I suspect vaccinations because...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, January 13, 2024 18:35
VIEWED: 11985
PAGE 12 of 17
Hello,
For the record, I do not want to consume paint chips or have paint chips injected into my body.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks SO much, Signy. SO much.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatever factor is operating now was operating thousands of years ago, just more so.
So... this is not something to beat yourself up over, Chris
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then you don't understand the meaning of "counterpoint."
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The counterpoints and responces to the critiques are already there.
One last try to explain you are misreading the author of that article. Reject it if you wish.
"Thimerosal (mercury)" or "paint chips (lead)" is NOT EQUAL to Thimerosal and mercury are the same substance, or paint chips and lead are the same substance.
"Thimerosal (mercury)" or "paint chips (lead)" = Mercury is the most biologically significant substance to result from thimerosal for the purposes of this discussion, lead is the most biologically significant substance to result from lead for the purposes of this discussion.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Then you don't understand the meaning of "counterpoint."
One last try to explain you are misreading the author of that article. Reject it if you wish.
"Thimerosal (mercury)" or "paint chips (lead)" ? Thimerosal and mercury are the same substance, or paint chips and lead are the same substance.
"Thimerosal (mercury)" or "paint chips (lead)" = Mercury is the most biologically significant substance to result from thimerosal for the purposes of this discussion, lead is the most biologically significant substance to result from lead for the purposes of this discussion.
I understand what a counterpoint is. The thing is you only have to use it when the original point is valid.
Your right about Mercury and Lead being the most significant, and the way you said it was fine. It the truth. Putting those elements in parentheses without any explanation is not the same. It is a pure and simple attempt to invoke a responce because most people know mercury is dangerous.
Everywere else you see parentheses used such as this it is for an abreveation or another name for the subject before them. Such as 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid, (Silvex) or Dihydrogen monoxide (Water).
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I understand what a counterpoint is. The thing is you only have to use it when the original point is valid.
Or if you're one half of a musical duet.
But anyway, while tempting in theory, I'm not sure that philosophy holds in reality. Our rapidly degenerating society is pretty much the result of what happens when valid and invalid points become national policy without being SOUND.
The options we have are to speak out against the lunacy, embrace it, or ride that fence like a PONY with our good points while everything else burns to the ground around us. I'm about 80, maybe 95% sure that the complete destruction of their civilization by their own hands is both the most concise argument, and most impressive application of that argument, that could ever be leveraged against the oligarchs.
There is also a question of subjectivity in determining whether an argument is or isn't valid, since a valid point does not necessarily have to be TRUE. It merely has to have its premises prompt the conclusion without contradicting itself and without fallacy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Glad you found my post, Chris. I feared that it had been lost in the rest.
I look at my co-worker who has had Type I for... decades, now. He works, he's married, he has two children (boy and girl) and he's a great dad, he's a GREAT guy, really wonderful team leader, smart... funny-and-feet-on-the-ground... People know he has Type I, but when people think about him, that is not even the 20th thing on the list. Take heart.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks again, Signy.
*throws a kiss*
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTSky
You would be laughable if the subject wasn't important.
"What I DID claim was that the chemical FORM of mercury affects its toxicity - which BTW is a fact."
"Look, we agree again!"
Is that what you meant by "I don't care if it's ethyl mercury or methyl mercury, mercury is mercury"? (a statement you edited out of your post. DAMN! I should remember that about you - you seriously post-edit, even weeks after the fact.)
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I believe empirical evidence.
Except when it's a very large meta-analysis, or two?
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Meta-analyses that are flawed.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For an example, see the link that I posted above.
You keep harping on that one study AS IF it invalidates the two meta-analyses that were done. That really make me wonder - do you even KNOW what a meta-analysis is? It's a study of studies, using statistics to factor out differences sample size, the presence or absence of control groups, etc.
So, do you even know WHICH studies went into each meta-analysis? Do you know that that ONE study you point to was even included in either?
Your reasoning is so out of touch with the words you use, I wonder how much you're parroting without understanding.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, that is what I meant.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"What I DID claim was that the chemical FORM of mercury affects its toxicity - which BTW is a fact."
"Look, we agree again!"
Is that what you meant by "I don't care if it's ethyl mercury or methyl mercury, mercury is mercury"?
As I said before, both ethylmercury and methylmercury are converted into neurotoxic, inorganic mercury in the body. Therein lies the danger.
It doesn't matter if their individual toxicity is affected by their chemical form, as you put it. They both result in mercury in the body that wasn't there before. Mercury is mercury, no matter how it gets introduced.
Quote:Garbage in, garbage out.
Except when it's a very large meta-analysis, or two?
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
