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 :)

Ah yes, Jo assumed that I would jump on her study because it was based on animals (despite me having previously linked to animal studies which I mentioned in my reply to her) and from that you have assumed that I have tried to make out that a study is irrelevant becuase it was based on animals and/or that animal studies 'are not acceptable'.

Well we can clear this up by saying that Jo's assumption was wrong (which should be pretty obvious considering all the animal studies I've linked to.) so therefore your assumption based on Jo's is wrong too.

Do you have any other comments about the above mouse study?

From another study

"Residence time of Aluminium hydroxide in muscle has not been established despite in spite of its long use in vaccines...Further investigations on this important topic are desirable"

The problem is that bumble almost never says anything. Superficially, she just raises concerns and asks questions, but in such a tone as to raise more concerns. Bumble clearly thinks concerns over Al in vaccine partially justify not vaccinating, but she hasn't said it, and she won't. After many a humiliation on these threads she's learnt to say as little as possible, that way you can't say she's wrong.

Bumble, do your favoured posse of conference toxicologists say that the gaps in Al toxicology research provide a scientific basis to not vaccinate? No, they don't. As such, they don't support your view, and so I don't know why you keep mentioning them.

I have never mentioned how ATSDR derive their MRL's, so you can't possibly know what I know or knew. MRL's are derived for the appropriate route. That the ASTDR have calculated an oral MRL for Al does not mean that their safety assessment of injected Al is based on a naive comparison with that oral MRL.

When you said of the human injected Al study, 'Does it even exist?' What did you mean to say, if it wasn't to raise doubts over whether it exists. I guess you are aware that research exists that is not available on the internet.

"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"

Is it true that the purpose of this thread is to create flannel and confusion about the safety of vaccines, without producing any evidence that there is a problem? In order to create doubt and suspicion is the reader's mind?

I am not saying that is the purpose, you understand, I'm just asking the question.

Is there any proof that it is not?

What safety assessment have the ATSDR given for injected Aluminium?

Wrt the human injected Aluminium study - the only to that I can find mentioned are Priest et al and Talbot et al. Talbot is an IV injection (not muscular) and Priest et al administered the Aluminium containing compound directly to the stomach.

Basically the only injected human study I van find is Talbot et al and it was an IV injection.

As other studies, reports and articles have stated, there does not seem to be much information about IM injection of Al.

I think I'll agree with them and say that further investigations are required/desired/necessary/recommended.

Until then you're really just assuming that it's safe rather than actually knowing that it is. I guess some of you are happy with that.

I have a feeling that Bumbley is just assuming that tap water is safe to drink rather than actually knowing that it is

Is there any proof? I'm just asking the question. Attempts to find out the truth have been blocked, which is rather suspicious.

Have all the 'feelings' that you like PJ. Have you actually looked for studies about the safety of drinking water? There are plenty - unlike studies investigating the effects of intramuscularly injected Aluminium.

We like to a study on intramuscular injection of aluminum you keep ignoring it.

The monkey one? I didn't ignore it. It looked at muscle samples from the area around the vaccination site only and detected Al in them up to 12 months after injection (longest time frame from the study ie. it could have been there longer too). I have referred to it a couple of times so I'm not sure why you think I've ignored it. Did Jo say that I had or something?

Are you deliberatly being obtuse, you know very well it had nothing to do with monkeys.

You did link to a monkey one earlier in the week bruffin. I'm not sure which other link to intramuscular injection you have given unless you are referring to Keith et al which has referred to a 'human injection study'.

this refers to Keith study
Now please explain why the Keith study is not research into intramuscular injection of aluminium.

Yes, it refers to the Keith et al study. What is your point? It doesn't say anything about intramuscular injection of Al. As I just pointed out the Keith et al study refers to a 'human injection study' not specifically an intramuscular one and it could be based on Talbot et al (one of the few human studies that seem to exist) and it was an IV injection, not intramuscular.

It clearly says they measured aluminium in the blood after vaccination,not anything to do with iv.

Where does it say that they measured Al in the blood after vaccination? I can't see that in the article you linked to or in the Keith et al abstract.

It says it clearly in the links
another review on safety

I still can't see where it 'clearly says that they measured Al in the blood father vaccination'. Where did you get that from?

after* vaccination

this clearly states they know how aluminium is distributed from the vaccine site

Where does it 'clearly state' that. I can't see either of these two statements in any of your links. Are you just making them up?

Your last link again references the MRLs from the ADSTR report which (again) are based on oral administration. We're just going around in circles now.

The body burden of aluminum from both sources is below the minimal risk level except transiently following vaccinations; since 50-70% of injected aluminum is excreted within 24 hours, this is believed to have no negative effect.6

The 6 refers to Keith

and from the second link

"The authors of the paper based their calculations of infant exposure to aluminum on the following updated parameters:

an updated list of recommended vaccines for infants
baseline aluminum levels at birth
more recent information on how the body accumulates aluminum
new information on how the infant kidney filters out potentially toxic substances from the blood
<strong>more accurate information on how quickly aluminum spreads away from the site of vaccine injections and into the body</strong>
the latest information on safety levels for aluminum in the body
the most recent information on infant weights from age 0 to 60 months"

bumble

"Your last link again references the MRLs from the ADSTR report which (again) are based on oral administration. We're just going around in circles now. "

Do you understand "MRL" to mean "maximum residue limit?" or do you understand it to mean something else?

Yes, bruffin, I know. I did read it, several times now in fact. Where do either of them clearly state that that they measured Al in the blood after vaccination?

Wrt your second link. I read that too. It doesn't seem to clearly state anywhere that they knnow how Al is distributed from the vaccine site but it does say that the 'safe' body burden figure was 'based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.' ie the MRLs that were based on oral administration as I said earlier (several times).

e.g. "Minimum Risk Limit?"

it's a TLA with several meanings