Originally Posted by prosciencemum
In a separate discussion of this issue I've been having, someone claimed that thimerosol was starting to be removed in the 1980s, and was well in decline over the 1990s in the lead up to the official recommendation. They said this was mostly due to the availability of different preservatives, and also the combining of multiple vaccines into single shots (so they all could use one "dose" of preservative). I don't have any references either to support your statement or his, but they are quite contradictory....
Since you call yourself "prosciencemum," I would assume that you understand the need for accuracy and transparency here.
No, thimerosal was not "removed" in the 1980's. That is a misleading statement, implying that there was awareness in the 1980's of potential harm from thimerosal in vaccines, and that they were purposely reformulated with the purpose of removing thimerosal, which was certainly NOT the case. (Interestingly, there WAS awareness of harm from thimerosal used in things like eyedrops and contact lens solutions, and thimerosal WAS banned by the FDA in OTC products beginning in 1998--not in the 1980's. See http://www.pathfindersforautism.org/articles/view/a-timeline-of-the-thimerosal-controversy) What happened with vaccines in the 1980's was that the MMR--a live-virus vaccine that cannot contain thimerosal and still be effective--replaced the separate, thimerosal-preserved measles, mumps and rubella shots.
"In 2011-2012, out of 13 flu vaccination formulations, 4 contain thimerosol (which is 30% of them; and is only those sold in multi-dose vials where risk of infection is high and therefore the antibacterial properties of thimerosol are needed). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm
I have yet to find information on the usage rates of the different vaccination formulations, but I cannot find any suggestion that 90% contain thimerosol. What I did find was a press release from "Put Children First" from 2006 which claimed the 90% figure, but gave no data, and NVIC also claim 80-90% on their "Mercury in Vaccines" page, but again no data."
Then maybe we need to find some data on usage rates of the different formulations. There could be 100 different flu vaccination formulations rather than 13, but if the 4 thimerosal-preserved ones are the ones in general usage, while the others are "special order only" (which is often the case), then it doesn't matter how many other thimerosal-free versions exist if they're not usually used. If neither you nor I seem to be able to find such data, that makes it difficult to come to a conclusion. The pharmacies, Wal-Marts, Rite-Aids, CVS stores, K-Marts, and Targets are where most people in my area go for their flu shots--and the ones in my area do not even order thimerosal-free shots unless you request in advance, and pay the difference in price (they are much more expensive).
If the autism study dates follow the pattern, then the rate in 2014 will be about 1/66, with the rate of autism in boys in New Jersey being something like 1/15.
How can you predict the results of a study not yet done. I just meant the next results would be released in 2014, we'll have to wait to see what the actual autism rate is until then.
I should have said, "if the autism study dates and data follow the pattern." I am assuming the same growth rate, as it has been consistently about 12%.
That's a paid journal I don't have access to. However I found a skpetical review of it on LeftbrainRightBrain.co.uk (http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/another-weak-study-proves-vaccines-cause-autism/) which questioned the sample size. They say the autism group contained only 33 boys, 9 of which were given the HepB vaccination with thimerosol, my understanding of errors on sample fractions gives that as 27+/-9%, which is consistent with the vaccinated fraction they found in the much larger sample on non-autistic boys (17%). Also there were issues with the age range, with some of the boys having been of an age that they would never have been given the Hep B vaccine as it was not yet introduced, so the review compares it to correlations of the amount of cable TV being watched by children and autism rates.....
LeftbrainRightBrain is more extremist in their approach to vaccines than any vaccine safety organization I have ever seen. They not only spout the beliefs that vaccines are safe and effective, and that vaccine-induced harm is vanishingly rare, but they viciously trash anyone who disagrees with them. They don't consider that there might be any truth to the thousands of us who try to tell people what kind of reactions we and our children have had to vaccines. The attitude there is a revolting combination of snarkiness, intimidation, condescension, and arrogance, and utterly lack empathy/sympathy for those who have had adverse reactions to vaccines.
Snarkiness is deemed to be "good clean fun" by many people on the internet these days--but if you are a victim of both vaccine reaction and snarkiness against vaccine critics, it's not good, it's not clean, and it's not fun. It's downright evil. Perhaps you might imagine how your own loved one might feel if he or she were in my position.
For obvious reasons, I personally find LBRB extremely offensive, as offensive as whale.to. (Yes, I find whale.to extremely offensive, and I never quote them.) I don't think they should be quoted or referenced in this discussion, any more than whale.to.
The abstract of this one states "Several epidemiological studies failed to find a correlation between mercury exposure through thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, and the risk of autism." Is that part of their conclusions wrong?
Not any more wrong than epidemiological studies paid for, directed by, interpreted by, and marketed by tobacco companies, stating "several epidemiological studies failed to find a correlation between cigarettes and lung cancer." And not any more wrong than vaccine "safety" studies that don't allow at-risk patients in their studies, yet recommend those same vaccines for at-risk patients, and not any more wrong than vaccine "safety" studies which claim "as safe or safer than placebo" without declaring that the "placebo" isn't a true placebo, but something that can and does cause harm to a subgroup. Epidemiological studies are not designed to find at-risk subgroups.
In other words, that part of their conclusion is not exactly wrong, but is extremely misleading.
This isn't a study, it's an opinion piece by "Robert Kennedy Jr. is senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council". A similar article was apparently retracted by both Salon.com and Rolling Stone Magazine. (http://www.care2.com/causes/salon-retracts-controversial-article-by-robert-kennedy-jr-linking-vaccines-to-autism.html).
Robert Kennedy also claimed (thanks Google) to be unqualified to comment on the link between autism and vaccines in an episode of the Daily Show (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/kennedy_admits_.html).
"A mother who knows better" - than actual scientific studies. That's pretty much all I have to say. If you're happy with that then I probably should give up. Probably should anyway - I'm supposed to be working on my research not reading all these links!
The "mother who knows better" LIVED it. Then again, I might not have been so quick to believe her story, had I not lived it, too. I, too, was told that 1) reactions like that don't happen and 2) oh, yeah, guess you did have a reaction, but it's vanishingly rare, don't worry about it. It wasn't until I found out that others--SO MANY OTHERS--had the same reactions that it occurred to me that maybe a mother COULD know better, maybe there really what I'd been taught about vaccines was lies and propoganda, that the end result was not my health but $$ for Big Pharma.
It's really sad--most of us simply don't believe it until it happens to us or to our own children.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
--Martin Niemoller (should be an umlaut over the o, but I don't know how to find one on my computer, sorry!)
You are also incorrect as charactarizing the study you linked as "independent." Perhaps you forgot to look at the author affiliations?
Yeah I'm not sure what I meant by independent. What would you mean? Science is funded in many and messy ways. My point is just that there are a lot of people researching this who work at all sorts of different places and these studies do not find any links. Not all of them could possibly be being paid of by "big pharma" to make these results.
Why not? We know enough about Vioxx, Lipitor, etc., and the outright lies and corruption that prevented the publication of severe adverse effects there. There were a lot of people researching those drugs, who worked at all sorts of different places, and doctors were initially told that THE STUDIES DID NOT FIND ANY LINKS. Why would vaccine manufacture--by the same companies, but with even bigger financial ramifications--be any different?
I have no problem giving my children thimerosol containing vaccines. The amount of mercury is so tiny that it is dwarfed by the rest of their environmental exposure. Flu shots are not as common in the UK as in the USA, but my daughter had them while we lived in the USA. I do not know if it was a multi-vial with thimerosol or not. But if you want to continue the anecdote, she's of above average intelligence with no signs of ASD at age 5.
I'm truly glad your daughter is doing well developmentally and health-wise. There is no worse nightmare than watching your child regress and suffer--unless it's watching your child regress and suffer, KNOWING at least one major contributing factor, but not being able to convince people that that's what happened.
I can't remember where I read this comparison, but it was apt, and I paraphrase it here:
When you child is hit by a car, nobody questions you when you say, "Help my child--he was hit by a car!" There is absolutely no hesitation getting an ambulance, getting him to the ER, recomending the specialists who can possibly save his limbs or even his life, getting tests, casts, painkillers--whatever is necessary to help hiim. This is modern medicine at its best, truly.
Nobody says,"no, cars don't DO that," or "well, it's a one-in-a-million fluke." Nobody says, "what did you DO to this child?" Nobody says, "don't worry, he'll grow out of it," or "no, he's not in pain, children hit by cars just act like that." AND NOBODY PRETENDS THAT THE CAR DIDN'T HIT HIM.
As I said before if you do not trust Wikipedia you can edit it yourself.
I won't bother; someone from LBRB will just re-edit it.