or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Methyl & Ethyl Mercury Slideshow from Institute of Medicine
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Methyl & Ethyl Mercury Slideshow from Institute of Medicine

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/ImmunizationSafety/Lucier.pdf

 

 

 

Quote:
• Ethylmercury is a neurotoxin.
• Infants may be more susceptible than adults.
• Ethylmercury is approximately 5 times less
acutely toxic than methylmercury.
• Data are not adequate to compare potencies of
ethylmercury and methylmercury for
developmental neurotoxicity.
• The mechanisms responsible for organomercurial -
caused developmental neurotoxicity are unknown
and this also complicates evaluation of structure/
activity relationships.
• Ethylmercury exposure from vaccines (added to
dietary exposures to methylmercury) probably
caused neurotoxic responses (likely subtle) in
some children.
• Ethylmercury should be considered equipotent to
methylmercury as a developmental neurotoxin.
This conclusion is clearly public health protective.
 
(Equipotent = Equally powerful; having equal potencies.)

 

Not sure if this has ever been posted here, but a friend shared this on Facebook and I wanted to share it on here. Despite this information, there were still a large amount of parents saying that the amount in vaccines is perfectly safe and/or that there is no thimerosal in most vaccines, which is also incorrect. Thimerosal can still be found in these vaccines:

 

- DTaP (Tripedia)

- Influenza (Afluria)

- Influenza (Fluvirin)

- Influenza (Flulaval)

- Influenza (Fluzone: Standard, High-Dose, & Intradermal)

- Meningococcal (MPSV4Menomune)

- Td (Decavac)

- Td (Mass Biologics)

post #2 of 55
There is no mercury in CHILDHOOD vaccines. And I don't see how this information contradicts the claim that the amoun in vaccines is not harmful?
post #3 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There is no mercury in CHILDHOOD vaccines. And I don't see how this information contradicts the claim that the amoun in vaccines is not harmful?

I'm afraid you're seriously wrong here.

 

CHILDHOOD vaccines include flu shots.  CHILDREN receive 2 flu shots in the first year of their life, followed by a yearly flu shot.  Flu shots are given to pregnant women in all stages of pregnancy.  Thimerosal-free FluMist is not recommended for pregnant women, nor for infants under the age of 3.

 

Most flu shots come in multi-use vials, and are preserved with thimerosal.  Thimerosal-preserved flu shots are given to children and pregnant women in every state.  Even California, which enacted the Mercury-Free Act in 2006, exempts flu shots through June 2013.

 

Fetuses are exposed to thimerosal in utero, through the vaccines given to their mothers. Thimerosal is known to cross the placenta, as well as the blood-brain barrier.

 

The "information" (which comes from the pharmaceutical industry, not from independent scientists) that the amount of thimerosal in vaccines is supposedly not harmful has been proven--by mainstream, scientific studies-- to be incorrect several times.  The same thing happened with tobacco, remember?  The manufacturers tried to bury the studies showing evidence of harm, and insisted that the product was perfectly safe, REMEMBER?

 

This has been pointed out to you many times.  Studies showing evidence of harm from the amount of thimerosal in vaccines--studies by independent, mainstream scientists--have been posted many times. Perhaps you've forgotten? 

 

One really has to wonder why you would continue to insist that there is no mercury in childhood vaccines, after you have been made aware of the facts.

post #4 of 55
You can get the flu shot without it so I say they don't, but insert "all the childhood vaccines but one" if it makes you feel better.

Again, not tht it's been shown to be harmful.
post #5 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You can get the flu shot without it so I say they don't, but insert "all the childhood vaccines but one" if it makes you feel better.

Again, not tht it's been shown to be harmful*.

 

 

* According to a bunch of industry funded junk science.

post #6 of 55
Fortunately the research is out there for people to assess for themselves.
post #7 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You can get the flu shot without it so I say they don't, but insert "all the childhood vaccines but one" if it makes you feel better.

Again, not tht it's been shown to be harmful.

Again, it HAS shown been shown to be harmful, by several independent (NOT industry-funded) studies, as well as the original industry-funded study that got severed up at the Simpsonwood meetings.

 

One cannot always get the flu shot without it, as the majority of flu shots are thimerosal-preserved.  And most people don't know to ask for it, or even that they need to ask for it, because of people like you who say incorrectly that all childhood vaccines are thimerosal-free.

 

Again, I'm really starting to wonder when you purposely keep posting incorrect statements, and then say, " 'oh, insert all the childhood vaccines but one' if it makes you feel better."

 

That ONE vaccine is given 19 times by the time a child reaches 18 years of age (and that's not counting prenatal exposure through vaccination of pregnant mothers).

post #8 of 55
No taxi.
post #9 of 55
See iom report on thimerosal (now slightly out of date), CDC web page on thimerosal, especially the study Infant and Environmental Exposures to Thimerosal and Neuropsychological Outcomes at Ages 7 to 10 Years.

I know these things don't sway you, I'm posting them as context for my own opinion. Not to change yours.

It's simply not the case that I am being purposefully deceptive, Taxi. You and I are impressed by very different types of evidence. As a result we've come to very different conclusions. That's it.

But again, I don't know why we waste so much time arguing about it when all childhood vaccines can be administered without thimerosal.
post #10 of 55
Another study that went back years later and looked for a pattern of disability in children exposed to various levels of thimerosal.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/26/study-backs-thimerosal-safety/
post #11 of 55
See blue box on this PDF labeled "the science" for a collection of studies on the safety of thimerosal.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM298182.pdf
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


It's simply not the case that I am being purposefully deceptive, Taxi. You and I are impressed by very different types of evidence. As a result we've come to very different conclusions. That's it.
 
You are correct.  You are impressed by the "studies" that are funded by, directed by, interpreted by, ghost-written by, and marketed by the manufacturer, and published in manufacturer-funded "professional journals." No doubt you would have believed every word from the tobacco manufacturers' claims that cigarettes were perfectly safe, and even good for you.
 
I am impressed by the studies done by independent scientists, whose paycheck does not depend on the company whose product they are researching.

But again, I don't know why we waste so much time arguing about it when all childhood vaccines can be administered without thimerosal.
All childhood vaccines cannot be administered without thimerosal, because there wouldn't be enough to go around.  The majority of flu shots, as stated over and over again, are preserved with thimerosal.  Most people are not asking for thimerosal-free flu shots anyway, because people like you keep insisting that all vaccines are thimerosal-free, and that's just not true.
 
Feel free to keep wasting so much time.  Apparently, you have quite a bit of time to waste.  Who knew that teaching and parenting a small child left so much free time to defend vaccines?
post #13 of 55

The study Rrrrrachel especially wants us to look at, the study Infant and Environmental Exposures to Thimerosal and Neuropsychological Outcomes at Ages 7 to 10 Years., is a great example of both conflicts of interest (wow!  SEVEN different pharmaceutical companies were mentioned as being conflicts of interest!) and asking, well, the wrong questions.

 

DId they look for a link between thimerosal and autism?  No.  They looked for other neurological outcomes, but they didn't look at autism at all.

 

Did they look at any unvaccinated children, and compare their outcomes with vaccinated children?  No.  Of course not.

 

Sallie Bernard, one of the  consultants for the study itself, dissented with the authors' conclusion:

 

"As a dissenting member of the panel of external consultants for this study, I object to the authors' conclusion that there is no causal association between thimerosal and children's brain function. The sample comprised children who were least likely to exhibit neuropsychological impairments. Specifically, children with congenital problems, those from multiple births, those of low birth weight, and those not living with their biological mother were excluded. The sample was skewed toward higher socioeconomic status and maternal education -- factors that are associated with lower rates of neurobehavioral problems and higher intervention rates and that were not measured."

 

Oh, and only 30% of the families selected for the research actually participated.  That skews a few things right there.  26% of mothers refused to participate.  Wonder if those were mothers of children with vaccine-induced brain damage, who were overwhelmed with the extra work involved with caring for a child with medical issues....

 

And this is the study that most impresses Rrrrrachel, as she vigorously defends both vaccines and thimerosal in vaccines.

 

Read the details of the conflicts of interest and the flaws of the study here:  http://www.fourteenstudies.org/HG_7_details.html

post #14 of 55
Who is given DTaP?
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

Rrrrrachel, how do you do it?

It would be good to show other moms how this is done. We all (at least many many of us!) want to know how this is achieved.
As a mother of one (correct?) and still under 5 (correct?) How do you manage a full time job ( that does not predispose you to the vaccine related industry-correct? NO background in the understanding of vaccines?), plus parenting and still have time to vaccine research, and post as much as you do just on this site?

For a new parent, tell us how this is done?

How much time have you taken to research vaccines? Where did you start? Do you only look at the CDC? Do you only look at one slanted prospective? You have lots of links to post, how much times does it take you to archive all this information? Where do you keep all this information, how do you file it?

What can a new parent expect to spend doing the same as you did? 

I feel these are all things new parents should have a better understating to help them achieve what you have done. I have seen what you have posted in the other section on researching but you have never given details on how this is done.

This same critique could be asked of everyone who posts on these forums. SImply replace "defending" vaccines with "condemning" and "vaccine related industry" with "vaccine-condeming" industry" and you could ask the same question of 90% of the posters here.

So if this is a real question and not a passive aggressive attempt to discredit Rrrrachel you really should be addressed at everyone who posts regardless of the side their research has taken. It doens't take any more time to research and find journal articles and CDC studies to back up views on vaccines than to find them on natural news, mercola or the 2006 8th grade Connecticut regional science fair.

I can answer for myself f that is helpful though I don't post that much . My job involves research. Though I do not research in the hard sciences or anything about vaccines (most of my research involves childhood discpine and family structures). Thus research is easier for me as I have access to journals and know how to search them. I also enjoy research.


When I became a mother I found myself fact checking everything people said to me regardless of whether it fit my view or not. That iincluded vaccines. The way I chose to give birth, feed my child (breastfeeding) discipline my child (gentle discipline) the screen time I allow, and my choices regarding vaccination are all evidenced based from research.
post #16 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post


This same critique could be asked of everyone who posts on these forums. SImply replace "defending" vaccines with "condemning" and "vaccine related industry" with "vaccine-condeming" industry" and you could ask the same question of 90% of the posters here.

So if this is a real question and not a passive aggressive attempt to discredit Rrrrachel you really should be addressed at everyone who posts regardless of the side their research has taken. It doens't take any more time to research and find journal articles and CDC studies to back up views on vaccines than to find them on natural news, mercola or the 2006 8th grade Connecticut regional science fair.

I can answer for myself f that is helpful. My job involves research. Though I do not research in the hard sciences or anything about vaccines (most of my research involves childhood discpine and family structures). Thus research is easier for me as I have access to journals and know how to search them. I also enjoy research.

When I became a mother I found myself fact checking everything people said to me regardless of whether it fit my view or not. That iincluded vaccines. The way I chose to give birth, feed my child (breastfeeding) discipline my child (gentle discipline) the screen time I allow, and my choices regarding vaccination are all evidenced based from research.

I also don't stop researching once I have made a decision. Things can change. I don't want to get trapped in an echo chamber and plug my ears to alternative viewpoints hence my reading this forum.

New parents should exepect to put in as much time as they feel is necessary. If research is a fun activity for them, they may spend their lesiure time doing it. If they don't they probably wont' want to frequent a debate board to keep researching and will just research enough to make an informed decision for their family.

 

 

With all due respect, I addressed Rrrrrachel because if you look, she has over 2000+ post with 95%+ just in the vaccine section ONLY- vs you with so little- IMO clearly this is a poster that has spent a greater amount of time just here, so in that case I want to hear from someone like this.

 

Also, according to her "joined" it has only been since 2012, vs your 2007 - that is a considerable difference vs most who post here.

post #17 of 55
But why just those who support vaccines need to provide this? Why not the plethora of posters who condemn vaccines routinely and only post in the vaccine section? If the goal is to provide new mothers with information about how to find time and archive research, the vaccine skeptics who routinely post with links would provide just as much information. If that is really the goal of the questioning. I edited my post to take my information out for the most part. Because I don't post much and probably am not helpful for new posters as you correctly state. But, the viewpoint doesn't change the amount of research needed.. But the original poster of this thread for example, would provide just as much as Rrrrachel to new mothers if the goal is to help future vaccine researchers understand how prolific posters do it.
post #18 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

Who is given DTaP?

My understanding is DTaP is a childhood vax. That would mean that Rrrrrrachel's statement is false.
post #19 of 55
One brand of several dtaps contains thimerosal.
post #20 of 55

Yes, DTaP is for children only. Three brands are available in the US: Tripedia ("trace amounts of thimerosal" but there is no quality control of each batch to my knowledge), Daptacel (no thimerosal) and Infanrix (none either).

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Methyl & Ethyl Mercury Slideshow from Institute of Medicine