Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mac E

Study tying vaccine to autism was fraud

316 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Little Fish

No, it is a not a strawman argument to point out that the research that started this whole autism-vaccine controversy is fraudulent.

it is a strawman to focus on the Lancet paper, because the Lancet paper never claimed a link to autism, it was a case series study that called for research to test the hypothesis that MMR caused autistic entercolitis. there were vaccine-autism concerns way before the Lancet paper.

how is the Lancet paper fraudulent? can you be specific?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Little Fish

Even if there was no a study, life would tell us that since 1996 diagnosis of autism has continued to rise even while children are no longer receiving thioerosal in their vaccinations.

children are recieving Thimerosal in vaccines, as pointed out in post 87

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=198106&st=75&p=3733389entry3733389

they took some out, they reduced levels in some, they added new vaccines with thimerosal.

that is not "no longer receiving thimerosal"

Don't you mean that studies proved that it was covalently bound and remained so in the body as well as that 98% of it can be recovered from the urine of vaccinated person within 36 hours?

The half life of ethylmercury (thimerosal) is about ~20 days, but will depend on each individual. a study was done that showed no mercury in autistic childrens hair, implying that they were not excreting it. it crosses the blood brain barrier and is very toxic to brain cells.

Obviously it is something genetic.

it cannot be soley genetic, the rise in autism from 1 in 10,000, to 1 in 54 over a few decades proves it is not purely genetic. in 2004 china had 2 million cases of autism, previously it was unheard of, this coincided with rapid uptake of vaccines in china.

Thimerosal is a vaccine component of some vaccines and contains organic-mercury.

Elemental mercury causes brain damage.

organic-mercury is more toxic than elemental mercury.

"Each form of mercury has its own toxicological profile, although, in general terms, the toxicity of these forms is highest with the organic mercury compounds, followed by elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds."

http://copublications.greenfacts.org/en/dental-amalgam/l-3/3-mercury-exposure.htm

The EPA's safety limit for mercury is 0.1 micrograms per kg of body weight.

A single child vaccine has 12.5 micrograms Thimerosal

A 5kg baby would get 12.5 / 5 = 2.5 micrograms per kg body weight

2.5 is 25 times higher than the EPA safety limit of 0.1 micrograms/kg body weight

So a single vaccine for a 5kg (11 pound) baby contains 25 times more organic-mercury than the EPA safety limit for mercury.

Anyone want to comment, correct the mathematics, agree or disagree (politely)?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

children are recieving Thimerosal in vaccines, as pointed out in post 87

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=198106&st=75&p=3733389entry3733389

they took some out, they reduced levels in some, they added new vaccines with thimerosal.

that is not "no longer receiving thimerosal"

The half life of ethylmercury (thimerosal) is about ~20 days, but will depend on each individual. a study was done that showed no mercury in autistic childrens hair, implying that they were not excreting it. it crosses the blood brain barrier and is very toxic to brain cells.

it cannot be soley genetic, the rise in autism from 1 in 10,000, to 1 in 54 over a few decades proves it is not purely genetic. in 2004 china had 2 million cases of autism, previously it was unheard of, this coincided with rapid uptake of vaccines in china.

Thimerosal is a vaccine component of some vaccines and contains organic-mercury.

Elemental mercury causes brain damage.

organic-mercury is more toxic than elemental mercury.

"Each form of mercury has its own toxicological profile, although, in general terms, the toxicity of these forms is highest with the organic mercury compounds, followed by elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds."

http://copublications.greenfacts.org/en/dental-amalgam/l-3/3-mercury-exposure.htm

The EPA's safety limit for mercury is 0.1 micrograms per kg of body weight.

A single child vaccine has 12.5 micrograms Thimerosal

A 5kg baby would get 12.5 / 5 = 2.5 micrograms per kg body weight

2.5 is 25 times higher than the EPA safety limit of 0.1 micrograms/kg body weight

So a single vaccine for a 5kg (11 pound) baby contains 25 times more organic-mercury than the EPA safety limit for mercury.

Anyone want to comment, correct the mathematics, agree or disagree (politely)?

Because excretion is not normally done in hair?

You also realize that ethylmercury is not thiomersal, rather a metabolite of thiomersal. I'm sure if you recall back to your organic chemistry and biochemistry class why this distinction is important, no? I'm sure you also realize that ethylmercury isn't biocummulative, right?

I'm sure you also realize that many of the initial fears were based on using methylmercury as a model, which since time has been shown to be a poor model....right?

Edit: By the way Fish, have you ever been to an M&M?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

So a single vaccine for a 5kg (11 pound) baby contains 25 times more organic-mercury than the EPA safety limit for mercury.

Anyone want to comment, correct the mathematics, agree or disagree (politely)?

You realize that a 11 pound baby is exceedingly small for a 1 year old. My daughter was around 8 when born and 11 within a couple months. And around 20 pounds when 1 year old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

children are recieving Thimerosal in vaccines, as pointed out in post 87

Note: The only vaccine in the US to contain thimerosal at all is the Flu shot. Which also comes in a thimerosal free shot and a naisal mist. There is no need for Panic. All you need to do is ask for a mercury free flu shot.

http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/ingredients.html#thimerosal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

You realize that a 11 pound baby is exceedingly small for a 1 year old. My daughter was around 8 when born and 11 within a couple months. And around 20 pounds when 1 year old.

H1N1 fluzone is given to 3 year olds with 25 micrograms thimerosal.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=198106&st=75&p=3733389entry3733389

a 3 year old weighing 14 kilos (31 pounds) gets 25/14 = 1.78 micrograms per kilo body weight (17.8 times epa limit)

"All you need to do is ask for a mercury free flu shot."

what do you suggest uninformed parents do? If I go to a restaurant I do not think to ask if I can have my food without strichnine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

"Because excretion is not normally done in hair?"

Hair is tested for exposure to heavy metals, so it is an excretion route.

if the hair of an autistic child tests negative for mercury, and a normal child's hair is detected with mercury, where did the mercury go that the autisic child was exposed to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

"Because excretion is not normally done in hair?"

Hair is tested for exposure to heavy metals, so it is an excretion route.

if the hair of an autistic child tests negative for mercury, and a normal child's hair is detected with mercury, where did the mercury go that the autisic child was exposed to?

Can you provide a couple reputable studies (please link to the abstract at the journal where it was published) that shows;

1. Ethylmercury accumulation in hair,

2. Ethylmercury not found in autistic children hair.

Also you keep saying "testing for mercury", can you describe how these tests are done? Their specificity and their sensitivity (note, those are two different things).

And finally of note, you keep saying "above the EPA exposure limit"--What is, thiomersal? Can you please link to the EPA's exposure guidelines for thiomersal? Not mercury, the two are different. Please no 3rd party website, just a simple link to either a EPA published pdf or a high quality journal article which cites this exposure policy.

Thanks.

Edit: You also said "hair is an excretion route". Excretion is a specific thing in biology (human or otherwise), if you are not sure then please look it up. Either way, I'd also like for you to support (via scientific literature, primary literature please) excretion of heavy metals in hair. Since we are on the subject of mercury, I feel it would best behoove you to do so for thiomersal, ethylmercury, methymercury and inorganic mercury. Be sure to include how incorporation was done and how the mercuric source entered the body (especially if there are differences in accumulation).

Edit again; I also pointed out to you that ethylmercury is not thiomersal, rather a metabolite of it. Bear that in mind before you respond to these questions. If you recall the ramifications of this from your Ochem/Bchem classes, I'm sure you appreciate the need for specificity.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

"Hair mercury levels in the autistic group were 0.47 ppm versus 3.63 ppm in controls, a significant difference...Hair excretion patterns among autistic infants were significantly reduced relative to control."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322?dopt=Abstract

"children with lower levels of mercury in their hair (below 0.55 mcg g-1) were 2.5-fold more likely to manifest with autism"

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a792857004~frm=abslink

"Individuals at a given dose level with a higher-than-average blood level had a proportionately higher hair level"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDS-4G3K8RY-1P&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1987&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0fbc3194bf444eeae8f80c45db275283&searchtype=a

"The results showed that the level of mercury was higher in the liver and kidney of the inorganic mercury group than in the thiomersal exposed group. However, the brain and blood concentrations of mercury were higher in the thiomersal exposed group"

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/pdf/sucklingrat.pdf

"Neurotoxicities of methyl and ethylmercury were similar although higher levels of inorganic mercury were seen in brains of ethylmercury treated rats."

"Half-life Methylmercury 40 - 70 days, Half-life Ethylmercury 30 - 50 days"

"Ethylmercury is a neurotoxin"

"Ethylmercury should be considered equipotent to methylmercury as a developmental neurotoxin. This conclusion is clearly public health protective."

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/ImmunizationSafety/Lucier.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

"Hair mercury levels in the autistic group were 0.47 ppm versus 3.63 ppm in controls, a significant difference...Hair excretion patterns among autistic infants were significantly reduced relative to control."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322?dopt=Abstract

This study is of mercury accumulation in hair, not ethylmercury. As exemplified by their methods section, did you bother to read this article?

Laboratory testing was conducted using Inductively Coupled

Plasma Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS) in blinded fashion to the

clinical status of the hair provider. Hair specimens were collected

based on retained samples of a minimum required amount

of 0.25 g of hair from the child’s first haircut. In the laboratory,

the hair specimens were further cut and washed using a

modified method developed by the International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA) (Ryabukin 1998). Aliquots (about 0.2 g) of the

washed hair samples were digested with nitric acid in a CEM

(CEM Corporation, Matthews, NC, USA) microwave oven with

temperature feedback control. All element determinations were

made on an ICP-MS (Elan 5000; Perkin-Elmer, Norwalk, CT,

USA) using a flow injection sample uptake system (FIAS 400;

Perkin-Elmer). Accuracy was assessed and verified using a hair

standard reference material (SRM) from China (GBW 09101,

30 elements). Puchyr et al. (1998) have described this method

and analytical performance in detail.

Furthermore their low population size means that any findings from this study are tenativie at best, it lacks statistical power. This would be why its published in the international journal of toxicology and not a big name journal.

Also, I've asked you this multiple times now and you've yet to answer and I fear this is largely why you are missing the point. Fish, have you taken an orgo or bchem class before? If you have, you'd understand the necessity of specificity when talking about metabolites. Can you answer that question?

Thimerosal's metabolic end product is ethylmercury, not mercuric ions. Ethylmercury has been shown, over and over, to be almost 100% excreted in stool and urine, following exposure.

Mean mercury doses in infants exposed to

thiomersal were 45·6 g (range 37·5–62·5) for 2-month-olds

and 111·3 g (range 87·5–175·0) for 6-month-olds. Blood

mercury in thiomersal-exposed 2-month-olds ranged from

less than 3·75 to 20·55 nmol/L (parts per billion); in

6-month-olds all values were lower than 7·50 nmol/L. Only

one of 15 blood samples from controls contained

quantifiable mercury. Concentrations of mercury were low in

urine after vaccination but were high in stools of thiomersalexposed

2-month-olds (mean 82 ng/g dry weight) and in

6-month-olds (mean 58 ng/g dry weight). Estimated blood

half-life of ethylmercury was 7 days (95% CI 4–10 days).

Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, and Treanor J. "Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thimerosal: a descriptive study." Lancet 360:1737-1741 (2002).

The "remaining" amount of ethylmercury reflects amounts so small that it is not possible to assay for even. In deed then, it is more than likely an artifact of the assays themselves.

"children with lower levels of mercury in their hair (below 0.55 mcg g-1) were 2.5-fold more likely to manifest with autism"

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a792857004~frm=abslink

This is the same as above....Did you bother to read these studies? Did you note their limitations? Or are you just linking abstracts to science you don't understand? Its starting to appear as the latter, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of doubt here....

This study deals with methylmercury. Not an end product of thimerosal metabolism. Again, I'm trying for you here Fish. Have you taken ochem before? Bchem? If not then I understand this would hard to make sense of...

"The results showed that the level of mercury was higher in the liver and kidney of the inorganic mercury group than in the thiomersal exposed group. However, the brain and blood concentrations of mercury were higher in the thiomersal exposed group"

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/pdf/sucklingrat.pdf

"Neurotoxicities of methyl and ethylmercury were similar although higher levels of inorganic mercury were seen in brains of ethylmercury treated rats."

"Half-life Methylmercury 40 - 70 days, Half-life Ethylmercury 30 - 50 days"

"Ethylmercury is a neurotoxin"

"Ethylmercury should be considered equipotent to methylmercury as a developmental neurotoxin. This conclusion is clearly public health protective."

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/ImmunizationSafety/Lucier.pdf

And yet its been shown time and again in primate models (including humans) that mice studies for mercury exposure don't correlate to primate exposure (see the above study for example).

I'll ask you again Fish;

Can you provide a couple reputable studies (please link to the abstract at the journal where it was published) that shows;

1. Ethylmercury accumulation in hair,

2. Ethylmercury not found in autistic children hair.

Also you keep saying "testing for mercury", can you describe how these tests are done? Their specificity and their sensitivity (note, those are two different things).

And finally of note, you keep saying "above the EPA exposure limit"--What is, thiomersal? Can you please link to the EPA's exposure guidelines for thiomersal? Not mercury, the two are different. Please no 3rd party website, just a simple link to either a EPA published pdf or a high quality journal article which cites this exposure policy.

Thanks.

Edit: You also said "hair is an excretion route". Excretion is a specific thing in biology (human or otherwise), if you are not sure then please look it up. Either way, I'd also like for you to support (via scientific literature, primary literature please) excretion of heavy metals in hair. Since we are on the subject of mercury, I feel it would best behoove you to do so for thiomersal, ethylmercury, methymercury and inorganic mercury. Be sure to include how incorporation was done and how the mercuric source entered the body (especially if there are differences in accumulation).

Edit again; I also pointed out to you that ethylmercury is not thiomersal, rather a metabolite of it. Bear that in mind before you respond to these questions. If you recall the ramifications of this from your Ochem/Bchem classes, I'm sure you appreciate the need for specificity.

Can you please divide the questions/requests up in quote blocks and reply to each with some high quality (meaning statistical power, it would be a start for you to begin your literature search in high quality journals, rather than meandering through "mercury caused my kid's autism websites, which will assure you of not high quality data) journals.

...because you can rely on major news media to bring you the truth /sarcasm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzn86Gk6DtY&feature=related

Yeah, kind of like that time all the major new's outlets were reporting that autism was linked to thimerosal exposure.....

You also keep jumping around and skipping stuff, I believe you don't want to address for convenience reasons Fish. Can you go back through the last couple of pages and make sure you got everything?

Also, have you ever been to an M&M?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Kommandant Copathetic, this isn't Abu Graib.

“Those who demand the most often give the least.”

I suggest you read this article and take stock of yourself

http://www.ec-online.net/knowledge/articles/control.html

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Copasetic

Kommandant Copathetic, this isn't Abu Graib.

“Those who demand the most often give the least.”

I suggest you read this article and take stock of yourself

http://www.ec-online.net/knowledge/articles/control.html

Lol, K Fish.

I guess that means you aren't going to answer the questions to support your position? Not sure that is a surprise to anyone reading along.

Clearly since you are unable to support what you are talking about I am a control freak/puppet of pharmaceutical companies/work for the man/out to get your children/government misinformer/or mysterious member of "they".....

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I have supported my position, your nonsense trolling posts and stalking is indicative of you being a control freak and lacking serious thinking skills, nothing to do with what I have supported.

you dismiss a study because it had "only" 94 subjects because it "lacks statistical power", then in the next breath present the Pichchiero study with 40 subjects.

you dismiss a US government exploratory study doing lumbar punctures on autistic one year olds yet describe Wakefield as "abusing autistic children" when he does lumbar punctures for clinical reasons.

you present the danish database study to support your position of thimerosal safety, yet reject that the database recording methods were changed to favour over-recording of autistics at the same time that thimerosal was taken out - you reject it even though the paper clearly stated it!

you reject a paper because it only had a sample of 80, yet the paper actually stated the sample size of 10,000

you get the basic water fluoride limits completely wrong after a week long interrogation about fluoride, and you end the thread with a demand that I answer 58 complex questions before you will support your single assertion, you are a joke.

you pollute this thread in order to hide your failings and protect your ego, its time you found something else to do with your time.

no, I will not answer your sad little questions, nor will I respond to you further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I have supported my position, your nonsense trolling posts and stalking is indicative of you being a control freak and lacking serious thinking skills, nothing to do with what I have supported.

you dismiss a study because it had "only" 94 subjects because it "lacks statistical power", then in the next breath present the Pichchiero study with 40 subjects.

you dismiss a US government exploratory study doing lumbar punctures on autistic one year olds yet describe Wakefield as "abusing autistic children" when he does lumbar punctures for clinical reasons.

you present the danish database study to support your position of thimerosal safety, yet reject that the database recording methods were changed to favour over-recording of autistics at the same time that thimerosal was taken out - you reject it even though the paper clearly stated it!

you reject a paper because it only had a sample of 80, yet the paper actually stated the sample size of 10,000

you get the basic water fluoride limits completely wrong after a week long interrogation about fluoride, and you end the thread with a demand that I answer 58 complex questions before you will support your single assertion, you are a joke.

you pollute this thread in order to hide your failings and protect your ego, its time you found something else to do with your time.

no, I will not answer your sad little questions, nor will I respond to you further.

Thanks, its safe to conclude then, you've failed to support your arguments and don't plan on doing so. By the way, look at the difference in test statistics used in the two studies. I'm sure you recall from your probability and statistics classes that different test statistics impart different statistical usefulness. Have you taken a statistics class before? Specifically one that deals in epidemiology? You can add that to the list of questions you've failed to answer as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

**Alright, that's enough. If anyone has anything actually, you know, knew to add to this thread, please contact the mod team.**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.