Article content
Dr. Chris Exley is a professor of bioinorganic chemistry at Keele University and an honorary professor at the UHI Millennium Institute.
Autism
He is a biologist with a PhD in the ecotoxicology of aluminium and his research from 1984 to the present focuses on a fascinating paradox: “How is it that the third most abundant element in the Earth’s crust (aluminium) is insignificant for life and, to a large extent, even hostile?”
The mystery of aluminium
Dr. Exley goes on to explain that investigating this mystery is “necessary research across countless disciplines, starting with the basic inorganic chemistry of the reactions of aluminium and silicon, up to the potentially complicated biological bioavailability of aluminium in humans”.
In his biography he also explains how he is “fascinated by the element silicon in relation to living things, which, as the second most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, also has almost no biological function. One of the possible functions of silicon is to keep aluminium out of biology and this forms a large part of the research in our group. We are also interested in biological silicification.”
We now know that aluminium has no place in the human body.
One does not have to be a genius to know—thanks to the work of Exley and many others—that aluminium causes outright havoc in every biological system.
Sure, it’s a great material for making cars and airplanes, but it is demonstrably not meant in any amount (not even small) to be in the human body. It is extremely toxic and represents one of the most dangerous and neurotoxic substances known to man.
Video
Here is a great short video from Dr. Christopher Shaw of the University of British Columbia that explains it (in English):
Why were Dr. Exley’s research funds blocked?
Exley recently started raising money on GoFundMe to research aluminium in vaccines. Despite the fact that aluminium is added to vaccines as an adjuvant to elicit an immune response, its safety has never been assessed.
One would think that our state health regulatory agencies would carry out the appropriate safety studies of all vaccine components, but that is not the case. Yet vaccines are declared completely safe for everyone.
He launched his campaign after his funding application was rejected by scientific authorities.
Why would a study assessing aluminium in vaccines and the effect it has on the human body and small children be rejected?
Why would such a study not be in the best interest of humanity and human health?
Why is science being suppressed?
Literally every study that claims vaccines are safe does not take into account exposure of a person to multiple vaccine components and their bioaccumulation, i.e. where they end up in the body and what they do.
Conducting studies could calm this issue and the hypothesis that needs to be verified is quite simple: “No aluminium in a child’s brain equals no autism.”
The British Academy of Sciences recently stopped the fundraising, apparently after “protests from other scientists.”
A great article concerning the recent funding halt was published on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s social media platforms, on the basis of which I first became aware of it.
“He who suppresses open discussion secretly doubts that what he claims is really true.” – Wendel Phillips.
GoFundMe has today stopped Dr. Christopher Exley’s crowdfunding campaign to study aluminium in vaccines.
Dr. Exley, a leading world authority on aluminium toxicity, apparently angered the pharmaceutical industry cartel when his autopsies revealed astronomically high concentrations of aluminium in the brains of children with autism.
Other of his studies link aluminium in Merck’s Gardasil and other vaccines with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and autism.
Conclusion
Dr. Exley thus joins a long list of scientists who have been silenced for questioning vaccine safety.
While in the USA Republicans censor climate science at the Environmental Protection Agency, Democrats loudly call for censorship of vaccine science.
The equivalent of American Democrats here in Slovakia are (pseudo) liberals and so-called progressives, but often this runs across the political spectrum (the pharmaceutical industry apparently has everyone in its grip, with a few exceptions).
I find it strange that these politicians do not understand that censorship is incompatible with democracy. For example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart called censorship “a characteristic of an authoritarian regime”.
Heinrich Heine once remarked: “Where they burn books, they will eventually burn people.”
