By Jefferey Jaxen
New Research Proposes Individual Aluminum Toxicity Limits for Children
When it comes to vaccines, nobody ever wants to talk about the aluminum element, and now we understand even better why that is.
A new study published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology concluded the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine schedule was 15.9 times over the recommended safe level of aluminum when researchers adjusted for body weight.
Study researchers also estimated that a child who followed the vaccine schedule would be in a state of “chronic toxicity” for 70% of the child’s first seven months of life, 149 days from birth to seven months.
The new study builds on prior work that established a “safe” baseline of aluminum in vaccines for infants. This baseline is derived from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) limits for adults, corrected for body weight per dose.
Deemed ‘settled science,’ the current rationale for injected aluminum has been based on a broad-brush approach ignoring age, weight, and individual considerations such as genetics and environmental influences on detoxification.
The authors went beyond the limited and unscientific one-size-fits-all that drives the historic and current vaccine paradigm. Both the CDC and FDA are telling the public and the medical community that injected aluminum is not harmful to children. But a growing global body of work and common sense is pointing to a bigger story.
People are demanding answers. They are becoming increasingly aware that the official government channels have shown little intent to say anything different. This new research was supported by private donations from the public.
Aluminum has been found in the brains of patients with Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and autism. Evidence is also growing that a host of chronic illnesses of unknown causes that are difficult to diagnose, such as PANDAS/PANS and chronic fatigue syndrome, may at least in part be due to vaccine aluminum intolerance.
It’s long been considered a medical taboo and probably career suicide to suggest any deviation from the CDC’s recommended schedule. Still, this study looked at three separate schedules:
- The CDC schedule for 2019
- A CDC schedule the researchers modified specifically choosing low dose aluminum for DTaP and no aluminum for Hib vaccines
- Dr. Paul Thomas’s “Vaccine-Friendly Plan” schedule
For years, pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas (who is one of the study’s authors), has offered an alternative schedule he created, called the “Vaccine-Friendly Plan.” Not unexpectedly, Dr. Thomas received media blowback for daring to deviate from the CDC’s vaccine timing/schedule, despite the gaps in science to justify its use.
One gap to mind is a comparison of total health outcomes between vaccinated children adhering to the CDC’s schedule versus unvaccinated. It doesn’t exist. Earlier this year, Dr. Thomas commissioned an independent quality assurance project running a deep dive into the data from his practice. Identifying thousands of patients born into his practice over nearly eleven years, the analysis revealed some shocking truths about the health of his patients receiving various levels of vaccination.
The current FDA regulation allows for a wide range of aluminum. Anywhere from 25 μg/L (should we explain what this is?) to 1250 μg/single dose in vaccines. Body-weight is not considered. Nor does this regulation “consider cumulative doses from multiple vaccines received at one time.”
The CDC schedule permits many vaccines per office visit and thus per day, a practice recently supercharged by government-mandated ‘catch-up’ schedules. These schedules have been foisted upon families by a slew of legislation happening across the U.S., making vaccine compliance mandatory.
The study’s lead author, James Lyons-Weiler, says, “We are in the process now of another study determining what impact “catch up” vaccine schedules have on the safe limits of aluminum.”
The so-called “settled science” justifying aluminum adjuvants in vaccines for human use leaves much to be desired. 2004’s Priest study took measurements of retained aluminum covering a 12-year period of a single adult volunteer after a single injection with citrate solution containing aluminum. It also included a small study of six adult male subjects over a shorter period of time.
Yes, you read that right.
These studies have clear flaws. Citrate solutions are not used in vaccination, for one thing. Another is that the studies involved adults, not infants or children.
FDA scientist Robert Mitkus used a variety of equations from the Priest study and applied them to ingested aluminum in 2011. Mitkus’s study is used as the current rationale to justify injected aluminum’s safety for all ages, weights, genders, and individual genetic variations. Again, you read that right: an ingested aluminum study is used to justify injected aluminum.
To date, scientific literature has provided scant evidence to justify injected aluminum’s safety. To further complicate matters, it has been speculated that for at least some individuals, the body’s ability to clear aluminum might be slowed by previous exposure to the element. In addition, individuals have varying abilities to detoxify heavy metals and toxins in general, such as those with renal dysfunction, infants, and even more so, infants in neonatal units.
In the paper’s discussion, the authors state:
“Under our modeled conditions, the highest expected %alumTox would occur in low birth or body-weight infants with a genetic or environmental detoxification deficiency, such as those born to low-income mothers or who are malnourished.”
Lyons-Weiler provided a statement to The HighWire:
“We’re calling for the FDA to do the right kind of study concerning injected aluminum. Regulatory bodies and advisory boards should not be adding more vaccines to the recommended schedule until the current schedule’s aluminum burden can be proven safe.”
We’ll see what impact the paper’s findings and suggestions yield from notoriously stubborn and slow-to-change regulatory agencies. For now, the publicly funded findings remain open and transparent for parents and pediatricians to consider and researchers to build upon.