CITIZENS NEWS

NY Times PROMOTES injecting children with toxic metal aluminum as long as it's in vaccines

By willowt // 2025-01-28

• The New York Times' article, "Yes, Some Vaccines Contain Aluminum. That’s a Good Thing," is accused of propagating dangerous misinformation by dismissing concerns about toxic ingredients in vaccines.
• The article is criticized for failing to address the serious health risks associated with aluminum exposure, including a strong association with persistent asthma in children, as highlighted by Dr. Brian Hooker.
• The article is accused of glossing over critical findings and dismissing concerns raised by researchers like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who warn about the dangers of aluminum in vaccines.

In a troubling turn of events, the New York Times has once again demonstrated its willingness to propagate dangerous misinformation under the guise of scientific journalism. The recent article, "Yes, Some Vaccines Contain Aluminum. That’s a Good Thing," is a glaring example of how liberal media can inadvertently condone medical violence by dismissing the serious concerns surrounding toxic ingredients in vaccines. This piece not only fails to provide a balanced view but actively undermines public health by downplaying the risks associated with aluminum exposure.

A shrine to bad science

Dr. Brian Hooker, a vocal critic of the article, minced no words in his scathing critique. "This wrongheaded NY Times article asserting that aluminum is somehow good for you, is a shrine to bad science," he stated. Dr. Hooker, who has extensively studied the effects of aluminum in vaccines, points to a critical CDC study that clearly shows a strong association between aluminum exposure via vaccines and persistent asthma in young children. Despite the lack of a zero-aluminum exposure control group, the NY Times reporter cavalierly dismisses these findings as a "minor association," a notion Dr. Hooker likens to being "a little bit pregnant." The article also fails to distinguish between the different routes of aluminum exposure, a crucial oversight. "The reporter repeatedly tries to compare aluminum exposure via injection (100% absorption) to exposure via ingestion and inhalation (less than 5% absorption)," Dr. Hooker noted. The FDA guidelines for maximum one-day exposure of aluminum to infants via injection is 5 micrograms/kilogram/day, which translates to approximately 18 micrograms for an 8 lb. newborn. Yet, the typical dosage of aluminum in the HepB vaccine recommended at birth is 250 micrograms, a stark and alarming discrepancy that the NY Times conveniently ignores.

Disregarding the science and the consequences

The NY Times article, penned by Teddy Rosenbluth, attempts to reassure readers by citing the long history of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and the supposed safety record. However, this narrative is deeply flawed. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent critic of vaccine safety, has long warned about the dangers of aluminum in vaccines. "You wonder why a whole generation of children is allergic to stuff? It’s because we’re inducing allergies, pumping them full of aluminum," Kennedy said during a 2021 interview. Despite the NY Times' efforts to portray aluminum as a benign and beneficial ingredient, the scientific community is far from unanimous. Dr. Andrew Racine, a pediatrician and chief medical officer at the Montefiore Health System, acknowledges the extensive research on aluminum but fails to address the growing body of evidence suggesting otherwise. "There’s a huge amount of information that’s gathered. If there was something jumping out about a lack of safety, we would most likely have seen it someplace, and it just doesn’t appear," Racine stated. This statement, however, overlooks the numerous studies and anecdotal evidence that point to potential long-term health risks. One commenter on X suggested that this mal-information is so dangerous that the NYT's business license ought to be revoked for crimes against humanity.

The need for rigorous and transparent research

The article briefly mentions a 2022 federally funded study that found a minor association between aluminum exposure from vaccines and asthma. The CDC noted that this link warranted further investigation, but the NY Times article downplays this finding. Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a renowned vaccine expert, emphasized the importance of a comprehensive review of the literature. "You cannot change conclusions from any single paper. You have to look at the overall literature," he said. This sentiment is echoed by independent researchers like Anders Hviid, who led a Danish study that found no significant association between aluminum adjuvants and asthma. However, Hviid also acknowledged the challenges in convincing skeptics. "You cannot prove a negative. There will always be this goal-post moving, saying, 'Well, you didn’t look at this and you didn’t look at that in that way.'" The NY Times' decision to publish an article that glosses over these critical concerns is not just a failure of journalism but a disservice to public health. By marginalizing the voices of concerned scientists and health advocates, the newspaper is contributing to a climate of misinformation and distrust. It is imperative that the media, especially an institution as influential as the New York Times, holds itself to higher standards of accuracy and transparency. In conclusion, the NY Times' recent article on aluminum in vaccines is a troubling example of how liberal media can inadvertently condone medical violence. The article's dismissal of serious health concerns and its reliance on selective science is a disservice to the public and a threat to the integrity of scientific journalism. As Dr. Hooker and other advocates continue to raise the alarm, it is crucial that the media and the scientific community engage in a more rigorous and transparent dialogue to address these critical issues. Sources include: X.com X.com NYTimes.com

propaganda insanity Dangerous Medicine irresponsible journalism outrage absurd media fact watch left cult badhealth badmedicine RFKJr