|
Thimerosal contiains ETHLYMERCURY & THIOSALICYLATE Just As Dr Haley States!
2005-06-26 22:45:36
"LadyLollipop"
> >"cathyb" >news:1119779371.229289.147340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> cathyb wrote: >>> LadyLollipop wrote: >>> > Contact Dermatitis. 1993 Sep;29(3):152-4. Related Articles, Links >>> > >>> > >>> > Ethylmercuric chloride: the responsible agent in thimerosal >>> > hypersensitivity. >>> > >>> > Pirker C, Moslinger T, Wantke F, Gotz M, Jarisch R. >>> > >>> > Dermatologic and Pediatric Allergy Clinic, Vienna, Austria. >>> > >>> > The causative agent of thimerosal allergy (sodium ethylmercury >>> > thiosalicylate) has not previously been thoroughly investigated. To >>> > evaluate >>> > whether the organic mercury component or the thiosalicylic acid >>> > molecule >>> > induces thimerosal sensitization, 23 patients positive to thimerosal >>> > were >>> > patch tested with ethylmercuric chloride, thiosalicylic acid and 8 >>> > different >>> > derivatives of mercury. To date, ethylmercuric chloride has not been >>> > tested >>> > in thimerosal allergy. 19/23 patients (82%) showed positive patch test >>> > reactions to ethylmercuric chloride. 4/23 patients negative to >>> > ethylmercuric >>> > chloride reacted positively to thimerosal 0.1% but not to thimerosal >>> > 0.05%. >>> > 8/23 patients (35%) also reacted to other mercurials. 20 controls >>> > negative >>> > to thimerosal showed negative patch test reactions to ethylmercuric >>> > chloride. Neither patients nor controls reacted to thiosalicylic acid. >>> > These >>> > results indicate that testing with thimerosal 0.1% leads to >>> > false-positive >>> > reactions and that the ethyl mercury component is the responsible agent >>> > in >>> > thimerosal allergy. >>> > >>> > PMID: 8222628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] >>> >>> Er, Jan. The fool Boyd Haley's error was in stating separately that >>> thimerosal is 49.6% by weight mercury and also 49.6% by weight ethyl >>> mercury; his deception was in giving the impression that this >>> composition by weight was of toxological significance. >>> >>> Cathy > >He's not in error, he's not a fool, he is absolutely correct. > He says two contradictory things. Both cannot be right at the same time, although both can be wrong at the same time. Which is correct? Why? -- Peter Bowditch 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
2005-06-26 22:52:22
"Peter Bowditch" news:qtbub1dlrhgl69uv8792dhmfo9uecf03t7@4ax.com... > "LadyLollipop" > >> >>"cathyb" >>news:1119779371.229289.147340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> cathyb wrote: >>>> LadyLollipop wrote: >>>> > Contact Dermatitis. 1993 Sep;29(3):152-4. Related Articles, Links >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Ethylmercuric chloride: the responsible agent in thimerosal >>>> > hypersensitivity. >>>> > >>>> > Pirker C, Moslinger T, Wantke F, Gotz M, Jarisch R. >>>> > >>>> > Dermatologic and Pediatric Allergy Clinic, Vienna, Austria. >>>> > >>>> > The causative agent of thimerosal allergy (sodium ethylmercury >>>> > thiosalicylate) has not previously been thoroughly investigated. To >>>> > evaluate >>>> > whether the organic mercury component or the thiosalicylic acid >>>> > molecule >>>> > induces thimerosal sensitization, 23 patients positive to thimerosal >>>> > were >>>> > patch tested with ethylmercuric chloride, thiosalicylic acid and 8 >>>> > different >>>> > derivatives of mercury. To date, ethylmercuric chloride has not been >>>> > tested >>>> > in thimerosal allergy. 19/23 patients (82%) showed positive patch >>>> > test >>>> > reactions to ethylmercuric chloride. 4/23 patients negative to >>>> > ethylmercuric >>>> > chloride reacted positively to thimerosal 0.1% but not to thimerosal >>>> > 0.05%. >>>> > 8/23 patients (35%) also reacted to other mercurials. 20 controls >>>> > negative >>>> > to thimerosal showed negative patch test reactions to ethylmercuric >>>> > chloride. Neither patients nor controls reacted to thiosalicylic >>>> > acid. >>>> > These >>>> > results indicate that testing with thimerosal 0.1% leads to >>>> > false-positive >>>> > reactions and that the ethyl mercury component is the responsible >>>> > agent >>>> > in >>>> > thimerosal allergy. >>>> > >>>> > PMID: 8222628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] >>>> >>>> Er, Jan. The fool Boyd Haley's error was in stating separately that >>>> thimerosal is 49.6% by weight mercury and also 49.6% by weight ethyl >>>> mercury; his deception was in giving the impression that this >>>> composition by weight was of toxological significance. >>>> >>>> Cathy >> >>He's not in error, he's not a fool, he is absolutely correct. >> > > He says two contradictory things. They are not contradictory. *A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable and have identical properties*. That is a LIE. Dr Haley said NO such thing. He said: (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic. He is absolutely correct. Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and causes tissue damage Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose exposure to methylmercury." Jan Both cannot be right at the same > time, although both can be wrong at the same time. > > Which is correct? > > Why? > > -- > Peter Bowditch
2005-06-26 23:52:55
"LadyLollipop"
news:GkGve.107758$nG6.104417@attbi_s22: > "Peter Bowditch" > news:qtbub1dlrhgl69uv8792dhmfo9uecf03t7@4ax.com... >>>>> Er, Jan. The fool Boyd Haley's error was in stating separately >>>>> that thimerosal is 49.6% by weight mercury and also 49.6% by >>>>> weight ethyl mercury; his deception was in giving the impression >>>>> that this composition by weight was of toxological significance. >>>>> >>>>> Cathy >>> >>>He's not in error, he's not a fool, he is absolutely correct. >>> >> >> He says two contradictory things. > > They are not contradictory. > > He is absolutely correct. He's absolutely correct that: 1) Thimerosal is 49.6% mercury by weight AND 2) Thimerosal is 49.6% ethylmercury by weight ? That would only be possible if carbon and hydrogen atoms weighed *nothing*, which is of course absurd. Thus the statements are contradictory. They can't possibly both be true at the same time.
2005-06-27 00:06:32
"Eric Bohlman" news:Xns9681C1A142186ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4... > "LadyLollipop" > news:GkGve.107758$nG6.104417@attbi_s22: > >> "Peter Bowditch" >> news:qtbub1dlrhgl69uv8792dhmfo9uecf03t7@4ax.com... >>>>>> Er, Jan. The fool Boyd Haley's error was in stating separately >>>>>> that thimerosal is 49.6% by weight mercury and also 49.6% by >>>>>> weight ethyl mercury; his deception was in giving the impression >>>>>> that this composition by weight was of toxological significance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cathy >>>> >>>>He's not in error, he's not a fool, he is absolutely correct. >>>> >>> >>> He says two contradictory things. >> >> They are not contradictory. >> >> He is absolutely correct. > > He's absolutely correct that: > > 1) Thimerosal is 49.6% mercury by weight AND > 2) Thimerosal is 49.6% ethylmercury by weight > > ? > > That would only be possible if carbon and hydrogen atoms weighed > *nothing*, which is of course absurd. Thus the statements are > contradictory. They can't possibly both be true at the same time. Somewhere along the way, it as left out who said the above, it was Cathy B. Go figure. You left off the also. Jan
2005-06-27 02:04:08
LadyLollipop wrote: > "Eric Bohlman" > news:Xns9681C1A142186ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4... > > "LadyLollipop" > > news:GkGve.107758$nG6.104417@attbi_s22: > > > >> "Peter Bowditch" > >> news:qtbub1dlrhgl69uv8792dhmfo9uecf03t7@4ax.com... > >>>>>> Er, Jan. The fool Boyd Haley's error was in stating separately > >>>>>> that thimerosal is 49.6% by weight mercury and also 49.6% by > >>>>>> weight ethyl mercury; his deception was in giving the impression > >>>>>> that this composition by weight was of toxological significance. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cathy > >>>> > >>>>He's not in error, he's not a fool, he is absolutely correct. > >>>> > >>> > >>> He says two contradictory things. > >> > >> They are not contradictory. Oh yes they are. That you could say they are not is indicative of your knowledge of science. > >> > >> He is absolutely correct. > > > > He's absolutely correct that: > > > > 1) Thimerosal is 49.6% mercury by weight AND > > 2) Thimerosal is 49.6% ethylmercury by weight > > > > ? > > > > That would only be possible if carbon and hydrogen atoms weighed > > *nothing*, which is of course absurd. Thus the statements are > > contradictory. They can't possibly both be true at the same time. > > Somewhere along the way, it as left out who said the above, it was Cathy B. Actually, it was Boyd Haley, as Jan well knows. Which means she is ... > > Go figure. Indeed. > > You left off the also. Criticising someone else's English?:) > > Jan Cathy
|
|
