Are Aluminium Adjuvants In Food Safe Or Not?

Written by Phil Harper on January 5, 2026. Posted in Current News

Institutions are lightweight cults, and most cults have mantras. Mantras don’t work because they are true, they work because they are accepted and repeated without investigation

Modern medicine has many mantras, and one of them is:

“Aluminum adjuvant containing vaccines have a demonstrated safety profile of over many decades of use… Of note, the most common source of exposure to aluminum is from eating food or drinking water”

So say the prophets at the FDA. To summarise, its safe because we’ve used it for decades, and you’ll ingest more aluminium from your normal diet anyway.

This argument doesn’t actually make any sense. It’s what I call a Truman wall – something you’ve seen hundreds of times but you’ve never gotten close enough to interrogate.

It just exists in low resolution on your intellectual horizon. But when you finally walk up to it and knock, you realize it’s hollow. This weird morsel props up the advice of multiple national health agencies.

By showing why these arguments make no sense, I hope to reach a new audience of people who would ordinarily dismiss these critiques out of hand.

Why? Because data shows that 70% to 80% of patients are passive consumers of health advice; they never get close to the Truman wall. So let’s shine some light on it.

What is an Adjuvant?

To kick off, we must first define what an adjuvant is without getting stuck in the weeds. Very broadly speaking, there are two kinds of vaccine: live attenuated vaccines (where you get a weakened, living dose of the virus or bacteria) and inactivated vaccines (where you get a killed version).

For inactivated vaccines, your body isn’t super responsive to the ‘dead’ virus because it doesn’t replicate. Your immune system doesn’t see it as a threat, so it doesn’t mount a strong response. Obviously, this isn’t great for a vaccine.

To solve this, the formula for inactivated vaccines also comes with a little “pick me up” in the form of an adjuvant. Its role is to force your immune system into action. Aluminium is a very common choice.

It’s used because it’s an irritant; it triggers an immune response when it gets into your tissue. That immune response, so the theory goes, will also trigger the generation of antibodies for the dead virus.

As your immune system responds to the irritant (aluminium) it also finds the dead virus nearby and generates antibodies for it.

The “Cup of Tea” Fallacy

With that out of the way, let’s return to the mantra. You’ll often hear pithy versions which riff along the same logic. I can find at least seven prominent medical professionals who have made such statements, including Dr. Paul Offit in the US, and Dr. Neil Stone in the UK.

Dr Paul Offit repeats almost the exact same phrase but wins “cult bingo” by also adding that aluminium adjuvants have been in vaccines “since the 1930s”.

Let’s quickly address the ‘decades of use’ argument. It sounds like a slam dunk, but it relies on you not knowing dozens of products were used for decades before institutions realised they weren’t safe.

Darvon (propoxyphene) a common painkiller introduced in 1957, was prescribed at least 20 billion times. It was pulled from the market 53 years later because it was found to cause fatal heart arrhythmias and suicide risks.

There were fifty years to spot these issues, but profit incentives are a hell of a drug. The ‘decades of use’ argument is dead in the water; it is a rhetorical shield to conceal a lack of proper data.

The Screenwash Analogy

The second part of their argument is that you get more aluminium from eating a pear or formula milk than from a vaccine. To any institutionalists reading, I compel you to throw the curtains wide: this is a lie.

Whilst it’s true that “your body” (specifically, your gut) might see more aluminium from your diet than a vaccine, the comparison is a total distortion.

It’s like a mechanic telling you that your vehicle can hold 10 litres of screenwash, so it makes no difference where it goes. “Stick it in the fuel tank! Pour it onto the control circuitry! Who cares?! Your car can hold 10 litres wherever you pour it!”

As is obvious to everyone, there’s a massive difference between eating something and injecting it. There’s a long list of things you’d be happy to eat but mad to inject. Drinking tap water is safe; injecting it causes your red blood cells to burst (hemolysis).

Fruit juice? Sepsis. Milk? Death. Even a tylenol pill: safe to swallow, but if injected, the binders and caking agents that could trigger embolisms while the active dose hits your bloodstream all at once.

This is what scientists call bioavailability — a fancy word for how much of something actually enters your circulation.

The Math: Filtered vs Unfiltered

Bioavailability difference between ingestion and injection isn’t controversial or complicated, it’s a very basic distinction.

When you eat something, your gut lining softens the blow of all the minerals and toxins your body doesn’t want to absorb. Your stomach acid can kill off a lot bacteria, and your stomach mucus acts as a barrier.

The ‘final boss’ is your liver. Your gut connects to it via the portal vein, where it then breaks down toxins, neutralizes chemicals, and filters out debris before releasing the blood to the rest of the body.

Regulators absolutely know this. From the European Food Safety Authority states that the bioavailability of aluminium from food is about 0.1 percent. This means for every 1000 units you eat, 999 units are filtered out by your gut and liver before they ever reach your blood.

Vaccines, however, bypass the gut filter. They gatecrash directly into your tissue. Eventually, 100 percent of that aluminium is bioavailable.

Let’s look at the numbers. Even with a high-aluminium meal, you might absorb 10 to 30 micrograms into your blood. A single 5-in-1 vaccine contains roughly 500 micrograms of aluminium salts.

So when Dr. Neil Stone tells you there’s “more aluminium in your tea,” he is ignoring the massive difference in absorption. The dose hitting your system from the vaccine is roughly 50 times higher than what you’d get from that meal.

You cannot reasonably compare what you eat to what you inject, so why are regulators and twitter doctors doing it!?

A Tub of Formula?

Presumably this silly argument is just the reserve of the FDA and twitter pundits? No. The NHS itself uses this argument. On official patient literature, they state:

“There is roughly as much aluminium in some vaccines as there is in one tub of formula milk”

Just think about what they’re saying here. They are comparing a tiny injection to an entire tub of powder which makes litres of liquid. Babies drink a tub of formula over weeks, they digest it, and only 0.1 percent is absorbed.

When a baby is vaccinated, eventually 100 percent of that aluminium is bioavailable. That’s a 1000x difference.

For your baby to get the same amount of aluminium into their bloodstream from formula as they get from a single 5-in-1 shot, they wouldn’t need to drink one tub. They would have to drink hundreds of tubs.

I don’t see any way to see this literature as anything other than a lie.

By linking aluminium to baby formula (nutrition) and then to “boosting” immune responses, the advice subtly positions aluminium as a kind of vitamin.

It isn’t. It is a neurotoxin that works as an adjuvant specifically because it irritates the body.

When this advice is hung from hospital walls, no one pauses to consider the absurdity of the argument.

It’s another Truman wall.

See more here substack.com

Some bold emphasis added

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method