Evidence has been building for sometime about the dangers of flouride in the water supply. much like the growing body of evidence about innoculations and the rise of autism. nothing tinfoil hat about it. it's kinda like lead poisioning nothing instant or overnight about, but it's opponents have years of data to work with connect the dots.

Evidence has been building for sometime about the dangers of flouride in the water supply. much like the growing body of evidence about innoculations and the rise of autism. nothing tinfoil hat about it. it's kinda like lead poisioning nothing instant or overnight about, but it's opponents have years of data to work with connect the dots.

You gotta be careful where you get your info. Its not all inoculations that lead to autism, its one specific one which is believed to lead to autism.

You gotta be careful where you get your info. Its not all inoculations that lead to autism, its one specific one which is believed to lead to autism.
Many multi-dose vials of vaccines still contain Thimerosal (mercury) as a preservative. Unless you special order a single dosage and pay extra for it, you're probably getting a hit off a multi-dose vial and getting mercury.

13 and a half years ago when my child was bieng annoculated I was blissfully unaware of this issue. my ex-wife even went so far as to have her administered the then new varicella vacine. it worked, and worked quite well.
She suffered no adverse affects(tested at 150 IQ). had a heavy exposure to chickenpox. got a few red dots for about 24 hours and then was fine. no sores or distinct breakout. over all vaccines work very well.

That bieng said.
I've heard the testimonials from parent's who claim, no swear that there was a distinct change in the behavior of thier children immediately following an innoculation. these are the kids who are diagnosed as autitistic soon afterwards.
I'll take the word of the people who live with a child 24 hours a day over that of a researcher with a microscope and a theory any day. even if the percentages of thimerosal reactions are tiny in comparison to the overall numbers of innoculations are you willing to roll the dice on the health of your child? I would'nt be. not a second time at least knowing what I know now.

I didn't know that Sanchek, I thought it was just the flu vaccine. There was a bill recently to prevent it being administered to kids as part of a government program, but Bush vetoed it because it'd be too expensive getting new ones without mercury out there.

Well look at autism rates today (1 in 150 kids) vs just 20 years ago (1 in 10,000 kids). There's a definite portion of that where its advanced understanding and knowledge of the disease and that it wasn't caught as much in the past - but that can't be all of it. And, the rate is still climbing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23519029/


My son at the age of 14 months said the word Ma, dog, Dada, and a few more. He had his MMR ....and he did not say another word except the word "wow" until the age 2year 5 months and that was after speech therapy five days a week for 2 months. For the months following the vaccine till he was like 2 years old he had a flat affect. I will never know for sure or not if it was due to the vaccine. I would never advocate not getting vaccines but there just has to be a safer way to do it.

My sister had her son's vaccines given singely, 2 weeks apart from each other. She had to fight for them and even had to pay out of pocket for some I believe due to her desire to do it that way.

Any thoughts on vaccines.....

Here's video from that story:

aV2WVbXEFWY

See that bottle he uses to load the syringe, about 1m in? That's the multi-dose type that they use a preservative in.

The "medical correspondent" at the end doesn't even mention that single dose vials are available that don't contain the mercury. He sets it up as if it's a choice between giving your kid mercury or letting them get polio.

I can say I did not let my son have another vaccine until he was age 7 at which time he was caught up and had all his vaccines now. :)

Many multi-dose vials of vaccines still contain Thimerosal (mercury) as a preservative. Unless you special order a single dosage and pay extra for it, you're probably getting a hit off a multi-dose vial and getting mercury.

I did not know that and I hit my son up with a flu vaccine (mulitdose, what the peds had in her office) this year....GRRRRR

He was the only one in the house to get the flu vaccine this year and he was the only one to get the flu. Go figure.....

No, vaccines are not causing autism. I lack time to get into this (doing a quick surf before I dig back into midterm studies), but I investigated the alleged link a couple years ago after hearing Robert Kennedy (IIRC) talk about it. I've found that the pro-link side has really played with data and appeals to emotion in presenting their case. They may mean well, but the evidence just isn't there.

Autism rates are up primarily due to increased reporting and expansive changes in the definition of what it means to be autistic.

I wonder what the measure of mercury on the vaccines is comparable to the fish we eat.

I wonder what the measure of mercury on the vaccines is comparable to the fish we eat.

You don't see many newborns eating fish. Most drink milk or eat baby food.

You don't see many newborns eating fish. Most drink milk or eat baby food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord

You don't see any newborns with an umbilical cord either :)

I also wanted to mention that McCain stepped into this (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/family/archives/133374.asp):
"It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

McCain said there's "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that's not the cause of it."
Quite irresponsible of him, and may result in families forgoing vaccines for their children.

I don't get why everyone's looking at vaccines and mercury as mutually inclusive. If you plan ahead, you can get the single doses instead of multi-dose with preservatives.

Unless I'm missing something, you generally know a little ahead of time before you have a kid.

You don't see any newborns with an umbilical cord either :)

Sure you do, until the cord is cut!

Sure you do, until the cord is cut!

Touche'

i remember in the 70s (i think anyway) before people realized how dangerous and toxic DDT was, it was a very popular pesticide. over time, through their food, it got into fishes, which were generally considered good food for pregnant women. of course, it accumulated (or whatever the correct term is) during said pregnancies and a large number of fetuses suffered permanent injuries due to this.

eat baby food.

I never thought about it, but there is no mashed fish in baby food...nor is there pureed fish or mush fish....I wonder why?

Because you even discussing it made me want to vomit a bit? In fact, that vomit in the back of my throat right now probably is about the same flavor of pureed fish /gag.

mmm mmmmmm..

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1352/1277436928_31c0750df0.jpg

its actually not fish puree, but it looks disgusting.

Which is more dangerous- mercury in vaccines or measels, mumps, rubella, etc.

Let's see a statistic about folks harmed by the diseases vaccines help guard against vs. those hurt by the mercury in them. Oh, and while we're at it, let's see the statistics of people harmed by amalgam tooth fillings, CFLs and everything else with mercury in them!

Also, as a side note, DDT was horribly over-used, which led to some of the problems we were having back then. DDT /is/ still in use today in some countries with malaria problems, though nowhere near the scale it was once being used.

I refer you to post #16 in this thread.

I'm not seeing what that has to do with incidence of autism vs. fatalities/injuries (example: crippled from polio) from not vaccinating.

I agree..post #16.

I'm not seeing what that has to do with incidence of autism vs. fatalities/injuries (example: crippled from polio) from not vaccinating.
I'm not sure how to make it any more clear. Why limit to that false choice between extremes, when mercury-free vaccines are available?

I want to go down branch A of the debate, and you're proposing branch B. Which is fine (and a sensible option, when you're talking about your own children), but I want to keep going down branch A. Not everyone might have access to single dose vaccinations (those getting them free at a local clinic due to poverty, those in third world countries who might be lucky to even get vaccinated, etc).

It is worth noting that since 2001 in the US, Thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines with the exception of those for influenza. You can google it.


So...
Leaving aside mercury-free vaccines, how much actual research has been done on the subject? I'm inclined to think that not getting vaccinated is worse than rolling the dice on getting vaccinated with a product containing mercury. A fast google search didn't find much hard research on the subject, just a bunch of third party hand wringing, and I was hoping maybe someone could enable my laziness and steer me in the right direction.

It is worth noting that since 2001 in the US, Thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines with the exception of those for influenza. You can google it.
It's also worth noting that they very strongly urge you to start pumping the kids full of those multi-dose flu vaccines, containing mercury, at six months.

There was an article recently talking about how autism is still on the rise, even though they took the mercury out of the shots, but the kids are still getting mercury.

Though, who can even tell what it is these days. Between the mercury, fluorine, and prescription drugs in our water, it's tough to isolate what's what.

We need to do whatever can be done to get confidence back into vaccines.

http://www.pediatricnews.com/article/S0031-398X(08)70114-0/fulltext

The recent measles outbreak in San Diego—started by one child who imported the disease from Switzerland—reinforces the ongoing need to maintain high vaccination coverage, Dr. Jane Seward said at the winter meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

The unvaccinated 7-year-old boy, who had rash onset 12 days after returning to the United States, infected at least 11 additional children ranging in age from 10 months to 9 years. Four were infected in the pediatrician's office that the child had visited the day before he was taken to a hospital emergency department for high fever and generalized rash. Another two cases were the boy's siblings, while five attended his school.
One infant was hospitalized for 2 days for dehydration, and another traveled by plane to Hawaii while infectious, necessitating “quite a response” by public health authorities in that state, Dr. Seward noted.

All cases were unvaccinated, including eight whose parents had claimed personal belief exemptions.

There was an article recently talking about how autism is still on the rise, even though they took the mercury out of the shots, but the kids are still getting mercury.

There's a lot more evidence linking the rise in autism (and a host of other behavioral disorders related to brain function) to changes in *diet*, including maternal diet (and subsequent aberrant sphingolipid deposition in developing brain tissue) between 1946-2000 than to mercury exposure, and it's worth noting that the risk/incidence of serious adverse consequences from oral or injected mercury exposure is extremely low in any case (despite the hysteria about kids swallowing the mercury from old-school thermometers). The real risk of CNS damage from mercury exposure occurs when the vapors are inhaled over a period of time, as is a risk in certain high-tech manufacturing environments (mercury + heat + inhalation), or when mercury used to be used in certain paints or millinry and would vaporize over time. The reason for this has to do with where and how the mercury is incorporated into tissues; minimal mercury is actually even absorbed in cases of oral exposure.

I personally think that the 'controversy' over thimerosol is a lot of bunk (no firm evidence has been uncovered linking thimerosol exposure with autism), and an example of a spurious conclusion fanned by hysterical parents looking for something to blame (unlike the case of the anthrax vaccine where there were serious immunological issues with the shots in some people). As others have said, the risks of morbidity and mortality in our children from failing to maintain herd immunity by keeping vaccination levels high are orders of magnitude above those incurred by getting the vaccinations, and concerns about contamination in these vaccinations are among the least of our worries with regard to where serious contaminants are gaining entry into them.

Regards,
Nydia

Maybe there's a lot more to it than just mercury. The fact that our water supply is laced with dozens of pharmaceuticals is probably a factor too.

However, calling it a lot of bunk is kind of silly.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/

According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Certainly not concrete evidence one way or the other, but that's a very suspicious correlation. If the issue were actually so spurious, you wouldn't see the government settling this case, for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11tue3.html

I first heard of the alleged mercury-autism link from RFK (author of the Rolling Stone article Sanchek links) and looked into it directly thereafter. In doing so, I found that he was not a very reliable source for unbiased information.

The new study RFK refers to may have certain flaws (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2006/03/thimerosal_update.php). Dr. Mark Geier (cited in RFK's article) has testified as expert witness in numerous cases where the alleged link was central, but not without criticism and disapproval (http://www.casewatch.org/civil/geier.shtml). His son, David, is president of a medical-legal company that helps vaccine injury claimants collect rewards. You might note a possible conflict of interest in there somewhere.

They've done a lot of research showing a link, but their main source has been the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which has a host of problematic internal biases. You can, for instance, enter data stating that the flu turned you into The Hulk (http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/14/chelation-autism), and it will be accepted. Their research has also replicated some of Verstraeten's work. And when I say replicates, I don't mean results, but word-for-word (http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/108/) replication of the sort that teachers and scientists generally frown upon. David Geier has misrepresented (http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/97/significant-misrepresentations-mark-geier-david-geier-the-selling-of-the-lupron-protocol-part-one) his institutional affiliation, and formed (http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/98/an-elusive-institute-significant-misrepresentations-mark-geier-david-geier-the-evolution-of-the-lupron-protocol-part-two) their own Institutional Review Board to approve their research.

An informal takedown of RFK's article can be found here (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/06/robert_f_kenned.html). But note that it's not so unusual for correlation to be established in an early study between two factors (Verstraeten's study was done in 1999). Later, more refined studies are then conducted, and a link just hasn't been established.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2001/AutismUniqueMercPoison.htm

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf

I think it's important to note that these people don't have a particular agenda against vaccines, but are pointing out the dangerous effects of the mercury itself (in the quantities that the vaccines contain(ed)). They also point out that pregnant/nursing mothers should avoid seafood, silver fillings, and shots with mercury themselves, for the same reasons.

It's also important to keep in mind that there's a multi-billion dollar lobby industry pushing out "independent studies" backing the pharmaceuticals. Finding more data for thimerosal than against is to be expected.

If evidence was conclusively in favor of mercury being safe, the federal government would never have settled that potentially precedent setting case earlier this year.

I have some of those silver fillings with the mercury in them. I wonder if my brain is doing this:

http://movies.commons.ucalgary.ca/showcase/curtains.php?src=http://apollo.ucalgary.ca/mercury/movies/Lor2_QTS_700kb_QD.mov&screenwidth=512&screenheight=400&curtains=no

If evidence was conclusively in favor of mercury being safe, the federal government would never have settled that potentially precedent setting case earlier this year.Not sure that that would be the case. It may have proven less expensive to settle than proceed -- it's not uncommon.

Interestingly, to me at least, was a discussion my mother and I were having regarding this debate the other day. We can both recall mercury being handled in school, being deemed something "cool" to learn about in Science lessons.

I wonder what all of those kids my Mother and I recall handling mercury, like it was a metallic silly putty, might have encountered later in life as a result of this.

Not sure that that would be the case. It may have proven less expensive to settle than proceed -- it's not uncommon.
That seems about as likely as settling a Row v. Wade or murder trial, because it's just too much trouble to proceed. The settlement and tacit admission is a pretty big deal.

That seems about as likely as settling a Row v. Wade or murder trial, because it's just too much trouble to proceed. The settlement and tacit admission is a pretty big deal.

How so? If it would have cost more money or caused more damage to go to trial (such as hordes of people not vaccinating their kids), they likely would have just settled.

They did definitely not save any money in the long run, and they know it. They just opened themselves up for many more lawsuits. Besides, are you seriously suggesting that our government did something to save money? Right.

What they did was avoid taking it to trial, because it got a fraction of the publicity this way.

Like I said, if they had a strong case and could conclusively prove that thimerosal was safe, they would have nothing to fear. They would've relished having the suit to take to court. It would only be beneficial to bring it to trial and publicize the information and result of the suit.

I really don't see the problem with parents avoiding flu shots for their kids, if they want to. Or, at least having the knowledge that it's a very good idea for them to try to get single dose shots instead.

There is absolutely no excuse for hiding and obfuscating this information, when it's so simple at its core. If anything that is going to make it more likely that important childhood vaccinations are needlessly avoided, because it's hard to even get a straight answer about what's what.

I can honestly say, after reading this entire thread, when our next child is born (October of this year), I will avoid flu shots for him/her unless I can get single dose versions. As a parent, it just isn't worth the risk of brain damaging my child for the sake of resisting the flu. After how poorly the flu shots worked this year, what's to say next years flu shot would would be better anyhow?

So yes Sanchek, your last post is very valid, at least to me as a parent of small children.

It's also important to keep in mind that there's a multi-billion dollar lobby industry pushing out "independent studies" backing the pharmaceuticals. Finding more data for thimerosal than against is to be expected.Or, maybe, thimerisol just doesn’t cause autism. That you prefer logical fallacy (one of many) to even entertaining the idea that maybe studies don’t show a link because there isn’t a link suggests you’re not viewing this issue with a clear mind. This applies equally to your sourcing.

I’m surprised to see you cite yet another source by the Geiers, claiming that they have “no agenda” when I had just demonstrated a conflict of interest and linked to a few of many sources that show just how untrustworthy and ethically challenged their ‘research’ is. The study you link to relies, as per their usual methodology, on the VAERS database, which I have just shown is problematic as a source of reliable data.

Then there’s the 7 year old literature survey you cite. Sallie Bernard, with a BA in something but head of a group called SafeMinds, is a funny duck. She consulted on a study published in the NEJM (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281), contributed to its design and is listed in the credits at bottom (as a “dissenting member”). The study didn’t swing her way, so she went on to criticize (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/1/93) the study she was a part of (the study’s authors’ response is also at that link). Keep in mind, this is a person with little to no scientific background.

Lyn Redwood is of note here primarily because, contra the idea that the government is simply stamping out the link idea wherever it might emerge, she was one of several anti-vaccinationists to be appointed ( http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2755148520071128) to a panel addressing the subject. She also, contra the idea that there’s no agenda here, was involved ( http://vaccinethebook.typepad.com/mt/2007/04/autism_the_envi.html) in a lawsuit blaming vaccination for her child’s autism. Autism is a difficult, expensive disorder to treat, and the possibility of money from lawsuits provides quite an incentive to demonstrate a causal link that could result in payouts from Big Pharma and/or the government.

Now on to legal matters like the Hannah Polling case. First, I should point out that there’s a special legal proceeding called the Omnibus Autism Proceeding ( http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/omnibus-austim-proceeding) (charmingly misspelled at the site), where several thousand parents are seeking compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VCIP (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/)). VCIP was created for another reason a case like Polling’s would be settled: the fear that vaccine manufacturers may stop production due to concern of legal action against them. This proceeding thus operates under a legal — not scientific — standard that basically says, “If the odds are 50% +1 against us, settle.” There are a set of test cases before the Special Masters (judges trained in vaccine issues) that will determine whether the remaining parents will be able to proceed with their cases.

Hannah Polling was apparently to be one of these test cases but was handled separately (I don’t know why other than perhaps its atypicality). The Special Masters decided that vaccination aggravated her underlying conditions (which are many, including a rare mitochondrial disorder) or at least fell into the “50% +1” standard and awarded a claim. Anti-vaccinationists went cuckoo over this, but it’s absurd to take away from this case — where a child with a rare disorder experiences ‘autism-like’ complications possibly from a vaccine but possibly from other sources — the idea that “therefore, vaccines cause autism.” Heck, side-effects like fever aren’t uncommon from vaccination, and that alone can exacerbate mitochondrial disorders and other problems.

But logic didn’t stop the “vaccines cause autism” media blitz on Larry King, Imus, etc., and whipped up plenty of furor and excitement in the community with the promise of more lawsuits and more cashflow despite the simple fact that an actual link has yet ( http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19426094.200-us-vaccines-on-trial-over-link-to-autism.html) to be scientifically established.

I don't understand all the hand wringing to defend injecting kids with a heavy metal. That is exactly the obfuscation I'm talking about.

There's no good reason to shoot up a healthy kid with a flu vaccine anyway. However, if you feel that you must, get a single dose.

Keep it simple.

I want to add, btw, that just because anti-vaccinationists do have agendas and many do stand to be rewarded in various ways (Lyn Redwood's story may be portrayed in a movie, for example), that doesn't mean they don't believe that vaccines cause harm. People regularly believe things despite abundant evidence to the contrary. What matters presently isn't whatever motivates them, nor whatever conpsiracy theories they can concoct, nor that having an autistic kid really sucks, nor that playing with numbers can yield results that serve their cause. It comes down to the science, and currently the science establishes no link between thimerosol and autism.
I don't understand all the hand wringing to defend injecting kids with a heavy metal. That is exactly the obfuscation I'm talking about.Uh, because vaccinations are important? Because we don't remember the scourge of polio and diptheria and smallpox and the flu of 1918? Because there's every reason not to whip up a nationwide frenzy of fear that vaccinations cause autism (holy shit, you want to talk about hand-wringing?).
There's no good reason to shoot up a healthy kid with a flu vaccine anyway. However, if you feel that you must, get a single dose.Sure, assuming your healthy kid never interacts with any other children, ever. Or other people. Or you, assuming you interact with other people.

Taleren, I know you somehow find logic in Sanchek's posts on this subject, but I recommend a 2nd opinion. Here's a quick resource (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm). Also, flu vaccines are prepared ahead of time based on estimation of likely infective strains. It's far from an exact science, and this past year didn't fare well. Even so, vaccination is a good idea for many people, not something to wish you had done later.

I don't understand all the hand wringing to defend injecting kids with a heavy metal.


My 3 year old daughter's favorite songs are Paranoid by Black Sabbath and One by Metallica (she happens to like these more than others since they are in Guitar Hero 3). I've been injecting heavy metal into her brain since she was 2 days old!

The other day we were buying an MDX for my wife. There was some muzak in the back ground, and I looked over to see my daughter doing the pitchforks with her hand. ,|..|

Taleren, I know you somehow find logic in Sanchek's posts on this subject, but I recommend a 2nd opinion. Here's a quick resource (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm). Also, flu vaccines are prepared ahead of time based on estimation of likely infective strains. It's far from an exact science, and this past year didn't fare well. Even so, vaccination is a good idea for many people, not something to wish you had done later.

My daughter got the flu 4 times this year after getting a flu shot. Show to me that next years batch will be better than the 20% effectiveness of this year's flu shot batch before I even take a modicum of risk of giving her brain damage.

Uh, because vaccinations are important? Because we don't remember the scourge of polio and diptheria and smallpox and the flu of 1918? Because there's every reason not to whip up a nationwide frenzy of fear that vaccinations cause autism (holy shit, you want to talk about hand-wringing?).
That quote is one of the greatest strawmen of all time.

Those vaccinations do not contain mercury anymore. Completely irrelevant.

I don't even understand why you bother at this point; your entire argument is in collapse. My point was that vaccinations are a vital ingredient of a healthy society and that senselessly taking steps that would endanger public use of vaccines is absurd and dangerous. That you cherry-pick the 2nd sentence while ignoring the rest is further evidence that you're simply not interested in engaging the issue but have staked out a position to defend (or not) to the last rhetorical gasp. Sad, really.

Taleran wrote:My daughter got the flu 4 times this year after getting a flu shot. Show to me that next years batch will be better than the 20% effectiveness of this year's flu shot batch before I even take a modicum of risk of giving her brain damage.Where do you get the idea that she'll suffer brain damage? Evidence isn't there to support such a concern. As I mentioned, this past year the forecasting was off the mark; it's quite difficult to predict just which of many many strains of influenza virus will be of predominant concern. Hopefully you have better luck next year, whatever your decision.

Where do you get the idea that she'll suffer brain damage? Evidence isn't there to support such a concern. As I mentioned, this past year the forecasting was off the mark; it's quite difficult to predict just which of many many strains of influenza virus will be of predominant concern. Hopefully you have better luck next year, whatever your decision.

Well, I would say if there's any possibility that mercury in multi-dose flu shots can cause Autism that that would be a form of brain damage, no?

You are criticizing Sanchek for dismissing you because you have 'evidence' that the amount of mercury in the shots is 'safe,' just like you are dismissing his posted 'evidence' that it can increase the risk of autism.

I'd like to err on the side of caution for my child, than to err on the side of a life sentence (both for her, and for me) of autism. How many things after years of testing are shown to either be dangerous or ineffective after the public has generally felt such practices were safe?

Vytorin anyone? How about smoking? How about DDT? There have been tons of things that were felt to be relatively safe at one time that were eventually proven to be not safe. Evidence coming out that the mercury 'may' cause autism is enough of a risk for me to have some risk aversion to the injections with the mercury in them.





And for god's sake, if you are going to quote me, please spell my name correctly.

You are criticizing Sanchek for dismissing you because you have 'evidence' that the amount of mercury in the shots is 'safe,' just like you are dismissing his posted 'evidence' that it can increase the risk of autism.This isn't correct. I'm criticizing Sanchek because his sources and arguments are fallacious. I don't have any evidence at all. Rather, researchers have yet to show a causal link between vaccination and autism, and those trying to prove such a link regularly resort to duplicitous methods.

Keep in mind that it's difficult to prove a negative. I can't definitively say that thimerosol has no negative effects, and if I found good evidence of such my opinion would change (I initially looked into this with no idea at all of where the evidence would lead, and I'm open to a show of causality).

Sorry for the typo. Out for the day.

One question for you Thormir.

Do you have small children?

Vytorin anyone? How about smoking? How about DDT? There have been tons of things that were felt to be relatively safe at one time that were eventually proven to be not safe. Evidence coming out that the mercury 'may' cause autism is enough of a risk for me to have some risk aversion to the injections with the mercury in them.
Exactly.

It's an absolute fact that tiny concentrations of mercury can cause severe, permanent damage to the brain. There's no question about that.

Knowing that, why in the world would you advocate permanently risking a kid's brain, for a crap shoot at potentially avoiding a stuffy nose and sore throat?

And, stop pointing to the Spanish Flu. That's ridiculous. By definition, a pandemic is the result of a new strain of a virus. Even though we know that, for example, the Avian Flu will be an H5N1; we have no idea what particular strain will jump human to human.

To say that skipping a flu vaccination will cause a flu pandemic is to suggest that we can effectively vaccinate against the unknown. That is completely false.

I have never gotten a Flu shot other than one required while in the service. And I have never had a really bad case of flu, even when everyone else in the house had that Hong Kong flu back in the late 60's.

And what is all this about Spanish Fly. It is a relatively harmless aphrodisiac, that has only gained in stature due to urban myths. Why, I once knew a girl ......





Spanish Flu, you say?

Never mind.

One question for you Thormir.

Do you have small children?No, does Sanchek?

I do, however, have housemates with a 4 year old and 6 week old, for whom I'm in something of an avuncular role.

Sanchek wrote:
It's an absolute fact that tiny concentrations of mercury can cause severe, permanent damage to the brain. There's no question about that.It's an absolute fact that sodium reacts violently with air and water, and yet we have sodium, air, and water inside our bodies. Amazing. You write like vaccinations involve huffing mercury straight into the brainstem.
Knowing that, why in the world would you advocate permanently risking a kid's brain, for a crap shoot at potentially avoiding a stuffy nose and sore throat?Or death, of course. The flu does still kill people. Not many, fortunately, with 53 pediatric (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/) deaths reported since Sept 07. Here's hospitalization data: "During September 30 – March 15, 2008, the preliminary laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization rate reported by the EIP for children 0–17 years old was 1.14 per 10,000. For children aged 0-4 years and 5-17 years, the rate was 2.98 per 10,000 and 0.38 per 10,000, respectively."
And, stop pointing to the Spanish Flu. That's ridiculous.Ridiculous is saying "stop pointing to..." when I mentioned it once in the context of making a greater point you insist on ignoring, along with the actual scientific work done on this topic.
To say that skipping a flu vaccination will cause a flu pandemic is to suggest that we can effectively vaccinate against the unknown. That is completely false.Heh, and you accused me of a strawman? Please point out where ever I said skipping flu vaccinations would result in pandemic. I stated quite clearly the nature of our flu vaccination program and its limitations. Do you even have a point anymore outside of "Mercury bad!"?

To addend a previous post, I cited a study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281) published by the NEJM focusing on thimerosol exposure and early neurological outcomes (which Sanchek ignored to talk about hand-wringing). This study did not include autism among the outcomes study. The authors will publish an autism-specific study at some point this year.

No, does Sanchek?

From stories I've heard, he very well may - just not know about it! :eek:

Heh, and you accused me of a strawman? Please point out where ever I said skipping flu vaccinations would result in pandemic. I stated quite clearly the nature of our flu vaccination program and its limitations. Do you even have a point anymore outside of "Mercury bad!"?

Uh, because vaccinations are important? Because we don't remember the scourge of polio and diptheria and smallpox and the flu of 1918? Because there's every reason not to whip up a nationwide frenzy of fear that vaccinations cause autism (holy shit, you want to talk about hand-wringing?).

Dot dot dot...

You accuse people who don't want to shoot up their kids with mercury of being paranoid and stirring up FUD, while you stir up FUD over not getting flu vaccines.

That's just silly, and that's my point.

I care enough about my dog that I would apply basic common sense and avoid something like this, shown to be potentially dangerous to him. I can only imagine how much stronger that instinct would be for a parent.

You don't seem to get that.

I care enough about my dog that I would apply basic common sense and avoid something like this, shown to be potentially dangerous to him. I can only imagine how much stronger that instinct would be for a parent.

You don't seem to get that.

This is my exact point, a point he's completely disregarding. Which is why specifically I asked if he had children. If he had children of his own, he wouldn't take the risk of mercury laced vaccinations.

I will gladly pay extra for vaccines without mercury in them, even if our insurance won't cover them at all.

The smallest of risks of reduced brain function are risks that are too large when one is talking about his own children. Period. If you don't have children of your own, you in all likelyhood won't understand this.

It's (http://It's) also important to keep in mind that there's a multi-billion dollar lobby industry pushing out "independent studies" backing the pharmaceuticals. Finding more data for thimerosal than against is to be expected.


Yes and not to mention but about a few years ago legislation was signed to make pharmaceutical companies immune to any lawsuits from vaccines. It was slipped in one of those laws that was signed that had nothing to do with vaccines or pharmacetical companies...LOL They prepared for the future...LOL

Sanchek:Dot dot dot...Heh, that's an impressively...inventive interpretation of what I wrote. You accuse people who don't want to shoot up their kids with mercury of being paranoid and stirring up FUD, while you stir up FUD over not getting flu vaccines.No, I accuse people with bad arguments citing bad sources of generating paranoia about vaccination. I presented information, including a current study, that show no causal relation between thimerosol and negative neurological outcome and noted that an upcoming study would specifically focus on autism. I also realistically assessed the current state of flu vaccination (e.g., that some years of forecasting are better than others) and presented data showing that pediatric death and hospitalization rates due to flu are low but do exist. That way, parents like Taleren can make informed decisions on exactly how they want to handle their children.

I'm genuinely curious about what, exactly, it would take for you to accept a lack of link between thimerosol in vaccines and autism and other disorders. For example, if the continuation of the study I mentioned above demonstrated a positive link, I'd look for replication of the study and its results and judge from there. If, say, the study finds no link at all will you accept that or deride as just being under the influence of Big Pharma?

Taleren:If he had children of his own, he wouldn't take the risk of mercury laced vaccinations.This is simple magical mindreading, logically fallacious and irrelevent. I'm no more worried about thimerosol than I am about driving my hypothetical child (or my housemates' children) to the clinic to get them vaccinated. I assume you do drive your children despite the risk (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm).

I vaccinate my children against accidents.

The question I have is why risk it? Why wait for studies to unequivocally show that thimerosol is not harmful? There are other options out there to be vaccinated, as has been stated.

Taleren:This is simple magical mindreading, logically fallacious and irrelevent. I'm no more worried about thimerosol than I am about driving my hypothetical child (or my housemates' children) to the clinic to get them vaccinated. I assume you do drive your children despite the risk (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm).

And read two paragraphs lower when I specifically spoke of the risk of brain damage. There are risks we take every day. Driving to and from places in today's society is a risk I CAN'T avoid. You using the comparisons of the risk of driving to the clinic is a logically fallacious argument too, and I'm sure you knew that as you were typing it.

The potential risk of mercury in injects is a risk I CAN avoid. Big difference.

As a parent, I will obviously make emotional decisions on how I raise my child. Again, you have no fucking clue of those emotional decisions until you have to make them in regards to your own children. You can attempt to diffuse that by making your own 'logically fallacious' arguments.

You ask Sanchek what it would take for him to believe thermosyl is safe, but the opposite can be stated to you. What would it take for you to feel thermosyl isn't safe? What's an acceptable risk for your child (if you had one)? There are just as many studies that say it's not safe as there are that say there's no reason to be alarmed. Again I'll state, I'll err on the side of not giving my child potential brain damage than to not. The death rate you quote for influenza is far far far far far far far far far below the increased rate in autism over the last 20 years.

Just for a second, let's assume that mercury in shots is a cause for autism. Does it make more sense to give a child a 1 in 150 chance of getting autism, or a 1 in 6 million chance of dying from the flu? The evidence from either side of the autism debate isn't clear. Neither side has proven their case to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, BUT the risk of potentially dying from the flu (assuming I don't get my child a single dose injection of the flu without thermosyl, and the flu shot for the year actually works as intended) is much more remote than the possibility my child will get autism from the shot. As a parent, it's my job to weigh those risk factors to do the most effective job possible of raising my child to be a productive, happy, and healthy member of our society.

I'm genuinely curious about what, exactly, it would take for you to accept a lack of link between thimerosol in vaccines and autism and other disorders.

I think you're really just missing the point here.
Keep in mind that it's difficult to prove a negative. I can't definitively say that thimerosol has no negative effects

Like you yourself pointed out, it's nearly impossible to conclusively prove that there is no link. Knowing that there's a possibility that there might be a danger to the multi-dose flu vaccine, why would any informed parent risk it?

You seem very invested in scientifically and statistically proving what you've already admitted that you can't prove. Meanwhile, I'm not really interested in proving the link. You'll notice I posted the thread as a question, not a statement. You and I aren't on directly comparable pursuits here (not that there's anything wrong with either).

Knowing there may be a danger and knowing how to avoid that danger seems to be invaluably useful. I don't understand your vehement resistance to people informing themselves and playing it safe with their childrens' futures.

And read two paragraphs lower when I specifically spoke of the risk of brain damage. There are risks we take every day. Driving to and from places in today's society is a risk I CAN'T avoid. You using the comparisons of the risk of driving to the clinic is a logically fallacious argument too, and I'm sure you knew that as you were typing it.I used the driving example because it's an easy illustration, but the point extends to many choices of our lives. Bottled or tap water? What food? Breast feeding or bottled?
As a parent, I will obviously make emotional decisions on how I raise my child. Again, you have no fucking clue of those emotional decisions until you have to make them in regards to your own children. You can attempt to diffuse that by making your own 'logically fallacious' arguments.Already diffused in my previous post. This is simply not relevant to the question of whether thimerosol poses a risk of neurological disorder in vaccinated children. Let's examine your point from another direction: "Until you study immunology and statistics, you have no fucking clue of the science involved such that you can make reasoned decisions on behalf of anything whatsoever." See how easy that is?
You ask Sanchek what it would take for him to believe thermosyl is safe, but the opposite can be stated to you. What would it take for you to feel thermosyl isn't safe?
/boggle. I specifically answered this question in my previous post, since I suspected that you or San would ask it (without answering it in turn, go figure).
What's an acceptable risk for your child (if you had one)? There are just as many studies that say it's not safe as there are that say there's no reason to be alarmed. Entirely incorrect, as my posts in this thread have demonstrated. You really should read up on current research into this topic.
Again I'll state, I'll err on the side of not giving my child potential brain damage than to not. The death rate you quote for influenza is far far far far far far far far far below the increased rate in autism over the last 20 years.And yet somehow, we're not all autistic. There are other reasons, previously cited in this thread, for the apparent rise in autism over the last couple decades. I'm also not sure of how you're generating your numbers in the 2nd sentence but am open to reading over your formulae.
ust for a second, let's assume that mercury in shots is a cause for autism. Does it make more sense to give a child a 1 in 150 chance of getting autism, or a 1 in 6 million chance of dying from the flu? When you make up variables to prove your case, not much makes sense at all really.
The evidence from either side of the autism debate isn't clear.
Yeah, I hear the same thing about evolution and the moon landing all the time. Also, until you familiarize yourself with science, you have no fucking clue how inappropriate it is to include something like "proven their case...beyond a shadow of a doubt" in a thread discussing scientific research. =)
As a parent, it's my job to weigh those risk factors to do the most effective job possible of raising my child to be a productive, happy, and healthy member of our society.Absolutely, and as a science and reason aficianado and wannabe health care provider, it's my job to provide and explain all evidence on a given issue so that people can make informed decisions. The world is a tough crowd, but I love my work.

Sanchek:
I can hardly believe what I'm reading here, though at this point...yeesh.
I think you're really just missing the point here....Like you yourself pointed out, it's nearly impossible to conclusively prove that there is no link. Knowing that there's a possibility that there might be a danger to the multi-dose flu vaccine, why would any informed parent risk it?
I'll simply accept at this point that there is nothing that will dissuade you from thinking a link exists. But your reasoning, such as it is, that "we can't prove no link, ergo: correlation!" is going to take you to some crazy damn places epistemologically speaking. I wouldn't say that "knowing" in your last sentence means what you think it means; there might be the possibility of a danger in all sorts of things -- at some point the decimal places cease to have much meaning.
You seem very invested in scientifically and statistically proving what you've already admitted that you can't prove. Meanwhile, I'm not really interested in proving the link. You'll notice I posted the thread as a question, not a statement. You and I aren't on directly comparable pursuits here (not that there's anything wrong with either).This sort of thing just boggles the mind. I've repeatedly stated that I'm interested in good arguments and good science -- that's where my investment lies. Science works by demonstrating relationships or showing a lack of relationship between variables (put really simply). If we assume that relationships may exist when testing shows they don't, then we leave the realm of science. Science hasn't proven a lack of relationship, only that it's really, really unlikely (and you know this, so I'm not sure why it's so hard to convey).

There are people, some of whom you've linked to in your non-attempt to not prove the causal link you're not pursuing, who are trying to prove their case by shady methods. I don't like shady methods. There are practical issues, too, like the ability of antivaccinationists to go full tilt in the courts should their shady methods bear legal fruit, that success and media exposure generate a popular fear of vaccination in general, and that companies may discontinue vaccines should the second possibility obtain. The 2nd possibility isn't logical and might only be a remote concern -- not the sort of thing to base decisions on -- but you've already decided that basing decisions on the "possibility that there might be a danger" of an event obtaining is reasonable.
Knowing there may be a danger and knowing how to avoid that danger seems to be invaluably useful. I don't understand your vehement resistance to people informing themselves and playing it safe with their childrens' futures.My resistance is in people "informing" themselves with crap information. People spend billions on homeopathy, acupuncture, mediums, and MMORPG's for the same reasons you've given in this thread for buying into the thimerosol argument. But I'll tell parents that some people think the multi-shot flu vaccine will give their children autism if you'll tell those same parents that those people don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

"Until you study immunology and statistics, you have no fucking clue of the science involved such that you can make reasoned decisions on behalf of anything whatsoever." See how easy that is?

What the fuck does that have to do with me giving my daughter shots with mercury? You are just trying to be an ass now. I can get shots without mercury if I am willing to pay for them. Why should I then get one with it in it? What does that choice have to do with me knowing immunology? Mercury isn't anything but a preservative in the shots, it's not part of what potentially keeps my child healhier.


And yet somehow, we're not all autistic.

I never had a flu shot with thimerosol as a small child. I may be one of the 149 that didn't get it, etc. This is just another "fallacious argument again, yet you accuse anyone that doesn't share the same mindset as you of this.

I've also never had a flu shot as an adult, and I'm still alive. See we both can use arguments like this.


This is called begging the question, where your premises assume your conclusion.

You've used numerous generalizations in this discussion too, get off your fucking high horse. I'm not begging the question, I'm saying I won't give my daughter shots with mercury. Period. I am not risking anything by doing this since I can get shots without it if I choose to look for it. Why take an unnecessary risk when their are alternatives?

As for the numbers, the 1 in 150 is the most recent autism figures I've heard. The 1 in 6 million for the flu number was just extrapolating based upon the numbers of deaths you quoted.

Yeah, I hear the same thing about evolution and the moon landing all the time. Also, until you familiarize yourself with science, you have no fucking clue how inappropriate it is to include something like "proven their case...beyond a shadow of a doubt" in a thread discussing scientific research. =)

For every study you can quote saying it's safe, I could find one that says it doesn't. You may not like that, but that's the reality. Neither side is free of bias, so no, neither side is able to persuade me that they are correct. There have been all kinds of scientific studies through time that took time to prove or disprove anything.



Absolutely, and as a science and reason aficianado and wannabe health care provider, it's my job to prevent and explain all evidence on a given issue so that people can make informed decisions. The world is a tough crowd, but I love my work.

You aren't explaining all the evidence though. There is evidence from both sides of the discussion, in various studies. You are saying one is wrong because of a bias you have without discussing it's evidence. I'm not proclaiming to give evidence from either side. I'm simply stating that it's well within reason, given the current situation of the studies, to avoid multi-use shots with mercury. Not once have I said I wouldn't vaccinate my child. She's had every inoculation scheduled for a child her age.

Again, giving vaccination isn't mutually exclusive to giving my child shots with mercury in them. If there's still any doubt in the potential toxicity of the shots, why should I give them to her when there are other alternatives?

What the fuck does that have to do with me giving my daughter shots with mercury? You are just trying to be an ass now. I can get shots without mercury if I am willing to pay for them. Why should I then get one with it in it? What does that choice have to do with me knowing immunology? Mercury isn't anything but a preservative in the shots, it's not part of what potentially keeps my child healhier.Not trying to be an ass at all (you were the first to go f-bomb dropping), just proving a point. You're trying to say that because I lack knowledge of a situation (having kids), that my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I showed why this argument isn't very good by turning it on its head (thus the "see how easy it is?" bit).

[Going to shorten this more than usual due to time constraints, but if your primary point is "I'm not giving my daughter vaccines with mercury," then I'm not sure what we're supposed to talk about.]

For every study you can quote saying it's safe, I could find one that says it doesn't.
Alright (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763?dopt=Abstract) . And the study I posted before from NEJM. And this (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/bmj-nlb020108.php). And here are some more:

- Peltola H & Patja A, Leinikki P, Valle M, Davidkin I and Paunio M (1998) No evidence for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14 year prospective study (Research letters) Lancet 351:1327-8
- Gillberg C & Heijbel H, (1998). MMR and autism [commentary]. Autism, The International Journal of Research and Practice; 2:423-424.
- Taylor B et al (1999) Autism and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. The Lancet; 353: 2026-29.
- Kaye J et al (2001). Mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: A time trend analysis. British Medical Journal 322 :460-3.
- Farrington P et al (2001). MMR and autism: Further evidence against a causal association Vaccine 19:3632-5 Volume 19, Issue 27, 14 June 2001, Pages 3632-3635
- Black C (2002) Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database. British Medical Journal 325 :419-21.
- Taylor B et al (2002) Measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or development regression in children with autism: population study. British Medical Journal 324 : 393-396.
- Donald A & Muthu V (2002) No evidence that MMR vaccine is associated with autism or bowel disease. Clinical Evidence, 7:331-40
You aren't explaining all the evidence though.
I'm not sure what you want me to explain. Current studies demonstrate no link between use of thimerosol and autism. If they did demonstrate a link, we'd be having a totally different conversation.

Again, giving vaccination isn't mutually exclusive to giving my child shots with mercury in them. If there's still any doubt in the potential toxicity of the shots, why should I give them to her when there are other alternatives?If you think there's an actionable chance that your kids will get autism from thimerosol then don't give them those vaccines. I'm not for a moment arguing against you doing what you think is best; I merely think that your concerns aren't supported by evidence.

Alright (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763?dopt=Abstract) . And the study I posted before from NEJM. And this (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/bmj-nlb020108.php). And here are some more:

- Peltola H & Patja A, Leinikki P, Valle M, Davidkin I and Paunio M (1998) No evidence for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14 year prospective study (Research letters) Lancet 351:1327-8
- Gillberg C & Heijbel H, (1998). MMR and autism [commentary]. Autism, The International Journal of Research and Practice; 2:423-424.
- Taylor B et al (1999) Autism and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. The Lancet; 353: 2026-29.
- Kaye J et al (2001). Mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: A time trend analysis. British Medical Journal 322 :460-3.
- Farrington P et al (2001). MMR and autism: Further evidence against a causal association Vaccine 19:3632-5 Volume 19, Issue 27, 14 June 2001, Pages 3632-3635
- Black C (2002) Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database. British Medical Journal 325 :419-21.
- Taylor B et al (2002) Measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or development regression in children with autism: population study. British Medical Journal 324 : 393-396.
- Donald A & Muthu V (2002) No evidence that MMR vaccine is associated with autism or bowel disease. Clinical Evidence, 7:331-40
The MMR vaccines were being investigated due to suspicion that the measles component of the vaccine was somehow tied to autism increases. Those studies (that I see you just copy/pasted from here (http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/research.php)) don't have anything to do with what we're talking about here.

So, um, yeah...

There are practical issues, too, like the ability of antivaccinationists to go full tilt in the courts should their shady methods bear legal fruit, that success and media exposure generate a popular fear of vaccination in general, and that companies may discontinue vaccines should the second possibility obtain. The 2nd possibility isn't logical and might only be a remote concern -- not the sort of thing to base decisions on -- but you've already decided that basing decisions on the "possibility that there might be a danger" of an event obtaining is reasonable.
Seriously? You're still on this? If you could go more than a few posts without invoking this FUD strawman, I might be able to treat what you're posting seriously.

As long as you insist on making such a fallacious argument when it comes to the broad strokes, why in the world would I waste my time debating the details with you? I feel like I'm trying to convince an Intelligent Design proponent that considering evolution doesn't mean the Revelation will come tomorrow.

Perhaps I'm just put here by God, to test you! Like the dinosaurs!

You are entirely ridiculous. You accuse of me of invoking FUD when that's the premise of your entire argument. "Thimerosol might cause autism! There's no evidence of it, but it might!" And, as I said, since you have decided that "possibility that there might be a danger" is a valid criteria for decision making, I have no idea why you're even bothering to bring this up.
why in the world would I waste my time debating the details with you?I've felt the same way every time you've mischaracterized my arguments. I've felt the same way every time you've described vaccination as "injecting mercury into kid's heads." [Table salt is 50% chlorine -- a known toxin! -- keep it from the kids!]. You can't even answer the simple question of what it would take to convince you that thimerosol does not cause autism.

The ID comparison is apt, really, except that it best applies to the antivaccinationist strategy. Use bad science, emotional arguments, heavy PR, good funding and legal intimidation in order "to make their case."

But one thing that hasn't made their case is the science. The title of the thread is, "Is mercury in vaccines dangerous?" When I saw this question first posed (by RFK no less, who answered in the affirmative), about a year ago, I looked into it. And so far the answer appears to be, "No." And no amount of conspiracy theorizing or moving the goalposts or emotional pleas or calling the scientists who actually study this stuff "shills for Big Pharma" is going to change that.

You've got nothing.

EDIT: Evidence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5118166.stm) that vaccine hysteria can result in lower use of vaccination by the public.

I think this sums up how prematurely and unsubstantially you're jumping to dismiss the danger:
And remember that the CDC, wisely, does not conduct autism prevalence studies on children until they reach the age of 8, to account for any late stragglers entering the database. If thimerosal did not come out of vaccines entirely until 2003, then it won't be until 2011 before kids in that birth cohort are studied by the CDC, so vindicating thimerosal entirely might still be a tad premature.

At this point, any study you show us that "disproves" the link between mercury and autism is about as accurate as calling Miss Cleo and asking her.

People point to the continued increase in autism cases as the central fact that clears mercury's role in autism, without even beginning to understand the numbers they're basing their arguments on. A continued increase at this point is just as likely to support the thimerosal link as disprove it.

EDIT: Evidence that vaccine hysteria can result in lower use of vaccination by the public.

All the more reason you should stop the obfuscation and FUD.

Neither Taleren or I have suggested any danger associated with important vaccinations, or that people should avoid them. However, someone just skimming the thread and reading the ridiculous strawmen you've been propping up would probably assume that we were.

I think this sums up how prematurely and unsubstantially you're jumping to dismiss the danger:<bunch of unlinked stuff>Heh, in the absence of any evidence at all you're playing the role of a mercury-addled Chicken Little, yet I'm rendering premature and unsubstantial judgments? Hilarious. So you've quoted David Kirby (why not even a link?), a guy who wrote a book several years ago blaming autism on thimerosol and who has some interesting (http://vaccinethebook.typepad.com/mt/2007/01/a_story_with_le.html) reasons (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-next-big-autism-bomb_b_93627.html) for why his theory just isn't bearing fruit. The first link concerns CA autism levels; in the second he's trying to explain (with a grab bag of ideas) why autism rates are not plummeting now that thimerosal levels have been significantly reduced in most childhood vaccines.
What Kirby misses in the bit you quoted, and that you have also overlooked, is that the CDC isn't the only game in town when studying the alleged link. Hey look (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/mu-mmr070406.php), a study from McGill U. that finds no link between thimerosol (and MMR) and autism. There are many (http://www.immunizationinfo.org/immunization_science.cfm?cat=1) studies already in play, CDC or otherwise. Hell, some of them even find (http://www.immunizationinfo.org/immunization_science_detail.cfv?id=73) possible beneficial effects, though it seems just as likely to be due to statistical noise. And the CDC has a variety of studies completed or in process looking at possible vaccine-autism links (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/documents/vaccine_studies.pdf).
People point to the continued increase in autism cases as the central fact that clears mercury's role in autism, without even beginning to understand the numbers they're basing their arguments on. A continued increase at this point is just as likely to support the thimerosal link as disprove it.By "people," of course, you are referring to the scientists and epidemiologists for whom this is their job. But yeah, I'm sure they have no idea how to understand the numbers. We better quote a confused non-scientist who wrote a book instead. Come to think of it, I just that, and Kirby himself recognizes that the "more autism--less thimerosol" event kills his theory and is scrambling to find an explanation (mitochondria, Chinese pollution, cremated bodies with mercury fillings, wheee).
All the more reason you should stop the obfuscation and FUD.Nothing I can do but lol at this point. What am I obfuscating? You're the only FUD in the thread!
Neither Taleren or I have suggested any danger associated with important vaccinations, or that people should avoid them. However, someone just skimming the thread and reading the ridiculous strawmen you've been propping up would probably assume that we were.
Someone reading this thread would probably wonder when you were going to shit or get off the pot. You asked a question in the thread title and answered in the affirmative. I showed why your data was problematic, and since then you've been picking a sentence or two out of my posts and crying, "FUD!", apparently having forgotten that you created the thread and jumped in with both feet in support of a link in the first place!

Of course, that person would probably stop taking you seriously after you first described the vaccinations in question as "injecting mercury into kid's brains." So, at this point, you've posted a thread asking about the danger of mercury in vaccines, answered in the affirmative, stopped even bothering to try to prove your case in favor of arguing minutiae in my sentences, claimed that proving a connection isn't the point because omg it's mercury and it's in KID'S BRAINS and we'd just better play it safe, then ranted on about FUD and other non sequiturs while claiming that you know the numbers better than the people actually involved in the numbers. And now, at last, none of it even matters because the vaccines in question aren't "important."

Wow, grats on wasting everybody's time. Maybe at the start of this you expected everyone to join in on the bombshell revelation, but at this point I can't help but think our hypothetical reader would wonder why you even bothered to begin with.

oh my goodness!!
Personally I find it pretty simple.

1. We have proven that mercury is poison and does some pretty raunchy things to IE...sensory impairment (vision, hearing, speech), lack of coordination, disturbed sensation.....quite a few more symptoms too if one looks it up.

2. Mercury is a "additive" to immunizations.

3. So...equation goes..

Immunization with mercury = poison in immunization = give to my child = injecting poison in my child.

As for how much it takes of the said poison to cause any effects in child is up for debate but IMHO if you can choose NOT to have the additive....then the equation looks better....

immunization with NO mercury = NO poison = give to my child = NOT injecting my child with poison.

I like the later equation much better. :)

Probably why I would never in my life do botox injectings to reduce my wrinkles.....they say it is harmless but why conciously expose myself to a known poison when I can choose not to. :)

You asked a question in the thread title and answered in the affirmative.
This isn't my thread. My first contribution was just that the multi-dose flu vaccines still contain mercury, in response to Kelraz...

Are you confusing this thread with the fluoride thread?

It seems like almost everyone except you gets the common sense of being careful when there's a known risk. I'm not sure what else to say to you. You seem more interested in arguing at me than anything else. /shrug

<< This space reserved for further comment in 3-4 years, when we can sensibly talk about what you want. >>

Vaccines without thimerosal >= vaccines with thimerosal > no vaccines

Does that about cover it, assuming the vaccines are for moderately serious diseases?

Since they removed mercury from all but the flu vaccines, you don't even have to assume that. Switch a > for that >=, and you're set.

Yeah, probably confused it with fluoride thread -- that or I need glasses sooner rather than later -- but as you're the one who has attempted to support the positive answer to the question, I've been answering you and my points still hold regardless. You seem more interested in arguing at me than anything else. /shrugThis is hilarious, as you've contributed nothing in the past several pages except taking a line or two from my posts and crying, "omg FUD!"

To reiterate my central point, again: There is no evidence that thimerosol causes autism or other neurological disorders, whatever those filing lawsuits and selling books have to say on the matter. That may change in the future, but all current evidence from a multitude of studies says it's a non-issue. If parents want to go about vaccinating their kids in a different way or skipping the flu part altogether, it's fine by me.

That's really all there is to it. finis

To reiterate my central point, again: There is no evidence that thimerosol causes autism or other neurological disorders, whatever those filing lawsuits and selling books have to say on the matter. That may change in the future, but all current evidence from a multitude of studies says it's a non-issue.
If you choose not to accept what evidence that has been put forth, that's your choice. However, that does not make your opinion fact, nor does it mean everyone should abandon common sense when considering the safety of their children.

This is hilarious, as you've contributed nothing in the past several pages except taking a line or two from my posts and crying, "omg FUD!"
When you post something sensible*, I'll reply to it.

*Hint: posting walls of obfuscation of a very simple issue (that almost everyone else here seems to easily grasp) does not count as something sensible.

The hue and cry about mercury in vaccines causing autism can be damaging simply because there are ignorant people who hear a sound byte on the news and make their choices based on it. As we've agreed, the really important vaccines (polio, etc) don't HAVE any mercury in them, so there is no harm in getting them. Yet there are people who hear "mercury in vaccines might cause autism" and they /freak the hell out/ and don't get their kids vaccinated for anything because they don't research it any further and the mass media prefers sensationalism to cool headed reporting most of the time.

I personaly know someone who did not get their children vaccinated for anything, and they /refused/ to listen to reason regarding their position. They just knew that vaccines had mercury in them (it was on the news!) and refused to get their kids vaccinated, end of story. They've even made plans to home school their kid to dodge the vaccination requirements for kids entering the school system.

Remember, there is no cure for deliberate ignorance, and it is more common than Common Sense.

For people like that, tell them to ask for the insert that came with the vaccine. They'll show it to you without any trouble.

If thimerosal is used, it'll be listed.

My sister said when she had the vaccines in singles as in the MMR for instance.

Her son had the measles vaccine....two weeks later the mumps vaccine...2 weeks later the rubella vaccine.

Now granted the place she took her son did not have it on stock and she had to order it from Canada she said to get it that way. The vaccine usually comes all three in one vial but she had it given seperated. She said it did not come with thimerosal in them when single. She told me they had to bring the pamplet and the vial to show her....lol

Interesting follow up:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/04/scientist-subpo.html

I follow up the follow up with: www.nomercury.org/science/documents/Articles/UPI-The_Age_of_Autism-Mercury_and_the_Amish_5-21-05.pdf

Dan Olmsted has been beating the thimerosol drum for awhile now. His lack of scientific acumen is on fine display in the linked article. In considering the low reported rate of autism among the Amish, he really doesn't take into account the fact that the Amish aren't the most outgoing lot and, perhaps, less than likely to present such cases. He does, at least, note that they "might be more difficult to find and diagnose."

More noticeably, he doesn't consider possible genetic factors at play. The Amish are a genetically isolated lot, and it's quite possible that that genetic isolation has reduced occurrence of autism (while at the same time increasing occurrence of other maladies -- in-breeding goes both ways).

On the plus side, both he and David Kirby have come out strongly against Shoemaker's subpoena of Kathleen Seidel, brought up in Esbat's post.

I don't see where he claimed to be a scientist there?

I never stated that he made the claim. But as one who expends significant effort on this particular topic, his decision to settle upon a particular answer and to draw such conclusions as he has is unfortunate in light of other possible explanations.

lawsuits: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/05/12/autism.case.ap/index.html