Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » salvorhardin » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
The Next To Last Refuge Of The Incompetent
Posted by salvorhardin in Health
Mon Nov 09th 2009, 02:22 PM
OK...there's a huge Mercola article alleging that the H1N1 pandemic is a "massive" illusion (created by, presumably, very large magicians with great big scary magic wands). I'm pondering tackling the entire article, but meanwhile, I think it'd be OK if I took on the "fact" sheet they offer to anyone who'd like to print it and hang it up in their communities. See below each "fact" (there's really only one true--in intent and content--fact on there) and my parsing of it. I'd aver that if this list of 10 "facts" has something squirrelly about it, that lengthy tome accompanying it might have a wee bit o' the rodent about it, too. We could start with their obvious incapacity to understand the definition of "pandemic."

Also...what is up with the creepy alien hand on that "fact" sheet? Is that what getting a vaccine does to you? It makes your hands transparent and boneless?

Anyway...

1. "Fact": Multidose vials of seasonal and injectable H1N1 swine flu vaccines contain MERCURY (all caps theirs), which is a "known neurotoxin."
Observations: The actual compound of the preservative in question is called thimerosal. It consists in part (about half) of a kind of mercury called ethylmercury. Millions of doses of the seasonal vaccine are made available that do not have thimerosal. If you're concerned about the multidose formulation, ask about single-dose formulations. Or get the nasal vaccine, which is not made using thimerosal. And "mercury" is not a monolithic term describing any and all forms of mercury. Routes of exposure, chemical composition, and concentrations all play a role in whether or not it will cause harm. Water is a great example. Ingested, it's OK...unless you ingest too much. Inhaled, it'll kill you. Topical exposure is OK...unless you're exposed over a very long term. Oh, and molecular content matters, too. The difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury is a matter of a couple of atoms. No biggie? Well, the difference between H2O (good old water) and D2O (heavy water) is a matter of a neutron...yet heavy water is highly toxic in any number of ways in sufficient concentrations. In biochemical reactions, a small change can make a huge difference.

2. "Fact": Some "swine flu" (quotes mine) vaccines contain formaldehyde and exposure to formaldehyde has been shown to increase the risk of developing certain CANCERS (all caps theirs).
Observations: This old chestnut? Still? Formaldehyde is a carcinogen. So is estrogen. Oh, and enjoy this little read about the naturally occurring carcinogens in our diet. Or google "aflatoxins" and then stop eating peanut butter. The issue is, once again, that it's the dose that makes the poison. Oh, and the fact that the body actually makes formaldehyde, too, more than you ever receive in a vaccine. Bottom line: the amount of formaldehyde in vaccines ain't gonna give you cancer any more than that peanut butter sandwich will.

3. "Fact": It is unknown whether or not it is safe to give the "swine flu" vaccine to all pregnant women, children, and adults especially if they are chronically ill or sick at the time of the vaccine.
Observations: First of all, look at this list of clinical trials. And then check out the results of this trial. Looks like (a) we've got trials people establishing the safety and (b) we've got trials specific to pregnant women with real numbers and real results, not made-up "facts." This "fact" is also misleading because no one claims that it is safe to give any vaccine to "all" individuals in a given population, and there are clear clinical guidelines for determining who should receive a vaccine and who can have a nasal vs. jab vaccination. ...
All 10 of Mercola's "facts" debunked: http://daisymayfattypants.blogspot.com/200...
Discuss (77 comments) | Recommend (+4 votes)
Profile Information
Profile Picture
salvorhardin
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
Fort Wayne, IN
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? — Epicurus (341–270 B.C.), Greek philosopher
Infidel Approved
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.