Vaccinations and nursery schools

[Louise1010]

This is my first post so forgive me if I do anything wrong!

I am just beginning to look at nursery schools for my 15 month old son, and I am a bit surprised that they don't seem to care whether or not he has been vaccinated. I expected it to be a requirement.

It seems incredible to me that I have to provide evidence of my cat's jabs to the cattery but when it comes to children anything goes.

Has anyone come across a nursery school in the UK that does require it?

Ok, I've tried to find the answers to those questions myself.

Wrt what the toxic dose for Aluminium is I found this on the FDA website :

"Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration."

I'm still looking for something that shows what the toxic dose for a healthy infant is. Does anyone else have a link?

Wrt how much Al is absorbed from vaccines. I've found this from medscape :

"In healthy subjects, only 0.3% of orally administered aluminum is absorbed via the GI tract and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminum from the human body. It is only when the GI barrier is bypassed, such as intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction, that aluminum has the potential to accumulate. As an example, with intravenously infused aluminum, 40% is retained in adults and up to 75% is retained in neonates.[4]"

Obviously vaccines aren't given intravenously but they still bypass the GI tract so what percentage is retained? Anyone?

I've also checked how much Al is in a dose of Pediacel (5 in 1) www.medicines.org.uk/emcmobile/medicine/15257/spc#PRODUCTINFOhere :

"Adsorbed on Aluminium Phosphate

1.5 mg (0.33 mg Aluminium)"

Does that mean there is 0.33mg (equivalent to 330 micrograms) in each dose?

If anyone has answers to these questions, please post them. I'm sure some of you must because you've been posting that 'Al is safe' and that 'the dose is the poison' so you must know what the 'safe' dose actually is. Links to any info are very much appreciated. :)

bumbley

What did you gain after reading the earlier post and link from
bruffin Thu 09-Aug-12 16:18:26 and bruffin Thu 09-Aug-12 16:20:13 ?

Well, I can only read the abstract from the post of 16:18 and it doesn't answer my questions and the one from 16:20 doesn't answer them either.

Can you answer any of them?

'Obviously vaccines aren't given intravenously but they still bypass the GI tract so what percentage is retained? Anyone? '

BM, do you realise that one jab is not the same as an IV administered over the course of a few weeks? The bypassing of the GI tract in the course of a vaccination is a one off event.

Aluminium salts have been added to vaccines since the 1920s. They enhance the immune response.

American article (where Aluminium is called Aluminum).

pdf here...

From the pdf:
'During the first 6 months of life, infants could receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. That?s not very much: a milligram is one-thousandth of a gram and a gram is the weight of one-fifth of a teaspoon of water. During the same period, babies will also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk, about 40 milligrams in infant formula, or about 120 milligrams in soy-based formula.'

From the article:
'to put this in perspective: a baby will get 2.5 times the amount of aluminum from breast milk, 10 times the aluminum from infant formula, and 30 times the aluminum from soy-based formula.'

And again from the pdf:
'most of the aluminum in the bloodstream is immediately bound by a protein called transferrin, which carries aluminum to the kidneys where it is eliminated from the body. About 50 percent of aluminum in vaccines or in food is eliminated in less than 24 hours; 85 percent is eliminated in two weeks and 96 percent is eliminated in three years. The ability of the body to rapidly eliminate aluminum accounts for its excellent record of safety.'

Yes, I read that article math but only 0.3% of Al is absorbed through the GI tract and vaccines bypass the GI tract. There is a restriction placed on the amount of Al that parentally administered drugs can contain and this is much less than what is contained in one vaccine ( if the figure for the content of Al in Pediacel is correct). How much of that is absorbed? It's probably less than the 75% retained in neonates from intravenously infused Al but I can't find a figure for it. Can anyone? Surely that figure must be somewhere.

BM, the fact that substances injected into the skin or muscles bypass the GI tract is irrelevant. Every substance that passes into the circulatory system will be metabolised by the body, by renal or portal circulation. Even substances that are absorbed from patches (like the nicotine patch) will be metabolised.

How is it irrelevant? Al passing into the body intravenously results in much higher percentages being retained. "It is only when the GI barrier is bypassed, such as intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction, that aluminum has the potential to accumulate."

Here is a good explanation why it isn't a problem

from one of the studies linked
"The in vitro dissolution and in vivo absorption studies indicate that aluminum-containing adjuvants which are administered intramuscularly are dissolved by α-hydroxycarboxylic acids in interstitial fluid, absorbed into the blood, distributed to tissues, and eliminated in the urine."

"One piece of evidence that the aluminum in vaccines is handled by the body quite differently than the aluminum in intravenous solutions comes from studies looking at the intramuscular injection of aluminum-containing adjuvants into rabbits. Rather than entering the blood stream directly and accumulating in tissues, as with intravenously injected aluminum, intramuscularly injected aluminum-containing adjuvants are first dissolved by organic acids in the interstitial fluids, and are then rapidly eliminated."

Thanks for the link bruffin.

The article links to a paper by Hem(2001) and your first quote is from from its abstract. Do you have access to the full text for it? In the abstract, it first talks about in vitro dissolution experiments which demonstrate that the alpha hydroxy carboxylic acid from interstitial fluid is capable of dissolving aluminium containing adjuvants although they did say that the dissolution experiments were 'perhaps not at typical body concentrations and temperatures'. Now, because I can't see the full text I'm not sure if they've gone into how much it is actually capable of dissolving and how that may differ under typical body concentrations and temperatures. Do you know?

Next, it mentions the New Zealand rabbit study which I think is Flarend et al. I do not have access to the full text so I can't confirm that in the references but I have seen it elsewhere. The abstract states:

"This study has demonstrated that in vivo mechanisms are available to eliminate aluminium-containing adjuvants after i.m. administration."

It doesn't say how much is eliminated and how much is retained but the ATSDR toxicological report on Aluminium also references that study and states:

"Following intramuscular administration of aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate vaccine adjuvants in rabbits, increased levels of 26Al were found in the kidney, spleen, liver, heart, lymph nodes, and brain (in decreasing order of aluminum concentration) (Flarend et al. 1997)."

as well as looking at other studies and stating:

"Human and animal studies have investigated the aluminum retention in the body. Within the first day of receiving a single injection of 26Al citrate, approximately 59% of the dose was excreted in the urine of six subjects; 72 and 1.2% was excreted in the urine and feces, respectively, during the first 5 days (Talbot et al. 1995). At the end of 5 days, it was estimated that 27% of the dose was retained in the body (Priest et al. 1995; Talbot et al. 1995). "

Your second quote is from the article and is based on the Hem abstract so both quotes are effectively from/based on the same paper which didn't mention the retention of Aluminium from Flarend (the study it referenced) and has only said that the interstatial fluids 'are capable' of dissolving Aluminium containing adjuvants (albeit not in the typical body temperatures and concentrations) and that in vivo mechanisms 'are available' to eliminate Al-containing adjuvants. I'm not sure what they based 'rapidly eliminated' on either.

Why are you expecting everyone else to do the work for you. It took me 2 minutes to find those links, its not difficult. You are trying to find a problem that doesn't exit. As pointed out many times that aluminium in various forms have been used for 75 odd years and not considered a problem as is the conclusion to the two links i put on here (the one above and the one a few days ago0

I'm not expecting other people to do the work. I've spent plenty of time trying to find the answers myself and I haven't. Seeing as others have been saying that it's 'safe', I thought they would have the answers or at least be able to point me in the right direction. Your links didn't do that and I explained why above. Saying that something 'isn't considered a problem' doesn't mean much unless you explain why it isn't considered a problem.

Look brain damage from vaccines is incredibly rare, caused by encephylitis.
We know autism and other developmental problems are not caused by vaccines, there is absolutely no evidence that they are. There have been numerous studies that show no greater rate if autism in vaccinated children over unvaccinated, no greater rate of regression etc
As mentioned by me and others the aluminium debate is a last grasping at straws fad by antivaxers to discredited vaccines.

But it's terribly important to some people to keep the pot boiling so that a vague feeling of "concern" and unease can be maintained.

When we try to find out what the concern is, we're assured that nobody claims vaccines or mercury actually cause anything, so there's no actual argument being made.

Well if it's such a ridiculous notion then it should be very easy to disprove. I don't think it is a 'grasping at straws' attempt to discredit vaccines to want to know how much Al can be safely given to a child intramuscularly and how much the child will retain in their body and whether or not that could cause any long term problems. Surely in order to determine that Al is 'safe' in vaccines those things would have been investigated. Wouldn't you want to know that they had? Otherwise how could you know they were 'safe'?

PJ, do you understand the difference between 'claiming something' and wanting to find out whether something is true? You are another person who seems to be quite assured that Al in vaccines is 'safe'. Where did you get your information from? Can you answer any of the questions I've asked?

It had been investigated ie the links and found safe, there are other studies as well.

Again what to you Rhine the problem with al is, what exactly are you looking for because it certainly isn't clear.
One sentence answer please

I think aluminium in vaccines causes .......

Bumbley, I don't think it is a 'grasping at straws' attempt to discredit turnips to want to know how much turnip can be safely given to a child and how much the child will retain in their body and whether or not that could cause any long term problems. Surely in order to determine that turnip is 'safe' in casseroles those things would have been investigated. Wouldn't you want to know that they had? Otherwise how could you know they were 'safe'?

Yet, unlike safety of vaccines, there is a total absence of research into turnip safety. What responsible parent can be expected to feed turnips to their children when there is no evidence that they are safe?

There are people who seem to be quite assured that turnips are 'safe'. Where did they get their information from? Can you answer any of the questions I've asked?

It seems to me that just because there is a total lack of evidence that turnips in food are harmful, people just seem to assume that they are safe.

Where are they? I've spent most of yesterday evening and this morning reading and looking for them.

Bruffin, I haven't said I think it causes anything. I want to know how it has been determined to be 'safe' and I asked the above questions which still haven't been answered. I guess I just have to accept that you don't know the answers.

Piglet, if someone asked me to start injecting extract of turnip into my child I would like to know that proper safety studies had been carried out. We are not discussing ingested aluminium. If you don't know why you think Al is safe in vaccines and you don't have links to any studies then just say so. It seems very strange to be so convinced about something without being able to say why you are so convinced.

I have linked to 2 let me say that again two studies that show that the levels of al in vaccines are safe. I can think of a third which looked at aluminium at the site of the wound which again says that it is not a problem and doesn't need to be investigated any further.
That is 3 studies that s
ay aluminium in vaccines are safe, adding that to the fact that vaccines very very rarely causes anything other a transitional reaction I don't get what your problem is especially as it is glaringly obvious that you would never ever vaccinated your children in the first place
I just get the impression you need to validate that position by causing concern in others.

It seems very strange to be so concerned about something without being able to say why you are so concerned

bumble

Apologies if these have already been linked

Here is a link showing that Aluminium is either excreted or remains bound up near the injection site.
Here are the conclusions for US analysis of Al levels in vaccine injected infants.

I imagine you will say the first study is on monkeys and therefore may not be relevant to humans, and in the second, you will highlight that they only believe the Al dose is safe.

If someone finds a link on humans you'll say they are the wrong race or age. If a link where they are the right race and age is found, you'll say your DC have blue eyes and the research doesn't specify eye colour.

You appear not to understand what safe means. It means having looked really quite hard no evidence of danger has been found. No-one can guarantee Al or turnips are safe, any more than they guarantee that the sun will come up tomorrow.

I'm very surprised at the number of people on this thread who profess to be interested in vaccinations who PLAINLY don't read any of the very informative linnks provided which offer an interesting alternative view to the "jab them all and never mind who gets hurt" attitude. I don't think they're actually that interested in what they say they're interested in, they're just here to sort of blanket out all discussion of that alternative view. It's very aggressive and it's very all over lots of vaccine threads at the moment. When an interesting point or link is made then a lot of vitriol and ridicule comes oout, even when it's pubmed or a logical point. Then there is lots of changing the subject. I've seen posters like ElaineBenes dodge repeatedly and at length the question of clear anecdotal evidence of vaccine damage and how it challenges their world view. The question is completely avoided. There are people like Tabitha and saintly who are genuinely interested and moderate and don't tell people what to do , and there are others who are basically saying, do this like everyone else or you're stupid, bizarre, a credulous fool. Why do you feel the need to be so aggressive? Why are you so afraid of discussion and, dare I say it, evidence?