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 :)

We are back to the fact that Bm doesn't understand what body burden is.
I have been to the Netherlands gp a week and back and we are no further ahead because Bm doesn't understand about bodyburden and the difference between chronic exposure and a one off exposure.

Oh PJ, you really have no idea what is going on do you?

Goodnight :)

I understand it perfectly bruffin, thanks.

I take it that you have picked and choosen and determined that while a single case study into MMF and CFS proves nothing, one study using a single adult male is adequate to determine how much Al is retained from an injection in infants. Good to know.

chosen*

Anyway, goodnight to you too. I hope you had a lovely holiday :)

Bye BM, where are you going?

Before you go, what evidence do you have that the ATSDR don't cite the long-term Al study?
And when you observe portentiously that the longest time frame looked at was 12 months, was this due to lack of perspicacity (you'd already forgotten that no Al was left after 6 months) or lack of probity (you wanted to imply that the study had limitations, but you couldn't find any)?

Jo, I said it does not cite Keith et al (ie the paper you referenced earlier) and my evidence for that is pretty simple - it isn't mentioned in the report. The long term Al study is Priest et al and I know that the ATSDR report mentions that one because I referenced/quoted it earlier myself. The ATSDR did use that study (or any other) to determine 'safe' levels of Al in infant vaccines.

I observed that the longest time frame for the monkey study was 12 months because it was. I quoted the abstract which stated that the lesions from Al hydroxide were still present at 12 months.We don't know how long those lesions remained for because the longest time frame was 12 months. We already discussed this study earlier so I'm not sure why you've referred to it again unless you think we overlooked something. I thought we already established that the majority of IM injected Al ended up in the bloodstream anyway (we've been using IV figures as the closest comparison for a while now)? Unless you think the study shows something else about what happens to the Al elsewhere in the body even though it was solely looking at muscle tissue.

Did not* use that study or any other to determine 'safe' levels...

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.

You speak as though you have only read one publication from the ATSDR. Are you aware they are quite a big organisation and have published many articles on Al safety? The fact that the one ATSDR report you've looked at doesn't cite a given paper, does not mean they have overlooked it.

As I mentioned above, I'm not bringing you any more science, so just search the thread for 'six months'. Read the quote I gave you properly this time, and you will see how odd you're subsequent 12 month comment is.

I'm talking about the ATSDR toxicological profile for Al from 2008 (the most recent one), the one we have been referring to throughout the thread. Which publication are you talking about?

Just to make it easier for you, here is a link to the Aluminium section on the ATSDR website with all its information about Al. So where do you think it cites Keith et al?

I read your quote and I felt the need to clarify what the study was which was why I linked to it and quoted from it. I think it's important to know that the 'sections' it is talking about in your quote were sections of muscle and not from other parts of the body. As I said before, the 12 month comment was because it mentions in the part I quoted that the lesions from the Al hydroxide were still present after 12 months. I think it's important to point out that that was the longest time interval in the study, not that it means that the lesions only lasted for 12 months because they may have lasted longer - we don't know from this study.

In any case, why did you reference it again? As I said before, we already established that most of the Al from the vaccine ends up in the bloodstream so what did you want to draw our attention to?

Keith is one of the authors of the atsdr paper Bm linked to above.

Yes, and? That is not the 'Keith et al' paper from 2002 that Jo has been referring to.

Sorry, correction, the Keith et al paper is from 2001.

From the ATSDR report on Priest et al (the long term study)

"When 26Al levels were monitored more than 3 years after a single subject
received the injection, a half-life of approximately 7 years was calculated (Priest et al. 1995). However,
when the subject was re-examined approximately 10 years after the injection, a half-life of about 50 years
was estimated (Priest 2004). "

Bumbley

You have not answered that the peak amount of AL from vaccines is in infants. Thousands of infants are getting injected each day around the world. If AL in vaccines is dangerous, why aren't they showing signs?

The ATSDR is an organisation not a publication.

You claim repeatably and inaccurately as ever that the study does not show that the lesions only lasted for 12 months because they may have lasted longer. Please explain how this is possible, if no Al was detectable after 6 months?

What kind of signs youngermummy? As I said to EB, "symptoms are fairly non-specific and it probably wouldn't be the first thing that would spring to mind so I'm not so sure it is 'easy to spot' (particularly if you aren't looking for it). I posted a link to a French MMF and CFS case study. It took 3 years for them to identify that he had a high body burden of Al." Also, depending on how much and where it is accumulating, it may not be something you would see immediately anyway.

From the ATSDR report:

"There are no known simple, noninvasive tests which can be used as biomarkers of effects caused by aluminum."

Where have I said they were not an organisation Jo?

Did you read your own link to the monkey study? I quoted directly from it. The lesions were still there 12 months after the injection with Aluminium hydroxide. If you think they should have disappeared at 6 months becuase 'no Al was detectable' the how was that possible? The longest time interval between injection and sacrifice was 12 months so we don't know if those lesions persisted for longer. All we know is that they were still present at 12 months.

Anyway,why did you link to it again? Was it just to make the point that Al had moved out of the muscle by 6 months? As I said before, we had already accepted that most of the Al ended up in the bloodstream anyway hence looking at IV figures.

Where have I said they were not an organisation Jo?

Every time I say something about the ATSDR, you reply as though I'd said something specific to the only ATSDR publication you've looked at. This suggests to me that you think 'ATSDR' is this report.

What is your concern about the persistance of a lesion which no longer contains detectable Al? You must be concerned, because you keep reminding us the lesions can persist beyond 12 months. As the whole thread is about Al, I lept to the improbable conclusion that this was too. Perhaps it's the scary cold clinical sound of the word?

"Every time I say something about the ATSDR, you reply as though I'd said something specific to the only ATSDR publication you've looked at. This suggests to me that you think 'ATSDR' is this report."

Rubbish Jo. I have referred to the 'ATSDR report' and the ATSDR. I have linked several time to the AtSDR report that I am referring to ie the toxicological profile for Al. it's fairly obvious that I know who they are and what they do.

You said:

"they are quite a big organisation and have published many articles on Al safety? The fact that the one ATSDR report you've looked at doesn't cite a given paper, does not mean they have overlooked it." and I gave you a link to the Al section on the ATSdR website and asked you which publication you think cites Keith et al. You still haven't answered.

Wrt the lesions - you were the one who referred to the article again. Not me. I've just clarified what my '12 month' comment was in relation to. So, again, why did you refer back to the monkey study? What was it that you were trying to show?

Because I thought you were concerned about persistant lesions due to their containing Al. I wanted to show you they didn't.

What is your concern about the persistance of a lesion which no longer contains detectable Al?

Jo, why did you bring it up completely out of the blue? We hadn't been talking about lesions or retention ofAl in muscles for quite some time. In fact, I only referred to the lesions persisting for 12 months (or more) after you brought up the monkey study again. What was your original reason for bringing it up again?

I only referred to the lesions persisting for 12 months (or more) after you brought up the monkey study again

Yet more economy with the truth bumble. As you are confused about the chronolgy. My quote came on the 3rd september. Here are the first 3 times you referred to lesions persisting:

13th August, you said: Al from vaccines is still retained in muscle tissue 12 months after vaccination. (that was the longest time frame that they looked at in that particular study)

16th August, you said One particular study with monkeyst showed that there was still Al present in surrounding muscle tissue 12 months after vaccination

20th August, you said: It looked at muscle samples from the area around the vaccination site only and detected Al in them up to 12 months after injection (longest time frame from the study ie. it could have been there longer too)

So earlier you were saying there was Al in the lesions after 12 months. When I provide a quote to show this is false, you say you don't know why I'm telling you stuff you already know. Which is the lie? Or is it just that the lack of a shread of consistency or coherence in your position confuses even you?

my child has been in hospital and there were some of cases of whooping cough and meningitis .also have read recently in daily mail there were more cases reported. 2 famous footballers have recently had meningitis too.please keep update with vaccines the risks outweigh nasty diseases. years ago people use to die of nasty diseases,we should be grateful these vaccines are available to protect us in the uk. also what country you are born in is luck of the draw.xxxxxxxxxx

Did you ignore this bit Jo?

"why did you bring it up completely out of the blue? We hadn't been talking about lesions or retention ofAl in muscles for quite some time."

Again, why are you bringing it up over 10 days after it was last mentioned? What were you hoping to show with your quote? Also, still waiting for you to tell me where Keith et al was cited.