you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No connection huh, heres 89 more peer-reviewed studies with highlights showing a link between autism and mercury vaccines, I'm pretty sure these arent all retracted. Its a lot of studies, far too many to be calling this disinfo. You can't just say things are scientifically discredited when you have peer-reviewed journals full of researchers and scientists who are qualified to have this opinion just because you disagree with them. I can't tell you with certainty these things cause autism, but I am certain that this is not what settled science looks like

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/autism-mercury-abstracts-2.27.20.pdf

Please, scroll through this and actually take at his compiled research before you dismiss him, this is from his site

[–]cunt_esq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I scrolled through them, and see a mix of articles about toxins and articles that include studies of thimerosal, though there is no conclusive proof in any of those articles, most of which in 'pay to publish' journals that are not properly peer-reviewed or connected with medical research. My anti-vax cousin is absolutely convinced that these are accurate, but they are not. It's quite troubling how much anti-vax people are so sure of themselves but do not have the appropriate evidence for their claims. My main point in this thread is that the appearance of an article is not important. It's peer-review by scholars engaged in the state of the research does matter. You can't point to these articles and assume that they are automatically reliable. For example, how much thimerosal is in a vaccine? He much of that has a negative impact on a kid's health? None. It's also VERY rare that thimerosal would be in a vaccine today. Don't believe me? See that the CDChas an official assessment of this problem:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html

Another explanation: https://psychcentral.com/autism/do-vaccines-cause-autism#vaccines-and-autism

Currently, the only vaccines that contain thimerosal as a preservative and are recommended for children in the United States are certain inactivated influenza vaccines. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/)

Epidemiologic studies continue to provide evidence that there is no association between thimerosal exposure and autism. Whereas an infant younger than 6 months in 1999 could have been exposed to approximately 200 mcg of mercury derived from vaccines, the current amount is less than 3 mcg, if certain influenza vaccines are not included.13 Children should receive recommended immunizations to prevent serious disease.12 The known risks of serious complications from preventable infections—e.g., influenza—outweigh the risks of adverse consequences from vaccines, including TCVs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/)

It's a MYTH that vaccines cause autism. There are RELIABLE studies on this. If Kennedy is serious about running for office, he should side with the facts, rather than suck votes away from an electable candidate.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

though there is no conclusive proof in any of those articles,

No there isn't! We finally agree! But that isn't the goalpost either he or I staked out - you are the one making the argument that it is conclusively proven safe and therefore have the burden of refuting every single correlation, link and safety signal in order to maintain a position of unequivocal safety. My position only requires the possibility that this could harmful, and I think 89 peer-reviewed studies meets this relatively low burden, while you have not shown me why all 89 of these studies are completely and thoroughly debunked