For purposes of comparison, wouldn’t consuming a tuna fish sandwich result in a higher amount of mercury being ingested than a vaccine with Thiomersal or not? (Ignoring of course that the fish contain methyl mercury whereas the Thiomersal breaks down into ethyl-mercury).
I’m highly allergic to thimerosal, which was discovered when I first tried wearing soft contacts in the late 70’s and thimerosal was the common preservative in contact lens solutions and cleaners. Actually, my allergy was discovered when I was a kid in the 60’s, and Grandma use that nasty red stuff, mercurochrome, on cuts and scrapes. (Also called merthiolate, or something like that. It was very good at doing what it did, as a preservative and antiseptic. Just not pleasant if you are allergic to it.)
When it’s flu-shot time, I just ask for the non-preserved version.
The antivaxer BS machine has already prepared an answer to that argument (warning: antivaxer BS, DO NOT TAKE AT FACE VALUE). I don’t know if their numbers are right, but they argue that the human body is more capable of eliminating toxins from the digestive tract than from the bloodstream, that infants don’t eat tuna, and that the peak dose matters more than the overall amount of mercury. That last claim in particular smells of BS to me (although I’m not a doctor).
The problem with methylmercury is, it accumulates in the body over time. Ethylmercury doesn’t do that.
Don’t think ethylmercury and methylmercury must have similar effects in the body just because the words are similar. Methyl alcohol is very toxic. Ethyl alcohol is what’s in alcoholic beverages. You can, in fact, use ethyl alcohol as an antidote to methyl alcohol. It wouldn’t make sense to compare doses of methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol, because methyl alcohol has toxic effects that ethyl alcohol just doesn’t.
It’s not just the mercury in these compounds that has a bad effect (though elemental mercury isn’t good for you, not even close). Organic mercury compounds tend to be more toxic than elemental mercury, and not all organic mercury compounds are equally toxic. If you want a really nasty organic mercury compound, look at dimethylmercury.
Or, for that matter, tetraethyl lead, former gasoline additive that correlates very well with violent crime.
Of all the lead conspiracies, that’s the one that’s actually true. And thanks to GM and DuPont it effects us still, if not quite as dramatically as it did when we were emitting tons of it on our daily commutes.
We are living in an age of pseudo science, hawked by idiots like Kennedy. the man has spread deliberate falsehoods-and yet, some people believe him because of his name. I wonder how many kids lives were lost because of this bozo’s rantings-he should be held to account. Although, anybody who expects serious, truthful reporting from “Rolling Stone” is quite naive.
I don’t know if you think I’m anti vax but I’m not. Nor do I think that thimerosal has any ill effects such as causing autism. I was pointing out that that at least one vaccine that is given to children may contain thimerosal. See the post I was responding to.
You may technically be correct that flu shots are not on the “normal vaccination schedule for kids” but I think it is you who is being pedantic here. Roughly 50% of children receive the flu shot every year. To say that children are not exposed to thimerosal because it is not in vaccines that comprise the “normal vaccination schedule for kids” may very well be incorrect. And see my comment above about my opinion on thimerosal
Antivaxers might be interested to know that dietary mercury is absorbed into the bloodstream (it’s not “eliminated” in the digestive tract).
“infants don’t eat tuna” might be meaningful if it wasn’t for the fact that infants also breastfeed, and thus get exposure to mercury from dietary and other sources*, even before birth (much of this coming before the first scheduled flu vaccination (at 6 months - and as mentioned, there are thimerosal-free flu shots readily available; no other vaccine on the childhood schedule contains thimerosal, and of course no detrimental health effects from the days when some vaccines did contain thimerosal ever been demonstrated).
Even if it made sense to jabber about “peak” vs. cumulative mercury exposure, there is not now and never was evidence of a vaccine “peak” causing harm.
Except that for the Mercury Militia, fantasy trumps facts every time.
Shockingly, baby foods have been found to contain aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, manganese, tin and other scary metals. It doesn’t matter when testing shows these substances are present in “safe” amounts. We know that TOXINS are never safe, especially if you can’t pronounce them (as the Food Babe and Panera tell us). Best not to breast-feed Baby or give it infant formula or other commercial baby foods, too dangerous. It’s never too soon to start your child on Breatharianism.
My basic plan of action is to simply quit listening to people who use the term “Big Pharma” because, in my experience, those people tend to be cranks of the anti-vaccination type. Of course not all of them are in that camp; a fair number of the ones I’ve met who use the term area also of the “Big Pharma created such-and-such disease to increase profits/eradicate a certain segment of the population/other asinine assertion.”
What Smeghead said.
Yep, I have the same allergy. And some kids did have a allergic reaction.
Yeah. Oddly enuf one of my best friends has been the CFO for a couple of “Small Pharma” companies, and another two are scientists working for those.
The Pharma industry is rather cut-throat. Like my CFO friend said, they’d publish a cheap cure for cancer in a heartbeat- it’d mean huge publicity and even maybe Nobel prizes for them, and hurt their competition.
You can say that Pharma driven by profits- but so what?
The word “toxins” is another useful crank filter. If someone uses the word “toxin” and, when asked, cannot name a specific toxin that the special diet or medical treatment they are advocating would reduce exposure to, they are a crank. Same goes if they claim that all toxins accumulate in the body and need some special treatment to remove them. There do exist toxins for which this is the case, and there is medical treatment for getting rid of them, but that doesn’t mean it’s true of all toxic substances.
Yes. If it were eliminated in the digestive tract, we wouldn’t have to worry about getting too much mercury from eating swordfish or tuna. I could have my sushi-grade ahi, even while I’m pregnant or nursing. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case 
The food industry is driven by profits, too. Therefore, people who say we should avoid vaccines because Big Pharma is driven by profits should not eat.
Perhaps someone should work out a plan for the anti-vaxers to adopt Breatharianism!
A handy toxin quiz would include: Getting the person to demonstrate that 1) the substance actually is toxic to humans, 2) defining the dose at which the substance produces toxic effects, 3) showing that the alleged toxin is actually present in the human body at that level, 4) demonstrating that the diet/supplement/treatment they’re hyping removes or significantly diminishes the level of the “toxin”, and 5) proving that said removal produces a health benefit.
I have yet to see any toxin shouter who can show that their preferred treatment meets these necessary criteria.
Haven’t seen it in years-the stuff worked great for eyelid infections. I guess it was also the toxicity factor, but was it all that dangerous?
Please note that the vaccines for many bacteria-related diseases (tetanus and diphtheria, for example) are made from the toxins produced by the bacteria and not from the bacteria themselves.
For example, the tetanus vaccine is made from the tetanospasmin toxin. It is deactivated and the deactivated form is called a toxoid.