Aluminum is the new mercury

Looks like RFK Jr has pivoted from lying about the long-discredited Thimerosal-autism connection to blaming aluminum-containing adjuvants for autism. Since there’s no evidence for this, RFK Jr’s position is that studies have not definitively ruled out a link between vaccines and autism.

Well, science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals in the weight of evidence. The weight of evidence is that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are safe. What does Robert “follow the science” Kennedy have to say about that?

“In August, Kennedy denounced a large Danish study finding no link between aluminum in vaccines and childhood disease, calling it a "deceitful propaganda stunt" and demanding its retraction. The Annals of Internal Medicine rejected the claim and refused to retract the study.”

That’s not evidence, that’s gaslighting. The only thing that answers evidence is better evidence. RFK Jr has none. The actual, you know, evidence is that the minute amounts of aluminum in vaccines is dwarfed by environmental exposure.

“Vaccines add only a tiny amount of aluminum to the body -- a combined total of about 8 milligrams -- after the schedule of childhood vaccines is complete. [Paul Offit, MD, a pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia] said that over the first 18 years of life, people naturally take in about 400 milligrams of aluminum from everyday sources.”

Many common antacids contain aluminum, including brands like Maalox, Mylanta, and Gaviscon, which often use aluminum hydroxide. Other antacids that may contain aluminum include Amphojel, AlternaGEL, and various generic and store-brand equivalents that list aluminum hydroxide as an active ingredient. Hydrated aluminum oxides are a common abrasive in many modern toothpastes.

Overwhelming evidence shows that vaccines cause adults. Anyone interesting in America’s health endorses childhood vaccination.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/washington-watch/118717?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2025-11-30&mh=eb71348a5ff6ae370cc6759bc5dc3300&zdee=gAAAAABm4u1YoCP4y5SBTJUyUyqo9KxZhft26L1xeGdP0BzzQQN1Pb_ifR6vFqhFh-3U6Q_nU7DbA-EawzzXKxSRhMOwjrOGuOKbf7OE641eN0HfnK6eObE%3D&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Evening%20-%20Randomized%202025-11-30&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more