From: Mark Probert on 6 Nov 2006 11:23
Max C. wrote:
> Mark, there was never any question as to your position on this issue.
> You being the type that has opted to get every available vaccination
> available for your children (supposedly) I would expect such an answer
> from you. Bryan, on the other hand, seems to be approaching this
> subject with a reasonable mind set.
Of course, you failed to see my point. The chances of her contracting
polio by random contact in the US are extraordinarily slim. If you want
to run that risk, you should more thoroughly investigate the claim you
made about degree of disability. Frankly, I do not know the answer, as
it is age dependent to a great extent.
> In addition to the huge lack of potential exposure to polio, there's
> also the dietary aspect as discussed by Dr. Benjamin P Sandler in his
> book "Diet Prevent Polio" written before there were vaccines for polio.
> First, in every case of polio he studied, he noted that the victim had
> done something very soon before disease onset that would have altered
> their blood sugar levels far more than what would be considered normal.
> He noted polio cases in many athletes after a particularly tough
> workout or event and noticed that others around them would could have
> gotten polio did not.
> Based on that observation, he devised a simple test for his hypothesis.
> At that time, monkeys were the lab animal of choice for studying
> polio... mainly because polio could not infect most other lab animals.
> Dr. Sandler injected rabbits with large amounts of insulin, thus
> lowering their blood glucose levels to far below normal. Sure enough,
> polio set in and symptoms were seen within 8 hours of insulin
> injections and polio exposure. Never before had polio been seen in a
> So, there's more to it than the simple question "Will my daughter be
> exposed to the polio virus?"
Has Sandler's testing been verified or repeated? I found nothing to
As for his hypothesis, one article mentions that flu virus outbreaks
occur around events, e.g. "...Halloween, Thanksgiv-ing and Christmas
when sugar rich foodis abundant...."
However, virus is a "social disease", and those are social times.
I have my doubts about the hypothesis. However, avoiding that kind of
diet is an excellent idea for other reasons.
From: Bryan Heit on 6 Nov 2006 15:26
Max C. wrote:
>> This paper reviews a lot of what I've gone over above:
> I'm looking over the above link, but I'm not seeing the part that shows
> that ethyl mercury is all completely eliminated from brain tissue. In
> fact, I would have a hard time believing it even if it did since the
> primate study you posted previously said the exact opposite. It said:
> "A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of
> inorganic Hg for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%)"
I think you're misunderstanding what those studies showed. Firstly,
conversion from one form of mercury to another does not mean that the
mercury is then trapped in the brain. Granted, the new compound will
have different pharmokinetics then the originating compound, but that
doesn't imply that the new compounds are retained longer. In fact, in
many cases toxins are only removed efficiently once they are broken down.
Neither study ID's the inorganic form of mercury present after breakdown
in the brain, but from the monkey study I posted, we know the rate at
which mercury leaves the body and there is no identifiable retention of
mercury in either form.
Keep in mind the scientists know exactly how much mercury they injected,
and as such can determine exactly the amount remaining, so long as they
keep continual track of its excretion (which is pretty easy to do). So
even if we don't know where the residual mercury is coming from, they do
know how much has left, and they saw *complete* clearance, with a
half-life of ~2 days.
So regardless of what form it is in, what tissue it is in, etc, we know
that all mercury from an injection completely leaves the body within a
> I'm also not certain that I agree with your assumption that using data
> on methyl mercury was being "over-conservative" when evaluating ethyl
> mercury. From the primate study, it would seem that we just don't
> know. Their actions in the body seem to be different. I haven't found
> anything that conclusively states that such a difference is either good
> or bad... only that it's different.
But the major factors which determine toxicity - retention in the
tissue, and the concentrations at which toxic effects are seen, is much
lower for thimerisal then for MeHg. Granted that doesn't take into
account every possible factor, but those are the two major factors which
determine how toxic something is.
From what I could find in our labs MSDS folder, most aspects of
timersial have been tested, and it has pretty low toxicities compared to
MeHg. Little/no carcinogenicity, little/no tetragenicity (birth
defects), and a toxic dose (LD50/LC50) quite a bit lower than MeHg.
<another big snip>
> I think this is the part I'm still confused about. *How* does it allow
> half-life calculations on specific tissues?
You measure the 1/2 life for each tissue beforehand. Once you know
those values (in relation to blood clearance) you can work out the
concentrations in each tissue. You have to make the measurements first,
but once done you can then use those measurements to calculate things out.
>> It is also important to note that the half-life of a compound in our
>> bodies is independent of the concentration is is present at. The blood
>> half-life of thimerisal is 2.1 days, meaning that every 2.1 days the
>> concentration of thimerisal drops by 1/2. It doesn't matter if you have
>> 1,000,000nM thimerisal or 0.0000000001nM thimerisal - the half-life is
>> the same for each.
> While I agree with that, there is clear evidence that the half life of
> any toxin in the body will be different for each individual.
No there isn't. Half-life is determined by basically 2 factors:
1) Rate of break down,
2) Rate of secretion
Although you'll see small variability in those values individual to
individual, the overall differences tend to be quite small. You'll not
see someone retain the material, say 10x longer. You may find people
who retain the material 5-10% longer (i.e. 1.05x to 1.10x longer), but
that it about the biggest differences in 1/2 life you'll see.
About the only exception to that rule is when a toxin is removed via a
specific biochemical pathway. Then there may be rare cases where a
person has a defective (or over active) pathway, and thus be different
from the population average. However, in the case of mercury compounds
under discussion there isn't specific removal pathway; its a fairly
passive system, so there isn't a lot of room for genetically-encoded
> To use
> mercury as an example, the half life of mercury may be much higher in
> an individual with very low concentrations of selenium, a natural
> mercury antagonist. There are some theories stating that children that
> *do* get autism may lack the naturally ability to excrete the mercury.
> I have no opinion on such theories, as I have not researched them.
I've not been able to find any scientific evidence for either of these
Also, selenium is used to remove mercury from the environment, not our
bodies. The doses of selenium required to remove mercury in our bodies
is toxic - selenium is also a heavy metal, and has its own toxic effects.
>>> Second, and I think this is THE most important factor of this study,
>>> the final comment of the overview says:
>>> "The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk
>>> assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg. Knowledge of the
>>> toxicokinetics and developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to
>>> afford a meaningful assessment of the developmental effects of
>>> thimerosal-containing vaccines."
>>> Isn't most of our knowledge of mercury toxicity based on MeHg?
>> Yes, which is part of the problem. The toxicity and biology of MeHg is
>> very, very different from that of thimerisal.
> OK. We certainly agree on that. My problem now is ascertaining if the
> difference is better or worse. So far I've found very little to say
> one way or the other.
The biggest factors in regards to toxicity - time of retention in the
body, and the lethal dose (LD50) are lower for ethyl mercury. While
there may be other effects, the major indicators point towards it being
safer then methyl mercury.
From: Bryan Heit on 6 Nov 2006 19:58
Max C. wrote:
> Bryan Heit wrote:
> Yes, but so far I have not see a study that addresses the toxic
> concentration of EM. Only of MM. Isn't it possible that the toxic
> concentration of EM may be lower than MM?
>> From what I could find in our labs MSDS folder, most aspects of
>> timersial have been tested, and it has pretty low toxicities compared to
>> MeHg. Little/no carcinogenicity, little/no tetragenicity (birth
>> defects), and a toxic dose (LD50/LC50) quite a bit lower than MeHg.
> That's interesting. What are those findings based on?
They are based on standard assays chemical manufacturers must complete
before they can sell their products. These are rarely published as
scientific studies, simply because there is little scientific interest
in that sort of material. However, most manufactures now have their
MSDS sheets on the net.
>> <another big snip>
>>> I think this is the part I'm still confused about. *How* does it allow
>>> half-life calculations on specific tissues?
>> You measure the 1/2 life for each tissue beforehand. Once you know
>> those values (in relation to blood clearance) you can work out the
>> concentrations in each tissue. You have to make the measurements first,
>> but once done you can then use those measurements to calculate things out.
> *Exactly!* That's what I've been trying to get at. How do we *KNOW*
> that the half life rates for brain tissue is the same as other tissues?
We don't. But we do know the half-life for brain tissues (it was
measured directly, directly from brain samples, in the report I've
linked to), and the half-life for blood samples, so you can work it out
Figures 6&7 in the paper.
> None of the studies I've see so far have done a biopsy of brain tissue
> in monkeys at date X and then another at date Y and then another at
> date Z.
That because you cannot do that - brain biopsies are almost always a
fatal procedure. The study I pointed you to sacrificed the animals at
different time points, and used that information to construct the curve.
> Honestly, you can't be certain that you've calculated an accurate half
> life with only 2 samples. The way I see it, you'd need to have at
> LEAST 3 samples.
They had 7-9 samples per group. That is more then enough to achieve
statistically significant and reliable results.
> You could calculate the half life based on the first
> and last sample and then look at the 2nd to confirm your calculation.
> So far I have seen no evidence that shows any kind of half life in
> brain tissue. Other tissues, yes, but not brain tissues. Since there
> is a blood brain barrier in the mix, using other tissues doesn't
> provide an adequate answer, IMHO.
In the paper I linked to before they directly assayed brain
concentration of mercury, at different time points, to determine the
half-life of mercury in the brain. It is not a theoretical half-life,
it is a measured-in-the-lab half life.
>>>> It is also important to note that the half-life of a compound in our
>>>> bodies is independent of the concentration is is present at. The blood
>>>> half-life of thimerisal is 2.1 days, meaning that every 2.1 days the
>>>> concentration of thimerisal drops by 1/2. It doesn't matter if you have
>>>> 1,000,000nM thimerisal or 0.0000000001nM thimerisal - the half-life is
>>>> the same for each.
>>> While I agree with that, there is clear evidence that the half life of
>>> any toxin in the body will be different for each individual.
>> No there isn't. Half-life is determined by basically 2 factors:
>> 1) Rate of break down,
>> 2) Rate of secretion
>> Although you'll see small variability in those values individual to
>> individual, the overall differences tend to be quite small. You'll not
>> see someone retain the material, say 10x longer. You may find people
>> who retain the material 5-10% longer (i.e. 1.05x to 1.10x longer), but
>> that it about the biggest differences in 1/2 life you'll see.
> I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. I've seen too many people who have
> problems detoxing. A good example are people with acne. Acne is very
> often a sign of a congested liver.
Sorry, that is simply incorrect. You've mistaken new-age naturalpathic
hype for actual science. Acne is nothing more then bacterial overgrowth
in pores. It has no relation what-so-ever to liver function.
> The liver has become so bogged down
> just getting rid of the garbage the person eats every day that the skin
> becomes the second avenue for toxin removal. If you were to add a
> specific toxin to that person's body, it would be far less capable of
> getting rid of it than someone with a well functioning liver.
The liver plays no role in the secretion of mercury, so the point is moot.
>> Also, selenium is used to remove mercury from the environment, not our
>> bodies. The doses of selenium required to remove mercury in our bodies
>> is toxic - selenium is also a heavy metal, and has its own toxic effects.
> A selenium supplement has been recommended by many dentists for pre and
> post amalgam removal for years.
That is not a medically-justified supplement, nor is it a common
practice in modern dentistry. Once again, this is naturalpathic hype,
and does not represent modern medical practice. BTW, I would be *highly
suspicious* of getting medical information from any organization which
is trying to sell you stuff at the same time.
In fact, the medical literature is quite clear that selenium supplements
don't do much:
The only medically verified beneficial use for selenium, vis-a-vis
mercury, is in toothpaste, where high doses of selenium can be used to
absorb the mercury vapor which is emitted during brushing:
And one alst point about selenium - it readily bonds only to metallic
mercury, not to MeHg or EHg.
>>> But again it goes back to each body being different. Does a particular
>>> body have the chemistry required to move the mercury?
>> Mercury is not
From: Bryan Heit on 7 Nov 2006 09:18
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Simply not true. National Institutes of Health funded study found that
>> thimerosal, best known for its use as an ethylmercury-based preservative in
>> infant vaccines and pregnancy shots, is actually more toxic to the brain
>> than methylmercury.
> Reference please. Try not to quote Boyd Hayley or some other
> anti-vaccination liar giving second-hand information.
She cannot provide a cite, as that study does not exist.
From: Bryan Heit on 9 Nov 2006 10:27
Max C. wrote:
>> Sorry, that is simply incorrect. You've mistaken new-age naturalpathic
>> hype for actual science. Acne is nothing more then bacterial overgrowth
>> in pores. It has no relation what-so-ever to liver function.
> I don't subscribe to the idea that just because something has no tests
> to say it works that that means it doesn't. Are there tests on pub med
> to show that we need oxygen to live?
Yes. Thousands - search for "hypoxia" "anoxia", "ischemia" and
> If not, how do we know we need
> it? See my point?
That you haven't searched pubmed???
> My personal experience with dozens of acne
> sufferers have shown a clear and repeatable process for changing the
> diet and achieving excellent results clearing acne.
>>> The liver has become so bogged down
>>> just getting rid of the garbage the person eats every day that the skin
>>> becomes the second avenue for toxin removal. If you were to add a
>>> specific toxin to that person's body, it would be far less capable of
>>> getting rid of it than someone with a well functioning liver.
>> The liver plays no role in the secretion of mercury, so the point is moot.
> The point is not moot. The liver is one of the common organs measured
> for mercury toxicity in many mercury tests. Like this one, for
> There is no question that mercury damages the tissues it contacts, so a
> damaged liver is a valid concern.
Although mercury does damage the liver, your origonal point is still
moot. The liver is not involved in removal of mercury. If you were to
undergo kidney failure then secretion of mercury becomes an issue, but
liver dysfunction wouldn't have a direct impact.
>> BTW, I would be *highly
>> suspicious* of getting medical information from any organization which
>> is trying to sell you stuff at the same time.
> Right... like the drug companies that contribute funds to the very
> institutions where doctors get their degrees? Or the thousands of
> conflicting interest kick backs that are currently being addressed
> because some drug company sent some doctor on a $5k trip to the Bahamas
> or where ever?
And the relevance of this for medical research is??? My lab does
medical research, and were nearly 100% publically funded. As are the
researchers who's papers I link you too. Occasionally we do *contract*
work for drug companies - meaning we charge them money for us to run
assays for them, but aside form that we're funded by you, the tax payer.
So where is my conflict in interest?
That drug companies try to promote their drugs, oft through
less-then-scrupulous means, isn't any supprise. By if you think for a
second that has any impact on the research field, then you're sadly
mistaken. I'll let you in on a little secret - MD's and researchers
aren't the same people. Only a small portion of researchers work in
both areas, with single-discipline persons making up 80-90% of the
>> In fact, the medical literature is quite clear that selenium supplements
>> don't do much:
>> The only medically verified beneficial use for selenium, vis-a-vis
>> mercury, is in toothpaste, where high doses of selenium can be used to
>> absorb the mercury vapor which is emitted during brushing:
>> And one alst point about selenium - it readily bonds only to metallic
>> mercury, not to MeHg or EHg.
> It has never been my understanding that selenium must bond with mercury
> to be effective. I've have only read that it is a mercury antagonist.
> Antagonist, in this instance, is defined as:"A molecule that blocks the
> ability of a given chemical to bind to its receptor, preventing a
> biological response."
Its antagonistic function occurs via forming a complex (i.e. bonding
with) mercury, forming a supposedly inactive complex. However, the
small amount of research in the area didn't see much benefit.
> It has always been my understanding that if enough of the antagonist
> (selenium) exists, mercury will not be able to bind in the first place,
> thus reducing its toxic effects.
Hypothetically speaking yes. The problem, as I pointed out before, is
selenium is also a toxic heavy metal. And in order to get to the point
where you start to inactivate mercury, you've now entered the point
where the selenium itself is toxic.
This is why most selenium-based approaches which have been proposed
recently involve treating water, soil, etc, as you can reach effective
levels in these systems.
>>>>> But again it goes back to each body being different. Does a particular
>>>>> body have the chemistry required to move the mercury?
>>>> Mercury is not moved by a specific system, rather it "hitches a ride"
>>>> with any convenient protein it encounters. Because it is non-specific
>>>> you cannot really have better or worse clearance.
>>>> Body protein levels to not vary by any significant amount (otherwise you
>>>> die), so there isn't much variability there.
>>> I'm not sure I buy that... simply because if that were the case there
>>> would be no such thing as chelation therapy. Chelation therapy is one
>>> of the prime therapies used for Parkinson's patients.
>> Only in the alternative med universe. Some forms of chelation therapy
>> are used to treat heavy-metal intoxication, and its been tested for
>> heart disease and a few other conditions. However, the use of chealtion
>> therapy for diseases like parkinsons is not a medically justified
> You've read too much quack watch.
What is quackwatch?
> The great thing about QuackWatch.com
> is that if you find it there being slammed, you're can be almost
> positive it's a beneficial therapy. Dr. Trowbridge of Houston, Texas
> has gone in to great detail about the benefits of chelation on
> Parkinson's. There are also studies to support it.