USMC-091001-M-7097L-014

If there’s one thing about having a demanding day job, it’s that the cranks usually have the advantage. They can almost always hit first when a news story comes out that they can spin to attack their detested science. On the other hand, it usually ensures that by the time I get home, have dinner, and settle down in front of the TV with my laptop to discusse the latest bit of science, there’s some tasty crankery to deconstruct.

Oddly enough, tonight appears not to be one of those times. Heck, as of this writing, even that wretched hive of antivaccine scum and quackery, Age of Autism,, doesn’t have anything up about it. Oh, well, never let it be said that something so minor stopped me from discussing science that interested me. I’ll just have to try to find new ways of making it fun and interesting.

So, by now surely you’ve seen the news stories that popped up beginning yesterday morning with headlines like CDC Warning: Flu Viruses Mutate and Evade Current Vaccine and Flu vaccine protects against wrong strain, US health officials warn, Flu shots may not be good match for 2014-15 virus, CDC says, and Health Officials Warn This Year’s Flu Vaccine Won’t Prevent New H3N2 Strain Of Influenza. You get the idea. This year, apparently, the flu vaccine isn’t as effective as health officials would like. How could this have happened.

Those of you who are knowledgeable about the flu vaccine know that, as useful as it is, it’s not one of the greatest vaccines as far as effectiveness. Actually, that’s not true. Its effectiveness can and does vary considerably from year to year. The reason is simple. There are many strains of influenza, and the vaccine as currently formulated generally only covers a handful of strains. Basically, every year the World Health Organization, in collaboration with the CDC and other health organizations throughout the world, has to make an educated guess which strains of influenza will be circulating the following winter. Many months’ lead time is required because vaccine manufacturers require it to develop and test the new formulations and then to ramp up their manufacturing capabilities and distribute the vaccine. Generally, the WHO chooses three strains it deems most likely to cause significant human suffering and death in the coming flu season. Specifically, the chosen strains are the H1N1, H3N2, and Type-B strains thought most likely to cause significant human suffering in the coming season, although, starting with the 2012–2013 Northern Hemisphere influenza season, the WHO has also recommended a second B-strain for use in quadrivalent (four strain) vaccines. Basically, the WHO coordinates the contents of the vaccine each year to contain the most likely strains of the virus to attack the next year. Wikipedia has a helpful article that lists the formulations of all the flu vaccines recommended for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres dating back to 1998, to give you an idea what’s been recommended in the past. Also, there are exceptions. In the 2009-2010 season, for example, the H1N1 pandemic was occurring, and it was recommended that everyone be vaccinated against H1N1 in addition to the normal flu vaccine.

As you can imagine, predicting many months in advance which strains will be circulating in the following flu season is a dicey proposition under the best of circumstances. When the WHO gets it right, the flu vaccine is maximally effective. When it doesn’t, we have a situation in which the vaccine is not as effective as we would like. As this news story relates:

Much of the influenza virus circulating in the United States has mutated and this year’s vaccine doesn’t provide good protection against it, federal health officials are warning.

Flu season’s barely starting, but most cases are being caused by a strain called H3N2 this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a health warning issued to doctors Wednesday night.

The flu vaccine protects against three or four strains of flu — there’s always a mix of flu viruses going around — and H3N2 is one of them. But the strain of H3N2 infecting most people has mutated and only about half of cases match the vaccine, CDC said.

Basically, all the news stories to which I linked report a the issue in a similar way. One of the major strains in the vaccine is H3N2, a strain that normally circulates in pigs and can cause serious outbreaks. Unfortunately, based on its initial observations and data collection, the CDC has concluded that the H3N2 strain that’s causing most of the disease has undergone what is referred to as “genetic drift,” changes in the genetic makeup of the virus that make them different from the strain used many months ago to determine the recommended formulation. Personally, when I see stories like this, I like to go to the source. When the story is about a scientific study, that source is the original peer-reviewed scientific article. When it’s about something like this, the source is the CDC press release:

So far this year, seasonal influenza A H3N2 viruses have been most common. There often are more severe flu illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths during seasons when these viruses predominate. For example, H3N2 viruses were predominant during the 2012-2013, 2007-2008, and 2003-2004 seasons, the three seasons with the highest mortality levels in the past decade. All were characterized as “moderately severe.”

Increasing the risk of a severe flu season is the finding that roughly half of the H3N2 viruses analyzed are drift variants: viruses with antigenic or genetic changes that make them different from that season’s vaccine virus. This means the vaccine’s ability to protect against those viruses may be reduced, although vaccinated people may have a milder illness if they do become infected. During the 2007-2008 flu season, the predominant H3N2 virus was a drift variant yet the vaccine had an overall efficacy of 37 percent and 42 percent against H3N2 viruses.

“It’s too early to say for sure that this will be a severe flu season, but Americans should be prepared,” said CDC director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “We can save lives with a three-pronged effort to fight the flu: vaccination, prompt treatment for people at high risk of complications, and preventive health measures, such as staying home when you’re sick, to reduce flu spread.”

I can see what’s coming. In fact, I’m very surprised that, as I write this, it hasn’t come already. If there’s one vaccine that antivaccinationists love to hate, it’s the flu vaccine, because, compared to other vaccines, it’s the easiest target, given that it tends not to be as efficacious as many other vaccines. Heck, it’s the vaccine that Bill Maher likes to hate on (or at least show contempt for). Contrary to what antivaccinationists and cranks like Bill Maher would have you believe, the flu vaccine is not dangerous, and it does work. It might not work as well as some vaccines, and, until a universal flu vaccine is developed that targets antigens common to all strains of flu is developed, it never will be. But it’s still worth getting.

No, the flu vaccine is not worthless, but you know that hysterical antivaccine articles claiming that to be the case are coming.

For completeness’ sake, I’ll just mention that the quadrivalent flu vaccine for the 2014-2015 flu season is targeted to these strains:

  • A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus
  • A/Texas/50/2012 (H3N2)-like virus
  • B/Massachusetts/2/2012-like virus.
  • BBrisbane/60/2008-like virus (only included in some vaccines)

As this story on how this happened relates:

Since Oct. 1, 82% of the influenza virus samples subjected to laboratory testing have been H3N2 viruses, according to data from the CDC. And only 48% of these samples are closely related to the A/Texas/50/2012 strain that was picked for the flu vaccine distributed in North America.

Most of the rest of the H3N2 samples were similar to another strain called A/Switzerland/9715293. That strain was picked for the flu vaccine for the Southern Hemisphere, but not the one here.

Unfortunately, although the “drifted” A/Switzerland/9715293-like (as in genetic drift) strains were detected in late March 2014, after World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the 2014-2015 Northern Hemisphere vaccine had been made in mid-February, their prevalence increased enormously by September, by which time it was far too late to reformulate this year’s vaccine:

Health experts charged with monitoring flu viruses first detected strains of the A/Switzerland virus in the U.S. in March, Frieden said. By then, “it was already too late to include them in this season’s vaccine,” he said.

Besides, at that time, the A/Texas strains were still “by far the most common of the H3N2 viruses,” he said. The A/Switzerland strains didn’t appear in large numbers until September, he said.

Twice each year, the World Health Organization issues a recommendation for a flu vaccine — one for the Southern Hemisphere and one for the Northern Hemisphere. This approach gives health planners two opportunities to plan a vaccine.

Putting it all together, what this all means is that the remaining 18% plus the remaining 48% of the H3N2 strains that are close matches to the vaccine H3N2 strain (0.48 x 0.82 = 0.39 or 39%), for a total of 57% constitute a good match for what’s out there. How did this happen this year? The same way it happens on any year when the flu vaccine isn’t as good a match as we would like to the strains circulating: Health officials made the best prediction they could at the time, but the virus changed in the six or seven months between when they had to commit to a formulation of the flu vaccine and the start of the flu season.

Another aspect of this is that it is likely that the H3N2 component of this year’s flu vaccine is still good enough to confer partial immunity to the A/Switzerland/9715293-like strains, so that, while it doesn’t protect against becoming sick by these strains it could make the illness less severe. This is important because the H3N2 strains tend to be associated with severe flu seasons.

Not surprisingly, as I was writing this, a notice popped up in my Google Alerts telling me that everyone’s favorite quack, antivaccinationist (but I repeat myself), and all-purpose conspiracy theorist, Mike Adams, had weighted in under a rather restrained (for him) title, CDC issues flu vaccine apology: this year’s vaccine doesn’t work!, complete with a link to this video:

Contrary to what Gary Franchi of NextNewsNetwork claims, no, the CDC did not just say that the flu vaccine doesn’t work. It really didn’t. It just said that we can expect it to be less effective this year because it’s not as good a match as we would like. What’s with this concrete thinking among quacks? It’s the Nirvana fallacy in action: If a “Western” medical intervention isn’t 100% effective, to them it’s pure, dangerous crap. Funny how they don’t apply that standard to the woo they normally like to pedal.

But back to Mikey. Hilariously, after touting a “story” from a crank news source and criticizing the CDC for supposedly producing a defective vaccine and then selling Tamiflu at a high cost, Adams pivots to promoting his own execrable science. Truly the man is without self-awareness:

Mercury tests conducted on vaccines at the Natural News Forensic Food Lab have revealed a shockingly high level of toxic mercury in an influenza vaccine (flu shot) made by GlaxoSmithKline (lot #9H2GX). Tests conducted via ICP-MS document mercury in the Flulaval vaccine at a shocking 51 parts per million, or over 25,000 times higher than the maximum contaminant level of inorganic mercury in drinking water set by the EPA.(1)

The tests were conducted via ICP-MS using a 4-point mercury calibration curve for accuracy. Even then, the extremely high level of mercury found in this flu shot was higher than anything we’ve ever tested, including tuna and ocean fish which are known for high mercury contamination.

In fact, the concentration of mercury found in this GSK flu shot was 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury we’ve ever tested in contaminated fish. And yet vaccines are injected directly into the body, making them many times more toxic than anything ingested orally. As my previous research into foods has already documented, mercury consumed orally is easily blocked by eating common foods like strawberries or peanut butter, both of which bind with and capture about 90% of dietary mercury.

This was, of course, one of the silliest things Adams ever did with his new toy (his mass spectrometer), as I had considerable fun relating here.

Adams then goes on to tick off a litany of antivaccine lies, using a typical antivaccine technique known as “argument by package insert.” The central fallacy of such an argument is that package inserts are legal documents, not so much scientific documents, and are thus hyper-conservative in listing any reaction that’s ever been reported after a drug or vaccine, whether there is good scientific reason to believe that reaction is due to the vaccine or drug or not. He trots out the old claimed link with Guillain-Barre syndrome that is almost certainly not real. He even trots out the formaldehyde and toxin gambit!

It all builds up to a crescendo of Mike Adams crazy belied by the relatively tame (for him) title of his post:

Trusting a flu shot made by a corporation of felons is a lot like trusting the purity of heroin you buy from a street dealer. Both flu shots and street heroin have at least one thing in common, by the way: neither has ever been tested for safety.

We also know that flu shots contain neurotoxic chemicals and heavy metals in alarming concentrations. This is irrefutable scientific fact. We also know that there is no “safe” form of mercury just like there is no safe form of heroin — all forms of mercury are highly toxic when injected into the body (ethyl, methyl, organic, inorganic).

The only people who argue with this are those who are already mercury poisoned and thus incapable of rational thought. Mercury damages brain function, you see, which is exactly what causes some people to be tricked into thinking vaccines are safe and effective.

Technically, you’d have to be stupid to believe such a thing, as the vaccine insert directly tells you precisely the opposite.

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey…at least he always entertains. No one can quite reach the spittle-flecked faux outrage with such hyperbole, with the possible exception of his mentor Alex Jones. But notice the inherent sucking up to his audience. He (and, by extension, those who believe him) are not “sheeple”! They’re not “brain-damaged” by mercury! Oh, no! Only they understand and avoid the evil pharma cabal. Everyone else is a mercury-damaged sheeple.

This year’s flu vaccine might well be suboptimal. Unfortunately, until there is a universal vaccine that targets parts of the virus that don’t mutate so rapidly, the flu vaccine will always be suboptimal. Of course, companies and scientists are frantically working on just such a vaccine. If it weren’t so incredibly hard to do, they would have produced one already. In the meantime the flu vaccine, as imperfect as it is, is the best we have, and it is still very much worth receiving because the flu still can kill healthy individuals.

Comments

  1. #1 Krebiozen
    January 12, 2015

    APV,
    I’m not going to repeat myself yet again, while adding the precautionary principle to the long list of things you apparently don’t understand. You do bring up a couple of new points:

    When we have technology to make vaccines without thiomersal, we have to stop using thiomersal in vaccines per the precautionary principle. The FDA/CDC are still beating around the bush with assertions of ethyl mercury being eliminated faster then methyl mercury. Congress had to step in, stop the nonsense and enforce the precautionary principle.

    That’s very misleading account of what happened. It was the USPHS and AAP who supported reduction of thimerosal despite concluding that there was, “no evidence of harm caused by doses of thimerosal found in vaccines, except for local hypersensitivity reactions”.

    The AAP have subsequently stated (PDF) that if we had known then what we know now, thimerosal would would likely not have been removed from most vaccines. Here’s what they said in full:

    Overwhelmingly, the evidence collected over the past 15 years has failed to yield any evidence of significant harm, including serious neurodevelopmental disorders, from use of thimerosal in vaccines. Dozens of studies from countries around the world have supported the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines. Specifically, the Institute of Medicine, and others have concluded that the evidence favors rejection of a link between thimerosal and autism.

    Careful studies of the risk of other serious neurodevelopmental disorders have failed to support a causal link with thimerosal. In May 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its 1999 statement on thimerosal after evaluating new studies. […] Had the evidence that is available now been available in 1999, the policy reducing thimerosal use would likely have not been implemented. Furthermore, in 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed the use of thimerosal in vaccines.

    Yet another unfounded vaccine scare that cost a fortune, increased people’s concerns and had no positive effect on people’s health whatsoever.

    Looks like not just parents but a majority of doctors and family practitioners find my posts more credible than the FDA/CDC !?

    It looks like you have a serious reading comprehension problem, yet again. Allow me to explain it to you through the medium of embolding the relevant passages:

    Nearly 70 percent of doctors surveyed nationally for the study said that parent worries have risen recently, and more than a third of the physicians reported their own concerns had also increased. […]
    Doctors in the survey who reported their concern had grown were much more likely to believe that further research on vaccine safety was warranted by the recent events. Family practitioners were more likely than pediatricians to believe that more research was needed, but a majority of both groups want more research to be done on the potential for neurologic effects such as autism. on the safety of newly introduced vaccines, and on vaccine additives.

    It is it not true that a majority of doctors and family practitioners expressed concern about vaccine safety, more than a third of them did, and those did not state that they were concerned that vaccines cause food allergies.

    It sounds worrying but that study was conducted in 2001, not long after there was a rotavirus scare about intersussception and thimerosal was removed from most vaccines. We have new safer rotavirus vaccines now, and we know that the thimerosal scare was unfounded. Physician confidence in vaccines has been increasing since then with most family physicians and pediatricians reporting confidence in post-licensure vaccine safety studies in 2013.

  2. #2 Krebiozen
    January 12, 2015

    Julian Frost,

    The operative word is POSSIBILITY.

    I looked more closely at that paper. The first paper APV linked to described children being injected with egg-protein-containing vaccines 11 to 35 times over a period of 12-27 months. A small number of children (1.6%) developed dermal sensitivity to egg but no clinical egg sensitivity developed, despite two of them being injected with egg-protein-containing vaccines 35 times.

    I think that’s good evidence against injected egg-protein-containing vaccines causing clinical allergy to egg.

  3. #3 OccamsLaser
    January 12, 2015

    APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham:

    Thank you so much for publicly posting yet another example of how dishonest you are. It is very important for any parents who may come across this thread to see such clear-cut proof that you lie as easily as you breathe.

    You wrote,

    “When Avantor says Polysorbate 80 is sourced from palm/coconut and does not provide a spec. for allergen content, I say we have to assume the worst. We have to assume it contains palm/coconut allergens based on the precautionary principle. You call that lying.”

    No. What we call lying is your fabricating statements supposedly made by others, and making up fake “facts” to bolster your argument (which, it follows, would fail if you didn’t make things up to support it).

    Please compare the two following claims of yours:

    “When Avantor says Polysorbate 80 is sourced from palm/coconut and does not provide a spec. for allergen content, I say we have to assume the worst.”

    “[Phuong Tang of Avantor stated to me in an email that] they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.”

    The first statement is not a lie (it’s just you stating a decision you’ve made), nor does it contain an embedded lie.

    The second statement is a lie, told by you.

    You do realize that it’s very telling that you have been evading addressing this point for many days now. Everyone reading this will know why that is; because you’re a dishonest coward. You won’t address this comment either, which is constructive proof that you admit lying, as you have done about so many other things.

  4. […] as it is for me to believe, it was only five weeks ago when I discussed an announcement by the CDC that this year’s flu vaccine would likely be less effective because it isn’t a good […]

  5. #5 biblia
    outerteharoha
    January 18, 2015

    This thread is so many kinds of crazy I was finally compelled to comment. My youngest boy died (22) 5 years ago at the tale end of the first southern hemisphere wave of novel h1n1. No vaccine. The young medical student who was fighting for life at the same time is now a poster child for flu vacs. My boy died after a rare reaction to a common virus. If I could have saved his life in exchange for a food allergy, yeahh!

  6. #6 herr doktor bimler
    January 18, 2015

    This thread is so many kinds of crazy I was finally compelled to comment.

    You have my sympathy already, Biblia, but if you have read through this entire thread, than you have it even more.

  7. #7 biblia
    outerteharoha
    January 18, 2015

    Thank you herr doctor bimler. The death of my boy has led me into so much science and sketpicism that I can no longer spell!!! Aarghh.

  8. #8 lilady
    January 18, 2015

    I’d like to extend my condolences for the loss of your beloved son, biblia. (If you think this thread is crazy, stick around to see just how crazy Respectful Insolence can get). 🙂

  9. #9 matt
    January 22, 2015

    British Medical Journal
    Are US flu death figures more PR than science?
    http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1412

    “People don’t necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus — the viraemia,” said Dr. David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services. “What they die of is a secondary pneumonia.”

  10. #10 Krebiozen
    January 22, 2015

    matt,

    “People don’t necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus — the viraemia,” said Dr. David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services. “What they die of is a secondary pneumonia.”

    You could say the same for secondary infections after HIV, measles, hip fractures and abdominal gunshot wounds. In all cases avoiding the primary cause also avoids the potentially lethal sequelae. Prevention is better than cure, isn’t it?

  11. #11 Matt
    January 25, 2015

    I agree prevention is the best cure. That is why a healthy immune system is important to maintain. I would postulate that influenza has never killed or harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system. I also feel that prevention does not necessarily come in the form of a needle.

    A wise man once said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”

  12. #12 Lawrence
    January 25, 2015

    @Matt – pardon the language, but you are full of crap.

    The 1918 Pandemic Flu as more lethal to those who were “young and healthy” – it was their healthy immune response that was ultimately the cause of their death.

  13. #13 APV
    January 28, 2015

    Krebiozen #1212,

    “Prevention is better than cure, isn’t it?”

    Certainly not! We are actively looking to cure food allergy.
    There is absolutely no interest in trying to prevent it.

  14. #14 Narad
    January 28, 2015

    I would postulate that influenza has never killed or harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system.

    There’s a level of ignorance that one doesn’t see every day. Ever heard of 1918, Matt?

  15. #15 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    January 28, 2015

    @APV:

    We are actively looking to cure food allergy.
    There is absolutely no interest in trying to prevent it.

    Given that there is no “cure” for allergies yet, and given that people have died from allergies, there is a great deal of interest in preventing food allergies.

  16. #16 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    January 28, 2015

    Matt @1213 said

    I would postulate that influenza has never killed or harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system. I also feel that prevention does not necessarily come in the form of a needle.

    A wise man once said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”

    Suppose you wanted to actually prove, rather than merely assume, that influenza has never harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system.

    1. How do you define “a healthy individual” in this context?
    2. How do you measure how strong someone’s immune system is? How do you know that?
    3. What studies have been done to show that individuals with a measured strong immune system has never been harmed by influenza? Where were these studies published?
    4. Given a statistically large population, could you determine in advance which would be harmed by influenza and which would not? How? How do you know that?
    5. You imply there are foods that strengthen the immune system. Which foods? How is that measured? How do you know that?

    Note that any proof of your assumption that uses infection by influenza as the test is fundamentally a tautology, and no more meaningful than saying that only people who are haunted by ghosts are killed or harmed by influenza (proof: the people who weren’t killed weren’t haunted by ghosts, so the people who were must have been – even if they didn’t know it).

  17. #17 APV
    January 30, 2015

    Julian Frost #1217
    “there is a great deal of interest in preventing food allergies.”

    This long thread started with my comment about peanut in Polysorbate 80.
    This document:
    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.

    Given the history of “poorly hydrolyzed gelatin” and “very trace” milk contamination of vaccines, we now also have documented evidence of peanut proteins contaminating vaccines.

    If anyone is serious about preventing food allergies, removing food proteins from vaccines would be a good start.

  18. #18 Narad
    January 30, 2015

    we now also have documented evidence of peanut proteins contaminating vaccines

    You’ve already more than adequately demonstrated your inability to either read or think, thanks.

  19. #19 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    January 30, 2015

    APV, you are once again being thoroughly disingenuous.

    So Avantor was unable to guarantee that this Polysorbate 80 was not contaminated with peanuts, before 2011

    is not, in your words “documented evidence of peanut proteins contaminating vaccines”, no matter how much you think it is.

  20. #20 Narad
    January 30, 2015

    It’s not even evidence that they were “unable to guarantee” anything;

    This product is manufactured from oleic acid of palm, coconut, or sunflower origin, sorbitol from corn, and ethylene oxide from petrochemical origin.

    The palm, coconut, sunflower, ethylene oxide are non-GMO materials.

    The peanut comes from where, again? And who pays a premium for freaking GMO-free PS-80 in vaccine manufacture?

  21. #21 Krebiozen
    January 30, 2015

    I’m very concerned about polysorbate 80 containing unicorn droppings. Why isn’t that on the list of things that aren’t in it?

  22. #22 APV
    January 30, 2015

    Julian Frost, Narad, Krebiozen #1221, #1222, #1223,

    Why was peanut added to the “do not contain” list only in 2011?
    Why does Avantor now emphasize that their Polysorbate 80 is of non-peanut origin, if no one ever makes peanut sourced Polysorbate 80?

  23. #23 Narad
    January 31, 2015

    @Vinu Arumugham:

    Why does Avantor now emphasize that their Polysorbate 80 is of non-peanut origin, if no one ever makes peanut sourced Polysorbate 80?

    If you think you get a reboot of your screamingly willful ignorance of how oleic acid is (1) obtained from raw product and (2) ethoxylated, you are sorely mistaken. Stick to Topix.

    BTW, are you still lying about being a medical student over at Medscape? I’m pretty sure that there are people around who could try to help remedy that situation.

  24. #24 Vicki
    January 31, 2015

    At a wild guess, because someone asked them about peanuts and possible allergies. We are living in a culture that has maple syrup explicitly labeled as a fat-free food. That doesn’t mean other brands of maple syrup, or for that matter cane sugar, contain fat.

  25. #25 Colonel Tom
    January 31, 2015

    You do realize that Tautology of the above argument. (1218, etc)

    A ” healthy individual” is one that does not die of flu, therefore a healthy individual has never died of flu.

    Also, the potential mass of peanut material in a vaccine is so infinitesimally tiny as to be of the same level of exposure as walking past a lays potatoe chip facility or a White Castle. Pharmaceutical grade materials are of very high purity, only chromographic grade being higher.

  26. #26 APV
    January 31, 2015

    Colonel Tom #1227,

    “Pharmaceutical grade materials are of very high purity”
    Please post a pointer to the specification (ng/ml allowed?)
    And also please post the study showing what level of peanut protein in a vaccine is safe.

  27. #27 APV
    January 31, 2015

    Vicki #1226,

    Their “do not contain” list has several allergens, why only market it as a non-peanut origin product? What’s the value of that claim, if every other Polysorbate 80 on the market is also of non-peanut origin?

  28. #28 Narad
    January 31, 2015

    @Vinu Arumugham:

    Please respond in detail to my comment #1225. There are only two points, which should be well within your grasp as a circuit jockey (and apparently being called out on that when you surface) with plain fraudulence as an acceptable operating principle.

  29. #29 Narad
    January 31, 2015

    Their “do not contain” list has several allergens, why only market it as a non-peanut origin product? What’s the value of that claim, if every other Polysorbate 80 on the market is also of non-peanut origin?

    I see, it didn’t contain peanut until they said it didn’t contain peanut. Well played.

  30. #30 Narad
    January 31, 2015

    ^ Please add tedious blockquote note.

  31. #31 Colonel Tom
    January 31, 2015

    “Pharm grade matter” is a regulatory definition dealing with the standards of purity in materials. If you wish to enter the exciting field of pharm regulatory compliance, you can start by reading
    21 CFR 210, 21 CFR 211, 21 CFR 820. My end of career background had much more to do with 40 CFR 70 and 51, but I certainly had enough overlap to know that Pharm grade is high purity.

    As far as what level of peanut program could possibly cause an adverse reaction, since we are talking about pico and nanograms here, I have to refer you to first principles. A substance with no detectable effect upon a system.

    Otherwise, you could show an increase in autism and any affect for those living within a mile of a Jif plant. I’ve seen those studies, no detectable effect.

  32. #32 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    January 31, 2015

    Colonel Tom @1227

    A ” healthy individual” is one that does not die of flu, therefore a healthy individual has never died of flu.

    Indeed, I think we can take it one step further. Once a “healthy individual” catches influenza, that person is now a “sick individual”, thus no longer healthy. It should be obvious that no person who doesn’t have flu can die of flu.

  33. #33 Vicki
    January 31, 2015

    APV:

    Because it’s marketing. Did you miss the point of my example, that one brand of maple syrup being labeled “a fat-free food” doesn’t mean that other maple syrup contains fat?

  34. #34 Colonel Tom
    Land of Meadows
    January 31, 2015

    @Vicki, An undergrad friend of mine, and one of the few minds I’ve ever encountered that I considered to be “an intellectual level” above my own abillity, did a summer internship at the P&G Jif plant. While he was working there, Jif changed the packaging to include the phrase “cholesterol-free”. As David Hardin ranted in a little article published in the honors program, peanut butter has never had cholesterol, will never have cholesterol and the weeks he spent fixing old stock were, at best, less than productive.

    As I said, when it wrote about it, it was funny.

    @Mephistopheles O’Brien. I will not preclude the possibility that someone has died after being hit by a hearse carrying a dead flu victim to the graveyard. Since no one can prove that has never happened, I must fixated upon the possibility of a maniac hearse driver, his vehicle overloaded with the bodies of the flu-deceased with underlying health problems, careening across the lane on the hill up to my home, plunging us all to the river valley below.

    Also, there was the old joke, no longer true, that everyone dies of heart stoppage. Cause of death used to be legally considered to be determined by heart stoppage, thus my little jest about my first “death” of 4.7 minutes from Amphotericin B.

  35. #35 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    January 31, 2015

    Did you know that the leading cause of death is conception?

  36. #36 Orac
    January 31, 2015

    Indeed. Life is, as I like to say, a sexually transmitted 100% fatal disease. 🙂

  37. #37 Colonel Tom
    Land of Meadows
    January 31, 2015

    @Mephistopheles O’Brien, we actually have a religious saying about that. “Life is a gift, none know the length nor worth of the gift, but appreciate and take joy in all days as granted.”

    Now, we could launch into a heated and meaningless debate that since all conceptions do not lead to a birth, in my personal experience at least 8 conceptions never made it past the 15th week. Since all conceptions do not lead to death, than we’re just going to invalidate your whole premise for no logical and describable reason. To quote Richard Nixon, “We could do that, but it would be wrong”.

    Shootfire, we could also argue that if only 1 out of 9+ conceptions lead to birth, if that statistically proves a genetic incompatibility, a structural problem in the beloved one’s lady parts or if we could just attribute that to pure chance. If 1/4 conceptions fail, then what are the odds of 8+ in a row failing. We could do that, but to quote the Pythons, that would be too silly.

  38. #38 OccamsLaser
    January 31, 2015

    APV/Vinu Arumugham:

    Your problem is that you lie a lot, and you are too cowardly to address your numerous lies that have been exposed here. You are a deeply dishonest person. You have no integrity. You fabricate evidence in support of your position.

    For example, you stated that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you in an email that Avantor’s Polysorbate 80 contains palm oil and coconut oil.

    That’s a lie; you made that up. And everyone who reads this thread, now and in the future (perhaps after searching for your name, in order to find out whether you are honest or dishonest) will know that you lied about that.

    Have you taught your children that it’s OK to lie to get something they want? They will inevitably discover how dishonest a person you are, and they will probably ask you for an explanation.

    What will that explanation be?

  39. #39 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    January 31, 2015

    Colonel Tom – I agree that not all conceptions lead to births; however, the vast majority human deaths are preceded by conception. Coincidence? I think not.

  40. #40 APV
    January 31, 2015

    Vicki #1235,

    They use labels like fat-free or cholesterol-free because there is a market for them.
    Injectable grade Polysrobate 80 is sold to pharmaceutical companies. There is a market for Polysorbate 80 of non-peanut origin because pharmaceutical companies have found:

    1. Polysorbate 80 of peanut origin contains residual peanut proteins.
    2. Peanut proteins in pharmaceutical products cause harm.

  41. #41 APV
    January 31, 2015

    Colonel Tom #1233,

    The fact is there are no studies or specifications for safe dose of peanut allergen in injectable products. Please prove me wrong by posting a spec. or study. You don’t engineer vaccines with terms like “very high purity”. You need a spec. “Very trace” amounts of casein, 8-18 ng/ml in DTaP/TdaP have caused anaphylaxis because there was no specification for casein in vaccines.

  42. #42 Narad
    January 31, 2015

    Polysorbate 80 of non-peanut origin because pharmaceutical companies have found:

    1. Polysorbate 80 of peanut origin contains residual peanut proteins.

    Vinu, it has been well established that you are dishonest, but you’ve just added delusional to that.

  43. #43 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 1, 2015

    APV:

    Polysorbate 80 of peanut origin contains residual peanut proteins.

    Given that you were shown that peanuts have never been used to manufacture polysorbate 80, all I can say is that you are delusional.

  44. #44 Lawrence
    February 1, 2015

    APV is as delusional and single-minded as MjD – perhaps they can form the core of a barbershop quartet….

  45. #45 APV
    February 1, 2015

    Julian Frost #1245,

    “Given that you were shown that peanuts have never been used to manufacture polysorbate 80.”

    Where and when was that shown?

  46. #46 Colonel Tom
    Land of Meadows
    February 2, 2015

    @APV Prove to me that vaccines are not manufactured according to specifications in the CFR. Prove to me that pharmaceutical grade reagents are not required.

    Cause, I know they do.

  47. #47 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 2, 2015

    APV:

    “Given that you were shown that peanuts have never been used to manufacture polysorbate 80.”

    Where and when was that shown?

    Narad pointed it out in his comment #1222.

  48. #48 APV
    February 3, 2015

    Julian Frost #1249,

    Narad is talking about their current product. I am talking about what they were shipping before the 2011 revision of their datasheet.

  49. #49 APV
    February 3, 2015

    Colonel Tom #1248,

    Where in the CFR are allergen limits for vaccines/excipients specified?
    I know they don’t because the FDA, USP and Sanofi Pasteur confirmed that to me.

  50. #50 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 4, 2015

    APV, so because the company revised its datasheet, it must also have changed its product formulation? Is that what you’re arguing? Seriously?

  51. #51 Narad
    February 4, 2015

    Narad is talking about their current product. I am talking about what they were shipping before the 2011 revision of their datasheet.

    No, I am talking about your being a delusional liar who, lacking the ability or inclination to so much as make the slightest effort to try to understand the manufacturing process despite ample pointers has now been reduced to trying to pass off completely insane shіt such as

    Polysorbate 80 of non-peanut origin because pharmaceutical companies have found:

    1. Polysorbate 80 of peanut origin contains residual peanut proteins.

    because you thought you had snagged a “live one” in Vicki.

  52. #52 Narad
    February 4, 2015

    APV, so because the company revised its datasheet, it must also have changed its product formulation? Is that what you’re arguing? Seriously?

    See “tapioca, ‘kosher’.”

  53. #53 APV
    February 4, 2015

    Julian Frost #1252, Narad #1254,

    No, they changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources). They THEREFORE updated the datasheet to reflect the change in the product.

  54. #54 JGC
    February 4, 2015

    Direct question, APV: do you have any evidence whatsoever demonstrating vaccines ever contained Polysorbate 80 made from peanuts?

    Or does your entire argument take no form other than “Well, it COULD have happened–couldn’t it?”

  55. #55 doug
    February 4, 2015

    Anyone growing bored with the dubious horrors of surfactants made from peanut oil might like to have a look at Intralipid and “Milk of Amnesia” (propofol).
    Intralipid, used in substantial quantities for parenteral nutrition, including (with some extra precautions) for premature infants, contains up to 30% soybean oil and 1.2% phospholipids from eggy wegs, o my brothers. Propofol, a widely used IV anesthetic, contains the same ingredients.
    Soybeans! Eggs! Up there in the top ten list of food allergens. Yet somehow components thereof are readily purified for large volume IV administration.

  56. #56 Narad
    February 5, 2015

    No, they changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources).

    You are so G-ddamned dishonest that you would do well to figure out when it’s time to quit trying to attract attention.

    I mean, couldn’t Avantor’s Phuong Tang supply you with earlier versions?

  57. #57 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 5, 2015

    I asked APV:

    APV, so because the company revised its datasheet, it must also have changed its product formulation? Is that what you’re arguing? Seriously?

    APV replied:

    No, they changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources). They THEREFORE updated the datasheet to reflect the change in the product.

    I guess that answers my question.
    APV, companies update their datasheets all the time without altering their products.
    I repeat what I said before. You got nothin’.

  58. #58 Tim
    February 6, 2015

    @Politicalguineapig #426

    “An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it” — Orlando Aloysius Battista {and Kennedy’s 1961 address, The President and the Press, et al.}

    ^^Well, maybe not time-sensitive errors: The landing gear on an aircraft during final approach or the jettisoning out of it without first applying parachute, the 3’rd shift forgetting to top off the water in the nuclear reactor before leaving the key and locking the door on the way out, …, accidentally ‘sexting’ your mom.

    I have made an error and I fear harm has been done but, in the interest of ‘harm reduction’, I am now attempting to correct it. It seems ‘Providence’ foresaw the poorly thought out critique and gave me many hours of grace period to ammend my statement. I, on the other hand, stubbornly and impulsively, foolishly stompy-foot wished it published.

    In my comment #316, I have committed abuse of artistic liscence gross awkward embellishment. For the stated circumstance of my ‘sliding away’ was not generally characteristic of that part of The Body of which I was an ‘active’ participant; Rather, it was weak rationalization and broad-brush mischaracterization after the fact. This dissimulation for public consumption and the rest of that problematic paragraph, borders on my having bore false witness against the church, my father, and, to a matter of degree, myself. For this, I am remorseful and I apologize.

  59. #59 APV
    February 7, 2015

    JGC #1256,

    I have shown that versions of injectable grade Polysorbate 80 contain peanut protein. It matters little if it were injected as part of a vaccine or a Vitamin K1 injection. It made people sick.
    And it is injectable grade so they inject it. They don’t use it in food.

  60. #60 APV
    February 7, 2015

    The MMR vaccine contains 11-14 mg of hydrolyzed gelatin.
    According to many posters here, hydrolyzed gelatin is 100% free of allergen because it goes through “hydrolyzation hell”.

    If it is guaranteed to be free of allergen “by definition”, then why does the MMR package insert carry a warning for people who are allergic to gelatin?

    The fact is, they cannot guarantee MMR is free of gelatin allergen. As I have shown before, if MMR has enough allergen to elicit a response, it has more than enough to cause sensitization. So, MMR vaccines can cause gelatin allergy. MMR also contain 14.5 mg of sorbitol. Sorbitol is made from various food sources. So you get the idea …

  61. #61 APV
    February 7, 2015

    Julian Frost #1259,

    So Avantor figured out after producing the product for 4 years (2007-2011) that they left peanut out of the datasheet? And then they coincidentally start marketing the product as “of non-peanut origin”? Need a lot of salt to swallow that …

  62. #62 Narad
    February 7, 2015

    So, MMR vaccines can cause gelatin allergy. MMR also contain 14.5 mg of sorbitol. Sorbitol is made from various food sources. So you get the idea …

    Yes, I’m sure that everyone “got the idea” a long fυcking time ago. The problem is that you are not just demonstrably dishonest in the conventional sense, but mentally lazy as shіt, enthusiastically and stalwartly ignorant of what you imagine to be your “field of expertise,” and proud as fυcking hell of the debasement.

  63. #63 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 7, 2015

    APV:

    I have shown that versions of injectable grade Polysorbate 80 contain peanut protein.

    No you haven’t. You have come up with an absurd theory that vaccines provoke allergies and you have twisted, distorted and begged the question to find “evidence” for your hypothesis. None of the so-called evidence you have posted rises to the standard of proof.

    So Avantor figured out after producing the product for 4 years (2007-2011) that they left peanut out of the datasheet? And then they coincidentally start marketing the product as “of non-peanut origin”? Need a lot of salt to swallow that

    Not at all. The most likely scenario is that someone (or more than just one) contacted them looking for information and they updated their datasheet. However, one does need a lot of salt to swallow that they were using peanuts then changed their formulation. You have shown how little you know about mass production already.

  64. #64 Matt
    US
    February 8, 2015

    So you still believe those CDC numbers, huh?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html

    Here is another oldie but goodie…

    Any M.D. willing to dring (not inject) all the perservatives and adjuvants in thier equivalent body weight ajusted amounts can have $75,000 instantly. To this day there are no takers.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/07/19/75-000-offered-for-md-to-publicly-drink-vaccine-additives.aspx

  65. #65 Lawrence
    February 8, 2015

    Thanks for confirming, once again, that you’re a nutjob Matt.

  66. #66 Narad
    February 8, 2015

    So you run away from your utterly brain-dead comment that “I would postulate that influenza has never killed or harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system” and then ooze back around waving Mercola and Lawrence Freaking Solomon?

    Good L-rd.

  67. #67 APV
    February 12, 2015

    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

    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?

  68. #68 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 12, 2015

    Once again, APV, where is your proof that vaccines are “contaminated”?

  69. #69 Narad
    February 12, 2015

    Vinu Arumugham, just how badly do you desire your fraud upon Medscape to be brought to light?

  70. #70 Ginko
    NYC
    February 12, 2015

    I’m new to this site. I hope after moderation this comment will be accepted. I am someone who is interested in engaging in dialogue with the true believers in modern science. Vaccines are a good place to start- GMOs even better. I think modern science is both good and bad and right and wrong. Modern science was originally meant to be completely open-minded and to follow the evidence. Because the human mind works along symbolic, mythic and religious structures, probably because we need faith since we cannot know the future or past with any certitude, I see here a fanaticism in regards to faith in modern science.

    I love the enthusiasm for Science here. I also love the enthusiasm at a festival honoring Ganesh where everyone is throwing around turmeric and wearing flowers. It’s all good. What I don’t like are mandates based on the faith of one sect of true believers meant to control others who do not share the same belief system. Like vaccine mandates. Or witch hunts. Or pogroms.

    Science has been horribly terribly wrong. (Thalidomide, frontal lobotomies, bleeding therapy, mercury therapy- it’s a long list). Science has been used for evil. (Mengele and the Nazi doctors some of whom were brought to the US after WW2). Science has created some horrible things. (Nuclear bombs, killer drones, MK-Ultra).

    Science contradicts itself, which is a good thing. But faith based scientists don’t like to admit that science contradicts itself. It turns out to be very hard to get real certitude with science beyond the basic physical chemical level. As soon as a complex living system is studied like a human being, all certitude essentially vanishes. (Frankly the certitude vanishes even at the chemical physical level, but it does remain predictable, unlike humans). Science likes to believe in laws that were created at the instant of the big bang and that they have always been and always will be inviolable tenets of reality: like gravity or the second law of thermodynamics. But when evidence is brought forth contradicting these laws, most scientists ignore it. (Read “The Science Delusion” by scientist Rupert Sheldrake for details.) Even to actually believe in the Big Bang is an extreme act of religious faith. There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence against the big bang. But most faith based scientists believe wholeheartedly in it, because a human being has to believe in something. If not God then Science will have to do.

    Which brings us to vaccines, one of modern science’s greatest inventions according to many true believers. There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that vaccines can and do have negative consequences. It is undeniable, except on this blog. Let’s take the Disneyland brouhaha. Let’s take the boy whose parents think he got the measles at Disneyland. The boy who could not be vaccinated because he was too young. It is very likely that he (if he does actually have the measles) contracted it from someone who was recently vaccinated, since vaccinated people shed live measles virus.

    Personally I wouldn’t take an immune compromised boy to Disneyland.

    At the very least it should be obvious that we are over-vaccinating our children based on faith-based Science. Vaccinating a one day old baby for a virus that it cannot get unless the mother has it is not very intelligent. But not to a true believer. Why test the mother? Just stick the kid.

    It seems perfectly obvious that tampering with an unformed immune system almost immediately upon birth might just harm that immune system, might just make it dysfunctional and lead to severe food allergies or asthma down the road. This is simple basic common sense and logic. But not to a true believer in “Science”, which is weird because it is based on scientific thinking.

    Even when someone comes forward (CDC whistleblower says that data showed that vaccines created autism in younger children vaccinated by MMR shot) this direct evidence is denied, even when it only makes perfect and logical sense and is backed by hard science. But a true believer will still deny it.

    I love science but I am open minded and very willing to criticize it when it is wrong. I love alternative medicine and am very willing to criticize it when it is wrong. The intensity and personal nature of the attacks thrown at ADV here for very reasonable logical objections to over-vaccination seem to suggest a severe case of faith-based scientism on the rampage. Vaccines can and do harm some people and it should be the choice of the individual (in the land of the free) to decide for themselves, based on all the available science and common sense and personal experience, what to do for themselves and their children.

    Especially since 100% vaccinated populations have come down with the measles. Herd Immunity seems quite similar to the Second Coming of the Messiah. I don’t mean to insult scientists with religious metaphors…but I do know they will be taken that way. I really do think that modern science has become a religion. Peace out, Ginko

  71. #71 Narad
    February 12, 2015

    Read “The Science Delusion” by scientist Rupert Sheldrake for details.

    *plonk*

  72. #72 Helianthus
    February 12, 2015

    The Fallacy of Nirvana is Strong with this one.
    (and a few others)

    Ginko. Go read the archives of Respectful Insolence for the last 10 years. Go read the scientific articles Orac and commenters were linking to.
    Your arguments have been addressed a thousand times already on these past threads.
    Then come back telling us you are open-minded and we are following a religion.

  73. #73 Helianthus
    February 13, 2015

    Especially since 100% vaccinated populations have come down with the measles. Herd Immunity seems quite similar to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

    Just because it’s bugging me, but I get tired of repeating this point in answer to all antivax religious zealots (eh, if Ginko has the right to call other people religious bigots, so do I):

    The measles vaccine is only 95% effective, so “100% vaccinated populations” will have about 5% of people getting the measles nonetheless. Which, from a health management standpoint, is a lot better than >80% of a non-vaccinated population getting it (before vaccination, everybody was getting wild measles, don’t you know it?.

    Now, look at the recent measles outbreak around Disneyland.
    Most people who caught measles were not vaccinated.
    Non-vaccinated people are a minority in the US.
    It is as if the virus was targeting them.

    And herd immunity is not about personal resistance to infection. It’s about people around you being less likely to catch a bug and passing it to you, because these people have met the bug before, either the wild form or the one in the vaccine, and are more resistant to it.
    Someone sick with measles typically give it to 18-20 people around him/her, in a naive (non-immune) population. See how fast America’s ancient inhabitants got it from European explorers/settlers. If, during the current outbreak, the rate of infection is inferior to that (say, only 5 or 6 people getting it from someone else), then you have herd immunity at work. Nothing more, nothing less.

  74. #74 APV
    February 14, 2015

    Julian Frost #1270,

    “Once again, APV, where is your proof that vaccines are “contaminated”?”

    The CDC/FDA say so.
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

  75. #75 APV
    February 14, 2015

    Ginko #1272,

    Thank you!

  76. #76 Krebiozen
    February 14, 2015

    Ginko,

    Which brings us to vaccines, one of modern science’s greatest inventions according to many true believers. There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that vaccines can and do have negative consequences.

    An enormous amount of scientific evidence tells us that most adverse events associated with vaccinations are mild, and that severe adverse events are so rare it is often difficult to tell if they are really associated with vaccination or not.

    It is undeniable, except on this blog.

    I don’t remember seeing anyone deny the existence of rare side effects here.

    Let’s take the Disneyland brouhaha.

    Which, let’s be clear, has little or nothing to do with side effects of vaccines.

    Let’s take the boy whose parents think he got the measles at Disneyland. The boy who could not be vaccinated because he was too young. It is very likely that he (if he does actually have the measles) contracted it from someone who was recently vaccinated, since vaccinated people shed live measles virus.

    I’m not sure which little boy you are referring to. Seven people were definitely infected with measles at Disneyland and there are currently 114 infected people associated with the outbreak. The virus causing that outbreak has been genotyped and is not a vaccine strain, it’s the same wild strain as that currently responsible for an outbreak in the Phillipines.

    By the way, over half a billion doses of MMR have been given, yet (as far as I know) only one case of measles transmitted by a vaccinated person has ever been reported, and that was not confirmed to be a vaccine strain.

    Personally I wouldn’t take an immune compromised boy to Disneyland.

    Until recently it would have been safe, as measles was eliminated from the US. Are you referring to the daughter of a pediatrician who is recovering from leukemia and who was exposed to measles in a clinic, not Disneyland, by another patient? Should children with cancer have to avoid clinics and hospitals because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children?

    At the very least it should be obvious that we are over-vaccinating our children based on faith-based Science.

    Obvious to whom, based on what?

    Vaccinating a one day old baby for a virus that it cannot get unless the mother has it is not very intelligent. But not to a true believer. Why test the mother? Just stick the kid.

    The tears, saliva, sweat, and urine of children with hepatitis B contain high levels of the virus:

    Children with chronic HBV are more prone than adults to be HBV e antigen positive and to have a high viral load. At the same time, children are more likely to have contact with each other’s body fluids, such as saliva and tears, and therefore have a high risk of horizontal transmission. Horizontal transmission is especially important in children who are at a high risk of acquiring chronic, asymptomatic infection when exposed to HBV. That children often are asymptomatic after infection with HBV lets them enter the large pool of chronic carriers unnoticed.

    Using a remarkably safe vaccine to give a child (probable) lifelong immunity to a contagious and incurable disease that kills 2,000–4,000 people every year in the US is “not very intelligent”? Read the paper I linked to.

    It seems perfectly obvious that tampering with an unformed immune system almost immediately upon birth might just harm that immune system, might just make it dysfunctional and lead to severe food allergies or asthma down the road.

    Yet large studies find no association between vaccination and allergies or autoimmune diseases.

    This is simple basic common sense and logic. But not to a true believer in “Science”, which is weird because it is based on scientific thinking.

    When large, well-designed scientific studies find that vaccines do not harm the immune system, is it really scientific thinking to continue insisting that it does? Who are the true believers here, those following the evidence, or those who only accept evidence that supports what they already believe?

    Even when someone comes forward (CDC whistleblower says that data showed that vaccines created autism in younger children vaccinated by MMR shot) this direct evidence is denied, even when it only makes perfect and logical sense and is backed by hard science. But a true believer will still deny it.

    On the contrary, anyone with a basic understanding of study design and statistics can see that Hooker’s ‘study’ is horribly flawed and that the so-called CDC whistle-blower doesn’t understand statistics. It’s the people who still believe it who are the true believers, unswayable by the evidence.

    I love science but I am open minded and very willing to criticize it when it is wrong. I love alternative medicine and am very willing to criticize it when it is wrong.

    If you love science, how is it that you have come to believe that the Disneyland measles outbreak is vaccine-derived? Or that the only way a child can get HBV is from its mother? Or that Hooker’s execrable paper is valid?

    The intensity and personal nature of the attacks thrown at ADV here for very reasonable logical objections to over-vaccination seem to suggest a severe case of faith-based scientism on the rampage. Vaccines can and do harm some people and it should be the choice of the individual (in the land of the free) to decide for themselves, based on all the available science and common sense and personal experience, what to do for themselves and their children.

    APV has repeatedly lied about the ingredients of vaccines, and insists that they are causing food allergies despite not having a shred of evidence to support this. S/he persists even when his/her lies are pointed out. Is that really OK with you? If you really believe that getting measles, which kills 1 in 1,000 children who contract it and causes serious illness like encephalitis and pneumonia in many more, is safer than MMR which has never killed anyone, I have to seriously question the love of science you profess.

    Especially since 100% vaccinated populations have come down with the measles.

    That’s because the vaccine is about 97% effective, Do you claim that seat belts are useless because some people wearing them still get hurt in car accidents?

    Herd Immunity seems quite similar to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

    Not to anyone who has the slightest understanding of how herd immunity works it doesn’t. If I am not immune to measles but everyone I come into contact with is immune, how can I possibly catch measles? That’s how herd immunity works, in a similar way to fire-breaks preventing the spread of forest fires.

    I don’t mean to insult scientists with religious metaphors…but I do know they will be taken that way. I really do think that modern science has become a religion.

    Give the misinformation you have posted here, I strongly suspect that’s because you don’t understand it at all.

  77. #77 Vicki
    February 14, 2015

    I wonder where these “100% vaccinated populations” are being found. At minimum, they would have to be entirely isolated groups that included no children too young to be vaccinated, with proof of recent vaccination for everyone else (not relying on assumptions or memories of what people were told about their childhood vaccines).

    A population doesn’t stop at the legal borders of a town; the unvaccinated person who delivers the heating oil or works in the same building as your vaccinated neighbor is part of the population; are their spouses, neighbors, and children vaccinated?

  78. #78 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 14, 2015

    APV, I opened that link. I then did word search for “peanut”. Nothing came up. I then looked at the very first paragraph. I’ve bolded the relevant part.

    This table includes not only vaccine ingredients (e.g., adjuvants and preservatives), but also substances used during the manufacturing process,
    including vaccine-production media, that are removed from the final product and present only in trace quantities.

    Trace quantities. That’s not “contamination”.

  79. #79 APV
    February 15, 2015

    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?

  80. #80 APV
    February 15, 2015

    Julian Frost #1280,

    You will notice there are numerous food protein contaminants including ovalbumin, yeast, soy, gelatin, casein etc. listed. Then of course there are undeclared contaminants in Polysorbate 80 and sorbitol derived from food sources. Then you have the undeclared contents of the growth media.

    Trace quantity is too much when “very trace” quantity can cause anaphylaxis.

    “very trace milk protein” in DPT is causing anaphylaxis.
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/25520

    “We were struck by the fact that just in our practice we had seven patients with milk allergy who had these severe reactions and we believe it is due to contamination of milk protein in this vaccine.”

    http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext
    8-18ng/ml of casein is the “very trace” contaminant that caused anaphylaxis.
    And it has been shown that you need less than an elicitation dose to cause sensitization.

    So, when you are talking about vaccines (a supposedly scientific endeavor), you would hope the CDC/FDA will use somewhat less ambiguous terminology and actual quantities instead of such utter nonsense as “trace quantities”.

    The FDA/CDC’s “trace quantities”, are life-threatening levels of contamination.

  81. #81 APV
    February 15, 2015

    Krebiozen 1278#,

    If a study shows problems with vaccine safety, the study design and statistics MUST be flawed.
    If the study shows vaccines are safe, no one cares what study design or statistics are used (except may be the Cochrane people).
    Apart from all the CDC/FDA problems I have pointed out, you have now added “horrible”, “execrable” study performed by the CDC, by people who do not “understand statistics”. That should surely add confidence to vaccine safety?

    For all these studies, statistics and fantastic medical advances, there’s one little question nobody in the medical community can answer …
    Why can’t you safely open a packet of peanuts in an aircraft cabin today?

  82. #82 Narad
    February 15, 2015

    Once again, Vinu Arumugham:

    I have shown that versions of injectable grade Polysorbate 80 contain peanut protein.

    No, you haven’t.

    You’ve demonstrated a number of things, such as that you’re willing to trot out nonsense and then just run the hell away when called out on it and that you lie about being a medical student over a Medscape because you’re desperate for attention to your idée fixe, among other unsavory traits, but you’ve never managed to do this.

  83. #83 Helianthus
    February 15, 2015

    there’s one little question nobody in the medical community can answer …
    Why can’t you safely open a packet of peanuts in an aircraft cabin today?

    That’s true, you have to watch it. Last time I tried to open one of these little bags, my elbow jabbed the guy next to me in the jaw.

    Seriously. A bag full of peanut., in other word full of allergens, about to get into aerosol What’s the “little question nobody in the medical community can answer “?
    Is APV trying to say that peanut allergies are due to their non-existence in vaccination, but not to peanut bags being handed on airplanes?

  84. #84 Krebiozen
    February 15, 2015

    APV,

    If a study shows problems with vaccine safety, the study design and statistics MUST be flawed.
    If the study shows vaccines are safe, no one cares what study design or statistics are used (except may be the Cochrane people).

    Yet more lies. It was vaccine safety studies that found an increased risk of intussusception with the Rotashield vaccine, leading to its withdrawal. The whole cell pertussis vaccine was replaced by the acellular version due to safety concerns picked up by large scale studies, and in several countries (though not the US) the Urabe mumps vaccine was replaced with a strain that had fewer side effects. Vaccine safety studies and post-marketing surveillance work, and evidence of safety concerns is taken very seriously.

    Apart from all the CDC/FDA problems I have pointed out, you have now added “horrible”, “execrable” study performed by the CDC, by people who do not “understand statistics”. That should surely add confidence to vaccine safety?

    Hooker’s study was not performed by the CDC, it was a grossly incompetent reanalysis of the data from a CDC study by a true believer in the vaccine-autism link.

    For all these studies, statistics and fantastic medical advances, there’s one little question nobody in the medical community can answer …
    Why can’t you safely open a packet of peanuts in an aircraft cabin today?

    What a very stupid question.

    I suppose the reason that you continue to insist that vaccines contain or contained peanut allergens, despite a complete lack of evidence for this, is that this is necessary for your ‘vaccines cause food allergies’ hypothesis to be true. This is a classic example of someone attempting to distort the evidence to fit their hypothesis, instead of fitting their hypothesis to the evidence.

  85. #85 GnkoBiloba
    NYC
    February 15, 2015

    J. Barthelow Classen, MD, immunologist and the author of the present study says “since 1999 the routine pediatric immunization schedule has increased by 80 vaccines” (that number counts each strain of antigenic virus or bacteria that have been included in the new inoculants). Classen believes that “the sum of the data described and reviewed in this paper supports a causal relationship”. From the perspective of the tens of thousands of parents (since the “age of autism” began just just a few decades ago) who know for certain that their previously happy, developmentally normal infants were sickened shortly after routine vaccinations, Dr Classen’s powerful scientific research cannot be discounted, even with the expected media blitz that is expected from Big Pharma, the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AAFP, the CDC, the WHO and the various trade organizations that profit so mightily from the vaccine industry.

    This important article was published exactly one year ago this week, on February 19, 2014, in the Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine. The entire original article and the 42 supporting journal references are available at: http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf.

    – Gary G. Kohls, MD

    Review of Vaccine Induced Immune Overload and the Resulting Epidemics of Type 1 Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome, Emphasis on Explaining the Recent Accelerations in the Risk of Pre-diabetes and other Immune Mediated Diseases

    Author: J. Barthelow Classen MD, J Mol Genet Med 2014, S1:025

    http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf.

  86. #86 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 15, 2015

    APV:

    Then of course there are undeclared contaminants in Polysorbate 80 and sorbitol derived from food sources. Then you have the undeclared contents of the growth media.

    Horse apples. This has been pointed out to you before.
    As for your two studies, the first one involved “children who [all] had high levels of immunoglobulin antibody to milk protein”. In other words, people with a contraindication. In addition, the reactions were traced back to a single lot. The other also involved already allergic patients.
    Once again, you haven’t proven that vaccines induce allergies.

  87. #87 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 15, 2015

    “since 1999 the routine pediatric immunization schedule has increased by 80 vaccines” (that number counts each strain of antigenic virus or bacteria that have been included in the new inoculants)

    I smell equine faeces.
    GnkoBiloba’s entire comment reads like a press release. And given that the human body can handle an antigen load equivalent to 10,000 vaccines in one day, I think Orac might want to give this article some insolence.

  88. #88 APV
    February 15, 2015

    Julian Frost #1288,
    “Once again, you haven’t proven that vaccines induce allergies.”
    The part you don’t understand is that if there is enough allergen in the vaccine to cause an allergic reaction, there is more than enough to induce allergy. The fact that the vaccines caused anaphylaxis is proof that they can induce milk allergy in a healthy non-allergic person.

  89. #89 APV
    February 15, 2015

    Julian Frost #1288,
    “In other words, people with a contraindication.”
    1 in 15 children have food allergies. With food protein contaminated vaccines, vaccines are contraindicated for 1 in 15 children. Herd immunity goes out the window.
    With the FDA/CDC refusing to clean up the contaminants, they are jeopardizing herd immunity.
    May be the measles and whooping cough outbreaks are fueled by children who are unvaccinated due to contraindication to contaminated vaccines.
    So why don’t you demand that the FDA/CDC remove contaminants from vaccines?

  90. #90 APV
    February 15, 2015

    Julian Frost #1289,

    “human body can handle an antigen load equivalent to 10,000 vaccines in one day”
    Even if that were true, natural antigens are not suspended in an aluminum gel designed to fool the immune system, with the depot effect and cytotoxic actions.
    So the number of antigens themselves may not be the problem but they are injected along with food proteins, self antigens and adjuvants, the effects of which few want to look at carefully.

  91. #91 Lawrence
    February 15, 2015

    @APV – what are you going to do with yourself when the comment section here is closed?

    I think you and MjD should write a book – I believe there is still space in the American Loon encyclopedia for you….

  92. #92 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 16, 2015

    APV:

    The part you don’t understand is that if there is enough allergen in the vaccine to cause an allergic reaction, there is more than enough to induce allergy.

    Oh I understand your argument perfectly. I just don’t think it’s the case that vaccines are responsible for the supposed increase in allergies. Oh, and one of the recent links you posted above agreed.

    1 in 15 children have food allergies. With food protein contaminated vaccines, vaccines are contraindicated for 1 in 15 children.

    It doesn’t mean that 1 child in 15 has an egg allergy, or a milk allergy. There are different allergies and many involve substances that were never in vaccines, like e.g. gluten.

  93. #93 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 16, 2015

    APV writes

    1 in 15 children have food allergies. With food protein contaminated vaccines, vaccines are contraindicated for 1 in 15 children

    Dangerous allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, actually.
    So vaccines are not dangerous for 1 in 15 children.
    There’s a question of quantity, for one thing. The actual amount of allergens in vaccines is probably very small.
    Also, just because an allergen affects you when you eat it, doesn’t necessarily mean it will affect you via injection. Allergies can be local.
    I have a delayed-reaction egg allergy, but I get the flu vaccine with trace amounts of egg in it, with no problems.

  94. #94 APV
    February 16, 2015

    Laura #1295,
    “There’s a question of quantity, for one thing. The actual amount of allergens in vaccines is probably very small.”

    Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. The question of quantity. Why is there no specification or regulation of the quantity of allergens in vaccines? Why the vague “probably very small”? Where is the science in something that we inject into babies?

    It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the “probably very small” quantity of allergen can be life-threatening. And as I have stated repeatedly, if it can cause anaphylaxis, there’s more than enough allergen to induce allergy.

  95. #95 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 16, 2015

    Why is there no specification or regulation of the quantity of allergens in vaccines?

    You might have a point.
    But have you looked into the answer?
    That’s what I would do if I was concerned about it. I would find out what the CDC or the vaccine manufacturer says in answer to that question.
    Maybe there is indeed info about the amount of various food allergens in the vaccine available.
    Maybe there are alternative vaccines that are free of the allergen.
    Maybe there’s a good reason why they can’t make the vaccine without the allergen.
    With major allergens like egg, it wouldn’t be just probably a very small amount. It has to be a small amount of allergen in the vaccine. Otherwise there would be too many severe reactions to it.

    if it can cause anaphylaxis, there’s more than enough allergen to induce allergy.

    What’s your proof of that? I doubt one vaccine would start an allergy. Any documented cases where that happened?
    An injection of allergen might be more likely to induce tolerance than allergy. That’s how allergy shots work.

  96. #96 KayMarie
    February 16, 2015

    “Why is there no specification or regulation of the quantity of allergens in vaccines?”

    Where in this http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Vaccines/ucm076612.htm#DRUGPRODUCT do your read that you can put whatever you want in the vaccine as filler and not tell anyone about it.

    It isn’t that they add the egg protein in just to add it, but just like you can’t be sure you got every last speck of peanut out of the machine before you make the next batch of food-like substance if any one product in the whole line has peanuts in it, you can’t be certain that some bit of what grew the virus doesn’t make it to the end product even after all the purification steps.

    You don’t have to add random cheap fillers to a vaccine to fill up the space, so no need to add random dried up bits of cheap food like you might in a capsule to fill up the space properly. I mean you just dilute it out to the right .concentration with sterile water or saline buffer as appropriate.

    also found this : In the past, influenza vaccine manufacturers did not state the egg protein content of the vaccines. Now most manufacturers of these vaccines provide this information in the package inserts. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/influenza-vaccination-in-individuals-with-egg-allergy. I’m sure they’ll show you the package insert if you want to see it should you ever go to be vaccinated and there is a table of concentrations available at the link.

  97. #97 OccamsLaser
    February 18, 2015

    APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham:

    You wrote,

    “So Avantor figured out after producing the product for 4 years (2007-2011) that they left peanut out of the datasheet? And then they coincidentally start marketing the product as “of non-peanut origin”? Need a lot of salt to swallow that …”

    “they changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources). They THEREFORE updated the datasheet to reflect the change in the product.”

    “I have shown that versions of injectable grade Polysorbate 80 contain peanut protein.”

    You are lying.

    I asked my contacts at Avantor, and they stated,

    “The product was never made with peanuts.”

    and,

    “Peanut was added because a customer wanted it called out and it is a common allergen. ”

    I look forward to your retraction. Which will never come, because you are extraordinarily dishonest and you have no integrity whatsoever.

    Tell us what you will say to your children when they discover how much you lie. Remember, anyone searching for your name and “vaccines” will immediately find this thread and will discover how dishonest you are.

  98. #98 APV
    February 20, 2015

    OccamsLaser #1299,

    I pointed out that Avantor’s datasheet carried the following statement. Posters here suggested, the product is allergen-free but the lawyers added the statement.

    “Please be advised that the product is sourced from substances of vegetable (corn, palm, sunflower, or coconut).”

    Now, you expect those same lawyers to admit that they used peanuts in their product?

    “The products listed do not contain wheat, rye, oats, barley, spelt, malt, triticale, gluten, other grains, soybean, eggs, yeast, canola, dairy products, seafood products, peanuts, natural grape products, natural flavors, artificial flavors,
    celery, lactose, sulfites, elemental sulfur, preservatives, MSG, disodium guanylate/inosinate, artificial sweeteners, phenylalanine, additives, colorants, dyes, or natural rubber (latex).”

    They have numerous uncommon allergens listed above, but they conveniently left out a common allergen – peanut, until 2011.
    And they waited for a customer to ask?

    “Peanut was added because a customer wanted it called out and it is a common allergen. ”

    And you believe that story?

  99. #99 APV
    February 20, 2015

    Laura #1297,

    “But have you looked into the answer?”
    Yes, I did and posted it here. Pl. see #522.

    “Maybe there are alternative vaccines that are free of the allergen.”
    My understanding is that all FDA approved vaccines have their package inserts available at fda.gov.
    There are no allergen-free versions of vaccines.

    “Otherwise there would be too many severe reactions to it.”
    There are and that’s why they studied it here:

    In 2009, up to 38.3 mcg/ml of egg protein:
    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)."

    In 1967, 7.4 mcg/ml.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC377279/pdf/applmicro00114-0216.pdf

    More proof that allergens in vaccines are unregulated.

    "if it can cause anaphylaxis, there’s more than enough allergen to induce allergy.
    What’s your proof of that? I doubt one vaccine would start an allergy. Any documented cases where that happened?"

    DTaP followed by DTaP produced no anaphylaxis.
    DTaP followed by MMR produced anaphylaxis.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9949325

    DTaP had 48-200mcg/ml of gelatin. Enough to sensitize (induce allergy) but no enough to elicit a reaction.
    MMR had 10mg of gelatin. Enough to sensitize and elicit reactions.

    In 1908, it was demonstrated that as little as 50ng of egg protein was needed to sensitize guinea pigs.
    A 25mg dose was used to elicit a reaction.
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/30071840?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    "An injection of allergen might be more likely to induce tolerance than allergy. That’s how allergy shots work."
    Pollen allergies are different from food allergies.
    Allergy shots work for pollen allergy and similar "natural allergies".
    One is not usually prescribed Epipen for pollen allergy, like they do for food allergies.
    Our body has evolved to deal with pollen proteins. So pollen proteins are a nuisance but they are not life-threatening.

    Food allergy is a man-made problem. Food proteins were not commonly injected into organisms during evolution.
    Injecting food proteins is a man-made phenomenon. Allergy shots won't work. That is why you have other experimental therapies such as oral immunotherapy (OIT).
    Food proteins naturally are expected to be broken down into harmless amino acids, by digestion before they come into contact with the immune system. Injections bypass this natural barrier and have created an artificial problem.

  100. #100 APV
    February 20, 2015

    KayMarie #1298,

    “do your read that you can put whatever you want in the vaccine as filler and not tell anyone about it.”

    The problem is the vaccine package insert lists Polysorbate 80 or sorbitol for example. They do not list the possible allergens they contain. These excipients are derived from food sources. As you rightly point out, at the end of the process, you cannot be sure that every last speck of contaminating protein was removed.

    When you are making a product that you are going to inject into people, the logical step would then be to determine what level of food protein contamination is safe. Then create and enforce a specification to ensure product safety.
    The FDA has failed to do that. There is no safe limit established nor enforced. That is why we have a food allergy epidemic.

    “You don’t have to add random cheap fillers to a vaccine to fill up the space”
    Yes, but they need to add excipients to stabilize and keep the viral proteins from degrading. The excipients can be contaminated with unknown type and quantity of food protein because there is no specification or regulation.

    Even the excipient makers are surprised there is no regulation:

    http://www.excipientfest.com/europe/pdf/EFE14%20June%2024,%20A1%20The%20Joint%20IPEC-PQG%20GMP%20Guide.pdf

    Slide 6:
    “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”

  101. #101 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 20, 2015

    APV:

    “Peanut was added because a customer wanted it called out and it is a common allergen. ”

    And you believe that story?

    Yes, actually.

  102. #102 Narad
    February 20, 2015

    They have numerous uncommon allergens listed above, but they conveniently left out a common allergen – peanut, until 2011.

    Has it ever occurred to you to demonstrate that anybody uses peanut oil to manufacture polysorbate 80 in the first place? I mean, it’s plain that you’re too determinedly lazy, dishonest,* or both to so much as figure out how oleic acid is obtained,** but have you ever wondered what that “non-animal” bit was doing there first?

    * Your lone comment as “john doe” at MDC is duly noted.
    ** Or sorbitol; the immediately preceding “kosher tapioca” pratfall still cracks me up, now even more given that you failed to connect the dots between Croda’s “Crillet HP 4” and
    J.T. Baker’s #4117.

  103. #103 Narad
    February 20, 2015

    Yes, but they need to add excipients to stabilize and keep the viral proteins from degrading.

    No, dipshіt, “that” is not what polysorbate 80 is “for.” Frankly, I thought Laura was simply ill-advisedly feeding your pathetic, dogged pleas for attention until you barfed up this bit of jaw-dropping idiocy as a result. Where are the “viral proteins” in DTaP? What does “lyophilized” mean? Have you ever made salad dressing?

  104. #104 LW
    February 20, 2015

    “Food proteins were not commonly injected into organisms during evolution.”

    As I pointed out weeks ago, this is obviously untrue. Our ancestors, all the way back to prehumans, handled food even though their hands had open cuts. They cut themselves while preparing food. They ate even if their mouths had open sores. They got bitten by animals that had food residues on their teeth. They got stuck by thorns. If a few nanograms of food proteins under the skin routinely caused lethal allergies, neither we nor most of the animal population would exist.

  105. #105 Helianthus
    February 20, 2015

    Our ancestors, all the way back to prehumans, handled food even though their hands had open cuts.

    Still about injection of stuff under the skin, anyone who had to walk through forest underbrush and meet some thorny plants in the process will have some inkling as to why our ancestors invented clothing, even under warm climates. There are some places you don’t want to be stung.

  106. #106 Krebiozen
    February 20, 2015

    APV,

    Food allergy is a man-made problem. Food proteins were not commonly injected into organisms during evolution.

    We’ve been through this before. You can’t argue that pollen allergy has somehow evolved as a benefit to humans, any more than you can argue that fatal anaphylaxis due to a bee sting has. Our immune systems are immensely complex and sometimes develop glitches.

    I don’t see any evidence that food allergy is a man-made problem, especially since food allergies were reported long before any vaccines containing food proteins were injected, as we discussed what seems like a very long time ago somewhere above.

    In fact I don’t see any evidence that injecting proteins can cause food allergies at all. All the century-old evidence we discussed before used injected proteins to induce allergies that were also elicited by injection, either intraperitoneal or intravascular. I also note that these were all animal studies. Is there any evidence that injected food proteins can lead to food allergies in humans?

  107. #107 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 20, 2015

    @APV
    Maybe it works the opposite way. Maybe the tiny amounts of food allergen in vaccines, actually desensitize people a little bit to the allergen.
    After all, allergy shots are injections of allergen that desensitize people. The allergy shot causes an immune reaction that ends up reducing the allergy.
    There are various ways in which allergens contact the body. Some kinds of contact with allergen tend to create tolerance, some are sensitizing.
    From what I’ve read, injecting allergen actually tends to create tolerance to the allergen.

  108. #108 OccamsLaser
    February 21, 2015

    APV/vinucube/Vnu Arumugham:

    First, it is certainly true that you are an expert on lying, as you have been caught lying repeatedly here about such things as you claim EMD Millipore’s Polysorbate 80 has maize and wheat, about what Phuong Tang of Aventor emailed you about the presence of cococnut oil and palm oil in that company’s Polsysorbate 80, and about your impersonating a medical student (you are actually an electronics engineer). So, you’re a serial liar; that has been amply proven. Even your claim to be an electronics engineer seems suspect, given how unintelligent you are, and how you are unable to grasp even elementary logic.

    Given your own deep-seated dishonesty, you naturally assume that others act similarly, so it is unsurprising that you therefore would claim that anyone who says anything that doesn’t support your position (which is based on fabricated data, as has been shown) is lying — just as you lie when attempting to provide evidence for your claims.

    You now make the painfully embarrassing argument that Avantor made their Polysorbate 80 from peanuts prior to 2011, and they willfully concealed that fact by intentionally omitting peanuts from the list of sources for that product on their product information sheet. Of course, because you are both not very intelligent and very dishonest, and blinded by bias, you fail to recognize that your argument fails for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that Avantor does, in fact, list other ingredients from which their product is made, including palm oil and coconut oil. That listing provides the proof that you are simply wrong when you make the claim that Avantor lies about the sources for that product. Furthermore, if it were true that Avantor made their product from peanuts, but decided to lie about that, they would simply have had peanuts on the allergens-not-present list all along. Therefore, your reasoning that Avantor added peanuts to the allergens-not-present list after they stopped using peanuts as a source for the product fails completely.

    And, of course, you have not presented a scintilla of direct evidence that Avantor’s Polysorbate 80 was ever made from peanuts. Your entire argument boils down to the fact that Avantor has unambiguously stated that they never used peanuts, and that you do not believe them — therefore, they used peanuts, according to your sadly paranoid dishonest view of the world.

    According to you, there was a vanishingly low rate of food and pollen allergies prior to the use of vaccination, and now there is an epidemic-level rate — but only among the vaccinated; the unvaccinated, according to you, still have a vanishingly low rate of food and polled allergies.

    This should be almost trivial to prove. Yet, despite all your lie-ridden posts here and in other blogs, and your lengthy personal blog, you have never, ever presented a scintilla of evidence that this is true.

    Instead of writing such cowardly utterances as. “And you believe that story?”, go ahead and have some guts: State directly that Avantor is lying now, and that they secretly used peanuts to manufacture their Polysorbate 80 and concealed that fact.

    I dare you.

    Do you have the courage?

  109. #109 Narad
    February 24, 2015
  110. #110 APV
    February 25, 2015

    OccamsLaser #1310,

    Polysorbate 80 Super Refined (injectable grade) datasheet:
    http://askavantor.force.com/servletfileField?id=0BEG0000000TSXu
    It is of non-peanut origin, but peanut is still NOT listed in the “do not contain” list.
    Are they still waiting for a “customer who wants it called out”?

    So they are unable to guarantee EVEN TODAY that their Polysorbate 80 Super Refined is free of peanut protein.

    In engineering, you go by the datasheet.
    Per the datasheet, Avantor is unable to guarantee that the product is free of peanut protein.
    If their datasheet is wrong and has been for years, that raises questions about the company’s quality control process.

  111. #111 APV
    February 25, 2015

    Laura #1309,

    Allergy shots are not a treatment method for food allergy.
    As I wrote, pollen allergy is a “natural allergy” and allergy shots may work. They do not work for food allergy.

    Charles Richet had the same idea. He thought if he injected sea anemone poison into dogs, they would develop tolerance to subsequent exposure (prophylaxis). But to his surprise, the dogs died on subsequent exposure. He was forced to coin the term anaphylaxis to describe his discovery.

    We use his term today but we seem to have forgotten his discovery … you CANNOT thoughtlessly inject proteins into mammals without harmful consequences.

  112. #112 APV
    February 25, 2015

    Narad #1311,
    Old news:
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414850
    Old by about 104 years:
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/30073318?seq=14#page_scan_tab_contents

    1) Instead of focusing on the root cause of sensitization (injections/vaccines), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wrongly assumed that GI mucosa exposure causes sensitization (like Krebiozen did).
    2) They recommended avoidance of allergens.
    They now admit it made the problem worse because not only are kids being sensitized by injections/vaccines, they lost their opportunity to generate tolerance as well.
    3) Now the AAP and this paper are backpedalling, to introduce allergens back in the diet to get the tolerance back.
    4) And the great part is that they still won’t look at the root cause od sensitization (injections/vaccines).

  113. #113 APV
    February 25, 2015

    http://consumer.healthday.com/environmental-health-information-12/environment-health-news-233/peanut-house-dust-jaci-kcl-release-batch-1477-693864.html

    Study senior author Gideon Lack, also of King’s College London, added, “This is further evidence for the dual-allergen-exposure theory, which suggests food allergies develop through exposure to allergens via the skin, likely through a disrupted skin barrier, whilst consumption of these food proteins early in life builds up tolerance in the body.”

    The same Gideon Lack who said “food allergies develop through exposure to allergens via the skin, likely through a disrupted skin barrier”, used skin prick tests on kids in this latest study:
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414850

    How many kids developed food allergy from those skin prick tests? Study results tainted by the skin prick tests?
    No ethics concerns?

    Disrupting the skin barrier with a vaccine needle and injecting allergens? Oh, those are perfectly safe as well? Talk about the tangled web of food allergy research …

  114. #114 Narad
    February 25, 2015

    you CANNOT thoughtlessly inject proteins into mammals without harmful consequences

    Well, I suppose that’s something new.

    Not like coming clean about lying about being a medical student, but still.

  115. #115 J.W.Chaplin
    Seattle
    February 25, 2015

    APV , understand that you can’t give up on your crackpot theory.YYou have clearly invested too much of your identity to examine email it rationally and let it go. Unfortunately for your claims, I and many other immunologists regularly inject proteins into mice and induce tolerance. I can, with the right dosing schedule, even inject many different proteins in alum and still get tolerance. It isn’t hard, and it isn’t unknown how. Your astonishing ignorance, oversimplification, and brain-rotting repetition do not make it true that “you cannot I just protein without causing allergy”. Congratulations on failing the Turing test.

  116. #116 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 25, 2015

    APV:
    It is of non-peanut origin, but peanut is still NOT listed in the “do not contain” list.
    Are they still waiting for a “customer who wants it called out”?

    So they are unable to guarantee EVEN TODAY that their Polysorbate 80 Super Refined is free of peanut protein.
    This has been explained to you before. Peanuts were never used to make Polysorbate 80.

    Allergy shots are not a treatment method for food allergy.

    False. From http://www.food-allergy.org/page2.html

    The second kind of immunotherapy for food allergies is low dose immunotherapy. The first treatment of this type was enzyme potentiated desensitization (EPD) which was developed in England over 40 years ago and has been used around the world. It was used in the United States for about 10 years as part of a study conducted under an Investigational Review Board. An EPD shot contains a very minute amount of many allergens plus an enzyme which naturally occurs in the human body, beta-glucuronidase.

    The rest of your commentary is the usual vague and unsupported rubbish you’ve spouted before.

  117. #117 J.W.Chaplin
    February 25, 2015

    Oh, what I would give for an edit feature that let me correct those lovely changes my phone inserted.

  118. #118 J.W.Chaplin
    February 25, 2015

    For the record folks, with structured dosing it is actually easier to induce tolerance with injected antigen than orally. Not surprising since you can control costimulation at an injection site but not in the GI tract.
    Not surprisingly, APV’s assertion is exactly opposite of common immunological knowledge & current textbooks.

  119. #119 Narad
    February 25, 2015

    The same Gideon Lack who said “food allergies develop through exposure to allergens via the skin, likely through a disrupted skin barrier”

    Is there any more takeaway here than that you’re certain that I’ll suffer anaphylaxis if I try to eat a housecat? I’m having trouble sorting out the implications.

  120. #120 Narad
    February 25, 2015

    So they are unable to guarantee EVEN TODAY that their Polysorbate 80 Super Refined is free of peanut protein.

    What about “kosher tapioca”? Is it only allergenic during Pesach?

  121. #121 APV
    February 26, 2015

    J.W.Chaplin,

    http://www.webmd.com/allergies/guide/allergy-shots?page=2#1

    “Do Allergy Shots Work for All Allergies?
    A lot depends on how many things you are allergic to and how severe your symptoms are. Generally, allergy shots work for allergies to bee stings, pollen, dust mites, mold, and pet dander. There’s no proof that they work for food, drug, or latex allergies.”

    So, pollen and other “natural allergies” are different from food, drug and latex allergies which are primarily man-made.

    “I can, with the right dosing schedule, even inject many different proteins in alum and still get tolerance.”

    With vaccines/injections, neither the allergen dose nor the schedule is controlled.

    It is obvious that NOT EVERYONE who gets injected with egg contaminated flu vaccine develops egg allergy. We are talking about higher probability of developing food allergy when injections/vaccines are contaminated with food proteins.

    If you think the Richet allergy model is a “crackpot theory”, could you please tell us what is causing the food allergy epidemic?

  122. #122 APV
    February 26, 2015

    Julian Frost #1318,

    Why would Avantor market their Polysorbate 80 as specifically non-peanut origin? Why not non-soy origin or non-yeast origin?
    It would only make sense to differentiate your product as non-peanut origin, if either your own similar product or a competitor’s product is of peanut origin.

    If using peanuts to make Polysorbate 80 is so alien, then marketing Polysorbate 80 as non-peanut origin is like marketing potato fries as wood-free.

  123. #123 J.W. Chaplin
    Seattle
    February 26, 2015

    No APV, YOU are the one taking 100 year old incomplete data and cherry-picked sound bites to misrepresent and distort a sand grain of truth into a Everest-sized mountain of B.S. Your “hypothesis” is in direct contradiction to observed facts and trends. You have shown an impressive degree of willful ignorance and more single-minded focus than most cranks, but that doesn’t make you right it just makes you a broken record.

  124. #124 APV
    February 26, 2015

    Narad #1321,

    Dr. Lack showed in a study that household peanut dust was causing peanut allergy through broken skin exposure (eczema).
    But, Dr. Lack routinely uses skin prick allergen testing in his studies (allergen exposure through broken skin). So, based on his own results, he is inducing allergies in kids while performing his studies.
    And logically, if allergen exposure through broken skin can induce allergy, injecting food allergens should induce allergy efficiently as well …

  125. #125 J.W. Chaplin
    Seattle
    February 26, 2015

    For the record APV, Richet’s work was sound but woefully incomplete as anyone would expect from studies that are 100 years old. Your “theory” (barely a hypothesis really) is the crackpot one.

  126. #126 Narad
    February 26, 2015

    It is obvious that NOT EVERYONE who gets injected with egg contaminated flu vaccine develops egg allergy.

    Comment 90:

    Charles Richet demonstrated a 100 years ago that any protein injected into the body will result in sensitization. Subsequent exposure to the same protein will cause anaphylaxis.

    Comment 1313:

    you CANNOT thoughtlessly [sic] inject proteins into mammals without harmful consequences.

    How’s imaginary med school going, Vinu Arumugham?

  127. #127 Emma Crew
    February 26, 2015

    By this logic, they CLEARLY changed the formulation of Jell-o when they put “fat-free!” on the label, to distinguish it from all those other nasty fat-filled brands of gelatin. Oh, wait.

  128. #128 Narad
    February 26, 2015

    Hilariously, AoA’s resident HIV/AIDS denialist opines as follows:

    Richet was the vice president of the French Eugenics Society…

  129. #129 APV
    February 26, 2015

    Emma Crew #1327,

    A customer buying Jell-O may compare it to say yogurt. He might choose Jell-O because it is labeled fat-free. A company that wants injectable grade Polysorbate 80 is not comparing it with peanut butter as an alternative.

  130. #130 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 26, 2015

    APV:

    Why would Avantor market their Polysorbate 80 as specifically non-peanut origin? Why not non-soy origin or non-yeast origin?

    Because vegetable oils are used to make it, not yeast or soy.

    It would only make sense to differentiate your product as non-peanut origin, if either your own similar product or a competitor’s product is of peanut origin.

    As was pointed out in the comments above, a brand of maple syrup was marketed as fat-free. This is despite the fact that no brand of maple syrup has ever has fat in it. Also pointed out was the fact that a brand of peanut butter was marketed as cholesterol-free, and peanut butter contains no cholesterol. It was simple marketing.

    It would only make sense to differentiate your product as non-peanut origin, if either your own similar product or a competitor’s product is of peanut origin.

    See above comment on fat-free maple syrup and cholesterol-free peanut butter.

    If using peanuts to make Polysorbate 80 is so alien, then marketing Polysorbate 80 as non-peanut origin is like marketing potato fries as wood-free.
    Again, see above.

    If you think the Richet allergy model is a “crackpot theory”, could you please tell us what is causing the food allergy epidemic?

    Assumes facts not in evidence (allergy epidemic).

    And logically, if allergen exposure through broken skin can induce allergy, injecting food allergens should induce allergy efficiently as well.

    As was also pointed out above, cavemen were bitten, scratched and gored by animals, ate food when they had mouth sores and cut themselves while preparing food. I have accidentally cut myself when preparing food and cleaning up. This would appear to contradict your sensitisation hypothesis.

  131. #131 Emma Crew
    February 26, 2015

    In a case like that, I’d think they’d be much more likely to buy fat-free yogurt, you know?

    The point is that it doesn’t take a marketing genius to notice that if you label your brand as “unpleasant ingredient free!” it creates a perception that the competitor’s brand JUST MIGHT include unpleasant ingredient (even if no brand ever has). In this case, there are plenty of folks going around on the Internet saying OMG PEANUTS IN VACCINES, it would make sense that companies manufacturing vaccine components would be glad to slap on “yeah, no peanuts here.” It is utterly commonplace to call out a lack of substances people are afraid of, even if they have nothing to do with your product.

  132. #132 Narad
    February 26, 2015

    A customer buying Jell-O may compare it to say yogurt.

    *blink*

    He might choose Jell-O because it is labeled fat-free.

    Yes, when I go to the store looking for fat-free yogurt and they’re out, the first thing that springs to mind instead is not 2% milkfat, but refrigerated Jell-O.

    A company that wants injectable grade Polysorbate 80 is not comparing it with peanut butter as an alternative.

    The irony that is utterly lost on you, Vinu Arumugham, fake med student, is that you have all along failed to demonstrate that the dumb shred that you have been reduced to clinging to has any bearing on the actual vaccine supply.

    This doesn’t seem to be the case (redirect to PDF).

  133. #133 Gray Falcon
    February 26, 2015

    I’m not sure APV understands why the concepts of truth and falsehood are important. He seems to build his arguments based on how convincing they sound, rather than evidence and logic.

  134. […] that I’ve been blogging and since I first encountered him: “too many too soon“; argument by package insert; the pharma shill gambit; and, of course, the antivaccine dog whistle that ties vaccine […]

  135. #135 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 26, 2015

    @APV

    Allergy shots are not a treatment method for food allergy.

    I know allergy shots aren’t used for food allergy.
    But what makes you think allergy shots don’t work for food allergy?
    The reason allergy shots aren’t used for food allergy is that people have too many severe reactions to the shots.
    What I was saying is that injections of tiny amounts of food protein may well have a desensitizing effect.

    As I wrote, pollen allergy is a “natural allergy” and allergy shots may work. They do not work for food allergy.

    What do you mean by a “natural allergy”? How is a food allergy “unnatural”?
    Food proteins are proteins, pollen proteins are proteins … Inhaled proteins go down your GI tract to some extent too, and can cause reactions when you eat them, if you’re severely allergic. This happens to me.
    For example, unfiltered honey has a lot of pollen in it and makes me sick if I eat it. Filtered honey is OK.

    We are talking about higher probability of developing food allergy when injections/vaccines are contaminated with food proteins.

    But I have seen no proof of this higher probability from you.
    The tiny amounts of food allergen in vaccines might actually have a (tiny) desensitizing effect.
    I have many delayed-reaction food allergies, and one frustrating thing about it is that I suspect allergy shots would work for them, AND be safe. With delayed-reaction food allergies, the IgE antibodies in the blood aren’t elevated as they are in “classical” food allergies, so I doubt there would be a risk of severe reactions to allergy shots.
    There’s a “basophil activation test”, a diagnostic blood test that’s been tried in research on these kinds of food allergies. So basophils in the blood might be activated by allergy shots with the food allergen.
    I have been trying (with the help of my allergists) to desensitize myself orally to the delayed-reaction food allergies, by taking allergy medications before eating a tiny amount of the food – a few milligrams with most foods. I’ve built up tolerance somewhat, but haven’t yet been able to reintroduce any foods in normal quantities.

  136. #136 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 26, 2015

    @APV
    If vaccines were actually causing allergies to the food proteins present in tiny amounts in vaccines, we should see an increase in allergies to those foods among people receiving the vaccines.
    Do you have any evidence that has happened?
    You cited a 1988 study that showed an increase in IgE antibodies to egg a few weeks after receiving a flu vaccine.
    Their bodies generated an immune response to the egg protein in the flu vaccine.
    But, that study did not show that those people developed an egg allergy because of the flu vaccine. So far as I can tell, they continued to be able to eat eggs. If they had developed an egg allergy, the authors would probably have mentioned it!

  137. #137 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 26, 2015

    @J. W. Camplin
    I have a question, perhaps you have a guess as to the answer, being an immunologist.
    I get allergy shots, and I get a hazy feeling from the shots. Do you know what might be causing this? The hazy feeling comes on starting maybe 15 minutes after getting the shot.

  138. #138 Calli Arcale
    http://fractalwonder.wordpress.com
    February 26, 2015

    It is utterly commonplace to call out a lack of substances people are afraid of, even if they have nothing to do with your product.

    Absolutely. It’s a bit like labeling a bottle of hard apple cider “gluten free”. I’m not aware of any apple cider that *isn’t* gluten free, but they put the label on there anyway since it’s no skin off their backs and might possibly convince a few more people to try it.

  139. #139 KayMarie
    February 26, 2015

    Yes that marketing habit has been going on for decades. Drives me nuts when something that never had X in it comes out as X free.

  140. #140 J.W.Chaplin
    Seattle
    February 26, 2015

    Thanks APV, for my next business “wood free fries”. As long as I can convince people that there’s something wrong with wood (sometimes treated with arsenic don’t ya know…) we can fabricate a market. Happens all the time. Listerine fabricated the halitosis market, the whole “gluten-free” thing has become a marketing scam, etc. I’ve seen table salt listed as gluten free, go to Whole Foods and take a look. Tell me that wheat, barley, or rye were used in salt production prior to the labeling – go on. Idiot.

    Dear Laura, first – good catch. Yes, the implication of our current understanding of reactivity/tolerance is that there’d be just as much chance, if not more, to desensitize as to sensitize from alleged trace allergens in vaccines. Second, if you have DTH (Delayed Type Hypersensitivity) variant allergies they are not IgE or histamine mediated. Blocking with standard allergy medications won’t do much. DTH allergies are T cell mediated and drive a cytokine storm, usually resulting in low blood pressure, slightly elevated temperature, and impaired cognition. Anti-inflammatories (even NSAIDS) will help limit this but not block it, drink lots of water, keep cool (literally), and wait for it to pass. Unfortunately, not much else to do for DTH reactivity. Sorry.

  141. #141 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 26, 2015

    Second, if you have DTH (Delayed Type Hypersensitivity) variant allergies they are not IgE or histamine mediated. Blocking with standard allergy medications won’t do much. DTH allergies are T cell mediated and drive a cytokine storm, usually resulting in low blood pressure, slightly elevated temperature, and impaired cognition.

    I’m not sure if mine would be called delayed – the foggy feeling starts about half an hour after eating the food, and comes on fully about 4-5 hours later. I’ve read that cell-mediated reactions are generally more delayed, like a day or so.
    Allergy meds do help decrease the reaction. I take oral cromolyn, loratadine and Singulair before eating these small amounts of food. The cromolyn seems to be the most helpful. Allergists have suggested cromolyn to me for the food reactions.
    From what I’ve read, there are food allergies that cause skin problems that are definitely cell-mediated (possibly could be diagnosed by an atopy patch test).
    But for the kind of food hypersensitivities that I have, the mechanism is unknown (at least the last I read). I read some articles by Dr. Antonio Carroccio on non-celiac gluten sensitivity, which is often associated with multiple food hypersensitivities in his experience. I wasn’t sure whether he was talking about the same kind of reactions that I have. So I emailed him outlining the symptoms, minimum amount to cause a reaction, medications that helped, and asked him if the hypersensitivities he described were similar. He kindly replied and said they were.
    I also asked him whether these food hypersensitivities might be IgE-mediated but local to the GI tract (gut, mouth perhaps). He had described them as not Ige-mediated in his articles, but I didn’t see how he knew that. He said they were investigating the possibility of a localized IgE-mediated reaction as well.
    I’ve read a lot of research articles on this subject. It seems people can have local allergies in the gut, for example see Local allergic reaction in foodhypersensitive adults despite a lack of systemic food-specific IgE
    He said in his papers that they had found mucosal eosinophil infiltration in the duodenum and colon in NCGS patients (when it was from an immune reaction).
    I found out recently that for inhalants, the late-phase allergic reaction is independently initiated in some people. It’s not just an “allergic cascade”, in other words – it’s not all started when IgE binds to mast cells. Apparently IgE/antigen complexes can bind to dendritic cells. So there could be stuff going on that looks cell-mediated from the symptoms, but is still IgE-mediated.
    So, I’ve wondered if there’s something like that with IgE complexes going on with my delayed-reaction food allergies. I’ve wondered if they are similar to inhalant allergies, with an early phase and a late phase, but the early phase is mild and the late phase is intense.
    Anyway – I was wondering what might cause a hazy feeling after allergy shots? I have very severe allergic reactions to inhalants that make me mentally foggy for days, and I’ve thought that might be related to the haziness after allergy shots. Most people don’t get hazy after allergy shots and most people don’t have inhalant allergic reactions that last for days, so I think those two things might be connected. I take loratadine before allergy shots and I think it makes the haziness somewhat less.

  142. #142 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 26, 2015

    Actually rather than IgE/antigen complexes binding to dendritic cells, it seems the IgE binding to the FceR1 receptor on dendritic cells captures antigen, presenting it to T cells and generating a reaction from there.
    From High-Affinity IgE Receptors on Dendritic Cells Exacerbate Th2-Dependent Inflammation:

    In the presence of IgE and allergen, Fc«RI+ DCs instructed naive T cells to differentiate into Th2 cells in vitro and boosted allergen-specific Th2 responses and Th2-dependent eosinophilia at the site of allergen exposure in vivo. Thus, Fc«RI on DCs drives the cascade of pathogenic reactions linking the initial allergen capture by IgE with subsequent Th2-dominated T cell responses and the development of late-phase allergic tissue inflammation.

    This is for inhalant allergies.
    From Mechanisms of immunotherapy: IgG revisited:

    IgE bound to the high-affinity IgE receptor (FceRI) or the low-affinity IgE receptor (FceRII, CD23) on antigen-presenting cells can efficiently capture and focus the antigen, such that very low concentrations of antigen are able to stimulate responding T cells maximally. After binding of antigen the complex is internalized, processed and then presented on the surface in association with the major histocompatibility complex II (MHCII) for presentation to T cells.

    So yes, it does involve T cells.
    Again talking about inhalant allergies, but perhaps something similar might be happening with food hypersensitivities.

  143. #143 Laura
    Ithaca NY
    February 26, 2015

    @APV
    Epicutaneous exposure to food proteins – skin contact – can cause allergy to those proteins when eaten. There are various papers on that (google epicutaneous sensitization food allergy).
    But that’s different from exposure by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, as occurs with allergy shots or vaccines. It doesn’t imply that traces of food protein in vaccines tend to cause sensitization.

  144. #144 APV
    February 27, 2015

    J.W.Chaplin #1342,

    “Yes, the implication of our current understanding of reactivity/tolerance is that there’d be just as much chance, if not more, to desensitize as to sensitize from alleged trace allergens in vaccines.”

    1. Vaccines contain allergens (fact, not alleged).
    2. So you admit that current understanding is there is a chance of sensitization by allergens in vaccines.
    3. We have a raging food allergy epidemic. And no one wants to pull their head out of the sand and investigate vaccines/injections as a possible contributor?
    4. Why no regulation of allergen content in vaccines?

    Again, if you think vaccines/injections are not the cause, could you please tell us what is causing the food allergy epidemic?

  145. #145 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 27, 2015

    APV:

    We have a raging food allergy epidemic.

    Proof needed that the rate of food allergies has exploded over the last century.

    And no one wants to pull their head out of the sand and investigate vaccines/injections as a possible contributor?

    What a load of horse apples. You yourself posted studies which you (incorrectly) believed supported your hypothesis. Why you now turn around and state that nobody wishes to investigate it is bewildering.

    Again, if you think vaccines/injections are not the cause, could you please tell us what is causing the food allergy epidemic?

    Once again, it is not up to us to prove that your hypothesis is wrong, it is up to you to prove it is right. But since you are so granite skulled…

    We do know what causes food allergies: exposure to foods combined with a genetic susceptibility and other factors.

  146. #146 OccamsLaser
    February 27, 2015

    APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham –

    Again, you’ve established that you’re a deeply dishonest person who lies constantly. You have not even denied that you’ve lied repeatedly, much less attempted a defense of your lies. Let’s keep that in mind.

    You lied about what a Polysorbate 80 datasheet said, you lied about what you were told by a representative of Avantor about the composition of their Polysorbate 80 product, you lied about being a medical student, and so on.

    Everyone who reads this thread — your children and people with an interest in the subject of any possible vaccine-allergy link — will discover that you are terribly dishonest, and you can’t be trusted at all to tell the truth about anything.

    You are also a coward. You’ve indicated that if you were (really) a medical researcher, you would be so afraid of the repercussions that you would refuse to participate in a study that might show a link between vaccines and allergies. How sad.

    You have also insinuated that Avantor made their Polysorbate 80 from peanuts while lying and declaring that they did not. However, because you’re a coward, you don’t have the guts to make a direct accusation. Coward.

    But here’s the central point that destroys your position: You have proposed a hypothesis (for which you have not posted any honest supporting evidence) to explain a phenomenon. However, you have not shown that the phenomenon even exists.

    The phenomenon that you are attempting to explain is the existence of a food allergy epidemic ONLY AMONG VACCINATED CHILDREN.

    Before an explanation need be considered to explain a phenomenon, the phenomenon needs to be shown to be in evidence. You have not even provided evidence of a correlation between vaccination status and allergies; therefore, you do not even have a basis to assert a causal linkage for such a correlation, much less to propose a specific mechanism to explain any such causal linkage.

    Dishonest, cowardly, and wrong. Did I miss anything?

  147. #147 APV
    February 27, 2015

    Peanut oil in Vitamin K shots.

    Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy
    edited by David B. Troy, Paul Beringer
    pg. 803 says, corn, cottonseed, peanut and sesame oil are most commonly used as a vehicle in Vitamin K injection formulations.
    Every newborn is injected with it.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=NFGSSSbaWjwC&pg=PA803&dq=Remington:++vitamin+K+peanut+oil&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Iz3xVLXkO5GrogShl4DgBg&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Remington%3A%20%20vitamin%20K%20peanut%20oil&f=false

    Sesame Seed Allergy: A Growing Problem?
    http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52926

  148. #148 Narad
    February 28, 2015

    Peanut oil in Vitamin K shots.

    Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy
    edited by David B. Troy, Paul Beringer
    pg. 803 says, corn, cottonseed, peanut and sesame oil are most commonly used as a vehicle in Vitamin K injection formulations.
    Every newborn is injected with it.

    Vinu, the stench of your stupid, desperate attention-seeking reminds me of one time when I wound up with an nth-hand laptop that gave off “Axe Body Spray” fumes for a good four years.

    Explain, in your own words, what “polyoxyethylated fatty acid derivative” means and how one does that.

  149. #149 APV
    February 28, 2015

    Julian Frost #1347,

    “We do know what causes food allergies: exposure to foods combined with a genetic susceptibility and other factors.”

    Exposure to foods through vaccine/injection contamination?

  150. #150 Emma Crew
    February 28, 2015

    Redirecting to things that we know actually contain(ed) peanut oil, did anything definitive ever come of that “infant eczema cream compounded with peanut oil may be contributing to the incidence of peanut allergy” thing what, a decade ago? On the face of it it sure seems more likely than vaccines.

  151. #151 APV
    March 1, 2015

    Emma Crew #1352,

    “infant eczema cream compounded with peanut oil may be contributing to the incidence of peanut allergy”

    Eczema creams, skin prick allergy tests, vaccines/injections can all be contributors.

  152. #152 APV
    March 1, 2015

    Narad #1350,

    Perhaps you are referring to this version of Vitamin K:
    http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/archives/fdaDrugInfo.cfm?archiveid=1702

    Remington is referring to a version that uses peanut/sesame oil in the Vitamin K shot.

  153. #153 APV
    March 1, 2015

    J.W.Chaplin #1342,

    “Yes, the implication of our current understanding of reactivity/tolerance is that there’d be just as much chance, if not more, to desensitize as to sensitize from alleged trace allergens in vaccines.”

    If allergen proteins in vaccines caused desensitization/tolerance/unresponsiveness, then the viral proteins in the vaccines would do the same. The reason vaccines work is because you are sensitized to the viral proteins. So if your statement were true, vaccines would not work.

    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

  154. #154 APV
    March 1, 2015

    Julian Frost #1347,

    “Proof needed that the rate of food allergies has exploded over the last century.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm

  155. #155 APV
    March 1, 2015

    “You yourself posted studies which you (incorrectly) believed supported your hypothesis. Why you now turn around and state that nobody wishes to investigate it is bewildering.”

    Yes, I have pointed to the studies showing food contaminants in vaccines/injections induce food allergies. Some researchers have even called for the removal of food contaminants. Why no action? Either remove food contaminants from vaccines/injections or if the CDC/FDA think more studies are needed, then they should perform them. They just sit there and warm their seats as more children are injured by contaminated vaccines/injections.

  156. #156 APV
    March 1, 2015

    Laura #1338,

    “If vaccines were actually causing allergies to the food proteins present in tiny amounts in vaccines, we should see an increase in allergies to those foods among people receiving the vaccines.
    Do you have any evidence that has happened?”

    Of course we see that. Vaccines definitely contain casein and ovalbumin. We have definitely seen an increase in egg and milk allergies. Vitamin K shots can contain peanut/sesame oil and we have seen an increase in peanut/sesame allergies.

    “You cited a 1988 study that showed an increase in IgE antibodies to egg a few weeks after receiving a flu vaccine.
    Their bodies generated an immune response to the egg protein in the flu vaccine.”

    The study was performed because of a rise in egg allergies in Japanese children after they began mandatory influenza vaccination. As you have said, their bodies generated an immune response to the egg proteins contaminating the influenza vaccine. If vaccinated repeatedly, they will develop egg allergies.

    Further, today we have an increase in c-section births which primes for allergy development. We have influenza shot administered with up to 4 other vaccines in one sitting as happened to my son. So the food protein contaminant immunogenicity is enhanced by the adjuvant effects of aluminum salts and pertussis toxin in the other vaccines.
    So our children develop more severe allergies.

    A reliable method of inducing egg allergy in rats?
    Use pertussis vaccine with alum along with ovalbumin.
    The human equivalent of getting a DTaP shot (which contains aluminum as an adjuvant) simultaneously administered with a flu shot.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342543

  157. #157 APV
    March 1, 2015

    Laura #1337,

    “The reason allergy shots aren’t used for food allergy is that people have too many severe reactions to the shots.”

    Exactly. The body has evolved to treat them differently.

    “What do you mean by a “natural allergy”? How is a food allergy “unnatural”?”

    Pollen has been commonly injected (by insect bites) into mammals and inhaled for as long as they have existed.
    Our bodies have learned that pollen proteins are harmless. Our bodies still react but the only result is a pollen allergy nuisance but not a life-threatening overreaction.

    Food allergens were never COMMONLY injected. So there was no chance to evolve and treat them as harmless. Injected food allergens are treated as if they are injected viruses.

  158. #158 APV
    March 1, 2015

    J.W.Chaplin #1317,

    “crackpot theory”

    Dr. Polly Matzinger NIH/NIAID helped develop the danger model of the immune system.

    I asked her about the Richet model and you can see her response here:
    https://list.nih.gov/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1305&L=immuni-l&F=&S=&P=37286

  159. #159 Narad
    March 1, 2015

    Perhaps you are referring to this version of Vitamin K

    You mean the one that is actually in use?

    Say goodnight, Vinu.

    At least this monstrosity will go away on the 5th.

  160. #160 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    March 1, 2015

    Once again APV, you are straight up lying.

    Yes, I have pointed to the studies showing food contaminants in vaccines/injections induce food allergies.

    No, you pointed to studies that you assumed supported you. However at least one of the studies said:

    In conclusion, vaccination programs do not explain the increasing prevalence of allergic diseases, but individual children may uncommonly develop an allergic reaction to a vaccine.

    Your comments here are FIFUSOD (Functionally indistinguishable from utter stupidity or dishonesty).

  161. #161 squirrelelite
    March 1, 2015

    Since the discussion seems to be about allergies, why not blame the dishwasher?

    Maybe that’s why I developed eczema when I got older after growing up washing all the dishes by hand.

    But then I had jobs where I washed LOTS of dishes by hand.

    So, maybe it’s something else entirely.

    But, that’s the way science often works, unlike APV’s fantasies.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/23/387553285/kids-allergies-and-a-possible-downside-to-squeaky-clean-dishes?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20150301&utm_campaign=mostemailed&utm_term=nprnews

  162. #162 APV
    March 1, 2015

    Julian Frost #1362,

    “In conclusion, vaccination programs do not explain the increasing prevalence of allergic diseases, but individual children may uncommonly develop an allergic reaction to a vaccine.”

    That quote comes from:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11846867

    That paper compares apples to oranges to come to its conclusion.
    “In murine models, pertussis toxin is an effective adjuvant for IgE formation against simultaneously administered antigens. In children, however, sensitization to unrelated antigens or development of allergic diseases do not seem to be augmented.”

    “simultaneously administered antigens” (apples) in murine models are being compared to “unrelated antigens” (oranges) in children.

    We are talking about induction of food allergies caused by simultaneous administration of antigens (vaccine antigens and food antigens).

    We are NOT talking about sensitization to unrelated antigens (such as pollen) due to vaccines.

  163. #163 APV
    March 1, 2015

    Narad #1361,

    “You mean the one that is actually in use?”

    No, I mean the one with peanut/sesame oil which caused all the food allergies and has been quietly swept under the rug because too many people are asking tough questions ?

  164. #164 Lawrence
    March 1, 2015

    “Tough questions?”

    All is see if someone who has been shown to lie consistently on a single thread on this blog…..you seem to have a bit of self-importance, don’t you?

  165. #165 Narad
    March 1, 2015

    No, I mean the one with peanut/sesame oil which caused all the food allergies and has been quietly swept under the rug because too many people are asking tough questions ?

    Great, you can’t even figure out answers to your own comments. I suppose these things happen when no thoughts go into the latter in the first place.

    In happier news, WordPress seems to expire based on days, so chickenshіt Vinu Arumugham, random Cisco grunt, who has had ages to explain why he is lying about being a medical student over at Medscape, is going to have to find someplace else to go after March 3.

  166. #166 Narad
    March 1, 2015

    ^ Oh, right, Wοrdpress also sleazily and silently changes capitalization in comment text to butter its lingam logo.

    Sorry, asshοles, there are ways around that.

  167. #167 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    March 2, 2015

    No, I mean the one with peanut/sesame oil which caused all the food allergies and has been quietly swept under the rug because too many people are asking tough questions ?

    And where is your proof that such exists?
    Oh right, you haven’t any.
    The “Moon Landing is a hoax” conspiracy theorists have nothing on you.

  168. #168 Helianthus
    March 2, 2015

    @APV

    If allergen proteins in vaccines caused desensitization/tolerance/unresponsiveness, then the viral proteins in the vaccines would do the same. The reason vaccines work is because you are sensitized to the viral proteins. So if your statement were true, vaccines would not work.

    Oh for crying out loud.
    Do you have any idea how desensitization works? No, you don’t.
    It works by injecting the allergen, up to the point the body will react to it by generating normal antibodies (IgG and their kin) instead of the allergy-related IgE.

    In shorter words, a working vaccine will trigger a normal response from the immune system. An injection designed to desensitize from an allergen will trigger a normal response. Hence, the two are perfectly compatible.
    Exposition to an allergen will trigger an abnormal response. One is not like the other.

    Speaking of avoiding/reducing allergy by increasing exposure, an article showed up this week-end on the topic. Apparently, feeding peanut to babies decrease their risk of becoming allergic.

  169. #169 APV
    March 4, 2015

    Helianthus #1370,

    “Speaking of avoiding/reducing allergy by increasing exposure, an article showed up this week-end on the topic.”

    Pl. see #1315.

    Vaccines produce IgE and IgG to viral/bacterial proteins.
    And IgE to viral proteins is part of the reason vaccines work.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x/pdf

    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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/830756

    “An injection designed to desensitize from an allergen will trigger a normal response. ”

    Exactly. Contaminant proteins in vaccines are not “designed to desensitize” by definition. Hence they sensitize and induce allergy.

  170. #170 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    March 5, 2015

    So because “contaminant proteins” (which you have failed to show exist in sufficient quantities to induce allergies) are not “designed to desensitize”, they ipso facto:
    1) do not desensitize, and;
    2) in fact, sensitize?
    Is that what you’re postulating?
    If so, all I can say is “logic fail”.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.