"Deafening Response" to Aluminium in Brain Tissue in Autism Paper
- Professor Christopher Exley in January 2018
April 8, 2019: Professor Exley has been attacked and his work disparaged in the British media. See our post today by John Stone titled, Scurrilous, Misleading Attack On Prof Christopher Exley By The Sunday Times He is being "Wakefielded" because his research on aluminum brain toxicity crosses the vaccine profit barrier. Here is an article he wrote in 2018, just 15 months ago. I shouldn't help but wonder if he would prefer the din of silence today. We are so sorry to see the media boot on his neck. Here is the paper being discussed: Aluminium in brain tissue in autism
"I was aware of the emotive nature of our research and especially as I knew that it would bring into focus a possible link between aluminium adjuvants in vaccines and autism, though this link was not discussed in the paper. However, I am not sure that I was prepared for the nature of the response to our research. Perhaps the most deafening response has been the tsunami of silence perpetuated by all mainstream media, almost globally!" Professor Exley
January 16, 2018
Note: Chris Exley Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry Keele University Honorary Professor, UHI Millennium Institute Group Leader - Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory at Keelepublished expresses what so many brave scientists before him have encountered when their results challenge the status quo. He calls the refusal to cover his science "the din of silence." We know it's a playbook straight out of the age of Big Tobacco. Cover up. Shut up. Shut down. Thank you, Professor Exley.
By Professor Chris Exley
Sometimes silence can speak volumes. In December 2017, we published in a highly reputable journal our research suggesting a link between human exposure to aluminium and the aetiology of autism.
The research showed that individuals who died with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) had very high levels of aluminium in their brain tissue. However, the standout observation was not necessarily the amount of aluminium but its predominant location in non-neuronal cells and especially microglia.
In an interview immediately following presentation of this research, I expressed my opinion that these new data had forced me to change my mind about a putative role for aluminium in autism.
I was aware of the emotive nature of our research and especially as I knew that it would bring into focus a possible link between aluminium adjuvants in vaccines and autism, though this link was not discussed in the paper. However, I am not sure that I was prepared for the nature of the response to our research. Perhaps the most deafening response has been the tsunami of silence perpetuated by all mainstream media, almost globally! Compliant with this has been my own University that did not even deem the research ‘worthy’ of a mention in its own weekly news outlet. When one considers the nature of much of the science that makes headline news one is left wondering what it is about a link between aluminium and autism that is not deemed newsworthy. Perhaps mainstream media were unaware of the research.
Actually, it was covered by The Mail Online, where it was shared 60K times, and to-date it has also been delivered to 2M twitter accounts and viewed at the paper’s publisher’s website more than 70K times. Clearly, social media is aware of our research and I am grateful to all those who shared it. There have been other indicators of awareness of the research and these are examples of the downside of open access delivery of scientific research. While I remain completely in support of the need to communicate scientific research as widely as possible, I was not prepared for the vitriol, largely anonymous, which accompanied our publication. I have been elucidating upon the potential dangers of the aluminium age for 34 years now but I have never before had my life threatened openly. I can only assume that our research has weighed very heavily on the toes of those who will not counter the possibility that not all vaccines are 100% safe.
There have also been criticisms of the journal for publishing our research, of the brain bank for providing us with tissues and of the research methods used in obtaining the data. All of these ‘criticisms’ share in common the superfluous nature of critical debate which seems to pervade present society. Read the rest and comment please, at The Hippocratic Post.