“The present results show alteration of behavioral responses and neuro-inflammatory changes in mice as a result of Al and Gardasil vaccine injection in exposure doses which are equivalent to those in vaccinated human subjects. In particular, mice injected with Al and Gardasil spent significantly more time floating in the FST test (measure indicative either of locomotor dysfunction or depressive behavior), compared to control animals (Fig. 1a, b). In contrast, no significant differences were observed in the number of stairs climbed in the staircase test which is a measure of locomotor activity.” (Own emphasis added)

The scientists concluded that in regards to the FST test, the results were unlikely to be due to locomotor dysfunction, but rather due to depression.

If their study is correct, then it would support the findings of Dr. Brogan who concluded that:

“Scientists must acknowledge the limitations of the scientific premise of vaccination and developments in immunology and personalized medicine and concede that vaccines can cause injury and death in an unpredictable manner. Every medical intervention should be evaluated in the context of an individual patient’s belief system around health and in consideration of personal health conditions, including any history of immunecompromise, HPA axis dysfunction, dysbiosis, and familial mitochondropathy. Only then can clinicians begin to practice evidence-based rather than eminence – based medicine, with true informed consent leading a patient and parent-empowered paradigm.”

This is absolutely correct; however, it appears that in some cases, the scientists who are acknowledging the limitations of vaccination are being prevented from publishing their findings due to the unscrupulous behavior of certain individuals.

Paper Withdrawn from Major Journal

According to the The Vaccine Reaction website, the study that was written by Dr. Inbar and his team was unexpectedly withdrawn from the Vaccine journal and replaced with the following statement:

“This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article. Review by the Editor-in-Chief and evaluation by outside experts, confirmed that the methodology is seriously flawed, and the claims that the article makes are unjustified. As an international peer-reviewed journal we believe it is our duty to withdraw the article from further circulation, and to notify the community of this issue.”

Shocked by the journal’s decision, The Vaccine Reaction asked one of the papers authors, Professor Christopher Shaw, to comment on the journal’s unexpected decision to withdraw their paper.

Professor Shaw told reporters that:

“It was peer reviewed, it was accepted with revisions, and it was posted to the website, so all of a sudden we’re not quite sure why they have decided to go back and look at it again.”

The Vaccine Reaction continued:

“According to an article by the National Post, the study’s lead author, internationally known immunologist Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD of Tel-Aviv University in Israel, has accused Dr. Poland of allowing a conflict of interest with Gardasil manufacturer Merck & Co. to influence his decision to remove the paper from Vaccine.”

And concluded their scathing report of the journal’s decision by explaining that:

“Dr. Poland has chaired a Safety Evaluation Committee for vaccine trials conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. He has provided consulting services on vaccine development to Merck and several other pharmaceutical companies, including CSL Biotherapies, Avianax, Sanofi Pasteur, Dynavax, Novartis Vaccines and Therapeutics, PAXVAX, and Emergent Biosolutions.”

In other words, by removing this important paper from the Vaccine journal, Dr. Poland has demonstrated that he is more concerned about protecting his financial assets than protecting the health and safety of our children.

GreenMedInfo asked another author of the withdrawn paper, Dr. Lucija Tomlejenovic, if she would also like to comment on the journal’s decision.

Dr. Tomlejenovic, stated:

“The paper initially underwent a standard review process in the Vaccine, being handled by the Associate Editor Daniel Altman. All initial comments raised by the reviewers were addressed appropriately to the reviewers’ satisfaction after which the article was accepted. Then, for unknown reasons, the manuscript was temporarily removed, underwent another round of reviews upon the request of the Editor in Chief Dr Gregory Poland, after which it was rejected without any specific commentary other that it was “seriously flawed”.

She continued:

“According to the Mayo clinic’s A Physician’s Guide for Anti-Vaccine Parents, it states:

“Dr. Poland is the chairman of a safety evaluation committee for investigational vaccine trials being conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. Dr. Poland offers consultative advice on new vaccine development to Merck & Co., Inc., Avianax, Theraclone Sciences (formally Spaltudaq Corporation), MedImmune LLC, Liquidia Technologies, Inc., Emergent BioSolutions, Novavax, Dynavax, EMD Serono, Inc., Novartis Vaccines and Therapeutics and PAXVAX.”

What is further notable is that by retracting the article, Elsevier broke its own policy because manuscripts can only be retracted in case of some serious research misconduct, plagiarism, deliberate fraud and alike, as it is stated on their website.

In other words, “seriously flawed” is not a reason to retract or withdraw an article, especially if this is done without even informing the authors. The way we found out about the whole thing is that someone emailed us in March saying the article had been removed. Then we wrote to Vaccine asking for an explanation.

Only after continuous insisting on our side, did Vaccine provide us with a list of comments by the 2nd group of reviewers. No we were not given the chance to respond, this is why we revised the article according to their comments (some were indeed in place and we did our best to address them, other comments could not be addressed without doing additional laboratory work and it is our long-term plan to put all outstanding issues at rest) and resubmitted it to Immunologic Research where it was accepted and is now published.

And concluded by adding:

Finally, the retraction of the paper by Vaccine reflects an unusually unorthodox and unprofessional conduct from the journal and seems to be part of a pharmaceutical industry push back to any critique of the Gardasil vaccine. The Editor in Chief, Dr. Poland, is heavily conflicted via his funding and contacts with Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil. To simply retract a paper which reports a result that one does not like makes a complete mockery out of the whole review process.”

GreenMedInfo believes that she absolutely correct and would like to thank Dr. Tomlejenovic for her honesty.

Papers on Aluminum Adjuvants Are Being Censored

A few weeks ago, I published an article on GreenMedInfo, titled, Mineral Water Found to Reduce the Symptoms of Alzheimer’s Disease and Vaccine Injury is Boycotted by Supermarkets.

I included information about a paper, written by Professor Christopher Exley, titled Insight into the cellular fate and toxicity of aluminium adjuvants used in clinically approved human vaccinations,

In my article, I had included a section from a press release, published on the Keele University website, that stated:

“In a project funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Dwoskin Foundation, the group at Keele investigated the relationship between the physicochemical properties of aluminium adjuvants and the immune response. Specifically, they show that the reaction of the aluminium adjuvant at the injection site will determine its subsequent fate and therefore its activity both at the injection site and away from the injection site.

One form of aluminium adjuvant which is used in clinically-approved vaccines is an aluminium hydroxyphosphate salt and is more toxic at the injection site than the second form of aluminium adjuvant commonly used in clinically-approved vaccines which is an aluminium oxyhydroxide salt. However, the latter is more easily loaded into immune reactive cells with the possibility to be transported throughout the body. It is suggested by the Keele research that this loading of aluminium into viable cells offers a mechanism whereby significant amounts of aluminium, a known neurotoxin, might be translocated throughout the body and even across the blood brain barrier and into the central nervous system.

Professor Exley adds that there are no clinically-approved aluminium adjuvants only clinically approved vaccines which use aluminium adjuvants. This makes it imperative that all vaccine trials which use aluminium salts as adjuvants must not use the aluminium adjuvant as the control or placebo. This has been common practice for many years and has resulted in many vaccine-related adverse events due in part or in entirety to aluminium adjuvants being unaccounted for in vaccine safety trials.”

However, it appears, that since writing my article, Keele University has ‘censored’, their original press release and replaced it with the following:

“The majority of vaccinations use an adjuvant to boost their effectiveness and in most cases the adjuvant is an aluminium salt.

The simplest explanation of how an aluminium adjuvant works is that its injection into the muscle or under the skin produces toxicity.

In most recipients of a vaccine this toxicity is seen as mild inflammation or reddening and swelling of tissue at the injection site. However, in a small minority of individuals the consequences of this toxicity are more severe and can lead to serious adverse events including autoimmune disease and brain encephalopathies.

Research at Keele University led by Professor Christopher Exley aims to understand the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants in vaccinations and their latest findings are now published in Nature’s ‘Scientific Reports’

In a project funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Dwoskin Foundation the group at Keele investigated the relationship between the physicochemical properties of aluminium adjuvants and the immune response. Specifically they show that the reaction of the aluminium adjuvant at the injection site will determine its subsequent fate and therefore its activity both at the injection site and away from the injection site. One form of aluminium adjuvant which is used in clinically-approved vaccines is an aluminium hydroxyphosphate salt and is more toxic at the injection site than the second form of aluminium adjuvant commonly used in clinically-approved vaccines which is an aluminium oxyhydroxide salt. However, the latter is more easily loaded into immune reactive cells with the possibility to be transported throughout the body. It is suggested by the Keele research that this loading of aluminium into viable cells offers a mechanism whereby significant amounts of aluminium, a known neurotoxin, might be translocated throughout the body and even across the blood brain barrier and into the central nervous system.

For further information contact Professor Chris Exley (c.exley@keele.ac.uk), The Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.

The staff at GreenMedInfo, would be interested to know why, vitally important information about the dangers of aluminium adjuvants, is being censored. What exactly, are they trying to hide?

For more information on the critical effects that aluminum can have on our bodies, please read the countless studies published by the Dwoskin Family Foundation’s website.

Back to Page 1