Why Wakefield and the MMR story is only partially true at best
Thanks to a number of ‘modern world’ factors, the gut microbiome of children is damaged like no generation before. Damaged from before birth, damaged during birth, damaged after birth. And by the time the MMR vaccine comes along, it is little more than the ‘coup de grace’ for these children.
Autism and the gut
A lot is now understood about autism.
Kids with autism often have severe gut problems – for example, they are twice as likely as children with other types of disorders to have frequent diarrhoea or colitis, an inflammation of the large intestine. GI problems are frequent anyway in children with autism; pain and constipation are more common.
A study(1) by Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown and Jin Gyoon of Arizona State’s Biodesign Unit researchers showed that kids with autism had a greatly reduced spectrum of gut bacteria. One in particular, Prevotella, was missing completely.
Research studies (and there are many) have clearly indicated that poor levels of gut bacteria can trigger inflammation which reaches the brain.
Many children nowadays have a damaged gut microbiome
So how does damage (typically a lowered volume and lowered diversity of commensal or ‘good’ bacteria) occur in the infant gut?
A healthy baby picks up bacteria largely in three ways
1. By passing through the birth canal
2. By being breast fed
3. By bacteria from mother’s illness: Surprisingly, the womb is not inert and bacteria have also been shown to be picked up from, for example, type-2 diabetic mothers.
So, it is likely that there is a matrix of factors causing lowered commensal bacteria and heightened pathogens – for example,
i. Babies born to mothers with abnormal vaginal bacteria (due to drugs, prescribed or otherwise, or even stress). One study showed that expectant mothers who had taken antibiotics in the year before conceiving had babies with less commensal bacteria.
ii. Babies born by Caesarian clearly have less ‘good’ guys.
iii. Children having antibiotics early in life have damage.
iv. Babies not breast fed.
v. Babies born to mothers who are ‘ill’.
So these factors and more can leave young children with less good guys and more pathogens, especially since the prime bacteria gained from a healthy mother who is breast feeding are strains of Bifidobacterium and these are very strong in their control of pathogens in the first 6 to 12 months of life.
Gut bacteria ‘control’ your immune system
Your gut bacteria control 85 per cent of your immune system and immune memory. This happens through an ‘action and reaction’ system. A child touches the dog and then sucks her fingers immediately introducing new bacteria into the body. There’s a reaction, and new ‘tailored’ white cells are made, providing protection for life, if the invaders stick around.
Gut bacteria control your mental state
And we also know that changes in the gut affect the brain. In Cell, Dec 19th, 2013, University of Colorado Boulder Professor Rob Knight commented on the first study from a group of American researchers in the newly formed Autism Microbiome Consortium, saying, “This study strengthens the scientific understanding that what goes on in your gut affects what goes on in your brain”.
They induced autism symptoms in mice, which were greatly reduced when the mice were fed the bacterium Bacteriodes fragilis. Researchers found that levels of 4-ethylphenylsulfate were 46 fold heightened in mice with autism-like symptoms but Bacteriodes fragilis reduced these levels to normal.
The clash between gut bacteria and vaccines
Your protective white cells largely form in response to invasive gut bacteria. The obvious question then is, ‘so what is the relationship with vaccines which are also basically designed to prompt an immune reaction?’
The skeptics point to the dangers of introducing foreign DNA and RNA contained in vaccines into your body, especially now we understand what it can do in the microbiome. We already know, for example, that certain Japanese island fishermen have taken DNA into their own DNA over the years from the sea kelp they have consumed.
We are also clear on the potential damage of carriers such as Thimerosal, (mercury), and other sometime ingredients like formaldehyde, aluminium, MSG, methanol, antibiotics and even nagalase. No one can possibly say these have no effect. Even the American Government does not claim vaccines are 100 per cent safe, as we told you in the Previous article ‘The Truth about Vaccines’.
Vaccinations have a greatly reduced effect with strong microbiomes
A big clue to the relationship between vaccines and the strength of the gut microbiome lies with vaccination in the African Continent. There, children can have very strong microbiomes and often vaccination is being shown to fail. The strong microbiome ‘deals’ with the intruder pathogen!
In a 2011 paper(2), researchers from Canada noted that clinical trials showed oral vaccines against polio, rotavirus and cholera had less efficacy and blunted immune response with individuals in developing nations. In these cases, they stated, the individuals have greater gut bacteria diversity than individuals in the developed world and those ‘defences’ don’t just deal with illnesses, they deal with the vaccine components too.
In 2013, studies(3,4) resulting from a collaborative effort between the University of Maryland School of Medicine Institute for Genome Sciences and the Center for Vaccine Development backed this up.
The first study examined the impact of an oral typhoid vaccination on the gut bacteria; the second looked at the impact of vaccines against Shigella, but this time in monkeys. And a third study looked into what happens when the gut bacteria are exposed to wild-type Shigella, which as with S. Typhi, gain access to the body orally (PLOS ONE).
The first conclusion was that the magnitude of the natural immune response depended on the existing diversity of gut bacteria. The more diverse the existing gut bacteria, the greater the resistance to infection by wild type Shigella. No surprises there really.
But the greater the diversity of gut bacteria, the more the characteristics and magnitude of the immune responses to the vaccines were too.
“Our research raises the intriguing possibility that the gut microbiota may play an important role in response to vaccines and susceptibility to enteric pathogens, or bacteria that affect the intestinal tract,” stated Claire M. Fraser, PhD, professor of the Departments of Medicine and Microbiology and Immunology and director of the Institute for Genome Sciences (IGS) at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
The other study analysed what happened to the human gut microbiota when an oral typhoid vaccination using Salmonella Typhi (S. Typhi) was given. Sure enough, the gut bacteria were affected; and it seems that the more diverse the microbiome members, the stronger the immune responses against the vaccine.
So does MMR cause autism?
There is far, far more in my book, ‘Heal your gut, heal your body’, but it is clear that a weakened microbiome and a loss of commensal bacteria is the major factor in autism.
Sure, vaccines don’t help. To put this in context, a child in America, if the Government CDC recommendations are followed to the letter, will receive 49 doses of vaccines in 14 shots by the age of six. By the age of 18 this reaches 69 doses in 16 shots.
And this is the problem. It is a huge load on an already imperfect microbiome.
Clearly there are factors in MMR vaccines which are toxic to a child’s gut bacteria anyway. And the genetic material in MMR is classified as live/attenuated. So it’s not a truly ‘safe’ vaccine.
But if the gut microbiome of the child was perfect and 100 per cent strong would the MMR vaccination have any negative effect at all? I doubt it very much, as the studies from Africa suggest. I’d be far more worried about the over-use of antibiotics on the very young.
Ref 1: Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, Jin Gyoon; PLOS ONE, July 3rd, 2013
Ref 2: Rosana B. R. Ferreira, L. Caetano M. Antunes, and B. Brett Finlay, Glenn F. Rall, Editor; PLoS Pathog. 2010 November; 6(11): e1001190. Published online 2010 November
Ref 3: Anna M. Seekatz, Aruna Panda, David A. Rasko, Franklin R. Toapanta, Emiley A. Eloe-Fadrosh, Abdul Q. Khan, Zhenqiu Liu, Steven T. Shipley, 2. Louis J. DeTolla, Marcelo B. Sztein, Claire M. Fraser. Differential Response of the Cynomolgus Macaque Gut Microbiota to Shigella Infection. (PLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (6): e64212 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064212)
Ref 4: Emiley A. Eloe-Fadrosh, Monica A. McArthur, Anna M. Seekatz, Elliott F. Drabek, David A. Rasko, Marcelo B. Sztein, Claire M. Fraser. Impact of Oral Typhoid Vaccination on the Human Gut Microbiota and Correlations with S. Typhi-Specific Immunological Responses. (PLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (4): e62026 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062026)
The Truth about Vaccines
Many people just take their shots before they go abroad; many Mums just take their kids for their shots because they protect the child from a host of dangerous diseases.
But do you really know what might be in the vaccine?
We are not going to enter a debate with vaxxers and anti-vaxxers – we just deal in facts. And the US Government produces lists of facts. Some people just choose to ignore them.
Vaccines are not 100% safe
The fact is that vaccines are not safe – they do come with risk, a risk that is unquantified. In the early days of UK Junk Science when we ran a report on HPV, we received a number of e mails from UK women whose daughters had been seriously damaged, yet UK Health Authorities were dismissive.
They might be in the UK, but in America the Centre for Disease Control (the CDC) already acknowledges that Vaccine Spectrum Disorder (VSD) exists
There is also an American Government compensation plan for children who suffer intestinal damage as a result of receiving Rotavirus vaccine.
But, apart from this being a very big business making huge profits for drugs companies, you should understand that doctors around the world are increasingly paid to vaccinate. So don’t expect informed objectivity on vaccines for your infant!
What’s in your vaccine?
Vaccines contain genetic material. Of course they do
Vaccines used on children aged 0-6 can contain genetic material that is:
a) Live/attenuated (for example, rotavirus, measles, mumps, rubella)
b) Inactivated/killed(for example, polio, hepatitis A)
c) Toxoid (inactivated toxin – for example, tetanus, diptheria)
d) Subunit/conjugate (for example, flu, Hepatitis B)
More on this can be found in the ‘History of Vaccines’ by the College of Physicians in Philadelphia(1).
Studies on the microbiome have now clearly shown that external nucleic material can be incorporated into the host’s DNA.
Vaccines can contain mRNA and DNA from eggs or the animals used to grow the vaccine. The animals nucleic message can become yours.
So when the original Polio vaccine (the Salk vaccine) was made using Simian Monkeys it brought with it Simian Monkey Virus or SV-40 and more than 1 million Americans were infected. Definitely.
Japanese researchers (Yamomoto(2), Nakatsuka(3)) have shown higher levels of SV-40 in people with cancer, over the norm in healthy people, although a review by Keerti Shah(4) sought to dismiss this. So it is linked with higher cancer rates. Possibly.
Vaccines also commonly contain:
• Antibiotics to prevent contamination – for example, neomycin
• Stabilisers to thicken and maintain the composition of the vaccine – Lactose, other sugars, sucrose, sorbitol, gelatin
• Inactivating material against viruses – for example, Formaldehyde
• Preservatives like Thimerosal (mercury)
• Adjuvants to stimulate a stronger immune response – like aluminum
Find out more about your vaccine in this official US Government Document:
There’s not a lot to argue about.
See the mini-documentary series Starting 12th April for FREE – The Truth about vaccines Go To: http://bit.ly/2o2uUsp
Johns Hopkins: cancer is primarily ‘bad luck’
Two scientists at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Dr. Bert Vogelstein, the Clayton Professor of Oncology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and ‘bio-mathematician’ and assistant Professor, Cristian Tomasetti, Ph.D. published a study on January 2nd in the journal Science, which concluded that two-thirds of adult cancer incidence across tissues can be explained primarily by ‘bad luck’.
The scientists created a mathematical model by searching the scientific literature for information on the cumulative number of divisions of stem cells among 31 tissue types during an average individual’s lifetime. They then charted the number of stem cell divisions in these tissues and plotted them against the incidence of cancer. For example, in colon tissue there are 4 times more cell divisions than occur in the small intestine, and cancer is more prevalent in the former. QED.
“It was well-known that cancer arises when tissue specific stem cells make random mistakes, or mutations during cell replication”, said Vogelstein.
Let’s get real
1. Firstly, neither prostate nor breast cancer were covered in the research since the researchers could not obtain reliable data on stem cell divisions. So that would rule out almost one third of all cancers in the UK. And we are always being told by the UK ‘Brand leader’ Cancer Research, that these are largely hormonally driven, with factors such as oestrogen, lack of exercise and obesity playing a big part. If the new research is correct, and it were to apply to breast and prostate cancers as well, how has CRUK made such a big error? Just bad luck, perhaps?
2. Secondly, I will hazard a guess that the number of stem cell divisions in a tissue occurs in line with the number of overall cell divisions. And what the scientists actually showed was that there was a link between more cell divisions in a tissue and an increased risk of cancer. Hardly, new thinking really.
3. But if it is all about stem cells do the conclusions mean that someone in New York has many more stem cell divisions in their lungs than someone in China, or Kenya, where cancer incidence is considerably lower? The UK population must have 4 times the stem cell division of Thais; with almost exactly the same population we get four times the number of cancers they do. Why would that be?? Would the increased rate of stem cell division in New York or London not constitute a cause? Or are Thais just four times luckier than Londoners?
4. Next, having shown a link between cell division volumes and cancer volumes, our plucky duo made a mental jump: “It was well-known that cancer arises when tissue specific stem cells make random mistakes, or mutations during cell replication”, Well known to whom? In 2012 scientists were still arguing whether there was such a thing as a cancer stem cell.
And the idea that cancer is caused by mutations to the core DNA is quaintly old fashioned. Indeed the modern theory of cancer (being confirmed by scientists week in, week out) is that not much happens to the core DNA (and when it does the immune system easily spots it as rogue). Instead, chemicals like homocysteine build up in the blood stream and cause more methylation around the DNA coil. This holds histones in place, which in turn hold the integrity and shape of the DNA in the nucleus.
When the histones cover a gene responsible for, say, controlled cellular division, it cannot send out its messages, it is silenced, and the cell starts dividing randomly. It is important to note that this methylation and acetylation is believed to be reversible by literally thousands of scientists currently working for drugs companies and University Medical Schools. The science is called Epigenetics (Epi=around, the gene). Drugs companies believe they can affect the methylation and acetylation directly; or indirectly via the enzymes that cause it.
Other scientists believe that there are a host of natural compounds (from sulphoraphanes to carotenoids) that can do this, as can exercise hormones. Indeed, Epigeneticists argue that there are clearly 4 causes of DNA blockages – environmental toxins, stress, poor diet and hormones such as oestrogen.
So, are these epigenetic scientists all wrong?
Where hypotheses and statistics meet
A statistician is someone who will tell you that it’s better to have a watch that is broken (it is right twice a day), than one that loses 7 minutes a day (it is right once every thirteen days).
I have decided to look at road accidents in Britain (London and Manchester were excluded because there were no reliable statistics). Now, it is widely accepted that council road administrators allow too many non-UK-qualified lorry drivers to drive on the roads. And sure enough, we have found that the number of road deaths is proportional to the increases in foreign lorries on our roads. It doesn’t fit exactly (but to about an 80% level) and it differs by the 31 regions we looked at. So if you die in a road accident it has little to do with your skills as a driver, or how fast you were going, or the weather conditions. The number of foreign lorry drivers being allowed on our roads by a lack of legislation is behind it. Just bad luck really.
What is odd though is that this conclusion doesn’t hold true in Africa or China. So I’ll leave that out of my model.
So, thanks to Johns Hopkins, science has a new bed fellow: Bad luck. It’s the devil’s work. No need to feel guilty about your gluttony and sloth – just ‘eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow ye may die’.
No need for CRUK or the Government to feel guilty about failing to do anything serious in the way of Cancer Prevention Programmes in the community. You can’t legislate for bad luck. It would be pointless spending billions of pounds telling people to eat healthily, exercise and give up smoking if cancer occurs ‘for no particular reason other than randomness’ (according to Tomasetti).
If 65% of cancers are just bad luck, and we add on the 20% known to be caused by parasites and viruses (according to the WHO), then we certainly aren’t left with much that is to do with our sloth and gluttony. ‘50% of cancers are your own fault’ said CRUK 5 years ago. ‘30-50% of cancers are due to your poor diets’ said the WHO. ‘At least half of all cancers are preventable’. Oh no they’re not says a mathematical model (that left two of the biggest out).
Food companies that sell junk, have no case to answer. Lucky for them. What of the legal cases in the USA where people sue cigarette companies or mobile phone companies for not warning them that their products cause cancer? Presumably your bad luck is now lucky for these companies.
At CANCERactive we were helping a patient with oesophageal cancer. She had had bad acid reflux for ten years and been on a drug the whole time. A trip to the manufacturer’s website said that ‘on no account should the drug be prescribed for more than six months’. The woman asked her doctor what he thought caused her cancer. ‘Just bad luck’ was his reply. Johns Hopkins have vindicated him. His mis-prescription of the drug was irrelevant.
But there’s a get out clause in the model: “We found that the types of cancer that had a higher risk than predicted by the number of cell divisions, were precisely the one’s you’d expect” (lung cancer – linked to smoking; skin cancer – linked to sun exposure). So, other factors do cause deviation from their model. Lucky, I spotted that.
The new science of ‘Bad luck’ is a dangerous concept. It removes the need for people to exert any self-control. The implication is that you can make little difference to prevent your cancer (and thus can make little difference to prevent it returning – so it is pointless doing anything to help treat your condition). Self-empowerment for patients goes out of the window. You might as well stay fat, not exercise, carry on smoking and just place your total faith in your good doctor’s hands. And luck.
Except, isn’t it lucky for us that The American Cancer Society have produced a 2012 report saying that since 2006 there has been an ‘explosion’ in research, and ‘overwhelming’ evidence that good diet, weight control and exercise can increase survival and even prevent a cancer returning.
Except, isn’t it lucky for us that the Karolinska Institute has produced straight line graphs on the links between cows’ dairy consumption and prostate, breast and ovarian cancers; or that Bristol University produced a meta-study on 52 research reports concluding that people who exercised regularly developed less cancers, and that those with cancer who exercised regularly, survived longer.
Watch out for the follow up study: ‘It is just bad luck that the chemotherapy didn’t work for you’. (Well it wouldn’t anyway because there is no drug available today that tackles cancer stem cells.)
What bad luck.
Ebola – The Wolf of Main Street
So what are we supposed to make of Ebola?
On one hand we have seen SARS, bird flu, avian flu, epidemics that just didn’t happen. People wore masks in the streets and on planes (they only help if you have it, not if someone else does), stock markets fell, and governments like the UK were conned into buying vaccines they just didn’t need (and asked for their money back)– and probably would not have worked anyway.
And now we have Ebola; clearly a far worse proposition. Yet again it started as a virus in the food chain, the Liberian food chain. It’s a potential plague that had been coming for 30 years; there had been minor skirmishes every few years. Did the WHO and the Western world use their combined knowledge to isolate the plague quickly? No, they moved after about 4 months. Now the Americans and the UK have built field hospitals surrounded by barbed wire.
Back in the USA, the Americans did move quickly on one aspect. They patented the Ebola DNA. Now, theoretically, only they can interfere with that DNA. It is theirs by right. Only they can treat it.
In Thailand there was great news more than a month ago. Thai scientists had isolated an antibody to Ebola. It made the TV every day for a week. Worldwide news? A breakthrough? You’ll be lucky to find it on Google Search.
Then there’s ‘natural remedies’ like colloidal silver. Before skeptics choke while reading this consider three minor points – first, we have no treatment with a jot of research behind it from the orthodox medical profession. Two, there is research on colloidal silver treating respiratory viruses. Three, why not take a couple of hundred patients in Liberia and see if it offers anything? What is there to lose? Instead, Health Authorities would not even allow the parcel of colloidal silver on the plane to Liberia. Natural Health anti-viral compounds are many (astragalus, goldenseal, Pau d’Arco and more). Presumably all these and more are being tested with Ebola? Somehow, I doubt it; but if Pau d’Arco can work with South American rainforest Indians and their viruses, might it not possibly just do something for Liberians? With the world’s health at stake, who has the power to decide NOT to try it?
Meanwhile the CDC in America – who have been mired in scandals over cover ups and lies about vaccines – search for … a vaccine.
Next there’s the nurse in Texas who contracted the virus while helping a patient. The TV spokesperson called it a ‘serious security breach’, but declined to say what the nurse had actually done.
Nurses are, of course, kitted out like the average spaceman. No virus is about to penetrate those suits which are sprayed with disinfectant after use and thrown away. But the truth is that even after 30 years of knowing about Ebola, we are not certain how exactly you can catch it.
Hospitals already have plagues in them – MRSA and clostridium difficile kill more that 20,000 people entering American hospitals every year simply for routine and often minor operations. Surfaces in wards are sprayed with disinfectant as they were 100 years ago. But why? We have known for 40 years that UV kills viruses; it is used in water purification plants throughout the world. An American firm Xenex, even sells anti-viral UV-C ‘robot’ machines. You’d have thought similar hand held machines and machines disguised as floor mops would be commonplace in hospitals all over the world. We are talking here about saving more lives than mammography at a fraction of the price.
So where are we on Ebola?? We now have temperature checks at airports; but the patient in the USA had been wandering around with it for more than two weeks with absolutely no symptoms. There will also be a questionnaire. “Have you been in Liberia and eaten a bat in the last 21 days”, seems a good place to start. Spare me.
So is this another swine flu, or something that will kill 16 million people in the Western world and we need to send urgently for Brad Pitt?
Above all we’d like some honesty. And some genuine worldwide health co-operation. And while we’re about it, who on earth said you could patent a virus? Yet again big business side – lines main street health concerns.
And if only the Health Authorities had not cried wolf so many times before. The UK has 16 million phials of unused plague vaccine. Anybody want some? It didn’t work last time, but what the heck?
New blood test tracks cancer development
Scientists at the CRUK Institute at Cambridge University have managed to follow the progress of cancer in people by following traces of tumour DNA circulating in patients’ blood (ctDNA).
Importantly this also allows scientists to identify tumour changes and chemotherapy drug resistance (Nature).
The scientists followed 6 patients with advanced breast, ovarian and lung cancers over two years taking blood samples at regular points, and by looking for changes in the tumour ctDNA before and after each course of treatment, they were able to identify which changes in the tumour’s DNA were linked to drug resistance following each treatment session.
Using this new method they were able to identify several changes linked to drug-resistance in response to chemotherapy drugs such as paclitaxel (taxol) which is used to treat ovarian, breast and lung cancers, tamoxifen which is used to treat oestrogen-positive breast cancers and trastuzumab (Herceptin) which is used to treat HER2 positive breast cancers.
Dr Nitzan Rosenfeld one of the study authors, said: “Tumours are constantly changing and evolving which helps them develop a resistance to many of the drugs we currently give patients to treat their disease”.
“We’ve shown that a very simple blood test can be used to collect enough tumour DNA to suggest to us what parts of the cancer’s genetic code is changing and creating tumour resistance to chemotherapy or biologically-targeted therapies”.
Environmental toxin poisoning can last generations
When Washington State University researchers exposed pregnant rats to low-levels of dioxin, the first generation offspring had more prostate disease and two types of ovarian disease than control groups. Kidney disease, precocious puberty and ovarian disease were more prevalent in the great-grandchildren with abnormalities in puberty being nearly eight times higher in the third generation females. Third generation male rats had 27 percent higher incidence of kidney disease with telltale modifications to gene expression in sperm in 50 regions of DNA as a result of their ancestors’ dioxin exposure.
‘Not only does the individual exposed get the disease, but it’s transmitted to great-grandchildren with no exposure,’ says Michael Skinner of Washington State University (Published in the journal PLoS One).
“The study is a nice demonstration of the large scope of damage from a low-dose dioxin,” said Jennifer Wolstenholme, a biochemist at the University of Virginia. One of the most interesting findings, she said, was that multiple organ systems were affected in the rats. Abby Benninghoff, who specializes in epigenetics at Utah State University says, “The cause of the higher rates of disease in these [third generation] animals was not due to direct exposure, but rather through transmission of changes in the code that regulates gene expression.”
Dioxins are industrial waste products which scientists have known for decades to cause cancer, reproductive disorders, kidney disease and other health problems. Dioxins are formed as a result of commercial combustion processes such as municipal waste incineration and from burning wood, coal or oil fuels and are transported by air and water long distances to be found throughout the world.
Up to 95 percent of dioxin exposure in humans occurs through the diet. Small amounts of dioxin exposure occurs from breathing air with trace amounts of dioxins and from skin contacting air, soil, or water with minute levels of dioxins. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037434_dioxins_chemical_damage_exposure.html#ixzz28tfZ1POC