A quick, uninformed look at anp32 shows that it also works to suppress cancer, so be CAREful out there.
Well, the worst it could happen are chickens that get more cancer when they get old, but since the vast mayority don't even live that long the effect is negligible
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So, this is a data collection operation that won’t be able to cure existing patients but those in the future
No, it is clear this means the genetic testing is mainly used to properly diagnose existing patients that are being treated without responding properly, hopefully finding better options. The data collection is an extra that the ministry is asking the hospital to provide as long as the patients are ok with it.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I hope no one has the need for such drug
That is true for all medicines, nobody (sane) hopes for people to need them.
Nevertheless, about 1 out of every 10,000 children born have the disease and most likely will die before their second birthday, any kind of drug is well received by the parents of those children, even when extremely expensive.
One important point is that for these kind of gene therapies the development cost is obviously huge and the companies will want to recover that investment (hopefully letting them find other cures) but the huge cost here is also because the process to produce a treatment using vectors to introduce the genes to the cells is extremely inefficient right now.
Terribly complicated and wasteful processes are still necessary to produce a dose at a purity and concentration adequate to be effective as a genetic treatment, hundreds and hundreds of liters of cell cultures end up as the content of a single syringe after many cycles of concentration and purification with a huge loss of vectors on every step. This ends up rising the cost a lot.
The good news is that these processes are also advancing, and every month new machines, reagents, protocols, etc. make the manufacture of genetic vectors easier and cheaper. If the FDA approve some of these new methods for their use in human medicines, this will make the drugs much more reasonable.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So, now the bias will shift to employers who will not hire female staff.
Which is unfortunately the only exit many hospitals with a shortage of staff will have with the current system.
Doesn't say they won't manipulate test scores and fail half those women before they can become doctors. Wouldn't happen in my country.
would not happen in Japan either, nobody fail to graduate as long as they want to and don't die.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Because male doctors can't be trusted? What's the reasoning?
Because it is the standard of care. All medical institutions where a male doctor performs a physical examination of female patients insist on having a chaperone precisely to avoid this kind of problems, it protects patients from bad doctors but it also protects the doctors from false/mistaken accusations.
Here there are two possibilities, either the doctor groped the patients on purpose or the risk of being accused of bad behavior never crossed his mind even if its something very common and that every physician is well aware of. Any of those two cases require him to be investigated.
What would you think about a high-school teacher that meets in his hotel room with a female student? is the lack of blind trust on teachers the only reason why anybody would think this should be avoided?
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Tell me is getting jabbed with a needle introducing toxins directly into the bloodstream how the immune system is supposed to work ?
Yes, that is how it is (grossly) supposed to work, and do it every single day of your life, vaccines are simply much easier to notice because of the volume in which the antigens are diluted for ease of handling. Leave a child playing in the yard for a few minutes and he will get ten times more antigens injected directly to the bloodstream, including natural adjuvants. All of it without him or anybody else noticing anything.
Yeah, the skin is good and everything, but its much less of a barrier than what apparently you like to think. Study immunology before trying to say how it does or not work.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I am very sorry but almost every single thing in your post is either wrong, misinterpreted or a plain lie that some people want you to believe.
Big pharma is corrupt? then they should be against vaccines, treating an infection is hugely more profitable than selling the vaccine.
A quarter of a million people killed by treatment every year? sorry, that has already been proved false because of improper methods in the research, the real figure is at much 10 times less and probably not even that.
Three antigens and an adjuvant are a "supercharger" of the immunity? that is simply false, there is absolutely no data to sustain it, a kid playing outside gets exposed to hundreds of new antigens in much higher doses and have a much stronger immune reaction, but that is not a problem because that is how the system is supposed to work. Not having a "minor frenzy" with every single new antigen is called immuno deficiency.
Cross reactivity giving autoimmune problems? yeah, but in much less frequency with a vaccine than with a natural infection that exposes the body to ten times more antigens in much higher doses. Being vaccinated ALSO prevents this complication even if not perfectly. At the end of the day that is what you need to prove, not that vaccines are absolutely free of risk (nothing is) but that they are more risky than not vaccinating, that is not the case for any currently available vaccine.
Big pharma is not the one benefited by the "no liability" policy, public health is. Instead of losing even more money to prove that a vaccine have nothing to do with a kid dying from something that is very clearly not related it is unfortunately more efficient just giving money to people so the rest can get their safe health intervention without trouble, of course when something can be proved clearly above the most irrational doubt then it stops being covered by this policy (like autism).
At the end this conspiracy makes no sense, it depends on literally thousands and thousands of doctors, nurses, scientists, epidemiologist, etc. to give something risky and unnecessary to their own children just so their bosses can get rich. Would you do that? if not, why would you think thousands of people that know much more than you about the topic happily keep doing it?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Article title is false, no such thing has been found. One thing is to see an effect when applying something directly to cells outside of the body in a plastic dish, another completely different is to see the same effect on tissue while the person is alive and the chemicals are taken as a drug.
There are countless examples where things work wonders in vitro and then fail to produce anything in vivo, not even reaching the step of clinical trials.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So they grouped the people by their genetic background, and found that people that have known enzymatic deficiency with an important effect on daily metabolism had an increase in risk of disease. Now, how did they prove that the increased risk is not related to the defective enzyme?
It reads as if they did a study on fenilcetonurics against normal people and found out that the amino acid phenylalanine is bad for the health.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So I guess the question for us to answer as individuals is whether we would reject a life-saving transplant if we needed one, if the organ to be transplanted came from an animal embryo.
That has never been the issue, the problem is about the possibility of producing humanized animals to the point of them (or their progeny) having human rights. (Exaggerating the issue for clarity, the question you would need to answer as an individual is whether you consider acceptable to create quasihumans without rights so long as you get your transplant)
For this particular approach there is no such possibility so the ethical problem ends here, but it had to be examined first or else open a can of worms that would end up being counterproductive for the advance of the technique.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
DRC have developed a mask that changes pollen to water.
I wonder if this is done with miniaturized nuclear reactions or plain old magical alchemy.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Maybe you didn't notice that the infant mortality rates mentioned are per head of population.
Rates are not the only thing reported, in many cases they simply give total numbers without bothering to give rates precisely because they are very different.
Please see the following link for confirmation that Japan consistently ranks near the very lowest in the world and as low as more than half of some highly vaccinated nations. Why?
Because no two countries are the same? Japan is not a tiny America or Europe, is one of the very few fully developed nations that is also strongly isolated, epidemiologically this is a very strong confounding factor when talking about infectious diseases and has to be corrected when doing comparisons BUT only if you want to do an honest analysis without trying to push an artificial point, other factors like average population density, percentage of population, mortality rates from diseases other than infectious (how are do you mean to compare the effect of vaccines in non-infectious diseases). Also, a proper analysis do not compare two countries and give the numbers for some of the pairs but compare all the countries and presents this as a single analysis to see if vaccination is or not correlated to infant mortality or not.
Again, once you have statistics you can invalidly compare numbers endlessly until you get one that you like, but for that you have to be dishonest and "forget" to adjust for what is known to be confounding factors and also simply stop presenting all the others that you did not like.
Finally, you never stopped to think why you get told about mortality only? as if every sick child ends up dead? have you ever considered what happens with morbidity rates? or do you consider only important if a child die and not if he gets seriously sick?
The following article by the National Center for Biotechnology Information states that the vaccination rates in Japan are far lower than in the United States.
What? did you even read your own source?
Japanese rates of routine vaccinations are among the highest in the world.
Rotavirus has experienced significant declines in countries adopting universal vaccination programs, while Japan experiences ongoing seasonal outbreaks of this disease.
Annual acute hepatitis B incidence in Japan was estimated to be 1.7–1.9 per 100,000 in 2007–2008. In the United States where hepatitis B vaccination rates exceed 90%, the incidence has fallen from 11.5 per 100,000 to about 1.5 per 100,000 in 2007 and has continued to fall to about 0.9 per 100,000 in 2011.
there are still large numbers of susceptible adults who may serve as a reservoir for ongoing infection. Adults constituted 92% of cases in the 2012–2013 rubella outbreak, and eighty percent of 20–39 year olds who developed rubella had not received the rubella vaccine.
In short your source say exactly the opposite of what you presented here and concludes that vaccination is necessary and should be expanded and supported, it almost seems as if you simply did not read it.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Another article highlighting the fact that despite having a far lower vaccination rate than other developed nations Japan has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world. This is attributed to excellent hygiene and sanitation standards amongst other reasons.
So the article discusses total number of cases and expect people not to think about the huge difference in population between USA and Japan? Its strange that you that were so keen to identify hidden reasons why people could be lying could not simply identify such invalid technique to mislead and fool people.
There is precisely zero evidence for most of the opinions collected in the article, this is not some kind of weird religion where people has to be believed for their position (or even former positions) everything has to come down to the evidence, properly reviewed and validated data processed with appropriate methods and reported in detail so anybody can see it for themselves.
There is nothing to prove that "some" vaccines are unnecessary, the epidemiological data is clear that the consequences of natural infection are much more dangerous and frequent than negative events after vaccination, EVEN if you include events that are clearly not related to vaccines. There is no logic on choosing 1 in 500 odds of death instead of 1 in 10000 odds, so in what is based this recommendation.
Once again you present references of extremely low quality and apparently you could not recognize it. That is the danger of trying to do something you have no training to do. You are free to do it of course, but it is evident you are not doing it properly.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Here's what I feel is a fair and well balanced Japan Times article giving both sides of the issue.
Now answer your own forced and irrelevant questions about scientific articles that disprove your beliefs. Can you prove irrefutably that the people expressing their opinion (without properly sustaining it with epidemiological data) have absolutely nothing to gain from this?
Else why the double standards? how come it is well balance if you have demonstrated that you cannot evaluate the weight of the evidence presented?
How many are the "too many" peope that Mori mentions, why are the numbers in the article incomplete (if 38 children died after vaccination looks really bad, but what if 120 died on the same age group without vaccination? does that mean that vaccines protect against deaths by unrelated diseases?)
What have Mori to say now that Rubella and Measles have more and more cases in Japan this year, especially between non-vaccinated children? How does he justify abandoning vaccines against Japanese Encephalitis when it is still a very important health problem in other countries of Asia and even in Japan pigs at farms are infected with the virus every year up to a 100% of the animals depending on the localization?
Do you find it balanced precisely because it lacks objective information about the evidence? because that would mean you are looking purposefully for information of the lowest possible quality just so you can force some kind of balance that actually does not exist.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
I am terribly sorry but every thing in your post has been demonstrated as false with clear evidence. We do know in detail about how the human immunity works, doctors already take in account variation between individuals, vaccines do not cause harm nor medical mistakes are the 3rd cause of death in America. There is no problem how vaccination is being done and epidemiological data is clear that vaccinated children are healthier and have less problems than unvaccinated ones, even if we ignore the diseases they are vaccinated against.
How plausible do you think is a global conspiracy where literally millions of doctors, nurses, social workers, scientist, technicians, etc willingly kill and maim their own children only for their bosses (not even themselves) to gain more money? it simply makes no sense at all, and that is because its not true. Vaccines are safe, are good for the human health and blind rejection is only a product of ignorance, improve your sources, the ones you are using are well known for publishing lies and deceiving people for their own interests.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Let everyone decide for themselves whether to accept vaccines or not according to thier own free will and reasoning. It's a free world.
Again, this is applicable only as long as the people deciding accept their responsibility and get the necessary abilities to properly judge the evidence instead of simply following an irrational belief. Else they will risk their own and other people health because of this lack of responsibility.
So yes, people are free of rejecting a perfectly safe and effective preventive measure, but they will not be free of the consequences, including being called on the irrationality of this rejection.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
@ Concerned Citizen
It is important to point that this evidence is of much higher quality than what you presented here as opposite, and that you have obviously not had time to even read the titles of the references I indicated, much less examine in necessary detail each of them.
One thing is that nobody can force you to be rational about the topic, so even if the evidence is as clear as every other therapeutic and preventive intervention, if you want to hold it to a special irrational and impossible standard and then consider deeply flawed and misleading sites saying the opposite as if they suddenly were more reliable, you are free to do it. But there is still value in making this evident, because even if you don't want to realize it maybe other people can and this conversation can help them avoid getting into the same position.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
@ Concerned Citizen
Can you tell who conducted PMID: 24814559
Yes, they are called "authors" and more importantly they put detailed explanations of the methods so you can re-do the analysis and see if you reach the same conclusions, if you think any of the parameters followed is not appropriate you can also modify it after justifying your change.
and prove that they are truly independent, have no vested interest in the outcome nor anything to gain from it?
No, that is an irrational, illogical requirement because its impossible to prove a negative, there is simply no way to prove that something "is not". What is for example easier is to prove that this study is a much better reference than what you previously used. From the simple fact that they published their methods in detail and there is no obvious deceit on how the presented the conclusions of the reports in their meta-analysis. If you considered your previous disastrous useful in any way there is no logical reason why you should consider this suspicious.
Also, you are moving your goalposts, a typical antivaxxer strategy where no matter how superb the studies and evidence is presented you keep asking for other, different requirements without end, something that you never did for the evidence you yourself presented.
Also, as far as I can see this study focuses on autism
Yes, that is the reason why I presented it as an example of the minimum necessary standard for scientific evidence and (for the third time) give you very simple instructions on where to find as much studies as you like about it.
Did you visit the WHO page? had any difficulty finding their position on vaccines and the research they use to justify it? do you need me to copy-paste the collection of references so you can read each even if you apparently have no understanding about how to do it? (since you even asked to prove a negative...)
1 ( +2 / -1 )
@ Concerned Citizen
For the third time, I already provided a very clear example of such (PMID: 24814559), did my first comment disappeared for you? I also give a very simple instruction where to find dozens and dozens of such studies as references presented without falsehoods as in the page you linked. Did you have difficulties understanding those studies? then you can read the conclusions as the official recommendations of the WHO for vaccines, those come in layman terms easy to understand.
Or you can also choose another health organization that deal with immunizations or infections like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the association of nurses, etc. It makes no difference, they all recommend the same thing based on the same evidence. So if you have not the training to interpret the quality of research you simply read their recommendations, and once you have the training you go and read ALL the references (if you want a single study to "prove" something I am afraid you still need to learn how to read science).
Also, for the second time, there is NO such thing as "definitive" in science, every single thing, from infections being caused by microbes to humans needing the head to be able to live, are tentative explanations that could be proven false if more and better evidence of the opposite come to light.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
All studies indicate, that is completely independent from their quality, the main principle of science is that evidence never "proves" something completely but indicate that one conclusion is much more plausible than the opposite. The flaws in your reference go way beyond that into scientific fraud and are unequivocally something that should be punished as willful deceit. It is not that the studies are badly done, is that some are done purposefully bad, others are misrepresented and others are not even done in the first place and only presented as supposed conclusions that you have to believe by faith.
The same doubts can also be cast on pharmaceutical companies research data.
That is not true, you can doubt any study because of conflict of interest and other reasons, but what I identified in your source are clear problems that even a postgraduate student in its first year should be able to identify. A perfectly well done study can be wrong because of reasons that are not evident, your example is wrong without ever having to go into their motives, their methods are obviously invalid and make the site as a reference worse than useless, they are lying in very evident ways.
Finally, as I said, the only way to really compare the two options is to have irrefutable data results comparing outcomes of the two groups.
In science there is no such thing as irrefutable data, about anything (outside of pure mathematics) if somebody ever presented "irrefutable data" about anything dealing with health that person is lying.
I already gave you a very clear example of the minimum standard for a scientific study dealing with vaccines, its very simple to find as many examples as you like if you go for example to the WHO page dealing with vaccines and looking at the references. The only problem is that if you believed at any point that apa.com gives reliable information I am afraid you lack the training necessary to evaluate the quality of a scientific study and will easily fall for the false balance that antivaxxers present (using a terribly bad and limited study to "disprove" a huge and detailed study of very high quality)
Nobody have to know everything, and if you try you are going to be fooled by somebody, laymen usually defer the professional analysis of the scientific literature to health professionals and organizations, full of people that dedicate decades of their life to learn how to interpret science. If you don't want to trust them its your first responsibility to learn how to do that job as well as them before trying to analyze the data.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Independent studies cited at the link below indicate that while vaccinated children have lower rates of childhood diseases, unvaccinated children have lower rates of autism and a host of other conditions and are overall healthier.
I am very sorry but the source you link is terrible, some of the "references" they have are not reference at all but only link to their own results, without any protocol or methods to corroborate, no previous registry of a study with human subjects (an obligatory requisite) nor statistical explanation on the significance of the results, etc.
Most of the other references are almost as bad, they cherry pick single results out of dozens in a study or fabricate them by inappropriately shaving and subdividing groups, in some cases give conclusions opposite to the ones that the original authors have and for the rest they mislead with incomplete descriptions that appear to indicate something that the study did not find.
It is like a compendium of scientific malpractice on what cannot be done to originate or present data.
For example the "reports" of Mawson are well known for being purposefully done in the worst possible way, from the ample repertoire of tools to get information that he easily could have choosen from he went with questionaires, a tool that nobody uses unless there is no other source because they introduce such strong bias that the statistical methods necessary to account for this (and that Mawson simply did not use) usually make any results lose completely significance. This makes his studies unpublishable by any journal that actually use peer reviewers to check for problems in the science.
Your source lies saying that this study disappeared without retraction, it actually was retracted twice but done in a lousy way because he could only publish it in predatory journals that don't have any editorial standards and that is why eventually they deleted the retractions as well, since that allow them to pretend they don't have any.
Science moves by the weight of the evidence, even if all the studies in your source were not extraordinarily bad and full of bias the opposite evidence is overwhelmingly more abundant and of hugely better quality, the obligatory reference that should be used in the discussion of a paper (meaning that other papers that have findings that are contradictory they need to explain why) is Vaccine. 2014 Jun 17;32(29):3623-9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085. (PMID: 24814559). This is a real metastudy, with detailed descriptions of the methods and clear conclusions that are not in the border of significance.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
That gene therapy is not for the poor patient then...
For now, but all new treatments get cheaper quickly, Specially since other treatments are also getting good results in clinical trials and competition will help lowering the prices.
The real problem is to corroborate the treatment works for life, for now it has worked for a few years and it is not likely it can be re-applied to the patients.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
My question as a non-scientist is if millions of nerve fibers are severed and you put in a lot of such cells, how do you ensure that the proper end points reconnect?
In general the treatment depends on the plasticity of the nerve fibers to reconnect and form new circuits, the brain will have to learn again to interpret and use the signals that it can receive and send with those circuits as it did with the original ones.
The case of the "head transplant" was not considered realistic by mainstream science and the surgery never happened as predicted by experts.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Any medication you take, vaccine you receive will lower your body's own fighting powers against sickness. Immunity like a muscle.
Sorry but no, your belief has no relationship with reality. There is no known/described mechanism for the flu vaccine to lowers in any way the response against the natural infection. Immunity is not like a muscle.
Not possible. Next.
Already done, as you would know if you actually read the article.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
I think I'll pass on having Big Pharma's "killer" cells injected into my body.
So you just write things without even bothering to read the article? interesting way to showing prejudice.
Stop taking the flu shot, it’s written right here. We’re just killing our natural fighting powers.... wait, no. We already have
There is no known mechanism for the flu shot to weaken in any way immunity. It either improves the reaction to the strains it is used against or leaves the individual same as before (noneffective) outside of magical explanations it never lowers the immunity below unvaccinated individuals' levels.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Sorry but all your arguments are based on flawed and misleading information from a site that is well known to purposeful lie to push and illogical argument.
Submission to the vaccine damage court do not need to prove any correlation, only that this correlation between vaccines and damages is not impossible, they can submit even if its astronomically unlikely.Autism no longer reach this very low level of requirements, it has been proven that vaccines do not cause autism, so trying to submit one case to the court is no longer valid.
There are many examples of things that are legally recognized even if there is no science behind it, or even with science actually disproving. So it is perfectly fine to define those things as irrational and anti-scientific. Science is not decided in courts.Dr. William Thompson should be prosecuted, his invalid analysis is a well known way to force false results and its considered scientific misconduct when done with any purpose (and may be even scientific fraud), shaving and reshaving cases from a population without justification stated before beginning to collect data is enough to disqualify his "analysis". The fact that he ended up with so little cases that his results no longer had statistical significance is also reason enough to disregard them completely. Its like someone playing poker and throwing away four of his cards and declaring he wins with a full house because every card in his hand (one) are aces, not exactly a cheating method that is difficult to discover.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
That is my point, the animals/meat are for all practical purposes equally safe with or without CSFV infection.
Nobody says that science knows it all to perfection or that species jump is impossible, what I want to point out is that a virus that usually infects a host that is in close contact with humans is much less likely to do it than any other virus that we know nothing about. If a new zoonosis appear its simply irrational to fear the virus that you know is "safe" instead of the uncountable ones that you know nothing about, those other viruses are the ones that will cause the "perfect storm" and we should worry about.
My problem with the text you quoted is that its a collection of arguments that are not relevant to the topic, they seem logical but they aren't . Sure, there is no problem with not knowing everything and listening to them (again, they look fine superficially), but there is no problem either with knowing that actually those are not relevant issues in this case and saying it.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The afore mentioned Swine flu, Spanish flu, HIV, Ebola, Rabies etc all are Zoonotic in origin.
Everything is possible, but the real probability of a species jump is not really high, literally millions of virus infect animals and only few actually make humans sick.
The quoted text also is very misleading. Frequent mutations do not mean there is a "good" chance for the virus to become dangerous to humans, for infections that affect farm animals this chance is much lower than for virus that are present mostly in the wild, the reason is that the pathogens are not new and if it was actually easy for the necessary mutations to appear naturally we would already have human sustained epidemics. The very fact we don't means that something makes this jump very difficult.
Another misleading point is that antibodies means the body reacts to the virus as a dangerous agent, that is obviously the function of the immune system, but that has no relationship whatsoever with the probability of the virus being actually dangerous. As long as there is contact with something that is recognized as non-self the body will react as if dangerous, even if its completely benign (making things like vaccines work).
Finally, linking CSFV with the ASFV and interpolating that a possible human infection by the second means it could also be possible for the first is nonsense, the viruses could not be more different, their abilities to adapt to new hosts, their probability to become pathogenic (which is not the same thing) and the difficulty to be controlled by simple vaccines are not related at all.
In simple terms, worrying now about CSFV producing human disease is not rational, its much more likely that a completely unknown virus circulating in bats (or any other animal not in close contact with humans) is the one that will cause the new SARS or MERS epidemic. And in the very unlikely case CSFV makes the jump and it becomes actually dangerous we already have vaccines that have proven safe and efficient in animals, which makes the adaptation to humans a much simpler process that can be done in comparatively very short time.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
the flu shot remains the most dangerous vaccine based on injuries and deaths compensated by government. Here is a list of lawsuits for vaccine injuries for 2 quarters in 2013 and 2015.
Those two things are different. To be able to say it is dangerous you NEED to demonstrate that the negative effect is caused by the vaccines, to make a lawsuit you only need to say it is possible this is the case, the government position is that is much cheaper to pay money for families that SUSPECT the negative effect is related to the vaccine than to face the negative publicity (for the vaccines) of going to a trial against victims just to prove that other causes are simply much more likely than the vaccine based on clear epidemiological data.
So you can only say it remains the vaccine for which the government has to pay more to lawsuits even if they never have to demonstrate causality or even that they are the most likely cause.
Unfortunately this is a consequence of the government pushing for a well known health intervention for the good of public health instead of letting antivaxxers select themselves out of the gene pool since this would have uncountable innocent victims.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Having foreign material injected into your bloodstream with the possibility of contaminants passing the blood-brain barrier and ingesting something into your gut through "normal diet" are two different things.
Sorry, but you have some trouble understanding text, let me quote you again what I wrote.
you get more in the blood from what is absorbed in a normal diet,
Once in the blood it is completely irrelevant from where it comes from, even if the absortion in the gut is limited the huge differences in the total amount still means you get more in the blood from the diet than from the vaccines.
As for thimerosal neither of us is completely right or wrong. It is in multi-dose vials but not in most single vials.
That still means there is absolutely no need of it having any if you don't want to, even there is no hint of it producing any negative effect in humans.
My point is that your reasons for not getting a vaccine are either not true or irrational, nobody can force you to get a vaccine, my purpose is solely to make clear falsehoods in your arguments.
0 ( +2 / -2 )