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 take it you haven't read the ADSTR report either then PJ.

I'm still trying to puzzle out what your question is. Can't find an answer until I understand that.

Bumbleymummy you really have a problem with understanding basics!

Really bruffin? What do you think I don't understand? Or do you think that because I don't agree with what you're saying about these links 'clearly showing' things that I do not understand you?

PJ, the questions are in the OP.

Or that they 'clearly state' things that they do not.

Bumbley - What skills/qualifications do you have which mean you will be able to read scientific papers and find something in them which no-one else has?

I have a moderately scientific background (although not in this field and not to phd level or anything) and a lot of those studies still might as well be written in a foreign language as far as I'm concerned. I've seen enough threads on MN to realise you take a keen interest in the subject but I'm still uncertain what you're trying to achieve.

I don't want to find something in a paper that no one else has. I just want to find a paper (or papers) that actually answer my questions. I think we've established that isn't possible at the moment because the research hasn't been done yet. As I said earlier, we may have to come back to this in a few years.

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.

from this which is obviously meaningless

Why do you keep posting the same links that have already been posted?

The 'regulatory MRLs' that it refers to come from the ADSTR report and are based on oral administration.

hmm
hmm
[

plague

"Bumbley....I'm still uncertain what you're trying to achieve"

Do you suppose 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?

Seems PJ likes to repeat herself too...

Because hopefully one day it might sink that there is no evidence that the level of aluminum in vaccines is toxic, even if you choose to ignore the experts.

Which experts bruffin? The ones who say that there is limited information about injecting Al and recommend more research? Seems like you're choosing to ignore a few things.

The last link was 2011, say they know enough to say they are safe.

They are still basing it on the MRLs from the ATSDR report for oral administration.

It must be difficult dealing with research into the "body burden of aluminum" if you have to invent the idea that body burden is in some way different depending on how it got into the body. Is there any evidence to support this idea?

PJ, do you know what 'body burden' means? Your post doesn't really make sense.

I understand "body burden" to mean the amount (of a substance) that is in the body. Please say what you understand it to mean.

Interesting link here

"While the body may cope robustly with a mild but persistent immune response to aluminium over- load the coping mechanism will be suddenly and dramatically overwhelmed by a new exposure to aluminium adjuvant. The lat- ter, will not only enhance the antigenicity of itself but it will raise the level of the immune response against all significant body stores of aluminium. Under these conditions an individual?s everyday exposure to aluminium will continue to fuel the response and myr- iad symptoms of associated autoimmunity will take over the life of the affected individual. The individual will now respond adversely to aluminium exposures which previously were not sufficient to elicit a biological response..."

"When it is considered that as many as 1% of recipients of aluminium-containing adjuvants may be sensitised to future exposures to aluminium then a cau- tionary case can be made in respect of future mass vaccinations (eg. against HPV) which include this form of adjuvant."

If that's what you understand it to mean then I wonder why you phrased your question the way you did. Earlier you asked if it meant the 'amount that was absorbed' and your question actually sounds as if that's what you still think it means. It doesn't really make sense if you use the actual definition.

I think what you are asking is whether there is evidence to support the idea that the absorbtion of Al is different depending on how it is administered and the answer is yes. It was actually mentioned in my OP and has been referred to a few times throughout the thread.

A summary of what my last link was about:

'Herein, we have described a case of vaccine-associated chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis in an individual demonstrating aluminium overload. This is the first report linking the latter with either of these two con- ditions and the possibility is considered that the coincident aluminium overload contributed significantly to the severity of these conditions in this individual. This case has highlighted potential dangers associ- ated with aluminium-containing adjuvants and we have elucidated a possible mechanism whereby vac- cination involving aluminium-containing adjuvants could trigger the cascade of immunological events which are associated with autoimmune conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis.'

Bumble I think it would help if you explained why you think an oral MRL can't be used for comparison with an injected dose. To me this is a useful and meaningful comparison. Here's an example of one that has been done

'For example, twenty injections, each containing 0.5 mg of aluminium, could release 10 mg of aluminium into the body (it might take 4000 days to reach the same level of intake from normal dietary intakes) of which 0.2 mg would be retained as a persistent body burden? making vaccines an important source of body aluminium; this is particularly true for children. For example, body burden calculations were made assuming hepatitis B vaccinations (each containing 0.25 mg Al) at birth, 2 months, and 6 months and diphtheria plus tetanus toxiods (each containing about 0.5 mg Al) at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months and 12 months by Keith et al.187 These suggest that at age one year the body burden of aluminium (y0.2 mg) will exceed that resulting from the ingestion of breast milk (y0.1 mg), but is less than that calculated assuming aluminium intakes at the ATSDR minimal risk level for oral intake (2 mg Al per day) y2 mg.'

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.119.9558&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The same link gives details and refs for the multiple injected Al studies that have been done, and they are not intra-abdomenal injections (one of your more fanciful and ridiculous suggestions). If you feel inclined to bounce back and say that they are intravenous injections, rather than intramuscular, you need to explain why this is a problem. Intramuscularly injected Al either stays in the muscle where it has been shown to be benign, or goes into the blood. The ATSDR calculation effectively assumes it all goes into the blood, and so is a worst-case scenario. Even then, if the blood dose is converted to the equivalent oral dose, the oral MRL is only transiently exceeded.

BM

No, you are wrong in thinking "I think what you are asking is whether there is evidence to support the idea that the absorbtion of Al is different depending on how it is administered"

Please say what you think "body burden" means as some of your posts do not make sense.

Where did I mention an intra-abdominal injection Jo. Are you talking about the one that used a feeding tube that I mentioned when I was looking for human studies?

The article you linked to mentions a reason why oral uptake and injected uptake are different (right before your quote actually)

"As these are injected directly into the body then they circumvent the body?s protective barriers and when they dissolve they can directly
enhance the body burden of aluminium."

Yes, the injected studies appear to be IV - they've been mentioned previously. I'm not sure why you think this is the same as an IM injection. There is a big difference in the uptake between oral and IV administered Al. Which do you think IM is closer to?

I'm also not sure where you get the idea that it stays in the muscle and is benign (see links about MMF and the study i just linked to about CFS.) and yes, Al does go into the blood - and can then be distributed to various tissues throughout the body where it may accumulate.