Once again the trolls want to fight over something they know nothing about. One troll in particular has been following me around Curezone attacking me on various forums. His recent games have involved mercury, which he is claiming is the most common cause of various diseases/disorders including adrenal dysfunction, hyper and hypothyroidism, etc. I have copied his latest text below because I am not going to engage in long debates on someone else's forum. It is not very respectful to them to do so.
Hveragerthi: LOL!!! Mercury does not increase estrogen
Troll: Of course it does. And in many ways: (a) accumulation in the endocrine system; (b) specific cytotoxicity in endocrine tissues; (c) changes in hormone concentrations; (d) interactions with sex hormones; and (e) up-regulation or down-regulation of enzymes within the steroidogenesis pathway.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19280433
Clearly you did not understand what that abstract said. Not only does it not back your claims their are parts of it that can interpreted as being the exact opposite of your claims. Copying words from the internet and posting them does not mean you have provided evidence to anything. You need to actually understand what you posted so you know if it backs your claims or not. In this case it DOES NOT.
For example, there is this study, which shows mercury is actually an anti-estrogen, just the opposite of your claims:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1003284
"Mercury was not consistently associated with changes in direction of estradiol mean, although increasing exposure was associated with delayed rises of estradiol of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.01 to –0.29) and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.03 to –0.33) equivalent to approximately 3–4 hr."
And again, your link above can also be presented as evidence to this fact. Which again is why you need to actually understand what you present as "evidence". Big fancy words such as "steroidogenesis" in a link does not evidence to your claim make.
Hveragerthi: Not even close!!! Again, you really need to learn some basic chemistry and how the body really works. Adrenal dysfunction also has a number of causes, none of which are mercury.
Troll: Mercury is the number 1 cause of adrenal dysfunction, directly localising and affecting the gland and indirectly through the steroidogenesis pathways. Read again:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19280433
LOL!!! Again, you really need to understand what you are submitting as "evidence". What the statement says in total is "up-regulation or down-regulation of enzymes within the steroidogenesis pathway". What you just posted as "evidence" does not say anywhere that the mercury causes adrenal dysfunction. It says that the mercury according to the author can cause changes in adrenal dysfunction. The "upregulation" of enzymes they mention can just as easily create adrenal over activity instead of suppression. This is one of the reasons it is so important to actually understand what you are posting as evidence! In addition, understanding what you posted as "evidence" would also have helped you to know that the abstract says nothing about what kind of changes in the endocrine system are occurring nor to what extent. You are simply assuming whatever fits your needs.
Hveragerthi: chronic stress leading to elevated rT3 and poor T4 to T3 conversion,
Troll: stress caused by Mercury & dealing with your ignorance
Hveragerthi: See my last comment because mercury DOES NOT cause these either.
Troll: Mostly your ignorance then.
Hveragerthi: low iodine
Troll: Duh. Take iodine. But I referred to HYPER thyroidism to begin with, not hypo, genius.
Hveragerthi: ROTFLMAO!!!! You really should read what you wrote before making such statements. Here is your quote again:
"It is absolutely unfounded and ridiculous. Hypo, as well as Hyperthyroidism is caused by heavy metals like Mercury and pseudo-iodines like fluorine and bromine that occupying and block the cellular receptor sites normally reserved for iodine."
That is the problem with your making up lies MichaelB. There are always people willing to expose your lies.
Troll: Learn to comprehend, fool. The thread is asking about hyperthyroidism. And you claimed iodine supplementation won't cure it, which is BS.
Funny how you left out your quote above so I had to go retrieve it so everyone could see that you were lying again to give you an excuse to attack. Once again you said hypothyroidism and well as hyperthyroidism. So it was not only about hyperthyroidism.
As for your claim that I said iodine will not cure hyperthyroidism that is just another of your MANY lies. Here is my quote again "Would supplementing iodine be good for someone with hyperthyroidism? No. ". Why did I say this? Because excess iodine can throw the thyroid in to an even higher state of hyperthyroidism. That is not the same as saying it will not cure the problem. That part is questionable. Some doctors have increased thyroid activity even higher as a treatment for hypothyroidism relying on negative feedback to slow the thyroid down. Will this permanently stop the hyperthyroidism? Not likely. Is this practice safe? Not in my opinion. To me this practice is as stupid as using carcinogenic radiation and chemotherapy drugs to "treat" cancer.
Hveragerthi: LOL!!! Slow down for a second and think really hard about this "genius". In order to block the receptor is has to occupy that receptor!!!
Troll: You are truly dumber than the boards give you credit for. Mercury can block 1 or more of the 4 iodine receptor sites. It does not mean it "occupies" the specific chemical bond that iodine is meant to have.
You clearly do not understand the concept of receptors nor how they work. Then again you did not have any understanding of the abstract you tried to use as "evidence" either.
Hveragerthi: "The thyroid is not a primary target of mercury.
Troll: Of course it is, Doofus.
http://www.flcv.com/ASDendo.html
This is a good example as to why people should not rely on opinion sites as "evidence". You clearly did not read the studies he cites as "evidence". I read several of the studies he cited and they are not backing his claims. He primarily cites animal studies that do not correlate to humans. As an example, here is an animal study on the effects of mercury on the thyroid:
http://ecophys.fishwild.vt.edu/publications/Wada%20et%20al%202011EnvSciTechno...
Dietary Mercury Has No Observable Effects on Thyroid-Mediated Processes and Fitness-Related Traits in Wood Frogs
"MeHg in wood frogs was high and whole-body Hg concentrations exceeded those associated with increased mortality, malformation, and/or delayed development in two other amphibian species, we did not observe any adverse effects of Hg on development,survival, performance, or whole-body thyroid hormone concentrations in wood frogs."
If we want to go with animal studies we can conclude from this study that mercury is not harmful. Of course we know mercury is harmful, but the point is that animal studies cannot always be applied to humans.
In fact, he cites this study as part of his "evidence" that mercury suppresses thyroid function:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1128033/
"Apart from inhibition of the deiodination of T4 to T3, the endocrine functions studied seem not to be affected by exposure to Hg vapour at the exposure levels of the present study."
Does not sound like a major target to me.
Now, let's look at a study regarding mercury and autoimmune thyroid issues:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16804512
"Compared to levels at the beginning of the study, only patients with mercury hypersensitivity who underwent amalgam replacement (Group IIA) showed a significant decrease in the levels of both anti-Tg (p=0.001) and anti-TPO (p=0.0007) autoantibodies. The levels of autoantibodies in patients with or without mercury hypersensitivity (Group I and Group IIB) who did not replace amalgam did not change."
So antibody levels only increased in those with mercury sensitivities, but no change when amalgams were removed in the other people. So what constitutes mercury sensitivity? Try researching the role of low selenium in the presence of mercury.
Hveragerthi: Again, you keep referencing opinion sites that have not backed up their claims with any real evidence. Do you have any real evidence?"
Troll: You are pathetic! Stop wasting my time with this "no evidence" crap. The 'real studies' showing 'real evidence' are all referenced in that website: over 50 of them.
And again, you should read them. Many do not back his claims. This is what opinion sites rely on. They expect people to take their claims at face value since they know that the majority of people will never check the references and the ones that do rarely understand them.
Hveragerthi: Once again you have absolutely NO clue of what you are talking about. Most autoimmune conditions have been linked to pathogens.
Troll: Pathogens can only proliferate with an impaired immune system. Mercury directly kills immune cells through fragmenting the nuclei and damaging the cell membrane integrity. Cells that are not killed are significantly damaged. Polymorphonuclear leukocyte functions such as phagocytosis and adherence are negatively impaired. Mercury also inhibits mitogen-induced proliferative responses in lymphocytes.
LOL!!! There you go again with the big fancy words that you have no clue what they mean.
You are also overlooking the fact that many things suppress the immune system. For example, a person can harbor herpes viruses that do not pop up until they are under so much mental stress that it suppresses their immune system and the virus activates. No mercury involved.
I have addressed the real causes of autoimmunity numerous times in previous posts and my Autoimmunity write up.
But since you think you are such an expert on autoimmunity please explain to everyone here what autoantibodies are, why they form and what their role is in autoimmune conditions. If you can answer these then you will also know why mercury is not involved.
Mercury binds directly to the major-histocompatibility-complex peptide as well as T cell receptors, thereby chemically altering them and acting as a mechanism for producing MHC-dependant autoantibodies. It also binds B and T cells together.
I love when you post stuff you have no clue about what you are saying. How do you explain the findings in this study in relation to your claim above?:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9376071
Or this one that also shows differences to your claims:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l0t69nvvkeqavlqu/
I especially like this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0192056193900495
"In summary, both CdCl2 and HgCl2 exert early, inhibitory effects on B-cell activation. This is manifested by the inhibition of RNA, DNA and antibody synthesis."
Troll: It has long been known scientifically that metals like zinc, mercury, nickel and beryllium activate lymphocytes to proliferation in the absence of mitogenic lectins. It is known as "metal induced lymphoproliferation".
So you are now claiming that these metals are increasing immunity by increasing the number of immune cells called lymphocytes? Or are you saying that you are desperate again for evidence and so you are still posting claims that you have no clue as to what they mean?
Troll: Not only does Mercury proliferate B and T-lmyphocytes, it also increases the interleukin expression, the expression of class 1 and class 2 major histocompatibility complex molecule of various cell types, leads to hypergammaglobulinemia with increases in serum immuniglobulins Ig G and E, and increases the expression of polyclonal antibodies into self-antigens as well as non-self-antigens.
And again I bet you have no clue what that means, LOL!!!
Troll: Once again- You are obviously the one who needs to do some research.
I do a lot of research. The difference is I research credible sources, not pseudoscientific, make up the facts as they go along propaganda sites like you do.
Troll: There is nothing 'pseudoscientific' about reality, or the endless volumes of research done by intelligent and ligitimate teams of scientists and doctors to demonstrate the nature of that reality. You are just a jackass, that's all.
Funny how with all that research you still cannot present anything to prove the claims I have questioned. All you did was throw around some big words you did not understand. Meanwhile, I presented actual evidence against your claims such as proving mercury has shown to have anti-estrogenic properties.
Troll quoting me: (bitching truncated) ... shut me up.
Troll: I just did!
No, you simply showed more of your ignorance.
I saw the first study before. The fact that mercury incorporates in to tissues has never been disputed. But the trolls are using your post to try and claim that even my supporters are turning on me. Unfortunately they do not understand simple concepts such as the half life of mercury in the body is short.
The trolls also refuse to accept medical studies unless they fit their needs. For example they were trying to argue some points the other day by referencing Mercola, who has been discredited numerous times. Yet the link they posted was full of references Mercola took from medical journals. So in essence they were using medical journals as a source of evidence. As soon as I posted proof of Mercola' errors with evidence from medical journals where I actually showed what was said the trolls started an entire thread dedicated to attacking the credibility of medical journal abstracts. Yet the troll MichaelB just posted a medical journal abstract, which they don't believe in, claiming that mercury chloride is estrogenic. The problem is that the troll first of all did not realize that this is a rat study. He also did not realize that the study was done in a Petri dish. But the real coup de gras was his statement later claiming the mercury is methylated in the intestines and bound strongly to proteins. So he is now dug himself a deep grave as he has a catch-22 situation here. The study was done in culture using mercury chloride not methylated and protein bound mercury. OOPS!!! I guess his ignorance of chemistry and how the body works really went against him in that one!!! So now I am sure he will try to argue that the mercury is in the form of mercury chloride as it reacts with the stomach acid and is absorbed right in to the blood. Well then this would contradict his claim that the mercury is being methylated and protein bound in the intestines. This is what happens when he tries to act like an expert over something he clearly knows nothing about.
If I wanted to prove chromium was highly toxic I could post all sorts of studies on hexavalent chromium. But not all forms of chromium are the same just as all forms of mercury are not the same. People supplement all the time with trivalent chromium, which is not highly toxic like hexavalent chromium. So troll needs to get his story straight. And he needs to decide if medical abstracts are real evidence if he is going to present them as evidence. Again, it is funny to watch the Trolling Stones argue that medical studies are 90% inaccurate because the researchers are paid to find something specific, but they are more than happy to use these same studies as a tool to present "evidence" as long as the study agrees with their beliefs. Even if their other claims invalidate their own "evidence". There is actually a word for that. What was that word?......... Ah, that's right, the word is DESPERATION!!!
But back to the first study. I wonder how many of the trolls saw you post this study and thought this proved them right because they never actually read the study. In particular this part:
"However, there is no evidence from epidemiological studies that exposure to dental amalgam restorations is associated with disease, impaired neuropsychological functions or prevalence of general health complaints[24-29]."
As for the second study the Trolling Stones clearly did not read that study either as it basically states all the things I have already pointed out at the beginning of the article:
"Mercury is a heavy metal of known toxicity, noted for inducing public health disasters in Minamata Bay, Japan [1] and in Iraq [2–4]. The clinical impact of smaller mercury exposures remains controversial. It exists in several forms: inorganic mercury, which includes metallic mercury and mercury vapor (Hg0) and mercurous (Hg2++) or mercuric (Hg++) salts; and organic mercury, which includes compounds in which mercury is bonded to a structure containing carbon atoms (methyl, ethyl, phenyl, or similar groups). The biological behavior, pharmacokinetics, and clinical significance of the various forms of mercury vary with chemical structure. There is some interconversion in vivo between the various forms of mercury. Inhaled elemental mercury vapor, for example, is easily absorbed through mucus membranes and the lung and rapidly oxidized to other forms (but not so quickly as to prevent considerable deposition of elemental mercury in the brain). Methyl mercury is easily absorbed through the gut and deposits in many tissues, but does not cross the blood-brain barrier as efficiently as elemental mercury; however, on entering the brain it is progressively demethylated to elemental mercury [5]. Mercury salts, in contrast, tend to be insoluble, relatively stable, and poorly absorbed."
"Human toxicity varies with the form of mercury, the dose and the rate of exposure."
"There is considerable controversy about the clinical significance of exposure to the various forms of mercury and some disagreement regarding techniques for clinical assessment of mercury burden."
"Metallic mercury is largely excreted as mercuric mercury [5]"
What happened to the mercury being methylated and tightly bound to proteins as claimed by the troll MichaelB? According to this most of the mercury is excreted as mercuric mercury (Hg2+).
"The excretory half lives of metallic and mercuric mercury vary widely, depending on the organ of deposition and redox state, with values ranging from a few days to several months [5], with some pools (e.g., CNS) having a half life exceeding several years [5]." Note that the half life for most tissues is short. But even in the CNS they are saying a few years, not the 15-30 years that Mercola hyped up. The troll MichaelB should find this interesting since he is claiming the one study backing his opinion about mercury chloride being estrogenic is true: "Only about 2% of ingested mercuric chloride is absorbed" I'm sure the Trolling Stones will love the part about hair testing for mercury being an inaccurate marker for the mercury burden since they promote hair testing for this reason. Again, more evidence that they are trying to play expert over something they really know nothing about.
All that being said my final comment on this post will be this. At NO time have I ever claimed mercury was harmless as the Trolling Stones keep trying to claim. These same trolls have also made it sound like I am totally against iodine as well because simply because I brought up some safety issues. Now they are trying to convince everyone that I am pro-vaccine, even though my posting on this subject in the post proves otherwise. Their attacks have even escalated now to calling me a baby killer and claiming I am "aligned with Satan". Just goes to prove how desperate and despicable these trolls really are!!!
At NO time have I ever claimed mercury was harmless as the Trolling Stones keep trying to claim
ah k just wasnt sure what your viewpoint/take on it was. so with hair testing i noticed they do use it in peer reviewed literature (with blood/urine/faeces) what is your viewpoint on hair testing? So most literature will say "hg has an affinity for sulfur" and just realised keratin is composed mainly of the amino acid cysteine so.....
It is not the sulfur it has the affinity for but the sulfide bonds.
Studies have shown though that hair testing for mercury is not accurate.
Actually hair testing is not really accurate for much of anything in the body.