Federal Bill to Ban Mercury In Vaccines Reintroduced

2/17/2005 | Jaillene Hunter

[CraigG]

For Immediate Release: Contact: Jaillene Hunter,

(202) 225-3671; (202)-577-5285 February 17, 2005 Jaillene.Hunter@mail.house.gov

Weldon/Maloney Introduce Legislation Banning Mercury From Vaccines Legislation Eliminates This Exposure For Children and Pregnant Women

(Washington, D.C.) - U.S. Reps. Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) reintroduced H.R. 881 today eliminating mercury from vaccines. Given increasing concerns about mercury exposures and the body's ability to eliminate mercury, this bill will virtually eliminate the mercury exposure from vaccines.

In 1999 the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended removal of thimerosal from child vaccines. Five years later, thimerosal (50% mercury) remains in childhood vaccines. Last year, the CDC recommended that children receive the flu vaccine without recommending that infants and pregnant women get only the mercury-free dose.

"Our bipartisan legislation is necessary to stop CDC from rolling back the clock when it comes to eliminating this mercury exposure to for infants and pregnant women," said Rep. Weldon, a physician. "Our bill sets in place a law giving vaccine manufacturers and public health officials a realistic but firm timetable for elimination of mercury."

"It's a simple concept: kids shouldn't be given anything that's toxic. The pharmaceutical industry is starting to get the mercury out, but we need to know that it's gone without any doubt," said Maloney.

Mercury is a neurotoxin and is harmful to the developing central nervous system of fetuses and infants. The EPA found that 1-in-6 infants are born with a blood mercury level above the level considered safe by the EPA. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration and the EPA have warned pregnant women and young children to limit their consumption of certain fish in order to reduce mercury exposures.

The Legislation:

Requires that beginning with the 2006/07 flu season, the flu shots for children under age three and pregnant women may not contain more than 1 microgram (mcg) of mercury; Requires that beginning with the 2007/08 flu season, the flu shots for children under age six and pregnant women may not contain more than 1mcg of mercury; Requires by July 1, 2006, all other routinely administered childhood vaccines, may not contain more than 1mcg of mercury and on Jan 1, 2009, all pediatric, adolescent and adult vaccines that contain more than 1mcg of mercury are banned; Expresses the Sense of the Congress that the CDC should incorporate into its vaccine promotion messages, a recommendation against administering a mercury-containing vaccine to pregnant women.

[Born Conservative]

many drugs which are legal in Europe are banned here in the US.

This statement is as bad as Breyer on the SCOTUS citing legal precedents from other countries in order to justify his rulings. Just because the European weenies do something, doesn't mean we have to.

I'm against excessive government, as well as many regulations, but medications need to be regulated. For example: do you know how many people end up with kidney failure due to excessive NSAID (ibuprofen, aspirin, etc) use? And these drugs are over the counter. Many people ignore drug labels, and use the logic "if 1 is good, 2 is better". Imagine if all of the drugs went unregulated (which would happen if we abolished the FDA). There would be no need for clinical trials for drugs, and the drug firms would be able to produce drugs that could potentially induce widespread harm. I'm certainly not saying the FDA is not without it's faults, but it does serve a vital purpose. Sorry, I think the FDA is necessary.

[Coleus]

This statement is as bad as Breyer on the SCOTUS citing legal precedents from other countries in order to justify his rulings. Just because the European weenies do something, doesn't mean we have to. >>

No, it is not, you're confusing the issue. I was not referring to international law or SCOUTS decisions, I was referring to the FDA and politics with the drug companies. There are some good pharmaceuticals out there in other countries helping people and our FDA refuses to approve them for the common good.

Don't be so Pollyanna, they just allowed 60,000 people to be killed with Cox 2 inhibitors, let the drugs on the market, while ephedra and herb, killed less than 200 people and was taken off the market. An FDA committee just recommended that some of the Cox 2 inhibitors be put back on the market. So much for the common good.

They did the same thing with L-tryptophane, and amino acid, which was contaminated through a manufacturing process in Japan and once found and fixed, did not put the amino acid back on the market because the SSRI's were coming out and they didn't want a natural, non-toxic SSRI to compete with the big drug companies. It's still off the market today. It's about politics and money.

[fooman]

uh, yeah. We could have private companies (like UL listed) do this function.

It costs .8 BILLION to get a drug through the FDA. This creates massive distortions.

1) Drugs like Vioxx must now be marketed like candy to get back 'the nut'

2) Many drugs for auto-immune diseases are orphaned because they will never reach their 'nut' because foreigners dont pay their fair share for the drug dev costs.

[fooman]

ping ^