Quote:
Not very inconsistant. Numbers matter. For instance there is iron in your food and iron in your body (your body only works if it DOES have sufficient iron, in fact, for hemoglobin etc), but if you consume too much iron it will kill ya (and the amount isn't that huge, as witness a number of tragic deaths of children from finding mommy's vitamins-plus-iron pills). Or, there is arsenic in your air/water/food right now and the amount is low enough not to have any noticeable effect on you, but if I put enough extra arsenic in your soup, that would be the end of the discussion.
By "there is no safe level of lead", what's meant is that currently the data suggest a continuous relationship between lead intake and physical problems, rather than an exposure threshold below which the slope of the curve is zero. That does not mean that a teensy amount of lead is as harmful as a whole lot of it. It also does not seem to be true of all substances, there are many for which current evidence *does* seem to demonstrate a level below which nothing seems to happen.
You might look up how much <thing of your choice> is contained in a vaccination, then look up (and calculate) how much is in your air, household dust, your food, etc.
I am not arguing for vaccinations nor for casual environmental exposure to toxins; I am just saying, numbers MATTER and should not be ignored just cuz it makes for more-exciting rhetoric.
JMHO,
Pat