>You consistently attacked peer-reviewed articles but gave no references for your data.

Not clear what specifically you’re referring to there but probably I was raising well-known long established findings, hence tending not to need citation. And please note my recent comments about drivel-barraging. I am not here as a free educational question-anwering service much as I’d like to be. My autismcauses posts are intended mainly for an audience of people already familiar with the lit (or capable of verifying for themselves).

>Will you have references once your journal article is printed?

It would be hard to get an article accepted that didn’t contain adequate refs. Einstein’s relativity got away with just 2 but now that’s no longer considered enough!

>If so, I would like to read it, and them.

Send request to my email address. However I am at the moment doing some, well trying to do some, further enhancing of it, so not the best time to ask as it will put me in a bind!

People are not supposed to be using IE6 nowadays due to insecurity. So happens I myself use it for just reading the met office and it does my site ok too.

Maybe blogger’s spam autofilter doesn’t like you either hah!

>using Firefox (which your blog states is the preferred system).

But you shouldn’t believe everything I write!
I am just going off to do urgent work on my allotment and I doubt if I’ll be looking at any screens or keyboards while doing so. Gettit? Cheers.

I, like daedalus, was unable to post comments there. Since you say that comments are allowed, perhaps that is due to the fact that I am using IE6 right now; I’ll look again when I am home and using Firefox (which your blog states is the preferred system).

I greatly value discussion between disparate viewpoints and I am unusual in trying to promote it myself, as for instance in my venturing onto this site here. But not when it gets degraded by drivel-barrageing.

My Autismcauses.info is not really intended to be a blog, but rather to provide appendixes of material supplementary to the update review I am publishing in a journal, and opportunity for others to comment. It just so happens that I’m hosting it on free blogger com so it behaves like a blog.

It would be good to have some constructively critical discussion there, but I don’t really want it to become dominated by a forum function such as here at lbrb, let alone the excessive deluge of amateur comments/chat we can see over at Age of Autism.

I much appreciate the non-censoring ethos practiced here, but I do think the line should be drawn at drivel-barrageing, however well-intended.

I appreciate that you weren’t intending to be abusive, and didn’t think you were abusive. But that doesn’t change the reality which I explain at that link above. Hopefully we can have more-productive (note hyphen there) discussions at some future date but I doubt it’s going to be anytime this month. Cheers.

If you are not anti-vax, I apologize for saying you were. It is hard to tell when you make baseless criticisms of Dr Offit and parrot anti-vax talking points. But if you say are not anti-vax, I will take you at your word.

You and the others in the anti-vax

But I have never said vaccines cause autism, and repeatedly said they did not play any significant part in the increase.

Your blank assertion that “Autism does not have symptoms similar to mercury poisoning” is yet more b.s. showing you have a profound ignorance of the subject. Not least because you have not made any effort to study my update review. But then given your rigidly “you are wrong because” attitude I’m not sure you’re going to be offered the chance of reading a preview of it anyway.

I have patiently prepared answers to quite a number of your questions and misunderstandings on this page. But it is becoming clear that you are ineducable.

So I will now turn my attention to working with others who are more appreciative of my “delusions”, so goodbye for now.

From 1923 to 1948 the number of children who died from pink disease in England and Wales was 1280. We now know that pink disease was mercury poisoning, likely caused by children being given teething powders containing 65 mg calomel per dose. We know that many millions of powders containing 50 mg mercury per dose were sold (30 million by just one company in a single year) every year. Presumably those doses were used, and so many millions of children were exposed to many thousands of times the largest amount of mercury ever present in a single vaccine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2068104/

Pink disease was caused by exposure to inorganic mercury. Calomel or elemental mercury in teething powders, elemental mercury exposure by inhalation can cause pink disease. Pink disease is caused by exposure to much higher levels of mercury than are contained in the full component of vaccines given over an entire childhood.

In 1947-48, pink disease (or mercury poisoning) was responsible for 23% of child deaths (174 deaths from pink disease out of 759 total).

Experiments in multiple types of animals show that orally ingested methyl mercury causes higher brain mercury levels than does injected thimerosal. Thimerosal has a short lifetime, first it decomposes to ethyl mercury, much of which is excreted, then to inorganic mercury. Once the mercury in thimerosal has become inorganic mercury, then we can use the enormous body of data available on the toxicology of inorganic mercury to understand how it behaves. After a month or so, the only mercury remaining from injected thimerosal is inorganic mercury. There is nothing magical about the inorganic mercury from thimerosal, it is the same as inorganic mercury derived from methyl mercury, derived from calomel, derived from elemental mercury.

With this understanding of the pharmacology of how thimerosal is metabolized from an IM injection, it is completely understandable why there have been no reported cases of pink disease from thimerosal exposure due to vaccines. There is simply not enough mercury present to produce the toxic symptoms of mercury poisoning exhibiting as pink disease. Toxic levels of mercury have never been reported in any tissue compartment either. Postmortem analysis of autistic brain tissue doesn’t show levels of mercury that are toxic or that are even elevated.

Pink disease occurred and was understood when analytical chemistry was in its infancy. Some of the mercury exposures and early measurements of mercury levels in children with pink disease are breath-takingly high.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....id=5641461

In one case a 3 year old developed pink disease after receiving 180,000 microgram calomel, and was excreting mercury in the urine at concentrations exceeding 1,000 micrograms per liter. In another example a 1 year old was exposed to 180,000 micrograms mercury, and perhaps as much as 330,000 microgram mercury (if the 3 Steedman’s doses in the yellow wrapper did each have 1 grain of calomel).

In this article pink disease is characterized as a “hypersensitivity” to mercury because many children were given these teething powders without developing pink disease. That a small subset of children (hundreds or thousands among millions) are “hypersensitive” to 50,000 micrograms (or more) of mercury doesn’t suggest to me there is a larger set of children (1 in 150) that are sensitive to 12.5 micrograms and develop symptoms (autism) unknown during the time when many millions of children received many thousands of times more mercury. Some children with pink disease excreted in urine in one day more mercury than any child has ever received from their entire vaccination schedule in their entire childhood.

How many cases of pink disease were there when thimerosal was in vaccines? None.
How many children develop pink disease from vaccines? None.
How many children died from mercury poisoning due to mercury in vaccines? None.

Autism does not have symptoms similar to mercury poisoning. Autism certainly lacks the most important and quintessential diagnostic symptom of mercury poisoning, that would be an elevated level of mercury.

You and the others in the anti-vax “mercury causes autism” cult can delude yourselves that “mercury causes autism”. It doesn’t. Those of us in the reality based community have looked at the data, considered it, concluded that the idea of mercury causing autism is inconsistent with abundant reliable data from many researchers going back 50+ years, even before there was diagnostic criteria for autism.