Elimination of mercury

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

Joking, joking, joking and I didn't try to imply any individual.
One seems to be running a hate campaign though.

Vernon 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.

They can swim for it.

Jason Johnson wrote:
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.

You must love the use of logic and science.

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

In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

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.

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

Hello,
Thanks for your post. No, I don't know the names of any professors that
have been fired for teaching their students that global warming also took
place during PETM (Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximun). Some experts believe
that the
global warming that is now taking place is happening for the same reasons
that it took place during PETM. Pollution is a major problem but volcanoes
are usually ignored when global warming is discussed in science classes. I
have NOT seen Al Gore's movie about global warming but it's my guess that
the "pollution" produced by volcanoes was NOT discussed in detail in that
movie.

It's my guess that the people that work with Dr. Boyd Haley also have a
"low" opinion about Dr. Boyd Haley. His bosses probably give have poor
evaluations.

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

Jason Johnson wrote:
snip

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.

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

Hello,
Thanks for your post. No, I don't know the names of any professors that
have been fired for teaching their students that global warming also took
place during PETM (Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximun). Some experts believe
that the
global warming that is now taking place is happening for the same reasons
that it took place during PETM.

I've no idea if that is so, but I'll take your word for it. Your
argument is specious, though: no professor would be fired for that
reason, because no professor would deny, or even try to hide the fact
that the earth has been subject to global warming before. It's not in
question. Although I don't know the specifics, not being a
climatologist, it's common knowledge that the earth has suffered
periods of cooling and warming. The question is whether suffering
warming now, and if so, is mankind contributing?


Pollution is a major problem but volcanoes
are usually ignored when global warming is discussed in science classes. I
have NOT seen Al Gore's movie about global warming but it's my guess that
the "pollution" produced by volcanoes was NOT discussed in detail in that
movie.

Why not watch it instead of guessing? Gore, of course, is neither a
climatologist or a professor: he's a politician and entertainer, and
not really relevant to a discussion of academic freedom.


It's my guess that the people that work with Dr. Boyd Haley also have a
"low" opinion about Dr. Boyd Haley. His bosses probably give have poor
evaluations.

Obviously that wouldn't surprise me either, since he's come up with a
theory and failed to provide any evidence to back it up. Oh, and he's
sticking with it in the face of evidence that refutes it, always a bit
embarrassing for a scientist.


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

In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
snip

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.

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

Hello,
Thanks for your post. No, I don't know the names of any professors that
have been fired for teaching their students that global warming also took
place during PETM (Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximun). Some experts believe
that the
global warming that is now taking place is happening for the same reasons
that it took place during PETM.

I've no idea if that is so, but I'll take your word for it. Your
argument is specious, though: no professor would be fired for that
reason, because no professor would deny, or even try to hide the fact
that the earth has been subject to global warming before. It's not in
question. Although I don't know the specifics, not being a
climatologist, it's common knowledge that the earth has suffered
periods of cooling and warming. The question is whether suffering
warming now, and if so, is mankind contributing?


Pollution is a major problem but volcanoes
are usually ignored when global warming is discussed in science classes. I
have NOT seen Al Gore's movie about global warming but it's my guess that
the "pollution" produced by volcanoes was NOT discussed in detail in that
movie.

Why not watch it instead of guessing? Gore, of course, is neither a
climatologist or a professor: he's a politician and entertainer, and
not really relevant to a discussion of academic freedom.


It's my guess that the people that work with Dr. Boyd Haley also have a
"low" opinion about Dr. Boyd Haley. His bosses probably give have poor
evaluations.

Obviously that wouldn't surprise me either, since he's come up with a
theory and failed to provide any evidence to back it up. Oh, and he's
sticking with it in the face of evidence that refutes it, always a bit
embarrassing for a scientist.


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

Cathy,
I visited google and typed "fired professors" and found lots of examples
of professors that have been fired. In some of those cases, academic
freedom was
involved. I tried to copy and paste one of the articles but failed. I
suggest that you type the name "Thomas Klocek" into the google search
engine and read
some of those articles. He was a professor that taught that Israel had a right
to exist and was an advocate for Israel. Some of the Arab students in his
class (or classes) complained and he was fired. I believe that this is a
clear cut case of Professor Kocek's Academic Freedom being violated. I
could not find any examples of professors that were fired related to
teaching that global warming is NOT caused by pollution from factories and
cars. I am sorry that I did not write down the URL of the site that I
visited.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oops--Mark is replying to Jason.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
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.

You must love the use of logic and science.

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 message
...
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

Thank you. What makes you think I was distracted?

Checked my recent posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....5d7b4816e6f6ab

Perhaps you are not aware. I had mercury poisoning from Mercury Amalgams.
Came very close to DEATH.

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

Jason Johnson wrote:
snip

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.

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

Hello,
Thanks for your post. No, I don't know the names of any professors that
have been fired for teaching their students that global warming also took
place during PETM (Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximun). Some experts
believe
that the
global warming that is now taking place is happening for the same reasons
that it took place during PETM.

I've no idea if that is so, but I'll take your word for it. Your
argument is specious, though: no professor would be fired for that
reason, because no professor would deny, or even try to hide the fact
that the earth has been subject to global warming before. It's not in
question. Although I don't know the specifics, not being a
climatologist, it's common knowledge that the earth has suffered
periods of cooling and warming. The question is whether suffering
warming now, and if so, is mankind contributing?


Pollution is a major problem but volcanoes
are usually ignored when global warming is discussed in science classes.
I
have NOT seen Al Gore's movie about global warming but it's my guess that
the "pollution" produced by volcanoes was NOT discussed in detail in that
movie.

Why not watch it instead of guessing? Gore, of course, is neither a
climatologist or a professor: he's a politician and entertainer, and
not really relevant to a discussion of academic freedom.

Care to prove that?


It's my guess that the people that work with Dr. Boyd Haley also have a
"low" opinion about Dr. Boyd Haley. His bosses probably give have poor
evaluations.

Obviously that wouldn't surprise me either, since he's come up with a
theory and failed to provide any evidence to back it up. Oh, and he's
sticking with it in the face of evidence that refutes it, always a bit
embarrassing for a scientist.

What evidence?


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

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

Oh, dear, another anecdote. And diversion.

Do you realise how stupid it makes you look when you misuse the word
"anecdote", Jan?

I realize that is your famous *how stupid*.




"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)

Why would I want to ignore that? Except for the fact that it is
irrelevant to my life or the life of any other person I can think of.

Really? You can't think of *me*?

Oh, that's right. YOU deny I had mercury poisoning from MERCURY amalgams.

You also LIE there is no such thing.



--
Peter Bowditch

Deleted LIES + SPAM. That Peter LIED about.


What are you talking about?

LOL!!!

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....7ed05c117b3e8a

Two days ago.

Ginkgo.................

"Jan Drew" wrote:


snip


Wanna see some SPAM SPAM SPAM???

That YOU ignored!!



No spam below, but thanks for posting the links, Jan


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/index.html


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/health.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/vaxliars.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/racism.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/religion.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/creationism.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/sexuality.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/pseudoscience.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/cults.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/mlm.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/others.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/magazines.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/art.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/nogood.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/reviews/bl_rife.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...eforchrist.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...avincicode.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...endoffaith.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/reviews/mg_fads.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...renheit911.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/reviews/tl_god.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...sciencegod.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/.../jm_poison.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/..._merchants.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...cw_quantum.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...rootofevil.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...cereligion.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/...fscripture.htm


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/


click her to buy your copy


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/gl/index.html


http://www.acahf.org.au/


http://www.skeptics.com.au/


https://secure5.ozhosting.com/skepti...erchandise.htm


https://secure5.ozhosting.com/skeptics/shop/shop.htm


http://www.ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy...dingMain1.html


Items To Buy


http://www.ratbags.com/loon/


click here to buy your copy


http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer...orderform.html


http://www.amazon.com/gp/homepage.ht...545882-0907302


http://www.consumerlab.com/index.asp?claffid=101024


http://www.consumerlab.com/book/index.asp


buy now


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...OD&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...OD&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...OD&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/mer...GY&Store_Code=...


http://www.skepticstoolbox.org/2006-registration.html


http://csicop.safeshopper.com/


http://www.csicop.org/giftshop/


http://csicop.safeshopper.com/5/cat5.htm?572


http://csicop.safeshopper.com/5/16.htm?572


http://csicop.safeshopper.com/5/13.htm?572


http://csicop.safeshopper.com/5/15.htm?572


http://csicop.safeshopper.com/5/14.htm?572


http://csicop.safeshopper.com/5/17.htm?572


http://csicop.safeshopper.com/5/10.htm?572


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087...07302?n=283155


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...p/102-2545882-...


http://www.csicop.org/si/outer-edge/


http://www.csicop.org/si/ufo-invasion/


http://www.csicop.org/si/encounters/


http://www.csicop.org/si/encounters/


http://www.consumerlab.com/book/index.asp


order online now




--
Peter Bowditch