Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

That one's too small for my old eyes, and I bet it's a big problem for Faith. Can you do a largination in the screen capture? Do you have an image processor that will automatically align multiple overlapping shots?

Oh, and... Google Scholar shows zero papers that could possibly be on that topic. The search term was Engley, in the date range 1956-1956.

That seems like an awfully tight date range, JonF. You aren't even allowing that he might have done his experiments in 1956 near the end of the year and published the next year?How about this citation of a paper with a 1956 date?

quote:

---

CITATION Mercurials as disinfectants: Evaluation of mercurial antimicrobic action and comparative toxicity for skin tissue cells

​

FB Engley - Chicago: 42nd Mid-Year Meeting of the Chemical , 1956

---

homepagerev.8-5-7This is almost certainly the research in question. The drug concentrations are given in 'gammas per ml of culture media'. This does not directly translate into a concentration of a chemical in a vial of vaccine. Nonetheless graph 15 is certainly the basis for the claim that merthiolate is toxic at ppb levels.

So he confessed to being in the conspiracy, and blew the whistle on the conspiracy, and what's more he won't confess to being in the conspiracy or blow the whistle on the conspiracy because he's in the conspiracy. Meanwhile not only is he happy to continue participating in the conspiracy he's denounced, but his fellow-conspirators are happy to have him around.

Apart from all the other stupid things about this --- like the whole of its content --- consider what you're saying. You propose that they wished to cover up the fact that all 22 who were given Thimerosal died. And you also propose that they themselves voluntarily published data making it absolutely clear that all 22 who were given Thimerosal died. I am no expert on the arts of concealment, but if I was trying to hush some medical fact I wouldn't publish incontrovertible evidence of it in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Yet in your fantasy world, they were trying to hush it up and that's exactly what they did.I'd be surprised, except that this is a classic conspiracy-theorist trope. Indeed, it was only a few months ago that I had to explain to you that Obama is not a Birther.

quote:

---

Of COURSE he was a part of the conspiracy. Sheesh. That's what he confessed to.

---

Now you are outright lying. He did NOT claim that the entire paper was fraudulent in any way.All he claimed was that the paper should have drawn attention to the effect seen in a sub-group. Which others felt was likely a chance result (and therefore misleading - so by your definitions publishing it could have counted as "fraud"!)

quote:

---

And not only WAS he part of the conspiracy, his rather mealymouthed confession suggests that he's still got one foot in the conspiracy as he continues his connection with the CDC and can't quite bring himself to act on his sense of moral culpability beyond bemoaning his part in the fraud.

---

In other words since his "confession" isn't what you wanted him to say, you invent accusations against him.Which really says it all. If your case is largely based on suppressing evidence with baseless accusations you don't have an honest case.

Unbelievable how you all can make an innocent observation into some kind of evil. Amazes me every time.

WHAT "innocent observation" ?

May I add : What "evil"?

The citation from Faith was 1956. Citations refer to publication dates, not when the work was performed. It certainly looks likely. it'll take a little time to evaluate.

Well, here we go again.The paper is written in an unusual casual style. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a bit of a surprise.First, it seems that in 1956 Engley didn't think Morton et. al. was totally ignored:

quote:

---

Some ten years or more ago with Morton and North we were asked to carry out a study on mercurials for the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the American Medical Association which was published in its journal in 1948. (I) This report suggested that mercurials did not fulfill all the conditions expected of antiseptics. The report had its desired result in that it stimulated considerable thinking, discussions, research and perhaps some controversy in the field. Unlike the theatrical or political figure who once said that it didn't matter what was written about him so long as they wrote something and spelled his name correctly- we in the field of scientific investigation would rather be quoted correctly, than not at all. In this regard the report might not be the most misquoted or maligned report from certain quarters (not quaternaries) but it is in there with the best or the worst depending upon your point of view or the source of your income. In any regard, stimulation of thinking, discussion, research and perhaps some controversy (as they say in the business world) is good for any field; and what is good for any field is good for the country or vice-versa.

---

OK, on to the meat. They were not testing merthiolate (Thiomersal) as a bactericide (i.e. killer) against Staphylococcus aureus. They were testing for bacteriostasis (stopping growth). Nowhere in the paper is any comparison made between toxicity of merthiolate (Thiomersal) to human skin and to Staphylococcus aureus under the same or even similar conditions. There weren't any comparisons at all. The only test on Staphylococcus aureus was:

quote:

---

Along these lines it would be best to look first at the "phenol coefficients" of yarious representative mercurials. Using Staphylococcus aureus as the test organism and taking the highest dilution of disinfectant killing microorganisms after 1O minutes but not after five minutes contact at 37C. we find the following: With phenol active at a 1:85 dilution the following phenol coefficients were

These figures lead us tobring out a very important point. This test as carried out with the usual nutrient medium reveals the chemicals' ability only to inhibit growth. By using dilution and/or preferably neutralizing substances in the recovering media one can differentiate between bacteriostasis and bactericidal activity in such a test-tube test. In the case of mercurials, fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon your point of view, both synthetic, purified and naturally occurring neutralizing substances are readily available. It is because of these neutralizing substances containing available, -SH (sulfhydryl) groups that so much controversy has developed. It would only be of perhaps academic interest that cystine, glutathione, ammonium sulfide, thioglycollate and a number of other compounds could neutralize or, if you prefer, reverse the action of mercurials on organisms after exposure, except for the fact that body fluids and tissues contain neutralizers - the skin, perspiration, urine, blood, serum, tissue exudates and all. Thus it is of practical importance. Some chemicals may have their antibacterial action reduced or neutralized only by some weird chemical such as "itchigummi acid" which does not occur naturally or in the field of use; therefore, while of academic and scientific interest in studying mode of action or kinetics of the drug activity, the fact that the drug antibacterial action may be neutralized or reversed is not of significance in its utilization. This is not the case with mercurials. The neutralizers are found everywhere. As early as 1889 (Geppert) (5) showed that such was the case. Thus our pretty phenol coefficient values given above do not mean anything unless we add a neutralizer to the recovery medium such as thioglycollate or preferably serum. The phenol coefficients drop precipitously with the mercurials tested in this manner, revealing little antibacterial action. The same is true if serum is added to the test medium. Bichloride of mercury turns out with negligible activity as do the organic mercurials. Discussions with certain individuals suggested that this might not be too important but let me remind you that even though this is known many still use bichloride as a supposedly trusted antibacterial agent especially in hospitals for so-called "sterilizing" of thermometers. In a survey we carried out in the past two years in one large hospital in a medical center - the nursing service tested thermometer glasses on various wards and at various times isolating staphylococci, streptococci and others, as well as our friend Escherichicoli "from the other sick of the tracks." The original preparation may have some activity but continuing standing and accummulation of sputum and "crud" rapidly reduces any activity. This data does not include the storyabout a glass of bichloride that one of the patients drank thinking it was the ice water although it might have left him a little cold.

---

When he gets around to toxicity on human skin cells grown in culture, he says:

quote:

---

Graph 15 compares mercurial compounds and shows how they fit in with other compounds in toxicity. It should be noted that furacin, gramicidin and Zephiran are in the same general range. Mercurochrome appears to be the least toxic ranging down through merthiolate. It should be kept in mind that its concentration of use is two percent while the others are usually 1:1000. One point should be made here. Bichloride of mercury has always been pointed out as an extremely toxic mercurial and the organic mercurials were supposed to be much less toxic but according to these data we find bichloride right in the middle of the organic mercurials in regards to cell toxicity.

In the course of these studies the question arose as to how this test on skin compared with the use of other tissues. Was skin as sensitive or less sensitive in a test. Graph 16 compares bichloride of mercury on several other tissues with skin. Here it is shown that skin is more sensitive than cord. heart or spleen tissue cells.

---

Merthiolate was toxic to skin cells at a gamma as high as 1.0. Early in the paper he wrote "10,000
gammas = one percent" and I have no reason to doubt him. So 1.0 gamma = 10,000% = 1 part in 100,000. Purty darned far from parts per billion. According to Thimerosal in Vaccines the highest concentration of Thimerosal in any US vaccine is in the multi-dose flu vaccines (which can easily be avoided): 1 part in 10,000 (see the ** note at the end of the table). That is ten times the concentration that Engley used. However, Engley's tests are not easily translated to true in vivo tests on living organisms. He found that there was significant differences between toxicity of various types of cells. Finally, the exposure period was eight to 10 days:

quote:

---

The technique used here consisted of the following: Serial dilutions of the chemicals under test were prepared in embryonic extract as shown in Figure 9. Thin slices of human skin were removed with sterile instruments and the tissue cut into fragments approximately 2mm square (Figure 10). Each explant was placed on a cover slip in plasma, and embryonic extract containing the drug dilutions was added. The tissue was centered on the cover slip and after a clot forms, the preparation was sealed onto a depression slide and incubated at 37C for eight to ten days. Cultures were examined microscopically for growth at daily intervals and compared in growth with control skin tissue without chemicals added.

---

This is several times longer than the half-life of ethyl mercury in the blood (3.7 days, Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants After Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines); after eight to ten days the blood concentration would have dropped to 22% to 15% of the original concentration.While the multi-dose flu vaccines do have thimerosal on the same order as Engley found toxic to cultured skin cells, there is no way to translate his results it in vivo effects. The concentrations he tested were 1:100,000 at the highest, not 1:1,000,000,000 as Faith and maybe her movie claimed. Engley specifically noted that merthiolate was not acting as a bactericide, instead it acted as a growth inhibitor, so if he's right comparison to its toxicity to bacteria is meaningless; it isn't particularly toxic to bacteria and is not used ito kill bacteria.Edited by JonF, : Add last sentence

If you expect us to dissect A Comparison of the Resistance of Bacteria and Embryonic Tissue to Germicidal Substances. I. Merthiolate by Salle & Lazarus, it's time for you to dig it up.

Faith referred to experiments performed in 1956. Who knows when it would have been published. Faith did not really provide a citation.Besides, the reference I found does have a 1956 publication date.

Faith referred to a "1956 paper", and her quote referred to a date in parentheses after the author's name. To me both mean a publication date:

quote:

---

Also, it is noted that it was in a 1956 paper by Engley that the parts per billion is mentioned:

​

quote:

---

Finally, it should be noted, with respect to the toxicity experiments undertaken by Engley (1956), that he determined Thimerosal was significantly toxic to human tissue culture cells at a concentration of 10 ppb.

---

---

Yes, thanks, don't know how I missed it.