Talk:Thiomersal/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive page covers the dates between 4/24/2005 to 8/12/2005.

Contents 1 Birth Defects? 2 Quackwatch 3 Censorship 4 point by point then 5 Dispute resolution 5.1 Disputed Burbacher links 6 Bolus exposure 7 Totally disputed tag 8 due to concerns about potential neurotoxic properties of the mercury based compound 9 conflict of interest 10 History / original diagnosis of Autism 11 Leifern's deletion 12 RFC 13 After reading this whole thing... 14 totally shmotally 15 Opinion, might help a bit 16 Thimerosal is EXTREMELY Toxic 17 Lack of role of thimerosal in any immunological purpose 18 An appeal 19 An interesting edit summery 20 Another suggestion 21 my edits today 22 Alternatives to Thimerosal

Birth Defects?

A non-controvesial error: The article states, "The controversy over thimerosal deals with its possible connection in causing birth defects, notably autism, in children who have been injected with vaccines..." By definition of "birth defect", you can't cause a birth defect in someone who is already born, by injection with a vaccine or any other means.

I would just correct the article myself, but I don't know what to replace "birth defects" with. What, in general, is thimerosal alleged to cause? Is there anything besides autism? All I know is: It can't cause birth defects.

Quackwatch

The problem with Quackwatch isn't just that it's a tendentious "journal" (i.e., a blog) written by someone who seems to be against something he didn't personally learn in medical school; it's also that it opens for others to make references to the even larger number of similar journals written by people with other agendas. This is someone who is on a rampage against accupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, nutritional therapy, etc. His entire argument against all of these therapies is that he personally is not convinced they work. It's fine that he wants to uncover cases of quackery, but his point of view clearly is that anything is quackery unless he personally is persuaded otherwise. There are lots of articles written trying to prove that it hasn't been proven that thimerosal contributes to autism; this one doesn't add to it. --Leifern 22:52, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

let begin with debunking a claim you made in your revert[1]. Now to continue you claim that he is against anything he didn't learn in medical school. Can you please show that he is against the majorit of anti-retrovials used against HIV? You next claim is that his arguments consist of him saying he doesn't think they work. If this is the case could you please explain why there appears to be a list of references at the base of the article?Geni 23:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I overstated the case by saying he's against anything he didn't learn in medical school, but it seems pretty obvious that he's against anything that isn't taught in medical schools. Here's a typical quote: "Osteopathic physicians (DOs) are the legal equivalents and, in most cases, are the professional equivalents of medical doctors. Although most DOs offer competent care, the percentage involved in dubious practices appears to be higher than that of medical doctors. For this reason, before deciding whether to use the services of a DO it is useful to understand osteopathy's history and the practical significance of its philosophy.".. and from there he moves on to discuss osteopathy's "cultist roots." His articles about chiropractic include an account of his own visit to a chiropractic's office, and then he discusses the recommendations of that chiropractor with a chiropractor he "trusts." And so it goes. Page after page after page. --Leifern 23:06, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

err yes. And?Geni 23:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a ridiculously biased source. And ironically, it inadvertenly encourages adoption of alternative medicine, because the wholesale rejection of anything unproven as quackery leaves the public more dumbfounded than before. But by all means, include it. It will only discredit your point of view. --Leifern 23:49, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Censorship

Secondary sources, such as newspapers, press releases, etc., are perfectly legitimate sources in Wikipedia. If you are going to excise such references here, you should make it your life's mission to do so in every article in Wikipedia. In this case they supplement the primary sources. Deleting them to promote your point of view violates policy and falls into the general pattern Geni has of dismissing anything he disagrees with (The US House of Representatives, other doctors, etc.) as unqualified to have an opinion worth mentioning. --Leifern 21:49, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

I replaced them with a link to the study. You will note that I left the veiw of Autism advocacy groups in the article. What exactly did I censor?Geni 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You deleted several sentences and links that - coincidentally! - outlined facts and arguments that you don't agree with? I am baffled by this - I have never come across anyone so anxious to conceal something. --Leifern 23:29, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

That would be the quote from the abstract. Can you give a reason why that quote should be taken an not any other part of the abstract?

point by point then

“It's use has generally not be found to be necessary in single dose containers.”

This is why that flu vaccine still contains thimerosal

Removal of links not directly to the study. What is the point of these links? surely the study is by far the best source to link to since all the other links will simply be citing it?

Changed processed faster to significant differences. There were other differences between how the two compounds were processed

Removal of quote from abstract. That is not an effective summery of the study

Ripping out Americano centric comments goes without saying

Geni, it is entirely appropriate to include press releases, etc., to provide a fuller sense of the public reactions, etc. Not only that, but you are also deleting content that is relevant to the findings. If you persist in doing this, we'll need to take it to arbitration. You should feel free to edit for clarity and accuracy, but this habit of you have of deleting information that doesn't suit your opinion is getting intolerabe. --Leifern 18:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

but that is not the context they are in. They are in the context of provideing the source for information.Geni 19:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have entered this article on the page for active disputes. Aside from being annoyed about Geni's habit of deleting information that contradicts his/her opinion, I am baffled by it - who would want to censor information that is a) already in the public domain; and b) valuable for patients in order to make informed consent? If this were a medical doctor playing these kinds of games, he/she would lose his/her medical license. --Leifern 18:52, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I linked to the orginal study (all 36 pages of it). Information doesn't come much more complete than that.Geni 19:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I linked to the original study, too. But readers have the right to consult interpretation, commentary, etc. There is no good reason for deleting these references, though there are plenty of bad reasons for doing so. Would you mind explaining why you are such a big fan of thimerosal? --Leifern 21:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

false dilema logical fallacy.Geni 21:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No. Your arguments are as sloppy as your spelling. A false dilemma is asserting that either A or B must be true when both can be false. Asking you why are such a big fan of thimerosal is, technically speaking, a circumstantial ad hominem. But it isn't even a fallacy, except I'm asking a negatively pregnant question. I can think of no reason to understand why you are trying so hard to whitewash a chemical compound, except that you have some unnatural love for it, and that's my way of getting the point across. It wouldn't be allowed in a court room, but it rather makes the point now. --Leifern 22:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Could both of you lighten up on the reverts? Edit if you will, but flat out reversion just leaves us stuck in the same rut. Personal attacks aren't helpful either. If you want to get them out of your respective systems, here you go:

Geni: Why do you have an unnatural love of thimerosal, and why do you want to hurt children with it?

Leifern: Why do you have an unnatural hatred of thimerosal, and why do you want to hurt children with contaminated vaccines by not using it?

Can we accept that none of the editors here wants to poison children, whitewash the pharmaceutical industry, protect unethical scientists or shyster lawyers? Assume good faith, please! Remember that a difference of opinion does not constitute malicious intent. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ehmm, actually, I never advocated risking using contaminated vaccines; the implication of "hating" thimerosal would be to only use single-dose vaccines. --Leifern 00:42, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would just like the two of you to stop reverting the article and stop taking shots at each other, okay? If you would prefer, I can come up with a different obnoxious loaded question for you, but I don't think it would be productive. I'm sure Geni thinks I'm misrepresenting his position, too; that's the point. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Burbacher links

These are the disputed links.

1. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/7712/abstract.html This is the abstract of the Burbacher paper, and has a link to the PDF of the full paper.
2. http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/2005-04-21-Burbacher-Vaccine-Mercury-Trapped-Brain-Graph.pdf This is a PDF of two graphs from the Burbacher study, as annotated by Safe Minds.
3. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/press/042105.html This is a report in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives on the Burbacher paper. It summarizes the results and conclusions.
4. http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_2677939 This is a report by a staff writer at a newspaper. It provides a similar summary as the previous link, but with added speculation and a 'scarier' subhead ("New report suggests that mercury-laced preservative may be more toxic than once thought").
5. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=46182 This is a copy of the press release issued by Safe Minds on the Burbacher study.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that if we're going to mention the Burbacher study, the first link (or an equivalent) is non-negotiable; it's the primary source and most accurate representation of what Burbacher said, because it is what Burbacher said.

I would also suggest that the second link is redundant—it's already in the Burbacher paper—and it is misleading—because it's two figures taken out of context without even their captions.

Links 3,4, and 5 are all summaries meant for popular consumption, and largely redundant with one another. I think we could be equally informative while still including only one of them. My personal preference is for 3, as it is the least speculative and written in what I perceive as the most neutral tone. I am uncomfortable with 5, as it is a press release from an organization with a clearly stated agenda on the issue. (Not that I object to Safe Minds receiving a mention in this article as a whole.) Moreover, it omits information that exists in the other two links.

What do people think? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I think: we shouldn't have more links than necessary, but it's better to have too many than too few references. Also, I think that it is not just acceptable but commendable to include public reactions to a released study, especially as it pertains to a controversy. In this case, Geni tried to delete comments made by Burbacher himself, and perfectly valid interpretations of the study's findings. Thanks for your efforts. --Leifern 00:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Safe Minds press release is already cited (from a different site) later in the article. I'm going to at least clip one of the references as redundant. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

What is Safe Minds? I have looked at its website and found no names of anyone involved - only a PR company that's handling their press. Is this a front for attorneys? I have seen this organization sprayed through Wikipedia in recent weeks by Ombudsman and Leifern, who seem to be running a campaign to insert anti-vaccine opinions and attacks on doctors and scientists. I've also seen research wilfully distorted, with references to accurate material deleted. My own view is that this issue has reached a point - here, in autism epidemic refrigerator mother Bernard Rimland vaccine controversy and so forth - where any claim that is not sourced with a reference within the sentence should simply be deleted. 86.129.108.230

How about deleting all anonymous entries and edits? Disputing the veracity of a source because you have (unfounded) suspicions about the people amounts to an ad hominem attack. BTW, I can't recall having ever launched anything approaching an "attack" on doctors and scientists. --Leifern 18:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

86.129.108.230, how would you take a suggestion to slow down a bit, to do some research before making repeated editing errors? Please, dig a little deeper to understand what Sallie Bernard, Lyn Redwood and Coalition for Safe Minds have been up against trying to convey some common sense to the medical community, for starters, or try finding a copy of Evidence of Harm, by David Kirby. Before being so harsh in your belated 'explanation' for your edits next time, take a look at this: [link removed] by Richard Smith, CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and former editor of the BMJ. Ombudsman 21:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

you know I love the smell of propaganda in the morning.Geni 22:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I would suggest that you visit one of the many parents' groups that sincerely believe that their children were poisoned by vaccinations; get up on the stage and tell them that what they believe is nothing but propaganda, and the people whose professional help they seek are quacks. If you do, you will find that these parents are smarter, better informed, and more thoughtful than you give them credit for. Until then, I suggest you approach this subject with a bit - no, a lot - more humility. --Leifern 18:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Could be tricky. The main fuss around here was NMR and we finaly appear to be winning that one. Personaly I fail to see what pointless gradstanding has to do with catogerising how information is presented.Geni 23:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Winning? You think this is a matter of winning or losing? And who is "we" in this case? --Leifern 00:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

In the case on NMR yup. There is no rational case to be made that there is a link to autism so it is a simple battle of emotion vs logic. As for who "we" are well Leifern you seem to be at least vaguley familia with the antivac lit so surely by now you know we are the evil stoges in the pay of big phama/the goverment/the evil scientific establishment.Geni 00:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey! You two are taking personal shots at each other again. Can you decide what specific point you're arguing about, and get back to that? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Bolus exposure

Reference to the significance of bolus concerns among some health care professionals is described below in the rapid response section of the BMJ:

"The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends a maximum daily exposure level for mercury of 0.1ug/kg. Every dose of DTP or DT contains 25ug of mercury ?so one needs to weigh 250kg (about 39 stones) to achieve minimum safety status for that amount of mercury. The 4 and 10 years old children are unlikely to weigh more than about 40 to 60kg so according to the EPA, they would be at a risk of receiving some 4 to 6 times (400 to 600%) the maximum acceptable recommended levels of mercury - directly into their bloodstreams - cited by the US EPA."[2]

True, but that's in the rapid response (e-letters) section of BMJ; it's not peer reviewed. Further, it's a rather selective interpretation of the EPA's recommendations. It's worth noting that the EPA guidelines cited (available in full here) are calculated based on consistent, daily exposure to those levels of mercury—to aggregate dose much higher than that seen in the vaccines. Mercury exposures were calculated based on mercury levels in hair samples of those studied, yielding doses that were averaged over weeks or months. Those recommendations also include a fudge factor of one order of magnitude; the actual dose believed to be the lower threshold for harm is about 1 ug/kg/d, each and every day.

The guideline itself isn't based on a daily exposure per se, but rather an average exposure over the growth period of the hair clipping. An individual who eats one badly contaminated fish every couple of weeks (a bolus dose, in other words) would show the same apparent mercury exposure as an individual one contaminated chunk of sushi every day at lunch.

I'm not saying that bolus exposure versus continuous exposure isn't a valid toxicological concern, however the data the EPA makes their recommendation from would just as readily support a limit of 0.7 ug/kg/week. The EPA threshold values are misused as a red herring in this case. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record vaccines tend to be injected intramuscularly not into the blood stream.Geni 01:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to point out that the mercury in Thimerosal is ethymercury, which studies have indicated is safer than methylmercury (which is what the data is based on), and neither one is elemental mercury. So just calling them all "mercury" is misleading at best.

Totally disputed tag

Geni would apparently not prefer that the controversy about thimerosal be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. It falls into a pattern that is becoming all too familiar: he disputes everything he finds disagreeable as being false or biased; deletes whole sections if he disagrees with one word in it; asks for citations; disputes that the references provided are legitimate; deletes references if he feels there are too many; and then starts revert wars. On the thimerosal issue, I've repeatedly asked that if he's so confident that thimerosal is harmless that he wants to withhold information about the controversy, he should voluntarily inject himself with equivalent doses to what babies have gotten to prove his point. --Leifern 12:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

You know your not the first person who has tried that arguemnt. There was even a guy who put up a formal challange a while back. When a couple of people acceptted he suddenly went very quite. I can't of course keep track of all the rubish running around anti vac circles (I like to sleep from time to time) but I seem to recall the current set of arguments involve this claim that certain children have aq factor that makes then unualsy valnerable to thimerosal. No evidence of course but that seems to be quite a popular claim right now. In the light of this claim your challage is slightly irelivant (it's irrelvant anyway for other reasons but we can deal with them latter). Of course the answer is that I would be quite willing.Geni 13:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is ample evidence, of course, that thimerosal is very dangerous unless you are already convinced that only one view is true. I call such closed-mindedness deliberate ignorance. In any event if we assume that each injection of thimerosal is 62.5 mcg mercury within ethylmercury, and that the average child is 10 lbs (though he/she may be much less) and that you weight 150 lbs (also conservative), you should inject yourself with 937.5 mcg three times in the course of six months. We'll set aside the fact that infants have an underdeveloped immune and nervous system. --Leifern 13:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

you've overestimated my weight but no matter. Where do you suggest I get this stuff anyway it's not just the sort of thing that you walk into a shop and by. You have also failed to explain what exactly you hope to atchive if I take up this challange. Geni

The point is: It's easy for closed-minded, self-proclaimed scientists to declare that a known neurotoxin isn't dangerous; or for medical doctors to hide behind recommendations made by organizations; it's another thing when you're a parent with responsibility for your child's health. Doctors have not obtained informed consent from parents for vaccinations, and they have a right to be aware of the controversy. If you think parents should mindlessly subject their children to a hazard that is at best unknown, you - and all the docs - should take the same risk yourselves. Do you know, btw, how many doctors refuse to get flu vaccines? --Leifern 14:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

since when was thimerosal a known neurotoxin? None of the chemicaly safetly sheets I have seen have listed it as such (and they tend to pretty complete you should see the list for ethanol). Meanwhile may I suggest you read What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.Geni 16:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my scientific opinion is that thimerosal is likely a neurotoxin, and probably carries many of the same effects as methylmercury. If I had a bottle of pure thimerosal on my shelf, I definitely wouldn't drink it.

On the other hand, there is an old saying in toxicology—"the dose makes the poison." There are any number of compounds I could list that are harmless (or even beneficial) in low doses or at low concentrations but which are chronically or acutely harmful with higher exposures. I gargle with an alcohol-based mouthwash and fear no ill effecs; the situation would obviously be quite different if I drank the whole bottle every day.

From the studies I've seen here and elsewhere, there is an absence of conclusive evidence that thimerosal is neurotoxic at the concentrations used in vaccines. Some people have speculated that it might be, and there have been some hotly contested studies that draw that conclusion.

Most physicians have an honest, good-faith belief that the vaccinations they deliver do more good than harm. I expect that they would take great exception to the insulting suggestion that they are "hiding" behind the recommendations of the AMA, CDC, etc.; the vast majority of physicians take their Hippocratic oath very seriously. It's also worth noting that the sets "parents" and "doctors" or "scientists" are not mutually exclusive. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I suggest that you try really hard to distinguish between a talk page and the article itself. I am simply asking that the controversy be fully articulated (and referenced) in the article. You are asking that no mention be made of the controversy, because you (foolishly) believe you know the full truth - there shouldn't be a controversy and those who are stirring the pot are either morally or intellectually deficient, at least compared to you and the guy who writes quackwatch.

please don't create strawmen.Geni 01:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that medical doctors take their hippocratic oath seriously, and many if not most are also parents. Many of my friends, clients, and colleagues are medical doctors, and they are all conscientious people dedicated to their calling. But they're not infallible, and some of their practices will inevitably turn out to be wrong. That's not a poor reflection on their dedication, capability, or anything else they can help. It's a reflection on the state of the art. In the case of thimerosal, it's blindingly apparent that it's been used with little or no understanding of its effects, and now serious questions are being raised. Keep in mind that MDs by necessity rely on recommendations, findings, and guidelines developed by research organizations, institutions of public health, etc. Also keep in mind that MDs are not, by virtue of their education and training, scientists. --Leifern 18:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

serious questions? what would they be? Mostly I see rants. But perhaps the questions are lost in there somewhere.Geni 01:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

due to concerns about potential neurotoxic properties of the mercury based compound

Prove it. There are other posible reasons (lawers looking to bring lawsuits that kind of thing).Geni 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

conflict of interest

It is trivial to show that this conflict exists. Whether or not it effects their integrity is a different matter. It is however a fact that there is a conflict of interest (unless you are going to deny US court documents)Geni 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History / original diagnosis of Autism

Hey, don't want to jump into a hornets nest here but this was on the main page:

This statement is incorrect since the first mentions of autism appearing in medical circles in 1911[3].

While it is technically correct, the word autism was coined in 1911 or 1912 by Eugen Bleuler, but it referred to a different disorder, Bleuler was referring to a form of schizophrenia (also his word :), not the developmental disorder we commonly refer to as Autism today. Autism was first used in the developmental disorder sense in 1938-1943 by Kanner.

Of course this doesn't imply that there is or isn't a link between the introduction of thimerosal and developmental Autism, it's just simple etymology --Fxer 07:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

you will note that I changed it in the version you just objected to. "This is untrue since the first medical descriptions of what we would now call autism date back to 18th century.[4]" My source backs this statement up. I supose if we wanted to do a really througher job we should dig through the old chinese records but I can't read chinese. Our own article List of persons with autism spectrum disorders goes back to the 18th century. would like any more evidence or are you satified with my current version?Geni 20:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leifern's deletion

The stament is a solid fact. Kennedy is wrong. If you don't like this being pointed out Wikinfo is thata way.Geni 11:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I've already discovered that you have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between "fact" and "Geni's opinion." Taking your statement at face value, let me point out that a) we frequently cite what people write without evaluating whether everything in it is accurate or not by way of editorial comment; b) Kennedy's sentence is in fact literally true even given your objections - he doesn't write that the condition didn't exist; he simply writes that it was "unknown." This could be said about any number of diseases that were "discovered" later. --Leifern 11:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

then you will have no objection to the current version. And the illness was not unknown Hugh Blair of Borgue was divorced due to it so the authorities at the time clearly thought something was wrong they just didn't call it autism.Geni 11:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afriad you reading of the sentance doesn help you since the name has been around in medical circles since 1911. Either way the stemnt is fase it just gives you two posible ways to prove it.Geni 11:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the diagnoses wasn't put into place before the date mentioned. Again, you have to differentiate between your interpretation of the statement and what it actually says. I know this is a very difficult mental task for you, but try. Also, Kennedy has never claimed to have scientific or medical credentials, so your comment simply is prejudicial. --Leifern 11:59, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

err yes it was. Just as rather a more general term "It is believed to have been first introduced around 1911 by noted Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, who used the term to describe an individual's exclusion of the outside world and virtual withdrawal from social life." he describeing people so he is clear dianoseing it just as part of a wider set of symptoms. Incerdenty read Wikipedia:Vandalism.Geni 12:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your edits on this topic are entirely intended not to give the reader a complete overview of the controversy, but to discredit any opinion that differs from yours. You're an admin, so you should know better. In my opinion, which I'm entitled to, you vandalize these articles and deliberately attempt to deprive the public of things they should be aware of. That's vandalism, or possibly there should be a more derogatory term for it. --Leifern 12:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think the term you are looking for is POV pushing you might want to read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Of course I understand the idea that you case isn't all you think it is seems POV to you but most users learn in time (well ok irismaster didn't but that was a long time ago). Now I tend to feel there are a lot of things the public should be aware of. I don't think wikipedia is the place to do it since wikipedia is not a soapbox (sadly the various anon editors on george W bush don't seem to understand this but thats life.Geni 12:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC

This page is now listed on RFC.Geni 16:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'evening. I would like to respond to this RfC. But first I want to hear from both sides in this debate - what do you feel the problem is, and what is the solution? PS Can I also ask you to keep your summaries brief? It's not just me being lazy - it makes sure your points are made clearly. Dan100 (Talk) 20:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

the dispute on this page is related to the use of thimerosal in vaccines and claimed linked with autism. I feel that the problem is the Ombudsman and Leifern are using this article and a number of others articles as a soapbox to push their to push their POV (technicaly User:Leifern has admited to this [[5]]). If I knew what the solution was I would not have listed this on RFC.Geni 00:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have never deleted an argument or reference made by Geni; I am simply demanding that all arguments and counterarguments be presented fairly and objectively. Geni's practice is to delete sentences and sections he disagrees with rather than adding sentences that would illuminate his point of view. He has entered editorial comments next to sections, described allegations as "untrue" where they've been cited, and even reverted entire edits because he disagreed with one word. I'll confess to getting angry about it.

It probably illustrates the point rather well that Geni accuses me of technically admitting to using WP as a soapbox to push my own point of view. Anyone who bothers to read my user page will see that I make the exact opposite case there. His accusation is nothing short of willfull distortion that would give him a failing grade at any respectable university. --Leifern 00:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

ok then you want the dirrect quote. One of your aspirations on wikipedia was "Writing a coherent article about the downside of vaccination" that looks like using wikipedia as a soapbox to me.Geni 00:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there any credible medical authority that would dispute there is a downside to vaccination (or for that matter any medical procedure?). As a matter of fact, I wrote the first draft of Vaccine controversy, that is prefaced by the widely accepted benefits of vaccination, and I structured the article in a way that allowed for arguments on both sides of the issue. --Leifern 09:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

After reading this whole thing...

Leifern you just come across as paranoid. From the start you throw around accusations that Geni is some how connected to drug companies. You have done nothing but attack him. It is interesting to see the process involved in making entries, but I have to say it just completely turns me off this entire site now.

Geni has been very calm and not taken part in the mud throwing. While I do not agree with him on everything, at least he has gone about this with integrity. While all the time attacking Geni for his alleged bias, Leifern seems intent to have her/his bias built in to this post. Leifern has thrown around all sorts of insults, and it seems to this reader at least that every criticism she throws, she commits herself.

Please this is a very important subject to get correct. Please look at the greater good. You have RESPOSIBILITY. Like the people who caused a rise is occurrences of Mumps and Measles across the World, lets not add to the dangers to Children’s health. Please everybody here, rather than letting unsubstantiated claims be allowed, let people like Leifern show is all how the Japan, UK, Denmark studies are incorrect. They should not be allowed to get away with "they are all corrupt and therefore we cannot trust scientific journals that are in bed with big pharma". Geni is correct, scientific review and methodologies are to be trusted. Just because we have people who do not understand or trust their methods being vocal does not mean that contributing to the self justifying parents syndrome we see around autism.

You have got to be kidding. Leifern has gone out of his/her way to strike a compromise in wording and presentation, answering each of Geni's challenges for citation and exactitude. While Geni has demonstrated great difficulty spelling and deletes completely neutral statements for no good reason. (The series of reasons offered seem distinctly after-the-fact to me.)

A) Please sign your entries. B) I don't know how to respond to the ad hominem attacks, except to ask the editor to more carefully read my edits. Neither Geni nor you actually know my opinion on whether thimerosal contributes to autism or not, and you may be surprised to know that I'm not sure. I just think that the public needs to know the scope of the controversy. I think this article should include a full exposition of both sides of the issue, organized and articulated in a way that people can make their own judgment about the veracity of one assertion or the other. "Geni is correct, scientific review and methodologies are to be trusted. Just because we have people who do not understand or trust their methods being vocal does not mean that contributing to the self justifying parents syndrome we see around autism." For example: "scientific review and methodologies are to be trusted" is a fallacy, appeal to authority. "Just because we have people who do not understand or trust their methods" is a an ad hominem and strawman. "Self justifying parents syndrome" is both offensive and a strawman. I should point out that I've actually consulted to pharmaceutical companies on outcomes research programs - I'm neither a foe of the pharmaceutical industry nor ignorant about the strengths and limitations of clinical trials and the scientific method. --Leifern 00:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

"public needs to know the scope of the controversy" err that sould like the soapbox thing again.Geni 00:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I think that an encyclopedia should be a source of complete information, even about controversial subjects, then yes, then I am guilty as charged. Can I infer that you think the public should be kept in the dark about controversial subjects, that only people who describe themselves as geniuses should have access to information? --Leifern 01:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how you get that as my position.Geni 01:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You characterize "knowing the scope of the controversy" as a soapbox. --Leifern 09:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

totally shmotally

Is anybody really disputing the chemical formula, for instance? If not, then it's not totally disputed, just the toxicity. Gzuckier 01:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

however the nutrality and factual accracy is dissputed.Geni 11:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opinion, might help a bit

A large problem wih this article is the large dedication to the Vaccine controversy. Not the actual chemical. If I look at an article concerning Thimerosal. I expect to read a hell of alot of technical information and a very small bit about the controversey with a link to further discussion about the controversy at the bottom. So, In short, I think the article could use more TECHNICAL information and rewrite or move the controverse to vaccine controversy or its own link like. "Thimerosal Vaccine Controversy" Since thimerosal isn't the only controversy people have with vaccines. In which case, your expected to see biased points of views. Thusly Leifern can explain his information. Geni can explain his point of view (under advocates and sceptics). And all will be right with the world! yay! Jaynus _Izanagi 02:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• What you suggest might be the case for any ordinary chemical compound. A known neurotoxin, deliberately injected literally billions of times, in amounts far exceeding established safety limits, for a period encompassing most of the last century, falls into an entirely unique category. Nice try, and thanks for the feedback. Ombudsman 03:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Easy on the hyperbole, there. Jaynus was offering a reasonable opinion, and it's not polite to jump all over him. For another, if claims are to be made with respect to thimerosal, it is important that we be precise.

• Thimerosal is a neurotoxin under conditions of chronic exposure or at high levels. While it is valid to state that toxicity studies on thimerosal and its breakdown products are lacking, neurotoxic effects of thimerosal at levels present in vaccines have not been proven. (I suppose that's a big part of why there's such a debate on this page....) comment amended by addition of italic text. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• That thimerosal is injected in quantities exceeding established safety limits involves a great deal of interpretation. (See my notes above at Talk:Thimerosal#Bolus_exposure regarding the way the exposure limits for mercury were calculated.) There is also the argument that since vaccines use thimerosal in quantities permitted and regulated by the FDA, the amounts do not exceed "safety limits" (obviously, this is a tad disingenuous).
• Thimerosal is neither mercury nor methylmercury, and statements about its safety based on those other two chemical species are misleading. That methylmercury standards have been used to derive limits for thimerosal use is troubling, but does not in itself directly lead to the conclusion that thimerosal is dangerous. To take an example, barium is a quite deadly heavy metal, but radiologists regularly administer barium sulphate as contrast agent for x-rays. This goes back to the first point I listed; drawing conclusions (positive or negative) about thimerosal based on even related compounds is a dangerous game.

Jaynus makes an important point, too. The controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine, thimerosal, and autism–and the articles Mark Geier, Bernard Rimland, Andrew Wakefield, autism epidemic and many more I'm forgetting–should not be reiterated on each and every related page. Watching the pitched battles, bad faith accusations, revert and edit wars, and all manner of unseemly behaviour is very draining; I've actually taken a break from the whole issue just because I couldn't take all the childish behaviour and holier-than-thou smugness. The arguments should be in one place, in all their glory. That place might be this article.

Editing for NPOV, factual detail, style, and so forth can be concentrated in one place without needless repetition. Other articles can have a paragraph or two of outline, with prominent reference to the main discussion article. There is no intent to whitewash the issue here, but it's a tremendous waste of effort to repeat the same arguments over and over on all the articles and talk pages. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thimerosal is EXTREMELY Toxic

Thimerosal is EXTREMELY TOXIC. Go to Merck's website and read the MSDS on it. Click on the "T+" you'll see it says: Hazard symbol: T+ = Very toxic Criteria: Inhalation, swallowing, or absorption through the skin in very small amounts can cause considerable damage to health, and may sometimes be lethal. In the event of serious evidence of severe, possibly irreversible damage to health by single, repeated, or prolonged absorption.

Here is the web address: http://chemdat.merck.de/pls/pi03/web2.search_page2?text=thimerosal&lang=4

look up ethanol sometime. Anyway small amounts is a subjective term. You need to inhale a fair bit of CO gas to die but it is generaly listed as very toxic.Geni 11:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the same source[6], ethanol is not listed as toxic; the only warning it gets is that it's flammable. Arsenic only gets the label "toxic." --Leifern 09:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

err so what? If the only risks for ethanol you put down of your sfately sheet are flamability your saftey officer is going to reject it. Of couse if you have ver been near a fire you have breathed in CO http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/FLUKA/60870.Geni 11:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I know you're not that stupid. The point is that an authority that even you would respect classifies Thimerosal as very toxic. And you were the one who encouraged us to look up ethanol. We did, and it turns out your argument fell flat. --Leifern 23:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Being very toxic mean nothing the piosen is in the dose water is toxic in high enough levels (no I don't mean drowing it messes up the iron blanace in the body) mind you I only now of one case wehere someone manged to do this. Of course merck are not the only source for toxicity data http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/ET/ethyl_alcohol.html .Geni 00:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lack of role of thimerosal in any immunological purpose

The only reason thimerosal is/was included in vaccines was to reduce contamination of multi-dose vials that are repeatedly punctured by syringe needles. There is no immunological benefit conveyed by thimerosal to the recipient. The purpose of a vaccine is to create immunity to disease, and this benefit can be realized completely without thimerosal.

Given the fact that mercury is a known powerful neurotoxin, that thimerosal is specifically suspected of causing many autism spectrum disorders, and that a simple solution to obviate its use is to stick with single dose vials, I believe it is disingenuous to speak of it providing a "benefit" to recipients. Intersofia 15:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Thimerosal provides no immunological benefit to the person receiving a vaccine." I am under the vague impression certain chemicals, perhaps Hg, can cause autoimmune diseases, so maybe it provides 'immunological detriment'. Something to research. I don't have anything more specific.GangofOne 21:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are correct- not only does thimerosal provide no immunological benefit to recipients, Mercury is known to cause autoimmune diseases because by binding with natural proteins in the body, it triggers the immune to believe these vital proteins are now enemies. A search of Google for "Autoimmune mercury" quickly yields over 140,000 links... Intersofia 14:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

An appeal

I would really like to see those who want to put disputed info into this article to please list exactly what it they want in the article, and to list their references (in accordance with Wikipedia:Cite sources). Until this is done, it's very hard to make sense of who wants what here. Dan100 (Talk) 10:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

An interesting edit summery

"rational application of inductive null-A logic, the essense of scientific common sense, generally trumps adherence to any deductive medical algorithm"

You know I though the european constituion was bad. Perhaphs Ombudsman you would like to put forward how that argument is bassed on appeal to common sense rahter than appeal to emotion.Geni 01:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Sorry to butt in on your discussion - I don't know all the rules here yet. Maybe create a new article for the thimerosal controversy on another page or put the controversy info at the bottom? And I'm new here and don't know if I am allowed to butt in on your coversations or anything. I did some editing to the thimerosal page (the MSDS data info) and I think the controversy stuff should somewhere on this site. It is true there is a controversy - there's no denying it. I'm the one that butted in above about thimerosal is extremely toxic but I didn't know how to sign my name & date yet (clueless newbie, sorry)  :) Becca77 2 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

my edits today

Just to head off some controversy since I know this has been a very hot page until recently, let me say that I am basically an agnostic on the controversy, so have attempted to be NPOV in general. Therefore my intentions were

1. general slight cleanup and moving sentences around to paragraphs where they seemed to belong better
2. link to the rationale for thimerosal use back in the 30s, i.e. the Australian vaccine disaster
3. added the chunk about the vast and continuing emissions of mercury into the general environment while we focus on this one single exposure. (I didn't make this concept up, see my reference to Dr. Spiesel, but I thought it was relevant in the section regarding stakeholders).

Gzuckier 5 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Alternatives to Thimerosal

It would be nice to see information regarding alternatives Thimerosal, and why seventy years later, new discoveries haven't replaced its use. - Terris Linenbach

This is an interesting article in that regard: [[7]] The main point here is that anything that kills bacteria is also likely to be harmful to humans. The best solution is to use single-dose vials. Intersofia 15:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)