209
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 136:
Line 136: + + + +
→NHS and vaccination
::::DWiggins, a vast majority agreeing on something - a ''consensus'' - still doesn't make their position ''right'' as opposed to ''wrong''. A vast ''consensus'' of people in the United States viewed slavery as ''right'' at one time in our history; were they correct in believing so? No. So how can a consensus of doctors be correct in viewing that there's no vaccination link to autism, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that mercury in a human body (as in thimerosal) does bad things? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:48, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::DWiggins, a vast majority agreeing on something - a ''consensus'' - still doesn't make their position ''right'' as opposed to ''wrong''. A vast ''consensus'' of people in the United States viewed slavery as ''right'' at one time in our history; were they correct in believing so? No. So how can a consensus of doctors be correct in viewing that there's no vaccination link to autism, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that mercury in a human body (as in thimerosal) does bad things? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:48, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::I never said it 'makes their position right'. And in using the slavery example you are mixing up science and ethics. What is 'right' from a scientific point of view is something that has not yet been falsified, so it is perhaps better to say 'provisionally accepted' (please see my post on the Noah's Ark page I have recently made concerning the scientific method). The slavery example is a question of whether someone views slavery as morally 'right'. Of course to virtually everyone today the answer seems obvious, it is not. But as you say in the past this was not so simple, and many people saw it the opposite way. Our judgement of these people and their actions is retrospective, of course we view them as wrong, but they evidently believed they were right. Anyway, that is just an aside, since it is not relevant to the question of scientific proof.
:::::It has been shown time and time again, through application of the scientific method that there is no casual link between MMR or thiomersal and autism. All claims otherwise have since been falsified, as such, the only logical conclusion that can currently be reached is that there is no such link. And you are also getting mixed up with your biochemistry. Yes, mercury is toxic. But thiomersal is not mercury, it is a compound containing the element. The pseudoscience behind the supposed link is that it has mercury, therefore it must be toxic, as if the mercury component jsut spontaneously separates from the rest of the compound in the human body. There is NO evidence to support a link between thiomersal and autism. I don't know how many more times it needs to be stated, by either me, or those men and women wearing the white coats who have investigated this time and time again. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:58, 5 November 2009 (EST)