or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Interesting read on aluminum in vaccines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interesting read on aluminum in vaccines

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/vaccines/vaccine-faqs

 

The Cole's note version is he is concerned about aluminum in vaccines and has not found any studies showing the level of aluminum in vaccines is safe for infants.

 

He also makes the point (for those considering vax) that not all brands have the same aluminum content - one DaPT may have way more or less aluminum than another.

post #2 of 52

That is interesting, because it seems contrary to other recommendations. 

 

For example: A Cochrane Systematic review in 2004 (this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632) found no difference in the rates of children with neurological problems between those who had had a DTP vaccine with or without an aluminium adjuvant.

 

Most vaccines have less than 0.5 mg of aluminium adjuvant in them (there is a table here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content-nw/full/112/6/1394/T3). The average adult ingests 1-10 mg of aluminium daily (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1490425).

 

But Dr. Sears is concerned about aluminium content of 0.025 mg being dangerous based on an FDA recommendation. I wonder if this is a difference between aluminium salts used as adjuvants and aluminium metals? I couldn't quite figure that out yet. 

 

I followed his advice and searched for "aluminiun toxicity" on the FDA website, and found this link: 

 

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm?utm_campaign=Google2&utm_source=fdaSearch&utm_medium=website&utm_term=aluminium%20toxicity&utm_content=10

 

where it says: 

 

 

Quote:
The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low, according to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

(from May 2012 - I couldn't find the date of Dr. Sear's article, and I wonder if it may have been written significantly before this came out). 

post #3 of 52
Thread Starter 

I looked at the article you cited, which did say this:

 

The FDA study found that the maximum amount of aluminum an infant could be exposed to over the first year of life would be 4.225 milligrams (mg), based on the recommended schedule of vaccines. Federal Regulations for biological products (including vaccines) limit the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 0.85-1.25 mg. For example, the amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth is 0.25 mg.

 

To me it looks quite easy to go over the 4.225 mark, but i will need to do more digging on aluminum amounts in vaccines.

 

As per the date of the Sears article, I could not find it either.  I assume it is 2004 or later, as the latest reference cited is 2004.

post #4 of 52
Thread Starter 

I did a little research trying to find out how much aluminum was in vaccines (to see if it could exceed recommended daily dose or yearly dose, and came across this from MDC a few years back:

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/815768/amount-of-aluminum-in-vaccines-detailed-list

post #5 of 52
In thirst six months of life babies are exposed to several times as much aluminum from breast milk or formula as they are from vaccines, not to mention other environmental exposure.

The safety threshold that dr sears cites is based on daily chronic exposure in immune compromised people, not isolated exposure on healthy people.

There is no measurable increase in the aluminum in the blood after a vaccine.
post #6 of 52
There's some good info on which vaccines contain aluminum and how much here, too. Not all vaccines contain aluminum.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/aluminum-adjuvants-vaccines
post #7 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


The safety threshold that dr sears cites is based on daily chronic exposure in immune compromised people, not isolated exposure on healthy people.
 

That is not what I saw.

 

The safety threshold does come from a study that looked at premature babies - and gave a safety threshold per weight.  That is where he got his number.

 

"Where does the 4 to 5 mcg per kilogram per day safety limit come from? I found a very interesting study from the New England Journal of Medicine 1997 (See Resource 4) that compared the neurologic development of about 100 premature babies who were fed a standard intravenous feeding solution that contained aluminum with 100 premature babies who were feed the same solution, but with almost all the aluminum purposefully filtered out. "

 

 

He cannot find numbers for older babies:

 

"However, these documents don't tell us what the maximum safe dose would be for a health baby or child. And I can't find such information anywhere. This is probably why the A.S.P.E.N. group suggests, and the FDA requires, that all injectable solutions have the 25 mcg limit, since we at least know that is safe."

post #8 of 52
I went back and looked again, all the studies he cites are dealing with chronic daiky exposure to aluminum. A least it appears that way to me. They also all seem to be dealing with patients with impaired kidney function. Maybe you could direct me to the part you're looking at.
post #9 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I went back and looked again, all the studies he cites are dealing with chronic daiky exposure to aluminum. A least it appears that way to me. They also all seem to be dealing with patients with impaired kidney function. Maybe you could direct me to the part you're looking at.

 

 

I edited my post above to add more details.  If that does not suffice, I will look again if you have a specific question.  It is a rambly article.  

 

The take home message for me is thus:

 

Dr. Sears is pretty moderate, particularly if you put anti-vaxxers on one end of the spectrum and Paul Offit on the other.    Yes, he critical of vaccines and schedules - but at the end of the day, he still advocates for everyone getting vaxxed (although I bet he likes some brands more than others) but on a drawn out and delayed schedule.  If he, a moderate, has concerns about aluminum in vaccines, I am fairly inclined to take it seriously.

post #10 of 52
Right, so those are premature babies on feeding tubes. So they have impaired kidney function and they are being exposed chronically day after day to aluminum. Not the same situation as a vaccine.

I do not consider dr. Bob Sears a moderate when it comes to vaccines. Talk about a financial conflict of interest.
post #11 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


I do not consider dr. Bob Sears a moderate when it comes to vaccines. Talk about a financial conflict of interest.

 

We disagree on the moderate part.  It may make a good thread one day - who is a moderate, is moderation a good thing, and why do you consider them to be moderate or not.  

 

I do agree on the financial part - but all (or almost all) parties involved in vaccines have or had financial conflict of interests - and many make way more money than Sears ever will with a book.  

 

I am particularly displeased with vaccine manufacturers sitting on CDC vaccine approval panels.

 

Sears is selling a book, he is not trying to create policy while simultaneously getting financial gain from said policy.  


Edited by purslaine - 6/22/12 at 8:32am
post #12 of 52
I know this won't be a popular source, but it does a good job explaining the problems with what dr bob says about aluminum. I've excerpted part of it but the whole thing (or at least the aluminum section) is worth a read for people making vaccine decisions who are concerned about aluminum.

"Dr. Sears uses the FDA’s maximum permissible level (MPL) of aluminum for large volume bags of intravenous fluids given chronically to premature infants (25 µg/L), and extrapolates it to adjuvant-containing vaccines. He also uses the number 5 µg/kg/day as the amount of aluminum found to cause toxicity in some premature infants receiving intravenous feeding solutions that contain aluminum. What he doesn’t mention is that the 25 µg/L number comes from studies showing that this concentration produces no tissue aluminum loading, and that it was chosen to allow room for other exposures."

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/
post #13 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

Sears is selling a book, he is not trying to create policy while simultaneously getting financial gain from said policy.  

Yep. Nor is he developing vaccines and profiting MASSIVELY from them, say like, Paul Offit. 

post #14 of 52
I don't understand the attitude that Paul offit shouldn't have gained financially from 25 years worth of innovative work.
post #15 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't understand the attitude that Paul offit shouldn't have gained financially from 25 years worth of innovative work.

Then why do you care that Sears does?

post #16 of 52
I don't, really. I care that people characterize him as some kind of neutral third party only motivated by altruism. I disagree with that. I think his information is not neutral, I think it's often not even accurate, and I think he is definitely motivated by profit. Unlike offit he has an ongoing financial interest in keeping the vaccine controversy alive and keeping the anti vaccine crowd happy.
post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't, really. I care that people characterize him as some kind of neutral third party only motivated by altruism. I disagree with that. I think his information is not neutral, I think it's often not even accurate, and I think he is definitely motivated by profit. Unlike offit he has an ongoing financial interest in keeping the vaccine controversy alive and keeping the anti vaccine crowd happy.

Offit's information is not neutral, I think it's often not even accurate, and I think he is definitely motivated by profit.  Offit has an ongoing financial interest in quashing the vaccine controversy, and keeping the pharmaceutical industry happy.

post #18 of 52
No, he doesn't.
post #19 of 52
Thread Starter 

Does Offit get royalties?

 

In any event - I do not care that Offit or Sears make money off their beliefs.

 

I think it is possible to have beliefs and make money from them at the same time.

 

I do care that policy makers  (those that set recommended vaccines for nations, for example) remain neutral.

 

Offit sat on the CDC panel where he could vote to make rotateq a mandatory vaccine.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026359_vaccine_CDC_childhood.html

 

I consider that reprehensible.

post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

No, he doesn't.

Yes, he does. I'm sorry, but without showing my cards too much, a family member who is an attorney that defends doctors and medical industry is well aware of the intricacies of his financial web. (Btw this family member vaccinated their two kids on time an on schedule, And its never a bash fest against Offit.) Rachel, he's not neutral and continues to profit from his work - as people should. I don't care if he profits. I dont care if Sears profits; theyve done enough work in their respective fields to make a living...You cant call one out and not the other, though.. Bottom line, please....PLEASE stop saying he no longer profits. He does. Simply because you can't find a link to his private financial investments doesn't mean they don't exist.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Interesting read on aluminum in vaccines