Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What is thimerosal, the flu vaccine ingredient targeted by RFK Jr.? [View all]LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)65. No it called a counter example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample
I give you the science. You say but these laws say otherwise. I point out that laws dont dictate science and give an example both real dumb laws that were passed and an extreme hypothetical (flat earth) of how a law denying science does not disprove the science.
This is reductio ad absurdum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
A well proven argument technique.
I don't think 40 countries ,(and much of this country), banned the substance out of politics and we both know that.
No we dont both know which is the point. You dont know the context of which the laws passed and using them without that knowledge is irresponsible.
Your argument now is that they all cant be wrong. You did No research on the laws just assume with no proof. Well guess what? They can all be wrong and are.
We know because RESEARCH has been done (I already gave a link as evidence) and found it is safe.
Your argument is groundless.
I give you the science. You say but these laws say otherwise. I point out that laws dont dictate science and give an example both real dumb laws that were passed and an extreme hypothetical (flat earth) of how a law denying science does not disprove the science.
This is reductio ad absurdum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
A well proven argument technique.
I don't think 40 countries ,(and much of this country), banned the substance out of politics and we both know that.
No we dont both know which is the point. You dont know the context of which the laws passed and using them without that knowledge is irresponsible.
Your argument now is that they all cant be wrong. You did No research on the laws just assume with no proof. Well guess what? They can all be wrong and are.
We know because RESEARCH has been done (I already gave a link as evidence) and found it is safe.
Your argument is groundless.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What is thimerosal, the flu vaccine ingredient targeted by RFK Jr.? [View all]
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
Jun 2025
OP
Yes many adverse reactions to contact lens solutions that used to contain it.
blubunyip
Jun 2025
#41
It's been gone for decades. Pharmcos found other alternatives -- not just safer, but maybe more effective. nt
eppur_se_muova
Jun 2025
#68
and did any of those countries have a record as good as ours did under Anthony Fauci?
cadoman
Jun 2025
#13
when overwhelming scientific consensus is established, it's harmful to publicly disagree
cadoman
Jun 2025
#15
you misunderstand me: the overwhelming scientific consensus is what is right, not Fauci individually
cadoman
Jun 2025
#70
Since the covid pandemic, I still "mask" in public, and haven't had the flu or anything else
Jack Valentino
Jun 2025
#16
RFK and his AI science-team is the new masthead for the ant-science demographic.
Torchlight
Jun 2025
#36