
A recent New York Times article claimed that aluminium in vaccines is “a good thing.” Aluminium toxicity experts told The Defender the chemical was never sufficiently safety tested by the industry, is toxic and continues to be used in vaccines because it’s more profitable than safer alternatives. A New York Times article published on 24 January online claimed that aluminium used in childhood vaccines is necessary, well-tested and safe. Aluminium in vaccines is “a good thing” the headline said and “vaccine scientists” find it “strange” that people – like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – raise questions about it because there is no indication in aluminium’s nearly 100 years of use in vaccines that there are any problems. The Defender spoke with several top researchers on aluminium toxicity and aluminium adjuvants. They said aluminium adjuvants in vaccines are poorly understood by the pharmaceutical industry and have not been appropriately safety tested against a placebo. They also said there is evidence that the toxic chemical can wreak havoc on the immune system. The media’s claims ignore decades of research and extensive evidence that aluminium ought to be completely eliminated as a vaccine ingredient, they said. Guillemette Crépeaux, PhD, associate professor in physiology and pharmacology at Alfort National Veterinary School, France, said, “All experts on aluminium and aluminium-based adjuvants agree: These compounds are not safe. The scientific literature is very clear on this matter.” ... Adding aluminium to the antigen provides a cheap and easy way to provoke an immune response to a weakened form of a virus. The adjuvant is added to provoke inflammation, Crépeaux explained. “By definition, the role of an adjuvant is to be toxic.” Epidemiologist and internal medical specialist Dr. Rokuro Hama, who heads the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance, said the adjuvants work by damaging tissue to stimulate inflammation – one of the reasons adjuvants are linked to autoimmune disorders. Exley said he has “spent 40 years at the bench studying aluminium and it is my unwavering opinion that aluminium adjuvants in vaccines are behind serious childhood illness including autism.” ...the experts said that no infant vaccine containing an aluminium adjuvant has been safety tested against a true placebo such as saline. Lluís Luján, DVM, PhD, said that...“It is a known neurotoxin.” As more aluminium-containing vaccines are injected into the same person, “the effects can be cumulative.” Twenty-seven childhood vaccines approved in the US include an aluminium adjuvant, according to the New York Times. The amount of aluminium infants are exposed to in a single dose of a vaccine, let alone in all of those vaccines over many months, is not small. “Aluminium adjuvants are dirt cheap,” Exley wrote on Substack. “They add absolutely nothing to the cost of a vaccine.” He said that producing more antigens – an alternative way to elicit an immune response – is far more expensive. Luján said: “In my opinion, the dispute on aluminium is merely a dispute of economic interests. At the end of all of this, the key point is money: The cost of adding aluminium to a vaccine is almost nothing. From an industrial point of view, who in their right mind would disregard so many advantages? Any other new adjuvant would represent a huge investment and maybe the revenues would not compensate.” “Yes, some vaccines contain aluminium. That’s a good thing … for the industry,” Luján said, adding what he said were the unspoken words in the New York Times headline. https://expose-news.com/2025/01/31/the-new-york-times-is-wrong/ If aluminum is such a good thing why did I have to give up all my Club Aluminum cookware so many years ago? Data from the Czech Republic shows that covid vaccinated women are 66% less likely to give birth compared to unvaccinated women. During 2023, even though only about a third of Czech women were unvaccinated, most births were among unvaccinated women. The birth rate among vaccinated women aged 18-39 was 42 per thousand, while unvaccinated women had a birth rate of 114 per thousand. Despite this significant difference, the Czech corporate media has not reported on it and the Prime Minister has called it a “conspiracy theory.” “In the meantime, our CDC keeps recommending the covid shots for pregnant women here in the US,” Steve Kirsch writes. In plain English, in 2023 in the Czech Republic (where they keep meticulous safety data), vaccinated women are 66% less likely to give birth compared to unvaccinated women (OR=0.341). That’s a disaster. But the government doesn’t want to take any blame for it, so they don’t talk about it and they make sure that the media doesn’t cover it. They claimed this is a normal trend for birth rates to decline and they DO NOT MENTION that the rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to diverge. https://expose-news.com/2025/02/02/covid-vaccinated-women-are-66-less-likely-to-give-birth/ The New York Times is wrong about vaccines containing aluminium being a “good thing”
Czech Republic: Women who are covid vaccinated are 66% less likely to give birth: