From: Bryan Heit on 9 Nov 2006 18:37
Max C. wrote:
>> 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.
> This actually raises an interesting question that I meant to ask in my
> last reply. If the liver has no function in mercury removal, how / why
> does mercury end up in the stool?
Mercury (along with a lot of other things) gets passed through the bowel
wall. Its the same equilibrium chemistry that mediates mercury transfer
in/out of other tissues. The only difference is that mercury that ends
up in the bowel gets excreted. If memory serves me, this is the
limiting step in mercury removal.
You end up with a lot of mercury leaving via this pathway simply due to
this equlibrium; basically, as you pass waste (and consume food) the
concentration of mercury in the bowel drops, thus pulling more mercury
from the blood (and the blood then pulls it from other tissues, as to
keep everything in balance).
Another reason why you tend to see a lot of mercury in the bowel (aside
form excretion), is that most mercury we encounter comes from food/water
sources. So if someone comes in with acute mercury poisoning, you tend
to see a lot of mercury in the feces, as any mercury which isn't
absorbed is based via the bowel.
>> No clinical trial looking specifically at chelation of iron has ever
>> been conducted.
> That doesn't mean chelation doesn't work. My uncle was diagnosed with
> a fairly advanced case of Parkinson's about 7 years ago. He has been
> using Dr. Trowbridge, the doctor I mentioned. Dr. Trowbridge uses
> chelation therapy as part of his treatment program. In the past 2
> years my uncles tremors have almost completely stopped, his posture has
> improved and he's getting around much better. It took 5 years for
> things to really kick in, and no, I don't think that's proof that
> chelation therapy would work in every case, but it has certainly helped
What drug(s) was he given?
>> In addition, here in Canada we now have access to thimerisal-free
>> influenza injections. I cannot speak for the country at large, but that
>> was the only form available to me when I went for mine.
> The more I look, the more I find that continuing increases in autism
> rates are due to external factors. For example:
That article pretty explicitly states that the rise in autism rates is
merely an artifact of changing diagnostic criteria. It also explicitly
states that medicine and vaccinations are not the cause of autism:
"The incidence of autism is increasing, but this is due to changes in
diagnostic practice, a recent study has found"
""We found that there was no difference in the frequency of medicines or
vaccines, including MMR [the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine],
received by autistic boys compared to normal boys. Similarly, there was
no difference in the medicines or illnesses present in the mothers of
autistic boys during pregnancy compared to mothers of normal boys. We
conclude that neither medicines nor medical illness were responsible for
the increase in autistic children over time," Professor Jick said."
> Of course, the paper then goes on to "discuss" reasons why these
> findings may be so... all along seeming to ignore the simple premise
> that cholesterol is SUPPOSED to be there repairing damage in our
The issue is a little more complex then that. We need cholesterol as
part of our daily metabolism. No cholesterol, you die. The problem is
that like any good thing, too much is harmful. When we have too much
cholesterol your body begins to convert it into a form for storage.
Problem is, your body cannot use this form. As this "bad" cholesterol
builds up it clogs veins, leading to fun things like heart attacks and
Previous medical interventions didn't target "bad" cholesterol
specifically - in fact, until recently we didn't even know the different
forms were bad or good, we just knew they existed. So the original
drugs we made weren't targeted towards the "bad", leading to
complications (although statins, the major type of drug used to treat
cholesterol, have been found to have other beneficial effects which'll
probably keep them in use for decades to come).
Today, newer drugs do a better job of targeting the 'bad' cholesterol,
and we're trying to find drugs which would specifically target the
buildups of cholesterol - the buildups which are the real issue. One
day we'll get there, but until then our less-than-perfect drugs will
have to do.
That's life - sometimes our first attempts aren't the best.
> Because my point was that at *one point* in history, there was
> scientific agreement that the earth was flat.
> I don't recall giving a
> date or time frame. That Eratosthenes was correct doesn't disprove my
> statement, since the Pythagoreans at one point seemed to agree on the
> flat earth theory. I wasn't trying to selectively omit data that
> didn't agree with me. I just didn't see a need to include it since
> what I posted proved my point.
But you could just as easily argue that neither pythgoras, nor
eratothenes were scientists - the scientific method wasn't even
conceived of until ~100BC (~200 years after both those guys died), and
didn't achieve its modern form until centuries later. Don't forget that
pytharogas founded a cult - based on numerology - not exactly a
From: Bryan Heit on 10 Nov 2006 09:40
Jan Drew wrote:
> Fombonne AMA!
No Jan, he isn't. Fombonne is a Canadian. No AMA up here.
Basic geography, another science you appear to have failed.