Thanks!

Oh, thanks LinksEtc!  I wouldn't mind at all.  I love that thread. It's like a playground...

Quote from: Linden on October 10, 2014, 12:34:25 PM
And we can post on the "if you were an allergy researcher" thread.

Linden, this is an awesome post ... would you mind if I copied it & put it in the "researcher" thread?

Unfortunately, you cannot do DIY research any more than you can do DIY brain surgery.  You need doctoral training, just as CMDeux said.  If I may elaborate on her points further:

1) You need a Ph.D.  in a related subject matter.  Otherwise you won't have the content knowledge to be able to fully understand the logic behind the hypothesis being tested or to assess whether the conclusions drawn by the author are supported by the study. 

2) You need methodological training.  Buckets of it.  You need to be trained on experimental methods and other research methodology so that you can assess whether the study's methodology is adequate to truly test what the authors claim to test.  And so that you can understand the *limitations* on the findings.  Many studies suffer from limited or poor design.

3) You need access to a Ph.D.level statistician.  Preferably one with training in the statistical methods being employed by the study.   I can't even tell you how frequently statisticians read published studies and shake their heads.  They find MAJOR flaws in the statistical methods used.  They use words like "all wrong" and "you can't do that with the data". 

Okay, so what can we laypeople do? Is there a role for us?  I think there is.  We can raise concerns, and we can ask questions.  We can wonder whether a particular line of research is suggesting something. We can talk to Congress and to NIH about what we think the research priorities should be.  And we can post on the "if you were an allergy researcher" thread.

CMdeux,

"The injection-adjuvant theory of allergen sensitization went out of fashion in a pretty big way in the 1970's, btw. "

Could you please elaborate? Any references? Adjuvants are common today, so not sure what you mean.

"even highly atopic people-- safely receive vaccinations (and have for decades)"

By safely you mean without sensitization or without elicitation? Any references?

"less and less of the allergens in question, while at the same time, rates of food allergy have RISEN, rather than falling (which should be the case if your hypothesis here were correct)."

Two things to consider:
1. Up to 5 simultaneous vaccine shots in one sitting is a recent occurrence. More allergen proteins, more adjuvants at one time means more probability of sensitization. Total vaccine shots have gone up to 40-50.
2. C-section births prime for IgE. So rising C-section rates also contribute.

Was you daughter delivered via C-section? Did she get the Vitamin K1 shot or any vaccine containing Polysorbate 80?
Did you take acid reducing medications such as proton pump inhibitors? The only mechanism of sensitization I know is exposure of allergen to the bloodstream. So you have to think of all the possibilities that could have caused that.

In 2003:
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.

Today vaccines still contain gelatin.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

and here is the effect in 2013:

http://www.acaai.org/allergist/news/New/Pages/AllergictoGummyBearsBeCautiousGettingtheFluShot.aspx

So those entrusted with doing the research don't seem to be performing it. So what choice do you have but to do it yourself?

Quote from: SilverLining on October 09, 2014, 07:02:12 AM
You are making connections with no evidence. Many people develop food allergies at various times in their lives.  I developed mine in my twenties. I had never had a flu shot.

I truly am sorry that your child has good allergies. They are horrible and no child should have to deal with them.

But, if you are going to post a "cause" that your research has led you to believe caused it, post it with your credentials in a recognized journal. Otherwise, you are putting lives at risk.

And the many kids I know with autism....none had received flu shots prior to showing signs of autism.  Some had never had any shots....because their parents believed it was what caused it in an older sibling.  And, I mean that NONE of them had received flu shots prior to showing signs of autism at 2-3 years old. NONE.

It is the flu season and I was researching flu shots and posted it. The allergy mechanism is the same for any vaccine or even injections.
Basically, for sensitization to occur, the allergen must come into contact with the bloodstream. If you had no vaccines or injections around the time you developed the allergy, the possibility as I wrote before could be acid reducing medication. If none of this applies, you have to think what mechanism could have caused your allergen to have come into contact with your bloodstream. If it is meat allergy of course, you have the possibility of tick bites as the cause. Did you have a skin allergy test for example?

Even if a kid had no vaccination, I don't know if they also avoided the Vitamin K1 shot given to all newborns.

I believe I have presented strong evidence for food allergies. As for skin/muscle protein allergies, it is a note of caution.
Think of it this way. If an aircraft pops a tire when it lands, would you check ALL the tires before it took off again?

It has been conclusively proven that gelatin in vaccines caused gelatin allergy development.
So given Charles Richet's findings and the gelatin result, every protein injected is a suspect.
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.

It is an extremely difficult subject I agonize over. How do you choose between vaccine-preventable deadly diseases vs. vaccine-induced life-threatening allergies?
No one should have to make that choice. But that is the choice presented to us.

After the autism controversy, few people want to perform vaccine safety research. This is not my profession. But if no one else will do the research, what option do you have?

Quote from: guess on October 09, 2014, 07:50:46 AM

Quote from: APV on October 09, 2014, 12:37:18 AM

Quote from: guess on October 06, 2014, 09:25:29 AM
You chose which one?

Fluzone Intradermal.

That's an interesting flu shot. The intradermal is a little uncomfortable but I may try it next year.

Do you personally link GMO to food allergy as a cause?

No, I have not studied GMO.

Quote from: Janelle205 on October 09, 2014, 11:10:54 PM
If all this were true, then wouldn't intradermal allergy testing be horribly dangerous and causing allergies left and right?

Yes, it could.

If all this were true, then wouldn't intradermal allergy testing be horribly dangerous and causing allergies left and right?

That is what led me to perform this research.


With all due respect, reading a few things on the internet is NOT research.  Why not?

Well, because there is no way to refute the hypothesis that one is formulating with all of that reading, and one may quite easily ignore or discredit-- or perhaps simply never FIND-- material that doesn't support our presuppositions.  Genuine research involves being willing to TEST whether or not a hypothesis is plausible by allowing for conditions* in which the hypothesis would be proven incorrect. 

The problem with doing this kind of "research" one's self is that selection and perception biases are huge to begin with unless one has already had the kind of training that generally comes along with a terminal degree in a physical science or in medicine, and made even worse by the fact that we as parents are deeply emotionally invested and come to the process with what we WANT to believe must be so (that there must be a "reason" for "X" to have happened to us/our child). 

* Suppose that I believe that, just for example, lunar eclipses are caused by unseasonable temperatures.  How would my doing a lot of "internet research" allow me to DISprove such a hypothesis?  It probably wouldn't-- because think about how I would go about searching that hypothesis and supporting materials out to begin with-- I'd be LOOKING for evidence that supported my hypothesis.  Also, "unseasonable" is a pretty relative term.  The mechanism is plausibly connected, at least if I didn't know a lot about climate and astronomical observations, so I might not really see any NEED to hunt down material that directly contradicts my personal beliefs in any way. 

This is why scientists don't necessarily have much respect for laypersons doing "research" by the way-- it's not that we think that people are dumb, exactly, so much as that they consistently overestimate their own objectivity and metacognition, and fail to appreciate that a willingness to be catastrophically WRONG-WRONG-WRONG is part of the process.  An essential part of the process.

The injection-adjuvant theory of allergen sensitization went out of fashion in a pretty big way in the 1970's, btw.    Yes, there are particular mechanisms which can be used to sensitize laboratory animals in known ways, but those are NOT typical situations, any more than some other particular lines of laboratory animals (those bred to develop seizure disorders, or tumors) reflect the general human immune system. 

Silver has helpfully already provided a direct counter-example for the "hypothesis" proposed.  That's all that is necessary, unless you can determine some refinement that accounts for the fact that a great many people-- even highly atopic people-- safely receive vaccinations (and have for decades) which contain less and less of the allergens in question, while at the same time, rates of food allergy have RISEN, rather than falling (which should be the case if your hypothesis here were correct).


Also-- tropomyosin is not a thing-- it's a CLASS of things.  One tropomyosin does not necessarily cross-react (at all) with any others.  This is particularly true when considering arachnid/crustacean tropomyosins and those from mammalian sources.  Just so you know.  This is, again, where layperson "research" can get into trouble.  Research articles may fail to note that it's important to note the SOURCE of the tropomyosin in question.  This is not much different than claiming that eating "protein" causes allergic sensitization.  Well, sure it does-- but clearly some proteins are more equal than others there, and it is still not at all clear what causes some atopic people to never sensitize to some highly potent food sensitizers (like nuts or shellfish), while others do so upon their first exposures.

I'm VERY sure that my daughter had no known exposures to peanuts prior to nearly dying from her first taste of peanut butter.  I'm also very sure that I routinely ate all manner of shellfish without ill effect until I was in my 30's.  We have similarly atopic profiles, she and I-- so why did she get unlucky?  Nobody really knows right now.  But what I do know is that it didn't have any correlation with vaccination history.  Period.

Quote from: APV on October 09, 2014, 12:37:18 AM

Quote from: guess on October 06, 2014, 09:25:29 AM
You chose which one?

Fluzone Intradermal.

That's an interesting flu shot. The intradermal is a little uncomfortable but I may try it next year.

Do you personally link GMO to food allergy as a cause?

I do avoid vaxes with thimerosol whenever possible. It's not always possible. It seems counterintuitive to have Mercury injected into my body, even at very low levels. Of course, I used to play with it whenever a thermometer broke, so what's a little inside these days? 

You are making connections with no evidence. Many people develop food allergies at various times in their lives.  I developed mine in my twenties. I had never had a flu shot.

I truly am sorry that your child has good allergies. They are horrible and no child should have to deal with them.

But, if you are going to post a "cause" that your research has led you to believe caused it, post it with your credentials in a recognized journal. Otherwise, you are putting lives at risk.

And the many kids I know with autism....none had received flu shots prior to showing signs of autism.  Some had never had any shots....because their parents believed it was what caused it in an older sibling.  And, I mean that NONE of them had received flu shots prior to showing signs of autism at 2-3 years old. NONE.

Quote from: SilverLining on October 06, 2014, 11:38:29 AM
Here's the problem.

Your research lead you to believe that flu shots cause autism.  It does not.  That was flawed data and is the one and only time the Lancet retracted anything.

So your research is flawed. 

I'm sure some of the information you have is correct, and that actually just makes this dangerous. Some people might believe you because one thing is correct and so they assume it all is. But it very obviously is not all correct.

Are you in any way being paid to bring traffic to any of those links you posted?

I believe the vast majority of autism/vaccine research involved thiomersal. I am suggesting that based on a common theme observed from the days of Charles Richet that when muscle protein gets injected into the body with adjuvants, one can develop an allergy to one's own cells (autoimmunity). Further, tropomysosin is present in muscles, intestine and the brain. So I wrote that the autoimmunity could result in autism. I don't have proof for that. I also don't believe tropomyosin has been investigated as a cause for autism. In other words, the mechanism I am suggesting is quite different from what has been investigated.

My links are either fda/cdc/pubmed/journals,  or my own posts/sites. So I am not getting paid.

Quote from: guess on October 06, 2014, 09:25:29 AM
You chose which one?

Fluzone Intradermal.