[Sciences/Junk Sciences/BBB] Aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and the blood-brain barrier. Removing the facts from the fiction, the good science from the junk science.

Preface:

This post constituted a direct response I had to the article posted by VaccinePapers.org in February 10 2015 (http://vaccinepapers.org/vaccine-aluminum-travels-to-the-brain/). However, it recently got a recycling on the Collective-Evolution article (written by an author from VaccinesPapers) through this post:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/04/14/groundbreaking-china-study-links-immune-activation-by-vaccination-autism/

I will not focus more on the first half of this article and I am just providing with some facts about it that I discussed earlier on Facebook.

1. First paper (i exclude the CalTech thing since it is not peer-reviewed): They observed that mothers experiencing inflammation during pregnancy had higher risk of having offsprings with autism. Thats legit science. The senior author (Patterson) was (died in 2014) was a legit and recognized neuroscientist in the field of autism. This inflammation is either the result of some autoimmune disorder or infection. Thus the need to have mothers infection-free or avoid infectious diseases by keeping an updated vaccine schedule.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387067/
2. The second paper, again from the Patterson lab, show again the same conclusion, this time on rhesus monkey. It again emphasize the impact of infectious disorders on maternal gestation and the risk associated on the baby. Another good reasons for expecting mommies to keep their vaccines schedule up-to-date.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322300/
3. Now the China study show that if you increase interleukin-6 levels in the brain (IL-6, a well-known pro-inflammatory molecule), you can induce behavioral outcomes in mice that are considered representative of the ASD. It goes in the same direction that what Patterson showed and further underline the danger of having an “overactive/boosted” immune system and its ability to cause neuroinflammation. This is a growing field as we speculate that some psychiatric (depression) and neurological diseases other than multiple sclerosis (Alzheimers, stroke) maybe aggravated or induced by an inflammation and overactive immune system.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0925443912000234. Then we have the slippery slope in which CE drank the Kool-Aid of BS by “ergo post hoc” fallacy. The false association fallacy: If cars run on petrol and because cars kill pedestrians, therefore petrol kill pedestrians”. This is the BS they are doing. Since vaccination will induce a transient inflammation during the immune reaction and inflammation cause autism therefore vaccines cause autism”. Of course this was debunked but here they came back with the moving goalpost. Since thiomersal did not cause an increase in number of autism, then the anti-vaxxers moved to “then it should be formaldehyde. No? Then it should be aluminum….”

To better debunk the bogus claim brought by the VaccinePapers post, I have written a long but detailed description on what is wrong with that post. Since I had initially written down into a Word documents with elements embedded in it, this may have been some formatting issues in this post. My sincere apologizes.

In this blog post, the author primarily focuses on the vaccine aluminum nanoparticles to enter and accumulate in the brain. Using several peer-reviewed articles, the author tries to convince that aluminum nanoparticles in the vaccines are uptaken by macrophages, such macrophages are capable to enter the brain and trigger neuroinflammation.

Therefore, the message of this post is clear: vaccines contain aluminum nanoparticles, aluminum is neurotoxic, and therefore vaccines are neurotoxic.  If you travel in time, back in the early 2000s, the same blog post title would have talked about ethylmercury (formulated as thiomersal) contained in some vaccines and would have cited the famous “Wakefield paper” that was just published (and will be retracted a couple of years later due to gross scientific misconduct).

The blog website “Vaccine Papers” has the following slogan “an objective look at vaccine dangers”. Is it really an objective look or it is another anti-vaccine website distorting scientific studies to make fallacious claims in order to support an anti-vaccine agenda?

The goal of this article is to analyze, criticize and debunk claims made in this article and reveal the scientific fraud of this post and raise questions about the credibility of this website as a whole. In this post, we will explain why vaccines contain aluminum, which aluminum formulation has been used and is currently used in vaccines. Then we will refute the author’s arguments by directly citing passage of the post and provide a clear discussion about it.

  1. How do vaccines work?

To better understand the use of aluminum in vaccines, it is important for the reader to understand some fundamental concepts of immunology and how vaccines work. In mammals, we have a particular set of blood cells that are taking care of any foreign entity entering our body. It is called the immune system. To give an analogy, you can compare the immune system to the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, ensuring that anyone coming in to the United States is not posing a threat to the country.

Immune cells are all derived from a particular set of cells residing in the bone marrow: the hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), such cells provide all the different cell types in your blood, whether we are talking about red blood cells, white blood cells or platelets.

In the figure depicted below (source: http://textbookofbacteriology.net/adaptive_2.html), HSCs will give two major cell lineages: the lymphoid stem cells (that will give the T and B lymphocytes) and the myeloid progenitors (including monocytes and macrophages).

When a foreign agent enters the system, it will induce two different types of response. In the case of a virus, it will infect some cells (depending on the type of virus) and will trigger the expression of molecules (usually viral proteins necessary for the spreading of the virus) on the cell surface. In the case of a bacteria or any entity that has a reasonable size (one thousandth of a millimeter), the bacteria will be swallowed by macrophages circulating nearby, digested and expose some fragment of this entity on its cells’ surface.

Finally circulating foreign agents can be recognized by a particular class of lymphocytes called B cells. B cells are like “keymasters”, they harbor millions of different types of keys capable to recognize any type of fragments coming from a foreign body. These tiny fragments are called in both cases, antigens. They are made of proteins, sugar or fatty acids, depending on the nature of the pathogen.

By exposing the antigen on the surface, it attracts the attention of certain immune cells. In the case of a virus, it will attract the attention of a set of T lymphocytes called CD8 T-cells that in turn will contact another type of lymphocyte called CD4 T-cells. In the case of a bacterium, macrophages and B-cells will recruit directly CD4 T-cells. CD4 T-cells acts a commander-in-chief, it will coordinate the immune response.

cellsindefenses75

It will train some immune cells to seek and destroy the immediate danger by having B-cells turning plasma cells capable to secrete antibodies. These antibodies are “keys” fitting exactly inside the antigen “key lock”. By this key-key lock interactions, plasma cells will trigger the immune response that will destroy the foreign agent and eliminate it from the body. Because of this threat, CD4 T-cells is training some naïve T- and B-cells as reservists to gain the military experience and that can be rapidly mobilized in case of a future threat.

The major caveat of this response is it takes time. It takes a couple of weeks to be up and running to fight off the infection and the immune system may forget it over time.

This is how vaccines work; we use decoys mimicking the foreign agent to train our immune system so they know the profile of this agent. In case of a real threat, they can rapidly mobilize and stop the threat. By having a immune system aware and ready to fight off the infection, it considerably limits the damage caused by an infection that for many of them lead to crippling conditions (e.g. polio, varicella….) or even death (e.g. measles, whooping cough….).

 In the paragraph below, you will see a chart from the Center of Disease Control (CDC) website describing of the number of crude death rate during the 20th century:

m829a1f1

Modern healthcare practice and medical breakthroughs (discovery of antibiotics, introduction of Salk vaccines….) introduced during the 20th century have considerably reduced the number of crude death rate in less than 100 years.

Yet, some people may argue this decrease in death rate may be inherent to the introduction of hygienist practices and refute such decrease in death rate is driven by massive vaccination campaign. To refute such claims, we are referring to a study published by the Vaccine-Preventable Disease Table Working Group published in JAMA in 2007 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209448).

Picture1

This table may appear confusing but four columns are in interests here: the pre-vaccine average number of cases and death prior the introduction of the first vaccine against the disease and the average number of cases and death as measured in 2006 and 2004 respectively. Note the dramatic decrease in number of cases and death for several of these diseases. For instance polio was a devastating disease over 70 years ago and we have zero number of cases reported.  These data clearly show the potential of vaccinations. This is why vaccines are life-saving type of therapeutics and have been able to considerably reduce the number of cases if not capable to eradicate certain diseases.

However, vaccines suffer from two important caveats: Firstly, the decoys are obtained from attenuated, dead, or small bits of such infectious agents. Secondly, such decoys are by themselves are weak to induce the “immune boost” needed to provide the biological effects necessary to create the “vaccine memory”.

Therefore, these vaccines are formulated with a solution called adjuvants, that act as a “booster” to improve the immune response, resulting in a fast and bold immune response but also help to stabilize the antigen in suspension (shelf life), as well as maintaining the sterility of such vaccines (http://www.roitt.com/elspdf/Newgen_Vaccines.pdf).

Historically, the adjuvant of choice was the Freund’s adjuvant (formulation can be found here:https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/docs/Sigma/Product_Information_Sheet/f5881pis.pdf) but suffered from non-negligble side-effects.

Therefore a common consensus practiced in modern biomedical and clinical sciences is a gradual shift from an empirical (for instance mineral oil contained in Freund’s adjuvant has a chemical composition that is not fully known and controlled) into a synthetic (ingredients are all known and coming from primary materials with an extremely high purity) and controlled approach.

Adjuvant and formulations varies between manufacturers and between types of vaccines. The Cender of Diseases Control provides a public fact sheet detailling the composition of all vaccines currently sold in the U.S. (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf)

  1. Why is there aluminum in my vaccines? Is aluminum safe?

Aluminum (symbol element “Al”) constitutes a particular potent class of adjuvant and have shown to have a potent stimulatory effect on the immune response for over 50 years with no particular side effects or increased risk observed (for review:http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200476a.html#bib1).

Picture2

The mechanism of action of aluminum as an adjuvant remains complex and unclear. It is the third most abundant element on Earth. It is considered as a metalloid, with its ionized form being Al3+. In contact with water, aluminum undergoes a chemical reaction resulting in the formation of aluminum hydroxide (AH): 2Al + 6H2O -> Al2(OH)3 + 3H2 (dihydrogen gas).

AH is classically used in adjuvants as it does not precipitate in solution, although an alternative form called aluminum phosphate (AP, AlPO4) is also used in certain vaccines formulation. This criteria is very important as chemicals used in injectable solutions have to be in an homogenous suspension. AH can organize and align themselves into crystalline structures, forming particles

gibbsite-crystal-3d-balls

Depending on how many AH are involved in these crystalline structures, these particles will have a particular sizes. In vaccines, AH particles distribution ranging from 2 to 10 micrometers, with a median size of 3 micrometer. In this post, the author refers to a particular type of aluminum, the aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles (AANs) without ever giving a bibliographical source or a definition to describe the nature of such term:

Aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles (AANs) are transported through the body differently than ingested aluminum. Most vaccines contain aluminum adjuvant, an ingredient necessary for stimulating a strong immune response and immunity. The aluminum is in the form of Al hydroxide and/or Al phosphate nanoparticles.

A request on search engine failed to provide us with a link on Pubmed and Sciencedirect databases with the term “aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles”, instead refers to “aluminum hydroxide nanoparticles (AHNs)” or “aluminum oxide nanoparticles (AONs)”. The usage of an uncommon term by the author is questionable and bring confusions on exactly what the author is referring to. However, the author later appears to refer to AH or AP nanoparticles, thus we speculate that AANs maybe an umbrella terms to refer to AH and APs and therefore we will refer on AHNs as AANs for the rest of this article.

Then the authors states the following: “Aluminum has been used in vaccines since the 1920s. Despite this long history, aluminum adjuvant was not studied much beyond its effect of making vaccines more effective. The safety of injected Al adjuvant was assumed, largely because aluminum is a normal (if unhealthy) component of many foods. Its one of the most common elements of the Earth’s crust. Its everywhere. So consideration of Al adjuvant safety was entirely based upon studies of ingested aluminum.” The author creates confusions for the reader as such sentences introduce a lots of concepts with few explanations and sounds more like a “word salad” than anything else.

As we have previously stated, aluminum is the third element in abundance in Earth’s crust (http://www.sandatlas.org/composition-of-the-earths-crust/). We can reasonably speculate that living organisms have been growing in an aluminum-rich environment since LUCA (last unicellular common ancestor) and therefore have adopted evolutionary traits to cope with such exposure to aluminum on the surface of Earth’s crust.

 In this section, the author discussed and misused an important concept used in pharmacokinetics that will be discussed later: bioavailability. Bioavailability defines the amount of substance that reaches the systemic circulation (in other words the bloodstream) compared to the amount dispensed at the delivery site. It is a ratio of the amount measured in blood plasma following its delivery through an extravascular route (oral ingestion, intramuscular injection, dermal patch….) divided by the amount measured in blood plasma following a delivery through vascular route (most of the time an intravenous (IV) injection). When you inject a substance by IV route, this ratio is by definition 100%. Now if I re-use the example of the author, the bioavailability by oral route is 0.3%. If a patient swallows 100g of aluminum (Al), only 0.3g will make it inside the systemic circulation, thus giving us a bioavailability of 0.3%.

Although the author will cite an article by Flarend and colleagues (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X97000418) later in his post, it failed to report the bioavailability reported by the same study. By courtesy, we introduce this study in this section to bring clarity. In this study, Flarend et al measured the pharmacokinetics of AH in rabbits, using radioactive aluminum (as radioactive-based analytical methods are the method of choice to quantify metals).   In this study, they injected two rabbits with an intramuscular injection of AH at a concentration of 13.24 mg/mL. In an equivalent dose, each rabbit got “vaccinated” with 0.85mg of AH. According to the FDA guidelines, the amount of AH present in vaccines sold in US have a maximal amount of 1.25mg/dose with a cumulative amount (total amount you will get from vaccines) estimated of 4.22 mg over the infant vaccination schedule (source: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm). [UPDATE] Keep in mind that such amount does not accumulate over time and we have a clearance of aluminum taking place over time. Because an intramuscular injection is not a vascular route, the bioavailability is below 100%. The authors here estimated the amount absorbed over 28 days to be 17%. What does it means? The amount absorbed is the amount that was able to diffuse through the epithelial barrier or from the connective tissue into the bloodstream (systemic circulation).  It also means that 82% of the Al is still present at the site of injection (take note, AVers: if it does not absorbed, it is not absorbed). So why is that? Its all about solubility. This is the solubility equation:
Al(OH)3<-> Al3+ + 3OH-
It is an equilibrium equation, in which Al3+ is only soluble at its ionic form. Therefore, you need to deplete the Al3+ to dissolve the AH nanoparticles. At physiological pH, AH is practically insoluble. This drives the bioavailability of Al3+. If we consider the absorbed amount over 28 days, we can deduct that the bioavailability is about 0.6%, slightly higher than its absorption via GI tract.
Thus, AH releases its aluminum at a very slow pace but also at the very long time. This is why we have this biphasic curve after Cmax, with the second slope being more steady and explaining the long half-life of Al.

Picture3

At baseline values (before injection), the amount of Al detected in plasma was about 30ng/mL. Upon injection of these four doses simultaneously, AH (black triangles) show a tmax (a time by which the concentration of aluminum peaked) at 10 hours, bringing a Cmax (maximal concentration) of 32ng/mL. In other means, a 6% increase in the amount of aluminum. Thats a bit of extra noise over noise. Not much a dramatic peak that would double up your exposure to aluminum. You don’t face an aluminum storm upon vaccine injection, but more a slight added noise over time. This is not a problem for healthy patients unless those with a kidney condition (we will discuss that later). [END UPDATE].
In the body, the authors estimated that AH mostly accumulated in the kidney, followed by the spleen and liver. This high retention is understandable as these organs are highly perfused with blood and therefore may accumulate more aluminum than other organs. These organs (liver and kidneys) are always monitored when drugs are developed as they can have serious toxic effects. However the amount accumulating is very negligible. The authors report an amount of 0.00001mg/g of tissue after 28 days. Put back into the context, at the time of injection, this tissue concentration may have peaked at 0.000283mg/g. Brain tissue, in contrast, have shown 100 times less accumulation than kidney. After 28 days, 3% of the initial aluminum injected remains in kidney, we can therefore estimate only 0.03% of the initial amount is accumulating in the brain. Aluminum has a long half-life (time to eliminate 50% of a compound from your body), as it is estimated around 100 days.

Because it takes some times to eliminate it, we can reasonably raise the question: what about the acute and chronic toxicity? The acute toxicity is defined by the toxicity obtained by a single injection, whereas the chronic toxicity is obtained from a continuous exposure.

An important concept in toxicology has been established in the 17th century by Paracelsus, the father of modern pharmacology and toxicology: “Every substance is poison, no substance is no poison. The dose and only the dose makes the substance the poison”.

It is all about how much you get exposed over time and about how long it takes to get it eliminated. A poison with a short half-life can see its toxic effect cleared very fast, whereas a poison that has a long half-live will accumulate if exposed continuously and show its toxicity after weeks if not years. This is often the case observed in poisoning with heavy metals (like lead, silver, mercury, arsenic). An historical example is Napoleon Bonaparte’s death by poisoning during his exile on the island of St. Helena. Because the amount of arsenic ingested was  low and did not alter taste, it did not raise suspicion of poisoning. However because arsenic half-life is high (12 days), it kept building up in the body until it reached a toxic level.

In a review published in 2007 by Krewski and colleagues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/), non-occupational exposure to aluminum is mostly driven by food consumption, with a daily intake of 8.6 and 7.2mg/day for males and females respectively. The author of this post claim 0.3% oral bioavailabity in the following statement: “Ingested aluminum has a low absorption (about 0.3%), and when this low absorption is taken into account, there is good reason to expect vaccines to create aluminum toxicity. But that is not the subject of the present commentary. Commentary about the total amount of aluminum in vaccines can be found here: http://vaccinepapers.org/danger-aluminum-vaccines/

[UPDATE] For our demonstration, we will rely on the data provided by the review, citing 0.1% of bioavailability. Based on this number, we can estimate males and females are exposed daily to 0.0086 and 0.0072mg/day (or 86 and 72 micrograms/day) (values were corrected for bioavailability). If we use the study from Flarend and colleagues, we should expect to add 0.21mg (or 210 micrograms) of AH per injection. Considering the 6% increase in Cmax  concentration observed in rabbits following injection, we are expecting about an extra 12.6 micrograms of aluminum added to the systemic circulation. Another review by Yokel & McNamara (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11322172) provides a more exhaustive comparison and sources for the amount of aluminum exposure summarized in the table below.

Yokel_Al.jpg

Now, we have more information available since I have written the first iteration of this post. We have an estimation of 0.07-0.4 micrograms/kg/day provided by vaccines. We will assume the more conservative number of 0.4 micrograms/kg/day. With the average weight of an infant (median weight at birth ~3.3kgs), we can assume a daily dose from vaccines of about 1.32 micrograms/day or about 237 micrograms over a 6-months period. These are plasma concentrations, therefore a better comparison would be to compare to the administration of aluminum via IV route as well.

As you can see in the chart, the most common medical procedure involving the IV infusion of aluminum is the total parenteral nutrition (TPN), or feeding directly via intravenous diffusion. The daily amount via TPN are much higher, we have values of 11-27micrograms/kg/day or for an infant getting a TPN at birth of about 36.3-89.1 micrograms/day. Therefore, the daily amount of aluminum obtained by vaccines is about 200 times less than the daily amount obtained by TPN route.
Now, this review came out before the FDA roundtable and risk assessment of aluminum in TPN bags. Following recommendation, the FDA consider an IV concentration of aluminum of 4-5micrograms/kg/day as possible neurotoxicity in premature and neonates connected to TPN bags.
Again, we have to compare to same scale. For an newborn, thats about 13.2 micrograms/day. Put the vaccine daily exposure, we are about 10% of this threshold value. Therefore, daily aluminum exposure in a vaccinated newborn infant is 10 times less the amount considered to have a possible neurotoxicity.
We have also to assume that the water and food intake does not apply to an infant and may bias our calculations. According to the Children Hospital of Philadelphia website (http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum), they estimate the total aluminum intake in infants from vaccines during the first 6 months 4.4 miligrams (thats about 4000 micrograms). This have to put into contrast from the 7 milligrams (about 7000 micrograms) from breast milk and 38 milligrams (38’000 milligrams) from formula-fed.  At this point, the author is simply hand waving about the danger of aluminum by ignoring the fundamental concepts of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and toxicology. Therefore, the question I would like to raise is why the author failed to mention the study of Flarend in this section? It constitutes the right place to discuss about it.

Now, does aluminum is harmless? Well it is all about the dose and the patients condition. Again, the review by Krewski and colleagues can bring us useful information. Al is excreted primary via kidney route, with about 95% of renal clearance. For a patient with normal kidney function, this is not a problem. For infants that receive injections on a monthly basis, this is not a problem either. The problem arises if you have a patient or a premature that have to be on a constant IV infusion, like patients on TPN bags. There is a risk of aluminum accumulation as the intake amount is much more important than the amount excreted. Such case in patients that display either immature kidneys or signs of renal failure. However, in such cases, such patients will have aluminum-depleted IV bags to avoid such accumulation. [END UPDATE]

  1. Aluminum and neurotoxicity

If there is a concern about aluminum toxicity, it is its possible effect on the central nervous system (we refer to it as aluminum neurotoxicity). A rapid review on Pubmed using “neurotoxicity aluminum” bring us a total number of 387 articles, including 73 reviews. A classical model to assess aluminum neurotoxicity is the model of aluminum chloride (88 articles) in rodents.

In these models, aluminum chloride (Al(Cl)3) is administered by oral route with concentration varying from 5mg/kg/day (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21543463), 50mg/kg/day (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25940660), with a maximal values of 200mg/kg/day as reported by Prakash and colleagues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23315010). In all these studies, anatomical changes in the brain as well as motor and cognitive functions were reported. Now, it is important to relativise these amount to a 70kg body. At the minimal concentration of 5mg/kg of Al(Cl)3, the dose-equivalent needed to achieve these neurotoxic effects would be 350mg/kg/day. Thats about more than 43 times the daily dose of aluminum obtained with food intake. Every single day. With a chronic high exposure to aluminum, we would expect to reach such toxic level. However such model is not representative as Al(Cl)3 and AH (Al(OH)3) are distinct chemical entities and therefore do not share same physical and chemical features. But this did not stop the author from making false assumptions.

“Ingested aluminum enters the blood from the gut. In the blood, ingested aluminum is in a water-soluble ionic form, typically Al3+ or an aluminum complex*. This aluminum is separated into individual atoms, like ordinary salt dissolved in water. Ionic aluminum is toxic, but it is blocked from entering the brain by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), and it is rapidly filtered from the blood by the kidneys. Unless large amounts are consumed it does not cause a problem.”

A critic I have with his statement is how the author can exclude that Al3+ cannot cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB)? I will talk about the BBB later but I wanted to mention this logical fallacy. We just discussed about the neurotoxic effects of aluminum in the CNS, using Al(Cl)3.
To better understand the difference, we have to compare the solubility of Al(Cl3) and Al(OH)3 (AH). To be soluble, a compound has to interact with water molecules and breakdown its chemical bonds to become an ion. Some can easily break their bonds (example H-Cl breaks into H+ or Cl-), some less (like H-O-H or water). Water is a polar solvent. The oxygen atom attract the electrons of the shared bonds more towards it, it then becomes electronegative. In the other hand, hydrogen discretely loses its electron and becomes slightly electropositive. Ions will mix very well because they counter the charges around. If a compound can ionize, it will dissolve in water. If it cannot ionize (like hydrocarbon chains found in oil and fat, because the carbon atom is not greedy for electrons), then it will not mix with water. That’s why oil and water never mix.

According to Wikipedia, Al(Cl)3 solubility index is 43.9g/100 mL of water and AH is only 0.0001g/100mL. In other words, Al(Cl)3 in solution is under Al3+ and Cl- forms, whereas AH remains in its Al(OH)3 form. How can the author explain the experimental studies that show the neurotoxic effects observed in animals treated with Al(Cl)3 if he claims Al3+ cannot cross the BBB?

In a section of his article, the author cites one study to disagree with it, the study of Movsas  (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23856981) published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The Movsas study (published in 2013) used human infants and obtained similar results. Movsas looked for aluminum in urine and blood before and after routine vaccination with 1200mcg aluminum at the 2-month date. No change in urine or blood levels was observed. Movsas states: “No significant change in levels of urinary or serum aluminum were seen after vaccination.“ Of course, these results contradict the claims by vaccine advocates that aluminum adjuvant dissolves and is removed by the kidneys.”

An important criteria when investigating journals is the impact factor. A high impact factor is usually associated with high-quality studies as the peer-review process in such journal has a higher expectation level. In the other hand of the spectrum, we have a new category of “predatory journals” (always based on fee for publications) that will publish studies with a weak or not peer-review process. JAMA Pediatrics impact factor is fairly good (7.13) to consider the study reliable. The authors investigated the levels of aluminum before vaccination, about 11.1+/-10.3 ng/mL. Note the extreme variability of these levels among 15 pre-term babies. The author reported no changes in aluminum after vaccination and estimated to increase the concentration to 1% following the publication by Flarend (see previously). You have to remember Flarend used radioactive Al to measure the kinetics, whereas in this study, we measure aluminum using another analytical technique that may have less sensitivity. It also indicates that the aluminum contained in vaccines injection is not giving higher values than the basal aluminum level, thus you cannot distinguish the aluminum from the vaccine from the aluminum contained in food. But this important point, the author failed to understand.

Indeed, there is another study that tried to reproduce a model of vaccines injection using mice that the author surprisingly failed to cite in his report: the study of Shaw CA and Tomljenovic L published in 2013 in Journal of Inorganic Chemistry (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013413001773). In this study the authors tried to develop a mouse model of newborn vaccine schedule and see the effect of such repetitive doses would impact on the neurological function.

Picture4

However, the experimental design is inconsistent and raises question about the validity of the data. The author never explain why they change the experimental paradigm in the low AI group. A common sense in science is when you want to show a biological effect you change one parameter at the time. For instance, the dosing schedule should stay the same, only the dose be different (as presented 50% of the normal dose) and have the control (injection with saline solution only).  A poorly designed experimental setup can only to poor results and poor interpretations.

Picture5

Based on this experimental setup, the authors observed an increase in weight in mice following the normal (or in this case, high) Al injections. No weight changes were observed in low AI or the control. Because of the flaw in the experimental design, we cannot tell if this effect is due to stress (remember the mice received more frequent injections than the other groups) or due to the treatment. Because of the poor experimental design, this result is worthless and resulted in an unfair use of animals to get this data. Now things become very interesting, the authors use behavioral tests for all the experiments and determined that high Al showed a decrease in the number of successful tasks. There is also a sexual dimorphism as males showed statistical differences but not females. Again, there is the experimental flaw that do not let us know if it stress related or if it is due to aluminum.  In a behavioral test, you are observing your animal and try to count how many times your animal displays a movement of interest. For instance, in neurosciences, we can put a mouse into a Y-shaped maze and put a bit of cheese in one branch of the maze. Each day, you put the mouse in the bottom of the Y-maze and let the mouse find the right branch (the one containing the cheese). After 10 seconds, you will take out the mouse and score if it succeeded (1) or not (0). After scoring, you will put the mouse again in the maze and score again the mouse for 9 times, this everyday. After a few days, the mouse will remember where is the cheese and will achieve a perfect score. If the mouse has some memory problems, it will perform poorly and will maintain a low score. Now the problem is if the mouse is stuck between the two branches, do you count that as a success or a failure? That’s the problem of subjectivity. I may consider it as a success because the mouse faced the right branch, another experimenter may consider it a success only if the mouse reaches and touches the cheese.

There is also some concerns about the authors’ affiliations. Both researchers were faculty members from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC (Canada) (Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences), (Program in Experimental Medicine; Program in Neuroscience) until 2013. Surprisingly one of the authors address displayed an unusual email for an academic researcher in a public institution (cashawlab@gmail.com) but furthermore later publications saw a change in the affiliation (Neural Dynamics Research Group, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada). Firstly, I would question how a faculty researcher appointed in a department in which the mission is related to eye research has the expertise to study vaccines and toxicology.

Here is the website of Neural Dynamics and surprise, we find the same authors. What is interesting, is this page has been outdated for a while and it seems funding occurred for up to 2007. Are these authors still funded? Things become more and more murky when you see the name of Stephanie Seneff (a computer scientist at the MIT that claim autism is caused…..by glyphosate….in a journal called “Entropy”) as a co-author in one the publications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25349607)……in a predatory journal! Yes, that’s what I call entropic, sorry messy publication records. Orac from “Respectful Insolence” raised a red flag on this study published earlier on and it is worth a read (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/). How reliable is a peer-review from a journal aiming to publish inorganic chemistry, in assessing the validity of scientific claims that are aimed for experts in vaccines and neurotoxicology? As reliable to publish my work on the blood-brain barrier in a journal that studies plankton biology.

[UPDATE] The lab of Shaw and colleagues came again in the spotlight recently for a retracted study on the effect of HPV vaccine on behavioral issues in mice, as mentioned by Retraction Watch (source: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/15/journal-temporarily-removes-paper-linking-hpv-vaccine-to-behavioral-issues/). The editor-in-chief of the journal (Vaccine) did not comment about the cause of the temporary retraction. It is also worth noting that the WHO called this study on aluminum adjuvants “seriously flawed”. The full report on the WHO related to the study on the effect of aluminum adjuvant can be found here: http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/reports/Jun_2012/en/

  1. Aluminum nanoparticles and macrophages

Later in the post, the author discussed about how aluminum nanoparticles (AANs) can enter into macrophages as citing the following: “This model is wrong because what actually happens is that a type of white blood cell called a macrophage (MF) engulfs or “eats” (process is called “phagocytosis”) the AANs before they can dissolve. Eating foreign material is normal behavior for MFs. When MFs detect bacteria or other pathogens, the MFs engulf the pathogens, and digest them with enzymes. They then tell other immune system cells about the pathogen and how to detect it. The problem with AANs is that they are not digested by the MF enzymes. And the AANs, once inside the MF, dissolve much more slowly. The AANs persist for a long time and cause the MFs to slowly leak aluminum. MFs that consume the AANs become highly contaminated with aluminum, and spread this aluminum around wherever they go.”

Again, the author never identifies the nature of these AANs, bringing confusion to the reader. Because the author focuses on the vaccines, we speculate that he is referring to Al(OH)3 particles (AH). The author continues his explanation on why macrophages are the main cause of “MFs that consume the AANs become highly contaminated with aluminum, and spread this aluminum around wherever they go. And they go everywhere in the body.”  Now the author claims these AH enter macrophages (MF), then these macrophages enter the brain and deliver aluminum across the BBB. Interestingly, after a search on Pubmed using the query “aluminum hydroxide AND macrophage”, I failed to find any relevant literature that demonstrated the inclusion of AH inside MF. Therefore the quote “Several studies show, with certainty, that MFs engulf AANs. In several studies, the AANs have been stained and photographed inside the MFs, and identified using several different methods. This is not surprising because it is well known that MFs will engulf nanoparticles just from being grown in a solution containing nanoparticles. The composition of the nanoparticles does not seem to matter“. This statement is not only exaggerated (the authors failed to provide citations to support that claim) but also provocative and fraudulent. In biological sciences, we rarely use a bold statement such as “certainty”, only when you have millions of individual records.

Only pseudoscientists would take a single study as the absolute truth.

The only study that can bring some information is the study cited by the author of this post (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4155332/) using THP-1 cells.  What are THP-1 cells? THP-1 cells are monocytes derived from a patient that suffered from an acute monocytic leukemia. As any other cell line isolated from patients, these cells are readily available through cell collections such as ATCC (http://www.atcc.org/products/all/TIB-202.aspx). Technically, there are monocytes and not macrophages (see the schematics in chapter 1). Macrophages are derived from monocytes but in terms of biological identify these cells have distincts identity. It is like claiming my daughter is like my spouse. My daughter shares 50% of her DNA with my spouse and have the other 50% of mine, but she is different and unique. That simple concept appears not obvious for the author as at the end of his post cited: “Monocytes and macrophages are basically the same thing.”. Such statement is simply wrong and raises some skepticism on the rationale the author will use this study to establish his claims.

Furthermore, we have to remember that THP-1 cells are by essence a cancer cell line, they came from a patient suffering from a certain form of leukemia. Cancer cells are known to have a complete different biology than normal cells, because they are cancer cells. This is where we can start to discuss and question the validity of the authors claim: why did he not cited a study using macrophages isolated from healthy patients. The problem is there is no study that have investigated the uptake of AH by normal macrophages and we can reasonably speculate that THP-1 may have an abnormal uptake activity, resulting in an abnormal accumulation of AH.

However, there are several studies mentioning a condition called “myofasciitis”, all sharing the same co-author: Gherardi RK, the same Gherardi cited in this blog post. The author cited the following article to support the claim of AH-laden MFs: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/9/1821. Myofasciitis (also referred as autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant) is a rare medical condition, as reported by Orphanet (http://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/OC_Exp.php?Lng=GB&Expert=592) but not listed in the Office of Rare Diseases (National Institutes of Health). The World Health Organization (WHO) provides a fact-sheet page available for information (http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/aluminium/questions/en/). According to the website, it was identified in 1993 and most of the cases are located in France. Knowing that Gherardi is a French scientist currently affiliated with the Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris Creteil (Department of Pathology, H. Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris/Paris-Est University, Créteil, F-94010, France; Reference Center for Neuromuscular Disorders, H. Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Créteil, F-94010, France; INSERM U955-Team 10, Créteil, F-94010, France.).  The WHO teaches us two important features about the diseases:

Q1. What is MMF and how is it related to aluminium in vaccines?

  1. Deltoid muscle biopsies performed in France in patients with a variety of complaints have revealed in a small number the presence of a minute inflammatory focus of macrophages, along with crystal inclusions and associated microscopic muscle necrosis. These localized lesions have been shown to contain aluminium salts. Since the location of the lesions in the deltoid muscle coincides with the usual site of injection for vaccines, it would appear that these microscopic lesions are likely to be related to immunization with vaccines that contain aluminium adjuvants.

Q4. Does everyone vaccinated with an aluminium-containing vaccine have the MMF lesion?

A. Since muscle biopsies have only been carried out in patients with myopathic symptoms, there is currently no information on whether the characteristic localized histological pattern would be found in the healthy population after vaccination. It has been suggested that there might be a predisposed subset of individuals with impaired ability to clear aluminium from the deltoid muscle. Whether this reflects macrophagic dysfunction, or the tail-end of a normal population distribution of aluminium clearance and local tissue response, has not been determined.

It seems the disease is related to vaccination in patients marked by macrophages infiltration and aluminum deposition at the site of vaccination,  that apparently harbor a genetic background predisposing these patients to elicit an autoimmune reaction following vaccination.

This article appears as legitimate as it shows the presence  of macrophages in the muscle biopsies by tissue imaging and by using other techniques such as atomic force microscopy to quantify the amount of aluminum in such tissue samples. However, the major flaw of this paper? The absence of proper controls. There are controls documented (1252 individuals) but they never show the tissue sections from these controls or the quantification in the amount of aluminum. I found it very disturbing that such blatant flaws in the experimental design had been overseen by the peer-reviewed process, since Brain has a fairly high impact factor (IF~10).

If you inject a vaccine, you will expect an immune reaction to take place (that’s the goal of a vaccine). This translates into an inflammation stage that everyone experience few hours after injection: hot, red, swollen and painful. Inflammation also recruits a lot of macrophages (thus you would expect to see them under the microscope in your tissue samples) and you also expect  to see an important amount of aluminum in the site of injection, an amount that will take time to disappear (remember the half-life of aluminum? 100 days, it takes some time to get rid of it).  There is no biopsy samples from patients that have shown no side effects.

Most patients are identified in France. So there may be a rare autoimmune disease, that has a genetic background and that may be triggered by vaccines adjuvants following vaccinations. Because this condition appears only after vaccination, we may be tempted to claim vaccines caused this autoimmune disease. This conclusion is wrong as correlation is not causation. If adjuvant was causing autoimmune diseases,  we should see the same condition occurring in patients not carrying the genetic mutation, with a number of cases high enough to raise some epidemiological alert. Again remember, 600 cases in France, a country that count 60 millions inhabitants.

In conclusion, although the authors theory of macrophages loaded with aluminum nanoparticles may have some scientific basis, it still remains unclear as we have almost no studies to support its claim and have a rare disease that is only documented to one country (France) and mostly by one single group (Gerhardi group). To make a claim valid, you need a high number of studies (20 and more) coming from independent laboratories and described into different parts of the world. Therefore the macrophage-loaded theory raises some skepticism and clearly contradicts the claim of “certainty” posed by the author.

  1. Aluminum, macrophages and the blood-brain barrier

The author claims the blood-brain barrier protects the entrance of ionized aluminum (Al3+) but completely ignored the studies showing the toxic effects using Al(Cl)3. Indeed, the author come with one esoteric theory to explain the claims: “And they go everywhere in the body. The MFs are able to travel across the blood brain barrier (BBB). The MFs, once loaded with AANs, act like a Trojan Horse and carry the AANs into the brain. This is very harmful, because the brain is very sensitive to aluminum.” Before we can talk about this theory, we have first to understand the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and how aluminum may cross the BBB.

The BBB is a blood-brain interface separating the blood flow from the brain tissue (source: http://medicalterms.info/img/uploads/anatomy/blood-brain-barrier.jpg). As other blood vessels, brain blood vessels are lined by endothelial cells separating the blood flow from the brain tissue. These endothelial cells (that we usually call brain endothelial cells) are unique: they are very tight, much tighter than other vessels. Such tightness is ensured by the presence of tight junctions between endothelial cells, that block exchange of molecules as small as water and ions between the blood and the brain. These tight junctions provide a “physical barrier”. In addition to such barrier, the BBB has another type of barrier: a “chemical barrier” .

Picture6

As we mentioned, if you are a small water-soluble compound (a, like sucrose (table sugar) or water), your entrance into the brain is very limited. Now if you are a chemical compound that dissolves in oil (b, lipophilic), then you can diffuse across the BBB because cells have membranes made of fat (think about biological oil droplets). However, many of the compounds are still pumped out the brain because of presence of efflux pumps. These pumps block the diffusion of toxins and also drugs (such as cyclosporin A or AZT). Indeed, these pumps are responsible in the blockade of 95% of known chemicals, either natural or synthetic. This is one of the reasons why we fail to have effective treatments for brain cancer, because our current chemotherapy drugs are blocked by the BBB and we don’t have techniques to open this barrier.

Picture7

If you have a bigger cargo to deliver (like protein), it is almost impossible to deliver it across unless you have a dedicated receptor (key lock) and you have the right key to unlock it (d, receptor-mediated transcytosis). We only know a few of them, among them are insulin (insulin receptor), transferrin (transferrin receptor) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL, LDL receptor). There is an important discussion about when the BBB appears during fetal development and when do we have a mature BBB that has the function of an adult. Up to ten years ago, we believed the BBB was immature in newborns based on studies using rat and mouse pups. However, with the recent development in modern biology techniques, it seems that indeed humans have a functional BBB that maybe are as mature as adults after full term pregnancy. This was firstly supported by Saunders and colleagues that demonstrated that BBB from the opossum, a small marsupial from the same family than kangaroos and koalas, have a tight barrier (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267212/). This observation was also observed on rat pups following stroke injury. During stroke, the BBB opens and lets water and ions enter inside the brain and causes brain damage by brain swelling. If the newborn BBB was more fragile than the adult one, the damage would be more devastating. Indeed it seems not and maybe the opposite. In a recent study, Vexler and colleagues demonstrated that rat pups better dealt with stroke injury than adult rats and showed lesser brain swelling (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539825/).

Thus, the concept of the newborn BBB being more sensitive to vaccines than adults’ BBB maybe completely wrong. If vaccines induced BBB disruption, we should have epidemiological data showing an increase in severe neurological disorders including cerebral palsy or epilepsies. As we mentioned in the previous section, aluminum is known to show neurotoxicity, based on the Al(Cl)3 model. In this model, we speculate that Al3+ is in free form. Al3+ can bind to transferrin (a protein that normally delivers iron to the brain), thus using the transferrin receptor as an entrance mechanism (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7580055). Indeed, there is little or no studies that investigated if Al(OH)3 can enter the BBB. One possible mechanism is that aluminum may disrupt the BBB, which in turn induce a BBB leakage and brain damage. The only study found is from Wiesnieski and colleagues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3730864) that investigated the effect of Al(Cl)3 and Al(OH)3 on rat BBB using radioactive sucrose to follow changes in the barrier tightness. The authors noted an increase in BBB leakage 2 and 4 hours after administration but did not show any differences after 24 hours. More interestingly, Al(Cl)3 triggered such leakage whereas Al(OH)3 showed no difference on the BBB. This study therefore refutes the idea that AH cross the BBB and/or induces BBB breakdown.

However, the author believes in the AH-loaded macrophages theory and made the following claim: “The MFs are able to travel across the blood brain barrier (BBB). The MFs, once loaded with AANs, act like a Trojan Horse and carry the AANs into the brain. This is very harmful, because the brain is very sensitive to aluminum.”
This claim is fairly outrageous for the BBB expert that I am, for different reasons. Firstly, the author simply ignores the notion of “immune privilege” organ such as the brain (for review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3597357/). In the difference of other organs, the brain has no immune cells residing inside healthy patients. Only one type of cells, microglial cells (derived from monocytes), is the only immune cell residing inside the brain. Immune cells (including lymphocytes and macrophages) cannot enter the brain because they don’t have the right keys to open the BBB.  Immune cells only cross the BBB following certain neurological disorders such as stroke or multiple sclerosis. In such diseases, brain endothelial cells undergo a phenomenon called “endothelial cell activation”, resulting in the expression of cell adhesion molecules (for review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946472).

Following this activation, now immune cells (also known as leukocytes), have anchor points to anchor at the surface of the BBB as displayed in the schematics below. Leukocytes get anchored, undergo a complicated tango dance with the activated endothelial cells, squeeze through the endothelial cells (by diapedesis) and finally enters inside the brain. Because the brain is an “immune-privileged system”, these immune cells identify antigens present in the brain as foreign agents and triggers an neuroinflammation. A poster child of such neuroinflammation is multiple sclerosis. Therefore macrophages can only enter the brain, if you have have an activation of the BBB that will allow these cells to bind to the endothelial cell surface.

To support the claim that Al-loaded MFs are causing a neuroinflammation, the author goes again with another study from Gherardi again (remember the previous article missing the proper controls?). This time, he uses another study looking at the effect of fluorescent latex beads surface-coated with AH and published in BMC Medicine (IF~7) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3616851/). Before we further investigate this paper, it is important to note that BMC has been recently caught in a massive fraud scale involving fake peer-reviews and the subsequent retraction of 43 papers (http://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/26/biomed-central-retracting-43-papers-for-fake-peer-review/)

The author used the following image figure to claim the presence of aluminum inside the brain section. What appears disturbing is the inconsistency of the panel presented. On panel a, the author show a muscle biopsy tissue sample using hematoxylin-eosin staining, a common mixture of chemical dyes to observe tissue samples under a light microscope. Then for the spleen and the brain, the author show fluorescence tissue sections. Why did the authors switch from technique to another? Then we have the pseudo-colored pictures showing aluminum deposition. For the injected muscle, we can see some accumulation of aluminum consistent with the macrophages (deep purple) staining. But we cannot associate the aluminum deposition with the tissue sections of spleen and brain. Therefore nothing proves to me that the aluminum deposition observed in the spleen and brain are consistent with the presence of macrophages in that region. Also the aluminum analysis fails to show a proper scale bar. I cannot tell if panel b, c and d used the same magnification. For a manuscript of such caliber, it is unacceptable. Finally, the bar graph on the bottom right is not annotated properly. What tissue are we measuring aluminum levels over time? Muscle? Spleen? Brain?

This is the figure annotation: “Aluminum deposits in tissues following injection of alum-containing vaccine in the TA muscle. a) Granuloma composed of PAS+ cells is formed in the injected muscle envelope; b) PIXE mapping shows muscle Al deposits in pseudocolors, with confirmatory Al emission spectrum (d21); c) Section of spleen tissue (left panel) displays the large 500 × 500 μm and restricted 100 × 100 μm protonized fields corresponding to the PIXE maps (middle and right panel, respectively) enclosing eligible Al spots (d21); d) Section of brain tissue (left left panel) displays the restricted 100 × 100 μm protonized field corresponding to the PIXE map (middle panel) enclosing eligible Al spot (d21); the number of fields containing one or more Al spots was increased at all tested time points compared to unvaccinated (right panel) mice. (bars: 100 μm). d, day; PIXE, particle induced X-ray emission, TA tibialis anterior.

We have been just at figure 1 and we have already the same botched and neglected experimental paradigm that not only make the results inconclusive but also a complete waste of animals for the experiment. A complete opposition to the author’s claim as “In an impressive study in mice, AANs and other nanoparticles (e.g. latex) were injected intramuscularly into mice”. It is not impressive; it is a deeply flawed study that anyone holding a Ph.D. degree would be outraged to read. An important point to note: I never found information on how many mice have been used for the study. The minimum required to perform statistical analysis in animal models is 8 mice per group or treatment. Therefore, I call this study as “n=1” or a single mouse study. A single individual study has no scientific value unless it is a clinical case report (however, a case report remains the lowest level in the pyramid of scientific evidence).

In the next part of this study, things become even murkier. The authors now use fluorescent latex beads (FLB) to model alum agglomerates. This is something very important. Latex and AH are completely two different chemicals. Latex is a natural polymer made of number of cis-isoprene repeats (http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2008/09/polyisoprene1.png). It is basically a series of repeat of a molecule made of carbon and hydrogens atoms. These are two distinct structures and FLB cannot model AH. Furthermore, why did the authors not inject AH-loaded macrophages? even AH-loaded THP-1? So instead of investigating AH accumulation in the brain, we are now having a paper that investigates the accumulation of latex particles inside the brain. Latex is a natural product that is biodegradable. Such degradation is ensured by micro-organisms (http://www.wiley-vch.de/books/biopoly/pdf/v02_kap10.pdf). Animals do not have the enzymatic toolkit to degrade latex. Latex beads will accumulate in our body. The information in Figure 2 is basically telling us we are accumulating latex beads in the site of injection and because latex is not synthesized by our cells, it is recognized as a foreign agent and macrophages will try to clear these beads from the injection sites by swallowing them.

Picture8

we are accumulating latex beads in the site of injection and because latex is not synthesized by our cells, it is recognized as a foreign agent and macrophages will try to clear these beads from the injection sites by swallowing them.

In Figure 3, we are seeing the accumulation of FLB inside the brain. This is a natural consequence of injecting a substance that cannot be degraded. Because of the systemic circulation, these beads will reach the circulation from the site of injection and being spread in all areas perfused by the circulatory system. At the BBB, you will expect some non-specific uptake occurring. It is called pinocytosis, as endothelial cells will form some small sacks trapping liquid from the blood side and deliver this content to the other side. This event is rare but that happens. We can also speculate that because these animals are undergoing an important inflammation, such inflammation may be sufficient to activate brain endothelial cells and to allow FLB-loaded macrophages to enter the brain parenchyma.

Now, the onset of inflammatory response at the site of injection maybe what drives the opening at the BBB. If you look at figure 6, the intravenous injection of FLB did not trigger the infiltration of the BBB, simply because you need to have macrophages to swallow these beads in order to trigger an inflammatory signal. Macrophages are rarely circulating and mostly located in tissues. Following inflammation, macrophages will migrate to the inflammatory site. Thus explaining the absence of FLB infiltration inside the brain once injected by intravenous route. Now if you have a compromised BBB (like in mdx mice), you can see an important increase of FLB detected in brain sections from mdx mice.

To conclude, this story fails to directly demonstrate that AH triggers an inflammation in healthy mice, the authors using a complete different material (latex) to make a scientific claim that has no scientific values. You cannot claim that if I observe an allergic reaction following the ingestion of apples, it can be reproduced by ingesting oranges instead. I cannot show data using oranges and claim that these results reflect what happens when you have apples!

In addition to this study, the author also cited a study that used gold silica-loaded macrophages to target brain metastasis originated from metastatic breast cancer using a study from Clare and colleagues and published in Cancer Nanotechnologies (no impact factor as it is an open-access journal) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23205151). The authors showed they can load gold-silica nanoparticles inside macrophages directly obtained from whole blood samples of their institution Blood Center. Silica is a different entity than aluminum. It is formed by silicium (Si) that can ionize into Si2+. Like AH, silicium can bind hydroxyde and form Si(OH)2 that can crystallize and form particles. Why didn’t Gherardi and colleagues perform the same approach?

Again, this is a form of cherry-picking data, because the author tries to make the analogy between AH (Al(OH)3) and silica (Si(OH)2) – remember that these are completely two different chemical entities. Second Gherardi paper, second poor experimental designed study, second misleading conclusion. Not only did the author just drank the “Kool-Aid” without questioning it, he is also clueless on whether the Kool-Aid was genuine or tainted.

 

  1. Aluminum, autism and inflammation

Until now, we have been able to breakdown and debunk one piece at the time all these studies and showed that either their data were cherry-picked by the author to support its claim or the papers are of questionable quality that let us wonder how such papers went through the peer-review process without rejection. In the last piece, the author uses a study from Vargas and colleagues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15546155) published in Annals of Neurology, a journal with a good impact factor (IF=9.97).

It is important to note, this study is not investigating if aluminum or vaccines are causing autism. It is investigating what anatomical and biological changes can be observed between autistic brains and healthy brains. The authors used brain tissue samples from 11 autistic patients characterized by an IQ less than 70. Normal IQ score ranges from 90 to 110, so we can consider these patients as borderline. They have intelligence below average but not showing severe mental retardation. There is also an association of with epileptic seizure, with ~30% of autistic patients were epilepsy-positive. This study is legitimate and fairly well designed. We have proper controls and autistic patients. Interestingly, there is an increase in GFAP (activated astrocytes) astrocytes  and HLA-DR (a cellular marker expressed in antigen-presenting cells such as macrophages, dendritic cells or B-cells) in brain samples from autistic patients. This suggests the presence of brain inflammation in these patients compared to controls. The authors further investigated and measured changes in cytokines extracted from brain tissue homogenates and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The brain homogenates will tell us if cells produce (and maybe releases) these cytokines, whereas the CSF (a fluid in which our brain is soaked) will tell us if these cytokines are freely circulating. Cytokine measurements were done by antibody array using cell extract and patients CSF. It measures the cytokines by trapping them on a surface and then are detected by chemical reaction resulting in the formation of a dark spot. The darker and bigger the spot is, higher is the amount of cytokine. This method has the advantage to provide some information, although a more absolute method for quantification would have been a 2-D gel electrophoresis that directly identify these cytokines by their chemical structure and count the exact amount present.

You get interesting information from this table that compares the levels of various cytokines detected in the CSF from autistic versus controls.

Picture9

We can clearly see very high levels of cytokines known to promote inflammation (such as IFN-gamma, MCP-1) but there are also other cytokines known to promote BBB leakage (VEGF) and other cytokines with a biological function that remains unclear (TGF-beta2, FGF-9). This is some serious study that is supported by another research group, as published by Croen and colleagues (http://www.jneuroinflammation.com/content/11/1/113).

These studies tell us that there is an inflammatory component in a certain form of autism, with experimental data that are robust and reliable. Yet, these studies is not telling us autism is caused by inflammation or if autism causes brain inflammation. Furthermore, this study do not tell us if AH causes autism or if vaccines causes autism. However, by citing such articles at the end of this tortuous and fallacious pseudo demonstration, the authors want us to follow in the following fallacy: “Vaccines contains aluminum. Aluminum induces inflammation and get swallowed by macrophages. Macrophages causes brain inflammation. Inflammation is causing autism. Therefore vaccines causes autism”. You can see that such construction is invalid, flawed and completely irrational. Correlation IS NOT causation.

[ADDED SECTION] 7. Aluminum, the blood-brain barrier and neurotoxicity

As I have mentioned, the claim that macrophages loaded with aluminum leave the injection site and migrate to the brain via the lymphatic system and enter the brain via the BBB is unfounded and not back by science. Does it mean that aluminum does not cross the BBB?
The answer is no, aluminum can cross the BBB and therefore exert a neurotoxicity. This is why the presence of aluminum from external sources such as TPN bags can be problematic for patients that have either immature kidneys (premature newborns) or present some kidney malfunction (kidney failure, patients needing dialysis).
If I have to cite an expert in aluminum and neurotoxicity, the name of Pr. Robert Yokel (University of Kentucky) comes in mind (http://pharmacy.uky.edu/faculty/ryokel/Robert-Yokel). He has an impressive track-record in terms of peer-reviewed articles (145 publications) and other documentations. You can find his studies in Pubmed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=aluminum+yokel)
Aluminum can enter the BBB via various mechanisms. Because aluminum is an ion, it cannot diffuse through the BBB per se, it requires the use of carriers to piggyback on. According to a study by Yokel and colleagues, the monocarboxylate transporter 1 (MCT1) might be one of these carrier (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9699794).
Another study speculate the possible use of zinc-transporter (ZnT) as Song and colleagues (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18786610) described a protective effect of zinc on aluminum-induced disruption of the BBB following co-administration with zinc. We can speculate a possible competition between Zn and Al for the uptake at the BBB or we can speculate a competition for the site of action. Keep in mind that such study noted a disruption of the BBB following intraperitoneal (IP route, considered similar to IV route in terms of pharmakonetics) injection that were 5 and 10mg/kg, a value 1000x and 2000x higher than the value considered by the FDA to display neurotoxic effects (5microg/kg/day).
Another name that comes in the aluminum and neurotoxicity is the name of Chris Exley from Keele University (Staffordshire, UK, you can see his profile here: https://www.keele.ac.uk/aluminium/groupmembers/chrisexley/).  He has a legitimate expertise in alumium research in chemistry, but his positions and claims on aluminum neurotoxicity are not very accurate (the link between Al and Alzheimer’s Disease is mostly based on a case report from occupational exposure: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24513181), fallacious (calling on the risk of aluminum as adjuvants in vaccines without providing direct evidence for the claims: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11013089?via%3Dihub), if not simply borderline conspiracy theory (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25386158).
One of the most fascinating yet skeptical claim is the ability of silicon-rich water to “clear out the brain from aluminum”, according to his clinical trial  published in 2013 (http://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad121231) and promoted by “woo” website and UK tabloid (in his case, The Daily Mail) as here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4320406/Silicon-rich-mineral-water-new-healthy-have.html), citing brands like Fiji water and Volvic (French mineral water)
I don’t know what he calls “silicon-rich water” (in other words, silicium dioxide (SiO2) the same chemical that make sand and your electronic chips) but I am highly skeptical how this highly polarized molecule can cross the GI barrier and the BBB, trap the Al inside the brain and clear it out.
To refute his claim, I would use the data from a study by Che and colleagues that looked at the effect of chronic exposure (13-weeks) to various dioxide via oral administration in rats (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3125/abstract;jsessionid=57E87335BDC127B06DAB5E9DAE7BF815.f04t01).
One figure worth a thousand words, the one about brain distribution of SiO2 in the brain of males and females. Brain_SiO2

Note the dose given (mg/kg) and the dose measured in the brain (ug/g). Even by literary eating silicon (245mg/kg/day), only a bare fraction make it inside the brain (0.28% to be precise). But foremost, even at the highest amount (almost 1g/L), there is no difference between the background noise (see the control values). I would be curious how does the silicon contained in Fiji water (95mg/L) and Volvic (32mg/L) will show higher SiO2 levels when concentration 2 to 7 fold higher cannot do better than background noise. Should we assume Exley is profiteering from Big Mineral Water?

[ADDED SECTION] 8. Aluminum and infants: my comments on the “Dorea” papers

I have some comments claiming the toxicity of aluminum from vaccines, using the publications of Jose G. Dorea (Department of Nutritional Sciences, Universidade de Brasilia, Brazil). You can find his publication on that topic on Pubmed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=aluminum+dorea).
His research can be interesting because of the issue of soil contamination of Amazonian soil with heavy metals (lead, methylmercury, aluminum….), but also is flagged by his claims that aluminum and mercury contained in vaccines is responsible for such effects.
For example, I refute his claims that aluminum and mercury contained in vaccines are providing much higher levels than breastmilk from his 2009 paper because his claims are based on a flaw in data interpretations (http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v20/n7/full/jes200964a.html?foxtrotcallback=true).
First, his claims are based on values published, not from experimental data. Therefore, he never provide experimental data for his claims and we are just speculating. Second,  in the only figure of his paper, he assumes the bioavailability factor for the absorption of breastmilk but completely went south on the bioavailability of vaccines following IM or SC injection (see Figure below). If we assume the calculated bioavailability of the Flarend paper (~0.5%), then the graph looks much less impressive and completely destroy his claims. There is a big difference between 100% and 0.5% bioavailability, 200x  difference.
Thats enough to bring aluminum from detectable range to potential toxic range.

jes200964f1

We can go the same way with his other papers, they suffer the same methodological flaws: they all assume the toxic effect of Al and Hg based on hypothetical values and poor correlation, comments to studies that have nothing to do with the data presented in that study (the classical “whataboutism” and gaining one citation in Pubmed on the way, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21664460). When the few times he published a paper with experimental data, he dismiss such data because it simply does not fit to his narrative. One of them is about measuring Al in infants hair, with the idea that infants who got immunized will show much higher accumulated Al levels than those not-vaccinated. Of course, the amount of Al from vaccines is marginal from Al from dietary exposure and resulted in no statistical differences. He was unhappy enough to conclude that this technique is not reliable enough. It is like trying to find patterns and hidden images in the static of an old TV (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24183841).
In conclusion, I would definitely recommend not to take the Dorea’s papers as the gospel and strongly recommend anyone that has enough critical thinking and statistic literacy  to not suffice with the abstract and dig in to re-analyze the data to sort the scientifically correct from the misinterpretations. There are some nuggets of interesting data in his publications but also a lot of speculations and wrong conclusions.

 

  1. Concluding remarks

In this article, we investigated, analyzed and criticized the blog post that questioned the safety of aluminum in vaccines, with an ending clearly pointed to associate autism with vaccines. The same logic can be applied to thiomersal, an adjuvant containing mercury and initially cited as a causative agent of autism following MMR study in the Wakefield study. [Correction: One reader noted the inaccuracy of this claim and I make an apology for this mistake. The retracted Wakefield paper made an association between children displaying autistic traits with MMR vaccinations (see Table 2). However, the origin (manufacturer) of such MMR vaccines was not reported and therefore such study could not pinpoint which agent contained in those vaccines was the cause of such condition. Neither such study mentioned which MMR vaccines contained thiomersal. End of correction]. Of course, the Wakefield study scientific fraud has been raised and resulted in the retraction of it. Thiomersal has been removed but anti-vaccinationists now turn to another component: aluminum hydroxide, despite the clear evidence of no association between autism and vaccines (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367).

Early on, we demonstrated the confusion brought by the authors. The author creates confusion by introducing the terms “aluminum adjuvants nanoparticles”. There is two class of aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines: aluminum hydroxide (AH) and aluminum phosphate.  For the clarity of this article we focused on the AH nanoparticles. Unlike some websites making claims without providing any source for primary literature to support their claim, we indeed observed a smart strategic move from the author to use primary literature as sources but never showing the real data or discussing the main information coming from these studies. I call such move as a “hijack” method in which a legitimate study is used as a decoy making the claims supported by scientific evidence. A neophyte will accept this claim for granted but a more scientifically alert person will access the primary source to ensure what have been claimed on the website is in agreement with the original study. This strategy has been applied by pseudoscience websites such as “Natural-News” or “Collective-Evolution” that will have legitimate references listed to make their claims appear credible.

Another fraud observed in this post is the obvious copyright infringement by hosting and embedding PDF files of manuscripts published under conventional editorial processes. Unlike open-access journals, conventional journals requires the subscription to access their article databases. As a scientist, once my manuscript is accepted by a journal for publication, I have to secede my author’s rights to the journal. I can share the link to the abstract of my studies. If I put the PDF of the journal article on my website, freely available, I am violating the journal copyrights (you can see the copyrights information here: http://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright).

However, if my studies have been funded with federal research grants (from the National Institute of Health), then my papers will be freely available through Pubmed Central after 12 months of publication embargo (I have linked to the PMC versions whenever it was possible).

Finally, we also found the few articles that were directly supporting the author claim were also the ones with questionable origin, flawed experimental setup if not suspicion of blatant scientific misconduct, even after undergoing a peer-review process.

The peer-review process has been initially designed to use the expertise of scientists to filter studies with an adequate methodology and results from those with a poor or questionable methodology. However such method is not perfect and have been subject to criticism. Even a fair and genuine peer-review in journals with the highest impact factor (Nature, Science) may fail to detect the presence of data manipulation and fabrication. If you are interested to follow on paper retraction, an excellent website to consult is Retraction Watch:http://retractionwatch.com.

We rightfully questioned several publications, all coming from two groups. An important criteria for robust scientific discovery is the ability to reproduce similar results in different laboratories, but also having such publications being reviewed in journals harboring an editorial board capable to assess the quality of your research. As a BBB researcher, trying to publish my research inside a plant biology journal may not give me the best peer-review.

Finally, statistics and certainty in science. Scientific method starts with a question (hypothesis), the design of an experiment and the subsequent outcome of such results and eventually the share of such results by publication into peer-reviewed journals. Once peer-reviewed anyone can ask to reproduce your data in their lab settings. A single study is not sufficient to qualify a phenomenon as a fact. When you have the same phenomenon that has been published a number of times by different groups and most of them show a similar outcome, we can call about a consensus. If this consensus rely on thousands of experiments that predict the same outcome each time, we can consider it robust enough to set as a theory.

In our study, we presented evidence that the additional aluminum due to vaccines injection is negligible and non-distinct from our daily exposure (food), an allergic reaction to vaccines is possible but affect so far only 1 individual per 100’000. Therefore, these individual will have a greater chance to develop such condition following massive public health campaign (for instance, France had a massive Hepatitis B vaccine campaign in 1994, which was marked by  the first report of myofasciitis).

Based on the current literature, there is no evidence that AH incorporate into macrophages, such macrophages cannot enter the healthy BBB and therefore the neurotoxic effects of aluminum due to vaccines is unproven. The house of cards built by the authors just crumbled under an intense and scientific scrutiny.

In my final words, I would say to anyone trying to argue with conspiracy theorists is the same than with wrestling with a pig: you will end up exhausted, covered with mud and the pig will feel happy.

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “[Sciences/Junk Sciences/BBB] Aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and the blood-brain barrier. Removing the facts from the fiction, the good science from the junk science.

  1. Do you have any pointers on aluminum phosphate? It appears to be initially cleared at a higher rate in than aluminum hydroxide and makes alternative Al species at a slower rate (the Al rods and other agglomerates that appear inside macrophages).

    Like

    • Good Q you raise here. Indeed there is little about Aluminum Phosphate. Again nobody directly looked at Aluminum Phosphate or Hydroxide with a decent peer-reviewed paper, most of the study I have found have looked at the aluminum chloride that has a much more different physicochemical properties.
      Flarend looked at both adjuvant (hydroxide versus phosphate) and I have to look at the paper to see how the PK profile look like. It is behind paywall but here is the direct link.
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X97000418?via%3Dihub

      Like

  2. It looks like there’s still so much work to be done in regards to safety studies on injecting aluminum hydroxide (AH) and aluminum phosphate.

    But really, is it fair to label someone anti-vaccine if they do not want a product containing AH or AP to be injected into them?

    Like

    • Hi Nathan, thank you very much for your message. You see, I disagree with your claim that there is no safety studies on AH and AP as adjuvants.
      We have been using these adjuvants for over 50 years, with a safety reports back from the 1970s classifying them as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe). If there were a problem with aluminum safety, than it would have been already identified through epidemiological data.
      I would not call someone anti vaccine just because he or she does not want to have vaccines containing AH or AP, but this non-willingness to have such adjuvants in their vaccines is certainly not driven by a rationale but by misconception and fear. This can be alleviated by explaining the purpose of these, the current science of it and also dispel myths and fallacies. 99% of those arguing that AH and AP present safety issues are even based on studies that are weak, badly designed or even sometimes simply based on fallacious arguments.
      Fear and science illiteracy should not be roadblocks for refusing a vaccination.

      Like

      • > Fear and science illiteracy should not be roadblocks for refusing a vaccination.

        I understand what you mean there but if you step back look at vaccines as a product from a consumer point of view, aren’t they sold through fear in the first place? I just received an sms recently from the medical center “Influenza could be deadly. Get your affordable flu shot NOW”.

        What do you think of Polysorbate 80 as a component in vaccines?
        Are there any concerns regarding the effects of polysorbate 80 coating/binding with AH, AP or any other vaccine components that can potentially assist in crossing the BBB?

        Like

      • Polysorbate 80 is an emulsifier, it helps to dissolve lipid soluble compounds into aqueous solutions. To give you a practical analogy, think about dishwashing soap: it helps to clean the grease off your dishes and have them drained with the waste water. Its use in vaccines is mostly associated with the solubilization and stability of some hydrophobic antigens or lipid-soluble compounds. It seems DTaP vaccines are the one containing polysorbate. I assume it helps to stabilize the diphteria toxoid. Since AH, AP are water-soluble they would little or no interactions with the polysorbate.
        For polysorbate and BBB, there are some studies out there trying to use it as a carrier (think about a Trojan horse) to deliver medicines across the blood-brain barrier. It is right now the gold rush on finding the best carrier, the best vector in drug delivery across the BBB (because it remains very hard to have anything crossed) and polysorbate 8o is one of these potential candidates to deliver medicine across.

        Like

  3. First of all I hate your white text black background. Second, allow me to debunk this unscientific nonsense. Here we go:
    “ For instance polio was a devastating disease over 70 years ago and we have zero number of cases reported. “
    ^How does this prove that engineering and water sanitation don’t also prevent polio?
    ____________________________________
    Here’s what you said:
    “Aluminum (symbol element “Al”) constitutes a particular potent class of adjuvant and have shown to have a potent stimulatory effect on the immune response for over 50 years with no particular side effects or increased risk observed (for review)”
    http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200476a.html#bib1
    This is a wholeheartedly false statement. Al adjuvant has been linked to ASIA, immune disorders, and allergies in humans, as well as motor neuron death and precursors to Alzheimers in mice.
    Here is what the paper (which is not experimental data, lol) says:
    “The major source of this aluminium is apparently oral intake with food and drinking water. Martyn et al.74, based on a study in Britain, calculated the average daily intake of aluminium by humans to be 5–10 mg. Individuals with normal renal functions would excrete this aluminium uptake with the urine.”
    ^^so far this has nothing to do with injection of aluminum into infants.
    ‘ It is of interest that following injection of adjuvant containing 0.85 mg Al the normal plasma concentration of Al in rabbits (30 ng Al ml-1) only rose approximately 2 ng Al ml-1 during the experiment… Based on these figures it appears unlikely that the amount of aluminium administered via vaccination would contribute significantly to the general exposure of humans to aluminium or to the serum levels of aluminium.”
    ^Okay. Whatabout the concentration in the brain and soft tissues? Whatabout after 28 days? How much is left in the body? From this paper in journal of toxicology (high impact value, not cherrypicked): “Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity”
    Full paper: http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Non-linear-dose-response-of-aluminium-hydroxide-adjuvant-particles-Selective-low-dose-neurotoxicity.pdf
    ‘Concerns about [aluminum adjuvant] safety emerged following recognition of its unexpectedly long-lasting biopersistence within immune cells in some individuals, and reports of chronic fatigue syndrome, cognitive dysfunction, myalgia, dysautonomia and autoimmune/inflammatory features temporally linked to multiple Al-containing vaccine administrations. Mouse experiments have documented its capture and slow transportation by monocyte-lineage cells from the injected muscle to lymphoid organs and eventually the brain”
    ^^Okay, unexpectedly long lasting biopersistence.. yet nature cites Flarend, a far less comprehensive 28 day study and only discusses plasma/serum levels. Lol. And your statement is contradicted by these researchers in this reputable, high impact journal and peer reviewed study. So. I believe them. Sorry.
    Your statement:
    “We can reasonably speculate that living organisms have been growing in an aluminum-rich environment since LUCA (last unicellular common ancestor) and therefore have adopted evolutionary traits to cope with such exposure to aluminum on the surface of Earth’s crust.”
    ^once again, nothing to do with injecting infants with aluminum. No one is saying humans don’t have a tolerance to aluminum ingestion. This is a straw man argument by you. Again.
    Okay you’re moving back to Flarend again. This is a 28 day study. It is based on one single vaccine. After 28 days, 94% and 78% of Al hydroxide and Al phosphate, respectively, remained in the rabbits. If anything, this is damning for the vaccine industry. And let’s see what you have to say about it.
    “Aluminum has a long half-life (time to eliminate 50% of a compound from your body), as it is estimated around 100 days.”
    ^^YOU LITERALLY ARE DISCUSSING A FUCKING PAPER THAT SHOWS ALIMINUM IS NOT ELIMINATED IN 100 DAYS!!! LOL!!! Okay sorry.. I just.. lol. I just … wtf!!? Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement? After 28 days 94% of ALOH remained.
    Okay next thing you say “In a review published in 2007 by Krewski and colleagues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/), non-occupational exposure to aluminum is mostly driven by food consumption, with a daily intake of 8.6 and 7.2mg/day for males and females respectively.”
    ^^ You are talking about consumption, not injection. *sigh* common theme here. Straw man.

    Anyway, I am officially bored. Seems like you should revise this .. response to vaccinepapers. I agree with some of your analysis, but most of the time it’s the same dumb straw man pharma doctor arguments I’ve heard 1 million times. Not convincing. You did not post a single experimental study that purports al adjuvant safety. You waste a lot of time discussing Flarend which is inadequate because it’s a 28 day study that does not look at the effects of the accumulation / neurotoxicity of al adjuvant. Furthermore, your analysis of Flarend is inadequate because, as stated, 94% of the ALOH3 is still In the body after 28 days. Flarend is a study on 1 vaccine and 2 rabbits. You cannot use this as a safety study for ALOH3 as you keep attempting to do.

    Like

    • Dear John thank you for your comment.
      First, the choice of font is personal is my taste. It maybe not the best for you in your opinion, but consider it maybe worst, I could have used some weird color combinations.
      I will bring this clearly and sharp, your argument that hygiene was responsible for polio eradication is simply wrong. Why?
      Here are my counter-arguments:
      1) The hygienist movement started in the late 19th century and early 20th century and suppose access to clean water and sewage system. Yet, the US experienced one of the worst polio outbreak before the introduction of Salk vaccine. The introduction of Salk vaccine was capable to eliminate in less than 10 years what over 50 years of public health policy could not achieve.
      2) If hygienist measure was enough to eliminate polio, then it would have follow the same trend than cholera (Vibrio cholerae) outbreak. Both infectious agents are transmitted via fecal-oral contamination (usually from water contaminated by exposure to fecal matter). Cholera is always the first thing to come during a disaster when the sanitation system is lost. The last cholera outbreak in the US was reported in 1910-1911. Polio kept coming each summer until the vaccine got introduced. So why the engineering and sanitation worked to wipe cholera did not for polio?
      3) The most notable example of how sanitation has nothing to do with polio? Look at India. India is certified polio-free since 2014. Yet India suffer from a major problem: the lack of toilets. Over 50% of Indian household lack the presence of a toilet system.
      I am not gonna keep debunking the rest of it because you admit you are bored.
      Sincerely.

      Like

  4. I’ve enjoyed reading your page about aluminium. It’s very nformative. Recently I’ve noticed that a lot of anti-vaxxers seem to be switching tactics with aluminium and talking about how it causes Alzheimer’s Disease (in vaccine discussions, so still sticking with the “ooohh scary” method). I’m not sure how to respond to this – I’ve tried reading about it and have got confused. The papers seem to say that Al doesn’t cause Alzheimer’s (AD), but is elevated in patients, forms cross links in Tau proteins (apparently these proteins do get cross linked in AD), and causes tangling in the brain when injected into rabbits. I don’t know enough about AD or how Al interacts with proteins to be able to discuss it. It just feels suspect that it’s being raised in vaccine discussions (especially as I’ve come across papers making similar suggestions about AD and zinc and copper, but never a mention in vaccine discussions – probably because these aren’t used as adjuvants) – why mention a disease of old age in a discussion of childhood vaccines if not to try and frighten people?

    If you ever do an update to this page, any chance you could do a paragraph on Alzheimer’s and aluminium?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for your message. The link between Alzheimers and Aluminum? Well thats a very complicated story to start with lots of low-profile studies with extreme different methods trying to link AD and aluminum. Until now, the etiology of the disease is still debated (between the Abeta team and tau hyperphosphorylation team) with at the end none that was able to break through Phase III clinical trials. In my latest (and limited knowledge), the latest clinical trial was capable to decrease Abeta plaques in patients but failed to stop the cognitive decline (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-h-lundbeck-study-idUSKCN11S2B6).
      The only think that I would say about the AD and aluminum is a possible increased risk of AD and chronic exposure to aluminum (likely by occupational exposure), according to this meta-analysis. Again, in this case we can speculate that such exposure maybe driven via the intranasal route, we cannot exclude that elemental aluminum particles maybe able to cross the nasal epithelium and reach the CNS by the olfactory bulb. But thats remains to be demonstrated by some robust studies.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26592479
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26247643

      Like

  5. Hi!

    Great writeup, but I must admit that I printed it and read it as I have an intense dislike for white on black 🙂 One additional comment and a question: While I certainly agree that Aluminium as an adjuvant probably is safe, one should be aware that it does have one irritating (no pun intended) side-effect. Studies in Sweden point to that approx 1% of those vaccinated with certain vaccines develop vaccination granulomas or an itch on the injection site. Of those approx 95% develop allegy to aluminium (PMID: 24752308 DOI: 10.1007/s00431-014-2318-2). This makes it a fairly common side-effect. My question pertains to the bioavailability of aluminium. As I understand are the mechanisms behind those granulomas and the theory of Al and autism/alzheimer completely different. The latter assumes that Al is transported in large quantities via the blood to the brain, but those granulomas are a reaction to an subcutaneous accumulation of Al at the injection site. Right?

    Like

    • Interesting point, I am trying to get access to this article but there are some points to consider:
      1. If this is a complication due to aluminum-based vaccines, then we should have case reports in other geographical locations. I will check on Pubmed.
      2. Trollfors have several papers investigating aluminum allergies following immunization, and recently commented in a review about vaccines adjuvants. What is interesting is that most of his references are referencing his work (that is nice but would be better if he provided any other references documenting the same type of phenomena). He also acknowledge that this allergic reaction seems to wane over time.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5214894/
      3. Does granuloma share the same features than the aluminum-induced macrophage myofascitis, the famous “zebra” condition reported almost solely by Gherardi? He reported high numbers of cases in France in the mid-90s then suddenly dropped. Until now, this condition is as French as the Minitel. Could it be his “Al-induced granuloma” cases be a very rare complication restricted in a very subset of the Swedish population.
      4. If this Al-induced granuloma occurs, it would interesting to follow on allergy cases in people that undergone some tattoo procedure.
      A very interesting concern you raised and definitely worth a review of the literature in that regards.

      Like

      • True. Trollfors/Bergfors have researched this extensively, but there are other studies as well. I also found lots of articles describing the phenomenon in dogs 🙂 It is also true that it seems to wane over time. It is also completely possible that many cases are simply not reported as they are regarded as mild. As for #3, #4, I do not have the knowledge, but I can speculate: In my view the Al stays under the skin and seeps out slowly. In my view is it unlikely that it would enter the bloodstream in any large concentrations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yep, thats the point made by Flarends paper. We know Al hydroxide is not dissolving well at physiological pH. If we consider a zero-order reaction and an equilibrium reaction, then the Al as Al3+ get dissolved and reach the bloodstream, pushing the equilibrium towards complete dissolution over time. However it is slow, very slow. If we rely on Flarends data, the bioavailability (we can simplify it as the amount in bloodstream divided by the amount injected) found about 17% of injected Al particles reached the bloodstream by 28 days. Thats about 0.6% daily (if we consider a constant dissolution rate) and that explains the claim on Yokel’s review that Al will be ultimately 100% bioavailable. Thus it takes about 166 days to completely clear out this aluminum. So a very very slow release of Al. If we consider a initial amount of 1mg of Al injected, thats about 6microg that reach the bloodstream each day. We also have to consider the renal clearance into account, which is about 12.2+/-8.5microg/day. Unless you have an impaired renal function and have total parenteral nutrition (feed by IV line, in which there is a maximum recommended concentration 25microg/L), there is nothing to worry about.

        Like

  6. Pingback: Rebuttal to the "BBB Scientist" vaccinepapers.org

  7. I have published a rebuttal to ScientistAbe’s article: http://vaccinepapers.org/4816-2/

    An important section of the rebuttal includes a list of citations supporting the fact that macrophages travel into the brain in response to inflammation (MCP-1 specifically), and that macrophages can transport substances into the brain. It is copied below. Of course, the rebuttal includes many other arguments and citations, as well.

    ScientistAbe, I encourage you to address this material.

    From the rebuttal:

    Vargas 2005 states the following about MCP-1 in autism:
    “The presence of MCP-1 is of particular interest, because it facilitates the infiltration and accumulation of monocytes and macrophages in inflammatory central nervous system disease.”
    AND
    “MCP-1, a chemokine involved in innate immune reactions and important mediator for monocyte and T-cell activation and trafficking into areas of tissue injury, appeared to be one of the most relevant proteins found in cytokine protein array studies because it was significantly elevated in both brain tissues and cerebrospinal fluid.”
    AND
    “The increased expression of MCP-1 has relevance to the pathogenesis of autism because we believe its elevation in the brain is linked to microglial activation and perhaps to the recruitment of monocytes/macrophages to areas of neurodegeneration…”

    Tong et al., 2016: Monocyte Trafficking, Engraftment, and Delivery of Nanoparticles and an Exogenous Gene into the Acutely Inflamed Brain Tissue This study is particularly relevant because it showed that immune activation by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) simulated the movement of macrophages into the brain, and that the macrophages can be used to transport nanoparticles into the brain.
    QUOTE: “This study was designed to fully establish an optimized cell-based delivery system using monocytes and monocyte-derived macrophages, by evaluating their homing efficiency, engraftment potential, as well as carriage and delivery ability to transport nano-scaled particles and exogenous genes into the brain…”
    QUOTE: “…recruitment of circulating monocytes to the diseased sites within the CNS were evident in numerous neurological disorders [6, 14–17]. Therefore, the use of monocytes and monocyte-derived macrophages for precise therapeutics delivery still holds great promises for combating many CNS disorders…“

    Brynskikh et al, 2010: Macrophage Delivery of Therapeutic Nanozymes in a Murine Model of Parkinsons Disease This paper demonstrated that macrophages can be used to deliver drugs into the brain in parkinsons disease.
    QUOTE: “…we suggest the utilization of these cells [macrophages] as carriers of therapeutic formulations due to their ability to efficiently engulf particles, penetrate the BBB, and reach the site of neuropathology.”

    Mello et al, 2009: http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Cerebral-microglia-recruit-monocytes.pdf
    QUOTE: “In conclusion, we have observed that in the setting of peripheral organ-centered inflammation there is a directed recruitment of activated monocytes into the central nervous system, which occurs as a result of an initial activation of cerebral microglia to produce MCP-1/ CCL2.” (Mello et al use “monocyte” in the broad sense, including macrophages). An important aspect of this paper is that it shows that mere inflammation-without brain injury- is sufficient to induce monocyte movement into the brain.

    Choi et al, 2012: Delivery of nanoparticles to brain metastases of breast cancer using a cellular Trojan Horse
    QUOTE: “More than two decades ago, Fidler and colleagues provided evidence that macrophages of blood monocyte origin can infiltrate experimental brain metastases while the blood–brain barrier is intact (Schackert et al. 1988).”
    QUOTE: “The use of monocyte/macrophages as delivery vehicles to the central nervous system has been investigated in situations other than malignancy. Afergan et al. demonstrated the delivery of serotonin to the brain by monocytes, which had phagocytosed nano-liposomes containing this otherwise brain impermeant drug (Afergan et al. 2008). Dou and colleagues utilized bone marrow derived macrophages as carriers of and depots for antiretroviral drugs to treat and attenuate the symptoms of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (Dou et al. 2009). Therefore, we hypothesized that nanoparticle-laden monocytes/macrophages would home in to intracranial metastatic deposits by crossing the blood–brain barrier following injection into the systemic circulation.”

    Batrakova et al, 2011: Cell-Mediated Drug Delivery This is a review paper on using immune cells for delivering drugs to tissues and organs (like the brain) that are normally protected.
    QUOTE: “This paper reviews how immunocytes laden with drugs can cross the blood brain or blood tumor barriers, to facilitate treatments for infectious diseases, injury, cancer, or inflammatory diseases.”
    QUOTE: “Immunocytes and stem cells exhibit an intrinsic homing property enabling them to migrate to sites of injury, inflammation, and tumor. In addition, they can act as Trojan horses carrying concealed drug cargoes while migrating across impermeable barriers (for example, the blood brain or blood tumor barriers) to sites of disease.”
    QUOTE: “Immunocytes (including mononuclear phagocytes (dendritic cells, monocytes and macrophages), neutrophils, and lymphocytes) are highly mobile; they can migrate across impermeable barriers and release their drug cargo at sites of infection or tissue injury.”

    Pang et al 2016: Exploiting Macrophages as targeted Carrier to Guide nanoparticles into Glioma / This paper describes an experiment using macrophages to transport nanoparticles into the brain, for treating brain cancers (glioma).
    QUOTE: “As with other inflammatory responses, inflammation in the brain is also characterized by extensive leukocytes infiltration into brain tissue by cell diapedesis and chemotaxis [12–14]. Brynskikh et al. utilized macrophage as a drug vehicle to improve the delivery of redox enzymes into the brain for neuroprotection of dopaminergic neurons in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease. Therapeutic efficacy of macrophages loaded with nanozyme was confirmed by twofold reductions in microgliosis and twofold increase in tyrosine hydroxylase-expressing dopaminergic neurons [15].”
    QUOTE: “Inspired by these understandings, a novel strategy utilizing macrophage as a carrier to migrate across the BBB, BBTB and home into tumor sites is conceived. Importantly, macrophages are able to carry drugs into brain tumor…”

    Finally, Crepeaux 2017 measured aluminum content in the brain 6 months after Al adjuvant injections. The results prove that the aluminum adjuvant winds up the brain.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Stop writing insults. I read the papers. They are relevant. They are all related and consistent, hence they are not a gish gallop. You misuse that term.

        Like

    • Vargas et al. 2005 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.20315/epdf).
      It is an old paper but still interesting because they provide some indication of neuroinflammation component into certain forms of ASD, that has been more recently highlighted as a possible complication to pregnancy. The hypothesis that a viral, bacterial or parasitic infection contracted during pregnancy may trigger ASD in utero. A recent review by Patterson worth the read on that (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21482187). They did a pretty good job at showing up signs of microglial activation and presence of reactive astrocytes and they also show evidence of increased cytokines.
      This paper shows that there is a link between autism and neuroinflammation but stretching it that this was caused to vaccines is an overstatement. We also have to be careful in dealing with data when shown as mean+/-SEM as we cannot properly assess the statistics based on this (thus the push for journals to show data as Mean+SD).

      Like

      • Vargas 2005 by itself does not establish a link to vaccines. Thats what the other papers are for, including the experimental work with Al adjuvant, like Crepeaux 2017 (see link below), which reported that vaccine-relevant dosages induced microglial activation.

        I cited Vargas 2005 because it stated that high MCP-1 in the brain was a notable finding in autism, and that the high MCP-1 suggests high trafficking of monocytes/macrophages into the brain in autism.

        http://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-causes-brain-inflammation-behavioral-disorders/

        Like

      • What is interesting is the authors cited MCP-1 as a major chemokine upregulated in the CSF samples but did not mentioned much on IFN-gamma (that is a much more interesting pro-inflammatory cytokine well-known for neuroinflammation) and VEGF (a well-known angiogenic factor and potent BBB disruptor). MCP-1 levels were about 9-12 folds, whereas IFN-gamma was in the range of 200 fold and VEGF 81-fold increase compared to control.
        They were not too much verbose on that and thats a shame.
        If you look at a recent meta-analysis, IL-1beta (the classical pro-inflammatory IL) topped all of them (according to the p-value), followed by IL-6 (also known to have an contribution in neuroinflammation), IL-8, eotaxin and finally MCP-1. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24934179). Since this paper is old (12 years) it is important to also see what the most recent literature said on that regards.
        If you weight all the studies included in the meta-analysis, then the contribution of cytokines is mild, there is a trend but not. There is also a gender-effect as the effect was more sustained in males versus mixed group.

        Like

      • Also see this paper, which reported that MCP-1 is elevated in serum of neonates later diagnosed with autism.

        QUOTE: “We found elevated levels of MCP-1 and decreased levels of RANTES in the newborn blood of children subsequently diagnosed with ASD. ”

        Of course, this implies that the infants later diagnosed with autism, because they have elevated MCP-1, will experience higher transport of Al adjuvant particles into the brain.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4080514/

        Like

      • I have one question, a very important one. Do you ever read the papers you throw at me?
        This is the methods section: “Neonatal blood specimens were retrieved from the new- born screening specimen archives maintained by the California Department of Public Health. The neonatal spe- cimen archive contains dried bloodspots collected for screening purposes on nearly every infant born in California (approximately 500,000 per year) since 1980. All newborn blood specimens for children included in this study were obtained by the heel-stick method, usually within 24 to 48 hours of birth.”. So you want to tell me they were vaccinated right after being born?
        This is crucial because the data points out the presence of pro-inflammatory markers right after births (<48 hours) as pointed in the discussion.
        "Children with ASD were more likely to have increased levels of MCP-1 and decreased levels of RANTES in newborn bloodspots compared to GP controls. Children with DD had decreased levels of MIP-1α and RANTES compared to GP controls."
        I conclude that you are keeping on gish galloping, but you also fail to recognize that you don't go through the papers per se. You cherry-pick sentences that fits to your narrative and when I am contradicting my claims based on the actual data you simply ditch as not important.

        Like

      • yes I have read all these papers.

        Citing numerous papers that are on-topic and consistent is not gish galloping. Again you misuse the term.

        The sentence I quoted is the first sentence in the CONCLUSIONS section.

        before you go throwing more insults around, you should make sure you are getting things correct, so you dont look like a fool.

        “So you want to tell me they were vaccinated right after being born?”

        They likely were vaccinated immediately after being born (with Hep B vaccine), since they were born in 2000 and 2001. The Hepatitis B vaccine (which contains Al adjuvant) was recommended at birth by the CDC in 2000 and 2001. See the methods section:

        “We conducted a population-based case-control study nested within the cohort of infants born from July 2000 to September 2001 to women who participated in the prenatal screening program in Orange County, California, USA. ”

        The section you quote concerns the TOTAL database of samples, which extends back to 1980. But only a subset from 2000-2001 was used for this study. But thats irrelevant anyway, because…

        There are two possibilities: 1) the to-become-autistic infants had elevated MCP-1 in response to the Hep B vaccine, or 2) the to-become-autistic infants had higher MCP-1 for reasons other than the Hep B given at birth.

        In either case, its stands to reason that the high-MCP-1 infants will experience higher brain translocation of Al adjuvant than infants with lower values of MCP-1.

        Like

    • So for the Tong one, you are probably referring to this paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4846033/)
      So here is the thing about. Figure 1, they injected these monocytes and monocyte-derived macrophages (referred as MDM) into mice treated with LPS via intracerebral injection (they used a stereotaxis table and injected into the right hemisphere). LPS is a lipopolysaccharide that has a very potent neuroinflammation induction ability. They have primed these mice into developing a neuroinflammatory state before injecting these MDM (via IV route). This is an important point to note because you need an endothelial cell activation at the BBB to allow leukocytes-endothelial interactions to happen. No neuroinflammation, no endothelial activation, no leukocytes infiltration inside the brain. Very important point to note. You need neuroinflammation, not a peripheral one to trigger that reaction.
      You have to also note they have injected some bat-shit crazy amount of BK (200microg/mice that about 200microg/mL or 200microM, about 200x the amount needed to see a vasoreactivity) or mannitol (known to open the BBB via osmotic shock).

      Like

      • Your point about brain injection of LPS does not change the conclusions or implications. Tong induced inflammation in the brain, and this caused macrophage transport into the brain.

        Mello 2009 used peripheral inflammation to induce monocyte transport into the brain.

        Inflammation in the brain OR peripheral will induce transport into the brain.

        Vaccines can do both. And aluminum adjuvant can induce inflammation in the brain.

        Like

      • Do you have any further comments regarding my rebuttal? You are welcome to comment further in the disqus thread at vaccinepapers.org

        I believe a number of the arguments in your article have been shown to be wrong. Specifically, these arguments are wrong:
        1) macrophages do not phagocytose or become loaded with Al adjuvant.
        2) macrophages do not travel into the brain (when inflammation is present).
        3) There is experimental evidence demonstrating the neurological or long term safety of Al adjuvant.
        4) Al adjuvant toxicity can be predicted from models of solubilized Al3+ (released by dissolving Al adjuvant).
        5) Al adjuvant does not cause brain inflammation.
        6) studies shows that vaccines in general-including Al-containing vaccines-are not associated with autism.

        I hope I characterized your arguments accurately in the above list. I always try to avoid making straw man arguments. Please indicate if you do not actually argue any of the above.

        Like

  8. hi ScientistAbe:

    Have you had a chance to read my rebuttal to your article?

    I challenge you to respond to stronger rebuttal points, such as:
    The cittations showing macrophages cross the BBB

    The citations showing macrophages can transport substances/particles into the brain

    The citations showing macrophages phagocytose Al adjuvant

    The fact that Taylor 2014 is irrelevant to the safety of aluminum adjuvant (since it only includes studies of MMR and thimerosal/Hg)

    The lack of safety evidence in the Lindblad 2004 paper you cited for this purpose. The lack of safety evidence in Lindblads citations.

    The distinctions between Al3+ and Al adjuvant particles

    The argument that there is no justification for assuming Al adjuvant toxicity is wholly explained by the released Al3+, and that the particles are biologically inert/nontoxic.

    Like

    • Hi VP, thanks for your message. I have been busy lately with my professional duties. Lets get back to your claims that macrophages/monocytes enter the brain without having a central stimulus using the Mello paper.
      To keep it consistent for the readers, I am putting the URL to the paper you mention it (its the Journal of Neurosciences paper, thats a pretty good journal. Its the official journal of the Society for Neurosciences: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/7/2089.long).
      The model used here is a hepatic bile duct resection (BDR) as well as some KO mice for different immune mediators (but thats for later). First thing first, let it be clear this is a peripheral inflammation model that is primarily aimed to induce an hepatic inflammation (the procedure is a variant of the procedure used in surgery to remove the gallbladder and redirect the hepatobiliary duct straight into the duodenum). Very important because you cannot use this model and claim “this is an inflammation stimulus similar to vaccines”.
      If you look at Figure 1, you clearly see that the sham animals (underwent surgery but no bile duct ligation, thus no hepatic inflammation) have less than 1% of monocytes (CD45+/CD11b+) are found in the brain 10 days after the surgery. The BDR mice have about 6% of monocytes inside the brain. What does it tell me? It tells me that hepatic inflammation (via BDR intervention) induces monocytes infiltration. What does it not tell me? It does not tell that this phenomenon is observed in all peripheral inflammation. Hepatic inflammation is likely not inducing the same response than peripheral inflammation. Then the authors confirmed their observation and tried to understand the factors involved in such response, with MCP-1 and CCL2 being two important signaling molecules.
      Then Figure 7 shows that both microglia cells and monocytes express these two factors, and in Figure 8 they show that microglial cells precede the expression of these inflammatory factors at day 5 of BDR (a timepoint by which monocytes are not inside the brain, you can see that in Fig.8A-B). The infiltration of monocytes (CD45+/CD11b+) is marginal in both sham and BDR mice. However, the number of microglial cells expressing these factors at Day 5 is significantly higher in BDR compared to sham.
      What does it tell us? It tell us that you need an “inside-out” inflammation (brain-to-blood signal) to recruit monocytes. In that case, microglial cells are priming the monocytes infiltration at least by 5 days. What does it not tell us? Which mediator triggers such microglial cell activation.
      We learn about one of the possible mediator in the following figures, with TNF-alpha (a common pro-inflammatory cytokine) being one factor that trigger such microglia inflammation via a TNFR1-dependent pathway (such data is supported by the use of TNFR1 and TNFR2-KO mice).
      In addition the authors show that these monocytes follow the leukocyte-endothelial cell interaction pattern at the BBB as described by Pr. Britta Engelhardt (TKI, University of Bern, Switzerland. She is the expert in the BBB field for anything related to immune cell/BBB interactions), there is one review available on open-access if you are interested to read:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092544391500318X?via%3Dihub#f0010. By blocking alpha4-integrin and P-selectin (two adhesion molecules known as player in leukocytes infiltration) with blocking antibodies, the authors show that they alleviate the inflammation-induced behavioral changes due to the BDR.
      The take-away from this paper (a very robust paper, but hey this is a JNeurosci paper. They have a very tough peer-review process, this is why their paper are well-designed and robust) are the following:
      1) Hepatic inflammation triggers neuroinflammation with monocytes infiltration and ultimately behavioral changes.
      2) This occurs with an inside-out pattern, the neuroinflammation precedes the monocytes infiltration via a TNF-alpha dependent manner.
      3) Recruitment of monocytes appears mediated via a MCP-1/CCL2 dependent-mechanism.

      What this paper IS NOT telling us:
      1) That such response is extrapolable to any peripheral inflammation (this paper however constitutes a nice blueprint for the type of experiments to be done).
      2) That vaccines adjuvants triggers a similar response in terms of inflammation amplitude. The liver is a highly perfused organ that reach the systemic circulation. Liver and pancreas inflammation are known to have some impact on the BBB. In contrast, the immunization procedure results in a more local inflammatory reaction.
      3) That vaccines induce a neuroinflammation. To make this claim valid, you have to show that you have similar outcomes as observed here.

      Until now, you have been making claims and put the burden on me to deconstruct your narrative. I have demonstrated, using your papers cited as evidence, that your claims are unfounded.

      I will leave this post as a final comment and I will let readers make their minds but I will highlight below your argument fallacies:
      1. You have been gosh-galloping me over by throwing papers asking me to rebut your claims without even spending the time to read these papers and provide your conclusions on the data shown in these papers. This is not acceptable.
      2. You are making the claims, thus the burden of proof is on you. You have to deconstruct each papers and claim why they support your claims in which they are not.
      3. You are guilty of using the “post-hoc ergo” fallacy by association. This is a very wrong logical assumption:
      a. Vaccines cause inflammation (local though)
      b. Peripheral inflammation cause monocytes infiltration inside the brain (this is true for a hepatic inflammation in mice, but yet to be demonstrated for others),
      c. Thus c=a+b, vaccines cause monocytes infiltration inside the brain. This is wrong unless you show a study that has the same rigor and quality than such paper.

      I am done with “feeding the troll”. I will let this comment online but I will not respond to further requests on your behalf since you are just playing various argument fallacies instead of leading a real discussion on the papers.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s