RENOWNED RESEARCHERS SHOW THAT PREVIOUS SAFETY STUDIES ON ALUMINUM VACCINE ADJUVANTS WERE BOGUS
Only two short months ago, the journal Vaccine Adjuvants (Overview of Vaccine Adjuvants: Introduction, History, and Current Status) revealed that, “Adjuvants such as alum have been in use for the past 90 years.” What the heck is alum? Although it has numerous purposes, it’s chemical formula is aluminum potassium sulfate. And while alum is no longer used as a vaccine adjuvant, other forms of the metal are. I bring this up because a group of five of the world’s top experts in the field of aluminum toxicology did a study that was just accepted to be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry (Critical Analysis of Reference Studies on the Toxicokinetics of Aluminum-Based Adjuvants). The gist of their paper is that the three (3) studies historically used to “prove” that ALUMINUM is a safe adjuvant are seriously flawed and blatantly inaccurate.
Before I go any further, realize that all five of the authors (Jean-Daniel Masson, Guillemette Crépeauxa, François-Jérôme Authiera, CHRISTOPHER EXLEY, and Romain K. Gherardi) are all Ph.D researchers who are considered tops in their field. They are also widely held up by many of their brethren as “ANTIVAXXERS” because they don’t toe the traditional line — that aluminum adjuvants are safe and were “proven” so decades ago. It’s important for you to realize by taking this stance they are not going to earn brownie points with BIG PHARMA or the universities it supports and funds. In fact, taking unpopular stances like this actually has the potential to severely reduce their career opportunities (ask HUGH FUDENBERG or NICK BRAGAZZI about that one). Now, back to adjuvants.
A section title (Rational Receptor-Driven Adjuvants that Activate the Innate Immune System: 1990s-Present) of a chapter (Development of Vaccine Adjuvants: A Historical Perspective) of a 2006 book written by a pair of pharmacology researchers (Vaccine Adjuvants and Delivery Systems) clearly explains what adjuvants are and what they are for. Like I stated earlier, the immune system must be “activated” by something other than germs in order to create a response strong enough to create effective immunity. Because INFLAMMATION is itself an immune system response, all adjuvants are predicated on the fact that they purposefully create inflammation. Thus, the resultant immune system reaction with adjuvants is much (MUCH) stronger that it would otherwise be using germs alone. But there’s a problem.
While it might sound great to “boost” immune system response (people are always talking about “boosting” their immune system with this or that), it’s critical to understand that any amount of immune response over and above normal is detrimental — highly detrimental and potentially deadly. Part of your immune system response (cells called TREGS or T-Regulatory Cells) actually keeps the brakes on your immune system so that it does not get carried away and start attacking self. When your body begins attacking self we call this autoimmunity and as you might have guessed, is never a good thing (for a list of some of the more common autoimmune diseases, you can look at THIS POST). Part of the problem is due to the fact that once your body starts to attack one part of itself, it has a much greater probability of attacking other parts of itself, which is why I’ve told you before that autoimmune diseases are kind of like Lays potato chips — you can’t get just one. I’ve also shown you how they tend to travel in packs like wolves.
ALUMINUM VACCINE ADJUVANTS
ARE THEY AS SAFE AS WE’VE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE?
Allow me to clear the air by reiterating that these guys cannot in any way be considered to be of the anti-vaccination crowd. “The maintenance of good vaccination coverage, i.e. a high rate of vaccinated persons in the population, is necessary to avoid the resurgence of other infectious diseases, with a double benefit, both individually and collectively, by reducing the number of people who can transmit infectious diseases.” While I might argue certain points of their statment (HERE), that’s a topic for another day. The authors go on to say that the public has grown increasingly suspicious of vaccines and the governmental agencies promoting them, and that this growth has to a large degree coincided with the exponential increase of the number of vaccines on the recommended government schedule, a schedule with no end in site (HERE). In essence, they make the case that there is too much money wrapped up in vaccines to change the program in any meaningful way other than mandating more of them.
The authors go on to admit that, “A key question in the debate on vaccine safety concerns the adjuvants, compounds essential for strong and lasting immunization. The controversy focuses on the aluminum salts which were empirically introduced to vaccines in 1926… The exact degree of safety of aluminum-containing vaccines has remained the subject of persistent disagreement…. The debate can be enlightened only by establishing the existence or not of an unequivocal biological plausibility of a causal link.” And this, my friends, is the crux of the debate. One side saying that that aluminum adjuvants are safe, and the other saying they aren’t. Who’s right? Let’s see what the authors have to say about this as they start to pick apart the three studies.
“To date, aluminum adjuvants per se have, perhaps surprisingly, not been the subject of any official experimental investigation, and this being in spite of the well-established neurotoxicity of aluminum. The WHO also notes: ‘Adjuvant safety is an important and neglected field.'”
This reminds me of the senator from Iowa (Dan Burton) who was shocked at the Senate Hearing on MERCURY in vaccines a number of years ago, when government physicians were forced to admit that there had never been a study on it — even though it had been widely used for the better part of a century. This is certainly interesting in light of the fact that no one really knows how either of the two forms of aluminum adjuvant (aluminum oxyhydroxide or aluminum phosphate) work. What they do know is that it, “potentiates the production of antibodies“. In other words, aluminum ratchets up the immune system. As far as the body’s ability to clear this known neurotoxin; the authors explained that in one of the studies they looked at, over half of the aluminum was gone within 15 minutes, with about 4% remaining three years after the exposure. This might not seem like such a big deal except for the fact that there are so many more exposures in the government-recommended vaccine schedule than there were just a decade ago, let alone when we were kids. But as you’ll quickly see, even these results are deceptive. How?
Nano-particalized aluminum adjuvant that is injected into muscles has never been tested. The authors revealed that the aluminum clearance testing was done with aluminum citrate and that, “the dynamics of Al adjuvants have very little relevance to any ‘normal’ exposure to Al in everyday life, and injection of Al citrate into the blood doesn’t really tell you much at all about normal chronic exposure to Al via any route and including vaccination.” Notice the word “chronic” when talking about exposure. What this means is that the effects of aluminum grow over time. In other words it’s progressively damaging, with every shot building up a crescendo of aluminum that your body simply cannot clear. It sort of reminds me of the studies on NSAIDS and TYLENOL done at Johns Hopkins back in 1994 (HERE) — the damage was accumulative, with adverse events occurring in exponential fashion as time and the number of exposures increased. But all of this may be moot thanks to a study on rabbits.
“There is a strong difference in urinary excretion of Al between the two adjuvants. At 28 days after the injections, 22% of the Al originating from the phosphate adjuvant was eliminated in the urine, with substantial differences between the two studied rabbits (10-33%). At the same time, only 5.6% of the Al originating from the hydroxide adjuvant was eliminated in the urine. The retention level of more than 94% at 28 days observed for Al hydroxide is consistent with its expected low solubilization rate.”
In other words, if the aluminum is not soluble, the body is going to have a tougher time running it through its detox processes, which are otherwise known in the scientific community as “BIOTRANSFORMATION“. And although these authors don’t dwell on it, how in the world can your body convert toxic substances to inert substances and then move / excrete them out of the body without the proper biochemical co-factors (nutrition) — something that few of today’s children are receiving? Compared to even twenty years ago (much less 50 or 60 years ago), children have much worse diets, but far more vaccine exposures. Couple this with the fact that I have shown you that according to literally hundreds of studies, side effects (aka “Adverse Events”) are only reported at most about 10% of the time, and usually closer to 1% — HERE. You can actually see the tsunami approaching the shoreline (HERE)! What’s interesting is the way that this national disaster has been so effectively covered up. Fortunately, the internet has made this increasingly difficult.
Other studies — commonly-cited studies — love to tout their data showing how well the body clears aluminum. The problem is, in many cases the aluminum cleared was via oral exposure and not the nano-sized particles found in so many common vaccines. The truth is, there are so many ways that data can be misinterpreted — either accidentally or purposefully (HERE) — it can make your head swim.
“The glorious history of vaccines was largely built on an empirical basis during the last century. This was the case for the first-generation aluminum-based adjuvants… since their introduction in 1926. These adjuvants are still intended to be administered to billions of individuals over the next years, because of a massive expansion of vaccine prevention strategies announced worldwide. In this context, given their serious conceptual and methodological weaknesses, the 3 available toxico-kinetic studies objectively constitute insufficient bases to guarantee the absolute safety of aluminum adjuvants administered at very large scale, in particular over the long term.”
With a bibliography of nearly 100 studies, the five experts sum up their review by giving us five points to ponder. These authors (again, not antivaxxers) feel that the contents of this study — what essentially amounts to a cover-up on a grand scale rather than a series of honest mistakes — have left the scientific community open to “anti-vaccination propaganda“. I would contend that things hit critical mass long ago, as increasing numbers of citizens began to realize that big pharma, big government, and big research (our university research system) were colluding for the express purpose of profit. At best they were misrepresenting the facts, and at worst they were lying.
- “The sole experimental study of Al adjuvant kinetics had inappropriate design.” The previous link gives you the proof that if you know how to set up your research in the right way, you can prove almost anything. The moon really is made of green cheese, isn’t it?
- “Quick AlOOH removal is commonly assumed despite 94% retention 28 days after injection.” Scary stat. Nuff said.
- “Theoretical toxicokinetic studies in infants used debatable safety limits.” The safety limits were “fixed” by the FDA and not based on safety, but on how much aluminum it took to create “a good adjuvant effect at this concentration — 85 mg of aluminum per dose of vaccine.”
- “No study considered the potential toxicity Al remaining in the particulate form.” Just remember that aluminum that is found in food and in most cases the aluminum that was tested in these studies, is not the same form of aluminum as that found in vaccines. And if it was, it was administered differently. You should read the study to see the dozens of ways that this simple fact is being exploited. This is especially important because if you follow this debate you will repeatedly hear pro-aluminum scientists saying that people get less aluminum from vaccines than from food. Different form of aluminum, different route of ingestion.
- “Novel long-term experiments are mandatory to define Al adjuvant toxicokinetics.” While the authors are certainly correct in their fifth point, who’s going to do these studies? They certainly cannot be done by BIG PHARMA, who has proved time and time and time again that they can’t be trusted when there is this much money and market share at stake (HERE). In fact, I would argue that we currently have an experiment of sorts taking place right now on a massive scale. In many ways, we, the American public are the GUINEA PIGS. Just realize that half of all studies started are never finished once the people paying for the research see that it’s not turning out the way they hoped it would (HERE). And of the other half — less than half have results that are reproducible (HERE).
Never forget that despite their MEDIA HYPE TO THE CONTRARY, Big Pharma does not love or care about you. They see you as a walking, breathing, dollar sign — a commodity that if they play their cards right, will make them money from cradle to grave. In other words, you are worth far more to them alive than dead, but unhealthy instead of healthy —- something they have brilliantly orchestrated right under our very noses (HERE).
If you or someone you love has been screwed up by vaccines, there are people out there who can probably help. For instance, three hours away in St Louis is DR. AMY DAVIS (MD). And honestly, my site has some great general advice that may be able to save some of you from needing to seek out a specialist in functional medicine (HERE). Bottom line, if you are in this boat, you’re going to have to be willing to step out of the box and deal with your diet and crappy GUT HEALTH (no pun intended). For more on our clinic’s general protocol, HERE is the page. As always, make sure to talk to your doctor before doing anything that might actually improve your health.