Yep, every paper is made after the year 1999 when the decision to avoid usage of thiomersal as preservative in single doses. They are doing good job to show that the new acceptable level is safe. However, they already did the mistake to use it in unacceptable amount from 1930 to 1999. Thiomersal, unlike other substances they could used for preservative, do not changed the potency of the vaccine. So, they used it instead of spending money on research of less toxic compound. They started to make research only after the society was concerned. People were concerned because the Hg dosage was above the standards made for methylmercury. Later they made the research to show that ethilmercury (what thiomersal is metabolized into) is less toxic from methylmercury. However this research was made after the fact. They have used the substance above the accepted norms, because at the time there were norms only for methylmercury. Imagine what could happen if ethilmercury was more potent toxin than methilmercury? Why they didn't make the research before using the substance, but did it only after the society was concerned? My answer is that they donn't care enough about us, they care more about the money.
So your reasoning is that people made the drugs safer... so... you... don't want to take them?
I mean, for most of history, surgery has been a bad idea. There were very unsafe practices, such as operating under unsanitary conditions. Would you not have a surgery now because in the past they didn't know what they were doing?
The dangers of lots of chemicals have only become realized in recent years. Lead drinking glasses, zinc powders, even modern ones like BPA... it wasn't that people were too lazy or cheap to do the studies, it was that no one realized they were dangerous.
But in the case of Thiomersal, perhaps you should share some of the burden of proof that you're demanding of everyone else? You keep saying it's toxic, but pretty much anything is toxic past a certain amount and harmless below a certain amount. (You breathe things every day that would poison you if they were actually concentrated in the air, for instance, and a single molecule of anything is going to be harmless).
So, can you provide us with numerical studies or proofs of anyone suffering actual, lasting harm from the thiomersal in a vaccine?
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm still alive, thus none of those vaccines I avoided was life-saving.
With the flu vaccine you're probably fine, but just because you didn't catch a disease doesn't mean you shouldn't get the vaccine. A lot of diseases are no longer around BECAUSE people got vaccinated. As for today's vaccines, the life you save may not be your own. Many diseases are relatively harmless for adult healthy people, but dangerous for little babies or people with compromised immune systems. The whooping cough vaccine, for instance, can't be given to babies who are the ones at most risk to die from that disease. It's up to the adults and older children around the baby to protect it by getting vaccinated.
Vaccines don't just protect you, they protect everyone around you. That's what makes the anti-vaccine hysteria tragic and sad. The chances of being harmed by a vaccine are incredibly small, but people get hyped up over it anyway. "Any chance is too big a chance!" is the mentality. And then people stop getting vaccinations, and then...
This is a graph for whooping cough as mentioned above. The vaccine was found in 1949. In the nineties, the vaccine/autism scare began. You can see for yourself what has happened--the highest number of pertussis cases in forty years, and the majority of them were probably small children and newborns.
That's just one disease. So go ahead and not get vaccinated--I mean, so long as nothing happens to
you, who cares?
Edit: I realized the graph wasn't labeled, so here's the site:
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/pertussis_california.html