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 :)

Either you do not understand, or you are pretending not to understand, I can't tell. There is some reason why you don't want to answer.

You will have observed that some people, given the same information, do not share your conclusion.

But if you give an example of something that has previously satisfied you, it introduces the possibility that someone might say "Aha, so that's BM's approach to safety. If she looks at the safety of drinking water like that, then an equivalent response might be..."

No, I don't see how that would work PJ. Drinking water and injecting Al are two very different things. Why not just look at the questions I've asked about Al and think 'aha, that's BMs approach to determining safety' instead of looking at something completely different and trying to work one out from the other. It all just sounds a bit silly and convoluted and I don't want to derail the thread - that is why I'm not answering.

OK, you don't want to say if you consider tap water to be safe to drink.

I doubt anyone will ever say anything that makes you say you are satisfied that vaccines are safe.

What a strange thing to deduce from me deciding not to answer a question that is not related to the thread. I wonder why I decided not to answer you...

It is not a deduction from a single post.

If I was never going to be satisfied I wouldn't bother asking the questions or looking for the answers. It would be a bit of a waste of time.

"It would be a bit of a waste of time"

I agree

does anyone else?

Bumble

I like you're unswaving and absolute faith in a single quote from a conference scientist who thinks more funds should be devoted to his speciality. As though this somehow trumps all other opinions and research. I said you were talking rot, not them. I'm sure they don't think partial absence of evidence for safety is evidence for danger, so their position lends only marginal support to your's.

You hark back to MRL's again. Are you saying that toxicologists the world over, and in particular at the ATSDR, are making a naive comparison between oral Al doses and injected Al doses, a comparison of mind-numbing stupidity? See the quote below to illustrate how wrong you are, and to reinforce what I've already told you, that toxicity measures are done on whole body burden.

Here are the conclusions of some more recent sums, so that you can check them-

We updated the analysis of Keith et al. [1] with a current pediatric vaccination schedule [2]; baseline aluminum levels at birth; an aluminum retention function that reflects changing glomerular filtration rates in infants; an adjustment for the kinetics of aluminum efflux at the site of injection; contemporaneous MRLs; and the most recent infant body weight data for children 0-60 months of age [3]. Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.

You'll probably tell me it's only the abstract. You're position that if you can't read it in full, you're going to ignore it is daft. It's in a reputable journal, and written by a recognised specialist. They probably know what they are doing. I'm not qualified to assess toxicology work, and given the bumble-muddle you've got yourself into over MRL's, you're are even less so.

god op it's like fighting with treacle isn't it. do you deduce that there are no studies into injecting al? i wonder what the vaccine companies would offer in the way of safety data? have you tried contacting them or am i being naive?

"I have said a few times now that I am not saying there is a problem."

Nor me

If nobody is saying there is a problem, and no evidence has been found of a problem, what are we doing here?

Jo, I've already said, it wasn't one scientist. It was a group of them.

What muddle have I got myself into about MRLs? I'm not sure you even know what they are or why I have been talking about them tbh. Shall I remind you? Other studies have mentioned using the MRLs from the ATSDR report to determine safety and I was pointing out that the MRLs given in the report were based on the oral route. You have argued, despite not having read it, that they were not based on the oral route and I have told you where to look so that you can see that they are.

I had already come across that updated study you have linked to. It doesn't say that any new studies have been done, simply that they have updated the figures in relation to the new vaccine schedule. Iirc Keith et al used the ATSDR report ie. the MRLs for the oral route for their calculations. (this all goes round in circles a bit because the data are so limited) One of your links has mentioned a human study but I have not been able to find it to see what it actually says. Does it even exist? All I can find is the rabbit study I mentioned earlier. I shall keep looking because I am actually interested in knowing these answers.

Asking questions PJ.

Surfmama, they would point you in the direction of the studies that have been linked on this thread which have mainly looked at ingested Aluminium and tell you that is how they know they are safe. Some people are reassured by that, other people have more questions that they would like answers to.

So bumble-muddle, moving on from your confusion over MRL's. You have extensive experience of using search engines to disinform yourself about vaccines, and despite this you can't find the paper on injected Al. So you ask if Keith et al. just made it up?

Don't you mean your confusion? I know that the ATSDR report MRL's were based on the oral route. You didn't. If you have the link to the human study please post it. I will continue to look for it in the meantime (would I do that if I thought that it was made up?)

I found this on my search for it.

"In an initial series of experiments, we examined the potential toxicity of aluminum hydroxide in male, outbred CD-1 mice injected subcutaneously in two equivalent-to-human doses. After sacrifice, spinal cord and motor cortex samples were examined by immunohistochemistry. Aluminum-treated mice showed significantly increased apoptosis of motor neurons and increases in reactive astrocytes and microglial proliferation within the spinal cord and cortex. Morin stain detected the presence of aluminum in the cytoplasm of motor neurons with some neurons also testing positive for the presence of hyper-phosphorylated tau protein, a pathological hallmark of various neurological diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. A second series of experiments was conducted on mice injected with six doses of aluminum hydroxide. Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted."

Even people advising greater scrutiny/further research.

Even more*

I thought research involving mice wasn't acceptable

Who said that? I've been linking to animal studies throughout (because that's all there seems to be).

You tried to make out the study that showed that 50%-75% was irrelevant because it was done on animals.

Because you thought it was done on animals.

On this thread or the other one? I have absolutely no recollection of doing that.

Ok, have reread this thread and I haven't dismissed any animal studies here. Will go have a read of the other one now.

Haven't dismissed them because they were based on animals.

13.30
Jo read it the same as I did, that you were going to jump on it because it was not a human study.

You thought wasn't a human study.