Roundup In Vaccines

vaccines

Roundup in vaccines, what’s next?  You have likely heard of the recent discovery that there are measurable amounts (up to 3 ppb) of glyphosate  (active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup) in almost all vaccines, with the highest amounts found in the MMR vaccine.  Glyphosate has also been found widely in breast milk and even in amniotic fluid (the womb).   How did it get into vaccines?   It is most likely that vaccines have been contaminated through the use of animal products such as eggs and bones, derived from animals fed genetically modified (“gm” or “gmo”) foods.

This brings up the question, why are foods genetically modified?   We hear that it improves productivity, but a primary reason for genetically modifying such foods as  corn, soy, canola, is to install Roundup resistance in the plants, so that they can survive being doused with Roundup.  In other words, you can be nearly 100% certain that any gm food you consume will contain Roundup residues.  It’s important to know that genetic modification is not hybridization, which is simply cross breeding different strains to improve qualities.   For example, all dogs come from a single “strain” of dogs, and the different breeds are all still dogs (and all could breed with each other), thus not genetically modified.   Genetically modified species contain genes which have been inserted into their genes, obtained  from different and often completely unrelated species, such as bacteria or silk worms or other plants.   Also, in order to cause gm plants to strongly express the inserted genes, “promoter genes” are inserted, which have the function of activating  or turning on genes.    These promoter genes are a source of concern and potential risk, as malignancies are associated with aberrant gene expression, such as activated promoter genes in cancer cells.

Consistent with this concern about the effects of genetic modification of foods is an important study performed by Gilles-Eric Seralini and colleagues (Republished study:  Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.  Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. Environmental Sciences Europe 426:14

They performed a full life span study of rats fed gm foods and Roundup in amounts and concentrations comparable to our current dietary exposure levels.   Previous studies, such as those performed by Monsanto in testing safety of Roundup and the gm process, were done over only 90 days in the exposed rats, whereas our exposure to Roundup begins in infancy and extends through our whole life.  Their study demonstrated that exposed rats had very high rates of kidney failure (which caused premature deaths), liver damage, and a marked increase in tumors (fatal in many of the rats).   The study was published in a peer reviewed journal, and there was a furor of outcry from other scientists, leading to retraction of the study by the publishing journal.   The retraction was not based on procedural or scientific issues, but rather, on “ethical’ issues, as the gm process is considered so dear to the future of agriculture as to be considered sacrosanct.   In fact, Seralini’s group used the same methods for testing toxicity as those used by Monsanto in conducting their study, but extended it from 90 days to beyond 2 years.   The Seralini study was republished in another peer reviewed journal  one year later with an editorial note appended indicating that these findings are controversial.   There have been no studies countering Seralini’s findings, which still stand as a dismal reminder of the lack of satisfactory oversight of food safety by the EPA and our government food regulatory agencies.

What do we know about glyphosate, and in particular, why should we be concerned about its presence in vaccines?   Curiously, as demonstrated by the unprecedented retraction of the Seralini study, with no scientific concerns expressed, glyphosate and gm foods seem to enjoy a sort of immunity to scientific scrutiny, such that researchers posting negative findings are at risk of serious attacks on their character.   How is it unethical for a scientist to publish data obtained in a carefully designed study, regardless of the implications of the findings?

Thus far, studies of Roundup have shown that this commercial mixture of glyphosate and “inert” additives and contaminants is substantially more toxic than pure glyphosate;.  While frogs may survive exposure to pure glyphosate, they are much more susceptible to annihilation by commercial Roundup.  One of the ingredients in Roundup, POE, has been found to have endocrine disrupting effects.  Endocrine disruptors may impair fertility, damage thyroid function (involved in early brain development, cognition, focus and attention, energy systems), and interfere with genital development/gender awareness.

Glyphosate itself has been shown to impair cytochrome P450 activity at doses of a few parts per million (ppm).  The cytochrome system is involved in the metabolism and detoxification of most drugs and also most environmental toxins.   Blocking this system may result in increased susceptibility to common environmental toxins.   Numerous studies have shown that children with autism have many indicators of increased toxic load and increased tissue damage from effects of environmental toxins.

We also know that substances injected into the body have a different fate than substances ingested or encountered through touch or breathing.  The mucous membranes of the gut and respiratory system are lined with protective molecules such as metallothionein (a very potent intrinsic chelator which can inactivate many toxins), but this is not the case with the tissues under the skin which receive an injected vaccine.  So the chemicals in a vaccine will be returned directly to the heart and distributed throughout the body, without contacting the protective substances found in the mucous membranes.   Assuredly, there have been no tests of injected glyphosate in human subjects (except that our children are effectively being tested by receiving childhood immunizations, while parents are also being told that the vaccines are certainly safe and free of concerns).

There is one other consideration to ponder regarding the behavior of many types of toxins in the human body.   This relates to what is called hormesis, or the non-linear dose response curves of toxins.   Traditional toxicology held that low doses of a toxin have a small effect, and this effect is increased by higher doses of the substance.  In hormesis, which is now commonly recognized, a small dose may have one effect (such as stimulation or activation), while a larger dose may have the opposite effect (such as inhibition or suppression).   In some cases there is a V shaped, or even a W shaped response curve (e.g. low dose stimulation, higher dose sedation, even higher dose stimulation in V shaped response, or continued up and down type effects at different concentrations).   For example, a low dose of wine may be mellowing, higher dose stimulating, and higher dose yet may cause loss of consciousness.   Homeopathy is a discipline which exploits the hormetic principle, as tiny doses of a substance which is toxic in high doses may be used therapeutically.

Can we take reassurance from the hoermetic principle regarding the finding of parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate in vaccines, when it has been shown to be toxic at parts per million doses?   No, we cannot; all we can say for certain is that we don’t know how it may affect the developing brain.  In Europe, the Precautionary Principle is widely applied regarding such questions, whereas in the US our regulatory agencies have tended to turn this principle upside down.    Precautionary Principle:  a xenobiotic (manmade or foreign substance) should be considered unsafe until proven safe.    US common practice:  a xenobiotic in common use is considered safe until proven unsafe (DDT, chlorpyrifos, thimerosal, pyrethroids, PCB’s, Bisphenol A, phthalates, etc.).

I believe that we should view glyphosate in vaccines as unsafe, and scrupulously protect our children from receiving contaminated vaccines, just as we strive to feed them organically grown, additive free foods.   Will those of you who are interested please make the effort to contact your Senators and Representatives and ask them to push for the elimination of contaminated vaccines (not by shipping to the third world), along with the preparation of safe, uncontaminated vaccines.   I’ll be happy to dialog further on this subject, which is of great concern to all of us.   John A Green III MD