Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines in 1980 is not in the article yet

Quote to insert in article history "Russia banned thiomerosal from children's vaccines in 1980." This fact provides an international perspective. It's part of the controversy because while their banning it, we're using more of it. The thiomersal controversy is about brain damage, not just autism. Google link for thiomersal

Quote from the thiomersal article, "Inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer half-life, at least 120 days; though it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood." This quote about half life should also be INSERTED INTO the thiomersal controversy article, though it does NOT fit with the controversy article statement, "Ethylmercury, such as in thiomersal, clears much faster from the body after administration than methylmercury, suggesting total mercury exposure over time is much less with ethylmercury." If may be worse then we thought, quote, Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group. Inorganic mercury remains in the brain much longer than organic mercury, with an estimated half-life of more than a year. It’s not currently known whether inorganic mercury presents any risk to the developing brain." Scientific academic paper: Another link about thiomersal--199.60.104.18 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As usual, this quote from 199.60 lacks any source, let alone a reliable one. (That's the third unsourced quotation in the last two days.) While I obviously cannot give orders to the other editors on this talk page, I would strongly suggest that until this editor can be bothered to do us the basic courtesy of identifying the sources for his information, we shouldn't let him further waste our time doing his research for him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of amused to see "what's next" from 199.60. But this is a good one. Since I know that the USSR existed in 1980 and not Russia, I find this a bit amusing. Also, knowing that the USSR lacked access to the type of disposable syringes with luer lock needles used in the USA since the early 70's, but used reusable glass syringes with reusable needles, I'd hate to see the infection rates (if this story were true) at injection sites using these vaccines. But anyways, like Ten said, no reliable source. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we want to get technical, Russia did exist in 1980. It wasn't a separate sovereign nation, but it was a socialist republic within the larger nation of the USSR. (In terms of very rough analogies, we might look at California, or the canton of Berne, or the Chinese province of Shanxi, or Alberta.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Them there's war words. California is NOT like Russia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the source of the quote, "In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal, suffered brain damage years later." http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=&q=Mukhtarova~thiomersal~russia~ban&oq=Mukhtarova~thiomersal~russia~ban&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1562l9953l0l10250l27l26l0l23l0l0l172l390l1.2l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=792&bih=425&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=i5njTsPOG6LdiAKjxKHCCQ&safe=strict --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a source, it's a Google search for some keywords. Just give us a link to the web site where you got your quote, and the name of the author, and the date of publication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Google hits fail WP:MEDRS, so they are not going to convince. That being said, have we not reached the end of the community patience with this random IP? WP:NOTAFORUM rules apply. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

p.585, date 2007, paper Geier Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health --199.60.104.18 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I commented on the section above, the author Mark Geier is an advocate whose research in vaccines has been described as unreliable by authorative souces in medicine. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Source rationalwiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vaccine_hysteria "In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later." --199.60.104.18 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, wikis are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, and especially not for medical topics. (Any page that anyone can edit isn't a firm footing.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of this article is it is a controversy article; hence the title of the article; and therefore, claims that are repeated *10000 in the controversy are by virtue part of the controversy. For example the grandfathering of this chemical, it's part of the controversy, isn't it? I"m not claiming the claims are true, just they're out there and readers of this three minute wiki article come to wiki to test these claims they read again and again elsewhere, right? JUST SAY THIS IS WRONG, I'LL NOT POST HERE AGAIN! --199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong...but somehow I doubt – despite your UNNECESSARILY LOUD promise – that it will stop you from posting again. While this article is about the controversy, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for us to document every claim made by any fringe advocate opposed to the use of thiomersal in vaccines. Claims that are circulated by a relatively small number of bloggers aren't significant, even within the narrow context of the controversy. Claims that have received at least a modicum of coverage in the mainstream press or review by the legitimate medical community (if only acknowledgement and debunking) are reasonable candidates for discussion here. Every little poorly-sourced quote that mentions thiomersal isn't.

Claims that are repeated tens of thousands of times may be worthy of interest, but you haven't actually presented any such claims, have you? Your assertions of the notability of the various quotes and theories you've presented on this talk page have been based on your very flawed analyses of Google queries. Using the same techniques you've applied, I can demonstrate that autism is caused by green lunar cheese, since that search draws more than six hundred thousand Google hits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:GA-Class_Rational_Skepticism_articles. The openning line of the aritcle is quote, "The thiomersal controversy describes claims that vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thiomersal contribute to the development of autism and other brain development disorders." A google search that "autism is caused by lunar cheese" produced ZERO RESULTS. google search of phrase, not words at random Note, the final words of the openning line is the subject includes not only autism. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Random IP dude. You make no sense whatsoever. Do you know what Rational Skepticism is? Well, in this articles case it means we're rationally skeptical that there's even a controversy. Get off this point, you're wasting bandwidth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously... the next time we ask for a reliable source and you respond with Google search results, I'm going to ask an admin to block you. Google hits by themselves don't prove anything. "Bigfoot exists" gets about 716,000 Google hits, and yet no serious encyclopedia would pretend that Bigfoot exists. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't edit the Bigfoot page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are correctly formatted PubMed links to the mentioned 1970s articles on thiomersal toxicity by the Russian researcher N. D. Mukhtarova:

* Mukhtarova, N. D.; Kulagina, T. P. (1973). "Clinico-encephalographic parallels in chronic exposure of the human body to the effect of small doses of ethylmercurochloride". Gigiena truda i professional'nye zabolevaniia. 17 (6): 26–30. PMID 4763911.

* Mukhtarova, N. D. (1977). "Late sequelae of nervous system pathology caused by the action of low concentrations of ethyl mercury chloride". Gigiena truda i professional'nye zabolevaniia (3): 4–7. PMID 323108.

Hope this helps. kashmiri 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• What do you propose we add to the article based on these sources? "Russia, having finally dropped Lamarckism after millions died in famine, once again proved they were open to pseudoscience by publishing "research" by non-entity N. D. Mukhtarova in the 1970s." - Setting completely aside that I haven't even taken a look at the links yet. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition of primary study

I have removed mention of one small study done which seems to violate WP:UNDUE in placing so much emphasis on one primary study. Per WP:MEDRS, we should be waiting for this study to be reviewed in a secondary source before citing it. Clearing the incredibly low hurdle of not being "Age of Autism pseudoscience" does not mean this qualifies for mention here. Yobol (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth discussing it. Do as you wish, obviously you rule this place. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That was a reasonable edit, Yobol, with a reasonable justification. Don't be discouraged by SkepticalRaptor's appalling attitude. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Which study? Seipjere (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Inorganic mercury brain burdens and long-term mercury blood levels: Research needed

This talk page is a forum to discuss specific improvements to the article, not a forum for long expositions of editors' personal viewpoints and ideology.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The subject of inorganic mercury brain burdens (and how they seem to bare little or no relation to long-term mercury blood levels) has been thoroughly overlooked by researchers, commentators, and contributors on all sides (to date). Seipjere (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC) You need to find sources compliant with WP:MEDRS, not just give your own opinion. This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the articles, citing specific sources and making specific recommendations, not for you to pontificate on the subject. Yobol (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC) "The half-life for total Hg in brain was significantly longer than the half-life for total Hg in blood (p < 0.01) for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys... The concentration of total Hg in the brain of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys is 2.6- to 4.6-fold higher than in the blood (mean ± SE, 3.5 ± 0.5) at 2 days after the last injection. Again, this ratio increased as the sacrifice was performed at longer durations from the last dose, primarily due to the difference in the half-lives of total Hg in the blood and brain." “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%).” “The results indicate that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a meaningful assessment of the developmental effects of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” -- Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal, Burbacher et al, 2005. "Elimination half-life for I-Hg was extremely long, 230-540 days in most brain sites and considerably longer in the thalamus and pituitary. The concentration of I-Hg in the thalamus did not decrease during the clearance period (6 months), while I-Hg in the pituitary continued to increase in spite of no additional exposure." -- Demethylation of Methyl Mercury in Different Brain Sites... M.E. Vahter et al, 1995. [ Addendum: For comparison the consensus half-life for methylmercury is less than 30 days - Seipjere (talk, 13:15, September 2012 (UTC) ] I hope to make some significant improvements to the article soon. Seipjere (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC) First, bolding is distracting and doesn't add anything to the discussion, especially when the majority of text you are adding is bolded. Second, neither of those sources meets WP:MEDRS, which requires recent secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The first article fails MEDRS as Yobol stated. Specifically, it is a primary article, it is not a clinical trial, and it is certainly not a secondary published review. The second article has nothing to do vaccines, so I suspect you want to synthesize something out of an old study that isn't relevant. Furthermore, it's methyl mercury, which would be more important if we were talking about seafood, I suppose. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - Charles Darwin | Seipjere (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC) That's true, but fortunately most of us have developed effective strategies for dealing with ignorant but over-confident editors. After all, this talkpage seems to attract them. MastCell Talk 19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Heh. You forgot to bold your comment to make it an effective reply. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC) "If the law is against you, argue the facts... If the facts are against you, argue the law." -Seipjere (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC) ps: The idea that inorganic mercury is less toxic than other forms of mercury is, primarily, based on the fact that it's not as mobile as other forms of mercury (i.e. it can't cross the blood-brain barrier). Meanwhile, ethyl and methyl mercury readily cross the blood-brain barrier, form Inorganic Mercury in the brain (and other tissue), and get "locked in". (For years.) And ethylmercury (thimerosal) is, BY FAR, the worse of the two (re. locking in a large proportion of Inorganic mercury). Anyone with significant knowledge of the chemistry of this subject will know that this is the crux of the current (thimerosal, long term mercury neuro-degeneration) hypothesis. Again, all of the best research to date confirms that thimerosal (ethylmercury) forms a disproportionately large amount of inorganic mercury (in brain tissue). (You would have to have the IQ of a newt to miss the importance of this, re. this article.) Meanwhile, the article states: "Although the concern for a thiomersal-autism link was originally derived from indirect evidence based on the known potent neurotoxic effects of methylmercury, recent studies show these feared effects were likely overestimated. [ bull sh** ] Ethylmercury, such as in thiomersal, clears much faster from the body after administration than methylmercury [ bull sh** ] suggesting total mercury exposure over time is much less with ethylmercury [ total bull sh** ]. Currently used methods of estimating brain deposition of mercury likely overestimated the amounts deposited due to ethylmercury, and ethylmercury also decomposes quicker in the brain than methylmercury [ king of the bull sh** ], suggesting a lower risk of brain damage [ in an alternate universe ]" Surely, these lines were authored by newts. (Very Sceptical newts. ; - ) All the best, sincerely and respectfully, Seipjere (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Unless Seipjere is prepared to offer... a specific suggestion for a way to improve this Wikipedia article (WP:NOTFORUM), supported by high-quality scientific sources (WP:MEDRS), and he can make that suggestion... using a normal typeface (WP:SHOUT), and without any sort of petty taunting or namecalling, implicit or explicit (WP:CIVIL), then I am inclined to believe that it is not productive for other Wikipedia editors to engage with him further, nor should his misuse of this talk page for his own personal soapboxing be allowed to continue. I recommend boxing up any further off-topic or out-of-scope declarations, and may suggest a topic ban from editing in this area should Seipjere continue to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) (e/c) Seipjere, First, you must not make personal attacks against your fellow Wikipedia editors by saying they have the "IQ of a newt". This is Wikipedia policy. Do not do it again. Second, as has been pointed out to you many, many times, you must find WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources to support changes you'd like to see in the article. Third, this article talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article, see WP:TPYES. The Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability and no original research apply to this Talk page just as they apply to the article. Either use this Talk page to civilly propose article content changes supported by Wikipedia policy- and guideline-compliant sourcing, or please do not edit this Talk page at all. Thank you. Zad68 13:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC) My sincere apologies to anyone I offended. - Respectfully, Seipjere (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary break Now, back to the improvement of the article: All empirical research on the subject of I-Hg-brain burdens clearly refutes the nonsense quoted in the article and above. (Burbacher 2005, Vahter & Burbacher 1995, et c) In fact, some of that nonsense (bull) from the article above is actually true. But (and this is a big but) the fact that thimerosal clears rapidly from the blood, and, decomposes quickly in the brain, is counter-intuitive; i.e. the net result of all this movement and decomposition is that it ends up forming twice as much immobile I-Hg in brain tissue. (Burbacher 2005) Which, again, (according to all known biochemistry of I-Hg in tissue) stays put much much longer than other forms of Hg. (Vahter 1995, Burbacher 2005, et c.) Which suggests (if anything) some very bad things about thimerosal. [Sorry "Skeptical" gang; it's the plain truth.] i.e. Definitely not "a lower risk of brain damage" [ as currently stated in the article ] Seipjere (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Seipjere, you continue to misunderstand the purpose of an article Talk page. This Talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article. You need to bring both: 1) your proposed change, and 2) the source you are using to support it. Both are required. Reading through this Talk page, I see no concrete change proposals from you, and the sources you are bringing would fail WP:MEDRS if you were to use them to try to support article changes implying an autism link in humans. I see you are engaging in your own original research, attempting to make a link to autism or toxicity in humans based on your own analysis of poor-quality and low-relevance primary studies. The Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR applies to article Talk pages just like it does articles. You are also continuing to engage in personal attacks against your fellow editors. At this point, I do not see your contributions here as being productive, and unless you make the required changes, I will simply not engage you any more, revert your edits to the article that do not meet Wikipedia policy and guideline, and deal with any Talk page comments that do not meet Wikipedia's talk page guidelines appropriately. I encourage my fellow editors here to follow suit. Zad68 13:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I can't even make out what you're talking about. Could you clearly state your desired edit as though I haven't read the stuff above the arbitrary break (since I haven't read it). TippyGoomba (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I'm a little too busy at the moment (with life and work). But, stay tuned. All the best, Seipjere (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC) See WP:NOR. Your tendentious abuse of this talk page is really getting out of hand. Many of us are intelligent, well educated editors, despite your rude comments about us, and we can't follow your logic. You are attempting to invent something that doesn't exist. I think that unless you can bring a reliable sources that support whatever your'e trying to prove, maybe we can discuss it. But let's remember, undue weight won't be given to one article, when the vast majority of research disputes what you say. Whatever that might be, since your ramblings are long-winded and lack any useful points. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

gross errors, neurotoxicity, and deletion request

re gross errors in the following paragraph:

Although the concern for a thiomersal-autism link was originally derived from indirect evidence based on the known potent neurotoxic effects of methylmercury, recent studies show these feared effects were likely overestimated. Ethylmercury, such as in thiomersal, clears much faster from the body after administration than methylmercury, suggesting total mercury exposure over time is much less with ethylmercury. Currently used methods of estimating brain deposition of mercury likely overestimates the amounts deposited due to ethylmercury, and ethylmercury also decomposes quicker in the brain than methylmercury, suggesting a lower risk of brain damage. These findings show that the assumptions that originally led to concern about the toxicity of ethylmercury, which were based on direct comparison to methylmercury, were flawed.[33]

Although it's true that Ethylmercury (thimerosal) clears much faster from the blood and "decomposes quicker in the brain" than methylmercury, the result of this rapid clearing and decomposing (according to the best research to date, on sacrificed primates and rats) is the formation of more than twice as much inorganic mercury within the brain. And because the detox half-life of inorganic mercury in brain tissue is exceedingly long, compared to methyl (seafood) brain mercury (more than a year for I-Hg++, and 37 to 59 days for methylHg), the best research we have contradicts the POV that 'concerns about the [neuro]tocxicity of ethylmercury / thimerosal were flawed'.

Accordingly, I ask that this flawed and misleading paragraph be permanently deleted.

All the best, Seipjere (talk) posted: 13:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | last edited: 12:55, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

The article content is sourced to PMID 19756911, an up-to-date review article in Neurotoxicity Research, a journal dedicated to exactly the kind of research being covered, and it has a decent impact factor (3.5). The article content is on-topic and appears to summarize the source accurately. I do not see any reason at all to remove it. Do you have any WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable secondary sources for your claims? Zad68 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Asked and answered, counsellor. You made the same request regarding the same paragraph – albeit with a somewhat more insulting tone – six months ago: Talk:Thiomersal controversy/Archive 2#Inorganic mercury brain burdens and long-term mercury blood levels: Research needed. Indeed, you've now raised that paragraph in two consecutive talk page threads; in neither case have you offered an appropriate, MEDRS-compatible secondary source to support your request or conclusions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else in the groupthink gang want to chime in before I have a chance to respond? Seipjere (talk) [ last updated: 2:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC) ]

You've indicated you'll "respond", rather than provide sources. No one wants to hears your opinions, see WP:FORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In general, Seipjere, it's more confusing than helpful if you substantially modify or rewrite posts to which other editors have already responded: [1]. In the future, if you wish to make major changes, corrections, or additions, it's usually best to do so in a separate comment.

In any event, you're offering us the same source (Burbacher, 2005) that you offered in the last discussion about this paragraph. It's still a single primary research study, and and it's still five years older than the current secondary source (review article) that is used to support the current version of the Wikipedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the edits I made to my original post, please note: I've only removed some shoddy conjecture, that was misleading and beside the point. (And I added the 2+ valence to I-Hg for clarity; i.e. 'mercuric mercury' / Hg(II) / Hg²⁺). And with all due respect to Toats and company, I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone is not better served by this stripped down, improved, and straight to the point edit. (It's not like Zad, Toats, or Tippy took issue with my errors...)

Before I address WP:MEDS (below) I think it's considerably more important to establish the justification (truthfulness) of my "claims"; for this we need only take a critical look at Aschner's (the author's) three better (best) sources:

(1) Magos, 1985. 'Ethyl- and Methylmercury toxicity in rats...' . → Suggests that (i) ethylmercury (and it's Hg++ by-products) are more renal toxic than methylmercury; (ii) that higher (inorganic) Hg++ kidney concentrations are a probable cause of this increased (and lethal) renal toxicity; and (iii) that ethylmercury contributed 3.4 times more Hg++ to rat brain tissue than methylmercury.

(2) Burbacher et al., 2005. 'Blood and Brain Hg Levels in Infant Monkeys' . → (i) Corroborates the Magos rat results with low dose thimerosal in infant monkeys, (i.e. significantly more Hg++ from ethylmercury in brain tissue – at least more than twice as much); and (ii), confirms the long Hg++ half-life times and trends established by Vahter et al 1995 (i.e. That Hg++ really seams to get locked in.)

and (3) Weiss, 2002. 'Silent latency in methylmercury poisoning and neurodegenerative disease.' → Reviews a number of cases of organic mercury poisoning, describes how symptoms, toxicity and death generally lag significantly behind the acute exposures (by days, weeks and months); and suggests (quote) "Perhaps the latency period is due to the slow production and accumulation of a toxic metabolite. For example... divalent inorganic mercury." [Hg++]. If this is true, injected thimerosal would be 2 to 3 times more damaging, long term, than a comparable amount of ingested methyl mercury.

Now with respect to WP:MEDS:

[ "Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited in ways that suggest wide acceptance."; ]

Clearly Aschner's own sources reveal the paragraph in question (and most of the article) to be anything but WP:MEDS compliant.

All the best, Seipjere (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Seipjere, I know you feel like you are trying to right great wrongs, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. To be very frank with you, there is only so much more patience that will be shown to you before you are asked (or possibly required) by the Wikipedia community not to edit in this area at all any more. Wikipedia articles will reflect what is found in the best-respected secondary sources. What you are doing here is engaging in pure original research, and that's not allowed, not even on an article Talk page. This has been going on for months now. You need to find a reputable secondary source that supports your suggested article changes, or stop editing in this area, end of story. Zad68 17:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

{od} His talk page is a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:UPNOT as well. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

neutral reflection on state of research

There are smaller scientific studies supporting the use of chelation agents to treat autism (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23400264). No matter the political implications, the article's view is single-sided, in that it only mentions the failure(s) of the larger study from the US about the efficiency of DMSA, but not the results from other comparable studies outside of the US. Please correct this. 11:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)C0NPAQ (talk)

The study you've linked to is a primary research study, and therefore not a recommended resource for clinical information on Wikipedia (see WP:MEDRS for our guidelines on sourcing medical information). Wikipedia, wherever possible, relies on high-quality secondary sources (review articles and the like) to characterize and summarize the state of research. We have found that reporting the conclusions of individual primary research studies and small trials tends to make Wikipedia articles vulnerable to cherry-picking one-off reports of favorable (or unfavorable) outcomes and pet theories.

Speaking specifically to that paper, it's terrifyingly bad. I am shocked that it received (if it received) institutional review board approval. No controls, for a study covering a very diverse population (wide range of ages, wide range of severities, three different diagnoses). No statistical accounting for multiple comparisons. Significance claimed for changes in miniscule subpopulations in their metal assay. No attempt was made to report on or account for the effects of any concurrent behavioral or other non-drug interventions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me get a bit deeper into this issue, because what concerns me is only really visible in the greater picture. All the wikipedia articles I have read associated with chelation therapy either explicitly or indirectly claim that a link between an increased heavy metal burden or an increased heavy metal sensitivity in people with ASD is either discredited, entirely unproven or outright wrong. Great effort seems to have been made to only provide hints towards the negative aspects of the practice. Now, ironically, the secondary sources available only focus on general vaccine safety (or are otherwise without proof) and have been sponsored governmentally. But they are all hidden behind pay walls. Those sources are entirely insufficient, if you look at the nature of the subject (is there a link between heavy metal sensitivity and ASD?) and the reviewed topic (are the vaccines safe in the general population?). The primary sources that exists about this subject are on the other hand extremely sparse and experimental. That circumstance was even misquoted in some other article, from a secondary source, to outright assert that 'the heavy metal theory' has been disproven. So the cherry picking that has been occurring in wikipedia was done by ignoring that: 1. there is an extreme sparsity of research, 2. using pay-walled sources and only remotely related subjects to make claims about a vastly unresearched and only loosely implied issue, 3. ignoring that the research we have (however sparse) points in the entirely opposite direction.

I have read the paper and it is pretty normal for a small pilot study in some non-western country. It doesn't claim to be overly thorough, all it did was to investigate heavy metal levels in people with ASD and if it could help to lower them (no wonder). I mean, it were 44 people and you are shocked about the lack of control groups? There are very similar studies with negative results, but overall they tend to gravitate towards a positive finding. Needless to say, there are zero large studies which discredit the whole issue. That should be properly reflected, not only in this article which does in fact mostly deal with vaccine safety. 01:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0NPAQ (talk • contribs)

OH, never mind! I just read about the Wikipedia FRINGE policy, which basically states that if there is a controversy about a topic, you must always misrepresent and hide uncertainties and doubt such that the article exclusively favors the mainstream opinion. That explains a lot. Specifically, why all relevant portions about a heavy metal autism link in each and every paper have been left out entirely. Therefore sentences in quoted papers such as "The conclusion is that there are no reliable data indicating that administration of vaccines containing thimerosal is a primary cause of autism. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that the individual gene profile and/or gene–environment interactions may play a role in modulating the response to acquired risk by modifying the individual susceptibility." become "Although the concern for a thiomersal-autism link was originally derived from indirect evidence based on the known potent neurotoxic effects of methylmercury, recent studies show these feared effects were likely overestimated." on Wikipedia. That policy explains any inconsistencies on wikipedia I have ever read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0NPAQ (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not WP:FRINGE in this case, but WP:MEDRS, which is striker in some sense. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That policy is almost as outrageous imo. I understand you need rules to keep people from going rampage here, but not at the price of suppressing relevant information. People loosely infer here from huge secondary pay-walled sources all they want, as long as there is some kind of reference involved, entirely ignoring the context that information came from. They cite arbitrary people's opinions, such as the famous 'critics' to support the mainstream one. They only present one side of the coin and leave out the other one. They only quote one part of the sentence (e.g. "The research reviewed here does not support the use of chelation as a treatment for ASD") and leave out the other one (e.g. "However, given the significant methodological limitations of these studies [which were 5 miniature pilot studies], the research ..."). Is this a contest in fabricating binary truths, or what? If you are talking about unresearched and novel ideas, you have to either outright state that you cannot have an informed opinion about this, refuse to talk about it due to the nature of wikipedia or whatever, or just give all the pieces of information available. What you do is to create your own fringe theory, in trying to counteract the other one(s) that deviate from the mainstream assumption. Considering every aspect I mentioned on this page, this is borderline censorship. I don't respect any of your rules if they interfere with holding impartial views, generally or individually, it doesn't matter.

I am deeply offended, but it is not only Wikipedias fault. I have been trying to read about heavy metals and autism for almost a month now. I have an autism diagnosis and also wanted to know about amalgam fillings. So far, all I have found is extremely inconclusive. Basically what you will find everywhere online either comes from the Dr. Cutler nutjob church or entirely refuses any link to be possible. Now ironically, although mostly nonsensical, the Dr. Cutler nutjobs are methodically /more correct/ than most sources and scientists about the subject. Why? Because Mr. Cutler never made any specific claims, he is being very unspecific. He just proposes a theory and methods which are likely to be true and work just fine (if they apply), but even more so likely to be entirely insignificant to the vast majority of people. Then Joe Average, the scientific illiterate, comes along and does all sorts of pseudo-scientific nonsense. A whole marketing industry builds around Joe, making even more ridiculous claims. But is Joe Average an authority? No. Is the marketing industry an authority? No. And what information comes from the mainstream opinion and their authorities (i.e. certain scientists and professionals, government)? Denial, ignorance and misrepresentation. Doubt is left out, personal opinions are cited as if it were evidence and any hints of correlation or wider possibilities are concealed. Even worse, most often the basis of the whole anti-chelation argument is that the people who practice it are basically nutjobs. But the truth (most likely) is, we have no real clue about it all. That should be the mainstream opinion. Instead it is A vs B and the most striking feature about B is to make the greatest effort to deny, ignore and misrepresent. That doesn't look very credible to me and probably it didn't look credible to the people migrating to the nutjob category either. What do I have to do to get an informed opinion about this? Basically, what I did resort to is to entirely ignore the articles and read all the primary sources myself, if they aren't pay-walled (So far, I would have needed probably over 1000 USD to read those). How economic is all that effort? By sheer personal economics, considering the risks, am I not better off going with the nutjobs and just doing some trial and error on chelators myself? Yes I am. That is probably the sad end-result to most of this whole fringe theory vs anti-fringe fringe theory behavior. When opinions are /made to be/ binary, you will always be wrong. And that your policies support those nonsense trends it is just deeply offensive to me. Almost always, wikipedia is the place to go to get the most impartial information. But I guess you should put a big warning sticker on your logo, that all information about vastly unresearched but controversial subjects may be heavily biased by policy. I for one did not know (always attributed it to bad quality of the article) and will be more cautious from now on. 11:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0NPAQ (talk • contribs)

(Bravo CONPAQ!!)

As far as I can tell the strongest line of credible evidence that is said to invalidate an Autism–Heavy-metals hypothesis is the "thimerosal was removed but autism increased" epidemiology.**

And the only reason this is so, is, to my knowledge, because no scholars have publicly questioned the epidemiological elephant in the room: i.e. What if there's a larger upward trend in heavy-metal (food) exposures? i.e. What if the reason autism rates haven't come down is because thimerosal was (is) just one part of a much bigger (neuro-bio-toxicants—food-chain) problem??

There's actually plenty of sound reasons to suspect that this is, in fact, the case... (And there's one huge contributor to the problem that almost no one seams to be aware of — that just so happens to correspond, eerily, with ASD rates...)

(**Every other significant argument that I'm aware of lends itself equally well to strong countervailing literature.)

(Again, don't shoot the messenger:) The article is deeply flawed, and the "reviews" (media) that it cites as authoritative are, in fact, canonical examples of groupthink (all the best, respectfully) Seipjere (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting hypothesis that could be tested in a number of ways. We look forward to your peer-reviewed research on this topic. In the meantime, please don't use this talk page as a chat forum for you to share your personal speculations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ten, ever heard the expression: Lead by example?

Drop the lawyerly b.s. --- that presumes a discussion about net mercury trends is somehow inappropriate on a talk page about a controversy whose core scientific argument depends entirely on answering that question.

Seipjere I do not agree with your line of conclusions at all. That autism rates are increasing is only a correlation which mostly, and currently best, is explained by changes in culture and social behavior. I researched heavy metal exposures, etc in history. The bigger trend is that all the negative influences of industrialization and environmental health hazards, such as e.g. lead mercury and asbestos, were heavily reduced in the 80s. We now live in a much more cleaner environment. Regardless this doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for people who have a family history of autism to discriminate against heavy metal exposure from food and vaccines, because there is zero evidence that discredits the sparse scientific findings that there is a subgroup of autistic people who are sensitive to heavy metals. C0NPAQ (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Conpaq,

I've decided to publish a working draft of my reply on my talk page. (I'll post it here when it's finished.)

All the best, Seipjere (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for you to present or promote your personal original research and opinion pieces. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone's not aware, the crux of the matter (heavy-metals laced sewage sludge fertilizer -- in the commercial foodchain) is buttressed in my reply not with 'opinion' but with the most comprehensive (EPA) sewage sludge study published to date.

Speaking of which, I decided to leave it on my talk page. (Here's a link to that section of my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seipjere#Re_Net_U.S._Mercury_Food_Trends.2C_.27RCRA.27.2C_Biosolids_Fertilizer]) Seipjere (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

And this talk page – and Wikipedia in general, really – still isn't the place to promote your original research. And yes, original research includes your personal cherry-picking and interpretation of other sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not cherry picking or original research to read the writing on the wall. Go talk to anyone who's familiar with the concentrated sewage sludge fertilizer phenomenon of the last 20 odd years, and (even if you have a groupthunk gift for denial and doubt) you will (nonetheless, eventually) begin to understand exactly how heavy metal burdens -- mercury et al -- have almost certainly trended WITH the autism numbers over the last 2 decades (despite thimersoal's so-called removal..).

Again, (generally speaking,) during the time-frame the article describes, mercury (ethyl, methyl, and organic), arsenic, lead and cadmium have all been systematically funnelled straight into the commercial foodchain via sewage sludge (biosolids) fertilizers.

And, again, this is a fact that's verifiable by anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of water (pollution) treatment protocols, procedures and trends over the last quarter century. Seipjere (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the very definition of original research. Unless the conclusions you present are directly supported by reliable sources to the same degree as the data you cite, then you are presenting original research, and it is simply not allowed here. If that's what you want to do, you may always start your own blog or other website, but you may not use Wikipedia to disseminate your theories. DaveSeidel (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears Seipjere is using this talk section as a forum for promoting their own original research. I suggest archiving this section and any hatting any further attempts at this. Yobol (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone's not aware, Dave has been publicly (and emotionally) invested in a mercury-has-nothing-to-do-with-it POV for coming up on a decade now. And Yobol et al (Ten, Rapter, Zad, Tippy...) have been aggressively suppressing dissenting ('outgroup') contributions around here for at least 5 years now.

(In other words, they're not the first folks I'd trust to objectively interpret the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines re thimerosal controversy talk.) Seipjere (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never made any secret of my positions. Which is why I edit here under my own name, and always have. But I have, I think, been scrupulous in following the rules, and I do not use Wikipedia to promote my personal perspective. Unless you can make an argument showing that I or any other editor who have been critical of your conduct here have done so in a way that isn't in complete accordance with Wikipedia policies and procedures, your complaint (and your trust) is irrelevant. DaveSeidel (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't stop you from asking a plain question at some other venue on Wikipedia – like the Village Pump or the Teahouse – about whether it is appropriate for you to use Wikipedia and this talk page to promote and disseminate your personal (original) research findings, although I hope you choose not to waste their time. I think you know in your heart of hearts that the entirely independent and uninvolved individuals at those venues will tell you exactly the same thing you've been hearing here.

I support and endorse Yobol's suggestion that this be hatted/archived, since this thread is two years old and still has not contributed anything useful to the development of the Wikipedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. (And more nonsense.)

In my "heart of hearts", Dave, what I know is that guys like you (and the authors of this article) are so steeped in the putrid juices of cognitive bias that they wouldn't know (unbiased) thimerosal science from a bottle of maple syrup.

(The only thing I'm trying to disseminate around here is a little unadulterated science. And the fact that you, Ten, and Yobol seem so incapable of recognizing that fact is itself illustrative of the cognitive wormhole that stands between you and the plain facts of the matter.)

(And with respect to Yobol and Ten, this thread most certainly should -- and, God willing, will -- be left as is until an agreeable compromise consensus emerges.) All the best, Seipjere (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)