Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines

Nature of the controversy

A controversy, is by definition, a dispute between two sides. So we should identify these sides.

Also, "attracted controversy" and "attracted opposition" are not the same thing. There is a campaign against mercury in general (in tuna, in dental fillings, etc.) as well as a campaign against thiomersal. We should describe the anti-thiomersal campaign.

The controversy is between two sides:

1. the side that says thiomersal is safe, or at least that there is no proof that it's dangerous
2. the side that says thiomersal is unsafe, or at least that we'd better err on the side of caution

Part of the confusion is that the Atlanta CDC is apparently on both sides here! They have said,

• There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. [1]

And either our thiomersal article or our controversy article (both?) also said that CDC called for a ban on it.

Am I summing this all up correctly? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they said that the controversy was causing less coverage of vaccination, so they dumped thiomersal even although they state themselves that it's totally harmless on all accounts:

Vaccine Preservative (Thimerosal) in Multidose Vials of TIV Thimerosal, a mercury-containing anti-bacterial compound, has been used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s (242) and is used in multidose vial preparations of TIV to reduce the likelihood of bacterial contamination. No scientific evidence indicates that thimerosal in vaccines, including influenza vaccines, is a cause of adverse events other than occasion local hypersensitivity reactions in vaccine recipients. In addition, no scientific evidence exists that thimerosal-containing vaccines are a cause of adverse events among children born to women who received vaccine during pregnancy. Evidence is accumulating that supports the absence of substantial risk for neurodevelopment disorders or other harm resulting from exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines (243--250). However, continuing public concern about exposure to mercury in vaccines was viewed as a potential barrier to achieving higher vaccine coverage levels and reducing the burden of vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, the U.S. Public Health Service and other organizations recommended that efforts be made to eliminate or reduce the thimerosal content in vaccines as part of a strategy to reduce mercury exposures from all sources (243,245,247). Since mid-2001, vaccines routinely recommended for infants aged <6 months in the United States have been manufactured either without or with greatly reduced (trace) amounts of thimerosal. As a result, a substantial reduction in the total mercury exposure from vaccines for infants and children already has been achieved (197). ACIP and other federal agencies and professional medical organizations continue to support efforts to provide thimerosal preservative--free vaccine options. Prevention and Control of Influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2008

--Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lancet paper retracted

I just know you guys are going to have fun with this one. A prominent British medical journal on Tuesday retracted a 1998 research paper that set off a sharp decline in vaccinations in Britain after the paper’s lead author suggested that vaccines could cause autism. Full text in The New York Times. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another reference: New York Times editorial -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Web sites mentioning the Summer 2000 Simpsonwood meeting about the mercury preservative

Videos on the Internet identify a meeting of vaccine gurus in early June of 2000 at Norcross, Georgia at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center. Simsponwood is mentioned only as a linked keyword in the WP article towards the bottom as a “see also” or whatever.

Some apologist web sites for mercury laced vaccines have said that no attempt at cover up was evident in the freedom of information act-obtained transcript of the event. Can these skeptic / apologist web sites be trusted? Perhaps not if one was not lazy and was bothered to search the transcript for key phrases that demonstrated the corrupt nature of the participants.

Participants were supposedly from vaccine manufacturers, the CDC, and other medical researchers involved in the government.

A Google search of >thimerosal simpsonwood transcript pdf< gives a list of about 2,100 such hits.

For me, hit number nine that is entitled "Why You Can't Believe The CDC | Gene's Green Book" was much different than the supposed skeptics' web sites that "liked mercury in their blood, brain, and nervous system."

It contains two links to the supposed Simpsonwood pdf transcript, and outlines a number of cherry picked statements / phrases that possibly illustrate what sinister things were really going on in the unrecorded conversations between invited guests:

* "The number of dose-related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant."

* " We don’t see that kind of genetic change in 30 years. " (in response to the idea that autism is caused by genetic factors)

* " The medical legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous and therefore, it is important that the suggested epidemiological, pharmacokinetic, and animal studies be performed. If an allegation was made that a child’s neurobehavioral findings were caused by Thimerosal containing vaccines, you could readily find a junk scientist who would support the claim with “a reasonable degree of certainty.” But you will not find a scientist with any integrity who would say the reverse with the data that is available. And that is true. So we are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits if they were initiated and I am concerned. "

* " But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work that has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say... "

* " Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines. "

— Supposed June 2000 Simpsonwood Meeting transcript excerpts

I downloaded one of these supposed full 280+ page transcript pdf files and searched for some of these quotations and found them. (What a coincidence?) Are these linked transcripts legit?

Is there a way that this damming evidence can be quoted from other reliable sources and included in the WP article text? Does this show that the US government is full of corrupt individuals who are cooperating fully with the vaccine manufacturers to create chronic care patients for the health industry?

The quotations mention junk scientists who produce medical journal studies for public consumption—-is this common practice for these peer reviewed science journals to publish such trickery to fool the public into rolling up their sleeves for mercury laced compounds (among many other questionable things)?

Are these junk scientists here contributing to wikipedia, pushing this crank stuff as factual?

When you do a Google search for >chemical lobotomy neurotoxin OR mercury< you get listings making mention of this Eli Lilly preservative.

If the various proofs of the autism links with this compound have not been published, could this be due to the mentioned junk scientists who prostitute themselves for whomever provides them with funding. Does the funding come from rich elite Bilderberg group rulers of the world? = New World Order types? What punishment should be established for death and illness caused deliberately by both these parties?

What other keywords could be used to search for this material from reliable sources? Maybe parts of the actual quotation phrases could be searched in internet domains that are WP:RS? When I do a keyword search for just some of the phrases, I get under 200 Google hits--are any of these WP:RS that could be used? Oldspammer (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this critical assessment of the Simpsonwood transcripts on Dr. Mercola's web site. (to avoid annoying popups, you could temporarily turn off javascript) Could any of its critique be cited in the article? Oldspammer (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS, so you could not use it as a source for anything in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

I completely overhauled the rationale for change section to be incorporated into the historical section of the text; this had the added benefits of removing the bullet point listing that was a carry-over from previous versions of the article, and removing mention of most primary studies. I also introduced one new source and expanded on an existing source to document more clearly the social background from which the theory came up.Yobol (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just changed a reference to remove the list of primary studies by the Geiers. I am trying limit the number of primary studies in this article, and found what should be a suitable substitute reference to be used as a citation. Thanks to Oldspammer for providing that reference below. Yobol (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

For future reference

http://www.springerlink.com/content/3398g44388158630/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobol (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/science/25autism.html?pagewanted=3 Oldspammer (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Albuquerque Journal has mention of a local presentation by Daniel Cobb, doctor of oriental medicine. Cobb screened for the audience a Radio Liberty lecture by Dr. David Ayoub MD November, 2005 in which the 5 studies accepted by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics were systematically debunked.

January 2008 Chicago Tribune reports a study is out from California indicating steady or increasing autism cases. Comments / critiques for the story exist. Oldspammer (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CEED9173DF936A15751C0A9639C8B63&fta=y Departments have conflicting interests so they were split 2005.

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-03-02-2006.php carried by News Wires published directly by some newspapers points to http://www.jpands.org/jpands1101.htm that points to medical journal article http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf Autism rates decline some years after thimerosal is removed from childhood vaccines in 1999-2002. Oldspammer (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Google Video and (especially) the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons press release are not appropriate sources by any stretch of the imagination (see WP:MEDRS). How do you propose to use the other sources, which are potentially appropriate? MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Goal=NPOV to include honest science. Sorry, but the NM newspaper story says that video was presented in a public forum in NM where discussions afterward no doubt happened. I have included the med journal link and the med journal study doc link now. This is a controversy covered and referenced by newspaper sources too--where the PR was carried virtually unedited by news wires and published by some newspapers.

http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/quicksummary.html Seems to summarize the time line and has the documents in question cached locally on their site. A cross check indicates that the documents replicate the original source information. One link is to a 2002 PDF image document that is a CDC contract for more than $190 Million for a private company to maintain the Vaccine Safety Datalink database away from public inquiries made through freedom of information act since the private company is not subject to the act. Oldspammer (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

All google videos and AAPS articles as well as self published websites such as the one above fail WP:MEDRS. I believe the article about California autism rates is already cited in the lead, and I will soon adjust the article to include it (I've already done a lot of editing to the article). Not sure how the NYTimes article would be beneficial, though a mention of Rep Weldon's support for a link may be in order. Yobol (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Having re-read the Chicago tribune link again, I note that it is a blog and public press and likely to fail WP:MEDRS. The actual journal article is cited in the lead. Yobol (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

AAPS journal studies are self-published? Where is that coming from? From the MastCell linked Wiki article they seem an anti-fascist political medical organization that attempts to inject debate to counter forces of fascism? The talk page regarding the journal says that the Journal is not indexed by Pub Med for reasons unknown, and not that it is not peer-reviewed by society / association members, and not that it is self-published web documents by the given authors. Because the journal's studies are available on-line, Pub-Med might need to replicate not only the Abstract, but the entire article?

Is the Chicago Tribune article written by a given Chicago Tribune writer? Does the CT article happen to include "uncontrolled" public comments that debunk the article subject study's findings that precisely coincide with the findings and criticisms offered in the later AAPS journal study?

Article bias--How will it appear to observers if one side of the controversy is selectively excluded? If the critiques / studies are unreasoned or completely unscientific or only political, that would be easily counter-argued by "the other side."

Newspapers carried the news wires story about the study. The study is notable. If at all inaccurate, the study should have critiques / debunking it. If no critiques, then the study stands unopposed, but shall be selectively excluded due to "opinions that the Journal is self-published?"

This critique (that is cited in lots of places on the web and Wikipedia) is currently gone I suggest that links to it be changed everywhere. Oldspammer (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I did not meant to say AAPS was self-published; I meant that the website such as www.putchildrenfirst.org is self published and fails WP:MEDRS. JPandS is not a reliable journal by MEDRS standards, as it is not even listed in the main journal listing MEDLINE, and as the WP article shows, it espouses AIDS denialism and creationist "articles". IOW, not reliable.

2) The Chicago Tribune article is apparently from a blog (see the url) and public comments made on such blogs are not WP:RS either. 3) The current Thiomersal Controvery article, in my opinion, is well within the guidelines of WP:NPOV. It presents both sides of the arguments; however, the vast majority of the WP:MEDRS fall on the side of thiomersal not being a cause of autism, meaning we have to place the weight of the article this way as well. 4) Please read WP:MEDRS (again). The vast majority of the sources should be from secondary sources (I have spent a lot of time over the past month removing primary sources) and they must not be used to try to debunk the secondary sources, all of which show thiomersal does not cause autism. Yobol (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Input requested

For the people who have this watchlisted: I think I'm pretty much done with this article, save a few minor changes here and there. Any suggestions for improvement before I move on? (and spend another 3 years on another article...)Yobol (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Population Studies section of the article, the first paragraph states "...almost all of which have found an association between thiomersal-containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism."

The surrounding context indicates that this should read "...almost none of which..."

Any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulliverian (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, changed. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thiomersal controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial review finished, I also made several minor corrections to spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. Overall I think this is a nice article which could pass review with some more work. After a second opinion is given I will likely put this article on hold to allow time for improvement.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The wiki MoS guidelines for the lead suggest that only 2 or 3 paragraphs are needed for an article of this size. However, I do not see an easy way to reduce it to 3 paragraphs, so I'm fine with using 4.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All quotes and potentially controversial claims appear to be sourced, the sources appear reliable, and there is no original research that I could find. I randomly checked some of the easily-accessed sources to verify that the article did not misrepresent a claim. That sampling checked out, so I'm inclined to say we are good on sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I want a second opinion, at the very least on coverage and NPOV. (comments elsewhere are welcome too)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Waiting on 2nd opinion to verify NPOV and Coverage

Aaron north (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Everything looks good to me now. I'll wait until the second opinion to see if there's something I may have missed. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• In Population studies (under Scientific Evaluation) I'm not sure that we need the last paragraph. Every sentence in that last paragraph seems to restate information in the prior two paragraphs (In Europe,... and In North America,...).

First, thanks for the review! I think it would be useful to have a summary paragraph instead of making readers get bogged down in the numbers. If you think it's too duplicated, that paragraph can be removed entirely as the information is already in the above, as you mentioned. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if not enough coverage is given to the increased profile given to the autism link by the advocacy of celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. Not that their opinions should carry any credibility in the debate, but that they may have increased the number of people supporting the autism link. It might merit a few more sentences or a paragraph under "publicity of concern", anyway.

I agree that was a glaring omission, and added some info. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, I think the last paragraph may need to briefly mention the historical and expected lack of success for these autism court cases. Just saying that thousands of cases were filed may lead the reader to conclude that a lot (or specifically, more than one) of these cases will be successful.

Extra sentence added.Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do believe that we could have an appropriate use of the list style in "consequences", however looking at the MoS for lists, it looks like we need some sort of introductory paragraph generally stating that the belief in the autism link has led to some consequences before listing those consequences. (also see a related comment below under the optional suggestions) Alternatively, the list style could be abandoned in favor of prose, which is usually preferred over lists when possible. We would probably still need an introductory paragraph in that case.

The list format was a recent addition; changed it back to prose to better confirm with MoS. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if there is available polling data to confirm the increased belief among parents that autism is linked with thiomersal and/or vaccinations? There are plenty of sources in the article that refer to an increased acceptance of this theory so it probably isn't needed to satisfy coverage, but it might still be useful to include scientific polls and surveys in the US and other countries. If these polls and surveys exist, it could be used as an introduction to the list of consequences.

I don't think there's been any polling data about thiomersal (well, if it exists, I can't find it). Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, was just a thought. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would be nice to have another image at the top, but exactly what that image should be is not obvious to me. The only thing that comes to mind is perhaps a photograph of a vaccine protest? This could just be one of those public policy type of articles where images (aside from charts and graphs) are just not needed to be a good article.

I agree that another image would be preferable. I tried searching through the US government and PLoS sites for some free images, but couldn't find any that were particularly related to thiomersal itself (aside from generic images of syringes, etc). Not sure where to get free image of a vaccine protest...Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be fine for this review. With this subject, it would probably be difficult to imagine what kind of images would add value to the article. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion Wanted

I would like a second opinion from another reviewer. I do not yet have a lot of experience as a reviewer, and this is my first review of a significant controversial article. On this subject, I am also personally biased against the claim of a link between vaccines containing Thiomersal and Autism, but I believe I am able to be objective. However, I'd still like to verify that coverage and NPOV is fine. (comments regarding the rest of the GA criteria also welcome) Aaron north (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually involved in the field (it would be great to hear from someone who is!), but the article does appear NPOV on the surface. I'm not in a position to evaluate its factual accuracy, but the material is presented in a manner which appears evenhanded, and seems to reflect the general scientific consensus (as I understand it). --Xiaphias (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is good enough for me, thank you! Aaron north (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work invested in this article, however it seems a little slanted towards the position of those who discredit the dangers of mercury poisoning from vaccines. I believe more references should be given supporting the opposing viewpoint, given that the page is devoted to the "controversy" of Thiomersal. One such reference would include the video presentation of Dr. David Ayoub, M.D.; there are numerous others by credible professionals in the field, which I can supply links to if such updates are made. K0dpw (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No reputable scientific body on Earth believes that thiomersal causes "mercury poisoning" or autism. It would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT to give isolated vaccine opponents equal time as we give the entire mainstream worldwide medical community. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

FDA Accused of ‘Rigging’ Advisory Panel to Favor Amalgam

FDA Accused of ‘Rigging’ Advisory Panel to Favor Amalgam

http://iaomt.com/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=351(Zxoxm (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC))