Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD

Jan shows her ignorance again. She has now posted links, in regards to
mercury allergies, in which NOT ONE SINGLE LINK deals with the issues of
allergies. Hint: allergy and toxicity are two very different things...

Maybe you should try reading the posts you're replying to first - we
were not talking about mercury toxicity, but rather specifically about
allergic responses to mercury. Apples and oranges. As for your
"personal experiences", I'll believe that. The defective nature of your
thought processes, in ability to form logical trains of thought, and
your overt paranoia are exactly what one would expect form the
neurological damage which occurs after acute mercury exposure...

Bryan

Jason Johnson wrote:
Bryan,
If Mark or anyone else wants to response, feel free to do so.

After reading the PubMed report that is posted below, please answer these
questions:

Would it make sense for scientists to conduct standard patch tests for
screening for contact allergy to mercury on about 50 children that have
autism?


Not unless you were going to do the same number of tests in children
without autism; otherwise the results would be meaningless and you'd
have nothing to compare to. You'd also want to use a lot more then 50
people, to be accurate.

However, these sorts of studies have been done, with no link identified
(hypersensitivity to thimerisol and autism). There are only two links
between autism and allergy's identified. Firstly, people who have a
strong family history of severe allergies have a greater risk of having
autistic children. Secondly, a mutation in the gene C4A makes you ~4.5x
more likely to have autism as someone without the mutation. Although
the exact role of C4A is unknown, the mutation is associated both with
autism and with increased risk of severe food allergy.

It is important to note that both of these factors suggest genetics is a
significant factor in autism. In this case we have family history,
which suggests genetics, as well as a specific gene, being identified as
important players in autism.

A review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


Would it make sense to do a study that involved conducting standard patch
tests for screening for contact allergy to mercury on about 1000 children?

More people is better, but you also have to have the proper number of
controls.

Do you believe the children that were determined to be allergic to mercury
would develop autism if they were given vaccines containing thimerosal?


No. The nature of autism suggests that the neurological defects which
result in autism probably occur during gestation, and maybe during early
infancy. As such, it is unlikely that a thimerisol injection would lead
to autism in a mercury sensitive baby, as the "groundwork" for whether
you are autistic or not is probably laid down long before you are even born.

Another thing worth pointing out is that allergy formation requires
multiple exposures to an allergen - you're not born allergic to
something, allergies are something which develop. As such, a child
would not have a pre-existing allergy to mercury until they had been
exposed to it multiple times. Secondly, an allergy to mercury or methyl
mercury (the two forms of mercury known to lead to allergy) is very
specific. If you have allergy to metallic mercury, it is unlikely that
those antibodies will cross-react with mercury containing molecules.
Likewise, an allergy to methylmercury doesn't translate into allergies
against metallic or ethyl mercury. Given that no thimerisol allergies
have been positively identified it is unlikely anyone would have an
allergy to it - and even if they had an allergy to another form of
mercury, they wouldn't cross-react with the thiermisol.

In terms of your paper (which I snipped out for sake of brevity), that
is not relevant to thimerisol, as the form of mercury used in fillings
is completely different, has vastly different chemical properties, and
as mentioned above, the antibodies responsible for that persons
allergies would not have cross-reacted with thimerisol.

Bryan

In article , Bryan Heit
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
Bryan,
If Mark or anyone else wants to response, feel free to do so.

After reading the PubMed report that is posted below, please answer these
questions:

Would it make sense for scientists to conduct standard patch tests for
screening for contact allergy to mercury on about 50 children that have
autism?


Not unless you were going to do the same number of tests in children
without autism; otherwise the results would be meaningless and you'd
have nothing to compare to. You'd also want to use a lot more then 50
people, to be accurate.

However, these sorts of studies have been done, with no link identified
(hypersensitivity to thimerisol and autism). There are only two links
between autism and allergy's identified. Firstly, people who have a
strong family history of severe allergies have a greater risk of having
autistic children. Secondly, a mutation in the gene C4A makes you ~4.5x
more likely to have autism as someone without the mutation. Although
the exact role of C4A is unknown, the mutation is associated both with
autism and with increased risk of severe food allergy.

It is important to note that both of these factors suggest genetics is a
significant factor in autism. In this case we have family history,
which suggests genetics, as well as a specific gene, being identified as
important players in autism.

A review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


Would it make sense to do a study that involved conducting standard patch
tests for screening for contact allergy to mercury on about 1000 children?

More people is better, but you also have to have the proper number of
controls.

Do you believe the children that were determined to be allergic to mercury
would develop autism if they were given vaccines containing thimerosal?


No. The nature of autism suggests that the neurological defects which
result in autism probably occur during gestation, and maybe during early
infancy. As such, it is unlikely that a thimerisol injection would lead
to autism in a mercury sensitive baby, as the "groundwork" for whether
you are autistic or not is probably laid down long before you are even born.

Another thing worth pointing out is that allergy formation requires
multiple exposures to an allergen - you're not born allergic to
something, allergies are something which develop. As such, a child
would not have a pre-existing allergy to mercury until they had been
exposed to it multiple times. Secondly, an allergy to mercury or methyl
mercury (the two forms of mercury known to lead to allergy) is very
specific. If you have allergy to metallic mercury, it is unlikely that
those antibodies will cross-react with mercury containing molecules.
Likewise, an allergy to methylmercury doesn't translate into allergies
against metallic or ethyl mercury. Given that no thimerisol allergies
have been positively identified it is unlikely anyone would have an
allergy to it - and even if they had an allergy to another form of
mercury, they wouldn't cross-react with the thiermisol.

In terms of your paper (which I snipped out for sake of brevity), that
is not relevant to thimerisol, as the form of mercury used in fillings
is completely different, has vastly different chemical properties, and
as mentioned above, the antibodies responsible for that persons
allergies would not have cross-reacted with thimerisol.

Bryan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryan,
Thanks for your post. It's clear that more research needs to be done related
to this subject.
You made this point in your post:

Another thing worth pointing out is that allergy formation requires
multiple exposures to an allergen - you're not born allergic to
something, allergies are something which develop. As such, a child
would not have a pre-existing allergy to mercury until they had been
exposed to it multiple times.

Most pregnant women have dental fillings and normal levels of mercury in
their bodies. How much of that mercury is an unborn baby exposed to during
the 9 months of pregnancy? If pregnant mothers eat fish contaminated with
methylmercury, how much of that mercury is the baby exposed to? My point
is that when many babies are born, they have already been exposed to
mercury for the previous 9 months. The vaccines (containing thimerosal)
injected into babies add to that load. While they are growing up, they eat
fish contaminated with methylmercury and that adds to that load. They
receive even more vaccines (containing mercury) before they are allowed to
go to school and that adds to that load. The allergy formation (to
mercury) in at least some of those children may be complete by the time
they are 4 to 7 years old. One vaccine containing thimerosal or eating one
fish contaminated with methlmercury may cause a severe allergic reaction.
Will such a child develop autism? You may say NO but research projects are
needed to determine the answer to this question. I should note that I hope
you are correct. I hope that such a child would only have an allergic
reaction and NOT develop autism.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Jan shows her ignorance again.

Usual insult noted.


She has now posted links, in regards to
mercury allergies,

Which WAS discussed.


in which NOT ONE SINGLE LINK deals with the issues of
allergies. Hint: allergy and toxicity are two very different things...

Hint: Learn to read.

Jeff [NOT kidsdoc] wrote:

And any allergy to methylmercury would not be likely to
affect the brain in any way.

Jeff


I happen to know ALL about mercury poisoning. First hand.
I am speaking of inhalation of mercury vapor. From AMALGAMS.



Maybe you should try reading the posts you're replying to first - we were
not talking about mercury toxicity,

I did. See above.



but rather specifically about
allergic responses to mercury.

I specified what *I* was speaking of.

Best you get off your high horse and READ all of the discussion.

Apples and oranges. As for your
"personal experiences", I'll believe that. The defective nature of your
thought processes, in ability to form logical trains of thought, and your
overt paranoia are exactly what one would expect form the neurological
damage which occurs after acute mercury exposure...

Bryan

Thanks for the confirmation you believe mercury poisoning can come form
AMALGAMS.

What explains YOUR inability to read? Your NOT logical trains of thought??

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
Bryan,
If Mark or anyone else wants to response, feel free to do so.

After reading the PubMed report that is posted below, please answer these
questions:

Would it make sense for scientists to conduct standard patch tests for
screening for contact allergy to mercury on about 50 children that have
autism?


Not unless you were going to do the same number of tests in children
without autism; otherwise the results would be meaningless and you'd have
nothing to compare to. You'd also want to use a lot more then 50 people,
to be accurate.

However, these sorts of studies have been done, with no link identified
(hypersensitivity to thimerisol and autism). There are only two links
between autism and allergy's identified. Firstly, people who have a
strong family history of severe allergies have a greater risk of having
autistic children. Secondly, a mutation in the gene C4A makes you ~4.5x
more likely to have autism as someone without the mutation. Although the
exact role of C4A is unknown, the mutation is associated both with autism
and with increased risk of severe food allergy.

It is important to note that both of these factors suggest genetics is a
significant factor in autism. In this case we have family history, which
suggests genetics, as well as a specific gene, being identified as
important players in autism.

A review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


Would it make sense to do a study that involved conducting standard patch
tests for screening for contact allergy to mercury on about 1000
children?

More people is better, but you also have to have the proper number of
controls.

Do you believe the children that were determined to be allergic to
mercury
would develop autism if they were given vaccines containing thimerosal?


No. The nature of autism suggests that the neurological defects which
result in autism probably occur during gestation, and maybe during early
infancy. As such, it is unlikely that a thimerisol injection would lead
to autism in a mercury sensitive baby, as the "groundwork" for whether you
are autistic or not is probably laid down long before you are even born.

Sounds like a phd trainee. post hole digger?
probably...unlikely...suggests..maybe.

Another thing worth pointing out is that allergy formation requires
multiple exposures to an allergen - you're not born allergic to something,
allergies are something which develop. As such, a child would not have a
pre-existing allergy to mercury until they had been exposed to it multiple
times.

Like 22? shots before age 3?




Secondly, an allergy to mercury or methyl
mercury (the two forms of mercury known to lead to allergy) is very
specific. If you have allergy to metallic mercury, it is unlikely that
those antibodies will cross-react with mercury containing molecules.
Likewise, an allergy to methylmercury doesn't translate into allergies
against metallic or ethyl mercury. Given that no thimerisol allergies
have been positively identified it is unlikely anyone would have an
allergy to it - and even if they had an allergy to another form of
mercury, they wouldn't cross-react with the thiermisol.

More unlikely...x2.

In terms of your paper (which I snipped out for sake of brevity), that is
not relevant to thimerisol, as the form of mercury used in fillings is
completely different, has vastly different chemical properties, and as
mentioned above, the antibodies responsible for that persons allergies
would not have cross-reacted with thimerisol.

Bryan

ALL forms of mercury ARE relevant!

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
.net...

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
Bryan,
If Mark or anyone else wants to response, feel free to do so.

After reading the PubMed report that is posted below, please answer
these
questions:

Would it make sense for scientists to conduct standard patch tests for
screening for contact allergy to mercury on about 50 children that have
autism?


Not unless you were going to do the same number of tests in children
without autism; otherwise the results would be meaningless and you'd have
nothing to compare to. You'd also want to use a lot more then 50 people,
to be accurate.

However, these sorts of studies have been done, with no link identified
(hypersensitivity to thimerisol and autism). There are only two links
between autism and allergy's identified. Firstly, people who have a
strong family history of severe allergies have a greater risk of having
autistic children. Secondly, a mutation in the gene C4A makes you ~4.5x
more likely to have autism as someone without the mutation. Although the
exact role of C4A is unknown, the mutation is associated both with autism
and with increased risk of severe food allergy.

It is important to note that both of these factors suggest genetics is a
significant factor in autism. In this case we have family history, which
suggests genetics, as well as a specific gene, being identified as
important players in autism.

A review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


Would it make sense to do a study that involved conducting standard
patch
tests for screening for contact allergy to mercury on about 1000
children?

More people is better, but you also have to have the proper number of
controls.

Do you believe the children that were determined to be allergic to
mercury
would develop autism if they were given vaccines containing thimerosal?


No. The nature of autism suggests that the neurological defects which
result in autism probably occur during gestation, and maybe during early
infancy. As such, it is unlikely that a thimerisol injection would lead
to autism in a mercury sensitive baby, as the "groundwork" for whether
you are autistic or not is probably laid down long before you are even
born.

Sounds like a phd trainee. post hole digger?
probably...unlikely...suggests..maybe.

Another thing worth pointing out is that allergy formation requires
multiple exposures to an allergen - you're not born allergic to
something, allergies are something which develop. As such, a child would
not have a pre-existing allergy to mercury until they had been exposed to
it multiple times.

Like 22? shots before age 3?




Secondly, an allergy to mercury or methyl
mercury (the two forms of mercury known to lead to allergy) is very
specific. If you have allergy to metallic mercury, it is unlikely that
those antibodies will cross-react with mercury containing molecules.
Likewise, an allergy to methylmercury doesn't translate into allergies
against metallic or ethyl mercury. Given that no thimerisol allergies
have been positively identified it is unlikely anyone would have an
allergy to it - and even if they had an allergy to another form of
mercury, they wouldn't cross-react with the thiermisol.

More unlikely...x2.

In terms of your paper (which I snipped out for sake of brevity), that is
not relevant to thimerisol, as the form of mercury used in fillings is
completely different, has vastly different chemical properties, and as
mentioned above, the antibodies responsible for that persons allergies
would not have cross-reacted with thimerisol.

Bryan

ALL forms of mercury ARE relevant!

To quote you, Jan, "WRONG!" despite your sneering about Mr. Heit's science
qualifications, they are FAR more impressive than yours. You know NOTHING
about mercury and allergy or about human physiology or about science in
general. So your little smart-ass sentence fragment comments just
demonstrate how stupid you really are. You don't even attempt to discuss or
refute Mr. Heit's comments because you can't even use the English language
to express your ideas, which is just as well, because you have none.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Mercury exposure during pregnancy is low, although you can detect
maternal-fetal transfer form mothers with unusually high mercury levels.
These levels are much higher then those seen form dental fillings
(i.e. people who live in contaminated areas or eat a lot of
mercury-containing fish). There may be an effect on children born to
mothers with these higher levels of mercury, although the data is not
clear and there is a great deal of literature showing both an effect and
no effect:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ids=162032 51
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


In terms of allergic responses, you cannot be born with one. During
pregnancy the mothers immune system and placenta work together to
suppress immune responses on the developing baby. Even after birth this
inhibition of the infant immune system can be detected for months after
birth. As such is is virtually impossible for a developing infant to
develop any immune response, allergic or other.

Bryan

Jan Drew wrote:
Another thing worth pointing out is that allergy formation requires
multiple exposures to an allergen - you're not born allergic to something,
allergies are something which develop. As such, a child would not have a
pre-existing allergy to mercury until they had been exposed to it multiple
times.


Like 22? shots before age 3?


How many of those shots contain thimerisol Jan? Do you even know?
Answer, at lest here in Canada, is ZERO.



Secondly, an allergy to mercury or methyl

mercury (the two forms of mercury known to lead to allergy) is very
specific. If you have allergy to metallic mercury, it is unlikely that
those antibodies will cross-react with mercury containing molecules.
Likewise, an allergy to methylmercury doesn't translate into allergies
against metallic or ethyl mercury. Given that no thimerisol allergies
have been positively identified it is unlikely anyone would have an
allergy to it - and even if they had an allergy to another form of
mercury, they wouldn't cross-react with the thiermisol.


More unlikely...x2.



Showing your ignorance of immunity again? Anyone with even a high
school level of knowledge of the immune system can tell you that the
very process by which antibodies are formed prevent the cross-reactivity
you're so sure occurs. Guess that tells us where you level of knowledge
is. Try reading this, then come back, re-read what I wrote, and see if
you're able to comprehend it then:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/.../Bcellmat.html
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mayer/ab-ag-rx.htm
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/IMMUN...structure.html



In terms of your paper (which I snipped out for sake of brevity), that is
not relevant to thimerisol, as the form of mercury used in fillings is
completely different, has vastly different chemical properties, and as
mentioned above, the antibodies responsible for that persons allergies
would not have cross-reacted with thimerisol.

Bryan


ALL forms of mercury ARE relevant!

Not in the context of thimerosal allergy they aren't. Not that we're
surprised that you can't keep on topic; seeing as you don't even
understand the most simple of scientific concepts like the difference
between a metal and a salt.

Bryan

Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...

Jan shows her ignorance again.


Usual insult noted.


Funny you'd complain about that, seeing as you reguarily insult me and
think nothing of it. I simply reply in kind; you need look no farther
then my replies to Jason and Illena to see that. Although Jason and
Illena disagree with me on several points, our interactions are entirely
cordial. I simply treat other the way they treat me (. You want more
cordial conversations, then you need to stop with your insults. *YOU*
started that, not I.

Stopping your lying would be good too.



She has now posted links, in regards to

mercury allergies,


Which WAS discussed.


Several posts ago. If you look at the reply I made you would see that:

1) I replied solely, and only to your statement:

You can get an allergic reaction to mercury:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

However, I would think that it is very rare.

You think wrong.


In fact, you need to go back another 4-5 post before we hit something
even resembling toxicity. Hence my comment on you not being able to
keep thing in context. We've been discussing allergy for nearly an
week, and you brought up unrelated material from long before them.


in which NOT ONE SINGLE LINK deals with the issues of

allergies. Hint: allergy and toxicity are two very different things...


Hint: Learn to read.


Please point out which of YOUR articles were about allergy. I'll save
you the trouble; NONE of them were. In fact, a search of your post for
the word "allergy" only bring up two hits - in the text *I* wrote.


I happen to know ALL about mercury poisoning. First hand.
I am speaking of inhalation of mercury vapor. From AMALGAMS.


Which isn't related to the topic on hand - as in the issue of mercury
allergy. This specific topic has been the sole subject of my, and
Jeff's, last 4-5 posts. Try stay on topic.


Maybe you should try reading the posts you're replying to first - we were
not talking about mercury toxicity,


I did. See above.


Clearly, you didn't. The last 4-5 or so posts were exclusively about
mercury allergy. You then said we didn't know what we were talking
about, and posted links about fillings as proof - links which nowhere in
their titles or abstracts discussed allergy, anaphylaxis, antibodies, or
anything even close to allergy. You were so far off topic to be
laughable - wrong kind of mercury (ethyl vs. metallic), wrong types of
responses (toxicity vs allergy), and for that matter, wrong types of
studies (none of the links you presented did anything to look for
hypersensitivity, IgE, or anything else related to allergy).

I can only think of two explanations for this. Either you don't
understand the difference between toxicity and allergy, something I can
easily fix:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy

That, or you're so far in over your head your only possible responses
are to either post irrelevant material or run and hide.


but rather specifically about

allergic responses to mercury.


I specified what *I* was speaking of.


Actually, you didn't. After Jeff stated that mercury allergies were
rare (which is true), you said he was wrong and posted your links about
filling-associated mercury toxicity as "proof" he was wrong. You
weren't even close to being on topic. The whole discussion about
toxicity was over several post prior to that.



Best you get off your high horse and READ all of the discussion.

Apples and oranges. As for your

"personal experiences", I'll believe that. The defective nature of your
thought processes, in ability to form logical trains of thought, and your
overt paranoia are exactly what one would expect form the neurological
damage which occurs after acute mercury exposure...

Bryan


Thanks for the confirmation you believe mercury poisoning can come form
AMALGAMS.


When have I stated otherwise? I have not. In fact, I've been rather
vocal about the potential for harm from metallic and methyl mercury.
I've posted literally dozens of links in regards to this, as well as
stated extensively, and repetitively, that these forms of mercury are
toxic if taken in at high enough levels. Once again we've caught you
lying, in this case about the content of my posts and the claims I've
made.


What explains YOUR inability to read? Your NOT logical trains of thought??


Funny that you often accuse me of having bad English, and then you post
things like above. "not logical" = bad English. The word you were
looking for was "illogical". As for the "content" of the above
statement, I think I've clearly demonstrated just how far you were off
topic...

Bryan

In article , Bryan Heit
wrote:

Mercury exposure during pregnancy is low, although you can detect
maternal-fetal transfer form mothers with unusually high mercury levels.
These levels are much higher then those seen form dental fillings
(i.e. people who live in contaminated areas or eat a lot of
mercury-containing fish). There may be an effect on children born to
mothers with these higher levels of mercury, although the data is not
clear and there is a great deal of literature showing both an effect and
no effect:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ids=162032 51

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


In terms of allergic responses, you cannot be born with one. During
pregnancy the mothers immune system and placenta work together to
suppress immune responses on the developing baby. Even after birth this
inhibition of the infant immune system can be detected for months after
birth. As such is is virtually impossible for a developing infant to
develop any immune response, allergic or other.

Bryan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryan,
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that a severe allergic
reaction to mercury is the cause of autism.

I agree (based upon the evidence that you presented) that developing
babies do not have a immune response and that even after birth that babies
do not have a immune response--at least for several months. It makes sense
that it would work this way. Severe immune responses could cause serious
problems and even death if it happened in regard to a developing baby.

My point is that the mercury load begins to develop during the 9 months of
pregnancy and the mercury load (or mercury levels) continues to be added
to
when babies are given vaccines containing thimerosal. When the immune
response does develop--it's possible that is when at least some children
(that have an allergic reaction to mercury) would develop autism. Perhaps
some of the other children that (that have an allergic response to
mercury) would not develop autism until they were given the required
vaccines (containing thimerosal) before they were allowed to attend public
school. If those children (that had an allergic response to mercury) ate
fish contaminated with methymercury--they may develop autism. I should
note that the FDA mentioned one of the main reasons they are requiring the
elimination of thimerosal is because they want to reduce the mercury load
from all sources--including thimerosal.

One question: If a baby is breast fed and the mother has high levels of
mercury in her body--would the mercury load be added to each time the baby
was breast fed?

Thanks in advance for your response. I also treat posters the same way
they treat me and usually don't even respond when people disrespect me. I
do not become offended if people tell me that I am wrong as long as they
do so in
a respectful way--such as the way you do it.

Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~