The Endless Twitter Debate with Dr. Eve Switzer, Pediatrician
*A pressured rebuttal to a disparaging blog by Dr. Eve Switzer.
Some people just donāt get the many subtle hints of kindness in life, to know when they need to actually walk away for their own good. I would say, Dr. Eve Switzer is one of those people. She has exhibited this continuously in my debates with her on aluminum in vaccines. I have endlessly made great effort to avoid demonstrating her numerous errors, which may be very embarrassing for her. Iāve even hinted to drop the debate several times. Ā However, this particular MD is a different breed, and is not the typical MD that you would expect to encounter on Social Media. Her very last attempt to disparage me, has unfortunately pushed me to finally do what she has so obviously asked for; which is to finally expose her multitude of errors once and for all.
Introduction:
Eve & I had numerous debates, many late night, minor & major. Ā During these debates, she of course is stubborn, relentless, obsessive, andĀ harassing at times (IMO);Ā tweeting/spamming at a ratio much higher than mine inĀ manyĀ instances. I actually thought it was a little cute in a way at first (sort of like an innocent child demanding a pat on their back for their sibling cleaning up the toys), but then I started to noticeĀ thatĀ itĀ appeared toĀ beĀ needĀ for esteem/prestige, but also extreme competition, a deep craving to be right, an absolute refusal to be wrong. Ā No matter how many oranges she threw to twist her own errors, she just kept going, turning the debate into a circus show for her followers; which has oddly resulted in her manifesting 20-30 page error blogs againstĀ me & others in disagreement with her beliefs; and in most cases, based onĀ HER misunderstanding of the studies/material. She has done this to manyĀ folk on Twitter, spams them with the blogs,Ā andĀ then blocks their ability to comment to avoid rebuttals.
So here we are, three (3)Ā major debates later; the 3rd/last one due to her tweeting at me & tossing her blog at me for two days while I struggled to ignore her after not talking to her for a year.
The 1st debate: Thimerosal
This debate was nothing but cognitive dissonance and/orĀ erroneousĀ statements on her part; although sheĀ made sure to hashtag #liar onĀ manyĀ of her responses at the time.Ā The below pics are self-explanatory; so I will not get into that one much.
In the end, as you see expanded below; I became fed up that she refused to show me the work-up in the study, and so I re-accessed it on my own, presented her errors, and that was the end of it. (No blog written by her on this one).
The 2nd Debate: MITKUS
This debate is a lot more in depth. See, I initially was very angry when she manifested a public blog on me as a result of this debate. I even threatened to do the same if she didn’t take it down. There were a few reasons, but primarily the fact that she based the entire blog off of her misunderstanding and errors in the study. The 2nd reason, was because I had just come out of private twitter mode & wanted to resume that way once things were settled (can’t do that if you now have a public blog to refute); not to mention that there really are psychos out there that harass people over issues like this (I see it often). The 3rd reason was simply that it was not only odd, but vindictive & very immoral in what one would think a prestigious pediatrician would avoid to lower themselves, as I originally expected a balanced & dignified debate; in other words, it disgusted me. I have med professionals I personally know that would not dare behave in such manor, and to make matters worse, spam the blog to myself and her followers relentlessly. So here goes; I will first tackle the blog, & the extras come later. The below manifested errors from Eve’s blog will be demonstrated as “Eve’s Errors”.
Eve’s Error #1:
Her first manifested error on me from her blog below was in regards to injection sources.
She’s quite the sneaky cat see, because she conveniently left out š what I was referring to above that reply; which was the MRL minimum risk level (1mg/kg/day) derived by ATSDR. Mitkus used the 2008 ATSDR’s MRL in order to compare it to his calculated body burden of aluminum from injection. ATSDR’s MRL was ONLY based on oral, unlike what Eve continued to sing throughout our debate(s).
Please see below what aluminum exposure sources ATSDR bases their final NOAEL/LOAEL MRL on:
Eve’s Error #2:
Her 2nd manifested error basically rolls in from the first one. She cleverly found a brilliant way to separate it into two different errors however.
Our debate became more in depth when I claimed there may be a study/studies that demonstrate a lower NOAEL than ATSDR used to determine MRL. From that point onward, we were debating if the prior mentioned study/studies may in-fact affect the safety threshold. However, we never truly finalized the debate. (More on that later); and so that leads us to Eve’s error #3.
Eve’s Error #3:
As I said in the beginning, Eve based nearly the entire debate, along with nearly her entire blog, on one major misunderstanding;
Her misunderstanding, was the assumption that Mitkus would have based his study on LOAEL if he were to use calculations & adjust for a lower MRL, because she assumed 400 days (rather than only up to 365) meant that it could only be chronic duration rather than intermediate. However, her assumption was wrong, and as I demonstrated to her multiple times, there are numerous points of reference that explain why that is.
To demonstrate her misunderstanding, please see below what the 2008 ATSDR (Mitkus referenced) decided to use for their MRL Point of departure (PoD). It is a NOAEL/LOAEL approach with the NOAEL PoD for the MRL.
Speaking of PoD, below was another mistake on Eve’s behalf to assume there was no departure being utilized in the Mitkus study; to make matters worse, she used hyperbole/or what I call “orange debating”, to distract from the point.
With that being said, please also see where ATSDR states that a LOAEL benchmark dose approach (BMD) for deriving an MRL, was not utilized. LOAEL is a dose and “end point” MRL. Mitkus would have had little ability to use LOAEL for what he evaluated.
NOAEL is absolutely required as the PoD for the Mitkus study, & is emphasized as a must by ATSDR’s recommendations because they insist on evaluating the most sensitive endpoint.
The Mitkus study determines safety level at NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effects)
The Mitkus study does NOT determine safety level at LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effects), because obviously the point is to avoid adverse effects in infants to begin with. (Common sense type of things, you know?)
ATSDR states below that when a NOAEL is unavailable, a LOAEL then can be used. However, NOAEL was indeed available, and since Mitkus uses a PoD, it can’t be LOAEL.
Here is also one of many other sources (2018) that state the same thing as well; that basically, when it comes to children, an MRL based on NOAEL is used.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950
So; with ALL that being said, the 400 days Eve keeps referring to is irrelevant. The majority of studies for humans are done using NOAEL as the base. As ATSDR states, NOAEL is the recommendation when it involves human toxicity.
*Additions: Current Studies
Reconsideration of the immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950
Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants
This current study below, evaluates Mitkus’s study and his USE of the NOAEL.
As for the 2nd part of the Error #3, Eve added a comment about solubility and how Mitkus’s calculations had nothing to do with them;
I must say, this was a little challenging because she just didn’t seem to grasp the difference between an aluminum oral lactate/AlCI3 versus an aluminum salt injectable adjuvant like ALOH3/ALPO4. (She likes to brag how how she excelled in her chem courses). Ironically, she failed to realize that the solubility of the compound used is extremely important. Many factors play into bioavailability & glomerular filtration to aluminum oral compound/adjuvant elimination. An oral lactate or AlCI3 will eliminate fairly quickly as they are ionic compounds with quickly dissolving Al3+ to be eliminated. An aluminum salt, however, has very low solubility & consists of Al adjuvant nanoparticles (AANs). These aluminum (Al) nanoparticles (Nps) are harder to eliminate, as many are too large for glomerular filtration, they continue to circulate after first traveling the lymphatic system to trap in many organ tissues, including the brain. (Mitkus himself has an entire section on this in his study). Yet, Eve still just thinks it’s ALL eliminated.
No; it’s NOT all broken down & eliminated. That’s why Mitkus identifies that absorption reached a terminal phase for AlOH3 according to Flarend et al.
Basically; there are specific percents of elemental Al in ALL aluminum compounds. During this time in our debate, Eve is still just learning that an aluminum salt šhas elemental Al; so there is more to come.
Al3+ will still be excreted, as it very slowly dissolves, but at a very slow & more constant rate, as Al Nps have very little biodegradability in human pH; however, she just kept going on; assuming aluminum cannot cross the blood brain barrier (BBB) as well.
I’ve known aluminum can transport across the BBB for quite some time, but Eve however, even though Mitkus states it in his study, failed to take the time to thoroughly read the very study we were debating. See below; part of Mitkus’s entire section (1.2) on this.
As a note: Nearly every study, paper, and/or organization, refers to aluminum in a compound “as aluminum”. It is never considered “no longer aluminum”, just because it is bound to other elements, which is something the vax pushers like to use against the fact that there is elemental Al in adjuvant compounds; they somehow assume the entire base of the element changed and magically transformed into entirely something else. Eve was one of those people that tried to pull that on me after after I caught her Error stating there was no elemental Al in vaccine Al adjuvants.
We also have a element mass percent of elemental aluminum (identified below) for aluminum compounds, as I stated above.
There are even recommendations for how much elemental aluminum is allowed in vaccines; see below.
Eventually Eve catches up on those facts way further in the debate when we needed to go over the elemental aluminum limits for vaccines, and the amount of elemental aluminum in aluminum oral lactate/AlCI3 for rat studies ATSDR used to derive their MRL.
So HOW does this affect the Mitkus study?..
Well, for one, because he doesn’t account for the aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles (AANs). No study that he relied on for data accounts for AANs, only Al3+ (ions).
2nd, the MRL derived by ATSDR is only an estimate for oral, and not very reliable, as ATSDR clearly states. Mitkus uses dissolution & excretion rates of Al adjuvant study sources to calculate body burden of infants.
Eve’s whole basis on Mitkus & ATSDR including the injected sources in their data, explains the VERY reason why solubility is extremely important; however, we of course battled out her oranges with the claim that ATSDR included injectable sources in their MRL, you saw where that led, & it’s still stagnant.
*So with that, now comes Eve’s Error #4; in which you see how she takes her misunderstanding of NOAEL/LOAEL & MRL to manifest “separate” errors of the same issue, making her blog look like I’m just FULL of catastrophic mistakes in the debate..š.
Eve’s Error #4:
Eve implies that I claimed Mitkus used the MRL value to evaluate the safety of injecting aluminum adjuvant.
Hmm š¤, well yes Eve, I certainly did.
Here; let’s take a closer look at what I claimed.
Part of my claim above, is that Mitkus used those values (1mg Al/kg/day) to evaluate injecting insoluble aluminum adjuvant. Eve claimed that Mitkus didn’t use the MRL value AT ALL in his calculations, but simply as only a source of comparison.
..however, as you can see below, he absolutely DOES use the MRL value in his calculations, so Eve was šÆ% incorrect. Please see below, that according to the Mitkus study; the first step was to calculate safe “oral” daily doses by multiplying ATSDR’s MRL by infant body weight to obtain safe oral doses of aluminum the 1st year of life.
The next step was then determining dissolution and excretion rates to calculate infant body burden for injecting aluminum adjuvant sources rather than oral compounds, as I explained above in error #3.
Mitkus’s data incorporates, in total, calculation of all factors; including the use of 1mg Al/kg/day MRL Eve claimed Mitkus didn’t use to evaluate safety of injecting aluminum adjuvants. The new body burden is then compared to the accumulation of Al per ATSDR’s oral MRL of 1mg Al/kg/day.
Eve’s Error #5:
Basing my idea from another fantastic source, I demonstrated that a NOAEL of 3.4mg Al/mg/day is 7.6 times less than 26mg Al/mg/day (26/3.4 = 7.6), & demonstrated that the MRL would now be 7.6 times less on the Mitkus graph.
Eve insists that this was an incorrect way to demonstrate a graph adjustment if we were to knock the NOAEL value of 26mg Al/kg/day down to only 3.4mg Al/kg/day. However, it was NOT incorrect, and it was a simple way to show her the drastic difference it would make if there were such a study that demonstrated a NOAEL with the low 3.4mg Al/kg/day dose instead of the 26mg Al/kg/day. The reason it would be accurate, is because the calculations of 1mg/kg/day as an MRL provided by ATSDR, were based off of calculations using the NOAEL (also LOAEL); we would use the SAME EXACT calculations, but only with a different NOAEL value; therefore, the new resulting calculated MRL, would now be 7.6 times less also, as well as the departure on the graph and/or MRL providing the margin of safety. In other words, ALL of it would lower by a factor of 7.6, yet Eve missed that somehow.
Of course, I eventually showed her the exact calculated numbers, (which onviously were exactly 7.6 times less), but she still didnāt get my point, and added it as another scrap book entry into her blog.
To make things more specific though; ATSDR didn’t use precise calculations for their final MRL, instead, they rounded their calculations to 1mg/kg/day. Eve forgets to take that into consideration when she is demonstrating an error on my part, by basically saying that .867mg/kg/day divided by a factor of 7.6 is different than taking 1mg/kg/day divided by 7.6, & attempts to demonstrate that if ATSDR used the “exact” numbers (and say true MRL was 3.4mg/kg/day), when calculating to precise calculations, MRL would be .113 now instead of .1mg/kg/day (which is still the same value “when rounded” if you divide the graph by the 7.6). See below:
.867mg/kg/day divided by a factor of 7.6 is
.1mg/kg/day (.144mg/kg/day)
As is..
1mg/kg/day divided by 7.6 to =
.1mg/kg/day (.141mg/kg/day)
So on other words, both when rounded, arrive at the same graph point if Mitkus continued to use a rounded dose by ATSDR for the MRL; so Eveās perception was either missing a few sun rays when she wrote it, or it was just once again, another purposely misleading manifestation for her blog.
Eve’s Error #6:
Eve, “I suppose the wanna-be English teacher“, assumes that by marking up a pic of mine for her eventual blog with big red ink, (to suit how “she” believes I should present my refute), that she now somehow looks superior in knowledge to what I am demonstrating.
We have debated endlessly by the time I created that above, I assumed she KNEW I was obviously short handing for specific number values. No, I didn’t feel like labeling intermediate or chronic duration when I already labeled NOAEL & LOAEL there; and no, I didn’t feel like spelling things out when we just went over the entire debate already spelling it all out prior. I did however have a “typo” with affects vs effects, but she clearly knew I used the correct spelling “effects” in our entire debate prior. To make a long story short, she basically just scribbled on my paper to trick the audience into thinking she fixed multiple major errors.
This only demonstrates an extreme clutching on her part, and/or desperate need of manifested errors to add to her blog. In either case, see my re-marked up version below.
Eve’s Error #7, or mine:
This was a misunderstanding on both our parts.
..but here is what really happened:
She may be right, I may have had a typo somewhere in our debate on how I was wording the factor of 7.6; however, if so, that would have definitely been a slip up on my part, in that I may have meant 7.6 times less the mg worth in the graph, or, I may have meant the 7 on the graph that is in mg; regardless, I typed 7.6 as a factor (not mg) multiple times prior to my “supposed” slip up she claimed. I know for sure, during that particular clip she posted in her blog; that where I said “Quit fibbing..it is absolutely in mg”, that I was referring to the milligrams on the actual graph itself per when she said the below “No, the 7 is not expressed in milligrams”. She kept denying that she claimed the actual graph value of 7 on the y-axis wasn’t expressed in mg.
So here is what I think happened. I think she assumed I was talking about the 7.6 during our debate when I mentioned the 7 mg on the graph; or maybe I accidentally typed 7.6mg instead of 7mg somewhere, or possibly she was the one that typed 7 instead of 7.6. I cannot 100% accuse her of actually believing the y-axis on the graph wasn’t in mg, because it may have been a typo on her part. Our debate was branched from the main trunk of our debate, stretching several different directions by that point; so either her or I further confused the situation and/or her maybe her 7 above was the actual typo to confuse it all. In either case, this error is irrelevant on both our behalf, because they were just typos, whether she or I made the initial typo first, is irrelevant, and just more hyperbole.
Eve’s Error #8:
This one is a little more straight forward & simple. Eve can’t accept that a percent of something can be written in decimal form.
For my career (much further branched than Eve’s), we typically refer to percents on nearly anything in decimal form. As everyone knows, if you say .85 of something, it means a percent of something; in other words, .85mg is literally 85% of ONE milligram. As a typical response for me, I referred to percent in this debate being she knew we were already talking on milligrams of aluminum our entire conversation prior. In other words, for example, if you have 1mg of aluminum; only 85% of that 1mg is allowed in vaccines; it’s not hard AT ALL; so the fact remains, it is what is, it is a percent, period; as I stated above in her snapshot.
Debating this with her, was about as equivalent to debating whether supper was dinner, or dinner was supper.
Eve’s Error #9:
Of course, error #9 is another re-hash of Error #3; in which I already demonstrated where she is 100 percent wrong, and the rest was something she took out of context about infants being brain damaged because I agreed on the fact that an extremely low MRL of 3.4mg Al/kg/day would be very dangerous to an infants developing brain.
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; and, of course she would..š.
Eve’s Error #10:
More re-hashing, & getting boring, I doubt many people actually finished her blog, or even got through the first one or two sections. The only thing of interest to me in this section is the below.
“Departure to two months” & “responding factors” are both part of a sentence, with separate words, with separate definitions, not entire defining terms coupled as a whole, as she so ridiculously is making into a subject.
That would be like me saying “I went to the store to buy yummy gum”, and her stating that “yummy gum” is not in the dictionary. I mean honestly, where do these people come up with this nonsense?..
Only an individual of extreme desperation would clutch at anything possible to manifest such a thing & talley it into their supposed errors for their “award winning achievement scrap book”.
The rest of Error #10 was some junk on manifested dunning Krugers and blabbing about my anger for posting me publicly in her blog.
Ending our Debate:
With that being said; the debate came to an end when Jkelly jumped in; but it didn’t end for the reason she naively assumes. Eve has the clip posted in the beginning of her blog on me (Error #2) from when this happened, but I wanted to save it for last since it ended our discussion at the time.
Eve likes to display Jkelly jumping in as a breath of rescue to her, however, he disagreed with her in the end; he tries to avoid admitting it of course. I’ll get to that in a moment.
The first thing I want to point out is that the study Jkelly referenced (a 1979 study), wasn’t even the study I was speaking of in our debate. The study/studies I was supposing as a possible NOAEL of 3.4mg/kg/day were two very recent studies (which I mentioned once in our debate prior); but whatever, at the time, I did not want to discuss the touchy subject any further and walked away.
The next thing I want to point out is that Eve displayed big and bright on her blog, herself contradicting what Jkelly stated. Now either Jkelly worded it wrong & Eve didn’t evaluate enough prior to excitingly jumping to conclusions and displaying him on her blog, or she assumed he meant what SHE was stating.
As you can see above; Jkelly states “17mg/kg/day “AS AlCI3”.
Eve says “NOT AlCI3.
*FYI; If the study was in elemental doses, it most likely would demonstrate the dose as 17mg Al/kg/day, not 17mg/kg/day as typically used for compounds. However, it seems not “all” follow those standards; so that particular 1979 study is irrelevant.
With that, at the end of the debate, Jkelly claimed what I’ve been telling Eve the entire debate (also clearly demonstrated above in Eve’s Error #3).
What Jkelly confirmed in his own expertise, was that Mitkus was based NOAEL and had nothing to do with LOAEL. Funny enough though; when Jkelly jumped in, he automatically assumed I was the one basing the calculations on LOAEL and asked Eve about it; she was confused by that, I mean after all, we just spent several weeks debating her idea that it was LOAEL.
He goes on to make sure that I am aware LOAEL wasn’t used.
Jkelly was obviously aggravated at the end when he realized it was actually Eve that didn’t understand the study. He eventually told Eve it had nothing to do with LOAEL, and asked her to end the discussion.
So, that’s where he lost her I suppose, and then she remained that way to this day, a year later, in complete cognitive dissonance mode (more on that in my next entry).
Jkelly and myself were right; he is NOT on my side however, but I appreciate his honesty regardless with what he knows; even if it pains him to do so.
The 3rd Debate: NONSENSE
The 3rd Debate started when Eve relentlessly tweeted and spammed her blog at me for a couple days while I ignored her after not talking to her for year. All I can say about this one, is that it was a re-hash of Mitkus, with a little twist, the same errors of hers, the same nonsense, with some additions, a few denials, a couple fibs, you know how that goes.
I will come back to this, because I still have a lot to say. *The next section is dedicated to extras.
Extra
This section below is a re-cap and some extra’s; it’s pretty much self explanatory.
*To be continued….
Alum Oranges 