16 ms·
Yet I did. The link to pubmed. I mean I'm not here to try to convince you of their argument. However, the 1 pubmed article I referenced mentioned there are o
by 13years 12y ago
Yet I did. The link to pubmed.
I mean I'm not here to try to convince you of their argument. However, the 1 pubmed article I referenced mentioned there are over 165 studies supporting issues with mercury in vaccines. Is this not interesting data? The researches behind the article seem to think so as their objective is to undercover why there are discrepancies with these results vs those that have said there are no issues.
I mean it takes time to follow all this stuff. Certainly more than I have, yet with a little effort it seems easy enough to see the source of information is not all coming from some personal blogs as I just pointed out.
- mikeash 12y agoI didn't look at that link because you presented it as "investigations still continue" which is meaningless, considering that investigations still continue into things like general relativity and electromagnetism. In any case, you might recall that I said I'd never seen any data for these arguments except for the supposed autism link, which is based on fake data. Considering the tone of the paper I think it might be in that category. Maybe not. I'll hold off on spending time investigating until some anti-vaxxer actually mentions one as support for their ideas, because "X argues Y" and "there's data to support Y" does not imply "X argues Y because of data supporting it."