From a minor and relatively low impact phenomenon allergic response to environmental components, deemed allergens, has risen dramatically in recent history – especially during the last thirty years or so. Many live their lives beneath a sword of Damocles, knowing that their next such attack could well kill them. We can all give personal accounts of such circumstances. For example I knew a beekeeper who told me that his wife would succumb to her next bee sting and could not eat honey. A relative collapsed with anaphylactic shock and woke the next day in a local hospital having only been saved by a dose of adrenaline (Epipen) which a nurse rushed to her carried with him. This was 25 years ago when this was not routine. She is still alive today but, in the hospital the next morning said “I feel fine now but I could be dead, instead.”
At a conference in Bangor University in 1977 delegates discussed their knowledge of “Antigen Absorption by the Gut”. The proceedings are published in a book of the same name, edited by my father, Dr W A Hemmings, who organised and coordinated the meeting (1978, MTP press) .He wrote, in the introduction:
“Further light is thrown…..by the observation that the adult gut permits the free passage of large amounts of large cleavage products of soluble dietary protein. This is novel, but extends the older observations that immunologically significant amounts of native protein are absorbed intact from the diet. The cleavage products are found in the cytosol of tissues throughout the body, suggesting that it is normal for these large entities to pass freely into cells of many tissues…..”
Holding this in mind as being a picture of the underlying natural mechanism, whereby there is a “leakiness” to the previously assumed total integrity of the alimentary digestive systems and that there is no innate reason to fully digest ingested proteins to amino acids in the gut cavity, we find a very clear pathway to solving the puzzle of the plague of allergic reactivity.
During the last 200 years, but increasing markedly in the post World War 2 era and especially in the last thirty years, there have been attempts to establish prophylactic medicine in the form of “vaccinations” of small doses of antigenic material, partly derived from the microorganism deemed to cause a particular malaise, directly into the blood or muscular systems of recipients, who are then deemed “vaccinated against that illness”. It is shown that their bodies can, albeit for a short term, produce antibodies against the antigens and that their blood serum carries this ability, specifically for the designated antigenic material.
However there are a number of riders to add here.
- There is no single antigenic sequence and the material used is, in fact, a collection of antigenic entities, ranging from a whole cell down to proteins, peptide fragments and non-proteinaceous elements.
- There is no lasting immune response at all without the incorporation of adjuventing chemicals to promote memory T-cells into undergoing hypermutation and multiplication as a particular antibody creating entity.
- Thus, with no adjuvant, the vaccination is simply cleaned up/used up by the body as part of the normal physiology – as described earlier.
- There is no discussion of the capability of these adjuvanting materials to transfer this T-cell stimulating capacity to other antigenic material it might encounter within the recipient’s body.
I strongly suggest that this latter process does, indeed, take place and that the adjuvanting materials used in all common vaccinations can thus drive the body into developing T-cell mediated immune responses to common foodstuffs. It has long been recognised that allergies are formed to common regional dietary components. Thus more fish allergy is found in areas of high fish consumption (eg Norway). Wheat is, of course, common throughout the developed World and is increasingly recognised as a very widespread trigger of allergy.
There can be materno-foetal transfer of such food derived “antigenic” material and, in the new-born, there can also be such transfer in breast milk. This process is both natural and in no way damaging, being steady accustomisation to the baby’s eventual, adult diet. It means the process of vaccination is interfering with normal physiology and creating a toxic response to everyday foodstuffs. Where there is a high prevalence of such foods in the diet, and thus frequent stimulation of the T-cell response, chronic physiological response, and decline, can be anticipated.
“Perspectives in Coeliac Disease” eds Nichol, McCarthy and Fottrell (MTP, 1978),
“The Biological Basis of Schizophrenia” eds Gwynneth and W A Hemmings (MTP, 1978)
“Wheat Belly” Dr William Davis (2012)
to name but three.
My hypothesis, no, my thesis, is that the underlying problem for these degenerative states can be traced back to the ongoing damage resulting from the attempts to develop a prophylactic mechanism whereby the body can be induced into an artificial state of preparedness for a future situation of microorganismal infection and so install a mechanism to avoid that infection by secreting the appropriate antibodies to soak up and disable the microorganism.
The law of unforeseen consequences acts here repeatedly. There is much fall-out from vaccination, as well as a lack of any evidence that the process works as sold – I, for one, certainly believe that it does not. The collateral damage of forcing a physiological system to produce a certain type of response, in this case the selection and hypermutative specialisation of a range of T-cells, is the creation of T-cell response to everyday foodstuffs.
Thanks, Dad – you were so ahead of your time I’ve had to rediscover a whole lot of this but, the truth is, that your work was carried out as the whole problem was starting to accelerate Globally and, at the time, you were a odd mixture of hero and victim. That is the life, eh?! I think you’d have laughed at the ironies……….