Isn't Corvelva (cited by Huff here) the institute that's openly against vaccines, refuses to name their researchers and can't get any of their research published because their methods are so bad they can (and do) get whatever results they want?

I know right. Sad people would still believe a package insert is evidence of anything

@Wretch, it's one heck of a logical summersault to suggest two events occurring in the same year indicates one must have caused the other. With that logic, you could just as easily suggest the empire state building (finished construction in 1931) causes autism

Thanks for deleting that mee6 😦 I'll try again
mercury toxicity only looks similar to autism if you ignore the rates of clinical findings and treat common findings and rare findings the same. Mercury toxicity can't be the same thing as autism if the characteristic signs of mercury toxicity are only seen rarely in autism.

for example, a characteristic clinical finding of mercury toxicity is ataxia (clumsy gait) while the main motor finding of autism is repetitive movements. Clumsiness to the extent of being considered pathological is rarely seen in ASD. In other words, typical signs of autism are not the same as typical signs of mercury toxicity

which I think you'll agree, is a more accurate way of looking at it than acting like prevalence isn't important

You said "autism and mercury poisoning are the same thing" and the part of the propoganda film you referenced says "[thimerosal] explains the exact symptoms [autistic children] have". I simply demonstrated how both these statements are meanignless at best. If you really think they are the same thing, please explain further than insulting my intelligence

unless you're offended that I disagree with your logic regarding the 1931 thing in which case I can only say sorry

I did watch the documentary a while ago (unfortunately for both of us). My favourite part was around 30 minutes where they try and scare you by saying vaccines have levels of thimerosal in excess of epa guideline then go 'oh yeah btw we used the wrong guidelines there. they have nothing to do with thimerosal or vaccines' (I'm paraphrasing)
regardless, sure there's a loose correlation. Of course, alone this doesn't prove you model but one great way to check a model is to see if can make accurate predictions. With your model, you ought to predict a sharp drop in incidence of autism if thimerosal-containing vaccines aren't given to infants anymore, right? Unfortunately you model fails here because, as you know, autism incidence hasn't dropped. Not only does your model fail this basic test but the correlation that provides the only support for it also vanishes

lol I guess I'm just confused what you think this proves ???

You've posted it countless times above. If I were lying, I could scroll up and just look

if I'm telling the truth it's unlikely i'd remember the runtime of a film i saw two years ago

is this how you always conduct enquiry? It would answer a lot of questions if so

I have no words

I was bang on with the 30 min estimate too hey 👌

well, it actually means I watch AT LEAST 30 minutes cf ONLY 30 minutes but okay <:smart:484956754489376781>

but anyway, I can understand why you'd want to derail dialogue and it's truly pretty funny but honestly I just care about the science and I can see you're not going to talk about that tonight. I have a quiz in the morning to study for (partly immunology would you believe it) so maybe another time

As usual, Wretch fails to understand some basic biology, in this case: pharmacokinetics. Thimerosal is well known to be excreted in the faeces meaning it at least passes through the liver.
Not that it matters as thimerosal isn't present in any infant vaccines, as you know

`All vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger in the U.S. are available in formulations that do not contain thimerosal`
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/thimerosal-and-vaccines

Not sure what you're trying to get across when you say it skips your digestive system or what you mean about blood already being in your intestines. You were clearly unable to find this information for yourself but I'm happy to help you out. To get from the blood to the faeces (which is the major route of excretion for thimerosal and its metabolites), it has to go through the liver, into the bile and to the duodenum. So if there's thimerosal or known metabolites of thimerosal in the faeces (which there is), we know it had to have got there via the liver

Yes, obviously vaccines enter your blood stream before reaching the liver. This is a completely vacuous statement. Everything that eventually inters the circulation does so before reaching the liver or the kidneys so I don't know what you're trying to say and unfortunately you've led me to believe you don't know either. Blood isn't magical and isn't the end 'organ' here so the fact that it gets into the circulation before the liver doesn't mean anything

With regard to '...they are available but most don't even know...', that's probably my fault for using a quote with multiple interpretations. To be clear, aside from some flu vaccines, vaccines recommended to children categorically have no thimerosal in them. Even if you assume all children get thimerosal-containing flu vaccines (which is obviously a laughable assumption), the overall exposure would still be such that your favourite correlation still vanishes

As a side note, you should know vaccines are not "injected right into the blood system". I hate to have to point out the irony but if you only have a minimal understanding of something, you shouldn't tell your opponent they don't understand a damn thing. Among other things, It makes you look very silly indeed

Please don't try to misrepresent what I've said now you've realised you lost. Honestly, I'm becoming suspicious that you're just stubbornly trying to use a simply fact of physiology--applicable to everything we eat and drink--to try to scare people. Let me be clear...if you're saying vaccines bypass the liver and kidneys because they reach the blood first, it must follow that everything else we eat, drink, inhale, inject or rub on our skin bypasses the liver and kidneys

As for the graph up there, we have data that goes beyond 200. Funnily enough, by 2001 there was a huge reduction in thimerosal exposure. I wonder why they cose to stop their graph at 2000. You've been misled by 'the media', sir

To address your fear of bypassing the respiratory mucosa, vaccines are not intended to initiate an innate immune resoonse, they're intended to initiate humoural response which happens in the lymph nodes which is why they're given intramuscularly. 'Corruption in the immune system' isn't a thing

what data would you like

more deadly than what?

I'm familiar with this study actually. It was published in a low impact factor (0.22) predatory journal that accepts 90% of their submissions :/

Anyway I can answer question 1 if you like

Yes you're correct the rate of autism has increased I agree with you on that. Thimerosal exposure has decreased though. Lacking a correlation indicates there's no causation

CDC disagrees with you https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-thimerosal-color-office.pdf

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

this is awkward

not for me certainly

If you're going to admit to assuming everything is fake because of where it comes from, this conversation is over. I can't argue with pure conjecture

A trivalent vaccine is not three doses of vaccine. Vicodin is not two doses of painkillers, recarbrio is not three doses of antibiotics and stribild is not four doses of antiretrovirals.

I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you're joking when you say you pck up the traits of the persons dna that they used in the first place to make the vaccine but feel free to correct me if you actually do believe this.

I'm not going to address Bernard et al again because you either didn't understand it last time or you chose to ignore it. Either way, it's futile to try again. See if Nelson and Bauman have better luck than me [https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/674]

I will address Guzzi et al though because I don't think I full expressed how bad this evidence is. Firstly, come on dude. The journal Interdisciplinary Toxicology has an impact factor of 0.22 [https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1337-9569_Interdisciplinary_toxicology] and they publish 90% of what they receive [https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/intox/intox-overview.xml]. Not only that, but Guzzi's institute is highly suspect. He's the only person I can find who's published from there, the institute's business email is Guzzi's personal email and the address for the institute is just a residential block. As for the experiment, the starting dose was way lower for thimerosal and cell viability was already decreasing for both MeHg and EtHg at the first dose. Basically, there was no way Guzzi couldn't get the results he wanted.

But anyway, assuming the experiment wasn't rigged and assuming the results can be trusted, who cares if thimerosal decreases cell viability in vitro, in one specific cell line, in one specific experiment. You have to make a huge leap from "it might kill modified immune cells in a test tube" to "it causes autism" Try looking at research on the brain For example, this review that determined brain damage is lower for EtHg than MeHg, access to the brain is less for EtHg, mercury from EtHg clears faster than mercury from MeHg, infants clear EtHg faster than adults and EtHg safe exposure is higher than predicted from looking at MeHg [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12884410]. Or try this in vivo experiment on infant macaques that found oral MeHg (such as from eating tuna) resulted in three to four fold higher brain mercury than i.m thimerosal (such as from outdated vaccines) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280342/]. It also found plasma half life was nearly three fold lower and clearance was more than five fold higher. Basically, trace amounts do not build up over time and MeHg is a really really bad reference.

as for going straight into your system before being filtered, I still don't see why you insist this is relevant. It's not unique t thimerosal and is physiologically meaningless. I strongly suspect it was just meant to sound scary and you've sadly fallen for it

Not sure which sources you think are funded by Merck and Paul Offit. Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal was supported by NIH. Neurotoxic character of thimerosal and the allometric extrapolation of adult clearance half‐time to infants had no outside funding. If you're refering to Nelson and Bauman, I know you didn't even open the link as it's a response to Bernard et al's article you spam about once a day. It was written by two independent scientists with no funding from AAP. The fact that it was published in a journal by AAP is moot. It doesn't really surprise me that you'd overlook this as fabricating conflicts of interest when you don't like the findings seems to sadly be your one and only trick. If you really want to talk about dodgy sources though, look to Corvelva. They never disclose their researchers, they never publish in journals, they rarely disclose their methods and when they do, it's hilarious. Take the recent analysis of priorix you're so fond of citing. They prepared samples in an undisclosed manner, sent them off to an undisclosed lab in another country and compared the results to an undisclosed genome. Nevermind transparency or reproducibility. As long as it agrees with your worldview, it's all good right. I hope the irony isn't lost

why was it autism was not a thing till the empire state building was completed?????

only if you ignore the rates of the clinical findings. We've been through this already

not that it matters as mercury =/= thimerosal

What do you consider a credible source?

what about one that's funded by antivaxxers

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/40/12498.long here's Gadad et al funded by antivaxxers. No points for guessing what they find ||no connection||

I think it's kind of unethical to kill so many monkeys to disprove an already disproven hypothesis, but they wanted to keep investigating for some reason

and you wanted proof, and you got it

@IXI mercury =/= thimerosal

and water contains oxygen. Doesn't mean water is oxygen

How can you say they're biased when they were done by antivaxxers but disproved their hypotheses. Huge credit to them for having the integrity to admit what they found

rhesus macaques are frequently used to study neurological toxicity. they're one of the best models we have

fine! table salt contains chlorine. Chlorine is a toxic element. table salt is not

same with water

If the only issue you can find is "one of the references is published in a journal I don't like" you should try harder

come on man, this isn't funded by big pharma. This was funded by Ted Lindsay Foundation, SafeMinds, National Autism Association, and the Johnson and Vernick families

Gadad et al doesn't either. You just proved my point that you fabricate conflicts of interest whenever you don't like the findings

you don't have to be ashamed of your own biases, everyone has them, but you shouldn't let them force you to have to make stuff up

yes

yes

so your issue with the paper is the journals that publishes the papers cited in the references?

If you're just going to try to force the conversation away from this study, go ahead but don't think it'll make you look good

if you have legitimate issue with the experiment, raise them

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/40/12498.long

they administered TCVs to rhesus macaques and did post mortems looked for neurological abnormalities seen in autism

so your issue is the references???

it's unethical to test a drug you hypothesise to be dangerous on human. This species has been used EXTENSIVELY to study neurological toxicities

the study is funded by Ted Lindsay Foundation, SafeMinds, National Autism Association, and the Johnson and Vernick families

why?

because of the conclusion right?

who they worked for in the past eh? Laura Hewitson worked at Wakefield's old autism clinic

Well this has been fun and all but I was supposed to be back in lab a minute ago. You can keep trying to fabricate a conflict of interest amongst yourselves but you'll have to do it without me. Have fun and good luck

question 1. Google is your friend. You can go to clinicaltrials.gov right now and search for "vaccine". Here, I'll help you out https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=vaccine&term=&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=

I get 7,145 results

I just answered one

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=vaccine&term=&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
here's 7,145

Classic. Gets shown up. Blames big pharma

Yeah placebo use is extremely unethical in this case

He's not lying. Ethics are important

Are you familiar with Graham's hierarchy ?

It has to do with you embarrassing yourself by making low level arguments. You're not making any points; you're just insulting my intelligence and saying every source I have is fake

Do you want to focus on the questions you've asked or are you going to keep on this tirade

that answers my question

so we're not talking about the 9 questions anymore?

I can't answer because mee6 is deleting my links

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31629570

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31601541

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31331777

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31208472

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31287523

that's a few from the first page of pubmed

I don't know what else to say other than yes, it is a double blind placebo controlled trial

here we go with the ad hominin again 😦

refer back to Gragam's

what year did you ask?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30420116

here's one from 2018

I don't get what you're saying

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30292744 another from >6 months ago

these studies existed before you asked the questions

they're VERY easy to find

failing to have found them (demonstrated by asking these questions) says a lot about the person who's looking