Following the publication of a highly concerning new vaccine study conducted by Italian researchers, which found all 43 human vaccines tested were contaminated with heavy metal nanoparticles, the pro-vaccine pundits began their anticipated criticisms. Interestingly, Dr. David Gorski, who writes under the pseudonym ORAC, did not argue the research findings were inaccurate, rather, he chose to minimize their toxicological relevance to the issue of vaccine safety.
In a characteristically sarcastic post entitled, “I love it when an antivax “study” meant to show how “dirty” vaccines are backfires so spectacularly,” he references the hoary principle attributed to Paracelsus that “the dose makes the poison,” ostensibly to justify his thesis that “the amount in vaccines is very much low enough not to pose a health threat.”
As we have discussed elsewhere, nanoparticles, however, do not fit within the outdated toxicological risk model that presumes that molecular weight is the overriding determining factor in toxicity:
“Nanotechnology inverts the unsophisticated logic of conventional toxicology risk assessments: namely, that the smaller the amount of something (concentration or size), the less harmful it is. We have seen how this logic has failed with petrochemical-derived chemicals like benzene, considered toxic in the parts-per-trillion range, and endocrine disruptors like bisphenol A and parabens, which exert powerful hormone-mimicking properties that sometimes increase as their concentration decrease. More recently, Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (glyphosate), was found to exhibit estrogenicity (and concomitant carcinogenicity) in the parts-per-trillion concentration range. There is also the case of so-called ‘low dose’ radioisotopes such as depleted uranium, whose relatively low radiolytic decay relative to gamma-ray emitting plutonium generates the illusion that it is safer (recent research performed by the U.S. Army’s own Radiobiological Research Institute indicates these “lower risk” radiation sources cause up to a million-fold more damage than present risk models explain due to a phenomenon known as the photoelectic effect). In other words, less is not only more, but when it comes to particle size, smaller sizes often convey exponentially higher toxicity than larger ones.” [Source]
The paper by Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari, published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, and entitled New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination,” revealed the presence of “micro-, submicro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns).” These were identified in all human vaccines tested, but their presence was not declared by the vaccine manufacturers.
The researchers further described their findings:
“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. \
The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction  occurs and a “protein corona” is formed [7-10]. The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.
Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature. The link between these two entities generates an unfolding of the proteins that can induce an autoimmune effect once those proteins are injected into humans.”
Below are the contamination tables listing the metals identified in each vaccine tested.
See more tables at the full study PDF here.
The number of particles present in each vaccine sample tested ranged from 2 to 1,821. ORAC and his colleagues argue that these are biologically insignificant quantities. I quote: “What they really found is that the amount of inorganic contamination is so low as to be biologically irrelevant. In fact, what they found is that vaccines are incredibly pure products.” I believe this perspective ignores what we now know about the dangers of nanoparticles. Contrary to popular belief, it is actually because of the exceedingly small size of these particles that they possess especially potent and complex toxicities, as well as an increased proclivity towards biopersistence. Molecular weight, therefore (i.e. “dose”), does not make the poison. In other words, as the size of a metal or toxicant decreases (and therefore its mass), the harm produced may actually increase. Not to mention, that in the age of personalized medicine and increasingly complex syndromal illness presentations, it is impossible to generalize about the “irrelevance” of an exposure.
Nanoparticles are found in an an increasingly wide range of commercial products, but their true risks are rarely discussed. It just so happens that the lead author of the new study, Gatti, is also considered a thought leader in the field of nano-technology, and was recently interviewed on News-Medical.Net as an expert on the topic. In this interview she reveals the true dangers nanonparticle technologies have wrought upon a largely still unassuming public.
“[B]ecause of their poor biocompatibility or no biocompatibility at all, solid, inorganic nanoparticles transform fibrinogen into fibrin, i.e. a soluble protein into an insoluble one. In some subjects, those who do not produce at all or do not produce enough fibrinolytic agents, that protein is not destroyed and becomes the scaffold to thrombi, causing pulmonary thrombo-embolism if the phenomenon took place in the veins, and stroke or infarction if it was the arterial blood to be interested. That is the first important interaction.”
In most people, the particles present in the blood are carried to any organ where they are captured without any possibility to escape. The biological reaction is the one typical to foreign bodies: the growth of an inflammatory tissue which can turn into a cancer.1-8The process may take months if the exposure to particles is particularly high, as happens, for example, to fighting soldiers exposed to the dust of explosions, or decades in other cases, not rarely exceeding the subject’s lifetime and, so, remaining unobserved.
But an interaction may happen with the brain, where nanoparticles can enter freely, 9-14causing inflammation and the ensuing neurological illnesses. Direct observations of brain tissues affected by pathologies like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, autism or other illnesses the could show their presence in situ.
Other interactions can occur with the pancreas making it unable to produce insulin. Nanoparticles can also travel from mother to fetus and be the cause of miscarriages, malformations or even cancer in the fetus itself. 15,16
What is particularly interesting is the interaction between nanoparticles and the DNA, as those particles can enter the cell and interact with nuclear substances. The DNA gets damaged by that contact, especially during cell reproduction, and it is actually hard or impossible at all to guess its result. Cells can defend themselves against external attacks and even fix the DNA in some cases. Unfortunately, as far as I can say now, that doesn’t happen if the attackers are nanoparticles, and cells are even unable to commit suicide through apoptosis.”
Regardless of the contentious question of whether or not the nanoparticles have toxicological relevance, the problem remains that without exception all the human vaccines tested were indeed identified as contaminated (the researchers stated the chemical signature of these nanoparticles contaminants resembled what is found in “burnt waste”). From a vaccine safety perspective this is both inexplicable and unjustifiable, especially considering that the one veterinary vaccine tested was found clear of contamination — indicating it is indeed possible to produce a non-contaminated vaccine. Clearly, an immediate investigation should be initiated to further validate these findings, including a review of the manufacturers and regulators who have allowed this to happen.
The authors of the study concluded:
“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines, not investigated and not detected by the Producers. If our hypothesis is actually the case, a close inspection of the working places and the full knowledge of the whole procedure of vaccine preparation would probably allow to eliminate the problem.”
To learn more read the exclusive interview of lead research Gatti:
Breaking Interview: Lead Author of ‘Dirty Vaccines’ Study Speaks Out