Terrible article on the mercury issue - help me respond

[bluedaisy]

I read this article:

http://www.esa-online.org/Article.as...C-F8A1A44EA2C3

in an online newsletter for a Christian organization that is concerned with social issues.

I'm not sure why this kind of article was even there, but his reasoning is pathetic IMHO -

he's basically stating that we should believe anything that has a "scientific consensus." He even goes so far as to say that if we believe in global warming, we should also believe that mercury is safe.

I am planning to write a letter to the editor but don't have time to do lots of research. the main points i want to make are:

- science is not infallible. there have been plenty of things that have had a scientific consensus that later turned out to be wrong. our knowledge of the human body is limited - drugs are being recalled all the time because of unforeseen consequences even though they had been considered safe. Can you think of examples of things that had a scientific consensus that were later proven to be false?

- there is not a scientific consensus that mercury in vaccines is safe, there are a large number of doctors and scientists that disagree with this. any relevant studies? also, i saw a poster recently that said one flu shot has the same amount of mercury as 71 cans of tune - he is saying one. anyone have a link on this?

- this is an extremely simplistic article on a very complex issue. Science is not always objective, and corporations fund research that will generate the results that they want. We have to realize that the science we are presented in the media often has corporate interest behind it.

Thanks!!

[laohaire]

The biggest point to me is that science is and has always been influenced by money and politics (as well as other, nonscientific factors).

This is particularly true with vaccines. There is a lot of money at stake. A LOT. Most (virtually all) studies are funded by groups with a special interest in the topic.

There's also a lot of politics at stake even besides the primary money issue.

[Sileree]

Ah yes, the old "mercury in a flu shot vs. mercury in a can of tuna" analogy. Doublethink at it's finest.

"...the form of mercury in thimerosal is ethyl mercury, which is excreted much more quickly than methyl mercury, so the actual exposure is much, much less."

Well, if the two types of mercury can't be compared, doesn't that make the below analogy obsolete? Why even include it?

"The amount of mercury in the vaccinations was about the same as that contained in a six-ounce can of chunk light tuna (25 micrograms in the vaccine, versus 20 micrograms in a can of chunk light tuna)."

Now to address the supposed "much, much less exposure" hypothesis:

Officials looked at the blood and stool levels of ethylmercury in kids after they were vaccinated and found that excretion diminished after about a week. They decided it must be "safer" based on this.

However, a study done by the University of Washington in 2005 injected infant monkeys with thimerosal and found was that while blood levels dropped fairly quickly, twice as much ethyl than methlymercury deposited in the brain, and that it stayed there for a year or more.

[peainthepod]

The "as much mercury as in a can of tuna" argument blows my mind. Blows my mind! We know, without a doubt, and after centuries of study, that mercury is a deadly poison. That there is even a question about whether we should inject it directly into people's bodies, in any amount, is positively shocking. People are going to look back on this quackery in a few decades and gasp in disbelief at how primitive and stupid it is, just as we can't really believe that people used to be told to drink radioactive potions or that frontal lobotomies were commonplace.

The vaccine marketers have become so desperate that they're now arguing that just a little bit of deadly poison is okay. After all, you get as much from a can of tuna! (Which pregnant, lactating, and TTC women are advised to avoid.)

[Magali]

Originally Posted by peainthepod

The "as much mercury as in a can of tuna" argument blows my mind. Blows my mind! We know, without a doubt, and after centuries of study, that mercury is a deadly poison. That there is even a question about whether we should inject it directly into people's bodies, in any amount, is positively shocking. People are going to look back on this quackery in a few decades and gasp in disbelief at how primitive and stupid it is, just as we can't really believe that people used to be told to drink radioactive potions or that frontal lobotomies were commonplace.

The vaccine marketers have become so desperate that they're now arguing that just a little bit of deadly poison is okay. After all, you get as much from a can of tuna! (Which pregnant, lactating, and TTC women are advised to avoid.)

I agree with you 100%.

[PingPong'sMom]

I too don't have a ton of time to research and provide links but these two websites come to mind. They provide a lot of links to the actual research:

www.ageofautism.com

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/

Good luck!

[Sileree]

I think what we are countering here is a belief system. A neurotoxin becomes inert simply by being in a vaccine.

[inchwormz]

Originally Posted by Sileree

I think what we are countering here is a belief system. A neurotoxin becomes inert simply by being in a vaccine.