Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines

Valid reference?
"rates of autism have continued to increase despite removal of thiomersal from vaccines" is supported by citation six. I do not have access to the full text of the article cited, but its abstract contains nothing to support the statement. The statement may be true, but if the citation is a mistake (or dishonest), it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 伟思礼 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Everyone has access to the full text. If you click the doi link it takes you to the Cambridge website. If you scroll down immediately past the abstract and somewhat to the left side, you should see an Adobe pdf icon. Clicking on that gets you the full article. And in that article you can find this statement: "They found the incidence of autism was stable until 1990 and then increased, most notably during the period when thimerosal was no longer used" MartinezMD (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Overly focused on mercury and autism
The entire article just keeps banging on about wether mercury poisoning causes autism or not, but there's no mention as to the toxicological risks of the ethylmercury by itself and controversy around it. Is there really nothing else that can be said about thiomersal than the "mercury-autism link"? 185.163.103.83 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a reason the article emphasizes that so much. A common anti-vaccine trope that refuses to stop is the baseless assertion that thimerosal is harming children due to its tiny ethylmercury content and that this exposure is responsible for children developing autism spectrum disorders, which is untrue. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's unproof, that may be or not the same thing.62.11.3.98 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find "unproof" in Merriam Webster's dictionary...hm. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What are the responses to newer reports like this?
I'm having trouble contextualizing the following article. Does it weigh in, or is it someone collecting dead research? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4065774/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartossin (talk • contribs) 23:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem I see on first glance is that it is written by or is sourcing numerous articles from the Geier family. See Mark Geier and son David - another one of their slanted hit pieces. It has no place in this article. MartinezMD (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Geiers, nuff said. Absolutely trash, unreliable and unusuable for us. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate information
According to the article, thiomersal was removed from vaccines administered in EU countries at the same time that it was removed from vaccines administered in the US, but it had actually been removed from EU vaccines nine years earlier than in the US. Here's a link to the evidence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10803505 (search for "1992" in the page). 80.193.98.150 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)