John Patterson: From Loony Tank-Weilder to Anti-Radiation Crusader?

March 20th, 2012
submit to reddit Share

You may remember the story of Australian John Patterson. A few years ago he took a tank (actually a privately owned armored personnel carrier) to the streets of western Sydney, where he plowed through cell tower sites and destroyed nine, causing millions of dollars in damage in the process. Mr. Patterson was sentenced to two years in prison for his stunt, which he claimed as the result of his desire to rid the area of the towers that caused agonizing health problems to himself and others.

One would think that such a clear cut case of insane actions would be pretty hard to frame as something heroic. One would think that stealing an armored personnel carrier and using it to run through private yards and public streets, potentially endangering ones own life and others would not be the kind of thing that could be reasonably reported as some kind of desperate, selfless attempt to stop harm from befalling others.

Yet somehow, the Australian media has done just that. Menace in an armored vehicle? No, just a concerned citizen facing a moral conflict. Actions of a disturbed lunatic? No, he just couldn’t deal with the frustration of seeing the harm those transmitters cause everyone.

For example, see this video:


Some might ask why someone who had worked for the mobile phone industry would turn against them, claiming that they cause harm to himself and all those around him and going on to destroy their property. Could it be that he just could no longer take his employer forcing him to be part of the evil conspiracy? Perhaps, but I think there’s a simpler answer. The guy probably just left his employer on bad terms and was really mad about it. It would not be the first time an employee went on some kind of tirade after being fired or having some kind of dispute.

Yet while a perfectly sane person might well get really angry at their employer after being dismissed, only a complete nutter would get in an armored vehicle and take it to the streets. Does he seem sane now? Perhaps, but it’s hard to tell from a well edited media piece, especially considering he may well have received medication or counseling while in prison. Regardless, I’d never let this guy anywhere near my wifi router.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 7:49 pm and is filed under Bad Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



47 Responses to “John Patterson: From Loony Tank-Weilder to Anti-Radiation Crusader?”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    One can accuse the media of being biased against ionizing radiation because they are being paid off by fossil-fuel interests that do not want to compete with nuclear energy. Right or wrong this possibly is at least logical even if it is unethical and corrupt. However I fail to see, or even hazard a guess at who gains from this paranoia over EMF. Its not like the land-line operators are trying to protect their market, because most of them offer cellphone and wireless modems as well, and certainly there are no competitors for electric power that will gain from the irrational fears surrounding RF enabled metering.

    I have always found the principles of cui bono & cui prodest useful in analyzing phenomena of this sort, where the public is being fed lies by those that know better, but frankly I am at a loss to understand the motives at work here.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    Anon Says:

    There are people who make money off selling stickers to ‘block’ the evil radiation from mobile phones. Though they don’t exactly seem to be big enough to be able to cause this (they’re puny compared to the phone companies).

    Though it might just be possible that the media are worried that people will spend more time on the phone and less time watching their ads.


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    KingBob Says:

    In defence of my country, the show that appeared on: “Today Tonight”, is considered by most aussies to be tabloid trash.

    This is the same show that did a piece on how wonderful a magnetic holographic magic bracelet will cure people of leprosy or whatever.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    drbuzz0 Says:

            DV82XL said:

    I have always found the principles of cui bono & cui prodest useful in analyzing phenomena of this sort, where the public is being fed lies by those that know better, but frankly I am at a loss to understand the motives at work here.

    I think it’s a simple case of what sells. It’s tabloid journalism. You can’t make a very compelling story out of “Pissed off mentally unstable goes nuts on employers property.” This is all manufactured drama and conflict for the purpose of getting people to watch. Fear sells.

    Lets not forget that the traditional media has really been struggling lately to keep pace in a changing world. They have to deal with multiple 24-hour news channels, DVR’s, blogs, social media, youtube, mobile news reader apps. It’s a tough world to compete in using the old format of an hour long primetime newscast. They often just go for sensationalism.

    Why non-ionizing radiation? Because it’s a hot topic that is very in vogue since everyone has a mobile phone. It’s invisible. People don’t understand it. It hits on all the nerves: the safety of children, cancer, fertility, big corporations hiding something.

    Lets not forget that the media has been largely responsible for fear of vaccines, genetically engineered organisms, insecticides, food irradiation.

    How often do we see stories like “News 8 investigates: Is city water really safe for your children.” “Tonight at 11, what are they really putting in school lunches?” “What the drug companies don’t want you to know and how it could kill you” “Could your child’s school bus driver be a pedophile?” “Could your neighborhood be contaminated by industrial waste? Shocking revelations show nobody is safe.” “Deadly bacteria could be lurking in the ducts at your workplace…. or even your child’s school”


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    BMS Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Fear sells. … They often just go for sensationalism.

    Don’t forget the Science News Cycle.

    4 Local Eyewitness News: “What you don’t know about ‘A’ can KILL YOU! More at 11…”

    (source)


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    Jean Demesure Says:

    “I’d never let this guy anywhere near my wifi router”

    I’d never let this guy near my personal armored vehicle, when I’ll get one.


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    How often do we see stories like “News 8 investigates: Is city water really safe for your children.” “Tonight at 11, what are they really putting in school lunches?”"What the drug companies don’t want you to know and how it could kill you” “Could your child’s school bus driver be a pedophile?”"Could your neighborhood be contaminated by industrial waste? Shocking revelations show nobody is safe.” “Deadly bacteria could be lurking in the ducts at your workplace…. or even your child’s school”

            BMS said:

    Don’t forget the Science News Cycle. 4 Local Eyewitness News: “What you don’t know about ‘A’ can KILL YOU! More at 11

    Point taken.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Gordon Says:

    Disgruntled employee with some crazy streak makes sense to me. People have been known to do violent things and blaming the evil radiation is a defense I could see him concocting.

    I assure you of one thing: this stunt caused many people great aggravation and misery. In a metro area if you lose one tower, it’s not a big deal they will repair it in reasonable time but without any undue urgency. Losing one will cause a little local congestion, temporarily but nothing horrible. What he did was take out many stations and that means that there would be some very bad strain on the network and dropped calls and service interruptions and dead areas.

    That degree of service interruption is not acceptable. People these days use their mobile phones for everything including emergencies and many do not have landlines. It costs a lot of money too. If the phone cannot get a signal from the tower of the company that activated it, it may pick one up from a compatible competitor’s tower. Companies usually have some kind of agreement but they charge a steep fee for routing other traffic through their equipment. In a city area, it adds up fast.

    What likely happened as soon as the guy started knocking down towers is that the company was scrambling to find every temporary tower and every piece of spare equipment and replacement part they could in Australia. They might have even gone so far as to have special overnight cargo runs made to other countries if they couldn’t find enough on short notice. Technicians would have been woken up and asked to come in as fast as possible to set it up. Some might have been told they had to drive a truck hundreds of miles to deliver the new equipment.

    Those who were called on probably got paid well and got their fair overtime. Still, the fact of the matter is it’s not always what you want to do, even if you get a little extra pay. In this case, it would have not been much of a choice. If it were just one tower and they called a technician, they could have said “Sorry I’m at my daughters wedding, find someone else.” The issue is they had eight and that would men they would need all available help and could not find someone else.

    The other thing is that if this guy knew even the slightest thing about the industry he would have realized that knocking down a tower will only result in a temporary one being moved in within a day and full repairs as soon as reasonably possible.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    tom Says:

    no, this fear and much of the fear of ionizing radiation isn’t driven by money from people who want to see the technologies go away. If you can see the pattern, it’s visible in many bizarre leftist stunts. What happens is, these leftists trust each other, which is good, but then they play telephone with leaflets, enhancing the propaganda at each stage. Individually, they can be reasoned with, but collectively, they will believe any random bull**** that fits their world view. If you’ve ever been to a leftist convention, you’ll know what I’m talking about; like the song says

    A thousand people in the street
    Singing songs and carrying signs
    Mostly say, hooray for our side

    Believing anything you’re told that fits your worldview is common to everyone and the reason we developed science. Right-wing propaganda is often manufactured by corporate interests and disseminated by media figures, not developed with a telephone game of activists cribbing talking points from each other.

    And then some self-important moron decides do perform some “direct action”.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    Anon Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Lets not forget that the media has been largely responsible for fear of vaccines, genetically engineered organisms, insecticides, food irradiation.

    Yeah, but in those cases there’s actually someone who significantly benefits from the fear. I believe the point was that no one appears to actually benefit from scaring people over non-ionising radiation.

            Gordon said:

    That degree of service interruption is not acceptable. People these days use their mobile phones for everything including emergencies and many do not have landlines. It costs a lot of money too. If the phone cannot get a signal from the tower of the company that activated it, it may pick one up from a compatible competitor’s tower. Companies usually have some kind of agreement but they charge a steep fee for routing other traffic through their equipment.

    Australian mobile phone companies are required to carry any emergency call, regardless of whether the phone is on their network (and mobile phones sold in Australia are required to try to connect to all networks they can find when an emergency call is made) so if he only knocked down towers of one company emergency calls should have still worked.


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

            tom said:

    If you can see the pattern, it’s visible in many bizarre leftist stunts.

    I’m not sure that the left-right political spectrum is really relevant, a semi-wilful inability to understand modern science and statistics is at the heart of many movements at every point on the political scale. Sadly.

            Anon said:

    Yeah, but in those cases there’s actually someone who significantly benefits from the fear. I believe the point was that no one appears to actually benefit from scaring people over non-ionising radiation.

    Point made elsewhere : fear sells newspapers.

            Anon said:

    Australian mobile phone companies are required to carry any emergency call, regardless of whether the phone is on their network (and mobile phones sold in Australia are required to try to connect to all networks they can find when an emergency call is made) so if he only knocked down towers of one company emergency calls should have still worked.

    Presumably the bill is picked up by the state? And one presumes at a fixed price even if it’s routed “cross-network”? No idea.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    Anon Says:

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    I’m not sure that the left-right political spectrum is really relevant, a semi-wilful inability to understand modern science and statistics is at the heart of many movements at every point on the political scale. Sadly.

    Maybe, though there likely are some differences in how those on each end of the political spectrum actually work (although I suspect that what is called the left these days is actually every bit as right wing as what is called the right).

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    Point made elsewhere : fear sells newspapers.

    Yes, only thing is that almost no one actually seems to be getting seriously scared by this kind of reporting (i.e. people still use their mobile phones).

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    Presumably the bill is picked up by the state? And one presumes at a fixed price even if it’s routed “cross-network”? No idea.

    Actually I think the phone networks are meant to send the emergency calls through without charge (which would mean they just pay for it out of their subscribers phone bills, though emergency calls would be a small proportion of the calls they carry).


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    Gordon Says:

            Anon said:

    Australian mobile phone companies are required to carry any emergency call, regardless of whether the phone is on their network (and mobile phones sold in Australia are required to try to connect to all networks they can find when an emergency call is made) so if he only knocked down towers of one company emergency calls should have still worked.

    That’s not my point. Yes, it will work to emergency services calls, but if company A has a phone that uses company B’s towers, because company A does not have service, company B will typically hit them with a charge for that. Also, be careful of your definition of ‘emergency’ because it could also be that a car is broken down and you have to call the office to tell them you will be late or you have to call to arrange a friend to pick the kids up from school because you can’t be there on time. These are the personal emergencies people expect to have their calls go through for and i they don’t, they get very unhappy with the phone company. Customer loyalty is non-existant in the mobile market.

    My point was not so much that the phones will not work at all. In this case they probably will. The network will be more congested, which would mean less chance to sell those lucrative data service options like on demand videos. The calls might end up being picked up by a competitors tower, which will result in fees to either the end user or the company, depending on their plan.

    It’s just an issue of cost that necessitates that these towers be replaced as fast as reasonably possible.

            Anon said:

    Actually I think the phone networks are meant to send the emergency calls through without charge (which would mean they just pay for it out of their subscribers phone bills, though emergency calls would be a small proportion of the calls they carry).

    not sure how it works in Australia, but there’s very little, if any cost, to the phone company for an emergency call. They are a very small proportion of the total calls. The companies really pay fixed rates for the equipment upkeep and connections at the towers and that kind of thing. Adding one more call does not itself really impact the costs they have. There was some cost associated with upgrading everything to the E911 systems in North America. This was spread out over several years and now the upgrades are done. That does not mean that the system costs more for a 911 call. It means they had to upgrade the networks to handle the location services. In the end much of the cost seems to have been recouped because the same system is used for things like driving directions.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    xxx Says:

    Well, I agree with the guy. Those towers are bad for our health. Someone should really take stand against what the multinationals are doing. If I had a tank, I’d do it too!


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

            Anon said:

    Yes, only thing is that almost no one actually seems to be getting seriously scared by this kind of reporting (i.e. people still use their mobile phones).

    Fear is a funny thing. I heartily recommend a book called Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear by Dan Gardner, fascinating read.

    The short answer to your point is probably “familiarity breeds apathy” – just as someone might not bother to do up their seatbelt to drive half a mile to the shops, they’ll ignore the apparent risk of their mobile phone’s “radiation”.

    I’d just like to point out that I don’t consider those two “risks” to be even close to equal. Not wearing a seatbelt should be a capital offence and can turn out to be just that.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    fixx Says:

    Buzz said, “Lets not forget that the media has been largely responsible for fear of vaccines”
    What, no credit to the bean counting, conscienceless manufacturers of said vaccines. While the headlines you quoted were certainly engineered to be sensational and garner readership, they also have some substance to them. It is the role of media to report this substance and due to the inherent bias in everyone these reports will all have a slant.

    I think the fear of radiation comes from a variety of things.
    - Most of the times you hear of radiation it is in a negative sense. Reports of spills, meltdowns, industrial exposures, weapons, Godzilla, etc. You rarely see a story on how everyone continued to be delivered nuclear produced electricity affordably and without the production of greenhouse gases. The term nMRI is generally replaced with MRI because some people fear the word nuclear, counteracting the aforementioned familiarity.
    - There is still uncertainty in many peoples minds (my own included) as to the safety of new technologies over the long term. This is a rational concern in the sense that the long term effects really are unknown.
    - Some people do not trust those with known agendas when they say or fund a study that says something is safe. Experience has taught them well.

    I agree the two sides to this are not really right and left so much as it is those selling or promoting radiation and those concerned for the effects on society. Though you could associate one with the right and the other with the left, the definitions of right and left vary from person to person and are very much relative to the state of a given society.

    I disagree with capital punishment for not wearing seat belts. I was spared injury once when I was young by not wearing a seat belt. I know of two people that were killed by their seat belts. That said I still wear a seat belt since I suspect that it represents an overall reduction of risk (and I don’t want a fine). It is not the place of government to determine personal choices if those choices are not affecting others, guess I’m left that way ;)


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    Anon Says:

            fixx said:

    What, no credit to the bean counting, conscienceless manufacturers of said vaccines.

    I have yet to see any evidence of manufacturers doing dangerous cost cutting in vaccine manufacture.

    I understand that the liars in the anti-vaccine movement claim that the evil corporations like killing their customers but just like everything with that movement they can’t seem to actually provide any evidence.

            fixx said:

    While the headlines you quoted were certainly engineered to be sensational and garner readership, they also have some substance to them.

    Do you really think we’re going to believe that?

            fixx said:

    - There is still uncertainty in many peoples minds (my own included) as to the safety of new technologies over the long term. This is a rational concern in the sense that the long term effects really are unknown.

    This uncertainty you claim does not exist for low dose non-ionising radiation, there simply isn’t a mechanism by which they could possibly be harmful, nor is there any good evidence of harm (without a credible mechanism and with good arguments that such a thing is non-existent the burden of proof for showing harm falls on those who think it is harmful, i.e. it is assumed to be safe unless proven otherwise).

            fixx said:

    - Some people do not trust those with known agendas when they say or fund a study that says something is safe. Experience has taught them well.

    No, what’s actually going on is that they don’t trust people who tell them something they don’t want to hear.

            fixx said:

    I agree the two sides to this are not really right and left so much as it is those selling or promoting radiation and those concerned for the effects on society.

    That assumes that the fearmongers actually care about society and not just themselves.

            fixx said:

    I disagree with capital punishment for not wearing seat belts.

    Nature doesn’t care what we think, if you don’t wear a seatbelt you have a higher chance of dying in an accident.

            fixx said:

    I was spared injury once when I was young by not wearing a seat belt. I know of two people that were killed by their seat belts.

    I find that very unlikely.

            fixx said:

    That said I still wear a seat belt since I suspect that it represents an overall reduction of risk (and I don’t want a fine). It is not the place of government to determine personal choices if those choices are not affecting others, guess I’m left that way ;)

    There may well be a good argument for not mandating adults wear seatbelts, what it has to do with this thread is an open question.


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    fixx Says:

    Anon:

    “I have yet to see any evidence of manufacturers doing dangerous cost cutting in vaccine manufacture.”
    - Then you simply haven’t been paying attention. This has been discussed at length. As far as the lying goes, here in Canada I heard a vaccine defense ad that claimed that mercury was only used as a catalyst and wasn’t present in the vaccine, which was a lie. You just keep believing those that have something to gain by lying to you and ignoring those who have nothing to gain by it. You’ll see how well that gets you through life.

    “I find that very unlikely.”
    - I know it for a fact because I was there. You can chose to believe that I am lying based entirely on the fact that my opinions in general contradict yours. And that is your prerogative.

    - The seatbelt discussion was in response to what INotReallyHere said. It was therefore part of the discussion. It also lead back to the whole right left thing, also part of the discussion.

    Sorry but nothing else you said is worthy of a response. We could go back and forth forever with “you’re wrong… No you are wrong… No you are wrong” but it isn’t really adding anything. I suspect you went to the deviate school of debate. I would suggest you find a better teacher. He’s just a bully not a debater.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    DV82XL Says:

    @fixx – Your right, I’ve become a bully. You know why? Because I am sick and tired of dealing with people that seem to think that they can hide their lack of education, knowledge, and experience behind a thin tissue of lies and bombast. I have no issues with someone that is open minded and wrong, or those that just want to know and expand their understanding. But when I am faced with someone that is obviously lacking in any grounding in the fundamentals pretending they know something while parroting other idiots, or to sources they obviously don’t understand and cannot evaluate, I won’t let them get away with it anymore.

    Frankly you write like a science wannabe who couldn’t make the cut in school. Sitting in the basement of his parent’s home, salving his ego by pretending to be someone he is not (and on bandwidth he probably doesn’t pay for himself.) You are not unique: you’re part of a class of fraud that adds nothing to any discussion, and whose inane pontificating is an embarrassment to himself. The internet has spawned thousands of these noisemakers who don’t realize just how lucky they are to have such a vast array of information and expertise at their fingertips and instead of taking advantage of this privilege, seek to arrogate themselves to status they have not earned and do not deserve.

    It would be easy to leave you all be and simply ignore the nonsense you post, but I still hope that this tool will reach those that have genuinely enquiring minds, and people like you lower the standard of any thread they pull down their pants in. Learn some humility or earn the right to speak as an equal. You wouldn’t last a split second in a room of those that do know the subjects you pretend to – why should it be any different on the net.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    drbuzz0 Says:

            fixx said:

    - Then you simply haven’t been paying attention. This has been discussed at length. As far as the lying goes, here in Canada I heard a vaccine defense ad that claimed that mercury was only used as a catalyst and wasn’t present in the vaccine, which was a lie. You just keep believing those that have something to gain by lying to you and ignoring those who have nothing to gain by it. You’ll see how well that gets you through life.

    Do I have to go through this again?

    Mercury never was in vaccines. A mercury compound was and occasionally still is. (You know, like salt has sodium and chloride in it but as elemental compounds, not as their own chemical)

    The compound is Thiomersal Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S)
    mercurate(1-) sodium. It’s a microbial growth inhibitor. Basically an anti-fungal and antiseptic agent. It’s been used to assure that vaccines do not become contaminated with microbial growth from contamination. Thimersal has been used because it’s very safe. There are other things that can be used to inhibit microbes – alcohols, formeldahyde, chlorine compounds etc. However, thimersal has the advantage of being very effective at minute quanities, orders of magnitude bellow toxicity to mammals.

    Like most antiseptics it’s toxic at high enough doses, but in vaccines it’s always been a trace ingredient. In the body, it is excreted rapidly and does not appear to have any effect on cells in the quantities present. Some is excreted as is but some will be metabolized to ethylmercury. Ethyl mercury is toxic, but the doses here are microgram level. It is excreted rapidly, it does not bioacumulate.

    Thimersal has never been banned by any country. It’s still present in some vaccines and injectable medications, but it’s generally not used in routine vaccines. This is not because it’s been found dangerous but because most routine vaccines now come in single-used sealed doses that do not require preservatives. It’s still recommended for vaccines that might be subject to external contamination that could lead to microbe growth.

    Exhaustive medical testing of the compound has only shown that a small subset of the population will display minor, localized alergic-type reactions to it.

    None of this has been in any way hidden. It’s commonly available information.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    fixx Says:

    Buzz:

    “Thimersal has been used because it’s very safe.”
    - Actually it was used before it was properly studied. Subsequent studies showed that it is not safe (see links below).

    “Exhaustive medical testing of the compound has only shown that a small subset of the population will display minor, localized alergic-type reactions to it.”
    - The exhaustive medical testing was to inject the population and see what happens.

    Your comparison to table salt is interesting in that it really kind of hurts your point. Salt is soluble, as is thimersal, so upon entering your body sodium and chlorine ions are the form it takes. If you are suggesting that the mercury in thimersal is so bound up that it is essentially inert I would have to suggest you are wrong. By your logic someone who should be limiting their sodium intake should have no problem ingesting sodium chloride, that is not very scientific of you Buzz.

    The reason for it’s use is to save money. It allows the use of multi-dose vials which are significantly cheaper to produce.

    Finally I guess I will have to quote myself since my previous post on this subject either went over your head or you chose to ignore it:

    “There is a list of the studies done.

    http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/ProxyServlet?objectHandle=DBMaint&actionHandle=default&nextPage=jsp/chemidheavy/ResultScreen.jsp&ROW_NUM=0&TXTSUPERLISTID=0000054648

    Then go here:
    http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/ld50.html

    And you will see that with an LD50 of 75mg/kg in rats Thimerosal is classified as moderately toxic according to the first table and very toxic according to the second table.”

    From this you can see that using a rating system that accounts for dose this chemical has been identified as toxic.

    Clearly we have different ideas of what the word safe means. I believe it means that it will not cause harm. You believe that some harm is acceptable. To those affected by thimersal it is neither safe or acceptable, how ever small the subset may be.

    Also I would like to express the stupidity of the burden of proof being on those to proof something is unsafe before it is banned. The burden belongs to those introducing the substance (or energy) to the masses, and it needs to be proven safe. Using something without knowing the harmful effects (or just in spite of them) is self destructive behavior.


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    Anon Says:

            fixx said:

    The reason for it’s use is to save money. It allows the use of multi-dose vials which are significantly cheaper to produce.

    Cheaper vaccines means you can have more doses for the same resources meaning you can protect more people against the diseases or even spend the money on other things.

            fixx said:

    And you will see that with an LD50 of 75mg/kg in rats Thimerosal is classified as moderately toxic according to the first table and very toxic according to the second table.”

    From this you can see that using a rating system that accounts for dose this chemical has been identified as toxic.

    Have you bothered to compare that with the dosage in vaccines?

    Didn’t think so.

            fixx said:

    Clearly we have different ideas of what the word safe means.

    Yes, because you are ignorant of the impossibility of perfection.

            fixx said:

    I believe it means that it will not cause harm. You believe that some harm is acceptable. To those affected by thimersal it is neither safe or acceptable, how ever small the subset may be.

    The problem is that you can not reduce the harm to zero, even if you reduce the harm of one activity to zero it is at the expense of increased harm from other activities and you often end up worse off than if you just accepted the harm you’ve avoided.

            fixx said:

    Also I would like to express the stupidity of the burden of proof being on those to proof something is unsafe before it is banned.

    It’s not stupid to require those who want something banned to have to justify their ban.

            fixx said:

    The burden belongs to those introducing the substance (or energy) to the masses, and it needs to be proven safe. Using something without knowing the harmful effects (or just in spite of them) is self destructive behavior.

    If the standard of evidence were reasonable that wouldn’t be such a big deal, but I’d require that it at least be plausible for it to be harmful before banning it.

    But you have demonstrated here that the standard of evidence you expect is not reasonable.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    drbuzz0 Says:

            fixx said:

    Your comparison to table salt is interesting in that it really kind of hurts your point. Salt is soluble, as is thimersal, so upon entering your body sodium and chlorine ions are the form it takes. If you are suggesting that the mercury in thimersal is so bound up that it is essentially inert I would have to suggest you are wrong. By your logic someone who should be limiting their sodium intake should have no problem ingesting sodium chloride, that is not very scientific of you Buzz.

    Salt is a highly imperfect example. You’re right that salt is not comparable to thimrsal because salt is a simple ionic compound. My point is that compounds are not comparable to their component parts. I use salt because it’s the compound most people are familiar with as the example of how compounds are different than elements.

    If you want me to go into it a little deeper…

    In general, organomercury compounds are regarded as toxic, at least in high doses, but they are certainly not all created equally.

    Dimethylmercury, for example, is extremely extremely toxic. In 1996 a professor at Dartmouth died after spilling a few drops of it on her hand, which was in a latex glove. Only a tiny amount made it through the glove and was absorbed by her skin.

    Merbromin is far less toxic, orders of magnitude less toxic. It’s been used in the past as an antiseptic for open wounds. These days it’s not used much because of concerns over the fact that it is an organomercury compound, but the fact is that it routine use of large amounts has not produced ill effects.

    Mersalyl is even less toxic still. It’s a diuretic, though not used much in recent years as it has been superseeded by others.

    Of course, you could argue that Mersalyl and Merbromin are not truely “safe,” and I want to avoid going down that road, but the point is not all these compounds are the same. The amount of Merbromin that is typically used to clean a minor cut could kill a dozen people if it were dimethylmercury.

            fixx said:

    The reason for it’s use is to save money. It allows the use of multi-dose vials which are significantly cheaper to produce.

    Multi-dose used to be the standard as before newer fabrication methods and the use of medical grade plastics, the way that vaccines were deployed was in glass vials. That said, there’s nothing wrong with saving money and it’s an important consideration. No healthcare system has unlimited funding. If vaccines are cheaper you can give them to more people and spend less money, which means more money for other health considerations.

    Think of it this way: you have a budget of three million dollars to vaccinate African children. You can buy vaccines that cost thirty dollars a dose and give them to one hundred thousand children or that cost sixty dollars a dose and give it to fifty thousand children. Obviously the cheaper vaccine is superior if it protects more.

            fixx said:

    And you will see that with an LD50 of 75mg/kg in rats Thimerosal is classified as moderately toxic according to the first table and very toxic according to the second table.”

    Caffeine is only a little more than twice that.

    The total amount of thimerosol per dose of vaccine is only about 25-50 micrograms.

    If you’re talking about the raw mercury content (which I stress is not a very good comparison since the chemical form is important) you end up with a lot more by eating a couple of cans of tuna.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    fixx Says:

    “Cheaper vaccines means you can have more doses for the same resources meaning you can protect more people against the diseases or even spend the money on other things.”
    - I do understand this reasoning, I just don’t agree with it. Government money is a matter of priorities and there is money spent to intentionally kill people that could be spent on safer vaccines.

    “Have you bothered to compare that with the dosage in vaccines? Didn’t think so.”
    - I believe you are misinterpreting these charts. Firstly, of course I am not comparing 75mg/kg with vaccine dosages because this number is the LD50!!!. That would mean that 50% of the people getting injections would die. Damage happens at far below the LD50. This number is simply used as a benchmark to classify the chemical as to it’s toxicity. And thimersal is classed as toxic. If you can find an organization classifying thimerosal as safe let me know.

    “The problem is that you can not reduce the harm to zero”
    - Actually this is a case where the harm could be reduced to zero. Single dose vials with zero mercury.

    “If you’re talking about the raw mercury content (which I stress is not a very good comparison since the chemical form is important) you end up with a lot more by eating a couple of cans of tuna.”
    - I ingest neither and I have yet to meet someone who injects these directly into their body. A factor that has to be taken into consideration. Elemental mercury is not nearly as soluble in water and has different damage mechanisms, I am aware of this. The risks in the case of elemental mercury is more related to chronic exposure. Just because ethlymercury is different does not make it safe. Just as the prevalence or common use of something is in no way proof of it’s safety.

    @Anon:
    - That’s what I’m talking about. Well composed and logical as opposed to emotional. This is the stuff of good debate. Thank you for that.

    @DV82XL:
    - You continue to prove my point about you. You know little of my background or who I associate with (and how well I “hold my ground” with them) yet you continue with baseless derogatory judgements. Truth be told YOU are the only reason I ever posted anything on this site. That’s right, you are the only reason that you have to suffer my existence here. I read your arrogant bullying response to others and those are two things that I absolutely despise. I was the kid in school who stood up to the bullies and taught them humility. For you to question my humility is laughable considering the nature of most of your responses. So on that note I will once again leave you all to your religious like self affirmation. Don’t worry I will probably pop back in the future sometime to see if you minds have opened any.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    Shafe Says:

            fixx said:

    “The problem is that you can not reduce the harm to zero”
    - Actually this is a case where the harm could be reduced to zero. Single dose vials with zero mercury.

    The harm from absorbing newspaper ink through the fingers could be reduced to zero if all newspapers were laminated.

    But that would be a hard case to get past a cost/benefit analysis, especially when you cannot demonstrate any harm.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    Anon Says:

            fixx said:

    - I do understand this reasoning, I just don’t agree with it. Government money is a matter of priorities and there is money spent to intentionally kill people that could be spent on safer vaccines.

    Making vaccines safer is actually pretty low down any sensible list of priorities given how safe they already are. Any money taken from the killing people department could be much better used than changing our current vaccines.

            fixx said:

    - Actually this is a case where the harm could be reduced to zero. Single dose vials with zero mercury.

    If they’re more expensive than that means less can be produced or that resources get diverted from other things which could have reduced the risk even more (there isn’t any evidence of harm anyway).

    Vaccines are so cheap that the cost difference isn’t very much, but the safety difference appears to be even less.


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    drbuzz0 Says:

            fixx said:

    - I believe you are misinterpreting these charts. Firstly, of course I am not comparing 75mg/kg with vaccine dosages because this number is the LD50!!!. That would mean that 50% of the people getting injections would die. Damage happens at far below the LD50.

    We’re not talking about 10% of the LD50 or 1% or .1% We’re talking about many orders of magnitude less.

            fixx said:

    This number is simply used as a benchmark to classify the chemical as to it’s toxicity. And thimersal is classed as toxic. If you can find an organization classifying thimerosal as safe let me know.

    At the doses in vaccines? The CDC, National Institutes of Health, the WHO and the national health administrations of just about every major country.

    Now if you want an organization that classifies raw bulk chimerical as non-toxic, I’ll start looking for one as soon as you can find me one that will say the same about caffeine, alcohol, iodine, potassium, chlorine and asprin

            fixx said:

    - Actually this is a case where the harm could be reduced to zero. Single dose vials with zero mercury.

    Except mercury is not the hazard and never was. If you use single dose vials universally, you’ll still have the extremely rare allergic reaction or contamination of the syringe or some other extremely uncommon yet dangerous reaction. They happen. Once in a blue moon even the best process control breaks down and there’s an error in the formulation or something. This vanishingly small risk will exist with or without single dose packing.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    fixx Says:

    The magnitude of the LD50 is used to characterize the substance as toxic. (period)
    You can argue all you want about what % of the LD50 is in the vaccines, that fact of the matter is the substance is toxic and does not need to be there.

    Shafe said:
    “The harm from absorbing newspaper ink through the fingers could be reduced to zero if all newspapers were laminated.
    But that would be a hard case to get past a cost/benefit analysis, especially when you cannot demonstrate any harm.”
    - Interesting point since until not too long ago the most common solvent used for newspaper inks was causing irreversible skin conditions in those that worked on the presses. It was replace and the risk was eliminated. Probably at some expense but then who is to say what the value of someone else’s health is.

    My point is that at whatever small percentage of people affected by these hazards it is worth it to eliminate them. Anything less is no less than irresponsible. You can argue cost/benefit all you want but if you or a loved one were the ones affected you would see things from a different perspective.


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    Anon Says:

            fixx said:

    The magnitude of the LD50 is used to characterize the substance as toxic. (period)

    No it isn’t, it is used to determine how much is 50% toxic, that is all, it doesn’t tell you whether 0.00001% or whatever is dangerous.

            fixx said:

    You can argue all you want about what % of the LD50 is in the vaccines, that fact of the matter is the substance is toxic and does not need to be there.

    There is no evidence it is toxic in the doses in vaccines and if it is in a vaccine it (or something like it) needs to be there (it’s not a contaminant, it’s something they put in the vaccine for a reason).

            fixx said:

    My point is that at whatever small percentage of people affected by these hazards it is worth it to eliminate them. Anything less is no less than irresponsible. You can argue cost/benefit all you want but if you or a loved one were the ones affected you would see things from a different perspective.

    First of all you need to show that the hazard is actually real and not a figment of your imagination, then you need to determine how much it’d cost to reduce it compared to how much benefit you get and whether the resources you could use could be better spent.

    Not to do such a cost benefit analysis is irresponsible, especially when you don’t have infinite resources.


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    Dealey Lama Says:

    Paracelsus once said:

    Alle Ding’ sind Gift, und nichts ohn’ Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.
    “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”


    Quote Comment
  31. 31
    Helen Patterson Says:

    Thank you for writing this article about my brother. Yes he has always been a bit of a sad bastard. He did work for Telstra until he had an ‘industrial accident’ and then everything went down hill pretty fast for him. He does believe that mobile phones are the cause of a lot of problems. It’s not the only things he believes, but I don’t think it wise to say anymore here.
    I firmly believe he needs medication and is probably bi-polar. He has been told this by doctors but doesn’t believe them as he thinks it’s all part of a ‘conspiracy’.
    Sad really. I haven’t seen him for 10 years. In our last conversation he threatened to “get me”. So it’s a good reason to tell people I don’t have any brothers. The other one is just as bad btw,
    Helen.


    Quote Comment
  32. 32
    fixx Says:

    Anon said:
    “No it isn’t, it is used to determine how much is 50% toxic, that is all, it doesn’t tell you whether 0.00001% or whatever is dangerous.”
    - And I here I’m the one that gets accused of not reading things fully. Anon follow the second link after following the first link and you will see that they use the LD50 number to classify whether a substance is toxic. I didn’t make this up and have provided the links. How you can continue to argue something that I have quite clearly proven is mind boggling. It is not me that classing it as toxic it is the government agency charged with doing so. If you still disagree you should write them.

            Dealey Lama said:

    Paracelsus once said:

    Alle Ding’ sind Gift, und nichts ohn’ Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.
    “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”

    - And I’m sure Paracelsus was quite wise but it is an over simplification of the facts to state that. Chemically in the body some substances are required, like table salt, some are not, like mercury. Chemically in the body they behave differently table salt aids in electrolytic reactions that are necessary for all bodily functions. Mercury causes detrimental effects that need to be mitigated no matter what the dose. While salt can be toxic if too much is ingested mercury is causing damage even at very small doses (even if the damage is not observable). I have previously let this saying slide and even somewhat agreed with it but have since come to realize it is simply false.

    Helen Patterson: You don’t seem to mind admitting you have a brother when it comes to bad mouthing. I’m sure your comments will go a long way towards amicable relations.


    Quote Comment
  33. 33
    Shafe Says:

            fixx said:

    - And I’m sure Paracelsus was quite wise but it is an over simplification of the facts to state that. Chemically in the body some substances are required, like table salt, some are not, like mercury. Chemically in the body they behave differently table salt aids in electrolytic reactions that are necessary for all bodily functions. Mercury causes detrimental effects that need to be mitigated no matter what the dose. While salt can be toxic if too much is ingested mercury is causing damage even at very small doses (even if the damage is not observable).

    Then please drop the LD50 argument, because by itself it won’t demonstrate that thimerosal is greatly more toxic than caffeine. Arguing the toxicity of thimerosal based on the magnitude of its LD50 doesn’t hold water if you then turn around and argue that other substances with similar LD50′s aren’t toxic because they are required by the body. That argument makes the LD50 moot.

    To make the point that thimerosal is a dangerous additive to vaccines you must demonstrate some harm at the dosage found in vaccines. The cost of eliminating it is not justifiable based on having a bad feeling about “moderately toxic” substances that aren’t “required” by the body.


    Quote Comment
  34. 34
    drbuzz0 Says:

            fixx said:

    - And I’m sure Paracelsus was quite wise but it is an over simplification of the facts to state that. Chemically in the body some substances are required, like table salt, some are not, like mercury. Chemically in the body they behave differently table salt aids in electrolytic reactions that are necessary for all bodily functions. Mercury causes detrimental effects that need to be mitigated no matter what the dose. While salt can be toxic if too much is ingested mercury is causing damage even at very small doses (even if the damage is not observable). I have previously let this saying slide and even somewhat agreed with it but have since come to realize it is simply false.

    I’m not bring up table salt because it has anything to do with toxicity. I’m using it as an example of why compounds and chemical formulas matter. Granted, it’s an imperfect analogy for a number of reasons, but it’s a simple ionic compound and because there is the fact that some famlies of compounds have similar properties.

    Salt is an example of how you can have elements that are, in their pure form, dangerous and yet the compound has much different properties. The fact that salt contains sodium and chlorine does not mean it’s like exposure to sodium or chlorine. Sodium chlorine is much different than sodium and much different than sodium bicarbonate, which is also different than sodium hydroxide.

    It’s not accurate to say vaccines have or ever had mercury in them, because thimerosol is not mercury. It is no more mercury than is water hydrogen or oxygen or is salt sodium and chlorine.

    It’s an organomercury compound. Not all are created equal. The toxicity of mercury, as a metal is not the same as ethyl mercury or methyl mercury or mercury sulfide or mercury(II) fulminate. They are chemically different.


    Quote Comment
  35. 35
    Fixx Says:

    Mr Buzz:

    A fine argument except that the toxicology link I posted was not for elemental mercury. It was for Thimerosal. You continued to argue about elemental mercury not being the threat for many many posting after I posted the toxicology specifically for Thimerosal. I understand that it was partially my fault for shortening my reference to “mercury” in later posts. Of course considering the chemistry in the human body is vastly not understood it seems pretty stupid to inject even a mercury compound into it. But that is not what we are talking about, Thimerosal is which the links I posted suggest is toxic.

    Read this and tell me if it is something you would really want injected into your body unless you absolutely had to:
    http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9925236


    Quote Comment
  36. 36
    fixx Says:

    Shafe says:
    “Then please drop the LD50 argument, because by itself it won’t demonstrate that thimerosal is greatly more toxic than caffeine.”

    First of all the association of the LD50 with toxicity was not made by me it was made by a government body job it is to do such things, that is what the LD50 is used for which makes the argument far from moot.

    Secondly, have you ever heard of caffeine psycosis? Also are you aware that due to body chemistry differences caffeine affects different people different ways and degrees, just like pretty much every other substance we allow into our bodies. The argument that other things would considered toxic is not really helping your point about Thimerosal not being toxic, which is what you should be trying to prove (before you forcibly inject in my body anyway, obviously you don’t require such proof).

    Thirdly, “The median lethal dose (LD50) given orally, is 192 milligrams per kilogram in rats. The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be about 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass” is what I found for LD50 for caffeine so I don’t why you are comparing the two. The LD50′s I found for table salt were in the thousands (3300- 4000 mg/kg).

    Why are you guys using comparisons that are hurting your argument?


    Quote Comment
  37. 37
    Shafe Says:

            fixx said:

    Shafe says:
    “Then please drop the LD50 argument, because by itself it won’t demonstrate that thimerosal is greatly more toxic than caffeine.”

    First of all the association of the LD50 with toxicity was not made by me it was made by a government body job it is to do such things, that is what the LD50 is used for which makes the argument far from moot.

    Secondly, have you ever heard of caffeine psycosis? Also are you aware that due to body chemistry differences caffeine affects different people different ways and degrees, just like pretty much every other substance we allow into our bodies. The argument that other things would considered toxic is not really helping your point about Thimerosal not being toxic, which is what you should be trying to prove (before you forcibly inject in my body anyway, obviously you don’t require such proof).

    Thirdly, “The median lethal dose (LD50) given orally, is 192 milligrams per kilogram in rats. The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be about 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass” is what I found for LD50 for caffeine so I don’t why you are comparing the two. The LD50′s I found for table salt were in the thousands (3300- 4000 mg/kg).

    Why are you guys using comparisons that are hurting your argument?

    Is it really that unclear to you??

    First,
    The government body used the LD50 to classify Thimerosal as moderately toxic. It does that for lots of substances, caffeine being an example. Being moderately toxic does not make it unfit for use in food and drugs, again caffeine being an example that is used in both. The toxicity classification only speaks to dosage required for something to be lethal in half of a population. It does not aid in determining the dosages at which other harm may occur. It does not aid in determining any harm caused by Thimerosal in vaccines, because the dosage in vaccines is orders of magnitude less than the LD50. To demonstrate harm at those dosages, another metric must be employed.

    Second,
    The comparison between caffeine and Thimerosal is apt in regard to their toxicity classification. Both are classified as moderately toxic, and both are considered safe at much lower doses. The LD50 of caffeine is in no way a predictor of an effect such as caffeine psychosis, just as the LD50 of Thimerosal is in no way a predictor of any effects from its presence in vaccines. Dosage matters.

    Third,
    Caffeine: LD50 = 150 to 200 mg/kg (oral)
    Thimerosal: LD50 = 75 mg/kg (oral)
    Their similar order of magnitude make them comparable. Their shared classification as moderately toxic based on their LD50′s make them comparable. The fact that the LD50 tells you nothing about toxic effects at low doses make them comparable. If you want to argue that there is some toxic effect of Thimerosal at low doses, you must rely on other evidence.

    Now, the LD50 argument has gone on long enough. It has only the most vanishing relevance, if any, to the safety of Thimerosal in vaccines. I hope you can agree and move on to arguments that actually support your cause.


    Quote Comment
  38. 38
    fixx Says:

    Shafe:
    “Is it really that unclear to you??”
    - No not really. It was a rhetorical question. It’s pretty clear to me that you and others have picked a position and are defending it blindly in the face of all evidence. Between the LD50 and MSDS there is plenty of evidence that there is (at the very least) a real possibility of harm caused by this chemical. Also, as I have stated, using caffeine as an example of something with a similar magnitude of toxicity (actually going solely by the numbers it is half as toxic) is not any kind of evidence of safety esp. since caffeine does cause harm. Your assumption that since it is used and therefore not harmful is illogical and more than a little naive. Yet you continue to ask me to abandon my argument and present evidence that has not been collected because the long term and non-lethal effects of Thimerosal have NOT BEEN WELL STUDIED. That’s right it’s been used for decades, a metabolite is similar in chemical structure to a very toxic compound, and the effects have not been properly studied. So is it wrong or illogical to use the information we do have and exercise a bit of due diligence? I don’t see how.

    - Caffeine is generally not injected by most people. Even when administered medically it is given orally, a doctor or nurse can correct me if I am wrong. When something is injected most risks associated with the substance are increased. This is because injection bypasses a lot of the body’s protection mechanisms and the uptake in the bloodstream is magnitudes more rapid for obvious reasons. I know this from experience in the injectable drug industry. The LD50′s I found for thimerosal (and the ones you are using for caffeine and salt) are for oral exposure.

    “The fact that the LD50 tells you nothing about toxic effects at low doses make them comparable.”
    - Nothing eh? Totally illogical statement. Esp. since the relevant evidence does not exist due to a lack of study.

    “Being moderately toxic does not make it unfit for use in food and drugs, again caffeine being an example that is used in both.”
    - I have already given examples that prove this statement to be false. Instead of repeating them I urge you to fully read what I have posted and dispute it with some sort of evidence instead of just giving your opinion.

    “Now, the LD50 argument has gone on long enough. It has only the most vanishing relevance, if any, to the safety of Thimerosal in vaccines. I hope you can agree and move on to arguments that actually support your cause.”
    - Why because you say so? Obviously I can not agree to move on because you have provided 0 actual evidence to support your case. I will concede to an earlier point that this conversation is not relevant to this thread. But I will have to qualify that with the fact that I merely brought up that I heard a blatant lie on the radio about vaccine production (I have yet to come across the fact that mercury is used as a catalyst in the manufacturing, and if that part of their assertion was true then the second part was naturally untrue). In any case is was Mr. Buzz who restarted this argument in this thread because he thought he proved something in the relevant thread.

    Mr Buzz:
    - I did not argue this point since my organic chemistry is a little weak but I suspected this from what I do understand of chemistry and biology. So I finally decided to track down a little evidence:

    ” Though inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer half-life in the brain, at least 120 days” – Clarkson TW, Magos L (2006). “The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds”. Crit Rev Toxicol 36 (8): 609–62. doi:10.1080/10408440600845619. PMID 16973445

    - Your assumption that it is irrelevant that mercury is present in the compound because it is a compound is simply wrong. The metabolite ethyl mercury is further metabolized to inorganic mercury. In other words the mercury (at least some if it anyway) does not stay bound to the ethyl mercury before it is excreted from the body. Note the date on this study, 2006, interesting eh?


    Quote Comment
  39. 39
    DV82XL Says:

            fixx said:

    - Why because you say so? Obviously I can not agree to move on because you have provided 0 actual evidence to support your case. I will concede to an earlier point that this conversation is not relevant to this thread.

    You seem to be laboring under the delusion that we care what you think, or that our purpose here is to convince you of anything. In fact it is rather the opposite. It is you that must provide compelling evidence to support your contentions not the other way around and you are failing miserably in this regard. So rather than continuing to belabor points that have been rejected, I suggest that indeed you move on.

    Furthermore your your understanding of chemistry and biology is not just ‘a little weak’ but instead, seriously deficient rendering you incapable of properly vetting the research you quote. That is not the case for many of us here and as a result you arguments as they stand have no traction.


    Quote Comment
  40. 40
    Shafe Says:

            fixx said:

    It’s pretty clear to me that you and others have picked a position and are defending it blindly in the face of all evidence. Between the LD50 and MSDS there is plenty of evidence that there is (at the very least) a real possibility of harm caused by this chemical.

    Your evidence consisted of 3 things:
    1) The oral LD50 of Thimerosal classifies it as “moderately toxic.”
    2) Broad reference to the MSDS (presumably pointing to its warning about toxicity to organs and mutagenic effects on somatic cells.)
    3) A story about a radio ad in Canada.

    Number 3) is to be dismissed as anecdotal and ambiguous. Number 2) could have some teeth if those effects can be shown to occur at the doses found in vaccines. Number 1) is the argument I take issue with, because LD50 [b]is not evidence[/b] of low-dose toxicity, nor does it warrant removal from vaccines.

            fixx said:

    Also, as I have stated, using caffeine as an example of something with a similar magnitude of toxicity (actually going solely by the numbers it is half as toxic) is not any kind of evidence of safety esp. since caffeine does cause harm. Your assumption that since it is used and therefore not harmful is illogical and more than a little naive.

            fixx said:

    - Caffeine is generally not injected by most people. Even when administered medically it is given orally, a doctor or nurse can correct me if I am wrong. When something is injected most risks associated with the substance are increased. This is because injection bypasses a lot of the body’s protection mechanisms and the uptake in the bloodstream is magnitudes more rapid for obvious reasons. I know this from experience in the injectable drug industry. The LD50′s I found for thimerosal (and the ones you are using for caffeine and salt) are for oral exposure.

    I have not argued that there is no harm from Thimerosal at doses below the LD50. I simply argue that the LD50 does not indicate low-dose toxicity.

    You are correct that the comparison to caffeine is not evidence of safety, and it was not meant to be. It is simply illustrative of the fact that a label of “moderately toxic” is [i]not[/i] by itself indicative of harm at low doses. But if caffeine is so offensive to you, I can drop it. Do you similarly fear sodium fluoride? Its LD50 is actually lower than Thimerosal’s (52 mg/kg Oral.) Yet, just as with Thimerosal, the LD50 does not indicate the threshold for toxic effects other than death. Penicillin? LD50 = 7 mg/kg Oral. Does that tell us what the threshold is for toxic effects other than death? It does not. Other data may show low-dose toxicity, but the LD50 does not.

    If your point is that Thimerosal is toxic in low doses, then LD50 does not make your point. Any of those substances can cause harm at doses lower than the LD50, but the LD50 will not predict it.

            fixx said:

    Yet you continue to ask me to abandon my argument and present evidence that has not been collected because the long term and non-lethal effects of Thimerosal have NOT BEEN WELL STUDIED. That’s right it’s been used for decades, a metabolite is similar in chemical structure to a very toxic compound, and the effects have not been properly studied. So is it wrong or illogical to use the information we do have and exercise a bit of due diligence? I don’t see how.

    So then, if your point is that you would like to see more study on the low-dose toxicity of Thimerosal, I take no issue with that, but again, the LD50 is not compelling enough to put a moratorium on its use pending such study.

            fixx said:

    “The fact that the LD50 tells you nothing about toxic effects at low doses make them comparable.”
    - Nothing eh? Totally illogical statement.

    There are two arguments in my statement that you quoted:
    1) the LD50 tells you nothing about toxic effects at low doses
    2) argument 1) makes Thimerosal and caffeine comparable (both have similar LD50, and in neither case does is that evidence of low-dose toxicity.)

    Would you like to demonstrate how either argument makes my sentence illogical?

            fixx said:

    “Being moderately toxic does not make it unfit for use in food and drugs, again caffeine being an example that is used in both.”
    - I have already given examples that prove this statement to be false. Instead of repeating them I urge you to fully read what I have posted and dispute it with some sort of evidence instead of just giving your opinion.

    No you have not. Your examples can support a claim that there is a dangerous high-dose effect of caffeine other than death. It does not prove false my statement, which deals with fitness for use at low doses.

            fixx said:

    Obviously I can not agree to move on because you have provided 0 actual evidence to support your case.

    As a student of logic, can you spot the non-sequitur in the above quote?

    As to my evidence, what evidence do you need? It is plain on the face of its very definition, that the LD50 is not an indicator of low-dose toxicity. Do you want a study to show that? Shall I also produce a study to show that the LD50 is not an indicator of impotence in spider monkeys?

    ===========================================

    Let’s boil this down.

    [b]You have expressed concern over harm.[/b] That’s fine, but:
    -LD50 does not predict harm in general, it predicts death, and it does that at only one point on the bell curve. It will not predict whether or at what dose a substance might cause organ failure, mutagenesis, retardation, autism, cancer, heartburn, or anything other than death.
    -The LD50 of Thimerosal (75 mg/kg Oral) cannot reliably predict a risk of death at the doses found in vaccines (25-50 ug/kg I.M.)

    [b]The LD50 of Thimerosal supports its classification as “moderately toxic.”[/b]
    -Being moderately toxic does not indicate that a substance is unfit for use in food and drugs, only what the risk of overdose is and what precautions should be used when handling or processing.

    [b]It can be inferred from your comments that you would like to halt the use of Thimerosal in vaccines.[/b]
    -It is possible that there could be harm caused by Thimerosal in vaccines, and further study could identify it. But the LD50 is unsuitable as evidence for that.


    Quote Comment
  41. 41
    Shafe Says:

    Dang brackets! I don’t suppose you could fix my bold and italics tags, Buzzo.


    Quote Comment
  42. 42
    fixx Says:

    Shafe:
    - I do think it is rather ridiculous that you are still trying to defend your position on this issue. Countries around the world are banning this for obvious reasons. If you want to stick to your guns and repeat yourself so you have the last word or something then knock yourself out, but I think the harm is to yourself in this case. The human brain has the ability to be constantly evolving, but you have to allow it.

    DV2XL:
    “You seem to be laboring under the delusion that we care what you think”
    - I am not under any such delusion. I’m pretty sure you only care about what you think DV2XL. Your comments are typical of someone who is more concerned about winning the argument then coming to a consensus on the reality of a matter. I have already told you why I am even here so you know the reason for my labouring, it is certainly not because I care what you think. I care about people being misinformed by a rather brutish lot that does not think scientifically at all and yet claims to represent “good science”.
    - The rest of your comments prove my point about you once again. I have asked so many times now that you actually provide something to the conversation but I realize now that you must be simply incapable.
    - At least Mr Buzz is reasonable in his arguments and in his manner. Even when I disagree with him I can still respect him. You and a few others don’t deserve a second thought let alone respect so from now on I will be dedicating my time to anything but thinking or responding to your aggressive banter.


    Quote Comment
  43. 43
    Shafe Says:

            fixx said:

    Shafe:
    - I do think it is rather ridiculous that you are still trying to defend your position on this issue. Countries around the world are banning this for obvious reasons. If you want to stick to your guns and repeat yourself so you have the last word or something then knock yourself out, but I think the harm is to yourself in this case. The human brain has the ability to be constantly evolving, but you have to allow it.

    It is a failing of mine that I naively believe anyone can be convinced of simple truths if argued directly, but I would do well to remind myself that many truly can’t and many others simply don’t want to. If I were better at debating, I would have recognized earlier that you had already begun to redirect the LD50 issue and that no matter how plainly I reasoned the simple truth that it is inapplicable to low-dose, non-lethal effects, you would never address that particular point, which is the only point I wished to make.

    It truly has been a waste of your time and mine. Now, if your evolved human brain can find the humility to leave me with my petty victory that is “the last word,” I would be forever grateful.


    Quote Comment
  44. 44
    DV82XL Says:

            fixx said:

    I have asked so many times now that you actually provide something to the conversation but I realize now that you must be simply incapable..

    fixx – There is no conversation here for me to contribute to because you haven’t provided anything of merit to discuss,

    In any form of debate, and in the conduct of science, the onus is always on the party extending a hypothesis to provide proof. You have stated that you believe Thimerosal in the concentrations used as a vaccine preservative to be dangerous, whereas the current scientific consensus is that it is not. Therefore it is up to you to provide compelling evedence that this is so; it is not up to us to prove it is not. You have failed to do this.

    In fact you have demonstrated such a lack of fundamental understanding of the matter that your reasoning can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant. Yet rather than accept that your understanding is flawed, you persist in even more wild theories and demand that you be treated seriously. Well that is not going to happen until you accept the depth of your own ignorance of the subject and show some signs you are willing to learn.

    That you are not marks you both as ignorant and arrogant and that is why I will not treat you as anything but. Others here have tried to be patient with you and you have chosen not to accept their corrections, but instead tried to shift the frame of the debate in an attempt to salve your ego. That I will never tolerate, because that is an insult to everyone here.


    Quote Comment
  45. 45
    Fixx Says:

    Shafe: I will most certainly concede that LD50′s do not describe the effects of low or long term exposure. But, as I thought I made clear earlier, the reason for quoting the LD50 is that the relevant studies are conspicuously missing. I used what information was available in the belief that we should err on the side of caution. I believe this is a better stance then proceeding on the premise that there is no evidence of harm when that lack of evidence is due to a lack of study. So last word, yes Shafe the LD50 is not designed predict effects from low dose exposures.

    DV82XL: Ad hominem
    That is what you are continually guilty of here. It has no place in science or debate.


    Quote Comment
  46. 46
    John Mata Says:

    When they arrested him, why was he talking about experiencing time dilation?


    Quote Comment
  47. 47
    Madeleine Says:

            Helen Patterson said:

    Thank you for writing this article about my brother. Yes he has always been a bit of a sad bastard. He did work for Telstra until he had an ‘industrial accident’ and then everything went down hill pretty fast for him. He does believe that mobile phones are the cause of a lot of problems. It’s not the only things he believes, but I don’t think it wise to say anymore here.
    I firmly believe he needs medication and is probably bi-polar. He has been told this by doctors but doesn’t believe them as he thinks it’s all part of a ‘conspiracy’.
    Sad really. I haven’t seen him for 10 years. In our last conversation he threatened to “get me”. So it’s a good reason to tell people I don’t have any brothers. The other one is just as bad btw,
    Helen.

    Helen,
    Your comment infuriates me to no end, you degrade your siblings on this comment, portraying yourself as a model human with zero flaws through your descriptions of uncle john and ‘the other one’. At this point i doubt you have any idea who i am, so ill remind you, im your niece, not that id ever acknowledge you as any form of family… which goes to show for something considering your brother is still considered my uncle…
    lastly, i firmly believe that you need to severely reevaluate your life, get off your high horse and realise that youre not perfect, atleast ‘the other one’ has a life and a family outside you and uncle john, making my father a hell of a lot better than you will ever be! YOU LUNATIC!
    - Madeleine


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string uZRnRr to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam