If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
wrote: David Wright wrote: The Evil Thimerosal Konspiracy is an example. After all, the anti-vac people would have us believe that the Evil Moneyed Powers want us all to get a vaccination, which costs a few bucks, but will prevent a very Everybody isn't exactly as stupid as you seem to think. Most of them are. The reason for the conspiracy was supposed to the potential for liability lawsuits, which could have bankrupted the responsible company, and brought many others down. Yep -- whether or not they were, in fact, guilty of anything. This is no longer the case, as Bill Frist was bought on board and worked verr hard to limit the liability issues, so I am not sure why the conspiracy would continue to exist. Personally it's hard to imagine someone risking developmental damage to thousands of innocent infants, just to make some sort of point. Well, this is where you and I (along with you and reality) part company. You're utterly convinced that thimerosal is a horrible substance that causes autism. It's your right to believe that, but I'm not required to agree with you and it's clear right now that the evidence does not back you up. But then again, in the modern world, many people exist who are extremely loyal to the corporation. A sort of "corporation as god" mentality, which fills the vacuum as people no longer truly believe in old time religions, cannot believe in humanity, cannot believe in nature, cannot believe in science that they see as only a tool, cannot believe in truth... leaving not much else than the corporation. Such corporate priests naturally would rise to influential positions within their organizations, and then would do anything to maintain the "good name" of their organizations that exists in their minds. The trouble with this sort of absolute pronouncement is that it implicitly denies that the corporation might, in fact, actually be innocent of anything. Don't get me wrong. I think the idea of corporations for limited liability is a good one, but I'm a lot less comfortable with the idea of this fictional corporate "person" being able to lobby for legislation etc. On the other hand, when I see the looney anti-vac organizations and the swill they push, I start to wonder whether it'd be fair not to let the corporations push back. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile." -- Anon. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
wrote: David Wright wrote: Basically, you have been campaigning viciously to help maintain the SHELF LIFE of vaccines, nothing else. Wrong. In developed countries, like the US, you can avoid the need for preservatives by refrigerating a vaccine. But what do we do in some third-world country where the electricity might be on for a few hours per day, if they even have any? Thimerosal can keep vaccines preserved (and thus free of bacteria) for quite some time, even at room temperature. What to do is easy to answer if you want to be honest about it. You would research all sides in broad daylight, and explain the potential risks/benefits to the third world population, and let them make the choice of whether they need the extended shelf life. Except that you're u sing "potential risks/benefits" as a euphemism for "vaccines cause autism! there's no question of this! there will never be any question of this! nothing can change my mind!" Btw, your example is not actually correct, single-shot packaging technologies mean you don't have to make this either/or choice. It does increase the price a little, but even the poorest third world governments (when given facts) won't like to risk infants with great abandon just to avoid a 50% higher price, or to help prove someone's point. You don't have a lot of experience with either governments or poverty, do you? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile." -- Anon. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Bohlman wrote:
The problem here is that in underdeveloped countries, "reduction in shelf life" and "50% higher prices" aren't just matters of convenience; they can make the difference between kids being vaccinated and kids not being vaccinated. Worrying about vaccine/autism connections is a rather expensive hobby that can only be afforded by the Western middle class; for people in the third world, the question isn't "will he be autistic rather than neurotypical," it's "will he survive to adulthood." All I said was, "provide the information and let them make the choice." You are saying that you feel you can guess at their conditions, and make decisions for them. That's some amazing hubris. (Though in fact, the source of this idea is not hubris, but the small amount of profits that would be realized by not throwing away manufacturing equipment immediately.) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright wrote:
Except that you're u sing "potential risks/benefits" as a euphemism for "vaccines cause autism! there's no question of this! there will never be any question of this! nothing can change my mind!" You are lying, I never said or implied that. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright wrote:
The trouble with this sort of absolute pronouncement is that it implicitly denies that the corporation might, in fact, actually be innocent of anything. Yes, you are reading that right. It is possible (though extremely unlikely) that somehow thimerosal is not responsible. But the corporation is definitely and certainly not innocent, for it's clearly guilty of an attempted cover-up of facts and manipulation of the legislative system. For otherwise, why is there a law of the land today, protecting the corporation from liability? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I'm opposed to vaccines in general so didn't want to dilute my points by
debating thimerosol. As Dr Stern says, maybe mercury/thimerosol is not the "cause". Not directly, that is. Mercury, thimerosol or in other form, is a poison. If, as alluded to in Dr. Stern'sarticle, autism is a "genetic disorder...which may be triggered by other components,"let us look at the overall load these children have been subjected to. The mercury may be only one environmental factor, but since it is known to be a neurotoxin, why administer it to growing brains? Since we can't control the genes, let's control the environment by not administering known neurotoxins to children, and see what happens. Nothing bad will happen, surely, by avoiding thimerosol. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HP: Outstanding Thread on Autism / Mercury Debate ... | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | July 28th 05 07:26 PM |
The Not-So-Crackpot Autism Theory | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 31 | February 12th 05 01:43 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | March 18th 04 09:11 AM |
CHILDREN 27-TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP AUTISM WITH EXPOSURE TO MERCURY- CONTAINING VACCINES | Ilena | Kids Health | 8 | February 29th 04 09:07 PM |
NYTIMES: More and More Autism Cases, Yet Causes Are Much Debated | Ilena | Kids Health | 27 | February 23rd 04 02:32 PM |