a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00
"As part of the FDAMA review, the FDA evaluated the amount of mercury an infant might receive in the form of ethylmercury from vaccines under the U.S. recommended childhood immunization schedule and compared these levels with existing guidelines for exposure to methylmercury, as there are no existing guidelines for ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal. At the time of this review in 1999, the maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, ATSDR, and WHO. However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury.

As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000). The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines."

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability...

I never said it was linked to any disease. I said the FDA pulled it because of potential build-up.

I just quoted you two paragraphs from the FDA. In order for me (or my wife) to explain this properly to someone afraid of vaccines, I have to explain enough organic chemistry to point out that ethyl mercury and methyl mercury aren't the same... and then they're likely to point out that while polypropylene glycol and polyethylene glycol aren't the same, either, both of them are banned in Scandinavia as food additives but only one of them is in the US.

That's not denialism. That's people - apparently, like you - who think that anyone who doesn't have an organic chemistry degree shouldn't be allowed to point out that there are contradictions in behavior of the very organizations that are supposed to protect them.

"These people" are likely your friends and neighbors. They'd likely turn to you for advice. Your advice, as I've pointed out, is "STFU&GTFO."

And that's why you never change their mind.





b_b  ·  4701 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Well, in all fairness to me, there is a different way that I speak on this forum as opposed to an education forum. You're obviously a well informed person, so we can speak about pretty in depth subject matters. Its part of my career to educate the public about biology, and of course one has to modify the severity of one's language depending on the audience. However, in my experience as a professional biologist, I can say that I have never changed any one's mind who is a denialist of any sort about vaccines or evolution or the age of the universe, independent of what approach I have taken. It would be equitable to changing one's mind about whether God does or does not exist. When someone has a belief, they have a belief.
kleinbl00  ·  4700 days ago  ·  link  ·  
No, not in fairness to you. This is the third post - to you - where I've said, essentially, "this isn't 'denialism', it's fear, and if you go in on a war footing you're going to push someone on the fence over the edge."

This is not an existential question. This is a "there's lots of conflicting data and I don't know who to trust" question. The way you deal with those types of questions is by saying "well, this means this, this means that, and in my professional opinion as a biologist there are bigger things to worry about than vaccines."

The fact that we're not even arguing about whether vaccines are good or not says a lot: all I'm saying is "you're arguing wrong" and you keep coming back with "DENIALISTS WILL NEVER CHANGE THEIR MIND."

Change the tense - I'm willing to agree that no amount of argument from you will change their mind because you see them as infidels.