Aluminum & Math - Mothering Forums

Old 02-03-2014, 05:28 PM - Thread Starter

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Okay, so I am doing some math on Aluminum Exposure. Help me understand.

Using CHOP's numbers, Formula has 0.225 mg/L. An infant drinks about one L per day & absorbs about 1% of that Aluminum. So the overall daily dose is about 0.00225 mg/day. So Prevnar has 0.125 mg. Daptacel & Pentacel have 0.330 mg. So it would take an infant something like 55.5 days to get the equivalent absorbed exposure of one Prevnar shot from drinking Formula.

So why is this just fine/not crazy loco? I am honestly asking, because it seems a little crazy to me. The baby would be excreting 50-70% of the dose by the next day? But that would still leave 25 days worth of Aluminum in the body.
dinahx is offline

Old 02-03-2014, 05:31 PM - Thread Starter

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Note I am using Formula also, just to over compensate for the Pro side. Really BreastMilk has very little aluminum. Even an adult who was cooking & baking with aluminum only absorbs like 0.07 to 0.09 mg/day
dinahx is offline
Old 02-03-2014, 05:59 PM

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,843
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)

You are looking at this - correct? - http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum.html

IMO and from everything I have read ingestion (be it drinking/eating) does not go nor absorb in the body the way injection does, regardless of this being aluminum or not

I'm not really clear exactly what your question(s) is - sorry

Some magic is fiction, other is REAL magick!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

serenbat is offline

Old 02-03-2014, 07:51 PM

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,491
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
It is crazy, and it's not okay. Plus, injected aluminum affects the body much differently than ingested aluminum.
ma2two is offline
Old 02-03-2014, 08:02 PM

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,573
Mentioned: 142 Post(s)
Quoted: 1684 Post(s)
Following because I'm curious, too.

I never did swallow Offit's canard of, "Hey, we're already ingesting aluminum. So let's have some more!"

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proud member of #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline
Old 02-03-2014, 11:30 PM

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,708
Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Is there evidence that injected aluminium is different to ingested other than "feelings that it must be as it's injected and that's unnatural"?

Other things I wonder: How secure is the 1% absorbed from ingested? What percent of injected aluminium is absorbed?

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). Vaccines save lives.
sciencemum is online now
Old 02-04-2014, 04:53 AM

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,843
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum

Is there evidence that injected aluminium is different to ingested other than "feelings that it must be as it's injected and that's unnatural"?

Other things I wonder: How secure is the 1% absorbed from ingested? What percent of injected aluminium is absorbed?

why question it?  vaccine/big phara says it SAFE it must be so!

guess it would solely depends if you only want to get information from the sources that are promoting vaccines or from others that are not

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/eating-aluminum-it-safe-our-regulators-say

http://vaccines-rvb.blogspot.com/2008/09/difference-between-ingested-and_11.html

Some magic is fiction, other is REAL magick!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

serenbat is offline
Old 02-04-2014, 05:32 AM

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,048
Mentioned: 236 Post(s)
Quoted: 2285 Post(s)

I find the amount of aluminum very concerning.

I am not sure how or if injection is worse than ingestion (I tend to think yes, but that is not based on solid reading or evidence) however, I would not be ok with my baby ingesting (or being injected with) the amount of aluminum found at the two month vaccine visit in one day.

Does anyone know the safe daiily limit of aluminum for  healthy full term newborns???

To add to Serebats list of link, I would include the work of Shaw and Tomlijenovic.

http://vaccinexchange.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tomljenovic_shaw-cmc-published2.pdf

I have only skimmed it, but this quote popped out:

" In this context it is worth noting that unlike dietary aluminum of which only ~0.25 % is absorbed into systemic circulation [73], aluminum from vaccines may be absorbed at nearly 100% efficiency [74]. It is also important to note that ionic aluminum will not have the same toxicokinetical properties as aluminum bound to an antigen. While ionic aluminum may be excreted via the kidneys, the sizes of most antigen-aluminum complexes (24-83 kDa [59, 75, 76]), are higher than the molecular weight cut-off of the glomerulus (~18 kDa [12]), likely precluding efficient excretion of these compounds. Indeed, effective excretion would in fact obviate the basic reason that adjuvants are used at all. For all these reasons, vaccine-derived aluminum has a much greater potential to induce neurological damage than that obtained through diet, even in those with effective renal function."

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is online now
Old 02-04-2014, 01:38 PM - Thread Starter

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The 1% is all over the CDC & CHOP. Plus Offit used that figure in his class. There is a definite difference in absorbtion & it isn't a feeling.

Hold 4 uber mainstream link.
dinahx is offline
Old 02-04-2014, 01:44 PM - Thread Starter

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Though all of the aluminum present in vaccines enters the bloodstream, less than 1 percent of aluminum present in food is absorbed through the intestines into the blood.

The overall document is saying 'this is all fine' but I just am having a problem when I do the actual math.
dinahx is offline
Old 02-04-2014, 05:21 PM

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,843
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx

The overall document is saying 'this is all fine' but I just am having a problem when I do the actual math.

first of all the source - do you expect they would dare say differently?

I know you are concerned with the math part of it and yet I really don't get your question on that?

what I find laughable is this part -

Is the amount of aluminum in vaccines safe?

Yes. The best way to answer this question is to look at people who are harmed by aluminum. These people can be divided into two groups: severely premature infants who receive large quantities of aluminum in intravenous fluids, and people with longstanding kidney failure who receive large quantities of aluminum, primarily in antacids. (The average recommended dose of antacids has about 1,000 times more aluminum than a vaccine does.) Both of these groups of patients can suffer brain dysfunction, bone abnormalities or anemia because of the very high quantities of aluminum that have accumulated in their bodies.

For aluminum to be harmful, two criteria must be met: People must have kidneys that don’t work well or don’t work at all, and they must receive very large quantities of aluminum for months or years. In these situations, a lot of aluminum enters the body and not enough leaves the body.

they ask a question about vaccine and don't even answer it!           Not to mention they fail to also add that those premature infants ALSO receive vaccines that contain aluminum and most get formula (for the long term) too!  big things to leave out-IMO

but your math on the formula, I just don't understand what you mean? Keep in mind they talk about premature infants but full term also can suffer kidney issues and you may not always know it right away or they can develop them within a few months, be on formula for a year plus and add vaccines into - bottom line ingestion is different from injection and I don't see either as "good"

Some magic is fiction, other is REAL magick!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

serenbat is offline
Old 02-04-2014, 11:06 PM - Thread Starter

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
My confusion is largely technical, they seem to switch back & forth between ingested/injected & absorbed dose in the comparisons, which they concede are not the same.

I am definitely not into the amounts . . . Trying to decide if it is acceptable. It seems so ridiculous, to have to accept something that could reasonably be deleterious to gain a something society says we should definitely access for our children, as good mothers. I can't be the only one who sees issues with either choice.
dinahx is offline
Old 02-05-2014, 05:22 AM

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,048
Mentioned: 236 Post(s)
Quoted: 2285 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx

My confusion is largely technical, they seem to switch back & forth between ingested/injected & absorbed dose in the comparisons, which they concede are not the same.

I am definitely not into the amounts . . . Trying to decide if it is acceptable. It seems so ridiculous, to have to accept something that could reasonably be deleterious to gain a something society says we should definitely access for our children, as good mothers. I can't be the only one who sees issues with either choice.

You are not alone.

The only number I have seen with relation to aluminum is for premature infants.  Can I use numbers for premature infants (adjusted for weight?) or can't I?  Any numbers out there on aluminum and full term infants?  What is the difference (or, rather, the effects it has on the body) on injected versus ingested?  I don't know, and no answers are forthcoming.  For me, this is an exercise in academia (or futility!) but not overly personal.  I have no babies.  You do though, right?  If I had a baby,  aluminum would be one of the ingredients that would concern me.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is online now