DailyBriefs.info - vaccine and anaphylactic reaction

Q: How does injecting a vaccine containing protein a virus into a child age 5 And then injecting another vaccine containing protein be into the same child one year later not fall squarely within the definition of inducing anaphylactic shock and or anaphylactic sensitization

The scenario of injecting an initial mRNA vaccine containing a specific protein into a 10-year-old child and then a second mRNA vaccine containing a different protein into the same child one year later does not typically fall within the definition of inducing anaphylactic shock or anaphylactic sensitization from a mainstream scientific perspective. The key reasons for this distinction lie in the type of immune response vaccines are designed to elicit and the specificity of the immune system.

However, it is important to note that alternative, critical hypotheses, such as those presented by Dr. Michael Yeadon, offer a contrasting view on how vaccines, including mRNA technology, might induce a broader and more chronic "anaphylactic sensitization".

Mainstream Scientific View: Why Anaphylaxis or Sensitization Is Not a Probable Outcome

Protective Immunity vs. Allergic Reaction (Anaphylaxis)
- Vaccines Aim for Protective Immunity: Vaccines are designed to introduce an antigen (a weakened, inactive, or partial piece of a pathogen, like a specific protein) to the immune system. This "tricks" the body into thinking it is fighting an infection, leading to the production of protective antibodies, primarily Immunoglobulin G (IgG), and long-lasting memory cells. These memory cells prepare the immune system to mount a fast and effective defense against the actual pathogen in the future, establishing immunity. Adjuvants in vaccines often steer the immune response away from the IgE pathway to ensure an overwhelmingly IgG-based response.
- Anaphylaxis Is a Maladaptive Allergic Reaction: Anaphylaxis is a severe, rapid-onset, and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction, not a normal protective immune response. It involves two stages:
  - Sensitization: The first exposure to a specific allergen (e.g., certain proteins) in a susceptible individual can trigger the production of Immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. These IgE antibodies then attach to mast cells and basophils, priming the immune system.
  - Anaphylactic Reaction: This occurs upon re-exposure to the exact same allergen. The allergen binds to the IgE-coated mast cells, causing a massive release of inflammatory chemicals (like histamine), leading to symptoms such as airway constriction, a sudden drop in blood pressure, and hives.
Immune System Specificity
- The immune system is highly specific; antibodies and memory cells produced in response to one antigen will only recognize and react to that specific antigen. This is often described as a "lock and key" mechanism.
- Applying to the Scenario: When a child receives a vaccine with Protein A at age 10, their immune system generates a protective response specifically against Protein A. One year later, when a different vaccine with Protein B is administered, the immune system treats Protein B as a new, distinct antigen. The antibodies and memory cells created for Protein A do not recognize Protein B and remain inactive. Therefore, an allergic reaction sensitized by Protein A cannot be triggered by Protein B.
Rarity of Vaccine-Associated Anaphylaxis
- Anaphylaxis following vaccination, while possible, is exceedingly rare. Historically, the rate for non-COVID-19 vaccines is about 1.3 cases per million doses.
- For COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, initial reported rates were higher (e.g., 11.1 cases per million for Pfizer-BioNTech), but these later stabilized to approximately 5 cases per million doses, comparable to other vaccines.
- When anaphylaxis does occur with vaccines, it is usually a reaction to an excipient (an inactive ingredient) like polyethylene glycol (PEG) in mRNA vaccines, or gelatin or egg proteins in other vaccines, rather than the primary viral antigen itself. Symptoms typically appear within 15-30 minutes, which is why a post-vaccination observation period is recommended.

Alternative/Critical View: The "Anaphylactic Sensitization" Hypothesis

A contrasting perspective, notably championed by Dr. Michael Yeadon, Sasha Latypova, and Katherine Watt, interprets early 20th-century research by Dr. Charles Richet to suggest that vaccines can induce a broader and more chronic state of "anaphylactic sensitization".

Core Claim: This view posits that all vaccines (from historical to modern mRNA types) are mechanisms of harm rather than prevention. It argues that repeated injections of tiny, often undeclared, doses of foreign proteins (which could include food proteins like peanut oil, milk whey, or beef plasma present in vaccine schedules) can permanently sensitize the immune system.
Outcomes of Sensitization: This repeated exposure is claimed to lead to widespread and lifelong allergies (e.g., to peanuts, milk, wheat, corn, chicken), explaining the rise in allergies observed over generations. It is also linked to the development of autoimmune diseases, where the body's immune system mistakenly attacks its own tissues, similar to a "failed organ transplant". Richet's work is interpreted to mean that "once a subject has been anaphylactized... return to normal is not possible".
mRNA Vaccines and "Non-Self" Proteins: This hypothesis extends to mRNA vaccines, arguing that they instruct cells to produce a "non-self" protein (the COVID-19 spike protein), which the immune system then attacks, triggering autoimmune reactions.
"Two-Phase Weapon" / "Stealth Bioweapon": Some sources suggest vaccines could be used as "stealth bioweapons" through a "binary or two-phase weapon" scenario. Here, an initial "harmless" vaccine containing certain proteins could sensitize individuals, and later exposures (even years apart) to the same substance could then trigger severe or catastrophic anaphylactic reactions.

In conclusion, from a mainstream scientific and immunological perspective, injecting a child with different mRNA vaccines a year apart is designed to build specific protective immunity against different pathogens, not to induce anaphylactic shock or sensitization. The immune system's specificity and the design of vaccines to avoid IgE-mediated responses mean that Protein A from one vaccine would not trigger an anaphylactic reaction to Protein B from a different vaccine. However, it's important to acknowledge the existence of alternative, critical hypotheses that interpret historical and contemporary vaccine science to suggest a broader and more harmful "anaphylactic sensitization" effect from all vaccines, including mRNA technology.

Understanding Anaphylaxis: From Protection to Hypersensitivity

1. Introduction: The Paradox of the Immune System

Our immune system is our body's dedicated guardian, a complex network designed to protect us from harm. We rely on it to build resistance, turning a dangerous first encounter with a pathogen into a less severe or even harmless second one. But what if this system could do the exact opposite? What if a prior exposure didn't protect you, but instead made you dangerously vulnerable?

This is the paradox of anaphylaxis. Coined by its discoverer, the French scientist Charles Richet, the term literally means "against protection." It describes a state of heightened sensitivity where, instead of building a shield, the body was forging a weapon aimed at itself. Instead of learning to tolerate a substance, the body becomes primed to launch a catastrophic overreaction upon a second meeting. As one modern-day analysis of Richet's work frames it: "So instead of getting less sick, you get sicker the second time around." The key to this dangerous biological puzzle wasn't found in a planned investigation, but through a series of accidental, tragic, and ultimately revolutionary observations made by the scientist who would give the phenomenon its name: Charles Richet.

2. The Accidental Discovery of Anaphylaxis

In the early 1900s, Charles Richet and his collaborator Paul Portier were not trying to understand allergies; they were studying poisons. Their research began on the yacht of Prince Albert of Monaco, where they extracted toxins from the tentacles of the Physalia, or Portuguese man-o-war. Their goal was to understand how these toxins worked and potentially develop a tolerance to them.

Back in their laboratory in France, their supply of Physalia toxin ran out. Richet and Portier substituted it with a toxin from a more readily available source: Actinia, a type of sea anemone. It was with this substance that they would stumble upon a biological phenomenon far more profound than simple toxicology.

2.1. The "Unexpected Phenomenon"

Richet's key experiment involved injecting dogs with a non-lethal dose of the sea anemone toxin. Many of the dogs survived this initial exposure and, after a recovery period of several weeks, appeared perfectly healthy. Logically, one would expect these dogs to be either unaffected by or even somewhat immune to a second dose.

To test this, Richet administered a second injection, this time using a much smaller, almost harmless dose. The result was immediate and horrifying. Instead of tolerance, the dogs exhibited a violent, systemic collapse. Richet described the moment in his notes:

"An unexpected phenomenon arose, which we thought extraordinary. A dog when injected previously even with the smallest dose... immediately showed serious symptoms : vomiting, blood diarrhoea, syncope, unconsciousness, asphyxia and death."

This was not immunization. It was the opposite. The first injection had not protected the dogs; it had made them catastrophically fragile.

2.2. From Observation to Definition

This horrifying event was more than a tragic anomaly. Richet, the meticulous scientist, recognized it as a repeatable pattern. Through careful experimentation, he distilled the chaos of that first observation into three foundational principles that would define this new biological law.

1. Sensitization A first, non-lethal injection is required to "sensitize" the body. This initial exposure makes the organism far more sensitive to the substance than it was initially.

2. Different Symptoms The symptoms of the second reaction, which Richet termed "anaphylactic shock," are completely different from the symptoms of the first exposure. The second reaction is a swift, total depression of the nervous system.

3. The Incubation Period For anaphylaxis to develop, a period of incubation is required. After the first injection, about three to four weeks must pass for the body to enter this state of hypersensitivity.

Richet had not just observed a strange reaction; he had uncovered a new biological law. This law challenged the very definition of immunity and revealed a dark, over-reactive capability hidden within the body's protective systems.

3. What is Anaphylaxis? Beyond Protection

Richet's discovery forced a complete re-evaluation of how the body responds to foreign substances. The idea that a prior exposure could lead to anything other than tolerance or immunity was revolutionary.

3.1. Defining the Terms: Protection vs. Hypersensitivity

Based on his experiments, Richet could now clearly distinguish between the two opposing outcomes of a second exposure to a substance.

Immune Response

Outcome of Second Exposure

Protective (Immunization)

The body becomes less sensitive or tolerant. The second exposure produces a reduced effect, or no effect at all.

Hypersensitive (Anaphylaxis)

The body becomes more fragile and susceptible. The second exposure produces a greatly increased, severe, and potentially fatal effect.

3.2. The Triggers and the Permanence

Perhaps one of Richet's most critical insights was that anaphylaxis could be triggered by virtually any injected protein, not just substances that are inherently toxic. His work demonstrated that anaphylactic shock could be induced by seemingly harmless organic liquids, including milk, egg, serum, and muscle extract.

This was a revolutionary insight: anaphylaxis wasn't caused by poisons, but by proteins. The trigger wasn't the substance's inherent toxicity, but the body’s violent objection to the unnatural route of entry—a direct injection that bypassed the entire digestive filtering system. Furthermore, this hypersensitive state was not temporary. Richet concluded that once an organism is anaphylactized, its internal chemistry is altered for good. In his words:

"once a subject has been anaphylactized and consequently modified in his chemical constitution, then the subject can never go back to his former state. Return to normal is not possible."

3.3. A Self-Destructive Defense: Protecting the Species, Not the Individual

Why would the body develop such a self-destructive mechanism? Richet proposed a profound, almost philosophical, theory. He argued that our bodies are designed to receive proteins only after they have been broken down and modified by our digestive juices. Injecting a foreign protein directly into the blood is an unnatural "effraction," or a forced entry, that bypasses this critical filtering system.

He hypothesized that anaphylaxis is a "universal defense mechanism" to protect the chemical integrity of the species. By violently rejecting foreign proteins that enter the blood unnaturally, the body prevents these alien substances from adulterating the stable, slowly evolved chemical makeup of the species. This defense also creates what Richet called a unique "humoral personality." Just as memories shape our psychological identity, each foreign protein that bypasses digestion permanently alters our body's chemical makeup, making our immune history as unique as our mind. This defense, however, comes at a high cost to the individual. As Richet starkly concluded:

"the life of the individual is less important than the stability of the species."

Through a series of unexpected observations, a strange and deadly biological reaction was not only discovered but also explained as a brutal, protective measure for the survival of the species over the individual.

4. Key Takeaways for the Learner

For any student of biology, Richet's work on anaphylaxis provides several fundamental insights into the complex and sometimes counterintuitive nature of the immune system. Why does this discovery matter?

• Anaphylaxis Is the Opposite of Immunity. This is the core paradox. Richet's work forces us to see that the immune system isn't a one-way street toward protection; it has a terrifying reverse gear. Instead of building tolerance, a sensitizing exposure primes the body for a dangerously exaggerated response.

• It's a Two-Step Process. This isn't just a procedural detail; it's what makes anaphylaxis comprehensible and, to an extent, predictable. Understanding the sequence of sensitization, incubation, and triggering removes the phenomenon from the realm of random tragedy and places it into the world of cause and effect.

• It Reveals a Fundamental Biological Principle. Richet's work unveiled the digestive system as the sacred gatekeeper of our body's chemical identity. By showing the violent reaction to bypassing this gate, he revealed a profound principle: our bodies are built to defend not just against germs, but against any foreign protein that threatens to permanently alter our unique "humoral personality."

deepseek

1. Understanding Anaphylactic Sensitization and Shock

First, it's crucial to understand what anaphylaxis is:

Sensitization: This is the first step. The immune system of a susceptible individual encounters an allergen (e.g., peanut protein, bee venom protein) and mistakenly identifies it as a major threat. In response, it produces a specific type of antibody called Immunoglobulin E (IgE) against that allergen.
Reaction (Shock): This is the second step. Upon a subsequent exposure, the allergen binds to the IgE antibodies attached to mast cells and basophils. This binding causes these cells to explosively release inflammatory chemicals, primarily histamine, leading to the life-threatening symptoms of anaphylactic shock: low blood pressure, airway constriction, and rash.

2. How Vaccines Avoid This Pathway

Vaccines are designed to stimulate a different, protective part of the immune system while avoiding the IgE pathway. Here’s how:

a) Vaccine Adjuvants (The "Delivery Instructions")
This is the most critical factor. Vaccines don't just contain antigens (the proteins you mentioned). They contain adjuvants (like aluminum salts).

Their Job: Adjuvants act as a "danger signal" that deliberately steers the immune response away from the IgE pathway. They encourage the immune system to send out cells (like macrophages and dendritic cells) that "eat" the antigen and present it to other immune cells to generate a robust, long-lasting IgG antibody response and T-cell memory.
The IgG vs. IgE Difference: IgG is the "neutralizing" antibody. It binds to viruses and toxins to disable them and mark them for destruction. It does not trigger mast cells and does not cause anaphylaxis. The adjuvant ensures the response is overwhelmingly IgG-based.

b) The Nature of the Antigen

Viral vs. Allergenic Proteins: The proteins in vaccines are chosen because they are effective at generating protective immunity (IgG). Allergens, on the other hand, often have specific structural properties that make them more likely to be mistakenly identified as parasites by the immune system, triggering the inappropriate IgE response. Vaccine antigens are purified and selected to minimize this risk.

c) The Dosing and Timing

Prime and Boost: The schedule of giving a vaccine and then a booster one year later is designed to strengthen the IgG response, not to trigger an IgE one. The first dose "primes" the immune system, generating memory cells. The second dose "boosts" this response, causing a massive production of protective IgG antibodies and creating even more durable memory. This process further solidifies the IgG pathway, making an IgE response even less likely.

d) Purity and Administration
Vaccines are produced to extremely high standards of purity. They contain minimal extraneous proteins or substances that could act as irrelevant allergens and trigger an IgE response unintentionally.

Analogy: Teaching the Immune System

Think of it like teaching a security team to recognize a wanted criminal:

Anaphylaxis (Allergen): You show a picture of the criminal (the allergen) to the security team (immune system) and scream, "THIS PERSON IS A BOMBER! SOUND THE ALARM AND TACKLE THEM ON SIGHT!" This creates IgE antibodies. The next time they see the criminal, they trigger a violent, overwhelming, and dangerous alarm (anaphylactic shock).
Vaccination: You show the same picture of the criminal (the vaccine antigen) along with a detailed dossier and a calm, strategic briefing (the adjuvant). You say, "This is a bad guy. Here is his file. Learn his face, make wanted posters (IgG antibodies), and train your special forces (T-cells) to handle him efficiently and safely if he ever shows up again." The response is controlled, precise, and protective.

The Exception: Extremely Rare Vaccine Allergy

It is important to note that no medical intervention is 100% risk-free. Anaphylaxis to a vaccine component (e.g., gelatin, egg protein in some flu vaccines, neomycin, or rarely the antigen itself) can occur, but it is exceedingly rare (estimated at 1 in a million doses or even less).

This is why:

Screening: Parents are asked about known severe allergies before vaccination.
Observation: Recipients are typically observed for 15-30 minutes after vaccination, the window in which an anaphylactic reaction would most likely occur.
Protocols: Vaccination clinics are equipped with epinephrine and staff trained to handle such reactions immediately.

Conclusion

Injecting a child with a vaccine containing Protein A and later with Protein B does not cause anaphylactic sensitization because:

The immune pathway is different. Vaccines use adjuvants to deliberately stimulate a protective IgG response, not the dangerous IgE pathway.
The schedule is protective. The "prime-boost" strategy strengthens the desired IgG memory response.
The proteins are selected for safety and efficacy, not allergenicity.

Therefore, standard vaccination falls squarely outside the definition of inducing anaphylactic sensitization. It is a carefully engineered process designed to achieve immunity while minimizing the risk of allergic sensitization. The extremely rare cases of anaphylaxis are usually due to allergies to other components in the vaccine, not the viral antigen itself.

perplexity

Receiving a vaccine that contains a viral protein (antigen) does not automatically induce anaphylactic shock or anaphylactic sensitization in most children, including when different protein antigens are given at separate times such as one year apart.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+2

Definition and Mechanism

Anaphylactic shock is an acute, severe, and rapid allergic reaction that can be life-threatening if not treated immediately.wikipedia+1
The reaction occurs only when a person has a pre-existing specific IgE-mediated sensitivity to the injected protein or another vaccine component.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+1
For most children, exposure to vaccine antigens leads to protective immune responses and immune memory, not allergy.healthychildren+1

Sensitization vs. Vaccination

While vaccines present proteins to the immune system, they are designed to stimulate protective immunity, not hypersensitivity.chop+1
Sensitization (developing an allergy) after vaccination is rare, typically occurring only if a child is genetically predisposed or has a prior allergy to a vaccine component.sciencedirect+1
The likelihood of anaphylactic sensitization or shock from standard vaccination processes is less than 1 in a million doses.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+1

Pediatric Vaccine Safety

Pediatric vaccine schedules include various protein antigens but follow safety protocols, such as screening for allergies and monitoring after injection.cdc+1
Most acute adverse reactions are mild, such as local inflammation, and not immunologically mediated or reproducible on re-exposure.chop+1
In rare cases where a child might be sensitized to a protein in a vaccine, future exposures could trigger mild or more severe allergic responses; these instances are exceedingly rare and managed through medical guidelines and precautions.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih+1

Summary Table

Phenomenon

Mechanism

Frequency

Vaccine Context

Anaphylactic shock

IgE-mediated acute allergy

< 1/million doses sciencedirect

Rare, requires prior sensitization pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

Anaphylactic sensitization

Development of IgE allergy

Very rare pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

Depends on genetic predisposition sciencedirect

Vaccines containing viral proteins do not "squarely" cause anaphylactic shock or anaphylactic sensitization except in exceptionally rare cases where a child is already allergic or becomes allergic to a vaccine component, which is closely monitored and managed in pediatric care.vaccinesafety+3

Add to follow-up

Check sources

grok

Definitions of Anaphylactic Shock and Sensitization

Anaphylactic shock refers to a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction that occurs after exposure to an antigen to which a person has been previously sensitized. It involves a rapid drop in blood pressure, difficulty breathing, and other systemic symptoms, often triggered by IgE-mediated release of histamine and other mediators from mast cells and basophils.

Anaphylactic sensitization is the initial phase where the immune system, upon first exposure to an allergen, produces IgE antibodies specific to that substance. This sets the stage for a potential anaphylactic reaction upon re-exposure, as the IgE binds to immune cells and triggers a massive inflammatory response. Note that "sensitization" in this context is distinct from general immune activation—it's specifically tied to allergic (Type I hypersensitivity) pathways.

How Vaccines Work vs. Allergic Responses

Vaccines containing viral proteins (e.g., from virus A in the first dose and virus B in the second) are designed to mimic infection without causing disease. They introduce antigens to stimulate the adaptive immune system, primarily producing protective antibodies (like IgG) and T-cell responses that confer immunity. This process, called immunization, differs fundamentally from allergic sensitization:

Immunization targets pathogens or their components to build memory B and T cells for future protection. It typically involves Th1/Th2-balanced responses that do not prioritize IgE production.
Allergic sensitization occurs when the immune system misinterprets harmless substances (allergens) as threats, leading to IgE dominance and hypersensitivity.

Large-scale studies show no causal link between routine childhood vaccinations and increased allergic sensitization or development of allergies like asthma. In fact, some evidence suggests vaccination might even reduce allergy risk by modulating immune responses away from Th2/IgE pathways.

Why This Scenario Doesn't Induce Anaphylaxis or Sensitization

Injecting a vaccine with proteins from one virus at age 5, followed by a different vaccine with proteins from another virus a year later, does not equate to inducing anaphylactic shock or sensitization for several reasons:

Different Antigens, No Re-Exposure: Anaphylaxis requires prior sensitization to the same or cross-reactive allergen, followed by re-challenge. Proteins from distinct viruses (e.g., measles vs. varicella) are structurally different and unlikely to cross-react. The second vaccine isn't re-exposing the child to the first's antigen—it's a new stimulus for separate immunity.
Vaccines Don't Promote IgE Responses: Viral proteins in vaccines are not typical allergens (unlike, say, pollen or peanuts). They elicit protective immunity, not the IgE-driven pathway needed for sensitization. If a reaction occurs, it's usually due to excipients (inactive ingredients like gelatin or egg proteins), not the viral antigens themselves—and even then, it's rare.
Extremely Low Risk: Anaphylaxis from any vaccine is rare, occurring in about 1.31 cases per million doses across all ages, with no significant variation by age or vaccine type. For childhood vaccines specifically, rates are similarly low, and most cases resolve without long-term harm. This rarity means vaccination doesn't "induce" these conditions in the definitional sense—it's an unintended, infrequent side effect, not a direct or predictable outcome.
Timing and Mechanism Mismatch: Sensitization typically requires an initial exposure that primes IgE, with shock on re-exposure. Vaccine schedules (including boosters) are spaced to boost immunity safely, not to trigger allergies. One year apart further reduces any hypothetical risk, as acute reactions happen within minutes to hours, not delayed.

Some fringe claims suggest trace food proteins in vaccines could sensitize children, but these are not supported by mainstream evidence, which finds no overall increase in allergies from vaccination.

In summary, this vaccination sequence doesn't fit the definition because it aims for protective immunization, not IgE sensitization, involves unrelated antigens, and carries negligible risk of anaphylaxis. If concerns arise (e.g., family history of allergies), pre-vaccination screening can mitigate even that small chance.

aistudio
This is a really important question that touches on how vaccines are designed to be safe and effective!

The scenario you've described—injecting a vaccine with protein A, and then a year later injecting another vaccine with protein B—doesn't typically lead to anaphylactic shock or sensitization for a few key reasons:

Individual Proteins and Immune Response: Each vaccine contains specific proteins (antigens) that are carefully selected to trigger an immune response against a particular pathogen (like a virus or bacteria). The immune system then develops "memory" for that specific protein. When a different protein (protein B) is introduced later, the immune system treats it as a new challenge, rather than an amplified response to protein A. It's like learning about apples, and then later learning about bananas – the knowledge isn't directly cross-reactive in a harmful way.
Anaphylaxis Triggers: Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction. It's usually triggered by the immune system overreacting to something it has been previously sensitized to, like certain foods (peanuts, shellfish), insect stings, or some medications. In the context of vaccines, anaphylaxis is extremely rare and is typically a reaction to a component of the vaccine formulation itself (like a stabilizer, preservative, or residual manufacturing material), rather than the antigen (protein A or B) directly. Even in these rare cases, it's usually an immediate reaction to the first dose, not a delayed reaction to a subsequent, different vaccine.
Vaccine Components and Dosing: Vaccine manufacturers carefully formulate vaccines to minimize the risk of adverse reactions. The amount of antigen (protein) in a vaccine is precisely measured to be just enough to stimulate an immune response without overwhelming the system. They also avoid components that are known to be highly allergenic whenever possible.
Sensitization vs. Immunity:
- Immunity: Vaccines induce immunity. This means the immune system learns to recognize and fight off a specific pathogen safely and effectively.
- Sensitization: Allergic sensitization occurs when the immune system develops an exaggerated response to a normally harmless substance. While vaccines do involve stimulating the immune system, they are designed to guide it towards a protective immune response, not an allergic one.
Adverse Event Monitoring: All vaccines undergo rigorous testing and continuous monitoring after approval. If there were a pattern of delayed anaphylactic reactions or sensitization to subsequent vaccines, it would be identified quickly by global health surveillance systems. Fortunately, this is not a known risk.

In summary, vaccines are designed to be highly specific in how they interact with the immune system. Introducing different proteins at different times is intended to build immunity against various diseases, not to create a cumulative allergic reaction.

deepai

Injecting vaccines that contain proteins from viruses into a child, followed by another similar vaccine a year later, does not necessarily fall squarely within the definition of inducing anaphylactic shock or anaphylactic sensitization, provided certain conditions are met.

**Key points to consider:**

1. **Anaphylactic Sensitization vs. General Immune Response:**

- *Anaphylactic sensitization* involves the immune system developing a heightened, often IgE-mediated response to a specific component (such as a protein) after initial exposure.

- Not all immune responses to vaccine proteins lead to sensitization or anaphylaxis. Many vaccines induce protective immunity without causing allergic sensitization.

2. **Vaccine Composition and Purity:**

- Vaccines are carefully formulated to include specific antigens (like viral proteins) that stimulate immune protection.

- They typically contain adjuvants, stabilizers, and preservatives at safe levels, and are tested to minimize allergic reactions.

3. **Timing and Re-exposure:**

- Administering the same or similar protein-containing vaccines after a year does not necessarily mean the child has become sensitized or will have an anaphylactic reaction.

- Sensitization usually requires prior exposure, and subsequent reactions depend on whether the immune system has developed IgE antibodies against the protein.

4. **Risk Factors and Precautions:**

- Children with a history of severe allergic reactions to vaccine components might be at higher risk.

- Healthcare providers monitor for adverse reactions during and after vaccination.

**In summary:**

While any injection of a protein-containing vaccine has a theoretical potential to cause allergic reactions in sensitive individuals, routine vaccination protocols are designed to minimize this risk. The process of repeated exposure over time, especially with proper screening and monitoring, generally does not lead to the development of anaphylactic shock or sensitization in most children.

**If you have specific concerns or medical history considerations, consult a healthcare professional for personalized guidance.**

emini 2.5

Analyzing Vaccine Interactions

I'm working on the user's query now. I'm considering why two vaccines, given at different ages and containing different proteins, don't always cause severe reactions. My first task is identifying the key biological mechanisms. I'm also figuring out the parameters to establish a sound explanation to the user, who is an expert.

Clarifying the Core Concepts

I'm diving into the definitions now. I'm focusing on what a vaccine is and the workings of anaphylactic shock. My goal is to clearly define these key terms for the user, ensuring we're on the same page before getting into the specific scenario. I'm also looking at how sensitization occurs.

Mapping Out the Approach

I've just reviewed the user's query thoroughly, pinpointing the central question and the core misconceptions. The query hinges on understanding the specificity of immune responses. My plan now is to break down the problem into key concepts: vaccine function, anaphylaxis, sensitization, and the differences between protective immunity and allergic reactions. I'll then formulate search queries.

Outlining the Investigation

I've just reviewed the user's query and fleshed out my research strategy. I've compiled my key search queries and will focus on understanding the specifics of vaccine function, sensitization processes, and the differences between immune responses and allergic reactions. My primary objective is to explain the principles of immune specificity to address the user's central question.

Clarifying Misconceptions

I'm focusing on the core misunderstanding: the user's likely confusion between protective immunity and allergic responses, and the concept of specificity. I'll need to clearly differentiate these. My plan is to define vaccines and their mechanism of action, ensuring the user grasps the distinctions.

Analyzing Immune Responses

I'm refining the distinctions. I'll outline how vaccines stimulate the immune system, focusing on antibody production and the establishment of immunological memory. Then, I'll contrast this with anaphylaxis, emphasizing IgE's role and the rapid, systemic nature of allergic reactions upon re-exposure to an allergen.

Distinguishing Responses

I'm now focusing on creating a clear differentiation between the protective effects of vaccines and the harmful effects of allergic reactions, like anaphylaxis, using the notes. I plan to highlight the varying antibody types involved and the different cellular pathways that are activated. I aim to emphasize the crucial difference in the immune response's nature: protective versus harmful.

Structuring the Explanation

I'm now organizing my response, aiming for clarity. First, I'll briefly define vaccines and their protective role. Then, a detailed explanation of anaphylaxis. Finally, I will clearly contrast protective responses with allergic responses, and address the user's specific question by highlighting the concept of immune specificity.

Structuring the Response

I'm currently synthesizing my answer, incorporating the steps I outlined, and structuring them logically. I'll start by directly addressing the question, then explain the core concepts: vaccines, protective immunity versus allergic reactions, and the principle of specificity. I will address the user's scenario, clarifying why a second vaccine containing a different protein wouldn't trigger anaphylaxis. I plan to mention the very rare allergic reactions to vaccine components to maintain accuracy.

Outlining the Response

I'm now constructing my response, pulling together all my findings. I plan to start with a clear, direct answer to the question, differentiating vaccine-induced immunity from anaphylaxis. Then I'll explain the key concepts: vaccines, protective immunity vs. allergic reactions, and the principle of specificity. The goal is to address the user's scenario while emphasizing that anaphylaxis requires exposure to the same allergen, and also acknowledge the extremely rare allergic reactions to vaccine components. Finally, I will ensure all factual statements are well cited.

That is an excellent and insightful question that touches on the core principles of immunology. The scenario you've described—injecting a vaccine with protein A at age 5 and another with protein B a year later—does not fall within the definition of inducing anaphylactic shock because these two events are fundamentally different from the process that causes anaphylaxis.

The key differences lie in:

The type of immune response the body mounts.
The crucial principle of immune specificity.

Here is a detailed breakdown of why this is the case.

1. The Goal of a Vaccine: Protective Immunity

When a vaccine is administered, its purpose is to "trick" the body into thinking it's fighting an infection, thereby building a defense system for the future. [1]

How it Works: Vaccines introduce an "antigen," which is a weakened, inactive, or partial piece of a pathogen, like a specific protein. [2][3] The immune system recognizes this antigen as foreign and activates a controlled, protective response. [4][5]
The Protective Response: This process primarily involves the creation of specific antibodies (mainly Immunoglobulin G, or IgG) and long-lasting "memory cells." [2][5] These memory cells remain in the body, ready to mount a fast and effective defense if you are ever exposed to the actual pathogen in the future. [2][6] This is how immunity is established without you having to get sick from the disease itself. [3]

2. Anaphylaxis: A Maladaptive Allergic Reaction

Anaphylaxis is not a normal immune response; it is a severe, rapid, and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction. [7][8] It is an overreaction of the immune system to a substance that is normally harmless for most people, known as an "allergen." [9]

The process of anaphylaxis involves two distinct stages:

Stage 1: Sensitization: The first time a person is exposed to a potential allergen (like a protein from peanuts or bee venom), their immune system may become "sensitized." [9] In a susceptible individual, this triggers the production of a different class of antibodies called Immunoglobulin E (IgE). [10][11] These IgE antibodies attach themselves to the surface of specialized immune cells called mast cells and basophils. [10] This first exposure typically has no outward symptoms.
Stage 2: Anaphylactic Reaction: Anaphylaxis occurs upon re-exposure to the exact same allergen. [9][12] The allergen binds to the IgE antibodies already coating the mast cells, causing them to release a massive flood of chemicals, including histamine. [13][14] It is this chemical flood that causes the life-threatening symptoms of anaphylaxis: airways constricting, blood pressure dropping suddenly, and skin reactions like hives. [8][13]

The Crucial Difference: Specificity of the Immune System

The immune system is incredibly specific. The antibodies and memory cells created in response to one antigen will only recognize and react to that specific antigen. [2][6] Think of it like a lock and key system: the key for "Protein A" will not fit into the lock for "Protein B."

Applying this to your scenario:

At Age 5 (Vaccine with Protein A): The child's immune system is exposed to Protein A for the first time. It correctly identifies Protein A as foreign and generates a protective immune response, creating specific IgG antibodies and memory cells against Protein A only.
At Age 6 (Vaccine with Protein B): The child's immune system is exposed to Protein B. Since this is a completely different protein, the antibodies and memory cells for Protein A do not recognize it and remain inactive. The immune system views Protein B as a new, distinct antigen and begins a new protective immune response, creating a separate set of IgG antibodies and memory cells specifically for Protein B.

For anaphylaxis to occur as you described, the following would need to happen:

The first injection of Protein A would have to cause allergic sensitization (production of IgE antibodies against Protein A).
The second injection would have to contain Protein A again to trigger the anaphylactic reaction.

Since the second vaccine contains a different protein (Protein B), it cannot trigger an allergic reaction that was sensitized by Protein A.

Can Vaccines Cause Anaphylaxis?

It is important to note that while the scenario you described does not cause anaphylaxis, severe allergic reactions to vaccines, including anaphylaxis, can occur, though they are extremely rare. [15][16]

When this happens, the reaction is typically not to the primary antigen (the viral or bacterial protein) but to another component in the vaccine formula, such as:

Stabilizers like gelatin or egg proteins (found in some flu and yellow fever vaccines). [17][18]
Preservatives or trace amounts of antibiotics. [17][18]

This is why individuals with known severe allergies to specific substances like eggs or gelatin are advised to consult with their doctor before receiving certain vaccines. [18] It is also why healthcare providers monitor patients for 15-30 minutes after vaccination, as the most serious reactions usually happen within minutes. [17] However, an allergic reaction to one vaccine does not automatically mean a person will be allergic to all vaccines, as the ingredients differ. [1][19]

Learn more:

welcome to the Lenny and Maria Sanchez AUDIO AND VIDEO podcast series.

Today, we're diving into a complex and highly debated topic: how injecting an initial mRNA vaccine containing a specific protein into a 10-year-old child and then a second mRNA vaccine containing a different protein into the same child one year later could or could not fall squarely within the definition of inducing a real possibility and/or probability of anaphylactic shock and/or an anaphylactic sensitization. This scenario raises fundamental questions about vaccine immunology, the nature of allergic reactions, and the potential long-term impacts of vaccination, drawing upon a variety of scientific and critical perspectives found in our sources. We'll explore these different viewpoints, examining the evidence and arguments presented in each of the provided sources.

Analyzing Immune Responses to Varied mRNA and Protein Vaccine Sequences - PMC1...

This source, a research article, explores how the order of different vaccine types influences immune responses, specifically comparing mRNA and protein-based vaccines against influenza in a mouse model47. It states that the sequence of vaccination is critical to directing desired immune responses4. For example, priming with an mRNA vaccine encoding hemagglutinin (mRNA-HA) followed by boosting with a protein-HA vaccine (R-P regimen) resulted in higher IgG2a levels and hemagglutination inhibition titers compared to the reverse order (protein-HA priming/mRNA-HA boosting, P-R regimen)48. The R-P group also showed lower virus loads and less inflammation in the lungs after a viral challenge416.

mRNA vaccines are described as a next-generation platform where messenger RNA encodes the target antigen. This mRNA does not integrate into the host genome and can be manufactured rapidly5. The study demonstrates the potential of a heterologous vaccination strategy using mRNA and protein platforms against viral infection4. While this research focuses on enhancing protective immunity, it also acknowledges that mRNA vaccines might cause adverse reactions, such as myocarditis or hypersensitivity reactions, more frequently than traditional protein vaccines when inoculation is repeated23. The source suggests that protein subunit vaccines have a good safety profile and may offer a safety advantage for continuous vaccination23. It proposes that a heterologous strategy, with an mRNA vaccine first, followed by a protein vaccine, might be the best way to develop a safe and efficient vaccination strategy against a virus24. This source does not directly discuss anaphylactic shock or sensitization in the context of different proteins, but rather the efficacy of different sequences.

Anaphylaxis Associated with the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines45...

This source focuses on anaphylaxis specifically associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. It establishes that anaphylactic reactions can occur with any vaccine but are usually extremely rare, typically about one per million doses45. For the new Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine, initial reports indicated a rate of 11.1 per million doses, which later stabilized to approximately 5.5 per million doses for COVID-19 vaccines in general45. The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine had a reported rate of 2.5 per million doses45.

A key takeaway from this source is that anaphylaxis following mRNA vaccines is often believed to be linked to polyethylene glycol (PEG), an excipient in these vaccines, with evidence suggesting both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated mechanisms46. The source notes that prevention of anaphylaxis with the first dose of an mRNA vaccine may not be possible, highlighting the need for vigilance and readily available medical treatment at vaccination sites46. When a severe allergic reaction occurs, investigation should include potential PEG involvement and other allergens47. Skin testing for PEG with various molecular weights is recommended, using dilute solutions initially due to the possibility of systemic reactions48. The source explicitly states that the risk of anaphylaxis to mRNA vaccines is present but extremely low and is offset by the benefits of the vaccine50. It emphasizes that an efficient risk minimization strategy, including management algorithms, is important to reassure people about the safety of mRNA vaccines51. The source also provides proposed protocols for allergy testing to PEGs and mRNA vaccines, including specific dilutions for skin prick tests and intradermal tests, and guidelines for graded vaccine administration5455. This indicates that reactions are tied to specific excipients, not necessarily the protein encoded by the mRNA.

Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Children Aged 5 to 11 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis - PMC58...

This source provides a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in children aged 5 to 11 years59. It reports that myocarditis, a serious adverse event, was observed at a rate of 1.3 per million doses after the first injection and 1.8 per million doses after the second injection in vaccinated children7273. The source notes that these rates might be underestimated due to passive reporting74. For the specific scenario of anaphylactic shock or sensitization, the randomized controlled trials included in this meta-analysis did not observe any cases of myocarditis or adverse events that led to discontinuation from the trials7174.

The study found that most vaccinated children experienced at least one local adverse event (86.3% after both first and second injections), and less than half experienced at least one systemic adverse event (45.1% after the first injection, 56.4% after the second)7273. Adverse events that prevented normal daily activities were also observed in a small percentage (4.9% after the first injection, 8.8% after the second)7273. While primarily focusing on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the findings are considered potentially applicable to other mRNA vaccines due to similar efficacy and safety profiles74. The source also highlights that long-term safety of these vaccines remains unknown74. This study's findings indicate that while other adverse events occur at low rates, anaphylaxis itself was not a notable finding in the included randomized controlled trials for this age group, from this perspective.

DailyBriefs.info - Anaphylaxis84...

This source reviews Charles Richet's Nobel Lecture on anaphylaxis and its interpretation by Jeremy James, offering a critical perspective on vaccines8788. It states that Richet coined the term "anaphylaxis" to describe a state where an organism becomes hypersensitive rather than developing immunity, reacting more severely upon a second exposure to a substance8995. The source explains Richet's finding that the parenteral injection of proteins can profoundly and permanently modify an organism's chemical constitution, leading to anaphylaxis92.

Jeremy James interprets Richet's findings to argue that vaccines, through the parenteral injection of foreign proteins, can induce this anaphylaxis-like hypersensitivity and lead to permanent changes in the body's biochemistry, ultimately causing autoimmune diseases88.... This perspective suggests that any "foreign protein" injected directly into the bloodstream is central to the argument against vaccine safety93106. James further proposes that vaccines could be used as "stealth bioweapons" via a "binary or two-phase weapon" scenario, where an initial "harmless" vaccine sensitizes an individual, and a later exposure to the same substance triggers a severe reaction90.... He also claims that the medical and pharmaceutical industries suppress information about Richet's discovery and its implications for vaccine safety90.... This implies that injecting different proteins could still contribute to a general state of anaphylactic sensitization if the underlying mechanism is a broad "foreign protein" response rather than highly specific antigen-antibody recognition. Richet's work even explored long-term sensitization from ingestion where a later injection of a substance caused death a year later104.

DailyBriefs.info - Vaccine and Anaphylaxis Shock116...

This source delves into vaccine-associated anaphylaxis, particularly concerning COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and introduces a "Hybrid Harms Hypothesis"119.... It notes that anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction120. While general vaccine anaphylaxis is rare, initial reported rates for Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were around 11.1 and 2.5 per million doses, respectively, eventually stabilizing to approximately 5 cases per million doses, which is comparable to other vaccines142. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered the most likely potential culprit for allergic reactions to mRNA vaccines188.

The "Hybrid Harms Hypothesis" proposes that mRNA vaccination creates a "primed" or "vulnerable" state due to the long-term persistence of vaccine-induced spike protein122.... A subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection then acts as a "triggering/amplification phase," interacting with this pre-existing state to amplify adverse effects, termed "spikeopathy" or "hybrid harms"122.... This interaction could transform subclinical harms into more severe conditions172. The hypothesis also raises concerns about DNA impurities from the manufacturing process potentially integrating into the human genome, disrupting immune function, triggering autoimmunity, or promoting cancer123.... It suggests that vaccine-induced spike protein can persist for months to years, creating a "window of vulnerability"146....

Furthermore, this hypothesis claims that studies often suffer from "case counting window bias," where adverse events occurring shortly after vaccination are misclassified as happening in unvaccinated individuals, thus distorting risk-benefit calculations124.... It links vaccination programs to "paradoxical increases in all-cause mortality in many highly mRNA-vaccinated countries" during 2022-2023, coinciding with milder Omicron waves, and suggests these mortality peaks were amplified by preceding vaccinations125.... This perspective calls for a major rethinking of public health strategies, unbiased research into the persistence and toxicity of mRNA and spike protein, and exploration of ways to clear them from the body127.... It also recommends discontinuing further booster vaccinations as a safety measure170. The source conceptually compares anaphylactic shock and the Hybrid Harms Hypothesis as both involving a two-step process: an initial exposure (sensitization/priming) followed by a subsequent exposure (triggering/amplification)160172.

DailyBriefs.info - Vaccines Promote Lifelong Autoimmune Disease by Jeremy James193...

This source, a review of Jeremy James's article, argues strongly that vaccines are of dubious value and potentially harmful, even describing them as a "perfect vector for mass infection"196.... James questions the motivations of governments and the pharmaceutical industry in mandating vaccinations, suggesting a "malevolent intent" to inflict harm using "vaccine-delivered toxins"196....

This perspective heavily relies on Dr. Charles Richet's 1902 discovery of anaphylaxis, stating that it has been known since then that injecting foreign proteins can profoundly and permanently modify the body's biochemistry199.... Richet's work demonstrated that the body could become hypersensitive to subsequent injections, with the second reaction being more severe202.... James asserts that the only safe way to introduce proteins into the body is through the digestive system, as injection bypasses natural defenses, causing the immune system to "go haywire" and potentially leading to autoimmune diseases221.... He links injecting foreign proteins to triggering immune system responses that are not always beneficial, leading to unintended consequences and a wide range of autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis233....

The source further suggests that vaccines could be used as "stealth bioweapons" through a "two-phase mechanism" where an initial harmless substance in one vaccine creates an anaphylactic trigger that can be activated years later by a second vaccine containing the same substance198.... It also claims that the medical and pharmaceutical industries suppress information about Richet's discovery and its implications for vaccine safety198.... From this viewpoint, multiple vaccinations over time are expected to increase lifelong hypersensitivity, elevate autoimmune disease risk, and permanently alter biochemical resilience, leading to heightened vulnerability245. This perspective stands in contrast to the mainstream medical consensus on vaccine safety246247.

DailyBriefs.info - anaphylactic sensitization and mRNA vaccine technology192...

This source reiterates and expands on the critical view of anaphylactic sensitization in the context of mRNA vaccine technology. It highlights Charles Richet's 1902 discovery of anaphylaxis, defining it as a state of hypersensitivity rather than protection after prior exposure to a substance249. Richet's work established that injecting tiny doses of "foreign proteins," especially if repeated, could induce violent, permanent, and lifelong allergies to that substance, a state that could persist for years and might be irreversible due to permanent modification of the organism's chemical constitution249.

The source then connects this to mRNA vaccine technology through the "Hybrid Harms Hypothesis," which suggests that mRNA products have a "three-pronged toxic payload" consisting of the spike protein itself, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), and process-related DNA impurities192. These components are claimed to lead to endothelial cell damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, blood clotting, and potential integration into the human genome192. This hypothesis asserts that vaccine-derived mRNA and spike protein can persist throughout the body for months to years, with examples including detection up to 17 months in cerebral arteries and almost 2 years in circulation, and even a case report of vaccine mRNA detected 3.2 years after injection192. This prolonged presence, according to this view, creates a "window of vulnerability"192.

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Sasha Latypova, and Katherine Watt are credited with the claim that all vaccines, historically and currently, are mechanisms of harm rather than disease reduction or health improvement253.... Yeadon argues that traditional childhood jabs contained minuscule, often undeclared, amounts of foreign proteins like peanut oil, milk whey, or beef plasma, which were allegedly designed to sensitize the population to common food items, thus explaining the rise in allergies253.... COVID-19 mRNA technology is viewed as an extension of this, forcing the body to produce a harmful "non-self" protein (spike), thereby triggering an autoimmune disaster akin to a "failed organ transplant"253.... As a result of these understandings, Dr. Yeadon declares himself "proudly anti-vaccine of all kinds"253....

DailyBriefs.info - anaphylactic sensitization.253...

This source presents a clear articulation of Dr. Michael Yeadon's perspective on anaphylactic sensitization and vaccines, building upon the work of Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt. It explicitly states that vaccines have never been primarily intended to reduce disease or improve health, but rather are mechanisms of harm253.... This claim extends to all vaccines, with COVID-19 "jabs" being described as the most dangerous iteration253257.

The core of this discovery, as presented by Yeadon, lies in Charles Richet's Nobel Prize-winning principle of anaphylactic sensitization: if a tiny amount of a foreign protein is injected into a person multiple times, it can induce a severe, lifelong allergy to that substance253. Yeadon argues that if childhood vaccines contained minuscule, often undeclared, amounts of food proteins like peanut oil, milk whey protein, or beef plasma protein, this would result in a population sensitized to basic food items253.... This, according to Yeadon, is the engineered cause of the catastrophic rise in food allergies observed over generations, representing a deliberate and "diabolical strategy" to render people intolerant to their natural environment253. COVID-19 mRNA technology is seen as an extension of this, as it forces the body to produce a harmful "non-self" protein (spike), triggering autoimmune disaster253. Yeadon concludes by stating he is "proudly and unequivocally anti-vaccine of all kinds" due to this evidence253....

Modulation of Innate Immune Response to mRNA Vaccination After SARS-CoV-2 Infection or Sequential Vaccination in Humans - JCI Insight274...

This scientific research article investigates the innate immune response to mRNA vaccination (BNT162b2/Comirnaty) in healthy adults, examining the effects of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or sequential vaccination283. It highlights a gap in mechanistic data regarding the effects of sequential mRNA immunization or preexisting immunity on the early innate immune response triggered by vaccination283. The study found that individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection showed a significantly stronger induction of proinflammatory and type I IFN-related gene signatures, serum cytokines, and monocyte expansion after the prime vaccination283. The response to the second vaccination further increased the magnitude of the early innate response in both infection-naive and infection-experienced groups283. However, the third vaccination did not further increase vaccine-induced inflammation283.

The research observed that levels of preexisting antigen-specific CD4 T cells, antibodies, and memory B cells correlated with elements of the early innate response to the first vaccination, suggesting that preexisting memory formed by infection may augment the innate immune activation induced by mRNA vaccines283. The study also found that three doses of the mRNA vaccine were needed in infection-naive individuals to confer a similar quantity and quality of antibodies as in infection-experienced individuals285.... Regarding the persistence of vaccine components, the mRNA vaccine sequence was detected in circulation at 24 hours after each vaccination, with lower or no detection at other time points294. Spike protein was detectable in serum at 24 hours and remained for up to 7 days but was cleared within 4 weeks after vaccination294. Lower levels of spike protein were detected in the infection-experienced group, likely due to interference from spike-specific antibodies294. This indicates that both the mRNA vaccine and the spike protein produced by vaccination enter the circulation early after immunization but generally disappear within 4 weeks294.

Population-Based Incidence, Severity, and Risk Factors Associated with Treated Acute-Onset COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Associated Hypersensitivity Reactions - AAAAI Education Center313...

This source presents a population-based study on treated acute-onset COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-associated hypersensitivity reactions in a large cohort313. It found that the confirmed anaphylaxis rate was 3.29 per million doses administered, both with first doses, and none of these cases were considered life-threatening by treating physicians323. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported an estimated COVID mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis rate between 2 and 5 per million doses administered323. The study highlights that women and individuals with a higher number of drug intolerances are at an increased risk of reporting acute hypersensitivity reactions and being diagnosed with vaccine-associated anaphylaxis323.

The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) coated with polyethylene glycol (PEG), which deliver the mRNA, are hypothesized contributors to these reactions316. The study explored the hypothesis that if reactions are due to IgE-mediated or other adaptive immune responses to vaccine materials, the frequency of acute-onset hypersensitivity reactions should increase significantly with second dose exposures316. Conversely, if reactions are due to innate immune response activation from nanoparticles, rates should remain relatively constant316. If reactions are caused by nonimmunologic factors like anxiety, the rate might be lower with booster doses316. Interestingly, skin testing to PEG, polysorbate, or the vaccine itself did not show any association with clinically significant acute-onset hypersensitivity reactions325. However, a significant association was identified between a positive basophil activation test (BAT) to PEG and a positive BAT to the mRNA vaccine in individuals with confirmed anaphylaxis325. No IgE to PEG was found, but IgG to PEG was noted, which is likely related to prior exposure and not implicated in acute hypersensitivity reactions325. This suggests that while PEG is a suspected culprit, the exact immunological mechanism of vaccine-induced anaphylaxis is still being researched, and simple IgE sensitization might not always be the case. Anxiety-related events are also considered potential mimics of hypersensitivity reactions326.

Potential Mechanisms of Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines - PMC - PubMed Central331...

This source discusses the potential mechanisms behind the unexpected, though small number, of severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administration, which caused public concern, particularly among atopic individuals333. It reaffirms that anaphylaxis to vaccines is historically a rare event333. The mRNA vaccines utilize a novel antigen delivery system: messenger RNA packaged in lipid nanoparticles333.

The source considers several potential contributors to these reactions: (1) contact system activation by nucleic acid, (2) complement recognition of the vaccine activating allergic effector cells, (3) preexisting antibody recognition of polyethylene glycol (PEG), a lipid nanoparticle surface hydrophilic polymer, and (4) direct mast cell activation, alongside potential genetic or environmental predispositions to hypersensitivity333. Importantly, neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contain common allergens like eggs, gelatin, latex, or preservatives334. The source highlights the challenge that measurement of anti-PEG antibodies in vitro is not clinically available, and the predictive value of skin testing to PEG components as a vaccine-specific anaphylaxis marker is unknown333. It also notes that even less is known regarding the applicability of using the vaccine itself for testing to determine pathogenesis or predict reactivity risk333. The high efficacy of mRNA LNP vaccination and its rapid production capabilities suggest this technology will revolutionize future vaccine approaches336. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms of anaphylaxis and identifying risk factors for immediate reactions are crucial for future vaccination strategies336.

The Conundrum of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine–Induced Anaphylaxis - PMC - PubMed Central340...

This source explores the "conundrum" of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced anaphylaxis, noting that while early reports caused public alarm, the true incidence is likely comparable to other vaccines342. These reactions occurred predominantly in young to middle-aged females, many with a history of allergies342348. Initially, polyethylene glycol (PEG) was thought to be the trigger for anaphylaxis342. However, the source indicates that the lack of reproducibility of these reactions with subsequent dosing and the absence of PEG sensitization in most cases point away from an IgE-mediated PEG allergy as the primary mechanism342. Therefore, PEG skin testing is considered to have poor post-test probability and should be reserved for non-vaccine-related PEG allergy342.

A significant point from this source is the role of immunization stress-related response (ISRR), which can closely mimic vaccine-induced anaphylaxis and is considered a potential, critically underrecognized, etiology342350. ISRR can manifest as acute stress response or vasovagal syncope, closely mimicking a severe allergic reaction, but can be distinguished through careful monitoring of symptoms, vital signs, and acute tryptase assessment350. The source also emphasizes the importance of completing a vaccination series due to waning immune response and warns against mislabeling patients with an mRNA vaccine "allergy," as this could leave them at high risk for COVID-19 and create future challenges given the expanding use of the mRNA platform for other diseases and cancer354. For individuals with a history of immediate reactions, options include administering the full dose in a supervised setting, though split dosing or desensitization has unknown efficacy for mRNA vaccines and may increase anticipatory anxiety353. Alternative vaccine platforms, such as protein-based vaccines, may also be considered353.

Conclusion on the Query

Considering the query regarding an initial mRNA vaccine with a specific protein followed by a second mRNA vaccine with a different protein a year later:

From a conventional scientific perspective, as presented in the "Analyzing Immune Responses to Varied mRNA and Protein Vaccine Sequences", "Anaphylaxis Associated with the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines", "Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Children Aged 5 to 11 Years", "Modulation of Innate Immune Response to mRNA Vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 Infection or Sequential Vaccination in Humans", "Population-Based Incidence, Severity, and Risk Factors Associated with Treated Acute-Onset COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Associated Hypersensitivity Reactions", and "Potential Mechanisms of Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines" sources:

• The immune system is highly specific; antibodies and memory cells developed in response to Protein A from the first vaccine would not typically recognize or react to Protein B from a different vaccine4. Therefore, the injection of a second mRNA vaccine with a different protein one year later would not, by itself, be expected to induce anaphylactic shock or a specific anaphylactic sensitization triggered by the first protein.

• Anaphylactic reactions to mRNA vaccines, while rare (approximately 2-11.1 per million doses, stabilizing to about 5 per million doses for COVID-19 vaccines), are primarily linked to excipients like Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), rather than the specific mRNA-encoded protein itself46.... If the two vaccines share a common excipient like PEG, then a pre-existing sensitivity to PEG could potentially lead to a reaction, but this would be independent of the specific proteins encoded46333. However, sources also indicate that the lack of reproducibility of reactions to subsequent doses and absent PEG sensitization in most cases suggest it is not always a clear IgE-mediated PEG allergy342.

• For children aged 5-11 years, while other adverse events like myocarditis are observed at very low rates (1.3-1.8 per million doses), anaphylaxis was not a notable finding in the randomized controlled trials reviewed in one source72....

• Studies on heterologous prime-boost strategies with mRNA and protein vaccines focus on optimizing protective immunity, not on increased risks due to different antigens46.

• Vaccine-derived mRNA and spike protein from mRNA vaccines are generally detected in circulation early after immunization but cleared within 4 weeks294. This suggests that the encoded protein from the first vaccine would likely be gone by the time the second, different protein vaccine is administered a year later, reducing the chance of direct protein-specific sensitization from the first protein causing a reaction to the second.

• Immunization stress-related responses (ISRR) can mimic anaphylaxis, suggesting non-immunological factors can play a role in reported reactions342350.

In contrast, from the critical perspective presented in the "DailyBriefs.info - Anaphylaxis", "DailyBriefs.info - Vaccine and Anaphylaxis Shock", "DailyBriefs.info - Vaccines Promote Lifelong Autoimmune Disease by Jeremy James", "DailyBriefs.info - anaphylactic sensitization and mRNA vaccine technology", and "DailyBriefs.info - anaphylactic sensitization." sources:

• Drawing on Charles Richet's discovery of anaphylaxis, it is argued that any parenteral injection of foreign proteins can profoundly and permanently modify the body's biochemistry, leading to a state of lifelong hypersensitivity and a predisposition to autoimmune diseases88.... From this viewpoint, repeated injections of any foreign proteins, even different ones, could contribute to a general state of anaphylactic sensitization and immune dysfunction91....

• The "binary or two-phase weapon" concept, as proposed by Jeremy James, suggests that an initial vaccine could sensitize an individual, and a later injection of the same substance could trigger a severe anaphylactic reaction90.... While your scenario specifies a different protein, the broader claim of permanent biochemical modification and lifelong hypersensitivity from foreign protein injections remains central to this critical perspective.

• The "Hybrid Harms Hypothesis" for mRNA vaccines posits that vaccine-induced spike protein can persist for months to years (contradicting the 4-week clearance reported in JCI Insight294), creating a "primed" or "vulnerable" state122.... In this context, even a subsequent vaccine with a different protein could interact with this pre-existing vulnerability, potentially amplifying adverse effects or contributing to chronic immune dysregulation and autoimmune issues122.... The "three-pronged toxic payload" of spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, and DNA impurities is also highlighted as a source of harm145....

• This perspective claims that all vaccines are designed to harm and induce lifelong allergies and autoimmune reactions253....

In summary, from the mainstream scientific perspective, injecting a second mRNA vaccine with a different protein a year later would not typically induce anaphylactic shock or specific sensitization from the first protein due to immune specificity and the transient nature of vaccine components. Any anaphylactic risk would generally be associated with excipients like PEG. However, a critical, alternative perspective argues that any foreign protein injection can lead to a general, lifelong anaphylactic sensitization and a predisposition to autoimmune diseases, potentially amplified by the persistence of vaccine components and a "hybrid harms" interaction with subsequent exposures. There is a clear contradiction in the sources regarding the persistence of vaccine-induced spike protein, with one source indicating clearance within 4 weeks and others claiming persistence for months to years192294.

thank you for listening to another session of the Lenny and Maria Sanchez AUDIO AND VIDEO podcast series produced and archived at the website DailyBriefs.info

keep_pinSave to note

copy_all

thumb_up

thumb_down

Navigating Vaccine-Induced Anaphylactic Sensitization: Diverse Interpretations of Risk

The concept of anaphylactic sensitization, defined by Charles Richet as a state of heightened sensitivity rather than protection after initial exposure to a substance, forms the basis for varied interpretations of multi-dose mRNA vaccination1....

From one perspective, articulated by Jeremy James and Dr. Michael Yeadon, the parenteral injection of any foreign proteins, even different ones over time, profoundly and permanently modifies the body’s biochemistry, inducing lifelong hypersensitivity and predisposing to autoimmune diseases2.... They contend mRNA vaccines lead to prolonged persistence of vaccine-induced spike protein, lasting months to years, which creates a "window of vulnerability"36.... A second mRNA vaccine with a different protein, even a year later, could interact with this primed state, amplifying adverse effects or contributing to chronic immune dysregulation36.... This is seen as fulfilling a broader definition of sensitization and is also linked to theories of vaccines as "stealth bioweapons"49....

Conversely, mainstream scientific understanding emphasizes immune specificity: antibodies target specific proteins, so Protein A would not typically react to Protein B61. Anaphylaxis to mRNA vaccines is rare, occurring at rates between 3.29 and 11.1 per million doses, is typically immediate, and primarily attributed to excipients like polyethylene glycol (PEG), not the encoded viral protein43.... Moreover, vaccine mRNA and spike protein are generally cleared from circulation within four weeks, making long-term sensitization by the initial protein unlikely a year later72. Non-immunological factors, such as immunization stress-related responses, can also closely mimic anaphylaxis73.... Therefore, from this perspective, a subsequent vaccine with a different protein a year later generally would not fall squarely within the definition of inducing anaphylactic shock or specific protein-related sensitization.