The Injection Pathway and Other Entry Channels
Table of Contents:
If inhalation and ingestion are by far the most common entry channels into the organism, they are not the only ones.
As will be explained later in this book, injectable drugs may contain particles as pollutants, or, for example, in the case of colloidal gold, nanoparticles are administered purposefully as a remedy against arthritis. It must be clear that, as they are administered by injection, none of those foreign bodies can be eliminated.
As to entry channels which are not ingestion and inhalation/ respiration and as to medicines, once we had the case of a subject who had stainless-steel particles in his lungs coming from polluted nasal drops he had used for years.
What may look an unusual entry was the one we came across a few years ago: an entry due to adsorption through an epithelial tissue (Fig. 6.1).
An alcohol-based mouthwash containing zinc salts had been used for decades by a patient. Alcohol had made the mouth mucosa particularly permeable, so that the partially hydrolysed zinc salt could penetrate the tissue. In the long run, the presence of salt had become supersaturated and zinc had precipitated in the form of particles inside the tongue, where we found it. That case may be seen as borderline, since the particles had not entered directly as such but had formed inside the tissue using the element made available by the salt contained in the drug. Of course, those particles could have
Advances in Nanopathology: From Vaccines to Food
Antonietta Morena Gatti and Stefano Montanari
Copyright © 2021 Jenny Stanford Publishing Pte. Ltd.
ISBN 978-981-4877-29-9 (Hardcover), 978-1-003-05622-5 (eBook) w w w. j e n ny sta nf o rd. co m been present also in all oral cavity's tissues, but the only sample we had available was the tongue muscle (Fig. 6.1).
Figure 6.1 Asymmetrical tongue. The images represent the (a) asymmetrical (black arrows) surface of the tongue and (b) the biopsy of the right side of the tongue and the zinc precipitates identified inside.
The patient had a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral syndrome.
Many cosmetics, for example, sunscreens, are plus micro- and nanoparticles, and though we don’t have experience enough in that field, having not had the chance to analyse a sufficient number of specimens and human cases, we think that the possibility of their introduction in the body and to what extent cannot be ruled out before all the appropriate research is completed.
Biocompatibility of What Is Introduced in the Body by Injection
It is only obvious that the compounds injected in the body must be compatible with the blood components. That means that they must not interact either chemically or physically with its components and must not have actions which go beyond what they are specifically required to do.
This book is not meant to cover the use and efficacy of vaccines nor the many disputes in this regard which are often heated and not always properly founded. Much has been written claiming completely opposing arguments. Much has been influenced by the enormous economic interests which investments in vaccines entail. Much has been censored.
Vaccination or something similar to it is a very old medical practice: the Chinese and the Indians employed variolation (administration of infected material taken from human patients suffering from smallpox) centuries before Edward Jenner did with the bovine variety of the pathogen, and the practice was also in use in Africa, in Persia and in Turkey long before being spread in Europe and, much later, in America. The aim of that pharmacological treatment based on the observation of immunity acquired by those who had fallen ill and had recovered was that of inducing immunity to a certain disease. For many centuries it was only smallpox, through the administration of the pathogen in a hopefully harmless form. As a matter of fact, the practice was not always risk-free and mortality was far from negligible, but it is more than probable that the practice was, after all, advantageous.
Whatever the philosophical and cultural approach to vaccination, it must be recalled that vaccines are drugs. So, like all drugs, they are not equally active on all individuals, whatever is meant by activity, and they have contraindications (e.g. immunodepression, an ongoing pathological state, already acquired immunity, allergy to one or more components) and side effects. And, in particular, the duration of the immunity which may be acquired through vaccines is limited to some years, and thus, unlike what happens with the naturally acquired disease, booster doses are generally required. For that reason, not to make promises which can’t be kept charging vaccines of expectations which go beyond their means, the concept of the so-called ‘herd immunity'3 should be revised in a more objective and rational way and more closely to facts.
Like all drugs in use today, vaccines also must be acceptably stable, acceptably resistant to temperature variations and have a long-enough shelf life. So, as happens with most drugs, substances are added which have nothing to do with the active ingredient. Moreover, vaccines contain processing residues such as proteins, red blood cells and mercury, a metal which is added more and more rarely in the final formulation but which remains in trace from production processes. As an example, Sanofi Pasteur declared that their quadrivalent influenza vaccine Fluzone meant to be administered to subjects from 6 months or older contains 12.5 mcg of mercury/0.25 dose for ages 6-35 months and 25 mcg of mercury/0.5 ml dose for ages older than 36 months.
For many reasons, not a few of which completely foreign to medicine, it is hardly possible to find today a more controversial topic in medicine than vaccines.
As already mentioned, it is not our intention to discuss here the many problems involving that type of product: how the pathologies are chosen, the differences in choice between country and country, often neighbouring countries where there are completely different obligations or where the obligation does not exist at all, how vaccines are produced, how they are tested (just a hint will be given in a few pages), what their real efficacy is and what their side effects, how they are controlled, how they are administered, how people who undergo vaccination are informed, how they are medically checked before vaccination, how side effects are collected and catalogued,
’Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection from an infectious pathology which is argued to occur when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thus disrupting, hindering or slowing the spread of disease.
etc. It should only be remembered that vaccines are drugs and that drugs, taking for granted their harmlessness as an act of faith, are administered only when necessary if one wants to act according to good medical practice.
Our only aim here is to report what we found in those products, analysing them as we usually do.
We started to check vaccines on the request of the German University of Mainz. The problem reported was a painful swelling at the injection site which often occurred in those who underwent vaccination, and thus, the university sent us, together with the vaccine samples, and also the skin biopsies.
Much to our surprise, we found both kinds of samples polluted by solid, inorganic particles. We repeated the analyses several times, since we could not believe that an injectable drug, least of all a vaccine, could be polluted, but all tests gave the same results.
Sometime later, we were asked to analyse a vaccine administered to a young soldier who had died of cancer. The postmortem sample of the cancerous tissue we checked showed the presence of micro-and nanoparticles typical of many similar cases, and also the vaccine proved to be polluted by solid, inorganic particles, but in that case, the pollutants we found were entirely different. If the presence of particles in a cancer could be considered to be ‘normal’, as we detected in a great number of cases, it was not so in a vaccine. However, as regards that particular case, there was no evidence that the particles contained in the vaccine were responsible for the soldier's illness and death.
Later, the Italian University of Parma sent us a student who was preparing her doctoral thesis and with her we analysed 19 types of vaccines. All of them proved to be polluted by different solid, inorganic particles.
Now, at the time of writing these pages, the types of different vaccines we have tested are 45. For some of them it was only one samples; for others it was several, in some circumstances obtained from different sources and produced in different years. None of them proved to be free from particulate pollution with the sole exception of the only veterinary vaccine we analysed: Feligen (Virbac S.r.l.J, a vaccine meant for the immunisation of cats against feline rhinotracheitis virus, feline calcivirus and feline panleucopaenia virus.
It is only obvious that no drug should contain poll utants, whatever they are. A fortiori, there should be no fragments of matter evidently incompatible with the human body in an injectable product. The problem is further aggravated by the fact that many vaccines are injected into newborn babies and are administered repeatedly over time.
We have already pointed out that one of the basic principles of toxicology is that poisons exert a mutually synergistic action and the higher the number of poisons which act simultaneously, the more difficult it grows, until it becomes impossible, to guess what their final effect will be.
The obvious question as far as we are directly concerned is where those particles come from. Among our many perplexities, there are the accuracy and reliability of the controls which must be carried out both by the producers and by the health authorities, and the reason why that very visible pollution is undetected or kept hidden or, when this is reported and reaches some publicity, an attempt is made to minimise its importance and danger, when not to deny its existence. One thing is certain: regardless of any consideration and attempt at justification, those particles may not be there.
Leaving aside the pollution from particulate matter for a moment, it is enough to read the technical data sheets of any vaccines to see how those drugs contain substances which are poorly or not at all compatible with the physiology of the human body. Among these substances there are, for example, formaldehyde, aluminium with some of its compounds and various antibiotics to which different subjects are allergic. But, more than once, there are also fragments of human DNA from aborted foetal tissues (in no less than 30 types of different vaccines), red blood cells, viruses (e.g. SV40 in the antipoliomyelitis vaccine), pesticides (e.g. glyphosate), pork jelly, etc.
Among the many possible examples of non-harmless substances contained in vaccines and listed as components by the producers themselves, formaldehyde, whose carcinogenicity is well known, can be listed [1-9].
To this can be added aluminium, the most common adjuvant used in large quantities in vaccines. Its toxicity, especially at the neurological level, is perfectly known for several years, so much so that for some time its use in the kitchen and in cosmetics has been strongly discouraged. Curiously enough, however, aluminium is hardly mentioned when is administered along with vaccines [9-65]. It is also necessary to consider how aluminium is injected even into premature babies.
But, apart from pollutants and what has just been mentioned, vaccines also contain substances which can cause even violent allergic reactions. Among these there are substances which come from the eggs of birds and antibiotics such as neomycin and kanamycin, however not recommended in children.
It should be added that the candidates for vaccination are never checked in advance for their ability to tolerate these substances. Nor is it practically possible to do so in infants, particularly if premature.
Thus, if we look at the issue from a coldly scientific point of view, it is impossible not to wonder about the harmlessness of those drugs and the blind way they are administered, not only without the most basic preliminary controls, but even to people who have already suffered from infectious diseases like, for instance, measles, becoming naturally immune.
It is often said that vaccines are meticulously and thoroughly tested.
As is the case with any drug, to be such and to give acceptable answers the test must be carried out in a double-blind fashion. If the drug is intended to combat a specific disease, the highest possible number of homogeneous patients affected by that disease is taken and divided into two groups, to one of which the product under examination is administered and to the other a placebo. At the end of the test, the experimenters check and count how many subjects of each group have recovered from the disease and, thus, the effectiveness of the medicament is determined. This is virtually impossible with vaccines. In the first place, the subjects on whom the experimenters have to work must necessarily be healthy and, the diseases being infectious, it is not possible to know in advance if they will fall ill, how many of them will and, in the event that sooner or later they will, in how long. Thus, to obtain a statistically acceptable result on a vaccine, and the reliability of statistics is largely linked to the amount of reliable data available and to the fact that the morbidity of infectious diseases is extremely variable and unpredictable, it is essential to work on a huge number of subjects for many years. This would require huge economic investments with a possible, but far from certain, in any case much delayed, economic return compared to what the entrepreneur desires. Since pharmaceutical companies are companies like all others and their goal is, of course, profit, none of these things is done and serious experimentation simply does not exist.
Unfortunately, this very serious deficiency is neglected both by law and by the medical class, and the information which passes to the general public is that vaccines are carefully tested.
As for safety, suffice what in 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled: ‘Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe products’ .
Figure 6.2 Contamination of DiTeBooster vaccine (AjVaccines, Denmark). DiTeBooster is used to vaccinate children who should not be younger than 5 and adults who have already received primary vaccination against diphtheria and tetanus. As in all the vaccines for human use which we have analysed, this too is polluted by the presence of particles of a predominantly metallic nature and quite often smaller than 1 pm in size.
It is only obvious that evaluating the toxicity of a vaccine observing for some time, often only days, the behaviour of a test animal cannot give reliable indications. A fortiori, information on efficacy cannot be expected, and this is not only because of the too small number of animals and the too short observation time but also, above all, because animals do not fall ill with diseases which are typically human, such as measles, chicken pox, rubella, etc.
Ultimately, what vaccine producers make and say is accepted as a certainty and an article of faith, and the actual guinea pigs are those who should benefit from the product.
It is sad to say that anyone who points out the obvious facts briefly described is considered an 'enemy of science', when it should be exactly the opposite. In any case, no problem can be addressed if its existence is denied a priori, however opposing a point of view, or its discussion prevented by denying or hiding facts or, even worse, by using violence.
Whatever the claims, scientific dignity must necessarily undergo a sort of never-ending trial, and a refusal or avoidance, however one tries to justify it, disqualifies the statement itself or, at the very least, cannot but raise legitimate doubts in its regard.
Figure 6.3 Fluad vaccine (Seqirus, Italy). It is one of many flu shots. It too has been shown to contain solid, inorganic and incompatible particles with the organism. It contains particles of barium sulphate and crystals of the saline solution.
The following images (Figs. 6.2-6.13) regard inorganic debris we have found in a 40 ці drop of some vaccines. The article ‘New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination (2017)’  has already showed the presence of particles which do not belong to the pharmaceutical formula of those vaccines nor, to be sure, of any injectable medicament. Some examples of this contamination with its chemical composition are shown but are not discussed, since we do not have any explanation to those undue presences.
Figure 6.4 Contamination of Fluarix vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline, Great Britain). It is another of the many flu shots. It too has been shown to contain solid, inorganic and incompatible particles with the body. In this case, the particles found appear to be aluminium and stainless-steel particles and those of common household dust.
Figure 6.5 Contamination of Intanza vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur, France). It is another of the many flu shots. Considered responsible for the death of several patients, it was withdrawn from the market. Also this drug contains polluting particles, in this case also rather coarse, impossible to not detect if the product was actually controlled. It contains (a) aluminium (adjuvant) and stainless steel and (b) chromium particles. As in other cases, the sodium chloride-based particles are due to the crystallisation of that salt contained in the saline solution.
Figure 6.6 Measles vaccine (PaxVaxBerna, Switzerland). It is a measles vaccine purchased in Switzerland. Note, in addition to the barium sulphate-based particles, the majority component of silicon in those containing stainless steel (iron, chromium and nickel). It is interesting to observe the formation of proteins around these latter particles.
Figure 6.7 Priorix vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline, Great Britain). Priorix trivalent vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella should be used with extreme caution and, in any case, always having taken all the dictated both by good medical practice and by what the manufacturer writes. This is due to the side effects, of which, at least in our experience, a not negligible fraction of the vaccinated population suffers. The particles found in the samples we checked have a rather varied composition and include, in addition to iron, chromium and nickel (f), almost usual, also gold and silver (d) and calcium (b).
Figure 6.8 Stamaril (Sanofi Pasteur, France). It is a specific viral vaccine against yellow fever. The samples we analysed showed particle pollutants which, in some instances, were quite coarse and, therefore, impossible not to identify if a control was actually performed, (a) Silicon and titanium and (b) aluminium and silver were the major components of the particles found in the samples we analysed.
Figure 6.9 Synflorix (GlaxoSmithKline, Poland). It is a vaccine for active immunisation against invasive disease, pneumonia and acute otitis media caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae in infants and children from 6 weeks to 5 years of age. The manufacturer does not guarantee its safety in children who have exceeded 5 years of age. The product is conjugated to protein D (derived from non-typable Haemophilus influenzae), to the tetanus toxoid and to the diphtheria toxoid. Also in this case the analyses showed the presence of numerous solid polluting particles. Note, among others, that of particularly large dimensions based on calcium, aluminium and silicon. The presence of aluminium and phosphorus can be explained by what the manufacturer claims, namely that the product is adsorbed on aluminium phosphate (0.5 mg of aluminium per dose).
Figure 6.10 Influvac Tetra Mylan Health PTY Limited (Australia). Among the many flu vaccine samples which we have analysed, this one, purchased in Sydney (Australia), is the one which has shown the presence of coarser inorganic solid particulate, totally impossible not to detect. It is difficult to believe that the product has been actually checked. In many cases, we detected very-small-particle agglomerations. It is impossible for us to determine whether, once injected into the body, those agglomerates will remain so or will crumble into their small components.
Figure 6.11 Typhim Vi vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur, Denmark). Typhim Vi is aimed at the active immunisation against typhoid fever caused by Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi in adults or children aged 2 years or older. Note the presence of coarse particles based on silver and others based on titanium. Also in this as in other vaccines, there is a strong component of barium and sulphur in the polluting particles.
Figure 6.12 Vaxygrip vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur, Denmark). Yet another flu shot. As in all other cases, this too presents pollution from inorganic solid particles. With permission from Macro Gruppo Editoriale SRL.
Figure 6.13 Twinrix vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline, Denmark). This is an antihepatitis A+B vaccine which contains as adjuvant aluminium phosphate, saline solution (sodium chloride) but also some debris of tungsten or tungsten carbide.
The presence in many vaccines of debris composed of tungsten or tungsten carbide excited our curiosity since it is a hard metal which, at our knowledge, is not used during the preparation of a drug like a vaccine. We had experience of some findings of a similar metal in cases where hard materials needed to be cold worked.
Figure 6.14 Glass of a syringe containing Typherix (GSK Australia). The images show the analyses performed on the internal glassy surface of a syringe which contained Typherix, a vaccine meant to prevent typhoid fever. The analyses showed the presence of different types of microparticles of steel, tin, zinc, titanium, bismuth, etc., debris which are inevitably injected with the vaccine (a). Silicon belongs to the composition of glass; instead iron, chromium and nickel (b) are stainless steel debris.
When we analyse a vaccine, we extract it from the syringe in which it is usually contained by passing it through the needle, thereby doing exactly what is done when the product is injected. So, if the syringe or needle is polluted by particles, it is quite possible that what we analyse and what, ultimately, enters the body of the person being vaccinated is not all contained as a pollutant in the vaccine itself but in its container and means of administration. The production of the needle starts from a long steel tube which is cut, normally on three different planes, with a tool usually made of tungsten. It is more than likely that part of the steel and tungsten particles produced by the cut enter the lumen of the needle which, as a rule, is never cleaned. As a matter of fact, tungsten and stainless steel (iron, chromium and nickel) are among the components most commonly found in our analyses performed on vaccines. As far as the glass syringe is concerned, it is hot-formed by metal tools (tungsten or tungsten carbide wire at 600°C) which can release polluting solid residues. The electron microscope images show this pollution (Figs. 6.14 and 6.15).
Figure 6.15 Glass of a syringe containing Priorix (GSK, Great Britain). The image shows the analyses performed on the internal glassy surface of a syringe which contained Priorix, the already mentioned vaccine meant to prevent measles, mumps and rubella. The particles detected were composed mainly of steel, tungsten, sulphur and barium.
When particulate matter is injected, it can stay at the puncture site, causing a local, inflammatory reaction, or it can be carried by the blood or lymph circulation virtually anywhere throughout the body. One of the possibilities is the passage from mother to foetus, and also for that reason vaccinating a pregnant woman may prove particularly risky.