Over on Orac’s blog, a discussion is ongoing about (you guessed it) thiomersal.
One of the usual antivax canards is played beautifully by Kelli Ann Davis when she says:
So Phoenix Woman [another commenter], can you explain to me what the skull and crossbones is doing on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) if thimerosal is not a poison
This is top notch antivax stupidity. Not only does she entirely miss the point of ‘Phoenix Woman’s’ comment (which was not that thiomersal was not a poison) she also infers that the fact that thiomersal is a poison means that its automatically going to cause damage. She conveniently forgets – or doesn’t care – that the adage ‘the dose makes the poison‘ always applies.
And of course we have the scare tactic of mentioning the skull and crossbones.
Thing is, there are plenty of other Toxic substances used routinely in medicine. Lets have a look at Warafrin – which is at one level rat poison and at another level an anticoagulant. And hey – look at that – the MSDS sheet has a skull and crossbones on it.
Common clinical indications for warfarin use are atrial fibrillation, the presence of artificial heart valves, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, antiphospholipid syndrome and, occasionally, after myocardial infarction.
And also
To this day, coumarins are used as rodenticides for controlling rats and mice in residential, industrial, and agricultural areas. Warfarin is both odorless and tasteless, and is effective when mixed with food bait, because the rodents will return to the bait and continue to feed over a period of days until a lethal dose is accumulated.
So, lets spell it out nice and slow for Kelli Ann – the dose makes the poison.
And so, lets have a look at the current dose levels of thiomersal in vaccine shall we?
For an ‘average’ person of 154 pounds, there is 6mg (miligrams) – or 6000 micrograms(µg)) of mercury occurring naturally in the body. So, roughly, a person of 25 pounds has 1mg (1000µg) of mercury (or, to put it another way, 1 pound of body mass gives us 40µg). A healthy newborn weighs on average about 7.5 pounds which gives a mercury body burden of approximately 303µg of mercury.
When we look at the FDA thimerosal content of vaccines currently mandated and add them all up we see that we get 239.2µg of mercury – way under what occurs naturally in the body of a healthy 7.5 pound newborn.
Now, this is not even a fair comparison. I have added up all the vaccines for a child of 6. Including doubling up on doses of a vaccine made by different manufacturers. Quite obviously a child won’t get a Td jab from two different manufacturers at one time. I have also included all the flu jabs – again, no one will get all flu jabs in a single flu season.
The maths is quite clear. There is more mercury existing naturally in our bodies – even those of a 7.5 pound newborn – than the combined total of every single thiomersal containing vaccine on the market.
Left Brain Right Brain 
And from birth on an infant takes in mercury every day of his or her life from breast milk or formula and eventually from solid food, then there is mercury in water and air.
So complaining about the toxic effects of mercury from vaccines would be similar to hypothetical parents who feed their child whole chocolate cakes for breakfast followed by gallons of ice-cream and pie for lunch, gallons of soda-pop, and pounds of candy every day but who go ballistic and accuse a neighbor of causing their child’s over-weight or diabetes because the neighbor gave the child one cookie a year.
The numbers don’t compare. If there is mercury in the child’s brain the vast majority of it comes from sources other than vaccines, and that goes for the kids in the US who got the most mercury available to them from vaccines during the 1990s.
The antivaxers are getting desperate-er aren’t they?
“the adage ‘the dose makes the poison’ always applies.”
I’d love to see what some of these anti-vaxers would do if they had to watch their kids getting chemotherapy (not that I would EVER wish cancer on anyone, needless to say). I was definitely taken aback to see some of it on IV drips- I was kind of glad that my daughter’s chemo was clear, instead of silver or bright pink.
Some things ARE poison, but sometimes the poison is less damaging than the thing that it’s meant to stop.
Hi Kev
the adage ‘the dose makes the poison’ always applies.
Really?
Published and presented very recent science on the issue tell us that the situation is by far more complicated
Link-1
Link-2
There is no parallel information on thimerosal – in combination with other stressors- considering this info on methyl mercury
“To some degree, it mimics the process presumed to underlie Parkinson disease. Most observers agree that the appearance of clinical signs is merely the ultimate phase of a neurodegenerative process whose inception might even be traced to events occurring during early development (19). The clinical signs are believed to emerge after the death of 60-90% of the pigmented, dopamine-producing cells in the substantia nigra pars compacta. The long latency is attributed to the ability of the remaining cells to compensate for the functions of the vanished cells (20)”
“The puzzle arises from the prolonged latency before the onset of unequivocal neurotoxicity, which covered a period during which blood and hair levels fell continuously. The dose did not, in this instance, make the poison, so to speak, in apparent violation of a cherished principle of traditional toxicology.”
“The commonalities are obvious: manifestations of damage emerge only after compensatory processes have been exhausted.”
“it is that the conventional tenets of toxicology need to be observed with a considerable degree of skepticism. We should be convinced, not by dogma, but by a deep understanding of mechanisms.”
Link-3
In related fields to impacts of toxiants
And these are only few examples. What is going on is the contrast between the dogmatic classical toxicology and the findings of molecular biology at the level of systems. IT is being more and more recognized that concepts like homeostasis, hormesis and cellular answer to chemical stress should be more and more considered, explored and analyzed becuase there is a lot of information on the important of these issues- for example in endocrine disruptors.
Now, with this information and the lack of studies on the biochemical impact of vaccinatons- full composition and full schedule-why is it so easy to conclude something?
There is an enormous lack of high quality evidence- based on the study of biochemical and clinical aspects of the answer the first two years of life to xenobiotics- in general.
Kev
The point of the 6000 micrograms of Hg in an adult or the Pb or Al or.. whatever the toxic element you want to mention is WHERE is and at WHAT tissue and WHAT local amount and in WHAT period the exposure took place and with WHAT concomitant medical situations present.
Therefore how in an adult of 30 years the elements have been managed-TRANSPORTED, METABOLIZED, EXCRETED and STORED – what has been the impact in the epigenetics-is of paramount importance.
The total amount says you nothing about the impact, because of the individual answer.
Link
Maloney et al for example, postulated the recently proposed “Latent Early-life Associated Regulation” (LEARn) model, which postulates a latent expression of specific genes triggered at the developmental stage.
Kev,
Can you tell us what the poisonous dose is for an infant based on weight?
Peer-reviewed studies of toxicity would be helpful to back up your numbers as well.
Oh, and don’t forget you need to give us the toxic dose of Ethyl Mercury because we all know that the type of mercury matters as well.
There is the paranoid part of me that wonders if my son accidentally getting a double dose of a vaccine because his older sister, who was getting the same shot at the time, freaked doesn’t have something to do w/ it (so ya I know a kid that got a double dose, and he is autistic) but he had no reaction, etc, so chances are, probably not….
Wait, that blog post was on measles. The MMR vaccine is for measles, and it has never had thimerosal. Never… not ever.
What does thimerosal have to do with the MMR vaccine?
J Environ Health. 2007 Nov;70(4):9-16; discussion 40.
Inorganic: the other mercury.
Risher JF, De Rosa CT.
ATSDR, Applied Toxicology Branch, Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
…”The route of exposure, the extent of absorption, the pharmacokinetics, and the effects all vary with the specific form of mercury and the magnitude and duration of exposure. If exposure is suspected, a number of tissue analyses can be conducted to confirm exposure or to determine whether an exposure might reasonably be expected to be biologically significant. By contrast with determination of exposure to methylmercury, for which hair and blood are credible indicators, urine is the preferred biological medium for the determination of exposure to inorganic mercury, including elemental mercury, with blood normally being of value only if exposure is ongoing. Although treatments are available to help rid the body of mercury in cases of extreme exposure, prevention of exposure will make such treatments unnecessary…”
BUT
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2007 Nov;46(9):844-6.
Mercury intoxication: lack of correlation between symptoms and levels.
Gattineni J, Weiser S, Becker AM, Baum M.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75235-9063, USA.
The incidence of mercury intoxication has decreased considerably because of stricter public health regulations. However, it has not been completely eliminated and should be considered in a child with unexplained tachycardia, hypertension, mood changes, weight loss, and acrodynia. Mercury intoxication can be difficult to differentiate from pheochromocytoma and Kawasaki’s disease. Here, the authors report the case of an 8-year-old boy with history of mercury exposure, signs and symptoms suggestive of mercury intoxication, and good response to chelation therapy, but with only mild increase in urinary mercury levels. This case highlights the fact that urinary mercury levels do not necessarily correlate with the severity of clinical signs and symptoms of mercury intoxication.
Xenobiotics impact- and management- in human beings-from birth to adulthood. is by far more complex than previously thought by classical toxicology.
Schwartz – I have a better idea. Since you are suggesting thiomersal causes autism, please tell us what the poisonous dose is for an infant, based on weight. Don’t forget to include peer reviewed studies 🙂
Maria – detailing your first point, I say lots of ‘may’ and ‘might’. I don’t see any ‘does’ or ‘will’.
Regarding your second point, there is no exposure. The amount I mentioned is what exists in the body simply as a result of being alive.
LOL, that’s funny Kev, I’m glad you’re joking right?
You’re advocating the following process:
1) Take a known neurotoxin
2) Create a new formulation
3) add it to a product at dose X and give it to every infant
4) State that it is safe without testing for a toxic dose
5) Insist others have to determine the toxic level
So I guess you can’t make the statement that it’s safe at that dose can you? Sounds like a faith based argument to me.
Kev
Regarding your second point, there is no exposure. The amount I mentioned is what exists in the body simply as a result of being alive.
“NO exposure”
How?
We are exposed to xenobiotics from before our birth, because of many reasons.
The amount that exists in the body of considered toxic elements- and of essential ones- are related to the exposure to the environment- full-.
Link
Link
Link
Link
Nutrition, air, water and and food quality are all pathways of exposure. To live is to be exposed to the environment (air, water, food, medicines, other).
Kev you pointed out this
the adage ‘the dose makes the poison’ always applies
“Always” is not a might or may.
Oh, and don’t forget you need to give us the toxic dose of Ethyl Mercury because we all know that the type of mercury matters as well.
Schwarts,
You forgot to mention route of administration – that matters too. At any rate, you should already know that Thimerosal has a specific LD50 range of about 30-90mg/kg based on mammal studies and subcutaneous and intravenous injection routes.
So for the average 12 month-old infant, receiving a typical childhood vaccine about 3,000 or 4,000 times per day, every day, for an entire year would indeed appear to be potentially dangerous by the end of that year.
Schwartz – no, I think you misunderstand. The argument is the same as always. I’m _proposing_ nothing. I am pointing out that infants – through the simple act of being alive – carry enough mercury to exceed the total amount of mercury in vaccines.
You, on the other hand, are suggesting that there is a poisoning effect of that mercury which causes autism. Since you are the one proposing the harm, I’m asking to see your evidence. I’ve asked twice now. Since you are so confident there _is_ harm it should be easy for you to provide evidence _of_ this harm 🙂 I look forward to seeing it.
NB – I am not suggesting it is safe per se. I am suggesting there is no evidence it causes autism. I suggest this based on the lack of evidence for harm and the evidence refuting that which does allege harm.
Maria – the page I referenced didn’t describe mercury as a xenobiotic. It describes it as part of the elemental composition of the human body. Nanomedicine describes it as part of the ‘Atomic Composition of the….Human Body’.
The raw data originates from ‘Emsley, John, The Elements, 3rd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998‘.
One of the things that mercury phobes go crazed over is the idea that a baby is born with much of his or her mother’s “body burden” of mercury. David Kirby has said that one way for a woman to detox her mercury is to have a baby. Of course that sounds horrific, but if it’s the case then a few billion humans have been born with a good portion of their adult mother’s former mercury load. Including baby Schwartz and baby Maria. I read one study about newborn hair mercury (the hair was made while the child was in-utero, it’s **truly** baby hair, unlike the “first haircut” hair which can be totally comprised of hair that the child grew after it was born). The babies had a lot of mercury in their hair, though I suppose I’ll have to go dig it up on pubmed to show how much it was. Actually, there were a couple of studies, one was of mothers exposed to mercury from the Amazon river.
The amount of mercury a preterm infant has in it’s brain outstrips the amount that’s going to stick there from a vaccine. Get over it, people. Vaccines don’t cause autism. They don’t do measurable damage to brain cells. Mercury at any dose has never been shown to cause autism. If thimerosal didn’t cause autism in an infant that was massively overdosed with a badly formulated injection of antibiotic, injected with so much thimerosal that a big chunk of the tissue where it was injected died, if that kid didn’t get autism or severe retardation or epilepsy or CP or anything else from that massive dose, then why are you people whining about tiny doses that even conceptually can’t do anything significant to the brain not even in a tiny child. I am guessing it’s because you need something to whine about to distract you from your otherwise boring lives, or to distract you from the fact that your and your husband’s own genes made your kid autistic.
Maria, I’ve just had another look at your 4 links.
Link 1 is about adolescents. Not sure what that has to do with newborns.
Link 2 doesn’t refer to mercury at all.
Link 3 is about interactions in some trace elements, not sure sure what that has to do with vaccines or newborns.
Link 4 again is about adolescents.
If it was possible to make a case for the tiny amount of ethyl mercury in vaccines to cause any problem at all the antivax parents’ lawyers would have been able to show it in court. They did not.
And why should that microscopic bit of ethyl-mercury only cause autism, why not MR, Tourette’s, psychosis, depression, epilepsy and cerebral palsy, too? Why don’t children develop MR immediately following a vaccine containing thimerosal the way the supposedly do with autism? Why don’t children “descend into the hell that is” ADHD immediately following a vaccine? Why is it only autism that parents are whining about?
The idea that thimerosal, or the more toxic methyl mercury, even at much higher doses than was found in any vaccine schedule, even in some **imaginary** super-sensitive-to-mercury baby, can cause autism is laughable. Mercury has never been shown to cause anything like autism. If it did there’d be masses of autistic kids in the Seychelle’s where they are born with loads of mercury and start taking in more after they are born. Get. Over. It.
Kev
The point is that toxic and essential elements in body are related to environment. That was the goal of these links, to show that the levels are not related to endogenous processes only even when they participate- and that levels change according to age. Even more,exposure is related to how non-safe levels are defined and how continuously lower and lower thresholds are being considered safe.
Kev,
“I am pointing out that infants – through the simple act of being alive – carry enough mercury to exceed the total amount of mercury in vaccines.”
The mercury load of all infants is not the same. If you choose to state that the added mercury load (or cumulative load) is safe based on the fact that the added load is greater than the existing one, then you must know what the safe level is. What is the safe level?
Since you can’t tell us, you’re relying on faith or anecdote, not science since you don’t know the poisonous dose.
Additionally, you imply the incorrect assumption through your basic math that all the forms of mercury behave the same way in the body. I assume I don’t have to point out why that’s an incorrect assumption.
“You, on the other hand, are suggesting that there is a poisoning effect of that mercury which causes autism. ”
I suggested no such thing. I am requesting the safe dose — from those that proclaim safety , since we know the dose makes the poison — based on credible testing before I choose to subject myself or others to a dose.
So let me review your stance on this:
1) Certain vaccines contain a known neurotoxin in a form that is little tested
2) These vaccines are mandated for application to all children
3) Parents ask about the toxicity studies done to determine the safe dose for this poison for infants
4) No one can provide it because the studies haven’t been done
5) Parents refuse to use those vaccines saying there is a poison in them and the safe levels haven’t been determined
6) You ridicule them by explaining that the dose makes the poison, meanwhile refusing to provide any evidence of a safe dose
7) You call them irresponsible for not using those vaccines
“NB – I am not suggesting it is safe per se. I am suggesting there is no evidence it causes autism. I suggest this based on the lack of evidence for harm and the evidence refuting that which does allege harm.”
So why did you write this then:
“The maths is quite clear. There is more mercury existing naturally in our bodies – even those of a 7.5 pound newborn – than the combined total of every single thiomersal containing vaccine on the market.”
Are you NOW adjusting your position by implying that all of your maths are completely irrelevent? So why did you even bother?
You chastise Kelli Anne :
“she also infers that the fact that thiomersal is a poison means that its automatically going to cause damage.”
And then you infer that the vaccine mercury dosage is safe because it is less than the current load already in the body? Oh, but wait, you clarify in a comment you’re not saying it’s safe. I guess the inferrence is good enough.
What exactly did you call Kelli Anne when she inferred poisons would automatically cause harm?
A Non-Imus,
I almost missed your post. Did you say you had evidence of the toxicity studies of ethyl mercury in infants?
I almost missed your post. Did you say you had evidence of the toxicity studies of ethyl mercury in infants?
You can go back and re-read what I wrote if you need to Schwarts.
After that, it should be easy for you to understand that if kids were getting mercury poisoning from vaccines, it would have been written up by now. Several hundred million have been vaccinated, and not even one documented case of bona fide mercury poisoning as a result that I’m aware of.
I have an idea, lets see the studies on the safety of vaccine avoidance.
A Non-Imus,
Let me paraphrase:
“The dosage must be safe because I haven’t seen any documentation of damage.”
If no one is looking or studying, what do you expect to find?
Tell me, how do you think they finally detected problems with HRT therapy? Was it through adverse event tracking?
HINT: It was through a long term large population RCT. And yes, HRT had long been approved by the FDA and was in use by millions of women.
The only debate in my mind regarding your argument is which fallacy best describes it:
1) Fallacy of common sense
or 2) The argument from ignorance.
I vote #2.
I’ll ask again, do you have any actual scientific evidence to bring to the table or are you just providing moral support for the faith based argument?
Let me paraphrase:
“The dosage must be safe because I haven’t seen any documentation of damage.”
Incorrect. Let me simplify it for you.
There are no documented cases of vaccination resulting in mercury poisoning, period.
That clear enough? You asked about toxicity of ethyl mercury, and I provided it to you. I did not claim that any dosage was “safe”, in fact, I pointed out a dosage that would be dangerous. Back up to my first comment for you.
If no one is looking or studying, what do you expect to find?
I suppose nothing, just the same as if mercury in vaccines is not in doses sufficient to be toxic. Either way they result is likely to be the same. If, however, the dose of mercury in vaccines is toxic, the result might be different. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?
Tell me, how do you think they finally detected problems with HRT therapy? Was it through adverse event tracking?
HINT: It was through a long term large population RCT. And yes, HRT had long been approved by the FDA and was in use by millions of women.
The only debate in my mind regarding your argument is which fallacy best describes it:
1) Fallacy of common sense
or 2) The argument from ignorance.
I vote #2.
Schwarts, you amuse yourself I am sure. I don’t think the following argument
“There are no documented cases of vaccination resulting in mercury poisoning”
is as fallacious you claim. It is a statement of fact, not an appeal to common sense. There are no such cases. If you have evidence that vaccination results in mercury poisoning, feel free to refute my statement. I can see how it could be seen as an argument from ignorance. Just because I don’t know of any such cases, does not mean they might not exist. Present away! Show me my ignorance!
I’ll ask again, do you have any actual scientific evidence to bring to the table or are you just providing moral support for the faith based argument?
Schwarts, I already brought evidence that you asked for. See my first comment.
And, Schwarts, I would not ask you in seriousness, for studies on the safety of vaccine avoidance. This was meant in humor to show you that ludicrosity of your own argument. I’m prepared to accept that you may never understand this.
By the way, congratulations on the measles increase! People like you and Kelli are to thank, ya know.
Schwartz – I have a better idea. Since you are suggesting thiomersal causes autism, please tell us what the poisonous dose is for an infant, based on weight. Don’t forget to include peer reviewed studies 🙂
which would not be directly relevant anyway.
For example, the rat-poison/anticoagulant that Kev notes above is toxic above a certain level. Does anyone know how to convert that number into a dosage that causes autism? (hint, the answer is no…)
Toxic does not imply “causes autism”.
Soon we will all be able to read the next paper on autism/thimerosal. Given the preliminary information we have, it looks like it will show no link.
Of course we will also be able to read the SafeMinds (or whichever group it was) rebuttal which is probably already written. This is assuming that they have someone on the team as with the Thompson 2007 study.
Until then, we have (amongst many other data) the testimony of Brent and Rodier at the May hearings of the Omnibus. They pretty well took apart the idea that thimerosal causes autism.
People will continue to discuss the idea of “toxicity” when trying to tie thimerosal to autism. Not because it is relevant, but because it’s the strongest statement they can make.
A Non-Imus,
“There are no documented cases of vaccination resulting in mercury poisoning, period.”
Sounds like the same argument to me. Like I said: no RCTs, no one is looking.
Nice try narrowing your scope as well. Do you suppose lowered IQ is considered lead poisoning? Lowered IQ on it’s own would never be classified as such, yet we know that low levels of lead exposure result in lowered IQ without reaching a diagnosis of “lead poisoning”. Or how about this: Is lung cancer considered “tobacco poisoning”?
So I really don’t care about the definition of mercury poisoning. I care about the level where negative effects occur.
“in fact, I pointed out a dosage that would be dangerous.”
I guess I could come up with a dangerous dosage myself. But a dangerous dosage isn’t the level that toxicity starts is it? Thanks for the useless information. Care to add some useful information next time?
“I suppose nothing, just the same as if mercury in vaccines is not in doses sufficient to be toxic. Either way they result is likely to be the same. If, however, the dose of mercury in vaccines is toxic, the result might be different. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?”
But you are supposing something: “After that, it should be easy for you to understand that if kids were getting mercury poisoning from vaccines, it would have been written up by now.”
You are assuming someone is studying long term safety effects. That assumption is critical to your argument. An assumption which is not valid, since the studies are MIA.
“Schwarts, you amuse yourself I am sure. I don’t think the following argument
“There are no documented cases of vaccination resulting in mercury poisoning”
is as fallacious you claim.”
OK, let’s see what you said:
“After that, it should be easy for you to understand that if kids were getting mercury poisoning from vaccines, it would have been written up by now.”
1) There are no documented cases of mercury poisoning from vaccines
2) IF kids were getting mercury poisoning from vaccines, then #1 would not be true
3) Therefore kids are not getting mercury poisoning from vaccines.
That sure sounds like this argument: my statement must be true because it can’t be disproven. i.e. “the argument from ignorance.”
“Schwarts, I already brought evidence that you asked for. See my first comment.”
You obviously missed the point, because you have not provided the level when Ethyl Mercury becomes toxic to an infant with references.
“By the way, congratulations on the measles increase! People like you and Kelli are to thank, ya know.”
How did we switch to measles? Oh, you’re assuming all vaccines are the same right? Yet another bad assumption. Some critical thinking might be in order.
“People will continue to discuss the idea of “toxicity” when trying to tie thimerosal to autism. Not because it is relevant, but because it’s the strongest statement they can make.”
Sullivan,
Whilst you may not agree with me, it’s clear to most of us that childless Mr. or Mrs. Schwartz must have an agenda. Consider the possiblity that he or she might be the highest order of paid pharmaceutical shill. I doesn’t require extensive education to understand that as long as diseases are around, the pharmaceutical companies stand to profit from the sales of vaccines. If the influences of those like Mr. or Mrs. Schwartz were ultimately unsuccessful, and vaccination prevailed, many communicable childhood illnesses might be eradicated. This would spell an end to the enormous profits and emotional stranglehold of the vaccine industry.
Sullivan,
“Soon we will all be able to read the next paper on autism/thimerosal. Given the preliminary information we have, it looks like it will show no link.”
What preliminary information would that be?
“People will continue to discuss the idea of “toxicity” when trying to tie thimerosal to autism. Not because it is relevant, but because it’s the strongest statement they can make.”
No Sullivan, I discuss it because it is standard due diligence to determine the toxicity of a pharmaceutical before applying it to humans let alone myself or my children. Especially a compound that is known to be a neurotoxin.
Did you miss the class on Pharmaceutical safety?
“Until then, we have (amongst many other data) the testimony of Brent and Rodier at the May hearings of the Omnibus. They pretty well took apart the idea that thimerosal causes autism.”
Again you miss the point. The issue is toxicity and safety, why do you continually assume that Autism is the only possible endpoint?
And just out of curiousity, where do you think expert opinion ranks on the level of evidence scale?
HINT: At the same level as clinical experience (i.e. anecdote)
Joe Kerr,
Man, you blew my cover. I’ve been working for Big Pharma all along.
Want a share of the payoff?
A Non-Imus,
“There are no documented cases of vaccination resulting in mercury poisoning, period.”
Sounds like the same argument to me. Like I said: no RCTs, no one is looking.
Nice try narrowing your scope as well. Do you suppose lowered IQ is considered lead poisoning? Lowered IQ on it’s own would never be classified as such, yet we know that low levels of lead exposure result in lowered IQ without reaching a diagnosis of “lead poisoning”. Or how about this: Is lung cancer considered “tobacco poisoning”?
So I really don’t care about the definition of mercury poisoning. I care about the level where negative effects occur.
My scope has not changed. Back to my first post for you again, antivax boy. Third time might be a charm for you.
Are you referring to negative effects in terms of autism? What negative effects in terms of autism?
“in fact, I pointed out a dosage that would be dangerous.”
I guess I could come up with a dangerous dosage myself. But a dangerous dosage isn’t the level that toxicity starts is it? Thanks for the useless information. Care to add some useful information next time?
My pleasure Schwarts. Thanks for the useless hypothesis in the first place!
“I suppose nothing, just the same as if mercury in vaccines is not in doses sufficient to be toxic. Either way they result is likely to be the same. If, however, the dose of mercury in vaccines is toxic, the result might be different. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?”
But you are supposing something: “After that, it should be easy for you to understand that if kids were getting mercury poisoning from vaccines, it would have been written up by now.”
You are assuming someone is studying long term safety effects. That assumption is critical to your argument. An assumption which is not valid, since the studies are MIA.
Incorrect again Schwarts. I am assuming no such studying. In fact I think such studying would be a waste of time, effort, and money.
“Schwarts, you amuse yourself I am sure. I don’t think the following argument
“There are no documented cases of vaccination resulting in mercury poisoning”
is as fallacious you claim.”
OK, let’s see what you said:
“After that, it should be easy for you to understand that if kids were getting mercury poisoning from vaccines, it would have been written up by now.”
1) There are no documented cases of mercury poisoning from vaccines
2) IF kids were getting mercury poisoning from vaccines, then #1 would not be true
3) Therefore kids are not getting mercury poisoning from vaccines.
That sure sounds like this argument: my statement must be true because it can’t be disproven. i.e. “the argument from ignorance.”
Incorrect, yet again, Schwarts. I make no statement #3; EVER. Mercury poisoning from vaccines is a possibility (I even gave you a concrete example). If you have evidence that it happens at lower doses or different routes of administration than my example, feel free to bring it up.
“Schwarts, I already brought evidence that you asked for. See my first comment.”
You obviously missed the point, because you have not provided the level when Ethyl Mercury becomes toxic to an infant with references.
I did provide a level that it is very likely to be toxic. I even quantified it (30-90mg/kg) and qualified it (LD50) for you. Are you having trouble understanding this?
“By the way, congratulations on the measles increase! People like you and Kelli are to thank, ya know.”
How did we switch to measles? Oh, you’re assuming all vaccines are the same right? Yet another bad assumption. Some critical thinking might be in order.
We switched exactly the same way Kelli did in her post on a Measles article. Please try to keep up. And Congratulations.
“How did we switch to measles?”
Exactly the same way Kelli Ann switched to Thimerosal at a measles post. Please try to keep up.
“Oh, you’re assuming all vaccines are the same right?”
Of course.
“Yet another bad assumption. Some critical thinking might be in order.”
Please help me Kelli Ann, why is Schwarts being so mean?
A Non-Imus,
“Exactly the same way Kelli Ann switched to Thimerosal at a measles post. Please try to keep up.”
Last time I checked we were discussing Kev’s post on LBRB… not Orac. Funny, I didn’t see Kev mention measles at all in his post.
Maybe you’re multi-tasking too much? Please try to focus on one site at a time. Or are you invoking the “they did it, so I can” argument?
“”Oh, you’re assuming all vaccines are the same right?”
Of course.”
I’m glad you admit the false logic of stereotype.
“Please help me Kelli Ann, why is Schwarts being so mean?”
Poor Non-Imus, can’t take a little of what he dishes out? That explains the non Imus I suppose.
Geez! We’re back to thimerosal again? I thought that “mercury-causes-autism” was ancient history – I’m pretty sure that I read it on one of the websites.
Seriously, if you’re going to hitch your wagon to the falling star of “thimerosal-causes-autism”, be prepared to go down with it.
I don’t care how many “What if…” stories you concoct about how thimerosal might cause autism, and it doesn’t matter how much you say that there are still “trace” amounts of thimerosal (or mercury from Chinese crematoria) in vaccines. None of that changes the following facts:
[1] There has been less mercury and less thimerosal in routine childhood vaccines since 2001 (even if you include the influenza vaccine) than any time since the early 1970’s [hint: well before the “autism epidemic” started].
[2] Autism prevalence is still going up in the 6 year age group, according to the 2007 USDE data.
That’s why the brighter bulbs in the “mercury-causes-autism” movement have changed their story to the more vague “Green our Vaccines” nonsense. Anyone still pushing the “thimerosal-causes-autism” must not have gotten the memo.
Moving on…..
Prometheus
Poor Non-Imus, can’t take a little of what he dishes out?
Yeah, that’s it. No doubt in a real scientific debate, I’d really call out to Kelli Ann for help with a fallacious appeal.
Are you really buying all this reciprocal time-wasting and nonsense Schwarts?
Did you know “gullible” is not a real word?
Really, go look it up.
A non-imus,
“Yeah, that’s it. No doubt in a real scientific debate, I’d really call out to Kelli Ann for help with a fallacious appeal.”
Glad you admitted there is little science to your posts. That’s what I’ve been saying from the start.
“Are you really buying all this reciprocal time-wasting and nonsense Schwarts?
Did you know “gullible” is not a real word?”
Hmmm, this is from the guy who keeps coming back spouting nonsense.
Good work.
Schwartz,
here is a discussion of the prelimiary information:
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=891
The next study is pretty sure to say no to the thimerosal hypothesis.
As to the rest of your post–you are back to baiting. If you found your response clever, I’m happy for you.
Actually, Prometheus, Schwartz simply “hitches his wagon” to contrarian debates.
You see, any number of participants in the ongoing discussions over mercury/vaccines and autism will note that Schwartz has yet to make an actual point.
He is the proverbial “Master” of the null hypothesis – he tells us what we don’t know while utterly ignoring the fact that he can’t tell us anything he does know. He knows, in other words – nothing of value.
His standard choice of debate weaponry is the call for data regarding thimerosal safety levels. I have watched him – over and over again, ad nauseum – use this red herring to imply that thimerosal in vaccines may cause autism because we just can’t show otherwise. When he reminds us dullards that ‘toxicity’ does not necessarily imply ‘autism’ (completely ignoring the fact that acute mercury poisoning has never been seriously considered as a side effect of vaccination) he seems to ignore the fact that he is having the debate on an autism-related forum or blog with parents of autistic kids as well as autistic adults.
Recently, my autistic son J accused me of being mean to him. You see, I told him that he could not have a cheese stick before dinner, claiming that it would ruin his appetite. Then, for dinner, I served him some pizza. He immediately asked why cheese is ok on pizza, but is not ok without pizza. He completely ignored the concept that “appetite” is the context.
I wanted to tell him, “J, don’t get all Schwartzed, just enjoy eating your pizza!”
_”The mercury load of all infants is not the same. If you choose to state that the added mercury load (or cumulative load) is safe based on the fact that the added load is greater than the existing one, then you must know what the safe level is. What is the safe level?”_
Again Schwartz, I stated no such thing. I simply pointed out a fact. I would go on to conclude from this fact that mercury doesn’t cause autism. I’ve already said why. You disagree. Thats fine. So for the third time, I’m asking you to see the evidential basis for your disagreement. All this talk about ‘safe levels’ is bull. I’m not trying to establish universal safety. I’m trying to establish it doesn’t cause autism. Let me clarify the argument to a simplistic level:
If you want a ‘safe level’ debate then consider this. If (as we have seen) there is more mercury in the human body than in all mercury containing vaccines of the current schedule, why aren’t _all_ newborns autistic?
_”Since you can’t tell us, you’re relying on faith or anecdote, not science since you don’t know the poisonous dose.”_
Once again Schwartz, you’re making a point I’m not arguing.
_”Additionally, you imply the incorrect assumption through your basic math that all the forms of mercury behave the same way in the body. I assume I don’t have to point out why that’s an incorrect assumption.”_
No you don’t. What you have to do is show how how just _one_ form of mercury ‘behaves’ in a way that leads to autism. I’ve now asked you three times. Why can’t you?
_”I suggested no such thing. I am requesting the safe dose—from those that proclaim safety , since we know the dose makes the poison—based on credible testing before I choose to subject myself or others to a dose.”_
Fair enough. What I therefore suggest is that you find a blog where that debate is taking place. Because it isn’t here.
_”So let me review your stance on this:”_
And let me review yours:
1) Make a lot of noise about a point that isn’t being argued.
Thats about it.
_”Are you NOW adjusting your position by implying that all of your maths are completely irrelevent? So why did you even bother?”_
No idea what you’re talking about feller.
_”And then you infer that the vaccine mercury dosage is safe because it is less than the current load already in the body? Oh, but wait, you clarify in a comment you’re not saying it’s safe. I guess the inferrence is good enough.”_
Try and listen real hard Schwartz. Not arguing universal safety. Am arguing against autism causation. For all I know (or care in this context) thiomersal could turn us all into radioactive psychokillers. My sole point – as ever on this *autism blog* – is talking about autism. Really, its not hard to fathom.
_What exactly did you call Kelli Anne when she inferred poisons would automatically cause harm?_
Er….nothing.
Kev,
Re-read your post and point out where you even state the word Autism let alone causation. I’ll review the star of this post:
“So Phoenix Woman, can you explain to me what the skull and crossbones is doing on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) if thimerosal is not a poison??”
It reads like she made a general post about Thimerosal and poison. No mention of Autism Correlation. Nor did Orac mention Autism correlation. His post was about dwindling vaccination rates and measles.
You proceed to discuss poison, dose and Thimerosal which is exactly what I’m talking about.
“Thing is, there are plenty of other Toxic substances used routinely in medicine.”
“… she also infers that the fact that thiomersal is a poison means that its automatically going to cause damage”
You are not specific in your definition of damage either. If you want to refine your post now, then you should be more specific in your discussion, but then it wouldn’t work too well because Kelli Anne is just talking about poison.
“Fair enough. What I therefore suggest is that you find a blog where that debate is taking place. Because it isn’t here.”
I’ll take your word for it but you sure have a strange way of avoiding a general toxicity discussion in a post that only talks about Thimerosal toxicity.
Sullivan,
I see, you’re inferring the contents of scientific data. I’ll wait for the results.
Steve_D
I am sorry my writing has invaded your private life.
I suggest you also re-read Kev’s post and Kelli Anne’s comment and point out where the word Autism or causation shows up.
If you want to prevent going off topic, I suggest that general arguments on toxicity be made far more specific — and accurate for that matter. Kelli Anne wasn’t just talking about Autism, she doesn’t even write the word, Orac’s post doesn’t even mention it until the very last sentence, and Kev doesn’t say it either.
A general googler would pick this up and assume that you were talking about Thimerosal toxicity. We wouldn’t want to mislead them would we?
Schwartz,
Regarding an earlier comment of yours: Are you seriously suggesting RCT’s comparing vaccines with varying levels of thiomersal?
EpiWonk,
If the industry wants to insist that Thimerosal use is recommended or even preferred over other alternatives, then yes, I think they should run an RCT safety study comparing it to the alternative(s).
In the case of the flu vaccine, running an RCT vs placebo is certainly doable since the efficacy numbers from flu vaccine shouldn’t introduce any ethical issues.
In the case of the flu vaccine I also think they should study both efficacy and safety of applying flu vaccine to newborns, young infants, and pregnant mothers vs placebo. Given the current efficacy numbers of the flu vaccine, this should not be an ethical issue at all.
EpiWonk,
While you’re here, can you tell me how you interpreted this post? Does it read like a limited discussion on Thimerosal and Autism causation to you?
I would also be interested in your interpretation of what scientific merit to the discussion of toxicity, looking up mecury content of an average human body.
Schwartz and the usual anti-vax canard – “but they didn’t check for safety.”
of course they did – they used the EPA for methyl mercury which is way more toxic on account of the much longer half life – months c0mpared to a week. And all the studies show that via an IM injection, the levels never get anywhere near even the EPA standard, stringent though it is.
Safe enough Schwartz baby, even if you really don’t want to see the main point, well of course you don’t – babies got way more mercury than any puny vax schedule is going to add.
Hello everyone –
Lively stuff here.
Though the preservative in questions seems increasingly unlikely as a candidate for autism causation, I think that the poison always makes the dose argument is much to large of an over simplification; especially when we discuss chemical intrusions into very complicated developing systems.
We need look no further than animal models into generating behavioral and phsyiological symptoms of autism for evidence of this.
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jpet.107.121483v1
Animals given a dose of agent at post natal day 2 – 5 develop microglial activation and behavioral differences as observed in autism. Animals given the same dose at post natal day 11 – 14 do not develop said activation or behaviors. Same dose, different result.
Would any of these rats be considered Terbutaline poisoned? If time were not taken into account, we might assume that fifty percent of rats go on to develop migroglial activation, and strangely abnormal behavior.
Simplistic arguments lead to simplistic conclusions.
– pD
Schwartz – this is an *autism* blog. The owners middle child has *autism* . All the authors on this blog either are *autistic* , parents of *autistic* people or professionals working in the field of *autism* . Further, if you look under the ‘filed under’ headings, you will see that one of the entries is ‘ *autism* ‘.
What in God’s name did you _think_ the post was about?
I’m loth to rag on you because you have no connection to autism. I personally believe everyone has an equally valid opinion to make but I think you need to understand one basic fact – aside from my early posts where I sometimes discussed web development or books *everything* is autism related. Its not an intellectual exercise or a windmill to tilt at. Its my child’s life.
Alyric,
I didn’t realize requesting safety data was a canard — how exactly is a request for safety data a false story?
I’m also curious how you figure “they used the EPA for methyl mercury…” is checking for safety?
That sound more like a substitution of standards because they didn’t have any data on ethyl mercury. That sure doesn’t sound like checking for anything. For you to suggest that such a substitution is valid even though you obviously realize that the two don’t behave the same way in humans or monkeys is somewhat troubling.
“they used the EPA for methyl mercury which is way more toxic on account of the much longer half life – months c0mpared to a week.”
Your logic implies that half life (I assume you mean blood level half life) is a key determination of toxicity in humans. Your logic doesn’t take into any consideration the routes of mercury accumulation as it is eliminated from the blood.
It is interesting that you give this no consideration, because with toxins, they often attack specific organs, and we know that ethyl mercury behaves very differently than methyl mercury in this regard (at least in monkeys).
All of these assumptions also play into your simplistic safety assumption based on two aggregate numbers provided by Kevin. Of course, these numbers are used by you in a way that is completely devoid of any consideration of exposure details namely acute (injection) vs chronic exposure (mercury naturally occuring in the body — required for some biological processes — in your body is). You also imply toxicity is dependent on dose regardless of the form of mercury. We also know this to be false given our knowledge of dimethyl mercury. I believe that it’s extreme toxicity relates to where it bioaccumulates in the body and how easily it crosses the blood-brain barrier, illustrating again, that taking pure dosage numbers or even half-life in the blood is not the sole determining factor in toxicity whether it be acute or chronic poisoning.
“Safe enough Schwartz baby, even if you really don’t want to see the main point, well of course you don’t – babies got way more mercury than any puny vax schedule is going to add.”
In the same vein, I didn’t see a breakdown of the types and locations of naturally occuring mercury anywhere here or in the references provided. I think you should consider retracting your victory lap now…
This all illustrates a pretty flawed methodology in safety considerations. But that is explained by your opening statement I suppose: safety testing is a canard.
“I didn’t realize requesting safety data was a canard—how exactly is a request for safety data a false story?”
Please provide the safety data on vaccine avoidance.
Kev,
“What in God’s name did you think the post was about?”
Kelli Anne Davis and her comments about Thimerosal toxicity.
“I’m loth to rag on you because you have no connection to autism. I personally believe everyone has an equally valid opinion to make but I think you need to understand one basic fact – aside from my early posts where I sometimes discussed web development or books everything is autism related. Its not an intellectual exercise or a windmill to tilt at. Its my child’s life.”
OK.
A Non-Imus,
“Please provide the safety data on vaccine avoidance.”
Been there already. Do a bit of research and you’ll find my answer.