Aluminium in vaccines

[bumbleymummy]

I thought this might do better with its own thread because the other one went off on a bit of a tangent.

On other threads it has been said that Aluminium is 'safe' in vaccines and that 'the dose makes the poison' .I'd just like to ask a few questions and maybe the people who have made those comments on the other threads will be able to answer them.

What is the 'dose that makes the poison' for Aluminium?

How much Aluminium is absorbed by the body from a vaccine?

We know that Aluminium is toxic and I found this from medscape 'if a significant load exceeds the body's excretory capacity, the excess is deposited in various tissues, including bone, brain, liver, heart, spleen, and muscle. This accumulation causes morbidity and mortality through various mechanisms.' So what is the excretory capacity for a child?

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 know?

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 have posted that Aluminium is safe in vaccines. Links to any info are very much appreciated. TIA :)

yes, I noticed that although I wrote "Aluminium in vaccines"

"there is a lack of evidence that (Turnips/Aluminium in vaccines) is toxic" and "There have not been enough studies done to determine restrictions for (Turnips/Aluminium in vaccines)"

you craftily changed the subject by trying to compare something different.

It's a free country and you can say whateverthehellyoulike bm. However, for the sake of a coherent argument, you can't just say 'be wary because it isn't proven safe'. You have to propose some sort of theory. 'Be wary because of x'. Otherwise you'll be, rightly, accused of scaremongering.

I have no idea how they do the muscle biopsies when assaying Al levels. But I'm guessing as they have one adult in their study that it is a pretty invasive and painful biopsy to do. Perhaps ethically precluding babies. This is just one reason why your google PhD is flawed and can't replace an expert's opinion of the research.

The reason that there are no studies trying to determine restrictions for turnips is because there is no evidence that turnips are toxic. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that Al is toxic (which is why we have restrictions for oral intake and IV fluids ) so there should be studies to determine safe levels of Al in vaccines.

I'm not sure what research you are talking about BFG. The single person study that has apparently determined 'safe' levels of Al in vaccines (according to Jo but apparently overlooked by the ATSDR) has nothing to do with the muscle biopsies performed in the French MMR/CFS case report.

I haven't actually said anywhere 'be wary because it hasn't been proven safe'. If anything this thread should have been a perfect opportunity for people to show to other readers how Al in vaccines has been shown to be safe. It's not my fault that they haven't been able to do that.

bumbley, I see you retreating vigorously from my point "there is a lack of evidence that (Turnips/Aluminium in vaccines) is toxic"

are you going to tell me that you have found good evidence that either aluminium in vaccines, or turnip, is toxic?

PJ, you need to reread this:

"The reason that there are no studies trying to determine restrictions for turnips is because there is no evidence that turnips are toxic. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that Al is toxic (which is why we have restrictions for oral intake and IV fluids ) so there should be studies to determine safe levels of Al in vaccines."

You seem to be incapable of understanding a very simple point so there's really not much I can do for you.

I said
there is no evidence that aluminium in vaccines, or turnips are toxic

You seem to be pretending not to be able to see what I wrote, very simple point so there's really not much I can do for you

Try again

aluminium in vaccines

aluminium in vaccines

aluminium in vaccines

aluminium in vaccines

aluminium in vaccines

aluminium in vaccines

there is no evidence that aluminium in vaccines is toxic

Actually there is evidence that turnips are toxic as they can impede thyroid function, just like most fruit and veg too much causes health problems.
Most people are happy to eat nuts despite the fact they are lethal to dome individuals.
PJ is right, you can't pick and choose what you think is dangerous.
The research has been done and demonstrated on this thread numerous times that those who understand aluminium toxity have used the parameters for body burden and worked what is safe.

Bumble, you really are full of it. You keep on and on saying I've said things that I haven't, saying I haven't given you papers which I have, and you still don't properly understand toxicity.

The ATSDR did not 'overlook' the work I gave you. Indeed they cite it. You keep criticising the research the specialists have done, but you don't have the courage of your convictions to contact them directly.

Given how simple MRL's are, how many times they have been explained to you and how much stall you set by them, it beggars belief that you still don't fully understand them. An MRL is a daily maximum, aimed at a theoretical case of chronic exposure to a toxin. What on earth would such a figure mean for episodic exposure to vaccines? Sod all, that's what it would mean. Instead the MRL for Al includes both oral and vaccine sources:

Various government agencies establish guidelines for exposure to potentially toxic substances. These guidelines are called ?minimal risk levels? ?the maximum amount that one can be exposed to over time-usually on a daily basis-without expected harm.

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.

And just to put pay to the idea that people haven't measured what happens to IM injected Al, look again at the monkey study which followed up the french MMF study. Here's what they say of Al in muscle.

Six months after injection, the concentration of aluminium in the several sections was found to be under the detection limit

This is the last time I shall be contributing science to this thread. Science which you invariably fail to grasp and a few posts later you claim never even existed. You have neither the probity nor the perspicacity required for this debate.

PJ, do you think Al is vaccines is somehow different to Al in antacids/tpn/IV fluids?

No bruffin, it hasn't. Unless you are happy with one, single person study on an adult male being used to determine how much Al is retained in an infant. Maybe you think that is adequate. Although I don't think you were too impressed with me referencing the single person case study into MMF earlier. Are you picking and choosing?

hello P

Have you grasped my point yet?

"there is no evidence that aluminium in vaccines is toxic"

Or is it still beyond you comprehension?

Bye Jo.

The ATSDR report does not cite Keith et al btw.

PJ, Why do you think Al in vaccines is different to Al in other forms?

Also, MRLs can be derived for acute (1-14 days), intermediate (>14-364 days), and chronic (365 days and longer) exposure durations not just 'chronic exposure to a toxin' as you mentioned in your post. HTH.

BM

Why do you think Al in vaccines is different to Al in other forms?

Not answering PJ? Fair enough.

Just to clarify for other readers - the monkey study that Jo referred to is here it looked at the amount of Al retained in the muscle, not elsewhere in the body.

"Histopathological lesions, similar to the MMF described in humans, were observed and were still present 3 months after aluminium phosphate and 12 months after aluminium hydroxide adjuvanted vaccine administration. An increase in aluminium concentration, more marked in the area of the lesions, was also observed at the 3- and 6-month time points. These findings were localised at the injection site and no similar changes were observed in the distal or proximal muscle fragments."

The longest time frame looked at was 12 months.

Yes, I've noticed that you don't like to answer, BM, and that when you do, you like to tuck in a crafty change to the wording to alter the meaning.

Have you grasped my point yet?

"there is no evidence that aluminium in vaccines is toxic"

I'm trying to find out why you think the Al in vaccines is different to Al in IV fluids/orally administered drugs and food that have all had restrictions placed on them PJ. Do you think Al in vaccines is different in some way?

I have never said that it is different.

Have you grasped my point yet?

"there is no evidence that aluminium in vaccines is toxic"

It's not different, its a one off exposure not a long term exposure, that is what you don't understand and what everyone else does.

So why are you making the difference then PJ?

Bruffin, why do you think I don't understand that? I know that vaccines are different to oral exposure etc. You were the one who seemed happy to accept a direct comparison between the amount of Al in vaccines and the amount in breastmilk/formula.

Anyway, I'm bored now. No one on this thread is saying anything that hasn't already been said and we're just going in circles. If you are all content and reassured by assumptions then great some of us have unanswered questions and will keep lookin for the answers.

I have explained previously and not going into it again.

BM either you have a poor memory or you are making things up.

we have already established that there is no evidence that aluminium in vaccines is toxic

We have also established that the body burden is relevant, and not the source.

probably the latter.