Recently I posted on how Pharma is becoming increasingly desperate in their defence of ‘Safe and Effective’.

I am now joined in highlighting this situation by a fellow maverick Peter Gotzsche and his excellent article on corruption in scientific publishing.

Peter C. Gøtzsche

Serious editorial misconduct: unwarranted removal of an important vaccine study

Editorial misconduct is common, and I have been exposed to it many times.1 Editors protect guild interests, dogma, reputations, and the flow of money from Big Pharma that buys reprints and advertisements and supports scientific societies that publish medical journals…

Read more

18 days ago · 54 likes · 18 comments · Peter C. Gøtzsche

We now have the latest propaganda from arguably the most corrupt of all scientific publishers in the form of an article in The Lancet. The ‘research’ documented in this paper is meat and drink to the established media with kings of corruption such as the BBC lauding it as proof of the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine Gardasil. But wait. The authors of The Lancet paper make an attempt to support ‘efficacy’ but safety is not even mentioned anywhere in the paper or in the accompanying lovesick comment.

Better analysts than myself will be able to inform you why the documented reduction in deaths from cervical cancer in vaccinated women aged 20-24 is spurious at best. If ever those peddling Gardasil were clutching at straws to vindicate this evil vaccine then this latest paper is just that. I don’t describe Gardasil as evil lightly. With the possible exception of the HepB vaccine given to neonates and infants, see below, Gardasil is the most dangerous vaccine administered today.

You can understand why I say this by reading Peter Gotzsche’s recent substack post and by revising my posts on this subject.

Even if we accept the spurious data presented in The Lancet, how do the suggested 23 lives saved in the 20-24 age group compare with the numbers of lives lost and maimed due to the vaccine being administered to millions of school girls (not to mention boys) in order to ‘save’ such lives. Even Merck’s own clinical trial data demonstrate that 2.4% of the recipients of Gardasil suffer a severe adverse event, the latter definition including death. Why did the authors of The Lancet paper prefer to ignore anything and everything to do with the safety of Gardasil.

I wonder how the lead author of The Lancet paper, Professor Peter Sasieni (Email: p.sasieni@qmul.ac.uk) sleeps at night. He cannot be wholly ignorant of the poisonous nature of Gardasil. I can only reluctantly accept that the power that comes with wealth and esteem outweighs scientific integrity. Of course, clowns such as Sasieni still require the circus of corrupt scientific publishing to peddle their poison.

The great Stephen Sondheim wrote, Send in the Clowns, Don’t Bother They’re Here. How apt for today’s charade of scientific publishing.

With this in mind imagine my pride in 2009 in being asked by one of the leading biochemistry review journals to contribute something in celebration of the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth.

I wrote, Darwin, natural selection and the biological essentiality of aluminium and silicon, published by Trends in Biochemical Sciences (TIBS) in 2009. I might easily argue that this is my finest written contribution to science. The article borrows from Darwin’s natural selection to explain in the clearest terms why neither aluminium nor silicon alone are essential to life and yet combined as aluminosilicate they are why we have the life we have on Earth today.

In essence aluminium has no essential role in life today because it has been excluded from biochemical evolution by silicon. The absence of this exclusion mechanism early doors in biochemical evolution (natural selection) would not have precluded life on Earth only the life dominated by oxidative metabolism that we benefit from today. Such a conclusion leads us inextricably to the question as to what then follows when the advent of the aluminium age counteracts the exclusion mechanism that heralded the life we have today.

Contrary to the highly reactive aluminium, silicon has no essential role in life today because of an almost complete lack of biological chemistry. I have written many times in Dr’s Newsletter on this subject including the post embedded below.

In writing my seminal piece for TIBS (please ask if you would like the pdf) I needed to include a figure of some sort to illustrate my ideas. Once again and somewhat cheekily I borrowed an idea from Darwin, his iconic ‘Tree of Life’ sketch with the words ‘I think’ scrawled in the top left hand corner.

I am copying Exley’s Tree of Life figure for you below.

The figure is clearly somewhat fanciful and yet I believe it to have scientific credibility and potentially predictability. Below is the text I used to explain the diagram back in 2009.

‘ A biochemical tree of life for the natural selection of aluminium. Concomitant with the emergence of higher forms of life are significant concentrations of environmental silicic acid and commensurate insignificant concentrations of biologically reactive aluminium. Silicic acid limits the biological availability of aluminium, and it is unable to compete with Mg(II), Ca(II), Fe(II/III) for binding by phosphate, carboxylate and hydroxyl functional groups. Aluminium is excluded from inorganic biochemistry.

Subsequently over tens of millions of years and, recently concomitant with the activities of modern human beings*, an increase in the concentration of biologically reactive aluminium occurs. This increase, coincident now and in the foreseeable future with evolutionarily-driven lower levels of environmental silicic acid, displaces essential metals from biomolecules which are integral to vital biochemical processes. Aluminium is now competitive and has become an active participant in biochemical evolution. What then are the implications of such for future biochemistry?

*The Aluminium Age

Key: Degree of shading indicates changes through evolutionary time in the environmental concentrations of biologically reactive (i) silicic acid ([Si(OH)4]B; blue) and (ii) aluminium ([Al]B; red). The extent of coloured branches and their variously-shaped leaves estimates the major metal ion competitors for Al(III) and their preferred functional groups for binding respectively. mya: million years ago.’

Charles Darwin’s ‘Tree of Life’ began the explanation of why we are here and why all life is here with us.

Exley’s ‘Tree of Life’ begins the explanation of why humans will not survive the aluminium age unless we address the iatrogenic increase in the biological availability of aluminium.

We still have time, I think!

I recently agreed to an interview by Dr Sherri Tenpenny. I have known her for a number of years and our paths have crossed in the past. As you know, for a number of previously documented reasons, I give very few face to face interviews.

However, as a mark of respect for her I agreed and you can watch my interview here. You can also watch my interview on Dr Tenpenny’s site. I know that many of you will notice that these two versions of my interview are dissimilar. The one on Rumble is the full length interview and it includes my views on the efficacy of zeolites in removing aluminium from the human body. The version on Dr Tenpenny’s site is shorter and does not include my views on zeolites.

Why?

Well, as Dr Tenpenny pointed out to me post interview, Dr Tenpenny relies upon sponsorship from an organisation selling zeolite preparations for human health. Dr Tenpenny has been convinced by the CEO of Touchstone Essentials that one of their products is effective in removing aluminium from the human body. When I pointed out to Dr Tenpenny that neither this company nor any company has any independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence that any zeolite can help to remove systemic aluminium from the body she pointed me to this site. While there is nothing on this site to prove that the named product can facilitate the removal of aluminium from the body there are clear fabrications on this site presumably used by Touchstone to convince Dr Tenpenny and many others that their product is effective in removing aluminium. One of the worst fabrications is a graph showing data from a Malvern particle sizer purporting to show that the zeolite in their preparation (natural clinoptilolite in pure water according to the manufacturer) has a particle size of less than 2nm!

Even the most heavily engineered clinoptilolite material, not naturally occurring, has a minimum crystalline particle size of approximately 20nm and a hydrodynamic particle size (as would be in any zeolite preparation in water) of 250nm.

In the Rumble version of my Tenpenny interview I call people such as the CEO of Touchstone ‘snake oil salesmen’ and this is exactly what they are when they sell their product on the basis that it facilitates the removal of aluminium from the body.

Just to be clear. I am not debating the anecdotal reports of the purported health benefits of zeolites. I am simply pointing out that any such benefits cannot accrue from the facilitation of the removal of aluminium from the human body.

I hope you enjoy my interview with Sherri. I am not blaming her for being pragmatic in removing some of the content from the interview on her website. She did at least post the full interview on Rumble. However, I do wonder why she even asked me the question on zeolites. It would have been far simpler for her and her sponsors if she had not.

Just under a year ago I wrote a substack entitled Circling The Wagons in which I described how the international aluminium industry and associated industries such as Pharma were doing everything in their collective powers to prepare for the approaching Armageddon.

Never before have so many of the establishment been recruited to defend the hegemony of allopathic medicine the leading example of which being vaccination.

The latest example has just been published in the BMJ. Those of us working in vaccine safety have known about the imminent arrival of this paper for some time and one of us, Dr Guillemette Crepeaux, was at least offered the opportunity to review the manuscript as part of the so-called peer review process. You can read Dr Crepeaux’s informed review of the original manuscript here. Dr Crepeaux recommended that the manuscript should be REJECTED.

So much for peer review.

Papers published in the BMJ may be commented upon using an online system called Rapid Response.

I decided to submit a somewhat tongue-in-cheek rapid response to the publication of the paper. I am copying my Rapid Response below.

MY RR

How do you solve a problem like Maria?

I have been addressing the problem of human exposure to aluminium for over four decades. The specific subject of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines has been my concern for the past twenty years. I am always interested to learn of new research in this field. Congratulations are due to the BMJ for publishing research on aluminium adjuvants in human vaccination. Not all journals are as open to the subject.

However, the new paper by Doyon-Plourde et alia has not adequately addressed never mind solved ‘a problem like Maria’. When I look at the author list, I wonder how they thought that they might contribute to the subject of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines. They set out to review previous research, essentially clinical studies, in the field without anyone in their team with even the barest knowledge of any aspect of aluminium adjuvants. The authors are completely incapable of critically examining anything concerning the chemistry, biology, bioinorganic chemistry, biochemistry et cetera of aluminium in any of the published science included or indeed excluded from their analysis. I use the term ‘analysis’ purposely since what is produced in the paper is, at best, a numerical assay. It has no empirical understanding of the subject matter presumably originally stated in their null hypothesis, namely the benign nature of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines.

Since these authors never stood a chance of solving a problem like Maria one has to wonder as to their motivation for taking on such an important subject in human health. I can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume curiosity to be their driving force. However, their employers, Health Canada, is an established propagandist for human vaccination and so one is left with a certain bad taste in one’s mouth in attempting to swallow any other conclusion than that this research was carried out for the sole purpose of supporting human vaccination using aluminium adjuvants. I hope that the authors can convince me otherwise.

Let me be clear at this point that I am not suggesting that an authorship better informed on the subject of aluminium adjuvants would have solved a problem like Maria. However, they would have produced a better-balanced set of conclusions with clear indications as to which studies carry weight, and ought to be included in their analysis, and which studies are clearly fraught with errors and fundamentally flawed and consequently should be excluded.

There is a clear conclusion that should be accepted by all concerned parties and this is that the science remains equivocal as to safety of human vaccines that include an aluminium adjuvant. However, the science on the toxicity of aluminium in humans is unequivocal. Many decades of peer-reviewed published research have documented the myriad health effects of human exposure to aluminium. Aluminium is only toxic in all biota and this alone should be a red flag as to its continued use in human vaccination. If nothing else, it should be appreciated by all concerned that the efficacy of aluminium adjuvants in producing an immune reaction lies in its direct toxicity at the injection site.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X19304201?via%3Dihub

END OF MY RR

Rapid Responses are, today, limited to just 600 words and so one cannot use this medium to re-review a published paper.

However, bearing in mind that Dr Crepeaux’s original review of the unpublished manuscript was completely ignored by both the BMJ and the authors of the paper, Dr Crepeaux also submitted a Rapid Response, a summary of why the manuscript should not have been published.

I am copying Dr Crepeaux’s Rapid Response below.

DR CREPEAUX’S RR

The published article presents itself as a rigorous systematic review of the available human data regarding Aluminum-Based Adjuvants (ABAs). Following peer review in which I personally recommended rejection, some overly affirmative statements were softened and the authors more openly acknowledged methodological limitations and the need for further research. Nevertheless, the overall framing of the paper remains strongly biased and raises important scientific and public health concerns.

The main limitation of this review lies in its deliberately restricted scope. The authors excluded:

- animal studies,

- mechanistic data,

- toxicokinetic and biodistribution studies,

- cellular studies,

- much of the contemporary experimental literature on injected ABA particles.

Yet modern toxicology cannot seriously assess chronic risk without integrating biological mechanisms. By restricting the analysis almost exclusively to observational human studies, the review excludes precisely the fields in which the most concerning signals emerge:

- biopersistence,

- neuroinflammation,

- macrophagic transport,

- developmental toxicology,

- neuro-immune mechanisms.

This omission is especially problematic regarding perinatal exposure and early neurodevelopment. The paper provides virtually no discussion of in utero exposure, injections during infancy, or repeated exposure during critical developmental windows.

The authors then conclude that no obvious large-scale safety signal emerges from the available human data. However, this essentially amounts to searching under the streetlight: one only finds what one actively looks for. Studies specifically designed to detect rare, delayed, neuro-immune, or developmental effects of ABAs have almost never been conducted.

Importantly, the authors themselves acknowledge:

- absence of robust long-term longitudinal studies,

- poor quality of many datasets,

- limitations of observational cohorts,

- need for further mechanistic and epidemiological research.

One cannot simultaneously admit that the appropriate studies have never truly been performed while continuing to invoke a “long-established safety profile” as though it were definitively established scientific fact.

The section devoted to Macrophagic MyoFasciitis (MMF) illustrates this contradiction particularly well. The authors acknowledge:

- Al-containing lesions at injection sites,

- persistence of lesions for months or years,

- systemic symptoms among biopsied patients, including chronic fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, muscle weakness, and cognitive impairment.

Yet they conclude that current evidence does not support a causal association between MMF lesions and systemic symptoms. This conclusion is highly debatable. More than twenty years of clinical literature describe a relatively coherent syndrome associating chronic pain, profound fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, functional neuroimaging abnormalities, and Al-containing histological lesions. MMF has therefore not been described as a harmless “vaccine tattoo,” but rather as an immunologically active lesion associated with a chronic neuro-immune syndrome. Importantly, these patients are often severely disabled; approximately 96% of members of the French patient association are considered disabled, with nearly three quarters classified as totally disabled.

The authors repeatedly emphasize the absence of definitive causal proof while largely ignoring a central issue: almost no prospective study has ever been specifically designed to investigate the long-term neuro-immune consequences of injected ABAs. Existing epidemiological tools are poorly suited to detect rare, delayed, or multifactorial outcomes.

Absence of strong evidence therefore cannot be equated with evidence of absence.

The repeated reliance on studies such as Mitkus et al. (2011), Andersson et al. (2025), or Moser & Offit (2026) is equally problematic. These studies are repeatedly presented as reassuring despite major published methodological limitations.

Ultimately, this article never demonstrates the absence of risk associated with ABAs. Rather, it demonstrates the absence of adequate studies capable of properly investigating certain rarely documented, delayed, neuro-immune, or developmental outcomes.

In this respect, the paper resembles a classic example of the manufacturing of doubt: emphasizing uncertainty when safety concerns emerge while simultaneously presenting weak or incomplete evidence as sufficiently reassuring. Such an approach may protect institutional narratives, but it ultimately undermines scientific credibility, public health and patient safety.

END OF DR CREPEAUX’S RR

I am sure that you will agree that Dr Crepeaux presents an informed and balanced critique of what is now the published paper.

Those of you reading this substack who have already clicked on the link to the published paper may be asking, well if at least two Rapid Responses have been submitted to the BMJ about this paper, where are they! Why have they not been published?

I think we all know the answer. Pharma’s circling of the wagons is to be Custer’s last stand. Borrowing a phrase from one of my favourite TV shows of the distant past, ‘The Truth is Out There’ (one of my students made a poster of this statement and it remained on my office wall up until the day I was removed), and the truth is coming to a cinema near you in the not too distant future.

Hang on in there. We are!

Unfortunately the Pharma stooge who lead this study, Karen Weisser, has a new peer reviewed published paper where she completely exonerates aluminium adjuvants in vaccines. This paper will be used by Pharma and the aluminium industry ad nauseum to support the continued use of aluminium in vaccines and therefore the continued poisoning of children.

You first have to ask how this wholly flawed study survived any form of peer review. Then you realise that the MDPI journal publishing the paper, Vaccines, is little more than an extension of Pharma. I wrote about this very journal and its corrupt Editor-in-Chief in my book and I am copying an excerpt of what I wrote below.

As a brief background to that book excerpt, I had been invited to act as Guest Editor of a special issue of Vaccines, see below.

Excerpt from my book

Having accepted the offer to guest edit a special issue the publisher then produced a web page for the special issue with a description of the aims of the issue and all other relevant information about submission and deadlines and so forth. However, almost immediately, I smelt the rat that had previously pissed on my Elsevier Toxicology parade as editors at MDPI handling submissions to the special issue began, in their broken Chinese English, to insinuate that contributing authors were anti-vaccine. At first, I was perplexed as to where these insinuations had originated. However, as Guest Editor, I had access to the journal’s peer review system and I immediately came across the name of Hawkes as a reviewer chosen by the publisher. Here was the perpetrator of these lies. However, while I endeavoured to inform the various handling editors that Hawkes was no more than an HPV vaccine salesman and an internet troll, and therefore unsuitable as a reviewer of science, they chose to ignore my advice. Faced with this uncomfortable situation I decided to withdraw as Guest Editor and asked MDPI to remove my special issue from their advertising and website. Somewhat frustrated if not entirely surprised by this turn of events I set about finding new homes for those few manuscripts that had already been submitted to the now cancelled special issue. Not long thereafter another case of serendipity confirmed that which I had already supposed. An Achilles heel of vaccine trolls, like Hawkes, is that they cannot help but celebrate their perceived victories with other similar trolls. Freedom of Information requests concerning another matter reveal Hawkes’ celebrations with Dorit Reiss. The latter, a renowned vaccine troll, sends a reply email to Hawkes saying ‘Congratulations!’ The subject heading of the email Reiss is replying to is; Concerns about special issue ‘Aluminium Adjuvants, Vaccines and Adverse Events’ this being the subject heading of an email originally sent by Hawkes to the Editor-in-Chief, Paul Tchounwou, of the MDPI journal hosting the special issue. In this email, dated 7^th of July 2019, Hawkes helpfully points out to Tchounwou that I (Dr Exley) am being manipulated by known anti-vaccine scientists to get their discredited research published in a creditable journal. One day later the estimable Tchounwou passes on Hawkes’ concerns to a managing editor at MDPI Bonnie Wang asking her to investigate his claims. Within a week, Wang is writing to Hawkes and Tchounwou, email dated 15^th of July, to announce that she has taken action to remove the special issue from the journal. Ms Wang is lying. I never received any correspondence from anyone at MDPI concerning removal of the special issue. I wrote to the editors dealing with the special issue on the 11^th of July 2019 to ask that the special issue be withdrawn. Why Ms Wang, representing the publisher MDPI, chose to lie to Tchounwou and Hawkes about this is again open for debate but does not endear one to the publisher.

Hawkes responds to the email from Wang by sending himself an email in which he writes ‘Ka pow’ ‘First time I have managed to have a special issue removed!’ This email by Hawkes to ‘self’ is the one received by Dorit Reiss and no doubt other vaccine troll associates. I wrote to Tchounwou and Wang offering them an opportunity to defend their actions but neither replied. Hawkes and his bcc’d cronies will no doubt be disappointed to learn that all papers destined for the special issue are now published in first class journals. His victory was very short-lived but it is yet another example of how journals and publishers are being dictated to by external disruptive forces. In this case the Editor-in-Chief, Tchounwou, was more than willing to have the wool pulled over his eyes by a ‘nobody’ like Hawkes. Seemingly preferring his opinion to that of my own in this matter. I hope that my unanswered emails to him on this matter at the very least have caused him some personal embarrassment.

End of book excerpt

As an active scientist I acted as a peer reviewer of manuscripts on hundreds of occasions. I took this role on freely and with integrity. I believed that peer review was part of the job of an academic and an integral part of progress in science. Over decades of service I rejected many more manuscripts than I accepted.

I always began the review of a new manuscript in the same way. I asked the question if the design of the experiment and the associated materials and methods were sound. Only when I was convinced that the scientific method was sound would I bother to review the remainder of the manuscript. Results based upon unsound materials and methods were irrelevant and not worthy of spending any time to review.

I have approached Weisser’s new paper in the exact same way and I am appalled. In truth none of my criticisms of her previous study, reviewed in Flog a Dead Horse, have been addressed. Am I surprised.

Weisser’s new study has been carried out solely to prove that aluminium administered to an infant in a vaccine adds nothing to the infant’s body burden of aluminium compared to dietary exposure. Essentially she has produced a mathematical model to predict infant exposure to aluminium through vaccination. Clearly for such a model to be helpful, never mind predictive, the data entered into the model must be of the highest quality. Only cursory reading of the Materials and Methods section of her paper is required to immediately appreciate the paucity of her critical model data. For her data on oral exposure to aluminium in infants she relies wholly on documents provided by the EFSA (European Food Standards Agency). Not science but policy documents provided by a regulatory body wholly influenced by industry.

Perhaps even worse, for all her other input data including that relating to aluminium exposure through vaccination she relies upon Pharma (Patient Information Leaflets) and her previous flawed model criticised in my Flog a Dead Horse substack post.

Weisser has no understanding of human exposure to aluminium and she proves this over and over again in the nature of the references she cites in this flawed but highly dangerous new paper. She is wrong in so many areas of aluminium toxicity in humans that if I had been the original reviewer of her manuscript I would have simply informed the editor that submitting such nonsense for peer review is insulting to the process and is either the product of serious laziness or, and perhaps more likely, is the equivalent of a striker diving in the penalty area, i.e. cheating.

I have reviewed the Materials and Methods of this new paper in some detail and I have posted numerous comments on the pdf version of the paper. I am not going to go through these details herein, they are not the purpose of my musings. However, should this paper by Weisser ever come up under any circumstances to support the continued use of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines I will be ready and willing to destroy this paper as and when required.

Karen Weisser, where is your integrity as a scientist. The horse is dead. Aluminium adjuvants have had their day and caused immeasurable misery. The time is nigh for their removal from vaccines.

My dear friend and fellow freedom fighter, Aaron Siri, informs us today through his substack that the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), quite a mouthful, is meeting tomorrow (28th April 2026) to find the ‘true root causes of autism’.

Really?

Aaron helpfully provides a link to a document informing us about the make-up of this recently appointed committee. He also provides a link to the live meeting so that we can all benefit from the wisdom of the IACC as well as listen to Aaron flogging the proverbial dead horse for his allotted three minutes.

Why am I experiencing a severe case of deja vu on hearing the announcement of this meeting tomorrow. Could this have anything to do with my non-appearance at the last ACIP meeting in December last year.

A meeting that while being fraught with possibilities delivered only few probabilities. At least the meeting concluded with an assertion to understand more about the role of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines and an indirect promise to include such in the next ACIP meeting. The latter, of course, never happened but before the ACIP meeting was cancelled there was no evidence that aluminium adjuvants were to be included on its agenda.

Returning to tomorrow’s meeting of the IACC. Curious as I am I took a look at who is sitting on this important committee. I should never have looked as it left me feeling hopeless.

I am not going to win any popularity contest by protesting that the IACC is a committee for committees sake. It is a committee to make everyone outside of the science of profound autism feel included. A genuine political moment encapsulated in yet another committee.

Where are the scientists on the IACC? Where are the individuals that have spent their lives at the bench doing science to understand how infant vaccination is the true origin of profound autism. Where are the pioneers of such research like Romain Gherardi or Christopher Shaw. Where are those very few special scientists continuing this research to this day, for example, Jerome Autier, Guillemette Crepeaux and Lluis Lujan. Who on the IACC has examined the brains of individuals dying with a diagnosis of autism and provided the detailed neurodegenerative changes that together define the neurodevelopmental disease called profound autism.

I wonder, who in the IACC is aware that we have a realistic mechanism of the cause of profound autism.

Aaron Siri is himself a pioneer, a lawyer who probably understands as well as any scientist how and why aluminium adjuvants are the root cause of profound autism, and this rant from myself is not meant as a criticism of him and his great contribution to this field. However, why is Aaron given three minutes to talk to the IACC? Where are the scientists giving evidence to the IACC?

I am going to take a wild guess that in addition to there not being a single scientist active in autism/vaccine research on the IACC there will similarly not be such giving three minutes of evidence to the IACC.

What will be achieved tomorrow? About the same as was achieved at and following the ACIP meeting last December. Nothing. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!

I turned up at Keele13 without my luggage and only saw this again upon my return home about a week later. I am telling you this so that you might forgive my attire in the film covering the event.

We were honoured to have Del Bigtree and his team at the Highwire covering Keele13 and in memory of the last Keele Meeting on Aluminium (RIP) I am very pleased to share his film of the event with you here.

Enjoy. I do miss the Keele Meetings.

This is how criticism of published science is conducted. Not any more. Below is an extract taken from my book Imagine You Are An Aluminium Atom.

Extracted Text

In another example of how publishers, this time Elsevier, are heavily influenced by external forces I recall how one day I came across, essentially out of the blue, a published Letter to the Editor about a paper I co-authored in the journal Toxicology. The notorious pro-vaccine troll David Hawkes was one of the authors of the letter. When I asked the Editor-in-Chief, Hans Marquardt, why we were completely unaware of it and, as is usual practice, we had not been given the opportunity to reply to the letter prior to its publication he answered in an email I have reproduced verbatim below:

Dear Dr Exley,

of course, you are absolutely right : I should have contacted you before publishing this letter. I have no explanation for this oversight. I sincerely apologize for this my mistake. I hope you can accept my apology.

Best wishes YOURS Hans

Professor Dr med Hans Marquardt

Subsequently he offered us a retrospective right of reply that we accepted and we submitted a rebuttal letter pointing out the true identities of the letters’ authors and how they had purposely not declared their background affiliations as a conflict of interests. Our rebuttal letter, copied in full below, was, almost immediately and as promised, published by Toxicology. Once again, contrary to the usual rules, they did not show our letter to Hawkes and Benhamu or review it in any way prior to its publication.

Letter to the Editor

It is somewhat understating the case to say that we were surprised to learn of the publication by Toxicology of a Letter to the Editor (Hawkes & Benhamu, 2017) which addressed our recent publication in the same journal (Crepeaux et al., 2017). We had not been informed about this Letter and so we had not been offered any right of reply to the Letter. An apology for this ‘oversight’ has since been forthcoming from the Editor.

Letters to the Editor of a highly reputed journal such as Toxicology are considered as publications in their own right. In this respect we are not aware if the Letter by Hawkes and Benhamu was peer-reviewed? Our manuscript received rigorous peer review as would be expected and it might also be expected that any Letter questioning the scientific content of our published paper would be peer-reviewed and that this process would probably involve the original reviewers of our manuscript. If such a process had taken place it is highly likely that the Letter by Hawkes and Benhamu would not have been published. Peer review would have established that the criticisms relating to our science were unfounded and only reflected the inexperience of the writers of this Letter in the field of aluminium adjuvants. We do not consider that we should now spend our time pointing out why the criticisms are either scientifically inept or simply ill-informed opinions. Again it is important to stress that our paper has already been thoroughly peer-reviewed by Toxicology unlike the Letter by Hawkes and Benhamu.

However, thorough peer-review of this Letter by Toxicology might have revealed the true motivation behind it. It would have revealed that the authors are both administrators and activists on behalf of a lobby group (Stop Australia’s (anti) Vaccine Network, SAVN) and spend a considerable amount of time criticising in print (usually in non-peer-reviewed blogs such as The Conversation) anyone or any group that publishes excellent and peer-reviewed science criticising the safety record of human vaccines. Hawkes and Benhamu must have been delighted when the highly esteemed journal Toxicology published their Letter, their attempt to blur the evidence that the toxicokinetics of aluminum adjuvants are very poorly understood and deserve in depth evaluation.

In their Letter, Hawkes and Benhamu suggest that we have not been straightforward about our connections with the not-for-profit organisation, Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI). We made it clear in the paper that the study was part-funded by the French Drug Agency ANSM, by CMSRI and by the University of British Columbia. Since none of us receive any form of ‘financial compensation’ (to use their phrase) from our roles on CMSRI’s Scientific Advisory Board, we deemed that such was sufficient in respect of possible conflict of interests.

Readers of Toxicology may like to note that neither Hawkes nor Benhamu revealed their clear conflict of interests, namely their involvement with the SAVN lobby group. Actually Hawkes and Benhamu were purposely vague in respect of their affiliations in that Hawkes suggests, incorrectly, that he is currently a staff member at the University of Melbourne and neither of the affiliations given by Benhamu have even heard of her! The use of these reputable affiliations as a front was clearly an attempt to deceive the Editor in believing that the authors of the Letter were credible.

The co-authors of Crepeaux et al. are all scientists and we all seek the truth even if such may be unpalatable to some. We do the best science that we can with the funding that is available and we subject it to the most rigorous peer review as we did in the case of this paper. We welcome open and constructive criticism and we expect the journals that publish our research to treat it with the respect it deserves. Unfortunately through an apparent ‘editorial oversight’ such was not the case this time.

Crepeaux, G., Eidi, H., David, M.O., Baba-Amer, Y., Tzavara, E., Giros, B., Authier, F.J., Exley, C., Shaw, C.A., Cadusseau, J., Gherardi, R.K., 2017. Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: selective low dose neurotoxicity. Toxicology 375, 48–57.

Hawkes, D., Benhamu J., 2017. Questions about methodological and ethical quality of a vaccine adjuvant critical paper. Toxicology 389, 53-54.

Professor Christopher Exley (on behalf of all authors)

The Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom. c.exley@keele.ac.uk

Not long after the publication of our rebuttal letter, we received an email from someone called Mihail Grecea a so-called publishing ethics expert at Elsevier. As you will see below, not only was Hawkes and Benhamu’s letter about our research not peer reviewed by Toxicology but neither was our rebuttal. Elsevier had published our letter without reviewing its content until it was published. The email from Grecea informed us that our letter would now need to be withdrawn as it included false information concerning Hawkes’ affiliation. We had pointed out in our letter that Hawkes had used the University of Melbourne as his affiliation in his letter and not his actual full time employment at the Victoria Cytology Service, a private company promoting and selling the HPV vaccine. Before making this assertion in our rebuttal letter I had investigated Hawkes’ claim to be a member of staff at the University of Melbourne. I searched for his name using the University’s website search option and found no evidence of him. Allowing my curiosity to get the better of me I then asked various contacts at the University of Melbourne, and specifically the department he cited in his affiliation, if Hawkes was currently a staff member. Curiously I did not receive a single reply from anyone I emailed on the staff at the departments listed by Hawkes as his affiliations. Finally an extensive search on the web revealed that Hawkes is not listed as a staff member of any department at the University of Melbourne. When all of this detailed information was sent to Mihail Grecea at Elsevier they replied by sending us a link to the University of Melbourne’s ‘Find An Expert’ website where Hawkes’ affiliation with a division within the University, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, is listed as ‘honorary’. This honorary affiliation is also not an active web link on this somewhat peripheral website. Under no circumstances, at the time of writing the letter to Toxicology, was Hawkes a current member of staff at the University of Melbourne. I think that most reading this information would conclude that our allusion to Hawkes being somewhat liberal with the truth about his connections to the University of Melbourne was correct. However, Elsevier did not see it this way and insisted that our letter be withdrawn. It should be noted at this point that Elsevier’s ‘publishing ethics expert’ Mihail Grecea found nothing untoward in any other aspect of this charade including Hawkes’ non-disclosure of his clear conflicts of interests and the barrage of editorial errors made by Hans Marquardt and Elsevier’s publishing team. Only we, apparently were in error.

While very unhappy with this decision, I suggested that the only fair outcome would be if both Hawkes’ letter and our reply letter were withdrawn. I received the following reply from Kendall Wallace, the then co-editor, now Editor-in-Chief, of Toxicology.

Prof. Exley,

Let me introduce myself as co-editor with Prof. Marquardt for the Elsevier journal Toxicology. I corresponded with Prof. Marquardt Wednesday and we both agree with your latest email that Dr. Hawke’s letter should be retracted as well. Prof. Marquardt is presently preoccupied with other matters and some of the Elsevier staff has left for the Holidays, so it may be that we won’t be able to execute this retraction as quickly as we would hope. However, I assure you of our intentions and that both Hans and I will be working with Elsevier over the next few days to submit a letter of retraction as soon as possible.

I hope this satisfies any concerns you may have. Thank you,

Within just a few days of my receipt of this email, with Hans Marquardt hurriedly retired by the journal and no longer replying to any emails, Kendall Wallace went back on his decision to retract the Hawkes letter and did so without providing us with any reason. Indeed, he never corresponded with me directly about this decision. He, the Editor-in-Chief of the renowned journal Toxicology, was clearly embarrassed by being forced by someone in Elsevier to change his previous position. To steal and paraphrase an appropriate quotation from the great English bard, Shakespeare, ‘something was very rotten indeed in the state of Elsevier’ and it remains so to this day.

End of Extracted Text

Coming back to the present day, almost a decade on, imagine our surprise on receiving an email from Elsevier’s latest Publishing Ethics Expert, Dr Francesco Papi concerning our same paper from 2017. Dr Papi wished to bring to our attention, not a Letter to the Editor, but comments about our paper published anonymously on the notorious trolling platform known as PubPeer.

In the first instance one has to wonder why a supposed legitimate publishing company such as Elsevier would be looking to address anonymous comments made eight years ago on a wholly corrupt website.

I should reiterate that PubPeer has been shown to be a sham organisation fully supported by those with interests in Pharma and beyond. To read more about this scandalous trolling organisation read here and here.

So why is Elsevier demanding that authors, in this case us, address completely anonymous comments on a notorious trolling platform. Clearly someone with a modicum of influence within Elsevier and perhaps scientific publishing in general has sufficient power in prompting Editors and ethics specialists to have certain papers primarily on the subject of vaccines to be retracted. It is probably not a coincidence that the individual posting the comments on our work on PubPeer uses the Latin name for a PLANT, Hoya camphorifolia, as their disguise. See figure below.

The individual is clearly a plant/stooge working on behalf of Pharma and/or the aluminium industry. Perhaps more pertinent is why the attacks on our research are being made right now. Clearly comments made on PubPeer almost a decade ago had no impact at the time. Someone is looking to resurrect these anonymous comments in an attempt to have damming research on the subject of aluminium and vaccines removed from the published literature.

One such candidate must be the aforementioned David Hawkes. However, there is a new kid on the block called Alexei Morozov, a more disingenuous individual you will not find anywhere. Take a look below at the email he sent to me last year.

On Saturday, 14 June 2025 at 14:41, Алексей Морозов <moroza01@yandex.com> wrote:

Dear Professor Exley -

I am a Russian writer working on my first book. It is about the history and the future of medicine. I am fascinated by your pioneering work and read your book. Could I ask you a few questions?

Thank you,

Alexei

Many of my colleagues received something similar and some even met with him.

Now feast your eyes on what this Russian/American pharmaceutical executive is actually writing about. In particular note the paragraph copied for you below.

Now here is an individual who is actively looking to have peer-reviewed, published vaccine safety science retracted. He is, of course, not working alone and he has been brought into the story as a consequence of the appointment of RFK Jr as head of Health and Human Services in the USA. He is surely part of Pharma and the aluminium industry initiative that I have called Circling The Wagons.

Intriguingly, we have recently heard back from Elsevier’s Dr Papi that any concerns raised on PubPeer and elsewhere were actually addressed in a Letter to the Editor published in 2018 and this brings the matter to a close. Really? I am not so sure that Hawkes, Morozov et alia are finished yet. We are bracing ourselves for the next anonymous attack on our science and on our integrity. Watch this space.

I think it is important to stress at this point that the aluminium content of human brain tissue can only be measured post mortem. Unlike for example iron, the chemistry of aluminium does not lend itself to any form of non-invasive measurement or imaging. However, this limitation in the measurement of brain aluminium should not deter any attempt to lower brain aluminium content by therapeutic means. For example, regular drinking of a silicon-rich natural water will help to remove aluminium from brain tissue since lowering the aluminium concentration in blood will drive aluminium from the brain and across the blood-brain barrier.

Remember, the blood-brain barrier is not impermeable it is selectively permeable. In addition foreign substances for which there are no naturally selected transport pathways, such as aluminium, may pass out of the brain down concentration gradients by a process known as residual leakiness.

We have two sets of what I might describe as control brain tissues.

The first set are tissues from 20 individuals classified by the London Brain Bank as brain tissues taken from donors without any overt signs of neurodegenerative disease and importantly brain tissues without any clear neuropathology characteristic of neurodegenerative disease. A statistical summary of these tissues is shown below.

The full data set is available through our seminal publication.

As a ballpoint figure the data suggest that a brain aluminium concentration below 1.0 ppm dry wt. is not associated with any form of overt neurodegenerative disease.

The second set are tissues from 12 individuals classified by the Multiple Sclerosis Brain Bank as brain tissues taken from donors without a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. A statistical summary of these tissues is shown below.

The full data set is available through our publication.

Similarly with the first data set the cut-off for no overt signs of disease, in this case multiple sclerosis, was 1.0 ppm dry wt..

This second data set was complicated by the fact that 8 out of 12 of the control brains came from donors who died of some form of cancer.

I decided to compare the two control data sets and I asked my esteemed colleague and statistician Dr Elizabeth Clarkson if the two sets of control brain tissue were significantly different from one another. They are not and this means that in the future should I wish to do so the data sets can be pooled to produce a single control group including brain tissues from 32 individuals.

Many of you, looking more closely at the raw data, may have noticed that brain tissue taken from individuals who died with some form of cancer was higher than the non-cancer subgroup. Indeed if the cancer subgroup consisting of 8 individuals is compared with the remaining non-cancer subgroup consisting of 24 individuals then we find that the brain aluminium concentration is significantly higher in the cancer sub-group.

One can only speculate as to the possible significance of higher brain aluminium in the cancer sub-group of the neurodegenerative disease free control group. Perhaps cancer brought their lives to an end before any overt symptoms of neurodegenerative disease were evident. Personally I prefer this conclusion as compared to a recent suggestion in an animal model that cancer protects against Alzheimer's disease.

We know that aluminium has no essential role to play in any living organism and we can safely surmise that its presence in human brain tissue is unwanted. We can even go further as I have done with respect to Alzheimer's disease and conclude that no aluminium in brain tissue means no neurodegenerative disease and no neurodevelopmental disease, the latter meaning no profound autism.

Tetra Pak were not happy about Tim’s literature and immediately set about bringing this then small company to its knees through the courts. They threw the book at Tim and Musashi and literally put the future existence of the company in jeopardy. I never actually understood how but Tim knew who to call and I was more than happy to help.

Coincidentally with at that time the Olympics in Sydney, the name Musashi was taken from the Japanese philosopher Miyamoto Musashi who wrote ‘A Book of Five Rings’ and contained within this masterpiece is the saying; Know your enemy, know his sword.

Tim clearly lived by this philosophy and together we set about dismantling Tetra Pak’s case against Musashi.

Tim knew that the nascent Musashi’s future was in danger from the action of Tetra Pak and he employed a brilliant young lawyer called Peter Collinson to represent Musashi’s interests. Peter was sent to spend about a week with me at Keele where he very quickly became expert in the subject of aluminium and human health. He stayed with my wife and I in our home so that he could eat, sleep and breathe aluminium. Not literally of course and especially as I had then in 2001 yet to understand the therapeutic potential of silicon-rich natural waters.

As part of the philosophy of Musashi, know your enemy, Tetra Pak was asked to provide all of the information that they relied upon in contesting the suggestion by Tim that Tetra Pak packaging might contaminate stored product with aluminium. This they did with gusto and included data pertaining to their in-house experiments on the release or not of aluminium by their product. The arrogance of Tetra Pak at this time brings to my mind today the similar arrogance shown by Stanley Plotkin when deposed by my good friend Aaron Siri (see Aaron’s Injecting Freedom substack if interested in this). Tetra Pak could not conceive that they might just be wrong.

But how wrong they were. While I was able to cite numerous examples in the peer-reviewed scientific literature of the fallibility of Tetra Pak’s laminate packaging (cardboard outer layer, aluminium foil middle layer, polythene inner layer) and in particular the not so impervious nature of the polythene inner layer, much, much more damaging were their own inhouse data!

I was able to show unequivocally using Tetra Pak’s own data supplied upon request to Musashi that their revolutionary trilaminate packaging (coincidentally developed I believe by Mr Tetra Pak at Reaseheath College just down the road from Keele) contaminated stored product with aluminium.

I wrote up my report and the next thing I knew I was flying to Sydney in early September 2001 to appear in the Federal Court of Australia New South Wales on behalf of Musashi.

Well, I say to appear but everything did not turn out as I had assumed. Tetra Pak employed a local analytical chemist Dr Trevor Florence as their ‘expert’. Dr Florence’s limited research on aluminium was known to me through his published papers though his understanding of aluminium and human health were soon put to rigorous test by Peter Collinson. Florence impressed no one.

I waited and waited for my day in court but to no avail. It transpired that Tetra Pak would not risk the damage to their reputation that would be incurred by their cross examination of my report and my knowledge. I found this highly disappointing at the time.

Let me share with you what Musashi actually wrote about aluminium in their marketing.

Another problem associated with Tetra Pak products is the possibility of Aluminium being released into the products. Tetra Paks are made from paper and plastic which is bonded to a layer of aluminium. Aluminium is a heavy metal which if found in the body can prove to be very toxic. With Tetra Pak products designed specifically for extended shelf life, the possibility of aluminium leaking into the products increases over time. Although it is still unclear as to what levels of aluminium we could expect in a tetra pak, what we are certain of is that once in the human body, it is a chemical that will do more harm than good.

Essentially the whole case against Musashi and Tim Horewood specifically centred upon the nature of the language that was used. In a nutshell the judge ruled that at the time Tim wrote this he could not actually support the statements made. He was not writing from an informed opinion. For this reason the judge found against Musashi in this general respect. However, the judgement conceded that information and data provided by myself gave substance to the opinions. For this reason other judgements were in favour of Musashi.

As it is said, at the end of the day, Musashi survived and is today Australia’s premier supplier of such products for fitness and health. I am proud of my role in securing Musashi’s future. I also enjoyed the whole experience including my one and only trip to Oz!

Reading more deeply into the subject I came across research by Fridovich and colleagues published in the esteemed journal Free Radical Biology and Medicine in 1992. In my seminal paper published in the same journal in 2004 I wrote;

Fridovich and co-workers showed that the rate of oxidation of NADH by either photochemically or enzymatically generated superoxide was increased threefold in the presence of aluminum. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) inhibited only the aluminum-induced effect and not the initial rate of oxidation whereas catalase did not influence either reaction rate. The authors suggested that the catalytic influence of aluminum indicated ‘‘the formation of an oxidising complex from Al(III) plus superoxide.

With my interests in the bioinorganic chemistry of aluminium the concept of a aluminium-superoxide complex resonated with me and I began to look for evidence of such a complex.

I found such evidence but only in the anhydrous state, that is in the absence of water. Aluminium was predicted to form a strong metal-superoxide complex with equally impressive oxidant power. See the figure below.

I needed to find evidence that superoxide could form a stable complex with aluminium in water if such a complex might explain the pro-oxidant activity of aluminium in animals, plants and in vitro.

My colleague at Keele at the time, Professor George Truscott, an eminent scientist in redox chemistry, provided the vehicle for such evidence. He surmised that if superoxide bound aluminium then this would inhibit the interaction of superoxide with beta-carotene. George was an expert in the redox chemistry of beta carotene. The first data to specifically test the formation of an aluminium superoxide complex are shown in the figure below.

The data were the first tentative demonstration of the formation of an aluminium superoxide complex in aqueous solution. Thank you George!

This is the equation that describes the formation of a semi-reduced superoxide radical aluminium cation.

While the presence of AlO₂^·2+ is yet to be observed directly in any biological context (the spectroscopically silent nature of Al suggests this may never be possible) I am extremely pleased to report that its existence has been proven in silico as has its redox activity in reducing Fe(III) to Fe(II). Many thanks to Professor Xabier Lopez for this outstanding research. Xabi is the world’s leading computational chemist working on aluminium.

A final note on the aluminium superoxide complex is that its activity is almost completely abolished by the enzyme superoxide dismutase. This tells us that Al³⁺ cannot compete for binding the superoxide radical cation in the presence of the dismutase, the enzyme that through natural selection controls the redox power of this free radical. However, in those chemical and physical compartments where the superoxide radical is formed in the absence of the dismutase, an example of which might be the senile plaques found in the brains of individuals with Alzheimer's disease, superoxide binds aluminium and promotes the extensive oxidative damage observed in the vicinity of such plaques.

It is my understanding that much of the toxicity of aluminium in biology can be attributed to oxidative damage promoted by the semi-reduced superoxide radical aluminium cation, AlO₂^·2+, and the citation metrics of my seminal paper, Google Scholar currently showing 581 citations, suggest that many agree with me.

I am proud of this contribution to science.

Today, Hotez remains a leading light in promoting vaccine safety propaganda and is perhaps only usurped in this capacity by Paul Offit. I first came across Offit when it was brought to my attention that he had authored a piece on the CHOP website in which aluminium was described as an essential element for normal brain function in new born infants! I write in the past tense since this piece of nonsense has since been removed. I have been unable to find a copy of this to post here so if anyone out there has a copy of this historic CHOP piece by Offit then do get in touch.

Offit has enjoyed his power as an ambassador for the vaccine industry and along with other industry stooges has celebrated his victories against science. Further evidence of such practices was brought to my attention by my good friend Aaron Siri. In a FOI request Siri came across email correspondence between Offit and someone called Dorit Reiss, a foot soldier in spreading misinformation on vaccine safety, and I have copied their brief appreciation of myself below.

Offit’s bigoted views and corrupt vaccine safety science ruled the roost for many years and he has been lauded not only by industry but also the bought establishment. The arrival of RFK Jr as head of HHS has cut Offit’s umbilical cord and unless his brain aluminium is high enough to protect him he knows that his suffocation is imminent.

This fall in Offit’s stature as a credible vaccinologist now takes the form of curated nonsense (non science) in complicit medical journals. Moser and Offit is the latest example of such. This Perspective article published in JAMA is almost certainly not peer-reviewed. I have emailed the Editor-in-Chief of JAMA to ask about the peer-review status of the paper and I have not had a reply. What I can tell you is that a previous version of this paper was submitted to the journal Pediatrics and was rejected by both reviewers (though strangely not be the journal that asked for major modifications and resubmission).

The present incarnation of this industry propaganda courtesy of Moser and Offit is fraught with ignorance. Let us examine just a few points.

The opening statements include the following;

Aluminum has been known to enhance immune responses since

1926. Although its presence as an adjuvant in vaccines has led to

scrutiny, studies spanning 2 decades from multiple countries have

not identified health concerns related to quantity or route of

exposure. Still, some continue to question the safety of aluminum

in vaccines.

Note that Offit does not conclude that peer-reviewed published science has not identified health concerns relating to aluminium adjuvants. Offit actually concludes that health concerns have not been identified relating to ‘quantity’ or ‘route of exposure’. So, he accepts that aluminium adjuvants per se have been associated with health concerns but that these health concerns occur regardless of the number of aluminium adjuvants received. It is anyone’s guess what he means by route of exposure since there is only one route of exposure, vaccination.

Next he writes;

Aluminum Processing

Regardless of exposure route, soluble aluminum in the bloodstream

binds with transferrin (91%), citrate (7%-8%), hydroxide

(<1%), and phosphate (<1%). Approximately 50% to 70% is excreted

in the urine within 24 hours and approximately 83% within

2 weeks. Small quantities (~2%) remain for years.

Here, conveniently Offit cites discredited aluminium industry (Priest) research in describing incorrectly the fate of soluble aluminium in blood. He purposefully denies the role played by a host of blood borne cells such as lymphocytes and macrophages in the transport of significant quantities of aluminium throughout the body. This is unusual in itself in Offit does not deny the role played by aluminium adjuvants in the immune response only that such aluminium has no apparent role in the health effects of aluminium. Clearly Offit believes there are two types of aluminium. That which is potentially toxic (soluble aluminium), but he says actually isn’t, and aluminium adjuvant that isn’t really aluminium at all.

Offit is at his most obscure best in what follows;

Aluminum Health Effects

Although aluminum can be toxic, experience with aluminum induced

health effects supports aluminum safety in vaccines.

Offit makes it clear in this section, if it wasn’t clear already, that this paper in JAMA could not have been peer-reviewed. Even the most tolerant of experts on the health effects of aluminium would not allow his nonsense statements on kidney, bone and brain disease to be published. Referring to earlier in this post, such statements by Offit remind me of his previous statements on the CHOP website stating that aluminium is an essential element in the brain of new born infants, diminishing in its content over time as the infant ages and no longer requires aluminium!! Yes, this was what he wrote on CHOP up to just a few years ago.

Offit’s references for the nonsense rely wholly upon reviews written by the aluminium industry, e.g. Lidsky. Desperation indeed.

Offit continues his defence of the safety of aluminium adjuvants by citing another vaccine industry stooge from the PEI in Germany, see my post Flog a Dead Horse, and

of course, Daley et al., the ‘old’ CDC at their very worst!

Offit’s dismissal of the seminal research of my great friend Romain Gherardi saddens me. This is what he wrote;

Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants

(ASIA) is also discussed as a vaccine safety concern. Macrophagic

myofasciitis (MMF), a collection of aluminum-containing macrophages

in muscles where aluminum-adjuvanted vaccineswere administered,

has been associated with ASIA; however,MMF lesions

have also been found in people without symptoms of ASIA

Offit’s dismissal of MMF since he doesn’t think it fits with Schoenfeld’s ASIA must be one of the most ludicrous bits of logic possible.

MMF is a disease caused by aluminium adjuvants as recognised by multiple peer-reviewed studies and recently a case in law.

Finally Offit wrote;

Aluminum From Vaccines

Assumptions that 100% of injected aluminum reached the

bloodstream quickly were replaced with an understanding that aluminum adjuvants

remain in granulomas near the injection site, slowing

antigen release (ie, depot effect) and decreasing the likelihood

that single-day vaccine-associated aluminum exposures would exceed minimum risk

levels. Even with periodic exposures that could

exceed daily minimum risk levels, aluminum from vaccines was found

to be safe.

If ever there was text to confirm Offit’s complete ignorance of aluminium whether generally or in vaccination (where perhaps he should know something?) this is that text. He shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of aluminium adjuvants and how they help to boost the immune response.

Offit actually seems to suggest that aluminium adjuvants are not taken up by immune-reactive cells such as macrophages and transported throughout the body including of course to the lymph glands where they facilitate the immune response.

I am actually at a loss as to how Offit can write such uninformed gibberish never mind being allowed to publish such in what is supposed to be a medical journal of some standing.

Offit’s last stand (which is what this paper represents) has all the feeling of Custer’s Last Stand and is yet another example of what I have coined circling the wagons.

Many moons ago in the life of Dr’s Newsletter I wrote a post suggesting that the aluminium industry was on the run. It is and with the help of giants like RFK Jr it will be defeated.

Addendum

Chris Shaw found this for me. Taken from the CHOP website in 2015

.

If you have also followed the comments on this post then you will know that I began a complaints procedure with the BBC about this documentary. I have now received a reply from the BBC’s Executive Complaints Committee (ECU), their final word on my complaint.

Let me share this new correspondence with you.

I was asked by the ECU to elaborate upon my initial complaint. I have copied this text, my elaborated complaint, below.

My Complaint

‘The documentary misled the viewers into believing that beyond the coroner’s inquest into the death of Carole Cross in 2013 that there had been no further scientific investigation into the deaths of Cross, Gibbons and a third victim, Winn. Regarding the latter, the film makers interviewed Winn’s daughter in person and yet they made no reference to this victim in the film. The further research on the victims, in each case requested by the respective coroner with the support of the family, demonstrated in peer-reviewed published science that aluminium was implicated in their deaths. Cross died from an extremely rare form of Alzheimer’s disease brought about by aluminium in her brain. This was also the narrative verdict of the coroner Michael Rose. A narrative verdict because it is impossible to know for certain where the aluminium in her brain came from. Even though Mr Cross knew this and would have spoken at length to the film makers about this, the film makers made only scant reference to this and even edited out my name from their interview with him. Gibbons died from an epileptic fit. His epilepsy was brought on by aluminium in the hippocampus of his brain. Adult onset epilepsy is extremely rare. None of this information was forthcoming in the film even though all of this information would have been included in their interview with Gibbons’ family. The film offered absolutely no information as to the cause of death of Gibbons. Mr Winn died from an aggressive form of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease brought on by high levels of aluminium in his brain tissue. The case of Mr Winn though pivotal in implicating aluminium in the deaths of all three victims was not mentioned at all. His daughter Rosie Winn was most upset about this omission.
Only three victims of Camelford received brain autopsies at a coroner’s request. All three had high levels of aluminium in their brain tissue.
I was interviewed at length by the film makers by telephone and zoom. These interviews were recorded with my permission. I provided unique insight into the poisoning of the Camelford population by aluminium. I provided all of my published correspondence on Camelford. I provided all of the peer-reviewed published science that supports the assertion that aluminium was implicated if not the cause of death of the three victims already mentioned. I offered face to face interviews if required. At the time, the film makers appeared extremely grateful for my input and continued correspondence with me by email for many weeks if not months.
None of my contribution was included in the film. Indeed, my name was edited out in an interview given by Mr Cross. However, this censorship of my name and the science that proved a role for aluminium in the deaths of Cross, Gibbons and Winn is by itself less important than the way in which the public were misled into thinking that there had not been extensive research into the deaths of Cross, Gibbons and Winn. We know that aluminium in their brain tissue contributed if not caused the deaths of Cross, Gibbons and Winn. One could never be certain that this aluminium originated from the contaminated drinking water but it was wrong of the film makers to censor what they knew about these deaths and to keep this information from the viewers. Quite shameful in my opinion and no different to the various ‘cover ups’ by Clayton, Lawrence and SWW mentioned in the film. One has to wonder why the film makers behaved so badly and produced such shoddy journalism.’   

So that is my complaint. Let us now examine how the BBC’s ECU addressed my complaint.

The correspondence from the ECU arrived by email on headed notepaper. Occasionally I will interrupt the text of their reply with my comments in bold type.

Letter From the ECU

Executive Complaints Unit Room 4057, 4th Floor, Zone E British Broadcasting Corporation Broadcasting House, London W1A 1AA

Dr C Exley

Via email: drchrisexley@protonmail.com

6 February 2026

Ref: CAS- 8258091

Dear Dr Exley

Poison Water, BBC Two, 26 November 2025

Thank you for your email to the Executive Complaints Unit about the above programme. As you may know, this unit considers complaints that material, broadcast or published by the BBC, has failed to meet its editorial standards as set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

In your correspondence to the BBC you say that the documentary was “deceitful” because it left the viewer believing that the deaths of two of the people most closely followed in the programme, Carole Cross and Richard Gibbons, have not been the subject of peer-reviewed published science.

This is incorrect. I pointed out that there had been significant further peer-reviewed science beyond that mentioned (or actually not mentioned) in the documentary.

You point out that your research team at Keele University, on coroners’ requests, carried out full investigations into the brains of both Mrs Cross and Mr Gibbons after they died. You say that “in both cases aluminium was the leading cause of congophilic amyloid angiopathy (CAA), an aggressive form of Alzheimer’s disease in Carole Cross and adult onset epilepsy (Mr Gibbons died from an epileptic fit) in Richard Gibbons”. You add that this information is available in peer-reviewed scientific literature and moreover all of this information was supplied to the people who made the documentary but not included in it. You also make the point that despite you giving extensive time being interviewed by the programme team, none of your contributions were included in the final film.

In order to respond to you I have watched the programme and considered it against what the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines say about Accuracy. They state that BBC content should be “duly” accurate, with “due” defined as “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. In practice this means the context is an important consideration when deciding what information is necessary in a particular article or programme. Audiences should not be materially misled.

While I’m very sorry the documentary did not meet your expectations, I’m afraid I do not agree that there has been a breach of the BBC’s guidelines in this instance.

The documentary is not categorical, nor does it need to be, about the amount of scientific research carried out into the deaths you reference, nor does it deny the existence of peer-reviewed literature. But it clearly and in my view accurately summarises the Coroner’s verdict following the death of Carol Cross.

My point is not that it denies the existence of peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to the deaths of Cross and Gibbons but that it does not mention such literature at all.

For context, below is the section of the programme which dealt with the coroner’s verdict following that inquest:

Reporter: (archive): It’s not only Douglas Cross who has been waiting for the verdict on his wife Carol’s death. It’s also had implications for those now living in Camelford and the entire water industry. Today the coroner Michael Rose ended the wait – it’s what he had to say about the worst mass poisoning in the UK 24 years ago that made the headlines. Mr Rose didn’t mince his words He said that the old South West Water Authority, which was responsible for water at the time, had gambled with the lives of 20,000 people. Giving his verdict the coroner said the incident could have contributed or caused death but there wasn’t enough evidence to say so conclusively.

Voice of journalist (present day): Were you pleased with that verdict?

Doug Cross: I wasn’t pleased with it but it was the only one that was possible, at least he hadn’t denied there was any link... he simply said in maybe another 40 years we may know. But I think the evidence is quite convincing that Carol was killed, as were the others, by exposure to that incident. I can’t prove it, because I’m a scientist I know what proof is. But I’ve got a damn good idea what I think.

I consider these statements make it adequately clear to viewers that, while Mr Cross believes the scientific evidence is strong, a definitive causal finding was not reached at inquest, as you yourself acknowledge.

One has to wonder why the documentary relied upon words from a reporter (archival) concerning the coroner’s verdict on Cross. Why not use the official published narrative verdict. Indeed the documentary makers interviewed the coroner, Michael Rose, why not use words from the horse’s mouth. No, the viewer is denied these wholly reliable sources of information and is presented with an inaccurate version from a reporter outside the coroner’s court.

Moreover, the existence of scientific evidence had been strongly referenced earlier in the programme here:

Doug Cross: Well, she (Carol) just basically collapsed at home, and I had to call the ambulance. So I went to the hospital and I was absolutely exhausted by then. So I was woken next morning to say, we’re sorry, but your wife has died.

And that’s when the consultant in charge of the ward asked me, “Is there anything in her past which could suggest what has happened here?” I said, “the only thing I can think of is the Camelford incident” and he looked surprised. “What’s that?” And I described aluminium poisoning, we thought. And there was a German locum doctor there who was in the same team and he said “we see lots of cases like this aluminium poisoning in Germany”.

And then the consultant looked at me and said, “what do we do?” I said, “the only thing I can suggest is that we need to have brain samples to find out what the hell’s going on”. That is the only way to detect if that was responsible.

He found more aluminium in her brain than any he had ever seen in any case of Alzheimer’s. It was enormous. This is probably why she died so quickly. She didn’t have a chance and that is what happened.

I think the section above illustrates it is not the case that “viewers of Poison Water were left believing that there had not been any scientific follow-up on the deaths of Carole Cross and Richard Gibbons” as you suggest in your correspondence.

So the ECU now move the goalposts slightly and rather than address my points about peer-reviewed published scientific evidence they now use the terms ‘scientific evidence’ and ‘scientific follow-up’. The former cited by the ECU appears to be an opinion from a German locum doctor at the time while the latter, ‘scientific follow-up’ appears to be something carried out by ‘He’.

I know that Doug Cross will have gone into great detail about my involvement in analysing his wife’s brain. Doug has Asperger’s, he is very particular about detail. Yet, the documentary censors my name and makes no reference whatsoever to the peer-reviewed published research that I carried out on Carole Cross’s brain. Have you ever come across a more blatant form of censorship? The ECU does not even address my complaint about this. Ignorance is bliss for the ECU.

Note that the references to Cross by German locum, husband and ‘he’ are taken by the ECU as also covering the total lack of any information relating to the death of Gibbons. Once again, they do not even address my concerns about the third victim Winn.

I should add that while there is no mention of the inquest of Richard Gibbons, in the course of the programme viewers were given some detail about the events leading up to his death and as you can see from the quote above, Mr Cross makes reference to there also being convincing evidence for the Camelford incident being the cause of death of “others” in line with that of his wife.

This should be taken in context of the documentary in the round, in which a very clear timeline about the Camelford incident was set out for viewers. Right at the outset viewers were told via a caption: “July 1988. North Cornwall suffers the biggest mass poisoning in British history. But the truth of the incident is kept from the public“. Viewers were shown how a tanker of aluminium sulphate solution was poured in error directly into the mains water supply. They were then shown the delay in warning affected members of the public, and the many reports of health problems – some long lasting – in the aftermath. Finally, as illustrated above, an accurate summary of the coroner’s verdict in the case of one of the victims – Mrs Cross – was set out.

An accurate summary of the coroner’s verdict on Cross. Ludicrous considering the points I have already raised on this subject.

I appreciate your view that more information should have been included referencing the research you mention in your correspondence. However, I should point out that BBC editors and journalists are entitled to use their judgement to decide which stories to report and the manner in which they are reported so long as the resulting output meets the standards for due accuracy, due impartiality, fairness and so forth, which I consider to be the case here for the reasons I have set out above.

The ECU say ‘more information’, no information concerning any peer-reviewed published science on the deaths of Cross, Gibbons and Winn is included anywhere in the documentary.

Because of this, I cannot uphold your complaint. There is no further right of appeal against this decision within the BBC’s complaints process but if you do wish to take the matter further, it is open to you to ask the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint. You can find details of how to contact Ofcom and its complaints procedures here. You can also write to Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, or phone 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Greenwood

Complaints Director

As subscribers to Dr’s Newsletter you will need to decide if my complaint has been adequately addressed by the Exley Censorship Unit or ECU.

In concluding this sorry affair I can recall that during one of my telephone conversations (recorded) with the documentary film makers I warned them that the BBC would never air anything that I have told them about Camelford and its victims.

I asked them if they had a contingency plan, perhaps an alternative platform for airing the documentary. They laughed and said they were confident that they had full independence in making the film and no concerns about it being aired by the BBC.

I wonder what the film looked like when the film makers Kezia Sheard (kezia@button-down.co.uk) and Hannah Lowes (hannah.lowes@keofilms.com) presented the BBC’s documentary commissioner Emma Loach (emma.loach@bbc.co.uk) with the first uncensored version, assuming they even got that far.

My co-author on that paper is Dr Elizabeth Clarkson an experienced statistician. Dr Clarkson has asked me to bring to your attention her new paper on obfuscation in autism statistics. Dr Clarkson has written a commentary on her paper and I urge you to read this, copied below, to put her new paper in context.

Eschew Obfuscation

I wrote the article “The Obfuscation of the Confounded Relationship between Vaccines and Autism” published in the Public Health Policy Journal.

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am a retired professional statistician. I started college at Wichita State University fall semester 1976. I was 17. My parents paid my tuition until I graduated, but I supported myself after the age of 21. I worked at a variety of jobs while attending college classes such waitress, nurse’s aide, and office clerk. After graduating with an M.S. in math, I started work at Boeing as a Quality Engineer. I got my M.S. in Math while I worked full time there. Boeing reimbursed tuition and expenses for that endeavor.

After 4 years at Boeing, I took the test and was certified as a Quality Engineer by the American Society for Quality from Dec 1987 to Dec 2023. I was laid off in 1998 and gave birth to my youngest in 1999. I started work at Wichita State University fall semester 2000, teaching math full time and began taking graduate math classes. I moved to the National Center for Aviation Research (NIAR) in 2005. While working full time there, I completed my Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, concentrated in Statistics, from Wichita State University in 2010. When I got my Ph.D. I was over 50 years old, working full time at NIAR, and raising two children alongside my husband. I retired from NIAR in 2024.

I give my credentials, because it is this professional background that primarily shapes my views about the accuracy of the public information regarding vaccine risks and benefits. You don’t have to agree with my conclusions, but I hope you will consider that my opinion regarding this matter is based on my professional expertise, not any inherent bias regarding vaccinations in a general way. I vaccinate myself, but not with every recommended vaccine. I vaccinated my children when they were young, but not with every recommended vaccine.

I give my history of pursuing education part-time while working full-time because many people with my background are never able to achieve the credentials I have. Life intervenes. People die, get sick, take on other responsibilities like children. Without the benefits and good fortune I had regarding tuition assistance, adequate income, adequate health, and most importantly a supportive family, employers, and university, I would not have succeeded. I want to acknowledge all those that worked and struggled but didn’t succeed at such lofty educational goals despite their talent, intelligence, and effort. I worked hard, but I was also lucky.

I want to amplify that without degrees or even formal education, people can and do correctly suss out that the published science supporting the safety of the vaccines routines recommended to all parents is not what has been claimed.

When people without degrees question vaccination policy, they are often intimidated by those working in the field with professional credentials telling them they just don’t understand the scientific evidence and often admonishing them that they should not try to read scientific papers without adequate educational background. That simply isn’t true! I wrote my article hoping it will help convince people who have the drive to ask questions after reading studies on vaccination to continue to ask questions until satisfactory answers with adequate evidence are provided by some individual or organization they trust.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. Numbers don’t lie, but liars sure can figure.

Have you ever heard of Harry Markopolos? How about Bernie Madoff? Mr. Markopolos spotted Madoff’s fraud years before the scandal broke. Wikipedia says:

From 1999 to 2008, Markopolos uncovered evidence that suggested that Bernie Madoff‘s wealth management business was a huge Ponzi scheme. In 2000, 2001, and 2005, Markopolos alerted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of his views, supplying supporting documents, but each time the SEC ignored him or gave his evidence only a cursory investigation.

I ask about Markopolos, not Madoff, because he, like me, was a statistician. When people make up data rather than reporting it honestly, there are often telltale signs and patterns that statisticians can learn to spot. Harry realized the data was too perfect to have come from the imperfect reality we live in. Too close to perfect is a common mistake in creating data that dishonest people make. It is a sign of manipulation in numbers.

Mr. Markopolos found such evidence when he looked at Madoff’s data. He reported it. His findings were ignored. Madoff’s ponsi scheme did not merit concern from the government employees charged with acting on such frauds until the stock problems of 2008 made it impossible to him to continue it. He ruined many of his clients financially by stealing their money and then lying to them with false numbers.

The people I have interacted with in federal agency roles throughout my professional career were sincerely trying to do their best. I was never asked to alter data throughout my career, not when I worked in Industry and not when I was in Academia. If asked, I would have refused. I suspect my co-workers all realized that and would not have approached me for such favors.

However, I was perfectly willing to discuss alternative analysis approaches in an effort to provide them honest information that better suited their needs, which could impact what was reported. And I did occasionally detect truthfulness issues in data I was provided in both settings, but that was rare. More often, lies were hidden in the things that weren’t said and weren’t researched than in the findings of the research that was published. Dishonesty, whether by deliberate lying or via evasion and obfuscation, is a human problem that quality professionals have been grappling with since the field began.

Scientists can be expected to be about as honest as any other group of humans. Most humans don’t tell deliberate lies. Deliberate lies can lead to catastrophic outcomes, such as Madoff’s victims experienced. Instead, people prefer to obfuscate and distract, avoiding direct lies and direct responsibility for the outcomes of lies.

Scientists working in public health and vaccine science are the minions, not the villains of corporate take-over. They are simply producing the science their corporate funders have asked for. This is because the public isn’t funding much of the research. Industry is. And even when public dollars are used, that research is directed by those at the top of the captured regulatory agencies, who are working hard to produce a regulatory environment that satisfies the industry.

The result is that vaccine safety research reads like people are trying very hard to not see the elephant in the room. Studies touch on this aspect or that, but the whole may be completely different from each isolated and examined detail, none of which shed any light on just how big the elephant is. The study recently released via Senate hearing Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children gives us a glimmer though.

My experiences as a quality engineer have led me to coin the following axiom: Where the obfuscation is, there lies the root cause that needs to be illuminated and acknowledged before it can be dealt with.

Or, put another way, sunlight disinfects.

Industry capture of regulatory agencies

The problem – and the consequences - of government regulators failing to recognize problems and take action in a timely manner is all around us. Bernie Madoff’s crime is just one that become famous. There’s even academic terminology to study it: industry capture of regulatory agencies.

Here are few relatively recent consequences I attribute to failure of regulatory agencies

FAA: Boeing planes crashing or bits falling off.

DOT: The Palestine railcar disaster

CDC: Covid19 Response

FDA: Infant formula shortage

In my opinion, all of these failures occurred due to the weakening of regulations, both formally and informally, due to corruption from industry funding of regulatory agencies. While it’s not possible to predict exactly which scenarios will happen or when, catastrophes of that size and impact were foreseeable. They happened because regulations were tweaked over time to lessen the costs to the industry of meeting those regulations. Quality assessment work takes time and effort, which is always expensive! Not to mention that excessive regulation has its own shortcomings. The regulatory burden can easily become so excessive it stifles innovation.

The root cause of all those catastrophes is industry capture of regulatory agencies. When the industry supplies a high proportion of the funding for the regulatory agencies they deal with, as in the U.S. currently, the agencies deal with them as customers, clients who are inherently more important than the public. My understanding is that this started when President Reagan changed policy to allow industry funding of regulatory agencies in the 1980’s. The outcome of that change, decades later, are regulatory agencies that have adapted to serve the industries they are charged to regulate. As a result, regulatory agencies publish scientific research geared to provide the information that the industry kings want, not the information the plebes want.

Vaccine safety studies routinely run tests and publish conclusions with the null hypothesis assuming that there is no increase in adverse events. They are presuming the vaccine is safe, and unless evidence is found to the contrary, that presumption prevails. This is a formulation of the null hypothesis that favors the vaccine industry over the health of the general public.

When it takes a professional statistician to recognize that formulation of the null hypothesis and what it means, the general public is forced to decide who they believe – the official government agency or some Ph.D. who disagrees with their conclusions for arcane theoretical reasons.

Whatever someone’s background level of education and knowledge, they must decide who to trust, who is telling the truth. Scientific credentials are not needed to recognize conflicts of interest, obfuscation, lack of direct answers to questions, etc. inherent in the decision making process. To decide to withhold compliance regarding vaccine recommendations on that basis is understandable. This social problem will not be solved through science. It can only be solved through politics, revamping our laws governing regulatory agencies to remove corruption and restore trust by funding them only via taxes.

Further Discussion

Many members of my family do not support or agree with my views on vaccines. Because of this, and because I am not looking forward to the hate I will receive for having published this paper, I do not want to court publicity regarding the paper. On the other hand, I do want to make myself available to those who have read it and have questions or other concerns to make known to me.

I am planning to only discuss this paper in this facebook group: Alternative Vaccine Talk: A CIVIL Evidence Based Discussion Group

This group was set up when I was banned from the facebook group “Vaccine Talk” (VT). I was quite upset when that happened. I expressed my sadness on a private chat with some internet friends I had made while posting there. A few of us had become friends and we vented privately about the moderation at VT. On the whole, VT wasn’t kind to posters who didn’t agree with their pro-vaccine stance regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, but they did moderate for civility unlike the comments on most other forums. I find the venom routinely directed at anyone considered anti-vax to be too abrasive and require moderated spaces for discussion about vaccines.

After I was banned from VT, the other participants in our private chat decided that they would create a safe space for people who weren’t pro-vaccines to discuss the pros and cons and ask questions. There would be no shaming directed at those who decided against vaccination. It will be a safe space for me to answer questions and receive feedback on my article without being subject to the verbal (written?) abuse so common in other forums.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this musing on Dr’ Newsletter and specifically Dr Clarkson’s new published paper. Like many in the field of truth and freedom Dr Clarkson is one of the brave few and her efforts are to be applauded. I find myself at the front of the line celebrating her work.

Listen carefully to the ‘intro’ where reference is made to ‘health in a can’! Love it.

Enjoy!

In an attempt to remedy some of this I decided to post unpublished research herein in previous, imaginatively titled posts, Parkinson’s Disease and Aluminium and…..

Parkinson’s Disease and Aluminium II.

Herein I will share some further unpublished research showing aluminium in brain tissue in individuals who died with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The first brain section is frontal cortex and demonstrates the co-localisation of neurofibrillary tangles, NFT (Thioflavin S staining; image 1) and aluminium (Lumogallion staining; image 2).

Image 1

Image 2

Note in particular in image 2 intraneuronal aluminium and the presence of NFT (image 1) in the same neurone.

You may recall that the co-localisation of aluminium and NFTs is the subject of a recent post on Alzheimer’s disease and Dr Daniel Perl.

While NFT are known to form inside neurones they are more often observed in the extracellular space, the neurone having died leaving what are often referred to as ghost tangles.

Does the observation in PD tissue of aluminium and NFT in an intact neurone suggest a role for either or both in the neurone’s demise?

There are other similarities in the neuropathology of AD and PD. In the next brain section of frontal cortex we observe a senile plaque (Thioflavin S staining; image 3) composed of amyloid beta protein and aluminium (Lumogallion staining; image 4).

Image 3

Image 4

Aluminium is clearly associated with the neuropathological hallmarks of PD.

I have written about congophillic amyloid angiopathy (CAA) in a number of previous substacks. CAA describes the association of amyloid beta protein with brain vasculature and CAA is also a feature of PD.

In the following brain section of the parietal cortex we see significant CAA (Thioflavin S staining; image 5) and the co-localisation of aluminium (Lumogallion staining; image 6) with the observed CAA.

Image 5

Image 6

Note also in image 6 above significant staining for aluminium in the blood vessel to the right of the CAA. Just in case you are in any doubt as to presence of aluminium both co-located with amyloid protein in CAA and in cells in the adjacent blood vessel take a look at the control brain section, image 7, below.

Image 7

Autofluorescence in image 7 confirms the presence of aluminium in these structures in this section of the parietal cortex in PD.

Don’t let anyone tell you that aluminium is not intimately associated with the neuropathology of PD. We have proved this in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and I am demonstrating it herein in substack using previously unpublished research. The latter only being the case because of my untimely removal from academia.

There are many more images to share with you but I don’t want to bore you!

I thought you might be interested to hear and see a little of what I planned to present before being cancelled.

Enjoy!

If you would like a free copy from the publisher then please use this link before it expires on February 17th 2026.

Happy New Year!

I have recently mused on the subject of Alzheimer’s disease and promised to recap with you how a silicon-rich mineral water imbibed each and every day will help to ward off this terrible disease. Those of you with time on your hands this holiday might like to watch a talk I gave on this subject a few years ago, a presentation that somehow has survived the censorship of YouTube. If you are diligent and patient and watch through to the end the talk will tell you everything you need to know about how and why we should all be drinking silicon-rich mineral waters.

If you prefer the platform of substack to get your fix on this subject then may I recommend some previous musings including;

and of course for the chemists among you;

I know that many subscribers to Dr’s Newsletter also appreciate a quick fix so in summary for those of you like me with all the Christmas cooking still to do;

When you drink a mineral water that contains at least 30mg/L (ppm) ‘silica’ (as often written on the bottle) or more acurately at least 14mg/L ‘silicic acid’ (the soluble and hence biologically available form of silicon) you will excrete systemic aluminium in your urine. You will remove aluminium from every tissue in your body.

Peer-reviewed science published in esteemed journals such as the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and eBiomedicine prove this concept.

Unfortunately we had neither the time nor funding to provide definitive answers to common questions such as;

How much silicon-rich mineral water should I drink each day.

For how long should I drink a silicon-rich mineral water before I may notice the benefits.

Is there a dose response, for example, is it more efficient if I drink a water that includes 50mg/L silicon as opposed to 30mg/L.

Our published clinical trials involving healthy adults, individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and individuals with multiple sclerosis used a variety of different silicon-rich mineral waters and drinking regimes. They were all effective in facilitating the removal of aluminium from the body in urine.

I am faced with the same ambiguity as everyone else and I choose to treat silicon-rich mineral waters as a philosophy for healthy living. I drink at least 0.5L/day each and every day without exception.

Finally, and I am going to write this in bold.

No silica/silicon supplement or home made silicon-rich water has ever been shown in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to facilitate the removal of aluminium from the human body.

Silicon-rich natural waters are Nature’s, or if you prefer, The Maker’s gift to all living things. Accept this gift and protect yourself against the tyranny of aluminium this Christmas and every Christmas.

Happy Silicon-Rich Christmas!