I am stupid, selfish, crazy and do not understand SCIENCE - Page 6

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by peainthepod 

This was mentioned above so I hope it's not too off-topic, but I find the argument that people like Mercola are untrustworthy because they sell products on their sites completely ridiculous.

 

 

I would look closely at any site that sells stuff in addition to promoting a view.  Yes, that includes pharmaceutical companies but it includes alternative or natural health companies as well.  

One of the arguments often used by non vaxxers (myself included) is that research done by pharmaceutical companies may be biassed due to conflict of interest.  Why does that not hold for information highlighted by Mercola and the like?

I do not think the act of selling stuff makes one wrong or guilty of anything - but I do think we should look closely at any information put out by an organisation that might have a vested interest in promoting its view.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3girls 

These are all such interesting thoughts.

I also found it interesting that the site I linked was lumped in with "the Protocol of Elders Of Zion, anti-semitic, racist, lizard-people, and of course, AIDS denialist". Boy, that's a mouthful!  It made me wonder if I'm seen as having "gone fringe"

  It is a mouthful.  I bet you didn't know you were so nutty and where did you put your tinfoil hat?  (joking)
 

[Marnica]

I wonder if any of the people judging so harshly have actually read Janine Roberts book. Im guessing not. If not I would encourage them to. It really is eye-opening and is well referenced one can easily follow up on those references to check them out for themselves. I spent quite some time doing just that.

 

Originally Posted by Lovemy3girls 

I am curious to know why you are focusing so much on polio and AIDS when I never even linked to that information? I linked to info about the MMR, which was in step with the OP, not AIDS or polio. Just wondering why you never even said anything about the MMR information on the site, which is what my focus was, along with the issue of vaccine contamination. What was it exactly  that you found so frightening? Personally, I feel that the media , the Pharm, the CDC, and WHO do a much more superlative job of frightening people than this site. Did you read the links specifically on:

• Trouble with MMR
• MMR dangerously contaminated?
• Highly Contaminated Vaccines
•  Could this cause Autism?

I have for the most part posted scientific links on MDC and now find myself being judged rather harshly for this one link, even when I said I didn't necessarily endorse all the information on the website. It wasn't really my intention to get so fringe, but I do want to put the contamination issue in the light so we can talk about it. I do have more "acceptable" links to post on the matter and will do so. Why the flame war on polio and AIDS and not the matter at hand?

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

One of the arguments often used by non vaxxers (myself included) is that research done by pharmaceutical companies may be biassed due to conflict of interest.  Why does that not hold for information highlighted by Mercola and the like?

You're right.  We should look closely at information coming from any person or organization selling something, but the conflicts of interest argument regarding pharmaceutical companies and vaccines versus Mercola's vitamins, sunscreens, and whatever else he sells along with his research are two totally different entities and aren't even on the same radar. Mercola's products are not recommended/required to the entire nation of children for school entrance.  Conflicts of interest regarding vaccines hold much more weight than Mercola ever will because it entails actual studies on the safety of products that are actually funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves.  Mercola may sell a few things but is not even comparable to vaccinations.  There are some things Mercola talks about that I have to take with a grain of salt,  but overall, from what I see, he does a lot of research to make sure his products are safe for people and don't contain potentially harmful ingredients, like vaccines do.  I see a huge difference there and wouldn't hold him trying to sell products against him.

[Marnica]

My mainsteam PCP actually was involved in creating a line of vitamins (he is very into nutrition). He sells these vitamins - I suppose he has an alterior motive and cannot be trusted. Maybe he is passionate about nutrition. Maybe he felt it was important to create a product he trusts and believes in - so now that he has I guess he should give it away for free and not worry about covering his own costs in manufactering them.

http://www.sobejogger.com/Mercola_Doctor.htm

Mercola addresses some of these accusations here in his own words.

You know what I wonder....if Dr mercola is so out there and is a quack with purely financial motives, you'd think that he wouldn't have a thriving practice (in addition to his website - yes he is a practicing physician and sees patients) and that he would have at least 1 complaint or disciplinary action lodged agaisnt him since he started practicing medicine in 1983. He's either a decent doctor/person who believes and practices what he preaches or he is the slickest con man ever  and has managed to hoodwink thousands of patients over the course of almost 30 years in practice.

https://www.idfpr.com/DPR/licenselookup/results.asp

Edited by Marnica - 7/13/11 at 1:02pm

[Lovemy3girls]

They really should have a tinfoil hat smiley here, cause I'm joining the club.

[pers]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3girls 

I am curious to know why you are focusing so much on polio and AIDS when I never even linked to that information? I linked to info about the MMR, which was in step with the OP, not AIDS or polio. Just wondering why you never even said anything about the MMR information on the site, which is what my focus was, along with the issue of vaccine contamination. What was it exactly that you found so frightening? Personally, I feel that the media, the Pharm, the CDC, and WHO do a much more superlative job of frightening people than this site. Did you read the links specifically on:

• Trouble with MMR
• MMR dangerously contaminated?
• Highly Contaminated Vaccines
• Could this cause Autism?

I have for the most part posted scientific links on MDC and now find myself being judged rather harshly for this one link, even when I said I didn't necessarily endorse all the information on the website. It wasn't really my intention to get so fringe, but I do want to put the contamination issue in the light so we can talk about it. I do have more "acceptable" links to post on the matter and will do so. Why the flame war on polio and AIDS and not the matter at hand?

The site does a poor job of citing sources.  At best, it offers a few links to large sites at the bottom of the page, and for most, it doesn't even do that.  This makes it difficult to verify information presented or to check to see what the original context of some things are to see if they are being presented fairly.    The obvious misinformation and twisting of the truth, to put it gently, about AIDS/HIV speaks to the credibility of the site and just how far we can trust it to present information accurately.  

One easy to verify bit is on the autism page though, despite once again no citations or reference on the page.  The article is from 2008 but completely ignores that thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines several years before that and presents information as if we were back in 1999 or so... but still greatly exaggerates the amount of mercury a child would get from vaccines even back then.  It also speaks of the EPA safe limits with no mention that they are for methyl mercury or the differences between methyl mercury, which is not in vaccines, and the ethyl mercury in thimerosal.  

Please note since I am now well aware which section this thread is in, I am not arguing in favor of vaccination here, and I am aware that most people do not make their choice not to vaccinate out of fear of autism.  Just pointing out some specific inaccuracies of this specific site.  

Originally Posted by peainthepod 

This was mentioned above so I hope it's not too off-topic, but I find the argument that people like Mercola are untrustworthy because they sell products on their sites completely ridiculous.

 

Usually the person objecting to this gross commercialism, when asked to cite sources, is linking to pages that have double sidebars of ads for pharmaceutical products from the same companies that sell and market vaccines. Most websites have ads these days so accusing an alternative practitioner of fraud because they happen to sell proprietary products on their own business page is some weak sauce. Really it's just another hypocritical way of trying to discredit someone with unpopular opinions.

I think the point is generally not so much don't trust anyone who is making money ever but pointing out how strange it is that so many people who refuse to trust anything from the CDC etc. based on accusations that they are supposed to be in the drug companies pocket are so willing to completely ignore that Mercola makes a lot of money from his business.  

Mercola is far, far better than the other site I was referring to since he at least doesn't display rampant racism or insane theories about alien lizards, though several of his articles are rather homophobic (and yet, he speaks of homophobia a bad thing in accusing groups he doesn't like of being it).  The reasons I don't trust him have less to do with his shilling his products though his site and more to do with stuff like:

Posting articles on his site that claim HIV is harmless and AIDS is actually the result of gay men being heavy drug users:  

Duesberg stated that HIV is harmless virus and AIDS in homosexual men and drug users in the industrial countries is caused by the heavy use of illicit drugs. He also stated that AIDS in hemophiliacs is caused by foreign-protein contaminating commercial clotting factor VIII and not by the HIV.

The correct approach for investigating AIDS causes or pathogenesis of any other complicated chronic medical problem is by evaluating all medical evidence concerning each risk group. Namely, a differential diagnosis that considers both infectious and noninfectious causes of diseased should be performed.

I used differential diagnosis in this case and it indicated that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. It also indicated that the use of illicit drugs alone or the use of antihemophilic factors does not cause AIDS.

AIDS is caused by the heavy use of corticosteroids and/or cytotoxic drugs to treat many health problems resulted from the use of illicit drugs by drug users and homosexuals.

The appearance of AIDS cases in the USA in 1978 coincided with approval of corticosteroids aerosol by the US FDA in 1976. In addition, homosexual men are usually heavy user of rectal glucocorticoids.

AIDS in hemophiliacs is caused by the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive drugs to prevent the formation of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat other health problems.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/09/05/hiv-aids.aspx

Note the bit at the bottom about hemophiliacs.  This article is from 2001.  HIV/AIDS infections among hemophiliacs was a big problem in the 80s, but thanks screening and testing of blood donations keeping the blood supply free of HIV rates of new infections dropped back into line with the general population long before Mercola put this on his site. 

Later the same article explains away AIDS in infants and children as being because their mothers were heavy drug users, causing them to be born prematurely and given steroids to develop their lungs. 

Mercola has many articles on his site denying the connection between HIV/AIDS.  

Also when he posts articles claiming that the main cause of cancer is a fungus, and it can easily be cured by baking soda:  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/05/fungus-causing-cancer-a-novel-approach-to-the-most-common-form-of-death.aspx

No, wait, "100 percent of your current health status is due to your mental and emotional reactions to events that take place during your lifetime" and this includes diseases such as cancer.  Thankfully, you can cure or prevent health problems with Mecola's emotional freedom technique helpfully sold on his site.  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/17/scientific-proof-that-your-childhood-traumas-are-a-major-factor-in-your-all-your-illnesses.aspx

One of my favorite bits is where Mercola re-posts an article about dangerous cancer information found on the internet, and then in his discussion part below it, he doesn't bother to defend his site or alternative medicine but instead advertises a cancer convention where he will be speaking.  It's almost as if he is using the article as support, saying "yes, yes, it's right we must be wary of all the horrible cancer advice those quacks put on the internet, here is a place to get good information," all the while completely ignoring that his website is exactly the sort they are warning about.  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/08/21/cancer-part-four.aspx

That Mercola is anti-vegetarian is old news, and I'm not surprised when he maligns any study that ever dares suggest a vegetarian diet is not devastating to human health (much less one that shows it to be at all beneficial) or presents studies on negative effects of extreme macrobiotic diets as if they apply to the run-of-the-mill vegetarian.  But as a life long vegetarian,  I do find it rather offensive when he not only brings up the tired old tripe about Hitler being vegetarian, but also claims that any crowd protesting against civil rights or gay rights is sure to be made up primarily of vegetarians!   I mean, he probably has a point about those protesting for animal rights for obvious reasons, and there are a fair amount of vegetarians in the environmental movement.  But the human rights stuff?  I'm sure there are some racist and/or homophobic vegetarians, as sadly there will at least a few of both in pretty much any large group.  But I'd be willing to bet that you'd be hard pressed to find a single vegetarian at most demonstrations against gay marriage or civil rights or whatever.  The concepts just don't go together. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/02/13/vegetarian3.aspx

Seeing him present buying a tanning bed from his website as a reasonable measure to take to ensure you are getting enough vitamin D is just the icing on the cake. 

So yeah, while Mercola is infinitely preferable to the site with the marine mammal in the URL, and while I don't cringe at links to him the way I do to links to it, I still do take anything on his site with a grain of salt based on the other views and anti-science he promotes.  Make that a huge helping of salt.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by pers 

The site does a poor job of citing sources.  At best, it offers a few links to large sites at the bottom of the page, and for most, it doesn't even do that.  This makes it difficult to verify information presented or to check to see what the original context of some things are to see if they are being presented fairly.    The obvious misinformation and twisting of the truth, to put it gently, about AIDS/HIV speaks to the credibility of the site and just how far we can trust it to present information accurately.  

One easy to verify bit is on the autism page though, despite once again no citations or reference on the page.  The article is from 2008 but completely ignores that thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines several years before that and presents information as if we were back in 1999 or so... but still greatly exaggerates the amount of mercury a child would get from vaccines even back then.  It also speaks of the EPA safe limits with no mention that they are for methyl mercury or the differences between methyl mercury, which is not in vaccines, and the ethyl mercury in thimerosal.  

Please note since I am now well aware which section this thread is in, I am not arguing in favor of vaccination here, and I am aware that most people do not make their choice not to vaccinate out of fear of autism.  Just pointing out some specific inaccuracies of this specific site.  

I think the point is generally not so much don't trust anyone who is making money ever but pointing out how strange it is that so many people who refuse to trust anything from the CDC etc. based on accusations that they are supposed to be in the drug companies pocket are so willing to completely ignore that Mercola makes a lot of money from his business.  

Mercola is far, far better than the other site I was referring to since he at least doesn't display rampant racism or insane theories about alien lizards, though several of his articles are rather homophobic (and yet, he speaks of homophobia a bad thing in accusing groups he doesn't like of being it).  The reasons I don't trust him have less to do with his shilling his products though his site and more to do with stuff like:

Posting articles on his site that claim HIV is harmless and AIDS is actually the result of gay men being heavy drug users:  

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/09/05/hiv-aids.aspx

Note the bit at the bottom about hemophiliacs.  This article is from 2001.  HIV/AIDS infections among hemophiliacs was a big problem in the 80s, but thanks screening and testing of blood donations keeping the blood supply free of HIV rates of new infections dropped back into line with the general population long before Mercola put this on his site. 

Later the same article explains away AIDS in infants and children as being because their mothers were heavy drug users, causing them to be born prematurely and given steroids to develop their lungs. 

Mercola has many articles on his site denying the connection between HIV/AIDS.  

Also when he posts articles claiming that the main cause of cancer is a fungus, and it can easily be cured by baking soda:  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/05/fungus-causing-cancer-a-novel-approach-to-the-most-common-form-of-death.aspx

No, wait, "100 percent of your current health status is due to your mental and emotional reactions to events that take place during your lifetime" and this includes diseases such as cancer.  Thankfully, you can cure or prevent health problems with Mecola's emotional freedom technique helpfully sold on his site.  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/17/scientific-proof-that-your-childhood-traumas-are-a-major-factor-in-your-all-your-illnesses.aspx

One of my favorite bits is where Mercola re-posts an article about dangerous cancer information found on the internet, and then in his discussion part below it, he doesn't bother to defend his site or alternative medicine but instead advertises a cancer convention where he will be speaking.  It's almost as if he is using the article as support, saying "yes, yes, it's right we must be wary of all the horrible cancer advice those quacks put on the internet, here is a place to get good information," all the while completely ignoring that his website is exactly the sort they are warning about.  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/08/21/cancer-part-four.aspx

That Mercola is anti-vegetarian is old news, and I'm not surprised when he maligns any study that ever dares suggest a vegetarian diet is not devastating to human health (much less one that shows it to be at all beneficial) or presents studies on negative effects of extreme macrobiotic diets as if they apply to the run-of-the-mill vegetarian.  But as a life long vegetarian,  I do find it rather offensive when he not only brings up the tired old tripe about Hitler being vegetarian, but also claims that any crowd protesting against civil rights or gay rights is sure to be made up primarily of vegetarians!   I mean, he probably has a point about those protesting for animal rights for obvious reasons, and there are a fair amount of vegetarians in the environmental movement.  But the human rights stuff?  I'm sure there are some racist and/or homophobic vegetarians, as sadly there will at least a few of both in pretty much any large group.  But I'd be willing to bet that you'd be hard pressed to find a single vegetarian at most demonstrations against gay marriage or civil rights or whatever.  The concepts just don't go together. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/02/13/vegetarian3.aspx

Seeing him present buying a tanning bed from his website as a reasonable measure to take to ensure you are getting enough vitamin D is just the icing on the cake. 

So yeah, while Mercola is infinitely preferable to the site with the marine mammal in the URL, and while I don't cringe at links to him the way I do to links to it, I still do take anything on his site with a grain of salt based on the other views and anti-science he promotes.  Make that a huge helping of salt.

 I'm not saying mercola is the end all be all - and you, like many folks don't feel what he has to say is worth hearing at that's fine, but please don't knock what you know nothing about. (at least this is how it comes across in your post). Do you know anything about EFT? It's used by thousands of medical and other practioners around the world. There are numerous books written on it. Mercola isn't selling EFT he teaches the basics right on his site - no charge. I have used EFT for years (didn't learn about it from mercola either). EFT is based upon the research of candace pert and cellular memory. Dr. Pert is the former Chief of the Section of Brain Biochemistry of the Clinical Neuroscience Branch at the National Institute of Mental Health and studies health influences at the neurochemical level. I won't even touch the some of the other stuff cause I don't have the energy or the time.

[pers]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

 I'm not saying mercola is the end all be all - and you, like many folks don't feel what he has to say is worth hearing at that's fine, but please don't knock what you know nothing about. (at least this is how it comes across in your post). Do you know anything about EFT? It's used by thousands of medical and other practioners around the world. There are numerous books written on it. Mercola isn't selling EFT he teaches the basics right on his site - no charge. I have used EFT for years (didn't learn about it from mercola either). EFT is based upon the research of candace pert and cellular memory. Dr. Pert is the former Chief of the Section of Brain Biochemistry of the Clinical Neuroscience Branch at the National Institute of Mental Health and studies health influences at the neurochemical level. I won't even touch the some of the other stuff cause I don't have the energy or the time.

Yes, he teaches the basics on his site, along with encouragement to buy the book and/or DVD from his store.  My issue wasn't so much with EFT but rather that it was tacked onto the end of a article promoting German New Medicine when "GNM claims that all 'diseases' are in fact your body going through the resolution phase, meaning it is healing itself."  (quote from the same page I linked in my previous post).    Though if you do know of any well controlled studies indicating that EFT has a better effect than a placebo, or even that the affirmations plus tapping provides better results than the affirmations alone, I would be interested in seeing them. 

Don't have energy or time to touch on the rest?  Now I am a little curious as to which aspects you would touch on if you did have time.  Drug use & steroid treatments in gay men being the true cause of AIDS while HIV is harmless and unrelated?  Baking soda being the best treatment for cancer?  Vegetarians being unhealthy, violent, homophobic brutes?  

[Pookietooth]

There is a big campaign to make non-vaxxers look like paranoid, easily mislead snobs. Sounds like lots of people have bought it. I'm not vaccinating no matter what people think!

[nia82]

I'm so sorry OP.... People say the craziest things about non-vaxers/delayed/selective vaxxers. On another board I frequent a poster that viciously defends that EVERY SINGLE child better be vaccinated on schedule claimed that there was a recent SMALL POX outbreak in Iowa due to non-vaccinated people. Nevermind that there hasn't been a case of small pox since 1977 on this planet (natural transmission) and that there is no routine childhood vaccine against smallpox... Makes you seriously wonder....

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by nia82 

I'm so sorry OP.... People say the craziest things about non-vaxers/delayed/selective vaxxers. On another board I frequent a poster that viciously defends that EVERY SINGLE child better be vaccinated on schedule claimed that there was a recent SMALL POX outbreak in Iowa due to non-vaccinated people. Nevermind that there hasn't been a case of small pox since 1977 on this planet (natural transmission) and that there is no routine childhood vaccine against smallpox... Makes you seriously wonder....

[Marnica]

One can purchase EFT books/DVD's and instructional videos anywhere - All my EFT materials were not purchased from Mercola's site. The fact that he offers materials for sale on his site doesn't negate the validity of EFT IMO. Here are some studies on EFT that may interest you (or not).

http://www.omnismanus.nl/e-books%20en%20artikelen/Wellsphobiaresearch.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19913760

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00514956 (I would love to know the outcome of this trial)

http://deltainstitute.net/index.php/2011/04/weight-loss-clinical-study-with-emotional-freedom-technique/ (this one too...study onm using it to aid in weight loss - still going on)

Swingle P, & Swingle, M. (May, 2000)  Effects of the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) method on seizure frequency in children diagnosed with epilepsy.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Most mainstream medical folks think energy medicine is a load of crap. That's ok. People that use it and benefit from it feel differently.

Originally Posted by pers 

Yes, he teaches the basics on his site, along with encouragement to buy the book and/or DVD from his store.  My issue wasn't so much with EFT but rather that it was tacked onto the end of a article promoting German New Medicine when "GNM claims that all 'diseases' are in fact your body going through the resolution phase, meaning it is healing itself."  (quote from the same page I linked in my previous post).    Though if you do know of any well controlled studies indicating that EFT has a better effect than a placebo, or even that the affirmations plus tapping provides better results than the affirmations alone, I would be interested in seeing them. 

Don't have energy or time to touch on the rest?  Now I am a little curious as to which aspects you would touch on if you did have time.  Drug use & steroid treatments in gay men being the true cause of AIDS while HIV is harmless and unrelated?  Baking soda being the best treatment for cancer?  Vegetarians being unhealthy, violent, homophobic brutes?  

[member234098]

.

Edited by member234098 - 6/2/12 at 1:20pm

[craft_media_hero]

*hug*

[skyblufig]

kathymuggle -- I think you asked a while back in the thread if I was yelled at in person or online.  It's been both in the past, but this most recent incident it was in person.  Made for a an interesting bbq!  Good times.  Thank goodness it was amongst friends who, to their credit, can debate a topic quite hotly and then move on.  Move on as in, they don't shun our kids or anything.  Which brings me to several points...

I hate to speculate on why other folks do/do not  _fill in the blank_.  However one comes to one's own conclusions is one's own business, I think.  Most people who actively research their decisions are not likely to be swayed from their own conclusions, kwim?  Take homeopathy, for instance. [I can hear some eyeballs rolling from here and that's just fine]  I've used homeopathic remedies for my family for many different ailments over the years, but I don't expect anyone else to. 

One of the things I love about MDC is the passion people bring to the (virtual) table on so many different topics.  It's great we live in a time where the internet provides us with unlimited sources to go to, to find community.  I think sometimes, for myself, the problem with any potentially-controversial topic is the temptation to try to bring the other person around to one's own way of thinking.  I mean, that's at the root of a really great debate, right?  However, in my old age --ahem-- while I certainly appreciate a good debate, I'm pretty set in the way I/my family do/does things.  I'm always open to new research/studies/points-of-view/ideas/etc, but really? All I'm trying to do is move forward in what I feel is the healthiest way possible for myself and my family.  So I come here for the decent concentration of like-minded folks instead of going to _wherever else_.  Sorry for the ramble, just clearing some things out of my head.

[Casha'sMommy]

Originally Posted by Pookietooth 

There is a big campaign to make non-vaxxers look like paranoid, easily mislead snobs. Sounds like lots of people have bought it. I'm not vaccinating no matter what people think!

I'm not debating your pov Pookietooth, but how is it we're (we being non-vaxxers) the paranoid ones? Wouldn't that be the other way around?

Just sayin'

[BeckyBird]

We, the non-vaxxers, are the minority. We are suffering classic persecution for our beliefs. This is nothing new, and history continues to repeat itself. This is more of a lifestyle choice, and when future generations look back at this time period, I hope people will see how unfairly we have been treated.

[greenmulberry]

Originally Posted by peainthepod 

How interesting, thanks for the link. When did a one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination, regardless of the patient's age, weight, medical history, and allergies become the standard of care, do you know?

Why are there no long-term studies comparing fully vaccinated to partially vaccinated to vaccine-free children? There would be nothing unethical about studying the health effects of vaccines on subjects who have chosen to remain vaccine-free.

Which other pharmaceutical drugs, if any, are tested without double-blind placebo studies due to ethical concerns and then marketed to the public at large as completely safe?

How can we know that vaccines protect people (rather than harming them) if we don't test vaccines against placebos? If I test one concentration of arsenic against a different concentration of arsenic and then assure people that the new concentration of arsenic results in less severe or apparent symptoms of poisoning than the older concentration, does that mean that arsenic is safe?

More questions than answers, really...

You can test a vaccine against a placebo, if the vaccine is not already standard of care. Usually this is done in the development phase, when the vaccine is considered experimental.  Almost all vaccines are tested against placebos in the early phases of the trials.

I think the reason that there are no studies of comparison between unvaccinated vs vaccinated people, is first of all, there really are very few unvaccinated people. It is probably harder to grab and enroll them into trials because they don't go to well child visits as often (judging from posts on MDC at least??) I do think they should do more investigation into this!

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by greenmulberry 

I think the reason that there are no studies of comparison between unvaccinated vs vaccinated people, is first of all, there really are very few unvaccinated people. It is probably harder to grab and enroll them into trials because they don't go to well child visits as often (judging from posts on MDC at least??) I do think they should do more investigation into this!

Who are the "they " you are talking about doing more investigations?