Tell me more ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This blog post claims that vaccines have less Aluminum than breast milk.

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.

share|improve this question
Your first link compares vaccines and breast milk, and then you go on to talk about the amount of Aluminium in formula. Which is it that you want to compare with vaccines? You should explicitly ask about both, or pick just the one. – jozzas Aug 17 '12 at 3:05
1  
Whatever the calculations about the amount of aluminium (aluminum for US readers), you also have to take into account the chemistry of the compounds: some are essentially completely inert and will simply pass through the body (eg the hydroxide in antacids). – matt_black Aug 17 '12 at 9:54
@jozzas well, everyone agrees that formula has more than breast milk, I think. So, if there is not more Al in formula, there will certainly not be more Al in breast milk. – Skylar Saveland Aug 17 '12 at 13:47
@SkylarSaveland-- [citation needed]. Who agrees that there is more in formula than breast milk? And as matt_black pointed out, which forms of aluminum? – mmr Aug 17 '12 at 13:58
@mmr added citation with comparison of Al in breast milk/formula. I think the forms of Al question is basically the crux here - most of the Al in breast milk (or Al taken orally in general) will not enter the blood stream. – Skylar Saveland Aug 17 '12 at 14:35
show 4 more comments

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook.

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.