A Timeline of the Thimerosal Controversy

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


1929: Eli Lilly & Co. registers thimerosal under the trade name Merthiolate. It begins to appear in over-the-counter products and as an anti-bacterial preservative in multi-dose vaccines.

1974: Eli Lilly ceases production of vaccines. Several other pharmaceutical companies continue using thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines.

1980: The FDA begins a review of over-the-counter (OTC) products containing thimerosal.

1982: The FDA proposes a ban on thimerosal in OTC ointments, citing its possible toxicity and ineffectiveness.

January, 1991: The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices adds Haemophilus influenzae B (Hib) to its recommendations for childhood immunization. Ten months later, they recommend Hepatitis B vaccinations for children. Thimerosal is used as a preservative in multidose vials of both vaccines.

November, 1997: Congress passes the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, requiring the study of mercury content in FDA-approved products. The review discloses the hitherto-unrecognized levels of ethylmercury in vaccines.

April, 1998: The FDA’s proposed ban on thimerosal in OTC products goes into effect.

1999: Some public-health experts publicly advocate the removal of thimerosal from vaccines. Their recommendation is partly based on a study that found neurological problems in babies whose mothers had ingested mercury while eating whale blubber during pregnancy. This study becomes the source for the EPA’s recommended limit for exposure to mercury.

July, 1999: Public-health officials announce that thimerosal will be phased out of vaccines. The CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics, and FDA insist the measure is purely precautionary. They ask manufacturers to eliminate or reduce mercury in vaccines as quickly as possible.

August, 1999: Congressman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), then-Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, begins hearings for what will become a three-year investigation into autism and its possible causal link to vaccines. At this time, federal agencies estimate that autism affects 1 in 500 children in the United States.

February, 2000: CDC researcher Thomas Verstraeten’s analysis of CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink records finds a relative risk of 2.48 for autism in children who receive thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs).

June, 2000: Verstraeten discloses his analysis to vaccine advisory committee members at a meeting outside Atlanta. The relative-risk figure has dropped from 2.48 to 1.69. Later that month, the advisory committee decides against stating a preference against TCVs.

July, 2000: Safe Minds forms to “investigate and raise awareness of the risk to infants and children of exposure to mercury through medical products, including thimerosal in vaccines.”

April, 2001: Sallie Bernard and Lyn Redwood publish “Autism: A Novel Form of Mercury Poisoning” in the journal Medical Hypotheses, publicizing the case for a causal link between mercury and autistic spectrum disorders. The same month, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) releases a report finding no association between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.

July, 2001: The CDC’s vaccine advisory committee again decides not to state a preference for thimerosal-free vaccines. By this date, diptheria-tetanus-pertusis (DTaP), Hepatitis B, and Hib vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market no longer contain thimerosal. TCVs that have not yet expired may remain on doctors’ shelves.

October, 2001: A second IOM report finds insufficient evidence to either accept or reject a causal relationship between TCVs and neurological disorders, but says the “hypothesis is biologically plausible.”

July, 2002: Proceedings looking into the causal link between thimerosal and autism begin in the federal vaccine court. This is the first step in the legal process for parents seeking compensation for alleged adverse effects of vaccines on their children.

November, 2002: The FDA has estimated this as the final expiration date for thimerosal-containing HepB, Hib, and DTaP vaccines. A California study finds that a three-fold increase in classic autism diagnoses in the state between 1987 and 1998 is real, and cannot be explained as a result of improved diagnostic techniques and case-finding.

November, 2002: Congressional Republicans insert language into the 475-page homeland security bill that would prevent parents from suing vaccine makers. After public outcry, the proposal is scrapped in January 2003.

January, 2003: A CDC study finds a ten-fold increase in autism rates in Atlanta between the 1980s and 1996. Some researchers now estimate 1 in 150 children have autistic spectrum disorders.

June, 2003: an analysis of CDC vaccination data finds that children who received TCVs had a higher risk.

October, 2003: One of the largest, most comprehensive studies discounting a link between TCVs and neurological disorders is published by Danish researchers.

November, 2003: The House Committee on Government Reform’s report on its investigation assails public-health officials and pharmaceutical companies for failing to remove ethylmercury, “a potent neurotoxin” from medical products. The report concludes: “Our public health agencies’ failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.”

November, 2003: Verstraeten’s analysis is published in a peer-reviewed journal, Pediatrics, setting off a new wave of controversy and accusations of statistical manipulation. Congressman Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) writes to CDC Director Julie Gerberding to open up the agency’s vaccination database to independent researchers.

November, 2003: A national autism summit is held in Washington D.C. to discuss an interagency effort to researching the causes and possible treatments for autism.

January, 2004: A joint statement by the AAP, American Academy of Family Physicians, the CDC vaccination advisory committee, and the Public Health Service maintains that “there remains no convincing evidence of harm caused by low levels of thimerosal in vaccines.”

February, 2004: A panel sponsored by the Institute of Medicine convenes to examine the possible thimerosal-autism link. Its report is expected this spring.

– Rina Palta

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate