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 :)

No, I didn't ignore it, I had already answered it above: Because you had said you were concerned about persistant lesions containing Al.

Your indignation at others not answering your questions is wholly unjustified. You have a clear policy of never answering questions, particularly those which show you to be dishonest or incompetent, which is a good prortion of them. You appear to think of yourself as judge, jury and prosecutor combined, and think everyone else on the thread is there just to answer your, generally idiotic, questions.

I point out a glaring factual contradiction between your posts, and you bludgeon on as though nothing had happened. You are without shame.

So over 10 days after lesions caused by Al had even been mentioned (and you've also taken quotes out of context - again) you randomly decide to quote from the monkey study to alleviate my 'concerns'. Riiiiiiight

So, the Keith et al citation in one of these other ATSDR publications then - Still not answering?

Also Jo,

Where did you get your quotes from?

"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. "

and

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

Your second quote doesn't seem to come from the monkey study abstract you linked to previously (on the other thread).

Please explain how the context of the quotes I gave changes their meaning. I don't know why I ask, because you pretty much never answer anything.

The first is from the immunisation info link you already have, twice I think. The other quote is indeed not from the abstract. Papers generally have words that come after the abstract, called the main text. Maybe you'd never noticed?

Still no explaination of your glaring inconsistency re Al in lesions.

"you pretty much never answer anything."

That's a bit hypocritical Jo.

Because they weren't in the context of being 'concerned' about Al lesions, they were used to show that not all Al from an IM injection passes straight into the bloodstream, some is retained in the muscle tissue. So using IV figures isn't exactly the same (although we've established it's close enough) So saying that you linked to it 'Because I thought you were concerned about persistant lesions due to their containing Al' does not make any sense. I have never expressed any such 'concern'. So once again, why did you randomly decide to quote the monkey study?

It's common practice to give the source that you quote from and most people provide a link as well - unless it can be found by name through a thread/google search e.g. Priest et al/Keith et al (again,which ATSDR publication on Al was it cited in?) Maybe you could keep that in mind for the future? I've managed to find it myself anyway. In any case, I've already pointed out to you several times, on the other thread and this one that the ATSDR did not determine its MRLs by taking into account the 'amount of Al a child would ... receive by injection of vaccines'. If you had looked at the ATSDR report you would know that so I was just curious to know what source was making that incorrect statement.

"Still no explaination of your glaring inconsistency re Al in lesions."

eh? What glaring inconsistency is that Jo? You are the one claiming to have quoted from it again to address 'concerns' that haven't even been expressed.

Not really hypocritical; I ignore most of your questions because they are intended to derail the thread. You, by contrast, ignore questions to avoid being exposed for what you are: someone who is alternately confused by, and abusive of, science .

You know the glaring inconsistency betwee saying 3 times that lesions contain Al at 12 months, and then later said you already knew the Al was all gone by 6 months. I don't know how you already knew this when you have since admitted to not having read the text, and it not being the abstract.

I provide links for people who have the courtesy to read them properly, and without having to be bullied into it.

How would answering my Keith et al citation question derail the thread? Or asking what you are trying to show by quoting from the monkey study? (two of the more recent questions you haven't answered) Looks like question dodging to me. Probably becuase you know that the Keith et al study wasn't cited in any of the Al publications by the ATSDR and possibly because you thought that the monkey study showed more than what happened to Al in quadriceps.

Glaring inconsistency? Seriously? So a few times on this thread I say that the 'Al' was still there at 12 months rather than the 'lesions' and this makes a huge difference to the discussion how exactly? What does knowing that the Al is no longer in the quadriceps after 6 months (rather than 12) tell us exactly? Once again, why did you quote from the monkey study? What do you think it tells us?

"lesions" is a frightfully professional-sounding word bumble, but it is also very vague.

Do you mean "vaccination scars?"

I have one, and it would be a matter of supreme indifference to me if it was still present after twelve months, or even twelve years. It is of course quite unrelated to any discussion about the suspected ill-effects of aluminium on vaccines, for which we have already established that there is no evidence.

I have some much more substantial and interesting lesions as a result of various injuries, and they are also of no concern.

a few times on this thread I say that the 'Al' was still there at 12 months... (when it wasn't true) ...and this makes a huge difference to the discussion how exactly?
I suppose because you were making untrue claims, on a thread that's about aluminium and vaccines. You think that doesn't matter, do you?

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.
If they were affected you would see an illness with no cause - there is none, therefore the AL level is safe.
Huge amounts of experimental data on a daily basis - how could any study be better?

PJ, why don't you read the study and see why the authors were interested in them. No, I don't think they meant 'vaccination scars' like the ones you can see yourself on your skin. For a start they would not have to sacrifice the monkeys or perform muscle biopsies (like they did in the MMF study)to detect them.

I agree that it seems a bit unrelated to our discussion (although it is actually an effect of an Al adjuvant in a vaccine) which is why I was asking Jo why she had quoted from it again.

You say in one sentence that it is unrelated to our discussion and then in the next you contradict that by saying that an inaccuracy between whether the Al remains (rather than the lesion) in muscle tissue for 6/12 months actually matters. Which is it? Maybe you would like to say what the difference actually means to our discussion.

Youngermummy,

"If they were affected you would see an illness with no cause"

Not necessarily, see above mentioned reasons.

"therefore the AL level is safe"

A bit of a jump/assumption.

"how could any study be better?"

They could collect some results.

'an illness with no cause' - that doesn't really make sense. You would see an illness caused by Al but whether or not you would attribute it to Al would depend on test results.

bumbley

in the next you contradict that by saying that an inaccuracy between whether the Al remains (rather than the lesion) in muscle tissue for 6/12 months actually matters

That is nonsense. I ask if you posting things that are untrue actually matters. "Innaccuracy" is a very soft way to describe your behaviour.

I don't think much of your non-apology.

I don't think much of your inability to make sense of a simple statement or answer a simple question.

Again, what difference do you think it makes to our discussion and the 'safety' of Al in vaccines knowing that the Al is in the muscle tissue for 6 months rather than my inaccurate/incorrect/untrue statement that it was 12 months?

if somebody finds some good evidence that vaccines cause some kind of problem, it will be interesting to see it.

Once that problem, if it exists, has been found, then it would be possible to investigate further and see if it is due to the needle, or the vaccination scar, or the aluminium, or the pain of an injection, or the phases of the moon.

As we have already established that there is no evidence of aluminium in vaccines causing a problem, it is difficult to decide if the absence of evidence of a problem is due to the length of time it takes for the ingredients of the vaccine to diminish to immeasurable levels.

I don't think much of your non-apology for making untrue statements.

Still not answering the question PJ? Shall I just assume that you don't know if it makes any difference or not because you don't even understand what it means?

You do realise that 'no evidence of harm' is not the same as showing that something is 'safe' don't you? This thread was started to find out how Al in vaccines has been shown to be 'safe' because that's what people had been saying on other threads.

FWIW I'm fairly sure they don't look at the needles, 'scars' or pain of injection being the cause when they are investigating vaccine reactions

Still not apologising for your untrue posts BM? Shall we assume that you were doing it deliberately and hoping not to be caught out?

I have already answered your question Which is it? Maybe you would like to say what the difference actually means to our discussion.

It makes a difference to the discussion if you have been found to be spouting untruths and you are unrepentant for your untruths. I am sorry that you are either incapable of grasping this fact, or are pretending not to see it.

Nope, it was a genuine mistake. I said 'Al' instead of 'lesions' a few times on this thread. (3 maybe?)

So what difference did my mistake/untruth actually make to the discussion? What does knowing that Al leaves the muscle in 6 months rather than 12 months actually mean to you PJ? What has it helped you to deduce about the 'safety' of Al in vaccines? (because that's what our discussion is about)

Oh yes, sorry for any confusion my 6 month Al vs 12 month lesion mistake caused anyone on this thread.

The reason you're questions derail the thread is because they are irrelevant to the bigger picture. You just use them as a debating ploy.

You wittered on about why had I brought up the quote from the monkey MMF study. I said it was to deal with your lie concern over Al in lesions beyond 12 months. You then keep asking why did I bring it up, when I brought it up. WTF does it matter why I brought it up when I brought it up. What matters is your lie inaccuracy. I brought it up, when I brought it up, because it was interesting. Because I was reading another paper which mentioned the monkey study, and told me that it would have in it what I needed to expose your lie concern as being empty.

Then you keep on about whether the ATSDR overlooked/cited keith et al. I thought it was whether they overlooked/cited the 1 man long term Al26 study, but now you seem to have settled on Keith et al 2002. Keith works for the ATSDR. He leads their publications on Al toxicity. So he probably knows about his own work. I'm sure he also knows about the Al26 study, what with it being his research speciality. No, the 2006 report he wrote doesn't cite Keith 2002 in the main text, but it does cite in the supplementary work link.

Has any of this furthered the deabte? No. They were nothing more than tangents intended to derail the thread.

Here's one/two for you. Have you found a reason to not use vaccines with Al ajuvants? yes/no. If you have, what is it?

Bookmarking again.

They do collect results and monitor issues with vaccines here (I know Daily Mail links are disliked here, would link to the same story in The Times but that is behind a pay wall.)

This shows that they monitor illnesses from vaccinations, find the cause and change the vaccine. If the level of AL was unsafe, this would be identified.

That says she won her fight. Not quite the same as an independent body monitoring vaccines.

No, they are questions that ask for clarification on points that you have made. It actually derails the thread more when you don't answer them. In any case, it's my thread so I can ask you to clarify something if I want :)

"I said it was to deal with your lie concern over Al in lesions beyond 12 months."

What concern was that Jo? I've already pointed out to you that none of my references to the monkey study were expressing any concern about Al in lesions. It was being referenced to show that when Al in injected into the muscles it doesn't all go straight into the bloodstream as it would with an IV injection. In any case, it didn't actually say that the concentration of Al was under the detection limit in all sections. Not that it really matters in the context of this discussion anyway. Why do you think the inaccuracy is important?

As I said earlier, I have quoted from the AtSdR report on Priest et al so I was aware that it was mentioned. You didn't specifically say which ATSDR report cited Keith et al so it does make sense to think that you were talking about the only one that had been referenced on this thread. In any case, the citation you are talking about in the 'Data Needs' paper is a reference to the variation of Al in different vaccines and nothing to do with using it to determine what 'safe' levels are or whether or not they are exceeded.

As far as 'finding reasons not to use vaccines containing Al' goes - that wasn't the purpose of this thread.

I was pleased to see this in the 'data needs' paper:

"The identified data need to conduct additional studies to assess exposures of children to aluminum is considered priority. Childhood exposure and temporal body burden studies are needed especially for children living near hazardous waste sites. In addition, studies that explore unique exposure pathways for children (e.g., vaccinations) and childhood- specific means to decrease exposure are also needed."

I agree Tabitha.

I really don't think that shows that results are collected and monitored youngmummy.

Did you know that the MMR referred to in the report (MMRI - urabe mumps strain vaccine) was introduced in the UK despite concerns about safety in the US and Canada? Canada actually suspended distribution and recalled it - the UK used it for 4 years.

And wasn't the whole 'scandal' around the fact that policymakers knew about the side effects but made a decision to introduce anyhow? Which to me would suggest that if there were a problem, it wasn't with the monitoring which obviously worked, but rather with the decision making, a completely different issue.