Neurotoxins & Chemicals = Profound Neurological Abnormalities in our Children – Scientists Have Known This for Decades!
By TLB Contributing Partner: Christina England, BA, Hons
According to reports, neurological disorders in children have been on the rise for several years. In 2014, a report titled Neurotoxicity in children: Stemming a ‘silent global pandemic’ outlined the fact that neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), affected many millions of children worldwide and appear to be increasing in frequency.
Author Dr. Maitreyi Mazumdar, a pediatric neurologist at the Boston Children’s Hospital, attributed the rise to the ever-increasing overload of toxic chemicals in the environment.
During her report, she outlined a study written by Dr..Phillipe Grandjean and Dr.. Philip Landrigan, that had been published in The Lancet.
She stated that:
“Some substances, including lead, methylmercury, arsenic and polychlorinated biphenyls, are widely accepted to be contributors to brain and nervous system injuries. More recent research has recognized other chemicals, such as those found in insecticides, solvents, flame retardants and plastics, as potential neurotoxicants.”
She wrote:
“Grandjean and Landrigan argue for a new strategy to regulate industrial chemicals, one that takes into account their potential hazards to children’s brains. They propose that all new chemicals should be extensively tested prior to commercial use, in a way includes examination of neurobehavioral functions. They also urge similar testing for chemicals currently in use. In addition, the researchers propose a new international clearinghouse for neurotoxicity, akin to that currently in place for cancer, to coordinate studies and make recommendations. Most notably, they call for eliminating the requirement of absolute proof of toxicity before removing a chemical from market, adopting instead a precautionary, preventive approach.”
Mazumdar continued:
“A pediatrician call to action
“What do these proposals from Grandjean and Landrigan mean for physicians?
“Physicians by nature are skeptical and historically have been reluctant to consider chemicals in the environment as contributors to neurodevelopmental disorders without definitive “proof” or extensive replication. This reluctance has added to inertia that may leave millions of children at continued risk. We should adopt a precautionary interpretation of the available data that considers the implications of failing to act. Physicians should become familiar with this evidence and support efforts to conduct high-quality and independent research.”
She concluded that:
“In the meantime, we can work with communities to reduce specific exposures (for example, pesticide use on playing fields). We also can support specific pieces of legislation, as the American Academy of Pediatrics recently did for the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013 (S. 696), which would increase the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority and require manufacturers to conduct more extensive testing.
Pediatricians are in unique and powerful positions to advocate for children’s health. To protect children, we must adopt a new framework that looks closely at the available evidence and emphasizes prevention.”
It is a great shame that her advice was not adhered to, because, according to reports, scientists have been trying to highlight these issues for decades.
I say this because, in 2012, an article published in Disabled World reported that:
“The National Academy of Sciences reports that 3 percent of all neuro-behavioral disorders in children, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), are caused by toxic exposures in the environment and that another 25 percent are caused by interactions between environmental factors and genetics. But the precise environmental causes are not yet known. While genetic research has demonstrated that ASD and certain other neuro-developmental disorders have a strong hereditary component, many believe that environmental causes may also play a role – and Mount Sinai is leading an effort to understand the role of these toxins in a condition that now affects between 400,000 and 600,000 of the 4 million children born in the United States each year.”
The authors reported that the CEHC had developed a list of ten chemicals that could be found in consumer products that they believed were suspected to contribute to autism and learning disabilities. These chemicals were:
-
Lead
-
Methylmercury
-
PCBs (Printed Circuit Boards)
-
Organophosphate pesticides
-
Organochlorine pesticides
-
Endocrine disruptors
-
Automotive exhaust
-
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
-
Brominated flame retardants
-
Perfluorinated compounds
Surprisingly, the authors of this article failed to mention aluminum, which is also believed to cause neurological abnormalities.
Aluminum Salts Found to Cause Profound Neurological Abnormalities
In 2016, I outlined a study that had been written in 1982 by Alberto Rotundo and his team, titled Progressive encephalopathy in children with chronic renal insufficiency in infancy.
At the time, the team had reported that after reading the hospital records and medical reports of 23 children under the age of one year suffering from renal failure, they discovered that 20 of the children who had been analyzed as part of the study had developed profound neurological abnormalities. These were defined as encephalopathy or disorders of the brain.
The authors stated that the children’s symptoms had been characterized by developmental delay, microcephaly (small head), hypotonia (floppy baby syndrome), seizures, dyskinesia (abnormal muscle movements) and abnormal EEGs.
They stated that, at the time of their study:
“No patient had been dialyzed and four had not received aluminum salts prior to the development of neurologic symptoms.” (emphasis added)
They wrote that:
“Twenty-three patients with CRI (central nervous system disease) in the first year of life were identified on the basis of persistent elevation of serum creatinine. In 20 of the 23 patients, profound CNS (central nervous system disease) dysfunction developed. Typically, a patient was noted to have CRI chronic renal insufficiency, then decreased head growth, followed by seizures, dyskinesia, hypotonia, and developmental delay.”
The team concluded that the symptoms displayed by the children in their study were similar to those described in adults with dialysis dementia, a syndrome in which aluminum toxicity had been implicated. They went on to explain that none of their patients had been dialyzed prior to developing their symptoms.
If this information is true, then we need to ask ourselves whether or not it was the aluminum salts that had caused the abnormalities that were found in the children’s brains.
Scientist Discovers Large Amounts of Aluminum in Brain Tissue of Patients Who Have Died with Neurological Disorders
Professor Christopher Exley, a prominent scientist in the UK, believes that it is extremely possible for aluminum to cause brain abnormalities. In June 2019, Professor Exley and his team published a paper titled, Aluminium in human brain tissue: how much is too much? The team opened their paper by writing that:
“A burgeoning body of research confirms and affirms the presence of aluminium in human brain tissue. Recently, the first data on aluminium content of brain tissue from donors with diagnoses of familial Alzheimer’s disease, autism spectrum disorder, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy have been published.”
Whilst the majority of us would expect to find that our brains contained aluminum, Exley and his team discovered that the amounts of aluminum in the brain tissue of patients who had died whilst suffering from familial Alzheimer’s disease (fAD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), multiple sclerosis (MS) and epilepsy, was far higher than was to be expected.
To determine why this should be the case, Exley and his team believed that they needed to do a comparison study, using brain tissue from healthy comparisons. They wrote that:
“To understand the role of aluminium in neurodegenerative disease including AD, ASD and MS, age- and gender-matched healthy control brains are required. If available, such brain tissues would help in understanding if high concentrations of aluminium contribute towards neurodegeneration, for example, high levels of aluminium with no coincident neurodegeneration would suggest otherwise.”
They continued that:
“The recent development of aluminium-specific fluorescence microscopy has not only been helpful in confirming the presence of aluminium in human brain tissue, but it has also identified the location of aluminium (Fig. 1). Imaging of aluminium has put quantitative data in context, for example, while both fAD and ASD showed some of the highest aluminium content, imaging identified clear differences in the location of aluminium. While in fAD deposits of aluminium were primarily extracellular, in ASD aluminium was mainly intracellular and associated with non-neuronal cells such as microglia.” (emphasis added)
Exley and his team concluded that:
“The presence of aluminium in brain tissue is an intoxication. It will inevitably exert toxicity at a local level. Future research is required to ascertain the significance of discrete aluminium-related neurotoxicity and how the additive effects of such neuropathologies may eventually contribute towards recognised global neurodegenerative disease characteristic of conditions such as AD, MS, epilepsy and ASD.”
So, how much aluminum IS too much?
In an interview that I conducted with Professor Exley, he told me that whilst they had been examining the brain tissue of children who had died with a diagnosis of autism, they had discovered that their brain tissue contained more aluminum than brain tissue from patients who had died with Alzheimer’s disease.
Furthermore, as there has never been a test to determine just how much aluminum is too much, there are no ethical guidelines to prevent scientists and the manufacturers of everyday products from adding as much aluminum as they like.
••••
About the Author: Christina England was born and educated in London, U.K. She received an A Level in Psychology and a BTEC in Learning Disabilities. She has spent many years researching vaccines and adverse reactions. She has an HND in journalism and media and is currently writing for the American Chronicle, Green Med Info, The Liberty Beacon, the Weekly Blitz and Vaccination Truth on immunization safety and efficacy. Christina England has been a journalist since 2008. Her main areas of expertise are researching false accusations of child abuse and adverse reactions to vaccines. She has co-authored two books – Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused? with Dr. Harold Buttram and Vaccination Policy and the UK Government: The Untold Truth with Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, which are sold on Amazon.
Christina’s websites are Profitable Harm and Parents and Carers Against Medical Injustice
••••
Additional related articles by Christina (click on images or links)
••••
••••
••••
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply