Q. Is poverty in the UK a denial of people's human rights? A. YES

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/poverty-uk-denial-peoples-human-rights

Q. Is poverty in the UK a denial of people's human rights?

A. YES

Damian Killeen

17th Jan 2008 

Related topics 

People

Income and benefits

Is poverty in the UK a denial of people's human rights?Is poverty in the UK a denial of people's human rights?

Failure to incorporate the principles of the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into UK law has compounded social attitudes that denigrate people who experience poverty and undermine popular support for eradicating poverty, argues Damian Killeen.Summary

Summary

Is poverty in the UK a denial of people's human rights?

Being poor in the United Kingdom can mean being subjected to discrimination on the grounds of poverty. Both poverty and discrimination are contrary to the spirit and the terms of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Damian Killeen argues that the refusal of successive governments to incorporate the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into UK law has compounded common social attitudes that denigrate people who experience poverty and that undermine popular support for policies to eradicate poverty.

Key points

Discrimination against people on the grounds of their poverty is a common but relatively unacknowledged feature of life in the UK.

Such discrimination is sometimes based on views that people living in poverty are inferior or of lesser value. Such attitudes can become embedded as 'poverty-ism' – a phenomenon akin to racism or sexism

There are deeply held views among the public about the 'deserving' and the 'undeserving' poor in the UK. This is reflected in governments' resistance to highlighting wealth redistribution as a means of combating poverty.

In terms of legislation:

The Government has consistently resisted UN pressure to incorporate the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into UK law 1998, contrary to a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

In 2007, the Government rejected EU proposals which would have incorporated the European Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law. This Charter builds on the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights to create more comprehensive protection for economic, social and cultural rights.

The new Equality and Human Rights Commission is required to prioritize the rights protected by the UK's Human Rights Act, which generally excludes economic, social and cultural rights, in its human rights work. Moreover UK equality law does not specifically cover poverty, which means the Commission cannot take anti-discrimination cases on poverty, as it can where discrimination is based on sex, race, disability, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation.

UK governments have tended to confuse the adoption of internationally recognized human rights standards with the abdication to international courts of their right to govern. Rather than rejecting these aspects of international and European agreements, this paper recommends that:

Discussion on combating poverty should be based on the human rights values and principles that should underpin the shared lives of people in the UK.

The UK Government should fully incorporate international human rights standards into UK legislation; and that

Discrimination on the grounds of poverty should be outlawed in UK legislation.

The experience of discrimination

Discrimination against people on the grounds of their poverty is a common but relatively unacknowledged feature of life in the UK. This discrimination can range from subtle differences in treatment by service providers and the general public to the failure to provide basic necessities, such as adequate incomes and shelter, that are regarded as fundamental human rights by the world community.

Those who discriminate can be entirely unaware of their behavior, of the attitudes and assumptions that underlie it and of its impact. Those who are discriminated against can feel that they are being judged and found wanting as individuals, that their right to belong in society is under question and that they are destined to be excluded from the benefits of increasing prosperity experienced by the majority.

As part of the research for this paper a group of people living in poverty came together to explore their experiences of discrimination and the effects these had on them. Participants described a range of experiences at the hands of the public and public services, including health, education and the police, where they were convinced that perceptions of their poverty had led to them being treated differently from others. In some cases this had led to them feeling shame and guilt for seeking help. One person described being made to feel 'invisible' as the rules were imposed without any apparent regard to her needs. Asylum-seekers, in particular, said that they felt dehumanized by the treatment and different level of support they received.

People said that their expressions of distress and their desperation at failing to get fair treatment were too easily interpreted as aggression by service staff and could lead to assistance being denied. These people with direct experience of living in poverty were convinced that the treatment they received was different from what people with higher social status would expect.

Much public policy on poverty in the UK assumes a relationship between 'rights' and 'responsibilities'; any entitlements to assistance are conditional on the engulfment of a range of criteria. Some criteria are objective and universally applied, such as age and family composition. However, in some areas professionals have scope for using individual discretion. The experiences of people living in poverty shows the use of discretion can easily become or be perceived as being discrimination.

Parents described the problems faced by their children at school. These included dinner ladies telling children that their parents were lazy and giving them the worst of the food to eat. Being bullied was a common experience, often connected with children not having the 'right' clothes or trainers.

One woman described a catalog of difficulties she had experienced in getting an appropriate response to her child's educational needs. She said that only one social worker had been sympathetic to her efforts; that social worker had said she understood the difficulties because she had been brought up on a similar estate.

Workshop on experiencing discrimination

Discrimination and human rights

Discrimination is the unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice. Discrimination is regarded as a major barrier to people achieving their human rights. However, legislation does not deal with all aspects of discrimination that people might experience in daily life. It is primarily concerned with ensuring that people are treated equally in matters that are already governed by law.

The UK Human Rights Act 1998 enshrines in UK law Articles 2-12, 14, and 16-18 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Articles 1-3 of the First Protocol, and Articles 1-2 of the Sixth Protocol to the Convention. These deal primarily with the relationship between the individual and the state and do not reflect wider aspects of human rights, such as freedom of poverty, although the definition of discrimination in Article 14 does recognize discrimination on the basis of social origin or property.

The Human Rights Act does not include Article 13 of the European Convention. This omission restricts the right of appeal to the European courts when people feel that they have not received justice from a UK court and is based on the grounds that UK law and judicial review already provide adequate protection for individuals who believe that their human rights have been infringed by the state.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out in this Declaration."

Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Article 7, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

Article 14, European Convention on Human Rights

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

Article 13, European Convention on Human Rights

One young woman said that she felt looked down on by other women in a training group because she came from an area with a reputation for poverty. This had led to her abandoning the training and with it her opportunity to progress. Looking back, she said that she should have been able to cope but that she had low self confidence at the time.

Others also said that perceptions of class play an important part in judging how other people feel about them and how they feel about themselves.

Workshop on experiencing discrimination

What is 'poverty-ism'?

Negative attitudes towards people who experience poverty can take many forms, including stigmatization, prejudice and discrimination. Such attitudes are sometimes based on the view that people living in poverty are inferior or of lesser value. Discrimination of this kind can then become embedded as 'poverty-ism' – a phenomenon akin to racism or sexism. 'Postcode discrimination', for example – in which people are refused access to services, such as insurance or credit, or are treated differently on the basis of their postal address – has long been recognized as a form of discrimination.

Poverty-ism can also become institutionalized in the culture of organisations, including those whose remit is to help people cope. One report (Wright, 2003) of an ethnographic study of the operations of a job center demonstrates the ease with which potentially benign policies can be translated into discriminatory services by the intervention of the personal prejudices of staff. In this example, the informal division of clients into 'Good ' and 'Bad' and the Bad into 'wasters', 'unemployable', 'nutters', 'hoity-toity' (unemployed professionals who could be more trouble than they were worth) and those who are 'at it', led to unofficial differentiation's in the quality of service provided and to self-fulfilling prophecies in terms of outcomes. The study also recorded the ways in which clients would sometimes counter the stereotype imposed upon them but would more often conform to their label as a means of both them and the staff maintaining a comfortable form of status quo.

Poverty-ism is embedded in class and other social relations in Britain. Public attitude surveys express some of the ambivalent views on poverty (Castell, 2007). They reveal a widespread resentment of people living in poverty. Better-off people may often disapprove of the fact that many poor people share the same tastes and consumerist aspirations as they do. This can extend to a denial that poverty exists and hostility towards the costs of providing people with opportunities to escape their poverty.

One explanation proposed for such resentment is the precariousness of existence for many: in a very unequal society, people feel highly protective of any advantage they have (Young, 2003). As a result, people who experience poverty may be portrayed, in the media and in general public discussion, as not sharing society's common values and not worthy of equality of respect (Sayer, 2005).

Whilst the Government has introduced a range of measures since 1996 to improve the conditions and opportunities of people living in poverty, popular attitudes reflected and amplified by much of the media have made them reluctant to promote fully re-distributive approaches to combating poverty.

Equality and Human Rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into UK law the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights which are mainly civil and political rights. The UK's equality laws protect the rights of people from a number of 'equality strands': sex, race, disability, religion or belief, age, and sexual orientation. The Equality Act 2006 authorised the establishment of a UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The EHRC came into operation in October 2007.

All international declarations and conventions dealing with human rights, from the Universal Declaration of 1948 through to the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, offer protection from discrimination on a wide range of grounds additional to the 'equalities groups', including 'property' and 'social origin'. These grounds, among others, are imported into UK law via the Human Rights Act with its expansive definition of discrimination, but are not otherwise reflected in the UK's equality laws which are limited to the 'strands' described above.

A key function of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is to ensure that "people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination". Among other things, it has duties to ensure that people in the specific 'equalities groups' are protected against discrimination, and to promote and protect human rights.

The Equalities Review (2007), published in February 2007 before the EHRC began work, investigated the causes of persistent discrimination and inequality in UK society. Following the thinking of Amartya Sen (1999), it proposed a human rights framework based on a range of 'capabilities' including several, such as to "enjoy an adequate and secure standard of living" and "to live with independence, dignity and respect", which are particularly relevant to people living in poverty in the UK. The process of the Equalities Review and the remit of the Commission demonstrate a tension between a partial approach to human rights based on the rights of specific population groups and a more holistic approach to all dimensions of human rights.

Ten domains of central and valuable 'capabilities'

THE CAPABILITY TO BE ALIVE

For example, being able to:

avoid premature mortality through disease, neglect, injury or suicide

THE CAPABILITY TO LIVE IN PHYSICAL SECURITY

For example, being able to:

go out and to use public spaces safely and securely without fear

THE CAPABILITY TO BE HEALTHY

For example, being able to:

maintain a healthy lifestyle, including exercise and nutrition

live in a healthy and safe environment including clean air, clean water

THE CAPABILITY TO BE KNOWLEDGEABLE, TO UNDERSTAND AND REASON, AND TO HAVE THE SKILLS TO PARTICIPATE IN SOCIETY

For example, being able to:

develop the skills for participation in productive and valued activities, including parenting

access education, training and lifelong learning that meets individual needs

THE CAPABILITY TO ENJOY A COMFORTABLE STANDARD OF LIVING, WITH INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY

For example, being able to:

enjoy an adequate and secure standard of living including nutrition, clothing, housing, warmth, social security, social services and utilities

share in the benefits of scientific progress including information technology

THE CAPABILITY TO ENGAGE IN PRODUCTIVE AND VALUED ACTIVITIES

For example, being able to:

choose a balance between paid work, care and leisure on an equal basis with others

work in just and favourable conditions

THE CAPABILITY TO ENJOY INDIVIDUAL, FAMILY AND SOCIAL LIFE

For example, being able to:

hope for the future

develop and maintain self-respect, self-esteem and self-confidence

THE CAPABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DECISION-MAKING, HAVE A VOICE AND INFLUENCE

For example, being able to:

participate in the formulation of government policy, locally and nationally

participate in non-governmental organisations concerned with public and political life

THE CAPABILITY OF BEING AND EXPRESSING YOURSELF, AND HAVING SELF-RESPECT

For example, being able to:

live without fear of humiliation, harassment, or identity-based abuse

be confident that you will be treated with dignity and respect

THE CAPABILITY OF KNOWING YOU WILL BE PROTECTED AND TREATED FAIRLY BY THE LAW

For example, being able to:

know you will be treated with equality and non discrimination before the law

own property and financial products including insurance, social security, and pensions in your own right

This is a shortened version of a core list of capabilities taken from the final report of the Equalities Review (2007). The list is derived from the international human rights framework, supplemented and refined through deliberative consultation.

Poverty and human rights

The concept of human rights is under attack in the UK. It has become associated with controversy over the freeing of potential terrorists or illegal immigrants. Attempts to vilify human rights for short-term political purposes undermine many decades of humanitarian progress in which the world community has come together around some core ideas of what our basic obligations to each other should be – beginning with respect for each others' lives. These ideas have been codified through the agency of the United Nations into a range of Declarations and Conventions which provide the possibility of recourse to justice for people who feel that their human rights have been ignored or taken from them.

The UK Government ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976, but with several reservations. This Covenant reflects an international agreement that poverty – both absolute and relative, in developed as well as in developing countries – is an offence against human rights. Despite ratifying the Covenant, the Government resists UN pressure to incorporate Covenant rights into UK law, despite a recommendation for incorporation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the Houses of Lords and Commons. The Government argues that the Covenant's statements of social and economic rights represents "aspirational policy objectives which do not impose precise legal obligations on states". The Committee noted that this view understates the obligations which the Covenant imposes on the State (Joint Committee, 2004).

The Government also treats the adoption of measures linked to supra-national structures such as the European Union or the UN as a loss of the UK's right to govern. This has to be balanced against the benefits of ensuring that the UK is bound to the same set of principles as other countries and of providing UK citizens with access to final arbitration by a grouping of peers where individuals believe that their human rights have been breached by the state.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights produces five-yearly reports on the implementation of the Covenant by member states. The Committee has criticised the UK Government on poverty-related issues, including:

the failure to ensure that Income Support levels are 'adequate';

the level of the National Minimum Wage and the discriminatory lower minimum wage for 18- to 22- year-olds;

the increasing gap between the richest and poorest people; and

concerns about fuel poverty, homelessness and student tuition fees.

Whilst welcoming the introduction of the Human Rights Act, the Committee has also criticised the UK Government for failing to fully incorporate human rights standards into UK law.

Young mothers involved in crises in their relationships with parents or partners described being separated from their children as a consequence of being allocated 'unhealthy' housing or being denied adequate welfare benefits. One mother of five was offered £36 per week to meet her family's needs after leaving her job to protect her children from an abusive father. She said she thought she was being punished by the system when she believed she was putting the interest of her children first. She kept her family together by selling the children's toys in order to buy food.

Workshop on experiencing discrimination

What needs to happen?

In recent years, discussion of the ethical basis for combating poverty has become submerged in debate about the Government's efficiency and effectiveness in achieving its poverty eradication targets. This trend needs to be reversed, with discussion returning to the values and principles that should underpin the shared lives of people in the UK. The value of the human rights framework should be reasserted by government as an inclusive basis for conducting this debate. Leadership in taking this debate to the public should be exercised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and human rights and poverty bodies working together to ensure that the perspectives of those who experience poverty in the UK are at the center of the discussion about what values constitute 'Britishness'.

In 2004, the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons reviewed the Government's implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee argued that the Government should accept the Covenant rights and said: "In our view a rights-based approach can assist government in addressing poverty and Parliament and civil society in scrutinizing its success in doing so". This proposal was rejected by the Government.

If the new UK Equality and Human Rights Commission is to establish itself as an independent and objective defender of rights, it could begin by revisiting this debate and by conducting a comprehensive review of the relevance of poverty and poverty-related policies to the full achievement of a UK society based on the principles of equality and the upholding of all peoples' human rights. Indicators of real change in approach from government would be the amendment of the Human Rights Act 1998 to incorporate the terms of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the outlawing of discrimination based on poverty.

Economic, social and cultural rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. Article 22 of the Declaration states the right to "social security and … the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for [an individual's] dignity and the free development of his personality". Further Articles specify these rights.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), which the UK Government has ratified, with reservations, developed these rights further.

In 2001, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which oversees the Covenant, asserted the relevance of poverty to the Universal Declaration and its subsidiary instruments, citing it as:

"a global phenomenon experienced in varying degrees by all States … While the common theme underlying poor peoples' experiences is one of powerlessness, human rights can empower individuals and communities. The challenge is to connect the powerless with the empowering potential of human rights. Although human rights are not a panacea, they can help to equalize the distribution and exercise of power within and between societies."

In 2004 the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons observed that, whilst the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commonly declares the importance of economic and social protection rights as essential features of development elsewhere in the world, "this contrasts with an apparent reluctance to use the language of these rights when addressing relevant issues in domestic law and policy". The Joint Committee emphasized the importance of a rights-based approach in addressing poverty and recommended the incorporation of Economic, Social and Cultural rights into UK law. The Government dismissed this recommendation, arguing that many aspects of these rights are already incorporated into other legislation, such as that on social security, and that there is no need to make UK law on these matters subject to any external authority.

About this paper

This discussion paper is part of the JRF's program on Public Interest in Poverty Issues (PIPI). This aims to further understanding on how to build support for poverty eradication in the UK; to deepen understanding of attitudes to poverty and explore their implications for effective communication and change.

The paper was written by Damian Killeen. Damian Killeen is an independent consultant on social justice and sustainable development; he is a past Director of The Poverty Alliance in Scotland 1990-2003, was awarded the OBE in 2004 for his contribution to social inclusion and is a member of the advisory group to JRF's PIPI Program. This paper is an outcome of research undertaken for the advisory group on the experience of discrimination related to poverty in the UK.

Useful reading

Fairness and Freedom, final report of the Equalities Review, HMSO, 2007

Get Heard, UK Coalition Against Poverty, 2006

Poverty, Ruth Lister, Polity Press 2007

Unequal Britain: human rights as a route to social justice, Stuart Weir (Ed), Politico's Publishing Ltd 2006

References

Castell, Sarah and Julian Thompson (2007), Understanding Attitudes to Poverty in the UK, Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Equalities Review (2007), 'Fairness and Freedom: the final report of the Equalities Review', HMSO

Joint Committee (2004), 'The Implementation of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights', Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons

Sayer, Andrew (2005), 'Class, moral worth and recognition' in Sociology, Vol. 39, Sage Publications

Sen, Amartya (1999), Development As Freedom, Oxford University Press, New Delhi

Wright, Sharon (2003), 'The street level implementation of unemployment policy' in Understanding Social Security, Jane Millar ed., The Policy Press

Young, Jock (2003), 'Merton with energy, Katz with structure; the sociology of vindictiveness….' in Theoretical criminology, Vol. 7. (3) Sage Publications

5g situational awareness fuckery 😈💩👎

5G situational awareness  fuckery  

#WakeUp

😈💩👎

New quality control investigations on vaccines micro and nanocontamination, intentional vaccine poisoning fuckery 😈💩👎

https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/new-quality-control-investigations-on-vaccines-micro--and-nanocontamination.html

 intentional vaccine poisoning fuckery  

#WakeUp

😈💩👎

thanks to Mark Steele for linking article, 

#Cheers 

#Bravo

Home

IJVV

New quality control investigations on vaccines micro and nanocontamination

International Journal of

eISSN: 2470-9980

Vaccines & Vaccination

Research ArticleVolume 4 Issue 1

New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination

Antonietta M Gatti,1,2 Stefano Montanari3

1National Council of Research of Italy, Institute for the Science and Technology of Ceramics, Italy

2International Clean Water Institute, USA

3Nanodiagnostics srl, Italy

Correspondence: Dr. Antonietta Gatti, National Council of Research of Italy, c/o Nanodiagnostics Via E. Fermi, 1/L, 41057 San Vito (MO), Italy, Tel 059798778

Received: November 30, 2016 | Published: January 23, 2017

Citation: Gatti AM, Montanari S (2016) New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. Int J Vaccines Vaccin 4(1): 00072. DOI: 10.15406/ijvv.2017.04.00072

Download PDF

Abstract

Vaccines are being under investigation for the possible side effects they can cause. In order to supply new information, an electron-microscopy investigation method was applied to the study of vaccines, aimed at verifying the presence of solid contaminants by means of an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an X-ray microprobe. The results of this new investigation show the presence of micro- and nanosized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccines’ samples which is not declared among the components and whose unduly presence is, for the time being, inexplicable. A considerable part of those particulate contaminants have already been verified in other matrices and reported in literature as non biodegradable and non biocompatible. The evidence collected is suggestive of some hypotheses correlated to diseases that are mentioned and briefly discussed.

Keywords: Vaccine; Disease; Contamination; Protein corona; Biocompatibility; Toxicity; Nanoparticle; Immunogenicity; Foreign body; Environment; Industrial process; Quality control

Introduction

ost notable inventions meant to protect people from infectious diseases. The practice of variolation is century-old and is mentioned in Chinese and Indian documents dated around 1000 A.D. Over time, variolation has been replaced by vaccination, vaccines have been enhanced as to technology, and the vaccination practice is now standardized worldwide.

Side effects have always been reported but in the latest years it seems that they have increased in number and seriousness, particularly in children as the American Academy of pediatrics reports [1,2]. For instance, the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP) vaccine was linked to cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) [3]; measles-mumps-rubella vaccine with autism [4,5]; multiple immunizations with immune disorders [6]; hepatitis B vaccines with multiple sclerosis, etc.

The notice of Tripedia DTaP by Sanofi Pasteur reports “Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathia, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea”. The epidemiological studies carried out did not show a clear evidence of those associations, even if in 2011 the National Academy of Medicine (formerly, IOM) admitted: "Vaccines are not free from side effects, or adverse effects"[7].

Specific researches on components of the vaccines like adjuvants (in most instances, Aluminum salts) are already indicated as possible responsible of neurological symptoms [8-10] and in some cases, in-vivo tests and epidemiological studies demonstrated a possible correlation with neurological diseases [10,11]. Neurological damages induced in patients under hemodialysis treated with water containing Aluminum are reported in literature [12].

Recently, with the worldwide-adopted vaccines against Human Papillomavirus (HPV), the debate was reawaken due to some adverse effects reported by some young subjects.

Specific studies communicated the existence of symptoms related to never-described-before syndromes developed after the vaccine was administered. For instance, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) [13]. The side-effects that can arise within a relatively short time can be local or systemic.

Pain at the site of injection, swelling and uncontrollable movement of the hands (though this last symptom can also be considered systemic) are described. Among the systemic effects, fever, headache, irritability, epileptic seizures, temporary speech loss, lower limbs dysaesthesia and paresis, hot flashes, sleep disorders, hypersensitivity reactions, muscle pain, recurrent syncope, constant hunger, significant gait impairment, incapacity to maintain the orthostatic posture are reported [14].

It is a matter of fact that every day millions of vaccine doses are administered and nothing notable happens, but it is also irrefutable that, regardless of the amount of side effects that are not recorded and the percentage of which remains in fact unknown, in a limited number cases something wrong occurs. No satisfactory explanation or, in many cases, no explanation at all has been given and it seems that those adverse effects happen on a random and stochastic basis.

Those situations induced us to verify the safety of vaccines from a point of view which was never adopted before: not a biological, but a physical approach. So, we developed a new analysis method based on the use of a Field Emission Gun Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope investigations to detect possible physical contamination in those products.

Materials and Methods

44 types of vaccines coming from 2 countries (Italy and France) were analyzed. Table 1 groups them in terms of name, brand and purpose.

N 

Name 

Brand Name, Country of Distribution 

Description 

Production Batch, Expiry Date

1 

Vivotif Berna 

Berna Biotech SA, Italy 

Anti-Thyphoid Vaccine (Live), group Ty21a 

3000336 [2004]

2 

Typhim Vi 

Aventis Pasteur MSD, Italy 

Anti-Salmonella typhi Vaccine 

U1510-2 [2004]

3 

Typherix 

GlaxoSmithKline S.p.a., Italy 

Anti-Thypoid Vaccine (polysaccharide Vi) 

ATYPB061BB [2009]

4 

Anatetall 

Chiron (now Novartis) Italy 

Adsorbed anti-Tetanus Vaccine 

030106 [2004]

5 

Anatetall 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Italy 

Adsorbed anti-Tetanus Vaccine 

060510 [2009]

6 

Tetabulin 

Baxter AG, Italy 

Adsorbed anti-Tetanus Vaccine 

VNG2G006A [2009]

7 

Dif-Tet-All 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Italy 

Adsorbed anti-Tetanus and diphtheria Vaccine 

070501 [2009]

8 

Infanrix 

GlaxoSmithKline S.p.a., Italy 

Anti-Diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine 

AC14B071AJ [2009]

9 

Infanrix hexa 

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals s, Italy 

Anti-diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and disease caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b 

A21CC512A [ 2017]

10 

Infanrix hexa 

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals s. a. France 

Anti-diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and disease caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b 

A21CC421A [ 2017]

11 

M-M-R vaxPro 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Italy 

M-M-R vaxPro (measles, mumps, and rubella) analyzed in Cambridge 

L012437 [ 2017]

12 

Repevax 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD, France 

Anti-diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-polio-vaccine 

L0362-1 [2017]

13 

Repevax 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC France 

Anti-diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-polio-vaccine 

L0033-1 [2016]

14 

Priorix 

GlaxoSmithKline S.p.a., Italy 

Anti--measles-mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine 

A69CB550A [2009]

15 

Morupar 

Chiron (now Novartis, ), Italy 

Anti-measles- mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine 

7601 [2004]

16 

Varilrix 

GlaxoSmithKline S.p.a., Italy 

Anti-Chicken pox vaccine (group OKA) 

A70CA567A [2009]

17 

Stamaril Pasteur 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Italy 

anti-yellow fever vaccine 

A5329-6 [2009]

18 

Allergoid-Adsorbat 6-Graser Starke B. 

Allergopharma, Germany 

Antiallergic vaccine 

Ch-B.:30005999-B [2006]

19 

Engerix-B 

GlaxoSmithKline S.p.a., Italy 

Adsorbed anti-hepatitis B vaccine 

AHBVB468BD [2009]

20 

Prenevar 13 

Pfizer, Italy 

Antipneumococcal vaccine 

G79324 [2013]

21 

Prevenar 13 

Pfizer, France 

Antipneumococcal vaccine 

N27430 [ 2018]

22 

Mencevax Acwy 

GlaxoSmithKline, Italy 

anti-Neisseria meningococcal group A, C, W135 and Y vaccine 

N402A47B 12 [2004]

23 

Meningitec 

Pfizer, Italy 

(group C 10) (adsorbed on Al-Phosphate) 

H92709 [2015]

24 

Meningitec 

Pfizer-Italy 

Anti-meningococcus (group C 10) vaccine (adsorbed on Al-Phosphate) 

H20500 [2014]

25 

Meningitec 

Pfizer-Italy 

Anti-meningococcus vaccine sequestred by Procura della Repubblica 

G76673 [2014]

26 

Meningitec 

Pfizer-Italy 

Anti-meningococcus vaccine sequestred by Procura della Repubblica 

H99459 [2015]

27 

Meningitec 

Pfizer-Italy 

Anti-meningococcus vaccine sequestred by Procura della Repubblica 

H52269 [2015]

28 

Menjugate 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Anti-meningococcus group C 

YA0163AB [2010]

29 

Menveo 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Antimeningococcus groups A, C, W135, Y 

A15083 [2017]

30 

Meningitec 

Wyeth Pharmaceutical - France 

Anti-meningococcus group C vaccine 

E83920 [2011]

31 

Inflexal V 

Berna Biotech 

Anti-flu vaccine 2008/2009 

3001463-01 [2009]

32 

Vaxigrip 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD 

Anti-flu vaccine 2008/2009 

D9703-1 [2009]

33 

Vaxigrip 

Sanofi Pasteur 

Anti-flu vaccine 2012/2013 

J8401-1 [2013]

34 

Vaxigrip 

Sanofi Pasteur, Italy 

Anti-flu vaccine, with inactivated and split virus 

M7319-1 [2016]

35 

Focetria 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Anti-pandemic flu H1N1 vaccine 

0902401 [2010]

36 

Agrippal 

Novartis 

Anti-flu vaccine 2012/2013 

127002A [2013]

37 

Agrippal 

Novartis vaccines, Italy 

Anti-flu vaccine with inactivated and split virus 2015/2016 - 

152803 [2016]

38 

Agrippal S1 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Anti-flu inactivated/superficial antigene v - 2014/2015 

147302A [2015]

39 

Fluarix 

GlaxoSmithKline - GSK 

Anti-flu vaccine 2013 

AFLUA789AA [2014]

40 

Fluad 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Anti-flu inactivated/superficial antigene vaccine - 2014/2015 

142502 [2015]

41 

Gardasil 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Italy 

Anti-HPV types 6,11,16,18 vaccine 

NP01250 [2012]

42 

Gardasil 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Italy 

Anti-HPV (types 6,11,16,18) vaccine 

K023804 [2016]

43 

Cervarix 

GlaxoSmithKline Biological, Italy 

Anti-HPV (type 16,18) 

AHPVA238AX [2017]

44 

Feligen CRP 

Virbac S.A. - Carros - Italy 

anti-panleucopenia, infectious rhinotracheitis and infections by Calcivirus, veterinary Vaccine for cats 

3R4R [2013]

Table 1: List of vaccines analyzed, according to their purpose.

Some vaccines, in fact a minority, are meant to deal with a single bacterium or virus, while others are multi-valent. The list of vaccines we analyzed may contain repeated names, because we considered different batches and years of production of the same vaccine: the ones against influenza in particular.

The study was aimed at verifying a possible physical contamination. To do that, we performed a new kind of investigation based on observations under a Field Emission Gun Environmental Electron Scanning Microscope (FEG-ESEM, Quanta 200, FEI, The Netherlands) equipped with the X-ray microprobe of an Energy Dispersive Spectroscope (EDS, EDAX, Mahwah, NJ, USA) to detect the possible presence of inorganic, particulate contaminants and identify their chemical composition.

A drop of about 20 microliter of vaccine is released from the syringe on a 25-mm-diameter cellulose filter (Millipore, USA), inside a flow cabinet. The filter is then deposited on an Aluminum stub covered with an adhesive carbon disc. The sample is immediately put inside a clean box in order to avoid any contamination and the box is re-opened only for the sample to be inserted inside the FEG-ESEM chamber. We selected that particular type of microscope as it allows to analyse watery and oily samples in low vacuum (from 10 to 130 Pa) at a high sensitivity.

When the water and saline the vaccine contains are evaporated, the biological/physical components emerge on the filter and it is then possible to observe them. This type of microscope (low-vacuum observations) prevents the possible sample contamination and the creation of artefacts. The observations are made with different sensors (SE: secondary-electron sensor and BSE: backscattered-electron sensor), and are performed at a pressure of 8.9 e-1 mbar, at energies ranging from 10 to 30kV to detect the particulate matter’s size, morphology and its elemental composition. The method identifies clearly inorganic bodies with a higher atomic density (looking whiter) than the biological substrate. So, organic entities are visible and easy to distinguish from inorganic ones. The method cannot distinguish between proteins and organic adjuvants (e.g. squalene, glutamate, proteins, etc.) or viruses, bacteria, bacteria’s DNA, endo-toxins and bacteria’s waste, but their comparatively low atomic density allows us to identify these entities as organic matter. In some vaccines, the organic matter contains white-looking debris named aggregates, while a high concentration or inorganic debris is called a cluster.

Single inorganic particles or organic-inorganic aggregates are identified, evaluated and counted. The counting procedure is repeated three times by three different operators, with an error lower than 10%. When a layer of salts (Sodium chloride or Aluminum) is detected, we record the situation but we do not do body count.

Results

The investigations verified the physical-chemical composition of the vaccines considered according to the inorganic component as declared by the Producer. In detail, we verified the presence of saline and Aluminum salts, but further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases, whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product (Table 2).

N 

Company 

Name 

Alluminum 

Elements Identified

1 

Allergopharma - Germany 

Allergoid 

yes 

Al

2 

Aventis Pasteur MSD Lyon - Francie 

Typhim Vi 

no 

BrKP, PbSi, FeCr, PbClSiTi

3 

Baxter AG 

Tetabulin 

no 

SiMg, Fe, SiTiAl, SBa, Zn

4 

Berna Biotech 

Vivotif Berna 

no 

FeAl, ZrAlHf, SrAl, BiAlCl

5 

Berna Biotech 

Inflexal V 

no 

CuSnPbZn, Fe, CaSiAl, SiAl, NaPZn, ZnP, AlSiTi

6 

Chiron 

Anatetall 

Al(OH)3 

FeAl, SZnBaAl

7 

Chiron 

Morupar 

no 

/

8 

GlaxoSmithKline- Belgium 

Mencevax ACWY 

no 

FeCrNi, ZrAl, FeCrNiZrAlSi

9 

GlaxoSmithKline 

Infanrix 

Al(OH)3 

Al, AlTi, AlSi

10 

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals 

Infanrix hexa 

Al(OH)3 

SBa, FeCu, SiAl, FeSi, CaMgSi, AlCaSi, Ti, Au, SCa, SiAlFeSnCuCrZn, CaAlSi

11 

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals 

Infanrix hexa 

Al(OH)3 ,AlPO4. 2H2O 

W, FeCrNi, Ti

12 

GlaxoSmithKline 

Typherix 

no 

Ti, TiW, AlSiTiWCr, SBa, W, SiAl, AlSiTi

13 

GlaxoSmithKline 

Priorix 

no 

WCa, WFeCu, SiAl, SiMg, PbFe, Ti, WNiFe

14 

GlaxoSmithKline 

Engerix-B 

no 

Al (precipitates)

15 

GlaxoSmithKline 

Varilrix 

no 

FeZn, FeSi, AlSiFe, SiAlTiFe, MgSi, Ti, Zr, Bi

16 

GlaxoSmithKline 

Fluarix 

no 

AlCu, Fe, AlBi, Si, SiZn, AlCuFe, SiMg, SBa, AlCuBi, FeCrNi, SPZn

17 

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals 

Cervarix 

Al(OH)3 

AlSi,FeAl, SiMg,CaSiAl, CaZn, FeAlSi, FeCr, CuSnPb

18 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Anatetall 

Al(OH)3 

Al, FeCrNi, AlCr, AlFe, BaS, ZnAl

19 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Dif-Tet-All 

Al(OH)3 

Fe,SBa, SiSBa, AlZnCu, AlZnFeCr

20 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Menjugate kit 

Al(OH)3 

SiAl,Ti,FeZn, Fe, Sb, SiAlFeTi, W, Zr

21 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Focetria 

no 

Fe, FeCrNiCu, FeCrNi, SiFeCrNi, Cr, SiAlFe, AlSiTiFe, AlSi, SiMgFe, Si, FeZn

22 

Novartis 

Agrippal S1 

no 

Ca, Fe, SBa, SBaZn, Cr, Si, Pb, Bi, e FeSiAlCr, SiAlSBaFe, CaAlSi, Zn, CeFeTiNi, FeCrNi

23 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Agrippal S1 

no 

SiAlK, Si, SiMgFe, CaSiAl, SBaZn

24 

Novartis vaccines 

Agrippal 

no 

Cr, Ca, SiCaAl, ZrSi, SBa, CuZn, SCa

25 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics S 

Fluad 

no 

CaSiAl, FeSiTi,SiMgAlFe, SBa

26 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics 

Menveo 

no 

CaSiAl, SiAlFe, FeCrNi, Fe, Al, SBa

27 

Pfizer 

Prenevar 13 

no 

FeCr

28 

Pfizer 

Prevenar 13 

no 

W, CaAlSi, Al, CaSiAlFe, FeS, FeCr, FeCrNi, Fe, , CaP, FeTiMn, Ba, SiMgAlFe

29 

Pfizer 

Meningitec - ctrl 

no 

Cr, Si

30 

Pfizer 

Meningitec - ctrl 

no 

FeCrNi, W

31 

Pfizer 

Meningitec 

no 

CaSiAl, CaSi, SiAlFeTi, FeCrNi, W, Fe, Pb

32 

Pfizer 

Meningitec 

no 

Cr (precipitates), Ca, AlSi

33 

Pfizer 

Meningitec 

no 

W, SiCa, CaSi, Pb, FeCrNi, Cr

34 

Wyeth Pharmaceutical - UK 

Meningitec 

no 

SiAlFe, SiAlTi, SiMgFe, W, Fe, Zr, Pb, Ca, Zn, FeCrNi

35 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD-France 

Vaxigrip 

no 

Fe, FeCrNi, SiAlFe, AlSi, SiAlFeCr

36 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD 

Stamaril Pasteur 

no 

CaSiAl, AlSi, Fe, SiMgFe, SiMgAlFe, CrSiFeCr, CrSiCuFe

37 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD 

Gardasil 

AlPO4. 2H2O 

AlCuFe, PbBi, Pb, Bi, Fe

38 

Sanifi Pasteur MSD 

Gardasil 

AlPO4. 2H2O 

CaAlSi, AlSi, SiMgFe, Al,Fe, AlCuFe, FeSiAl, BiBaS, Ti, TiAlSi

39 

Sanofi Pasteur 

Vaxigrip 

no 

Ca, CrFe, FeCrNi, CaSZn, CaSiAlTiFe, Ag, Fe

40 

Sanofi Pasteur 

Vaxigrip 

no 

SiMgFe, CaSiAl, AlSiFe, AlSi,FeCr, FeZn, Fe

41 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD 

Repevax 

AlPO4 .2H2O 

Bi, Fe, AlSiFe, SiMg, SBa, Ca

42 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD S 

Repevax 

AlPO4.2H2O 

Ti, Br, AuCuZn, Ca, SiZn, SiAuAgCu, SiMgFe,FeCrNi.AlSiMgTiMnCrFe, SiFeCrNi, FeAl

43 

Sanofi Pasteur MSD 

M-M-R vaxPro 

no 

Si, SiFeCrNi, FeCrNi,FeNi, Fe, SCa, AlSiCa, CaAlSiFeV, SBa, Pt, PtAgBiFeCr

44 

Virbac S.A. - Carros - France 

Feligen CRP 

no 

Ca,SiAl

Table 2: List of the vaccines according to their manufacturers with the chemical composition of the debris identified in each sample. The elements most represented are reported.

Play Video

Figure 1a shows a layer of crystals of Sodium chloride (NaCl) embedding salts of Aluminum phosphate (AlPO4) in a drop of Gardasil (anti-HPV vaccine by Merck) as the EDS spectrum (Figure 1b) shows. Saline is the fluid base to any vaccine preparation and Aluminum salts or Aluminum hydroxide [Al(OH)3] are the adjuvants which are usually added.

Looking at the area outside these precipitates but inside the liquid drop, we identified other things: single particles, clusters of particles and aggregates (organic-inorganic composites) that are due to an interaction of the inorganic particulate matter with the organic part of the vaccine.

Figure 1: Crystals of saline solution and Aluminum Phosphate and corresponding EDS spectra.

Figure 2a-2f shows the different typology of entities identified in the vaccines (Repevax, Prevenar and Gardasil); single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (<100nm) and aggregates with their EDS spectra (Figure 2d-2f). The images (Figure 2a & 2d) show debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles (Figure 2b & 2e) arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum -Copper debris (Figure 2c & 2f) in an aggregate.

Figure 2: Images of single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (<100nm) andaggregates with their EDS spectra. They are respectively composed of (a,b) Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium, Titanium, Chromium, Manganese, Iron, (c,d) Iron, Silicon, Calcium Titanium, Chromium, (e,f) Aluminum, Copper. The arrows show the points where EDS spectra were taken.

As can be seen, the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).

Figure 3a-3d show particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).

Figure 3: Images of Tungsten particles identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix. They are composed respectively of Tungsten, Aluminum, Iron but in different concentrations. The arrows show the points where EDS spectra were taken.

Figure 4a-4d present singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).

Figure 4: Images show examples of nano biointeraction. The aggregate (a,b) identified in Gardasil contains nanoparticles of Chlorine, Silicon, Aluminum, Zirconium, while the debris found in Repevax contains Silicon, Gold, Silver (c,d). The arrows show the points where EDS spectra were taken.

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 [6] 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.

Figure 5a-5f show examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec, (Figure 5a & 5b) of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel, Figure 5c & 5d) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix (Figure 5e & 5f). Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.

Figure 5: show particles surrounded by an organic compound. They are composed of Lead (a,b), Iron, Chromium, Nickel (stainless steel; c,d), Copper, Tin, Lead (e,f). The arrows show the points where EDS spectra were taken.

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.

Figure 6a & 6b show one of the foreign bodies identified in Agrippal. The particle is composed of Cerium, Iron, Titanium and Nickel. (Figure 7a & 7b) present an area of Repevax where the morphology of red cells - we cannot tell whether they are human or animal- is clearly visible.

Figure 6: show an organic aggregate containing a debris made of Cerium, Iron, Nickel, Titanium. The red arrow indicates the organic layer (less atomically dense) that covers the Cerium particle.

Figure 7: Image of an area in a Repevax drop where the morphology of red cells (red arrows) were identified. It is impossible to know whether they are human or animal origin. Among the debris of saline and Aluminum phosphate, there is the presence of debris (white arrows) composed of Aluminum, Bromine, Silicon, Potassium, Titanium.

Table 3 summarizes the number and morphology of the debris identified, in term of single particles, clusters of particles or aggregates (organic-inorganic compounds), while Figure 8 shows the graph obtained calculating the total number of particles (particles plus clusters plus aggregates) identified for 20 microl of every vaccine.

Name 

Total Debris n. 

Size Range in mm 

Cluster n. 

Size Range in mm 

Aggregate n.(Range of Particles) 

Size Range mm

Allergoid 

NaCl precipitates 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/

Typhim Vi 

394 

0,1-2,5 

3[9-350] 

2-35

Tetabulin 

519 

0,1-15 

3[100-180] 

25-60

Vivotif Berna 

4 

1,5-15 

Inflexal V 

103 

0,1-17 

1 

20 

3[35-45] 

10-25

Anatetall 

2 

1-3 

Morupar 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Mencevax ACWY 

13 

0,2-5 

Infanrix 

3 

1-5 

1 

25 

Infanrix hexa 

1821 

0,1-15 

15[1820] 

20-140

Infanrix hexa 

162 

0,3-7 

12 

60 

2[7 debris] 

3.5-44

Typherix 

8 

0,2-8 

1 

15 

Priorix 

641 

0,05-30 

1 

10 

3[600] 

20-70

Engerix-B 

precipitates 

/ 

Varilrix 

2723 

0,1-4 

36 [120-2000] 

15-40

Fluarix 

1317 

0,1-40 

3[83] 

7-30

Cervarix 

1569 

0,2-3 

2 

5-10 

4[1400] 

8-30

Anatetall 

47 

0,05-40 

Dif-Tet-All 

111 

0,2-3 

Menjugate 

73 

0,1-5 

Focetria 

35 

0,7-10 

Agrippal S1 

430 

0,2-6 

13 

0.2-80 

5[410] 

20

Agrippal S1 

1029 

0,1-12 

9[1025] 

35-80

Agrippal 

480 

0,1-6 

11[ 460] 

2-80

Fluad 

605 

0,2-15 

4 

12-25 

6[ 600] 

70

Menveo 

452 

0,1-13 

4[430 ] 

30-110

Prenevar 13 

precipitates + 5 debris 

1-7 

Prevenar 13 

precipitates + 81 debris 

0,2-50 

3 

5-40 

1 [60] 

25

Meningitec 

3 

10-20 

Meningitec 

24 

8-60 

Meningitec 

673 

0,1-20 

1 

7 

9[624] 

5-110

Meningitec 

precipitates + 40 

0,1-3,5 

2[40] 

25-70

Meningitec 

177 

0,2-10 

3[165] 

15-100

Meningitec 

241 

0,1-15 

1 

50 

2[230] 

50

Vaxigrip 

86 

0,1-7 

2[50] 

2-2,5

Stamaril Pasteur 

152 

0,1-7 

2 

5-7 

3[145] 

4-20

Gardasil 

304 

0,05-3 

1[300] 

15

Gardasil 

454 

0.1-30 

2 

7-20 

9[445] 

5-60

Vaxigrip 

304 

0,1-10 

1 

13 

2[300] 

35

Vaxigrip 

674 

0,3-25 

2 

2-12 

10[660] 

9-150

Repevax 

137 

0,1-20 

2[130] 

40-50

Repevax 

214 

0,1-10 

6[150] 

5-30

M-M-R vaxPro 

93 

0,1-15 

2[50] 

Oct-15

Feligen CRP 

92 

0,1-12 

1 

12 

1 (40 debris) 

25

Table 3: List of the debris’ number identified in each vaccine as single particle, clusters and aggregates. Characterization is made by shape, size range and variability of the number of particles counted in each aggregate [in brackets].

Figure 8: Graph of the debris’ quantities identified in a 20 microl drop of every vaccine.

Similar aggregates were already described by other scientists who identified them in the blood e.g. in leukemic patients [15] and in subjects affected by cryoglobulinemia [16].

Not all the vaccines analyzed contain the same contamination, though the same vaccine belonging to different batches and, in some cases, coming from different countries can contain a similar contamination (e.g. the vaccines by Glaxo Infarix, Typherix and Priorix contain Tungsten. Tungsten was also identified in Menjugate kit by Novartis, and Prevenar, Meningitec by Pfizer and Meningitec by Wyeth).]

Feligen, the only veterinary vaccine tested, proved to be the only sample free from inorganic contamination, while Allergoid generates a layer of inorganic salts so thick that it does not allow to detect other particulate contaminants.

Discussion

The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.

After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas [17]. But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination. We believe that in many cases they get distributed throughout the body without causing any visible reaction, but it is also likely that, in some circumstances, they reach some organ, none excluded and including the microbiota, in a fair quantity. As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect (due to a nano-bio-interaction [18]) can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way [19-22]. It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA [23].

In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues [24-26].

The detection of presence of Aluminum and NaCl salts is obvious as they are substances used by the Producers and declared as components, but other materials are not supposed to be in the vaccine or in any other injectable drug, at that, and, in any case, Aluminum has already been linked with neurological diseases [27-29].

Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles, due an extravasation from the blood, could heavily impair the muscle functionality [30,31].

We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.

Other forms of so-far unknown contaminations have recently been observed and, in any case, vaccines contain components that could themselves be the cause of adverse effects. It is a well-known fact in toxicology that contaminants exert a mutual, synergic effect, and as the number of contaminants increases, the effects grow less and less predictable. The more so when some substances are unknown.

As a matter of fact, no exhaustive and reliable official data exist on the side-effects induced by vaccines. The episodic evidence reported by people allegedly damaged by vaccines is twofold: some say the damage occurred and became visible within a few hours from administration, and some maintain that it was a matter of some weeks. Though we have no indisputable evidence as to the reliability of those attestations, we can put forward a hypothesis to explain the different phenomena. In the former case, the pollutants contained in the drug have reached the brain and, depending on the anatomical site interested, have induced a reaction. If that is the case, the whole phenomenon is very rapid. In the latter circumstance, the pollutants reached the microbiota, thus interfering with the production of enzymes necessary to carry out neurological functions [32-35]. That possibility takes time, as it involves the production of chemical compounds in a sufficient quantity, and an elapse of some weeks between injection and clinical evidence is reasonable. Of course, ours is no more than a hypothesis open to discussion and in need of proof, hoping that a chance of further investigation is allowed.

Conclusion

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.

A further purification of the vaccines could improve their quality and could probably decrease the number and seriousness of the adverse incidental effects.

Acknowledgment

The Authors are indebted to Dr. Federico Capitani, Dr. Laura Valentini and Ms. Lavinia Nitu for their technical assistance. The opinions and conclusions are not necessarily those of the Institution.

References

Healthy Children.org

US Dpt of health and human services (1996) Report Update: Vaccine Side Effects, Adverse Reactions, Contraindications, and Precautions. CDC 45(RR-12): 1-35.

Ottaviani G, Lavezzi AM, Matturri L (2006) Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) shortly after hexavalent vaccination: pathology in suspected SIDS? Virchows Arch 448(1): 100-104.

Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I, et al. (1999) Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 353(9169): 2026-2029.

Demicheli V, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, Di Pietrantonj C (2012) Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 15(2): CD004407.

Carola Bardage, Ingemar Persson, Åke Örtqvist, Ulf Bergman, Jonas F Ludvigsson, et al. (2011) Neurological and autoimmune disorders after vaccination against pandemic influenza A (H1N1) with a monovalent adjuvanted vaccine: population based cohort study in Stockholm, Sweden. BMJ 343: d5956.

Johann Liang R (2012) Updating the Vaccine Injury Table following the 2011 IOM Report on Adverse Effects of vaccines. HRSA, pp. 1-27.

L Tomljenovic, CA Shaw (2011) Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe? Current Medicinal Chemistry 18(17): 2630-2637.

Shaw CA, Petrik MS (2009) Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration. J Inorg Biochem 103(11): 1555-1562.

Authier FJ, Sauvat S, Christov C, Chariot P, Raisbeck G, et al. (2006) AlOH3-adjuvanted vaccine-induced macrophagic myofasciitis in rats is influenced by the genetic background. Neuromuscul Disord 16(5): 347-352.

Exley C, Esiri MM (2006) Severe cerebral congophilic angiopathy coincident with increased brain aluminium in a resident of Camelford, Cornwall, UK. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77(7): 877-879.

Wills MR, Savory J (1985) Water content of aluminium, dialysis dementia, and osteomalacia. Environ Health Perspect 63: 141-147.

Brinth L, Pors K, Theibel AC, Mehlsen J (2015) Suspected side effects to the quadrivalent human papilloma vaccine. Danish Medical J 62(4): 1-12.

Palmieri B, Poddighe D, Vadalà M, Laurino C, Carnovale C, et al. (2016) Severe somatoform and dysautonomic syndromes after HPV vaccination: case series and review of literature. Immunol Res.

Visani G, Manti A, Valentini L, Canonico B, Loscocco F, et al. (2016) Environmental nanoparticles are significantly over-expressed in acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res 50: 50-56.

Artoni E, Sighinolfi GL, Gatti AM, Sebastiani M, Colaci M, et al. (2016) Micro and nanoparticles as possible pathogenetic co-factors in mixed cryoglobulinemia. Occupational Medicine.

T Hansen, L Klimek, F Bittinger, I Hansen, A Gatti, et al. (2008) Mast cell reiches Aluminium granuloma Pathologe 29(4): 311-313.

Gatti AM, Manti A, Valentini L, Montanari S, Gobbi P, et al. (2016) Nano biointeraction of particulate matter in the blood circulation. Frontiers 30: 3.

Tenzer S, Docter D, Rosfa S, Wlodarski A, Kuharev J, et al. (2011) Nanoparticle size is a critical physicochemical determinant of the human blood plasma corona: a comprehensive quantitative proteomic analysis. ACS Nano 5(9): 7155-167.

Radauer Preiml , Andosch A, Hawranek T, Luetz-Meindl U, Wiederstein M, et al. (2015) Nanoparticle-allergen interactions mediate human allergic responses: protein corona characterization and cellular responses. Fibre toxicology 13: 3.

Cedervall T, Lynch I, Lindman S, Berggård T, Thulin E, et al. (2016) Understanding the nanoparticle-protein corona using methods to quantify exchange rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles. PNAS 104 (7): 2050-2055.

Lynch I, Cedervall T, Lundqvist M, Cabaleiro-Lago C, Linse S, et al. (2007) The nanoparticle-protein complex as a biological entity; a complex fluids and surface science challenge for the 21st century. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 134-135: 167-174.

Gatti AM, Quaglino D, Sighinolfi GL (2009) A Morphological Approach to Monitor the Nanoparticle-Cell Interaction. International Journal of Imaging and Robotics 2: 2-21.

Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Gilbert JL, Galante JO (1994) Migration of corrosion products from modular hip prostheses. Particle microanalysis and histopathological findings. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 76(9): 1345-1359.

Kirkpatrick CJ, Barth S, Gerdes T, Krump-Konvalinkova V, Peters (K 2002) Pathomechanisms of impaired wound healing by metallic corrosion products. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 6(3): 183-190.

Lee SH, Brennan FR, Jacobs JJ, Urban RM, Ragasa DR, et al. (1997) Human monocyte/macrophage response to cobalt-chromium corrosion products and titanium particles in patients with total joint replacements. J Orthop Res 15(1): 40-49.

Shaw CA, Seneff S, Kette SD, Tomljenovic L, Oller Jr JW, et al. (2014) Aluminum-Induced Entropy in Biological Systems: Implications for Neurological Disease. Journal of Toxicology 2014: 491316.

Shaw CA, Kette SD, Davidson RM, Seneff S (2013) Aluminum™s Role in CNS-immune System Interactions leading to Neurological Disorders. Immunome Research 9: 069.

Seneff S, Swanson N, Chen Li (2015) Aluminum and Glyphosate Can Synergistically Induce Pineal Gland Pathology: Connection to Gut Dysbiosis and Neurological Disease. Agricultural Sciences 6(1): 42-70.

Pegaz B, Debefve E, Ballini JP, Konan-Kouakou YN, van den Bergh HJ (2006) Effect of nanoparticle size on the extravasations and the photothrombic activity of meso(p-tetracarboxyphenyl)porphyrin. J Photochem Photobiol B 85(3): 216-222.

Brinth LS, Pors K, Hoppe AG, Badreldin I, Mehlsen J (2015) Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis a Relevant Diagnosis in Patients with Suspected Side Effects to Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine? International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination 1(1):1-5.

Moos WH, Faller DV, Harpp DN, Kanara I, Pernokas J, et al. (2016) Microbiota and Neurological Disorders: A Gut Feeling. Biores Open Access 5(1): 137-145.

Sekirov I, Russell SL, Caetano L, Antunes M, Brett (2010) Gut Microbiota in Health and Disease. Physiological Rev 90(3): 859-904.

Umbrello G, Esposito S (2016) Microbiota and neurologic diseases: potential effects of probiotics. J Transl Med 14(1): 298.

Kinoshita T, Abe RT, Hineno A, Tsunekawa K, Nakane S, et al. (2014) Peripheral sympathetic nerve dysfunction in adolescent Japanese girls following immunization with the human papillomavirus vaccine. Intern Med 53(19): 2185-2200.

a

©2017 Gatti, et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.