Biologic Markers in Immunotoxicology.
1992 report by Subcommittee on Immunotoxicology, Committee on Biologic Markers, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council
|
| |||||||||||||||
US military-public health officials have not only long understood the harmful effects of immunitoxicants, enabling the selection of effective xenobiotics for inclusion in vials of vaccines and other biological products, which are intentionally toxic poisons, and therefore legally classifiable as weapons.
They have also long possessed knowledge of how to assess the efficacy (morbity and mortality) of such vaccine-weapons, through biomarker assays.
1992 - Biologic Markers in Immunotoxicology (National Academy of Sciences)
Summary at p. 2:
…This document presents a brief history and review of immunology, immunotoxicology, and biologic markers (Chapters 1 and 2). The effects of toxicants on the immune system can be expressed in two ways. Excessive stimulation can result in hypersensitivity or autoimmunity; suppression can result in the increased susceptibility of the host to infectious and neoplastic agents.
Hypersensitivity overview (p. 2):
Hypersensitivity (Chapter 3) has become an important human health problem in industrialized societies. Inhalation of a variety of chemicals can cause asthma, rhinitis, pneumonitis, or chronic granulomatous pulmonary disorders. Hypersensitivity is an immunologically based host response to a compound or its metabolic products.
Autoimmunity overview (p. 2):
Autoimmune disease occurs when an immune system attacks the body's own tissues or organs, resulting in functional impairment, inflammation, and occasionally, permanent tissue damage (Chapter 4). Some xenobiotics are known to induce autoimmunity…
Immune Suppression overview (p. 3):
The immune system provides protection against invasion by pathogens and the growth of neoplastic cells. Exposure to some drugs and chemicals can impair this natural host defense mechanism, and this can lead to an increased incidence of infectious disease or cancer (Chapter 5). Several xenobiotics have been identified as causing immune-system dysfunction. In some cases, the immune system has been identified as the most sensitive target for the minimum toxic dose of a xenobiotic. Although one or more of the many compartments of the immune system can be suppressed significantly, this suppression might not be expressed as an immune-mediated disease. Rather, suppression can be viewed as a potential risk because of the reduced ability of the host to resist natural and acquired diseases. There is limited information to suggest that humans exposed to environmental pollutants are immunologically compromised. However, it has been well established that treatment of humans with immunosuppressive therapeutic agents can result in an increased incidence of infectious disease and neoplasia.
It is universally accepted that the immune systems of many animals and humans are comparable; that animal models are available to assess immune dysfunction objectively; that positive immunosuppressants, such as cyclophosphamide and cyclosporin A, are used to validate assays; and that data obtained from animal studies can sometimes be verified in humans.
For immunosuppressants, the plasma concentration of an agent is an adequate marker of exposure that also serves as the effective biologic dose. Markers of effect suggesting changes in the immune system are indicated by alterations in subpopulations of cell type, such as the helper-to-suppressor cell ratio. Although the principles and phenomena in humans and animals are basically similar and comparable, it is recognized that different responses can occur.
Bioassays of Immunotoxicity (p. 3)
Animal bioassays for toxicity (Chapter 6) are useful for identifying possible hazards that could attend human exposure to xenobiotics. Researchers have used animal models to identify immunotoxic agents, to develop immune-system profiles, to identify mechanisms of action, and to identify potential health risks associated with exposure to specific xenobiotics, either consumed as drugs or through environmental exposure. The results of animal studies are useful for determining chemical hazards, managing risk, and determining relatively safe conditions of exposure. A series of animal bioassays has been developed to detect changes in the immune system caused by low oral doses of immunosuppressants. These bioassays give consistent results in different laboratories. Assays for pulmonary immunocompetence have been developed but require broader use. There is a need for additional mechanistic studies, particularly those that relate the immune system to the development of cancer.
Role of Biologic Markers of Immunotoxicity in Epidemiology, overview at p. 4
The limits on experimentation in humans restrict the use of epidemiologic methods to obtain health information after accidental or occupational exposure to toxic substances. Epidemiologic research (Chapter 8) can involve experimental studies in which conditions are controlled and effects are subsequently observed in a test population, or it can use cohorts or cases in which the test population is observed without the circumstances being altered. Epidemiologic procedures frequently permit long-term monitoring of health effects in large numbers of persons exposed to undefined quantities of a given environmental xenobiotic. Data obtained in such investigations, which cannot be obtained otherwise for normal human populations, can provide information about immunotoxic effects. However, a review of the literature reveals no epidemiologic studies that have made full use of markers of exposure, markers of adverse immunologic effect, or markers indicating susceptibility because of variation in the capacity of the immune system.
Introduction at p. 9:
At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology in the National Research Council's Commission on Life Sciences convened the Committee on Biologic Markers to examine the use of biologic markers in environmental health research.
Biologic markers are broadly defined as indicators of events in biologic systems; they can be variations in the number, structure, or function of cellular or biochemical components. Biologic markers are of interest as a means to identify early stages of disease and to understand the basic mechanisms of the effects of exposure and the biologic responses to substances found in the environment (Committee on Biological Markers of the National Research Council, 1987). Four specific biologic systems were chosen for study: the reproductive system (NRC, 1989a), the respiratory system (NRC, 1989b), the immune system, and the urinary system.
This is the report of the Subcommittee on Immunotoxicology.
The immune system recognizes and defends against infectious micro-organisms and neoplastic cells. Many foreign materials are prevented from entering the body or are rapidly eliminated by nonspecific, nonimmune mechanisms (e.g., mucous secretions and phagocytosis by macrophages) and by immune mechanisms. With some substances, individuals may develop an immune response that is specific to the substance so that the body is able to react more quickly and effectively to a future attack by the substance. This adaptive immune system may be considered in simple terms to consist of three specific elements: the foreign substance, which is called the antigen; lymphocytes, which are cells of the blood and lymphoid system; and antibodies, the immunoglobulin (Ig) proteins formed by the immune system.
Interactions among these three specific elements and other nonspecific cells (e.g., antigen-presenting cells) or other biologic systems (e.g., the immune-complement system) form the basis of the activity of the immune system. A response against an antigen that requires the local accumulation of lymphocytes is termed cell-mediated immunity and the lymphocytes involved are called T cells. Responses involving antibodies made at a distant site are referred to as humoral immunity and the lymphocytes producing the antibodies are called B cells.
A generalized reduction in the capacity for either type of response is known as immunosuppression and may result in an increased susceptibility to infection by micro-organisms or to the development of tumors, as seen, for example, in acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). A generalized increase in immune responsiveness is known as immunopotentiation. One manifestation is hypersensitivity (allergy). When the immune system responds to and attacks the proteins of its own tissue, autoimmune disease may occur. In Chapter 2, the function of the immune system is given with greater detail along with an explanation for how disease may evolve from disregulation of the immune system.
Immunology is primarily a science that began in the late nineteenth century. Special interest in chemicals from nonbiologic sources—xenobiotics—is of recent origin.
Immunotoxicology formally emerged as a distinct discipline within toxicology during the 1970s (Descotes, 1988), prompted by animal studies that demonstrated the researcher's ability to measure the effects of chemicals on the immune system (Koller, 1980; Vos, 1980; Dean et al., 1982; Luster et al., 1982).
Related Bailiwick reporting and analysis:
Sept. 26, 2022 - Spike protein, furin cleavage site, gp120, HIV, microvascular destruction, turbo-cancer and cystic fibrosis.
Roots of the program that led to SARS-CoV-2 lie in a sequence of globalist, Presidential and Congressional acts initiated in 1969 to authorize US Department of Defense chemical and biological weapons experiments on soldiers and prisoners (and by 1997, authorize DOD chemical and biological weapons attacks on the general public); set up the Special Virus Program within the National Cancer Institute at the NIH; and establish global depopulation as a core globalist-banker-driven, American-led, geopolitical strategy.
The geo-strategists were led publicly by National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, with Anthony Fauci taking the lead on the scientific side as he arrived at NIH in 1968…
1974/04/24 - Secretary of State Henry Kissinger promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests. NSSM 200 directed Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Agriculture, CIA Director, Deputy Secretary of State and Administrator for US Agency for International Development to study international political and economic implications of population growth and offer possible courses of action for the U.S…
Nov. 10, 2022 - Legal context for the Couey hypothesis discussions.
Tl;dr - US Gov says (to this day) that its chemical and biological warfare programs stopped in 1969 (biological) and 1975 (chemical).
These programs did not stop at all.
They just got re-homed under HHS/BARDA/NIH/NIAID/CDC/FDA, with coordinating divisions in DOD/DARPA/DTRA, DHS/FEMA, DOJ, Dept. of State, Dept. of Ag, and many, many other federal agencies…
Nov. 18, 2022 - Immunomodulation and fear modulation.
…Why did the Baric/Fauci team release localized outbreaks, knowing that they would be self-limiting?
Because the real goal was to “spin up” population-wide fear, set off the fraudulent PCR mass-testing craze, and funnel people into long-term, compliant, routine individual relationships with the nascent government-directed, government-funded, injectable mRNA countermeasures market and the digital surveillance and digital currency platforms being built atop ‘vaccine’ passports as a new condition for individual participation in human society…
I do not know if the US Government, DOD, HHS, DHS, FEMA, Pfizer, Moderna and Bill Gates have the biological, chemical and electromagnetic tools to make injectable lipid nanoparticles that contain embedded, dormant pathogens that can be activated to cause symptomatic hemorrhagic fever outbreaks.
What I do know is this:
They have the media, propaganda and information control tools to make it look like they can do those things, and to manipulate readers, viewers and listeners to behave as if those things are true even if those things are false.
Or, more precisely, they have the information control tools to get people to behave as if isolated, but truly-deadly, orchestrated incidents automatically mean there are invisible, large-scale threats, for which the US Government and its public-private partnerships with conspirators in academia, multinational ‘health’ organizations, and the private sector, are trustworthy leaders for subsequent emergency response and management programs…
Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology, US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine, June 19, 2018…pp. 74-77 - Modifying the Human Immune System …Engineering immunodeficiency…Engineering hyperreactivity…Engineering autoimmunity….
April 13, 2023 - Vaccine production facilities are indistinguishable from bioweapon production facilities, and vaccines are indistinguishable from bioweapons.
“At the third review conference of the [UN Biological Weapons Convention] in 1991, several countries tried to launch a formal negotiation to bolster the treaty with a legally binding verification regime, but they failed to achieve consensus. The George H. W. Bush administration argued that verification was not possible with any degree of confidence because of the dual-use nature of biotechnological materials and equipment, which makes it easy to divert legitimate facilities such as vaccine plants to illicit production…
Advances in fermentation technology have also eliminated the need to stockpile biowarfare agents. Instead, a legitimate production facility, such as a vaccine plant, could be commandeered to grow seed cultures into militarily significant quantities of agent within a period of weeks. Given these technical realities, the detection of illicit biological weapons activities poses daunting challenges for any conceivable monitoring regime…”
To summarize: On April 2, 2019, effective May 2, 2019, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb changed the federal regulations governing inspection of licensed facilities manufacturing biological products including ‘vaccines’, from at least every two years to unspecified times; eliminated provisions about what would happen if a licensed facility failed an inspection; and eliminated all inspection duties for FDA inspectors.
A commenter submitted a pithy comment in response to the Feb. 26, 2018 notices, reprinted in the Final Rule document published in the Federal Register April 2, 2019: "One comment expressed concern that the risk-based inspection frequency will not be without negative health consequences. The comment also stated that ‘‘[R]isk Management is an identified known weak element to a majority of biological and medical device companies’’ and that the management and mitigation of risk without FDA oversight for a number of years is going to be a high-risk endeavor…"
Jan. 5, 2024 - Read-aloud: Cooper v. Aaron, with notes, links and transcript of commentary.
…The latest possible date at which the use of products called vaccines to intentionally induce chronic disease, infertility, and shortened lifespans, starting with children, became official U.S. federal government policy — the 1986 [National Vaccine Program and VICP] act — also comprehensively blocked judicial review…
 |
All content is free to all readers.
All support — reading, sharing and financial — is deeply appreciated.
| ||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment