PRO
CON
Click on a statement to select it. Hold the mouse button and move it to scroll the graph

Tentatively
ESTABLISHED

Tentatively
ESTABLISHED

REFUTATION: Mitkus et Al make numerous other errors including ignoring animal studies showing higher toxicity at lower levels than the one they use and ignoring particulate aluminum
By: Eric, on 12 Nov 2018


As detailed here: https://vaccinepapers.org/debunking-aluminum-adjuvant-part-2/  Mitkus et make numerous other errors. For one thing they completely ignore particulate aluminum which seems to be the most dangerous kind of adjuvant aluminum. Injected adjuvants form nanoparticles and microparticles of aluminum bound up with antigens which escapes removal from the bloodstream and winds up in the brain. For another thing the single animal study of dietary aluminum they rely on ignores other animal studies of dietary aluminum finding much higher toxicity at lower levels. these studies reviewed here: http://vaccinepapers.org/the-foundation-for-al-adjuvant-safety-is-false/  include three studies that showed toxicity at much lower levels which were published before mitkus et Al was even published, so their ignorance of these was either extremely ill-informed or unethical.


50 Views since Rating Change   50 Views 
Proofs (0) - PRO To Topic
Legend:  (incoming replies) , Created On, Title, Last Updated On
Refutations (0) - PRO TO Topic
Legend:  (incoming replies) , Created On, Title, Last Updated On
Proofs () - PRO To Topic
Legend:  (incoming replies) , Created On, Title, Last Updated On
Refutations () - CON To Topic
Legend:  (incoming replies) , Created On, Title, Last Updated On
Responses: 152
Views: 61235
Authors: 5
Graph Last Updated: 26 May 2019
Topic Statement Status Last Changed: 10 Aug 2016
click