CureZone   Log On   Join
Image Embedded Re: Troll's view on mercury
 
Hveragerthi Views: 2,825
Published: 13 y
 
This is a reply to # 1,944,538

Re: Troll's view on mercury


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 [] and in Iraq []. 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 []. 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 []"

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!!!

 

Share


 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2025  www.curezone.org

0.297 sec, (7)