A TOTAL CONFUSED CHEMIST

[Guest guest]

A TOTAL CONFUSED CHEMIST From 1990 through to 1996 a Danish study ‘proved’ that there was a protective effect of having mercury in our vaccines. I admit to being TOTALLY CONFUSED at this. Adding mercury at THOUSANDS of times more concentrations than is LEGAL for the safety of ADULTS is now ‘proved’ protective for ONE DAY OLD BABIES in their vaccines. I ADMIT I am a totally confused CHEMIST to hear this about the SINGLE most TOXIC chemical element that is not also radioactive. I am also confused for these researchers have done BRILLIANT work on MERCURY before; their studies complete with equations, reactions and ANALYSIS of mercury content. This paper CONTAINS no analysis of any mercury whatsoever. It is as related to science as ASTROLOGY is to ASTRONOMY. It rather hopes that mercury was in earlier vaccines and was absent from later vaccines. It rather hopes that new vaccines and earlier vaccines and changes in diagnosis and changes in places of obtaining information have a ZERO effect in this real and complex world of autism, SIDS et al. It rather hopes its random or not so random picking of subjects is science. I am totally confused at all this IMPRECISION with such an IMPORTANT conclusion with MILLIONS of lives at STAKE . TOXIC MERCURY is now NO LONGER TOXIC. WOW! WOW! WOW! From 1990 – 1996 in Denmark we had increasing and new vaccines untested for safety but we did remove mercury because of its HIGH TOXICITY. Mercury was removed in March 1992 from ALL vaccines in Denmark. (When will the USA follow? In 2008 mercury rests in many vaccines STILL.) Thousands of cases were looked at in the Denmark study. Imagine this IMAGINARY scenario: 1 mercury death or maiming occurs from 1990 - March 1992 and 2 non-mercury deaths or maimings occur from April 1992 - 1996 Look at 1990 and find 1 death per so many thousand. Look at 1992 and find 2 death per so many thousand. Conclusion will be that mercury is PROTECTIVE of childrens health and life? This flies in the face of our imaginary MODEL which we constructed where one death IS DUE to MERCURY. The STATISTICS LIE to us. So is PROVING NEGATIVES GOOD SCIENCE or QUACK SCIENCE? We imagined that MERCURY DID kill or maim and between 1990 to March 1992 one child. We imagined some other new factor killed or maimed two people from April 1992 to 1996 and the cause was NOT MERCURY-RELATED as mercury was now not in the vaccines. Analysing these results tells us that the mercury protects children from death by a factor of 2; enough to satisfy a legal court in fact. So in our IMAGINARY MODEL we have proved with sufficient rigour for a court of law that mercury is not only NOT to blame but it is PROTECTIVE of childrens health. We know however that in this imaginary case – MERCURY WAS TO BLAME. So proving a negative cannot be taken as proving ANYTHING. To accept that mercury does not kill or maim is QUACK SCIENCE. The model shows how easily a FALSE degree of confidence may arise and in a KNOWN and MOST HIGHLY TOXIC substance. Such results published in PEER REVIEWED journals must UNDERMINE not just this piece of RESEARCH but ALL papers must be viewed more like COMIC STRIPS than real science. No wonder there are huge lags from research papers to books and no wonder many papers HIDE behind INCOMPREHENSIBLE MUMBO JUMBO. Deaths DEFINITELY due to mercury going unrecognised because of other related vaccine harm also going unrecognised. The increase in autism cases will NEVER excuse mercury but ONLY confirm we are moving from a problem to a CATASTROPHE. Lets do another study now not to measure NEGATIVE effects but to PROVE mercury was present and a cause of a death or maiming: We look at this one case only from the above which we put forward as a mercury death or maiming. We look at it because the child was killed or maimed and we believe mercury is to blame. This time we use not the imaginary model but a real case study performed thousands of times since 2000 and all with the same scenario. Assume first it is a maiming only from mercury EXPOSURE. We can measure hair, blood, stool and urine mercury levels. We find ZERO for blood, stool and urine. We find low levels for hair mercury. Does this excuse mercury? Well only a few years ago, YES. Today we know different. First ideas may be MISLEADING. We now challenge the child with a substance to grip and remove any TOXIC metals. The mercury levels in blood, stool and urine go OFF SCALE. The child relapses as the MERCURY leaving the body again attacks his/her health. This and many other tests in our now REAL EXPERIMENT prove CONCLUSIVELY that mercury for just this ONE case out of many thousands WAS RESPONSIBLE. Or if NOT RESPONSIBLE we have to say is it OK to HAVE mercury present and LURKING at levels of CONCERN when the cumulative TOXIC properties of mercury are so well known. POSITIVE RESULTS are NOT QUACK SCIENCE and CAN show EVIDENCE OF HARM. Pause for thought: The autism figures in China before 2000 were close to ZERO. Today after taking on board USA vaccinations and with causes 1 and 2 we have 1 000 000 children in China with autism. Children aged 3 to 8 in China have amongst them MORE than 1 million NOW diagnosed AUTISTIC Children aged 9 to 16 in China have virtually no cases of AUTISM. WOW! WOW! WOW! Pause for thought CDC? Pause for thought EPA? Pause for thought NIH? Pause for thought FDA? Pause for thought Vaccine Companies? WHO IS GOING TO PAY the 3 million DOLLARS per child for these victims of vaccine induced illness and DEATH? Why are Government and all these bodies SO ADAMANT that mercury is fine? Going against 2000 years of CHEMISTRY and careful POSITIVE studies? Why won’t USA BAN WORLDWIDE the use of ANY mercury products in vaccines? I am: A TOTAL CONFUSED CHEMIST

[Guest guest]

Oh, well, , I can "unconfuse" you about the Danish study--the rate of autism didn't go up when thimerosal was removed, they just started to count the outpatients living with their families as well as the institutionalized at that point.Peace,Kathy E.On Feb 3, 2008, at 6:17 AM, johnfryer@... wrote:A TOTAL CONFUSED CHEMIST From 1990 through to 1996 a Danish study ‘proved’ that there was a protective effect of having mercury in our vaccines. I admit to being TOTALLY CONFUSED at this.