by Rhoda Wilson, Expose News:
A recent New York Times article claimed that aluminium in vaccines is “a good thing.” Aluminium toxicity experts told The Defender the chemical was never sufficiently safety tested by the industry, is toxic and continues to be used in vaccines because it’s more profitable than safer alternatives.
4 Things the New York Times Got Wrong About Aluminium in Vaccines
By Brenda Baletti as published by Children’s Health Defense on 27 January 2025
This article is part of a series of articles by The Defender responding to the latest media coverage of vaccines.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
A New York Times article published on 24 January online claimed that aluminium used in childhood vaccines is necessary, well-tested and safe.
Aluminium in vaccines is “a good thing” the headline said and “vaccine scientists” find it “strange” that people – like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – raise questions about it because there is no indication in aluminium’s nearly 100 years of use in vaccines that there are any problems.
President-elect of the American Academy of Paediatrics Dr. Andrew Racine – who is not a “vaccine scientist” – told the New York Times, “If there was something jumping out about a lack of safety, we would most likely have seen it someplace, and it just doesn’t appear.”
The article is one of several published recently by media outlets including the Daily Tribune, The Conversation and FactCheck.org, defending the use of aluminium in drugs designed for infants.
The Defender spoke with several top researchers on aluminium toxicity and aluminium adjuvants. They said aluminium adjuvants in vaccines are poorly understood by the pharmaceutical industry and have not been appropriately safety tested against a placebo.
They also said there is evidence that the toxic chemical can wreak havoc on the immune system.
The media’s claims ignore decades of research and extensive evidence that aluminium ought to be completely eliminated as a vaccine ingredient, they said.
Chris Exley, PhD, one of the world’s leading experts on the health effects of aluminium exposure, said the article “reads like a last-ditch effort by the Times on behalf of the vaccine industry to prevent the inevitable moratorium on the continued use of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines.”
Guillemette Crépeaux, PhD, associate professor in physiology and pharmacology at Alfort National Veterinary School, France, said, “All experts on aluminium and aluminium-based adjuvants agree: These compounds are not safe. The scientific literature is very clear on this matter.”
Many of the vaccine industry’s claims about aluminium are at stake in the historic Merck trial that began last week for fraud, negligence and concealing the likelihood and severity of adverse effects associated with its Gardasil HPV vaccine.
4 Things The Times Didn’t Tell Readers About Aluminium In Vaccines
1. Long-term use of aluminium adjuvants doesn’t mean they’re safe.
The Times repeated a claim made by vaccine makers and government regulatory agencies that the long-term use of aluminium adjuvants shows that they are safe.
However, Exley, author of ‘Imagine You Are an Aluminum Atom: Discussions with Mr. Aluminum’, wrote on Substack that even though aluminium adjuvants have been used for a long time, vaccine manufacturers still haven’t shown any detailed understanding of how aluminium adjuvants work.
Instead, they perpetuate “a number of myths” about the mechanism of action, Exley wrote.
The New York Times explained how adjuvants work using terms like “scientists believe,” but conceded that how adjuvants enhance the activity of immune cells is “not fully understood.”
Researchers have also reported that the mechanisms of adjuvant toxicity are even less well understood than the mechanisms by which adjuvants enhance vaccine immunogenicity.
Exley explained that adjuvants are used because antigens – like vaccines and bacteria – used in vaccines are often not sufficient to cause an immune response that would later protect someone from the target illness. Adding aluminium to the antigen provides a cheap and easy way to provoke an immune response to a weakened form of a virus.
