I said it's evidence of mercury EXPOSURE from the mother. The study is exploring whether babies exposed to mercury in the womb then go on to have neurodevelopmental disorders. And if it's still in the tissues then it obviously hasn't been completely excreted.
The study did say that mercury in the hair meant the child was excreting it. If you want to say that isn't true, go and argue with the scientist who reached that conclusion.
The majority of science that contradicts the findings of the studies I mentioned is carried out by people who make vaccines, testify for the government against people injured by vaccines or who are involved with the drug companies in some way. The placebos are also not proper placebos. Placebos are meant to be harmless, like water, but they use things like aluminium or another vaccine - both of which can cause a variety of side-effects.
When they actually do a study that has a proper harmless placebo and isn't authored by someone in bed with pharmaceuticals, then I may well report. As it is, there is far more publicity given to the scientists that work for drug companies than for the scientists who have genuine concerns and just want to do their job and help patients.
There will always be reports contradicting when a concern comes out. Prior to the MMR publicity, there were only a handful of studies about it. Afterwards we have had study after study saying the concerning studies are false. It's a PR stunt, a damage control operation (if it wasn't, they would have had the same amount of studies before the publicity).
There were reports saying that smoking is safe. Shall I report on those??
Comment Reply
I said it's evidence of mercury EXPOSURE from the mother. The study is exploring whether babies exposed to mercury in the womb then go on to have neurodevelopmental disorders. And if it's still in the tissues then it obviously hasn't been completely excreted.
The study did say that mercury in the hair meant the child was excreting it. If you want to say that isn't true, go and argue with the scientist who reached that conclusion.
The majority of science that contradicts the findings of the studies I mentioned is carried out by people who make vaccines, testify for the government against people injured by vaccines or who are involved with the drug companies in some way. The placebos are also not proper placebos. Placebos are meant to be harmless, like water, but they use things like aluminium or another vaccine - both of which can cause a variety of side-effects.
When they actually do a study that has a proper harmless placebo and isn't authored by someone in bed with pharmaceuticals, then I may well report. As it is, there is far more publicity given to the scientists that work for drug companies than for the scientists who have genuine concerns and just want to do their job and help patients.
There will always be reports contradicting when a concern comes out. Prior to the MMR publicity, there were only a handful of studies about it. Afterwards we have had study after study saying the concerning studies are false. It's a PR stunt, a damage control operation (if it wasn't, they would have had the same amount of studies before the publicity).
There were reports saying that smoking is safe. Shall I report on those??
September 26, 2011 - 2:09amThis Comment
Reply