"100 bad arguments against vaccines" - Mothering Forums

 1Likes
  • 1 Post By teacozy
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 2 Old 10-16-2015, 04:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
"100 bad arguments against vaccines"

http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/10...inst-vaccines/

I posted this on the discussion forum and it was requested I bring it here

I obviously haven't clicked or thoroughly read every single source he provided, but I did read a few and here are a couple I especially liked:

This one is about why vaccines are not all that profitable to pharma companies and about the idea that all or even the vast majority of studies on the safety of vaccines are produced by big pharma . It is also about GMOs so if that doesn't interest you (it doesn't really interest me) just scroll down to the bottom.

"To further drive this point home, consider the fact that prior to the polio vaccine there were entire hospitals devoted to treating that one disease. Think about that for a minute, the vaccine made entire hospitals (complete with doctors, nurses, administrative staff, etc.) totally obsolete. A study of the costs and benefits of the polio vaccine estimate that by 2015, the polio vaccine will have saved $178 billion in the US alone. The numbers don’t lie. It’s cheaper to prevent a disease than it is to treat it."

On part of that link, he selects 10 studies on vaccines and autism without looking at the funding or authors beforehand and then goes through then looking for conflicts of interest. Only 2 out of the 10 had potential conflicts of interest. He adds "Now, inevitably someone is going to accuse me of having cherry picked these studies, but here’s the thing, you can test this yourself. You can get on PubMed or Google Scholar and look at the author affiliations and funding sources. You don’t have to take my word for it. Further, even if I cherry picked these, that still means that we have at least eight good, completely conflict free papers which found that vaccines were safe."

He adds:

"Additionally, these publications are not what we would expect if pharmaceutical companies were paying off scientists. Remember that there are lots of different companies that compete with each other. It makes absolutely no sense for these companies to pay off scientists to write yet another paper saying that vaccines don’t cause autism. If you haven’t believed the last 100 papers, why should we expect number 101 to make a difference? Rather, if there was a massive conspiracy, it would make sense to target the people who actual care about the scientific literature. In other words, rather than making broad statements about the safety of vaccines, they should claim that the vaccines manufactured by company X are safe, whereas the vaccines by other companies are dangerous. If vaccine companies have scientists in their pockets, then we should see a war between companies about whose vaccines are safe. Think about the logic here for a minute. Anti-vaccers already think that vaccines are dangerous, so they don’t matter, but those of us who care about the literature are going to be very interested in seeing that some companies are safer than others. If, for example, several studies came out showing that vaccines made by GlaxoSmithKline were dangerous but vaccines made by Merck were safe, I would absolutely demand that my vaccines came from Merck, and so would tons of other scientifically minded people. That is what we would expect a conspiracy to look like. Drug companies should be fighting with each other. Instead, we simply see paper after paper showing over and over again that vaccines are safe, regardless of what company they came from."

I've made a similar point before on the forums and it always seems to get lost on the non-vaccine members here. Namely, pharmaceutical companies are all in competition with each other!

This was the second link I really liked titled "5 simple chemistry facts that everyone should understand before talking about science"

"5). A chemical’s properties are determined by the other chemicals that it is bound to

Chemical compounds are made by combining different elements or even molecules, and the final product may not behave the same way as all of its individual parts. Sodium chloride is a classic example of this concept. Sodium is extremely reactive and will literally explode if it contacts water, and chlorine is very toxic at anything but an extremely low dose. Nevertheless, when we combine them we get sodium chloride, which is better known as table salt. Notice that table salt does not have the properties of either sodium or chlorine. It does not explode when it contacts water and you cannot get chlorine poisoning from it no matter how much of it you eat. The combination of those two elements changed their properties and it would be absurd to say that “salt is dangerous because it contains sodium.” The sodium in salt no longer behaves like sodium because it is bound to the chlorine. Therefore, when you hear a claim that something contains a dangerous chemical, make sure that the chemical isn’t bound to something that makes it safe.

You have no doubt heard that vaccines are dangerous because they contain mercury, and mercury is toxic. Ignoring the fact that currently only certain types of flu vaccines contain mercury and the fact the mercury is present in very low doses, there is another serious problem here. The mercury in vaccines is in a form known as thimerosal. Thimerosal is mercury bound to an ethyl group, making it ethyl mercury. The mercury that causes poisoning (i.e., the form that accumulates in seafood) is mercury bound to a methyl group (a.k.a. methyl mercury). Ethyl and methyl mercury are not the same thing. They do not behave the same way. Just as the properties of the sodium were changed by the chlorine, the properties of the mercury are changed by the ethyl group. So, claiming that “mercury is dangerous and vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines are dangerous” is no different from claiming that “sodium is dangerous and salt contains sodium, therefore salt is dangerous.”

Great explanation! At least I thought so
StepGirlfriend likes this.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 10-16-2015 at 05:27 AM.
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 2 Old 10-16-2015, 09:42 AM
 
sciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,724
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Thanks for posting it here. Seems really useful.
sciencemum is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 1,324

6 members and 1,318 guests
Alloy2405 , KerriB , PrayerOFChrist , Realdeal , skyrocket
Most users ever online was 21,860, 06-22-2018 at 08:45 PM.