More bad science:

Researchers have developed a “nasal spray vaccine” that might stop children developing diabetes, the Daily Express has reported. The “remarkable breakthrough” can stop the body’s immune system from attacking insulin-producing cells, the paper reported.

The report is based on a small study in which researchers looked at whether giving insulin as a nasal spray to adults recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes could stop their immune system from killing the cells that produce insulin, a hormone needed by the body to control blood sugar levels.

The study found that nasal insulin did not prevent the loss of insulin-producing cells, although it did seem to reduce the levels of antibodies (proteins which are part of the immune system) that target insulin. Researchers said this suggests that it might suppress the immune response to insulin.

Of course what it really means is that the immune system was compromised and weakened.  This is the natural result of any type of "vaccine" that man makes.

It is just irresponsible that the Daily Express called this a "remarkable breakthrough".

It is common knowledge that any poison introduced into the human body will activate and then suppress the immune system.  How come people who are trying to make vaccines don't know this simple truth?

We have to assume that it is institutional blindness, because their jobs depend on the vaccine fantasy.

The study was carried out by researchers from the Institute of Medical Research and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, both in Victoria, Australia, and the St Vincent de Paul Hospital and University Paris Descartes, both in Paris, France. It was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by a Victoria State government grant and by France’s INSERM research programme. The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Diabetes.

The study’s findings were described inaccurately by the Daily Express. The newspaper’s assertion that researchers had developed a nasal spray vaccine that can stop children developing diabetes was not supported by the research, which looked at adults who already had a rare form of the condition.

This randomised controlled trial (RCT) looked at whether using an insulin nasal spray could prevent the destruction of insulin-producing cells in adults with early-onset, non-insulin-requiring type 1 diabetes.

The researchers recruited 52 adults aged 30-75 years old who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous year. When they entered the study, all participants were controlling their glucose levels using diet and oral drugs but did not yet need insulin injections. They were randomly split into two groups. Over 10 consecutive days, and then on two consecutive days a week for 12 months, one group of participants used a self-administered dose of insulin through a metered-dose nasal spray, equivalent to 1.6mg of insulin daily. The other group was given a placebo spray.

Overall, the blood tests indicated that the insulin-producing cells declined by 35% over the 24 months, with no difference between the nasal insulin and the placebo group. Twenty-three of 52 participants (44%) progressed to having insulin injections.

However, the two groups differed in their blood levels of insulin autoantibodies (IAA) when given insulin injections. The insulin antibody response was “significantly blunted in a sustained manner” in those who had received nasal insulin. This indicates that, in the participants who took nasal insulin, fewer antibodies were created when they were given insulin injections.

Levels of other antibodies associated with diabetes, called GADA and IA2A, were similar at the start of the study in the two groups and remained unchanged throughout the study.

The researchers say that although giving nasal insulin did not stop the loss of insulin-producing cells, there was evidence from the antibody test for IAA that it made the immune system more tolerant to insulin and could, therefore, be used to prevent diabetes in people at risk. They say that their study provides the first evidence that nasal insulin could alter the immune response to insulin. They suggest that by suppressing the immune response to insulin, this method could be used to protect people at risk of type 1 diabetes, particularly children.

Unfortunately their study showed no such thing.  It is all wishful thinking.

Why didn't the researchers realize that their study seems to have proved that their assumptions about antibodies that destroy insulin-making cells are wrong?  A reduction in antibodies had no effect on the loss of insulin-making cells.  The basic assumptions of the study are wrong.  That is plain for anyone to see.  The researchers must be blind.

Nasal sprat 'could stop diabetes'. Daily Express, June 15 2011

Links To Science:

Fourlanos S, Perry C, Gellert SA et al. Evidence That Nasal Insulin Induces Immune Tolerance to Insulin in Adults With Autoimmune Diabetes. Diabetes, VOL. 60, April 2011.