According to Skeptical Raptor, 125 mcg = 1,250 mcg

After a series of completely pointless ad hominem attacks, Skeptical Raptor really sticks his foot in his mouth. while trying (but failing) to critique “Reconsideration of the immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum

According to Skeptical Raptor, 125 micrograms is now equivalent to 1,250 micrograms. Let’s read:


Checking our paper, the maximum limit per vaccine is 1,250. But I’m only a multiple degreed scientist, so clearly I cannot be relied upon for elementary things like multiplication. So we go to the source (CFR 21CFR610.15):


Now, because I’m only a scientist, and milligrams to micrograms conversion may somehow confuse me, let’s ask The Google:


He? then goes on to calculate the totals that an infant could get at 4,225 micrograms in the first year of life.

Nice blog, but that’s wrong.

Our paper was analyzed and reviewed by other scientists, and our math show the expected annual dose to be 4,925 micrograms.

Not a big difference. He’s not thinking for himself, he’s not looking at the schedule. Or he’s not checking his math.

But…. Relevance?

Skeptical Raptor completely ignores the findings of our analysis. Because toxic dose levels are to be done per kg per day, i.e., mcg/kg/day, it was elementary to calculate, given body weight distribution curves for the population, the acute dose levels expressed correctly as mcg/kg/day. For the first two months, the CDC schedule causes exposure to acute toxicity. On make-up days, 5, 7 and as high as 9 vaccines can be given at once.

Before they do another make-up day, pediatricians should add up the micrograms of aluminum, and divide by the child’s weight (in kg), and call FDA and ask if that it a toxic dose. Demand answers.

SR Makes the Same Food More than Vaccines Fallacy as Another Flawed Thinker

SR claims then that more aluminum goes into the body from breast milk and air than from vaccines.

Yet only 0.1% to 0.3% (i.e. 0.001 to 0.003 x total) [Yokel] of aluminum from food or water that passes through the gut is actually absorbed and metabolically available.

The other flawed thinker who ignores this reality, and ignores the importance of acute toxicity of aluminum, is Paul Offit.

Thanks to Skeptical Raptor, All Forms of Aluminum are Now Magically The Same

Then SR makes this incomprehensibly incorrect claim:

“All aluminum is the same, whether from vaccines or pure breast milk from an organically fed mom. I tires of these arguments from science deniers that try to claim that one molecule has some ridiculous difference than another.”

This is why we don’t rely on Skeptical Raptor for anything.

Once Skeptical Raptor wrote his blog, all forms of aluminum, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum chloride, aluminum lactate, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum nitrate are magically became biologically identical and now have identical toxicity. This study was also immediately proven wrong:

“Three major forms of aluminum adjuvants with substantially different physical and chemical properties have been described: aluminum phosphate (AlPO(4)), aluminum hydroxide (AlOH) and amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS)…”

If Skeptical Raptor is this wrong on one of the most important vaccine additives, was else is he wrong about?

A billion times more importantly: If HHS/ATSDR/FDA can be so wrong about aluminum pediatric dosing of aluminum, what else have they been wrong about?

BTW, I’m not “Anti-vaccine” as Skeptical Raptor needs me to be. I am for safer means of artificial immunization. And I, not SR, nor anyone else, speaks for me.

I am Vaccine Risk Aware and refuse to deny vaccine injury, because that’s cruel and unscientific.

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

April 11, 2018

Allison Park, PA

4 thoughts on “According to Skeptical Raptor, 125 mcg = 1,250 mcg

  1. This is not the first time the Skeptical Raptor did this. I noticed that some of his other calculations were wrong too virtually any step was wrong. When someone pointed out the errors to him he corrected them and still got the calculation wrong.

    I think in one case the results of his calculations were off by a factor of 10000. It is not that he makes minor errors the results often do not have to do anything with reality at all.

    I doubt that this guy is even a scientist. He behaves like he understands what he his doing and ends up bullying anyone he disagrees with because he is so convinced he understands the science.

    One example is the analysis of the paper discussing increased mortality following the DTP vaccine, he talks about it being so poorly done as if he knows what the is doing.

    Usually no one pays attention to what he is writing and he gets away with it. That time someone posted a reply of the author of the study, a professor and someone with real credentials. He refuted the arguments point by point highlighting how the Raptor either does not understand what he is doing or gets things wrong intentionally.

    These are not a few selected cases, it is a general pattern on this blog.

    It has little to do with science more with an anonymous and incompetent guy bullying and stalking people who do not share his opinion. In reality his blog is a good a example of pseudoscience, someone who wants to make it seem he is doing science while he is not.

    We will probably see more attacks and bullying from him or his friends soon.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. What can I say? How can you respect incompetence like that?
    Yes, he and his gang will be around again.
    I found this recently and have only just had time to check the links:
    The article deals with astroturfing and means to dominate internet discussion by members of skeptic groups. The section below David Gorski’s photo is a discussion of tactics they recommend- and I have followed the chain all the way back to Gorski’s blog. There are no errors in attribution, and clearly a senior doctor is endorsing this sort of behaviour by allowing this material to remain on his blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I noticed that SR claims you cited a retraced paper by Shaw and Tomljenovic. It took me about five seconds to compare the paper SR linked in the blog to the two papers you actually cited by Shaw and Tomljenovic in your paper. As you likely know that retracted paper was not in your citations. When I commented with “You need to learn to read links. The journal did retract it, but it remains on its website because it’s a crap journal. Awwww, I’m sorry that you worship James Lyons-Weiler and you’ve been shown to be wrong.” Not only was that response nonsensical, it was also condescending and assumptive for no reason whatsoever. It also highlights the pattern of bullying that XOMT pointed out as well as serious issues with reading comprehension, or even the ability to read at all. So this person has proven to be: a bully, incapable of basic math or reading for no other reason than because someone disagrees with him or corrects him. So this person is either a liar or incompetent, both are unacceptable when you claim that “But, science is science – the only thing that matters is evidence, and that’s the only thing I use.”


  4. Oops my comment was actually ” So no one cares that the retracted paper that raptor is referencing isn’t actually cited in the Lyons-Weiler paper?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s