Politics and Medicine - Long Awaited PROOF of the effects of MERCURY!!

Author

Long Awaited PROOF of the effects of MERCURY!!

Jan Drew

2006-09-27, 4:30 pm

http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/109

Mercury Girls

They mixed mercury with their bare hands. They spilled it on the floor. They
heated it over open fire. This was the daily routine for 10.000 Norwegian
dental-assistants until the mid -80`s.
Nobody told them it was dangerous. The authorities assumed the mercury
levels were low. Today many of the women are ill, and unable to work. They
have classical symptoms of neurological damage caused by mercury but never
the less the health care system treats them as mentally ill.
This is the unknown story of the dental-assistants, and the children they
gave birth to after handling mercury every day.
The Norwegian government has initiated a research-project based on these
documentaries
Release year: 2006
http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/110

Mercury Children

They are born with birth defects. Some get depressions and unexplainable
pain in their bodies
Others tell a story of severe learning-difficulties. The doctors have not
been able to tell them why they are ill.
But they have one thing in common. Their mothers worked as dental nurses
during their pregnancies. They were daily exposed to extremely high levels
of mercury.
It is a scientific fact that mercury is transported from mother to foetus.
This documentary is based on the story of 400 dental nurses. These women
phoned the journalists after the documentary "The mercury girls" was sent in
Norway. The women talked about their children, and the journalists
discovered a pattern. The data was discussed with scientists at the
University of Bergen, which confirmed that this was concerning and new
information.
A fresh study of dental nurses in New Zealand shows the same tendency. The
children are ill, and in addition, 25 % of the dental-assistants have had a
hysterectomy, caused by severe bleedings.

See Michael Bender's slides on the Mercury Girls and Mercury Children on the
FDA website. This was part of the presentation on mercury at the FDA
hearings on dental amalgam on Sept 6th and 7th.
Release year: 2006

Director: Kjersti Knudssøn

Running length: 29

Production company: NRK

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...6-4218s2-04.pdf

Neurotoxic Effects of Mercury in Dental Nurses in Norway

I have just posted an incomplete version of what happened at the FDA
meetings in September.
http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA%...gam_safety.html

Marie Flowers
www.MercuryPoisoned.com

God Bless this dear lady.

Rich

2006-09-27, 9:30 pm

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:uTBSg.6605$vJ2.271@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/109
>
> Mercury Girls
>
> They mixed mercury with their bare hands. They spilled it on the floor.
> They heated it over open fire. This was the daily routine for 10.000
> Norwegian dental-assistants until the mid -80`s.
> Nobody told them it was dangerous. The authorities assumed the mercury
> levels were low. Today many of the women are ill, and unable to work. They
> have classical symptoms of neurological damage caused by mercury but never
> the less the health care system treats them as mentally ill.
> This is the unknown story of the dental-assistants, and the children they
> gave birth to after handling mercury every day.
> The Norwegian government has initiated a research-project based on these
> documentaries
> Release year: 2006
> http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/110
>
> Mercury Children
>
> They are born with birth defects. Some get depressions and unexplainable
> pain in their bodies
> Others tell a story of severe learning-difficulties. The doctors have not
> been able to tell them why they are ill.
> But they have one thing in common. Their mothers worked as dental nurses
> during their pregnancies. They were daily exposed to extremely high levels
> of mercury.
> It is a scientific fact that mercury is transported from mother to foetus.
> This documentary is based on the story of 400 dental nurses. These women
> phoned the journalists after the documentary "The mercury girls" was sent
> in Norway. The women talked about their children, and the journalists
> discovered a pattern. The data was discussed with scientists at the
> university of Bergen, which confirmed that this was concerning and new
> information.
> A fresh study of dental nurses in New Zealand shows the same tendency. The
> children are ill, and in addition, 25 % of the dental-assistants have had
> a hysterectomy, caused by severe bleedings.
>
> See Michael Bender's slides on the Mercury Girls and Mercury Children on
> the FDA website. This was part of the presentation on mercury at the FDA
> hearings on dental amalgam on Sept 6th and 7th.
> Release year: 2006
>
> Director: Kjersti Knudssøn
>
> Running length: 29
>
> Production company: NRK
>
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...6-4218s2-04.pdf
>
> Neurotoxic Effects of Mercury in Dental Nurses in Norway
>
> I have just posted an incomplete version of what happened at the FDA
> meetings in September.
> http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA%...gam_safety.html
>
> Marie Flowers
> www.MercuryPoisoned.com
>
> God Bless this dear lady.

So what? Nobody has ever denied here that mercury is toxic. But these
examples involve thaousands of times the doses one could get from amalgams
in their teeth, and hundreds of thousands of times the doses one could get
from a lifetime of vaccinations. You've been told before, and I know you
prefer to ignore or deny it, that THE DOSE IS THE POISON!
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Jan Drew

2006-09-28, 2:32 am

"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:J_CSg.12009$rE5.1372@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:uTBSg.6605$vJ2.271@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> So what? Nobody has ever denied here that mercury is toxic. But these
> examples involve thaousands of times the doses one could get from amalgams
> in their teeth, and hundreds of thousands of times the doses one could get
> from a lifetime of vaccinations. You've been told before, and I know you
> prefer to ignore or deny it, that THE DOSE IS THE POISON!

In anwer to your *So what?* So-- this shows the FDA knew the facts. They
rejected them.
>

I have been rold by the *gang*. This is thier standard and OLD excuse.

The facts of low levels of mercury. That YOU and the *gang* have been told
many times.

Research in molecular biology has elucidated mechanisms that may underlie
the
toxic effects of mercury.

Studies of the effects of mercury on the immune system in rodents have
enhanced
knowledge of the mechanisms whereby mercury affects the immune system.
Clinical
studies of occupationally exposed employees have objectively confirmed
subclinical influence of mercury on the immune system at low levels of
mercury
exposure.

The thyroid has been identified as the target organ for the toxic effect of
mercury in occupational exposure to mercury vapour in low doses.

Clinical studies of the effects of mercury on occupationally exposed
workers,
using modern diagnostic methods, have elucidated the connection between dose
and effect. They have also identified and quantified neuropsychological
symptoms at low exposure levels.

Relation between symptoms and mercury concentrations in saliva after
chewing.
The Tübingen amalgam study could establish in the especially examined group
of
21-40 year old persons a statistically significant relation between mercury
levels in saliva and symptoms. Only symptoms which are characteristic of
subacute or chronic mercury exposure in the low-level range were studied.

Low-level chronic exposures to mercury may affect the peripheral nervous
system resulting in polyneuropathies (reduced sensory and motor nerve
function) and neuropsychological effects (visual alterations, sensory loss,
stress) (ATSDR 1989); these effects correlate to tissue levels of 20 to 40
µg/g. Neuropsychological effects were also reported by Smith et al. (1970)
for occupational exposure to mercury levels of > 0.1 mg/m3. Mercury
concentrations below this value did not appear to cause observable effects.
Kishi et al. (1993) reported that neurobehavioral and motor function effects
persisted in ex-mercury miners more than 10 years after cessation of
exposure.

Once inhaled, elemental mercury is mostly converted to an inorganic divalent
or mercuric form by catalase in the red blood cells. This inorganic form has
similar properties to organic mercury. Small amounts of non-oxidized
elemental mercury continue to persist and account for CNS toxicity.

Elemental mercury, as a vapor, which escapes from fillings, penetrates the
blood-brain-barrier and enters the CNS, where it's ionized and trapped,
attributing to its significant toxic effects

http://www.floridalcv.org/FLCVEdFun...of_dental_a.htm

Environmental Effect of Dental Amalgam

Mercury is one of the most toxic substances commonly encountered, and
according
to Government agencies causes adverse health effects in large numbers of
people
in the U.S.[1] The extreme toxicity of mercury can be seen from documented
effects on wildlife by very low levels of mercury exposure. The average
amalgam
filling has more than ½ gram of mercury, and has been documented to
continuously leak mercury into the body of those with amalgam fillings due
to
the low mercury vapor pressure and galvanic current induced by mixed metals
in
the mouth.

1. Hg plasma concentration correlated with no.of amalgam fillings.
> http://tinyurl.com/cdb0 2003

2. Correlation between number of fillings and salivary Hg.
> http://tinyurl.com/cgs 2000

3. The amount of organic and inorganic mercury in paraffin-stimulated
> saliva was significantly higher in subjects with dental amalgam fillings
> http://tinyurl.com/cgs1 2001 4. Mercury vapour release increases with
> chewing, with absorption and
> uptake by the brain and kidneys.
> http://tinyurl.com/cczd 2002

5. Amalgam causes nerve cell toxicity in culture.
> http://tinyurl.com/ccyo 2003

6. Plasma concentrations of mercury before and after treatment
> supported the metal exposure to be causative for the ill health.
> http://tinyurl.com/ccyr 2002

7 None of the materials tested consistently prevented microleakage.
> http://tinyurl.com/cfcg 2002

8. In neither of the nonamalgam groups was this [wastewater] limit
> exceeded, but 20.5% in the amalgam group exceeded the limit
> http://tinyurl.com/ccyu 2002

9. I-Hg levels in placenta increased with an increasing number of
> maternal dental amalgam fillings (p < 0.001)... a substantial fraction of
> maternal blood I-Hg, probably as Hg(0), reached the fetus.
> http://tinyurl.com/cgrz 2002

10 Evidence of a pro-oxidant role of the amalgam Hg chronically released
> in saliva.
> http://tinyurl.com/cgrv 2002 11. Mercury released into air from dry
> abraded amalgam
> was shown to be above the recommended industrial limit
> http://tinyurl.com/cf7j 2002

http://www.chem-tox.com/pregnancy/mercury.htm

Low Level Mercury Causes Behavior Problems During Pregnancy

Subtle behavior problems were observed in mice offspring exposed to a single
low level mercury dose.

In summarizing the results of their study, the researchers stated,

"This hypothesis generating study showed highly significant correlations
between mood scores and most measures of low level Hg (mercury) exposure.
The
specific mood measures most associated with Hg exposure were tension,
fatigue,
and confusion. The strength of these associations suggests that mood should
be
included for investigation in future hypothesis-testing studies..... Among
the
cognitive and motor function tests, only the digit span and simple reaction
time (nondominant hand) scores were associated with any measure of
exposure...... Overall, and despite the small size of the study population,
this investigation found some evidence of adverse preclinical effects at
mercury doses averaging 36 ugs/l in urine. The mood and symptom results of
this
study agree with prior evaluations of both high and low urinary mercury
doses.
These preliminary survey findings support a critical evaluation of the
adequacy
of the 50 ug/g creatinine biologic threshold for mercury proposed by the
World
Health Organization This is the first U.S. dental study to detect potential
behavioral deficits at such a low level of exposure. A larger and more
comprehensive study is required to accurately determine a biologic threshold
of
adverse central and peripheral nervous system effects for elemental
mercury."

Drs. Diana Echeverria, Nicholas J. Heyer, Michael D. Martin, Conrad A
Naleway
Depart. of Environ. Health, Univ. of Washington, School of Dentistry, Univ.
of
Washington
Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 17(2):161-168, 1995

Dopamine Uptake in Brain Cells Changed By Methylmercury

Attention Deficit Disorder children were reported in other headings in this
book as having altered dopamine levels. Several compounds, including
alcohol,
have been shown to alter dopamine levels in test animals. Now, researchers
at
Duke university Medical School have shown that even very low levels of
methylmercury result in dopamine and norepinephrine brain neurotransmitter
changes.

>
> --Rich

>

PeterB

2006-09-28, 4:29 pm

Rich wrote:
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:uTBSg.6605$vJ2.271@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
hey[vbcol=seagreen]
ver[vbcol=seagreen]
ey[vbcol=seagreen]
ot[vbcol=seagreen]
els[vbcol=seagreen]
us.[vbcol=seagreen]
nt[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
ad[vbcol=seagreen]
algam_safety.html[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> So what? Nobody has ever denied here that mercury is toxic. But these
> examples involve thaousands of times the doses one could get from amalgams
> in their teeth, and hundreds of thousands of times the doses one could get
> from a lifetime of vaccinations. You've been told before, and I know you
> prefer to ignore or deny it, that THE DOSE IS THE POISON!

This is a gross oversimplification based on an antiquated postulate put
forth by Paracelsus nearly 500 hundred years ago. He said every
substance is a poison and that the right dose differentiates a chemical
into either a poison or a remedy. Please do tell us when mercury,
lead, nicotine, dioxin, or benzene, or other chemicals like them
constitute a remedy? There are thousands of substances that Paracelsus
never knew existed (or could exist) that are not remedial in human
health, regardless of the "dose." The good doctor was not exactly
ahead of his time (or if he was, we can't seriously use his limited
scope of knowledge in 1567 to discuss public health today.) Your
position is counter to the latest biochemical forensics showing
degradation in normal metabolic function even in the presence of the
most minute quantities of chemicals not also identified as a nutrient
(whether required or not.) You also don't address the issue of the
accumulation and storage of mercury in tissue over time, sensitivity of
the species based on stage of develoment, the differences between
inorganic and organic forms, or cumulative risk from multiple source
exposure. =20

PeterB

David Wright

2006-09-28, 9:29 pm

In article <qOmdnZc4JKMRLYbYRVny2Q@bt.com>, JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:J_CSg.12009$rE5.1372@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>amalgams
>get
>
> Not with mercury, there is no safe dose, and with vaccines it is 200 times
>even what the EPA say is 'safe'

Poor stupid john -- can't even figure out that the thimerosal is out
of the childhood vaccines.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

Coleah

2006-09-28, 9:29 pm

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10%Sg.9604$6S3.6403@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <qOmdnZc4JKMRLYbYRVny2Q@bt.com>, JOHN <john@btinternet.com>
wrote:
could[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
times[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Poor stupid john -- can't even figure out that the thimerosal is out
> of the childhood vaccines.
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

I see a lot of controversy about vaccines, but do not fully understand it
all. When was this thimerosal put 'into' vaccines?

Many 'oldster' people can't figure out why we lived so long with all the
amalgam (mercuty?) fillings in our teeth, and those childhood shots we got.

David Wright

2006-09-29, 2:35 am

In article <12hp05bdh8k455@corp.supernews.com>,
Coleah <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:10%Sg.9604$6S3.6403@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>wrote:
>could
>you
>times
>
>I see a lot of controversy about vaccines, but do not fully understand it
>all. When was this thimerosal put 'into' vaccines?
>
>Many 'oldster' people can't figure out why we lived so long with all the
>amalgam (mercuty?) fillings in our teeth, and those childhood shots we got.

Thimerosal was first used in vaccines starting in the 1930s, I
believe. It's a preservative that keeps bacteria from growing
in the vaccine and contaminating it.

The "controversy" arose when various activists decided that the
thimerosal was responsible for the apparent rise in autism cases over
the last few decades. A number of large-scale studies have found no
connection between the two, but the anti-thimerosal people are not
deterred by such minor setbacks.

At this point, virtually all vaccines for childhood diseases contain
little or no thimerosal (and some, like polio vaccine, never contained
it at all). Despite this, autism rates have not plummeted.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

JohnDoe

2006-09-29, 2:35 am

PeterB wrote:

> Rich wrote:
>
>
>
> This is a gross oversimplification based on an antiquated postulate put
> forth by Paracelsus nearly 500 hundred years ago. He said every
> substance is a poison and that the right dose differentiates a chemical
> into either a poison or a remedy. Please do tell us when mercury,
> lead, nicotine, dioxin, or benzene, or other chemicals like them
> constitute a remedy?

You clearly missed Peter Bowditch's post in which he copied a part from
the Homeopathic Pharmacopia he has which quite clearly says that mercury
is a remedy for everything except hangnail. Oh, and nicotine comes from
a plant which makes it all natural. According to many alternuts, this
means it's good for you by definition.

> There are thousands of substances that Paracelsus
> never knew existed (or could exist) that are not remedial in human
> health, regardless of the "dose."

Are you claiming that there are substances that are safe in any dose? Or
are you just defending that postulate...

> The good doctor was not exactly
> ahead of his time (or if he was, we can't seriously use his limited
> scope of knowledge in 1567 to discuss public health today.) Your
> position is counter to the latest biochemical forensics showing
> degradation in normal metabolic function even in the presence of the
> most minute quantities of chemicals not also identified as a nutrient
> (whether required or not.) You also don't address the issue of the
> accumulation and storage of mercury in tissue over time, sensitivity of
> the species based on stage of develoment, the differences between
> inorganic and organic forms, or cumulative risk from multiple source
> exposure.
>
> PeterB
>

JOHN

2006-09-29, 8:31 am

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote

"alternuts"

this signifies 100% pharma brainwashed

JohnDoe

2006-09-29, 8:31 am

JOHN wrote:
> "JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote
>
> "alternuts"
>
> this signifies 100% pharma brainwashed

And I thought pharma wasn't good for anything. Apparently I was wrong,
you can brainwash with pharmaceuticals, even for 100%. How's that for
efficacy!

Coleah

2006-09-29, 8:31 am

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:g00Tg.5582$TV3.2093@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <12hp05bdh8k455@corp.supernews.com>,
> Coleah <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote:
these[vbcol=seagreen]
know[vbcol=seagreen]
got.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Thimerosal was first used in vaccines starting in the 1930s, I
> believe. It's a preservative that keeps bacteria from growing
> in the vaccine and contaminating it.
>
> The "controversy" arose when various activists decided that the
> thimerosal was responsible for the apparent rise in autism cases over
> the last few decades. A number of large-scale studies have found no
> connection between the two, but the anti-thimerosal people are not
> deterred by such minor setbacks.
>
> At this point, virtually all vaccines for childhood diseases contain
> little or no thimerosal (and some, like polio vaccine, never contained
> it at all). Despite this, autism rates have not plummeted.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

Thank you, David.
For all of us oldster's who got vaccinated, we didn't seem to have the
number of cases of autism as they have today.

How are the vaccines being preserved now? If the rates have not dropped,
obviously removing the thimerosal was not the correct answer.

There has to be another reason for the rise in autism rates.
Then too, from my understanding there are different levels of autism (mild
to severe) and perhaps years back the milder cases weren't even counted.
[They would have been kids thought of as 'special', because they didn't
quite march to the same social beat as most kids.]

Coleah

2006-09-29, 8:31 am

"JOHN" <john@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3OydnbPrNNDmI4HYnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> news:12hp05bdh8k455@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> get a life
>
> it
>
> In 1940's--hence autism
>
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> got.
>
> ever wondered why you oldsters all get alzheimer's?
> http://www.whale.to/a/alzheimer.html

First of all I do not believe that Alzheimer's is the exact same thing as
what today's youngster are being diagnosed with as autism. Second of all,
oldsters do not ALL get Alzheimer's.

If it were the exact same thing, why did it take a lifetime to show up in
some of us 'oldsters' (certainly not at the rate of 1 in 166, as I have
heard today's youngster's rate is)?

PeterB

2006-09-29, 4:31 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
They[vbcol=seagreen]
ever[vbcol=seagreen]
hey[vbcol=seagreen]
se[vbcol=seagreen]
le[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
es[vbcol=seagreen]
vels[vbcol=seagreen]
tus.[vbcol=seagreen]
en[vbcol=seagreen]
ent[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
had[vbcol=seagreen]
on[vbcol=seagreen]
DA[vbcol=seagreen]
malgam_safety.html[vbcol=seagreen]
ams[vbcol=seagreen]
get[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You clearly missed Peter Bowditch's post in which he copied a part from
> the Homeopathic Pharmacopia he has which quite clearly says that mercury
> is a remedy for everything except hangnail.

Thanks for the claptrap from Bowditch, but I'll pass.

> Oh, and nicotine comes from
> a plant which makes it all natural. According to many alternuts, this
> means it's good for you by definition.

If that's what you are hearing, explain to them that only nutrients are
good for you (by definition.) Can you do that without injuring
yourself?

>
> Are you claiming that there are substances that are safe in any dose? Or
> are you just defending that postulate...

Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.
The degree of harm does not tell us that something is poisonous, it
tells us how poisonous it is. Similarly, your ignorance is not proven
by the degree of stupidity you display in any given post, but by your
motive in remaining stupid.
[vbcol=seagreen]

bobb4747@yahoo.com

2006-09-29, 4:31 pm

PeterB wrote:
>
> Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.

I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.

BobB

PeterB

2006-09-29, 4:31 pm

bobb4747@yahoo.com wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
> absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
> us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.
>
> BobB

Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
nutrient. All nutrients support homeostasis directly. The statement
that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
both. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

PeterB

bobb4747@yahoo.com

2006-09-29, 4:31 pm

PeterB wrote:
> bobb4747@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
> nutrient. All nutrients support homeostasis directly. The statement
> that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
> both. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.
>
> PeterB

Now I am even more confused. Since you were only talking about
nutrients not chemicals, the sentence comes down to:
"Any nutrient (was chemical) not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
at any dose."
The second "nutrient" refers to the classic definition of nutrient
(something of benefit to the body). However, the first "nutrient"
applies to any chemical that can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

There are also nutrients that in too high a dose are bad for you: some
of the vitamins, iron, chromium, etc.

Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
is quite beneficial. Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
different way than I have seen them used before.

BobB

Mark Probert

2006-09-29, 4:31 pm

JOHN wrote:
> "JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote
>
> "alternuts"
>
> this signifies 100% pharma brainwashed

Don't worry, John, you cannot be brainwashed if you have nothing to wash.

PeterB

2006-09-29, 4:31 pm

bobb4747@yahoo.com wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Now I am even more confused. Since you were only talking about
> nutrients not chemicals, the sentence comes down to:
> "Any nutrient (was chemical) not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
> at any dose."

Yes, you are confused. Nutrients are chemicals. The sentence should
remain as I wrote it: "Any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT is
poisonous at any dose." You are making this more difficult than it
needs to be.

> The second "nutrient" refers to the classic definition of nutrient
> (something of benefit to the body). However, the first "nutrient"
> applies to any chemical that can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

Very wrong, even worse than before. Try this:

1. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is neither a poison
or a nutrient.
2. Nutrients are chemicals that enter the bloodstream and support
homeostasis.
3. Poisons are chemicals that enter the bloodstream and disrupt
homeostasis.
4. Fiber (generally) is metabolically inert, as it does not digest.

> There are also nutrients that in too high a dose are bad for you: some
> of the vitamins, iron, chromium, etc.

Chemicals that are not nutrients and enter the bloodstream are
disruptive to metabolic function in even minute amounts, however.
Nutrients, by contrast, are metabolized beneficially in a wide
variation of intake every day of your life.

> Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
> into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
> is quite beneficial.

It is chemically, not mechanically, inert.

> Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
> metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
> different way than I have seen them used before.

Feel free to list your definitions and reference them. I am here to
learn if you can teach.

PeterB

Peter Bowditch

2006-09-29, 9:28 pm

bobb4747@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>PeterB wrote:
>
>Now I am even more confused. Since you were only talking about
>nutrients not chemicals, the sentence comes down to:
>"Any nutrient (was chemical) not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
>at any dose."
>The second "nutrient" refers to the classic definition of nutrient
>(something of benefit to the body). However, the first "nutrient"
>applies to any chemical that can be absorbed into the bloodstream.
>
>There are also nutrients that in too high a dose are bad for you: some
>of the vitamins, iron, chromium, etc.
>
>Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
>into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
>is quite beneficial. Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
>metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
>different way than I have seen them used before.
>
>BobB

That's what PeterB does, Bob. It's his way of "winning" an argument,
because he can't call on things like facts.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

David Wright

2006-09-30, 2:32 am

In article <12hq2njg70c4be3@corp.supernews.com>,
Coleah <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:g00Tg.5582$TV3.2093@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>these
>know
>got.
>
>Thank you, David.
>For all of us oldster's who got vaccinated, we didn't seem to have the
>number of cases of autism as they have today.

"Seem" is the key word here. There is significant evidence that
autism rates haven't really changed. It's just that children who used
to be classified as "retarded" or some other diagnosis are now being
identified as autistic, or autism-spectrum.

>How are the vaccines being preserved now? If the rates have not dropped,
>obviously removing the thimerosal was not the correct answer.

Some are preserved by refrigeration. I don't know how the others are
preserved.

>There has to be another reason for the rise in autism rates.
>Then too, from my understanding there are different levels of autism (mild
>to severe) and perhaps years back the milder cases weren't even counted.
>[They would have been kids thought of as 'special', because they didn't
>quite march to the same social beat as most kids.]

Correct. The milder cases may be Asperger's, for example. Used to be
they didn't get any kind of diagnosis, they were just considered
weird.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

David Wright

2006-09-30, 2:32 am

In article <12hq6l1ngkv02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Coleah <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>"JOHN" <john@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:3OydnbPrNNDmI4HYnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@bt.com...
>the
>
>
>First of all I do not believe that Alzheimer's is the exact same thing as
>what today's youngster are being diagnosed with as autism. Second of all,
>oldsters do not ALL get Alzheimer's.

You are correct -- Alzheimer's is not the same as autism and not al
oldsters get Alzheimer's.

>If it were the exact same thing, why did it take a lifetime to show up in
>some of us 'oldsters' (certainly not at the rate of 1 in 166, as I have
>heard today's youngster's rate is)?

That's the rate for all autism-spectrum disorders, not full-blown
autism.

Anyway, don't expect to get facts from John. Take a look at some of
the weirder stuff on whale.to if you don't believe me, because *he*
believes everything on that site (he maintains it).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

Coleah

2006-09-30, 8:28 am

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:M1mTg.6691$e66.5486@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <12hq2njg70c4be3@corp.supernews.com>,
> Coleah <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote:
<john@btinternet.com>[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
one[vbcol=seagreen]
200[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "Seem" is the key word here. There is significant evidence that
> autism rates haven't really changed. It's just that children who used
> to be classified as "retarded" or some other diagnosis are now being
> identified as autistic, or autism-spectrum.
>
>
> Some are preserved by refrigeration. I don't know how the others are
> preserved.
>
(mild[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Correct. The milder cases may be Asperger's, for example. Used to be
> they didn't get any kind of diagnosis, they were just considered
> weird.
> -- David Wright

Yes, one of my grandson's has been diagnosed with Asperger's. My oldest
brother (in his 70's now) was not diagnosed as a child....he was as you say
'weird' and 'special' in an odd way.

That was my thoughts about the reported increase in Autism cases.....the
mild cases just were not 'reported'. Today it has become an issue like the
plague. I have a little song which I sing to all the little kids so they
can learn to be accepting of themselves and others: "Everybody's
Weeeeeeird....In Their Own Way" (to the tune of Everybody's Beautiful, of
course.)

I think people can relax a bunch with all that Autism scare stuff.....if
they choose.

Mark Probert

2006-09-30, 4:29 pm

D. C. Sessions

2006-09-30, 4:29 pm

In message <1159542970.665001.79070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, PeterB
wrote:

> If that's what you are hearing, explain to them that only nutrients are
> good for you (by definition.) _Can you do that without injuring
> yourself?

And therefore, anything good for you is a nutrient (or are
we dealing with Alternative Set Theory as well as Alternative
Statistics?)

Hmmm ... I think we have a new MHA contest for "nutrients."
In my case, I know sex is good for you so I'm off to discuss
"lunch" with $HERSELF.

> Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.

Hmmm -- so, for instance, nitrous oxide (not metabolized as
a nutrient, right?) is poisonous at any dose. Please get back
to us on your quality of life without it.

> The degree of harm does not tell us that something is poisonous, it
> tells us how poisonous it is. Similarly, your ignorance is not proven
> by the degree of stupidity you display in any given post, but by your
> motive in remaining stupid.

Are nutrients ever poisonous?

I'm trying to fill in the whole set relationship between
PB's definition of "nutrient" and "poisonous". We know that
he defines any non-nutrient as "poisonous," (see above) so
that takes care of half of the four possible combinations.
The missing one is the intersection of "nutrient" and "posionous,"
which would complete the relation.

I look forward to clarification of this essential point.

--
begin signature.exe
A:_Because_it_messes_up_the_order_in_which_people_normally_read_text.
Q:_Why_is_top-posting_such_a_bad_thing?
A:_Top-posting.
Q:_What_is_the_most_annoying_thing_on_usenet?

D. C. Sessions

2006-09-30, 4:29 pm

In message <dsdrh2lv9tkneaisi4a7o8a804sq2986lh@4ax.com>, Peter Bowditch
wrote:
> bobb4747@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> That's what PeterB does, Bob. It's his way of "winning" an argument,
> because he can't call on things like facts.

I find it much more productive to simply accept that PB is never
going to learn the language that the rest of us share. If you
start from that premise and study PeterBish as a language with
its own vocabulary, syntax, and semantics you get farther and,
IMHO, have more fun.

--
begin signature.exe
A:_Because_it_messes_up_the_order_in_which_people_normally_read_text.
Q:_Why_is_top-posting_such_a_bad_thing?
A:_Top-posting.
Q:_What_is_the_most_annoying_thing_on_usenet?

D. C. Sessions

2006-09-30, 4:29 pm

In message <1159552408.377748.309120@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, PeterB
wrote:

> Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
> nutrient. _All nutrients support homeostasis directly. _The statement
> that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
> both. _Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

OK, we're closing in on the taxonomy here. Anything that doesn't
enter the bloodstream is inert and is neither a poison nor a
nutrient, so we know that polyethylene glycol is "inert."

Since "Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
at any dose" [1], and "only nutrients are good for you (by
definition.)" [2], we know that anything not a nutrient is not
good for you, and therefore anything that does not enter the
bloodstream is not a nutrient, and therefore is not good for you.

So much for dietary fiber. For that matter, since proteins also
don't enter the bloodstream from the gut they're also not
"nutrients" and are therefore not good for you.

The things you learn on MHA.

"All nutrients support homeostasis directly" is unfortunately
not terribly helpful since on its face it rules out all of the
chemicals required by an organism (e.g. carbohydrates) for the
production of essential internal chemicals. I'm afraid more
exegesis will be needed here.

[1] <1159542970.665001.79070@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
[2] Ibid.

--
begin signature.exe
A:_Because_it_messes_up_the_order_in_which_people_normally_read_text.
Q:_Why_is_top-posting_such_a_bad_thing?
A:_Top-posting.
Q:_What_is_the_most_annoying_thing_on_usenet?

D. C. Sessions

2006-09-30, 4:29 pm

In message <M1mTg.6691$e66.5486@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, David Wright
wrote:

> Some are preserved by refrigeration. _I don't know how the others are
> preserved.

You need to distinguish between single- and multiple-dose packaging.
Single-dose packaging removes a good bit of the need for perservation.

--
begin signature.exe
A:_Because_it_messes_up_the_order_in_which_people_normally_read_text.
Q:_Why_is_top-posting_such_a_bad_thing?
A:_Top-posting.
Q:_What_is_the_most_annoying_thing_on_usenet?

Jan Drew

2006-09-30, 9:32 pm

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:8twTg.861$6S2.779@trndny02...
> bobb4747@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Bobb, PeteyB is guilty of violation of the Geneva Convention rules against
> torturing semantics and logic. Trying to understand him is a known cause
> of migraines.

PeterB is not the subject. Furthermore, *I* posted the PROOF-- and the fact
the FDA knew it.
The PROOF was dismissed by them.

Every time you respond to my thread, you show yourself to be dishonest.
While belittling others.