Talk:Thiomersal

lead

The lead contains the following line:

"In spite of the scientific consensus that such fears are unsubstantiated"

The lead however never mentions any fears and hence the sentence in this form makes little sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It just needed rephrasing. MartinezMD (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, i just wanted to point that out to people maintaining the article (which I assume to heavily supervised). However the current change seems to make it worse, as this now can be read (or misunderstood) as suggesting scientific consensus is that thiomersal in vaccines is dangerous dangerous (due to the in spite of construction).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to phrase it in an acceptable manner. MartinezMD (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually after rereading the current version again, I think it is ok, I must have misread/misparsed the current version earlier. Also thanks for the quick fix of the original issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted update to lead section

The current lead section appears to only focus on autism, whereas there are also toxicological concerns unrelated to autism. The toxicological concerns regarding ethylmercury are outlined in the body of the article. The paper cited in the lead states, verbatim, "A number of affluent countries are moving to eliminate thiomersal (thimerosal), an ethylmercury preservative, from vaccines as a precautionary measure because of concerns about the potential adverse effects of mercury in infants". Note that thiomersal has been phased out due to expert judgment on the potential toxicity of ethylmercury, not due to the popular fears of thiomersal potentially being the cause of autism. The lead needs to be updated to adequately summarize the body of the article, so I will re-add my edit, but this time replacing 'potentially adverse effects' with the actual concern, 'toxicological effects'. Please do not revert without discussion. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Your change here seems problematic to me. Example: "The scientific consensus is that a connection between thimersal and autism are unsubstantiated; at the same time, it is recognized that it may potentially have other toxicological effects". That's bullshit. The trace amounts of thiomersal in vaccines have exactly zero proven toxicological effect, and that is the context in which thiomersal is always viewed. If you want to make the point that driniking a gallon of the stuff isn't a good idea, then discuss the LD50 or other figures, but everything has "toxicological effects" in sufficient quantity. Overall your edits have the effect of boosting the anti-vaccination conspiracist "MERCURY TEH AUTISMS!" nonsense. I am sure this is not your intent. The "concerns" in the paper you cite are, as you note, about "affluent countries" - they are not scientific concerns, there is no scientific concern about thiomersal as a preservative, it's purely public concern ginned up by cranks. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion for lead section: The pharmaceutical corporation Eli Lilly and Company gave thiomersal the trade name Merthiolate. It has been used as a preservative in vaccines, immunoglobulin preparations, skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and nasal products, and tattoo inks. The scientific consensus is that a connection between thiomersal and autism is unsubstantiated; at the same time, it is recognized that it may potentially have other toxicological effects. Its use as a vaccine preservative was called into question by anti-vaccination groups, and it was phased out from routine childhood vaccines in the United States, the European Union, and a few other countries as a precautionary measure because of concerns about the potential toxicological effects, unrelated to autism, of mercury in infants.

The claim of User:JzG that it is a "conspiracy theory" that mercury compounds have potential toxicological effects was, to be honest, not very impressive, and I find ignorant edits such as this demotivating. Please read up on fundamentals before reverting other users' edits. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

As the paper says: The guidelines for long-term mercury exposure should not be used for evaluating risk from intermittent single day exposures, such as immunisation using thiomersal-containing vaccines. Similar or higher mercury exposures likely occur from breast feeding and the health benefit of eliminating thiomersal from a vaccine, if any, is likely to be very small. On the other hand, the benefits accrued from the use of thiomersal-containing vaccines are considerably greater but vary substantially between affluent and developing regions of the world. Because of the contribution to overall mercury exposure from breast milk and diet in later life, the removal of thiomersal from vaccines would produce no more than a 50% reduction of mercury exposure in infancy and <1% reduction over a lifetime. Translated from Scioence that says: thiomersal is a safe and effective preservative, removal is fine where there's money and reliable electricity to allow refrigeration and single-use capsules, but don't even think about banning it. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Extremely ignorant statement, and very much in breach of WP:OR. Please read up on fundamental toxicology. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, everything is toxic in sufficient quantity. Thiomersal has no demonstrable toxic effect at the levels approved for medical use. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thiomersal is being phased out in developed countries due to certain toxicological concerns that are familiar to anyone with a minimum of knowledge about mercury and fundamental toxicology. This is described in the body of the article and in the cited papers, and I can give you 100 more reliable sources for this. If the majority of Wikipedia editors want to conceal this information from the lead in order to propagandize against certain conspiracy theories about an unrelated issue (autism), then that is fine with me. But I won't contribute any longer to such a website. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Familize to anyone" is easily popular-opinion or your own WP:OR, quite the opposite of scientific-consensus. The cited ref states "Consumer preference can be a powerful force...regardless of any established proven benefit from such exposure reductions." And "a growing concern among parents, fueled by vocal, activist, anti-vaccination groups, about the safety of vaccines." So we are following WP:NPOV by following WP:MEDRS and avoiding a wording that gives weights to WP:FRINGE. The words "precautionary" and "concerns" seem not tied to scientific fact but instead non-scientific public opinion or political/sociological aspects, so we must not leave any hint that the reason is a health effect of the vaccine itself. DMacks (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Extremely weak reply, and I will not bother to discuss this issue with you. This has become a very poor website, and needs to be abandoned for something better. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, sure. From your edit history I think you'll find Conservapedia to your liking. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, no, it's being phased out due to "concerns" among middle class parents subjected to scaremongering and disinformation. These concerns are not medical concerns. Medically, thimerosal is a better option, because it allows use of multidose vials and reduced sensitivity to storage conditions. The clue is in the specific list of outcomes linked to thimerosal exposure from vaccination. It's very short:

 

None omitted. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

EXCEPT that we don't really know how toxic it is because we have been unable even to quantify it's effect

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/ PraetorXXXfenix (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That is just another, more fringey way of saying no demonstrable toxic effect.

And I don't think it helps improving the article, which is what this page is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Pronunciation?

This article desperately needs to tell us how to pronounce "Thiomersal". Bhami (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thiomersal in batteries

I have removed from the lede the claim that thiomersal is/was used in hearing-aid batteries, as it unsupported by the reference that followed it. I have been unable to find any reliable sources that would substantiate the claim.

Mercury and mercury-containing compounds have definitely found uses in a number of battery technologies over the years. Up until thirty years ago, mercury battery button cells (using mercuric oxide cathodes) were common in hearing aids and a number of other applications. More recently, it was common for a small amount of mercury (as the pure metal) to be alloyed with the zinc in zinc-air button cells to improve their performance. But while those batteries did contain mercury, none of them contained mercury in the form of thiomersal, the compound discussed in this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why Thiomersal was removed in the U.S.

Most of these thimerosal related articles need overhauls. The lack of balance and the advocacy tone aren't helpful to users nor are they accurate. From the FDA: "However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury." https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimerosal-vaccines-questions-and-answers There were no safety guidelines for ethylmercury. This is the reason thimerosal was removed from vaccines and not in response to faulty research papers and mass hysteria. With a major pediatric organization threatening to publicly question the safety of the then vaccination schedule for infants, the FDA was forced to initiate the removal of thimerosal. That's what happened. While the scientific justification for its removal can be argued, the history of why it was removed cannot. Eudemis (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you say that is the history, we'll take your word for it.

On second thought, no, we will not. Can you please schlep the reliable sources here where you got your superior knowledge? (That FDA sentence is not enough.) Then we can link them instead of citing "User Eudemis, personal communication". That would clash with Wikipedia policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well the article has some serious ownership issues as it's been in this state for at least 2 years. Its sole focus is on autism, is argumentative and misstates the reasons why the FDA acted which I would assume the FDA itself would know. I'll try to assume you are not one of the owners. Eudemis (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article based on WP:RS or not? At the moment it looks as if you change the subject when challenged. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't change the subject. You seem to have already anointed yourself the judge of what goes in. The article "Thiomersal and vaccines" ‎is accurate and balanced, but there is no guarantee that readers will locate it before this one. That article includes the accurate history of Thiomersal's removal which this one sorely needs. I will add one, but the whole tone of this article is unbalanced. Eudemis (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As the discussion has been raised here, and is clearly contentious, let's see if we can't gain a consensus for source-based language first. BD2412 T 22:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

People who begin on the talk page aren't the ones avoiding consensus.Eudemis (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You changed the subject again: from achieving consensus to accusations of avoiding consensus, which did not happen. Please WP:FOCUS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Ownership", "judge", stop the personal attacks. Instead, for the third time, give us reliable sources for your position. Pointing out that you have not done that has nothing to do with "anointing" and everything to do with Wikipedia policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Your lack of civility has you on the admin boards with some frequency which isn't helpful to improving articles.Eudemis (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Eudemis: consider this an admin warning: focus on the article and improving it by supplying citations to reliable sources and building consensus. I see several other editors trying to get you to do that, and seemingly willing to participate should you do so, but you instead are doing other things focusing on editors themselves. Otherwise, this thread is over here and now, and you won't accomplish what your goals seem to be. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Note my introduction to this article and Hob Gadling above. I am the only one focused on the article. Eudemis (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is inaccurate and I propose cleaning up at least the reason for the ending Thiomersal in vaccines with the following: Eudemis (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the FDA initiated a formal risk assessment of thimerosal in vaccines beginning in April 1998.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/

Am J Public Health. 2008 February; 98(2): 244–253

"The CBER scientists calculated that a minority of infants could receive as much as 187.5 mg of ethylmercury during the first 6 months of life. Lacking any standard for ethylmercury, the CBER team compared this exposure to standards for methylmercury and discovered that it exceeded that set by the Environmental Protection Agency."

Am J Public Health. 2008 February; 98(2): 244–253

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S.Public Health Service issued a joint statement [ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4826a3.htm] calling for the replacement "as expeditiously as possible" of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1308509/?page=1

Public Health Rep. 1999 Sep-Oct; 114(5): 394–395.

PMCID: PMC1308509

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223724/

Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee; Stratton K, Gable A, McCormick MC, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001.

Using federal standards for methylmercury, a 7 lbs infant receiving a hepatitis B vaccine containing 12.9 micrograms of mercury would exceed the safe level of an EPA standard for mercury by a factor of 10.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1308509/?page=1

Public Health Rep. 1999 Sep-Oct; 114(5): 394–395.

PMCID: PMC1308509

"The statement also recommended a temporary suspension of the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine for children born to low-risk mothers until a thimerosal-free alternative became available. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223724/

Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee; Stratton K, Gable A, McCormick MC, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001.

With the FDA approval of a thimerosal-free version of DTaP vaccine in March 2001, all formulations of vaccines on the recommended childhood immunization schedule that are given to children six years of age or younger are available thimerosal-free in the United States.

Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee; Stratton K, Gable A, McCormick MC, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001.

Eudemis (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Much better.

First, regarding your the first contribution above. You quote the FDA Q&A: some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury and This is the reason thimerosal was removed from vaccines and not in response to faulty research papers and mass hysteria, citing [1].

The very sentence you quote from the FDA Q&A contains the words could have, and the same source also says, As a precautionary measure, [..] reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible. (That is exactly what our article says: as a purely precautionary measure.) So, according to the FDA, there was no factual basis, only a hypothesis. Where that hypothesis came from, the page does not say. But the other sources in the article do: in response to faulty research papers and mass hysteria, although the article does not use those words.

So, let's have a look at the sources you linked in your last contribution. The first one, [2], says,

• A formal review of thimerosal by the FDA concluded in 1976 that no dangerous quantity of mercury was likely to be received from vaccines and other biological products over a lifetime.
• Although noting that there was no evidence that the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative had caused any true harm, the groups agreed that “thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible” given the concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Agency’s guidelines.
• Although a full analysis cannot be provided here, two themes deserve emphasis. One is the issue of trust. Physicians and public health leaders have generally turned to the scientific process to sort out the controversy and have been reassured by the negative conclusions of the IOM reports. Vaccine opponents have repeatedly rejected these studies, charging that the data have been manipulated for political reasons.63 The second factor has been the entry of personal injury lawyers into the debate, accompanied by full-page advertisements in prominent newspapers and an infusion of financial support.

It seems as if that source says it was in response to [..] mass hysteria. I cannot find the places in the source that make you think there was a good reason beyond precaution, and I do not see any reason why the other sources you gave would be any different. It is not effective for people to have to search all those sources for those places that made you think there was a good reason beyond precaution. It would be better if you quote those sentences from the sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing about public concern involved in any of the chronology that led to its removal. The change wasn't in response to the public, but in response to a growing awareness of the dangers of even small doses of mercury by federal agencies in the 1990s. "Autism was not even discussed." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/ In fact, the public was largely unaware that these federal guidelines were being established.

The statements proposed above are essentially quotes from the sources. These new mercury safety guidelines would have been exceeded by mercury levels in vaccines at 10 times the highest allowable amount in some cases (Hep B). Anything from 1976 would not have been involved in its removal as the federal guidelines for safe levels of mercury weren't developed until the 1990s, in particular by the EPA. Once established, the mercury levels in vaccines were too high. These new federal guidelines doomed thiomersal. "This story, known better to environmental scientists than vaccinologists, evolved in a direction that eventually suggested that even relatively low exposures to organic mercury could be dangerous to the fetus and young infant." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/ It is clear the American Academy of Pediatrics(AAP) weren't willing to ignore the problem; its member physicians don't enjoy governmental immunity. Eudemis (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about "mercury levels" as if there were no difference between the dangers of methylmercury and ethylmercury. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

There were no federal standards for ethylmercury and when the ones for methylmercury were developed in the late 1990s (based on studying calamities of exposure around the world), the guideline levels were exceeded by the existing vaccine protocols, in some cases, by a very wide margin. The idea that the two forms of mercury are comparable has been tested and the news was unexpectedly bad. With ethylmercury (as found in thiomersal) having a shorter half life in the blood, but leaving significantly more inorganic mercury in the brain. Inorganic mercury isn't cleared by the body (half life > 1 year).Eudemis (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There were no federal standards for ethylmercury

the guideline levels were exceeded by the existing vaccine protocols

Ethylmercury cannot exceed any standards when it does not have any. So, these two sentences combined add up to the false claim that vaccines contained methylmercury. You confirmed what I said, that you are using the two substances for a sleight of hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The history of the removal of thiomersal from vaccines has nothing to do with me. The new mercury safety guidelines for methylmercury developed in the 1990s led the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend the removal of all thiomersal from childhood vaccines. The vaccine schedule at the time would expose children to mercury levels in the form of ethylmercury that exceeded, and in some cases greatly exceeded (10x), the new federal guidelines for mercury. That is why it was removed. If someone disagreed at the time, their argument failed. More recent studies have validated these safety concerns as ethylmercury converts to inorganic mercury which isn't excreted and accumulates in the brain. "In the case of thiomersal exposure, mercury retention is evidently higher in the brain, its urinary excretion is much lower, and enteral excretion is similar to that of inorganic mercury."[3] This has led the EU to seek a worldwide ban on its use. Eudemis (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• The history is well-covered here. Bon courage (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've read the article, but it doesn't appear to mention the removal history. He does mention the Denmark studies which have been called into the question based on the national vaccine registry being largely wrong. "The MMR1 vaccination coverage in Denmark seems to be considerably higher than reflected in national registers. Using medical record review to re-assess the vaccination status revealed that most of the supposedly unvaccinated children had, in fact, been vaccinated." [4] So the majority of "hits" (autism in the unvaccinated) in those studies had, in fact, been vaccinated. The studies used corrupt data. His conclusion that science has proven that "thimerosal does not cause .... neurologic injury" suggesting ethylmercury in any quantity is harmless is inconsistent with research papers that date long before 2008 when he penned the article. Eudemis (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's rather a moot point in light of the most recent discovery, which is that indications of autism can be detected while the fetus is still in the womb. Since MMR vaccines are not administered to fetuses, that excludes them as the cause of conditions now detectable in fetuses. BD2412 T 02:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  The removal of thiomersal had nothing to do with autism but with the hazards of mercury in doses that exceeded federal guidelines. The study you mentioned was suggestive of further research on the fear center of the brain, but it didn't conclude anything about autism's cause. Eudemis (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Not anti-vaxxers - just experts with a different view

To say in the introduction that those who question the use in vaccines, are "anti-vacciine", is untrue, and an unnecessary smear. It's not a black and whole world of 'pro-vaccine' and 'anti-vaccine'. There are many grey areas, and this language is not part of a valid knowledge base or intelligent article. The UK does not give the chickenpox vaccine for safety concerns , whereas the US does give it. Does that make the whole of the UK medical system and all their experts, "anti-vaxxers"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.103.21 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)