@wenbendrew90952494

Ok then look at my sources and link studies showing I’m wrong cause if all these places are right and I’m just a nut case prove it.

Ah I see you believe what ever is told to you acting like the government didn’t push cigerettes being safe for decades before realizing they were in fact wrong cause millions of people to get lung cancer and died

If you think misinformation is being spread read this First off I was on the vaccine side until I listened to the podcast, didn’t believe him, then looked at the scientific sources myself and not the websites that paraphrase these sources incorrectly either on purpose or by accident. What Andrew said is what initial research thought but further research suggests while it is removed from the body quicker it still passes the blood brain barrier in high enough doses. This is part of the reason it seemed to leave the body quicker because it was stored in the brain and levels were not seen where they usually check, as they cannot check the brain unless whatever they’re checking is dead. Now I’m going to link all my sources below and end with saying this and I hope you see the comparison. Back when cigerettes were endorsed by doctors everyone said how could they not be safe doctors say it’s fine and on top of that no one wants to believe they’re bad because everyone liked them, but it seems pretty obvious that toxic smoke into the lungs would end poorly. So if your saying it sounds completely crazy that a toxic substance being given to young children may be more harmful then companies with economic interests are giving it credit for, all I’m saying is look at the peer reviewed sources with an open mind. I’d love to hear your opinion on these sources as I do have an open mind but right now the science seems to side with RFK jr. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668919301875 This source reviews many different studies on this topic and they are all referenced at the bottom of the page. At the very least science is unsure about the safety of ethyl-Mercury and the fact the CDC says the vaccines carry no risk is simply disingenuous. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0946672X18302669 This one explores if infants should be exposed

Interesting how you have time to respond to this but not my comment that actually provides evidence and reasoning

First off I was on your side until I listened to the podcast, didn’t believe him, then looked at the scientific sources myself and not the websites that paraphrase these sources incorrectly either on purpose or by accident. What you said is what initial research thought but further research suggests while it is removed from the body quicker it still passes the blood brain barrier in high enough doses. This is part of the reason it seemed to leave the body quicker because it was stored in the brain and levels were not seen where they usually check, as they cannot check the brain unless whatever they’re checking is dead. Now I’m going to link all my sources below and end with saying this and I hope you see the comparison. Back when cigerettes were endorsed by doctors everyone said how could they not be safe doctors say it’s fine and on top of that no one wants to believe they’re bad because everyone liked them, but it seems pretty obvious that toxic smoke into the lungs would end poorly. So if your saying it sounds completely crazy that a toxic substance being given to young children may be more harmful then companies with economic interests are giving it credit for, all I’m saying is look at the peer reviewed sources with an open mind. I’d love to hear your opinion on these sources as I do have an open mind but right now the science seems to side with RFK jr. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668919301875 This source reviews many different studies on this topic and they are all referenced at the bottom of the page. At the very least science is unsure about the safety of ethyl-Mercury and the fact the CDC says the vaccines carry no risk is simply disingenuous. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0946672X18302669 This one explores if infants should be exposed

What do you think about this peer reviewed study that looks at many other peer reviewed studies And comes to the conclusion that the type of mercury that he mentions in the videos does pass the blood brain barrier like he said. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668919301875 and if that is true you can find science everywhere saying that mercury poisoning at a young age can cause large neuro damage such as autism. Additionally that last source statnews has bad science to “discredit” what he says first they say babies are naturally exposed to an amount way more then The 25 micrograms from a vaccine, but that’s over 6 months. If you took a barley lethal does of poison and instead gave someone a little each day for 6 months they would not die. Where as the vaccine, like injecting all the poison at once happens all at once. Additionally babies are given multiple vaccines at once so if 25 micrograms is each vaccine and a baby normally gets 3-6 vaccines we’re talking much higher number which again occurs all at once. I’m open to being wrong but according to the real scientific papers like he said in the podcast he is indeed right.