I came across a direct measurement of the impact of parenteral aluminum on developing humans– in the experiment, 1.85 kg preemies. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203
Hospitals give intravenous feeding to preemies, and there was a little residual aluminum in it, so the authors decided to test if reducing the aluminum in the intravenous solution would lead to better results on a mental development index tested at 18 months. If you look at table 1, you can see that a less than 1.85 kg preemie got about 75mcg= 1.85kg*40 mcg/kg more aluminum per day on the normal aluminum than the low aluminum. And it cost him per day about 1 point on the mental development scale at 18 months, which seems projectable to 1 IQ point when he grows up, although it might be they will recover later. It also might be the impact on development will continue and get worse, there’s no obvious reason to believe one over the other. Their bone structure is also still apparently damaged at 15 years old. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19858156
Let’s estimate what damage the vaccines are doing under the assumption suggested by this data that 40mcg/kg of injected aluminum early in life costs you an IQ point on average. (and some bone density, and maybe other things.)
The Hep B vaccine which administered at birth, and at 1 month, and at 6 months has 250mcg of aluminum, and according to the CHOP guide reassuring parents on aluminum there’s 4000 mcg in the whole series before 6 months. http://www.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/aluminum.pdf
The average infant birth weight is 3.5kg and the average 6 month old is 7.5 kg. The single Hep B at birth is about 70 mcg/kg by itself, which might translate into almost 2 IQ points. The whole series is something in the vicinity of 600 mcg/kg which might translate into something like 15 IQ points. Maybe the aluminum isn’t as damaging at birth as a few weeks early, or at 6 months, but maybe it is. There’s still plenty of brain development going on.
Of course we’ve covered before the mouse experiments reporting injecting the aluminum in the US vaccine series made mice behaviorally damaged and obese, 50% heavier as adults,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013413001773
and reporting association between hep B and learning problems and autism http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
and reporting that an increase of 1% in vaccine compliance correlated with 670 additional SLI and ASD cases.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535
There are also papers like this linking vaccine aluminum and autism.
There have been recent estimates and a fair amount of evidence that people are stupider than they were in Victorian Times by about 15 IQ points (for example http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470 ), and SAT scores fell dramatically during the 1970’s, there were 40% fewer verbal scores over 650 in 1980 as 1970 in spite of the fact many more people took the test, (and they have been renormed ever since so its hard to tell what’s happening) so some substantial IQ fall due to aluminum doesn’t seem implausible on its face. There’s also the “Flynn Effect”, whereby IQ’s had been reported to be rising by 3 IQ points per decade, perhaps due to better nutrition and environmental stimulation, which also has been said to have reversed recently in the developed world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect A vaccine decline could be obscured by a Flynn effect, or could be what cancelled it. Also the average IQ today would have to include as never before the ASD who comprise maybe 2% of the infants now and who are down maybe 30 points in IQ on average. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21272389
The recent and dramatic debacle the US millenials had in world testing
may also be a symptom. The US has by far the most exensive vax schedule and the countries at the top of the lists all have much shorter schedules. Examining the rankings further, Italy and France were the only 2 countries in Europe to be vaxing infants for Hep B well before 1995, and some regions in Spain were as well, http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=201 and these nations round out the bottom of the chart with the US. South Korea (which did fairly well) seems to have only added Hep B to the official series in 1995 (too late to have had impact on most of the millenials taking this test). Japan and the other nations near the top either don’t give it routinely, as far as I can tell, or started recently.
I expect most of my readers recognize that Hep B is a sexually transmitted disease, and that by the time these infants are sexually active protection they get from this vaccine is likely to long be history. The measurement of aluminum toxicity discussed at the beginning was published way back in 1997. So you should ask yourself why almost two decades later Doctors are still injecting neonates with Hep B shots while their mothers are birthing the placenta. (A mother told me that literally happened to her infant.)
As always I’ll remark that I’m utterly unaware of published empirical data contradicting the above assertions and suggesting that vaccine aluminum might be safe, and I urge any readers who discover any such beast to post a link in the comments.
Note added: Readers might be interested in what the FDA says on the subject http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm which is to cite Mitkus et al.
As I already discussed in the first post of the blog, Mitkus et al is a model, not reporting any empirical results, and not informed in any way about the toxicity of injected aluminum in neonates. Mitkus modeled the blood aluminum levels of infants and compared the model to an MRL derived from dietary experiments on post weaning animals. Their model agreed that infants have hundreds of times as much aluminum enter their blood from vaccines as from diet (see their graphs). The paper represents a theory of how the vaccine series aluminum might be safe if aluminum had the same toxicity when injected in neonates as when ingested by adults.
Why does the FDA look at a model of the toxicity of dietary aluminum in animals, when what is needed is a measurement of the toxicity of injected aluminum in neo-nates, and Bishop et al, as discussed at the top of this post, provided exactly that?