July 23, 2010

Unwanted H1N1 Vaccines Are HAZMAT And Are Being Disposed Of Accordingly

At the beginning of last years pharma fund raiser "pandemic", I wrote a lengthy piece reminding readers just how bad mercury really is to humans, and just how high the mercury content in the H1N1 flu shot was. These are the same vaccines that public heath officials keep referring to has having 'trace amounts' of mercury. I noted that they were so mercury toxic that they were classified as hazardous material and by law must be disposed of according to hazmat rules.

Now on the other side of the disease that killed ninety thousand Americans was the mildest flu in recorded history, more than $260 million dollars worth of vaccine, at least 40 million doses, are being disposed of accordingly. Being burnt in hazmat processing facilities with mercury scrubbers to keep this neurotoxin out of our environment.

Which again begs the question.... When we work so hard to keep mercury out of our waterways, WHY ARE WE PUTTING THIS POISON INTO OUR BABIES ON PURPOSE!!!!! IT IS ACTUAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL!!! IT KILLS BRAIN CELLS!!! IT CAUSES MITOCHONDRIAL DISORDERS!!!!

Now I am going to be up all night worrying that the poor guy that has to burn all these vaccines is going to end up with Minamata Disease.

From Occupational Health and Safety Magazine:

Service Will Incinerate Unused H1N1 Vaccine
Jul 23, 2010

Clean Harbors, based in Norwell, Mass., is offering the service to health care providers because multiple doses of the vaccine contain enough mercury-based Thimerosal to be treated as a hazardous waste.

Clean Harbors of Norwell, Mass., now offers H1N1 Vaccination Incineration Services that will profile, collect, and dispose of unused 2009 H1N1 vaccine for health care customers nationwide. Multiple doses of the vaccine contain enough mercury-based Thimerosal to be treated by EPA as a hazardous waste and will be incinerated. Vaccine dated at the end of 2008 and early 2009 is now at the end of its shelf life and must be disposed, according to the company.

The HHS declaration of a 2009 H1N1 Public Health Emergency expired on June 23.

"We have seen many customers in various states looking for our H1N1 disposal capabilities," John C. Kelsey, the company's vice president, Healthcare Services, said in a July 22 e-mailed reply to questions about the service. "We wanted to announce it to the larger community as we are growing our customer count related to Healthcare Services. We have done a good amount of work in this area with vaccines through our hospital Pharmaceutical Waste programs."

He said the cost varies but is "generally the same pricing as other materials requiring hazardous waste incineration. The vaccine doses are in inventory and will be shipped via DOT packages for proper disposal," Kelsey added. "We are seeing multiple truckloads per week of the vaccine now and cannot align total amounts but we do expect the need to occur from many locations as the normal pathway for outdated items."
OLFA North America

Unused vaccine doses normally are returned through Reverse Distributors, but these have no value and thus must be disposed as a waste, he said, continuing, "It is good that PHER funds can be used to reimburse organizations for the disposal process."

CDC mandates proper disposal of H1N1 vaccines and allows Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) funds to be available for the disposal. Health care providers interested in the service can call 888-304-7035, e-mail healthcareservices@cleanharbors.com, or visit www.cleanharbors.com/healthcare.

There is a saying in our community....

Giving Mercury to Children on Purpose is Stupid

75 comments:

sdtech said...

Unused flu vaccine with Thimerosal contains mercury (50 parts per million) 250 times above the USEPA level for toxicity characteristic of mercury hazardous waste (0.20 parts per million).

“Hazardous waste is a waste with properties that make it dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the environment.”

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/
laws-regs/regs-haz.htm .

Under Title 40 Section 261.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the USEPA has identified and defined mercury hazardous waste liquid (0.20 parts per million mercury) as toxic because it may:

“(1) Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or

(2) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed…”

See USEPA “Criteria for identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste,” under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations at part 261.10, at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/
cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid
=cb6b517b9b478f5550877ec90b742de2&rgn
=div8&view=text&node
=40:25.0.1.1.2.2.1.1&idno=40 .

It is so toxic that it is illegal to flush into a sanitary sewer system.

Sarcasmum said...

I had H1N1, and it is anything other than mild, thank you very much. I would much prefer mercury in my system, than to suffer from that again. I have vaccinated my daughter against H1N1 because I believe that the medical officials who created this vaccine didn't do so simply to entertain themselves on a rainy day, but did it because they wanted to prevent H1N1 from spreading. I know that they are medical experts, and are highly trained in knowing how to treat these outbreaks. It may sound like blind faith, but it is no different to somebody taking the word of anti-vaccine advocators at face value, except that the medical experts who develop their vaccines have done years of study and research.

Ginger Taylor said...

If your choice is mercury over flu, well that is certainly your choice to make.

I would merely encourage you to spend some time looking into the damage that mercury dose to the body, and to the brain, before coming to, as you described, a 'blind faith' decision based on the recommendations of those recommending the shot.

I have taken a great deal of time to research this, and have included that research in a post for parents like you so you can see how much science is being ignored when recommendations are made to allow mercury to go into a person... a child.

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2009/10/dangers-of-mercury-in-h1n1-vaccine.html

Please take a few minutes to read this post and watch the video of mercury killing the neurons in this university film.

Informed consent is very important, and this decision can have life long consequences for your daughter either way.

This is your choice, and I don't have any right to tell you what choice to make. But I hope you will just take a second look and be sure your choice is the wisest for the child you love.

Thirtyone Dreams said...

Thank you, Ginger. Your tireless effort is so very appreciated. it amazes me howcasually people take the facts that if one of these vaccines were to hit that floor and spill that Hazmat would be the correct channel for clean up. I had dental work not too long ago that requird the removal of an old "silver" filling. Yes, my dentist removed it correctly and treated that 30 year old filling as toxic/hazardous waste. Sarcasmum, enjoy the blind faith while you can.I was you prior to the damage my son received from his DTaP shot. I believed that the medical prof were looking out for my good and the good of those I love. Then I woke up, and just like the banks that took or money and then paid BIG bonuses, we, too, have been sold to Big Pharma.
Enjoy your naivevte while you can. Reality will come soon enough.

Kathleen

9:19 AM

StopThatAstronaut said...

So... how many "environmentally friendly" low-wattage lightbulbs do you have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Broken_and_discarded_lamps

One vaccine dose contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal. CFLs contain 3-5 milligrams. That's 3000-5000 micrograms.

CFLs are meant to be disposed of as hazardous waste, according to the rules.

See, that's thing. It's about (a) inflexible rules and (b) quantity for disposal.

Flu vaccines won't hurt you. People who think flu vaccines will hurt you, will hurt you.

Thirtyone Dreams said...

Adding a youtube video referring to disposal of energy efficient lightbulbs that contain mercury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KskqI5nNv-E

Kathleen

space101 said...

“Flu vaccines won't hurt you. People who think flu vaccines will hurt you, will hurt you.”

That statement is so ridiculous I can’t believe you really think that. Do you have an agenda? Work for a pharmaceutical company? Pediatrician? I’ll tell you mine; I’m the father of an autistic child.

Remember when flu was something you got, were sick for a few days, and then got over it? Now it’s a disease comparable to polio with yearly body counts in the tens of thousands (strangely, less than a few tenths of a per-cent have actual death certificates that say “influenza”. People actually died of polio). Those of us who choose not to give our kids flu shots are spoken of in terms that were once reserved for the crack-addict that abandons their children to participate in a 24 hour meth binge. By my reckoning, that change occurred right about the same time a high-margin product was mass produced.

Regarding CFL’s, the same government that demands I give my kids flu shots has also banned the incandescent lamp in the name of “saving the planet”. In a few years, I won’t have a choice, I will have to use CFLs whether I like it or not (I don’t). However, being a sensible adult, I will handle them with care and dispose of them properly. No matter how strong the temptation, I will refrain from pulverizing them and injecting the remains into my children’s blood.

Ginger Taylor said...

I have zero mercury light bulbs:

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/05/household-mercury-bombs.html

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-good-information-on-how-bad-cfls.html

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/02/cfl-mercury-light-bulbs-must-now-be.html

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/03/cfl-mercury-light-bulbs-or-landfills.html

"And what is this, "we will all have to use CFL's by 2016"? Over my dead body will one of those things come into my home (where stuff gets broken every day because I have an autistic son who is full of mercury.)"

Cara said...

My husband's response to this information was this. Keep in mind our daughter is autistic and he agrees with me that "more" vaccines for her is not in her or our best interest.
"I think the approach of the people that are questioning vaccines should be to ask why this is only happening in some and not all those that are vaccinated. Find a scientist (or group of scientist) who are willing to take a good long hard look at this. Be willing to make yourselves and your children study participants. The goal would be to identify what makes those affected different from those that aren't. Once you have that baseline, the next step would be to design a vaccination regiment (will most likely require development of different vaccines) that will be safe for those that tend to get affected. Let capitalism take over from there. You will be surprised how fast big Pharma jumps on the band wagon once they have "competition" ."
I told him that it's my opinion that the "powers that be" are preventing an honest vaccinated vs unvaccinated study. He said that "we" (those who have injured kids and are against the current vaccine schedule or vaccines period) are always seen on the attack and are unwilling to suggest "other" solutions such as he described above. I think Pharma, Gov and the Media have such a strong grip/control on the issue that we are unlikely to see an "honest" study. It is all very disheartenning. It seems like all we can do is "fight" and protect our childern (and ourselves) from further damage.
Thanks Ginger for all you do and for putting this info out! You are very appreciated!

Sarcasmum said...

The wisest decision for my daughter is to have as much protection against H1N1 as possible. Thimerosal contains such small amounts of mercury, it is highly unlikely to cause any of the side effects of mercury poisoning. I'm not sure where you got your information on the number of parts per million of mercury it contains? These figures don't seem correct to me, and haven't found information that confirms this amount other than in blogs like this.

Thimerosal has been used since the 1930's as a preservative in vaccines, and there is no convincing evidence that the trace amounts of mercury have caused harm. It is a fallacy to assume thimerosal has the same effect on the environment as it does on the human body, as the human body has a metabolic system that is able to metabolise and degrade it safely, whereas the environment is unable to do this. It is also a fallacy to use inductive logic, and posit that exposure to thimerosal causes the same effects as exposure to pure mercury, which can cause severe neurological defects.

When I said blind faith, I probably was making an overstatement - I have done a lot of research, and have not found any genuine scientific evidence to suggest vaccination consequences outweigh the benefits. I am from a scientific background, and have read many journal articles and studies into vaccination throughout my training and career, and believe that not vaccinating is far riskier. The chances of detrimental effects of the vaccination exceeding the detrimental effects of the disease are phenominally slim. Sadly, this tiny chance is enough to scare many people into not vaccinating, and I sincerely hope unvaccinated children are never exposed to the disease.

I know there are cases of vaccination injury, but compared to the number of successful vaccinations, this is a tiny percentage. I hope that another thing that is taken into consideration is the chance of dying for serious injury from the disease - in the case of H1N1, serious 'injuries' can include pulmonary embolisms and myocarditis.

Just weigh up both sides. For your own sake.

Shawn Siegel said...

Try another perspective. The standard thimerosal content in a vaccine dose (0.5 ml) is 25mcg, or 25,000 ppb mercury; 12,500 times the concentration of mercury the EPA allows in drinking water (2 ppb).

Insult adds to injury for infants and babies, who have been shown to be thousands of times more vulnerable to mercury exposure than adults.

I think whoever administers a vaccine should wear a hazmat suit, if only in obeisance to informed consent.

Ginger Taylor said...

"I'm not sure where you got your information on the number of parts per million of mercury it contains?"

If you read the other post carefully, you will see that the information I am quoting comes from Pediatrics, which is the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

"there is no convincing evidence that the trace amounts of mercury have caused harm"

With all due respect, there is a great deal of evidence that that much mercury causes harm. Mercury causes harm at any dose (as it kills all living tissue) and I would like to note that the video on that page of the neurons dying was a nanomolar amounts, tiny fractions of what is in a vaccine.

"the human body has a metabolic system that is able to metabolise and degrade it safely"

And the degree to which each individual is able to do that varies widely, which is why two different people respond very differently to the same amounts of mercury. Or strawberry. Or peanuts.

"posit that exposure to thimerosal causes the same effects as exposure to pure mercury, which can cause severe neurological defects."

And again ma'am... please read the RESEARCH on the page I have provided. You will note that most of the research is into straight Thimerosal, not elemental mercury. I would also encourage you to look at the list of research on the "no evidence of any link" page listed in the highlights section to see the kind of damage Thimerosal does.

It should be noted that the governments own research shows children who got TCV's developed speech problems, tics and learning disorders. And there is no standing government research into whether or not it causes autism.

"I have done a lot of research, and have not found any genuine scientific evidence to suggest vaccination consequences outweigh the benefits."

Great! Then I am glad that you are here. Please take the time to go through the studies I have listed on both pages and aquatint yourself with research on thimerosal damage that you have missed before.

Ginger Taylor said...

"The chances of detrimental effects of the vaccination exceeding the detrimental effects of the disease are phenominally slim."

Sadly, this is not a scientifically supportable statement. In order to make this statement, you would need to have a study that looks at the rate of both chronic neurological and immune disorders in children and viral disease in children in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to see if, in fact, adhering to the US Vaccine Schedule is correlated with higher rates of autism, adhd, learning disorders, allergies, diabetes, juvenile arthritis, cancer, etc...

Unfortunately, although the FDA charged the CDC is doing such research beginning in 1982, they refuse to do it. Carolyn Maloney (D NYC) has proposed legislation for the last three years to force NIH to do the study, but it has not passed.

AAP won't support the study either.

And their behavior is enough to tell us that they know that they research would not clear vaccination in causing neurological, autoimmune or mutagenic damage, because if it would, they would be doing vaccinated v. unvaccinated studies left and right to shut people like me up.

But they don't.

Because they can't.

"I know there are cases of vaccination injury, but compared to the number of successful vaccinations, this is a tiny percentage."

Again... You cannot know this. Vaccine injuries are rarely reported to CDC and when they are, CDC et. al. usually just say, "unrelated" or refuse to investigate all together. There are no good numbers on vaccine injury. Further, there are NO numbers on what slow decline may be taking place in people who get a mercury containing flu shot every year. If someone has an eflux disorder, and is neurologically stair stepping down every year, how many cases of repeated 'mild' vaccine injury are being called 'Alzheimers' or some other degenerative disease?

The US vaccine program is a mass experiment. My son regressed into autism following the simultaneous administration of Polio, Hepatitis B, HIB, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis and Pnumo vaccines. I have looked far and wide and there is NO research into what happens if those vaccines are given together.

"I hope that another thing that is taken into consideration is the chance of dying for serious injury from the disease - in the case of H1N1, serious 'injuries' can include pulmonary embolisms and myocarditis."

But again... fewest flu deaths this season than in recorded history. And vaccine uptake in the US was reported to be between one quarter and one eighth of the population. And in the southern hemisphere, before the vaccine was even made, also the fewest flu deaths during their flu seasons ever recorded.

"Just weigh up both sides. For your own sake."

I completely agree.

Sarcasmum said...

I give up. I've studied biology and worked in the field for years, and it seems whatever I say, you're just going to disagree, even though you have made glaring emissions of evidence that contradicts your opinion. It is sad that people will look to articles like this for medical opinions on whether to vaccinate their children, and will weigh them up equally with the opinions of experts in the field who have rigorously tested these vaccines. You'd do yourself more of a favor by finding people in the medical community who agree with you. If the vaccine truly was dangerous, it would not be administered for ethical reasons. Case closed. I hope your ignorance, disguised as 'thorough 'research'' does not cause harm to any children who contract the diseases you warn against. Vaccines have saved more lives than they have taken. That is why my daughter will be fully vaccinated - because her well being is better trusted in the hands of medical experts, than the opinions of someone on the Internet, who as far as I know, could be anybody...

slshpuppi said...

My 11 year old had the "horrible" H1N1. It was anything but horrible.

Yes he was sick with a fever, cough, chills, etc. I treated him with fluids, and Oscillococcinum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum

for 3 days and he recovered just fine. No one in the house contracted the "horrid" "deadly" H1N1, not even our 4 month old baby.

Sadly, for us, we all fell into the hype when a child in our town died after contracting H1N1. All 3 of us, except the baby got shot up with this poison. 2 weeks later it was confirmed that he died from pneumonia, and was already in the hospital when he contracted the flu due to many other medical problems including auto-immune disorder and spinabifida.

Silly pig flu.

Ginger Taylor said...

"who as far as I know, could be anybody..."

My name is Ginger Taylor. I live in Brunswick, Maine. Everything you need to know about me is in my bio, I make public appearances, I am emminently verifyable should you choose to do so rather than implying that I am a ghost.

You on the other hand use no name, have a blog with ONE very random entry, no comments and no followers.

As your discussion with me seems not to actually hear any of the arguements I am making, but blow past them and hail any random unamed expert and no way to verify your biology degree, it is kinda likely that you are not so much an interested mom as someone who... lets say has other interests in posting on blogs like mine.

If you have any actual research to discuss, rather than just making the very silly blind faith assumption that any drug on the market must be safe (really?) than please come back and offer up something rather than opinion for discussion so we can sort through this matter.

...I smell a shill.

Minority said...

Ginger,
I think you are right on the shill diagnosis. Not a single link, no data, no journal citations, nada. Just the repeated recommendation to trust the doctors, trust the doctors, trust the doctors.

Good blog article, by the way.

Steve said...

Hey Sarcasmum. You said "It is sad that people will look to articles like this for medical opinions on whether to vaccinate their children, and will weigh them up equally with the opinions of experts in the field who have rigorously tested these vaccines."

I am not going to bore you with my credentials. But I will assure you that I can follow along with any technical arguments that would support your assertion that "experts in the field" "have rigorously tested these vaccines".

You must actually have read such research articles in order to have made this comment. Therefore it should not be too much to ask of you to go ahead and cite your references. I am sure Ginger will give you as much space as you need to lay it all out for us here. I eagerly await your response.

And by the way, who are you? So far you are a sock puppet with nothing much to say.

The exhaustive research that you will soon tell us more about will undoubtedly serve as an impenetrable fortress of public reassurance in vaccine safety that no "loony" autism mom should ever penetrate.

Then, after you tell us all about this research and where to read about it - you should not need to feel so sad.

healthaware said...

I have to agree with the opposition on this one. You disregard 11,000 deaths from H1N1 flu as nothing just because it is fewer than we have seen in recent years. Those of us that knew someone that died from it with they would have had the vaccine so they would still be here today.
Mercury in flu shot = mercury in tuna sandwich. Not scary.

sdtech said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sdtech said...

The neurotoxin mercury, whether it is in fish or in a vaccine, is destructive to brain tissue.

Look at Minimata.

See http://www1.american.edu/ted/
MINIMATA.HTM

Bernard et al reported that Autism behavior looks suspiciously like the brain injuries from mercury poisoning in Minamata Japan 50 years ago.

“Similarly, mercury-exposed children and adults show a marked difficulty with speech.” Bernard et al, Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning, Medical Hypotheses (2001) 56(4), 462–471, page 464.


See http://www.safeminds.org/
research/library/Bernard-et-al-2001.pdf

Regarding the vaccine containing the neurotoxin mercury in Thimerosal, the distinction between D009 mercury hazardous waste and flu vaccine with thimerosal is an expiration date.

Both are equally as toxic and unsafe to inject into humans.

Evvy said...

you want references.. I will stop at 3 but there are hundreds saying the same thing

"The evidence presented here does not support a causal association between autism and mercury exposure from the preservative thimerosal. "
Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2010;70(2):187-95.
Does thimerosal or other mercury exposure increase the risk for autism? A review of current literature.
Schultz ST.

"Rigorous scientific studies have not identified links between autism and either thimerosal-containing vaccine or the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine." J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2009 Jul;14(3):166-72.
Autism and vaccination-the current evidence.
Miller L, Reynolds J.

"Despite compelling scientific evidence against a causal association, many parents and parent advocacy groups continue to suspect that vaccines, particularly measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs), can cause autism."Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Dec;82(6):756-9. Epub 2007 Oct 10.
Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association.
DeStefano F.

Evvy said...

SDTECH cites Minimata Bay data but fails to mention that there was not epidemic of autism following the (methyl) mercury poisoning. In the 1950's there were many infants that suffered mercury poisoning from a mercury containing teething powder. The disease was called acrodynia (pink disease). Again, where was the autism epidemic in the 1950's. In the 1960's Mercurochrome (organomercuric disodium salt) was painted into the open wounds of every scraped knee and on the umbilical stump of newborns. Each of these examples in history show that even at toxic doses we did not see any associated autism epidemic.
The mercury causes autism theory was quite reasonable, but the science continues to find it without merit.

Minority said...

My goodness, they moved the goalposts!

Showing that there are scientific studies which claim no connection between autism and thimerosal doesn't actually demonstrate that thimerosal in influenza vaccines isn't toxic or dangerous.

What we need are the toxicology studies showing that thimerosal, in the doses contained in influenza vaccines, is safe for adults, children, pregnant women, fetuses or even mice.

Injecting mercury into babies is stupid.

Ginger Taylor said...

Evvy,

Your second and third citations are irrelevant to this conversation, as the MMR does not, and has never, contained thimerosal. It is a live virus vaccine, and as mercury kills all living things, including it in the MMR vaccine would defeat the purpose because it would kill the viruses.

Your initial citation also fails chip away at the case I have made here because, if you actually read this post, and the post on mercury from last fall, I never even argue that thimerosal causes autism. I am citing all the damage that we KNOW that it does. It is undisputed that it kills neurons, causes mito disorders, causes kidney damage, causes heart damage, causes verbal tics, learning disabilities and impairs the immune system... and that is BEFORE we even touch on the 'autism' discussion.

Additionally, that citation is not research. It is a research review. Someone's opinion of what the research shows. My argument is and always has been that the medical community won't actually do the real research that would answer the mercury/autism question, and that the research out there is at best crap, and at worst, outright fraud. If you put it all in a basket, you can certainly say it favors rejection of the hypothesis, but you can also say that you have a big basked of garbage.

Again... where is the nice, clean baseline study that compares children who didn't get vaccinated to children who got the Hg containing children's vaccine schedule? There isn't one.

Where is that mercury/autism study that the government said it was running in the fall of 2007? That is was going to get right out to us? I am guessing they didn't like the results so it never saw the light of day
cont....

sdtech said...

A medium size paper clip gives an idea of just how toxic Thimerosal is over a relatively short period of time. It weighs one gram—the weight of Thimerosal that was mistakenly injected into a 2 year old boy in 1969. The child died within 30 days.

See Axton 1972 at http://pmj.bmj.com/
content/vol48/issue561/

And a material safety data sheet for thimerosal gives a LETHAL DOSE 50 or LD50 (the statistical estimate of the lethal dose where at least 50 percent of the recipients will die) for an intraaural level of 60 milligrams of Thimerosal per kilogram body weight. Using a calculation of (0.060 grams/kilogram)x(31 pounds)x(0.454 kilograms/pound) = 0.845 grams gives a value that is very close to the lethal dose documented in Axton et al.

See MSDS for Thimerosal at http://www.conncoll.edu/offices/
envhealth/MSDS/neuroscience/
thimerosal.pdf

But beyond what is known for the short term (acute toxicity) is the issue of brain cell toxicity at lower doses over longer periods of time (chronic toxicity).

The manufacturer states that “To the best of our knowledge, the chemical, physical, and toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated.”

And there are NO safe numeric criteria for Thimerosal established by the FDA.

But the United States Environmental Protection Agency has set safe numeric criteria.

For drinking water it is 0.002 parts per million mercury.

For hazardous waste (banned from sanitary sewers and sanitary landfills) it is D009 mercury hazardous waste at 0.200 parts per million mercury.

So an unused flu shot with thimerosal preservative at 50 parts per million mercury is 250 times the mercury level allowed to flush down a toilet.

Mercury has not been proven SAFE to use in vaccinations.

It was banned by the USEPA from use as a preservative in latex paint 20 years ago.

See http://www.epa.gov/t
tn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html

Ginger Taylor said...

Additionally, I would love for you to take a look at the editor's notes on the intro to the journal that published this review that you reference. You can find it here:

http://adventuresinautism.com/HewitsonEditorial.pdf

He dedicated the entire issue to autism. You will find that he writes:

"Especially frequent are problems with digestion, detoxication and immunocompetence> (Ref. 3). In fact, these features, based on poorly understood differences
in genetic makeup of some children, may be the cause of their exaggerated reaction to some factors that are harmless to other children. An alarming finding is reported by Hewitson and coworkers (Ref. 4), showing that, in infant monkeys that were immunized, the amygdala does not show the normal pattern of maturation but is hypertrophied. Although these are only preliminary data, given the well-known role of the amygdala in generation of fear and other negative emotions, they support the possibility that there is a link between early immunization
and the etiology of autism
. DeSoto and Hitlan (Ref. 5) strongly argue for both the reality of the rise in
the incidence of autism and the causal role of mercury in vaccines (specifically – thimerosal). While the reality of rise seems to be gaining still more arguments, a causal role of mercury from the medical sources is still
debated, with DeSoto and Hitlan (Ref. 5) and Geier and coauthors (Ref. 6) coming to different conclusions than Shultz (Ref. 7). An experimental paper by Majewska and others (Ref. 8) brings important information, showing that individual susceptibility, in the form of incompetent detoxication, may be the cause of both higher accumulation of mercury and autism, but the causal relation between mercury and autism is not fully determined in light of these results. The problem of interaction of the genetic makeup of an individual, and exposure to heavy metals and vaccination, is further explored in the review by Geier and colleagues (Ref. 9)."

So, you see Schultz is the odd man out in the issue of the journal that you reference... all the other articles published at at odds with his.

And the landmark study that came out in that issue is this one:

Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study

Showing that the brain changes in infant primates given the old mercury containing vaccine schedule cause the same brain changes we see in autism.

Also mercury containing flu shots are still hazardous waste.

Sheldon said...

Eleven pounds of mercury
------------
The concern for the disposal of thimerosal containing flu vaccine is merely a gimmick used by vaccination opponents.

sdtech made the same arguments before. So I calculated the amount of mercury and wrote this blog entry

Disposing of vaccine that contains thimerosal has to be done as a hazardous material. That has nothing to do with the safety of using vaccines with thimerosal. An even more ridiculous concern is that thimerosal is bad because except for a very, very, very small amount all the ethylmercury is excreted and ends up in the water waste stream.

Assume 25mcg per flu shot dose. A million doses is 25 grams. Assume half the US population (200 million is close enough) is vaccinated that's 5000g or about 11 pounds that is widely dispersed into sewage systems all over the US. In 2004, US coal plants are estimated to have given off about 105,000 pounds of mercury. http://www.energyrace.com/commentary/more_on_mercury_coal_and_cfls_updated/ These are point sources.
Of course, there are many other ways that mercury from man made processes gets into the air, the water and the soil, which makes the contribution from excreted ethylmercury even less of a concern.

http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/2010/05/11-pounds-of-mercury-year.html

healthaware said...

Here is one study you requested. It compared development in kids exposed to mercury to those who weren't.

No difference.

There are other studies like it. Check Pubmed.

N Engl J Med. 2007 Sep 27;357(13):1281-92.
Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years.

Evvy said...

Ginger. I find it comical you say "the research out there is at best crap, and at worst, outright fraud.". You then go on to praise as "landmark" Laura Hewitson's monkey study. I guess we differ on what GOOD research is. Any study that has only 2 control subjects (down from 3 in her last presentation of the data) is a curiosity at best. When her findings are replicated by others with enough subjects, then it might be significant enough to consider. Having said that, infants under 6 months old don't routinely get mercury in shots. Even the flu shot is available preservative (mercury) free. So if the data is reproducible it may help understand something that happened 15 years ago.

Ginger Taylor said...

healthaware (ish),

This is one of those exact fraud studies I was talking about.

Here is my write up on it: Head's Up. More CDC CYA/BS Commin' Our Way

This is NOT... i repeat NOT... and autism study.

You see... around ten years ago, CDC did a thimerosal/autism study. Verstraeten. Parents screamed to high heaven at what a piece of nonsense garbage it was. Congress finally took notice and asked CDC... "Hey Julie... what are they talking about?" Julie had to admit that the study was crap, but only quietly to congress. She didn't mention it to Pediatrics or the docs who were using it to make vaccine decisions for kids. But then a congressional staffer with a conscience leaked her report.

Still no retraction from Pediatrics.

So CDC promised another thimerosal/autism study. In the fall of 2007 they published the study you cite, which notes in the third paragraph of the abstract, "(We did not assess autism-spectrum disorders.)" To which parent cried, "WTF?!".

CDC said, "well we took all the autism cases and put them in a separate study... that will be out soon".

And here we wait... three years later after soon. Still no word from CDC about those darn thimerosal/autism cases. Did they mean "soon" as in "soon after the earth' crust cooled, we saw the rise of the dinosaur"?

And just in case your next citation was going to be this one:

On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes
Pediatrics, Jun 2010; 125: 1134 - 1141.

Here: <a href="http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-maugh-cant-read-or-just-doesnt.html>Thomas Maugh Can't Read (or just doesn't wanna)</a>

And you should probably know that the study you cite did find damage in children from thimerosal, they just buried it in the body of the paper and downplayed it in the abstract.

"Among the 42 neuropsychological outcomes, boys receiving thimerosal were 2 ½ times more likely to have motor and phonic tics, which can be debilitating. Additionally, this study revealed that children receiving thimerosal were more likely to have deficits in attention, behavior control and verbal IQ." - http://www.safeminds.org/research/research6.html

Even when they try to tank the studies, they still can't get rid of all the damage in the study groups from thimerosal.

Feel free to add any other thimerosal studies that you find that convincingly exonerate mercury from doing damage. All are welcome.

Evvy said...

cute how you quote SafeMinds and not the article itself. Very misleading. They did find
"Among boys, higher exposure to mercury from birth to 7 months was associated with
significantly BETTER performance on letter and
word identification on the Woodcock–Johnson
test, third edition (WJ-III), POORER performance
on the parental rating of behavioral regulation
on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Among girls, the only significant findings were
two associations with BETTER test performance.
Among boys, there was a BENEFICIAL association
between mercury exposure and identification of
letters and words on the WJ-III and a DETRIMENTAL
association with behavioral regulation and motor
and phonic tics according to the ratings of evaluators." (CAPS added for emphasis)

It is also misleading that you ask why they didn't look for autism in the study. They did not exclude any child with autism. By studying a broad range of language and motor development makes it a more convincing analysis of potential effects of mercury.

Minority said...

The study discussed started with a large group of children and ended up with a much smaller one. Why is that? Simple. Those parents who didn't want to or weren't able to bring their children to participate were excluded.

Okay. Right away this means that we do not have a random cross-section of the population in question. It means that some children weren't counted. It means that the study wasn't good, solid, objective science.

But you are right that children with autism weren't excluded. They just don't show up in the results.

Evvy said...

Ginger,
if you want a longer list of references please see the 9 pages listed at the end of the report found here...

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10208&page=R1

This is intended to be comprehensive and does look at positive and negative studies, but concluded that no link between autism and mercury containing vaccines could be found.

Minority said...

Here we go, a push to give pregnant women thimerosal containing vaccines:
http://www.whiznews.com/content/specials/kellys-pregnancy-series/2010/07/23/vaccinations-whats-safe-and-whats-not

quote: Getting an H1N1 shot is as easy as going to you local Health Department. In Muskingum County the Health Department has more than 1000 H1N1 vaccines left, and they will be getting seasonal flu vaccines in at the end of September.

If they can't get the pregnant mums to come get their vaccines they'll have to pay to dispose of the remaining 1,000 H1N1 vaccines. Much better to get the mercury into the fetus...

Ginger Taylor said...

I would like to take a time out from this conversation to note that those who have descended here to oppose me have not been able to attack, in any way, my suppositions that TCV flu vaccines are HAZMAT, that TCVs cause brain damage, heart damage, mitochondrial damage and immune damage.

They have changed the subject to autism, and as they are not followers of this blog, are offering as stand alone proof that TCV's are not associated with autism, research and papers that have already been thoroughly discussed here and shown to be poor and biased research, and not to be taken at face value.

The well established premise of this blog is that the deck is stacked against finding any problems with vaccines, and I have made that case well over the years, so if you are going to bring in research, you have to actually make the case that it proves something.

Ginger Taylor said...

SD

"The distinction between D009 mercury hazardous waste and flu vaccine with thimerosal is an expiration date. "

It is not even that. It is just the glass bubble around it.

Once it hits the floor, it is hazmat.

Ginger Taylor said...

"You disregard 11,000 deaths from H1N1 flu as nothing just because it is fewer than we have seen in recent years."

I do nothing of the kind. It is already established here that flu vaccine uptake does not correlate with fewer flu deaths.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii186/DutchPhil/Flu.png

More flu vaccines do not equal fewer flu deaths.

More vitamin D might though.

Ginger Taylor said...

Evvy,

Differing exposures at different times via different routs give varying symptomatically. Which is why Minamata Disease is not Acrodynia is not Autism.

And clearly Autism is not solely caused by mercury. Or vaccines.

Autism is an outcome of many different psychological syndromes, but it still looks like mercury has a role in it and in many (most, all??) cases.

One discussion I keep coming back to is that since thimerosal was drastically reduced in vaccines, starting with my son's birth cohort in 2002, the severity of cases seems to be more mild. My son was in the first group of kids to get lower dose Hg vaccines. With only one exception, all of the sever non-verbal children I know are all older than him. All of the kids I know that are younger than him are much higher functioning, and are usually more verbal than him.

The only exception, a child that was born a year after him and is non verbal, was a clear vaccine injury (vaccinated, fell apart, seizures, vaccinated again months later and lost all skills). All his docs, and even our state public health officials have recognized that his case is vaccine induced. Their doctor even apologized to the mom. (Wow what I wouldn't give for an apology).

We may be looking at a senario where mercury causes the mild mito dysfunction and GHS depletion, beginning the brown out in the brain that Gerberding discusses in the Gupta interview, and allowing other toxins like the aluminum in vaccines to join in the brain cell death and autoimmune stimulation. Where mercury in the 90's might have done the heavy lifting in the brain damage in autism, it may currently just be holding the door for the rest of the chemical and immune assault on the brain in kids born now.

But either way, if it is JUST causing neuron death, mito disorder, immune damage, heart problems, speech problems, behavior problems and detox problems, and not outright autism..


listen closely...

WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!!

IT CAUSES BRAIN, HEART, MITO AND IMMUNE DAMAGE!!!!

IT DOES NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BELONG IN CHILDREN OR HUMANS!

It is what we call... get this... HAZARDOUS MATERIAL... OR HAZMAT FOR SHORT!

IT HAS A SKULL AND CROSSBONES ON THE LABEL!

Who are you people!? Do you have names? Or children? Or a conscience?

I am still shocked that anyone can defend the practice of putting mercury into children, at any level. My only thought is that the people who still can defend it so vociferously must have some personal gains that they are making by doing so.

SO....

Sheldon, Evvy, HealthAware, Sarcasmum... I am asking you an earnest question. Do you have any ties to vaccine makers or sellers or promoters? Do you get any money or any remuneration or any anything for promoting these ideas?

I am asking you flat out... who are you and are you vaccine shills?

Ginger Taylor said...

Evvy,

Differing exposures at different times via different routs give varying symptomatically. Which is why Minamata Disease is not Acrodynia is not Autism.

And clearly Autism is not solely caused by mercury. Or vaccines.

Autism is an outcome of many different psychological syndromes, but it still looks like mercury has a role in it and in many (most, all??) cases.

One discussion I keep coming back to is that since thimerosal was drastically reduced in vaccines, starting with my son's birth cohort in 2002, the severity of cases seems to be more mild. My son was in the first group of kids to get lower dose Hg vaccines. With only one exception, all of the sever non-verbal children I know are all older than him. All of the kids I know that are younger than him are much higher functioning, and are usually more verbal than him.

The only exception, a child that was born a year after him and is non verbal, was a clear vaccine injury (vaccinated, fell apart, seizures, vaccinated again months later and lost all skills). All his docs, and even our state public health officials have recognized that his case is vaccine induced. Their doctor even apologized to the mom. (Wow what I wouldn't give for an apology).

We may be looking at a senario where mercury causes the mild mito dysfunction and GHS depletion, beginning the brown out in the brain that Gerberding discusses in the Gupta interview, and allowing other toxins like the aluminum in vaccines to join in the brain cell death and autoimmune stimulation. Where mercury in the 90's might have done the heavy lifting in the brain damage in autism, it may currently just be holding the door for the rest of the chemical and immune assault on the brain in kids born now.

But either way, if it is JUST causing neuron death, mito disorder, immune damage, heart problems, speech problems, behavior problems and detox problems, and not outright autism..


listen closely...

WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!!

IT CAUSES BRAIN, HEART, MITO AND IMMUNE DAMAGE!!!!

IT DOES NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BELONG IN CHILDREN OR HUMANS!

It is what we call... get this... HAZARDOUS MATERIAL... OR HAZMAT FOR SHORT!

IT HAS A SKULL AND CROSSBONES ON THE LABEL!

Who are you people!? Do you have names? Or children? Or a conscience?

I am still shocked that anyone can defend the practice of putting mercury into children, at any level. My only thought is that the people who still can defend it so vociferously must have some personal gains that they are making by doing so.

SO....

Sheldon, Evvy, HealthAware, Sarcasmum... I am asking you an earnest question. Do you have any ties to vaccine makers or sellers or promoters? Do you get any money or any remuneration or any anything for promoting these ideas?

I am asking you flat out... who are you and are you vaccine shills?

sdtech said...

Sheldon said:

“Disposing of vaccine that contains thimerosal has to be done as a hazardous material. That has nothing to do with the safety of using vaccines with thimerosal.”


Perhaps this will help: if it is too toxic to flush then it is too toxic to inject.

sdtech said...

Or this might help "The morality that pollution is criminal only after legal conviction is the morality that causes pollution."


W. Eugene and Aileen Smith, Minamata: The Story of the Poisoning of a City, and of the People Who Chose to Carry the Burden of Courage, 1975.

Minority said...

This thimerosal discussion is by no means academic. Millions of babies, every year are injected with thimerosal containing vaccines. Not in the U.S. In developing countries.

Do these babies count?

Evvy said...

I do not make money from this. I have a PhD in molecular biology. No grants from pharma. I do not do any active research in the vaccine field but do see children sickened and killed by vaccine preventable diseases.
I do agree with you that when possible thimerasol free vaccines should be used. However, as I said before, the amount of mercury in one flu shot is the same as what is in a tuna sandwich. That is methyl mercury which is metabolized 7 times more slowly, andmuch more toxic. I see your message as a reasonable theory that is flawed. Fearmongering is driving people away from a potentially life saving intervention.
Your claim that flu shots don't prevent flu is utterly imagination. Go to medline and you can find hundreds of studies showing it reduces the likelihood of getting flu 50-85% most years. With pregnantwomen dying at 5 times the rate in nonpregnant women even a 50% reduction in risk of death is better than none.

Ginger Taylor said...

Wow... you have not even read anything I have written have you.

Where did I say that flu shots don't prevent flu?!

I said that uptake in flu vaccines DON'T correlate with decreases in flu DEATHS.

"I see your message as a reasonable theory that is flawed."

What theory is that? I have said many things here. None of which have you shown to be flawed.

"the amount of mercury in one flu shot is the same as what is in a tuna sandwich"

And when you ingest methyl mercury only about ten percent of it makes it into your blood stream. When you iject ethyl mercury into your bloodstream... all of it ends up in your blood stream.

And Burbacher's primate study shows us that although more MeHg passes through the blood brain barrier, EtHg oxidizes at a much higher rate and is trapped in the brain at a much higher rate than MeHg.

Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal, Environmental Health Perspectives, Aug 2005.

So no... it is nothing like eating a tuna sandwich.

And all this research is on what is all happening in the blood and brain of typical primates and tuna sandwich eaters. Remember that the kids we are talking about here have impaired detox systems and impaired methlyation processes and are not making the GSH to process out the Hg or Al in the first place.

Please point me to a study that tells me anything about how the BODIES OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM PROCESS MERCURY!!! Hint... there isn't one. Ten years of begging CDC for one has fallen on deaf ears.

All you will find is research on blood Hg in typical children, not brain Hg in children with autism.

So tell me again how my theories are flawed?

Ginger Taylor said...

Dev Biol Stand. 1985;61:395-405.
Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine: a comparison of risks and benefits in Britain during the period 1968-83.

Stewart GT.
Abstract

Since 1975, acceptance of pertussis vaccine has fallen from over 70% to 50% or less in most parts of Britain. This permits evaluation of a continuing natural experiment in which the frequency and severity of whooping cough can be compared those of adverse events following injections of pertussis vaccine. National data show an increase in notifications of whooping cough in most parts of Britain since 1975. Hospital admissions show considerable variation between areas with relatively high rates in some areas of deprivation but very low rates in more affluent areas even where vaccine-acceptance is around 50%. Deaths of infants with whooping cough have decreased steadily since 1900, the rate since 1975 being the lowest ever. Active epidemiological surveillance in Glasgow, with a population of 216,000 children and 13,000 births annually, shows that outbreaks and severe cases requiring admission to hospital were concentrated consistently in a few areas of deprivation. There is a significant correlation between vaccine-acceptance and hospital admission by district of residence but analysis of variance shows this effect to be less than that of overcrowding in households and other deprivation variables. In each of three outbreaks studied prospectively (1974-5, 78-78 and 82) about 30% of cases occurred in children who had received three doses of pertussis vaccine. Such vaccination had a significant protective effect in children aged 1-4 years but not in older children. There was no evidence of a herd immunity sufficient to protect infants below age for vaccination. Admissions to hospital decreased during the period 1970-83. There were no deaths attributable to proven or suspected infections with Bordetella pertussis during the period 1972-1983. No cases of encephalopathy, permanent brain damage or lung damage were detected in a follow up of all cases notified, surveyed or admitted to hospital between 1975 and 1982. Collectively, these national and local data provided estimates of the frequency of infection, complications of infection, admission to hospital and death in children with whooping cough for comparison with local, national and published estimates of the frequency and severity of adverse reactions, encephalopathy, permanent brain damage and death after injections of pertussis vaccine. It is concluded that, in children living in non-deprived circumstances in Britain, the risk of pertussis vaccine during the period 1970-83 exceeded those of whooping cough. In some deprived sectors, the risks from whooping cough might have been marginally higher but there was no evidence that this was associated with any increase in deaths or permanent disabilities.

Evvy said...

Ginger, you say "And when you ingest methyl mercury only about ten percent of it makes it into your blood stream. "
I don't know where you get that statistic. According to the International Program on Chemical Safety, "Methylmercury in the human diet is almost completely absorbed into the bloodstream and distributed to all tissues within about 4 days. However, maximum levels in the brain are only reached after 5-6 days. "

I also want to know what is relevant about 25 year old data on a vaccine that isn't even available in this country. The acellular DTaP is the only one used in the US. It has been many years since you could even get the DTP (whole cell). What is your point?

We could go back and forth for weeks. You have decided before writing your blog that the mercury is to blame for many health problems. You are interpreting the data only in the way that suits your agenda.
The saddest thing is that it isn't you or I that wins or looses. It is the children with autism that loose every time an argument like this happens. Instead of being able to find the real causes and potential treatments for autism we have gotten stuck on mercury (and vaccines). If you really want more references relating to mercury absorption, metabolism or toxicity I am happy to find them for you.

sdtech said...

Evvy said “…However, as I said before, the amount of mercury in one flu shot is the same as what is in a tuna sandwich…”

Regarding this comparison to a tuna sandwich with methylmercury, the moral reasoning skill required to address this outrageous attempt to downplay the toxicity of mercury in vaccines is elementary--two wrongs do not make a right.

Mercury is a neurotoxin. It kills brain cells.

“Three large prospective epidemiology studies in the Seychelles Islands, New Zealand, and the Faroe Islands were designed to evaluate childhood development and neurotoxicity in relation to fetal exposures to methylmercury in fish-consuming populations. Prenatal methylmercury exposures in these three populations were within the range of some U.S. population exposures. No adverse effects were reported from the Seychelles Islands study, but children in the Faroe Islands exhibited subtle developmental dose-related deficits at 7 years of age. These effects include abnormalities in memory, attention, and language. In the New Zealand prospective study, children at 4 and 6 years of age exhibited deficiencies in a number of neuropsychological tests.”

Page x.

“In rat and monkey neonates, excretion of methylmercury is severely limited (Lok, 1983; Thomas et al., 1982). In rats dosed prior to 17 days of age, essentially no mercury was excreted (Thomas et al., 1982). By the time of weaning, the rate of excretion had increased to adult levels. The failure of neonates to excrete methylmercury may be associated with the inability of suckling infants to secrete bile (Ballatori and Clarkson, 1982) and the decreased ability of intestinal microflora to demethylate methylmercury during suckling (Rowland et al., 1977).”

Page 2-5.

See http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/criteria/
methylmercury/pdf/
mercury-criterion.pdf


EPA-823-R-01-001, Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health:
Methylmercury – Final, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460, January 2001, page 2-5.

Nobody Special said...

"My argument is and always has been that the medical community won't actually do the real research that would answer the mercury/autism question"

Probably a more accurate statement of the situation (I'm sure you're reflecting your views correctly) is that the researchers, institutions consider the question answered well enough. Further research especially vaccinated/unvaccinated studies won't provide better evidence nor will it dissuade people who are convinced of harm.

Nobody Special said...

"Mercury causes harm at any dose (as it kills all living tissue) and I would like to note that the video on that page of the neurons dying was a nanomolar amounts, tiny fractions of what is in a vaccine."

You're mistaken in two ways here. The concentrations were at 10^-7 (according to the video) 10^-9 is nanomolar.

The other mistake is assuming that neuronal exposure is the same as ingested exposure or subcutaneous exposure. Clearly mercury exposure (even from breathing) doesn't just jump into a small area of ones head. Considering the fondess you seem to have for telling others what they don't know. You should be happy to realize that you don't know that following things:

a) That there is no exposure of Hg which causes negligible neuronal damage. What I would say is small compared to the 'background rate' and what I figure is colloquially meant by 'safe'. So even if your epistemologically challenged statement 'unsafe at any dose' is true (which is another thing you don't know) you can still have a dose who's harm is many times less than the daily harm we receive.

b) How much of the Hg when one is exposed actually makes it to the brain.

Without these two things you can't actually know that there is any harm in the few vaccines which contain ethylmercury.

sdtech said...

Regarding the comment about what is unknown about “How much of the Hg when one is exposed actually makes it to the brain”


See http://www.ageofautism.com/
2010/03/vaccines-and-absence
-of-evidence-of-safety-.html

sdtech said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nobody Special said...

So I looked at that article but I can't really see where it mentions what I assume you were responding to. i.e. The rate at which oral/subcue Hg enters the brain. Perhaps you can cite the portion you are referring to?

sdtech said...

Look again and you should find an answer to "How much of the Hg when one is exposed actually makes it to the brain."

Nobody Special said...

Actually I think if you read your own cite deeply enough you'll see it's not as clear as you think.

Anyway if we take the opinion that 2-3 ppb is the amount you receive it's about an order of magnitude lower in concentration than the worst case in the given video.

sdtech said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sdtech said...

Mercury ions destroy snail neurons after an exposure time of 20 minutes at 20 parts per billion.

See
http://www.bates.edu/
Prebuilt/LeongEtAl2001.pdf


The concern here is the brain cells of children with an inorganic mercury exposure of 2 parts per billion exposure with a half life of greater than 120 days!

See Burbacher et al 2005 at http://www.ehponline.org/
members/2005/7712/7712.html

Nobody Special said...

Can you properly cite the 2ppb figure and the 20ppb figure?

Thanks.

sdtech said...

“1 molar (unit) = 1 M = 1 mole/liter”

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Molar_(concentration)


“The name [mole] is assumed to be derived from the German word Molek├╝l…a mole of any pure substance has mass in grams exactly equal to that substance's molecular or atomic mass”

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Mole_(unit)

The atomic mass of mercury is 200.59 grams.

See:

http://environmentalchemistry.com/
yogi/periodic/Hg.html


Leong et al, reported mercury exposure concentration of 10^-7 M (molars) to the snail neurons for 20 minutes, which is:

(10^-7 molar) x (200.59 grams/molar) / (liter x 1,000 grams/liter) = 20 parts per billion mercury






“…Special Master Smith-Campbell acknowledges an expert’s opinion of two to three parts per billion in an infant brain as the estimated level of inorganic mercury resulting from a vaccine with thimerosal (see page 133).”

See:

http://www.ageofautism.com/
2010/03/vaccines-and-absence
-of-evidence-of-safety-.html

-and-

“The dosages and schedule of administration of Hg were chosen to be comparable with the current immunization schedule for human newborn, taking into consideration the faster growth (~ 4 to 1) of the macaque infant (Gunderson and Sackett
1984).” See Burbacher et al, page 1015.

“The average concentration of inorganic Hg did not change across the 28 days of washout and was approximately 16 ng/mL [16 parts per billion after four weekly injections or 4 parts per billion average from each thimerosal injection dosage] (Figure 7).” See Burbacher et al, page 1019.

See:

Burbacher et al 2005 at:

http://www.ehponline.org/
members/2005/7712/7712.html

sdtech said...

"The half-life of inorganic Hg is too long (greater than 120 days) to be accurately estimated from the present data.”

See figure 7, Ibid.

Nobody Special said...

HO-kay. I guess I'm not being clear. When I say "cite" I mean provide the original article or the means to find it unambiguously. Just saying "blah, et al" is not sufficient - it's used in scientific literature if and only if a longer, unambiguous citation is provided either at the end of the article or in the extended information.

The problem is that a researcher's name is not unique, and even if it is it's reasonable to assume that some researchers both publish prolifically and have a specialty which often means wading through a number of different articles.

The cite is important since it provides the record of original research. For example the Age of Autism while a colourful site it's not a research journal it has no scientific review board and even in the most generous sense it has a rather firm opinion as to what research conclusions are acceptable. The article there is written by an engineer not a researcher and he is referring to a court document. However, even in reading that document it is unclear what is meant by "estimated" and at first blush I could see no reference to where research was published to ascertain the 2-3ppb figure. The problem here is that "estimate" can mean more than a few things in the context of scientific research. i.e. You wouldn't treat an upper bound and a mean value the same way.

Similarly the 20ppb figure - that your "cite" is a reference to the video. Which although well suited as an illustrative tool it's not a research paper. It provides no error figures or methodology. It's not clear if it is precisely a 10^-7M concentration or simply a solution on that scale. Finally it's not even clear if that concentration is the total amount applied or application (as clearly there were at least two applications)

So, if you don't mind - could you provide a cite. That is at the very least the title of the journal article and the name of one of the lead researchers for the 2ppb and the 20ppb figures.

Thanks again.

sdtech said...

Look again.

Indeed, all supporting citations are already given.

If, and only if, one reads these cites and the linked documents within--the obvious is there.

Nonetheless if more help is needed, then ask again.

sdtech said...

For instance, look again at:

http://www.bates.edu/
Prebuilt/LeongEtAl2001.pdf

Nobody Special said...

My apologies the study for the 20ppb figure was quite clearly in one of your posts. If by "quite clearly" we mean buried within piles of completely unasked for links about moles, the atomic weight of mercury and such. Call it a failing but I lose interest quickly in anything other than a tightly targeted response. Personally I'd say that the assumption that the person didn't understand is reasonable given that they included wildly off-topic information like the etymology of the term 'mole'

Want to point out the specific study which is pertinent to the origin of the 2ppm figure (not simply who said it but how it was arrived at). Preferably without perhaps linking to the Wikipedia page on the unit, the number 2 or pictures of farm animals.

sdtech said...

[THE PRIOR STATEMENT]

“…Special Master Smith-Campbell acknowledges an expert’s opinion of two to three parts per billion in an infant brain as the estimated level of inorganic mercury resulting from a vaccine with thimerosal (see page 133).”

[HAS BEEN CITED]

See:

http://www.ageofautism.com/
2010/03/vaccines-and-absence
-of-evidence-of-safety-.html

[THE STUDY ON INFANT MONKEYS THAT SUGGESTS 16 PARTS PER BILLION INORGANIC MERCURY IN THE BRAIN FROM FOUR WEEKLY THIMEROSAL INJECTIONS]

“The dosages and schedule of administration of Hg were chosen to be comparable with the current immunization schedule for human newborn, taking into consideration the faster growth (~ 4 to 1) of the macaque infant (Gunderson and Sackett
1984).” See Burbacher et al, page 1015.

“The average concentration of inorganic Hg did not change across the 28 days of washout and was approximately 16 ng/mL [16 parts per billion after four weekly injections or 4 parts per billion average from each thimerosal injection dosage] (Figure 7).” See Burbacher et al, page 1019.

[HAS BEEN CITED]

See:

Burbacher et al 2005 at:

http://www.ehponline.org/
members/2005/7712/7712.html

Nobody Special said...

What I said was:

"specific study which is pertinent to the origin of the 2ppm figure (not simply who said it but how it was arrived at)."

and what you said was...

“…Special Master Smith-Campbell acknowledges an expert’s opinion of two to three parts per billion in an infant brain as the estimated level of inorganic mercury resulting from a vaccine with thimerosal (see page 133).”

...again I'm sorry but I'm kind of in the place where you seem like you don't know what I'm saying. Notice how what you have provided contains none of the things I asked for (study on the origin of the figure) and precisely what was asked NOT to be provided (who said it).

So yes this is a cite but precisely not what I asked for and truth be told precisely why I asked for proper cites to begin with.

So if you would be so kind as to provide the cite asked for instead of any old cite that happens to contain the words ppm and thimerosal.

Of course it's possible that there *is* no published information on the method behind the 2-3ppm figure. Which would also be an acceptable answer.

Nobody Special said...

Not to break up your righteous indignation or whatever it is you have going on but you do have this habit of kind of freaking out here.

Like what's the point of the weird "HAS BEEN CITED" stuff? I asked for a proper cite on the source of precisely two things and got back stuff about the atomic weight of mercury and the etymology of "mole" as well as one of the things I asked for. In all fairness what was the point there?

...and from there I asked specifically for a cite for a study showing the scientific paper showing the origin of the 2ppm figure and I get the weirdo "HAS BEEN CITED" for at least two things that there was no valid reason to assume I had requested at that time. Again, what's your point?

I am trying very hard to take you seriously.

sdtech said...

The point is that mercury ions destroy snail neurons after an exposure time of 20 minutes at 20 parts per billion.

See
http://www.bates.edu/
Prebuilt/LeongEtAl2001.pdf


The concern here is the brain cells of children with an inorganic mercury exposure of 2 parts per billion exposure with a half life of greater than 120 days!

See Burbacher et al 2005 at http://www.ehponline.org/
members/2005/7712/7712.html

sdtech said...

Regarding the comment “You should be happy to realize that you don't know that following things: a) That there is no exposure of Hg which causes negligible neuronal damage…”

To the contrary, one SHOULD NEVER ATTEMPT TO justify ANY neuronal damage in a child or fetus from a vaccine preservative by saying there are other sources of neuronal damage anyways.

If one acknowledges damage from one source--then mitigate it!

But do not use it as an excuse to allow further damage from an injection dosage!!

Nobody Special said...

I think the point is that you're kind of missing it.

Sure you can assume that the concentration delivered by a vaccine is harmful to snail brain cells but you didn't actually need the UofC study to do that. Were I to guess I would say you held that conclusion prior to reading that study. You could also assume that this concentration is of potential harm and again you would require zero science to do so.

So the only point at which we are doing any science is when we are examining the evidence critically. Which means understanding the limitations of it. Since I don't know the derivation of the 2ppb figure - and I'm going to make the assumption that neither do you. It's important not to assign too much accuracy to it.

Given the information in the UofC study and lacking better information about the delivery of Hg to the brain via subcue injections of Thimo.

It seems that the evidence is weak for significant infant neuronal damage via the delivery of Hg in a vaccine - not that we have to worry about that much these days.

Nobody Special said...

What I said was:

Regarding the comment “You should be happy to realize that you don't know that following things: a) That there is no exposure of Hg which causes negligible neuronal damage…”

What you said was:

To the contrary, one SHOULD NEVER ATTEMPT TO justify ANY neuronal damage...

The only difference between you and I is you are assuming there are cases of certainty and other cases of risk. I assume everything is risk. So there is no such thing as justifying neuronal damage. Only justifying the *risk* of neuronal damage. I don't usually specify that because well most English speakers seem to take that as implied and most peoples eyes glaze over in a discussion of Bayesian vs. Frequentist statistics.

That said your position is ridiculous from this side of the page since it's impossible to even account for every risk of neuronal damage and even if you could it would be impossible to avoid all risk.

You also said:

then mitigate it!

You realize that 'mitigate' means "to reduce the risk or impact of" that would seem to leave you still risking neuronal damage. Wouldn't that count as a justification? Isn't that unacceptable?

sdtech said...

Regarding justification comment:

To Mitigate risk = to reduce risk

To Add risk based on a flawed justification that risk exists already from other sources = failure to mitigate risk.

The Bottom line here is that there is NO justification to inject a child or pregnant woman with mercury equivalent to that found in a half cup of D009 mercury hazardous waste.

sdtech said...

Regarding the evidence is weak comment:

There are NO safe numeric criteria for Thimerosal established by the FDA.

But the United States Environmental Protection Agency has set safe numeric criteria.

For drinking water it is 0.002 parts per million mercury.

For hazardous waste (banned from sanitary sewers and sanitary landfills) it is D009 mercury hazardous waste at 0.200 parts per million mercury.

So an unused flu shot with thimerosal preservative at 50 parts per million mercury is 250 times the mercury level allowed to flush down a toilet.

Mercury has not been proven SAFE to use in vaccinations.

sdtech said...

For more in depth information on the catastrophe of mercury in vaccines, read the book Evidence of Harm by David Kirby.

And read Tobacco Science and the Thimerosal Scandal by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/
docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDF

Nobody Special said...

"To Mitigate risk = to reduce risk"

Right...thanks for quoting me.

However you also seem to say that no risk is justifiable. So mitigating risk is just as unjustifiable as not.

So your have three choices here: Either your use of "mitigate" is illogical, incorrect or you believe that there exists some risk which is justifiable. QED.

"To Add risk based on a flawed justification that risk exists already from other sources = failure to mitigate risk."

Um...I'd suggest you read over what I said. "adding risk" is a misnomer. More like taking a risk which is significantly overshadowed by a myriad of other risks you are already taking.

In other words, it seems like - in your world - that to consider it reasonable to do something which has a benefit - like say playing outdoors once-a-year but also carries with it a small risk - say of being hit by a car is somehow 'flawed'. Even though one regularly engages in behavior where it is far more likely to happen. ie. crossing the street.

If so then that's interesting - also pretty irrational.

"Mercury has not been proven SAFE to use in vaccinations."

Provide an objective definition of 'safe' and 'proven'. Otherwise it's just rhetoric.