From: Bryan Heit on
Max C. wrote:
> Bryan Heit wrote:
>> JOHN wrote:
>>> "Bryan Heit" <bjheit(a)NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:ei7oho$l3l$4(a)news.ucalgary.ca...
>>>> JOHN wrote:
>>>>> "The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
>>>>> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
>>>>> Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine." ----- Bernard Rimland
>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
>>>> John, since the evidence is so overwhelming, perhaps you could point it
>>>> out to us. What scientific or medical studies support the link? I've had
>>>> a lot of trouble finding this overwhelming evidence - instead I always
>>>> seem to find evidence that shows the opposite:
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/1/e139?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=autism+quebec&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
>>>> http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/3/604?ijkey=7e544dce35aca13f193d81e4ba2aadc609323e26&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12880876&dopt=Abstract
>>>>
>>>> Bryan
>>> Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
>>
>> And once again, John is completely unable to even begin to counter the
>> evidence. All he can do is blow it off as "junk science". Typical;
>> can't deal with the message so he shoots (well, ignores anyways) the
>> messenger.
>>
>> Lets try this again, John. I know, from your own claims, that you
>> believe that:
>>
>> 1) Thimerisol causes autism (false, but lets play pretend here),
>> 2) That rates of autism are increasing (true), and
>> 3) That some places have removed thimerisol from their vaccines (also true).
>>
>> Now John, given the above three points (all of which you've stated to
>> agree with at some point or another), how is it that the removal of
>> thimerisol HAS NOT LEAD to a decrease in autism?
>>
>> Simple question. One you've avoided again, and again. Do you have the
>> balls to answer it this time?
>>
>> Bryan
>
> This reply would seem to be a dodge, since it did not even come close
> to addressing the above issue of phagocytosis and the roll thimerosal
> plays therein.
>
> Max.


Please enlighten me as to where the term "phagocytosis" entered this
conversation? I see no mention of the word in any post in this thread,
as it exists in sci.med.immunology (where I am accessing it). As you
can clearly see in the text above (which contains the material of the
last few posts in this thread) we were talking about autism, not
phagocytosis.

Typical of the anti-vac crowd. They cannot answer the question, so they
try and dodge the issue by raising new, often irrelevant points.

And while we're on the topic, what link is their between autism and
phagocytosis? The cells effected in autism (neurons, astrocytes, and
presumably other structural elements of the brain) don't phagocytose.

Bryan
From: Bryan Heit on
Max C. wrote:
> Bryan Heit wrote:
>> Max C. wrote:
>>> Bryan Heit wrote:
>>>> JOHN wrote:
>>>>> "Bryan Heit" <bjheit(a)NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ei7oho$l3l$4(a)news.ucalgary.ca...
>>>>>> JOHN wrote:
>>>>>>> "The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
>>>>>>> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
>>>>>>> Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine." ----- Bernard Rimland
>>>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
>>>>>> John, since the evidence is so overwhelming, perhaps you could point it
>>>>>> out to us. What scientific or medical studies support the link? I've had
>>>>>> a lot of trouble finding this overwhelming evidence - instead I always
>>>>>> seem to find evidence that shows the opposite:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/1/e139?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=autism+quebec&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
>>>>>> http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/3/604?ijkey=7e544dce35aca13f193d81e4ba2aadc609323e26&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12880876&dopt=Abstract
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bryan
>>>>> Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
>>>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
>>>> And once again, John is completely unable to even begin to counter the
>>>> evidence. All he can do is blow it off as "junk science". Typical;
>>>> can't deal with the message so he shoots (well, ignores anyways) the
>>>> messenger.
>>>>
>>>> Lets try this again, John. I know, from your own claims, that you
>>>> believe that:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Thimerisol causes autism (false, but lets play pretend here),
>>>> 2) That rates of autism are increasing (true), and
>>>> 3) That some places have removed thimerisol from their vaccines (also true).
>>>>
>>>> Now John, given the above three points (all of which you've stated to
>>>> agree with at some point or another), how is it that the removal of
>>>> thimerisol HAS NOT LEAD to a decrease in autism?
>>>>
>>>> Simple question. One you've avoided again, and again. Do you have the
>>>> balls to answer it this time?
>>>>
>>>> Bryan
>>> This reply would seem to be a dodge, since it did not even come close
>>> to addressing the above issue of phagocytosis and the roll thimerosal
>>> plays therein.
>>>
>>> Max.
>>
>> Please enlighten me as to where the term "phagocytosis" entered this
>> conversation? I see no mention of the word in any post in this thread,
>> as it exists in sci.med.immunology (where I am accessing it). As you
>> can clearly see in the text above (which contains the material of the
>> last few posts in this thread) we were talking about autism, not
>> phagocytosis.
>>
>> Typical of the anti-vac crowd. They cannot answer the question, so they
>> try and dodge the issue by raising new, often irrelevant points.
>>
>> And while we're on the topic, what link is their between autism and
>> phagocytosis? The cells effected in autism (neurons, astrocytes, and
>> presumably other structural elements of the brain) don't phagocytose.
>>
>> Bryan
>
> That's very interesting, since you replied to John's post that
> contained the term. You snipped out the portion that contained it. It
> said the following:
>
> "Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
>
> "The vaccine contains 125,000 nanomolar level of mercury if it has
> Thimerosal as a preservative. That's a huge amount. And one nanomolar
> levels
> in the baby will prevent the macrophages from going through
> phagocytosis.


This is very misleading. Basic chemistry/math shows just how misleading
this statement is.

Before we start, just define a few terms.

1) molar mean concentration, in moles/liter. We abbreviate this as M.
2) moles means absolute amount. No abbreviation for that
3) nano means 1x10-9 (0.000000001), so a 1 nanomolar solution of
thiermisal would have 1x10-9 moles of thimerisal in a 1 liter volume.

The vaccine is 1250 nM, which is the same as 1.25x10^-6M thimerisol,
meaning that one liter (1000ml) of vaccine contains 1.25x10^-6 moles of
thimerisol (1.25x10^-6 is the same as 1250x10^-9).

I don't know what the standard volume is of the vaccine in question, but
most vaccines are in the range of 0.1 to ~2ml in volume. We'll be
generous, and assume a whopping huge vaccine of 10ml (0.01L) (i.e. 5 to
100x the normal vaccine volume).

So a baby receiving the whole 10ml of this vaccine would get:

1.25x10^-6M x 0.01L = 1.25x10-8 moles, or 12.5 nanomoles total thiermisol.

Now that 12.5 nanmoles of thimerisol will distribute throughout the
body. To keep things simple we'll assume it distributes evenly (this is
false, but it simplifies matters).

A newborn baby, weighing 9lbs (4.09kg) has a total body volume of ~4L
(the human body has a density of 0.99-1.07kg/L). So the 12.5 nanomoles
of thimerisal gets distributed throughout a 4L volume, giving a final
concentration of:

12.5 nanmoles / 4L = 3.125nM, or 3.125x10^-9M

Keep in mind that is a worst-case scenario. More realistic values are
0.1-2ml vaccine volumes, which if you go back through the math give you
whole-body thimerisal concentrations of 0.032nM to 1.56nM, levels which
have little to no effect on phagocytosis.

Now according to this article:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.04241.x

1) Thiermisal, at this concentration, inhibits macrophage phagocytosis
of red blood cells by ~30%.

2) At concentrations ~10x this thimeresal has a weak toxic effect.

So this "huge" inhibition of macrophage function is not so huge; stress
hormones are more inhibitory then that. For example, noradrenalin
inhibits macrophage phagocytosis by about the same amount at a
concentration 1/1000th that of thimerisal - at 1x10^-12M. So the
effects of thimerisal on phagocytosis is equivalent to the effects of
the baby getting a little scared.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14674709&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum


> In
> other words, they will lose their ability to eat viruses and bacter
From: Bryan Heit on
Max C. wrote:
<snip me old post>
>
> First, I appreciate you taking the time to post all of that. I think
> you have me wrong. I am not "anti vac" per se.


In that case I apologize for putting you into that pigeon hole. I hope
you were not offended by that. Too used to dealing with John/Jan I guess.


> Indeed, there *are* a
> hand full of vaccinations I plan on getting for my child. I'm just not
> going to rush her down to get any ol' vaccine just because there's one
> available.

Fair enough. I would actually agree with you on this point - getting
vaccinated against things which you're not going to get exposed to is a
little silly.

I get a lot of vaccinations cause of my job, but for your average joe
what I receive would be hugely excessive.


> However, I have a few comments and questions.
>
> 1 - So, do I understand correctly that you think the article is
> misleading because the level of mercury in an individual vaccine is not
> at the 125,000 nM level?


No. Although I'm not sure what vaccine in particular that article is in
reference to, but that level of thimerisal is found in some vaccines
(although it is a little on the high end).

My point was that the levels of thimerisal the infant receives, as well
as the *consequences* of that have been exaggerated greatly.

Keep in mind that nM is a concentration - i.e. a quantity of thimerisal
per volume of vaccine. So to get 125,000nM timerisal concentration in
your body you would have to inject an amount of vaccine equivalent to 2x
the volume of your body - in the case of an infant that would be about 8
*liters* of vaccine.

Obviously, that doesn't happen. Instead, you receive a very small
injection (usually less than 2ml, or 0.002L). As such the actual amount
of thimerisal your body receives is quite minimal. In the case of an
infant it *might* reach, for a day or two, levels where a mild
inhibitory effect on macrophage phagocytosis is seen.

And that inhibitory effects is insignificant when compared to other
inhibitory things - i.e. the stress hormones the babies body will
produce from time to time.


> 2 - I have a problem with the statement that thimerosal clears from the
> body rapidly; mainly for 2 reasons. 1 - studies on primates have shown
> that some of the mercury in thimerosal ends up in brain tissue.


Yes, but the amount is very small, far below toxic levels. And
secondly, that mercury is in a form which is relatively non-toxic (ethyl
mercury), and it is also a form of mercury which is readily cleared,
even from the brain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16079072&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum


> 2 -
> one of the studies used to make the statement that mercury clears from
> the body quickly measured levels of mercury in the blood. That is no
> way to measure mercury cleared from the body.


But it is. Most mercury, before it can leave the body, must travel
through the blood to the sites of clearance (bowl and kidneys). There
is a continual movement of this mercury from the blood into tissues, and
vice versa. So although blood levels do not indicate the exact
concentration of mercury in each and every tissue, they are indicative
of how much mercury remains in the body, and how well that mercury is
being removed.

Also, as you can see in the link above, thimerisal movement in/out of
the brain has been assayed, so we can fairly reliably calculate, based
on blood concentrations, what the brain concentrations are.


> 3 - there are many reasons why levels of autism could still be going
> up. As Mark Probert stated, diagnosis is much better now, and more
> people are being labeled austistic that may have gone unlabeled in the
> past. There is at least some evidence that autism may be caused by one
> of the attenuated viruses in the MMR, indicating that there may be more
> than one cause of autism.


That evidence has since been disproven. If anything the two studies
which made that link are great example of how not to conduct science -
no controls, no comparisons to non-autistic children, no relationship
other then time of onset. Here's just a few of the studies showing no
relationship between MMR and autism, the first one being the best proof
that autism is not linked to MMR. Long story short - the MMR vaccine
was only given to children in Japan for a short period of time. And
during that period of time rates of autism did not go up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16865547&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16919130&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16555271&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16264412&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum


> Diagnostic criteria for autism may have
> changed.


True. But even with modern diagnostic criteria we're still seeing an
increase in autism. The current diagnostic criteria are now about a
decade old - you'd think that they'd be universal enough at this point
that the rate we observe is the true rate. And that rate is still climbing.

Bryan

PS: If you cannot get the papers I linked to just e-mail me directly
(remove the obvious to de-spammify my e-mail addy). I'm more then happy
to pass the PDF's onto anyone who wants them.
From: Mark Probert on
Max C. wrote:
> Bryan Heit wrote:
>> Max C. wrote:
>> <snip me old post>
>>> First, I appreciate you taking the time to post all of that. I think
>>> you have me wrong. I am not "anti vac" per se.
>>
>> In that case I apologize for putting you into that pigeon hole. I hope
>> you were not offended by that. Too used to dealing with John/Jan I guess.
>
> Not offended at all. I'm an "altie" in just about every other respect,
> even on some vaccinations. It's an easy mistake to make.
>
>>> Indeed, there *are* a
>>> hand full of vaccinations I plan on getting for my child. I'm just not
>>> going to rush her down to get any ol' vaccine just because there's one
>>> available.
>> Fair enough. I would actually agree with you on this point - getting
>> vaccinated against things which you're not going to get exposed to is a
>> little silly.
>
> This actually raises a good question I'd like to ask. One of the
> vaccines I'm still on the fence about is polio. On the one hand, where
> in the world is my baby going contract polio? Also, if she DOES get
> polio, the odds of it doing permanent damage are pretty small. On the
> other hand, if she DOES get polio, and *IF* that small chance happens,
> it could be devastating. What's your opinion on the polio vaccine? I
> understand it's now a dead virus vaccine... which is better, IMHO.

If you do not globe trot with her, then the chances are slim. Visits to
Africa and the South Asia area are definitely OUT for the unvaccinated.

And, if you can absolutely guarantee that she will never come in contact
with anyone who has traveled from those areas, then there is little
likelihood of her contracting it.

HOWEVER, if she does, the gamble is how severe. My younger son's friend
developed a case after an OPV. She lost around 40-50% function in her
arms. Note that her younger siblings were all vaccinated after that.

As for the type, the IPV is a dead virus, and it has no chance of
causing an active case. The recommendation I recall is to have full IPV
and, if going to an infectious area, follow-up with OPV.

However, I do not think Brian was referring to such a vaccination when
he mentioned not getting all the vaccinations he gets. Perhaps he should
actually list them. I would think it would be more like the Yellow Fever
vaccine, or the one for plague (which is a real nasty one..sore arm for
days).

>> I get a lot of vaccinations cause of my job, but for your average joe
>> what I receive would be hugely excessive.
>>
>>
>>> However, I have a few comments and questions.
>>>
>>> 1 - So, do I understand correctly that you think the article is
>>> misleading because the level of mercury in an individual vaccine is not
>>> at the 125,000 nM level?
>>
>> No. Although I'm not sure what vaccine in particular that article is in
>> reference to, but that level of thimerisal is found in some vaccines
>> (although it is a little on the high end).
>>
>> My point was that the levels of thimerisal the infant receives, as well
>> as the *consequences* of that have been exaggerated greatly.
>
> I am understanding you to say that what counts is the final nM level
> inside the injection recipient. I hope that's correct. My problem
> with that is that the statement claims "one nanomolar levels in the
> baby will prevent the macrophages from going through phagocytosis." It
> would seem to me that levels in the body would still be higher than 1
> nM if the vaccine is at 125,000 nM. There's also the consideration
> that children often get multiple vaccines at one time. If each vaccine
> had thimerosal, the levels would obviously go way up.
>
>> Keep in mind that nM is a concentration - i.e. a quantity of thimerisal
>> per volume of vaccine. So to get 125,000nM timerisal concentration in
>> your body you would have to inject an amount of vaccine equivalent to 2x
>> the volume of your body - in the case of an infant that would be about 8
>> *liters* of vaccine.
>
> No, I understand that, and I didn't think the comments were trying to
> say that thimerosal reached 125,000 nM inside the body. I don't think
> trying to say that would fool anyone and would discredit the author
> immediately.
>
>> Obviously, that doesn't happen. Instead, you receive a very small
>> injection (usually less than 2ml, or 0.002L). As such the actual amount
>> of thimerisal your body receives is quite minimal. In the case of an
>> infant it *might* reach, for a day or two, levels where a mild
>> inhibitory effect on macrophage phagocytosis is seen.
>
> But again, my concern is 1 - the fact that it's usually more than one
> vaccine and 2 - the evidence suggesting that mercury levels in the
> brain are cumulative. I've posted links to evidence before, but I
> don't have time to look them up again right now.
>
>> And that inhibitory effects is insignificant when compared to other
>> inhibitory things - i.e. the stress hormones the babies body will
>> produce from time to time.
>
> But that's calculating only on 1 vaccine, right?
>
>>> 2 - I have a problem with the statement that thimerosal clears from the
>>> body rapidly; mainly for 2 reasons. 1 - studies on primates have shown
>>> that some of the mercury in thimerosal ends up in brain tissue.
>>
>> Yes, but the amount is very small, far below toxic levels. And
>> secondly, that mercury is in a form which is relatively non-toxic (ethyl
>> mercury), and it is also a form of mercury which is readily cleared,
>> even from the brain:
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16079072&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> I have some concerns about this study.
>
> First, it's comparing injected thimerosal with oral intake of MeHg.
> That's not a very good comparison. The digestive tract can eliminate
> some of the MeHg before it ever enters the body.
>
> 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 b
From: Bryan Heit on
Max C. wrote:
> Bryan Heit wrote:
>> Max C. wrote:
>> <snip me old post>

>>> Indeed, there *are* a
>>> hand full of vaccinations I plan on getting for my child. I'm just not
>>> going to rush her down to get any ol' vaccine just because there's one
>>> available.
>> Fair enough. I would actually agree with you on this point - getting
>> vaccinated against things which you're not going to get exposed to is a
>> little silly.
>
> This actually raises a good question I'd like to ask. One of the
> vaccines I'm still on the fence about is polio. On the one hand, where
> in the world is my baby going contract polio? Also, if she DOES get
> polio, the odds of it doing permanent damage are pretty small. On the
> other hand, if she DOES get polio, and *IF* that small chance happens,
> it could be devastating. What's your opinion on the polio vaccine? I
> understand it's now a dead virus vaccine... which is better, IMHO.

Polio it a tough one. There is not a lot of polio left in developed
nations, although unvaccinated people have been known to pick it up.
The major source of these infections is either travel to a country with
polio, or exposure to a person who's been to such a country. Keep in
mind that it only takes one individual carrying the virus to infect a
large number of unvaccinated people.

This is especially a problem with grad-school and college-aged kids -
they're in environments where you tend to have a high concentration of
people, often from many different places in the world. This is a recipe
for spreading disease.

Luckily, polio outbreaks are very rare; the last one I know of in a
developed nation was among some US Amish last fall. But if you've kept
track of the news you may have noticed some mumps and measles outbreaks
occurring in some unis and schools. These are largely due to a failure
for people to get vaccinated, and the outbreaks have all been contained
to the unvaccinated groups. There is some concern that we could see
similar polio outbreaks soon.


>> I get a lot of vaccinations cause of my job, but for your average joe
>> what I receive would be hugely excessive.
>>
>>
>>> However, I have a few comments and questions.
>>>
>>> 1 - So, do I understand correctly that you think the article is
>>> misleading because the level of mercury in an individual vaccine is not
>>> at the 125,000 nM level?
>>
>> No. Although I'm not sure what vaccine in particular that article is in
>> reference to, but that level of thimerisal is found in some vaccines
>> (although it is a little on the high end).
>>
>> My point was that the levels of thimerisal the infant receives, as well
>> as the *consequences* of that have been exaggerated greatly.
>
> I am understanding you to say that what counts is the final nM level
> inside the injection recipient. I hope that's correct.


Yes. That is the whole point. Dose is the single most important factor
in determining toxicity - even water, oxygen and salt are toxic if
consumed in large enough amounts. This is also true of more toxic
substances.


> My problem
> with that is that the statement claims "one nanomolar levels in the
> baby will prevent the macrophages from going through phagocytosis."


Which I showed to be both false (the paper that article cites, and I
linked to, shows a 1nM phagocytotsis is barely impaired) and misleading
(as our bodies produce far more inhibitory chemicals all the time).


> It
> would seem to me that levels in the body would still be higher than 1
> nM if the vaccine is at 125,000 nM.

You can do the math I went through to prove it to yourself. The way to
calculate it is easy:

Step 1: Calculate the absolute amount of thimerisal being injected,
simply by multiplying the concentration (125,000nM) by the volume of the
vaccine, in liters. This will convert the concentration (nM) to the
absolute amount of thimerisal injected (in nano-moles).

Step 2: Divide the total amount of thimerisal in the injection by the
volume (in liters) of the person it is being injected into. This is
fairly simple - 1kg of human body has a volume of approximately 1L.

Alternatively, you can multiply the starting concentration of thimerisal
by the ratio of the vaccine volume to body volume. This simply does
steps 1&2 all-at-once, and avoids the extra math.

> There's also the consideration
> that children often get multiple vaccines at one time. If each vaccine
> had thimerosal, the levels would obviously go way up.

But don't forget, the example I used:

a) Had a huge volume, compared to conventional vaccines. I used 10ml
(0.01L) as an example. Your average vaccine is less than 1ml (0.001L)
in size. So my example actually represents the amount of thimerisal in
10+ vaccinations, all received simultaneously.

b) The concentration of thimerisal in that example is on the high end of
what most vaccines receive, and alstly

c) Most nations have removed thimerisal from most, if not all, childhood
vaccines.


>> Obviously, that doesn't happen. Instead, you receive a very small
>> injection (usually less than 2ml, or 0.002L). As such the actual amount
>> of thimerisal your body receives is quite minimal. In the case of an
>> infant it *might* reach, for a day or two, levels where a mild
>> inhibitory effect on macrophage phagocytosis is seen.
>
> But again, my concern is 1 - the fact that it's usually more than one
> vaccine

I'd point out again that my example was a worst-case scenario, and I
calculated using a volume of 10ml. That is 10x-100x the size of your
average *adult* vaccine volume. So my example is representative of
multiple vaccinations, all delivered at the exact same time.

> and 2 - the evidence suggesting that mercury levels in the
> brain are cumulative. I've posted links to evidence before, but I
> don't have time to look them up again right now.

Ahh, but therein is the rub. Mercury comes in several forms, and all of
these forms have different toxicities, and different tenancies to build
up in neural tissues. Mercury salts (i.e. Hg2+ ions) and methyl mercury
(H3C-Hg+) build up readily in the brain, are retained there for long
periods of time, and are highly neurotoxic. You do not want those in
your brain. Good news is those forms are not in vaccines (although you
will find them in fish).

The
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Egg Youth Tissue Extract
Next: ~ * The Animal Rescue