Monday, July 15, 2024


“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

— William Wilberforce


Group to Study Effect of Aluminum in Vaccines

aluminum can

An independent working committee called Factcare has been established in Denmark to begin a campaign to raise money to study the effect of aluminum in vaccines1 and to “restart the debate about vaccines”2—specifically as it relates to the use of aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines. As Factcare’s website states:

It is all about aluminium. It is about the fact that aluminium might be poisonous to the body. It is about the fact that it is not obligatory.2

Factcare members include Anette Ulstrup, chair of the committee and The Patient Association Denmark, which is the organization under which Factcare is organized; Christopher Exley, PhD, professor of bioinorganic chemistry at Keele University in the United Kingdom; Romain K. Gherardi, MD, professor of neuropathology at Paris-Est University in France; and general practitioner Claus Werner-Jensen, MD of Denmark.3 4

The committee also includes Danish film actress and lecturer Lone Hertz, whose son is believed to have suffered injuries related to vaccination; nutritionist Sesilje Bondo Petersen, PhD of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark; and Mette Kenfelt, spokeswoman for Factcare and mother of a teenage daughter suffering from side effects of vaccines.3

The actual research will be conducted by a team from the Copenhagen Trial Unit (CTU), Centre for Intervention Research in Copenhagen. The team will be led by Christian Gluud, MD.2 5 The group projects that the research will take 14 to 18 months to complete.2

According to Janus Christian Jakobsen, MD of the CTU, “Our idea is not driven by a suspicion. It’s driven by the fact that this has not been properly studied. The observation so far is that there isn’t enough evidence to determine whether the aluminium is problematic or not.”1

Interestingly, Factcare’s Dr. Exley recently co-authored a major study linking autism with the presence of aluminum in the brain. The study was published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology on November 12, 2017.6

Exley has also conducted research providing strong evidence linking accumulation of aluminum in the brain and Alzheimer’s disease.7  His concern about this link has led him to write, “We should take all possible precautions to reduce the accumulation of aluminium in our brain tissue through our everyday activities and we should start to do this as early in our lives as possible.”8


1 Heinemeier E. New research project to investigate aluminium in vaccines. ScienceNordic Dec. 5, 2017.
2 Support the Research into Beneficial and Adverse Effects of Aluminum. Factcare.
3 The Factcare Committee as of 3 October 2017. Factcare.
4 Gherardi R. Biopersistence and biodistribution of particles injected into muscle: relevance to vaccine Alum safety. Vaccine Safety: Evaluating the Science Conference 2011.
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Intervention Research.
Molda M, Umarb D, Kingc A, Exley C. Aluminium in brain tissue in autism.  J Trace Elem Med Biol Nov. 12, 2017.
Mirzaa A, Kingbc A, Troakesc C, Exley C. Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer’s disease.  J Trace Elem Med Biol Dec. 1, 2016.
Exley C. Strong Evidence Linking Aluminum and Alzheimer’s. The Vaccine Reaction Dec. 30, 2016.

13 Responses

  1. I hope this is a truly unbiased study. This should be headline news around the world but I doubt that would happen as big pharma has too many payoffs in place. But I also hope it opens the door to the other studies of ingredients in vaccines and how it affects the human body- various human/insect/animal DNA, Triton-100, formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80 etc. My guess is it will make headlines around the word if it’s proved NOT to affect the brain which feeds into big pharma propaganda and thus continued brainwashing of the public.

  2. Nano-particle aluminum bonds strongly to fluoride
    and easily passes the blood-brain barrier.

    These useless parasites that demand people take vaccines are
    very clever, and sneaky, with their evil eugenics program.

  3. Aluminum is a strong and indisputable neurotoxin.

  4. I’ve come to believe that the vaccine industry, at least among those in important leadership positions, is fully aware of the effects of the unnecessary neurotoxins in their products, and bank on their ill-effects. I hope I’m wrong.

  5. “Interestingly, Factcare’s Dr. Exley recently co-authored a major study linking autism with the presence of aluminum in the brain.”

    This study should NOT be used to link autism with aluminum in the brain. Some analyses as to why not:

  6. I heard MIT did a study on aluminum years ago, and found it to be neuro-toxic. When my mother was in the hospital they took her off all medicine, except her antacid which was increased. When I came home to take care of her she was stumped over and memory problems, clothes stained etc. I had the doctor cancel the medication too, She improved and stood tall and could even make her own phone calls again. Then she was given Maalox, and she started to have bad symptoms again…Maalox has Al in it. Again stopped it.

  7. Recent information has come forth validating the presence of aluminum in the atmosphere due to geo-engineering ( The inhaled aluminum synergically combines with mercury (Thimerosal – also present in vaccines) increasing the detrimental effect of either by thousands of times. Aluminum is being introduced into our atmosphere. Inhaling aluminum, we are all at risk to the effects of aluminum. Geo-engineering is putting the ecosystem of our planet at risk. To better understand this issue visit the website cited above. As of last week,
    WBAI 99.5 FM (Pacifica Radio) in NYC was offering a premium detailing this information in a scientifically substantial format.

  8. “Aluminum is a strong and indisputable neurotoxin.”

    Copy-pasting a list of PubMed links may look like “strong and indisputable” evidence to you or the casual blog reader, but did you actually read any of those papers? Can you even access many of the papers beyond the title or abstract?

    Well, I can and did. The paper with link ending in “20046868” doesn’t even use aluminum in their injections of mice nor do they even mention aluminum in the text. Not once. Many of the other studies are so biased and poorly done that their conclusions are not close to being supported by the experiment(s). One study had mice injected into the *belly* with an aluminum compound at 5000X the dose per body mass that would go into a newborn. The funny thing is that the cognitive effects in those Al injected mice were minor even after such a high dose into the peritoneal cavity (rather than the muscle). You would think those mouse brains would have been smoked by that massive dose, but they did a little worse at cognitive tasks than the control mice. Hmm.

    Lastly, the 2017 Exley study has no control brains and what they were detecting in the images of brain sections was not even shown to be aluminum. See my earlier links for some good, clear explanations.

    There are likely some good studies that show real-world effects of long-term aluminum exposure, so those should be listed instead.

      1. Zack, The lead author on that study is a dyed in the wool anti-vaxx researcher who publishes all kinds of dubious papers in various journals to purport aluminum toxicity in animals. For some background and analysis of his group and their work, see:

        In the paper you mention, they get the aluminum dose close to that in a human per body weight, but then in the behavioral test experiments, they give 6 injections in the span of 2 weeks compared to a human vaccinee which those injections would be spaced out over 18 months. That is quite a difference in the time allowed to clear the aluminum. Granted, few would want to try to keep mice around nearly that long, but that should have been investigated.

        The authors state that the Anthrax (AVA) package insert says a dose contains 0.83 mg of aluminum and the insert I pulled from FDA says 0.6 mg aluminum per 0.5 ml dose (1.2 mg aluminum per ml). That’s probably close enough for interpretation, but it doesn’t bode well when a quick check of their doses reveals differences with FDA. Let alone that they’re injecting just the aluminum adjuvant, whereas the AVA vaccine has the antigen also and the combined effects may be very different than giving just the adjuvant.

        When they do the behavioral tests (I’m not as familiar with evaluating the other data), they do 8 different types of tests and each test is given 11 times over 24 weeks after the last injection (although they say the tests were performed for 28 weeks?). That is a lot of opportunity to see a false positive difference. If you look at the graphs, there doesn’t seem to be any differences in effect over time so there isn’t a larger effect at the start of the tests when the aluminum burden might be highest or later when the aluminum might have had time to produce more toxicity and damage. Who knows how many different types of behavioral tests they performed to get the 8 which may have generated some differences between groups? I’d be very skeptical of this data and data from the author.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search in Archive