Evidence of peanut proteins in vaccines ??

[APV]

Can we change the thread title?  It's incorrect.  There is no evidence. 

Could you please explain why?

[SilverLining]

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?

[SilverLining]

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.

[APV]

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://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

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

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
"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

Interestingly, the Japanese stopped mandatory influenza vaccination for school kids when this paper was published. Mere coincidence, may be not ...

[CMdeux]

Okay-- with your opening line, you demonstrate COMPLETE ignorance of chemistry and toxicology.  I've attempted to correct this kind of conflation of half-correct info with completely incorrect 'data' in your posts before, and I'm done wasting my time.  Quit posting things which are such incredibly gross distortions.   

Because I know that APV will insist that I am merely attacking because I cannot do so-- once more, with feeling.

Agar is NOT "seafood" derived.  Polysorbates are not associated with any particular allergens-- they are particular chemical formulae, and may be derived from any number of sources, but if they are contaminated with food proteins, they won't do what they need to as additives.  Geeeez.   For heaven's sakes, that's just stupid.  Casein and ovalbumin are the only two things in that sentence which are even close to accurate.  And even those are misleading as all hell given that the amounts in nearly every vaccine in the current era are-- near undetectable levels, with the exceptions that the CDC notes in the pinkbook.  Those exceptions are clearly noted in the appendices, by the way-- and individual manufacturer information is even given.  There is NO effort to hide anything from anyone.    THIS IS NOT "educational" posting, it is scaremongering, and not particularly skilfully done.   I consider it trolling given that you don't seem to contribute anything else to this community.   How many other things is Polysorbate 80 found in, hmmm?  Do take a look at the supporting references here under "consumption and effects" please.   OH, wow.  On average?  Daily consumption is about 10 times the amount in that oh-so-scary Vitamin K injection label that you dug up.    {sigh}

Yes, that is a wikipedia link, but the references are pretty solid.  Might not be QUITE what I'd have picked out to support some statements, but it's okay and reasonably unbiased.  I'm picking links that debunk some of this nonsense without being being paywalls, and without being too technical-- because it is critical that this kind of GARBAGE not be allowed to stand long enough to raise doubts in anyone who is reading it.  APV is clearly already a true believer, and I have little hope of convincing him/her that s/he is completely-- well, I don't have a diplomatic turn of phrase.  Operating well oustide his/her scope of expertise, I think is the best way of stating it.

  I'm spending a LOT of time debunking this because this is how psuedoscience operates-- it nibbles away at the edges of what seems reasonable, or nearly so, to most people.  Even well-educated people, provided that they lack the specific background to see the big picture AND understand the details at the same time.  I often get the sense that only someone like me actually looks at a post like that and howls in a combination of amazed hilarity and frustration with the sheer whack-a-mole, manic quality involved.    Clearly Silver understands it too, though, which makes me feel a LOT better.

Insulting?  Sorry-- but this is a huge waste of my time.  I am not getting paid for this, and this is my area of professional expertise.  Well, one of them.  {sigh again}


Bernoulli's principle is more than 200 years old but airplanes still depend on it.
Likewise, there are fundamental discoveries like Charles Richet's anaphylaxis finding over a hundred years ago, that have been repeatedly confirmed. We ignore it at our peril.

Seriously?

You had to dig back nearly a century to find papers that supported your pet theory.  In so doing, you ignored the far larger number of data points which support the SAFETY of those same things.

THAT IS NOT "research" and it most certainly isn't how one goes about doing science or even thinking about evidence-based anything.

If you think that this is great research, then apply for funding to pursue it.  Truly.  Here's a hint-- NOBODY is going to listen to you because you are not making much sense.  You're cobbling together unrelated bits and pieces of information that are mostly speculative to start with (relying upon retrospective case studies and correlations), and demonstrating how little of it you truly understand by spouting things about how the principles of physics haven't changes in hundreds of years.  Well, guess what?  They've NEVER been any different, but Aristotle sure didn't fully understand them and had some rather wacky things to say to explain his admittedly careful observations.  I'm still thinking that I should probably rely upon my physics texts from the 1970's and 1980's rather than good old Da Vinci, however interesting I might find his notions, and however innovative they were in his day.  Does that mean that I think less of Aristotle or da Vinci?  Most certainly NOT.  Just that they turned out to be wrong about a lot of things.  Science works that way-- it moves ON by incorporating what is important and reproducible, and by discarding what doesn't pan out.  You are dredging up some things which are decidedly in the latter category.  Which is what I was attempting to gently warn you about before.    Bernoulli didn't INVENT aerodynamic lift, for whatever that is worth.  Birds probably "discovered" this a long time before mammals were even around, never mind primates with the cognitive capacity to postulate formulae about it. 

TO anyone reading:  this is what is SO dangerous about looking for information about vaccination on the web-- people like this ABOUND, and most of them have exactly no self-awareness when it comes to the limitations in their ability to accurately read and understand professional literature in proper context.    They fail to understand that just because something is in writing, just because that writing exists within an archive-- does not make it currently the best available explanation.  Sorry, but you really do have to have all that advanced education when you play in the deep end of the pool.  That's a bummer for laypersons wanting to challenge paradigms, I realize-- but there are people who have a few decades invested (who are probably smarter than you), and who regularly invest 50 to 80 hours each week on this stuff, and they do NOT get the same thing out of reading those references.  In fact, they shake their heads over this kind of thing. 

It certainly gives ME a headache.  It's whack-a-mole.    And really, this 2008 blog post about the exact same phenomenon is a good demonstration of the kinds of tactics used here.  While it never gets old for those moles, it sure gets old for those of us holding the mallet.   

Please stop this.  A community whose children are at elevated risk from respiratory diseases, some of which are vaccine-preventable-- a community which has one member who has lost a child to such an agent-- this is just rude. 

So.  Why are you personally here posting, Hmm?

I've not seen you ask ANYTHING-- nor offer anything, either-- related to life with a life-threatening food allergy.  EVERY word that you've ever posted here has been anti-vaccination scare-mongering. 

Some of us have a lot of reasons to THANK vaccine makers and developers for our lives.  We aren't looking for perfect safety-- maybe because we already have a much more intuitive grasp of what real risks look like, I don't know.   I repeat-- one of our own has lost a child to an infectious agent-- and I gaurantee you that family would tell you to put a sock in it because what you're selling can KILL kids.  Are there risks?  Sure.


But given that about one in a MILLION doses of MMR results in an anaphylactic reaction, even among a population in which about 2-5% of the kids getting it are egg-allergic, I'm pretty comfortable with that risk.  Even for my highly egg allergic toddler, I was more than comfortable with it.  Am I just too dumb to have realized all of what you've "helpfully" posted?  Probably not-- take my word for that, but I'm equally confident that it wasn't my lack of ability or awareness.  Or maybe it's that I'm also familiar with some of the other data that supports the safety of the same vaccines that you're scrambling to question the safety of.

Vaccinations are safe.  No, really-- no matter what those questioning their safety would like for us to believe.  If for nothing else, the cartoon at that link is worth the click, btw.  Here:

[spoiler]

[/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

So what happened when they ran that experiment, anyway?

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, by the way.  Just be aware that there are some things in that which aren't really intended for parents, but for health professionals.  Also be aware that in terms of relative risks, vaccination, even when it doesn't go well, is generally still one of the safest of medical interventions.   And wow, Japan discontinuing publicly funded and mandated flu jabs for schoolchildren- I'd hardly call that one a public health WIN on any score, since every year since has probably resulted in an additional 50K fatalities, if thirty years of epidemiological data is to be believed.    I call that a massive loss in terms of public health, but that's just me, I guess.


Nobody is hiding anything.  Vaccination really IS that safe, and it really IS that safe even for the children with multiple life-threatening food allergies.   Those parents should be talking with well-informed allergy specialists who know their child's individual reaction history and are familiar with their medical records.  What they should not be doing is believing the rantings of someone who is spouting totally incoherent nonsense on the internet.

Guess what?  You say that you want "safer" vaccines.  But nearly all of them are already safer than the vast majority of a human being's day to day activities.  Period.  Good lord-- how much safer do they have to BECOME before people like you knock this nonsense off, anyway??    It's already safer for my child to get a standard flu shot (even with her egg allergy, btw) than to drink a glass of water or walk to the mailbox.      Being unvaccinated, on the other hand, is only "safer" if everyone else does it so that you can benefit from their immune "shield" for yourself.

You're a public health menace, and you're deliberately spreading misinformation.  The kind of misinformation that can kill a hefty percentage of the members of this community, who have asthma or are immunocompromised for other reasons, such as needing long-term steroid treatments. 





Here-- since this was rather popular in the other thread;

https://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/measles-vaccination-and-homeopaths/

DO give that a read.


That explain it?  People who scare parents away from vaccinating their children endanger my child-- and everyone else's children, too.  NO amount of cherry-picking of data can change that.   

Now, for heaven's sakes.  It's Monday tomorrow, and I have a day job.  One that actually does things to improve other people's lives.   

[CMdeux]

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}

[CMdeux]

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?

[SkyScorcher]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.pdf

I think there's about five, actually. 

Although the "Texas Sharpshooter" seems the predominant one, here. 

[hedgehog]

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. 

[hedgehog]

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.

[maeve]

...  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.

[CMdeux]

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.

[YouKnowWho]

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.

[lakeswimr]

Youknowwho, my child had a reaction day 1 via breastmilk.    Strong allergic family history. 

[catelyn]

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.