Killing Us Softly Part 2
NHS propaganda on aluminium adjuvants is relentless and harmful
In the good old United Kingdom everyone trusts scientists (well those you are told to trust), the BBC (Auntie as she is affectionately called) and, of course, the National Health Service (NHS), the jewel in our crown, apparently. So, for example as a new parent requiring information on infant vaccination, your first port of call will be the NHS website. There you will find the most up to date and accurate information on all aspects of human health. There you will find the information you need to protect your infant and ensure their wellbeing.
So, what does the NHS website inform us about vaccination and specifically the use of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines.
Statement 1
The most common vaccine adjuvants are aluminium salts. These have been used safely in many of our routine infant and adult vaccines for more than 70 years.
The statement that aluminium adjuvants ‘have been used safely’ is at best ambiguous and in truth, a lie. The NHS website offers no support of this statement, you are expected to believe them. Most of you reading this post will already know that there is absolutely no direct evidence of the safety of aluminium adjuvants, neither in their general use nor in the clinical trials purported to test their safety. Regarding the latter, it has been widely and accurately reported that not one infant vaccine that uses an aluminium adjuvant has been safety tested against a true placebo such as saline. All so-called placebos in such trials either included the aluminium adjuvant or they were another whole vaccine that included an aluminium adjuvant. This deception is the original ‘dirty trick’ used by vaccine manufacturers to mask the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines.
Statement 2
We come into contact with aluminium all the time. It's found naturally in very small amounts in:
almost all foods
drinking water
breast milk
baby formula milk
We are told that aluminium is found ‘naturally’ in our everyday lives. Really? Is it the finding of aluminium that is ‘natural’, perhaps meaning that we are bound to find it if we look or is the inference that the aluminium found is there ‘naturally’. I think we all know that the NHS is inferring the latter and once again they offer no evidence to support what is clearly a lie. It is a lie because they know that their statement is wrong.
Statement 3
It's also used in medicines, such as antacids, and in food packaging.
The NHS now suggests that where aluminium is not found ‘naturally’ it is ‘used’ and therefore must be safe. While this statement concerning its use is true its meaning is also a lie. It clearly suggests that aluminium would not be used in these ways if it were not completely safe. It infers that the use of aluminium has been shown to be safe, of course it has not. It also infers that aluminium’s use in such ways is regulated for safety reasons, no such safety regulations exist for any ‘use’ of aluminium including in vaccines.
Statement 4
There's no evidence that the levels of aluminium we come across every day increase the risk of conditions like dementia or autism.
Now we have the mother of all NHS lies on aluminium and aluminium adjuvants in vaccines. The lie is that they state without support that there is ‘no evidence’ linking human exposure to aluminium with dementia or autism.
Let us just re-visit the definition of a lie,
‘an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive’
probably this is a definition that we can all just about agree upon. The intention of the NHS is certainly to deceive the British public. They have no time for the truth. The definition of truth is perhaps more ambiguous than that of lie but it is my belief that there is ‘evidence’ linking human exposure to aluminium with both dementia and autism. Many of you will already know that my opinion on aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease goes well beyond a link. The NHS does not have to share my beliefs but they cannot ‘lie’ about the evidence that links human exposure to aluminium with dementia and autism. Well, they can and they do, shamelessly.
Statement 5
The amount of aluminium used in non-live vaccines is very, very small. No harmful effects have been seen with vaccines that contain an aluminium-based adjuvant.
This nonsense, non-science, ‘baby talk’ used by vaccine manufacturers and vaccine apologists is repeated here by the liars in the NHS. They cannot be so ignorant as to believe their own often repeated rhetoric that the aluminium content of an aluminium adjuvanted vaccine is ‘very, very small’.
ALUMINIUM ADJUVANTS IN VACCINES REPRESENT AN ACUTE EXPOSURE TO ALUMINIUM.
Unfortunately the acute exposure to aluminium goes beyond the injection site for a few unfortunate infants and becomes a fatal exposure to aluminium. This will not stop while the NHS continue to lie to a ‘willing to believe’ British public. Perhaps we should report the NHS to the Advertising Standards Authority.
The purpose of my substack, Dr’s Newsletter, is to bring you irrefutable evidence primarily concerning human exposure to aluminium. I want as many as possible to read and have this evidence to hand and so my substack is free to all. However, if you feel that my musings are worth your donation then a paid subscription is very much appreciated and certainly helps to oil the workings of a now retired Mr Aluminium.
Thank you Dr Exley for your work. Thank you thank you thank you. No child of mine will ever receive another vaccine, nor will I. And I am actively reducing our exposure to aluminium in our daily life and we're drinking "silica water".
"There's no evidence that the levels of aluminium we come across every day increase the risk of conditions like dementia or autism."
They know full well that there's evidence for this, most notably provided by you. Just because they claim to not agree with it doesn't mean that it isn't there. So they're lying when they say that the evidence doesn't exist. I firmly believe that they know you're right. Perhaps their statement would be more transparently written this way:
"We won't acknowledge the existence of evidence that the levels of aluminum we come across every day increase the risk of conditions like dementia and autism because that would be an admission that we're directly responsible for two of the most disastrous health crises of our time."
"The amount of aluminium used in non-live vaccines is very, very small."
Oh: so they're admitting that aluminum DOES cause problems. Would it cause problems if the amount was "very small" instead of "very, very small"? And what exactly would those problems be? Who performed the tests that determined that "very small" would be bad and "very, very small" is ok? Why are those studies, which may or may not have been done, automatically superior to the studies performed by the man who was once considered one of the jewels in Britain's biological sciences crown?
"No harmful effects have been seen with vaccines that contain an aluminium-based adjuvant."
There have been many vaccine injuries before and after the Vaccine Damage Payment Act of 1979. Why would they have taken the time to write and approve such an act if there were none? Has the NHS gone through all of these vaccine injuries and proven that none of them were from vaccines that contained aluminum adjuvants?
The number and degrees of bald-faced lies on the NHS page is breathtaking. All in an effort to place the health of babies at risk to continue pharma's gravy train and ironically, to protect the reputations of the people at the NHS.