or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Poul Thorsen
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Poul Thorsen - Page 2

post #21 of 35
The 'science' behind the Denmark study has been *amply* critiqued.

Rrrrrachel: First, any comments about Wakefield are totally subjective. Let's not get into Brian 'just a journalist' Deer & his 'stock in Mereck' boss Murdoch! Second, Wakefield's conduct did not land him on an actual 'Wanted' list. So add 'debatable' to 'subjective' above.

Also, Thimerisol could not be more relevant today, just like the Cutter incident remains relevant (historic safety & accountability issues) but it is also relevant on a whole 'nother level: the CDC continues to assert that Thimerisol is safe for expectant mothers & during the H1N1 Flu season a pregnant woman following directions may have had 75mcg of Thimerisol (2 H1N1 & 1 regular flu shots). Also some children's annual flu shots still contain Thimerisol, especially those who receive shots @ clinics.

Finally, I am not limiting my view of this issue to the US, Globally Thimerisol is very much still in use in Childhood vaccines.
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

during the H1N1 Flu season a pregnant woman following directions may have had 75mcg of Thimerisol (2 H1N1 & 1 regular flu shots)

 

Flu shots contain both H1N1 and seasonal flu vax, and an adult needs only one shot per year.

post #23 of 35
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

during the H1N1 Flu season a pregnant woman following directions may have had 75mcg of Thimerisol (2 H1N1 & 1 regular flu shots)

 

Flu shots contain both H1N1 and seasonal flu vax, and an adult needs only one shot per year.

dinahx stated quite clearly that it was during the H1N1 season 2009 or 2010 don't remember which. 

post #24 of 35
And a pregnant woman (or any adult) who has never before recieved a flu shot is advised to get two, even now.
post #25 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Thimerosal isn't really relevant to the debate on childhood vaccination anymore, anyway.

 

I'm afraid this statement is incorrect.

 

Thimerosal is completely relevant to the debate on childhood vaccinations.

 

The 2012 autism rate as announced this year by the CDC is 1 in 88.  This rate is significantly higher than the previous rate, and the rate before that, and the rate before that, in spite of no changes to diagnostic criteria for autism in the preceeding decade. More importantly, profound autism has increased at the same rate, and there's no doubt about diagnosis with severely autistic children.

 

How is this relevant to thimerosal in vaccines?

The 2012 autism rate is based on data from 2008--on EIGHT-YEAR-OLDS.  Yes, they were born in 2000, and most of the vaccines they received that year and the next, starting with the hep B shot at birth, were preserved with thimerosal.  Not a "trace amount" of thimerosal, but the full amount. 

 

Moreover, currently, millions of people, including infants as young as 6 months and women in all stages of pregnancy, are still given THIMEROSAL-PRESERVED flu vaccines, with the first time dose being two shots.  The cumulative amount of thimerosal--just from flu shots-- in a child's system by age 6 is very significant, if, as, discussed in other threads here, the child has any underlying issues (like vitamin D deficiency, for example, which is very common) that prevent his body from properly excreting heavy metals.

 

In addition, when the immune system is exposed to thimerosal and aluminum at the same time, the effects are even worse.  And flu shots are given in conjunction with aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.

 

And let's not forget that the US vaccine manufacturers are still making thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines. For the most part, they are shipping them off to developing countries, where the autism rate is also skyrocketing.  But some states now have legislation that allows the use fo thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines if there is a "shortage" of thimerosal-free vaccines.

 

They are also still making thimerosal-preserved adult vaccines, for use in the US. When you get your pertussis booster, if it comes from a multi-use vial, it contains thimerosal. And TDaPs are now being given to pregnant women. 

 

Some doctors even give older children the adult (thimerosal-preserved) version of a vaccine, because it is less expensive than the individual-dose, pre-loaded syringe.

 

So, with pregnant women being given up to 3 thimerosal-preserved vaccines during pregnancy, and many infants being given 2 thimerosal-preserved flu shots starting at 6 months, and then yearly thimerosal-preserved flu shots after that--that's a significant amount of thimerosal.

 

Yes, thimerosal is relevant to the debate on childhood vaccination.

post #26 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


The 2012 autism rate is based on data from 2008--on EIGHT-YEAR-OLDS.  Yes, they were born in 2000, and most of the vaccines they received that year and the next, starting with the hep B shot at birth, were preserved with thimerosal.  Not a "trace amount" of thimerosal, but the full amount. 

 

Thank you for the reminder. I keep forgetting about this. 

 

 

Moreover, currently, millions of people, including infants as young as 6 months and women in all stages of pregnancy, are still given THIMEROSAL-PRESERVED flu vaccines, with the first time dose being two shots.  The cumulative amount of thimerosal--just from flu shots-- in a child's system by age 6 is very significant, if, as, discussed in other threads here, the child has any underlying issues (like vitamin D deficiency, for example, which is very common) that prevent his body from properly excreting heavy metals.

 

According to a study done on HEALTHY infants, thimerosal is excreted in the blood in about 3.5 days. 

 

I don't know if I'd want my healthy infant to have it knocking around in her system for even that long, though. 

post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

You know, you can trust your child's health to Thoreson science & use Thimerisol some of us just choose not to. The entire non-vax case does not rest on Wakefield. For many years I disregarded him & the potential MMR issues entirely.

 

Right. And the entire "pro-vax", argument doesn't rest on Thoreson.

 

 I already said this, but I'll try again: Yes he's a scumbag. Yes he stole money. Doesn't mean science he was involved in is all completely wrong. 

post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

 

The 2012 autism rate is based on data from 2008--on EIGHT-YEAR-OLDS.  Yes, they were born in 2000, and most of the vaccines they received that year and the next, starting with the hep B shot at birth, were preserved with thimerosal.  Not a "trace amount" of thimerosal, but the full amount. 

 

 

This has been stated many times and is in my opinion a distortion of the truth. Autism data published in 2012 is based on data from 8 year olds. I agree with that. They were born in 2000. I agree with that. What I disagree with is the picture painted of when thimerosol was removed. It began even before 2000 when it was officially recommended. 

 

Here is a table which states when thimerosol was removed from the vaccines on the childhood schedule in the US which contained it (notice how many never had any in the first place).

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#act

 

Here's the recommended vaccination schedule in the USA from 2000 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4902a4.htm 

 

Here's my matching of the two. Please correct me where I'm wrong, because to be honest from this list I'm confused why thimerosol was ever an issue. 

 

Series in first 18 months (note this extends to 2001-2002 for these children some of whom were born at the end of 2000)

3 doses of Hep B  - one version thimerosol free in 1999, the other licenses thimerosol free in March 2000.

4 doses Dtap - 2 types never had thimerosol, the third was licensed thimerosol free in March 2001

4 doses HiB - of kinds available in 2000 one never contained thimerosol, the other was licensed in thimerosol free version in 1999

3 doses IPV - never contained thimerosol

 

at ~12 months (so in 2001 or early 2002) 

MMR - never contained thimerosol

Varicella - never contained thimerosol

 

 So stating children born in 2000 had higher than ever thimerosol "load" seems to be just not true. 

 

 Today none of these have thimerosol at all. And almost 50% (62 million out of a projected 135 million) of the available flu vaccinations this year in the USA will be thimerosol free. That's from here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxsupply.htm. If you have any concern - ask for a thimerosol free version. 

 

So I think Rrrrrachel's right that thimerosol is completely irrelevent to the childhood vaccination debate these days (well actually I think it always was, but that's my opinion). 

post #29 of 35
It isn't completely absent even in the US, so it cannot be completely irrelevant. And as there was no *recall*, vaxes that contained Thimerisol remained in inventory after the offical recommendation.

I would also continue to argue that the discussion of routine childhood vax transcends US borders AND that maternal/fetal Thimerisol is even more relevant than infant/child Thimerisol. And BTW, what happens to all that 'easily excreted' ethyl mercury, when it is excreted from, for example, 50% of todays Flu Vax recipients?
post #30 of 35

Moving the goal posts.  Why do I bother.  

post #31 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

This has been stated many times and is in my opinion a distortion of the truth. Autism data published in 2012 is based on data from 8 year olds. I agree with that. They were born in 2000. I agree with that. What I disagree with is the picture painted of when thimerosol was removed. It began even before 2000 when it was officially recommended. 

 

Here is a table which states when thimerosol was removed from the vaccines on the childhood schedule in the US which contained it (notice how many never had any in the first place).

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#act

 

Here's the recommended vaccination schedule in the USA from 2000 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4902a4.htm 

 

Here's my matching of the two. Please correct me where I'm wrong, because to be honest from this list I'm confused why thimerosol was ever an issue. 

 

Series in first 18 months (note this extends to 2001-2002 for these children some of whom were born at the end of 2000)

3 doses of Hep B  - one version thimerosol free in 1999, the other licenses thimerosol free in March 2000.

4 doses Dtap - 2 types never had thimerosol, the third was licensed thimerosol free in March 2001

4 doses HiB - of kinds available in 2000 one never contained thimerosol, the other was licensed in thimerosol free version in 1999

3 doses IPV - never contained thimerosol

 

at ~12 months (so in 2001 or early 2002) 

MMR - never contained thimerosol

Varicella - never contained thimerosol

 

 So stating children born in 2000 had higher than ever thimerosol "load" seems to be just not true. 

 

 Today none of these have thimerosol at all. And almost 50% (62 million out of a projected 135 million) of the available flu vaccinations this year in the USA will be thimerosol free. That's from here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxsupply.htm. If you have any concern - ask for a thimerosol free version. 

 

So I think Rrrrrachel's right that thimerosol is completely irrelevent to the childhood vaccination debate these days (well actually I think it always was, but that's my opinion). 

I'm happy to correct where you are wrong.

 

Your major error is in assuming that because SOME thimerosal-free pediatric vaccines BEGAN to be manufactured in 2000, that the thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines were no longer manufactured.  Or sold in the US.  Or distributed. Or used. Or sat on shelves in doctors' offices, waiting to be used.

 

The pharmaceutical companies continued to sell and distribute thimerosal-preserved vaccines for as long as their shelf life was good.

 

Many pediatricians opted for the thimerosal-preserved vaccines for as long as possible, as they were cheaper to purchase, easier to store, and they were under no obligation to offer thimerosal-free vaccines. So they continued to USE thimerosal-preserved vaccines for as long as their shelf life was good.  Our pediatrician was still using them in 2004, and the expiration date was not for a few months (I looked).

 

And, as I stated before, flu shots (yes, preserved with thimerosal) were recommended for infants as young as 6 months, and women in all stages of pregnancy starting in 2004.  Coincidentally (or not), that is when the thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines used in the US reached the end of their shelf life.

 

As long as infants as young as 6 months and pregnant women are being injected with thimerosal, which crosses the placenta, it cannot be truthfully stated that the pediatric vaccine schedule is currently free of thimerosal.

 

You are also in error about the DTaP. Tripedia, Certiva, and Acel-Immune contained thimerosal.  Tripedia wasn't reformulated as thimerosal-free until 2001; even then it did contain .5 microgram thimerosal.  Certiva was manufactured until March OF 2001, and continued to be used for several years, as long as its shelf life was good.   

Pediatric Hib and Hep B vaccines preserved with thimerosal were still on the market in 2000 and later.

post #32 of 35
But this just means we can't understand the amount of thimerosol children of this era got compared to earlier children. All we can say is it was likely lower.

On this thread http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1369125/congressional-hearing-on-the-federal-response-to-autism-on-c-span/60#post_17200493 you said that an objection to one of the (many) studies which shows no link between thimerosol and autism is invalid because children in the thimerosol containing vaccine group were found to not have had thimerosol containing vaccines.

You can't have it both ways. Either they had the same or less thimerosol than children earlier than 2000.
post #33 of 35
Oops
post #34 of 35
Oops
post #35 of 35
Oops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Poul Thorsen