Infant vaccines are not fit for purpose: We have discovered that the amount of aluminium an infant receives in a vaccine is akin to a lottery. While the amount expected to be injected, is indicated by manufacturers on the patient information leaflet supplied with the vaccine, this value bears little resemblance to the actual amount.
(https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0946-672X(21)00052-3)
We have measured the aluminium content of thirteen infant vaccines and the data are a shocking indictment of the disdain with which vaccine manufacturers view the use of aluminium adjuvants. If, as indicated by manufacturers, the aluminium content of a vaccine is critical to its efficacy then the majority of infants are today receiving wholly ineffective products. Worse, if as indicated by manufacturers, the safety of vaccines depends upon a critical relationship between the adjuvant, antigen and corresponding antibody titre then the majority of infants are today also receiving unsafe vaccines.
Perhaps equally shocking is that those organisations charged with regulating the content of vaccines, such as the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, do not measure their aluminium content. The EMA indicating that they rely upon information given to them by the manufacturers. These organisations measure every other component of vaccines so why are they colluding with manufacturers in not measuring their aluminium content.
What is the critical issue revealed by our measurements and thorough statistical analyses? Is this complacency or incompetence on behalf of vaccine manufacturers? Our data were initially submitted in September 2020 to the BMJ family journal, BMJ Evidence Based Medicine. The manuscript was thoroughly reviewed including by their expert in statistics. We submitted in December what we believed to be our final revised version of the manuscript. However, the new editor of the journal, appointed in 2021, informed us in January that, after five months of peer review, the manuscript no longer fitted the scope of the journal! He suggested that our manuscript might be automatically transferred to BMJ Open and we reluctantly agreed. One month later the editor of BMJ Open returned our manuscript as, again, it was not within the scope of the journal. I believe that in the current climate of vaccination that the BMJ was not prepared to publish research, no matter how robust, that criticised vaccine manufacturers.
If this is the case then whither vaccine safety science? This is likely to be our last contribution on this subject as my group and my research has been branded as anti-vaccine. This will severely curtail our chances of receiving any future funding from charities, philanthropic services and public donations and will prevent robust, peer-reviewed research in vaccine safety science.