|
Author
|
Topic: Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 901 of 930 (762763)
07-15-2015 3:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 897 by JonF
07-15-2015 2:56 PM
|
|
Re: "parts per billion"
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. I do not believe this math is correct. Here is my math 10,000 gammas => 1% => 1 in 100 (The paper also indicates that 1000 gammas = 0.1 percent) 1 gamma = > 1 in 100 * 10,000 => 1 in 10^6 Merthiolate is toxic according to the chart at just above .01 gamma which is 1 in 10 ^ 8 or about 10 ppb. However, the concentration units involved are per gamma/ml of skin culture volume. These units are not the same as the concentration of solution in a vial of vaccine. Plus, the material injected into the body is diluted yet again by body fluids. The purpose of the experiment was to devise a way of measuring general toxicity in a test tube by applying chemicals or bacteria to skin cells which are used as an indicator. The method used would not be sensitive to things like the removal rate from the body since the setup does not allow any such thing. Further as you have also indicated skin cells are particularly sensitive. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 897 by JonF, posted 07-15-2015 2:56 PM | | JonF has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 902 by Faith, posted 07-15-2015 7:12 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 902 of 930 (762772)
07-15-2015 7:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 901 by NoNukes
07-15-2015 3:50 PM
|
|
Re: "parts per billion"
Merthiolate is toxic according to the chart at just above .01 gamma which is 1 in 10 ^ 8 or about 10 ppb. So Engley's statement is correct.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 901 by NoNukes, posted 07-15-2015 3:50 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 903 by JonF, posted 07-16-2015 8:07 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 903 of 930 (762784)
07-16-2015 8:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 902 by Faith
07-15-2015 7:12 PM
|
|
Re: "parts per billion"
I have yet to check if I agree, but if NoNukes, is correct, then parts per billion of merthiolate can be toxic to skin cells in culture when exposed for a long time. The statement would be technically correct but itrrelevant to injections into the body. As demonstrated by Morton t. al. (including Engely) injecting much higher concentrations into rats all of which survived.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 902 by Faith, posted 07-15-2015 7:12 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 904 of 930 (762800)
07-16-2015 12:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 886 by JonF
07-14-2015 8:15 PM
|
|
Re: Table 7
Here's a bigger version. You'll still have to click to enlarge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 886 by JonF, posted 07-14-2015 8:15 PM | | JonF has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 905 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 1:40 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: Table 7
The interpretation of Table 7 is questioned in the article linked by JonF, A REVIEW OF THIMEROSAL (MERTHIOLATE) AND ITS ETHYLMERCURY BREAKDOWN PRODUCT: SPECIFIC HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS They point out that the cessation of follow-up is most likely due to the death of the patient, as I had also inferred.
First, in their article, Powell and Jamieson (1931) failed to reveal that the subjects evaluated by Smithburn and his colleagues (1930) had, in fact, had meningitis, and were not healthy, a revelation that would have called into question Powell and Jamieson’s conclusions egarding the nontoxicity of Thimerosal. It should be noted that Powell and Jamieson (1931) provided a table in which the 22 subjects injected with Thimerosal were identified. These subjects, based upon the information provided in the table, received massive doses of mercury from intravenous administration of Thimerosal. The table notes that approximately one-third of the patients were followed for only 1 d after the therapy. The table failed to note, however, that most probably this follow-up period was so short because these individuals died. The table also noted only one patient was followed for 62 d. This maximum follow-up length of 62 d was far too short to accurately discern any chronic damage produced by the mercury, because mercury toxicity manifests fully only several months after exposure. The study was also flawed because any neurological and/or other damage observed was likely attributed to the meningitis rather than the Thimerosal exposure. Additionally, Powell and Jamieson (1931) specifically commented that they evaluated patients, in particular, for shock or anaphylaxistype immediate reactions to the administration of Thimerosal. It is important to note that these outcomes are not typical of mercury toxicity in humans. Second, it is also apparent that Powell and Jamieson (1931) failed to emphasize their disturbing animal toxicity data. In fact, Powell and Jamieson (1931) had already determined that administration of low milligram doses of Thimerosal per kilogram body weight in several different animals was acutely toxic and resulted in significant numbers of animals dying within days of exposure.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 906 of 930 (762830)
07-16-2015 1:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 897 by JonF
07-15-2015 2:56 PM
|
|
Re: "parts per billion"
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. NoNukes showed that you are wrong about this and Engley right about the parts per billion. Thimerosal IS intended to be a bacteriocide in the vaccines, isn't it? That's the whole point of its use as a preservative, so if it isn't effective as a bacteriocide AND is highly toxic why is it there? Also, they took Thimerosal out of most of the vaccines and yet left it in the flu shot which is given to pregnant women. There is something wrong with this picture.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 897 by JonF, posted 07-15-2015 2:56 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 908 by JonF, posted 07-16-2015 2:21 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 907 of 930 (762832)
07-16-2015 1:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 905 by Faith
07-16-2015 1:40 PM
|
|
Re: Table 7
quote:
They point out that the cessation of follow-up is most likely due to the death of the patient, as I had also inferred.
Only for those with very short follow-up periods - which I doubt that anyone would disagree with. Not all of them as you claimed.
The table notes that approximately one-third of the patients were followed for only 1 d after the therapy. The table failed to note, however, that most probably this follow-up period was so short because these individuals died
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 905 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 1:40 PM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 911 by NoNukes, posted 07-16-2015 3:18 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 908 of 930 (762842)
07-16-2015 2:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 906 by Faith
07-16-2015 1:50 PM
|
|
Re: "parts per billion"
NoNukes showed that you are wrong about this and Engley right about the parts per billion.
I haven't had time to review NoNukes' comment in detail, but for the sake of argument I'll accede to parts per billion under the tested conditions for now. I maintain that the results are not applicable to injections into the body, based on the fact that Morton et. al. (including Engley) injected rats with much higher concentrations and the rats all lived.
Thimerosal IS intended to be a bacteriocide in the vaccines, isn't it? That's the whole point of its use as a preservative, so if it isn't effective as a bacteriocide AND is highly toxic why is it there?
It's not a particularly good bactericide, as Engel pointed out. I'll quote again:
quote:
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.
While Thimerosal is not much of a bactericide, it does effectively stop bacterial growth. Once it's injected into the body other mechanisms take care of the teeny amount of bacteria that may remain. (The manufaactures try for zero bacteria but they can't quite get there; one or two can slip through.) Without Thimerosal, even refrigerated, a minuscule number of bacteria would grow to a horde and overwhelm the body's defenses. The purpose, as Engel wrote, is not bacteriocide but bacteriostasis.
Also, they took Thimerosal out of most of the vaccines and yet left it in the flu shot which is given to pregnant women. There is something wrong with this picture.
I find no evidence hat the multi-dose shots (with Thimerosal) are given to pregnant women instead of the single-dos (without Thimerosal). Got any? (All the sources I find refer to the shot, not the shots). Yeah, your understanding is wrong. Thimerosal in the amounts in vaccines isn't dangerous to anybody including a fetus, but flu is dangerous.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 906 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 1:50 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 909 of 930 (762844)
07-16-2015 2:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 908 by JonF
07-16-2015 2:21 PM
|
|
Re: "parts per billion"
quote:
Yeah, your understanding is wrong. Thimerosal in the amounts in vaccines isn't dangerous to anybody including a fetus, but flu is dangerous.
Potentially VERY dangerous:
The 1918 flu pandemic (January 1918 — December 1920) was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic, the first of the two pandemics involving H1N1 influenza virus.[1] It infected 500 million[2] people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50 to 100 million of themthree to five percent of the world's population[3]making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.
Wikipedia
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 908 by JonF, posted 07-16-2015 2:21 PM | | JonF has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 910 of 930 (762852)
07-16-2015 3:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 908 by JonF
07-16-2015 2:21 PM
|
|
Re: "parts per billion"
I haven't had time to review NoNukes' comment in detail, but for the sake of argument I'll accede to parts per billion under the tested conditions for now. I maintain that the results are not applicable to injections into the body, based on the fact that Morton et. al. (including Engley) injected rats with much higher concentrations and the rats all lived. Often there is some truthful hook upon which a BS argument is based. In my post I gave some reasons why toxic at the 10ppb level as described in the experiment does not mean that injecting a few ml of vaccine into the human body would produce an adverse result. But I note that all of that context was ignored when Faith grabbed ahold of my math. That kind of subjective reading is one of the reasons I plan never to get involved in another scientific argument with her. What is important here is the source of the 10ppb comment and then taking that number into perspective. It should be completely clear that the test is not applicable to the way vaccine is given. In fact, mercurchrome and merthiolate were at one time routinely applied topically to small wounds in 0.1% solution which dwarfs the concentrations describe here. We don't do that any more in the US, but there is no science at all indicating there was every any problem with either substance. Mercurochrome is still used outside of the US. Does the test indicate that we ought to look into the action of ethyl mercury in the body? Yes, I think so. But then, that's been done. In my view, that is the proper debunking. ----------------------------------------------------------------- As for the calculation, here is another argument supporting the calculation. Gamma is another name for microgram Convert microgram to gamma - Conversion of Measurement Units
quote:
How many microgram in 1 gamma? The answer is 1. 1 kilogram is equal to 1000000000 microgram, or 1000000000 gamma.
So what is .01 gamma/ml? Assuming that the solute is mostly water. 1ml = 1gram. so .01 gamma/ml ==> .01 microgram / 1 gram or .01 * 10^-6 g/g or 10^-8 g/g 1 part in 10^8 ==> 10 parts in 10^9.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 908 by JonF, posted 07-16-2015 2:21 PM | | JonF has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 911 of 930 (762853)
07-16-2015 3:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 907 by PaulK
07-16-2015 1:52 PM
|
|
Re: Table 7
Faith writes: They point out that the cessation of follow-up is most likely due to the death of the patient, as I had also inferred. PaulK writes: Only for those with very short follow-up periods - which I doubt that anyone would disagree with. Not all of them as you claimed. Is it not the case the bulk of the comment quoted by Faith completely dismisses the idea that the deaths were related to mercury poisoning? The patients involved were all terminally ill, and even if a patient died after 62 days, that death was apparently not from ethyl mercury. What am I missing?
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 907 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2015 1:52 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 912 by jar, posted 07-16-2015 3:24 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 913 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2015 4:05 PM | | NoNukes has not replied | | | Message 923 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 8:18 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 912 of 930 (762854)
07-16-2015 3:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 911 by NoNukes
07-16-2015 3:18 PM
|
|
Re: Table 7
Actually I think there is even a column labeled "Ill Effects", but maybe that is irrelevant.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 911 by NoNukes, posted 07-16-2015 3:18 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 913 of 930 (762855)
07-16-2015 4:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 911 by NoNukes
07-16-2015 3:18 PM
|
|
Re: Table 7
If you're missing anything it's the fact that Faith claimed that death was the only reason why the follow-ups stopped. Which the comment does not support at all. And yes, those with 1-day follow-ups almost certainly died of meningitis. More than 45% of all patients died within 3 days of admission. quoted in Message 873
Three patients died before treatment could be administered. Thirty-five died within twenty-four hours after admission to the hospital [...] Of the ninety-two fatal cases, only twenty-five were in the hospital more than seventy-two hours.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 911 by NoNukes, posted 07-16-2015 3:18 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 914 of 930 (762856)
07-16-2015 4:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 905 by Faith
07-16-2015 1:40 PM
|
|
Re: Table 7
The interpretation of Table 7 ... Which interpretation of table 7?
They point out that the cessation of follow-up is most likely due to the death of the patient ... ... in those that were only observed for one day. I pointed that out too.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 905 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 1:40 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 915 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 9:57 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: Table 7
Yes I see on rereading it that I got it wrong. In the film the Geiers say all 22 died though.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 916 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2015 12:57 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
