Do peanuts cause a serious allergic reaction?

Simple way to test it: gather up 1,000 people and feed them peanuts. Not one of that 1,000 had ANY adverse reaction, therefore that "proves" that peanuts do not have any harmful effect on human beings.

But we all know that's bullshit.

Food alergies are rare and vary wildly from person to person. Some can eat peanuts, but will die if they have shellfish. Some can eat shellfish, but only have a very, very mild reaction if eating certain nuts. Other may have their throats close up in minutes of eating some nuts!

So now we have a mecury-based vaccine that (in all reality) only impacts 1 out of 75,000 children and the "reactions" range wildly from severe autism to mere ADHD.

So how do you "prove" a direct link when it only effects one out of 75,000 children and even then the "reaction" to the mercury is not uniform and varies wildly from individual to invidiual (causes full blown non-verbal autism in some kids and only ADHD in others)?

Again....how do you "prove" something like that?

You can't and they didn't.

But goddamnit you don't need 15 Phd's to know that MERCURY IS A NEUROTOXIN!

I think it's ridiculous that scientists are trying to present this as a strict IF/THAN scenario.

If the vaccine causes autism then it will effect all human beings equally and present the exact same symptoms at the exact same rates.

Well with those guidelines you could just as easily prove (as I pointed out before) that food allergies don't exist.

What if these perservatives or vaccine cocktails or some combination only effects 1 in 75,000? Or only 1 in 100,000 kids?

And what if -- as is most likely -- people react to the vaccines in very different ways?

Does every who gets MS or Parkinson's disease develope symptoms on the exact same timetable? What's that? THEY DON'T!?!?

Yeah, no shit.

Some people have it attack them very, very quickly....other's have it advance very slowly.

So what if we have a situation where a combination of chemicals or "preservatives" are attacking the brain and causing damage, but the result of that damage can range anywhere from "none" to "ADHD" to "full blown non-verbal autism"?

And shame on Salon for pretending that science has the "answer" as if it were handed down on a stone tablet from God.

All they've proven is that they can't find uniform specific "reactions" to these vaccines in all human beings.

That's a far, far cry from "proving" that these vaccines have absolutely no ill-effects on any human being it's given to.

Some people can smoke for 50 years and never so much as develop a cough.

Some people can smoke for 5 years and get lung cancer.

Some kids can get this vaccine and have absolutely no ill-effects.

Some might get it and not tolerate it as well as everyone else and develope a wide-range of neurlogical problems that only become apparent years down the road.

Both the scientists and a few "deniers" on this thread are insisting that in the absence of a uniform reaction to the vaccine then that is in itself "proof" that there is no reaction possible.

Subject A took the vaccine and did not develop autism, therefore this vaccine is perfectly harmless to all human beings everywhere on the planet.

All I (or anyone not embracing this ruling) is saying is that the "science" really isn't proving this stuff is perfectly harmless.

The theory seems to be that in order to prove the vaccine is harmful it must (no exceptions) instantly induce autism in 100 percent of the people who recieve the injection. Anything less than 100 percent autism rates in all human beings injected with the vaccine is accepted as "proof" that is doesn't induce autism (or any neurological issues) in anyone, ever.

Is it any wonder that some people are looking at that kind of "test" and are not particularly reassured?

If 100 people smoke the exact same brand of cigs at the exact same frequency for a period of 20 years....will they all get lung cancer at the end of the study?

Nope.

Well, what if we did a really, really BIG study and included 100,000 people?

Nope. Not everyone will develop the exact same illnesses or even get sick in some cases.

So, sorry, but this is exactly what the studies to date on this issue have have shown: that in a very large population there will not be a statisical spike significant enough to point to vaccines as the cause. That's it. It doesn't say it can't happen, just that it doesn't look like it.

That's not fear mongering or hysteria, just simple statistics.

And isn't this the exact same scientific game played by the tobacco scientists back in the 1950's? Since not everyone will develope illness X (lung cancer) then you cannot link tobacco definitively to any illness.

And there were scientists who gave speeches labeling anyone who dared suggest smoking was harmful as fear-monger or just ignorant of the scientific method (Just Google and you'll find dozens archives of scientsts insisting that their science was rock solid) Judges too! And politicans. They weighed in and with grim, solemn tones lectured the "ignorant" public for daring to believe that something as harmless as tobacco could ever be....you get the idea.

So couldn't we be forgiven for being a "little" skeptical?