Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 10 September 2012

	Thiomersal and vaccines has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 24, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thiomersal and vaccines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disability Thiomersal and vaccines is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 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 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 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/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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 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  23:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't edit the Bigfoot page. OrangeMarlin 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:

* Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 4763911, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=4763911 instead.

* Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 323108 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=323108 instead.

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)

The evidence favors a link

>>According to a recent article which forms the most in depth review of the literature on heavy metal toxicity and autism to date:

"To summarize, of the 58 empirical reports on autism and heavy metal toxins, 43 suggest some link may be present, while 13 reports found no link. Even with the tendency for null results not to be reported, it cannot be said there is no evidence for a link between heavy metal toxins and autism: although the question may still be open-in sum, the evidence favors a link."

-- Mary Catherine DeSoto and Robert T. Hitlanby; Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, vol 70, No 2, pg 172, 2010;

FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7021.pdf (last retrieved: April 14th, 2012.)

ps: To anyone who would advance the collective effort to better understand autism: Perhaps you should first try to befriend, and understand, at least one full-blown autistic person (of which there are tens of thousands). And until you've had success with that (in your heart of hearts) perhaps you should keep your uninformed opinions (and / or stifling editorial stances) on an appropriately short leash. (This article currently reads like it was prepared by Eli-Lilly's defence council; which, given their actions with the US homeland security bill, is actually not nearly as far fetched as I would like to believe.) << Seipjere (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that knowing an autistic person, or being a parent to an autistic child, is a requirement for scientific analysis of data. In fact, like surgeons, having an unemotional detachment from the analysis will be a foundation for a more unbiased review of data. It is pretty annoying that you would think any editor here is uninformed. I am not uninformed, and, in fact, quite knowledgeable about both the science behind neurodevelopmental disorders along with vaccines. I have only made one edit to this article, which was promptly reverted for strange reasons, yet I find this article quite neutral, accurate, and well-source. As for the article above, I will have to make three points. First, DeSoto is supported by the Age of Autism, and anti-vaccination group. Second, she is a psychologist, with little or no training in pharmacology, biochemistry and meta-analyses. Third, it is published in a low impact journal. However, if you feel that it adds anything to this article, I would suggest you assume good faith on the parts of all editors, write a balanced sentence or two that accurately states the position of this article with respect to the hundreds of other articles that do not support this point of view, and add it to the article. If you're just going to write "All the other citations are rubbish, and this represents the One Truth™," I believe the color of your statement will cloud any neutrality. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

>>I repeat: THE PREPONDERANCE OF PRIMARY EMPIRICAL DATA HAS FAVOURED THE HEAVY METAL AUTISM HYPOTHESIS.

Accordingly, I believe both this article (and thimerosal's parent article) should reflect that fact. (After reading DeSoto & Hitlanby I believe the vast majority of readers would find them to be thorough in their research, concise in their writing, comprehensive in their scope, and cautious with their conclusions. In fact, I believe more people would take issue with the degree of caution with which their conclusions seam to have been tempered than with any other aspect of their writing.) Taking DeSoto & Hitlanby at their word (as I believe we should) we can conclude that their are at least 43 independently published peer-reviewed primary data sets (as of 09-10) to indicate that the tone of this article is presently inappropriate (and only 13 which suggest otherwise). Therefore, it's fair to say that it should be rebalanced (in it's entirety) appropriately.

Ps (1): IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JUDGE FOR YOURSELF (re. DeSoto & Hitlanby, and the 43 datasets they evaluated and I referenced) THE FULL PUBLICATION (and bibliography) CAN BE READ HERE: http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7021.pdf (2): I stand by my earlier comments, (though I apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. It's just that for many of our friends and neighbours, at the centre of this discussion, the only chance they have at being better understood is us; personally, I believe this fact should be taken to heart). (3): Remember: Being wrong feels like being right (until you've learned your lesson).<< Seipjere (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the preponderance of medical data debunks the assertion. Sorry. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this particular source will be useful for us, per WP:WEIGHT, we can't use an article from a low impact Polish journal to dispute the overwhelming consensus that thiomersal does not cause autism (as evidence by the IOM, WHO, etc). Yobol (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm more troubled that the author is an Age of Autism shill, but we can't judge an article based on the biases of the author. Unless we can?SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has followed this controversy will recognize the authors as having published a controversial paper about thiomersal before as well. The association of the authors is certainly a red-flag, but we don't need to get into those weeds here; introducing this paper as a counterweight against scientific consensus is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be critiquing that article off-wiki when I discuss the anti-vaccine crowd. Very useful. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's really a terrible paper; aside from coming from dubious authors in a low-impact journal, the method of 'counting papers that agree with us' is a dreadful method by which to perform a meta-analysis. Real meta-analyses actually aren't shy about evaluating the studies they include, assigning appropriate weights to different types and qualities of evidence, or – for that matter – even basic things like presenting a list of the studies that were included in their counts. DeSoto and Hitlanby's analysis would assign exactly the same weight to a single-patient case report as it would to a properly-blinded, thousand-patient, multicenter, longitudinal study. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. After reading the paper, it seems that either the authors are unaware of how to conduct a serious systematic review, or else the paper is simply intended to impress a scientifically unsophisticated audience. It speaks poorly for the authors, the peer reviewers, and the journal in which this was published. MastCell  04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The two of you sound like your expectations were somewhat higher than mine. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I suspect that the paper entirely met our expectations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

“A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on.” - Winston Churchill

On the subject of DeSoto and Hitlan’s earlier (2007) “questionable” review of the flawed 2004 Ip et al Autism Spectrum Disorder children's mercury-blood study

The data in question is from the first published study comparing blood mercury levels of Autistic Spectrum Disordered (ASD) children with a control group (‘Ip et al 2004’).

The data was based on 7 year old kids (in Hong Kong) and the original study concluded that, quote: “there is no causal relationship between mercury and as an environmental neurotoxin and autism.” - Ip et al 2004 .

It was cited 9 times as ‘definitive’ by a number of early pro-thimerosalers (if you will - Eric Fombonne, Paul Shattuck, and others) long before the data had been released or any of the ‘results’ confirmed.

In 2007 DeSoto and Hitlan noticed, based on the limited published results, that the published p value was grossly incorrect. (It was skewed in favour of Ip et al's would be conclusions.)

They (D&H) wrote to the publisher’s editor (Roger Brumback, Journal of Child Neurology) and after a couple of corrections (by both the journal and the secondary author of the study) the raw data was published.

Subsequently, it became embarrasingly clear that practically the entire data-set had been skewed in favour of their (Ip et al's) conclusions.

So, DeSoto and Hitlan published [http://www.hbotnm.com/BloodHg.pdf a short re-analysis (the only peer reviewed published analysis of the corrected data to come of the flawed study).

And even though it’s terribly inconvenient for many to admit (i.e. ‘epiwonk’, Frombonne, Shattuck...), basically - compared to practically everyone else - DeSotto&Hitlan got it (Ip et al) right; while everyone 'following the controversy’ didn’t.

Here’s a few quotes from D&H's more respectable pseudonymous detractor, 'epiwonk', (an emotionally biased ex-CDC senior prenatal / childhood disease epidemiologist, who was paid to man the US's child safety switch through the late 90s and early 2000s, and who, in his retirement, has courted a myriad of sheeple blogosphere followers):

On the subject of the Ip study (i.e. the corrected data)

"The first thing I always do — and I always told my students to do this — is to actually LOOK at the data. … Is there a difference between these two distributions? And how would we characterize the difference? It looks like the main difference is that the ASD cases have more mercury blood values at the upper end of the distribution than do the controls. By ‘the upper end of the distribution’ I mean values greater than 25 nmol/L. In fact, that’s just what’s going on. Of the 54 controls, there were only 5 children with blood mercury levels greater than 25 (and the greatest value was 42). Of the 81 ASD cases, there were 21 children with values greater than 25, with 4 values between 41 and 45 and a high value of 59. ...

and one of his better conclusions (again on Ip):

... “Shattuck should never have cited Ip et al. as a recent study that “failed to establish a connection between vaccination or the use of mercury-based vaccine preservative and autism.” Fombonne et al. should not have cited Ip et al. as a biological study of ethylmercury exposure that “failed to support the thimerosal hypothesis.”

Footnote

the more recent CHARGE study results (which have been widely purported to have “put the final nail in the coffin of the mercury hypothesis” - the strongest of the 13 studies on the other side of D&H’s 2009 ledger) is also sort of meaningless.

i.e. The question / subject of inorganic mercury brain burdens (and how they seem to bare little or no relation to long-term mercury blood levels) was -- has thus far been, thoroughly overlooked.

All the best, respectfully yours, Seipjere (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is for improvement of the article, not argument about the subject. - Yobol (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Egregious Error in Thimerosal Exposures within the 2004 IOM 'Vaccines & Autism' report

While trying to get to the bottom of the science on DeSoto & Hitlan’s 2007 review paper (re the corrected Ip et al 2004 data-set I was reviewing the US Immunization Safety Review Committee’s final (8th) ‘Vaccines and Autism’ (2004) report and on page 39; here's what we find:

"Recommended limits on methylmercury exposure: EPA: 0.1 μg/kg body weight/day; ATSDR: 0.3 μg/kg body weight/day; FDA: 0.4 μg/kg body weight/day; WHO: 3.3 μg/kg body weight/week" - Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism page 39 pdf (and) html here

AND,

Directly above we find this:

TABLE 1 Estimated Exposure to Mercury from Vaccines in United States in 1999 and in 2004 ( <6 months of age)

TABLE 1 Estimated Exposure to Mercury from Vaccines in 1999 and in 2004 (< 2 years of age)

????????

So, based on the 0.1 μg/kg of body weight/day EPA limit the average baby who got their shots between 1991 and 2003 (who would have had either 62.5 μg or 75 μg of mercury on each of the 3 or 4 days of their vaccine schedule) would have to have weighed either 312.5 kg (687.5 lbs) or 375 kg (825 lbs) to be EPA safe!!

But, unlike the reports authors, I thought I'd be conservative. (If we were to consider ethyl and methyl to be on par with one another those hypothetical babies need to be twice as heavy)]

Seipjere (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for your own data analysis. That said: there's a reason why it's usually experts who make such an analysis. You're assuming that it's invalid to base the exposure limits on a 26 week period, the expert committee saw it as valid. I'm not a toxicologist so right now I don't know why this was done (perhaps because it takes 26 weeks until all the mercury is excreted?), but there's no reason to give your opinion more weight than that of an expert committee. Actually, there's a policy that says your analysis shouldn't be given any weight, so unless reliable scientific sources say that these limits are wrong, there's nothing to discuss here. --Six words (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Six words got it all right, but let me give you one simple criticism. The reason you could find only one poorly designed, poorly analyzed (but very popular with the Age of Autism crowd) is because the study shows nothing, and researchers tend to dismiss badly designed studies. You also are guilty of confirmation bias, only finding the one lame study that supports your POV, but ignoring the dozens of others that show that you're hypothesis was nullified. But Six words is right. You are providing original research which is deprecated on Misplaced Pages. Find something, discuss it, and maybe we'll include it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps context regarding the amount of mercury could be provided in light of the 1991 memo from renowned vaccinologist Maurice Hilleman to the head of Merck's vaccine division, Dr. Robert Gordon. This memo was acquired by the Los Angeles Times in 2005 and was the basis for an article on the subject. The memo discusses concerns of Hilleman regarding the mercury load, especially on babies receiving a normal schedule of vaccines at the time. Hilleman, who was responsible for the development of more vaccines than any other person then or since, cautioned Dr. Gordon that "if 8 doses of thimerosal-containing vaccine were given in the first six months of life, the 200 micrograms of mercury given, say to an average size of 12 pounds, would be about 87 times the Swedish daily allowance of 2.3 micrograms of mercury for a baby of that size." MisterSquirrel 07:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterSquirrel (talk • contribs)

Unless you have something more than original research there is nothing to address. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The theoretical amount of thiomersal introduced at an early age due to vaccination is already discussed at length in the 2nd paragraph of the "History" section. To say it hasn't been addressed is incorrect. Yobol (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

The important point here, that seams to have been lost on so many contributors to this article, is that all those guidelines are quite explicit, and strictly speaking, the amount of thimerosal in the typical vaccine schedule grossly exceeded all of them (by large magnitudes).

Again: the limits are as follows:

"Recommended limits on methylmercury exposure: EPA: 0.1 μg/kg body weight/day; ATSDR: 0.3 μg/kg body weight/day; FDA: 0.4 μg/kg body weight/day; WHO: 3.3 μg/kg body weight/week"

So, please explain to me how, when the average shot contained 25μg of mercury, and the average infant weighs next to nothing, and multiple injections were given on the same day (sometimes on the day of birth), "the vaccine schedule for infants did not exceed FDA...ATSDR... or WHO guidelines on mercury exposure"?

(as is foolishly stated in this article)

- Seipjere (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't use our own calculations, we use those from reliable sources, such as the FDA. Yobol (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me something I don't already know.

The so called "calculations" (foolishly referenced in the main article) by the FDA, that you defer to, is no such thing.

It is, in fact, just a regurgitation of the canned line from the 2004 (8th) IOM report. And thus, it offers no intelligible justification for the creative extrapolations used by it's original author (i.e pro-rating the mercury safety limits, AND averaging the bolus/bulk mercury doses over 6 month, and two year, time frames.

(There's nothing 'original' or 'novel' about me pointing this out; it's plain fact.)

And, moreover, the FDA document (which is used as the reference in the main article) clearly points out that:

"To address the issue of conflicting methylmercury exposure guidelines, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences to study the toxicological effects of methylmercury and provide recommendations on the establishment of a scientifically appropriate methylmercury reference dose. Their report concluded that the EPA's current reference dose, the RfD, for methylmercury, 0.1 µg/kg/day is a scientifically justifiable level for the protection of human health."

Again, that was 0.1 µg/kg/day.

And FYI, there are tens of thousands of 3kg (and under) babies getting 12.5µg (of mercury) flu shots as we speak.

(No wonder you don't like calculations.) - Seipjere (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you already, we are not allowed to do our own calculations (i.e. over how many days we calculate each dose is over). When you find an equally reliable source as the FDA we can discuss this further, otherwise this is going nowhere, and I will not waste any more time on this. Yobol (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a venue for editors to expound their personal interpretations of the Institute of Medicine report -- Mastcell (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hatting a part of a talkpage is a particularly pointless thing to editwar over. Stop it. Now, does anybody have any new suggestions - within policy - for improving the article? bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sans reliable sources, one editor who continues to use this talk page as their personal forum to push a unsupported idea seems to be a perfect place to hat a part of a talk page. Or did you not read what several responsible editors have said in reply to this one editor? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Seipjere, although I well understand you might have a very strong opinion about the subject, you have to respect that Misplaced Pages is not a medium for promotion of your research and concepts. Feel free to keep your own blog or website, or even write articles for respectable newspapers and link them here. However, the policy of this website states absolutely clearly that Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought and if you want to contribute here you have no choice but to follow this. kashmiri 07:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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.

I hope to make some very specific 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  19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• GA-Class Disability articles
• WikiProject Disability articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages