Here's one of many studies linking aluminum to dementia and Alzheimer's.

Of course, Merck's aluminum adjuvant, injected in both newborns and seniors doesn't help. The aluminum placed in our drinking water by the government doesn't help either and seems short sighted when we examine the cost of taking care of Alzheimer's patients.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064650

Abstract:
The authors examined associations between exposure to aluminum or silica from drplinking water and risk of cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease among elderly subjects followed for 15 years (1988-2003). They actively searched for incident cases of dementia among persons aged 65 years or over living in 91 civil drinking-water areas in southern France. Two measures of exposure to aluminum were assessed: geographic exposure and individual exposure, taking into account daily consumption of tap water and bottled water. A total of 1,925 subjects who were free of dementia at baseline and had reliable water assessment data were analyzed. Using random-effects models, the authors found that cognitive decline with time was greater in subjects with a higher daily intake of aluminum from drinking water (>or=0.1 mg/day, P=0.005) or higher geographic exposure to aluminum. Using a Cox model, a high daily intake of aluminum was significantly associated with increased risk of dementia. Conversely, an increase of 10 mg/day in silica intake was associated with a reduced risk of dementia (adjusted relative risk =0.89, P=0.036). However, geographic exposure to aluminum or silica from tap water was not associated with dementia. High consumption of aluminum from drinking water may be a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease.

Not talking about aluminum, but does address institutional attitudes.

Treating the host response to emerging virus diseases: lessons learned from sepsis, pneumonia, influenza and Ebola

"The ideas of “precision” or “personalized” medicine and the technologies on which they are based have become central to the research of many scientists, and they are widely accepted by institutions that support their work. Yet, for all of their complexity and promise, systems biology and personalized medicine have significant intellectual limitations (264-266). Enormous waste has been documented in biomedical (267) and clinical (268) research. Moreover, introducing a new scientific idea can be difficult (269): just ask an investigator who has prepared a grant proposal or tried to publish a paper describing it. Empirical research shows that evaluators of research proposals systematically downgrade those that seek to explore new ideas (270). Social influences, behavioral bias and herding instincts among scientists “distort the evolution of knowledge if scientists are reluctant to accept an alternative explanation for their observations” (269). Instead, a propensity for “cognitive cronyism” (270) tends to exclude new ideas from consideration. Among other things, the reputational and/or financial costs of doing so can be very large."

http://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/12396/html

Fred, What if your steadfast belief in vaccine dogma is wrong? I will admit it took me more than a decade and I cringed when I realized that I had been intellectually lazy. What is your excuse? I think the whole industry is built on the hope that nobody reads up of this subject.

Another single arm analysis from Exley.