Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "Vaccine-gate" video.
-
accordio13 Firstly, in high concentrations, Hg is poisonous and it's a neurotoxin. Children should not have high exposures of Hg. Or Pb for that matter.
That said, Hg is normally found in low concentrations in: eggs, beef, rain water, soil, chicken, fish, and others.
Here's the preservative molecule that contains an element of Hg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#mediaviewer/File:Thiomersal-Skeletal-Structure-SVG.svg
Much like eggs or rainwater, there's no good evidence to form a strong cogent argument Hg in the flu vaccine causes autism. It may. I mean, it is possible. It's reasonable to test. It's reasonable to limit exposure. What Thom is doing is a violation of reason. He and other's like him are causing hysteria.
Secondly, I'm certainly more than supportive of ongoing testing and, if the company can make a dose without Hg, simply price the non Hg containing vaccine double and sell that side by side. If you do not want the Hg containing vaccine, then pay more. If you don't care, pay less.
They truth is, no one knows what's causing the increase in autism. It may be an ion, it may be pesticides, it may be long term day care during formative years, it maybe modern society and plastics, or a combination of any or all and others.
4
-
3
-
2
-
beyondathought
Have you read any further analysis of the actual data? As far as I have read, the full data is available for anyone to analyse. As a matter of fact, once data is published the authors agree to make the data available to anyone else for analysize. The data that supposedly was left out, wasn't really left out. It was combined for an average. It has subsequently been analyzed and appears that, with the exception of a small window in the age of male African american children, there doesn't appear to be an effect of the vaccine on population increase or decrease in autism.
Is it possible? Yes. It's possible fertilizer, day care, food coloring, shampoo, etc.... could have an effect on children becoming autistic.
You suggest that this is to save money? Why would that be the case? The company owns the patent. The company would simply pass an additional costs on to the buyer. So, no, this isn't being done to save company's money. It's be done to save the public money though.
I think this scientist is possibly a crack pot, possibly seeking revenge, possibly going to sell something (book, stocks, who knows) or maybe really believes what he says.
If all of these other scientists who were on the paper were aware of this falsification, why haven't they come forward?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1