Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines

Valid reference?

"rates of autism have continued to increase despite removal of thiomersal from vaccines" is supported by citation six. I do not have access to the full text of the article cited, but its abstract contains nothing to support the statement. The statement may be true, but if the citation is a mistake (or dishonest), it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 伟思礼 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone has access to the full text. If you click the doi link it takes you to the Cambridge website. If you scroll down immediately past the abstract and somewhat to the left side, you should see an Adobe pdf icon. Clicking on that gets you the full article. And in that article you can find this statement: "They found the incidence of autism was stable until 1990 and then increased, most notably during the period when thimerosal was no longer used" MartinezMD (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Overly focused on mercury and autism

The entire article just keeps banging on about wether mercury poisoning causes autism or not, but there's no mention as to the toxicological risks of the ethylmercury by itself and controversy around it. Is there really nothing else that can be said about thiomersal than the "mercury-autism link"? 185.163.103.83 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason the article emphasizes that so much. A common anti-vaccine trope that refuses to stop is the baseless assertion that thimerosal is harming children due to its tiny ethylmercury content and that this exposure is responsible for children developing autism spectrum disorders, which is untrue. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it's unproof, that may be or not the same thing.62.11.3.98 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't find "unproof" in Merriam Webster's dictionary...hm. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I dont think its up for debate that there is a reason that it is the focus of the article. The question is does that make sense.

The initial paragraph correctly starts with " with some fearing" ie a subgroup. Yet the introduction and much of the article focus on autism. Which isnt the name of the article. It being unlikely to cause autism also says nothing about the safety of the compound in vaccines. Its a bit like a tobacco and health risks article focusing on it being an urban myth that tobacco can get you pregnant.

Might it make sense to restructure? Separating concerns over mercury health impacts and subsequent regulations mentioned in the history segment from the whole autism debate?

Would be great if an editor who perceived this as an Thiomersal Autism article could give their point of view. I would be surprised if anyone would disagree that the article is not in a good state.

Pretty sure 62.11.3.98 meant unproven. Reads to me like a logical reasoning argument, not an ideological one. 37.201.240.93 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a WP:GA. It's not a general article about mercury and health, but about this one particular bogus health scare. Bon courage (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That explains the drastic difference in perception. 37.201.240.93 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage Seeing as i was the second person to make that mistake, might it be possible to add one of these "This article is about the Thiomersal Vaccine Autism debate. For general safety consideration see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#Toxicology" 37.201.240.93 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

What are the responses to newer reports like this?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm having trouble contextualizing the following article. Does it weigh in, or is it someone collecting dead research? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4065774/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartossin (talk • contribs) 23:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see on first glance is that it is written by or is sourcing numerous articles from the Geier family. See Mark Geier and son David - another one of their slanted hit pieces. It has no place in this article. MartinezMD (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Geiers, nuff said. Absolutely trash, unreliable and unusuable for us. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate information

According to the article, thiomersal was removed from vaccines administered in EU countries at the same time that it was removed from vaccines administered in the US, but it had actually been removed from EU vaccines nine years earlier than in the US. Here's a link to the evidence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10803505 (search for "1992" in the page). 80.193.98.150 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)