Study Shows Significant Link Between Mercury and Autism

It’s not my opinion that Mercola pushes junk science. That comes from objective source.

Even if Mercola wasn’t questionable source, it’s not a peer reviewed study. I’ll trust studies that have been replicated time and time again that show vaccines don’t cause autism until new verifiable information is available.

 

@drluggit

BTW, here's a great TED talk debunking the sort of "science" that your quack pushes:

 

He's has no interest in reality at all, and even less for governance.

Not sure what the hell he thinks he's doing.

 

Do you understand the question they're asking?

 

It's been YEARS since that was a problem - started by a fake scientists that published totally debunked garbage.

Since then, reconstituted vaccines have shown NO change in autism rates in epidemiological studies.

My bet is there is NO information of ANY kind that would blunt the total nonsense about vaccines.

 

I believe chemicals & toxins have a cumulative effect, there are many things that expose people and babies to lead and mercury... the vaccines just add another layer

The exposure to cadmium, lead and mercury from smoking and its impact on renal integrity
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14976454/

 

You get less mercury from a vaccine than from a single serving of tuna fish. It's a fake concern.

 

There is more mercury in a can of tuna than in a flu vaccine.
Have we stopped selling tuna fish?

 

Not the first time someone here has referred to mediabiasfactcheck as a supposedly impartial source. Definitely glad a medical journalist friend of mine took the time to write an article fact checking various alleged fact checkers, including mediabiasfactcheck.com. Here's what she found out regarding the site:
**
Media Bias/Fact Check has long been launching bogus attacks. And in addition, the Media Bias/Fact Check website says it has “chosen the IFCN [International Fact Checking Network] as our standard fact-checkers because they all abide by the same rules. This is important, as the standards are high.”

Note, however, that IFCN is funded by the likes of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (see below).

[snip]

At 21:57 in the video, and in this link in the show notes, of The Corbett Report’s June 19 podcast episode exposing the glaring conflicts of interest in the fact-checking industry, host James Corbett reveals that IFCN’s major funders include George Soros-backed organizations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
**

Full article:
Fact-Checking a “Fact-Checker”: A Response to HealthFeedback.org | Off Guardian

 

I'd never heard that before. Care to provide evidence that you didn't make up that claim?

 

Just found an article on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s website, childrenshealthdefense.org, regarding the different way that the government classifies ethylmercury, which is in various vaccines, and methylmercury, and why the government's distinction could be putting people in danger. I've excerpt the introduction below, bolding the last paragraph as it's the punchline to what I'd like to point out:
**

The Comparable Dangers of Ethylmercury and Methylmercury

Government health agencies, such as the CDC, maintain that ethylmercury is less toxic than methylmercury because it is broken down and excreted more quickly. Accordingly, as the CDC states on its website, ethylmercury is much less likely to “accumulate in the body and cause harm.” 334 The World Health Organization states that the half-life of ethylmercury—that is, the length of time half of a given dose remains in the body—is “short (less than one week) compared to methyl mercury (1.5 months), making exposure to ethylmercury in blood comparatively brief.” 335

The scientific literature, however, does not unanimously support these statements. Research on human beings that might firmly answer questions about methylmercury and ethylmercury toxicity is not ethical, of course. Many of the best insights that are available, however, into the toxicology of both ethylmercury and methylmercury in humans come from poisoning events several decades ago.

In addition to the well known Minamata and Iraq methylmercury-poisoning, many other large-scale food poisonings have occurred involving ethylmercury fungicides in Iraq in 1956 and 1960, in Pakistan in 1961, and in Russia in the 1960s as well. 390 391 392 393 These episodes resulted in maladies ranging from basic tissue injury to heart and brain injury and even death. 394 395 396 397 398 399

Derban reported in 1974 on 144 cases of mercury poisoning from the use of ethylmercury fungicide on a southern Ghana state farm. 400 Multiple other studies based on these poisoning events showed, as stated in a 1977 study by David Fagan, that the long-term neurological consequences produced by the “ingestion of either methyl or ethyl mercury-based fungicides are indistinguishable.”401 402 403

Ethylmercury compounds easily cross the placental barrier into human fetuses and into breastfeeding children for three to four years after maternal exposure, according to a 1968 study.404 In 1977, Mukhtarova examined Russian adults who ate meat and dairy over a course of two to three months that had been exposed to ethylmercury-contaminated grain, containing mercury in micrograms or tenths of a microgram per kilogram. Many of the Russian patients still had clinical evidence of neurological injury, including vertigo, decreased vision and hearing, decreased memory, and pain and numbness in hands and feet, at least three years after exposure.405

A 1979 case report concerned a fifteen-year-old boy who had eaten the meat of a pig that had fed on ethylmercury fungicide−treated seed. Documented effects on the boy included debilitating brain damage and loss of coordination, with high toxicity for the brain as well as the spinal motor neurons, peripheral nerves, skeletal muscles, and heart muscle. The boy died about one month after becoming ill.406

Ethylmercury’s use as pesticide was eventually banned in many countries, including the United States and those in the European Union, and for good reason: A 1977 study gauged ethylmercury chloride’s relative toxicity as a pesticide as the fifth most toxic of thirty substances tested, with a score of 12.7. That grade score almost matched that of DDT, at 14.2, an infamous pesticide banned in 1972.407 408 409

The US EPA Guidelines for exposure to Methyl Mercury

In 1995, based on research from outbreaks of poisonings and other research from the Faroe Island and New Zealand, the EPA established a safe “reference dose” for methyl mercury (RfD). An RfD is defined as “an estimate of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects when experienced during a lifetime,” according to the EPA.341

The EPA adopted for methylmercury an RfD of 0.1 microgram of mercury per kilogram of the individual’s body weight per day.342 343 Other health agencies set their own recommended limits for methylmercury exposure, such as the FDA in 1979, the World Health Organization in 1989 and the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 1999. The highest of these limits was the WHO’s, at 0.47 microgram per kilogram of body weight per day.344 345

In 1999 the US Congress directed the EPA to contract with the nonprofit, independent National Research Council (NRC) to prepare recommendations on an updated and appropriate RfD. The EPA commissioned the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the NRC to carry out a study on toxicological effects of methylmercury compounds. The goal was to review the process used by the EPA to establish national safety standards. The committee evaluated the literature, which demonstrated methylmercury compounds’ high toxicity to brain tissue, even at minute levels. The NAS ultimately agreed with the EPA’s originally conceived RfD, which remains in place today.346

An RfD has never been established for ethylmercury, presumably because there is not a common environmental exposure or route of ingestion as with the methylmercury in seafood. Ethylmercury, however, unlike methylmercury, is injected into the human body as part of Thimerosal.

Ethyl Mercury Exposure Levels Based on Methyl Mercury Guidelines

A single Thimerosal-preserved flu vaccine contains 25 micrograms of ethylmercury. If the EPA RfD for ingested methylmercury is applied to this injected ethylmercury figure, an individual would have to weigh more than 250 kilograms (551 pounds) for the 25 microgram exposure to be considered safe. Young children are commonly given half-doses of Thimerosal-preserved flu shots nowadays, working out to approximately fourteen times a safe daily exposure for a 20-pound (9-kilogram) individual. Back in the 1990s, a two-month-old child could have received 62.5 micrograms from three vaccines in a single doctor’s visit. Assuming the child weighed about 5 kilograms (11 pounds), he or she would have received 125 times the EPA RfD for methylmercury.

**

Full article: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...le-dangers-of-ethylmercury-and-methylmercury/

 

And yet, no peer reviewed study. It’s bunk.

 

I find it hard to believe someone with as much interest in the topic as yourself has never heard that. Here you go:

At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose. For comparison, this is roughly the same amount of elemental mercury contained in a 3 ounce can of tuna fish.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/thimerosal-and-vaccines

 

Hmm... so, let's see if we get your answer unpacked a little. So, first you state that it has been years since there was a problem. By that can I assume you're talking about having

• A September 2020 meta-analysis concludes there is a significant relationship between autism and concentrations of lead and mercury in the body
• According to the researchers, mercury concentration is a pathogenic cause for autism, meaning it’s a causative factor
• According to a 2014 review, there is evidence of malfeasance and conflicts of interest in studies claiming that thimerosal in vaccines is safe

which was cited, and you've labeled "fake science" and then asserted that these conclusions were 'debunked'. Ok, by whom? Also, you failed to answer the original question which was, how much Thimerosal is "safe". You also suggest that "since then" meaning the possible removal of thimerosal, that you assert no additional change in the autism rate has occurred? Is that correct? Care to cite your assertion? You seem to want to demand that the rest of us simply ignore the OP. You did. Why does your unsupported narrative get any credence then?

 

Not that I'm aware of. I don't eat Tuna in a can though. Simple question though. The NIH has dietary guidelines on ingestion of mercury poisoned fish. Why do you suppose that is? Also, what, in your estimation, (citing an actual expert study here might help your narrative fyi) is the "safe" dosage of mercury? How much before adverse effects surface?

 

Much much more than is in a vaccine which is the topic of this thread

 

So, it shouldn't be onerous for you to find a study that supports your assertion here. Find one.

 

Someone above has already posted a link

 

Confirms his bias, or confirms his knowledge?

We will have to wait until we get to heaven to find the answer to this question: in the Big Picture and History of Mankind, have vaccinations caused more good for the species or more harm to the species?

Injecting toxic substances into one's body may be a good idea for some, but it's a bad idea for me.

How did the species thrive before the hypodermic syringe?

 

It confirms his bias, and seeing as deities and an afterlife are unprovable, that’s irrelevant to this discussion.

Vaccines have done far more good than harm. There are millions upon millions of people who are alive today who would not be otherwise.

Prior to the hypodermic needle the average human lived to be about 41 years old. You’re not older than that right now, are you?

 

You are presuming that prior knowledge of facts is a bias.

With this post you confuse correlation with cause, and you make claims in your first part that cannot be proved. They are assertions without proof.

 

There would have to be evidence that his prior knowledge was based on fact. There is no evidence to back that up.
Thus, bias.

OP states that they have long believed that vaccines are dangerous. Now finds source known for publishing pseudoscience and quackery making claims that confirm his bias.
This, Confirmation Bias.

Medical science advanced, that includes the invention of the hypodermic needle, and humans started living longer. That’s all I need to know. You want to go live in a cave, be my guest.

 

It's almost as if we had a list of illnesses that we have prevented that killed or made people sick for so long. Wait a minute...

Vaccine preventable diseases currently include:
Diseases for which vaccinations form part of the NHMRC Standard Vaccination Schedule

• diphtheria
• tetanus
• pertussis (whooping cough)
• poliomyelitis (polio)
• measles
• mumps
• rubella
• haemophilus influenzae type b infections
• hepatitis B
• influenza
• pneumococcal infections

Other diseases where a risk may arise for a particular person or group of people in specific situations:

• cholera
• hepatitis A
• meningococcal disease
• plague
• rabies
• bat lyssavirus
• yellow fever
• Japanese encephalitis
• Q fever
• tuberculosis
• typhoid
• varicella-zoster (chickenpox)

I mean, other than those, I can't think of how many diseases vaccines have eradicated or solved. Those aren't so bad, I'm sure they're not worth the risk of vaccination.

 

There is ample evidence regarding the harms caused by vaccines, but that is strongly suppressed by the media and its special interests.

The mere existence of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act signed by Reagan in 1986 proves that the harms are so great that our illustrious congresscritters gave their masters at Big Pharma liability from normal torts procedures.

That you are unaware of facts can be explained, but it does not make you right. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force in the public perception.

 

We’re talking about the facts of vaccines causing autism, of which there are none.