AUTISM CAUSAL LINK ESTABLISHED

[CADNMALODU]

On 11/3/2025 at 1:49 PM, 11MohanRedddy said:

The mice got neonatal injections of aluminum salt at doses/timing that doesn't match human schedule. In humans, total aluminum from all routine vaccines in the first 6 months is ~4.4 mg, which is way less than what infants ingest from breast milk or formula milk over the same period. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X11015799?via%3Dihub

In fact the CD-1 mouse study literally themselves say in conclusion that it is insufficient evidence to establish casual link to autism in the conclusion of this paper. In their story: newborn mice received 550 micrograms of aluminum hydroxide over two weeks. That's orders of magnitude higher than what an infant would get from vaccines, when adjusted for body weight. A full grown mouse would weight 25-30 grams. For a neonatal mouse, that's roughly 50-100 mg/kg dosage. Where in humans, the exposure is around 0.5 mg/kg total in the first year. That is roughly 100- to 200- fold difference. At this level, aluminum is not functioning as an adjuvant but more as a neurotoxin and metabolic stressor, which can cause growth retardation and systemic illness. 

This paper itself reports weight loss and reduced locomotion, both of which are signs of sickness. When an animal in under metabolic stress, it moves less, it explores less and it interacts less. So the reduced "social interest" can't meaningfully be interpreted as autism-like defect. It is more consistent with a sick or lethargic mouse. 

First breast milk is not naturally a source of aluminium, unless mother takes it. This is very different from formula milk. I will keep this aside without digressing. Inkokati, ingestion dwara absorption is very low for Aluminium, unless it's given in large amounts. 

Across species dose adjustment for body weight is one of factors matrame. 550 mcg of Aluminium ichindhi at once kadhu, it's spread over two weeks to match Infant vaccine schedule for 6 months, so that the window will mimic brian development aspect. Also, adhi ichindhi subcutaneously (unlike IM Vax in infants), it's a depot, where Aluminium gets released slowly <1% into mice blood. Then again blood brian barrier cross ayyi velledhi inka thakkuva. Now you also need to consider metabolic rate "delta" across the species. Mice metabolism is way higher than humans, up to 7 times or more than humans (Pharmacokinetics). The goal is to match the levels that may reach blood stream and brain across species. 

This dosage was tested has a good precedent from Shaw earlier studies, that included IM administration as well.

Huh? There is no weight "loss" as such. The "alu" treated mice weighed less compared to controls.

" Weight loss" unte with time, you will see dip in treated group.

The study referenced other studies (references 48-51), which showed reduction in body weight post treatment of Aluminum. Not necessarily metabolic stress. Had that been the case. Metabolic stress aithe food intake, water intake lanti valtillo easy ga reflect ayyedhi. The study explicity stated that, no difference in food intake water intake and mortality. If mice are sick and/or lethargic, food, water intake lo definite changes undevi, which were absent here.

[11MohanRedddy]

28 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

First breast milk is not naturally a source of aluminium, unless mother takes it. This is very different from formula milk. I will keep this aside without digressing. Inkokati, ingestion dwara absorption is very low for Aluminium, unless it's given in large amounts. 

Across species dose adjustment for body weight is one of factors matrame. 550 mcg of Aluminium ichindhi at once kadhu, it's spread over two weeks to match Infant vaccine schedule for 6 months, so that the window will mimic brian development aspect. Also, adhi ichindhi subcutaneously (unlike IM Vax in infants), it's a depot, where Aluminium gets released slowly <1% into mice blood. Then again blood brian barrier cross ayyi velledhi inka thakkuva. Now you also need to consider metabolic rate "delta" across the species. Mice metabolism is way higher than humans, up to 7 times or more than humans (Pharmacokinetics). The goal is to match the levels that may reach blood stream and brain across species. 

This dosage was tested has a good precedent from Shaw earlier studies, that included IM administration as well.

Huh? There is no weight "loss" as such. The "alu" treated mice weighed less compared to controls.

" Weight loss" unte with time, you will see dip in treated group.

The study referenced other studies (references 48-51), which showed reduction in body weight post treatment of Aluminum. Not necessarily metabolic stress. Had that been the case. Metabolic stress aithe food intake, water intake lanti valtillo easy ga reflect ayyedhi. The study explicity stated that, no difference in food intake water intake and mortality. If mice are sick and/or lethargic, food, water intake lo definite changes undevi, which were absent here.

The dosing rationale is still problematic. It is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different not just 7 times renal clearance. Cross species scaling isn't linear. Mice actually clear aluminum a lot faster. Without actual pharmacokinetic data showing serum or brain aluminum comparable to infants, your "dose matches human" claim is speculative. Statements like <1% reaches blood are all your ASSUMPTIONS, not data from the paper. 

The administered dose was 550 micrograms per pup over 2 weeks. For 5-10gm neonatal mouse that's 55-110 mg/kg. Still ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE above human vaccine per kg basis (0.5-0.9 mg/kg over the first 6 months). Spreading the mouse dose over 2 weeks doesn't make the per/kg burger physiologic. 

Blood levels also underestimate tissue exposure. Without PK, you cannot claim "equivalence" to infants. 

The aluminum group showed chronic growth impairment (lower weight across weeks). It is an issue of developmental toxicology. That alone makes social readouts confounded by slower growth and physiology, not evidence for autism-like effects from vaccine level alum. 

[CADNMALODU]

21 hours ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

The dosing rationale is still problematic. It is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different not just 7 times renal clearance. Cross species scaling isn't linear. Mice actually clear aluminum a lot faster. Without actual pharmacokinetic data showing serum or brain aluminum comparable to infants, your "dose matches human" claim is speculative. Statements like <1% reaches blood are all your ASSUMPTIONS, not data from the paper. 

The administered dose was 550 micrograms per pup over 2 weeks. For 5-10gm neonatal mouse that's 55-110 mg/kg. Still ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE above human vaccine per kg basis (0.5-0.9 mg/kg over the first 6 months). Spreading the mouse dose over 2 weeks doesn't make the per/kg burger physiologic. 

Blood levels also underestimate tissue exposure. Without PK, you cannot claim "equivalence" to infants. 

The aluminum group showed chronic growth impairment (lower weight across weeks). It is an issue of developmental toxicology. That alone makes social readouts confounded by slower growth and physiology, not evidence for autism-like effects from vaccine level alum. 

Oh no, I was not basing that on any assumption. I was merely trying to explain, why it's the case after having seen multiple publications not just Shaw's. Aluminum forms have difference in absorption, hydroxide vs salts(Sulfate Phosphate etc), chelated (such as say Citrate). 

Of all Al(OH)3 has least absorption for one, it's not soluble in water/fluids in body. Oral uptake is very low as well. When it's administered  subcutaneous or IM to form depots it's even more low. 

See this from Weisser et. al 

"Aluminium in plasma and tissues after intramuscular injection of adjuvants human vaccine in rats"

PMID: 31522239. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-019-02561-z

When they gave  "plain Al-hydroxide"  dose to rats, the dose released after 80 days is 0%.  Which is why I said the systemic absorption is very low <1%, especially when it's given subcutaneously.  

 

 

 

[11MohanRedddy]

25 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

Oh no, I was not basing that on any assumption. I was merely trying to explain, why it's the case after having seen multiple publications not just Shaw's. Aluminum forms have difference in absorption, hydroxide vs salts(Sulfate Phosphate etc), chelated (such as say Citrate). 

Of all Al(OH)3 has least absorption for one, it's not soluble in water/fluids in body. Oral uptake is very low as well. When it's administered  subcutaneous or IM to form depots it's even more low. 

See this from Weisser et. al 

"Aluminium in plasma and tissues after intramuscular injection of adjuvants human vaccine in rats"

PMID: 31522239. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-019-02561-z

When they gave  "plain Al-hydroxide"  dose to rats, the dose released after 80 days is 0%.  Which is why I said the systemic absorption is very low <1%, especially when it's given subcutaneously.  

 

 

 

The Weisser (2019) paper actually supports my point. The study used ADULT RATS with a human equivalent IM dose (~0.5-0.8 mg Al total) and still found measurable aluminum in plasma and tissues, meaning absorption wasn't zero. The conclusion was that release was slow, not absent. 

The neonatal paper we are discussing about is completely different: 550 micrograms 5-10 g pup (55-110 mg/kg) given repeatedly over two weeks. That is 100-200x higher per kg than human infant exposure. Even if <1% reached the blood, the absolute aluminum load is still enormous relative to body mass. 

The Weisser study doesn't address developmental exporsure, growth effects or brain kinetics in neonates. So using it to claim equivalence or safety in that mouse model isn't valid pharmacologically or toxicologically. Without PK or tissue data from the mouse study "<1% absorption" remains an assumption.