Snippets of news

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-highly-accurate-stock-market-predictor-just-hit-its-most-bearish-level-since-the-internet-bubble-2019-08-01

Why trust maths on… maths?

considering
https://www.investors.com/news/stock-market-hits-record-highs-facebook-amazon-google-chipotle-boeing-twitter-earnings/

what goes up, must go up!

The smart money has left the building.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-investors-should-enjoy-the-party-but-know-when-to-leave-2019-08-01

Nothing to see here:
https://www.rt.com/business/465557-central-banks-gold-purchasing-record/

The people pumping out fiat always show a fundamental distrust in their legitimacy but this is… unusually open.

Like a signal.

Aluminium smuggling, not dodgy at all…
https://www.rt.com/business/465540-china-billionaire-aluminum-smuggling/

Going to the gym is indeed a sign of being gay
https://www.rt.com/news/418612-malaysia-gay-detector-list/
the way to tell for sure is a gay photo of them topless on social media after.

Tan? Super gay. Waxed? Gaylord.

Straight men work in construction or some real job that builds muscle normally.

Gay guys have a muscle fetish and need machines to bulk certain areas like the arms unnaturally. Women in studies prefer light muscle probably because veiny bulk cues gay.

RE is forced, sending your kids to a school you know has prayers is fine.
https://www.rt.com/uk/465364-bible-school-lawsuit-atheist-uk/

RE is multiculturalism class, that’s why they make it compulsory.

That’s why they lie about the religions.

White genocide requires disowning you of your homeland
https://www.rt.com/news/451766-swedes-outraged-ancestors-documentary/

by lying about your history.

People with dark skin at those altitudes die of Vit D deficiency. Even in England, the NHS warn about this, let alone Sweden with even FEWER rays. How did their cranial morphology magically evolve, then?

Multi-Regional FTW.

Africans have zero Neanderthal DNA so pretty easy to test for. They have it? Not black.

There is plenty of proof of African-Asian mixing, however.

http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/China_2.htm

This explains their lower IQs in many nations, larger overall heads and stronger jaws.

HUGE lips, too.

Naturally the page tries to lie about white people as all magic albinos BUT the Asian part has this:

And morphology considerations:

Of the three crania Upper Cave 101, the “old man”, has been studied in more detail primarily due to its better preservation and clearly adult status. In comparison to modern East Asians the cranial vault is extremely long and low, with a receding frontal squama and marked angulation in the occipital region. The forehead is broad and the supercilliary region well developed. The nasal bones are pinched, with a high bridge, and the nose must have been more prominent than is common amongst living East Asians. The orbits are relatively low and rectangular, which is a common feature in terminal Pleistocene and Neolithic crania from many parts of the world. The lower border of the nasal aperture is gutted, which is customary amongst East Asians, Australian Aborigines and sub-Saharan Africans.

East Asians are just mongrels. They simply didn’t exist as we know them today and the modern Indian is typically a halfbreed with a Brit a century or two ago. This caused their ‘caste’ system.

All analysis of “Early Humans” in China, agree that the Mongoloid type Humans currently inhabiting the area, did not start to appear until quite recently.
But here the devil is in the definitions; we know that modern Chinese (Mongols) are a Mulatto/Mixed Race of Mongol featured Blacks like the San, their Albinos, the Albinos of Central Asians (who later became Europeans), and Blacks like the Jomon in Japan. But understanding just when these admixtures took place requires we know exactly what was meant by “Primitive Mongoloid” or “Evolving Mongoloid” and how is that different from Eskimo? (Not saying that Eskimo are primitive).

Any admixture was usually rape.

As was shown with the Peking man nonsense, many Albino and Mulatto Chinese are loath to admit that they derive from Africans. But the fact is that the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and South Asians, have all been scientifically proven to be Africans. Albeit, as is true in many places i.e. the Americas, the Middle East, etc. They are a mixture of Albino people and the original Native Blacks.

I don’t believe albino is a race, it’s a mutant and they’re often sterile.

But Asians do have substantial African morphology, you can see it in their face.

Aluminium kinetics in the brain

Vaccine Aluminum Travels Into The Brain

Parents can be reassured that the trace quantities of aluminum in vaccines can’t possibly do harm.
-Dr Paul Offit: Vaccine promoter, vaccine patent licensor, and autism pundit, 2015

…the existing evidence on the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of Al adjuvants…altogether strongly implicate these compounds as contributors to the rising prevalence of neurobehavioural disorders in children.
-Dr Chris Shaw, Neuroscientist and aluminum researcher at University of British Columbia, 2013.

But it was assumed that the AANs dissolve rapidly in body fluids, and the resulting Al3+ is eliminated in urine, just like ingested aluminum. However, this simple model is wrong.

assumed by who?

Any asshole can assume, that isn’t science.

Vaccine promoters assume that Al adjuvant is safely eliminated by dissolution and urinary excretion. Thats why vaccine promoters believe only the blood concentration of Al3+ is important. We now know this is wrong. The Al adjuvant dissolves very slowly and so can remain in the body for many months or years. Also, its not just the dissolved Al3+ thats toxic; the Al adjuvant particles are also toxic. 

If you wanted to fuck up little white boys, brain damage is a primary candidate.

Cripple their best resource, right?

The above model is wrong. What actually happens is a type of immune cell called a macrophage (MF) ingests (called “phagocytosis”) the AANs. Eating foreign material is a primary function of MFs. When MFs detect bacteria or debris, the MFs eat it, and destroy it with enzymes.

The problem is that AANs are not digested by the MF enzymes. Consequently, the AANs remain inside the MFs for a long time. The AANs can persist for years. MFs that consume the AANs become highly contaminated with aluminum, and spread the aluminum wherever they go. And they go everywhere in the body.

Sounds like a chemical weapon.

The MFs travel across the blood brain barrier (BBB) when there is inflammation in the brain. The MFs, once loaded with AANs, act like a Trojan Horse and carry the AANs into the brain. This is harmful, because the brain is very sensitive to aluminum.

Below is a diagram illustrating how AANs travel around the body and into the brain.

Shame parents for not injecting the child with poison, because peer pressure to conform is more important than ‘first harm none’.

Herd immunity’s a myth anyway, even 100% coverage (impossible) wouldn’t work. Covered previously.

Eat your aluminium, thots

That’s right, smear on a lipstick full of shimmery bullshit. Including lead (and wonder why girls are depressed). [Literally eating lead.]

The Victorians ate arsenic but this is worse. Arsenic temporarily improved the complexion.

Using the term ‘mica’ for what’s essentially powdered foil suggests women wouldn’t want it if they knew what it was.

It isn’t like there’s a connection between dissected and tested Alzheimer’s plaques and aluminium deposits, is there?

Why are the Boomers raised on cans of this stuff seeing an explosion in Alzheimer’s rates?

As always, at first, go to the ‘officials’. Find out the Party Line.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/risk-factors-and-prevention/metals-and-dementia
Although aluminium has been seen in amyloid plaques”

K.

“there is no solid evidence that aluminium is increased in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
Whew, what cognitive dissonance.
It’s literally forming those plaques that ARE the disease but nbd?

Solid evidence – like a solid chemical analysis of solid plaques in the solid brains of solid dead people with Alzheimer’s?

Look at the hustle to move those goalposts.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813185007.htm
“Because some people with the disease had aluminum deposits in their brains, it was thought that there was a direct connection…”
Well… yeah.
That’s proof.
There’s no negative evidence possible for that to stop being proof.

It’s literally in their brains.

“However, after many years of study, no conclusive evidence links aluminum to neurodegenerative disease”
Bullshit, 2007.

I detest scientism. Look at these papers and tell me what’s ‘conclusive’.

(Apart from donations of mega-corps to Super PACs to prevent this mega-lawsuit).

“A multi-institutional team of researchers has defined for the first time how metal ions bind to amyloid fibrils in the brain in a way that appears toxic to neurons. Amyloid fibrils are linked to the development of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Creutzfeldt-Jakob. Although metal ions, most notably copper, can bind to amyloid in several specific ways, the researchers found that only one way appears toxic.”

But how, ‘critics’ argue, could this possibly occur? What’s the mechanism? Nobody has proven a mechanism….?

2011:

“Link between Aluminum and the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease: The Integration of the Aluminum and Amyloid Cascade Hypotheses”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/

“In particular, the link between aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease has been the subject of scientific debate for several decades. However, the complex characteristics of aluminum bioavailability make it difficult to evaluate its toxicity and therefore, the relationship remains to be established.”

Uhuh. Isn’t that your job?

If it’s impossible, why are you getting paid?

“On the contrary, aluminum is a widely recognized neurotoxin that inhibits more than 200 biologically important functions and causes various adverse effects in plants, animals, and humans.”

True.

Mounting evidence has suggested that significance of oligomerization of β-amyloid protein and neurotoxicity in the molecular mechanism of AD pathogenesis. Aluminum may play crucial roles as a cross-linker in β-amyloid oligomerization.

Here, we review the detailed characteristics of aluminum neurotoxicity based on our own studies and the recent literatures. Our aim is to revisit the link between aluminum and AD and to integrate aluminum and amyloid cascade hypotheses in the context of β-amyloid oligomerization and the interactions with other metals.”

But HOW could this POSSIBLY operate? – intellectually dishonest douches.

Note the prestige of journal. International Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, those hacks.

But on a MOLECULAR level…. – douchecanoes.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jms.739
“Quantification of the Aβ peptide in Alzheimer’s plaques by laser dissection microscopy combined with mass spectrometry”

It’s behind a paywall but it’s there. Check the academic pirate bay.

http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2000/articles/2000-v15n01-p021.shtml
It’s been known for a while.
2000: “Aluminum has been identified as a neurotoxin for over 100 years.”

So stop using it in food, cosmetics, deodorant, cookware and cans?

Their use actually came in well after it was a known neurotoxin. Because that isn’t dodgy.

Reference for that sentence:

Doelken P:Naunynschmiedeberger. Arch Exp Pathol Pharmakol 40: 58-120 cited by Crapper McLachlan DR., Lukiw WJ, Kruck TPA, Aluminum, altered transcription, and the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Environ Geochem Health, 1990; 12(1-2): 103-114.

Link for that: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01734059

Opening paragraph.

“The etiology of some, if not all, cases of Alzheimer’s disease is linked to a mutation in the proximal portion of the long arm of chromosome 21∶21q11.2 → 21q22.2. While the functional consequences of the mutation are unknown, we speculate that one consequence of the mutation is loss of the natural barriers and intracellular ligands for aluminum. As a result, aluminum gains access to several brain sites including the nuclear compartment in certain neurons of the central nervous system.”

I know both my shit and my bullshit.

1990. Who owns the aluminium? That’d be a fun tour of genocide.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.410310310
1992 laser study, note prestige of journal.

What the fuck do they know, right, reddit?

“Selective accumulation of aluminum and iron in the neurofibrillary tangles of Alzheimer’s disease: A laser microprobe (LAMMA) study”

“In addition, probe sites directed to neurons identified in snapfrozen cryostat sections from 2 subjects with Alzheimer’s disease revealed similar spectra with prominent aluminum‐related peaks, confirming that our findings are not related to exogenous contamination through fixation, embedding, or other procedures prior to analysis. This study further confirms the association of aluminum and neurofibrillary tangle formation in Alzheimer’s disease.”
1992.

But I guess I’m just scared of non-stick pans, where’s the evidence?

Unvaccinated mortality rate and scapegoating

Rhetoric: “If you don’t vaccinate, you’re much more likely to die.”
Fact: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00079/full

Title: “Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?” 2018

35 months? A decent study length, for once.

I could leave it at this but since “cherrypicked” is the next goalpost position they slide to, shamelessly, after claiming “no valid empirical studies”, this’ll be a slightly longish post. It’s a doozy. Bring tea. 8k words.

When studies are available, there is a range of errors in the method.
A range of “errors”. I also debunk the myth at the end of unvaccinated children being ‘dangerous’. It’s the biggest font, can’t miss it and also the “ahrp” link, if you text search.

You can ignore me, but not your loud conscience.

https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php

Mawson, published April 2017. STILL available, contrary to lies. Abstract:

Vaccinations have prevented millions of infectious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among U.S. children, yet the long-term health outcomes of the vaccination schedule remain uncertain. Studies have been recommended by the U.S. Institute of Medicine to address this question. This study aimed 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors. A cross-sectional study of mothers of children educated at home was carried out in collaboration with homeschool organizations in four U.S. states: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Mothers were asked to complete an anonymous online questionnaire on their 6- to 12-year-old biological children with respect to pregnancy-related factors, birth history, vaccinations, physician-diagnosed illnesses, medications used, and health services. NDD, a derived diagnostic measure, was defined as having one or more of the following three closely-related diagnoses: a learning disability, Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. A convenience sample of 666 children was obtained, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD. However, in a final adjusted model with interaction, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with NDD, while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5). In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.

Bravo.

Let’s quote, shall we? I didn’t list everything sig, just the big findings.

Under ‘results’, 92% of the children studied were white, as a liar tries to claim later, race cannot be a factor preventing such studies. 8.5% high school or less, no SES confound. 91.2% Christian, other categories unlisted. 93.7% married women.

Table 3 contains chronic conditions.
ADHD 4.7% vacc 1% NOT – p=0.013
ASD 4.7% vacc 1% NOT – p=0.013
Learning disability 5.7% vacc, 1.2% NOT – p=0.003
Neurodevelopment Disorder 10.5% vacc, 3.1% NOT – p=< 0.001
Any Chronic Condition (inc minor) 44% vacc, 24.9% NOT – p=< 0.001.

Table 6
Used antibiotics in the past 12 months p=< 0.001
Sick visit to doctor in the past year p=< 0.001
Seen doctor for checkup in past 12 months p=< 0.001

The figure shows that the single largest group of diagnoses was learning disability (n=15) followed by ASD (n=9), and ADHD (n=9), with smaller numbers comprising combinations of the three diagnoses.”

NDD “Two factors that almost reached statistical significance were vaccination during pregnancy (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.0, 6.3) and three or more fetal ultrasounds (OR 3.2, 95% CI: 0.92, 11.5).”

Table 7 NDD and vaccination status p=<0.001

Following a recommendation of the Institute of Medicine [19] for studies comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, this study focused on homeschool children ages 6 to 12 years”
“Data from the survey were also used to determine whether vaccination was associated specifically with NDDs, a derived diagnostic category combining children with the diagnoses of learning disability, ASD and/or ADHD.”

Important.

“With regard to acute and chronic conditions, vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have had chickenpox and pertussis but, contrary to expectation, were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD.”

The vaccinated were also more likely to have used antibiotics, allergy and fever medications; to have been fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor for a health issue in the previous year, and been hospitalized.”

“The reason for hospitalization and the age of the child at the time were not determined, but the latter finding appears consistent with a study of 38,801 reports to the VAERS of infants who were hospitalized or had died after receiving vaccinations.

I don’t think they included deceased children (no) in this one so the numbers would go up.

The study reported a linear relationship between the number of vaccine doses administered at one time and the rate of hospitalization and death; moreover, the younger the infant at the time of vaccination, the higher was the rate of hospitalization and death [55]. The hospitalization rate increased from 11% for 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for 8 doses (r2 = 0.91), while the case fatality rate increased significantly from 3.6% for those receiving from 1-4 doses to 5.4 % for those receiving from 5-8 doses.”

Informed consent?

“However, the ASD prevalence of 2.24% from a CDC parent survey is lower than the study rate of 3.3%. Vaccinated males were significantly more likely than vaccinated females to have been diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, and NDD. The percentage of vaccinated males with an NDD in this study (14.4%) is consistent with national findings based on parental responses to survey questions, indicating that 15% of U.S. children ages 3 to 17 years in the years 2006-2008 had an NDD [28].”

“Vaccination was strongly associated with both otitis media and pneumonia, which are among the most common complications of measles infection [56,57]. The odds of otitis media were almost four-fold higher among the vaccinated (OR 3.8, 95% CI: 2.1, 6.6) and the odds of myringotomy with tube placement were eight-fold higher than those of unvaccinated children (OR 8.0, 95% CI: 1.0, 66.1).”

“found an increased frequency of M. catarrhalis colonization in the vaccinated group compared to the partly immunized and control groups (76% vs. 62% and 56%, respectively). A high rate of Moraxella catarrhalis colonization is associated with an increased risk of AOM [65].”
“These observations have suggested that eradication of vaccine serotype pneumococci can be followed by colonization of other bacterial species in the vacant nasopharyngeal niche, leading to disequilibria of bacterial composition (dysbiosis) and increased risks of otitis media. Long-term monitoring has been recommended as essential for understanding the full implications of vaccination-induced changes in microbiota structure [67].”

After adjustment, the factors that remained significantly associated with NDD were vaccination, nonwhite race, male gender, and preterm birth.”

“The present study suggests that vaccination could be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of NDD but also that preterm birth by itself may have a lesser or much reduced role in NDD (defined here as ASD, ADHD and/or a learning disability) than currently believed. The findings also suggest that vaccination coupled with preterm birth could increase the odds of NDD beyond that of vaccination alone.”

Conclusion:
Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited [71]. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions. Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.

Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.”

True. Tell Gorski that. Further reading.

55 Goldman GS, Miller NZ (2012) Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010. Hum Exp Toxicol 31: 1012-1021
71 Fisker AB, Hornshøj L, Rodrigues A, Balde I, Fernandes M, et al. (2014) Effects of the introduction of new vaccines in Guinea-Bissau on vaccine coverage, vaccine timeliness, and child survival: an observational study. Lancet Glob Health 2: e478-e487.

However, tetanus might be a good one to get, if you are likely to be exposed.
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/Article_2010.pdf?ua=1

Preferably before pregnancy.

The foreign death rate for rotavirus doesn’t actually check if vaccines decrease deaths?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309911702535

Flu benefit lies
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7578881_Influenza_Vaccination_and_Mortality_in_the_United_States

<10% elderly deaths from flu in USA, claimed benefit five-fold.

Infant mortality:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
In conclusion “These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.”
“A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”

True.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/182/9/791/96333
Vaccination and All-Cause Child Mortality From 1985 to 2011: Global Evidence From the Demographic and Health Surveys
“Childhood vaccination, and in particular measles and tetanus vaccination, is associated with substantial reductions in childhood mortality.”
Nobody really dies from measles anymore.
Their estimations, not a real study.
“The results indicate that measles vaccination is associated with a relative risk of mortality of 0.83, whereas maternal tetanus vaccination is associated with a relative risk of 0.92
Really? So little. I retract the tetanus thing.
“Generally, it is not possible to estimate the association between vaccination status and mortality at the individual level in household survey data, such as the DHS, because the vaccination status of children who have died is not usually reported (36)”
Lying directly. So just get the data?
“An additional advantage of this aggregate analysis is that it allows us to capture potential herd immunity (37–39), which would not typically be observed in an individual-level analysis.”

36 Cutts FT, Izurieta HS, Rhoda DA. Measuring coverage in MNCH: design, implementation, and interpretation challenges associated with tracking vaccination coverage using household surveys. PLoS Med. 2013;105:e1001404.
I hope I’m including enough references, wouldn’t want to disappoint anyone.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/116/3/510/99513?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Measles study method issues.

Growing infertility epidemic, CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/whitepaper-pg1.htm#tabs-793807-1

“Although some perceive infertility as a quality-of-life issue, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) regards infertility as a disease (3). A U.S. Supreme Court opinion agreed with a lower court statement that reproduction is a major life activity and confirmed that conditions that interfere with reproduction should be regarded as disabilities, as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (4).”

And according to international law, deliberately bringing about impaired fertility is GENOCIDE, see d.

Wait, is preventing reproduction (a “major life activity”) by forced poverty, thanks to tax redistribution so others CAN have kids, illegal? Seems so.

“Although the focus of research and services has traditionally been on women (and, as a consequence, much of this article reflects it), fertility impairments may be just as common among men (6). The statistics cited above distinguish impaired fecundity from infertility. In this article we refer to infertility more broadly, including all fertility impairments. Recurrent pregnancy loss (miscarriage) is a component of impaired fecundity, distinct from infertility (ASRM, unpublished data) and is not included in this presentation.”

It started with Boomers, the free love generation, putting off reproduction. I wonder if STDs might be a cause?

“African American women had a twofold increase in odds of reporting a history of infertility (9).”

Mixed women? Is the same true in full African immigrants?

“Different subgroups may have infertility of different etiology.”

“In 2006, reported chlamydia rates were eight times higher among African Americans than among whites, highlighting the large disparities in this important risk factor for infertility (13).”

“Other modifiable factors contribute to the burden of infertility. Although the proportion of male factor infertility due to varicocele is unknown, this common condition is reported in approximately half of the inpatient surgery services and approximately two thirds of office visits for male factor infertility in the United States (14)”

“Although the proportion of infertility that is due to tobacco smoking is unknown, infertility specialists are increasingly aware that exposure to tobacco products can cause infertility”

Including secondhand?
The ban moaners have explaining to do.

“Obesity in men is associated with erectile dysfunction and decreased androgen production, but its effects on male fertility are not as clear (30).”

“A public health strategy focusing on primary prevention (e.g., through removal of risk factors for infertility such as those described above) would reduce the prevalence of infertility,”

Why do I mention that? Here.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640?journalCode=uteh20
“A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection” 2018

“Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged.”

trans. Instant shutdown.

“Using logistic regression to analyze the data, the probability of having been pregnant was estimated for females who received an HPV vaccine compared with females who did not receive the shot. Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot. If 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million. Further study into the influence of HPV vaccine on fertility is thus warranted.”

h/t https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-safety/vaccine-boom-population-bust-study-queries-the-link-between-hpv-vaccine-and-soaring-infertility/

“If the association is causation, however, DeLong’s math suggests that if all the females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by two million. That’s not two million missing children. That’s two million women who can’t conceive one, two, or any children.”

Less contraceptive use should translate to more babies among the vaccinated.”

“Male sperm counts have nosedived in recent decades – scientists published data last year showing that globally, they have dropped 50 percent in just the past 40 years – signalling serious unidentified environmental hazards.”

They should look at whether r or K-types have higher or lower than normal fertility.

HPV vaccination – as well as tetanus vaccination – has been linked in medical literature to a condition called anti-phospholipid syndrome which is a poorly defined disease caused when the immune system erroneously manufactures antibodies against certain lipid proteins found in membranes that are in a host of tissues — eyes, heart, brain, nerves, skin – and the reproductive system. One 2012 study by Serbian researchers at the Institute for Virology, Vaccines and Ser “Torlak” found that “hyperimmunisation” of the immune system with different adjuvants, including aluminum, in mice, resulted in induction of antiphospholipid syndrome and the tandem lowering of fertility.””

That study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235053

You cannot discuss female fertility without male.

“Other research has implicated aluminum in conception problems. French infertility researcher Jean-Philippe Klein and his colleagues at the University of Lyon published the results of their 2014 study of the sperm of men seeking assistance at a French infertility clinic.”

That study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25461904

From it:

This study provided unequivocal evidence of high concentrations of aluminum in human semen and suggested possible implications for spermatogenesis and sperm count.

I recommend chelation therapy studies, for all concerned with what I think.

And back:

Merck’s HPV vaccine test ““placebos” contained both the high doses of aluminium as well as another scary ingredient, polysorbate 80. This chemical has exhibited delayed ovarian toxicity to rat ovaries at all injected doses tested over a tenfold range.”

I’m sure they aren’t planning to make you infertile. (Scroll down).

“None of the trials accurately assessed the long-term impact of the vaccine on the reproductive health of girls”

Actually many brought that up at the time it was pushed.

“Why make a vaccine for a disease that afflicts less than 0.3% of people in their lifetime?”

It’s now being pushed on men like they’re gay (anal cancer risk). Penile cancer may go up though thanks to anal sex.

[checked:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/penile-cancer/incidence

increase of 23% of this rare cancer alone since early 90s, when porn use was lower]

Actually, decided to look up anal cancer, look at this:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/anal-cancer#heading-Zero
“Since the early 1990s, anal cancer incidence rates have increased by almost two-thirds (63%) in the UK. Rates in males have increased by a fifth (20%), and rates in females have increased by almost two times (99%).”
What could possibly account for such a huge sex difference? I wonder…
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/anal-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two
“91% of anal cancer cases in the UK are caused by HPV infection.
Around 91% of anal cancers in women and 75% in men are HPV-positive, a meta-analysis showed.
Anal cancer risk may be higher in people participating in anal sexual behaviours (including but not limited to receptive anal intercourse)”

MAY BE?

https://www.medinstitute.org/2016/08/the-consequences-of-heterosexual-anal-sex-for-women/

“In the case of heterosexual anal intercourse it is the woman who is at risk to develop fecal incontinence.”
Lovely way to treat the wife.
http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v111/n2/full/ajg2015419a.html

“The American Cancer Society reports, “Receptive anal intercourse also increases the risk of anal cancer in both men and women, particularly in those younger than 30.” 7 HPV (human papillomavirus) is the main cause of anal cancer; but apparently, anal intercourse in particular increases the likelihood that the virus will attack the anus or rectum.”
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/analcancer/detailedguide/anal-cancer-risk-factors

Why does this remind me of the Pill?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2126920
Relevance of immuno-contraceptive vaccines for population control
sterilization!


Gates Foundation own vaccine stock
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021577629748680000?ns=prod/accounts-wsj

High-titre measles vaccine and female mortality
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)14867-2/fulltext
“Hence, the new hypothesis has created increasing consistency in existing data, which suggest that causal processes might be involved. This consistency across different studies should reduce the likelihood of chance as an explanation.”

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/underreporting-vaccine-adverse-events
Underreporting Vaccine Adverse Events
“How can they dismiss placebo-controlled trials that raise serious possibilities of vaccine-caused illness?”

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/pill-temporarily-diminish-fertility-study-article-1.1850643

No comment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673681925150

“Whatever their previous menstrual history women, especially the nulliparous, who are concerned about their future fertility should be recommended oral contraception in preference to an intrauterine device.”
Compared to?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5967601/#B15
2018 Discrepancies in the evaluation of the safety of the human papillomavirus vaccine
“In this article we bring the attention on certain adverse effects of the vaccine against HPV that have not been well studied as they are not well defined.”
It seems the WHO lied.
“We also compare the different approaches on HPV vaccine policies regarding its adverse reactions in countries like Japan and Colombia, vs. the recommendations issued by the WHO.”

https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-018-0931-2
“Pandemic mortality rates in 1918 and in 2009 were highest among those with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES). Despite this, low SES groups are not included in the list of groups prioritized for pandemic vaccination, and the ambition to reduce social inequality in health does not feature in international and national pandemic preparedness plans. We describe plans for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between SES and pandemic outcomes during the last five pandemics.”
Interesting.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18305607
Estimating the annual attack rate of seasonal influenza among unvaccinated individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Conclusion
Overall, we found that approximately 1 in 5 unvaccinated children and 1 in 10 unvaccinated adults were estimated to be infected by seasonal influenza annually, with rates of symptomatic influenza roughly half of these estimates. Our findings help to establish the background risk of seasonal influenza infection in unvaccinated individuals.”
Okay, compared to? Why not look at vaccinated?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18305462
2018 Does consecutive influenza vaccination reduce protection against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Dose-response results (≥3 consecutive vaccinations) did show a reduction in effectiveness.
Certainty in the evidence is very low due to inconsistency and imprecision.
The findings do not rule out the possibility of reduced effectiveness.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1830094X
2018 Influenza vaccine effectiveness in older adults compared with younger adults over five seasons
“Conclusions
Over 5 seasons, influenza vaccination provided similar levels of protection among older and younger adults, with lower levels of protection against influenza A(H3N2) in all ages.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1631218X
Effectiveness of MF59-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Adjuvantation with MF59 may increase vaccine effectiveness among seniors.”

Lucky them.

http://ahrp.org/immunocompromised-children-what-are-their-infectious-risks-from-the-unvaccinated/
Read the whole thing for this link, it’s short. Quoting in case it gets taken down.

EXCUSE:

“In the last few days there have been multiple news articles and testimonies in the Maine and Vermont legislatures about the need to impose vaccine mandates to protect immunocompromised children.[1] [2] I attended the vaccine bills’ hearing in Augusta, Maine on May 11, which lasted into the night. I also attended the Vermont Senate hearing 3 weeks earlier. The Vermont Senate committee said it would only hear testimony from physicians, which is why I was invited. Not very many doctors are familiar with the vaccine literature. Vaccines are, surprisingly, an arcane area of medicine.

I feel safe.

Unfortunately, I heard not a single expert (at either hearing) provide any data about the magnitude of the problem that vaccine mandates are supposed to fix. In fact, I was quite surprised to learn that helping the immunocompromised seemed to be the major justification to remove vaccine exemptions.

I heard no one mention the fact that vaccine efficacies of 40%, 60%, 80% (approximately correct for influenza, diphtheria, mumps vaccines) might also pose some risk to the immunodeficient. (These are just examples; most other vaccines have efficacy in the 60-90% range.) Actually, any statistician could tell you that low efficacy poses considerably more risk than exemption rates of 1-5% in Maine (depending on which required vaccine we are discussing). Vaccines with low efficacy make the claim of herd immunity a joke–but did even one “expert” at the hearings know or care?

Herd immunity of 100% (impossible) wouldn’t prevent mortality.

Herd immunity is a myth. The extreme case’s claim is demonstrably false.

How much risk is actually posed by “vaccine-preventable” diseases to the immunocompromised? I reviewed the most common infections seen in those at highest risk: stem cell transplant recipients[3] and leukemia patients.[4]

Here is what I found….”

Shit, someone who cares.

“The limited data show that community acquired respiratory viruses (CARVs) and herpesviruses are the most common pathogens.”
“The reports on human herpes virus (HHV)-6 diseases are increasing…”
“Herpesvirus pneumonia is usually caused by reactivation of latent viruses which occurs in severe immunosuppression.”
“… viral encephalitis was mainly caused by human herpes virus (HHV)-6, followed by EBV, HSV, JC virus, CMV, VZV in the recipients of allo-HSCT. Our data showed that herpesvirus-associated encephalitis was mainly caused by EBV followed by HSV, CMV and VZV…
The most frequent pathogens of viral hepatitis are hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Besides these, other viruses such as CMV and HSV may also result in hepatitis. Hepatitis B and C can be caused by either virus reactivation or blood transmission…””

There are also many bacterial and fungal infections they may develop: too many to list. Of the many infections these patients tend to develop, the only 3 infections commonly seen, for which there exists a vaccine and which spread between children, are chickenpox (varicella zoster virus or VZV), influenza, and rotavirus.

Rotavirus is a relatively mild gastrointestinal virus and mortality, even in those with impaired immunity, is rare.[5]

Influenza is a real concern, but influenza vaccines are notoriously ineffective. This year, CDC said the vaccine had 19% efficacy.[6] (A Canadian study found no efficacy for this year’s flu vaccine.) Over the past ten years, CDC’s efficacy estimates for influenza vaccines averaged 40%.[7] So even if everyone in America was vaccinated, you could not generate herd immunity for influenza. You could not achieve the desired “cocoon” for those most vulnerable.

Remember the word cocoon, please.

Chickenpox is caused by a virus that, once you have been infected, will live forever in your nerve cells. The vaccine virus also does this. Immunocompromised patients developing chickenpox/VZV infections are usually reactivating latent virus long present in their own bodies. Only very rarely are they “catching” chickenpox virus from someone else. Fortunately, we have antiviral drugs and immune globulin to prevent and treat these common reactivations.”

Her bold in this paragraph:

“Let me repeat: vulnerable, immunodeficient children are susceptible to many viral, bacterial and fungal infections, but these are very rarely caused by child to child spread of microorganisms for which we have vaccines. They are listed in footnotes 3 and 4.

FYI

[3] http://www.jhoonline.org/content/pdf/1756-8722-6-94.pdf
[4] http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/39664.pdf

For those who want to waste my time digging up a never-ending stream of references.

It is troubling that vulnerable families have been encouraged to fear and stigmatize unvaccinated children, when the rates of primary and secondary vaccine failures (i.e., number of vaccinated kids who lack immunity despite their vaccinations) are far greater than the rates of children lacking vaccinations. [CDC’s 2012-13 kindergarten vaccine exemption rates by state ranged from a low of 0.1% to a high of 6.5%.]

In fact, the vaccine failures pose a much larger risk. But are the immunocompromised suffering and dying due to other childrens’ vaccine failures? We are not hearing about it.

KEY:

If the vulnerable are not being harmed by vaccinated children who lack immunity, then it follows they are not suffering from exposure to the unvaccinated, either.

LOGICALLY.

You have no right to forbid children their education on medical grounds, it is a right.

Low IQ is medical too, you heap those ghetto kids in. Being stabbed is a more prevalent danger.

Don’t vulnerable families have enough real problems, without adding unfounded and unjustified fears? Isn’t it time to drop this canard?

But then how will they emotionally blackmail us into buying their products?

The gaslighting of “you’re killing babies” – seldom levied at the aborting parents?

As I said in an earlier post, the last measles deaths in the United States (there were 2) occurred in 2003. One was elderly; the other was aged 13 and had had a bone marrow transplant. I was unable to learn if his infection was from a vaccine strain or wild-type measles virus. Not a single American has died from measles since.

We need to know if vulnerable, immunocompromised children are catching and dying from vaccine-preventable diseases, and from whom they are catching these diseases: from the vaccinated, from the unvaccinated, or from their own latent viruses? From vaccine strains or wild-type infections?

from WHOM indeed

test the genetics of what they come down with, check for a match to the vaccine genes

if they don’t match, they’d have something to brag about

How many children are affected? Where are they? Which diseases are killing them? I am not finding evidence of a problem in the medical literature.”

Listen and obey.

Fine, let’s look up the strawman victims being used to push this.

http://lymphosign.com/doi/10.14785/lymphosign-2016-0007

“In the above regard, vaccines play an important role in preventing infections in the immunocompromised host. Prevention can be achieved by a combination of strategies. Besides vaccination of the immunocompromised patient (in whom immune responses might be suboptimal), there is a recognition of the importance of the “cocoon strategy” that is widely used in protecting susceptible patients from specific vaccine-preventable diseases (Forsyth et al. 2015). In the context of immunocompromised patients, one vaccinates parents, caregivers, and other close contacts, which provides indirect protection by preventing disease in those in close proximity to the immunocompromised person.”

Parents are the primary disease vector (risk) to their immunocompromised children.
THE PARENTS.

Proven by the cocoon strategy designed specifically for compromised children.

Given the frequent physical interactions, this is quite obvious.

They don’t get to blame the world for their mistakes. If the kid catches something, they should immediately test the parent and drain some antibodies.

The latest data claims immunocompromised children MUST STILL BE VACCINATED.

https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/immunization-of-the-immunocompromised-child-key-principles

As in, no, your child is not exempt.

Highlights:

Indirect protection is provided by ensuring that all household members and other close contacts are immunized against infections that they may transmit to the immunocompromised child”

Inactivated vaccines may be given safely to immunocompromised patients, but responses may be diminished or absent, and increases in dose or in number of doses may be indicated (e.g., hepatitis B, conjugate pneumococcal vaccines) [1]–[4].”

Live vaccines may cause disease by uncontrolled replication and are usually contraindicated in immunocompromised individuals, with the exception of those with isolated IgA deficiency, IgG subclass deficiency, complement deficiency, or anatomical or functional asplenia. Another exception is that live viral vaccines are safe for most children with phagocyte or neutrophil disorders (including chronic granulomatous disease) but live bacterial vaccines (e.g., BGG, live typhoid vaccine) are contraindicated [1][3]. Live vaccines may be given to individuals with HIV infection who are not severely immunocompromised [1]–[3].”

EVEN THE HIV KIDS GET IT.

Who do you have to hide behind now?

Don’t blame the world for your kid getting sick, scapegoating doesn’t reduce your personal culpability.
Scapegoating is disgusting.
Sacrificing other people’s kids doesn’t make you exempt.

Additional vaccines: Immunocompromised children may require vaccines that are not routinely recommended for all children (e.g., 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide), or not routinely given beyond a certain age (e.g., Haemophilus influenzae type b).”

They need MORE, MORE VACCINES.

Assuming other people can do your job for you is ass-backwards wrong!

Even if everyone in the world got vaccinated, your child would still need vaccines, according to the authorities you appeal to!

“The duration of the immune response may be diminished, necessitating extra booster doses (e.g., children at ongoing risk of hepatitis B exposure should undergo annual testing for hepatitis B antibody and receive booster doses if indicated) [2].”
When long-term immunosuppression is required, inactivated vaccines are given when the patient is on the lowest anticipated dose of immunosuppressive agents. Also, if feasible, immunosuppression is held or reduced temporarily to maximize response.”

MUH Medication – NOT AN EXCUSE.

“Response to a vaccine should not be assumed”

Refusing to listen to these OFFICIAL MEDICAL GUIDELINES makes you an abusive parent, according to the Canadian government.
Lovely.

General antibody production problem?

“No delay is required for live oral or intranasal vaccines or for inactivated vaccines [5].”

u r WRONG, Karens. Mz ‘my kid can’t get any’. Not a barrier.

But, I hear you cry, what about the cancer patients?

Low, but K. I am willing…. to go there. This once.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448241/

OT “reactivation infection with herpes group viruses”
where would children get that?
More evidence in favour of slut shaming.

You might notice something odd, a paper on managing infection risk in cancer patients doesn’t mention vaccines.
At all.

Conclusion “Infection in immunocompromised patients offers a particular clinical challenge because the pathogens are often unusual, and appropriate treatment must begin early in the course of the illness. These patients also must receive the highest tolerated dosages of antimicrobial agents and for maximum durations. Prophylactic antibiotics should also be given based on the pathogens likely to reactivate during the time of more severe immunosuppression.”

They’re commonly struck down by unusual microbes, not the ones we’re told to vaccinate for!

To close, here is a paranoid misogynistic shill telling us we’re evil for wanting the standard of proof in medicine, and anyway, it would cost money. Can’t put the breaks on the gravy train!

“The low vaccination rates in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods have been attributed to a faulty perception that fervently religious Jews are protected from infection by the insulated nature of their communities, as well as discredited rumors that the life-saving practice is dangerous.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/measles-vaccination-rates-in-anti-vaxxer-areas-of-jerusalem-leap-to-80/

(((Gorski))) has no conflict of interest at all, as you’ll see.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-study/

“However, there is one trait of the anti-vaccine movement that, however its camouflaging plumage may evolve, never, ever changes. It is as immutable as believers say that God is. That trait is that, whatever other claims, the anti-vaccine movement makes, at its core it is always about the vaccines. Always…
at its core the anti-vaccine movement is about fear and loathing of vaccines. Always. When inconvenient science doesn’t support their views, anti-vaccine activists either ignore the science, distort the science, or launch ad hominems against the people doing the science or citing the science. And, as I said before, the claims of the anti-vaccine movement evolve. Never again will the anti-vaccine movement make the horrific mistake of yoking itself to a hypothesis that is as easily testable”

Just do the studies, shill.
That bolded contradicts his conclusion. We noticed.

“Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines (the sole exception being some flu vaccines),”

Wait, mercury is in childhood vaccines still, known neurotoxin?
It’s also in the adult flu jab, which others? That explains why the elderly here pop their clogs after getting one.
We all know people.

“This “too many too soon” chant has lead to a demand by the anti-vaccine movement that the government conduct a large study of “unvaccinated” versus the “vaccinated” children to compare them for health outcomes and, especially, the prevalence of autism.”

They refuse despite that being the gold standard.

How queer.

“I don’t think that people like J.B. Handley realize how risky their gambit is.”

It isn’t just the gravy train, it’s the crazy train!

What echo chamber?

The Ivory Tower sure can echo!

“Such a study would have a very high risk of torpedoing virtually everything the anti-vaccine movement has been working toward in terms of promoting their message of fear about vaccines as being somehow credible (or at least not unreasonable) and based on science (more on that later).”

Then do it.

They want to be proven wrong, huh? Like… scientists?
Shit, if only that were your job. If you only received taxpayer money from these people too.
We live in a society – where you need to do what people pay you for.

Comparisons allowed on a single vaccine basis are clear (top link) so I’d expect a compounded, huge differential between the complete schedule and none whatsoever. The former is sufficient evidence to conduct the latter.

Of course, Ms. Tamaro is either ignorant or disingenuous herself in that some anti-vaccine advocates do indeed call for just such a study, even going so far as to demand a randomized, double-blinded study. J.B. Handley himself has attacked people who correctly call demands for such a study “unethical.””

Correctly? First harm none. Burden of proof.
Are you sure correctly is your word of choice?
He completely dismisses the woman on no grounds.

She says:

“Research studies are divided into two categories, observational studies and experimental studies. An observational study observes individuals and measures variables of interest but does not attempt to influence the responses. (The “epidemiological” studies to which Dr. Insel refers are actually observational studies.) An experimental study, on the other hand, deliberately imposes some treatment on individuals in order to observe their responses; the purpose of an experiment is to study whether the treatment causes a change in the response.”

True, you could find plenty of volunteers to submit data of what they were GOING TO DO ANYWAY.
Why not collect the evidence?

“This paragraph just goes to show how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Misogynist.

but no observational study has been done comparing the prevalence of autism diagnoses in a vaccinated human population compared to an unvaccinated human population. When Dan Olmsted points out that he has identified large populations of unvaccinated children in the United States and asks why a study has not been done on them, he is actually asking why an observational study has not been done.”

She is being perfectly reasonable.

He ignores this question.

“When Senator Harkin asks Dr. Insel why a study has not been done on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children, he too is actually asking why an observational study has not been done to date. Dr. Insel, however, chooses to respond by saying that an experimental study would be required in order to resolve the issue.”

Get someone else to do it and pull his funding.
This is fraud. They are refusing to do their job.

Playing shell games means you are not qualified.

“ignoring the fact that there have been calls from the anti-vaccine movement for experimental studies, which, of course, would be highly unethical because they would leave large numbers of children completely unvaccinated and thus vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases”

that is your hypothesis, NOT a fact
this is WHY we need studies
the vaccine failure children are vulnerable, not biologically bulletproof
these intellectually dishonest douches, e.g.

“In any case, here’s where Tamara goes right off the deep end:

He…. he literally says that. Go look.

“”I would like to point out the epidemiological similarity between smoking/lung cancer and vaccines/autism. Smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer, yet not a single experimental study on humans was ever done – all of the human studies proving that smoking causes lung cancer were observational. The experimental studies were performed on research animals only. Attached at the end of this letter is a lesson taken verbatim from an introductory course in college statistics describing how the connection between smoking and lung cancer was made.””

Proven fact?
Proven fact is ‘off the deep end’?

Introductory course on statistics – she has a sense of humour, this is basic.

“Both Prometheus and Autism Diva enumerated the numerous flaws and ethical lapses in that experiment.”

So what? Try to replicate it or STFU.
Ethical lapses – for data we ALREADY HAVE.

Does Gorski own a time machine?
Let’s all entrust the safety of American children to one ‘autism diva’.

“Then there was the more recent (and even more unethical) Laura Hewitson experiment looking at vaccinated and unvaccinated Macaque monkey infants. I was appalled at how badly designed and grossly unethical that experiment was, not to mention at the enormous undisclosed conflicts of interest of the investigators.”

In your opinion.
Screeching about ethics won’t change biology.

“The problem, of course, is that there is not yet a good animal model of autism”

In your opinion.

So all your method ‘flaws’ you spot make it impossible to meet your standard. Wow.

“Moreover, the history of such research (i.e., Hornig and Hewitson) is not exactly cause for optimism, given how badly done these studies were.”

In your opinion.
The weasel words in this should be studied.

So the gist of this ENTIRE LENGTHY POST is “don’t try, don’t note data that already exists, the method is always wrong, the models aren’t good enough and whatever you do, IT’S UNETHICAL” as if that’s ever stopped science before.
Didn’t the vaccination guy abuse his children?

https://curiosity.com/topics/thank-edward-jenner-and-cow-pus-for-vaccines-curiosity/

Yup.

Where’s the kitchen sink? Oh, it comes. At the end.

“While she is correct to say that an experimental (i.e., randomized, blinded) study is not always necessary to provide sufficient evidence of causation to conclude that there is causation, she’s picked the wrong example for a number of reasons.”

He’s beating his strawmen hard.

In any case, Ms. Tamara is also wrong when she says that a study of the vaccinated and unvaccinated has never been undertaken.”

She’s right but she’s wrong, guys!

The study he discusses blames RACIAL DIFFERENCES for why his comparison ‘didn’t count’.

But, you said about how it hasn’t been done earlier and later you say it hasn’t been done because statistics?

He doesn’t have the Mawson study above.

It’s this study he is referring to and weirdly, if you follow his link nothing comes up.
PAYWALL. I smelled bullshit before but linking the wrong URL?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/1/187
Here it is, the right link.

Parts he didn’t quote:

“Unvaccinated children are at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases.”

What bias? And as opposed to what? Increased compared to….?

The largest numbers of unvaccinated children lived in counties in California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, and Michigan.”
“Unvaccinated children have characteristics that are distinctly different from those of undervaccinated children. Unvaccinated children are clustered geographically, increasing the risk of transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases to both unvaccinated and undervaccinated children.”

So it just says who they are (and Jews are white here) and nothing whatsoever about HEALTH OUTCOMES, as he implied it did.

He LIED. Please, check. I implore you.
Lie of omission is still a lie. Blatant intellectual dishonesty.

The topic is health outcomes, Gorski. We could compare the hair colour of the vaccinated/not (that study essentially does) and it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. Clutching at straws, why?

I can only conclude that Ms. Tamara is also quite naive in that she clearly has no clue just how much money and how many children an observational study of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated would require to do properly, much less how tricky it would be to control for confounders, given that the unvaccinated vary in significant ways from the vaccinated.”

OH, THE SHILL WANTS MORE TAXPAYER MONEY.
Shocker. Sounds like he’s holding you to ransom.

But he knows there are huge differences. Huh.

“Skeptical blogger extraordinaire Prometheus tells the tale. First, he points out how few completely unvaccinated children there are to study, perhaps around 50,000 in the entire U.S., in the 3-6 year old age cohort that would be most fruitful to do a study looking at autism incidence in the vaccinated and unvaccinated.”

Perhaps?

What, so let’s not bother? Yes, let’s listen to a blogger.
A ‘skeptic’, no less. Saying no to everything isn’t hard.

Well, plugging those numbers in – along with the current 1 in 150 autism prevalence – we find that we need over 360,000 children in each group to detect a 10% difference (you can try it yourself here). Unfortunately, that is more than the total number of unvaccinated children in the US, so that’s not going to happen.”

Wait, numbers you literally just made up? And the highest, most unlikely prevalence?
84% of statistics are made up, including that one.
Again, don’t bother is the best you can come up with? Over time you’d get enough data.
A 1% increased risk is medically valid, their significance in medicine is 0.001%.

What can we get with our “sample” of 49,652 unvaccinated children? If we manage to include each and every unvaccinated child in the US in the study, we could detect a 26% or more difference in autism prevalence.”

Why not do it, the kids already exist in that condition?

The data is RIGHT THERE.

Of course, it’s not even remotely practical to expect to get 100% of the unvaccinated children in the country into a study.”

So don’t try?

“How more about a practical number – say, 10% of them?”

Bullshit artist literally making up “samples” with quote marks is the best argument they have.

“That would allow us to detect a 70% or greater difference – about a three-fold difference in autism prevalence between the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.”

Okay, so at least conduct A study?
Why not?
Why say, oh, let’s not bother, we know the results?
That is not science, but faith. Fuck these baby-killers.
If you know it’s safe, why not check?

Shut your critics up?

Does anyone here think that parents who fervently believe that vaccines cause autism would accept negative results from a study that’s only powered to detect a three-fold difference in autism rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated as sufficiently reassuring to accept the current vaccination as safe?”

Sure, you won’t do it because the people who want it wouldn’t like the results.
Not you. The people who want it.
You’d definitely accept results that show you’ve been encouraging child abuse for years?

Appeal to incredulity. Someone else’s.

“Given the religious fervor with which the anti-vaccine movement clings to the myth that vaccines cause autism, I doubt that it would accept a negative result from a study powered to detect a 1% difference in autism rates as sufficiently reassuring to abandon its fear.”

If it’s a myth, settle it with the study. It doesn’t have to be specific to autism. Health outcomes.

Any percentage is better than nothing!

“Moreover, as Prometheus tells us, even the study described above would be inordinately expensive and difficult to do.”

Who cares is we’re advocating the harm of children, it’s expensive to prove this thing is safe?

Wasn’t Prometheus tortured?

“Finally, let’s “run the numbers” on a more practical study – one where we are able to enroll 500 unvaccinated children and 5000 fully vaccinated controls”

Made up numbers, again.
You said there are thousands of unvaccinated in America.
Why not 5000/5000? Why not even groups? That would be ‘practical’.

“I can’t help but note that the study described by Prometheus would probably fail to find the well-known increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease due to smoking, the more so since the incidence of lung cancer in nonsmokers is considerably lower than 1 in 150, which is how many children are estimated to be autistic.”

So it’s let’s not ever look or bother because the made-up numbers of a blogger say it wouldn’t find anything?

“The only way to get around the problems inherent in designing a study …would be to expand the study to multiple nations. Of course, doing such a study would be even more enormously expensive, take several years, and, because funding for autism research is pretty much a zero sum game, would divert huge amounts of money from more promising research to chasing down a highly implausible hypothesis that has virtually no credible empirical support behind it, either from basic science, epidemiology, or other evidence, certainly nowhere near enough evidence to justify such a huge expenditure and effort.”

Yep. He’s lying.
DON’T LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

Virtually no?

Nowhere near enough – in his opinion.

I hope these people go to prison for fraud, when this study is eventually conducted. Obstruction.

“Certainly the government does, hence its reluctance to spend all sorts of money chasing a highly improbable hypothesis….

Not Pharma Super PACs?

In reality, the “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” gambit is just that–a gambit. The leaders of the anti-vaccine movement probably know that doing a study with sufficient power and numbers to exclude even a modest risk of autism due to the current vaccine schedule is so expensive and impractical that it would probably never be done and that smaller studies that are feasible will have too little power to reassure those who believe that vaccines cause autism that vaccines are in fact safe. Why do it then?

So, conspiracy now?
The researchers won’t do their job and it ‘won’t’ be done, instead of can’t?

Here’s the kitchen sink:

In fact, I rather suspect that the smarter among the anti-vaccinationists know all the problems”

That’s an insane conspiracy. Everyone deserves to know the results. Public interest.

“On the other hand, antivaccinationists should be very careful what they ask for. They may just make enough of a pain of themselves to get it.”

….Good?

Worse, if the government ever did spend the money on such an enormous study and it was resoundingly negative, it’s easy to predict that it would make no difference.”

You don’t discuss what would happen if they’re right.
This article of yours was an old whore, windbagging about how impractical, expensive and unethical it is to hold you accountable. The projected paranoia is exquisite, it would be their worst nightmare – but they suggested it?

“As they have done before for other large studies, anti-vaccinationists would discount the results and cry bias.”

Would you accept it if you’re wrong?
If it’s a good study, solid statistically, that wouldn’t be an argument. And you couldn’t find fault with it either, if YOU didn’t like the result.

Kinda why it’s done? Objectivity?

not the dubious study

custom designed

to have the maximal chance of a false positive result,

which is

of course

what the anti-vaccine movement really wants.”

Conspiracy theorist. By all means, do the most accurate study, I’d love to write about it.

He’s literally attacking a study he says is impossible. Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

Paper: Aluminium and Alzheimer’s

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00062/full

You could probably predict this one based on my last post.

Companies use plenty (metric fucktons) of aluminium machinery (watch any episode of How it’s Made online) because the odds of you proving the connection and the odds of tracking it back to their production and the odds of you suing is practically nil and they keep profit margins fat. Abstaining from “junk food” might make you feel better because you cut down on your foods processed using aluminium as a powder (e.g. for baking) or aluminium machines (most dangerous/leeching when handling acidic contents AKA most “junk” plus random popular foods like tomato sauce).

It would be so easy to force them to switch to (clean, no other pollutants) stainless steel but that’s more expensive and there’s no public pressure. I link to these to help that end.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is perhaps the principal example of cognitive failure in humans,

brain damage

and currently over 5.5 million Americans suffer from this incapacitating and progressive disorder of thought, reasoning and memory. Our laboratory has been evaluating the potential contribution of environmentally bioavailable neurotoxic metals to the onset, development and progression of AD for about 30 years

Filthy casuals.

(Lukiw et al., 1987). Largely because of its known multiple and potent neurotoxic effects, much of our research has focused on the potential contribution of aluminum to the AD process

Yeah, why do Americans get it so much, Aluminium Machine Manufacturing America????

And the generation who grew up with “safer” aluminium “tins”…

While I’m activating almonds.

Other elements might be iffy too, if you’re a man with titanium jewelry (skin contact), consider replacing it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180620125907.htm

If it seems cheaper and better than (good thing), it’s probably a slow acting toxin.

Why don’t you get Trump to announce companies have to label which metals (elements) are in their products, especially important for say, kitchenware compounds (e.g. stainless steel)? You already have the lead law although that’s in dire need of a re-write because they now label everything as a lawsuit proofing measure.

You need to know what you’re buying, literally.

Simple consumer liberty. Why aren’t we funding this?

The Aluminium Age and Alzheimer’s

Where’s the science?

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-23226-5_11
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013409001731
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878535215001914

“The results demonstrated that Al(III) induced the transformation of the initial random coil structure to the β-sheet configuration in the Aβ40 peptides. These structural changes facilitated the aggregation of Aβ40.”

Meanwhile, denial train. Choo choo!

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/risk-factors-and-prevention/metals-and-dementia
“Here’s the evidence behind the presence of metals such as copper, zinc, iron and aluminium.”
The first three are needed by the body and not neurotoxins.
“But the evidence doesn’t yet show whether this relationship actually causes Alzheimer’s disease.”
Have you tried checking?
“It is also unclear whether reducing metals in the brain via drugs or reducing our exposure would have any effect.”
It is unclear whether Caesar was stabbed but there is a lot of blood and all these knives might’ve had some effect.
“These metals are essential to the healthy function of our brain,”
100% LIE.
Aluminium is not necessary for any bodily function.
But it makes food manufacturing dirt cheap!


“The body is able to tolerate these metals in small amounts by clearing through the kidneys. ”

Well, clearly not.

These include aluminium and lead, for example it has been shown that if they are not taken out by the kidneys through organ failure or by exposure to extremely high doses these metals are able to deposit in the brain.
These metals are known to cause negative effects in the brain and have been implicated in several neurological conditions.”
Safe as lead, guys!
And no that’s outdated, the body doesn’t really clear it. See end.
“In 1965, researchers found that rabbits injected with an extremely high dose of aluminium developed toxic tau tangles in their brains. This led to speculation that aluminium from cans, cookware, processed foods and even the water supply could be causing dementia.”
But the can manufacturers were slipped a bribe because they recently had to switch from toxic tin.
That generation’s children now seem to be presenting with unprecedented Alzheimer’s…. coincidence?
“Importantly, these results were only seen with extremely high exposures that far exceed the levels that can enter the body through food or potentially through contact with aluminium cookware.”
That limit does not exist and assumes perfect health – no alcoholism, polluted air, toxic water, stress, chronic diseases.
“As yet no study or group of studies has been able to confirm that aluminium is involved in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.”
Ethics and finding the funding.
Also a half-lie, there are many studies. As you’ll see.
“Aluminium is seen in the normal, healthy brain.”

…..No?

No, it isn’t.
Not ever. Not at all.
It shouldn’t get past the barrier.
Normal for the modern world is not healthy.

Opening line here: “Aluminium is neurotoxic.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24779346

Back to the liars:

“Although aluminium has been seen in amyloid plaques there is no solid evidence that aluminium is increased in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
Yes there was, you’re ignoring it.

They dissected Alzheimer’s patients and found it in there.
Blatant lie.

No convincing relationship between amount of exposure or aluminium in the body and the development of Alzheimer’s disease has been established.”
Wait before it didn’t exist and in the very next sentence, it isn’t convincing?
“Aluminium in food and drink is in a form that is not easily absorbed in to the body. Hence the amount taken up is less than 1% of the amount present in food and drink.”
Bullshit. It’s the most processed form it goes through the whole digestive tract and then into the bloodstream like food nutrients.
Less than 1% – per meal or drink. PER meal or drink.
Comforting?
“Most of the aluminium taken into the body is cleaned out by the kidneys.”
Outdated.
And wouldn’t it be the liver?
“failed to find a convincing causal association between aluminium exposure in humans and Alzheimer’s disease.”
Give us the data instead of finding excuses to hide it.
1991, before the cash cow was in full milking rotation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21345082_Aluminium_amyloid_and_Alzheimer’s_disease
“exposure to aluminium has been implicated by epidemiological studies and the finding of aluminium in the cerebral plaques and tangles.”
3 decades later? Still covering it up?
While they blame copper:
https://www.keele.ac.uk/research/researchnews/2012/metalsandtheamyloidcascadehypothesisofalzheimersdisease.php
It’s neuroprotective.
“a high brain tissue ratio of copper to aluminium protects against neurotoxicity associated with the deposition of amyloid-b and the amyloid cascade hypothesis.”
“The study on 60 aged human brains identified a number of relationships between the degree of severity of amyloid-b neuropathology and the metal content of tissue from the donor brains. The latter was recently published for aluminium, copper and iron (House et al. (2012) Metallomics 4, 56-65).


Relationships, PLURAL and severity.

“Specifically, the extent and severity of amyloid-b deposition was inversely related to the copper content of brain tissue. Lower copper resulted in more severe and more extensive deposition of amyloid-b in the donor brain.”
But obviously you’re crazy to read about it.
“The research suggested that for those individuals with moderate to severe amyloid pathology, a copper to aluminium ratio of less than 20 predicted dementia.”
“Professor Exley said: “The hypothesis requires further testing but if proven correct it could explain why some individuals with senile plaques do not suffer from dementia. The implication being that a high brain tissue ratio of copper to aluminium protects against neurotoxicity associated with the deposition of amyloid-b and the amyloid cascade hypothesis.””

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013411002145
Aluminium-specific chelators reduce symptoms. Coincidence?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X1530036X
Effect is seen with low levels too:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X1530036X
By this means, the body burden of aluminum in humans has increased. Epidemiological and experimental findings indicate that aluminum is not as harmless as was previously thought, and that aluminum may contribute to the inception and advancement of Alzheimer’s disease. Epidemiological data is reinforced by indications that aluminum exposure can result in excess inflammatory activity within the brain.


“Evidence is presented that reinforces the likelihood that aluminum is a factor speeding the rate of brain aging. Such acceleration would inevitably enlarge the incidence of age-related neurological diseases.”

Maybe most Baby Boomers would be okay if their brains weren’t poisoned?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301008210000936
“However, disruption of these mechanisms, or absorption of detrimental metals with no known biological function, alter the ionic balance and can result in a disease state, including several neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding the complex structural and functional interactions of metal ions with the various intracellular and extracellular components of the central nervous system, under normal conditions and during neurodegeneration, is essential for the development of effective therapies.”

I hope you plan on someone in Big Pharma coming to kill you for developing therapies.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444508119500471
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2000/articles/2000-v15n01-p021.shtml
Opening line: “Aluminum has been identified as a neurotoxin for over 100 years.”
As safe as lead or mercury.

http://www.alz-disease.org/downloads/Aluminum2.pdf
You know where the society said no studies?
“A 2008 systematic review of studies that included aluminum exposure through drinking water, diet, and occupation found 23 studies demonstrated an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease with elevated aluminum exposure, 3 found that there was no connection…”
Cover-up? Where’s the science?

I can’t seem to find it, guys!

https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-016-0342-y
We screened 4784 studies and included 60 in the review. Risk factors were considered in six categories: air quality, toxic heavy metals, other metals, other trace elements, occupational-related exposures, and miscellaneous environmental factors. Few studies took a life course approach. There is at least moderate evidence implicating the following risk factors: air pollution; aluminium; silicon; selenium; pesticides; vitamin D deficiency; and electric and magnetic fields.”
Life course is ideal.

https://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article/193516
There is a threshold.
“Our article examines the question of whether environmental and therapeutic aluminum exposure increases the risk of disease. To this end, Alzheimer’s disease and breast cancer are taken as critical endpoints. Aluminum’s neurotoxic effects in humans and its embryotoxic effects in animal models have been proven (4).”

https://www.futsci.com/uploads/project/file/f004582d987d2142ba418d26149d258d64e024e9.pdf
“An inevitable consequence of humans living in
the Aluminium Age is the presence of aluminium in the
brain. This non-essential, neurotoxic metal gains entry to
the brain throughout all stages of human development,
from the foetus through to old age. Human exposure to
myriad forms of this ubiquitous and omnipresent metal
makes its presence in the brain inevitable, while the
structure and physiology of the brain makes it particularly
susceptible to the accumulation of aluminium with age. In
spite of aluminium’s complete lack of biological essentiality,
it actually participates avidly in brain biochemistry
and substitutes for essential metals in critical biochemical
processes. The degree to which such substitutions are disruptive
and are manifested as biological effects will depend
upon the biological availability of aluminium in any particular
physical or chemical compartment, and will under
all circumstances be exerting an energy load on the brain.
In short, the brain must expend energy in its ‘unconscious’
response to an exposure to biologically available aluminium.
There are many examples where ‘biological effect’
has resulted in aluminium-induced neurotoxicity and most
potently in conditions that have resulted in an aluminiumassociated
encephalopathy. However, since aluminium is
non-essential and not required by the brain, its biological
availability will only rarely achieve such levels of acuity,
and it is more pertinent to consider and investigate the
brain’s response to much lower though sustained levels of
biologically reactive aluminium. This is the level of
exposure that defines the putative role of aluminium in
chronic neurodegenerative disease and, though thoroughly
investigated in numerous animal models, the chronic toxicity
of aluminium has yet to be addressed experimentally
in humans. A feasible test of the ‘aluminium hypothesis’,
whereby aluminium in the human brain is implicated in
chronic neurodegenerative disease, would be to reduce the
brain’s aluminium load to the lowest possible level by noninvasive
means. The simplest way that this aim can be
fulfilled in a significant and relevant population is by
facilitating the urinary excretion of aluminium through the
regular drinking of a silicic acid-rich mineral water over an
extended time period. This will lower the body and
brain burden of aluminium, and by doing so will test
whether brain aluminium contributes significantly to
chronic neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s
and Parkinson’s.”

Of course, A Drink is cheaper than all the care of the sick patients and you can’t steal their house legally by telling the council they lack competence.

“Certainly aluminium either directly as a
particulate or indirectly following the dissolution of
nanoparticulates could induce an inflammatory action in
the human brain, and this has been demonstrated in animal
models [64]. The immunopotency of aluminiumbased
adjuvants outside their role as adjuvants in vaccine
and allergy therapies seems to have been largely ignored
as a potential mechanism of aluminium toxicity
throughout the body [65] and especially in the nervous
system [66]. The consistent observation of significant
accumulations of aluminium in the brain should at least
be a warning of the potential for such to participate in
neuroinflammatory toxicity.”

You’d think.

The brain is an obvious target for aluminium toxicity.
Neurotoxicity is evident under acute conditions such as
encephalopathies, and it is predicted but not necessarily
recognised as such under chronic or everyday exposures to
environmental aluminium. The mechanisms of neurotoxicity
are potentially myriad, while their manifestations as
biochemical changes are probably quite subtle for all but
the most vulnerable groups.”

Headaches, stomach aches, etc. “Brain fog” might be entirely toxin based.

“While the latter must include
the foetus and neonate, there are few indications as to the
identities of others who are susceptible to the neurotoxicity
of aluminium. Since the advent of the Hall-He´roult process
(and thereafter Bayer process) towards the end of the
nineteenth century and our ability to extract aluminium
from its inert ores on an industrial scale, we have all been
living in the Aluminium Age [67]. Now, in the twenty-first
century, we can no longer completely avoid environmental
exposure to aluminium. Since there is as yet no proven
requirement for aluminium in any living organism, never
mind in humans, it would be prudent to reduce our
everyday exposure to avoid aluminium entering the body
and persisting in the human brain [68].”

It’s used to process junk food, watch How It’s Made.
When people feel better after giving up junk, it might be aluminium exposure reduction.

It would be easy to study: people who eat a lot of junk and people who don’t, Al urine amounts.

“We have begun to
show that this can be achieved by using nature’s own way
of avoiding biologically available aluminium. We have
shown that regular consumption of silicon-rich mineral
waters both reduce our gastrointestinal uptake of aluminium
and, importantly, facilitate our urinary excretion of
systemic aluminium [48]. Life on Earth evolved in spite of
a crust of aluminosilicate [1]. However, the Hall-He´roult
process and the subsequent arrival of an Aluminium Age
have let the aluminium genie out of the bottle. Our final
wish should be that the unique inorganic chemistry of
aluminium and silicic acid will help to put the genie back
where it can be used effectively but, most importantly,
safely.”

Trans. We evolved to take silicon into our brain but aluminium is taking its place.
It lied on its CV, it needs to be fired.

http://www.academia.edu/12143618/Aluminium_and_Alzheimer_s_Disease_A_Suspicious_Link
“This article summarizes the various ways in which Al induces oxidative stress, eventually leading to cell death. It also gives a brief account of manifold epidemiological studies that relate the abundant occurrence of Al in soil and water and the prevalence of AD. Al carriers, their role in AD, Al in neurofibrillary tangles, biochemical reactions altered by Al influx in mitochondria have been briefly discussed.”
One of the key words is apoptosis…

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=11467&context=rtd
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21666142_Aluminium_accumulation_beta-amyloid_deposition_and_neurofibrillary_changes_in_the_central_nervous_system
“If aluminium contributes to the development of sporadic AD, it must do so indirectly, perhaps via effects on the synthesis or metabolism of APP, or by contributing generally to the age-related attrition of neurons and thus reducing the threshold for deficits produced by more specific disease-related processes.”

Final study describes a mechanism.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81923975.pdf
Back-up PDFs are always useful.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853898909149192?journalCode=iann20

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/demonstration-of-aluminum-in-amyloid-fibers-in-the-cores-of-senile-cwa8nRkSAh

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.febslet.2006.10.075
Active effect of aluminium on the brain’s self-cleaning.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2014.00167/full
“Aluminum, as an extremely high charge density cation (Z2/r = 18), has the remarkable capability to both (1) aggregate and compact Aβ42 peptide monomers into higher order, more neurotoxic oligomeric, and fibrillar structures, and (2) impair, at the molecular-genetic* level, the cellular machinery responsible for Aβ42 peptide monomer phagocytosis and clearance from the cell (4–13).”

*Hints at genetic damage.

Apparently the levels we ingest are “physiologically realistic.” As in, it can affect you.

They need chelation therapy.

The neurotoxin aluminium

Paper dump for SEO, a solid starting point.

http://www.drpepi.com/aluminum-poisoning.php
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/
Anecdotal but observational science: Baby Boomers have record Alzheimer’s rates. Boomers are also the first generation raised with aluminium, as “safer” than tin.
…It’s also cheaper.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27455809

A lot of restaurants don’t want to get sued (cosmetics companies neither).
The claims of papers like these, widely/falsely cited as ‘debunking’, don’t hold up to a basic level of biological knowledge. They are critical of a hypothesis for theoretical reasons they do not actively study, so it is not the all-clear being claimed by the intellectually dishonest, which would require actually testing them in a longitudinal experimental study (medical field standard). This is particularly important as any method design with heavy metals, which build up in the body (forming compounds together, in a cocktail effect) over decades. Rat studies go one-by-one, an element at a time, which lacks external validity/ real-world relevance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21157018
1. the blood-brain barrier thins with age. This is a fact.
2. Aluminium can combine with other elements e.g. fluoride, to form a compound which might pass the barrier where healthy and young.
If you look at what’s literally IN the brain tissue of dead patients?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/180/4085/511
Aluminium.

Respectfully, to the critics:

How the hell did it get there?

There’s your smoking gun, your bloodied Macbeth hands.

That is rock solid, irrefutable proof. As it stands, here is more proof.
Evidence for point 2: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10611860400015936
Known since at least 1998: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html
EU drinking/cooking water may contain arsenic, which explains a lot:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/2.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000365

This is like the talc-cancer thing that recently came out in all the lawsuits.
I don’t have to explain that to you, do I?