Can somebody please explain the anti-vax argument to me?!

[Discopanda]

I keep stumbling across vaccinating vs anti-vax arguments on FB parenting pages but I'm still not getting why people are choosing not to vaccinate their children. I thought the whole autism thing was discredited and that was only referring to the combined MMR. It's obviously a very sensitive subject among mums but I feel really ignorant not knowing the other side of the argument.

bruffin - "injected aluminium is eliminated through the bloodstream and they know most of it is eliminated in a day."

Who are 'they' and do you have a link to the study that shows this? IIRC you haven't been able to support statements like this in the past so I wonder why you are still making them.

YOu know very well that statement was supported, many posters told you it was on that ridiculous 300+ thread you started.

Well yes, many posters "told me it was it was 'safe'" but not one of you was able to produce a reliable study to back it up. Can you provide a link to the study that you got your information about the elimination of aluminium from please? I'm sure there are several people on this thread who would be interested.

"Most of the aluminum that enters the body is eliminated
quickly. Though all of the aluminum present in vaccines enters the
bloodstream, less than 1 percent of aluminum present in food is
absorbed through the intestines into the blood.
However, once aluminum is in the bloodstream, it is processed
similarly regardless of the source. Approximately 90 percent is
processed by binding to a protein called transferrin, and about
10 percent is bound by citrate. Once bound, the majority of
aluminum will be eliminated through the kidneys, a small amount
through bile, and a small amount is retained in tissues of the body.
About half of the aluminum in the bloodstream is eliminated in less
than 24 hours and more than three-quarters is eliminated within
two weeks. The ability of the body to rapidly eliminate aluminum
accounts for its excellent record of safety. "

This was linked to last time

aluminium and it has links to study

We suggested you actually right to Keith et al and question them directly, did you bother to do that.

bruffin
"genetically predisposed to epilepsy and that the vaccination triggered it rather than caused it. Robert would have developed epilepsy in any event, even if he had not had the vaccination.”

There was 3 panal members one was Professor Sundara Lingam who was a consultant at Great Ormand Street and was the panal member who voted against the appeal which was won 2-1.
I cant find the report where i got this from ( i copied the quote from a previous posting of mine)

So you are quoting the dissenting panel member, who was overruled by the other two members, rather than from a joint statement following the ruling?

Yes, I remember you linking to that before. So when you said 'most of it is eliminated in a day' you actually meant 'about half'? IIRC when we actually looked into the studies, the calculations on Aluminium elimination were based on one study on a single adult male. Was that the one that Keith et al used or was theirs the one that used the rabbit study? I must look it up again. I do find it interesting.

BM
Im not playing your silly games again. Write to Keith if you dont agree with his research on aluminium toxiconectics regarding infant diet and vaccines.

Fascicle
Yes i am quoting the discenting panal member, but he appears to be the most medically qualified ie one panal member was a barrister and the other was a paediatrician. It would be interesting to read the report but it doesnt seem to be available.
This was an appeal so others had disagreed in the past as well.

I don't think it's a game bruffin. Were you misquoting intentionally or had you just forgotten?

There is a more recent study into Aluminium pharmacokinetics following infant exposure through diet and vaccination from Mitkus et al in 2011.

It refers to the Keith et al study and discusses the fact that the retention function for Aluminium is based on results from only person (as I mentioned earlier) and states:

"Ideally, the retention function would have been derived from pharmacokinetic data in infants or in more than one adult; however, an expansion of this analysis is unlikely."

It also mentions that the estimate of the rate and extent of absorption of aluminum hydroxide and phosphate following intramuscular injection, are based on data from only two rabbits per adjuvant tested in the Flarend study.

They accept that there are several uncertainties in their analysis as a result. It's interesting that the scientists themselves acknowledge uncertainty but you don't. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of their book.

Irresponsible press reporting on health and science generally has a lot to do with it. This link related specifically to vaccines

www.badscience.net/category/vaccines/

Also the fact that many people don't understand the basics around medical trials evidence based medicine (not their fault).

I too thought this was a thread about the vacuum cleaner...