Flog a Dead Horse

Industry supported lies are peer reviewed published science apparently

The Paul-Ehrlich-Institute (PEI) is the German equivalent of the US CDC. While it identifies itself as a Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines it is really just an offshoot of Pharma and makes very little effort to hide this fact.

One of its ‘researchers’ is Karin Weisser and for the last ten years or so she has endeavoured to produce ‘models’ of human exposure to aluminium and specifically models addressing human exposure to aluminium through vaccines and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Essentially her goal is to prove that aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines and SCIT are harmless.

Her latest attempt is published in the Springer journal Archives of Toxicology. On the surface the paper appears as legitimate, even useful, science relating to human exposure to aluminium. I assume that the paper was peer-reviewed which means that at least two scientists considered the research worthy of publication. It would not have survived peer review should the manuscript have turned up on my desk. I might have conceded that the modelling methods were appropriate, I am not an expert in such modelling. However, I have forty years of experience of human exposure to aluminium and I would not concede that the data used in the modelling is appropriate. I would go further in that I would have to point out that the data modelled were hand-picked with a view towards proving the null hypothesis, that being, nothing to see here. Part of the process of peer review is to be helpful and informative assuming the authors of the research are unaware of possible deficiencies. In adopting this role I would ask the authors of the research how they can equate the aluminium concentration in serum and/or urine with exposure to aluminium as an adjuvant in a vaccine. I would ask them if they were not aware of seminal research in this field, for example research by Gherardi or Exley. In particular I would emphasise the critical importance of the cellular transport of aluminium, for example, loaded in white blood cells such as macrophages. I think I would go even further in insisting that the authors consider cellular transport of aluminium in their modelling and I would point out that the evidence now suggests that the brain damage observed in autism is caused by the transport of aluminium adjuvant from a vaccine injection site to the brain in white blood cells such as lymphocytes.

Weisser and colleagues have spent the last ten years producing models of human exposure to aluminium that not only deny the significance of aluminium adjuvants in human disease but seemingly would like us all to believe that the brain is not a target for aluminium. It seems that according to the PEI the Earth is flat and the aluminium age is a benign age. What I struggle to understand is why Weisser and colleagues adopt such blindsight in their science. They masquerade as true scientists and many will not see below their disguise. I can only assume that their non-science is well rewarded. When I asked the journal, Archives of Toxicology, published by Springer, why no information is given in the paper on how the research was funded. I received only silence in reply.

In my introduction I suggested that the PEI is the German equivalent of the US CDC. I wonder what is happening under the new broom at the CDC. Has this former offshoot of Pharma changed its spots.