![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/vaccine-public-domain-400x250-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
by Jeremy R. Hammond<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The FDA, COVID-19 Vaccines, and Scientific Fraud<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Sign up for my newsletter and download this free e-book.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n O<\/span>ne of the legitimate concerns that many parents have about adhering to the routine childhood vaccine schedule recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is that many vaccines contain aluminum, which is used as an \u201cadjuvant\u201d.<\/p>\n On a page of its website titled \u201cAdjuvants and Vaccines<\/a>\u201d, the CDC explains the purpose of the aluminum by saying, \u201cAn adjuvant is an ingredient used in some vaccines that helps create a stronger immune response in people receiving the vaccine. In other words, adjuvants help vaccines work better.\u201d<\/p>\n To reassure the public, the CDC states that \u201cAluminum salts, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate have been used safely in vaccines for more than 70 years.\u201d The CDC says that all aluminum-containing vaccines \u201care tested for safety and effectiveness in clinical trials before they are licensed for use in the United States\u201d and are \u201ccontinually monitored by CDC and FDA once they are approved.\u201d<\/p>\n The page has been recently updated to acknowledge that a CDC study<\/a> published in September\u00a02022 found \u201ca positive association between cumulative vaccine\u2011associated aluminum before age 24\u00a0months and persistent asthma at age 24 through 59\u00a0months among children with and without eczema.\u201d For children with eczema, the finding was a 26\u00a0percent increased risk of asthma for every 1,000 micrograms of aluminum received by vaccination<\/em>.<\/p>\n The CDC, however, downplays these findings by describing the study as having found a \u201cpossible\u201d association, even though the increased risk of asthma in children with and without eczema was statistically significant and the study authors themselves acknowledge that a \u201cpositive association\u201d was found. The CDC further describes the association between aluminum-containing vaccines and an increased risk of asthma as merely a \u201cpotential\u201d safety signal rather than acknowledging it to be an existential safety signal.<\/p>\n Thusly downplaying the increased risk of asthma associated with aluminum exposure from vaccines, the CDC persists in its policy course and its longstanding claim that \u201cthe amount of aluminum exposure in people who follow the recommended vaccine schedule is low and is not readily absorbed by the body.\u201d<\/p>\n To support its claim that the cumulative levels of aluminum that children are exposed to by its routine childhood vaccine schedule is \u201clow\u201d and that the aluminum is readily eliminated from the body without causing toxic effects, the CDC cites a study by researchers from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That study, conducted by Robert J. Mitkus et al. and published in the journal Vaccine <\/em>in 2011, is titled \u201cUpdated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n The FDA likewise cites<\/a> the study by Mitkus et al. as having shown that \u201cthe risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low.\u201d<\/p>\n However, that study does not <\/em>support the government\u2019s claims about vaccine safety. Indeed, the claims made by the CDC and FDA serve to illustrate the complete untrustworthiness of the \u201cpublic health\u201d establishment.<\/p>\n In truth, aluminum is a known neurotoxin that accumulates in tissues and organs, including the brain, and that plausibly causes neurological harms to children at the cumulative levels that children are exposed to by the CDC\u2019s routine childhood vaccine schedule.<\/p>\n Concerns about the potential toxic harms to children have been raised in the medical literature, but the CDC cherry-picks data to support its policies, as illustrated by how it cites the FDA study while willfully ignoring other research demonstrating the serious errors made by Mitkus et al. in their analysis.<\/p>\n Indeed, for these \u201cpublic health\u201d agencies to rely on that FDA study as proof that the aluminum in vaccines is \u201csafe\u201d amounts to outright scientific fraud.<\/p>\n As noted, the CDC states that the purpose of an adjuvant is to help vaccines to \u201cwork better\u201d by creating \u201ca stronger immune response\u201d.<\/p>\n What the CDC means is that inclusion of an adjuvant causes the vaccine to elicit a more inflammatory immune response<\/a>, which results in the induction of a higher level of circulating antibodies<\/a>. This in turn enables pharmaceutical companies to obtain the level of antibodies required by the FDA to be considered sufficiently immunogenic and therefore to obtain licensure for their products.<\/p>\n For example, in its 1997 \u201cSummary Basis of Approval<\/a>\u201d document for GlaxoSmithKline\u2019s diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, which is sold under the trade name Infanrix<\/a> and includes 0.5\u00a0milligrams (mg)\u2014or 500 micrograms (\u03bcg)\u2014of aluminum hydroxide as an adjuvant, the FDA noted that:<\/p>\n In the absence of a laboratory or serologic correlate of protection to pertussis, the sponsor was asked to demonstrate that the antibody responses to the pertussis antigens in US children receiving Infanrix as a three dose primary series were comparable to the responses in Italian and German children immunized in the efficacy studies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The FDA stressed again that none of the assays used for the measurement of antibodies \u201chas been shown to correlate with protection\u201d against pertussis, or whooping cough. The current package insert<\/a> for Infanrix similarly notes that \u201ca serologic correlate of protection for pertussis has not been established\u201d, meaning that there is no specific level of antibodies that has been shown to correlate with immune protection against the disease.<\/p>\n Depending on the pathogen and the individual, having a high level of antibodies does not necessarily mean that the person is protected against the disease, and having a low level of antibodies does not necessarily mean that the person does not have immunity. The FDA nevertheless accepted measurements of antibody levels as a surrogate measure of immunity<\/a> for the purposes of vaccine licensure.<\/p>\n To reassure the public, the CDC states that aluminum adjuvants have been used \u201csafely\u201d in vaccines for more than 70\u00a0years. But that statement is practically meaningless. Just because aluminum has been used an adjuvant in vaccines for so many decades does not mean that these vaccines have not caused adverse effects in children. This statement of the CDC\u2019s simply begs the question.<\/p>\n The CDC also says that it continually monitors vaccine safety after vaccines obtain FDA licensure, but postmarketing surveillance data is no substitute for properly designed safety studies.<\/p>\n As noted by the authors of an article<\/a> published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology<\/em> in March\u00a02015, \u201cThe most widely used adjuvant, alum, has been used for nearly 90\u00a0years, yet its mechanism of action remains poorly understood. In addition, while alum produces a powerful antibody Th2 response, it does not provoke the cellular immune response required for the elimination of intracellular infections or cancers.\u201d<\/p>\n The authors of the CDC study finding an association between adjuvanted vaccines and asthma acknowledged the possibility that \u201cexposure to aluminum through vaccination could produce an immune profile biased toward Th2 and away from T\u00a0helper\u00a01 cell (Th1) immune responses.\u201d This skewing of the immune system toward an antibody response at the cost of imbalanced cellular immunity could possibly \u201cincrease the risk of allergic diseases such as asthma\u201d.<\/p>\n Indeed, as noted by the authors of a review<\/a> published in 2005 in the European Respiratory Journal<\/em>, \u201cSubstantial experimental evidence now supports the notion that allergic diseases are characterized by a skewing of the immune system towards a T-helper cell type-2 (Th2) phenotype.\u201d As similarly observed by the authors of a review titled \u201cUnbalanced neonatal CD4+ T-cell immunity<\/a>\u201d and published in Frontiers in Immunology <\/em>in 2014, the development of asthma is known to be associated with \u201ca Th2-skewed immune response\u201d.<\/p>\n The CDC nevertheless reassures the public that all aluminum-containing vaccines \u201care tested for safety and effectiveness in clinical trials before they are licensed for use in the United States\u201d.<\/p>\n However, that doesn\u2019t<\/em> mean that these vaccines were tested for safety and efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled<\/em> trials.<\/p>\n Looking again at Infanrix as an example, the FDA\u2019s Summary Basis for Approval document reveals that no inert placebo was used. Instead, the FDA determined that the DTaP vaccine was \u201csafe\u201d based on a comparison of adverse events after administration of the older whole-cell pertussis vaccine (DTP), which was withdrawn from the market in the US precisely because it was more \u201creactogenic\u201d<\/a>, resulting in parental concerns about the vaccine causing injury to children.<\/p>\n It was largely vaccine injury lawsuits against DTP manufacturers that led to the US government in 1986 passing a law granting broad legal immunity to the manufacturers against vaccine injury lawsuits and establishing the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program<\/a> (VICP) to shift the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry and onto the taxpaying consumers.<\/p>\n The DTP vaccine is still widely used in developing countries, where studies into the \u201cnon-specific effects\u201d of vaccines, which term refers to beneficial or detrimental unintended consequences of vaccination, have found the vaccine to be associated with an increased <\/em>rate of childhood mortality. As leading researchers in the field put it in a 2017 study<\/a> published in the Lancet\u2019s EBioMedicine <\/em>journal:<\/p>\n It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This detrimental non-specific effect has been found to be true for \u201cnon-live\u201d vaccines generally<\/a>, which are the types of vaccines that typically contain aluminum adjuvant, and the effect is particularly pronounced for female children. (Attenuated \u201clive\u201d virus vaccines like the measles vaccine do not require an adjuvant to induce a sufficient immune response since the antigen exposure from the vaccine more closely resembles exposure to the whole viable virus from natural infection.)<\/p>\n The FDA document for Infanrix curiously describes one efficacy trial for the DTaP vaccine as having been \u201cplacebo-controlled\u201d, but there is no mention of a placebo control group. Instead, the \u201cplacebo\u201d that was evidently used was the DTP vaccine.<\/p>\n The problem of biologically reactive substances being commonly used in lieu of a true placebo is reflected in the title of a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine<\/em>: \u201cWhat\u2019s in Placebos: Who Knows? Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials<\/a>\u201d. That review pointed out that most studies \u201cdid not disclose the composition of the study placebo\u201d and that \u201cno regulations guide placebo composition, which can influence study results.\u201d<\/p>\n Naturally, using another aluminum-containing vaccine as a \u201cplacebo\u201d by which to determine the alleged safety of another aluminum-containing vaccine will conceal the true background rate of adverse events following vaccination, enabling the pharmaceutical product to be rather meaninglessly labeled \u201csafe\u201d by the FDA.<\/p>\n In lieu of randomized placebo-controlled trials demonstrating the long-term safety of aluminum-containing vaccines, researchers must rely on toxicological studies or postmarketing observational studies.<\/p>\n However, as acknowledged<\/a> in 2015 by the director of the CDC\u2019s Immunization Safety Office, Frank DeStefano, \u201cno large epidemiological studies have specifically examined associations between health outcomes\u201d and aluminum adjuvants.<\/p>\n Hence the CDC\u2019s reliance on the FDA study by Mitkus et al. to support its claim about the alleged safety of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.<\/p>\n The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a maximum contaminant level for aluminum<\/a> in drinking water of 0.05\u20130.2\u00a0milligrams per liter (mg\/L), and the FDA\u2019s own maximum \u201csafe\u201d limit for drinking water is 0.2\u00a0milligrams per liter, or 200\u00a0micrograms per liter (\u00b5g\/L).<\/p>\n Under federal regulations<\/a>, for large volume drugs or therapies administered parenterally, meaning not via the gastrointestinal tract (such as intramuscular or intravenous injection), the FDA has established<\/a> a maximum \u201csafe\u201d limit of 25\u00a0micrograms per liter (\u00b5g\/L).<\/p>\n These products must include a warning in their package inserts that the aluminum content \u201cmay be toxic\u201d and that \u201cResearch indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 \u00b5g\/kg\/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.\u201d<\/p>\n The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a department that is administratively overseen by the director of the CDC and operates alongside the CDC and FDA under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has also defined a \u201cminimal risk level\u201d (MRL) for aluminum, which is \u201can estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (noncarcinogenic) over a specified duration of exposure.\u201d<\/p>\n The \u201csafe\u201d level for \u201cchronic-duration oral exposure (365 days or longer) to aluminum\u201d, according to the ATSDR<\/a>, is 1\u00a0mg\/kg\/day. It was this estimated \u201cminimal risk level\u201d that served as the basis for the calculations done by Mitkus et al.<\/p>\n The first point to make about the CDC\u2019s deceptiveness is how it characterizes that study as having examined \u201cthe amount of aluminum exposure in people who follow the recommended vaccine schedule\u201d, when in fact the study was limited to only the vaccine doses administered to infants during their first year of life. Children following the CDC\u2019s schedule<\/a> continue to receive aluminum-containing vaccines after their first birthday, so the CDC\u2019s statement is misleading. That is the least of the CDC\u2019s deceptiveness, however.<\/p>\n Using the schedule as of 2011, Mitkus et al. looked at \u201cpotential combinations of FDA-licensed routine childhood vaccines\u201d to \u201cdetermine the maximum doses of aluminum that a child might receive over the course of a year.\u201d<\/p>\n On the first day of their lives, infants typically receive 0.25 mg of aluminum from the Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine.<\/p>\n At two months of age and again at four months of age, they might receive a dose of HepB, DTaP, inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) vaccine, and pneumococcal vaccine (PCV), which depending on the brands chosen could result in up to 1.2 mg of aluminum exposure at each of those two doctor visits.<\/p>\n At six months of age, children might receive HepB, DTaP, IPV, and PCV, resulting in up to 0.975\u00a0mg of aluminum exposure.<\/p>\n At their one-year checkup, children might receive Hib, PCV, and Hepatitis\u00a0A (HepA) vaccine, resulting in 0.6\u00a0mg of aluminum exposure.<\/p>\n The study provides the following table summarizing the maximum amount of aluminum that infants were being exposed to during their first year of life by the CDC\u2019s vaccine schedule as of 2011.<\/p>\n The FDA and CDC assure us that this cumulative exposure to aluminum children following the schedule might receive during their first year of life\u2014up to 4,225 micrograms\u2014represents a \u201clow\u201d amount of aluminum that is completely \u201csafe\u201d.<\/p>\n However, as noted in a review<\/a> of available evidence on aluminum adjuvants and autism published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology <\/em>in April\u00a02021, that study \u201cwas seriously flawed\u201d. We will now examine the study\u2019s major errors in detail to illustrate how the government\u2019s claim of safety is scientifically fraudulent.<\/p>\n As noted, the FDA researchers\u2019 conclusion that the amount of aluminum children are exposed to from vaccines administered during the first year of life pose an \u201cextremely low risk to infants\u201d was premised on a \u201cminimal risk level\u201d set by the ATSDR of 1\u00a0mg\/kg\/day, and exposures below this level are considered to be \u201csafe\u201d by the FDA.<\/p>\n Using that \u201csafe\u201d limit, the FDA researchers calculated the \u201cbody burden\u201d of aluminum from either aluminum phosphate (AlPO4<\/sub>) or aluminum hydroxide (Al[OH]3<\/sub>) adjuvants. The resulting two graphs they present suggest that the cumulative levels of aluminum that children are exposed to by the vaccine schedule is well below the FDA\u2019s \u201csafe\u201d limit.<\/p>\n However, the CDC fails to inform the public that the minimal risk level used by FDA researchers was calculated based on a single study of ingested <\/em>aluminum lactate, a soluble form of aluminum, in adult mice<\/em>.<\/p>\n Major problems with the FDA study were observed in an anonymously authored critique published on the website Vaccine Papers <\/em>in July\u00a02016 and titled \u201cDebunking Aluminum Adjuvant, Part 2: FDA\u2019s Flawed Study of Al Adjuvant Toxicity (Mitkus 2011)<\/a>\u201d. As noted in that article, the minimal risk level used by the FDA researchers \u201cis based on outdated and wrong science.\u201d It was \u201cderived from a \u2018No Observed Adverse Effect Level\u2019 (NOAEL) measured in an animal feeding study\u201d. The article explains:<\/p>\n However, there is a fatal problem: 26\u00a0mg\/kg\/day is not a NOAEL (safe dosage) for animals. <\/strong>The NOAEL of 26\u00a0mg\/kg\/day (ingested) is the foundation for the Mitkus analysis, and it is wrong. Scientific studies report adverse effects (e.g., brain injury, cognitive impairment, and brain inflammation) from ingested (and water-soluble) aluminum dosages of 3.4, 4, 5.6, 6, 10, and 20 mg\/kg\/day.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Those studies are reviewed in a separate article on Vaccine Papers <\/em>titled \u201cThe Foundation for Al Adjuvant Safety Is False<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n In a paper<\/a> published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons <\/em>in 2016, Neil Z. Miller, author of the book Miller\u2019s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies<\/em>, similarly explains several \u201cmajor flaws in the FDA\u2019s analysis\u201d, starting with the use of a minimal risk level that had already been falsified by other animal studies (emphasis added):<\/p>\n To determine an aluminum intake \u201cminimal risk level\u201d (MRL) for humans, a single animal study was used. This study found that mice could receive up to 26\u00a0milligrams of aluminum per kilogram of body weight per day (26\u00a0mg\/kg\/day) with no adverse effects. After considering differences between mice and humans (and other factors), this number was reduced to create a margin of safety, and an MRL of 1\u00a0mg\/kg\/day was established for humans, including infants. But there is a problem: 26\u00a0mg\/kg\/day is not a safe amount of aluminum for animals.<\/strong> Several studies confirm that animals are harmed by much lower quantities of aluminum\u20143.4 to 6.1 mg\/kg\/day\u2014and at least three of these studies were published before the FDA paper in 2011, so the FDA study was fallacious at its inception<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a review titled \u201cCritical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants<\/a>\u201d, published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry <\/em>in December\u00a02017, Jean-Daniel Masson et al. similarly explained that \u201cMitkus\u2019 study suffers from a number of important biases.\u201d The first problem is that \u201cAn inappropriate oral MRL was used to define the safety curve.\u201d The \u201coral MRL\u201d used by the FDA researchers \u201csets the safety curve too high.\u201d Citing studies finding adverse effects in animals at much lower levels of exposure, including a 2017 study observing adverse effects with an exposure of 1.5\u00a0mg\/kg\/day, the review authors remark:<\/p>\n By using the \u201cofficial\u201d oral MRL, Mitkus therefore set the safety curve at a much higher level. This level was overestimated by a factor of up to 17.3 (i.e., 26\/1.5) when the most recent study was taken into account. It should be noted that the 1.5\u00a0mg\/kg\/day is not even a NOAEL since effects have been documented at this dose.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The review authors present two corrected graphs originally published by the author of the Vaccine Papers <\/em>article showing how, \u201ceven if one uses higher experimental NOAEL levels for calculation, e.g., 3.4\u00a0mg\/kg\/d, the safety limit is reached (hydroxide) or overstepped (phosphate) by Al from vaccine adjuvants.\u201d<\/p>\n It gets worse. As noted, the minimal risk level used by the FDA researchers as the basis for their calculations was derived from a study of ingested <\/em>and not injected <\/em>aluminum.<\/p>\n As the FDA knows perfectly well<\/a>, \u201cthe gastrointestinal tract acts as an efficient barrier to the absorption of aluminum, and relatively little ingested aluminum actually reaches body tissues\u201d, whereas \u201cparenterally administered drug products containing aluminum bypass the protective mechanism of the gastrointestinal tract\u201d and is \u201cdeposited in human tissues.\u201d<\/p>\n Mitkus et al. similarly acknowledged (emphasis added):<\/p>\n Potential aluminum exposures associated with vaccine administration, however, are different from dietary exposures to aluminum, since aluminum in vaccines does not have to pass through the walls of the gastrointestinal tract, which is a significant barrier to systematic aluminum absorption<\/strong>. Rather, it is expected that the whole amount of aluminum in the adjuvant will be absorbed from muscle into the blood following vaccination, albeit at some rate over time.<\/p>\n .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0Dietary exposure to aluminum (usually as the citrate) results in small amounts of aluminum being absorbed from the gut (<1%) and reaching the bloodstream.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yet, they curiously offered no comment on how the \u201csafe\u201d level of exposure they adopted as the basis for their analysis was based on ingested<\/em> aluminum in rodents, which could reasonably be interpreted as indicative of intent <\/em>to perpetrate scientific fraud.<\/p>\n As Miller comments:<\/p>\n The MRL for humans is derived from dietary aluminum fed <\/em>to mice. But infants are injected <\/em>with aluminum. Injected aluminum bypasses the gastrointestinal tract and has unique toxic properties compared to aluminum that is ingested. To determine the safety of injected aluminum, scientists must conduct experiments with injected\u2014not ingested\u2014aluminum.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What perhaps explains the authors\u2019 failure to acknowledge the inapplicability of the adult rodent study used to determine the adopted \u201cminimal risk level\u201d for human infants is the fact that they only considered the amount of aluminum that dissolves and is absorbed into the blood<\/em>, from where it can then be processed through the kidneys and excreted in urine, as contributing to the \u201cbody burden\u201d of aluminum toxicity; they completely ignored the amount of particulate aluminum that remains in tissues and organs.<\/p>\n This is a \u201ccritical error\u201d, as noted by the author of the Vaccine Papers <\/em>article:<\/p>\n The Mitkus analysis is a reasonable way to estimate the toxicity and retention of ingested water-soluble <\/strong>aluminum (Al3+ ions). But it cannot establish safety of low-solubility, persistent aluminum adjuvant particles<\/strong>.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.<\/p>\n The MRL is derived from a feeding experiment with water-soluble aluminum lactate, not insoluble and persistent aluminum adjuvant particles.<\/strong> The safety of injected aluminum adjuvant can only be proven by experiments with injected aluminum adjuvant (which comprise insoluble and persistent particles). Studies of ingested, water-soluble aluminum are not a good substitute. Scientific studies have established that injected aluminum adjuvant has unique toxic properties and ways of moving around the body (\u201ckinetics\u201d) that are not the same as water-soluble aluminum.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Compounding the error of using a study on ingestion of a soluble <\/em>form of aluminum is the additional \u201cfatal flaw\u201d of ignoring the toxicity of aluminum particles remaining in the body:<\/p>\n Mitkus assumes that aluminum adjuvant has zero toxicity while in particulate form. <\/strong>The \u201cbody burden\u201d of Mitkus does not included that Al adjuvant particles. In Mitkus\u2019s analysis, only Al3+ ions (released by dissolving adjuvant particles) are toxic.<\/p>\n This is why the Al adjuvant curve has an upward slope after each vaccination date.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.<\/p>\n Al adjuvant nanoparticles are not harmless or inert.<\/strong> They are biologically active, and cause inflammation and immune system activation. That is why Al adjuvant is used in most vaccines. Adjuvant particles travel to tissues that can be injured by inflammation, like the brain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The article presents this graphic illustration of the fatal flaws of the FDA\u2019s study along with the following comment:<\/p>\n Above: Injected Al adjuvant nanoparticles travel to distant organs where they remain for years, causing inflammation. Mitkus assumes the particles have zero toxicity, even when present in sensitive organs like the brain. Mitkus erroneously assumes only the dissolved Al3+ is toxic. There is no evidence for this assumption, and conclusive evidence from animal experiments and studies of other nanoparticle toxicity research that it is wrong.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Neil Z. Miller similarly observes that \u201caluminum nanoparticles can be transported by monocyte-lineage cells to draining lymph nodes, blood and spleen\u2011and may also penetrate the brain.\u201d Nevertheless, the FDA \u201cassumes, without evidence, that these poorly biodegradable aluminum nanoparticles, which have been detected in body organs up to a year after vaccination, are harmless, and they are not calculated by the FDA as part of the aluminum \u2018body burden\u2019 until they dissolve.\u201d<\/p>\n Masson et al. also criticize Mitkus et al. for failing to consider the toxicity of particulate aluminum, remarking (emphasis added):<\/p>\n In its particulate form, Al is rapidly captured and then transported at a distance by immune cells. The comparison of the chemical toxicity of Al ions, such as those absorbed at the intestinal level, and the particulate toxicity of Al salts injected [intramuscularly] is therefore nonsense.<\/strong> This is evidenced by the atypical dose-response curve of the neurotoxic effects of Al hydroxide, with cerebral transfer of aluminum and a clinical effect selectively observed for low dose, which approximates those described in particulate toxicology. Strictly speaking, MRL used for vaccine risk modeling should be defined on the basis of animal experiments carried out with Al adjuvants, monitored for their particle parameters to be in accordance with those of the vaccines, and injected [intramuscularly], rather than studies with soluble forms of Al (chloride or lactate) added to food or drinking water.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe CDC\u2019s claim that the amount of aluminum children are exposed to by its vaccine schedule is \u201csafe\u201d is tantamount to scientific fraud.<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\nContents<\/b><\/h4>\n
\n\n 1<\/span> Introduction<\/span> <\/a><\/h4>\n
2<\/span> The Purpose of Aluminum Adjuvant<\/span> <\/a><\/h4>\n
3<\/span> Lack of Placebo-Control Groups and \u2018Non-Specific Effects\u2019 of Vaccines<\/span> <\/a><\/h4>\n
4<\/span> The FDA\u2019s \u2018Safe Limit\u2019 for Aluminum Exposure vs. the Vaccine Schedule<\/span> <\/a><\/h4>\n
5<\/span> The FDA\u2019s Falsified \u2018Minimal Risk Level\u2019 for Aluminum<\/span> <\/a><\/h4>\n
6<\/span> Injected vs. Ingested Aluminum<\/span> <\/a><\/h4>\n
7<\/span> Ignoring the Toxicity of Aluminum Particles<\/span> <\/a><\/h4>\n
8<\/span> Conclusion<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nIntroduction<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Download the e\u2011Book!<\/span><\/span> <\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\u201cPrevious scientific research has shown the amount of aluminum exposure in people who follow the recommended vaccine schedule is low and is not readily absorbed by the body.\u201d<\/div>\nThe Purpose of Aluminum Adjuvant<\/span><\/h2>\n
Lack of Placebo-Control Groups and \u2018Non-Specific Effects\u2019 of Vaccines<\/span><\/h2>\n
\u201cThe most widely used adjuvant, alum, has been used for nearly 90\u00a0years, yet its mechanism of action remains poorly understood.\u201d<\/div>\n\u201cIt should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials.\u201d<\/div>\nThe FDA\u2019s \u2018Safe Limit\u2019 for Aluminum Exposure vs. the Vaccine Schedule<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jeremyrhammond.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/mitkus-aluminum-levels-vaccines.jpg\" "\\"How")
<\/a><\/figure>\nThe FDA\u2019s Falsified \u2018Minimal Risk Level\u2019 for Aluminum<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jeremyrhammond.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/mitkus-alp04-619x556.jpg\" "\\"How")
<\/a><\/figure>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jeremyrhammond.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/mitkus-al0h3-619x558.jpg\" "\\"How")
<\/a><\/figure>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jeremyrhammond.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/AlPO4-Chart-Mitkus-619x536.jpg\" "\\"How")
<\/a><\/figure>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jeremyrhammond.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/AlOH-Chart-Mitkus-619x524.jpg\" "\\"How")
<\/a><\/figure>\nInjected vs. Ingested Aluminum<\/span><\/h2>\n
Ignoring the Toxicity of Aluminum Particles<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jeremyrhammond.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/Mitkus-errors.jpg\" "\\"How")
<\/a><\/figure>\n