By Alison Campbell 08/11/2017 2


There’s an oft-repeated claim by the more strident anti-vaxxers that ingesting and injecting are two different things when it comes to substances like aluminium.

This betrays a disturbing lack of knowledge of biology and physiology (especially from those who boast of ‘having done their research’), but they repeat it nonetheless. (Red’s self-belief is mildly amusing.)

 

aluminium ingestion

 

The aluminium present in vaccines (as an adjuvant; see later) enters the interstitial fluid (the fluid that bathes all cells) & eventually the bloodstream. However, what Red is completely unwilling to accept, despite a large amount of evidence to the contrary, is that the same thing happens to aluminium contained in food and drink. I did try.

 

 

There’s been quite a lot of research on this, as it happens (and as another commenter, Paul, pointed out at length. For his pains he was blocked by another antivaxxer; as she’d started that particular thread, her action made it invisible to Paul. I guess she just couldn’t stand being presented with material that consistently refuted her stance, but it does say something – actually, it says a lot! – about her willingness to consider all available evidence.)

Both food and drink contain low levels of aluminium, as does the air we breathe (allbeit in tiny amounts). This is partly the result of aluminium being so plentiful, and widely distributed, in the earth’s crust, and partly because it’s added to a range of foodstuffs. It’s also released into the air by coal-fired power plants. The CDC states that in the US, an average adult daily intake is 7-9mg of aluminium – but the great majority of that is rapidly elininated in faeces and urine, and perhaps also across the skin. So, if Red wants to completely avoid her children avoiding ingestion of aluminium, she’ll have to put them on a very restricted diet.

Of course, to leave via urine the aluminium must first enter the bloodstream. It crosses the gut wall by moving either through cells (‘transcellular’) or between them (‘paracellular’), and thence across capillary walls into the blood. At which point, that ingested Al is in exactly the same place as the injected Al – which as this author makes clear, is “dissolved in the interstitial fluid, absorbed into the blood, distributed to tissues, and eliminated in the urine” – only there’s much more from the ingestion route, compared to injection.

And then it mostly leaves the body, rather rapidly. For injected aluminium, the great majority is eliminated from the body within just a few days post-injection. However, all this is something that Red & her associates are completely unwilling to accept.

Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for my $shill-bucks to arrive…

Actually, I’m also still waiting for a citation to support the claim that “vaccinated kids have so much brain damage”. I guess that’ll be a while in coming.


2 Responses to “Another antivax myth (ingestion vs injection)”

  • “$schill-bucks”

    I like that!

    Don’t hold your breath for them! After more than thirty years of being labelled a “Pharma-shill”, I’ve still to see my first pharma derived cent, 🤗

  • Thanks that was a really digestible way to explain something that continuously needs explaining!! 🙂
    Especially like the antacid example