top of page
Search

How to avoid childhood vaccines with aluminum?

  • jearungby
  • 2 hours ago
  • 19 min read

By Jeanne A. Rungby, MD, Specialist, Photo from Article by Mold et al.


Many parents are concerned about the safety of childhood vaccines.

In some countries, these vaccines are required for access to kindergarten, schools, healthcare services, and more.

At the same time, informed consent laws apply in most countries. Parents have the right to refuse vaccination if the information is incomplete or presumed to be false.


There are no known toxic limits for the amount of aluminum injected via vaccines.

WHO, EMA and FDA use oral intake limits. However, this is irrelevant as the vaccine is not administered orally, but via an intramuscular injection which reaches the bloodstream. These are two different circuits. When ingested orally, less than 0.1% of the ingested aluminium is absorbed, while the rest is excreted via the hepato-renal system.


When aluminum is injected through vaccines, no one seems to know how much aluminum is cumulatively injected and accumulates in tissues during childhood or where in the body it ends up. Some peer-reviewed studies have shown that the aluminum at the injection site is taken up by monocytes (immune cells), which in some cases go to brain and nerve tissue, where they can cause damage. A number of studies show aluminum in brain tissue from deceased people with Alzheimer's, dementia and autism.


The following statement/request for safety documentation is a suggestion for what parents can do if they do not want their child to receive vaccines included in the general childhood vaccination program, because they contain the adjuvant aluminum, which is the case in many countries.

The vast majority of childhood vaccines contain aluminum.

One way to circumvent the problem of forced vaccines, the content of which raises concerns, may be not to reject the vaccines per se but to demand proof of safety that the content, including aluminum, is not harmful.

Parents can demand full information and a signature from the doctor that this has been provided in the form of documentation of clinical randomized studies, with placebo without aluminum.

Below is an example of how a declaration can be drafted.

The first visit to the vaccinator/doctor can advantageously take place without the child being present at the consultation.


 

 

To the appropriate person: Mandatory authority, vaccinator or doctor


Concerning

Full name and ID number of child: _______________________________________________


As a parent of the said child, I would like to be assured that the vaccines are free of aluminum adjuvant, or alternatively, I would like to be guaranteed that the child is not at risk of harm from aluminum in vaccines. Therefore, documentation is requested for:


1. that the addition of aluminum adjuvant in childhood vaccines has not been proven harmful through randomized clinical trials with placebo without aluminum.

2. that the amount of aluminum corresponds to the list of contents from the manufacturer, examined by independent inspections that can be documented.

3. that independent scientific studies explain how aluminum is disposed of from blood and tissue after injection.

 

As a mandatory authority/vaccinator/doctor, we ask you to sign the following below:

I, the undersigned, the mandatory authority/vaccinator/doctor, declare either that

1. The requested documentation for safety, effectiveness, aluminum content and disposal (see questions 1. – 3.) has been provided to the parent of the above child in the form of an email/document: Confirmation from authority

Tick ___

or

2. The requested documentation for safety, effectiveness, aluminum content and disposal (cf. questions 1. – 3.) cannot be obtained, but reference is made to the following superior authority, which is assumed to have this documentation.

Tick ___

Authority: _____________________________________________________________


It is hereby declared that the vaccination is postponed until the parent has received the requested documentation. This gives the parent/family the opportunity to review the documentation in detail without time pressure, possibly with guidance from an independent professional and/or legal advisor, prior to informed consent to vaccination. The parent is welcome to ask additional questions regarding the documentation provided.


I hereby acknowledge a postponement of vaccination with aluminum-containing vaccines until informed consent can be given by the parent.


Date: Signature and stamp (authority/vaccinator/doctor)

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Another option is to use and possibly reformulate this following statement prepared by Activecivilians.com – downloads. Aluminum can be added to the list of substances that are not wanted in childhood vaccines.

 

Subject-based source list:

 

What are placebo-controlled studies?

 

In order to conclude that a vaccine is safe and effective, manufacturers and drug authorities must provide evidence in the form of randomized blinded clinical trials (Phase 3) using an inactive placebo (sugar/saline). This means that the vaccine, and here we naturally mean the finished commercial vaccine given to the end user, has been properly studied. This means that a sufficient number of children, usually more than 10,000, divided into 2 comparable groups, are studied by one group receiving the vaccine and the other group receiving a harmless inactive liquid (sugar/saline), called a placebo, which resembles the vaccine.

Such a study must be blinded, which means that the recipient does not know whether they are receiving the vaccine or the placebo. The best thing is that the doner, the investigator, as well as the researcher are also blinded until the final data is calculated. This is called double-blinding. In order to know the safety and efficacy, as well as the risk of non-specific effects/side effects in the long term, the experimental groups must be followed for several years. During this “observation period”, the two groups must be followed with the same validated measurement methods. If, for example, illness occurs, both vaccinations, cultures and antibody tests should be carried out with the same well-defined method.

 

The finished commercial vaccine is not always the same as the vaccine referred to in the summary of product characteristics. We know this from a response to a request for access to documents submitted to the Danish Medicines Agency (case number 2024024182). The Danish Medicines Agency confirms that specifically for Pfizer's Comirnaty (COVID-19 vaccine), no placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials have been conducted on humans with material from process 2, which is the mass-produced finished product that was given to many millions of people.

 

In the same response, the Danish Medicines Agency writes:

 

“It is not unusual for a pharmaceutical company to make changes to its manufacturing process during the development of a drug/vaccine, and it was assessed at the time of approval by Comirnaty that the changes to the manufacturing process were acceptable and had no impact on the safety and/or efficacy of the vaccine.”

 

It is therefore common that the final product provided is manufactured by a different process than the product that has been approved.

 

The summary of product characteristics for vaccines is most often based on the initial processes (phase 3), not on the finished commercial manufacturing processes - or on reported adverse reactions. In most countries, the summary of product characteristics is used to inform healthcare professionals who administer vaccines. At the time of writing, we do not know whether this change in manufacturing process after approval applies to other (childhood) vaccines? Thus, we don't know whether the summary of product characteristics actually deals with the finished product (end-user level).

 

 

 

The American ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) has reviewed 17 vaccines that are part of the American childhood vaccination program. They find that none of the vaccines used have been studied in long-term placebo-controlled studies. The biggest problem with many of the studies included in the analysis was that the period for observation of side effects was far too short, usually a few days, and there was a lack of a control group. In addition, there were far too few test subjects in most of the studies to obtain a statistically significant difference.

The source below refers to a schematic review of the safety of childhood vaccines used in many countries.

 

 

When vaccinated children are compared to unvaccinated ones.


A number of studies using unvaccinated placebo groups have shown an association between childhood vaccines and a number of diseases.

A study in the public record from the US Senate hearing on September 9, 2025 , led by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, was reviewed by independent researchers. These researchers, Oller et al, found that the data showed that for autism spectrum symptoms, there was a 5.491-fold greater incidence in the vaccinated group. 22 chronic medical conditions were assessed in the vaccinated group (16,511 subjects) compared to the unvaccinated group (1,957 subjects). Overall, the vaccinated group had a 2.5-fold increased risk of chronic diseases. The most dramatic contrasts occurred in asthma, autism, autoimmunity, ADHD, brain dysfunction, mental disorders, behavioral disorders, developmental delay, learning disabilities, intellectual disability, speech disorders, motor disabilities, tics, other disability disorders, neurological disorders, and seizure disorders (epilepsy).

After ten years of follow-up, 57% of the vaccinated cohort had at least one chronic condition, compared to 17% in the unvaccinated cohort. This study was held back for years because the results were shocking.

 

A very large peer-reviewed study identified a significant increase in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders among children who had been vaccinated. The researchers, Mawson et al, analyzed data on 47,155 nine-year-old children who had been enrolled in the Florida Medicaid program since birth.

They found that children who had only been vaccinated once were 1.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) than unvaccinated children.

The study also revealed that the likelihood of children developing ASD increased when they received more vaccines.

It was shocking to see that children who had received 11 or more injections were 4.4 times more likely to have been diagnosed with ASD.



Other studies have confirmed the above-mentioned connections.

 

Hulscher et al searched and reviewed a large number of studies related to autism spectrum disorders. They found among others 12 studies of childhood vaccines that included a control group. They compiled the results in an overview that showed that children who were not vaccinated were much healthier. In particular, they found that the risk of chronic diseases and autism spectrum disorders was significantly lower in the unvaccinated.

 

 

 

Can you trust the aluminum content in the product information?

 

The authors of this 2021 peer-reviewed article by Shardlow et al examined a larger number of vials from 13 infant vaccines, with the aim of seeing whether the content of aluminum salts in these vaccines matched the amounts stated in the summary of product characteristics by the manufacturer.

In 2021, there was no independent verification, for example from the European Medicines Agency, of the aluminum content in vaccines for infants.

The authors found that only three vaccines contained the amount of aluminum stated by the manufacturer. Six vaccines contained a statistically significant (P < 0.05) higher amount, while four vaccines contained a statistically significant (P < 0.05) lower amount. The content for a single vaccine varied considerably, for example from 0.172 to 0.602 mg/vaccine for Havrix, for which the summary of product characteristics states 0.250 mg/vaccine.

An infant may thus risk receiving up to 2.4 times the stated amount of aluminum by injection.

Conclusions: Vaccine manufacturers have limited control over the aluminum content of their vaccines. The aluminum content of individual vaccines within vaccine batches varies considerably. The amount of aluminum an infant receives in a vaccine appears to be a lottery. The true significance of this lottery is unknown.


Vaccine manufacturers do not provide adequate justification to support the amount of aluminum used in vaccines. If the amount used has an impact on a vaccine’s ability to elicit antibodies, this should be explained in the information provided with the vaccine. Likewise, it should be publicly known how this ability is affected by the amount of aluminum. For example, using the previously mentioned data for Havrix, does it matter to the effectiveness of the vaccine whether the aluminum an infant receives is 0.172 or 0.602 mg/vaccine? The natural assumption is that it does. If the aluminum content reported by the vaccine manufacturers is significant, it is concerning that six of the thirteen vaccines measured had statistically higher aluminum content. Since aluminum is a known human toxin and specifically a neurotoxin, its content in vaccines should be accurately and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety.


 

Using aluminum as a placebo.

 

This article by Exley explains why Aluminum-containing adjuvants should not be used as placebos in clinical vaccine trials.

The reason is that even the placebo group thus receives an unnecessary additional supply of aluminum, which increases the total aluminum load in the body.

It also makes it much more difficult to assess the actual safety of the vaccine because both groups are exposed to the same potentially problematic substance.

 

Exley points out that aluminum accumulates in the body throughout life (especially in the brain, bones, lungs, etc.) and relates this to possible neurological damage and other diseases. He also mentions that long-term use of aluminum in allergy treatment (subcutaneous immunotherapy/SCIT) gives much higher cumulative aluminum doses than regular vaccines, and that there is a lack of sufficient attention to the long-term risks of repeated doses (cumulative exposure).

 

Using aluminum as a "placebo" undermines the ability of trials to show true side effects. A true inert (inactive) placebo (without aluminum) should be used instead.

 

Professor Gøtzsche describes the use of Aluminum as a placebo in vaccine trials as fraud. He writes:

 

“Because the HPV vaccines and their adjuvants have similar harm profiles, manufacturers and regulators concluded that the vaccines are safe. This is similar to saying that cigarettes and cigars must be safe because they have similar harm profiles.”

 

Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and the EMA called the toxic aluminum adjuvant a placebo, and the girls recruited for Merck’s trial were told that half of them would receive a placebo. This is fraud, as fraud is defined as a deliberate intention to mislead. According to Merck’s own definition, an aluminum adjuvant is not a placebo: “A placebo is made to look exactly like a real drug, but is made from an inactive substance.” Aluminum is not an inactive substance.

 

It should have been demonstrated in randomized trials that adding toxic metals to vaccines is safe before they were approved by the drug authorities, but this was never done .

 


More about Merck's studies of HPV (Gardasil).


A study by Tomljenovic et al concluded that the vaccine manufacturer Merck had made several inaccurate statements to trial participants that violated their right to informed consent. First, the recruitment brochure emphasized that the study (FUTURE II) was not a safety study and that the vaccine had already been approved as safe, even though safety testing was stated as one of the study’s primary objectives in the study protocol. Second, the trial’s promotional materials and informed consent forms stated that the placebo was saline or an inactive substance, when in fact it contained Merck’s proprietary, highly active aluminum adjuvant, which does not appear to have been properly evaluated for safety. Several trial participants experienced chronic debilitating symptoms, including some who were randomized to the adjuvant “placebo” group.

The administration of a reactive placebo in the Gardasil clinical trials was without any possible benefit. The trial participants were unnecessarily exposed to risks and was therefore a violation of medical ethics. The routine use of aluminum adjuvants as “placebos” in clinical vaccine trials is inappropriate as it hinders the detection of vaccine-related safety signals.

 

Limit value for aluminum content in vaccines?


In a 2025 scientific study by Angrand et al, researchers examined the regulatory history behind the limit value for aluminum content in vaccines. They identified significant gaps in the toxicological and epidemiological evaluation.

Through a detailed review of regulatory documents, historical archives, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and responses, and scientific literature, the researchers found that the current aluminum limit of 0.85 mg per dose was established in the mid-20th century based on immunological efficacy—not toxicological data. This limit remains in effect despite changes in vaccination programs and cumulative exposure. The key documents supporting this limit, dating from 1947 and 1952, do not assess the potential toxicity of aluminum-based adjuvants and are in any case no longer relevant to the current vaccination program.


There is a potential risk due to increased accumulation of aluminum in cells and tissues in modern vaccination programs and the lack of assessment of long-term effects. The toxic limits of the aluminum that is repeatedly injected and accumulates in children via vaccines are not known.

 


Lyons-Veiler, 2018, writes that safety testing of vaccine components or vaccination programs is not required. The dosage of aluminum in vaccines is based on the production of antibody levels, not on safety science. The safety conclusions about aluminum doses in vaccines are based solely on studies of dietary exposure in adult mice and rats.


When aluminum doses are adjusted for body weight, exposure from the current vaccination program exceeds the authors' estimate of a weight-adjusted dose limit for children. Calculations show that the aluminum levels suggested by the current limits expose infants to the risk of acute, repeated, and possibly chronic exposure to toxic levels of aluminum in modern vaccination programs. Individual exposure in adults is at the level of the provisional tolerable weekly intake limits, but some individuals may be aluminum intolerant due to genetics or past exposure.

Aluminum levels in vaccination of newborns and low birth weight infants need to be reassessed.



Masson et al, 2022, write that there is an increased exposure to Al salts through vaccination and that there is a lack of safety values set by health authorities. There is also a lack of robustness in the studies that have been used as a reference to officially claim the harmlessness of Aluminum adjuvants when injected. The authors have reviewed a number of studies conducted on animals that assess how Aluminum adjuvants are distributed in the body and affect nervous tissue since the 1920s. Although it was difficult to compare the studies, the authors found that it was important what types of physicochemical properties the aluminum salts had and which experimental animals were used. The conclusion was that there is a clear need for further studies to determine the exact safety level for Al salts.


 

 

How many side effects are reported?


A US report by Lazarus based on 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) concluded that less than 1% of identified adverse reactions to vaccines were reported during the given period. This low reporting rate prevents or delays the identification of “problematic” vaccines that pose a risk to public health.

New methods of monitoring adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are needed. Barriers to reporting include lack of awareness among clinicians, uncertainty about when and what to report, and the burden of reporting.

Reporting is not part of the normal workflow of clinicians, takes time and is duplicative. Proactive, spontaneous and automated reporting of adverse events, integrated into electronic patient records and other information systems, has the potential to accelerate the identification of problems with new drugs and a more careful quantification of adverse events.

 

Is there a link between Aluminum in vaccines and autism?

 

When inquiring about the safety of aluminum in vaccines with health authorities and on their websites, reference is often made to a specific study by Andersson et al from June 2025, which concludes that exposure to aluminum in vaccines did not increase the risk of a wide range of diseases, including autism. The study was based on 1.2 million Danish children.

This study has been criticized for data manipulation and thus scientific misconduct. The US Secretary of Health and Human Services has demanded that the journal retract the publication, which was refused.

 

In an article by Crépeaux et al from 2026, the Danish cohort study from 2025 by Andersson et al. is criticized.

Crépeaux et al write that the authors of the Danish study ignore a significant portion of published data demonstrating accumulation, brain/nerve damage, and other side effects such as allergy, autoimmunity, and behavioral changes in humans and animals.

The authors state that the following questionable scientific methods were used in the Danish study by Andersson et al.


1. They have failed to use a control group, even though it was possible.

2. They deliberately excluded groups of children with particularly high exposure to aluminum and thus screened out the children at greatest risk of aluminum poisoning in their target group.

3. They excluded children who died before reaching the age of two from their target group. Thus, mortality was not considered a health measure.

4. They also excluded children under two years of age with serious health problems.

5. They only focused on children aged 2 to 5. The study therefore also excluded children who were diagnosed before the age of 2, or later, for example up to the age of 8.


Conclusion: This described manipulation of data will overall mask and underestimate serious risks from exposure to aluminum in vaccines, making the study far too weak to support any reliable conclusions.


This method of manipulating data is called selective cohort construction.



The criticized Danish selectively designed cohort study by Andersson et al:



Other authors have criticized the Danish cohort study by Andersson et al. including Professor Gøtzsche, who writes:

"In July (2025), a large observational study of aluminum-containing vaccines was published, which received a lot of media attention, and some headlines declared that the debate was settled. It was a Danish study (by Andersson et al), and the authors concluded that they found no evidence of an increased risk of autoimmune, atopic or allergic disorders or neurodevelopmental disorders associated with exposure to aluminum-adsorbed vaccines in early childhood.

 

However, the study is plagued by serious shortcomings.

The Danish researchers avoided presenting the data for their unvaccinated group, which they mixed with a group with low exposure to vaccines. This is highly inappropriate when one wants to conduct a dose-response analysis of aluminum exposure. Christof Kuhbandner imputed the missing data and found that in unadjusted analyses there were marked reductions in disease risk among unvaccinated children, with statistically significant results for several allergic outcomes and autism: It is noteworthy that these results – given their partly high statistical significance – were neither reported in Andersson et al's study nor addressed in the response to critical comments.

 


A more detailed review of the criticisms of the Danish study can be found here:



Aluminum has been found in brain tissue of deceased individuals.


In this study by Mold et al, the authors used validated methods to measure the aluminum content in brain tissue from 5 deceased individuals with autism. Aluminum in brain tissue was detected using fluorescence microscopy. The aluminum content in brain tissue of autistic individuals was consistently high. The average aluminum content was measured in different parts of the brain. In the 5 individuals, the authors found some of the highest values for aluminum in human brain tissue ever recorded, and one has to ask oneself why, for example, the aluminum content in the brain of a 15-year-old boy is 8.74 (11.59) μg/g dry weight?

 

Aluminum-selective fluorescence microscopy was used to identify aluminum in brain tissue from 10 donors. Aluminum was imaged in neurons, intracellularly in microglia-like cells, and other inflammatory immune cells (lymphocytes/monocytes) in the meninges, vasculature, gray and white matter. The prominent role of intracellular aluminum in association with blood-borne immune cells was a striking observation in brain tissue from autistic individuals and may provide clues to both the origin of aluminum in the brain and a putative role in autism spectrum disorders.

Photo from the study shows accumulation of aluminum in the brain of a 15-year-old boy.

 


Aluminum and Alzheimer's/Dementia


Martyn concluded that Alzheimer's disease has become a major public health problem. There is increasing evidence that environmental exposure to aluminum plays a role as a possible cause. The finding of a geographical association between dementia mortality and aluminum concentration in water in Norway has since been replicated in several other studies. Although ecological studies of this type must be interpreted with caution, the association between Alzheimer's disease and aluminum in drinking water may prove to be an example of a potentially important biological effect of aluminum.

This connection is particularly important, as oral intake of aluminum can be prevented and detoxified.

 

Association between familial Alzheimer's disease (fAD) and aluminum:


In summary, Mold et al have demonstrated an unequivocal association between aluminum and amyloid-β protein in fAD. Senile plaques are associated with neuronal death (dead brain cells) in AD, where neurotoxicity may be due to the coexistence of Amyloidβ and aluminum. This supports the intricate relationships between aluminum and neuropathology in fAD, where subsequent reduction may enhance the therapeutic benefits observed in ongoing clinical trials.


A possible link between aluminum and Parkinson's disease.


Mold et al found aluminum in certain areas of the blood-brain barrier in a deceased person with Parkinson's disease using immunohistochemistry and with aluminum-specific fluorescence microscopy in blood-brain barrier tissue.


Aluminum in experimental animals after injection.


Crépeaux et al reviewed various animal studies to get an idea of whether aluminum could be detected in different tissue types. Accumulation of aluminum in tissues, after injections with aluminum adjuvant either alone or in vaccines, has been repeatedly reported in rabbit brains, mouse brains, rat bones and brains, and in sheep draining lymph nodes and spinal cords.

 

Mouse studies have documented aluminum's travel in the body when injected into muscle tissue:


In a 2015 study , Crepeux et al observed a significantly delayed, previously unknown, systemic movement of aluminum particles injected into muscle tissue, with clear aluminum accumulations in the lymphatic system and spleen 9 months after injection.

In addition to the crucial time factor, the results strongly suggest that the mouse strain, dose, and route of administration influence the biodisposition of aluminum. All of these parameters should be taken into account when designing future toxicological studies of aluminum.

 

Cumulative exposure with repeated injections:


According to Bondy, 2014, aluminum tends to accumulate in the body, in tissues such as the brain, bones, kidneys and liver. Long-term exposure to low aluminum levels leads to toxic effects.

Epidemiological studies suggest that aluminum may actively promote the development and exacerbation of Alzheimer's disease. The epidemiological data are supported by experimental evidence that exposure to aluminum leads to excessive inflammatory activity in the brain. Such seemingly irrelevant immune activity, not provoked by an external microbe, is characteristic of the aging brain and in several neurodegenerative diseases. The cause of most of these age-related neurological disorders is not known, but since they are generally not genetic, it must be assumed that their development is based on unknown environmental factors. There is a growing and consistent body of evidence implicating aluminum as such a significant factor. Evidence has been presented to support the theory that aluminum contributes to the acceleration of brain aging. This acceleration will inevitably lead to an increased incidence of specific age-related neurological diseases.

 

 

Aluminum in the diet


Hardisson et al ,2017, write that Aluminum is a toxic metal that is known as a neurotoxic substance. Accumulation of Aluminum in the brain can lead to diseases such as memory impairment and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, etc.

Aluminum is widely distributed in the diet. Aluminum levels in vegetables, fruits, and shellfish are higher than in other food groups. Although gastrointestinal (via the intestine) absorption of aluminum is low, it is necessary to control the aluminum content in certain types of food due to the toxic effects of aluminum in the human organism.

Based on information from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European population's exposure to aluminum is 28.6-214 µg/kg body weight per day.

For the above reasons, various institutions have set maximum limits for the intake of aluminium in food. EFSA has set a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1 mg Al per kg body weight. The FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives has assessed the bioavailability of aluminium and concluded to set a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 2 mg/kg body weight/week [12], which is twice the level set by EFSA.

 

 

According to the EFSA ( European Food Safety Authority ), the oral bioavailability of aluminium, i.e. the amount that can be absorbed, is approximately 0.3% in drinking water, while it is approximately 0.1% in food and beverages. The absorption of aluminium increases as the pH value decreases.


It is a serious professional error to use the threshold value for toxicity from dietary aluminum intake when it comes to injected aluminum (adjuvant) through vaccination, as only approximately 0.1% of aluminum is absorbed through oral exposure.


Is Aluminum purification possible?


Human exposure to aluminum has been linked to the occurrence, development, and etiology of Alzheimer's disease (Exley). Silicic acid can now be used to both remove aluminum from the body and reduce aluminum absorption in the body, while ensuring that essential metals such as iron are not affected. Based on the premise that urinary aluminum is the best noninvasive estimate of body aluminum burden, Alzheimer's disease patients were asked to drink 1.5 liters of silicic acid-containing mineral water every day for five days, and by comparing their urinary aluminum excretion before and after this simple procedure, the effect on their body aluminum burden was determined. The intake of mineral water significantly increased their urinary silicic acid excretion (P<0.001) and at the same time significantly reduced (P=0.037) their urinary aluminum excretion.

 

By Dr. Jeanne A. Rungby, MD Specialist.

 

 

 

 
 
 
bottom of page