VaccinePapers acknowledges the role of Immune Activation during pregnancy, and that Autism occurs without vaccines. In addition to pregnancy immune activation VaccinePapers argues that Autism can occur postnatally citing these cases.
The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life. http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum
Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.
VaccinePapers acknowledges the role of Immune Activation during pregnancy, and that Autism occurs without vaccines. In addition to pregnancy immune activation VaccinePapers argues that autism can occur postnatally citing these cases.
It is worth noting that vaccines can prevent infections capable of causing inflammation that these case studies suggest can contribute to an infant's autism progression. However, autism is understood as a disease with complex causes that have a strong genetic component and these case studies are small sample sizes.
This checks out. Here is a more up to date paper finding similar absorption rates. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013497100149 However, an infant's gut is immature and thus more permeable to things like aluminum and antibodies from the mother. It is important to consider that they are absorbing more than 0.3% of the aluminum consumed from sources like breast milk and formula. This will be relevant to the next point as well.
These criticisms are not convincing. First, their complaint that AlCl3 was used by Mitkus et al. doesn't make much sense. AlCl3 is most readily taken up into the bloodstream when ingested, thus it is relevant to establishing a safe daily dose. Its neurotoxic effects are also well characterized. Second, the demand that toxicity studies should be done using injected aluminum adjuvants has already been met. The below source is used by Vaccine Papers to claim that none of the aluminum in adjuvants is excreted in the urine following vaccination. However, they fail to mention that the researchers also found no significant rise in serum aluminum following vaccination, either. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1712578
Last, the papers used to claim that the safe daily dose should be 3.4mg/kg are flawed. They all use mice and rats as model organisms, whereas Mitkus et al. used humans. Note that these studies also used AlCl3 as their source of aluminum. If you accept the 3.4mg/kg aluminum consumed per day experiments at face value, then you must accept that the 0.3% absorbed in the gut is what causes the toxicity. If that were true for humans, then just 0.01mg/kg per day is all that would be needed to cause toxicity, making our daily intake of aluminum through diet (11.5mg per day) would be toxic and we would all experience symptoms. That is obviously not true. This is why the Mitkus et al. data is more informative; it uses humans as the model and injection as the route of administration. Results from studies using mice or rats as the model and oral as the route of administration will not be as useful if we want to know how humans respond to aluminum.
Just for perspective, the anonymous site that calls itself "VaccinePapers" refuses all peer review
and their starting assumption is: "...medical science is the most corrupt of the sciences. It is extremely corrupt."
Of course, that doesn't mean that any specific claim of theirs is false...or true.
But their starting point might affect how much time one wanted to invest... http://vaccinepapers.org/about/