Interesting read on aluminum in vaccines - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 52 Old 06-21-2012, 05:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

purslaine is offline  
#2 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 02:07 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,790
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)

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). 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#3 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 04:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

purslaine is offline  
#4 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 04:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

purslaine is offline  
#5 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 05:37 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
prosciencemum likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#6 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 05:40 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#7 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 06:15 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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."

purslaine is offline  
#8 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 06:15 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 06:44 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

purslaine is offline  
#10 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 06:51 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#11 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 07:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.  

shiningpearl and dbsam like this.
purslaine is offline  
#12 of 52 Old 06-22-2012, 07:05 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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/
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#13 of 52 Old 06-29-2012, 07:49 PM
 
eireann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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. 

eireann is offline  
#14 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 06:19 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't understand the attitude that Paul offit shouldn't have gained financially from 25 years worth of innovative work.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#15 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 06:22 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?

Taximom5 likes this.
purslaine is offline  
#16 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 06:46 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#17 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 07:24 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
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.

Taximom5 is online now  
#18 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 07:32 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
No, he doesn't.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#19 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 08:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

purslaine is offline  
#20 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 09:36 AM
 
eireann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
eireann is offline  
#21 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 09:38 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
He no longer gets royalties from rotateq. You're right, I guess where he invests his money is his business.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#22 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 09:39 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
And I think drs jay, bob, mercola, etc are very different than offit, IMO. They are businessmen first and foremost. I'm glad they found a product they could sell and be so successful at, but it is what it is.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#23 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 12:20 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

He no longer gets royalties from rotateq. You're right, I guess where he invests his money is his business.

He no longer receives royalties from RotaTeq, but he is a paid spokesman for Merck.
Taximom5 is online now  
#24 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 12:22 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And I think drs jay, bob, mercola, etc are very different than offit, IMO. They are businessmen first and foremost. I'm glad they found a product they could sell and be so successful at, but it is what it is.

Please provide some kind of proof that they are businessmen first and foremost, and explain how they differ from Paul Offit in this regard, since he profits from the sale of his books which defend the vaccine/pharmaceutical industry, he is a paid spokesman for Merck, and his position at Children's Hospital is funded by Merck.
Taximom5 is online now  
#25 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 12:28 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The proceeds from his book go to autism speaks.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#26 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 12:41 PM
 
firewoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sandy Eggo
Posts: 1,607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

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.


I wonder if you have looked at any of Dr. Christopher Shaw's work on the study of aluminum hydroxide and neurotoxicity.  According to Dr. Shaw, who is a professor of neurology and neurogenetics, dietary aluminum is very different than aluminum hydroxide(a vaccine adjuvant).   Aluminum hydroxide is present as an adjuvant specifically to hang around in the body for longer periods of time.  Also, the way in the which the aluminum enters the body is completely different.  You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

http://www.bauernverstand.ch/images/bt_chris_shaw2009_englisch.pdf


Stephanie-33 lucky mama of 5 precious ones: DD-12, DS-9 , DS-6 , and DD-3 and Bridget Alannah  SHE'S ONE NOW! loving wife to DH-38
firewoman is offline  
#27 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 12:45 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I will look into that. I have heard people say the way the aluminum enters the system is vital, but no one has ever been able to give me an explanation of why. Maybe this will. Thanks for the tip.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#28 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 12:47 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Just at first glance: no one denies aluminum can be toxic. The issue is whether it's toxic in the amounts present in vaccines.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#29 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

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.


Where's the evidence that he voted in that decision, let alone was a key vote? Offit has a great deal of expertise to being to a panel like that, he is one of the foremost vaccine experts in this country.

I don't think offit is neutral, he is definitely very pro vaccine. I just don't think he's motivated by profit, either. I think he believes vaccination saves lives and the good far outweighs the bad.
prosciencemum likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#30 of 52 Old 06-30-2012, 02:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


Where's the evidence that he voted in that decision, let alone was a key vote? 

You're kidding, right?

 

If you and I are friends I should not sit on your interview panel.  It is a conflict of interest.  Saying afterwards "well, we do not know if Kathy voted" is pretty lame.  

 

These are vaccines we inject into children. Government policymakers should safegaurd the process by keeping people who stand to gain financially  out of the decision making process.  

 

Vaccine manufacturers, who stand to gain financially,  should not sit or vote on policy making panels.  

 

They can give testimony, info, answer questions - but not vote or make recommendations.

 

There are a couple of key reasons people do not vaccinate - and cr@p like this (inability to trust the policymakers due to conflict of interest) is one of them.  

purslaine is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off