So last night I got into a Facebook discussion with a guy I went to high school with. It started with me just giving a quick response to this guy's status update, but before I knew it the whole thread turned into a relatively lengthy discussion on the anti-vax movement. It sort of grew beyond the bounds of the comment thread we were using and--given that I really don't know these guys very well--a little past the point where I felt comfortable responding.
But, hey I have a blog that needs updating, and what is a blog for if not exactly this? So I thought I would revisit the whole thing here where I have some room to explain why I found this exchange so disturbing.
First here is the initial status update I saw:
I read this and thought, "hey, this guy must have come across this 'factoid' somewhere and it freaked him out. Perhaps I can put his mind at ease."
But, before I get into my response, let's look at his claim for a second. This guy is basically clueing us in that the vaccine we are all getting--and in many cases giving to our kids--contains 25,000 times the FDA approved limit of mercury. So essentially, all of these vaccines have a lethal dose of mercury in them.
Think about what an extraordinary claim that is. All the doctors, nurses, and health professionals all over the country are knowingly injecting us with 25,000 times the safe limit of mercury. They are poisoning their patients with each little injection. And none of them are mentioning this to us or seeming the least bit concerned as they do so.
Right away, this claim should seem suspect. That doesn't mean we should simply dismiss it, but we need to use some critical thinking here. Are these vaccines really toxic? If so, does that imply a conspiracy somewhere in the medical world? To what end? Why poison us all just to keep us from getting the flu? And how did this guy I know from high school come across this information which has eluded every health advocacy group in the country?
Fortunately, the answer here is pretty straightforward. There is no conspiracy, no cover up; just a slight confusion on the different types of mercury. I try to explain this in my reply to his initial post:
His response:
Also, his last line is especially disturbing. You are just as likely to get sick from taking a vaccine as from being exposed to the virus? How could that possibly be true? Is he still only talking about mercury poisoning or can the vaccine make you sick in other ways?
I should have just probably walked away at this point. The discussion had grown a little past the bounds of a simple claim of why the H1N1 vaccine is dangerous and entered into a more philosophical arena that I was not sure would be very productive. But I take it another step further, trying to be diplomatic:
As I was typing the above, he added the following two messages:
All right, snark aside--and I am being snarky only to point out the absurdity of where this discussion has gone--how did this discussion get here? We started this when I tried to explain--using some simple and straightforward biology and chemistry--that the preservative in the H1N1 vaccine does not give people mercury poisoning. And somehow, I am on the other side of a debate railing against the evil government, corporate greed, and a sinister plot to profit from cancer medication. How do you respond to that?
I guess like this:
But this is all getting incredibly sophomoric. Somehow our discussion has degenerated into arm chair philosophizing at each other. What happened to the specific scientifically testable fact we were supposed to be discussing? So I restate my point, adding a link this time to support what I am saying.
That should cover it, right? Get us back on track? I am not making this information up. I am not constructing some logical argument to base a philosophy on. No wild accusations that would require some sort of major evidence or support. I am just saying that thimerosal metabolizes into ethylmercury (which harmless) not methylmercury (which causes mercury poisoning). Just basic science; chemistry and biology. And a tidy little reference link explaining it in detail.
The response?
Anyway, if I am following this logic correctly:
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to dissect that string of logic in the comments. Although, I might pose the question...if there were an AIDS vaccine, would my friend get it or not?
So what is the point of this? Why am I reciting this entire message board discussion to you now?
The point is we--all of us--need to be better critical thinkers. We need to question what we believe and work very hard to use facts and evidence--and not anecdotal and emotional responses--to make important life decisions.
My friend here does not want his kids to get the H1N1 vaccine because he has it in his head that the medical industry is corrupt. That's the bottom line here. This has nothing to do with thimerosal. He saw a "factoid" online or heard something on a talk radio show that confirmed what he believed, and it made him feel good.
It's really comforting and reassuring to buy into a conspiracy. If we have a neat and tidy reason why a bad thing happened, than the world is so much more predictable and so much safer in our minds. Did one guy get a rifle and kill a sitting president in Texas? Did a small group of insane terrorists really kill thousands of people by simply hijacking a plane with a box cutter? Are kids really developing horrible conditions like autism purely at random? Is it all really that simple? The universe can't really be that aimless and chaotic, can it?
As good as it would feel to hide behind wild and complicated fantasy explanations for all of these horrible things, they only hide us from the truth--and force us to make really stupid decisions when we are locked into a way of thinking. The world isn't going to be any safer just because you bury your head in the sand. It's only going to make it harder to see those things you can control.
If you are worried about the H1N1 vaccine causing mercury poisoning then go find out if it does. Go ask a doctor or a nurse about thimerosal--not a woman whose last job was taking off her clothes in Playboy. Read up on it online--on actual medical sites, not message boards filled with unsubstantiated horror stories and random noise. Heck, call a local university and talk to a professor or a grad student who can verify what I've explained here. Trust me, very few of those people will be "on the take" from the pharmaceutical industry.
And be rational and unemotional as you consider the evidence. What specifically could be dangerous about the vaccine? How can you verify or deny those things? What do the facts and evidence tell you? As much as are hearts can go out to a parent with an autistic child, the truth is her suspensions and emotional responses are not scientific evidence. And while an emotional argument can seem convincing, we need to put that aside an look only at the facts. That's what science is.
The only question here is whether or not the H1N1 vaccine contains mercury. And as much as some people wish it did...it doesn't.
But, hey I have a blog that needs updating, and what is a blog for if not exactly this? So I thought I would revisit the whole thing here where I have some room to explain why I found this exchange so disturbing.
First here is the initial status update I saw:
All right, if you have been following the anti-vax moment, then this is nothing you haven't seen before. Actually it's even framed somewhat sensibly. No panicked, emotional claims that the H1N1 vaccine will give your kid autism. No anger and false outrage. No ex-playboy bunnies selling books on Oprah. Just a nice specific claim (very scientific) and a reference point for why it is a cause for concern.GUY I KNEW IN HIGH SCHOOL:
Hey folks...would you eat a piece of fish that you KNEW had 25,000 times the FDA limit of mercury in it? If you said no, then avoid the H1N1 vaccine. It has 25k times the mercury safe for food consumption. The vaccine is more dangerous than the virus.
Yesterday at 5:54pm via Facebook for iPhone
Comment · Like / Unlike · View Feedback
I read this and thought, "hey, this guy must have come across this 'factoid' somewhere and it freaked him out. Perhaps I can put his mind at ease."
But, before I get into my response, let's look at his claim for a second. This guy is basically clueing us in that the vaccine we are all getting--and in many cases giving to our kids--contains 25,000 times the FDA approved limit of mercury. So essentially, all of these vaccines have a lethal dose of mercury in them.
Think about what an extraordinary claim that is. All the doctors, nurses, and health professionals all over the country are knowingly injecting us with 25,000 times the safe limit of mercury. They are poisoning their patients with each little injection. And none of them are mentioning this to us or seeming the least bit concerned as they do so.
Right away, this claim should seem suspect. That doesn't mean we should simply dismiss it, but we need to use some critical thinking here. Are these vaccines really toxic? If so, does that imply a conspiracy somewhere in the medical world? To what end? Why poison us all just to keep us from getting the flu? And how did this guy I know from high school come across this information which has eluded every health advocacy group in the country?
Fortunately, the answer here is pretty straightforward. There is no conspiracy, no cover up; just a slight confusion on the different types of mercury. I try to explain this in my reply to his initial post:
Let me summarize the exchange so far because things are about to go way off the rails:JASON TOOMEY:
Thimerosal (the preservative you are talking about in the vaccine) breaks down into ethylmercury (which breaks down in a couple days and is essentially harmless) not methylmercury. Methylmercury is the "bad" stuff to which the FDA guidelines you cite apply, not ethylmercury. We are all very safe from mercury poisoning... :)
Yesterday at 7:31pm · Delete
1. This guy makes a claim that the H1N1 vaccine contains 25,000 times the safe does of mercury. He doesn't offer any support for this, but that's okay.Now at this point, I expected one of two responses. Either:
2. I recognize this claim from my own research on the topic and recognize that he is (unknowingly, I would guess) referring to the preservative used in the vaccine, thimerosal.
3. I then reply explaining that, in fact, thimerosal is very safe and does not offer any risk of mercury poisoning.
A. "Hey wow, really? Thanks for the explanation! I knew that thing I read had to be wrong. I mean, seriously, 25,000 times the safe does of mercury? People would be dropping dead in CVS parking lots every day!"or,
B. "No, no you misunderstood. It's not the thimerosal I was talking about it was <THIS OTHER THING>." or, alternatively "No, you are wrong about thimerosal, it actually metabolizes into <THIS OTHER DANGEROUS THING>"Because--Jenny McCarthy and her books aside--we are discussing one specific point here, and approaching it from a very rational, scientific point of view. I'm just responding to his very specific claim with some biology and chemistry that is well documented and understood. This really should be the end of the discussion unless my friend has some additional information I am missing.
His response:
This kind of threw me because instead of addressing my neat and tidy explanation (either agreeing with it or disputing it), he sort of changes his tone to a new age type of philosophy suggesting that all vaccines--and all medicine in general?--do more harm than good and should be avoided. But this has nothing to do with his original--and very well stated--claim. He was worried that the vaccine had mercury in it. It doesn't. So what makes it still dangerous? Simply the adherence to the philosophy that anything "unnatural" is bad? Why didn't he lead with that argument then in his original post?GUY I KNEW IN HIGH SCHOOL:
If it doesn't happen in your body naturally, don't introduce it. Nothing comes without side effects. You're not going to die from H1N1. You can get just as ill from the vaccine as you can from the virus.
Yesterday at 8:25pm
Also, his last line is especially disturbing. You are just as likely to get sick from taking a vaccine as from being exposed to the virus? How could that possibly be true? Is he still only talking about mercury poisoning or can the vaccine make you sick in other ways?
I should have just probably walked away at this point. The discussion had grown a little past the bounds of a simple claim of why the H1N1 vaccine is dangerous and entered into a more philosophical arena that I was not sure would be very productive. But I take it another step further, trying to be diplomatic:
So first I make a simple logic argument against the philosophy that putting anything "unnatural" in your body is bad. I mean seriously, how can you believe that the world would be better without medicine? And I also make an effort to put us back on track here, saying that that philosophical argument aside, the original point here is whether or not the vaccine is dangerous. I mean the only solid point he has tried to make against the H1N1 vaccine is that it contains a dangerous amount of mercury, right? Is there another specific claim he wants to raise?JASON TOOMEY
I think I see what you are trying to say, but--with all due respect--can't you make the same argument about any drug or supplement you put into your body? The polio vaccine, penicillin, treatments for cancer, or even simple stuff like vitamins or fluoride in your toothpaste? Think of how much our quality of life (not to mention life expectancy) has improved over the last century or so due to all of these medicines and advances.
I mean sixty or seventy years ago we'd all be terrified one of our kids was going to develop small pox or polio. That was a real threat. Now we don't even think about chicken pox. Science is awesome! :)
I understand what you are saying about some medicines being overused or "pushed" on people, but that's really not the issue here. If you want to argue that you don't want the vaccine because you can do without it, that's cool. I am actually not getting it because there is a shortage, and I figure if I pass someone's kid or grandmother can have my dose. But if you are going to argue that the vaccine is dangerous and that people who need it should not get it...well, that's different, right?
Yesterday at 8:55pm · Delete
As I was typing the above, he added the following two messages:
Okay now we are getting into Oliver Stone territory here. He is suggesting that the entire pharmaceutical industry is conspiring to keep us all sick on on their meds. Did they kill JFK and fake the moon landing too? Do the drug reps fly around the country in black helicopters?GUY I KNEW IN HIGH SCHOOL:
When is the last time a pharmaceutical company found a CURE for any disease? 1 shot, 1 cure? Never. There is $$$ in the TREATMENT of disease, never in the cure of it. There is ZERO interest in CURING cancer, parkinson's, etc., only in helping you LIVE with the disease by taking their drugs...which, of course, have significant side effects...but they have drugs for that too. Why does the same medicine cost $70 in Detroit and $7 in Toronto? Two words: Corporate Greed.
Yesterday at 8:43pm
GUY I KNEW IN HIGH SCHOOL:
Case in point: you mean to tell me that you can mass produce a vaccine for a worldwide pandemic flu over the summer but you can't find a drug that kills cancer cells or stops the advancement of parkinson's or ALS? The medical community are the whores of the Pfisers and Glaxo's of this world. If I were wrong, then cancer would be polio by now.
Yesterday at 8:45pm
All right, snark aside--and I am being snarky only to point out the absurdity of where this discussion has gone--how did this discussion get here? We started this when I tried to explain--using some simple and straightforward biology and chemistry--that the preservative in the H1N1 vaccine does not give people mercury poisoning. And somehow, I am on the other side of a debate railing against the evil government, corporate greed, and a sinister plot to profit from cancer medication. How do you respond to that?
I guess like this:
So I sort of point out the logical fallacy of saying greedy corporate fat cats are keeping the cure for cancer under wraps. I work in IP. Trust me, if someone had that secret, that person would be making a Bill Gates sized fortune off it right now. And I also try to point out there there is a slight--slight--difference in coming up with a vaccine for the flu vs. curing cancer.JASON TOOMEY
I have to say, I think a magic pill that cures cancer would be pretty damn profitable! :) If I were an "evil" greedy CEO at some drug company, I'm pretty sure I'd opt for that pill over a 1,000 Viagras.
I think the real answer there is that the flu is a virus--which we understand, for the most part, how to fight--and cancer is some strange uncontrolled growth of our own cells--which is horribly scary and we are still working to understand. I am not sure it is fair to compare to the two...or to dismiss all of the advances we've made in the last fifty years or so (think of all the treatable forms of cancer there are now).
Also, this discussion started with a concern you raised about thimerosal (the preservative used in the H1N1 vaccine) being toxic. And the entire science community--not simply the scientists working for the drug companies--has shown that that is simply not true. It was simply a confusion of the different types of mercury:http://www.factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.htmlAs I said, I can understand an argument saying "the flu isn't that bad, I can go without the medicine," but I don't think you can argue that the vaccine is dangerous...
Yesterday at 9:17pm · Delete
But this is all getting incredibly sophomoric. Somehow our discussion has degenerated into arm chair philosophizing at each other. What happened to the specific scientifically testable fact we were supposed to be discussing? So I restate my point, adding a link this time to support what I am saying.
That should cover it, right? Get us back on track? I am not making this information up. I am not constructing some logical argument to base a philosophy on. No wild accusations that would require some sort of major evidence or support. I am just saying that thimerosal metabolizes into ethylmercury (which harmless) not methylmercury (which causes mercury poisoning). Just basic science; chemistry and biology. And a tidy little reference link explaining it in detail.
The response?
GUY I KNEW IN HIGH SCHOOL:Phil Plait deliver me from evil! (note: I don't think my friend is evil, I just think the bible reference is a nicely timed bit of levity.)
Jason, you proved my point. All of these major advancements were discovered YEARS ago. Drug companies are in the game for 1 reason, and 1 reason only...to make $$$. When was the most recent "cure" drug found? Decades ago. Once the drug companies learned that discovery of a cure only brings fame and NOT fortune, the direction of research shifted to helping people LIVE with disease. Another example: AIDS. There has been hundreds of millions raised to find a "cure" yet all the drug companies have yielded is a cocktail of drugs that cost patients $10,000 per month. All that science, and you can't get a CURE? Bullshit.
Anyway, if I am following this logic correctly:
1. It seems like there should be an AIDS vaccine by now.
2. There is not an AIDS vaccine by now.
3. The most plausible explanation for the lack of an AIDS vaccine in that the entirety of the pharmaceutical world is focused solely on developing medicines which treat only the symptoms of AIDS, which is highly profitable. That is, there is not one company or university out there that thinks they might find a niche market with an AIDS vaccine.
4. Therefore, it is clear that the medical community does not have our best interests at heart.5. Therefore, the entire medical community cannot be trusted.
6. Therefore, it is likely that the H1N1 vaccine is bad for you--for reasons we cannot be sure of--and preventing the flu is not worth the risk.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to dissect that string of logic in the comments. Although, I might pose the question...if there were an AIDS vaccine, would my friend get it or not?
So what is the point of this? Why am I reciting this entire message board discussion to you now?
The point is we--all of us--need to be better critical thinkers. We need to question what we believe and work very hard to use facts and evidence--and not anecdotal and emotional responses--to make important life decisions.
My friend here does not want his kids to get the H1N1 vaccine because he has it in his head that the medical industry is corrupt. That's the bottom line here. This has nothing to do with thimerosal. He saw a "factoid" online or heard something on a talk radio show that confirmed what he believed, and it made him feel good.
It's really comforting and reassuring to buy into a conspiracy. If we have a neat and tidy reason why a bad thing happened, than the world is so much more predictable and so much safer in our minds. Did one guy get a rifle and kill a sitting president in Texas? Did a small group of insane terrorists really kill thousands of people by simply hijacking a plane with a box cutter? Are kids really developing horrible conditions like autism purely at random? Is it all really that simple? The universe can't really be that aimless and chaotic, can it?
As good as it would feel to hide behind wild and complicated fantasy explanations for all of these horrible things, they only hide us from the truth--and force us to make really stupid decisions when we are locked into a way of thinking. The world isn't going to be any safer just because you bury your head in the sand. It's only going to make it harder to see those things you can control.
If you are worried about the H1N1 vaccine causing mercury poisoning then go find out if it does. Go ask a doctor or a nurse about thimerosal--not a woman whose last job was taking off her clothes in Playboy. Read up on it online--on actual medical sites, not message boards filled with unsubstantiated horror stories and random noise. Heck, call a local university and talk to a professor or a grad student who can verify what I've explained here. Trust me, very few of those people will be "on the take" from the pharmaceutical industry.
And be rational and unemotional as you consider the evidence. What specifically could be dangerous about the vaccine? How can you verify or deny those things? What do the facts and evidence tell you? As much as are hearts can go out to a parent with an autistic child, the truth is her suspensions and emotional responses are not scientific evidence. And while an emotional argument can seem convincing, we need to put that aside an look only at the facts. That's what science is.
The only question here is whether or not the H1N1 vaccine contains mercury. And as much as some people wish it did...it doesn't.
