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.
At this point, I am done seeing any possible excuse for the "placebo" injections. Even ordinary medical "saline" is now sold with aluminum in it, so....
It's entirely unnecessary to inject anything at all in the "controls" because there is ZERO evidence that a person's beliefs ALONE will produce or prevent brain damage, cancer, etc., in the "controls" who received nothing. Nor is there any evidence a person's beliefs alone will produce these injuries in the "treated" group.
The entire concept of a "placebo" has been turned on its head. The origin of this theory was that sometimes it appeared a person could HEAL (from an existing problem) because they believed they had been given medicine, when really they'd only gotten a sugar pill. But the truth is, they never knew how many healed from a sickness merely because this is already what the body WANTS to do anyway.
The idea that the human body cannot naturally recover from sickness (without SOMETHING from a doctor) was the first lie. So whenever someone healed after being given a sugar pill, they decided it must have been because of their beliefs, which could only have been caused by something the doctor gave them, and could not possibly be attributed to the body's own ability to want to heal itself.
I don't mean to discount the idea of "mind over matter" which I firmly DO believe in. I even see evidence that a person can end up dead if they believe their disease is going to kill them. But taking the "placebo" effect to the extreme of suggesting someone might suddenly produce a brain injury or cancer, etc. (or avoid them) merely because of their beliefs about an injection is an upside -down perversion of the origin of the "placebo effect". And it's merely a justification for making sure the "controls" are injected with SOMETHING so they can make sure the injury rates between the treated group and the controls look similar. It's just a tool for furthering their scientific frauds.
I am STILL searching for any evidence a newborn baby has any beliefs at all about injections that would affect their health outcomes. There is NONE. And yet, they conduct these asinine "control" injections on them as well.
Nothing at all except a subject profile and monitoring is an entirely adequate control. Not everything is psychological! The original definition of placebo is anything pleasing, typically flattery. See Psalm 114:9 in the Vulgate. https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/psalms/114-9.html
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."
Yes. And this why the ONLY autism cases found in the entirely unvaccinated controls, were found in the minority K-shot group.
Also, neurodevelopmental disorders and other types of brain and nervous system injuries were not found in the entirely unvaccinated who ALSO avoided the K-shot. There are MANY types of brain and nervous system injuries caused by aluminum.
One of my protest signs reads:
"Autism is BRAIN DAMAGE! Vaccines cause BRAIN DAMAGE. Please READ the vaccine inserts."
Another favorite:
"Got brain damage? Unvaccinated kids do NOT have brain damage."
With all due respect to Dr. Exley, I do not think they understands how vaccines and adjuvants work. There has to be some kind of toxin in a vaccine for the vaccine to last in a healthy body or it will simply pass through the healthy body in a few days. So the question is on vaccines is why is it needed? Are there other ways to heal the body back to health without any toxins being given? How long do you want the vaccine to last in a typical body? The more toxic the vaccine is the more likely to last in a body, but the more other kinds of damage the toxin will do to the body.
Literally ANY toxin injected directly into the body will produce an "immune reaction."
Inject feces and you'll get a similar immediate reaction and it would probably be far safer than these metals. They CHOOSE to use things like mercury and aluminum because the vaccine programs are for DEPOPULATION.
Also how toxic something is depends on even's one own body. How healthy are one's kidneys, one's liver. Someone in top health may be able to expel a toxic substance better than someone who is in poor health.
True. Still though, better not to REPEATEDLY inject useless and destructive/toxic chemicals (and metals, nanotech, etc.) when there is ZERO evidence any net GOOD can result from it;-)
I have been bitten by a brown recluse spider. I survived. It wasn't a good thing just because my body handled it. If I can avoid it happening again I will.
There's too much profound evidence of injury and death from the jabs. And when you drill down to it, far MORE lives have been destroyed/ended than even their most exaggerated (and hypothetical) claims of "lives saved" with their injections. So why put your kidneys/liver through that process? What about the cumulative effects of repeated exposures?
And what about the break down of your IMMUNE SYSTEM? How T-F is this systematic attack on the human immune system supposed to reduce "infectious" disease, or any other type of disease for that matter?
Oh, the other thing here is this: They ASSUME these metals have been "filtered" and excreted, However, the evidence shows us the REASON it is eliminated from the bloodstream is because it is STORED in the brain and other tissues, where it remains and causes long-term damage.
They ONLY check blood levels, and if these drop, it is ASSUMED that your body cleared it up. They have never ONCE done the required urine (or feces) examinations in order to PROVE that this crap actually LEFT anyone's body. Chris's work PROVED that it's stored in the BRAIN - where it accumulates and reeks havoc.
Pharma LIES. The FDA LIES. The CDC LIES. Those metals do NOT leave the body unless you follow up with serious chelation and other protocols.
Vaccines MUST have some kind of adjuvant, other wise known as toxin, in them or it will simply pass through a healthy body in a day or two. No vaccine manufacturer can get a vaccine on the market if the vaccine is only going to be useful for a day or two once injected. An adjuvant whether aluminium, mercury, or whatever, acts as a preservative in the body for the vaccine.
Yes autism can be caused by aluminium or other heavy metals in vaccines though, but I think you do not understand basic facts on vaccines.
I will try again. Aluminum is a heavy metal and yes can indeed cause autism if used in a vaccine. There are other heavy metals used in vaccines that can cause autistic like behaviours. The heavy metals in vaccines are called adjuvant and act like a preservative in the body when used in vaccines. Heavy metals are NEUROtoxins. That is heavy metals affect the body NEUROLOGICALLY. An adjuvant is a toxin in the vaccine, though a adjuvant may be described as a preservative in the vaccine. It is necessary to use adjuvants in ALL vaccines, since for the most part, the vaccine will just pass through a healthy body if there were no adjuvants. Since there probably are adjuvants in all vaccines, as the general intent of a vaccine manufacturer is to have the effect of the vaccine last longer than a few days, then all vaccines are unhealthy in some way.
We always need to have a talk about what adjuvant is in a vaccine, how long the adjuvant last in a typical healthy body, and it is necessary to even have a vaccine in the first place as studies have shown that over all health of a nonvaccinated person versus a vaccinated person tends to be better as again by it's very nature an adjuvant is toxic to the body. Also need to talk about alternatives to having vaccines in the first place. For whatever reason people were censored during covid plandemic when discussions arose on what can be done for the health of people instead of taking a shot.
Aluminium is not a heavy metal. It is not a preservative, you are perhaps getting mixed up with the heavy metal, mercury. Might I respectfully suggest that you read my book to improve your understanding in this area.
Dorothy, Chris's work proved that the aluminum adjuvant does NOT leave the body. It goes to, and is stored in, the BRAIN causing both short-term and long-term damage. Other work has proven the same thing happens with the mercury.
Your idea that the body "clears" it is just wrong. It is one of the MANY lies we've gotten from the pharma industry. The DEMONS (who work for pharma $) check blood levels ONLY. And because the metals are stored in the tissues, it does "clear" from the bloodstream. But this does NOT mean it has left the body.
Chris is the WRONG person to feel you must correct here. His history and work on the vaccine issue is lengthy, deep, detailed, and completely accurate. If not for him, many more people would still believe the aluminum "clears" from the body. He gave us the definitive answers. He's a VERY important man in the fight to end this nightmare.
I do not care to the wording or anyone's definition of a word. Any vaccine/shot given will probably have a toxin in it (unless placebo) If it doesn't have some kind of toxin in it, then it will just pass through a healthy body in a few days. For the most part, manufacturers will not be allowed to manufacture a shot that last just a couple days in the body. That is how the body works. That is the way the body works for you, for me, for everyone. This doesn't change if you write a book either.
However, ever since the FDA approved of aluminum to be added to their "excipients" list (generally considered safe) they can now include aluminum in ANYTHING without listing it as an ingredient. Now, they (secretly) add aluminum to regular saline bags. It's in EVERYTHING.
However, ever since the FDA approved of aluminum to be added to their "excipients" list (generally considered safe) they can now include aluminum in ANYTHING without listing it as an ingredient. Now, they (secretly) add aluminum to regular saline bags. It's in EVERYTHING.
@Joy, a few constructive criticisms of your interesting and important paper:
1. Main comment: in a footnote in the main report you state: "The one exposure that raised associated risks dramatically, in every sector where it could adequately be measured, was the maternal vaccine, in many cases raising the associated risks well above the National averages for the 99% post-birth vaccinated population." 30% (just MV + K-shot) vs 27% (vaccinated population) being the figures. This is surely nonsense. The 99% post-birth vaccinated population will also have had maternal vaccine(s) & K-shot, so the statement implies that there is basically no additional risk of post-birth vaccinations if you have already had MV & K-shot, and that it might slightly reduce the risk from 30% to 27%! I think the problem here is your 27% figure is a completely different source of data (CDC) than your 30% figure (your surveys). So this comparison lacks validity. It would indeed be a very interesting finding if such an overwhelming majority of vaccination risk is confined to maternal or K-shot exposure, but that seems to have a lot of sense standing against it, and your data is not rightly used in making that conclusion. The paper would be considerably more useful if you also acquired equivalent survey data for the vaccinated population. Then some light might begin to be shed on this question.
2. Related to the above, this creates internal contradictions in your first chart (https://tinyurl.com/5dvt97z6), where the unvaccinated group actually have a subgroup that are worse off than the vaccinated group. This needs some explanation.
3. Table 2 in the paper presents figures for only one chronic condition which exactly match those in the full report (chapter 14) for *at least* one chronic condition. There is quite a difference between having only one condition, and at least one condition. Which is it?
4. In your main page of survey charts (https://tinyurl.com/5dvt97z6) the second chart (adults) has the first blue bar as bigger than the yellow bar that sits atop it. It should be the other way round according to the numbers to the right (12.5 vs 4.49).
5. Much more useful and understandable to readers to stick with a consistent set of metrics rather than 3 sets of slightly different metrics in Chapter 9, 10 and 14 of full report (preferably just using the full dataset rather than just USA). There are nuances of distinction between *A and/or B* and *A with or without B* which just add unnecessary complexity. I don't see the need and it makes processing the data for the reader unnecessarily difficult, with no obvious return.
Anyhow, I don't intend these criticisms to detract from some very useful data in the paper, report and charts, but perhaps you can make some updates to address some of these.
Your assumption that 100% of the "99% vaccinated population" has ALL been vaccinated while in the womb (pregnant mother vaccinated) is WRONG.
In 2020, it was 50% of the pregnancies that were vaccinated in the U.S.. Your assumption that in-utero vaccine exposures could not possibly be more dangerous than post-birth vaccine exposure is WRONG. Do please show me the study that proves your two points are correct, as follows:
1. Where is the study proving that 100% of all post-birth vaccine-exposed were also exposed to vaccines in the womb. (You cannot find this one because it doesn't exist. I got my 50% pregnancy vaccination rate for the U.S. directly from the CDC.)
2. Where is the study proving that it is NOT more dangerous to expose a developing fetus to vaccines than to expose them to vaccines after they are born? Again, you cannot provide such data because it doesn't exist. It is while the cells are splitting that it's MOST dangerous for a mother to expose her infant to chemicals/toxins. TONS of literature exposing this as the TRUTH does exist. For reference, see THALIDOMIDE. But the defects can be more subtle that missing limbs. For instance, the child could be set up for IMMUNE SYSTEM issues, leading to cancer, diabetes, thyroid issues, heart problems, or any number of other chronic conditions leading to an early grave.
"Your assumption that in-utero vaccine exposures could not possibly be more dangerous than post-birth vaccine exposure is WRONG."
I never actually said or assumed this, and suspect the opposite may well be true. Rather, if you read me carefully, I said it is nonsense that having MV and K-shot *but not* post-birth vaccinations is equal or worse than having MV + K-shot *and also* post-birth vaccinations. I still think that is nonsense. You respond saying only 50% of vaccinated group had MV and K-shot. Fair point, but that is an important piece of data to be evaluated, and deserves some extended scrutiny and discussion in your paper & report. As does the CDC 27% figure which, at least from what I have read of your study, you do not seem to have established is comparable data with that acquired from your survey (e.g. what questions & criteria did the CDC use to get 27%? Do these differ from your own? etc).
The problem that remains with your analysis is that in order to establish the relative danger of pre-birth vaccines (and K-shot) with post-birth vaccines you need to isolate the post-birth vaccinated group that have also had MV + K-shot, and also the post-birth vaccinated group that has not. You've indicated you don't have this as they are lumped together. Hence my central point remains: your study lacks the resolution required to get a proper sense of the relative danger of pre-birth vaccines & K-shot.
Don't take offence at this, I'm just suggesting a way your study could be improved by collecting such data. I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm very much in favor of this work being done, and would likely chip in to a crowdfund if someone were to propose doing it.
Jul 11, 2023·edited Jul 11, 2023Liked by Dr Christopher Exley
There is No longer ANY doubt in my mind that Pharma, Politicians, Regulators, Know the facts & thus causing harm is deliberate. the analogy is knowing the truth & remaining silent when one ought to speak the truth, is as bad as lying. They Know. Thank you Dr. Exley
THANK YOU for calling out lies and deceit where you find them, Dr. Exley. Some days when I look back, I still cannot believe what the world went through in the last 3 years. These criminals just took over unopposed and mowed us down. Cheers for your great work and steadfast loyalty to the Truth. Blessings.
A better approach might be to make sure there is no future whatsoever for vaccines. More people need to understand that contagion is a fraudulent concept. It has never been proven despite dozens of documented attempts. "The Contagion Myth" covers this. People need to understand that viruses don't exist and that bacteria don't cause ill health (blaming flies for the poop or firemen for the fire). Bacteria gather where diseased tissue is on the menu. Vaccines = poisons. "Virus Mania" is a good first reference.
So is virology a science? no, it's PROPAGANDA which is used to drive fear and huge wealth transfers from us to them. I was one of the naive "people" until 2020, but "covid" made me wake up and research - so I understand how hard it is come to terms with a new paradigm. "What Really Makes You Ill" is helpful in this regard. BTW the idea of an "antigen" in a vaccine is also a dopey concept. Vaccines are basically tissue cultures (no virus required!) - full of debris from animal and human origins + aluminum to make your arm red & sore so you think it's "working".
Pg 90 of an infamous text called "Imagine you are an aluminum atom" lists 37 diseases for which aluminum is involved. This table is a fascinating resource. e.g. Obesity and arthritis related to aluminium!
I wonder if we should add allergies? In animal-based allergy research, aluminium hydroxide is used as an adjuvant to impart sensitivity to a particular protein. For example, to make a lab rat allergic to peanuts just give them peanut protein along with aluminium hydroxide. Rinse and repeat. So do we have an explanation of why so many people in the aluminium injected western world are allergic to their food etc? If a baby is injected in the spring does it become allergic to whatever pollen is in the air at that time? (my speculation). Here is a reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7301762/
To add insult to injury, while preparing this comment, I read that in Europe alum is added to "vaccines for treating allergies"!
Are there any plans to offer your book in German? Thanks
Only a few copies have been sold in (American) English, I doubt the publisher will consider a translation. However, this paper may answer some of your question.
I just speed read through this (your) paper. "Aluminium adjuvants and adverse events in sub-cutaneous allergy immunotherapy". Most interesting, many thanks. So now I am confused. Aluminium is used to not only amplify the allergic response to a chemical or protein or whatever but also to attenuate the response as in "allergy shots"? Can we have it both ways? I looked up "allergen immunotherapy" at Wikipedia and it failed to disclose the use of aluminium. 1.25 mg seems like a huge dose of aluminium adjuvant in allergy shots compared to the ~0.4 mg in a vaccine. So allergy shots could be far worse, especially for Al toxicity, given how many times the shot is repeated. Perhaps this would be a good hot topic for a weekly blog? I thought I was well read but I had no idea about this.
I wouldn't be surprised if nickel and aluminum allergy play a major role in the increasing number of people suffering from eczema, asthma, hay fever, etc. The thing is, only nickel has a skin provocation test, I am not sure if aluminum is even on the radar?
It is more than obvious to me that all vaccines are useless without poisons to get 'em going. Then they become even more useless as they toxify you to death.
Aluminium (Al) is frequently accessible to animal and human populations to the extent that intoxications may occur. Intake of Al is by inhalation of aerosols or particles, ingestion of food, water and medicaments, skin contact, vaccination, dialysis and infusions. Toxic actions of Al induce oxidative stress, immunologic alterations, genotoxicity, pro-inflammatory effect, peptide denaturation or transformation, enzymatic dysfunction, metabolic derangement, amyloidogenesis, membrane perturbation, iron dyshomeostasis, apoptosis, necrosis and dysplasia. The pathological conditions associated with Al toxicosis are desquamative interstitial pneumonia, pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, granulomas, granulomatosis and fibrosis, toxic myocarditis, thrombosis and ischemic stroke, granulomatous enteritis, Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel diseases, anemia, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, sclerosis, autism, macrophagic myofasciitis, osteomalacia, oligospermia and infertility, hepatorenal disease, breast cancer and cyst, pancreatitis, pancreatic necrosis and diabetes mellitus. The review provides a broad overview of Al toxicosis as a background for sustained investigations of the toxicology of Al compounds of public health importance.
I just read your book on Aluminum and now am reading the HVP Vaccine Trial. That book says the saline solution in the Gardasil trial still wasn't quite. It was the left over stuff after antigen and adjuvant. so preservatives. polysorbate80 was mentioned. But I think it noted that it looked like this cohort faired the best.
Recently it came to my attention the MMR vaccine doesn't have any aluminum adjuvant per the CDC? Is that true? Or is aluminum in that one in some other capacity?
I've been thinking about the fish example in your book and how that could make for an excellent demostration/metaphor for the 'placebo' used by vaccine trials vs. inert placeboe...shoot do a third tank to demonstrate how silicate can help. Set it up at the next MFM event. Drive home the point with a nice visual representation. Though I feel bad for the fish
The FDA has placed aluminum on their "excipients" list, with the claim that it's "generally considered safe." The manufacturers are not required to even list an ingredient if it's on this list. Amazing the horrors that are on that list. And these days, even if something is not on that list- they will include it in the vaccines and just not mention it.
They've recently added the mRNA nanotech to dental anesthesia injections, and they do NOT disclose this to anyone. ALL injections should be assumed potentially deadly at this time.
Yes, Dan who writes this blog has done an excellent job over a number of years explaining our published work. His assertions are not always correct and the situation is not as black and white as he may sometimes suggest.
Is aluminium specifically the problem, or more generally, the fact that it does what they want - unspecifically "riling up" the immune system, pretending that will make it "aggressive" only against that one thing they happen to also introduce, all else stuff potentially present in the body at the time, "nothing to see here" ...?
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.
At this point, I am done seeing any possible excuse for the "placebo" injections. Even ordinary medical "saline" is now sold with aluminum in it, so....
It's entirely unnecessary to inject anything at all in the "controls" because there is ZERO evidence that a person's beliefs ALONE will produce or prevent brain damage, cancer, etc., in the "controls" who received nothing. Nor is there any evidence a person's beliefs alone will produce these injuries in the "treated" group.
The entire concept of a "placebo" has been turned on its head. The origin of this theory was that sometimes it appeared a person could HEAL (from an existing problem) because they believed they had been given medicine, when really they'd only gotten a sugar pill. But the truth is, they never knew how many healed from a sickness merely because this is already what the body WANTS to do anyway.
The idea that the human body cannot naturally recover from sickness (without SOMETHING from a doctor) was the first lie. So whenever someone healed after being given a sugar pill, they decided it must have been because of their beliefs, which could only have been caused by something the doctor gave them, and could not possibly be attributed to the body's own ability to want to heal itself.
I don't mean to discount the idea of "mind over matter" which I firmly DO believe in. I even see evidence that a person can end up dead if they believe their disease is going to kill them. But taking the "placebo" effect to the extreme of suggesting someone might suddenly produce a brain injury or cancer, etc. (or avoid them) merely because of their beliefs about an injection is an upside -down perversion of the origin of the "placebo effect". And it's merely a justification for making sure the "controls" are injected with SOMETHING so they can make sure the injury rates between the treated group and the controls look similar. It's just a tool for furthering their scientific frauds.
I am STILL searching for any evidence a newborn baby has any beliefs at all about injections that would affect their health outcomes. There is NONE. And yet, they conduct these asinine "control" injections on them as well.
Saline made with added aluminum. Geez.
Yep. And they're adding the mRNA nanotech to the dental injections now! The dentists have no idea. SEE: https://stewpeters.com/video/2023/05/report-nanotech-found-in-dental-anesthetics-nanotech-found-in-vaxx-also-observed-in-dental-drugs/
Beware ALL jabs these days.
Nothing at all except a subject profile and monitoring is an entirely adequate control. Not everything is psychological! The original definition of placebo is anything pleasing, typically flattery. See Psalm 114:9 in the Vulgate. https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/psalms/114-9.html
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."
Vaccines do not 'cause' autism. Autism is caused by aluminium.
Yes. And this why the ONLY autism cases found in the entirely unvaccinated controls, were found in the minority K-shot group.
Also, neurodevelopmental disorders and other types of brain and nervous system injuries were not found in the entirely unvaccinated who ALSO avoided the K-shot. There are MANY types of brain and nervous system injuries caused by aluminum.
One of my protest signs reads:
"Autism is BRAIN DAMAGE! Vaccines cause BRAIN DAMAGE. Please READ the vaccine inserts."
Another favorite:
"Got brain damage? Unvaccinated kids do NOT have brain damage."
With all due respect to Dr. Exley, I do not think they understands how vaccines and adjuvants work. There has to be some kind of toxin in a vaccine for the vaccine to last in a healthy body or it will simply pass through the healthy body in a few days. So the question is on vaccines is why is it needed? Are there other ways to heal the body back to health without any toxins being given? How long do you want the vaccine to last in a typical body? The more toxic the vaccine is the more likely to last in a body, but the more other kinds of damage the toxin will do to the body.
Literally ANY toxin injected directly into the body will produce an "immune reaction."
Inject feces and you'll get a similar immediate reaction and it would probably be far safer than these metals. They CHOOSE to use things like mercury and aluminum because the vaccine programs are for DEPOPULATION.
Also how toxic something is depends on even's one own body. How healthy are one's kidneys, one's liver. Someone in top health may be able to expel a toxic substance better than someone who is in poor health.
True. Still though, better not to REPEATEDLY inject useless and destructive/toxic chemicals (and metals, nanotech, etc.) when there is ZERO evidence any net GOOD can result from it;-)
I have been bitten by a brown recluse spider. I survived. It wasn't a good thing just because my body handled it. If I can avoid it happening again I will.
There's too much profound evidence of injury and death from the jabs. And when you drill down to it, far MORE lives have been destroyed/ended than even their most exaggerated (and hypothetical) claims of "lives saved" with their injections. So why put your kidneys/liver through that process? What about the cumulative effects of repeated exposures?
And what about the break down of your IMMUNE SYSTEM? How T-F is this systematic attack on the human immune system supposed to reduce "infectious" disease, or any other type of disease for that matter?
Oh, the other thing here is this: They ASSUME these metals have been "filtered" and excreted, However, the evidence shows us the REASON it is eliminated from the bloodstream is because it is STORED in the brain and other tissues, where it remains and causes long-term damage.
They ONLY check blood levels, and if these drop, it is ASSUMED that your body cleared it up. They have never ONCE done the required urine (or feces) examinations in order to PROVE that this crap actually LEFT anyone's body. Chris's work PROVED that it's stored in the BRAIN - where it accumulates and reeks havoc.
Pharma LIES. The FDA LIES. The CDC LIES. Those metals do NOT leave the body unless you follow up with serious chelation and other protocols.
I'm waiting for you to start publishing your substack!
Vaccines MUST have some kind of adjuvant, other wise known as toxin, in them or it will simply pass through a healthy body in a day or two. No vaccine manufacturer can get a vaccine on the market if the vaccine is only going to be useful for a day or two once injected. An adjuvant whether aluminium, mercury, or whatever, acts as a preservative in the body for the vaccine.
Yes autism can be caused by aluminium or other heavy metals in vaccines though, but I think you do not understand basic facts on vaccines.
Who doesn't understand?
I will try again. Aluminum is a heavy metal and yes can indeed cause autism if used in a vaccine. There are other heavy metals used in vaccines that can cause autistic like behaviours. The heavy metals in vaccines are called adjuvant and act like a preservative in the body when used in vaccines. Heavy metals are NEUROtoxins. That is heavy metals affect the body NEUROLOGICALLY. An adjuvant is a toxin in the vaccine, though a adjuvant may be described as a preservative in the vaccine. It is necessary to use adjuvants in ALL vaccines, since for the most part, the vaccine will just pass through a healthy body if there were no adjuvants. Since there probably are adjuvants in all vaccines, as the general intent of a vaccine manufacturer is to have the effect of the vaccine last longer than a few days, then all vaccines are unhealthy in some way.
We always need to have a talk about what adjuvant is in a vaccine, how long the adjuvant last in a typical healthy body, and it is necessary to even have a vaccine in the first place as studies have shown that over all health of a nonvaccinated person versus a vaccinated person tends to be better as again by it's very nature an adjuvant is toxic to the body. Also need to talk about alternatives to having vaccines in the first place. For whatever reason people were censored during covid plandemic when discussions arose on what can be done for the health of people instead of taking a shot.
Aluminium is not a heavy metal. It is not a preservative, you are perhaps getting mixed up with the heavy metal, mercury. Might I respectfully suggest that you read my book to improve your understanding in this area.
Dorothy, Chris's work proved that the aluminum adjuvant does NOT leave the body. It goes to, and is stored in, the BRAIN causing both short-term and long-term damage. Other work has proven the same thing happens with the mercury.
Your idea that the body "clears" it is just wrong. It is one of the MANY lies we've gotten from the pharma industry. The DEMONS (who work for pharma $) check blood levels ONLY. And because the metals are stored in the tissues, it does "clear" from the bloodstream. But this does NOT mean it has left the body.
Chris is the WRONG person to feel you must correct here. His history and work on the vaccine issue is lengthy, deep, detailed, and completely accurate. If not for him, many more people would still believe the aluminum "clears" from the body. He gave us the definitive answers. He's a VERY important man in the fight to end this nightmare.
I do not care to the wording or anyone's definition of a word. Any vaccine/shot given will probably have a toxin in it (unless placebo) If it doesn't have some kind of toxin in it, then it will just pass through a healthy body in a few days. For the most part, manufacturers will not be allowed to manufacture a shot that last just a couple days in the body. That is how the body works. That is the way the body works for you, for me, for everyone. This doesn't change if you write a book either.
Do you have a list of all the ingredients in the K shot that you can share?
No
Until a few years ago, they listed it on the ingredients list for this injection. SEE: https://healthbitesonline.blogspot.com/2012/10/malaysian-vaccination-schedule-do-you.html
However, ever since the FDA approved of aluminum to be added to their "excipients" list (generally considered safe) they can now include aluminum in ANYTHING without listing it as an ingredient. Now, they (secretly) add aluminum to regular saline bags. It's in EVERYTHING.
That’s scary!
Until a few years ago, they listed it on the ingredients list for this injection. SEE: https://healthbitesonline.blogspot.com/2012/10/malaysian-vaccination-schedule-do-you.html
However, ever since the FDA approved of aluminum to be added to their "excipients" list (generally considered safe) they can now include aluminum in ANYTHING without listing it as an ingredient. Now, they (secretly) add aluminum to regular saline bags. It's in EVERYTHING.
Thanks for sharing. Appalled, but not surprised.
@Joy, a few constructive criticisms of your interesting and important paper:
1. Main comment: in a footnote in the main report you state: "The one exposure that raised associated risks dramatically, in every sector where it could adequately be measured, was the maternal vaccine, in many cases raising the associated risks well above the National averages for the 99% post-birth vaccinated population." 30% (just MV + K-shot) vs 27% (vaccinated population) being the figures. This is surely nonsense. The 99% post-birth vaccinated population will also have had maternal vaccine(s) & K-shot, so the statement implies that there is basically no additional risk of post-birth vaccinations if you have already had MV & K-shot, and that it might slightly reduce the risk from 30% to 27%! I think the problem here is your 27% figure is a completely different source of data (CDC) than your 30% figure (your surveys). So this comparison lacks validity. It would indeed be a very interesting finding if such an overwhelming majority of vaccination risk is confined to maternal or K-shot exposure, but that seems to have a lot of sense standing against it, and your data is not rightly used in making that conclusion. The paper would be considerably more useful if you also acquired equivalent survey data for the vaccinated population. Then some light might begin to be shed on this question.
2. Related to the above, this creates internal contradictions in your first chart (https://tinyurl.com/5dvt97z6), where the unvaccinated group actually have a subgroup that are worse off than the vaccinated group. This needs some explanation.
3. Table 2 in the paper presents figures for only one chronic condition which exactly match those in the full report (chapter 14) for *at least* one chronic condition. There is quite a difference between having only one condition, and at least one condition. Which is it?
4. In your main page of survey charts (https://tinyurl.com/5dvt97z6) the second chart (adults) has the first blue bar as bigger than the yellow bar that sits atop it. It should be the other way round according to the numbers to the right (12.5 vs 4.49).
5. Much more useful and understandable to readers to stick with a consistent set of metrics rather than 3 sets of slightly different metrics in Chapter 9, 10 and 14 of full report (preferably just using the full dataset rather than just USA). There are nuances of distinction between *A and/or B* and *A with or without B* which just add unnecessary complexity. I don't see the need and it makes processing the data for the reader unnecessarily difficult, with no obvious return.
Anyhow, I don't intend these criticisms to detract from some very useful data in the paper, report and charts, but perhaps you can make some updates to address some of these.
Your assumption that 100% of the "99% vaccinated population" has ALL been vaccinated while in the womb (pregnant mother vaccinated) is WRONG.
In 2020, it was 50% of the pregnancies that were vaccinated in the U.S.. Your assumption that in-utero vaccine exposures could not possibly be more dangerous than post-birth vaccine exposure is WRONG. Do please show me the study that proves your two points are correct, as follows:
1. Where is the study proving that 100% of all post-birth vaccine-exposed were also exposed to vaccines in the womb. (You cannot find this one because it doesn't exist. I got my 50% pregnancy vaccination rate for the U.S. directly from the CDC.)
2. Where is the study proving that it is NOT more dangerous to expose a developing fetus to vaccines than to expose them to vaccines after they are born? Again, you cannot provide such data because it doesn't exist. It is while the cells are splitting that it's MOST dangerous for a mother to expose her infant to chemicals/toxins. TONS of literature exposing this as the TRUTH does exist. For reference, see THALIDOMIDE. But the defects can be more subtle that missing limbs. For instance, the child could be set up for IMMUNE SYSTEM issues, leading to cancer, diabetes, thyroid issues, heart problems, or any number of other chronic conditions leading to an early grave.
"Your assumption that in-utero vaccine exposures could not possibly be more dangerous than post-birth vaccine exposure is WRONG."
I never actually said or assumed this, and suspect the opposite may well be true. Rather, if you read me carefully, I said it is nonsense that having MV and K-shot *but not* post-birth vaccinations is equal or worse than having MV + K-shot *and also* post-birth vaccinations. I still think that is nonsense. You respond saying only 50% of vaccinated group had MV and K-shot. Fair point, but that is an important piece of data to be evaluated, and deserves some extended scrutiny and discussion in your paper & report. As does the CDC 27% figure which, at least from what I have read of your study, you do not seem to have established is comparable data with that acquired from your survey (e.g. what questions & criteria did the CDC use to get 27%? Do these differ from your own? etc).
The problem that remains with your analysis is that in order to establish the relative danger of pre-birth vaccines (and K-shot) with post-birth vaccines you need to isolate the post-birth vaccinated group that have also had MV + K-shot, and also the post-birth vaccinated group that has not. You've indicated you don't have this as they are lumped together. Hence my central point remains: your study lacks the resolution required to get a proper sense of the relative danger of pre-birth vaccines & K-shot.
Don't take offence at this, I'm just suggesting a way your study could be improved by collecting such data. I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm very much in favor of this work being done, and would likely chip in to a crowdfund if someone were to propose doing it.
History will prove you to be correct...Keep up the great work!...You are a true HERO!
There is No longer ANY doubt in my mind that Pharma, Politicians, Regulators, Know the facts & thus causing harm is deliberate. the analogy is knowing the truth & remaining silent when one ought to speak the truth, is as bad as lying. They Know. Thank you Dr. Exley
Yes, the aluminum adjuvant topic is stomach churning. It must be resolved with impeccable true science, not deception and force.
THANK YOU for calling out lies and deceit where you find them, Dr. Exley. Some days when I look back, I still cannot believe what the world went through in the last 3 years. These criminals just took over unopposed and mowed us down. Cheers for your great work and steadfast loyalty to the Truth. Blessings.
A better approach might be to make sure there is no future whatsoever for vaccines. More people need to understand that contagion is a fraudulent concept. It has never been proven despite dozens of documented attempts. "The Contagion Myth" covers this. People need to understand that viruses don't exist and that bacteria don't cause ill health (blaming flies for the poop or firemen for the fire). Bacteria gather where diseased tissue is on the menu. Vaccines = poisons. "Virus Mania" is a good first reference.
So is virology a science? no, it's PROPAGANDA which is used to drive fear and huge wealth transfers from us to them. I was one of the naive "people" until 2020, but "covid" made me wake up and research - so I understand how hard it is come to terms with a new paradigm. "What Really Makes You Ill" is helpful in this regard. BTW the idea of an "antigen" in a vaccine is also a dopey concept. Vaccines are basically tissue cultures (no virus required!) - full of debris from animal and human origins + aluminum to make your arm red & sore so you think it's "working".
“Live-attenuated Vaccines?”
Prove it!
No one has ever isolated a virus, and they’re just injecting soup from sick people’s body fluid.
Once you realize that virology is a sham you don’t have to worry about adjuvants anymore.
I stand with the Amish on this one. They seem to be doing just fine without adjuvants or “live attenuated vaccines.“
Pg 90 of an infamous text called "Imagine you are an aluminum atom" lists 37 diseases for which aluminum is involved. This table is a fascinating resource. e.g. Obesity and arthritis related to aluminium!
I wonder if we should add allergies? In animal-based allergy research, aluminium hydroxide is used as an adjuvant to impart sensitivity to a particular protein. For example, to make a lab rat allergic to peanuts just give them peanut protein along with aluminium hydroxide. Rinse and repeat. So do we have an explanation of why so many people in the aluminium injected western world are allergic to their food etc? If a baby is injected in the spring does it become allergic to whatever pollen is in the air at that time? (my speculation). Here is a reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7301762/
To add insult to injury, while preparing this comment, I read that in Europe alum is added to "vaccines for treating allergies"!
Are there any plans to offer your book in German? Thanks
Only a few copies have been sold in (American) English, I doubt the publisher will consider a translation. However, this paper may answer some of your question.
https://aacijournal.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/1710-1492-10-4.pdf
I just speed read through this (your) paper. "Aluminium adjuvants and adverse events in sub-cutaneous allergy immunotherapy". Most interesting, many thanks. So now I am confused. Aluminium is used to not only amplify the allergic response to a chemical or protein or whatever but also to attenuate the response as in "allergy shots"? Can we have it both ways? I looked up "allergen immunotherapy" at Wikipedia and it failed to disclose the use of aluminium. 1.25 mg seems like a huge dose of aluminium adjuvant in allergy shots compared to the ~0.4 mg in a vaccine. So allergy shots could be far worse, especially for Al toxicity, given how many times the shot is repeated. Perhaps this would be a good hot topic for a weekly blog? I thought I was well read but I had no idea about this.
I wouldn't be surprised if nickel and aluminum allergy play a major role in the increasing number of people suffering from eczema, asthma, hay fever, etc. The thing is, only nickel has a skin provocation test, I am not sure if aluminum is even on the radar?
It is more than obvious to me that all vaccines are useless without poisons to get 'em going. Then they become even more useless as they toxify you to death.
On a side note, I have stopped buying beer in alum cans; glass is heavier, but probably safer. best
Right, boycott aluminum: Beer cans, deodorants, vaccines, oven-frying fish in aluminum-foil, etc.
"Aluminium toxicosis: a review of toxic actions and effects"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7071840/
** Abstract **
Aluminium (Al) is frequently accessible to animal and human populations to the extent that intoxications may occur. Intake of Al is by inhalation of aerosols or particles, ingestion of food, water and medicaments, skin contact, vaccination, dialysis and infusions. Toxic actions of Al induce oxidative stress, immunologic alterations, genotoxicity, pro-inflammatory effect, peptide denaturation or transformation, enzymatic dysfunction, metabolic derangement, amyloidogenesis, membrane perturbation, iron dyshomeostasis, apoptosis, necrosis and dysplasia. The pathological conditions associated with Al toxicosis are desquamative interstitial pneumonia, pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, granulomas, granulomatosis and fibrosis, toxic myocarditis, thrombosis and ischemic stroke, granulomatous enteritis, Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel diseases, anemia, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, sclerosis, autism, macrophagic myofasciitis, osteomalacia, oligospermia and infertility, hepatorenal disease, breast cancer and cyst, pancreatitis, pancreatic necrosis and diabetes mellitus. The review provides a broad overview of Al toxicosis as a background for sustained investigations of the toxicology of Al compounds of public health importance.
I just read your book on Aluminum and now am reading the HVP Vaccine Trial. That book says the saline solution in the Gardasil trial still wasn't quite. It was the left over stuff after antigen and adjuvant. so preservatives. polysorbate80 was mentioned. But I think it noted that it looked like this cohort faired the best.
Recently it came to my attention the MMR vaccine doesn't have any aluminum adjuvant per the CDC? Is that true? Or is aluminum in that one in some other capacity?
I've been thinking about the fish example in your book and how that could make for an excellent demostration/metaphor for the 'placebo' used by vaccine trials vs. inert placeboe...shoot do a third tank to demonstrate how silicate can help. Set it up at the next MFM event. Drive home the point with a nice visual representation. Though I feel bad for the fish
No Al in the MMR shot but the brain inflammation associated with MMR could be a signal for Al-loaded macrophages to enter the brain.
I think fish have done their bit already, don't you.
The FDA has placed aluminum on their "excipients" list, with the claim that it's "generally considered safe." The manufacturers are not required to even list an ingredient if it's on this list. Amazing the horrors that are on that list. And these days, even if something is not on that list- they will include it in the vaccines and just not mention it.
They've recently added the mRNA nanotech to dental anesthesia injections, and they do NOT disclose this to anyone. ALL injections should be assumed potentially deadly at this time.
This is an EXTERMINATION.
This article best explains the mechanism for vaccine aluminium adjuvant traveling into the brain supported by peer-reviewed published studies;
http://vaccinepapers.org/vaccine-aluminum-travels-to-the-brain/#papers
Yes, Dan who writes this blog has done an excellent job over a number of years explaining our published work. His assertions are not always correct and the situation is not as black and white as he may sometimes suggest.
The abstract of the paper on the fourth line does mention "they are inexpensive" as one of the reasons why aluminium adjuvants are widely used.
The way these articles are written are indeed stomach churning, presenting something that is really harmful, as a benefit to mankind.
Is aluminium specifically the problem, or more generally, the fact that it does what they want - unspecifically "riling up" the immune system, pretending that will make it "aggressive" only against that one thing they happen to also introduce, all else stuff potentially present in the body at the time, "nothing to see here" ...?
Can someone provide the full link to the Gardisil safety trial? I could not find it via search at clinicaltrials.gov. Thanks.
Links/leads here
https://icandecide.org/?s=gardasil
Thanks!