Dunning-Kruger strikes again Part 2 - when chemistry doesn't say what you think it says

It's been almost a year to the day that a long exchange with Lynnlee Mavakay aka Alumilynn (@Alumilynn) resulted in a demonstration of her various errors.  I described 10 errors that Lynnlee made in the course of that exchange.   To date, none have been refuted by Lynnlee (except for her vacuous claim dismissing what I wrote because I "based it all on LOAEL" which makes no sense at all).

What did she decide to do, instead?  Make 2 new claims of which I will address here.

Claim #1 is a little convoluted because it became obvious in the end that she didn't have a clue about the chemistry that was being discussed and so her claim changed and evolved as she became more and more agitated and cornered. 

As I demonstrated in my blog post from last year (Lynnlee's error #2 specifically), J Kelly (@jkellyca) - a staunch provaxxer who's actual job involves finding, reading, and critiquing scientific publications and studies - pointed out an error that Lynnlee was basing her claim on.  The paper he cited, as the screenshot shows, uses 17 mg/kg/day of aluminum in its test rats.  I agreed with J Kelly - the paper appeared to be referring to 17 mg/kg/day of elemental (ionic) aluminum, not 17 mg/kg/day of AlCl3 which is the assumption vaccinepapers dot org made when deriving their amount of elemental aluminum used (3.4 mg/kg/day).  I showed the math as well confirming where the 3.4 mg/kg/day figure came from - a wrong assumption. 

So, in other words, vaccinepapers dot org (1) referenced a study, (2) made a mistake assuming that the study used 17 mg/kg/day of AlCl3 and then (3) calculated the amount of elemental (ionic) aluminum being given (17 x 20% = 3.4).  But, as JKelly pointed out, the amount of elemental aluminum that was given was not 3.4 mg/kg/day, it was 17 mg/kg/day.

I'll repeat:  JKelly pointed out that this study utilized 17 mg/kg/day of elemental (ionic) aluminum (they used Aluminum Chloride or AlCl3) - not 17 mg/kg/day of AlCl3.  If this paper had used 17 mg/kg/day of AlCl3, then the amount of elemental aluminum would have been 3.4 mg/kg/day.  Instead, they used about 85 mg/kg/day of AlCl3 which means the rats were given about 17 mg/kg/day of elemental aluminum.

If it looks like I'm belaboring the point, it's because I really don't know how else to make this explanation any more clear.

So how many ways did Lynnlee twist this?  Well, let's see:

So I "contradicted" JKelly.  In this claim she appears to be suggesting that JKelly was agreeing with her that it was 17 mg/kg/day of AlCl3 that was used.  As I already pointed out, this was not the case.  I'm not sure what to make of Lynnlee's reading comprehension skills.  JKelly literally referred to vaccinespapers dot org as "dreck".  He goes on to say that the amount of aluminum given was 17 mg/kg/day, not 3.4 mg/kg/day.

Now Lynnlee is starting to do some spinning and it's becoming clear that this is another simple case of a lack of knowledge about chemistry terminology.  Similar to the wacky terminology she used last year.  

I pointed out to Lynnlee that elemental ionic aluminum does not exist in nature without being combined with another element(s) to form a compound.  What JKelly is saying is that the rats were given 17 mg/kg/day of (elemental) aluminum in the form of ("as") aluminum chloride (AlCl3).  That's what "as AlCl3" means.  How does Lynnlee interpret this?  She assumes this statement to mean the rats were fed 17 mg/kg/day of AlCl3.

According to Lynnlee, I don't know what a compound is either.

She continues to double down on this claiming JKelly "got it right" even though it's clear he was disagreeing and criticizing her source - not supporting her.

She didn't like it (or got more confused) when I pointed out that aluminum can be expressed as aluminum chloride.  More terminology that she didn't understand.

Even after explaining many many times what JKelly was referring to in his tweet, she refused to admit that he was, in fact, referring to elemental aluminum - not AlCl3.

Here's one of my favorites that she tweeted.  If this were the actual case, we could all drop the mic on the whole antivaxxer myth about vaccine derived aluminum.

Here it looks like Lynnlee is demanding that we use her terminology instead of actual chemistry terminology.

She continues on and on and on even after having this explained to her in many different ways and with others agreeing that she really doesn't know chemistry.

It's inconceivable to Lynnlee that neither JKelly nor I was wrong.  I question whether or not she will ever understand the difference and acknowledge that she was, in fact, the wrong one.

When asked if she thought JKelly's tweet was right or wrong and whether she agreed or disagreed with his tweet, her answer was cryptic.  No surprise.  I have no idea what she meant by "his" and "her" study.  There was only 1 study that JKelly was referring to - the study that later papers referenced when using an Alzheimer's Disease rat model - and he linked to it.

But, wait, she continues to morph her position.  Now, it's because he used the "wrong source".  It's true, she has yet to actually admit that she was relying on vaccinepapers dot org for her information but the way she parroted the information from that site makes it 100% clear that this was, in fact, the source she was relying on.  The problem is, when you parrot someone else's information without fully understanding it, it's difficult to defend it which is exactly what she ended up trying to do.  And failing.

Now this tweet had me scratching my head.  It lacks any logic at all.  JKelly is definitely not on her side and it doesn't ever occur to Lynnlee that she is the one, in fact, who is misrepresenting what it is he's saying.  She does make it a habit of projecting a lot.

Lynnlee perpetually fights tooth and nail to be declared "right".  Her misunderstanding of the term "as" may have been a lay person's error (to be fair, I asked my biology major husband what he thought "17 mg/kg/day of aluminum as AlCl3 meant" and he thought it meant 17 mg/kg/day of AlCl3 - not elemental aluminum until I explained it to him and he went "ahhhh, I see what you're saying")  but when the chemistry is repeatedly explained to you, that's just willful ignorance on her part now.  

Here's an example of a false dilemma (false dichotomy) logical fallacy on her part.  Antivaxxers are notorious for employing logical fallacies.  A false dilemma logical fallacy is a type of informal fallacy in which a statement falsely claims an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional logically valid option.  She never considers the logical option that she is the one who is wrong.  JKelly and I were saying the same thing in different ways.

Unbeknownst to me, JKelly had Lynnlee muted.  He did eventually reply to this twitter thread and confirmed that he was referring to elemental aluminum - not AlCl3.  

Now that JKelly himself has clarified his own tweet, what does Lynnlee do?  Suddenly, JKelly is wrong, not right.  So does that make me right and not wrong?  Well that would be Lynnlee Logic but we know that wouldn't work.

I have my bachelor's degree in chemistry.  Organic chemistry was my favorite and I made one of the highest scores in my O Chem class when I took it.  JKelly is an actual scientist.  But here's Lynnlee - not sure of her training or credentials but it certainly looks like they're lacking - trying to "correct" us on chemistry terminology and demanding we follow her rules.  I'm reminded of a child who plays a game, loses, and then demands the other children abide by her rules instead.

She continues to make demands of JKelly because she obviously knows more chemistry than he does (not).  And now we're getting a preview of her next twist.  

And here's the pièce de résistance.  She moves to accusing both of us of claiming that aluminum chloride is "ALL" elemental aluminum.  I've run out of words to use to describe my reactions to Lynnlee's antics.  I think we broke Lynnlee at this point.

She not only accuses us of making this ridiculous suggestion but also another provaxxer, Dr Martinez, who is an MD, PhD, of suggesting that aluminum chloride is "all elemental aluminum".

Lynnlee continues to insist that she has been right through this entire exchange and continues to even believe that anyone is making the claim that a compound like aluminum chloride can be "all aluminum".  Her understanding of chemistry terminology is lacking but even if it was an honest mistake in the beginning, continuing to insist she was right after being corrected multiple multiple times by several different people, only makes her intentionally dishonest.

I'll be adding Claim #2 a little later....