The Aluminum Deception

It is very important and is only briefly referred to in this conference for a very good reason. If the public knew what was discussed at the aluminum meeting, no one would ever get a vaccination using the presently manufactured types of vaccines again.

Despite what was discussed in the aluminum meeting and the scientific literature on the neurotoxicity of aluminum, Dr. Johnson makes the following remark: "Aluminum salts have a very wide margin of safety. Aluminum and mercury are often simultaneously administered to infants, both at the same site and at different sites." Also on page 20, he states, "However, we also learned that there is absolutely no data, including animal data, about the potential for synergy, additively or antagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures ... "

It is important here to appreciate a frequently used deception by those who are trying to defend an indefensible practice. They use the very same language just quoted. That is, that there is no data to show, etc. They intend it to convey the idea that the issue has been looked at and studied thoroughly and no toxicity was found. In truth, it means that no one has looked at this possibility and there have been no studies that would give us an answer one way or the other.

In fact, we know that aluminum is a significant neurotoxin and that it shares many common mechanisms with mercury as a neurotoxin. For example:

• They are both toxic to neuronal neurotubules.
• Interfere with antioxidant enzymes.
• Poison DNA repair enzymes.
• Interfere with mitochondrial energy production.
• Block the glutamate reuptake proteins (GLT-1 and GLAST).
• Bind to DNA.
• Interfere with neuronal membrane function.
  

Toxins that share toxic mechanisms are almost always additive and frequently synergistic in their toxicity. So, Dr. Johnson's statement is sheer nonsense.

A significant number of studies have shown that both of these metals play a significant role in all of the neurodegenerative disorders. It is also important to remember, both of these metals accumulate in the brain and spinal cord. This makes them accumulative toxins and therefore much more dangerous than rapidly excreted toxins.

To jump ahead, on page 23 Dr, Tom Sinks, Associate Director for Science at the National Center for Environmental Health at the CDC and the Acting Division Director for Division of Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities and Health, asks, "I wonder is there a particular health outcome that is related to aluminum salts that may have anything that we are looking at today?"

See No Evil, Speak No Evil

Dr. Martin Meyers, Acting Director of the National Vaccine Program Office, answers, " No, I don't believe there are any particular health concerns that was raised." This is after an aluminum conference held the previous year that did indeed find significant health concerns and an extensive scientific literature showing aluminum to be of great concern.

On page 24, Dr. William Weil, a pediatrician representing the Committee on Environmental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics, brings some sense to the discussion by reminding them that, "There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we've got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem." Here he means the further back you go during the child's brain development, the more likely the damage to the infant.

I must give him credit. At least, he briefly recognized that a significant amount of brain development does take place later. He also reminds his colleagues that aluminum produced severe dementia and death in dialysis cases. He concludes by saying, " To think there isn't some possible problem here is unreal." (page 25).

Not to let it end there, Dr. Meyers adds, " We held the aluminum meeting in conjunction with the metal ions in biology and medicine meeting. We were quick to point out that in the absence of data we didn't know about additive or inhibitory activities."

Once again, we see the "no data" ploy. There is abundant data on the deleterious effects of aluminum on the brain, a significant portion of which came out in that very meeting.

Dr. Johnson also quotes Dr. Thomas Clarkson, who identifies himself as associated with the mercury program at the University of Rochester, as saying that delaying the HepB vaccine for 6 months or so would not affect the mercury burden. (page 20) He makes the correct conclusion when he says, " I would have thought that the difference was in the timing. That is you are protecting the first six months of the developing central nervous system."

Hallelujah, for a brief moment I thought that they had stumbled on one of the most basic concepts in neurotoxicology. Then, Dr. Meyers dashed my hopes by saying that single, separated doses would not affect blood levels at all.

Shedding Some Light

At this juncture, we need a little enlightenment.

It is important to appreciate that mercury is a fat soluble metal. That is, it is stored in the body's fat. The brain contains 60 percent fat and therefore is a common site for mercury storage. Now, they establish in this discussion that about half of methylmercury is excreted over several months when ingested. A recent study found that ethylmercury has a half-life of seven days.

Even so, a significant proportion of the mercury will enter the brain (it has been shown to easily pass through the blood-brain barrier) where it is stored in the phospholipids (fats). With each new dose -- remember these children are receiving as many as 22 doses of these vaccines -- another increment is added to the brain storage depot. This is why we call mercury an accumulative poison.

They never once, not once, mention this vital fact throughout the entire conference. Not once. Moreover, they do so for a good reason. It gives the unwary, those not trained in neuroscience, assurance that all that matters here is blood levels.

In fact, on page 163, Dr. Robert Brent, a developmental biologist and pediatrician at the Thomas Jefferson University and Dupont Hospital for Children, says that we don't have data showing accumulation and "that with the multiple exposures you get an increasing level, and we don't know whether that is true or not." He redeems himself somewhat by pointing out that some of the damage is irreversible and with each dose more irreversible damage occurs and, in that way, it is accumulative.

On page 21, Dr. Thomas Clarkson makes the incredible statement implying that he knows of no studies that show exposure to mercury after birth or at six months would have deleterious effects. Dr. Isabelle Rapin, a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, follows up by saying that "I am not an expert on mercury in infancy" but she knows it can affect the nerves (peripheral nervous system).

So, here is one of our experts admitting that she knows little about the effects of mercury on the infant. My question: Why is she here?

Dr. Rapin is a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine who stated that she has a keen interest in developmental disorders, in particular those involving language and autism, yet she knows little about the effects on mercury on the infant brain.

Continued on Page 5