or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › more on thimerosal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

more on thimerosal - Page 3

post #41 of 126
Quote:

I'm wondering why you would think that children who have less mercury in their hair would therefore have less mercury in their bodies.  If they have, for whatever reason, been unable to properly excrete it, it wouldn't be in their hair, or in their urine.  It would likely have crossed the blood-brain barrier, which is a big problem with mercury poisoning.

 

 

Because you can check the mercury burden in the body via hair sample.  Mercury is not "excreted" into the hair.  That's not how the body clears it.  It his excreted into urine, feces, and via exhalation.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103_spring2003/mercury/mercdose.html

post #42 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

 

Because you can check the mercury burden in the body via hair sample.  Mercury is not "excreted" into the hair.  That's not how the body clears it.  It his excreted into urine, feces, and via exhalation.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103_spring2003/mercury/mercdose.html

But mercury in a hair sample will not tell you how much may or may not have been excreted via urine, feces, via exhalation, or how much may or may not have crossed the blood-brain barrier.

post #43 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

But mercury in a hair sample will not tell you how much may or may not have been excreted via urine, feces, via exhalation, or how much may or may not have crossed the blood-brain barrier.

 

I never said it would.  Your assertion was that low mercury levels in the hair were an indicator of "poor mercury excretion," and that is simply not true.  It is just an indicator of how much mercury is in the body (and not a particularly accurate one at that).

post #44 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

I never said it would.  Your assertion was that low mercury levels in the hair were an indicator of "poor mercury excretion," and that is simply not true.  It is just an indicator of how much mercury is in the body (and not a particularly accurate one at that).

 

My exact words:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I'm wondering why you would think that children who have less mercury in their hair would therefore have less mercury in their bodies.  If they have, for whatever reason, been unable to properly excrete it, it wouldn't be in their hair, or in their urine.  It would likely have crossed the blood-brain barrier, which is a big problem with mercury poisoning.

 

 

That does not mean that low mercury levels in the hair indicates poor mercury excretion. That means that IF a child has been unable to properly excrete mercury, then the mercury may very well cross the blood-brain barrier--and, obviously, mercury levels in hair cannot indicate how much mercury has done so.

 

 


Edited by Taximom5 - 6/19/12 at 6:51pm
post #45 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Could you please quote where I asserted that?

 

Sure.  Right here:

 

 

 

Quote:
I'm wondering why you would think that children who have less mercury in their hair would therefore have less mercury in their bodies.  If they have, for whatever reason, been unable to properly excrete it, it wouldn't be in their hair, or in their urine.  It would likely have crossed the blood-brain barrier, which is a big problem with mercury poisoning.

 

post #46 of 126

*


Edited by AbbyGrant - 6/28/12 at 8:46pm
post #47 of 126

Well, way to edit your post after you asked for clarification, Taximom.  

 

As far as what you are saying here:

 

 

 

Quote:Taximom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I'm wondering why you would think that children who have less mercury in their hair would therefore have less mercury in their bodies.  If they have, for whatever reason, been unable to properly excrete it, it wouldn't be in their hair, or in their urine.  It would likely have crossed the blood-brain barrier, which is a big problem with mercury poisoning.

 

 

That does not mean that low mercury levels in the hair indicates poor mercury excretion. That means that IF a child has been unable to properly excrete mercury, then the mercury may very well cross the blood-brain barrier--and, obviously, mercury levels in hair cannot indicate how much mercury has done so.

 

 

 

I honestly have no idea what you are saying.  Not at all.

post #48 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Well, way to edit your post after you asked for clarification, Taximom.  

 

As far as what you are saying here:

 

 

 

 

I honestly have no idea what you are saying.  Not at all.

But I didn't edit the post that you quoted.  If you honestly "have no idea what I was saying, not at all", why on earth would you misquote me, and claim that I asserted that "low mercury levels in the hair were an indicator of 'poor mercury excretion?' "

 

 

post #49 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

But I didn't edit the post that you quoted.  If you honestly "have no idea what I was saying, not at all", why on earth would you misquote me, and claim that I asserted that "low mercury levels in the hair were an indicator of 'poor mercury excretion?' "

 

 

I thought I understood what you were saying in your original post that I quoted.  It is your "clarification" in post #44 that has completely and utterly confused me.

post #50 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

I thought I understood what you were saying in your original post that I quoted.  It is your "clarification" in post #44 that has completely and utterly confused me.

Well, please look again at my original post, as you completely misquoted me.  You obviously did not understand what I was saying.  You drastically changed my words.  Nowhere did I say or imply that low levels of mercury in hair was an indicator of poor mercury excretion.

 

I'll try to explain again.  I'll use small words.

 

If a child has trouble excreting mercury, that mercury is likely to end up crossing the blood-brain barrier.  

"Mercury possesses an evident affinity for the epithelial cells of the gastrointestinal tract and the skin, for hair, thyroid gland, liver, pancreas, kidneys and the brain (above all the grey substance as well as in central areas of the brain stem and the cerebral cortex)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018988/

 

If mercury has crossed the blood-brain barrier, do you really think you're going to see evidence of this in the hair?  You already said that hair is a poor indicator of how much mercury is in the body, and that's correct.  Hair analysis will not show how much mercury is still in the body.  It will not show how much mercury crossed the blood-brain barrier.  It will not show how much mercury did NOT cross the blood-brain barrier. It will not show how much mercury is in the thyroid, liver, pancreas, or kidneys. About the only thing it can show is that there was mercury exposure. 

I was not suggesting that hair analysis be used as an indication of mercury excretion.  You were the one who said that you could check the mercury burden in the body via hair sample.
Remember? Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

 

Because you can check the mercury burden in the body via hair sample.  Mercury is not "excreted" into the hair.  That's not how the body clears it.  It his excreted into urine, feces, and via exhalation.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103_spring2003/mercury/mercdose.html

 

But apparently Quackwatch would disagree with you: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/mercurytests.html

"Hair mercury levels are not an accurate indicator of mercury exposure. Hair testing has never been standardized to provide meaningful information."

post #51 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

 

 

But apparently Quackwatch would disagree with you: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/mercurytests.html

"Hair mercury levels are not an accurate indicator of mercury exposure. Hair testing has never been standardized to provide meaningful information."

 

Interesting. So that study of the heavy metal content of hair samples of 32 autistic children and 32 non autistic children is completely useless to the understanding of the impact of a body's metal content on autism. Thanks for clarifying taximom. And thanks for helping with that clarification wildkingdom. :) 

 

Abbygrant - thanks for chasing down those statistics. :) 

 

 

 

Quote:

I found this estimation for the 2011-12 season from the CDC when I was looking into possibly getting the flu vaccine this fall.

 

Of the 166-173 million doses of flu vaccine projected, 79 million were projected to be thimerosal free or trace. Of that 79 million, it would appear 15 to 16 million doses were projected to be FluMist.

 

So that's a range of 36-39% of the flu does in shots (projected) to be thimerosol free. So I will concede that demonstrates that "most" flu shots (projected) to be given in 2011-2012 (or 61-64% of them) contain thimerosol. But that is also quite different from the 80% or 90% which is often quoted on "anti"-vax websites.  

post #52 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

So I will concede that demonstrates that "most" flu shots (projected) to be given in 2011-2012 (or 61-64% of them) contain thimerosol.

 

Even more than that, because the CDC lumped mercury free flu shots with flu shots containing 0.3 mcg mercury. Editd to say, oops, I mean 1 mcg mercury, which is 3 times the "trace" amount in other vaccines. "Preservative free" flu vaccines that contain mercury contain 1 mcg mercury, not 0.3 mcg mercury.


Edited by ma2two - 6/20/12 at 8:02am
post #53 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

 

Even more than that, because the CDC lumped mercury free flu shots with flu shots containing 0.3 mcg mercury.

 

Sure, but to put it in perspective, 0.3 mcg compared to a typical size person (say 70 kg for an adult) is 1 part in 200 billion. 

 

Or given the atomic weight of mercury (200 g/mole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)) where a mole is 6x10^23 atoms of mercury. So 0.3 mcg is 10^21 atoms of mercury, but compare this to the number of atoms in your body which is about 10^27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)) that's 1 atom of mercury for every 1 million atoms of other stuff in your body. 

 

That's why the CDC consider 0.3 mcg in an injection a trace amount. 

post #54 of 126

*


Edited by AbbyGrant - 6/28/12 at 8:46pm
post #55 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Sure, but to put it in perspective, 0.3 mcg compared to a typical size person (say 70 kg for an adult) is 1 part in 200 billion. 

Or given the atomic weight of mercury (200 g/mole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)) where a mole is 6x10^23 atoms of mercury. So 0.3 mcg is 10^21 atoms of mercury, but compare this to the number of atoms in your body which is about 10^27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)) that's 1 atom of mercury for every 1 million atoms of other stuff in your body. 

That's why the CDC consider 0.3 mcg in an injection a trace amount. 

For severely sensitive celiacs, a crumb of bread (1/48 of a piece of bread, according to csaceliacs.org) can cause measurable villi damage, even in the absence of symptoms. It's been recognized 17 years ago that tiny amounts of something like gluten, which is completely harmless to most people, has disastrous effects on those are predisposed to sensitivity.http://www.csaceliacs.info/rational_gf_food.jsp

There is obviously a possibility that a trace amount of something known to be toxic to everyone (mercury) could cause or contribute to damage to someone predisposed to sensitivity.
post #56 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Sure, but to put it in perspective, 0.3 mcg compared to a typical size person (say 70 kg for an adult) is 1 part in 200 billion. 

 

Or given the atomic weight of mercury (200 g/mole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)) where a mole is 6x10^23 atoms of mercury. So 0.3 mcg is 10^21 atoms of mercury, but compare this to the number of atoms in your body which is about 10^27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)) that's 1 atom of mercury for every 1 million atoms of other stuff in your body. 

 

That's why the CDC consider 0.3 mcg in an injection a trace amount. 

 

parts per billion (ppb) is not calculated by the size of the person. It is calculated by the substance. So a 0.5 mL vaccine containing a "trace" 0.3 mcg mercury contains 600 ppb mercury. A "preservative free" flu shot containing 1 mcg mercury contains 2000 (two thousand) ppb mercury.

 

The EPA considers any liquid with over 200 (two hundred) ppb mercury to be hazardous waste.

 

0.5 ppb mercury kills human neuroblastoma cells (Parran et al., Toxicol Sci 2005; 86: 132-140). 

20 ppb mercury destroys the neurite membrane structure (Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).

post #57 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I'll try to explain again.  I'll use small words.

 

This is a bit disrespectful and condescending. Please be civil in your discussions and avoid making implications that are unkind. 

post #58 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

 

parts per billion (ppb) is not calculated by the size of the person. It is calculated by the substance. So a 0.5 mL vaccine containing a "trace" 0.3 mcg mercury contains 600 ppb mercury. A "preservative free" flu shot containing 1 mcg mercury contains 2000 (two thousand) ppb mercury.

 

 

 

 That gives the concentration in the vaccine vial sure, but then it is injected into (I think the muscle) of your arm, and after that point becomes diluted by the contents of your body. It won't all travel round your body together. 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by ma2two

 

The EPA considers any liquid with over 200 (two hundred) ppb mercury to be hazardous waste.

 

 

I couldn't find their page on what levels of mercury they find toxic, but they're obviously not overly concerned by thimerosol in vaccinations.  The EPA say (http://www.epa.gov/mercury/consumer.htm#thim):

 

Quote:

Some consumers are concerned about the use of thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative, in vaccines. Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.

To learn more about this use of thimerosal, please see information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on medicines that contain mercury and thimerosal in vaccines, and information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on thimerosal in vaccines.

 

 There's a difference between metallic mercury (which is really toxic) methymercury (which is the most common environmental source - the kind you ingest when you eat fish, and drink water) and the ethylmercury which is thimerosol. Our bodies react to them differently as I understand it, and in particular clear out the latter more quickly. Which of these sources of Mercury is the EPA value you quote for? I was unable to find the toxic levels cited on their website (but didn't spend too much time). 

 

I found this quote in a response to the exact things you have posted here (in a different blog, which is not respectful of any antivax viewpoint so I won't post link here) 

 

 

 

Quote:

It’s like trying to argue that table salt (NaCl) is a terrible thing because metallic sodium (Na) explodes when in contact with water, and elemental chlorine (Cl) is a deadly poison.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two
 
0.5 ppb mercury kills human neuroblastoma cells (Parran et al., Toxicol Sci 2005; 86: 132-140). 

20 ppb mercury destroys the neurite membrane structure (Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).

 

 

Yeah I see these exact quotes on a lot of anti-vax sites. They seem to be directly copied from this letter from Kenneth Stoller to the Pediatrics journal (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/4/758.short/reply#pediatrics_el_37311) (also the EPA toxic level you quote above).  Cutting and pasting unatributed direct quotes (and large chunks of them) is frowned on in this forum.

 

Wikipedia search: 

 

 

 

Quote:
Neuroblastoma (NB) is the most common extracranial solid cancer in childhood and the most common cancer in infancy, with an annual incidence of about 650 cases per year in the US

 

(so killing them with mercury seems like a good idea to me actually...)

 

 

 Neurite membrame structure - is the protective layer around neuron cells. Right, so I think I would already agree not to inject vaccines directly into the brain or spinal cord even without this research. Part of the reason I didn't want an epidural too.... 

 

 Also what type of mercury did they use in those studies (see my comments above). 

 

We all know metallic mercury is very dangerous to humans. Just like chlorine gas is a bad thing for humans, and sodium will explode in water (did you ever get to see that in Chemistry at school? I did!). That doesn't make table salt in small doses toxic, nor does it make thimerosol in small doses toxic. 

post #59 of 126
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/

"...Because of the lack of pharmacokinetic and toxicity data for ethylmercury, methylmercury has been used as a reference for ethylmercury toxicity based on the assumption that the two compounds share similar toxicokinetic profiles. However, a new animal study shows that methylmercury is an inadequate reference for ethylmercury due to significant differences in tissue distribution, clearance rates, and ratios of organic to inorganic mercury in the brain...

However, the proportion of inorganic mercury in the brain was much higher in the thimerosal group (21–86% of total mercury) compared to the methylmercury group (6–10%). Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group. Inorganic mercury remains in the brain much longer than organic mercury, with an estimated half-life of more than a year."

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/43/2/143.full.pdf

"From study of our cases, it appears that ethyl mercury compounds display a very high toxicity not only for the brain,but also for the spinal motoneurones, peripheral nerves, skeletal muscles,and myocardium."

It's also interesting to note that, in the above study, symptoms didn't appear until 10 days after exposure. Vaccine reactions that occur 10 days later are not recognized as vaccine reactions--they are not on any pediatrician's radar, because they are taught that even immediate symptoms are coincidental.
post #60 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/43/2/143.full.pdf
"From study of our cases, it appears that ethyl mercury compounds display a very high toxicity not only for the brain,but also for the spinal motoneurones, peripheral nerves, skeletal muscles,and myocardium."
It's also interesting to note that, in the above study, symptoms didn't appear until 10 days after exposure. Vaccine reactions that occur 10 days later are not recognized as vaccine reactions--they are not on any pediatrician's radar, because they are taught that even immediate symptoms are coincidental.

 

That case study is a case of mercury poisoning from eating contaminated food.  The amount of mercury taken in was off the charts.  Are you really comparing it to the minuscule amount seen in vaccinations?

 

You know, if you take two Tylenol it can help with pain and fever.  If you take a bottle at once, you're going to go into fulminant hepatic failure in about 10 days and die unless you get a liver transplant.  Does that mean that Tylenol should never, ever be used?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › more on thimerosal