Excellent post

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1490425/ so if the average American consumes about 5mg of aluminum from natural sources in a dayX.03=.15 and on the high end .625mg in a DtAP vaccine and we will say 100% of that is absorbed wouldn't that mean that every 4 days the same amount of aluminum is absorbed into your body from diet as what is found in a vaccine? I don't really see how receiving 4X the daily dose of aluminum from natural sources could be causing Autism.

Clearly adjusted for absorbtion in my comments and only used the dose one ingests from natural sources. Couldn't find any information on infant exposure to natural sources of aluminum. Just an attempt to put into context the relative doses after being adjusted for the 3% absorption rate.

Based on what metabolism rate by size?

1) scientists are pretty sure the blood brain barrier is pretty much fully formed at birth. 2) in the first 6 months of life, a baby can be exposed to about 4 mg of aluminum. During that same span of time, babies can get 10 mg from breast milk, 40 mg in formula, and 120 mg in soy based formula. So, even if they only absorbed 0.3% of it, you’d still get more exposure from feeding your baby formula. So when are you going to start protesting about the dangers of feeding your baby formula?

Quick video of a professor explaining the danger of injecting aluminum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCzdliixnmI

I see you didn’t do your research. That professor retracted the study he’s discussing in that clip. In fact, the images he is referring to were altered and the data had been compromised. This is not the first time something like this has happened with him. :)

Did you read that article in its entirety? Or did you only read the first couple sentences and decided it fit your narrative? That’s funny, because it actually supports my point.

A quote from the last bit of that article: “Recent evidence confirms that the brain develops within a well-controlled internal environment. Tight junctions and many of the transport mechanisms (both inward and outward) are already present in the cellular interfaces between the blood, brain, and CSF, very early in development. Some properties of these barrier mechanisms and their susceptibility to disruption may lead to brain damage and later neurological disorders. We hope that this review will contribute to laying to rest the myth of the “leaky” or “immature” blood–brain barrier and focus attention on the need to understand better the level of function of barrier mechanisms that protect the brain from exposure to drugs and toxins, so that clinical advice will be based on the reality of evidence rather than teleological belief.”

:)

Do you actually know anything about hepatitis B and why they give it to babies at birth? It is an extremely dangerous illness for children and infants to get, and it can even kill adults. Over 1 million Americans have it, so it’s not like it’s super rare. But plenty of adults are asymptomatic, which means a mother may be completely unaware she has Hep B (one of the ways to contract Hep B is through sex, so if you’re at risk pretty much no matter what) and if a baby is born to a Hep B+ mother and doesn’t get the vaccination shortly after birth, they have almost a 90% chance of becoming infected with it, it’s usually chronic and about 1/4 of them will die a premature death because of it.

I’m not even going to touch your strange comment about formula. God I hope you’re kidding.

Holy fucking shit, your crazy fucking ass wants to enslave women. Your children need to be taken away from you.

Considering aluminum is an element I'm pretty sure it readily crosses adult as well as infant BBB.

It's not safe for anyone

Didn't use it for anything other than the average daily dose of aluminum one would get from natural sources.

Adjusted it for absortion in my comment.

The population groups the article is explicitly making a link to are people with impaired kidney function. Not otherwise healthy individuals.

You absorb 0.3% ingested aluminium whereas you absorb 100% of injected aluminium.

Absorption of ingested aluminum (as water-soluble Al compounds) is about 0.1-0.3%. That means 99.7-99.9% is eliminated in feces and never enters body tissues or blood.

Food Additives Edited by Prof. Yehia El-Samragy ISBN 978-953-51-0067-6

Published online 22, February, 2012 Published in print edition February, 2012

Oral bioavailability (fractional absorption, a.k.a. uptake) is the amount absorbed compared to the amount administered. For Al, systemic bioavailability, the fraction that reaches systemic circulation (blood) from which it has access to the target organs of its toxicity, is most relevant.

Oral 27Al bioavailability from water from a municipal water treatment facility was estimated to be 0.36% in a study of 21 humans (Stauber et al. 1999). Two studies that had only two human subjects each estimated oral Al bioavailability to be 0.1 and 0.22% (Hohl et al. 1994; Priest et al. 1998). The bioavailability of hydrophilic substances that are not well absorbed can be determined by comparing the area under the curve (AUC) × time for the test substance given orally and intravenously (Rowland and Tozer 1995). Using a modification of this approach the oral Al bioavailability in the rat averaged 0.28% and 0.29% (Yokel et al.2001a; Zhou, Harris, and Yokel 2008). These studies indicate oral Al bioavailability from water is ∼ 0.1 – 0.3%. Oral Al bioavailability from food has been estimated to be ~ 0.1 to 0.15% based on average daily urinary Al excretion compared to average daily Al intake from food (Powell and Thompson 1993; Priest 1993; Nieboer et al. 1995; Ganrot 1986; Priest 2004). Using the AUC × time method, oral Al bioavailability in rats that ate ~ 1 gm of biscuit containing [26Al]- labeled acidic SALP averaged ~ 0.12% (Yokel and Florence 2006) and 0.1% to 0.3% from basic SALP incorporated into cheese (Yokel, Hicks, and Florence 2008). Concurrent consumption of citrate, and to a lesser extent other carboxylic acids, can increase oral Al absorption, as can increased solubility of the Al, a more acidic environment, uremia, and perhaps fluoride (Krewski et al. 2007).

From ATSDR: “Yokel and McNamara (2001) and Powell and Thompson (1993) suggest that the bioavailability of aluminum from the typical U.S. diet was 0.1%; the bioavailability of aluminum from drinking water ranges from 0.07 to 0.39% (Hohl et al. 1994; Priest et al. 1998; Stauber et al. 1999; Steinhausen et al. 2004).”

I have heard this demand before. It’s absurd. The study you’re demanding can’t just happen because you want it to. First of all, it would absolutely be 100% unethical to withhold scientifically proven and readily available medical treatments from a child. Should a parent change their mind, which many end up doing or the child themselves decide they want to be vaccinated, it could potentially destroy the data. What are you to do? Force a child to not get effective medical treatment for the sake of “research”? That’s literally what they did in Nazi Germany. And how could you be certain that the parents didn’t take them to a pharmacy somewhere and get it done anyway?

But let’s say we have a psychotic researcher that’s willing to look past the whole “ethical” thing and do it anyway. It would have to be an incredibly expensive, intensive, and thorough study over the course of many years, considering the current immunization schedule goes up until age 18, so it wouldn’t even be available for literally decades. Do you have any idea what an undertaking that would be? And let’s talk about how comprehensive that desired study needs to be, how would you narrow down your parameters? I mean there’s no way you can record literally every illness/condition possible, so you will just have to narrow it down to some. Well guess what? Conspiracy theorist Karen is going to look at that study and freak out because certain conditions were omitted, and the conspiracy doesn’t die. And for something like autism, there is not a lab test diagnosis or anything, so there is an increased chance of error. Do you know how most studies into causation are done now? Researchers back track, they see a case of a disease and ask questions and look for recurring patterns (common ones obviously include smoking, obesity, substance abuse, family history, etc.) but you know what has NEVER come up consistently as a cause of disease? Vaccines.

So let’s say you are beyond ethics, and you have accepted that this study will not actually stop all the conspiracy theorists despite it being very intense. Now for a study to take this long, you will need a HUGE funding. Well, can you name any funding groups who would want the PR of funding an unethical and illegitimate study that puts children’s lives at risk? Can you imagine if a child ended up dying from a preventable disease from this study? How about any location that would even allow you carry out that study on their property? Pretty big liability there too. Oh, and a retrospective study would not be able to be used in this situation either as what people would want to examine would be out of reach of its potential uses.

Okay, so then we have an unethical, incredibly long and intensive study without pretty much any funding or support that will still leave questions unanswered. So screw it, why not do it anyway you ask?? BECAUSE IT HAS BASICALLY ALREADY BEEN DONE. IT WOULD BE A MASSIVE WASTE OF TIME. There have been SO many freaking studies that time after time show absolutely no evidence of vaccines causing autism or anything like that! And yet, you still are demanding more studies be done even when there is already perfectly sufficient evidence out there. Even if your ideal unethical and practically impossible study were done, if it did not show a link between any vaccine and a condition or disease, you would choose to not believe it because you would accuse it of being like “all of the others”

I have heard this demand before. It’s absurd

It's basic science, both necessary and essential

First of all, it would absolutely be 100% unethical to withhold scientifically proven and readily available medical treatments from a child.

Firstly there are already plenty of unvaccinated children and people who are trying as hard as possible to avoid vaccines, they could be used. Secondly you use the term 'scientifically proven', but that's the whole point, vaccines are not scientifically proven as safe, as the necessary studies have never been performed.

The reason the industry avoids this study is because they know it will prove the harm vaccines are causing, highly profitable harm which they profit from. If they allowed this study to go ahead they would be shooting themselves in both feet, there would be uproar on the streets as people found out they'd been poisoned by junk science. It would be the end of Big Pharma as we know it.

Hahahahahah no it is not how science works at all. When was the last time you wrote up a research paper or even took a science class? You can’t go against ethical codes, ignore the reliability of your methodology, and then come to meaningful conclusions. That’s objectively NOT how science works at all.

Vaccines are not actually very profitable for big pharma. Vaccines are very expensive to research and manufacture and their profit margins are usually quite small. There have actually been issues in the past with companies not having enough incentive to make vaccines because they weren’t making enough money. Vaccines only make up 1-2% of revenue for big pharma. That’s it. For the hundreds of millions of vaccines put out each year, they only make up a tiny portion of profits. Do you also realize that it is significantly cheaper both from a personal finance perspective and a public health perspective to prevent disease than to treat it? When people inevitably end up sick and in the hospital from vaccine preventable diseases, you know who is making a fortune there? Big pharma. You know who is going to keep making a fortune as children develop complications and potentially live their entire lives needing prescriptions just to survive? Big pharma.

So fun fact: You’re actually unknowingly helping to support big pharma make much more money by discouraging vaccines! :)

What do you want to know about them? You don’t just “compare babies” hahaha what about them do you need compared? Autism rates? Are you living in the 90’s? There’s literally countless studies from the last 20 years that have shown that vaccines don’t cause autism. And why is this specifically aimed at the CDC schedule and not the schedule for other countries or particular vaccinations? You apparently don’t even have a research question. Again, you apparently don’t understand that there are ways to answer your non-existent research question that don’t involve unethical practices. I said “basically” because literally my entire point was that a study that you described can not be done, but there have been plenty of studies that have found ethical ways to answer many anti vax conspiracies, but you don’t trust them, so it’s funny that the one study you might trust would be an unethical and poorly designed one that wouldn’t yield any meaningful results. If you’re interested in me linking you studies done ethically, I can certainly link those. I am a science grad student right now looking to apply to medical school after I graduate, so this is a pretty big hobby of mine.

Also, are you suggesting that immunizations would work without preservatives? I’m not sure I understand what “minus the virus/bacteria” means.

No, that’s not what I was talking about. I’m saying I did not understand what you mean by, comparing those “who are completely unvaccinated and not injected with the same preservatives etc minus the virus/bacteria” Were you just trying to elaborate on what you consider unvaccinated? It was a simple clarification question as to what you meant. And it’s always justified to ask for clarification, especially because if you were trying to reference the manufacturer clinical trials, it wouldn’t really be relevant because we aren’t talking about that. Also, I don’t reference studies unless I have read them, and I’m actually pretty sure I called you out on this thread for linking to a study that flat out refuted your claim.

The method you’re referring to is not stupid. The control groups have to receive a substance that has previously been identified as being safe. They’re not trying to prove that a substance that has been already identified as safe is actually safe. The objective is showing safety of the unique content of that particular vaccine. So, you think it’s stupid because it is not aimed at doing what you think it is. And, again, it’s also not at all related to this discussion because the hypothetical and unethical study you would want to conduct could not be done by the manufacturers (duh)

Also, you haven’t specified what exactly you would be “comparing” between the infants in your unethical study.