Polysorbate 80 is used in many vaccines.
This document - Avantor's injectable grade Polysorbate 80 datasheet:
http://askavantor.force.com/servlet/fileField?id=0BEG0000000TSTm (http://askavantor.force.com/servlet/fileField?id=0BEG0000000TSTm)
says:
"Rev. 7; March 30, 2011 – Section 4: Added peanuts
to the Allergen list; Corrected residual
solvents info for Ethylene glycol; minor formatting. (JLW) "
So Avantor was unable to guarantee that this Polysorbate 80 was not contaminated with peanuts, before 2011.
Today, you will see Avantor specifically claiming their product is of non-peanut origin.
Documented evidence that vaccines have been contaminated with peanut proteins all along ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modified with added "??" for topic header for clarification.
No.
They haven't.
NEXT.
Next?
Here we go.. here is an article about a mother who has a son who is not vaccinated and I totally agree with her:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-davis-smith/why-my-son-isnt-vaccinated_b_6522914.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-davis-smith/why-my-son-isnt-vaccinated_b_6522914.html)
Vaccines are one of greatest achievements of medicine and are very important. Everyone should be vaccinated with safe vaccines. Vaccines contaminated with food proteins however, have contributed to the food allergy epidemic. It is unacceptable that our children cannot eat food without the fear of dying.
Parents should never have to chose between vaccine-preventable deadly diseases and vaccine-induced life threatening illness.
Summary:
Childhood Immune Disorder Risk Map per the Richet Allergy Model
https://foodallergycauses.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/cidm1.pdf (https://foodallergycauses.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/cidm1.pdf)
Details with numerous peer-reviewed published references:
https://foodallergycauses.wordpress.com/ (https://foodallergycauses.wordpress.com/)
APV what exactly is your reason for posting all this?
Do you want to stop people from getting shots?
Peanut is just one of many common food allergens in the USA. Early exposure to these allergens seems to prevent the development of food allergies. So, even if peanut were in vaccines that would be neither here not there with regard to food allergies. I know many people who don't vaccinate who have food allergic children. I think the cause of the rise in food allergies lies elsewhere.
I looked over the other thread quickly. If exposure the the bloodstream of food proteins were the cause of food allergies, gelatin would be a top allergens (or pork or beef from which gelatin is derived) and they are not. There are top allergens that don't occur in vaccines at all.
And skin testing would cause food allergies, which it does not appear to do.
I can relate to the desire to know why this happened to your child. I think the idea that one could read various things and figure it out while top allergy researchers haven't isn't likely.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/30/1361224/-Roald-Dahl-s-Heartbreaking-Take-on-Vaccines?detail=facebook (http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/30/1361224/-Roald-Dahl-s-Heartbreaking-Take-on-Vaccines?detail=facebook)
Roald Dhal's take on vaccines.
havent read this thread in detail. but will say that my peanut (and other allergies) son has had ALL of his vaccinations. As have all my children. Nothing I have ever read about the dangers of vaccines has ever changed my mind on this subject.
I have seen whooping cough that caused brain damage in my cousin, you dont forget that noise.
I have a aunt with a curved spine, poor eyesight and is partially deaf, because her mother caught measles when she was pregnant.
Allergies are not caused by vaccines nor is autism. Even if they were, I would say food allergies were the lesser evil. I say that as mother who has seen anaphylaxis and have seen the effect of another very cruel disease in my family . If my children were not vaccinated they would not be able to see those children in my family with this condition. Their health depends on not being exposed to any common significant illness.
Jenner needs greater recognition for his work imo!!
Quote from: SilverLining on January 31, 2015, 07:51:39 AM
APV what exactly is your reason for posting all this?
Do you want to stop people from getting shots?
Safer vaccines.
Quote from: lakeswimr on January 31, 2015, 09:14:52 AM
I looked over the other thread quickly. If exposure the the bloodstream of food proteins were the cause of food allergies, gelatin would be a top allergens (or pork or beef from which gelatin is derived) and they are not. There are top allergens that don't occur in vaccines at all.
And skin testing would cause food allergies, which it does not appear to do.
I can relate to the desire to know why this happened to your child. I think the idea that one could read various things and figure it out while top allergy researchers haven't isn't likely.
Gelatin used in US vaccines is hydrolyzed so the protein is broken down. However, there is no specification for residual intact gelatin. So it causes this:
http://acaai.org/news/allergic-gummy-bears-be-cautious-getting-flu-shot (http://acaai.org/news/allergic-gummy-bears-be-cautious-getting-flu-shot)
And gelatin allergy caused by vaccines was a well known problem since the late 90s and the FDA has refused to fix it:
Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9.
Egg (ovalbumin), milk (casein), seafood (seaweed derived agar), tree nut/peanut/wheat (Polysorbate 80), soy are all present in vaccines. And the Vitamin K1 injection contains 10 mg of Polysorbate 80.
Allergy researchers have found the problem and called for removal of food proteins from vaccines. The FDA has done nothing.
It has been observed even in 1940 that vaccines cause sensitization/induce allergy. Second dose of the same vaccine resulted in an allergic reaction.
ALLERGY INDUCED BY IMMUNIZATION WITH TETANUS TOXOID
ROBERT A. COOKE, M.D.; STANLEY HAMPTON, M.D.; WILLIAM B. SHERMAN, M.D.; ARTHUR STULL, Ph.D.
JAMA. 1940;114(19):1854-1858. doi:10.1001/jama.1940.02810190016005.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1160278 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1160278)
Paper 1.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM195204032461403 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM195204032461403)
They show 5 of 312 developed dermal sensitivity to egg white due to the egg proteins present in vaccines.
Paper 2.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1399-3038.2001.1r046.x/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1399-3038.2001.1r046.x/abstract)
says "Some epidemiological studies in humans suggest an inhibitory effect of tuberculosis on allergy".
The children in Paper 1, were all under treatment for tuberculosis.
So the authors seem to have unknowingly selected a population with some protection against allergy.
So even in a population with some protection against allergy, sensitivity was detectable in 1.6% of the patients, in 1952.
In 1967, flu vaccines contained 7.4 mcg/ml of ovalbumin (egg protein).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...) <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC377279/pdf/applmicro00114-0216.pdf>
And in 2009, flu vaccines had as much as 38.3 mcg/ml of ovalbumin:
http://www.jacionline.org/arti... (http://www.jacionline.org/arti...) <http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2809%2902305-7/fulltext>
"Since the 1997-1998 influenza season, 51 lots of vaccine have been
tested. The brands and lots with the lowest level of ovalbumin were
chosen for vaccination of egg allergic patients to avoid adverse events.
The concentration of ovalbumin in the same brand varied from year to
year (e.g. Flumist®: 005-0.8 μg/ml; Flushied®, 6.90-38.30 μg/ml;
Fluarix®, 0.025-0.31 μg/ml; Fluzone®, 0.30-8.05 μg/ml; Fluvirin®,
<0.01-0.55 μg/ml)."
http://www.jacionline.org/arti... (http://www.jacionline.org/arti...) <http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2809%2902305-7/fulltext>
"CONCLUSIONS: There are significant variations in the egg protein content between the different brands and different lots of flu vaccines, varying by over 100-fold in some preparations. Inocula grown on human cell culture may provide a safer alternative to existing flu vaccines."
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext (http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext)
"Manufacturer investigation and possible labeling or elimination of casein from the vaccines might avoid this risk"
Skin testing for allergy is a bad idea:
http://www.allergynutrition.com/journal/joneja-jmv-comment-skin-testing-2004-full-article/ (http://www.allergynutrition.com/journal/joneja-jmv-comment-skin-testing-2004-full-article/)
Quote from: APV on January 31, 2015, 11:07:48 PM
Quote from: SilverLining on January 31, 2015, 07:51:39 AM
APV what exactly is your reason for posting all this?
Do you want to stop people from getting shots?
Safer vaccines.
And how does posting your "research" on this forum help you attain that end? I think it's obvious this group is not jumping on your bandwagon.
Quote
Egg (ovalbumin), milk (casein), seafood (seaweed derived agar), tree nut/peanut/wheat (Polysorbate 80), soy are all present in vaccines. And the Vitamin K1 injection contains 10 mg of Polysorbate 80.
Allergy researchers have found the problem and called for removal of food proteins from vaccines. The FDA has done nothing.
References, please.
Credible ones. (Your final link doesn't pass the sniff test.)
Also-- you very clearly do NOT understand what you are dredging up as you troll through old (VERY old, in most cases) research papers:
A. case reports like those made in the link you provide re: casein in TDaP, etc. are by definition
rare or they would not be publication worthy-- and in spite of this, I'm pretty comfortable saying that to many of this community, it's also not news. I'm betting that we have many members whose children have been safely vaccinated in spite of life-threatening milk allergy-- though a judicious skin test just prior probably doesn't go amiss. Just like with a flu vax for someone with a very severe egg allergy history.
B. Ahhhh, yes-- that tetanus paper is from before Pearl Harbor. Did you read the entire thing, anyway? Understand it? I'm not sure that it says what you think it does. Again-- rarity makes the two cases publication-worthy. Also worth noting that the vaccine and its adjuvants are completely different now, so it isn't immediately clear that this has any bearing on modern practices anyway.
I would caution you, as you read literature published prior to, say, 1975; in most instances, you need to have a clear understanding of clinical practices AT THE TIME in order to make evaluations about statements and clinical features reported. One must also accept that some features simply cannot translate into modern parlance because they are archaic/gross by modern standards. Some caution is needed even with reported interventions and treatments, which have also changed radically. This set of problems becomes more extreme when reading literature published prior to 1960. Conflation/misunderstandings of a molecular nature are exceedingly common, and modern instrumentation/tools of analysis were crude where they existed at all.
Seaweed or agar is not a top allergen in this country and gelatin allergen is so rare it is about unheard of. I'm not sure what your source is for that claim.
Not all top allergens are in vaccines.
What are the chances that top food allergy researchers have not figured out the cause of the increase in food allergies but you have somehow by reading things?
Hygene hypothesis--maybe. GMO in foods--doesn't seem like it but I'm not 100% certain of that. How food is processed? Seems to have some type of link. How often a given food is eaten in a culture? Seems to have some link. Gut bacteria--might be related according to some recent things I read but I don't understand those studies well enough personally. The jury is still out. If someone is convinced that it is vaccines that cause food allergies or the recent increase I'm turned off, frankly, because that does not appear to be the case.
I recommend you look at desensitization programs and see if they might be something in which you are interested. We are doing it now with our child and so far it is working well. Others here are wary of it but some of us here are doing it/did it with good results.
Can we change the thread title? It's incorrect. There is no evidence. Can this and all future claims about vaccines causing food allergies be merged with an appropriate title that does not unduly cause unnecessary alarm in anyone who does not understand what research and evidence truly means? I'm not saying censor or delete but properly manage and remove the sensationalism to bring it to the level of do no further harm.
Sincerely,
FAS member with a confirmed case of measles one county away and a child who I have to check with ped on Monday if he's both old enough to receive his second MMR, and recovered enough from his recent serious illness to take the vax more urgently in light of measles at our back door.
Quote
And how does posting your "research" on this forum help you attain that end?
Many influenza vaccines are free of Polysorbate 80. One could choose those and bring market pressure on vaccine makers to make safer vaccines?
Here's a summary of 2014-2015 influenza vaccine contents:
https://mttmblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/flusum2014.pdf (https://mttmblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/flusum2014.pdf)
Source: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm094045.htm (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm094045.htm)
You can demand the FDA remove food proteins from vaccines?
Quote
I think it's obvious this group is not jumping on your bandwagon.
you can lead a horse to water ...
Quote from: guess on February 01, 2015, 10:52:25 AM
Can we change the thread title? It's incorrect. There is no evidence.
Could you please explain why?
Quote from: APV on February 01, 2015, 04:07:54 PM
Quote
I think it's obvious this group is not jumping on your bandwagon.
you can lead a horse to water ...
And if the horse doesn't want to drink your KoolAid do you keep trying to push it in?
Quote from: APV on February 01, 2015, 07:11:49 PM
Quote from: guess on February 01, 2015, 10:52:25 AM
Can we change the thread title? It's incorrect. There is no evidence.
Could you please explain why?
It's been explained...repeatedly.
You do not have the training to understand the research. (That is NOT an insult. In don't either. Difference is, I'm not pretending to.
CMdeux,
"Egg (ovalbumin), milk (casein), seafood (seaweed derived agar), tree nut/peanut/wheat (Polysorbate 80), soy are all present in vaccines. And the Vitamin K1 injection contains 10 mg of Polysorbate 80."
References:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf)
http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=ab569c0b-d35c-49ca-942b-98e2558b79c5 (http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=ab569c0b-d35c-49ca-942b-98e2558b79c5)
A. It has been shown that the sensitization dose (dose that causes the development of allergy) is much smaller than the elicitation dose (dose that causes an allergic reaction in a sensitized person).
This paper from 1908 shows that only 50ng of ovalbumin injection was needed to sensitize guinea pigs.
200mg was the elicitation dose.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30071840?seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents (http://www.jstor.org/stable/30071840?seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents)
It takes a lot less allergen to sensitize than it takes to elicit a reaction.
If you like a more "modern" result:
DTaP followed by DTaP produced no anaphylaxis.
Sensitization but no elicitation.
DTaP followed by MMR produced anaphylaxis.
Sensitization followed by elicitation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9949325 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9949325)
DTaP had less gelatin (micrograms) than MMR (milligrams), thus demonstrating the same fact.
Most vaccines today are known to cause anaphylaxis. So most vaccines contain enough allergen to cause elicitation and therefore contain more than enough allergen to cause sensitization.
So non-allergic kids can develop an allergy.
Allergic children are getting an allergy booster shot, even if they have no reaction.
Influenza vaccines are produced in chicken eggs, the same way they have been for more than 70 years.
There is neither market pressure nor regulatory pressure to improve vaccine safety. How many people research the ovalbumin content and choose a vaccine?
That explains the absurd reality of a vaccine in 2008 being contaminated with 4X the amount of ovalbumin as a vaccine from 1967.
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.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=185473 (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=185473)
"This study adds to the growing body of evidence that exposure to peanut via a damaged skin barrier may increase the risk of peanut allergy,"
So a kid with eczema, touching peanuts can develop peanut allergy but the same kid getting a skin prick test is fine?
Please provide references proving the safety of the skin prick allergy test.
Perhaps a study like this one that demonstrates increase in anti-ovalbumin IgE after influenza vaccine.
A similar study for the skin prick test could prove/disprove safety. Pre-RAST, skin prick, post-RAST.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/pdf/epidinfect00008-0113.pdf (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/pdf/epidinfect00008-0113.pdf)
Interestingly, the Japanese stopped mandatory influenza vaccination for school kids when this paper was published. Mere coincidence, may be not ...
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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysorbate_80) 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. (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-jay-gordon-anti-vaccination/) While it never gets old for those moles, it sure gets old for those of us holding the mallet. :pout:
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. (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/naturopathy-vs-science-vaccination-edition/) If for nothing else, the cartoon at that link is worth the click, btw. Here:
[spoiler]
(http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/evil-mr-vaccine-1-480x425.png)
[/spoiler]
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/18573292 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18573292)
So what happened when they ran that experiment, anyway?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103223441204 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103223441204)
Bummer. 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 (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/743680_2), 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. :insane: 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/ (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. :-/
ALL* OF APV's POSTS ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD ARE RELATED TO ANTI-VACCINATION SCARE-MONGERING.
Just thought I'd put that out there. People like this really anger me, because I cannot in good conscience let those posts stand without rebuttal, but at the same time, this has cost me a LOT of time from my family this weekend.
* except one, in which he extolls the apparent virtues of cocoa for the prevention of anaphylaxis, on the basis of one rather small speculative study... man, I sure wish that I could believe that would work in something other than outbred rats. {sigh}
Quote from: APV on February 01, 2015, 07:11:49 PM
Quote from: guess on February 01, 2015, 10:52:25 AM
Can we change the thread title? It's incorrect. There is no evidence.
Could you please explain why?
I could, but if you don't already know, you're not competent enough to follow the explanation, I fear.
Here goes, though--
Factual account:
A is produced with an ingredient (C) which
might be derived from B, but could also be derived from sources D, H, Y, and Z, or maybe something else entirely. C is also consumed in reasonably large quantities in the diet; 10 times as much
daily as is used in the making of A.
APV writes:
B is in A!! B is in A!! OMG! OMG! DEMAND that B be REMOVED from A immediately! REFUSE A until the powers that be answer your questions about why they wont' remove B!Quick-- which logical fallacy is this, kids?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.pdf (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.pdf)
I think there's about five, actually. :)
Although the "Texas Sharpshooter" seems the predominant one, here.
I have been reading this thread and pretty much biting my tongue. APV, listen to me. I will put this in simple layman's terms. Vaccines work. They save lives. Yes, there is the occasional adverse reaction, but they do far more good than harm. I am VERY pro-vaccine. And guess what? This is coming from someone whose child had a severe (could have been fatal) reaction to a vaccine almost exactly one year ago. We knew when she received the vaccine that there was a 1 in 10,000 chance of an adverse reaction. She was that one. It was not a typical vaccine that most people get, it was because she was traveling to a foreign country. She most likely was that one, because her immune system was out of whack when she was vaccinated, as she was recovering from mono. The situation was made worse by the dismal lack of modern health are where she was. But still, the odds were 1 in 10,000. Compare that, for example to the 9 out of 10 odds of catching measles if exposed and not vaccinated.
So, you know how I feel about all this? That it is a damn shame that there is no vaccine for mononucleosis, because if there were this whole thing likely would have been avoided in the first place! . Anyone who can look at the numbers and think that going unvaccinated is safer, or preferable, than the diseases that are preventable is either stupid, ignorant, or for some reason unwilling to deal with reality.
And as scary as the measles outbreak is, you know what really scares the $#1+ out if me? The same thing ever happening with polio. In my life before kids, I worked with older adults, some of whom had been permanently debilitated by polio. I never, ever want to see that happen again.
Quote from: CMdeux on February 02, 2015, 12:37:27 AM
... 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.
I did too. Even English majors are taught to look at sources critically and to look for bias. Even though Shakespeare's plays were written 400 years ago, an English major would be an idiot not to read more recent literary analysis and historical information. Literature was not created in a vacuum; what was happening in society at the time something was written had an impact as did who was paying for the work (much like who funds scientific research). Anyway, that's a long way of saying it's not just those in scientific disciplines who learn to look at sources with a critical eye.
I had discounted the OP's viewpoint with their first post based on tone alone. My view was further solidified when they quoted 75 and 107 year old sources. The polio vaccine wasn't introduced until 1955, the flu vaccine was first used in WWII to protect the military, and the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963; the studies APV referenced both pre-date the vaccines they're railing against. As with anything in medicine, treatments and medications (including vaccines) are refined. Heck, even mammography has changed since I started getting annual mammograms at 40--and I'm only 45.
What I really, really, REALLY don't want is a parent reading one of those posts after an utterly terrifying first ambulance ride with their child who has developed food allergies-- and piling on ADDITIONAL fear and guilt over vaccines, which-- to be very very clear--
1. almost certainly played zero role in the development of their child's food allergy, and
2. are STILL the safest thing that they can do with their child-- and have just become far safer than eating will ever be again. (sorry about that, by the way-- this is a really, really sucky thing)
Now, given the percentage of such young children who have already developed asthma, or will go on to do so, the importance of vaccinations for pertussis, measles, and influenza is critical. Those children are at increased risk for life-threatening complications of those illnesses-- even if they are not compromised by being on steroids.
Again, though, let me add that if cocoa could prevent anaphylaxis, I would be all over that. LOL.
DD has had no vaxes and has a tree nut allergy - can you please explain that? Personally, I am blaming two strong doses of antibiotics within a three month time period. She was 4.5 when she developed her allergy, no previous signs.
Youknowwho, my child had a reaction day 1 via breastmilk. :( Strong allergic family history.
Vit K is NOT a vaccine. Nobody else will get sick if you don't give it to your baby. Its a risk you assume fully.
Quote from: YouKnowWho on February 02, 2015, 02:40:59 PM
DD has had no vaxes and has a tree nut allergy - can you please explain that? Personally, I am blaming two strong doses of antibiotics within a three month time period. She was 4.5 when she developed her allergy, no previous signs.
Antibiotics can affect the gut microbiome which in turn can tilt immune balance towards allergy development. Was she prescribed acid-reducing medication? That could cause exposure of intact dietary proteins to the gut mucosa, resulting in sensitization.
Hey APV--are there other food allergy-related issues/concerns that you want to talk about with this group? 504s for school kids, labeling laws and the advocacy for sesame to be included, questions about manufacturers?
The gut/proton pump inhibitor thing I am interested in.
But beyond that, what are you interested in as a food allergy parent (if I remember correctly)?
CMdeux,
If avoiding vaccines was an option, why would I care about vaccine safety?
"Agar is NOT "seafood" derived."
What I meant was, any seafood can be contaminated with seaweed/algae proteins.
Agar in vaccines is seaweed/algae derived. So if you develop allergy to seaweed proteins, you can react to seafood.
"Polysorbates are not associated with any particular allergens-- they are particular chemical formulae, and may be derived from any number of sources,"
Polysorbates are not made using a textbook perfect process. In the real world, contamination is a fact of life.
There is no specification limiting the allergen content in vaccines or injectable grade polysorbate. So, manufacturers do not and can not test during production. Do you know what is a safe quantity of allergen that can be injected into humans? If we don't know how much is safe to inject and we don't know how much allergen is contained in polysorbates, Murphy's law applies. Our kids with food allergy are living proof of the outcome.
When they don't have a specification, they are not engineering vaccines, they are tinkering with them. They are tinkering with our children's lives.
"but if they are contaminated with food proteins, they won't do what they need to as additives."
That's like saying vaccines won't work because they are contaminated with ovalbumin.
8-18ng/ml of casein is all it takes to cause anaphylaxis. Even less to cause sensitization.
18ng/ml is not going to stop the additive from doing what it is supposed to do.
"scaremongering"
If you are not scared about vaccines, you probably don't know enough about them.
"Daily consumption is about 10 times the amount in that oh-so-scary Vitamin K injection label that you dug up."
Apparently, you don't realize that ingesting is not the same as injecting? Surprising if this is your area of professional expertise ...
If you don't have ulcers, you can ingest cobra venom, but it would be a bad idea to inject it ...
"In so doing, you ignored the far larger number of data points which support the SAFETY of those same things."
References showing safety of food allergens in vaccines, please.
"Your final line indicates that you feel that Japan stopped immunizing schoolchildren on the basis of some grave risk to those children..."
Your own reference says:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103223441204 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103223441204)
"This program was abandoned in 1994 in response to community pressures following publicity of adverse reactions and questions about vaccine effectiveness."
If it was working great, why would they stop it?
CMdeux,
About the cocoa, there's another interesting part to it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342543 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342543)
How did they induce egg allergy in those rats?
They injected pertussis toxin with alum, along with ovalbumin.
That's the human equivalent of getting DTaP/TDaP, contaminated with ovalbumin instead of casein.
DTaP/TdaP of course contain aluminum salts as an adjuvant and pertussis toxins - both powerful adjuvants.
If we don't vaccinate, then WE are tinkering with our kids' lives.
APV, are you currently training to be a researcher?
A scientist, so you can come up with a better and safer (in your own mind) vaccine?
Are you contacting governments, and people who make these vaccines?
Or are you just here....trying to scare monger among parents of newly diagnosed kids?
In other words, what are YOU actually doing to improve this situation that concerns you so much?
~~~
You claim to have a newly diagnosed child, yet you seem to not have any concerns on the "living with".
Quote from: APV on February 03, 2015, 10:56:58 PM
Quote from: YouKnowWho on February 02, 2015, 02:40:59 PM
DD has had no vaxes and has a tree nut allergy - can you please explain that? Personally, I am blaming two strong doses of antibiotics within a three month time period. She was 4.5 when she developed her allergy, no previous signs.
Antibiotics can affect the gut microbiome which in turn can tilt immune balance towards allergy development. Was she prescribed acid-reducing medication? That could cause exposure of intact dietary proteins to the gut mucosa, resulting in sensitization.
It might be true that antibiotics and gut flora are somehow involved. There is some current research about treating people with a *particular* probiotic and it helping people's peanut allergy. But that is still in research stages. You speak as though what you are saying is proven already but it is not. If it were, allergists would also be telling us these same things.
You seem to be cutting and pasting most of your replies instead of writing your own summary of ideas. You are not always using quotes for things you appear to be cutting and pasting.
You seem to be claiming that exposure via blood makes people allergic but if that were the case people would develop food allergies after getting skin testing and that does not happen. If that were happening people would have noticed it by now. I don't like to say this here because it annoys people but there is another place where I talk about food allergies that has a lot more members and never once in the over many years I have been reading people's posts there has even one person said this happened to them. Allergists would notice if this were happening to their patients. My son has been tested for many things to which he tested negative and he remained negative to them. (That would be just him and wouldn't mean much as a whole but really, if this were happening we would know it already.)
My issue with your posts is that you are so very certain of things that have no research to back them up. Your mind does not appear to be open to the question--'do vaccines affect food allergies?' That would be a reasonable question to ask. But you have started with a firm answer already and that is coloring all your posts on this topic.
I am worried that the lowering of the vax rate in this country will lead to unnecessary deaths and complications from preventable diseases. I do not think vaccines are tied to food allergies. So far there is no evidence of this. Nothing you posted is the least bit concerning or convincing to me and I have my mind open to the question of what exactly is causing the rise in food allergies.
If you want help dealing with having a child with FAs, this is a helpful place.
Quote from: Macabre on February 03, 2015, 11:46:36 PM
Hey APV--are there other food allergy-related issues/concerns that you want to talk about with this group? 504s for school kids, labeling laws and the advocacy for sesame to be included, questions about manufacturers?
The gut/proton pump inhibitor thing I am interested in.
But beyond that, what are you interested in as a food allergy parent (if I remember correctly)?
My issue is that as lakeswimr says, there is no other involvement in our community. It just feels like we are being used by someone who parachutes in to further an agenda.
Quote from: APV on February 03, 2015, 10:56:58 PM
Quote from: YouKnowWho on February 02, 2015, 02:40:59 PM
DD has had no vaxes and has a tree nut allergy - can you please explain that? Personally, I am blaming two strong doses of antibiotics within a three month time period. She was 4.5 when she developed her allergy, no previous signs.
Antibiotics can affect the gut microbiome which in turn can tilt immune balance towards allergy development. Was she prescribed acid-reducing medication? That could cause exposure of intact dietary proteins to the gut mucosa, resulting in sensitization.
No proton pump inhibitors until after the anaphylactic reaction. BTW - she had a steady diet of tree nuts, may contains, etc with no known issue prior the anaphylactic reaction. Have not been brave enough to deal with testing yet but so far we have two tree nuts, macadamia and hazelnut so avoiding all for now.
She has been a relatively healthy child until this year - one strong antibiotic thanks to a splinter up her toe nail that caused blood poisoning and a stubborn UTI complete with 105 degree fevers.
My thoughts? Her allergies are probably based on her really poor atopic genetics. Look down at our list of allergens - generation prior to me was filled with asthmatics, extreme EA's and drug allergies. Generation prior to that was asthmatics, extreme EA's, food and drug allergies.
Cross-posting:
In 1962, children's book author Roald Dahl lost his oldest daughter, Olivia, to measles. She was 7 years old.
Twenty-six years later, Dahl wrote a letter to parents about what happened:
"As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn't do anything.
" 'Are you feeling all right?' I asked her.
" 'I feel all sleepy,' she said.
"In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead."
Measles Is A Killer: It Took 145,000 Lives Worldwide Last Year
Olivia had what's called measles encephalitis. The virus had spread to her brain. Her immune system rushed in to fight it. Her brain swelled up.
"A lot of folks feel measles isn't a big deal. It just causes a rash and a fever," says Dr. Alice Ackerman, chairwoman of the pediatrics department at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine. "In the majority of cases, that's true."
But in about 1 in 1,000 cases, the infection becomes systemic and moves to the brain.
"This causes behavioral changes, potential brain swelling and convulsions," Ackerman says. There's little doctors can do. Children can be left deaf, blind or with mental retardation — if they recover.
Even after a mild, "normal" case of measles, Ackerman says, there's a very small chance brain damage could develop years later.
"It doesn't matter how bad your initial measles infection was," she says. "Up to about eight years later, children can start showing behavioral changes. They may have problems sleeping or start acting funny. It's a degenerative process: The brain gets more and more physically damaged [from inflammation] over time."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/02/03/383305152/beyond-rash-and-fever-how-measles-can-kill (http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/02/03/383305152/beyond-rash-and-fever-how-measles-can-kill)
Quote from: Macabre on February 03, 2015, 11:46:36 PM
My issue is that as lakeswimr says, there is no other involvement in our community. It just feels like we are being used by someone who parachutes in to further an agenda.
I agree. At best we are being provoked in order to further an agenda. It bothers me to see so many of this community's members getting taken advantage of in this way.
seafood allergies linked to vaccines? No I dont think so.
its more likely that a common allergy, as dust mite provides a link to shellfish allergy. As outer 'shell' of dust mite has similar protein structure to shellfish, esp shrimp/prawns.
If vaccines provide a substantial risk of the development of shellfish allergy, why does the rise of shellfish allergy peak in woman who are of menopausal age?
It is far too simplistic to take a small ingredient of a vaccine and blame another food group for causing allergic reactions simply because both can be found in the sea!
This is maybe overly dismissive to a serious discussion. I'll choose to blame the cough syrup and general snarky mood that I'm in today.
If you are really worried about this method of exposure, (which I'm not going to concede is actually occurring from vaccines, but whatever) then you should be super worried about kids in day cares all over the country. Because the amount of times that I have seen one toddler bite another toddler? Shouldn't their be epidemic levels of milk allergy from that?
Influenza Specific Serum IgE is Present in Non-Allergic
Subjects
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x/pdf)
"To our surprise we found that these healthy
subjects, with no known or documented allergy, had an
IgE response against influenza. Furthermore, the level of
serum IgE significantly increased after influenza vaccination."
"This is of interest since we found a
significantly higher level of influenza specific IgE after
vaccination with influenza which might indicate a participation
of IgE in viral defence. IgE may attach to virus and
if connected to mast cells cause activation and participation
in the viral defence, as mediators released from mast
cells may turn the immunological response towards a Th1
profile, recruiting for example, T lymphocytes, and thus
protect against viral infection."
In short, part of the reason vaccines work is because they induce an allergy (IgE formation) against the viral/bacterial protein in the vaccine.
If you subsequently breathe in a cough droplet with that virus, you will suffer a small allergic reaction. Runny nose, perhaps a sneeze. It is the first line of defense to expel or wash away the virus.
Now add a food protein to the vaccine. Would it be surprising if IgE is formed against that food protein?
Next, food exposure does not happen in minute doses such as a cough droplet. Should we surprised if we suffer a big reaction/anaphylaxis?
More studies showing the same:
http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/188/1_MeetingAbstracts/113.9 (http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/188/1_MeetingAbstracts/113.9)
Smith-Norowitz TA, Wong D, Kusonruksa M, Norowitz KB, Joks R, Durkin HG, Bluth MH. Long Term Persistence of IgE Anti-Influenza Virus Antibodies in Pediatric and Adult Serum Post Vaccination with Influenza Virus Vaccine. Int J Med Sci 2011; 8(3):239-244. doi:10.7150/ijms.8.239. Available from http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm (http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/830756 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/830756)
Quote from: Macabre on February 04, 2015, 06:08:14 AM
If we don't vaccinate, then WE are tinkering with our kids' lives.
Yes, please choose your vaccine carefully if you have a choice. Make your kids drink cocoa before you vaccinate and continue for a month after.
To avoid too many food proteins and adjuvants at one time, I vaccinate my kids only one shot a month.
I AM asking for help. As I wrote, I would like people here to demand safer vaccines. Please demand the removal of food proteins from vaccines.
You are making the assumption that this means anything with regard to food allergies. The articles you posted just above did not make that claim. If vaccines did cause food allergies, the list of top allergens would include gelatin but gelatin allergy is very rare (ditto pork and beef allergies). Top allergens are not all in vaccines. What would explain that?
This is the third time I've asked that so it is probably silly of me to post in response.
What would a safer vaccine mean? Do you really know? Are you 100% sure?
The question of children biting one anther at daycare was a good one. Why isn't that producing food allergies? Why don't skin tests produce food allergies? Why do unvaxed kids get food allergies? Why do people not report developing food allergies just after receiving vaccines? For example, adults who get vaccines.
Reminder to member APV:
Terms of Service (http://foodallergysupport.olicentral.com/index.php/topic,3399.0.html)
Cocoa. Got it.
What happens when you get a person who thinks Autism and food allergies are made up in the same room who thinks vaccines cause food allergies and ASD? I'd pay per view that.
Quote from: APV on February 05, 2015, 12:05:07 AM
In short, part of the reason vaccines work is because they induce an allergy (IgE formation) against the viral/bacterial protein in the vaccine.
If you subsequently breathe in a cough droplet with that virus, you will suffer a small allergic reaction. Runny nose, perhaps a sneeze. It is the first line of defense to expel or wash away the virus.
In the case of the abstract you quoted, it looks like researchers think it may help the body mount a defense against the influenza virus, but not because it induces an allergic response but because it recruits T cells to fight off the virus. BTW, the studies those researchers referenced had a total of 43 subjects. That's a small pool from which to draw any conclusions, and they didn't.
IgE exists in all people not just those with allergies. It is theorized it evolved to tackle parasitic infections.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206235/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206235/)
"Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that levels of IgE increases with age from birth, regardless of atopic status but the increment in atopic children is abrupt and continue to have high levels in adult hood."
Quote from: maeve on February 05, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
it looks like researchers think it may help the body mount a defense against the influenza virus, but not because it induces an allergic response but because it recruits T cells to fight off the virus.
maeve,
They also refer to histamine release by mast cells which is basically an allergic response.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
100% of people with allergies have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of people with cancer have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of persons with ASD have consumed it as well.
Quote from: TabiCat on February 09, 2015, 11:22:49 AM
100% of persons with ASD have consumed it as well.
:o
It causes everything!
Quote from: APV on February 09, 2015, 02:02:21 AM
Quote from: maeve on February 05, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
it looks like researchers think it may help the body mount a defense against the influenza virus, but not because it induces an allergic response but because it recruits T cells to fight off the virus.
maeve,
They also refer to histamine release by mast cells which is basically an allergic response.
I read that but if you read the rest of that sentence and the whole paragraph, it states that it uses this response to recruit T cells.
I should point out that a) what was linked was not a published study but a letter to the editor and b) the copyright on the link is 10 years old. I have not seen any reporting on further on this subject.
Also, if you're so concerned about peanut and other allergens being used in vaccines (which they're not), why aren't you up in arms about prenatal vitamins of which several varieties contain peanut oil?
Honestly, give it a rest.
Quote from: SilverLining on February 09, 2015, 06:39:14 AM
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
100% of people with allergies have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of people with cancer have consumed dihydrogen.
I currently have large, even dangerous amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, in its crystalline form, in my yard. I need to remove a significant amount, which will be very labor intensive. But even after I remove what I can, much of it will end up in the ground water. And I have a well.
Quote from: hedgehog on February 09, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
Quote from: SilverLining on February 09, 2015, 06:39:14 AM
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
100% of people with allergies have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of people with cancer have consumed dihydrogen.
I currently have large, even dangerous amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, in its crystalline form, in my yard. I need to remove a significant amount, which will be very labor intensive. But even after I remove what I can, much of it will end up in the ground water. And I have a well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SIaFtAKnqBU (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SIaFtAKnqBU)
Quote from: hedgehog on February 09, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
I currently have large, even dangerous amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, in its crystalline form, in my yard. I need to remove a significant amount, which will be very labor intensive. But even after I remove what I can, much of it will end up in the ground water. And I have a well.
I guess we all need to move to the Moon.
Quote from: hedgehog on February 09, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
Quote from: SilverLining on February 09, 2015, 06:39:14 AM
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
100% of people with allergies have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of people with cancer have consumed dihydrogen.
I currently have large, even dangerous amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, in its crystalline form, in my yard. I need to remove a significant amount, which will be very labor intensive. But even after I remove what I can, much of it will end up in the ground water. And I have a well.
We do too and it's in a form that is very hard to remove. It poses a threat to humans, animals and even inanimate objects, even if not ingested. :( I wish it never appeared.
Quote from: Jessica on February 10, 2015, 04:01:16 AM
Quote from: hedgehog on February 09, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
Quote from: SilverLining on February 09, 2015, 06:39:14 AM
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
100% of people with allergies have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of people with cancer have consumed dihydrogen.
I currently have large, even dangerous amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, in its crystalline form, in my yard. I need to remove a significant amount, which will be very labor intensive. But even after I remove what I can, much of it will end up in the ground water. And I have a well.
We do too and it's in a form that is very hard to remove. It poses a threat to humans, animals and even inanimate objects, even if not ingested. :( I wish it never appeared.
OMG! I let my kids go out to play in and with it. Is there an antidote?
Quote from: becca on February 11, 2015, 07:55:43 AM
Quote from: Jessica on February 10, 2015, 04:01:16 AM
Quote from: hedgehog on February 09, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
Quote from: SilverLining on February 09, 2015, 06:39:14 AM
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
100% of people with allergies have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of people with cancer have consumed dihydrogen.
I currently have large, even dangerous amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, in its crystalline form, in my yard. I need to remove a significant amount, which will be very labor intensive. But even after I remove what I can, much of it will end up in the ground water. And I have a well.
We do too and it's in a form that is very hard to remove. It poses a threat to humans, animals and even inanimate objects, even if not ingested. :( I wish it never appeared.
OMG! I let my kids go out to play in and with it. Is there an antidote?
You mean.....like a.....vaccination? :o
Quote from: becca on February 11, 2015, 07:55:43 AM
Quote from: Jessica on February 10, 2015, 04:01:16 AM
Quote from: hedgehog on February 09, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
Quote from: SilverLining on February 09, 2015, 06:39:14 AM
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
100% of people with allergies have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of people with cancer have consumed dihydrogen.
I currently have large, even dangerous amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, in its crystalline form, in my yard. I need to remove a significant amount, which will be very labor intensive. But even after I remove what I can, much of it will end up in the ground water. And I have a well.
We do too and it's in a form that is very hard to remove. It poses a threat to humans, animals and even inanimate objects, even if not ingested. :( I wish it never appeared.
OMG! I let my kids go out to play in and with it. Is there an antidote?
You know, to bring things full circle here...
I think that the antidote is hot cocoa.
Quote from: Janelle205 on February 11, 2015, 11:39:16 AM
Quote from: becca on February 11, 2015, 07:55:43 AM
Quote from: Jessica on February 10, 2015, 04:01:16 AM
Quote from: hedgehog on February 09, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
Quote from: SilverLining on February 09, 2015, 06:39:14 AM
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
100% of people with allergies have consumed dihydrogen.
100% of people with cancer have consumed dihydrogen.
I currently have large, even dangerous amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, in its crystalline form, in my yard. I need to remove a significant amount, which will be very labor intensive. But even after I remove what I can, much of it will end up in the ground water. And I have a well.
We do too and it's in a form that is very hard to remove. It poses a threat to humans, animals and even inanimate objects, even if not ingested. :( I wish it never appeared.
OMG! I let my kids go out to play in and with it. Is there an antidote?
You know, to bring things full circle here...
I think that the antidote is hot cocoa.
despite the seriousness of this whole thread, that made me laugh.
Quote from: maeve on February 09, 2015, 01:06:12 PM
Quote from: APV on February 09, 2015, 02:02:21 AM
Quote from: maeve on February 05, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
it looks like researchers think it may help the body mount a defense against the influenza virus, but not because it induces an allergic response but because it recruits T cells to fight off the virus.
maeve,
They also refer to histamine release by mast cells which is basically an allergic response.
I read that but if you read the rest of that sentence and the whole paragraph, it states that it uses this response to recruit T cells.
I should point out that a) what was linked was not a published study but a letter to the editor and b) the copyright on the link is 10 years old. I have not seen any reporting on further on this subject.
Also, if you're so concerned about peanut and other allergens being used in vaccines (which they're not), why aren't you up in arms about prenatal vitamins of which several varieties contain peanut oil?
Honestly, give it a rest.
maeve,
I also provided a reference from 2012.
Here's another:
Smith-Norowitz TA, Wong D, Kusonruksa M, Norowitz KB, Joks R, Durkin HG, Bluth MH. Long Term Persistence of IgE Anti-Influenza Virus Antibodies in Pediatric and Adult Serum Post Vaccination with Influenza Virus Vaccine. Int J Med Sci 2011; 8(3):239-244. doi:10.7150/ijms.8.239. Available from http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm (http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm)
"if you're so concerned about peanut and other allergens being used in vaccines (which they're not)"
The CDC begs to differ. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf)
"why aren't you up in arms about prenatal vitamins of which several varieties contain peanut oil?"
Fundamental difference. Ingestion is not the same as injection. Proteins are broken down into harmless amino acids by digestive enzymes/acids.
Injecting proteins defeats this natural barrier hence the problem.
Dr. John Kelso writes:
"The fact that the skin tests were positive suggests that these were in fact an IgE mediated reactions, perhaps to the viral proteins themselves."
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/influenza-vaccine-anaphylaxis.aspx (http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/influenza-vaccine-anaphylaxis.aspx)
Not only do people synthesize IgE and develop allergy to injected viral proteins contained in vaccines, Dr. Kelso thinks it can even result in anaphylaxis on subsequent exposure.
When vaccines/injections contaminated with food proteins are injected, do we expect the immune system to magically behave in a different manner?
Quote from: APV on February 11, 2015, 09:27:17 PM
Quote from: maeve on February 09, 2015, 01:06:12 PM
Quote from: APV on February 09, 2015, 02:02:21 AM
Quote from: maeve on February 05, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
it looks like researchers think it may help the body mount a defense against the influenza virus, but not because it induces an allergic response but because it recruits T cells to fight off the virus.
maeve,
They also refer to histamine release by mast cells which is basically an allergic response.
I read that but if you read the rest of that sentence and the whole paragraph, it states that it uses this response to recruit T cells.
I should point out that a) what was linked was not a published study but a letter to the editor and b) the copyright on the link is 10 years old. I have not seen any reporting on further on this subject.
Also, if you're so concerned about peanut and other allergens being used in vaccines (which they're not), why aren't you up in arms about prenatal vitamins of which several varieties contain peanut oil?
Honestly, give it a rest.
maeve,
I also provided a reference from 2012.
Here's another:
Smith-Norowitz TA, Wong D, Kusonruksa M, Norowitz KB, Joks R, Durkin HG, Bluth MH. Long Term Persistence of IgE Anti-Influenza Virus Antibodies in Pediatric and Adult Serum Post Vaccination with Influenza Virus Vaccine. Int J Med Sci 2011; 8(3):239-244. doi:10.7150/ijms.8.239. Available from http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm (http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm)
"if you're so concerned about peanut and other allergens being used in vaccines (which they're not)"
The CDC begs to differ. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf)
"why aren't you up in arms about prenatal vitamins of which several varieties contain peanut oil?"
Fundamental difference. Ingestion is not the same as injection. Proteins are broken down into harmless amino acids by digestive enzymes/acids.
Injecting proteins defeats this natural barrier hence the problem.
Dr. John Kelso writes:
"The fact that the skin tests were positive suggests that these were in fact an IgE mediated reactions, perhaps to the viral proteins themselves."
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/influenza-vaccine-anaphylaxis.aspx (http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/influenza-vaccine-anaphylaxis.aspx)
Not only do people synthesize IgE and develop allergy to injected viral proteins contained in vaccines, Dr. Kelso thinks it can even result in anaphylaxis on subsequent exposure.
When vaccines/injections contaminated with food proteins are injected, do we expect the immune system to magically behave in a different manner?
Highlighting this gem:
Quote
Fundamental difference. Ingestion is not the same as injection. Proteins are broken down into harmless amino acids by digestive enzymes/acids.
Injecting proteins defeats this natural barrier hence the problem.
Oh, good grief. ~)
So, then, using your same "logic" I can now tell my kids that it would be perfectly *safe* to eat their allergens as the proteins that cause their anaphylxis will be rendered harmless due to the break down into amino acids at the hands of their digestve enzymes?!
I think I need something stronger than cocoa to deal with this stuff today.
Going to go inject myself with caffeine. :coffee:
I was thinking of schnapps to go with the cocoa?
I think this thread calls for going straight to the bourbon.
cant believe this thread is still going on.
please let it die a horrible death, lock jaw would be nice or polio.
Wait--Hedgie said bourbon.
I will be all over that.
And it *is* time to send them in. Death by clown.
Judy Collins Send in the Clowns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIqx5_w-dnk#)
Quote from: ajasfolks2 on February 12, 2015, 07:34:20 AM
"So, then, using your same "logic" I can now tell my kids that it would be perfectly *safe* to eat their allergens as the proteins that cause their anaphylxis will be rendered harmless due to the break down into amino acids at the hands of their digestve enzymes?!"
Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the mechanism of Type I hypersensitivity IgE mediated allergy. Most food allergies fall into this category.
When a protein is injected, your body creates a protein specific immunoglobulin E (IgE). These move via the blood and attach to mast cells in your mouth.
You have now been sensitized (or have developed an allergy). Subsequently, when you place this protein in your mouth, the IgE attaches to the protein and triggers a reaction. This is known as elicitation. As you can see, the digestive enzymes are not involved at all.
So explain to me how DS became allergic to peanuts before his vaccinations?
APV this example shows the fault in your "research".
http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker (http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker)
SL, there are very funny comments to that post!
Quote from: hedgehog on February 14, 2015, 06:29:45 AM
So explain to me how DS became allergic to peanuts before his vaccinations?
Did he receive the Vitamin K1 shot?
APV - DD received no vaxes and no Vit K shot and still developed her tree nut allergy.
And food allergies have been around since before the fifties. There is a chapter about food allergies in a family medical book that I have from 1950.
My grandfather had PA - he was born in 1909.
My food allergies were all developed in adulthood, long, long after I had vaccinations. And most of them are atypical - I'm guessing vaccine exposure to the things that affect me is probably unlikely.
The immune system being exposed to intact food proteins is the root cause of Type I allergy.
As I wrote before, ingested food proteins are broken down into harmless amino acids by stomach acid/enzymes.
When this natural barrier is bypassed, one can develop allergy.
The most common (but not the only) mechanism of bypassing this protection is injection of the food protein.
Other possibilities:
1. Skin prick allergy tests.
2. Insect bites.
3. Stomach acid reducing medications.
4. Eczematous skin, exposure to food proteins.
http://www.excipientfest.com/europe/pdf/EFE14%20June%2024,%20A1%20The%20Joint%20IPEC-PQG%20GMP%20Guide.pdf (http://www.excipientfest.com/europe/pdf/EFE14%20June%2024,%20A1%20The%20Joint%20IPEC-PQG%20GMP%20Guide.pdf)
"How is excipient
manufacture regulated?
• To the surprise of many the
manufacture and supply of excipients
is unregulated by any agency
• European legislation puts the onus on
the user, the MA holder to ensure that
starting materials are of a 'suitable'
standard"
Does that inspire much confidence in vaccine/injection safety?
My MIL was born in 1933 and had MFAs as an infant and child.
allergies have always been with us!
first record of asthma was from a 10th century monk.
animals have allergic reactions as well.
Quote from: APV on February 13, 2015, 11:20:51 PM
Quote from: ajasfolks2 on February 12, 2015, 07:34:20 AM
"So, then, using your same "logic" I can now tell my kids that it would be perfectly *safe* to eat their allergens as the proteins that cause their anaphylxis will be rendered harmless due to the break down into amino acids at the hands of their digestve enzymes?!"
Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the mechanism of Type I hypersensitivity IgE mediated allergy. Most food allergies fall into this category.
When a protein is injected, your body creates a protein specific immunoglobulin E (IgE). These move via the blood and attach to mast cells in your mouth.
You have now been sensitized (or have developed an allergy). Subsequently, when you place this protein in your mouth, the IgE attaches to the protein and triggers a reaction. This is known as elicitation. As you can see, the digestive enzymes are not involved at all.
Actually, you don't seem to understand the mechanism of a food allergy support group that has had enough of your hooey.
Seriously.
To quote member maeve,
Quote
Honestly, give it a rest.
If we all stop feeding the troll, maybe it will go away.
Thread is locked.
IOM: Food proteins present in vaccines cause the development of food allergies
The US Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) charged the Institute of Medicine (IOM) with providing a thorough review of the current medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and vaccine adverse events.
The IOM has concluded in its report that:
FOOD PROTEINS PRESENT IN VACCINES CAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOOD ALLERGIES.
https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx (https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx)
"Adverse events on our list thought to be due to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions
Antigens in the vaccines that the committee is charged with reviewing do not typically elicit an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (e.g., hepatitis B surface antigen, toxoids, gelatin, ovalbumin, casamino acids).
However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis."
For those who may not be familiar, here are the basics of allergy - a two step process:
Sensitization: When exposure to an allergen (food protein) occurs for the first time, there are no symptoms. Over a period of a few weeks, the immune system develops antibodies specific to the allergen. The person is now sensitized. In other words, the person has developed allergy to the specific food item. "IgE-mediated sensitization", is the technical description for development of allergy.
Elicitation: When a sensitized person is exposed to the same allergen again, they develop an immediate reaction (usually within minutes). Also called hypersensitivity reaction. This is called elicitation. A severe, life-threatening case of elicitation is known as anaphylaxis.
So in simple English, the IOM committee has concluded that food proteins such as gelatin, egg (ovalbumin) and milk (casamino acid is derived from milk) that are present in vaccines, cause healthy non-allergic people to develop allergies to those food items upon receiving the vaccine.
The only mention of allergy and anaphylaxis from this 2011 report is from an incident related to the vaccine itself. Nowhere did I see sensitization and resulting food allergy in that report. Are you tacking things on? If not cite from within. Use APA with exact text quote so we can find it. Thanks.
I already provided the exact text quote.
Pl. see document Pg. 65 (pdf pg. 94 ) and Pg.277 (pdf pg. 306).
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 (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 (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)
What were the submission/acceptance requirements for a poster abstract at this conference? Generally, as long as you meet the formatting guidelines and pay your fee, it will be accepted.
Please stop making new threads. I'm merging this with your other thread. This topic will remain unlocked for 24 hours to allow responses.
ETA: As for the second link, it's an OPEN ACCESS journal. That means anyone can submit and be published for a fee as long as you meet the formatting requirements, etc. (just like with the poster abstract).
From page 12 as instructed to read:
Quote
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"?
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.
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 (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.
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.
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.
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 (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 (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 (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 (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)
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.
To respond to your question:
QuoteThis NEJM article:
Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330 (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.
QuoteIn 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.
:banghead: