Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Upisoft]

Mercury in the Environment

Fish-based methylmercury is more readily absorbed, less easily excreted, and more toxic than other forms of mercury, both in fish (leading to the biomagnification of relatively low levels of elemental mercury and methylmercury) and in humans (who, being top-level predators, end up with more merthylmercury than the fish they eat).

Huge page with many words and no actual data. Where is the study? Also this page mentions only methylmercury, elemental mercury and mercuric chloride. All of these are usually ingested or inhaled. What I want to see is data showing how much of the mercury in the food gets into our bloodstream. Because all of it gets there when taken intravenously.

So you never take any medication, or eat any new foodstuff, or drink any new liquids, right?

If I know it is highly toxic I don't unless I have no other option. Are you sure that food contains highly toxic stuff?

In any case, numerous studies and reviews have found no harm in using thimerosal in vaccines. To hide in the smalls and say "But what if I'm different and special!" is a terrible way to approach science.

Why you are talking about science here? Did I say that you should not take your flu shot? I only said that I don't want to take it. You do as you wish. My opinion cannot be science an any way as it only concerns me.

I'd rather you didn't peddle misinformation to vulnerable children and adults. If you don't want to get vaccinated against debilitating and potentially fatal diseases, that's your business. You cited the mercury in vaccines as the reason you don't get vaccinated, yet the evidence demonstrates that the mercury absorbed is below that absorbed by eating fish - yet I don't imagine you protest outside your local fishmongers.

What misinformation? That there is or were thimerosal in vaccines? That thimerosal is highly toxic? I also have not seen any newborn to eat fish, but they get vaccinated nevertheless. The studies are made on currently available vaccines with low content of thimerosal.
Mercury in Vaccines - Immunization Issue
The fact is they have used it as a preservative with much higher concentration. Was that a misinformation?

 

[rjc34]

What misinformation? That there is or were thimerosal in vaccines? That thimerosal is highly toxic? I also have not seen any newborn to eat fish, but they get vaccinated nevertheless. The studies are made on currently available vaccines with low content of thimerosal.
Mercury in Vaccines - Immunization Issue
The fact is they have used it as a preservative with much higher concentration. Was that a misinformation?

Give us some studies that show that thimerosal in vaccines is actually harmful. Every study that has been done shows absolutely no effect, and designates the tiny doses used in vaccines as perfectly safe.

 

[Upisoft]

Give us some studies that show that thimerosal in vaccines is actually harmful. Every study that has been done shows absolutely no effect, and designates the tiny doses used in vaccines as perfectly safe.

Every study you have is about the currently available vaccines that have low thimerosal content. Also why my decision to not use vaccines have to be backed up by data that show it is dangerous for others? I see no logic in your request.

 

[rjc34]

Every study you have is about the currently available vaccines that have low thimerosal content.

WHO - Thiomersal and vaccines
Read up.

Also why my decision to not use vaccines have to be backed up by data that show it is dangerous for others? I see no logic in your request.

I see no logic in avoiding life-saving vaccines because of a perceived threat from a preservative known to be save in vaccine level doses. It's like refusing the drug they give you at the hospital for a severe heart attack that has a 1/1000 chance of causing a stroke, because you just don't like it. And yes, my Grandfather had a heart attack, was given the drugs, and the stroke caused him to lose the use of the right half of his body. Was the side effect bad? Yes. Was the other option (not taking the drug) worse? Yes, death is definitely worse.

Has anyone ever died or gotten sick from the thiomersal in vaccines?

 

[chris4243]

Every study you have is about the currently available vaccines that have low thimerosal content. Also why my decision to not use vaccines have to be backed up by data that show it is dangerous for others? I see no logic in your request.

You can not use vaccines for your own reasons (I too mostly avoid them, largely because I don't need them). However, if you want to warn others that vaccines are dangerous then you had better back up your claim, or you might be partially responsible for the deaths of others who took your word for it and avoided a life-saving vaccine.

 

[benglobal]

If you're read the book, can't you give us a summary of the requested information? If you haven't, how can you cite it?

As for McTaggart herself, she's hardly the most reputable person to be citing as a source...

I have read the book otherwise why would I cite it as worthy of a read.
Yes I could give a summary but feel my limited vocabulary would not do the book's valuable infomation justice and therefore I am sharing the valuable infomation of recommendation as my answer to the said request.
As for Lynne Mctaggarts reputation that is for you to judge as you have done based on your knowledge of her.

 

[Upisoft]

WHO - Thiomersal and vaccines
Read up.

Yep, every paper is made after the year 1999 when the decision to avoid usage of thiomersal as preservative in single doses. They are doing good job to show that the new acceptable level is safe. However, they already did the mistake to use it in unacceptable amount from 1930 to 1999. Thiomersal, unlike other substances they could used for preservative, do not changed the potency of the vaccine. So, they used it instead of spending money on research of less toxic compound. They started to make research only after the society was concerned. People were concerned because the Hg dosage was above the standards made for methylmercury. Later they made the research to show that ethilmercury (what thiomersal is metabolized into) is less toxic from methylmercury. However this research was made after the fact. They have used the substance above the accepted norms, because at the time there were norms only for methylmercury. Imagine what could happen if ethilmercury was more potent toxin than methilmercury? Why they didn't make the research before using the substance, but did it only after the society was concerned? My answer is that they donn't care enough about us, they care more about the money.

I see no logic in avoiding life-saving vaccines because of a perceived threat from a preservative known to be save in vaccine level doses.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm still alive, thus none of those vaccines I avoided was life-saving.

It's like refusing the drug they give you at the hospital for a severe heart attack that has a 1/1000 chance of causing a stroke, because you just don't like it.

Incorrect example. It is like refusing a drug that may save you from heart attack, when you actually feel healthy and there are no indications your heart has problems. If it was like your example I probably would take the risk.

Has anyone ever died or gotten sick from the thiomersal in vaccines?

The studies say "no", but the studies are done from the same people who used the substance before they made the studies. I have my reasons to doubt the validity of them.

 

[Upisoft]

You can not use vaccines for your own reasons (I too mostly avoid them, largely because I don't need them). However, if you want to warn others that vaccines are dangerous then you had better back up your claim, or you might be partially responsible for the deaths of others who took your word for it and avoided a life-saving vaccine.

All started with this:

Thiomersal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I avoid vaccination. I don't want any mercury in my body.

As you can see I'm talking about myself. I didn't ever say "people don't use vaccines!!!!!111!!!". What you do is up to you.

 

[Jade Margery]

Yep, every paper is made after the year 1999 when the decision to avoid usage of thiomersal as preservative in single doses. They are doing good job to show that the new acceptable level is safe. However, they already did the mistake to use it in unacceptable amount from 1930 to 1999. Thiomersal, unlike other substances they could used for preservative, do not changed the potency of the vaccine. So, they used it instead of spending money on research of less toxic compound. They started to make research only after the society was concerned. People were concerned because the Hg dosage was above the standards made for methylmercury. Later they made the research to show that ethilmercury (what thiomersal is metabolized into) is less toxic from methylmercury. However this research was made after the fact. They have used the substance above the accepted norms, because at the time there were norms only for methylmercury. Imagine what could happen if ethilmercury was more potent toxin than methilmercury? Why they didn't make the research before using the substance, but did it only after the society was concerned? My answer is that they donn't care enough about us, they care more about the money.

So your reasoning is that people made the drugs safer... so... you... don't want to take them?

I mean, for most of history, surgery has been a bad idea. There were very unsafe practices, such as operating under unsanitary conditions. Would you not have a surgery now because in the past they didn't know what they were doing?

The dangers of lots of chemicals have only become realized in recent years. Lead drinking glasses, zinc powders, even modern ones like BPA... it wasn't that people were too lazy or cheap to do the studies, it was that no one realized they were dangerous.

But in the case of Thiomersal, perhaps you should share some of the burden of proof that you're demanding of everyone else? You keep saying it's toxic, but pretty much anything is toxic past a certain amount and harmless below a certain amount. (You breathe things every day that would poison you if they were actually concentrated in the air, for instance, and a single molecule of anything is going to be harmless).

So, can you provide us with numerical studies or proofs of anyone suffering actual, lasting harm from the thiomersal in a vaccine?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm still alive, thus none of those vaccines I avoided was life-saving.

With the flu vaccine you're probably fine, but just because you didn't catch a disease doesn't mean you shouldn't get the vaccine. A lot of diseases are no longer around BECAUSE people got vaccinated. As for today's vaccines, the life you save may not be your own. Many diseases are relatively harmless for adult healthy people, but dangerous for little babies or people with compromised immune systems. The whooping cough vaccine, for instance, can't be given to babies who are the ones at most risk to die from that disease. It's up to the adults and older children around the baby to protect it by getting vaccinated.

Vaccines don't just protect you, they protect everyone around you. That's what makes the anti-vaccine hysteria tragic and sad. The chances of being harmed by a vaccine are incredibly small, but people get hyped up over it anyway. "Any chance is too big a chance!" is the mentality. And then people stop getting vaccinations, and then...

This is a graph for whooping cough as mentioned above. The vaccine was found in 1949. In the nineties, the vaccine/autism scare began. You can see for yourself what has happened--the highest number of pertussis cases in forty years, and the majority of them were probably small children and newborns.

That's just one disease. So go ahead and not get vaccinated--I mean, so long as nothing happens to you, who cares?

Edit: I realized the graph wasn't labeled, so here's the site: http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/pertussis_california.html

 

[BleedingHeart]

Atheism seems to lack evidence more than Christianity does. Christians have the historical gospel to point towards their truths. What do atheists have other than a blind faith that they are right? Is such blind faith morally similar to Christianity but with less evidence in support of it?

 

[Upisoft]

So your reasoning is that people made the drugs safer... so... you... don't want to take them?

My reasoning is that they were forced to make it safer. They didn't do it because they were concerned about people health. They did it because they were concerned about their profit.
1) If the initial dose was not toxic, then why they lowered the contents of the substance? Answer: positive PR -> more money.
2) If the initial dose were toxic, then why they put it the vaccine. Answer: more research -> less money.

I mean, for most of history, surgery has been a bad idea. There were very unsafe practices, such as operating under unsanitary conditions. Would you not have a surgery now because in the past they didn't know what they were doing?

In the past they didn't have the germ theory. If you can show me they practice in unsanitary conditions despite knowing it and doing so in large scale that affects large percentage of the population I'll think again before I agree with a surgery.

The dangers of lots of chemicals have only become realized in recent years. Lead drinking glasses, zinc powders, even modern ones like BPA... it wasn't that people were too lazy or cheap to do the studies, it was that no one realized they were dangerous.

Ancient Greeks were working with Hg. They knew it is toxic. It is known that heavy metals are toxic and tend to accumulate in the body for some time. I cannot accept they did it out of ignorance.

But in the case of Thiomersal, perhaps you should share some of the burden of proof that you're demanding of everyone else? You keep saying it's toxic, but pretty much anything is toxic past a certain amount and harmless below a certain amount. (You breathe things every day that would poison you if they were actually concentrated in the air, for instance, and a single molecule of anything is going to be harmless).

I've already posted link to the wiki page. The substance is classified as "very toxic (T+)" in EU classification section and as 3 on the NFPA 704 scale (which goes from 0-"no hazard" to 4-"severe risk").

With the flu vaccine you're probably fine, but just because you didn't catch a disease doesn't mean you shouldn't get the vaccine. A lot of diseases are no longer around BECAUSE people got vaccinated.

Oh, more assertions. If I ask for a proof you will pull out a paper that shows a correlation. But then again I can pull out a graph that shows the correlation between number of pirates and the global warming. When people are going to learn that correlation doesn't mean causality?

As for today's vaccines, the life you save may not be your own. Many diseases are relatively harmless for adult healthy people, but dangerous for little babies or people with compromised immune systems. The whooping cough vaccine, for instance, can't be given to babies who are the ones at most risk to die from that disease. It's up to the adults and older children around the baby to protect it by getting vaccinated.

Still vaccinated doesn't mean immune. One can still develop the disease. From the wiki page about whooping cough: "various estimates range from preventing disease transmission in 50%–95% of people exposed to the disease."

Vaccines don't just protect you, they protect everyone around you.

From what?

That's what makes the anti-vaccine hysteria tragic and sad. The chances of being harmed by a vaccine are incredibly small, but people get hyped up over it anyway. "Any chance is too big a chance!" is the mentality. And then people stop getting vaccinations, and then...

And then you show me a graph with correlation and claim that the pirates were preventing the global warming.
Indeed there is correlation, but if you have checked the sources, they think the reason is that a new strain of the bacteria is developing that became resistant to the DTaP vaccine currently used.

 

[Jade Margery]

My reasoning is that they were forced to make it safer. They didn't do it because they were concerned about people health. They did it because they were concerned about their profit.
1) If the initial dose was not toxic, then why they lowered the contents of the substance? Answer: positive PR -> more money.
2) If the initial dose were toxic, then why they put it the vaccine. Answer: more research -> less money.

You're assuming a motive you can't actually know. I can think of several other possible motives for removing it. The listed reason is over-caution, which could mean that they didn't want to take any chances, or they thought it would be easier to phase the substance out than try to convince a bunch of hysterical people that something they are convinced is dangerous isn't.

Did you know that when airbags were invented, car manufacturers fought against making them mandatory because they were costly to manufacture and install? Will you be avoiding vehicles now that you know they were forced to be made safer?

In the past they didn't have the germ theory. If you can show me they practice in unsanitary conditions despite knowing it and doing so in large scale that affects large percentage of the population I'll think again before I agree with a surgery.

Well, that was only one example, but if you're in a nit-picky mood, how about AIDS? More HIV was spread by contaminated blood banks than by sex when the epidemic started because testing every bag of blood for it would have been very costly and it wasn't fully understood. People went in to hospitals for routine surgeries and came out with a deadly disease.

I suppose you'll be avoiding blood transfers from now on too.

Ancient Greeks were working with Hg. They knew it is toxic. It is known that heavy metals are toxic and tend to accumulate in the body for some time. I cannot accept they did it out of ignorance.

I've already posted link to the wiki page. The substance is classified as "very toxic (T+)" in EU classification section and as 3 on the NFPA 704 scale (which goes from 0-"no hazard" to 4-"severe risk").

Although mercury is toxic, for all substances there is a threshold below which they have little or no effect on a person. It only becomes dangerous when you go over that threshold. What I'm asking is, can you provide a)the exact amount of mercury a human body can contain without it affecting their health and b) a comparison of that amount to the amount found in the vaccines, both old and new if you don't mind. If number A is less than number B, then I shall concede the point.

Oh, more assertions. If I ask for a proof you will pull out a paper that shows a correlation. But then again I can pull out a graph that shows the correlation between number of pirates and the global warming. When people are going to learn that correlation doesn't mean causality?

Still vaccinated doesn't mean immune. One can still develop the disease. From the wiki page about whooping cough: "various estimates range from preventing disease transmission in 50%–95% of people exposed to the disease."

It would only be correlation if there were not case studies to back it up. In recent years, almost every major protussis outbreak has occurred among young children exposed to someone (often another child) who was not immunized. We also have proof that not immunizing puts children at greater risk:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/729614

Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children -- Glanz et al. 123 (6): 1446 -- Pediatrics

And then you show me a graph with correlation and claim that the pirates were preventing the global warming.
Indeed there is correlation, but if you have checked the sources, they think the reason is that a new strain of the bacteria is developing that became resistant to the DTaP vaccine currently used.

Who are "they"? In every article I've found and read, by reporters, scientists, pediatricians, and parents, the anti-vaccination movement is strongly tied to this rate of increased cases. It explains why California has more cases of protussis than any other state--they also have the highest percentage of parents opting out of vaccinations. And a very similar thing happened in England in the 80's--some anti-vaccine rhetoric got blown out of proportion, vaccination went down, cases and deaths from protussis went up. People started vaccinating again, cases went down.

Now, I'd be the first to agree that correlation doesn't equal causation. But when you have two sets of numbers that peak and fall at the same rates, some kind of relationship is going on, and unless you're suggesting that MORE cases of protussis are causing FEWER people to vaccinate, the connection is obvious. But hey, keep on ignoring the loads of experts, doctors, and evidence. That certainly doesn't sound like anyone ELSE on this board.

More links!

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/06/california-pertussis-epidemic-caused-vaccine-refusal.html

Did the Anti-Vaccine Movement Help Create a Whooping Cough Epidemic? | Mother Jones

A Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Case Study; Don't Forget to Vaccinate! | MyHealthCafe.com

 

[rjc34]

My reasoning is that they were forced to make it safer. They didn't do it because they were concerned about people health. They did it because they were concerned about their profit.
1) If the initial dose was not toxic, then why they lowered the contents of the substance? Answer: positive PR -> more money.
2) If the initial dose were toxic, then why they put it the vaccine. Answer: more research -> less money.

And the initial doses weren't toxic. There was no reason to fix it, because they were fine. It was simply the autism scare that forced them to reformulate.

Ancient Greeks were working with Hg. They knew it is toxic. It is known that heavy metals are toxic and tend to accumulate in the body for some time. I cannot accept they did it out of ignorance.

Can you cite a source for this?

I've already posted link to the wiki page. The substance is classified as "very toxic (T+)" in EU classification section and as 3 on the NFPA 704 scale (which goes from 0-"no hazard" to 4-"severe risk").

Yes, in high doses. The amount in vaccines is non-toxic. End of story.

 

[briareos]

Obviously I am late in the game and this may have already been stated but my problem with the OP statement or question is that Atheism isn't actually a belief at all (rather a lack of belief). Not according to the etymology of the word and based on all it's applicable definitions.

One not need believe anything to be an Atheist. Atheism doesn't require any belief so Atheism also requires no substantiation for any beliefs. Atheism can be rightly called a simple absense of a God theory. without going deeply into the etymology and explaining agnosticism etc etc... Atheism by definition requires no belief and thus requires no evidence. It is entirely possible to be an Atheist and not have any belief on the matter of God or anything else for that matter becuase all that is required to be an Atheist is to lack a belief in God. People who BELIEVE God does not exist are atheists by action but this is an example of Athiesm, not the definition.

 

[Upisoft]

You're assuming a motive you can't actually know. I can think of several other possible motives for removing it. The listed reason is over-caution, which could mean that they didn't want to take any chances, or they thought it would be easier to phase the substance out than try to convince a bunch of hysterical people that something they are convinced is dangerous isn't.

Because I've actually seen how money can become larger than the health of others. I've also seen the opposite. And what I've seen shows that people having money and power tend to prefer them over the health of others. Unless they are ridiculously rich.

Did you know that when airbags were invented, car manufacturers fought against making them mandatory because they were costly to manufacture and install? Will you be avoiding vehicles now that you know they were forced to be made safer?

I'm yet to drive such a car. When I do, I'll tell you what I think about it.

Well, that was only one example, but if you're in a nit-picky mood, how about AIDS? More HIV was spread by contaminated blood banks than by sex when the epidemic started because testing every bag of blood for it would have been very costly and it wasn't fully understood. People went in to hospitals for routine surgeries and came out with a deadly disease.

I suppose you'll be avoiding blood transfers from now on too.

I'm living in a country that has less than 1000 people having HIV. People here do pretty good job when it comes to medicine. Yes, it takes a lot of money. So what? I'm pretty sure that I'll not get AIDS from blood transfer. There is a rumor for one case though. But you can read anything in the media.

Although mercury is toxic, for all substances there is a threshold below which they have little or no effect on a person. It only becomes dangerous when you go over that threshold.

That's right. So, before you start using a toxic substance in a drug you must first find out what that threshold is. Not 60 years after that.

What I'm asking is, can you provide a)the exact amount of mercury a human body can contain without it affecting their health and b) a comparison of that amount to the amount found in the vaccines, both old and new if you don't mind. If number A is less than number B, then I shall concede the point.

How this will change the fact they didn't do the required research on time?

Who are "they"? In every article I've found and read, by reporters, scientists, pediatricians, and parents, the anti-vaccination movement is strongly tied to this rate of increased cases.

I guess "they" are independent researchers from another country...

Short Sharp Science: Why whooping cough's making a comeback

 

[Jade Margery]

Because I've actually seen how money can become larger than the health of others. I've also seen the opposite. And what I've seen shows that people having money and power tend to prefer them over the health of others. Unless they are ridiculously rich.

I'm yet to drive such a car. When I do, I'll tell you what I think about it.

I'm living in a country that has less than 1000 people having HIV. People here do pretty good job when it comes to medicine. Yes, it takes a lot of money. So what? I'm pretty sure that I'll not get AIDS from blood transfer. There is a rumor for one case though. But you can read anything in the media.

The point you keep daintily side stepping is that some industries have ignored the health of their customers in the past, and some medical procedures used to be less safe than they are today, but that doesn't stop you from using their modern services.

That's right. So, before you start using a toxic substance in a drug you must first find out what that threshold is. Not 60 years after that.

How this will change the fact they didn't do the required research on time?

So that's a "no" on the proof then? Because without it, the only reason you've given to avoid vaccines is 'they used to have more of a substance that I can't prove actually harmed people and drug companies are trying to make money'.

Of course companies try to make money. Even hospitals need to turn a profit, or they would cease to exist. I don't know why this is such a big issue for you. And how do you even know they didn't do the research? That chemical was used in vaccines for decades without any linked side effects... that sounds pretty successful to me. Or maybe rather than doing a long study, they just looked up how much of it a person can have without getting sick and said 'Hmm, well, ours is a small fraction of that, so we're good.'

I guess "they" are independent researchers from another country...

Short Sharp Science: Why whooping cough's making a comeback

Amusingly, your article only supports my side. Quoted for truth:

Now it seems an upgrade to a new type of vaccine may be to blame. Up until 1997, a "whole-cell" vaccine was used before it was phased out over two years because of concerns about side effects. Since 1999, a new "acellular" vaccine has been used. One of the authors of the study, Ruiting Lan, told The Advertiser of Adelaide, South Australia:

"A key issue is that the whole-cell vaccine contained hundreds of antigens, which gave broad protection against many strains of pertussis. But the acellular vaccine contains only three to five antigens. Our findings suggest that the use of the acellular vaccine may be one factor contributing to these genetic changes."

So... people get upset about vaccines, call for 'safer' version, consequently less protection, more cases... even a new genetic strain. Fun!


Welp, I dunno what else to say. I brought in articles and statistics and scientific studies, provided numerous examples, and asked for evidence that was never given. If you're totally married to the idea of ebil heartless drug companies poisoning people, then no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. I wash my hands of it.

 

[Upisoft]

I brought in articles and statistics and scientific studies, provided numerous examples, and asked for evidence that was never given. If you're totally married to the idea of ebil heartless drug companies poisoning people, then no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. I wash my hands of it.

You didn't answer a question of mine. You said that I'm protecting the people around me when I am vaccinated. I asked what I'm protecting them from?

 

[KCfromNC]

Hah Mind if I steal this for my sig?

Sure, no problem. Everything on the internet is free anyway

 

[chris4243]

You didn't answer a question of mine. You said that I'm protecting the people around me when I am vaccinated. I asked what I'm protecting them from?

It's called "herd immunity". So long as enough people in a group are immune to a disease, the disease cannot spread in that group (because it infects less than one more person per infected person). So your vaccination protects others, either those who are not vaccinated or those for whom the vaccine is only partially effective. And not every one can be vaccinated for various reasons. Others can be protected by your vaccination, but that is your choice.

 

[Upisoft]

It's called "herd immunity". So long as enough people in a group are immune to a disease, the disease cannot spread in that group (because it infects less than one more person per infected person). So your vaccination protects others, either those who are not vaccinated or those for whom the vaccine is only partially effective. And not every one can be vaccinated for various reasons. Others can be protected by your vaccination, but that is your choice.

So, you say I made other people sick, because I didn't get my vaccine?

How that is possible, when I myself was not sick?