baddog

Half full jars full of it? WTF does that mean? You topped off a jar that was half full of strained peas with mercury?

stickyfingerz

My father owns a heating and cooling biz, so when I was a kid I would take all the old thermometers we pulled out of houses when putting new systems in, break the end of the glass that held the mercury inside, and strain it through a paint strainer and save the mercury in a baby food jar. Got up to a good half a jar of it.

Here are some fun vids.








Rather interesting this one...






This is great as well.

Part 1





Watch the videos if you have kids and think people are just paranoid.

Martin

What a load of shit.

__________________

Libertine

Why use PubMed when you can use youtube, right?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/112/3/604
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/114/3/793
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ull/118/1/e139
http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v.../6100407a.html

You might want to order this useful little book on th subject:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10997

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Matt 26z

They didn't get the vaccine. The shot probably had water in it. If the President wanted his kids to have it, he didn't have to wait until it became available in DC to the general public.

stickyfingerz

Umm ya watch the videos. The "sources" were doctors, scientists, universities, politicians, news correspondents, victims of vaccines, etc etc. Since it was on "youtube" that makes the source Youtube? lol Watch the one on how Mercury affects living cells. Then tell us again how its not "mercury really" lol Tell us again how "science" is never wrong, or never done for a financial benefit.

Libertine

How medical research typically works:

• A researcher has a hypothesis which he wishes to test.
• He teams up with other researchers and specifies a method to use.
• He tests the hypothesis empirically.
• He writes a paper on his results, and sends that to a (hopefully high-impact) journal.
• The paper gets a blind peer review by other specialists in the field, who will reject the paper if the methodology used is not sound.
• If the methodology is sound and the findings are significant, the paper gets published, making the data fully public.
• If the findings are of interest to other researchers, they will attempt to replicate the research, possibly using larger sample groups or a different methodology.
• They submit their papers to journals, which requires peer review, and if the quality proves sufficient, the papers will get published.
• Other researchers will combine the findings of several papers on the same subject in meta-analyses, seeing if they all have similar conclusions, which use the best methodologies, and what conclusions can be drawn from the combination of all those papers.
• Those meta-analyses get submitted to peer-reviewed journals, and if of sufficient quality, get published.

How saying something on camera works:

• Wait until camera is running.
• Speak.

Do you see the difference?

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

stickyfingerz

Awesome ignore what is said, and backed up on the videos with real data, and attack the source. Typical.

University of Calgary not a good source for you?

Libertine

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove with that video. Yes, mercury is neurotoxic. So is alcohol. And glutamate, for that matter - an essential neurotransmitter in our body.

That's where dosage and metabolization come in.

In your body, cells die constantly. That includes nerve cells. The human body has between 10,000,000,000,000 and 100,000,000,000,000 cells, so a few cells more or less dying doesn't really matter all that much.

So if a neurotoxin is present in a very small amount, you'll typically experience no noticeable effects whatsoever. That's why eating a can of tuna is generally considered survivable. You'll ingest some methylmercury and kill a few cells, but as long as the level of methylmercury is kept low, that won't be a problem.

With methylmercury, it can become a problem over time because the body doesn't easily get rid of it. That's why eating tuna twice a day for a few decades is likely to cause some major problems.

Ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimoseral, is something your body gets rid of much more easily. Since it's metabolized and excreted rather quickly, it doesn't get much time to do damage, and doesn't build up inside of you to eventually reach a dangerous level.

To summarize: having a very small amount of ethylmercury enter your bloodstream for a short while is perfectly safe. It will be gone soon enough, and damage done will be negligible - especially when compared with the damage done by numerous other substances and processes, many of which are natural parts of your own body.

Of course, you shouldn't inject yourself with a few grams of ethylmercury - but that goes without saying. Just like you shouldn't eat a few pounds of salt, or drink 3 gallons of water. Every substance in existence is hazardous to your health if taken in a sufficient quantity.

Consider this for a moment: botulinum toxin is the most toxic substance known to man. It's popularly known as Botox - yes, the very same stuff that millions of people get injected into their bodies for medical and cosmetic purposes. Dosage matters.

And for the record: the video isn't about ethylmercury.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

dyna mo

libertine, what is your view on the connection, if any, between autism and thimoseral?

Libertine

My view is that there is probably no connection whatsoever between the two. It's a classic case of people mistaking correlation for causation.

Autism is most likely caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, possibly with environmental factors triggering a genetic predisposition.

Over the past few decades, a few major things have changed in the way we live our lives.

First, there's the issue of improved diagnostic tools, methods and criteria. A kid who would now be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder would have been considered retarded, socially awkward, anti-social or eccentric in the past, depending on which specific disorder is present. Both parents and doctors are more likely to recognize symptoms and to take action. That alone would be responsible for a huge boom in diagnosed cases.

Keep in mind that people with milder forms of autism, like Asperger's or PDD NOS, can often function fairly well without any medical intervention.

Second, our environment has changed significantly in recent times. There are numerous types of pollution out there now that simply didn't exist a few hundred years ago, and our activities are radically different from what they were just a few decades ago. With many thousands of environmental factors changing, it's not exactly unthinkable that any combination of those might play some role in triggering autistic characteristics.

Of course, that's not exactly a satisfying conclusion for people whose child has a disorder that can be quite serious. "We just don't know what causes it yet" is something few people want to hear. "Vaccines did it!" is a simple, understandable alternative. It gives people something to blame, and an explanation.

Unfortunately, this particular explanation simply isn't backed up by the many studies that have been done on it. For a while, there were some indications that it might be a significant contributing factor, but with more studies, it turned out to be a dead end.

Now, the sad part is that all the hype about this particular theory is drawing away funds and attention from more productive lines of research into autism.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

After Shock Media

Nice summary, quoting whole thing in hopes more will actually read it all.

__________________

dyna mo

thx for your reply libertine.

xxxdesign-net

tuna is not injected into your blood stream..

xxxdesign-net

sure thing man.. your immunologists and virologists go with what studies say.. Big $$$ and a deeply corrupt system kinda make those studies questionable.. How could there be a HUGE backlash if all the big studies say there's no link between say vaccine and fertility, cancer, autism, autoimmune diseases, overriding smaller studies? Perhaps you'd like to spend a small fraction of your research time into the other side of the argument.. just for fun... look up vaccines, Africa and sterilization...

stickyfingerz

spacedog

Libertine

You idiot. You do realize that if you read the entire thing, it actually SUPPORTS my point, right?

Here's the actual study they're talking about:
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7712/abstract.html

Now, allow me to translate that for you:

- The body gets rid of the mercury from thimerosal far faster than it gets rid of mercury ingested through food in the form of methylmercury.
- Total mercury in the brain is far lower in the subjects treated with thimerosal than in the subjects fed methylmercury.
- Brain-to-blood ratio is higher in the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (meaning the rate of mercury in their blood is lower by an even larger margin).
- Thimerosal-exposed monkeys had a lower organic/inorganic relative rate of mercury in their brains compared to methylmercury-exposed monkeys.

Jesus, sticky. You just don't understand science, do you?

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

stickyfingerz

Yes you are brilliant. Right from that page.

Do you really think 30 vaccines sounds like a good idea for kids to get? 30? How many of which have mercury, and aluminum and other toxic materials in them?

dyna mo

thermisol is no longer the preservative in vaccines, except for the h1n1/influenza shots.

Libertine

You HAVE to be fucking kidding me. Otherwise, you're not just dumb, but an actual retard.

Using the same relative ratios, with "1" representing concentration in the brain of thimerosal-exposed monkeys:

Thimerosal-exposed monkeys
Brain concentration: 1
Blood concentration: 0.286
Brain/blood ratio: 3.5

Methylmercury-exposed monkeys
Brain concentration: 3
Blood concentration: 1.2
Brain/blood ratio: 2.5

Note how concentration is far lower in the thimerosal-exposed monkeys, even though the brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys.

But I guess you aren't familiar with the word "ratio"?

Unsurprising, I suppose, since apart from referring to proportional relations, it's also the Latin word for "reason" - something you clearly lack.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/