Systematic Review Finds No Evidence of Enhanced Seroprotection from Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines

With no evidence of benefit, it is medical malfeasance and misinformation to claim they help vaccines induce an immune response in humans.

A systematic review of 102 studies on the biological effects of aluminum adjuvants compared to placebos in humans found aluminum-containing vaccines (ACVs) failed to provide superior seroprotection and, according to the authors, leaving recipients at increased potential risk of adverse events known to exist with aluminum exposure and zero benefit.

After noting that post-study vaccination of clinical trial participants makes it impossible to assess them long-term health consequences of ACVs (“aluminium adjuvant has been administered to both the experimental and control groups in the vast majority of randomised clinical trials on HPV vaccines, thus masking aluminium adjuvant’s potentially harmful effect” and that a previous study had found worse seroprotection following aluminum-adjuvanted H5N1 vaccines, the study authors wanted to know: what, generally speaking, are the effects of ACVs vs. placebo?

The review used 102 randomized clinical trials, with total of 26,457 participants. Remarkably, only two trials reported rates of targeted disease in the vaccinated.

The most remarkable result was summarized by the authors:

“We found no or little evidence of a difference between aluminum adjuvants vs placebo or no intervention when assessing geometric mean titres or concentrations.”

and

“Aluminum adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may have no effect on participants without seroprotection, but the evidence was very uncertain.”

No adverse events, serious or otherwise

In the overall, the authors reported that aluminum adjuvants vs. placebo (or no adjuvants) had no effect on the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events and on all-cause mortality, but the evidence was very uncertain.

Further, they also reported that aluminum adjuvants versus placebo (or no adjuvants) increased the proportion of participants with one or more adverse events considered non-serious, but the evidence was very uncertain.

The study has revealed that the clinical studies worth examining in the literature are not supportive of the continued use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, and that most of the studies were too small to detect adverse events, which should be far less frequent than seroconversion!

We can report that studies do not support the alleged benefits of aluminum adjuvants. So, the next time I’m asked “how do aluminum adjuvants work”, I’m going to say

“According to the world’s largest study with over 28,000 participants found - they don’t”.

THE STUDY

Krauss SR, Barbateskovic M, Klingenberg SL, et al Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in vaccine randomised clinical trials: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis BMJ Open 2022;12:e058795. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058795.

SIGN UP FOR THE IPAK-EDU VACCINE COURSE ON DEMAND

SUBSCRIBE TO POPULAR RATIONALISM