And once again posting your complete lack of scientific acumen, you're requesting proof of a negative. That's not how it works. And I asserted nothing beyond a prediction of your next step.
Yep, you've got absolutely ZERO scientific basis for your assertion that we should treat IM injection exactly the same as ingestion, just as I thought. Thank you. It doesn't surprise me though because the NIH proved they couldn't find anything either, or anyone else for that matter that I've ever seen.
Again, I asserted not one thing other than predicting what you would do next.
Here's the NIH's admission that they couldn't locate any studies that they felt established the safety of aluminum adjuvants: https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/20190719-HHS-Final-Response-IR0084-Appeal.pdf
BWAHAHAHAHA!! I TOLD you to leave Christopher Shaw out of this and here you bring in Gherardi whoHere's the NIH's admission that they couldn't locate any studies that they felt established the safety of aluminum adjuvants: https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/20190719-HHS-Final-Response-IR0084-Appeal.pdf
So yes there's little wonder why you couldn't locate any
Here's a white paper that pieces the science together to explain how aluminum adjuvants could cause autism:
Gherardi et. al. study explains that, and how aluminum ends up in the brain:
"Al was weakly eliminated in the urine (6% on day 28) and was detected in lymph nodes, spleen, liver, and
brain (13)."
"We successively performed i.m. injections of alum-containing vaccine, fluorescent latex beads, and fluorescent nanohybrids coated with precipitated alum (5). These materials were quickly captured by macrophages, a large
proportion of which cleaved the injected muscle, mainly within immune cells, reaching the draining lymph nodes. Particle-laden cells then escaped the lymphatic system to reach the blood circulation, presumably via the thoracic duct. In so-doing, they were able to reach distant organs such as the spleen and liver and, much slowly, the brain."
"Thus alum and other poorly biodegradable materials taken up at the periphery by phagocytes circulate in the lymphatic and blood circulation and can enter the brain using a Trojan horse mecha- nism similar to that used by infectious particles (68, 69). Previous experiments have shown that alum administration can cause CNS dysfunction and damage (70–72), casting doubts on the exact level of alum safety (73)."
Copy and paste into your browser:
file:///C:/Users/marsh/Downloads/fneur-06-00004-1.pdf
Whatever you say, skippy.BWAHAHAHAHA!! I TOLD you to leave Christopher Shaw out of this and here you bring in Gherardi who
1) makes up diseases..."Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants" LOL...
2) pals around with total fraud Andrew Wakefield
3) and "publishes" total crap with none other than the aforementioned Shaw. JFC...do better.
Looky looky..Shaw had to retract again along with...who? Who is that last name?And this was a letter in response to criticism of their published paper. They can't even get THAT right. And the criticism of their work centered around their failure to disclose their affiliation with the anti-vaxx group that funded the study. Three of the authors are on the BOARD of that group and they didn't think that needed to be mentioned in their..."research"...as a potential conflict. So, you know, they fvcked that up, too.
BTW...that study..."Non-linear dose-response of aluminum hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity"...suggests that HIGHER amounts of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines would be safe since the "effects" they observed completely disappeared at those higher doses. Weird, huh?
As for your NIH letter...are you f'n kidding? You're a dope.
I presented peer reviewed science, you didn't. You lose. Thanks for playing.
If you have too high of a dose of aluminum, the body will mount a response called a granuloma that is much more efficient at eliminating the aluminum right at the injection site. Studies have shown that a smaller dose will not trigger such a response, actually making it harder for the body to effectively eliminate the aluminum dosage.
They found NO results at all from the higher dosage. Anywhere. No changes in ANY of the tests they ran. Not one. So the higher dosages - according to YOUR "peer-reviewed research" indicates that those higher dosages are perfectly safe.
Found NO results? Indeed they did find results or they'd have nothing to publish.
Second, what did you not understand about my last post? From what I've read about in the past when enough aluminum is injected to form a granuloma, the body is extremely effective at eliminating the aluminum, but at the same time it does not allow for the vaccine to create the desired immune response to allow the vaccine to be effective. The aluminum dosage must fly under the granuloma radar, at a low dosage, where the body appears to have the most trouble with its elimination.
Not at dosages higher than the 200 group. That's what they DID publish
LOL...and yet, at the even lower dosage - the 133 group - designed to mimic what a human would actually get...they found nothing and eliminated those results completely when they published though they did present those results months earlier at a conference. You have yet to address that strange exclusion. You also have yet to address the strange shift in the p-value from one that indicates a trend to one that is supposedly significant. Magic?
Well...simple fix. When giving multiple vaccines, inject at different parts of the body for each. A single dose, according to your own authors doesn't result in any significant results and there's not going to be ANY granuloma formation at any site where there's just a single injection. Max benefit/zero risk. We're done here.
Oh look...a self-diagnosed anti-vaxxer. Never seen that before.
Meanwhile....Sweden - with the highest overall rates of two-doses of vaccines for 12 and up, had almost no excess deaths.
Wonder why it's only Germany. The vaccines must respect political borders.
Sweden may not have had any. The color indicates 0 to less than 5% higher. And that level could be background noise.
They are incurring more Covid deaths now, because their high vaccination rates were for only the 1st two doses, and the newer variants are able to sneak thru those. And they had 85%-90% coverage for the two doses for those 12 and up, with NO increases in mortality rates. Completely debunks the antivaxxers case here
And all of that corresponded to a year that influenza took a season off. How coincidental is THAT?
But if it were as easy as you suggest, it shouldn't be so hard....
Oh looky...more "real science"!!
So now we’re okay with personal experiences? Cause I’ve been slapped around over that a few times.
Holy shit...can you post anything dumber than this? What about the folks that don't survive the FIRST infection to be protected against a REINFECTION? And absent some evidence of a past infection, you are - once again - giving your idiots a free pass to remain unvaccinated regardless of their past. "Sure! I had Covid" *wink*
Yeah there is no other reason he won’t talk specifics about his medical condition/history other than he doesn’t want to say it’s the vax. Weren’t you going on in another thread about not ruling anything out?
