Study "Disproving" Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial Ties to Vaccine Manufacturers

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:XnBEj.6964$i54.5090@trnddc05...
Jan Drew wrote:

http://www.naturalnews.com/z022479.html

Study "Disproving" Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial
Ties to Vaccine Manufacturers
by Mike Adams


(NaturalNews) While the mainstream press is widely reporting a new study
"disproving" any link between autism and mercury-containing thimerosal in
vaccines, no one has bothered to point out that the study was published in a
medical journal stacked full of ads from the very same drug companies that
manufacture and market vaccines. The Journal, the Archives of General
Psychiatry, is the pro-drug psychiatric arm of the American Medical
Association, a pill-pushing organization tarnished by a history of
conspiracy against alternative medicine and the promotion of toxic
substances like cigarettes with full-page ads in its flagship publication,
JAMA.


From the outset, the fact that this study appears in a pro-drug,
pro-psychiatry journal should bring pause to any scientific-minded person.
There is obviously a serious conflict of interest here, especially if this
study is to be taken as "fact" and applied to public health policy. There
also need to be a close look at any financial links between the researchers
involved in this study and various vaccine manufacturers, as virtually all
pro-drug "science" (if you can call it that) being published these days is
influenced by Big Pharma money.


The only truly honest, independent, peer-reviewed medical journal operating
today is PLoS Medicine, an open-source journal that takes no money from drug
companies. Notice that the autism/mercury link study did not appear in PLoS
Medicine? No, it had to be published with a home field advantage in a
pro-drug publication that maintains a strong bias in favor of
pharmaceuticals and chemicals.


Junk science and faulty conclusions
Aside from these obvious and worrisome conflicts of interest, the
conclusions being made about autism and vaccines in the mainstream media are
simply not supported by the study. The (distorted) logic we're hearing goes
like this:


Yes, vaccines used to contain mercury. And yes, all those little kids were
injected with mercury. And yes, autism rates skyrocketed. But then when the
mercury was taken out of the vaccines, the autism rates didn't come back
down. Therefore, the logic goes, vaccines are safe!


This is such sloppy cause/effect logic that it makes the idiot CNN Health
editors who published a story about "junk foods being good for your waist"
look like sheer geniuses!


What's wrong with the logic? Consider the use of mercury in the vaccines: It
was used as a preservative chemical to prevent vaccine spoilage. When the
mercury was removed, it was replaced with other preservative chemicals that
are also toxic to the human nervous system. Thus, the continuing increase in
autism rates following vaccination may be due to the toxic chemicals that
replaced thimerosal. While mercury injections probably initiated the
increase in autism, the toxic substance has been replaced with other
dangerous chemicals that are continuing to increase the risk of autism.


Here's an example to explain this a bit mo


We all know that sodium nitrite in processed meat causes cancer, right?
Well, let's say that for ten years, somebody feeds all the kids sodium
nitrite and cancer rates skyrocket. Then, they take all the sodium nitrite
out of the food and replace it with a different cancer-causing chemical that
they keep feeding the kids. Guess what? The cancer rates don't come down.
Therefore, the logic goes, sodium nitrite didn't cause cancer in the first
place!


Notice that when mercury was removed from vaccines (which is not entirely
true, by the way, bringing into question yet more details about this study),
the rates of autism did not drop? This means the vaccines remain dangerous
to children. Autism continued to climb right alongside vaccination rates,
indicating the possibility that something in the vaccines (or a combination
of various chemicals) may very well be responsible for the increase. Based
on the fact that thimerosal was replaced with other toxic chemicals in the
vaccines, there is absolutely no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any
harmful effects. There are too many variables operating now, and no study
can isolate one variable (thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be
harmless.


The truth is that scientists have no idea what's causing autism. They
acknowledge the alarming increase in the rates of autism now being observed
in the population, but with this new study, they claim, "Mercury is safe!"


Let me add this study to the enormous stack of other B.S. studies from
modern medical researchers. Let's see, I have a study here that declares
aspartame to be safe. A second study in my database says that Vioxx is safe.
Another study says Teflon is safe. And yet another study claims that
cigarette smoke doesn't cause lung cancer or heart disease! In fact, for
virtually every toxic chemical created by industry, there's a B.S. study
proclaiming its safety! The history of science is full of such nonsense, all
funded or influenced by the corporations that manufacture and sell these
toxic chemicals or drugs.


The fact that industry has managed to create yet another study declaring a
toxic substance (thimerosal) to be safe when injected into children is
certainly not surprising. This is an industry that is not bound by the rules
of logic, ethics or common scientific sense. It simply finds ways to
influence researchers, cherry pick studies and distort science to get
whatever results it wants. That's how we're now hearing things like,
"Mercury is safe to inject into children!" -- an idea that's utterly absurd
at any dose.


What the mercury / vaccine study actually proves
Even if you believe the results of this study, it only demonstrates that
removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce vaccine toxicity to children.
Autism rates are still on the rise, right along with vaccination rates.
Multiple toxic chemicals and substances are contained in vaccines, and the
mercury in thimerosal may have simply been one factor among many.


The only reasonable, scientifically-minded conclusion we can draw from the
study is that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce autism in
children. If removing thimerosal from vaccines made them safer, we should
have seen autism rates go down, but we did not! Autism rates continued to
climb in direct correlation to vaccination rates, indicating that mercury is
not the only toxic substance causing neurological problems in children.


Notice, carefully, that this is nothing close to what's being reported in
the mainstream media, where headlines are blaring junk science nonsense
like, "Vaccines pose no risk for autism" (San Jose Mercury News) and
"Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism" (Slashdot, which should know better).
Even WIRED News got it wrong with: "California Study Finds No Link Between
Vaccines, Autism."


The correct headline should be, "Removal of Mercury From Vaccines Fails to
Halt Rise in Autism."


Or, "Removing Mercury From Vaccines Does Not Make Them Safer."


Nobody reported that. Apparently, telling the truth about research involving
vaccines is not a popular option in the mainstream media (MSM).
Businessweek, publishing a HealthDay report by Randy Dotinga, invokes
particularly bad logic with this opening statement, "Adding to a growing
body of evidence that rejects the idea that immunizations boost autism
rates, a new study finds no proof that incidences of the disorder dropped
after makers of most childhood vaccines stopped using a mercury-based
preservative in their products."


Huh? How does a study focused only on mercury "reject the idea that
immunizations boost autism rates?" Did the author of that report not notice
that autism rates continue to increase as vaccination rates go up?
Eliminating one chemical from the causative factors does not in any way
clear the safety of all the other chemicals or ingredients used in vaccines.


The mainstream media, which repeatedly demonstrates astonishing ignorance on
issues of nutrition and health, also seems to have very little ability to
interpret scientific studies and reach reasoned conclusions about what those
studies do or do not prove.


Was the vaccine study another example of corrupt science?
Besides, this entire discussion is based on the idea that we can trust the
research in the first place. If there's one thing we've learned about modern
medicine since watching all the Vioxx scandals, Avandia cover-ups and
scientific corruption in research circles, it's that drug companies can help
create whatever research conclusions they want.


And let's face it: Big Pharma will always produce science that protects its
profits. Gee, Big Tobacco came up with all sorts of research that said
tobacco smoke wasn't harmful and nicotine wasn't addictive. Some of that
research appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, too. Does that mean the
research was scientifically accurate and "conclusive?" Of course not. It was
just plain old junk science, hijacked by a powerful corporation with a clear
profit motive.


If all that sounds familiar, it's because drug companies are playing the
same game with science today that Big Tobacco played decades ago: Influence
the science, bury the bad news and propagandize the good news. It's the
oldest play in the spin book, and Big Pharma has patterned it perfectly from
Big Tobacco.


You see, the relevant question in this discussion is not simply whether
mercury-containing vaccines cause autism. The question at hand is whether we
can even trust the "science" being conducted on this subject. Do the
researchers who conducted this study have any financial ties to the
manufacturers of those vaccines? Have they received any speaking fees? Do
they own stock in those companies? If so, this completely discredits their
research due to obvious conflicts of interest.


Now, I don't have any direct evidence that the researchers in this
particular mercury vaccine study were corrupted or influenced by Big Pharma,
but as an honest, independent think who knows the truth about drug
companies, the mainstream media and the profit motive behind much of the
science appearing in the press today, I maintain a default position of
skepticism when it comes to reading these studies.


By default, I distrust the drug companies and any so-called "research" that
claims injecting mercury into the bodies of children is harmless. That
should be the default position held by any rational person who understands
basic human biochemistry. Toxic chemicals and heavy metals must be
distrusted from the outset.


The drug and chemical industries, notably, take precisely the opposite
approach. To them, all chemicals and drugs are safe until proven dangerous.
This is how dangerous drugs get released into the marketplace and only
recalled after tens of millions of prescriptions have been written and many
thousands of people have died. The drug companies routinely treat the
population as drug testing guinea pigs, and the used of vaccines on children
is no different.


I find it interesting that genuine scientific skepticism seems to vanish
when the topic shifts to pharmaceuticals. Sure, all the skeptics and quack
critics will go to town on topics like acupuncture, mind-body medicine or
even the efficacy of botanical medicines, but when the discussion turns to
things like mercury in vaccines or amphetamine drugs for kids with ADHD, all
such skepticism immediately vanishes. They accept the safety and efficacy of
such treatments without question. Rational thought is rapidly discarded.
Vaccines simply must be safe. Why? Because everybody else in the medical
industry says so!


Were the journalists injected with mercury, too?
With this whole charade about a study "disproving" any link between mercury
and vaccines, the modern medical industry has once again shown its infantile
intellect and its utter lack or scientific integrity or clear-headed
skepticism. Is this study really the best they can come up with? A study
that shows absolutely no drop in autism rates when ingredients are
reformulated in vaccines? A study that didn't even attempt to take into
account the other toxic ingredients in vaccines?


This is the new standard of "conclusive" science in medicine today?


Give me a break. The only thing that can be conclusively derived from
observing all this is that mainstream media journalists continue to function
at a very low level of scientific literacy, lacking any skills of mental
reason by which scientific studies might be assessed. There is no thought
that has gone into the media's reporting of this story; only bandwagon
parroting of each other's bad conclusions of a study that, in reality,
proves nothing. It's yet another hilarious mainstream media circle jerk, and
the fact that so many people keep buying this dim-witted reporting just
proves that this nation remains woefully deficient in basic science
education.


One point worth mentioning here is that there is absolutely no requirement
to have any real understanding of science, medicine, chemistry or physics to
graduate from a top-notch journalism school. And when journalists have no
idea what they're talking about, they go the default route and simply
rewrite whatever was e-mailed to them in the corporate press release! Thus,
modern skills of journalism do not require any independent thought
whatsoever. They only require the ability to rephrase something already told
to them by the spinmeisters at Corporation X.


Correct me if I'm wrong: Is there a single mainstream reporter -- even
one? -- that reported the correct conclusion from this vaccine research?


I challenge you to find one. I've looked. There isn't one.


The dumbing down of the mainstream media is now complete. I can't wait to
see what headlines will come next:


"Prescription Drugs That Killed Patients Found Innocent Since Patients Did
Not Come Back to Life After the Drugs Were Removed"


Or:


"Radiation From Mammograms Found Harmless Because Death Rates Continued to
Climb Even After Mammography was Halted"


Or my favorite: "Ephedra Herb Banned After Ten Deaths; Drugs Are Safer
Because They Only Kill 100,000 Americans a Year"


I'm beginning to wonder if all the journalists have been injected with
mercury.




http://www.naturalnews.com/z022479.html

Study "Disproving" Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial
Ties to Vaccine Manufacturers
by Mike Adams


(NaturalNews) While the mainstream press is widely reporting a new study
"disproving" any link between autism and mercury-containing thimerosal in
vaccines, no one has bothered to point out that the study was published in a
medical journal stacked full of ads from the very same drug companies that
manufacture and market vaccines. The Journal, the Archives of General
Psychiatry, is the pro-drug psychiatric arm of the American Medical
Association, a pill-pushing organization tarnished by a history of
conspiracy against alternative medicine and the promotion of toxic
substances like cigarettes with full-page ads in its flagship publication,
JAMA.


From the outset, the fact that this study appears in a pro-drug,
pro-psychiatry journal should bring pause to any scientific-minded person.
There is obviously a serious conflict of interest here, especially if this
study is to be taken as "fact" and applied to public health policy. There
also need to be a close look at any financial links between the researchers
involved in this study and various vaccine manufacturers, as virtually all
pro-drug "science" (if you can call it that) being published these days is
influenced by Big Pharma money.


The only truly honest, independent, peer-reviewed medical journal operating
today is PLoS Medicine, an open-source journal that takes no money from drug
companies. Notice that the autism/mercury link study did not appear in PLoS
Medicine? No, it had to be published with a home field advantage in a
pro-drug publication that maintains a strong bias in favor of
pharmaceuticals and chemicals.


Junk science and faulty conclusions
Aside from these obvious and worrisome conflicts of interest, the
conclusions being made about autism and vaccines in the mainstream media are
simply not supported by the study. The (distorted) logic we're hearing goes
like this:


Yes, vaccines used to contain mercury. And yes, all those little kids were
injected with mercury. And yes, autism rates skyrocketed. But then when the
mercury was taken out of the vaccines, the autism rates didn't come back
down. Therefore, the logic goes, vaccines are safe!


This is such sloppy cause/effect logic that it makes the idiot CNN Health
editors who published a story about "junk foods being good for your waist"
look like sheer geniuses!


What's wrong with the logic? Consider the use of mercury in the vaccines: It
was used as a preservative chemical to prevent vaccine spoilage. When the
mercury was removed, it was replaced with other preservative chemicals that
are also toxic to the human nervous system. Thus, the continuing increase in
autism rates following vaccination may be due to the toxic chemicals that
replaced thimerosal. While mercury injections probably initiated the
increase in autism, the toxic substance has been replaced with other
dangerous chemicals that are continuing to increase the risk of autism.


Here's an example to explain this a bit mo


We all know that sodium nitrite in processed meat causes cancer, right?
Well, let's say that for ten years, somebody feeds all the kids sodium
nitrite and cancer rates skyrocket. Then, they take all the sodium nitrite
out of the food and replace it with a different cancer-causing chemical that
they keep feeding the kids. Guess what? The cancer rates don't come down.
Therefore, the logic goes, sodium nitrite didn't cause cancer in the first
place!


Notice that when mercury was removed from vaccines (which is not entirely
true, by the way, bringing into question yet more details about this study),
the rates of autism did not drop? This means the vaccines remain dangerous
to children. Autism continued to climb right alongside vaccination rates,
indicating the possibility that something in the vaccines (or a combination
of various chemicals) may very well be responsible for the increase. Based
on the fact that thimerosal was replaced with other toxic chemicals in the
vaccines, there is absolutely no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any
harmful effects. There are too many variables operating now, and no study
can isolate one variable (thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be
harmless.


The truth is that scientists have no idea what's causing autism. They
acknowledge the alarming increase in the rates of autism now being observed
in the population, but with this new study, they claim, "Mercury is safe!"


Let me add this study to the enormous stack of other B.S. studies from
modern medical researchers. Let's see, I have a study here that declares
aspartame to be safe. A second study in my database says that Vioxx is safe.
Another study says Teflon is safe. And yet another study claims that
cigarette smoke doesn't cause lung cancer or heart disease! In fact, for
virtually every toxic chemical created by industry, there's a B.S. study
proclaiming its safety! The history of science is full of such nonsense, all
funded or influenced by the corporations that manufacture and sell these
toxic chemicals or drugs.


The fact that industry has managed to create yet another study declaring a
toxic substance (thimerosal) to be safe when injected into children is
certainly not surprising. This is an industry that is not bound by the rules
of logic, ethics or common scientific sense. It simply finds ways to
influence researchers, cherry pick studies and distort science to get
whatever results it wants. That's how we're now hearing things like,
"Mercury is safe to inject into children!" -- an idea that's utterly absurd
at any dose.


What the mercury / vaccine study actually proves
Even if you believe the results of this study, it only demonstrates that
removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce vaccine toxicity to children.
Autism rates are still on the rise, right along with vaccination rates.
Multiple toxic chemicals and substances are contained in vaccines, and the
mercury in thimerosal may have simply been one factor among many.


The only reasonable, scientifically-minded conclusion we can draw from the
study is that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce autism in
children. If removing thimerosal from vaccines made them safer, we should
have seen autism rates go down, but we did not! Autism rates continued to
climb in direct correlation to vaccination rates, indicating that mercury is
not the only toxic substance causing neurological problems in children.


Notice, carefully, that this is nothing close to what's being reported in
the mainstream media, where headlines are blaring junk science nonsense
like, "Vaccines pose no risk for autism" (San Jose Mercury News) and
"Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism" (Slashdot, which should know better).
Even WIRED News got it wrong with: "California Study Finds No Link Between
Vaccines, Autism."


The correct headline should be, "Removal of Mercury From Vaccines Fails to
Halt Rise in Autism."


Or, "Removing Mercury From Vaccines Does Not Make Them Safer."


Nobody reported that. Apparently, telling the truth about research involving
vaccines is not a popular option in the mainstream media (MSM).
Businessweek, publishing a HealthDay report by Randy Dotinga, invokes
particularly bad logic with this opening statement, "Adding to a growing
body of evidence that rejects the idea that immunizations boost autism
rates, a new study finds no proof that incidences of the disorder dropped
after makers of most childhood vaccines stopped using a mercury-based
preservative in their products."


Huh? How does a study focused only on mercury "reject the idea that
immunizations boost autism rates?" Did the author of that report not notice
that autism rates continue to increase as vaccination rates go up?
Eliminating one chemical from the causative factors does not in any way
clear the safety of all the other chemicals or ingredients used in vaccines.


The mainstream media, which repeatedly demonstrates astonishing ignorance on
issues of nutrition and health, also seems to have very little ability to
interpret scientific studies and reach reasoned conclusions about what those
studies do or do not prove.


Was the vaccine study another example of corrupt science?
Besides, this entire discussion is based on the idea that we can trust the
research in the first place. If there's one thing we've learned about modern
medicine since watching all the Vioxx scandals, Avandia cover-ups and
scientific corruption in research circles, it's that drug companies can help
create whatever research conclusions they want.


And let's face it: Big Pharma will always produce science that protects its
profits. Gee, Big Tobacco came up with all sorts of research that said
tobacco smoke wasn't harmful and nicotine wasn't addictive. Some of that
research appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, too. Does that mean the
research was scientifically accurate and "conclusive?" Of course not. It was
just plain old junk science, hijacked by a powerful corporation with a clear
profit motive.


If all that sounds familiar, it's because drug companies are playing the
same game with science today that Big Tobacco played decades ago: Influence
the science, bury the bad news and propagandize the good news. It's the
oldest play in the spin book, and Big Pharma has patterned it perfectly from
Big Tobacco.


You see, the relevant question in this discussion is not simply whether
mercury-containing vaccines cause autism. The question at hand is whether we
can even trust the "science" being conducted on this subject. Do the
researchers who conducted this study have any financial ties to the
manufacturers of those vaccines? Have they received any speaking fees? Do
they own stock in those companies? If so, this completely discredits their
research due to obvious conflicts of interest.


Now, I don't have any direct evidence that the researchers in this
particular mercury vaccine study were corrupted or influenced by Big Pharma,
but as an honest, independent think who knows the truth about drug
companies, the mainstream media and the profit motive behind much of the
science appearing in the press today, I maintain a default position of
skepticism when it comes to reading these studies.


By default, I distrust the drug companies and any so-called "research" that
claims injecting mercury into the bodies of children is harmless. That
should be the default position held by any rational person who understands
basic human biochemistry. Toxic chemicals and heavy metals must be
distrusted from the outset.


The drug and chemical industries, notably, take precisely the opposite
approach. To them, all chemicals and drugs are safe until proven dangerous.
This is how dangerous drugs get released into the marketplace and only
recalled after tens of millions of prescriptions have been written and many
thousands of people have died. The drug companies routinely treat the
population as drug testing guinea pigs, and the used of vaccines on children
is no different.


I find it interesting that genuine scientific skepticism seems to vanish
when the topic shifts to pharmaceuticals. Sure, all the skeptics and quack
critics will go to town on topics like acupuncture, mind-body medicine or
even the efficacy of botanical medicines, but when the discussion turns to
things like mercury in vaccines or amphetamine drugs for kids with ADHD, all
such skepticism immediately vanishes. They accept the safety and efficacy of
such treatments without question. Rational thought is rapidly discarded.
Vaccines simply must be safe. Why? Because everybody else in the medical
industry says so!


Were the journalists injected with mercury, too?
With this whole charade about a study "disproving" any link between mercury
and vaccines, the modern medical industry has once again shown its infantile
intellect and its utter lack or scientific integrity or clear-headed
skepticism. Is this study really the best they can come up with? A study
that shows absolutely no drop in autism rates when ingredients are
reformulated in vaccines? A study that didn't even attempt to take into
account the other toxic ingredients in vaccines?


This is the new standard of "conclusive" science in medicine today?


Give me a break. The only thing that can be conclusively derived from
observing all this is that mainstream media journalists continue to function
at a very low level of scientific literacy, lacking any skills of mental
reason by which scientific studies might be assessed. There is no thought
that has gone into the media's reporting of this story; only bandwagon
parroting of each other's bad conclusions of a study that, in reality,
proves nothing. It's yet another hilarious mainstream media circle jerk, and
the fact that so many people keep buying this dim-witted reporting just
proves that this nation remains woefully deficient in basic science
education.


One point worth mentioning here is that there is absolutely no requirement
to have any real understanding of science, medicine, chemistry or physics to
graduate from a top-notch journalism school. And when journalists have no
idea what they're talking about, they go the default route and simply
rewrite whatever was e-mailed to them in the corporate press release! Thus,
modern skills of journalism do not require any independent thought
whatsoever. They only require the ability to rephrase something already told
to them by the spinmeisters at Corporation X.


Correct me if I'm wrong: Is there a single mainstream reporter -- even
one? -- that reported the correct conclusion from this vaccine research?


I challenge you to find one. I've looked. There isn't one.


The dumbing down of the mainstream media is now complete. I can't wait to
see what headlines will come next:


"Prescription Drugs That Killed Patients Found Innocent Since Patients Did
Not Come Back to Life After the Drugs Were Removed"


Or:


"Radiation From Mammograms Found Harmless Because Death Rates Continued to
Climb Even After Mammography was Halted"


Or my favorite: "Ephedra Herb Banned After Ten Deaths; Drugs Are Safer
Because They Only Kill 100,000 Americans a Year"


I'm beginning to wonder if all the journalists have been injected with
mercury.





....

Based on the fact that thimerosal was
replaced with other toxic chemicals in the vaccines, there is absolutely
no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any harmful effects.

Please back this claim that thimerosal was replaced by other toxic
chemicals.

I have already.


ALUMINUM HYDROXIDE
ALUMINUM PHOSPHATE
AMMONIUM SULFATE
AMPHOTERICIN B
ANIMAL TISSUES PIG BLOOD, HORSE BLOOD, RABBIT BRAIN, DOG KIDNEY, MONKEY
KIDNEY,
CHICK EMBRYO, CHICKEN EGG, DUCK EGG
CALF (BOVINE) SERUM
BETAPROPIOLACTONE
FETAL BOVINE SERUM
FORMALDEHYDE (used for embalming)
FORMALIN
GELATIN
GLYCEROL
HUMAN DIPLOID CELLS (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
HYDROLIZED GELATIN
MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE (msg)
NEOMYCIN
NEOMYCIN SULFATE
ORCHID BONO
PHENOL RED INDICATOR
PHENOXYETHANOL (antifreeze)
POTASSIUM DIPHOSPHATE
POTASSIUM MONOPHOSPHATE
POLYMYXIN B
POLYSORBATE 20
POLYSORBATE 80
PORCINE (pig) PANCREATIC HYDROLYSATE OF CASEIN
RESIDUAL MRC5 PROTEINS
SORBITOL
SUCROSE

"David Wright" wrote in message
. ..
In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:13 pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article e41d6b34-9ff1-4bb8-a2fc-

As D.C. Sessions already pointed out, if a mother gets an injection,
most of the mercury (if any) goes into her body, not the fetus's.


UHmm, Wronger and rarely right, are you saying that you know more than
the EPA and its scientists?

The EPA is telling pregnant women to avoid fish due to the level of
mercury that may be in it. I have yet to know how much is absorbed
through the gut wall, but the concensus is that the absorbed mercury
crosses the placental barrier and is very, very toxic to the
developing fetus.

Virtually all of it through the gut wall, as I posted earlier today.
Figures you wouldn't know it already and it's a cinch you're too
incompetent a researcher to find out on your own.

Now, injected mercury is ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is at least 3x as
toxic as methyl mercury. Secondly, via injection, the damn stuff is
100% absorbed.

And then excreted. You keep forgetting that part. Conveniently.

NO, it goes to the brain. That is NOT excreted.

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Ethylmercury is at least 3x as
toxic as methyl mercury.

Do you ever get tired of lying, not-Dr Cee?

Says the proven liar.

Ped Med: Mercury differences raise concern


Published: Oct. 25, 2006 at 12:44 PM

UPI Senior Science Writer
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 25 (UPI) -- Recent research shows the type of mercury
the government relied on as a reference in setting safety standards for
children's vaccines differs significantly from the type that was actually
present in the shots -- and still remains in some of them.

Thomas Burbacher's study -- one of the first to look beyond blood and into
the brain to determine vaccine-related mercury distribution -- confirmed,
overturned and added to previous findings on how ethylmercury and
methylmercury compare and contrast.

Ethylmercury is found in thimerosal, a preservative once commonly used in
children's shots which detractors hold responsible for a rise in diagnoses
of autism and other neurodevelopmental problems in America's young.

Because much more research has been conducted on the effects on the human
body of methylmercury -- the kind found in power plant pollution -- than of
ethylmercury, the former was used as a measuring stick when the government
formulated its safety limits for thimerosal amounts in vaccines.

Thimerosal has been phased out of most shots administered to children, with
the exception of some booster and flu immunizations recommended for pregnant
women and babies as young as six months.

In the first study to directly compare the blood and brain levels of the two
chemicals in infant primates, Burbacher and his team at the Center on Human
Development and Disability and the Infant Primate Research Laboratory at the
University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine in
Seattle came to some startling conclusions.

Their study showed the ethylmercury in shots is eliminated about three times
faster from the bloodstream than is the methylmercury in fish, as previous
research had suggested.

Burbacher's study nixed the widespread assumption that of the pair,
ethylmercury -- long viewed as the lesser of the two evils -- has a more
difficult time getting to the brain. Instead, it noted that it's just as
easy, and maybe even easier, for the thimerosal toxin to make the trip.

The study also came up with some new and potentially troubling findings,
which showed that in the body, thimerosal breaks down to ethylmercury, which
rapidly crosses the blood-brain barrier, where it converts to so-called
"inorganic" mercury that stays put in the sensitive organ for at least a
year and likely much longer.

However, the research did not go beyond tracing the path of mercury through
the body.

While critical, the results tell nothing of the actual effects of the
compounds on human growth and development, Burbacher emphasized.

That both defenders and detractors of a thimerosal-autism link saw the
findings as a boost for their respective points of view reflects the
complexity of the question, the meagerness of our understanding of the
complexity of the issue and the eagerness of each side to gather support for
its position.

Confounding the public further, news reports of the results showed a
similarly confusing duality of interpretation. Consider the following two
examples:

Story 1:

"The (National Institutes of Health)-funded study ... found that thimerosal,
best known for its use as an ethylmercury-based preservative in infant
vaccines and pregnancy shots, is actually more toxic to the brain than
methylmercury."

Story 2:

"The mercury contained in some vaccines is processed differently in the body
and is possibly less toxic to children than mercury found in pollution and
fish."

The lead investigator's take: "Neither side is right."

The ongoing research stands at the very beginning of a long and winding road
toward determining what, if any, effects thimerosal in the amounts found in
vaccines has on a baby's maturing system, Burbacher said in a telephone
interview.

"Thus far, what we've tried to do is provide very basic information on what
happens to mercury when you inject it in a vaccine because that information
is not known," he explained. "It's surprising we'd be (vaccinating children)
all these years without knowing (what the mercury does)."

His preliminary results showed nearly three times less total mercury in
newborn monkeys' brains after they got a thimerosal-containing shot than
after they ingested a comparable oral dose of methylmercury.

But, the researchers also noted ethylmercury's fast breakdown left double
the dose of the enduring inorganic form trapped in the brains of the
thimerosal-injected group.

"Having less total mercury in your brain is good news, but having this
inorganic mercury twice as high in your brain is concerning," Burbacher
said.

In general, the nervous system shows sensitivity to all forms of mercury,
which, at high levels, can permanently damage the brain, kidneys and
developing fetus, resulting in irritability, shyness, tremors and problems
with vision, hearing, attention, language and memory, among other effects.

However, the mechanisms by which organic mercury is converted to the
inorganic form in the brain are unknown, and there is no consensus on the
type and extent of damage that results.

"Previous studies indicate inorganic mercury may be toxic, but there are no
studies in a developing brain, so we don't know," Burbacher stressed.

Research he's conducted with adult monkeys suggests the inorganic form can
affect certain brain cells, including microglia, the immune system
scavengers that gobble up dead matter and other debris -- the same cells
that appear damaged in children with autism.

"I'm not looking to see if monkeys have autism but whether monkeys who got a
dose of thimerosal have changes in the brain and, if so, the next question
will be is the change functionally important, does it affect learning or
memory," Burbacher said.

It will take years, perhaps decades, to fit all the pieces to the puzzle, he
said.

In the meantime, "you can tell parents they need to be careful in what they
read in the paper," Burbacher advised. "I'm a strong proponent of
vaccination. I wouldn't like this data to be used (as a reason for) children
not (getting) their vaccination."

Among investigations delving deeper into thimerosal's effects, the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring research of a
large number of infants, including premature and low-birth-weight babies, in
Buenos Aires, where mercury-containing vaccines are still administered to
children.

(Note: In this multi-part installment, based on dozens of reports,
conferences and interviews, Ped Med is keeping on eye on autism, taking a
backward glance at its history and surrounding controversies, facing facts
revealed by research and looking forward to treatment enhancements and
expansions.)

Next: Case rests on circumstantial evidence


--
Peter Bowditch

In message , David Wright wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Get you head out of your ass. Find another source of income. Stop
poisoning babies while in the womb and less than one year old.

Hey, up yours, Cee, you incompetent and silly scumbag. I have said
multiple times that I am not a medical person. I'm not poisoning
anyone, because I'm not injecting anyone with anything.

Well, admittedly I'm always hoping to inject a little enlightenment
into your poorly-functioning brain, but that's a huge longshot.

It would be excreted immediately.

--
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+

In message , Peter Bowditch wrote:
wrote:

Ethylmercury is at least 3x as
toxic as methyl mercury.

Do you ever get tired of lying, not-Dr Cee?

Chuckles is actually very logical. If a fact could logically
cast doubt on one of his dogmas, it must not be true. If
there's no other way for it to be false, it must be
fabricated.

Similarly, if his religion requires that something be true
(e.g., ethylmercury being more toxic than methylmercury)
then that *is* true, and only awaits discovery.

You'll notice that he keeps asking for me to refute one of
his "N babies die following vaccination" and I keep telling
him that I can do it from his own primary data.

No primary data has yet appeared.

--
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+

On Mar 20, 9:13*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:17*pm, Jeff wrote:

If thimerosal caused so much harm, where is the reduction of harm when
thimerosal was removed from vaccines?

Jeff

First of all, the thimerosal content was "LOWERED", not removed.
Thimerosal was not reduced in vaccines until after 2003.

I would ask if you get tired of lying about this, but clearly you
don't.

Chuckie is impervious to facts. Here is hi spictu

http://www.finepics.com/~mreed/warri...rouscranus.htm


Thimerosal was removed from newly-manufactured standard children's
vaccines starting in 2001, and vaccines older than that had expired by
2003. *Even then, most of the earlier stocks were gone.

Many vaccines still contain mercury as thimerosal, the flu shot for
example.

"Many" vaccines do not use thimerosal. *The only one that's commonly
recommended for children and contains thimerosal is flu vaccine, and
it is available in thimerosal-free versions.

The controlling powers have decided to cover up the thimerosal problem
by getting pregnant women to take thimerosal containing vaccines while
pregnant, when the thimerosal can do even more damage to the fetus
plus requiring the infants to now get a flu shot. *Damn, can the
public be this stupid and gullible?

They could be -- after all, you're stupid and gullible, not to mention
innumerate and a really sleazy liar. *But I digress.

As D.C. Sessions already pointed out, if a mother gets an injection,
most of the mercury (if any) goes into her body, not the fetus's.

Autism can have numerous causes, mercury plus aluminum is the worst
case.

According to you. *Based on nothing.

* -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
* * *These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
* * *"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Bill Maher

On Mar 20, 9:49*pm, wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:13*pm, (David Wright) wrote:

In article e41d6b34-9ff1-4bb8-a2fc-

As D.C. Sessions already pointed out, if a mother gets an injection,
most of the mercury (if any) goes into her body, not the fetus's.

UHmm, Wronger and rarely right, are you saying that you know more than
the EPA and its scientists?

The EPA is telling pregnant women to avoid fish due to the level of
mercury that may be in it.

Methyl mercury, you moron and non-chemist. Not Ethyl Mercury.

*I have yet to know how much is absorbed
through the gut wall, but the concensus is that the absorbed mercury
crosses the placental barrier and is very, very toxic to the
developing fetus.

Do prove this, idiot.

Now, injected mercury is ethylmercury. *Ethylmercury is at least 3x as
toxic as methyl mercury. *

An absolute lie, dipwad.

Secondly, via injection, the damn stuff is
100% absorbed.

And rapidly excreted through various means.

Get you head out of your ass. *

Hmmm...is there a new TV show coming? "Make Room For Chuckie"????

by Mike Adams

His pictu http://www.finepics.com/~mreed/warri...rouscranus.htm

In message , Mark Probert wrote:

Chuckie is impervious to facts. Here is hi spictu

http://www.finepics.com/~mreed/warri...rouscranus.htm

A dense bogon field (or maybe just dense) isn't exactly a
distinguishing characteristic here. I agree that D--
strongly resembles Ferrouscranus, but I don't see some of
the others (notably Carole and Scudamore) in that picture
despite both of them being equally adamant and clue-impervious.

--
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+

Question - I heard, but don't know for sure - that England banned thimersol
from its vaccines for a period of time in the 80's and during that time, the
incidence of autism continued to rise. Anyone know if this is true? If so,
anyone with details? Thx.


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 9:49 pm, wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:13 pm, (David Wright) wrote:

In article e41d6b34-9ff1-4bb8-a2fc-

As D.C. Sessions already pointed out, if a mother gets an injection,
most of the mercury (if any) goes into her body, not the fetus's.

UHmm, Wronger and rarely right, are you saying that you know more than
the EPA and its scientists?

The EPA is telling pregnant women to avoid fish due to the level of
mercury that may be in it.

Methyl mercury, you moron and non-chemist. Not Ethyl Mercury.

I have yet to know how much is absorbed
through the gut wall, but the concensus is that the absorbed mercury
crosses the placental barrier and is very, very toxic to the
developing fetus.

Do prove this, idiot.

Now, injected mercury is ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is at least 3x as
toxic as methyl mercury.

An absolute lie, dipwad.

Secondly, via injection, the damn stuff is
100% absorbed.

And rapidly excreted through various means.

Get you head out of your ass.

Hmmm...is there a new TV show coming? "Make Room For Chuckie"????