A good explanation of "mercury" in vaccines.

maquiscat · Jun 28, 2025

https://www.facebook.com/
I thought that this used a very good comparison with alcohol to explain why any "mercury" in our vaccines are not a health danger to us. Do keep in mind that with this, I am not making any other claims on vaccines as to whether they are good or bad. Simply addressing the "mercury" claims.

Lursa · Jun 28, 2025

IMO it's bullshit to claim thimerosal is completely benign. They can use other preservatives.

Back when contacts were becoming more common in the 80s and 90s, people were getting allergic reactions and infections from the contact solutions that contained thimerosal. It was an allergen and so the companies started making "thimerosal-free" solution. I was one of the people who's eyes reacted badly to thimerosal.

maquiscat · Jun 28, 2025

Lursa said:
IMO it's bullshit to claim thimerosal is completely benign. They can use other preservatives.

Back when contacts were becoming more common in the 80s and 90s, people were getting allergic reactions and infections from the contact solutions that contained thimerosal. It was an allergen and so the companies started making "thimerosal-free" solution. I was one of the people who's eyes reacted badly to thimerosal.

If you want to go with that logic, hardly anything is completely benign then. There are all kinds of allergic reactions to a wide variety of commonly used substances. However, I think the key point here was that thimerosal or, ethylmercury, is not the same as the element mercury, nor is it the same as methylmercury, both of which are claimed by vaccine opponents as being harmful to even the general populating, before accounting for allergic reactions. And it give a good explanation of the differences between ethylmercury and methylmercury. And has the woman noted, it's not even used anymore in the vast majority of vaccines, and none of the ones given to infants under 6 months.

ETA: There are two other factors to consider. One is the amount per unit in each. I'm willing to bet that the contact solution contained a much higher concentration of thimerosal than the vaccines did. And given that many people do have trigger amount at and above which the allergy is affected but lower trace amounts don't trigger the allergy, that may be part of the reason people were having a reaction to it. Also, some allergies are dependant upon the type of contact. A person might have their allergy triggered if they ingest the allergen but not with dermal or mucus contact. Or vice versa.

Lursa · Jun 29, 2025

maquiscat said:
If you want to go with that logic, hardly anything is completely benign then. There are all kinds of allergic reactions to a wide variety of commonly used substances.

Imma stop you right there. The allergic reactions were recognized and the products changed in response to that. In such cases...warning labels, usage, and doctor recommendations make the public aware of it.

Is this the case of thimerosal in vaccines? So far it does not seem so, however concerns are being made public.

maquiscat said:
However, I think the key point here was that thimerosal or, ethylmercury, is not the same as the element mercury, nor is it the same as methylmercury, both of which are claimed by vaccine opponents as being harmful to even the general populating, before accounting for allergic reactions.

Nobody said it was the same.

maquiscat said:
And it give a good explanation of the differences between ethylmercury and methylmercury. And has the woman noted, it's not even used anymore in the vast majority of vaccines, and none of the ones given to infants under 6 months.

ETA: There are two other factors to consider. One is the amount per unit in each. I'm willing to bet that the contact solution contained a much higher concentration of thimerosal than the vaccines did. And given that many people do have trigger amount at and above which the allergy is affected but lower trace amounts don't trigger the allergy, that may be part of the reason people were having a reaction to it. Also, some allergies are dependant upon the type of contact. A person might have their allergy triggered if they ingest the allergen but not with dermal or mucus contact. Or vice versa.

Lord of Planar · Jun 29, 2025

maquiscat said:
https://www.facebook.com/
I thought that this used a very good comparison with alcohol to explain why any "mercury" in our vaccines are not a health danger to us. Do keep in mind that with this, I am not making any other claims on vaccines as to whether they are good or bad. Simply addressing the "mercury" claims.

OMG. What a stupid bitch.

Lord of Planar · Jun 29, 2025

maquiscat said:
If you want to go with that logic, hardly anything is completely benign then. There are all kinds of allergic reactions to a wide variety of commonly used substances. However, I think the key point here was that thimerosal or, ethylmercury, is not the same as the element mercury, nor is it the same as methylmercury, both of which are claimed by vaccine opponents as being harmful to even the general populating, before accounting for allergic reactions. And it give a good explanation of the differences between ethylmercury and methylmercury. And has the woman noted, it's not even used anymore in the vast majority of vaccines, and none of the ones given to infants under 6 months.

Elemental mercury is not good to have at any level. The chemicals break down in the body.

maquiscat · Jun 29, 2025

Lursa said:
Imma stop you right there. The allergic reactions were recognized and the products changed in response to that. In such cases...warning labels, usage, and doctor recommendations make the public aware of it.

Is this the case of thimerosal in vaccines? So far it does not seem so, however concerns are being made public.

Granted. All I am saying is that there could well be, and probably is, a difference in allergic reactions depending on if the exposure is topical, as with the contact lens fluid, or injected, as with the vaccines. Meaning that the removal of it from the contact fluid was warranted, and the removal from the vaccines, not. And from what I read, the worry of the thimerosal in vaccines was not linked to the allergic reactions from the fluid.

Lursa said:
Nobody said it was the same.

It's one of the anti-vaxx main arguments.

maquiscat · Jun 29, 2025

Lord of Planar said:
OMG. What a stupid bitch.

HOw so?

Lord of Planar said:
Elemental mercury is not good to have at any level. The chemicals break down in the body.

Which is rather the point she is making. Ethylmercury and methylmercury are not elemental mercury. Ethylmercury and methylmercury are organic compounds while elemental mercury is a metal. Not the same.

Lord of Planar · Jun 29, 2025

maquiscat said:
HOw so?

Claiming it isnt specifying it isn't "elemental" mercury. She is saying iy isn't mercury. Science is suppose to be spefic and not ambiguous.

maquiscat said:
Which is rather the point she is making. Ethylmercury and methylmercury are not elemental mercury. Ethylmercury and methylmercury are organic compounds while elemental mercury is a metal. Not the same.

It is still harmful in the body. Those compounds break down. It is still mercury. Just because low doses are deemed safe, that is a statistical assessment. Statistics do not make facts. There is still a small percentage it will affect.

Maybe if they followed up with a dose of potasiumferrocynide, less people would be harmed from vaccines.

Lursa · Jun 29, 2025

maquiscat said:
Granted. All I am saying is that there could well be, and probably is, a difference in allergic reactions depending on if the exposure is topical, as with the contact lens fluid, or injected, as with the vaccines. Meaning that the removal of it from the contact fluid was warranted, and the removal from the vaccines, not. And from what I read, the worry of the thimerosal in vaccines was not linked to the allergic reactions from the fluid.

Eyes are permeable and microbes and chemicals and other things can be absorbed into the bloodstream. However the surface of the eye presents a source of irritation that can be recognized.

What/where did you read about "the thimerosal in vaccines was not linked to the allergic reactions from the fluid"?

maquiscat said:
It's one of the anti-vaxx main arguments.

I'm aware of that.

maquiscat · Jun 29, 2025

Lursa said:
Eyes are permeable and microbes and chemicals and other things can be absorbed into the bloodstream. However the surface of the eye presents a source of irritation that can be recognized.

The eyes can indeed be a point of allergic reaction that doesn't automatically mean an allergic reaction will occur with injection.

Lursa said:
What/where did you read about "the thimerosal in vaccines was not linked to the allergic reactions from the fluid"?

More along the lines of I didn't find anything in the issue of thimerosal in vaccines being linked to allergic reaction in the contact lens fluid. You would think that if people were calling for thimerosal to be removed from vaccines because of the allergic reactions from contact lens fluid, it would be in much of the literature on the issue

Lursa said:
I'm aware of that.

Then why did you say:

Lursa said:
Nobody said it was the same.

?

Hamish Howl · Jun 29, 2025

Lord of Planar said:
Elemental mercury is not good to have at any level. The chemicals break down in the body.

Post link.

Lursa · Jun 29, 2025

maquiscat said:
The eyes can indeed be a point of allergic reaction that doesn't automatically mean an allergic reaction will occur with injection.

It doesnt have to be an "allergic" reaction. It's a reaction, period, rejection.

maquiscat said:
More along the lines of I didn't find anything in the issue of thimerosal in vaccines being linked to allergic reaction in the contact lens fluid. You would think that if people were calling for thimerosal to be removed from vaccines because of the allergic reactions from contact lens fluid, it would be in much of the literature on the issue

And yet major producers like Bauch & Lombe heeded it and changed their solutions. And their labelling and packaging and advertising started saying "thimerosal-free."

maquiscat said:
Then why did you say:

?

Harmful substances dont have to have the same reactions in all uses/circumstances, they can still be harmful.

maquiscat · Jun 29, 2025

Lord of Planar said:
Claiming it isnt specifying it isn't "elemental" mercury. She is saying iy isn't mercury. Science is suppose to be spefic and not ambiguous.

There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's plain and clear that elemental mercury and ethyl mercury are two completely different things, the former being metallic, and the later being organic

Lord of Planar said:
It is still harmful in the body.

Not in the doses that are in vaccines, anymore than vitamin K is harmful to the body in the proper doses. Of course, as with many things, excessive doses will harm or kill you.

Lord of Planar said:
It is still mercury.

No it's not. Mercury, AKA elemental mercury, is not the same as the two organic compounds. Organic=/=metal

Lord of Planar said:
Just because low doses are deemed safe, that is a statistical assessment. Statistics do not make facts. There is still a small percentage it will affect.

As there will be those affected by milk and nuts and gluten and so many more things. What does that have to do with anything, especially with the main point of this thread?

Lord of Planar said:
Maybe if they followed up with a dose of potasiumferrocynide, less people would be harmed from vaccines.

Given that that is an anti-caking agent, commonly used in table salt, I am unsure of how it would affect any ethylmercury in vaccines. Care to enlighten?

maquiscat · Jun 29, 2025

Lursa said:
It doesnt have to be an "allergic" reaction. It's a reaction, period, rejection.

Still, rejection by one aspect does not automatically mean rejection from other aspects. I can apply sunscreen topically safely, but ingesting it will cause a rejection. Shall we research what causes it to be rejected when taken orally to pull that ingredient out of sunscreen?

Lursa said:
And yet major producers like Bauch & Lombe heeded it and changed their solutions. And their labelling and packaging and advertising started saying "thimerosal-free."

Granted, but that doesn't mean that thimerosal was pulled from vaccines for the same reasons as it was pulled from the contact lens fluid. Conflation fallacy.

Lursa said:
Harmful substances dont have to have the same reactions in all uses/circumstances, they can still be harmful.

What does this statement have to do with this exchange:

maquiscat said:
However, I think the key point here was that thimerosal or, ethylmercury, is not the same as the element mercury, nor is it the same as methylmercury, both of which are claimed by vaccine opponents as being harmful to even the general populating, before accounting for allergic reactions.

Lursa said:
Nobody said it was the same.

maquiscat said:
It's one of the anti-vaxx main arguments.

Lursa said:
I'm aware of that.

?

Lursa · Jun 29, 2025

maquiscat said:
Still, rejection by one aspect does not automatically mean rejection from other aspects. I can apply sunscreen topically safely, but ingesting it will cause a rejection. Shall we research what causes it to be rejected when taken orally to pull that ingredient out of sunscreen?

Never said it did. However IMO in all cases it should indeed be researched for safety "in other aspects" before being used in a product.

maquiscat said:
Granted, but that doesn't mean that thimerosal was pulled from vaccines for the same reasons as it was pulled from the contact lens fluid. Conflation fallacy.

Never said it was. See above and please dont post obvious stuff just to "post." It's not debate.

maquiscat said:
What does this statement have to do with this exchange:

It was a polite concurrence with what you are continuing above and I'm tired of...your posting the obvious or things I didnt write or imply.

maquiscat · Jun 29, 2025

Lursa said:
Never said it did. However IMO in all cases it should indeed be researched for safety "in other aspects" before being used in a product.

I disagree. Something doesn't have to be tested as a topical, when the intended use, at least in a specific product, is being used as an consumable or an injectable.

Lursa said:
Never said it was. See above and please dont post obvious stuff just to "post." It's not debate.

You certainly seem to be, which is why I countered.

Lursa said:
It was a polite concurrence with what you are continuing above and I'm tired of...your posting the obvious or things I didnt write or imply.

No you claimed that nobody was saying something, i.e. that they are not different, and I pointed out that there was indeed people who were, in direct contradiction to your words. If you were intending anything else, it was not clear. You then agreed with the contradiction to your own words. And that particular exchange is quite separate from the exchange on thimerosal in the contact lens fluid. If you intended them to be part and parcel, then again, you were not clear.

Deuce · Jul 6, 2025

Lursa said:
IMO it's bullshit to claim thimerosal is completely benign. They can use other preservatives.

Back when contacts were becoming more common in the 80s and 90s, people were getting allergic reactions and infections from the contact solutions that contained thimerosal. It was an allergen and so the companies started making "thimerosal-free" solution. I was one of the people who's eyes reacted badly to thimerosal.

How many substances can you name that never have any negative impact on any person ever?

Nothing is "completely benign," this isn't a useful framework for product safety testing.

Deuce · Jul 6, 2025

Lursa said:
Never said it did. However IMO in all cases it should indeed be researched for safety "in other aspects" before being used in a product.

So... we should test vaccine ingestion in addition to injection? I don't understand. Products are already tested for their intended use case, and also for reasonable misuse cases. This already happens. We can't test every product for every possible use.

Lord of Planar · Jul 6, 2025

Deuce said:
How many substances can you name that never have any negative impact on any person ever?

Nothing is "completely benign," this isn't a useful framework for product safety testing.

You are correct, and that is why I do not buy any food off the shelf. I don't buy anything with process chemicals. All they stuff they but in our food is deemed safe, but that is statistics. In some cases it only takes one unwanted chemical reaction in the body to cause problems.

Take COVID for example. The larger the viral load, the greater change you have of contracting the virus. However, it only takes one virus cell to take and multiply to give you COVID. This is why the viral load if one factor that determines how likely it is you contract it.

Same with food toxins Though not considered dangerous at the levels they put food, the statistics of it causing problems increase with how much is consumed.

These viral preservatives have a very unlikely change of causing a person harm, but the fact is, someone wins that lottery every now and then, even though it is statistically extremely small.

Lursa · Jul 6, 2025

maquiscat said:
I disagree. Something doesn't have to be tested as a topical, when the intended use, at least in a specific product, is being used as an consumable or an injectable.

You are welcome to your opinion.

maquiscat said:
You certainly seem to be, which is why I countered.

And yet it wasnt.

maquiscat said:
No you claimed that nobody was saying something, i.e. that they are not different, and I pointed out that there was indeed people who were, in direct contradiction to your words. If you were intending anything else, it was not clear. You then agreed with the contradiction to your own words. And that particular exchange is quite separate from the exchange on thimerosal in the contact lens fluid. If you intended them to be part and parcel, then again, you were not clear.

I dont remember what I claimed. If you cant keep a conversation going, please dont expect me to just pick it up again.

Lursa · Jul 6, 2025

Deuce said:
How many substances can you name that never have any negative impact on any person ever?

Nothing is "completely benign," this isn't a useful framework for product safety testing.

Of course. OTOH, there are standards and guidelines for all kinds of chemicals, substances, medicines, etc.

In the case of the eye solution, apparently it affected enough people that the company spent more on production, packaging, and marketing, to change the product and advertise the change.

Lursa · Jul 6, 2025

Deuce said:
So... we should test vaccine ingestion in addition to injection? I don't understand. Products are already tested for their intended use case, and also for reasonable misuse cases. This already happens. We can't test every product for every possible use.

What vaccines are ingested?

maquiscat · Jul 7, 2025

Lursa said:
What vaccines are ingested?

Vaccines available in the United States are administered by 4 routes:

Oral Route (PO):
Oral vaccine is administered through drops to the mouth. Rotavirus vaccine (RV1 [Rotarix], RV5 [RotaTeq]) is the only routinely recommended vaccine administered orally. Rotavirus vaccine should never be injected. CDC videos demonstrating administering each vaccine:
Rotarix (RV1) – YouTube
RotaTeq (RV5) – YouTube

Intranasal Route (NAS):
Intranasal vaccine is administered into each nostril using a manufacturer-filled nasal sprayer. Live, attenuated influenza (LAIV [FluMist]) vaccine is the only vaccine administered by the intranasal route. A video demonstrating administration of intranasal flu vaccine can be found here.

Vaccine Administration Route and Site | CDC

This page provides guidance for vaccine administration routes and includes vaccine dosage, route, and site guides.

www.cdc.gov

Lursa · Jul 7, 2025

maquiscat said:
Vaccines available in the United States are administered by 4 routes:

Oral Route (PO):
Oral vaccine is administered through drops to the mouth. Rotavirus vaccine (RV1 [Rotarix], RV5 [RotaTeq]) is the only routinely recommended vaccine administered orally. Rotavirus vaccine should never be injected. CDC videos demonstrating administering each vaccine:
Rotarix (RV1) – YouTube
RotaTeq (RV5) – YouTube

Intranasal Route (NAS):
Intranasal vaccine is administered into each nostril using a manufacturer-filled nasal sprayer. Live, attenuated influenza (LAIV [FluMist]) vaccine is the only vaccine administered by the intranasal route. A video demonstrating administration of intranasal flu vaccine can be found here.

Vaccine Administration Route and Site | CDC

This page provides guidance for vaccine administration routes and includes vaccine dosage, route, and site guides.

www.cdc.gov

Drops in the mouth for Rotavirus are likely taken the same way I took pot...they were drops held under the tongue and delivered directly to the blood stream and did not go into the digestive system. The acids in the stomach destroy many things.

Intranasal and thru other mucus membranes, eyes, etc all also go directly into the bloodstream and do not got thru the digestive tract.

A good explanation of "mercury" in vaccines.

Maquis Admiral

Tenacious

Maquis Admiral

Tenacious

Maquis Admiral

Maquis Admiral

Tenacious

Maquis Admiral

Horrible Bastard

Tenacious

Maquis Admiral

Maquis Admiral

Tenacious

Maquis Admiral

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Maquis Admiral

Tenacious

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency