Okay-- with your opening line, you demonstrate COMPLETE ignorance of chemistry and toxicology. I've attempted to correct this kind of conflation of half-correct info with completely incorrect 'data' in your posts before, and I'm done wasting my time. Quit posting things which are such incredibly gross distortions.
Because I know that APV will insist that I am merely attacking because I
cannot do so-- once more, with feeling.
Agar is NOT "seafood" derived. Polysorbates are
not associated with any particular allergens-- they are particular chemical formulae, and may be derived from any number of sources, but if they are contaminated with food proteins,
they won't do what they need to as additives. Geeeez. For heaven's sakes, that's just
stupid. Casein and ovalbumin are the only two things in that sentence which
are even close to accurate. And even those are misleading as all hell given that the amounts in nearly every vaccine in the current era are-- near undetectable levels, with the exceptions that the CDC notes in the pinkbook. Those exceptions are clearly noted in the appendices, by the way-- and individual manufacturer information is even given. There is NO effort to hide anything from anyone. THIS IS NOT "educational" posting, it is scaremongering, and not particularly skilfully done. I consider it trolling given that you don't seem to contribute anything else to this community. How many other things is Polysorbate 80 found in, hmmm?
Do take a look at the supporting references here under "consumption and effects" please. OH, wow. On average? Daily consumption is about 10 times the amount in that oh-so-scary Vitamin K injection label that you dug up. {sigh}
Yes, that is a wikipedia link, but the references are pretty solid. Might not be QUITE what I'd have picked out to support some statements, but it's okay and reasonably unbiased. I'm picking links that debunk some of this nonsense without being being paywalls, and without being too technical-- because it is
critical that this kind of GARBAGE not be allowed to stand long enough to raise doubts in anyone who is reading it. APV is clearly already a true believer, and I have little hope of convincing him/her that s/he is completely-- well, I don't have a diplomatic turn of phrase. Operating well oustide his/her scope of expertise, I think is the best way of stating it.
I'm spending a LOT of time debunking this because this is how psuedoscience operates-- it nibbles away at the edges of what
seems reasonable, or nearly so, to most people. Even well-educated people, provided that they lack the specific background to see the big picture AND understand the details at the same time. I often get the sense that only someone like me actually looks at a post like that and howls in a combination of amazed hilarity and frustration with the sheer whack-a-mole, manic quality involved. Clearly Silver understands it too, though, which makes me feel a LOT better.
Insulting? Sorry-- but
this is a huge waste of my time. I am not getting paid for this, and this is my area of professional expertise. Well, one of them. {sigh again}
Bernoulli's principle is more than 200 years old but airplanes still depend on it.
Likewise, there are fundamental discoveries like Charles Richet's anaphylaxis finding over a hundred years ago, that have been repeatedly confirmed. We ignore it at our peril.Seriously?
You had to dig back nearly a century to
find papers that supported your pet theory. In so doing, you
ignored the far larger number of data points which support the SAFETY of those same things.
THAT IS NOT "research" and it most certainly isn't how one goes about doing science or even thinking about evidence-based
anything.If you think that this is great research, then apply for funding to pursue it. Truly. Here's a hint-- NOBODY is going to listen to you because you are not making much sense. You're cobbling together unrelated bits and pieces of information that are mostly speculative to start with (relying upon retrospective case studies and correlations), and demonstrating how little of it you truly understand by spouting things about how the principles of physics haven't changes in hundreds of years. Well, guess what? They've NEVER been any different, but Aristotle sure didn't fully understand them and had some rather wacky things to say to explain his admittedly careful observations. I'm still thinking that I should probably rely upon my physics texts from the 1970's and 1980's rather than good old Da Vinci, however interesting I might find his notions, and however innovative they were
in his day. Does that mean that I think less of Aristotle or da Vinci? Most certainly NOT. Just that they turned out to be wrong about a lot of things. Science works that way-- it moves ON by incorporating what is important and reproducible, and by
discarding what doesn't pan out. You are dredging up some things which are decidedly in the latter category.
Which is what I was attempting to gently warn you about before. Bernoulli didn't INVENT aerodynamic lift, for whatever that is worth. Birds probably "discovered" this a long time before mammals were even around, never mind primates with the cognitive capacity to postulate formulae about it.
TO anyone reading:
this is what is SO dangerous about looking for information about vaccination on the web-- people like this ABOUND, and most of them have exactly no self-awareness when it comes to the limitations in their ability to accurately read and understand professional literature in proper context. They fail to understand that just because something is in writing, just because that writing exists within an archive-- does not make it currently the best available explanation. Sorry, but you really
do have to have all that advanced education when you play in the deep end of the pool. That's a bummer for laypersons wanting to challenge paradigms, I realize-- but there are people who have a few decades invested (who are probably smarter than you), and who regularly invest 50 to 80 hours each week on this stuff, and they do NOT get the same thing out of reading those references. In fact, they shake their heads over this kind of thing.
It certainly gives ME a headache. It's whack-a-mole. And really, this
2008 blog post about the exact same phenomenon is a good demonstration of the kinds of tactics used here. While it never gets old for those moles, it sure gets old for those of us holding the mallet.
Please stop this. A community whose children are at elevated risk from respiratory diseases, some of which
are vaccine-preventable-- a community which has one member
who has lost a child to such an agent--
this is just rude. So. Why are you
personally here posting, Hmm?
I've not seen you ask ANYTHING-- nor offer anything, either-- related to life with a life-threatening food allergy. EVERY word that you've ever posted here has been anti-vaccination scare-mongering.
Some of us have a lot of reasons to THANK vaccine makers and developers for our lives. We aren't looking for
perfect safety-- maybe because we already have a much more intuitive grasp of what real risks look like, I don't know. I repeat-- one of our own
has lost a child to an infectious agent-- and I gaurantee you that family would tell you to put a sock in it because what you're selling can KILL kids. Are there risks? Sure.
But given that about one in a MILLION doses of MMR results in an anaphylactic reaction, even among a population in which about 2-5% of the kids getting it are egg-allergic, I'm pretty comfortable with that risk. Even for my highly egg allergic toddler, I was more than comfortable with it. Am I just too dumb to have realized all of what you've "helpfully" posted? Probably not-- take my word for that, but I'm equally confident that it wasn't my lack of ability or awareness. Or maybe it's that I'm also familiar with some of the other data that supports the
safety of the same vaccines that you're scrambling to question the safety of.
Vaccinations are safe. No, really-- no matter what those questioning their safety would like for us to believe. If for nothing else, the cartoon at that link is worth the click, btw. Here:
You also are bleating about the amount of protein in flu vaccines being "lower" in a previous decade. All that this does is show that you are truly ignorant on this subject-- because you have about
zero understanding of statistics and errors associated with measurements. How do you suppose protein measurement might have changed since 1967? I'll bet you have NO IDEA how those two measurements were even made, do you? I
do know, for whatever that is worth, and having done those kinds of measurements the way that they were done in 1967, I'm going to be bold, here, and say that the error associated with that value is about plus-or-minus 50%. Maybe more, given the low value, which is near the limit of detection, meaning that it was probably not very accurate to begin with, and may have reflected sample degradation. Hard to say. That without even breaking a sweat and explaining that different batches of vaccine vary rather widely even in the modern era.
I'm not hoping to convince YOU. I'm hoping to convince anyone reading that you are full of hooey, and that your motivation is VERY clearly to generate fear of vaccinations. Which is, quite frankly,
evil. JMO, but given the human misery that antivaccination sentiment is currently causing in N. America and the UK, I'm pretty comfortable stating that you and Andrew Wakefield are going to be roomies somewhere hot and unpleasant someday.
Your final line indicates that you feel that Japan
stopped immunizing schoolchildren on the basis of some grave risk to those children... and wow, maybe they know something that the rest of us don't. In other words, you WANT to STOP VACCINATING CHILDREN FOR INFLUENZA. Because you have some hare-brained notion that a handful of research abstracts which offer "possible" links-- correlations only, mind-- constitute some hint at a vast conspiracy of-- well, something. Well, you got it
almost half right. Japan DID have a universal vaccination program, and they DID stop doing that, but not for the reasons you've implied.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18573292So what happened when they ran that experiment, anyway?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103223441204Bummer. I guess it
did matter after all, having all of those children vaccinated.
Where is the study that shows this enormous health BENEFIT for those children, anyway? Shouldn't there have been some grand observation about a reduction in allergies or something? I've never seen a whisper in peer reviewed publications, nor even heard it mentioned anywhere, how not mandating those vaccinations led to wondrous benefits. The more layperson-friendly review of that episode and its aftermath, as well as current issues surrounding safety/efficacy in pediatric influenza vaccination is
here, by the way. Just be aware that there are some things in that which aren't really intended for parents, but for health professionals. Also be aware that in terms of
relative risks, vaccination, even when it doesn't go well, is generally still one of the safest of medical interventions. And wow, Japan discontinuing publicly funded and mandated flu jabs for schoolchildren- I'd hardly call that one a public health WIN on any score, since every year since has probably resulted in an additional 50K fatalities, if thirty years of epidemiological data is to be believed.
I call that a massive
loss in terms of public health, but that's just me, I guess.
Nobody is
hiding anything. Vaccination really IS that safe, and it really IS that safe even for the children with multiple life-threatening food allergies. Those parents should be talking with well-informed allergy specialists who know their child's individual reaction history and are familiar with their medical records. What they should
not be doing is believing the rantings of someone who is spouting totally incoherent nonsense on the internet.
Guess what?
You say that you want "safer" vaccines. But nearly all of them are already safer than the vast majority of a human being's day to day activities. Period. Good lord-- how much safer do they have to BECOME before people like you knock this nonsense off, anyway?? It's already safer for my child to get a standard flu shot (even with her egg allergy, btw) than to drink a glass of water or walk to the mailbox.
Being unvaccinated, on the other hand, is only "safer" if everyone else does it so that you can benefit from their immune "shield" for yourself.
You're a public health menace, and you're deliberately spreading misinformation. The kind of misinformation that can kill a hefty percentage of the members of this community, who have asthma or are immunocompromised for other reasons, such as needing long-term steroid treatments.
Here-- since this was rather popular in the other thread;
https://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/measles-vaccination-and-homeopaths/DO give that a read.
That explain it? People who scare parents away from vaccinating their children
endanger my child-- and everyone else's children, too. NO amount of cherry-picking of data can change that.
Now, for heaven's sakes. It's Monday tomorrow, and I have a day job. One that actually does things to improve other people's lives.
Topic: Evidence of peanut proteins in vaccines ?? (Read 23340 times)
