"Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken."

Conclusion of a systematic review on aluminium and vaccine safety, published behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004

There are many aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines on the ever-increasing womb-to-tomb vaccination schedule, including multi-component shots and revaccinations.

Children bear the greatest load of these aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products throughout childhood i.e. repeated aluminium-adjuvanted injections with hepatitis b, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), hib, polio, pneumococcal and HPV vaccines via the National Immunisation Program Schedule, and also meningococcal B vaccination via various State and Territory schedules. The various vaccinations and revaccinations are given at the age stages of birth, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 4 years, and 12-13 years as can be seen in detail in the schedule.

These are regular interventions, particularly in the early years of childhood.

But is it safe for children to be subjected to repeated injections with an aluminium adjuvant?

In a systematic review of aluminium-containing diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP) vaccines, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004, the authors conclude in the abstract:

We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events.

The authors also say:

Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.

In the body of the systematic review (which is behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases) the authors admit:

Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low.

To summarise, the authors say they “found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events” but they also admit “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”.

This means there was not good-quality evidence to support that aluminium salts in vaccines do not cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events.

Despite this lack of ‘good quality evidence’, the authors say “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.

This is a bizarre recommendation!

Why on earth would the authors recommend against further research on the topic, after admitting that, overall, the methodological quality of studies included in their own systematic review was low? Otherwise known as ‘garbage in, garbage out’.

The authors should have concluded there was not sufficient evidence to come to conclusions about the safety of aluminium in vaccine products, and that further research was needed on this subject.

This is very important to consider, as this systematic review is influential on vaccination policy and is being cited to justify the safety of the ever-increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products, and revaccinations with these products.

For example, the Australian Government Department of Health publication Questions about vaccination cites the systematic review, noting:

There is no evidence that the small amount of aluminium salts contained in vaccines causes any long-term harm...

...Aluminium salts have been added to some vaccines, in small amounts, for about 60 years. A recent review of all the available studies of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) vaccines that contain aluminium found no evidence that the aluminium salts cause any serious or long-term harm.

(Emphasis added.)

Reference: https://beta.health.gov.au/resources/publications/questions-about-vaccination (See pages 67-68.)

In March 2019, I wrote to Kristine Macartney, Director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), arguing that the systematic review being used to justify the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products was scientifically unsound.

As far as I’m aware, I received no acknowledgement or response from Kristine Macartney.

For information, please see below the text of my email to Kristine Macartney:

(Original email accessible via this link: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/gmail-questionable-claims-for-the-safety-of-aluminium-adjuvanted-vaccine-products-email-to-professor-kristine-macartney-ncirs.pdf)

20 March 2019

Subject: Questionable claims for the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products

Professor Macartney

Claims for the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products made in an Australian Government publication updated by NCIRS staff, e.g. Dr Sally Ioannides, Professor Peter McIntyre and yourself, are open to question.

I request that urgent steps are taken to review this publication as I suggest the reference cited to justify the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products is scientifically unsound.

This is an important matter as there are now 12 aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine injections for children on the taxpayer-funded and coercive National Immunisation Program Schedule, with an additional three doses of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine for children in South Australia (i.e. the GlaxoSmithKline Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product), making a total of 15 aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine injections for children in South Australia. (Please see below at reference 1 for a list of the aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the current schedule.)

The Australian Government Department of Health publication Questions about vaccination notes:

There is no evidence that the small amount of aluminium salts contained in vaccines causes any long-term harm...

...Aluminium salts have been added to some vaccines, in small amounts, for about 60 years. A recent review of all the available studies of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) vaccines that contain aluminium found no evidence that the aluminium salts cause any serious or long-term harm.

(Emphasis added.)

Reference: https://beta.health.gov.au/resources/publications/questions-about-vaccination (See highlighted sections of pages 67 and 68 in attachment.)

The 'recent review' cited to justify the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products is Tom Jefferson et al's Adverse events after immunization with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence, The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2004;4:84-90.

In their review Jefferson et al say: "We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events."

However, Jefferson et al also admit that "Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low. Few reports gave details of the randomisation process, allocation concealment, reasons for withdrawals, or strategies to deal with them in analysis. Inconsistencies in reporting, lack of clarity on numerators and denominators, variability of outcome definitions, and lack of outcome definitions led to much loss of data."

In their abstract, Jefferson et al conclude: "Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken."

Professor Macartney, I suggest that Jefferson et al's 2004 systematic review on aluminium and (DTP) vaccine safety is scientifically unsound and should not be relied upon to justify the safety of the many aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the current schedule.

Jefferson et al admit that "Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low", and that there was "a lack of good-quality evidence". In my opinion, Jefferson et al should have concluded there was not sufficient evidence to come to conclusions about the safety of aluminium in vaccine products, and that further research was needed on this subject. Instead, Jefferson et al recommended against any further research on this topic, a bizarre recommendation which has had far-reaching effects.

Professor Macartney, it is extremely concerning that the justification for the safety of all the aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the National Immunisation Program Schedule is resting on the conclusions of what I suggest is Jefferson et al's scientifically unsound 2004 Lancet Infectious Diseases systematic review.

At this time we have no idea of the long-term cumulative effects of all the ever-increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule, and the additional doses on the South Australian schedule, this is an experiment that is underway in the community, without 'informed consent'.

Professor Macartney, I have attached a highlighted copy of Jefferson et al's 2004 review for your consideration.

It is also a matter for concern that Jefferson et al's 2004 review, which is influencing Australia's taxpayer-funded and coercive No Jab, No Pay vaccination policy, is not open access to the public, but has been published behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.

I request your urgent consideration of this matter and your response.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

References:

1. Aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products on the Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule (black text below, vaccine supplier's name in bold): (See online at: https://beta.health.gov.au/health-topics/immunisation/immunisation-throughout-life/national-immunisation-program-schedule )

(There are also additional aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines doses for 'medically at risk children', particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in high risk areas - QLD, NT, WA and SA.)

Birth:
Hepatitis B (H-B-Vax II Paediatric (bioCSL) or Engerix B Paediatric (GlaxoSmithKline))
6 weeks:
South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero - GlaxoSmithKline) *

2 months:

Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) hepatitis B, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa - GlaxoSmithKline)

Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 - Pfizer)

(Note: Oral drops for rotavirus are also given at this time (Rotarix)

4 months:

Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) hepatitis B, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa - GlaxoSmithKline)

Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 - Pfizer)

South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero - GlaxoSmithKline) *

(Note: Oral drops for rotavirus are also given at this time (Rotarix)

6 months:

Multi-component (combined injection) diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) hepatitis B, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa - GlaxoSmithKline)

12 months:

Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 - Pfizer)

South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero - GlaxoSmithKline) *

(Note: Other vaccine products given at this time are:

A multicomponent combined injection for measles, mumps and rubella (M-M-R II (Seqirus) or Priorix (GlaxoSmithKline)

An injection for meningococcal ACWY (Nimenrix - Pfizer)

18 months:

Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) (Infanrix (GlaxoSmithKline) or Tripacel (sanofi-aventis))

(Note: Other vaccine products given at this time are:
A multicomponent combined injection for measles, mumps and rubella (M-M-R II (Seqirus) or Priorix (GlaxoSmithKline)
An injection for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) (Act-HIB - sanofi-aventis)

4 years:

Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), polio (Infanrix IPV (GlaxoSmithKline) or Quadracel (sanofi-aventis))

10 to 15 years:

HPV (human papillomavirus) x 2 doses (Gardasil 9 - Seqirus)

Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) (Boostrix - GlaxoSmithKline)

* Meningococcal B Immunisation Program in South Australia: