by Christina England, B.A. Hons
Health Impact News
On September 28, 2016 the Daily Mail Online  reported that scientists in Reading had discovered a possible link between antiperspirants and breast cancer. To my knowledge, this is the first time that a report has mentioned that the use of these products containing aluminum in prepubescent and teenage children may not only be a risk for breast cancer, but also disrupts their hormonal development and is linked to other health problems.
According to the Daily Mail Online:
Philippa Darbre, senior cancer researcher at Reading University, says use of these products in prepubescent and teenage children should be ‘a cause for concern.’
Aluminium and zirconium may disrupt hormones – and unnecessary exposure to these at an important time in a child’s development could damage health in a way that we don’t yet know about. (emphasis added)
So, are her concerns something new?
In November 2013, Dr. Philippa D. Darbre was one of three scientists who wrote a report examining whether or not the exposure to high levels of aluminum could lead to breast cancer.
Whilst their paper, titled Sources of exposure, tissue measurements and mechanisms of toxicological actions on breast biology , did touch briefly on the subject of hormones, as the scientists wrote:
Lifestyle factors such as radiation exposure, alcohol and diet are components of risk but the main identiﬁed risk factors are hormonal and in particular linked to increased life-time exposure to oestrogen through physiological variations associated with early menarche, late menopause, late age of ﬁrst pregnancy or lack of breast-feeding and through personal decisions to use oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy.
At no time did they mention that the unnecessary exposure to aluminium during puberty could lead to a disruption of hormones.
To find out more on the subject, we contacted Professor Christopher Exley, who was also involved in the 2013 study.
He told Health Impact News, that whilst he was unaware of the latest Daily Mail Online article, he was confident, that anything that Dr. Darbre had told the reporters, was accurate and could be relied on.
The Risks of Exposure to Aluminum in Vaccines During Puberty
If the unnecessary exposure to aluminium during puberty can disrupt hormonal development, as Dr. Darbre had suggested in her interview with the Daily Mail, then surely, injecting aluminium adjuvants directly into the body of a developing child is asking for trouble.
Over the years it has become a recognized fact that a growing number of childhood vaccinations contain the adjuvant aluminum.
According to Dr. Sears, the levels of aluminum included in childhood vaccinations are as follows:
- DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis): 170–625 mcg, depending on
- Hepatitis A: 250 mcg
- Hepatitis B: 250 mcg
- Hib (for meningitis; PedVaxHib brand only): 225 mcg
- HPV: 225 mcg
- Pediarix (DTaP–hepatitis B–polio combination): 850 mcg
- Pentacel (DTaP–Hib–polio combination): 330 mcg
- Pneumococcus: 125 mcg (emphasis added)
In his report titled Is Aluminum The New Thimerosal?  he explained that the aluminum is added to vaccinations to help them work more efficiently.
He explained that although this would not normally be a problem because aluminum is a naturally occurring element found everywhere in our environment, including our food, water, air and soil, he was concerned about the effects that aluminum is having on children’s health.
During his research, he came across a number of extremely worrying documents. However, few were as worrying as the one written by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN). Describing the document in depth, Sears wrote:
The source of the daily limit of 4 to 5 mcg of aluminum per kilogram of body weight quoted by the ASPEN statement seems to be a study that compared the neurologic development of about 100 premature babies who were fed a standard IV solution that contained aluminum, with the development of 100 premature babies who were fed the same solution with almost all aluminum filtered out. The study was prompted by a number of established facts: that injected aluminum can build up to toxic levels in the bloodstream, bones, and brain; that preemies have decreased kidney function and thus a higher risk of toxicity; that an autopsy performed on one preemie whose sudden death was otherwise unexplained revealed high aluminum concentrations in the brain; and that aluminum toxicity can cause progressive dementia.
He continued by giving some extremely alarming facts, many of which few parents are aware:
However, none of these documents or studies mentions vaccines; they look only at IV solutions and injectable medications. Nor does the FDA require labels on vaccines warning about the dangers of aluminum toxicity, although such labels are required for all other injectable medications. All of these studies and label warnings seem to apply mainly to premature babies and kidney patients. What about larger, full-term babies with healthy kidneys?
However, these documents don’t tell us what the maximum safe dose would be for a healthy baby or child, and I can’t find such information anywhere. This is probably why the ASPEN group suggests, and the FDA requires, that all injectable solutions be limited to 25 mcg; we at least know that that level is safe.
If this is so, then why do the recommended childhood vaccinations include far above the recommend safe amounts of aluminium?
More Facts that Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines Cause Harm
In August, 2016, author and founder of the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute , Claire Dwoskin, wrote an article titled Are aluminum adjuvants plus Gardasil a uniquely damaging neuroinflammatory cocktail?  She wrote:
Health authorities and the media relentlessly repeat the mantra that vaccines are unequivocally safe, and many uninformed consumers cling to this mantra like a lifeboat. More often than not, however, consumers know little or nothing about the vaccine safety testing process and assume that vaccine manufacturers and regulatory institutions have exercised due diligence in ensuring that vaccines are as safe as possible.
In an ordinary clinical trial, investigators compare a group that receives a drug with another group that receives a harmless placebo. Not so with vaccine clinical trials, many of which use placebos that contain an aluminum adjuvant. What are the implications of using aluminum-based placebos that are not innocuous or inert but instead are “intrinsically capable of stimulating pathological immune and neuro-inflammatory responses”? This is one of the critically important questions that Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld and colleagues at Tel Aviv University and University of British Columbia researchers Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw address in a July 2016 study  in Immunologic Research about aluminum adjuvants and the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine that ostensibly protects against four types of human papillomavirus (HPV).
Her article leaves readers in little doubt that the aluminium adjuvants used in the manufacturing of vaccines and in particular the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, can cause adverse reactions.
New Gardasil Vaccine Contains Over Double the Amount of Aluminum Than its Predecessor
Claire Dwoskin’s report is extremely worrying, especially when you consider that in December 2014, the Gardasil 9 vaccine, manufactured by Merck Sharp and Dohme, was fast tracked and approved by the FDA.
The Gardasil 9 vaccine is regarded as a “super” vaccine in comparison to its predecessor because according to the FDA, it could protect men and women against no less than NINE strains of the HPV virus.
In a press release  published on December 10, 2014, the FDA stated:
Gardasil 9 is a vaccine approved for use in females ages 9 through 26 and males ages 9 through 15. It is approved for the prevention of cervical, vulvar, vaginal and anal cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, and for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 or 11. Gardasil 9 adds protection against five additional HPV types—31, 33, 45, 52 and 58— which cause approximately 20 percent of cervical cancers and are not covered by previously FDA-approved HPV vaccines.
Despite the FDA’s impressive press release, however, according to Sane Vax, Inc ., the Gardasil 9 vaccine contained over double the amount of aluminum than its predecessor, Gardasil.
Sane Vax, Inc. stated that:
The proposed Gardasil 9 package insert  and the current Gardasil package insert  are a good place to start a critical examination. The table below lists the ingredients of both Gardasil and Gardasil 9. All differences from one HPV vaccine package insert to the next are highlighted.
Gardasil – Ingredient – Gardasil 9
225 mcg – AAHS (aluminum adjuvant) – 500 mcg
9.56 mcg – Sodium Chloride – 9.56 mcg
.78 mcg – L-Histidine – .78 mcg
50 mcg – Polysorbate 80 – 50 mcg
35 mcg – Sodium Borate – 35 mcg
<7 mcg – Yeast Protein – <7 mcg
20 mcg – HPV 6 L1 protein – 30 mcg
40 mcg – HPV 11 L1 protein – 40 mcg
40 mcg – HPV 16 L1 protein – 60 mcg
20 mcg – HPV 18 L1 protein – 20 mcg
HPV 31 L1 protein – 20 mcg
HPV 33 L1 protein – 20 mcg
HPV 45 L1 protein – 20 mcg
HPV 52 L1 protein – 20 mcg
HPV 58 L1 protein – 20 mcg
Sane Vax continued:
Take a look at the first line in the chart to the left. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin. A quick search of PubMed for ‘aluminum toxicity human ’ returns no less than 1652 peer-reviewed and published scientific papers on the subject. Why did Merck more than double the amount of aluminum adjuvant in Gardasil 9?
Taking all this information into account, if Dr. Darbre is correct and unnecessary exposure to aluminium during puberty can lead to a disruption of hormones, then surely the timing of the both of these vaccines is something that should be investigated?
Hormones and Gardasil
To find out more, we asked women’s health educator and expert in women’s hormonal health, Ms. Leslie Carol Botha, what her views were on vaccinating adolescents with vaccinations containing the aluminum adjuvant during puberty and whether or not she believed it was safer to vaccinate pre-adolescent boys than it was girls?
She told us that:
Puberty in adolescents is a fragile transition. It is a time when the endocrine system is developing its own reproductive rhythm. The neurological, immune and endocrine systems are all involved in this transition. Introducing any toxin into the blood stream to infiltrate the blood brain barrier becomes a disruptor. PERIOD. How that manifests may differ from child to child – however, there is no doubt that one or all three of the systems will be involved. We have analyzed VAERS data that suggests that until puberty boys are affected more by vaccine injury than girls (due to estrogen protection). However, once puberty is reached, rates of vaccine injury among girls increases (data was compared before and after the introduction of the HPV vaccines to the market) and the injury gap between genders is higher for women throughout their lifetime.
Vaccinating any child at puberty is a disruption may alter a child’s development. The brain does not even fully mature until the early 20’s.
By depressing the immune system a child becomes more susceptible to other pathogens. And with the high rates of infertility – one must wonder how vaccines play a role. We do know that the HPV vaccine Gardasil is causing premature ovarian failure in young girls. Many are unaware until they are ready to have a child and are told by their physician that their ovaries have atrophied. They are now considered to be in menopause – with a total breakdown of the endocrine system.
Ms. Botha made it abundantly clear, that in her professional opinion, vaccinating an adolescent with vaccine containing aluminum during puberty was extremely dangerous.
Conclusion: Aluminum is Dangerous and Harmful
Each and every one of these professionals, have stated categorically, that the use of aluminum, in antiperspirants and vaccines, is dangerous.
It is disconcerting to learn, that when we, as parents, are pressurized by the media, the medical profession and our government, to use these so called ‘safe and effective’ products, that we are inadvertently exposing our vulnerable children to substances which, can not only disrupt their hormonal development but permanently damage their health.
If we allow mandatory vaccination to become a reality, then we will only have ourselves to blame, when our children’s health deteriorates and fails.
Parents are being pressurized by the media, the government and the medical profession to vaccinate our children.
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com .
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.