or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › more on thimerosal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

more on thimerosal - Page 6

post #101 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 It's all a bit beside the point for (most) vaccine safety considerations anyway because there's none of either in any childhood vaccine, and not in most types of available flu shot either. 

There are no publicly funded flu shots in Canada that are thim free.

 

It also looks like Hep B has thim in it - although thim free is available in some provinces:

 

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/q_a_thimerosal-eng.php

 

Just an FYI that everyone needs to check their own countries status with regards to thim.  

post #102 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

There are no publicly funded flu shots in Canada that are thim free.

 

It also looks like Hep B has thim in it - although thim free is available in some provinces:

 

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/q_a_thimerosal-eng.php

 

Just an FYI that everyone needs to check their own countries status with regards to thim.  

Good point.

post #103 of 126
Quote:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 Ethylmercury is more rapidly metabolized in the brain and kidneys than methylmercury.  Many scientists believe it is actually more dangerous than methylmercury.

 

I'd like to read up on the studies that suggest it's more dangerous. All I've read (which I assume is what Rrrachel is refering to) are people suggesting that because it's metabolized more quickly and eliminated more quickly it's likely to be safer than methyl mercury. 

 

And while we're bringing up the two, did you know that if you eat tuna (or many other types of fish, or other types of canned food, or drink soda) the methyl mercury you get as a result will completely dwarf (like by factors of 100) any ethyl mercury you got as a result of thimerosol in any of the vaccines you get. 

post #104 of 126
Ethyl mercury is excreted much more quickly and reaches the brain in lower quantities than methyl mercury.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/mercury-levels-after-vaccines-thimerosal
post #105 of 126

  What I find fascinating is that anyone that has done a thorough investigation of the HISTORY of thimerosal and it's applications and use and it's banning can think that this stuff is safe to use in any quanity in any application.

 

The original study used by Eli Lilly to say this stuff was safe in 1930 was crap and it's still held up today as a valid study. Never mind that the 22 patients that were administered thimerosal were all sick with meningitis at the time, so that it is not clear whether any adverse effects brought on by the administration of thimerosal were the result of the meningitis or the treatment.  Approximately 1/3rd of the 22 patients reported on were only followed-up for one day following treatment, and among all 22 patients examined the maximum numbers of days of follow-up was only 62 days.

 

 If its non toxic why has it's use been banned in all OTC applications? Although this ban was proposed in 1982 it didn't go into effect until 1998 (this in and of itself is criminal imo). if its non-toxic than why in 1991 was it banned for use in all injectables for animals?

If it is so safe why in the 1940's when being used in military vaccines did the DoD require Lilly to label it as poison?  because it was well established by the 1940s in peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature that injecting thimerosal into sensitive individuals could cause serious injury.

The damaging effect of thimerosal is evident in Eli Lilly’s own MSDS. Lilly acknowledges that thimerosal is “toxic;” has “Nervous System and Reproductive Effects” and “alters genetic material.” The company also warns that exposure to the mercury in their product “in utero and in children can cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment.” It’s funny that this document that used to be easily accessed online is no longer available. This WAS the url:  http://www.nomercury.org/science/documents/MSDS-Eli_Lilly-1991.pdf

What I find even sadder is that there is NO GOOD REASON to use this stuff at all – ever. It is not even effective and there is plenty of evidence that this is the case.  In 1985 the  CDC evaluated the use of Thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines. The authors (Stetler et al)  reported that Thimerosal was ineffective as a vaccine preservative. The study found that Stretococcus survived 14 days after injection into a multi-dose DTP vaccine vial.  And again in 1991 the Lancet reported that it was toxic and useless: Seal D, Ficker L, Wright P, Andrews V., The Case Against Thimerosal. Lancet 1991;338:315-316. (Thimerosal is a weak antibacterial agent that is rapidly broken down to products, including ethylmercury residues, which are neurotoxic. Its role as a preservative in vaccines has been questioned, and the pharmaceutical industry considers its use as historical.) and Engley, F.B. Soap and Chemical Specialties 1956; 200-5, 223-5 (Thimerosal and other mercury-containing preservatives were not effective to reduce bacterial contamination.) and Heyworth MF, Truelove SC., Problems Associated with the Use of Merthiolate as a Preservative in Anti-Lymphocytic Globulin, Toxicology 1979;12:325-333. (“When it was first introduced as an anti-microbial preservative, little information about the fundamental biological effects of organic mercury compounds was available. We should like to suggest that Merthiolate should now be regarded as an inappropriate preservative for materials which are intended for administration to human subjects.”)

 

 If the stuff is safe why have many other countries including Russia,Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries banned it’s use many years ago (1980)

Im sorry this debate IMO is stupid. The stuff is toxic – and politics rules – as always. It’s not about what safe and effective. It never has been and the cynical part of me thinks it never will be.

post #106 of 126
Tl, dr.
post #107 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Tl, dr.

 

Wow, that is so rude.

post #108 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Tl, dr.

 That's funny. I just timed myself reading it and it took me less than 2 minutes. I don't think the reason you didn't read it has anything to do with length but we'll go with that. winky.gif

post #109 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

I'd like to read up on the studies that suggest it's more dangerous. All I've read (which I assume is what Rrrachel is refering to) are people suggesting that because it's metabolized more quickly and eliminated more quickly it's likely to be safer than methyl mercury. 

 

And while we're bringing up the two, did you know that if you eat tuna (or many other types of fish, or other types of canned food, or drink soda) the methyl mercury you get as a result will completely dwarf (like by factors of 100) any ethyl mercury you got as a result of thimerosol in any of the vaccines you get. 

Why do you keep bringing up the comparison of ingested mercury, when you have been presented with the facts several times in other threads?
 

http://vran.org/about-vaccines/vaccine-ingredients/mercury-thimersol-neurodevelopment-outcomes/

"The exposures reviewed were from different delivery modalities and there is a considerable difference in the toxicity of many materials when oral intake is compared to injections via the vaccine route. Total mercury in the blood stream does not distinguish between bound mercury (e.g. that coupled with glutathione and being removed from the body) and unreacted mercury (that available to cause further damage). Ratios of bound and free ethyl mercury are likely to be different if ethyl mercury is eaten or inhaled versus injected, bypassing the protective systems available in the intestines."

post #110 of 126
You're right. It probably had more to do with the lack of paragraphs and wall-of-text presentation than the actual length.
post #111 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Tl, dr.

What does this mean, Rrrrrachel?

post #112 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post

What does this mean, Rrrrrachel?

I'm not rrrrrachel but it means "too long, didn't read"
post #113 of 126

Wow, that was rude, especially since it was important information.

post #114 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Wow, that was rude, especially since it was important information.

 

Can you imagine if someone said that in response to a link of a published study?  So much for mature debate.

post #115 of 126
Quote:

 

 

 

despite the lack of any evidence of danger in that review, the FDA still recommended that it be removed/reduced in all vaccines in 1999 "just in case" they had missed something: 

 

 

 

 

And you buy this?  Your bullshit detector doesn't go off even a little bit? 

 

What a lame proclamation to make, that they're advising thim. removed "just in case" they missed something.  Why would they do that?  Have they ever removed any other ingredient from vaccines "just in case?"

post #116 of 126

Sorry, I have to revisit this concept of just in case. What does urging vaccine makers to remove thimerosal "just in case" ACTUALLY say to the public?

 

It says "We are not sure if this ingredient is safe."

 

And yet it is allowed in flu shots?  It's allowed to be given to pregnant women and infants?  Come on.  Major mixed messages happening here.  How are these inconsistencies supposed to help parents trust the experts when they say anything re: vaccine safety? 

post #117 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

Sorry, I have to revisit this concept of just in case. What does urging vaccine makers to remove thimerosal "just in case" ACTUALLY say to the public?

 

It says "We are not sure if this ingredient is safe."

 

And yet it is allowed in flu shots?  It's allowed to be given to pregnant women and infants?  Come on.  Major mixed messages happening here.  How are these inconsistencies supposed to help parents trust the experts when they say anything re: vaccine safety? 

 

I agree.  And I think it's one of the stupidist public relation moves that the FDA ever made.

post #118 of 126
I also agree. I think the mentality was and is that vaccination is so important better to remove the ingredient, even without evidence it's harmful, than have people no vaccinate because of it. Of course, it kind of backfired. I doubt a single person vaccinates now who wouldn't have then, they've just shifted the rumor mill to something new.
post #119 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Why do you keep bringing up the comparison of ingested mercury, when you have been presented with the facts several times in other threads?
 

http://vran.org/about-vaccines/vaccine-ingredients/mercury-thimersol-neurodevelopment-outcomes/

"The exposures reviewed were from different delivery modalities and there is a considerable difference in the toxicity of many materials when oral intake is compared to injections via the vaccine route. Total mercury in the blood stream does not distinguish between bound mercury (e.g. that coupled with glutathione and being removed from the body) and unreacted mercury (that available to cause further damage). Ratios of bound and free ethyl mercury are likely to be different if ethyl mercury is eaten or inhaled versus injected, bypassing the protective systems available in the intestines."

 

Mostly because I don't accept that the facts you present are actually true. So in that sense they are not facts.

 

That link you give is to an organisation which in my opinion wishes to demonstrate vaccines are dangerous and is an afidavit (not not an actual scientific research paper, just a statement) from a retired chemist who studied the effects of metallic mercury on cells (not the same as thimerosol as I have repeatedly pointed out), and whose "views about mercury and dental amalgams go against the consensus held in the medical community." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_Haley).

post #120 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You're right. It probably had more to do with the lack of paragraphs and wall-of-text presentation than the actual length.

 Geez, sorry it was not visually pleasing to you. Ill try and keep that in mind next time I post something. biglaugh.gif

 

I had to actually type that in a word document because I was having trouble with my computer and when I pasted it, it messed it all up and I had to cobble it together the best I could.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › more on thimerosal