A new report published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology raises a disturbing possibility: that aluminum hydroxide, the dominant metal-based adjuvant used in vaccines today, is causing aluminum overload at injection sites, and contributing to the pathogenesis of diseases such as chronic fatigue syndrome, macrophagic myofasciitis and subcutaneous pseudolymphoma.
Discussed is the case of a 45-year old woman with vaccine-induced subcutaneous pseudolymphoma, a type of skin lesion characterized by collections of lymphocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells in the skin. Â The researchers performed a skin biopsy at the injection site and found aluminum (AI) deposits in her macrophages. When the skin sample was assayed for AI and quantified, it was found to contain 768.1 micrograms per gram, dry weight, versus 5.61 and 9.13 in two control patients â€“ up to 153-fold higher concentrations.
The report cautioned: “Given the pathology of this patient and the high Al concentration in skin biopsy, the authors wish to draw attention when using the Al salts known to be particularly effective as adjuvants in single or repeated vaccinations. The possible release of Al may induce other pathologies ascribed to the well-known toxicity of this metal.”
As referenced, aluminum-based (and other) vaccine adjuvants are “effective” at increasing antibody titers, but they perform this feat through the hypersensitization and/or dysregulation of theÂ humoral pole of the immune system (Th2), which is the immunological equivalent of kicking a beehive.
While intrinsically toxic adjuvants enable manufacturers to produce more antibodies with less antigen (often a profit-motivated decision), these synthetically-generated increases in the sheer number of antibodies produced does not in any way guarantee they will target the correct antigen (i.e. antibody-antigen affinity), which is the true measure of vaccine effectiveness; in fact, these unnaturally stimulated antibodies cross-react with and/or attack self-structures, e.g. myelin basic protein, leading to the break down of immunological self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.
It is a curious fact of vaccine history that while aluminum hydroxide has been injected into billions of people and has been used for almost one century as the only vaccine adjuvant approved worldwide, its mechanism of action is not fully understood, and is only being investigated with any depth in the past five years.
We know that one way in which aluminum hydroxide induces an enhanced immune response is through activating the inflammasome within myeloid cells, a key immune-mediated activator of the inflammatory response and which is known to induce cell death. And yet, without understanding its exact mechanism of action, it is impossible by principle to ascertain fully its risk to health.
Last year, a report published in the journal Current Medicinal Chemistry titled “Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?” raised these safety concerns:
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.Â [ii]
Another study published in 2011 in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry brought up the taboo topic of vaccine-induced autism, focusing on the crucial role of aluminum adjuvants as neurotoxic agents. Â The study abstract is well worth reading, as you will not see this type of information reported anywhere in the mainstream media:
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. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered: (i) children should not be viewed as “small adults” as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; and (ii) if exposure to Al from only few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? By applying Hill’s criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p<0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3-4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89-0.94, p=0.0018-0.0248). The application of the Hill’s criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.[iii]
Another, even more taboo topic is vaccine-induced infant death, which is often forced into the “idiopathic” category of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). A report published in the Journal of Tropical Medicine in 2011, offers an explanation for the well-known, though often censored link between DTP vaccines used in the third world and increased mortality in female infants.[iv]
Titled “Immunological Links to Nonspecific Effects of DTwP and BCG Vaccines on Infant Mortality,” researchers reported on the fact that “A number of mainly observational studies suggest that many African females below the age of one year die each year from the nonspecific effects of vaccination with diphtheria-tetanus toxoids and killed (whole-cell) Bordetella pertussis (DTwP).”
The explanation they offered is that “â€¦the adverse effects of DTwP vaccine may occur because of the Th2-polarising effect of the aluminium phosphate adjuvant in the vaccine and because intramuscular administration of the vaccine may cause chronic inflammation at the site of injection.”
Aluminum has no known beneficial function in biology. Increasing awareness of this metalâ€™s role in breast cancer, due to its metalloestrogenic properties, and its prevalence in our food (baking soda), body care products (e.g. antiperspirants), drugs and environment (e.g. it is used in aerosolized form in military operations as aluminized chaff), is bringing to light how important it is to avoid unnecessary exposures, especially when it concerns the health of our infants and children who are already faced with an ever-increasing body burden of this, and other highly toxic metals. It is clear that if we implement the precautionary principle, vaccines which contain this, or any other, highly toxic metal should be avoided at all costs.
Sayer Ji is the founder and chair of GreenMedInfo.com. His writings have been published in the Wellbeing Journal, the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity, and have been featured on numerous websites, including Mercola.com, NaturalNews.com, Infowars.com, Care2.com. His critically acclaimed essay series The Dark Side of Wheat opens up a new perspective on the universal, human-species specifictoxicity of wheat, and is now available for PDF download.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
Some features are currently member only features. If you are already a member, please login. Otherwise, click here to become a member.
The obesity epidemic may be contributing to the rising number of children diagnosed with autism, according to a study published Monday.
Researchers said mothers who are obese are significantly more likely to have a child with autism or another developmental abnormality. The finding adds to the increasingly complex picture of possible factors that contribute to the disorders.
About half the risk of autism, a condition characterized by poor social skills and repetitive behaviors, is genetic, researchers believe, while the rest stems from factors including older parental age, premature birth or failure to take prenatal vitamins.
The new findings come in the wake of the announcement last month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that autism-spectrum disorders, as the range of abnormalities is now called, affect one in 88 U.S. children, up from one in 110 in a 2009 report.
The link between obesity and developmental disorders is particularly worrisome because obesity has become so prevalent. About a third of U.S. women of reproductive age are considered obese, the authors said.
A Complex Puzzle
Experts say these factors seem to contribute to autism:
Obesity among mothers
Older parental age
Premature birth/birth complications
Fewer than 12 months between children
These factors are suspected and are under investigation:
Diet and other lifestyle factors
Other existing medical conditions, including viral infections
It showed that compared to non obese mothers, those who were obese before pregnancy had a 60% increase in the likelihood of having a child with autism and a doubling in risk of having a child with another type of cognitive or behavioral delay.
The risk was even more pronounced when mothers who had high blood pressure or diabetes before or during pregnancy were included in the analysis.
The results suggest that obesity and other metabolic conditions are a general risk factor for autism and other developmental disorders, said the researchers from the University of California, Davis and Vanderbilt University.
“The brain is quintessentially susceptible to everything’s that happening in the mother’s body,” said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, senior author of the study and chief of the division of environmental and occupational health in public health sciences at UC Davis.
But she added that “no one factor is going to be responsible for any one child’s case. This is not a ‘blame the mom’ thing.”
Susan Hyman, a developmental behavioral pediatrician at the University of Rochester, found a positive theme in the results. “The statistics on obesity are alarming, but it’s a modifiable risk factor,” she said. Dr. Hyman, who heads the American Academy of Pediatrics’ autism subcommittee, wasn’t involved in the study.
How a mother’s weight or metabolic disorders might contribute to autism or other problems isn’t known. One possibility is that insulin resistance is involved, said Dr. Hertz-Picciotto.
When insulin isn’t made or used properly by the bodyâ€”as can be the case in some obese peopleâ€”it alters how sugar, which serves as energy for the body, is produced and transported to tissues including the brain. Such disruption may have a particularly potent effect on fetal brains, which are known to need a lot of sugar.
The researchers weren’t able to compare mothers who had well-controlled blood sugar to those who didn’t, she said.
Obesity joins a growing list of potential causes of autism. The UC Davis researchers and colleagues had examined other environmental factors, such as pollutants, and last summer published data from the same children in Monday’s study showing the risk of autism doubled if families were living closer to a freeway during the third trimester of pregnancy. Not taking prenatal vitamins and having less than 12 months between kids also have been associated with autism.
Genetics are another contributor. Last week, three independent papers published in the journal Nature found more “highly disruptive” mutationsâ€”ones that caused genes to stop workingâ€”on three genes in children with autism compared to those without, and estimated there could be 500 or more mutations related to autism.
“By and large, the kids with autism didn’t have substantially more mutations but slightly more severe mutations,” said Mark Daly, an author of one of the Nature papers and chief of the Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The papers were seen as a boon to the field because they indicate that a relatively new technique could be used to figure out which genes looked different in children with and without autism. That could provide new avenues for research into the condition, said Matthew State, a professor of child psychiatry, psychiatry and genetics at Yale University who was an author of another of the Nature papers.
Ultimately, both genetic and early environmental factors that are under investigation seem to suggest the period of risk for autism is in the womb, said Bryan King, director of the Seattle Children’s Autism Center, who wasn’t involved in the current study. Together, these “will be very important in focusing the field on what to look for when.”
Yesterday we joined beekeepers and partners in filing a legal petition that calls on EPA to suspend registration of Bayerâ€™s controversial bee-toxic pesticide, clothianidin. We also delivered over a million signatures from individuals around the world calling on the Agency to take decisive action to protect honey bees from neonicotinoid pesticides before it is too late.
Bees are still sick, and EPA is still stuck. Bees and other pollinators are still dying off at catastrophic rates â€“ commercial beekeepers lost an average of 36% of their hives last year according to U.S.D.A. Honey bees pollinate one in every three bites of our food and, as indicator species, they serve as sentinels whom we ignore at our peril. With todayâ€™s petition, weâ€™re redoubling our efforts to protect them.
As the public debate over causes behind Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) â€“ a syndrome in which bees seemingly abandon their hives â€“ carries on in the media, more and more new science has shown that neonicotinoid pesticides are indeed a critical piece of the puzzle. Neonicotinoids like clothianidin are not the sole cause of CCD, but they are making our bees sick, and at least one of them is on the market illegally.
While we may not know the exact cause of CCD, EPA knows enough to act, and has the authority and responsibility to suspend Bayerâ€™s bee-toxic pesticide, clothianidin â€“ yet for over a year the Agency has failed to do so.
Today, March 27, is the date on which FDA is required to respond to the Just Label It campaign’s petition to label genetically engineered (GE) foods. It’s also a day that will go down in history, as the campaign has collected a record-breaking 1 million signatures in favor of GE labelingâ€”more than any other food petition previously submitted to the FDA.
Since October, the Just Label It national campaign has gathered the support of 500 diverse partner organizations. It took less than 180 days to accumulate the record number of comments. According to the campaign, 1 million comments translates into someone speaking out to support GE labeling every 30 seconds for an entire year.
“This is a campaign that’s gaining momentum,” said Gary Hirshberg,Â StonyfieldÂ chairman and Just Label It partner, during a press Webinar. “We never would have dreamt that we’d hit a millionâ€¦ This is not a fad and it will not soon pass.”
The campaign says it is reasonable to assume that the FDA will respond today, the 180th day, because FDA is required to respond to filed petitions within that time frame. As to the nature of the agency’s response:
“FDA will likely say they are studying the matter,” said Sue McGovern, Just Label It spokesperson. “At some point however they will need to respond yes or no. If no, the next step is the courts.”
April 2 Update: Shortly after this story was published, the FDA told the Just Label It campaign that it had made no decision on GE labeling and needed more time. It also told the organization that its 1 million comments only counted as 394, due to regulations which stipulate that any amount of signatures (say 10,000) on the same form letter only count as one comment.
New research shows GE labeling support spans demographics
During a Webinar today, Mark Mellman, national political pollster of The Mellman Group, presented new research on Americans’ attitudes toward GE labeling. The study, commissioned by Just Label It, revealed that 91 percent of Americans across political, geographic and other demographic spectrums support labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The study presented a fairly-worded argument both in favor of and against labeling to 1,000 survey participants. Even in the face of an argument against GE labeling, there was still almost unanimous support for labeling.
According to the survey, “even after voters hear powerful arguments against labeling, support for mandatory labeling of GE foods proves not only strong, it turns out to be exceptionally robust, with an 89 percent supermajority continuing to choose the pro-labeling position over the anti-labeling position.”
What’s most heartening about the latest statistics is it demonstrates bipartisan support. The survey found that the major political parties are in favor of GE labeling:
Democrats (93 percent favor, 2 percent oppose)
Independents (90 percent favor, 5 percent oppose)
Republicans (89 percent favor, 5 percent oppose)
Will FDA finally decide to label GE foods?
The Just Label It campaign seeks to give the right to know about genetically modified foods back to the consumer. Since 1992, FDA has held the policy that GMO foods are equivalent to non-GMO foods even though there’s no scientific evidence to support that, said Andy Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety, during the press Webinar. As a result, consumers have no way of knowing if foods contain GMOs, unless that food is certified organic or Non-GMO Project Verified.
The survey makes it clear that even though FDA treats the two foods as equivalent, consumers do not. Fifty percent said there is an important difference between GMO foods and non-GMO foods. The survey also found that only 26 percent believe genetically engineered foods are safe, and that half of participants wanted stricter regulations on GMOs.
“More than 40 countries worldwide, including all of Europe, already have labeling. We’re asking FDA to give our citizenry the same rights held by citizens in all of these different countries,” said Hirshberg. “The 180-day period is this week, but for our coalition this is just the beginning.”
Newhope360, a supporter of the Just Label It campaign, is closely following the FDA’s decision on this matter and will cover the issue as soon as the news is released.