Much Ado About Aluminium Adjuvants

Do I sound like a broken record?

The majority of human vaccines include an aluminium adjuvant. I have, of course, written about this subject several times already on my substack. However, broken record or not my message does seem to fall upon deaf ears.

The Bell has Tolled for Aluminium Adjuvants

When my group began researching aluminium adjuvants in vaccines in earnest I made two observations that, at the time, I believed were worthy of wider comment. I became frustrated with the regular use of aluminium adjuvants as controls or placebos in clinical trials and, at the same time I was annoyed that those purporting to understand the use of aluminium salts as adjuvants were carrying out their studies using aluminium compounds that were not used as adjuvants in human vaccines. To them, at least, all aluminium salts were equivalent. The latter, though covered to some extent in a previous substack, see below, is perhaps the subject of a future rant.

Why, How Aluminium is Toxic

Regarding the former, while I am not the only one highlighting the misuse of aluminium adjuvants as placebos in clinical trials I may have been the first to put this complaint into print. In those halcyon days the editor of the esteemed journal Vaccine, one Gregory Poland, seemed supportive of my concerns and happily published my letter pointing out why aluminium adjuvants should not be used as placebos. How times have changed. I should have noticed the writing on the wall when, later, Poland actually refused to review a manuscript we had written on how aluminium adjuvants work. In truth, he probably did us a favour as we published the paper in a better journal.

There are myriad strong scientific reasons why aluminium adjuvants should not be used as placebos in vaccine clinical trials, not least of which is the toxicity of aluminium both at the injection site and beyond. A seminal observation made by a colleague working with a sheep model of human vaccination, see more about him in Bert Ehgartner’s wonderful documentary Under the Skin, showed unequivocally that

Under The Skin

the fate of aluminium adjuvant in the body is different when it is administered as part of a whole vaccine. Dr Lujan’s research demonstrated that lymph glands were a significant sink for aluminium when whole vaccines were administered whereas the fate of aluminium adjuvant administered alone, ostensibly as when used as a placebo, was largely unknown, or better, to be discovered. If nothing else the research shows that the aluminium adjuvant alone cannot be a ‘control’ for aluminium adjuvant administered as part of a whole vaccine.

So why am I once again all hot under the collar about this subject? Well, Poland, no doubt under the guidance of his bosses at Elsevier, has accepted for publication yet another paper where the aluminium adjuvant is used as the placebo. I warned previously that aluminium adjuvants remain the adjuvant of choice and that they would be a basis for conventional (non mRNA) vaccines against covid. Perhaps what has annoyed me most about this new paper is not just Poland and peer reviewers turning a blind eye to a significant scientific issue (I lost count of the number of times in the paper that the authors related observed effects, adverse and otherwise, of the vaccine to the control and therefore there were no effects.) but that the lives of monkeys were sacrificed to the alter of yet another completely useless and unnecessary covid ‘vaccine’. Covid science continues to absorb funding (and lives) that would be better spent (lived) elsewhere.

I wrote to the authors of this paper and asked them to confirm that they did not use a legitimate placebo in their trials. They have not responded. Their silence speaks volumes about the inadequacies of their work.