3 ms·

They could just as easily say, "Data reviewed did not demonstrate convincing evidence of safety from doses of thimerosal used in vaccines." Placebo-controlled,

They could just as easily say, "Data reviewed did not demonstrate convincing evidence of safety from doses of thimerosal used in vaccines." Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety. If these trials had been done, and health authorities were convinced it was safe, they would allow thimerosal in vaccines because it is a huge cost saver. But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not worth the risk. As an environmental engineer I've witnessed this tactic over and over. Authorities claim there is no evidence of danger, but remove the toxin anyways, because they know it's danger is plausible, and the funding and time isn't there to prove it one way or the other. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's not like they are going to say, "we think we may have poisoned people, so we're removing this toxin." That's a great way to destroy your livelihood, reputation, and invite prosecution.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety. The safety of thimerosal is entirely possible to evaluate. It was in a bunch of childhood vaccines; it now is not. Has there been any demonstrable difference? > But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not worth the risk. Not necessarily. Could just not be worth the fight with the anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit about it. See also: Subway ditching azodicarbonamide because some blogger started a scaremongering movement around it.
- wavepruner 7y ago
  "The safety of thimerosal is entirely possible to evaluate. It was in a bunch of childhood vaccines; it now is not. Has there been any demonstrable difference?" If you don't believe that proper clinical trials are important to evaluate safety then there's not much more I can say. Epidemiological studies are rife with problems and the data can be manipulated to claim almost anything you want. "Not necessarily. Could just not be worth the fight with the anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit about it. See also: Subway ditching azodicarbonamide because some blogger started a scaremongering movement around it." Good point, but mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to man, does not break down, and is scientifically proven to bio-accumulate in mammalian tissues and never leave. It was also injected directly into the body, bypassing all the normal biological defenses a compound must go through before entering tissues. Furthermore, people can chose to not eat Subway without consequence. If vaccines had thimerosal in them again, it would be unavoidable without major life changes and being forcibly removed from large swaths of civil society. A consequence so severe necessitates a more proof than just saying you think mercury is safe in small doses with zero supporting concrete evidence. Thimerosal was removed around 2001, well before the anti-vaxxer movement had enough influence to matter. Your feelings and weak suppositions about thimerosal in vaccines are not science, and rather just indicate that you want to believe what you want to believe without presenting any concrete evidence.

ceejayoz 7y ago

> Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety. The safety of thimerosal is entirely possible to evaluate. It was in a bunch of childhood vaccines; it now is not. Has there been any demonstrable difference? > But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not worth the risk. Not necessarily. Could just not be worth the fight with the anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit about it. See also: Subway ditching azodicarbonamide because some blogger started a scaremongering movement around it.

wavepruner 7y ago
"The safety of thimerosal is entirely possible to evaluate. It was in a bunch of childhood vaccines; it now is not. Has there been any demonstrable difference?" If you don't believe that proper clinical trials are important to evaluate safety then there's not much more I can say. Epidemiological studies are rife with problems and the data can be manipulated to claim almost anything you want. "Not necessarily. Could just not be worth the fight with the anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit about it. See also: Subway ditching azodicarbonamide because some blogger started a scaremongering movement around it." Good point, but mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to man, does not break down, and is scientifically proven to bio-accumulate in mammalian tissues and never leave. It was also injected directly into the body, bypassing all the normal biological defenses a compound must go through before entering tissues. Furthermore, people can chose to not eat Subway without consequence. If vaccines had thimerosal in them again, it would be unavoidable without major life changes and being forcibly removed from large swaths of civil society. A consequence so severe necessitates a more proof than just saying you think mercury is safe in small doses with zero supporting concrete evidence. Thimerosal was removed around 2001, well before the anti-vaxxer movement had enough influence to matter. Your feelings and weak suppositions about thimerosal in vaccines are not science, and rather just indicate that you want to believe what you want to believe without presenting any concrete evidence.