Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Vaccinations and nursery schools

578 replies

Louise1010 · 13/07/2012 00:04

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?

OP posts:
PigletJohn · 13/08/2012 12:42

I do hope we can all conduct ourselves with more decorum, but I doubt it.

For example, shortly after joining with a new name, one poster wrote

"You've admitted not reading the links carefully"

Which was a lie.

ElaineBenes · 13/08/2012 12:44

Just ignore piglet. It's a distraction technique to bring the whole thing down to the level of 'but he said/she said'.

seeker · 13/08/2012 16:16

"I think one of the mistakes you are making Seeker is waiting for a "magic bullet" piece of research. It's unlikely to come while there is such a prejudice against carrying out research in this field. However evidence does come, in dribs and drabs - there are conferences, and publications, which are of interest. "

No I don't. I want a credible bit of evidence that does not say that.as far as is possible to say, there is no link. And there has been loads of research. All concluding no link.

mathanxiety · 13/08/2012 18:25

Aluminium may persist for a very long time in various organs and tissues before it is excreted in the urine
More evidence that some Al is retained in the body. Obviously this would be quite small from ingested Aluminium but how much is retained when larger doses are absorbed from other parts of the body e.g intramuscularly?'

It is not obvious (not from that quote anyway) that this remainder would be quite small when ingested. Or that intramuscular doses are larger or remain for longer. What is clear is that eventually it is all excreted.

Will you commit to not accusing people who report vaccine damage of "pulling stories out of their butts"'No I won't MrsG. You could be anyone.
'Do you mean you just disbelieve reports of vaccine damage from people you don't know? Do you mean you automaticallt assume they are pulling such reports out of their butts? You automatically assume they're lying?'

MrsG -- I don't know who you are. You could be MrsAndrewWakefield for all I know. I don't know where you live. I don't know who your children are or if you have children and I don't know any of the other children you mention either. Even if I did, I would be disinclined to take the word of parents that it was vaccines that affected their children unless by some very strange coincidence those parents were scientists and able to assert a properly argued thesis to that effect.

I have no evidence to use in forming an opinion as to the veracity of claims made here by people claiming to be parents about vaccine damage just as you have no way of verifying whether I have children who have not suffered vaccine damage. Evidence that is verifiable is an important element in the discussion of vaccine safety as far as I'm concerned.

bumbleymummy · 13/08/2012 18:46

Math, it would be small from ingested Al because the bioavailability of ingested Al is low.

It is not clear from that quote or from others that 'it is eventually all excreted'. Al can accumulate in various tissues in the body and can cause several problems (aluminium toxicity article).

seeker · 13/08/2012 20:16

Just wondering whether people make sure they avoid aluminium pans and cans and foil - or is it only the al in vaccines that's toxic?

seeker · 13/08/2012 20:28

I think a big issue here is whether or not you automatically accept
As fact a parent who says that their child's regression was caused by vaccines. The "lobby " seems to think this is an article of faith. No further proof needed- the parents say it's so, so it is. I don't think this is the case with anything else. Anything else's there's some sort of scientific proof needed- but not vaccine damage.

bumbleymummy · 13/08/2012 20:36

Seeker, are you talking about risks associated with ingesting small amounts of Al from cooking in pans, using foil etc? Again, that is entering the body orally and passing through the GI tract, not being injected intramuscularly.

seeker · 13/08/2012 21:09

True. But common sense- and papers cited on this thread- suggests that a lifetime of ingesting tiny amounts is going to put far more al into the body than the infinitesimal amounts in vaccines.

PigletJohn · 13/08/2012 21:22

surely it is the amount absorbed into the body that is relevant to toxicity, not its source? We already covered the point of some ingested aluminium passing through the body without being absorbed.

bumbleymummy · 13/08/2012 21:36

Which papers seeker? None that I've seen.

Yes, PJ. Do you know how much is absorbed into the body from a vaccine?

PigletJohn · 13/08/2012 21:39

no. Do you know how much is absorbed from food?

bumbleymummy · 13/08/2012 21:46

Yes. There are plenty of studies - some of which have been linked to on this thread and on the other. Haven't you been reading them? They have actually been quoted a few times too.

mathanxiety · 13/08/2012 22:03

Seeker, there are multiple sources of aluminium besides vaccines. Drinking water is a major source of it as aluminium is used in the filtering process. Aluminium is the third most ubiquitous element, after oxygen and silicone. We are exposed to it every day. Whether children are vaccinated or not they will have an accumulation of aluminium in their bodies.

Paper on PubMed on the pharmacokinetics of Aluminium adjuvants whose abstract suggests 'that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.'

BM, there are different types of aluminium adjuvants in different vaccines and not all are metabolised in the same way. Not all will remain in the tissues for the same amount of time. I think you are hanging too much significance on the difference between IM and GI tract exposure to aluminium.

seeker · 13/08/2012 22:07

Aluminium is the new mercury!

bumbleymummy · 13/08/2012 22:18

Math, that was discussed on the other thread. The ATSDR report (linked to earlier) gives the MRL for oral Aluminium. We do not take vaccines orally.

I know there are different types of adjuvants - they have been mentioned in a few different links. I believe the New Zealand rabbit study was one of them.

There was a conference report linked to on the other thread which said the following in relation to the ADSTR report mentioned above:

"There seems to be abundant data concerning risk levels for ingested aluminum, but scant data about risk levels for injected aluminum. The oral mini- mum risk level, for example, appears to be in the range of 2?60 mg/kg of aluminum per day but there are no comparable data for injected aluminum"

It also identified the following as one of the areas that needs to be more studied:

"Toxicology and pharmacokinetics of aluminum ad- juvants. Specifically, the processing of aluminum by infants and children."

and recommends further research.

PigletJohn · 13/08/2012 22:56

I gather that "bioavailabilty of 0.1%" means that for every 100g in the diet, 0.1g is absorbed by the body. Is that right?

mathanxiety · 13/08/2012 23:49

'We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.'

JoTheHot · 14/08/2012 07:25

bumble you're wrong about the ADSTR. From the link I gave earlier

'The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) estimated these levels for infants taking into account the amount of aluminum a child would eat as well as receive by injection of vaccines.'

But this isn't really the problem. If a new building is put up at your childrens' school, do you refuse to let them in it until you've re-run the structural engineer's calculations? The sums have been done by the people who are trained to do them. You are not trained to do them.

seeker · 15/08/2012 07:48

No response? Does that mean everyone agrees with Jo?

bruffin · 15/08/2012 09:39

Honestly can't remember what has been linked and what hasnt

"The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) estimated these levels for infants taking into account the amount of aluminum a child would eat as well as receive by injection of vaccines. The body burden of aluminum from both sources is below the minimal risk level except transiently following vaccinations; since 50-70% of injected aluminum is excreted within 24 hours, this is believed to have no negative effect"
from this

which uses this study
"The calculated body burden of aluminum from vaccinations exceeds that from dietary sources, however, it is below the minimal risk level equivalent curve after the brief period following injection"

bruffin · 15/08/2012 09:42

Sorry Jothehot
As i said totally confused about what has been linked to before or notConfused

bruffin · 15/08/2012 10:43

and another thought

The recommendations are based on how much aluminium consumed on a weekly basis (tolerable weekly intake),

seeker · 15/08/2012 14:55

Do you think that some of us should archive
All these links for next time? Or will it not be aluminium then?