Talk:Thiomersal

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

• Note:copied from my talk page to get a wider audience for this discussion*

Quote, "Lilly tested Thimerosal in 1930, giving it to 22 terminal meningitis patients; within weeks, all 22 patients died." http://www.newsinferno.com/legal-news/eli-lilly-knew-of-thimerosal-dangers-for-decades/3298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.128.212 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points: 1) That is not a reliable source 2) even if it were reliable, there have been plenty of studies about the safety of thiomersal since which have found it safe for use in vaccines and certainly no evidence in doses used it is a neurotoxin. Yobol (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As Yobol notes, the source is dubious. Even if it were not, I suspect that you (and the authors of the article) are missing the significance of what the report seems to be saying. (I suspect that the article's authors are deliberately missing the point, in fact.) If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the basic facts reported are correct, then the study involved terminal patients. All of them would have died without intervention anyway.

What the study demonstrated was not that thiomersal is a deadly drug whose side effects were ruthlessly concealed (as the author of the article would have you believe). What was shown was that thiomersal was ineffective for the treatment of meningitis—just like every other drug available to pre-antibiotics 1930 medicine. The purpose of such a study wouldn't have been to test the safety of thiomersal, it would have been to test novel interventions to treat otherwise-lethal cases of meningitis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The test was not to see if mercury can cure terminal meningitis, the test was to bring the drug to market. Please do some reading on Eli's testing.

Quote, " In its apparent eagerness to promote and market the product, in September, 1930, Eli Lilly secretly sponsored a "human toxicity" study on patients already known to be dying of meningococcal meningitis. Senior partner Andrew Waters stated that, "Lilly then cited this study repeatedly for decades as proof that thimerosal was of low toxicity and harmless to humans. They never revealed to the scientific community or the public the highly questionable nature of the original research." http://www.iaomt.org/testfoundation/thimelililly.htm#Waters%20&%20Kraus --199.60.104.18 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, the source is not reliable, so it doesn't belong until you find one that is. Secondly, even if it were true (which I do not concede), I don't know why it belongs in an encyclopedia article about the substance. Unless secondary reliable sources note the importance of this, it appears this is just being used to smear the product and Eli Lilly rather than trying to add neutral, verifiable information to the article. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The current statement this IP has added to the article states "Lilly tested Thimerosal in 1930, giving it to 22 terminal meningitis patients; within weeks, all 22 patients died from their terminal illness." Well then so what? It doesn't say on its face anything about the long-term safety (or lack thereof) of the chemical, but it does suggest that they all did live for several weeks, so it's not acutely toxic. That seems to be in keeping with how the IP claims the highly non-reliable source supports, but contradicts the general theme of that source itself. And as another editor mentions above, the study wasn't even to test its toxicity, so we need some references that reinterpret it for us. As it stands, it has unclear relevance, and being primary data would require a secondary source to explain it to us instead of being left loose to either scare or at best confuse readers. DMacks (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read this legal brief and its summary of the 1920s and 1930s history on how this drug came to market. The only issue is that the human testing before going to market was this 22 patient test and therefore its importance. htttttp://www.whale.to/v/elililly.html [This site is blacklisted so had to add the extra tttt's to http to post the link.] --96.54.160.222 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Quote, "During the outbreak, Dr. Smithburn, at the request of Lilly, injected the meningitis patients with thimerosal/merthiolate in a series of experiments to determine if it might serve as a possible treatment for the disease. The experiments also served a second purpose, i.e. as a basis for reaching a conclusion that thimerosal was non-toxic." The issue is that this test for people at death's door does not allow the testing for long term minute amounts of mercury injected into the blood streams of new borns that have immune issues and undeveloped brain blood barrier. --96.54.160.222 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is blacklisted might give you a clue as to how reliable that website is. As noted, the FDA and numerous studies have found thiomersal safe. Allegations it isn't safe need to meet stringent sourcing. Short of finding such sources, there's nothing to discuss here. Yobol (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thimerosal was grandfathered in by the FDA, so when people ask what were the human trails, the only prior to market human study was this 22 patient test. THE DRUG BEING GRANDFATHERED IN NEEDS TO BE IN THE ARTICLE. Quote, " Thimerosal was first used as a preservative in vaccines in the late 1930s, long before we understood the extreme neurotoxicity of mercury. As the FDA ratcheted up safety standards, Thimerosal was grandfathered through due to its history without ever having to undergo any safety testing. We may not be reading so much about Thimerosal today if the CDC hadn't embarked upon an aggressive plan to add vaccines to the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule in the late 1980's. In 1988, the Haemophilus Influenzae type B (Hib) vaccine was added to the schedule, followed by the Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine in 1991. Together, these two vaccines added six shots to the schedule, and tripled the amount of mercury children born after 1991 received compared to the previous generation." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiomersal&action=edit&section=4grandfathered --199.60.104.18 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Published quote for grandfathered in. http://books.google.ca/books?id=oEoEM0Do9iIC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=Thimerosal~grandfathered+in&source=bl&ots=Y2O_rg3X59&sig=shvf7iH7x4HJS7gLdSmva-s5NXM&hl=en&ei=_lLFTv30FsXhiAL4tvT2BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg&safe=strict#v=onepage&q=Thimerosal~grandfathered%20in&f=false --199.60.104.18 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of the source you presented above which notes that thiomersal has been extensively studied and not found to be a cause of autism? Yobol (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Googled the words thirmersol and grandfathered, and there are numerious links to back up saying the drug was grandfathered in by the FDA. Does anyone have a problem with the article saying the drug was grandfathered in? http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Thiomersal~grandfathered+in&oq=Thiomersal~grandfathered+in&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=0l0l0l5875l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1019&bih=600&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=lE3FTu2wMdPoiAKh29i2BQ&safe=strict --199.60.104.18 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would probably help to focus on identifying quality sources, rather than relying on a huge quantity of low-quality sources. I don't think that cherry-picking quotes is helping your case, either. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The FDA webpage references the 1931 thiomersal 22 patient study. It's the FDA saying it. Quote, "The earliest published report of thimerosal use in humans was published in 1931 (Powell and Jamieson 1931). In this report, 22 individuals received 1% solution of thimerosal intravenously for UNSPECIFIED THERAPEUTIC REASONS. Subjects received up to 26 milligrams thimerosal/kg (1 milligrams equals 1,000 micrograms) with no reported toxic effects, although 2 subjects demonstrated phlebitis or sloughing of skin after local infiltration. Of note, this study was not specifically designed to examine toxicity; 7 of 22 subjects were observed for only ONE DAY, the specific clinical assessments were NOT DESCRIBED, and no laboratory studies were reported." http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A fixation to place information about one study (out of all the safety studies performed on thiomersal) goes against WP:DUE. Yobol (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A suggest, read the company's brochure. Quote, "Eli Lilly and Co. supposedly answered this question for us back in 1930. Concluding thimerosal to be of "a very low order of toxicity . . . for man," the company hired its own doctors to perform thimerosal experiments in Indianapolis City Hospital on meningitis patients during a severe outbreak in 1929. This 60-year-old evidence was STILL QUOTED ON THE COMPANY'S BROCHURES AS RECENTLY AS 1990." http://www.naturalnews.com/011764.html --199.60.104.18 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad that your citation doesn't actually link to – or quote from – the brochure. Given that the link you've provided is to an advocacy site which espouses the fringe view that thiomersal causes autism, I am necessarily skeptical that their presentation offers a balanced and honest description of the 1930 study, or that they actually place it in appropriate context with other toxicological data collected since then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FDA uses this STUDY STILL TODAY to say, quote, "Prior to its introduction in the 1930's, data were available in several animal species and humans providing evidence for its safety and effectiveness as a preservative." US FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION THIOMERSAL DECLARATION --96.54.160.222 (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many atoms of mercury are in one vaccine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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