Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘Immune system’

from Environmental Health News via IAOMT

A study raises concern about children’s exposure to mercury through fish eating, tying it for the first time to hormone changes that increase chronic stress and associated immune system dysfunction.

The mercury levels measured in the children were well below the levels considered a health risk by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

This new study from Oswego County, New York, finds that higher mercury levels measured in the children’s blood are significantly associated with lower cortisol levels. The hormone cortisol is released in response to stress and is important for metabolism, immune responses and blood pressure. Its levels naturally fluctuate during the day – levels are higher in the morning and lower in the afternoon.

Even lower cortisol levels and responses can result in chronic stress even though stress increases the hormone’s level. The study’s results suggest that mercury exposure at levels commonly seen in fish eating populations may do this. It may act as a chronic stressor and disrupt the stress response. Chronic stress means the body doesn’t relax – cells continually function in high gear and do not return to a normal state. Long-term stress can have many negative health effects such as increased heart disease, more metabolic disorders and lowered immunity.

The findings are in line with prior studies in people and fish. The toxic metal increased inflammation in miners exposed to mercury. Animal studies find reduced cortisol levels in mercury-contaminated fish after capture stress.

Fish consumption is a major source both of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids and toxic mercury. Omega-3s benefit health by protecting against heart disease. Mercury is potentially harmful because it affects the brain and nervous system in children. Although there are fish advisories in many states, it is still uncertain whether the benefit of eating fish outweighs the potential harm in children.

To address the pros and cons of fish eating in children, the researchers examined 100 children from 9 to 11 years old in New York State. Parents reported children’s fish consumption, which was categorized as eating or not in the analysis. Blood mercury levels, blood lipids, cortisol in saliva and inflammation markers were measured. Blood lipids indicate future heart disease risk; cortisol reflects changes of stress response; and inflammation markers indicate immune response differences.

Fish eaters had higher HDL – or so called good cholesterol – related to lower heart disease risk, than non-fish eaters. However, the fish eaters also had much higher – almost three times higher – mercury levels than non-fish eaters (1.1 and 0.4 microgram per liter, respectively).

Mercury levels were related to lower cortisol levels at all time points in the study. The highest mercury levels had about 20-25 percent lower cortisol in saliva samples compared with lowest mercury levels. At the same time, children with higher mercury also had higher inflammatory markers in their blood.

The study is limited by its design as a one-time survey, not a follow-up study. More work is still needed to examine whether the association is robust in larger studies with a follow-up design.

by Heidi Stevenson, Gaia-Health

If breastfeeding and improved immunity stand in the way of vaccine profits, then the solution is simple: Delay breastfeeding and undo the immunity.

Children in poor countries do not develop as many antibodies as those in wealthy nations. Rather than ask whether it may be an indication that their bodies are refusing for a good reason, medical researchers assume that it’s bad. Therefore, they’re making a couple of the most inane suggestions imaginable.

Their suggestions include:

• Delay breastfeeding so that it won’t “interfere” with the development of antibodies.
• Medically modify gut biota in healthy children.

When conventional medicine makes inane suggestions, you know that it’s in trouble. That’s exactly what’s happening in the zeal to promote vaccinations in developing nations.

The Problem

Big Pharma sees Big Profits in vaccines, and the number of people in the nonindustrialized nations is enormous, well over half the world’s population. Getting them vaccinated could mean enormous amounts of money—car, train, boat, and plane loads of it.

They have an artificial way of determining whether vaccines are effective—and they’re locked into that system. They measure antibodies to their vaccine, and if they reach a certain arbitrary level, they say that the vaccination is successful. It’s rather clever, because it nicely evades having to demonstrate that people are actually immune from the diseases.

GreenMedInfo describes the issue beautifully:

First, it must be made clear that the term “efficacy” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody elevating effects does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the intended infection.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is simply a highly successful business enterprise founded on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by the “experts” and the manufacturers who produce them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be understated.⁽¹⁾

The problem is that children in developing nations are not producing antibodies at the prescribed levels. And if they don’t, then the arbitrary definition of success hasn’t been met. Therefore, something needs to be done. To that end, two possible solutions have been offered—and neither one makes one iota of sense.

Delay Breastfeeding

In Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, an article on the ineffectiveness of live oral rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries found that the culprit is breast feeding.⁽²⁾

The best source of disease immunity in babies is their mothers’ milk. It is well recognized that babies fed on their mothers’ breast milk are healthier. But that, of course, isn’t the real goal. The goal is profits. Therefore, if breast milk interferes with Big Pharma’s profit machine, then something needs to be done about it.

The primary antibody in the intestinal tract is IgA (immunoglobulin A). It’s a significant factor in gut health. The authors of the rotavirus vaccine study surmise that the higher amounts of IgA in mothers’ milk neutralizes or prevents antibodies from forming.

Therefore, the researchers suggest that breast feeding be delayed so that the obvious benefits to the baby cannot interfere with the dubious one of developing rotavirus vaccine antibodies. Are they concerned about a loss of protection during that time? Apparently not. All they care about is that their dog and pony antibody show look good, so they can push the rotavirus vaccine on more and more babies.

Modify Gut Biota

The journal Biology published an article about the difficulty in achieving efficacy of vaccines in undeveloped countries. The author, Myron M. Levine, is concerned that vaccine efficacy—as defined by GreenMedInfo above—is diminished in these places. Here is his explanation:

Giardia infections are highly prevalent among children in developing countries but are increasingly recognized not to be associated with either diarrhea or adverse nutritional consequences. Nevertheless, Giardia may have an impact on mucosal integrity and function that may diminish responses to oral vaccines. Thus, I would advocate a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which half the participants receive metronidazole to eradicate Giardia before oral vaccination.⁽³⁾

He is saying that giardia, which is a devastating infection in developed nations, is harmless to most children in undeveloped areas because their intestinal mucosa prevents the parasite from harming them. So, Levine hopes to undo this advance in their immunology! He wants to give them the antibiotic metronidazole.

Metronidazole’s adverse effects include encephalopathy, neuropathy (including the optic nerve), pancreatitis, seizures, skin necrolysis, leukopenia, and other unpleasant effects, including, of course, candidiasis, the ever-common fungal result of antibiotics, and the now recognized life-long increased risk of cancer.

To sum it up, Levine wants to give healthy children a dose of metronidazole, a highly dangerous antibiotic, to all the children of undeveloped nations because their immune systems are able to prevent harm from at least one disease. He wants to strip their improved health away, and at the same time, permanently harm and even kill many of them.

Nonetheless, Big Pharma’s imperative, to increase profits, must be satisfied. Therefore, these children’s advantage must be taken from them by giving them a drug that will certainly kill some of them, maim others, and increase their chances of developing cancer. Then, they can be given vaccines that will likely further harm their immune systems.

Back to the Bottom Line

Of course, the most important problem is resolved. Big Pharma’s profits are protected. Does it matter that it comes at the cost of lives around the world? That it costs the health of children? That it causes suffering? That it undoes improvements in immune systems? No, it doesn’t. There is only one ethic in Big Pharma. It’s spelled: