Journalist’s Overview: Reject the Injection of Any Unknown Substances! Protecting the Purity of Human Blood 🩸 is the Foundation of Health. Humanity has yet to develop a safe and reliable injection 💉. Moreover, corrupt officials and criminal forces use injections to lay hidden traps, exploiting the human body for medical economic gain through pseudoscience. The truth is concealed, and the situation is much deeper than it appears. What people know is only the tip of the iceberg! / France: Freedom, Health, Human Rights Reporter: Han Rongli 记者综述：拒绝注射任何不明物质！维护人类洁净的血液🩸是健康的基础，人类至今还没有研究出安全可靠的注射液💉，更何况贪官污吏、黑恶势力用注射埋下伏笔、用伪科学挖掘人体医疗经济，真相被掩盖，水很深、人们知道的仅仅是冰山上的一角而已！/法国：自由健康人权记者：韩荣利
机构主流大药厂疫苗中鋁的安全资料 然而！神经毒铝会导致智障残疾且不可逆转 记者综述
Safety Data of Aluminum in Vaccines from Major Pharmaceutical Companies; However! Neurotoxic Aluminum Can Cause Intellectual Disabilities and Irreversible Damage A Report by the Journalist
疫苗中鋁的安全資料由...資助
美國食品藥品監督管理局對注射鋁有嚴格的安全限制。 疫苗接種時間表將其分解了50倍。
The safety data for aluminium in vaccines was funded by... The FDA has a strict safety limit for injected aluminium. The vaccine schedule breaks it by 50 times. PHIL HARPER 13 JAN 2026 AT 16:57
When administered by IV, aluminium becomes toxic at 4 mcg per kilogram per day.
Having looked around for the very paper that props up the safety of the entire vaccine industry, I finally found it. As I always do, I looked for the acknowledgements or conflict of interest section. I often say that nothing surprises me anymore, but for some reason, this put my jaw on the floor. The study propping up the safety of aluminium in the entire vaccine schedule, was funded by the Aluminium Association in Washington and the Aluminium Institute in London. The Priest data, worthless as it already is to the question at hand, was funded by Aluminium lobbyists.
The regulators buried this conflict of interest. We dug it up. Supporting The Digger ensures we can keep digging where the industry doesn't want us to look
In part one we looked at the official ‘line’ on why aluminium is safe to use in vaccines; it has been used for decades, and you absorb more aluminium from your food. Neither one of these statements stand up to even the mildest nudge of scrutiny. If you were seeking informed consent on vaccines containing aluminium, those two arguments would be presented to you. With them both utterly demolished, where can we go next? Let’s wander further behind the curtain and see how deep the rot goes.
Institutions are lightweight cults, and most cults have mantras. Mantras don’t work because they are true, they work because they are accepted and repeated without investigation. Modern medicine has many mantras, and one of them is…
There’s one study that is actually cited as a defense of aluminium in vaccines, it’s called the Miktus paper. Published in 2011, it was a strategic, institutional response to a growing crisis of confidence in the American vaccination program. By the late 2000s, questioning the vaccine schedule had gone mainstream with Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey forcing the issue onto Larry King. Rumbling alongside this, the FDA was embroiled in a bruising legal battle over the safety of a vaccine preservative called Thimerosal. By exploring the history of this moment, and what led to the creation of the Miktus paper, we’ll come to understand how utterly broken the regulatory system really is.
The FDA ultimately ‘won’ the legal case, but they were forced to remove Thimerosal from their vaccines products. In the years surrounding the case, the mood at the FDA was defensive, because questioning their $20 billion vaccine industry was becoming a trend. As attention shifted onto the other ingredients used in vaccines, it was clear many of them had been “Grandfathered” in. They’d been in use for so long that safety was assumed rather than demonstrated clinically. Like any great salesman, the FDA pivoted this blind spot into a feature. Effectively their line was “hey the reason we don’t need safety data is because we’ve been injecting aluminium for decades”. A defense they made official and still use today. Whilst thimerosal could be removed from vaccines, it was just a preservative after all, aluminium is core to the functionality of their vaccines. If the aluminium domino falls, the $20 billion industry would be in big trouble.
The question the FDA needed to answer was really very simple. “Your vaccine schedule means infants receive aluminium, a known neurotoxin. Sometimes an infant receives multiple aluminium vaccines on the same day. Do you have data on what is a ‘safe’ amount of aluminium that can be injected into an infant in a single sitting?” To this question, the FDA simply had no answer. We still don’t have a proper answer to this question even today. Shouldn’t we know the safety limit for injected aluminium? With no response from the regulators, there was a doctor with a fairly decent answer to this question, but it wasn’t the answer the FDA wanted. Doctor Bob Sears had made a very astute observation: safety data did already exist on aluminium. Sears found that the FDA already had a safety limit for aluminium in infants, and it was 5 mcg per kilo per day. So…there was an answer after all!? Exceed this limit, and the FDA themselves said aluminium can cause neurodevelopmental problems, impaired bone growth and bone mineralisation; it’s toxic basically. So how does this limit compare to vaccines an infant receives during the first 12 weeks of a baby’s life?
On the NHS, when an infant goes for their 8 week health check, they’ll get the 6-in-1 and the MenB vaccine on the same day. Depending on the brands used, that could be as much as 1320 mcg of aluminium in a single day. For an average 5kg baby, that’s 264 mcg per kilo, which is 52 times the safe limit the FDA had already set. What!? How is that possible?
It’s possible because the FDA, the industry they protect, and the scientists who do their work will use sophistry, bullying, groupthink, and a war of attrition to obscure what I just told you. By the end of your honest venture into the data, you’ll be confused and exhausted. You’ll probably just given in trying to work out the answer. What they’ll tell you is the safe limit (which really is an FDA regulation) is different to the limit for vaccination, because an IV is different to vaccination. The safe limit I’m showing you here, they’ll say, is utterly irrelevant to the dose babies receive during vaccination. When someone puts this argument to you, ask them this: “Ok, then what is the exact safe limit of injected aluminium for an 8 week old infant, and how do we know what it is?” The sophistry you’ll be faced with is a strategy of deflection to obscure the lack of data on this very important question. The truth is, the FDA’s 5 mcg limit is very relevant to the dose babies receive during vaccination. To demonstrate why will require us to follow the FDA’s path. How did the FDA come to set this limit? It began in the 1970s with a crisis in kidney patients. Doctors noticed a mysterious, fatal condition in patients undergoing long-term dialysis who, previously mentally sharp, began suffering from stuttering, seizures, and rapid-onset dementia. It became known as ‘Dialysis Dementia.’ In 1976, Dr. Allen Alfrey identified the cause: aluminum. The water used for dialysis contained aluminum which, because the patients’ kidneys weren’t working, crossed the blood-brain barrier and destroyed grey matter. The results of the data was crystal clear: aluminium is unambiguously neurotoxic, it definitely causes dementia and alzheimers “like” symptoms, so the debate would have to shift towards just how much is toxic, and where in the body it must go before it produces toxicity. The discovery triggered years of growing anxiety among pediatricians. Throughout the 1980s and early 90s, they tried to sound the alarm that premature infants were physiologically almost identical to these dialysis patients. Like them, premature babies have very low kidney function, and like them, they are often fed intravenously (IV). The concern was that the IV feeds used for babies—complex mixtures of amino acids and electrolytes—were heavily contaminated with aluminum as a manufacturing byproduct. For two decades, researchers argued that by feeding premature babies this way, they were bypassing the gut’s natural barrier which blocks 99% of ingested aluminum. It was delivering a known neurotoxin directly into the bloodstream of infants who couldn’t excrete it. Finally, in 1997 the hypothesis was tested. The Bishop study was a randomised control trial in which one group of preterm babies were fed aluminium rich feed, and the other were fed aluminium depleted feed. Those babies were then followed up at 18 months, and the results were stark. It was the validation of twenty years of warnings.
The babies fed with aluminium contaminated feeds had statistically significant impaired mental development. The study proved that when aluminum accumulates in a baby, it significantly increased their risk of having a Mental Development Index (MDI) below 85 —roughly 15% lower than average. Bishop and his colleagues confirmed what had long been feared: they were watching a known neurotoxin damage the development of the most vulnerable population. The study was the primary catalyst for the FDA creating a specific federal regulation (21 CFR 201.323) to protect infants from aluminum toxicity in intravenous feeding. In 2004, the FDA fully implemented this rule, which mandates that fluids used for IV feeding must not contain more than 25 micrograms of aluminum per liter. The actual wording of the regulation created this remarkable statement: “Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 µg/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
So the FDA knows that aluminium becomes neurotoxic at 4 to 5 mcg per kilo per day and crucially, it “may occur at even lower rates of administration”. The wording of their own regulation should have jolted the FDA and the medical establishment into action. Why? Because their vaccine schedule contains multiple vaccines that contain high doses of aluminium, and at 8 weeks old, infants can receive 264 mcg per kilo on a single day. So let’s return to those who will contest these arguments, they’ll say, “see! That safety limit he is quoting is for Intravenous administration, which is not the same as vaccination!” It’s true, but the reply is simple. “If we are content to give babies fifty times the dose of aluminium that’s toxic when given via IV, then we must have very strong clinical data to support this large dose right? What exactly is the toxic dose of aluminium when given via intramuscular injection?” These were the very questions the FDA were struggling to answer throughout the 2000s. Aluminium had long been proven as neurotoxic, it was unambiguously poisoning people who were exposed to it. Now people had realised the FDA already knew it was neurotoxic in babies when given intravenously. Furthermore, the childhood vaccine schedule was awash with high doses of aluminium. Dismissing the Hollywood stars raising these questions as cranks was their primary strategy (hello informed consent), but what if the taboo lifted? What if the mockery stopped working? They would need an answer. So what was the FDA’s answer? What clinical data were they in possession of which determines the safety limit for injecting infants with a proven neurotoxin? They just didn’t have that data. Spoiler: they still don’t. Despite this, many advanced health economies are content to inject infants with a known neurotoxin, at 264 mcg of per kilo on multiple occasions. They have no clinical data to determine if that dose is poisonous or not. I can feel the screams from people still wed to this regulatory system saying “but the vaccines are tested in placebo controlled trials, that’s the data we use”. Are they tested against placebos? We’ll return to that… but for now let’s remain in the late 2000s. At the end of the first decade of the millennium, with all that had happened, the FDA were in desperate need of something. They needed a defense of their use of neurotoxic aluminium in vaccines… and this is how the Mitkus paper was born. Imagine you’re the FDA. Imagine you’re trying to get ahead of this lingering safety issue. Aluminium is dotted across your burgeoning vaccine schedule and you realise your critics have a strong case; you’re blind to its toxic effects. You have no real idea of its safety profile. You need to work out its safety profile, so you get to work designing a study. You don’t have to imagine the scenario, because subscribers to The Digger will know, I created a game that simulates this exact scenario.
It should come as no surprise that there’s a lot wrong with this study. The first and most obvious of these problems is the study isn’t a clinical trial. It didn’t gather any new data in in humans, it didn’t run toxicity tests on animals, it didn’t synthesize the hundreds of studies available on aluminium toxicity, it wasn’t a meta-analysis or a cochrane review. So what was it? It was a simple mathematical model which simulated the rate at which vaccine aluminium might clear from an infant’s body, then compared the theoretical ‘burden’ of aluminium left against a known toxic dose… for eating aluminium rather than injecting it. What’s worse, the data they used on how fast aluminium clears from the body had two major flaws. First, it was for a totally different kind of aluminium than the one used in vaccines. The ‘clearance rate’ used was for Aluminium citrate, which is a soluble like salt and clears very rapidly, whilst the composition used in vaccines is aluminium phosphate, which is crystalline and purposefully designed not to dissolve. Imagine the difference between how a salt would feel on your tongue vs the feeling of tiny insoluble crystals.
/ France: Freedom, Health, Human Rights
Reporter: Han Rongli
记者综述：拒绝注射任何不明物质！维护人类洁净的血液🩸是健康的基础，人类至今还没有研究出安全可靠的注射液💉，更何况贪官污吏、黑恶势力用注射埋下伏笔、用伪科学挖掘人体医疗经济，真相被掩盖，水很深、人们知道的仅仅是冰山上的一角而已！/法国：自由健康人权记者：韩荣利
机构主流大药厂疫苗中鋁的安全资料 然而！神经毒铝会导致智障残疾且不可逆转 记者综述
Safety Data of Aluminum in Vaccines from Major Pharmaceutical Companies; However! Neurotoxic Aluminum Can Cause Intellectual Disabilities and Irreversible Damage A Report by the Journalist
疫苗中鋁的安全資料由...資助
美國食品藥品監督管理局對注射鋁有嚴格的安全限制。 疫苗接種時間表將其分解了50倍。
The safety data for aluminium in vaccines was funded by...
The FDA has a strict safety limit for injected aluminium. The vaccine schedule breaks it by 50 times.
PHIL HARPER
13 JAN 2026 AT 16:57
https://open.substack.com/pub/philharper/p/the-safety-data-for-aluminium-in
When administered by IV, aluminium becomes toxic at 4 mcg per kilogram per day.
Having looked around for the very paper that props up the safety of the entire vaccine industry, I finally found it. As I always do, I looked for the acknowledgements or conflict of interest section. I often say that nothing surprises me anymore, but for some reason, this put my jaw on the floor.
The study propping up the safety of aluminium in the entire vaccine schedule, was funded by the Aluminium Association in Washington and the Aluminium Institute in London. The Priest data, worthless as it already is to the question at hand, was funded by Aluminium lobbyists.
The regulators buried this conflict of interest. We dug it up. Supporting The Digger ensures we can keep digging where the industry doesn't want us to look
當靜脈注射時，鋁在每天每公斤4微克時變得有毒。
在四處尋找支撐整個疫苗行業安全的論文後，我終於找到了它。 和往常一樣，我尋找確認或利益衝突部分。 我經常說，沒有什麼能讓我感到驚訝了，但出於某種原因，這讓我的下巴都摔倒了。
這項研究支援鋁在整個疫苗計劃中的安全性，由華盛頓的鋁業協會和倫敦的鋁業研究所資助。 牧師資料對於手頭的問題來說已經毫無價值，是由鋁類說客資助的。
監管機構掩蓋了這種利益衝突。 我們把它挖出來了。 支援The Digger確保我們可以繼續挖掘行業不希望我們尋找的地方
In part one we looked at the official ‘line’ on why aluminium is safe to use in vaccines; it has been used for decades, and you absorb more aluminium from your food. Neither one of these statements stand up to even the mildest nudge of scrutiny. If you were seeking informed consent on vaccines containing aluminium, those two arguments would be presented to you. With them both utterly demolished, where can we go next? Let’s wander further behind the curtain and see how deep the rot goes.
Institutions are lightweight cults, and most cults have mantras. Mantras don’t work because they are true, they work because they are accepted and repeated without investigation. Modern medicine has many mantras, and one of them is…
There’s one study that is actually cited as a defense of aluminium in vaccines, it’s called the Miktus paper. Published in 2011, it was a strategic, institutional response to a growing crisis of confidence in the American vaccination program. By the late 2000s, questioning the vaccine schedule had gone mainstream with Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey forcing the issue onto Larry King. Rumbling alongside this, the FDA was embroiled in a bruising legal battle over the safety of a vaccine preservative called Thimerosal. By exploring the history of this moment, and what led to the creation of the Miktus paper, we’ll come to understand how utterly broken the regulatory system really is.
The FDA ultimately ‘won’ the legal case, but they were forced to remove Thimerosal from their vaccines products. In the years surrounding the case, the mood at the FDA was defensive, because questioning their $20 billion vaccine industry was becoming a trend. As attention shifted onto the other ingredients used in vaccines, it was clear many of them had been “Grandfathered” in. They’d been in use for so long that safety was assumed rather than demonstrated clinically. Like any great salesman, the FDA pivoted this blind spot into a feature.
Effectively their line was “hey the reason we don’t need safety data is because we’ve been injecting aluminium for decades”. A defense they made official and still use today. Whilst thimerosal could be removed from vaccines, it was just a preservative after all, aluminium is core to the functionality of their vaccines. If the aluminium domino falls, the $20 billion industry would be in big trouble.
The question the FDA needed to answer was really very simple. “Your vaccine schedule means infants receive aluminium, a known neurotoxin. Sometimes an infant receives multiple aluminium vaccines on the same day. Do you have data on what is a ‘safe’ amount of aluminium that can be injected into an infant in a single sitting?”
To this question, the FDA simply had no answer. We still don’t have a proper answer to this question even today. Shouldn’t we know the safety limit for injected aluminium?
With no response from the regulators, there was a doctor with a fairly decent answer to this question, but it wasn’t the answer the FDA wanted. Doctor Bob Sears had made a very astute observation: safety data did already exist on aluminium. Sears found that the FDA already had a safety limit for aluminium in infants, and it was 5 mcg per kilo per day.
So…there was an answer after all!?
Exceed this limit, and the FDA themselves said aluminium can cause neurodevelopmental problems, impaired bone growth and bone mineralisation; it’s toxic basically. So how does this limit compare to vaccines an infant receives during the first 12 weeks of a baby’s life?
On the NHS, when an infant goes for their 8 week health check, they’ll get the 6-in-1 and the MenB vaccine on the same day. Depending on the brands used, that could be as much as 1320 mcg of aluminium in a single day. For an average 5kg baby, that’s 264 mcg per kilo, which is 52 times the safe limit the FDA had already set.
What!?
How is that possible?
It’s possible because the FDA, the industry they protect, and the scientists who do their work will use sophistry, bullying, groupthink, and a war of attrition to obscure what I just told you. By the end of your honest venture into the data, you’ll be confused and exhausted. You’ll probably just given in trying to work out the answer.
What they’ll tell you is the safe limit (which really is an FDA regulation) is different to the limit for vaccination, because an IV is different to vaccination.
The safe limit I’m showing you here, they’ll say, is utterly irrelevant to the dose babies receive during vaccination. When someone puts this argument to you, ask them this: “Ok, then what is the exact safe limit of injected aluminium for an 8 week old infant, and how do we know what it is?”
The sophistry you’ll be faced with is a strategy of deflection to obscure the lack of data on this very important question. The truth is, the FDA’s 5 mcg limit is very relevant to the dose babies receive during vaccination. To demonstrate why will require us to follow the FDA’s path.
How did the FDA come to set this limit?
It began in the 1970s with a crisis in kidney patients. Doctors noticed a mysterious, fatal condition in patients undergoing long-term dialysis who, previously mentally sharp, began suffering from stuttering, seizures, and rapid-onset dementia. It became known as ‘Dialysis Dementia.’
In 1976, Dr. Allen Alfrey identified the cause: aluminum. The water used for dialysis contained aluminum which, because the patients’ kidneys weren’t working, crossed the blood-brain barrier and destroyed grey matter. The results of the data was crystal clear: aluminium is unambiguously neurotoxic, it definitely causes dementia and alzheimers “like” symptoms, so the debate would have to shift towards just how much is toxic, and where in the body it must go before it produces toxicity.
The discovery triggered years of growing anxiety among pediatricians. Throughout the 1980s and early 90s, they tried to sound the alarm that premature infants were physiologically almost identical to these dialysis patients. Like them, premature babies have very low kidney function, and like them, they are often fed intravenously (IV).
The concern was that the IV feeds used for babies—complex mixtures of amino acids and electrolytes—were heavily contaminated with aluminum as a manufacturing byproduct. For two decades, researchers argued that by feeding premature babies this way, they were bypassing the gut’s natural barrier which blocks 99% of ingested aluminum. It was delivering a known neurotoxin directly into the bloodstream of infants who couldn’t excrete it.
Finally, in 1997 the hypothesis was tested. The Bishop study was a randomised control trial in which one group of preterm babies were fed aluminium rich feed, and the other were fed aluminium depleted feed. Those babies were then followed up at 18 months, and the results were stark. It was the validation of twenty years of warnings.
The babies fed with aluminium contaminated feeds had statistically significant impaired mental development. The study proved that when aluminum accumulates in a baby, it significantly increased their risk of having a Mental Development Index (MDI) below 85 —roughly 15% lower than average. Bishop and his colleagues confirmed what had long been feared: they were watching a known neurotoxin damage the development of the most vulnerable population.
The study was the primary catalyst for the FDA creating a specific federal regulation (21 CFR 201.323) to protect infants from aluminum toxicity in intravenous feeding. In 2004, the FDA fully implemented this rule, which mandates that fluids used for IV feeding must not contain more than 25 micrograms of aluminum per liter. The actual wording of the regulation created this remarkable statement:
“Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 µg/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
So the FDA knows that aluminium becomes neurotoxic at 4 to 5 mcg per kilo per day and crucially, it “may occur at even lower rates of administration”. The wording of their own regulation should have jolted the FDA and the medical establishment into action. Why? Because their vaccine schedule contains multiple vaccines that contain high doses of aluminium, and at 8 weeks old, infants can receive 264 mcg per kilo on a single day.
So let’s return to those who will contest these arguments, they’ll say, “see! That safety limit he is quoting is for Intravenous administration, which is not the same as vaccination!” It’s true, but the reply is simple. “If we are content to give babies fifty times the dose of aluminium that’s toxic when given via IV, then we must have very strong clinical data to support this large dose right? What exactly is the toxic dose of aluminium when given via intramuscular injection?”
These were the very questions the FDA were struggling to answer throughout the 2000s. Aluminium had long been proven as neurotoxic, it was unambiguously poisoning people who were exposed to it. Now people had realised the FDA already knew it was neurotoxic in babies when given intravenously. Furthermore, the childhood vaccine schedule was awash with high doses of aluminium. Dismissing the Hollywood stars raising these questions as cranks was their primary strategy (hello informed consent), but what if the taboo lifted? What if the mockery stopped working? They would need an answer.
So what was the FDA’s answer? What clinical data were they in possession of which determines the safety limit for injecting infants with a proven neurotoxin? They just didn’t have that data. Spoiler: they still don’t. Despite this, many advanced health economies are content to inject infants with a known neurotoxin, at 264 mcg of per kilo on multiple occasions. They have no clinical data to determine if that dose is poisonous or not. I can feel the screams from people still wed to this regulatory system saying “but the vaccines are tested in placebo controlled trials, that’s the data we use”. Are they tested against placebos? We’ll return to that… but for now let’s remain in the late 2000s.
At the end of the first decade of the millennium, with all that had happened, the FDA were in desperate need of something. They needed a defense of their use of neurotoxic aluminium in vaccines… and this is how the Mitkus paper was born.
Imagine you’re the FDA. Imagine you’re trying to get ahead of this lingering safety issue. Aluminium is dotted across your burgeoning vaccine schedule and you realise your critics have a strong case; you’re blind to its toxic effects. You have no real idea of its safety profile. You need to work out its safety profile, so you get to work designing a study. You don’t have to imagine the scenario, because subscribers to The Digger will know, I created a game that simulates this exact scenario.
It should come as no surprise that there’s a lot wrong with this study. The first and most obvious of these problems is the study isn’t a clinical trial. It didn’t gather any new data in in humans, it didn’t run toxicity tests on animals, it didn’t synthesize the hundreds of studies available on aluminium toxicity, it wasn’t a meta-analysis or a cochrane review. So what was it? It was a simple mathematical model which simulated the rate at which vaccine aluminium might clear from an infant’s body, then compared the theoretical ‘burden’ of aluminium left against a known toxic dose… for eating aluminium rather than injecting it.
What’s worse, the data they used on how fast aluminium clears from the body had two major flaws. First, it was for a totally different kind of aluminium than the one used in vaccines. The ‘clearance rate’ used was for Aluminium citrate, which is a soluble like salt and clears very rapidly, whilst the composition used in vaccines is aluminium phosphate, which is crystalline and purposefully designed not to dissolve. Imagine the difference between how a salt would feel on your tongue vs the feeling of tiny insoluble crystals.
在第一部分，我們研究了關於為什麼鋁在疫苗中使用是安全的官方「線」；它已經使用了幾十年，你從食物中吸收了更多的鋁。 這些宣告都經不起最溫和的審查。 如果您正在尋求對含鋁的疫苗的知情同意，將向您提出這兩個論點。 他們都被徹底摧毀了，我們接下來能去哪裡？ 讓我們在窗簾後面進一步漫步，看看腐爛有多深。
機構是輕量級的邪教，大多數邪教都有咒語。 咒語之所以有效，不是因為它們是真實的，它們之所以有效，是因為它們在沒有調查的情況下被接受和重複。 現代醫學有很多口號，其中之一是…
有一項研究實際上被引用為疫苗中鋁的辯護，它叫做Miktus論文。 它出版於2011年，是對美國疫苗接種計劃日益增長的信心危機的戰略性機構回應。 到21世紀後期，質疑疫苗時間表已成為主流，珍妮·麥卡錫和吉姆·凱瑞將這個問題強加給拉裡·金。 與此同時，美國食品藥品監督管理局捲入了一場關於一種名為硫美羅薩爾的疫苗防腐劑安全性的激烈法律鬥爭。 透過探索這一時刻的歷史，以及導致Miktus論文的創作，我們將瞭解監管體系到底有多崩潰。
美國食品藥品監督管理局最終「贏得了」法律訴訟，但他們被迫從疫苗產品中刪除硫柳汞。 在圍繞此案的幾年裡，美國食品藥品監督管理局的情緒是防禦性的，因為質疑他們200億美元的疫苗行業正在成為一種趨勢。 隨著注意力轉移到疫苗中使用的其他成分上，很明顯，其中許多成分已經被「祖父」了。 它們已經使用了很長時間，安全性被假定，而不是臨床證明。 像任何偉大的推銷員一樣，美國食品藥品監督管理局將這個盲點轉向了一個功能。
實際上，他們的臺詞是「嘿，我們不需要安全資料的原因是我們幾十年來一直在注射鋁」。 他們正式宣佈的辯護，至今仍在使用。 雖然硫柳汞可以從疫苗中去除，但它畢竟只是一種防腐劑，鋁是他們疫苗功能的核心。 如果鋁多米諾骨牌下跌，這個價值200億美元的行業將陷入困境。
美國食品藥品監督管理局需要回答的問題真的非常簡單。 「您的疫苗接種時間表意味著嬰兒接受鋁，一種已知的神經毒素。 有時嬰兒在同一天接種多劑鋁疫苗。 你有關於一次向嬰兒注射的「安全」鋁量的資料嗎？」
對於這個問題，美國食品藥品監督管理局根本沒有答案。 即使在今天，我們仍然沒有正確的答案來回答這個問題。 我們不應該知道注射鋁的安全限制嗎？
在監管機構沒有回應的情況下，有一位醫生對這個問題給出了相當體面的答案，但這不是美國食品藥品監督管理局想要的答案。 Bob Sears醫生做了一個非常敏銳的觀察：鋁的安全資料已經存在。 西爾斯發現，美國食品藥品監督管理局已經對嬰兒的鋁製進行了安全限制，每天每公斤5微克。
所以......畢竟有一個答案！？
超過這個限制，美國食品藥品監督管理局自己表示，鋁會導致神經發育問題、骨骼生長和骨礦化受損；它基本上是有毒的。 那麼，這個限制與嬰兒在嬰兒出生後前12周接種的疫苗相比如何？
在NHS上，當嬰兒進行8周的健康檢查時，他們將在同一天接種6合1疫苗和MenB疫苗。 根據使用的品牌，一天可能多出1320微克的鋁。 對於一個平均5公斤的嬰兒來說，每公斤264微克，是FDA已經設定的安全限值的52倍。
什麼！？
那怎麼可能呢？
這是有可能的，因為美國食品藥品監督管理局、他們保護的行業和從事其工作的科學家將利用詭辯、欺凌、群體思維和消耗戰來掩蓋我剛才告訴你的內容。 當你誠實地冒險資料結束時，你會感到困惑和疲憊。 你可能會在嘗試找出答案時放棄。
他們會告訴你的是，安全限值（這實際上是美國食品藥品監督管理局的法規）與疫苗接種限值不同，因為靜脈注射與疫苗接種不同。
他們會說，我在這裡向您展示的安全限值與嬰兒在接種疫苗期間接受的劑量完全無關。 當有人向你提出這個論點時，問他們：「好吧，那麼對於一個8周大的嬰兒來說，注射鋁的確切安全限值是多少，我們如何知道它是什麼？」
你將面臨的詭辯是一種偏轉策略，以掩蓋這個非常重要的問題缺乏資料。 事實是，美國食品藥品監督管理局的5微克限制與嬰兒在接種疫苗期間接受的劑量密切相關。 說明為什麼需要我們遵循FDA的道路。
美國食品藥品監督管理局是如何設定這個限制的？
它始於20世紀70年代，當時腎臟患者的危機。 醫生注意到，在接受長期透析的患者中，出現了一種神秘的、致命的狀況，這些患者以前精神敏銳，開始患有口吃、癲癇發作和快速發作的痴呆症。 它被稱為「透析痴呆症」。
1976年，博士 Allen Alfrey確定了原因：鋁。 用於透析的水中含有鋁，由於患者的腎臟不工作，它穿過了血腦屏障並破壞了灰質。 資料的結果非常清楚：鋁具有明確的神經毒性，它肯定會引起痴呆症和阿爾茨海默氏症的「類似」症狀，因此辯論必須轉向有毒程度，以及在產生毒性之前必須進入體內的什麼地方。
這一發現引發了兒科醫生多年來日益增長的焦慮。 在整個20世紀80年代和90年代初，他們試圖敲響警報，早產兒在生理上與這些透析患者幾乎相同。 像他們一樣，早產兒的腎功能非常低，和他們一樣，他們經常靜脈餵養（IV）。
令人擔憂的是，用於嬰兒的靜脈注射飼料——氨基酸和電解質的複雜混合物——被鋁作為製造副產品嚴重汙染。 二十年來，研究人員認為，以這種方式餵養早產兒，他們繞過了腸道的天然屏障，該屏障阻擋了99%攝入的鋁。 它將一種已知的神經毒素直接輸送到無法排洩的嬰兒的血液中。
最後，在1997年，該假設得到了檢驗。 畢曉普研究是一項隨機對照試驗，其中一組早產兒餵養富鋁飼料，另一組餵養貧鋁飼料。 然後對這些嬰兒進行了18個月的隨訪，結果很嚴峻。 這是二十年警告的驗證。
餵養鋁汙染飼料的嬰兒在統計學上智力發育受損。 研究表明，當鋁積聚在嬰兒體內時，他們的心理發展指數（MDI）低於85的風險會顯著增加——比平均水準低約15%。 Bishop和他的同事們證實了人們長期以來一直擔心的事情：他們正在觀察一種已知的神經毒素損害最弱勢人群的發展。
這項研究是美國食品藥品監督管理局制定特定聯邦法規（21 CFR 201.323）的主要催化劑，以保護嬰兒免受靜脈餵養中的鋁中毒。 2004年，美國食品藥品監督管理局全面實施了這一規則，該規則規定用於靜脈餵養的液體每升的鋁含量不得超過25微克。 該法規的實際措辭創造了這個非凡的宣告：
「研究表明，腎功能受損的患者，包括早產兒，接受腸外鋁水準超過4至5微克/千克/天，會以與中樞神經系統和骨毒性相關的水準積累鋁。 組織負荷可能會在更低的給藥率下發生。」
因此，美國食品藥品監督管理局知道，鋁每天每公斤4至5微克就會變得神經毒性，至關重要的是，它「可能在更低的給藥率下發生」。 他們自己的法規的措辭本應讓美國食品藥品監督管理局和醫療機構採取行動。 為什麼？ 因為他們的疫苗計劃包含多種含有高劑量鋁的疫苗，在8周大時，嬰兒一天可以接種每公斤264微克。
因此，讓我們回到那些將質疑這些論點的人身上，他們會說：「看！ 他引用的安全限制是靜脈注射，這與接種疫苗是不一樣的！」 這是真的，但回覆很簡單。 「如果我們滿足於給嬰兒服用五十倍於透過靜脈注射時有毒的鋁劑量，那麼我們必須有非常強大的臨床資料來支援這種大劑量，對嗎？ 透過肌肉注射給藥時，鋁的毒性劑量到底是多少？」
這些正是美國食品藥品監督管理局在整個21世紀一直在努力回答的問題。 長期以來，鋁已被證明是神經毒性的，它明確地毒害了接觸過它的人。 現在人們已經意識到，美國食品藥品監督管理局已經知道靜脈注射時對嬰兒有神經毒性。 此外，兒童疫苗接種計劃充斥著高劑量的鋁。 解僱提出這些問題的好萊塢明星是他們的主要策略（你好，知情同意），但如果取消禁忌呢？ 如果嘲弄不再起作用呢？ 他們需要一個答案。
那麼，美國食品藥品監督管理局的回答是什麼？ 他們掌握了哪些臨床資料，這些資料確定了注射嬰兒經證實的神經毒素的安全極限？ 他們只是沒有那個資料。 劇透：他們仍然沒有。 儘管如此，許多發達的健康經濟體滿足於多次向嬰兒注射一種已知的神經毒素，每公斤264微克。 他們沒有臨床資料來確定該劑量是否有毒。 我能感覺到人們仍然對這個監管體系的尖叫聲說「但疫苗是在安慰劑對照試驗中測試的，這就是我們使用的資料」。 它們有針對安慰劑的測試嗎？ 我們會回到那個......但現在讓我們留在2000年代末。
在千禧年的第一個十年結束時，隨著這一切的發生，美國食品藥品監督管理局迫切需要一些東西。 他們需要為在疫苗中使用神經毒性鋁進行辯護......這就是Mitkus論文的誕生。
想象一下，你是美國食品藥品監督管理局。 想象一下，你正試圖搶先於這個揮之不去的安全問題。 鋁遍佈你蓬勃發展的疫苗計劃，你意識到你的批評者有強有力的理由；你對它的毒性作用視而不見。 你對它的安全概況沒有真正的瞭解。 你需要制定它的安全概況，這樣你才能開始設計一個研究。 你不必想象場景，因為The Digger的訂閱者會知道，我建立了一個模擬這個確切場景的遊戲。
毫不奇怪，這項研究有很多問題。 這些問題中第一個也是最明顯的是，這項研究不是臨床試驗。 它沒有在人類身上收集任何新資料，沒有對動物進行毒性測試，沒有綜合數百項關於鋁毒性的研究，它不是元分析或科克倫評論。 那麼它是什麼？ 這是一個簡單的數學模型，模擬了疫苗鋁可能從嬰兒體內清除的速度，然後將鋁的理論「負擔」與已知的有毒劑量相比......食用鋁而不是注射鋁。
更糟糕的是，他們使用的關於鋁從機身上清除速度的資料有兩個主要缺陷。 首先，它用於一種與疫苗中使用的完全不同的鋁。 使用的「清除率」用於檸檬酸鋁，檸檬酸鋁是一種可溶性鹽，清除速度非常快，而疫苗中使用的成分是磷酸鋁，它是結晶的，故意設計成不溶解。 想象一下，鹽在你的舌頭上的感覺和微小的不溶性晶體的感覺之間的區別。
…