However, this paper in Pediatric Nephrology says that the average infant on formula absorbs .0008 mg Al per kg of body weight per day (the breast-fed infant receives significantly less - on the order of 1/10).
In month 2, when the average 5.5 kg infant receives .975mg of Al from vaccines, they are getting 0.1772mg Al per kg. This is about 200 times the average daily Al absorbed by the formula-fed infants?
The blog post goes on to say:
Let’s put that in perspective: one teaspoon (5 ml) of Maalox liquid, regular strength, has 200 mg aluminum hydroxide (it’s one of the active ingredients!).
But, if you read the article in Pediatric Nephrology, you see:
Only those who cared for children in the late 1970s during liberal use of aluminum-containing antacids and citrate can appreciate the horror of helplessly watching previously normal children die of severe encephalopathy over months to years.
Most of these cases of Al poisoning were kids who had renal insufficiency but Sedman goes on:
I recommend that no child, with or without renal failure, receive aluminum-containing antacids. The Food and Drug Administration should regulate parenteral fluids so that patients receive a total dose comparable to normal environmental exposure.
I looked into this a couple of years ago and put my findings down here. Are there flaws in my calculations or is the claim that vaccines expose a child to "less aluminum than breast milk" just flat wrong? Or, is it just kinda' a slick misleading headline where, yes, breast milk over a year contains more Al than the vaccine schedule ... but this is not Al that is absorbed.
Edit: I come up with about 1mg total Al absorbed in the first 6 months by the formula-fed infant:
.0008mg/kg/day * 7kg * 185days = 1.036mg
Which is roughly 1/4 of what is taken into the blood from vaccinations in the first 6 months. If a breast-fed infant receives 1/10th the Al of the formula-fed infant, this is 1/40 the Al from the vaccine schedule, 1/100th of what is reported by the blog post in question.