3 ms·

> The issue is "common sense and intuition" is what gets us anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, etc. As the saying goes, common sense isn't common. I'm sorry

> The issue is "common sense and intuition" is what gets us anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, etc. As the saying goes, common sense isn't common. I'm sorry, but yes it is. First off, those are not common-sense issues. They're complex, and just because they make sense to the high IQ crowd on HN doesn't meant that they have any reflection on common sense. Just because anti-vaxxers say that vaccines are bad because "common sense" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with other than them being morons. Common sense is that masks do something and aren't harmful to use. Common sense was right. Just because common sense and intuition are sometimes wrong doesn't mean that they're always wrong, which would be a fallacy. It doesn't even take common sense; an average joe can use basic cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to use a mask, if they are wondering whether a mask is a good idea. Trusting people(often pundits) with ulterior motives over a month after the fact would have turned out to be less advantageous. This idea that we can't ever use our intuition because it's often wrong is dangerous. If we can't make any decision with intuition, including one as harmless as wearing a piece of paper over our faces, then we're slaves of the mind.

ceejayoz 7y ago
"Mercury is a deadly poison. It is common sense that having it in a vaccine is bad." This makes perfect, intuitive, common sense to a significant portion of the population.
- wavepruner 7y ago
  "...to a significant portion of the population." Including health experts: "...depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury. As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including FDA, National Institutes of Health [NIH], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA]) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a Joint Statement, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible. The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines." https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimerosal-vaccines-questions-and-answers https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimer... To this day thimerosal is not included in childhood vaccines, except for some flu shot formulations.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > Data reviewed did not demonstrate convincing evidence of toxicity from doses of thimerosal used in vaccines. In case reports of accidental high-dose exposures in humans to thimerosal or ethyl mercury toxicity was demonstrated only at exposures that were 100 or 1000 times that found in vaccines.
    - wavepruner 7y ago
      They could just as easily say, "Data reviewed did not demonstrate convincing evidence of safety from doses of thimerosal used in vaccines." Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety. If these trials had been done, and health authorities were convinced it was safe, they would allow thimerosal in vaccines because it is a huge cost saver. But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not worth the risk. As an environmental engineer I've witnessed this tactic over and over. Authorities claim there is no evidence of danger, but remove the toxin anyways, because they know it's danger is plausible, and the funding and time isn't there to prove it one way or the other. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's not like they are going to say, "we think we may have poisoned people, so we're removing this toxin." That's a great way to destroy your livelihood, reputation, and invite prosecution.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety. The safety of thimerosal is entirely possible to evaluate. It was in a bunch of childhood vaccines; it now is not. Has there been any demonstrable difference? > But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not worth the risk. Not necessarily. Could just not be worth the fight with the anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit about it. See also: Subway ditching azodicarbonamide because some blogger started a scaremongering movement around it.

ceejayoz 7y ago

"Mercury is a deadly poison. It is common sense that having it in a vaccine is bad." This makes perfect, intuitive, common sense to a significant portion of the population.

wavepruner 7y ago
"...to a significant portion of the population." Including health experts: "...depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury. As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including FDA, National Institutes of Health [NIH], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA]) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a Joint Statement, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible. The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines." https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimerosal-vaccines-questions-and-answers https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimer... To this day thimerosal is not included in childhood vaccines, except for some flu shot formulations.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Data reviewed did not demonstrate convincing evidence of toxicity from doses of thimerosal used in vaccines. In case reports of accidental high-dose exposures in humans to thimerosal or ethyl mercury toxicity was demonstrated only at exposures that were 100 or 1000 times that found in vaccines.
  - wavepruner 7y ago
    They could just as easily say, "Data reviewed did not demonstrate convincing evidence of safety from doses of thimerosal used in vaccines." Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety. If these trials had been done, and health authorities were convinced it was safe, they would allow thimerosal in vaccines because it is a huge cost saver. But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not worth the risk. As an environmental engineer I've witnessed this tactic over and over. Authorities claim there is no evidence of danger, but remove the toxin anyways, because they know it's danger is plausible, and the funding and time isn't there to prove it one way or the other. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's not like they are going to say, "we think we may have poisoned people, so we're removing this toxin." That's a great way to destroy your livelihood, reputation, and invite prosecution.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety. The safety of thimerosal is entirely possible to evaluate. It was in a bunch of childhood vaccines; it now is not. Has there been any demonstrable difference? > But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not worth the risk. Not necessarily. Could just not be worth the fight with the anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit about it. See also: Subway ditching azodicarbonamide because some blogger started a scaremongering movement around it.