RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3380Goal: $3500

Talk:The dose makes the poison

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon science.svg

This Science related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Surely, this is worth changing to dose-response relationship. Scarlet A.pngpostate 20:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Formaldehyde and vaccines.[edit]

Th artile claims: "the quantity of formaldehyde in vaccines is 1% that found in the human body.[4]". Reference 4 points indirectly to and FDA theoretical exercise entitled: "Pharmacokinetic modeling as an approach to assessing the safety of residual formaldehyde in infant vaccines". This paper intends to model the pharmacokinetics of intramuscular Formaldehyde by comparing it to "endogenous" Formaldehyde. Fig. 1 depicts the metabolism of endogenous Formaldehyde. The reader is misled into thinking it applies to Formaldehyde in the bloodstream (intramuscular) and therefore to vaccines, however by checking the source of Fig. 1 [51] we learn it's the metabolism of Formaldehyde in the mucosa, the barrier between our guts from the external world, precisely the barrier that vacines wrecklessly bypas. The study is therefore just another mock-science prop taliored to the markting need of the industry. (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's impossible that the (obscure) point was misunderstood by whoever quoted the reference. It's much more likely that there's a massive conspiracy to push poisonous, dangerous vaccines on us all. Good job for exposing the conspiracy! Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 15:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps it's just the need to preserve your products for preventing losses when you there are no immediate buyers, the impact on health being just an annoyance to business. (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
(EC) It's reference to back up the quantity of formaldehyde found in the body, not where it is found. There's no misleading to be done - article says X amount, paper says X amount - all fine. We could probably find a more general source as a cite, but why bother?
Is there any branch of science that you're not convinced you know better than the experts? Queexchthonic murmurings 15:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Formaldehyde is not therapeutic no matter how hysterically you may scream "science!", teherefore invasive use is hard to justify. Second, medical interventions on the healthy should be the exception, not the norm. Whoever pretends the opposite needs to have their claim of "expertise" closely examined. (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
medical interventions on the healthy should be the exception, not the norm. Why? Just because you say so? Find out what "prophylaxis" means before answering.
Prophylaxis means the prevention of disease, not "medical treatment". Try harder, pumpkin. (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I like living in a world without large numbers of people dying from polio, or being crippled by it. There are still a few survivors around, but it's mostly a memory now. Smallpox? Just about everybody in my generation has a scar on their shoulder from the inoculation. You want to allow a reservoir of those bugs to build up again, to expose children and infirm adults to needless risk? Fuck. You. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Get a Formaldehyde shot, it prevents everything so it seems. Regarding other people, let them decide how to stay free of injury and disease (and that includes vaccine injury and disease). (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a reminder that the BoN just walked away from an argument they were losing about citations in order to make PRATTs about formaldehyde. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You wrote:
"It's reference to back up the quantity of formaldehyde found in the body, not where it is found ... article says X amount, paper says X amount - all fine"
All fine if only parenteral phramacokinetics had anything to do with phramacokinetics of the mucosa and intestinal tract. By your logic an injection of "normal quantity X" of tuna salad (e.g. a bowl) is OK, for it'll get metabolized away. Gosh I love to "lose" arguments like this. (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I no longer give a rat's ass what BoN has to say. They're playing dumb with verbal shenanigans about the mass intervention it took to eradicate a plague, and slipping down some imaginary slope to formaldehyde shots, wtf. "Let them decide" is inanity straight from libertarian la-la land. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The only person who said it prevents everything is you BoN. When all else fails, strawman and lie. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
My position is clear: Formaldehyde is not therapeutic ... therefore invasive use is hard to justify. All the morons justifying parenteral use must believe it's got magical powers. Alternative explanations, please. (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You know there are more ingredients in vaccines right? Also, exposure is pretty normal on a daily basis to a much higher degree right? Maybe you are just interested in being dishonest. Not sure I care anymore. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It's the same IP that has been trolling/JAQing off on numerous talk pages and always in a manner that has made any attempted dialogue a complete waste of time. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"All fine if only parenteral phramacokinetics had anything to do with phramacokinetics of the mucosa and intestinal tract." This is irrelevant to a citation supporting a claim for the overall quantity of formaldehyde in the body. If you wanted to argue this particular brand of tripe, you should have singled out a more relevant citation. And as for your 'well it's different' argument: Of course it's different. No-one is claiming it isn't. The presence of X, Y or Z in the body does not mean that it's automatically OK to inject any of them. That's why there are these things called 'studies' and 'trials' that establish safety and efficacy before a medical intervention is rolled out in general. Maybe you've heard of them. The claim that was being debunked was the anti-vaxx claim that formaldehyde is a scary chemical you shouldn't want anywhere in your body. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That's why there are these things called 'studies' and 'trials. No shit sherlock. The author acknowledges lack of data (lack of studies for the brain impaired) and that's why his study is a math simulation. Get those feet out of your piehole now. (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
When ze starts up with nonsense, just ban hem for the night. I'd suggest longer, but BoN's can be shared. Don't waste your time with this one. CorruptUser (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"The author acknowledges lack of data" which may well be an issue with that paper but utterly irrelevant to the cite you started harping on about and no kind of gotcha given the huge backdrop of studies underlying the topic. If your next comment doesn't address your mistake in your original complaint about the cite, it'll be time for a timeout. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
huge backdrop of studies underlying the topic. I thought everybody would understand the meaning of "the author acknowledges lack of data" but now I see I've grossly overestimated the intelligence of some. (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Time to add 'the scientific literature' to the list of things you don't understand. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Looks like 145 figured out how proxies work. CorruptUser (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Vaccines are good for you, apparently you don't like them. Apparently you like giving kids diseases THAT CAN KILL YOU, so apparently you like killing children, as we have said a billion times the formaldehyde is negligible, but you refuse to listen, the evidence favors us, and if you are not willing to accept that vaccines save lives and help people, then your not going to find what you are looking for, you should leave. Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 19:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Technicality, but vaccines are slightly bad for you, but the diseases they prevent are so so much worse. If we developed individual vaccines for all 200 or so cold viruses, and you had to have all 200 vaccinations every year in order to remain immune to the common cold, that would be worse for you than getting a cold. EVERY health screening of any kind is bad for you to some extent, but we do them because benefits outweigh costs. CorruptUser (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


The article says both that botox is the most toxic substance known, and also that etorphine is so toxic humans cannot safely ingest it. This would seem to be contradictory.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Dunno about this instance but it seems to me that there could be 10,000 things so toxic humans cannot safely ingest, of which one could be 'the most toxic substance known'. No? Pippa (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I mean botox is said to be the most toxic substance known, and can also be used in small quantities, but some other substance that is less toxic cannot. That seems inconsistent.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 20:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)