The flu jab choice the Department of Health might not tell you about

Sally Chatterjee

Fraser, are you not scaremongering? I know that the advice to avoid swordfish is not because of what one steak can do but from the accumulation of mercury from eating it often.

One vaccine jab isn't going to make much difference.

Besides when you say "at least explain the risks and give them the choice?", it's clear that most people can't judge these risks very well. Especially when even The Spectator is clouding the issue!

David

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/chart-of-the-day-6.html

Off topic, but I think worth highlighting in any further coverage of the US health debate. The Republicans don't really come out too well.....

Simon Stephenson

"In recent years, there have been several studies into thimerosal – all of which have been unable to find evidence of harm"

The same is true of passive smoking, I believe, but this didn't stop the entire anti-smoking industry from trumpeting it as a health hazard of gargantuan proportions.

Richard

Did you learn no chemistry at all? Mercury is a proven neurotoxin; that does not mean that any given mercury compound is. Chlorine is highly toxic, sodium reacts dangerously wiht water. Are you going to write an hysterical article about processed food companies feeding us poisons? Common table salt is no more poisonous than thimerasol.

As for US concerns, the reason the action failed was that it had no merit. Covered well in randi.org, the James Randi Educational foundation.

Does the Spectator have no journalists with science degrees who could read these stories before you publish?

Lloydj

Interesting. Most of us oldies have been having the normal flue vaccine every Autumn. Now I wonder if thse injections also had mercury as a presevative that we were not told about. If so this could be even bigger news.

Jupiter

No graph today, Fraser.

THX1138

Better have all my filling removed then.

Usual scientific conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo from the right.

At least Fraser believes in man made climate change though unlike most of the Conspiracy theorists commentors on the CH.

Linda Alexander

thank you for making this info public. another sad indictment of our dreadful government.

Giles

Wow, it's MMR all over again. Maybe we should investigate what causes people to abandon rationality when they have children. I suspect reading the Daily Mail aggravates this condition.

Malcolm

Thanks Fraser, as usual officialdom cannot be trusted with even the simplest of things. Nanny (state) doesn't know best any more.

Unixman (ex research biochemist)

oh lord ... not this again. The amount of mercury in the vaccine is literally miniscule - on average 25 MICROgrammes (not milligrams) is which is 2.5 *10^-6 grams and anyway the body has special proteins (metallothioneins) whose role is to rid the body of heavy metals - including mercury. The World Health Organization was categorically stated that the level of mercury in a vaccine has not and will not cause neurological damage. There is an excellent article here http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281 which states that ""The weight of the evidence in this study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins administered prenatally or during infancy and neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years. The overall pattern of results suggests that the significant associations may have been chance findings stemming from the large number of statistical tests that we performed." The most important point is that it was a large scale sample and that the result is simple "statistical glitches!. Another point is that most of the hype concerning mercury in vaccines are based upon methyl mercury; this has very different pharacodynamics to thimerosal which is ethyl mercury. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has concluded that "there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal (containing ethyl mercury) in vaccines."

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/statement_jul2006/en/index.html

Please Fraser stick to what you are good at and hammer Labour; avoid science. I understand that you have concerns but this is a classic case of " a little knowledge".

logdon

Good job they don't jab in the backside these days or it would be the collision of Mercury in Uranus.

Astrologically speaking, of course.

logdon

And speaking of uranuses, why is Burnham praying?

Chuck Unsworth

Trouble is, faced with those options no one in their right minds would choose the one which contains mercury, hence a there will be profound shortage of vaccine. So the government will not offer the choice unless any public outcry reaches Gurkha proportions.

unseen

Sally is right. Mercury is famously an accumulating poison. And all the autism / vaccine stuff is widely and almost universally discredited.

Fraser, you are always keen to look at the numbers when discussing fiscal policy, employment, pensions etc. Why are you so willing, now, to hand-wavingly dismiss the hard numbers that show that mercury vaccines aren't harmful?

Fraser Nelson

Richard, Im no scientist but I have studied the thimerosal issue thoroughly including reading several scientific studies into its safety and the links between mercury and neurological damage. The other side of this debate is in www.safeminds.org. My point: there is a debate, and a valid one. And if the case is so utterly baseless, perhaps you can explain why thimerosal has been withdrawn from US and UK child vaccines? A hysterical over-reaction?

Sally, I know that any journalistic inquiry into vaccines is open to teh charge of scaremongering. But in this case, there are two vaccines on offer with different qualities. I'm just pointing this out.

Samuel Dickinson

I can see Mr Goldacre typing his Bad Science column right now. Stick to political journalism Fraser and leave the science to the scientists.

David Ossitt

Giles
"I suspect reading the Daily Mail aggravates this condition"

If the condition in question is the loathing of all things PC; then yes, reading the DM does tend to aggravate and intensify.

Doug

Pandemrix (note the M) is a vaccine designed for bird flu (H5N1) - presumably they know it has some effect on swine flu. Celvapan is specifically designed for swine flu (H1N1).

Ivan D

Someone's angling for a Mail column! Pitiful stuff Fraser, absolutely pitiful. And not so much a 'Brownie' as a 'Nelly'. Still, any smear will do, eh?

Rhoda Klapp

An aside, They NEVER say you'll feel a little prick anymore. They sau 'a sharp scratch'. Apart from the fact that it isn't a scratch at all, and a blunt scratch would be silly, that's what all NHS nurses say when injecting you or taking blood. They are told what to say. Is that freakish control or what?

I'm not touching health scare issues with a bargepole.

IH

If they are both safe why not have just the one vaccine?

UK Fred

While I would be concerned about mercury in the vaccine, I wonder why it is necessary. If it is a single dose container, then why is there a need for a preservative at all: surely it should be sterile from manufacture until use? And whay of the alternative preservative. Just because it does not contain mercury, that does not meaan that it is definitely not an accumulating poison. Amyone remember DDT? This should be a matter of weighing up the risks and benefits of all possible courses of action,

Fred

I shall not be having any flu vaccinations.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Fraser

But it's not as if the Great British Public has any real understanding of the technicalities - so this is going to be about 'impressions'. Thus the public will be inclined to shun any vaccine containing mercury - on principle. Never mind the science, the public have all too often seen 'scientists' contradict themselves. Why should they have any faith in these (current) assurances?

Martin Coxall

Shame on you, Mr Nelson, for peddling to the anti-vaccine whackjobs. You are better than this, and you know it.

Have you been spending too long near Melanie?

Tony

Well said Richard 5:41pm, as a reader with a masters in Chemistry I fully agree with your conclusions.

Having said that there may be directions to GPs indicating that these mercury rich compounds should not be given to expectant mothers (can anyone confirm that?)

Fraser could you please focus on your brilliant dissections of the 'brownies' said by Balls et al and not try to cover exceedingly emotive medicinal subjects. Economics needs enthusiasm to get people interested, medicinal science needs a level head in full command of the topic to prevent mass public outrage

Matthew Bradley

Chuck

If we can't trust the scientists on science issues, then who can we trust? I have to re-emphasize what Samuel said earlier, Fraser stick to the political issues. Im sure it wont be long before the government throw you another story.

tim

Fraser.
If you've studied it you'd know it was thiomersal not thimerosal.
And you need to get a grip.

Just read the studies, and get some sleep.

Andy Cooke

Fraser,
... and the other side of the "is the world round" debate is found at http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm (home of the Flat Earth Society).

If Safeminds "Stop the Mercury. Start the Cure" has any kind of point, then the "stopping of the mercury" years ago (thimorasol was removed from MMR et al at the start of the decade) then the unchanged continued increase in autism diagnoses since then are kind of an embarassment to their "theory"

Unixman

"And if the case is so utterly baseless, perhaps you can explain why thimerosal has been withdrawn from US and UK child vaccines? A hysterical over-reaction?"

To be blunt: yes. And articles like this one make the over-reaction worse. I see Dr Crippen has shoved the knife in.

You said in the original article:"a preservative which is 49.6% mercury by weight". What you didn't say was that the amount of mercury was so miniscule. 49.6% of bugger all is still bugger all. You say that you have read scientific articles on teh subject. Can you give a PubMed reference?

Dr John Crippen

Fraser,

This is very disappointing. You can do better than this. The safety and efficacy of the swine flu immunisations needs serious discussion. By promulgating this cod science about thiomersal there is a risk that the REAL debate will be hijacked. Dear Oh Dear.

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/08/fraser-nelson-loses-plot.html

John

Dr John Crippen
NHS BLOG DOCTOR

Richard

Fraser

You are a journalist; you must know that the one thing that you cannot do is 'just point it out'. I am certain that is in Journalism 101. If you point it out then it must mean something, so it becomes a scare.

You also talk about one part-per-million mercury in fish, without ever mentioning absolute quantities as compared with the vaccine. Irrelevant statistics with no comparison can only be used to scare (and are such a journalistic cliche!).

Tony E

In the body, Thiomersal metabolises into Ethyl Mercury. However, this is not a bio-accumulator.

Mercury, as it presents in fish and other water borne species, only presents in such species because in the Methyl Mercury form, (and other chemical forms which have been used extensively in dyes and other manufacturing processes in previous years), it bioaccumulates. Bioaccumulation causes nervous system damage.

Before leaping to any conclusions it is important to study the chain of chemical processes which the Mercury based compound undergoes inside the body, the effect cannot be assumed purely on mass alone. If it passes through the body, there is less liklihood of harm.

Also it should be understood that the 49% by mass figure although correct, gives a misleading impression. There is only one molecule of mercury in the formula C9H9HgNaO2S, it's just that mercury has a relatively high atomic mass (200) compared to Carbon, Hydrogen , oxygen sodium and Sulphur.

Mercury products, even harmless ones when used correctly, can be withdrawn from use for other reasons. The first is potential pollution during production, (IPPC rules violations or the rising expense of staying with the rules).
The second is often the public's misunderstanding of the chemistry, which makes a product unpopular without real cause.

Nicholas

Those trying to control the parameters of the debate are, as usual, socialists or cod-socialists. Shutting down debate with soundbites of moral or intellectual superiority, e.g. Daily Mail snootiness, is what they do.

Anyway the mercury bit would be good for those with syphilis wouldn't it? So every cloud has a silver lining.

John

Fraser

You are right to highlight this. I guess all the other contributors are against open and transparent government. Although the amount of mercury in the vaccine is miniscule, there is also a lot more mercury kicking around in the environment such as in rainfall compared to say the industrial revolution.

In the developed world industrial processes are regulated strictly, but in the Third World what controls exist are puny compared to say the EU. Industrial processes in remote areas are notoriously bad at not giving a stuff.

So it is better to be prudent than sorry. I believe that we are consuming more mercury inadvertently in our diet - most of the food we eat is imported anyway.

halos1

Okay all you sheep in denial, go ahead get the vaccination if you are ignorant enough to trust our corrupt government, for me and mine we say...no thanks to all vaccinations from now on!

catesby

I remember the early days of the BSE crisis when everyone with a science degree was howling down anyone worried about it as "alarmist" or a "scaremongerer". They were just as patronizing then as they are being to Fraser, insisting that there was "no evidence" that BSE could jump species.

Then along came new variant CJD......

Naturally, not one word of apology from the science crowd.

Tankus

Tony E@ 8:34am
"The second is often the public's misunderstanding of the chemistry, which makes a product unpopular without real cause."

More like a question of trust in what we are being told, and by who .

Mercury poisoning even has a name in Japan (Minamata disease).Its cause and effects are well documented.

If it can be avoided , then what's the problem ?

Whats the bet that once the labour party is out of office ,they will come up with a lot of cheap option slogans , like, "say no to mercury ".!

Chuck Unsworth

@ Mathew Bradley

Not being paranoid or anything, but my advice is, trust no-one.

There are far too many charlatans out there posing as 'experts' in some field or other. And far too many of them have been proved wrong - without consequence to themselves.

I'm still pondering Galileo. Not that I'm a cynic, of course.

Fraser Nelson

Richard, they don't say what the ppm figure for the vaccines is - although Unixman says there are 25 micrograms in vaccines. I think he's referring to DTaP, however, we don't know if the same doseage is what will probably be a 2ml dose of adjuvant in Panderix. They don't release the figures, I suspect, because no one ever asks.

I share catesby's concern about the tenor of debate about science. It's presented as a binary divide: either you believe "the science", or you're an conspiracy theorist nutter. This line is used a lot by global warming brigade, and I regard it as intellectually lazy. That said, plenty CoffeeHousers have given detailed and informed defences of the use of mercury in medicine.

Dr John Crippen, we disagree as to whether the thimerosal debate is "cod science" - the 2001 report by the Institute of Medicine (which advises the US federal government) took it seriously. As I say, studies recently do not find a link. but they may in future. Like Nicholas, I am wary of anyone arguing that any debate - on any subject - should be shut down. My take is simple: mercury is not necessary in these vaccines, so why take the risk?

Richard, I simply can't agree that one cannot debate science lest it becomes "a scare". I really do see Coffee House as a forum to debate and challenge all kinds of things - this is, hopefully, all come by for a cuppa.

Maggy

The concentration of mercury in multi-dose vaccine vials is 50 micrograms per millileter. This is the same as 50 parts per million. This is a mathamatical fact. Don't believe me? Send a vial to a lab and have it tested for Hg. Spin it anyway you want. BTW, ethylmercury (the type found in vaccines) is a short-chain alkyl mercury compound, the most toxic form of mercury that there is. Also, direct injection provides rapid access to the bloodstream. That's the purpose of direct injection.

CC

Fraser

I commend you on your article. I am grateful for it too, because I am pregnant and have been trying to find out whether a thimoseral free vaccine will be available. I emailed the Dept of Health, with no results. In the USA, pregnant women will only be given thimoseral free vaccine for swine flu - indeed, no adjuvants at all will be in the vaccine offered to US pregnant ladies. Do you know whether Celvapan has other adjuvants in it?

Dr John Crippen

CC

I'm afraid that you exemplify the worries I have about the debate being hijacked by this thiomersol red herring. What you should be asking yourself is whether you want to have the swine-flu vaccine when you are pregnant.

John

Fraser Nelson

Dr John Crippen, yes I'd like to have it if I were a pregnant woman. But I'd like to be made aware that one can ask for the mercury-free vaccine. This is the entire point of my article. I'm not anti vaccine, i'm pro choice of vaccine and pro having a discussion about vaccines.

CC, Celvepan has no adjuvant. Its active ingredient is Haemagglutinin. And the excipients (this is perhaps too much information) are trometamol, ICI's Polysorbate 80 and Sodium Chloride.

Ivan D

You can keep stuffing as much hay as possible into your strawman - 'I just wanna debate!' - but it's almost as risible a tactic as your original point was groundless, ignorant, unscientific balls. And it's precisely because your original point was derived from such pitifully obvious incomprehension that you've got the kicking you so richly deserve on this score. Though, at a guess, you're due a few more wallops, and as has already been said, I too expect Ben Goldacre to have very easy sport with this.

It's a pity pride won't let you simply apologise for a Nellie that would shame the Mail. Grow a pair - probably from all that mercury the government keeps secretly forcefeeding you - and say sorry.

Meghan

Fraser,

I know I am a bit late reading this article as its 9th of Nov today. I just had to write to tell you I agree with everything you wrote in this article as the debate is still going on as of today. I am 7 months pregnant and I am American living in the UK. I have just received in the mail a letter through my surgery that I am priority and need to receive the h1n1 vaccine this week. I've done a lot of research on this subject b/c I am highly considering not receiving this shot ( as most pregnant woman are!) I found out about the government buying Baxter's Celvapan and how its preservative free and that to me will be the only shot I will take if I decided to get vaccinated myself. So I called the surgery and they stated that they will be giving me the pandemrix shot and not the celvapan. I am not considered for this shot b/c I don't have an egg allergy. So I've made a few phone calls the to NHS and our local primary care trust who distributes the shots. They all said that Pandemrix is safe for pregnant women and Celvapan is only limited to certain people ( basically not to pregnant women.) I'm outraged b/c I thought pregnant people where priority, TOP priority. So why are they not issuing the right vaccine for us? In the US, they are only advising pregnant women to get a pre-syringed, preservative free vaccine. So why is the UK advising otherwise?? With all of this so "up in the air" and no one directly coming out and saying what needs to be said, I am back to feeling vulnerable and skeptical as what I should do as to receiving the shot. Should I get the pandemrix and later find out my child has problems ( which I don't think I could live with myself knowing I made a wrong decision over the rush of health advisors saying how safe it is)......or not receive it and continue on risking my health and my unborn child's with a chance of contacting the h1n1 virus which could leave a fatality?? That leaves to the old saying, Damned if you do and damned if you don't! So, who is to say we can't have a choice into what goes into our bodies when they keep telling us pregnant women how important it is to get the vaccine. I agree with your whole article and am very dissapointed with all of the other comments that don't take into account that pregnant women DO and SHOULD have a choice as to what goes into their bodies. Without evidence on paper and people saying yes it is safe, thats just not good enough for me!! So as of now, I will not be receiving the vaccine until someone ok's me to have the Celvapan....which I don't see happening! Thank you Fraser for your article. You seem to have our backs as most of the public and health care system does not.

Karen Lloyd

I, like Meghan, have discovered Fraser's article some months after publication. I came across it during internet based research undertaken following the recommendation that I, as a pregnant woman (5 months), should have the swine flu vaccine. My preference is to have the Baxter Celvapan vaccine (for the expected reasons) but my GP cannot provide it - offering only pandemrix. Contrary to my initial understanding, I was told by my GP that people with egg allergies are given pandemrix - but in hospital - so even feigning an egg allergy wouldn't grant me access to Celvapan. I have also tried and failed to get the Celvapan vaccine privately. I am therefore sceptical as to the claims that there are in fact two vaccines available in the UK. That is not my experience. More importantly from my personal (practical) perspective, does Fraser know how pregnant women can obtain access to Celvapan? Is it available in the UK and if so where? If not available now, will it become available at some point in the future - and if so when? Is this something Fraser can find out from any contacts he spoke to in order to write his August 17th article? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks in advance.