You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

NatPhilosopher comments on What topics are appropriate for LessWrong? - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: tog 12 January 2015 06:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (107)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NatPhilosopher 13 January 2015 10:31:38AM *  1 point [-]

No I'm not. I am looking at every empirical study on aluminum, for example. I'm looking at every study that compares vaccinated to unvaccinated, or even more vaccinated to less vaccinated.

The safety surveys are cherry picking. I am not. I am following the scientific literature to find all the papers that address semantic issues like: is the aluminum in vaccines causing damage? Are vaccines in the first year or two of life inherently dangerous because they disrupt development of the immune system and brain? What studies of vaccinated and unvaccinated address the impact on long term health?

If you know of any studies on the other side of anything I've written, I am intensely interested in citations. The safety surveys don't cite anything, and I haven't been able to find anything.

I suspect the reason you think I'm cherrypicking is you assume there must be a literature on the other side of these issues that I have ignored. There is not. There is no empirical paper indicating that injecting the aluminum in vaccines into neo-nates is anything but highly toxic that I have found, or any of the rest of it. If you find any, please post a citation.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 16 January 2015 10:05:11PM 1 point [-]

How high a probability would you assign to aluminum in vaccines being removed in 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

Comment author: bluetiger 14 February 2015 12:43:56AM 1 point [-]

sorry to jump in, but given the development of laser adjuvants at the moment there might at least be a viable alternative within a few years, whether companies would adopt it I don't know.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 14 February 2015 12:50:25AM *  0 points [-]

That's a good point and a reason to consider it likely independent of NatPhil's claim.