If there’s one thing that is true of the antivaccine movement, it’s that its members are rarely willing to admit that they are, in fact, antivaccine. Sure, there are uncommon exceptions who say it loud that they are antivaccine and proud and through their refreshing honesty and lack of self-delusion cause no end of problems for the more “reasonable” and “moderate” antivaccine activists determined to convince the world that they are “not antivaccine” but “pro-safe vaccine,” “pro-vaccine safety,” or “vaccine safety activists.” The less deluded antivaccine activists are, after all, masters of cognitive dissonance. They know society views being antivaccine as bad and, because they don’t view themselves as bad people, convince themselves that they aren’t antivaccine. Add to that the need to appear not to be kooks, and they try very, very hard indeed to deny they are antivaccine.

But antivaccine is as antivaccine does, and antivaccine views are not unlike pornography: sometimes hard to define, but I know it when I see it. Boy, did I see it again recently. In the wake of the whole “CDC whistleblower” manufactroversy, the “scandal” that isn’t, antivaccinationists seem to be going quite bonkers in the belief that they have finally found evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their central organizing conspiracy theory, namely that the CDC has been “covering up” incontrovertible evidence that vaccines cause autism.

So pity the poor CDC when it starts up a rather conventional social medial campaign, which it calls #TeamVax:

And:

And:

This rather basic social media campaign did serve a nice ancillary purpose other than promoting vaccination. It prodded the antivaccine movement to do what it does so well: Dive straight into pseudoscience crazy town. For instance, Levi Quackenboss, one of the dumber antivaccinationists whose “work” I’ve come across, posted one of the silliest antivaccine rants I’ve ever seen, basically sarcastically thanking the CDC for #TeamVax:

CDC have you done lost your mind? What were the big brains in Atlanta thinking when they decided that the largest public health organization in the nation needed to stoop to meme-speak?

Let’s take a look at the meme that my tax dollars paid for. You’ve got your racially ambiguous doting mother with her tiny baby boy who’s clearly already had one round of vaccines because his bulging forehead circumference is in the 99th percentile. It’s nice to see vaccine-injured babies represented.

CDC #TeamVax

Personally, I don’t see any “meme-speak” there. I mean, seriously. Take a look at the photo, which Quackenboss helpfully displays in the post and I helpfully display above. Yes, it’s a mother and a baby, with the slogan, “I want my baby to be safe and healthy, that’s why,” a perfectly fine slogan, concluding with “I’m #TeamVax.” This is about as innocuous an ad campaign as I can imagine. In fact, from my perspective as a supporter of vaccine science, the only complaint I can come up with about it is that maybe it’s a little too innocuous. As for complaining about the whole “#TeamVax” thing, my first reaction was: WTF? Antivaccinationists have been Tweeting various increasingly ridiculous hashtags for a year now, in particular the #CDCwhistleblower hashtag. Particularly silly was the “#GarbageCan” hashtag “inspired” by the “CDC whistleblower” William W. Thompson’s alleged statement quoted by Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida) that CDC investigators had disposed of a whole lot of original research paperwork and data in a big garbage can. The CDC is only doing what any organization in 2015 should be doing to try to spread its message: leveraging social media. One can argue over how well or poorly it’s doing it, but it would be irresponsible of the CDC not to do it, particularly during August, which is National Immunization Awareness Month.

Particularly hilarious is Quackenboss’s assertion:

Let me break it down for you. You are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As far as 95% of America knows, you are infallible. Why do you need an ad campaign if you’re infallible? You don’t. When was the last time you saw a Rolls Royce commercial? Never. They don’t advertise. They don’t have to. They’re infallible.

Actually, Rolls Royce does advertise. Quackenbush just doesn’t see the ads. Heck, Rolls Royce even has an active Twitter account followed by nearly 100,000 users. It even runs commercials:

And:

Sorry, Quackenbush, just because you’re not aware of Rolls Royce ads doesn’t mean Rolls Royce doesn’t run them. It might not run them on television (and, in fact, the CDC doesn’t often run ads on TV), but it does run print ads and use Twitter. It’s advertised for a long time, decades, even. Indeed, one of its classic ads is considered iconic:

Levi Quackenbush really should Google more. Rolls Royce has been advertising its cars for a long time.

Levi Quackenbush really should Google more. Rolls Royce has been advertising its cars for a long time.

Seriously, dude, before making a claim like that you really should do a couple of minutes’ worth of Googling. So, yes. The CDC does need to advertise. It does need to hit back hard against the antivaccine movement because the antivaccine movement has resulted in pockets of decreased vaccine uptake that have resulted in outbreaks of measles and pertussis. Why? Well, because of people like Quackenbush who gloat because their fear mongering has succeeded in causing vaccine uptake to drop:

But guess what you’ve ended up doing on your little joyride with my tax dollars? You’ve legitimized your opposition, so thank you for that. One doesn’t advertise unless their competitor is a real contender for their job. Do you see NASA responding to flat-Earthers? Do you see #TeamSphere memes on any of their Facebook pages? No, you don’t. Flat-Earthers don’t have NASA quaking in their boots.

We don’t see NASA responding to flat earthers because flat earthers don’t endanger public health. Antivaccine activists do. Also, real flat earthers are so rare as to be not worth dealing with. Antivaccine activists, unfortunately, are not. Yes, it’s a risk responding to them, but it’s a risk that has to be taken because a lack of response is no longer acceptable.

Thanks to Quackenbush, though, for showing what I mean about the antivaccine movement.

There’s another antivaccine loon who’s equally unhappy about the new CDC campaign. We’ve met her before. It’s Megan Heimer over at Living Whole. On one occasion, she inappropriately likened criticism of pseudoscience and quackery to “hate speech“; on another occasion, she argued against neonatal vitamin K injections because they were “synthetic.” Basically, there appears to be no woo, antivaccine or otherwise, that she will not embrace. Not surprisingly, she’s found another way to attack the CDC ad campaign. Her premise? That it’s “pitting parent against parent.” Granted, Quackenbush did make a similarly nonsensical argument, but Heimer can’t resist taking it right off the cliff into the canyon of stupid.

First, she responds to a CDC questionnaire that tells you what vaccines are recommended for people with chronic diseases:

First, vaccines don’t prevent chronic disease. Nobody with Crohn’s Disease wakes up in the morning and says, “Oh, I have Crohn’s, I should probably get an MMR vaccine.” Secondly, vaccines cause chronic disease. It’s written all over the package inserts, PubMed database, and thousands of peer-reviewed studies. (Don’t bother telling the CDC, they already know.) Third, if you have a chronic disease, you’re more likely to suffer from a vaccine adverse reaction. (Logic would follow that a strong immune system is required to deal with the nasty in the shot and mount a “proper” response.)

The stupid, it burns.

The CDC isn’t claiming that vaccines will prevent chronic disease. It’s saying that patients with certain chronic diseases are more susceptible to complications from common vaccine-preventable diseases, which is why they should be vaccinated against those diseases. Second, there is no good evidence that vaccines cause chronic disease. I’ve discussed this more times than I care to remember, including findings that vaccines might actually be protective against asthma. Certainly, even if they aren’t, it’s a good thing to prevent asthmatics from getting a respiratory infection. They’re prone to complications from viral infections. None of that stops Heimer from parroting familiar antivaccine talking points about “injecting neurotoxins, hazardous wastes, aborted baby ingredients, and carcinogens into your tiny children” and labeling anyone who disagrees with her as #TeamStupid. (The projection is truly awesome, is it not?)

We knew that Heimer was antivaccine; so deconstructing her antivaccine tropes is like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel. Instead, let’s look at this:

I have to admit, I was left wondering which team the parents of fully vaccinated, vaccine-injured children were on or the parents who vaccinated but believe in choice?

Yes, this is another sad attempt by the CDC to pit parent against parent. Nothing else works. We’re educated and we see through their lacking data, intentional cover-ups, and misleading propaganda, including their latest ploy at “scaring” parents into vaccinating. But it’s like we’re immune to bull$h*t. (Excuse my language but this is an occasion that warrants such a word and I think Jesus would be okay with it.) Education has that effect on people. So they’ve had to stoop to the level of creating animosity between mothers and they’re sending a misleading message that you don’t care about your child’s health if you don’t vaccinate. Nice. How sixth-grade of them.

This is what we in the biz call reading a meaning into an advertisement that isn’t there. Do you see any message of divisiveness in the CDC message? I sure don’t. It’s basically a positive message encouraging parents to vaccinate. There’s no snarkiness, as I use from time to time when dealing with antivaccine loons like Heimer. There’s no demonization of the vaccine hesitant or antivaccine activists. There’s just a simple message: Vaccinate your children. Join #TeamVax. The only way you can object to that message and view it as somehow “pitting parent against parent” is if you are antivaccine and view yourself as being on #TeamAntivax. Otherwise, why would you object, unless you view #TeamVax as the enemy and any perceived attempt to recruit to it as an attempt by the enemy to swell its numbers.

That’s because Megan Heimer is antivaccine. To the core.

Comments

  1. #1 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 6, 2015

    Narad #202,

    “Twinrix is a three-dose series”

    And DTaP is a five dose series. That is exactly what I covered in #197 with this reference:

    Extensive Swelling After Booster Doses of Acellular Pertussis–Tetanus–Diphtheria Vaccines
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/1/e12.long#ref-21

    “Entire thigh swelling was an unsolicited reaction reported in 20 (2%) of the 1015 children who received 4 consecutive doses of the same DTaP vaccine.”

    “We believe this to be the first study to indicate a possible relationship between high Dtxd content and swelling of the entire limb after booster doses of DTaP administered intramuscularly in toddlers. Because of the lack of association of Dtxd content with lesser degrees of swelling, any extrapolations or conclusions from these data should be made with caution. However, if confirmed, the results suggest that decreasing the quantity of Dtxd in certain high diphtheria content DTaP vaccines used for booster doses might lessen the rate of entire limb swelling after fourth or fifth doses of some DTaP vaccines. The quantity of Dtxd in vaccines used to boost immunity in adults was specifically reduced to avoid the severe local reactions experienced by individuals with preexisting immunity, and these lowered doses of Dtxd were found adequate to elicit an anamnestic response in primed adults.25 The resurgence of diphtheria in Eastern Europe reminds us that it is essential that adequate immunogencity be maintained, however. Other possible approaches to reducing local reactions include using more highly purified Dtxd or using an adjuvant that does not stimulate an immunoglobulin E antibody response. Preliminary studies of reduction of the quantities of several antigens in a combined Dtxd–Ttxd 3-component acellular pertussis vaccine suggest that this approach may successfully reduce local reactogenicity, while maintaining immunogenicity.26,,27Eventually, when new data become available on duration of protection after DTaP immunization, additional reductions in reactions may be possible through refinements in schedule.”

    That is EXACTLY why the IOM covered it. It is a well known adverse event in multi-dose vaccines.

    “he was claiming that exposure to influenza, measles, etc., after vaccination would result in anaphylaxis as well.”

    No, not natural exposure to influenza, measles, etc. but reactions/anaphylaxis to subsequent VACCINES for influenza or measles etc. Again, exactly what the IOM is covering with that statement.

  2. #2 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 6, 2015

    OccamsLaser #201,

    Pl. point to my original posts. That way people can see EXACTLY what I claimed and what embellishments YOU have added.

  3. #3 Narad
    September 6, 2015

    Your retreat from your earlier literal fetishism for Richet is noted, Vinu. As I said, I have no particular interest in panning the sediment from your copious discharges, so I’ll leave it to anybody who still has interest in playing with the remains of the Black Knight.

    Why do you suppose you didn’t gain any traction at TMR? Or MDC? Who needs whom at this point? How are the WP stats looking?

  4. #4 Krebiozen
    September 6, 2015

    APV,

    Your reference shows the dose has been carefully chosen to produce a safe REACTION. In other words, reduce the chance of anaphylaxis. There is NOTHING about safety considerations to avoid sensitization. And sensitization safety/risk is what we are talking about.
    So please provide a relevant reference.

    I said it was one example. I’m not going to scour the entire immunological literature for you. How about you show me some evidence that injected antigens can lead to food allergy, because I’m having trouble finding any.

    “I’ll ask you once again, do you have any evidence that is inconsistent with the mainstream view that the vast majority of food allergies are caused by ingested food or by skin exposure?”
    First, that is NOT the mainstream view.
    The mainstream view is “WE DON’T KNOW” what causes food allergy.
    “The mechanisms by which a person develops an allergy to specific foods are largely unknown. ”

    Yet again you display a curious lack of logic. It’s true, we don’t know the precise mechanisms of how ingestion or skin exposure causes allergy, but we have a pretty good idea.

    Food allergy: an enigmatic epidemic.

    Did you read that article? It is about different factors that lead to either tolerance of hypersensitivity on ingestion or skin exposure to antigens. I see nothing in it that supports your hypothesis

    Second, I have provided a solid body of evidence that injected food proteins cause food allergy.

    No you haven’t, not remotely.

    I agree that allergen exposure to disrupted skin can in theory, also cause sensitization and therefore skin prick allergy tests are dangerous.

    Citation needed for any cases of sensitization caused by skin prick testing – a single case history?

    If you argue that skin prick allergy tests are not an efficient sensitization mechanism, then the same applies to household dust settling on disrupted skin barrier.

    There are other factors involved, not least dose, as that helpful article explains.

    As clear as they can be in stating that these proteins do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in a vaccine recipient.

    I merely note your desperation in seizing upon a single ambiguous statement as apparently the only thing that even vaguely appears to support your hypothesis in a 900 page document.

    Long Term Persistence of IgE Anti-Influenza Virus Antibodies in Pediatric and Adult Serum Post Vaccination with Influenza Virus Vaccine

    As I have pointed out many times before, we don’t know if these people had IgE antibodies to wild influenza or the vaccine, and in any case their IgE was not in the range you would expect in those with allergies. You still conflate a normal IgE with that indicating sensitization; even non-atopic people have some IgE in their blood.

    Influenza Specific Serum IgE is Present in Non-Allergic Subjects

    It looks as if IgE is involved in a normal immune reaction to viruses. This doesn’t mean everyone has an allergic reaction to vaccine antigens, or that allergy is how vaccines work (as you have previously claimed). If that were true vaccines wouldn’t work in non-atopic individuals, would they?

    Extensive Swelling After Booster Doses of Acellular Pertussis–Tetanus–Diphtheria Vaccines

    An adverse reaction to vaccine toxoids is relevant to food allergies how?

    Using that logic, EVERYONE has had disrupted skin barrier that has been exposed to allergen laden household dust. So EVERYONE should be allergic to everything. Conclusion: No one develops allergy to household allergen exposure through disrupted skin barrier?

    It was you, as Narad kindly reminded us, that claimed “any proteins injected into mammals will cause sensitization”, though you seem to retreat from that when it suits you. Anyway, the difference is we have plenty of evidence for sensitization through skin sensitization and none, to my knowledge, that skin prick allergy testing has ever induced IgE hypersensitivity.

  5. #5 Old Rockin' Dave
    Thinking of Franklin speaking frankly...
    September 6, 2015

    I have been reading “The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin” and was struck by this passage:
    “In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the smallpox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret, that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the stake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it ; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen.”

  6. #6 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 6, 2015

    Krebiozen #206,

    “Citation needed for any cases of sensitization caused by skin prick testing – a single case history?”

    Nonsense. You FIRST prove the safety of a test BEFORE approving/using it.

  7. #7 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 6, 2015

    Krebiozen #206,

    “There are other factors involved, not least dose, ”

    You keep talking about dose whenever it suits you. I lost count of the number of times I have asked you to show the safe dose for all the food proteins in vaccines. Hyporcrisy?
    Where has the safe dose been determined for sensitization risk of a skin prick test?

  8. #8 Old Rockin' Dave
    Frankly speaking about the very frank Franklin...
    September 6, 2015

    That should be “sake”, not “stake”. I didn’t proof my source for the copy and paste.
    Whichever, Ben Franklin is widely regarded as one of the wisest and smartest Americans ever. Even an antivaxer would have a hard time discrediting old Ben.

  9. #9 perodatrent
    September 6, 2015

    APV # 194
    I thought my post at # 128 explained well enough my belief about your argument. I paste it here:
    ” Nowhere IOM says that sensitization with a dose of vaccine causes a clinical manifestation when the person eats a particular antigen contained both in the vaccine and in the food”.
    IOM’s opinion is based on a handful of case reports of reactions after a dose of some vaccine.
    But I start thinking capnkrunch (#134) has got it right, when suggesting that our arguments change words, but not meanings
    (“… minions: once again you’re putting words in the IOM’s mouth. If that’s what they meant, that’s what they would have said.
    Rinse and repeat”).

  10. #10 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 6, 2015

    Krebiozen #206,

    “I merely note your desperation in seizing upon a single ambiguous statement as apparently the only thing that even vaguely appears to support your hypothesis in a 900 page document.”
    The importance of a statement does not depend on how many pages it spans.

    “This doesn’t mean everyone has an allergic reaction to vaccine antigens, or that allergy is how vaccines work (as you have previously claimed).”

    Allergy is PART of how vaccines work. It is like the first line of defense. You develop a minute allergic reaction (may be a sneeze or two, tears, that flush away the virus).

    “An adverse reaction to vaccine toxoids is relevant to food allergies how?”
    Demonstrates that repeated injection of proteins (toxoids) causes sensitization. The adverse event occurs on the 4th, 5th shots of the series. Same mechanism of sensitization applies to the food proteins in those vaccines.

    “If that were true vaccines wouldn’t work in non-atopic individuals, would they?”

    Wrong again.
    Influenza Specific Serum IgE is Present in Non-Allergic
    Subjects
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x/pdf

  11. #11 TBruce
    September 6, 2015

    Allergy is PART of how vaccines work. It is like the first line of defense. You develop a minute allergic reaction (may be a sneeze or two, tears, that flush away the virus).

    Now you’re just being ridiculous. Why am I not surprised?

  12. #12 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 6, 2015

    perodatrent #211,

    Sorry, I seem to have missed your comment in #128.

    you wrote:
    “The only possible meaning of these words is that in the first exposure some rare people are sensitized, and in a second exposure some even rarer people have a reaction. Which is what happens for every reaction mediated by specific IgE antibodies.”

    So you DO agree that vaccines DO cause sensitization to viral, bacterial and FOOD antigens present in them. Then we are in agreement. Thank you.

    Once sensitized, on rare occasions these people will develop a reaction to a vaccine. But they will much more commonly have a reaction when exposed to those food items.

  13. #13 Krebiozen
    September 6, 2015

    Sometimes making the idiocy obvious is sufficient. I believe my work here is done.

  14. #14 Krebiozen
    September 6, 2015

    One last thing. APV , how do you account for the fully unvaccinated children (at least 44 – it’s hard to extrapolate) with food allergies in this Dutch survey? You didn’t respond before.

  15. #15 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 6, 2015

    Krebiozen #216,

    “One last thing. APV , how do you account for the fully unvaccinated children (at least 44 – it’s hard to extrapolate) with food allergies in this Dutch survey? You didn’t respond before.”

    I cannot find the word “ALLERGY” AT ALL in that document. Did you include the right reference?

  16. #16 APV
    f
    September 6, 2015

    TBruce #213,

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8423/
    “IgE antibodies and immediate hypersensitivity
    Recent information suggests that viruses that bind to IgE antibodies may trigger immediate hypersensitivity responses through the release of vasoactive mediators (see Ch. 1). These observations may explain many of the apparent allergic manifestations, such as wheezing and urticaria, that accompany some viral infections.”

  17. #17 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 6, 2015

    Krebiozen #206,

    ““any proteins injected into mammals will cause sensitization”, though you seem to retreat from that when it suits you.”

    With sufficient dose of allergen, that statement is true. 100% of influenza vaccine recipients developed anti-influenza IgE.

  18. #18 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 7, 2015

    perodatrent #211,

    ” Nowhere IOM says that sensitization with a dose of vaccine causes a clinical manifestation when the person eats a particular antigen contained both in the vaccine and in the food”.

    People who are allergic to egg for example, can get vaccines containing small doses of ovalbumin without developing a reaction. But the reverse is NOT TRUE. People who react to egg in a vaccine CANNOT safely consume egg.

    The IOM statement definitely covers the case of sensitization followed by reaction to these antigens in vaccines.
    So the situation you describe is automatically covered.

    In other words, once sensitization occurs, a reaction can result from ANY route of exposure and there is no need to enumerate each route of exposure.

  19. #19 TBruce
    September 7, 2015

    These observations may explain many of the apparent allergic manifestations, such as wheezing and urticaria, that accompany some viral infections.”

    Nope, you’re still being ridiculous.

  20. #20 perodatrent
    September 7, 2015

    APV #214
    APV says:
    “So you DO agree that vaccines DO cause sensitization to viral, bacterial and FOOD antigens present in them. Then we are in agreement. Thank you.
    Once sensitized, on rare occasions these people will develop a reaction to a vaccine. But they will much more commonly have a reaction when exposed to those food items”.

    Both affirmations are quite inaccurate.
    1) What I say is that vaccines -as every High Molecular Weight substance- CAN cause sensitization in some individuals. Every immunologist can subscribe to such a proposition.
    2) Nor I nor IOM say that sensitized people WILL more commonly have a (anaphylactic) reaction when eating a food containing an antigen they have been sensitized to with a vaccine.

  21. #21 Julian Frost
    South Africa
    September 7, 2015

    @Humpty Dumpty:

    Nonsense. You FIRST prove the safety of a test BEFORE approving/using it.

    What constitutes proof of safety in your mind, Humpty Dumpty?I’m guessing it’ll involve trying to prove a negative.

  22. #22 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 7, 2015

    perodatrent #214,

    “2) Nor I nor IOM say that sensitized people WILL more commonly have a (anaphylactic) reaction when eating a food containing an antigen they have been sensitized to with a vaccine.”
    The IOM has stated that vaccines NOT ONLY cause sensitization, they also cause subsequent hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis.
    As I wrote before, if a person is sensitized enough to react to a vaccine, they are sensitized enough to react to food.

  23. #23 shay
    September 7, 2015

    No, the IOM says what perodatrent quoted. It does not say what you have re/mis-interpreted it to say by conveniently (and stupidly — if you’re going to lie, must you make it so easy for the average reader to disprove you?) leaving out the qualifying statements.

    With our resident Archbishop Chaput fan-boi out of the picture it looks as though he left APV to do all the heavy lifting in the dishonesty front.

  24. #24 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 7, 2015

    shay #225,
    perodatrent wrote in #128,
    “The only possible meaning of these words is that in the first exposure some rare people are sensitized, and in a second exposure some even rarer people have a reaction.”

    Which is exactly what I am saying. There is no “re/mis-interpreted” except perhaps in your imagination.

    It is a well known fact that egg allergic people can get vaccines that contain smaller doses of egg (<1mcg ovalbumin) without a reaction. That is proof that in a person sensitized to an allergen, eating the allergen produces a reaction much more commonly than vaccine exposure to that allergen.

  25. #25 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 7, 2015

    perodatrent (Dr. Alfonsi) and shay,

    Consider the following:

    A patient comes to Dr. Alfonsi’s office for a flu shot. The patient reports no history of allergy. The patient receives the flu shot and suffers a reaction.
    Dr. Alfonsi knows that the brand of flu vaccine he carries contains gelatin and egg. I expect that Dr. Alfonsi would refer the patient to an allergist to check if the patient is allergic to egg or gelatin. Further, I expect Dr. Alfonsi to advise the patient to AVOID EGG and GELATIN FOODS until the allergist’s diagnosis.

    Dr.Alfonsi, please let us know if you agree.

  26. #26 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 7, 2015

    Julian Frost #223,

    No, you don’t need to prove a negative. You need a trial to obtain the risk statistics. How can people claim “benefits outweigh risks” without quantifying the risk?

  27. #27 OccamsLaser
    September 7, 2015

    Vinu Arumugham (APV):

    You say,

    OccamsLaser #201,

    Pl. point to my original posts. That way people can see EXACTLY what I claimed and what embellishments YOU have added.

    There’s no need, Vinu.

    Everyone will see that you are not actually disagreeing with any of the positions I explained that you hold.

    Of course, if that’s wrong, you could simply correct it.

    Which of the positions that I attributed to you do you not actually hold?

    Be specific. Failure to do so will confirm that all my characterizations are, in fact, correct, and that you are retracting your non-specific objection.

    Thanks in advance.

  28. #28 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 7, 2015

    OccamsLaser #229,

    “Of course, if that’s wrong, you could simply correct it.”

    No, I am not going to waste my time correcting it OVER and OVER AGAIN.

  29. #29 Renate
    The Netherlands
    September 8, 2015

    @ Krebiozen
    That survey is from a Dutch organisation, that is just as anti-vaccine as all other organisations that state they are just pro save vaccins.

  30. #30 perodatrent
    September 8, 2015

    APV #227
    I would advise to have tests made only for a systemic reaction.
    Ditto for food avoidance,
    I would not need an allergologist’s opinion to decide the tests to be made (RAST c74 and f1, plus some more to have a look on aspecific reactivity, two weeks after systemic reaction). Only if specific IgE blood concentrations were high enough (above 2 kU/L) I would send my patient to an allergologist.
    On the other side, I would suggest to this particular patient to avoid further doses of that particular vaccine, even before knowing the results of the tests.

  31. #31 shay
    September 8, 2015

    “No, I am not going to waste my time correcting it OVER and OVER AGAIN.”

    You prefer to waste your time making the same erroneous statements over and over again, then.

  32. #32 OccamsLaser
    September 8, 2015

    Vinu Arumugham (APV):

    You now say,

    OccamsLaser #229,

    “Of course, if that’s wrong, you could simply correct it.”

    No, I am not going to waste my time correcting it OVER and OVER AGAIN.

    As I suspected.

    You don’t dispute any of the characterizations of your positions that I posted. Not a single one.

    As for “correcting it OVER and OVER AGAIN,” let’s make sure the facts are presented to readers here: You have never once “corrected” even a single one of my characterizations of your positions. We all take note of your failure to provide a reference to any such purported “correction.” They don’t exist. Telling.

    So, you don’t disagree with any of what I wrote. Here it is again; despite having ample opportunity, you have made no specific objections whatsoever to any of it:

    You said Avantor used peanuts to make its Polysorbate 80 and concealed that fact by keeping it off their datasheet. According to you, they are lying about that now.

    Also according to you, Avantor is currently making their Polysorbate 80 from sesame oil, and they are concealing that fact by not listing that ingredient on their datasheet.

    You have also said that vaccine makers are currently producing a vaccine with peanut oil-based Polysorbate 80, and that the resulting vaccine has peanut proteins in it, but you refuse to say which vaccine it is. This is very strange, considering your professed concern with the food allergy “epidemic” that you claim is caused by this vaccine and others like it.

    Again, I ask: Why do you act as though you don’t care about children getting terribly sick?

    You could clear this up right now by simple naming the vaccine or vaccines that contain peanut proteins, but apparently you want children to continue to receive these vaccines unknowingly. Perhaps you hope that if lots of kids get sick, it will draw attention to your cause? Please explain your intentional withholding of this information.

    You have not made any specific objection to these characterizations of your position. The conclusion is clear: you indeed hold all these beliefs. I mean, they’re all based on your own words, as you clearly know.

    Thanks for reaffirming your stance on these points.

  33. #33 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 8, 2015

    perodatrent #232,

    “I would advise to have tests made only for a systemic reaction.
    Ditto for food avoidance,”

    The IOM statement said antigens in vaccines can sensitize and subsequently result in hypersensitivity reaction including anaphylaxis. So systemic reactions to the example flu vaccine are of course possible.
    You agree that you would advise food avoidance in that case.

    Say, the patient was sensitized to gelatin by MMR he received a month before his flu shot with you. Now you have asked him to avoid gelatin foods. Obviously, it is because MMR induced gelatin allergy, resulted in a systemic reaction to the flu shot and can cause a reaction to gelatin-containing foods. That is basically my point. Vaccines can induce clinical food allergy.

  34. #34 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2015

    Renate,

    That survey is from a Dutch organisation, that is just as anti-vaccine as all other organisations that state they are just pro save vaccins.

    I know, and it’s a self-reported survey, but I still think it’s interesting that they report almost as much food intolerance and allergic reactions as the vaccinated. To be fair they don’t specifically report food allergies, but I would expect those with unvaccinated children to minimize their children’s illnesses and, if APV were correct, to have significantly less food intolerance or allergy or both.

    As for APV’s claims about skin prick testing, this was first used in the 1860s (Blackley), then in the 1920s and 1930s (Lewis and Grant) with the current technique developed in the 70s (Pepys). I would have thought some immunologists would have noticed if the test they were using was causing allergies, since skin prick testing is often carried out multiple times – I have been tested at least 3 times just investigating a sinus problem. There is a large literature about this that I’m sure APV could investigate to see how the safety of this test was established, if he were really interested.

    I was thinking about APV’s fixation, and it occurred to me that he is trying, rather desperately, to find a simple explanation for food allergy. It’s an understandable urge, but there are no simple explanations in immunology (or cell or genetics), since the whole shebbang is mind-bogglingly complex. I’m reminded of H. l. Mencken who said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”.

    BTW I still can’t find an unequivocal case of a patient developing a food allergy after injected proteins. I thought the Japanese gelatin incident might qualify, but apparently these patients did not develop allergy to ingested gelatin – I have seen speculation that this is because the gelatin in the vaccine “may be of porcine origin whereas gelatin ingested in food may be of bovine origin” – which is odd since pork is the most popular meat in Japan.

  35. #35 Richard Smith
    September 8, 2015

    APV (#235): Say, the patient sprouted wings due to the MMR he received last month. Or, say the patient turned bright purple due to the DTaP he received three months, two weeks, four days and three hours ago? Or, say the patient temporarily turned into a newt due to the flu vaccine he received just the other day?**

    Oh! Say the unvaccinated patient had measles eight years ago, and suddenly came down with subacute sclerosing panencephalitis? Say the patient is only five months old, and asphyxiating due to an acute case of pertussis? Say the unvaccinated patient has measles, and has now developed encephalitis? Say the unvaccinated patient has chickenpox, and develops a Group A streptococcal infection? Say the unvaccinated patient has rubella, and she is two months pregnant?

    But yeah, the very remotest, slimmest glimmer of a chance that some vaccine, somewhere, might possibly, in the rarest of circumstances, if the planets are just-so aligned, create an immunological response that might, given a very generous definition, be considered a sort of allergic reaction is clearly enough of a reason to pull all of them until they are absolutely guaranteed 100% safe. Unless, of course, someone could tell us which vaccines have these terrible allergens. Anyone? Beuller…? Beuller…?

    ** Of course, he got better.

  36. #36 OccamsLaser
    September 8, 2015

    Richard Smith –

    Unless, of course, someone could tell us which vaccines have these terrible allergens. Anyone? Beuller…? Beuller…?

    Vinu Arumugham (APV) has known for quite some time of a vaccine (or vaccines) that have peanut proteins in them; he believes these vaccines are causing peanut allergies, which can lead to death, but he will not reveal which vaccine(s) are so formulated. Perhaps he considers that the children he believes are being victimized are martyrs?

  37. #37 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 8, 2015

    Krebiozen #236,

    “BTW I still can’t find an unequivocal case of a patient developing a food allergy after injected proteins. I thought the Japanese gelatin incident might qualify, but apparently these patients did not develop allergy to ingested gelatin – I have seen speculation that this is because the gelatin in the vaccine “may be of porcine origin whereas gelatin ingested in food may be of bovine origin” – which is odd since pork is the most popular meat in Japan.”

    Food allergy to gelatin in children with systemic immediate-type reactions, including anaphylaxis, to vaccines.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8977505

    “Twenty-four of the 26 children with allergic reactions to vaccines had anti-gelatin IgE ranging from 1.2 to 250 Ua/ml. Seven had allergic reactions on ingestion of gelatin-containing foods. Of these, two had reactions before vaccination, and five had reactions after vaccination. All the control children without allergic reactions to vaccines had no anti-gelatin IgE.”

    Two had reaction to food BEFORE vaccination and FIVE had reaction to food AFTER vaccination. Mere coincidence of course. What else can it be?

  38. #38 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 9, 2015

    Krebiozen,

    Let’s see if using some numbers can help.
    We know that people who are allergic to egg (in food) usually do not react to egg in the influenza vaccine.

    Say people reacting only to food have 50 IU/ml of anti-ovalbumin IgE.
    People who react to the influenza vaccine have say, 100 IU/ml of anti-ovalbumin IgE.

    The IOM statement says, vaccines can sensitize and vaccines can cause subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. If subsequent reactions to ovalbumin-containing vaccines are known to occur (per IOM), then sensitization to ovalbumin by vaccines cause >100 IU/ml (from our example) of anti-ovalbumin IgE.

    If vaccines can cause 100 IU/ml of IgE in some people then it stands to reason that a lot of people definitely were sensitized at the 50 IU/ml IgE level. In other words, with sensitization caused by a vaccine, a lot more people will develop the level of sensitization required to react to food than the number of people who will develop the level of sensitization required to react to a subsequent vaccine.

    So since vaccine sensitization do cause reactions to occur upon subsequent vaccinations (per IOM), they do definitely cause clinical food allergy.

  39. #39 JGC
    September 9, 2015

    So since vaccine sensitization do cause reactions to occur upon subsequent vaccinations (per IOM), they do definitely cause clinical food allergy.
    .

    Your evidence that vaccines definitely cause food allergies would be what, APV? So far all you’ve offered is a repeated argument taking no form other than “Well, it could happen–couldn’t it?”

  40. #40 Julian Frost
    South Africa
    September 9, 2015

    The IOM statement says, vaccines can sensitize

    That is not what was said, Humpty Dumpty. The IOM said they might, not that they did. You are once again twisting.

    If vaccines can cause 100 IU/ml of IgE in some people then it stands to reason that a lot of people definitely were sensitized at the 50 IU/ml IgE level

    It stands to reason? That’s your argument? Once upon a time, it stood to reason that the further south you went, the hotter things would get and eventually oceans would start to boil. It also stood to reason that the Sun went around the Earth. “It stands to reason” is a flawed argument even on its face.

    So since vaccine sensitization do cause reactions to occur upon subsequent vaccinations

    You have failed to demonstrate that this is the case.

  41. #41 shay
    September 9, 2015

    I still think I have a better claim to being Marlene Dietrich.

  42. #42 Richard Smith
    September 9, 2015

    With regards to APV, I’m inclined more towards Greta Garbo.

  43. […] movie opens by claiming it is not anti-vaccine – a common tactic among people who are, in fact, anti-vaccine. But the whole premise of the movie is that the CDC acted underhandedly to poison a generation of […]

  44. #44 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 9, 2015

    Julian Frost #242,

    “The IOM said they might, not that they did.”

    Dead wrong. Again. Show us the “might” here:

    IOM statement:
    “Adverse events on our list thought to be due to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions
    Antigens in the vaccines that the committee is charged with reviewing do not typically elicit an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (e.g., hepatitis B surface antigen, toxoids, gelatin, ovalbumin, casamino acids).
    However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.”

    DO occasionally induce. No uncertainties. Vaccines do induce sensitization AND subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. Period.

  45. #45 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 10, 2015

    Julian Frost, JGC,

    The IOM statement is unambiguous that vaccine do cause sensitization and subsequent vaccines result in hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.

    Fact: Most allergic people who react to food, DO NOT react to vaccines. Only the MOST SEVERELY allergic react to vaccines because vaccines contain trace amounts of allergen usually 1000x less than in food.
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/25520

    The IOM statement makes it clear that vaccine sensitization DOES create allergy severe enough to result in hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis to subsequent vaccines.

    If you react to food allergen in a vaccine, you are guaranteed to react on eating that food. That is why as Dr. Alphonsi confirmed, he will advise avoidance of food containing that allergen after a vaccine reaction.

    Proof, that vaccines cause development of clinical food allergy.

  46. #46 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 10, 2015

    Richard Smith, #237,

    “Unless, of course, someone could tell us which vaccines have these terrible allergens. ”

    You don’t seem to be paying enough attention …
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

  47. #47 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 10, 2015

    Krebiozen #236,

    “It’s an understandable urge, but there are no simple explanations in immunology (or cell or genetics), since the whole shebbang is mind-bogglingly complex.”

    The flip side of the “simple is wrong” logic. You are of course right that the immune system is mind-boggling in its complexity.
    Do you think it is possible to prevent an influenza infection by the simple act of injecting 15 mcg of HA proteins? Seems like a ridiculously simple idea that the mind-bogglingly complex immune system can be corralled into providing protection against influenza by this simple act.
    By your logic there is no chance that flu vaccines (or any vaccine for that matter) can ever work. They are too simple.

    Yes, the mind boggling mechanism of how 15 mcg of HA protein injection turns into protection against influenza, obviously has not been understood.

    The IOM listed bacterial, viral and food proteins in the same list for good reason. The immune system handles them ALL the same way.

    When you get a flu shot, you may also be provided with protection against the “egg virus” whether you like it or not.

    Naturally, you are exposed to femtograms of virus surface HA proteins when someone sneezes on you. The resulting allergic reaction is imperceptible.

    Unfortunately, when you eat eggs, you eat way more than a few femtograms. The immune system reacts exactly as it was programmed to do. It vigorously protects you against the massive “egg virus” exposure. How can you complain about the overreaction? You asked for it.

  48. #48 OccamsLaser
    September 10, 2015

    Vinu Arumugham (APV):

    You say,

    Richard Smith, #237,
    “Unless, of course, someone could tell us which vaccines have these terrible allergens. ”
    You don’t seem to be paying enough attention …
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

    Why are you concealing the information you have about the vaccine that has peanut proteins in it?

    It is noted for the record that you have not denied holding any of the positions I attributed to you.

  49. #49 Richard Smith
    September 10, 2015

    APV (#248):

    You don’t seem to be paying enough attention…

    No mention there of peanuts, sesame seeds, nuts, shrimp, prawns, shellfish, or seafood that you’ve claimed are in vaccines*. Sure, there are things in the list that are allergens but, duh!, that’s why they’re in the list – because some people are allergic to them, and others are just sensitive to them. Also, why offer up a document from the CDC if they’re in on the whole cover-up?

    Honestly, I’m surprised you haven’t gone into anaphylactic shock just by being here, given your clear allergy to facts.

    * Yeah, yeah, they list polysorbate 80, but that’s because it is polysorbate 80, not because of its putative source.

  50. #50 JGC
    September 10, 2015

    The IOM statement makes it clear that vaccine sensitization DOES create allergy severe enough to result in hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis to subsequent vaccines

    You’ve yet to produce a clear statement by the IOM (or anyone else, for that matter) that vaccines create food allergies at all, APV. Can I expect you will do so anytime this year?

  51. #51 JGC
    September 10, 2015

    If you react to food allergen in a vaccine, you are guaranteed to react on eating that food.

    So if you’re already so allergic to something that you react to the minute amounts which may be present in a vaccine, we will expect that you’ll also react when you receive a far, far greater exposure to that something as a consequence of eating a food that contains. Wow! Who’d have thought?

  52. #52 perodatrent
    September 10, 2015

    APV # 247
    I think APV’s logic isn’t right.
    He says “… If you react to food allergen in a vaccine, you are guaranteed to react on eating that food. That is why as Dr. Alphonsi confirmed, he will advise avoidance of food containing that allergen after a vaccine reaction.
    Proof, that vaccines cause development of clinical food allergy”.

    It seems to be the a case of the “affirmation of consequent” fallacy.
    No one is guaranteed to react to a food after having a reaction to a vaccine! The only case where it would be “guaranteed” is when the patient was allergic to the food antigen before having vaccine (possibly) containing the same antigen.
    The reason I would advise him against eating that particular food is only prudential, and my advice would be confirmed only if his level of specific IgE after reaction were quite high.
    And, as everyone here repeats: IOM does not say what AVM wants us to believe, namely that vaccines causes allergy to food.
    This is not to say that it is impossible. Only that it is not in their cards.
    AVM’s hypothesis is fascinating, but it would take much more work to be recognized as a workable theory.

  53. #53 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 10, 2015

    perodatrent #254,

    ‘The only case where it would be “guaranteed” is when the patient was allergic to the food antigen before having vaccine (possibly) containing the same antigen.”

    That is exactly what I am describing. Please consider the following sequence:

    1. Patient gets MMR vaccine containing gelatin. Patient is sensitized to gelatin in MMR (no symptoms at this time of course).
    2. Patient receives flu shot containing gelatin in your clinic.
    Suffers allergic reaction.

    The above sequence DOES occur per IOM and you have accepted that.
    My point is that only patients with SEVERE ALLERGY will react to vaccines because of the trace quantities of allergen in the vaccines. So the patient in this case who has reacted to gelatin in the flu shot will definitely react to gelatin in foods.

    Proof that gelatin (or any food antigen) in vaccines DO cause the development of food allergy.

  54. #54 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 10, 2015

    JGC #252, #253,

    Here’s the IOM statement.
    It makes it absolutely CLEAR that vaccines DO cause sensitization and subsequent vaccines can cause hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.
    Dr. Alphonsi (perodatrent) has accepted that.

    “However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.”

    Nothing about allergy to EATING food, yet.

    Now, YOUR statement #253 is perfect. That is exactly what I have been trying to point out.

    Per IOM vaccine sensitization followed by vaccine reaction DOES occur.
    Per YOUR statement, anyone who reacts to vaccines will OBVIOUSLY react to food containing the same allergen. Thank you for helping make that point crystal clear.

    That’s the proof that vaccines DO cause the development of food allergy.

  55. #55 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 11, 2015

    perodatrent (Dr. Alfonsi) wrote in #128, commenting on the IOM statement:

    “The only possible meaning of these words is that in the first exposure some rare people are sensitized, and in a second exposure some even rarer people have a reaction. ”

    In other words, vaccines do sensitize, subsequent vaccines do cause reactions.

    JGC wrote in #253:

    “So if you’re already so allergic to something that you react to the minute amounts which may be present in a vaccine, we will expect that you’ll also react when you receive a far, far greater exposure to that something as a consequence of eating a food that contains.”

    In other words, if you react to food allergens in a vaccine , you will react to those foods.

    Conclusion by combining the two statements above: vaccines do sensitize, causing you to react to foods.

    It is understandable that nobody wants to agree with what an outsider/pariah like me, has to say.
    Now you can agree with Dr. Alfonsi, JGC and come to the same conclusion as me, “WITHOUT AGREEING WITH APV”.

    Dr. Alfonsi, sorry for misspelling your name.

  56. #56 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 11, 2015

    Dr. Alfonsi #254,

    “This is not to say that it is impossible. Only that it is not in their cards.
    AVM’s hypothesis is fascinating, but it would take much more work to be recognized as a workable theory.”

    I have discussed this matter with Dr. Polly Matzinger of the NIH/NIAID.
    Dr. Matzinger helped develop the danger model of the immune system.
    Dr. Matzinger agrees with me that vaccines cause food allergy.
    She pointed out that it is standard practice to inject mice with allergen and alum to induce food allergy for research.

    Example: Injection of pertussis toxin and alum (both adjuvants) along with ovalbumin to cause egg allergy in rats.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342543
    Exactly the same as injecting humans with DTaP (which of course contains pertussis toxin and aluminum salts, both act as Th2 biased adjuvants) and ovalbumin being replaced with milk as the allergen, in casamino acid.

    You can see Dr. Matzinger’s full response here:
    https://list.nih.gov/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1305&L=immuni-l&F=&S=&P=37286

    I have numerous references over the years of vaccines causing food allergies and obviously the IOM has looked at a far bigger collection in coming to their conclusion:

    Nobel Laureate Charles Richet discovered over a hundred years ago that injecting proteins into mammals can cause them to develop an allergy to that protein.

    In 2002, the doctors from the CDC and FDA warned that gelatin-containing vaccines can cause gelatin allergy based on similar findings in Japan.

    “Nonetheless, our cases with anti-gelatin IgE required some previous exposure to gelatin to become sensitized, and this may have come through ingestion of gelatin-containing food or injection of gelatin-containing vaccines.”

    They wrote: “Efforts should continue to identify less allergenic
    substitutes for gelatin currently used by vaccine manufacturers.”.

    Authors:
    Vitali Pool, MD, CDC, M. Miles Braun, MD, MPH, FDA, John M. Kelso, MD,Naval Medical Center, Gina Mootrey, DO, MPH, CDC, Robert T. Chen, MD,MA, CDC, John W. Yunginger, MD, Robert M. Jacobson, MD, Mayo
    Clinic,Paul M. Gargiullo, PhD, CD.
    Prevalence of Anti-Gelatin IgE Antibodies in People With Anaphylaxis
    After Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine in the United States
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/6/e71.long

    It has been observed even in 1940 that vaccines cause sensitization/induce allergy. Second dose of the same vaccine resulted in an allergic reaction.

    ALLERGY INDUCED BY IMMUNIZATION WITH TETANUS TOXOID
    ROBERT A. COOKE, M.D.; STANLEY HAMPTON, M.D.; WILLIAM B. SHERMAN, M.D.; ARTHUR STULL, Ph.D.
    JAMA. 1940;114(19):1854-1858. doi:10.1001/jama.1940.02810190016005.
    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1160278

    1952:
    Paper 1.
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM195204032461403
    They show 5 of 319 developed dermal sensitivity to egg white due to the egg proteins present in vaccines.

    Paper 2.
    Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection may protect against allergy in a tuberculosis endemic area.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16393268

    The children in Paper 1, were all under treatment for tuberculosis.
    So the authors seem to have unknowingly selected a population with some protection against allergy.

    So even in a population with some protection against allergy, sensitivity was detectable in 1.6% of the patients, in 1952.

    1987, 36 out of 100 patients developed anti-ovalbumin IgE after the flu shot:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/pdf/epidinfect00008-0113.pdf

    Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14624794

    Study showing DTaP vaccine causing milk allergy:
    “In addition, they induced Th2-type cytokines to the co-administrated antigen tetanus toxoïd, as well as to the food antigen beta-lactoglobulin.”
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X06007742

  57. #57 perodatrent
    September 11, 2015

    It seems obvious that APV needs some apprenticeship in use of auxiliary verbs. As someone noted, the fact that some people become sensitized after a vaccine is best expressed using the verb “may” instead than the verb “do” as APV prefers -even using it in CAPITALS.
    It seems even more obvious that APV cannot accept the fact that nowhere in IOM’s cards anyone can find a reference that justifies his pretence that eating a food antigen after a vaccine containing the same antigen DOES (his capitals) cause a clinical allergy.
    And it very unkind from APV to quote only selected words from my (and others’) posts to try to justify what he says.
    Since a few weeks I am retired. Up to then I was working as a clinical pathologist in a hospital. I had responsibility of the Lab’s area where allergy testing was made, and I worked in close contact with our allergologists.
    This is to say that I know something about allergy. No one of us could have accepted APV’s hypothesis about vaccines being “the cause” of allergy.

  58. #58 JGC
    September 11, 2015

    APV, the IOM statement mentions IgE sensitization, not the development of a food allergy. (Haven’t others already explained this to you?

    Further, none of my statements support the notion that exposure to food proteins present in vaccines causes food allergies: I only note that if you already possess a food allergy significant enough to react when exposed to trace amounts of food proteins that might be found in a vaccine we can expect you’ll also react to those antigens present at higher concentrations in the food itself.

  59. #59 Richard Smith
    September 11, 2015

    APV:

    There’s a serious drought happening, very little rain. I go camping in the woods one evening and, even though I try my best to be careful, my small campfire temporarily gets out of control (but I am eventually able to extinguish it with the help of a passing park ranger). Two weeks later a storm hits the same area, with lots of lightning, and several direct strikes cause a large forest fire that burns for several days before fire crews are finally able to subdue it.

    So, if the incident with the campfire hadn’t occurred, would the lightning not have caused the later fires? Or were both incidences symptomatic of an pre-existing, underlying cause (the draught)?

  60. #60 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 11, 2015

    perodatrent, JGC, #258, #259,

    Pick an allergen from the IOM list, say ovalbumin.
    1. Per IOM, ovalbumin containing vaccines DO sensitize some people. This is undisputed.
    2. Per IOM, people in (1) are sensitized severely enough that they can suffer hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis upon subsequent vaccination with ovalbumin-containing vaccines. This is undisputed.
    3. Per JGC #253, since people in (2) are sensitized enough to react to the minute quantity of ovalbumin in the vaccine, they will definitely react to eating the far larger quantity of ovalbumin in eggs and egg containing foods. This too is undisputed.

    The only conclusion one can draw is ovalbumin-containing vaccines cause the development of ovalbumin allergy.
    I don’t know how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

  61. #61 shay
    September 11, 2015

    I don’t know how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

    People who actually read with comprehension and have noticed that your three statements don’t naturally follow can.

  62. #62 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 11, 2015

    shay #262,

    May be you can explain why “they don’t naturally follow”?

  63. #63 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    JGC #260,

    “APV, the IOM statement mentions IgE sensitization, not the development of a food allergy. ”

    The IOM statement NOT ONLY mentions IgE sensitization, it also mentions hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis.

    Food allergy (that we are discussing) IS IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis.

    “Further, none of my statements support the notion that exposure to food proteins present in vaccines causes food allergies: ”

    You did not have to say anything about vaccines causing food allergy. Your statement in #253, along with the IOM statement, logically leads to only one conclusion: vaccines cause food allergy.

  64. #64 Richard Smith
    September 12, 2015

    APV (#264):

    Your statement in #253, along with the IOM statement, logically leads to only one conclusion

    And the whole of your statements logically leads to only one conclusion: You are a single-minded dolt operating at a heretofore unseen level of Dunning-Kruger.

  65. #65 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    perodatrent #259,

    “may” vs. “do”

    The IOM used the word “do” in the statement we are discussing.
    The word “may” has been misinterpreted as speculation.
    I emphasized the word “do” to make sure people understand that the IOM statement has no uncertainty, is based on evidence and is not speculation.

    “It seems even more obvious that APV cannot accept the fact that nowhere in IOM’s cards anyone can find a reference that justifies his pretence that eating a food antigen after a vaccine containing the same antigen DOES (his capitals) cause a clinical allergy.”

    As I have explained many times, the IOM stated that vaccine sensitization causes reactions/anaphylaxis to subsequent vaccines. This automatically means you will react to food as JGC explains in #253. As you obviously know, vaccines have minute amounts of allergen. While foods have huge amounts of allergen. So, the IOM does not have to mention food reactions specifically as this huge difference in allergen content is obviously very well known in the medical community.
    The best example is that most people who are allergic to egg can tolerate the egg-containing flu vaccine.

    “And it very unkind from APV to quote only selected words from my (and others’) posts to try to justify what he says.”

    I have exactly quoted you and pointed to your post number.

    “No one of us could have accepted APV’s hypothesis about vaccines being “the cause” of allergy.”

    Understandable as you were unaware of the IOM statement until now. Now, I would request you to please reconsider. To be accurate, it is NOT MY hypothesis. It is a proven fact from the days of Nobel Laureate Charles Richet, a hundred years ago.
    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-lecture.html

    The IOM statement is the just the latest and most authoritative confirmation of the concept, especially as related to vaccines.

  66. #66 LW
    September 12, 2015

    APV came stomping in here — it seems like years ago — proclaiming that according to Nobel Laureate Charles Richet, a hundred years ago, any injection of any protein causes sensitization and later anaphylaxis.

    Numerous commenters pointed out that the rough-and-tumble world of our human and pre-human ancestors offered innumerable opportunities for proteins to be accidentally injected, and if any such injection of any protein invariably caused sensitization and later anaphylaxis, the species would have long since gone extinct.

    APV then modified its claim: our bodies have evolved to tolerate injection of other sorts of proteins, such as pollen, but not food proteins because food proteins are specially tagged for the body’s benefit*.

    Numerous comments pointing out ways in which food proteins could be injected naturally (eating with scratched-up hands, injuries while butchering or preparing food) produced nonsensical responses along the lines of, how do we know that cooks don’t commonly keel over from anaphylaxis? This situation persisted until the comment was made that babies routinely teethe, and teething babies will inevitably get food particles into their blood and gum tissues, thereby, according to APV causing sensitization and later anaphylaxis. Oops.

    APV then changed its position again: injection directly into the bloodstream (as other antivaxxers like to characterize vaccination) does not under any circumstances produce sensitization; only injection into the muscles. Oh, and the tissues of the mouth, even though they include muscles and skin and mucus membranes, are designed so that they, and only they in all the body, cannot produce sensitization.

    In fact, APV has contended all along, sensitization can never be produced by consuming food unless the digestive system is impaired by PPIs and the like. Thus essentially every childhood food allergy must come from vaccines, including allergies to fish, beef, pork, shellfish, strawberries, peanuts, and so on. If vaccine data sheets do not show fish, beef, pork, shellfish, strawberries, peanuts, and so on as ingredients, that just means that the vaccine manufacturers are lying.

    I believe this is an accurate history of the evolution of APV’s claims.

    * okay, I added the special tagging bit.

  67. #67 Julian Frost
    South Africa
    September 12, 2015

    LW, pretty much.

  68. #68 Krebiozen
    September 12, 2015

    It’s interesting to see Richet’s discussion of “alimentary anaphylaxis” as he called it, which was sensitization via ingested antigen and subsequent anaphylaxis when the antigen was injected. Richet appears to have failed to make animals react to ingested proteins with anaphylaxis after sensitizing with injected antigens, only vice versa (i.e. sensitizing through ingestion and subsequent anaphylaxis through either ingestion or injection). He mentions the theoretical possibility of “(3) P preparatory, A releasing” where P = parenteral and A = alimentary, but doesn’t describe any successful experiments that demonstrate this happening, though he must surely have tried this.

    Doesn’t that argue against APV’s hypothesis?

  69. #69 LW
    September 12, 2015

    It’s interesting to see Richet’s discussion of “alimentary anaphylaxis” as he called it, which was sensitization via ingested antigen and subsequent anaphylaxis when the antigen was injected.

    Richet seems to have neglected to mention concurrent ingestion of antigen and PPIs. We know, because APV has told us so, that ingestion of antigens always produces tolerance rather than sensitization, unless interfered with by PPIs.

  70. #70 LW
    September 12, 2015

    Richet also seems to have neglected to mention that the word “injection” as he consistently uses it, excludes injection into the bloodstream because, as APV assures us, his experiments would have failed if the antigens were injected into the bloodstream.

  71. #71 Krebiozen
    September 12, 2015

    LW,

    Richet also seems to have neglected to mention that the word “injection” as he consistently uses it, excludes injection into the bloodstream because, as APV assures us, his experiments would have failed if the antigens were injected into the bloodstream.

    Richet stated:

    To date, all experiments mentioned above have been carried out by parenteral injections, that is to say that the substance introduced into the blood was introduced by other means than the digestion, and namely by means of subcutaneous, intravenous, intraspinal and peritoneal injections.

    So that includes intravenous but not intramuscular injections. Oops.

  72. #72 LW
    September 12, 2015

    @Krebiozen, it’s almost like APV is making up new claims unsupported by Richet or anything else.

  73. #73 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    Krebiozen #273,

    You wrote in #127:
    “you seem to have forgotten that in a previous thread I showed you that the doses of antigens used by Richet were far greater than those present in vaccines. ”

    Dose matters as you have rightly pointed out. But more importantly you have failed completely in providing us ANY evidence from studies establishing safe levels for allergens in vaccines.
    And as you should know, intramuscular injections only make the sensitization problem worse. Vaccines are administered intramuscular because you get the best immune response.
    And we use IgE biased adjuvants today.

  74. #74 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    LW #271,

    “Richet seems to have neglected to mention concurrent ingestion of antigen and PPIs. We know, because APV has told us so, that ingestion of antigens always produces tolerance rather than sensitization, unless interfered with by PPIs.”

    Wrong again. Oral tolerance is old news (more than a hundred years) and known during Richet’s time.

    Wells HG. Studies on the chemistry of anaphylaxis (III) Experiments with isolated proteins, especially those of the hen’s egg. J Infect Dis. 1911;9:24.
    Wells HG, Osborne TB. The biological reactions of the vegetable proteins. I. Anaphylaxis. J Infect Dis. 1911;8:66–124.
    “The phenomenon of oral tolerance was first described by Wells and Osborne in 1911. They used guinea pigs to show that inclusion of egg white, purified egg allergens, or oats in the diet rendered the animals hyporesponsive to sensitization and anaphylaxis to those proteins. ”

    Berin MC, Mayer L. Can we produce true tolerance in patients with food allergy? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131(1):14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.10.058.

    If you had arranged a supply of PPI to them, they would have studied it too …

  75. #75 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    Krebiozen #270, LW,

    “alimentary anaphylaxis”

    As Richet explains, if you can defeat/alter the protein digestion process, you can sensitize to ingested proteins. Just like PPI.

  76. #76 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    perodatrent, JGC,

    Let’s say the Pentagon has a document that says a nuclear bomb can destroy a city.
    I say thousands of people will be killed.

    Some posters here object saying the Pentagon document says nothing about people being killed.

    The argument that IOM does not mention food allergy is exactly like that. It is obvious to anyone familiar with vaccines and allergy (especially the medical community) that if you react to a food allergen in a vaccine, you will react to eating that food. The IOM has no reason to state the obvious.

  77. #77 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    LW #268,

    Some of what you have stated is accurate and I stand by it. But there are also many embellishments.

    Further, you have created many problems for Krebiozen’s skin sensitization hypothesis. See, you don’t need to cut your skin and expose it to meat. Apparently you merely have to handle meat with your bare skin to cause sensitization per Krebiozen.

  78. #78 Krebiozen
    September 12, 2015

    APV,

    Dose matters as you have rightly pointed out. But more importantly you have failed completely in providing us ANY evidence from studies establishing safe levels for allergens in vaccines.

    You dug up the historical evidence on sensitivity, so don’t complain when I find some that contradicts your hypothesis. Wells found that guinea pigs did not react to the the amount of egg protein present in vaccines. Let’s see exactly what Wells wrote in the paper they refer to:

    Egg-white was diluted with an equal volume of water, beaten, and filtered. To a sample of this filtrate ten volumes of alcohol were added, the precipitated protein dried and weighed, and the solution was found to contain 6.3% protein. The minimum sensitising dose of this solution was found to be (for 300-gram guinea pigs) about 0.0001 c.c (or 0.0000063 gm.). Doses smaller than this produced no sensitization whatever, while fatal results were only obtained when 0.001 to 0.0005 c.c. were used for sensitizing.

    That’s a minimum of 6.3 micrograms of purified egg protein (not just egg white) required to sensitize a 300 gram guinea pig (5 times more to produce fatal sensitivity). If we extrapolate to humans, we would require 1,470 micrograms of egg protein to sensitize an average 70 kg human. The lowest normal weight of a six month old baby (youngest age at which influenza vaccine is recommended) is 6.7 kg, requiring 140 micrograms of egg protein to sensitize her/him, 700 micrograms to induce fatal sensitivity.

    What’s the maximum amount of egg protein found in influenza vaccines? This study found a maximum of 1.4 micrograms per ml. in Fluzone (much less in other vaccines), which amounts to a dose of 0.7 micrograms in a six-month-old child. That’s 250 times less than the minimum weight-corrected dose required to produce sensitization in a guinea pig, a more than adequate safety margin, in my opinion. Even if you don’t accept a weight-corrected dose, Wells’ results suggest there is still insufficient egg protein in an influenza vaccine to sensitize a guinea pig, much less a human.

    Do you have some evidence that 0.7 µg egg white protein can sensitize a human to ingested egg?

  79. #79 Krebiozen
    September 12, 2015

    The “they” I referred to above was Anderson and Rosenau in another paper I discussed with APV in another thread.

  80. #80 LW
    September 12, 2015

    Further, you have created many problems for Krebiozen’s skin sensitization hypothesis. See, you don’t need to cut your skin and expose it to meat. Apparently you merely have to handle meat with your bare skin to cause sensitization per Krebiozen.

    An excellent example of APV’s … uh … reasoning. Krebiozen states that some individuals may develop an allergy due to skin exposure, therefore APV concludes that Krebiozen claims that ALL individuals WILL develop allergies due to skin exposure. APV gleefully points out that this is obviously not true therefore I “have created many problems for Krebiozen’s skin sensitization hypothesis”.

    No. SOME individuals have reactions to various environmental stimuli, and if EVERY individual had those reactions the species would go extinct. If Krebiozen had claimed that any skin exposure to any food protein, even in nanogram quantities, caused sensitization, in the same way that APV pranced in here claiming than any injection of any protein, even in nanogram quantities, caused sensitization, we’d all be criticizing Krebiozen too.

    But Krebiozen knows the difference between “occasional individuals” and “every single individual”, unlike APV.

  81. #81 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    LW,

    “claims that ALL individuals WILL develop allergies due to skin exposure.”

    You are putting words into my mouth. Show me where I state that.

  82. #82 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    LW #282,
    “But Krebiozen knows the difference between “occasional individuals” and “every single individual”, unlike APV.”

    Again putting words into my mouth. I have posted many times that food allergy prevalence is 6-8%, never claimed it was 100%.

  83. #83 OccamsLaser
    September 12, 2015

    Vinu Arumugham (APV):

    Why are you covering up the name of the vaccine that has peanut protein in it? You say it’s causing children to develop peanut allergy. Is that what you want?

  84. #84 perodatrent
    September 12, 2015

    APV #283, 284
    I think what LW notes (“all individuals” versus “occasional individuals”) has the same meaning of the use of “do” and “may” that i pointed before.
    Reasoning in a probabilistic way, using the word “do” implies that all individuals would become sensitized (and then would react), while using “may” implies that a only some (very rare) individuals would follow that course.
    Perhaps APV cannot reason probabilistically?

  85. #85 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    Krebiozen #280,

    First, your analysis results are obviously incorrect because the IOM has already concluded that the quantity of allergen present in vaccines is not only sufficient to sensitize humans, but they are even capable of producing anaphylaxis.

    In fact, it looks like EVERY vaccine they reviewed has a “convincingly supports” or “favors acceptance” conclusion for anaphylaxis as an adverse event.
    https://iom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality/summary2.pdf

    So your calculation needs some work. My suggestions: perhaps the guinea pigs were not administered the allergen intramuscularly as you previously pointed out about Richet’s research. Thus needing a higher dose for sensitization. You have to adjust for the fact that humans get up to five shots in one sitting and some of them contain MULTIPLE Th2/IgE biased adjuvants such as pertussis/diptheria toxins and aluminum salts. The guinea pigs did not.

    Further, our children today have predisposition to allergy due to factors such as hygiene and higher c-section birth rates causing sub-optimal gut microbiome thus predisposition to allergy. I suspect these did not apply to the guinea pigs either.

    Once you factor those in, I suspect your calculation results will be consistent with the IOM’s conclusion that current allergen content in vaccines do cause the development of food allergy.

  86. #86 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    perodatrent #286,

    “Perhaps APV cannot reason probabilistically?”

    As I wrote before, using “may” allows people to abuse it and claim you are speculating. As I also wrote before, food allergy occurs in 6-8% of population. Obviously that is probabilistic. I have NEVER claimed that EVERYONE receiving a vaccine will be sensitized.

    IOM makes it clear by using “do occasionally”.

  87. #87 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 12, 2015

    Krebiozen #280,

    Another very basic allergy concept. Elicitation doses are 5x or more than sensitizing doses. IOM has concluded that EVERY vaccine they reviewed causes anaphylaxis (elicitation). Proof, that ALL of them have MORE THAN ENOUGH allergen content to sensitize humans.

    We don’t even have to worry about cross-species scaling (with guinea pig examples). The IOM results are completely based on human studies.

  88. #88 shay
    September 13, 2015

    Except, of course, that’s not what they concluded or stated so no, no proof.

  89. #89 APV
    foodallergycauses.wordpress.com
    September 13, 2015

    shay #290,

    They did not conclude what or state what?

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