Vaccines and the peanut allergies
by: Tim O'Shea D.C.
Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden? Before 1900, violent reactions to peanuts were unheard of. Today over a million children in this country are allergic to peanuts. What happened? Why is everybody buying EpiPens now?
Looking at all the problems with vaccines during the past decade, just a superficial awareness is enough to raise the suspicion that vaccines might have some role in the appearance of any novel allergy among children. But reactions to Peanuts are not just another allergy. Peanut allergy has suddenly emerged as the #1 cause of death from food reactions, being in a category of allergens able to cause anaphylaxis. This condition brings the risk of asthma attack, shock, respiratory failure, and even death, primarily among children.
New research in Heather Fraser's 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic defines the vaccine connection much more specifically. We now learn that a class of vaccine ingredients - excipients - is more than a likely suspect in what may accurately be termed an epidemic.
Before 1900, anaphylactic shock was virtually unknown until vaccinators switched from the lancet to the hypodermic needle. Early researchers like Claude VonPirquet recognized that vaccines had two primary effects: immunity and hypersensitivity. And one was the price of the other. In other words, if we were going to benefit from the effects of mass immunization, we must accept the downside of mass hypersensitivity as a necessary co-feature. Modern medicine has decided that this double effect should be kept secret, so they don't allow it to be brought up much. But many, doctors in the early 1900s were dead set against vaccines for this precise reason. The advertised benefit was not proven to be worth the risk.
Another principal researcher of the early 1900s was Dr. Charles Richet, the one who coined the term anaphylaxis. His field was the reactions that some people seemed to have to certain foods. Richet found that with food allergies the reaction came on as the result of intact proteins in the food having bypassed the digestive system and making their way intact into the blood, via leaky gut. Foreign protein in the blood, of course, is a universal trigger for severe allergic reaction, not just in man but in all animals.
But Richet noted that in the severe cases, food anaphylaxis did not happen just by eating a food. That would simply be food poisoning. Food anaphylaxis is altogether different. This sudden violent reaction requires an initial sensitivity involving injection of some sort, followed by a later ingestion of the sensitized food. Get the shot, then later eat the food.
The initial exposure created the hypersensitivity. The second exposure would be the violent, even fatal, trigger event.
Next up was penicillin, which became popular in the 1940s. It was soon found that additives called excipients were necessary to prolong the effect of the antibiotic injected into the body. The excipients would act as carrier molecules. Without excipients, the penicillin would only last about 2-hours. Refined oils worked best, acting as time-release capsules of the antibiotic. Peanut oil became the favorite, because it worked well and was available and inexpensive.
Allergy to penicillin became common, and was recognized as a sensitivity to the excipient oils. To the present day a standard screening test in all clinics is always to ask a new patient about possible allergies to antibiotics. That's what the allergy is -a sensitivity to the excipients.
By 1953 as many as 12% of the population was allergic to penicillin. But considering the upside with bacterial infections, it was still a good deal -a worthwhile risk. By 1950 antibiotics were given out like M&Ms to soldiers, children, indeed anybody with any illness, not just bacterial. Despite Fleming's severe warnings against prophylactic antibiotics, they were given indiscriminately as the new wonder drug. Only then, in the 1950s, did peanut allergy begin to occur, even though Americans had been eating peanuts for well over a century. Remember-just eating peanuts cannot cause peanut allergy.
But when peanut allergy did appear, the numbers of cases were fairly small and it wasn't even considered worthy of study. The change came with vaccines. Peanut oils were introduced as vaccine excipients in the mid 1960s. By 1980 they had become the preferred excipient. They were considered adjuvants -substances added to increase reactivity to the vaccine. This reinforced the Adjuvant Myth: the illusion that immune response is the same as immunity: the pretense being that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred.
Historically, those researchers who challenged this Commandment of vaccine mythology did not advance their careers. The first study of peanut allergies was not undertaken until l973. It was a study of peanut excipients in vaccines. Soon afterwards, and as a result of that study, manufacturers were no longer required to disclose all the ingredients in vaccines.
What is listed today in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula. Suddenly that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers must be protected. They only had to describe the formula in general.
Why was peanut allergy so violent? The famous Maurice Hilleman found that even the most refined peanut oils still contained some traces of intact peanut proteins. This was the reason doctors were directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous -a greater chance of absorption of intact proteins, less chance of reaction.
But that obviously wasn't enough to prevent sensitivity. The fundamental law of nature always applies: no intact proteins in the body. A million years of Natural Selection didn't create the mammalian immune system for nothing. Put intact proteins, peanut or whatever, for any imagined reason into the human system and the inflammatory response will fire.
Although peanut allergies became fairly common during the 1980s, it wasn't until the early 1990s when there was a sudden surge of children reacting to peanuts that the true epidemic appeared. The Mandated Schedule of vaccines for children doubled from the 80s to the 90s: 1980 20 vaccines, 1995 40 vaccines, 2011 68 vaccines
It would be imprudent enough to feed peanuts to a newborn since their digestive system is largely unformed. But this is much worse-injecting intact proteins directly into the infant's blood with 36 vaccines before the age of 18 months.
As vaccines doubled between the 1980s and the 1990s, thousands of kids were now exhibiting peanut sensitivities, with many violent reactions that were potentially life-threatening.
Following the next enormous increase in vaccines on the Mandated Schedule after 9/11 whereby the total was 68 recommended vaccines, the peanut allergy soon reached epidemic proportions: a million children, 1.5% of them. The numbers fit the true definition of epidemic even though that word has never been used in mainstream literature with respect to peanut allergy, except in Fraser's book.
Many researchers, not only Helen Fraser, could see very clearly that "The peanut allergy epidemic in children was precipitated by childhood injections."
But with the newfound research, the medical profession will do what they always must do -bury it. Protect the companies. So no money will be ever allocated from NIH to study the obvious connection between vaccine excipients and peanut allergy. That cannot happen, primarily because it would require a control group -an unvaccinated population. And that is the Unspoken Forbidden. Same line of reasoning that has prevented Wakefield's work from ever being replicated in a mainstream US clinical study. No unvaccinated populations. Which actually means no studies whose outcome could possibly implicate vaccines as a source of disease or immunosuppression.
Vaccines as a cause of an allergy epidemic? Impossible. Let's definitely not study it. Instead let's spend the next 20 years looking for the genetic link to the childhood peanut allergy epidemic ...
In such a flawed system, our pretense of true clinical science is revealed as fatally handicapped of course: we are looking for the truth, wherever our studies shall take us, except for this, and this, and oh yes, this.