So am I. But if someone as supremely awesome as you can admit it then I don't feel so bad. ;-)
On Oct 3, 5:05 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am an irrational being. I am not a Vulcan. :-) > > Liz > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:51 PM > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > Subject: Re: Watching Religulous > > That is perfectly understandable, Liz. Irrational, but understandable > and human. If I had children, I might feel the same way. The > preservative has been removed from most childhood vaccines for several > years because of pressure from the public. Unfortunately, the autism > rate does not seem to have been affected, but thankfully in this case > the cost and potential danger of removing the additive (it was there > for a reason, after all) seems to be an acceptable price for the > relief fear and doubt. > > Aaron > > On Oct 3, 3:52 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Agreed. I don't necessarily trust the CDC or FDA or AMA or any other > fancy > > set of capitol abbreviations. I wouldn't recommend not vaccinating a > child, > > but I wouldn't recommend injecting them with a substance that could even > > POTENTIALLY cause permanent damage to their brain. > > > Liz > > > For the record, Noel had the thimerasol vaccines. I will always wonder > > what, if any effect they had on his developing brain. > > > liz > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Isparklaria > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 3:31 PM > > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > > Subject: Re: Watching Religulous > > > On Oct 3, 8:49 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In the > > > meantime, it is rational to accept the position summarized by the CDC, > > > the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association > > > and similar organizations in a better position to know the relevant > > > research. Especially since reductions in immunization rates can have > > > such dangerous effects of their own. > > > I think that it might be wiser to insist on thimerasol free vaccines. > > > On Oct 3, 8:49 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Robert Kennedy Junior and other knowledgeable people..." > > > > Well, then it *must* be true! ;-) I look forward to hearing how > > > these "recent studies" fare in the scientific community. In the > > > meantime, it is rational to accept the position summarized by the CDC, > > > the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association > > > and similar organizations in a better position to know the relevant > > > research. Especially since reductions in immunization rates can have > > > such dangerous effects of their own. > > > >http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal.htm > > > > Aaron > > > > On Oct 2, 3:19 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Robert Kennedy Junior and other knowledgable people have said that the > > > > recent studies done which claimed that there was not link between > > > > thimerasol and autism were industry sponsered tabacco science!!! > > > > > On Oct 1, 11:07 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I wish I could go, but I already have plans Friday. I do have a > > > > > question, though, since we haven't had a good argument in a few > > > > > weeks. > > > > > > Several people had a minor crisis of conscience about Ben Stein's > > > > > movie because they didn't want their money going to someone who > > > > > promotes dangerous, anti-science ideas. I get that. > > > > > > The last episode of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, one of my > > > > > favorite podcasts, alluded to Bill Maher's crackpot ideas that seem > > > > > just as dangerous to me. He has apparently jumped on the > anti-vaccine > > > > > bandwagon, for example, and suggests that alternative "medicine" is > > > > > better than modern, pharmaceutical-oriented healthcare. He even > told > > > > > David Letterman to stop taking his heart medicine. > > > > > > I haven't verified much of this. I just gleaned it from the podcast > > > > > and a quick Google search, but assuming it's true, does it affect > > > > > anyone's feelings about paying to see Religulous? I mean, sure, > this > > > > > particular movie is not promoting pseudoscience, but money is going > to > > > > > Maher. Would we feel comfortable watching a Ben Stein movie that > was > > > > > not specifically about Intelligent Design but still funneled money > to > > > > > his ID activism? Or is our conscience dulled by the schadenfreude > of > > > > > seeing religious people look stupid on screen? > > > > > > There is probably no right-or-wrong answer here. I'm just curious > to > > > > > know what people think (or rationalize, depending on your point of > > > > > view!). > > > > > > Aaron- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
