• Bookmark Mainstream Parenting Resources
  • categories

  • Archives

  • Visitors to this site

  • Directory of Parenting Blogs
  • stats for
wordpress

So what’s the deal with aluminum in vaccines, anyway? Part II

As I was saying in Part I, it’s important to look at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant compound particles once they enter the body, in order to understand where and how they end up.

Again, I’m not making claims to be an expert in chemistry, human physiology or even math, so if any bona fide experts find errors of substance or calculation, please let me know.

Not all parenteral administration is the same

Sears conflates all methods of parenteral (i.e, not via the gut) administration of aluminum as being exactly the same, and thus compares the amount of aluminum given in intravenous solutions to that injected intramuscularly/subcutaneously in vaccines, and is astonished such a relatively large amount is allowed in vaccines. However, this comparison is not, in my opinion, a valid one.

It’s important to remember that aluminum compounds can only bind to carrier proteins and enter the blood, brain and other organs as individual molecules in a solution. That is the state in which they’re injected IV. However, vaccine adjuvants are purposely constructed to form large – 2-5 micron particles, which are not visible to the naked eye, but huge on a molecular scale – crystals/chunks of aluminum compound. It makes about as much sense to compare the two methods as it does to compare the IV administration of 20ml of a 50% glucose solution to implanting a 10gr piece of (glucose only) rock candy inside a muscle. Sure, you’ve inserted 10 grams of glucose into the body either way. But which method of administration do you think will have more profound an effect?

In order for the glucose in the rock candy to reach the bloodstream, it would need to be dissolved in the interstital fluid and be carried from there, via the lymphatic system, to the blood. The same thing needs to happen to the aluminum compound particles: the aluminum needs to dissolve into the interstitial fluid, apparently with the help of weak acids existant in this fluid, and this doesn’t happen all at once. It’s very much like a slow-release mechanism of a drug, if you will.

So what happens to the adjuvant after IM administration?

Unfortunately, there is only one study which looks at the distribution of aluminum derived from vaccine adjuvants injected IM – an animal study, no less! – and that is
Flarend et al (1997). The sutdy in full is not available for free online, but there is online what looks like a draft with the relevant text in .doc form, minus the tables and figures (which I’ll provide if relevant). While one may be inclined to dismiss a mere animal study, keep in mind that the animals involved (New Zealand white rabbits) weighed about as much as a small newborn human (2.5-2.8kg at the beginiing of the sutdy, 3.2-3.7kg at the end of it), and we’re still talking about fellow mammals here. So while the analogy to human infants is probably far from perfect and human studies should most certainly be done, it’s still somewhere in the ballpark and we can, I think legitimately draw a few conclusions from this study.

Flarend and colleagues used 6 rabbits for their experiment. Two of them were injected IM with 850 micrograms (mcg) of aluminum in the form of Al hydroxide vaccine adjuvant (the maximum amount of aluminum the FDA allows in a single vaccine, to remind you) and another two were given a similar IM dose of aluminum in Al phosphate form. The aluminum isotope used was the synthetic 26Al, so that the vaccine-derived aluminum’s path through and out of the body could be easily traced. The fifth rabbit was given 850mcg of aluminum citrate (as solution) IV, and the sixth – 850mcg of IM aluminum phosphate using regular 27Al (as a control for cross-contamination of the samples). They then repeatedly checked the rabbits’ blood and urine levels of 26Al, and at the end of the 28-day experiment, sacrificed the animals and examined how much 26Al had concentrated in various tissues of the body in the interval.

The researchers found that after 28 days, only 17% of the aluminum hydroxide adjuvant dose, on average, and only 51% of the aluminum phosphate had been absorbed from the muscle into the bloodstream (for some reason, people often quote these figures as being the amount eliminated from the body after 28 days, but a simple and careful reading of the text shows this to be erroneous). Of the total dose, 6% of the aluminum from the aluminum hydroxide adjuvant was excreted in the urine after those 28 days, as opposed to 22% from the aluminum phosphate. Though this demonstrates that aluminum phosphate is more soluble (about 3 times more soluble, in fact) in the interstitial fluid than aluminum hydroxide, the fact is that either adjuvant will take several months to completely clear from the body. Therefore, Dr. Sears’ method of spreading out the shots month by month, especially in the early months when many shots are given simultaneously, is unlikely to make that much of a difference regarding the elimination of aluminum.

The maximum increase in total aluminum blood levels in the rabbits was found to have been 2 nanograms (nanogram=1/1000th of a microgram, or 1 billionth of a gram) per mililiter, above a normal level (for rabbits) of 30ng/ml. The authors caclulate that when a similar adjuvant dose is given to an adult human, this will result in a rise of 0.04ng/ml over a baseline mormal value of 5ng/ml – which would be completely undetectable but for the extremely sensitive methods of detection used for the 26Al isotope. If we’re talking about a ~3kg baby (about the same weight as the rabbits), the 6% rise in blood aluminum values would translate into a rise of 0.3ng/ml (i.e, the babies would have 5.3ng/ml aluminum levels instead of 5.0). Not exactly something to write home about, especially when you consider that the same dose of aluminum in the rabbit given it intravenously, saw a whopping 2000% rise in its blood aluminum concentration (an increase of 600ng/ml). (Edited to add: Even if the rise is in absolute terms, i.e 2ng/ml per vaccine, no baby would reach anything resembling toxic blood levels even if several vaccines were administered simultaneously).

What’s even more interesting is the minute amounts of aluminum which ends up in the body’s solid tissues after those 28 days. Figure 3 of the paper (shown below, click on the thumbnail for full-sized graphic) demonstrates these amounts graphically:

As you can see, the amount of aluminum that accumulated in those 28 days was on the order of 0.1ng/gram wet weight of rabbit brain for the aluminum hydroxide, and about 0.3ng/gr wet weight for aluminum phosphate (the text clarifies that 2.9 times the amount of aluminum was deposited in the tissues in the rabbits who received aluminum phosphate adjuvant).

Given this data from this study, let’s do a little calculation that purposely exaggerates the amount of aluminum a baby will get, and see if we can raise the aluminum levels in his brain to toxic levels. I repeat, this calculation is both very exaggerated and very simplified, so please don’t quote me as saying “brain aluminum levels will rise by X% as a result of vaccines”. This is a maximum number – the real amount of aluminum from vaccines that ends up in the brain is most likely to be much lower (and should, in fact, be determined by research).

Until the age of 18 months, a baby can, at most, receive up to 17 aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines, according to the 2008 childhood vaccine schedule (Hep B X3, DTaP X4, Pneumococcal vaccine X4, Hib X4, and Hep A X2). Let’s assume that our hypothetical baby is getting all 17, separately (no combination vaccines), each of them containing the maximum 850mcg of aluminum. Let’s also assume half the vaccines have aluminum phosphate adjuvant and half Al hydroxide (some have both, actually), and that the rate of dissolution of the adjuvant and its entry into the blood happens at the same rate as seen in the rabbits for 18 months (not likely in real life; the rate of the dose entering the blood would likely taper off after a few months due to the decreasing dose of adjuvant in the body).

In which case, such a baby would accumulate 0.2ng(average between 0.1 and 0.3) x 17 vaccines X 18 months = 61.2ng/g wet weight of brain.

The average newborn’s brain weighs ~350gr; by 18 months it weights about 1.2kg (1200 grams). Let’s pretend, for ease of calculation, that the baby’s brain weighs 1kg (1000 grams) on average throughout. Hence, 61.2ng/g *1000 grams = 61.2mcg/kg (or 0.0612mcg/gram) will collect in the baby’s brain from those 17 vaccines.

For the next step, we’ll convert this figure to dry weight of brain (you’ll see why in a minute). As the human brain is ~75% water, if we were to squeeze all the water out of it, the concentration of aluminum in the brain would increase by a factor of 4. Hence, we’ll have an accumulation of 0.0612mcg/g X 4 aluminum = 0.2448mcg is added to each gram of brain tissue (dry weight) as a result of all 17 of those aluminum-loaded vaccines.

The Priest review (remember I told you to keep it open in another tab?) has, on page 12/29 of the .pdf file (under section 5.4, “aluminum in the brain”), in the right-hand column, various estimates of aluminum content of normal human brains by dry weight:

(The various measurements just wouldn’t C&P properly, hence the screenshot). As you can see, the amount of aluminum in neurologically normal human brains ranges from about 0.5-2+ micrograms per gram of dry weight of brain. Compare that to the extra ~0.25mcg per gram added by the vaccines (and to remind you, that is most likely an extreme exaggeration of the amount)…the amount falls well within the standard error of some of the measurements!

OK, that’s the math lesson for today :) . But I hope I’ve made clear that, unless rabbits and humans are as physiologically distant as rabbits and glow-worms, it’s extremely unlikely that huge amounts of aluminum are getting into, and poisoning, babies’ brains as a result of the aluminum in vaccines. Mind you, if you think anything less than perfect knowledge isn’t enough, consider the information we have about the safety of medicines during pregnancy and nursing, which doctors (and “natural” parents) use every day: most of what we know in that field is a result of animal experiments and empirical evidence of harm (or lack thereof), not detailed toxicological studies or randomized controlled trials.

So where do we go on from here?

As I said in Part I, even though all signs indicate the amount of aluminum in vaccines is entirely benign, the research in humans still needs to be done. It’s technically feasible, though probably extremely costly, to take a bunch of babies, give them the full course of vaccines specially made so their aluminum adjuvants contain 26Al, and subject them to either regular urine samples and needlesticks (essentially, what Pichichero did with thimerosal), or/and periodical total-body scans to see which organs picked up the labelled aluminum. I’m not sure I’d volunteer my baby for such a lengthly ordeal, especially since the babies would probably need to be sedated regularly (perhaps with chloral hydrate) for the scans.

Another option is to inject (intramuscularly!!) the labelled adjuvants into adult volunteers, who can consent to all the interventions and lie still for the scans without sedation. Yet another, though even more expensive, possibility would be to take 2 groups of infant monkeys and dose them according to the infant vaccine schedule – either with or without 26Al-labelled adjuvants (hopefully, avoiding the pitfalls other researchers have stumbled into). You could even try and teach them some tricks at the end of the experiment, and see if there are any cognitive differences between the two groups.

Either way, if people stop vaccinating because of scare campaigns like those against thimerosal and aluminum…the results will be far, far more costly.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

About these ads

28 Responses

  1. Thank you! I’ll admit that after reading Dr. Sears’ book, even though it was blatantly obvious that his aluminum fear were unfounded, I was left with a nagging concern about aluminum anyway. It’s nice to have some actual evidence to back up the claim that the aluminum levels aren’t a problem. It would be nice to get some human studies, but I can’t imagine signing up one of my children to be a guinea pig.

  2. Esther, I think you did a wonderful analysis with the available data (which, yes, is lacking). The most important aspect was your background information and ability to put it into layman’s terms, well done.

    SM

  3. Very interesting, thank you.

  4. Does a combined vaccine like Pediarix have less aluminum than the total of each of the vaccines given separately? If so it would seem that this is another way the anti-vaxers shoot themselves in the foot.

  5. The Pediarix happens to have about the maximum dose, but Pentacel has much less so it really depends upon what you’re getting. I enclosed this table in Part I of this post. However, IMO, parents shouldn’t feel the need to be counting Al micrograms in the first place.

    SM, Ksenia and Lisa – Thanks :) .

  6. But Ester, more importantly, how was your vacation? What was the best part?

    I am starting to think the global warming is causing all the autism. It did start about the same time. J/K……

  7. I agree that parents should feel the need to to count the micrograms, but I have a funny feeling that people will do it anyway as part of their ‘research’.

  8. Pinky – I already mentioned in the comments of another thread the vacation was mahvelous! The best place? I think Ein Tina (not my photo)…a beautiful pool with fish fed by a stream that ends (begins?) in a waterfall. And surrounded by yummy wild blackberry bushes!

  9. From the NY Times: Vaccinations of Toddlers Set a Record. I guess the anti-vaxers aren’t as influential as we feared.

  10. I appreciate both of these posts on aluminum so much. Thanks for explaining this in a way that I can (kind of) understand. I have a question though–I understand that those vaccines which contain adjuvants should be given IM rather than SC, for the reasons you have detailed very well, and I think that live virus vaccines like MMR are given SC, is that correct? If a vaccine containing an adjuvant is inadvertantly administered SC, or a live virus vaccine is administered IM would the efficacy of the vaccine be greatly effected? And how much would SC administration of an adjuvated vaccine affect the pharmacokinetics of the vaccine?

  11. Wanted to add–I thought that it was important to avoid SC administration of an adjuvated vaccine mostly because it would cause more local irritation, but not that it would make any difference in the immunogenicity of the vaccine, but I really don’t know why it would be preferable to give a live virus vaccine SC.

  12. Alex – I know that the MMR and the Varicella vax are administered SC. I don’t know if anyone’s studied the effects of inadvertent SC administration of adjuvanted vaccines, to be honest. The basic idea of the particles needing to dissolve interstitial fulid would probably be the same, but the difference may be in the amount and composition of such fluid in the subcutaneous fatty tissue vs. muscle tissue. I really don’t know which way the effect would go, however.

  13. Li – that’s great news, though the vax coverage obviously varies greatly according to state/region, hence the measles and mumps (OK the latter was in Canada so it may not count) outbreaks in certain areas.

  14. Please consider the following study.
    http://snipurl.com/shots

  15. I am a new parent researching all the information surrounding vaccines. I found your article interesting, but the blog disappointing with all the “anti-vax” talk. Parents just want choices and easy to understand information….

    • I’m sorry you’re disappointed, but I don’t see this (vaccinating vs. not) as a choice between chocolate and vanilla – and I’m fairly laissez-faire about many other parenting decisions that others aren’t. The position advocating not to vaccinate one’s children is based upon hysteria, half-truths and outright lies, and I make no secret of where, exactly, I stand on this issue. Though compared to some others, I think I put it fairly mildly…

    • I agree.

  16. Excuse me, trying to follow, but the wet rabbit brain weight chart says mg/g not ng/g. hello?

    Also, what does 1E-8, 1E-7 etc mean.

    I would LOVE to read a compelling argument that vaccines are safe, but…haven’t found it yet. And the attitude is NOT good for credibility.

    Also, there is nothing that says that there aren’t threshholds after which metabolic effects CHANGE. Like, alcohol can get you buzzed, drunk, or poisoned.

    We take tiny pills every day on faith that some minute quantity of something has a terrific effect. Or, pardon me, not on faith, it can come to be based on experience.

    Yet we are supposed to believe a sheer quantity argument about injecting babies and children, whose systems differ from adults, never mind rabbits.

    And we are supposed to think we are being smart and not notice that it doesn’t say mg/g, it says ng/g.

    Who pays you?

    • Let’s see: You admit you don’t understand me, therefore you accuse me of fudging the numbers and allege that I must be in someone’s pay. And I’m the one with the ‘tude?!

      As to the explanation: The E’s in the Flarend graph stand for exponents of 10 (a not very common and IMO awkward notation) – each mark on the Y axis is X10 the mark below it. Namely, 1E-6 would be 1*10^-6, or one millionth of a milligram per gram wet weight brain. One millionth of a milligram=1 nanogram. The brain aluminum levels measured in the bunnies on Flarend’s graph fall between the 1E-6 and 1E-7 range…namely, the tenths of a nanogram range.

      Is that perhaps clearer?

      It is theoretically possible that human brains have an extreme affinity to aluminum, hence what happens in the bunnies doesn’t necessarily apply. Which is why I said that human studies would be more informative. And no, babies’ “systems” are not so different from adults’ (though the rabbits used were also babies, mind) as you pretend. However, we are still both mammals and the the assessment is probably good enough. Also, if human brains were much more likely to uptake aluminum than rabbit brains, we’d expect to see Priest finding much more aluminum in human brains. The brain is exposed over a lifetime to far greater quantities of aluminum than those in vaccines, after all. The brains examined in Priest were of neurologically normal people, to remind you. To argue that the men the brains belonged to suffered from some neurological impairment too subtle to detect from those low aluminum levels is simply an argument in bad faith. There is enough in the literature about people with aluminum poisoning to know that these people didn’t have it.

      Most medicines we take are in the mg or tenths of mg range, and are biologically active compounds designed to have an effect.

      By the way, since I wrote this, I’ve found out that Doc Sears is an advisor to Andrew Wakefield’s Thoughtful House and a DAN! doctor, to boot. If you’re going to accuse someone of lying to the public for pay, you might want to look into his financial interest in keeping the ‘vaccines are unsafe’ lie alive…

      • Roberts Sears does not say ‘vaccines are unsafe’. He advocated for vaccines and gives parents information on which to make decisions,
        much the same as you are trying to do.

  17. Thank you for this post! I am a recovering non-vaxer trying to un-learn several years of misinformation, and you aluminum breakdown has been very reassuring.

  18. Hi,

    I love it when people refer to anti-vaxers as using ‘scare’ tactics when pro-vaxers employ the same tactics (grossly misrepresenting the occurrence of certain illnesses for instance relative to severe reactions to the vaccines). As someone who has taken a neutral approach and researched all the available literature regarding incidence rates I have chosen to selectively vaccinate by skipping pneumococcus, given that it is virtually non-existent in the under-2 risk group when breastfed, not in day care, and not living with a smoker. Not to mention that the strains in the available vaccine have been all but eliminated via herd immunity anyway. We are also delaying MMR until the age of 4 since the illnesses it protects against rarely occur in children under 5 and most often present as a low-grade fever when they do). I caught measles and mumps as a child and did just fine. Anyway, thanks for the informative article.

    • Um, if you’re looking for a gold star for your selective vaxing, you’re not about to get one here. Your information regarding the VPD’s mentioned is simply incorrect. In fact, one of tne of the first posts on this blog was about a baby miserably ill with measles.

    • Good informative articles.

      Kieran, I can see that you are of the “tough love” parenting style. What can’t kill you can only make you stronger. If your kids get measles and/or mumps, what’s a little fever or cough going to do? A little unneccessary suffering never hurt anyone. I just hope they don’t get complications like bronchitis or pneumonia…. or encephalitis but then they’d just be REALLY lucky.

      Also, do you understand how herd immunity works? It’s people like you who may be the cause of why outbreaks of VPDs are occuring all over the place.

  19. Hi Esther, In the reading I have done about aluminum toxicity the concern is not necessarily the build up in the body (although that is an issue), but the elevation of the Th2 response caused by the aluminum adjuvant. An overactive Th2 response has been linked with chronic illnesses like bowel disease, autism, adhd, inflammatory bowel disease among many others. The role of aluminum in vaccines is specifically to achieve an elevated Th2 response. In terms of the build up in the body, a question re the study you analysed is whether they also injected any polysorbate into the rabbits? Polysorbate acts to make the blood brain barrier more porous and is contained in many vaccines vastly altering the aluminums ability to enter and remain in the body. Would be very interested in reading a Part 3 that addressed some of the more recent research – particularly the elevated Th2 concerns.

  20. Esther, what do you think about these two research about aluminium killing significant amount of neurons?

    http://www.whale.to/vaccine/Petrik%20et%20al.,%20Lo2007.pdf

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/pdf/nihms171746.pdf

    • What exactly am I supposed to think about those “two research” (which are essentially two nearly identical experiments)? Even assuming Gulf War Syndrome is real and the research was sound , is there an epidemic of motor-neuron deficits in children that could be plausibly tied to aluminum in vaccines? At least we all agree that, for whatever reasons, the incidence of autism diagnoses is rising.

      Though you might be interested to know that Christopher Shaw, the lead author of those papers and a known anti-vaxer, tried to insinuate that aluminum in vaccines is the cause of autism as well (apparently forgetting that correlation is not causation, since his thesis was that children are getting more vaccines with aluminum adjuvants and they now supposedly have more autism). You can read about it here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: