Talk:Thiomersal

lead

The lead contains the following line:

"In spite of the scientific consensus that such fears are unsubstantiated"

The lead however never mentions any fears and hence the sentence in this form makes little sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It just needed rephrasing. MartinezMD (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, i just wanted to point that out to people maintaining the article (which I assume to heavily supervised). However the current change seems to make it worse, as this now can be read (or misunderstood) as suggesting scientific consensus is that thiomersal in vaccines is dangerous dangerous (due to the in spite of construction).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to phrase it in an acceptable manner. MartinezMD (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually after rereading the current version again, I think it is ok, I must have misread/misparsed the current version earlier. Also thanks for the quick fix of the original issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User "JzG" reverted update to lead section

The current lead section appears to only focus on autism, whereas there are also toxicological concerns unrelated to autism. The toxicological concerns regarding ethylmercury are outlined in the body of the article. The paper cited in the lead states, verbatim, "A number of affluent countries are moving to eliminate thiomersal (thimerosal), an ethylmercury preservative, from vaccines as a precautionary measure because of concerns about the potential adverse effects of mercury in infants". Note that thiomersal has been phased out due to expert judgment on the potential toxicity of ethylmercury, not due to the popular fears of thiomersal potentially being the cause of autism. The lead needs to be updated to adequately summarize the body of the article, so I will re-add my edit, but this time replacing 'potentially adverse effects' with the actual concern, 'toxicological effects'. Please do not revert without discussion. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Your change here seems problematic to me. Example: "The scientific consensus is that a connection between thimersal and autism are unsubstantiated; at the same time, it is recognized that it may potentially have other toxicological effects". That's bullshit. The trace amounts of thiomersal in vaccines have exactly zero proven toxicological effect, and that is the context in which thiomersal is always viewed. If you want to make the point that driniking a gallon of the stuff isn't a good idea, then discuss the LD50 or other figures, but everything has "toxicological effects" in sufficient quantity. Overall your edits have the effect of boosting the anti-vaccination conspiracist "MERCURY TEH AUTISMS!" nonsense. I am sure this is not your intent. The "concerns" in the paper you cite are, as you note, about "affluent countries" - they are not scientific concerns, there is no scientific concern about thiomersal as a preservative, it's purely public concern ginned up by cranks. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion for lead section: The pharmaceutical corporation Eli Lilly and Company gave thiomersal the trade name Merthiolate. It has been used as a preservative in vaccines, immunoglobulin preparations, skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and nasal products, and tattoo inks. The scientific consensus is that a connection between thiomersal and autism is unsubstantiated; at the same time, it is recognized that it may potentially have other toxicological effects. Its use as a vaccine preservative was called into question by anti-vaccination groups, and it was phased out from routine childhood vaccines in the United States, the European Union, and a few other countries as a precautionary measure because of concerns about the potential toxicological effects, unrelated to autism, of mercury in infants.

The claim of User:JzG that it is a "conspiracy theory" that mercury compounds have potential toxicological effects was, to be honest, not very impressive, and I find ignorant edits such as this demotivating. Please read up on fundamentals before reverting other users' edits. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

As the paper says: The guidelines for long-term mercury exposure should not be used for evaluating risk from intermittent single day exposures, such as immunisation using thiomersal-containing vaccines. Similar or higher mercury exposures likely occur from breast feeding and the health benefit of eliminating thiomersal from a vaccine, if any, is likely to be very small. On the other hand, the benefits accrued from the use of thiomersal-containing vaccines are considerably greater but vary substantially between affluent and developing regions of the world. Because of the contribution to overall mercury exposure from breast milk and diet in later life, the removal of thiomersal from vaccines would produce no more than a 50% reduction of mercury exposure in infancy and <1% reduction over a lifetime. Translated from Scioence that says: thiomersal is a safe and effective preservative, removal is fine where there's money and reliable electricity to allow refrigeration and single-use capsules, but don't even think about banning it. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Extremely ignorant statement, and very much in breach of WP:OR. Please read up on fundamental toxicology. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, everything is toxic in sufficient quantity. Thiomersal has no demonstrable toxic effect at the levels approved for medical use. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thiomersal is being phased out in developed countries due to certain toxicological concerns that are familiar to anyone with a minimum of knowledge about mercury and fundamental toxicology. This is described in the body of the article and in the cited papers, and I can give you 100 more reliable sources for this. If the majority of Wikipedia editors want to conceal this information from the lead in order to propagandize against certain conspiracy theories about an unrelated issue (autism), then that is fine with me. But I won't contribute any longer to such a website. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Familize to anyone" is easily popular-opinion or your own WP:OR, quite the opposite of scientific-consensus. The cited ref states "Consumer preference can be a powerful force...regardless of any established proven benefit from such exposure reductions." And "a growing concern among parents, fueled by vocal, activist, anti-vaccination groups, about the safety of vaccines." So we are following WP:NPOV by following WP:MEDRS and avoiding a wording that gives weights to WP:FRINGE. The words "precautionary" and "concerns" seem not tied to scientific fact but instead non-scientific public opinion or political/sociological aspects, so we must not leave any hint that the reason is a health effect of the vaccine itself. DMacks (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Extremely weak reply, and I will not bother to discuss this issue with you. This has become a very poor website, and needs to be abandoned for something better. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, sure. From your edit history I think you'll find Conservapedia to your liking. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, no, it's being phased out due to "concerns" among middle class parents subjected to scaremongering and disinformation. These concerns are not medical concerns. Medically, thimerosal is a better option, because it allows use of multidose vials and reduced sensitivity to storage conditions. The clue is in the specific list of outcomes linked to thimerosal exposure from vaccination. It's very short:

 

None omitted. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Pronunciation?

This article desperately needs to tell us how to pronounce "Thiomersal". Bhami (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thiomersal in batteries

I have removed from the lede the claim that thiomersal is/was used in hearing-aid batteries, as it unsupported by the reference that followed it. I have been unable to find any reliable sources that would substantiate the claim.

Mercury and mercury-containing compounds have definitely found uses in a number of battery technologies over the years. Up until thirty years ago, mercury battery button cells (using mercuric oxide cathodes) were common in hearing aids and a number of other applications. More recently, it was common for a small amount of mercury (as the pure metal) to be alloyed with the zinc in zinc-air button cells to improve their performance. But while those batteries did contain mercury, none of them contained mercury in the form of thiomersal, the compound discussed in this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why Thiomersal was removed in the U.S.

Most of these thimerosal related articles need overhauls. The lack of balance and the advocacy tone aren't helpful to users nor are they accurate. From the FDA: "However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury." https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimerosal-vaccines-questions-and-answers There were no safety guidelines for ethylmercury. This is the reason thimerosal was removed from vaccines and not in response to faulty research papers and mass hysteria. With a major pediatric organization threatening to publicly question the safety of the then vaccination schedule for infants, the FDA was forced to initiate the removal of thimerosal. That's what happened. While the scientific justification for its removal can be argued, the history of why it was removed cannot. Eudemis (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you say that is the history, we'll take your word for it.

On second thought, no, we will not. Can you please schlep the reliable sources here where you got your superior knowledge? (That FDA sentence is not enough.) Then we can link them instead of citing "User Eudemis, personal communication". That would clash with Wikipedia policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well the article has some serious ownership issues as it's been in this state for at least 2 years. Its sole focus is on autism, is argumentative and misstates the reasons why the FDA acted which I would assume the FDA itself would know. I'll try to assume you are not one of the owners. Eudemis (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article based on WP:RS or not? At the moment it looks as if you change the subject when challenged. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't change the subject. You seem to have already anointed yourself the judge of what goes in. The article "Thiomersal and vaccines" ‎is accurate and balanced, but there is no guarantee that readers will locate it before this one. That article includes the accurate history of Thiomersal's removal which this one sorely needs. I will add one, but the whole tone of this article is unbalanced. Eudemis (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As the discussion has been raised here, and is clearly contentious, let's see if we can't gain a consensus for source-based language first. BD2412 T 22:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

People who begin on the talk page aren't the ones avoiding consensus.Eudemis (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You changed the subject again: from achieving consensus to accusations of avoiding consensus, which did not happen. Please WP:FOCUS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Ownership", "judge", stop the personal attacks. Instead, for the third time, give us reliable sources for your position. Pointing out that you have not done that has nothing to do with "anointing" and everything to do with Wikipedia policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Your lack of civility has you on the admin boards with some frequency which isn't helpful to improving articles.Eudemis (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)