Vulcan writes:
The source did not say.
#1. Perhaps a better solution was found?
#2. Perhaps the public hysteria about the tiny dose of mercury, much less than a tuna sandwich, motivated a change?
#3. Perhaps the tiny dose of mercury was suspected of having some other side effect,
#4. or was simply seen as a suboptimal solution?
A. Of course, the mercury compound was added because of famous cases where vaccines became contaminated with bacteria and children died. Those cases were from decades ago, when hypodermic needles were used to draw repeated doses from the same vial of vaccine.
B. Today, almost every vaccine is distributed in single-use needles, presumably reducing or eliminating the risk of contamination,
C. and perhaps reducing the need for the mercury compound.
Just speculating, but you asked.
Yes I did ask. Your answers are - as you said - "speculations." {BTW - The numberings and letterings are mine.}
So:
#1. "a better solution was found"
If it ain't broke why fix it? The vaccines were deemed to be SAFE.
#2. "public hysteria"
Is this like the public hysteria over MSG or HFCS or artificial sweeteners or etc added to foods? Where even though the FDA considers them as GRAS, GRASsroots folks do not - and eventually advertisers start advertising "NO MSG ADDED" "NO HFCS" and Even the FDA is coerced unhappily to remove one or another other formerly GRAS ingredient?
#3. "Perhaps the tiny dose of mercury was suspected of having some other side effect"
That is quite a suspicion. What could that "other side effect" be?
And again, if the vaccine was 100% safe why would there be any suspicions at all? They've checked them, they've re-checked them, the FDA has approved them, The CDC has has approved them, the WHO has approved them, the Govt has approved them so much so that parents are FORCED to innoculate their kids.
#4. "or was simply seen as a suboptimal solution"
Like I wrote before - If ain't broke....
A lot of songs are written with the lyrics: "I wouldn't change a thing about you" "You're perfect just the way you are" etc etc.
So why mess with a perfect thing?
A. I had heard but didn't really know of The "famous cases....where children died" because of contamination. Can you give me a link or info to these famous cases? "Decades ago" can be a little as 20 years ago (1986 or thereabouts?) Is this in the USA?
I DID know of the literally nearly millions of Africans who died because of contamination and re-use of syringes.
B. "Today,
almost every vaccine is distributed in single-use needles,"
presumably reducing .... the risk of contamination"
"Almosts" and "Presumably(s)" are not what a consumer wants to hear
C. "and
perhaps reducing the need for the mercury compound"
If they're 100% safe - why mess with the folks who sell you the mercury? For the billions of syringes distributed, fer sure the mercury folks would be losing a tidy sum of money.
But then again, they still keep the Mercury in Flu Vaccines. Now that is going to be a big big moneymaker.
Think ZIKA.
And Is it not still in GARDASIL? (Sorry my bad, ALUMINUM is.) And Aluminum is nearly as safe as Mercury - n'est-ce pas?
Zwergin wrote:
Also the mercury-containing compound in fish is different from the one in the vaccines. More dangerous also. It is similar enought that concerns were raised and it was checked but to me it looks like there is nothing to it.
#1. "similar enough that concerns were raised"?
Who raised these concerns? When? It was distributed and verified safe and THEN there were concerns? Who raised the concerns?
#2. "and it was checked"
checked by whom? and exactly why - if it was 100% safe???
#3. "to me it looks like there is nothing to it"
Forgive me, don't mean to be unkind - but like the Caterpillar asked Alice: "WHO ARE YOU?"
reply
share
Zwergin
8 years ago
Forgive me, don't mean to be unkind - but like the Caterpillar asked Alice: "WHO ARE YOU?"
What kind of answer do you want for that? My name? My profession? Do you want to know if my brother works for the CDC?
reply
share
SquidNewton
8 years ago
Zwergin wrote:
Also the mercury-containing compound in fish is different from the one in the vaccines. More dangerous also. It is similar enought that concerns were raised and it was checked but to me it looks like there is nothing to it.
That's what you wrote. I
bolded the sentence.
What kind of answer do you want for that? My name? My profession? Do you want to know if my brother works for the CDC?
None of the above.
When one gives an opinion about anything, that's what it is: merely an
opinion. If the scientist/researcher who did the actual checking said: "to me it looks like there is nothing to it." I would ask the same thing: Who Are You?
There either
is something to it.
Or there
is nothing to it.
It's an either/or.
Not a maybe.
Not a "to me it looks like."
To me it looks like a bug of some sort.
To me it looks like an earwig.
To me it looks like a cocaroach.
To me it looks like Gregor Samsa.
Ms. Swan: Uhh...(To me) He look-a like-a man.
reply
share
Zwergin
8 years ago
Ok, then there is nothing to it.
Even though I don't really get what is the problem with the phrase "to me it looks like it". That is how it looks like, to me. Maybe I am mistaken, mercury toxicity is not really my area of expertise, but from the data I looked at that is my conclusion.
reply
share
SquidNewton
8 years ago
Even though I don't really get what is the problem with the phrase "to me it looks like it". That is how it looks like, to me.
There are 3 glasses of what "looks" like water on a table a short distance from you.
#1. vodka
#2. hydrochloric acid
#3. distilled water with a drop of deadly poison in it (odorless & tasteless)
The rules:
You can't touch them
You can't smell them
You can only "look"
Are they all water?
Obviously having a "look" is important.
But checking each and coming to a definite conclusion is easily verifiable.
It is similar enought that concerns were raised and it was checked but to me it looks like there is nothing to it.
That's the problem I have with
"to me it looks like" there is nothing to it.
If you pick #1 - you can smell it.
If you pick #2 - you can "feel" the difference
If you pick #3 - Would you drink it?
reply
share
Zwergin
8 years ago
Ok very nice. I will smell and touch my research more in the future, looking is not enough ^^
This is what happened (as I understood it).
The safe exposure guidelines for methylmercury had been changed not long before (lowered) and new vaccines had been introduced so a situation developed in which some children, depending on the specific vaccines and the body weight, could be exposed to a higher dose of ethylmercury than what was considered safe for methylmercury. As a precaution the amount of ethylmercury was reduced. While the names sure sound similar, the pharmakokinetics are very different. Ethylmercury has a much shorter half-life and is actively secreted and does not accumulate in the body like methylmercury does. So they were cautious in case the ethylmercury has the same behaviour as the methylmercury (which it doesn't).
Also data had been available at that time, showing no ill-effects of thiomersal exposure and ethylmercury toxicity needs doses around 100x higher than what you can get from vaccines. So ,of course, eventually also ethylmercury will have negative effects but so would pretty much everything.
So I don't see the big problem and I don't consider the reduction of thiomersal as an admission that it had negative effects.
reply
share
DMB_Lover
8 years ago
Also the mercury-containing compound in fish is different from the one in the vaccines. More dangerous also.Ethylmercury has a much shorter half-life and is actively secreted and does not accumulate in the body like methylmercury does. So they were cautious in case the ethylmercury has the same behaviour as the methylmercury (which it doesn't).
One would have to determine that the brain is not part of the body for your statement to be correct. Is that your contention? That the brain is not part of the body?
Ethylmercury hydroxide, like its cousin methylmercury hydroxide, enters the brain very easily, but once within the brain it is rapidly de-ethylated, forming tissue-retained inorganic mercury (Hg2+) species [114]. There is evidence that this “inorganic” mercury is significantly more neurotoxic than the organic mercury compounds from which it forms and more difficult to remove. Studies using monkeys demonstrated that ionic mercury is redistributed in the brain [115]. These same series of studies also demonstrated that there was extensive microglial activation in the monkey’s brain that persisted over 6 months after the mercury dosing was stopped. Thus, when the plasma mercury disappears, the brain mercury remains [116].
The preceding facts are important to remember when vaccine safety promoters tout findings of new studies showing that ethylmercury (in Thimerosal) disappears from the blood within several days. Actually, the mercury leaves the plasma and enters the brain, where it is de-ethylated and, based on human post-mortem research [174], remains with a half-life of about two decades. What is also conveniently hidden are the results of recent studies demonstrating that, within a short time, on average only about 7% of the methylmercury hydroxide administered orally was converted into brain-retained “inorganic” mercury; whereas 34% of the Thimerosal (ethylmercury compound) injected was similarly converted [117]. [Note: The value for “organic” mercury is calculated as the difference between the “total” mercury value and the “inorganic” mercury value based on sub-sample assays from a given homogenized sample. The two mercury assay procedures, “total” and “inorganic” only differ by the severity of the oxidation step used to liberate the mercury species – where the work-up for a “total” mercury determination is done under more severe conditions.] This means that a greater quantity of a more destructive form of mercury is retained in the brain following administration of a Thimerosal-containing vaccine than from the methylmercury compounds present in fish.
[114] Vahter ME et al. Demethylation of methylmercury in different brain sites of Macaca fascicularis monkeys during long-term subclinical methylmercury exposure. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1995;134:273–84.
[115] Charleston JS et al. Changes in the number of astrocytes and microglia in the thalamus of the monkey Macaca fascicularis following long-term subclinical methylmercury exposure. Neurotoxicology 1996;17:127–38.
[116] Charleston JS et al. Increase in the number of reactive glia in the visual cortex of Macaca fascicularis following subclinical long-term methylmercury exposure. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1994;129:196–206.
[117] Burbacher TM et al. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:1015–21.
[174] Sugita M. The biological half-time of heavy metals. The existence of a third, “slowest” component. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1978;41(1):25–40.
reply
share
Vulcans_Rule
8 years ago
I had heard but didn't really know of The "famous cases....where children died" because of contamination. Can you give me a link or info to these famous cases? "Decades ago" can be a little as 20 years ago (1986 or thereabouts?) Is this in the USA?
The famous case I recalled was in Australia in 1928. 12 children died after injections from one contaminated vial.
Entropy ain't what it used to be.
reply
share
Vulcans_Rule
8 years ago
There were others, by the way. That was the famous one I recalled.
Hence a mercury compound was added to many vaccines to prevent bacteria contamination. It has since been removed from many vaccines. I don't know if they replaced it with something else or just decided that today's single-use injections do not need it because the contamination risk is low anyway.
Entropy ain't what it used to be.
reply
share