David Ayoub, M.D. Goes Crazy [was: David Ayoub, M.D. goes through the relations of Mercury to Autism ]

Bryan Heit wrote:
JOHN wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
JOHN wrote:
"The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine." ----- Bernard Rimland
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
John, since the evidence is so overwhelming, perhaps you could point it
out to us. What scientific or medical studies support the link? I've had
a lot of trouble finding this overwhelming evidence - instead I always
seem to find evidence that shows the opposite:

For example:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...cetype=HW CIT
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Bryan

Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html


And once again, John is completely unable to even begin to counter the
evidence. All he can do is blow it off as "junk science". Typical;
can't deal with the message so he shoots (well, ignores anyways) the
messenger.

Lets try this again, John. I know, from your own claims, that you
believe that:

1) Thimerisol causes autism (false, but lets play pretend here),
2) That rates of autism are increasing (true), and
3) That some places have removed thimerisol from their vaccines (also true).

Now John, given the above three points (all of which you've stated to
agree with at some point or another), how is it that the removal of
thimerisol HAS NOT LEAD to a decrease in autism?

Simple question. One you've avoided again, and again. Do you have the
balls to answer it this time?

Bryan

This reply would seem to be a dodge, since it did not even come close
to addressing the above issue of phagocytosis and the roll thimerosal
plays therein.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
JOHN wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
JOHN wrote:
"The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine." ----- Bernard Rimland
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
John, since the evidence is so overwhelming, perhaps you could point it
out to us. What scientific or medical studies support the link? I've had
a lot of trouble finding this overwhelming evidence - instead I always
seem to find evidence that shows the opposite:

For example:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...cetype=HW CIT
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Bryan
Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html

And once again, John is completely unable to even begin to counter the
evidence. All he can do is blow it off as "junk science". Typical;
can't deal with the message so he shoots (well, ignores anyways) the
messenger.

Lets try this again, John. I know, from your own claims, that you
believe that:

1) Thimerisol causes autism (false, but lets play pretend here),
2) That rates of autism are increasing (true), and
3) That some places have removed thimerisol from their vaccines (also true).

Now John, given the above three points (all of which you've stated to
agree with at some point or another), how is it that the removal of
thimerisol HAS NOT LEAD to a decrease in autism?

Simple question. One you've avoided again, and again. Do you have the
balls to answer it this time?

Bryan

This reply would seem to be a dodge, since it did not even come close
to addressing the above issue of phagocytosis and the roll thimerosal
plays therein.

Max.


Please enlighten me as to where the term "phagocytosis" entered this
conversation? I see no mention of the word in any post in this thread,
as it exists in sci.med.immunology (where I am accessing it). As you
can clearly see in the text above (which contains the material of the
last few posts in this thread) we were talking about autism, not
phagocytosis.

Typical of the anti-vac crowd. They cannot answer the question, so they
try and dodge the issue by raising new, often irrelevant points.

And while we're on the topic, what link is their between autism and
phagocytosis? The cells effected in autism (neurons, astrocytes, and
presumably other structural elements of the brain) don't phagocytose.

Bryan

Bryan Heit wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
JOHN wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
JOHN wrote:
"The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine." ----- Bernard Rimland
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
John, since the evidence is so overwhelming, perhaps you could point it
out to us. What scientific or medical studies support the link? I've had
a lot of trouble finding this overwhelming evidence - instead I always
seem to find evidence that shows the opposite:

For example:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...cetype=HW CIT
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Bryan
Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html

And once again, John is completely unable to even begin to counter the
evidence. All he can do is blow it off as "junk science". Typical;
can't deal with the message so he shoots (well, ignores anyways) the
messenger.

Lets try this again, John. I know, from your own claims, that you
believe that:

1) Thimerisol causes autism (false, but lets play pretend here),
2) That rates of autism are increasing (true), and
3) That some places have removed thimerisol from their vaccines (also true).

Now John, given the above three points (all of which you've stated to
agree with at some point or another), how is it that the removal of
thimerisol HAS NOT LEAD to a decrease in autism?

Simple question. One you've avoided again, and again. Do you have the
balls to answer it this time?

Bryan

This reply would seem to be a dodge, since it did not even come close
to addressing the above issue of phagocytosis and the roll thimerosal
plays therein.

Max.


Please enlighten me as to where the term "phagocytosis" entered this
conversation? I see no mention of the word in any post in this thread,
as it exists in sci.med.immunology (where I am accessing it). As you
can clearly see in the text above (which contains the material of the
last few posts in this thread) we were talking about autism, not
phagocytosis.

Typical of the anti-vac crowd. They cannot answer the question, so they
try and dodge the issue by raising new, often irrelevant points.

And while we're on the topic, what link is their between autism and
phagocytosis? The cells effected in autism (neurons, astrocytes, and
presumably other structural elements of the brain) don't phagocytose.

Bryan

That's very interesting, since you replied to John's post that
contained the term. You snipped out the portion that contained it. It
said the following:

"Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html

"The vaccine contains 125,000 nanomolar level of mercury if it has
Thimerosal as a preservative. That's a huge amount. And one nanomolar
levels
in the baby will prevent the macrophages from going through
phagocytosis. In
other words, they will lose their ability to eat viruses and bacteria
that
are in the blood that shouldn't be there, and so Thimerosal suppresses
the
immune system. This is well known and has been well described in the
literature for a long time; that mercury is an immune system suppressor
and
you see that these autistic children have a truckload of immune
problems. So
you would prevent that from occurring. That is documented research and
I don't
know how the government can even ignore it, or the agencies of the
government can ignore it. Interview of Dr. Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small:
http://www.whale.to/v/haley3.html "

So I'll give you a chance to address that. I'm very curious to hear
your take on it.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
JOHN wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
JOHN wrote:
"The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine." ----- Bernard Rimland
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
John, since the evidence is so overwhelming, perhaps you could point it
out to us. What scientific or medical studies support the link? I've had
a lot of trouble finding this overwhelming evidence - instead I always
seem to find evidence that shows the opposite:

For example:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...cetype=HW CIT
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Bryan
Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
And once again, John is completely unable to even begin to counter the
evidence. All he can do is blow it off as "junk science". Typical;
can't deal with the message so he shoots (well, ignores anyways) the
messenger.

Lets try this again, John. I know, from your own claims, that you
believe that:

1) Thimerisol causes autism (false, but lets play pretend here),
2) That rates of autism are increasing (true), and
3) That some places have removed thimerisol from their vaccines (also true).

Now John, given the above three points (all of which you've stated to
agree with at some point or another), how is it that the removal of
thimerisol HAS NOT LEAD to a decrease in autism?

Simple question. One you've avoided again, and again. Do you have the
balls to answer it this time?

Bryan
This reply would seem to be a dodge, since it did not even come close
to addressing the above issue of phagocytosis and the roll thimerosal
plays therein.

Max.

Please enlighten me as to where the term "phagocytosis" entered this
conversation? I see no mention of the word in any post in this thread,
as it exists in sci.med.immunology (where I am accessing it). As you
can clearly see in the text above (which contains the material of the
last few posts in this thread) we were talking about autism, not
phagocytosis.

Typical of the anti-vac crowd. They cannot answer the question, so they
try and dodge the issue by raising new, often irrelevant points.

And while we're on the topic, what link is their between autism and
phagocytosis? The cells effected in autism (neurons, astrocytes, and
presumably other structural elements of the brain) don't phagocytose.

Bryan

That's very interesting, since you replied to John's post that
contained the term. You snipped out the portion that contained it. It
said the following:

"Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html

"The vaccine contains 125,000 nanomolar level of mercury if it has
Thimerosal as a preservative. That's a huge amount. And one nanomolar
levels
in the baby will prevent the macrophages from going through
phagocytosis.


This is very misleading. Basic chemistry/math shows just how misleading
this statement is.

Before we start, just define a few terms.

1) molar mean concentration, in moles/liter. We abbreviate this as M.
2) moles means absolute amount. No abbreviation for that
3) nano means 1x10-9 (0.000000001), so a 1 nanomolar solution of
thiermisal would have 1x10-9 moles of thimerisal in a 1 liter volume.

The vaccine is 1250 nM, which is the same as 1.25x10^-6M thimerisol,
meaning that one liter (1000ml) of vaccine contains 1.25x10^-6 moles of
thimerisol (1.25x10^-6 is the same as 1250x10^-9).

I don't know what the standard volume is of the vaccine in question, but
most vaccines are in the range of 0.1 to ~2ml in volume. We'll be
generous, and assume a whopping huge vaccine of 10ml (0.01L) (i.e. 5 to
100x the normal vaccine volume).

So a baby receiving the whole 10ml of this vaccine would get:

1.25x10^-6M x 0.01L = 1.25x10-8 moles, or 12.5 nanomoles total thiermisol.

Now that 12.5 nanmoles of thimerisol will distribute throughout the
body. To keep things simple we'll assume it distributes evenly (this is
false, but it simplifies matters).

A newborn baby, weighing 9lbs (4.09kg) has a total body volume of ~4L
(the human body has a density of 0.99-1.07kg/L). So the 12.5 nanomoles
of thimerisal gets distributed throughout a 4L volume, giving a final
concentration of:

12.5 nanmoles / 4L = 3.125nM, or 3.125x10^-9M

Keep in mind that is a worst-case scenario. More realistic values are
0.1-2ml vaccine volumes, which if you go back through the math give you
whole-body thimerisal concentrations of 0.032nM to 1.56nM, levels which
have little to no effect on phagocytosis.

Now according to this article:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...5.2005.04241.x

1) Thiermisal, at this concentration, inhibits macrophage phagocytosis
of red blood cells by ~30%.

2) At concentrations ~10x this thimeresal has a weak toxic effect.

So this "huge" inhibition of macrophage function is not so huge; stress
hormones are more inhibitory then that. For example, noradrenalin
inhibits macrophage phagocytosis by about the same amount at a
concentration 1/1000th that of thimerisal - at 1x10^-12M. So the
effects of thimerisal on phagocytosis is equivalent to the effects of
the baby getting a little scared.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


In
other words, they will lose their ability to eat viruses and bacteria
that
are in the blood that shouldn't be there, and so Thimerosal suppresses
the
immune system.


To an extent far less then our bodies own stress hormones. and the
effects are transitory - thimerisal is rapidly cleared by our bodies.
The half life in infants is approximately 5-7 days. This means that in
our worst-case scenario after just one week thimerisal levels would have
dropped below inhibitory levels.

It is much less then that for normal-sized vaccine doses.

This is well known and has been well described in the
literature for a long time; that mercury is an immune system suppressor
and
you see that these autistic children have a truckload of immune
problems.

Except that the immune problems faced by autistic children are the exact
opposite of what you'd predict based on thimerisal's effects. Autistic
children are prone to allergies and autoimmune diseases - diseases which
are due to an overactive immune system.

In the case of both types of disease, macrophage and macriphage
phagocytosis play a central role in initiating the disease. Before
autoimmunity can occur a macrophage (or the related DC cells) must first
phagocytose the substance the allergy/autoimmunity is directed against.
No phagocytosis, no allergy/autoimmunity.

So how exactly would this inhibitory agent cause the hyperactivity neede
for allergy/autoimmunity?

For that matter, why don't more potent inhibitory agents (i.e. stress
hormones, immunoinhibitory drugs) result in either autism, or the
related immune-mediated diseases?


So I'll give you a chance to address that. I'm very curious to hear
your take on it.

As for autism, this all isn't that relevant. All medical evidence
suggests that autism is something which starts in the womb, probably as
a misforming of neural pathways within the brain. Fetuses are not
exposed to significant levels of thimerisal, nor do they have an active
immune system which the thimerisal can act against (in fact, animals can
form babies without macrophage being present, as shown by
macrophage-deficient mice). For that matter, the cells most defective
in autism (neurons and other brain structures) do not undergo
phagocytosis, so this phagocytosis concern is meaningless in the view of
that fact.

And lastly, you anti-vac people are still faced with one very difficult
question - why is it that removal of thimerisal from all childhood
vaccinations has not resulted in a decrease in autism? It's been done
in Canada, Sweden, Denmark, parts of the US, and several other places,
and yet in each and every one of those places autism rates continue to
rise.

John is too cowardly to answer that question, as is Jan. Perhaps you
will. But I fail to see how you can continue to believe the
thimerisal-autism link in the face of that very simple fact:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...cetype=HW CIT
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Bryan

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
JOHN wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
JOHN wrote:
"The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from
the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine." ----- Bernard Rimland
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html
John, since the evidence is so overwhelming, perhaps you could point
it
out to us. What scientific or medical studies support the link?
I've had
a lot of trouble finding this overwhelming evidence - instead I
always
seem to find evidence that shows the opposite:

For example:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...cetype=HW CIT
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Bryan
Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
And once again, John is completely unable to even begin to counter the
evidence. All he can do is blow it off as "junk science". Typical;
can't deal with the message so he shoots (well, ignores anyways) the
messenger.

Lets try this again, John. I know, from your own claims, that you
believe that:

1) Thimerisol causes autism (false, but lets play pretend here),
2) That rates of autism are increasing (true), and
3) That some places have removed thimerisol from their vaccines (also
true).

Now John, given the above three points (all of which you've stated to
agree with at some point or another), how is it that the removal of
thimerisol HAS NOT LEAD to a decrease in autism?

Simple question. One you've avoided again, and again. Do you have
the
balls to answer it this time?

Bryan
This reply would seem to be a dodge, since it did not even come close
to addressing the above issue of phagocytosis and the roll thimerosal
plays therein.

Max.

Please enlighten me as to where the term "phagocytosis" entered this
conversation? I see no mention of the word in any post in this thread,
as it exists in sci.med.immunology (where I am accessing it). As you
can clearly see in the text above (which contains the material of the
last few posts in this thread) we were talking about autism, not
phagocytosis.

Typical of the anti-vac crowd. They cannot answer the question, so they
try and dodge the issue by raising new, often irrelevant points.

And while we're on the topic, what link is their between autism and
phagocytosis? The cells effected in autism (neurons, astrocytes, and
presumably other structural elements of the brain) don't phagocytose.

Bryan

That's very interesting, since you replied to John's post that
contained the term. You snipped out the portion that contained it. It
said the following:

"Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html

"The vaccine contains 125,000 nanomolar level of mercury if it has
Thimerosal as a preservative. That's a huge amount. And one nanomolar
levels
in the baby will prevent the macrophages from going through
phagocytosis.


This is very misleading. Basic chemistry/math shows just how misleading
this statement is.

Before we start, just define a few terms.

1) molar mean concentration, in moles/liter. We abbreviate this as M.
2) moles means absolute amount. No abbreviation for that
3) nano means 1x10-9 (0.000000001), so a 1 nanomolar solution of
thiermisal would have 1x10-9 moles of thimerisal in a 1 liter volume.

The vaccine is 1250 nM, which is the same as 1.25x10^-6M thimerisol,
meaning that one liter (1000ml) of vaccine contains 1.25x10^-6 moles of
thimerisol (1.25x10^-6 is the same as 1250x10^-9).

I don't know what the standard volume is of the vaccine in question, but
most vaccines are in the range of 0.1 to ~2ml in volume. We'll be
generous, and assume a whopping huge vaccine of 10ml (0.01L) (i.e. 5 to
100x the normal vaccine volume).

So a baby receiving the whole 10ml of this vaccine would get:

1.25x10^-6M x 0.01L = 1.25x10-8 moles, or 12.5 nanomoles total thiermisol.

Now that 12.5 nanmoles of thimerisol will distribute throughout the body.
To keep things simple we'll assume it distributes evenly (this is false,
but it simplifies matters).

A newborn baby, weighing 9lbs (4.09kg) has a total body volume of ~4L (the
human body has a density of 0.99-1.07kg/L). So the 12.5 nanomoles of
thimerisal gets distributed throughout a 4L volume, giving a final
concentration of:

12.5 nanmoles / 4L = 3.125nM, or 3.125x10^-9M

Keep in mind that is a worst-case scenario. More realistic values are
0.1-2ml vaccine volumes, which if you go back through the math give you
whole-body thimerisal concentrations of 0.032nM to 1.56nM, levels which
have little to no effect on phagocytosis.

Now according to this article:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...5.2005.04241.x

1) Thiermisal, at this concentration, inhibits macrophage phagocytosis of
red blood cells by ~30%.

2) At concentrations ~10x this thimeresal has a weak toxic effect.

So this "huge" inhibition of macrophage function is not so huge; stress
hormones are more inhibitory then that. For example, noradrenalin
inhibits macrophage phagocytosis by about the same amount at a
concentration 1/1000th that of thimerisal - at 1x10^-12M. So the effects
of thimerisal on phagocytosis is equivalent to the effects of the baby
getting a little scared.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

In
other words, they will lose their ability to eat viruses and bacteria
that
are in the blood that shouldn't be there, and so Thimerosal suppresses
the
immune system.


To an extent far less then our bodies own stress hormones. and the
effects are transitory - thimerisal is rapidly cleared by our bodies. The
half life in infants is approximately 5-7 days. This means that in our
worst-case scenario after just one week thimerisal levels would have
dropped below inhibitory levels.

It is much less then that for normal-sized vaccine doses.

This is well known and has been well described in the
literature for a long time; that mercury is an immune system suppressor
and
you see that these autistic children have a truckload of immune
problems.

Except that the immune problems faced by autistic children are the exact
opposite of what you'd predict based on thimerisal's effects. Autistic
children are prone to allergies and autoimmune diseases - diseases which
are due to an overactive immune system.

In the case of both types of disease, macrophage and macriphage
phagocytosis play a central role in initiating the disease. Before
autoimmunity can occur a macrophage (or the related DC cells) must first
phagocytose the substance the allergy/autoimmunity is directed against. No
phagocytosis, no allergy/autoimmunity.

So how exactly would this inhibitory agent cause the hyperactivity neede
for allergy/autoimmunity?

For that matter, why don't more potent inhibitory agents (i.e. stress
hormones, immunoinhibitory drugs) result in either autism, or the related
immune-mediated diseases?


So I'll give you a chance to address that. I'm very curious to hear
your take on it.

As for autism, this all isn't that relevant. All medical evidence
suggests that autism is something which starts in the womb, probably as a
misforming of neural pathways within the brain. Fetuses are not exposed
to significant levels of thimerisal, nor do they have an active immune
system which the thimerisal can act against (in fact, animals can form
babies without macrophage being present, as shown by macrophage-deficient
mice). For that matter, the cells most defective in autism (neurons and
other brain structures) do not undergo phagocytosis, so this phagocytosis
concern is meaningless in the view of that fact.

And lastly, you anti-vac people are still faced with one very difficult
question - why is it that removal of thimerisal from all childhood
vaccinations has not resulted in a decrease in autism? It's been done in
Canada, Sweden, Denmark, parts of the US, and several other places, and
yet in each and every one of those places autism rates continue to rise.

John is too cowardly to answer that question, as is Jan. Perhaps you
will. But I fail to see how you can continue to believe the
thimerisal-autism link in the face of that very simple fact:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...cetype=HW CIT
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Bryan

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....53fc9e5f6256a4

Skeptic" wrote in message

newsLiPf.10079$oL.6429@attbi_s71...


Ilena wrote in message
...
LOL ... the infamous and dubious never board certified 'doctor' ... best
known as Sue em and Lose Quack Barrett ... was never able to pass any
board certifications in decades of 'practicing' his Quackery!


He now has disbarred attorney Mark S Probert as his "Vac Flack" helping
him harass someone whose credenitals far exceed either Quack Barrett or
Quack Flack Probert's ...


These two deceitful Quacks claim to 'know' that autism is never caused by
vaccines ...


All that we know about vaccines is that there is no credible evidence that
they are linked to autism.



*Substantial* *real* *solid* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable*
*significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct* *unreliable*

http://www.flu.org.cn/news/2004986362.htm
Thimerosal,New study reopens debate on vaccinations
Published: Sep ,8,2004 16:21 PM
By ###
Special to The Wall Street Journal & Medicalnewstoday


By Tara Parker-Pope
The Wall Street Journal


Just a few months after the nation's top medical adviser rejected a link
between vaccines and autism, a mouse study has reignited the debate and
raised new fears among parents considering vaccinations and flu shots for
their kids.


For years, a cadre of parents and physicians have contended that thimerosal,
an ethyl-mercury compound that has been one of the most widely used vaccine
preservatives, is partly responsible for an apparent rise in autism in
recent decades. But broad population studies haven't supported the claim. In
May, a major report from the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety
Review Committee rejected a link between autism and vaccines.


But today, a congressional committee will review a June study from Columbia
University, which found that a preservative used in vaccines can cause
autism-like symptoms in a specific strain of mice. The research raises
questions about whether some people might be genetically vulnerable to the
effects of thimerosal.


The study also raises questions about a new push by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to add flu shots to the immunization schedule for
school-age kids. The vast majority of flu shots given still contain the
preservative.


In the study, researchers administered thimerosal to four strains of young
mice. Three of the mice strains were unaffected by thimerosal, but the
fourth developed problems consistent with autism such as delayed growth,
social withdrawal and brain abnormalities. The mice were known to have a
genetic susceptibility to mercury.


Thimerosal, found in childhood vaccines, can increase the risk of
autism-like damage in mice


A new study indicates that postnatal exposure to thimerosal, a mercury
preservative commonly used in a number of childhood vaccines, can lead to
the development of autism-like damage in autoimmune disease susceptible
mice. This animal model, the first to show that the administration of
low-dose ethylmercury can lead to behavioral and neurological changes in the
developing brain, reinforces previous studies showing that a genetic
predisposition affects risk in combination with certain environmental
triggers. The study was conducted by researchers at the Jerome L. and Dawn
Greene


Infectious Disease Laboratory at the Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University. Over the past 20 years, there has been a striking
increase--at least ten-fold since 1985--in the number of children diagnosed
with autism spectrum disorders. Genetic factors alone cannot account for
this rise in prevalence. Researchers at the Mailman School, led by Dr. Mady
Hornig, created an animal model to explore the relationship between
thimerosal (ethylmercury) and autism, hypothesizing that the combination of
genetic susceptibility and environmental exposure to mercury in childhood
vaccines may cause neurotoxicity.


Cumulative mercury burden through other sources, including in utero
exposures to mercury in fish or vaccines, may also lead to damage in
susceptible hosts. Timing and quantity of thimerosal dosing for the mouse
model were developed using the U.S. immunization schedule for children, with
doses calculated for mice based on 10th percentile weight of U.S. boys at
age two, four, six, and twelve months.


The researchers found the subset of autoimmune disease susceptible mice with
thimerosal exposure to express many important aspects of the behavioral and
neuropathologic features of autism spectrum disorders, including:


Abnormal response to novel environments;


Behavioral impoverishment (limited range of behaviors and decreased
exploration of environment); Significant abnormalities in brain
architecture, affecting areas subserving emotion and cognition; Increased
brain size.


These findings have relevance for identification of autism cases relating to
environmental factors; design of treatment strategies; and development of
rational immunization programs. The use of thimerosal in vaccines has been
reduced over the past few years, although it is still present in some
influenza vaccines. Identifying the connection between genetic
susceptibility and an environmental trigger for autism--in this case
thimerosal exposure--is important because it may promote discovery of
effective interventions for and limit exposure in a specific population,
stated the lead author Dr. Mady Hornig. Because the developing brain can be
exposed to toxins that are long gone by the time symptoms appear, clues
gathered in these animal models can then be evaluated through prospective
human birth cohorts--providing a powerful to tool to dissect the interaction
between genes and the environment over time.


Citation source: Molecular Psychiatry 2004 Volume 9, advance on line
publication doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001529


For further information on this work, please contact Mady Hornig, MD,
Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Greene Infectious
Disease Laboratory, 722 W 168th St, New York, New York 10032, United States
of America, phone: 212-342-9036; FAX: 949-824-1229; e-mail:



ARTICLE: "Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse
strain-dependent"


M Hornig, D Chian, W. I. Lipkin


Greene Infectious Disease Laboratory, Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University, 722 W 168th St, New York, New York 10032




Medical Beat
Friday, March 3, 2006
http://www.baynews9.com/content/8/2006/3/3/146817.html


Why autism rates may be dropping.


(NewsMax) - A new study shows that autism may be linked after all to
the use of mercury in childhood vaccines, despite government's
previous claims to the contrary.
An article in the March 10, 2006 issue of the Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS.org) shows that since mercury was
removed from childhood vaccines, the alarming increase in reported
rates of autism and other neurological disorders (NDs) in children not
only stopped, but actually dropped sharply - by as much as 35 percent.


Using the government's own databases, independent researchers analyzed
reports of childhood NDs, including autism, before and after removal
of mercury-based preservatives. Authors David A. Geier, B.A. and Mark
R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D. analyze data from the CDC's Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the California Department of
Developmental Services (CDDS) in "Early Downward Trends in
Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of
Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines."


The numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high
of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would
have skyrocketed to more than 1000 by the beginning of 2006. But in
fact, the Geiers report that the number actually went down to only
620, a real decrease of 22 percent, and a decrease from the
projections of 35 percent.


This analysis directly contradicts 2004 recommendations of the
Institute of Medicine which examined vaccine safety data from the
National Immunization Program (NIP) of the CDC. While not willing to
either rule out or to corroborate a relationship between mercury and
autism, the IOM soft-pedaled its findings, and decided no more studies
were needed. The authors write: "The IOM stated that the evidence
favored rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal and
autism, that such a relationship was not biologically plausible, and
that no further studies should be conducted to evaluate it."


As more and more vaccines were added to the mandatory schedule of
vaccines for children, the dose of the mercury-based preservative
thimerosal rose, so that the cumulative dose injected into babies
exceeded the toxic threshold set by many government agencies. Mercury
is known to damage nerve cells in very low concentrations.


The concern about vaccines may actually be underrated, as it is
generally acknowledged that the voluntary reporting of such disorders
has resulted in vast underreporting of new cases. For example, the
Iowa state legislature banned thimerosal from all vaccines
administered there after it documented a 700-fold increase in that
state alone. California followed suit, and 32 states are considering
doing so.


Up until about 1989 preschool children got only 3 vaccines (polio,
DPT, MMR). By 1999 the CDC recommended a total of 22 vaccines to be
given before children reach the 1st grade, including Hepatitis B,
which is given to newborns within the first 24 hours of birth. Many of
these vaccines contained mercury. In the 1990s approximately 40
million children were injected with mercury-containing vaccines.


The cumulative amount of mercury being given to children in this
number of vaccines would be an amount 187 times the EPA daily exposure
limit. Between 1989 and 2003, there has been an explosion of autism.
The incidence of autism (and other related disorders) went from about
1 in 2,500 children to 1 in every 166. Currently there are more than a
half million children in the U.S. that have autism. This disorder has
devastated families.


In 1999, on the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics
and U.S. Public Health Service, thimerosal was removed from most
childhood vaccines as a "precautionary" measure - i.e. without
admitting to any causal link between thimerosal and autism.


The Geiers conclude that mercury continues to be a concern, as it is
still added to some of the most commonly-used vaccines, such as those
for flu:


"Despite its removal from many childhood vaccines, thimerosal is still
routinely added to some formulations of influenza vaccine administered
to U.S. infants, as well as to several other vaccines (e.g.
tetanus-diphtheria and monovalent tetanus) administered to older
children and adults. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) retreated from the stated 1999
goal of the AAP and the PHS to remove thimerosal from U.S. vaccines as
soon as possible?As a result, assessing the safety of TCVs is a matter
of significant importance."

Bryan Heit wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
And while we're on the topic, what link is their between autism and
phagocytosis? The cells effected in autism (neurons, astrocytes, and
presumably other structural elements of the brain) don't phagocytose.

Bryan

That's very interesting, since you replied to John's post that
contained the term. You snipped out the portion that contained it. It
said the following:

"Not a load of junk or fraudulent science again, I collect them here
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html

"The vaccine contains 125,000 nanomolar level of mercury if it has
Thimerosal as a preservative. That's a huge amount. And one nanomolar
levels
in the baby will prevent the macrophages from going through
phagocytosis.


This is very misleading. Basic chemistry/math shows just how misleading
this statement is.

Before we start, just define a few terms.

1) molar mean concentration, in moles/liter. We abbreviate this as M.
2) moles means absolute amount. No abbreviation for that
3) nano means 1x10-9 (0.000000001), so a 1 nanomolar solution of
thiermisal would have 1x10-9 moles of thimerisal in a 1 liter volume.

The vaccine is 1250 nM, which is the same as 1.25x10^-6M thimerisol,
meaning that one liter (1000ml) of vaccine contains 1.25x10^-6 moles of
thimerisol (1.25x10^-6 is the same as 1250x10^-9).

I don't know what the standard volume is of the vaccine in question, but
most vaccines are in the range of 0.1 to ~2ml in volume. We'll be
generous, and assume a whopping huge vaccine of 10ml (0.01L) (i.e. 5 to
100x the normal vaccine volume).

So a baby receiving the whole 10ml of this vaccine would get:

1.25x10^-6M x 0.01L = 1.25x10-8 moles, or 12.5 nanomoles total thiermisol.

Now that 12.5 nanmoles of thimerisol will distribute throughout the
body. To keep things simple we'll assume it distributes evenly (this is
false, but it simplifies matters).

A newborn baby, weighing 9lbs (4.09kg) has a total body volume of ~4L
(the human body has a density of 0.99-1.07kg/L). So the 12.5 nanomoles
of thimerisal gets distributed throughout a 4L volume, giving a final
concentration of:

12.5 nanmoles / 4L = 3.125nM, or 3.125x10^-9M

Keep in mind that is a worst-case scenario. More realistic values are
0.1-2ml vaccine volumes, which if you go back through the math give you
whole-body thimerisal concentrations of 0.032nM to 1.56nM, levels which
have little to no effect on phagocytosis.

Now according to this article:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...5.2005.04241.x

1) Thiermisal, at this concentration, inhibits macrophage phagocytosis
of red blood cells by ~30%.

2) At concentrations ~10x this thimeresal has a weak toxic effect.

So this "huge" inhibition of macrophage function is not so huge; stress
hormones are more inhibitory then that. For example, noradrenalin
inhibits macrophage phagocytosis by about the same amount at a
concentration 1/1000th that of thimerisal - at 1x10^-12M. So the
effects of thimerisal on phagocytosis is equivalent to the effects of
the baby getting a little scared.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


In
other words, they will lose their ability to eat viruses and bacteria
that
are in the blood that shouldn't be there, and so Thimerosal suppresses
the
immune system.


To an extent far less then our bodies own stress hormones. and the
effects are transitory - thimerisal is rapidly cleared by our bodies.
The half life in infants is approximately 5-7 days. This means that in
our worst-case scenario after just one week thimerisal levels would have
dropped below inhibitory levels.

It is much less then that for normal-sized vaccine doses.

This is well known and has been well described in the
literature for a long time; that mercury is an immune system suppressor
and
you see that these autistic children have a truckload of immune
problems.

Except that the immune problems faced by autistic children are the exact
opposite of what you'd predict based on thimerisal's effects. Autistic
children are prone to allergies and autoimmune diseases - diseases which
are due to an overactive immune system.

In the case of both types of disease, macrophage and macriphage
phagocytosis play a central role in initiating the disease. Before
autoimmunity can occur a macrophage (or the related DC cells) must first
phagocytose the substance the allergy/autoimmunity is directed against.
No phagocytosis, no allergy/autoimmunity.

So how exactly would this inhibitory agent cause the hyperactivity neede
for allergy/autoimmunity?

For that matter, why don't more potent inhibitory agents (i.e. stress
hormones, immunoinhibitory drugs) result in either autism, or the
related immune-mediated diseases?


So I'll give you a chance to address that. I'm very curious to hear
your take on it.

As for autism, this all isn't that relevant. All medical evidence
suggests that autism is something which starts in the womb, probably as
a misforming of neural pathways within the brain. Fetuses are not
exposed to significant levels of thimerisal, nor do they have an active
immune system which the thimerisal can act against (in fact, animals can
form babies without macrophage being present, as shown by
macrophage-deficient mice). For that matter, the cells most defective
in autism (neurons and other brain structures) do not undergo
phagocytosis, so this phagocytosis concern is meaningless in the view of
that fact.

And lastly, you anti-vac people are still faced with one very difficult
question - why is it that removal of thimerisal from all childhood
vaccinations has not resulted in a decrease in autism? It's been done
in Canada, Sweden, Denmark, parts of the US, and several other places,
and yet in each and every one of those places autism rates continue to
rise.

John is too cowardly to answer that question, as is Jan. Perhaps you
will. But I fail to see how you can continue to believe the
thimerisal-autism link in the face of that very simple fact:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...cetype=HW CIT
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Bryan

First, I appreciate you taking the time to post all of that. I think
you have me wrong. I am not "anti vac" per se. Indeed, there *are* a
hand full of vaccinations I plan on getting for my child. I'm just not
going to rush her down to get any ol' vaccine just because there's one
available. However, I have a few comments and questions.

1 - So, do I understand correctly that you think the article is
misleading because the level of mercury in an individual vaccine is not
at the 125,000 nM level?

2 - I have a problem with the statement that thimerosal clears from the
body rapidly; mainly for 2 reasons. 1 - studies on primates have shown
that some of the mercury in thimerosal ends up in brain tissue. 2 -
one of the studies used to make the statement that mercury clears from
the body quickly measured levels of mercury in the blood. That is no
way to measure mercury cleared from the body.

3 - there are many reasons why levels of autism could still be going
up. As Mark Probert stated, diagnosis is much better now, and more
people are being labeled austistic that may have gone unlabeled in the
past. There is at least some evidence that autism may be caused by one
of the attenuated viruses in the MMR, indicating that there may be more
than one cause of autism. Diagnostic criteria for autism may have
changed. This was one of the big problems with diagnosis of polio. As
soon as the vaccine came out for polio, the diagnostic criteria for
polio suddenly switched, being changed to paralytic polio being the one
that was recorded, and non-paralytic polio being relabeled.

Again, I appreciate your time. You seem well versed on this issue.
Yes, I'm an "altie" but I like to think I have an open mind about most
things.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
snip me old post

First, I appreciate you taking the time to post all of that. I think
you have me wrong. I am not "anti vac" per se.


In that case I apologize for putting you into that pigeon hole. I hope
you were not offended by that. Too used to dealing with John/Jan I guess.


Indeed, there *are* a
hand full of vaccinations I plan on getting for my child. I'm just not
going to rush her down to get any ol' vaccine just because there's one
available.

Fair enough. I would actually agree with you on this point - getting
vaccinated against things which you're not going to get exposed to is a
little silly.

I get a lot of vaccinations cause of my job, but for your average joe
what I receive would be hugely excessive.


However, I have a few comments and questions.

1 - So, do I understand correctly that you think the article is
misleading because the level of mercury in an individual vaccine is not
at the 125,000 nM level?


No. Although I'm not sure what vaccine in particular that article is in
reference to, but that level of thimerisal is found in some vaccines
(although it is a little on the high end).

My point was that the levels of thimerisal the infant receives, as well
as the *consequences* of that have been exaggerated greatly.

Keep in mind that nM is a concentration - i.e. a quantity of thimerisal
per volume of vaccine. So to get 125,000nM timerisal concentration in
your body you would have to inject an amount of vaccine equivalent to 2x
the volume of your body - in the case of an infant that would be about 8
*liters* of vaccine.

Obviously, that doesn't happen. Instead, you receive a very small
injection (usually less than 2ml, or 0.002L). As such the actual amount
of thimerisal your body receives is quite minimal. In the case of an
infant it *might* reach, for a day or two, levels where a mild
inhibitory effect on macrophage phagocytosis is seen.

And that inhibitory effects is insignificant when compared to other
inhibitory things - i.e. the stress hormones the babies body will
produce from time to time.


2 - I have a problem with the statement that thimerosal clears from the
body rapidly; mainly for 2 reasons. 1 - studies on primates have shown
that some of the mercury in thimerosal ends up in brain tissue.


Yes, but the amount is very small, far below toxic levels. And
secondly, that mercury is in a form which is relatively non-toxic (ethyl
mercury), and it is also a form of mercury which is readily cleared,
even from the brain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


2 -
one of the studies used to make the statement that mercury clears from
the body quickly measured levels of mercury in the blood. That is no
way to measure mercury cleared from the body.


But it is. Most mercury, before it can leave the body, must travel
through the blood to the sites of clearance (bowl and kidneys). There
is a continual movement of this mercury from the blood into tissues, and
vice versa. So although blood levels do not indicate the exact
concentration of mercury in each and every tissue, they are indicative
of how much mercury remains in the body, and how well that mercury is
being removed.

Also, as you can see in the link above, thimerisal movement in/out of
the brain has been assayed, so we can fairly reliably calculate, based
on blood concentrations, what the brain concentrations are.


3 - there are many reasons why levels of autism could still be going
up. As Mark Probert stated, diagnosis is much better now, and more
people are being labeled austistic that may have gone unlabeled in the
past. There is at least some evidence that autism may be caused by one
of the attenuated viruses in the MMR, indicating that there may be more
than one cause of autism.


That evidence has since been disproven. If anything the two studies
which made that link are great example of how not to conduct science -
no controls, no comparisons to non-autistic children, no relationship
other then time of onset. Here's just a few of the studies showing no
relationship between MMR and autism, the first one being the best proof
that autism is not linked to MMR. Long story short - the MMR vaccine
was only given to children in Japan for a short period of time. And
during that period of time rates of autism did not go up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


Diagnostic criteria for autism may have
changed.


True. But even with modern diagnostic criteria we're still seeing an
increase in autism. The current diagnostic criteria are now about a
decade old - you'd think that they'd be universal enough at this point
that the rate we observe is the true rate. And that rate is still climbing.

Bryan

PS: If you cannot get the papers I linked to just e-mail me directly
(remove the obvious to de-spammify my e-mail addy). I'm more then happy
to pass the PDF's onto anyone who wants them.

Bryan Heit wrote:
Max C. wrote:
snip me old post

First, I appreciate you taking the time to post all of that. I think
you have me wrong. I am not "anti vac" per se.


In that case I apologize for putting you into that pigeon hole. I hope
you were not offended by that. Too used to dealing with John/Jan I guess.

Not offended at all. I'm an "altie" in just about every other respect,
even on some vaccinations. It's an easy mistake to make.

Indeed, there *are* a
hand full of vaccinations I plan on getting for my child. I'm just not
going to rush her down to get any ol' vaccine just because there's one
available.

Fair enough. I would actually agree with you on this point - getting
vaccinated against things which you're not going to get exposed to is a
little silly.

This actually raises a good question I'd like to ask. One of the
vaccines I'm still on the fence about is polio. On the one hand, where
in the world is my baby going contract polio? Also, if she DOES get
polio, the odds of it doing permanent damage are pretty small. On the
other hand, if she DOES get polio, and *IF* that small chance happens,
it could be devastating. What's your opinion on the polio vaccine? I
understand it's now a dead virus vaccine... which is better, IMHO.

I get a lot of vaccinations cause of my job, but for your average joe
what I receive would be hugely excessive.


However, I have a few comments and questions.

1 - So, do I understand correctly that you think the article is
misleading because the level of mercury in an individual vaccine is not
at the 125,000 nM level?


No. Although I'm not sure what vaccine in particular that article is in
reference to, but that level of thimerisal is found in some vaccines
(although it is a little on the high end).

My point was that the levels of thimerisal the infant receives, as well
as the *consequences* of that have been exaggerated greatly.

I am understanding you to say that what counts is the final nM level
inside the injection recipient. I hope that's correct. My problem
with that is that the statement claims "one nanomolar levels in the
baby will prevent the macrophages from going through phagocytosis." It
would seem to me that levels in the body would still be higher than 1
nM if the vaccine is at 125,000 nM. There's also the consideration
that children often get multiple vaccines at one time. If each vaccine
had thimerosal, the levels would obviously go way up.

Keep in mind that nM is a concentration - i.e. a quantity of thimerisal
per volume of vaccine. So to get 125,000nM timerisal concentration in
your body you would have to inject an amount of vaccine equivalent to 2x
the volume of your body - in the case of an infant that would be about 8
*liters* of vaccine.

No, I understand that, and I didn't think the comments were trying to
say that thimerosal reached 125,000 nM inside the body. I don't think
trying to say that would fool anyone and would discredit the author
immediately.

Obviously, that doesn't happen. Instead, you receive a very small
injection (usually less than 2ml, or 0.002L). As such the actual amount
of thimerisal your body receives is quite minimal. In the case of an
infant it *might* reach, for a day or two, levels where a mild
inhibitory effect on macrophage phagocytosis is seen.

But again, my concern is 1 - the fact that it's usually more than one
vaccine and 2 - the evidence suggesting that mercury levels in the
brain are cumulative. I've posted links to evidence before, but I
don't have time to look them up again right now.

And that inhibitory effects is insignificant when compared to other
inhibitory things - i.e. the stress hormones the babies body will
produce from time to time.

But that's calculating only on 1 vaccine, right?

2 - I have a problem with the statement that thimerosal clears from the
body rapidly; mainly for 2 reasons. 1 - studies on primates have shown
that some of the mercury in thimerosal ends up in brain tissue.


Yes, but the amount is very small, far below toxic levels. And
secondly, that mercury is in a form which is relatively non-toxic (ethyl
mercury), and it is also a form of mercury which is readily cleared,
even from the brain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

I have some concerns about this study.

First, it's comparing injected thimerosal with oral intake of MeHg.
That's not a very good comparison. The digestive tract can eliminate
some of the MeHg before it ever enters the body.

Second, and I think this is THE most important factor of this study,
the final comment of the overview says:
"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."

Isn't most of our knowledge of mercury toxicity based on MeHg? This
study clearly states that more research is needed to determine the
differences of the 2 mercury types in the human body. That would
indicate to me that we don't fully understand the double edged sword
we've been playing with.

2 -
one of the studies used to make the statement that mercury clears from
the body quickly measured levels of mercury in the blood. That is no
way to measure mercury cleared from the body.


But it is. Most mercury, before it can leave the body, must travel
through the blood to the sites of clearance (bowl and kidneys). There
is a continual movement of this mercury from the blood into tissues, and
vice versa. So although blood levels do not indicate the exact
concentration of mercury in each and every tissue, they are indicative
of how much mercury remains in the body, and how well that mercury is
being removed.

I have 2 concerns about this. First, I don't think it *is* a good
indicator of how well the mercury is being removed. We know without
question that mercury can be and is stored in many tissues, including
the brain. If the body lacks the ability to remove mercury from those
tissues, it's not going to be in the blood. It could remain in the
tissues. That is, in fact, one suggestion by the mercury / autism
group. While I honestly have no idea about the mercury / autism
connection, I do not rule it out simply because it has not been proven.
I've read too much that says that there has been no single study that
puts an end to the question once and for all.

Second, I have seen no evidence of the half life of mercury once it
enters brain tissue. Elements moving across the blood brain barrier
work quite differently than elements moving in and out of muscle
tissue. I do not believe that the half life for mercury in the blood
can be reasonably used to estimate the half life of mercury in the
brain.

Along those lines, I'm concerned about the sentence in the above study
that says:
"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%)" I'm a
little confused by the terms organic and inorganic mercury. Is my
assumption correct that inorganic mercury is just a mercury atom not
bound to some sort of organic compound? It's the only way I can think
of to call mercury organic. If that's the case, it would seem to me
that inorganic mercury would be more damaging than organic mercury that
has already been bound by some form of organic compound.

Also, as you can see in the link above, thimerisal movement in/out of
the brain has been assayed, so we can fairly reliably calculate, based
on blood concentrations, what the brain concentrations are.

I don't think I follow you. I didn't see in the study where they were
able to calculate brain concentrations based on blood levels. Blood
levels dropped off quickly. It seemed to me that there was no
association except that brain levels went up when mercury was
introduced.

3 - there are many reasons why levels of autism could still be going
up. As Mark Probert stated, diagnosis is much better now, and more
people are being labeled austistic that may have gone unlabeled in the
past. There is at least some evidence that autism may be caused by one
of the attenuated viruses in the MMR, indicating that there may be more
than one cause of autism.


That evidence has since been disproven. If anything the two studies
which made that link are great example of how not to conduct science -
no controls, no comparisons to non-autistic children, no relationship
other then time of onset. Here's just a few of the studies showing no
relationship between MMR and autism, the first one being the best proof
that autism is not linked to MMR. Long story short - the MMR vaccine
was only given to children in Japan for a short period of time. And
during that period of time rates of autism did not go up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

I don't think that's a very fair comparison. It's also a bit
misleading. For one, it was a different vaccine, one that Japan opted
to stop giving because it had a high number of problems. Additionally,
the virus blamed for the autism was the measles virus.

http://www.autismconnect.org/news.as...e=news&id=5753

Japan quit giving the MMR only to start giving measles vaccine
injections in single jabs. It would seem to me that if measles is the
suspect, you'd have to get rid of the measles vaccine to properly see
if autism rates drop.

Diagnostic criteria for autism may have
changed.


True. But even with modern diagnostic criteria we're still seeing an
increase in autism. The current diagnostic criteria are now about a
decade old - you'd think that they'd be universal enough at this point
that the rate we observe is the true rate. And that rate is still climbing.

Like I said, I haven't decided where I stand on the mercury / autism
issue. I'm open to both sides but am very concerned that there is no
study that fully addresses the issue. It's such and important issue
that such a study should have been done decades ago when the first
accusations came on the scene. Honestly you and I shouldn't even be
discussing it right now. It should be a resolved issue. It'd be so
easy to address. Just compare people with similar lives but different
levels of vaccinations and see how the autism rates compare. I can't
say it doesn't bother me to read the dozens of reports I've seen saying
that autism rates are practically non-existent among non-vaccinated
children. Of course that's anecdotal, but enough anecdotal evidence
has been reported that this issue should have been put to rest long
ago.

Bryan

PS: If you cannot get the papers I linked to just e-mail me directly
(remove the obvious to de-spammify my e-mail addy). I'm more then happy
to pass the PDF's onto anyone who wants them.

Thanks again for the information. It's nice to debate this issue with
someone that can present facts and their own information in a well
presented manner and not have to resort to name calling or idea
bashing. This issue is very important to me. I want to make the most
informed decision for my children that I possibly can, and am willing
to hear all sides of the issue.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Max C. wrote:
snip me old post
First, I appreciate you taking the time to post all of that. I think
you have me wrong. I am not "anti vac" per se.

In that case I apologize for putting you into that pigeon hole. I hope
you were not offended by that. Too used to dealing with John/Jan I guess.

Not offended at all. I'm an "altie" in just about every other respect,
even on some vaccinations. It's an easy mistake to make.

Indeed, there *are* a
hand full of vaccinations I plan on getting for my child. I'm just not
going to rush her down to get any ol' vaccine just because there's one
available.
Fair enough. I would actually agree with you on this point - getting
vaccinated against things which you're not going to get exposed to is a
little silly.

This actually raises a good question I'd like to ask. One of the
vaccines I'm still on the fence about is polio. On the one hand, where
in the world is my baby going contract polio? Also, if she DOES get
polio, the odds of it doing permanent damage are pretty small. On the
other hand, if she DOES get polio, and *IF* that small chance happens,
it could be devastating. What's your opinion on the polio vaccine? I
understand it's now a dead virus vaccine... which is better, IMHO.

If you do not globe trot with her, then the chances are slim. Visits to
Africa and the South Asia area are definitely OUT for the unvaccinated.

And, if you can absolutely guarantee that she will never come in contact
with anyone who has traveled from those areas, then there is little
likelihood of her contracting it.

HOWEVER, if she does, the gamble is how severe. My younger son's friend
developed a case after an OPV. She lost around 40-50% function in her
arms. Note that her younger siblings were all vaccinated after that.

As for the type, the IPV is a dead virus, and it has no chance of
causing an active case. The recommendation I recall is to have full IPV
and, if going to an infectious area, follow-up with OPV.

However, I do not think Brian was referring to such a vaccination when
he mentioned not getting all the vaccinations he gets. Perhaps he should
actually list them. I would think it would be more like the Yellow Fever
vaccine, or the one for plague (which is a real nasty one..sore arm for
days).

I get a lot of vaccinations cause of my job, but for your average joe
what I receive would be hugely excessive.


However, I have a few comments and questions.

1 - So, do I understand correctly that you think the article is
misleading because the level of mercury in an individual vaccine is not
at the 125,000 nM level?

No. Although I'm not sure what vaccine in particular that article is in
reference to, but that level of thimerisal is found in some vaccines
(although it is a little on the high end).

My point was that the levels of thimerisal the infant receives, as well
as the *consequences* of that have been exaggerated greatly.

I am understanding you to say that what counts is the final nM level
inside the injection recipient. I hope that's correct. My problem
with that is that the statement claims "one nanomolar levels in the
baby will prevent the macrophages from going through phagocytosis." It
would seem to me that levels in the body would still be higher than 1
nM if the vaccine is at 125,000 nM. There's also the consideration
that children often get multiple vaccines at one time. If each vaccine
had thimerosal, the levels would obviously go way up.

Keep in mind that nM is a concentration - i.e. a quantity of thimerisal
per volume of vaccine. So to get 125,000nM timerisal concentration in
your body you would have to inject an amount of vaccine equivalent to 2x
the volume of your body - in the case of an infant that would be about 8
*liters* of vaccine.

No, I understand that, and I didn't think the comments were trying to
say that thimerosal reached 125,000 nM inside the body. I don't think
trying to say that would fool anyone and would discredit the author
immediately.

Obviously, that doesn't happen. Instead, you receive a very small
injection (usually less than 2ml, or 0.002L). As such the actual amount
of thimerisal your body receives is quite minimal. In the case of an
infant it *might* reach, for a day or two, levels where a mild
inhibitory effect on macrophage phagocytosis is seen.

But again, my concern is 1 - the fact that it's usually more than one
vaccine and 2 - the evidence suggesting that mercury levels in the
brain are cumulative. I've posted links to evidence before, but I
don't have time to look them up again right now.

And that inhibitory effects is insignificant when compared to other
inhibitory things - i.e. the stress hormones the babies body will
produce from time to time.

But that's calculating only on 1 vaccine, right?

2 - I have a problem with the statement that thimerosal clears from the
body rapidly; mainly for 2 reasons. 1 - studies on primates have shown
that some of the mercury in thimerosal ends up in brain tissue.

Yes, but the amount is very small, far below toxic levels. And
secondly, that mercury is in a form which is relatively non-toxic (ethyl
mercury), and it is also a form of mercury which is readily cleared,
even from the brain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

I have some concerns about this study.

First, it's comparing injected thimerosal with oral intake of MeHg.
That's not a very good comparison. The digestive tract can eliminate
some of the MeHg before it ever enters the body.

Second, and I think this is THE most important factor of this study,
the final comment of the overview says:
"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."

Isn't most of our knowledge of mercury toxicity based on MeHg? This
study clearly states that more research is needed to determine the
differences of the 2 mercury types in the human body. That would
indicate to me that we don't fully understand the double edged sword
we've been playing with.

2 -
one of the studies used to make the statement that mercury clears from
the body quickly measured levels of mercury in the blood. That is no
way to measure mercury cleared from the body.

But it is. Most mercury, before it can leave the body, must travel
through the blood to the sites of clearance (bowl and kidneys). There
is a continual movement of this mercury from the blood into tissues, and
vice versa. So although blood levels do not indicate the exact
concentration of mercury in each and every tissue, they are indicative
of how much mercury remains in the body, and how well that mercury is
being removed.

I have 2 concerns about this. First, I don't think it *is* a good
indicator of how well the mercury is being removed. We know without
question that mercury can be and is stored in many tissues, including
the brain. If the body lacks the ability to remove mercury from those
tissues, it's not going to be in the blood. It could remain in the
tissues. That is, in fact, one suggestion by the mercury / autism
group. While I honestly have no idea about the mercury / autism
connection, I do not rule it out simply because it has not been proven.
I've read too much that says that there has been no single study that
puts an end to the question once and for all.

Second, I have seen no evidence of the half life of mercury once it
enters brain tissue. Elements moving across the blood brain barrier
work quite differently than elements moving in and out of muscle
tissue. I do not believe that the half life for mercury in the blood
can be reasonably used to estimate the half life of mercury in the
brain.

Along those lines, I'm concerned about the sentence in the above study
that says:
"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%)" I'm a
little confused by the terms organic and inorganic mercury. Is my
assumption correct that inorganic mercury is just a mercury atom not
bound to some sort of organic compound? It's the only way I can think
of to call mercury organic. If that's the case, it would seem to me
that inorganic mercury would be more damaging than organic mercury that
has already been bound by some form of organic compound.

Also, as you can see in the link above, thimerisal movement in/out of
the brain has been assayed, so we can fairly reliably calculate, based
on blood concentrations, what the brain concentrations are.

I don't think I follow you. I didn't see in the study where they were
able to calculate brain concentrations based on blood levels. Blood
levels dropped off quickly. It seemed to me that there was no
association except that brain levels went up when mercury was
introduced.

3 - there are many reasons why levels of autism could still be going
up. As Mark Probert stated, diagnosis is much better now, and more
people are being labeled austistic that may have gone unlabeled in the
past. There is at least some evidence that autism may be caused by one
of the attenuated viruses in the MMR, indicating that there may be more
than one cause of autism.

That evidence has since been disproven. If anything the two studies
which made that link are great example of how not to conduct science -
no controls, no comparisons to non-autistic children, no relationship
other then time of onset. Here's just a few of the studies showing no
relationship between MMR and autism, the first one being the best proof
that autism is not linked to MMR. Long story short - the MMR vaccine
was only given to children in Japan for a short period of time. And
during that period of time rates of autism did not go up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

I don't think that's a very fair comparison. It's also a bit
misleading. For one, it was a different vaccine, one that Japan opted
to stop giving because it had a high number of problems. Additionally,
the virus blamed for the autism was the measles virus.

http://www.autismconnect.org/news.as...e=news&id=5753

Japan quit giving the MMR only to start giving measles vaccine
injections in single jabs. It would seem to me that if measles is the
suspect, you'd have to get rid of the measles vaccine to properly see
if autism rates drop.

Diagnostic criteria for autism may have
changed.

True. But even with modern diagnostic criteria we're still seeing an
increase in autism. The current diagnostic criteria are now about a
decade old - you'd think that they'd be universal enough at this point
that the rate we observe is the true rate. And that rate is still climbing.

Like I said, I haven't decided where I stand on the mercury / autism
issue. I'm open to both sides but am very concerned that there is no
study that fully addresses the issue. It's such and important issue
that such a study should have been done decades ago when the first
accusations came on the scene. Honestly you and I shouldn't even be
discussing it right now. It should be a resolved issue. It'd be so
easy to address. Just compare people with similar lives but different
levels of vaccinations and see how the autism rates compare. I can't
say it doesn't bother me to read the dozens of reports I've seen saying
that autism rates are practically non-existent among non-vaccinated
children. Of course that's anecdotal, but enough anecdotal evidence
has been reported that this issue should have been put to rest long
ago.

Bryan

PS: If you cannot get the papers I linked to just e-mail me directly
(remove the obvious to de-spammify my e-mail addy). I'm more then happy
to pass the PDF's onto anyone who wants them.

Thanks again for the information. It's nice to debate this issue with
someone that can present facts and their own information in a well
presented manner and not have to resort to name calling or idea
bashing. This issue is very important to me. I want to make the most
informed decision for my children that I possibly can, and am willing
to hear all sides of the issue.

Max.

Mark, there was never any question as to your position on this issue.
You being the type that has opted to get every available vaccination
available for your children (supposedly) I would expect such an answer
from you. Bryan, on the other hand, seems to be approaching this
subject with a reasonable mind set.

In addition to the huge lack of potential exposure to polio, there's
also the dietary aspect as discussed by Dr. Benjamin P Sandler in his
book "Diet Prevent Polio" written before there were vaccines for polio.
First, in every case of polio he studied, he noted that the victim had
done something very soon before disease onset that would have altered
their blood sugar levels far more than what would be considered normal.
He noted polio cases in many athletes after a particularly tough
workout or event and noticed that others around them would could have
gotten polio did not.

Based on that observation, he devised a simple test for his hypothesis.
At that time, monkeys were the lab animal of choice for studying
polio... mainly because polio could not infect most other lab animals.
Dr. Sandler injected rabbits with large amounts of insulin, thus
lowering their blood glucose levels to far below normal. Sure enough,
polio set in and symptoms were seen within 8 hours of insulin
injections and polio exposure. Never before had polio been seen in a
rabbit.

So, there's more to it than the simple question "Will my daughter be
exposed to the polio virus?"

Max.


Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Max C. wrote:
snip me old post
First, I appreciate you taking the time to post all of that. I think
you have me wrong. I am not "anti vac" per se.

In that case I apologize for putting you into that pigeon hole. I hope
you were not offended by that. Too used to dealing with John/Jan I guess.

Not offended at all. I'm an "altie" in just about every other respect,
even on some vaccinations. It's an easy mistake to make.

Indeed, there *are* a
hand full of vaccinations I plan on getting for my child. I'm just not
going to rush her down to get any ol' vaccine just because there's one
available.
Fair enough. I would actually agree with you on this point - getting
vaccinated against things which you're not going to get exposed to is a
little silly.

This actually raises a good question I'd like to ask. One of the
vaccines I'm still on the fence about is polio. On the one hand, where
in the world is my baby going contract polio? Also, if she DOES get
polio, the odds of it doing permanent damage are pretty small. On the
other hand, if she DOES get polio, and *IF* that small chance happens,
it could be devastating. What's your opinion on the polio vaccine? I
understand it's now a dead virus vaccine... which is better, IMHO.

If you do not globe trot with her, then the chances are slim. Visits to
Africa and the South Asia area are definitely OUT for the unvaccinated.

And, if you can absolutely guarantee that she will never come in contact
with anyone who has traveled from those areas, then there is little
likelihood of her contracting it.

HOWEVER, if she does, the gamble is how severe. My younger son's friend
developed a case after an OPV. She lost around 40-50% function in her
arms. Note that her younger siblings were all vaccinated after that.

As for the type, the IPV is a dead virus, and it has no chance of
causing an active case. The recommendation I recall is to have full IPV
and, if going to an infectious area, follow-up with OPV.

However, I do not think Brian was referring to such a vaccination when
he mentioned not getting all the vaccinations he gets. Perhaps he should
actually list them. I would think it would be more like the Yellow Fever
vaccine, or the one for plague (which is a real nasty one..sore arm for
days).

I get a lot of vaccinations cause of my job, but for your average joe
what I receive would be hugely excessive.


However, I have a few comments and questions.

1 - So, do I understand correctly that you think the article is
misleading because the level of mercury in an individual vaccine is not
at the 125,000 nM level?

No. Although I'm not sure what vaccine in particular that article is in
reference to, but that level of thimerisal is found in some vaccines
(although it is a little on the high end).

My point was that the levels of thimerisal the infant receives, as well
as the *consequences* of that have been exaggerated greatly.

I am understanding you to say that what counts is the final nM level
inside the injection recipient. I hope that's correct. My problem
with that is that the statement claims "one nanomolar levels in the
baby will prevent the macrophages from going through phagocytosis." It
would seem to me that levels in the body would still be higher than 1
nM if the vaccine is at 125,000 nM. There's also the consideration
that children often get multiple vaccines at one time. If each vaccine
had thimerosal, the levels would obviously go way up.

Keep in mind that nM is a concentration - i.e. a quantity of thimerisal
per volume of vaccine. So to get 125,000nM timerisal concentration in
your body you would have to inject an amount of vaccine equivalent to 2x
the volume of your body - in the case of an infant that would be about 8
*liters* of vaccine.

No, I understand that, and I didn't think the comments were trying to
say that thimerosal reached 125,000 nM inside the body. I don't think
trying to say that would fool anyone and would discredit the author
immediately.

Obviously, that doesn't happen. Instead, you receive a very small
injection (usually less than 2ml, or 0.002L). As such the actual amount
of thimerisal your body receives is quite minimal. In the case of an
infant it *might* reach, for a day or two, levels where a mild
inhibitory effect on macrophage phagocytosis is seen.

But again, my concern is 1 - the fact that it's usually more than one
vaccine and 2 - the evidence suggesting that mercury levels in the
brain are cumulative. I've posted links to evidence before, but I
don't have time to look them up again right now.

And that inhibitory effects is insignificant when compared to other
inhibitory things - i.e. the stress hormones the babies body will
produce from time to time.

But that's calculating only on 1 vaccine, right?

2 - I have a problem with the statement that thimerosal clears from the
body rapidly; mainly for 2 reasons. 1 - studies on primates have shown
that some of the mercury in thimerosal ends up in brain tissue.

Yes, but the amount is very small, far below toxic levels. And
secondly, that mercury is in a form which is relatively non-toxic (ethyl
mercury), and it is also a form of mercury which is readily cleared,
even from the brain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

I have some concerns about this study.

First, it's comparing injected thimerosal with oral intake of MeHg.
That's not a very good comparison. The digestive tract can eliminate
some of the MeHg before it ever enters the body.

Second, and I think this is THE most important factor of this study,
the final comment of the overview says:
"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."

Isn't most of our knowledge of mercury toxicity based on MeHg? This
study clearly states that more research is needed to determine the
differences of the 2 mercury types in the human body. That would
indicate to me that we don't fully understand the double edged sword
we've been playing with.

2 -
one of the studies used to make the statement that mercury clears from
the body quickly measured levels of mercury in the blood. That is no
way to measure mercury cleared from the body.

But it is. Most mercury, before it can leave the body, must travel
through the blood to the sites of clearance (bowl and kidneys). There
is a continual movement of this mercury from the blood into tissues, and
vice versa. So although blood levels do not indicate the exact
concentration of mercury in each and every tissue, they are indicative
of how much mercury remains in the body, and how well that mercury is
being removed.

I have 2 concerns about this. First, I don't think it *is* a good
indicator of how well the mercury is being removed. We know without
question that mercury can be and is stored in many tissues, including
the brain. If the body lacks the ability to remove mercury from those
tissues, it's not going to be in the blood. It could remain in the
tissues. That is, in fact, one suggestion by the mercury / autism
group. While I honestly have no idea about the mercury / autism
connection, I do not rule it out simply because it has not been proven.
I've read too much that says that there has been no single study that
puts an end to the question once and for all.

Second, I have seen no evidence of the half life of mercury once it
enters brain tissue. Elements moving across the blood brain barrier
work quite differently than elements moving in and out of muscle
tissue. I do not believe that the half life for mercury in the blood
can be reasonably used to estimate the half life of mercury in the
brain.

Along those lines, I'm concerned about the sentence in the above study
that says:
"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%)" I'm a
little confused by the terms organic and inorganic mercury. Is my
assumption correct that inorganic mercury is just a mercury atom not
bound to some sort of organic compound? It's the only way I can think
of to call mercury organic. If that's the case, it would seem to me
that inorganic mercury would be more damaging than organic mercury that
has already been bound by some form of organic compound.

Also, as you can see in the link above, thimerisal movement in/out of
the brain has been assayed, so we can fairly reliably calculate, based
on blood concentrations, what the brain concentrations are.

I don't think I follow you. I didn't see in the study where they were
able to calculate brain concentrations based on blood levels. Blood
levels dropped off quickly. It seemed to me that there was no
association except that brain levels went up when mercury was
introduced.

3 - there are many reasons why levels of autism could still be going
up. As Mark Probert stated, diagnosis is much better now, and more
people are being labeled austistic that may have gone unlabeled in the
past. There is at least some evidence that autism may be caused by one
of the attenuated viruses in the MMR, indicating that there may be more
than one cause of autism.

That evidence has since been disproven. If anything the two studies
which made that link are great example of how not to conduct science -
no controls, no comparisons to non-autistic children, no relationship
other then time of onset. Here's just a few of the studies showing no
relationship between MMR and autism, the first one being the best proof
that autism is not linked to MMR. Long story short - the MMR vaccine
was only given to children in Japan for a short period of time. And
during that period of time rates of autism did not go up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

I don't think that's a very fair comparison. It's also a bit
misleading. For one, it was a different vaccine, one that Japan opted
to stop giving because it had a high number of problems. Additionally,
the virus blamed for the autism was the measles virus.

http://www.autismconnect.org/news.as...e=news&id=5753

Japan quit giving the MMR only to start giving measles vaccine
injections in single jabs. It would seem to me that if measles is the
suspect, you'd have to get rid of the measles vaccine to properly see
if autism rates drop.

Diagnostic criteria for autism may have
changed.

True. But even with modern diagnostic criteria we're still seeing an
increase in autism. The current diagnostic criteria are now about a
decade old - you'd think that they'd be universal enough at this point
that the rate we observe is the true rate. And that rate is still climbing.

Like I said, I haven't decided where I stand on the mercury / autism
issue. I'm open to both sides but am very concerned that there is no
study that fully addresses the issue. It's such and important issue
that such a study should have been done decades ago when the first
accusations came on the scene. Honestly you and I shouldn't even be
discussing it right now. It should be a resolved issue. It'd be so
easy to address. Just compare people with similar lives but different
levels of vaccinations and see how the autism rates compare. I can't
say it doesn't bother me to read the dozens of reports I've seen saying
that autism rates are practically non-existent among non-vaccinated
children. Of course that's anecdotal, but enough anecdotal evidence
has been reported that this issue should have been put to rest long
ago.

Bryan

PS: If you cannot get the papers I linked to just e-mail me directly
(remove the obvious to de-spammify my e-mail addy). I'm more then happy
to pass the PDF's onto anyone who wants them.

Thanks again for the information. It's nice to debate this issue with
someone that can present facts and their own information in a well
presented manner and not have to resort to name calling or idea
bashing. This issue is very important to me. I want to make the most
informed decision for my children that I possibly can, and am willing
to hear all sides of the issue.

Max.