‘Vaccine Science Revisited’ highlights the alarm bells surrounding use of aluminum in vaccines

Posted: June 5, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

We devote considerable space to the use of aluminum in vaccines in our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? – as the following excerpts show:

A research paper on the effects of aluminum in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from 2011 states: “Whilst being environmentally abundant, aluminum is not essential for life. On the contrary, aluminum is widely recognized neurotoxin that inhibits more than 200 biologically important functions and causes various adverse effects in plants, animals and humans.” [124]

A Dr. Thomas Jefferson[125] was “funded to investigate vaccine safety by the European Commission,”[126] and was at the time “the head of the vaccine division of the Cochrane Collaboration”[127]… In a research paper on aluminum in diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccines from 2004, Dr. Jefferson states that: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events…”

To help validate her argument, she continues to use Dr. Jefferson’s own words, this time from 2002 where he states that: “Most safety studies on childhood vaccines have not been conducted thoroughly enough to tell whether the jabs cause side effects. […] There is some good research, but it is overwhelmed by the bad.  The public has been let down because the proper studies have not been done.”[135]

We understand her argument and feel our notion on the studies’ lack of weight has been validated. The authors are suggesting we can actually make scientifically firm conclusions on limited data?

They also observed that the amygdala in the vaccinated monkeys didn’t mature with time as it was supposed to. The amygdala, incidentally, plays an important role in social interactions… What this means is the research showed that the social behavior of those monkeys that received the actual vaccines, where the DPN levels did not decrease, turned anti-social.

Scientists may not know exactly which parts of the vaccines our body decides to react to. Each person reacts so differently. But it seems likely there is validity in questioning vaccine safety when a concoction of substances is used to provoke our immune system.

Because each immune system is different, scientists can’t predict its reaction when presented with something foreign. Especially when the vaccine contains scientifically proven neurotoxins, such as aluminum.

When scientists use the entire germ in the vaccine, they have to kill it or weaken it substantially before putting it into the vaccine. In order to do this, they use a chemical. The most common chemical for this process is Formaldehyde (FA) or Formalin (liquid form of formaldehyde).

Many scientists have expressed concern about injecting embalming fluid into the bodies of little infants. We thought therefore we should take a closer look at the validity of this concern. In order to do this, we need to know which part of our body it affects and what formaldehyde does when directly exposed to our cells.

During our research digging we found it difficult to understand how so many scientific studies out there can be studying the exact same thing, yet their conclusions completely contradict each other. Formaldehyde studies are no exception. If each study can be replicated by a third party in the laboratory, how the results can vary so greatly?

Some health professionals are concerned about formaldehyde accumulating in the body. For example, Sherri Tenpenny, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), who has great insight into the field of natural health, argues that by the time a child is five, they have received 1.795 mg Formaldehyde.

Dr. Tenpenny says: “Through sloppy and negligent math, lawmakers and manufacturers fail to throw up a red flag regarding the large amount of formaldehyde injected into young bodies with developing brains, neurological systems and organs.”[168]

We found a study that measured accumulated formaldehyde in the brain. Yes, apparently accumulated formaldehyde does exist. The study showed that the more it accumulates, the less there will be “cognitive abilities during human aging”[175]. The more severe the dementia in Alzheimer’s disease patients, the higher the formaldehyde accumulation[176].

Something else the authors of that study observed was when we age, the “accumulation of formaldehyde” prevents “new formation of spatial memory (i.e., learning difficulty)” [177].

Another observation was that in late stage Alzheimer’s disease there’s “chronic accumulation of hippocampal formaldehyde” which “induces loss of remote memory.” What caught our attention was the paper listed a correlation between the presence of both mercury and formaldehyde (as an environmental factor)[178].

This study was not done on children, but on adults with Alzheimer’s disease. We wonder if there’s any type of defect in our ability to clear formaldehyde out of the body and that somehow renders the aforementioned short half-life to be irrelevant? Can this formaldehyde accumulation start as early as with the administration of childhood…

To be continued…


VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

(Book’s average Amazon review rating = 4.4 out of 5 stars).




Leave a Reply (email address NOT required)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s