Talk:Thiomersal/Archive 2

message: “It's use has generally not be found to be necessary in single dose containers.”
This is why that flu vaccine still contains thimerosal
Removal of links not directly to the study. What is the point of these links? surely the study is by far the best source to link to since all the other links will simply be citing it?
Changed processed faster to significant differences. There were other differences between how the two compounds were processed
Removal of quote from abstract. That is not an effective summery of the study
Ripping out Americano centric comments goes without saying
:Geni, it is entirely appropriate to include press releases, etc., to provide a fuller sense of the public reactions, etc.  Not only that, but you are also deleting content that is relevant to the findings.  If you persist in doing this, we'll need to take it to arbitration.  You should feel free to edit for clarity and accuracy, but this habit of you have of deleting information that doesn't suit your opinion is getting intolerabe.  --Leifern 18:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
::but that is not the context they are in. They are in the context of provideing the source for information.Geni 19:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  point by point then 

message: Reference to the significance of bolus concerns among some health care professionals is described below in the rapid response section of the BMJ:
:"The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends a maximum daily exposure level for mercury of 0.1ug/kg. Every dose of DTP or DT contains 25ug of mercury ?so one needs to weigh 250kg (about 39 stones) to achieve minimum safety status for that amount of mercury. The 4 and 10 years old children are unlikely to weigh more than about 40 to 60kg so according to the EPA, they would be at a risk of receiving some 4 to 6 times (400 to 600%) the maximum acceptable recommended levels of mercury - directly into their bloodstreams - cited by the US EPA."
::True, but that's in the rapid response (e-letters) section of BMJ; it's not peer reviewed.  Further, it's a rather selective interpretation of the EPA's recommendations.  It's worth noting that the EPA guidelines cited (available in full here) are calculated based on consistent, daily exposure to those levels of mercury—to aggregate dose much higher than that seen in the vaccines.  Mercury exposures were calculated based on mercury levels in hair samples of those studied, yielding doses that were averaged over weeks or months. Those recommendations also include a fudge factor of one order of magnitude; the actual dose believed to be the lower threshold for harm is about 1 ug/kg/d, each and every day.
::The guideline itself isn't based on a daily exposure per se, but rather an average exposure over the growth period of the hair clipping.  An individual who eats one badly contaminated fish every couple of weeks (a bolus dose, in other words) would show the same apparent mercury exposure as an individual one contaminated chunk of sushi every day at lunch.
::I'm not saying that bolus exposure versus continuous exposure isn't a valid toxicological concern, however the data the EPA makes their recommendation from would just as readily support a limit of 0.7 ug/kg/week.  The EPA threshold values are misused as a red herring in this case.  --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record vaccines tend to be injected intramuscularly not into the blood stream.Geni 01:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolus exposure 

message: Prove it. There are other posible reasons (lawers looking to bring lawsuits that kind of thing).Geni 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  due to concerns about potential neurotoxic properties of the [[Mercury (metal)|mercury]] based compound 

message: It is trivial to show that this conflict exists. Whether or not it effects their integrity is a different matter. It is however a fact that there is a conflict of interest (unless you are going to deny US court documents)Geni 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict of interest 

message: Hey, don't want to jump into a hornets nest here but this was on the main page:
This statement is incorrect since the first mentions of autism appearing in medical circles in 1911.
While it is technically correct, the word autism was coined in 1911 or 1912 by Eugen Bleuler, but it referred to a different disorder, Bleuler was referring to a form of schizophrenia (also his word :), not the developmental disorder we commonly refer to as Autism today. Autism was first used in the developmental disorder sense in 1938-1943 by Kanner.
Of course this doesn't imply that there is or isn't a link between the introduction of thimerosal and developmental Autism, it's just simple etymology
--Fxer 07:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
:you will note that I changed it in the version you just objected to. "This is untrue since the first medical descriptions of what we would now call autism date back to 18th century." My source backs this statement up. I supose if we wanted to do a really througher job we should dig through the old chinese records but I can't read chinese. Our own article List of persons with autism spectrum disorders goes back to the 18th century. would like any more evidence or are you satified with my current version?Geni 20:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History / original diagnosis of Autism 

message: Is anybody really disputing the chemical formula, for instance? If not, then it's not totally disputed, just the toxicity. Gzuckier 01:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: however the nutrality and factual accracy is dissputed.Geni 11:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  totally shmotally 

message: The only reason thimerosal is/was included in vaccines was to reduce contamination of multi-dose vials that are repeatedly punctured by syringe needles.  There is no immunological benefit conveyed by thimerosal to the recipient. The purpose of a vaccine is to create immunity to disease, and this benefit can be realized completely without thimerosal. 
Given the fact that mercury is a known powerful neurotoxin,  that thimerosal is specifically suspected of causing many autism spectrum disorders, and that a simple solution to obviate its use is to stick with single dose vials, I believe it is disingenuous to speak of it providing a "benefit" to recipients.  Intersofia 15:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are correct- not only does thimerosal provide no immunological benefit to recipients, Mercury is known to cause autoimmune diseases because by binding with natural proteins in the body, it triggers the immune to believe these vital proteins are now enemies. A search of Google for "Autoimmune mercury" quickly yields over 140,000 links... Intersofia 14:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of role of thimerosal in any immunological purpose 

message: "rational application of inductive null-A logic, the essense of scientific common sense, generally trumps adherence to any deductive medical algorithm"
You know I though the european constituion was bad. Perhaphs Ombudsman you would like to put forward how that argument is bassed on appeal to common sense rahter than appeal to emotion.Geni 01:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting edit summery 

message: It would be nice to see information regarding alternatives Thimerosal, and why seventy years later, new discoveries haven't replaced its use. - Terris Linenbach
: This is an interesting article in that regard: []  The main point here is that anything that kills bacteria is also likely to be harmful to humans. The best solution is to use single-dose vials. Intersofia 15:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to Thimerosal 

message: I really rearranged ALOT.  Hope that is ok.  Maybe I should work on some other articles for awhile?  The thimerosal one still needs alot of organizing between sections 2-5.  Becca77 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned out lots, intending on putting some back - needs to be reorganized/condensed/rewriten Becca77 14:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh boy

message: I'm still new at Wikipedia.  Would like input.  Does anyone think we should try to tame all the external links? Maybe change font size to 85%? Or add a news links section, opinions section, published studies section, etc? Or prune some out? It looks disorganized.   
::Wikipedia:Manual of Style Wikipedia:Guide to layout  Becca77 01:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help with links

message: User Geni has repeatedly remove wholesale sections with little or no discussion or grouns except "NPOV" on this page and at least one other vaccine-related page.  According to the edit comment by Leifern this is vandalism.  Are this kind of edit/revert wars just a fact of Wikipedia which happens and the more persistent one wins, or are there more rational tools to resolve issues like this?  Jkpjkp 08:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to talk pages. This is our first line of resolving casual edit arguments (there are many layers and options). Wikilove dictates that when an article starts pushing a POV, we *should* try to talk about talk about it, and if possible, find language that everybody can agree upon. For example, the financial interest arguments that have been reverted portray lawsuit issues, and could be seen as POV pushing for portraying the issue as "big pharma" vs. "poor victims", rather than "opportunistic lawyers" vs. pharma, or whatever (as there are many POV's). So, the avenue to take for major edits (say, more than one or two words) would be to make the edit, and then explain the edit on a talk page. That way, a revert can be discussed, or the language can be approved, or improved.. Ronabop 13:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit/revert wars? 

message: Salon is an online newsmagazine that publishes articles and rebuttals to these articles. There is nothing either contradictory or confusing about making reference to both the article and rebuttal; in fact, providing both is necessary for balance. I am reverting again. --Leifern 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing neither is equally balanced, and cleaner. There is over a screenful of external links on this page, and I run at a large resolution. We should try to trim down the gross redundancy and excessive quantities of links, because there is little to be gained from the laundry list of links unless we want to scare people away from trying to understand the topic - which is hardly what an encyclopedia should be doing. Michael Ralston 09:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor completeness over cleanliness any day. This is a controversial topic; people have a right to read the articles on either side. And what determines which links stay and which don't? Besides, the "accept" and "reject" lists are not that long. If you want to reduce the number of links, let's discuss criteria for exclusion and inclusion rather than making seemingly arbitrary deletions based on bogus rationale. --Leifern 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's start with the wikipedia policy of NOR, which also specifies what constitutes a "Reliable" source. Specifically, sources which are the opinions of individuals are not particularly reliable. For instance, editorials would thus not be so reliable. Michael Ralston 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. I've gone through it. RedOrbit.com was a broken link, I took out the links to blogs - as they're DEFINITELY not "reliable" by the WP:NOR criterion, and I took out a link to one editorial on the "reject" side to keep the lists equal length. I'd still like to lose the Salon articles, because I can't even view them - but this is a drastic improvement, I feel. Michael Ralston 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet another note by me. Here's a policy I wish I'd seen earlier: Wikipedia:External_links and . They seem to be confirming my intutition that we should, in fact, be trimming down the external links a bit. I'd also like to see some organization of the giant "Further Reading" list of links, possibly accompanied with trimming. As the policy states, POV external links should have the POV clearly indicated - some of the Further Reading links are definitely POV (NoMercury.org, for instance), and should be labled as such. Michael Ralston 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says pretty clearly that Wikipedia is not a web directory, which is to say that it is not intended to be exhaustive. I can assure you that the links we have are nowhere near exhaustive of this issue. What we're left with are non-commercial sites that add substance to the issue; we should avoid a lot of redundancy, favor seminal texts that go beyond the brilliant prose criterion, and obviously not try to overwhelm the reader. But this needs to be balanced with the fact that this is a highly controversial issue with a lot more questions than answers. I don't think we should reduce just for the sake of reducing, though. --Leifern 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links may not be exhaustive, but I think they're exhausting. ;) I just don't think that they're all adding value. But for the Reject Theory/Accept Theory lists we have now (as in after my previous removal), I do think it's much better. I still think the Futher Reading section needs to be organized, at least, though. Michael Ralston 19:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salon article 

message: Okay. I'm pretty firmly convinced we need to do SOMETHING about the external links. I understand some users would prefer keeping the number high - but I'm strongly opposed to having much more than 6-7 links in a subheading. External Links proper is okay (now) - but Further Reading isn't. It needs SOME sort of organization, but at the moment I don't see any clear way to achieve that. Thoughts? Michael Ralston 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the short term, the best I can recommend is that we split all the "Further Reading" links into the "Reject theory" and "Accept theory" sections. When links are all lumped together into one section, advocates may think they're helping their cause by flooding the commons section with links supporting their position (as if it was a "vote"), but when links are segregated, advocates may pursue different strategies. --Arcadian 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have split the links as described above. No links were added or removed. --Arcadian 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links/Further Reading 

message: One reference seems to have been dealt with above here at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thimerosal#Salon_article
The timeline of a chemical would usually start with its first synthesis and introduction, and include several of its uses, that timeline is really part of Thimerosal controversy is it not?  Why not put it in that article?  Perhaps by way of the talk page over there, since it is controversial.  Midgley 15:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree - this article should deal strictly with the chemistry and uses of thimerosal and provide links to related articles, including the controversy, where the timeline belongs. --Leifern 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its simply means that the stocks were not recalled and destroyed. It was put in by people as a indication that profits came before reducing total toxic load in infants. Not POV sadly, but a fact of commercial life; all companies (even PCT's ) have to make similar commercial decisions (if not, then hey! - Oseltamivir for all my friends!). Now the good news: The stocks of this particular vaccine have -by now -all been exhausted! --Aspro 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a 'Time line' entry: it should really indicate that this date (2002)  marks a decision - to wit: reduce the total amount environmental mercury load that comes from inoculations. Pragmatically, it is not banned outright, due to a lack of ways of dealing with bacterial contamination in some preparations.--Aspro 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't effectively say that, the phrasing needs changing.  I'd suggest you can mark when something stops being made, but the date that stocks run out is a bit fuzzier and less use.  I think the section belongs in a different article though... Midgley 09:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section is OK here, because it is after all documenting the history, but it needs to be accurate. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have also just published a study that suggests that autism rates are going down now. It discuses whether this is due to the reduction of mercury in vaccines or some other cause. Rather than hog it to myself until I have time to digest it properly I'll put it here for everyone: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons--Aspro 10:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, updated. Brian Sayrs 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Changed to reflect that a new citation is necessary. Brian Sayrs 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) and Wikiproject Drugs, I propose to move this page to the International Nonproprietary Name "thiomersal". If you have any concerns regarding this move, please discuss it on this page. -Techelf 11:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it isn't obvious to anyone, I implemented that, since it was clearly the right and proper thing to do.  The list of double redirects it threw up was more than any one man should have to contemplate, and the variability in quality of the articles they were contained in was such that I feel I've done my share now.  Work remains to do on that... Midgley 16:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Nonproprietary Name 

message: Please feel free to add to the following list of articles retitled to obscure corporate medical disasters: 
* Autism epidemic
* Chemical imbalance theory
* Thimerosal
* Vaccine critics
:This looks like a POV list.  Could each item be accompanied by a 'why', and maybe this list should be at a different place .. Medical Portal or something?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point, that you don't think that the Wiki can bring articles on these serious subjects up to a reasonable standard of npov?  Perhaps the matter ought to be discussed elsewhere as well, but it is equally essential that the context of the discussion is also addressed right here, on the discussion page where it belongs.  Ombudsman 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, I totally don't get your point.  What do you want with this list?  And please, don't try to guess my thoughts.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the growing fiasco of retitled medical articles

message: I think the article is pretty much a mess.  Large parts of safety information should hardly be on this page, this is an encyclopedia, not an MSDS.  I have done a first round of cleanup, but it needs more.  Apparently there is pharmaceutical controversy about this compound, can somebody write a section on that (I'm not a pharmacist)?  Furthermore, there is apparently a policy that names medicine (INN?), and apparently that name is then Thiomersal, in the edit that I have done now, I changed a couple of thimerosals into thiomersals.  I would suggest, that further changes in name are discussed on the talk-page, and that we keep it at that first, until there is consensus here.  Happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given there is an article called Thiomersal controversy whch is on the thiomersal controversy, I suggest not writing it again in this article.  If anyone really wants to could they revisit the extensive history, an perhaps look at some of the past, very poor quality versions opf an article under one title.  Better not to.  Midgley 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just leave it that a trace may be found.  The other tends toward editorialising. Midgley 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Geni, at the risk of stating the obvious, quality of a source is not correlated with your level of agreement with it. Please reinstate the Salon link. --Leifern 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some virtue in tending to use original - primary and secondary - sources in preference to magazines, in constructing an encyclopaedia.  Midgley 09:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Magazines and other periodicals are primary and secondary sources. --Leifern 13:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess that depends if you agree with the periodical's point of view or not!  While I disagree with the Salon.com article, I did reinstate the link since the material in there is a source of information (albeit potentially biased/confounded) for many anti-thimerosal groups.  Andrew73 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a somewhat moot point in this specific case. The original text was published simultaneously in Rolling Stone magazine, and online in salon.com. Both of these vehicles may be a little unusual for the type of material -- but there is no doubting the fact that they both represent the original text. Refer also Kennedy's site: http://robertfkennedyjr.com/articles.html# Tony Stein 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of sources 

message: Presumably it is a matter of record that the WHO receives contributions from the USA. It is not demonstrated though that some of those contributions are hypothecated to the provision of particular vaccines to particular places.  Perhaps it should be if it is true, but possibly the exact channelling of funding from one nation state to one international organisation should be presented in an article about one of those entities, or if it is controversially related to thiomersal be presented in the perfectly suitable article on that - thiomersal controversy.  Remarking that among the uses of thiomersal, some vaccines still contain it is probably useful, but it is odd that there is not one of them actually listed, given the degree of energy expended on the subject and the knowledge asserted by the contributor.   "Which vaccines?"  is surely a question that a reader would have in their mind, and deserves an answer.  Only the cynical would think that there is no mention of actual specific preparations because if there were the alleged fact could be checked. But there is no shortage of cynics in WP. Midgley 09:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO accounts 

message: I was going to add wikilinks for authors  Mark_Geier and Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr. but then thought: shouldn't these  ref's be on the T. controversy page?
:Arguably.  Certainly they should not be on this page.  Midgley 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs should go on the other article ? 

message: The entire section on thiomersal and autism should probably be removed. First, the proper place for that information would be under "Thiomersal controversy". Second, none of the relevant information is cited. The only citation included is with regard to arguably irrelevant political posturing. Third, the section was only recently added, and after much of that discussion has already been moved to "Thiomersal controversy" in the past. Fourth, the section has a distinct POV bias and is generally poorly written and organized for an encyclopedia. It contains many unattributed "facts", weasel words, and POV adjectives. And finally, it is just too big! It currently is using up at least half, if not more, of the entire article's content.
At the very least, the section should be considerably pared down and renamed. Maybe rename it "Thiomersal controversy" with a basic amount of background information regarding the various alleged problems with the use of thiomersal in vaccines, but leaving "Thiomersal controversy" as the main article for that information.
Unless I hear reasons from others why the section should be kept, and unless proper citations are added soon, I will either remove it or rename it and significantly pare it down. Moulding 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it seems that that section indeed fits better into thiomersal controversy, what I do miss in this article is a clear pointer to that article.  This article should have a one-paragraph section 'thiomersal controversy', with a  pointing there.  For statements that need references, you can use the  (or one of the varieties of that).  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV seems a tad slanted, and most of it duplicates controversy information. I do agree that a longer leader to the main article would be good.Ronabop 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thiomersal and Autism 

message: Someone wanted to say something there... but hasn't really succeeded.  Thiomersal allergy is rarely if ever encountered in clincial practice - does soemone have a reference for the actual incidence of mercury compound allergy?  (It is more likely to act as a hapten than in a covalent compound, I suspect - not that that part of the article is really about chemistry).  Midgley 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I threw together something with 3 cited sources; hope that suffices. Eubulides 20:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thiomersal and Allergies 

message: What about the alleged link between thiomersal and Alzheimer's Disease?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thiomersal and Alzheimer's Disease 

message: Re this change (which got reverted): perhaps Thiomersal#Timeline should get moved to Thiomersal controversy? Regardless of the change most of the timeline's material is more appropriate there anyway. Eubulides 20:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, but the rest should probably go to thimerosal controversy. We already have plenty of POV forks on thimerosal, vaccines, and autism - let's use the ones we have. MastCell Talk 22:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one else has commented. My intent (when I get around to it) is to move the material in question to Thiomersal controversy. After doing that, I intend to remove duplicate material and improve the quality of sources. Eubulides 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I moved the material in this change and this change. Eubulides 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move timeline to thiomersal controversy page? 

message: The following statement has been awaiting citation since February 2007: "On June 27 1927, Morris S. Kharasch, a chemist at the University of Maryland and then at the University of Chicago, filed a patent application for thiomersal. Kharasch's research was funded through a fellowship provided by Eli Lilly and Company." I looked for a reliable source confirming all these details and could not find one. I removed the statement but this was reverted with the comment "please do not purge relevant, easily sourced content". I disagree that all this content is easily sourced; if I'm wrong, please prove me wrong by sourcing it. (Some of the details are easy, but all of them?) I also don't see how all those details are that important. The rest of the text (which is sourced) already firmly establishes that Eli Lilly originated and patented the compound. Eubulides (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PROVEIT clearly sides with your interpretation. a year is more than enough time for an editor to provide a reliable source. a month in my opinion is more than adequate time for a reliable source to be produced in response to a  tag. after that, the info needs to be tossed. i've run across far too many instances of clever vandals adding material that seems plausible, and that crap remaining in articles for months. it's deplorable. if this is to be an encyclopedia, then unsourced crap needs to be aggressively removed. apologies for the rant. Anastrophe (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, if someone accuses you of "purging easily sourced content" which they themselves cannot be bothered to source, you're on the right track. Given the track record of the editor making the accusation, you can be doubly sure you're on the right track. I agree with both comments above and have again removed the unsourced content. It can be readded when a source is produced. MastCell Talk 06:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. On an unrelated note, User:Ombudsman is under indefinite ArbCom sanction as a result of tendentious editing and misbehavior on various medical articles; a few more edit summaries like these (, ) and I think Arbitration Enforcement would be appropriate. MastCell Talk 07:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kharasch citation 

message: For your consideration: Babies Excrete Vaccine-mercury Quicker Than Originally Thought, Study Shows mentions this press release and this Pediatrics study .  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's been added to Thiomersal controversy. Eubulides (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babies Excrete Vaccine-mercury Quicker Than Originally Thought 

message: This change introduced misinformation to the article, so I will revert it. The girl was given many vaccines simultaneously, only some of which contained autism; the court did not rule that thiomersal caused the problem. Also, the court didn't rule; the case was conceded by the government. Also, the the change incorrectly summarizes what the government conceded.
This case is covered under Thiomersal controversy #Court cases and belongs there. It does not belong in Thiomersal's lead. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgia girl case 

message: This change copied reams of text verbatim from Wagnitz 2008. I will revert it and log the problem on the IP address's talk page. Eubulides (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation in recent change 

message: Why not put all the chembox information into a template? There is a strong precedent for doing this, and it makes editing easier. II | (t - c) 23:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need. What other article needs the chembox info? Eubulides (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just makes it easier to edit the lead. There's no harm in the template. It's similar to standard modular programming practice. It seems to present more benefits than disadvantages -- you don't need to scroll through the chembox information every time you open the edit page. The question is: what are the benefits to having all this information in the article rather than the template? Gallium, zinc, copper, nickel, cobalt, and so on all do this. II  00:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a standard to do it with elements, not all chemical compounds (:Category:Periodic table infobox templates has no analogous cat for non-elements in its parent cat). Please coordinate such a drastic change (there are several thousand chemicals pages!) with WP:CHEMS and WP:CHEM, which is presently considering how to improve the chemicals data. Externalized infobox data is one of the ideas being considered there, and opinion is leaning against it (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Chemical data in chemboxes). DMacks (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making a template for the chembox 

message: This edit by 129.55.200.20 changed "187.5 mg of ethylmercury" to "187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury", noting "This must me a misprint - 187 milligrams of mercury would cause permanent brain damage or death." Thanks for catching this. The "187.5 mg" misprint was in the cited source, Baker 2008 (), which copied the units incorrectly from its source, Ball et al. 2001 (). I made this further edit to cite Ball et al. for the correct units, in case this comes up later. Thanks again for catching this error. Eubulides (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably worth contacting the editor of the journal(s) as well; this should be corrected in the source. I'll try to get around to this, or anyone else can. MastCell Talk 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I/we are at it, the Baker 2008 article also calls Dan Burton a Democrat... sigh. MastCell Talk 19:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mg vs μg 

message: A recent edit removed the word "rich" in front of "countries" with the edit summary "seeing as most of them are now bankrupt, this is misleading". When this was replaced by "affluent" (which is what the cited source actually said), the same editor inserted quotes around the words affluent countries with the edit summary "source and flaw verified, adjective put in quotes so as not to mislead readers, please do not edit war".
From the point of view of vaccines, the point is that richer countries such as the U.S. and western Europe can afford to use the more-expensive vaccines that are thiomersal free, whereas poorer countries like (say) Kenya understandably cannot. This is an important point, supported by a reliable source, and deserves to be made in this article.
There is no dispute among reliable sources that the U.S., the European Union, and a few other places are wealthy, whereas almost all of Africa and a good deal of the rest of the world are not. The recent economic downturn has not materially changed this: if anything, it is hurting poorer countries more than richer ones. Furthermore, even if the U.S. were bankrupt, that would not mean that it is not affluent: it is possible to be both bankrupt and affluent at the same time.
At any rate, Thiomersal is not the right place to be disputing economic questions such as whether the U.S. is bankrupt, or for inserting snarky quote marks around commonly used phrases like "affluent countries". These quote marks serve only to make an editorial point by a Wikipedia editor and thus do not conform to the WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Please don't attempt to edit-war this sort of change into this article. Eubulides (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, this is not the place to be disputing how sloppy sources characterize sundry countries. I suggest the adjective be removed altogether. Meanwhile, let's wait for more input. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "richer" instead of "affluent"? That'd be fine (and easier for readers to grok). Eubulides (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said earlier, richer is highly misleading. Please wait for more input. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do any reliable sources support the claim that the countries that have removed thiomersal from vaccines are not affluent (or "richer") countries? Eubulides (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The text did not say richer, it said rich. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not quibble about which adjective is being used. The current text says "affluent", which is what the source says. Do any reliable sources support the claim that the countries that have removed thiomersal from vaccines are not affluent countries? (It's OK if these other sources use a similar adjective such as "rich" or "wealthy".) Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait for input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Affluent outside the lead and not in quotes is ok with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, done. Thanks for the third opinion and for the followup. Eubulides (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affluent countries 

message: Hello.  I note that in your article you reference eight studies, all funded by big pharmaceutical industry concerns, that "conclude" there is no causative link between thiomersal and autism.  Perhaps you are not aware of the hundreds of independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies that definitely link thiomersal and autism.  My advice is to read the  with an open mind.  Regards.Mista411 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current Thiomersal article fairly reflects mainstream scientific and medical opinion on the topic. Kennedy's opinion piece is not supported by the science; coverage of it would be appropriate for the political side of the controversy (the Thiomersal controversy article should include notable attacks on big pharma and thiomersal, regardless of whether they are well-informed) but would be inappropriate here. The following source is much more up-to-date, accurate, and balanced on the politics than Kennedy's old opinion piece:  Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Thiomersal Link to Autism?  Please Read Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Thimerosal Scandal Report! 

message: This wiki is indeed very biased, as previously stated all the "research" that is reffered to in the wiki are funded by big pharma. Also, most seem to be more summaries and claims than anything solid, they don't seem to give you much in the way of specifications for experiments conducted or anything like that. That's not exactly good research.. More like press releases.
I recommend this paper, research conducted by "the other side" so to spek: http://sarnet.org/doc/Geier-mito.pdf
It might be called biased too as far as the persons behind it is concerned, but the difference is that this seems solid science as far as I can tell and goes to great lengths describing the experiments done rather than just making claims without backing them up. In short: this is actually a research document, not a press-release statement CLAIMING to be based on one.
90.224.168.149 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline on medical sources says that Wikipedia articles should cite reviews and other secondary sources, not individual primary studies such as the one suggested above. That study is coauthored by David Geier, a source that is well-known to be unreliable in this area. The Wikipedia policy on neutrality does not require that both sides of the story be covered equally; otherwise, flat-earthers would get equal time to the mainstream view that the world is round. Instead, policy requires that alternate views be covered roughly in proportion to the weight given them by reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Please refer to WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV with special attention paid to WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL.Yobol (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  And in the particular case of Geier, it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of reliable sources that Geier practices junk science. Please see the sources cited in Mark Geier #Controversial studies. Wikipedia articles should not give equal time to junk science. Eubulides (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The article you show is already cited in the Thiomersal controversy article, where it is most appropriate.  Please review WP:talk; if you have specific suggestions to improve the article, please bring them up and discuss them.  Simply saying the article isn't "neutral" doesn't help us improve the article, and continued accusations could be interpreted as soapboxing which is severely frowned upon.  I would encourage you, again to review the WP:undue and WP:GEVAL portions of our policy on neutral points of view.  Thiomersal as a cause of autism is not supported in the mainstream scientific literature, and suggestions that it does do not belong on this article.  Cheers.Yobol (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Any further comments should probably be directed at the Thiomersal controversy talk page.  You will note what the scientific consensus on thiomersal is on the Thiomersal controversy article page with clear documentation.  Again, if you have problems with the wording in this or other articles that conform to the reliable sources, then I would suggest you present your own sources (which conform to our guideline on medically related sources) that would allow for alternative wording.  I disagree wholeheartedly that "no convincing evidence" is in any way weasel language. Yobol (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be the second (at least) editor to point out that this phrase is the exact one the cited ref uses. DMacks (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one side to the "story" 

message: I am surprised that this article doesn't mention that thimerosal was widely used for many years as a topical antiseptic for minor injuries. I believe it was in an alcohol/acetone solution, with an orange dye added (possibly Rhodamine?) to mark the area of application. I'll let someone more knowledgeable than I make the addition to the article, though.
--Tex (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean merbromin? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, both merbromin and thimerosal were used for this purpose.  Merbromin is otherwise known as "mercurochrome".  I still have an original, red Eli Lilly Merthiolate dropper bottle in my medicine cabinet, although I refilled it with a non-mercury formula in the early 2000s after Merthiolate was withdrawn from the market  It was packaged in this way expressly for use as a topical antiseptic.  —QuicksilverT @ 17:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It would be nice to add to the article the fact that it really, really hurt when applied to minor cuts, but I can't find any reliable sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topical antiseptic 

message: "Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).[8] In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.[2]
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed."
It seems inappropriate to say that the substance is very toxic, but also to say that few studies have been performed.  I personally do not have the knowledge/information necessary to make the appropriate edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.6.170 (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no question that thiomersal can kill humans. It's just that we haven't done a lot of scientific studies about exactly how it kills humans (I hope the reasons for this are obvious). I  some text to try to clarify this. Eubulides (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: I was refered to this article from mercury where thiomersal is said to be used in mascara (it appears to be in present use, first US ban 2008 in one state) but this is not mentioned in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in mascara 

message: I'm chucking the bit about "all the crazy treatments" parents use. Aside from being clearly POV, the source is a NYT article that contains a lot of "anecdotal" examples, but no verifiable facts or incidences. If you can't cite anything concrete, then settle for the MSDS. Ubiquitousnewt (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a WP:RS for that collection of examples (not primary-source for examples or saying examples are true, but saying that there are examples), and it appears supplemented by a NEJM ref. The point seems to be that "people say X, even though research says Y", which is exactly how WP:NPOV says articles should write about contentious topics. The people-say-X might be a bunch of nonsense, but it's clearly notable enough nonsense that a major newspaper wrote about it. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of dangerous treatments for "mercury poisoning" with chelation agents is well documented (are we really saying NEJM isn't reliable?).  I have therefore reverted the deletion. Yobol (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism 

message: California’s Mercury-Free Act took effect on July 1, 2006. 
I didn't find it mentioned in the Thiomersal article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterKnaggs (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the act mention Thiomersal?  Shot info (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AB 2943 (California’s Mercury-Free Act)