Aluminium Adjuvants and Vaccines
A marriage everlasting
In my last interview with Del Bigtree on The Highwire I sounded the alarm regarding the future of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines. I urged against complacency and warned that next generation vaccines would continue to rely upon aluminium adjuvants. Well, we now know this to be true direct from the horse's mouth. The latest vaccine industry funded paper entitled ‘Aluminium Adjuvants - Back to the Future’ leaves no doubt that the vaccine industry is not contemplating a future without aluminium adjuvants. The paper is published in a special issue of the journal Pharmaceutics called Designing and Developing the Next Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants. The vaccine industry will continue to use aluminium adjuvants well into the future. They will continue to promote the injection of aluminium into our body, from new born infants to vulnerable individuals and the elderly.
Their rationale for continuing the use of aluminium adjuvants? Well, first and foremost, though not mentioned in this latest review, is cost. As I have written about in previous substacks and in my book, aluminium adjuvants are dirt cheap, they add absolutely nothing to the cost of a vaccine. Why would industry invest in new adjuvants when aluminium adjuvants are effective and cheap. The bottom line is always the deciding factor for profit-led industry. However, their cost effectiveness is not worthy of a mention in this latest industry review. The major selling point for aluminium adjuvants in this paper is ‘their excellent safety profile, which has been established through the use of hundreds of millions of doses in humans over many years’. This stomach churning statement, taken from the abstract of the published paper, is pure aluminium industry speak. It reminds me of their often used defence of the safety of aluminium, wheeled out at many scientific meetings, that the fact that aluminium is present throughout the body must prove that it is good for you. The fact that such a statement is in the abstract of this paper demonstrates that it went unchallenged by the so-called peer review process. Indeed there is no evidence that this paper was peer reviewed. The Guest Editor of the Special Issue where the paper is published is the lead author of the paper. The Editor of Pharmaceutics is a vaccine industry stooge. This journal, published by MDPI (see my criticism of this publisher in my book), is simply a vehicle for the vaccine industry to legitimise their messages regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
It is, of course, common knowledge and scientific fact that the safety of aluminium adjuvants in humans has NEVER been tested for any vaccine in use today. To my knowledge the only vaccine ‘safety trial’ where a saline control was used was carried out by Merck on Gardasil. The results of this trial, available through clinicaltrials.gov, showed an incidence of serious adverse events of 2.4% both for the whole vaccine and for the aluminium adjuvant alone while the incidence was 0% for a saline control. Make of this what you will but my interpretation is that an unacceptably high incidence of serious adverse events in recipients of Gardasil was due to the aluminium adjuvant.
Further indirect evidence of the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants comes from the work of vaccine advocate Peter Aaby working in Guinea-Bissau, Africa. He has shown in multiple studies that mortality in children receiving aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines is significantly higher than unvaccinated children. He does not find a similar effect in live attenuated vaccines that do not use an aluminium adjuvant.
Any form of true peer review of this paper in Pharmaceutics would have prevented such lies from being published. The true safety profile of the use of hundreds of millions of doses of aluminium adjuvants in humans is all about us for anyone willing to look and see. True epidemics of industry sponsored human disease including Alzheimer's disease and autism. Shame on those in scientific publishing who turn a blind eye to the truth and worse promote lies that can only result in further human suffering and death.
Very interesting, especially just after Jessica Rose's Substack on the importance of sticking to the original, correct definition of placebo i.e. saline solution and nothing else. Like the word 'vaccine' the officially accepted meaning is veering towards something which better suits the interests of pharma.
Check out the section on the entirely unvaccinated (post-birth) who DID get the "vitamin" K shot, and/or the mother was vaccinated during the pregnancy in this published paper on the Control Group study. (Graph on page 10 of the PDF.) HERE: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/40/163
The k-shot alone (with zero vaccine exposures) produces autism. There were only two autism cases in the post-birth unvaccinated population, and BOTH of them were found in the group exposed to the K-shot and/or pregnancy vax. About 30% of the "control group" (post-birth entirely unvaccinated) were exposed the K-shot, and/or pregnancy vax, and yet, this group accounted for almost 80% of the health conditions reported in the study.
I was curious about the mothers who got vaccinated during pregnancy but then refused vaccines for their child after they were born, (seemed odd) so I started calling them for follow up. The only answer I got, was that the women who were vaccinated during pregnancy produced "medically fragile" children and were for the first time, now suspicious of vaccines - because of the problems their baby was born with, i.e., things like microcephaly, a major organ defects, etc.
The only justification I could find for aluminum in the K-shot was the claim that it helps "balance the PH", which of course makes no sense. I routinely balance the PH in my pool with SAFE things. It would never occur to me to dump oxidized aluminum into the pool.
Godspeed Chris.
I believe the ONLY reason they chose to use aluminum was to produce autism and other vaccine-related injuries in "unvaccinated" children. And so pharma's logic is: "See here? There is an 'unvaccinated' child with autism. So therefore vaccines do not cause autism."