Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Either a study focused on thimerosal is useful, or it's moot. Why were the seven studies that reject your point moot, while jinx's is not?
Why cherry-pick the studies in this way? That study, not valid. That study, not valid. 150,000 kids in Denmark, eh probably wrong. But now, THIS study, AHA J'ACCUSE!!!!
|
A moot point can still be completely valid, it's just not as relevant to the discussion as a whole. Old studies on thimerosal in childhood vaccines are less relevant now because thimerosal is no longer in those vaccines. New studies on thimerosal in completely different vaccines administered to pregnant women are interesting because up until now no one has considered the pre-natal environmental exposures to be particularly significant. Maybe thimerosal has a moderate effect on a baby, but a very strong effect on a fetus--like, say, thalidomide. The point is we don't know, because the CDC is generally loathe to do any kind of research on this topic. A grand total of 16 studies is not enough to confirm anything, in any medical investigation, ever. Other diseases get literally hundreds of studies done, some conflicting, but after hundreds have been done it's easier to see what the pattern is. Congress actually ordered the CDC to do a comprehensive comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations in 1982. They haven't done it.
Another pre-natal condition that's getting a lot of examination is Vitamin D levels in the mother. I am actually registered to participate in a study on this and several other parameters, should I ever get pregnant again.