If I used to smoke 25 cigarettes a day and now I only smoke 3, am I “smoke-free”?
I think most people would agree the answer is “no”. Sure, I may be taking a step in the right direction. And sure, I’m being exposed to substantially less toxicity than previously.
But “smoke-free”? Not a chance.
So how is it that the CDC can consider a thimerosal containing vaccine with 3 micrograms of thimerosal or less “thimerosal-free”? This is their definition, and they even site studies to support it (JAMA 1999; 282(18) and JAMA 2000; 283(16)). According to them, 3 micrograms of thimerosal has “no biological effect” and is therefore the same as not having been exposed to it at all.
Call me skeptical, but I find that very hard to believe. I’ve seen the video from the University of Calgary (HERE) showing what happens to a neuron when exposed low levels of mercury.
Furthermore, isolating only 1 incidence of exposure via 1 vaccine is manipulative. Assuming they’re right and 3 micrograms of thimerosal won’t do anything “biological” in and of itself, what happens if a baby is given 2 “thimerosal-free” vaccines (like the Hep B and the DTaP) at 6 micrograms of exposure? Is that still considered “thimerosal-free”?
And what about if that baby just got those 2 shots and a flu shot with 25 more micrograms? Now what? Was the baby not just exposed to 31 micrograms of thimerosal instead of 25? Any “biological effect” yet?
It’s like the tobacco industry advertising a carton of cigarettes on the premise that smoking 3 or less cigarettes at a time won’t hurt you because they’ve done a study to prove they have no biological effect when smoked in that way, with no regard to how many you smoked prior to or after those 3. Can you imagine?
Anyway, this infuriates me. It’s false advertising. If a parent asks their pediatrician for thimerosal-free vaccines, or if that pediatrician is claiming that they are a thimerosal-free office, are they really getting or giving them? Is it possible a mom requesting thimerosal free vaccines at the 2 month visit actually just injected her child with 6 micrograms via the DTaP and HepB? According to the CDC it is!
So I took the liberty of creating an authentic thimerosal free vaccination schedule for parents who are trying to adhere to one. All vaccines listed are brands that contain no thimerosal and never did. All information may be checked HERE using the CDC’s own data.
Keep in mind, if this schedule is not adhered to, meaning flu shots are administered with full doses of thimerosal and brands of DTaP, Hib, HepB, and HepA with trace amounts are as well, a parent may possibly expose their child to 202 micrograms of thimerosal over the first 6 years of life!
To use the better known comparison, by 6 months of age it is still possible for a baby to receive 71 mcg of thimerosal versus the previous 187.5 mcg! Here’s how it could easily happen:
Prenatal: Flu shot [Fluzone, Flulaval, or Fluvirin (25mcg)]
Birth: HepB [Engergix (3mcg)]
1month: HepB [Energix (3mcg)]
2 months: DTaP [Tripedia (3mcg)] or DTaP/Hib [TriHIBit (3mcg)]
4 months: HepB [Energix (3mcg)] and DTaP [Tripedia (3mcg)] or DTaP/Hib [TriHIBit (3mcg)]
6 months: same as 4 months, plus a flu shot
This clearly falsifies the repeatedly stated mantra that babies are no longer being exposed to thimerosal these days. They most certainly are.
Moms and Dads, if you are planning on following the CDC recommended vaccine schedule, here is the only the possible way to implement a truly thimerosal free one (brand name in parenthesis). Remember, ALL flu shots have thimerosal and therefore, none can be given.
Prenatal: NO FLU SHOT.
Birth: Hep B (Recombivax)
1 month: Hep B (Recombivax)
2 month: DTaP (Daptacel or Infarix)
4 month: Hep B (Recombivax)
DTaP (Daptacel or Infarix)
6 month: same as 4 month, but NO FLU SHOT
12 month: Hib (any)
15 month: DTaP (Daptacel or Infarix)
18 month: Hep A (Havrix or Vaqta)
NO FLU SHOT
30 month: NO FLU SHOT
42 month: NO FLU SHOT
48 month: MMR (any)
DTaP (Daptacel or Infarix)
54 month: NO FLU SHOT
66 month: NO FLU SHOT
Julie Obradovic is the mother of a recovered child.
Well, well, well.
Looks like the CDC made an ass out of me…again. As if it’s not bad enough what they did to my child, now they made me look like an idiot. (What’s that saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?)
In this post on a thimerosal free vaccination schedule, I wrote about how upset I was that the CDC defines a trace as less than 3 micrograms. That amount is most definitely not a “trace”, especially in the context of recommended flu shots which possibly contain 25 mcg themselves. I pointed out that at the 6 month visit a child could potentially get 31 mcg of thimerosal as a result.
Now, I didn’t pull that number out of thin air. I spent quite a bit of time studying documents from the CDC’s website, and according to one of those documents called Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary, Part 2 the CDC says this:
*Where “thimerosal” is marked with an asterisk (*) it indicates that the product should be considered equivalent to thimerosal-free products. This vaccine may contain trace amounts (<3 mcg) of mercury left after post-production thimerosal removal, but these amounts have no biological effect. JAMA 1999;282(18) and JAMA 2000;283(16)
(Still, there were some corrections needed to my post, as were pointed out by commenters. For example, I didn’t mention Flu Mist as being a thimerosal free flu vaccine, but that was because I was only listing injected vaccines. And yes, there is one version of the flu shot that in single dose vials is thimerosal free, something I misinterpreted on the CDC document.)
Shortly after my post went up, someone pointed out that I appeared to have made a grave error by mistaking 3 micrograms of thimerosal as a trace amount instead of 0.3 micrograms, a substantial and important difference. I panicked at the thought of having made such a huge mistake and immediately went back and consulted the information I had researched.
But sure enough, according to what I had, I had not made a mistake. Indeed the CDC was claiming a trace amount of thimerosal was 3 micrograms or less, as is stated above. I replied so, to which I was then told that the CDC had obviously made a type-o.
“A type-o?” I questioned.
That seems a bit odd, doesn’t it? I mean, far be it from me to think the CDC free from error, but really…a type-o? On something of this importance? On a document dedicated to the most crucial component of the vaccine controversy (their ingredients)? This is where they mess up defining exactly what kids are being exposed to and how much of it? You’ve got to be kidding me.
So I contacted the CDC for clarification. Perhaps they were defining a trace amount as less than 3 micrograms even though the actual exposure is only less than 0.3 micrograms? Perhaps they were right and the pharmaceutical companies were wrong?
Nope. They were wrong. They messed up. Shocking, I know.
Just this morning I received this email:
Dear Ms. Obradovic,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. In fact, it is a misprint on our website. It should read 0.3 mcg, not 3 mcg. We will correct the error immediately.
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
So, folks, that’s it. In the grand scheme of things, this is good news. I’m relatively relieved kids are not receiving trace amounts higher than 0.3 micrograms, although I believe they shouldn’t be receiving any. And the fact remains that the schedule I proposed is indeed thimerosal free, although the word “only” no longer applies.
Sorry for the mistake.