• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New thimerosal paper

[derail]
I've asked this before, and never got an answer, so I'm trying again.

I was always under the impression that this particular vaccine preservative was called "thiomersal". It's spelled like that in all my notes and texts from the 1970s. And the etymology seemed clear enough:
thio - sulphur
mer - mercury
sal - I dunno, do you?

When I first saw the spelling as in the title of this thread, I assumed it was just a typo. However, I've seen it in a sufficient number of apparently reputable publications to conclude that it is in fact an accepted variant. I'd just like to know where it came from. Where's the logic in moving the "o" which is naturally part of the sulphur component to the mercury part, where it doesn't seem to belong? Where did it start and why did it continue?
[/derail]

Rolfe.
 
Maybe it's all part of a big plot to hide what's really going into vaccines? Moving the "o" so people can't google it! ;)
 
Isn't it an americanisation? The emphasis in the US is mostly on the second syllable (eg chim-PAN-zee). I think thi-O-mer-sal just doesn't sit well with that but thi-MER-o-sal does. Just my theory.
 
The "io" and "oi" letter doublets seem to give many people problems.

For many years I worked for a company called "Baroid", now a part of the Halliburton Energy Services group.

I have frequently seen this written as "Bariod", on documentation generated both outside and inside the company and occasionally even printed on company products.

No one however, ever pronounces the name wrongly, even when it has been spelled wrongly.

The other classic of course is "uo" as in fluorescence.
 
Soapy Sam said:
The other classic of course is "uo" as in fluorescence.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, everybody does that now and again. But I've never seen "flouride" in an actual scientific paper, proof-read and edited and all that. I see "thimerosal" in such places, and conclude that the spelling is accepted.

It just seems very peculiar indeed, given the very obvious derivation of the "correct" spelling. I still wonder how it became accepted.

Rolfe.
 
Interesting that the BMJ rapid response site is innundated with people crying "this is proof", when it's a primate study that made no determination of whether the additional amount of mercury left would be harmful to a human infant or not.

Also interesting that the one interesting post about whether the rise in autism could have a genetic basis after all was ignored in favor of post after post about dental amalgams and such.
 
I read in the BMJ thread that mercury is used as a preservative for the vaccines. Is this true? If so, are there other preservatives that would work just as well and that also would have no side effects and no controversial ingredients?

(By asking this question, I'm not saying that I agree that the mercury in thimerosal does have a side effect, I don't know enough to have an opinion in this area yet.)
 
Shera said:
I read in the BMJ thread that mercury is used as a preservative for the vaccines. Is this true? If so, are there other preservatives that would work just as well and that also would have no side effects and no controversial ingredients?
Click to expand...

There is only one vaccine (oneof the flu ones) commonly adminstered to infants in the US that contains thimerosal. Anything that has been used as a preservative in vaccines has upset the anti vac brigade.
 
Capsid said:
This confirms my theory that it is an americanisation. From TT's link

ETYMOLOGY: thi(o)– + mer(cury) + –o– + sal(icylate).

It should be thiomersal.
Click to expand...

The paper spells it thimerosal which is where I coppied the word from.
 
Capsid said:
This confirms my theory that it is an americanisation. From TT's link

ETYMOLOGY: thi(o)– + mer(cury) + –o– + sal(icylate).

It should be thiomersal.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but it's odd that what's so clearly a goofy mis-spelling should have become so respectable and accepted in apparently such a short time.

Rolfe.
 
geni said:
There is only one vaccine (oneof the flu ones) commonly adminstered to infants in the US that contains thimerosal. Anything that has been used as a preservative in vaccines has upset the anti vac brigade.
Click to expand...

You can't forget the aborted fetal tissue, chick embryos, or monkey pus. No discussion of the components of a vaccine wouild be complete without the monkey pus.
 
geni said:
There is only one vaccine (oneof the flu ones) commonly adminstered to infants in the US that contains thimerosal. Anything that has been used as a preservative in vaccines has upset the anti vac brigade.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info Geni. I'd ask you why the anti-vac brigade doesn't like the alternative preservatives except I'm not particularly interested in their opinion on anything…

I also found more info on line -- hopefully others will find it of interest also. These links are not for scientists like the one you posted (it was great, and hopefully one day I will fully understand it ;) ), but for non-scientists.

The next two links state that single-dose vials don’t require preservatives but that multi-dose vials do.

Source
Consistent with this goal, FDA has encouraged and worked with manufacturers to develop new vaccines and new vaccine formulations that are either thimerosal-free or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal. The substantial elimination of thimerosal from pediatric as well as other vaccines has been achieved because over time, it has been possible to replace multi-dose vials with single-dose presentations (vials or syringes), which do not require a preservative.
Click to expand...

Source
Manufactures can make vaccines free of mercury preservative simply by changing from multi-dose vials to single-dose vials, which do not need a preservative.
Click to expand...

The last link explains:
*The difference between a single and multi-dose vaccine.
* Confirms that thimerosal is added to flu vaccines because typically it is only available in a multi-dose vial.
* Pharmaceutical companies are working on alternatives to thimerosal; so far, alternative stabilizers have made the vaccines less effective.

Source
What the difference between a single dose and a multi-dose vaccine?
A single dose vaccine is one that is stored in a single vial that is disposed of after the one doseis given to a person. With a multi-dose vaccine, multiple vaccine doses are stored in a singlevial and the doses from the same vial are given to different people.

…

Why is thimerosal used in the flu vaccine if other vaccines do not contain it?
The flu vaccine is generally marketed in a multi-dose vial and thimerosal is added to the manufacturing process to maintain sterility of the vaccine. Thimerosal also has a stabilizing
effect in the vaccines, ensuring that they are effective.

The flu vaccine contains thimerosal as a preservative, but, for the 2005/2006 season,
manufacturers are developing a thimerosal-free, stable, vaccine available for children.
Thimerosal will continue to be used in multi-dose vaccines until a safe alternative is found.

Could another preservative be used in multi-does vaccines like the flu vaccine?
Yes. Pharmaceutical companies are actively working on alternatives to thimerosal as a
preservative. If alternatives are used, they will need to be tested in clinical trials to evaluate their safety and effectiveness as preservatives. In some initial tests, alternative stabilizers have
actually made the vaccines less effective.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

FWIW, my guess is that:
* Single dose vaccines can be sealed in a way that precludes the need for preservatives.
* It is less expensive to manufacture, distribute and store multi-dose vaccines than single-dose vaccines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom