ambling said...
Quoting from Mercola, or other non-science based websites, is highly problematic. Those sites seek to promote their merchandise among other things. They have poor track records for scientific credibility. Even if it is well meaning, this is not an acceptable excuse for spreading disinformation.
Addressing a few of the bits of misinformation:
-There is far more aluminum in breast milk than that found in any vaccine. Should children be told not to breast feed? These things have to put in proper context.
- There is more formaldehyde found in one apple than in any flu vaccine. Formaldehyde is also a vital natural component in the human body. It is scaremongering to cite this as some kind of dangerous component of a vaccine.
- There is more albumin in an avocado, or spinach, than in any vaccine. Should we rail against these foods? Even those with egg allergy are not advised to avoid vaccination due to the low concentration involved. The albumin is used to culture the viral proteins.
- Triton X-100 is used to prepare a split virion influenza vaccine. It is used in the manufacturing process, and the tiny trace amounts which may or may not be found in the end product are not considered unsafe.
It is akin to telling people raindrops are unsafe as kids can drown in swimming pools. Everything is unsafe in some way! Walking down any city street, breathing the air, may be dangerous to some...but is the risk greater than getting run down by a car, and should cities be avoided? Context!
Judy2 has quite carefully included the caveat " for those who believe in the experts" in her post, which is sensible and self explanatory.
While it's healthy and wise to question experts, poorly researched information from questionable sources does much more harm than good. The motives may be great, but the poor reasoning lets down the cause.
While I agree that Dr.Mercola's claims may be dubious,
The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals out there. If there's one place you want to look for efficacy of medicines, you go to the lancet. One of the wonderful things about
medical journals is that authors are forced to disclose any conflict of interests. Can you say the same for those working at the
CDC?
If their meta-analysis of all the studies show that the efficacy of these shots are iffy at best, I'm inclined to believe what the raw statistics say over some so-called "experts" at the CDC.
Guillain–Barré syndrome is no laughing matter and isn't as rare as the CDC claims. There are a couple reasons why:
1) By the FDAs own estimate, only 5-10% of people report these reactions, so the they do not have a clue about
the real number of reactions.
2) The onset of the syndrome may be delayed or associated with something else, leading people to conclude it had nothing to do with the vaccine.
Post Edited (StealthGuardian) : 9/28/2013 6:34:37 AM (GMT-6)