How Can Mercury in Vaccines Be Safe?

Published

Specializes in Too many to list.

Of course, I am aware that correlation in anectodal evidence is not the same as confluence. That being said, I still have to question the wisdom of putting a mercury derivative, thimerosol into vaccines as a cost saving measure as noted in the two previous links provided on this vaccine issue. The following link is NOT a scientific study, but it raises some valid concerns:

http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/mother_jones.pdf

As per this article, I would have to ask WHY would congressional Republicans want to add a provision to a homeland security bill exempting Eli Lilly Labs and other vaccine manufacturers from civil law suits regarding thimerosol? Why would they do that?

I thought it was interesting that when a physician found that mercury was contained in teething powder in the 1950's, it was found to be the cause of Pink's Disease which has symptoms similiar to autism.

It was disturbing to think about RH negative mothers receiving thimerosol containing injections of Rho D immunoglobulin at 28 to 34 weeks. And if they had several fillings in their mouths containing mercury, that's a heavy dose of mercury for an unborn child to be exposed to. And then, as a baby

he gets several more injections.

So now thimerosol is not supposed to be in the vaccines in this country.

Why is that? But, because of the use of multidose vials, the children in 3rd world countries continue to be exposed.

And, then there is the conflict of interest issues between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities, the revolving door between jobs in the private sector and government. When that stops, maybe I'll believe the

NIH.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Quackbusters

Oh, and when one reads any article in a peer-reviewed journal the authorities cited are the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO. And that's from anyone anywhere in the world.

But hey, you go with Mother Jones. Which is now a glossy, BTW.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Too many to list.

WARNING: This is not a link to a peer reviewed article. It does address however, the difficulty of getting funding for research regarding the possible adverse reactions to vaccines.

http://www.909shot.com/Loe_Fisher/blfhepbcongress51899.htm

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Too many to list.

Mercury does not belong in the human body (my opinion). We are being warned not to eat larger fish for that reason. If a mercury amalgam is removed from your mouth, it is disposed of as a toxic substance, and rightly so. Yet, children are still being exposed through vaccines.

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf

And yes, I am aware of this:

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/autism/geier-article.pdf

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Too many to list.

Maybe we should be looking at this issue. Medical authorities seem to be in disagreement about the importance of this contamination, but they don't deny that it happened.

http://ccid.org/addviruses/sv40.htm

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/iom_reports_detail.cfv?id=49

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/4/306

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/4/317

http://www3.cancer.gov/legis/testimony/goedert.html

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
Quackbusters

Oh, and when one reads any article in a peer-reviewed journal the authorities cited are the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO. And that's from anyone anywhere in the world.

But hey, you go with Mother Jones. Which is now a glossy, BTW.

Quackbusters is a good link. You'd also enjoy quackwatch.com

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Med, Pediatric Hematology-Oncology.

i sincerely hope that when one is researching this topic, one does not cite any sources coming from a Google search.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in PACU, ED.
i sincerely hope that when one is researching this topic, one does not cite any sources coming from a Google search.

???? I'm sorry, I don't understand your concern. If someone quotes an authoritative source, does it matter which search engine was used to find that source? I must be missing your point. Please explain.

Thanks.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Med, Pediatric Hematology-Oncology.
???? I'm sorry, I don't understand your concern. If someone quotes an authoritative source, does it matter which search engine was used to find that source? I must be missing your point. Please explain.

Thanks.

most often the sources found on google are out of date or less than authoritative (or its difficult to check the authenticity). unless your source comes from a recent (as in, within the last 5-7 years) peer reviewed credited journal it cannot be considered authoritative. and since, more often than not, you cannot gain access to those journals via a google search without paying, then i would discredit any information coming from a google search. just because a website looks credible, doesnt mean it is.

in order to properly integrate the best evidence into our nursing practice, nurses must learn to recognize the most credible resources. i am not slamming any article that has been linked to on this thread. i am simply stating that if you want to present a good argument on this, make sure you use the absolute best evidence you can find (and magazine and newspaper articles dont count).

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in PACU, ED.
most often the sources found on google are out of date or less than authoritative (or its difficult to check the authenticity). unless your source comes from a recent (as in, within the last 5-7 years) peer reviewed credited journal it cannot be considered authoritative. and since, more often than not, you cannot gain access to those journals via a google search without paying, then i would discredit any information coming from a google search. just because a website looks credible, doesnt mean it is.

in order to properly integrate the best evidence into our nursing practice, nurses must learn to recognize the most credible resources. i am not slamming any article that has been linked to on this thread. i am simply stating that if you want to present a good argument on this, make sure you use the absolute best evidence you can find (and magazine and newspaper articles dont count).

I absolutely agree that we must use credible sources. There are some on the web that do not require subscriptions such as the CDC and WHO. I've also seen reporting of journal articles that were open to the public. I think we are kind of limited in an online forum to quoting online sources. I could claim almost anything in a journal article that is not available online and it would take a lot of time and effort for someone to disprove it.

Google, Yahoo, Altavista, askjeeves, and other search engines are just methods to find a site or article. We, as professionals, should then use critical thinking to select reputable sources. Yup, we agree, data beats opinion every time.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in cardiac ICU.
WARNING: This is not a link to a peer reviewed article. It does address however, the difficulty of getting funding for research regarding the possible adverse reactions to vaccines.

http://www.909shot.com/Loe_Fisher/blfhepbcongress51899.htm

Why would anybody shell out funding for research when the question at hand is essentially settled? That seems like a waste of money.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Too many to list.
Why would anybody shell out funding for research when the question at hand is essentially settled? That seems like a waste of money.

What question are you referring to? Please clarify.

Don't get nervous folks, I don't have the energy for protracted discussion of this...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion