Mark Probert wrote:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1280342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturing
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for methylmercury exposure,
depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the infant.
In this study we compared the systemic disposition and brain
distribution of total and inorganic mercury in infant monkeys after
thimerosal exposure with those exposed to MeHg. Monkeys were exposed to
MeHg (via oral gavage) or vaccines containing thimerosal (via
intramuscular injection) at birth and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of age. Total
blood Hg levels were determined 2, 4, and 7 days after each exposure.
Total and inorganic brain Hg levels were assessed 2, 4, 7, or 28 days
after the last exposure. The initial and terminal half-life of Hg in
blood after thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days, respectively,
which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of Hg
after MeHg exposure at 21.5 days. Brain concentrations of total Hg were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the average
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3). 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%). 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.

It gives me a sense of stability to know that I can go away for a few
months and come back to the same old junk that was being posted when I
left. It's unclear to me how the pro-vaccine group could use this
information to their advantage. Here's what I see when I read the
above info.

Brain concentrations of total Hg were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the average
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3).

OK, so they were lower. How would those infants otherwise be exposed
to MeHg in the real world? The point is that this comparison is
ridiculous. The fact that brain concentrations were lower in the
thimerosal group means nothing. They're STILL HIGHER if you compare
them to a group that received no mercury at all. Why in the world
would this stuy compare a thimerosal group with a MeHg group when their
shouldn't be any MeHg groups in the real world? Shouldn't the point of
the study be to compare real world scenarios?

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%).

hhhmmmm... there's that mercury in the brain again. Funny how that
paragraph mentions the half life of mercury in the blood but neglects
to mention it in the brain. Could that be because the brain has a much
harder time getting rid of the mercury than the blood? Also, shouldn't
the fact that the mercury in the brains of the thimerosal group was
mostly inorganic be a concern? I thought you pro-vaccine guys were
constantly saying that the end Hg product from thimerosal was all
organic.

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.

So, basically, this last piece is saying exactly what it *should*
say... this study is meaningless, since more study is needed for "a
meaningful assessment." Leave it to the pro-vaccine side to disagree
with that and try to use it to prove some sort of point.

You should pick apart your studies a little better before posting them.

Max.