It is excreted by the kidneys, but according to the studies I looked at, for aluminum that gets in the blood some of it gets into bone and brain and other places where some portion stays there for years.
Point being that for a given amount of aluminum, many orders of magnitude more of it is still in the body years later if it was injected as compared with ingested.
I'm not saying this is harmful necessarily, but it is not something I would simply dismiss.
Although aluminum at high doses can cause a variety of clinical manifestations, the quantity of aluminum in vaccines is too small to cause a direct toxic effect. Indeed, the quantity of aluminum in biological specimens from those receiving aluminum-containing vaccines is indistinguishable from unvaccinated subjects. The concern that aluminum in vaccines might be associated with a rare autoimmune disease called macrophagic myofasciitis has been refuted by previous studies.
> I'm not saying this is harmful necessarily, but it is not something I would simply dismiss.
I don't know, I feel like we actually should generally dismiss the idea of things as harmful when there are no studies that demonstrate harm but there are studies showing a lack of harm. If the facts change, so should our assessment. But not before.
Really the debate about could something be harmful is missing the point, and likely intentional misdirection by certain actors. Many things could be proven to be harmful in the future. But bad actors aren't asking that we just keep our minds open to the possibility of that future discovery, they're demanding we make policy decisions now based on that potential outcome.
If we're going to ban vaccines with aluminum, it should be because we have scientific proof that it's bad or very likely to be bad, not just that the possibility exists that it could be bad and that badness might be demonstrated at some point in the future.
"I don't know, I feel like we actually should generally dismiss the idea of things as harmful when there are no studies that demonstrate harm but there are studies showing a lack of harm"
So if company X creates compound Y and they get some studies published showing that Y is safe, then everyone else should assume it's safe and no one should look further at it?
There have been many cases of drugs being created, with studies showing safety, then later shown to be dangerous after killing people - let alone causing mild or subtle harm, and banned.
I don't think we should ban aluminum now. I also think the question of possible harm from aluminum is not settled and we shouldn't ban discussion of it. And I hope that because aluminum is a neurotoxin and can persist in the body, that research continues to be done to hopefully one day find ways to make vaccines not need aluminum, similar to how vaccines have been moving away from using mercury as the adjuvant.
Meanwhile, the argument is made that the benefit of aluminum adjuvant outweighs any potential cost and that's fine. I also would like it if they did a placebo controlled study of vaccines with aluminum vs no vaccine.
I don't think the Danish study in this article should be retracted. I'd also appreciate if they revised it to address the flaws that have been pointed out.
Point being that for a given amount of aluminum, many orders of magnitude more of it is still in the body years later if it was injected as compared with ingested.
I'm not saying this is harmful necessarily, but it is not something I would simply dismiss.