4 ms·

>In spite of the scientific consensus that fears about its safety are unsubstantiated,[6][7][8][9] its use as a vaccine preservative has been called into questi

>In spite of the scientific consensus that fears about its safety are unsubstantiated,[6][7][8][9] its use as a vaccine preservative has been called into question by anti-vaccination groups. A statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service in 1999 prompted the removal of thimerosal from many vaccines[1][10] It remains in use as a preservative for annual flu vaccines.[11] >Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Later it was reported that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.[23] So the older vaccines were never dangerous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal Edit: Also, the reason (some) vaccine makers get immunity (from some claims against them) is because the products are priced in the 1-10USD range, but the liabilities were in the 1-10 Mil-USD. No one could get liability insurance, so suppliers were exiting the market. So now the federal government (who also license the whole process and approve the vaccines) accept liability for faults not caused by improper handling etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Solvency 3y ago
I won't even begin to humor a person attempting to argue that mercury of any kind crossing the blood Brain barrier is harmless.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  How rapidly we go from "factual" to "I know better than the scientists"???
  - shapenamer 3y ago
    Wow how rapidly you went from "read this" to "I'm not going to respond and just downvote everyone that disagrees with me" Edit: Oh ya another great part of this wiki page is when it states, "The United Nations Environment Program backed away from an earlier proposal of putting thiomersal on the list of banned vaccine compounds as part of its campaign to reduce mercury exposure.[18] It stated that eliminating it in multi-dose vaccines, primarily used in developing countries, would lead to high cost and a refrigeration requirement that developing countries could ill afford." So they were considering banning it to reduce mercury exposure, which we know is bad for us, but they didn't because.... drumroll please.... money. Shocking. The fears are completely unfounded though.
  - shapenamer 3y ago
    I read the wiki page you linked and I came out with more questions. If you read the toxicology section it says pretty plainly that it's extremely toxic, moves freely about the body, distributes to all body tissue, crosses the blood-brain barrier, stays in the brain for (probably) two weeks, and "The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown." It says that the link to autism has been debunked, that's fine, and yet it's use in vaccines has been mostly stopped in the US, and completely banned in Europe. I'm just even more convinced I don't want it in my body.
    - LatteLazy 3y ago
      Of course, everything is toxic in sufficient dose. So is 50 micrograms (a) toxic, (b) more toxic than the alternative and (c) more harmful than not being vaccinated. The answer to all three questions is no. There is no evidence it is at all toxic. We use it specifically because alternatives ARE known to be harmful and not being vaccinated is thousands of times more dangerous. All of this is well established by the science. But again you are "convinced" not by any science but because it sounds bad and someone once told you mercury is bad. I don't get this at all, why not just do the research and spend 10 minutes grappling with a little complexity? I am no chemist, but it's pretty straight forwards: it has been tested, it has been used for decades, it is safe. The minute there is evidence otherwise, I am all ears. But just noping out honestly baffles me...
      - shapenamer 3y ago
        if there's no evidence of it being harmful, why has it's use mostly been stopped? Why did the UNEP consider banning it, specifically to reduce mercury exposure? Why do they label it with a skull and crossbones? I don't really care if it's the least toxic of the possible alternatives, it's still toxic and shouldn't be ingested in any way. They imply, without directly stating, that because it's cleared from the human brain (they believe but don't know for sure, they tested on monkeys but not humans of course) faster than it's sibling compound, Methylmercury, that it's simply safe to ingest. However, it also states that ethylmercury breaks down into inorganic mercury, which is both toxic, and has a half-life of AT LEAST 120 days. So you end up with inorganic mercury in your brain and it may stay there for years. The wiki page literally states in plain English that health organizations have considered banning it, but it would just cost too much damn money. That's not science, that's something else. Edit: "...because it sounds bad and someone once told you mercury is bad." Mercury is bad for you and there's literally no question about it. Here's the first result from google: https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-sheets/mercury/?pdf=5989 https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-... You keep acting like I'm some kinda of science denier but I'm literally reading the wiki page YOU linked, and it says it's extremely toxic, in multiple ways. If anyone is sticking there head in the sand, it's you. Second edit: To address your confident statement of "NO" to your own questions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096006/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096006/ "Acute or chronic mercury exposure can cause adverse effects during any period of development. Mercury is a highly toxic element; there is no known safe level of exposure." You're so confident that "there's no evidence" it's bad for you, and you're just plain wrong. You accuse me of simply receiving my opinions/beliefs with no evidence and it's looking more and more that it's the other way around. Looking forward to more condescending yet horribly wrong and uninformed responses from you.
shapenamer 3y ago
This wiki article is super weaselly and just plain gross. The first paragraph states that "In spite of the scientific consensus that fears about its safety are unsubstantiated,[6][7][8][9]..." If you actually check those sources they're all about specifically autism. But the paragraph says nothing about autism and simply states that fears about it's safety are unsubstantiated. Later on it goes into detail about how toxic it is and that it's mechanism of toxicity is not known. Basically it's very toxic, it will damage your brain and your kidneys, but don't worry about it because it for sure doesn't cause autism. It later breaks down into inorganic mercury which is also toxic. It also says, "Later it was reported that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative." I'm not a doctor, but I think I'll shoot for 0 toxic mercury in my brain, regardless of it's rate of removal relative to other extremely toxic substances, thank you very much. I suspect if I told you that I have a substance that is significantly less lethal than cyanide, you still wouldn't take it. I sure wouldn't. It also kinda implies that multiple governments have banned it's use, mostly just to shut up those crazy anti-vaxxers, which is just ridiculous. Edit: Downvotes without replies are always so impressive.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Solvency 3y ago

I won't even begin to humor a person attempting to argue that mercury of any kind crossing the blood Brain barrier is harmless.

LatteLazy 3y ago
How rapidly we go from "factual" to "I know better than the scientists"???
- shapenamer 3y ago
  Wow how rapidly you went from "read this" to "I'm not going to respond and just downvote everyone that disagrees with me" Edit: Oh ya another great part of this wiki page is when it states, "The United Nations Environment Program backed away from an earlier proposal of putting thiomersal on the list of banned vaccine compounds as part of its campaign to reduce mercury exposure.[18] It stated that eliminating it in multi-dose vaccines, primarily used in developing countries, would lead to high cost and a refrigeration requirement that developing countries could ill afford." So they were considering banning it to reduce mercury exposure, which we know is bad for us, but they didn't because.... drumroll please.... money. Shocking. The fears are completely unfounded though.
- shapenamer 3y ago
  I read the wiki page you linked and I came out with more questions. If you read the toxicology section it says pretty plainly that it's extremely toxic, moves freely about the body, distributes to all body tissue, crosses the blood-brain barrier, stays in the brain for (probably) two weeks, and "The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown." It says that the link to autism has been debunked, that's fine, and yet it's use in vaccines has been mostly stopped in the US, and completely banned in Europe. I'm just even more convinced I don't want it in my body.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    Of course, everything is toxic in sufficient dose. So is 50 micrograms (a) toxic, (b) more toxic than the alternative and (c) more harmful than not being vaccinated. The answer to all three questions is no. There is no evidence it is at all toxic. We use it specifically because alternatives ARE known to be harmful and not being vaccinated is thousands of times more dangerous. All of this is well established by the science. But again you are "convinced" not by any science but because it sounds bad and someone once told you mercury is bad. I don't get this at all, why not just do the research and spend 10 minutes grappling with a little complexity? I am no chemist, but it's pretty straight forwards: it has been tested, it has been used for decades, it is safe. The minute there is evidence otherwise, I am all ears. But just noping out honestly baffles me...
    - shapenamer 3y ago
      if there's no evidence of it being harmful, why has it's use mostly been stopped? Why did the UNEP consider banning it, specifically to reduce mercury exposure? Why do they label it with a skull and crossbones? I don't really care if it's the least toxic of the possible alternatives, it's still toxic and shouldn't be ingested in any way. They imply, without directly stating, that because it's cleared from the human brain (they believe but don't know for sure, they tested on monkeys but not humans of course) faster than it's sibling compound, Methylmercury, that it's simply safe to ingest. However, it also states that ethylmercury breaks down into inorganic mercury, which is both toxic, and has a half-life of AT LEAST 120 days. So you end up with inorganic mercury in your brain and it may stay there for years. The wiki page literally states in plain English that health organizations have considered banning it, but it would just cost too much damn money. That's not science, that's something else. Edit: "...because it sounds bad and someone once told you mercury is bad." Mercury is bad for you and there's literally no question about it. Here's the first result from google: https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-sheets/mercury/?pdf=5989 https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-... You keep acting like I'm some kinda of science denier but I'm literally reading the wiki page YOU linked, and it says it's extremely toxic, in multiple ways. If anyone is sticking there head in the sand, it's you. Second edit: To address your confident statement of "NO" to your own questions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096006/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096006/ "Acute or chronic mercury exposure can cause adverse effects during any period of development. Mercury is a highly toxic element; there is no known safe level of exposure." You're so confident that "there's no evidence" it's bad for you, and you're just plain wrong. You accuse me of simply receiving my opinions/beliefs with no evidence and it's looking more and more that it's the other way around. Looking forward to more condescending yet horribly wrong and uninformed responses from you.

shapenamer 3y ago

This wiki article is super weaselly and just plain gross. The first paragraph states that "In spite of the scientific consensus that fears about its safety are unsubstantiated,[6][7][8][9]..." If you actually check those sources they're all about specifically autism. But the paragraph says nothing about autism and simply states that fears about it's safety are unsubstantiated. Later on it goes into detail about how toxic it is and that it's mechanism of toxicity is not known. Basically it's very toxic, it will damage your brain and your kidneys, but don't worry about it because it for sure doesn't cause autism. It later breaks down into inorganic mercury which is also toxic. It also says, "Later it was reported that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative." I'm not a doctor, but I think I'll shoot for 0 toxic mercury in my brain, regardless of it's rate of removal relative to other extremely toxic substances, thank you very much. I suspect if I told you that I have a substance that is significantly less lethal than cyanide, you still wouldn't take it. I sure wouldn't. It also kinda implies that multiple governments have banned it's use, mostly just to shut up those crazy anti-vaxxers, which is just ridiculous. Edit: Downvotes without replies are always so impressive.