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 :)

Urabe was actually more effective in preventing mumps, but had a slightly higher risk of encephylitis and maybe febrile convulsions. It did not cause long term effects and the risk of getting encephylitis was higher from the natural disease, its about weighing up the odds.
Urabe is still used in some.parts of the world because of its effectiveness.

Didn't cause longterm effects? I'm pretty sure the people who are deaf from it would disagree with you.

Also, why did you think it was more effective?

This from the WHO suggests that it is less effective.

"The vaccine efficacy of the Jeryl-Lynn strain, Urabe strain and Rubini strain mumps vaccine were 80.7, 54.4 and -55.3%, respectively. "

I was under the impression that it was only still in use in developing countries because it was cheaper.

shows Urabe strain is always more effective
also from your link

"In community-based programmes, the greater apparent safety of the Jeryl Lynn vaccine (fewer vaccine-induced complications) is offset by the greater apparent efficacy of the Urabe Am 9 vaccine (fewer complications due to natural infection). The findings suggest that it may not always be in the interests of the community to use the vaccine with the lowest complication rate."

I would also point out you are being dishonest yet again. When ever there is a thread about mumps you claim that aseptic meningitis is a mild disease. As pointed out previously the risk from side effect from the natural mumps and measles are far higher which include deafness.

Well it's obviously not 'always more effective' because I just linked to a 2005 study that showed it wasn't. here is the study referenced in the WHO document. The UK opted for the Jeryl Lynn version because they didn't have the same concerns about it.

Where am I being dishonest? I've only said that there were concerns about the vaccine, that it was introduced anyway, that it was withdrawn and that it did cause long term effects such as deafness (see youngmummy's link). Which part of that is dishonest?

Doesn't seem that there were any problems with monitoring and picking up side effects, just disagreement over a policy decision.

Agree with Elaine - You are asking about safety of AL in vaccines. There has not been a single case of issues identified related to AL in vaccines despite you and a huge body of people who want to stop vaccination.
If AL caused problems, they would have found them. they haven't therefore they don't.

Again, as I said earlier, the symptoms of Al toxicity are fairly non-specific - unlike viral meningitis and febrile convulsions.

Welcome to Kafka's - 'the Aluminium thread', where bm is the self-appointed judge, jury and prosecutor.

bm may ask questions, no matter how irrelevant, but will not answer anything ever.

bm is the final arbiter on relevance. Hence the safety of Al in vaccines is not relevant, but the urabe MMR strain is relevant.

bm may post 'inaccurate' statements, but this is not important.

bm may post things you haven't said with quote marks, if so doing alters the meaning to something which suits her better.

bm may ask for links, but may choose not to read them, not to understand them, to forget they exist......

"not answer anything ever"

I've answered most questions. Read the thread :)

"safety of Al in vaccines is not relevant" um, yes it is - its pretty much what the thread is about.

"bm may post 'inaccurate' statements, but this is not important."

Not, 'not important', but the mistake I made wrt Al/lesions doesn't actually make any difference to what we are talking about.

"bm may post things you haven't said with quote marks"

Where?

"bm may ask for links, but may choose not to read them, not to understand them, to forget they exist......"

I think I've read every link on this thread. Have you?

Maybe we should change it to:

LeBFG may post inaccurate statements

I do agree that we went off on a bit of a tangent with this urabe thing but youngermummy linked to it so I thought it only fair to respond to her post. Probably best to move on from it though. It can have its own separate thread if necessary.

Read the links i gave and you gave and the reason urabe was used was because it was more effective.
As previously said you are completely dishonest. You are always trying to persuade other poster not to vaccinate by telling them that the disease is mild and have done so with AM caused by mumps and its nothing to worry about. But you are concerned when it is a much rarer side effect of vaccine.

You spend post after post wittering on about Keith et al not being included in the ATSDR paper for no reason whatsoever, I pointed out to you that he wrote the ATSDR paper and you said that was irrelevent and carried on wittering on about it.

It has been firmly established from this thread that there is not enough aluminium in a vaccine to cause toxicity.

It was also more likely to cause febrile convulsions and meningitis which they knew about before they introduced it and was why it was eventually withdrawn. Are you just going to ignore that there is also a study that showed it was less effective?

I do not try to persuade anyone not to vaccinate. It is not my decision to make. I will, however, point them in the direction of the NHS and the HPA websites when they say things like 'mumps is a deadly disease' or that it causes sterility when it is actually mild (and often completely asymptomatic) in children and that there is no firm evidence that it causes sterility and that orchitis is not a complication in children.

I have previously quoted from the Meningitis Trust quote about Aseptic/viral meningitis not usually being serious. Do you disagree with them? When people say 'meningitis' most people think of the more bacterial version so I think it's important to know that there is a difference.

I'm not talking about being more 'concerned' about the side effect of the vaccine. I just pointed out that you were wrong to say that they were 'no long term effects' straight after someone had just linked to an article talking about children who were left deaf by the MMRI. Tbh I think that is dishonest.

Shall we move on?

Why do you think that writing the ATSDR report is the same as citing the 2002 study?

"It has been firmly established from this thread that there is not enough aluminium in a vaccine to cause toxicity."

No, bruffin. It has not. Keith et al looked at the amount of Al in childhood vaccines but they determined it was a 'safe' level based on a study on a single adult male(priest et al). Can you explain to me why you are dismissive of a case study of MMF and CFS because it only involves one person but you are happy to accept that a study into a single adult can provide accurate information about the 'safe' level of Al for an infant?

Actually usually* mild (wrt mumps in children)

more serious* bacterial version (wrt meninigitis)

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

Have we established that it's safe? The OP wasn't trying to prove it was dangerous, just that it's safe.

If you are right, then the OP has started a worthless thread.

We have established that there is no evidence that it is not safe

Can you prove that Russell's teapot does not exist?

Can you prove that eating turnips is safe?

Can you prove that wearing woolen socks is safe?

Can you prove that posting silly things on the Internet is safe?

PJ, see my earlier comment:

"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."

Of course, of you feel that the thread is pointless then you don't have to stick around. If you do decide to stay, I'm still interested in what difference you think it makes to the discussion knowing that the Al was under the detection limit in some muscle sections after 6 months rather than 12.

Tabitha8 said "The OP wasn't trying to prove it was dangerous, just that it's safe."

Was she right?

Well I'm not trying to prove that it's dangerous and I'm trying to find out what others based their 'it's been shown to be safe' on.

Are you going to answer my question? Don't know?

so, was Tabitha8 right?

You really can't figure that out from my last reply?

Tab's right about me not trying to prove it's dangerous but I'm not trying prove that it's safe - I'm trying to find out what others based their 'it's been shown to be safe' on. It does say that in the OP you know.

Still not answering my question? You can just say, 'I don't know' you know.

Tabitha8 said "The OP wasn't trying to prove it was dangerous, just that it's safe."

You now says "I'm not trying prove that it's safe "

So you mean she was wrong.

On your extra, unrelated point:

I don't know why you want to bring up again the issue of you saying things that aren't true, I would have thought you'd want to hide your embarresment, but I have already answered you, and my answer has not changed. Are you hoping that if you ask the question again you will get a different answer?

PigletJohn Wed 05-Sep-12 00:25:50
because you were making untrue claims, on a thread that's about aluminium and vaccines. You think that doesn't matter, do you?