Before you begin…

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The aluminium adjuvant that’s used in multiple childhood vaccines has come under the scrutiny of multiple scientists from around the world over the past couple of years. It’s been discovered that a number of these vaccines have far more or far less aluminum adjuvant than listed on their FDA approved product labels, and as a result two formal petitions (access them here and here) were filed with the FDA on May 4th and May 6th of this year.

The petitions demand that the agency do its job and assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information about the amount of aluminum adjuvant that’s actually present in their childhood vaccines. You can access the most recent legal update, here.

–> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

A team of the world’s foremost experts in aluminum toxicology, led by Christopher Exley (initiator of the petition), a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry for the last 29 years with more than 200 published peer reviewed articles regarding aluminum, made this discovery. Six vaccine products contained statistically significant greater amounts of aluminum (Pentacel, Havrix, Adacel, Pedvax, Prevnar 13, and Vaqta) and four childhood vaccines were found to contain a statistically significant lower quantity of aluminum adjuvant than what is outlined on the label for these products (Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, and Synflorix.

This discovery was published in The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology where researchers point to the fact that since aluminum is a known toxin in humans and specifically a neurotoxin, it’s content in vaccines should be accurate and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety.

Another paper of interest for readers might be this one, titled The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science. It also outlines the concerns being raised.

The petition states,

These deviations from the products’ labels are extremely concerning. Doses with more than the approved amount of aluminum adjuvant raise serious safety concerns, and doses with less than the approved amount raise questions regarding efficacy. Indeed, aluminum adjuvant is a known cytotoxic and neurotoxic substance used to induce autoimmunity in lab animals, and which numerous peer-reviewed publications implicate various autoimmune conditions….These deviations also render the products and manufacturers not in compliance with various federal statutes and regulations, requiring immediate action from the FDA.

The Petitions therefore demand that the FDA immediately and publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each vaccine at issue is consistent with the amount provided in its labeling and that the FDA pause distribution of the vaccines at issue until it has done so.

  Nothing can be more important than the safety of vaccines injected into babies.

If you would like to provide the FDA a comment regarding the petitions filed regarding aluminum levels in childhood vaccines, you can do so here and here.

Exley and his work is supported by many scientists from around the world, yet he is facing a potential set back with regards to continuing his research on aluminum and disease. One hundred scientists came together and recently wrote a letter of support, stating,

We are writing to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. We feel that Christopher Exley’s work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.

You can read more about what’s going on with regards to this situation, and access the correspondence that’s happened between Keele University (Exley’s employer), Exley, and the academics who support his work, here.

Exley has provided his own comment on the petition that reads as follows,

Once these data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines were known to me I asked myself about their absolute significance. What were the data witnessing. Sloppy processing by manufacturers? If so then why weren’t these issues flagged up by internal auditing of the products? Do manufacturers not actually measure the final content of aluminium in their vaccines? It looks that way. If they do not are they still assuming that the information they give on the patient information leaflet is accurate? Presumably they are as this amount of aluminium per dose of vaccine has been extensively researched and optimised by the manufacturer to give the antibody titre necessary for the vaccine to be effective. Since the vaccine is wholly ineffective in the absence of the aluminium adjuvant then the amount of aluminium adjuvant injected into the infant must be tightly controlled in providing a safe and effective vaccine. Isn’t that correct?

How can vaccine manufacturers be so complacent about such a critical issue? Is there a darker side to all of this? It may or it may not be true that manufacturers carefully optimise the aluminium content of infant vaccines. However, how often do manufacturers monitor the efficacy of their vaccine in receiving infants? How do they know that the data they must have for their clinical trials is reproduced in real time vaccinations in infants. Simply, how do they know that their vaccine works against its target disease? Do they even care? These data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines suggest very strongly that from the moment the vaccine is aliquoted to its vial ready for subsequent administration to an infant the manufacturer has no interest in whether it is either effective or safe.

No one is monitoring the former and vaccine manufacturers have no responsibility for the latter. Vaccine manufacturers are businesses first and foremost, it is not up to them to make sure that their products are safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the FDA and the FDA is clearly neglecting this responsibility as is the European Medicines Agency. A cartel of neglect and complacency that puts infants all of the world at risk, not only from the disease the vaccine is meant to be effective against but critically from the injection of an unknown amount of a known neurotoxin into vulnerable infants.

I know that many of you have given me your support in a myriad of ways and I am eternally thankful. You may be interested to know that the ‘academic’ Aluminium Family has also played a part and you can read all about this through this link. If you have any questions or comments about this please direct them to Professor Romain Gherardi (RKG75@protonmail.com) who kindly instigated this effort on my behalf.

The Takeaway: The politicization of science has become quite a large issue these days. In my opinion, science that seems to support a narrative that is in favour of  certain government and/or corporate interests is heavily promoted and explored, while science that calls these narratives into question is heavily scrutinized, censored and unacknowledged within the mainstream.

If science is raising a cause for concern, especially regarding something like aluminum toxicity that is so prevalent in our lives today, why can’t we as a society embrace, support, and acknowledge the study of it openly and collectively? What is going on here? You might imagine that everybody would support research like the kind Exley and his team are doing, as it only seeks to make a healthier world. Then again,  it may not be in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies and their business model.

Isn’t human health and ‘doing no harm’ the key oath public health is interested in upholding? The implications of science should not impede progression of health, but rather accelerate it.