by Christina England
Health Impact News

Have you ever wondered why so many people, in particular those over the age of 65, react adversely to the flu vaccination? How many times have you heard that, after receiving the flu vaccine, a friend or loved one has developed flu-like symptoms?  At last, after many years of speculation, scientists in London believe they have the answer to our questions.

A group of scientists led by Olga Sobolev from Kings College London believe that they have discovered why, after receiving flu vaccinations containing adjuvants, many healthy adults over the age 35 develop adverse reactions within hours of vaccination. In a paper published by Nature Immunology titled Adjuvanted influenza-H1N1 vaccination reveals lymphoid signatures of age-dependent early responses and of clinical adverse events, they wrote:

Adjuvanted vaccines afford invaluable protection against disease, and the molecular and cellular changes they induce offer direct insight into human immunobiology. Here we show that within 24 h of receiving adjuvanted swine flu vaccine, healthy individuals made expansive, complex molecular and cellular responses that included overt lymphoid as well as myeloid contributions.

Unexpectedly, this early response was subtly but significantly different in people older than ~35 years. Wide-ranging adverse clinical events can seriously confound vaccine adoption, but whether there are immunological correlates of these is unknown.

Here we identify a molecular signature of adverse events that was commonly associated with an existing B cell phenotype. Thus immunophenotypic variation among healthy humans may be manifested in complex pathophysiological responses.

In simplified terms, this means that after completing complex immunological research, the team was able to determine why, after receiving the H1N1 flu vaccine containing an adjuvant, many of the recipients over the age of 35 developed flu-like adverse reactions within hours of vaccination.

Speaking from King’s College London, study co-author Adrian Hayday stated that:

The gene signature in the peripheral blood . . . is not a smoking gun at this point, but it’s a strong association and quite compelling.

The Scientist, one of the many leading medical journals reporting the news, stated that:

Previous studies have identified reasons why some people fail to respond to flu vaccines while others do, but few have analyzed the molecular correlates of adverse responses.

They continued:

The researchers found no links between feeling sick after the vaccine and age, gender, or the quality of an individual’s immune response. However, they found that participants who reported severe adverse reactions had a transient increase in the expression of a small group of genes one day after they received the shot.

These participants also overexpressed several genes in developing B cells both before and after vaccination. Although all these individuals were healthy, approximately 25 percent of them had higher than normal levels of autoantibodies for thyroid hormones.

The Medical Xpress, another journal reporting on this paper wrote:

Scientists are eager to understand why some people experience such adverse reactions while others do not, because they believe it could lead to better vaccines, or perhaps even breakthroughs in understanding infections and the immune response.

In this latest effort, the team in the U.K. conducted a study of people vaccinated against the H1N1 influenza strain—the vaccination also included an adjuvant meant to enhance immune response. All participants were encouraged to report adverse reactions which led to follow up testing by the team members.

 

The research group found that approximately 20 percent of those vaccinated experienced an adverse response to some degree—the team focused their efforts on these people, looking at changes in the immune response, as compared to those who did not experience an adverse reaction.

They continued:

It is still not clear if the same findings would occur with vaccinations for other diseases or even other strains of flu, but the team notes that the results do offer a pattern for testing that could be used going forward that could eventually culminate in better vaccinations in general.

If the scientists’ research is correct, then this paper could pave the way for scientists to fully understand why so many of our children and babies suffer from severe adverse reactions, including autism, neurological defects and autoimmune disease within hours of receiving routine vaccinations.

It was unclear which adjuvant was added to the H1N1 vaccination being tested by the U.K. scientists but in all probability it was the AS03, an adjuvant system composed of DL-a-tocopherol, squalene and polysorbate 80 in a 3mL vial. If so, then this was the same adjuvant used by GlaxoSmithKline in their flu vaccination, Pandemrix, which was later found to be responsible for the rise in the cases of narcolepsy amongst children in Europe.

See: Insight: GSK vaccine ingredient scrutinized for narcolepsy clues.

Although the Medical Xpress were keen to point out to readers that to date there has been no evidence linking vaccinations to autism, the Kings College paper does leave parents with many unanswered questions. Despite the constant reassurances from governments and the pharmaceutical industry, there has been no scientific evidence offered to prove that vaccines do not cause autism and therefore, parents remain unconvinced.

Could this latest paper from the U.K., be yet another nail in the coffin of the pharmaceutical industry?

Scientists From Canada Link Adjuvants To Autism?

Leading scientists from the University of British Columbia, Canada, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic and Professor Christopher Shaw, have been studying the use of the adjuvant aluminum in vaccinations for many years.

Supported by the Dwoskin Family Foundation, a family-run organization which offers financial support to assist scientists focused on finding the root causes of immune, inflammatory and cognitive disorders in children and older adults, the scientists have been able to uncover evidence supporting the fact that countries with the the highest number of children suffering from autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are countries using the highest number of vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminium.

In a paper published by the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry in 2011, titled Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? Dr. Tomljenovic and Professor Shaw wrote:

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are serious multisystem developmental disorders and an urgent global public health concern. Dysfunctional immunity and impaired brain function are core deficits in ASD. Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders.

 They continued:

Al is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin whose ability toimpact the human nervous system has been known for decades. For example, exposure to as little as 20 μg/kg bw of Al for period N10 days is sufficient to cause neurodevelopmental delays in preterm infants.

In addition, Al is a potent stimulator of the immune system, indeed this is the very reason why it is used as an adjuvant. Given this, it remains surprising that in spite of over 80 years of use, the safety of Al adjuvants appears to rest largely on assumptions rather than experimental evidence.

The two scientists discovered that, despite introducing a total of 18 vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminium into the pediatric schedules, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), had in fact carried out very few safety assessments on vaccinations containing the adjuvant.

The researchers asked:

Should it be of concern that so little is known about the potential deleterious impacts of Al adjuvants on the developing central nervous system (CNS) given that worldwide, preschool children are regularly exposed to significant amounts of Al from vaccines? To address this question, we investigated pediatric vaccine schedules from various Western countries in order to gain a better understanding of potential Al exposure from vaccines in children.

After meticulously researching the evidence, they answered the above question based on the Hill’s criteria and stated:

Our results, supported by the Hill’s criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome, suggest that a causal relationship may exist between the amount of Al administered to preschool children at various ages through vaccination and the rising prevalence of ASD.

For those who are not familiar with “Hill’s criteria,” it is a technique used to determine a causal link between a specific factor and a disease. For example, does excess smoking cause lung cancer? Scientists seeking “to establish a valid causal connection between a potential disease agent” now frequently use the technique, which was first developed by British medical statistician Austin Bradford Hill.

In their final discussion, Dr. Tomljenovic and Professor Shaw stated:

To the best of our knowledge, these results are the first to show that Al, a highly neurotoxic metal and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, may be a significant contributing factor to the rising prevalence of ASD in the Western world.

In particular, we show here that the correlation between ASD prevalence and Al adjuvant exposure appears to be the highest at 3–4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89–0.94, p=0.0018–0.0248). We also show that children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have a much higher exposure to Al from vaccines, particularly at 2 months of age. In this respect,we note that several prominent milestones of brain development in humans coincide with these periods.

These include the onset of synaptogenesis (birth), maximal growth velocity of the hippocampus (2–3 postnatalmonths)and the onset of amygdala maturation (8 weeks postnatal age).

In addition, the period between 2 and 4 months is also one of major developmental transition in many biobehavioural systems, including sleep, temperature regulation, respiration and brain wave patterns, all of which are regulated by the neuroendocrine network. Many of these aspects of brain function are known to be impaired in autism (i.e., sleeping and brain wave patterns).

This paper is full of facts and figures and includes a multitude of leading studies to support their findings, leaving us in little doubt that vaccinations that contain adjuvants are harming our children.

Conclusion

After examining the paper written by Dr. Tomljenovic and Professor Shaw in detail, it is now believed that the paper written by Olga Sobolev and his team from Kings College, London, is another crucial paper supporting the fact that vaccinations containing adjuvants are dangerous and should be examined more carefully. 

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.