My sister-in-law reported back to me that the H1N1 vaccine shot does not have a thimerosal-free option, unless you use the live virus nasal mist. Of course, thimerosal is a non-issue for me, but my sister-in-law has a young child on the autism spectrum.
It’s completely understandable, given the intense anti-vaccine campaign directed toward parents dealing with autism, that she would be concerned about mercury toxicity, but more distressing to me is how she was unnecessarily forced into a parenting conundrum deciding between thimerosal and live virus mist. Even though she understands and accepts the scientific arguments in favor of thimerosal, just the thought that the vaccine’s toxins might make her child regress made her second guess giving him the vaccine.
She made the correct decision and gave her son with ASD the mist. Her older son was given the shot because he has asthma and can’t handle the live virus.
By now, I assume most parents are aware of the reasons that thimerosal doesn’t cause autism, but I’ll restate a few. Thimerosal (a mercury preservative) was discontinued from most mandatory childhood vaccines in 2001, without a decline in autism in the many years following removal. Thimerosal is made with a non-bio-accumulative mercury compound called ethylmercury, which is different than the more common methylmercury toxin. Thimerosal is a preservative that keeps dangerous contaminants from spoiling the vial of vaccine liquid after repeated use.
Today, I woke up to a news story that will add to the list of reasons we shouldn’t believe the hype that autistic children have mercury poisoning. Autistic children do not have higher levels of mercury than neuro-typical children. This comes as no surprise to most science advocates (and even to most parents of autistic children), but let it be another nail in the coffin of the myth of mercury toxicity in vaccines.
Ticktock
philosodad
Rob T
Jason
October 20, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
And speaking of vaccines – check out the recent article in WIRED (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience).
It was painful to read what Paul Offit is subjected to by the anti-vax foces. I sent him a quick e-mail thanking him for doggedly fighting the good fight. He was really appreciative!
Let’s many of us drop him a line to say – we’re with you and we appreciate your being on the frontines (sorry about all the militaristic imagery
).
October 20, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
It was my understanding that thimerosal was never implicated in autism, and it was removed from vaccines because of (unfounded) fears of actual mercury poisoning, when combined with other exposure methods, like fish. It seems odd that the anti-vax crowd would try to link it to autism, but a lot of things they do don’t make much sense.
October 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
Thimerosal has definitely been implicated in autism, primarily in RFK Jr’s article in Rolling Stone. It was removed because the government could not be absolutely positive that the fears were invalid. If anything, the removal of thimerosal should prove that the government has our best interest at heart; they took the question seriously enough to make a change.
January 17, 2010 at 1:54 pm |
“Thimerosal has definitely been implicated in autism, primarily in RFK Jr’s article in Rolling Stone.”
The problem is that RFK Jr.’s article was absolutely horribly researched. RFK declared that the Verstraeten study found an association between thimerosal and autism and that the transcript of the Simpsonwood conference shows the government trying to cover it up. However, it’s not difficult to find the transcript that RFK Jr. refers to and if one actually reads it, Verstraeten says that his preliminary investigation indicated a correlation between thimerosal and certain neurological problems, but autism was NOT ONE OF THEM. So RFK Jr. declared “thimerosal is implicated in autism and the transcript proves that the government is covering it up” but what it actually seems to prove is that RFK Jr. cannot even report accurately what people said.
By the way, the correlations that Verstraeten reported in his preliminary study, between thimerosal and other neurological problems, did not turn out to represent real correlations: they simply reflected the fact that children don’t get diagnosed with anything unless they get seen by a doctor, and the kind of parents who don’t take their children to the doctor for vaccinations don’t take their children to the doctor as often as the kind of parents who keep up with vaccinations.
January 17, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Oh, I’m right there with you dude. I confronted RFK Jr. during the Q&A of his speech in Cincinnati. I asked him if he was prepared to apologize for his statements that thimerosal caused autism since the rates of autism did not decline when it was removed.
He tried to “Gish Gallop” me with a litany of lies after that, but I did my best to shut him down on claims that were obviously false, like the Amish never get autism and are never vaccinated.
October 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
H1N1 and other flu vaccines are listed under Pregnancy Category C versus other safer drugs, which for example are in Pregnancy Category A or B.
Pregnancy Category C: “Animal studies show adverse fetal effect(s) but no controlled human studies OR no animal or human studies; weigh possible fetal risk versus maternal benefit; see pkg insert for drug-specific recs.” We are going to be giving this questionable product to millions of pregnant women who are not aware of this classification system. Link to package insert. See p. 2.
I would feel more comfortable if vaccines were say Pregnancy Category B: “Animal studies show no risk or adverse fetal affects but controlled human 1st trimester studies not avail/do not confirm; no evidence of 2nd or 3rd trimester risk; fetal harm possible but not likely. see pkg insert for drug-specific recs.” I’d be delighted if they were Pregnancy Category A: “controlled studies show no risk in first trimester…”
Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers or children <6 months of age. References from the CDC. Take a look not only for yourself, but for your family as well. wp.me/pC1DX-34
October 21, 2009 at 12:25 am |
Connectivetissue,
first of all if you have a point then make it, don’t copy and paste your own blog post into our comments. If you want to be here and participate then do so. If you want to openly disagree, then do so. But don’t be lazy.
Second,on the issue of pregnant women, “weigh possible fetal risk versus maternal benefit” sounds to me like a clear suggestion that doctors WEIGH THE RISKS.
If you’ve ever been a pregnant woman or ever treated one, you would know that there are concerns about practically ALL medications during pregnancy and they are ALL WEIGHED RISKS.
Your website claims no company providing the vaccines can guarantee an individual’s safety. SO? Neither can a toaster manufacturer. Even McDonald’s can’t guarantee the coffee won’t burn you – they put warning labels on the cups telling you so. And yet millions buy the coffee everyday. What’s your point?
October 21, 2009 at 10:20 am |
ConnectiveTissue: First trimester trials would be great, but by definition it takes at least 6 months before the baby is born, let alone before you can detect issues.
I’m happy for you to have your tested A-H1N1 vaccine next summer. But my lad is enrolled in a trial for vaccine tolerance in children so he can have his vaccine on saturday.
The question is not how safe is the vaccine, but is flu vaccine less risky than your chance of catching the flu and being exposed to a self replicating form of the same nasties.
October 21, 2009 at 10:58 am |
Toaster manufacturers produce products according to set safety guidelines as do drug manufacturers. And I don’t use my toaster in a way that is inconsistent with it’s safety labeling as that would not be very safe or smart. There are many reasons to doubt the safety of flu vaccines especially for pregnant women and small children, and very few real true safety studies. You don’t have to go much further than the manufacturers label to see this very clearly.
The safety labeling of flu vaccines reads: “Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers or children <6 months of age. " http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm181950.htm
Flu vaccines listed under Pregnancy Category C, not category A or B which include MANY drugs which have much lower risk profiles than flu vaccines. Pregnancy Category C drugs including flu vaccines do not have good safety studies period. Otherwise they would be in better categories. There are reasons for these labels just like there are reasons for labels on toaster ovens. Here's what the label says for Pregnancy Category C flu shots: “Animal studies show adverse fetal effect(s) but no controlled human studies OR no animal or human studies; weigh possible fetal risk versus maternal benefit; see pkg insert for drug-specific recs.” We are going to be giving this questionable product to millions of pregnant women who are not aware of this classification system.
I'll take my risk with the flu. Flu is not a killer. By far the MAJOR reason people die from the flu is that they have either an immune suppressing chronic illness, such as diabetes, direct immune dysfunction, dietary deficiencies of critical immune-supporting nutrients, chronic pulmonary disease, heart disease or cancer.
It doesn’t take an advanced degree to recognize foolishness. Science, like politics has become corrupt from its incessant focus and competition for funding dollars. If you doubt this even slightly, follow the money trail to the source of funding and see for yourself with your own eyes.
November 7, 2009 at 5:29 am |
You can’t say that flu is not a killer and then list all the reasons why people die from the flu. What you are really saying is that you think that you, personally, won’t die from the flu. And you’re willing to chance passing the flu onto someone who might die from the flu.
Fine.
It does, by the way, take an advanced degree to understand how funding sources impact science. You can’t use your “common sense” there anymore than you can use your common sense to understand quantum physics. Unless you can point to examples of scientists who actually change or fudge their results in order to satisfy funders, you’re just makin’ stuff up.
November 7, 2009 at 5:18 pm
One very good example of fudging results:
Merck, a major drug manufacturer drafted dozens of research studies for a best selling drug Vioxx. To give validity to the study, Merck was in want of a big-name researcher. Before publication lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports according to a leading medical journal. 60,000 people died.
This practice calls into question all legitimate research that’s been conducted by the pharmaceutical industry with academic physicians.
http://connectivetissue.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/merck-ghostwrites-studies-for-doctors/
And no, it doesn’t require an advanced degree to understand the concepts of quantum physics. The equations on the other hand are a different story.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2637DEB0D2F0CEC7&search_query=quantum+physics+made+easy
October 21, 2009 at 11:28 am |
ConnectiveTissue, I think you miss the point with drug labeling. The categories are based on what has been trialled. These specific flu vaccines haven’t been trialled in pregnant women yet, no one is disputing this, hence they are category C.
You say flu vaccines have bad safety record and link me to the FDA page that tells me the safety record is exceedingly good.
You tell me flu in not a killer, which is unfortunate as a friend just lost their nephew to Swine Flu. Influenza’s vary in who they kill, the Spanish flu killed perfectly healthy people quite quickly, the notorious W shaped distribution (young, old and those in there 20’s and early 30’s). Swine flu isn’t as severe, but it does seem to be killing a disproportionate number of younger (under 65) people.
Pregnant women are a special at risk category because they are immune compromised. Which is why they are specifically recommended to get flu vaccinations.
Please actually read what you link to.
November 8, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
There are no true safety studies of ANY TYPE of flu vaccine on pregnant women (and not just no safety studies of H1N1 vaccine). There are very few safety studies in any population period.
Flu vaccines have been around for years and years and years. Still there are no controlled studies of any large size and duration. Does this not cause your scientific mind to wonder? Perhaps you place too much FAITH in what you are hearing and are not using your mind in investigating this topic.
A true scientist would think about how to study this issue and perform experiments. This is not what is happening. Since extensive controlled clinical trials have not been done, how do you claim science is on your side? By citing inferior studies no doubt. Controlled safety studies of flu vaccines would not be hard to design or test. Nor would they be terribly expensive. A lack of safety studies does however allow plausible deniability to manufacturers and physicians who promote flu vaccines since they cannot be accused of failure to provide informed consent to patients.
Where are all of the safety studies? Unfortunately they are absent in this debate.
October 21, 2009 at 11:50 am |
Take a closer look at again at the studies:
– They don’t actually compare vaccinated children to unvaccinated children — studies only looks at children who have received vaccines. This is like comparing smokers who smoke one pack a day to those who smoke two packs a day, seeing no difference in cancer rates, and saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
- The studies are rife with conflicts including authors who have been paid by vaccine companies and federal agencies and foreign governments charged with administering vaccines.
The CDC studies are not really are not true safety studies. Massive profiteering is underway.
Here are some other studies to consider from http://smokinchoices.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/flu-fears-or-facts/
Direct links are available at the above site if you wish to verify. There are many, many, many more
1. Environmental Health Perspectives, August, 2005Fourteenstudies.org states: “This study demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that ethyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in vaccines, not only ends up in your brain, but leaves double the amount of inorganic mercury as methyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in fish.This work is groundbreaking because little is known about ethyl mercury, and many health authorities have asserted that the mercury found in vaccines is the “safe kind.” This study also delivers a strong rebuke of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation in 2004 to no longer pursue the mercury-autism connection. Excerpt:
2. “A recently published IOM review (IOM 2004) appears to have abandoned the earlier recommendation [of studying mercury and autism] as well as back away from the American Academy of Pediatrics goal [of removing mercury from vaccines].
3. This approach is difficult to understand, given our current limited knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental neurotoxicity of thimerosal, a compound that has been (and will continue to be) injected in millions of newborns and infants.”
4. Cell Biology and Toxicology April 9, 2009 [Epub Ahead of Print]Exerpt: “In conclusion, MT-1 and MT-3 mRNAs but not MT-2 mRNA are easily expressed in the cerebellum rather than in the cerebrum by the injection of low-dose thimerosal. It is thought that the cerebellum is a sensitive organ against thimerosal.As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.”
5. Annals of Epidemiology September 2009: 19(9);659Male infants who received thimerosal-containing hepatitis-B vaccinations had a three-fold risk of developing autism.
6. Neurotoxicology October 1, 2009The above findings are confirmed in this study wherein infant primates injected with just ONE dose of thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine manifested significant developmental delays.
7. Brain Research September 9, 2009 [Epub Ahead of Print]Study concluded that injecting thimerosal into suckling infant rats, and adult rats, impairs sensitivity to pain, apparently due to activation the endogenous opioid system.
8. Toxicology & Environmental Chemistry September-October 2008: 90(5);997-1008Male infants who received thimerosal-containing hepatitis-B vaccinations were nine times as likely to be receiving special education services
9. Generation Rescue Survey of 9,000 boys, aged 4-17, in California and Oregon, found that vaccinated boys had a 155 percent greater chance of having a neurological disorder than unvaccinated boys. Vaccinated boys were 224 percent more likely to have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and 61 percent more likely to have autism.For boys in the 11-17 age bracket, the results were even more pronounced. Vaccinated boys were 158 percent more likely to have a neurological disorder, 317 percent more likely to have ADHD, and 112 percent more likely to have autism.
*editor note: Response here
10. Report to the Legislature on the Principle Findings from The Epidemiology of Autism in California: A Comprehensive Pilot Study by the MIND Institute, October 2002, concluded that the rise in autism cannot be explained by better diagnosis and expanded diagnostic criteria, but rather is a real event, likely propelled by “environmental exposures to substances such as mercury; viral exposures; autoimmune disorders; and childhood vaccinations.”
*editor note: Response here.
11. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2006: 214; 99-108This French study used a new, sophisticated measurement for environmental toxicity by assessing porphyrin levels in autistic children. It provides clear and unequivocal evidence that children with autism spectrum disorders are significantly more toxic than their neurotypical peers.
*editor note: this study was performed by Robert Nataf, who part owns the lab that conducts the testing recommended in this study. Co-author Richard Lathe speaks candidly about the study’s shortcomings here.
12. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeon, 2003Exerpt: “The data from this study, along with emerging epidemiological data showing a link between increasing mercury doses from childhood vaccines and childhood neurodevelopmental disorders, increases the likelihood that mercury is one of the main factors leading to the large increase in the rate of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. It is hoped that removing thimerosal from all childhood vaccines will contribute to a decline in the numbers of new cases of autistic spectrum disorders.”
*editor note: Response here and also here.
13. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 2007: 70; 837-851This study reviewed the case histories and medical profiles of nine autistic children and concluded that eight of the nine children were mercury toxic and this toxicity manifested itself in a manner consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
*editor note: this study was done by the Geiers – Response here.
14. Neuropediatrics, August 2006 Exerpt: “There was significant difference in blood mercury levels between cases and controls, which persists after adjustment for age, gender and parental occupational status. The geometric mean blood mercury level was also significantly higher in children with inattentive and combined subtypes of ADHD. CONCLUSION: High blood mercury level was associated with ADHD. Whether the relationship is causal requires further studies.”
15. International Journal of Toxicology 2003: 22; 277-285Fourteenstudies.org states: “This recent study demonstrates that the levels of mercury in the birth hair of autistic children were significantly lower than their control peers. While this may at first appear contradictory, it highlights one of the critical insights to understanding mercury poisoning and autistic children: many autistic children are non-excretors of mercury. This means their capacity to excrete mercury is significantly lower than their neurotypical peers and contributes to their condition.”
*editor’s note: Response here
16. Journal of Pediatrics, May 2000: 136; 679-681This study measured mercury levels in infants before and after the administration of a Hepatitis B vaccine containing thimerosal and found that a “comparison of pre and post-vaccination mercury levels showed a significant increase in both preterm and term infants after vaccination.”
17. Neurotoxicology January 2005: 26; 1-8Study demonstrates that thimerosal lowers or inhibits your body’s ability to produce glutathione, an antioxidant and your body’s primary cellular-level defense against mercury.Excerpt: “Thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with depletion of intracellular Glutathione in both cell lines…The potential effect of Glutathione or N-acetylcysteine against mercury toxicity warrants further research as possible adjunct therapy to individuals still receiving Thimerosal-containing vaccines.”
18. Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2006Study demonstrates that very low-levels of Thimerosal can contribute to immune system disregulation.
19. Molecular Psychiatry July 2004; 1-13Study demonstrates how thimerosal inhibits methylation, a central driver of cellular communication and development.Exerpt: “The potent inhibition of this pathway [methylation] by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum, and thimerosal suggests it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins.”
20. Molecular Psychiatry September 2004; 1-13Fouteenstudies.org states: “This work by Columbia University Doctors explores whether genes are important in determining if mercury exposures akin to those in childhood immunizations can disrupt brain development and function.It is the first known scientific study done specifically on ethlymercury administered in a way similar to the vaccine schedule. Dr. Hornig discussed the study before Congress in September 2004.”Excerpt: “The premise of our research is that if mercury in vaccines creates risk for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, genetic differences are likely to contribute to that risk. Earlier studies, however, did not use the form of mercury present in vaccines, known as thimerosal, and did not consider whether intramuscular, repetitive administration during early postnatal development, when the brain and immune systems are still maturing, might intensify toxicity.Our predictions were confirmed. Using thimerosal dosages and timing that approximated the childhood immunization schedule, our model of postnatal thimerosal neurotoxicity demonstrated that the genes in mice that predict mercury-related immunotoxicity also predicted nuerodevelopmental damage. Features reminiscent of those observed in autism occurred in the mice of the genetically sensitive strain.”
21. Toxicological Sciences 2003: 74Study demonstrates the potent toxicity of thimerosal on brain cells.
22. Autoimmunity Reviews June 2005: 4(5):270-275Study demonstrates the clear link between ethylmercury [from thimerosal] and autoimmune responses.
23. Congressional Record – Extensions of Remarks by Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), Committee on Government Reform, May 21, 2003Fouteenstudies.org states: “This extensive report was prepared by the staff of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness and was the result of a three-year investigation. The Committee on Government Reform, chaired by Congressman Dan Burton, initiated the investigation and compiled the testimony of hundreds of researchers and physicians, as well as representatives from the FDA and CDC, who presented to the committee.”Excerpt: “Mercury is hazardous to humans. Its use in medicinal products is undesirable, unnecessary and should be minimized or eliminated entirely. Manufacturers of vaccines and thimerosal, (an ethlymercury compound used in vaccines), have never conducted adequate testing on the safety of thimerosal. The FDA has never required manufacturers to conduct adequate safety testing on thimerosal and ethlymercury compounds…Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism epidemic. This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding injected thimerosal and the sharp rise of infant exposure to this known neurotoxin. Our public health agencies’ failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.”
24. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2006; 11(1); 8-13
25. Upon analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), researchers reported significantly increased odds ratios for autism, speech disorders, mental retardation and thinking abnormalities following vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines (DTP and Hib), compared to children who received a vaccine containing half the amount of thimerosal (DTPH).
26. The American Academy of Pediatrics decided that this study was flawed because it relied on VAERS data, which as a “passive surveillance system” is no intended to be used for proving hypotheses.
I could go on, but by now I’m sure you get the picture.
To say that there is no evidence of link between thimerosal and biological damage is not a simple error or omission. It is an absolute lie, and you deserve better from your health officials.
November 9, 2009 at 11:36 am |
I’ve made some editorial notes within your gish gallop. In the future, please be aware that all the writers on this blog are parents and don’t have time to evaluate 26 different studies. I’ve only begun to look at your evidence, and I’ve already found problems with the fraction that I’ve examined. Instead of copying this information from questionable places and pasting it here, do some of this research yourself. Generation Rescue and 14 Studies are biased sources of information. You seem very intelligent, so I’m not sure why you’re using them as resources.
October 21, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
Not that it matters (since the best data puts thimerisol as used in vaccines as being safe), the H1N1 vaccine *is* being produced in single doses as well as the multi-dose vials. The single-dose units do not have thimerisol.
October 21, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
Thanks for that update. It must be that my sister-in-law’s pediatrician didn’t have single dose for some reason. I was wondering if that was the case
October 30, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
INJECTING MERCURY IN YOUR BLOOD SYSTEM.
please think about that
October 30, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
Okay Felix I thought about it, and checked the environmental chemistry blog. Where one commenter noted:
“The actual concentration of ethyl mercury per vaccine dose is about 25 micrograms per 0.5mL dose (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228)
The concentration of methyl mercury in a six ounce can of chunk white tuna is about 52.7 micrograms (http://www.pbs.org/now/science/mercuryinfish.html).”
I don’t know much about mercury toxicity, but I know ethyl mercury is believed to be less dangerous than methyl mercury.
Obviously you don’t absorb all the mercury from the Tuna, but then again I’m not giving my son vaccines any where near as often as I give him oily fish, and not all those vaccines contain ethyl mercury.
And whilst oily fish is good for my son, it is no where near as effective at protecting his health as a flu vaccine.
October 30, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
@gnufan
I was writing the same exact comment when your comment showed up before I posted it. Freaky.
The one thing that I would’ve added is a reminder that thimerosal has been removed from the majority of childhood vaccines. Since it’s removal eight years ago, there has not been a significant change in autism, asthma, adhd, and other maladies that have fallen under the umbrella of mercury fear. So, felix’s argument is without merit anyway.
Go to a pro football game in a stadium filled with people. Almost everybody in that stadium will have been exposed to thimerosal via vaccine (except for kids eight years and under). Statistically, problems with thimerosal would have been noticed years ago.
November 7, 2009 at 5:28 pm
All types of mercury are harmful to the developing nervous system.
In March 2004, FDA and EPA revised its advisories on mercury in fish for pregnant women and young children. Generally they are advised to eat no more than 2 meals of low-mercury fish per week – one can of light tuna or half a tuna steak is considered one meal. FDA recommends to limit albacore white tuna to one meal per week as it is higher in mercury.
November 8, 2009 at 4:36 am
Ethyl-mercury, methyl-mercury, elemental mercury are all rapidly neurotoxic in very small amounts. ALL types of mercury are toxic. I find it puzzling that you call yourself a scientist. Where are the safety studies?
November 7, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
In March 2004, FDA and EPA revised its advisories on mercury in fish for pregnant women and young children. Generally they are advised to eat no more than 2 meals of low-mercury fish per week – one can of light tuna or half a tuna steak is considered one meal. FDA recommends to limit albacore white tuna to one meal per week as it is higher in mercury. All types of mercury are harmful to the developing nervous system.
November 7, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Wow. And you say this almost as if it has relevance to something.
November 7, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Specifically, you should be aware that the first part of your post is not actually evidence in support of the last part of your post.
November 8, 2009 at 3:19 am
Dear philosodad,
I couldn’t reply directly to your thread, so I hope this post makes it to the right place. Yes, I believe that the above post you refer to does have relevance to this debate since it applies to gnufan and Ticktock’s comments.
They make the argument that if it’s safe to eat tuna with mercury in it then it must be safe to inject mercury into our bodies. This is an incorrect premise.
The reason for relevance is that both the FDA and EPA are advising limited intake of tuna for pregnant women and small children specifically because the mercury in tuna causes harm. All types of mercury including ethyl-mercury in Thimerosol are toxic in concentrations as low as parts per billion. This inconvenient fact invalidates their argument and is therefore an appropriate comment.
Additionally, many compounds can be harmless when administered orally or applied topically, but still be toxic when injected transdermally. Squalene is an example of this. You can safely eat squalene and you can safely put it on your skin, but when you inject it is neurotoxic. This point I believe is also relevant to the debate since Ticktock and gnufan are making a case for oral safety of mercury in tuna (which is not safe). What is important in Thimerosol vaccines is a problem of transdermal administration of mercury into developing nervous sytems (as opposed to oral administration).
November 8, 2009 at 4:20 am
“This inconvenient fact invalidates their argument and is therefore an appropriate comment.”
——–
It isn’t a “fact”, no it doesn’t, and no it isn’t. First off, the actual fact is that methyl and ethyl mercury are not the same, so the question of whether some amount of methyl mercury (eaten) is unsafe) isn’t really relevant to the question of whether some much smaller amount of Ethyl mercury (injected) is safe. Second, you’ve actually supported their argument by pointing out that the FDA considers some amount of methyl mercury to be safe (two servings a weeks worth, actually). You can’t point to a safety guideline and then say that there is no safe amount of something: that’s self-contradictory.
Finally, your “squalene” point is an irrelevant red herring. THere are things you can inject that you shouldn’t eat. There are things you can eat that you shouldn’t inject. There are things you can inject and eat. That doesn’t really mean much in terms of what the health effects of any given compound are: you have to make a case that it is unsafe to inject, which you haven’t.
November 8, 2009 at 4:47 am
Ethyl-mercury, methyl-mercury, elemental mercury are all rapidly neurotoxic in very small amounts. ALL types of mercury are toxic. I find it puzzling that you call yourself a scientist. Where are the safety studies?
November 8, 2009 at 5:06 am
Dear philosodad, you stated: “you have to make a case that it is unsafe to inject, which you haven’t.” I disagree. One must make the case that it is safe to inject. Where are all of the safety studies? Seriously. You talk about good safety studies of flu vaccines. Where are they?
November 9, 2009 at 12:14 am
In order to find the safety studies, you would actually have to read the literature without bias. You would have to read studies that agree with you, and studies that do not. And again, you miss the point: you can’t make the case that something being toxic in “very small amounts” means that the amount in a vaccine is toxic. If you want to make the case that something is toxic, you have to actually make a case that it is toxic in the amounts that people are being exposed to.
And you can’t point to a percieved lack of evidence on the other side alone as somehow supporting your thesis. It doesn’t. You aren’t claiming a lack of knowledge on your side (which is what you have) you are claiming certainty. To claim certainty, you should have some evidence.
November 5, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
They were noticed years ago and are well accepted in the field of Neuroscience. Importantly, some vaccines including many flu shots still contain thimerosal, and many contain one or another of the aluminum compounds used as adjuvants. Thus aluminum at levels present in vaccines increases the toxicity of thimerosal, which is ~49.6% ethylmercury by weight. Thus when an infant, toddler, or pregnant woman is injected with a vaccine or a combination of vaccines containing aluminum compounds and thimerosal, the likelihood of adverse effects is increased. It is also note worthy that the same year thimerosal was removed from many vaccines aluminium was added and the flu shot containing thimerosal was added the the list of recommendations for pregnant woman. In Australia there were 12 recorded deaths from the flu, the year the flu shots were introduce that number increased 7 fold to 90. Immunization does not stop deaths. Simon I am sorry for your friends loss of his Nephew but they stopped testing for Swine Flu in August and recorded any deaths from flu like symptoms to H1N1. And just two more note worthy facts Flu Infection doesn’t kill pregnant women or cause miscarriage it is the immune response sydochrine producing reaction to the flu which is exactly what the flu vaccines do. Also as there are no real studies carried out on humans as the flu vaccine had such an adverse effect neurologically on animals we only have the use of guarderseal in 1972 on pregnant women which was recalled due to the increased rate of miscarriage and malformation of fetuses. Please read everything you can get your hands on if you are an expectant mother considering getting the H1N1 vaccination!
November 7, 2009 at 6:12 am |
So I did some research, Sammi. And what I found was that there are a few studies that do show a correlation between thimerosal and some neurological outcomes. Then there are other studies that don’t. Generally speaking, the studies that don’t are in better journals.
Now, you know, I’m sure that a conspiracy minded person could come to all sorts of conclusions. But on conclusion that you can’t come to is that “They were noticed years ago and are well accepted in the field of Neuroscience,” because that just isn’t true.
You also can’t say that flu infection doesn’t kill pregnant women or cause miscarriage, but that the immune reaction of vaccines will. First off, there is no evidence that suggests that flu vaccines cause miscarriage–you’re just making that up. Secondly, the major danger of the flu is not some kind of immune system malfunction, it’s getting a bacterial infection because your immune system is wiped out and your lungs are scarred up from coughing. Pnemonia will kill you. So you’re just making up that sydochrine producing whatever as well. I mean, seriously… a google search for “sydochrine” produces zero documents. That’s the definition of making something up.
It’s amazingly unethical to makes stuff up, and then use the stuff you made up to try and convince people not to get a vaccine that could save their life and the life of their unborn child. You’re a bad person, Sammi, and you should really reconsider your motives.
November 8, 2009 at 4:25 am
Dear philosodad:
I believe that Sammi made an honest mistake and rather than “making things up” is referring to the term “cytokine storm” which definitely can cause miscarriage and harm to both mother and baby. The reason this is especially important in pregnant women has to do with the nature of clotting mechanisms for women at this specific time. Clotting mechanisms in humans during pregnancy are designed by evolution to prevent excess bleeding which can be a threat to both mothers and babies. Clotting protein factors reside in plasma which is connective tissue btw.
The immune system also resides in connective tissue. As a result of changes in plasma proteins during pregnancy, these systems are particularly susceptible to dysregulation via positive feedback loops aka “cytokine storm”.
Interestingly adjuvants in vaccines such as thimerosal and aluminum products (which are also present in non-thimerosol vaccines) are used in vaccines as strong immune stimulants to attempt to augment and enhance immune response to viral proteins. The purpose of adjuvants is to create a powerful immune response and therefore use fewer live or attenuated viruses in the vaccine. In the fragile immune and clotting cascades of pregnant women you don’t even need viral particles to set off a storm however, all you need is enough immune stimulating adjuvant to overstimulate an immune response and set off a potentially deadly cytokine storm.
In regards to your comments to Sammi regarding studies of thimerosal, perhaps you haven’t been examining all of the neuroscience. There are more than “a few studies”. To get you started, here are 21 peer reviewed studies from respected journals documenting thimerosal dangers for you and your readers. Let me know if you want the actual medline links and I’ll do your grunt work for you and provide the links to make this information more accessible.
Mercury is hazardous to humans. Its use in medicinal products is undesirable, unnecessary and should be minimized or eliminated entirely. Manufacturers of vaccines and thimerosal, (an ethlymercury compound used in vaccines), have never conducted adequate testing on the safety of thimerosal. The FDA has never required manufacturers to conduct adequate safety testing on thimerosal and ethlymercury compounds.
1. Environmental Health Perspectives, August, 2005
“This study demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that ethyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in vaccines, not only ends up in your brain, but leaves double the amount of inorganic mercury as methyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in fish.
This work is groundbreaking because little is known about ethyl mercury, and many health authorities have asserted that the mercury found in vaccines is the “safe kind.”
This study also delivers a strong rebuke of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation in 2004 to no longer pursue the mercury-autism connection. Excerpt:
“A recently published IOM review (IOM 2004) appears to have abandoned the earlier recommendation [of studying mercury and autism] as well as back away from the American Academy of Pediatrics goal [of removing mercury from vaccines].
This approach is difficult to understand, given our current limited knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental neurotoxicity of thimerosal, a compound that has been (and will continue to be) injected in millions of newborns and infants.”
2. Cell Biology and Toxicology April 9, 2009 [Epub Ahead of Print]
Exerpt: “In conclusion, MT-1 and MT-3 mRNAs but not MT-2 mRNA are easily expressed in the cerebellum rather than in the cerebrum by the injection of low-dose thimerosal. It is thought that the cerebellum is a sensitive organ against thimerosal.
As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.”
3. Annals of Epidemiology September 2009: 19(9);659
Male infants who received thimerosal-containing hepatitis-B vaccinations had a three-fold risk of developing autism.
4. Neurotoxicology October 1, 2009
The above findings are confirmed in this study wherein infant primates injected with just ONE dose of thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine manifested significant developmental delays.
5. Brain Research September 9, 2009 [Epub Ahead of Print]
Study concluded that injecting thimerosal into suckling infant rats, and adult rats, impairs sensitivity to pain, apparently due to activation the endogenous opioid system.
6. Toxicology & Environmental Chemistry September-October 2008: 90(5);997-1008
Male infants who received thimerosal-containing hepatitis-B vaccinations were nine times as likely to be receiving special education services
7. Generation Rescue Survey of 9,000 boys, aged 4-17, in California and Oregon, found that vaccinated boys had a 155 percent greater chance of having a neurological disorder than unvaccinated boys. Vaccinated boys were 224 percent more likely to have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and 61 percent more likely to have autism.
For boys in the 11-17 age bracket, the results were even more pronounced. Vaccinated boys were 158 percent more likely to have a neurological disorder, 317 percent more likely to have ADHD, and 112 percent more likely to have autism.
8. Report to the Legislature on the Principle Findings from The Epidemiology of Autism in California: A Comprehensive Pilot Study by the MIND Institute, October 2002, concluded that the rise in autism cannot be explained by better diagnosis and expanded diagnostic criteria, but rather is a real event, likely propelled by “environmental exposures to substances such as mercury; viral exposures; autoimmune disorders; and childhood vaccinations.”
9. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2006: 214; 99-108
This French study used a new, sophisticated measurement for environmental toxicity by assessing porphyrin levels in autistic children. It provides clear and unequivocal evidence that children with autism spectrum disorders are significantly more toxic than their neurotypical peers.
10. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeon, 2003
Exerpt: “The data from this study, along with emerging epidemiological data showing a link between increasing mercury doses from childhood vaccines and childhood neurodevelopmental disorders, increases the likelihood that mercury is one of the main factors leading to the large increase in the rate of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. It is hoped that removing thimerosal from all childhood vaccines will contribute to a decline in the numbers of new cases of autistic spectrum disorders.”
11. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 2007: 70; 837-851
This study reviewed the case histories and medical profiles of nine autistic children and concluded that eight of the nine children were mercury toxic and this toxicity manifested itself in a manner consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
12. Neuropediatrics, August 2006
Exerpt: “There was significant difference in blood mercury levels between cases and controls, which persists after adjustment for age, gender and parental occupational status. The geometric mean blood mercury level was also significantly higher in children with inattentive and combined subtypes of ADHD. CONCLUSION: High blood mercury level was associated with ADHD. Whether the relationship is causal requires further studies.”
13. International Journal of Toxicology 2003: 22; 277-285
Fourteenstudies.org states: “This recent study demonstrates that the levels of mercury in the birth hair of autistic children were significantly lower than their control peers. While this may at first appear contradictory, it highlights one of the critical insights to understanding mercury poisoning and autistic children: many autistic children are non-excretors of mercury. This means their capacity to excrete mercury is significantly lower than their neurotypical peers and contributes to their condition.”
14. Journal of Pediatrics, May 2000: 136; 679-681
This study measured mercury levels in infants before and after the administration of a Hepatitis B vaccine containing thimerosal and found that a “comparison of pre and post-vaccination mercury levels showed a significant increase in both preterm and term infants after vaccination.”
15. Neurotoxicology January 2005: 26; 1-8
Study demonstrates that thimerosal lowers or inhibits your body’s ability to produce glutathione, an antioxidant and your body’s primary cellular-level defense against mercury.
Excerpt: “Thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with depletion of intracellular Glutathione in both cell lines…The potential effect of Glutathione or N-acetylcysteine against mercury toxicity warrants further research as possible adjunct therapy to individuals still receiving Thimerosal-containing vaccines.”
16. Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2006
Study demonstrates that very low-levels of Thimerosal can contribute to immune system disregulation.
17. Molecular Psychiatry July 2004; 1-13
Study demonstrates how thimerosal inhibits methylation, a central driver of cellular communication and development.
Exerpt: “The potent inhibition of this pathway [methylation] by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum, and thimerosal suggests it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins.”
18. Molecular Psychiatry September 2004; 1-13
“This work by Columbia University Doctors explores whether genes are important in determining if mercury exposures akin to those in childhood immunizations can disrupt brain development and function.
It is the first known scientific study done specifically on ethlymercury administered in a way similar to the vaccine schedule. Dr. Hornig discussed the study before Congress in September 2004.”
Excerpt: “The premise of our research is that if mercury in vaccines creates risk for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, genetic differences are likely to contribute to that risk. Earlier studies, however, did not use the form of mercury present in vaccines, known as thimerosal, and did not consider whether intramuscular, repetitive administration during early postnatal development, when the brain and immune systems are still maturing, might intensify toxicity.
Our predictions were confirmed. Using thimerosal dosages and timing that approximated the childhood immunization schedule, our model of postnatal thimerosal neurotoxicity demonstrated that the genes in mice that predict mercury-related immunotoxicity also predicted nuerodevelopmental damage. Features reminiscent of those observed in autism occurred in the mice of the genetically sensitive strain.”
19. Toxicological Sciences 2003: 74
Study demonstrates the potent toxicity of thimerosal on brain cells.
20. Autoimmunity Reviews June 2005: 4(5):270-275
Study demonstrates the clear link between ethylmercury [from thimerosal] and autoimmune responses.
21. Congressional Record – Extensions of Remarks by Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), Committee on Government Reform, May 21, 2003
“This extensive report was prepared by the staff of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness and was the result of a three-year investigation. The Committee on Government Reform, chaired by Congressman Dan Burton, initiated the investigation and compiled the testimony of hundreds of researchers and physicians, as well as representatives from the FDA and CDC, who presented to the committee.”
Excerpt: “Mercury is hazardous to humans. Its use in medicinal products is undesirable, unnecessary and should be minimized or eliminated entirely. Manufacturers of vaccines and thimerosal, (an ethlymercury compound used in vaccines), have never conducted adequate testing on the safety of thimerosal. The FDA has never required manufacturers to conduct adequate safety testing on thimerosal and ethlymercury compounds…
Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism epidemic. This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding injected thimerosal and the sharp rise of infant exposure to this known neurotoxin. Our public health agencies’ failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.”
22. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2006; 11(1); 8-13
Upon analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), researchers reported significantly increased odds ratios for autism, speech disorders, mental retardation and thinking abnormalities following vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines (DTP and Hib), compared to children who received a vaccine containing half the amount of thimerosal (DTPH).
The American Academy of Pediatrics decided that this study was flawed because it relied on VAERS data, which as a “passive surveillance system” is no intended to be used for proving hypotheses.
Perhaps you are getting a broader evidence based picture?
November 9, 2009 at 12:09 am
“In regards to your comments to Sammi regarding studies of thimerosal, perhaps you haven’t been examining all of the neuroscience.”
No, I actually DID study the neuroscience. Instead of only looking for papers on one side of the issue, I looked at papers on both sides of the issue. What I found was that Sammi is completely making up the claim that thimerosals effects are “well accepted in the field of Neuroscience.” They aren’t.
The difference between us is that I HAVE a broader, evidence based picture, and you have a prior conclusion that you cherry pick studies to fit.
November 8, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
I’m still not seeing any controlled studies showing safety of flu vaccines. Do you believe that the case the case must be made that flu vaccines of any type are safe, especially when it comes to children?
Where are all of the controlled safety studies? Seriously. I’ve been inquiring about good safety studies of flu vaccines. Where are they? Still haven’t seen them anywhere including on this site. Perhaps your faith in thimerosal safety is not supported by evidence. Or perhaps it is a well kept secret.
November 8, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
I really don’t have the time or interest to go back and forth with you on this, so if you have problems with these studies then you can refer your complaints to Dr. Mark Crislip of Science-Based Medicine. I’m not an infectious disease doctor like him, so arguing with me would be fruitless.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/342306?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3700611?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19796721?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443504?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18522501?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17167134?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18618057?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035445?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965629?dopt=Abstract
November 8, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Thanks for posting these links. And I’m sorry you won’t be reading these comments. Going through them was a good exercise for me anyway, and I’ll post my comments for other readers to consider and perhaps have dialogue. As Ghandi said first they make fun of you, then they ignore you, then they attack you, and then you win. I’m not trying to win here. I’m simply exposing my ideas to the crucible of debate and feel that my mind is better for it.
I was disappointed in as not a single one of your links has any relevance to either thimerosal safety or the safety of flu vaccines. I would still say that you are flying on faith here in terms of your beliefs in the safety of mercury compounds. Ignorance is a type of looking away and sadly you will be ignoring the following comments.
Link #1: This is not a study of FLU VACCINE SAFETY. It was a retrospective study and not a clinical trial. We’re looking for clinical trials here as they are the gold standard. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/342306?dopt=Abstract
Link #2: This is not a study of FLU VACCINE SAFETY! It compares results of live versus attenuated vaccines. A good scientist wanting to determine safety would have a control group and a treatment group. This study only looks at differences between live and attenuated vaccines. This is like comparing smokers who smoke one pack a day to those who smoke two packs a day, seeing no difference in cancer rates, and saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3700611?dopt=Abstract
Link #3: This was not a long term study. It appears from the abstract that serious adverse events were only monitored for 11 days post vaccination. Most so called “safety” studies of flu vaccine safety are less than two weeks duration and therefore not truly valid. Neurological complications from flu vaccine can occur months to years after vaccination from flu. Episodes of Guillon Barrett, for example occurred months after vaccination. Additionally, “efficacy” of this study was based on antignenicity and not actual incidence of flu. The rate of antigenic protection was only ~53% which is not very high. Antigenicity is a convenient way to measure, but not really a good way to determine effectiveness. Here’s why:
You will find that paragraph in all the vaccine inserts: “Specific levels of HI antibody titers post-vaccination with inactivated influenza virus vaccine have not been correlated with protection from influenza virus. In some human studies, antibody titers of 1:40 or greater have been associated with protection from influenza illness in up to 50% of subjects.”
What that paragraph says, is that the vaccine only works in half, or less, of those individuals who attain the specified level of seroconversion after vaccination. The FDA defines seroconversion as achieving an antibody titer of 1:40.
This means that if a vaccine was 100 percent effective at achieving this level of seroconversion, it would protect up to 50 percent of the recipients of the vaccine. Since seroconversion was around 50% this means only about 25% of vaccine recipients were protected in the study you are referencing.
Again, THIS WAS NOT REALLY A STUDY OF SAFETY. Sorry. Once again no real safety science here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19796721?dopt=Abstract
Link #4: Authors conclusions make no reference to SAFETY, only efficacy. Of the all of the studies examined in this report, only 2 were reports of harms which could not be and were not introduced in the data analysis. Sorry, no information on flu vaccine safety here. :’-(
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443504?dopt=Abstract
Link #5: Again this was not a study of VACCINE SAFETY!. It compares results of live versus attenuated vaccines and was not a clinical trial. This is like comparing smokers who smoke one pack a day to those who smoke two packs a day, seeing no difference in cancer rates, and saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
Efficacy of this study was based on antignenicity and not actual incidence of flu. The rate of antigenic protection was only ~54% which is not very high.
You will find that paragraph in all the vaccine inserts: “Specific levels of HI antibody titers post-vaccination with inactivated influenza virus vaccine have not been correlated with protection from influenza virus. In some human studies, antibody titers of 1:40 or greater have been associated with protection from influenza illness in up to 50% of subjects.”
What that paragraph says, is that the vaccine only works in half, or less, of those individuals who attain the specified level of seroconversion after vaccination. The FDA defines seroconversion as achieving an antibody titer of 1:40.
This means that if a vaccine was 100 percent effective at achieving this level of seroconversion, it would protect up to 50 percent of the recipients of the vaccine. Since seroconversion was around 50% this means only slightly more than 25% of vaccine recipients were protected in the study you are referencing.
Again, THIS WAS NOT REALLY A STUDY OF SAFETY. Sorry. Once again, no real science demonstrating flu vaccine or thimerosal safety here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18522501?dopt=Abstract
Link #6: This is not a study of VACCINE SAFETY!. It compares results of live versus attenuated vaccines. This is like comparing smokers who smoke one pack a day to those who smoke two packs a day, seeing no difference in cancer rates, and saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Once again, no real science demonstrating safety of thimerosal or flu vaccine here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17167134?dopt=Abstract
Link #7: Not a study of safety either. In fact it only looks at influenza like illness (ILI). Only about 7% of ILI is actually flu. Still no thimerosal or flu vaccine safety studies on this blog! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18618057?dopt=Abstract
Link #8: This is not a study of VACCINE SAFETY!. It compares results of live versus attenuated vaccines. This is like comparing smokers who smoke one pack a day to those who smoke two packs a day, seeing no difference in cancer rates, and saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Once again, no real science demonstrating thimerosol or flu vaccine safety here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035445?dopt=Abstract
Link #9: Shows only moderate efficacy in immune compromised individuals. Once again, no real science demonstrating safety here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965629?dopt=Abstract
By my count that makes nine strikes out of nine studies presented. That would be three outs. Inning over. And sadly, still no safety studies of flu vaccine or thimerosal on this blog.
November 10, 2009 at 8:30 am |
What frustrates me is that the MSM and the people that get vaccinated accuse those who practice their own health care (including not getting vaccinated) as not being socially responsible. If the vaccine is so effective what are they worried about?
Personally, there is more than enough data to convince me that ethyl mercury is not safe.
November 10, 2009 at 9:56 am |
Jordan, in order for a vaccine to be maximally effective, vaccination rates have to be about 95% or so. So in fact, you are not being socially responsible if you don’t get vaccinated… you’re encouraging the spread and mutation of disease by offering your body as a vector for the spread and mutation of the disease.
What’s worse, though, is trying to convince others not to vaccinate through a campaign of fear mongering, misinformation, and outright lies. For example, people have apparently convinced you that there is some sort of data that ethyl mercury is harmful to adults in the tiny amounts found in vaccines. As far as I know, the weight of the evidence does not support such a conclusion, so the only way that you would think that the data is convincing would be if you have been misinformed. That’s unfortunate.
One thing we know with absolute certainty, by the way, is that the flu kills and harms more people every year than even the most extreme and evidence-free anti-vaccination propagandists would claim are harmed by vaccines. That’s food for thought.
November 8, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
Here’s a link to recent trials for the flu vaccine. Hope that helps.
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/vteuH1N1qa.htm
You’re making the claim that flu vaccines are not proven to be safe, despite the fact that they are widely used around the world every year without any serious side effects. Maybe we should start from there. What is your evidence that the flu vaccine is dangerous?
November 9, 2009 at 12:20 am |
And as much as I’d love to take your word for what a “real scientist” would do, or what constitutes a study of vaccine safety, I’m going to just go ahead and call bullshit.
The studies are there. You don’t like their methods, and you don’t like what they found, because you have a prior axe to grind. But you deciding that they aren’t really safety studies don’t make it so.
November 9, 2009 at 10:59 pm |
Dear phiosodad, I won’t swear in this post, but I will call BS right back at your inaccurate comment. Here’s why:
Despite being given to millions of people every year not one study (not a single one) looks for long term side effects from flu vaccine. So no, I don’t think this is good methodology! The few studies that exist (and there are only a few) are only looking at the short term consequences while ignoring potential long side-effects.
The potential danger from vaccines is not just short-term immediately after the shot! If you’re a neuroscientist, you should understand this. Guillon Barrett syndrome occurred months after swine flu vaccination for example, and killed and paralyzed many people. We know for a fact that therefore that vaccines can affect the nervous system months after administration. Nobody has really looked for potential long term damage from flu vaccines of any type. How can you really measure safety when you are not looking at potential long term effects at all?
There is an important issue here and it affects the lives and future millions of children. And the truth is there are no real safety studies. You can chose to believe what you like, but don’t fool people into thinking that somehow science has supported long term safety of flu vaccine.
November 10, 2009 at 2:38 am |
“Despite being given to millions of people every year not one study (not a single one) looks for long term side effects from flu vaccine.”
But that’s not true. That’s a “fact” that you are just making up! There are studies that do look for side effects from flu vaccination 9 or 10 years after vaccination. Pub med is your friend. Use it.
The reason I’m calling bullshit on you is that you are making things up, and you are changing criteria based on your desired outcomes. When a VAER study is on your side, it’s a good study, worth citing. When the results fall on the other side, it’s not a real study. Whatever.
I am not a neuroscientist, by the way, and I’ve never claimed to be. I’ve read a bunch of papers. The main difference between us is that you’ve looked at a bunch of papers hoping to prove something, and I’ve looked at a bunch of papers hoping to learn something.