Remember a lifetime ago when we figured out that not only did the US Childhood vaccine schedule dramatically exceeded the Federal government's recommended daily limit for mercury, but that the limit that they had set was likely many times what it should have been in the first place? For those of you who are new to the issue, a review of the matter from my chapter in Vaccine Epidemic:
"In July of 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) issued a joint statement through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on mercury and vaccines. They stated that in the U.S. vaccine program at the time, “some children could be exposed to a cumulative level of mercury over the first six months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines.”
The truth was that the amount of mercury in the childhood vaccine schedule grossly exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum daily adult exposure for methylmercury, the form of mercury most closely related to thimerosal for which the government had established a guideline. The EPA sets the daily limit at 0.1 microgram per kilogram of weight. Based on that guideline, a baby weighing approximately five kilograms (eleven pounds) at two months of age should not receive more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury on the day of a doctor’s visit. At the time the AAP and USPHS joint statement was issued, infants at their two-month visit routinely received 62.5 micrograms of mercury, or 125 times the EPA’s limit. Studies have suggested that, for thimerosal (ethylmercury), “the accepted reference dose should be lowered to between 0.025 and 0.06 micrograms per kilogram per day,” meaning that the exposure at the two-month visit could be as high as 500—rather than 125—times the safe level."
In fact in 1995, Gilbert and Grant-Webster had recommended that the limit be at least cut in half.
Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Methylmercury Exposure
Environmental Health Perspectives 103 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):135-42 · October 1995 with 60 Reads
Steven G Gilbert
34.22University of Washington Seattle
Kimberly S. Grant-Webster
Methylmercury (MeHg) is a global environmental problem and is listed by the International Program of Chemical Safety as one of the six most dangerous chemicals in the world's environment. Human exposure to MeHg primarily occurs through the consumption of contaminated food such as fish, although catastrophic exposures due to industrial pollution have occurred. The fetus is particularly sensitive to MeHg exposure and adverse effects on infant development have been associated with levels of exposure that result in few, if any, signs of maternal clinical illness or toxicity. High levels of prenatal exposure in humans result in neurobehavioral effects such as cerebral palsy and severe mental retardation. Prenatal exposure to MeHg in communities with chronic low-level exposure is related to decreased birthweight and early sensorimotor dysfunction such as delayed onset of walking. Neurobehavioral alterations have also been documented in studies with nonhuman primates and rodents. Available information on the developmental neurotoxic effects of MeHg, particularly the neurobehavioral effects, indicates that the fetus and infant are more sensitive to adverse effects of MeHg. It is therefore recommended that pregnant women and women of childbearing age be strongly advised to limit their exposure to potential sources of MeHg. Based on results from human and animal studies on the developmental neurotoxic effects of methylmercury, the accepted reference dose should be lowered to 0.025 to 0.06 MeHg microgram/kg/day. Continued research on the neurotoxic effects associated with low level developmental exposure is needed.
HHS never undertook any review, or made any adjustments.
Well everything old is new again. Drs. Lyons-Weiler and Ricketson have reviewed the dosing of aluminum in the US vaccine program, to find that not only is there a lot of it, and not only does it exceed daily limits, but yet again, the daily limits are not based on sound safety data.
Reconsideration of the immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum
Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology Toxicology
Volume 48, July 2018, Pages 67-73
Authors James Lyons-Weiler, Robert Ricketson
• Aluminum levels in vaccine is based on immune efficacy and ignore body weight for safety.
• Several critical mistakes have been made in the consideration of pediatric dosing of aluminum in vaccines.
• Safety inferences of vaccine doses of aluminum have relied solely on dietary exposure studies of adult mice and rats.
• On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.
• Revised MRL calculation based weights are provided, but are also based on derived speculation, not on safety data.
FDA regulations require safety testing of constituent ingredients in drugs (21 CFR 610.15). With the exception of extraneous proteins, no component safety testing is required for vaccines or vaccine schedules. The dosing of aluminum in vaccines is based on the production of antibody titers, not safety science. Here we estimate a Pediatric Dose Limit that considers body weight. We identify several serious historical missteps in past analyses of provisional safe levels of aluminum in vaccines, and provide updates relevant to infant aluminum exposure in the pediatric schedule considering pediatric body weight. When aluminum doses are estimated from Federal Regulatory Code given body weight, exposure from the current vaccine schedule are found to exceed our estimate of a weight-corrected Pediatric Dose Limit. Our calculations show that the levels of aluminum suggested by the currently used limits place infants at risk of acute, repeated, and possibly chronic exposures of toxic levels of aluminum in modern vaccine schedules. Individual adult exposures are on par with Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake “limits”, but some individuals may be aluminum intolerant due to genetics or previous exposures. Vaccination in neonates and low birth-weight infants must be re-assessed; other implications for the use of aluminum-containing vaccines, and additional limitations in our understanding of neurotoxicity and safety levels of aluminum in biologics are discussed.
Dr. Lyons-Weiler also simultaneously published an open letter to the FDA with further analysis showing that the basis of the use of aluminum is vaccines is unsound. Some highlights include that HHS cherry-picked ONE study, and that they misinterpreted the evidence of toxicity they did cite.
This, of course, should be the moment that HHS learns from it's past mistakes, undertakes a review and makes adjustments.
Well this time, there has been a reaction.
Last week, Paul Offit called Lyons-Weiler on behalf of the ACIP and asked he and his co-author present at the next ACIP meeting and offer recommendations so that a design for a review of aluminum adjuvants can be informed by by their findings, and the proper adjustments can be made.
No of course that did not happen. Don't be absurd. The ACIP does not care if aluminum poisoning is causing an epidemic of autoimmune and neurological disorders. This is how much they care about AL adjuvant toxicity:
I believe one committee member was heard muttering under his breath... "take as many vaccines adjuvented with aluminum as you want... my pay check cashes either way! HA!"
But seriously folks... there actually was a reaction to the paper, The FDA took down its page claiming that "The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low." That was their claim, last updated on February 6th of this year.
Here is where the page was:
Here is what the page used to say:
Too bad, as it would have been the right page to announce a review of Aluminum in vaccines. I guess they are not planning on doing one of those.
Just to put a fine point on the fact that they didn't care in 1999, and they don't care in 2018, they are still using basically the same assertion with the same language. Back then, they held the position that the mercury exposure was worth the "unknown risks," because the risks of not vaccinating was too high. Now they hold the position that aluminum exposure is worth any "theoretical concerns" because the risks of not vaccinating is too high.
1999: "Given that the risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and much smaller risk, if any, of exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first six months of life, clinicians and parents are encouraged to immunize all infants even if the choice of individual vaccine products is limited for any reason."
2018: "This study is important because it provides additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants."
In both cases, they admit that they don't know the risks of vaccinating with vaccines full of metal, describing them as "unknown" and "theoretical." but claim to know that the risks of not vaccinating is higher than the unknown "X."
Because in government math, no matter the value of "X" it will always be declared to be lower than "NV." No matter what the actual value of "NV" or "X" are.
In fact they work very hard to assure that the actual values for X and NV are never known. Because the general public learned what < and > means in elementary school, and that math is not hard.