From: Mark Probert on
Mike wrote:
> 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?

I am saying that there is no proof that it is toxic at those
concentrations. Take a look at them, and compare them to what a toxic
concentration is.

> Do you have non-toxic concentrations for mercury in brain?

See above. Show it is toxic. Not all concentrations are 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.
>
> 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.

And one that I do not dispute. Unlike you, I have not played strawman
and red herring.

> They are not saying anything about toxicity.

However, you brought it up in a discussion about toxicity. Red herring.

> And you do not like facts.

Unlike you, I like real facts in the appropriate context.
From: David Wright on
In article <1170274494.252322.23270(a)l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <choughton(a)insidefsi.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Nearly all childhood vaccines are available without Thimerosal.
>
>Mark,
> Quite an admission if the converse is true, that nearly all
>childhood vaccines are available WITH Thimerosal.

The converse is not true, as you'd find out if you'd actually read the
tables. Many childhood vaccines do not contain thimerosal and never
did. Next time, try reading.

> I seriously doubt there are very many "anti-vaccination" people
>out there,

You'd be wrong. There are a lot of them, and they are very vocal, and
they scare lots of people. Oh, hell, there I go, injecting facts into
the discussion again...

> As to a "downturn in the uptake" of drug company products, causing
>them grievous financial losses,

Vaccines are not a huge moneymaker for the drug companies, overall.

-- 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: Mike on
Mark Probert wrote:
>>>> First: the body absorbs some of the mercury. The more you get the
>>>> more you absorb.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. Some is rapidly excreted through feces and urine.
>>
>> And some is not. The more you get, the more is excreted. And the more
>> is absorbed.
>
> Partially. As for excretion, yes, the more you get, the more is
> excreted. However, there comes a point where storage reaches
> equilibrium, and the balance is excreted.

This is called saturation. The body becomes saturated with mercury.
(Expected response: prove that saturation levels are toxic!)

>
>>>> Second: if the substance is harmful it does not necessarily matter
>>>> whether it is cleared at all. Here is a quote from the previous post:
>>>>
>>>> **** In any event, even infants clear thimerosal from the body with
>>>> great rapidity. ****
>>>>
>>>> Substitute alcohol for thimerosal and see how absurd it would be.
>>>
>>> Nope. We are discussing Ethyl Mercury which is NOT the same chemical
>>> as alcohol.
>>
>> It is not. But it illustrates that even rapid clearing of a substance
>> from the body does not mean there will be no long-term consequences.
>
> No, it does not do that. What it demonstrates is that there may be a
> long term storage, but whether there is a consequence is another
> question. And, after there is no more intake, the storage may even
> decrease.
>
>> A substance can clear rapidly and still inflict immense damage.
>
> However, there is no proof of that, since even the peak concentrations
> are non toxic.
>
>> So, "Infants clear thimerosal with great rapidity" would not be a
>> valid argument even if true.
>
> First, it is true, and second, there is no evidence to support a claim
> of injury.
>
>>>>> The Burbacher study showed that more inorganic mercury stays
>>>>>> in the brain after thimerosal exposure. It quoted another study
>>>>>> estimating half life of inorganic mercury to be between 227 and
>>>>>> 540 days. It is not "rapid clearing". As for the first study, the
>>>>>> sample pool is too small to talk about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disagree. Burbacher shows that Ethyl Mercury is rapidly cleared
>>>>> (with some residue).
>>>>
>>>> And more residue in the brain for ethylmercury.
>>>
>>> However, it is a significant residue? The answer to that question you
>>> seem to be avoiding at all costs. It makes me wonder why.
>>
>> I do not. Got the numbers how much is significant?
>
> You are making the claim that it is significant. Your burden.
>
>>>>> As for the sample pool,m that would be correct only when there is a
>>>>> wide latitude of findings. There wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know? There is no data about deviations from average in
>>>> the abstract, the full text is not freely available, I bet you did
>>>> not read it.
>>>
>>> You lose. It is an important study in this issue, and I read it.
>>
>> Can prove it? Post some data, maybe?
>
> Possibly. I read a hard copy.
>

Yes, post a couple of sentences. You will not because you did not read
it. And you will not make them up because - who knows? - it may become
available to everybody.

Oh, I know: you have your base covered. You will say: I read it in a
library, now prove that I did not.

>>> The only number about deviations is here: "Blood mercury in
>>>> thiomersal-exposed 2-month-olds ranged from less than 3.75 to 20.55
>>>> nmol/L (parts per billion)". 3.75 and 20.55 are very different.
>>>
>>> Note the concentration is measured in PPB. Now, go show that ever
>>> 20.55 PPB is toxic.
>>
>> This is irrelevant because that was not the point. The point is that
>> contrary to what you said there WAS a wide latitude of findings in
>> some aspects. And the sample was small.
>
> Disagree. It is quite relevant.
>
>>>>>>>> A real study would involve a larger pool (at least 500 infants).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming that there is a genetic predisposition as you describe.
>>>>>>> Please show proof of the existence of the genetic predisposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please show proof of non-existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have got to be kidding. That is utterly absurd. One cannot
>>>>> prove non-existence in this setting. Further, YOU made the claim,
>>>>> thus, your burden to prove it.
>>>>
>>>> I did not make the claim. I am saying that the sample of 40 is too
>>>> small. If the idea was to disprove such a hypothesis (lower mercury
>>>> tolerance in some infants) then it has not been done.
>>>
>>> You requested proof of non-existence of a genetic predisposition to
>>> lower tolerance to mercury. That is impossible, and constitutes a
>>> false shifting of the burden of proof. The burden remains on YOU to
>>> show that there is such a condition.
>>
>> I am saying that the study proves nothing. It was known before the
>> study that the vast majority of children are not autistic and thus do
>> not get autism from thimerosal. It could be inferred that they do not
>> absorb mercury in significant amounts. This study could prove
>> something if the sample was larger, preferably including children
>> later diagnosed with autism. But the sample was too small, and there
>> was no follow-up.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> There was no research AFAIK. There is nothing special about the
>>>>>> possibility of such predisposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes there is, if it is used as you have.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning what? It cannot be dismissed out of hand.
>>>
>>> Why not? Because it removes one of the anti-vaccination liar
>>> arguments of the Mercury Militia? Sorry, but let's stick to facts.
>>
>> No, because nothing can be dismissed out of hand.
>
> Out of hand? Bullshit. It is dismissed after many studies and research.
>
>>>>>> And speaking of genetics, would you please show proof that autism
>>>>>> is a genetic disease?
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit Pub Med and read. I received 719 hits on "autism gene", and
>>>>> 1617 on "autism genetics". A sample:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nicholas B, Rudrasingham V, Nash S, Kirov G, Owen MJ, Wimpory DC.
>>>>> Related Articles, Links
>>>>> Association of Per1 and Npas2 with autistic disorder: support for
>>>>> the clock genes/social timing hypothesis.
>>>>> Mol Psychiatry. 2007 Jan 30; [Epub ahead of print]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yang MS, Gill M. Related Articles, Links
>>>>> A review of gene linkage, association and expression studies in
>>>>> autism and an assessment of convergent evidence.
>>>>> Int J Dev Neurosci. 2006 Dec 20;
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Autism exclusively genetic? I do not know, and, no one knows. It
>>>>> is partly genetic? The evidence is there to support this.
>>>>
>>>> Partly genetic - yes, no doubt about it. Exclusively genetic - no,
>>>> and no doubt about it either. Otherwise concordance rate of autism
>>>> in identical twins would be 100% which is not the case. (And even if
>>>> it were 100% it would not be a proof that autism is purely genetic
>>>> until its mechanism were known. But it is not 100% anyway).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is partly genetic, what are the other parts? I do not know. I
>>>>> do believe, to a certainty, that it is not vaccines or thimerosal.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not that you (or anyone else) does not know but
>>>> methinks you do not want to know. Do you know to a certainty that it
>>>> is not environmental mercury for example?
>>>
>>> There is little evidence to support that, otherwise you would have
>>> large pools of autistics in and around all areas high in mercury.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> And they should be followed. 5 years later we could find how
>>>>>>>> many autistics are in the group and how many in control group.
>>>>>>>> But that was clearly beyond the goals of the study ("Mercury
>>>>>>>> concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines
>>>>>>>> containing mercury").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another problem: how much of mercury was deposited in the brain?
>>>>>>>> Urine samples do not tell the story, and there may be no way to
>>>>>>>> really find out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Autopsies of the monkeys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Burbacher et al. had it easy: they killed the monkeys and did a lab
>>>>>>>> test of brain tissue and it showed that yes, some mercury does
>>>>>>>> end up in the brain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, is that "some mercury" toxic at the concentrations found?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like "Toxic sludge is good for you".
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is a valid question to anyone who understands the concept
>>>>> that dose makes the poison.
>>>>
>>>> Twice the dose, twice the poison. It is true even for harmless doses
>>>> (and I am not saying the dose is harmless here. Or harmful.)
>>>
>>> See above. There is a toxic threshold.
From: Mark Probert on
Mike wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>> First: the body absorbs some of the mercury. The more you get the
>>>>> more you absorb.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. Some is rapidly excreted through feces and urine.
>>>
>>> And some is not. The more you get, the more is excreted. And the more
>>> is absorbed.
>>
>> Partially. As for excretion, yes, the more you get, the more is
>> excreted. However, there comes a point where storage reaches
>> equilibrium, and the balance is excreted.
>
> This is called saturation. The body becomes saturated with mercury.
> (Expected response: prove that saturation levels are toxic!)

Since you know what the standard of proof is, and did not provide it, I
can assume that you cannot prove those levels are toxic.

>>>>> Second: if the substance is harmful it does not necessarily matter
>>>>> whether it is cleared at all. Here is a quote from the previous post:
>>>>>
>>>>> **** In any event, even infants clear thimerosal from the body with
>>>>> great rapidity. ****
>>>>>
>>>>> Substitute alcohol for thimerosal and see how absurd it would be.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. We are discussing Ethyl Mercury which is NOT the same chemical
>>>> as alcohol.
>>>
>>> It is not. But it illustrates that even rapid clearing of a substance
>>> from the body does not mean there will be no long-term consequences.
>>
>> No, it does not do that. What it demonstrates is that there may be a
>> long term storage, but whether there is a consequence is another
>> question. And, after there is no more intake, the storage may even
>> decrease.
>>
>>> A substance can clear rapidly and still inflict immense damage.
>>
>> However, there is no proof of that, since even the peak concentrations
>> are non toxic.
>>
>>> So, "Infants clear thimerosal with great rapidity" would not be a
>>> valid argument even if true.
>>
>> First, it is true, and second, there is no evidence to support a claim
>> of injury.
>>
>>>>>> The Burbacher study showed that more inorganic mercury stays
>>>>>>> in the brain after thimerosal exposure. It quoted another study
>>>>>>> estimating half life of inorganic mercury to be between 227 and
>>>>>>> 540 days. It is not "rapid clearing". As for the first study, the
>>>>>>> sample pool is too small to talk about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disagree. Burbacher shows that Ethyl Mercury is rapidly cleared
>>>>>> (with some residue).
>>>>>
>>>>> And more residue in the brain for ethylmercury.
>>>>
>>>> However, it is a significant residue? The answer to that question
>>>> you seem to be avoiding at all costs. It makes me wonder why.
>>>
>>> I do not. Got the numbers how much is significant?
>>
>> You are making the claim that it is significant. Your burden.
>>
>>>>>> As for the sample pool,m that would be correct only when there is
>>>>>> a wide latitude of findings. There wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know? There is no data about deviations from average in
>>>>> the abstract, the full text is not freely available, I bet you did
>>>>> not read it.
>>>>
>>>> You lose. It is an important study in this issue, and I read it.
>>>
>>> Can prove it? Post some data, maybe?
>>
>> Possibly. I read a hard copy.
>>
>
> Yes, post a couple of sentences. You will not because you did not read
> it. And you will not make them up because - who knows? - it may become
> available to everybody.

Incorrect. I read an interloan library copy and neglected to make a
photocopy. I do sometimes make mistakes.

> Oh, I know: you have your base covered. You will say: I read it in a
> library, now prove that I did not.

I'll see if the library can get the copy again. Depends on the other
library still having it on file. Will take a while, as I am taking a
long overdue vacation commencing Saturday.

However, do not get your Jockeys into a wedgie over this. Remember, I
have asked you for proof numerous times, and have yet to see a
substantive response to most points.

>>>> The only number about deviations is here: "Blood mercury in
>>>>> thiomersal-exposed 2-month-olds ranged from less than 3.75 to 20.55
>>>>> nmol/L (parts per billion)". 3.75 and 20.55 are very different.
>>>>
>>>> Note the concentration is measured in PPB. Now, go show that ever
>>>> 20.55 PPB is toxic.
>>>
>>> This is irrelevant because that was not the point. The point is that
>>> contrary to what you said there WAS a wide latitude of findings in
>>> some aspects. And the sample was small.
>>
>> Disagree. It is quite relevant.
>>
>>>>>>>>> A real study would involve a larger pool (at least 500 infants).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assuming that there is a genetic predisposition as you describe.
>>>>>>>> Please show proof of the existence of the genetic predisposition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please show proof of non-existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have got to be kidding. That is utterly absurd. One cannot
>>>>>> prove non-existence in this setting. Further, YOU made the claim,
>>>>>> thus, your burden to prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not make the claim. I am saying that the sample of 40 is too
>>>>> small. If the idea was to disprove such a hypothesis (lower mercury
>>>>> tolerance in some infants) then it has not been done.
>>>>
>>>> You requested proof of non-existence of a genetic predisposition to
>>>> lower tolerance to mercury. That is impossible, and constitutes a
>>>> false shifting of the burden of proof. The burden remains on YOU to
>>>> show that there is such a condition.
>>>
>>> I am saying that the study proves nothing. It was known before the
>>> study that the vast majority of children are not autistic and thus do
>>> not get autism from thimerosal. It could be inferred that they do not
>>> absorb mercury in significant amounts. This study could prove
>>> something if the sample was larger, preferably including children
>>> later diagnosed with autism. But the sample was too small, and there
>>> was no follow-up.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no research AFAIK. There is nothing special about the
>>>>>>> possibility of such predisposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes there is, if it is used as you have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning what? It cannot be dismissed out of hand.
>>>>
>>>> Why not? Because it removes one of the anti-vaccination liar
>>>> arguments of the Mercury Militia? Sorry, but let's stick to facts.
>>>
>>> No, because nothing can be dismissed out of hand.
>>
>> Out of hand? Bullshit. It is dismissed after many studies and research.
>>
>>>>>>> And speaking of genetics, would you please show proof that autism
>>>>>>> is a genetic disease?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit Pub Med and read. I received 719 hits on "autism gene", and
>>>>>> 1617 on "autism genetics". A sample:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicholas B, Rudrasingham V, Nash S, Kirov G, Owen MJ, Wimpory DC.
>>>>>> Related Articles, Links
>>>>>> Association of Per1 and Npas2 with autistic disorder: support for
>>>>>> the clock genes/social timing hypothesis.
>>>>>> Mol Psychiatry. 2007 Jan 30; [Epub ahead of print]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yang MS, Gill M. Related Articles, Links
>>>>>> A review of gene linkage, association and expression studies in
>>>>>> autism and an assessment of convergent evidence.
>>>>>> Int J Dev Neurosci. 2006 Dec 20;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is Autism exclusively genetic? I do not know, and, no one knows.
>>>>>> It is partly genetic? The evidence is there to support this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Partly genetic - yes, no doubt about it. Exclusively genetic - no,
>>>>> and no doubt about it either. Otherwise concordance rate of autism
>>>>> in identical twins would be 100% which is not the case. (And even
>>>>> if it were 100% it would not be a proof that autism is purely
>>>>> genetic until its mechanism were known. But it is not 100% anyway).
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is partly genetic, what are the other parts? I do not know.
>>>>>> I do believe, to a certainty, that it is not vaccines or thimerosal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is not that you (or anyone else) does not know but
>>>>> methinks you do not want to know. Do you know to a certainty that
>>>>> it is not environmental mercury for example?
>>>>
>>>> There is little evidence to support that, otherwise you would have
>>>> large pools of autistics in and around all areas high in mercury.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And they should be followed. 5 years later we could find how
>>>>>>>>> many autistics are in the group and how many in control group.
>>>>>>>>> But that was clearly beyond the goals of the study ("Mercury
>>>>>>>>> concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines
>>>>>>>>> containing mercury").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another problem: how much of mercury was deposited in the
>>>>>>>>> brain? Urine samples do not tell the story, and there may be no
>>>>>>>>> way to really find out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Autopsies of the monkeys.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Burbacher et al. had it easy: they killed the monkeys and did a lab
>>>>>>>>> test of brain tissue and it showed that yes, some mercury does
>>>>>>>>> end up in the brain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, is that "some mercury" toxic at the concentrations found?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like "Toxic sludge is good for you".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is a valid question to anyone who understands the concept
>>>>>> that dose makes the poison.
>>>>>
>>>>> Twice the dose, twice the poison. It is true even for harmless
>>>>> doses (and I am not saying the dose is harmless here. Or harmful.)
>>>>
>>>> See above. There is a toxic threshold.
From: Mike on
Mark Probert wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>> First: the body absorbs some of the mercury. The more you get the
>>>>>> more you absorb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily. Some is rapidly excreted through feces and urine.
>>>>
>>>> And some is not. The more you get, the more is excreted. And the
>>>> more is absorbed.
>>>
>>> Partially. As for excretion, yes, the more you get, the more is
>>> excreted. However, there comes a point where storage reaches
>>> equilibrium, and the balance is excreted.
>>
>> This is called saturation. The body becomes saturated with mercury.
>> (Expected response: prove that saturation levels are toxic!)
>
> Since you know what the standard of proof is, and did not provide it, I
> can assume that you cannot prove those levels are toxic.
>

If saturation levels are not toxic then no level is toxic, so the
substance is not toxic. You reached dead end here, Markey.

>>>>>> Second: if the substance is harmful it does not necessarily matter
>>>>>> whether it is cleared at all. Here is a quote from the previous post:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **** In any event, even infants clear thimerosal from the body
>>>>>> with great rapidity. ****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Substitute alcohol for thimerosal and see how absurd it would be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. We are discussing Ethyl Mercury which is NOT the same
>>>>> chemical as alcohol.
>>>>
>>>> It is not. But it illustrates that even rapid clearing of a
>>>> substance from the body does not mean there will be no long-term
>>>> consequences.
>>>
>>> No, it does not do that. What it demonstrates is that there may be a
>>> long term storage, but whether there is a consequence is another
>>> question. And, after there is no more intake, the storage may even
>>> decrease.
>>>
>>>> A substance can clear rapidly and still inflict immense damage.
>>>
>>> However, there is no proof of that, since even the peak
>>> concentrations are non toxic.
>>>
>>>> So, "Infants clear thimerosal with great rapidity" would not be a
>>>> valid argument even if true.
>>>
>>> First, it is true, and second, there is no evidence to support a
>>> claim of injury.
>>>
>>>>>>> The Burbacher study showed that more inorganic mercury stays
>>>>>>>> in the brain after thimerosal exposure. It quoted another study
>>>>>>>> estimating half life of inorganic mercury to be between 227 and
>>>>>>>> 540 days. It is not "rapid clearing". As for the first study,
>>>>>>>> the sample pool is too small to talk about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disagree. Burbacher shows that Ethyl Mercury is rapidly cleared
>>>>>>> (with some residue).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And more residue in the brain for ethylmercury.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it is a significant residue? The answer to that question
>>>>> you seem to be avoiding at all costs. It makes me wonder why.
>>>>
>>>> I do not. Got the numbers how much is significant?
>>>
>>> You are making the claim that it is significant. Your burden.
>>>
>>>>>>> As for the sample pool,m that would be correct only when there is
>>>>>>> a wide latitude of findings. There wasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know? There is no data about deviations from average in
>>>>>> the abstract, the full text is not freely available, I bet you did
>>>>>> not read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You lose. It is an important study in this issue, and I read it.
>>>>
>>>> Can prove it? Post some data, maybe?
>>>
>>> Possibly. I read a hard copy.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, post a couple of sentences. You will not because you did not read
>> it. And you will not make them up because - who knows? - it may become
>> available to everybody.
>
> Incorrect. I read an interloan library copy and neglected to make a
> photocopy. I do sometimes make mistakes.
>
>> Oh, I know: you have your base covered. You will say: I read it in a
>> library, now prove that I did not.
>
> I'll see if the library can get the copy again. Depends on the other
> library still having it on file. Will take a while, as I am taking a
> long overdue vacation commencing Saturday.
>

I knew your excuse. You will not post anything. You will not bother
getting the article because you are too busy making posts.

> However, do not get your Jockeys into a wedgie over this. Remember, I
> have asked you for proof numerous times, and have yet to see a
> substantive response to most points.

You declare responses you do not like non-substantive. I will leave it
to readers if there are any yet.

>
>>>>> The only number about deviations is here: "Blood mercury in
>>>>>> thiomersal-exposed 2-month-olds ranged from less than 3.75 to
>>>>>> 20.55 nmol/L (parts per billion)". 3.75 and 20.55 are very different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the concentration is measured in PPB. Now, go show that ever
>>>>> 20.55 PPB is toxic.
>>>>
>>>> This is irrelevant because that was not the point. The point is that
>>>> contrary to what you said there WAS a wide latitude of findings in
>>>> some aspects. And the sample was small.
>>>
>>> Disagree. It is quite relevant.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A real study would involve a larger pool (at least 500 infants).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming that there is a genetic predisposition as you
>>>>>>>>> describe. Please show proof of the existence of the genetic
>>>>>>>>> predisposition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please show proof of non-existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have got to be kidding. That is utterly absurd. One cannot
>>>>>>> prove non-existence in this setting. Further, YOU made the claim,
>>>>>>> thus, your burden to prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not make the claim. I am saying that the sample of 40 is too
>>>>>> small. If the idea was to disprove such a hypothesis (lower
>>>>>> mercury tolerance in some infants) then it has not been done.
>>>>>
>>>>> You requested proof of non-existence of a genetic predisposition to
>>>>> lower tolerance to mercury. That is impossible, and constitutes a
>>>>> false shifting of the burden of proof. The burden remains on YOU to
>>>>> show that there is such a condition.
>>>>
>>>> I am saying that the study proves nothing. It was known before the
>>>> study that the vast majority of children are not autistic and thus
>>>> do not get autism from thimerosal. It could be inferred that they do
>>>> not absorb mercury in significant amounts. This study could prove
>>>> something if the sample was larger, preferably including children
>>>> later diagnosed with autism. But the sample was too small, and there
>>>> was no follow-up.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was no research AFAIK. There is nothing special about the
>>>>>>>> possibility of such predisposition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes there is, if it is used as you have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning what? It cannot be dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not? Because it removes one of the anti-vaccination liar
>>>>> arguments of the Mercury Militia? Sorry, but let's stick to facts.
>>>>
>>>> No, because nothing can be dismissed out of hand.
>>>
>>> Out of hand? Bullshit. It is dismissed after many studies and research.
>>>
>>>>>>>> And speaking of genetics, would you please show proof that
>>>>>>>> autism is a genetic disease?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit Pub Med and read. I received 719 hits on "autism gene", and
>>>>>>> 1617 on "autism genetics". A sample:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nicholas B, Rudrasingham V, Nash S, Kirov G, Owen MJ, Wimpory DC.
>>>>>>> Related Articles, Links
>>>>>>> Association of Per1 and Npas2 with autistic disorder: support
>>>>>>> for the clock genes/social timing hypothesis.
>>>>>>> Mol Psychiatry. 2007 Jan 30; [Epub ahead of print]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yang MS, Gill M. Related Articles, Links
>>>>>>> A review of gene linkage, association and expression studies in
>>>>>>> autism and an assessment of convergent evidence.
>>>>>>> Int J Dev Neurosci. 2006 Dec 20;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is Autism exclusively genetic? I do not know, and, no one knows.
>>>>>>> It is partly genetic? The evidence is there to support this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Partly genetic - yes, no doubt about it. Exclusively genetic - no,
>>>>>> and no doubt about it either. Otherwise concordance rate of autism
>>>>>> in identical twins would be 100% which is not the case. (And even
>>>>>> if it were 100% it would not be a proof that autism is purely
>>>>>> genetic until its mechanism were known. But it is not 100% anyway).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is partly genetic, what are the other parts? I do not know.
>>>>>>> I do believe, to a certainty, that it is not vaccines or thimerosal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is not that you (or anyone else) does not know but
>>>>>> methinks you do not want to know. Do you know to a certainty that
>>>>>> it is not environmental mercury for example?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is little evidence to support that, otherwise you would have
>>>>> large pools of autistics in and around all areas high in mercury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And they should be followed. 5 years later we could find how
>>>>>>>>>> many autistics are in the group and how many in control group.
>>>>>>>>>> But that was clearly beyond the goals of the study ("Mercury
>>>>>>>>>> concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines
>>>>>>>>>> containing mercury").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another problem: how much of mercury was deposited in the
>>>>>>>>>> brain? Urine samples do not tell the story, and there may be
>>>>>>>>>> no way to really find out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Autopsies of the monkeys.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Burbacher et al. had it easy: they killed the monkeys and did a
>>>>>>>>> lab
>>>>>>>>>> test of brain tissue and it showed that yes, some mercury does
>>>>>>>>>> end up in the brain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, is that "some mercury" toxic at the concentrations found?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like "Toxic sludge is good for you".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is a valid question to anyone who understands the concept
>>>>>>> that dose makes the poison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Twice the dose, twice the poison. It is true even for harmless
>>>>>> doses (and I am not saying the dose is harmless here. Or harmful.)
>>>>>
>>>>> See above. There is a toxic threshold.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: ~ * The Animal Rescue
Next: Sodium Benzoate