FDA: Mercury Amalgams Harmful to some

[Ken]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808438,00.html

I would love for you to just read that TIME article regarding the "actual" risks of these vaccines as versus the MASSIVE risks to public health should people refuse taken them. There are a lot of interesting data and trends they've included in the report. I know you are a "everything's going to kill us dude" but maybe if you read up on what TIME is saying, I've found it to be quite in line with how most of us public Health percieve the issue...

Oh, I read it, don't worry.

Sounds like someone from Merck wrote it. For example, Page three talks about how in Nigeria, the lack of people taking the Polio vaccine caused the outbreak...hmmm. Guess they think everyone forgot about the true story there....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24245447/

There are ALL KINDS of other distortions and untruths in that article. But it lets me understand why you are the way you are......

[Xameil]

"No evidence" is a bit strong. Its under heavy investigation from the FDA right now, and there are conflicting studies going on.

Well there are so many factors, I think its going to be difficult to determine the actual reasons, or causes. Bottom line is...Mercury because of its bio-accumulation is not a nice element....lol fun to play with tho :paranoid:

[China]

A toxic poison has no safe dose.....

So all those cancer patients being treated with arsenic are really just being made sicker?

[zoony]

yup...thats the issue. As I stated before, it bioaccumulates. This is why fish can be bad for you. The bigger and older a fish is, the more mercury in their system, causing more mercury in your system. The health effects that I am aware of...is dementia, or "Mad Hatters" disease which is named for the amount of mercury that used to be in hats made with fur. Also...this is what was believed to have been the problem with the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland (OK, I don't know if that last part is true...something I was told in Chem class....YEARS ago)

Yes, mercury poisoning was very common amongst 'hatters'.

The 'mad hatter' wasn't a unique concept to Alice in wonderland.

Also, Sir Isaac Newton suffered from the same, ingesting enough mercury to kill an elephant in his pursuit of alchemy. He was completely off his rocker.

[Xameil]

Yes, mercury poisoning was very common amongst 'hatters'.

The 'mad hatter' wasn't a unique concept to Alice in wonderland.

Also, Sir Isaac Newton suffered from the same, ingesting enough mercury to kill an elephant in his pursuit of alchemy. He was completely off his rocker.

yeah I remember hearing about it. Its kind of like PCB's alot of medical uses...however....alot of problems come with it.

[dockeryfan]

Mercury in vaccines may not be the problem. (spelled thiomersal)

WHat may be the problem is forcing an immune response out of an underdeveloped immune system. People have just hitched their wagons to thiomersal because they know mercury is toxic, so they extrapolate the damage is via a neurotoxin.

We just do not know why the autism rates are higher, but in my experience, the preponderance of anecdotal reports always precedes the efficacy or side effects of treatment. (big words, lol)

I saw it with prostate health and saw palmetto. The reports were around for years but it was always pooh-poohed. That is until urologists were standing up in meetings and saying "I don't care what you say, my patients are getting results and so am I. We need to study this" Now granted the jury is still out there, and you can find conflicting results based on the studies you read, but one of the more recent ones in Feb 2008 showed significant improvement in symptoms.

Anyway, it may not be the thiomersal. But the reports are way too common with parents for the correlation between autism and immunizations to just be pooh-poohed in one fell swoop.

[Bang]

No Hyperbole at all. Flu shots have a mercury preservative and are mandated for all children 6 months and older in NJ and soon to be everywhere else.

And if you believe that the rest of the vaccines do not have mercury....well...

Consider me re-informed. Thanks and apologies for my smarmy attitude.

~Bang

[The Sisko]

Mercury is considered harmful, because of its nature. It bio-accumulates. meaning it NEVER leaves your system. I just read you are a health major? hmm I would think you would have known that. Mercury is attributed with a few diseases...one being "Mad-Hatter"

Yes there is mercury in silver fillings, but its not the harmful form.

On that note...Mercury is being phased out of use in almost everything I do believe. Labs are even starting to be restricted in buying Mercury containing thermometers. Dentists have to have special filtration systems to filter out mercury (gold-filter traps). There are VERY stringent regs that are being put into place by the EPA to lower the release of Mercury into the environment...the legal limit is now 0.7 parts per trillion, but for now since that level is unattainable it is 30 parts per trillion for many new permits. I believe the limit now for drinking water is 700 parts per trillion. Oh I should note these are for NY, each state is different, but, I'm sure will be going to this.

You’re mostly right Xameil. Mercury does bioaccumulate in the food chain but humans can eliminate it, though somewhat slowly. So humans to my knowledge don’t get a lifetime accumulation as you said, but it can and does stay in our systems for a long time. Therefore, the question for each individual is whether s/he is consuming mercury faster than their body can eliminate it which will lead to having a toxic amount circulating in their system.

You were also right about the different types of mercury. Amalgam contains elemental mercury which is toxic. However, chemical/biological reactions in the ecosystem change elemental mercury into a much more toxic form - methylmercury. Small fish then become contaminated with methylmercury from their environment/food then get eaten by bigger fish which creates an additive dose in fish. That’s what’s actually meant by bioaccumulation. The problem for humans is that we are at the end of the food chain and tend to eat bigger fish and hence get the “benefit” of that bioaccumulated methylmercury dose all at once.

That’s why fish consumption is a bigger problem than amalgam fillings. There’s more on this at: http://enhs.umn.edu/hazards/hazardssite/mercury/mercdose.html

OMG...nothing like throwing up a friggin YouTube link to prove a scientific point....

Question: Would you rather take the tiny risk of a possible side effect (side note: to date there is NO study that confirms direct link between vaccination and autism) of vaccinations, or would you prefer to take the risk of a communicable disease reemergence and a possible epidemic or pandemic occurring?

YUSUF: What area in public health are you?

I’m in public health preparedness. However, I took the standard PH curriculum and added the preparedness stuff on the job. If I can ever just finish my stupid thesis I'll finally be able to stop saying I'm a PH student.

You’re correct Keeastman. At the beginning of the 20th century, the leading causes of child mortality were infectious diseases at about 62%. It’s now 2%. (See image below from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/106/6/1307) To be fair, a lot of the decrease in the mortality rates in the graph below are due to clean water, however a lot of it is due to infectious disease as well, especially after about 1950.

All the anti-vaccination crowd can offer is sketchy, alarmist accusations about side effects like autism while offering little, if any scientific proof of their claims. Certainly, there are unexpected side effects from vaccination, just as there are with most any medical procedure or treatment no matter how routine. However, as was mentioned earlier, the benefit greatly outweighs the risks since the known side effects only affect a very small segment of the population.

So Ken, how about you do this for me. Since 2001, thimerosol in vaccines has been greatly reduced because of these concerns. Given this huge reduction in vaccine induced mercury load, the dose response relationship I cited earlier (again, this is toxicology 101) means we would expect to see a huge reduction in autism rates...assuming there's a connection between the two. Please explain with some hard data why the expected reduction in autism rates hasn’t happened. Lotsa luck with that.

[The Sisko]

Oh, I read it, don't worry.

Sounds like someone from Merck wrote it. For example, Page three talks about how in Nigeria, the lack of people taking the Polio vaccine caused the outbreak...hmmm. Guess they think everyone forgot about the true story there....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24245447/

There are ALL KINDS of other distortions and untruths in that article. But it lets me understand why you are the way you are......

Speaking of distortions...

Oral polio vaccine contains a weakened virus. In rare instances, as the virus passes through children who have not been immunized, it changes into a form dangerous enough to ignite new outbreaks.

An injectable polio vaccine is used in the West that does not cause outbreaks, but it is more expensive and must be given by a doctor or nurse.

So, in the article you mention they explain WHY part of the outbreak was caused by the vaccine and yet you failed to mention that it was due to an intentional tradeoff to use a more dangerous form of vaccine in order to get more people vaccinated due to cost issues. Yeah, no distortion on your part there. :doh:

[Xameil]

You’re mostly right Xameil. Mercury does bioaccumulate in the food chain but humans can eliminate it, though somewhat slowly. So humans to my knowledge don’t get a lifetime accumulation as you said, but it can and does stay in our systems for a long time. Therefore, the question for each individual is whether s/he is consuming mercury faster than their body can eliminate it which will lead to having a toxic amount circulating in their system.

You were also right about the different types of mercury. Amalgam contains elemental mercury which is toxic. However, chemical/biological reactions in the ecosystem change elemental mercury into a much more toxic form - methylmercury. Small fish then become contaminated with methylmercury from their environment/food then get eaten by bigger fish which creates an additive dose in fish. That’s what’s actually meant by bioaccumulation. The problem for humans is that we are at the end of the food chain and tend to eat bigger fish and hence get the “benefit” of that bioaccumulated methylmercury dose all at once.

That’s why fish consumption is a bigger problem than amalgam fillings. There’s more on this at: http://enhs.umn.edu/hazards/hazardssite/mercury/mercdose.html

I’m in public health preparedness. However, I took the standard PH curriculum and added the preparedness stuff on the job. If I can ever just finish my stupid thesis I'll finally be able to stop saying I'm a PH student.

You’re correct Keeastman. At the beginning of the 20th century, the leading causes of child mortality were infectious diseases at about 62%. It’s now 2%. (See image below from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/106/6/1307) To be fair, a lot of the decrease in the mortality rates in the graph below are due to clean water, however a lot of it is due to infectious disease as well, especially after about 1950.

All the anti-vaccination crowd can offer is sketchy, alarmist accusations about side effects like autism while offering little, if any scientific proof of their claims. Certainly, there are unexpected side effects from vaccination, just as there are with most any medical procedure or treatment no matter how routine. However, as was mentioned earlier, the benefit greatly outweighs the risks since the known side effects only affect a very small segment of the population.

So Ken, how about you do this for me. Since 2001, thimerosol in vaccines has been greatly reduced because of these concerns. Given this huge reduction in vaccine induced mercury load, the dose response relationship I cited earlier (again, this is toxicology 101) means we would expect to see a huge reduction in autism rates...assuming there's a connection between the two. Please explain with some hard data why the expected reduction in autism rates hasn’t happened. Lotsa luck with that.

lol yeah I am an environmental chemist that does ALOT of mercury analysis

[The Sisko]

Ken, please see Dockeryfan's post for a legitimate argument about this. I agree that there's a chance that the anecdotal evidence may end up showing some connection. After all, the medical/scientific community actually laughed at the claims that ulcers were caused by bacterial infection....until they were proven wrong. However, given the other variables like age, environmental mercury, or a host of other things that we know/don't know about, the increases in autism could just as easily be caused by any of those or a combination.

What I will say is that once the science shows a real or even probable link I'll embrace it. However, Ken will still be harping on thiomerosal (or however you spell it) in vaccines that has mostly been nonexistent since 2001.

[The Sisko]

lol yeah I am an environmental chemist that does ALOT of mercury analysis

You're still in no position to know more about mercury than Ken...says his youtube link and foil hat.

[Xameil]

You're still in no position to know more about mercury than Ken...says his youtube link and foil hat.

:laugh: He could probably work for NYS DEC. You should hear what they want to do :doh:

[The Villi Phanatic]

Two things. First, the FDA was bullied on this. The science still doesn't show that mercury is harmful.

The FDA and similar govt organizations (the CDC, IDSA, etc.) don't really get bullied into conceding things such as this situation with amalgams. It's actually the opposite generally speaking as these organizations and their extensions/influences throughout other organizations (AAP, ADA, etc.), the general health care system, and the media try to bully the opposition including doctors, patients, and research supporting opposing viewpoints. This is particularly pronounced in something like lyme disease in which numerous doctors have chosen to stop treating and diagnosing lyme disease due to many doctors being investigated and charged by medical boards for doing so but that's another matter altogether.

When concessions are made, there are significant concerns that they will lose in court based in large part on what you purport doesn't show any harm, science. I'm a bit more familiar with recent concessions made by the IDSA in regards to lyme disease and the govt organization involved in the omnibus proceedings in regards to autism and the corresponding science for both, but there certainly is science and research as well as extensive information from resulting patient health issues indicating mercury exposure through amalgams is harmful, and I see no reason why the FDA would have conceded other than fear of losing in court and having a worse situation on their hands than agreeing to the stipulations in the settlement.

Ever met an infant with fillings? Giving a pregnant woman a filling is not "injecting it directly into an infant" and since most dentists don't even use mercury anymore, it's hardly appropriate.

Ken was referring to vaccines with that statement as Yusof pointed out. However, I do remember coming across a study indicating that children born to mothers who had mercury (silver) fillings had higher levels of mercury than children whose mothers didn't have the fillings. I'll see if I can find the study later.

In addition to the concerns with mercury exposure to the fetus during pregnancy, there is also the concern with exposure through breast-milk to children of mothers who have mercury fillings.

As Zoony points out, there's significant amounts of mercury in fish, depending on where it's caught. Why isn't there a similar uproar about that?

There is certainly concern about the mercury content in fish, but that's an entirely separate issue from mercury in fillings/vaccines in terms of how to deal with the issue:

(from http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2338375.ece)

"[From a study] based on five papers by mercury specialists summarising the current state of knowledge on the chemical published in the international science journal Ambio", [and] "every member of the four panels backed the declaration which was endorsed by more than 1,000 scientists at an international conference on mercury pollution in Madison, Wisconsin, in the US last August [2006]."

"Fish absorb the toxic chemical, which pollutes the seas, posing a risk especially to children and women of childbearing age. The role of low-level pollutants such as lead and mercury on the growing brain has been known for decades and measures have been taken to reduce exposure to a minimum. But the scientists say more must be done."

There are a number of viable alternatives to using mercury in dental fillings, and it's a simple task to enact a ban on mercury fillings and avoid the mercury exposure in this regard. In the case of contamination in fish, there naturally isn't as easy a way to address the situation.

Cool. My wife just told me she got "white gold". Previously she had silver and it wasn't good, and also her Dr. is pretty smart... I hope this "white gold" doesn't have any mercury...

I don't want to stress you out or anything and your wife's dentist may be well aware of all this, but there are some measures that should be taken in regards to mercury and gold fillings being used for a patient. I'm not as well-versed in this area as some other matters as I don't currently have any fillings, but from what I have come across, a gold crown should not be used on a mercury filling nor next to any mercury fillings as there is the potential for galvanic reactions due to dissimilar metals being in contact with one another. If the tooth for which she got the gold filling previously had mercury, it would also likewise be very important that the replaced mercury filling was thoroughly cleaned out and eliminated (which would still be important even without it being replaced by a gold filling).

Yes there is mercury in silver fillings, but its not the harmful form.

On that note...Mercury is being phased out of use in almost everything I do believe. Labs are even starting to be restricted in buying Mercury containing thermometers. Dentists have to have special filtration systems to filter out mercury (gold-filter traps).

I know there's multiple forms of mercury such as ethylmercury, methylmercury, etc., but I don't believe the form used in fillings is innocuous and haven't seen anything indicating this even from the typical organizations like the ADA when defending amalgams. I also don't know if there are any forms of mercury that aren't harmful, just that there are differences in their profiles and studies done on their toxicology. Anyway, do you have information in regards to mercury in fillings not being a harmful form?

Also, one of the issues in health care in general, which extends to dentists in this situation, is that there is a lack of standardization of care from one practice to the next. So while many dentists take proper precautions when removing/replacing mercury fillings, for instance, other dentists don't take these precautions and expose their unknowing patients to additional risks.

[The Sisko]

I know there's multiple forms of mercury such as ethylmercury, methylmercury, etc., but I don't believe the form used in fillings is innocuous and haven't seen anything indicating this even from the typical organizations like the ADA when defending amalgams. I also don't know if there are any forms of mercury that aren't harmful, just that there are differences in their profiles and studies done on their toxicology. Anyway, do you have information in regards to mercury in fillings not being a harmful form?

I'm pretty certain amalgam contains elemental mercury which as I said earlier is toxic, though not as bad as methylmercury. See table 1 here.

[Xameil]

I know there's multiple forms of mercury such as ethylmercury, methylmercury, etc., but I don't believe the form used in fillings is innocuous and haven't seen anything indicating this even from the typical organizations like the ADA when defending amalgams. I also don't know if there are any forms of mercury that aren't harmful, just that there are differences in their profiles and studies done on their toxicology. Anyway, do you have information in regards to mercury in fillings not being a harmful form?

Also, one of the issues in health care in general, which extends to dentists in this situation, is that there is a lack of standardization of care from one practice to the next. So while many dentists take proper precautions when removing/replacing mercury fillings, for instance, other dentists don't take these precautions and expose their unknowing patients to additional risks.

Well as them not being in the harmful form, I have to go by what Dentists say, as well as I know that the level that outgasses is VERY low. As for the protecting when disposing of the fillings, I can only speak with regards to NYS. The DEC has put insanely low levels on it. I was told by a DEC rep., that dentists are actually classified as waste handlers now because of the mercury. The have to have filtration systems on the plumbing to filter out the mercury before it is sent into the water system.

[The Villi Phanatic]

Well as them not being in the harmful form, I have to go by what Dentists say, as well as I know that the level that outgasses is VERY low. As for the protecting when disposing of the fillings, I can only speak with regards to NYS. The DEC has put insanely low levels on it. I was told by a DEC rep., that dentists are actually classified as waste handlers now because of the mercury. The have to have filtration systems on the plumbing to filter out the mercury before it is sent into the water system.

Not that I would recommend simply taking the word of a dentist(s) to assess the potential dangers of mercury fillings as the best resource on any information like this is going to be directly accessing the science and research behind it and those involved with conducting and analyzing it, but many dentists don't think that mercury fillings are safe so I don't know exactly who or what you're referring to with this statement. I know the ADA still maintains their safety, but that certainly doesn't extend throughout the whole dental industry, with a substantial number of dentists no longer using mercury fillings. Granted, some of them are likely doing so to cater to patient interests, but many are doing so due to believing there are valid safety issues with mercury fillings.

As for the out-gassing (I'm assuming this term is referring to the vapors being released from the fillings in a person's mouth over time) being very low, that doesn't quantify much from a scientific standpoint as all these things being discussed such as mercury in a vaccine or vapors released from fillings are "very" low. But the toxicological profiles for these substances result in health issues at very low amounts, it's just precisely how low that is debated. As for the out-gassing itself, I don't know the specifics offhand, but deeming it very low doesn't mean much when assessing the dangers in this situation.

And I'm glad there are certain precautions taken in regards to the disposal of mercury fillings by dentists, and I believe there are similar precautions for vaccine disposal as well. But I was referring to patient care, which can vary drastically from one practice to the next, and most patients wouldn't have the first clue about what kind of ventilation and suction tools or dams should be used while replacing mercury fillings, for instance.

[Xameil]

Not that I would recommend simply taking the word of a dentist(s) to assess the potential dangers of mercury fillings as the best resource on any information like this is going to be directly accessing the science and research behind it and those involved with conducting and analyzing it, but many dentists don't think that mercury fillings are safe so I don't know exactly who or what you're referring to with this statement. I know the ADA still maintains their safety, but that certainly doesn't extend throughout the whole dental industry, with a substantial number of dentists no longer using mercury fillings. Granted, some of them are likely doing so to cater to patient interests, but many are doing so due to believing there are valid safety issues with mercury fillings.

As for the out-gassing (I'm assuming this term is referring to the vapors being released from the fillings in a person's mouth over time) being very low, that doesn't quantify much from a scientific standpoint as all these things being discussed such as mercury in a vaccine or vapors released from fillings are "very" low. But the toxicological profiles for these substances result in health issues at very low amounts, it's just precisely how low that is debated. As for the out-gassing itself, I don't know the specifics offhand, but deeming it very low doesn't mean much when assessing the dangers in this situation.

And I'm glad there are certain precautions taken in regards to the disposal of mercury fillings by dentists, and I believe there are similar precautions for vaccine disposal as well. But I was referring to patient care, which can vary drastically from one practice to the next, and most patients wouldn't have the first clue about what kind of ventilation and suction tools or dams should be used while replacing mercury fillings, for instance.

I'm an environmental chemist...to hell with patient care...lol

yeah, the vapors. I can tell you that the vapors released from 4 mercury fillings when analyzed through a CVAA Mercury analyzer is in the sub parts per billion range. And yes if I look back through my data from 6 years ago, I can prove it .

Yes I know dentists do not use mercury fillings anymore, now, whether its because of the dangers, cost, discomfort when eating anything cold or hot, or the looks since the ones they use now are invisible whereas mercury ones are quite visible, I don't know off hand.

As for vaccinations...

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2008/01/30/hscout612206.html

The new research, he added, showed that "the levels of thimerosal don't go very high and they go down right away. By the time it's time for the next dose of vaccine, the levels are right back to where they were at the beginning."

Now from reading that, they are only checking the bloodstream, NOT where mercury settles in the system, so I don't know.

[zoony]

You’re mostly right Xameil. Mercury does bioaccumulate in the food chain but humans can eliminate it, though somewhat slowly. So humans to my knowledge don’t get a lifetime accumulation as you said, but it can and does stay in our systems for a long time. Therefore, the question for each individual is whether s/he is consuming mercury faster than their body can eliminate it which will lead to having a toxic amount circulating in their system.

You were also right about the different types of mercury. Amalgam contains elemental mercury which is toxic. However, chemical/biological reactions in the ecosystem change elemental mercury into a much more toxic form - methylmercury. Small fish then become contaminated with methylmercury from their environment/food then get eaten by bigger fish which creates an additive dose in fish. That’s what’s actually meant by bioaccumulation. The problem for humans is that we are at the end of the food chain and tend to eat bigger fish and hence get the “benefit” of that bioaccumulated methylmercury dose all at once.

That’s why fish consumption is a bigger problem than amalgam fillings. There’s more on this at: http://enhs.umn.edu/hazards/hazardssite/mercury/mercdose.html

I’m in public health preparedness. However, I took the standard PH curriculum and added the preparedness stuff on the job. If I can ever just finish my stupid thesis I'll finally be able to stop saying I'm a PH student.

You’re correct Keeastman. At the beginning of the 20th century, the leading causes of child mortality were infectious diseases at about 62%. It’s now 2%. (See image below from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/106/6/1307) To be fair, a lot of the decrease in the mortality rates in the graph below are due to clean water, however a lot of it is due to infectious disease as well, especially after about 1950.

All the anti-vaccination crowd can offer is sketchy, alarmist accusations about side effects like autism while offering little, if any scientific proof of their claims. Certainly, there are unexpected side effects from vaccination, just as there are with most any medical procedure or treatment no matter how routine. However, as was mentioned earlier, the benefit greatly outweighs the risks since the known side effects only affect a very small segment of the population.

So Ken, how about you do this for me. Since 2001, thimerosol in vaccines has been greatly reduced because of these concerns. Given this huge reduction in vaccine induced mercury load, the dose response relationship I cited earlier (again, this is toxicology 101) means we would expect to see a huge reduction in autism rates...assuming there's a connection between the two. Please explain with some hard data why the expected reduction in autism rates hasn’t happened. Lotsa luck with that.

game, set, match. Wowza

[Ken]

So all those cancer patients being treated with arsenic are really just being made sicker?

You say that as if it is so outlandish to treat cancer patients with RADIATION and PESTICIDE.

I think those qualify as toxic poisons, don't you? :doh:

[The Villi Phanatic]

Alright, I don't have too much time to get into the whole vaccines-autism angle that's been brought up throughout this post, but I wanted to quickly address a few points. Each point I'm going to make below could be discussed quite a bit in itself, so I'm going to try to keep each one brief enough and just touch on some various factors in play related to the vaccines-autism debate.

First off, autism (or rather ASD as many numbers frequently cited include other diagnoses under the spectrum) is not the only medical concern with vaccines. Aside from various moreso random side effects including the few manufacturer-recognized ones from prior studies, there are other general immunological and systemic symptoms and conditions that may result from vaccines. And the incidence of many of these conditions which may be in some way influenced, either by a causal or contributing role, from vaccines are increasing in recent years (food allergies as an example jumps out as an immunologic condition that is increasing quite a bit in the past decade or so).

Secondly, I have a number of issues with the sentiment of the benefits greatly outweighing the risks for vaccines and how this sentiment is applied in public health policy and in doctors' offices. One major issue is the lack of knowledge of the risks, which greatly skews the equation in favor of the benefits. When vaccines and drugs for that matter are being studied during the pre-approval process, there are a whole host of factors that limit the knowledge gained on side effects and health issues, some being mostly benign (from the perspective of the intentions of the company) and some ranging from questionable to downright reprehensible. Additionally, all this is primarily just related to assessing short-term risks as even less is known about long-term risks.

Another issue with this general sentiment is the lack of identification of those within the general population who may be more susceptible to side effects and exacerbation or causing of health issues from vaccines. So, for example, while a given vaccine (or combination of vaccines) may result in health issues for only 0.01% of subset A of the population, it may result in health issues for 2% of subset B of the population and 20% of subset C of the population. There are extremely few subsets that are currently identified for any vaccines, and they typically only consist of those who have already had a prior reaction to a vaccine in a series of shots or those with contraindications to an ingredient (ie. an egg allergy is a contraindication to a flu shot) and maybe one or two other small subsets.

However, there is substantial information out there indicating there are quite a few potential subsets (the mitochondrial aspect recently coming into discussion and those with genetic profiles that limit their bodies' ability to detox substances such as mercury are 2 examples). And not only is none of this typically communicated to parents upon bringing in their children for shots (hell, I don't think there's even any concern or talk of delaying shots a bit from many, if not most, doctors if the kid's immune system is compromised currently due to a recent infection), but there has been a concerted effort to stifle research into identifying these more susceptible children. The following are recent comments from Bernadine Healy, the former head of the NIH:

(from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml)

"Healy goes on to say public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are 'susceptible' to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public.

'You're saying that public health officials have turned their back on a viable area of research largely because they're afraid of what might be found?' Attkisson asked.

Healy said: 'There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.'"

I'm already getting a bit too far into this and don't have much time so I'll cut it off for now. I did see dockeryfan allude to some of the points I'd like to delve into, particuarly in his second reply. I've also had a number of replies in previous threads that are relevant to this discussion, and one is here: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5058447#post5058447 (in case you haven't read enough of my spiel already in this thread :cool: ). There are also a number of individual points raised previously in this post in replies that I might try to respond to at a future time. For now though, suffice it to say that not only is the debate on vaccines-autism far from closed as some would insinuate, but there is substantial research and information (both patient-related and otherwise) indicating serious health dangers including autism resulting from vaccines within the very least, a portion of the population.

[SkinsTerps26]

Alright, I don't have too much time to get into the whole vaccines-autism angle that's been brought up throughout this post, but I wanted to quickly address a few points. Each point I'm going to make below could be discussed quite a bit in itself, so I'm going to try to keep each one brief enough and just touch on some various factors in play related to the vaccines-autism debate.

First off, autism (or rather ASD as many numbers frequently cited include other diagnoses under the spectrum) is not the only medical concern with vaccines. Aside from various moreso random side effects including the few manufacturer-recognized ones from prior studies, there are other general immunological and systemic symptoms and conditions that may result from vaccines. And the incidence of many of these conditions which may be in some way influenced, either by a causal or contributing role, from vaccines are increasing in recent years (food allergies as an example jumps out as an immunologic condition that is increasing quite a bit in the past decade or so).

Secondly, I have a number of issues with the sentiment of the benefits greatly outweighing the risks for vaccines and how this sentiment is applied in public health policy and in doctors' offices. One major issue is the lack of knowledge of the risks, which greatly skews the equation in favor of the benefits. When vaccines and drugs for that matter are being studied during the pre-approval process, there are a whole host of factors that limit the knowledge gained on side effects and health issues, some being mostly benign (from the perspective of the intentions of the company) and some ranging from questionable to downright reprehensible. Additionally, all this is primarily just related to assessing short-term risks as even less is known about long-term risks.

Another issue with this general sentiment is the lack of identification of those within the general population who may be more susceptible to side effects and exacerbation or causing of health issues from vaccines. So, for example, while a given vaccine (or combination of vaccines) may result in health issues for only 0.01% of subset A of the population, it may result in health issues for 2% of subset B of the population and 20% of subset C of the population. There are extremely few subsets that are currently identified for any vaccines, and they typically only consist of those who have already had a prior reaction to a vaccine in a series of shots or those with contraindications to an ingredient (ie. an egg allergy is a contraindication to a flu shot) and maybe one or two other small subsets.

However, there is substantial information out there indicating there are quite a few potential subsets (the mitochondrial aspect recently coming into discussion and those with genetic profiles that limit their bodies' ability to detox substances such as mercury are 2 examples). And not only is none of this typically communicated to parents upon bringing in their children for shots (hell, I don't think there's even any concern or talk of delaying shots a bit from many, if not most, doctors if the kid's immune system is compromised currently due to a recent infection), but there has been a concerted effort to stifle research into identifying these more susceptible children. The following are recent comments from Bernadine Healy, the former head of the NIH:

(from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml)

"Healy goes on to say public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are 'susceptible' to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public.

'You're saying that public health officials have turned their back on a viable area of research largely because they're afraid of what might be found?' Attkisson asked.

Healy said: 'There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.'"

I'm already getting a bit too far into this and don't have much time so I'll cut it off for now. I did see dockeryfan allude to some of the points I'd like to delve into, particuarly in his second reply. I've also had a number of replies in previous threads that are relevant to this discussion, and one is here: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5058447#post5058447 (in case you haven't read enough of my spiel already in this thread :cool: ). There are also a number of individual points raised previously in this post in replies that I might try to respond to at a future time. For now though, suffice it to say that not only is the debate on vaccines-autism far from closed as some would insinuate, but there is substantial research and information (both patient-related and otherwise) indicating serious health dangers including autism resulting from vaccines within the very least, a portion of the population.

Great post man.

[PeterMP]

Alright, I don't have too much time to get into the whole vaccines-autism angle that's been brought up throughout this post, but I wanted to quickly address a few points. Each point I'm going to make below could be discussed quite a bit in itself, so I'm going to try to keep each one brief enough and just touch on some various factors in play related to the vaccines-autism debate.

I'll respond with a couple of comments:

1. I'll generally agree that it is possible and even likely that, especially if you are talking about sub-sets of the population, that some are negatively affected by vaccines.

2. Unfortunately, that isn't what this thread was about. It was centered around thimerosal causing autism. Thimerosal was once a much more popular additive and was in found in all sorts of things including diaper creams. Any precursory understanding of cause and effect would lead one to conclude that is highly unlikely that a product whose use is in decline cannot explain a desease whose occurence is increasing.

3. I don't know how long ago your interview from the director of the NIH was, but try going to www.pubmed.com and putting in "vaccine long term health effects". I get 12 pages of results and even searching for an "old" vaccine (e.g. measles rubella mumps vaccine) gives me pages of results from things published in the last year (116 pages over all).

4. If you wish to start a thread discussing the possible role of vaccines in unknown deseases in subsets of the populations, I'll happily contribute in a positive manner. If you want to some how assert that thimerosal is contributing to the increase in autism, I'll keep telling you the science doesn't support you.

As a good faith in advertising, I have a daughter that is just over two years old, and we put off her first round of vaccinations by about two months by simply telling the doctor she had a cold and a slight fever the days before the appointment (no vaccines should be given to a patient whose immune system might be compromised) and partly because of that delay and the doctor not having all of the vaccines she needs in stock, she still hasn't gotten all of the shots she should have had at 18 months, and I'm not in any particular hurry to see them done.

[The Villi Phanatic]

2. Unfortunately, that isn't what this thread was about. It was centered around thimerosal causing autism. Thimerosal was once a much more popular additive and was in found in all sorts of things including diaper creams. Any precursory understanding of cause and effect would lead one to conclude that is highly unlikely that a product whose use is in decline cannot explain a desease whose occurence is increasing.

4. If you wish to start a thread discussing the possible role of vaccines in unknown deseases in subsets of the populations, I'll happily contribute in a positive manner. If you want to some how assert that thimerosal is contributing to the increase in autism, I'll keep telling you the science doesn't support you.

Well, the thread touched on a number of issues including statements regarding vaccines and autism not simply limited to the scope of thermosol (sorry, had to give you a little ribbing for your initial spelling :cool: ) so I was addressing the autism-vaccine issue from a broad standpoint without really analyzing individual components and factors like mercury.

With that being said, we'll have to disagree for now on the thimerosal issue, at least to the extent of dismissing the role of thimerosal (in particular the mercury in it) in causing/contributing to autism. There are a number of reasons which I don't have time to go into, but just to point one thing out, the studies you refer to and the foundation behind dismissing thimerosal as a causative/contributing agent in the manifestation of autism that I've seen throughout this thread is predicated upon population studies indicating the diagnosis rate of autism has stayed the same (or increased) following the reduction of thimerosal exposure to infants via vaccines.

A major flaw with this reasoning is actually quite simple: it contains no analysis of the autistic patients themselves. So while these population studies may have merit in determining that thimerosal is not solely responsible for autism, they do not in any way dismiss thimerosal as a viable agent in causing/contributing to autism.

Anyway, I'm going away for the weekend and likely won't have time to reply again beforehand. Just wanted to give a quick response to the above. Enjoy your weekend, whether it's mercury-free or not .

[McMetal]

Fine, let's abolish all vaccination for a few years and see how that lobby feels about the resulting health impact globally.

Then when the autism rate fails to drop whatsoever, we will have conclusively established that there is NO causal link.

Nevermind the millions of kids that will suffer and die worldwide while disease runs rampant.

They'll have to find something else to blame.