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

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.

Jan Drew wrote:
....

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.

Please explain why the rate of autism did not fall after timerosal was
stopped, and, if these other toxic chemcials where the cause, what these
other chemicals were and the evidence that they autism.

There are
too many variables operating now, and no study can isolate one variable
(thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be harmless.

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

Jeff


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.

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.

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

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?

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

Mercury causes neurological incompetence.
Aluminum causes nerurological incompetence.
Diptheria toxoid causes brain swelling ( a mere loss of about 10 IQ
points and the worlds's worst migraine head ache.)
MMR can cause enteritis, gut pain where there should be no pain.

These are just a few of the benefits of vaccine ingredients, not to
mention the possibility of....cancer. ( Proven in animals.)

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.

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.

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

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

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.

And as I pointed out, evil spirits don't diffuse, they
attack. They know what their target is, and they go after
the "vital forces" of the fetus.

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

According to you. Based on nothing.

Based on Revelation of Higher Truth! How *DARE* you
doubt him?

--
| 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 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.

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

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.

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.

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.

Um, actually, recent studies show that women who consume more fish
during pregnancy have smarter children than women who avoid fish.

In message , 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.

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.

Methylmercury, absorbed at greater than 85%.
A 180 gm tuna sandwich at 0.5 ppm = 90 mcg of mercury,
85% amounts to 76 mcg in momma.

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

Not really: Arch Toxicol. 1985 Sep;57(4):260-7.

Granting that /arguendo/ you now need 25 mcg in the injection
to match one sandwich. How many sandwiches in nine months?

Since you're not capable of doing these complex calculations
on your own, you might try hunting down a fifth-grader to
help you with them.

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

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.

Also, your claim that ethylmercury is more toxic than methylmercury is
flat wrong.

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.

-- 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

wrote:

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

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

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