Not a chemistry major, but I doubt that mercury would be used in modern-day vaccines. Maybe they used it back in the day, but now?
Michele Bachmann = crazymode ...

it's sad that even stupid people can be in politics, my soon to be major in college

According to that site, it's used in some, not all, vaccines.
Well, I guess they are a warped reflection of their voters...

Mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element known to man, and once you ingest it, it never leaves your body. Does that sound like something that should be put in any vaccine?

Well, if you claim that GMOs are causing an explosive increase in infant diseases, then the onus is on you to prove that claim. You can't just list a number of diseases without any proof, have one of them discounted, and then say "But there are still others that you haven't explained otherwise, so my statement still stands". If you do, then I'm afraid your statement doesn't hold much value.

Did they? Why don't I find anything about that on the BMA's pages then?

You really, really need to be a bit more selective with regard to where you're pulling your information from, if you want to be taken seriously. Currently it looks as if you're grabbing links left and right, without properly checking them, as long as they match your stance. That's not a good basis for a debate.

The link you posted contains one claim about an alleged statement of the BMA. That statement actually doesn't even call for a ban, as you claim, but for further research. For the second or third time now, a page that you present as evidence simply does not contain the info you claim it to have. The page then quotes an article from the "Sunday Herald" (with a defunct link) about Pusztai's co-worker Ewen, and a text from Pusztai himself. I can find neither article on the pages of the BMA, nor any evidence that any of the two articles even has anything to do with the BMA.

There's a BMA report from May 1999 which calls for a moratorium on commercial GM planting (which is quite different from the "ban on GMOs" that you claim to have seen), and calls for further research especially on the long-term impact. (I can't access the full text without paying for it, but you should be able to find the respective press release on the BMA pages - unfortunately I only got a temporary link to it, I'm not sure if you can can use it, but here goes: Link. If you can't access it, you can still search for it yourself in the BMA press releases, should be easy to find.).

But as far as I can see, that is not the current official statement of the BMA, since their second report on GMOs (from 9th March 2004) doesn't contain the moratorium call anymore. Actually, the press release (Link) for that publication takes a far more lenient approach: There's another statement from the Head of Science that reinforces the call for further research, and states that the risk are large enough to not stay complacent simply because there is no evidence right now, but all that is very, VERY different from the "ban on GMOs" that you claim to have been demanded by the BMA.

So, again (is this the third or the fourth time) I'm asking you to provide conclusive evidence for the claim you're making. You claimed that a scientific study showed "organ malfunctions" and "sterility" as a result of eating GMO - but you couldn't deliver evidence, and then said that the evidence has been "suppressed by the government". You claimed that an explosion in diseases can only be linked to GMOs, but failed to provide any evidence (or even any information backing this claim at all, except "I see it with my own eyes"). You now claim that the BMA has demanded a ban on GMOs, and again I'm asking: Where's the evidence? Can you provide any evidence this time?

Can you?

Of course not, but if you read that blurb on the site you linked you will see that it was written in 2004. Surely, they managed to eliminate the need for mercury in vaccines by now?

lol you know that statement reminds me of this scene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtLjWb0Fmo&feature=related

...and so we get an illusion of democracy where we get the illusion that our votes actually matter. <--- my pet conspiracy theory :D.

It has been taken out of child vaccines in U.S. and most of the E.U. and a few latin-american countries, but kept in the adult vaccines.

Proof?

I'm not sure if Thiomersal is still given, but the whole controversy has reached somewhat hilarious proportions. There was concern about a link between Thiomersal and Autism (due to the mercury in Thiomersal). It was tested and rejected multiple times, you can read a pretty good account of it here: Thiomersal Controversy. That doesn't stop conspiracy theorists from claiming that it nevertheless does cause autism, that the evidence was faked, and that the "true" evidence was "suppressed" due to "pressure from the industry". Or some such.

The basis of the theory is the fact that mercury _is_ very toxic, and the argumentation makes use of the generalizing scare tactics that Licurg used in one of his replies to you: If something is so toxic, would you ingest it?

The argument grossly overlooks one fundamental variable: dosage. The amount of mercury in vaccines is/was very, very small. It is very unlikely to cause health problems; in any case, the risk for health problems should be smaller than the benefit of the vaccine.

Basically, you can show how hilarious the "but it's toxic!"-argument is, by applying it to another toxic substance. Actually, one of the most dangerous substances for the human body is salt. Ingest a pound of salt, in water solution, and you are pretty sure to die unless you vomit in time. Now, would you ingest a substance that is so toxic?

But..but..it makes my food taste better!

"Since seasonal influenza vaccine is produced in large quantities for annual immunization campaigns, some of the vaccine is produced in multi–dose vials, and contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened."


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

I'll just point to Psyringe's post above...