Friday, November 16, 2012

Move the Goalposts... It's Time to Talk Aluminum

Spend more than five minutes on an anti-vaccination website and you will soon realize that most antivaxxers aren't exactly fans of aluminum.  No we aren't talking about aluminum cans or cookware, but rather we are talking about aluminum in a salt form which is commonly used in vaccines to act as an adjuvant.  In simple terms, the aluminum increases the effectiveness of a vaccine due to how it triggers a reaction within the immune system.

Aluminum has been used within vaccines for over 80 years, so you might ask yourself why are antivaxxers suddenly so focused upon aluminum when it isn't exactly a new ingredient?

Well to answer that, you first need to realize where we have been.  Antivaxxers have previously attempted to single out other ingredients such as thimerosal as they blamed it for various conditions up to and including autism in children.  They used scare tactics to associate thimerosal with mercury poisoning due to a misunderstanding of the differences between ethylmercury and methylmercury.

However, even prior to these cries of mercury poisoning from the antivaxxer community, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was already in the process of reviewing the use of thimerosal in vaccines.  Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA carried out a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in vaccines.  The review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal other than local hypersensitivity reactions near the injection site.

In the early 2000's, the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) performed a review of all available research including studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark and they specifically focused upon the hypothesis that thimerosal was a contributing factor to childhood diseases such as autism.  The committee concluded that the available data and studies rejected the casual relationship between thimerosal (or vaccines containing thimerosal) and autism.

This is probably a good time to mention the fact that the IOM is part of the National Academy of Sciences and is a non-governmental institution. That may not seem particularly relevant, but since antivaxxers have a severe distrust for the federal government or any three letter agency (CDC, FDA, EPA et al), it should be clarified that the IOM is an independent organization and therefore would not share the same perceived bias(es) as a government agency.

Even though the IOM rejected the relationship between thimerosal and autism the FDA, as a preventative measure which had begun years earlier, was already in the process of removing thimerosal from vaccines.  As of 2001 thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines recommended for children six years of age or younger (keep in mind autism generally presents itself between ages two and four), and the only exception to this were some versions of the inactivated flu vaccine (although thimerosal-free versions are available).  In addition to this, all new non-influenza vaccines licensed since 1999 contain no thimerosal.

So what was the end result of removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines? Did we see a significant drop in the rates of autism? Nope. In fact, since 2001 the rates have actually gone up, and thus the theory that thimerosal was responsible for the "autism epidemic" was quite obviously no longer popular to rally behind. Children who had never received even trace amounts of thimerosal were still being diagnosed with autism and therefore antivaxxers realized they could no longer place blame upon thimerosal. It soon became obvious it was time to try something new.

Move the goalposts - we have another new theory!

When antivaxxers realized that pinning their hopes upon thimerosal might not exactly pan out, they shifted gears a bit and started focusing on one specific vaccine (the MMR vaccine) which they claimed was directly responsible for autism in children.  It was around this time that they started professing that Andrew Wakefield was a genius and seemed to have the secret to unlocking the root cause of autism due to a study he published in 1998 which attempted to link the MMR vaccine with autism.

Of course after Wakefield was discredited and stripped of his medical license, and after his "study" was retracted, and after he was found guilty of fraud and manipulation of data.... well he didn't exactly seem like the great savior afterall and he soon found himself the laughing stock of the scientific community.  It was around this time that many antivaxxers decided to back-peddle a bit and distance themselves from Wakefield (although in some extreme antivaxxer circles, Wakefield continues to be considered a favorite son).

So at that point the antivaxxers decided that instead of focusing on the MMR vaccine specifically, they should simply talk about vaccines or vaccine ingredients in more general terms because scaring people by talking about mercury poisoning or "toxicity" is generally more effective than trying to convince people that a discredited doctor was right all along.

You guessed it - time to pick up those goal posts and slide them back just a bit further!

A few years ago around the time many antivaxxers decided to stop talking about thimerosal or the MMR vaccine, they decided to start talking about other vaccine ingredients such as formaldehyde.  Why the focus on formaldehyde?  Well it surely had nothing to do with science, but rather it was about perception.  It seems most people associate formaldehyde with high school Biology class where a fetal pig or a frog was stored in it prior to dissection.  They recall the strong odor and the fact there were warning labels which stated severe over-exposure to the liquid could result in death.  They also associate formaldehyde with embalming fluid and dead bodies... so surely this isn't something that should be in a vaccine should it?

Well the truth is there is very, very little formaldehyde in vaccines, and it just so happens that we already have far greater quantities of formaldehyde in our bodies at any given point than we ever receive from any vaccine.  It turns out we have around about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood.
Per the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's (CHOP) Vaccine Education Center: "Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value at least five-fold greater than that to which an infant would be exposed in vaccines".
In fact, we as humans actually NEED formaldehyde to survive since it is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids, thus suggesting the amount in vaccines would somehow be harmful was at best ignorant, and most likely simply dishonest.  Thus after antivaxxers realized the amount of formaldehyde found in vaccines was insignificant, they actually went so far as to suggest there is a difference between "natural" formaldehyde, and "synthetic" formaldehyde... once again showing that antivaxxers seem to ignore even the most basic tenets of chemistry.

The formaldehyde argument didn't seem to gain much traction however - most likely since anyone who has ever taken a basic chemistry course understands what formaldehyde really is - so the antivaxxers soon decided it was time for something new.

Get the shovel out... those goalposts need to be moved yet again!

This brings us to present day - when many antivaxxers have decided the one ingredient within vaccines which is REALLY, REALLY harmful (for reals this time), and the one ingredient that has the potential to cause the most damage is none other than aluminum.  Per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), "[a]luminum salts, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate have been used in vaccines for more than 70 years" so you might think the antivaxxers are a bit late to the game... but hey - better late that never right?

I suppose to the layman, telling them you are going to inject them with aluminum sounds about as appealing as telling them you are going to inject them with mercury.  Saying these things scares people... and isn't that the point?  We can't expect people to realize that the aluminum is the most common metal on the entire planet can we?  Can we expect them to know that there is a vast difference between a chemical compound containing aluminum and an actual piece of aluminum that may be used to form a soda can?

The truth is, aluminum is actually all around us, and even in us.  Aluminum is found in our water, it is found in our the soil, it is found in the air, it is commonly used in antacids, aspirin, and yes it is even found in our food including fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat.

So what is an antivaxxer to do when they soon realize that aluminum is all around us? What can they do when they find out the average human contains between 50 and 150 mg of aluminum at any given time?  What do they do when the find out the average daily intake of aluminum may range from 10-110 mg?   Well... they simply decide to focus on the amount of aluminum in vaccines rather than the amount of aluminum anywhere else in our body or our environment. Seems legit.

The problem is, vaccines really don't contain very much aluminum.  A typical vaccine contains no more 0.85 mg of aluminum per dose.  To put this in perspective, aluminum is also found in soy-based infant formula (0.46–0.93 mg/L) and milk-based infant formula (0.058–0.15 mg/L) which means an infant will consume more aluminum in a few days of drinking formula than it would receive from a typical vaccine.
Per CHOP, "During the first 6 months of life, infants could receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. That’s not very much: a milligram is one-thousandth of a gram and a gram is the weight of one-fifth of a teaspoon of water. During the same period, babies will also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk, about 40 milligrams in infant formula, or about 120 milligrams in soy-based formula.
Even more shocking, a common over the counter antacid has around 300-600 mg of aluminum hydroxide (approximately 104–208 mg of aluminum) per tablet, capsule, or 5 milliliter (mL) liquid dose! That means if you take a single tablet of a commonly available antacid, you are consuming as much as 245 times more aluminum than you would get out of a typical vaccine.

So why aren't antivaxxers out there protesting against antacids?  If you consider how much aluminum a typical adult human might consume in a 24 hour period as a result of some heartburn, it would seem to be the equivalent of hundreds and hundreds of vaccinations, yet antivaxxers fail to even mention it.  Why are these same antivaxxers not signing petitions to have soy-based infant formula removed from store shelves when it exposes infants to 30 times as much aluminum as vaccines within the child's first six months of life?  Could it be the antivaxxers are just slightly biased due to all of their previously failed attempts at pinning the root cause of autism on the vaccine industry?

The truth is, even if someone does ingest 2000 mg of aluminum in a single day, it will quickly leave their body via their feces and urine, which results in over half being flushed out of the body within 24 hours and over 70% of the aluminum being flushed out of the body within five days.  There have been some reports of long term complications surrounding high levels of aluminum exposure which I am certain many antivaxxers have latched on to, but unfortunately for them there have been long term complications from exposure to every element and chemical compound known to man.  As it turns out, the number one cause of drowning in humans is a result of too much exposure to H2O (commonly called "water"), yet I don't hear many people asking for the government to investigate Evian or Aquafina to see if they are killing people.  Go figure.

Sort of makes you wonder where the goalpost will move next doesn't it?


  1. All good, and I shall wander by here again, but just one small correction-- one of the things that anti-vaccinationists fail to pick up on is the fact that MMR never contained thimerosal. It's a live-virus vaccine (well, one component of it is), so it can't have thimerosal as a preservative. That would kill the weakened live virus.

    Which makes it all the more ironic -- in the US, it was all supposedly mercury, and yet the US ended up latching onto Wakefiled's MMR.

    1. You are absolutely correct Lynne and I have witnessed the claims about MMR and thimerosal being blended together so often that I actually (incorrectly) labeled the MMR vaccine as containing thimerosal myself.

      I've moved a few paragraphs around and made a slight correction to address this so I very much appreciate the feedback.

      I also agree that it is interesting how many in the US were blaming thimerosal while those in the UK were blaming MMR. Of course many antivaxxers latched onto both theories and soon we witnessed quite a bit of 'cross-pollination' of theories none of which were based upon scientific fact.

  2. Moving the goals posts? Hardly. The problem has always been toxicity. Your failure to understand that is nobody's problem but your own.

    1. I full acknowledge that some antivaxxers have now started to talk about toxicity, but that is likely due to how they have been shot down each time they have tried to focus upon one specific ingredient of vaccines.

      So when arguments against thimerosal didn't work, and when arguments against formaldehyde didn't pan out, and when arguments against aluminum appear to be non-starters, they backtrack and start saying it isn't about one ingredient, but rather about MANY ingredients.

      I get it... after having their theories destroyed time and time again it probably gets hard to go out on a limb again, so why not fall upon the old toxicity gambit?

      As an added bonus, when you claim that these harmful 'toxins' in vaccines are the real problem, you can turn around and sell detoxification treatments and water filters, and homeopathic remedies! In fact that is what they actually do - there are numerous "vaccine detoxification" treatments for sale at this very moment with zero documentation to support they do anything other than lighten the purchaser's wallet.

      Wouldn't it be neat if antivaxers actually let the science determine what is toxic rather than relying upon opinion and blanket statements? Maybe in another world.

    2. There's not a single chemical in ANY vaccine which is toxic at the amounts present.

  3. They don't just move the goalposts, they move the stadium!

    1. That is so true, and after they move the stadium and build a shopping center where it used to be, they will have the audacity to look you straight in the eye and claim there was never a stadium in the first place.

  4. Hello! I love being able to cite my sources, and I'm confident you're qualified to talk about this topic, so I would love to know - what qualifications do you have? And do you have any more linkable sources for the statement regarding how even 2000mg of aluminum would quickly be flushed out of your body?

    1. Well Jon, I don't tend to talk about myself on this site which includes my qualifications, job history, current employer, or education other than providing vague ststements. It isn't that I like to avoid the subject but I have had some interesting "fans" so I'd prefer to keep it that way.

      As to linkable sources, I'm sure you understand I wrote this blog post over 18 months ago so I'm not going to be able to provide you with detailed sources from memory. What I can say is that if spend some time researching how aluminum is excreted from the body you will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion as I have.

  5. I know an,anti-vaxer myself. Not only is he anti vaccine but he's also anti toothpaste because it has fluoride in it which he says is toxic. Yes, in HUGE amounts it is. He's also anti GMO & only cooks macrobiotic. What he doesn't realize is he grew up eating GMO foods himself. Without GMO foods the people on this planet would have starved long ago. Genetically modifying a plant doesn't change the basic structure of the plant or its nutrients, it keeps it from attracting pests that would kill it otherwise. Evan the organic industry is a crock seeing as they use what they call "organic pesticides" which turn out to be the same pesticides used by non-organic farmers. So all that happens is you wind up paying more just for the organic label. The only way to grow truly organic is to use no pesticides at all, but doing that would lead to massive crop failure & again starvation on a global scale. It's time to stop listening to the kooks out there & think for ourselves. Some of these antivaxers are just crazy! One of their kids contracts the measles or chicken pox & what do they do? They hold a party for all the other antivaxer kids to expose them. What will they do when one of their kids dies from being exposed? They'll find some way to blame it on someone or,something else.


All comments are moderated and comments from obvious sockpuppet accounts as well as spam accounts that do not add anything of value to the discussion will not be published.