Elimination of mercury

Jan Drew wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
ups.com...

cathyb wrote:
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article ,
"Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...gi?artid=3D12=
80342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in
manufacturi=
ng
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that
infants =
can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or
above t=
he
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
tota=
l Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the
avera=
ge
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher
for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 =B1 0.5 vs. 2.5 =B1 0.3).
A hi=
gher
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-containi=
ng
vaccines.

--------------------

Clearly, the claim by the Mercury Militia that it
accumulates
after
each
vaccination is not supported by this research. Ethyl
Mercury, =
the
byproduct of thimerosal metabolism is eliminated rapidly,
and =
is
gone
before the next vaccination.

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

How was this study funded?

Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously,
you =
did
not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link
I
posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault
with
methodology, etc.

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

Mark,
I read the study that is posted above and have read other
research
studies
that have had similar conclusions. I have also read other
research
studies
that have had different conclusions.

I posted the link since the entire study is available.

Now, specify what other *studies*, with references, have
different
findings? I cannot find fault with this studies methodology.

Chemistry does not change.

Completely independant of taking any side here, Chemistry (the
observation
of elemental constructs and reactions) always changes.


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

Vernon,
It depends on what Mark meant when he used the term "chemistry".
Mark
should explain what the meant. Perhaps he was referring to
"natural la=
ws".

No, he was referring to chemistry, which doesn't change.

Vernon appears to be incapable of saying that our understanding of
chemistry certainly progresses without redefining chemistry.

Chemistry, however, does not change.


It's been over 25 years since I have taken any science classes
but see=
m to
recall learning that natural laws never change.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sort of my point.

No, not really.


Add what I posted to a constant change in what people, especially
college
professor book writers define as "Natural laws". Add to that the
basic =
fact
that very few professors have a clue about the various elemental
(not
chemistry) effects on statistics.

Good lord, Vern, you're certainly good at saying nothing.


Your link MAY be 100% accurate, but still mostly opinion.

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

Vernon,
Good points.

There weren't any points, Jason. Do try and explain what vern's
point's
were. Because it certainly looked to me as though our little Walter
Mitty was just trying to say that people with more education than him
simply don't know anything. Again.

Many college science professors are teaching lots of false
information to their students.

Really?

They want to be politically correct so
teach students that global warming is caused by pollution. Of
course,
pollution may play a role. However, anyone that has a degree in
natural
science knows that global warming happened several times in the
history of
the earth even before mankind was on the earth. Global warming could
very
well be the result of
those same factors that caused global warming before mankind was on
this =
earth.
Any science professor employed by a state university would be fired
(by
his politically correct bosses) if he taught his or her students
that
global warming was NOT caused by pollution.

Really?

If a science professor in a
state university developed a theory that conflicted with evolution
theory,
that professor would be fired by his politically correct bosses.

Only if he couldn't back it up with some evidence, Jason. Which, to
date, hasn't been done.

Academic
freedom is no longer a reality.

I'm sorry that you feel that people actually having to back up their
hypotheses with evidence indicates a lack of academic freedom, Jason.
Or more precisely, I'm sorry for you.


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

And I also feel sorry for you.

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

Well, that's nice, but I note you couldn't explain Vincent's "points",
or come up with any examples of alleged lack of academic freedom.

Oops. Vernon's "points".

Like the Oops Jacob...........................

I'm sorry, did you actually have a meaning to convey here, Jan?

If so, I'm afraid you failed again. Remedial English, Jan.

"Jan Drew" wrote:

Hmm. The WHO

A great band when I saw them in 1966, but not so good on their latest
tour. I saw a video and I'm glad I didn't waste my money on tickets.
Roger's voice has gone off and all that cocaine that Pete is supposed
to have inhaled over the years have probably taken its toll as well.
It would have been good to see Zak Starkey, though, because I'm still
a great fan of his old man.

snip irrelevancy
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Jan Drew wrote:

Like the Oops Jacob...........................



I'm sorry, did you actually have a meaning to convey here, Jan?

If so, I'm afraid you failed again. Remedial English, Jan.

Mark Probert wrote:
Hi Maxie....still clueless after months at the rest home? How sad. Do
get your money back.

Heh... and you're still the same insulting jerk you were when I left.
Being wrong all the time must take its toll on your civility.

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.

Since you possess a homeopathic intellect, let me explain.

The study demonstrates:

1. The use of MeHg to determine toxicity of EHg is inappropriate.

It doesn't "demonstrate" it... is *SAYS* it.
"The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk
assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."

And somehow that means to you that there are no problems with it being
in the primates' brains. That is unsafe to assume, given the data in
this study.

2. Primates, the order that is above you in evolution, do not store EHg,
but rapidly dispose of it, so that by the time the next monthly
injection is administered, the remaining thimerosal is at homeopathic
levels. In fact, most of it was gone in a flash.

So, why is it that you feel the need to insult me to make your point?
If you're right, it should be obvious to everyone. Of course, you're
wrong, so I guess that's my answer.

Most of it in THE BLOOD was gone in a flash. That's never been up for
debate. The problem is the amount that stays in the brain. This study
just measured amounts in the blood and assumed that since it dropped
quickly that all the mercury had been eliminated. That assumption is,
of course, ridiculous.

OK, so they were lower. How would those infants otherwise be exposed
to MeHg in the real world?

Breathing. Breast milk. etc. Infants are a bit young to want to eat a
salmon.

I suppose I should have worded my question so even the simplest of
minds could understand. The issue is that historically, humans had
*very little* natural contact with mercury. It has only been over the
past 150 years or so that direct exposure to mercury has risen due to
industry and medical and dental use thereof. So the real question is,
how would humans *naturally* have come in contact with the levels of
mercury seen today?

The point is that this comparison is
ridiculous.

No, silly, it is very valid.

You can't even read your own post and I'm the silly one? Let me post
it again:
"The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk
assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."

The fact that brain concentrations were lower in the
thimerosal group means nothing.

You would like to have it that way, but, not everyone gets what they like.

Feel free to prove me wrong using real data. Your opinion on the
matter is meaningless.

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?

Because current toxicological standards are based on MeHg, and knowing
what the toxicology of other compounds is important. It is called
knowledge. You can look that up in the dictionary. It is an English word.

Basically what you're saying here is that you've posted information
that isn't real information. In the words of the very people that
posted the study, "The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable
reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."
So, feel free to post data the DOES provide EHg data.

Shouldn't the point of
the study be to compare real world scenarios?

Since both EHg and MeHg exist in the real world, that is what was done.

But MeHg isn't what's being injected into people now is it? This study
was a waste of funding and primates.

It is not funny if you stop to think about it for a few minutes. I would
suggest that you call the researchers and ask to borrow some of the
primate brains that were homogenized.

You're the one trying to make a point here. I would suggest *YOU* call
the researchers.

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.

I do not recall that.

However, you are missing a fundamental idea. Try reading the entire
study at the link I posted. You may even be able to figure it out for
yourself.

Already did... long before you posted it here. You see, unlike you, I
have an open mind on this issue. That's why I was surprised that you'd
try to post this study *in support* of vaccines, when it has no
relevance on the subject. You're just grasping for something to be
right about. It's quite humorous.

Incorrect. You did not take that remedial reading comprehension course
at the rest home while you were gone.

Feel free to "prove" me incorrect with real data. Your opinion is
meaningless.

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

I know what the study says and fully understand it.

Sad that you don't.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! You funny guy!
Max.

Vernon wrote:
"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , 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.

--------------------

Clearly, the claim by the Mercury Militia that it accumulates after
each
vaccination is not supported by this research. Ethyl Mercury, the
byproduct of thimerosal metabolism is eliminated rapidly, and is
gone
before the next vaccination.

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

How was this study funded?

Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously, you did
not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link I posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault with
methodology, etc.

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

Mark,
I read the study that is posted above and have read other research
studies
that have had similar conclusions. I have also read other research
studies
that have had different conclusions.
I posted the link since the entire study is available.

Now, specify what other *studies*, with references, have different
findings? I cannot find fault with this studies methodology.

Chemistry does not change.

Completely independant of taking any side here, Chemistry (the observation
of elemental constructs and reactions) always changes.

Funny.




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

Mark,
I read various research studies but only saved one report which mentioned
various studies showing that thimerosal was the cause of autism. I seem to

recall that you read that report which I have posted in this newsgroup
several different times and you discounted every one of those studies.
Upon request, I will post it again since I saved it.
I read the study results that you posted above and I will NOT discount it
since I have NEVER done any research related to the genes of monkeys. It's
my opinion that children that develop autism have some defective genes.
Upon request, I can post a research study that mentions that subject.
I believe that the defective genes make it impossible for children to
process mercury which is the reason they develop autism when exposed to
mercury.
I don't know whether monkeys have those same defective genes.
I do believe that some of the studies that indicate that thimerosal does
NOT cause autism did NOT include any children in those studies that had
the defective genes. Only a small number of children have the defective
genes.
jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , 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.

--------------------

Clearly, the claim by the Mercury Militia that it accumulates after
each
vaccination is not supported by this research. Ethyl Mercury, the
byproduct of thimerosal metabolism is eliminated rapidly, and is
gone
before the next vaccination.

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

How was this study funded?

Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously, you did
not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link I posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault with
methodology, etc.

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

Mark,
I read the study that is posted above and have read other research
studies
that have had similar conclusions. I have also read other research
studies
that have had different conclusions.

I posted the link since the entire study is available.

Now, specify what other *studies*, with references, have different
findings? I cannot find fault with this studies methodology.

Chemistry does not change.

Completely independant of taking any side here, Chemistry (the observation
of elemental constructs and reactions) always changes.


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

Vernon,
It depends on what Mark meant when he used the term "chemistry". Mark
should explain what the meant. Perhaps he was referring to "natural laws".

It's been over 25 years since I have taken any science classes but seem to
recall learning that natural laws never change.

If you do experiment A, and get result B, then every time you repeat A,
you get B. Your claim was that you get C. Not gonna happen.

cathyb wrote:

Notice how it does not see Mark responding to Jason

What are you gibbering on about now, Jan?

I was out on the beautiful Atlantic Ocean all day yesterday, from just
after sun up to late night.

Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
Hi Maxie....still clueless after months at the rest home? How sad. Do
get your money back.

Heh... and you're still the same insulting jerk you were when I left.
Being wrong all the time must take its toll on your civility.

I am sorry that you are offended by my repeating the tone of your post.


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.
Since you possess a homeopathic intellect, let me explain.

The study demonstrates:

1. The use of MeHg to determine toxicity of EHg is inappropriate.

It doesn't "demonstrate" it... is *SAYS* it.
"The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk
assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."

Yes, it says it, because the study demonstrated it.

And somehow that means to you that there are no problems with it being
in the primates' brains. That is unsafe to assume, given the data in
this study.

Actually, you ASSumed you know what is means to me.

2. Primates, the order that is above you in evolution, do not store EHg,
but rapidly dispose of it, so that by the time the next monthly
injection is administered, the remaining thimerosal is at homeopathic
levels. In fact, most of it was gone in a flash.

So, why is it that you feel the need to insult me to make your point?

You deserve it? You initiated it? You do not like getting it back?

If you're right, it should be obvious to everyone. Of course, you're
wrong, so I guess that's my answer.

If that is the best you can do, back to school.

Most of it in THE BLOOD was gone in a flash. That's never been up for
debate. The problem is the amount that stays in the brain. This study
just measured amounts in the blood and assumed that since it dropped
quickly that all the mercury had been eliminated. That assumption is,
of course, ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

OK, so they were lower. How would those infants otherwise be exposed
to MeHg in the real world?
Breathing. Breast milk. etc. Infants are a bit young to want to eat a
salmon.

I suppose I should have worded my question so even the simplest of
minds could understand.

I assumed that it was simply worded, since it was your question.

The issue is that historically, humans had
*very little* natural contact with mercury.

Care to prove it?

It has only been over the
past 150 years or so that direct exposure to mercury has risen due to
industry and medical and dental use thereof. So the real question is,
how would humans *naturally* have come in contact with the levels of
mercury seen today?

The problem is industrial exposure and the result of forest fires.


The point is that this comparison is
ridiculous.
No, silly, it is very valid.

You can't even read your own post and I'm the silly one? Let me post
it again:
"The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk
assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."

The point is, I read my own post, and I highlighted the valid and
important points. You disagree with the level of importance.

The fact that brain concentrations were lower in the
thimerosal group means nothing.
You would like to have it that way, but, not everyone gets what they like.

Feel free to prove me wrong using real data. Your opinion on the
matter is meaningless.

Same for you.

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?
Because current toxicological standards are based on MeHg, and knowing
what the toxicology of other compounds is important. It is called
knowledge. You can look that up in the dictionary. It is an English word.

Basically what you're saying here is that you've posted information
that isn't real information.

It is real information. Sorry that you do not see it.

In the words of the very people that
posted the study, "The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable
reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."
So, feel free to post data the DOES provide EHg data.

See if it exists. Go find it.

Shouldn't the point of
the study be to compare real world scenarios?
Since both EHg and MeHg exist in the real world, that is what was done.

But MeHg isn't what's being injected into people now is it? This study
was a waste of funding and primates.

No, silly. It was to disprove the whining of the Bozo Brigade of the
Mercury Militia.

It is not funny if you stop to think about it for a few minutes. I would
suggest that you call the researchers and ask to borrow some of the
primate brains that were homogenized.

You're the one trying to make a point here. I would suggest *YOU* call
the researchers.

You are the one in need.

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.
I do not recall that.

However, you are missing a fundamental idea. Try reading the entire
study at the link I posted. You may even be able to figure it out for
yourself.

Already did... long before you posted it here. You see, unlike you, I
have an open mind on this issue.

So do I. However, my mind is not as open as yours. Yours is so open,
your brain fell out.

That's why I was surprised that you'd
try to post this study *in support* of vaccines, when it has no
relevance on the subject. You're just grasping for something to be
right about. It's quite humorous.

To you. Intelligent people think otherwise.

Incorrect. You did not take that remedial reading comprehension course
at the rest home while you were gone.

Feel free to "prove" me incorrect with real data. Your opinion is
meaningless.

I have proven you wrong. You have been proven consistently wrong.

You should pick apart your studies a little better before posting them.
I know what the study says and fully understand it.

Sad that you don't.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! You funny guy!

In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...gi?artid=3D12=
80342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturi=
ng
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants =
can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above t=
he
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 tota=
l Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the avera=
ge
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 =B1 0.5 vs. 2.5 =B1 0.3). A hi=
gher
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-containi=
ng
vaccines.

--------------------

Clearly, the claim by the Mercury Militia that it accumulates
after
each
vaccination is not supported by this research. Ethyl Mercury, =
the
byproduct of thimerosal metabolism is eliminated rapidly, and =
is
gone
before the next vaccination.

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

How was this study funded?

Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously, you =
did
not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link I
posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault with
methodology, etc.

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

Mark,
I read the study that is posted above and have read other research
studies
that have had similar conclusions. I have also read other research
studies
that have had different conclusions.

I posted the link since the entire study is available.

Now, specify what other *studies*, with references, have different
findings? I cannot find fault with this studies methodology.

Chemistry does not change.

Completely independant of taking any side here, Chemistry (the
observation
of elemental constructs and reactions) always changes.


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

Vernon,
It depends on what Mark meant when he used the term "chemistry". Mark
should explain what the meant. Perhaps he was referring to "natural la=
ws".

No, he was referring to chemistry, which doesn't change.

Vernon appears to be incapable of saying that our understanding of
chemistry certainly progresses without redefining chemistry.

Chemistry, however, does not change.


It's been over 25 years since I have taken any science classes but see=
m to
recall learning that natural laws never change.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sort of my point.

No, not really.


Add what I posted to a constant change in what people, especially college
professor book writers define as "Natural laws". Add to that the basic =
fact
that very few professors have a clue about the various elemental (not
chemistry) effects on statistics.

Good lord, Vern, you're certainly good at saying nothing.


Your link MAY be 100% accurate, but still mostly opinion.

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

Vernon,
Good points.

There weren't any points, Jason. Do try and explain what vern's point's
were. Because it certainly looked to me as though our little Walter
Mitty was just trying to say that people with more education than him
simply don't know anything. Again.

Many college science professors are teaching lots of false
information to their students.

Really?

They want to be politically correct so
teach students that global warming is caused by pollution. Of course,
pollution may play a role. However, anyone that has a degree in natural
science knows that global warming happened several times in the history of
the earth even before mankind was on the earth. Global warming could very
well be the result of
those same factors that caused global warming before mankind was on this =
earth.
Any science professor employed by a state university would be fired (by
his politically correct bosses) if he taught his or her students that
global warming was NOT caused by pollution.

Really?

If a science professor in a
state university developed a theory that conflicted with evolution theory,
that professor would be fired by his politically correct bosses.

Only if he couldn't back it up with some evidence, Jason. Which, to
date, hasn't been done.

Academic
freedom is no longer a reality.

I'm sorry that you feel that people actually having to back up their
hypotheses with evidence indicates a lack of academic freedom, Jason.
Or more precisely, I'm sorry for you.


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

And I also feel sorry for you.

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

Well, that's nice, but I note you couldn't explain Vincent's "points",
or come up with any examples of alleged lack of academic freedom.

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

Two examples

If a college biology professor stated that a "creator" created mankind and lots
of plants and animals, I doubt that his political correct bosses and
fellow professors would treat him with much respect. I should note that
Darwin mentioned that he believed that a creator was involved in the
creation of life on this earth in the last paragraph
of his famous book. Some high school science teachers have been fired for
telling their students that God created life.

If a chemistry professor stated that mercury was the cause of autism, I
doubt that he would be treated with the same respect that they treated
other professors and his bosses.

The reason that professors are not fired is usually because of tenure (sp ??).

What is your opinion of Dr. Boyd Haley?

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

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

In article .com, "Max
C." wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:
Hi Maxie....still clueless after months at the rest home? How sad. Do
get your money back.

Heh... and you're still the same insulting jerk you were when I left.
Being wrong all the time must take its toll on your civility.

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.

Since you possess a homeopathic intellect, let me explain.

The study demonstrates:

1. The use of MeHg to determine toxicity of EHg is inappropriate.

It doesn't "demonstrate" it... is *SAYS* it.
"The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk
assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."

And somehow that means to you that there are no problems with it being
in the primates' brains. That is unsafe to assume, given the data in
this study.

2. Primates, the order that is above you in evolution, do not store EHg,
but rapidly dispose of it, so that by the time the next monthly
injection is administered, the remaining thimerosal is at homeopathic
levels. In fact, most of it was gone in a flash.

So, why is it that you feel the need to insult me to make your point?
If you're right, it should be obvious to everyone. Of course, you're
wrong, so I guess that's my answer.

Most of it in THE BLOOD was gone in a flash. That's never been up for
debate. The problem is the amount that stays in the brain. This study
just measured amounts in the blood and assumed that since it dropped
quickly that all the mercury had been eliminated. That assumption is,
of course, ridiculous.

OK, so they were lower. How would those infants otherwise be exposed
to MeHg in the real world?

Breathing. Breast milk. etc. Infants are a bit young to want to eat a
salmon.

I suppose I should have worded my question so even the simplest of
minds could understand. The issue is that historically, humans had
*very little* natural contact with mercury. It has only been over the
past 150 years or so that direct exposure to mercury has risen due to
industry and medical and dental use thereof. So the real question is,
how would humans *naturally* have come in contact with the levels of
mercury seen today?

The point is that this comparison is
ridiculous.

No, silly, it is very valid.

You can't even read your own post and I'm the silly one? Let me post
it again:
"The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk
assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."

The fact that brain concentrations were lower in the
thimerosal group means nothing.

You would like to have it that way, but, not everyone gets what they like.

Feel free to prove me wrong using real data. Your opinion on the
matter is meaningless.

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?

Because current toxicological standards are based on MeHg, and knowing
what the toxicology of other compounds is important. It is called
knowledge. You can look that up in the dictionary. It is an English word.

Basically what you're saying here is that you've posted information
that isn't real information. In the words of the very people that
posted the study, "The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable
reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg."
So, feel free to post data the DOES provide EHg data.

Shouldn't the point of
the study be to compare real world scenarios?

Since both EHg and MeHg exist in the real world, that is what was done.

But MeHg isn't what's being injected into people now is it? This study
was a waste of funding and primates.

It is not funny if you stop to think about it for a few minutes. I would
suggest that you call the researchers and ask to borrow some of the
primate brains that were homogenized.

You're the one trying to make a point here. I would suggest *YOU* call
the researchers.

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.

I do not recall that.

However, you are missing a fundamental idea. Try reading the entire
study at the link I posted. You may even be able to figure it out for
yourself.

Already did... long before you posted it here. You see, unlike you, I
have an open mind on this issue. That's why I was surprised that you'd
try to post this study *in support* of vaccines, when it has no
relevance on the subject. You're just grasping for something to be
right about. It's quite humorous.

Incorrect. You did not take that remedial reading comprehension course
at the rest home while you were gone.

Feel free to "prove" me incorrect with real data. Your opinion is
meaningless.

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

I know what the study says and fully understand it.

Sad that you don't.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! You funny guy!
Max.

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

Max,
Thanks so much for your post. You raised some points (related to mercury
levels in the brain vs. mercury levels in the blood) that I failed to
consider when I first read about the research study that you were
referring to. It reminded me of a research study that I read about about
one year ago related to elderly people that had confirmed cases of
Alzheimer Disease. When they died, medical researchers done lots of tests
on their brains and discovered high levels of Al.
They also done those some tests on the elderly men that did NOT have
Alzheimer Disease. Those people did NOT have high levels of Al in thier
brains. Do you believe that it is possible that due to defective genes
that certain people are NOT able to process mercury and/or aluminum and as
a result it collects in the brains and causes such autism (in relation to
high "brain" levels of mercury) and Alzheimer Disease (in relation to high
"brain" levels of Al).
Thanks again for your interesting post.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~