Skip to main content

hey, dad, this one's for you

Submitted by an LD OnLine user on

mercury and infant vaccinations, just as you predicted, as reported in latimes..

“The March 1991 memo from Merck & Co, obtained by The Times, said that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish.”

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vaccine8feb08,0,624328.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Submitted by Dad on Tue, 02/08/2005 - 9:53 PM

Permalink

Couple of small points…

In 1991, the shot schedule had 1 less DTP (25 ug mercury), 1 less Hep B (10-25 ug) 3 OPV’s (0 ug) instead of 3 IPV’s (25 ug each) and no HiB’s (12.5 ug ea).

The EPA’s allowabe exposure to mercury in fish is based upon a full grown adult whose brain is fully developed, and has years of “hard-wired” learned behavior in it, not a still undeveloped “blank slate” that an infant under the age of 6 mos. has.

Interesting to note that Merck knew this a decade before the FDA “asked” them to remove thimerosal from pediatric vaccines (it is still in all adult shots that had it prior to the moratorium of 2001)

Even more interesting is the fact that Eli Lilly, the patent holder for thimerosal knew this in the early 80’s. A Lilly memo clearly stated that they need to be careful with thimerosal because it could cause MR in children. (FOIA is indeed a most wonderous thing we have.)

It is truly ironic (in a very bitter way) that 1991 also represents the year that thimerosal was taken out of vaccines used on dogs and horses because of the damage it did to pups and foals. Of course AKC dogs and most horses represent very high-dollar cash commodities, making preserving them far more imperative to the powers that be than children (if any fail to taste the sarcasm in that last, let me tell you I just about puked writing).

I do not believe that thimerosal alone is the cause of today’s autism “epidemic”. I do believe it is an absolute triggering link in the process, and most certainly represents a completely controllable exposure. It is NOT needed in ANY shot. Making shots completely preservative free would add about $3 to the cost. Even taking that times the 4,000,000 kids who will get an average of 17 shots next year, we can certainly afford it.

Back to Top