Aluminium in brain tissue in autism
Anatomy of a scientific paper viewed over one million times
I have reported on numerous occasions the total media blackout that followed publication of our seminal paper on aluminium and autism (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763?via%3Dihub).
One might, therefore, have expected limited viewing, downloading and citation of this work. However, it has confounded such expectation, and indeed censorship, by being viewed over one million times in just four years. How and why has this been achieved?
Global censorship of the paper may, ironically, underlie its success. It must be extremely rare for a scientific paper to be so unequivocally censored by media. I take this as a badge of honour. If, as the internet trolls have suggested, it is simply bad science and should not have been published, then there would be no need for censorship. The scientific literature is replete with unreproducible science. It is not censored, it is simply ignored and forgotten. The trolls have, I am sure, inadvertently contributed to the success of the paper. For example, claiming on many occasions that the paper has been retracted. Not only has the paper not been retracted it has not been criticised as ‘bad science’ anywhere in the peer-reviewed published scientific literature. Indeed, its primary message of significant amounts of neurotoxic aluminium in autism brain tissue, has been supported and confirmed in subsequent research including from my group (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64734-6). I will return to the science in these papers in a following post. However, at this moment in time aluminium must be considered as a likely contributor to severe, disabling forms of autism. Those in the field of autism whom disagree have had ample opportunities to prove this statement to be incorrect. Do we assume that they have not repeated our research, seems unlikely, or have they chosen to not publish the results of these repeat experiments. I can understand why the latter may be true. Scientists wishing to preserve their careers and avoid being labelled as anti-vaccine will think twice about publishing truth. I, on the other hand, was a scientist in order to publish the truth about aluminium and aluminium and human health. I am glad I did so.
Another irony is that the public has now become wary of vaccines in general since the "pandemic" and also aware of the VAERS system in the US where they can search the database for various adverse events related to particular vaccines. Thank you for all that you've done.
Dr Exley, in 2016, I started using your protocol to detox aluminium from brain. I took Hep B vaccine for the first time when I was in my forties. I was badly injured by this vaccine and didn’t know how to help myself. After 15 years of suffering, I found a way out while listening to your lecture about how to detox aluminium. I cannot thank you enough for changing my life. I am forever grateful.