Vaccination & epidemic

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Again, 7.8 micrograms per gram of creatinine was the average post-chelation amount measured on a 24-hour basis in adult factory workers repeatedly exposed to mercury.

Why didn't your son pee that? We don't have enough information, but perhaps a good start is that he isn't an adult factory worker repeatedly exposed to mercury.

Okay. Here's a study of factory workers repeatedly exposed to lead. On the bottom half of page three, you will find a chart that graphs the actual data of these 177 factory workers, with micrograms per dL of urine on the left. I calculated my son's urine to be 95.7 ug/dL, which is more than twice what the highest factory worker's reading is. If you see a problem with my calculations there, please tell me.

On the one hand, these factory workers were not challenged with a chelation dose to get to their levels, so it's still not a completely direct comparison. But on the other hand, all but one of the factory workers with a urine level above 15 also had a blood level high enough to warrant chelation (45+). These are guys under heavy exposure, their bodies are presumably processing just as well as anyone's, and they still peed a fraction of what my son was able to pee with no known exposure. My son didn't pee mercury because there was no mercury in his body to pee. But the lead had to come from somewhere; where did it come from?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh goodness no! I call it pseudoscience because that's what it totally fucking is. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon in this case, I'm driving it.

So just to clarify, the one thing that you specifically find to be pseudoscience is the urinary lab report, correct? Other types of lab tests (fluorescent X-rays) are science, and the chelation drugs used to treat those conditions are science, correct?

Science should have predictable results, or it isn't science. I have predicted future results based on my interpreation of the data: If after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Meanwhile, if you don't want my considered opinion, you should post it in "your" thread, where I have noted I will not seriously post. It might even be more appropriate, since there is no lead in any vaccines I know of.

I never suggested I don't want your opinion, just that I think it's wrong. I know exactly what I'm posting in this thread and that thread.

Of course there's no lead in vaccines. No one ever suggested there was. Once again, you are jumping back to your primary drum beat when it has nothing to do with the current discussion, which is treatments--which you indicated previously that you were not only interested in, but shocked that I hadn't mentioned them before. I told tw I would post my son's lab results (actually my daughter's, but we ended up testing my son first) for his consideration, and I did. Regardless of what breaks an autistic person's metabolic processes, be it vaccines or not, the resulting symptoms can be treated in their own right. One of those symptoms can be a chronic inability to process certain heavy metals that normal people don't have a problem with, and it can be treated the same way any heavy metal exposure would be.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Okay. Here's a study of factory workers repeatedly exposed to lead. On the bottom half of page three, you will find a chart that graphs the actual data of these 177 factory workers, with micrograms per dL of urine on the left. I calculated my son's urine to be 95.7 ug/dL, which is more than twice what the highest factory worker's reading is. If you see a problem with my calculations there, please tell me.

Step by step, mathematician folks follow:

You mentioned that your son's creatinine levels were 11.6. I'm assuming that's 11.6 ug of creatinine per dL, as the Dr Data report from Quackwatch reads, yes?

11.6 micrograms per dL means he peed 0.0116 grams of creatinine per dL...

He peed 33.0 micrograms of Pb per gram of creatinine.

Therefore, his Pb output is 33 * 0.0116, micrograms of Pb per dL.

Therefore he peed .38 micrograms of Pb per dL, or roughly six times lower after chelation than the lowest factory worker measured before chelation.

amidoinitrite?

So just to clarify, the one thing that you specifically find to be pseudoscience is the urinary lab report, correct? Other types of lab tests (fluorescent X-rays) are science, and the chelation drugs used to treat those conditions are science, correct?

Science should have predictable results, or it isn't science. I have predicted future results based on my interpreation of the data: If after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?

At these miniscule levels? Probably hard to predict! Nevertheless, predictable results are certainly not the test of whether something is science.