The deaths of healthy children taken for routine immunisation are not acceptable.
David Kirby's New Book: When They Come for You

New Paper Challenges HHS on their Vaccine Aluminum Dosing Safety Numbers

AluminumBy Ginger Taylor

Remember a lifetime ago when we figured out that not only did the US Childhood vaccine schedule dramatically exceeded the Federal government's recommended daily limit for mercury, but that the limit that they had set was likely many times what it should have been in the first place? For those of you who are new to the issue, a review of the matter from my chapter in Vaccine Epidemic:

"In July of 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) issued a joint statement through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on mercury and vaccines. They stated that in the U.S. vaccine program at the time, “some children could be exposed to a cumulative level of mercury over the first six months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines.”

The truth was that the amount of mercury in the childhood vaccine schedule grossly exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum daily adult exposure for methylmercury, the form of mercury most closely related to thimerosal for which the government had established a guideline. The EPA sets the daily limit at 0.1 microgram per kilogram of weight. Based on that guideline, a baby weighing approximately five kilograms (eleven pounds) at two months of age should not receive more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury on the day of a doctor’s visit. At the time the AAP and USPHS joint statement was issued, infants at their two-month visit routinely received 62.5 micrograms of mercury, or 125 times the EPA’s limit. Studies have suggested that, for thimerosal (ethylmercury), “the accepted reference dose should be lowered to between 0.025 and 0.06 micrograms per kilogram per day,” meaning that the exposure at the two-month visit could be as high as 500—rather than 125—times the safe level."

In fact in 1995, Gilbert and Grant-Webster had recommended that the limit be at least cut in half.

Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Methylmercury Exposure

Environmental Health Perspectives 103 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):135-42 · October 1995 with 60 Reads

Steven G Gilbert

34.22University of Washington Seattle

Kimberly S. Grant-Webster


Methylmercury (MeHg) is a global environmental problem and is listed by the International Program of Chemical Safety as one of the six most dangerous chemicals in the world's environment. Human exposure to MeHg primarily occurs through the consumption of contaminated food such as fish, although catastrophic exposures due to industrial pollution have occurred. The fetus is particularly sensitive to MeHg exposure and adverse effects on infant development have been associated with levels of exposure that result in few, if any, signs of maternal clinical illness or toxicity. High levels of prenatal exposure in humans result in neurobehavioral effects such as cerebral palsy and severe mental retardation. Prenatal exposure to MeHg in communities with chronic low-level exposure is related to decreased birthweight and early sensorimotor dysfunction such as delayed onset of walking. Neurobehavioral alterations have also been documented in studies with nonhuman primates and rodents. Available information on the developmental neurotoxic effects of MeHg, particularly the neurobehavioral effects, indicates that the fetus and infant are more sensitive to adverse effects of MeHg. It is therefore recommended that pregnant women and women of childbearing age be strongly advised to limit their exposure to potential sources of MeHg. Based on results from human and animal studies on the developmental neurotoxic effects of methylmercury, the accepted reference dose should be lowered to 0.025 to 0.06 MeHg microgram/kg/day. Continued research on the neurotoxic effects associated with low level developmental exposure is needed.

HHS never undertook any review, or made any adjustments.

Well everything old is new again. Drs. Lyons-Weiler and Ricketson have reviewed the dosing of aluminum in the US vaccine program, to find that not only is there a lot of it, and not only does it exceed daily limits, but yet again, the daily limits are not based on sound safety data.

Reconsideration of the immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum 

Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology Toxicology

Volume 48, July 2018, Pages 67-73
Authors James Lyons-Weiler, Robert Ricketson

• Aluminum levels in vaccine is based on immune efficacy and ignore body weight for safety.

• Several critical mistakes have been made in the consideration of pediatric dosing of aluminum in vaccines.

• Safety inferences of vaccine doses of aluminum have relied solely on dietary exposure studies of adult mice and rats.

• On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.

• Revised MRL calculation based weights are provided, but are also based on derived speculation, not on safety data.

FDA regulations require safety testing of constituent ingredients in drugs (21 CFR 610.15). With the exception of extraneous proteins, no component safety testing is required for vaccines or vaccine schedules. The dosing of aluminum in vaccines is based on the production of antibody titers, not safety science. Here we estimate a Pediatric Dose Limit that considers body weight. We identify several serious historical missteps in past analyses of provisional safe levels of aluminum in vaccines, and provide updates relevant to infant aluminum exposure in the pediatric schedule considering pediatric body weight. When aluminum doses are estimated from Federal Regulatory Code given body weight, exposure from the current vaccine schedule are found to exceed our estimate of a weight-corrected Pediatric Dose Limit. Our calculations show that the levels of aluminum suggested by the currently used limits place infants at risk of acute, repeated, and possibly chronic exposures of toxic levels of aluminum in modern vaccine schedules. Individual adult exposures are on par with Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake “limits”, but some individuals may be aluminum intolerant due to genetics or previous exposures. Vaccination in neonates and low birth-weight infants must be re-assessed; other implications for the use of aluminum-containing vaccines, and additional limitations in our understanding of neurotoxicity and safety levels of aluminum in biologics are discussed.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler also simultaneously published an open letter to the FDA with further analysis showing that the basis of the use of aluminum is vaccines is unsound. Some highlights include that HHS cherry-picked ONE study, and that they misinterpreted the evidence of toxicity they did cite.

This, of course, should be the moment that HHS learns from it's past mistakes, undertakes a review and makes adjustments.

Well this time, there has been a reaction.

Last week, Paul Offit called Lyons-Weiler on behalf of the ACIP and asked he and his co-author present at the next ACIP meeting and offer recommendations so that a design for a review of aluminum adjuvants can be informed by by their findings, and the proper adjustments can be made.

No of course that did not happen. Don't be absurd. The ACIP does not care if aluminum poisoning is causing an epidemic of autoimmune and neurological disorders. This is how much they care about AL adjuvant toxicity:

I believe one committee member was heard muttering under his breath... "take as many vaccines adjuvented with aluminum as you want... my pay check cashes either way! HA!"

But seriously folks... there actually was a reaction to the paper, The FDA took down its page claiming that "The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low." That was their claim, last updated on February 6th of this year.

Here is where the page was:

Here is what the page used to say:

Too bad, as it would have been the right page to announce a review of Aluminum in vaccines. I guess they are not planning on doing one of those.

Just to put a fine point on the fact that they didn't care in 1999, and they don't care in 2018, they are still using basically the same assertion with the same language. Back then, they held the position that the mercury exposure was worth the "unknown risks," because the risks of not vaccinating was too high. Now they hold the position that aluminum exposure is worth any "theoretical concerns" because the risks of not vaccinating is too high.

1999: "Given that the risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and much smaller risk, if any, of exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first six months of life, clinicians and parents are encouraged to immunize all infants even if the choice of individual vaccine products is limited for any reason."

2018: "This study is important because it provides additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants."

In both cases, they admit that they don't know the risks of vaccinating with vaccines full of metal, describing them as "unknown" and "theoretical." but claim to know that the risks of not vaccinating is higher than the unknown "X."

Because in government math, no matter the value of "X" it will always be declared to be lower than "NV." No matter what the actual value of "NV" or "X" are.

In fact they work very hard to assure that the actual values for X and NV are never known. Because the general public learned what < and > means in elementary school, and that math is not hard.



Jeannette Bishop

Another fairly recent publication on Al and Hg synergy:

Laura Hayes

David Weiner,


Vaccines have no right to be on the menu of choices.

That is the issue at hand and the crux of the matter.

Thank you for adding your 2 cents...I always appreciate them!

Jeannette Bishop

@Laura, (despite my unspoken wish for a moratorium on our "regulatory" agencies--I see them as being expected by the culture of our federal and state oligarchies to regulate rather predictable profit flows) I would vote for you to head the FDA, maybe the CDC too simultaneously, if you were up for it, if such positions were subject to public vote! But it's part of the problem that they are not...Congress (and presidents with Supreme Court tacit approval, I suppose) shifted legislative (regulations), executive (imposing fines, etc), and (at least in the case of the NVICP) judicial powers over to unelected bureaucracies, unaccountable to the public for maintaining their jobs in effect, assigning them to perform functions that are not even under the federal purview (healthcare should be at most a state issue IMO--not a comforting concept in California at this point, though). The checks or balances of power between the three branches or governmental functions are almost completely neutralized this way. Congress (in theory most accountable to the public voting process) pretends when complained to about something that it's not their fault, these appointed guys are the problem, and they apply no effective oversight. They might stage a hearing... probably happy that they aren't expected to vote on a subject that would have their wealthiest lobbyists on one side and most of their constituents on the other.

Anyway, for those who believe that the point of our agencies is as you pointed out...your message might make the most sense, might resonate the most, especially with more vaccine education, if they can get over contradictions such as these agencies are the ones that already decided ("regulated") that vaccinations should get a differing level of "scientific" scrutiny than most drugs are theoretically subjected too, etc...

Question, if you have a minute sometime to reflect, do you think that without these agencies, consumers on their own (maybe with a mostly function trial-by-jury system in each state), knowing they were on their own in health decisions, do you think we would have allowed the harm done by the vaccine industry to have reached this pitch? Worse than this pitch? (I sound cynical in the paragraphs above, but as I tend to think not on these two questions, maybe I've got a functional idealism operating at the same time...but what do you see as realistic, if you don't mind me asking, but only if you really have the time...)

bob moffit

@ Laura ... (one of my favorite AoA commenters)

"We have to go back to the root problems, and right them immediately:
- There is no vaccine currently on the market that should ever have been approved for use."

I agree wholeheartedly with your position .. "an immediate moratorium on vaccines" .. which you justified by listing a myriad of reasons for doing so. All of them basic "common sense" reasons for the moratorium.

In my admittedly anti-vaccine opinion .. common sense dictates the likelihood of manufacturing a "one size fits all vaccine" is not only scientifically implausible .. I would argue .. it is scientifically impossible.

Consider what a "one size fits all vaccine" must assume .. every newborn infant is perfectly healthy at birth .. with no pre-existing allergies or intolerance for the known toxic adjuvants .. such as .. formaldehyde and aluminum .. just two of many others .. which are recommended and approved to be "injected" directly into that infant/child's .. undeveloped/developing .. immune system .. deliberately passing their natural .. nowhere near fully developed adult immune defenses .. such as .. the lungs for what they breathe, the skin for what they touch and the digestive tract for what they eat.

Indeed, it not only defies common sense .. it defies science .. to deliberately expose ALL infants/children to the same antigens and adjuvants without any regard for their individual developing immune systems.

Imagine a "mandate" by government to require a "one size fits all" infant car seat? A child's bike helmet? How long do you think it would take before parents could see that "one size fits all" car seat or bike helmet does NOT FIT THEIR CHILD? How long before parents realized the DANGERS to children "ill fitting mandated car seats and bike helmets" would be?

Which is exactly what happened to the Millions of parents who witnessed first hand the dangers of a "one size fits all vaccine" .. whether it be a car seat, bike helmet or VACCINE.

David Weiner

My 2 cents on a vaccine moratorium and its impact on parents who are inclined to vaccinate:

We can refer to such parents as "those who want to vaccinate" but I don't think that is really the right way to look at the situation. It would be more accurate to describe them as parents who want to protect their children from harm from infectious diseases who have been brainwashed into believing that vaccinating them is the right way, and maybe the only way, to do so. What's more, this brainwashing process has been built upon a foundation of fraud (I don't think I need to go into the details here).

Doctors and vaccine manufacturers have no right to sell products which have been fraudulently tested, marketed, promoted, etc. So it is really somewhat misleading to speak of whether or not parents should have a right to choose in this situation. The choice should never be presented to them in the first place. Of course, under the current circumstances, it is better that parents can veto the administration of vaccines than to not be able to do so.

Laura Hayes

Annie, thank you for your kind words :)


I always read and appreciate your comments here on AoA :) I did want to clarify something...I put forth that an immediate moratorium on vaccines is what is needed...which is somewhat different than what you wrote...a moratorium on people wanting to vaccinate.

Because not one vaccine has ever been tested properly (not to mention the myriad haphazard combinations in which they are most often administered), and because not one vaccine has ever been proven to be safe, effective, or needed (again, not to mention the myriad haphazard combinations in which they are most often administered), not one vaccine should ever have been approved, recommended, sold, or administered...not one...and it should go without saying that no medical treatment or procedure should ever be mandated. Add those facts to the evidence that mounts daily of vaccine-induced harm and deaths, and the only ethical and wise answer is to bring the use of vaccines to a screeching halt.

The point of having regulatory agencies is the proper and ethical regulation of products and services. No vaccine to date should have passed regulatory scrutiny. When other products have wrongly passed regulatory scrutiny, and have then caused harm, they are often recalled and/or eliminated from the marketplace...from tainted foods, to dangerous cribs, to defective tires, to fatality-inducing medicines, etc. Somehow, despite the ever-growing evidence of vaccine-induced injuries and deaths, vaccines remain on the market and in widespread use. It truly defies common sense, logic, ethics, morality, and wisdom.

Permitting vaccines to remain in use is no different than it would be to continue to permit:
- Pintos that explode upon impact
- Thalidomide for pregnant women that causes severe birth defects and miscarriages
- Lead-laden water in Flint, MI that causes brain damage to those who consume it

We have to go back to the root problems, and right them immediately:
- There is no vaccine currently on the market that should ever have been approved for use.
- Medicine should never be mandated.
- Liability for medical treatments and procedures belongs to those who manufacture and administer the medical treatments and procedures.
- It is a fundamental human right to decide that which one allows, or doesn't allow, into their own body and that of their child's.

I could not agree with you more that we need to view doctors as consultants, and nothing more...whom we pay for advice, and sometimes treatment, if and when we want...and whose advice and treatment options we can take or leave as we see fit.

Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree that what is needed are education campaigns about how to protect, maintain, and enhance health through time-proven, common sense, risk-free ways, without the use of risk-laden vaccines and other risk-laden pharmaceuticals.

Hans Litten

Posted by: Laura Hayes | April 17, 2018 at 04:39 PM

Its called controlled opposition Laura ! (the genetic causes of autism my big baboonic red rear end)
An everyday event in the Vaccine-Autism world Laura.

I'm an amateur vaccine sleuth, and even what I know at quite high levels is enough to know this is a definite global genocidal conspiracy.

Dr Frank Engley for instance , hear his words, we tested themiserol (1948) and it was completely ineffective and toxic at nanograms (we couldn't believe it.)

susan welch

I have just watched this and it is absolutely fascinating. Dr Christopher Shaw explains about so many issues relating to aluminium research. He sums up the impossibility of scientists getting research funded/published today. The corporate machine has it all tied up and, if scientists dare to tell the truth, they are 'Wakefielded'.

I would urge anyone interested in truth, especially you, Fred, to watch this 50 min video.

Jeannette Bishop

@Laura, I wouldn't put a moratorium on people wanting to vaccinate (that's too much like a mandate for me), nor would I put one (a moratorium) on people saying they think we should have a moratorium either, but IMO the public needs something better to choose from made possible (perhaps mostly just made thinkable), along the lines of knowledge of how to support and nourish immune system health, apply healthy treatments for diseases. At least that is how I view a potential way forward towards reducing vaccine injury, decreasing disease and all-cause mortality and morbidity. Education on the harm from immune system, microbiome, and metabolic poisoning of non-nutritional metals, other metals/nutrients out of balance, antibiotics, glyphosate, EM radiation wouldn't hurt either, education on concerns coming to light in research such as the rather unpredictable genetic up and down-regulation caused by vaccination, the serotype shifting and replacement provoked by vaccination that is adversely impacting all of us... but how to truly mandate an education?

As things are ... I don't know, but maybe the culture needs to widely change, to where health and health training is just not something one trusts government, financiers of mega-corporate-conglomerates to influence nor dictate (is that the epitome of a "healthy skepticism?"). I guess, a general understanding of how much those influences operate now and have for some time might be needed first. Then maybe health education should come to be viewed as a private, personal, important but necessarily individualized practice, perhaps as if ones life depended upon the individualization, upon the freedom to choose (as we are not all identically cloned sheep, seeking CAFO-like "herd immunity" never really feeling well and not really living until the day the herders are done with us, bahhhhhhh--sorry I'm in a mood today, this week...this month), a practice for one to undertake usually well beyond or even in place of what is taught in our schools and corporate media (but maybe not even that if one chooses), and held inviolable as the right to freedom of religion is for many.

Maybe that needs to become somehow a cultural attitude, maybe ideally with healthcare practitioners viewed more as consultants, potentially wonderful consultants, but definitely not as overlords of unquestionable, more or less, infallibility.


Mrs Laura Hayes I LOVE YOU!!!!
Mostly i am grateful!!

Thank YOU SO MUCH for everything
You do. Which is mostly inform my
privileged lazy ass of everything i need
to know to keep my children safe.

there are no words -
chuckle permitted
as one reads words

All this said, i am grateful...
for all scientists
whom help us out -
regardless of AV purity
not that there is such a thing
as AV purity

Allie Fujito

Parents' Guide to Childhood Immunizations
"Part 4: Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How do we know vaccines aren’t causing long-term health problems?

A: Observing vaccinated children for many years to look for long-term health conditions would not be practical, and withholding an effective vaccine from children while long-term studies are being done wouldn’t be ethical. A more practical approach is to look at health conditions themselves and at the factors that cause them. Scientists are already working to identify risk factors that can lead to conditions like cancer, stroke, heart disease, and autoimmune diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Thousands of studies have already been done looking at hundreds of potential risk factors. If immunizations were identified as a risk factor in any of these studies, we would know about it. So far, they have not."

Let's translate that, shall we?

"Observing vaccinated children for long-term health issues is not practical for those of us whose jobs depend on the vaccine industry. Withholding vaccines that the manufacturers and their spokesmen insist are effective wouldn't be ethical, because we can't argue with the manufacturers. We are conducting thousands of studies looking at potential risk factors for all kinds of things (except for vaccines, which we avoid looking at like our jobs depend on it), and amazingly, since we're not looking at vaccines as potential risk factors, vaccines have not been identified as potential risk factors!

And while even the manufacturer admits that up to 26% of post-pubertal females can expect arthritis/arthralgia, possibly permanent, following an MMR vaccine, we at the CDC will continue to insist that there is no link between vaccines and rheumatoid arthritis. Or anything else

Because they're safe. Like tobacco. And effective. Like chemo."

Laura Hayes


Thank you for the link to Kristen Chevrier's interview with JLW. Just listened to it from start to finish.
Very good, and important info provided to the public.

My qualm is that JLW did not repeatedly state that an immediate moratorium on all vaccines is needed...and not just those containing aluminum. The FDA's complete neglect and refusal to require proper studies...their permitting of untested and known-to-be-dangerous ingredients to be approved for use in vaccines...their unethical relationships with industry...their turning a deaf ear to whistle blowers...their ignoring of millions of parental reports about what happened to their children after name but a few of the many known problems...each is worthy of stopping the entire vaccine program on a dime, today, without pause. He needs to state that, at every opportunity, knowing what he knows...yet, he doesn't.

The vaccine-induced injuries and deaths will continue if not stopped. The way to stop them is to stop the vaccinating, immediately.

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you, Ginger for highlighting this work, and thank you Dr. Lyons-Weiler and colleagues for under taking this effort.

Kristen Chevrier's interview of Dr. Lyons-Weiler:

Laura Hayes

I read JLW's article last week. The language he uses is not strong enough, in my opinion. There is no nutritional need for aluminum in the human body, and no "safe level" since it is unnecessary and known to wreak havoc in humans. Therefore, I do not agree with the inclusion/conclusion of this sentence:

"These (pediatric dosings) should be calculated per child given their body weight prior to vaccination, and daily limits placed on total aluminum injected considering all doses and all sources."

Qualifications to this statement are immediately made in the next paragraph, but they, too, are not stated boldly enough:

"However, even when the appropriate and necessary adjustments are made, our results predict an increased risk of neurotoxicity from birth through 36 months particularly when the accumulating body burden is taken into consideration at every scheduled vaccine interval."

There are no "appropriate" adjustments to be made other than to never inject aluminum, not to mention a long list of other vaccine ingredients, into a human being.

What needs to be stated in an unequivocal manner at every opportunity is that there is no safe level of aluminum, or mercury, or formaldehyde, or glyphosate (I could go on listing additional vaccine ingredients) to be injected into any human, most especially for one in the prime period of their development. No time to mince words...children are being poisoned every second of every day. It needs to

I also clicked on the link provided above to access JLW's open letter to the FDA. The link didn't work for me, but I was able to find his letter to the FDA here:…

JLW's proposed solution is ​not​ what is needed (read below). What is needed is to stop that which we already know is wreaking havoc. Injections into humans should never include mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc. Thus, the solution is to ​stop permitting such injections immediately.​

"The only reasonable solution is more science — properly designed and executed dosage escalation studies of injected aluminum — the type of study that Dr. Chris Shaw has been conducting at the University of British Columbia (UBC) to find out how much injected aluminum hydroxide and AAHS — the adjuvant used in the HPV vaccine — leads to problems in mice. He and his team have already found behavioral anomalies and developmental issues resulting from injections of aluminum. FDA could contract him right now to conduct the studies needed."

Should people want to share JLW's article, I have written an intro to it that you might want to include to preface it:

“The following article is helpful in understanding that pre-established safety standards are not required to be adhered to when it comes to vaccine products. Perhaps even more troublesome is the fact that vaccine products are permitted by the FDA to include ingredients that have never been clinically approved by the FDA, such as the aluminum formulations that are added. For nearly 100 years, the dangers of aluminum to humans have been known, yet the majority of today’s vaccines contain aluminum, in amounts that are unsafe and damaging to health. In truth, there is no safe amount of aluminum to inject into a human, most especially an infant, toddler, or young child in the prime of their development. Humans have no nutritional need for aluminum, and aluminum is a known toxin, neurotoxin, immune, nervous system, and endocrine disruptor, and teratogen. As much as the following article is helpful in understanding that pharmaceutical companies are permitted to include dangerous ingredients in dangerous amounts in their vaccine products, it does not go far enough in unequivocally stating that no amount of aluminum should be permitted or tolerated in any vaccine product. Aluminum must be immediately removed from current vaccines, and its use prohibited in future vaccines. There can be no compromise regarding this.”

Mark Wax

Thanks Ginger. Having brought Wax v. Aventis in the wake of mounting research on mercury ( Thimerosal), I cannot escape the pain of the whitewash and double dealing of both Pharma and our complicit Congress. In "discovery" we learned that our son had received his entire immunization schedule from multi-dose vials ( for those preserved with Thimerosal). Instead of being able to pursue justice on a Court of equity, the U.S Congress responded AFTER the Federal judge "stayed" our case, rather than dismiss it. Our journey ended some 8 years later in USCFC on the unconstitutional limitations statue of 36 months. Sadly the American public is asleep at the wheel. As Mr. Kirby's title implies ( I lost family in the Holocaust too), when the knock comes to your door it will be too late.

bob moffit

It was positively frightening to watch that esteemed body of public health officials vote 100% for introducing a vaccine containing MORE aluminum .. a well known and recognized adjuvant likely to contribute even further to the epidemic of autoimmune and neurological disorders. THEY JUST DIDN'T CARE.

If anyone wants to learn how the "holocaust" could have happened in a civilized country like Germany in 1939-1945 .. this would be a good place to start.

Indeed, there was an excellent televised documentary presentation of a secret meeting of high government officials from all walks of life .. medical, military, transportation, etc .. held in a luxurious villa in the German country-side .. no notes or recording allowed .. where the plans to "exterminate" the Jewish "problem were laid bare .. the only thing they changed was the word "exterminate" to "evacuate" .. though everyone in the room knew exactly what "evacuation" really meant. It was this meeting that revealed a "new, more economic method, gas and crematoriums" that had been developed and already under construction .. which would be used to "evacuate" .. as it had become too expensive and psychologically hard on individual troops to continue mass slaughter of huddle Jews in pits with bullets.

Consider the comparison .. of 1939 Germany and 2018 USA:

"This study is important because it provides additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants."

"Because in government math, no matter the value of "X" it will always be declared to be lower than "NV." No matter what the actual value of "NV" or "X" are."

such as:

"exterminate/evacuate" .. "recognized risks/theoretical concerns"

Hans Litten

Ginger , these needs including here too - great work for all you do .

Accumulating evidence implicates aluminum adjuvants as a cause of autism. Autism is caused by inflammation in the brain during early development (gestation and first few years of life). The specific inflammation signals (i.e. cytokines) that cause autism are interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-17a (IL-17a). Aluminum adjuvants stimulate this specific type of inflammation in the brain.

There have been no epidemiological studies of Al adjuvant exposure and autism, except for one ecological study (Tomljenovic 2011). Ecological studies analyze aggregate, population-level data (e.g. comparing disease prevalence and exposures in a region or country). Ecological studies do not utilize data on individuals. For this reason, ecological studies are primarily for identifying hypotheses for further research. They are not worth much.

If Al adjuvant is responsible for much of the rise in autism, then autistics should have elevated brain aluminum levels. A new study (Mold et al 2017) by Dr Chris Exley’s research group provides the first-ever measurements of aluminum in autistic brains. In this article I show that the aluminum levels in autistic brains are abnormally high. Brain aluminum content is highly nonuniform, in healthy or diseased brains. Adjacent brain samples can have dramatically different Al concentrations. Consequently, many measurements and statistical methods are necessary to determine if aluminum is elevated or normal.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)