Some Reasons not to Vaccinate for Hep B

This post is going to focus on reasons NOT to vaccinate for Hepatitis B. 

Vaccine Escape Mutants [1]

Even the WHO (World Health Organization) is extremely concerned about Vaccine Escape Mutants (VEMs) and ADAP-VEMs (antiviral drug-associated potential vaccine escape mutants). VEMs are strains of the virus that have mutated because of overuse of a vaccine, in this case the Hepatitis B vaccine. The WHO page puts it a little more mildly by stating it is "riskier" for highly populated areas (AKA we are overusing this vaccine!!) Also, as a disease that thrives in highly populated areas, does this mean the vaccine is pretty much ineffective since the rate of VEMs is higher in highly populated areas? The WHO has stated that in order for a strain to be truly dangerous it must meet four qualifications; 1. it must be stable, 2. it must be so radically different that it is resistant to the vaccine, 3. it has to be transmissible, 4. it must cause acute/chronic infection. The WHO states: 

"Of these four characteristics, to date we have evidence that three have been fulfilled, although we do not know if ADAP-VEMs have the same propensity to cause disease as do strains of HBV that are already circulating. However, given the high rate of HBV drug resistance and the discovery of ADAP-VEMs in individuals who have received lamivudine therapy, we suggest at least two features of HBV treatment programmes may increase the likelihood that an ADAP-VEM of public health importance will emerge."

"It has been recognized that the administration of hepatitis B vaccine can increase the mutation rate of the virus. In high-prevalence countries such as China, Thailand as well as Province of Taiwan. China, monitoring for more than a decade has shown that hepatitis B immunization programmes have increased the incidence of HBV variants with mutations in the surface antigen protein9,10 even as they reduce the overall burden of chronic hepatitis B infection.11 ... Infection of immunized individuals with a vaccine escape mutant (VEM)20 is therefore possible. Some of these variants are associated with high levels of viraemia and have persisted in the host for more than 10 years, suggesting they are stable and transmissible variants. In addition, the antibody responses against the surface antigen protein elicited by the recombinant yeast-derived vaccine now in use are weaker and more specific than those achieved with the previous plasma-derived surface antigen vaccine.22–24 In Province of Taiwan, China, up to 28% of children with chronic hepatitis B infection also harbour hepatitis B surface antigen mutants. So VEMs capable of causing infection in fully immunized individuals are not uncommon in countries with high rates of endemic HBV infection and universal hepatitis B infant immunization programmes.12,20 However, to date the emergence of VEMs has not had a known negative impact on any country’s immunization programme.25"

The WHO contradicts themselves over and over. "However, to date the emergence of VEMs has not had a known negative impact on any country's immunization programme."? If this were true, why would it affect countries with a high infant vaccination program? The US vaccinates over 95% of its newborn babies with Hep. B before leaving the hospital, or at the first well-check appointment. So this practice IS negatively affecting things if VEMs are capable of infecting fully vaccinated individuals in our country. It means that it doesn't work. If it were true, how would they be able to measure how likely it is in certain areas, how many individuals are affected by VEMs? They wouldn't. Also, since they can't monitor VEMs well enough to know whether a VEM has caused acute/chronic infection (since many don't even know they have Hepatitis B until they are hospitalized), they don't know how prevalent VEMs are, since most will have minor illness and fill recovery from Hepatitis B.

There are some other troubling issues surrounding treatment of Hepatitis B and how some of the antiviral agents used can cause a strain to mutate or become stronger and resistant to antivirals and vaccines.

"Lamivudine, although it is relatively inexpensive, has been shown to rapidly result in the selection of primary antiviral drug-resistant polymerase variants. These variants in turn also select for compensatory mutations, some of which may have altered surface antigens.33,34,39 ... All of these newer medications, however, are more expensive and their long-term efficacy is still being established. Consequently, for the foreseeable future many countries, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, will probably continue to treat chronic hepatitis B infection with lamivudine even though it is no longer considered the first-line treatment, and despite the fact that drug resistance may rapidly emerge.41"

Wait wait wait a minute. So these drugs have been contributing to this problem and yet they are still allowed to be used because they are CHEAP? The newer medications have no long-term efficacy studies done? That must also mean we don't know long-term adverse events and effects of these drugs as well. We have bigger issues at hand than a world vaccination program.

Some more troubling quotes:

"The second potentially problematic feature of current treatment programmes is the way patients are selected. ... Antiviral drugs are the only long-term treatment option for chronic hepatitis B infection,40 and many investigators have argued that all patients who are viraemic should be treated. ... In addition to being costly, this approach may generate antiviral drug resistance since current agents never lead to eradication of the virus, but only to control of replication. This effect, in turn, can complicate second-line therapies and may favour the appearance of ADAP-VEMs. ... However, there is no consensus globally regarding which patients to treat, and WHO has not yet produced international recommendations to guide therapy (Daniel Lavanchy, personal communication, 2008). Inappropriate inclusion criteria, improper application of these criteria or lack of compliance with treatment could greatly influence the emergence of both drug resistance and ADAP-VEMs."

So you don't know how to treat this effectively? Just "control" its replication inside the already-infected person's body? Sweet. Let me just inject myself with the vaccine putting this virus into my body when the WHO has already stated that it's not going to effectively lower my chances! What is with all of the "costly" stuff? Why is money an issue when lives are at stake and there is plenty of financial surplus? I'd love to hear this. You can only treat some people, because it's "for the greater good" and "survival of the fittest"? That's the only argument I ever hear. If the drugs and the vaccines in use are contributing to ADAP-VEMs and VEMs, shouldn't we be spending money on trying to find or create an antiviral agent that can treat this (not "control" it) or some way to help prevent it more reliably, instead of injecting people with a vaccine which will have long-term health effects and still not prevent transmission in a huge amount of people (therefore cannot be counted as a preventable measure)?

"The public health risk of treatment programmes in different populations may also depend upon features of the circulating viral genotype. There is evidence that the genotype of the virus influences the speed and frequency of development of resistance to treatment, which may in turn influence the likelihood that ADAP-VEMs will emerge."

Taken from WHO website. [1]

 So really, you have no control over this at all?

"Among children born to mothers who are HBeAg-positive, 90% will become infected whereas only 10% of children born to HBeAg-negative mothers will become infected."

So you are injecting all newborns with this why? Shouldn't we just be recommending the vaccine for infants most at risk? Oh yeah, let's revisit that CDC quote.

"Infants born to HBV-infected mothers require Hepatitis B vaccine and Hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) withing 12 hours of birth to protect them from infection. However, because errors or delays in documenting, testing, and reporting maternal HBsAg status can and do occur, administering the first dose of Hepatitis B vaccine soon after birth to all infants acts as a safety net, reducing the risk for perinatal infection when infection maternal HBsAg status is either unknown or incorrectly documented at delivery. Also, initiating the Hepatitis B vaccine series at birth has been shown to increase a child's likelihood of completeing the vaccine series on schedule." [2]

Hmmm...so in case of a health-care providers muck-up? Because you don't trust mothers and even if their test is negative, they must be positive? Is there really that many errors and false negatives that EVERY American newborn needs this vaccine? If the answer is yes, we  have bigger problems. If the answer is no, why the hell are we still advocating and allowing this? Oh, to further the vaccine schedule. That makes complete sense, since the only reason for the child to complete every vaccine on the schedule is for profit. Every child does not NEED over 50 vaccines by adolescence.

"For example, the efficiency of transmission from an HBeAg-positive mother to her child during the perinatal period creates a very high risk for chronic hepatitis B infection. This risk makes it important to monitor for ADAP-VEMs among treated women of childbearing age, especially if lamivudine is used as monotherapy, since neither hepatitis B immunoglobulin nor active immunization would prevent infection with an ADAP-VEM transmitted from mother to child. In addition, the child may then spread the ADAP-VEM to other children, immunized or not. ... On the other hand, it has been estimated that the proportion of all HBV infections acquired among children more than 5 years of age ranges from 10% where prevalence of hepatitis B infection is high to as much as 90% where prevalence is low.47 These numbers suggest that monitoring for ADAP-VEMs may be needed in other populations in addition to HBV-infected HBeAg-positive women of childbearing age." Note: my emphasis.

So the vaccine and HBIG really don't do anything? If you don't know the rate of what is a common strain and what is a(n) (ADAP-) VEM, how do you know that the vaccine is going to work? What percentage of strains are VEMs? They certainly aren't figured into efficacy rates, no, because that would lower it. Humph. How interesting. So I should vaccinate myself and my child for what reason?

Hepatitis B Immune Globulin (HBIG)

"Anyone who is exposed to hep B-infected blood can be given an HBIG injection, which is made of hepatitis B antibodies filtered out through donated blood units from volunteers who have high antibody levels. This blood product is sterilized and filtered through various techniques. The injection contains the antibodies in a saline solution with polysorbate 80." [3]

Well, if this were so convenient, why do we vaccinate for it? Why isn't this ever mentioned to new mothers who are negative for Hep. B? Instead of putting their babies at risk with toxic ingredients as a (faulty) preventative measure, why not mention a reactive measure she can take if the child is ever exposed (highly unlikely)? Polysorbate 80 is not to be messed around with.

How is this vaccine created? 

"A portion of DNA from the hep B virus is integrated into the DNA of some yeast cells that live in a solution of soy, sugar, amino acids, and minerals. The yeast cells then use this DNA to generate a protein that makes up the outer capsule of the hep B virus. The yeast cells are broken up, and the hep B virus is filtered out and purified. Aluminum is then added to help the vaccine work better. It is put in a saline solution. ... Recombivax HB uses formaldehyde to purify the vaccine. Engerix-B does not.

 Note: Adults receive a double dose of hep B vaccine, so each adult dose contains 500 micrograms of aluminum." [3]

Well, that sounds okay, right? Not so bad. NOT. Very little is known about this type of vaccine (recombinant) and any potential long-term effects of it. It is still a relatively new type of production without hardly any studies done on the potential repercussions.

"However, the greatest concern about recombinant DNA vaccines is that they may cause the immune system to produce antibodies, which in turn attack the body and cause health problems. Much is still not known about the effects of recombinant DNA vaccines." [4]

How likely is it my child could catch that from somewhere, anyway?

Very unlikely. See Part One for how it is transmitted.

"Only about thirty infant, thirty children aged one to four, and seventy children five through fourteen are diagnosed every year..Virtually all of these cases are due to transmission from an undiagnosed hep B-positive mother during delivery." [3]

Also, if almost all of those cases are from mothers undiagnosed during delivery, isn't that the care provider's fault? Shouldn't we be strengthening up protocol instead of injecting every infant whimsically because you don't want to teach care providers any better?

Maintaining a healthy diet whilst pregnant can help reduce perinatal infection risk (as can avoiding cervical checks and internal interventions during labor and delivery). [13]

An infant's immune system is immature until around six years of age, and the blood-brain barrier isn't mature until adolescence.

Which would make vaccinating an infant for these diseases pretty useless for long term-protection. An infant is mostly incapable of developing TH1/TH2 cells (needed for immunity) until after six months of age, and from then on slowly matures. 

"The infant immune system matures during the first year, and is more mature at age two, but the immune system does not reach full maturity until the child is around six years old." [7]

In addition, there are other ways to help prevent this illness (well, illness in general). Yippee! Ways to be healthy!

Avoid hand sanitizers and anti-microbial/anti-bacterial products. But, why, my dears? Yes indeed they are perpuated to make thinks much "cleaner" and get rid of "germs." However, they are also helping superbugs form because they only kill 99.9% of "germs." So that 0.1% that does seem so insignificant, will now become antibiotic resistant meaning there will be NO WAY to treat it. Now THAT'S a deadly disease after several hundred lifecycles. Not just for that reason though; we don't know much about the microbiome (all of the microbes on each of our bodies is its own microbiome) that mostly helps protect us. Brand new research (just this month!) has come out on the microbiome basically explaining how little we know, but what we do know is that it plays a MAJOR role in preventing disease.

"But when the normal composition of the microbiome is thrown off balance, researchers say, the human host can get into serious trouble—especially because the 5 million to 8 million different microbial genes in our bodies vastly outnumber the 20,000 or so human genes. Indeed, recent research has implicated microbiome imbalances in disorders as diverse as cancer, obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, asthma, and possibly even autism (Science, 26 November 2010, p. 1168; 1 April 2011, p. 32)." [5]

So altering your microbiome can be harmful; which is what hand sanitzers, anti-microbial and antibacterial products do.

In infants, method of delivery/birth (vaginal vs. cesarean), breastfeeding vs. formula-feeding, and weaning age determine variance outcomes of the microbiome. So it is important to have a vaginal birth (if possible; including VBACs), and to breastfeed as long as inherently possible. It's not just that breastfeeding increases the health of microbiome, but that it actually gives passive immunity to the infant for many diseases and is also more nutritionally sound (nutrition is an important part of health).

"The microbiota of the infant is seeded at birth and is initially undifferentiated across the various body habitats. A variety of factors—including method of delivery (vaginal versus Cesarian section), breast feeding, and weaning—influence the infant microbiota (Fig. 1). For example, the microbiota of babies delivered vaginally are dominated by Lactobacillus, Prevotella, and Atopobium, whereas babies delivered by Cesarian section have a microbiota that more closely resembles that of the maternal skin community, with staphylococci being a dominant early member (4)." [6]

"Human milk has been found to contain 90 different oligosaccharides forming over 900 different chemical structures, each of which can block infection by preventing a particular strain of bacteria from sticking to the gut wall. ... Unlike antibodies, they are able to protect a baby from bacteria or viruses that a mother has never been exposed to. What is more, oligosaccharides are just one in a class of human milk components -- there are others called glycoproteins and glycolipids -- that work by blocking the attachment of microbes to the cells of the gut, so preventing infection." "For example, it was found that the thymus -- a central organ of the immune system -- is twice as big in breastfed infants compared with formula-fed infants at four months. The size difference was also seen at ten months." "Since breastfeeding is the biological norm, and since organs of the immune system like the thymus can only develop to their full potential through breastfeeding, an inevitable conclusion must be that people who were never breastfed (or those who were weaned too early) will have deficient immune systems -- not just in infancy but for the rest of their lives." [7]

"Childhood malnutrition is a global health problem that cannot be attributed to food insecurity alone. The gut microbiota may contribute to this devastating health disorder. ... This effort will require elucidation of the interrelationships between breast milk composition and the development of the microbiota and immune system in the context of the maternal-infant dyad." [8]

In children and adults, nutrition is so incredibly important. You don't want things to enter your body that can disrupt your symbiotic microbiome. Yet, we consume these things every day...pesticide-laden fruits, veggies, and other products, meat treated in ammonia coming from sick and unhealthy cows, cow's milk laden with antibiotics, growth hormones, disease, and pus, overly processed food containing multitudes of chemicals (many banned in most other countries), and other things. Maintaining a truly healthy diet diverse in organic and natural foods will greatly boost the immune system and help prevent disease. [9] Also, supplementing your diet with probiotic-rich foods such as yogurt or over-the-counter probiotics has been said to improve gut functionality (micriobiome) and help the immune system. * (Insert note about disputes over probiotics)

Vitamin A deficiency and excessive intake are shown to hinder immune system functions, and it is well-established that it is an essential vitamin to overcoming illness and developing immunity. Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) are also essential nutrition that should be consumed in healthy amounts as they function to help innate and acquired immunity. These include n-3 PUFA (α-linolenic) and n-6 PUFA (linoleic acid). You may have seen "DHA" and/or "EPA" marketed in supplements (especially fish oil), baby formula * (Note controversy), etc. and they are synthesized from n-3 PUFA in ..... In recent studies mothers in the Amazon have a healthier n-3:n-6 ratio than mothers in the United States due to diet (explain this). As it is critical in brain development and other aspects of health, it is essential to try and maintain healthy levels. Vitamins B6, B12, C, D, and E, as well as Iron, Zinc, and a host of other nutrients, are entirely crucial to the immune system. [10][11]

"Vitamin A is essential for cells of the immune system. The considerable immune benefits (to cells of the innate and acquired immune system), which would contribute to reduce the risk of various pathogen-mediated diseases, warrants a recommendation to supplement individuals with minimal or poor vitamin A status." [10]

"Feeding EPA and DHA has been shown to modulate specific functions of innate and acquired immunity." [10]

"Clearly the essentiality of vitamin C to cells of the immune system has been established. Although not all clinical data agree with an effect of vitamin C on viral infections, there is convincing evidence from feeding studies in humans and animals and experiments done on primary cultures that vitamin C has a positive effect on host defense." [10] Note: Vitamin C can be taken in very high doses without any negative effects.

"Vitamin E and Se are essential to immune function and are supplemented routinely in the diets of domestic animals for their immune benefits [94]. These nutrients have long been known to have anticarcinogenic effects by means of their antioxidant properties." [10] Note: Vitamin E And Selenium (Se) word synergystically (work together but separately), so it is a good idea that if you supplement with Vitamin E to find a supplement with Selenium, too.

Keeping a healthy weight and body-mass index (BMI) also helps immune response. In obese health care workers, their antibody response to Hep. B vaccination was significantly lower than those with lower BMIs. Why obese people have lowered immune response is not well studied, but studies are clear that there is a significant number more hospitalizations for viral and bacterial infections in obese individuals. [12]

Resources

[1] Clements, John, et al. (2009, October 23). Global control of hepatitis B virus: does treatment-induced antigenic change affect immunization? World Health Organization Int. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2010;88:66-73. doi: 10.2471/BLT.08.065722. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/1/08-065722/en/index.html

[2] CDC. (2012, January 1). Hepatitis B Information for Health Professionals. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/HBV/HBVfaq.htm#overview

[3] Sears, MD, FAAP, R. W. (2007). The Vaccine Book. New York, New York: Little, Brown & Company.

[4] Cave, MD, FAAFP, Stephanie. (2001, September). What Your Doctor May NOT Tell You About Your Children's Vaccinations. New York, New York: Warner Books, Inc.

[5] Balter, Michael. (2012, June 6). Taking Stock of the Microbiome and Disease. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.336.6086.1246. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1246.full

[6] Nicholson, J. K., et al. (2012, June 6). Host-Gut Microbiota Metabolic Reactions. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.1223813. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1262.full

[7] Ochert, Ayala. (2009). The Science of Mother's Milk. New Beginnings; Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 28-29. http://www.llli.org/nb/nbiss3-09p28.html

[8] Gordon, J. I., et al. (2012, June 6). Malnutrion; The Human Gut Microbiota and Undernutrition. Sci. Transl. Med. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004347 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/137/137ps12.abstract

[9] Hooper, L. V. (2012, June 6). Interactions Between the Microbiota and the Immune System. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.1223490 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1268.full

[10] Field, C. J., et al. (2002, January). Nutrients and their role in host resistance to infection. Journal of Luekocyte Biology Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 16-32. http://www.jleukbio.org/content/71/1/16.full

[11] Keusch, G. T. (2003, January 1). The History of Nutrition: Malnutrition, Infection, and Immunity. Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 133, No. 1, 336S-340S. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/1/336S.full

[12] Karlsson, E. A., et al. (2010, December). The burden of obesity on infectious disease. Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 235, No. 12,  pp. 1412-1424. doi: 10.1258/ebm.2010.010227 http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/235/12/1412.full

[13] Goldenberg, R. L. (2003, May 1). The Plausibility of Micronutrient Deficiency in Relationship to Perinatal Infection. Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 133, No. 5, 1645SS-1648SS. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/5/1645S.full

[14]

Why I Do Not Recommend 'The Vaccine Book' (and it's not why you think!) [Ch. I]

6/5/15: This was written over a year and a half ago, and my computer crashed along with the links I had saved for this blog. I will update when I can recover most of them, although some are hyperlinked in the blog already.

Ever since I began researching and beginning my family's path for wellness care, I heard The Vaccine Book thrown around like the paragon of information on vaccines and why you should forgo them. While we did come to the decision to forgo vaccinations for our family after long months of research (that we very obviously continue to do!), I have always been very skeptical of The Vaccine Book's status as the 'best' resource for beginners in vaccine research. Firstly, the first sentence of the Preface is "I am a pro-vaccine doctor." That already states that he has a biased view on the matter, and isn't neutral, as many claim the book reads. The fact of the matter is, the information may appear completely neutral, but not all of it is. While I'm sure Dr. Sears honestly had no ill intent when writing the book, it still indeed is meant to make you feel safe about vaccinating your child in the face of many risks. You need to be aware of the actual risks whether or not you choose to vaccinate your child - not the sugar-coated version or a pretty painted version to convince you of safety.

I will illustrate some points as I go through each chapter thoroughly for you. Some may be my own musings, which may or may not lead to offshoots of questions or further research. The main point is just to remember I'm illustrating errors, fallacies, mis-truths, or questions left unanswered, etc.

We have to remember that as a rule, vaccination relies on Antibody Theory - the theory that raised antibody levels help the body remember diseases so that should it come into contact with the theory, it already has "practiced" fighting it off. Such a theory has no basis and has been disproved many times over. So already that is a strike against the pro-vaccine information contained in the book. However, let's ignore this for a few moments and pretend that Antibody Theory actually works for the simplicity of explaining away some of the notions that come in the next step of vaccinology.

Chapter One - HIB

Already in Chapter One the book has several contradictions and mis-truths. I may pose my own questions that I would like answered, that you may or may not pay attention to.

• Already on (Pages 5, 13-14), Dr. Sears asserts that the reason the disease is no longer as common or as dangerous because of vaccination but asserted that on (page 3) that HIB is very often misdiagnosed as something else entirely. This is a common - but wild assertion (that vaccines prevent/have prevented these diseases) by those in the medical community that remains unsubstantiated. There is significant evidence that the decline of disease was well on its way before vaccines existed (and even as they were introduced) due to advancements in understanding of disease, transmission and prevention, cleaner water and sanitation improvement, as well as medical

  

  From the World Health Organization

  advancement and availability. I will talk about Herd Immunity later.

• As the individual vaccines are described, Dr. Sears claims that both the Tetanus Toxoid (TT) and Neisseria help the body recognize HIB (page 7), and that is why they are used. Doesn't seem to be logical when it makes the body more likely not to recognize HIB, but rather the TT or Neisseria themselves as this is bonded to the HIB sugars. 
• [[Dr. Sears attempts to be sly with his words here, saying that the TT is not the actual Tetanus bacterium implying that it's safe, however does not include the fact that the Tetanus bacterium is not the dangerous part of Tetanus, but rather that the Toxoid that it excretes, that is. (Page 7)]]. The Tetanus Toxoid is considered one of the two worst exotoxins (Virulence Factor, see two dots below) known to man. Not knowing this initially upon reading this chapter, it is quite unnerving to know that Dr. Sears doesn't even mention this.
• A quick google search on Neisseria bacterium reveals that there are eleven species, two being pathogens (N. meningitidis and N. gonorrhoeae aka gonococcus and meningococcus; or Gonorrhea and Meningitis). The vaccine insert indicates that the species used is N. meningitidis. Considering Dr. Sears states that one of the biggest concerns is the secondary infection (complication) of meningitis after contracting HIB, why this species of Neisseria? One of the theories pro-vaccinators use is "Cross Immunity" or the idea that if a pathogen is similar enough a body will be able to fight it adequately. It seems highly counterproductive to me, to risk this being introduced with the vaccine when it is one of the biggest concerns of the disease itself, when substitutes are available (although some are linked with diseases as well). In addition, it is well known that N. meningitidis is becoming more and more antibiotic-resistant, causing concern. Why not use a substitute?
• Yet another very huge concern about the use of N. meningitidis is the fact that its capsule, which is what is used for the vaccine - is a virulence factor. A virulence factor is expressed/secreted by a pathogen to achieve several objectives. One such objective is to glean nutrition from its host, another is to aid it to get into and out of cells in its host, to colonize its host, to evade immune response from the host (immunoevasion)(this is the main role of capsules), and lastly; immunosupression, to suppress the host's immune responses. Virulence Factors are considered the most responsible for causing disease because of the intrinsic property of changing harmless bacteria into dangerous infective pathogens. If the capsule of the N. meningitidis' main role is immunoevasion, how is that "helping" the body to recognize HIB? Isn't that the exact opposite of immunoevasion? How can this create a "better" response?
• Why, if the vaccine is intended to create antibodies to HIB, are we introducing things that interfere with the production of these antibodies? 

•  On (page 8) Dr. Sears writes "research has not proven that the Aluminum in vaccines is harmful," * yet turns around to say on (pages 244-246) that it hasn't even ever been tested, never mind tested on neonates and infants, and is generally regarded as dangerous even when ingested in smaller amounts than is injected with vaccines. Also notes that premature neonates who were given IV drips containing small amounts of Aluminum were substantially neurologically and otherwise damaged. This is very contradictory considering his skepticism shared on (page 245) about CHOP's handout on Aluminum in vaccines.
• * I do not know how Dr. Sears can claim that the Aluminum in vaccines are not harmful, when I know of over 60 that link Aluminum and/or Aluminum in vaccines to neurological degeneration and other such things. In 2011, a very comprehensive study was carried out by Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher A. Shaw that has some very interesting excerpts. While I do not normally like to weigh in on anything that has a Vaccine-Autism connection, the authors attempted to identify whether or not any plausible theories could be drawn that Aluminum may contribute to Autism Spectrum Diseases. I will focus only on their conclusions about Aluminum itself. [L. Tomjlenovic, C.A. Shaw, Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence in Autism?, J. Inorg. Biochem. (2011), doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2011.08.008] It seems to me, Dr. Sears is playing it safe.
• "(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 a few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 19 Al adjuvant vaccines, are safe for children?" [Abstract]. It has been well known that children, especially neonates and infants are very vulnerable to toxins. The fact that they are still considered "small adults" in the vaccine industry illustrates lack of concern over safety. In some cases the adult vaccine dosage is the same as the infant and childhood vaccine dosages, a clear logical fallacy that has never been supported by scientific reasoning.
• "Further, immune challenges during early development, including those induced by vaccines, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of nervous and immune system function. [6-9] Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants, or repeated stimulation of the immune system by the same antigen, can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity in animals. [10,11]" This is further supported by the Goldman-Miller study (April 2012) that determined through studying trends and the VAERS system. "Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reported to VAERS." [Conclusion]
• "Al is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin whose ability to impact the human nervous system has been known for decades [16,27-29]." So how can Dr. Sears claim no one knows if it's toxic? "For example, nothing is known about the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of Al compounds in infants and children. [35] In addition, the mechanisms by which Al adjuvants interact with the immune system are far from clear [34,35]." In layman's terms, basically nothing is known about how the mechanism of how toxicity works with Aluminum, the symptoms of a toxic reaction to Aluminum, and how it is diagnosed and treated. The pharmacokinetics (how it affects and moves through the body once it is inside of the body, including how it is processed, stored, or excreted and the timeline in which any of this happens) haven't been studied either. Don't you think we should know all of those things before going as far as deeming something "safe" for the most vulnerable population?
• "In this regard it is noticeable that many vaccine trials usually use an Al adjuvant containing "placebo" or another vaccine as the "control" group [36-38], rather than a saline control. This study design has not allowed a direct comparison of the efficacy and safety of the antigen alone versus the Al adjuvant." There is no guideline for placebos in use, and drug manufacturers know this, and regularly use it to their advantage. In my research (spanning two years now) I have come across four studies on the safety of any vaccine that had a saline placebo, none of which were done by the respectable drug companies they were made by. Basically, they know that if they use an Aluminum adjuvant-containing placebo or other vaccine, it will mask problems and reactions to the Aluminum because there will be similar rates between the test and control groups. Only a saline placebo can accurately demonstrate the safety in a double-blind placebo-controlled study.
• "It is also of note that the FDA requires limits on Al parenteral feeding solutions and requires warning labels about potential Al exposures, while setting no safety limits or issuing warnings for Al in vaccines [90]. The lack of an established safety margin for Al in vaccines may be concerning for numerous reasons: (i) Al is highly neurotoxic and can impair prenatal and postnatal brain development in humans and experimental animals [28,91]; (ii) a pilot study showed higher than normal Al levels in the hair, blood, and/or urine of Autistic children ..., (iii) children are regularly exposed to much higher levels of Al adjuvants than adults ..., (iv) practically nothing is known about the pharmocokinetics and toxicodynamics of Al adjuvants in children [35] and paradoxically, evaluation of the pharmaco- and toxicokinetics is not required for vaccine licensing purposes [93]; (v) in adult humans, Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to serious neurological impairments, chronic fatigue, and autoimmunity (table 1) [31,32,94-96], (vi) injections of Al adjuvants at levels comparable to those that are administered to humans have been shown to cause motor neuron death, impairments in motor function and decrements in spacial memory capacity in young mice [29,97]; and (vii) intraperitoneal injection of Al adsorbed vaccines in 4-week old mice was followed by a transient peak in in brain Al levels on the second and third days after injection [98]. The latter experiment demonstrated that even a fully formed BBB (blood-brain barrier) does not impede Al access to the brain tissue." I really don't have to say anything more, they've pretty much got this one covered. Please note that in human children, the BBB (blood brain barrier) isn't closed until sometime after seven years old. It is only 40-70% functioning at 2 years of age.
• "Finally, in newborn primates, a single dose of the HB (Hepatitis B) vaccine is sufficient to cause neurodevelopmental delays in acquisition of neonatal reflexes essential for survival [7]. Although the HB vaccines are adjuvanted with Al (Table 2), both the primate and the epidemiological studies mentioned above only draw attention to thimerosal (ethyl mercury vaccine preservative.)" Thimerosal, was "removed" as of 2001, but batches with Thimerosal were used well into 2007-2008, and even today there are some vaccines which still contain Thimerosal in full amounts, but most contain "trace" amounts even if not listed on the ingredients list.
• "Given the bioavailability of Al through food sources, a common assertion in relation to Al in vaccines is that children obtain much more Al from diet. ... However, this notion contradicts basic toxicological principles. For instance, it should be obvious that the route of exposure which bypasses the protective barriers of the gastrointestinal tract and/or the skin will likely require a lower dose to produce a toxic outcome [14,16]. In the case of Al, only ~0.25% of dietary Al is absorbed into systemic circulation [104]. In contrast, Al hydroxide (the most common adjuvant form) injected intramuscularly may be absorbed at nearly 100% efficiency over time [105].
• "First, there are critical periods in brain development during which even subtle immune challenges (including those induced by vaccinations) can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of brain and immune function [7,9,117,118]. ... Such high exposures were repeated over relatively short intervals during these critical periods of brain development (i.e., first 2 years post-natal) constitute a significant neurotoxicological as well as an immunological challenge to neonates and young children [2,14]. Third, despite a prevalent view that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function, overwhelming research suggests that neuro-immune cross-talk may be the norm rather than the exception [25,84,119-128]. Indeed, it is now clearly established that this bi-directional neuro-immune cross-talk plays crucial roles in immuno-regulation and brain function [84,128-135]. ... Fourth, the very same components of the neuro-immune regulatory system that are known to play key roles in proper brain devlopment and immune function (i.e., interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I, complement cascade [25,84,119-129,133, 135]), are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants (Table 1)." But this is completely safe. We don't need no studies, yo, cuz we da CDC! (comic relief?)
• "Al is known to disrupt the BBB and can increase its permeability by increasing the rate of trans-membrane diffusion and by selectively altering saturable transport systems [5, 148,149]. Even in adjuvant form, Al can enter the brain [98]. Furthermore, much like mercury, Al may induce autoimmunity through the so-called "bystander" effect [150]." Basically, Aluminum can permanently change what the BBB allows in and out (for the worse)- therefore allowing many of the other dangerous things, especially in vaccines, access to the brain. The brain usually stores these things, and this is known to contribute to or trigger autoimmunity. 

•   Dr. Sears comes to a similar conclusion about Formaldehyde, stating "the miniscule amounts in these vaccines is probably harmless." (Pages 8-9) Yet, turns around to say on Page 248 that the EPA, OSHA, and CPSC as well as numerous other organizations acknowledge it as a dangerous carcinogen. And, he claims to have found no research on injected Formaldehyde. How is that 'probably safe?'



Formaldehyde (Formalin) Warning Label; Google Images

• I myself have yet to find much information on injected formaldehyde. The WHO document on Formaldehyde itself glosses over it, but sets the inhalation limit at 0.1 mg/m^3 which is equivalent to 0.08 ppm. Most vaccines contain up to 0.5 mcg of Formaldehyde (1 ppm = 1 mcg/ml. Or basically, they are the same measurement.) I did however find that Formaldehyde had significant impact on the function of the testis. Most of the results I found were as such, and you could google multitudes of such studies if you are so interested. [1]
• One "JEM" I found was here. To highlight the findings in their abstract, "In the peritoneal cavity, Formalin exercises a destructive action upon all organs (pancreas, liver, peritoneal fat, fallopian tubes, etc. with which it comes in contact and causes inflammation in these organs. ... 8. The injection of formalin into the muscles produces myositis. ... 10. Formalin in whatever way introduced into the body is absorbed, and is then capable of producing lesions in the parenchymatous organs. ... 12. The injection of formalin or the inhalation of the vapors of formaldehyde produces cloudy swelling of the parenchyma of the kidney. Focal necrosis may result. 13. Pneumonia and bronchitis are found in all animals after the injection of formalin." Yeah. Formalin is the form of formaldehyde used in vaccines. But it is perfectly "safe," just like mercury and aluminum are.
•  The National Toxicology Program's fact sheet on Formaldehyde states in the very first sentence, "Report on Carcinogens Status; Known to be a Human Carcinogen." The IARC's (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Monographs include Formaldehyde. You can find their data on human carcinogen studies and more here. Formaldehyde is very, very dangerous to humans. 
• Formaldehyde is a sensitizer. It sensitizes the body to other substances (allergenic and usually non-allergenic alike) and can cause acute allergenic reactions to other substances. This can include but aren't limited to; allergic dermatitis, eczema, asthma.
• There is huge controversy surrounding Aspartame, as it releases formaldehyde in the body during digestion. The Ramazzini studies are considered to be discounted because of poor methodology, but that didn't stop the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) to "call for scientific data" on Aspartame. You can find their entire list of studies on Aspartame here. Because of the controversy around the Aspartame issue, I mention it because there are a few vaccines that now contain it. I've made a few notes on discoveries I've made myself trying to find out what the controversy with Aspartame is. (See, there is always much to learn!)
• Two of the FDA's top toxicologists, Drs. Jacqueline Verrett and Adrian Gross objected to the approval of Aspartame for 16 years; alleging that the original studies on Aspartame by Searle had shown brain and other tumors as well as seizures and other types of reactions, and that Searle had "filtered out" these studies so that the FDA would not see them, and in turn get approval.
• A 33 page letter was written on January 10, 1977 by Richard Merrill (Chief Counsel of the FDA) told US attorney Sam Skinner that Searle should be investigated by grand jury for "apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act;  21 U.S.C.331(e), Act 18 U.S.C.1001," because of their "willful and knowing failure to make reports to the Food and Drug Administration required by the Act 21 U.S.C.355(i) and for concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of (aspartame)." Later, Donald Rumsfield was hired onto President Reagan's team in order to get Aspartame approved since the FDA still would not approve it. Reaghan issued an Executive order, rendering the FDA powerless. Then he replaced the head of the FDA with Arthur Hull Hayes; and which the Execute Order was expunged later (now illegal.)* In addition, when Hayes got to the FDA the Board of Inquiry said "...the board concludes that approval of Aspartame for use in foods should be withheld at least until the question concerning its possible oncogenic potential has been resolved by further experiments. The board has not been presented with proof of a reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive under its intended conditions of use."
• The FDA has list of "The 92" symptoms in relation to Aspartame. Jerome Bressler, who wrote the FDA audit, has also submitted a report (*The Bressler Report) alleging that the FDA swept the most damaging 20% of studies on Aspartame under the rug; and that Searle had very poor research practices that never demonstrated safety.
• The EPA's powerpoint from 2009, "Building a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants: (Evidence from Human and Animal Studies)" states that Aspartame is in the group "Chemicals with Substantial Evidence of Neurotoxicity (n=100)" along with Aluminum, Arsenic, BPA, Caffeine, Cocaine, DEET, Fluoride, Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), and numerous others.

I'm continuing to do crazy research every day. It's astounding how much, after 2 years of every day research, you have yet to read and study on each subject you're trying to focus on. I will probably update as soon as possible with more links to studies and information.

[1] Zeller, Jasminel; et al. (2011, April 2.) Assessment of genotoxic effects and changes in gene expression in humans exposed to formaldehyde by inhalation under controlled conditions. Oxford Journal of Mutagenesis

The Dirty Bits - Polysorbate 80

Polysorbate 80

Also known as Tween 80, Alkest TW 80, E433, Canarcel

Scientific Names: Polyoxyetheline (20) sorbitan monooleate, (x)-sorbitan mono-9-octadecenoate poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)

Would you drink any of these? Me either.

What is a dirty bit?

It's going to be a new series I'm working on about the dirty "bits" of consumer life; ingredients in vaccines, foods, and other products that are commonly used. A "dirty bit" is something you should avoid or watch out for, or at the very least be wary of. 

What is Polysorbate 80?

Well, a sorbate is something that can taken up by another substance by adsorption or absorption. Obviously with a prefix "poly" it means many. Polysorbate 80 functions to stabilize things - it's an emulsifier - it helps things bind together that normally wouldn't (ie. oil and water), or enhance those that would. It's also a surfactant - it helps break surface tension of liquids, so it is used in say, ice cream to help it stay smooth and keep it from melting too quickly. As a solubilizer, it helps things dissolve that otherwise wouldn't or enhance those that would, like in gelatin and medicine. [1]

So what is it used in?

Well, like I've stated before, it's used in many, many things. I could not begin to give you a comprehensive list, but I'll give a very small generalized list.

Shortening, condiments, cosmetics, hair care products (and in 90's it was advertised as a hair growth serum - since debunked, but still available), chewing gum, dietary products, vitamins, whipped deserts, ice cream, gelatin, pickled foods, liquid gels and soaps, hair sprays, eye drops, sunscreen, spermicide, antiperspirants, many medications, herbicides, and vaccinations. 

Which Vaccinations?

Polysorbate 80 can be found in Infanrix, Tripedia, TriHiBit, Kinrix, Pediarix, Pentacel, Gardisil, Fluarix, JE-Vax, RotaTeq, and Boostrix.