
The public remains unaware of the dangers of aluminium in vaccines.
Most people assume that the vaccines they receive are both effective and safe, and crucially free of anything other than a killed virus particle and a carrier fluid. This idea is entirely false. A crucial fact remains largely unknown to the general public is that vaccines also contain a variety of other things including metals such as Aluminium.
Aluminium is routinely added to a number of common vaccines even though the metal has been linked with neurotoxicity and a growing list of other health concerns. While health authorities insist on its safety, a growing chorus of voices suggest otherwise. Here we examine the facts:
Aluminium has been used in vaccines since the 1920s. It is used as an adjuvant—a substance claimed to 'enhance' the vaccine's efficiency.
The first person to add aluminium to a vaccine was Alexander Glenny, a British immunologist. In the 1920s, he discovered that adding aluminium salts to diphtheria toxoid improved the body’s immune response. His idea was simple: by creating a controlled irritation in the immune system, the vaccine would become more effective.
Safety Testing
However, Glenny did not look for any adverse effects, nor did he do any short, medium, or long term safety testing, a practice that was entirely absent from Medicine development at the time.
Conflict of Interest
Since then there have been some safety studies done, and these are what are used to claim that aluminium in vaccines is safe. But worryingly, when you look at these studies they have all been funded by the very drugs companies selling the vaccines. These include:
Mitkus et al. (2011) – A toxicology study on aluminium exposure in vaccines conducted by researchers at the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) - the FDA receives 45% of its total funding from the Pharmaceutical industry, with the same amount again coming from food manufacturers.
DeStefano et al. (2013) – A major study on vaccines and autism that found no link between aluminium in vaccines and neurological disorders was done by the US CDC (Center for Disease Control) the CDC receive 75% of their funding from the Pharmaceutical industry.
In fact every single one has been directly or indirectly financed by the pharmaceutical industry. Whether through direct sponsorship, grants, or affiliations with regulatory agencies, there is a clear conflict of interest that taints the credibility of these findings. Can we truly trust research that is financially tied to those profiting from vaccines?
The fundamental flaw in these safety studies is their comparison of injected aluminium to ingested or inhaled aluminium. The body processes aluminium differently depending on the method of exposure. While ingestion and inhalation allow the body to eliminate most aluminium, injection bypasses natural filtration systems and delivers the metal directly into tissues, or the bloodstream. This is a critical oversight.
Aluminium toxicity
Aluminium toxicity has been linked to neurological disorders, autoimmune conditions, and chronic inflammation. Studies have found aluminium deposits in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients, as well as in bones and organs. While vaccine-related aluminium isn't really studied broader research on aluminium toxicity raises significant concerns about its accumulation in the body.
The medical establishment has become entrenched in dogma, resisting any challenge to vaccine safety. Anyone who questions the prevailing narrative is labelled anti-science or a conspiracy theorist. This cult-like behaviour suppresses legitimate scientific debate and prevents real progress in ensuring vaccine safety.
A paradigm shift is urgently needed. We must reconsider the foundational principles of vaccination and demand truly independent safety studies. No research should be funded, influenced, or controlled by pharmaceutical companies or NGOs with vested interests. Public health should be dictated by genuine science, not corporate or political agendas.
" the FDA receives 45% of its total funding from the Pharmaceutical industry, "
The MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its total funding from the Pharmaceutical industry,