The dataset is massive, but if the inputs are poorly contrasted and confounded, then your statistical power just lets you confidently detect nothing — which is exactly what happened.
The garbage in garbage out big pharma "gold standard" study.
Dr Paul Marik "If you think about it. The pharmaceutical companies design the study and they design it for whatever outcome they want. They then conduct the study and conduct it in a way that it will give them the outcome. They then evaluate the outcome so that they get the outcome they want. They analyze the data so it creates the outcome they want and then they get ghost writers to write the paper producing the outcome they want. It's a completely bogus system and till there is more transparency and we change the way clinical studies are done - Unfortunately, I don't think you can really believe anything you read." Dr Paul Marik at 49:20 into the video "Epidemic of Fraud: Exposing Hydroxychloroquine Censorship" Independent Medical Alliance (Formerly FLCCC Alliance)
They do all that and then the numbers still aren't that good like the Pfizer covid vaccine showed more people died in the vaccine group and they couldn't even be consistent about the numbers or respond to why they were inconsistent
Comparing aluminum ingestion (via food or antacids) to aluminum injection (via vaccines) ignores basic toxicokinetics.
Oral aluminum has very low bioavailability,less than 0.3% is absorbed through the gut, and what’s absorbed is filtered by kidneys and excreted.
Injected aluminum, by contrast, bypasses the gut and enters tissues directly, where it persists far longer. It’s designed to stay in the body as an immune irritant (that’s what an adjuvant is).This sustained presence can trigger ongoing immune activation, which is not the case with dietary aluminum.
Also, the infant blood-brain barrier is not fully developed, making injected aluminum a different biological risk than anything eaten. And unlike antacids or vegetables, vaccine adjuvants are administered during critical windows of neurodevelopment, which raises entirely different questions about safety, not just dose, but timing, route, and context.
Dose ≠ effect unless you understand delivery route, absorption, clearance, and vulnerability.
If Marc Girardot's Bolus Theory is correct then vaccine harm happens in an almost completely random outcome like playing Russian roulette. It could be the first dose or the third dose or none at all. Plus the actual actual harming moment may also depend on whether someone has the right nutrients, like berries or greens, to clean up heavy metals before they become a problem.
The articles says that less aluminum seemed to have higher incidents of autism, but what about the zero vaccination group? Did they have higher or lower incidents of autism?
Only about 1.2% of kids in the study received no aluminum-containing vaccines, but they weren’t used as a proper comparison group in the main analysis. That group was too small (around 14,000 kids) to give reliable numbers across dozens of conditions, especially rare ones like autism.
Also, to even be included in the study, children needed to have enough doctor visits to track health outcomes. That means if a child was healthy and didn’t see the doctor much, they were often left out, especially from the lower-vaccine group.
As a result, the low-vaccine group ended up with more children who already had health concerns, like early signs of autism. That can inflate autism rates in the low-dose group, even if vaccines had nothing to do with it.
It’s not that aluminum protects against autism. It’s just that selection bias and the way the data was filtered skewed the numbers.
I submitted this comment on the article’s comment section. Let’s see if the editorial team lets it through.
“What we can say about the sample selection is that:
a) The unvaccinated are excluded the outcomes analysis and only included in the baseline characteristics analysis. This exclusion from the outcome analysis is not shown in the sample selection tree.
b) Up to 0.45 million (i.e. as much one third of the source sample) are excluded from any given outcome analysis IF they showed the outcome being analysed before the age of 2 years. But they were retained if they DIDN’T show the outcome being analysed.
___
What we can say about the unvaccinated population is that they had vastly less contact with their general practitioners (GP).
This could indicate healthier children in the first median 5 years of their life.
In fact, there seems to be a dose dependent response showing less aluminium exposure equals less GP contact, whilst more aluminium exposure equals more GP contact.”
The unvaccinated were excluded from the outcome analysis and only included in baseline stats. Also, many low-aluminum kids were excluded if outcomes appeared before age 2, unless they didn’t show issues, which biases the comparison. And yes, fewer GP visits likely reflects healthier kids, not less harm. Good catch.
1. From these animal studies, a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of aluminium in humans has been defined by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): 1 mg Al/kg bw/week. Page 15
2. The overall bioavailability of ingested aluminium is low, with approximately 0.3% being absorbed from water and 0.1% from food. page 15
3. In her PhD thesis, Stine Skovbo Hoffmann provides a list of the aluminum content of various vaccines. page 13
Has she not read what she herself writes?
Or she cannot figure out how to do the do the calculation (exposure to aluminum during vaccination / injection)?
A vaccination with a vaccine containing aluminum adjuvant cannot possibly contain "small amounts of aluminum", as claimed in the press release from SSI, based on the information provided in Stine Skovbo Hoffmann's pdf thesis.
Stine Skovbo Hoffmann also has errors in information about the concentration of aluminum in the vaccine that I checked and in specifying the type of aluminum adjuvant. Two significant errors that have serious implications in the debate about possible vaccine damage from the Gardasil vaccine.
They think we are so stupid, when are these criminals going to be arrested? Most likely never, as Trump is promoting more of the criminality, death and destruction from big pharma.
Steve, your critique of the Danish aluminum study for its small unvaccinated group, confounding, and lack of data transparency is valid but hypocritical given KCOR’s flaws. I replicated your 1950–1954 Czech cohort analysis (672,876 records, 16,239 deaths) using the full dataset (Otevrena-data-NR-26-30-COVID-19-prehled-populace-2024-01). Your normalization, defined as
KCOR=rawv/(rawuv×(rawvt/rawuvt) ), (1)
is mathematically flawed, adjusting only the denominator to inflate the v/u ratio (my 1.5102 vs. your 1.2314), exaggerating the 23% mortality claim. The correct epidemolical, demographical, and actuarial normalizations yeild standard rate ratios (deaths per population) near 1, nullifying your findings. This is the correct way to normalize mortality data. You used raw death counts. This is competely wrong.
Your static cohort misclassifies later-vaccinated individuals, skewing results, much like the Danish study’s limited unvaccinated group you criticize. KCOR ignores confounders (age, health status, seasonality), risking Simpson’s paradox, while you fault the Danish study’s residual confounding despite its robust adjustments. My counts (10,304 vaccinated, 5,935 unvaccinated) differ from yours (9,517 vs. 6,722), likely from undocumented week-mapping in your python code.
You demand Hviid’s data but hide KCOR’s full methodology, sharing only partial analyses (e.g., cfr_by_week.py) without detailed spreadsheet or program documentation, hindering reproducibility. If KCOR is robust, why not publish the complete methodology? Your selective transparency and failure to address worse flaws than the Danish study’s undermine your “GIGO” critique.
You’re right that KCOR (Kaplan–Meier) doesn’t adjust for confounders. It’s a raw survival estimate. But that’s also true for the Danish study’s initial comparisons until modeling was applied. If Steve presented KCOR unadjusted, it’s not incorrect—it’s just a different lens.
Adjustment doesn’t fix bad data; it just reshuffles it.
Adjusting for confounders (like socioeconomic status, maternal smoking, etc.) is supposed to reduce bias if you:
• have accurate data on all important confounders,
• model them correctly,
• and the relationship between them and the outcome is stable.
But that’s a big if. In most observational studies (including the Danish one), you’re adjusting based on proxies, not truths. You’re guessing at the structure of bias, not removing it. So yes, adjustments can change the signal a lot—but that doesn’t mean the new result is more trustworthy, just different.
Adjustment is like cleaning a dirty window with a slightly damp rag.
You might improve clarity a bit, or just smear the dirt around and feel better about it. It adds the appearance of rigor, but in reality:
• residual confounding always remains,
• some variables (like health-seeking behavior) are hard to measure,
• and adjustment can overcorrect, especially when variables are correlated with both exposure and outcome in complex ways (such as collider bias).
So why is it used at all?
Because:
• reviewers expect it,
• it’s often better than doing nothing, as long as you’re cautious with interpretation,
• it allows for comparisons within subgroups when done transparently,
• and it may approximate truth in clean datasets with well-understood exposures (which this isn’t).
It’s absolutely right to be skeptical. Adjustments don’t “reveal” reality. They only try to control for known distortions. But if the study design is flawed or key variables are poorly measured, adjustment becomes just a statistical mask. It may even hide real harms.
In the Danish aluminum study, the adjustments may have dampened signals not because aluminum is safe, but because of how the population was filtered, grouped, and modeled.
Adjustment is not a magic wand. It’s a guess—sometimes a political one.
So no, Steve’s claim doesn’t become “GIGO” just because he uses KCOR.
Paul, if you’ve got an adjusted analysis with full methods and code, it would be great to see it. That’s how we can move the conversation forward.
KCOR = the so-called Kirsch Cumulative Outcomes Ratio. It is mathematical garbage. I’ve demonstrated that conclusively. There is no legitimate mathematical derivation behind it. It’s a made-up metric masquerading as science.
If you’re still asking for Steve’s full methodology, how can you simultaneously claim you’ve “demonstrated conclusively” that KCOR is mathematical garbage?
You say there’s “no legitimate derivation” behind KCOR, but unless you’ve had access to the full framework and assumptions behind it, you haven’t actually disproven the method. You’ve just shown that your own version of it gave different results. That’s not a refutation, it’s an incomplete reproduction.
Scientific critique requires either (1) replicating the method faithfully and identifying its flaws, or (2) showing that even in its strongest form, it produces invalid conclusions. Right now, you’ve done neither. Instead, you’ve dismissed it as “made up” while admitting you don’t have the full details. That’s not conclusive, that’s reactive.
If you’re confident KCOR is invalid, the most productive move would be to publish your version transparently—full code, full assumptions—and let others evaluate it. Otherwise, this reads more like opinion than demonstration.
a) They excluded the unvaccinated from their outcomes analysis (and only included them in the baseline characteristics analysis)
b) They excluded nearly half a million showing outcomes before the age of 2 years.
___
What we can say about the unvaccinated population is that they had vastly less contact with their general practitioners (GP). This could indicate healthier children in the first median 5 years of their life.
In fact, there is a dose dependent response show less aluminium exposure equals less GP contact; more aluminium exposure equals more GP contact.
Why did they adjust for #GP visits? That would seem to be an intermediate signal to harm done, and they adjusted that signal away, so of course you don’t find the downstream signal of harm from aluminum.
They don't make money with us when we are healthy. They don't make money with us when we are dead. We have to be in between and this is where, the Medical Mafia and Big Pharma, will keep us for the rest of our life to sell us their inefficient drugs that will not heal us, but keep us sick!
Calculating a statistical significance of the data…. Without an appropriate control group…. How was that article was accepted for a publication at the peer-review journal? Usually, at least a couple of the journal’s editors are looking at the submitted materials.. Both editors were drunk?
Brilliant write up on how these frauds use GiGo to get whatever result they want in these population studies. I hope you're getting somewhat close to the reach you deserve and the shadowbanning isn't too severe..
I wonder how those clowns would refute any of these facts: Aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum salts are neurotoxins that carry risk for long term brain inflammation/swelling, neurological disorders, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's, dementia, and autism. It penetrates the brain where it persists indefinitely.
Toxicology: Aluminum-Induced Entropy in Biological Systems: Implications for Neurological Disease
This vaccine contains 850 mcg of aluminum, which is 825 mcg OVER what the EPA mandates as safe for an ADULT. We're not even going to take into account the aluminum contained in other vaccines given at the same time - we are just focusing on ONE for now. Keep that in mind.
📍825 mcg is 3300% of the EPA safe 25 mcg.
📍3300% of the safe limit of aluminum is administered 5 times.
📍3300% times 5 is 16,500%.
Since when is 16,500% of the safe adult dose of a heavy metal anywhere near safe for a less than 6 month old?
It’s NOT safe, it’s heavy metal poisoning/toxicity which can cause injury and death.
“Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
Long-term persistence of aluminum injected intramuscularly via vaccine eventually causes systemic symptoms, which can manifest 3-96 months (8 years) later. Median time to symptoms onset is 11 months post-vaccination:
I’m sorry, but all a person has to do is think for themselves as to how in the hell can a vaccine be good when learning its ingredients. Only makes sense that injecting toxins into the body will do harm, especially to babies and children. All the evidence I need is knowing the ingredients and the grossly number of times a child & then adult is injected with all the toxins. Then looking around and seeing ALL the damaged humans. Injecting toxins is not normal or natural. Period.
The garbage in garbage out big pharma "gold standard" study.
Dr Paul Marik "If you think about it. The pharmaceutical companies design the study and they design it for whatever outcome they want. They then conduct the study and conduct it in a way that it will give them the outcome. They then evaluate the outcome so that they get the outcome they want. They analyze the data so it creates the outcome they want and then they get ghost writers to write the paper producing the outcome they want. It's a completely bogus system and till there is more transparency and we change the way clinical studies are done - Unfortunately, I don't think you can really believe anything you read." Dr Paul Marik at 49:20 into the video "Epidemic of Fraud: Exposing Hydroxychloroquine Censorship" Independent Medical Alliance (Formerly FLCCC Alliance)
They do all that and then the numbers still aren't that good like the Pfizer covid vaccine showed more people died in the vaccine group and they couldn't even be consistent about the numbers or respond to why they were inconsistent
Additional (due to Twitter comments):
Comparing aluminum ingestion (via food or antacids) to aluminum injection (via vaccines) ignores basic toxicokinetics.
Oral aluminum has very low bioavailability,less than 0.3% is absorbed through the gut, and what’s absorbed is filtered by kidneys and excreted.
Injected aluminum, by contrast, bypasses the gut and enters tissues directly, where it persists far longer. It’s designed to stay in the body as an immune irritant (that’s what an adjuvant is).This sustained presence can trigger ongoing immune activation, which is not the case with dietary aluminum.
Also, the infant blood-brain barrier is not fully developed, making injected aluminum a different biological risk than anything eaten. And unlike antacids or vegetables, vaccine adjuvants are administered during critical windows of neurodevelopment, which raises entirely different questions about safety, not just dose, but timing, route, and context.
Dose ≠ effect unless you understand delivery route, absorption, clearance, and vulnerability.
https://x.com/m_a_n_u______/status/1946139921015836832?s=46&t=8lKsot7pcdmGUGcY7FMq6Q
For me it is becoming perfectly clear that shooting the messenger is easier than shooting down the message.
They continually play musical chairs to hide the truth and Steve continues to reveal how the game is played.
Thanks Steve for staying over the target and shooting back !!!
If Marc Girardot's Bolus Theory is correct then vaccine harm happens in an almost completely random outcome like playing Russian roulette. It could be the first dose or the third dose or none at all. Plus the actual actual harming moment may also depend on whether someone has the right nutrients, like berries or greens, to clean up heavy metals before they become a problem.
The articles says that less aluminum seemed to have higher incidents of autism, but what about the zero vaccination group? Did they have higher or lower incidents of autism?
Only about 1.2% of kids in the study received no aluminum-containing vaccines, but they weren’t used as a proper comparison group in the main analysis. That group was too small (around 14,000 kids) to give reliable numbers across dozens of conditions, especially rare ones like autism.
Also, to even be included in the study, children needed to have enough doctor visits to track health outcomes. That means if a child was healthy and didn’t see the doctor much, they were often left out, especially from the lower-vaccine group.
As a result, the low-vaccine group ended up with more children who already had health concerns, like early signs of autism. That can inflate autism rates in the low-dose group, even if vaccines had nothing to do with it.
It’s not that aluminum protects against autism. It’s just that selection bias and the way the data was filtered skewed the numbers.
I submitted this comment on the article’s comment section. Let’s see if the editorial team lets it through.
“What we can say about the sample selection is that:
a) The unvaccinated are excluded the outcomes analysis and only included in the baseline characteristics analysis. This exclusion from the outcome analysis is not shown in the sample selection tree.
b) Up to 0.45 million (i.e. as much one third of the source sample) are excluded from any given outcome analysis IF they showed the outcome being analysed before the age of 2 years. But they were retained if they DIDN’T show the outcome being analysed.
___
What we can say about the unvaccinated population is that they had vastly less contact with their general practitioners (GP).
This could indicate healthier children in the first median 5 years of their life.
In fact, there seems to be a dose dependent response showing less aluminium exposure equals less GP contact, whilst more aluminium exposure equals more GP contact.”
The unvaccinated were excluded from the outcome analysis and only included in baseline stats. Also, many low-aluminum kids were excluded if outcomes appeared before age 2, unless they didn’t show issues, which biases the comparison. And yes, fewer GP visits likely reflects healthier kids, not less harm. Good catch.
An author from the study, Stine Skovbo Hoffmann, writes the following in her PhD thesis:
https://www.videncenterforallergi.dk/wp-content/uploads/files/ph.d-afhandlinger/PhD-Hoffmann.pdf
1. From these animal studies, a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of aluminium in humans has been defined by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): 1 mg Al/kg bw/week. Page 15
2. The overall bioavailability of ingested aluminium is low, with approximately 0.3% being absorbed from water and 0.1% from food. page 15
3. In her PhD thesis, Stine Skovbo Hoffmann provides a list of the aluminum content of various vaccines. page 13
Has she not read what she herself writes?
Or she cannot figure out how to do the do the calculation (exposure to aluminum during vaccination / injection)?
A vaccination with a vaccine containing aluminum adjuvant cannot possibly contain "small amounts of aluminum", as claimed in the press release from SSI, based on the information provided in Stine Skovbo Hoffmann's pdf thesis.
Stine Skovbo Hoffmann also has errors in information about the concentration of aluminum in the vaccine that I checked and in specifying the type of aluminum adjuvant. Two significant errors that have serious implications in the debate about possible vaccine damage from the Gardasil vaccine.
They think we are so stupid, when are these criminals going to be arrested? Most likely never, as Trump is promoting more of the criminality, death and destruction from big pharma.
Steve, your critique of the Danish aluminum study for its small unvaccinated group, confounding, and lack of data transparency is valid but hypocritical given KCOR’s flaws. I replicated your 1950–1954 Czech cohort analysis (672,876 records, 16,239 deaths) using the full dataset (Otevrena-data-NR-26-30-COVID-19-prehled-populace-2024-01). Your normalization, defined as
KCOR=rawv/(rawuv×(rawvt/rawuvt) ), (1)
is mathematically flawed, adjusting only the denominator to inflate the v/u ratio (my 1.5102 vs. your 1.2314), exaggerating the 23% mortality claim. The correct epidemolical, demographical, and actuarial normalizations yeild standard rate ratios (deaths per population) near 1, nullifying your findings. This is the correct way to normalize mortality data. You used raw death counts. This is competely wrong.
Your static cohort misclassifies later-vaccinated individuals, skewing results, much like the Danish study’s limited unvaccinated group you criticize. KCOR ignores confounders (age, health status, seasonality), risking Simpson’s paradox, while you fault the Danish study’s residual confounding despite its robust adjustments. My counts (10,304 vaccinated, 5,935 unvaccinated) differ from yours (9,517 vs. 6,722), likely from undocumented week-mapping in your python code.
You demand Hviid’s data but hide KCOR’s full methodology, sharing only partial analyses (e.g., cfr_by_week.py) without detailed spreadsheet or program documentation, hindering reproducibility. If KCOR is robust, why not publish the complete methodology? Your selective transparency and failure to address worse flaws than the Danish study’s undermine your “GIGO” critique.
You’re right that KCOR (Kaplan–Meier) doesn’t adjust for confounders. It’s a raw survival estimate. But that’s also true for the Danish study’s initial comparisons until modeling was applied. If Steve presented KCOR unadjusted, it’s not incorrect—it’s just a different lens.
Adjustment doesn’t fix bad data; it just reshuffles it.
Adjusting for confounders (like socioeconomic status, maternal smoking, etc.) is supposed to reduce bias if you:
• have accurate data on all important confounders,
• model them correctly,
• and the relationship between them and the outcome is stable.
But that’s a big if. In most observational studies (including the Danish one), you’re adjusting based on proxies, not truths. You’re guessing at the structure of bias, not removing it. So yes, adjustments can change the signal a lot—but that doesn’t mean the new result is more trustworthy, just different.
Adjustment is like cleaning a dirty window with a slightly damp rag.
You might improve clarity a bit, or just smear the dirt around and feel better about it. It adds the appearance of rigor, but in reality:
• residual confounding always remains,
• some variables (like health-seeking behavior) are hard to measure,
• and adjustment can overcorrect, especially when variables are correlated with both exposure and outcome in complex ways (such as collider bias).
So why is it used at all?
Because:
• reviewers expect it,
• it’s often better than doing nothing, as long as you’re cautious with interpretation,
• it allows for comparisons within subgroups when done transparently,
• and it may approximate truth in clean datasets with well-understood exposures (which this isn’t).
It’s absolutely right to be skeptical. Adjustments don’t “reveal” reality. They only try to control for known distortions. But if the study design is flawed or key variables are poorly measured, adjustment becomes just a statistical mask. It may even hide real harms.
In the Danish aluminum study, the adjustments may have dampened signals not because aluminum is safe, but because of how the population was filtered, grouped, and modeled.
Adjustment is not a magic wand. It’s a guess—sometimes a political one.
So no, Steve’s claim doesn’t become “GIGO” just because he uses KCOR.
Paul, if you’ve got an adjusted analysis with full methods and code, it would be great to see it. That’s how we can move the conversation forward.
Thanks for engaging!
Manu
KCOR = the so-called Kirsch Cumulative Outcomes Ratio. It is mathematical garbage. I’ve demonstrated that conclusively. There is no legitimate mathematical derivation behind it. It’s a made-up metric masquerading as science.
If you’re still asking for Steve’s full methodology, how can you simultaneously claim you’ve “demonstrated conclusively” that KCOR is mathematical garbage?
You say there’s “no legitimate derivation” behind KCOR, but unless you’ve had access to the full framework and assumptions behind it, you haven’t actually disproven the method. You’ve just shown that your own version of it gave different results. That’s not a refutation, it’s an incomplete reproduction.
Scientific critique requires either (1) replicating the method faithfully and identifying its flaws, or (2) showing that even in its strongest form, it produces invalid conclusions. Right now, you’ve done neither. Instead, you’ve dismissed it as “made up” while admitting you don’t have the full details. That’s not conclusive, that’s reactive.
If you’re confident KCOR is invalid, the most productive move would be to publish your version transparently—full code, full assumptions—and let others evaluate it. Otherwise, this reads more like opinion than demonstration.
Hi Manu,
Good to read your post. Thank you.
Here is my contribution:
What we can say about their sample is that:
a) They excluded the unvaccinated from their outcomes analysis (and only included them in the baseline characteristics analysis)
b) They excluded nearly half a million showing outcomes before the age of 2 years.
___
What we can say about the unvaccinated population is that they had vastly less contact with their general practitioners (GP). This could indicate healthier children in the first median 5 years of their life.
In fact, there is a dose dependent response show less aluminium exposure equals less GP contact; more aluminium exposure equals more GP contact.
Thank you, Paul! Good points.
Why did they adjust for #GP visits? That would seem to be an intermediate signal to harm done, and they adjusted that signal away, so of course you don’t find the downstream signal of harm from aluminum.
They don't make money with us when we are healthy. They don't make money with us when we are dead. We have to be in between and this is where, the Medical Mafia and Big Pharma, will keep us for the rest of our life to sell us their inefficient drugs that will not heal us, but keep us sick!
Calculating a statistical significance of the data…. Without an appropriate control group…. How was that article was accepted for a publication at the peer-review journal? Usually, at least a couple of the journal’s editors are looking at the submitted materials.. Both editors were drunk?
It's time for Steve to start a (venerable and prestigious) Journal of Debunked RCTs.
Should be a winner because:
- RCTs are not randomized - they just say they are - since the two outcome arms (placebo vs effect) are not randomized.
- Research claims are more likely to be false than true (according to simulations).
- Results may merely accurately reflect bias.
- The inability to replicate RCT findings.
- Standard errors due to complexity.
- Structural confounders like big money and researcher programming.
Since they're not corrupt to the bone, Pharma would fund it.
I really wish somebody would have a database so you could see a critical analysis of scientific studies. Like a snopes for anti vaxxers
Brilliant write up on how these frauds use GiGo to get whatever result they want in these population studies. I hope you're getting somewhat close to the reach you deserve and the shadowbanning isn't too severe..
I wonder how those clowns would refute any of these facts: Aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum salts are neurotoxins that carry risk for long term brain inflammation/swelling, neurological disorders, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's, dementia, and autism. It penetrates the brain where it persists indefinitely.
Toxicology: Aluminum-Induced Entropy in Biological Systems: Implications for Neurological Disease
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2014/491316/
How aluminum, an intracellular ROS generator promotes hepatic and neurological diseases
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10565-013-9239-0
Tdap/Dtap
This vaccine contains 850 mcg of aluminum, which is 825 mcg OVER what the EPA mandates as safe for an ADULT. We're not even going to take into account the aluminum contained in other vaccines given at the same time - we are just focusing on ONE for now. Keep that in mind.
📍825 mcg is 3300% of the EPA safe 25 mcg.
📍3300% of the safe limit of aluminum is administered 5 times.
📍3300% times 5 is 16,500%.
Since when is 16,500% of the safe adult dose of a heavy metal anywhere near safe for a less than 6 month old?
It’s NOT safe, it’s heavy metal poisoning/toxicity which can cause injury and death.
Injecting Aluminum - https://www.bitchute (dot) com/video/ttR544IDSTvI/
Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609067
Effect of Routine Vaccination on Aluminum and Essential Element Levels in Preterm Infants
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1712578
“Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=201.323
>> And infants are receiving a lot more aluminum than this in their vaccines.
ASIA] Autoimmune (auto-inflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants (e.g. Aluminum adjuvants in vaccines). Vaccination triggers rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, thyroid disease, and other autoimmune conditions:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23992328/
Long-term persistence of aluminum injected intramuscularly via vaccine eventually causes systemic symptoms, which can manifest 3-96 months (8 years) later. Median time to symptoms onset is 11 months post-vaccination:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11522584/
And there’s so much more. This is but a glimpse of all the information out there that we aren’t being given.
I’m sorry, but all a person has to do is think for themselves as to how in the hell can a vaccine be good when learning its ingredients. Only makes sense that injecting toxins into the body will do harm, especially to babies and children. All the evidence I need is knowing the ingredients and the grossly number of times a child & then adult is injected with all the toxins. Then looking around and seeing ALL the damaged humans. Injecting toxins is not normal or natural. Period.
'Jeffrey S Morris' anagrams to 'Jeffy Miss Error'!