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 :)

Nothing in life is totally safe - surely you've got to weigh up whether it is safer to vaccinate your DC(s), aluminium or no, or risk them getting a potentially life-threatening disease? It really is a no brainer really.

I hate to say it but this type of thread is what caused the MMR backlash and that's caused more than a few public health headaches, particularly in London, where the educated mummies consider their views superior to those of medically/scientifically trained experts

If you deliberated about 'toxins' in foodstuffs etc.... you would never eat anything...and what about the air that we breathe?

The ATSDR report on Al is 357 pages long, so no I haven't read all of it. Have you? I have read every section which mentions 'vacc'.

I appreciate a call for further research is an expression of the view that more research might be useful, but I don't think they had your back-of-the-envelope sums in mind when they said this.

In your OP you asked for links to support the consensus position that Al in vaccines is safe. These have been provided. You've now fallen back on the anti-vaxer's default position of 'the current research says it's safe, further research might say something different, therefore you can't say it's safe'.

75 years is not long term

PJ, studies into injecting Al haven't been done.

gazza, wouldn't you like to have info the info that would enable you to weigh up the risks?

Jo, well you obviously missed the part about MRLs. Maybe you should reread it? I haven't got any 'back of the envelope sums' so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I'm not falling back on anything either. None of the links provided give the info that I was looking for which we have now found out is because the info isn't available yet because the research hasn't been done.

All the thread has shown is that some people are reassured by assumptions that it is 'safe' based either on a lack of reactions (which haven't really been looked for) or because studies investigating ingested Al have shown what levels are 'safe' so therefore they assume that injected Al must be 'safe' at those levels too.

Here we go again....in the guise of some simple questions bumblemummy is back again with her real goal of sowing seeds of distrust in vaccines.

With posters like this, you can't get into the nitty gritty of the debate. Almost deliberate misunderstandings and selective quoting from primary research...debates that go along the lines of 'I said x? where did I say x?' when it was clear to all and sundry the poster was arguing for x...

Totally agree with the last few posts. The real question remains, is it better to vaccinate or face the disease?

Don't be silly LeBFG. If someone had been able to come back with a link or links saying - look here, they did all these tests into the effects of injecting Al and these are the results and here are the answers to your questions then how would that sow any seeds of doubt? If anything, people would have read it and been more reassured. The lack of studies and info about injecting Al isn't my fault. I'm obviously not the only person wondering why it isn't there and wanting to know more.

There is a link which showdown that 50% to 75% of aluminum injected intramuscular is eliminated from the bloodstream within a day or so,
We are talking minute amounts.

Can you remember which one bruffin? Monkeys? Rabbits? Something else?

Bumble you say 'studies into injecting Al haven't been done'. This is very shortly after I've given you a link to 'Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations' which uses 'an aluminum retention function derived from a human injection study using radioactive 26Al'. You thereby move on from your usual tactic of smear by insinuation and into outright dishonesty.

This is also the source for the 50-75% figure.

Sigh, I should know by now that I have to type everything out in full. I thought it would be obvious what I was saying in response to PJ.

Ok, studies to determine the risk levels of injected Aluminium have not been done.

I don't see the 50-70% figure in your link. I'd also like to see the human study using radioactive Al. I can't seem to find the study itself.

There are lots of ingredients in vaccines which imo are cause for concern. Until fairly recently mercury was in vaccines for babies.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21568886/?i=3&from=/12184359/related One of the 'related citations' given underneath your link.

"Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. "

link again

Sorry BM

but I can't see that "Ok, studies to determine the risk levels of injected Aluminium have not been done."

is a reply to my question

"BM, can you give us an example of what satisfies your "shown to be safe" need?

For example, how are you satisfied that tap-water is safe to drink?

It wasn't an answer to your question (I'm not going to go off on another tangent with you PJ) it was a response to:

"I gather that scientific studies looking for evidence of un-safeness, and finding none, do not change BM's mind."

In relation to 'showing how injecting Al has been shown to be safe' I would like to see studies that have investigated the effects of injecting Al and what amount was determined to be toxic etc.I am still looking for the human study that Jo's link mentioned to see what it is about but I'm still only finding the rabbit study that I mentioned earlier.

That study was sponsored by the katlynfox foundation which is highly antivax.

'studies to determine the risk levels of injected Aluminium have not been done.' Total rot.

Studies have been done on the relationship between the concentrations of Al in a human body and the presentation of symptoms. Do you agree?

Studies have been done showing how much vaccine injected Al stays in the body. I just gave you the link.

Studies have been done combining the results of the above. Most obviously the ATSDR (btw you still haven't said where they say their vaccine advice is based on ingested Al. You just keep harking back to their MRL's. Anyway, you won't be able to because it isn't).

A source for the %'s is here again. They source the Keith et al.

So we aren't going to know

"BM, can you give us an example of what satisfies your "shown to be safe" need?"

The link you gave is an abstract which does not say how much injected Al stays in the body.

See Appendix A for the MRLs from the ADSTR report. Note how they are for the oral route. If you haven't read the report you aren't really in a position to say what information is/isn't there.

PJ, see the last para of my pp.

Jo, you can go to the next conference and trekking them that they are talking 'rot' and show them all the studies that they must have missed.

And tell them*

BM

I have read it several times, but I can't see an example of what satisfies you.

Are you satisfied that tapwater is safe to drink? If so, how? If not, what would it take?

I told you what I would expect to see in relation to showing how injecting Al has been determined to be safe. That is what is relevant to the discussion, not the safety of tap water. Why do you keep trying to go off on tangents? Turnips/tap water etc.

It is not a tangent.

I am trying to understand what, if anything, satisfies your need to know that something is safe.

I picked what I thought was the simplest possible example: Are you satisfied that tap water is safe to drink.

Do you refuse to say?

What difference is my answer going to make PJ? How are you going to determine what I would like to know about Al based on my opinion of drinking water? I've said what I would like to know about Al in my OP that should be enough for you. If you want to start your own thread about the safety of drinking water then please do so.