tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post7212037199506544797..comments2024-03-27T15:43:53.969-04:00Comments on Adventures in Autism: Unwanted H1N1 Vaccines Are HAZMAT And Are Being Disposed Of AccordinglyGinger Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04200286625735078479noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-58359328899886885442010-08-25T01:05:15.986-04:002010-08-25T01:05:15.986-04:00"To Mitigate risk = to reduce risk"
Rig..."To Mitigate risk = to reduce risk"<br /><br />Right...thanks for quoting me. <br /><br />However you also seem to say that no risk is justifiable. So mitigating risk is just as unjustifiable as not.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"To Add risk based on a flawed justification that risk exists already from other sources = failure to mitigate risk."<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />If so then that's interesting - also pretty irrational.<br /><br />"Mercury has not been proven SAFE to use in vaccinations."<br /><br />Provide an objective definition of 'safe' and 'proven'. Otherwise it's just rhetoric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-29579297307739427242010-08-10T05:05:07.989-04:002010-08-10T05:05:07.989-04:00For more in depth information on the catastrophe o...For more in depth information on the catastrophe of mercury in vaccines, read the book Evidence of Harm by David Kirby.<br /><br />And read Tobacco Science and the Thimerosal Scandal by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.<br /><br />http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/ <br />docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDFJim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-2988235594571199532010-08-09T22:14:49.616-04:002010-08-09T22:14:49.616-04:00Regarding the evidence is weak comment:
There are...Regarding the evidence is weak comment:<br /><br />There are NO safe numeric criteria for Thimerosal established by the FDA. <br /> <br />But the United States Environmental Protection Agency has set safe numeric criteria.<br /><br />For drinking water it is 0.002 parts per million mercury.<br /><br />For hazardous waste (banned from sanitary sewers and sanitary landfills) it is D009 mercury hazardous waste at 0.200 parts per million mercury.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Mercury has not been proven SAFE to use in vaccinations.Jim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-87642534675627202062010-08-09T22:09:39.034-04:002010-08-09T22:09:39.034-04:00Regarding justification comment:
To Mitigate risk...Regarding justification comment:<br /><br />To Mitigate risk = to reduce risk<br /><br />To Add risk based on a flawed justification that risk exists already from other sources = failure to mitigate risk.<br /><br />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.Jim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-37868539846698991052010-08-08T23:24:48.373-04:002010-08-08T23:24:48.373-04:00What I said was:
Regarding the comment “You shoul...What I said was:<br /><br />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…”<br /><br />What you said was:<br /><br />To the contrary, one SHOULD NEVER ATTEMPT TO justify ANY neuronal damage...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You also said: <br /><br />then mitigate it! <br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-18360338005325546642010-08-08T22:47:47.450-04:002010-08-08T22:47:47.450-04:00I think the point is that you're kind of missi...I think the point is that you're kind of missing it.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Given the information in the UofC study and lacking better information about the delivery of Hg to the brain via subcue injections of Thimo.<br /> <br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-8569789148340454802010-08-08T14:52:20.611-04:002010-08-08T14:52:20.611-04:00Regarding the comment “You should be happy to real...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…”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />If one acknowledges damage from one source--then mitigate it! <br /><br />But do not use it as an excuse to allow further damage from an injection dosage!!Jim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-62370008325352655532010-08-08T10:34:33.789-04:002010-08-08T10:34:33.789-04:00The point is that mercury ions destroy snail neuro...The point is that mercury ions destroy snail neurons after an exposure time of 20 minutes at 20 parts per billion.<br /><br />See<br />http://www.bates.edu/ <br />Prebuilt/LeongEtAl2001.pdf<br /><br /><br />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! <br /><br />See Burbacher et al 2005 at http://www.ehponline.org/<br />members/2005/7712/7712.htmlJim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-11279883935628354902010-08-07T21:34:27.991-04:002010-08-07T21:34:27.991-04:00Not to break up your righteous indignation or what...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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />...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?<br /><br />I am trying very hard to take you seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-48481497773765037642010-08-07T21:20:48.149-04:002010-08-07T21:20:48.149-04:00What I said was:
"specific study which is pe...What I said was:<br /><br />"specific study which is pertinent to the origin of the 2ppm figure (not simply who said it but how it was arrived at)."<br /><br />and what you said was...<br /><br />“…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).”<br /><br />...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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-17212864811949668202010-08-06T23:27:35.352-04:002010-08-06T23:27:35.352-04:00[THE PRIOR STATEMENT]
“…Special Master Smith-Camp...[THE PRIOR STATEMENT]<br /><br />“…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).” <br /><br />[HAS BEEN CITED]<br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://www.ageofautism.com/<br />2010/03/vaccines-and-absence<br />-of-evidence-of-safety-.html<br /><br />[THE STUDY ON INFANT MONKEYS THAT SUGGESTS 16 PARTS PER BILLION INORGANIC MERCURY IN THE BRAIN FROM FOUR WEEKLY THIMEROSAL INJECTIONS]<br /><br />“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<br />1984).” See Burbacher et al, page 1015.<br /><br />“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.<br /><br />[HAS BEEN CITED]<br /><br />See:<br /><br />Burbacher et al 2005 at: <br /><br />http://www.ehponline.org/<br />members/2005/7712/7712.htmlJim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-20439444294526727452010-08-06T22:18:31.362-04:002010-08-06T22:18:31.362-04:00My apologies the study for the 20ppb figure was qu...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' <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-82155121492018810412010-08-06T19:27:20.301-04:002010-08-06T19:27:20.301-04:00For instance, look again at:
http://www.bates.edu...For instance, look again at:<br /><br />http://www.bates.edu/ <br />Prebuilt/LeongEtAl2001.pdfJim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-59468931438794847632010-08-06T19:14:51.688-04:002010-08-06T19:14:51.688-04:00Look again.
Indeed, all supporting citations ar...Look again. <br /><br />Indeed, all supporting citations are already given. <br /><br />If, and only if, one reads these cites and the linked documents within--the obvious is there.<br /><br />Nonetheless if more help is needed, then ask again.Jim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-29006008587924337982010-08-06T14:02:24.550-04:002010-08-06T14:02:24.550-04:00HO-kay. I guess I'm not being clear. When I ...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-91792636696101801182010-08-06T08:15:44.625-04:002010-08-06T08:15:44.625-04:00"The half-life of inorganic Hg is too long (g..."The half-life of inorganic Hg is too long (greater than 120 days) to be accurately estimated from the present data.” <br /><br />See figure 7, Ibid.Jim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-15747406972598217312010-08-06T01:01:16.841-04:002010-08-06T01:01:16.841-04:00“1 molar (unit) = 1 M = 1 mole/liter”
See:
http...“1 molar (unit) = 1 M = 1 mole/liter” <br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/ <br />wiki/Molar_(concentration)<br /><br /><br />“The name [mole] is assumed to be derived from the German word Molekül…a mole of any pure substance has mass in grams exactly equal to that substance's molecular or atomic mass” <br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/ <br />wiki/Mole_(unit)<br /><br />The atomic mass of mercury is 200.59 grams.<br /><br />See:<br /><br /> http://environmentalchemistry.com/ <br />yogi/periodic/Hg.html<br /><br /><br />Leong et al, reported mercury exposure concentration of 10^-7 M (molars) to the snail neurons for 20 minutes, which is:<br /><br />(10^-7 molar) x (200.59 grams/molar) / (liter x 1,000 grams/liter) = 20 parts per billion mercury<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />“…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).” <br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://www.ageofautism.com/<br />2010/03/vaccines-and-absence<br />-of-evidence-of-safety-.html<br /><br />-and-<br /><br />“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<br />1984).” See Burbacher et al, page 1015.<br /><br />“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.<br /><br />See:<br /><br />Burbacher et al 2005 at: <br /><br />http://www.ehponline.org/<br />members/2005/7712/7712.htmlJim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-69044073993013559262010-08-05T13:26:41.928-04:002010-08-05T13:26:41.928-04:00Can you properly cite the 2ppb figure and the 20pp...Can you properly cite the 2ppb figure and the 20ppb figure?<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-404368160057976512010-08-02T21:58:08.282-04:002010-08-02T21:58:08.282-04:00Mercury ions destroy snail neurons after an exposu...Mercury ions destroy snail neurons after an exposure time of 20 minutes at 20 parts per billion.<br /><br />See<br />http://www.bates.edu/ <br />Prebuilt/LeongEtAl2001.pdf<br /><br /><br />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! <br /><br />See Burbacher et al 2005 at http://www.ehponline.org/<br />members/2005/7712/7712.htmlJim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-45505190209335498622010-08-02T21:48:44.879-04:002010-08-02T21:48:44.879-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-56597177859448989312010-08-02T00:38:17.623-04:002010-08-02T00:38:17.623-04:00Actually I think if you read your own cite deeply ...Actually I think if you read your own cite deeply enough you'll see it's not as clear as you think.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-8804009691076849682010-08-01T00:03:14.244-04:002010-08-01T00:03:14.244-04:00Look again and you should find an answer to "...Look again and you should find an answer to "How much of the Hg when one is exposed actually makes it to the brain."Jim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-59906793190866229102010-07-30T10:31:09.498-04:002010-07-30T10:31:09.498-04:00So I looked at that article but I can't really...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-61416362337156009542010-07-29T22:39:01.594-04:002010-07-29T22:39:01.594-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771487.post-69808777309920729002010-07-29T22:02:18.732-04:002010-07-29T22:02:18.732-04:00Regarding the comment about what is unknown about ...Regarding the comment about what is unknown about “How much of the Hg when one is exposed actually makes it to the brain”<br /><br /><br />See http://www.ageofautism.com/<br />2010/03/vaccines-and-absence<br />-of-evidence-of-safety-.htmlJim Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258492097029918noreply@blogger.com