Talk:Thiomersal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Can a thiomersal/court decisions link be added to external links?

The link is a good source of information for the article. Thiomersal readers could be interested in this and they should not be blocked from accessing it, even if it is legal. Complete written judgements available at: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/autism-testcases.htm --199.60.104.18 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate on this article. The most likely candidate would be this one: Thiomersal controversy. You can discuss it there. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this vandalism? Old version of wiki article included this paragraph.

Old version of thiomersal article saved on the web. http://www.healthymoneyvine.com/support-files/thiomersal_wikipedia.pdf

This paragraph was removed from the history section. Why was all of it deleted? "Thiomersal's safety for its intended uses first came under question in the 1970s, when case reports demonstrated potential for neurotoxicity when given in large volumes as a topical antiseptic. At the [4]time, the DPT vaccine was the only childhood vaccine that contained it; a 1976 United States Food and Drug Administration review concluded that this use of thiomersal was not dangerous.[3] Concerns about mercury arising from Minamata disease and other cases of methylmercury poisoning led U.S. authorities to lower reference doses for methylmercury in the 1990s, about the same time that autism diagnoses began rising sharply. In 1999, a new FDA analysis concluded that infants could receive as much as 187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury during the first six months;[23] lacking any standard for ethylmercury, it used methylmercury-based standards to recommend that \ thiomersal be removed from routine infant vaccines in the U.S., which was largely complete by summer 2001.[3] Some parents of autistic children adopted thiomersal as an explanation for the increase in reported autism cases and sued vaccine makers; the mercury-autism hypothesis is accepted widely among parents of autistic children, despite scientific studies rejecting it.[3][24] --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is important and should be keep in the article, yet it was tossed? "In 1999, a new FDA analysis concluded that infants could receive as much as 187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury during the first six months;[23] lacking any standard for ethylmercury, it used methylmercury-based standards to recommend that \ thiomersal be removed from routine infant vaccines in the U.S., which was largely complete by summer 2001." --199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of this material appears in thimerosal controversy, where it's probably more appropriate in any case. By the way, the old versions of the article are accessible by clicking the "view history" tab at the top of the article page... you don't need to hunt around the dusty corners of the Web to find them if you don't want to. MastCell ^Talk 01:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How many atoms of mercury are in one vaccine?

Quote, "The dose makes the poison, a principle of toxicology, was first expressed by Paracelsus." Quote, "That is to say, substances considered toxic are harmless in small doses". Thiomersol mercury atoms do not clump together. Inotherwords, each mercury atom is a micro molecule that is independent. A small amount of something is bad if you have to count each mercury atom as a different solider. HOW MANY MERCURY ATOMS ARE IN A VACCINE. THIS SHOULD BE IN THE ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.18 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

While that might be interesting, it's totally irrelevant for our purposes if a secondary MEDRS hasn't discussed it. We only document what such sources have already written. Do you have such a source? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Quote, "Since the molecular weight of mercury is 200.59 g/mole (or 200.59 micrograms per micromole) and a g mole contains about 6.0221367 X 10 to the 23 power atoms, 50 micrograms of mercury is about 2.1425 X 10 to the 11 power atoms or about 214,250,000,000 atoms of mercury. Divide that huge number by four and you get the approximate number of atoms injected into a six month baby if Chiron's Fluvirin and Aventis' Fluzone is used. [Note: Since the guidelines recommend 2 doses of flu vaccine [30 days apart] for the initial vaccination, the 6-month-old child will get twice this amount by 7 months if the recommended schedule is followed.] If all these numbers and zeroes makes you dizzy, it comes down to this: There are many doctors, nurses, and public health officials that recommend you inject your baby with approximately 53 trillion atoms of mercury on a regular basis starting at six months of age. In general, the FDA accepts an each-dose range for the mercury level from 75% to 125% of the nominal level in each formulation; so, at six months, your child could get upward of approximately 75 trillion atoms of mercury injected directly into their bodies from the Thimerosal-preserved vaccine alone." http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=1754 --199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your astonishment at a number having lots of zeros after it (or your being unable to place that in any meaningful context) is not encyclopediac. As usual, cherry-picking primary facts is not valid content here. DMacks (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

199.60.104.18, this is getting tiresome. I'm going to provide you some links you need to read, and then I'll hat this thread and ask that you only return if you have something constructive to do here. Read these links: WP:SPA (possibly a new editor if the IP changed on Nov. 16), WP:TALK, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:SOAP. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is in a meaningful context, how much thiomersol is in a vaccine? Please point out in the thiomersol articles were it states parts per billion of thiomersol in a vaccine. This should be in the article. The FDA has 1 part per 100000 of thiomersol as okay. Why is this blocked fromt the article? Quote, " Truth: Thimerosal is added at a concentration of 1:10000. That is equivalent to 100000 parts per billion (ppb). Half of thimerosal (C9H9HgNaO2S) is mercury" --199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article would be improved by inserting in the article the amount of thiomersol used in a vaccine, called parts per billion. Y/N --199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

When you try to make hay out of the number of atoms of mercury in a vaccine, you're basically asking everyone else not to take you seriously. You're using a rhetorically dishonest, inflammatory, and deceptive approach which attempts to capitalize on the innumeracy and scientific illiteracy of the reader. While that may be effective in some areas of the Internet, it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article talk page. Could you make one last effort to provide actual reliable sources and limit your personal editorialization? If not, please leave the talk page and find another venue more appropriate for what you want to accomplish. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Asking for the Quantity how many, needs to be in the article, as quote, "Quantity is a property that can exist as a magnitude or multitude" is the foundation of science. Quote, "Establishing quantitative structure and relationships between different quantities is the cornerstone of modern physical sciences."

The difference between methylmercury the 5 atom, one carbon three hyrdogen and one mercury atom compound, and the thiomersal mercury compound, is analogous to the difference of catching a baseball and catching a handfull of sand. Methylmercury molecole can bind with other methylmercury units to become one big unit. Thiomersal works as a heavy metal delivery system as its many don't become one. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions: (1) Read your talk page before editing anymore, unless you REALLY want to get blocked; (2) always look at the "history" tab before editing.

Since you don't take advice or listen, I'm going to put it rather bluntly: We simply don't tolerate fools here. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiki standards require the quantity as there are two ways thiomersal enters the vaccine; for example how would you describe the two ways thiomersal find its way into a vaccine and describe the amount differences. Saying so tiny and even more tiny does not meet wiki standards. The article should mention that preservative free does not mean thiomerosal free. Quote from FDA" Why are some vaccines noted to be "thimerosal-free" while some are "thimerosal-reduced"? What is the difference between "thimerosal-free" and "preservative-free"?" FDA quote, "Thimerosal may be added at the end of the manufacturing process to act as a preservative to prevent bacterial or fungal growth in the event that the vaccine is accidentally contaminated, as might occur with repeated puncture of multi-dose vials. When thimerosal is used as preservative in vaccines, it is present in concentrations up to 0.01% (50 micrograms thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or 25 micrograms mercury per 0.5 mL dose). In some cases, thimerosal is used during the manufacturing process and is present in small amounts in the final vaccine (1 micrograms mercury or less per dose)." FDA quote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.160.222 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote, "A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic Hg for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%)."

How can it be more when thiomersal is in the body for a shorter time? This is more pronounced in complex brains. It appears that the carbon chain around thiomersal creates a brain storm.

Merit in printing the full quote from the half life study on thiomersal. Ethylmercury exits the body faster than methylmercury should include the full quote that the study found that though thiomersal exits the body faster, quote, "The average brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3). A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic Hg for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%)." Reference. http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.7712 Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Community Medicine,, 2 Washington National Primate Research Center,, 3 Center on Human Development and Disability, and, 4 Departments of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, 5 Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS, we cite to secondary, review articles, and do not give WP:UNDUE weight to primary studies and their conclusions. Yobol (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Google this passage and there are plenty of secondary sources, so now it can go in the article? http://www.google.ca/search?q=A+higher+percentage+of+the+total+Hg+in+the+brain+was+in+the+form+of+inorganic+Hg+for+the+thimerosal-exposed+monkeys+(34%25+vs.+7%25).%22&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivnsb&ei=SM_OTtGGHqfYiQKskqneCw&start=0&sa=N --96.54.160.222 (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Reason for this increase. Quote,"This means that the original compound, thimerosal, is less reactive giving the compound time to partition into certain areas of the body before it breaks down releasing the ethyl mercury and then further releasing Hg2+. However, while attaching ethyl mercury to thiolsalicylate makes the ethyl mercury less reactive it most likely allows increased partitioning into the central nervous system before the ethyl mercury is released and thereby, increases the neuro toxicity per unit ethyl mercury involved." YOU DO NOT DISPUTE THIS BUT THIS IS NOT GOING IN THE ARTICLE. WHY? --96.54.160.222 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Present a WP:MEDRS compliant source (not a google search result) that explains this term and why it is important, and then we can talk. Yobol (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Yobol. Quotes from government study, " at the same time, it underpredicted the blood concentration during washout rate (i.e., overpredicted washout rate)." Quote, "the two concentration measures (e.g., blood and brain) did not decline in parallel with time." Quote, "One of the day 28 brain samples from the MeHg exposure group had a spuriously high total Hg concentration, that is, a concentration of 151 ng/g, which is more than 50% higher than the other samples obtained on day 28 (71–90 ng/mL) and higher than those observed at the earliest sacrifice time at day 2 (75–129 ng/g). The UNREASONABLY high concentration is most likely due to contamination of the sample. Therefore, data from this brain and its corresponding blood were excluded from the regression analysis." Quote, "The blood concentrations of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys in the present study are within the range of those reported for human infants after vaccination (Stajich et al. 2000). Data from the present study support the prediction that, although little accumulation of Hg in the blood occurs over time with repeated vaccinations, ACCUMLATION OF HG IN THE BRAIN OF INFANTS WILL OCCUR. Thus, conclusion regarding the safety of thimerosal drawn from blood Hg clearance data in human infants receiving vaccines may not be valid, given the significantly slower half-life of Hg in the brain as observed in the infant macaques." --96.54.160.222 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources to establish weight please. Yobol (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You're being asked to find a source that "represents current medical knowledge" - mercury in vaccines is considered safe by the medical establishment, so no amount of peer-review on this article is going to allow it to be entered into Wikipedia. Yobol won't help you. This much is demonstrated throughout "Wikipedia" where even blogs and journals from non-medical personnel can be considered to meet the Wikipedia guidelines simply because they agree with current medical knowledge. The link between George Soros, the Wikimedia Foundation and the drug industry is pretty well established when you look into it.Dobyblue (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thimerosal and the 1930 tests results and all 22 test subjects died

Repeating something that is not true doesn't make it true.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note:copied from my talk page to get a wider audience for this discussion* Quote, "Lilly tested Thimerosal in 1930, giving it to 22 terminal meningitis patients; within weeks, all 22 patients died." http://www.newsinferno.com/legal-news/eli-lilly-knew-of-thimerosal-dangers-for-decades/3298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.128.212 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC) A couple of points: 1) That is not a reliable source 2) even if it were reliable, there have been plenty of studies about the safety of thiomersal since which have found it safe for use in vaccines and certainly no evidence in doses used it is a neurotoxin. Yobol (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC) "there have been plenty of studies about the safety of thiomersal since which have found it safe for use in vaccines," Studies finding Thimerosal safe for use and FAILING to find harm from Thimerosal in studies are two very different things. Vioxx was found safe in Merck studies. Then it killed tens of thousands of people. You argue for safety based on a LACK of proof of harm by researchers with a financial and professional interest in finding no harm. Tmaxr (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC) As Yobol notes, the source is dubious. Even if it were not, I suspect that you (and the authors of the article) are missing the significance of what the report seems to be saying. (I suspect that the article's authors are deliberately missing the point, in fact.) If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the basic facts reported are correct, then the study involved terminal patients. All of them would have died without intervention anyway. What the study demonstrated was not that thiomersal is a deadly drug whose side effects were ruthlessly concealed (as the author of the article would have you believe). What was shown was that thiomersal was ineffective for the treatment of meningitis—just like every other drug available to pre-antibiotics 1930 medicine. The purpose of such a study wouldn't have been to test the safety of thiomersal, it would have been to test novel interventions to treat otherwise-lethal cases of meningitis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC) The test was not to see if mercury can cure terminal meningitis, the test was to bring the drug to market. Please do some reading on Eli's testing. Quote, " In its apparent eagerness to promote and market the product, in September, 1930, Eli Lilly secretly sponsored a "human toxicity" study on patients already known to be dying of meningococcal meningitis. Senior partner Andrew Waters stated that, "Lilly then cited this study repeatedly for decades as proof that thimerosal was of low toxicity and harmless to humans. They never revealed to the scientific community or the public the highly questionable nature of the original research." http://www.iaomt.org/testfoundation/thimelililly.htm#Waters%20&%20Kraus --199.60.104.18 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Yet again, the source is not reliable, so it doesn't belong until you find one that is. Secondly, even if it were true (which I do not concede), I don't know why it belongs in an encyclopedia article about the substance. Unless secondary reliable sources note the importance of this, it appears this is just being used to smear the product and Eli Lilly rather than trying to add neutral, verifiable information to the article. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC) The current statement this IP has added to the article states "Lilly tested Thimerosal in 1930, giving it to 22 terminal meningitis patients; within weeks, all 22 patients died from their terminal illness." Well then so what? It doesn't say on its face anything about the long-term safety (or lack thereof) of the chemical, but it does suggest that they all did live for several weeks, so it's not acutely toxic. That seems to be in keeping with how the IP claims the highly non-reliable source supports, but contradicts the general theme of that source itself. And as another editor mentions above, the study wasn't even to test its toxicity, so we need some references that reinterpret it for us. As it stands, it has unclear relevance, and being primary data would require a secondary source to explain it to us instead of being left loose to either scare or at best confuse readers. DMacks (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Please read this legal brief and its summary of the 1920s and 1930s history on how this drug came to market. The only issue is that the human testing before going to market was this 22 patient test and therefore its importance. htttttp://www.whale.to/v/elililly.html [This site is blacklisted so had to add the extra tttt's to http to post the link.] --96.54.160.222 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Quote, "During the outbreak, Dr. Smithburn, at the request of Lilly, injected the meningitis patients with thimerosal/merthiolate in a series of experiments to determine if it might serve as a possible treatment for the disease. The experiments also served a second purpose, i.e. as a basis for reaching a conclusion that thimerosal was non-toxic." The issue is that this test for people at death's door does not allow the testing for long term minute amounts of mercury injected into the blood streams of new borns that have immune issues and undeveloped brain blood barrier. --96.54.160.222 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC) The fact that it is blacklisted might give you a clue as to how reliable that website is. As noted, the FDA and numerous studies have found thiomersal safe. Allegations it isn't safe need to meet stringent sourcing. Short of finding such sources, there's nothing to discuss here. Yobol (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Thimerosal was grandfathered in by the FDA, so when people ask what were the human trails, the only prior to market human study was this 22 patient test. THE DRUG BEING GRANDFATHERED IN NEEDS TO BE IN THE ARTICLE. Quote, " Thimerosal was first used as a preservative in vaccines in the late 1930s, long before we understood the extreme neurotoxicity of mercury. As the FDA ratcheted up safety standards, Thimerosal was grandfathered through due to its history without ever having to undergo any safety testing. We may not be reading so much about Thimerosal today if the CDC hadn't embarked upon an aggressive plan to add vaccines to the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule in the late 1980's. In 1988, the Haemophilus Influenzae type B (Hib) vaccine was added to the schedule, followed by the Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine in 1991. Together, these two vaccines added six shots to the schedule, and tripled the amount of mercury children born after 1991 received compared to the previous generation." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiomersal&action=edit&section=4grandfathered --199.60.104.18 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Published quote for grandfathered in. http://books.google.ca/books?id=oEoEM0Do9iIC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=Thimerosal~grandfathered+in&source=bl&ots=Y2O_rg3X59&sig=shvf7iH7x4HJS7gLdSmva-s5NXM&hl=en&ei=_lLFTv30FsXhiAL4tvT2BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg&safe=strict#v=onepage&q=Thimerosal~grandfathered%20in&f=false --199.60.104.18 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Did you read the rest of the source you presented above which notes that thiomersal has been extensively studied and not found to be a cause of autism? Yobol (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Googled the words thirmersol and grandfathered, and there are numerious links to back up saying the drug was grandfathered in by the FDA. Does anyone have a problem with the article saying the drug was grandfathered in? http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Thiomersal~grandfathered+in&oq=Thiomersal~grandfathered+in&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=0l0l0l5875l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1019&bih=600&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=lE3FTu2wMdPoiAKh29i2BQ&safe=strict --199.60.104.18 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC) It would probably help to focus on identifying quality sources, rather than relying on a huge quantity of low-quality sources. I don't think that cherry-picking quotes is helping your case, either. MastCell Talk 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC) The FDA webpage references the 1931 thiomersal 22 patient study. It's the FDA saying it. Quote, "The earliest published report of thimerosal use in humans was published in 1931 (Powell and Jamieson 1931). In this report, 22 individuals received 1% solution of thimerosal intravenously for UNSPECIFIED THERAPEUTIC REASONS. Subjects received up to 26 milligrams thimerosal/kg (1 milligrams equals 1,000 micrograms) with no reported toxic effects, although 2 subjects demonstrated phlebitis or sloughing of skin after local infiltration. Of note, this study was not specifically designed to examine toxicity; 7 of 22 subjects were observed for only ONE DAY, the specific clinical assessments were NOT DESCRIBED, and no laboratory studies were reported." http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) A fixation to place information about one study (out of all the safety studies performed on thiomersal) goes against WP:DUE. Yobol (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC) A suggest, read the company's brochure. Quote, "Eli Lilly and Co. supposedly answered this question for us back in 1930. Concluding thimerosal to be of "a very low order of toxicity . . . for man," the company hired its own doctors to perform thimerosal experiments in Indianapolis City Hospital on meningitis patients during a severe outbreak in 1929. This 60-year-old evidence was STILL QUOTED ON THE COMPANY'S BROCHURES AS RECENTLY AS 1990." www.naturalnews.com/011764.html --199.60.104.18 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC) It's too bad that your citation doesn't actually link to – or quote from – the brochure. Given that the link you've provided is to an advocacy site which espouses the fringe view that thiomersal causes autism, I am necessarily skeptical that their presentation offers a balanced and honest description of the 1930 study, or that they actually place it in appropriate context with other toxicological data collected since then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC) FDA uses this STUDY STILL TODAY to say, quote, "Prior to its introduction in the 1930's, data were available in several animal species and humans providing evidence for its safety and effectiveness as a preservative." US FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION THIOMERSAL DECLARATION --96.54.160.222 (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC) "data were available in several animal species and humans providing evidence for its safety and effectiveness as a preservative." Thimerosal was banned in canine vaccines. The test dogs kept dying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmaxr (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Can we stop repeating things that aren't true as is they were true? Or at the very least, provide a credible source for these rather remarkable assertions? I know it would be a break with precedent, but it might help. MastCell Talk 21:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Merthiolate

Merthiolate used to redirect here, but an anonymous editor removed the redirect and removed all references to Merthiolate in this article (even removing the name from references that use it). It appears that Merthiolate is a brand name used for another product as well, but was historically used for Thiomersal. I've restored the references, but also changed the Merthiolate article to a disambig. Greenman (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

New animal study

A new study, supposedly, finds that thimerosal gives rats autism. The conclusion states "this study raised serious concerns about adverse neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism in humans following the ongoing worldwide routine administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines to infants."[1] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Non MEDRS (animal study, primary). Yobol (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Fails MEDRS, and not a very good paper.

• Animal study (using a rather odd population: premature neonatal rats)
• Primary study
• Very low impact journal (World Journal of Pediatrics, from Springer, has an impact factor of about 1.1; it should not be mistaken for the much older, better-known, well-respected Journal of Pediatrics, with an impact factor of 4.0)
• The lowest dose of thiomersal used in this study (32.8 ug/kg) is many times the exposure associated with vaccination; the paper entirely fails to relate its doses to those used clinically (further, it's not clear which, if any, of the effects reported in the study are actually observed at doses below the maximum they used: 131.2 ug/kg)
• No appreciable secondary coverage of this paper

As an aside, the above summary – "thimerosal gives rats autism" – isn't accurate. There's no defined 'autism' diagnosis in rats, and the paper doesn't make that claim. In any case, the actual description of their cognitive test results leaves a great deal to be desired. If I were doing a full peer review of this paper rather than just applying MEDRS here, as a scientist I'd really rip this paper a new one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Source Discussion

Regarding Yobol/DMacks editing out my contribution.

1. 1 - Yobol - removing a contribution with the text "the geiers are not medrs" is not clear and appeared to be vandalism. Google the verbiage and you will receive no definition(s) or explanation. DMacks' explanation of what the edit was for is an appropriate response - clear, plain, and linked. The phrase "the geiers are not medrs" might make sense to you but it's not a common term in the English (or any) language. Please keep in mind Wikipedia has many people from many countries with many languages; keeping the discussion as plain as possible serves the best interest.

1. 2 - Source - the source was published on the National Institute of Health's web site using CDC data. The NIH is specifically mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS#Biomedical_journals in the "Medical and scientific organizations" organization. Please explain specifically how the source location (NIH) does not meet "Medical and scientific organizations" which clearly states the NIH is indeed a valid source.

1. 3 - Future Source - what would be the acceptability of a document by a CDC Researcher participating in the study listed in the CDC's list of studies -http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/CDCStudiesonVaccinesandAutism.pdf. Documents from these studies are being given to the public under the Freedom Of Information Act and the researcher's own submissions to the studies are relevant.

Looking forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudemarstar (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that summary would not be easy to understand for someone not familiar with Wikipedia parlance and I apologize for the confusion. WP:MEDRS is the guideline for determining what type of source is reliable for medical content. It is important to read the entire guideline and understand it in full as you cannot take out any one section out of context; a source should meet all the requirements in it. First, the study in question (found here) is NOT published by the NIH; it is hosted through the NIH website through the PubMed Central as a free-to-access, but is not in any way endorsed, published or peer-reviewed by the NIH. The source was published by the journal Translational Neurodegeneration, which fails one of the red flags of a journal with poor reputation as it is not indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to this red flag, it is a primary study, and as such fails MEDRS as we based our medical content on high quality secondary reviews; we are explicitly required by WP:MEDRS not to use primary studies to rebut high quality secondary sources. As a completely separate matter, Mark Geier's research has been widely criticized in the medical literature (see his Wikipedia page for examples), and he has a very large conflict of interest on the topic of vaccine safety as he is a professional witness who testifies for people suing to get money for vaccine injury (something he might have a lot more time to do now that he has lost his medical licenses in so many states). So, in addition to him not being reliable as he has a bad reputation for his research, he also does not quality as an independent source as required by WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. We therefore have numerous reasons to exclude this study, any one of which would be sufficient to exclude it. Regarding #3, any sources presented would need to meet all the criteria of WP:MEDRS. I hope this is helpful. Yobol (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternatives

Given that TM has been phased out in many cases, it would be interesting if an expert could add to the article: what the alternatives are, and how they compare with TM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thimerosal spelling inconsistency

Here is the correct spelling - Thimerosal. The Wikipedia article (including the heading itself) has several misspellings shown as Thiomersal. (The 'o' belongs between the 'r' and the 's'.) Thank you! Ghs56 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)ghs56

"Thiomersal" is the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) for this chemical compound. It is not a misspelling. "Thimerosal" is the United States Adopted Name (USAN). In situations where the INN and USAN differ, Wikipedia has chosen to use INNs. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The dual naming is even explicitly mentioned in the very first sentence. Though it's not obvious to lay readers what "INN" means (or its relevance to such a prominent parenthetical) unless one follows its link. But doing so makes it extremely clear why the chosen spelling is valid (albeit perhaps not the one certain readers are used to seeing). DMacks (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Review: safety of thimerosal

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/247218/

BioMed Research International

Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 247218, 8 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/247218

Review Article

Methodological Issues and Evidence of Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines Is Safe

Abstract

There are over 165 studies that have focused on Thimerosal, an organic-mercury (Hg) based compound, used as a preservative in many childhood vaccines, and found it to be harmful. Of these, 16 were conducted to specifically examine the effects of Thimerosal on human infants or children with reported outcomes of death; acrodynia; poisoning; allergic reaction; malformations; auto-immune reaction; Well’s syndrome; developmental delay; and neurodevelopmental disorders, including tics, speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism. In contrast, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that Thimerosal is safe and there is “no relationship between [T]himerosal[-]containing vaccines and autism rates in children.” This is puzzling because, in a study conducted directly by CDC epidemiologists, a 7.6-fold increased risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy was found. The CDC’s current stance that Thimerosal is safe and that there is no relationship between Thimerosal and autism is based on six specific published epidemiological studies coauthored and sponsored by the CDC. The purpose of this review is to examine these six publications and analyze possible reasons why their published outcomes are so different from the results of investigations by multiple independent research groups over the past 75+ years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.56.234 (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing more than a faulty analysis by known anti-vaccine campaigners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.79.194 (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thiomersal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080625045712/http://www.conncoll.edu/offices/envhealth/MSDS/neuroscience/thimerosal.pdf to http://www.conncoll.edu/offices/envhealth/MSDS/neuroscience/thimerosal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of US vaccines with WHO guidelines.

The last paragraph of the lead, specifically the second sentence, seems WP:OR, and the value of 2.5% is meaningless: In the U.S., Thiomersal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine. Vaccines with trace amounts of thiomersal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose, less than 2.5% of the intake of mercury considered tolerable per day by the WHO.

• A narrow selection of vaccines is considered (in the U.S., for children, routinely recommended, excluding influenza vaccine)
• The 2.5% is not mentioned in the sources given, it may be based on the "43 μg/d intake of mercury set by the Food and Agriculture Organization/WHO provisional tolerable weekly intake values" mentioned in the second source (Bose-O'Reilly; et al.)?
• For children, the use of RfD values expressed in μg/kg/day is more appropriate.
• Various agencies (EPA, FDA, ATSDR, WHO) have different exposure guidelines. The paragraph is specifically about vaccines licensed for use in the U.S., comparing them to U.S. guidelines would make more sense.
• The FDA source lists guidelines for exposure levels ranging from 0.1 µg/kg body weight/day (EPA) to 0.47 µg/kg body weight/day (WHO). Children 6 months old (most will have received 12 vaccinations by then) generally weigh somewhere between 6.7 kg and 8.5 kg. For those children, a dose of 1 microgram of mercury would be the equivalent of 118% to 149% of the EPA reference dose, and 25% to 32% of the WHO guideline. Note that the WHO value of 0.47 µg/kg/day was calculated from the WHO guideline value of 3.3 µg/kg/week (footnote 2 of the source); this is twice the established provisional tolerable weekly intake for embryo and fetus. While this is valid for adults, the JECFA clarified in 2006 that the PTWI value of 1.6 µg/kg/week also applied to children. (http://www.who.int/phe/news/Mercury-flyer.pdf) Based on that value, the percentages would be 50% to 64% instead.

On the other hand:

• Those exposure guidelines are for daily intake (chronic RfD), and have little relevance for acute exposure.
• The guidelines are based on the toxicity of methylmercury. Thiomersal is metabolized to ethylmercury, which is less toxic and has a shorter half-life than methylmercury.
• The "trace amount" of thiomersal in those vaccines could be much lower than 1 μg.

For all those reasons, the statement should be removed, imo. The only useful comparison would be with the acute RfD for ethylmercury. But such a guideline doesn't exist. (btw: where does the "18 days" for half-life in blood come from? All the sources I've seen say it's less than a week) Prevalence 22:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Toxicity Study

Hi there,

I'm having issue with editors reverting my text and citation to a study published by a highly accomplished researcher in a prestigious journal. Reasoning of undoers includes: that the position is a "minority view" (an unscientific position, highly subjective), that the study is in-vitro only (factually incorrect - read the study), that the study does not reference thiomersal specifically (factually incorrect - read the study), an automatic Twinkle undo based on WP:MEDRES which says that studies in good journals are valid, and another undo saying not to edit war and citing WP:MEDRS which also would would back *my* edit, since I am citing an article from a prolific researcher in a mainstream journal. In sum, I am see no valid scientific or community standards-based argument against my text and citation. Obviously this is a touchy issue (thiomersal and neurotoxicity leading to disorders), but it would seem in this case some community members are editing out a study to support a personal position. Let's settle this here please.

For reference here is the text:

Thimerosal at concentrations relevant for infants' exposure in vaccines is toxic to cultured human-brain cells and to laboratory animals.

References

Delerium2k (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That kind of primary citation will not support such a provocative claim. See WP:MEDRS. Folks trying to promote minority views are often disappointed with Wikipedia's insistence on super-strong references.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, User:Smokefoot I have provided a secondary source for the information. Note, this is a literature review on the issue we are discussing written by the author of the paper I cited originally. It contains references to 110 studies, 23 of which are authored or co-authored by the author of the 2011 paper (José G. Dórea, University of Brasilia). Thank you.Delerium2k (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

References

@DMacks:@Smokefoot:@Delerium2k: I will be reverting the addition of Dorea (2015) for the moment, due to the ongoing discussion on this talk page and a number of concerns I have with the work cited and the way that Delerium2k proposes that we present it.

1. The most obvious problem in the context of Wikipedia policy – especially WP:MEDRS – is that the proposed text invites the reader (very strongly) to infer a causal link between thiomersal and negative health effects on infants. Such a link is not demonstrated by the source provided, and it is irresponsible to use it to imply one.
2. Despite Dorea's repeated efforts to dance around the point over the years – including in the paper at hand – there's never been any even moderately-strong evidence to support effects on human health due to infant exposures to thiomersal. (The paper at hand grudgingly admits as much, though such admissions are generally wrapped up in the usual layer of they-need-to-do-more-and-different-studies special pleading.)
3. The journal itself is questionable. When the paper was published in February 2015, the publisher of Int J Environ Res Public Health – MDPI – was on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers: [2].
4. Dorea's paper is a 'narrative'-style review, not a systematic review or meta-analysis. Dorea does not describe a method by which papers were systematically selected for inclusion or mention in his review, nor does he perform any statistical analysis or testing on the compiled data. He does not describe any methods by which he evaluated the quality or reliability of the papers that he cited. He was free to select only the papers that he wished to include. None of these things necessarily makes it a bad review, but we as Wikipedia editors should be aware that such narrative-style reviews may aim to promote a particular point of view (as this paper does) rather than neutrally survey the literature.
5. Similarly, the large number of footnotes in Dorea's paper is not evidence of quality, one way or the other. Anyone who has written a scientific paper (or a thesis) will know that it's almost trivially easy these days to incorporate a large number of citations; the more common difficulty is in pruning them back to fit within a journal's limits. The abundant self-citations (in terms of both absolute number and fraction of total footnotes) suggest either a lack of broad familiarity with the literature, self-promotion, or cherry-picking of sources. Multiple citations to the work of Mark Geier (I count at least seven, two of which were published by the same journal) aren't a sign of good quality control, either. Either Dorea is unaware of Geier's...um, status...or he doesn't care; neither speaks well of Dorea or his manuscript.

Overall, I would be very reluctant to cite this paper in any way, given the various red flags it throws up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Times have moved on TenOfAllTrades. This may have been very controversial when it was first published but even the US Environmental Protection Agency now issues advice on how to clean up broken CFL or other mercury-containing lamps, where one is likely to inhale just pico-grams rather than than milligrams that were once included in vaccines. Cleaning Up a Broken CFL. Sweden (in Europe) was first to ban mercury their vaccines back in the early 1990's (pre Wakefield) . Studies show that ethyl-mercury gets metabolized into the more toxic form of methyl-mercury. So get updated. Injecting it straight into the blood stream does not make it inert. That is why this compound is now being removed. So your red flags have rotten away in the wind of greater awareness that followed these studies that you still decry. Minority view back then perhaps but it is now 2016.--Aspro (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades, whether thiomersal is neurotoxic is not a point of contention in the research community (we know the CNS is 'targeted' by the EtHg byproduct of thiomersal) -- the question is whether that neurotoxicity is linked to neurological damage in children receiving thiomersal-containing vaccines. Addressing your points:

1. A link is established between thiomersal and neurodevelopmental impairment in a number of multivariate analyses (section 3).
2. Again, section 3.
3. Discrediting the author (Dorea) based on this journal being on a blacklist of Mr. Beall's might hold if Dorea himself were not such a prolific and widely published researcher. Dorea has 170+ published papers and is himself an editor for journals which pass Beall's muster.
4. The paper is a standard literature review -- not a statistical meta analysis I agree (statistical meta analyses are not prerequisite for use as a wiki citation). However, if one can find a secondary source which challenges the position of this paper, it can certainly be referenced after my text as a challenge.
5. None of the Geier citations are used in section 3 which references the multivariate analyses suggesting negative interaction between EtHg and neurodevelopment.

My overall issue with this page is that a disservice is being done to novices on this subject, as there is clearly research which suggests a link between injecting a known neurotoxin into children and negative neurological outcomes for those children. By eliminating these studies from the article, we are pretending that research does not exist (or is entirely a conspiracy of quackery). It is not helpful for a parent who is faced with decision of vaccinating their child for the multitude of conditions we now vaccinate for, which the parent was never vaccinated for. You may be satisfied that the case is closed on thiomersal and brain injury, but consensus has not been reached by any stretch -- and we should not impose a position on parents who should be aware there is conflicting research. From a medical logic perspective, the heavy push back should more so be placed on the position that intravenous injection of thiomersal (which rapidly disassociates into EtHg) into small children is safe, when it is well established that EtHg is neurotoxic and passes the blood brain barrier with ease. Delerium2k (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone (least of all I) is disputing that high concentrations of mercury – particularly in bioavailable organometallic form – are neurotoxic. The principal point of contention on this talk page revolves around whether or not the concentrations and exposures associated with mercury via thiomersal in vaccines constitutes a "high enough" concentration and dose to result in clinically-meaningful neurotoxic effects. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the question at hand is whether or not high-quality published secondary sources establish a consensus, plurality, or even significant minority position that thiomersal-containing vaccines are associated with significant clinical effects.

Unfortunately, relying exclusively on Dorea's paper presents a number of problems, which you have still not been able to address.

1. It was published by a publisher known, at the time, to have quality control problems sufficiently serious for it to be identified (by Beall) as a predatory publisher. Despite Dorea's copious publication output, we cannot presume that this particular manuscript received sufficiently robust and independent review. Even good scientists write bad papers. The fact that the journal has published more than one Geier paper doesn't aid the credibility of its review process.
2. The 'positive' results in section 3 are ultimately sourced almost exclusively to Dorea's own work, along with the entirely-discredited and ethically-compromised Geier family. Absent those selected papers, Dorea would be unable to substantiate a link between thiomersal exposure and clinical effects.
3. If this were a sufficiently-significant minority position to present in Wikipedia, you would be able to locate other secondary sources, by other authors, in untainted journals, citing trustworthy and independent primary clinical research. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the position you wish to include is – at a minimum – a significant minority position; the onus is not on me (or Wikipedia) to endorse and subsequently debunk questionable papers.

Again, no one here wants to pretend that research doesn't exist, nor would anyone here want to encourage harm to children. Fortunately, that's not what we're doing. Wikipedia is obliged to follow and present the best-quality research and conclusions; if you can't find what you need in good-quality sources then – just maybe – you're overreaching in what you wish to assert. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

The title and name of the preservative discussed in this article is misspelled. It is spelled Thimerosal, not Thiomersal. It is also misspelled in the "Thiomersal Controversy" article. Could someone PLEASE correct this? Thank you! 97.85.91.212 (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It would help if you read the article first. The very first sentence says: "commonly known in the U.S. as thimerosal". These are alternate spellings, not "wrong" spellings. The subject is also addressed in a previous section on this page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also if one searches "Thimerosal" you get to Thimersal, so there should be no problem.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead sentence, without citation, claimed that "thimerosal" was a metathesis commonly used in the US. The effect, perhaps unintended, was "silly American mistake". But in fact it's the official USP name. I have edited to clarify. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Aluminium compounds cause the Autism.

reference the well known Aluminium Encephalopathy Syndrome, Aluminium Hydroxide Antacid overdose cases, Aluminium water contamination incident in Camelford.

Aluminium Hydroxide and Aluminium Phosphate are a major part of the dTap Infanrix Hexa vaccine. Prevnar and many others.

Al3+ causes oligmerisation in the neural tissue of the brain in both rats and primates, a similar process to Mercury, with similar cognitive and sensory impairment and ultimately vegetative state identical to Al antacid overdoses and Aluminium Encephalopathy Syndrome in paediatric renal cases.

Aluminium in vaccines must be halted immediately, primarily for the autism causation but long term health problems and carcinogenic properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.228.1 (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Your probably better trying this over at Vaccine_controversies#Aluminium, this page is just about Thiomersal --Project Osprey (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, that's not a thing. Just saying. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No controversy around mercury/Thiomersal in vaccines!? Really!?

No controversy around mercury/Thiomersal in vaccines!? Really!? To deny there's controversy damages your credability. It doen't matter what the evidence indictes. To acknowledgement controversy is to treat your readers with respect.

PS I'm sorry if I haven't posted this properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.142.31 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Half of the second paragraph of the article says there was a controversy, links to a whole WP article about the controversy, and then says with multiple cites that though there was a controversy it's settled from a scientific standpoint. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also difficult to take barely intelligible comments like that seriously. Talk about lacking credibility. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: hopefully you're not writing that in response to my comment? Let me know if I'm unclear and I will rephrase. DMacks (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it was in reference to the original comment in this section, not yours Dmacks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  17:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

---

• Thiomersal → Thimerosal
• Thiomersal and vaccines → Thimerosal and vaccines

– Real-world usage of the spelling "Thimerosal" dominates. I get 1.4 million Google hits for "Thimerosal" compared to 267,000 hits for "Thiomersal"; 74,300 Google Books hits for "Thimerosal"; 14,300 Google Books hits for "Thiomersal"; and 2900 Google scholar hits for "Thimerosal" compared to 721 Google scholar hits for "Thiomersal". bd2412 T 17:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Both are supported by nomenclature standards (as noted in intro sentence). WP:NCMED recommendation is to use INN (thiomersal) in general and to use standards rather than ghit-counting. DMacks (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines

See Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines § Requested move 19 February 2019.

The proposal is to move the article to "thiomersal controversy", in line with the anti-vaccination narrative. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not a neutral description of the move request. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's barely even an accurate description. He neglects to mention the significant fact that the proposal is to reverse an move that Guy made himself without any consensus or discussion.

For better or worse, the proposal is to revert the article back to its stable title. ApLundell (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

toxicology

Almost anything is toxic in large enough doses. The dose makes the poison - and with no LD numbers, nor exposure levels from vaccines mentioned, it is hard to put its use in proper perspective. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)