My original tweet to her:
Her reply:
So Lynnlee claims that the Mitkus study is "junk". What ensued was a collection of errors on Lynnlee's part - it was actually hard to catalog and capture all of them.
Error #1
Mitkus' study wasn't simply based on oral aluminum exposure. Lynnlee appears to be confusing what Mitkus calculated (total aluminum body burden over time) vs what those calculations were compared to (MRL50 - determined by the ATSDR, not by Mitkus). Yes, Mitkus did utilize "injection sources" - primarily Flarend which used injected aluminum adjuvant in rabbits.
Error #2
This one took a few days to flesh out. As background information, the ATSDR determined the MRL (minimum risk level) of aluminum based on review of many studies as discussed in their paper, "Toxicological Profile for Aluminum". In the end, the MRL was determined this way:
As it turns out, her entire line of reasoning was simply a parroting of an article on vaccinepapers dot org without actually understanding it and just assuming veracity because it fed her confirmation bias.
Apparently the 3.4 mg/kg/day figure was based on several studies but, as it turns out, these studies were not correctly interpreted by vaccinepapers dot org.
I'm really glad J Kelly had access to that paper as this wouldn't have been something I would have been able to deduce or confirm. So, vaccinepapers dot org claimed that these studies used 17 mg/kg/day of AlCl3 and because AlCl3 is about 20% elemental aluminum, they determined that the actual amount of elemental aluminum given was 17 mg/kg/day x 20% = 3.4 mg/kg/day. As J Kelly discovered, the 17 mg/kg/day was of elemental aluminum - not AlCl3.
Error #3
During the time period it took to finally figure out that Lynnlee's entire line of reasoning using the 3.4 mg/kg/day aluminum toxicity figure was flawed from the start, more than a few other errors showed up.
Again, Lynnlee appears to be confusing what Mitkus' study was about and what was calculated (body burden of aluminum) vs what the ATSDR determined (the MRL). The NOAEL (or LOAEL) of 3.4 mg/kg/day had nothing to do with Mitkus' curve.
Error #4
Ironically, Lynnlee continues to claim that she is "100% accurate" when it's very clear that she hasn't been. She goes on to claim that Mitkus used the MRL values to evaluate the safety of injecting aluminum adjuvant. Mitkus used aluminum exposure (via oral and injection), aluminum toxicokinetics, baseline aluminum levels at birth, varying infant body weight, the actual vaccination schedule, and aluminum retention based on infant renal function to determine aluminum body burden. No, the MRL values were not used in his calculations at all but simply as a source of comparison.
Error #5
Lynnlee tends to use a lot of ALL CAPS when she's getting frustrated at being shown how wrong she is. This particular claim was fascinating and a simple parroting of what vaccinepapers dot org stated. Here's the math according to Lynnlee:
The intermediate exposure MRL was calculated by the ATSDR using the Golub et al study that determined a NOAEL of 26 mg/kg/day. Because Lynnlee (and vaccinepapers dot org) claimed that the actual NOAEL should be 3.4 mg/kg/day (which we already know was an invalid conclusion). So the actual MRL should be "adjusted" by a factor of: 26 divided by 3.4 = 7.6
This is bad math. If we go back to what ATSDR did to determine the MRL for intermediate exposure based on the Golub et al study for NOAEL of 26 mg/kg/day, we see that the ATSDR didn't simply use this figure. The ATSDR used Golub's figure and adjusted it using an uncertainty factor of 100 and a further modifying adjustment of 0.3 (to account for bioavailability). Simply dividing the MRL (1 mg/kg/day) by 7.6 is inaccurate.
- ATSDR calculation using Golub's figure: 26 mg/kg/day divided by uncertainty factor of 100 divided by modifying adjustment of 0.3 = 0.866 mg/kg/day (rounded up to 1 mg/kg/day by the ATSDR)
- Lynnlee's "7.6 adjustment": MRL 1 mg/kg/day divided by 7.6 = 0.1315 mg/kg/day
- Actual ATSDR calculation adjusting for her (wrong) claim that the NOAEL should be 3.4 mg/kg/day: NOAEL 3.4 mg/kg/day divided by uncertainty factor of 100 divided by modifying adjustment of 0.3 = 0.1133 mg/kg/day
This one is pretty self-explanatory. Lynnlee tries very hard to demonstrate the math but makes multiple errors which I corrected for her.
Error #7
Lynnee made many errors in the use of units. When pointed out to her that she made a simple error, she doubled down, insisted that her "adjustment factor" was expressed in mg, and then even went on to accuse me of not recognizing that the y axis of the graph in Mitkus' paper was "in mg" which means her "adjustment factor" should be in mg.
Error #8
Another example of an error that seemed like a fairly simple one (% instead of mg) but when pointed out, Lynnlee doubles down instead of just acknowledging it and even accused me of not understanding how to convert a decimal to a percentage.
When asked "85% of what" the answer was: "1 mg". When asked "1 mg of what" the answer was: "aluminum". So according to Lynnlee, the FDA set a limit of aluminum in each vaccine dose of "85% of 1 mg of aluminum". Yeah, that made no sense to me either despite her claim that it was "clearly shown prior". Here's what the FDA actually says.
So in Lynnlee-speak, what the FDA is actually saying is that: "Federal Regulations for biological products (including vaccines) limit the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 85% of 1 mg of aluminum to 125% of 1 mg of aluminum. For example, the amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth is 25% of 1 mg of aluminum."
Error #9
There were several dimensions of error associated with the hypothetical math that I intentionally did to demonstrate an intentionally nonsense value based on a fabricated claim (that toxic effects were noted beginning at an NOAEL of 3.4 mg/kg/day).
So Lynnlee actually agreed with my math and how it demonstrates that there is toxicity from aluminum body burden at birth. Of course, this is complete nonsense. No, children are not born brain damaged. But again, Lynnlee doubles down and, while admitting she didn't even look at my math, she agreed anyway. Why? Confirmation bias.
Even more bizarre is that she also claimed that the math I did was wrong and tries to use yet another "adjustment factor" that she called "dividing for rough estimate" - very strange terminology. For her own fabricated value of "3.4 mg/kg/day" even.
Speaking of strange terminology. A few examples of what happens when you don't actually understand the science or math and simply make up your own terminology as you go along.
 |
"departure to two months"
|
 |
| "responding factors" |
And this really kind of summarizes Lynnlee's Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Edited to add (13 August 19):
Lynnlee lost her mind when she finally responded to this blog post. False accusations, idle threats, nonsense claims.
No, I don't need permission to point out the errors made publicly on a social media platform like Twitter.
Idle threats.
Veiled profanity - it never works.
Changing between public and private status on Twitter doesn't change facts.
No, there are no laws being broken. Paranoia about "putting family in harms way" should make one reconsider tweeting publicly on Twitter in the first place.
Edited to add:
I've now added Part 2 - when chemistry doesn't say what you think it says - that continues on demonstrating yet another dishonest claim that Lynnlee made.