Intro by Joyce Bowen
I know first hand the devastation wrought by these things. My oldest received three sets of oral Polio and the DPT by the age of 4 months and three days. I rue the day I placed my trust in that pediatrician.
Adjuvants: The BBC’s Fairy Dust Future
by John Stone
Click below to read more:
Professor Christopher Exley’s response:
This not about whether one ‘likes’ something or not. It is about your integrity as a journalist.
You contacted me by email to ask my advice. I was happy to help and even gave you my home telephone number since you wished to talk to me personally and not simply correspond by email.
We talked for about forty minutes. I shared with you a great deal of scientific, published, information on our expertise in aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines. I made sure that you had access to all the primary published research that we talked about. I also gave you some background on adjuvants generally. You gave the impression of both being very interested in the information I gave you and also of being grateful for my time and expertise. Afterall we are, arguably, the world’s leading group researching the efficacy and safety of aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines.
When we finished our conversation, you promised to send me a link to your article. You did not do this and reading your article, I can understand why.
Not only did you not mention my contribution to your article once but when opportunities arose you chose to write what can only be described as blatant lies.
For example, even though you knew that what you had written was untrue you still wrote;
There is as little as 0.2mg of aluminium in a typical vaccine dose, which is equivalent to less than the weight of a single poppy seed. There is no evidence that any of the adjuvants currently in use lead to side-effects.
Apart from being factually incorrect the comparison with a poppy seed is absurd at best.
What happened to your editor’s mantra concerning BBC Future;
We believe in truth, facts, and science. We take the time to think. And we don’t accept — we ask why.
I told you everything you needed to know about how much aluminium is used in vaccines. I even shared with you some of our new research in this field about to be published in the BMJ. I pointed out to you that there are serious adverse events caused by aluminium adjuvants and I also informed you as to where you could find this information, no lesser document than the patient information leaflet provided with every vaccine.
Your writing about DPT is completely false and while we did not discuss this you could have checked this information with me at any time. You clearly chose not to check your information.
I told you the story of Glenny and the ‘discovery’ of aluminium adjuvants.
I also made sure that you understood which aluminium salts were used as aluminium adjuvants. Instead you wrote lies again about this;
To this day, the aluminium in vaccines is always in the form of salts. These include aluminium hydroxide (commonly used as an antacid to relieve indigestion and heartburn), aluminium phosphate (often used in dental cement) and potassium aluminium sulphate, which is sometimes found in baking powder.
You decided instead to write complete scientific nonsense in your descriptions of aluminium salts used in vaccines, why is beyond me when you had access to the correct information. What were you trying to do, make the aluminium salts sound benign by comparing them wrongly to household products?
I told you that the main reason why aluminium adjuvants are effective is because they are toxic at the vaccine injection site. I spoke to you at length about this and I pointed you towards the relevant peer reviewed published scientific literature. Your reference to uric acid at this point did not come from me and has no relevance.
This article is very shoddy journalism. It seems to have been primarily informed by a Chinese scientist working on vaccines in China. As the world’s leading researcher on aluminium, I have no knowledge of this scientist only that they have no expertise in aluminium adjuvants. Why you chose to only follow their advice is insulting.
If you and your editors do truly ‘believe in truth, facts, and science’, then I would expect a right of reply to this inaccurate and scientifically inept article. To not do so would suggest that the written lies therein have an alternative agenda.
Professor Christopher Exley PhD FRSB
Brain Neuron Degeneration
Aluminium causes neurofibrillary tangles or amyloid plaques. Its actions are not comparable to the type of destruction Mercury causes. It’s like comparing chalk and cheese [for you Brits] or apples and oranges [for others of us.]