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 1 µg 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?