Love it. This sort of demonstration (*language aside) is exactly what more people need. *I personally think the language, when used properly like Penn in this instance, makes things even more effective.
Love it ?? Maybe you should learn it instead.. there are a lot of parents who watched their children become autistic and one can't refute some facts it was tied to some vaccines being pumped in to their bodies at a higher rate than should be.. here are a few good reads and many more out there.. obviously for and against.. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...merosal-Induces-AutismLike-Neurotoxicity.aspx http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccinations-deadly-immunity/14510
Maybe you should read some newer research. There is no causal relationship between vaccines and autism shown by any actual data. The initial study that started it all was a fraud: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ The science publications: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n5/full/nn0507-531.html The AAP position: http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf
I hate seeing these folks that would rather have their kid get polio based off the word of Jenny McCarthy then get them vaccinated. Same quacks that think they can wrap their kids tightly in womb like blankets to cure sickness instead of giving them tylenol and possibly......gasp....antibiotics!!! Heavens to Betsy!!!
Umm I have which as I stated originally there is plenty for and against.. my focus was directed at thimerosal.. which I didn't directly target.. my bad there. If as some claim this mercury based preservative isn't harmful why did they remove it from child vaccines? But of course some now have an neurotoxic aluminum based one.. which some claim is as toxic.. 2 month old babies receive roughly 1,225mcg of it.. which is 50 times higher than safe levels.. I'm not opposed to all vaccines and they do have useful purposes in life but one should be concerned with what they put in them.. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/Aluminum_in_Vaccines.pdf
One, it was not used in a lot of vaccines at all, and with the confusion and concerns of the general public they wanted to keep the vaccination programs going. The perception of the public does not rely on facts but that perception does influence decisions. And one should be careful about the sources of one's information. Those sources with profit motives for their information thrive on confusion. Actual scientific studies do not have that as a goal.
A review of the book from the site previously mentioned: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/another-anti-vaccine-book/ and the author: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neil_Z._Miller And the studies on aluminum vaccines: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/scienceresearch/ucm284520.htm
I never once said or implied it was used in all vaccines.. as I stated also vaccines have their place in the world.. just know whats in them and the allegedly associated threat with them.. Yeah Pharmaceutical companies don't have profit on their mind or the lobbyist they pay... One must ask who has more to gain and lose.. drug companies do. There has been many cases of cover ups and pay-offs
No, you asked why they removed it from vacinnes. If it is not used in many vaccines it is easier to remove, that is an aspect. The other aspect was the unfounded concerns of the general public. But from reputable sources and not from someone who makes their living selling you books on what may be wrong with them. Yes, and a pharmaceutical company who is shown to use something harmful in vaccines opens the doors to litigation which hurts profit in multiple ways. They are protected in the US to a degree from injury resuting from the attempt to provide protection, but that would not generally extend to adding a known harm.
It was removed due to the possibility it could've been harmful in the amounts they were giving out.. it wasn't removed just because it wasn't in that many vaccines. Lets see who's more reputable.. Miller or Drug companies?? Has it been proven that Miller has lied and paid others off or performed in any cover up studies?? Not to my knowledge. How bout the drug companies.. Most certainly they have.. Drug companies influences are far and wide and very profitable.. I have stated my opinion here on the matter and I'm not gonna banter back and forth as usual only to end up wasting band width going down a dead end road. You're somewhat associated with the epa right? You should be well aware there are dangers with putting mercury and/or aluminum based substance in infants let alone adults.. these are known toxins aren't they and can be very dangerous.. We live in a trial and error type of world always have always will.. Hell I'm sure you probably enjoyed in your younger years before it was known just how dangerous it was rolling around and playing with mercury from a thermometer.. Lead is no different back than.. hell lead was prevalent in a lot of products way back when.. asbestos... all at the time they were used they were good till they found out otherwise many years later.
If it had been in many vaccines as an integral part of those vaccines it would not have been removed. It was removed because too many people were opting to not vaccinate their children based on internet style rumors, which created the potential for significant health risks. That was the only reason for the change. That is a poor logical fallacy, but on a par with the type of "evidence" presented. Your knowledge is far from a good baseline nor is the opinion of a psychologist concerning vaccines a good baseline. And the TV ad man style approach is so much more appealing. The vaccine opposition is pretty much a dead end road. Even IF the vaccines caused autism in <1% of those vaccinated, the damage by not vaccinating was a larger health issue. There is a danger with vaccinations, as with ALL medical procedures, without considering the very miniscule possibility of harm by these additives. The key question is which carries the greater risk and that is not vaccinating. Before it was determines that mercury had a vapor pressure, yes. The problem with exposure, however was well known from the hat industry and gold mining industries, to name a few. Yes, and how many people ranted about removing it from fuels once the connection was made? Nah, they knew the dangers but it was not considered a short term risk so it was ignored. There are a lot of other hazards which were known and ignored because there was no strong protection of workers. Asbesos is only a concern now if it is exposed.
