When it comes to aluminium adjuvants are babies more robust than young women?
Dear Editor
The call by Doshi et al for the restoration of Cervarix trials is welcome [1]. I would point out that the position with other vaccines, particularly infant vaccines is not obviously better [2]. Vaccines repeatedly given to infants in their first year [3] such as Infanrix Hexa, Prevenar 13 and Bexsero all contain aluminium salts [4,5,6]. I note too the warning of Christopher Exley 'An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium' [7]. Meanwhile, for whatever reason our schools are drowning in an ever increasing tide of neurological impairment, for which no official explanation is ever forthcoming [8].
When previously healthy young women become invalided it is rightly a cause for remark and deep concern but what about all those young children who are never going to make it? The problem is not firstly that the system cannot provide for them (and it is under critical pressure) but where are they all coming from? Is there something we are doing wrong? If aluminium adjuvants represent a hazard to young women, what about infants - are they so much more robust?
[7] Christoper Exley, 'An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium', J Trace Elem Med Biol
. 2020 Jan;57:57-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2019.09.010.
Competing interests:
AgeofAutism.com, an on-line daily journal, concerns itself with the potential environmental sources for the proliferation of autism, neurological impairment, immune dysfunction and chronic disease. I receive no payment as UK Editor
Rapid Response:
When it comes to aluminium adjuvants are babies more robust than young women?
Dear Editor
The call by Doshi et al for the restoration of Cervarix trials is welcome [1]. I would point out that the position with other vaccines, particularly infant vaccines is not obviously better [2]. Vaccines repeatedly given to infants in their first year [3] such as Infanrix Hexa, Prevenar 13 and Bexsero all contain aluminium salts [4,5,6]. I note too the warning of Christopher Exley 'An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium' [7]. Meanwhile, for whatever reason our schools are drowning in an ever increasing tide of neurological impairment, for which no official explanation is ever forthcoming [8].
When previously healthy young women become invalided it is rightly a cause for remark and deep concern but what about all those young children who are never going to make it? The problem is not firstly that the system cannot provide for them (and it is under critical pressure) but where are they all coming from? Is there something we are doing wrong? If aluminium adjuvants represent a hazard to young women, what about infants - are they so much more robust?
[1] Doshi et al, 'Call to action: RIAT restoration of a previously unpublished methodology in Cervarix vaccine trials', 5 October 2020, https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2865/rr-15
[2] John Stone, 'Re: Response to John Stone (2019 Jul 24)',29 July 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l4291/rr-37
[3] https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/uk-schedule
[4] Section 2 https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/33313#gref
[5] Section 2 https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/22689/SPC/Prevenar+13+suspensi...
[6] Section 2 https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/5168/smpc#gref
[7] Christoper Exley, 'An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium', J Trace Elem Med Biol
. 2020 Jan;57:57-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2019.09.010.
[8] Responses to Wise, 'Social care: pressure mounts for urgent and radical reform', https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4564/rapid-responses
Competing interests: AgeofAutism.com, an on-line daily journal, concerns itself with the potential environmental sources for the proliferation of autism, neurological impairment, immune dysfunction and chronic disease. I receive no payment as UK Editor