Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines

gross errors, neurotoxicity, and deletion request

re gross errors in the following paragraph:

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

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

[ FYI: Although it's well established that ethylmercury is significantly less neurotoxic when ingested (because it 'targets' the liver and kidneys, and kills its subject before it accumulates in the brain - Magos 1985), there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that either ethylmercury, or (more to the point) inorganic mercury++ (Hg2+) aren't as damaging (devastating - to the early years of an infant brain) as other forms of Hg, once established on the wrong side of the blood brain barrier. In fact, the only biochemical conclusion that can presently be drawn, re the neurotoxicity of ethylHg/thimerosal, is that it contributes significantly more long-term mercury (Hg++) to primate brains than an equivalent amount of ingested methylmercury (Burbacher 2005); hence the controversy. ]

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

All the best, Seipjere (talk) [ last updated: 19:20, March 9th 2013 (UTC) ]

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

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

Anyone else in the groupthink gang want to chime in before I have a chance to respond? Seipjere (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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