Why thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the early 2000s
I recently wrote an entry which sparked a mini-war in the comments between myself and, what appears to be an anti-vaccine proponent. Many arguments were discussed, a few barbs were exchanged, and inevitably the topic of thimerosal came up. The commenter claimed that thimerosal was removed by the authorities “based on scientific analysis”. My reply was the standard: thimerosal was removed as a precautionary measure, in response to public outcry, stirred on by the anti-vaccine movement and their fear-mongering that mercury in vaccines was causing autism. The commenter replied to this:
No, you need to buff up on your history. Thimerosal was investigated because the government and EPA identified the danger of mercury exposure to the population at large and ordered an analysis into every exposure. The FDA then realized that exposures were occurring through Thimerosal and since mercury is a potent neurotoxin (that’s why the analysis was ordered in the first place) and that exposures were causing problems in the population, that it was prudent to eliminate that route of exposure. You seem to be falling for some manufactured history here.
Could it be that my understanding of the history of thimerosal is wrong? It is certainly possible, after all we all know how unreliable memory can be and how we humans can remember things wrong. So I decided to look it up, as a refresher, and to ensure that my comment was in fact correct. The CDC thankfully has a general timeline of the thimerosal saga. So let us go through it and see if the authorities did in fact remove thimerosal because they realized that mercury exposure “was occurring through Thimerosal”, or they removed it as a precaution.
Thimerosal Saga Timeline
07/07-1999 - The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service issue a joint statement that says “there is no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule. Infants and children who have received thimerosal-containing vaccines do not need to be tested for mercury exposure.“ Furthermore it states (emphasis added):
The recognition that some children could be exposed to a cumulative level of mercury over the first 6 months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines on methyl mercury now requires a weighing of two different types of risks when vaccinating infants. On the one hand, there is the known serious risk of diseases and deaths caused by failure to immunize our infants against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases; on the other, there is the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of neurodevelopmental effects posed by exposure to thimerosal. The large risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first 6 months of life.
Nevertheless, because any potential risk is of concern, the Public Health Service (PHS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and vaccine manufacturers agree that thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible. Similar conclusions were reached this year in a meeting attended by European regulatory agencies, European vaccine manufacturers, and FDA, which examined the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines produced or sold in European countries.
So, what the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics were saying on 07/07/1999 is that there is no known risk from exposure to thimerosal, but regardless they were moving to have it removed regardless of this lack of evidence, solely based on “potential risk”. This seems to support my claim that thimerosal was removed out of precaution, not evidence of harm.
11/05/1999 – CDC states that vaccine manufacturers, FDA, and other agencies are working together to reduce the amount of thimerosal in vaccines, or to replace them with thimerosal-free vaccines, as soon as possible. It stated the following (emphasis added):
The risk, if any, to infants from exposure to thimerosal is believed to be slight. The demonstrated risks for not vaccinating children far outweigh the theoretical risk for exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines during the first 6 months of life.
Given the availability of vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative, the progress in developing such additional vaccines, and the absence of any recognized harm from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines, hepatitis B, DTaP, and Hib vaccines that contain thimerosal as a preservative can continue to be used in the routine infant schedule beginning at age 2 months along with monovalent or combination vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative.
1999 – From the CDC website (emphasis added):
The FDA reviews the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines and finds no evidence of harm, but as a precautionary measure, recommends removing thimerosal from vaccines routinely given to infants.
05/05/2001 – A risk assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines, published in the journal Pediatrics, finds no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a preservative, other than redness and swelling at the injection site. More specifically the authors concluded as such (emphasis added):
Conclusion. Our review revealed no evidence of harm caused by doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for local hypersensitivity reactions. However, some infants may be exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first 6 months of life that exceed EPA recommendations. Exposure of infants to mercury in vaccines can be reduced or eliminated by using products formulated without thimerosal as a preservative.
10/01/2001 - IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee issues a report concluding there is not enough evidence to disprove claims that thimerosal in childhood vaccines causes autism, attention deficit hypersensitivity disorder, or speech or language delay. This is yet another better safe than sorry kind of report; there is no evidence that it is harmful, but we can’t prove it isn’t either.
2001 – Except for influenza (flu), thimerosal is removed from or reduced in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and under manufactured for the U.S. market.
08/2003 – A study looks for a link between autism incidence and the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines. The study does not find a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism in Denmark and Sweden, where autism rates continued to increase although thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 1992. Study authors conclude as such (emphasis added):
CONCLUSIONS: The body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, is not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide.
11/2003 - Another study, published in Pediatrics, finds no consistent significant associations between exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and a variety of kidney, nervous system, and developmental problems. The authors concluded as follow (emphasis added, TCV means Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines):
Conclusions. No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.
05/17/2004 - After reviewing scientific studies that examined thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, concludes in a report that the studies “consistently provided evidence of no association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.”
07/07/2007 – CDC issues a statement on autism and thimerosal that states in part “Some people believe increased exposure to thimerosal (from the addition of important vaccines recommended for children) explains the higher prevalence [of autism] in recent years. However, evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association.“
09/27/2007 – A CDC study does not support an association between early exposure to thimerosal in vaccines and nervous system disorders in children between the ages of 7 and 10 years.
The weight of the evidence in this study does not support a causal association between early mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or immunoglobulins and neuropsychological functioning at ages 7 to 10 years.
09/13/2010 – Another CDC study, published in Pediatrics, shows no connection between prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal and autism rates. The authors concluded as such (emphasis added):
CONCLUSIONS In our study of MCO members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs.
Conclusion
First, let us bear in mind that this entry’s goal is not to summarize all the evidence, or lack there off, about thimerosal and its safety, but the goal was to verify my comment in the exchange with the commenter that the authorities decided to remove thimerosal not because of the scientific evidence showing harm, as the commenter claimed, but as a precautionary method.
All the documents linked to above point in the same direction; each one reaches the conclusion that there was no evidence of risk from thimerosal in vaccines. All risks are hypothetical, and since these studies could never prove definitively that thimerosal in vaccines doesn’t cause any extremely rare serious, they’re all couched in the “maybe” language. They all read as follows: No evidence of harm was found, but we can’t prove it so let’s take it out just to be safe. This is being interpreted by the anti-vaccine crowd as the “authorities admitting that the scientific evidence shows that thimerosal is harmful”.
I am the one who is being told to re-learn the history, but based on this evidence I’ve presented here today, it appears it is some on the anti-vaccine crowd that either do not know, or willfully misinterpret, the history.
Leart,
You never provided a single shred of evidence statement to support your original assertion:
“Thimerosal was removed thanks to the fear mongering of the anti-vaxx groups; the authorities gave in removed it in response to public outcry, and in the hopes that that would make the fears go away.”
If you’re going to write a whole entry trying to make a point, you would think you could provide even a single reference to support your primary assertion. Let’s contrast that with every point in my statement which can be easily verified. Oh, and press releases aren’t considered scientific evidence in most circles, no matter who the releases the information to the press.
“No, you need to buff up on your history.”
You still have not yet provided any evidence of public backlash or “anti-vaxx” pressure that resulted in the instructions issued by the FDA. Since you made that still unsubstantiated assertion, my recommendation that you buff up on your history is still quite valid. Since we are discussing history here, it’s pretty sad that the earliest evidence you decide to comment on is an AAP/PHS statement in 1999. Given that Maurice Hilleman (I assume you know who he is?) already noted in a Merck memo in 1991 that scandanavian countries were already removing Thimerosal from vaccines due to concerns of overall exposure which was exceeding recommended limits. This of course is based on a scientific analysis of the exposures. That long predates any “pressure” from any public entity.
“Thimerosal was investigated because the government and EPA identified the danger of mercury exposure to the population at large and ordered an analysis into every exposure.”
In 1998 the EPA had a Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) chemical program initiated in the early 1990′s which aimed to identify and reduce all public exposures to PBTs. In 1998 they published a draft PBT initiative on Mercury. In 1997, congress passed an action requiring the FDA to review mercury in drugs and biologics. In December 1998, the FDA requested information from producers about mercury in their products. All of this is quite consistent with my statement above.
“The FDA then realized that exposures were occurring through Thimerosal and since mercury is a potent neurotoxin (that’s why the analysis was ordered in the first place) and that exposures were causing problems in the population, that it was prudent to eliminate that route of exposure.”
To quote from the simpsonwood transcripts: “There was a recognition that the cumulative exposure that children receive from vaccination may actually exceed at least one of the guidelines that is recommended, that of the EPA. That caused a concern which resulted in a joint statement of the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics in July of last year, which basically stated that as a long term goal, it was desirable to remove mercury from vaccines because it was a potentially preventable source of exposure. And if it was able to be removed, that it should be removed as soon as possible. That goal was agreed upon.”
Again, this is entirely consistent with my statement.
“You seem to be falling for some manufactured history here.”
Since you still provide not a single piece of evidence to support your statement I can only conclude you have indeed fallen for some pro-mercury propaganda.
As for “based on scientific analysis”.
First, Maurice Hilleman working for Merck already performed a scientific analysis of exposure in 1991 and identified that TCV’s could expose infants to higher than recommended levels of mercury. The EPA has long studied mercury and it is well known to be bioaccumulative. You can read on their website the large increase in population exposure, so ALL exposure was to be reduced and eliminated if possible.
From the Simpsonwood transcripts: “There is a very limited pharmacokinetic data concerning ethylmercury. There is very limited data on its blood levels. There is no data on its excretion. It is recognized to both cross placenta and the blood-brain barrier.” This is consistent with my previous assertion that your statements on safety are unsubstantiated. As I asserted in my previous contents, there is very little data on the biological effects of Thimerosal in humans. However, we do know from a later study by Burbacher, that Thimerosal is indeed bioaccumulative leaving deposits of inorganic mercury in the brain and renal systems.
Given that mercury exposure including from TCV’s is scientifically accepted to be bioaccumulative, and that any exposure to mercury should be limited or eliminated and that the levels of exposure from TCV’s were thought to exceed recommended limits, it seems pretty clear that the SCIENTIFIC analysis is what led to the prudent recommendation to remove it from vaccines.
All of your rant above does nothing to contradict any of my statements, and indeed, indicates that you do have a lack of understanding of the history of events, and the science involved.
You’re right: I said the government gave in, and didn’t use the word “precaution”, I guess that teaches me huh? The fact remains that I disproved your claim that the govt removed thimerosal due to the scientific evidence. I showed that all the actual scientific evidence the govt looked at showed no traces of harm from thimerosal. So, you think the fact that scandinavian govt decided to remove thimerosal, must have been based on scientific research. Which research in particular was that decision based on?
Do you really not see that everythign you quote is speculative? That there is a concern exposure might do this and that, that there is a recognition that mercury may accumulate and might do this and that? You do understand that that is not scientific evidence right?
So aside from stealing my actual point (that it was removed as a prudent precaution) and claiming it as your own, then claiming you actually knew the history, now you claim that the precautionary removal of mercury was not based on scientific analysis? Of course instead of quoting original documents, you are basing this on a series of press releases and statements coming from a PR department. I’m really getting the impression you have no intention in having an honest discussion here.
I pointed out quite clearly the scientific evidence used to determine that any exposure to mercury should be removed.
1) Did you miss the my description of mercury being a persistent bioaccumulative toxin?
2) Did you miss the part where Burbacher later confirmed that ethyl mercury was indeed bioaccumulative in brain and renal tissues?
3) Did you miss the logic that it is basic logic that you want to reduce human exposure to any persistent bioaccumulative toxin?
#1, and #2 are supported by lots of scientific evidence. #3 is a logical conclusion based on the scientific evidence from #1 and #2.
Which part are you disputing?
“hat there is a concern exposure might do this and that, that there is a recognition that mercury may accumulate and might do this and that?”
The FACT that mercury bioaccumulates in tissues is not speculation. It is supported by volumes of scientific evidence.
The evidence from Burbacher supports that FACT and even provides specific locations of bioaccumulation for Thimerosal.
There is no dispute in the scientific or medical community about these points.
“You do understand that that is not scientific evidence right?”
Why don’t you try being very specific for a change since you have a tendency to both change your arguments and move the goalposts when convenient.
1) Do you deny there is scientific evidence that mercury bioaccumulates in the population?
2) Do you deny there is scientific evidence that Ethyl mercury bioaccumulates in the population?
3) Do you deny the logic that if you want to reduce overall mercury accumulation in a person, you need to reduce or limit any exposure to mercury?
4) Do you deny that it was a scientific analysis that led to the discovery that the dosage of mercury from vaccines was above the recommended limits?
I see you like to talk about “mercury”; what do you mean by that? Pure mercury (Hg)? Methylmercury? Thimerosal? Because the conversation here is about the later, and you’re muddying the waters by using the word “mercury”. Thimerosal has never been shown to have any adverse effects in humans, in the concentrations it is found in vaccines. That is what all the evidence reviewed by all the athoritative bodies concludes. That’s what the CDC concluded; that’s what the Institue of Medicines concluded; that’s what the American Academy of Pediatricians concluded; that’s what the WHO concluded. Since this last one wasn’t linke to in my blog entry here is a link http://goo.gl/1o6eh.
If you want to make the case that thimerosal is harmful, show your evidence, if you can.
Leart,
“I see you like to talk about “mercury”; what do you mean by that?”
Both methyl and ethyl (Thimerosal) mercury result in inorganic and organic mercury bioaccumulatation in the body. Do you disagree?
“Thimerosal has never been shown to have any adverse effects in humans, in the concentrations it is found in vaccines.”
That point is irrelevant to this discussion. Ignorance due to lack of proper study implies nothing so that point means nothing. The point of the argument is whether the recommendation to remove Thimerosal from Vaccines was based on scientific analysis, which it was.
“If you want to make the case that thimerosal is harmful, show your evidence, if you can.”
Again, that is a strawman, I never made that argument. That is your projection. I corrected your inaccurate portrayal of the history Thimerosal removal and you still protest despite not having any evidence to support your assertion. Until a decade ago, they didn’t no minute levels of lead exposure reduced your IQ. At the time the statement “There is no evidence that minute amounts of lead are harmful” was also true, but irrelevant.
I notice you refuse to answer any of the very direct questions. Clearly you have no intention of having an honest discussion.
PS: You do understand that you cannot claim that thimerosal was removed as a “prudent precaution” and claim that the scientific evidence supports the claim that thimerosal is harmful in the quantities it is present in vaccines right? Because if the scientific evidence said that it was harmful the word precaution does not apply anymore; you get that right? What is your position in this matter anyway, it’s not clear.
Second PS: Here’s a spokesperson of GlaxoSmithKline saying that they removed thimerosal from their Pediarix vaccine in response to public concerns. PUBLIC concerns. And although it is impossible for me to show that the public they’re referring to was anti-vaccination kooks in whole, I think we can all agree that the anti-vaccination kooks were a huge part of the expressed “public concern” about mercury.
http://www.ei-resource.org/news/autism-news/thimerosal-removed-from-vaccine-amid-autism-fears/
“You do understand that you cannot claim that thimerosal was removed as a “prudent precaution” and claim that the scientific evidence supports the claim that thimerosal is harmful in the quantities it is present in vaccines right?”
Please try to read my commentary before jumping to conclusions. Where did I state Thimerosal was harmful in any particular dosage? I stated quite clearly that it is scientifically prudent to reduce and eliminate ANY exposure to ANY bioaccumulative toxin. Do you disagree?
“Because if the scientific evidence said that it was harmful the word precaution does not apply anymore; you get that right?”
It certainly does if you’re talking about history PRIOR to the evidence coming to light. You do realize were talking about various timeframes don’t you?
PS: Two studies have shown statistically relevent association of negative neurological affects with Thimerosal exposure through vaccines. You really ought to buff up on your reading.
“What is your position in this matter anyway, it’s not clear.”
LOL, you spend paragraphs arguing with me ASSUMING I take a particular review only to realize it’s all a projection. You really ought to read my arguments more carefully, as I have been quite clear about the points I was making.
“Second PS: Here’s a spokesperson of GlaxoSmithKline saying that they removed thimerosal from their Pediarix vaccine in response to public concerns. PUBLIC concerns.”
PS: Did you notice the date? 2007! That was 8 years after the recommendation to remove it from vaccines was made. Your evidence fails to support your original assertion.
Now for fun, let’s examine all the erroreous or misleading statements you actually made:
“…what appears to be an anti-vaccine proponent.”
Please point out a single statement that was anti-vaccine? Or is that yet another evidence free statement?
“…and inevitably the topic of thimerosal came up.”
Given that your article cherry picked a single statement from the IV post about Thimerosal, it was hardly an accident that Thimerosal came up in the discussion as you imply with your statement.
“So let us go through it and see if the authorities did in fact remove thimerosal ”
The authorities never removed Thimerosal. They only recommended to the manufacturers that it be removed. They never deregulated any TCV’s and in fact continue to have TCV’s in their list of approved vaccines and part of their recommended list.
“This seems to support my claim that thimerosal was removed out of precaution, not evidence of harm.”
You just changed your argument. This was your statement:
“Now just to clarify things it is not true that the authorities recommended removing thimerosal based on scientific analysis. Thimerosal was removed thanks to the fear mongering of the anti-vaxx groups; the authorities gave in removed it in response to public outcry, and in the hopes that that would make the fears go away. It was a compromise which has backfired tremendously as proved by your statement.”
You didn’t make any assertion that they removed it for precautionary purposes at all. In fact, it was me who stated they removed it for precautionary purposes. Not only did you manufacture some history, you just tried to change the history of your own post!
“First, let us bear in mind that this entry’s goal is not to summarize all the evidence, or lack there off, about thimerosal and its safety, but the goal was to verify my comment in the exchange with the commenter that the authorities decided to remove thimerosal not because of the scientific evidence showing harm, as the commenter claimed, but as a precautionary method.”
Shall we review your comment again?
“Thimerosal was removed thanks to the fear mongering of the anti-vaxx groups; the authorities gave in removed it in response to public outcry, and in the hopes that that would make the fears go away. It was a compromise which has backfired tremendously as proved by your statement.”
Let’s review my response AGAIN:
“…The FDA then realized that exposures were occurring through Thimerosal and since mercury is a potent neurotoxin (that’s why the analysis was ordered in the first place) and that exposures were causing problems in the population, that it was prudent to eliminate that route of exposure…”
Let me point out the key words: “it was prudent to eliminate that route of exposure”
That is what I said. Not you. You claimed public pressure for which you have yet to provide any evidence.
“They all read as follows: No evidence of harm was found, but we can’t prove it so let’s take it out just to be safe. This is being interpreted by the anti-vaccine crowd as the “authorities admitting that the scientific evidence shows that thimerosal is harmful.”
Amazing. You infer that lack of evidence of harm is sufficient to base a key decision for mandated mass medication. Despite an admission of lack of overall evidence? And you call that evidence based medicine. That’s the only thing that’s laughable here.
“I am the one who is being told to re-learn the history, but based on this evidence I’ve presented here today, it appears it is some on the anti-vaccine crowd that either do not know, or willfully misinterpret, the history.”
As I pointed out quite concisely through quotes, all of my statements were quite accurate, and even though you altered your argument for this post, you still didn’t contradict anything I said.
You know, for someone claiming the side of science, you seem to have a lot of trouble keeping your arguments consistent, let alone evidence based.
You said, and I’m paraphrasing, that the recommendation to remove thimerosal was based on scientific evidence. I showed that all the scientific evidence that the authorities based their decision on showed Thimerosal to be quite safe. In fact they go out of their way to emphasize that over and over. So what scientific evidence are you talking about, if not the one directly testing the safety of the compound in question?
What scientific evidence can be more important to the decision to keep or remove a compound, than the one directly testing its safety? Isn’t safety the reason why this whole thing started?
Leart,
“You said, and I’m paraphrasing, that the recommendation to remove thimerosal was based on scientific evidence.”
So please don’t paraphrase because you’ve already shown that you’ll alter what I actually said. This is what I said:
“…after all, it was they who recommended studying and removing it based on scientific analysis.”
“So what scientific evidence are you talking about, if not the one directly testing the safety of the compound in question?”
I thought I already quoted Simpsonwood where they clearly outline that it had never been directly tested. They were using the compound in ignorance.
“What scientific evidence can be more important to the decision to keep or remove a compound, than the one directly testing its safety?”
It’s called an analysis based on the data they did know because they didn’t and still don’t have any direct safety data. 1) Bioaccumulation of mercury in humans 2) Highly toxic effects from mercury = a recommendation to remove and reduce all controllable sources of mercury exposure. How much simpler does it get?
“Isn’t safety the reason why this whole thing started?”
Safety and mercury exposure was the reason that Thimerosal was removed from vaccines, yes.
Who cares about the date? It shows you what at least GlaxoSmithKline believes along the same lines I do, that the removal was simply a response to public concern. You have shown no evidence for your position; you just keep saying that my evidence doesn’t support mine, where is your evidence? Do you have any?
OK, let me boil down the argument for you. You have two pieces of evidence.
1) A request from the authorities and scientists to remove a toxin in 1999
2) A press release from a pharmaceutical company in 2007
Which evidence is pertinent to a recommendation made in early 2000′s to remove Thimerosal from vaccines?
Not the press release from 2007…
Actually, its starting to sound more and more like just word-play on your side. You’re evading answering anything. This is not progressing the way an honest conversation does; I’m trying to have a meaningful conversation here because I might learn something I don’t know, but I’m not so sure that’s what your intention is.
Hmm, let’s see. I’ve quoted almost every section of your article and addressed it. I’ve also provided references. You have not.
You seem fixated on stereotypes. You should read what I write, not what you think I stand for based on your own stereotypical assumptions. This whole article and argument on this page exists because you said they removed Thimerosal because of public outcry when in fact, the public outcry occurred after they announced the recommendation to remove it. They removed it because they performed an analysis and determined that the cumulative exposure was above recommendations.
I found my way here through the IV article and comments.
I find the opposite to be true. After reading both arguments, you appear to be backed into a corner. You have indeed moved the goal posts at least three times as well, which is something that vehement vaccine pushers often accuse their contemporaries of doing.
o_o
I’m not sure how to take this statement, would you please elaborate? Why would a press release from a publicly traded corporation saying their product is safe pass scientific scrutiny?
You are definitely not trying to have meaningful conversation and have shown that you do not want to learn something that might go against what you’ve already been spoonfed to believe.
You have shamelessly plagiarized unsupported statements from CDCs website and haven’t even bothered to research those press releases to see if they contain even a shred of credibility. This clearly defines the root of the entire problem as it relates to vaccine defenders and vaccine skeptics. Some people find more value in the scientific data used to make the false claims in those press releases, and are surprised at what they learn.
You have failed to support your argument, your claims, and your rant against the vaccine critical website Inside Vaccines. I’m glad someone is taking the time to verify nonsensical claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny, and I’d go as far to say that you could learn something from their viewpoint if you’d step down from your insolent soapbox.
Is either of you the writer of IV?
Just a reader.
As I understand it, that site is a collaboration of writers. They noted in your first article that you had critiqued theirs, and then linked both of your articles noting to read the comments and that’s how I got here.
Cool, thanks for the clarification. I wonder why WordPress isn’t showing them linking to the site?
Yuck, there’s so much ego flaring going around here!
I would simply like to state that although Thimerosal has been removed from many vaccines, they are still presently in use. I am a medical student, and I had to get my flu shot this month before I start seeing patients. (Even though most people get their flu shot in the fall, we had to get ours in the summer since we are not allowed to be exposed to patients otherwise.) I’ve had higher exposure to mercury when I was younger, so I made incredible efforts to locate a flu shot without thimerosal, as the one given to all medical students at my school called Fluvirin was a batch vaccine with thimerosal. I called all pharmacies near me, and even my county public health department, but nobody could help me. I was very sad and was wondering what to do. I started wondering if I should just take the Fluvirin vaccine but take chelators for several days following to get it out of my system (I have no idea if this would really work or not, but it was just an idea). Fortunately my dad (who is a physician) was able to get me a dose of Fluzone which is thimerosal free. The sad thing is that without my father’s connection, I wouldn’t have been able to obtain this version without thimerosal, as it was incredibly difficult to get. I fully support vaccination (I’m not anti-vacc at all, and feel many of the people who are against vaccines have no real medical knowledge). But at the same time, I am strongly in favor of changing formulations to make them without metals or other chemicals. I do understand why vaccines use such ingredients, as often some of these are used as adjuvants to provoke the immune response. But I think researchers needs to put more resources to finding better ingredients in their vaccinations.