Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Aluminium in vaccines

515 replies

bumbleymummy · 11/08/2012 18:51

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 :)

OP posts:
JoTheHot · 21/08/2012 12:08

I'm unable to think of a way of expressing a pretty simple point in a more simple way. Could anyone else come in and comment on whether my last explanation makes sense?

bruffin · 21/08/2012 12:14

Yes your explanation makes perfect sense, Jo . You need to look at the whole picture not just one odd sentence here and there.

JoTheHot · 21/08/2012 12:33

Trouble is the whole picture doesn't fit with bumble's preconceptions.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 13:39

It actually seems to me that you are ignoring any evidence that suggests that there are concerns about the safety of Al because they don't fit with your idea that it is 'safe'. I'm not sure why someone would do that.

I don't have any preconceptions. Just unanswered questions.

OP posts:
bruffin · 21/08/2012 13:48

Your questions have been answered numerous times, you either don't understand the answer or refuse to acknowledge it

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 13:53

Actually they haven't bruffin. If you think they have been then maybe you were answering the wrong questions.

OP posts:
Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 13:54

They're in the OP if you need to remind yourself.

OP posts:
bruffin · 21/08/2012 13:58

They were answered in the first post by Elaine linking to the fda.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 13:58

Tbh, I've just ended up with more questions from this thread.

One of them being, how on earth are these posters so convinced of the safety of Al in vaccines based on this information(or lack thereof)?

OP posts:
Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 14:05

Oh dear, bruffin. You really think so? You may need to reread the thread.

When you get to the study I linked to this morning about MMF and CFS let me know what you think. Maybe he would been safer swallowing the vaccines...

OP posts:
bruffin · 21/08/2012 14:06

There isn't a lack of information you just refuse to see it. Again it is the overall picture.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 14:13

It's not just me saying there is a lack of information bruffin. The 'overall picture' is incomplete.

OP posts:
bruffin · 21/08/2012 14:29

There is enough information for the workshop, the FDA, the WHO et al to conclude that there is no reason to believe that aluminium in vaccines is safe, because they look at the bigger picture. You can't see it because you don't want to, you are just desperate to find something to backup your belief that vaccines are unsafe.
All you can come up with is a single case study for MMF. MMF is considered extremely rare in adults let alone children. Its not even considered long term damage as it is easily cured by drinking water containing silicon.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 14:41

That was one link I posted bruffin. I thought it was interesting. Btw it's not 'cured' by drinking water containing silicon.

I'm not sure why you think I am desperate to believe that vaccines are unsafe. On the contrary, I'd feel much better knowing that the vaccines that are given to children that I know and love (as well as the ones I don't know!) are very safe and won't have any long term impact on their health. I guess that's why I keep looking for information and asking questions. I'm glad that other people are continuing to ask questions too even if you don't think it's necessary.

OP posts:
PigletJohn · 21/08/2012 14:42

Bumble is clearly being playful when she says "PJ, if you want an answer to your question then explain what you are asking."

The question ""Please say what you think "body burden" means" could hardly be simpler.

Perhaps she intends to avoid answering.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 14:48

That wasn't your original question PJ. I quoted it for you again unthread and asked what you meant by it.

Here you go - your original question and mine:

PJ,

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

I'm not sure what you are asking. It doesn't make sense so I can't give you any evidence until I know what you are asking.

OP posts:
PigletJohn · 21/08/2012 14:52

I have simplified it for you as the original question was too difficult for you.

"Please say what you think "body burden" means"

How long do you intend to evade the question? It's six times so far.

bruffin · 21/08/2012 14:56

You are so dishonest, anyone reading your posts over the years knows you not interested in vaccine safety, just proving vaccines either don't work or unsafe.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 14:58

Um, no Piglet, that is not a simplified version of your original question. That is another question. You really have got yourself in a muddle haven't you? I don't think you even know what you were asking in your first question. It's ok to admit that you don't know what 'body burden' meant until you looked it up this morning (after you asked your first question). We know that you didn't know earlier in the week.

OP posts:
Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 15:05

I think you make a lot of assumptions bruffin.

OP posts:
PigletJohn · 21/08/2012 15:06

I have simplified it for you as the original question was too difficult for you, and I will be able to help you understand it one step at a time.

"Please say what you think "body burden" means"

How long do you intend to evade the question? It's seven times so far.

JoTheHot · 21/08/2012 15:15

bumblemuddle

You can presumably understand that an oral MRL for Al and a body burden for Al are different things. That if you eat the MRL of x grams of Al per day your body burden (the total mass of Al in your body) will increase by some amount less than x grams per day.

If you understand that, do you also understand that when toxicologists compare injected Al with an oral MRL, they are comparing the increase in body burden that would arise if you ate the oral MRL with the increase in body burden caused by the vaccine? Or is this still too complicated?

Once you understand the comparison being done, you will understand that your endless references to 'but they compare with the oral MRL' do nothing more than advertise your ignorance.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 21/08/2012 15:20

PJ, that was not your original question. Your first question was 'is there any evidence to support this idea'. The 'idea' being "that 'the amount of Al in the body' is in some way different depending on how it got into the body."

You're actually making me laugh. How can you even begin to pretend that is anything like 'what do you think 'body burden' means? Grin Do you know how silly that sounds?

OP posts:
PigletJohn · 21/08/2012 15:27

Jo, I think you're right.

Bumbley either had not realised the significance of body burden, or hoped to bluff her way through.

Now that she is pressed, it is very difficult for her to continue, and this might be why she evades divulging what she understands body burden to mean.

JoTheHot · 21/08/2012 15:42

I'm reasonably sure of what happened. She flicked through he report, and saw they were comparing injected doses with an oral MRL. Any normal person would have assumed the comparison was sensible, even if superficially it appeared not to be. Bumble being spectacularly arrogant, assumed toxicologists are total morons, and that she had found a glaring error in their methodology.

She now understands that a comparison with an oral MRL is short-hand for a comparison with the increase in body burden that would be caused by consuming the MRL. But rather than admit this and be made to look a total arse, she keeps claiming that abundantly clear questions are not clear, and refusing to answer them.