[Editor’s note: For additional research supporting Edward Hendrie’s report, check out Dr. Alan Palmer, Truth Will Prevail (updated 15 August 2019)].
Vinu Arumugham, in an article written for the Journal of Developing Drugs, reveals a fact that has been hidden from the general public, and it seems also to be hidden from medical practitioners. “Nobel Laureate Charles Richet demonstrated over a hundred years ago that injecting a protein into animals or humans causes immune system sensitization to that protein.”
What does that mean for the person receiving the vaccine? Arumugham explains that “[s]ubsequent exposure to the protein can result in allergic reactions or anaphylaxis.” Thus, food proteins injected into a person through a vaccine can have the effect of causing a subsequent allergic reaction by that person who subsequently eats food that contains the food proteins in the vaccine. That means that vaccines can cause food allergies.
Shockingly, that fact regarding vaccine-induced allergies has been known by the scientific community for more than one hundred years, but the pharmaceutical companies, who largely fund the medical schools, keep physicians, most notably pediatricians, in the dark about it. Indeed, medical doctors are only given a few hours of instruction on vaccines during medical school. Physicians are ill-equipped by their medical training to assess the safety of vaccines. That ignorance is by design.
Arumugham reveals that this scientific fact of vaccine-induced allergies “has since been demonstrated over and over again in humans and animal models.”
Vaccines are the source of the explosion in food allergies in the United States. Indeed, there are more than 15 million Americans who suffer from life-threatening food allergies. Arumugham reveals how this happens.
Vaccines contain adjuvants such as pertussis toxins and aluminum compounds that also bias towards allergy. Adjuvants also increase the immunogenicity of injected food proteins. This combination of atopic children and food protein injection along with adjuvants contributes to millions developing life-threatening food allergies.
Vaccines contain food proteins derived from chicken eggs, casein, gelatin, soy, agar, etc. Those ingredients sound innocent enough. And if they were eaten they would not be harmful, and indeed would be nutritious. But when those same ingredients are injected into a human body, in a significant number of cases, they will cause a person to develop an allergic reaction or even anaphylaxis to that food protein.
Polysorbate 80 is also used in vaccines as a surfactant that allows the antigen to evenly dissolve in the excipient vaccine ingredients. Polysorbate 80 is manufacture from food sources such as coconut, palm, sunflower, tapioca, wheat, corn, etc. That sounds safe enough, but Arumugham explains that it is impossible to guarantee that these products from which the polysorbate 80 is derived do not contain residual allergen proteins.
Most of what is contained in vaccines fall into the category of inactive ingredients. These inactive ingredients are called excipient ingredients. The excipient ingredients are the carrier for the active ingredient, which is called the antigen. The antigen is a killed or weakened virus or bacteria that is supposed to induce the immune response from the body after the vaccine is injected. The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) in a February 2020 publication titled Vaccine Exipient Summary, listed excipient ingredients according to their function into six categories. The CDC stated:
Some excipients are added to a vaccine for a specific purpose. These include:
Preservatives, to prevent contamination. For example, thimerosal.
Adjuvants, to help stimulate a stronger immune response. For example, aluminum salts.
Stabilizers, to keep the vaccine potent during transportation and storage. For example, sugars or gelatin.
Others are residual trace amounts of materials that were used during the manufacturing process and removed. These can include:
Cell culture materials, used to grow the vaccine antigens. For example, egg protein, various culture media.
Inactivating ingredients, used to kill viruses or inactivate toxins. For example, formaldehyde.
Antibiotics, used to prevent contamination by bacteria. For example, neomycin.
Please understand that the CDC does not actually test the vaccines to determine what ingredients are contained in the vaccines. The CDC simply takes the vaccine manufacturers at their word and republishes the ingredients found in the vaccine package insert.
Notice that thimerosal is listed as a preservative. Thimerosal (which contains mercury) has been identified as an ingredient in childhood vaccines that causes autism in children. The thimerosal-autism connection has been the focus of controversy. Some scientific studies have alleged that thimerosal does not cause autism.
On or about 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that mercury in vaccines, in the form of thimerosal, exceeded FDA guidelines for mercury exposure. The mercury safety standards were determined by measuring methylmercury. But the mercury in thimerosal metabolizes in the body as ethylmercury. The FDA had no safety guidelines for ethylmercury. The FDA did not know what to do so, they correctly required vaccine companies to reduce or eliminate the use of thimerosal in vaccines.
By the way, the CDC identifies thimerosal as a preservative that is still being used in vaccines. While thimerosal has been removed from childhood vaccines, according to the CDC, it remains an ingredient in influenza and tetanus and diptheria vaccines.
But since the thimerosal (and its appended mercury) has been removed from childhood vaccines, the acceleration in autism has continued. It seems that the acceleration in autism is correlated to the bombardment of young children with more than 23 CDC recommended vaccinations before the child reaches 15 months old.
That study raised a furor among the powerful pharmaceutical companies and allied interests. They took immediate action to force the Frontiers in Public Health Journal to retract publication of the study. It was republished in the Journal of Translational Science but similar pressure was brought on that journal and it subsequently also retracted publication of the study. It is interesting to note that those who denigrate that study never discuss the details of the study. They limit their discussion to general allegations of bias, with no specifics. Indeed, they cannot allow the information in the study to be generally known. The study can be downloaded from the link provided below. See also the study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that linked vaccines to autism that was retracted by the Lancet.
You will never hear of a study that alleges that there is no connection between vaccination and autism suddenly withdrawn from publication. Indeed, when you look at the studies closely they studiously limit their study to only the MMR vaccine. Often they are comparing groups where the unvaccinated group has actually received other vaccines, it is just that they did not receive the MMR vaccine. And so the results are announced that the study shows that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism because the rates of autism are the same as for the non-MMR group.
For example, in the largest study of its kind, researchers in Denmark compared a group of 625,842 vaccinated children with 31,619 unvaccinated children. The unvaccinated children were those that had not received the MMR vaccination. Whereas the vaccinated children had received the MMR vaccination. They concluded that the MMR vaccine did not cause any appreciable difference in the rate of autism between the groups. That is how it was portrayed to the public. But let us look at that study a little closer.
The problem is that the unvaccinated group was not truly unvaccinated. 26,890 of the 31,619 children in the “unvaccinated” group received other vaccinations. Thus, more than 85% of the children that were labeled as unvaccinated actually received vaccinations. They all received the diptheria, acellular pertussis, tetanus, inactivated poliovirus, and Haemophilus influenza type b vaccines. Any one of those vaccines could cause an increase in autism in the mislabelled “unvaccinated” group. And certainly, the cumulative effect of those seriatim vaccinations on a young child could be devastating to a young child’s undeveloped immune system. The only vaccine missed by the unvaccinated group was the MMR vaccine. That fact was not revealed to the general public in the press releases. One must read the study and uncover the obscure table buried in it that reveals the truth that the study was a sham.
The Denmark study authors concluded:
The study strongly supports that MMR vaccination does not increase the risk for autism, does not trigger autism in susceptible children, and is not associated with clustering of autism cases after vaccination.
That conclusion in the Denmark study can be likened to a study of the intoxicating properties of rum. In the rum study, we will have a person consume a shot of vodka, a shot of whiskey, a shot of gin, a shot of tequila, and a shot of rum and another person consume all of those shots but not the shot of rum. Both persons end up drunk and so we can then announce that because both persons got drunk, rum is not an intoxicating liquor. Those are the kinds of shenanigans being pulled by “scientists” portraying dangerous vaccines as safe to the public.
And so the non-MMR group, being not truly an unvaccinated group, is presenting a higher autism number than would be the case for a truly unvaccinated group. When looking at a study that truly compares a vaccinated group vs. an unvaccinated group the results are significant. The recent study cited above that compared truly unvaccinated children with vaccinated children revealed that vaccinated children had 4.7 times greater diagnoses of autism.
There are synergistic effects of the vaccine ingredients. Vaccines contain adjuvants that are designed to stimulate the immune response to the antigen in the vaccine. A common adjuvant is aluminum.
Aluminum is a dangerous neurotoxin and carcinogen. Research has established that “[t]he adverse neurologic, hematopoietic, skeletal, respiratory, immunologic, and other effects associated with excessive aluminum (Al) exposures are well known.”
Research has proven that the neurological effects of aluminum include “impairment on neurobehavioral tests for psychomotor and cognitive performance and an increased incidence of subjective neurological symptoms.”
Indeed, “studies clearly identify the nervous system as the most sensitive target of aluminum toxicity.”
In studies involving “intramuscular administration of aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate vaccine adjuvants in rabbits, increased levels of aluminum were found in the kidney, spleen, liver, heart, lymph nodes, and brain (in decreasing order of aluminum concentration).”
The aluminum is put in the vaccine to act as an adjuvant, which stimulates the immune response from the body. When the aluminum is injected along with the food proteins, it not only increases the immunogenicity (immune response) to the antigen, but it also increases the immune response to the food proteins in the vaccine.
A vaccine is designed only to have the body’s immune system respond to the antigen and not the other ingredients that make up the excipient in the vaccine. But that is not what happens. Instead, there is a concomitant immune response to the food protein in the excipient. The food protein is supposed to be an inactive ingredient, but it suddenly becomes an active ingredient when the adjuvant stimulates that immune response in the body. The body then treats the food protein as an invader that invites a response from the immune system. This is manifested in an allergic response when the food protein is later eaten by the vaccinated person. Not all allergies rise to the level of anaphylaxis. Most allergic reactions fall into the category of sensitization. But the bottom line is that the epidemic of food and other allergies, whether anaphylaxis or sensitization, is being caused by vaccines.
It is not simply conjecture that vaccines cause allergies. In one study comparing vaccinated children with unvaccinated children, it was found that vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with allergies.
Arumugham discovered that “there are no specifications limiting allergen content in vaccines approved for use in the United States.” What does that mean for vaccine patients? It means that no safe level has been established for any allergens contained in vaccines. Those who make vaccine excipients such as sorbitol and Polysorbate 80 are not limited in any way by government regulations as to the residual allergens contained in their injectable grade products. Arumugham made the disturbing discovery that “[s]ince there are no limits, suppliers do not test for allergens in production. Further, residual allergens that may be present in the excipients are not even listed in the vaccine package inserts.” Thus, there is no way for a doctor to know all of the excipient ingredients that are in the vaccine that is being injected into his patient. The doctor (and the patient) are literally flying blind. Each new vaccine injection poses a risk of the patient developing food or other allergies.
For more information on the dangers of vaccines visit: