Mitkus Model wrong due to typo

The argument that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is safe relies on a 2011 paper by Mitkus, which presents an aluminum pharmacokinetic model. The paper is flawed. The model is flawed. Here is an example of an error in the Mitkus 2011 paper.

Priest 2004 provided the equation for aluminum retention used in Mitkus’s model. The equation and the half-lives stated in this paper are inconsistent.

1.4 days half-life => exponent of 0.495
40 days half-life => exponent of 0.0172
1727 days half life => exponent of 0.000401

0.595 as 0.495 and 0.172 as 0.0172 look like typos.

Mitkus took the equation and half-lives from Priest’s paper, and apparently did not notice the inconsistency. He not only failed to correct the typos in the equation, he added one of his own, mis-stating 11.4 as 11.

Newton, the original source of the equation and co-author of the 2004 paper by Priest, later authored a paper with the same equation… but with the none of the typos.

Mitkus used the wrong equation

How could Mitkus have made such a basic error?

How did none of the co-authors or peer reviewers spot it?

Why has the paper not been retracted in light of this error?

These typos mean the Mitkus model under-predicts retention of aluminum, particularly in the soft tissues compartment. In the chart below, we can see just how wrong the equation used in the Mitkus model is.

Mitkus used the wrong retention equation

This error alone invalidates the results of the Mitkus model.


Priest 2004: The biological behaviour and bioavailability of aluminium in man, with special reference to studies employing aluminium-26 as a tracer: review and study update

Mitkus 2011: Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination

Newton 2012: Long-term retention of injected aluminium-26

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *