Sorry for not getting to this sooner, school has been busy.
I'm sorry, allow me to clarify. You can't explain the science (behind vaccines, for example) in your own words. I have no doubt that you can explain your conspiracy theories in your own words.
"lots of evidence". You know, there is a difference between constantly repeating posts and points without addressing the counter argument. What you have attempted is a proof by assertion with appeals to false authority. For example, the Doctor Wakefield study. You deny subsequent studies on the grounds that X conspiracy group could fabricate studies if they so wished to counter and discredit Wakefield. Even assuming you were correct, the advantage of science is that there must be a fault in the study itself. So to prove that Wakefield is correct, it is on you (and any others that share your view) to point out where the counter studies went wrong. To deny simply because they
could be part of the conspiracy (even your assumption of there being a conspiracy does not establish that each of these studies is a part of the conspiracy) is ridiculous. You must have a scientific reason to discredit scientific findings.
Appeals to authority are a ridiculous argumentation method. Its called a logical fallacy for a reason. We look at authorities, and then describe the science behind it. For example, your claim of mercury toxicity countered by the difference between elemental mercury and organo-mercurials, and also a description of human toxicity, tolerance levels, and general intakes.
This very well points out the difference between arguments of authority. In the same way you appeal to the authority of Wakefield and other "whistle blowers", some people do appeal to the authority of a health care professional. However, you claim that health care professionals are biased because of the conspiracy of "big pharma". However, it is equally reasonable (if not more so) to talk about the bias of those who are self-interested. Such as many of the "authorities" you have cited (Wakefield, and potentially some "whistle blowers". Even you have to admit that it is possible for a whistle blower to leave a company and claim X, Y, and Z problems as an attempt to spite the company)
You need to realize you're not infallible. If you are not infallible, then it's at least
possible for you to be wrong here. To make the assertion that you just did is to imply that you are infallible.
You got this backwards bud. You have in the past tried to establish that because "the government lies about everything" and "there are powerful monied interests who steer government policy...etc." then vaccines are toxic.
But this is just
ignoratio elenchi. Basically, those conclusions about the government are irrelevant. If vaccines are toxic, it is because they are toxic for something unique to the vaccine. Something about vaccines is what is supposedly poisoning people. Whether or not that is caused by the government (or X other group) is irrelevant to the discussion of
vaccine toxicity
To put it differently, even if each of these points are true, it does not establish that vaccines are toxic in any way. These points may imply that it is
conceivable, but conceivability does not always entail possibility, and possibility certainly does not entail reality. See this article on modal logic if this is confusing:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
You have done no such thing. The levels of Fluoride in the water are certainly not high enough, and the body is capable of processing Fluoride at such levels. The one person you quoted had some interesting results that suggested that Fluoride could have a cumulative effect.
IF that is true, then it is possible that fluoridated water is a problem. But even if it is true, it does not establish that the levels of fluoride in the water are dangerous. Further, the studies were new, and still need to be reviewed. I have to admit that what the scientist was talking about was above my head. That is why I left the question open.
In other words, it is possible. But again, possibility does not entail reality.
If I understand you correctly, the "big picture" (meaning effects, causes, proofs, etc. of your conspiracy) is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is vaccine toxicity. It may have relevant points in the discussion of your conspiracy theory, but that is a discussion for another thread. Thankfully you have stayed away from this mostly, however you have referenced your conspiracy as proof a few times in the past.
So your experience in past internet debates has given you enough experience to type people based on how they debate with you. Given an understanding of the limitations of typology, the variability of personality traits, and the non-standard situation of debating with you, I hope you will excuse my confidence in your understanding. Muir, I'm sure you would agree that behavior is separate from personality. Behavior indicates personality. Behavior is influenced by both personality AND
situation. MBTI is already not a very reliable personality classification, but when you subject people to non-standard situations, and non-standard emotional states, then a person's
behavior can (and probably will) be different. To assume that this difference of behavior establishes that they are really X personality rather than Y is illogical. You need to consider a person in a standard emotional state, standard situation, and standard general mental state (information availability, for example). Your conclusions of Matt's, mine, or the other's (you referenced) personality types is unfounded
This was meant as an example. If you notice, later in my post I list at least 5 contenders from anti-vaccinators for supposed vaccine toxicity.
This is one of them that I address
You switched from companies to an ambiguous "they" here. Further, you switched from "was exposed" to "is being exposed". This confuses the matter. Tobacco companies were lying that cigarettes were healthy. However, it was the scientific research of the era that established this:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full. Perhaps whistle blowers plaid a role, but certainly the science is what established it. Then you say "they" with fluoride and roundup and vaccines. Now the roundup case very well might be a repeat of cigarettes, but I have not looked into the research. However, I have looked at some of the fluoride and vaccines research. Fluoride research is more split to be honest, but vaccine research is not. It is shown to be very reliable. Your claim of vaccines "being exposed as a lie" is unfounded. Notice that vaccines and fluoride is primarily government propagandized, and roundup and cigarettes are primarily company propagandized.
And hopefully you realize that these cases are not so uniform as you might think. I admit there is a pattern, but the relevance and reliability of that pattern is in question.
Your confusing fact and value here. The value or reliability of the research is what you are questioning, but that isn't what the research is tackling. If you want to disprove the research you need to attack its facts. For example, following the link I provided earlier:
"Wakefield postulated that MMR vaccine caused intestinal inflammation that led to translocation of usually nonpermeable peptides to the bloodstream and, subsequently, to the brain, where they affected development. "
In response:
"First, the
self-referred cohort did not include control subjects, which precluded the authors from determining whether the occurrence of autism following receipt of MMR vaccine was causal or coincidental. Because ∼50,000 British children per month received MMR vaccine between ages 1 and 2 years—at a time when autism typically presents—
coincidental associations were inevitable. Indeed, given the prevalence of autism in England in 1998 of 1 in 2000 children [2], ∼25 children per month would receive a diagnosis of the disorder soon after receiving MMR vaccine by chance alone. Second, endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely. Third,
gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children,
which is inconsistent with the notion that intestinal inflammation facilitated bloodstream invasion of encephalopathic peptides. Fourth, measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine viruses have not been found to cause chronic intestinal inflammation or loss of intestinal barrier function. Indeed, a recent study by Hornig et al. [3] found that
the measles vaccine virus genome was not detected more commonly in children with or without autism. Fifth,
putative encephalopathic peptides traveling from the intestine to the brain have never been identified. In contrast, the
genes that have been associated with autism spectrum disorder to date have been found to code for endogenous proteins that influence neuronal synapse function, neuronal cell adhesion, neuronal activity regulation, or endosomal trafficking "
You may deny the second, fourth, and fifth points based on your claim of unreliable research because of your conspiracy, but that does not dismiss the first and third points, and you would have trouble denying the last part that I italicized. The first is a fact of his study procedure and is know a priori (not reliant on scientific exploration). Therefore cannot be dismissed as tainted research, as it the conclusion did not require any research. The same is true of the third point. And I find this to be especially damaging. If autism occurred BEFORE getting the vaccine, then obviously the vaccine did not cause at least that case of autism.
Ok, so if Wakefield was correct, how do you deny the first and third points I pointed out? These are logical failings of Wakefields study, and not reliant on research. Therefore, not subject to your claim of conspiratorial intervention.
Ignoratio elenchi. Irrelevant argument as an end to proving vaccine toxicity.
Ok, so you admit that thermisol might not be toxic. However, you do not address any of the other points that I pointed out. Immune overload is baseless. MMR-Autism link does not hold. Formaldehyde, squalene, aluminum...none of it holds. You wanted alternate explanations, there they are.
Oh good lord....your joking, right? Wifi, cell phones, they don't cause problems! Ok, quick science lesson. Electromagnetic radiation exists in many many different forms. These are classified generally by wavelengths. Visible light is an example. From radio, to microwave, to infrared, to visible light, to ultraviolet, to x-ray, to gamma-ray. Now, these are all types of radiation. People know that radiation is dangerous. Often times, danger is expressed as exposure time. Because of this, it is logical to conclude that lengthy exposure of lower dose, or shorter exposer of higher dose relates to danger. Therefore, it seems reasonable that lifetime exposure to wifi radiation is dangerous. This simply is not true. There is radiation, then there is dangerous radiation. The dangerous radiation is known as ionizing radiation. This is radiation that can knock electrons out of their orbitals. This requires a photon to have a high enough energy. When atoms loose electrons, they interact different chemically. Normally that's not a problem, but a cell is a very complicated chemical machine. Alter the gear and the cogs don't mesh properly. So basically, energy is required to knock an electron out of its orbital. Now, the equation for this energy is E=hc/lambda where hc is a constant (planck's constant X the speed of light). Therefore, the energy of a photon varies by the wavelength. Higher wavelengths of photons, like gamma rays, have enough energy to ionize atoms. Alternatively, lower wavelengths like radio waves have no where near the energy to ionize an atom. In fact, it is the case that only UV, X-ray, and gamma ray wavelengths are able to ionize atoms. Conversely, radio, microwave, infrared, and visible light are not. Wifi and cell phones use microwave radiation. Not enough to ionize an electron, and therefore not enough to be dangerous. Notice that infrared and visible light are higher energy than microwaves. We know that visible light is not dangerous, so obviously microwaves (and by extension, wifi) is not dangerous. Remember, the dangerous component of sunlight is the UV, not the visible light itself. Just being around these kinds of radiation is not dangerous.
Erm, its literally not a problem. In fact there's no difference between wifi, cell phones, and satellites all use microwave radiation
Erm, again, no. most toxins do not accumulate. The problem is cumulative effects. Toxins are expelled eventually. Some just have longer expulsion times. Effects are related to concentrations. So long as concentrations do not get to high, then we have no problem. That is why I say your math does not add up.
