Study Reveals How Breastfeeding Transfers Immunity

A combined research team from BYU, Harvard and Stanford have conducted a study on how breastmilk transfers immunity from mother to baby. The study is set to appear in the November 1st issue of the Journal of Immunology. They have identified that a molecule by the name of CCR10 helps to direct antibody producing cells to the mothers mammary glands thus entering her milk and transferring to the baby.

The research gives amazing insight but once again I am flustered at the reasoning behind the study. Vaccines. I’m sure the formula industry will try to hop on this once they find a way to utilize it. All of these things aren’t inherently bad, I just find it frustrating that the information is not being used to convince more women to breastfeed or the importance of breastfeeding. Rather, the mentality is how can we reproduce the results?

I do have to say that the idea of vaccinating the mom to transfer the immunity to the baby is a fairly fascinating idea. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer to be the test case but it is interesting to think about.

Here is the article. Original source from HERE.

How Breastfeeding Transfers Immunity To Babies

ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 2008) — A BYU-Harvard-Stanford research team has identified a molecule that is key to mothers’ ability to pass along immunity to intestinal infections to their babies through breast milk.

The study highlights an amazing change that takes place in a mother’s body when she begins producing breast milk. For years before her pregnancy, cells that produce antibodies against intestinal infections travel around her circulatory system as if it were a highway and regularly take an “off-ramp” to her intestine. There they stand ready to defend against infections such as cholera or rotavirus. But once she begins lactating, some of these same antibody-producing cells suddenly begin taking a different “off-ramp,” so to speak, that leads to the mammary glands. That way, when her baby nurses, the antibodies go straight to his intestine and offer protection while he builds up his own immunity.

This is why previous studies have shown that formula-fed infants have twice the incidence of diarrheal illness as breast-fed infants.

Until now, scientists did not know how the mother’s body signaled the antibody-producing cells to take the different off-ramp. The new study identifies the molecule that gives them the green light.

“Everybody hears that breastfeeding is good for the baby,” said Eric Wilson, the Brigham Young University microbiologist who is the lead author on the study. “But why is it good? One of the reasons is that mothers’ milk carries protective antibodies which shield the newborn from infection, and this study demonstrates the molecular mechanisms used by the mother’s body to get these antibody-producing cells where they need to be.”

Understanding the role of the molecule, called CCR10, also has implications for potential future efforts to help mothers better protect their infants.

“This tells us that this molecule is extremely important, so if we want to design a vaccine for the mother so she could effectively pass protective antibodies to the child, it would be absolutely essential to induce high levels of CCR10,” said Wilson.

Speaking broadly about the long-term applications of this research, BYU undergraduate Elizabeth Nielsen Low, a co-author on the paper, said, “If we know how these cells migrate, we’ll be able to hit the right targets to get them to go where we want them.”

Daniel Campbell is a researcher at the Benroya Research Institute in Seattle, a nonprofit organization that specializes in the immune system, and was not affiliated with this study.

“The molecular basis for this redistribution [of the mother’s cells] has not been well characterized, but Dr. Wilson’s work has begun to crack that code and define the molecules responsible for this cellular redistribution and passive immunity,” Campbell said. “It is important work that fundamentally enhances our understanding of how immunity is provided to the [baby] via the milk. Dr. Wilson’s study will certainly form the basis for many other studies aimed at uncovering how the immune system is organized, particularly at mucosal surfaces.”

To conduct their research, the team used so-called “knock-out mice” that had been genetically engineered to lack the CCR10 molecule. Whereas normal lactating mice had hundreds of thousands of antibody-producing cells in their mammary glands, the BYU team found that the knock-out mice had more than 70 times fewer such cells. Tests verified that the absence of CCR10 was responsible for the deficiency.

Surprisingly, the research also showed that CCR10 does not play the same crucial role in signaling antibody-producing cells to migrate to the intestine. Another molecule is their “traffic light.”

The findings will be published in the Nov. 1 issue of the Journal of Immunology.

The study was supported by Wilson’s grant from the National Institutes of Health, funding which continues for another 18 months and supports his and his students’ further investigation into the cells behind transfer of immunity in breast milk.

Wilson’s other students who are also co-authors on the paper are Yuetching Law, Kathryn Distelhorst and Erica D. Hill. The Harvard Medical School co-authors are Olivier Morteau, Craig Gerard, Bao Lu, Sorina Ghiran and Miriam Rits. The Stanford University School of Medicine co-authors are Raymond Kwan, Nicole H. Lazarus and Eugene C. Butcher.

Read Full Post »

12 Babies Die During a Vaccine Trial

Twelve babies have died during a vaccine trial over the last year. So why haven’t you heard about it? Well, for one it is because the trial has been conducted in Argentina on impoverished individuals who have no resources to raise their voices. What’s more telling? The first one to break the story in the United States was a stock market investment website. The story wasn’t being told to raise red flags or warn the public, to investigate the morality or integrity of the company’s practices, or to spark further research. The article was newsworthy only from a financial perspective. To protect those who have an interest in whether or not to purchase stock from GlaxoSmithKline. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the driving force and bottom line of vaccination programs is about money is sorely mistaken.

Argentina was one of the countries chosen by GlaxoSmithKline to test the effectiveness of a vaccine against pneumonia. They use children from poor families who are “pressured and forced into signing consent forms.” Juan Carlos Palomares, who works for the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals, also known as Fesprosa, said that “in most cases these are underprivileged individuals, many of them unable to read or write, who are pressured into including their children” in these trials. Does anyone else catch the irony in that? How are those who are unable to read and write able to give appropriate consent when they cannot even read the consent forms they are signing? Why is this acceptable in another country but not in our own. This is after all an American business so why would we tolerate this type of behavior? Why do we turn our heads and shrug? Perhaps as long as the unethical business practices are not in our own back yard they are acceptable. Since GlaxoSmithKline can’t perform these types of studies in the United States or Europe, “they come to do it in third-world countries.” I find this completely wrong and I’m not afraid to say so. If we, as Americans, want and feel that a vaccine program is so life saving and so necessary to appropriate health care (which is the general consensus) then we need to be willing to conduct the studies on our own children and reform the laws to do so. But who will push forward their children and raise their hands for a vaccine trial. Would those working for GlaxoSmithKline? Would you? What does your answer tell you?

Many of the parents in the Argentina program have tried to pull out of the program only to find that those conducting the trial “force them to continue under the threat that if they leave they won’t receive any other vaccine,” said Julieta Ovejero, great aunt of one of the six babies who died in Santiago del Estero. Not only are the consent forms often illegitimate but the families are then threatened if they change their minds about participating. Yet, there is no outrage. There is no one sitting on the Dave Letterman show telling this story. There are no capitol marches. These are silent victims because they have no way to tell their stories and would anyone care anyway even if they did? This is the untold story of our vaccine program and this is just one vaccine trial in only one country. There are many, many more.

In the end, it is only twelve babies, right? Isn’t that within the realm of acceptable deaths? What is the number of acceptable deaths that we will tolerate? Despite the deaths that have all ready occurred the program continues on and GlaxoSmithKline accepts the number of deaths as a necessary part of the numbers game. They count on you accepting that as well. In fact, they spend quite a bit of research trying to determine exactly what the number of deaths the American public will accept in order to reach a 90% acceptance rate. Keep in mind that we only have the reported number of deaths. How many side effects have occurred or are yet to occur? Will these trials be an accurate reflection of the outcome we’ll see when this vaccine makes it to the general public? Or will there be yet another vaccine fallout like the one being experienced with the Gardasil vaccine which is quickly becoming a ticking time bomb?

Take a look at the most recent Gardasil statistics, a HPV vaccine recommended for young girls and women. The statistics were gained from HERE.

The Judicial Watch Special Report, Examining the FDA’s HPV Vaccine Records, dated June 30, 2008, reviews records obtained from the FDA under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Those records paint an even grimmer version of this dangerous vaccine, whose side effects now include:

· A total of 8,864 reported adverse events

· A minimum of 18, but possibly 20 reported deaths. 11 occurred less than one week after vaccination, and 7 within two days

· 45 cases of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions

· 78 outbreaks of genital warts, plus additional cases of facial warts and warts on hands and feet, even in patients who had tested negative for HPV and genital warts prior to vaccination

Additionally, Merck correspondence included in these records state that Gardasil has NOT been evaluated for its potential to cause carcinogenity or genotoxicity, AND, they were permitted to use an aluminum-containing placebo instead of a standard saline placebo.

Since Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum, using an aluminum-containing placebo may paint an entirely inaccurate picture of its level of safety.

For reference, here is the original article on the pneumonia vaccine trial being conducted in Argentina that first appeared on TradingMarkets.com

Buenos Aires, Jul 10, 2008 (EFE via COMTEX) — HPFS | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating — At least 12 babies who were part of a clinical study to test the effectiveness of a vaccine against pneumonia have died over the past year in Argentina, the local press reported Thursday.

The study was sponsored by global drug giant GlaxoSmithKline and uses children from poor families, who are “pressured and forced into signing consent forms,” the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals, or Fesprosa, said.

“This occurs without any type of state control” and “does not comply with minimum ethical requirements,” Fesprosa said.

The vaccine trial is still ongoing despite the denunciations, and those in charge of the study were cited by the Critica newspaper as saying that the procedures are being carried out in a lawful manner.

Colombian and Panama were also chosen by GSK as staging grounds for trials of the vaccine against the pneumococcal bacteria.

Since 2007, 15,000 children under the age of one from the Argentine provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and Santiago del Estero have been included in the research protocol, a statement of what the study is trying to achieve.

“Only 12 have died throughout the country, which is a very low figure if we compare it with the deaths produced by respiratory illnesses caused by the pneumococcal bacteria,” pediatrician Enrique Smith, one of the lead investigators, said.

In Santiago del Estero, one of the country’s poorest provinces, the trials were authorized when Enrique’s brother, Juan Carlos Smith, was provincial health minister.

According to pediatrician Ana Maria Marchese, who works at the children’s hospital in the provincial capital where the studies are being conducted, “because they can’t experiment in Europe or the United States, they come to do it in third-world countries.”

“A lot of people want to leave the protocol but aren’t allowed; they force them to continue under the threat that if they leave they won’t receive any other vaccine,” said Julieta Ovejero, great aunt of one of the six babies who died in Santiago del Estero.

Fesprosa’s Juan Carlos Palomares said that “in most cases these are underprivileged individuals, many of them unable to read or write, who are pressured into including their children” in the trials.

According to Fesprosa, “the laboratory pays $8,000 for each child included in the study, but none (of that money) remains in the province that lends the public facilities and the health personnel for the private research.” EFE

hd/mc

For full details on Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) click here. Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) has Short Term PowerRatings of 4. Details on Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.

Read Full Post »

Interesting Study…Lousy Conclusion

In a recent German study, which was presented to the American Thoracic Societies International Conference on May 21st, researchers found that mothers exposed to farms or “farm milk” during their pregnancies conferred protection from allergies to their newborns.

Researchers found that the mothers exposure to farms or “farm milk” affected the babies T regulatory cells. These cells are believed to suppress immune response and therefore maintain and develop a healthy immune system.

“We found that the babies of mothers exposed to farms have more and better functioning regulatory T cells,” explained Bianca Schaub, M.D., who led the research team at University Children’s Hospital in Munich.

“The effect was strongest among those mothers who entered barns or drank farm milk.”

First of all, let’s call it like it is. A duck is a duck is a duck. I find it fascinating that through this entire press release they refer to raw milk as “farm milk.” Pasteurized milk comes from a farm too but you can be sure that this study was not looking at mothers that consumed pasteurized milk.

What is also being said in this study (albeit quite silently) is that you don’t have to live on a farm or be exposed to one to be able to confer these benefits to your child, you can simply drink raw milk. Good news for us suburban and urban dwellers since most of America’s households are 99.8% bacterial free Lysol homes.

Another noteworthy item? This study points out the benefits of drinking raw milk while pregnant. If, as a pregnant woman, you decided to mention to a health care professional that you drink raw milk (I wouldn’t recommend this) you can be quite sure that it will have a “shock and awe” affect quickly followed by a stern lecture. Raw milk consumption is hugely controversial in America and a very big “no, no” while pregnant. Me? I am guilty. Then again I am the mother to a little girl who appears to be allergic and or sensitive to about a million different things on this planet. Okay, that is a bit of an exaggeration. Nevertheless, if the act of drinking raw milk will help repair the damage that has all ready been done to her immune system and possibly spare her sibling the same allergenic fate then I am all aboard. By the way, we’ve been drinking raw milk for over a year with great results.

But my biggest pet peeve? That would be the conclusion that Dr. Schaub (one of the doctors conducting the study) presented:

“It is a long way off,” she concluded, “but these findings may one day hopefully help researchers to develop an effective preventive strategy, perhaps even a vaccine, against allergic diseases.”

Oh, another vaccine. Beautiful. So you take something full of simplicity and truth and you see how you can twist it into your medical model of something to sell. Shocking.

Here is the press release.

Read Full Post »

Vaccines, Asthma & Allergies

Here is an article that I have been holding on to for a few years. It is one of the first articles that I read that lead me on my quest for more research into this topic. This article was written by Rita Hoffman and in 2001 was submitted to the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee. On November 12th, 2001 they held a public meeting in Seattle, WA to review the possible association. The committee’s conclusion was that “there is inadequate evidence to either accept or reject a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and increased risk of allergic diseases, particularly asthma.” What is important to gather is that they were not able to dismiss the connection, there simply wasn’t enough evidence and research at the time. Here is the article and the original source is HERE.

Anaphylaxis Action’s submission to the Institute of Medicine

Anaphylaxis Action
c/o Rita Hoffman, R. R. #2,
Stirling, Ontario, Canada. K0K 3E0
613-478-3236
Email: pancakehill@sympatico.ca

November 6, 2001

Immunization Safety Review Committee
National Academy of Sciences
Institute of Medicine FO 3009
2101 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20418

Re: Epidemic of Children with Anaphylaxis

Dear Dr. McCormick, Chair & Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following information for your review of the possible association between multiple immunizations in newborns and infants and immune system dysfunction. We are writing in particular about the potentially life threatening allergic response called anaphylaxis.

The exact numbers of children affected by anaphylaxis are difficult to pinpoint. A study in Arch Intern Med 2001 Jan 8;161(1):15-2, Anaphylaxis in the United States: an investigation into its epidemiology, concluded with “The occurrence of anaphylaxis in the US is not as rare as is generally believed. On the basis of our figures, the problem of anaphylaxis may, in fact, affect 1.21% (1.9 million) to 15.04% (40.9 million) of the US population.” PMID 11146694

In June of this year an article by Associated Press Writer Jim Fitzgerald entitled Peanut Butter Wars Rage in Schools stated “Schools that haven’t had a dangerously allergic pupil can expect one soon.” And “peanut allergies among schoolchildren were ‘barely on the radar’ a decade ago, said Dr. Robert Goldman, a New York allergist and Immunologist who specializes in pediatric cases.” “Now I’m seeing a tremendous number of cases,” he said. “It seems like the incidence is really increasing. As to why, I don’t think anyone in the world could tell you for sure.”

In Canada, the Anaphylaxis Canada’s Summer 2001 newsletter states that “20% of Canadians suffer from some form of allergy and approximately 4% of children and 2% of adults have developed a potentially lethal allergy to food.”

The cover story in the September 2000 issue of Professionally Speaking, the magazine of the Ontario College of Teachers is “An Abnormal Response to Normal Things.” The article begins with “Teachers have to be aware that allergies can kill. A growing number of children are at risk – and a well prepared teacher can make all the difference.” The article explains that “About a decade ago, the sudden surge in highly allergic children entering school systems across the province caught many educators off guard.”

Why the “surge” in anaphylactic children entering school a decade ago? These children were among the first to receive an additional vaccination, Hib meningitis. Is it possible that the Pertussis and Hib vaccine, both shown below to cause allergic responses, are creating a hypersensitive immune system in some children? Has any study looked into what happens to atopy incidence and IgE levels when 5 vaccines are given concurrently in infants?

CAN VACCINES CAUSE FOOD ALLERGIES?

JAMA 2001 Apr 4;285(13):1746-8 Detection of peanut allergens in breast milk of lactating women states, “Most individuals who react to peanuts do so on their first known exposure”……………..and concluded “Peanut protein is secreted into breast milk of lactating women following maternal dietary ingestion. Exposure to peanut protein during breastfeeding is a route of occult exposure that may result in sensitization of at-risk infants.” PMID 11277829

Women have been ingesting peanut protein while breastfeeding for decades. What has changed in the last 15 years to cause infants to develop life-threatening allergies to this legume? One change has been the vaccination schedule.

The Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1999 Jul; 119(3):205-11 Pertussis adjuvant prolongs intestinal hypersensitivity concludes: Our findings indicate nanogram quantities of PT (pertussis toxin), when administered with a food protein, result in long-term sensitization to the antigen, and altered intestinal neuroimmune function. These data suggest that exposure to bacterial pathogens may prolong the normally transient immune responsiveness to inert food antigens. PMID 10436392

Does this study explain why babies and toddlers react on their first exposure to the peanuts or other antigens? The babies may have been sensitized by the vaccines to the proteins through breast milk or formula ingested at the time of vaccination. This would also explain why children are anaphylactic to a variety of proteins, such as different tree nuts, peanuts, egg, legumes, milk, seeds, etc., depending on what proteins the mother ate at the time of vaccination.

(top)

IS THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HIB VACCINE CONNECTED TO THE INCREASE IN FOOD ANAPHYLAXIS IN CHILDREN?

Rates of anaphylaxis have increased dramatically since the introduction of the Hib vaccine.

Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1979 Mar-Apr;6(2):139-49 Comparison of vaccination of mice and rats with Haemophilus influenzae and Bordetella pertussis as models of atopy, states “The Haemophilus influenzae vaccinated experimental animal provides a model that is possibly more related to human atopy than the Bordetella pertussis vaccinated animal.” PMID 311260

Ann Allergy 1979 Jan;42(1):36-40 states “To determine whether Haemophilus influenzae could be a factor in human atopy its effects were studied on the (para-)Sympathic Cyclic nucleotide-histamine axis in rats. Haemophilus influenzae vaccination induced changes in the cholinergic system compatible with higher cyclic GMP levels and enhanced histamine release. The authors suggest an involvement of the cholinergic system in Haemophilus influenzae vaccination effects. PMID 216288

Agents Actions 1984 Oct;15(3-4):211-5 entitled Bronchial hyper-reactivity to histamine induced by Haemophilus influenzae vaccination states “……This suggests a hyper-reactivity of the parasympathethic, cholinergic pathways as a result of H.influenzae vaccination.” PMID 6335351

Eur J. Pharmacol 1980 Apr 4;62(4):261-8 entitled The effects of Haemophilus influenzae vaccination on anaphylactic mediator release and isoprenaline-induced inhibition of mediator release states “These results indicate an increased sensitivity to antigenic challenge and suggest that the functioning of beta-adrenoceptors was decreased as a result of H. Influenzae vaccination.” PMID 6154589

DOES THE PERTUSSIS VACCINE CAUSE ASTHMA, ALLERGIES AND ANAPHYLAXIS?

Pediatrics 1988 Jun (81) Supplement – Report on the Task Force on Pertussis and Pertussis Immunization – extract states, For more than 25 years, it has been known that pertussis vaccine is a reliable adjuvant for the production of experimental allergic encephalitis.

Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 1987;23 Suppl 10:111s-113s A model for experimental asthma: provocation in guinea-pigs immunized with Bordetella pertussis states, ” Guinea-pigs were sensitized with killed Bordetella pertussis….. the presence of the immediate type of immune response was verified by passive cutaneous anaphylaxis….. B. pertussis not only alters adrenergic function but provocation in B. pertussis-sensitized guinea-pigs seems to be a good model for bronchial asthma. PMID 2889487

Pediatr Res 1987 Sep;22(3):262-7 Murine responses to immunization with pertussis toxin and bovine serum albumin: I. Mortality observed after bovine albumin challenge is due to an anaphylactic reaction……….the results of our experiments have established that the disease induced by coimmunizing mice with Ptx and BSA is due to an immediate type hypersensitivity. PMID 3309858

Infect Immun 1987 Apr.;55(4):1004-8 Anaphylaxis or so-called encephalopathy in mice sensitized to an antigen with the aid of pertussigen (pertussis toxin), states, Sensitization of mice with 1mg of bovine serum albumin (BSA) or chicken egg albumin (EA) ………….induced a high degree of anaphylactic sensitivity when the mice were challenged i.v. with 1 mg of antigen 14 days later. PMID 3557617

JAMA 1994 Aug 24-31;272(8):592-3 Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? A study of 450 children, 11% of the children who had received the pertussis vaccination suffered from asthma, as compared with only 2% of the children who had not been vaccinated. PMID 8057511

Allergy 1983 May;38(4):261-71 The non-specific enhancement of allergy. III. Precipitation of bronchial anaphylactic reactivity in primed rats by injection of alum or B. pertussis vaccine: relation of response capacity to IgE and IgG2a antibody levels. …..These results show that injection of alum or B. pertussis vaccine without antigen can precipitate/enhance anaphylactic response capacity and production of specific and non-specific IgE and IgG2a. PMID 6307077

(top)

CAN VACCINE ADJUVANTS CAUSE ALLERGIES AND ANAPHYLAXIS?

Requests for information on the types of adjuvants currently used in human vaccines have not been answered to date. We did find that adjuvants are used to create allergic animals for scientific study and also that peanut oil has been used as an adjuvant. Peanut is by far the most common food to cause anaphylaxis in young children. Is peanut oil, or a similar protein or portion of a protein used in human vaccines as an adjuvant or “protein coat” in the Hib vaccine? Aluminum has also been used as an adjuvant and is known to cause allergies according to the studies below. Could the adjuvants used in vaccines over the last 15 years be creating anaphylactic and allergic children?

J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001 Apr;107(4):693-702 Murine model of atopic dermatitis associated with food hypersensitivity states, “Female C3H/HeJ mice were sensitized orally to cow’s milk or peanut with a cholera toxin adjuvant and then subjected to low-grade allergen exposure………………..An eczematous eruption developed in approximately one third of mice after low-grade exposure to milk or peanut proteins……………….This eczematous eruption resembles AD (atopic dermatitis) in human subjects and should provide a useful model for studying immunopathogenic mechanisms of food hypersensitivity in AD.” PMID 11295660

Allergy 1980 Jan;35(1):65-71 Antigen-induced bronchial anaphylaxis in actively sensitized guinea pigs. Pattern of response in relation to immunization regimen….guinea-pigs sensitized with small amounts of antigen together with alum produced IgE and IgG1 antibodies. PMID 7369497

Allergy 1978 Jun:33(3):155-9 Aluminum phosphate but not calcium phosphate stimulates the specific IgE response in guinea pigs to tetanus toxoid. It is hypothesized that the regular application of aluminum compound-containing vaccines on the entire population could be one of the factors leading to the observed increase of allergic diseases. PMID 707792

Pediatric Allergy Immunol 1994 May;5(2):118-23 Immunoglobulin E and G responses to pertussis toxin after booster immunization in relation to atopy, local reactions and aluminum content of the vaccines. The role of aluminum for IgG and IgE responses to pertussis toxin (PT), as well as for side effects, was investigated in 49 children with known atopy status………………the addition of aluminum to the pertussis vaccine was, thus, associated with a stronger IgG antibody response, but tended also to induce a stronger IgE antibody response. The correlation between total IgE and PT-IgE, which was most prominent in children with atopy, indicates that the role of immunization for the development of allergy merits further studies. PMID 808719

Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1998 Jul 6;32(3):155-172 entitled Aluminum compounds as vaccine adjuvants stated, “Limitations of aluminum adjuvants include local reactions, augmentation of IgE antibody responses, ineffectiveness for some antigens and inability to augment cell-mediated immune responses, especially cytotoxic T-Cell responses. PMID 10837642

Annals of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, Vol. 85, Number 1, July 2000 article T-cell subsets (Th1 versus Th2) includes Figure 7 on page 15 – “Factors responsible for the imbalance of the Th1/Th2 responses which is partly responsible for the increased prevalence of allergy in Western countries. Risk for atopy – Th2, increased exposure to some allergens and Th2-biasing vaccines (alum as adjuvant).” PMID 10923599

Vaccine 1992;10(10):714-20 Parameters affecting the immunogenicity of microencapsulated tetanus toxoid states “As expected, incomplete Freund’s adjuvant (IFA) proved to be a more potent adjuvant than peanut oil…………….” PMID 1523881

Can J Comp Med 1985 Apr;49(2):149-51 compared 6 different adjuvants in swine including four mineral oil compounds, one peanut oil compound and aluminum hydroxide. PMID 4016580

C R Acad Sci Hebd Seances Acad Sci D 1975 Apr 7;280(13):1629-32 states…….. a stable water in oil emulsion can be produced by using metabolizable peanut oil with arlacel. When mycobacteria are added, a potent emulsified oil adjuvant is obtained which increases the immune response to BSA and to influenza vaccine. PMID 811378

(top)

ARE MULTIPLE VACCINES CAUSING OUR IMMUNE SYSTEMS TO FAIL?

Immunology Today, March 1998, Volume 19, p. 113-116 states, “Modern vaccinations, fear of germs and obsession with hygiene are depriving the immune system of information input upon which it is dependent. This fails to maintain the correct cytokine balance and fine-tune T-cell regulation, and may lead to increased incidences of allergies and autoimmune diseases.” PMID 9540269

From the journal Allergy 1999, 54, 398-399, Multiple Vaccination effects on atopy, “An increase in the incidence of childhood atopic diseases may be expected as a result of concurrent vaccination strategies that induce a Th2-biased immune response. What should be discussed is whether the prize of a reduction of common infectious diseases through a policy of mass vaccination from birth is worth the price of a higher prevalence of atopy.” PMID 10371102

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Feb. 2000; 23(2):81-90, Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus vaccination on allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the United States, “The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects. The odds of having any allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects.” PMID 10714532

Thorax 1998 Nov;53(11):927-32 Early childhood infection and atopic disorder, stated “Interpretation of the prediction of atopic disorders by immunisation with whole cell pertussis vaccine and treatment with oral antibiotics needs to be very cautious because of the possibilities of confounding effects and reverse causation. However, plausible immune mechanisms are identifiable for the promotion of atopic disorders by both factors and further investigation of these association is warranted.” PMID 10193389

Epidemiology 1997 Nov;8(6):678-80 Is infant immunization a risk factor for childhood asthma or allergy? This study followed 1,265 children born in 1977. The 23 children who received no DPT and polio immunizations had no recorded asthma episodes or consultations for asthma or other allergic illness before age 10 years; in the immunized children, 23.1% had asthma episodes, 22.5% asthma consultations, and 30% consultations for other allergic illness. Similar differences were observed at ages 5 and 16 years. PMID 9345669

Arerugi 2000 Jul;49(7):585-92, The Effect of DPT and BCG vaccinations on atopic disorders findings include, “From these results we conclude that DPT vaccination has some effect in the promotion of atopic disorders…….” PMID 10944825

International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 121:1:2000, 2-9, Genetic and environmental factors contributing to the onset of allergic disorders. “The increasing prevalence of allergy in developed countries suggests that environmental factors acting either before or after birth also contribute to regulate the development of Th2 cells and/or their function. The reduction of infectious diseases in early life due to increasing vaccinations, antimicrobial treatments as well as changed lifestyle are certainly important in influencing the individual outcome in the Th response to ubiquitous allergens. PMID 10686503

In conclusion, living with anaphylaxis is to be continually on guard for minute quantities of everyday food or other substances that may cause death. Keeping anaphylactic children safe involves the whole community including the child, parents, teachers, bus drivers, caregivers, friends and family.

It is our hope that the Committee will investigate the questions we have raised and will recommend further investigation into the connection between vaccines and this most distressing allergic disease called anaphylaxis.

Your time is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

Rita Hoffman

Additional studies linking vaccines to allergic responses:

Clinical Immunology 2001 Sep;100(3):355-61 Infection of human B lymphocytes with MMR vaccine induces IgE class switching. Imani F, Kehoe KE. Circulating immunoglobulin E (IgE) is one of the characteristics of human allergic diseases including allergic asthma…….. Here, we show that infection of a human IgM(+) B cell line with MMR resulted in the expression of germ line epsilon transcript. In addition, infection of freshly prepared human PBLs with this vaccine resulted in the expression of mature IgE mRNA transcript. Our data suggest that a potential side effect of vaccination with live attenuated viruses may be an increase in the expression of IgE. PMID 11513549

Additional vaccine adjuvant studies using nut oils:

Vaccine 1996 Dec;14(17-18):1703-6 Immune responses following cocktails of inactivated measles vaccine and Arachis hypogaea L. (ground nut) or Cocos nucifera L. (coconut) oils adjuvant. Eghafona NO. “The study suggests that the oils under investigation, particularly to GO (ground nut) oil should be considered as an adjuvant with IMV (Inactivated Measles Vaccine) after extensive study in humans; since it stimulated cellular immune response comparable to that of LMV (Live Measles Vaccine). PMID 9032902

Agents Actions 1976 Feb;6(1-3):75-85 Adjuvant disease induced by mycobacteria, determinants of arthritogenicity. Audibert, F, states “Our previous findings showed that the water soluble adjuvant (WSA) of M.smegmatis which could substitute for mycobacterial cells in Freund’s complete adjuvant and induce delayed hypersensitivity was not arthritogenic in the Wistar rat. We have since observed that auto-immune diseases could be elicited by WSA. PMID: 181972

Read Full Post »

Is there a Connection Between Vaccines and Food Allergies?

Specifically peanut allergy? I have been wondering this question for the last 2 1/2 years. I found this article today and I find it intriguing. I have bookmarked it to my long list of inquiries into the vaccine and food allergy connection. Is there one for sure? There’s not enough proof yet but yes, I believe there is a connection. I’m not alone either.

Article is from HERE.

My own story is amazingly similar to the authors. My daughter developed multiple allergies to foods eaten (and some she’d never had) within a short period after her 12 month immunizations (which were given at 14 months). I believe she was sensitized to these foods via my breastmilk around the time of vaccination. She had an anaphylactic reaction to peanut upon her first exposure. We have no family history of peanut allergy, food allergy or asthma on either side of the family.

And here is some irony to ponder. Let’s just say that vaccines really are triggering the large rise in peanut and other food allergies. Now stop to consider that the same industry producing these vaccines is working hard to develop a vaccine that “cures” peanut allergies. What kind of conflict of interest would it be to first create a disease and then sell the “cure” for it. Unintentional or not, that is disturbing. I can only imagine the following being the stance by the CDC in a number of years, “Yes, in some cases we have discovered that vaccines lead to the development of life threatening allergies to peanuts. However, we believe it is important that parents continue to vaccinate their children as the protection that these vaccines offer far outweigh any potential side effects, which are usually mild. We have now formulated a vaccine that cures anaphylaxis in children who become allergic to peanuts. If in the rare situation your child does become allergic to peanuts following their vaccinations a subsequent anaphylaxis vaccine will be able to alleviate the problem. Carry on, carry on.”

This is a very, very long article but is full of valuable information and a lot of research. It is worth your time to read. There are pages and pages of sources for the article so if you want to see the authors sources please see the site where the original article was posted, HERE, and scroll to the botom.

Anaphylactic children—canaries in the public health mine shaft?

Are vaccines responsible for the epidemic of anaphylaxis in young children today?

by Rita Hoffman

In the presentation speech as winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work with anaphylaxis, Charles Robert Richet said, “We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction, the organism suffers and becomes resistant. This resistance lies in increased sensitivity, a sort of revolt against the second parenteral injection which would be fatal. At the first injection, the organism was taken by surprise and did not resist. At the second injection, the organism mans its defences and answers by the anaphylactic shock.” In naming “anaphylaxis”, Richet described, “Phylaxis, a word seldom used, stands in the Greek for protection. Anaphylaxis will thus stand for the opposite. Anaphylaxis, from its Greek etymological source, therefore means that state of an organism in which it is rendered hypersensitive, instead of being protected.” Richet concluded his lecture by saying, “Seen in these terms, anaphylaxis is a universal defense mechanism against the penetration of heterogenous substances in the blood, whence they can not be eliminated.” ⁽¹⁾

Vaccine antigens injected subcutaneously or intramuscularly prompt the immune system to create antibodies in the blood against those antigens. Has medicine, which has used vaccinations containing “alien proteins” as its cornerstone to control infectious diseases, been on the wrong track by injecting heterogenous substances [originating in an outside source; especially: derived from another species] ⁽²⁾ into human beings to “control” disease? What would be the general state of health today if 200 years ago medicine had taken the path of discovering the keys to promoting a strong, unadulterated immune system in conjunction with increased nutrition, vitamin and mineral supplementation along with better sanitation? Has medicine produced false protection by injecting alien proteins via vaccination which, as Richet pointed out in his lecture, can render us hypersensitive instead of being protected?

This hypersensitive state called anaphylaxis is now epidemic in young children who live every day of their life under threat of death from everyday, normally harmless substances. The numbers are staggering. According to Health Canada’s web site, “It is estimated that 600,000 Canadians (two percent of the population) may be affected by life-threatening allergies, and the numbers are increasing, especially among children.” ⁽³⁾ In 2005 Ontario passed a law to protect anaphylactic students at school while The Toronto Star reported an estimated 40,000 children in Ontario with anaphylaxis. ⁽⁴⁾

The recent deaths of three Canadian teenagers exposed to minute quantities of allergen have caused a world wide media explosion of anaphylaxis stories. Everyone is asking—why do we have so many kids with peanut allergies? Why have schools banned peanut butter sandwiches? Why are kids dying? Charles Robert Richet knew that foreign proteins penetrating the body could cause anaphylaxis back in 1913. Some doctors, allergists and anaphylaxis organizations blame skin creams containing peanut oil and North America’s roasting of peanuts for the epidemic of anaphylaxis. And perhaps weary of saying that increased consumption of peanuts is the cause of the increase in peanut allergy some are mentioning the “hygiene hypothesis” as a cause. A few are even mentioning the “v” word. Dr. Bruce Edwards was quoted in a February 21, 2006 Newsday article regarding the hygiene hypothesis. “The theory is that because U.S. children ‘use antibacterial soap, get antibiotics at the first sign of a runny nose and are vaccinated for every potential thing out there,’ their immune systems do not spend time producing anti-infectious responses to all the diseases they will never get. Instead, their immune systems may be ‘shunting their responses to produce things [anti-infectious responses] which are more allergic in nature.’”

In a May 18, 2005 CNN article, in an attempt to explain the peanut allergy epidemic, Dr. Robert Woods of Johns Hopkins University stated, “The more your immune system is kept busy by exposure to germs and infections early in life, the less time it can devote to things like allergy.” Anne Munoz-Furlong, CEO and founder of U.S. based The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) in the same article says “Perhaps our homes are too clean—we’ve done too much to take away the job of the immune system. We don’t have parasites, a lot of the childhood diseases you vaccinate and don’t have, so maybe for some people, the immune system is looking for something to do and decides, ‘Aha, I don’t like milk’ or ‘I don’t like peanuts,’ and the body then attacks the food protein as if it were an enemy invader.” Somehow I think our God given immune systems are smarter than that—that is, if left to do the job without any interference!

Anaphylaxis is not the only allergic disease on the rise. On March 31, 2006 Reuters reported that “Allergies such as hay fever are reaching epidemic proportions in Europe and a failure to treat them properly is creating a mounting bill for society and the healthcare system…Around one third of the European population has some kind of allergy, while one in two children in Britain will have allergies by 2015, costing millions of euros in medical bills, lost work days and even impaired concentration in school pupils.” The article goes on to describe, “Allergies were most prevalent in Britain and Ireland, as well as other English speaking countries like Canada, Australia and the United States, Burney said, adding they were also becoming more widespread in new European Union member states.” On May 5, 2005 The Toronto Star devoted an entire section to allergies and asthma. An article about eczema states, “In Canada, this incurable skin condition that causes dryness, crusting and thickening afflicts between 2 million and 5 million people. Experts report its incidence has tripled since 1970.”

In 2002, prominent Canadian allergist Dr. Peter Vadas went as far to say, in a television show on severe allergies, “There are factors to do with how we vaccinate our kids very early on in life, how much drugs, antibiotics we give the kids early on in life all of which tend to predispose more towards allergy.” But when asked, “Do you think early vaccination is not a good thing?” he replied, “No, I think it’s a wonderful thing. It’s an absolutely crucial thing from the standpoint of public health to minimize the likelihood of severe infections, but on the other hand one of the spin offs is that there are a certain proportion of the population that are going to be more prone to developing allergies as a consequence of that.” ⁽⁵⁾

In a February 20, 2006 Globe and Mail article entitled “Is clean living making us sick? Hygiene hypothesis on food allergies”, Dr. Vadas followed a “party line”, eliminating the “v” word. The “party line” to explain this, he said “holds that consumption of peanuts and the peanut protein has increased in Western societies. As a result, the more exposure to peanuts, the more people will be found to be allergic to them.” It sounds like a “party line” to protect the vaccine status quo. This does nothing to explain the explosion of other unusual anaphylactic allergies in children to foods like kiwi, sesame, soybean and tree nuts. Parents should be receiving information regarding all of the potential risks and benefits of vaccines to make an informed decision about vaccinating their children. I was never told that one of the potential “spin offs” of my child being vaccinated would be that he would live every day of his life under threat of death!

If increased consumption of peanut is the cause of peanut anaphylaxis, then why don’t the Chinese and Indonesians, who consume large quantities of peanut, have the peanut anaphylaxis problems of the western industrialized nations? ^{(6, 7)} China and Indonesia do not routinely vaccinate for Hib (Haemophilus influenza type B), ^{(8, 9, 10, 11)} Sweden is a country where 99% of the target population was vaccinated for Hib in 2001. ⁽¹²⁾ Sweden also has low peanut consumption, yet this low consumption has not prevented peanut allergy in that country. Van Odijk et al concluded that “the reaction pattern to peanuts in Sweden is similar to that in many other countries despite a reported steady and low consumption.” ⁽¹³⁾ It appears that countries that introduced Hib vaccination in their infant schedules have high rates of peanut allergy regardless of consumption.

Children can react to peanut allergens on their first exposure. ⁽¹⁴⁾ Sensitization to peanut can occur during breastfeeding. ⁽¹⁵⁾ Yet sensitization through breast milk cannot possibly explain the increase in peanut anaphylaxis as mothers worldwide have been eating peanuts while breastfeeding for decades. Zimmerman et al (1989) found in their study that “these results suggest that highly atopic infants are at special risk for sensitization to peanut, even when they have never received peanut….” ⁽¹⁶⁾ K.L. Capozza, Health Scout News, in an article entitled “Study Acquits Peanuts in Allergic Reaction” described a recent study by Turncanu et al who took three types of children, those with peanut allergies, those that “outgrew” their allergy and those who have no peanut allergy. Capozza describes how “after magnifying these immune cells, or T-cells, the researchers observed that the T-cells of allergic patients became excited after exposure to peanut. Once the T-cells react to the peanut extract, a cascade of allergic responses ensue, from a skin rash to labored breathing.” He describes how “the research shows, the condition stems from a person’s abnormal immune response.” ^{(17, 18)}

What has happened to peanut allergic children to cause their T-cells, as Capozza described to become ‘excited’ to the extent that with some children just being in the same room with peanuts can cause a reaction? Could vaccines be the cause?

Dr. Philip Incao aptly describes how vaccines affect the immune response in his article “How Vaccines Work.” “So the trick of a vaccination is to stimulate the immune system just enough so that it makes antibodies and ‘remembers’ the disease antigen but not so much that it provokes an acute inflammatory response by the cellular immune system and makes us sick with the disease we’re trying to prevent! Thus a vaccination works by stimulating very much the antibody production (Th2) and by stimulating very little or not at all the digesting and discharging function of the cellular immune system (Th1). Vaccine antigens are designed to be ‘unprovocative’ or ‘indigestible’ for the cellular immune system (Th1) and highly stimulating for the antibody-mediated humoral immune system (Th2). Perhaps it is not difficult to see then why the repeated use of vaccinations would tend to shift the functional balance of the immune system toward the antibody-producing side (Th2) and away from the acute inflammatory discharging side (the cell-mediated side or Th1).” ⁽¹⁹⁾

Atopic disorders are the cluster of 3 related disorders, allergies, asthma, and eczema with anaphylaxis being the most severe form of allergic reaction. Atopic disorders are pervasive and raise the alert that the immune system has been sensitized and has shifted away from its normal functioning TH1 mode into a chronically reactive TH2 mode.

Anaphylaxis to foods in young children seemed to be rare prior to the introduction of the first Hib polysaccharide vaccine in 1987 (Canada) to a schedule already containing vaccines for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and polio, measles, mumps and rubella. Beginning in 1992, many infants were given various Hib vaccines concurrently with DPT-P, and beginning in 1994 in a combined 5 in 1 vaccine called Penta. In 1997 the acellular pertussis 5 in 1 vaccine Pentacel was introduced. The cover story in the September 2000 issue of Professionally Speaking, the magazine of the Ontario College of Teachers was “An Abnormal Response to Normal Things.” The article begins with “Teachers have to be aware that allergies can kill. A growing number of children are at risk—and a well prepared teacher can make all the difference.” The article explains that “About a decade ago, the sudden surge in highly allergic children entering school systems across the province caught many educators off guard.” Doesn’t this “surge” correspond to the introduction of the Hib vaccine?

In Ontario, the Hepatitis B vaccination series is given in Grade 7, not at birth, so the Hepatitis B vaccine would not have an impact on the numbers of young children with peanut and nut anaphylaxis, yet it remains to be seen if this vaccine may be implicated in increased numbers of teenagers becoming anaphylactic.

Children in Ontario aged 18 and younger could have received up to five different types of Hib vaccines. The first Hib vaccine, introduced in 1987, was a one dose polysaccharide Hib vaccine for children age 2 and up. Infant immune systems did not mount an immune response to the polysaccharide vaccine, so vaccine researchers developed conjugate vaccines to “trick” the infant immune system into recognizing the Hib antibody.

Conjugate vaccines, according to a U.S. National Institute of Health website, link “a ‘weak’ polysaccharide to a protein easily recognized by the immature immune system.” ⁽²⁰⁾ The Hib conjugate vaccines results in “greatly enhanced antibody responses and establishment of immunological memory”, and the four conjugate Hib vaccines given to children “differ in a number of ways, including the protein carrier, polysaccharide size and types of diluent and preservative. ⁽²¹⁾ Who’s to say that this ‘protein easily recognized by the immature immune system’ won’t “trick” the infants body into thinking that food eaten at the same time as the vaccine is an invader worthy of a ‘greatly enhanced antibody response’?

Although Hib vaccines have been credited as being a public health miracle, the road to the development and implementation of these vaccines seems to have been anything but smooth. The lack of knowledge about this vaccine’s interactions with the immune system is frightening. Here are just a few examples:

One of the most shocking studies I came across was Nicol et al concluding in 2002, a decade after infants were given this vaccine, that 1/10th of the dose of Haemophilus influenzae type B conjugate vaccine (PRP-T) was as immunogenic and safe as the full dose. ⁽²²⁾ Considering that the Hib vaccine results in “greatly enhanced antibody responses”, does this mean that children have been receiving 10 times the amount of Hib vaccine that would be necessary to provide that antibody response, thus creating a hypersensitivity to proteins encountered during and after vaccination in children, especially children with a tendency toward allergy?

Also shocking was Pichichero (2000) in his paper on new combination vaccines, describes….”the protective threshold for conjugated PRP [Hib] vaccines is not known….” ⁽²³⁾

Pabst and Spady (1990) studied infants immunized at 2, 4, and 6 months with conjugate Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine. They found that “antibody levels were significantly higher in the breast-fed (57 infants) than in the formula-fed group (24 infants) at 7 months and at 12 months” and that breastfeeding “enhances the active immune response in the first year of life, and therefore the feeding method must be taken into account in the evaluation of vaccine studies in infants.” ⁽²⁴⁾ Many anaphylactic children were breastfed as infants, which would have boosted this immune response even more! Breast fed and bottle fed babies receive the same doses of vaccines, even though sixteen years ago the above authors found that feeding methods should be evaluated in vaccine studies! This study was later challenged in Scheifele et al’s letter to The Lancet in 1992 in which they conclude that “It seems that the earlier conclusions were incorrect and that breastfeeding does not enhance responses to haemophilus b conjugate vaccines, at least when assessed on completion of the primary series.” ⁽²⁵⁾. The Hib vaccine that Pabst and Spady studied was the CRM 197 mutant diphtheria toxin conjugate vaccine. Scheifele’s study used the PRP-T (tetanus conjugate) vaccine. If Dr. Scheifele was going to discount Pabst and Spady’s results why didn’t he use the same vaccine? Oh, well, full speed ahead! One shot must fit all, breastfed or not! We must maintain the status quo!

Numerous studies have sounded warnings regarding combination or concurrently administered vaccines including Hib. Here are just three examples:

Even as late as May 2000, Rennels et al concluded that “In this trial concurrent IPV [inactivated polio vaccine] appeared to interfere with the anti-PRP [Hib] response to DTaP/Hib vaccine suggesting that introduction of new vaccines may require evaluation of immune responses to all concurrently administered vaccines.” ⁽²⁶⁾

The 2004 American Academy of Pediatrics Annual Meeting report on New Combination Vaccines for Childhood Diseases raised red flags about combination vaccines, saying “However, the reactogenicity and potential side effects of the combined antigens have not yet been determined. Since there is the potential for physical and chemical interaction among the vaccine components and the buffers and preservatives, the immunogenicity of each component needs to be addressed to determine whether these are similar to and as effective as the components given individually.” ⁽²⁷⁾

Redhead K et al (1994) in a very frightening study, state: “However, combination with the Hib vaccine comprising polysaccharide conjugated to tetanus toxoid had dramatic effects on tetanus potency and immunogenicity when assayed in mice. This combination resulted in a five-fold potentiation of the tetanus potency and a similarly large increase in the antibody responses to tetanus toxin and toxoid. The level of the antibody response to the Hib polysaccharide in this vaccine was also elevated, more than 20-fold, as a result of the combination.” ⁽²⁸⁾

Shouldn’t these studies be raising red flags? Antibody responses to Hib elevated more than 20 fold? Reactogenicity and potential side effects of combined antigens not yet determined? I haven’t seen any studies that look at the IgE (allergy) levels post vaccination. Surely it’s not much of a stretch to think that infant’s immune systems might be hypersensitive after receiving these vaccines!

Now let’s look at what vaccines could be cross reacting with peanut. When researchers study allergies and cross reactive proteins they determine the various molecular weights of the allergen. Foods with the same molecular weight can cause cross reactions in allergic persons. And it’s not just foods cross reacting. In a January 22, 2002 news release, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology provided a list of the most common foods that are cross reactive to latex including banana, avocado, chestnut, kiwi and celery. They describe, “The immune system recognizes the ‘cross-reactive’ protein, symptoms manifest and an adverse reaction occurs. An active immune system may not distinguish the difference between the similar looking proteins, so an allergy to one member of the food family may result in the person being allergic to all the members of the same group.”

I have often wondered why vaccines with latex stoppers have not been considered as a potential cause of the tremendous rise in latex allergy among highly vaccinated health care workers. Primeau et al (2001) found that “Natural rubber vial closures released allergenic latex proteins into the tested solutions in direct contact during storage in sufficient quantities to elicit positive intradermal skin reactions in some individuals with LA. These data support a recommendation to eliminate natural rubber from closures of pharmaceutical vials.” ⁽²⁹⁾ There are many vaccines that have latex stoppers that may be sensitizing people. Health Canada does not have a list, but the state of Massachusetts provides information regarding which vaccines contain latex or thimerosal. ⁽³⁰⁾

If people with latex allergy can have cross reactions with foods, then one must ask if vaccine ingredients can cause cross reaction with foods having the same molecular weight?

Using PubMed I looked for molecular weights of ingredients in infant vaccines and some of the most common allergenic foods in small children. Measured in kilodaltons (kDa), the most striking molecular weight that could cross react is 50 kDa contained in the following: Hib, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Neisseria Meningitidis, peanut, almond, soybean and cashew. The molecular weight 43 kDa is present in both Hib and peanut. 20 kDa is present in both Hib and peanut. 37 kDa is present in both Hib and Almond. 49 kDa is present in Hib and Mango.

Comparison Table
Molecular weight of proteins in vaccines	Molecular weights of food proteins triggering reactions
Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) 50, 49, 43, 37, 20, 16, kDa	Peanut 50, 43, 20, 16 kDa
Diphtheria 50, 27 kDa (also used as carrier protein in some Hib vaccines)	Almond 50, 37 kDa
	Soybean 50,16.5 kDa
Tetanus 50 kDa (also used as carrier protein in some Hib vaccines)	Cashew 50 kDa
Neisseria meningitidis 50 kDa (also used as carrier protein in some Hib vaccines)	Mango 49 kDa

References:

Hib ^{(31 – 39)}
Diphtheria ^{(40 – 41)}
Tetanus ^{(42 – 45)}
Neisseria meningitides ⁽⁴⁶⁾
Peanut ^{(47 – 50)}
Almond ^{(51 – 53)}
Soybean ⁽⁴⁷⁾
Cashew ⁽⁵⁴⁾
Mango ⁽⁵⁵⁾

So the first vaccines my child received, DPT-P + Hib contained Diphtheria (50 kDa), Tetanus (50 kDa), Pertussis, Polio, Mutant Diphtheria carrier protein in the Hibtitre vaccine (50 kDa) plus Hib (50 kDa). Is there any wonder, when my son encountered peanut (50 kDa), Almond (50 kda) and Cashew (50 kDa) via breastmilk while his body’s immune system was processing the vaccines, that his body went on extreme high alert for anything with a 50 kDa molecular weight? Granoff and Munson (1986) describe when conjugate vaccines are prepared, “new antigenic determinants are formed…but their presence raises the possibility that these neoantigens may elicit antibodies cross-reactive with human antigens.” ⁽³¹⁾

Cross reactive proteins can be very dangerous for people with allergies. I know a young girl who had vomited after eating cashews as a toddler and was never given nuts after that time. Not long after her school age boosters of DTaP-Polio and MMR she was given a piece of mango and had to be rushed to the hospital. It was only after some investigating that the parents realized that mango and cashew can cross react. This girl’s mother happens to love mango, and while she would not bring the fruit into her home she decided it was safe to eat some at her workplace for lunch, afterward carefully washing her hands. Upon arriving home several hours later, the mother kissed the little girl on the cheek. Swelling and hives ensued, and even with anti-histamines it was days before the child’s reaction subsided. From a kiss on the cheek! Another child with a nut allergy had an anaphylactic reaction to a fruit juice containing mango, again the parents being unaware of the cashew/mango cross reaction. These bizarre immune responses put children at risk of dying every day.

Stories like these aren’t too surprising once you look at the medical literature where the link between vaccination and anaphylaxis seems crystal clear in animal studies dating back as far as 1952. Saul Malkiel, Betty J. Hargis and Leon S. Kind completed numerous studies where vaccinated animals became anaphylactic, many funded in part by the National Institute of Health. Imagine reading, from 1959, “We have repeatedly observed in experiments on mice that a consequence of the administration of Hemophilus pertussis phase I organisms given in conjunction with a protein antigen is the enhancement of anaphylactic sensitization to the foreign protein antigen.” ⁽⁵⁶⁾ And we have allergists telling us that skin creams cause anaphylaxis? And I was furious when I read Kind and Roesner (1959), “It is now well known that mice inoculated with Hemophilus pertussis vaccine develop enhanced sensitivity to lethal effects of histamine, serotonin, endotoxin, peptone and anaphylactic shock. The ensuing data will demonstrate that pertussis-inoculated mice can also be killed with doses of water soluble extract of pollen rye grass which are not lethal to uninoculated animals.” ⁽⁵⁷⁾ Kind and Richards (1964) in the Journal Nature, state “It is now well known that mice injected with Bordetella pertussis vaccine plus an antigen will produce more antibodies to that antigen than mice injected with antigen alone.” ⁽⁵⁸⁾ Couldn’t the same apply to babies?

And how do researchers make anaphylactic animal models? They vaccinate the animals! Countless studies show anaphylaxis being induced in animals by using toxins and adjuvants used in human vaccines. Here is one example from hundreds:

Helm et al in Environmental Health Perspectives article “Nonmurine Animal Models of Food Allergy” discuss ways to create animal models of human food allergy. ⁽⁵⁹⁾ Animal models are discussed extensively, including “the use of adjuvants (natural or artificial–alum, cholera toxin, Bordetella pertussis, and carrageenan are known IgE-selective adjuvants)” in those animal models. They go on to describe, “In the atopic dog model for food allergy (Ermel et al. 1997), newborn pups (day 1) were subcutaneously injected in the axillas with 1µg of cow’s milk, beef, ragweed, and wheat extracts in alum. Food antigen was again administered on days 22, 29, 50, 78, and 85. At ages 3, 7, and 11 weeks, all pups were vaccinated with attenuated distemper-hepatitis vaccine…Immunized pups responded with allergen-specific IgE by week 3 and peaked at week 26 of age…All clinical manifestations are consistent with infant, adolescent, and adult food allergy in humans.”

It has been shown repeatedly that vaccination can cause sensitization, including anaphylaxis, to vaccine ingredients. Nelson et al (2000) discuss a 4 month old baby’s anaphylactic reaction to the CRM 197 protein in the Hib vaccine. ⁽⁶⁰⁾ As far back as 1940 Cooke et al noted that “The real object of this presentation is to acquaint the medical profession with proof of the fact that sensitivity can be induced as a result of the present procedures of active immunization to tetanus.” ⁽⁶¹⁾ Cooke et al also mentioned Neill et all (1929) noted hypersensitivity to diphtheria bacilli. ⁽⁶²⁾

Patrizi et al (1999) and Osawa et al (1991) noted allergic sensitization to thimerosal. ^{(63, 64)} Martin-Munoz et al described allergic sensitization to tetanus and diphtheria toxoids simultaneously. ⁽⁶⁵⁾ Kumagai et al (2002) found “gelatin-specific cell-mediated immunity develops in subjects inoculated with gelatin containing DTaP vaccine” and that the specific cellular immune responses persisted for more than 3 years. ⁽⁶⁶⁾ Sakaguchi et al (1996) concluded that “We reconfirmed a strong relationship between systemic immediate-type allergic reactions including anaphylaxis, to vaccines and the presence of specific IgE to gelatin.” ⁽⁶⁷⁾ Nakayama et al (1999) found that “DTaP vaccine may have a causal relationship to the development of this gelatin allergy.” ⁽⁶⁸⁾

So, if the medical literature shows anaphylactic sensitization to vaccine ingredients, then is it much of a leap to think that protein fragments in those vaccines could be causing cross reactive sensitization with antigens with the same antigenic determinant?

A key piece of the hypersensitivity puzzle is the vaccine adjuvant aluminum according to New Zealand researcher and author Hilary Butler. Butler states that “Aluminium is put into vaccines, because without it, the body will not react to weak strains of antigens. Aluminium is highly reactive, and is a Th2 ‘skewer’. This is the whole reason why aluminum is added to vaccines. And Aluminium will ALWAYS create IGE, and if this happens in the presence of proteins from vaccines or food antigens in the body, then there is a high chance of allergy developing.” She points out the study by Yamanishi et al (2003) who immunized mice against Kunitz-type soybean trypsin inhibitor (KSTI) and concluded that…”we demonstrated that, regardless of the inability to adsorb KSTI, alum exerted its adjuvant activity only when it was co-injected with the antigen. These results showed that some biochemical effect, other than adsorptive activity, to enhance the production of the antigen-specific IgE resides in alum.”⁽⁶⁹⁾ According to Butler, “this goes along with evidence I have elsewhere that highlights the observation that aluminum does not have to be absorbed onto the antigen in order for an immune response to be stimulated. Another thing is that aluminum produces mostly IgE antibodies (allergic antibodies).” Numerous studies have also shown that aluminum is linked to allergic responses. ⁽⁷⁰⁾

VRAN researcher Susan Fletcher notes the importance of digestion (which can be affected by antibiotic use) in the development of asthma and allergies. Vaccinations are routinely given to infants and children even though they may have been given antibiotics for a recent health issue, certainly affecting their immune response to the vaccine. Untersmayr et al (2006) found “for the first time the important gate-keeping function of gastric digestion, both in the sensitization and the effector phases of food allergy.” ⁽⁷¹⁾

Charles Robert Richet described back in his Nobel Lecture in 1913, “all proteins, without exception produce anaphylaxis: one had seen this with all sera, milks, organic extracts whatsoever, all vegetable extracts, microbial protein toxins, yeast cells, dead microbial bodies. It would be of more interest now to find a protein which does not produce anaphylaxis than to find one that does.”

He then chillingly states in his conclusion, “It does not matter much that the individual becomes more vulnerable in this regard. There is something more important than the salvation of the person and that is integral preservation of the race. In other words, to formulate the hypothesis in somewhat abstract terms but clear ones all the same: the life of the individual is less important than the stability of the species. Anaphylaxis, perhaps a sorry matter for the individual, is necessary to the species, often to the detriment of the individual. The individual may perish, it does not matter. The species must at any time keep its organic integrity intact. Anaphylaxis defends the species against the peril of adulteration.” ⁽¹⁾

How can Richet have won the Nobel Prize in 1913 for this knowledge yet the medical community today seems to have no clue why our children are anaphylactic? Why has medicine, to which parents have entrusted their precious children, continued to vaccinate for more and more diseases, knowing that our “organic integrity” could be at stake? May I suggest that researchers or doctors can’t see the forest for the trees, or there is one huge cover-up?

With hundreds of new vaccines in the pipeline, how much longer can we continue to inject more and more foreign proteins via vaccination into human beings without eventually creating a totally defenseless population? How many more children will become anaphylactic, be rushed to emergency fighting for their lives or die before something is done?

For sources and acknowledgments please see the original article HERE

Read Full Post »