Elimination of mercury

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
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.

Irrelevant. The FACT is you repsonded to Jason.

Busted again.

"cathyb" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

That's nice that you are sorry.

My meaning is very clear.

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

NO. I did not failed again.

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

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....0712d6acb1f7e6

What on earth are you on about, Jan? Mark simply reiterates that he
won't engage in discussion with Jacob. Is there a point to your post?

The point to my post was showing Mark changed his words.

Indeed he responded to Jason.

FACT: YOU tried to cover for Mark YOU failed. HarASSer.

Note that I merely comment on your posts, and, until such time as you
email me, I will not engage in a discussion with you.

Note how Mark changes his words......


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/f3db5f3991...


Jul 30 2006 12:57 pm


BTW, just for your information, if wish to have further discussion with
me, I suggest that you email me.


mark{dot}probert{at}gmail{dot}com


No email, no further responses.


==


Since then Mark HAS responded. In the same thread.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/fabb845871...


Mon, Jul 31 2006 9:38 am


[Here is where he changes his words....]


Jason, until you email me as I requested, I will merely comment on what
you post, and not engage in discussion with you.

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow! Get updated to her repeating of the LIES on her buddy [who lies for
her] websites.

Then the LIES of the *mad cow disease*

Oh, dear, another anecdote. And diversion.



"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"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

Restored what Peter would like to igno

Source Average Human Daily Dose of MercuryDental
Amalgam
3.0-17.0 ug/day (hgvapor)

--
Peter Bowditch

Deleted LIES + SPAM. That Peter LIED about.

How typical for the HarASSer.


http://www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam

===

http://www.y2khealthanddetox.c*om/mercuryinfo.html

[not surprised this disappeared]


14. Both Health Canada (1996) and world Health Organization (1991) consider
dental amalgams to be the single largest source of mercury exposure for the
general public, with amalgam potentially contributing up to 84% (WHO, 1991)
or
total daily intake of all forms of mercury from all sources,


http://www.valleyadvocate.com/*articles/dental.html

[ditto to the above]


Autopsy studies in Sweden, Germany and the United States have also
established
that people with amalgams have significantly more mercury in their brains
and
kidneys than those without, and the mercury concentration increases with the
number of amalgams. Furthermore, the World Health Organization has stated
that
amalgam fillings constitute the majority of mercury exposure for people with
amalgams -- more than every other mercury source combined. This finding has
been independently verified by the national insurance program Health Canada
and
by the National Institutes of Dental Research.


===

http://www.icnr.com/uam/hgcourse/M4/SciLit5.html

The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all
the other sources together.


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news
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!

Funny. How Mark goes the round about way to respond to Jason.

Poor Mark.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article , "Jan Drew"
wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow! Get updated to her repeating of the LIES on her buddy [who lies for
her] websites.

Then the LIES of the *mad cow disease*

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

Jan,
I try to avoid getting distracted from subjects other than mercury,
aluminum and vaccines. I was distracted when someone confused me by making
use of a three dollar word for rain water and discussing pure sodium. I
should not have even mentioned academic freedom in a post. Question: Is
Dr. Boyd Haley a chemistry professor in a state college? Is he the person
that believes that mercury is the cause of autism? Don't let anyone
distract you. Check your most recent posts to determine whether or not
mercury, aluminum or vaccines are mentioned in any of those posts. Have
you been distracted? Have a great week.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
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.


There a couple people here who wish you would go out on the Atlantic off the
Florida coast.

In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
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.


There a couple people here who wish you would go out on the Atlantic off the
Florida coast.

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

Vernon,
Not me. I enjoy discussing mercury, aluminum and vaccines with Mark.
I love the way he discounts research studies that do not support
his point of view. I try to keep an open mind related to research
studies regardless of whether they support my point of view. To be
honest: I don't trust research studies that are funded by drug
companies in relation to medications or vaccines by that same
drug company.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jason Johnson wrote:
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 the professor came up with some evidence for his contention, he
would be treated with respect; this hasn't so far happened. He would,
quite rightly, be treated with derision in any science department if he
tried to make such a claim without evidence.


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.

If the professor came up with some evidence for his contention, he
would be treated with respect; this hasn't so far happened. He would,
quite rightly, be treated with derision in any science department if he
tried to make such a claim without evidence.


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

Oh, I see. You have no example of anyone being fired for teaching that
pollution doesn't cause global warming. Not surprising; it's not a done
deal and there are arguments and research showing that it does, and
that it's negligible in the big scheme of climate change. I know little
about it, but the consensus seems to be moving steadily towards
pollution being a major problem.

But basically, you were bull****ting when you wrote that someone would
be fired for disagreeing with that consensus.


What is your opinion of Dr. Boyd Haley?

Very low indeed.


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

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