Open Country 2qt pot 7.8oz. (a 15 dollar aluminum pot vs. 60 dollar 7.9oz titanium pot!)

Yes, but I asked:

Roger, which part of the paper “Molecular mechanisms of aluminum neurotoxicity: Update on adverse effects and therapeutic strategies” (Advances in Neurotoxicology, 2021) did you disagree with?

You didn’t answer and Exley wasn’t an author on that paper. I’m very familiar with the Exley / Keele University funding issue, by the way.

Cheers,
Andy

Since you ask: consider the start of the third paragraph:
Being a non-essential element, Al was shown to be toxic for humans (Exley, 2013),

Given Exley’s appalling reputation, trying to quote him as an ‘authority’ seems problematic at the least.

Cheers

Since you’ve decided to focus your entire argument on the reputation of one man, I’ll bite:

When did Exley’s appalling reputation begin?  Because Keele University were extraordinarily proud of his achievements and publishing record in peer-reviewed journals.  Until suddenly they weren’t.  Do you happen to remember when all that changed?

Perhaps the reason he’s still quoted (which would be foolish if someone’s work had been retracted and/or genuinely demolished) is because the part of the scientific community that is interested in how Aluminium works in the biosphere (where as I’ve pointed out) it’s a relative newcomer in terms of bio-availability, sees a great deal of value in his lifetime’s work studying Aluminium.  That’s why it’s safe in academic publishing to quote him in peer-reviewed journals.

I don’t remember anyone having an issue with Exley when he described possible pathways of Aluminium toxicity in fish.  So, when did Exley’s reputation suddenly become sullied?  Do you remember?

Andy

Hi Andy

Sorry, but I do not remember. I am a physicist (PhD), not a medico. I do remember the big fuss at the time, but I did not go into the details. All I remember is that he was exposed as a bit of a fanatic anti-vaxxer, with dodgy funding, and similar to A Wakefield.

Cheers

I remember following it at the time, but I might be a little off (I’d have to do some research).  I think the “reputational issues” and funding source issues (the latter is perhaps a stronger negative case) seemed to really begin around 2016.  The two big funders of Keele University were AstraZeneca (UK/Swiss pharmaceutical giant) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  The Gates Foundation set up GAVI in 1999, the Global Vaccine Initiative and AZ were and are heavily involved in vaccines.

Aluminium is an adjuvant in vaccines. Why is Aluminium used as an adjuvant (an immunological agent that increases the antigenic response)?  Because it’s highly inflammatory and causes a profound immune response (which is what you want from an adjuvant).

In 2016 Exley wrote a paper looking into Aluminium adjuvants.  The vaccine industry is a multi-billion dollar business.  Even Keele has admitted that they were pressured to pull Exley’s funding. They did, and he had to go begging-bowl in hand to get external funding.  Now clearly, some of that funding came from parties concerned with vaccine safety (we’ll call them Anti-Vaxxers).  I don’t think Exley ever was an “anti-vaxxer”.  I do think he should have been more savvy in his acceptance of donations (if one is sceptical of industry funded science, one should be of activist funded science too).  The University ultimately shut-down (seemingly under pressure from industry funders) his portal which they originally set-up for him to receive private donations.  The pharmaceutical industry spends a ludicrous amount of money on public relations.  They fund “independent” blogs to launder smear campaigns to destroy the reputations of people who threaten their profits.  It’s a dark and unpleasant side of this business, but it’s real and does happen.

In 2016, Exley’s aluminium adjuvant paper was likely the final straw and the industry went after his funding and reputation. He’s now without funding and is no longer doing research.

But I think the concerns are real and valid. I just went through this paper:
Aluminum in neurological disease – a 36 year multicenter study and couldn’t see any mention or reference to Exley.  He was a major researcher in the field, but far from the only serious voice.

Cheers,
Andy

I suspect that Keele was also under very heavy pressure from the global academic community as a whole. Exley had been judged, and found wanting. His published results were a disgrace.

Cheers