
French scientists sound the alarm about aluminum in vaccines - givan
https://healthcareinamerica.us/french-scientists-sound-the-alarm-about-aluminum-in-vaccines-crickets-from-media-and-health-d3fc0fe23079
======
JPLeRouzic
I suppose that the title uses "French scientists" because it sounds exotic.

However this is well known, the adjuvant is nowaday the most active part of a
vaccine. It is by carefully crafting the adjuvant that a company could make
its products sligtly better than those of their competition.

I cite [0]:

'The inflammatory or danger-signal model of adjuvant action implies that
increased vaccine reactogenicity is the inevitable price for improved
immunogenicity. Hence, adjuvant reactogenicity may be avoidable only if it is
possible to separate inflammation from adjuvant action. The biggest remaining
challenge in the adjuvant field is to decipher the potential relationship
between adjuvants and rare vaccine adverse reactions such as narcolepsy,
macrophagic myofasciitis or Alzheimer’s disease. While existing adjuvants
based on aluminum salts have a strong safety record, there is an ongoing need
for new adjuvants and for more intensive research into adjuvants and their
effects.'

[0]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4615573/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4615573/)

------
gus_massa
Full text of the research article:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X16...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X16303043?via%3Dihub)

IANAMD, IANAB, so I have to use the
[https://xkcd.com/793/](https://xkcd.com/793/) approach. [Disclaimer: I don't
believe in this result.]

They have 10 mice in each group and 10 in the control group. It looks small,
but the differences are big so I guess the problem is not here.

In 4 out of the 9 test the 200ug mice get worse results. In the last test the
800ug mice get worse results but it is not very clear and I think it's not
conclusive.

My problem with this study is that the differences are too big. It's a weird
objection, but when the result is small it's easy to imagine why it wasn't
discovered before. Also, it's weird than the group with the smaller dose get
the problems.

For example in the "total distance" in the "open field" test they get
1300+-200cm for the 200ug group, and all the other group get something like
2300+-300cm. It's almost the double!

Since it's a big difference in the test, this should be easy to reproduce and
confirm the result. If two or more independent laboratory confirm the study
it's more difficult to believe they had some unlooked problem.

And it would be good to add more intermediate groups like 50ug, 100ug, 150ug,
200ug, 250ug, 300ug, ... to get a smooth curve with a minimal distance
somewhere near 200ug. Assuming there is no Ballmer peak, the curve will be
smooth and the result will be easy to reproduce.

My unsupported guess is that they had a problem in the 200ug cage but they
didn't realize. Is it possible an infection? Can they put next time all the
mice in a single cage and mark them to know which one get each dose?

My other unsupported guess is that they botched a dilution in the 200ug group
and they overdosed this mice with aluminum. They get almost 100 times more
aluminum in the brain of the 200ug group than in all the other groups
including the control. 100 times is too much and I suspect it was an error in
the injections. Are the symptoms compatible with an aluminum overdose?

