1. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    Montanans for Medical Freedom recently posted this on Facebook

    MOM Screenshot.

    MOM’s website is here.

    I wanted to examine the claim regarding the effect of 20 micrograms of aluminum on a “brand new child.” That term struck me as vague from the start.

    I found two sources that might be the point of origin for the aluminum dosage:

    This first is Title 21, Part 201 of the U.S. Code which addresses labeling


    The second source that may apply is Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Document NDA 19-626/S-019, Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for Dextrose Injections.

    For a tiny newborn, this toxic dose would be 10 to 20 micrograms, and for an adult it would be about 350 micrograms

    The most important term in both of these documents is “parenteral nutrition,” which I found out means being fed by intravenous solution (IV).

    Relevant literature on parenteral nutrition notes that the patient receiving it does not metabolize IV fluid the same way as normal eating or drinking.

    A good discussion of parenteral nutrition may be found here.


    The “brand new” children that MOM and Mary Tocco mention are, in actuality, “premature neonates,” or premature babies. These babies lack a fully formed digestive system and cannot metabolize nutrients at the same rate as healthy children. It is a problem compounded when they are fed by intravenous solution.

    In other words, MOM cherry picked a very specific standard for aluminum that applies to premature babies receiving intravenous feeding.

    Aluminum levels that apply to healthy children were well-covered in Post #52.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Veronica!

    Veronica! New Member

    Living in the California county with the highest rate of personal exemptions for children getting vaccinated, I am well aware of the word soup that these organizations use. "Brand new child" is a new one, and I might have laughed a bit too hard at it...
    It's amazing how these "toxins" in vaccines keep getting brought up... I mean, I always hear about how the mercury is terrible and it's in vaccines, but as many others have proved on here, it isn't exactly mercury. The local "vaccine truth" groups refuse to vaccinate because of the "mercury," and yet they let their infants play in our rivers and streams, which are filled with actual mercury from the hydraulic mining operations of old... :rolleyes:
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    The topic is aluminum, but kinda hard not to shed some light on this since it was brought up.
    UK says the same it seems
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  4. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    Peter Tar provided Children's Hospital of Philadelphia that offers excellent context on just how "toxic" aluminum is:

    • Like Like x 2
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not going to look too deeply into this issue because i think you got it basically right and i'm completely burned out from the "Thimerosal debate" years back. You did nail the sources of her numbers.

    i'd like to point out though, i think you left the most important part of the quote out in your above quote (i bolded it). i know your quote mentions it but that is a huge distinction of low birth weight babies vs. healthy weight born babies. *low birth weight babies whose mothers test negative for Hib dont get the shot until 1 month or until healthy enough to receive it.

    That said, i think MOM got her info from Dr. Bob. (Dr. Robert Sears)

    In that article Dr. Bob also says
    i'm a bit confused because his book came out Oct 2011 but there are studies, one from 2002. and then in 2011 they redid the study based on the new vaccine schedule.

    2002 Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations

    2011 Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination

    But at least Dr. Bob doesnt seem to be suggesting parents not vaccinate

    Of course critics, in general, still find his "new vaccine schedule" dangerous. Here's one critic example, a rather LONG commentary on Dr. Sear's Book.

  6. David Jensen

    David Jensen Closed Account

    This is interesting. [According to this article ] Chinese researchers now point to link between nano aluminum adjuvants in vaccine and austism. The article also illustrates how the explanations of ingested aluminum being the equivalent of injected nano-aluminum in vaccines, and therefore safe, is categorically incorrect - and ignorant of the difference between ingesting environmental aluminum and nano-aluminum particles being injected into your bloodstream.

    And note the assumption that low doses are safe while high doses are toxic is also thrown out the window.

    and also this

    and this

    and note this excerpt that shows low doses of nanoaluminum are more toxic than high doses (there goes the assumption of low doses safe, high doses toxic).

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2017
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I added a modifier to your comment. Please be more careful in your wording in the future. From your article:
  8. David Jensen

    David Jensen Closed Account

    It is the new study that demonstrates that vaccines can cause brain injury and not the article. Please do not be so quick to edit other peoples posts.
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    really? link me to the study you are referring to.
  10. David Jensen

    David Jensen Closed Account

    It's right in the article. It is the focus of the article. I'm going to bed.
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    no. link me to it directly.
  12. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    I looked up the article. It is about 45 pages long. I am planning to wade through it, but deirdre's point is well taken.

    Pointing out the exact evidence would be helpful. Otherwise, it is like having to find something in an hour long video without a time stamp
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. David Jensen

    David Jensen Closed Account

    This is the original scientific paper:


    Note this is a 2015 paper and not the 2011 paper that is reference in other discussions The link is found in the original article I posted above:
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    and this proves aluminum adjuvant, specifically, in hep vaccine is dangerous/causes autism, how?
  16. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Active Member

    As stated in another thread, you and the article are overstating the findings of the original publications.
    Again, for reference, these are the original publications that I think are of interest here (correct me if there is one you think is also important:

    What the authors of the first paper suggest with their data is that a special brand of aluminum adjuvant called Alhydrogel causes previously uncharacterized long-term toxicity. The lowest dosage was relevant to actual immunizations but none of what they present is relevant to autism. These authors assessed the mice 180 days after injection. That is like a human developing autism in early adulthood as the result of a vaccine. That doesn't quite fit with how autism works.

    The second paper has nothing to do with aluminum. They just inject adenovirus expressing IL-6 into the brains of mice and characterize the behavioral response. This paper can only claim that IL-6 over expression in the brain might contribute to ASD -like behaviors in mice. Hardly a case for calming vaccines are a cause for autism.

    Can you please address where in these papers you think the data or writing suggest that vaccines may cause autism?
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. vaccine papers

    vaccine papers New Member

    hello Dan Wilson:

    I am the author of the Vaccine Papers blog. I can answer your questions.

    1) Alhydrogel is probably the most common adjuvant brand used in vaccines. It is made of nanoparticulate aluminum hydroxide.

    2) Prior papers have reported long term neurotoxicity from aluminum adjuvants. Specifically, it causes persistent/chronic neuroinflammation. It typically takes a couple months for the neuroinflammation to start, presumably because transport of the aluminum adjuvant to the brain is slow/delayed.

    3) The relevance to autism is that autism is caused by neuroinflammation, and IL-6/IL-17 specifically.

    4) "That is like a human developing autism in early adulthood as the result of a vaccine." Not necessarily. The delay is likely because of the time required for transport into the brain, rather than being developmentally timed. Another experiment (Li 2015) shows that brain IL-6 becomes elevated 4-8 weeks after Hep B vaccination. Also, the Crepeaux 2017 study looked at only ONE time point: 6 months. So the neuroinflammation may have started much earlier.

    5) The link between the second paper and aluminum is that aluminum induces IL-6 in the brain.

    6) Many studies show that immune activation and IL-6/IL-17 specifically causes autism like behaviors in mice and monkeys. It is well established that these animal models are valid models for human neuro/psychiatric diseases and that cytokines are the mechanism. There are literally hundreds of papers establishing that immune activation/neuroinflammation causes autism and other neuro/psychiatric disorders.

    These MIA (maternal immune activation) animal models meet all of the criteria required for validity for a disease model: They mimic a known disease-related risk factor (construct validity), they exhibit a wide range of disease-related symptoms (face validity), and they can be used to predict the efficacy of treatments (predictive validity).
    –Dr Kimberley McAllister, UC Davis MIND Institute, Science, August 2016 (i.e. this paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6301/772 )

    One more thing: many have argued that MATERNAL immune activation (i.e. immune activation occurring during pregnancy) is not relevant to immune activation occurring postnatally (i.e. from infant vaccination). This argument is wrong because the brain continues to develop for years after birth, and because other experiments show that brain development is impacted by inflammation occurring in the postnatal period. Some brain development processes (e.g. synaptogenesis) are more intense in the postnatal period than during pregnancy.

    The proposed mechanism for how Al-containing vaccines cause autism (and other brain injury) goes like this:

    1) Al adjuvant injection
    2) transport of Al adjuvant particles into the brain (can take a few weeks or months)
    3) Al adjuvant particles cause chronic neuroinflammation during early development, including elevated IL-6.
    4) The IL-6 affects synaptogenesis etc, resulting in autism and elevated risk of neuro/psychiatric disorders thoughout life (e.g. schizophrenia).
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2018
  18. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    really? that is the definitive cause of autism?? that's certainly big news - can you supply some verification pls??

    I looked it up on the university of Google but didn't find anything that says so definitively - eg

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2015.00519/full - this literature review notes the common co-presence of inflammation with ASD, and suggests treating the inflammation might help alleviate the ASD - but it does not actually postulate a cause-and-effect relationship

    Or this - https://jneuroinflammation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-2094-8-52

    So possible link - but certainly not as strong as you suggest??
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    um... I dont think so.

    EDIT: @MikeC beat me to it :p

    Researchers are even trying to use IL6 to mediate, not cause, autism.

    Last edited: Apr 29, 2018
  20. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Active Member

    Hi, thanks for responding here! I'll go point by point, I hope you will reply again and we can continue this conversation.
    Yes. It is worth pointing out that aluminum hydroxide is a naturally occurring compound that also exists in foods and medicines. https://www.knowyourotcs.org/ingredient/aluminum-hydroxide/
    Which studies? Aluminum adjuvants have a long history of being safe. I'd also be curious to know how, when we are exposed to aluminum hydroxide from many sources, researchers can tell that the aluminum specifically from the HepB vaccine took so long to travel from the blood stream to the brain and cause the affects they observed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4615573/pdf/nihms729273.pdf
    The paper pointed out IL-6 as a possible contributor to ASD symptoms. High IL-6 levels are certainly consistently seen in human ASD patients but we don't know what this means. Is this a cause or an affect? What comes first, ASD or high IL-6? We don't understand it. Therefore, a paper where viral infection induced IL-6 levels are associated with ASD is not evidence of vaccines causing ASD.
    Again, I'm curious how these studies were done. Can you provide the links instead of just the first author names? Li 2015 doesn't narrow down a PubMed search much.
    Aluminum anywhere in the body induces IL-6 in the brain? Which study says this? It is important to know that IL-6 is both pro and anti-inflammatory and is part of a normal immune response, which is the whole point of an adjuvant. The problem in ASD patients is that IL-6 is in a constant state of over-expression. Again, we don't understand why this is.
    In order to drive my point home, I will state again that it is the consistent over-expression of IL-6 and many other immune factors in the brain that is one characteristic of ASD patients. Using viral vectors to consistently over-express immune factors is not the same as observing an immune response caused by an adjuvant. Are there any papers that show consistent immune dysfunction in an animal model similar to what we see in ASD patients that was caused only by adjuvants?
    I've bolded the points that need citations and summarize the flaws in your claims. The main issue I have is that aluminum clearance studies in the context of vaccine injections and they do not support this model of long-term toxicity (you can use a translator for this paper, page 6 is the relevant one). http://www.academie-medecine.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/adjuvants-vaccinaux-rapport-ANM1.pdf
    A remaining 4% is incredibly insignificant compared to the amounts we encounter every day. I don't see how the mechanism you proposed can be supported by what we know.
  21. vaccine papers

    vaccine papers New Member


    There is no evidence for long term or neuro/psychiatric safety of Al adjuvants. Main papers cited for Al adjuvant safety are Mitkus 2011 and Jefferson 2004. Neither can show long term or neuro safety. For example, Jefferson 2004 is a metanalysis (8 included paper) and none of them can show long term or neuro safety. Follow-up periods are too short and none of the 8 look for neurological outcomes. Mitkus 2011 is fatally flawed for numerous reasons (use of wrong NOAEL, not using Al adjuvant for NOAEL, ignoring particulate toxicity and transport).
  22. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Active Member

    For the record, in case it wasn't clear in my last post, here is the source again.