First I repeat:
Look past the Internet twaddle and ask yourself: why do all our professional medical bodies support, vaccination programmes?, forget all, why does the AMA?
" I challenge you to find one study on the effects of aluminium (adult quantities administered to babies)"
That is a nonsensical question. Phrase it in sensible terms i.e: dosage levels with body weight/age, also include natural occuring exposure. What exactly does this mean: "adult quantities administered to babies" ?
As you obviously do not research, or are adverse to accepted clinical studies, here is the latest study I could find apropos "the effects of aluminum"
Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
Or an earlier study: Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12184359
Even: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. Toxicological profile for Aluminum.
"Find one study on the health of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated, you wont find one of them either because it's "unethical"
"Find one study on the health of children using/not using car seats !
EVERY vaccination programme is in itself a health study, with results that are self evident, to those with open minds. The change in rates of disease before and after vaccination programmes are compared, or rates of disease between areas/countries that have/do not have vaccination programmes, all are ongoing studies/comparisons.
Smallpox is an acute contagious disease caused by the variola virus, a member of the orthopoxvirus family. It was one of the world's most devastating diseases known to humanity. It was declared eradicated in 1980 following a global immunization campaign led by the World Health Organization.
SHW, the studies you (do not) seek are available, but I find it a waste of my time researching your questions based upon Internet myth and your lack of clinical knowledge.
However, I will post some more information soon apropos your desire for "one study" on the effects of aluminium
""adult quantities administered to babies" ? You know perfectly well what this means. There is more aluminuim administered in this new schedule per dose than what is considered a safe amount for adults..."
That is absolute nonsense
In assessing a scientific paper , which you have stated does not exist, one does not trawl through it and extract paragraphs out of context, then in your selected critique of a widely accepted/quoted study you inject at the end some comments from a known anti vaccination nut site: askdrsears.com, with no mention of that fact.
Forbes
Dr. Bob Sears once wrote a non-evidence-based book about vaccines,
The very least one does when quoting a peer reviewed scientific paper is to provide the conclusion and I suggest the opening synopsis. I also suggest when inserting non scientific or never peer reviewed statements to support a biased opinion, it is normal to mention the source, rather than slip it in under a different accepted title.
However, as you have chosen to mention the study, which you asserted did not exist allow me to present a synopsis of it and then its SCIENTIFIC conclusion:
Aluminum is a ubiquitous element that is released naturally into the environment via volcanic activity
and the breakdown of rocks on the earth’s surface. Exposure of the general population to aluminum occurs
primarily through the consumption of food, antacids, and buffered analgesics. Exposure to aluminum in
the general population can also occur through vaccination, since vaccines often contain aluminum salts
(frequently aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate) as adjuvants. Because concerns have been
expressed by the public that aluminum in vaccines may pose a risk to infants, we developed an up-to-date
analysis of the safety of aluminum adjuvants. Keith et al. [1] previously analyzed the pharmacokinetics
of aluminum for infant dietary and vaccine exposures and compared the resulting body burdens to those
based on the minimal risk levels (MRLs) established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. We updated the analysis of Keith et al. [1] with a current pediatric vaccination schedule [2];
baseline aluminum levels at birth; an aluminum retention function that reflects changing glomerular
filtration rates in infants; an adjustment for the kinetics of aluminum efflux at the site of injection;
contemporaneous MRLs; and the most recent infant body weight data for children 0–60 months of age
[3]. Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and
diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden
of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that
contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using
vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.
Conclusions
Using the previous work of Keith et al. [1] as our starting
point, we re-evaluated aluminum levels in infants using a
number of updated parameters, including a current pediatric vaccination
schedule, baseline aluminum levels at birth, a recent
aluminum retention function from human volunteers that incorporates
glomerular filtration rates in infants, an adjustment for the
kinetics of aluminum efflux at the site of injection, the most recent
MRL for aluminum, and up-to-date infant body weight data for
children 0–60 months of age. Assuming slow release of aluminum
adjuvant from the site of injection into the systemic circulation,
we have demonstrated that aluminum levels in infants are well
below the minimal risk level curves for either median or low-birth
weight babies. We also compared the body burden of aluminum
contributed by vaccines with that contributed by diet. The body
burden of aluminum from vaccines is not more than 2-fold higher
than that received in the diet. While the contribution of vaccines to
an infant’s aluminum body burden can be slightly higher than that
of the dietary contribution in our model, the fact that the primary
pool where the aluminum is residing, as a long-term storage depot,
is likely to be skeletal and not a more sensitive soft organ system is
reassuring [5]. Although aluminum toxicosis is known to occur in
humans, it is found exclusively in individuals suffering from kidney
disease or in those exposed to high levels of aluminum via occupational
inhalation.
However, for infants, our study demonstrates
that there is little risk for aluminum toxicity following immunizations
administered according to ACIP recommendations even
with maximal exposures to aluminum adjuvant. For the general
population of infants, who receive less than the maximal dose, the
risk is even lower.
I would point out that the report uses phraseology that is expected in the Scientific Method e.g ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved
As I doubt many will bother reading the above from a peer reviewed clinical study (sans Dr Bob additions) I will sum up yet again with:
Look past the Internet twaddle and ask yourself SHW: why do all the world's professional medical bodies support vaccination programmes?, forget all, why even does our AMA?
