In a very closely watched case, the US Supreme Court ruled today that federal law shields vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine. The ruling was a victory for Pfizer, which was fighting a lawsuit brought by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, an 18-year-old who suffered seizures as an infant after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, or DTP vaccine in 1992.
At issue was the underlying notion of preemption - in this case, whether a federal law known as the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 prevented the Bruesewitz family from pressing their lawsuit, which was rejected by a federal vaccine court that is empowered to provide compensation. Pfizer argued that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the family would have sparked countless lawsuits, including some claiming links to autism, and threatened the supply of childhood vaccines.
The 1986 law says that a vaccine maker should not be held liable in a civil action if an injury was caused by unavoidable side effects, “even if the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.” In other words, the provision bars lawsuits in state courts, but with an exception - claims except those alleging a manufacturing defect or a failure to warn (back story).
And that is what the family cited in its petition to the Supreme Court. In their lawsuit, the family argued her seizures and serious developmental delay were caused by the vaccine, and that a safer alternative had been available but not made available. The DTP vaccine was eventually taken off the market in 1998 and replaced.
But a majority of justices, who voted 6-to-2 in favor of vaccine makers, disagreed. “The vaccine manufacturers fund from their sales an informal, efficient compensation program for vaccine injuries,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. “In exchange they avoid costly tort litigation and the occasional disproportionate jury verdict.” In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote tha that the ruling “leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products" (here is the ruling).
The vaccine court, by the way, has awarded more than $1.8 billion for vaccine injury claims in nearly 2,500 cases since 1989, Reuters notes. In a statement, American Academy of Pediatrics president O. Marion Burton hailed the ruling: "Today’s Supreme Court decision protects children by strengthening our national immunization system and ensuring that vaccines will continue to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in this country.”
pix appears from WTAE
22 Comments
As a parent it is good to know where we stand (mostly alone). Roll the dice and pray for the best. If something does happen, prepare to spend years and $$$$ fighting for help(and not be assured of a positive outcome). Prepare to frame the injury to the increasingly narrow list of compensable side effects. It might help if you're a neurologist and your wife is a nurse-lawyer (not that I begrudge the Polings - it's just that most parents are not in their shoes).
I will take this knowledge and act accordngly next time I am proposed a vaccine for my children.
God bless Justice Sotamayor for seeing the the true esence of the problem . . .
Parent, I am with you. The only problem is that the schools hold us hostage in the vaccine's required for children to attend public school (by state law). Unfortunately I live in NJ where the schools require the most vaccines in the nation! I guess that is what happens when you live in the nation's "medicine chest"!
Having just scanned some of the opinions, the differences in interpretive opinion seem to be particularly sharp. I haven't read enough to know how "unavoidable" and "failure to warn" were parsed. If anything like Levine, the door to potential liability remains wider. But, of course, a different governing statute setting context here.
A bad decision can never do any good . This ruling lessens the burden of manufacturers to test there product for safety to provide accurate info. A quick perusal of the Cochrane data base analysis of flu vaccines questions both the safety and effectiveness of the product.How much do the victims Scalia talks about receive as compared to the profits generated?
As a parent, what i want is the highest chance of a good outcome for my child. No vaccines are perfect. None protect every child. Often it's just 80%. But if all children are vaccinated, then the disease has fewer places for transmission, and the all children are protected. So, vaccines protect not only my child, but all children against some dread disease. It may also harm a few, even if everything is done as well as can be done. Chances are still way better for all of the children. Having parents opt out of a vaccination program doesn't just fail to protect their kids, it also fails to protect my child. And, we're starting to see cases of dread diseases for the first time in decades. Kids now face death at much greater numbers than they did with vaccines.
It's not a perfect world. But vaccines have certainly made it better.
I'm no lawyer, and won't comment on any particular litigation. But as a society, we're smarter if we decide to protect ourselves. Is it worthwhile to compensate the one in a million harmed while protecting the million? It's a fair question. Perhaps the vaccination laws could have put in non-confrontational compensation to the few. For all i know, they did. Having been to court, i've come to this conclusion. We'd like justice, but we have the courts instead.
On the subject of protecting ourselves, there are diseases, like polio, where we vaccinate, but haven't had a case in the US for ages. It costs alot to vaccinate. But we could forego it once we've eliminated polio from the Earth, as was done for smallpox. And we could fund such an all out attack on polio, and come out ahead in just a few years. The economics make sense, even if we're all totally selfish bastards.
Not sure about this. Any constitutional lawyers here?
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~14th Amendment~
Mandates to impose something on a person's body seems a violation of liberty and immunities as it is - but what of due process? Are they calling it equal protection because it applies to all vaccine recipients or is the decision lacking because it doesn't apply to all drug company, FDA approved, products?
Or am I completely off base by siting the amendment? (certainly not impossible)
What is the point of warning about encephalitis if you must get your children vaccinated to go to school - which is also mandated. It's not like you can opt-out because you fear the dangers.
"Any constitutional lawyers here?"
What about doctors.? One one the main principles of medicine is informed consent yet scientific debate remains about many vaccines. HPV vaccines and flu vaccines leap out. If mandates are made to take these products when legitimate debate questions both there efficacy and safety then what about informed consent.
Completely agree Stephen.
For good or bad, the federal government imposes loads of regulations that are aimed at the safety of the general population (not at the safety of the individual). My favorate example is airbags. They kill people every year - but they save many, many lives in the process. Do you "anti-vaccine" folks out there turn off your airbags in your vehicle? Federal standards are almost always aimed at the collective good for society, not the individual good. Think about building safety codes, recent crib recalls, food safety standards, etc. These issues all place financial burden on individuals and forces them to behave in particular ways in order for a greater common good.
if you exempt vaccine manufacturers, then shouldn't the person giving the vaccine also be exempt or are they taking on more liability now that vaccine manufacturers are exempt?
The providers that I have spoken to are becoming more reluctant to give vaccines because of liability and billing and reimbursement issues
It's always easy to talk about the common good and percentages when it has not happened to you. When it happens to you, it is 100% and you are on your own. You suffer all the consequences.
There are thousands and thousands in that position from bad medicines, bad medical devices, unethical companies, etc. There is now nothing to keep the pharmaceutical companies in check on the vaccine issue. (Especially when you think about all the multimillion dollar fines pharmaceutical companies are paying for fraud. Not a pretty picture.)
There is obviously a problem if "The vaccine court, by the way, has awarded more than $1.8 billion for vaccine injury claims in nearly 2,500 cases since 1989." And who knows how many more were harmed but not able to prove it.
I truly feel for parents who have to deal with the Russian roulette of whether their child will be harmed by vaccines. More and more children become autistic following vaccines. I know several families with autistic children and it is a lifetime struggle.
Now their rights to file suit in state court has been taken away. Sad.
We should risk the few to protect many? The risk is known. It is accepted by government, but something is missing.
Why can't vaccines be made to be safer? Why are the more questionable additives still used? Why do we accept the only responses as vaccinate or do not vaccinate?
The vaccine, itself, and the practice of shoot'en um up all at once should be questioned. Why assume that these can't be made more safe?
Does anyone know someone who was not vaccinated? Is there a control group? Can we reach valid conclusions without a control group?
The difference between vaccines and virtually every other product is that - should a product be designed defectively and cause harm to me - I have a right to redress in a court of my peers!
I was taught in graduate school that one of the reasons we have some of the safest products in the world, here in the USA, is our strong product liability laws. Speaking of cars (air bags) - ever heard of the Ford Pinto? Do you notice car manufacturers no longer place gas tanks in that position? In other words, they can't as easily factor poor design (and consequent deaths and injury) as "just the price of doing business?"
Now that the vaccine "court" has become a very difficult system to navigate and prevail (which was not the intention of Congress), parents and their children may very well may be completely foreclosed from any redress.
But the worst part of yesterday's ruling is that the vaccine manufacturers have no real incentive to make their products safer. And therefore they have even more incentive to get more vaccines on the "mandated" list.
As mentioned, this set of circumstances will factor into any further vaccine decisions here in our household.
What if there is non-toxic alternative that protects our children without any potential harm? Please see the website of a documentary film I am working on. www.thevaccinealternative.com
Supposedly the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was put into effect so that vaccine manufacturers wouldn't bail out of producing vaccines and so that more companies would put products into the pipeline. Instead vaccines are more of an oligopoly than ever with just a few companies muscling out competition, keeping quality and production standards low and "steampunk" and playing filthy games (Paul Offit taking Fed. committee position to lobby against a rival to his Merck Rotateq, which turned out to be no safer, etc.).
25 years ago, Congress should have passed a federal law barring vaccine manufacturers from bailing on production of any product for at least a year-- as Hillary Clinton suggested two years ago in that too-little-too-late-obtuse way that politicians approach amending the disastrous situation. Instead-- while vaccine manufacturers tripled their sales in just three years-- taxpayers support a hostile, contentious kangaroo court system whereby the same parties which promote vaccines and hold patents (govt.) control a legal forum with "judges" who serve limited terms, can be replaced for going against policy, have no medical expertise and overapply Daubert; where there are no rules of discovery for claimants and no jury; and in which the vast majority of claimants are turned away and most are never compensated.
In the mean time, industry and the press lies about rates of injuries and links to disorders. The real numbers and facts, on the other hand, don't lie: 74% of studies on the thimerosal-autism connection support a link. Wakefield's paper was replicated in 5 countries and he never kept a dime of "lawyer money" and didn't alter any data; his colleagues only stepped away from the paper in order not to end up like him. The Cochrane report found that existing studies which exonerate MMR from autism were "inadaquate" and suffered from biases and conflicts. Brian Deer was paid by an industry front group for four years up to three years ago. The CEO of the Lancet's parent company was also director of GlaxoSmithKline until 2009 as was Brian Deer's boss at the London Times. Poul Thorsen, the Danish researcher who designed the studies for the CDC-- upon which the CDC bases its "thimerosal-and-MMR-don't-cause-autism" mantras-- is currently on the lam with $2 million in CDC marked funds which he stole from a Danish university. And while the CDC and the press continuously repeat that "36,000 people die of the flu every year", the real number is around 800 according the the American Heart and Lung Association-- 90% of whom are elderly and most of whom received flu vaccinations. More than half the kids who got pertussis in CA were also vaccinated for it.
As bad as it's been, with the SC ruling, we'll be seeing fewer and fewer cases compensated in "Vaccine Court" because there are now no incentives for vax court to keep cases out of civil litigation. We'll be seeing more and more shots piled onto a childhood schedule already overburdened with 70 doses of 16 vaccines (compared to most European countries, the US has 3 times the vaccines, 20 times the autism and ranks 40 places or more lower in the child mortality index). We'll be seeing more disease outbreaks due to products which simply don't work since there's now no recourse for defective shots. Because of that disincentive to produce cheaper products, we'll see a further increase in the catestrophic rise of chronic childhood disorders and SIDS. And, with the exeption of occasional vaccine tourism to countries like Norway which have low rates of adverse events and independent manufacturing, we'll be seeing more and more Americans refusing vaccines altogether, which will bring out the big guns of true mandates and the removal of exemptions (all but two states currently have easy-to-file religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions for school attendence), which will lead in turn to resistance which will lead to even more outrageous scare campaigns in the press and possibly to martial law.
And that will be the end of any trust in the vaccine program in the US-- all due to greed, corruption and PR. The program could have gone back to the boring, conservative, limited and unprofitable system in the 80's-- back when autism was 1 in 10,000-- but instead we've allowed industry to perform a coup d'etat and warp the constitution to force its products. Originally Robespierre and the Jacobins attempted to elevate doctors to the role of "priests of public health" who no longer served the patient but the state. It didn't bode well for justice then and it won't now.
ALTHOUGH OUR RC561 MANUFACTURES LFE-SAVING DRUGS WE RECOMMEND HARSH PUNISHMENT FOR NELIGENT PRODUCERS OF JUNK PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS.
AT PRESENT BOTH INDIA AND CHINA ARE THE MOST NOTORIOUS EXPORTERS OF JUNK THAT CAUSES MEDICAL GENOCIDE.
WE MUST EXPECT FROM THESE STATES THE SAME STANDARDS AS PRACTISED BY GERMANY AND SWEDEN. IF THEY CANNOT OR WILL NOT, THE GATE MUST BE SHUT AT THEIR FACES.
BEST REGARDS,
T. JENSEN ET AL.
This really pisses me off that our children are damaged or killed by these people and they not only get paid for what damage they they cause on our children but they get away with it to! Sadly some people are even blamed for something happening to our children when really it was from a vaccine reaction. There is nothing good about any vaccine. Take a look at how they are made and what is in them. There is not 1 thing about any of it that you can possibly think is good to inject into the bloodstream of a child or anyone at all. What is wrong with these people who even think to put this stuff together in the first place? Its sick! Maybe they need to inject themselves with there own vaccines and see what happens insted of doing it to our children!!!!!
I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND ON THE ABOVE COMMENT FROM STEPHEN. FIRST OF ALL NOT EVERY CHILD IS GOING TO BE VACCINATED BECAUSE MANY PARENTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THEM. AS FOR MYSELF, I AM AGAINST THEM 100%. VACCINES DO NOT PROTECT EVERY CHILD AND IS IT REALLY WORTH THE RISK THAT YOUR CHILD CAN BE DAMAGED FOR THE REST OF THERE LIVES? HOW ABOUT DEAD? THATS NOT A RISK I WANT TO TAKE WITH MY CHILD. HAD I BEEN TOLD BY MY CHILDS DOCTOR THAT THERE WAS A SLIGHT RISK OF MY CHILD BEING BRAIN DAMAGED OR EVEN KILLED BY THE VACCINE MY CHILD WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN VACCINATED BUT THE TRUTH IS THEY DONT TELL YOU THIS. READ THE PRODUCT INSERT THE MAKERS ACTUALLY PUT ON THE BOX THAT THE VACCINE COMES IN THAT IT CAN CAUSE BRAIN DAMAGE OR EVEN DEATH. ALTHOUGH I NEVER HAD A DOCTOR SHOW ME THIS. NOT ONLY DO THESE VACCINES CAUSE MANY PROBLEMS WITH MANY CHILDREN BUT WHEN A CHILD HAS BEEN VACCINATED THEY CAN PASS THE DISEASE TO THOSE WHO HAVENT BEEN VACCINATED. I TAKE IT PERSONAL THAT YOU SAY "THEY MIGHT HARM A FEW" IS THAT SUPPOSE TO BE OKAY OR LIKE OH WELL? MAYBE YOU DO NOT REALIZE WHAT HARM THEY HAVE DONE OR WHAT ITS LIKE TO HAVE A CHILD DAMAGED FROM THESE VACCINES AND WHAT THE OUTCOME IS LIKE NOT ONLY FOR THE CHILD BUT FOR THE FAMILY AS WELL. CHANCES ARE NOT BETTER IF YOUR CHILD IS ONE OF THE FEW THAT IS DAMAGED OR KILLED. ALSO PARENTS WHO DO NOT VACCINATE THERE CHILDREN ARE NOT "FAILING TO PROTECT THEM" IT IS THE MAKERS OF THE VACCINES WHO ARE FAILING WITH THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN. NOT THE PARENTS WHO CHOOSE NOT TO VACCINATE. I CHOOSE TO NOT VACCINATE BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO MY CHILD WHEN I DID VACCINATE. AS FOR FAILING TO PROTECT OUR CHILD AS WELL AS YOURS, IF THE VACCINE IS DOING WHAT IT IS SUPPOSE TO DO THEN WOULDNT YOUR VACCINATED CHILD BE PROTECTED? REALLY IT IS THE ONES WHO ARE VACCINATED THAT ARE RISKING THOSE WHO ARE NOT BY PASSING THE DISEASE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO, I MEAN INJECTED WITH TO THOSE WHO HAVENT.
Your Immune System, How It Works And How Vaccines Damage It
The Theory
Medical theory is that if your child is exposed to a weakened version of the disease, he will produce antibodies to that disease and become ‘immune’, so that he will never contract the illness. At first glance, this sounds like a solid principle, BUT it only focuses on one small aspect of the immune system, the antibodies, and fails to look at all the other functions responsible for protecting your child’s health.
So, how does the immune system work?
The immune system is also made up of the skin, mucous membranes in the nose and throat, ears and eyes, nasal hairs, saliva, the spleen, intestines, tonsils, the thymus gland and even the brain. All of these parts work together in a holistic way to bring about a whole body immunity, which is only in part to do with antibodies.
• The skin acts as a barrier to prevent bacteria entering the body. It also filters out toxins through fever, which is the purpose of a fever when your child is ill. • The nasal hairs prevent foreign particles from travelling up the nose, and the mucous membranes excrete a substance which is anti-bacterial. • Tonsils help prevent respiratory diseases and illnesses such as Polio, and saliva contains substances which destroy and neutralise microbes. • The spleen and intestines, among other organs, deposit fats and vitamins around the body and protect against viral and bacterial invasion. • The thymus gland produces thymus cells, known as ‘T’ cells, which are antibodies to infection. • There are various glands (nodes) in the body that drain it of toxins and useless material. For instance, the cervical nodes drain the head, neck and chest. • The pituitary gland in the brain directs all of the systems above, so if the brain goes wrong, so does the immune system. It sends electrical impulses to all areas of the body, stimulating cell re-generation and muscle growth. These electrical impulses also stimulate the thymus gland – the centre of immune function.
What effect does vaccination have on this immune function?
Vaccination – the act of artificially acquiring a disease so as to become immune to it – is flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, a vaccine contains many hazardous chemicals and not just the viruses to immunise against. These each have their own toxic affect on the body. Secondly, the route of entry is different to a naturally occurring disease. Most natural diseases would enter through the mouth or the nasal cavity, not the skin. Vaccination breaks the skin with a needle and injects foreign matter into the blood supply. This bypasses the skin’s role in immune function, as well as the tonsils, the mucous membranes, and so on. Normally, the body produces extra antibodies after being primed by the tonsils that there is impending infection. Therefore, if the infection takes hold, there will be an army of white blood cells, ready to neutralise the infection. In the case of vaccination, this infection goes straight to the blood, with no prior build up for the body, and there are no extra immune cells to deal with it. Also, with vaccination there is more than one disease present (e.g. measles, mumps, rubella all in one), whereas naturally a child would never contract 3 diseases at the same time. This puts additional strain on the immune system.
What problems can this cause?
Injection of vaccine via this unnatural route can use up 70% of the immune system’s resources, instead of the usual 3 to 4% with a wild occurring disease (according to Cynthia Cournoyer, ‘What About Immunizations?’, Dennis Nelson Publishers, 1991). Because the body has no extra antibodies waiting to counter the vaccine, it can go into overdrive in an attempt to deal with the situation, taking much needed vitamins away from bones and other organs, to use for the production of more antibodies. This means that the other vital systems go short on vitamins, in extreme cases leading to bone fractures caused by the immune response leaching vitamins to cope with the vaccine. This lack of vitamins can also cause bruising and retinal bleeding and haemorrhaging, which is why some vaccine damaged babies have been falsely labelled as ‘shaken baby syndrome’ cases. These type of vaccine injuries are similar to those caused by trauma. The massive surge of antibodies created by the vaccine can also cause the body to become hypersensitive and this is responsible for the increase in allergies and auto-immune diseases. Allergies are an over-exposure to toxic elements which the body is unable to cleanse itself of. If the adrenals, which include the pancreas, the pituitary gland and the spleen, become over-stimulated, for instance, by vaccination, this can cause the body to become toxic and unable to regulate itself. This has been linked to heart disease, diabetes, asthma and bronchitis, to name a few. Over-stimulating the adrenals also causes a decrease in circulation of blood round the body, and atrophying of vascular vessels. It is in this state of dysfunction and chemical overload, from vaccines, pollution, junk food, pharmaceutical drugs and so on, that our bodies become less able to stay healthy.
‘When the body is in its ideal state of harmony, there is no need for "immunity." In such a state of harmony and balance, the thymus functions properly as the central regulator for the proper digestion of elements and all that is taken into the body is digested and excreted.’ – (Stonebridge Associated Colleges, 2005).
In the time immediately following vaccination, when extra vitamins are being used up to fight the vaccine, this may actually make the person more susceptible to the disease. For instance, in the Merck, Sharp and Dohme LTD product information for HIB vaccine, it states: ‘Cases of Haemophilus B disease may occur in the weeks after vaccination’, and in Lederle Hibtiter information sheet, ‘Cases of HIB disease, although rare, may occur after vaccination.’ This is known as ‘PROVOCATION disease’, i.e. disease caused by vaccine. Live vaccines are more likely to pass on the disease to their recipient or his close contacts, as the viruses are excreted in urine, faeces and saliva for upto 3 weeks after each shot. The polio vaccine was changed from the live oral vaccine to part of the injectable, killed 5 in 1, because the only cases of polio in western countries were caused by the vaccine. Vaccine caused diseases are often more severe than the naturally occurring disease. For instance, ATYPICAL measles, only got by vaccinated children, is much more serious because the vaccine suppresses the child’s rash, which is his means of excreting the toxins, and this leads to the toxins being pushed deeper into the body and affecting the major organs and sometimes the brain, as atypical measles encephalitis. Vaccine viruses can also attach themselves to cells, organs and brain tissue and cause cancers, disabilities and brain injury, as in the case of a boy who became autistic and had a seizure disorder after his MMR jab at 15 months. Great Ormand Street Children’s Hospital tested him at 13 years of age and found remains of vaccine viruses in the injured parts of his brain. (The Sunday Express, 6 October 2002). Antibodies to brain tissue have also been found in blood tests of autistic children.
Disease Mutations
Even with inactivated vaccines, it is possible for the killed virus or bacteria to mutate into a different form of the disease. For instance, a 16 year old Canadian girl died of Meningitis B after her boyfriend had been given the Meningitis C vaccine. Lab tests confirmed that the vaccine can mutate into B form and infect both the recipient and his or her close contacts. (Pulse, doctor’s magazine, 20th November 1999).
Large numbers of chronic diseases have evolved in the place of infectious disease, since the introduction of mass vaccination, including ME, Lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Autism (previously known as Kanner Syndrome, discovered by Dr. Kanner in the 1940’s), MS, Ebola virus, AIDS, Lichen Planus, Vulvodynia and other hypersensitivity conditions, not to mention the rife and uncontrollable rates of cancer, heart disease, asthma, eczema and other allergies. Even meningitis was extremely rare before the 20th century.
We are killing ourselves in our quest to ‘prevent’ childhood illness, as mother nature is stronger than man, so tampering with immune function can have disastrous consequences for all. Vaccines Cause Immune Suppression Immunostimulation Versus Immunosuppression after Multiple Vaccinations: the Woes of Therapeutic Vaccine Development
Three articles in this issue of Clinical Cancer Research show how multiple vaccinations can lead to immunosuppression. Moreover, two studies in patients show that granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) as an adjuvant immunostimulant to different kind of vaccines can lead to adverse outcome in terms of relapse-free and overall survival. Modulation of regulatory T-cell activity may be required to overcome this outcome and may be crucial for the successful development of therapeutic vaccines.
Source: (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(22):6745–7) Cancer Patients Injected With Cancer Vaccine Caused 'Early Melanoma Deaths'
Ninety-seven patients with resected melanoma (stage II-IV) were enrolled, stratified by stage, and randomized to receive a cellular melanoma vaccine with or without GM-CSF. The primary endpoint was delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) response to melanoma cells. Antibody responses, peripheral leukocyte counts, and survival were also examined.
Results: The GM-CSF arm showed enhanced antibody responses with an increase in IgM titer against the TA90 antigen and increased TA90 immune complexes. This arm also had diminished antimelanoma cell delayed-type hypersensitivity response. Peripheral blood leukocyte profiles showed increases in eosinophils and basophils with decreased monocytes in the GM-CSF arm. These immune changes were accompanied by an increase in early melanoma deaths and a trend toward worse survival with GM-CSF.
Conclusion: These data suggest that GM-CSF is not helpful as an immune adjuvant in this dose and schedule and raise concern that it may be harmful. Based on the discordant findings of an immune endpoint and clinical outcome, the use of such surrogate endpoints in selecting treatments for further evaluation must be done with a great deal of caution.
Source: (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(22):7029–35) Partial CD4 Depletion Reduces Regulatory T Cells Induced by Multiple Vaccinations
Results: Multiple vaccinations, rather than boosting the immune response, significantly reduced therapeutic efficacy of adoptive immunotherapy and were associated with an increased frequency and absolute number of CD3+CD4+Foxp3+ T regulatory (Treg) cells. Anti-CD4 administration reduced the absolute number of Treg cells 9-fold. Effector T-cells generated from anti-CD4–treated mice were significantly (P < 0.0001) more therapeutic in adoptive transfer studies than T cells from multiply vaccinated animals with a full complement of CD4+ cells.
Conclusion: These results suggest that CD4+ Treg cells limit the efficacy of multiple vaccinations and that timed partial depletion of CD4+ T cells may reduce suppression and “tip-the-balance” in favor of therapeutic antitumor immunity. The recent failure of large phase III cancer vaccine clinical trials, wherein patients received multiple vaccines, underscores the potential clinical relevance of these findings.
Source: (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(22):6881–90) 1 in 5 Americans Suffer From Allergies
If springtime breezes bring you sniffles, you can take comfort in the knowledge that you are not alone.
For reasons that researchers do not fully understand, allergies to pollen, dust, pet dander and food have become more prevalent among Americans in recent decades. Today, one out of every five Americans suffers from allergies, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.
“We don't know why the incidence of allergies is on the rise,” said Maya Jerath, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine and director of the UNC Allergy and Immunology Clinic.
Nor do researchers understand why an allergy develops in the first place. “That has baffled people and continues to baffle people in this field a lot,” she said.
An allergy is an immune reaction to a harmless substance, such as a pollen grain or peanut protein. Instead of ignoring the substance, the body produces antibodies to mount a fight against it. Allergy symptoms can range from itchy eyes and sneezing to life-threatening anaphylactic reactions.
The causes of allergies remain elusive in part because the immune system's role is complex, Jerath said. The system must defend the body from countless foreign invaders in food, water and the air around you.
Significantly for allergy sufferers, the immune system must also learn to distinguish particles that are dangerous from those that are not. For most people, this learning occurs during early childhood.
“If it doesn't get adequate exposure to certain things, those regulatory mechanisms don't get set up,” Jerath said.
For that reason, some researchers believe that a lack of exposure to microorganisms early in life may precondition a person to allergies. This explanation, called the “hygiene hypothesis,” suggests that growing up surrounded by many other children, dirt or livestock helps the immune system develop a tolerance to harmless irritants.
Source: Physorg.com, by Sara Peach, 24 February 2010.
Stephen, what I want as a parent is my son back from what the state government as well as the pharmaceutical companies have done to him. I don't know your age but I recd a total of 11 vaccines, children today receive a total of 32 vaccines, these vaccines are not calculated to the childs weight, remember the how the American Pediatrics Association is putting up such a stink about making sure the parents follow the directions on the box of OTC medicines. Then why in the hell is it that they pharmacuetical companies and the damn doctors do not calculate how much a new born infant to be vaccinated for Hib is calculted? Or why is there aluminum salt, formaldyhyde, and thimersoal in these vaccines. Sure your child is safe and OK and I Thank God for that, but my Son is suffering and for what a bunch of bureacratic nonsense, the state govt is saying he needs to be vaccinated w/more then 32 vaccines. I am sick and tired of all these parents and doctors telling us that vaccines do not cause autism, give me proof that the vaccines DO NOT cause autism don't stand there and blow smoke up my rear-end. If vaccines do not contrubute to autism then why since 1990 the autism rate has jumped from 1 in 10,000 to todays ratio of 1 in 150. Explain that to me.
Constitutional lawyer see Loge v. United States, 662 F 2d 1268 (1981), constitutional law does not work very well in the Supreme Court, nor does Justice Scalia's blind allegiance to economics, see, WS KYLE, "Simian retroviruses, polio vaccine and origin of AIDS", The Lancet, 339:600-601, Mar. 7, 1992.
The FDA doesn't work at all...now is moving to block the latest scientific lab tests which could overnight screen for unknown infectious diseases arising from contaminated vaccine substrate. GOOGLE - IUO/RUO and see the VRBPAC transcript of May 7, 2010 where the FDA committee OK'd vaccine contaminated with pig viruses...now it is attempting to block testing kids for conditions that might have been caused by it - which would gain them compensation under the vaccine act - by barring use of the science for diagnostic testing. Ask the Republican Candidates if they support Obama's FDA restrictions on the scince. walterkyleesq@gmail.com
I see no difference between those poor Jews who had to volunteer and our children who are volunteered by our politicians who receive money from the pharmaseutical companies and the executives of those companies who make money off the vaccines that harm the children.
The poor kids who have to run the gauntlet of the abortion mills, must then face the needle and try to survive.
The data from both branches of thought to understanding the immune system indicates that we have a lot to learn and we need to constantly use new information for improvement. It should not be a war of this opinion or fact against that opinion or fact.