Poul Thorsen was a key person in setting up a CDC funded team to perform epidemiology in Denmark. He has recently been indicted for wire fraud. Below are some of the key parts of the indictment which I feel will be of interest to the discussion:
Count
Aarhus University and Odense University Hospital administered the CDC grant under the direction of a principal investigator, who was assigned scientific and administrative oversight.
Count Paragraph 6 starts with:
In 2002, after CDC awarded the grant, defendant THORSEN went to Denmark and became the principal investigator, responsible for administering the research money awarded by the CDC to Denmark.
So, at least according to the Grand Jury that indicted him, Poul Thorsen was the “principal investigator” and was assigned “scientific and administrative oversight”. I bring this up because the question posed by many is “how much was he able to influence the scientific results?”. I can’t find the comment right now, but I do recall one collaborator (I believe Madsen) stating that Mr. Thorsen did not have the ability to
From Count Paragraph 8 we get some details as to how the scheme was allegedly pulled off:
“The invoices falsely claimed that a CDC laboratory had performed work under the grant for which Aarhus University owed money.
I.e. he told his University in Denmark that the CDC was doing some of the work and that money had to be transferred back to pay for that. But, it appears that the money was transferred into personal accounts belonging to Mr. Thorsen.
Now, here’s the part that’s going to get a lot of speculation going.
On or about the dates set forth below in the Northern District of Georgia and elsewhere the defendant! POUL THORSEN aided and abetted by others known and unknown to the Grand Jury and for the purpose of executing the aforementioned scheme and artifice to defraud, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, and sounds, that is, wire transfers ln the following amounts from accounts held by Aarhus University in Denmark to accounts held by defendant THORSEN at the CDC Federal Credit Union Atlanta, Georgia:
aided and abetted by others known and unknown to the Grand Jury
Many will ask “were members of his scientific team involved in the money transfers?” Some will just assert it as fact.
Note that the dates involved are from December 2006 to October 2008. This is long after the main autism/vaccine studies were performed. However, if true, these charges do show a man of low personal integrity. This will be used to question his work. However, the fact remains: his work has been replicated. Take the studies from his group out–discard them entirely–and the story remains the same: neither thimerosal nor the MMR vaccine caused an autism “epidemic”. The risk of autism is not higher for those who got vaccines with thimerosal or the MMR vaccine.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Brian:
The heavy metal comments here relate to Thorsen’s team addressing autism risks using epidemiological analyses with autism rates as a dependent variable and thimerosal exposure as an independent variable. MMR does not have thimerosal preservative.
So the risks are not quantified due to a lack of a total ban on thimerosal, even though this preservative was supposed to be removed “as soon as possible” according to a joint statment in 1999. work on July 7, 1999.
Click to access 04p-0349-ref0001-05-Tab-03-Joint-Statement-Thimerosal-AAP-PHS-vol6.pdf
And the influenza vaccine was NOT excluded in recommendation “that thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible.”
So look at the references given in comments above which found brain cell injury at one nano molar concentrations. And thus there is no established “safe” level of thimerosal exposure levels.
Brian:
Re: “an alternative constituent
Mercury simply does not need to be used. Single dose flu vaccine syringes do not use thimerosal preservative.
Correction:
So the risks are not properly quantified due to a lack of a total ban on thimerosal, even though this preservative was supposed to be removed “as soon as possible” according to a joint statement on July 7, 1999.
Click to access 04p-0349-ref0001-05-Tab-03-Joint-Statement-Thimerosal-AAP-PHS-vol6.pdf
Brian:
The flu shots with thimerosal preservative are so toxic that unused vaccines in the US cannot legally be flushed down a sanitary sewer or placed into a municipal solid waste landfill.
They are classified as D009 mercury hazardous waste under USEPA hazardous waste regulations. They must be disposed in an approved hazardous waste facility. Each flu shot with thimerosal preservative contains the same mercury by weight as one half cup of mercury hazardous waste.
Hi Brian
MMR does not have any mercury in it or so we are told.
There are claims that it did have in the past although I have never found proper proof. It has been argued by the late M Hilleman that it was used in some of the companies MMR. (Merck)
Thimerosal is part of the manufacture of many vaccines but in addition extra thimerosal is sometimes added specifically to multi vial vaccine bottles.
Apart from the known danger (everybody asked for it to be removed back in 1999 and it was removed from animal vaccines long before this as it killed them. It has been out of Scandinavian vaccines for much longer than 1999 and in Russia it was banned in the 1970’s if ever used there based on tests of thimerosal vaccines versus other equivalent vaccines without thimerosal; the difference in safety as much as 200 times).
The problem is that if it is not used to inject into people it cannot legally be disposed of at an economic cost. Hence the storage of more than 95 per cent of H1N1 vaccines back in 2009; the exact place is unknown except to the people who put it there. The lost cost to the French people exceeded 1 billion euros. The history of the purchase of H1N1 vaccine in France makes of itself an interesting story of how industry and regulation conspired or worked to produce this situation where France were forced against their own will almost to purchase a stock which people like me knew would always rest in some secret place rather like nuclear waste. The only nation not to buy ANY was Poland who coincidentally but not for this reason lost most of their intelligentia behind this decision. Fact stranger than fiction.
In fact the French government if they wished have good grounds to claim compensation but seem content to flush the billion euros down the toilet and unable to do the same with dangerous toxic waste for which the ONLY recognised “SAFE” use is to inject it into HUMANS.
The joint Statement by a pediatric group and a regulatory group
The key actions being taken are:
1 . A formal request to manufacturers for a clear
commitment and a plan to eliminate or reduce as
expeditiously as possible the mercury
After more than ten years COMPLETE FAILURE.
REQUESTS dont work!
on the other, there is the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of neuro- developmental effects posed by exposure to thimerosal .
Note the use of UNKNOWN and PROBABLY. The truth evidently is too hard to say. Despite the SEEDING of doubt we already knew this stuff was near lethal but not a lot of people knew the stuff was there. Described cleverly as a preservative like lemon juice (a source of vitamins and not something known for a thousand years to take away your mind)
Note the use of probably and note the failure to state that at ten times this concentration it exceeds the LD50 level for babies (ie it kills most of them)
and like more than a million SIDS or dead children AFTER vaccines probably caused by thimerosal vaccines
SIDS is also described as an UNKNOWN.
Anyone defending the use of thimerosal is also party to mass murder.
As Paul Offittmight and does say there is only ONE side to the toxicity of THIMEROSAL.
Bayer made an attempt to get it classed back as a LEMON JUICE component and were FIRMLY told NO.
Jim,
You are trying to demonstrate how misleading it is to compare the hazardous waste criterion which have to do with ingesting large quantities for years and years with the criterion for one-time doses, aren’t you? If so, I suggest you use the example of a drop of scotch – if you poured that down the drain you’d also be violating hazardous wastes laws. That is a clearer way of demonstrating the fallacy.
Jim,
Your remarks have been dealt with before, either here or on Orac’s blog “Respectful Insolence”. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations deal with large quantities of substances. Do you know that it is illegal for a store to pour more than a certain amount of expired milk down the drain?
Julian Frost,
“Do you know that it is illegal for a store to pour more than a certain amount of expired milk down the drain”
Here’s a question for you: have you ever heard of someone chelating their child who captures the urine for hazardous waste disposal? I haven’t. We hear over and over about how much mercury is being “pulled”, but it seems OK to just dump it down the toilet.
But, a few micrograms in a vaccine vial. That’s dangerous.
Mr. Thompson seems to be obsessing, and not really understand the issues, nor the science.
Andrew:
Scotch whiskey is not a RCRA hazardous waste in the US.
Julian:
Never been to that blog…but it is not illegal to pour expired milk down the drain at any hospital in the US. However it is illegal to pour expired vaccines down the drain that have over 0.2 parts per million mercury by weight. Flu shots with thimerosal preservative have 50 parts per million mercury and are classified as D009 mercury hazardous waste. And regulations deal with hazardous waste–regardless of quantity.
Click to access Disposal%20of%20MDV.pdf
Interestingly, I found the RCRA for whiskey no problem, using the most obvious search terms. Tip: it’s nearly twice the limit to count as hazardous if you have it neat.
Not found one for milk from stores, but I would not be suprised if there are legal limits on how much stores can throw down the drain. It would not suprise me to find out that there’s a legal limit on how much water they can get rid of down the drain either.
Anywho, Jim, you shot yourself right in the foot with this one:
“And regulations deal with hazardous waste—regardless of quantity.”
If they deal with hazardous waste regardless of quantity, then it is possible that quantities that are not clinically hazardous at the medicinal dose must nevertheless be treated as hazardous waste, is it not?
Does that therefore not make the ‘but it’s hazardous waste!’ more than a bit impotent, if the designation of hazardous waste is an administrative one, and not based on a dose-specific risk assessment?
You really didn’t think that one through….
Thanks Dedj.
Dear Dedj,
Your comment is a good attempt at diversion.
Your points cancel out one another.
“If they deal with hazardous waste regardless of quantity, then it is possible that quantities that are not clinically hazardous at the medicinal dose must nevertheless be treated as hazardous waste, is it not?”
1.By saying “hazardous waste regardless of quantity”(this implies ,you are talking about hazardous waste)
2.Then you say “quantities that are not clinically hazardous”(this implys you are not talking about hazerdous waste anymore!)
3.Then you say “at the medicinal dose” are we talking hazardous or non- hazardous “at the medicinal dose” ???
Then you insert “nevertheless” admitting ,implying no clarity of either hazard or hazardous waste?
And sumerise “be treated as hazardous waste”
The question is Dedj
Are you talking hazardous or non- hazardous “at the medicinal dose” ???
Yours Sincerely
Sniffer
Dedj:
re:” ‘And regulations deal with hazardous waste—regardless of quantity.’”
That statement was to address the improper suggestion that hazardous waste levels apply only to relatively large quantities.
Sullivan:
Re: “But, a few micrograms in a vaccine vial. That’s dangerous.”
The purpose of hazardous waste regulation is to keep these toxic wastes from getting into humans via improper disposal with eventual contamination of drinking water. Once they enter human via direct IM injection as flu vaccine preservative it is too late.
Look at what “a few drops” of dimethyl mercury can do.
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2008-10th-anniversary-edition/remembering-karen-wetterhahn
Now look at the earlier comments here regarding: (1) nano molars of mercury in infant monkeys’ brain tissue from the studies by Burbacher et al, and (2) the references in the literature review by Jose´ G. Do´rea. One cannot conclude that a nano molar of mercury in the developing brain of an infant is a safe level. Thus one cannot conclude that the mercury levels from thimerosal preserved vaccines are safe!
If I may summarize much of this discussion simply:
10 Jim Thompson: mercury is toxic
20 someone else: but it has been shown to not increase the risk of autism
30 goto 10
Having programmed in Fortran 40 years ago there is something missing–
25 Jim Thompson: write ‘so look at this data–or–web site–or other scientific evidence, showing toxicity to brain cells…’
27 Sullivan: write ‘but it is just a ‘little’ amount of mercury’
28 stop
29 end
Jim Thompson,
just so we are clear–you haven’t brought up a single piece of evidence I hadn’t heard of a long time ago and haven’t already looked at. If you had taken the time to review this blog, you would already know that.
If we could get to “stop, end” that would be good. But you keep dredging up 10 year old arguments and acting like no one has seen them before.
Sullivan:
Here is a thought experiment.
Look at the transistor count in the largest processor as of 2008. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2008.svg/2000px-Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2008.svg.png
The Quad Core Itanium Tukwila has about 2 billion transistors. Now put 50 of those on a mother board (the average human brain has about 100 billion neurons). Then put another 50 on another mother board, except those 50 are on substrate that is doped at 16 parts per billion of inorganic mercury. Then compare the computing performance between the two motherboards. There is no substrate that can operate as a semiconductor with that much heavy metal contamination.
Jim Thompson,
In your thought experiment, dope the substrate with 16 parts per billion iron. Does it still work? Answer: no. Does this mean that iron is catastrophic to the functioning of the human brain? No.
This is because your thought experiment is nonsense. The human brain is not ultrapure silicon.
A relatively small amount of heavy metals do a significant amount of damage to brain cells. Look again.
I’ve looked, again and again. I will remind you, this is an autism blog. A small amount of heavy metals will not result in autism. You have done nothing to refute that.
There is evidence of increased risk of autism from Thimerosal doses from 2000, Verstraeten et al. There are still no studies with proper control groups, i.e. zero exposure vs. exposure. And calculus was co-invented over 300 years ago and yet it is not considered “dredged up” math. Clearly math and science do not go out of favor over time like fashions in society.
Ah, we are back to Vaerstraeten’s preliminary data from 11 years ago. Since you seem to need things spelled out: yes, I’m already aware of this. I’m also aware of a lot of work, actually published, since then. I don’t have to resort to conspiracy theories to discount it either.
Can I ask you: in your thought experiment, were you aware ahead of time that it was completely misleading and based on an incorrect understanding of what you were talking about, or were you convinced that it was somehow valid?
Both Fe and Hg atoms must be below parts per billion concentrations in silicon substrate. “Transition metals, in particular, must be kept below parts per billion concentrations for electronic applications.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_(electronics)
So look again at the nano molar concentrations in the references in the literature review by Jose´ G. Do´rea (one nano molar concentration is equivalent to 0.201 parts per billion of mercury).
The term “small amounts of mercury” is extremely misleading. Thus the thought experiment.
Once again, you are making assumptions about what I already know. Even though I am the one who brought it up.
Transition metals are very detrimental to semiconductors. Iron, of course, is a transition metal. It would kill a microprocessor, but is needed in great quantities by the human body and brain.
So, were you aware in advance that your thought experiment was bogus, or were you attempting to mislead? It appears that you were just ignorant of materials physics. But if you knew and were trying to mislead, it would say a lot about this discussion.
Once again, the point of the though experiment: A neuron does not function well or even dies when exposed to mercury ions. The question is not whether any brain cells are destroyed after exposure in the developing brain of an infant. The question is how many. With current scientific knowledge of nano technology growing at an exponential rate—scientists know better today than to use such terms as “minute amounts” or “tiny amounts” of mercury.
By the way, iron is required for the human body to function. Mercury is not.
The point of discussion here should be to learn. The thought experiment was not bogus. It shows that nano molars of metals affect semiconductors. And the the literature review by Jose´ G. Do´rea shows that nano molars of mercury negatively affect neurons in humans.
The thought experiment was bogus. Silicon is not destroyed by small levels of dopants. The band structure, however, is changed dramatically.
Here’s the analogy I’m working on:
There are people who, seeing that the science has failed to support their thoughts that mercury containing vaccines cause autism, have resorted to trying to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in vaccines. They often use fear of “toxins”.
You made an analogy between microprocessors and the human brain. Aside from that being a bad analogy from the start, you then pointed out that with only small amounts of mercury, the CPU, the brains of the motherboard, fails. Completely fails. Scary situation, that, isn’t it.
But the microprocessor fails not because of mercury, but because there was an impurity (doesn’t even have to be metal).
Now, you created a scary analogy. I’m trying to work out if you knew in advance that the scary analogy was bogus. As you dodge and weave, it becomes clear that you did. You tried to instill fear using a technical analogy.
You deny the evidence that mercury containing vaccines don’t cause an increased risk of autism, but you keep harping on the dangers of the toxins.
So, are you aware that your arguments are old, disproven and bogus?
Just for the record–scientists still use terms like “minute amounts” and “tiny amounts”. Even those of us in the world of nanotech.
Re: “Silicon is not destroyed by small levels of dopants. The band structure, however, is changed dramatically.”
The band structure of the silicon is not changed, the dopants carry charge (electrons) within the nearly perfect crystalline silicon structure. The dynamics of the dopant ions makes them appear to look like mobile positive charges and the free electrons are the mobile negative charges.
Re: “You made an analogy between microprocessors and the human brain.”
Only for the purpose of promoting an understanding the effects of nanomolar concentrations of mercury in other systems.
Again, the intention of the thought experiment was strictly to show nanomolar impacts of mercury.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Orwell 1984
So, you did have the science background to know your analogy was bogus.
Not enough to get the answer exactly correct though. Here is one reference you might be interested in: http://apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v73/i10/p1424_s1?isAuthorized=no
While the focus is on Fe solubility, they clearly note the effect of Fe on the band structure. Of course, that is already included in what you stated above, as a dopant will change the local band structure of the semiconductor.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
You have the freedom to say two plus two equals four. You have the freedom to say two plus two equals five. When I correct you, that is not an infringement of your rights. It is an exercise of mine.
Look at what a dose on the order of 50,000-100,000 times larger, of a different form of mercury, can do?
Catching a grand piano tossed off a 15-story building would be likely to have tragic results, that doesn’t mean catching frisbee tossed from 30 yards away will cause autism.
The context of the few drops was to the cavalier reference to alcohol. Nanomolars of mercury in an infant’s developing brain is a valid concern.
Anyway an arrow is quite lightweight too.
Dear Sullivan
“You have the freedom to say two plus two equals four. You have the freedom to say two plus two equals five. When I correct you, that is not an infringement of your rights. It is an exercise of mine.”
Were well aware of our rights on here (we haven`t any).
That said I read no post from you correcting Jim .
Could you list the numbers,dates and times of the said”corrections”please.
Sincerely
Sniffer
Sniffer,
I’m sorry if calling you out for your use of a sock puppet seems like an infringement of your rights.
It isn’t.
Jim Thompson, if you look at the details of the case you linked to, yes it was a “few drops” of pure demethyl mercury. Because it has a high density, those “few drops” were estimated to be ~1,344,000 micrograms. That is about 100,000 times the dose that used to be in vaccines.
What is very interesting is that even though she had received a lethal dose and was carrying around a lethal body burden, she had no symptoms for 5 months.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9614258
No symptoms for 5 months. How does that support the idea that 0.00001 as much will cause prompt regression and neuropathy?
On autopsy, the levels of mercury in her brain, liver and kidney were 3.1, 20.1 and 34.8 ppm respectively. That is 15.5, 100, and 173 micromolar. Those are not nanomolar levels of mercury, they are thousands of times higher.
“1.By saying “hazardous waste regardless of quantity”(this implies ,you are talking about hazardous waste)”
I am very clearly talking about the regulations defining certain waste as hazardous regardless of quantity.
The regulations have to work this way as it would be very easy to lawyer a way out of having the regulations apply to you. This is, ironically, what the British Scotch industry did back in 94-95 to prevent scotch being classed as a flammable liquid under
“2.Then you say “quantities that are not clinically hazardous”(this implys you are not talking about hazardous waste anymore!)”
Yes I clearly am still talking about hazardous waste. Waste which is administratively defined as hazardous may not be unduly hazardous at the clinical dose.
“3.Then you say “at the medicinal dose” are we talking hazardous or non- hazardous “at the medicinal dose” ???”
This is what I was pointing out. Administratively defined as ‘hazardous at any level’ may not entail that all levels are unduly hazardous as ‘at any level’ may be an administrative artifact, not a clinical concern.
“Then you insert “nevertheless” admitting ,implying no clarity of either hazard or hazardous waste?”
Not sure why you think this is unclear. Hazardous waste must be treated as actually hazardous if it meets the administrative definition, even if it isn’t actually unduly hazardous.
“The question is Dedj
Are you talking hazardous or non- hazardous “at the medicinal dose” ???”
That is the point I was trying to make.
If it’s regarded as hazardous waste, as an administrative artifact, regardless of actual risk of hazard as that dose in the context that it is usually administered, then it’s status as hazardous waste is not an inescapable indication of intrinsic hazard at the dose used in the clinical context.
I’m not sure why the duality of this is confusing you, but I would ask you kindly to admit to your failure to understand rather than making underhanded accusations of attempting to derail the thread.
“That statement was to address the improper suggestion that hazardous waste levels apply only to relatively large quantities.”
And my response was to point out that , if hazardous waste levels are universal, then the designation of TcVaccines as hazardous waste is not necessarily any form of arguement that they are actually hazardous at the clinical dose in the clinical context.
As people have rightly pointed out, the waste level apply to waste, that is, the regular and bulk disposal of waste items. That they apply to low levels is an administrative artifact.
Dear Sullivan,
Not like you to resort to,argumentum ad hominem when asked to supply information?
I found yours and Jim’s exchange informative it’s a pity you are adopting the stance you are and not supplying your corretions to Jims posts.
Sincerely
Sniffer
Dear Dedj
As you imply can you give instances of materials that are hazardous but aren’t?
Sincerely Sniffer
Jim Thompson, are you a lawyer, ‘expert witness’, CAM huckster, HBOT salesman or fecal transplant specialist? We have seen your FUD before, it bears the stamp of that special type of ethics-free bottom-feeder that manipulates and bullshits parents of autistic children, exploiting them to feed the twin parasitic industries of autism/vaccine litigation and vaccine-injury recovery
@John Fryer Chemist, do you have a reference for that LD50 for babies you mentioned. I’m not sure the data would generalize if they only established an LD50 for US babies. Or did they use UK babies? I’d just like to check what sort of sampling technique they used.
Dedj:
Re: “That they apply to low levels is an administrative artifact.”
That is incorrect. What is referred here is one half cup of D009 hazardous waste.
For instance one would not argue that Pb in paint on a single child’s toy is not an “administrative artifact” and the recall of that toy is to protect all children from the cumulative effect of all those toys.
A hospital or other medical facility employee is subject to criminal and civil penalties. The amount of hazardous waste does not relieve them from these penalties.
Daedalus2u:
Re: “Those are not nanomolar levels of mercury, they are thousands of times higher”
Correct, this was a tragic case of acute toxicity. And a child dies at a thimerosal exposure of 300 micromolar concentrations. See IAL-CHD LDLO 60 mg kg-1/4w-i at http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/TH/thimerosal.html .
But acute toxicity is not the concern with flu shots using thimerosal preservative. The concern is chronic toxicity—i.e. the impact of nano molar concentrations of mercury from thimerosal exposure, via vaccine preservative, on a developing brain of an infant.
Correction: For instance one would not argue that Pb in paint on a single child’s toy is an “administrative artifact” and the recall of that toy is only to protect all children from the cumulative effect of all those toys.
…The authors report that they have ‘calculated the position of the iron donor level in the silicon band gap at elevated temperatures [in a silicon crystal heavily doped with boron].’
There is no mention of an altered band gap in the silicon crystalline structure due to the Fe donors.
…consider a vacuum tube. Once the electrons are emitted (released from being bound to atoms) with the use of thermal energy, there is no mass of silicon atoms with electric forces that attract and repel. The silicon energy bands can not affect the electron movement. There is only the effect of an electric field as they travel through a vacuum. But electrons travel though semiconductors only as the energy bands allow. Energy bands are altered by temperature and crystalline structure.
Sullivan:
Thank you for the time and space on this blog.
I sent a rather long explanation of harm from thimerosal but it didnt get posted.
The Karen Wetterhahn case is at the vanguard of the thimerosal scandal.
To deny the connection is rather like saying a banger cant hurt you as it took 2 nuclear bombs to end a war.
Thimerosal is TOXIC
Thimerosal is NEUROTOXIC
Thimerosal is CARCINOGENIC
What sort of person can argue for its continued use on grounds that it is actually OK for the one day infant of very recent times and for the foetus yet to be born child of today?
Safety Data
ARSENIC
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Classified A1 (Confirmed for human.) by ACGIH.
MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available.
The substance is toxic to kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, mucous membranes.
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Arsenic-9922970
Lethal at 145 through to 763 mg/kg
Federal and State Regulations:
California prop. 65: This product contains the following ingredients for which the State of California has found to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, which would require a warning under the statute:
WHMIS (Canada):
CLASS D-1A: Material causing immediate and serious toxic effects (VERY TOXIC). CLASS D-2A: Material causing other toxic effects (VERY TOXIC)
DSCL (EEC):
R22- Harmful if swallowed. R45- May cause cancer
THIMEROSAL
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/TH/thimerosal.html
Poison. Experimental neoplastigen and teratogen. Harmful by inhalation and ingestion. May cause reproductive damage. May be harmful through skin contact. Typical OEL 0.05 mg/m3.
What is neoplastigen
It means the same as Carcinogenic, in that it refers to a sustance that promotes or causes “Neoplasia” ie tumour formation by disrupting processes that usual regulatethe normal division of cells.
What does teratogen mean
• TERATOGEN (noun)
The noun TERATOGEN has 1 sense:
1. any agent that interferes with normal embryonic development: alcohol or thalidomide or X-rays or rubella are examples
Lethal at 30 through 98 mg/kg
What does the comparison tell us?
Thimerosal is possibly 20 to 30 times more LETHALLY toxic than arsenic
Thimerosal has possibly 3 times as many long term term health effects as arsenic
The data sheet for a compound injected into every baby in the USA for decades is a total disgrace to precautionary science.
But what it does say should CONDEMN its use (thimerosal for vaccine use) from the day the data sheet was issued.
McD:
In the US the rate of autism is estimated at four million new cases each year.
What more motive need there be?
Only the best wishes for your family and loved ones that might be affected by autism.
p.s.
re: …what more motive need there be?
Ans. Stopping the practice of injecting mercury based thimerosal preserved vaccines in children worldwide.
JT, didn’t you read the link? The micromolar levels of mercury in Karen Wetterhahn’s brain were many months (actually 10 months) after exposure. It was “acute” toxicity that produced no symptoms for 5 months and death after 10 months.
You brought up the subject by stating that a “few drops” of pure dimethylmercury could do this. Yes, it was a “few drops” of pure dimethylmercury, a dose 100,000 times higher than any vaccine, which contains thimerosal which is much less toxic and is excreted faster than dimethyl mercury.
In this case, someone ingested 83 mg/kg thimerosal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699562
and recovered completely
Karen Wetterhahn absorbed ~22 mg/kg of dimethylmercury and did not. Dimethylmercury is much more toxic than thimerosal.
What’s the annual birth rate in the US Jim?
Dear daedalus2u
“which contains thimerosal which is much less toxic and is excreted faster than dimethyl mercury.”
Wheres the studies for your claim above?
Doc
Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S.Why do you ask?
Sincerely
Sniffer
Click to access nvsr59_03.pdf
“The 2009 preliminary number of US births declined 3 percent from 2008, to 4,131,019;”
The website is as slow as it has ever been at the moment.