LogFAQs > #954486591

SunWuKung420 posted...

Of course, adjl still acting like there's equivalency between a healthy substance people choose to consume and an unhealthy substance people have to work hard to avoid.

adjl posted...

So you keep saying, but your only reasoning for "SLS is bad" is "it's an irritant," which is equally true of capsaicin. Repeating yourself doesn't make your claim any more convincing.

Argue smarter, not harder.

SunWuKung420 posted...

He clearly knows little regarding how the safe limits of the dosage of SLS are reached in a single product but the combined value of its abundance in multiple products used multiple times daily pushes that value into the toxic range.

See, this is the start of a rational argument. To follow through, you need to cite those safe dosage limits as well as statistics on how people's typical exposure exceeds those limits and reports demonstrating actual effects from that excess.

Don't judge people for not knowing your argument for you. That just indicates that you suck at arguing, not that they've failed. If you truly believe you have the better-substantiated position, fight for it.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Also, an adaptive immune response producing antibodies without illness will always be better than a man-made, rushed to market, novel-type vaccine

Not only is this completely baseless and a flagrant application of the naturalistic fallacy (which is utterly devoid of any logical merit), it's also demonstrably false. Numerous diseases have been all but eradicated only because vaccines have been developed against them after natural immunity failed to control them for years. For Covid itself, it has been fairly consistently found that antibody production following infection (symptomatic or otherwise) hasn't been lasting as long as it has following vaccinations (which makes sense, given that vaccines contain adjuvants to promote a stronger, longer-lasting response, as well as most of them incorporating a second booster shot to keep it going).

Regardless of those facts, your initial point was that people who have developed immunity through asymptomatic infection don't need vaccines. As I said a while ago, they might be okay, but from a public health management perspective, that's not practical to rely on. It's vastly simpler to just vaccinate people regardless of their immunity status than to go through the hassle of testing their antibody production, especially where the vaccine will act as a booster shot to extend and strengthen the immunity. The only risk there is that they'll have two rounds of flu-like symptoms instead of one (since they'll already have an immune response for both shots, instead of just the second), which is hardly a major problem.

SunWuKung420 posted...

whose efficacy is still to be determined.

Their efficacies were determined before they made it to market. As I say to everyone who parrots this "untested" nonsense: the data's out there. If you don't trust the FDA's (or HC's, or any other country's health regulatory agency) assessment at face value, you can assess the data for yourself. Use that as the basis for your opinion, instead of pretending your uninformed gut reaction is worth sharing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.