurdity of conversations about mercury compounds, in medicine, is that the defenders of the faith try to focus on everything except the hard facts.

Mercury is a poison, it is deadly, especially to nerve cells. It is death to nerve cells. No rational educated person would debate that.

When you point out the blatant flaw, that injecting any amount into a human being is a very bad practice, they want to argue anything else. Rather than face the facts.

Be it fish, coal plants, medications, vaccines, fillings, what ever the source, the people defending mercury almost always try to shift the discussion, or resort to fallacies.

Because the facts are untouchable when it comes to physical science. No amount of mercury is safe. No amount of mercury is good to put into a living creature. It doesn't matter how many people say otherwise, nothing can change that fact.

If a basic fact of chemistry and biology can't be accepted by somebody, then everything they argue becomes suspect. When somebody tries to argue against the simple fact, I have to wonder what they are guided by. It certainly isn't science. And it certainly isn't skepticism.

[godfry n. glad]

I suspect that F-X is going to be served a healthy portion of noblesse oblivious soon.

[F-X]

Here is how a normal person (NP) reacts to information about mercury (Thimerosal) in a substance injected into their child. With a rational and honest Doctor.

NP: Is there any mercury in that vaccine?

Doctor: Yes, but it won't hurt your child.

NP: Why is there mercury in it?

Doctor: It is an antiseptic, it keeps the vaccine sterile.

NP: Isn't the vaccine sterile?

Doctor: Yes, but when I use a needle to extract it, it might get contaminated.

NP: But you are going to inject it into my child!

Doctor: No no, I'm talking about the rest of the vaccine left in the container.

NP: Why is there vaccine left? I thought the vaccine went into my child?

Doctor: It is a multidose container. I'm thinking of the rest of the vaccine, not the dose going into your child.

NP: Do you have to use mercury in a vaccine?

Doctor: Of course not. A single dose vial has no mercury.

NP: Can't I get a single dose with no mercury in it?

Doctor: Of course, but it cost more.

NP: I don't care! Use the single dose! I don't want any mercury in my baby!

Doctor: I can do that.

NP: Thank you.

[F-X]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I suspect that F-X is going to be served a healthy portion of noblesse oblivious soon.

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

[seebs]

And chlorine isn't deadly too?

Chlorine is a poison. It's what makes bleach kill stuff. It's what makes some of the early biological warfare gasses kill people. It's deadly, fatal, and extremely toxic.

And every atom of table salt has a chlorine atom in it. That one chlorine atom is all it takes, like evry other chlorine compound that is deadly. Chlorine is a poison, it is deadly...

and yet, people not only can tolerate salt, but NEED salt.

In short, you haven't made an argument which is valid, because we've observed that your argument, applied to other substances, produces ludicrous results. So the argument's bad.

It's entirely possible that there exists a real argument for your position, but the one you've given us isn't it.

It's pretty obvious that injecting any amount of chlorine into people would be bad, right? And yet, when I was last in the hospital, you know what one of the first things they did was? Set up an IV drip of some chlorine. Oh, but that's okay, they mixed it with a metal which reacts explosively to water, and put that in my blood too.

[erimir]

How is it that no amount of mercury is safe?

One atom of mercury is deadly poison? I hope that's not what you were saying.

Clearly that would be an idiotic thing to say. There is such a thing as a safe dose of a compound containing mercury. There's a safe dosage of basically any poison. Plenty of things we eat are poisonous in high amounts. I'm pretty sure you'd get some bad effects if you just ate a big bowl of NaCl (table salt). And it can be bad for you to eat too much of it over a long period of time, contributing to conditions such as hypertension. And as seebs pointed out, chlorine is also highly toxic.

Yet people swim in chlorinated pools. Many of them even accidentally swallow some of the chlorinated water. Now, we certainly don't encourage that, because too much of that could be bad. But yet, nobody calls poison control simply because they accidentally swallowed a little bit of chlorinated water. Because, believe it or not, in small enough amounts, chlorine isn't all that dangerous.

And yes, some chemicals don't have any beneficial effects to putting them into your body. This doesn't imply that any amount of them, however small, is going to cause horrible damage to your body.

What I don't understand is why you would assume that science has some like, giant hard-on for mercury. Science and medicine have abandoned many chemicals and treatments proven to be dangerous. We used to use x-rays all the time. Then we discovered that the radiation is harmful, so now we minimize usage to safe dosages. We used that thalidomide as a treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women. That stopped after it was shown to cause birth defects. They used to use silver compounds as treatments. As it turns out, they don't really do anything, and after enough doses, they can turn your skin gray or blue (although they're not particularly harmful outside of that effect). So mainstream doctors don't use them anymore.

There are plenty of examples. Why does science have such a hard-on for mercury, F-X? Do they simply want to make sweet sweet love to mercury, for reasons unexplained?

[F-X]

Being a scientific sort, I actually read the study mentioned in the OP. It is quite interesting.

It does not, in any way, state that vaccines do not cause autism.

[F-X]

Saying a molecule is poisonous is called science. The mechanism is explained by chemistry.

[Crumb]

So is chlorine poisonous?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by F-X

Saying a molecule is poisonous is called science.

Actually, no, it's not. You could test for toxicity, but it's not completely linear.

How about this.

Yes or no: Is salt (sodium chloride) toxic?

Pick one. Either yes or no.

[ceptimus]

All this talk of hydrogen, sodium, chlorine, oxygen is just a red herring.

Yes, all those elements are present in some poisons, and they're also present in healthy food.

Mercury is different. The element itself, plus all its compounds are toxic to some degree. That is why great lengths have been taken to eliminate it from our environment where possible. I don't understand why it's still present in some vaccines - and I'm prepared to bet that it won't be present in any of them in, say, ten years time.

[BDS]

I think any metal named after a Roman God should not be used scientifically. It is this confusion of science and religion that leads to all sorts of problems, including, but not limited to, the suicide of Socrates.

One strange thing about autism (I'm no expert on the subject) is that so many kids get it nowadays. It's reasonable to think that a condition like autism that is increasing in frequency is increasing for SOME reason. The likely candidates: either increased diagnosis, or changes in environmental factors.

[LadyShea]

From my understanding thiomersal is used as a preservative in vaccines; are we sure it hasn't been pulled completely though? I thought I read it was pulled from the MMR and others? Maybe I heard wrong

[LadyShea]

It does not, in any way, state that vaccines do not cause autism.

Do you have any studies indicating that vaccines do cause autism?

Most kids are vaccinated. Most kids are not autistic. Is it causal or not? If it's only causal in certain children, what are the factors that make them susceptible while most kids are not?

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by wiki

In the United States, countries in the European Union and a few other affluent countries, thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in routine childhood vaccination schedules.[1] In the U.S., the only exceptions among vaccines routinely recommended for children are some formulations of the inactivated influenza vaccine for children older than two years.[5] Several vaccines that are not routinely recommended for young children do contain thiomersal, including DT (diphtheria and tetanus), Td (tetanus and diphtheria), and TT (tetanus toxoid); other vaccines may contain a trace of thiomersal from steps in manufacture.[2] Also, four rarely used treatments for pit viper, coral snake, and black widow venom still contain thiomersal.[6] Outside North America and Europe, many vaccines contain thiomersal; the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration.[7]

From here: Thiomersal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[F-X]

Originally Posted by erimir

And yes, some chemicals don't have any beneficial effects to putting them into your body. This doesn't imply that any amount of them, however small, is going to cause horrible damage to your body.

Correct. Obviously most people have good defenses against not just mercury, but a vast range of dangerous compounds.

Mercury is on the same OSHA list as Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Hexavalent Chromium, and Lead. You can make the exact same arguments about those as people do for mercury.

A small amount won't kill you, it exist in the environment, what ever. But if anyone tried to argue that it is ok to inject a little of those into a young child, there would be trouble, and lots of it.

In fact, a rational person might wonder what in the hell is wrong with you, if you tried to argue it is OK somehow to inject those into a child. Or an adult. Or even your dog.

Because when you switch the discussion to injecting a little cadmium, it becomes obvious why arguing for it is stupid. Nobody with even a little science background is going to take you seriously if you are arguing that a little hexavalent chromium won't really hurt you. Or that it's only a small amount of beryllium, it will be excreted in a few days.

If you can wrap your mind around that, you might understand how I view people that argue for mercury. I look at you the same way as I would somebody trying to convince me a little arsenic is OK. Or that a little cadmium won't really hurt.

[F-X]

While the cadmium argument sounds ridiculous, cadmium was used for fillings in teeth at one time.

Try arguing with somebody how cadmium fillings aren't really that bad for you. It would be educational.

Or maybe not.

MSDS for thimerosal
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/TH/thimerosal.html

When it comes to reality, where somebody actually needs to know the truth, like a MSDS, nobody tries to play games.

Poison. Experimental neoplastigen and teratogen. Harmful by inhalation and ingestion. May cause reproductive damage. May be harmful through skin contact.

That is just the facts. We need facts when dealing with exposure to chemicals.

[LadyShea]

According to the CDC

Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.

[F-X]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Most kids are vaccinated. Most kids are not autistic. Is it causal or not? If it's only causal in certain children, what are the factors that make them susceptible while most kids are not?

Those are fine questions.

To determine causality, there are certain kinds of scientific studies that can be done. They have not been done (at least the kind that will pass peer review), so nobody knows the answer.

Can they be done? Of course. Will they cost a lot of money. Certainly.

If you buy the figures out of England and America (1 in a 100) for autism, studies really need to be done. Because that is an incredibly expensive and widespread disaster for a society. 1 out of a hundred kids born is going to need lifetime care? They can't work, and the expense is crippling.

Those are huge numbers. If true, it is a health care disaster. An economic and social nightmare.

To say nothing of the horrible cost to families and real people.

Eliminating vaccines as a possible cause is essential to being able to discover what is causing this. Something is causing it. If the numbers are true.

I want to know what is going on.

[JamesBannon]

Mercury is on the same OSHA list as Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Hexavalent Chromium, and Lead. You can make the exact same arguments about those as people do for mercury.

Duh ... it's a heavy metal, and, like all heavy metals, it is toxic. That does not, however, mean that any individual heavy metal compound will of necessity be toxic. Of course, since it is a bactericide and fungicide, it is toxic when ingested or injected, but this does not mean it causes autism.

[F-X]

The problem with saying it has been removed, is that it hasn't. Many kids still get multiple vaccines in childhood that contain mercury.

It is incredibly stupid to say mercury has been removed from childhood vaccines, when it hasn't. In fact, it is simply a lie.

You can't say Thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines when it is still used, and expect anyone to believe you.

It isn't used as much. That is true. Why they don't just say the truth is mind boggling. I mean, you have this huge population of people who mistrust the Government, based on a history of lies and deception and fraud and graft and greed and, well, to put it bluntly,the fact that governments simply lie.

Telling another lie to get people to trust you, to get vaccinated, it just doesn't seem like a good method to choose.