If you don’t want to accept the fact that mercury is a toxic substance, that’s your own business.

Mercury by itself is toxic. Certain mercury compounds are toxic, as well, but only above certain levels, as far as current research shows (note, PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov are good places to find studies, e.g., those examining how thimerosal acts in the body).

The circular arguments you are using don’t get us anywhere.

What circular arguments? Please point them out.

All I am trying to say is that just because people want to make vaccines safe does not mean that they are dumb or haven’t tried to figure out what the scientific community does not want to address and why they don’t want to address it.

And I am not saying that they are dumb, rather just misinformed and misled by others who are misinformed and lying. Also, what exactly is meant by “safe”? Do you mean 100% safe with no chance at all for any adverse reactions? Because, if that’s what you mean, then keep dreaming, because it will never happen. Anything that acts on the body has the potential for adverse reactions. Even vitamins can be toxic.

Furthermore, scientists do not operate as a cohesive conglomerate, all out to hush up something. If you think that, then you need to reevaluate your perceptions of reality and realize that a) scientists are human and not some hive collective and b) “outing” other scientists and scooping them is a pretty frequent thing. When a scientist comes out with some idea, others will try to replicate the study and show him or her as potentially wrong.

The studies that were done (I have read most of them, and I understand what they say) are epidemiological studies. They have too many variables to reliably tell the whole story.

What particular variables do they not account for? Please voice specific criticisms about specific studies. Vague “they aren’t reliable” comments don’t help anything and certainly do not persuade. Show where they fail, and I might agree with you, if your criticism is a valid one.

Could you at least spend your energy on convincing the powers that be that Thimerosal should be replaced by another better thoroughly tested preservative.

Well, thimerosal has already been removed from the finished products of nearly every vaccine in the U.S. So, I don’t think I need to do a whole lot in that regard.

And if you really think that mercury preservatives are not used anymore, you should first go to work at a place where they make vaccines.

Thimerosal is still used in some of the raw ingredients, but it is removed from the finished product, so exposure either never happens, or only trace amounts are left (see my previous comment about amounts in vaccines). I’ll ask again, which vaccines do you think still have thimerosal in them a) at levels above trace amounts and b) at toxic levels. Please cite your sources.

Thimerosal has never been recalled.

And why should it be? Until valid evidence surfaces that it causes serious adverse events, that it puts people at unacceptable risk of injury and that the risks outweigh the benefits, it should not be recalled. Aleve, a common pain reliever, puts people at increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular injury. That one has actual data to support it (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm124311.pdf). It is still on the market, as it should be, because it serves a specific purpose, and when used as directed, is generally safe. Thimerosal, also, is generally safe when used as directed. You have yet to provide any evidence that it is harmful (and the study published in 1931, for this forum, will not suffice, because it is not readily available to readers and, as such, we cannot examine what the study design was, what the variables were, etc., not to mention the small sample size).

Why aren’t people finding a substitute so that that part of the argument can be eliminated?

With all the public brouhaha about it, I would be surprised if some company weren’t working on an alternative. Do you have evidence that no one is working on one? If you do, present it, otherwise, please avoid questions like this that serve only to mislead and misrepresent the issue.

Now, if you have specific evidence, as I’ve asked for before, that shows that a) thimerosal is toxic at the amounts in vaccines and b) the specific effects of thimerosal toxicity, please share it. The current scientific understanding, based on numerous studies, is that thimerosal does not appear to have any connection with autism. Now, some study could come along that shows it does, but until then, no one can claim it does with any degree of validity. Show us the science.

All I am trying to say is that just because people want to make vaccines safe does not mean that they are dumb or haven’t tried to figure out what the scientific community does not want to address and why they don’t want to address it. The studies that were done (I have read most of them, and I understand what they say) are epidemiological studies. They have too many variables to reliably tell the whole story.

The study from 1929 is the only one in which Thimerosal was ever tested on humans. Could you at least spend your energy on convincing the powers that be that Thimerosal should be replaced by another better thoroughly tested preservative. That is what some of us are asking for. And if you really think that mercury preservatives are not used anymore, you should first go to work at a place where they make vaccines. I have reason not to trust pharmaceutical companies. Thimerosal has never been recalled. If that were the case I would be much less likely to be so skeptical. Why aren’t people finding a substitute so that that part of the argument can be eliminated?

You bring up a study for which the full text is difficult to find, which is really freakin’ old and therefore does not represent the current state of knowledge and mention other forms of mercurial compounds with very different toxicologic profiles and pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics than ethyl mercury. These are not accurate representations of the issue at hand.

Similarly, you mention the incident in Iraq with grain that used mercuric preservatives, yet fail to mention anything about exactly why that occurred, nor that it was methyl mercury in that case as well. Here’s what happened, for anyone that might be reading our posts: grain treated with methyl mercury as a fungicide was sent to Iraq as aid. However, the warning labels indicating the presence of the fungicide were not written in the local language, so the folk that received the grain didn’t understand. Further, the grain had a red dye, which indicates the presence of the fungicide, however the folks using the grain thought that as they washed off the dye, they also washed off the poison. (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/suppl-1/11-23clarkson/EHP110s1p11PDF.pdf)

You also fail to point out that in the Iraq case, while people did die and were hospitalized, and while women gave birth to babies with epilepsy and mental retardation, no one developed autism, no children were born with increased risk of autism. And, keep in mind, the Iraq incident occurred because of miscommunication and improper handling of the treated grain. (http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/dc/Immunization/vaccinesafety/Offitpiece.pdf)

I agree that a proper respect is necessary for organic mercury compounds. But having a proper respect means also paying attention to and accepting the results of studies. Once again, studies that have looked at thimerosal and autism have found no connection. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Mercury was used extensively for medical purposes at the time, and dying form illnesses was not unusual. Mercury in those times was considered a medicine and not a poison by many physicians.

The rabbits that were given Merthiolate were observed for a few days. Fewer than half died within a week or so. That meant that the animals “tolerated” the Merthiolate. Afterwards the animals were killed. Subsequently the 22 meningitis patients were given Merthiolate. The fact that they died was of course thought to be due to meningitis and not Merthiolate.

The problem with the way the tests were done is that it takes probably at least five to six weeks for a strong dose of ethyl mercury to kill. Mercury in any form takes a long time to kill because it eventually kills by rendering enzymes non-functioning. I am not even talking about other organ failure. Very small doses of dimethyl mercury have been known to take almost a year to kill.

The tragedy with people in Iraq in the ’70s who ate seed grain laced with mercury preservatives was that they didn’t believe that the reddish kernels could kill because they tested them on chickens. The chickens didn’t die after six weeks. So they butchered the chickens and ate them. Then they made bread from the mercury-preserved grain and fed it to the elderly and children. Many of them died.

The last paragraph is only meant to serve as another example of the lack of proper respect for organic mercury.

I can’t send you the url because Discover probably won’t let me publish it.

You can submit whatever links you want. The only thing that will happen is that your post will go into moderation, until Phil takes a look and lets it through. Links to sites inappropriate for kids/schools will probably kill your post, but generally speaking, your post will be approved.

The case is worth reading though. The http://www.whale.to/v/elililly.html gives you a good idea what was done at the time.

The link you provide only shows one motion from the plaintiffs in the case. It does not provide the full summary of the final ruling. The plaintiff’s document is, of course, going to take whatever legal measures it can to paint the defendants in a bad light. Quite apart from that, it’s not scientific evidence of anything.

On July 24, 1930, Powell and Jamieson submitted their results for publication to The American Journal of Hygiene, and their article was published in January 1931.

Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the full text of the study. The first page of the study is available at http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/13/1/296. Earlier, about this study, you said:

The test done with Merthiolate (same thing as Thimerosal, just a different brand) ca. 1929, was done on 22 meningitis patients who all died.

What was the actual question being investigated? IIUC, the primary question was whether it was a good agent for killing/preventing the growth of germs that might contaminate medical products, with a secondary question being whether it would work as a treatment for meningitis. Without access to the actual study, though, I can’t comment on the study itself or its validity regarding the current discussion. Perhaps you have something more recent to support your arguments? Something that is not from an era when the FDA lacked any substantive power to do anything, something post-Declaration of Helsinki?

On July 24, 1930, Powell and Jamieson submitted their results for publication to The American Journal of Hygiene, and their article was published in January 1931.