How did we get it this wrong?

COLUMN

VACCINES: Safe, effective and saved the world! This is what doctors say when parents ask about vaccines. The vaccine inserts thrown into the rubbish tins should be given to the parents. What don’t doctors want parents to see?

Most people called “anti-vaxxers” once trusted their doctors, following blindly. The thousands of names on the outside and inside of the Vaxxed bus represent vaccine injury and death from every possible vaccine, after an uninformed, pro-vaccine parent signed a consent form.

Pro-vaxxers say “mere parents” can’t decide what is good for them. Anyone who has studied the medical references in my two books, “Just a Little Prick” and “From One Prick to Another”, will realise how much peer-reviewed medical information has been withheld from them.

In 1984, the US Federal Register stated that “any possible doubts about vaccination, could not be allowed to exist”.

After American parents demanded more detailed polio pamphlets, a 1996 pediatrics article said that the key was to determine the information which makes parents vaccinate, and to leave out “non-essential concepts” which might lead to “higher-level knowledge”.

Why? Because they want parents to just “do it”, not think about it first.

The pro-vaxxers say antibiotics and vaccines resulted in the death and disease decline. Lancet 2002 PMID 11901641 has a graph which completely explodes that myth. Many infectious disease textbooks have similar graphs which silence such narrative. The NZ 1946 Year Book, page 68, lists dramatic declines from 1872-1944 in all disease categories, which owe nothing to the medical system.

If people consulted yearly hospital deaths and cases, NZ Official Year Books and the health reports from the appendices to Parliamentary journals from the late 1800s, they might realise that they have been lied to.

The irony is that the Department of Health facts are all there to see, if you know where to look.

Pro-vaxxers cite smallpox and polio to validate subsequent vaccines, not realising that studious investigative research might leave them astonished at the twists and turns which radically contradict their preferred “world-saving dogma”. Throwing unstudied assumptions at parents is rhetoric unworthy of scientific research.

Dr Lance O’Sullivan talks about the seriously sick, suffering children he holds in his arms, saying that compulsory vaccination will stop that.

But real health doesn’t come from a needle. The following ideals are well established in peer-reviewed medical journals:
1) No junk food, sugar, refined carbs, soft drinks, smoking, drinking or drugs.
2) Natural birth — elective caesarians cause long-term problems for children and parents.
3) A two-year family allowance for one parent to stay home after every birth.
4) Two years breastfeeding minimum. The medical taxpayer cost of disease from infant formula is huge.

If these four things had been compulsory for the past 20 years, doctors’ patient numbers would be massively less than they are now, and hospitals would have money to burn.

In 2009, I asked a Health Select Committee to government fund a study linking every person’s Health Index Number, National Immunisation Register, and hospital admission data comparing who was vaccinated, subsequent hospital doctor’s visits, with the “partially” and “never vaccinated”. They refused, citing “patient confidentiality”.

In 2007 America’s CDC contracted $1 million for a programme which unexpectedly captured large numbers of previously unreported potential vaccine injury. CDC dropped the project, refusing to communicate with the contractor.

New Zealand can do a fully-vaccinated vs never-vaccinated study. Instead every effort is made not to. I believe that also comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated taxpayer costs would result in another question; “How did we get it this wrong?”

See also Vaccines are safe and effective


■ Supporting data here: http://beyondconformity.co.nz/hilarys-desk/vaccines-safe-effective-and-saved-the-world
■ Hilary Butler lives in the Waikato

VACCINES: Safe, effective and saved the world! This is what doctors say when parents ask about vaccines. The vaccine inserts thrown into the rubbish tins should be given to the parents. What don’t doctors want parents to see?

Most people called “anti-vaxxers” once trusted their doctors, following blindly. The thousands of names on the outside and inside of the Vaxxed bus represent vaccine injury and death from every possible vaccine, after an uninformed, pro-vaccine parent signed a consent form.

Pro-vaxxers say “mere parents” can’t decide what is good for them. Anyone who has studied the medical references in my two books, “Just a Little Prick” and “From One Prick to Another”, will realise how much peer-reviewed medical information has been withheld from them.

In 1984, the US Federal Register stated that “any possible doubts about vaccination, could not be allowed to exist”.

After American parents demanded more detailed polio pamphlets, a 1996 pediatrics article said that the key was to determine the information which makes parents vaccinate, and to leave out “non-essential concepts” which might lead to “higher-level knowledge”.

Why? Because they want parents to just “do it”, not think about it first.

The pro-vaxxers say antibiotics and vaccines resulted in the death and disease decline. Lancet 2002 PMID 11901641 has a graph which completely explodes that myth. Many infectious disease textbooks have similar graphs which silence such narrative. The NZ 1946 Year Book, page 68, lists dramatic declines from 1872-1944 in all disease categories, which owe nothing to the medical system.

If people consulted yearly hospital deaths and cases, NZ Official Year Books and the health reports from the appendices to Parliamentary journals from the late 1800s, they might realise that they have been lied to.

The irony is that the Department of Health facts are all there to see, if you know where to look.

Pro-vaxxers cite smallpox and polio to validate subsequent vaccines, not realising that studious investigative research might leave them astonished at the twists and turns which radically contradict their preferred “world-saving dogma”. Throwing unstudied assumptions at parents is rhetoric unworthy of scientific research.

Dr Lance O’Sullivan talks about the seriously sick, suffering children he holds in his arms, saying that compulsory vaccination will stop that.

But real health doesn’t come from a needle. The following ideals are well established in peer-reviewed medical journals:
1) No junk food, sugar, refined carbs, soft drinks, smoking, drinking or drugs.
2) Natural birth — elective caesarians cause long-term problems for children and parents.
3) A two-year family allowance for one parent to stay home after every birth.
4) Two years breastfeeding minimum. The medical taxpayer cost of disease from infant formula is huge.

If these four things had been compulsory for the past 20 years, doctors’ patient numbers would be massively less than they are now, and hospitals would have money to burn.

In 2009, I asked a Health Select Committee to government fund a study linking every person’s Health Index Number, National Immunisation Register, and hospital admission data comparing who was vaccinated, subsequent hospital doctor’s visits, with the “partially” and “never vaccinated”. They refused, citing “patient confidentiality”.

In 2007 America’s CDC contracted $1 million for a programme which unexpectedly captured large numbers of previously unreported potential vaccine injury. CDC dropped the project, refusing to communicate with the contractor.

New Zealand can do a fully-vaccinated vs never-vaccinated study. Instead every effort is made not to. I believe that also comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated taxpayer costs would result in another question; “How did we get it this wrong?”

See also Vaccines are safe and effective


■ Supporting data here: http://beyondconformity.co.nz/hilarys-desk/vaccines-safe-effective-and-saved-the-world
■ Hilary Butler lives in the Waikato

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Richard - 1 month ago
Hilary Butler asks: "How did we get it this wrong?"
That's a question the denialists always ask of others but never of themselves. They issue reams of text corrupting historic events and data, insinuate scurrilous marketing tactics of product providers, and connote obstructive practices of professional bodies - but never of once question the cogency their own behaviour.
Denialists claim they have the evidence to prove that the US Government blew up the Twin Towers, that the Holocaust never happened, that the recent Sandy Hook school massacre was orchestrated by the anti-gun lobby, or that the 2004 Sumatra tsunami was not a natural disaster, but "God's Will". The list of conspiracy theories trotted out by these groups runs into thousands and their denials into millions of media text pages.
The Antivaxers behaviour is no different - in fact it is identical. Mob and bully. Might is right - word count equates to facts. Lose a local skirmish - just roll out the national big name celebrity to prove their case is unerring and trash the dissenting voice of reason and expertise.
They seek to capture the moral high ground by directing you to the names of vaccine "victims" in their campaign bus. If there were a pro-vaccine campaign bus it would not have sufficient wall, floor and roof space to print the millions of lives saved by global immunisation programmes.

Richard - 1 month ago
Media mobbing Hilary Butler style.
In 2013 her target was the Sydney Morning Herald and naturally the Australian medical profession. Her complete article of fervent textural bulling is too large to reprint here, so just a few quotes:
"Perhaps you need to consider that, like the Germans before the second world war, Fairfax media could be being used by the medical profession, to mindlessly yell 'Heil Hitler'."
"Are you innocently painting non-vaccinating parents the 'new Jews'."
"If people stand around and do nothing about it [vaccinating children] then they will join Germany in the Hall of Historical Shame."
"Will the next edict from the medical profession be that you publish a demand, whereby parents must sew a yellow star on to unvaccinated children."
End of quotes.

In Hilary Butler's fevered imagination, the Australian health authorities are Nazis who just can't wait to force unvaccinated children to wear the yellow star that Hitler forced Jews to wear. Of course, Ms. Butler knows full well what ultimately happened to the Jews in Hitler's Germany. The yellow star was the first step from marginalisation to separation from society to Holocaust elimination. It was a direct step on the road to the death camps. Does Ms. Butler really think that the Australian government is planning on sending unvaccinated children to the gas chambers and ovens, the way that Hitler sent the Jews to death camps? Probably not. But playing the Hitler card is deemed by her as an acceptable tactic to demonise government health authorities who wish to increase vaccination rates in areas where they are dangerously low.
Media demonisation are the modus operandi of the Antivaxer, and unfortunately, not the dissemination of truth.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/24/quote-antivaccinationist-hilary-butler-non-vaccinators-are-the-new-jews/

Bob (Trainer) Martin, Victoria - 1 month ago
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/959/799/892/create-a-vaccine-compensation-program-for-all-canadians/ share if you care Bob Martin GBS Survivor Bob ramgbs.wordpress.com Bobs Story.

Richard - 1 month ago
There you go - what did I forecast on another Opinion column thread:
The AntiVaxers will roll out their out-of-region warriors to bombard readers of the Herald with their pseudoscience and stories of "healing" - all utter nonsense and debunked by detailed research. Expect more seemingly astonishing tales of vaccine woe from supposedly super-fit sports trainers, doctors (struck off of course) and so called professors (also stripped of their status) but AntiVaxers studiously avoid announcing that.

As Dr Lance O'Sullivan said: "AntiVaxers lurk in the shadows of social media [and mainstream] and we cannot allow suspicion and misinformation to triumph. Falsely associating severe health problems with immunisation is undermining one of the most effective public health strategies of our time, alongside access to clean water and sanitation. It's like saying that going outside on a fine day and putting an umbrella up caused the onset of a rainstorm - it does not stack up, much as emotionally-charged people might want it to."

Society must take a stand against these cranks.

Hilary Butler - 1 month ago
In response to the naysayers below, I would like to point out the following, which may not seem relevant, but are.
In another "play the man" attack on questioners, on Stuff.co, Dr Lance O'Sullivan makes it clear that he doesn't believe scientists are silenced, threatened or bribed. My response to him is here, with evidence of how, when and where:

http://beyondconformity.org.nz/hilarys-desk/fake-bait-on-a-plate

Similarly it is blatantly obvious that the provaccine zealots are now dog-piling on Jeremy, and he too is being threatened. My comments on that, are here, because I have no respect for heavy-weight brain battery trying to tell editors to shut up discussion:

http://beyondconformity.org.nz/hilarys-desk/jeremy-muir-walking-on-barbed-wire

As to the illiterates who don't bother to check out the science I presented to Dr Lush, my responses to those are here.

http://beyondconformity.org.nz/hilarys-desk/why-so-much-hot-air-dr-lush

Assuming that Jeremy has the guts to publish this, and assuming that intelligent people look at the evidence, perhaps sensible discussion might prevail.

However, I don't expect that to be the case. Given my expectations, I have successfully pdf'd this webpage including this response as proof that I made this comment here, and if it is not published, I will put it on my website as well, as proof positive that the mandatory vaccination zealots do indeed - as Dr Lance O'Sullivan proved, always play the man, never the ball.

Hilary Butler.

Richard - 1 month ago
Hilary Butler knows, as do legions of medical professionals, that the "beyondconformity" database is neither independent or open to pro-vaccination postings. It is but one of the many cult AntiVaxer websites and its content is neither use nor ornament in a serious scientific debate about immunisation.

Richard - 1 month ago
Judge for yourself - here's Dr. Lance O'Sullivan's full editorial piece in Stuff:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/93786498/dr-lance-osullivan-i-as-uncertain-about-giving-my-kids-the-jab-it-was-when-my-daughter-got-sick-that-we-realised-how-important-it-was-that-she-be-immunised

S. Williams - 1 month ago
Richard, I have read all your posts. It seems that when you are not capable of refuting any facts or science put to you, you engage in attacks and smear tactics and accusing others of what you are yourself guilty of and modelling.
Quite often you sound incoherent and do not make any sense, trying to obfuscate the debate. Please be aware that readers are not stupid and they can see that your posts have no substance, no valid argument, no science, just attacking anyone who wants to debate the safety of vaccines. Your only interest, like Dr O'Sullivan, is to shut down the debate by bullying. You sure have so much in common with Dr O'Sullivan that you could be his double!!
Hilary Butler is a stellar researcher who can back everything she says with data and science. She has a million times more credibility than you. You hide before a first name and act like a shill and don't have the courage of your conviction to say in what capacity you work for the medical industry. It seems that you have no ability to digest the science and data Hilary Butler is putting forward in supporting her argument. You can't attack the science, so you attack the person. Again, very much like your hero Dr O'Sullivan.

S. Williams - 1 month ago
In the above piece in Stuff, Dr.O'Sullivan tells us that one year after vaccinating his daughter, she developed a severe eye infection, requiring hospitalisation and a week of intravenous antibiotics. How could this be an argument in support of vaccination? Why did he feel pride for prior vaccination of his kid? I can understand better gratitude/pride of parents of unvaccinated children, who due to a good immune system, don't develop such infections. He is telling us that vaccinating his kid didn't prevent this potentially fatal condition, usually attributed to Haemophilus Influenza. Was his child vaccinated with a vaccine containing this virus or its antigen?
If he had not vaccinated his daughter prior to hospitalization, would Doctors blame his daughter's condition on non-vaccination? As the child was fully vaccinated, what did doctors attribute the cause of this infection to?
He says he obstructed the viewing of the documentary Vaxxed "to protest the presence of a movement that causes illness and misery by spreading misinformation".
Does he not understand that kids featured in Vaxxed got severely injured and some even died as a result of vaccination. They suffered all kinds of side effects, including recurrent infections, vision problems, neurological problems, autoimmune, cancer, ear infections, autism spectrum, digestive issues, seizures and epilepsy, etc.
Does he not understand that Vaxxed is documenting children, whose parents, based on advice from doctors such as Dr. O'Sullivan, vaccinated their kids. So, if any misinformation was involved, causing these illnesses and misery it came from doctors like Dr. O'Sullivan.
Dr. O'Sullivan decided on a pamphlet not to vaccinate his child. No parent should decide just from a pamphlet whether to vaccinate or not. Parents should research the subject thoroughly. They should become aware that if their child had an adverse reaction to any vaccines, Dr. O'Sullivan wouldn't even want them to document the suffering of their child. He wouldn't respect their right to free-speech. He wouldn't acknowledge their suffering or loss nor he would be able to help them recover the health of their children. He would expect them to suffer in silence and not inform other parents.

S.Williams - 1 month ago
Regarding whooping cough, Dr. O'Sullivan should educate himself by reading Hilary Butler's detailed research here:
http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/hilarys-desk/whooping_cough_in_new_zealand
where she explains whooping cough vaccination is no protection for whooping cough, based on data from published medical resources.
Doctor O'Sullivan has every right to stay ignorant, but he has no right to endanger children's health by poisonous vaccines, in the face of overwhelming evidence that vaccines do so much harm. He should refrain from vaccinating any kid, until such time he can prove by Peer-Reviewed-Research (PRR), including double-blind studies with neutral placebo, that:
A- It is safe to inject children with Aluminum, Mercury, Formaldehyde, Human DNA, Monkey DNA and other nasty ingredients in vaccines.
B- Multi-vaccines are safe.
C- Current schedule of vaccines is safe.
D- There is no long-term effects of vaccines, i.e. to prove that there is no risk of increased autoimmune, neurological, digestive, etc. illnesses among vaccinated adults compared to unvaccinated.
E- Vaccines do not cause autism. Even Dr. Offit admits he can't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cHZa8t98w , but encourages doctors to lie about it anyway!
F- Vaccines do not cause cancer, esp. as we know Formaldehyde is a carcinogenic, same as heavy metals and aborted fetal cells, etc.
It is simply immoral, unethical, illegal to play Russian roulette with kids' lives. As a doctor he should know: "First, do no harm". Doctors have failed vaccine-damaged kids; they have harmed them.
I always wondered why during any world crisis, Bill Gates immediately sends vaccines for kids, esp. to war-ravaged or poor countries. I always wondered why he doesn't send them water or food. Finally, Dr. O'Sullivan answered my question, in the same Stuff article above. Like Dr. O'Sullivan, he is building these kids resilience. They may die from starvation or war, but at least they die with resilience. And if they managed to survive the war or contaminated water, they can spend rest of their lives dealing with damage from these vaccines. That is if they survived the vaccines at all.
Dr. O'Sullivan is also increasing kids resilience in the face of cold, over-crowded homes, by vaccination.
May I suggest that instead, we divert money from Big Pharma (currently spent on vaccines and all the illness-industry business they generate) to address the needs of our kids and their families; for example build them more good, warm homes?

Richard - 1 month ago
Antivaxers - the forces of irrationality who speak forcibly, marshalling against rational thinkers globally. Conspiracy theorists, denialists, prolific web mobsters, irresponsible journalists, and ethically compromised or incompetent scientists. Founding member is the AntiVaxer's "hero and martyr" (their words not mine) Andrew Wakefield. So let's check this man out, and not on one of their own dedicated websites but on an unbiased independent's:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Andrew Wakefield claims in his book "Callous Regard", hailed by AntiVaxers as their bible of the truth, the whole truth, except as proved after publication, his book was not the truth at all - just more jibberish of untruths from someone who has been barred from practising medicine in the UK and not licensed in the US - AW is often revered as the "Messiah" by AntiVaxers - clearly that's just blind faith.

Standing against all this immunisation hostility is the simple respect for scientific integrity and the dedication to forensically examine the evidence wherever it leads. Here's the official deconstruct of Andrew Wakefield?s pseudo scientific research:

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOVACJ/TOVACJ-6-9.pdf

On the one hand, there's the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organisation, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the British Medical Association, the Lancet and the majority of other countries' health associations stating categorically that vaccines are safe, and in particular do not cause autism. Furthermore, not vaccinating children can be incredibly dangerous for children and for individuals with compromised immune systems who are unable to be vaccinated. For any media to facilitate the spreading gobbledygook from discredited and barred quacks isn't being non-judgmental. It's being irresponsible and highly dangerous. Andrew Wakefield a martyr? No he's a menace - just like the rest of them - all fakes falsifying facts.





S. Williams - 1 month ago
It is good that Dr. O'Sullivan finally watched the Vaxxed movie, after initially criticising it so vehemently, without even seeing it! Initially he said he had not seen it and wouldn't see it.
He even went as far as declaring: "Health professionals at Vaxxed should be fired"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/92958270/health-professionals-at-vaxxed-should-be-fired-lance-osullivan
So, is he now going to put his own resignation in? Or is he going to apologize to those doctors and health professionals? Or is it only OK for him to watch Vaxxed and not for other doctors and health professionals? And definitely not OK for parents, as they may end up making an informed decision, rather than blindly following Dr. O'Sullivan and suffer the consequences thereof.
Dr. O'Sullivan's defence of Big Pharma's profits is very touching. It is not just the vaccines cost which empty the tax-payers' pockets, but also the cost of exponential increase of many illnesses which can be traced back to vaccines, as a major contributing factor.
He claims: "vaccinations are probably the least lucrative product these businesses could be developing and marketing". Music to the vaccine industry's ears, who don't even have to properly test their vaccines and have no liabilities. Insurance companies won't cover them, as they would go broke, so tax-payers have to pay for vaccine-damaged kids. And once you assault and weaken someone's immune system with your vaccines, you will make them Big Pharma's customer for rest of their lives.
He says "Sometimes despite all the evidence, all the science and all the facts it might just come down to trust. Trust in someone to provide the best possible advice." Well, I think having seen how ignorant Dr. O'Sullivan is re vaccination and its associated risks and his attitude to vaccine-damaged kids, parents would be wise to do their own homework before letting that poisonous needle near their kids. As for an expert, Hilary Butler, Dr. Humphries, Dr. Tenpenny, Dr. Godfrey and many others have truly done their homework on vaccines and immunity and can easily put Dr. O'Sullivan to shame as how little he knows. Repeating the vaccine industry's sound-bites doesn't make him an expert on the issue. A shill yes, but not an expert.

Richard - 1 month ago
"Repeating the vaccine industry's sound-bites doesn't make him [Dr. Lance O'Sullivan] an expert on the issue. A shill yes, but not an expert" so you tell us SW.

"Repeating the AntiVaxer community sound-bites doesn't make you an expert SW on the issue. A shill absolutely, but certainly far from an expert". And indeed lacking in expertise. But what of all your own legions of "experts" you so fondly frequently refer to. Hilary Butler, Dr. Humphries, Dr. Tenpenny, Dr. Godfrey, Andrew Wakefield, Dr San Hang Lee, Prof. Christopher Shaw, and the many more, about all of whom the AntiVaxer community studiously avoid mentioning the fact that they have either had their official posts removed, been barred, stripped of their accreditation or licences for manipulation of patient data, falsehood, unethical practises amongst other medical misdemeanours. Your coterie of scoundrels' anti-immunisation research has been thoroughly debunked by the global medical community. Fact not fiction.

Now I can understand that you may find it difficult to come to terms with reality on this subject but the truth will always prevail over skullduggery.

Pamela, Paeroa - 1 month ago
In this day and age, we should be able to create a web page survey that only takes one story from each family willing to participate and can get these surveys done anonymously but fairly. Doctors would like to show how they have saved the world, and parents of partially and unvaccinated children could share their experience. The promoters of vaccines and the government seem to have no interest in the reality, just the rhetoric. People questioning vaccines could get validation.

Richard - 28 days ago
Pamela you say, and I quote, that: "the vaccine community and governments have no interest in reality, just rhetoric". OK, so let's just discuss that.
A regular rallying point for the AntiVaxer movement is to broadcast regularly and loudly that the "Heavy Metals" in vaccines kill. That is rhetoric - and that's hysteria.
The reality is that a child living in a town breathes in (and by contact with the skin) more heavy metals from vehicle exhaust fumes than is in a vaccine. Now imagine a child in a city - there the volume of heavy metal intake is potentially 20 fold per day more than in a town. Now multiply that by a lifetime from birth through to adolescence. Now that's heavy heavy metal.
It's all about scale. About the dosage within the constituent parts of the whole vaccine. The dosage determines the poisonous effect - not a title "Heavy Metal". In the same manner in which you don't need to worry about the toxins in vaccines, for the same reason you don't need to worry about drowning in a single drop of water.
Stick to reality; dump rhetoric and the hysteria. You'll be healthier in body and mind by doing so.
And Pamela you asked for validation - well here's the particulates:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231012006942

Katya, Waikato - 23 days ago
Richard, the big problem is that heavy metals are being injected into the bloodstream, bypassing the natural immune response (skin, mucus membranes, snot, hair, digestive system, etc) and these are able to pass over the blood brain barrier. Heavy metals in the big city do not so easily get straight into the blood stream. They enter the body at these natural check points, they can be processed and detoxified more easily. Your examples of not drowning in a drop of water are very poetic but quite useless. You can die from a drop of poision NOT a drop of water. You are one irritating, uninformed fool. Who are you trying to convince with your rubbish writing?

Richard - 23 days ago
AntiVaxers promote heavily that "it can't be healthy" to be exposed to toxins, but this argument is based upon an unstated major premise - namely that any exposure to a possible toxin, regardless of dose or mode of exposure, is a bad thing. Scientifically this premise is entirely false.
Humans evolved in an environment that includes exposure to some extent to a wide range of elements and chemicals, so we have inbuilt defence mechanisms to environmental toxins. But, you cannot eliminate all exposure to any element or substance, you can only minimise it.
The question is not whether or not it is a good thing to be exposed to something, but what are the safe levels of exposure. Toxicity is always about dose. Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.
The question is whether or not exposure levels pose any risk, and, if the evidence suggests that this answer is no then it is a waste of effort and resources to minimise exposure further. Or, as in the dogmatic approach of the AntiVaxer, to eradicate exposure entirely based on a fundamental belief that all vaccines are toxic, i.e poisonous.
Take a "risk vs benefit" analysis to such questions. What is the benefit of using substances and what is the risk? In this context, do not blame anyone who chooses not to use a deodorant with aluminium - the benefit is optional for most people as there are alternatives. At the same time there is no reason for panic or extreme measures as advocated by the AntiVaxers whereby it is scientifically proved, validated through years of studies and verification check balances, that non-vaccination exposes a child to a disproportionate and potentially fatal risk.

Richard - 23 days ago
Heavy Metal
Katya - the only folks that are uninformed are AntiVaxers.
Mercury (Thimerosal)
The AntiVaxers rant about the evil of mercury in vaccines hysterically presenting visual evidence (image of metallic mercury on their websites / books), that's fundamentally incorrect.
Thimerosal is in fact an organo-mercury compound. No harmful effects are reported from thimerosal at doses used in vaccines, except for minor local reactions like redness / swelling at the injection site. Although very rare indeed, some people may be allergic to thimerosal. When thimerosal enters the body, it breaks down to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate, which are readily eliminated. It does not stay in the blood or body. Thimerosal's preservative role prevents the growth of harmful bacteria in vaccines.
Specifically there is no proven evidence that thimerosal in a vaccine increases the risk of developing neuro-developmental disorders e.g. autism or Alzheimer's disease. This study and many more replicate - no harm found:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/20/autism-link-to-vaccines-dismissed-by-studies-of-more-than-a-million-children

After thimerosal was removed from almost all childhood vaccines (2001) autism rates continued to increase, which is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism. All of the pseudoscience studies forwarded by the AntiVax brigade stating that it does have been throughly discredited as a false manipulation of the facts i.e nonsense.

Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal, yet AntiVaxers still deliberately mislead the public on this. Influenza (flu) vaccines are currently available in both thimerosal-containing multi-dose vaccine vials, and thimerosal-free single dose versions.

Truth always prevails over lies.