From: Jan Drew on

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:6qdjs2dolfhj4b2d9v0tss4mi7hh1lsu8c(a)4ax.com...
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>news:6p7is25p65jttabmobiaj6ln6uhfuatotl(a)4ax.com...
>>> "mainframetech" <choughton(a)insidefsi.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Agreed. Unfortunately, the Alties keep promoting things that are either
>>>>>inherently dangerous, or so ineffective in life threatening
>>>>>circumstances that when they are challenged, they make up words, e.g.
>>>>>pharmablogger, to marginalize those who disagree, etc. If the alties
>>>>>kept to logic dusted with RealScience it would not be so bad.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! I just KNEW that you were a caring, warm and fuzzy kind of
>>>>person to look out for all those poor folks getting scammed by them
>>>>alternative treatments. And it's so good to see you complain about
>>>>made up words like "anti-vac liars" and stuff like that.
>>>
>>> The expression is "anti-vaccination liars"
>> <snip>
>>
>>Was made up by YOU!
>
>
>> A long time proven liar.
>
>
>>You can keep your questions to yourself, as it has been proven over and
>>over.
>
> Was that supposed to make sense?

Indeed it did. Reading comprehension 101.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris :)
>>> --
>>> Peter Bowditch



From: Mark Probert on
Mike wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>> "Jan" <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 4, 1:16?am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mike <m...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <DUPwh.78$yH3.42(a)trndny07>, Mike <m...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Children are almost never given TT or Td. he amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>> thimerosal in
>>>>>>>>>>>> even the heaviest pediatric HepB dose is less than you'd get
>>>>>>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>>>>>> tuna sandwich.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not so innocuous when you take body weight into
>>>>>>>>>>> account. One
>>>>>>>>>>> tuna sandwich for a 9 lb infant is like 20 sandwiches for a
>>>>>>>>>>> 180 lb
>>>>>>>>>>> adult. Actually it is even worse than that because an infant
>>>>>>>>>>> body is
>>>>>>>>>>> much weaker, especially for very young children who do not have
>>>>>>>>>>> blood brain barrier yet.
>>>>>>>>>> Except that the amount of mercury is even smaller than the
>>>>>>>>>> doses you
>>>>>>>>>> seem to be worried about.
>>>>>>>>> Smaller than what? Pregnant women are advised to avoid tuna
>>>>>>>>> sandwiches
>>>>>>>>> to protect their future children, why should the children be
>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>> an equivalent of 20 tuna sandwiches?
>>>>>>>> Do you know the difference between ethyl and methyl mercury?
>>>>>>>> I'll give
>>>>>>>> you a hint, it is not just the 'm'.
>>>>>>> Yes, I do. According to a research on monkeys ethylmercury is
>>>>>>> MORE toxic
>>>>>>> for the brain than methylmercury.
>>>>>>> http://www.safeminds.org/research/library/Burbacher-EHP-Primates-Apri...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why am I not surprised to find to find that SafeMinds are telling
>>>>>> lies?
>>>>> What lies?
>>>>
>>>> How about "ethylmercury is MORE toxic for the brain than
>>>> methylmercury"? That will do for a start.
>>>>
>>> For start, it is hardly a lie. The research showed that more
>>> inorganic mercury remains in the brain after exposure to ethylmercury
>>> than to methylmercury. And inorganic mercury stays much longer. That
>>> is, after 6 months from exposure more mercury remains in the brain if
>>> the exposure was to thimerosal (ethylmercury) than to methylmercury.
>>
>> However, that does NOT address T O X I C I T Y. Toxicity is NOT a
>> synonym for "remains in the brain".
>
> Meaning mercury is not toxic?

Your reading comprehension is screwed up. I never said anything that
would lead to that conclusion. Do NOT play straw man with me.

>> For you to support your claim, you would have to show that the levels
>> of inorganic mercury are toxic, and these levels are more toxic than
>> that of MeHg.
>
> No. If the amount of a toxic substance (inorganic mercury) is multiplied
> by two then the toxicity is also multiplied by two, period. What part of
> that do you pretend not to understand?

I fully understand toxicity and obviously you do not. For your statement
to be true, one molecule of EHg would have a toxic effect. That is
bullshit.

There is a level below which it is NOT toxic. I'll repeat...there is a
*level* below which it is *NOT* toxic.

>> Nothing you have posted that I have read, so far, shows that.
>>
>>> Second, it has nothing to do with Safeminds. The quote above
>>> ("ethylmercury is MORE toxic for the brain than methylmercury") is
>>> from my posting but I did not quote Safeminds. You can blame me but
>>> again, this is not a lie.
>>
>> If Safeminds is promoting the idea that you espouse, then they are lying.
>
> Safeminds provided the text. I do not know if they promote this idea but
> it is not a lie. Readers can make their judgments.

They promote the idea because they have it on their website. And, it is
a lie.
From: Mike on
Mark Probert wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>> "Jan" <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 4, 1:16?am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike <m...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <DUPwh.78$yH3.42(a)trndny07>, Mike <m...(a)xyz.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Children are almost never given TT or Td. he amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thimerosal in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even the heaviest pediatric HepB dose is less than you'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tuna sandwich.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not so innocuous when you take body weight into
>>>>>>>>>>>> account. One
>>>>>>>>>>>> tuna sandwich for a 9 lb infant is like 20 sandwiches for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> 180 lb
>>>>>>>>>>>> adult. Actually it is even worse than that because an infant
>>>>>>>>>>>> body is
>>>>>>>>>>>> much weaker, especially for very young children who do not have
>>>>>>>>>>>> blood brain barrier yet.
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the amount of mercury is even smaller than the
>>>>>>>>>>> doses you
>>>>>>>>>>> seem to be worried about.
>>>>>>>>>> Smaller than what? Pregnant women are advised to avoid tuna
>>>>>>>>>> sandwiches
>>>>>>>>>> to protect their future children, why should the children be
>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>> an equivalent of 20 tuna sandwiches?
>>>>>>>>> Do you know the difference between ethyl and methyl mercury?
>>>>>>>>> I'll give
>>>>>>>>> you a hint, it is not just the 'm'.
>>>>>>>> Yes, I do. According to a research on monkeys ethylmercury is
>>>>>>>> MORE toxic
>>>>>>>> for the brain than methylmercury.
>>>>>>>> http://www.safeminds.org/research/library/Burbacher-EHP-Primates-Apri...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why am I not surprised to find to find that SafeMinds are telling
>>>>>>> lies?
>>>>>> What lies?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about "ethylmercury is MORE toxic for the brain than
>>>>> methylmercury"? That will do for a start.
>>>>>
>>>> For start, it is hardly a lie. The research showed that more
>>>> inorganic mercury remains in the brain after exposure to
>>>> ethylmercury than to methylmercury. And inorganic mercury stays much
>>>> longer. That is, after 6 months from exposure more mercury remains
>>>> in the brain if the exposure was to thimerosal (ethylmercury) than
>>>> to methylmercury.
>>>
>>> However, that does NOT address T O X I C I T Y. Toxicity is NOT a
>>> synonym for "remains in the brain".
>>
>> Meaning mercury is not toxic?
>
> Your reading comprehension is screwed up. I never said anything that
> would lead to that conclusion. Do NOT play straw man with me.
>
>>> For you to support your claim, you would have to show that the levels
>>> of inorganic mercury are toxic, and these levels are more toxic than
>>> that of MeHg.
>>
>> No. If the amount of a toxic substance (inorganic mercury) is
>> multiplied by two then the toxicity is also multiplied by two, period.
>> What part of that do you pretend not to understand?
>
> I fully understand toxicity and obviously you do not. For your statement
> to be true, one molecule of EHg would have a toxic effect. That is
> bullshit.
>
> There is a level below which it is NOT toxic. I'll repeat...there is a
> *level* below which it is *NOT* toxic.
>

Ok, are you saying that it is not toxic at those concentrations?
Do you have non-toxic concentrations for mercury in brain?

>>> Nothing you have posted that I have read, so far, shows that.
>>>
>>>> Second, it has nothing to do with Safeminds. The quote above
>>>> ("ethylmercury is MORE toxic for the brain than methylmercury") is
>>>> from my posting but I did not quote Safeminds. You can blame me but
>>>> again, this is not a lie.
>>>
>>> If Safeminds is promoting the idea that you espouse, then they are
>>> lying.
>>
>> Safeminds provided the text. I do not know if they promote this idea
>> but it is not a lie. Readers can make their judgments.
>
> They promote the idea because they have it on their website. And, it is
> a lie.

This is what they have: "New Study Shows Vaccine Mercury Results In More
Than Twice As Much Mercury Being Trapped In The Brain". And this is an
established fact, Markey. They are not saying anything about toxicity.
And you do not like facts.
From: David Wright on
In article <D4Vwh.1304$FM3.1248(a)trndny06>, Mike <mike(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>David Wright wrote:
>> In article <DUPwh.78$yH3.42(a)trndny07>, Mike <mike(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>>> David Wright wrote:
>>>> Children are almost never given TT or Td. The amount of thimerosal in
>>>> even the heaviest pediatric HepB dose is less than you'd get from a
>>>> tuna sandwich.
>>> It is not so innocuous when you take body weight into account. One tuna
>>> sandwich for a 9 lb infant is like 20 sandwiches for a 180 lb adult.
>>> Actually it is even worse than that because an infant body is much
>>> weaker, especially for very young children who do not have blood brain
>>> barrier yet.
>>
>> Except that the amount of mercury is even smaller than the doses you
>> seem to be worried about.
>
>Smaller than what? Pregnant women are advised to avoid tuna sandwiches
>to protect their future children, why should the children be getting an
>equivalent of 20 tuna sandwiches?

I didn't say it was 20 tuna sandwiches. You made that up. In
addition, the tuna contains methylmercury, which is not the same thing.

>> In any event, even infants clear thimerosal
>> from the body with great rapidity.
>
>Any proof? A research on monkeys found that some mercury ends up in the
>brain.

Research on actual babies found that virtually all of it doesn't.

>> Go find something more significant
>> to worry about. There are lots of candidates.
>
>You seem to be uncomfortable even discussing that.

No. I'm simply opposed to hysteria, and to wasting lots of time and
effort on non-issues when there are so many real issues.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins
From: David Wright on
In article <1170709068.797568.29990(a)l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <choughton(a)insidefsi.net> wrote:
>
>
>Welp, you see, one of the things that stand out to me is that this
>forum is called "misc.health.alternative". That gives me and probably
>other folks the idea that here we might hear about and discuss
>ALTERNATIVE health solutions.

Who's stopping you?

>That's 'discuss', not argue or insult,
>or pick little logical nits about.

And, of course you, as a newcomer, will be happy to define all the
terms and decide what is, or is not, a fit topic for discussion.

>The folks that I spoke of so harshly all seem to berate almost all
>alternative' treatments, and seem to swear by anything any
>med. community follower says.

Yes, "seem" is definitely the word here.

>It's things like that that give the impression that some folks are
>being paid by the big drug companies to tout their products and put
>down the competition, like supplements, etc.

I suppose you might get that impression, if you weren't very bright
and had decided that it would be cost-effective for the drug companies
to pay people do that.

>How do they get away from such a low esteem position in other
>people's eyes?

Which eyes are those? Yours? I don't care if I'm in a "low esteem
position" in your eyes.

>I guess they have little choice. Keep doing it hoping to somehow
>wrest victory from the slime, or convince someone somewhere that big
>pharma is the way to go.

Big pharma is often not the way to go. Prescription drugs are a poor
substitute for being in good health in the first place.

The primary problem is that people are lazy. We all have lots of
things that we should do for our health, for our peace of mind, etc.
But we don't do them. We know we should eat right, get enough sleep,
get enough exercise, keep our financial affairs in good order, watch
over our investments. We should all have a will, and it should be up
to date. We should wear our seatbelts, not get too much sun, brush
twice a day, reduce stress, etc etc etc.

But how many people actually do those things? I'm sure everyone
reading this does some of them, but I'd be surprised if anyone does
all of them consistently (you're probably a space alien if you do).

Most of the time, you can get by, at least for a while, even without
doing things. Then, when the inevitable consequences of your action
(or inaction, usually) catch up with you, you want a quick fix.
Everyone wants that. They want a pill or a potion or an operation or
something that promises immediate relief. If only life were so
simple.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: ~ * The Animal Rescue
Next: Sodium Benzoate