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 :)

I agree. This thread is really for people with an interest in the subject. Like all threads, I guess.

In the OP, and many times since, bm, you have juxtaposed dire health consequences of Al and comments about Al being retained following vaccination. When I suggest these comments have the appearance of being linked, you say I'm struggling or confused. If you believe readers are going to assume all your comments are unconnected to each other, you are indeed deluded. If you know they will connect them together, you are irresponsible. It's got to be at least one or the other.

Dystopian, yours is pretty much the first question on the thread I can't answer. It's like a mosquito bite you can't stop scratching. I long since gave up hoping bm might give in on even the smallest point, so what is the point?

Jo, you do know that Al can be stored in other tissues beside muscle tissue don't you? You even quoted me earlier pointing this out:

"How much remains in the body after vaccination because we do know that it can cause problems if it exceeds the body's excretory capacity because it then accumulates in tissues throughout the body. 'This accumulation causes morbidity and mortality through various mechanisms.'

Also, 'give in'? what strange terminology to use.

Any balanced observer has worked out bm's not. It's time for me to withdraw the oxygen of publicity.

Bye, Jo. :)

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

We have not been able to find examples of anything else that has been proven, to bumble's satisfaction, to be safe.

Still struggling PJ?

are you indeed.

This reminds me of a thread about woo healing where a poster decided all the nay sayers should be pushed off the thread. She did this successfully by only answering some questions, ignoring others and posting endless responses so that finally people got fed up and lost the will to live a bit and there she was at the bitter end all alone with her lackeys. This is your thread bm so I suppose you're entitled to behave as you like. Bit disappointing for everyone else who thought they were engaging in a debate however. I guess you measure your success by how many people you can bore off threads.

That was Gooseberrybushes LeBFG. She was also a rabid antivaxer, who ended up getting banned for detailing every thread she was on. She keeps popping up, recently as Accuracyrequired and Mrs Geranium. She namechanged regularly as well.

Well, there are only so many times the same small number of articles/studies and what they don't actually tell us can be discussed LeBFG.

Seeing as a conference full of experts said that they don't know enough about Aluminium-containing adjuvants and that they identifed the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of aluminum adjuvants and specifically, the processing of aluminum by infants and children as areas for further research as well as others saying
"
studies that explore unique exposure pathways for children (e.g., vaccinations) and childhood- specific means to decrease exposure are also needed."

I'm not sure why some MNers seem to think they have all the answers.

What the conference actually said
You misquoted before and are misquoting again

More pharmacokinetic data are needed but
there is an apparent wide margin of safety with the use of
aluminum adjuvants and reported adverse events have been
mostly minor and of low incidence

more info from the conference

There is a 70-year history of safe and effective use of
aluminum salts in vaccines which continue to save millions
of lives annually.

I'm not misquoting - my quotes were directly copied and pasted from the article. Did you not read the 'what we not know' section and the suggestions for further research?

As said before, the 'reported adverse events' were based on short term, visible reactions. Basically they're saying, 'we don't have much information about it but we're assuming it's safe because we haven't looked for any problems beyond skin reactions'. Reassuring

Why didn't you answer my question about the MMF case study and the single person Al study?

You deliberately missed out parts to change the meaning.You do that a lot.
It is very clear from all the information, what they know about aluminium and hoe it is eliminated from the body is not just based on a single one man study, but years of research.
As pointed out the mmf studies have no control. I have said before mmf is considered very rare.

As Jo pointed out if you really want to know why don't you just email the authors of the various papers or the atsdr. I am sure they will be really interested in knowing where they have gone wrong.
The atsdr has a email address where you can ask for more information.

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

We have not been able to find examples of anything else that has been proven, to bumbley's satisfaction, to be safe.

Lol PJ.

I didn't miss out anything, bruffin. They're happy to admit they don't know everything and need more info. They've listed quite a few things under 'things we don't know' and suggested further research. I didnt need to miss out anything. The meaning is quite clear.

As they've said themselves, they know a lot about oral administration but not so much about injected Al. Priest et al is the only long term study and it involved a single adult male.

The MMF study was a case study - that's why there was no control.

As I pointed out to Jo, the ATSDR toxicological report on Al didn't say anything about the safety of Al in vaccines and I don't think there is anything wrong with their recommendations for oral intake. Why would I email them?

I laugh at PJ too :)

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

We have not been able to find examples of anything else that has been proven, to bumbley's satisfaction, to be safe.

I'm sure if any new evidence turns up, we can have a look at it.

There is a significant lack of the ability to grasp what the original poster is asking here.

She is not asking for evidence that scientists have said that Al in vaccines is safe. She is asking for the information on which that evidence is based.

The idea that because one “is not a scientist” is a wholly inadequate reason to discourage someone from having that information. A functioning human brain is all one needs to be able to survey evidence and make a judgement based on that evidence. There may well be terminology or references that are not immediately understood within that evidence, but one needs only to look them up and understand them, then come back to the information again and re-read. That is what is known as research, and we are all capable of it.

The idea that one is “not a toxicologist” is another issue entirely – Paul Offitt is not a toxicologist, and this is a fact that many others in the scientific community have highlighted when trying to inform people that Mr Offitt does not take into account when reasoning that the heavy metals in vaccines are safe at the levels they are at. In fact Mr Offitt was asked to comment on a study “Alterations in lipid composition and neuronal injury in primates following chronic aluminium exposure” www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9522055 and whether, given that “Al administration indicated a loss of membrane integrity” the every rising level of aluminium in vaccines could still be considered safe. Mr Offitt’s response was that the animal model was insufficient. That is nowhere near an acceptable response.

Therefore whilst no one here (it seems) is a toxicologist, they may want to take the toxicology aspect into account when deciding on whether or not to vaccinate their children as per the current UK schedule, and in my opinion this is a wise move every time a vaccine is added to the schedule. This is especially wise given that those who are responsible for the research (or lack there of) in this area are a) compartmentalised in their understanding of the issues and how they relate to one another, and b) not able to provide a satisfactory response to questions about aluminium as a neurotoxin and its effect on an organic, living brain.

To outsource your children’s health decisions to someone else, anyone else, completely, is grossly negligent. Of course one should take advice from professionals on the issue, but given that schedules differ greatly throughout the developed world it is not good practice to simply agree with the decision of the Department of Health in this country simply because you reside here – why would you deduce that the UK schedule is any more or less effective than say, the US schedule? How have you come to that conclusion?

I suspect many people don’t “come to that conclusion” – they simply outsource that decision to the professionals, believing that said professionals have made that decision based on sound reasoning – they haven’t, the Department of Health made that decision, and it is a policy decision which aims to protect the blanket vaccine policy without taking into account individual circumstances, notable mitochondrial disorders already present on which heavy metals would have a significant effect.

Some people want to be in the know on such important issues. What a society we live in where striving to understand something before making an important decision about the medical treatment of one’s children is looked upon as stupid or wrong, and placing all trust in the making of that decision in the policy of the day in the country we happen to live in, is considered correct.

"Like I said, bumbley, I don't have a need to see the studies which they're basing their decisions on since I don't understand them, they do". - And you have no desire to? I think that is a little defeatist.

"What I do know is that there is no evidence of exposure to aluminum in vaccines and an association with detrimental outcome x,y,z" - You do not know that - you have just said you are unable to understand whether or not that is the case, you are simply placing your unwavering trust in an authority simply because it is the authority. What you mean is that you know that people you trust have said it is safe, and that is good enough for you. Well that is not good enough for the vigilant.

Have you read the paper you are linking to Michaela? This is what the authors did:

^Animals received AI(III) (25 mg/kg b.wt.) as aluminium lactate, dis-
solved in normal saline at pH 7.4, by intubation gavage, every alternate
d for 52 wk.^

That means little monkey were force fed over 100 mg aluminium lactate every other day for a year (so 183 times). This substance is NOT in vaccines, and if you calculate down to the aluminium content, each dose that these monkeys got contained more than 50x the amount of aluminium in one 5 in 1 shot. So overall, the animals were chronically exposed to about 9000 times the amount of aluminium that is in one 5 in 1 shot.

That has nothing to do with vaccines. You chose to not like vaccines and then you are cherry picking the biomedical literature for anything that would support your position, it appears. Well, this paper does not.

PigletJohn Wed 29-Aug-12 14:43:56

Actually turnips are very good for you. Fruits and vegetables have been found to stimulate the bodys production of T helper cells. That would be contrary to any notion that it causes lung cancer it has no apparent method of action on the lungs at all and contains no carcinogens.

Asking about aluminium and heavy metal is different though because aluminium can and has been shown to be a neurotoxin at certain levels.

So the comparison is nonsensical.

Actually turnips are very good for you. Fruits and vegetables have been found to stimulate the bodys production of T helper cells. That would be contrary to any notion that it causes lung cancer it has no apparent method of action on the lungs at all and contains no carcinogens.

Asking about aluminium and heavy metal is different though because aluminium can and has been shown to be a neurotoxin at certain levels.

So the comparison is nonsensical.

Anyway Bumble the answer to your question is actually that the safe level of Aluminium is different for each child. There have been cases where autism was caused or triggered by heavy metals in vaccines. The Hannah Pauling case in the US did concede that the vaccine was a triggering agent in the childs autism, and an interview with a CDC representative claimed she had autism-like symptoms as a result of the vaccine.

It comes down to public health policy. The decision has been made to ensure the integrity of the vaccine schedule. The schedule has to be protected because if any doubts are cast then parents are likely to be confused and err on the side of caution and not vaccinate at all rather than risk their child getting a seizure disorder, autism, or Guillain-Barr syndrome all risk factors when injecting heavy metals seizure disorders and Guillain-Barr syndrome actually being referenced on package inserts, while autism obviously is still officially denied that could well result in re-emergence of unwanted diseases.

It should be obvious to you at least that this is in fact very sensible of them because, as evidenced here, people tend to outsource the decision on vaccinations to the Department of Health completely. Therefore if they were to concede that the vaccine COULD cause problems in SOME children, then parents would realise they were playing a lottery and might choose not to vaccinate at all.

Unfortunately for some, the public health policy must be upheld and this means the sacrifice of some children to triggered autism, seizure disorders, or Guillain-Barr syndrome. It is the lesser of two evils.

Wow, this is an old thread! Can't see the full article until tomorrow but I'll have a look then. Catherina, I did notice that you've mentioned force feeding and, as we should all know by now, ingested Al is not absorbed to the same extent as injected Al anyway.