Another mercury precaution: mother's milk
In "The quest for a flu vaccine without mercury" (Health & Science, Nov. 22), Amy McConnell Schaarsmith is clearly striving to be a good mom. She was so diligent about avoiding the mercury in a regular flu shot, I'm sure she'll keep her baby far away from another mercury-containing substance, one to which many newborns are exposed every single day: breast milk.
The average breast-fed child will take in 15 flu shots' worth of mercury over its nursing career, and the mercury compound in breast milk has a greater tendency to accumulate in the body.
Ms. Schaarsmith would do well to spend more time talking to her pediatrician and less time cruising the Internet collecting scary rumors about vaccines.
LISA RANDALL
Baltimore, Md.
Editor's note: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site, www.cdc.gov, says this about methylmercury, the environmental contaminant: "Mercury in the mother's body passes to the fetus and can pass to a nursing infant through breast milk. However, the benefits of breastfeeding may be greater than the possible adverse effects of mercury in breast milk." Thimerosal in flu vaccines contains ethylmercury, a preservative, and in 1999 the U.S. government asked vaccine manufacturers to eliminate or reduce the mercury in vaccines to avoid exposing infants to mercury above federal guidelines.
Another woman's quest
Regarding "The quest for a flu vaccine without mercury" (Health & Science, Nov. 22):
I am also pregnant and due in late February, and I went through a similar fact-finding (and exhausting!) process. In addition to looking for a shot for me, I was also looking for thimerosal-free shots for my children, ages 5 and 8. I made about 18 phone calls, including calls to my pediatrician (no luck because my kids were over 3), my obstetrician, other pediatricians (no luck because we weren't patients), various pharmacies, nurses organizations that run many of the flu clinics, the Allegheny County Health Department (no luck), and multiple calls to Sanofi-Pasteur (maker of Fluzone).
I now know more than I ever cared to know about the different ways the flu shot is distributed, order numbers of each type of flu shot, prices, when to order, etc.
Ultimately I was successful in my quest, as I found an Eckerd in Seven Fields that had the Fluzone thimerosal-free individual syringes. For my kids I found the thimerosal-free shot at one office and had to transport it in a cooler to my pediatrician's office.
I found the entire process, while educational, to be extremely frustrating. I did not feel that I was asking for something outrageous or illogical, and yet I found that most people either didn't understand what I was talking about or tried to convince me that getting a regular flu shot for myself or my kids was no different than any of us eating a tuna sandwich. Of course none of us is eating tuna purely because of the mercury risk!
Thank you for writing this article and hopefully educating people on this issue. Maybe next year the process won't be so daunting.
ELENA GEIL
Mars
Seeking shots elsewhere
Regarding Amy McConnell Schaarsmith's flu vaccine story (Health & Science, Nov. 22):
Thanks to Google searches and the magic of technology I found your article and read it online.
Waiting for my infant daughter to get a flu shot, I too was waiting to be called, when I read the information sheet and started asking questions about the mercury content. I started making phone calls, trying to figure out what to do. The nurse in the office painted a picture for me of what my daughter would be like with the flu and how she would be in the ICU...
I didn't know much on the subject, but once my daughter was involved, I wanted to know every last detail and every last study before giving her the shot.
I decided to leave. As I told the nurse I'd have to come back, she pulled me aside and told me they had a mercury-free one in the back. I still don't understand why I had to ask twice, but I am really glad that I found your story after the fact.
I hope lots of people read your story and shared the link with others. Thanks for a great article and a helpful one at that, to know I wasn't crazy for "overreacting."
SHARON GILBERT
Bethesda, Md.
Weighing risks of piercing
While the Association of Professional Piercers is flattered to be referenced in the article by Washington Post writer Sandra G. Boodman, "Health Warning Issued on Piercing" (Health & Science, Nov. 22), we feel that there should be some clarification made on some of the issues discussed in the article.
The APP is a nonprofit health, safety and education organization whose membership is comprised of body piercers and related professionals. Our mission is to disseminate vital information about body piercings to piercers, health care professionals, legislators, and the general public.
While the APP does not seek to downplay the risks associated with body piercing, we are concerned when articles take unrelated case studies involving body piercing and suggest that they are a realistic indicator of the risks involved.
While the story of the 18-year-old losing her breast after having her nipple pierced has been quite visible in the news lately, even the original text states this is an isolated case. In the article, her surgeon is quoted as saying, "the piercing created an entry point for the bacteria, but the procedure likely did not cause the infection itself."
The unfortunate incident of the death of the 13-year-old from an infection attributed to her navel piercing really says more about poor judgment about how quickly to seek medical attention than it does about the hazards of having your navel pierced.
True, it can be argued that an increase in the number of such cases points to a previously unforeseen risk associated with being pierced. But it can also be said -- with tens of thousands of piercings performed professionally every year -- the rarity of these cases is more a testament to its safety than its hazards.
The medical journal report referenced in your article about the loss of a sewing needle in a teen's tongue -- during a home piercing -- is something that would obviously not happen in a professional studio.
The American Dental Association did publish a position paper taking an official stance against oral piercings in 1998 (and again in 2004). This had the regrettable effect of establishing dental professionals forever in opposition to the body piercing community. It had the unfortunate side effect of forever making those who are pierced even more hesitant to pay a visit to their dentist.
Exaggerating the normal risks associated with piercings doesn't do anyone any good. Only when those on both sides of the issue are honest, forthcoming and realistic about the risks associated with body piercing, do we get what we all truly want -- an educated public.
JAMES WEBER
Medical Liaison
The Association of Professional Piercers, www.safepiercing.org
First Published: December 6, 2006, 5:00 a.m.
