Space Goat

If you roundly defeat the flu, that will certainly be good news. Nevertheless, the plural of anecdote is not data. Thousands of people who get the flu won't be able to fight it off.

There is no scientific evidence thiomersal is harmful.

Not really. Attacking vaccine preservatives appears to be just the latest strategy for vaccination-phobes.

Of course, proper scientific rigor demands intense scrutiny of whatever ingredients vaccines might contain. That's how the continued safety of vaccines can be assured.

But this doesn't justify hysteria over the science fiction that vaccines are dangerous. They're not.

__________________

Closet Racist

A) I'm not against vaccination.

B) Putting a mercury-based compound in my body is probably a bad idea. It was developed in the 1930's, during the era when it was acceptable to experiment on the mentally handicapped and non-Caucasians without consent...

__________________

Space Goat

I didn't mean you, personally, were. I was focusing on the sources of claims about vaccine reagents and preservatives.

Penicillin was also developed during the 1930's, after Alexander Fleming discovered its antibiotic capabilities in 1928. Other than because many bacteria have become resistant to penicillin, should we be leery of taking it?

In any case, the very act of putting mercury into one's body will not make one sick. Seafood contains relatively high levels of mercury, and yet having fish and chips will not in most cases make one ill. Mercury causes poisoning usually only when one takes in too much of it in a short time.

That's consistent with the scientific failure to link thiomersal in vaccines to widespread health complications. Of course, that doesn't mean a link is nonexistent. But rationality demands we believe claims only when they are supported by evidence. Even after many scientific tests, evidence of a link hasn't been found.

__________________

Bean

I see the point you're making, but in the spirit of devil's advocate, the success of penicillin is not proof that his concern isn't valid. Certainly there were many drugs etc.. that came from that same time period and testing standards that are perfectly acceptable and don't deserve scrutiny. That however doesn't mean that ALL treatments developed as such are deserving of the same trust.

__________________
"I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I've tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing."

--James T. Kirk

Space Goat

Of course that's true. My point just was that origins in the 1930's aren't sufficient reason to distrust a medical treatment the safety of which has otherwise been established.

__________________

Daxie

Considering it's among one of the most common things a person can be allergic to... yeah.

Or in small doses over long periods of time

__________________
>Hagar: "Before we go into battle today let me remind you what we're fighting for! We're fighting for justice! We're fighting for equality! What could be more important than that?"

>>Eddie: "How about a steady paycheck, health insurance and a good retirement plan?"

Daxie

Not ALL vaccines are dangerious, but some vaccines may be unneccessary for all people

__________________
>Hagar: "Before we go into battle today let me remind you what we're fighting for! We're fighting for justice! We're fighting for equality! What could be more important than that?"

>>Eddie: "How about a steady paycheck, health insurance and a good retirement plan?"

iamspenagain

That's not true. Even if you're not susceptible to a certain disease doesn't mean you shouldn't be vaccinated for it. Even if you're asymptomatic, you could still carry the disease and be a danger to others.

__________________
If I could, I would marry a Magnum bar.