AP: Feds checking post-vaccine seizures in young kids

[mhatrw]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzkXpBdbenGmMS5igjGcWnTkjA4A?docId=889855438f674034afa1951f29003823

ATLANTA (AP) — Government officials are investigating an apparent increase in fever-related seizures in young children after they got a flu shot.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday said there have been 36 confirmed reports of seizures this flu season in children ages 6 months through 2 years. The seizures occurred within one day after they were vaccinated with Fluzone, the only flu shot recommended in the United States for infants and very young children. Ten of the children were hospitalized, but all recovered.

The FDA said it is investigating to see if there is any connection between the vaccine and the seizures, or if something else caused the convulsions. The agency said recommendations for using the vaccine have not changed, nor has there been any change in flu vaccine guidance

[cutlassmama]

1. Even though I'm not a child, I refused the vaccine when I was

recently hospitalized. No telling what is in those.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. They are really pushing them.

Mr. d had to sign a piece of paper upon hospital discharge that he refused a flu shot.
His hospitalization was not related to anything flu-like. Turns out they automatically give you a flu shot and pneumonia vaccine unless you object.

Huge red banner has been hanging on Wal-Green's store for months: FLU SHOTS HERE.

[woodsprite]

4. Don't forget the "Shingles Shot" signs too. n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. and only 150.00 a pop.

which MAY prevent shingles or may give yous shingles but in any event is good only for 3 years ( maybe)
says the handout Mr. d brought back from the doc.
Now, in all fairness, having had a very very severe bout with shingles a couple of years ago, if the shot
can be proven to be effective and worth it in terms of actual proven prevention, it might be worth it.

If you DO get shingles, try to find a dr. who will give you strong enough pain relief.
A serious attack re-defines "pain".

[woodsprite]

20. Mr Woodsprite has had them too.

I guess I've been lucky so far. I didn't get shingles and I haven't caught chicken pox when they've been going around our kids schools.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. hmmm... if you are young and healthy you will likely survive flu or pneumonia

so the very tiny risk that these vaccines will cause you harm is perhaps closer to the risk of serious harm from the diseases they prevent. However for many people, almost everyone over 50, and lots of people with medical conditions that increase the risk from the flu or pneumonia, not getting vaccinated is a stupid choice.

The anti-vaccination campaigns are killing people, and killing them with fear and misinformation.

[pnwmom]

13. Are you aware of the data showing that vaccines for the elderly

are not resulting in the hoped-for lowered death rates from the flu?

I still encourage my mother and mother-in-law to get them, but I wish the data looked stronger.

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. I am aware that my 85 y/o neighbor gets them every year and ends up in hospital

within 30 days every year, with something like pneumonia.
Last year her daughter talked her out of getting the flu shot and guess what?
No hospital trip.
I only know what I have seen.

[laconicsax]

6. Actually, you can see exactly what's in a vaccine. You just have to take the time to look it up. n/t

[mhatrw]

7. And if it's a multidose flu vaccine, you can see it contains thimerosal. n/t

[trotsky]

8. Yup, sure does.

And since thimerosal has never been shown to be anything but a cheap, effective vaccine preservative, I have no qualms with that.

Thimerosal was removed from the standard slate of pediatric vaccines 10 years ago now. Why haven't we seen a huge drop in autism?

[pnwmom]

14. The most likely cause of autism is the interaction of multiple

factors babies and pregnant women are exposed to - including heavy metals in the environment, food toxins, synthetic hormones, pesticides, vaccines, and others -- with their individual physiology. Just eliminating one of the factors wouldn't eliminate new cases of autism when exposure to the other factors continues to rise.

[trotsky]

17. Please note, I did not say "eliminate."

That's your strawman.

We haven't seen even a SMALL drop in cases of autism since thimerosal was removed from vaccines, despite the screams from the anti-vax movement that it was absolutely the culprit. In fact, it's continued unabated. But at least you aren't blaming vaccines, because the evidence just isn't there. Glad to see you've come around.

[pnwmom]

28. Why should there have been even a small drop when children's

exposure to a toxic soup of chemicals in the environment continues to increase?

[Odin2005]

36. because other things didn't suddenly increase at the same time?

And there is NO widely accepted evidence that the rate of prevalence is increasing, it is just the rate of diagnosis.

[Odin2005]

23. Autism is genetic.

My mom's dad was almost certainly an Aspie, and I have a severely autistic aunt.

[pnwmom]

29. But it is not wholly genetic. You also have relatives

who are not autistic.

Among people with full-blown autism there is only a 60% concordance in identical twin studies. Even looking at the wider spectrum including Aspergers, there is only a 90% concordance. This means that there is another component -- it isn't purely genetic.

One thing researchers are looking at is whether environmental factors can tip the scale as to whether a person with a genetic propensity ends up with full-blown autism or with Asperger's. Wouldn't families be better off if those factors were discovered?

[LeftishBrit]

48. That is true...

But it does not provide any evidence for the vaccine theory of autism. It is very rare indeed for only one of an identical twin pair to be vaccinated - so that could not be what differentiates them.

There has been quite a bit of research which shows that obstetric and prenatal factors are important. If only one of an identical twin pair develops autism, then usually that twin had lower birthweight and/or more obstetric problems than the twin without autism.

I really do think that more research needs to be put into prenatal environmental factors that may increase the risk of autism, since it seems most likely that the most important influences are at that stage.

At any rate, though it is important to minimize side effects of vaccines as much as possible, I really don't think that's linked to autism.

[mhatrw]

21. You don't have to believe thimerosal causes autism to want your vaccinations mercury-free.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

[trotsky]

27. What about the fact that it's been removed is so hard for you to understand?

With no drop in autism cases. So much for the connection that the anti-vax nutters on the Internet were screaming about.

[pnwmom]

39. It's still in flu vaccines that pregnant women are urged to get.

And in the flu vaccines that children get. And it doesn't have to be -- not if the pregnant woman or a parent requests a single dose vial. Yet the CDC is not recommending this. Why would anyone want to be unnecessarily injected with any form of a heavy metal?

According to Dr. Tom Clarkson, a mercury researcher at the University of Rochester, there was no exhaustive research "showing that it's safe for fetuses." We recommend that pregnant women completely abstain from alcohol while they are pregnant because we don't know what level of exposure would be completely safe. Why not do the same for thimerosal?

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2008/9/26/an-option-flu-vaccines-without-mercury-based-thimerosal.html

By Deborah Kotz, U.S. News Health

SNIP

"I'm particularly concerned about giving flu shots to pregnant women because no one has really identified the threshold dose for which thimerosal can become problematic for tiny fetuses. Certainly, the amount of mercury in a single flu shot is very small and most likely harmless. 'It's equivalent to the amount in a small can of tuna fish,' says Tom Clarkson, a mercury researcher at the University of Rochester. 'Still, we know that high levels of mercury can affect cell division in the developing brain of a fetus, and no one can say with absolute certainty that there's no risk.'

"The other concern is that the kind of mercury found in vaccines is different from the methyl mercury found in fish. While thimerosal gets flushed from the body much faster than methyl mercury, what remains is more likely to accumulate in the brain, as inorganic mercury, and remain there for a year or more, according to a 2005 University of Washington study of infant monkeys. 'We still don't have enough data to say how long this inorganic mercury stays in the brain, but if you can reduce or eliminate your baby's exposure, why wouldn't you do that?' says Tom Burbacher, a professor of environmental occupational health sciences who led the study.

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists sent out a news release yesterday urging all pregnant women to get flu shots, with the proviso that shots containing thimerosal are fine because 'there is no evidence showing that thimerosal is a danger to the health of the pregnant woman or her fetus.' When I read that quote to Burbacher, he said, 'that is a very misleading statement because women will assume there's been exhaustive research done on this showing that it's safe for fetuses, and there's no such data.'

"He doesn't mean that pregnant women should avoid getting flu shots. Instead, Burbacher says, they should get one that's thimerosal free. Yes, they're available, but you might need to ask around to find a doctor's office that dispenses them. Many don't, probably because not enough women are asking for them."

SNIP

[trotsky]

45. Keep moving those goalposts.

It's all you've got at this point.

[pnwmom]

50. Despite what you say, children are still being exposed to thimerosal

both in utero and in early childhood. They just aren't being exposed to as much, while, at the same time, other toxic exposures in the environment are on the rise.

[trotsky]

51. But there are far fewer, and of those, they are being exposed to far, far less.

As I said, all you have left is shifting goalposts. Somehow you reason that if just one child somewhere in the world is exposed to the thimerosal that its mother received in a vaccination, that this is somehow responsible for all autism cases. Good luck with that.

[mhatrw]

59. Keep getting those mercury shots unnecessarily.

I'll ask for the single dose ones myself, and if I can't get them, I'll take my chances with the flu.

[trotsky]

66. Wow.

You think a thimerosal-containing vaccine is more dangerous than the flu.

Absolutely NO statistics to back you up on that, not that it matters to you, I'm sure.

Good luck. Not necessarily to you - I just hope you don't spread it to someone who will suffer or die.

[mhatrw]

68. Show me the science that shows that flu vaccinations are effective in

healthy adults.

[trotsky]

71. My primary reason for vaccinating is to protect others.

I know this concept eludes the anti-vax movement - this idea of small shared risk for significant shared reward. But you want science? OK.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm

Healthy Adults

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among 4,561 healthy working adults aged 18--64 years assessed multiple endpoints, including reductions in self-reported respiratory tract illness without laboratory confirmation, absenteeism, healthcare visits, and medication use during peak and total influenza outbreak periods (Nichol et al., JAMA 1999;282:137--44). The study was conducted during the 1997--98 influenza season, when the vaccine and circulating A (H3N2) strains were not well-matched. Vaccination was associated with reductions in severe febrile illnesses of 19%, and febrile upper respiratory tract illnesses of 24%.

Vaccination was also associated with fewer days of illness, fewer days of work lost, fewer days with healthcare provider visits, and reduced use of prescription antibiotics and over-the-counter medications. Among a subset of 3,637 healthy adults aged 18--49 years, LAIV recipients (n = 2,411) had 26% fewer febrile upper-respiratory illness episodes; 27% fewer lost work days as a result of febrile upper respiratory illness; and 18%--37% fewer days of healthcare provider visits caused by febrile illness, compared with placebo recipients (n = 1,226). Days of antibiotic use were reduced by 41%--45% in this age subset.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge study among 92 healthy adults (LAIV, n = 29; placebo, n = 31; inactivated influenza vaccine, n = 32) aged 18--41 years assessed the efficacy of both LAIV and inactivated vaccine (Treanor et al., Vaccine 1999;18:899--906.). The overall efficacy of LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine in preventing laboratory-documented influenza from all three influenza strains combined was 85% and 71%, respectively. This was on the basis of experimental challenge by viruses to which study participants were susceptible before vaccination. The difference in efficacy between the two vaccines was not statistically significant.

Please note - the first study specifically notes that vaccine *wasn't* well matched with the circulating strain, but it STILL helped. Amazing.

[Confusious]

74. It's not mercury

Just like salt isn't sodium.

Someone save us from the ignorant.

[mhatrw]

80. What is ignorant is to pretend that thimerosal isn't a highly toxic substance

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vaccine-tlc.org%2Fdocs%2FThimerosal%2520Material%2520Safety%2520Data%2520Sheet.pdf&rct=j&q=thimerosal%20MSDS&ei=uyg_TbGNH8XEswbRvY3bBA&usg=AFQjCNFH5KvcFOk6GElGs8iFUVZodoTYsw&cad=rja">Data Safety Sheet for Thimerosal

[Confusious]

82. Most things in large enough quanties are toxic

Drink to much water, you could die.

Drink the right amount, you live.

There is such a small amount in any vaccine it doesn't make a difference to a human.

[mhatrw]

84. First thimerosal = salt. Then thimerosal = water.

Thimerosal is a proven neurotoxin. Why would you want to inject any amount of it into your body unnecessarily on an annual basis?

[Confusious]

89. It's not a "proven" neurotoxin

As a matter of fact, the only thing studied is methyl mercury, but that's not the same as ethyl mercury, just as methyl alcohol is not the same as ethyl alcohol. It's DEFINITELY not the same as mercury.

ethyl mercury has no studies showing it's a neurotoxin.

But expecting you to understand the difference is to much I think.

[mhatrw]

99. Yeah, right. Show me the science.

Or maybe I need to http://www.springerlink.com/content/v0203116418023h8/">show you the science:

Neurotoxicity and renotoxicity were compared in rats given by gastric gavage five daily doses of 8.0 mg Hg/kg methyl- or ethylmercuric chloride or 9.6 mg Hg/kg ethylmercuric chloride. Three or 10 days after the last treatment day rats treated with either 8.0 or 9.6 mg Hg/kg ethylmercury had higher total or organic mercury concentrations in blood and lower concentrations in kidneys and brain than methylmercury-treated rats. In each of these tissues the inorganic mercury concentration was higher after ethyl than after methylmercury.

Weight loss relative to the expected body weight and renal damage was higher in ethylmercury-treated rats than in rats given equimolar doses of methylmercury. These effects became more severe when the dose of ethylmercury was increased by 20%. Thus in renotoxicity the renal concentration of inorganic mercury seems to be more important than the concentration of organic or total mercury. In methylmercury-treated rats damage and inorganic mercury deposits were restricted to the P2 region of the proximal tubules, while in ethylmercury-treated rats the distribution of mercury and damage was more widespread.

There was little difference in the neurotoxicities of methylmercury and ethylmercury when effects on the dorsal root ganglia or coordination disorders were compared. Based on both criteria, an equimolar dose of ethylmercury was less neurotoxic than methylmercury, but a 20% increase in the dose of ethylmercury was enough to raise the sum of coordination disorder scores slightly and ganglion damage significantly above those in methylmercury-treated rats.

Wow! So methyl mercury might be slightly less neurotoxic than ethylmercury, but is definitely more renal toxic!

That sounds great! Where can I get some to sprinkle on my food and mix in with my drinks?

[Confusious]

118. Don't take vitamins then

I borrow from below:

According to your link, an intravenous lethal dose is greater 45 mg/kg of body weight in rats.

An average lab rat weights around 200-500g depending on sex. (That's a fifth to a half of a kilogram). That would mean that a lethal dose of thimerosal in a lab rat would be between and 9 and 22.5 mg. If we assume that 45 mg/kg is also the minimum lethal dose in humans, then we can calculate how much thimerosal it would take to kill an average adult.

The average adult in the US is between 74 and 86 kg (depending on sex), meaning that a lethal dose would be a minimum 3.3 and 3.9 kg. Since I suspect you're not too handy with SI, I'll convert that into pounds: According to the information in your link, an intravenous lethal dose for an adult would be a minimum of 7.25 to 8.5 pounds of thimerosal.

And, since thimerosal has a density of 2.5 g/cm3 or 20.9 lb/gal, that would require about about 2 pints of the stuff to be injected into your veins to reach the MINIMUM estimated lethal dose. If we're adding 2 pints of fluid to the circulatory system (or simply replacing 2 pints of blood with 2 pints of thimerosal), it won't be the thimerosal that kills you.

There's typically less than half a milligram of thimerosal per vaccine dose, and studies show that it doesn't accumulate in the body.

Many vitamins are toxic at fractional amounts of that.

http://1stholistic.com/nutrition/hol_nutr-toxic-dosages.htm

[mhatrw]

120. LOL. That post was off by at least three orders of magnitude.

Not surprised that you quoted it, though.

:rofl:

[Confusious]

131. Vitamins are still toxic in the milligram range

3 Grams of thermisol is toxic.

You're still wrong.

[mhatrw]

150. Which vitamins have an LD50 dosage less than 45 mg/kg?

Please tell us which vitamins are more deadly to rats than is thimerosal. We all want to know.

[Confusious]

152. I gave you the list

There are quite a few vitamins that would kill you if you took 45mg/kg a day.

that would be 3.6g a day for a 80kg human. Now compare with the list.

If you can't figure it out, it's not my problem.

[mhatrw]

154. That was NOT a LD50 list.

It was a list of when any toxic effects occur. Do you understand the difference?

[Confusious]

157. Neither was the 45mg/kg number.

The rats were still alive 3 to 10 days after treatment.

[laconicsax]

158. The fatal amount of thimerosal is 1000 times less than I had it, but so is the amount in vaccines.

The fact still remains that a fatal amount of thimerosal is about 100,000 times the amount in vaccines--3g compared to a maximum of 50μg in vaccines.

By all means, keep on pretending that a negligible amount of a substance that doesn't bioaccumulate represents a SERIOUS HEALTH THREAT!!!!!

[Confusious]

162. After paper and pencil, that's 60,000 times less. nt

[laconicsax]

164. PANIC!!! PANIC!!! PANIC!!!

Let's never mind the fact that environmental mercury levels are lower now than in the past and that the ethylmercury in thimerosal is cleared from the body in weeks. It's much easier to plug your ears and shriek "MERCURY!!"

[laconicsax]

91. Let's assume for a moment that you're right.

Let's assume that "thimerosal is a proven neurotoxin."

Why would studies by the WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH, etc. all show that it's safe to use "a proven neurotoxin" in vaccines?

[mhatrw]

97. Less than 1% of a teaspoon of thimerosal per kg of body weight kills rats dead.

So it's obviously highly toxic to mammals.

You don't have to assume I'm right about this. You can read all about it http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/docs/Thimerosal%20Material%20Safety%20Data%20Sheet.pdf">here.

As for why the CDC allows thimerosal in vaccines, that's a good question. Why does the FDA still allow dental amalgam to contain 50% mercury? Why are there http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/asbestos/products/index.html">3,000 known products on the market that still contain asbestos? Why do we still sell cigarettes over the counter by the billions? Like so much in our government, it has to do with inertia, protection against potential lawsuits, and an army of lobbyists working 24/7 to ensure corporate profit margins. Why would any of this surprise any DUer?

[laconicsax]

101. You missed a bit.

According to your link, an intravenous lethal dose is greater 45 mg/kg of body weight in rats.

An average lab rat weights around 200-500g depending on sex. (That's a fifth to a half of a kilogram). That would mean that a lethal dose of thimerosal in a lab rat would be between and 9 and 22.5 mg. If we assume that 45 mg/kg is also the minimum lethal dose in humans, then we can calculate how much thimerosal it would take to kill an average adult.

The average adult in the US is between 74 and 86 kg (depending on sex), meaning that a lethal dose would be a minimum 3.3 and 3.9 kg. Since I suspect you're not too handy with SI, I'll convert that into pounds: According to the information in your link, an intravenous lethal dose for an adult would be a minimum of 7.25 to 8.5 pounds of thimerosal.

And, since thimerosal has a density of 2.5 g/cm³ or 20.9 lb/gal, that would require about about 2 pints of the stuff to be injected into your veins to reach the MINIMUM estimated lethal dose. If we're adding 2 pints of fluid to the circulatory system (or simply replacing 2 pints of blood with 2 pints of thimerosal), it won't be the thimerosal that kills you.

There's typically less than half a milligram of thimerosal per vaccine dose, and studies show that it doesn't accumulate in the body.

[trotsky]

103. Ouch. Epic smackdown. n/t

[mhatrw]

105. LOL!!!!

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

Don't look now, but your idol was off by 1000!

[trotsky]

114. STILL an epic smackdown!

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
Don't look now, but you were wrong AGAIN!

[mhatrw]

121. Don't look now, but I'm the only one discussing the issues accurately, rationally and evenhandedly.

AGAIN!

[Confusious]

138. In what universe?

I see goalpost moving, sophistry, and massive bias sans facts.

[HuckleB]

139. WOW!

That is the funniest thing I've read in days.

Thanks. I really am :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mhatrw]

104. The lethal dose in rabbits is 20 mg/kg.

A 12 month old baby generally weighs about 10 kg. Assuming it would take the same amount of thimerosal to kill an infant as it would to kill a rabbit, you would need just 200 mg of thimerosal to kill an infant.

That is just 0.00705 ounces by weight!

The density of thimerosal is 2.508 g/cm³, so that means the 200 mg of thimerosal is just .079 milliliters (or 0.0027 fluid ounces) of thimerosal. That's only 1/400th of a fluid ounce of thimerosal that it would take to kill an infant.

Your math was 100% wrong.

An average lab rat weights around 200-500g depending on sex. (That's a fifth to a half of a kilogram). That would mean that a lethal dose of thimerosal in a lab rat would be between and 9 and 22.5 mg. If we assume that 45 mg/kg is also the minimum lethal dose in humans, then we can calculate how much thimerosal it would take to kill an average adult.

So far, so good.

The average adult in the US is between 74 and 86 kg (depending on sex), meaning that a lethal dose would be a minimum 3.3 and 3.9 kg.

LOL. You seem to have forgotten that grams come between milligrams and kilograms. 45 milligrams/kg * 74 kg = 3.33 grams & 45 milligrams/kg * 86 kg = 3.87 grams

Since I suspect you're not too handy with SI

:rofl:

I'll convert that into pounds: According to the information in your link, an intravenous lethal dose for an adult would be a minimum of 7.25 to 8.5 pounds of thimerosal.

Wrong!

3.33 grams = 0.00734 lbs = 0.117 ounces by weight = about 0.047 fluid ounces
3.87 grams = 0.00853 lbs = 0.137 ounces by weight = about 0.055 fluid ounces

So using your own assumptions, but correcting your math, it would take about 1/20th of a fluid ounce of thimerosal to kill to the average healthy adult human being.

How are those salt and water comparisons working for everyone now?

[laconicsax]

107. Even correcting my mistake, you're still missing something significant.

I freely admit my boneheaded mistake, but you're still missing an important fact: According to the FDA, there's a maximum of 25 µg in the seasonal flu shot. Since thimerosal doesn't bioaccumulate, you could get 1000 flu jabs and still not be even close to a lethal exposure.

That is unless a microgram isn't 1/1,000,000th of a gram anymore.

Nice to know I could be off by a factor of 1000 and still prove you wrong.

[mhatrw]

110. There is a maximum of 25 ug of mercury, which is about 50 ug of thimerosal.

If we assume that 200 mg of thimerosal can kill the average one-year-old, the level of thimerosal in your average flu vaccine is about 1/4000th the amount of a LETHAL dose (which is about one drop). This explains why flu shots with thimerosal don't kill people. However, this does not make thimerosal some harmless substance that we should be blithely injecting in our kids every flu season when we have other readily available vaccines that do not contain any thimerosal.

[laconicsax]

111. 1/4000th of a lethal dose.

A lethal amount of table salt is roughly 3,000 mg/kg, or about 240,000 mg for an 80 kg adult. 1/4000th that amount is 60 mg.

Congratulations! You've either proven that the amount of thimerosal in vaccines is negligible or that a http://www.epinions.com/review/Doritos_Tortilla_Chips_Nacho_Cheese_1_75_Oz_Large_Single_Serve_Bags_Pack_Of_60/content_432240823940">small bag of Doritos has five times a lethal amount of salt.

I'd love to see your proof that flu shots with thimerosal kill people too.

[mhatrw]

112. You can believe whatever helps you sleep at night.

Personally, I don't see any reason (other than the increased manufacturing cost of far less than a dollar a dose) for any amount of thimerosal to be in any vaccine.

It seems to me that you would happily put thimerosal in vaccines to save lass than a dollar per dose. And you'd feel so strongly about what a great money saving idea you had that you would even argue in its favor on a public message board.

[Confusious]

115. No, it's because a vaccine with a preservative

Is much safer then one without.

[mhatrw]

125. Well, that's news to the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/patients/syringeReuse_faqs.html

A single-use vial is a bottle of liquid medication that is given to a patient through a needle and syringe. Single-use vials contains only one dose of medication and should only be used once for one patient, using a clean needle and clean syringe.

A multi-dose vial is a bottle of liquid medication that contains more than one dose of medication and is often used by diabetic patients or for vaccinations. A new, clean needle and clean syringe should always be used to access the medication in a multi-dose vial. Reuse of needles or syringes to access medication can result in contamination of the medicine with germs that can be spread to others when the medicine is used again.

Whenever possible, CDC recommends that single-use vials be used and that multi-dose vials of medication be assigned to a single patient to reduce the risk of disease transmission.

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm#pres

To begin, we need to answer two questions-what are preservatives and why are they used in vaccines. For our purposes, preservatives may be defined as compounds that kill or prevent the growth of microorganisms, particularly bacteria and fungi. They are used in vaccines to prevent microbial growth in the event that the vaccine is accidentally contaminated, as might occur with repeated puncture of multi-dose vials. In some cases, preservatives are added during manufacture to prevent microbial growth; with changes in manufacturing technology, however, the need to add preservatives during the manufacturing process has decreased markedly.

The United States Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR) requires, in general, the addition of a preservative to multi-dose vials of vaccines; indeed, worldwide, preservatives are routinely added to multi-dose vials of vaccine. Tragic consequences have followed the use of multi-dose vials that did not contain a preservative and have served as the impetus for this requirement. ...

Preservatives cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination of vaccines. The literature contains several reports of bacterial contamination of vaccines despite the presence of a preservative, emphasizing the need for meticulous attention to technique in withdrawing vaccines from multi-dose vials. (Bernier et al 1981; Simon et al. 1993). The need for preservatives in multi-dose vials of vaccines is nonetheless clear. Several preservatives are used in U.S. licensed vaccines, and these are listed in Table 2. It is important to note that the FDA does not license a particular preservative; rather, the product containing that preservative is licensed, with safety and efficacy data generally collected in the context of a license application for a particular product.

[Confusious]

128. This proves my point

You posted it why? You don't know what it means?

[mhatrw]

149. How does it prove YOUR point? Single-dose vaccinations WITHOUT PRESERVATIVES

are far safer than multi-dose vaccinations WITH PRESERVATIVES.

Can you least admit this or are you going to continue arguing like you were trying out for a Monty Python revue?

[laconicsax]

153. The stuff copied and pasted doesn't support your conclusion.

Can you not see that? Or you are unwilling to see that?

[mhatrw]

156. True or false: Single dose vaccines are safer than multi-does vaccines?

True or false?

[laconicsax]

159. What's a multi-does vaccine?

Do you mean a vaccine like the MMR or TDaP? You know, one that does multiple diseases?

I like how you keep shifting those goalposts--first mercury was deadly in any amount, then it was thimerosal was deadly in any amount, then it was thimerosal is dangerous in any amount, now it's single-dose vs. multi-dose.

[laconicsax]

119. Vaccines with a preservative are safer than those without.

Kinda like how pasteurized milk is safer to drink than unpasteurized. Really.

I'd happily put thimerosal (or any other preservative) in a vaccine to make sure that its contents are uncontaminated.

[mhatrw]

123. Wrong. Vaccines only need preservatives because they are multi-dose.

Multi-dose vials are inherently more dangerous than single does vials or pre-filled syringes according to the CDC.

But what else would you expect from someone who argues that calcium propionate, sodium nitrate, sodium nitrite, sulfur dioxide, sodium bisulfite, potassium hydrogen sulfite, disodium EDTA, BHA, BHT formaldehyde and methylchloroisothiazolinone make food safer. Do you know what actually makes food safer? Freshness. Hard to believe, huh?

[Confusious]

129. You proved my point with your link

Vaccines are safer with preservatives.

[mhatrw]

130. Multi-dose vaccines are safer with preservatives.

Single-dose vaccines are inherently safer than multi-dose vaccines in every way (except manufacturing cost) and do not need to be adulterated with any toxic preservatives.

[Confusious]

132. So?

You asked why they would be used, I gave you a reason.

Trying to change the topic since you keep getting smacked?

[mhatrw]

134. Welcome to the funhouse. n/t

[Confusious]

137. Yea, I guess that's your substantive argument,

Compared to the rest, which is just crap.

[Dorian Gray]

47. You said earlier to weigh

the risks vs. the reward with vaccines.

The risk that the thimerosal will harm the fetus is MUCH MUCH less than a pregnant woman contracting the flu, and that harming the fetus.

Alcohol has no real health benefits during a pregnancy. Flu vaccine can prevent the flu, which can in turn harm the fetus. That's why there is a difference in recommendation.

[pnwmom]

49. You're overlooking the fact that thimerosal-free vaccines

are just as effective as those with thimerosal. So the question isn't why flu vaccines are recommended, despite some undefined risk with thimerosal, but why the CDC doesn't recommend that pregnant women get the thimerosal-free flu vaccine.

[trotsky]

52. Why don't you ask the FDA?

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/QuestionsaboutVaccines/ucm188099.htm

The Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 inactivated (flu-shot) vaccines that have been licensed are available in both single dose and multi-dose preparations. Multi-dose preparations are formulated with thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative used to ensure that the vaccine does not become contaminated after the vial has been opened. Single dose preparations contain no thimerosal, or only trace amounts. Studies have shown that there is no known harm from thimerosal preservative-containing vaccines. In 1999, FDA conducted a review of thimerosal in childhood vaccines and found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions. The Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee reached a similar conclusion in 2001, based on a review of available data, and again in 2004, after reviewing studies performed after its 2001 report. Since then, additional studies have been published confirming these findings. Thus, pregnant women may receive either preservative-free or thimerosal preservative-containing influenza vaccine.

[mhatrw]

61. And round and round we go. Why would you want lead paint coating

your children's toys if you could could get toys not coated with lead paint?

Why would you want thimerosal in your kids' veins if these same vaccines are also made without thimerosal?

[laconicsax]

62. I think the more important question is...

Why, after knowing that thimerosal has been shown to be safe, are you so paranoid about it?

[mhatrw]

69. LOL. How has thimerosal been shown to be safe? It's 50% mercury.

It's a proven neurotoxin.

[trotsky]

72. Sodium is a proven reactive metal.

Chlorine is a proven poisonous gas.

Are you telling me that table salt has been shown to be safe? It's 50% of each of those! ZOMG!

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Confusious]

83. You don't seem to understand the equate

Sodium+Chloride = salt, which has completely different properties then chloride or sodium

mercury+thiolate+ethyl+carboxylate=thiomersal, which has completely different properties then plain mercury.

[mhatrw]

85. Well then, why not use thimerosal to season your food?

You folks are priceless.

[Confusious]

88. Because it's not a seasoner, it's a preservative

You still don't understand, Obviously.

The ignorance is strong with this one.

[mhatrw]

95. Mmmm, Mmmm Good! Mmmm, Mmmm Good! That's what ethyl mercury is!

Mmmm, Mmmm Good!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vaccine-tlc.org%2Fdocs%2FThimerosal%2520Material%2520Safety%2520Data%2520Sheet.pdf&rct=j&q=thimerosal%20MSds&ei=aptATeXJCs32sgbm98XeBA&usg=AFQjCNFH5KvcFOk6GElGs8iFUVZodoTYsw&cad=rja">Material Safety Data Sheet - Thimerosal

[Confusious]

116. Don't take any vitamins then

Most are toxic

http://1stholistic.com/nutrition/hol_nutr-toxic-dosages.htm

[mhatrw]

147. Once again, we were discussing the LD50 of thimerosal.

This is the dose that immediately kills 50% of the test subjects.

Toxic effects can and often do occur at dosages far, far less than those that immediately kill 50% of the test subjects.

You are comparing apples to oranges. In doing so, you are actually demonstrating why we might want to be concerned with the dosage level of thimerosal in vaccines, even though it is just 1/4000th the LD50 dosage.

[Confusious]

160. Which varies species

45mg/kg for rat, 90mg/kg mouse for thiomersal..

Those numbers are listed for humans. You may not die from the vitamin itself, but from liver failure or something else.

But dead is dead.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Confusious]

76. It's not Mercury

Just like salt isn't sodium.

Someone save us from the ignorant.

[mhatrw]

100. Ethyl mercury, methyl mercury and elemental mercury are ALL highly toxic.

Do you really disagree with this patently obvious statement?

[laconicsax]

102. True or False: The dose makes the poison.

[mhatrw]

106. True of false. If 20 mg/kg of thimerosal kills rabbits, and we assume

that the same concentration by weight can kill humans, then just 0.0027 fluid ounces of thimerosal (about 1/400th of an ounce or about one liquid drop) would would be enough to kill your average 22 pound one-year-old.

That's some harmless stuff right there, when one drop of it is enough to kill your average healthy one-year-old.

[laconicsax]

108. True or false: The dose makes the poison.

1/400th of an ounce is still several orders of magnitude greater than the amount of thimerosal in shots for children under 3.

[mhatrw]

113. Yes. It is orders of magnitude below an immediately LETHAL dose.

But the stuff is highly toxic. It is not table salt or water. If you can stop your kids from being injected with even 50 micrograms of it annually by paying an extra dollar, you should probably consider it strongly. It's our kids' lives at stake here, and what is an extra dollar when it comes to doing the best you can for your kids? Why take an unnecessary risk such as injecting your kids with thimerosal when it only costs about dollar more per dose to avoid any such risk? Why not err on the side of caution? Why is all of this so difficult for you to admit?

[laconicsax]

122. True or false: The dose makes the poison.

Just about everything is toxic at high enough concentrations and since the body eliminates ethylmercury in a matter of weeks, 50µg of the stuff once a year isn't something to worry about.

[laconicsax]

109. Dupe.

[trotsky]

67. Red herring.

Try again if you wish. This time use a logical argument.

[Confusious]

75. Thirmersol has been around since the 30's

Why no evils until 70 years later?

[mhatrw]

86. Dental amalgam has been around since the 1800s.

That still doesn't make it smart to fill your mouth with mercury.

[Confusious]

90. Different compounds

Different effects. Still don't understand do you?

It's like trying to explain the difference between black and white to a dog.

[mhatrw]

94. Ethyl mercury is perfectly healthy! Only elemental mercury and methyl mercury are bad for you!

Is this really the "argument" you wish to hang your hat on?

73 MILLIGRAMS per kilogram of body weight of thimerosal will kill rats on the spot.

That's the equivalent in weight to about .0075 of one teaspoon of salt. Less than 1% of a teaspoon per kilogram of body weight of thimerosal actually kills rats dead in their tracks. Knowing this, do you still think salt and water are good comparisons to thimerosal?

[Confusious]

117. You got smacked down before

I borrow from above:

According to your link, an intravenous lethal dose is greater 45 mg/kg of body weight in rats.

An average lab rat weights around 200-500g depending on sex. (That's a fifth to a half of a kilogram). That would mean that a lethal dose of thimerosal in a lab rat would be between and 9 and 22.5 mg. If we assume that 45 mg/kg is also the minimum lethal dose in humans, then we can calculate how much thimerosal it would take to kill an average adult.

The average adult in the US is between 74 and 86 kg (depending on sex), meaning that a lethal dose would be a minimum 3.3 and 3.9 kg. Since I suspect you're not too handy with SI, I'll convert that into pounds: According to the information in your link, an intravenous lethal dose for an adult would be a minimum of 7.25 to 8.5 pounds of thimerosal.

And, since thimerosal has a density of 2.5 g/cm3 or 20.9 lb/gal, that would require about about 2 pints of the stuff to be injected into your veins to reach the MINIMUM estimated lethal dose. If we're adding 2 pints of fluid to the circulatory system (or simply replacing 2 pints of blood with 2 pints of thimerosal), it won't be the thimerosal that kills you.

There's typically less than half a milligram of thimerosal per vaccine dose, and studies show that it doesn't accumulate in the body.

Many vitamins are toxic at fractional amounts of that.

http://1stholistic.com/nutrition/hol_nutr-toxic-dosages.htm

[laconicsax]

124. FWIW:

I was off by a factor of 1000 on that. It would take about 3 grams to make a lethal dose.

Of course I was also off on the amount of thimerosal in vaccines. So you see, the 50µg in the seasonal flu jab is so significantly smaller that lethal amounts, mhatrw is still wrong.

[Confusious]

136. Where did you go wrong in the calcs?

Just wondering.

FYI: Vitamins are toxic in the milligram range. 3 grams is still a lot more.

[Confusious]

140. NM found it

Forgot to cancel the kg. .045g x 86 = 3.87g for an 86kg human.

[mhatrw]

142. Good going!

Pretty soon you'll be able to handle exponents and radicals!

[Confusious]

143. Is that another substantive part of your argument?

Maybe you can move up to sixth grade insults next time.

[mhatrw]

145. Why don't you stop trying to win a battle and start discussing things reasonably?

We both just might learn something.

[Confusious]

146. I have been

You're just not reasonable.

You make hyperbolic statements and magnify people's mistakes out of proportion ( Which would be somewhat reasonable if they were totally wrong, but they were still right )

If that's not enough, you insult and then ask for peace.

As far as it being a battle, it is. Against ignorance.

I only attack when attacked. Be nice, I will be nice in return.

[mhatrw]

126. LOL! Keep quoting a post that is off by three orders of magnitude!

:rofl:

[Confusious]

135. Still

Most vitamins become toxic in milligrams

3grams is still orders of magnitude larger.

Dope.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[mhatrw]

141. We are talking about an IMMEDIATELY LETHAL DOSE for an adult.

And we were extrapolating using body weight differential from the IMMEDIATELY LETHAL DOSE for rats.

The LD50 (the median lethal dosage amount that will kill 50% of the test subjects) for Vitamin C using rats as test subjects is 11.9 grams per kilogram of body weight. For a 150 pound human this would require consuming 1.785 pounds of pure Vitamin C in one sitting.

It takes 265 times the amount of Vitamin C to kill a rat than the amount of thimerosal it takes to kill a rat.

The LD50 (the median lethal dosage amount that will kill 50% of the test subjects) for Vitamin E using mice as test subjects is greater than 4.0 grams per kilogram of body weight. For a 150 pound human this would require consuming at least 0.6 pounds of pure Vitamin E in one sitting.

Note that even though people could conceivably eat over 272 grams of vitamin E without dying, people are advised never to take more than 0.8 grams of vitamin E in one sitting.

[Confusious]

144. So what you're saying is "The dose makes the poison"

Glad the light finally dawned.

I was thinking it would never happen.

The rats were given 45mg/kg for 5 times a day for and unspecified amount of days. It wasn't an immediate lethal dose either.

I'm sure if you took enough vitamin C 5 times a day for and indeterminate amount of time, you would die.

The 45mg/kg was just a starting point, not an end point. Nowhere does it say the rats died because of it. We just used it to get a number for how much a human could handle.

In spite of the higher inorganic mercury concentration in the brain of ethylmercurythan in the brain of methylmercury-treated rats, the granular layer damage in the cerebellum was widespread only in the methylmercury-treated rats. Thus inorganic mercury or dealkylation cannot be responsible for granular layer damage in alkylmercury intoxication. Moreover, histochemistry demonstrated no inorganic mercury deposits in the granular layer.

[mhatrw]

148. Once again, you are sadly confused.

"The rats were given 45mg/kg for 5 times a day for and unspecified amount of days. It wasn't an immediate lethal dose either."

Where are you getting this information from? You are confusing two different experiments. The 45mg/kg dosage is the LD50.

The dosages given 5 times a day in the experiment I cited were 8.0 & 9.6 mg/kg, about 5 times less than the LD50 dosage. If the rats had been given the LD50 dosage of 45 mg/kg, they wouldn't have been around long enough to study.

Why don't you slow down, stop trying to win so desperately, stop making gross errors at every turn and start trying to have a reasonable conversation?

[Confusious]

151. Once again you take a mistake and blow it out of proportion

As I expected you would.

Is that reasonable?

[mhatrw]

155. Blow it out of proportion? All you are doing is making mistakes, then

saying, "Aha! I caught you!" every time you make one.

Check out this entire portion of the thread.

You may have some good points to make, but you are having a hard time making them. Can we perhaps start over?

[Confusious]

161. No I just said that once

You made a big deal out of the magnitude mistake ( 3-4 posts concerning that ), which wasn't much of one anyways. 3g is bad, if we're human rats( If we were human mice, we could handle 6g! ) A vaccine shot contains 50mcg ( That's MICROgrams ).

3g vs 50mcg. That's 60,000 times less then what MIGHT cause a problem.

[mhatrw]

60. Show us the evidence that healthy pregnant women getting the flu is

so incredibly harmful to fetuses.

I'd really like to see this evidence.

As always, the devil is in the details.

[laconicsax]

63. If only there were a quick and easy way to research that...

Oh wait! There is!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Risks+of+flu+during+pregnancy

[Dorian Gray]

87. Really?

THIS is the argument you want to make?

:eyes:

[mhatrw]

98. Yes. I want to see the science that demonstrates:

1) that healthy pregnant women and their fetuses are more at risk of the flu than the general population,

2) that flu vaccinations of any sort result in better overall health outcomes for healthy pregnant women and their fetuses, and

3) that multidose flu vaccinations containing thimerosal result in the same better overall health outcomes for healthy pregnant women and their fetuses as do single dose thimerosal-free flu vaccinations.

Why is it always asking too much to see the actual science?

[mhatrw]

58. All multidose flu vaccines in the US contain thimerosal which is about 50% mercury by weight.

This have been a public service message.

[laconicsax]

64. All table salt is over 50% chlorine by weight.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/en/index.html

I guess you can add the WHO to the conspiracy to pollute our precious bodily fluids. After all they wrote that

On this basis, GACVS concluded that there is currently no evidence of mercury toxicity in infants, children, or adults exposed to thiomersal in vaccines. It also concluded that there is no reason to change current immunization practices with thiomersal-containing vaccines on the grounds of safety.

[mhatrw]

70. Get your MERCURY here! Fresh shots of MERCURY here!

LOL. Priceless.

[Confusious]

77. Keep showing your ignorance. nt

[pnwmom]

2. Glad to hear they're on top of this.

Seizures can lead to serious problems, so they shouldn't be ignored. If there's a problem, it needs to be taken care of.

[trotsky]

10. Febrile seizures are commonly caused by viral illnesses such as measles, mumps, etc.

So to prevent seizures, it's good to vaccinate. Glad you agree.

[pnwmom]

11. The only seizures any of my children ever had

were the seizures my son had within hours of his 2nd DPT vaccination.

And the only seizures my sister ever had were the ones that followed her 3rd DTP and preceded her death from encephalitis ( within 24 hours of her vaccination during her well-baby check-up).

Vaccination probably does help reduce the number of seizures in general -- but not in all children. And, according to the article at the link, there appears to be an increase in the number of seizures with this particular vaccine. We need to learn whether the increase was real and, if so, what caused it. If this flu shot can cause serious reactions in a certain subset of vulnerable children, then we should be doing the research to identify those children. I'm glad the FDA is following up on this.

[trotsky]

18. Your miniscule sample size is duly noted.

Your inability to understand overall statistics and risk is also.

[pnwmom]

31. Your lack of empathy for real human beings is duly noted as well. n/t

[Odin2005]

34. What about empathy for all the autistic kids hurt by anti-vax crap.

Several have died from chelation therapy, trying to "get the mercury out".

[pnwmom]

35. Write an OP about that, then. You are completely off topic. n/t

[Odin2005]

37. No I'm not.

this anti-vax crap leads to that chelation crap.

[pnwmom]

38. There is nothing anti-vax in the OP. It's about the FDA doing

something good -- following up on reports that should be followed up on. It's about the FDA doing its job to assure the safety of vaccines, as it does with drugs.

[trotsky]

44. Your attempt to smear me is pretty weak.

I wonder, however, if your sister HADN'T gotten vaccinated, and then developed a disease that killed her? Would you be arguing in favor of vaccination? Because there are far more people in that category than there are who were harmed from a vaccine. The stats just aren't on your side - not even close.

[Confusious]

78. Your hyperbolic equating is duly noted also.

It does no service to your fellow humans and confuses the issue, when real solutions could be found.

Kind of like the catholic church saying you can't use condoms when the problem is AIDS in Africa.

[Odin2005]

25. In that case then your post is proof that most people are incapable of...

telling the difference between anecdote and data. ;-)

[pnwmom]

30. I never claimed to be offering scientific data. Just pointing out

that there are real human beings in the collateral damage on our well-justified war against disease.

[cleanhippie]

54. Can you offer some kind of evidence that the DPT vaccine caused your childs seizures

or are you just speculating using the "correlation = causation" fallacy?

[LeftishBrit]

65. In fact, febrile seizures are found to be a rare side-effect of the pertussis vaccination..

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm

though I believe much less likely with the current acellular form of the vaccine, than the older cellular form.

The actual disease is far more dangerous than the vaccine, and I have my own personal emotions there as I know someone who is seriously physically disabled from having whooping cough as a baby. But I think it's a good thing to reduce the side effects of ANY medical treatment as much as possible - as has already been done to quite an extent with this particular vaccine.

There is so much scaremongering about vaccines and/or about the motivations of vaccine providers that I think that sometimes we see this when it's not there. Anyone who accuses vaccine supporters and providers of being 'Pharma shills' or supporters of 'for-profit medicine' or worst of all of relying on government and doctors instead of taking responsibility for living healthily; or who suggests that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases; or who perpetrates the 'vaccines-cause-autism' myth will arouse my fury - but I don't think this is what's happening in this case.

[trotsky]

9. That's great.

Because kids can also get seizures from having the flu. But we won't talk about that, because it doesn't fit in with anti-vaccine fearmongering.

[pnwmom]

12. This isn't fearmongering, it's the opposite of fearmongering.

The point is that the FDA is following up on concerns -- good for the FDA.

New vaccines are being developed all the time -- in the case of the flu vaccine, a new vaccine is created every year. Parents will feel much more secure in vaccinating their children if they know that the FDA is staying on top of the situation, conducting ongoing research to evaluate the safety of vaccines once they're released into the market.

[trotsky]

19. No, it's fearmongering.

It's trying to scare people about vaccines. That's what the OP does in all her threads. But I do have to laugh that anti-vaxers around the Internet wail and scream about the FDA, CDC, and NIH being in on the worldwide conspiracy to kill children with vaccines and yet here's the FDA following up on a minor reaction that may or may not have been related to the vaccine, and from whom no one suffered any long-lasting effects.

Difficult to weave that into a conspiracy where the FDA is in the pocket of big pharma and doesn't give a rip about killing us all.

[mhatrw]

22. Take it up with AP fearmongerers.

Your mindreading ability is priceless.

This is a health forum. Some health news came over the AP wires. I posted the article on the health forum without comment. How in the fuck is that fear mongering?

History has shown that not all vaccines have been perfectly safe to all who received them. Thus, informed individuals need to weigh the potential benefits they receive from getting specific vaccinations against the potential risks and costs of each specific vaccine. The potential benefits from flu vaccination may or may not outweigh the potential risks. It depends on one's risk of not fully recovering from the flu as well the specific vaccine's efficacy and safety (and perhaps even lot number). This is simply the truth of the matter. There is nothing scary about it. The risks of vaccination are generally very low, but for flu vaccination, the rewards are also generally low, at least for young and healthy individuals.

If you want fear mongering, try the bird flu and swine flu scares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASibLqwVbsk

[trotsky]

26. I couldn't agree more with this statement:

"informed individuals need to weigh the potential benefits they receive from getting specific vaccinations against the potential risks and costs of each specific vaccine"

However, your posts have consistently shown an inability to process the statistics involved. You have shown a clear bias in trying to tilt the scales AGAINST vaccination. You post misleading or outright false information, and then start attacking those who bring truth. There is no mindreading necessary - your history is on display in this forum.

[mhatrw]

55. LOL. Almost every single post you make is nothing but a blatant

personal attack on me because of your ill-judgment of my "posting history."

I make substantive posts. You ignore the substance and respond by attacking me personally. Rinse and repeat.

That is your posting history that is on display on this forum.

[Confusious]

79. The "get your mercury shots here" is substantive?

HAH!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[pnwmom]

32. This thread isn't by or about anti-vaxers. For some inexplicable reason you choose

to label any thread about safety as being anti-vax.

And yet you don't feel the same way about drug safety. Very strange.

[LeftishBrit]

42. I agree about the article, but the reason isn't 'inexplicable'

It is because there have been so many posts that emphasize distrust of vaccine provision and attribute bad motives to vaccine providers and pro-vaccine people (this is not precisely the same as being 'anti-vax' though it can often lead to it), and posts that insist that vaccines or their ingredients are causing 'an autism epidemic', that it ends up like crying wolf, and people end up expecting any post about vaccine safety to be in this category.

Although I do not think that vaccines play a role in causing autism, they can have immediate side effects (like any medicine), and it's always desirable to test for and seek to reduce these.

[mhatrw]

56. When have I ever posted anything trying to prove a thimerosal-autism link?

You simply freak out whenever anyone posts anything that remotely questions any vaccine or any vaccine ingredient.

[LeftishBrit]

41. For once, I disagree with you about the news item posted by the OP

The item itself was harmless: about the CDC carefully checking for side effects of vaccines and ways to reduce them. Although vaccines do not cause autism, they can, like everything else, cause unpleasant and very occasionally dangerous short-term side-effects. The diseases cause many more such effects, and it's quite likely that a lot of the side effects of 'vaccines' were really side effects of illnesses that the children would have had anyway. But nonetheless, it's worth investigating them.

I think certain OPs post so many items that imply that vaccine provision is *in general* untrustworthy due to profit motives, that people assume that all articles that they post are in this category. This item was not in this categiry IMO.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

24. Lot of anti-vax fact-free BS in this thread.

[pnwmom]

33. Pro-safety doesn't equal anti-vax. Parents who know the FDA

is continually monitoring safety of vaccines are MORE, not less, likely to vaccinate their children.

[HuckleB]

53. Parents who know the FDA is monitoring quality don't hide behind the "pro-safety" label.

The only people who use that label are anti-vaxxers trying to hide their motives.

[mhatrw]

127. Exactly! You can read people's minds, and everyone who says she is

concerned with safety must be out to get you!

[mhatrw]

57. Like what? Care to point out exactly what is it on this thread that

qualifies as "anti-vax fact-free BS"?

[Confusious]

81. Mercury in vaccines for one.

Just like you're eating sodium and chlorine when you eat SALT.

OMG you could DIE!!11!!!

[mhatrw]

133. Why not take the time to learn something?

Methyl mercury is the form of mercury that accumulates in fish.

Thimerosal breaks up into ethyl mercury in the bodies of mammals.

Ethyl mercury is more toxic to the renal system of rats than is methyl mercury.

Ethyl mercury is slightly less neurotoxic to rats than is methyl mercury, but just 20% more ethyl mercury results in greater nerve damage, so the overall toxic effects of methyl mercury and ethyl mercury are very comparable.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v0203116418023h8

Neurotoxicity and renotoxicity were compared in rats given by gastric gavage five daily doses of 8.0 mg Hg/kg methyl- or ethylmercuric chloride or 9.6 mg Hg/kg ethylmercuric chloride. Three or 10 days after the last treatment day rats treated with either 8.0 or 9.6 mg Hg/kg ethylmercury had higher total or organic mercury concentrations in blood and lower concentrations in kidneys and brain than methylmercury-treated rats. In each of these tissues the inorganic mercury concentration was higher after ethyl than after methylmercury.

Weight loss relative to the expected body weight and renal damage was higher in ethylmercury-treated rats than in rats given equimolar doses of methylmercury. These effects became more severe when the dose of ethylmercury was increased by 20%. Thus in renotoxicity the renal concentration of inorganic mercury seems to be more important than the concentration of organic or total mercury. In methylmercury-treated rats damage and inorganic mercury deposits were restricted to the P2 region of the proximal tubules, while in ethylmercury-treated rats the distribution of mercury and damage was more widespread.

There was little difference in the neurotoxicities of methylmercury and ethylmercury when effects on the dorsal root ganglia or coordination disorders were compared. Based on both criteria, an equimolar dose of ethylmercury was less neurotoxic than methylmercury, but a 20% increase in the dose of ethylmercury was enough to raise the sum of coordination disorder scores slightly and ganglion damage significantly above those in methylmercury-treated rats.

[Confusious]

165. You didn't mention the dose at which that happens

and at which dose it doesn't happen. If I take to much Vitamin C, I get Nausea, diarrhea, flatulence. If I take the right amount, my body likes it.

It's all in the dose.

I just don't like what your teaching. It's bullshit. It flies in the face of everything I've been taught in the past 35 years.

Who are you to tell me every scientist is wrong? That's some arrogance.

[LeftishBrit]

40. Good. I am glad that this is being checked out

Anything that leads to a reduction in side effects of any medication is a good thing.

[pnwmom]

43. Right. And the more vigilant the FDA is in following up on this sort of thing,

the more confidant parents will be in getting their children vaccinated.

[mhatrw]

93. Child Flu Vaccine Seizures?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20029626-10391695.html

More confusing news for parents trying to do the best, safest things for their children when it comes to vaccination. According to a Vaccine Safety "update" issued by the FDA on Jan. 20, there's been an increase in reports of febrile seizures among infants and children following this year's flu vaccine. Febrile seizures are seizures associated with fever. ...

The FDA points out that data from VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is preliminary and serves as a sign that further investigation is warranted. The maker of the flu vaccine in question, Sanofi Pasteur, has issued a statement saying that no clear link has been established between the flu shot and the seizures, and the cases may be nothing more than coincidence.

Even with "no clear link established," the mere suggestion of a link may be troubling to parents.

A new study from the department of Pediatrics and Neurology at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine discusses how early life seizures "may contribute to the enhanced risk of IDD's (Intellectual and Development Disabilities) and ASD's (Autism Spectrum Disorders.)"

[mzmolly]

163. Wow.

A new study from the department of Pediatrics and Neurology at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine discusses how early life seizures "may contribute to the enhanced risk of IDD's (Intellectual and Development Disabilities) and ASD's (Autism Spectrum Disorders.)

Yet we're not to ever draw a conclusion that a vaccine induced seizure, could lead to autism?