Re: Have you read this crap?

[Guest guest]

Offit is an idiot and I don't usually resort to calling anyone an idiot lightly (as my students would take me to task for that). However, how can he write this drivel: Offit: Yes, so there's two questions, Maggie. I'll take the first one first. The study that you refer to is that Brubaker study out of the University of Washington that looked at the – whether or not ethyl mercury had the capacity to enter the central nervous system, as you said in brains, as compared to methyl mercury. And that study did show that ethyl mercury could enter it, although it did – it was present both in blood and in the central nervous system at significantly lower levels than was

methyl mercury as one would have expected. But, again, I think – I mean, I think that – you know, there's nothing as strong, frankly, as the epidemiologic studies. And if you look at the four studies that were published, what they found was that there was no evidence that Thimerosal at the level contained in vaccines increased one's risk of autism. And these studies were big, I mean big enough to pick up events that were occurring, you know, as rare as one per 100,000 vaccine recipients. I mean, this is – and that's a very sensitive study. If you look sort of back at the swine flu epidemic in the late ‘70s, the sort of swine flu vaccine given in the late ‘70s also caused – or caused a severe event, the so-called Guillain-Barre, at one per 100,000 people easily picked up in a retrospective study. If Thimerosal was even responsible for a very, very

small number of cases of autism it should be easily picked up by these studies, and it wasn't. And so I think it wasn't because it's not there to be picked up. He doesn't even mention that the amount of thimerosal the Danish kids received was a lot less than most American kids received in their first few years. These studies have already been criticized and dealt with. What I can't understand is why we are having to deal with all this yet again? Aasa Nanstiel <erik@...> wrote: http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.htmlThis isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now. Offit is an

idiot.

[Guest guest]

This is the first time I've read this as well. Unbelievable. There is no

question that he is

nervous and squirming here. " I think-I mean -I think " . What a poor, pathetic

excuse for a

man..

> http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.html

>

> This isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now. Offit is

an idiot.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This was my take on it back in April:

http://injectingsense.blogspot.com/2006/04/groundhog-day-in-april.html

Wade

>

> http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.html

>

> This isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now.

Offit is an idiot.

>

[Guest guest]

I saw this:

Maggie Fox:

Thanks for doing this. As you know, the autism groups have assembled quite a lot of evidence against the vaccines. They cite a recent report that shows ethyl mercury remains in the brains of monkeys for longer than had been anticipated. They also say that you are prejudiced and that the CDC and vaccine promoters are prejudiced and are influenced by drug companies. Do you have anything to say to that?

Offit:

Yes, so there's two questions, Maggie. I'll take the first one first. The study that you refer to is that Brubaker[sic] study out of the University of Washington that looked at the – whether or not ethyl mercury had the capacity to enter the central nervous system, as you said in brains, as compared to methyl mercury. And that study did show that ethyl mercury could enter it, although it did – it was present both in blood and in the central nervous system at significantly lower levels than was methyl mercury as one would have expected. But, again, I think – I mean, I think that – you know, there's nothing as strong, frankly, as the epidemiologic studies.

NOTE: Offit has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

This textbook analysis of the important forms of mercury from Cutler Ph.D author of Amalgam Illness dated June of 2000:

The usual terminology:liquid mercury and its vapor - the cool silvery looking stuff - is metallic mercury.The form of mercury in your amalgam fillings is metallic mercury. Amalgam mercury both evaporates to be inhaled and is also corroded to form inorganic mercury which is swallowed.Metallic mercury evaporates readily, the vapors are absorbed into the bloodstream and carried all over the body, and they pass the blood brain barrier easily. Once in the body they are oxidized in a few seconds into the mercuric form of inorganic mercury. This makes the vapors just as dangerous as organic mercury.Organic mercury is in the form of a mercury ion (inorganic mercury) with an organic group stuck onto it. Such as the ethyl group in ethylmercuric thiosalicylate, trade name Thimerosal or Merthiolate. Your body slowly converts organic mercury to inorganic mercury. The half life of methlymercury is 44 days - mostly it is converted to inorganic mercury in your body before it is excreted. Organic mercury crosses the blood brain barrier easily.Inorganic mercury has 2 forms. One of these, mercurous mercury, isn't very important since it isn't stable in your body. It is also very poorly absorbed from the intestinal tract. Old laxatives used to contain it in the form of calomel (Hg2Cl2). Rarely, people who took calomel laxatives daily for decades would get mercury poisoning. The important form of inorganic mercury for our discussion is mercuric mercury, Hg++. This is stable in your body. The organic and metallic mercury that get into your brain and are oxidized there are turned into this form of mercury. Since inorganic mercury does not cross the blood brain barrier at all well, this means that once the metallic or organic mercury gets into your brain and is oxidized there it doesn't come out. Inorganic mercuric mercury doesn't evaporate and is not very well absorbed from the intestine - maybe 10%. Thus it is considered less toxic than metallic or organic mercury, but more toxic than mercurous mercury.Mercurochrome contains inorganic mercury.All forms of mercury are absorbed reasonably well through the skin. Organic mercury being very well absorbed. The inorganic mercuric mercury is what does the actual damage - it is an oxidation catalyst. Organic mercury is innocuous as long as it is organic. The damage happens when it is turned into inorganic mercury. This is why people who get organic mercury poisoning don't show symptoms right away. It is also why fish can have enough mercury in them to poison people but be perfectly healthy themselves. Fish turn inorganic mercury into organic mercury and thus passivate it. Mammals don't turn inorganic mercury into organic mercury - we go the other way.Now from the Burbacher study that Offit doesn't get:

The concentration of total Hg in the brain of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys is 2.6- to 4.6-fold higher than in the blood (mean ± SE, 3.5 ± 0.5) at 2 days after the last injection. Again, this ratio increased as the sacrifice was performed at longer durations from the last dose, primarily due to the difference in the half-lives of total Hg in the blood and brain.

The inorganic form of Hg was readily measurable in the brain of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys. The average concentration of inorganic Hg did not change across the 28 days of washout and was approximately 16 ng/mL (Figure 7). This level of inorganic Hg represented 21–86% of the total Hg in the brain (mean ± SE, 70 ± 4%), depending on the sacrifice time. These values are considerably higher than the inorganic fraction observed in the brain of MeHg monkeys (6–10%).

Repetition is the key to distancing this study from the false report Dr. Polly Sager made at 2004 IOM. Yes, folks the blood levels she was waving around in front of the likes of Marie McCormack came from a study not published until a year later. Yes, Dr. Pollyanna Sager's "cherry-picked" results were given to GlaxoReutersKline's own Maggie Fox for a story the weekend *before* the 2004 Thimerosal IOM meeting. Can we remember the demeaning article where Dr. Sager told Maggie she was excited to discover "it all gets pooped out"?

Did this irritate the actual scientific researchers working on a comparative study of ethylmercury and methylmercury ? They do mention that blood levels are not a good indicator of adverse effects on the brain.............twice.

The large difference in the blood Hg half-life compared with the brain half-life for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (6.9 days vs. 24 days) indicates that blood Hg may not be a good indicator of risk of adverse effects on the brain, particularly under conditions of rapidly changing blood levels such as those observed after vaccinations.

Data from the present study support the prediction that, although little accumulation of Hg in the blood occurs over time with repeated vaccinations, accumulation of Hg in the brain of infants will occur. Thus, conclusion regarding the safety of thimerosal drawn from blood Hg clearance data in human infants receiving vaccines may not be valid,

If there is a doubt that they mentioned it...twice....on purpose this should clear it up:

A recently published second review (IOM 2004) appears to have abandoned the earlier recommendation as well as backed away from the American Academy of Pediatrics goal. This approach is difficult to understand, given our current limited knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental neurotoxicity of thimerosal, a compound that has been (and will continue to be) injected in millions of newborns and infants.

The study had at least a few effects that I am aware of. The heckling government mantra of "it doesn't get into the brain because it's metabolized out of the blood so quickly" has now been changed to "it's not enough mercury".

Well , according to the Geier's video on your wonderful web site the lab at Virginia Tech messed around with a little bit of thimerosal and found that they could stimulate adverse effects on brain tissue in culture at concentrations as low as four(4) nanomolars, a level well below what MDs consider to be a trace. If this is true, which I have no reason to doubt the Geiers' word, I'd say the safe level of ethylmercury exposure is zero.

Have you read this crap?

http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.htmlThis isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now. Offit is an idiot.

[Guest guest]

I thoroughly enjoyed your take on Offit as well as your good comebacks

with the naysayers/ND crowd!

> >

> > http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.html

> >

> > This isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now.

> Offit is an idiot.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

for Aasa

The Epidemiologic studies publised in 1999 and 2000 are badly flawed; Scandinavian countries banished vaccines containing more than a trace of mercury in 1992. If you wish

more information call the number below any week day morning EDTime

H. H.Fudenberg, M.D.,DDG.IOM

Inman, SC 29349

(864) 592 8076

Website nitrf.org

From: Aasa <penas7ar@...>Reply-EOHarm To: EOHarm Subject: Re: Have you read this crap?Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 23:52:35 -0400 (EDT)

Offit is an idiot and I don't usually resort to calling anyone an idiot lightly (as my students would take me to task for that). However, how can he write this drivel:

Offit:

Yes, so there's two questions, Maggie. I'll take the first one first. The study that you refer to is that Brubaker study out of the University of Washington that looked at the – whether or not ethyl mercury had the capacity to enter the central nervous system, as you said in brains, as compared to methyl mercury. And that study did show that ethyl mercury could enter it, although it did – it was present both in blood and in the central nervous system at significantly lower levels than was methyl mercury as one would have expected. But, again, I think – I mean, I think that – you know, there's nothing as strong, frankly, as the epidemiologic studies. And if you look at the four studies that were published, what they found was that there was no evidence that Thimerosal at the level contained in vaccines increased one's risk of autism. And these studies were big, I mean big enough to pick up events that were occurring, you know, as rare as one per 100,000 vaccine recipients. I mean, this is – and that's a very sensitive study. If you look sort of back at the swine flu epidemic in the late ‘70s, the sort of swine flu vaccine given in the late ‘70s also caused – or caused a severe event, the so-called Guillain-Barre, at one per 100,000 people easily picked up in a retrospective study. If Thimerosal was even responsible for a very, very small number of cases of autism it should be easily picked up by these studies, and it wasn't. And so I think it wasn't because it's not there to be picked up.

He doesn't even mention that the amount of thimerosal the Danish kids received was a lot less than most American kids received in their first few years.

These studies have already been criticized and dealt with. What I can't understand is why we are having to deal with all this yet again?

Aasa Nanstiel <erik@...> wrote:

http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.htmlThis isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now. Offit is an idiot.

[Guest guest]

Surprise. Every child by two.

s. Bumpers. Clintons.

At some point the stupidity, ignorance and recklessness can no longer be considered "well-meaning" or "we just want to help the children".

Have you read this crap?

http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.htmlThis isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now. Offit is an idiot.

[Guest guest]

Perhaps the best way to get Bush's poll numbers down to single digits is for Bush to do a public service anouncement with Offit, the CDC and the AAP where they announce they are going to mandate the hazardous waste form of the flu vaccine for babies and pregnant women.

The CDC, AAP and Offit. Perfect together. The only groups who can actually tank Bush's favorability numbers from historical lows.

Re: Have you read this crap?

This is the first time I've read this as well. Unbelievable. There is no question that he is nervous and squirming here. "I think-I mean -I think". What a poor, pathetic excuse for a man..> http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.html> > This isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now. Offit is an idiot.> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Oxymoron?

I rather say two morons.

Have you read this crap?

http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.htmlThis isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now. Offit is an idiot.

[Guest guest]

Thanks. It's always reassuring that when I'm worried about having

something to write about, Offit will open his mouth and say something

incredibly stupid.

Wade

> > >

> > > http://www.ecbt.org/031506Offit.html

> > >

> > > This isn't new... but I haven't read te whole thing until just now.

> > Offit is an idiot.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Quote:

We find that rates among African American children are 13 percentage

points lower than white and Hispanic children

Offit left out something:

Pediatrics. 2004 Jul;114(1):187-95. Related Articles, Links

Children who have received no vaccines: who are they and where do they

live?

PJ, Chu SY, Barker LE.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization

Program, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA. psmith3@...

A total of 151,720 children sampled between 1995 and 2001, 795 of whom

were unvaccinated. RESULTS: Unvaccinated children tended to be white,

to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in

a household with an annual income exceeding 75,000 dollars, and to

have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines

and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over

vaccination decisions for their children.

Pediatrics. 2005 Nov;116(5):e623-33. Related Articles, Links

How do physicians immunize their own children? Differences among

pediatricians and nonpediatricians.

Posfay-Barbe KM, Heininger U, Aebi C, Desgrandchamps D, Vaudaux B,

Siegrist CA.

Centre for Vaccinology and Neonatal Immunology, Department of

Pathology-Immunology, University of Geneva, Switzerland.

Ninety-two percent of pediatricians followed the official immunization

recommendations for their own children. In contrast, after controlling

for gender, workplace, type of practice, and year of diploma,

nonpediatricians (physicians)were more likely not to have immunized

their children against measles, mumps, hepatitis B, or Haemophilus

influenzae type b. They more frequently postponed

diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) (OR: 4.5; 95% CI: 2.0-10.19) and

measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination. Although projected

immunization rates were higher than effective rates, 10% of

nonpediatricians would still not follow the official immunization

recommendations in 2004.

" In contrast, a relatively large proportion of nonpediatricians do not

follow, nor plan to follow, current immunization recommendations for

their own children. Despite their scientific training and education,

they express the same concerns as those that prevail in the public. "