Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/...-facebook/

INTRO: Just two organizations were responsible for the majority of anti-vaccine advertisements on Facebook before the social media giant restricted such content in March of this year, according to a November 13 study in the journal Vaccine. Of 145 anti-vaccine Facebook advertisements that ran between May 31, 2017 and February 22, 2019, the World Mercury Project and a group called Stop Mandatory Vaccination together ran 54% of them.

The World Mercury Project, which ran the most ads of any single source, is an organization closely aligned with the anti-vaccine group Children's Health Defense. Both are spearheaded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer turned prolific peddler of dangerous anti-vaccine misinformation. He and his organizations promote conspiracy theories about vaccine safety, including the roundly debunked claim that safe, life-saving immunizations are linked to autism. More recently, Kennedy has become a prominent opponent of laws aimed at increasing vaccination rates among school children. (MORE)

My question is, why not readily provide individual vaccines so you don't need mercury as a binding agent? What harm does it do to simply allay any concern to promote vaccine usage?

(Nov 17, 2019 01:44 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]My question is, why not readily provide individual vaccines so you don't need mercury as a binding agent? What harm does it do to simply allay any concern to promote vaccine usage?

You'd have to spread them out over a longer period time, which would mean that infants and young children, who are more susceptible to disease would go unprotected for a longer period of time.

(Nov 17, 2019 02:54 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 17, 2019 01:44 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]My question is, why not readily provide individual vaccines so you don't need mercury as a binding agent? What harm does it do to simply allay any concern to promote vaccine usage?

You'd have to spread them out over a longer period time, which would mean that infants and young children, who are more susceptible to disease would go unprotected for a longer period of time.

Is that worse than avoiding them altogether?