• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mercury on the Mind

I'm with techno on Wiki. I use it to find a collection of sources. You can often be more specific than a Google broad brush.
 
jj said:
Only if you want to take a chance on being misled by the latest nutter who decided to write up something.
Click to expand...
Right but if it's cited (which all of wikipedia should be) from the FDA, or CDC then it isn't nuts. I understand your complaint but if you aren't doing that for all documents then you have some serious problems with your research skills.
 
Last edited:
Same ol same ol

I check in on these vaccine boards occasionally as the science continues to develop. I'm amused by the arguments about how "if mercury was poison we'd all be retarded" or "I get more mercury from a light bulb than a vaccine." I mean, those kinds of platitudes are just idiotic. (Especially if said in a redneck, "Cable-guy" voice, like I just did. I crack myself up.)

Likewise Randi's insistence on the cause of autism: "It's genetic." A pretty safe statement, but absolutely meaningless. And funny too, especially if repeated in a monotonous robot voice, like I just did.

Seriously though, I remain skeptical of a few things. One, that all autistic spectrum is explained solely by genetic factors. Two, that regressive forms of these disorders do not have an environmental as well as a genetic component. Three, that injected ethylmercury is safe for everyone at these doses. Four, that incidence rates as measured are accurate (or even germane to this issue of such a relatively small sub-population being susceptible to low-dose ethylmercury neurotoxicity).

These are still open questions, vaccine epi and oral methylmercury exposure studies notwithstanding. They are flawed, misinterpreted, and relied on outside of their scope.

It is unfortunate that debunking the anti-vaccine people has distracted attention from the actual scientific and policy debates that are going on under your noses, even as you graze the internet for colorful and informative charts to include in your posts, or whatever. ("You" is completely figurative)

The growing body of research specifically on ethylmercury demonstrates that a lot of suppositions and extrapolations people have been making about it based on environmental methylmercury exposure (almost exclusively oral) are incorrect. Ethylmercury as contained in thimerosal might be excreted from the blood more quickly than methylmercury, but it leaves behind a much higher percentage by weight of inorganic mercury in the brain tissue. And, there is such a wide individual variation in excretion, that it is clear that the same "harmless" exposure in one individual can leave a very high concentration in the brain of another. Perhaps a very small percentage of others, but even so. 1 or 2% of the vaccinated population is a lot of babies. (How is an epi study like Verstraeten or Fombonne going to see an effect in a subgroup of 1% of the population? It won't, of course. These are the wrong studies to rely on. They rule out nothing.)

The animal studies show conclusively that injected ethylmercury is not "safer" than orally ingested methylmercury, by virtue of its rapid metabolization. On the contrary, both methylmercury and inorganic mercury have difficulty crossing the blood-brain barrier, as I am sure most of you know, if you'r eon this board. ethylmercury has no such difficulty, and continues to metabolize inside the brain, once there, to inorganic Hg, leaving trapped inorganic mercury on the wrong side of the BBB, at much higher levels than other species of mercury. These data are consistent across the studies.

Furthermore, the nature of mercury neurotoxicity has to be carefully considered in context. It is not necessary to have doses that would produce dramatic symptoms of poisoning to impact brain cell development and function. It is not necessarily cell death that people are talking about here. Impairment of cell function and growth, and inflammatory reactions, to these ppb doses of inorganic mercury in the brain, are real phenomena, widely reported in the literature. The toxic insult from these exposures that may be "shrugged off" by an adult brain could seriously impact a forming, immature brain, even at these doses.

(Of some individuals, of course, not all. Man, that seems like a difficult concept for some folks. Not all people, not all cases. A few of the people, some of the time, to some degree, possibly. Got it? Is that a reason to disband the vaccine program? No, of course not. Is it a reason to do adequate studies of the particular exposure, injected ethylmercury? Absolutely yes.)

This evolving understanding of ethylmercury toxicity and neuroinflammation is prompting public spectacles such as Healey's breast-baring interview on CBS news. So, before someone nails me for having a poor understanding of mercury toxicity, I would say that everything I am reading lately indicates that that is a pretty big club and growing fast, and includes most of the experts on the subject, as well. We need real studies that mimic the real exposure from thimerosal to answer this question, not vague (or even painfully detailed) assurances from smug skeptics and policy wonks based on population studies that could never expose this effect.

And, Gerberding's recent report to congress that the VSD studies showing no association are "seriously flawed" kind of lets the air out of the epi status quo, anyway. (Who's back-pedaling now, eh?) Of course, that conveniently crosses out the Young study in the same whack, but I am sure that's purely coincidental. So, back to square one we go.

I'm sorry, but to me a position of "closed issue" on this topic equals "closed mind."

On this issue, clinging like a barnacle to conventional wisdom does not a skeptic make, however. I am mildly weirded out by the concrete convictions I see paraded here as "skepticism."

"Thou shalt not question the wisdom of pharmaceutical companies in using a neurotoxin as a preservative! Their studies show it's safe!"

"Thou shalt read and admire the Verstraeten study! Period!"

"Thou shalt not question the mercury-containing fish studies that show these toxins are perfectly safe at these doses, even though it different species and different route of administration!"

"Thou shalt acknowledge the incidence rates from California as proof of continuing increase, despite their lack of relevance!"

"That English guy falsified MMR data, so all these mercury claims are bogus!"

Bull****. With all due respect, of course. These positions resemble scientific skepticism about as much as my ass resembles a flowered teapot.

(To be fair, this thread does not really reflect the same degree of idiocy as many of the others on which I am commenting, but humor me)

I am sure many on this forum will continue to "debunk" the silly (and already thoroughly debunked, jesus christ!) claim that all vaccines cause all autism, even though that is an egregious misstatement of what's actually being investigated in reality, just like the low-hanging-fruit monkeys that they are. Trotting out the same old tired uninformative useless epi studies, ad nauseum, and transparant canards about swimming in mercury as a child with no ill result.

The real question is can these nano- concentrations of inorganic Hg (whatever the source) in a neonate's brain affect neurodevelopment to the point that it results in cognitive and behavioral disorders, some of the time, in some individuals? That is an important question, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, or thrown out with along with the anti-vax paranoia. The evidence seems to say it can. It's plausible. And, now we are seeing that much that we thought we knew about ethylmercury metabolism is wrong.

Um that, being the case, the remotest possibility that thimerosal might have contributed to any degree to even a few children's disorders (let alone a few thousand) needs investigating. That possibility has in no way been "overwhelmingly ruled out," as you well know.

Based on Gerbarding's report, Healey's public coming-out, and ongoing research, I would say that possibility has been overwhelmingly ruled back in.

(Cites? Give me a break, is your typing finger broken? The Librarian is OUT)
 
ScottGPDX said:
Based on Gerbarding's report, Healey's public coming-out, and ongoing research, I would say that possibility has been overwhelmingly ruled back in.
Click to expand...

Overwhelmingly ruled back in? Does that mean that there is actual evidence of a vaccination-autism link, or just that the evidence used to debunk the mercury-autism claim is somehow flawed?
(Cites? Give me a break, is your typing finger broken? The Librarian is OUT)
Click to expand...
Sorry. Request denied. I have been on enough wild goose chases trying to track down the source of others fantastical claims. I am willing to evaluate the evidence you submit to back up your claims, but not to track it down.
 
Last edited:
gdnp said:
Sorry. Request denied. I have been on enough wild goose chases trying to track down the source of others fantastical claims. I am willing to evaluate the evidence you submit to back up your claims, but not to track it down.
Click to expand...
Actually, Im annoyed at him. The arrogant pompous idiot couldn't be bothered to spell check his names which made it impossible for me to track down Bernadine Healy. All I know that this isn't the first time she's ridden the woo train. She got involved with Terry Schiavo. She also has connections with the tobacco industry. And she's been forced to testify multiple times about the ineptitude of the Red Cross.
 
Last edited:
I know this thread is about current exposure to mercury. I just wanted to point out that mercury poisoning used to happen much more frequently due to making felt hats and because some artists used mercury Mercury Fountain. The mercury fountain is now behind glass to prevent the inhalation of mercury vapors.
 
Also here is a website for average mercury exposure in fish. http://www.gotmercury.org/


PS. This site seems to be supportive of Greenpeace, but the calculator comes from the FDA.
 
Last edited:
ScottGPDX said:
I check in on these vaccine boards occasionally as the science continues to develop. I'm amused by the arguments about how "if mercury was poison we'd all be retarded" or "I get more mercury from a light bulb than a vaccine." I mean, those kinds of platitudes are just idiotic. (Especially if said in a redneck, "Cable-guy" voice, like I just did. I crack myself up.)

Likewise Randi's insistence on the cause of autism: "It's genetic." A pretty safe statement, but absolutely meaningless. And funny too, especially if repeated in a monotonous robot voice, like I just did.

Seriously though, I remain skeptical of a few things. One, that all autistic spectrum is explained solely by genetic factors. Two, that regressive forms of these disorders do not have an environmental as well as a genetic component. Three, that injected ethylmercury is safe for everyone at these doses. Four, that incidence rates as measured are accurate (or even germane to this issue of such a relatively small sub-population being susceptible to low-dose ethylmercury neurotoxicity).

These are still open questions, vaccine epi and oral methylmercury exposure studies notwithstanding. They are flawed, misinterpreted, and relied on outside of their scope.

It is unfortunate that debunking the anti-vaccine people has distracted attention from the actual scientific and policy debates that are going on under your noses, even as you graze the internet for colorful and informative charts to include in your posts, or whatever. ("You" is completely figurative)

The growing body of research specifically on ethylmercury demonstrates that a lot of suppositions and extrapolations people have been making about it based on environmental methylmercury exposure (almost exclusively oral) are incorrect. Ethylmercury as contained in thimerosal might be excreted from the blood more quickly than methylmercury, but it leaves behind a much higher percentage by weight of inorganic mercury in the brain tissue. And, there is such a wide individual variation in excretion, that it is clear that the same "harmless" exposure in one individual can leave a very high concentration in the brain of another. Perhaps a very small percentage of others, but even so. 1 or 2% of the vaccinated population is a lot of babies. (How is an epi study like Verstraeten or Fombonne going to see an effect in a subgroup of 1% of the population? It won't, of course. These are the wrong studies to rely on. They rule out nothing.)

The animal studies show conclusively that injected ethylmercury is not "safer" than orally ingested methylmercury, by virtue of its rapid metabolization. On the contrary, both methylmercury and inorganic mercury have difficulty crossing the blood-brain barrier, as I am sure most of you know, if you'r eon this board. ethylmercury has no such difficulty, and continues to metabolize inside the brain, once there, to inorganic Hg, leaving trapped inorganic mercury on the wrong side of the BBB, at much higher levels than other species of mercury. These data are consistent across the studies.

Furthermore, the nature of mercury neurotoxicity has to be carefully considered in context. It is not necessary to have doses that would produce dramatic symptoms of poisoning to impact brain cell development and function. It is not necessarily cell death that people are talking about here. Impairment of cell function and growth, and inflammatory reactions, to these ppb doses of inorganic mercury in the brain, are real phenomena, widely reported in the literature. The toxic insult from these exposures that may be "shrugged off" by an adult brain could seriously impact a forming, immature brain, even at these doses.

(Of some individuals, of course, not all. Man, that seems like a difficult concept for some folks. Not all people, not all cases. A few of the people, some of the time, to some degree, possibly. Got it? Is that a reason to disband the vaccine program? No, of course not. Is it a reason to do adequate studies of the particular exposure, injected ethylmercury? Absolutely yes.)

This evolving understanding of ethylmercury toxicity and neuroinflammation is prompting public spectacles such as Healey's breast-baring interview on CBS news. So, before someone nails me for having a poor understanding of mercury toxicity, I would say that everything I am reading lately indicates that that is a pretty big club and growing fast, and includes most of the experts on the subject, as well. We need real studies that mimic the real exposure from thimerosal to answer this question, not vague (or even painfully detailed) assurances from smug skeptics and policy wonks based on population studies that could never expose this effect.

And, Gerberding's recent report to congress that the VSD studies showing no association are "seriously flawed" kind of lets the air out of the epi status quo, anyway. (Who's back-pedaling now, eh?) Of course, that conveniently crosses out the Young study in the same whack, but I am sure that's purely coincidental. So, back to square one we go.

I'm sorry, but to me a position of "closed issue" on this topic equals "closed mind."

On this issue, clinging like a barnacle to conventional wisdom does not a skeptic make, however. I am mildly weirded out by the concrete convictions I see paraded here as "skepticism."

"Thou shalt not question the wisdom of pharmaceutical companies in using a neurotoxin as a preservative! Their studies show it's safe!"

"Thou shalt read and admire the Verstraeten study! Period!"

"Thou shalt not question the mercury-containing fish studies that show these toxins are perfectly safe at these doses, even though it different species and different route of administration!"

"Thou shalt acknowledge the incidence rates from California as proof of continuing increase, despite their lack of relevance!"

"That English guy falsified MMR data, so all these mercury claims are bogus!"

Bull****. With all due respect, of course. These positions resemble scientific skepticism about as much as my ass resembles a flowered teapot.

(To be fair, this thread does not really reflect the same degree of idiocy as many of the others on which I am commenting, but humor me)

I am sure many on this forum will continue to "debunk" the silly (and already thoroughly debunked, jesus christ!) claim that all vaccines cause all autism, even though that is an egregious misstatement of what's actually being investigated in reality, just like the low-hanging-fruit monkeys that they are. Trotting out the same old tired uninformative useless epi studies, ad nauseum, and transparant canards about swimming in mercury as a child with no ill result.

The real question is can these nano- concentrations of inorganic Hg (whatever the source) in a neonate's brain affect neurodevelopment to the point that it results in cognitive and behavioral disorders, some of the time, in some individuals? That is an important question, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, or thrown out with along with the anti-vax paranoia. The evidence seems to say it can. It's plausible. And, now we are seeing that much that we thought we knew about ethylmercury metabolism is wrong.

Um that, being the case, the remotest possibility that thimerosal might have contributed to any degree to even a few children's disorders (let alone a few thousand) needs investigating. That possibility has in no way been "overwhelmingly ruled out," as you well know.

Based on Gerbarding's report, Healey's public coming-out, and ongoing research, I would say that possibility has been overwhelmingly ruled back in.

(Cites? Give me a break, is your typing finger broken? The Librarian is OUT)
Click to expand...

Super-woo! Do you wear a cape?
 
ScottGPDX said:
I check in on these vaccine boards occasionally as the science continues to develop. I'm amused by the arguments about how "if mercury was poison we'd all be retarded" or "I get more mercury from a light bulb than a vaccine." I mean, those kinds of platitudes are just idiotic. (Especially if said in a redneck, "Cable-guy" voice, like I just did. I crack myself up.)

.......................merciful snip...........................

(Cites? Give me a break, is your typing finger broken? The Librarian is OUT)
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to overlook your incredibly rude lack of citations if you merely responded to other people's posts.

Do you think condescension and snark are substitutes for real debate?

Epic fail.
 
portlandatheist said:
And who are these "investigators"? We may never know.
Click to expand...

It wasn't hard to track this down.

The original article is from Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr.
He teaches cardiac surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine

In his article he originally referenced
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_10/no_3/3986.pdf to support the statement. That is no longer a working link (and the bastids blocked it from the Internet Archive as well), but it wasn't hard to figure out it was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14976450 that he was referring to.

Studies have shown that there is biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence showing a direct relationship between increasing doses of mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, and measles-containing vaccines and serious neurological disorders.
David Geier, Mark Geier
Click to expand...
.
http://www.neurodiversity.com/mmr.html
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
It wasn't hard to track this down.

The original article is from Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr.
He teaches cardiac surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine

In his article he originally referenced
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_10/no_3/3986.pdf to support the statement. That is no longer a working link (and the bastids blocked it from the Internet Archive as well), but it wasn't hard to figure out it was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14976450 that he was referring to.

.
http://www.neurodiversity.com/mmr.html
Click to expand...

Anytime you see the names David Geier and Mark Geier , run away screaming. This father and son team have a less than stellar track record.

Dr. Mark Geier Severely Criticized

Warning Letter re: Dr. Mark Geier

Significant Misrepresentations
Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol

I just picked the first few links that came up on Google. There are reams of info on these guys and the quackery they push.
 
No surprise seeing Robinson use Geiers as a source of information :rolleyes:



Well, here's some news:

According to the center for disease control the numbers haven't been this high in nearly 10 years, the most recent serious outbreak from 1989 to 1991 infected 55,000 and killed 123 people...but health officials say infection is preventable
Click to expand...
http://www.khon2.com/news/health/24444474.html

We can thank the Geiers of the world for this nice little outbreak. Well, maybe ONLY a hundred or so people will die this time too. No biggie, right? :boxedin:
 
Oh please.

I only tracked down the source of the information in the OP. Your efforts to troll are noted, but pathetic in the extreme.
 
We've discussed the Geiers before. Don't act so innocent. Your troll nose is growing bigger and nastier. I know you couldn't possibly be so inept at evaluating your "source of information" as to think it could be "good" or useful. The Geiers are atrocious, and have been for LONG time, with their pseudoscience and outright BAD study protocols.
 
portlandatheist said:
Anyway, any help debunking this article would be most appreciated. It looks like this article has been circulated widely
Click to expand...

robinson said:
The original article is from Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr.
He teaches cardiac surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine

In his article he originally referenced
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_10/no_3/3986.pdf to support the statement. That is no longer a working link (and the bastids blocked it from the Internet Archive as well), but it wasn't hard to figure out it was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14976450 that he was referring to.

http://www.neurodiversity.com/mmr.html
Click to expand...

How much help that was in debunking seems to be a matter of opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How you managed to claim I said, "Anyway, any help debunking this article would be most appreciated. It looks like this article has been circulated widely", which came from the OP is beyond me, robinson. You have a serious misquote going on there.

robinson said:
Originally Posted by skeptigirl: Anyway, any help debunking this article would be most appreciated. It looks like this article has been circulated widely

Originally Posted by robinson: The original article is from Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr.
He teaches cardiac surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine

In his article he originally referenced
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_10/no_3/3986.pdf to support the statement. That is no longer a working link (and the bastids blocked it from the Internet Archive as well), but it wasn't hard to figure out it was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14976450 that he was referring to.

http://www.neurodiversity.com/mmr.html

How much help that was in debunking seems to be a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

Here's what I actually said:
skeptigirl said:
Thiomersal contains ethyl mercury which is rapidly excreted from the body and not toxic in the same quantities as methyl mercury.

Then there is the really hazardous form, dimethylmercury.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom