You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 16204393? ago 

These diseases appear in populations of children raised by anti-vaxxers. Thus, your argument is factually wrong.

0
0

[–] 16204395? ago 

These diseases appear in populations of children raised by anti-vaxxers

Source?

0
0

[–] 16204400? ago 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5007135/

Notice this is what a proper source looks like.

>>12688794

Staying blue pilled, I see.

You made up a sentence ex nilho and then proceeded to argue against it. This is a textbook strawman.

First of all

You made statements which were true on condition of dose and patient. There are few absolute statements in medicine like those you made, because it always depends upon specific conditions. In this case, dose and age.

Secondly, when dealing with cancer causing agents and radiation the "zero exposure" system is used in which "no amount of exposure is to be considered safe."

You are exposed to radiation every day from cosmic background radiation, fallout from nuclear weapons testing decades ago, Fukushima's contamination of the environment, naturally occurring radioisotopes of carbon and potassium. Need I go on?

Why is it "hand waved"

D O S E

O

S

E

This is a foundational concept in medicine and physiology. Do you have ANY idea how many random chemicals you are bombarded with every day? Of course not, because you are too busy asking the wrong questions. Sit down and read about dose. Read about the father of chemical warfare and how dosage was discovered to relate to poison.

Why is knowledge of it suppressed?

It's clearly not suppressed if uneducated people like you have such easy access to it. Why am I snarky, you ask? Because I have already given you the answer several times: DOSE DOSE DOSE. Yet you ignore it. Not only that, you invent sentences and respond to them, demonstrating dishonesty.

Exactly, and the results are cherry-picked.

You never read the literature. I know this because you lack foundational knowledge of chemistry and biology. You are in no position to make this claim. You probably don't even know what a primary source is. You probably think "National Geographic" is a journal.

No one should be crippled by autism and brain damage.

Good news then, because vaccines don't cause autism. I'll take this as your tacit support of vaccination of children.

That does not mean that environmental toxins cannot radically alter a person's health and/ or development.

The research specifically indicates a GENETIC and NOT an environmental (mercury from vaccines) cause. In other words, you once again show a startling lack of reading comprehension.

It seems that autism essentially did not exist before the rise of vaccines

According to what? The gaping assumption pulled out of your ass? What we call autism is a name for assigned to a disease. Not having a name doesn't mean the disease didn't exist. That's not how cause and effect works. I'll also need a DOI link to that journal you just cited about a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. What was its name again? "Armchair Weekly?"

I have already listed several explanations for the apparent rise of autism. Women having children later in life was one of those explanations.

Then we need better vaccines that use non-toxic stabilizers and preservatives.

Spoken by a true doctor of Not-Chemistry. Look, how about you leave discussion of the biochemistry and chemistry of preservatives to us chemists and take your condescending arrogance elsewhere?

I specifically pointed out that, yes, vaccines work, but they currently contain toxic brain-damaging compounds.

They contain chemicals which WOULD be toxic IF they were in HIGHER doses.

There's that word again. Dose.

To Hel with your "herd mentality." People die all the time from many different things. Life is not safe.

People die of mistakes and events out of our control. You are willingly causing more death for an imaginary benefit because you're uneducated and arrogant.

If you want to "contain stupid people" then support White separation into racial homelands (immediate huge jump in intelligence) followed by sensible eugenics.

I assure you, that if I wanted to use eugenics against stupid people, your testicles would be the first on the chopping block.

So, SOME people might die from not being vaccinated

More ignorance of fundamentals in medicine. Not everyone has a working immune system, due to age, congenital disorders, genetic diseases, and of course AIDS. Herd immunity protects people who could not benefit from vaccination directly.

"Pro-vaxxers"

Aka people who know how to read scientific literature.