Focus on vaccines

[Guest guest]

People in a panic about thimerosal make much of the fact that no one has

proved these vaccines have no harmful effects. But no one can prove such

effects do not exist. If the best scientific studies can't find them,

however, it's a good bet they aren't there.

Maybe if we just look hard enough for another 75 years, we'll find them.

Remember that when scientists say evidence is " inconclusive " they aren't

saying they, personally, are unsure; they're merely being cautious and

precise.

The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for thimerosal clearly states that

this material and its container must be disposed of as hazardous waste and

to avoid release to the environment.

<http://chemdat.merck.de/pls/pi03/web2.search_page2?text=thimerosal & lang=4>

The bottle is marked as such:

http://www.petersonlawfirm.com/images/info/thimerosal.jpg

(It's just that medically, there is no evidence that anybody should care, so

why make a law about it?????) Some really good scientific studies that did

find harmful effects.

http://www.generationrescue.org/evidence_reports.html

Perhaps 50 separate state laws is the best way to go in order to avoid

misguided and unnecessary injections of this substance into babies. It

would then be a crime to encouraged pregnant women to get flu shots.

February 19, 2006

Focus on vaccines

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/editorials/article/0,2777,DRMN_23964_4

478114,00.html

We'd rather get our medical advice from doctors than from legislators, if it

is all the same to you.

But legislators may not only offer medical advice, they may compel the

entire state of Colorado to follow it, in the form of a misguided and

unnecessary bill that would ban, except in emergencies, the use of vaccines

containing more than a trace amount of mercury for children younger than

three and pregnant women.

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee will take up SB 99 again

Thursday.

The fuss is over a compound called thimerosal containing ethyl mercury, used

as a preservative since the 1930s. It is still used in a few vaccines in the

United States, mostly for influenza, though it has been removed from most

vaccines given to young children. Single-dose flu vaccines that do not need

a preservative are available, and are not significantly more expensive,

though in a busy practice they are somewhat less convenient.

Still, if people care about this, they should be able to ask for and get

vaccines without thimerosal. It's just that medically, there is no evidence

that anybody should care, so why make a law about it?

People in a panic about thimerosal make much of the fact that no one has

proved these vaccines have no harmful effects. But no one can prove such

effects do not exist. If the best scientific studies can't find them,

however, it's a good bet they aren't there.

Maybe if we just look hard enough for another 75 years, we'll find them.

Remember that when scientists say evidence is " inconclusive " they aren't

saying they, personally, are unsure; they're merely being cautious and

precise.

Sen. , who sponsored the bill, told the News " it's better to be

safe than sorry, " but this bill could be more sorry than safe if it

discouraged pregnant women from getting flu shots. That really is dangerous:

The flu can cause miscarriages and premature births as well as difficulties

during birth, while the harm from the current flu vaccines is probably

nonexistent and definitely undetectable.