Some thimerosal references

Note: listing here does not mean that I endorse a page or “believe” it any more than any other.

* Nat’ Academies Press, Immunization Safety Review:
Thimerosal – Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2001)

From Executive Summary Page 5: “The committee concludes that although the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders is not established and rests on indirect and incomplete information, primarily from analogies with methylmercury and levels of maximum mercury exposure from vaccines given in children, the hypothesis is biologically plausible.” (emphasis theirs, because this is the primary thesis of the report apparently)
Also: “Some children could be particularly vulnerable or suseptible to mercury exposures due to genetic or other differences.”
Also: “Some children who received the maximum number of thimerosal-containing vaccines on the recommended childhood immunization schedule had exposures to ethylmercury that exceeded some estimated limits of exposure based on federal guidelines for methylmercury intake” and “high-dose thimerosal exposures are associated with neurological damage”
* “Institute for Vaccine Safety Thimerosal Table”:
* “CDC/NIP Thimerosal Page”:
* “CDC research page”:
* List of studies given in a “comment”: in the thimerosal thread


One Response

  1. […] The Geier brothers have released a paper discussing the link between vaccine preservative thimerosal (a compound containing methylmercury) and autism. I have been invited to comment on the matter, and have chosen to accept the invitation in a very narrow capacity. That very narrow capacity is specifically on the statistics of the paper and how it relates to the conclusions of the paper. I’m simply not interested in rehashing old arguments (also here and here). Those discussions take place regularly in other more appropriate forums. Of course, Orac offers up his thoughts on the matter, and maybe I’ll discuss his objections as well. First, let me offer up a warning. If you publish a graph be it in electronic or paper form, you might as well publish your dataset. Because I can get the data back out, and, for $25, anyone else can, too. And, in fact, that’s what I did here, at least with the Geiers’ VAERS database graph. While small inaccuracies will inevitably arise from extracting data out of visual representation, the data I got was pretty good for this exercise in armchair statistics. Second, let me note my methodology. Since I decided to restrict my attention to statistical methodology, I decided to trust the data. Of course, given that I don’t know exactly what QA procedures these data have gone through, there are a lot of holes there to be covered before the data can be completely trustworthy. For example, some people take issue with the VAERS, even calling it corrupt. Again, I’ll leave those arguments elsewhere in the blogosphere, and save only a few comments at the end to things that are present in the Geiers’ paper. h3. Examining the VAERS data So, after reading the paper, I decided to load the VAERS graph into DataThief and output the results into a text file containing the reporting date and the number of new reported cases. Then I checked the Geiers’ math by running the simple linear regressions they described in the paper. (I’ll comment on the appropriateness of this methodology later.) The math checks out ok, and that is also a bit of validation of my data against the Geiers’ data (again, without having verified their methods of extracting and cleaning the data). However, I ran the regression against raw dates (so that a day is an xunit, rather than a quarter). The simple linear regression gives me the following: |Reporting Date|Parameter|Value|SE|p|R^2| | 1/94-12/03 | Slope (change in new cases) | 0.01425 | 0.002 | […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: