Evidence of peanut proteins in vaccines ??

[ajasfolks2]

From page 12 as instructed to read:

I would like to acknowledge informative discussions with Dr. Polly Matzinger, National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Dr. Calman Prussin, NIH/NIAID.

Please define "informative discussions".

Who informed whom of what?

And the upshot of these "informative discussions" was what?

Surely this does not mean they fully agree with your assertions in this "poster"?

Anything quotable and attributable to those 2 professionals from your "informative discussions"?

[APV]

1. I don't think the Frontiers for Basic Immunology conference sponsored by the Center of Excellence in Immunology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, would accept articles without review. There was no fee for this conference.

2. This open access journal certainly has reviewers. There were three reviewers for the paper as well as the editor who makes the final decision.

[APV]

ajasfolks2,

Dr. Matzinger's response to my NIH post:
https://list.nih.gov/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1305&L=immuni-l&F=&S=&P=37286

Both of them provided me with references.
I believe that Dr. Matzinger agrees fully with me. Dr.Prussin partly.

In any case, the most important part is that the IOM, the top medical experts in the country, have concluded that food proteins in vaccines cause the development of food allergy as I detailed in my full paper.

[rebekahc]

1.  A poster session is where researchers present their ideas/research to their peers at a conference.  As long as the presenter meets the criteria set out by the conference their poster will be accepted.  The conference organizers do not proof the posters for typographical errors, spelling and grammatical errors or scientific errors.  The conference organizers' role is not to judge whether your ideas/research is sound it's merely to give you a venue to get your ideas/research out there and allow others in the field to question you on your ideas/research.  Having a poster at a conference does not lend credibility to your idea or prove anything about your 'research'.

2.  See number 1, but replace poster session with open access journal and remove the part about allowing your 'peers' to interact with you about your ideas.

You have no actual research on this - you have a hypothesis you've developed and are compiling ideas and possibly some antiquated research done by others to fit your hypothesis.  This is known as confirmation bias and has no place in true scientific research.

[ajasfolks2]

r -
thank you from all of us here and for anyone in the future who reads this thread -- THANK YOU for your post above.

Thank.You.

[APV]

You keep locking my thread so I have no option but to post a new thread.

rebekahc is wrong about open access journals.

This NEJM article:
Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330

talks about hacking of the peer-review process occurring even on open access journals.

If as rebekahc claims, open access journals are free for anyone to publish with no peer review, why would hacking be necessary?

Skepticism is part of science. Skepticism towards my article is understandable. As I detail in my article, the FDA has admitted performing ZERO studies on the safety of injecting allergens contained in vaccines. Then why no skepticism from you towards the FDA's claims of vaccine safety?

"antiquated"
Our vaccines are still grown on chicken eggs as they have been for 70 years. So "antiquated" references are perfectly appropriate while discussing our antiquated vaccine production process.

Please look at the IOM's literature dates for the vaccine adverse events analysis:
http://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/4
"A professional medical librarian conducted three waves of comprehensive literature searches of the published, peer-reviewed biomedical literature using MEDLINE (1950–present); EMBASE (1980–present); BIOSIS (1969– 2005); Web of Science, consisting of the Science Citation Index (1900–present) and the Social Science Citation Index (1956–present); and search terms specific to each vaccine–adverse event relationship under study."

And how can the food allergy/vaccine link be my "hypothesis" now, when the IOM already proved it 2012?

1. Frontiers in Basic Immunology 2015
Center of Excellence in Immunology, CCR, NCI.
NIH, US Dept. of Health and Human Services.

Evidence that Food Proteins in Vaccines Cause the Development of Food
Allergies and its Implications for Vaccine Policy
https://mttmblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/frontiersabstractbk.pdf

Please see pg. 12.

2. Arumugham V (2015) Evidence that Food Proteins in Vaccines Cause the
Development of Food Allergies and Its Implications for Vaccine Policy. J Develop Drugs
4: 137. doi:10.4172/2329-6631.1000137
http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-foodallergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-2329-6631-1000137.pdf

[admin rebekahc]

Your thread is being locked because you have been asked repeatedly to stop posting about your 'research'.  You have been warned and if you continue to do so you will be permanently banned from posting at this site at all.  For now, I'm putting you in time out and placing you on read-only status while the committee decides how to proceed.

[rebekahc]

To respond to your question:

This NEJM article:
Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330

talks about hacking of the peer-review process occurring even on open access journals.

If as rebekahc claims, open access journals are free for anyone to publish with no peer review, why would hacking be necessary?

Peer-review journal articles are NOT the same thing as OPEN ACCESS journals.  That article only has one mention of open-access.

In August 2015, the publisher Springer retracted 64 articles from 10 different subscription journals “after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports,” according to a statement on their website.1 The retractions came only months after BioMed Central, an open-access publisher also owned by Springer, retracted 43 articles for the same reason.

Someone posting fake science in any journal whether peer review or open-access might be inclined to hide their personal contact information so as to not be questioned about their fake science or their lack of credentials and to fake peer reviews in order to appear more legit.