When it comes to vaccination, there is no real informed consent. Parents are not told about potential risks when it comes to vaccinating their child. It’s a one-size-fits-every-child regardless of what the unknown risks might be.
In Part 3, Dr. Stoller talks about the use of toxic aluminum in a number of vaccines including DTaP vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, the HPV vaccine, and hepatitis B vaccines. Often the controversy surrounds the use of thimerosal, a mercury-based additive in vaccines, but equally concerning are the high levels of aluminum children are exposed to in routine vaccines.
Video: 5:01
When it comes to vaccines, we often hear one phrase repeated again and again: “the science is settled,” but sometimes we need to ask, which science and for whom?
Hello there. I am Dr. K. Paul Stoller and this video explains the safety issue of using aluminum in vaccines.
Aluminum, not a new ingredient in vaccines.
It’s been used for decades, not to fight disease directly but as an adjuvant, a compound that helps stimulate a stronger immune response.
Why parents should worry
But here’s the question, while aluminum is known to be safe in tiny amounts when ingested, does that mean it’s equally safe when injected, especially into infants whose bodies and brains are rapidly developing?
No, far from it.
In fact scientists and regulators do treat injected aluminum differently from ingested aluminum.
When you eat aluminum, less than one percent is absorbed. The rest is excreted.
But when aluminum is injected, it enters the body’s tissues directly. From there, it’s slowly released into the blood stream and finds its way into cells and neurons. The rest is excreted by the kidneys.
But here where the concern grows. Infants and especially newborns don’t have fully mature kidney function. And that raises a very legitimate question: Are we adequately understanding, let alone respecting their ability to clear aluminum?
They haven’t done the studies
A 2020 study by McFarland, La Joie, Thomas and Lyons-Weiler tried to model this. They looked at different vaccine schedules and asked: How long does aluminum persist in the infant body under these various timelines?
Their model suggested that under the CDC’s current vaccine schedule, infants may spend significant periods of time in what they call a state of “chronic aluminum toxicity” especially if they have underlying genetic or metabolic vulnerabilities that impair detoxification.
Now to be clear, this study wasn’t a clinical trial. It was a theoretical model based on prior clearance assumptions. Critics point out that some of the math relies on unvalidated parameters.
But the authors weren’t claiming to prove harm; they were raising a red flag.
They were saying, this might be worth a closer look, and that’s where the precautionary principle comes in.
It’s a simple idea: When we don’t fully understand a risk, especially to a vulnerable population, we should err on the side of caution. In this case, that might mean re-evaluating whether aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines should be used in the first weeks of life when kidneys are still immature and genetic factors may make detoxification more difficult for some babies than in others.
“No evidence of harm”
But instead, what we often hear is: “There’s no evidence of harm.” And that may be technically true. If you don’t study it, you won’t find it.
But that’s not the same as proving safety. That’s just absence of data, not proof of no effect.
You can be supportive of the intention of vaccines while still demanding better science, more transparency and more independent safety studies, especially when it comes to infants.
What might caution look like?
It could mean delaying aluminum-containing vaccines in preterm infants.
It could mean investing in aluminum-free adjuvants.
It could mean screening for detoxification vulnerabilities, just as we screen for other rare metabolic issues at birth.
It could even mean giving parents informed options on different vaccination schedules guided by real data not Big Pharma dogma.
In the end, asking these questions doesn’t make you anti-vaccine. It makes you pro-safety and pro-science.
Good science doesn’t silence concerns. It investigates them.
And if we truly care about protecting our most vulnerable, our babies, we shouldn’t just trust the science.
And I’m not referring to Mr. Science himself, Anthony Fauci, who announced he is the science.
No one is held accountable
The 1986 Vaccine Act required the CDC to report to Congress every two years about what advances they were making in evaluating safety issues.
They never submitted one report.
The 1986 Vaccine Act removed the evaluation of safety from Pharma and placed it solely with the U.S. Government, but no legitimate safety studies have ever been authorized and none were done.
In fact a senior statistician at the CDC, William Thompson, testified as a whistleblower that the CDC makes data raising safety concerns disappear.
So given there are safety concerns regarding aluminum, a known toxin, and evidence of obfuscation, if not prevarication from agencies mandated to evaluate safety, the precautionary principle demands a moratorium on the use of aluminum in vaccines.
Safe and effective is an indoctrination mantra used to brainwash a trusting public, a little less trusting given what transpired with COVID.
Safe and effective is more like an epitaph and should be carved on a few grave markers.
A word to the wise as is oft said, proceed at your own peril.
I would also like Dr. Stroller to comment on the CDC's mantra that it is "OK to vaccinate mildly to moderately ill children". The have never DEFINED what is meant by "mildly" or "moderately". But we were refused by doctors [and many other parents will say this too] to delay vaccination while having ear infections, strep throat, and while being on antibiotics for the same.
Thank you Dr Stoller. My 28 year old is just like Hannah Polling.
I would also like Dr. Stroller to comment on the CDC's mantra that it is "OK to vaccinate mildly to moderately ill children". The have never DEFINED what is meant by "mildly" or "moderately". But we were refused by doctors [and many other parents will say this too] to delay vaccination while having ear infections, strep throat, and while being on antibiotics for the same.