Dunning-Kruger strikes again - Antivaxxer misrepresents and misunderstands Mitkus' aluminum study
Dunning-Kruger strikes again part 2 - when chemistry doesn't say what you think it says
Lynnlee ignored these errors and, until now, has failed miserably on Twitter to address what I wrote (where she believed screenshots without any context or explanation were sufficient) so she has created a blog to try and point out errors that she believes I have made.
I'll address each of her claims, even though she has yet to address any of mine.
Lynnlee's first contention is about a study in 2010 by Rodrigues et al: "Identification and distribution of mercury species in rat tissues following administration of thimerosal or methylmercury"
I'll address each of her claims, even though she has yet to address any of mine.
Lynnlee's first contention is about a study in 2010 by Rodrigues et al: "Identification and distribution of mercury species in rat tissues following administration of thimerosal or methylmercury"
Interestingly, she doesn't even bother to link to the actual study in question nor provide any cogent explanation of why she believes she was right depending, instead, on just a few screenshots. The entire interaction occurred back in 2018 and highlighted her usual strategies - to make claims that she then fails to support when called out moving, instead, to straw man arguments. She made many errors in just this thread alone that I pointed out to her.
Thimerosal and the Rodrigues study
Her current contention is that based on the Rodrigues et al study, there is evidence that ethyl mercury (EtHg) from thimerosal (TM) containing vaccines is converted to methyl mercury (MeHg). Here's why that's wrong:
(1) The Rodrigues et al study examined rats that were force fed (gavaged) different types of mercury. This study did not even involve injectable mercury sources.
(2) The study doesn't actually disclose what the impurities were in the TM they used. This could certainly mean that up to 3% of their solution was contaminated with MeHg. We simply don't know or can't determine if that was or was not the case. Lynnlee assumes that it wasn't and contends that if there was MeHg contamination, that this would have been detected "from the beginning in the highest ratio" which is nonsense as the authors didn't measure blood mercury levels prior to 6 hours, they did not obtain baseline Hg levels nor did they demonstrate the absence of MeHg in their TM exposed rats at 6, 12, 24 etc hours after ingestion. The authors specifically state that this data is not shown.
(3) Lynnlee made several additional contentions from the Rodrigues et al study that made no sense: thimerosal was converted to MeHg in saline that involved chloride components.
Thimerosal and the Rodrigues study
Her current contention is that based on the Rodrigues et al study, there is evidence that ethyl mercury (EtHg) from thimerosal (TM) containing vaccines is converted to methyl mercury (MeHg). Here's why that's wrong:
(1) The Rodrigues et al study examined rats that were force fed (gavaged) different types of mercury. This study did not even involve injectable mercury sources.
(2) The study doesn't actually disclose what the impurities were in the TM they used. This could certainly mean that up to 3% of their solution was contaminated with MeHg. We simply don't know or can't determine if that was or was not the case. Lynnlee assumes that it wasn't and contends that if there was MeHg contamination, that this would have been detected "from the beginning in the highest ratio" which is nonsense as the authors didn't measure blood mercury levels prior to 6 hours, they did not obtain baseline Hg levels nor did they demonstrate the absence of MeHg in their TM exposed rats at 6, 12, 24 etc hours after ingestion. The authors specifically state that this data is not shown.
(3) Lynnlee made several additional contentions from the Rodrigues et al study that made no sense: thimerosal was converted to MeHg in saline that involved chloride components.
What's fascinating is that in these series of tweets, Lynnlee seems to admit that she didn't even read the study in its entirety before "making assumptions in the past". We've seen past behavior that she prefers to parrot other sources without checking the veracity of that source first so this doesn't come as a surprise.
Lynnlee seems to be making it up as she goes along and attributing her bad assumptions to Rodrigues et al when they, in fact, do not make these assertions in their paper:
(a) No mention that they looked at outside contamination of their samples, food, water with MeHg sources
(b) The authors state nothing about a mechanism for the conversion of EtHg to MeHg in their paper but, rather state that this is the first time this "conversion" has been noted and that further study needs to be conducted to elucidate how, exactly, this would happen much less extrapolating that this happens with TM containing vaccines. I've not seen anything in the past decade since this study suggesting this is actually a thing.
(a) No mention that they looked at outside contamination of their samples, food, water with MeHg sources
(b) The authors state nothing about a mechanism for the conversion of EtHg to MeHg in their paper but, rather state that this is the first time this "conversion" has been noted and that further study needs to be conducted to elucidate how, exactly, this would happen much less extrapolating that this happens with TM containing vaccines. I've not seen anything in the past decade since this study suggesting this is actually a thing.
Lynnlee's next claim in her blog: "....what I was referring to above that reply; which was the MRL minimum risk level (1 mg/kg/day) derived by ATSDR" when she stated this:
This occurred in a thread where Lynnlee is criticizing a study by Mitkus et al. Here are the tweets above and below hers which doesn't help her - it's clear the "He" she is referring to is Mitkus because for a very very long time, Lynnlee did not understand what it was Mitkus was calculating in his study. It wasn't the MRL nor were his calculations based solely on oral aluminum intake. A fairly minor slip up but an error all the same that I corrected and she has yet to admit to.
Lynnlee even at one point, claimed that the ATSDR didn't consider injectable aluminum sources. Of course they did.
I have no idea what her "error #2" was. She didn't demonstrate one.
Regarding error #3 - again, she doesn't actually demonstrate an error. Mitkus refers to the ATSDR's MRL for aluminum. Nowhere in his paper does he clarify which MRL was used - intermediate duration vs chronic duration. In the end, it didn't matter because the ATSDR determined that both were 1 mg/kg/day. In order for her narrative to work, she insists it must be based on intermediate duration exposure but the bottom line is, we don't know that Mitkus' study uses this MRL in comparison.
I'm not sure where she got "2008 ATSDR that Mitkus references; page 24. Mitkus simply references the entire ATSDR document - makes no mention of page 24 specifically.
Regarding error #3 - again, she doesn't actually demonstrate an error. Mitkus refers to the ATSDR's MRL for aluminum. Nowhere in his paper does he clarify which MRL was used - intermediate duration vs chronic duration. In the end, it didn't matter because the ATSDR determined that both were 1 mg/kg/day. In order for her narrative to work, she insists it must be based on intermediate duration exposure but the bottom line is, we don't know that Mitkus' study uses this MRL in comparison.
I'm not sure where she got "2008 ATSDR that Mitkus references; page 24. Mitkus simply references the entire ATSDR document - makes no mention of page 24 specifically.
As has been pointed out to Lynnlee multiple times, Mitkus' data on his graph is carried out to 400 days. The ATSDR defines their MRL determinations as:
Lynnlee then launches into another straw man with this exchange:
How Lynnlee came to the conclusion that I "assume there was no departure being utilized in the Mitkus study" is unclear. No, that was not an error on my part. She's referring to the point of departure used by the ATSDR to determine the MRL. Yet again, she confuses this with what Mitkus did. Mitkus did NOT use a point of departure and certainly not a "departure to two months".
Her next 2 claims make zero sense.
No, what the ATSDR actually said was that they derived their chronic exposure MRL from LOAEL rather than using a benchmark dose approach because the study they referenced only tested one aluminum group. And, Lynnlee makes the SAME mistake that she's made all along confusing what Mitkus did and did not do in his study. Mitkus "used" neither NOAEL nor LOAEL in his paper - he only references an MRL and doesn't clarify which MRL he's referring to.
Her next 2 claims make zero sense.
No, what the ATSDR actually said was that they derived their chronic exposure MRL from LOAEL rather than using a benchmark dose approach because the study they referenced only tested one aluminum group. And, Lynnlee makes the SAME mistake that she's made all along confusing what Mitkus did and did not do in his study. Mitkus "used" neither NOAEL nor LOAEL in his paper - he only references an MRL and doesn't clarify which MRL he's referring to.
This claim is a wonderful example of, yet again, how poorly Lynnlee understands the Mitkus study.
(1) Mitkus doesn't use any point of departure in his calculations
(2) The ATSDR determined 2 MRLs - one for intermediate duration and one for chronic duration exposure to aluminum. Lynnlee seems to want to completely ignore that there's more than one MRL.
(3) The Mitkus study does not determine a safety level of NOAEL or LOAEL. At all. Period. His calculations were compared to the MRL for aluminum. Which type of MRL is unclear as I've pointed out to her many times.
Lynnlee references a study by antivaxxer, James Lyons-Weiler and seems to ignore that he states quite clearly that "Safety for aluminum from all sources is based on the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), Minimal Risk Level (MRL), and the "Lowest Observed Affect Level ( LOAEL)". The statement she highlights referring to NOAEL/uncertainty factor approach is simply pointing out that in order to use a LOAEL to determine a MRL, there needs to be demonstrable toxicity - not that LOAEL shouldn't be used when deriving the MRL.
And, no, the ATSDR does not state that NOAEL is the "recommendation" - they distinguish between duration of exposure when it comes to human toxicity.
Lynnlee's next attempt is in reference to the solubility of aluminum and what it has to do with Mitkus' calculations.
Mitkus' study looks at vaccine aluminum sources. Not aluminum lactate or aluminum chloride. The study looks only at aluminum salts such as aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate. The equation that Mitkus derives has nothing to do with solubility and he states as much in his paper:
(1) Mitkus doesn't use any point of departure in his calculations
(2) The ATSDR determined 2 MRLs - one for intermediate duration and one for chronic duration exposure to aluminum. Lynnlee seems to want to completely ignore that there's more than one MRL.
(3) The Mitkus study does not determine a safety level of NOAEL or LOAEL. At all. Period. His calculations were compared to the MRL for aluminum. Which type of MRL is unclear as I've pointed out to her many times.
Lynnlee references a study by antivaxxer, James Lyons-Weiler and seems to ignore that he states quite clearly that "Safety for aluminum from all sources is based on the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), Minimal Risk Level (MRL), and the "Lowest Observed Affect Level ( LOAEL)". The statement she highlights referring to NOAEL/uncertainty factor approach is simply pointing out that in order to use a LOAEL to determine a MRL, there needs to be demonstrable toxicity - not that LOAEL shouldn't be used when deriving the MRL.
And, no, the ATSDR does not state that NOAEL is the "recommendation" - they distinguish between duration of exposure when it comes to human toxicity.
Lynnlee's next attempt is in reference to the solubility of aluminum and what it has to do with Mitkus' calculations.
Mitkus' study looks at vaccine aluminum sources. Not aluminum lactate or aluminum chloride. The study looks only at aluminum salts such as aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate. The equation that Mitkus derives has nothing to do with solubility and he states as much in his paper:
Regarding her "all eliminated" claim, Lynnlee imposes another straw man by extrapolating my statement that vaccine derived aluminum being eliminated (it is, via a number of routes) means it's 100% eliminated. I stated no such thing. Although in part of Mitkus' study, they do assume in one of their calculations, 100% instantaneous absorption which we know is not what actually happens to vaccine derived aluminum.
Additionally, she beats another straw man regarding aluminum from vaccine sources crossing the blood brain barrier. I never stated that aluminum never crosses the BBB - of course it does. The question is whether aluminum from vaccine sources does cross the BBB resulting in neurotoxicity. Mitkus' study demonstrates body burden of aluminum following vaccination. He does NOT determine anything regarding neurotoxicity but does demonstrate quite well that the body aluminum burden from vaccination is well below the MRL for aluminum suggesting that there would be no neurotoxic effects from vaccine derived aluminum (ie no meaningful crossing of the BBB).
This next straw man is ridiculous.
This next straw man is ridiculous.
Lynnlee has a great deal of difficulty reading and comprehending what someone has stated. I've not seen anyone claim that aluminum adjuvants have no elemental aluminum. That's just plain dumb that she even made this suggestion. The problem with any aluminum compound (aluminum is never found as an element by itself - it is always bound to other elements to form a compound) is the actual amount of elemental aluminum in that compound. It can be aluminum hydroxide. It's not the hydroxide part that's the cause of adverse effects - it's the elemental aluminum that is the cause. For some reason, pointing this out and referring just to the amount of elemental aluminum seems very confusing to Lynnlee. When toxicity studies are done using aluminum compounds, they either refer to the amount of the compound or they refer to the amount of elemental aluminum. This difference is what Lynnlee either can't or won't accept.
Lynnlee's next error is really kind of funny. But in a very sad kind of way - it demonstrates quite clearly that she can't read for comprehension:
Actually, if you read on further in their paper, Mitkus states that because the ATSDR expressed the MRL normalized to body weight, and because an infant's body weight is not constant, they had to use a relevant mathematical function to account for this variation in infant body weight. He does NOT state that the actual MRL was used in any of their calculations. Because it wasn't. The formula they came up with was this and it had nothing to do with the MRL:
And to further demonstrate how poorly Lynnlee understands the Mitkus study:
Nowhere does Mitkus use the MRL in his calculations. He derived a formula to estimate body burden of aluminum following infant exposures (vaccinations) and then compared them to the ATSDR's MRL. It was as simple as that but Lynnlee's habit is to seek out confirmation bias and strangle a study to demonstrate what she believes but relies on her misunderstanding what someone wrote in order to do that. It simply doesn't work well because it's easy to demonstrate her errors.
Her next tantrum is about the misuse of an adjustment factor. It's simple math that I already described in detail in my first blog entry and she simply dismisses this math error by "rounding" the result. Any way you try to slice it, it's a stupid math mistake on her part.
You would think that Lynnlee would learn from her experiences but that continues to elude her. Simply stating mg as "shorthand" for mg/kg/day is sloppy at best, inept at worst. What it really demonstrates is that she's easily confused by units. This is further demonstrated when she confused a 7.6 adjustment factor with 7.6 mg and when she was called out on this, continued to dig her heels in further when it was a simply unit error. Rather than just admit the error, she's still trying to justify it.
Even something as simple as just admitting that she got her units confused, she has to justify it and claim that we both made an error rather than just owning the error all on her own as she tries to do here:
Her next tantrum is about the misuse of an adjustment factor. It's simple math that I already described in detail in my first blog entry and she simply dismisses this math error by "rounding" the result. Any way you try to slice it, it's a stupid math mistake on her part.
You would think that Lynnlee would learn from her experiences but that continues to elude her. Simply stating mg as "shorthand" for mg/kg/day is sloppy at best, inept at worst. What it really demonstrates is that she's easily confused by units. This is further demonstrated when she confused a 7.6 adjustment factor with 7.6 mg and when she was called out on this, continued to dig her heels in further when it was a simply unit error. Rather than just admit the error, she's still trying to justify it.
Even something as simple as just admitting that she got her units confused, she has to justify it and claim that we both made an error rather than just owning the error all on her own as she tries to do here:
Lynnlee definitely confused herself during this exchange. Here's what led into it:
So Lynnlee first claims that by using an MRL based on a NOAEL of 3.4 mg/kg/day instead of 26 mg/kg/day would "knock down" Mitkus' graph (y axis) of the MRL to....7 mg. What? The y axis of Mitkus' curve is based on body burden of aluminum - not the MRL. They plotted out the MRL but only after using the 50th %ile and 5th %ile body weight of an infant (the blue and red lines on the graph). Claiming a MRL of 3.4 mg/kg/day rather than 26 mg/kg/day wouldn't alter the y axis. Lynnlee simply can't admit that she had no clue what she was talking about here.
In addition to units, Lynnlee has a great deal of difficulty with percentages too. Regarding this tweet:
In addition to units, Lynnlee has a great deal of difficulty with percentages too. Regarding this tweet:
It's clear that she has no idea what 85% refers to and when this was pointed out, she back pedaled and tried to downplay her error by inserting "1 mg of aluminum". Does this explanation make any sense? No, it doesn't. I think she got confused with the amount of elemental aluminum in aluminum compounds expressed as a percentage vs the actual allowable elemental aluminum in a vaccine expressed in mg. The FDA limits has nothing to do with a percentage. As previously pointed out, elemental aluminum doesn't exist as an element by itself, unbound to another element. Can you measure out 1 mg of elemental aluminum? No, you can't. You can, however, measure out 34.6 mg of aluminum hydroxide to get 1 mg of elemental aluminum. So if you're going to use a percentage to express the FDA's limit, the proper way to express that would be: 85% of a 34.6 mg dose of aluminum hydroxide. That's just....well....stupid. And I think Lynnlee actually knows it but just can't admit the error. Instead, she thinks nobody understands how percentages work - yet another straw man.
It's not a hard thing to search for a tweet on twitter to confirm (or dispute) what Lynnlee is claiming. So this isn't an excuse for why she likes to make claims without providing supporting evidence. Here's how the "brain damage at birth" exchange occurred:
(1) Lynnlee makes the claim that the "correct" ATSDR MRL for intermediate duration exposure to aluminum should be based on a study (not even a toxicity study) suggesting that the NOAEL is 3.4 mg/kg/day rather than 26 mg/kg/day.
(2) I demonstrated the calculated body burden of aluminum based on this figure for an average newborn as an example of why using this 3.4 mg/kg/day figure is utter nonsense: the result is 0.4 mg of aluminum body burden at birth. The moment the newborn crowns. Before the newborn even has a chance to take a breath. In other words, neurotoxicity or "brain damage at birth".
(3) Lynnlee agrees with my intentionally nonsense conclusion about "brain damage at birth" and admits she didn't even look at the calculation.
How does she try to avoid admitting that she was wrong? That the calculation was accurate but with a nonsensical conclusion? That she didn't even look at the calculation but jumped to the "brain damage" conclusion? By blaming me for using a tweet "out of context" and not providing that context, pointing out the tweet, or linking to the exchange. Lazy or hiding something?
"She used the fact that she had another remark in that same tweet that I wasn’t responding to, as an indication that I actually agreed with her on a calculation"
(1) Lynnlee makes the claim that the "correct" ATSDR MRL for intermediate duration exposure to aluminum should be based on a study (not even a toxicity study) suggesting that the NOAEL is 3.4 mg/kg/day rather than 26 mg/kg/day.
(2) I demonstrated the calculated body burden of aluminum based on this figure for an average newborn as an example of why using this 3.4 mg/kg/day figure is utter nonsense: the result is 0.4 mg of aluminum body burden at birth. The moment the newborn crowns. Before the newborn even has a chance to take a breath. In other words, neurotoxicity or "brain damage at birth".
(3) Lynnlee agrees with my intentionally nonsense conclusion about "brain damage at birth" and admits she didn't even look at the calculation.
How does she try to avoid admitting that she was wrong? That the calculation was accurate but with a nonsensical conclusion? That she didn't even look at the calculation but jumped to the "brain damage" conclusion? By blaming me for using a tweet "out of context" and not providing that context, pointing out the tweet, or linking to the exchange. Lazy or hiding something?
"She used the fact that she had another remark in that same tweet that I wasn’t responding to, as an indication that I actually agreed with her on a calculation"
This thread (anyone can scroll up and down the thread to read it) really just displays how she's fairly careless in her reading skills. No, there was not "another remark in the same tweet" - the calculations we're both commenting on was the one regarding body burden of aluminum at birth. Note that she never even addresses the claim that a newborn could be born with a body burden of 0.4 mg of aluminum resulting in instant "neurotoxicity". No aluminum scientist on the planet would make this suggestion yet Lynnlee, the self-appointed expert on aluminum, clearly does. That says a lot about her lack of knowledge, training, and understanding. And the reason why she uses terminology that even scientists - the actual aluminum experts - wouldn't understand or consider to be right: "departure to 2 months", "responding factors", "divide for rough estimate", etc.
Lynnlee still clings to her notion that JKelly was somehow agreeing with her regarding the amount of aluminum used in a study (1979 Krasovskii). She claims that this wasn't the study she was referring to because she didn't realize that the study she originally referred to (2017 Borai) actually references the 1979 Krasovskii study in terms of the methodology they used to induce an Alzheimer Disease rat model. She was corrected on this point more than once but still claims "wrong study". She simply dismisses the Krasovskii study as "irrelevant" when it wasn't.
Lynnlee still clings to her notion that JKelly was somehow agreeing with her regarding the amount of aluminum used in a study (1979 Krasovskii). She claims that this wasn't the study she was referring to because she didn't realize that the study she originally referred to (2017 Borai) actually references the 1979 Krasovskii study in terms of the methodology they used to induce an Alzheimer Disease rat model. She was corrected on this point more than once but still claims "wrong study". She simply dismisses the Krasovskii study as "irrelevant" when it wasn't.
Lynnlee also makes another error in assuming that JKelly's comment was in agreement with her regarding the derivation of the chronic duration MRL by the ATSDR.
JKelly is correct that the ATSDR didn't use a 130 mg/kg/day LOAEL. Here's where Lynnlee gets sloppy again with her reading and "research". The ATSDR used 100 mg/kg/day LOAEL to determine the chronic duration MRL. Either Lynnlee was "100% aware" and should have realized that this "point" was irrelevant to the chronic duration MRL or the point she was trying to make (and failing at) was that there was no MRL determined using the LOAEL in which case she would be clearly mistaken.
The fact that JKelly was not agreeing with Lynnlee at all (he describes Lynnlee as "dumb as a stump" and a "total waste of time") has already been documented and explained to her but she's either unable or unwilling to admit how many times she was wrong.
JKelly tried to clarify that he was in no way, shape, or form, agreeing with Lynnlee even though she declared he was right (after declaring everyone else was wrong and ignoring the possibility that she was the one who was wrong). In the end, it was hopeless and he refers to Lynnlee as someone whose jumping-off point is deep confusion.
Next Lynnlee points to 2 tweets regarding whether Mitkus used an intermediate duration MRL vs a chronic duration MRL in comparison. I've repeatedly reminded her that Mitkus does not clarify this point anywhere in his paper. I don't know which MRL he was using in comparison but suspect that it's the chronic MRL because his calculations were extended out to 400 days. The definition the ATSDR used for chronic duration exposure was >365 days. This isn't a "want" on my part and I pointed out to Lynnlee that it's unclear which one was referenced in Mitkus - I never stated it was LOAEL instead of NOAEL because we simply don't know.
I'm not sure why Lynnlee tweeted the link to her blog at me, then her account was changed to private, then her account name and twitter handle changed several times, and somewhere in between she deleted the tweet with the blog link. Deep confusion seems to be an understatement.
Lastly, Lynnlee doesn't seem to understand what cognitive dissonance is. She complained bitterly about the blogs that I wrote about her being a "scrapbook" and "lies" and lamented that they were "30 pages long". And then proceeds to start a brand new blog on wordpress specifically just to publish her own blog about me. Now that's an example of cognitive dissonance. She even makes claims that "nobody probably read" my blog entries in their entirety. Of course, she's wrong as a simple Twitter search referencing my various blog entries easily demonstrates.
https://twitter.com/KStateTurk/status/1289952369350832130?s=20 https://twitter.com/FrankDElia7/status/1212184091384320000?s=20 https://twitter.com/KatLaRue7/status/1205881222674694145?s=20
https://twitter.com/KStateTurk/status/1289952369350832130?s=20 https://twitter.com/FrankDElia7/status/1212184091384320000?s=20 https://twitter.com/KatLaRue7/status/1205881222674694145?s=20
https://twitter.com/JaiKanta22/status/1274053772138905600?s=20
https://twitter.com/provaxtexan/status/1227225497207214086?s=20
https://twitter.com/FrankDElia7/status/1202393247395520513?s=20
https://twitter.com/glenpyle/status/1236521428914225152?s=20
https://twitter.com/VeritasEver/status/1191825264839290880?s=20
https://twitter.com/Golfergirl2018/status/1236499985211981824?s=20
https://twitter.com/immunotoxphd/status/1377848409386856448?s=21
It looks like Lynnlee will keep adding to her blog. Her latest addition was an absolute statement she made about neurological conditions and her belief that they are ALL due to "inflammation".
Her claim is nonsense, of course, and reflective of a very basic and immature understanding of the term "inflammation". She believes that because some neurological conditions are associated with (not always caused by) inflammation that this must mean all neurological conditions are. Very simple concrete thinking that is inaccurate. There are many neurological conditions that have nothing to do with "inflammation" including congenital brain defects and chromosomal abnormalities.
What I'm hoping to see is her twisted explanation of a hilarious "combined email" mistake she made. The thread on Twitter was fabulous but, in the end, she tried to blame "both of us" for an error that she, alone, made.
