No, the CDC did not just apologize and admit that this year's flu vaccine doesn't work

APV @ 492

I can't decide if you linked to the wrong article, didn't read the article, or simply don't understand the article, but somehow you've provided the Pubmed ID number for an article which doesn't once mention gut microbiomes and which concludes "Insufficient evidence was found in our population for any association between birth by caesarean section and allergic manifestations" to try to argue that caesarean sections result in suboptimal gut microbiomes and these predispose subjects to developing food allergies.

One has to ask: what were you thinking?

.

APV, I opened that link you provided in #487. Colour me rather unimpressed. As for

People get tested because they have symptoms.
Better detection cannot explain it.

If the symptoms are missed, the person likely doesn't get tested. That's one example of how better detection can explain it.

Why are there more [reported] allergic reactions in schools/aircraft cabins for example, if it is just a detection issue?

FTFY. The aircraft cabin issue has been answered. As for schools, I would imagine that for reasons of safety (and avoiding lawsuits), teachers and other school employees are trained to recognise the signs of an allergic reaction. Once again, better detection is a viable explanation, your comments notwithstanding.

APV:

It is a fact that real vaccines have allergens.

List them please. Oh, and don't say "peanut oil".

It is a fact that there are more allergies in the developed world.

See comment about better detection.

It is a fact that vaccination rates are much higher in the developed [world.]

Oh I see. You're making a correlation causation error.

So any claim of vaccines preventing allergies is at best an insignificant effect that is lost in the noise.

Given that you've been given a study showing that the vaccinated have a lower rate of allergies, you are, to put it kindly, handwaving.
You came in here with an idée fixée that vaccines provoke allergies. You have ignored and derided evidence that undermines your belief. Around here, people who stick to bad theories get very short shrift. I'm pretty much done with you, but you have some utility as a chew toy.

APV: And my point, which sailed over your head, is that you are confusing rate of incidence with rate of allergies, and concluding that because there were no recorded incidents 100 years ago, that there were no food allergies 100 years ago. Same thing with allergy rates in the developing world- we don't know anything about that because people with life-threatening allergies usually die in the developing world.
You are also discounting why allergies happen- kids in the US are raised in sterilized environments and rarely allowed outside, leading to a bored and overreactive immune system

JGC #492,

I just quoted the study you provided, for context. Looks like you did not recognize what you posted!
"PMID:23826787"

My link is:
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2812%2903130-2/fulltext

Julian Frost #509,

"List them please. Oh, and don’t say “peanut oil”."

Listed them back in #283. Here it is again ...
Vaccines contain, egg, casein, agar directly listed. And as I have written before, Polysorbate 80 is a source of undisclosed, uncontrolled allergens.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipi…

Politicalguineapig #510,

"Same thing with allergy rates in the developing world- we don’t know anything about that because people with life-threatening allergies usually die in the developing world."

There are millions who will show allergy symptoms along with some who may unfortunately be killed by allergies. I lived for 27 years in a third world country. No food allergies there. It is a struggle to explain the alien concept of food allergy to many of them.

"You are also discounting why allergies happen- kids in the US are raised in sterilized environments and rarely allowed outside, leading to a bored and overreactive immune system"

You are correct. What you wrote is exactly what I was saying.
Children in the US are primed for allergies. In other words, the way kids are raised here increases their risk of developing allergies. However, they cannot automatically become allergic to eggs for example because of the way they are raised. The key point your are missing is that you have to introduce the allergen to the immune system at a location where allergy can develop. The sensitization locations are, far as I know, skin (eczema), intramuscular/intradermal vaccines or the gut (when stomach is reduced). Intranasal vaccines are safe from the allergy perspective.

In other words, raising kids in sterilized conditions may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for allergy development.

Sorry "when stomach is reduced" should read "when stomach acid is reduced".

AAAAI: Kids May React to Milk Proteins in DPT Shot
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/25520

Adacel vaccine has casamino acid (milk proteins):
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedpr…

Enough milk protein in vaccine to cause a reaction means more than enough to cause sensitization.

I got an ear worm this evening from seeing APV posts:

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Rawhide!

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Though the threads are swollen
Keep them stooges Trollin'
Rawhide!

Anaphylaxis to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines among children with cow’s milk allergy
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext

The DTaP and TDaP were found to contain 8-17 ng/ml of casein. It does not take a lot.
"Manufacturer investigation and possible labeling or elimination of casein from the vaccines might avoid this risk."

Elimination of casein from the vaccines. Have we heard that before?
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.

APV,
Repeating your misconceptions over and over doesn't make them true.

They did not produce “some IgE”, they produced anti-ovalbumin IgE.

The important thing is how much, as it is normal to produce some IgE. The reference range is up to 100 kIU/l and the reference range for specific IgE is up to 0.37 kIU/L, but you usually see much higher values in those with allergies.

The study clearly demonstrates that ovalbumin in the vaccine caused new anti-ovalbumin IgE synthesis in some patients and an increase in anti-ovalbumin IgE in patients who already had that IgE, pre-vaccination.

What do you mean by "already had that IgE, pre-vaccination"? If you look at Figure 3 (b), it is clear that the great majority of subjects already had some IgE-specific antibody to egg white.

Of 16 vaccinees whose sera contained more than 0.35 PRU/ml of IgE specific to F1, six paired sera (37 5 %) showed significant rises (1.5-fold or greater). In total, 36 of the vacinees 100 showed significant rises in IgE specific to F1 allergen. C

They define significant rises as "1.5-fold or greater", but these are not particularly high levels; the highest sIgE is less than 1.5 kIU/L. You need to see sIgE of 6.3 kIU/L to have a 90% probability of egg allergy. I have seen IgE in the thousands in patients with allergies.

That is contradicted by the fact that just 15 mcg of HA viral protein was able to produce anti-influenza IgE in 3 of 3 adults (100%), even without adjuvants.

Again you are conflating the production of IgE with the development of sensitivity. As I have repeatedly told you, it is normal to produce some IgE.

C-section births increases IgE synthesis risk by 5X in children.

Yet the systematic review I quoted from above found, "these conclusions may not be reliable", and stated, "further studies using objectively diagnosed food allergy as the outcome are needed to verify whether this equates to an increase in confirmed food allergy". That's hardly conclusive evidence.

So add c-section and adjuvant factors that increase immunogenicity and you have created your own HLA-DR9 situation for all vaccines.

No you haven't. If his scenario was correct, the association would be very obvious, and it isn't.

May be those animal researchers could learn a few things from the human food allergy model. Deliver rats via c-section, use anti-biotics to kill good gut bacteria, use human vaccines, five shots at a time, it seems to work very well in humans … to produce food allergies.

Only in your imagination, thankfully.

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

The paper concludes, "Our discovery also suggests that the IgE molecule has evolved to serve various beneficial functions, including anti-viral [...] The results presented here suggest that IgE is associated with anti-influenza immunity and their memory responses".

What relevance does this have to your hypothesis? It suggests that IgE production is part of a normal response to infection, not that influenza vaccine produces allergy to influenza viruses.

Which is the same as saying, children in the developed world are primed for IgE synthesis.

Children in the developing world are primed for IgE production too, as part of a defense against parasitic infection. It isn't the production of IgE per se that is the problem in allergies, it's type 1 hypersensitivity, one symptom of which is elevated IgE.

This is why they are our version of HLA-DR9. You cannot inject food proteins into such susceptible children without serious consequences.

Yet the evidence tells us the opposite.

I don’t think we produce food specific IgE to defend against parasitic infection.

No, it is the ability to produce IgE that defends against parasitic infection. In the case of an allergy the immune system mistakes a food protein for a pathogen, parasitic or perhaps viral.

As the Japanese egg allergy study showed, people increased their IgE level by up to two RAST classes due to the flu vaccine. Even if these people did not initially have food allergy symptoms, with repeated injections they will develop real allergy and symptoms.

So where is the epidemic of people going into anaphylactic shock after their annual influenza vaccine?

Why is DTaP a series of five shots?

Because that's how it works best to develop immunity.

Whole limb swelling after DTaP is a symptom that is associated with the last two shots of the series. Exactly as one would expect. Patients develop more and more IgE against the antigens as they get more shots thus showing progressively more significant allergic elicitations on challenge with the same proteins.

That doesn't look like an allergic reaction to me, and the studies I looked at suggested it was a reaction to residual active pertussis toxoid in the vaccine, not IgE-mediated at all.

So any claim of vaccines preventing allergies is at best an insignificant effect that is lost in the noise.

If it is "lost in the noise" how is it that the study Science Mom cited at #481 found:

An analysis limited to the presence of allergic disease and vaccination titers showed a significant 31% reduction in both eczema and allergic symptoms in vaccinated children (P = .002).

APV,

"Wells has found that I/20000000 of a gram of purified egg-white would do likewise. It requires considerably larger amounts to poison the animal.”
Without the benefit of IgE testing, they were able to observe sensitization to 50 nanogram ( I/20000000 gram) of egg-white in 1909!

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.

It seems that Anderson and Rosenau were mistaken, as 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), not 50 nanograms. 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 dose required to produce sensitization in a guinea pig, a more than adequate safety margin, in my opinion.

One simple question: More than one hundred years later, is it too much to ask that the FDA determine a safe limit for the amount of food allergens in vaccines and establish/enforce a specification?

Where have you looked for the specification for the amount of allergen in vaccines? How do you know there isn't an industry specification for this?

Especially in the context of a food allergy epidemic sweeping the developed world?

Is there really a food allergy epidemic? A review of allergies over a 20 year period in the UK (PMID: 25468198) found an increase in hospital admissions for anaphylaxis but no change in fatalities, suggesting that "changes in the recognition and management of anaphylaxis might explain some of the observed increase in anaphylaxis-related hospitalizations". The increase in admissions for anphlaxis after insect stings supports this hypothesis.

* It's H.G. Wells, amusingly, but not the H.G. Wells.

APV: No, allergies develop when the immune system is underutilized and starts firing randomly at substances it decides are intolerable. Children can grow out of intolerances- a few people develop allergies as adults despite happily consuming the allergen in childhood. I don't know why you've chosen this particular hill, but maybe you should find something else to be a crank about, as you don't actually understand biology.

@APV:

And as I have written before, Polysorbate 80 is a source of undisclosed, uncontrolled allergens.

You may have written it. That doesn't make it so.

Krebiozen #519,

Thanks for another excellent reference ( H G Wells).
You were looking two paragraphs too far down. Table 1 shows 50 nanogram and he put it in words below to ensure nobody miscounts the number of zeroes ...

"From this series it is seen that one-millionth of a cubic centi-meter of 5 per cent solution of pure egg albumin, or one-twentieth of a millionth of a gram of protein, will sensitize a guinea-pig enough so that distinct and typical symptoms are produced after a second injec-tion of the same material, while one-fifty-thousandth of a cubic centi- meter of solution containing but one-millionth of a gram of protein sensitizes fatally."

Anaphylaxis to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines among children with cow’s milk allergy
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext

The DTaP and TDaP were found to contain 8-17 ng/ml of casein.

You know that it takes far less to sensitize than it takes for anaphylaxis. So as little as 8-17ng/ml seemed enough to cause anaphylaxis.

"Where have you looked for the specification for the amount of allergen in vaccines? How do you know there isn’t an industry specification for this?"

1. I asked the FDA and they responded:
“There is not, as you describe it, an FDA determined safe amount of a potentially allergenic ingredient contained in a vaccine. The FDA reviews vaccine composition in its entirety to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.”

2.United States Pharmacopeia (USP) responded:
"The FDA are the ones, with the pharmaceutical companies who develop the limits that are used in the USP-NF monographs."

3. The Kattan et. al, milk allergy paper is co-authored by Dr. Sampson and Dr. Sicherer who are well known food allergy experts.
If there was a specification, I would expect they would have compared their casein measurements against the spec. It would tell them if the manufacturer was violating spec. or if the specification needs to be revised based on their anaphylaxis findings. Since there is no mention of a spec. I think it is clear that one does not exist.

Kattan et. al, instead mention elimination of casein which is even better. A specification of 0 ng/ml.

APV, I read the paper in the link you provided.
Your original argument was that vaccines provoke allergies.
In the paper:
Most children with cow’s milk allergy receive these vaccines without incident, but the patients we identified have very severe milk allergy, very high milk-specific IgE levels, and, for 4 of them, past reactions to trace milk contamination.
So the patients were already allergic to milk. Once again, your argument fails to hold up.

Julian Frost #523,

I provided Kattan et. al, as a reference for:
1. How little a dose of casein (8-17ng/ml) it takes to cause anaphylaxis in an allergic person.
2. The authors recommending elimination of casein from vaccines.

Further, as shown here, it takes a lot less allergen to cause sensitization than it does to cause anaphylaxis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9949325
So if 8-17 ng/ml is enough to cause anaphylaxis, it is more than enough to cause sensitization.

The references for vaccines causing the development of allergies are:
a. Gelatin in vaccines was proved to be the cause of gelatin allergy.

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.

b. Egg in the flu vaccine caused the development of egg allergy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/pdf/epidinfect00008…

And as I have written before, Polysorbate 80 is a source of undisclosed, uncontrolled allergens.

You may have written it. That doesn’t make it so.

The truly annoying part is that he could come up with better attempts to defend his assertions, but he doesn't know how to, so he just repeats the same things over and over again.

Just as there was a much better reference for the gelatin routine that he somehow missed, it's possible to contend that the major peanut allergens can maintain allergenicity at physical conditions in the ethoxylation vessel (no, I'm not going to hand him this one). Now, you still have to get it past the oleic acid production* and the ethylene oxide itself, but it would have been something.

* Which is all the NOF product really comes down to.

APV,

You were looking two paragraphs too far down. Table 1 shows 50 nanogram and he put it in words below to ensure nobody miscounts the number of zeroes …

That's for egg albumin fractionally recrystallized three times, yielding an extremely allergenic protein fraction, which isn't added to vaccines. The figures I gave earlier was for purified egg protein, which is what is found in vaccines.

Krebiozen #526,

Vaccine makers document the amount of ovalbumin in the vaccine, not the amount of "unpurified mixed proteins of egg-white" as Wells describes it. So 50 ng of ovalbumin is the correct number to use to compare against vaccines. The figures you provided were for "unpurified mixed proteins of egg-white".

APV,

Further, as shown here, it takes a lot less allergen to cause sensitization than it does to cause anaphylaxis.

I'm curious. How much gelatin was in the DTaP? I can't find any reference to that anywhere.

b. Egg in the flu vaccine caused the development of egg allergy.

Why do you keep repeating this when the paper you cite says no such thing? They note that "16 (16-0%) had high IgE-specific antibody to F1 allergen before immunization". yet, "Before immunization, physicians confirmed that there was no history of allergy to egg or chicken feathers".

So the 16 subjects who had elevated egg Ige before vaccination were not allergic to eggs. Why would you assume that the 36 subjects whose IgE showed a modest increase after vaccination were made allergic to eggs by the vaccine? Elevated IgE when exposed to a protein is not sufficient to diagnose an allergy, in fact there are many people who show such an increase in IgE who have no clinical symptoms at all. Assuming that an moderate increase in IgE like this indicates an allergy being induced is a mistake.

If influenza vaccines really did cause egg allergy, wouldn't we see an increase in fatal anaphylaxis after eating eggs or egg-containing foods? This Norwegian study in 2001 found a prevalence of 1.6% in a moderately vaccinated population, while this Turkish study from 2014 found a prevalence of 1.30% in a country with poor influenza vaccine coverage. Those numbers are remarkably similar, suggesting that there is a background rate of food allergy that has nothing to do with vaccines.

There is a lot of aluminum in foods, far more than in and vaccine); couldn't this act as an adjuvant, making exposure to egg in food is a hugely more likely cause of egg allergy?

The figures I gave earlier was for purified egg protein, which is what is found in vaccines.

Indeed. Only Fluarix (PDF) specifies ovalbumin.

^ Rather than "egg proteins." It's possible to put upper limits (PDF) on how much is plain old ovalbumin.

Narad #525,

I am sure the hydrolyzation process is perfect too. So how did they end up with "poorly hydrolyzed gelatin" in the vaccine?

Flulaval ovalbumin:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…

Afluria ovalbumin:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…

For Sanofi Pasteur, you have to request it. Here's the response:

"Thank you for contacting Sanofi Pasteur.

There is no specification for residual egg protein (expressed as ovalbumin) for influenza vaccines in the United States, nor is testing of the final product required for ovalbumin content. However, we can inform you that the residual egg protein (expressed as ovalbumin) in 2 of our 3 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) formulations.

Fluzone (Influenza Virus Vaccine) and Fluzone High-Dose vaccine is typically on the order of 0.1 mcg per 0.5 mL dose. Despite being more concentrated, Fluzone High-Dose vaccine contains no more ovalbumin than does Fluzone vaccine, due to a differing manufacturing process.

The ovalbumin in our other IIV3 formulation, Fluzone Intradermal vaccine, is on the order of 0.02 mcg per 0.1 mL dose.

Testing for ovalbumin has been performed on a limited number of lots of our Quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) formulation, Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine; results of this testing have shown ovalbumin levels ranging from 0.02 mcg to 0.04 mcg per 0.5 mL dose.

Best regards

Jeanne Marie Thallmayer BS RN

Medical Information Specialist

Sanofi Pasteur US

1-800-VACCINE"

APV,
I have another comment in moderation, but in reply to your last comment:

Vaccine makers document the amount of ovalbumin in the vaccine, not the amount of “unpurified mixed proteins of egg-white” as Wells describes it.

You have no idea if it was ovalbumin that was fractionally recrystallized. Maybe it was ovomucoid, the main allergen in eggs, or another protein fraction that is far more allergenic than either.

So 50 ng of ovalbumin is the correct number to use to compare against vaccines. The figures you provided were for “unpurified mixed proteins of egg-white”.

It was egg protein that was precipitated from egg white using alcohol. Since ovalbumin constitutes about 54% of egg white protein (op. cit. above) you can multiply the safety margin I estimated above by 0.54 if you want, making the amount of ovalbumin in Fluzone 135 times lower than the minimum required to induce sensitization. That's still an adequate safety margin, in my view, and most influenza vaccines contain a fraction of that amount of egg protein.

Of course it would be nice to have a way of making influenza and other vaccines that don't contain any allergens, and we are on the way to that already. For example, Gardasil is made using genetically engineered baker's yeast, with no pathogens or other organisms that could harbor pathogens involved*. It is likely that anyone who has an allergy to yeast will already know about it, though no doubt you will insist that Gardasil is producing an epidemic of yeast allergies. Perhaps Cervarix, made similarly but using a type of moth instead of yeast, is more acceptable to you.

* Those concerned about vaccine safety have been universally delighted with this development, of course. /sarcasm

Narad,
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927356/"This study looked at the amount of ovalbumin in various influenza vaccines, all less than 1.2 µg/ml, most very much less..

Let's try that again with the missing tag closure:
Narad,
This study looked at the amount of ovalbumin in various influenza vaccines, all less than 1.2 µg/ml, most very much less..

I’m curious. How much gelatin was in the DTaP? I can’t find any reference to that anywhere.

The "ultimate solution" paper (PDF) sez

"Six manufacturers produced DTaP, which differed with regard to gelatin content. DTaP of Manufacturer B and Manufacturer D never contained gelatin. DTaP of Manufacturer A, C and F contained carry-over gelatin at less than 0.0067 w/v %, and DTaP of Manufacturer E contained 0.2% gelatin added as a stabilizer."

Krebiozen, #528,

48-200 mcg/ml gelatin in DTaP per:
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2899%2970508-7/fulltext

"Why would you assume that the 36 subjects whose IgE showed a modest increase after vaccination were made allergic to eggs by the vaccine?"
The point is the vaccine caused the increase. The patients are progressing towards getting egg allergy due to the vaccine.

"If influenza vaccines really did cause egg allergy, wouldn’t we see an increase in fatal anaphylaxis after eating eggs or egg-containing foods?"
As we have discussed before, egg allergy prevalence is 1-2% of the population. These people are carefully avoiding eggs or of course you will see more anaphylaxis.

"There is a lot of aluminum in foods, far more than in and vaccine); couldn’t this act as an adjuvant, making exposure to egg in food is a hugely more likely cause of egg allergy?"

Unless you have some health condition, egg proteins should be denatured by stomach acid. This is the natural defense that vaccines defeat.

Krebiozen, #533,

"You have no idea if it was ovalbumin that was fractionally recrystallized. "
Wells wrote it was egg albumin.

"you can multiply the safety margin I estimated above by 0.54 if you want,"
No, Wells hypothesizes that the 100X difference may be because of "inhibiting substances" in the untreated egg-white.

Unless, you want to claim that our vaccines contain the same "inhibiting substances" Wells had in his untreated egg-white, we only have the ovalbumin numbers to go by.

With 50 ng ovalbumin causing sensitization in 300g guinea pig, there is zero safety margin with current ovalbumin levels in human vaccines.
Further,
Current issues with influenza vaccination in egg allergy
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2802%2901463-X/fulltext

states:
"Egg protein content in influenza vaccine was first estimated by means of PAGE at 20 to 45 μg/mL" in 1976.
And some manufacturers had up 42 μg/ml as recently as 2001.

This reference shows up to 10 ug/ml was the limit specified by Sanofi as late as 2009.
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2809%2901807-7/fulltext

Moth and yeast vaccines don't solve any problem. The fundamental problem is that the human body has evolved to only deal with pollen, viral and bacterial proteins being regularly injected into the body. It has evolved to handle the natural sensitization and elicitation doses of these proteins.

Food proteins involve huge elicitation doses. There were no mass natural food protein sensitization mechanisms until the arrival of the injection needle. So no chance for evolution to handle it.

So the solution is to either eliminate the proteins from vaccines or find a safe dose and enforce it.

APV are your done bullsh!tting your way through supposed anaphylactic reactions to egg components in vaccines?

"Further,
Current issues with influenza vaccination in egg allergy
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2802%2901463-X/fulltext "

That 12 year old article is not current. It quotes the 2001 AAP Red Book and other older research. You do realize, don't you that this is 2014?

That article cites a reported death of a child from egg allergy after an influenza vaccine was administered and the article that reported that death was published 37 years ago in 1977:

"Despite this observation, an anaphylactic death after influenza vaccination has been reported in a child known to be allergic to egg.4 A few earlier studies on a small number of patients with egg allergy provide some evidence that individuals with egg allergy can be immunized with influenza vaccine when certain precautionary steps are taken.6, 33"

Are you currently administering seasonal influenza vaccines to children and adults...or have you ever administered any seasonal influenza vaccines to children and adults?

If you are currently administering those vaccines, I suggest you catch up with the newest research about egg allergies and the safe administration of influenza vaccines which contain egg components:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/vaccine_safety.htm

Krebiozen, #518

" it is normal to produce some IgE."
I don't think it is normal to produce IgE to any food protein.

The risk in c-section births is the sub-optimal gut microbiome. This is an uncontrolled variable. It can vary by geography, hospital or even areas of the hospital where the newborn was exposed. There may be 5X priming for IgE in some instances, maybe more or less in others.

" not that influenza vaccine produces allergy to influenza viruses." Why? If you produce anti-influenza IgE, they can be coated on mast cells and basophils just like say an anti-ovalbumin IgE and produce the same response on exposure to the virus. Can they not?

"In the case of an allergy the immune system mistakes a food protein for a pathogen, parasitic or perhaps viral."
Exactly. Pathogens, parasite or viruses are commonly introduced by insect bites (injection). When you inject a food protein, the immune system mistakes it for a pathogen, parasite or virus. So food allergy is exactly what we should expect when we inject food proteins.
You have thus made my point.

"So where is the epidemic of people going into anaphylactic shock after their annual influenza vaccine?"
As I have said a number of times, the influenza vaccine ovalbumin content is sufficient to cause sensitization but *usually* not enough to cause elicitation. People with severe egg allergies do of course react to the influenza vaccine.

"That doesn’t look like an allergic reaction to me, and the studies I looked at suggested it was a reaction to residual active pertussis toxoid in the vaccine, not IgE-mediated at all."

Why would it show up only in the last two shots of the series?

I cannot access the #481 paper to comment on it.

lilady #539,

You did not understand my point. Influenza vaccines today have up to 1 mcg of ovalbumin. I was pointing out that in 2009 it could have been as high as 10 mcg and much higher before that.
So children who have egg allergy today but were diagnosed years ago, got a lot more ovalbumin injected with their vaccines. That was my point.

APV:

Unless you have some health condition, egg proteins should be denatured by stomach acid. This is the natural defense that vaccines defeat.

That is totally illogical. If stomach acid denatured egg proteins, there would be no such thing as an egg allergy no matter what.

Food proteins involve huge elicitation doses. There were no mass natural food protein sensitization mechanisms until the arrival of the injection needle.

Once again, you are begging the question. You are assuming that vaccination leads to sensitisation and from there to allergies .Nothing you have said rises to the standard of proof.

APV: I know exactly what your point is. You've got an agenda to promote all your little theories about what you claim to be the deleterious effects of vaccine components/excipients. You hope to accomplish your "point" by linking to older articles you located by doing a PubMed search to back up your theories about older vaccines had more of these excipients and they actually caused allergic reactions.

As you hop about posting your silly theories and those theories get shot down, you introduce another of your dumb theories about allergies and immune reactions to vaccines.

Here's your agenda:

http://forums.webmd.com/3/allergies-exchange/forum/2532

Why don't you get your own blog, so that you can promote your nonsensical theories?

What is the body's immune reaction to any influenza vaccine-versus-the body's reaction to acquiring influenza?

How many influenza vaccines have you ever administered and how many allergic responses or anaphylactic reactions have you ever seen and treated?

If stomach acid denatured egg proteins, there would be no such thing as an egg allergy no matter what.

You forgot the PPIs.

This is actually (and predictably) more complicated, but I presume APV thinks "denature" is just another magic word. I alluded to this in #525 (think about when geometry might not matter), but I'm not the least bit inclined to deplonk it.

APV,

48-200 mcg/ml gelatin in DTaP per:

Thanks, to Narad too.

“Why would you assume that the 36 subjects whose IgE showed a modest increase after vaccination were made allergic to eggs by the vaccine?”
The point is the vaccine caused the increase. The patients are progressing towards getting egg allergy due to the vaccine.

So now they are progressing towards getting egg allergy, not getting egg allergy as you claimed previously. Do you have any evidence that this modest increase in IgE in response to egg proteins will progress to clinical egg allergy?

“If influenza vaccines really did cause egg allergy, wouldn’t we see an increase in fatal anaphylaxis after eating eggs or egg-containing foods?”
As we have discussed before, egg allergy prevalence is 1-2% of the population. These people are carefully avoiding eggs or of course you will see more anaphylaxis.

So as the prevalence of egg allergy increases, the care that allergic people take to avoid eggs also increases so the number of fatal anaphylaxis remains constant? Really?

Unless you have some health condition, egg proteins should be denatured by stomach acid. This is the natural defense that vaccines defeat.

Clearly some allergenic protein fractions survive digestion, or no one would ever develop food allergies. Food allergies were known long before vaccines were developed.

Wells wrote it was egg albumin.

"Albumin" literally means egg white. Hofmeister had demonstrated the existence of different proteins in egg white using sulfate precipitation a few years before Wells' work, but Wells didn't know what specific proteins he was fractionally crystallizing using alcohol, and neither do you. As I wrote before, maybe it was another protein (there are at least 14 different proteins in egg white PDF), or maybe the process altered the protein structure making it more allergenic. We simply don't know.

No, Wells hypothesizes that the 100X difference may be because of “inhibiting substances” in the untreated egg-white. Unless, you want to claim that our vaccines contain the same “inhibiting substances” Wells had in his untreated egg-white, we only have the ovalbumin numbers to go by.

How does a speculation from over a century ago become fact? What "inhibiting substances" are present in egg white? Even if they did exist, how are they removed from vaccines? Are the egg proteins in vaccines put through fractional crystallization in alcohol?

I think Wells was wrong - as far as I know there are no inhibiting substances present in egg white. So we don't only have the ovalbumin numbers to go by, we have the egg white protein numbers, and we know that about 54% of that protein was ovalbumin. This is more likely to give us an accurate number than assuming that an unknown protein fraction is ovalbumin.

With 50 ng ovalbumin causing sensitization in 300g guinea pig, there is zero safety margin with current ovalbumin levels in human vaccines.

Nonsense. Wells' work shows that 0.0000063 grams, or 6.3 micrograms, of egg white protein was sufficient to sensitize 300 gram guinea pigs. Since 54% of this protein was ovalbumin, we can estimate that 3.4 micrograms of ovalbumin will sensitize a guinea pig of this weight, though this is probably an underestimate given the greater allergenicity of ovomucoid. Extrapolating, it would require 76 micrograms of ovalbumin to sensitize an underweight (25th percentile) 6-month-old baby weighing 6.7 kg, assuming humans react like guinea pigs do.

“Egg protein content in influenza vaccine was first estimated by means of PAGE at 20 to 45 μg/mL” in 1976.
And some manufacturers had up 42 μg/ml as recently as 2001.

That's up to 12 µg ovalbumin per 0.5 ml dose, still less than the 76 µg that would be required to sensitize an underweight baby, by my calculations.

This reference shows up to 10 ug/ml was the limit specified by Sanofi as late as 2009.

That seems to be a safe limit to me.

Moth and yeast vaccines don’t solve any problem.

They solve a number of problems.

Food proteins involve huge elicitation doses. There were no mass natural food protein sensitization mechanisms until the arrival of the injection needle. So no chance for evolution to handle it.

How is it that Richard III was allergic to strawberries? Eating food is a natural food protein sensitization mechanism. It clearly isn't exposure to food proteins that is the problem, it's the development of a glitch in the immune system plus exposure to proteins.

So the solution is to either eliminate the proteins from vaccines or find a safe dose and enforce it.

In the absence of any good reason to think the vaccines currently on the schedule are causing food allergies, I think there are far more important problems to address.

^"number of cases of fatal anaphylaxis" or perhaps "number of fatal anaphylaxes"?

Let's run some numbers. The highest amount of ovalbumin the Sanofi flu vaccines contain is 0.1 mcg. Flulaval is at most 0.3 mcg. Afluria contains, at most, 1 mcg.

Using APV's own source with the 50 ng of ovalbumin being required for sensitization in a 300 g guinea pig, let's see how much ovalbumin would be required to cause sensitization in a 6-month-old human. As Krebiozen pointed out in post 519, the lowest average weight for a 6-mo-old baby is 6.7 kg. Assuming that guinea pig sensitization and human sensitization are equivalent, we would need about 1,116 ng, or 1.116 mcg of ovalbumin in the vaccine to cause sensitization. None of the vaccines reach this level, and most are well below that threshold, some as much as 55 times less ovalbumin than is required for sensitization.

APV @ 511

Your link is to an abstract from a poster sesion, not to a peer-reviewed journal, and presents no evidence that the detectable dust allergen in teh caesarean-delivered babies was consequence of suboptimal gut microbiomes.

Once again: it simply doesn't support the claims you are making.

sigh--should read "...not to a peer-reviewed journal article"

APV:

Missing normal gut bacteria may be part of the problem. But there are also a higher amount of “at risk” bacteria that alter the immune balance.

I don't suppose you'd consider actually tempting to support that claim, which as is characteristic for you, you present in the form of an established fact? We do not know that the biome is *worse* in c-section babies. We only know it's *different*. We also know it's different between any two given children, as long as they're not in the same household, and that the entire biome reshapes itself multiple times in the first year of life regardless of mode of delivery or type of feeding, so I think you've got a long ways to go to demonstrate it's definitely worse.

And that's without even addressing this "at risk bacteria" category that you've proposed here. So certain bacteria put people at risk of . . . something that alters the immune "balance"? I'm not even sure that sentence is even specific enough to make a claim, actually. It's like something a shady supplement manufacturer would put on a label to avoid being pinned down to a specific claim in court. I suppose I could go read the article you linked, but I have to wonder why you don't bother explaining it in your own words. Maybe because you can't.

Developing nations vaccinate a lot less than us. Yet they have less allergies and we have more. How do you explain that?

Developing nations have far less accurate surveillance, so I'm not confident enough in the numbers to make that claim. (Not that data confidence ever troubled you.) If the hygiene hypothesis has merit (and the c-section thing is part of the hygiene hypothesis), then their higher rate of exposure to infectious organisms could account for it. But you won't like that since it doesn't support your preconception; you have to find some other way of contorting it to your perspective. ;-)

Another possibility that's been suggested is that there's a window of exposure very early in life, while the immune system is developing, and that the advice to religiously avoid common allergens until at least six months could've inadvertently aggravated the very problem it was aiming to help -- lack of early exposure may make the immune system more inclined to distrust the allergens, so to speak. In America today, parents seldom offer solid food at all until six months. Twenty years ago, it was much earlier, and my grandparents gave my parents solids within the first week of life. (Or tried to, anyway; kids that age really don't know how to eat solids.) And gave formula that was packed full of stuff that would horrify a pediatrician today, like raw eggs.

I am not convinced we have enough information to really judge these theories yet. But they would fit the pattern without having to invoke vaccines or PPIs, so I think it's pretty unreasonable to conclude that absolutely it must be those things.

How is it that Richard III was allergic to strawberries?

This is not so clear.

I think we can agree that Henry I suffered from an allergy to lampreys.

^ Turning to More (PDF, modernized), "And also no man was there present but well knew that the Protector’s arm was ever such since his birth."

^^ And the remains showed no evidence of anything wrong with the arm. Inferring an allergy based on the extant sources seems pretty tenuous.

Calli Arcale: Odd that you should mention the differences in the human biome found in infants born vaginally and infants born through C-Section.

(Thanks to Jennifer Raff at the Violent Metaphors blog for the link to this study):

http://biomarkersandmilk.blogspot.com/2014/12/human-milk-has-microbiome…

See my coming paper on "C-section micro-biome differences and superior swordfighting skills: The Macduff case-study".

Julian Frost #542

" If stomach acid denatured egg proteins, there would be no such thing as an egg allergy no matter what."
Exactly, there was no egg allergy until we started injecting people with egg proteins.

Exactly, there was no egg allergy until we started injecting people with egg proteins.

1. Citation needed. What evidence do you have that there were no egg allergies before injections.
2. You've missed his point completely. If egg proteins are denatured in the stomach, then how could someone allergic to eggs ever have a reaction from eating eggs?

@herr doktor bimler,

See my coming paper on “C-section micro-biome differences and superior swordfighting skills: The Macduff case-study”

If you can throw in Inigo Montoya, you've got a winner.

Mephistopheles O'Brien #558,

1. You don't keep records when there is no egg allergy. We keep records now because it is an epidemic.

"2. You’ve missed his point completely. If egg proteins are denatured in the stomach, then how could someone allergic to eggs ever have a reaction from eating eggs?"

Egg proteins contacting your mouth is sufficient to cause an allergic reaction. There are mast cells and basophils in the mouth coated with anti-ovalbumin IgE. They can detect egg protein and degranulate causing the allergic reaction.
You don't even have to swallow it.

Krebiozen #545,

Key points from Wells' study:
1. Injecting proteins has serious immune system consequences. If it needs to be performed at all, it must be done with extreme caution regarding dosage. Where are the studies showing what kind of egg proteins in what quantity can be safely present in human vaccines? So we are all guinea pigs in this vast experiment that has not concluded a century later?

2. Sensitization doses can be orders of magnitude smaller than elicitation doses. Anaphylaxis to vaccines is considered ok today because it is a "one a million dose" problem. Wrong. It is the tip of the iceberg. If a vaccine can cause anaphylaxis (looks like every vaccine can), there is enough protein in it to cause a huge number of people to be sensitized.

"So as the prevalence of egg allergy increases, the care that allergic people take to avoid eggs also increases so the number of fatal anaphylaxis remains constant? Really?"
No, when people develop mild symptoms, they stop consuming eggs.
If vaccines further increase the severity of the allergy, you won't see a change in anaphylaxis rates because they are already avoiding eggs.

"Clearly some allergenic protein fractions survive digestion, or no one would ever develop food allergies. Food allergies were known long before vaccines were developed."
Doctors have been recommending avoidance/introduction of allergen foods at various times and changed their minds often with no effect on allergy prevalence. Why?

If the oral route were a more efficient means of sensitization, why do scientists use injections to induce food allergy in lab animals?

"Even if they did exist, how are they removed from vaccines? Are the egg proteins in vaccines put through fractional crystallization in alcohol?"

Great questions ... for the FDA. You would think there would be a specification that says exactly what type of proteins and how much of each can exist in an approved vaccine?
Today, it seems perfectly acceptable for FDA approval, to have as much thrice recrystallized ovalbumin as you can manage in a 0.5 ml dose of vaccine.

"Moth and yeast vaccines don’t solve any problem.

They solve a number of problems."

Replacing 1 mcg of ovalbumin with 28 mcg of moth+baculovirus protein is progress?
That is more allergen than viral protein (15 mcg) in a normal vaccine. May be because it looked too bad, they bumped the viral protein up 3X?

"How is it that Richard III was allergic to strawberries? "
Rare cases are not difficult to explain. May be too little stomach acid due to a genetic defect.
May be an insect bite from one that had fed on strawberries. Tick bites can give you red meat allergy ...

Todd W. #547,

It is not a digital dose. If 1.1 mcg is needed to cause moderate symptoms (per Wells) does not mean 1 mcg will cause no symptoms. As the Japanese paper on egg allergy shows, it builds up. May be the next year's shot will increase your mild allergy from the first shot and make it severe. In other words, they become booster shots for egg allergy.

Then you also have to agree that since flu vaccines before 2009 had as much as 10 mcg of ovalbumin, they made huge contributions to the egg allergy epidemic.

http://hopkinschildrens.org/news-room/milk-and-egg-allergies-harder-to-…
Makes perfect sense. If you keep giving them egg allergy booster shots (flu vaccines) and DTap/TDaP milk allergy booster shots, how will they outgrow the allergy?

Calli Arcale #550,

"at risk bacteria"
I was just quoting Dr. Johnson ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/256915.php

" If the hygiene hypothesis has merit (and the c-section thing is part of the hygiene hypothesis), then their higher rate of exposure to infectious organisms could account for it. But you won’t like that since it doesn’t support your preconception; you have to find some other way of contorting it to your perspective. "
The hygiene hypothesis is in line with the notion of vaccines causing food allergies. Hygiene primes for IgE. That makes children develop allergies to even extremely small amounts of allergens in vaccines.

lilady #543,

Choosing a 2014-2015 flu vaccine
http://forums.webmd.com/3/allergies-exchange/forum/2532

That's the result of the research I performed to select a flu vaccine for my family. We have food allergies and asthma and have to choose our vaccines carefully.

If you are perfectly healthy, you can take any vaccine you want ... until they give you food allergy and asthma ...

APV, the only evidence you need to provide on this thread is if allergic reactions to influenza vaccines kill at least a hundred kids per year in the USA.

So far this season seven kids have died from flu, and more than a hundred died the previous two seasons. So what evidence do you have that the influenza vaccines presently approved for children in the USA cause so many fatalities?

@APV

The hygiene hypothesis is in line with the notion of vaccines causing food allergies.

Err, no.
The hygiene hypothesis is about today's people more likely to develop allergies because of a lack of stimulation of the immune system and/or a lack of interactions with symbiotic organisms, period.

You may argue that vaccines participate in this by replacing the strong stimulation the immune system get by fighting wild pathogens during a full-blown disease, by the comparatively milder stimulation of processing dead/attenuated pathogens.
But, by this logic, not vaccinating would be even worse, because you wouldn't even get the mild stimulation provided by vaccination. If anything, vaccines expose us to antigens we are not too likely* to encounter in our environment, and thus increase the variety of molecules our immune system has to process.

Your (current**) claim is that vaccines participate notably in the creation of food allergies. Not just triggering a reaction - which we know they sometimes did in the past - but priming the allergy itself. You still have to provide evidence for this, hygiene hypothesis or not.
Even more, you have to provide evidence for currently injected vaccines. Vaccine formulations used 20 years ago but which are no longer existing aren't much of an issue nowaday***, aren't they?

If your claim was that vaccines containing proteins from egg, milk or another know allergen should have a bigger warning, maybe directly on the package, I would have agreed.
(although Krebiozen and other commenters provided studies showing that vaccines don't trigger allergies reactions that often, so I am now less concerned)
But your claims are of a higher order of magnitude.

* well, the "not too likely" is changing, measles and whooping cough are coming back.
** your initial claims were about polysorbate containing peanut oil or vaccines causing autoimmune diseases, notably anti-muscles proteins auto-immunization. The topic drifted somewhat...
*** except for people who did get an adverse reaction 20 years ago from these formulations. I don't begrudge their right for compensations.

One might be inclined to cut to the chase and ask whether APV has something up its sleeve resembling (based upon its own "conclusions") an argument against the elimination of "food" entirely, on the basis of parsimony.

Inferring an allergy based on the extant sources seems pretty tenuous.

Another good tale ruined by annoying facts. Thanks Narad (not sarcastic, I enjoy being disillusioned).

APV:

Exactly, there was no egg allergy until we started injecting people with egg proteins.

and...

You don’t keep records when there is no egg allergy. We keep records now because it is an epidemic.

From the Wikipedia entry on Alfred Bird:

Alfred Bird's first major invention was egg-free custard (1837). Alfred Bird used cornflour instead of egg to create an imitation of egg custard. It was originally intended only for his wife Elizabeth who had both egg and yeast allergies.

Alfred Bird lived from 1811-1878. So much for your claim that egg allergies didn't exist before mass vaccination. And that we only keep records now.

Have been loving reading this. It makes me wish I better knew and understood the immune system and how it functions, though.

I see the "immunizations cause allergies/autoimmune disorders" assertion frequently, and don't have a strong enough knowledge to debunk it. I point out that my parents dealt with various autoimmune issues themselves, and suggest that my issues are probably hereditary in nature.

Usually that keeps Mr Woo quiet, unless he sees another YouTube video with someone announcing vaccination causes autoimmune disorders. Then he starts asking if I am sure I had issues pre-Navy, when they give you all those shots at one time.

Bird was late to the table: Greek writers (including Hippocrates) c. 400 BCE note individuals who experienced aggressive reactons to common foodstuffs including cheese, eggs, honey, shellfish, and nuts, leading to Lucretius in 50 BCE observing ‘What is food to one person, may be bitter poison to others’.

Julian Frost, #569,

Like Richard III. Rare allergies can be explained by reduced stomach acid due to a genetic defect.

I believe I heard a Scotsman. Though not a true one.

Rare allergies can be explained by reduced stomach acid due to a genetic defect.

Reduced stomach acid would have other consequences, like difficulties with digestion. Was it documented in the case of Richard III and all these other people?

@APV

It is not a digital dose. If 1.1 mcg is needed to cause moderate symptoms (per Wells) does not mean 1 mcg will cause no symptoms. As the Japanese paper on egg allergy shows, it builds up. May be the next year’s shot will increase your mild allergy from the first shot and make it severe. In other words, they become booster shots for egg allergy.

The guinea pig data you presented was for sensitization, not allergic response elicitation. Your numbers show that there is not enough ovalbumin in the flu shot to cause sensitization. Furthermore, you said that sensitization occurs at much smaller doses than elicitation, so why are you talking about a mild allergy (elicitation) from the first shot, when the person hasn't even been sensitized yet?

Finally, if there is no sensitization, there is no "build-up" with subsequent doses. The ovalbumin doesn't sit around in your body to be added to subsequent doses until there's enough cumulative protein to reach the threshold for sensitization.

APV, where is the verifiable documentation that any influenza vaccine approved for use in children causes as much harm as the disease? Influenza has been known to kill about a hundred kids per year in the USA, show us the vaccine causes that much damage.

Explain how these stories could have been avoided:
Vaccine Preventable Disease - The Forgotten Story

APV: You never really replied to my questions posed at # 543 above:

What is the body’s immune reaction to any influenza vaccine-versus-the body’s reaction to acquiring influenza?

How many influenza vaccines have you ever administered and how many allergic responses or anaphylactic reactions have you ever seen and treated?

I've known many people with shellfish allergies. To the best of my knowledge, none of them were ever injected with shrimp proteins. If they suffered from weak stomach acids, you'd think that they would be allergic to a variety of foods since shellfish proteins would be mixed with, say, eggs (if one's first exposure was to shrimp fried rice) or various vegetables (if one's first exposure was as part of a balanced meal).

There are also non-food allergies which require no priming via injection.

And, of course, people skin their knees all the time, which provides blood exposure to grass and soil components in reasonably large quantities without developing allergies to same. This is not to suggest, naturally, that nobody who skins his/her/its knee on the grass develops an allergy to grass, just that I have not heard of a causal linkage between the two. If anyone has such a linkage, please share.

The claim that weak stomach acid or injection is a necessary and sufficient precursor to developing allergies seems very weakly supported.

Just to pile on:

APV, I give you a case study. A baby with a rash. He drinks only mother's milk. And yet! He is allergic to eggs. How did this happen? Babies don't get flu shots under 6 months, and he had never eaten an egg. But the egg proteins his mother ate were passed along in the breast milk and caused his reaction, which both came on and dissapated slowly.

So 1) This disproves your "egg proteins are denatured in the stomach" and 2) egg allergies are caused by flu shots.

People develop food allergies because the human immune system surveys the gut.

I am intrigued by pistachio / pecan / mango allergies and wondering how the intravenous exposure to mangos came about.

herr doktor bimler

wondering how the intravenous exposure to mangos came about.

For that information you'll need to read the salacious best seller 50 Shades of Mango.

@JustaTech

I'm sure APV will simply hand-wave away your contrary evidence by claiming that the infant had abnormal stomach acid.

the salacious best seller 50 Shades of Mango

I was actually thinking of the Blackadder script in which Blackadder reminds General Haig of the time -- in an earlier colonial war -- when Haig needed rescuing from a pigmy armed with a viciously-sharp slice of mango.

Todd W. #574,

1.1 mcg ovalbumin injection - 1.1 units IgE - clinical allergy - elicits allergic reaction.
1.0 mcg ovalbumin injection - 1.0 unit IgE - sub-clinical allergy - no elicitation.
Next years' vaccine:
1.0 mcg ovalbumin injection - (1+1=2.0) units IgE - clinical allergy - elicits allergic reaction.

The Japanese egg allergy paper demonstrates this progression towards allergy.

Helianthus, #566,

Notion 1:
Reduction of disease exposure due to hygienic conditions primes for allergy (IgE synthesis). Vaccines reduce disease. Implication: stop vaccinating to the fix problem by increasing disease exposure.
I DO NOT AGREE with this. Further, this does not explain exactly how allergic sensitization to food proteins occur.

Notion 2:
Reduction of disease exposure due to hygienic conditions primes for allergy. Kids thus primed, easily develop allergy to food proteins present in vaccines. Solution: Remove food proteins from vaccines.

Consider 100 kids in the developed world and 100 kids in the developing world receiving a flu vaccine.
1% of developing world kids may be sensitized to egg because they are not primed to synthesize IgE.
5% of developed world kids may be sensitized to egg because they are primed to synthesize IgE.

"You still have to provide evidence for this, hygiene hypothesis or not."
As I wrote before, if people study the problem controlling for one variable, as the Japanese did, the evidence is clear.
Gelatin study demonstrated clearly that gelatin allergy occurs due to gelatin in vaccines. This should have immediately triggered an evaluation of ALL food proteins in vaccines. We would have had the evidence to settle this one way or another.
If there is no specification/testing for allergens in vaccines, how does one guarantee that "poorly hydrolyzed gelatin", poorly processed Polysorbate, poorly filtered ovalbumin or contamination of milk proteins, is not happening in our vaccines?

JustaTech #578,

If the intact egg protein was absorbed by Mom, she would have developed egg allergy first.
If Mom, had a stomach acid problem that caused such absorption, then the child can of course be sensitized by the breast milk and elicit to breast milk.

JustaTech #578,

And for the first few days, newborns absorb intact proteins.

Mephistopheles O'Brien #577,

Vaccines contain agar that is seaweed derived. Some seafood allergies can be linked to that. As I wrote before, intramuscular injection can cause tropomyosin allergy. Shrimp allergy is linked to tropomyosin IgE.

In any case, I am saying vaccines are A cause of food allergies, not THE cause of food allergies.

Skinning knees, micro lesions in the mouth are all allergen exposure paths. Important consideration is that those have occurred for millions of years and the body has evolved defenses. There is no evolved defense for food allergens injected with a needle because that does not usually occur in nature.

lilady 576#,

My understanding is that in both cases, IgE and IgG will be synthesized.

I don't administer vaccines. I am an engineer, not a doctor.

Clearly some allergenic protein fractions survive digestion, or no one would ever develop food allergies.

Something something Ara h 2 something.

But, really, it's the peanut oil in vaccines. Or the peanut in polysorbate 80. Or something.

There is no evolved defense for food allergens injected with a needle because there are no food allergens injected with a needle.

I wonder what APV thinks caused my hay fever, which didn't develop until I was twenty-one (but inconveniently for his/her theories, at least a year before I enlisted and got all those damned shots. Perhaps my immune system was prescient?).

Gunning for 600, are we?

Vaccines contain agar that is seaweed derived.

And spinach contains grounded field rat proteins. That's why Popeye the Sailor was allergic to rodents.
No, seriously, you are reaching, APV.

@ Shay

hay fever

shhhh. APV will have to add intranasal injections as a source of vaccine-induced allergies (hay fever was missing from his list #513).

Quoth APV:

lilady 576#,

"My understanding is that in both cases, IgE and IgG will be synthesized."

I didn't post any comments or questions about IgE and IgG. I asked you about the immune reaction from receiving an influenza vaccine-versus-the immune reaction from actually contracting influenza and...how many vaccines have you administered and how many reactions or anaphylactic episodes from any vaccines, have you observed

"I don’t administer vaccines. I am an engineer, not a doctor."

Why don't you go back to school? See if you can gain admission to a medical school, complete a three year residency and a post doctoral fellowship in allergy and immunology. Then gather up all your "theories", design a randomized, double blind study with a placebo arm and submit your proposed study to an IRB. If you get IRB approval you can then recruit your study subjects who have food allergies to eggs or yeast or those other ingredients in vaccines which you find so objectionable.

Once you complete your study, submit your research paper to a first-tier, peer reviewed medical journal to see if the reviewers find validity in your study's findings and are willing to publish it. Let us know the name of the journal and the specific issue, so we can all learn from research.

Alternatively, you could review the ACIP General Recommendations regarding food allergies and the only absolute medical contraindications to receiving seasonal influenza vaccine...or any other vaccine which is licensed by the FDA:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6002a1.htm

Vaccines contain agar that is seaweed derived. Some seafood allergies can be linked to that

At this point in the string of assertions I found myself agreeing with Dorothy Parker, that "I am Marie of Roumania".

I must say, I'm impressed by the speed and fluidity with which APV shifts goalposts.
#557

Exactly, there was no egg allergy until we started injecting people with egg proteins.

But after I refuted you at #569 and JGC did the same at #571
#572:

Rare allergies can be explained by reduced stomach acid due to a genetic defect.

APV,
You're persist, 10 out of 10 for that. For comprehension of immunology, not so much.

1.0 mcg ovalbumin injection – (1+1=2.0) units IgE – clinical allergy – elicits allergic reaction.

Do you have evidence of this progression towards allergy? IgE can go down as well as up. You seem to be assuming that it remains high for a year after exposure.

The Japanese egg allergy paper demonstrates this progression towards allergy.

Yet none of the subjects with elevated egg Ige before vaccination had clinical egg allergy - this was screened for during selection. As I have repeatedly told you, elevated IgE does not necessarily mean allergy. You need to see sIgE of 12.6 kIU/L to have a 95% probability of egg allergy(see paper cited above #518) and all the subjects had sIgE less than 2.0 after vaccination.

Gelatin study demonstrated clearly that gelatin allergy occurs due to gelatin in vaccines.

Even during that incident, where poor manufacturing technique combined with genetic susceptibility, the prevalence of gelatine allergy was low (though higher than desirable, of course):

The estimates for the incidence of the severe anaphylaxis in 1994-1996 are: 6.84, 7.31, 4. 36, and 10.3 cases per million doses of gelatin-containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella vaccines, respectively.

I am confident that the FDA (and other relevant authorities elsewhere) would not approve a vaccine that did not use hypoallergenic gelatin, since they are aware of the problem.

If there is no specification/testing for allergens in vaccines, how does one guarantee that “poorly hydrolyzed gelatin”, poorly processed Polysorbate, poorly filtered ovalbumin or contamination of milk proteins, is not happening in our vaccines?

I think this would be picked up in the vaccine approval process, during which the manufacturer has to provide the FDA with vast amounts of information, and every aspect of the vaccine is closely examined.

If the intact egg protein was absorbed by Mom, she would have developed egg allergy first.

So all mothers of babies that develop egg allergy must be allergic to egg themselves? That's just not true. As I have pointed out repeatedly, intact proteins are not normally absorbed by adults, and even if they are, they would not automatically cause allergy.

Vaccines contain agar that is seaweed derived. Some seafood allergies can be linked to that.

Linked by whom? Anyone but you? Because they both have the word "sea" in their names? I would love to see evidence to support that.

There is no evolved defense for food allergens injected with a needle because that does not usually occur in nature.

Injuries that result in contamination of the wound do not usually occur in nature? You see to have a very odd view of what life was like during most of human evolution. How does the immune system know that an allergen it encounters in the blood came through a needle and not through an injury or through micro lesions in the mouth?

Sheehs, ^ "persistent", not "persist".

I can't even spell "sheesh" - not feeling my best at present.

Once again: eggs, peanut butter, milk products and other high-protein foods are widely recommended for people who have had full or partial gastrectomy. The recommendations come without dire warnings of fatal (or any) allergies developing.

Collagen powder is used in wounds.
Gelatin (hydrolyzed collagen) has long been used to make a blood plasma substitute. C. Everett himself was fourth author on a 1944 paper documenting work with Knox gelatin as a plasma sub. A 500 mL bag of a modern product such as Gelofusine from B. Braun contains 20 grams of succinylated gelatin. Up to 4 bags are used at a time. There is no warning in the Braun literature about keeling over as a result of subsequently eating Jello or other dead cow parts.

APV, where is the verifiable documentation that any influenza vaccine approved for use on children in the USA causes as much harm as the actual disease?

Have seven children suffered from anaphylactic shock in the USA this season from the influenza vaccine? Come on, show us that data.

There is no warning in the Braun literature about keeling over as a result of subsequently eating Jello or other dead cow parts.

Obviously because in 1944 the people getting Gelofusine weren't on PPI's--thay hadn't been invented yet.

Or they didn't also suffer from reduced stomach acids which would result in their developing the allergy.

Or their mothers hadn't been exposed to Gelafusine

Or the auguries weren't right, or the gods hadn't yet withdrawn their favor,or they were uniquely blessed among men, or....LOOK! A DISTRACTION!

What was I saying? Oh, yes.

It's the vaccines. It's alwasys the vaccines.

(Toggle sarcasm off)

There is no evolved defense for food allergens injected with a needle because that does not usually occur in nature.

What about thorns? Mosquitoes? Ticks?

Well, actually ticks have been known to cause allergies to red meat. See http://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20140813/tick-bites-red-meat-allergy. It is certainly true that injection with various allergens can cause an allergy. What seems unlikely (based on the excellent summations by Krebiozen, Helianthus, and others is that current vaccines or weak stomach acids are a major cause of food allergies.

@APV
It turns out that my family has been self-medicating for years then, but we'd probably all be willing to increase our chocolate intake for science!

A few questions:
How does the impressive success rate of allergy shots in treating certain allergies work?

Why don't splinters make people deathly allergic to wood? Be specific.

@APV

1.1 mcg ovalbumin injection – 1.1 units IgE – clinical allergy – elicits allergic reaction.
1.0 mcg ovalbumin injection – 1.0 unit IgE – sub-clinical allergy – no elicitation.
Next years’ vaccine:
1.0 mcg ovalbumin injection – (1+1=2.0) units IgE – clinical allergy – elicits allergic reaction.

In order for an allergy to develop, a person must first be sensitized to the allergen. Again, using your numbers, the amount of ovalbumin in the flu vaccine is insufficient to cause sensitization, particularly when it is only one formulation that comes even close to the amount you cited as necessary for sensitization to occur. And that is only in very low-weight 6 month olds.

Now you are trying to claim that IgE to ovalbumin persists for a year. Actually, that's not even what you are claiming. You are claiming that the ovalbumin itself persists in the body for a year. To be kind, citation needed. This citation should show the ovalbumin-specific IgE levels before vaccination, immediately after vaccination, and one year later. It should also control for other sources of ovalbumin exposure pre-vaccination and during the remainder of the study period. That would get at what you are trying to argue, but what you actually argued would require measurement of the ovalbumin in the body itself, not just the IgE.

Produce your citation that supports this claim.

Here's the money quote from APV, which details his interest in vaccines:

"That’s the result of the research I performed to select a flu vaccine for my family. We have food allergies and asthma and have to choose our vaccines carefully.

If you are perfectly healthy, you can take any vaccine you want … until they give you food allergy and asthma …"

APV and his/her family have allergies and asthma.

APV has not offered any proof that those allergies and asthma were caused by vaccines.

Those individuals who actually have asthma (diagnosed by a doctor) are considered to be at higher risk for contracting influenza.

APV and his family members have no histories of anaphylactic reactions to prior doses of influenza vaccine, which is the only absolute contraindication to receiving the influenza vaccine shots.

Case closed.

606!

Can we take it up to 666?

Christmas bonuses for all the shills!

What about thorns? Mosquitoes? Ticks?

I'm rather surprised that the annals of medicine aren't overflowing with descriptions of leech sensitization, given the inexorability of APV's logic.

I get it -- maybe the leeches actually worked, but the anaphylaxis counteracted the benefits. I bet you can't find a hypoallergenic leeches vs. no leeches study out there. Bring back the four humors!

The whole family has asthma? My father was allergy tested while I was in school and found reactive to more than thirty things, including corn, various kinds of animal dander, etc. Not too surprisingly, I suffer with allergies and end up with bronchitis from them four times a year. My son was diagnosed as having allergies before he was even two, and started Zyrtec as soon as he was old enough.

My immediate thought when I look at this is,"Gee, my family has a genetic predisposition to allergy, and we all got them," not, "Gee, we all got vaccines so our immune systems developed allergies."

Sometimes, especially with very intelligent, rational people (and engineers are always intelligent), we want a why to everything. We know that things don't just happen in a vacuum. Sadly, it can make us more likely to confuse correlation with causation. When it is something as complex as human systems (many of which we do not completely understand, or that take years of study to specialize in because of their complexity), short of going back to college to study them it is expensive and sometimes difficult to get an adequate education through internet and a book or two. We either trust that the average person specializing in this field is basically honest with no intent to do harm, or we have to imagine a very large, sinister conspiracy to injure many people. As tempting as the second one can be, it is really hard to imagine that many people keeping quiet about the fact they know harm is being done rather than good.

Questions are regularly brought up and researched about vaccine safety. They even modify and change vaccine formulations when they find ways to improve their safety or effectiveness.

I suspect along with the hygiene hypothesis another reason we see more people with more immune issues is because medical treatment allows an increasing number of the less healthy to live past age five. Various health problems which would have made the course of infectious disease more serious are not being exacerbated by a real attack of measles or meningitis.

shay #590,

Hay fever, likely cause: insect bites.

Can we take it up to 666?

<Soapernatural>Cómo no.<Soapernatural>

I am intrigued by pistachio / pecan / mango allergies and wondering how the intravenous exposure to mangos came about.

Despite having wasted my time in the empty pursuit of a plausible chain to a vector, I'm still pretty sure the answer is "arthropods."

Krebiozen #596,

Your reference:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16677235

says:
"The synthesis of allergen-specific IgE is required for the development of allergic diseases".
Why set the ball rolling with vaccines?

"IgE can go down as well as up."
The Japanese study says:
"In total, 36 of the 100 vacinees showed significant rises in IgE ..."

"I am confident that the FDA (and other relevant authorities elsewhere) would not approve a vaccine that did not use hypoallergenic gelatin, since they are aware of the problem."

Then why did this happen?
Allergic to gummy bears? Be cautious getting the flu shot
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131108090127.htm

"I think this would be picked up in the vaccine approval process, during which the manufacturer has to provide the FDA with vast amounts of information, and every aspect of the vaccine is closely examined."

The FDA does not have a specification. They are closely examining vast amounts data looking for what?
Vaccine makers inject aluminum hydroxide into the control group. Why?
"Solicited adverse events" do not include food allergies. They watch for 7 days. Food allergies take weeks to develop.
Even if they see food allergy after a few weeks, they conveniently dismiss it as not caused by the vaccine.

"So all mothers of babies that develop egg allergy must be allergic to egg themselves? That’s just not true."
I was not the one who claimed that mothers are the source of a baby's allergies ...

"As I have pointed out repeatedly, intact proteins are not normally absorbed by adults,"
That is what I have been saying all the time as well. Therefore, it is not possible for allergen proteins to get into breast milk.

"Linked by whom? Anyone but you? Because they both have the word “sea” in their names? I would love to see evidence to support that."
Several proteins have been shown to cause sensitization when injected. It is logical therefore to examine all proteins in vaccines. They are all suspect until proven safe.

"Injuries that result in contamination of the wound do not usually occur in nature? You see to have a very odd view of what life was like during most of human evolution. How does the immune system know that an allergen it encounters in the blood came through a needle and not through an injury or through micro lesions in the mouth?"

Guinea pigs are injected with mosquito saliva all the time. They don't develop allergy and anaphylaxis.
But when injected with 50 ng ovalbumin they develop allergy. The reason is, over millions of years of evolution, guinea pigs have evolved to deal with mosquito saliva. If mosquitos injected ovalbumin into mammals over millions of years, we would have evolved to handle ovalbumin injections too.

Perhaps mosquito saliva should be explored as a bacterial growth medium ... seems to be to safe to inject into most people ...

justthestats #603,

As far as I know, allergy shots are for allergens that we have evolved to handle. Pollen, dander, mold etc. These are allergens that are not known to cause anaphylaxis.

I don't know if dry wood secretes any protein that could be an allergen ...

Mephistopheles O'Brien #602,

"It is certainly true that injection with various allergens can cause an allergy. "
This is a scientific endeavor. Would you not then expect clear specifications established and enforced to ensure vaccines do not end up causing allergies?

Todd W. #604,

"Now you are trying to claim that IgE to ovalbumin persists for a year."
IgE can persist for a lifetime in the case of peanut allergy.
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.

"You are claiming that the ovalbumin itself persists in the body for a year."
I never claimed that.

"This citation should show the ovalbumin-specific IgE levels before vaccination, immediately after vaccination, and one year later."
We should all be demanding this from the FDA to demonstrate that the level of egg proteins in the vaccines are safe. Likewise for all proteins.

Chris #600,

What is the downside of improving a product?
What is the harm in removing food proteins from vaccines?
It will still the save the same number of lives.

APV, leaving aside the fact that your questions -

What is the downside of improving a product?
What is the harm in removing food proteins from vaccines?

both assume facts not in evidence,
sometimes an "improvement" isn't.
At the urging of antivaxxers, the preservative thimerosal was removed from the MMR Vaccine. It later turned out that the fears were groundless. Because thimerosal was removed, the MMR has to be kept cold to ensure it keeps. That's a giant problem in places without a reliable electricity supply.

At the urging of antivaxxers, the preservative thimerosal was removed from the MMR Vaccine.

Dude, no.

My bad. It was removed from other vaccines but the MMR never contained thimerosal.

APV,

Hay fever, likely cause: insect bites.

Damn those mosquitoes injecting people with all that grass pollen they eat. You aren't serious, are you?

Your reference: [snip] says:
“The synthesis of allergen-specific IgE is required for the development of allergic diseases”.
Why set the ball rolling with vaccines?

Required, but not sufficient. Why assume a ball is rolling?

“IgE can go down as well as up.”
The Japanese study says:
“In total, 36 of the 100 vacinees showed significant rises in IgE …”

You miss my point. Your accumulating IgE hypothesis depends on IgE never going down from one year to the next. How do you know the influenza vaccine doesn't cause a small rise in anti-egg sIgE that then falls back to its pre-vaccine level before the next influenza season?

Then why did this happen?
Allergic to gummy bears? Be cautious getting the flu shot

Again you conflate people having an allergic reaction to gelatin in a vaccine to gelatin allergy being caused by vaccines. Maybe the allergy was caused by eating gummy bears (whatever they are - US equivalent of jelly babies?) in the first place.

The FDA does not have a specification. They are closely examining vast amounts data looking for what?

The FDA is very well aware of the problems that occurred in Japan. Have you even looked at some of the documents on line that show what is required for a new drug or vaccine to be approved? Remember they stated that, "The FDA reviews vaccine composition in its entirety to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.” You are claiming that they do not look at the source and quality of gelatin and other potential allergens on the basis of this? They aren't idiots.

Vaccine makers inject aluminum hydroxide into the control group. Why?

To isolate the effects of the antigens added to the vaccine from the effects of adjuvants and excipients, obviously. The safety of aluminum as an adjuvant has been established, but new antigens have to be checked for safety. Anyway, saline is sometimes used as a placebo in vaccine safety studies.

“Solicited adverse events” do not include food allergies. They watch for 7 days. Food allergies take weeks to develop. Even if they see food allergy after a few weeks, they conveniently dismiss it as not caused by the vaccine.

Perhaps you are unaware of post-marketing surveillance of vaccines by both manufacturers and the CDC.

I was not the one who claimed that mothers are the source of a baby’s allergies … [...] That is what I have been saying all the time as well. Therefore, it is not possible for allergen proteins to get into breast milk.

You wrote, "If the intact egg protein was absorbed by Mom, she would have developed egg allergy first", as if this was a cast-iron certainty. Nit-picking, it doesn't require intact protein to produce an allergy, haptens and protein fragments can too.

Several proteins have been shown to cause sensitization when injected. It is logical therefore to examine all proteins in vaccines. They are all suspect until proven safe.

In an ideal world, perhaps. Sadly, if we had to examine every protein in every vaccine separately and prove that they don't cause food allergies or some other long-term rare adverse event few if any vaccines would have been approved - it's hard proving a negative - and the cost would be enormous. We would still see hundreds of people, mostly children, dying of VPD's every year, just to prevent a hypothetical risk we have no reason to think is real. In the real world we have to balance risks and benefits

Guinea pigs are injected with mosquito saliva all the time. They don’t develop allergy and anaphylaxis. But when injected with 50 ng ovalbumin they develop allergy. The reason is, over millions of years of evolution, guinea pigs have evolved to deal with mosquito saliva. If mosquitos injected ovalbumin into mammals over millions of years, we would have evolved to handle ovalbumin injections too..

By that logic no humans would have allergic reactions to insect bites, having had millions of years to evolve the ability to deal with them. Yet plenty of people are allergic to a range of insect bites, including mosquito bites.

Perhaps mosquito saliva should be explored as a bacterial growth medium … seems to be to safe to inject into most people …

Injecting gelatin, ovalbumin and milk protein in vaccines into the vast majority of people is safe too, and I still haven't seen anything to suggest food proteins in vaccines are more likely to cause an allergy than eating foods that contain them.

IgE can persist for a lifetime in the case of peanut allergy.

In the absence of exposure to peanuts? Citation required. The paper you cited looked at persistence of anti-influenza IgE which could have been continually stimulated by exposure to influenza virus. Similarly we don't know if those egg IgE subjects' anti-egg IgE became transiently elevated after eating egg as well as after the influenza vaccine.

IgE certainly does fall in some cases (PMC3823325) and you can't assume that it doesn't just to justify your claim that "1.0 mcg ovalbumin injection – (1+1=2.0) units IgE – clinical allergy – elicits allergic reaction".

Also of interest in that PMC paper (SPT is skin prick testing):

Three studies did not find any significant association between SPT or sIgE and prognosis of egg allergy.

So those small increases in IgE seen after influenza vaccine are very probably of no clinical significance.

APV,

As far as I know, allergy shots are for allergens that we have evolved to handle. Pollen, dander, mold etc. These are allergens that are not known to cause anaphylaxis.

What do you mean by, "we have evolved to handle"? Are you suggesting there are 'natural' and 'unnatural' allergies?

Anyway, pollen can certainly cause anaphylaxis, as can dander, and molds (PMID: 11563743).

Holy hell APV, what state are you practicing medicine?

Oh wow. We've evolved to handle pollen, dander, and mold. That's why it makes some people really sick. Makes total sense.

*headdesk*

Are we in Bizarro Land or something?

I don’t know if dry wood secretes any protein that could be an allergen …

But I'm sure you've formed a strong opinion about the dangers of exposure to dry wood anyway--after all, swimply not knowing something clearly hasn't stopped you from leaping to conclusions in the past

Would you not then expect clear specifications established and enforced to ensure vaccines do not end up causing allergies?

Sure, assuming that this were an expected risk in a substantial percentage of the population and assuming there were a valid test to enforce the standard. Typically specifications (that are not simply dreamed up out of thin air by some deranged bureaucrat, or created to force the choice of a particular vendor) come from issues seen with either the product or an expected component of the product. I have not looked, but I would not expect there to be a standard for minimum or maximum level of plutonium in a vaccine. Likewise, I would not expect to see a specification for the tensile strength of a vaccine at standard temperature and pressure, as that would be a totally irrelevant (in my opinion) factor in the safety or efficacy of the vaccine.

If there were a perceived need for a standard, I am sure the FDA would love to create one. That's what they do for a living.

@APV
You still haven't explained what specific mechanism makes allergy shots work but wouldn't apply for other injected things.

I wonder what will happen when APV realizes that proteins aren't the only things that the immune system will react to.

I need a review here.

Assertion 1: some amount of allergen is required to cause sensitization
Assertion 2: a larger amount of allergen is required to cause a reaction once sensitization has occurred
Assertion 3: food eaten in normal fashion by a person without complicating factors can provoke a reaction if that person has been sensitized
Assertion 4: food eaten in normal fashion by a person without complicating factors will not cause sensitization

Confused I am, yes.
A1, A2 and A3 seem at least superficially reasonable. The implication of A3 is that somehow an amount of the agent provocateur greater than the amount required to cause sensitization (see A2) has arrived at the required place. If that is true, A4 must be false.

APV:

Hay fever, likely cause: insect bites.

I will not bother asking you for the source of your information based on the tap-dancing you've been doing for the past several hundred posts, but insect bites do not cause allergies. They may cause a reaction, but in that case the allergy already existed.

JGC: "But I’m sure you’ve formed a strong opinion about the dangers of exposure to dry wood anyway–after all, swimply not knowing something clearly hasn’t stopped you from leaping to conclusions in the past"

My father learned the hard way that while mesquite is for grilling meat, it is not good for a fire place. The same chemicals in the smoke that flavor the meat can cause severe eye and respiratory distress.

There is the same caution for burning apricot/almond tree wood. Though what causes the irritation is the cyanide in the wood (also don't feed pocket pets apricot leaves).

I was not the one who claimed that mothers are the source of a baby’s allergies … […] That is what I have been saying all the time as well. Therefore, it is not possible for allergen proteins to get into breast milk.

Whoops.

Given that I broke not just the blockquote but also the link, one more time:

I was not the one who claimed that mothers are the source of a baby’s allergies … […] That is what I have been saying all the time as well. Therefore, it is not possible for allergen proteins to get into breast milk.

Whoops.

Krebiozen #621/622,

"Damn those mosquitoes injecting people with all that grass pollen they eat. You aren’t serious, are you?"

You have a better hypothesis? Smaller pollen grains ( which are more likely to fit within a mosquito's proboscis) are more commonly responsible for allergies.

"Why assume a ball is rolling?"
You don't have to assume anything. For 1 in 13 kids ( kids with food allergies) the ball has rolled too far ...

Gummy bears:
You said the FDA ensures only hypoallergenic gelatin is used.
Forget vaccines causing sensitization for a moment. Why did the flu vaccine in 2013 cause *elicitation* in children with gelatin allergy?
That proves your claim is not true and the FDA did not do its job. Further, as Wells and others have shown, if you have enough protein for elicitation, there's more than enough for sensitization.

"The FDA is very well aware of the problems that occurred in Japan. Have you even looked at some of the documents on line that show what is required for a new drug or vaccine to be approved? Remember they stated that, “The FDA reviews vaccine composition in its entirety to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.” You are claiming that they do not look at the source and quality of gelatin and other potential allergens on the basis of this? They aren’t idiots."

Whatever you say, they don't have a specification. They definitely did not look at the source or quality of gelatin at least for the flu vaccine in 2013.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAIMeeting/25520
"We are looking at more lots to get an idea whether this is an uncommon phenomenon or not," Sampson said. "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."

How did this happen? The FDA may not be idiots, but they are sleeping at the switch ...

"To isolate the effects of the antigens added to the vaccine from the effects of adjuvants and excipients, obviously. The safety of aluminum as an adjuvant has been established, but new antigens have to be checked for safety. Anyway, saline is sometimes used as a placebo in vaccine safety studies."

Nice try. If aluminum safety has been established, only the antigen adverse effects will show up in the study even if the control group had received saline. It looks more like they were trying mask the effect of known problems with aluminum.

JustaTech wrote:
"But the egg proteins his mother ate were passed along in the breast milk and caused his reaction, which both came on and dissapated slowly."

So I wrote, *if* that claim is true, Mom would have developed an allergy as well. I don't think this mechanism is possible in healthy mothers.

"We would still see hundreds of people, mostly children, dying of VPD’s every year, just to prevent a hypothetical risk we have no reason to think is real. In the real world we have to balance risks and benefits"
No. What's stopping the FDA from studying this post-approval to improve safety?

"it’s hard proving a negative"
No, same process as the Japanese egg allergy would be a good start.
RAST pre-vaccination, vaccination, RAST post-vaccination. What is so difficult?

"Perhaps you are unaware of post-marketing surveillance of vaccines by both manufacturers and the CDC."

How will post marketing surveillance catch vaccines causing food allergy for example? If a patient is diagnosed with food allergy a month after a vaccination, his doctor is not going to report it. Anaphylaxis to a vaccine happens within minutes. Causality is obvious. Not so for food allergy sensitization. Unless there is a special effort made to study it, the information is lost.

"By that logic no humans would have allergic reactions to insect bites, having had millions of years to evolve the ability to deal with them. Yet plenty of people are allergic to a range of insect bites, including mosquito bites."
"What do you mean by, “we have evolved to handle”? Are you suggesting there are ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ allergies?"

When was the last time Epipen was prescribed for pollen allergy? So, yes, there are natural allergies like pollen, mosquito saliva that we can handle without going into anaphylaxis. We still have reactions but they are a nuisance and not a life-threatening problem. Due to repeated exposure over evolution, our bodies have evolved to handle them.

Man-made allergies like food allergies need Epipen. No evolutionary defense exist for man-made allergies whether by food allergen injections or by PPI.

"IgE can persist for a lifetime in the case of peanut allergy.

In the absence of exposure to peanuts?"

Once diagnosed with peanut allergy, people avoid peanut exposure. So according to you, people should lose IgE and become allergy-free. We don't see that in reality. So you have demonstrated again that vaccines are the cause. People with food allergy, avoid those foods. The only way they can continue to have allergy is by exposure to those food proteins in vaccines. Any other exposure would result in anaphylaxis which is impossible to miss.

http://hopkinschildrens.org/news-room/milk-and-egg-allergies-harder-to-…
If you keep giving them egg allergy booster shots (flu vaccines) and DTap/TDaP milk allergy booster shots, how will they outgrow the allergy?

"Similarly we don’t know if those egg IgE subjects’ anti-egg IgE became transiently elevated after eating egg as well as after the influenza vaccine."

They used dust mite IgE as a control. They would have seen changes in that as well if there were non-vaccine related changes.

Therefore, it is not possible for allergen proteins to get into breast milk.

Drat.

shay #630,

"but insect bites do not cause allergies."
Tick bites can cause red meat allergy.

Narad #635, #633,

Great work finding those references. Thanks!

They raise more questions than they answer.
1. If absorbing proteins into the blood is perfectly normal in healthy people, why would anyone develop food allergies? What was wrong with Wells' guinea pigs?

2. Newborns absorb intact proteins for a few days. Assuming that it is unsafe for them to absorb such food proteins during that window, breast milk must be tested during those few days post partum. The studies you posted were 11-21 weeks post partum where the peanut/OVA in breast milk should already be safe for the baby. Further, for those few days, the baby's immune system is immature, would it even create IgE?

3. If 100s of nanogram of egg protein in milk is enough to sensitize a baby for egg allergy, injecting 1 mcg with a vaccine should do a much more efficient job of sensitizing, correct?

4. And all those allergen avoidance diets for Moms has done nothing for food allergies?

http://biomarkersandmilk.blogspot.com/2014/12/human-milk-has-microbiome…
"Current evidence supports dendritic cells as the likely transfer mechanism. These cells, along with some macrophages, can open the tight junctions between cells forming the gut barrier and take in living bacteria. "

Perhaps the dendritic cells transfer proteins too? In other words, the allergenic proteins are transferred without exposure to the sensitizing parts of the immune system? Just like the bacteria? Otherwise, the bacteria would have been killed?
In that case, Mom won't be sensitized.

I was not the one who claimed that mothers are the source of a baby’s allergies … […] That is what I have been saying all the time as well. Therefore, it is not possible for allergen proteins to get into breast milk.

Curses.

Therefore, it is not possible for allergen proteins to get into breast milk.

Unpossible!

Yah, but did they check him for track marks?

@APV #634:

Smaller pollen grains ( which are more likely to fit within a mosquito’s proboscis) are more commonly responsible for allergies.

Insect proboscides are self-cleaning for obvious reasons. Your proposed mechanism is implausible.

Why did the flu vaccine in 2013 cause *elicitation* in children with gelatin allergy?

Citation needed for your claim, please.

“By that logic no humans would have allergic reactions to insect bites, having had millions of years to evolve the ability to deal with them. Yet plenty of people are allergic to a range of insect bites, including mosquito bites.”
“What do you mean by, “we have evolved to handle”? Are you suggesting there are ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ allergies?

No. This is a response to your claim that

If mosquitos injected ovalbumin into mammals over millions of years, we would have evolved to handle ovalbumin injections too.

Man-made allergies like food allergies need Epipen. No evolutionary defense exist for man-made allergies whether by food allergen injections or by PPI.

Horse droppings (the "man-made" part). As was pointed out on this thread already, Hippocrates recorded instances of allergic reactions, even potentially fatal ones.
You are wooden-headed. You are convinced that vaccines provoke allergies, and every bit of "evidence" you have advanced is based on that premise. All you are doing is begging the question.

Damn those mosquitoes injecting people with all that grass pollen they eat. You aren’t serious, are you?

You have a better hypothesis?

Aha! I think we just spotted what leads our engineer astray in trying to do science.

An engineer and a scientist both say "I want to devise the best X; if I can't get the best X of all time, I'll get the best X I can, and make that the basis for further work." For an engineer, an X is a design; for a scientist, X is a hypothesis, a model. So far so good.

Where things go wrong is when the engineer tries to do science and brings with them the wrong idea of what the best is. For a certain engineer, 'best' in a design means "the maximum of features we want: if it works for tightening alpha-style grommets, it's good, but if it can also do the job for beta-style and gamma-style, that makes it a better design! They think this applies to scientific models as well; they think that a hypothesis which purports to explain X is good, but one which purports to explain Y and Z as well must be better!

But the more elaborate a hypothesis is, the LESS chance that it is falsifiable, either philosophically or practically. The goal of science is not to think we know everything, but to have maximum confidence that what we think is true actually is. The engineer reacts to criticism of their model by making it more elaborate, which moves AWAY from what's actually desired.

@Antaeus Feldspar

Good catch. Another difference between science and engineering is revealed here:

Nice try. If aluminum safety has been established, only the antigen adverse effects will show up in the study even if the control group had received saline.

APV, this shows your ignorance of medical trial design. You always, always control for all variables except the variable of interest. Otherwise, you cannot conclude that the results you are seeing are due to the variable of interest (e.g., the antigen) rather than to something else in the formulation. There is always the possibility that there is something other than the antigen that could cause an issue. If we don't control for that, then we might mistakenly attribute the problem to the antigen.

Newer vaccines (those developed within the last decade or two) are also compared against a saline, in addition to the excipients minus the antigen, to make sure the overall formulation doesn't increase risk of a reaction. This helps determine if some reaction seen during trials is due to the overall formulation. If that turns up something, then the manufacturer needs to determine what the overall risk of that is, how that risk compares to the disease that would be prevented, and, if necessary, what is causing that problem.

And keep in mind that many vaccines don't just give a single dose, so under your paradigm, an allergic reaction would be noticed during the trial.

Tick bites can cause red meat allergy.

Bites from one type of tick have been linked to a temporary reaction to red meat in the Southwestern US; however, we're talking about hay fever.

Antaeus Feldspar @ 642 - my late father, an engineer, truly despised the statement that "perfect is the enemy of good enough." And he found complexity to be preferable to a simple solution.

If insectbites have something to do with hay-fever, would this mean people in parts of Finlands were mosquitos are considered the Finnish airforce, have more hay-fever than people elsewhere, where there are less mosquitos?

Interesting related link http://www.nbcnews.com/…/cdc-warning-flu-viruses-mutate-eva…

The engineer reacts to criticism of their model by making it more elaborate

Hey, it's worked for string theory.

Oh, wait.

Yes, Patti, the link was very interesting. It says:

We cannot find the page you requested.
Error 404

Have someone tell you how to properly copy a URL link.

Patti, another wee bit of advice, before spreading old news links on blogs, actually read the above article first.

I actually found the link you were trying for.That link was included in this article, and is, in fact, the very first URL link used.

Julian Frost #641,
"Hippocrates recorded instances of allergic reactions, even potentially fatal ones."
As I already wrote, genetic defects can cause stomach acid reduction and result in food allergies. These are very rare and a great example of the process of evolution at work.

The food allergy epidemic we have today is very difficult to explain with genetic changes. It is man-made. If you have a better hypothesis for the cause of the food allergy epidemic, please post with supporting evidence.

Antaeus Feldspar #642,

"The engineer reacts to criticism of their model by making it more elaborate, which moves AWAY from what’s actually desired."

This model is as simple as it gets. Injecting proteins into mammals is dangerous. Proven over and over again. And it is not my model. It is Charles Richet's Nobel Prize winning model.

@Narad:

From what I've heard, some string theorists have given up on it ever being able to produce a falsifiable prediction, but still think it has value because whatever is discovered to be correct will still have to fit into the string theory framework in order to be consistent with what we already know.

The engineer reacts to criticism of their model by making it more elaborate, which moves AWAY from what’s actually desired.

This model is as simple as it gets. Injecting proteins into mammals is dangerous.

Ohgawd please don't, my back already hurts and if you keep making me laugh that hard, I may injure it critically. Your model is NOT "as simple as it gets", it's gelatin this and proton pump inhibitors that and mouthsores yes and puncture wounds no and special cases all over the place. "Simple" it is effing NOT.

Now it would be okay, hell, it would be LAUDABLE, if your hypothesizing was spreading and metastatizing every other hour because you were working hard to make it consistent with the evidence. But that's not the case; you're simply trying to make your hypothesis so that the evidence can never prove it wrong, even if it is.

Even though she mucked up the link, and thought it was new and relevant to this discussion even though it was the first one listed in the article... she was at least on topic.

Very much unlike APC, who cannot answer a simple question on the relative risk of the influenza vaccines approved use on children in the USA this year versus the ris of the actual disease.

Todd W. #643,

"You always, always control for all variables except the variable of interest."

You must be joking.

Here are the Cervarix trials:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…

There are 4 groups studied. Cervarix and control groups, HAV 720, HAV 360 and aluminum hydroxide.

Cervarix contains HPV viral proteins, aluminum hydroxide, MPL, insect cells, baculovirus proteins and bacterial proteins among other things. We have to assume that HAV is the Havrix vaccine because they did not document that. Havrix contains, MRC-5, polysorbate 20, neomycin sulfate and formalin along with the viral antigen.

This is "always, always control for all variables except the variable of interest"?
Looks like all the variables are out of control ...

"APV, this shows your ignorance of medical trial design."
If this is representative of how medical trials are designed, the objective seems to be maximum obfuscation, at best. At worst, it looks like a manipulation of the trial for a desired outcome.

Julian Frost #641,

"Why did the flu vaccine in 2013 cause *elicitation* in children with gelatin allergy?

Citation needed for your claim, please."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131108090127.htm

Julian Frost #641,

"Insect proboscides are self-cleaning for obvious reasons."
Not a grain of pollen left? What if they "clean" the pollen into you with their saliva?

"Your proposed mechanism is implausible."
Because ...

doug #629,

Sensitization and elicitation can occur at different locations.
When proteins are injected into the body, IgE is synthesized. IgE travels through the body and binds to mast cells and basophils that are also present in the mouth. When these IgE are exposed to the same protein as the injection, they bind with the protein, triggering an allergic reaction.

In a normal person, sensitization cannot occur by eating foods (A4). A3 occurs because the person was sensitized by injected proteins.

Mephistopheles O'Brien #626,

Poorly hydrolyzed gelatin in vaccines caused the development of gelatin allergy in Japan in 1999.
Poorly hydrolyzed gelatin in vaccines caused allergic reactions in the US in 2013.
"contaminated milk proteins" in DTaP/TdaP caused anaphylaxis in the US in 2011.

If there was a spec. established and enforced, could these not have been prevented?

"If there were a perceived need for a standard, I am sure the FDA would love to create one. That’s what they do for a living."
Looks like they twiddle their thumbs for a living.

@justthestats

because whatever is discovered to be correct will still have to fit into the string theory framework in order to be consistent with what we already know

*blink*

Not exactly on topic, but causes of autism are certainly apropos on most threads on this blog.

Trying to find Patti's article, (I'm pretty sure I've already read it) I find this announcement of some new results from the Harvard Nurses study.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/autism-air-pollution-new-stud…

The study seems to show that there is at least a partial environmental cause of autism. But, it's not vaccines. It's tiny particulates in air pollution from vehicles, power plants, burning buildings, etc.

Injecting proteins into mammals is dangerous.

Oh, for Pete's sake.

Injecting anything into some living being is dangerous.
Walking across the street is dangerous.
Eating is dangerous.

With such sweeping generalities, one can justify anything.

Here, we are supposedly debating about the potential presence of food proteins into vaccines and if they are presenting so much of a risk of priming allergy as to justify to get all worked up about it.
As I said before, and I repeat it here for emphasis and clarity, I'm ready to agree that someone who knows has an allergy to some stuff is justified in being careful about what possible allergens a vaccine may contain, and in this context having a bigger warnings on vaccine boxes could also be justified.
But we are not talking about that.

Somehow, we are now talking about about people harvesting seaweed so fast and so sloppily that it's packed with shrimps, and no-one notice. Or about carnivorous female mosquitoes taking a bath in a tub full of pollen before going to suck the blood out of some mammal.

You are arguing out of bad faith. Smaller words: you are a liar and a deceiver.

@APV _ just curious... among common food allergies, Food Allergy.org lists spiced including coriander and garlic.

Do you believe spices are regularly included in vaccines?

I am noticing you have two ways to have allergy - vaccines and reduced stomach acid. That way your hypothesis has a backup for allergies not created by vaccine.

You said earlier that your whole family has allergies. I pointed out that mine does, too. I consider my son's allergies to be another trait that shows we are related.

Medical science isn't "come up with complex explanations and react." It is come up with a hypothesis, design a trial to account for any possible confounders, etc. For as many things we have similar as human beings, we are susceptible to various biases, etc. When we are personally invested in the answer even more so.

"Citation needed for your claim, please.”

The Science Daily article is not a citation. It just has quotes saying that there may be a small possibility, which is why those who get vaccines need to hang around for a few minutes.

Now where is the PubMed indexed study showing that any influenza vaccine approved for use in children in the USA causes more harm than the disease. A disease that killed over a hundred kids in each of the previous two flu seasons, and has already caused seven pediatric deaths this early in this season.

The engineer claims that he and his family members have allergies and asthma. I provided the engineer with the ACIP Guidelines for Immunization which include the only absolute medical contraindication (an episode of anaphylaxis associated with a prior flu shot), for receiving flu vaccine shots.

The engineer and his family have no histories of anaphylaxis from prior flu shots/absolute medical contraindications for receiving flu shots.

Case closed.

P.S. Engineer you're full of yourself and full of it.

Helianthus #663,

"Injecting anything into some living being is dangerous."

Yes, that is why you inject (if required) with extreme caution.
That means establishing safe limits, specifying/testing before you inject anything.

"potential presence of food proteins"
Food proteins being present in vaccines is a fact.

Agar is derived from red algae which can contaminate seafood without anyone being sloppy.

The proboscis used to feed on flowers being contaminated with pollen grains is too far fetched for you?
Do you have a counter hypothesis for the cause of pollen allergy?

@APV

In a normal person, sensitization cannot occur by eating foods (A4).

To follow Narad's style, oops.

Another source of food allergies: inhalation.

Mrs Woo #664,

Any route by which proteins are introduced into the body where the immune system can be exposed to it and be sensitized, needs to be considered.

Injections, stomach acid reduction, eczema skin exposure and insect bites have been demonstrated to cause sensitization.

The special consideration with respect to injections is that they often include an aluminum adjuvant that is known to increase the Th2 response. Th2 response is associated with allergies.
http://www.jimmunol.org/content/183/10/6186.long

"It is come up with a hypothesis, design a trial to account for any possible confounders, etc."

That is what I am asking for. Why a hundred years after the discovery of protein injections causing anaphylaxis, we still have not established safe levels for proteins injected into humans? What is worse is we have a raging food allergy epidemic, the cause for which is officially unknown. And people refuse to consider the most obvious, well known, old, proven mechanism of sensitization, as a cause at all? Why?

Again, important to remember, vaccines are A likely cause, not the only possible cause of all allergies.

Unless excipient makers (Polysorbate 80, etc.) are forced to disclose what ingredients are used, we will never know the whole list. As I wrote before, maize, wheat, palm, safflower oil, kosher tapioca have all been disclosed as being used by a handful of manufacturers.

Are spices and peanut oil used in excipients? The excipient makers have to tell us. The FDA has to force them to tell us.

Todd W. #668,

Do I have to define normal person for you?

If everyone can be sensitized by eating normal food, then everyone, developing/developed world should have the same prevalence of food allergy.
Further, the reference you provided is talking about Type II, III and IV. We are discussing Type I here. So it is not relevant.

APV,

The proboscis used to feed on flowers being contaminated with pollen grains is too far fetched for you?

Where did you get the idea that mosquitoes feed on flowers?

It seems much more likely that inhaled pollen causes pollen allergy:

It seems likely that presenting an antigen transmucosally and at very low doses is a particularly efficient way of inducing TH2-driven IgE responses. [...]
IgE antibodies are important in host defense against parasitic infections and this defense system is distributed anatomically mainly at the sites of entry of parasites—under the skin, under the epithelial surfaces of the airways (the mucosal-associated lymphoid tissues), and in the submucosa of the gut (the gut-associated lymphoid tissues).

Cells of the innate and adaptive immune systems at these sites are specialized to secrete predominantly cytokines that drive TH2 responses.

This suggests that small doses of food proteins ingested or inhaled are more likely to cause allergies than larger doses injected intramuscularly.

Why a hundred years after the discovery of protein injections causing anaphylaxis, we still have not established safe levels for proteins injected into humans?

Clearly we have, hence the relatively rapid detection and resolution of the Japanese gelatin problem. We have seen, based on work from a century ago, that there is far too little food protein in current vaccines to cause allergies - in the case of egg proteins in influenza vaccines 250 times less than the minimum dose required to produce sensitization in a guinea pig.

What is worse is we have a raging food allergy epidemic, the cause for which is officially unknown.

It isn't clear that we really do have a food allergy 'epidemic' (I really dislike the use of the word in this way), as the increase in reported prevalence may be driven by increased awareness rather than by a real increase. It reminds me of autism, the rise in reported cases of which is also blamed on vaccines with just as little evidence.

As I wrote above, the constant rate of fatal anaphylaxis seen in some studies suggests that there is no real increase.

And people refuse to consider the most obvious, well known, old, proven mechanism of sensitization, as a cause at all? Why?

I and several other people have exerted a considerable amount of time and effort on this thread doing just that. If I dismissed the possibility outright I wouldn't have bothered looking at studies on the subject. It isn't impossible that food proteins in vaccines sometimes trigger allergies, but I see no real evidence that this is the case.

Also, since about 90 trillion eggs are consumed in the US every year, about 4000,000,000 micrograms grams of egg protein per person per year, I don't see why we would be obsessing about 1 microgram of ovalbumin in an annual influenza vaccine, particularly when allergies are preferentially triggered by presentation of proteins to GI mucosa than by IM injection.

Insect proboscides are self-cleaning for obvious reasons. Your proposed mechanism is implausible.

It might also help if somebody demonstrated that mosquitoes feed on pollen in the first place.

Where did you get the idea that mosquitoes feed on flowers?

The carbohydrate comes from nectar. The males gotta eat something.

The females drink nectar as well; the blood is actually only for nourishing the eggs (which is why an unfertilized female will not bite -- no reason to).

Random factoid: one method of mosquito control is to release sterilized males into the area. A mosquito will only mate once, so if a female mates with a sterile male, she will never become pregnant. The upshot is that not only will she never lay eggs, thus disrupting their reproduction, but she also won't be driven to bite. Since a female can, after mating, take several blood meals and produce several batches of eggs, this is actually a surprisingly effective method of control. The main downside is that it's very labor intensive and requires a captive breeding population -- which, yes, will need to be fed blood from live donors, and yes, those live donors are often the staff at the mosquito breeding facilities. ;-)

an unfertilized female will not bite

I've yet to find a sufficiently discrete way to inquire of a mosquito whether it is a) female and b) in a family way. I generally presume that any mosquito I meet is a fertilized female and act accordingly.

Calli Arcale...Couldn't we put little condoms on male insects?

P.S. It's that time of year and I think I know which thread is going to be devoted to the foodies.

Male mosquitoes are readily identified by their mustaches.
Question b) is rather more delicate.

"... act accordingly" - offer a hand? remove your hat?

I do admire the effort Krebiozen and others have put into this matter. I am not so generous:

Developing countries
Hygiene hypothesis
Plasmodium
worms

I always thought female mosquitoes subsisted exclusively on blood - consider me educated. However, I'm still having trouble believing that mosquitoes drink nectar from ragweed and grasses and get sufficient pollen up their proboscises to induce allergies.

I’m still having trouble believing that mosquitoes drink nectar from ragweed and grasses

It is odd that people widely develop allergies to ragweed rather than goldenrod in this scenario.

Mephistopheles:

I’ve yet to find a sufficiently discrete way to inquire of a mosquito whether it is a) female and b) in a family way. I generally presume that any mosquito I meet is a fertilized female and act accordingly.

The appropriate reaction upon seeing any mosquito, male or female, is a blood-splattering blow. If nothing else, their wingbeats make the most *irritating* whine.

I'm allergic to goldenrod; it can happen, though I've had people look disdainfully me and try to educate me that it's a *myth* people get allergic to that. Um, no, I got the stupid scratch test. I endured that, you can damn well believe I'm allergic to it. :-D

Also to ragweed. And lilies. (Only true lilies, though; daylilies are fine. And other aliums, like garlic and onion, don't bother me at all.) And whatever that pretty puffy plant is that grows by the side of my house. And grass. And trees. And mold. And dust mites. And cigarette smoke. (I can detect a smoker by my nose itching before I notice the odor. On the plus side, it means I've had zero temptation to smoke.) And cat. Oh boy, am I allergic to cats.

Um, no, I got the stupid scratch test.

THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE ALLERGY!

And cigarette smoke.

This one I doubt, though. The particulate is the wrong size for an allergen.

Male mosquitoes are readily identified by their mustaches.

Thus a male mosquito may be mistaken for a Lyft driver. Much mischief and hilarity could result.

“… act accordingly” – offer a hand? remove your hat?

As Calli Arcale rightly divined, it would be to offer her your hand. Rapidly and vigorously.

Narad -- I don't know what it is in cigarette smoke that I'm allergic to, but it definitely makes me sneeze. Either that or every single smoker I've met is also a cat owner with terrible housekeeping habits. ;-)

I don’t know what it is in cigarette smoke that I’m allergic to, but it definitely makes me sneeze.

I don't think anyone would dispute that it's an irritant.

And, yes, I'm wearing three 21 mg patches.

Narad #684,

"Um, no, I got the stupid scratch test.

THAT’S WHAT CAUSED THE ALLERGY!"

Agree. Intradermal is almost twice as immunogenic as intramuscular ...

Old Blinky Box must be in sleep mode.

So, I might try out a recipe for calamari salad for Xmas eve.

Where's Chris?

Uff da!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyBK9UdxbcM

Krebiozen #672,

"It seems much more likely that inhaled pollen causes pollen allergy:"

Ok, inhaled pollen seems like another possibility ...
People working in restaurants develop food allergy due to inhalation? Have not heard that yet ...

Insect bites are probably more intradermal than intramuscular? Sanofi Pasteur tells us that intradermal is almost twice as effective as intramuscular (hence almost half the vaccine dose).

"Clearly we have, hence the relatively rapid detection and resolution of the Japanese gelatin problem."

No, we don't have a safe protein level spec.

8-18 ng/ml of casein in the TDaP vaccine triggered anaphylaxis. Sensitization requires less allergen than elicitation.
Further, DTaP/TDaP have aluminum phosphate as an adjuvant. Aluminum produces a bias towards Th2 response or allergies.
Do we know how much casein is needed in the presence of an aluminum based adjuvant to cause sensitization?
I don't think we have the answer. And nobody (at the FDA) seems to be in any hurry to find out ...
http://www.jimmunol.org/content/183/10/6186.long

"It isn’t clear that we really do have a food allergy ‘epidemic’ (I really dislike the use of the word in this way)"
You can use whatever word you like but 1 in 13 kids suffering this disease is unacceptable.

"Also, since about 90 trillion eggs are consumed in the US every year, about 4000,000,000 micrograms grams of egg protein per person per year, I don’t see why we would be obsessing about 1 microgram of ovalbumin in an annual influenza vaccine"

GI mucosa have evolved to deal with egg/food in large quantities without becoming allergic. It is designed by evolution to do that job.
1 mcg of egg injected into the deltoid muscle, is a whole different story. How often does that happen in nature? Often enough to evolve a defense? No, and that's the problem.

"particularly when allergies are preferentially triggered by presentation of proteins to GI mucosa than by IM injection."

Reference please.

Why don't we squirt the inactivated influenza vaccine into our mouths for GI presentation?

"Where’s Chris?"

Watching the insanity of one young physician who needs a psychiatrist at SBM. Though I did finally finish a library book on phycisists in Germany during WWII.

Though dear hubby and I went out to lovely restaurant, which is a small chain based in Canada that provides "just right" portions. I had the "Test Kitchen" paella, full of lots of allergenic seafood like scallops, lobster and shrimp!

By the way, when my kids went to city summer nature camp (a place where they foraged through the urban parks after the police had chased out the transients... one child left his lunch bag on the side of the train, and when he returned all of his lunch was gone except for the little carrots) they had a visit from the "Bug Man."

This dude was awesome! He had trays of lots of dead bugs, and then several quite live ones. Things like centipedes, spiders, beetles, and small scorpions. But when he handled the live ones he needed wear nitrile exam gloves. Since he worked with the critters so much, he was now allergic to them, and of course to most shellfish.

By the way, from a skin test I know I am allergic to nicotine. I never liked the smell of cigarette smoke. I am also allergic to nickel, ragweed, mold, willow and alder (the reaction to that went up my arm!). My sister is allergic to wool, and lots of of the same pollen.

Our father has similar allergies. But he did not get many of the vaccines we got as kids (polio, influenza, etc). He survived the diseases. He almost died from an allergic reaction to penicillin. But that reaction started after he finished with the full bottle, it was not quick.

It is how our immune system is tuned by genetics, and it as nothing to do with vaccines.

I am still waiting for APV to provide the verifiable statistics that any influenza vaccine approved for children in the USA causes as much harm as the disease, which has already killed seven kids this year.

Krebiozen,

Would 15 mcg of injected ovalbumin have any effect on the immune system?
We know 15 mcg of injected HA protein produces a robust defense against the flu virus.

Where's lilady?

I was just skimming the comments on the SBM blog. We could send the engineer/immunologist over there to discuss influenza vaccines.

Your restaurant find sounds nice and I love smaller portions such as what you would find at a tapas restaurant. The DH loves the multiple small portions (soup, salad and entree) and we split a plate of assorted appetizers.

There are four additional confirmed pediatric influenza deaths reported through December 13th, for a total of eleven confirmed pediatric influenza deaths.

Ooops...omitted link from my prior post:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/#S3

Myself: "one child left his lunch bag on the side of the train, "

Bad typo... not "train" but "trail.". aargh

Cripes! I just checked that same link before posting! It must have been updated as I posted.

So APV needs to prove his contention that influenza vaccine is more dangerous than disease with real is now more crucial.

I am allergic to penicillin. It was so long ago when I was a young child but you never forget the urticaria wheals which were large and painful...and scary. I've never taken any penicillin analogs or any cephalosporins and when I was working I had bracelet indicating those allergies.

I think I mentioned on a prior thread that I and the other ~ 60 - 70 nurses and doctors who worked at the health department, who had administered hundreds of thousands of vaccines, never observed a serious allergic reaction or had any serious delayed allergic reactions reported, which required epinephrine.

</plonk-*dishes*>

Would 15 mcg of injected ovalbumin have any effect on the immune system?
We know 15 mcg of injected HA protein produces a robust defense against the flu virus.

*Koff*.

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.

10-4?

In the cocoa study, rats were injected with a pertussis vaccine containing alum as an adjuvant and ovalbumin.
Rats that were fed cocoa did not develop ovalbumin IgE.
Rats not fed cocoa developed ovalbumin IgE.

I of course stand by my Polysorbate 80 / peanut statement.*
Sorry, but what’s the connection frequency?

<*dishes*>

* "Some flu vaccines contain Polysorbate 80. Polysorbate 80 manufacturers use a variety of vegetable oils that could include peanut oil. It is therefore not possible to rule out the presence of peanut oil in vaccine."

I may be displaying a recurrent symptom of misspelling my own name, but I'm oriented as to person, place, and time, promise.
-----
</plonk-*dishes*>

Would 15 mcg of injected ovalbumin have any effect on the immune system?
We know 15 mcg of injected HA protein produces a robust defense against the flu virus.

*Koff*.

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.

10-4?

In the cocoa study, rats were injected with a pertussis vaccine containing alum as an adjuvant and ovalbumin.
Rats that were fed cocoa did not develop ovalbumin IgE.
Rats not fed cocoa developed ovalbumin IgE.

I of course stand by my Polysorbate 80 / peanut statement.*
Sorry, but what’s the connection frequency?

<*dishes*>

* "Some flu vaccines contain Polysorbate 80. Polysorbate 80 manufacturers use a variety of vegetable oils that could include peanut oil. It is therefore not possible to rule out the presence of peanut oil in vaccine."

Oh, screw it, there are two hopelessly redundant comments in moderation from Marad's cousin Naradd.

Are Marad and Naradd first cousins?

I screwed up one time about two years ago, when I attempted to reply to the Ugh Troll and I inadvertently inserted the Troll's 'nym instead of lilady. It got posted immediately, because I had my correct email address in the field.

Chris, don't forget there is a lag time for reporting all notifiable diseases. It's very possible that the chain of influenza infections in schools will be broken during the children's holiday break. Just wait...by mid January 2015 those infections which occur in schools will come roaring back.

In my County there was always some competition among the hospitals' virology labs to see who could report the first confirmed case of influenza to our health department.

By the way, from a skin test I know I am allergic to nicotine.

This statement is so broad that I don't even know what to make of it. Nicotine is the exemplar nicotinic agonist, but it seems as though all sorts of things would go haywire in this scenario.

APV,

People working in restaurants develop food allergy due to inhalation? Have not heard that yet …

How much food protein is inhaled in a restaurant compared to how much food is eaten? The immunology text book I referred to suggests that desiccated soluble proteins like those in pollen and dust mite feces are the most likely allergens. I doubt there is much desiccated soluble food protein in the moist air of a restaurant kitchen.

Insect bites are probably more intradermal than intramuscular? Sanofi Pasteur tells us that intradermal is almost twice as effective as intramuscular (hence almost half the vaccine dose).

That makes sense but I'm not sure I see your point. Only a very few vaccines are adminstered intradermally, as far as I know, and these use less antigen thus reducing the risk of allergy.

No, we don’t have a safe protein level spec.

Even if we don't have a specification, of which I am still unconvinced, as I don't believe the FDA or vaccine manufacturers would share this information with a casual enquirer, we do have organizations and committees of experts devoted to looking at every ingredient and every aspect of a vaccine's safety before approving it. That is in addition to the manufacturer making every effort to ensure the safety of their product. Having to withdraw a vaccine due to safety concerns is a very expensive business that no drug company wants to go through.

8-18 ng/ml of casein in the TDaP vaccine triggered anaphylaxis. Sensitization requires less allergen than elicitation.

Do we know that injection of casein can cause sensitization in humans? As I wrote before, we know allergies are mostly caused when proteins are presented to either GI or respiratory mucosa. Some proteins may require partial digestion to become allergenic (I read this recently but can't find where).

Further, DTaP/TDaP have aluminum phosphate as an adjuvant. Aluminum produces a bias towards Th2 response or allergies.

I don't know about a bias towards Th2; it stimulates both Th1 and Th2, and the paper you refer to states that aluminum produces, "a bias toward promoting Abs and a Th2 response".

Do we know how much casein is needed in the presence of an aluminum based adjuvant to cause sensitization?
I don’t think we have the answer. And nobody (at the FDA) seems to be in any hurry to find out

How do you know what research is currently going on, or what criteria the FDA use to assess safety? There is a huge amount of research into food allergy, with almost 3,000 papers just with "food allergy" in their titles.
You can use whatever word you like but 1 in 13 kids suffering this disease is unacceptable.
Where did you get the 1 in 13 figures? I have seen estimates of between 2% and 5% confirmed allergy. I agree it is higher than we would want, but blaming vaccines for this when there is no good reason to think they are to blame isn't going to help.

GI mucosa have evolved to deal with egg/food in large quantities without becoming allergic. It is designed by evolution to do that job.

It is designed by evolution to deal with parasitic infections, which is why ingested and inhaled proteins are the most important allergens. Your claim that allergy is unnatural therefore it must be due to vaccines just doesn't hold water.
1 mcg of egg injected into the deltoid muscle, is a whole different story. How often does that happen in nature? Often enough to evolve a defense? No, and that’s the problem.
If we haven't evolved a defense against injected egg protein we wouldn't generate an allergy, would we? Allergies are the result of a defense against parasitic infection going awry, and we have established that 75 micrograms of injected egg protein would be required to sensitize an underweight 6-month-old child, based on Wells.

“particularly when allergies are preferentially triggered by presentation of proteins to GI mucosa than by IM injection.”
Reference please.

I gave you the reference, to 'Immunobiology: The Immune System in Health and Disease. 5th edition', and I quoted the relevant passage. Here it is again (my emphasis):

IgE antibodies are important in host defense against parasitic infections and this defense system is distributed anatomically mainly at the sites of entry of parasites—under the skin, under the epithelial surfaces of the airways (the mucosal-associated lymphoid tissues), and in the submucosa of the gut (the gut-associated lymphoid tissues). Cells of the innate and adaptive immune systems at these sites are specialized to secrete predominantly cytokines that drive TH2 responses.

Back to your comment:

Why don’t we squirt the inactivated influenza vaccine into our mouths for GI presentation?

You want to design a vaccine that is more likely to cause allergy? A few micrograms of influenza antigen would be unlikely to survive digestion, whereas some of the 50,000,000 micrograms of egg protein in a single egg may well survive to be presented at the submucosa of the gut. I wonder if intranasal influenza vaccines might be more likely to lead to allergies, but given the vanishingly tiny amount of egg protein in them (Flumist contains (< 0.24 mcg/dose) I don't think there is much danger.

Apologies, I screwed up a couple of blockquotes, and APV's words got mixed up in my response. These were APV, not me:

"You can use whatever word you like but 1 in 13 kids suffering this disease is unacceptable."

"1 mcg of egg injected into the deltoid muscle, is a whole different story. How often does that happen in nature? Often enough to evolve a defense? No, and that’s the problem."

People working in restaurants develop food allergy due to inhalation? Have not heard that yet …

Baker's asthma is well known (allergy to flour).

Folks who work with lab animals often develop allergies to the bedding used, and sometimes the animals themselves.

Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it isn't known, and hasn't been studied.

I'm still waiting for the engineer, who, has no risk factors for himself or his family against receiving influenza vaccines shots and, who has risk factors (asthma) for contracting influenza, is not getting the seasonal influenza shots:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6002a1.htm

The engineer has not commented on the 11 confirmed pediatric deaths from influenza YTD in the United States, nor has he come up with any deaths/serious adverse events (anaphylaxis) associated with influenza shots.

Case closed.

Greetings and tidings, shills and minions!

'Tis solstice day and a new moon simultaneously- in other words, quite darkish- and time for feasts, frolics and toasts- altho' I've had nearly enough of that balderdash already- esp yesterday and night...
.
At any rate, comments have now passed the auspicious 666 mark and barreled ahead to 700 and beyond:
SO who are our lucky winners?
lilady and Narad who will get bonus bonuses, plenty of champagne and FREE pharmaceuticals!

APV -

It would follow from your hypothesis that the rate of allergies among unvaccinated people would be extremely low -- comparable to the vanishingly low rate you seem to believe existed before vaccination was developed -- compared to the "epidemic" rate you cite.

Do you have citations for studies that have compared the rates of allergies among the unvaccinated and the vaccinated? I would think that such a gigantic difference would be easily determinable.

Thank you.

APV:

The food allergy epidemic we have today is very difficult to explain with genetic changes. It is man-made.

Once again, your comment assumes that we have an epidemic of food allergies, much like the purported "autism epidemic" which turned out to be a case of better detection and awareness.

This model is as simple as it gets. Injecting proteins into mammals is dangerous.

Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers. You have placed plenty of ad-hoc explanations on to your hypothesis, from PPI's and inadequate stomach acid to the frankly ludicrous idea that mosquito bites are an explanation for pollen allergy.

“Your proposed mechanism is implausible.”
Because...

Because even if pollen did get into a female mosquito proboscis (highly unlikely) and even if it wasn't cleaned out completely (also highly unlikely), there would be so little pollen that it is exceptionally unlikely that it would elicit an allergic response in someone she bit.
Helianthus @663 has pretty much summarised the ludicrousness of some of your arguments.

The proboscis used to feed on flowers being contaminated with pollen grains is too far fetched for you?
Do you have a counter hypothesis for the cause of pollen allergy?

Yes, it is too far-fetched. And our counter hypothesis is the originally proposed one, without your elaborate injections.
One more thing: just because nobody can come up with a counter hypothesis doesn't mean your hypothesis is the correct one. And the fact that you've had to stick on a bunch of ad-hoc moves in response to our takedowns says it's wrong.

Denice Walter: You bring joy to me and mine during this Winter solstice season. I can only hope that His Lordship (praise be to his name), deems me worthy of bestowing those shiny trinkets (proof Krugerrands).

Everyone *knows* that the increase in use of disposable infant diapers is responsible for the increase in prevalence of food allergies...and autism.

Narad -- no, there's definitely an allergic reaction I get. Again, I don't know what it is specifically I'm allergic to, but there's something. It doesn't have to be somebody actively smoking, and antihistamines completely suppress the reaction.

APV -- "“Um, no, I got the stupid scratch test.

THAT’S WHAT CAUSED THE ALLERGY!”"

That was actually me, not Narad. FYI. ;-) And thank you for explaining why I'm now allergic to everything in the allergy test. Oh wait, except I'm not. Hm. Also, what a tidy way you've found to discount the gold standard test for diagnosing allergies. I don't suppose you're finding preemptive ways to protect your beliefs now, are you? ;-)

Do you have citations for studies that have compared the rates of allergies among the unvaccinated and the vaccinated?

When even MDC readily provides counterexamples, there just aren't enough trombonists in the world to get the message across.

Calli Arcale, #712
http://www.allergynutrition.com/journal/joneja-jmv-comment-skin-testing…
It's a matter of probability. Just because you did not get an allergy to *every* allergen in the test, it is not proof that the test does not cause the development of allergies.

Darwy #706,

The point is it is very rare. It is not as effective a mechanism of sensitization as claimed. People cook more often in the third world (fewer fast food outlets). They should have more inhalation triggered food allergies and we should have less. Our children don't live/work in restaurants. Why do they have higher rates of food allergies?

Why hasn't the engineer/immunolgist wannabe, read the list of contraindications to receiving influenza shots...and replied to the questions posed by me and Chris?

APV, I have another explanation for the increase in allergies: You, personally, caused them through the practice of black magic. Is it up to you to prove your innocence, or me to prove my allegation?

</plonk-o-matic>

At least my lapse in willpower was promptly rewarded.

Baker’s asthma is well known (allergy to flour).

The point is it is very rare. It is not as effective a mechanism of sensitization as claimed.

"Results During the study period, a total of 273 [Cameroonian] bakers were invited and 229 finally agreed to participate in this study.... Sensitisation to wheat flour and α-amylase was found in 16.6% and 8.3% of participants, respectively. The Prick test was positive for mites in 12.2% of participants."

Krebiozen #704,

"This suggests that small doses of food proteins ingested or inhaled are more likely to cause allergies than larger doses injected intramuscularly."
"That makes sense but I’m not sure I see your point."
I was saying, insect bites being intradermal (ID), you should be looking at inhaled vs. ID instead of inhaled vs. IM.

"Do we know that injection of casein can cause sensitization in humans?"

Great question! We have known for a hundred years that injected proteins can cause sensitization.
So you would think that any vaccine designer who is looking to use casein as a growth medium would have asked and answered this question first?
So where are the studies?
Looks like the FDA's approach to vaccine safety is: inject first, ask questions later ... if at all.

"I doubt there is much desiccated soluble food protein in the moist air of a restaurant kitchen."
"we know allergies are mostly caused when proteins are presented to either GI or respiratory mucosa."
Seems contradictory. Are you saying the respiratory route is a major contributor to food allergies or not?

"Even if we don’t have a specification, of which I am still unconvinced, as I don’t believe the FDA or vaccine manufacturers would share this information with a casual enquirer, we do have organizations and committees of experts devoted to looking at every ingredient and every aspect of a vaccine’s safety before approving it."

Well, FDA said it does not exist. They did not say it is a confidential document that cannot be made public.
Sanofi Pasteur also said it does not exist.

"That is in addition to the manufacturer making every effort to ensure the safety of their product. Having to withdraw a vaccine due to safety concerns is a very expensive business that no drug company wants to go through."

Vaccine makers have no liability especially when there is no specification that can be used to demonstrate a violation.
So unless their vaccines kill immediately, they are home-free.

"A recent study from US Public Citizen found that, since 1991, there have been 239 legal settlements, totaling $30.2 billion in federal and state penalties, levied against US pharmaceutical companies. There’s a real laundry list of crimes, but defrauding the government, hiding drug safety information, and hawking drugs for purposes beyond which they are approved are the main ones."
http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/eminence-vs-evidence

Recalls (if any), "settlements without admitting wrongdoing", are all rolled into the "cost of doing business".

http://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats
"This potentially deadly disease affects 1 in every 13 children (under 18 years of age) in the U.S. That’s roughly two in every classroom."

"IgE antibodies are important in host defense against parasitic infections and this defense system is distributed anatomically mainly at the sites of entry of parasites—under the skin, under the epithelial surfaces of the airways (the mucosal-associated lymphoid tissues), and in the submucosa of the gut (the gut-associated lymphoid tissues). Cells of the innate and adaptive immune systems at these sites are specialized to secrete predominantly cytokines that drive TH2 responses."
"“particularly when allergies are preferentially triggered by presentation of proteins to GI mucosa than by IM injection.”
Reference please."

Your reference quote says nothing about preferential triggering in GI mucosa over IM.

In normal healthy individuals, GI mucosa food sensitization cannot happen due to evolution. Such individuals would have been eliminated by natural selection. You will of course have a few individuals who may have developed a genetic defect that causes GI mucosa sensitization, but that is the ongoing evolutionary process.
I don't think babies in the third world are born with worms in their gut, that help alter immune response. Given all the allergens in breast milk per Narad's references, third world kids should all be developing food allergies just like their Western counterparts, by GI exposure? So the GI mucosa explanation does not seem to work so well to explain observations.

@APV

Vaccine makers have no liability

Bzzt! Wrong. Let's see if you can figure out why your statement is incorrect.

In normal healthy individuals, GI mucosa food sensitization cannot happen due to evolution. Such individuals would have been eliminated by natural selection.

This belies a rather simplistic and incorrect view of evolution. Sensitization will not necessarily be eliminated by natural selection. 1) If the reaction produced by the sensitization is not sufficient to result in death, there is no reason that it would be eliminated. 2) If the reaction produced by sensitization only manifests after the individual has reproduced, then the genetic predisposition to an allergic reaction would be passed on, and thus not eliminated. 3) If the genetic predisposition to allergy is recessive, there's no reason to think it would be eliminated. 4) If the predisposition to allergy is the result of a de novo mutation, there is no reason for it to be selected against through evolution. There are ample reasons why evolutionary processes would not necessarily eliminate GI-mediated development of food allergies.

So the GI mucosa explanation does not seem to work so well to explain observations.

Differences in reporting, health care infrastructure and awareness may also be an explanation.

"So unless their vaccines kill immediately, they are home-free."

So tell us how many kids were killed by the influenza vaccine last year? Then compare it to the over a hundred who died from influenza last year.

Come on, tell how much more dangerous any influenza vaccine approved for children in the USA is than the actual disease. Which seems to be 10% to the hundred mark of pediatric deaths early in the season.

So are you cheering on the disease as it kills kids?

In normal healthy individuals, GI mucosa food sensitization cannot happen due to evolution.

That's funny, I can remember when it was impossible because of stomach acid. Or maybe this sentence is supposed to be taken on its face, rather than demanding that one interpolate a comma (on top of letting slide) before the second, ah, preposition.

^ Yah, yah, semi-Skitt. The parenthetical is premature by a word.

Krebiozen #704

"If we haven’t evolved a defense against injected egg protein we wouldn’t generate an allergy, would we?"

Anaphylaxis is a horrible defense tactic! So no, we have not evolved a defense against injected egg proteins at all.

How would we evolve a specific defense if we have not been exposed to it by being injected regularly? We have evolved moderated defense (no anaphylaxis) against commonly injected proteins like mosquito saliva, pollen, perhaps mold spores etc.

We have a general protein defense for injected viruses/bacteria etc. There is no way for the body to know if casein, gelatin or ovalbumin are parts of a novel virus or not. So it looks like injected virus/bacteria and food proteins are all treated the same.

Narad #722,

Stomach acid is obviously a product of evolution too. Among other functions, it also defends against food protein sensitization. What's funny?

Narad #718,

My point was, inhalant exposure is not efficient enough to explain food allergies in the general public.

Todd W. #720,

I already covered (4). While I agree with (1,2,3), the bottom line is there is no survival advantage for individuals who develop GI-mediated life-threatening food allergies. (1,2,3) may delay the extinction. Matter of "when" not "if".

Todd.W
"Vaccine makers have no liability

Bzzt! Wrong. Let’s see if you can figure out why your statement is incorrect."
It is correct because Congress made a law creating a vaccine injury compensation system (to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits) thus ensuring that pharmaceutical companies remain in the vaccine making business.

OccamsLaser #709,

There's apparently not much interest in the medical community to perform such studies. With most researchers depending on government grants, it could be career suicide.

You can find some "unofficial" studies such as:
http://www.avoidingmilkprotein.com/vacandpea.htm

Julian Frost #710,

"Because even if pollen did get into a female mosquito proboscis (highly unlikely) and even if it wasn’t cleaned out completely (also highly unlikely), there would be so little pollen that it is exceptionally unlikely that it would elicit an allergic response in someone she bit."

Pollen grains are estimated to weigh about 500 ng.
From Well's experiments, 50 ng is enough to sensitize. So even a single grain may be enough to sensitize.
If you claim that it is not possible to have even a single pollen grain contaminating a proboscis, then Carl Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies.

If you don't have a better counter hypothesis, you have to seriously consider the hypothesis that can explain many observations.
In any case, pollen allergy by mosquito bite is a consequence of the Richet allergy hypothesis, not something it hinges on ...

You never mentioned that you or your family members had an episode of anaphylakis, after flu vaccine shots, which is the only absolute medical contraindication to receiving flu shots.

Case closed.

lilady #707,

I have already answered your questions in #193.

"is not getting the seasonal influenza shots:"
Where did I claim that I am not getting the shots?
I did the research to select the right flu vaccines and get the shots. Why else would I research them? I got the shots and posted my research for anyone else who may find it useful.
At least one doctor thanked me because they found my research useful and did not have the time to do it themselves.

There are too many loose ends with the FDA/CDC/ACIP to blindly trust their recommendations.

What’s funny?

What part of the idiom are you unfamiliar with?

I mean, sure, you're long past actually having amusement value, but it's not as though my abstractly musing about what specific exchange mechanisms might be in play in your possibly impromptu attempt at a magic trick in which you appear to simultaneously construct a Blondie sandwich without waste while running around with goalposts would have much helped on your end. ■

If you don’t have a better counter hypothesis, you have to seriously consider the hypothesis that can explain many observations.

You seem to have skipped over the part in which it is shown that mosquitoes feed on pollen.

Enough horseshіt, already: State and apply the definition of conditional probability.

Krebiozen,

Why manufacture cold adapted live attenuated influenza virus (LAIV) vaccines? Why not inhale the inactivated influenza vaccine if the respiratory exposure route works?
It avoids the LAIV risks of live virus, shedding, immunocompromised household members, asthma contraindication, etc.

Engineer, you did not answer my question at # 193

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/05/no-the-cdc-did-not-just-ap…

The doctor who "complimented" you must not be too experienced, if you provided the absolute drivel that you've puked up here.

You have not provided any of your information that runs counter to the information provided by the FDA/CDC/ACIP.

Give it up now, engineer. You're out of your league.

Why manufacture cold adapted live attenuated influenza virus (LAIV) vaccines? Why not inhale the inactivated influenza vaccine if the respiratory exposure route works?

Oh, wow, I seem to have spoken to soon regarding the exhaustion of comedy.

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Define "works."

^ "too"; this monument has become so browser-unwieldy for me that there's time to notice and then forget while waiting for the cursor to move, wherever that may prove to be.

APV #730:

Pollen grains are estimated to weigh about 500 ng.
From Well’s experiments, 50 ng is enough to sensitize. So even a single grain may be enough to sensitize.

You forgot to mention that the sensitisation was with purified egg protein, and in guinea pigs.

If you claim that it is not possible to have even a single pollen grain contaminating a proboscis, then Carl Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” applies.

I never claimed that it was impossible, merely vanishingly unlikely. As for "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", you're the one claiming the that pollen gets into female mosquito proboscides, doesn't get cleaned out, gets injected into a human when she bites, and from there provokes sensitisation. You, therefore, are the one who has to provide extraordinary evidence. I do not have to prove a negative.

Hey guys. Take it easy on the engineers eh? Some of us DO know when we are at risk of the DK effect. Although it requires close monitoring :D. Happy Holidays, I believe you say over there.

@APV

I already covered (4). While I agree with (1,2,3), the bottom line is there is no survival advantage for individuals who develop GI-mediated life-threatening food allergies. (1,2,3) may delay the extinction. Matter of “when” not “if”.

It doesn't really matter if there is a survival advantage or not. If there is no survival disadvantage, then it will not be selected against and eliminated. We are full of all kinds of things that offer neither an advantage nor disadvantage for survival. Those things get passed along from generation to generation simply because they do not kill us off in sufficient numbers before the age of procreation.

@APV

Todd.W
“Vaccine makers have no liability

Bzzt! Wrong. Let’s see if you can figure out why your statement is incorrect.”
It is correct because Congress made a law creating a vaccine injury compensation system (to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits) thus ensuring that pharmaceutical companies remain in the vaccine making business.

I see you haven't figured out why your comment is incorrect. Keep trying. Do some more research.

APV,
Hasn't any of what people have pointed out to you here sunk in at all? It is overwhelmingly likely that food allergies are an unfortunate result of a combination of genetic susceptibility and exposure to allergenic proteins on food. Your hypothesis that vaccines cause food allergies is not supported by the evidence.

I was saying, insect bites being intradermal (ID), you should be looking at inhaled vs. ID instead of inhaled vs. IM.

I still don't see your point. The vast majority of allergies are to substances that are inhaled, ingested or applied to the skin, strongly suggesting that these are also the routes of sensitization. It's you that is trying, increasingly desperately and unsuccessfully, to find evidence that they are caused by IM injection.

We have known for a hundred years that injected proteins can cause sensitization.

Some proteins are much more allergenic than others (see the immunology text book I linked to). I know that some people are allergic to ingested casein, but allergy to injected casein is very rare, and DTaP vaccines appear to contain too little casein to sensitize (less than 20 ng/ml).

As I wrote, some proteins only become allergenic after ingestion, probably because proteolysis exposes epitopes (PMID: 12097392).

“I doubt there is much desiccated soluble food protein in the moist air of a restaurant kitchen.”
“we know allergies are mostly caused when proteins are presented to either GI or respiratory mucosa.”
Seems contradictory. Are you saying the respiratory route is a major contributor to food allergies or not?

How is that contradictory? The text book I linked suggested that desiccated proteins are most likely to induce respiratory allergy, and Darwy reminded us of allergy to flour in bakers. I seriously doubt that allergies to eggs, strawberries or peanuts are induced through inhalation.

Well, FDA said it does not exist. They did not say it is a confidential document that cannot be made public.
Sanofi Pasteur also said it does not exist.

The FDA specifically told you that it "reviews vaccine composition in its entirety to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine”. Do you have any reason to disbelieve them?

Vaccine makers have no liability especially when there is no specification that can be used to demonstrate a violation. So unless their vaccines kill immediately, they are home-free.

That's a commonly held myth.

“This potentially deadly disease affects 1 in every 13 children (under 18 years of age) in the U.S. That’s roughly two in every classroom.”

My figures came from scientific studies, your figure comes from an allergy pressure group that is highly motivated to inflate the figures. We know that the majority of people who think they or their children have food allergies are found to be incorrect when blinded food challenges are used. The point is that you are blaming vaccines for this for no good reason.

Your reference quote says nothing about preferential triggering in GI mucosa over IM.

What part of, "this defense system is distributed [...] mainly [...] under the skin, under the epithelial surfaces of the airways [...] and in the submucosa of the gut" didn't you understand?

In normal healthy individuals, GI mucosa food sensitization cannot happen due to evolution. Such individuals would have been eliminated by natural selection.

Yet another ridiculous and ignorant statement. If that were true we wouldn't see any serious genetic defects, because these individuals would have been eliminated by natural selection. Doesn't your own family history of allergies show you that susceptibility to allergies is genetic?

You will of course have a few individuals who may have developed a genetic defect that causes GI mucosa sensitization, but that is the ongoing evolutionary process.

So food allergy doesn't occur naturally except when it does? If evolution will take care of it, how is it that you have managed to produce children, who will probably pass their propensity for allergy on to their children?

It seems very likely that allergies are due to our defenses against parasites mistaking a harmless protein for a parasitic protein. Nothing is perfect, certainly not something as complex as our immunological defenses.

I don’t think babies in the third world are born with worms in their gut, that help alter immune response.

No, the idea is they are exposed to more pathogens as soon as they are born, and that exposure may affect the subsequent development of their immune systems.

Given all the allergens in breast milk per Narad’s references, third world kids should all be developing food allergies just like their Western counterparts, by GI exposure? So the GI mucosa explanation does not seem to work so well to explain observations.

There is some evidence that prevalence of food allergies in the developing world is similar to that in the developed world, albeit to different foods, but there is less awareness. Here are some examples from this paper:

Hill et al. found similar allergy prevalence rates in young children in Australia and several countries in Asia (Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Thailand). The major difference was that culprit allergenic foods for Asia were different. [...]
Food was the fourth trigger of allergic reaction in a study conducted in Mashhad in Northeast Iran. Prevalence of all allergic disorders in the city was 27.5% (data includes all allergic disorders and is not restricted to food allergies). In another study, 35.9 % of asthmatic children in Semnan (Iran) showed sensitization to at least one of the principal allergenic foods (wheat, rice, peanut, egg, soya and cow’s milk). [...]
Approximately 10% of 14,000 patients of all ages referred to the only specialist allergy clinic in Harare, Zimbabwe, in the 5-year period from September 1997 to September 2002, were reportedly diagnosed with food allergies. Westritschnig et al. conducted a study of 50 allergic patients in Zimbabwe for the presence of IgE antibodies to 20 food allergen extracts. Apple (24%), tomato (24%), soy (22%), crab (22%) and peanut (20%) were the most frequently detected food allergens.

If you read that paper you will see that the allergies people have seem to relate to the foods they eat rather than to the vaccines they get. Odd that, isn't it?

Anaphylaxis is a horrible defense tactic! So no, we have not evolved a defense against injected egg proteins at all.

Allergies and anaphylaxis are mistakes by the part of the immune system that has evolved to deal with parasites, they have not evolved to serve any purpose. We don't need a defense against injected egg proteins because they are harmless. There are proteases in the blood that harmlessly break them down to amino acids.

How would we evolve a specific defense if we have not been exposed to it by being injected regularly?

Through being exposed to it regularly via inhalation, ingestion or skin contact, obviously, but we don't require a defense against food proteins.

We have evolved moderated defense (no anaphylaxis) against commonly injected proteins like mosquito saliva, pollen, perhaps mold spores etc.

Why do we need a defense against mosquito saliva and pollen, neither of which are pathogens? Mold spores are potentially pathogenic, but how are they injected? Allergy to mold is not uncommon, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis for example, as is mosquito bite allergy.

We have a general protein defense for injected viruses/bacteria etc. There is no way for the body to know if casein, gelatin or ovalbumin are parts of a novel virus or not.

If the immune system mistook casein, gelatin or ovalbumin for a virus it would produce IgG, not IgE. Anyway, we have learned a lot since Richet and Wells did their experiments. It seems to be proteins that are similar to parasitic proteins that generate allergies, and there are specific bits of proteins that are associated with pathogens and that generate a particularly strong immune response.

So it looks like injected virus/bacteria and food proteins are all treated the same.

This isn't true. From the text book I have linked to:

Much human allergy is caused by a limited number of inhaled small-protein allergens that reproducibly elicit IgE production in susceptible individuals. We inhale many different proteins that do not induce IgE production; this raises the question of what is unusual about the proteins that are common allergens. Although we do not yet have a complete answer, some general principles have emerged. Most allergens are relatively small, highly soluble proteins that are carried on desiccated particles such as pollen grains or mite feces. On contact with the mucosa of the airways, for example, the soluble allergen elutes from the particle and diffuses into the mucosa. [...]
It seems likely that presenting an antigen transmucosally and at very low doses is a particularly efficient way of inducing TH2-driven IgE responses.

Contrary to your claims, it seems that inhalation and ingestion are more efficient at sensitizing than injection.

My point was, inhalant exposure is not efficient enough to explain food allergies in the general public.

Inhalant exposure explains allergy to inhaled allergies and food ingestion and glitches in the IgE system adequately explain food allergies. I don't see the problem with the conventional understanding of this.

While I agree with (1,2,3), the bottom line is there is no survival advantage for individuals who develop GI-mediated life-threatening food allergies. (1,2,3) may delay the extinction. Matter of “when” not “if”.

You fundamentally misunderstand evolution as well as immunology. The existence of a trait doesn't necessarily mean it has survival advantages, it may be a vestige of something that had survival advantages for a distant ancestor. It may have survival advantages in some circumstances, like IgE when dealing with a parasitic infection, but not others, such as IgE when an allergy develops. G6PD deficiency kills thousands every year yet it protects against malaria. There are many examples of traits that do not have any plausible survival advantages.

I don't recall if anyone posted this link for APV, yet, but here is a study that looked specifically at allergies and non-specific infections between never-vaccinated and vaccinated individuals: Vaccination Status and Health in Children
and Adolescents.

There’s apparently not much interest in the medical community to perform such studies. With most researchers depending on government grants, it could be career suicide.

Much as it may shock you, you cannot use your speculation as to why certain facts are not supported by the scientific literature in place of references to the scientific literature.

Todd W.,

I don’t recall if anyone posted this link for APV, yet, but here is a study that looked specifically at allergies and non-specific infections between never-vaccinated and vaccinated individuals:

Amusingly, that's one of the studies APV cites as evidence that vaccines cause allergies, because none of the 1 to 10-year-old unvaccinated children had asthma.

Anyone with the slightest scientific literacy would immediately note that there were no associations that were even close to being statistically significant, with the lowest p being 0.1655, and that for a negative association between vaccination and asthma in 11 to 17-year-olds. Also, there were only 44 unvaccinated children in the 1-5 year-old group and only 20 unvaccinated children in the 6-10-year-old group, so if vaccination has no effect on allergies we would expect to find 0.8 (1.8% of 44) and 0.9 (4.6% of 44) asthmatic unvaccinated children in these groups respectively; we find zero in both groups, not surprisingly.

In other words these results are precisely what we would expect if vaccines had no effect on allergies.

It's just one of several indicators that APV doesn't understand the science that s/he cites.

Dammit, that should read 0.9 (4.6% of 20).

@Krebiozen

Ah, thanks. The thread got so long I forgot.

I believe I've run into a commenter like APV before. (S)he was so afraid of facts that (s)he had dispensed with the standard tin-foil hat and replaced it with a sheet of foil taped over the screen. It was lifted just long enough to glimpse a word or two from a response then another long, pointless, fact-free, link-filled rant could be composed without the dangerous electrons from the internet entering the room. The ball is now in APV's court to prove this hypothesis wrong.

APV wrote (I'm avoiding the blockquote minefield):

"There’s apparently not much interest in the medical community to perform such studies. With most researchers depending on government grants, it could be career suicide."

A couple of points. First, thank you for agreeing that you don't know of any good-quality studies that support your hypothesis that vaccinations are correlated with what you claim is an "epidemic" of allergies among the vaccinated ONLY. It follows, of course, that you have not formed an opinion on that particular hypothesis, because as an engineer, you're interested in solid factual backing for such a proposition.

Oddly, you go on to state that researchers could be committing career suicide by performing such studies. That's a peculiar claim, because it makes it sound like you already know what the results of such studies would be -- but that's impossible, because you state that are unaware of any such prior studies of good quality.

The important point, though, is that you are on record that you are aware of no scientific support for the existence of a correlation between vaccination status and the development of allergies in general.

So, to conclude, you are putting forth a hypothesis, but you are not making a claim that the hypothesis has been demonstrated to be true to the satisfaction of, say, an engineer or scientist, or even that the correlation that the hypothesis predicts exists. But you'd be interested in studies that looked into the question.

OccamsLaser #750,

Put yourself in the shoes of a researcher. If you perform an unvaccinated vs. vaccinated study, the results could go either way. If it shows problems with the vaccinated, it could be career suicide. So why take the chance?
I wrote "could be career suicide" not "will be career suicide".
I can't cite studies if the people who are supposed to be performing the appropriate studies refuse to do it. Numerous times during this discussion, I have been asking for studies showing the safety of ingredients used in vaccines and specifications derived from such studies. I have seen none posted.
So you have to accept that the FDA is driving blind.
Even automobile fuels have a specification. We inject these vaccines into our babies and there is no specification for it?
Why is any scientist or engineer accepting this absurdity?

It is not *my* hypothesis. It is Charles Richet's Nobel Prize winning finding that has been demonstrated to be true over and over again. We ignore it at our peril.

I can’t cite studies if the people who are supposed to be performing the appropriate studies refuse to do it.

What proof do you have -- other than your own preconceieved notion -- that the people who are supposed to be performing these studies refuse to do it?

Agh...take out that extra "e."

APV wrote @751:

"Put yourself in the shoes of a researcher. If you perform an unvaccinated vs. vaccinated study, the results could go either way. If it shows problems with the vaccinated, it could be career suicide. So why take the chance?"

That's interesting. You are making the claim that no studies have ever been undertaken that *might* find that some medication or therapy has some negative effects.

I assume that were you in the position to undertake such a study, you would refuse to perform it, because you wouldn't have the integrity to perform a study that you think might result in the reduction of funds for future studies you would want to perform. I'm sorry to hear that you have such a low opinion of your own character, but I appreciate the admission.

Fortunately, there are many researchers who are not nearly so cowardly, and who are willing to look into topics regardless of the implications of one of the possible outcomes.

I do appreciate that, again, you have confirmed that you have not taken a considered position on the question of whether there is a correlation between vaccination status and allergies, because you admit you do not have the information to draw any such conclusion. I appreciate that you are an engineer and have resisted giving in to any petty biases you may have.

So, again, you are interested in exploring the hypothesis, but you don't have a conviction one way or another, because you haven't seen any reliable evidence that this extraordinary difference in allergy rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people exists, and you're an engineer and won't settle for anecdotes and speculation. That's good.

Antaeus Feldspar, #745,

"Much as it may shock you, you cannot use your speculation as to why certain facts are not supported by the scientific literature in place of references to the scientific literature."

Scientific literature may be the best source of information we have but it has its problems. I forget the source but there was an article in a journal lamenting that nobody wanted to replicate findings - a key part of the scientific process.

Here's an example of absurd "science" you can find in Nature magazine ( a prestigious source?). It has not been retracted.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v333/n6176/abs/333816a0.html
Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE
Dilution:1 in 1e120 parts! There are not enough atoms in the universe to achieve that dilution. But it did not stop them from publishing it! Another case of eminence vs. evidence ?

So, if it does not exist in the scientific literature does not mean it does not exist in reality. It just may not have been fashionable enough to fund a study.

shay #752,

Where are studies? It is the FDA's job to perform studies regarding the safety of every component that goes into a vaccine to come up with a specification. They have not done it. That's the proof.

Krebiozen #746,

The unavoidable problem with that study is the number of unvaccinated kids available for study.

The avoidable problem is this variable called vaccination.
Vaccination is a huge variable. Vaccines are made my multiple vendors, with various different formulations that vary over time. With such a complete lack of control over variables, such studies are useless. If the authors can use this study to claim vaccines do not cause allergies/asthma, then it is also justifiable to point out that 0 asthma cases were reported in a group of unvaccinated children.

Todd W #741,

"If there is no survival disadvantage, then it will not be selected against and eliminated."
Life-threatening food allergy is definitely a disadvantage to survival.

Scientific literature may be the best source of information we have but it has its problems.

Such as its overwhelmingly pointing out that you're full of shіt? "Literature" sometime make yum-yum, sometime Need Different Brand?

Christ, my youngest cat was able to concretize these terms much more succinctly.

Life-threatening food allergy is definitely a disadvantage to survival.

Of what?

Krebiozen at #746:

Amusingly, that’s one of the studies APV cites as evidence that vaccines cause allergies, because none of the 1 to 10-year-old unvaccinated children had asthma.

Also see comment #222 where APV dismisses the same study as irrelevant (because it did not look at the right expressions of allergy).

Krebiozen #743,

" If that were true we wouldn’t see any serious genetic defects, because these individuals would have been eliminated by natural selection. "
Do you see 1 in 13 kids walking around with 3 legs? Those kind of serious genetic defects have indeed been eliminated by natural selection.

"So food allergy doesn’t occur naturally except when it does?"
How do you explain 1 in 13 kids developing identical genetic defects over a couple of generations?

If GI mucosa sensitization is the route, why is the cause of food allergy still officially classified as unknown? We should have solved it by now by eliminating allergens from the diet for the appropriate periods?

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/foodallergy/clinical/documents/faguidel…

"Guideline 39 suggests that parents and caregivers should consider using
hydrolyzed infant formulas instead of cow’s milk formula to prevent food
allergy from developing in children at risk for food allergy and who are not
exclusively breast-fed. "
Trying to avoid intact allergen absorption/sensitization for the first few days ?

"Guideline 36 recommends that a mother not restrict her diet during
pregnancy or when breastfeeding as a way to prevent food allergy from
developing in her child."
Given Narad's breast milk allergen references, NIH does not think GI mucosa is the sensitization route ...

And the FTC has not heard of NIH guideline 39 ... and is suing Gerber for claiming that hydrolyzed formula
can prevent allergy.
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/10/ftc-charges-gerbe…

So who are you going to trust - NIH/FTC/FDA/CDC/ACIP?

They tried avoiding allergens in the diet. Now they say allergens are needed to induce tolerance ...
The food allergy problem continues unchanged.
This is the state of affairs after 40 years of researching the problem?
May be they are barking up the wrong tree?

These authors not only accept that vaccines induce allergy, they were trying to find a solution ... in 1997.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/allergolint/46/4/46_4_249/_pdf

"Many cases are diagnosed as immediate-type
allergic reactions and it is well established that the IgE
antibody induced against the vaccine antigen or vaccine
components is responsible for the reactions. Adjuvants
are commonly used in vaccine preparations to elicit an
immune response because most vaccine antigens,
particularly purified, subunit and synthetic antigens,
possess weak immunogenicity by themselves. Aluminum
(alum) adjuvants, the most commonly used adjuvants in
modern vaccine preparations, are well known to induce
IgE synthesis."

"We don’t need a defense against injected egg proteins because they are harmless. There are proteases in the blood that harmlessly break them down to amino acids."

No, you know that injected egg protein is harmless. The body does not.
(1) If a mammal did not generate IgE/IgG to viral/bacterial injection, it is more likely to become extinct.
(2) If a mammal overreacted (anaphylaxis) to harmless mosquito saliva, it is likely to become extinct.
So they have evolved appropriate responses for these proteins.
Now we have introduced a new class of injected proteins for which there is no evolved response.
Some of our immune systems can mistake this new class of proteins as harmful viruses ( develop sensitization)
Some of our immune systems can mistake this new class of proteins as harmless mosquito saliva ( no sensitization).

IgE induced bacterial proteins:
Nagel J, Svec D, Waters T, Fireman Pl. IgE synthesis in man.
Development of specific IgE antibodies after immunization
with tetanus-diphtheria (Td) toxoids. J. Immunol. 1977;

As far as I understand, injecting proteins can cause both IgE and IgG synthesis, depending on the quantity of protein.
The Japanese flu/egg study looked for ovalbumin IgG but did not find it and concluded the quantity of ovalbumin was not sufficient for IgG formation.

From a high level, it seems like a simple model that Richet discovered.
Injecting virus/bacteria caused prophylaxis. So he tried sea anemone toxin injection into dogs to see if he can achieve prophylaxis. He discovered anaphylaxis.

Viral/bacterial proteins are injected. Sensitization occurs. Body is exposed to *small* quantities of virus/bacteria. Prophylaxis results.
Food proteins are injected. Sensitization occurs. Body is exposed to *large* quantities of food (when compared to virus/bacteria). Anaphylaxis results.

If one is exposed to large (food-like) quantities of virus/bacteria after a vaccination with the same, I suspect anaphylaxis will result.

"The FDA specifically told you that it “reviews vaccine composition in its entirety to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine”. Do you have any reason to disbelieve them?"
They have failed to ensure safety. Gelatin in flu vaccine is causing anaphylaxis. Milk in DTaP in causing anaphylaxis.
It is impossible to ensure safety if you don't control what goes into vaccines. The FDA just admitted that it does not control what goes into vaccines.

APV,

Put yourself in the shoes of a researcher. If you perform an unvaccinated vs. vaccinated study, the results could go either way. If it shows problems with the vaccinated, it could be career suicide. So why take the chance?

Why would it be career suicide? If you are thinking of Andrew Wakefield, his career was doing just fine, despite his paper that linked MMR to autism, which was published in The Lancet, a highly reputable journal. It was only when it turned out his research was fraudulent that his career went down the pan.

I'm also reminded of Dr. John Wilson, whose 1973 paper suggested a link between the whole cell pertussis vaccine and neurological complications. This paper, and especially a TV appearance by Wilson, had serious consequences (from a fascinating article by Brian Deer):

Before the broadcast, 80% of British children were inoculated against whooping cough. By 1978, after newspaper campaigns, the number had slumped to 31%. Cases of whooping cough soared. In 1974 there were about 12,000 notifications. In 1978 there were nearly 67,000. And in an epidemic towards the end of the decade, 36 infants died and at least 17 were left brain damaged by spasms of choking and retching.

Initial investigations appeared to confirm the link but later investigations found that the paper was fatally flawed. Two of the 36 subjects were found to have never received the pertussis. A court case led to a re-examination of cases that had been used, by Professor David Miller, to establish a risk of of neurological complications of 1 in 310,000:

Of the seven children, who the professor had said suffered permanent brain damage, one had Reye's syndrome, which is not caused by vaccination. Three were afflicted by viruses. And the remaining three cases were not brain damaged at all: records showed that the children were normal.

Based on these cases, the vaccine's assumed risk of 1-in-310,000, published in the blue book, collapsed to approximately nil.

The careers of the doctors making these claims of vaccine damage do not appear to have suffered as a result, though perhaps they should have, given the shoddy work they did and the damage that resulted.

30% of a species is eaten by flying carnivorous bunnies before it reaches breeding age.
A mutation happens.
This mutation makes 90% of the population invisible to FCBs, but makes 5% of the population spontaneously combust before reaching breeding age.
As long as FCBs exist, this is a highly beneficial mutation that is likely to be selected for and persist in the population. If may be hard on the individuals that burn up, but good for the population.
If FCBs were eliminated, the mutation would become a liability for the population and would likely eventually be selected out of the population, were it not for the fact someone had already invented the ExtinguiPen to quell the conflagrations.

APV,
Apologies to those hopelessly bored by this circular discussion, but I'm fascinated by your tenacious grip on your hypothesis, despite the lack of evidence to support it, and the copious evidence that contradicts it.

It is not *my* hypothesis. It is Charles Richet’s Nobel Prize winning finding that has been demonstrated to be true over and over again. We ignore it at our peril.

I'm having trouble finding Richet's work that showed allergies to ingested food being produced by injection, much less by vaccines. Anyway, we have established that the amount of protein in vaccines is not sufficient to sensitize, though you continue to simply ignore this, merely because it doesn't fit your beliefs, apparently.

Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE
Dilution:1 in 1e120 parts! There are not enough atoms in the universe to achieve that dilution. But it did not stop them from publishing it! Another case of eminence vs. evidence ?

While I'm not a fan of Benveniste's work, you can easily achieve such a dilution using serial dilutions without requiring every atom in the universe. Homeopaths would be in big trouble otherwise.

How does the publication of a paper describing something implausible support your claim that the utter lack of evidence to support your claims is because no one dares to do the necessary research? If Benveniste can get published by Nature, a brave maverick researcher could get a paper published showing that food allergies are being caused by vaccines, I would think.

It is the FDA’s job to perform studies regarding the safety of every component that goes into a vaccine to come up with a specification. They have not done it.

It's not their job to do the studies, it's the manufacturer's, I believe.

The FDA told you, "The FDA reviews vaccine composition in its entirety to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine”, so instead of blindly following a series of specifications they look at each vaccine in its entirety to ensure it is safe. I find that reassuring, personally.

The unavoidable problem with that study is the number of unvaccinated kids available for study.

There were 94 completely unvaccinated children in that study, enough to provide the statistical power to detect a 4% increase in allergies due to vaccination. A population of 73 should be large enough to detect it at the 95% confidence level (log(0.05)/log(0.96) = 73).

The avoidable problem is this variable called vaccination. Vaccination is a huge variable.

Of course, it was the variable under study. I don't see your point.

Vaccines are made my multiple vendors, with various different formulations that vary over time. With such a complete lack of control over variables, such studies are useless.

I disagree. I have seen multiple claims from various people that vaccines are the cause of allergies and asthma, and a study like this demonstrates that is very probably not true. Claims about different vaccines and vaccine lots is just special pleading and goal post moving.

If the authors can use this study to claim vaccines do not cause allergies/asthma, then it is also justifiable to point out that 0 asthma cases were reported in a group of unvaccinated children.

No it isn't. You don't appear to understand the concept of statistical significance. If you expect fewer than 1 child in an unvaccinated subgroup to have asthma, and zero children in that subgroup actually have asthma you cannot claim this is evidence that vaccines cause asthma. The results are consistent with there being no effect of vaccination on allergies and asthma; that is a justifiable conclusion.
If you think there were not enough children in the study (though statistically speaking there were), why did you present it as evidence that vaccines cause allergies? Why did you focus on the one subgroup that appears to support your claims and ignore the fact that, for example, almost twice as many unvaccinated 11 to 17-year-olds had allergic rhinoconjunctivitis as compared to vaccinated children of the same age? None of these results are significant, and cherry-picking just the subgroups that appear to support your argument demonstrates that you are not even attempting to make a legitimate argument.

Life-threatening food allergy is definitely a disadvantage to survival.

It depends if the defense against parasitic infection it confers is a greater survival advantage, as doug's analogy demonstrates.

Do you see 1 in 13 kids walking around with 3 legs? Those kind of serious genetic defects have indeed been eliminated by natural selection. [...] How do you explain 1 in 13 kids developing identical genetic defects over a couple of generations?

As I have repeatedly pointed out but you continue to ignore, it is not 1 in 13 kids, it's more like 1% with serious food allergies. There is no evidence that genetic susceptibility to allergy has increased at all, it is more likely that environmental factors, such as dietary changes and fewer infections, are at play, if the number of cases has really increased at all, which is debatable. We are better at identifying allergies than we used to be, and still there are serious problems with cases of anaphylaxis being misdiagnosed, and with other disorders being misdiagnosed as food allergy. As this study points out:

Review of emergency department records found 678 patients presenting with food related symptoms which should have been classified as anaphylaxis. A second study looking at victims of insect stings found 617 patients who met the criteria for anaphylaxis but failed to receive that diagnosis.

We also know that the majority of people who believe they have food allergies are found not to when they are presented with a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge.

Do you really not see that your claim, that food allergies must be caused by vaccines because if it was a natural occurrence evolution would have eliminated it, is unsupportable? There are hundreds or perhaps thousands of serious genetic disorders that have not been eliminated by evolution. In equatorial Africa between 10% and 40% of people carry the sickle cell trait and 2% of children in Nigeria have sickle cell anemia. The case of sickle cell trait protects against malaria while atopy protects against parasitic infection.

@APV

To continue on the evolution front, in addition to what doug and Krebiozen have pointed out (i.e., increased risk of allergy comes along with increased survival vs. some other more dangerous thing), severe allergy may not be selected against in cases where the allergy does not manifest as anaphylaxis until post-reproductive age or where the trait is recessive and only manifests in a certain percentage of the population. In the most simplistic format, if you have two parents that carry the gene and they have 4 kids, you'd see 1 kid with no allergy, 1 kid with anaphylaxis-level food allergies, and 2 kids that carry the genes but may or may not display allergy. Those two kids grow up, have kids, and pass along the gene. Now, the genetics of allergy susceptibility is, I'd wager, far more complex than just one or two genes. In short, there isn't anything selecting against that gene (or genes) since it does not have a significant negative impact on reproduction at the population level.

Where are the studies?

You mean these?
https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

If one is exposed to large (food-like) quantities of virus/bacteria after a vaccination with the same, I suspect anaphylaxis will result.

Perhaps you could be a little more quantitative than "food-like." What order of magnitude in terms of CCID₅₀?

@APV, just as a matter of curiosity, have you ever met a chef? I have a friend who was a chef for years. He has numerous little scars on his left hand where the knife slipped while he was cutting, chopping, or peeling. I'm pretty sure that, no matter how carefully you cleaned up a cut like that, at least 50ng of protein would remain in the wound. Why don't we see careless chefs and careless cooks keeling over every day from anaphylaxis from eating the same foods that they chop, cook, or peel?

Continuing my futile reply to APV,

If GI mucosa sensitization is the route, why is the cause of food allergy still officially classified as unknown?

It isn't unknown. What is unknown is precisely why one person develops a food allergy when exposed to a food when another person doesn't, and why even the same person sometimes responds to a food with anaphylaxis and sometimes does not. Our immune systems are extraordinarily complex, and I'm amazed that they don't go wrong more often.

I had found everything I had studied fairly easy to grasp until I was faced with immunology, which humbled me; all those different pathways, complement cascades and interferon made my head hurt (genetics too, later). That was 25 years ago, and the field has grown enormously more complex since. Trying to find a single simple answer to glitches in a complex system like that is impossible, in my opinion.

We should have solved it by now by eliminating allergens from the diet for the appropriate periods?

The reason we haven't is that there is no good evidence to support doing that. It just isn't that simple. For example, peanut allergy is more common in the UK than in Israel, even though, "peanut is introduced earlier and is eaten more frequently and in larger quantities in Israel than in the UK".

Given Narad’s breast milk allergen references, NIH does not think GI mucosa is the sensitization route …

Or it happens so rarely that advising mothers to avoid potential allergens while breastfeeding would likely do more harm than good. Short of those with a family history of allergy avoiding all potentially allergenic foods, which is clearly impractical and potentially dangerous, what else can we do?

And the FTC has not heard of NIH guideline 39 … and is suing Gerber for claiming that hydrolyzed formula can prevent allergy.
So who are you going to trust – NIH/FTC/FDA/CDC/ACIP?

For an engineer you display a worrying lack of distinction between guidelines and specifications. Do you not see a difference between, "should consider using hydrolyzed infant formulas [...] in children at risk for food allergy", and a concrete claim that a specific product will prevent food allergy?

They tried avoiding allergens in the diet. Now they say allergens are needed to induce tolerance …

It's complex; that doesn't mean we should jump to unjustified conclusions.

The food allergy problem continues unchanged. This is the state of affairs after 40 years of researching the problem? May be they are barking up the wrong tree?

Short of inflicting infectious diseases on young children to prime their immune systems, or banning all potentially allergenic foods, what do you suggest we do? I know you have become fixated on the idea that vaccines cause allergies, but have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?

These authors not only accept that vaccines induce allergy, they were trying to find a solution … in 1997.

They say nothing about allergies causing allergies, only that people with allergies can react to vaccines. Since anaphylactic reactions to vaccines occur after fewer than one in half a million doses, I think vaccine manufacturers have done an excellent job in this regard.

No, you know that injected egg protein is harmless. The body does not.

Why does the body need a defense against a harmless protein? Why would it have evolved such a defense? An immune reaction against anything that isn't a pathogen is a mistake. Our immune systems are generally excellent at recognizing what is a pathogen and what isn't, but sometimes they screw up, with allergies and autoimmune disorders, for example.

(1) If a mammal did not generate IgE/IgG to viral/bacterial injection, it is more likely to become extinct.

Egg protein is not part of a viral/bacterial infection and egg proteins are not similar to the protein coats of bacteria or viruses.

(2) If a mammal overreacted (anaphylaxis) to harmless mosquito saliva, it is likely to become extinct.

Yet, as I have pointed out at #621 and you have ignored, mosquito bite allergy is not uncommon. Clearly IgE confers, on average, greater advantages than disadvantages so mammals have retained it despite its shortcomings.

So they have evolved appropriate responses for these proteins.

This tortuous logic is bizarre. Food allergy cannot be natural because evolution would have wiped it out, so therefore no one can be allergic to mosquito bites, and when I repeatedly tell you this isn't true you have to ignore it.

How about finding a hypothesis that fits the facts, not one that requires you to ignore some evidence and twist other evidence for them to fit?

Now we have introduced a new class of injected proteins for which there is no evolved response.

So food proteins are of a new class that humans have never been exposed to before? Nonsense. How is the protein in mosquito saliva of a 'different class' (whatever that means) to egg protein? We have a generalized immune response to foreign proteins that is also specifically geared towards proteins that are associated with pathogens. Neither egg protein nor mosquito saliva is part of a pathogen.

Some of our immune systems can mistake this new class of proteins as harmful viruses ( develop sensitization)
Some of our immune systems can mistake this new class of proteins as harmless mosquito saliva ( no sensitization).

Allergic sensitization is nothing to do with viruses, it's to do with parasites, and they aren't a new class of proteins, they are proteins that humans and their ancestors have been exposed to for millions of years. When Europeans were exposed to tomatoes and potatoes they didn't all develop food allergies because their ancestors hadn't been exposed to them.

Viral/bacterial proteins are injected. Sensitization occurs. Body is exposed to *small* quantities of virus/bacteria. Prophylaxis results.

I assume that by 'sensitization' you mean adaptive immunity.

Food proteins are injected. Sensitization occurs. Body is exposed to *large* quantities of food (when compared to virus/bacteria). Anaphylaxis results. If one is exposed to large (food-like) quantities of virus/bacteria after a vaccination with the same, I suspect anaphylaxis will result.

You seem to be conflating Th1 IgG and Th2 IgE responses. Why would vaccination cause allergy but natural infection would not? It's a mistake to think we are exposed to less pathogen protein than food protein, as viral infections can result in viremia of more than a million viral particles per ml of blood. That's a lot of protein.

It is impossible to ensure safety if you don’t control what goes into vaccines. The FDA just admitted that it does not control what goes into vaccines.

No they did not, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. They told you that they look at "vaccine composition in its entirety" and make a safety assessment on that basis. Can't you see that "vaccine composition in its entirety" includes all the ingredients of a vaccine?

Why don’t we see careless chefs and careless cooks keeling over every day from anaphylaxis from eating the same foods that they chop, cook, or peel?

Hey, I've been in the ED twice for deep-puncture cat bites (and not promptly in either case). Is there somebody I can complain to about my missing anaphylaxis?

After all,

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.

I’ve been in the ED twice for deep-puncture cat bites

Luxury! My domestic-tiger scars, let me show them!

You seem to be conflating Th1 IgG and Th2 IgE responses.

If only there were a disease that could selectively screw up production of IgG – bear with me here – and, say, pathogenically expressed the same protein that some other disease that is commonly vaccinated against also targeted for cell entry, then in this strange world, maybe it would occur to somebody to actually try to take advantage of the grossly attenuated immune memory and reintroduce massive amounts of a weakened form of that other disease to see if it would go to town on the first one.

I know, this is krraaayzee talk, but that there would be a sure-fire recipe for anaphylaxis.

Right?

LW #769,

May be chefs do have a higher food allergy rate compared to the general population.
Food proteins injected into children are often injected with aluminum as an adjuvant that boosts IgE synthesis.
Not something chefs face.

May be this chef was cutting garlic when she cut her finger ...
http://www.chefreinvented.com/2009/04/warning-rant-just-ahead.html

Luxury! My domestic-tiger scars, let me show them!

Oh, I've got plenty of scars of that type. These incidents were just the real keepers.

Food proteins injected into children are often injected with aluminum as an adjuvant that boosts IgE synthesis.

I take it that you've "forgotten" catastrophically losing the Battle of Polysorbate 80.

Narad #768,

"Perhaps you could be a little more quantitative than “food-like.” What order of magnitude in terms of CCID₅₀?"

Vaccines injected into babies have no spec.
"poorly hydrolyzed gelatin" in vaccines are causing anaphylaxis.
"very trace milk protein" in DPT is causing anaphylaxis.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/25520

And you want me to be little more quantitative in a blog discussion?
How about as much viral protein as the amount of egg protein present in a veggie burger pattie?

Just to add my two cents worth to the horse mince this argument has become:
Water allergy exists. It's very rare, but it has been recorded. Sufferers can drink water (obviously), but if water comes into contact with their skin, they have a full blown allergic reaction.
Another story about contact allergy: my mother likes to make potato bakes. For some time she made them with madumbis, which is a tuber indigenous to Africa. But after a while, she stopped. To prep the madumbis we had to scrub them in a sink. After a few minutes of scrubbing, we would have very itchy hands. Both my mother and I have a contact allergy to something in the skin.
I would like to know how APV thinks madumbi compounds wound up in vaccines.

APV, I'm going to repeat what has been said to you several times already.
Your hypothesis is that compounds in vaccines cause sensitisation, and from there lead to full blown allergies. Nothing you have yet said rises to the standard of proof.

Narad #776,
"I take it that you’ve “forgotten” catastrophically losing the Battle of Polysorbate 80."

That may be your view ... The bottom line is there is no spec. for the purity of Polysorbate 80 (w.r.t allergens) used in vaccines.
I'll be very happy to be corrected.

Julian Frost 778#,

I have written many times that vaccines are A cause of allergy.
I have never claimed that vaccines are the cause for all allergies.
And further, we are mainly talking about Type I hypersensitivity IgE mediated allergies. Water allergy would not fall into that category.

If one is exposed to large (food-like) quantities of virus/bacteria after a vaccination with the same, I suspect anaphylaxis will result.

Perhaps you could be a little more quantitative than “food-like.” What order of magnitude in terms of CCID₅₀?

Vaccines injected into babies have no spec.

This is a non sequitur.

And you want me to be little more quantitative in a blog discussion?
How about as much viral protein as the amount of egg protein present in a veggie burger pattie?

Please explain in detail how you arrived at that calculation. Don't forget to state what "the amount of egg protein present in a veggie burger pattie," why you selected an entire pattie, and the mass of a Standard Veggie Burger.

Or skip the spluttering horseshіt and answer the actual question, whatever.

“I take it that you’ve “forgotten” catastrophically losing the Battle of Polysorbate 80.”

That may be your view … The bottom line is there is no spec. for the purity of Polysorbate 80 (w.r.t allergens) used in vaccines.

No, the "bottom line" is that you don't know what the fυck you're talking about. Remember when you revealed bizarrely assuming that "fatty acid residues" means "food allergens"?

Julian Frost #779,

"Your hypothesis is that compounds in vaccines cause sensitisation, and from there lead to full blown allergies. Nothing you have yet said rises to the standard of proof."

First, it is not my hypothesis. It is Charles Richet's Nobel Prize winning finding. Vaccines causing sensitization and full blown allergies has been proven here:
Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9.
It was pointed out that some people in Japan may have had a predisposition for sensitization.

Similarly, I think many of us agree that there is a predisposition in our kids to synthesize IgE (due to hygiene, c-section, etc.).

I don't think a proof is going to come from an engineer on a blog discussion. My point is, why is no one investigating such solid evidence pointing to vaccines being the cause of food allergies, especially when there is officially no known cause for the food allergy epidemic?

My point is, why is no one investigating such solid evidence pointing to vaccines being the cause of food allergies, especially when there is officially no known cause for the food allergy epidemic?

Perhaps this will help.

BTW, how do vaccines and/or arthropods specifically cause FDEIA?

We know that an amount of tens of billions of nanograms of intravenously administered bovine gelatin is tolerated by many people. We know that intact egg albumin on the order of 100 ng/mL can be found in the serum of infants fed egg white. Clearly not everyone develops acute sensitivity from foreign proteins.

If a food protein in vaccine can cause sensitization in an individual, in the absence of sensitization by vaccine is sensitization of the person through ingestion of the protein evitable? Unless the answer is "always" or "with very rare exception", worrying about the protein in vaccines is something of a fool's errand from that point of view.

@APV:
I think you misunderstand. It's no mystery how people who are genetically predisposed to food allergies can become sensitized to them -- all they have to do is come in contact with the allergen. What is a mystery is why not 100% of all predisposed people end up developing the allergy after exposure, and why some allergies tend to be grown out of, while others get worse with age.

Narad #786,

"BTW, how do vaccines and/or arthropods specifically cause FDEIA?"

I don't know. If my speculation is worth anything ...
Tick bites cause red meat allergy. Red meat allergy is a delayed reaction. As Krebiozen wrote, some allergens may need to be processed before they can elicit a reaction.

Vaccines are a general IgE/IgG sensitization mechanism.
Without knowing what all go into vaccines, it is not possible to list all the problems they can cause.

APV -

Just to be clear: you're not drawing the conclusion that food proteins in vaccines contribute to the food allergy epidemic, just that you'd like that hypothesis thoroughly investigated, because as an engineer, you know there has not been enough solid evidence collected to prove that hypothesis to your satisfaction.

Right?

@APV - first, Merry Christmas. I wished it to regular commenters on another thread. I am glad that you are so attached to your theory - at least I get to watch Krebiozen do his patient best to explain a very complicated topic to you.

I am admitting right now - I do not know what type of genetic inheritance pattern there is in allergies. I know that my father had more than thirty that had some level of reaction in testing, and that I and my son both deal with allergies. I know it doesn't surprise me.

I do know a little, though, about another hereditary disorder in my family that seemed very uncommon when my father was diagnosed: dominant hereditary spinicerebellar ataxia (type 1 in this case). My father's father, the suspected carrier, died in his 50s with no obvious symptoms. My father and his sister both had it. Two of the offspring from the next generation have been tested. One was negative, the other positive. The other three haven't been tested yet.

When you start looking, though, you can find internet support groups, etc., that, with the incidence already so frequent in your own family, seem to make it look like the disease is absolutely exploding to epidemic proportions. Some speculate that our environment has caused this. Since this specific illness includes "anticipation" in most generations at onset, it is just as likely that this genetic anomaly has been building across generations until it was finally bad enough to do some damage.

You have to be careful when approaching topics like medicine, because it is so easy to have your own biases color how you approach the topic. It gets even worse when there are alternative practitioners out there using kinesiology and pulse tests to test for allergy, sometimes without even actually exposing a patient to the allergen directly.

Regulars here who have a much greater understanding of immunity have been doing their best to get you to look beyond the theory you have built that is colored by your own experience so you can see places where your assertions are implausible.

In things like adjuvants and other things in the vaccine, some have been tested for tolerance and clearance by the human body, and there is an agreed upon tolerated dose. The dose makes the poison.

Grateful for all the good stuff I have been reading. Now I want to find textbooks on the immune system!

justthestats #788,

"It’s no mystery how people who are genetically predisposed to food allergies can become sensitized to them."

A normal healthy person can say, eat eggs without being sensitized. Same person can be sensitized if the egg protein is injected. The key point is, the digestive tract is designed to handle eggs without getting sensitized. The body is not designed to handle egg (or any food) protein being injected into it.

" all they have to do is come in contact with the allergen."
"Coming in contact with allergen" is too broad. Sensitization requires allergens to come into contact with specific locations in the body where sensitization can occur.

"What is a mystery is why not 100% of all predisposed people end up developing the allergy after exposure,"
Predisposition is not black and white. Allergen quantity in vaccines also vary. It might also depend on if you drank cocoa before your vaccine ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342543

" and why some allergies tend to be grown out of, while others get worse with age."
Whether you grow out or not is a complex question. But if you keep getting vaccines, which act as allergy booster shots, I don't see how that can help ...

“BTW, how do vaccines and/or arthropods specifically cause FDEIA?”

I don’t know.

But they must, right?

If my speculation is worth anything …

By all means, let's see.

Tick bites cause red meat allergy.

And only tick bites?

Red meat allergy is a delayed reaction.

Irrespective of ticks, correct? If not, why?

As Krebiozen wrote, some allergens may need to be processed before they can elicit a reaction.

Wouldn't exercise-induced anaphylaxis, much less EIA modulo food, have been Darwinned right the fυck out from the get-go?

Vaccines are a general IgE/IgG sensitization mechanism.

I take it that you completely failed to understand this.

Without knowing what all go into vaccines, it is not possible to list all the problems they can cause.

Is there any particular clutch of your greatest banana-peel performances that you're attempting to gather together for this K-Tel moment?

OccamsLaser #790,

"Just to be clear: you’re not drawing the conclusion that food proteins in vaccines contribute to the food allergy epidemic, just that you’d like that hypothesis thoroughly investigated, because as an engineer, you know there has not been enough solid evidence collected to prove that hypothesis to your satisfaction."

I am convinced that food proteins in vaccines contribute to the food allergy epidemic. But that means we have to fix the vaccines. As we have seen on this discussion, not everyone is convinced. So, I would like the medical establishment to perform whatever investigation is needed to convince themselves. Right now, this angle is not being investigated at all.

Researchers have already called for the removal of gelatin and casein. The FDA has done nothing.
The FDA should:
Remove food proteins from vaccines.
OR
If it is not convinced, perform the investigations needed to make the decision.
The FDA is doing nothing. That's the problem.

The key point is, the digestive tract is designed to handle eggs without getting sensitized. The body is not designed to handle egg (or any food) protein being injected into it.

Please clarify the boundary between "the digestive tract" and "the body."

Oh, and...

The body is not designed to handle egg (or any food) protein being injected into it.

You left out the mosquitoes.

One point of clarification, APV:

Of those contained in your 160 comments on this thread, is there any explicit assertion that you concede to have been falsified per se?

Sensitization requires allergens to come into contact with specific locations in the body where sensitization can occur.

Where, exactly, are these "locations"?

I am convinced that food proteins in vaccines contribute to the food allergy epidemic. But that means we have to fix the vaccines.

Did you ever get around to stating what kind of engineer you are?

doug #787,

"We know that an amount of tens of billions of nanograms of intravenously administered bovine gelatin is tolerated by many people."
Must be hydrolyzed gelatin. There is still risk of sensitization. There is a warning about anaphylaxis if allergic to gelatin.

"We know that intact egg albumin on the order of 100 ng/mL can be found in the serum of infants fed egg white."
Reference please.

Narad #797,

Yes, I asserted that human breast milk is free of allergen based on the understanding that intact proteins are not absorbed into the blood. You proved me wrong. I have now learned that there is another transport mechanism from gut to breast milk.
Thank you for the education.

Narad, #799,

If it matters ... electronics.

Narad #771,

APV wrote:
"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."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-l…
"We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction, the organism suffers and becomes resistant."

Mrs Woo #791,
Thanks for the wishes ...

"In things like adjuvants and other things in the vaccine, some have been tested for tolerance and clearance by the human body, and there is an agreed upon tolerated dose. The dose makes the poison."

Why only some have been tested? Since the dose makes the poison, every vaccine component must have a safe dose specified/tested/enforced. Do you agree?
Why is the FDA refusing to do this?
As I wrote in #656, vaccine trials are shoddy and cannot ensure safety.

Narad

Did you ever get around to stating what kind of engineer you are?

Dunning-Kruger Engineer?

Yes, I asserted that human breast milk is free of allergen based on the understanding that intact proteins are not absorbed into the blood. You proved me wrong. I have now learned that there is another transport mechanism from gut to breast milk.

It is thoroughly unclear to me how there can be "another" when the original assertion was that there aren't any.

Why is the FDA refusing to do this?

Could you cite a specific refusal to cater to your specific whims?

"May be chefs do have a higher food allergy rate compared to the general population."

Yet another ad hoc hypothesis added to the already teetering pile. Yet another ad hoc hypothesis for which absolutely no evidence has been presented.

Speaking of evolution, in the good old days before vaccines -- and supermarkets, and bandaids, and eating utensils -- it must have been common for our ancestors to handle food with scratched-up hands; to butcher a kill and cut themselves in the process; to get stuck by thorns while picking berries: there would be all kinds of ways to introduce foreign proteins under the skin a lot more effectively than hypothetical pollen grains introduced by mosquitos. So we've adapted to that by APV's reasoning.

APV:

First, it is not my hypothesis. It is Charles Richet’s Nobel Prize winning finding.

To repeat Krebiozen @765:

I’m having trouble finding Richet’s work that showed allergies to ingested food being produced by injection, much less by vaccines.

And as for:

Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy

You have posted this before and it was pointed out that it didn't prove that the vaccines caused sensitisation. It was far more likely that the individuals had an existing allergy that was discovered when they were injected. Once again, this doesn't rise to the standard of proof.

[W]hy is no one investigating such solid evidence pointing to vaccines being the cause of food allergies, especially when there is officially no known cause for the food allergy epidemic?

"Solid Evidence" and "Food Allergy Epidemic".
You keep saying those phrases. Somehow I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Food proteins injected into children are often injected with aluminum as an adjuvant that boosts IgE synthesis. Not something chefs face. May be this chef was cutting garlic when she cut her finger …

Or maybe she ate some.

Aluminum is the 3rd most abundant element in the earth's crust, so everything we eat and drink contains aluminum. Dry garlic contains about 14 mg aluminum per kilo, with vaccines containing less than 0.5 mg per dose. Maybe that's enough aluminum to act as an adjuvant in some people. Or maybe there was some soil in the garlic - soil can comprise up to 10% aluminum, so any injury that has any soil in it will be aluminum adjuvanted.

Richet wrote:

“We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction, the organism suffers and becomes resistant.”

That's blood and plasma transfusions out of the question then, as well as factor VIII and TPN. Richet, who was a believer in Spiritualism, by the way, did his work a century ago, and we have learned an enormous amount since then. A more contemporary source might be more convincing.

"A normal healthy person can say, eat eggs without being sensitized. Same person can be sensitized if the egg protein is injected. The key point is, the digestive tract is designed to handle eggs without getting sensitized. The body is not designed to handle egg (or any food) protein being injected into it."

And yet I, as a normal, healthy individual, developed an allergy to mushrooms when I was 19. I'd been eating them all my life up until that point.

I can guarantee you I wasn't injected with any mushroom proteins.

"Is there any particular clutch of your greatest banana-peel performances that you’re attempting to gather together for this K-Tel moment?"

Ahhh, Narad, the gift that keeps on giving! :D

May you and the rest of the SBM-literate commenters have a wonderful holiday of whatever denomination you choose!

Scotty Nuke #813

Until you mentioned it, I had blissfully missed Narad's K-Tel reference.

Now that I have Billy don't be a Hero (Bo Donaldson and the Haywoods if any one cares) and the Patty Stacker commercial stuck in my head simultaneously, I am definitely not having a wonderful holiday.

Richet:

We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices.

Gardner, 1988:

There is now no reasonable doubt that small quantities of intact proteins do cross the gastrointestinal tract in animals and adult humans, and that this is a physiologically normal process required for antigen sampling by subepithelial immune tissue in the gut.

Yet another ad hoc hypothesis added to the already teetering pile.

An Epicycle is not an epinephrine-administering bicycle.

Introducing 'Ron'; The first man ever to become allergic to an entire Anglican Cathederal...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Qvk2wNWmB20#t…

APV:

Thank you for more clearly explaining that whether vaccines have caused the "allergy epidemic" that you claim exists is an open question and therefore you advocate that the hypothesis be investigated, and also for confessing that, despite the current absence of the evidence that such studies could produce, you have already drawn a conclusion based on a preconceived notion that you admit you hold.

I appreciate that you are slowly opening up enough to admit that there is insufficient scientific evidence for an intelligent, rational person, like a typical engineer, to draw any conclusion on this issue without studies being performed. It takes a big person to confess that your position is not based on sufficient evidence, and that, therefore, you have chosen to believe a particular hypothesis because it pleases you to do so, presumably because of biases that you are unable to neutralize.

In many of your posts, you make it clear that the hypothesis that the "allergy epidemic" is caused by vaccines is not supported by scientific evidence; for example, you have repeatedly made a point of lamenting that there is an absence of studies that might provide the needed evidence, one way or another, to address the question.

The fact that, on the one hand, you explicitly state that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis, and on the other hand, you confess to having already taken a position on the accuracy of that hypothesis despite the absence of supporting evidence, clearly reveals that you are incapable of forming a thoughtful, objective, and accurate opinion on the question at hand. That's sad, though I understand that your own emotions must be extremely strong to so overwhelm your engineering training and lead you down the path of such deeply unscientific thinking. That must be difficult.

I will also reiterate that I find it sad that you think so little of your own moral strength that were you a researcher in the field, you would be so frightened of impairing your career path that you would refuse to participate in a study that might yield a lifesaving breakthrough for tens of thousands of people. Though such a self-judgment does reveal a great deal about your intellectual honesty, unfortunately.

Looks like another study that people would like to ignore?
http://www.sardogs.com/health_purdue_vaccination_study.htm

Looks like another study that people would like to ignore?

*blink*

So, autoimmunity in dogs is actually IgE mediated?

WTF is wrong with you? Seriously: explain, in detail, the "thought" process that led to this random G—le expedition and your weirdly displaying your catch here.

Krebiozen 811#,

"That’s blood and plasma transfusions out of the question then, as well as factor VIII and TPN. Richet, who was a believer in Spiritualism, by the way, did his work a century ago, and we have learned an enormous amount since then."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-l…
"While on the subject of negative experiments, I wish to say a word on what I call homogenic anaphylaxis. The aim was to discover if the injection into an animal of blood from another subject of the same species, provokes a stronger reaction at the second injection than at the first, always given the same source for the transfusion in both cases.

Here again the results were absolutely nil. A dog A was injected with 70 gram per kilo of the blood of another dog B. Not much happened. A month later, the same dog A that had been treated was given a further injection of 70 gram per kilo of blood from the same transfusion source dog B. No symptom was observed. It seems thus there is no such thing as homogenic anaphylaxis, and the blood of one species of animal injected into an animal of the same kind is harmless both at the first and at the second injection."

"A more contemporary source might be more convincing."

The only information you have provided to show the quantity of ovalbumin in today's vaccines is safe, is based on a >100 year old article and involves assumptions of equivalence between "unpurified mixed proteins of egg-white" and ovalbumin present in current day vaccines.
A more contemporary source might be more convincing?

It seems thus there is no such thing as homogenic anaphylaxis, and the blood of one species of animal injected into an animal of the same kind is harmless both at the first and at the second injection.

So, basically, you're fυcked both coming and going. Well played.

APV:

You have made the specific, unqualified assertion that healthy, non-allergic people silently developing food allergies weeks after a vaccination is a huge problem. You seem to acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion; even you don't bother to claim there is a study that supports this claim. Yet, you have simply decided that you would like it to be a fact, and then you believe it, and state it as fact. I must be frank; that's a rather frightening way for an engineer to reason. I suggest you take a cold, hard look at the path you are on, and how starkly it conflicts with the tenets of your profession, which requires a dispassionate analysis of facts. It's really concerning to witness this sort of mental process playing out in public.

You have also specifically stated without qualification and as a fact that the Polysorbate 80 used in vaccines contains vegetable oils. You have also stated that there is no evidence for this claim, but you not only believe it nonetheless, you seem to think that because you believe it -- despite its not being a fact -- your belief somehow converts it into a fact, allowing you to then state it as a fact. That sort of thinking indicates something defective in the thinker.

Have you, in recent years, noticed in yourself a tendency towards this sort of reality-distorting belief-forming, perhaps coinciding with a high level of stress? Ever considered talking to someone about it?

Another question: Do you believe that it has been demonstrated that autism is the result of an allergic reaction to a vaccine?

APV:

Another rather worrisome indicator of your fragile grasp on reason is your pattern of falsifying study results and using a particularly dishonest type of distortion when trying to produce evidence for the position that you already decided you wanted to hold.

One example is your assertion that a particular study shows that unvaccinated children have zero incidence of asthma. Earlier, we examined your behavior whereby you, probably due to some emotional stress, invert the reasoning process by choosing a position first, then seeking evidence for it. That could be written off to a highly-stressed mental and/or emotional condition, or possibly some other psychological issue, while still being viewed as essentially sincere -- the actions of a desperate mind, perhaps. But when you falsify study conclusions so flagrantly, as when you say that a study shows that unvaccinated children have zero incidence of asthma, there really is no escaping the conclusion that you are dishonest. You might want to consider the situation you find yourself in that has driven you to these measures to try to generate support for your preconceived notions, and how deeply unhealthy such a mode of thinking must be.

Another distressing syndrome that you are exhibiting is also based in a desperate mindset that pushes you into giving in to the temptation to be dishonest in order to attempt to support your position. You repeatedly lie about scientific findings by changing their character from possibilities -- often very tiny ones -- to certainties. You do this, for example, when you make such dishonest and misleading statements as, "injecting proteins into mammals will cause them to develop an allergy." Your (clearly intentional) failure to state that this effect is not a certainty regardless of the various parameters involved reveals that you are, fundamentally, frightened of being truthful. The same principle applies to your dangerous flat assertion that Polysorbate 80 contains vegetable oils. You demonstrate that you are fully aware that these statements are dishonest. Yet you have apparently abandoned your integrity in a misguided and quite disturbing effort to frighten ignorant readers. I again ask that you engage in some frank self-examination, as this sort of inexcusable behavior tends to spiral downward, in my observation, and could lead to a quite sad -- or sadder -- situation. Think about it.

APV,

Looks like another study that people would like to ignore?

Pointing out that you have misunderstood or misinterpreted studies is not the same as ignoring them

Like Narad I'm curious to know why you thought that study relevant when it found:

However, vaccination did induce autoantibodies and antibodies to conserved heterologous antigens. The pathogenic significance of these autoantibodies is presently uncertain. We did not find any evidence of autoimmune disease in the vaccinated dogs, but the study was terminated when the dogs were 22 weeks of age, well before autoimmune diseases usually become clinically apparent. [...]

I see that 3 years later the lead author was involved in another study that found an increase in anti-thyroid antibodies after some vaccines, but no clinical thyroid disease. One might expect that the dogs in his initial study might have been followed up and any subsequent autoimmune disease reported. The absence of such a report suggests that this did not occur.

There are some researchers who claim that vaccines cause autoimmune disease, for example this paper, but if that is the case it must be very rare since large studies have failed to find an association. I'm also a little dubious about that paper since they cite Tomljenovic and Shaw as reputable sources which they most definitely are not.

It seems thus there is no such thing as homogenic anaphylaxis, and the blood of one species of animal injected into an animal of the same kind is harmless both at the first and at the second injection.”

I must tell my friends who work in blood transfusion that they have been wasting their time cross-matching blood all those years;-) Since dogs have 13 blood groups and serious transfusion reactions occur with mismatched blood, perhaps Richet simply lucked out and picked a universal donor, or two dogs of the same blood group. A study like that with n=1 is hardly conclusive.

“A more contemporary source might be more convincing.”
The only information you have provided to show the quantity of ovalbumin in today’s vaccines is safe, is based on a >100 year old article and involves assumptions of equivalence between “unpurified mixed proteins of egg-white” and ovalbumin present in current day vaccines.
A more contemporary source might be more convincing?

That was one of the sources that you initially cited to support your claims! I merely pointed out that when examined closely it doesn't support your hypothesis. You were the one assuming, without any justification at all, that the fractionally crystallized protein was ovalbumin, whereas I looked at Richet's results with total egg white protein, which we know is 54% ovalbumin, no assumptions necessary.
Since you are the one making the claim that ovalbumin in the quantities present in influenza vaccines causes sensitization, it is up to you to you provide the evidence. To turn it around, prove to me that ovalbumin in vaccines does not protect against the development of egg allergy.

Missed another closing tag. Apologies.

This would be way better with interuniversal Teichmüller theory. Or maybe that's MSimon.

#298:

Then there are trials where the control group is injected with aluminum hydroxide. Why inject anything into the control group?

#613:

Vaccine makers inject aluminum hydroxide into the control group. Why?

Why?

^ That's a demand question, not an "answer," BTW.

Krebiozen, #825,

"Like Narad I’m curious to know why you thought that study relevant when it found:"

It shows numerous vaccine components causing antibody synthesis and autoantibody synthesis. Unlike ovalbumin, vaccine package inserts do not even specify the quantity present for these components (human lung fibroblasts, pancreatic digests, BSA, etc.). Where are the safety studies and specifications before they started injecting these into babies?

The study also shows:
"There was a marked increase of autoantibodies to the skeletal muscle proteins, myoglobin and myosin, in both groups of dogs. The reason for the appearance of these antibodies is uncertain, but it may be the result of the frequent blood sampling of the dogs. The dogs were bled five times following each vaccination, and some tissue trauma was unavoidable."

I'd like to draw attention to the discussion we had regarding tropomyosin. 30-40 injections/kid seems like a lot of tissue trauma to me.

"That was one of the sources that you initially cited to support your claims! I merely pointed out that when examined closely it doesn’t support your hypothesis. You were the one assuming, without any justification at all, that the fractionally crystallized protein was ovalbumin, whereas I looked at Richet’s results with total egg white protein, which we know is 54% ovalbumin, no assumptions necessary.
Since you are the one making the claim that ovalbumin in the quantities present in influenza vaccines causes sensitization, it is up to you to you provide the evidence."

The Japanese flu/egg allergy study already did.

I think you lost track.
You provided both Anderson/Rosenau and the HG Wells references, not me.
I pointed out the 50 ng egg albumin in Anderson et. al.
You brought up HG Wells and used the "unpurified mixed protein numbers" for your calculation instead. You have ever since used that calculation to claim the quantity of ovalbumin in flu vaccines is safe.

"To turn it around, prove to me that ovalbumin in vaccines does not protect against the development of egg allergy."

The Japanese flu/egg was done because they suspected flu vaccines were causing egg allergy, not because it was offering a worrisome amount of protection against egg allergy.

If vaccines were protecting our kids against food allergies, we would not be having this discussion.
My understanding is that food exposure to GI mucosa is supposed to help produce tolerance and food exposure to serum produces allergy. Apparently, you think the opposite ...
Perhaps we should ingest our vaccines and inject our foods?

using selected noninhibitory sera, we found that all infants studied absorbed some OVA, there was no correlation between serum OVA levels and age (3-11 months), and there was no significant difference between serum OVA concentrations in infants who subsequently had positive oral food challenge responses (120 +/- 67 ng/ml) and a matched group with negative challenges (102 +/- 80)

forgot the link

@APV: I may be wrong (those wiser, please correct me if I am), but some vaccine ingredients listed are on the label because those items are used during vaccine manufacture and it is reasonably conceivable that very minute amounts can be left in the final product. Since we know anaphylaxis for those with existing allergies is a risk, all possible substances that might be in the vaccine, even in trace amounts are listed to allow the doctor to be sure the patient has informed choice.

Since you were so hung up on Richet I went and looked him up. When I saw that his research was around a century old, I wondered how you could be so sure that later research didn't disprove some hypotheses. It is a common thing when people have alternative theories - they share them on the internet with old research (Nobel prize winners especially popular) and act as though scientific theories remain static as research grows.

I am not as educated as most here, though I love learning. My very bright RN daughter-in-law gave us "Essential Oil First Aid Kit" and a book on common essential oil recipes, so even medically educated are not immune (Mr Woo was thrilled, so maybe it was aimed at what he would appreciate and they assumed that I agreed when they picked out the gift).

I have noticed a lot of things shared as 100% true in alternative medicine were at one time operating theories that were discarded as our working knowledge grew. It doesn't mean the person doing early research did not discover a new major breakthrough, it just means it was the beginning of knowledge, and other researchers learned what they theorized correctly and what they got wrong.

Holding on to disproven theories or implausible ideas doesn't make the believer any closer to the truth. It just makes them less likely to find the right answer.

APV seems to have written elsewhere:

"A typical flu shot contains 15 mcg of hemagglutinin (HA) protein per virus type and 0.5 mcg of ovalbumin protein. About 60% of US children who receive a flu shot get sensitized to the HA protein. The result is the immune system attacks HA proteins on subsequent exposure giving protection against the flu virus. One can expect 60/(15/0.5)=2% of those who receive the flu shot to get
sensitized to the ovalbumin protein."

APV, was someone impersonating you, or did you actually write that formula for determining the percentage of individuals who will be become sensitized to a substance based on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine and a ratio between the amounts of the two proteins under examination?

Thanks.

APV seems to have written elsewhere,

"Increasing vaccinations correlate with increasing asthma, Type I diabetes, ulcerative colitis and of course food allergies [among those who have been vaccinated, but there has been no such increase among those who have not been vaccinated]."

APV, if you did write that, and it wasn't someone impersonating you, could you supply a citation that supports your statement?

Thanks.

APV,

Unlike ovalbumin, vaccine package inserts do not even specify the quantity present for these components (human lung fibroblasts, pancreatic digests, BSA, etc.). Where are the safety studies and specifications before they started injecting these into babies?

Yes they do, for example this MMR vaccine pack insert, which states the amount of recombinant human albumin and fetal bovine serum (the same as BSA, more or less) it contains.

No vaccine contains whole human lung fibroblasts, though a diploid human cell culture dating back to the 1960s is used to grow some viruses for vaccines. Safety studies have found, "no credible association of reactions to the HDCS substrate or a hypothetical contaminant derived from it". Since the cells are filtered out of the vaccine, there should be only tiny traces of it left anyway.

The Japanese flu/egg allergy study already did.

No it didn't. It showed a slight increase in anti-egg IgE which is not the same thing as sensitization. The subjects with the highest anti-egg IgE at the start of the study were specifically stated not to suffer from egg allergy. How can you assume that those who showed a small increase in sIgE were sensitized when those with similar sIgE were not?

More anon....

APV:

I want to bring to your attention another example of your dishonesty, in hopes that you will have the courage to engage in some valuable self-examination.

You have stated, as a matter of fact, that EMD Millipore's Polysorbate 80 has maize and wheat in it. Elsewhere, you have admitted that you don't know whether it does or not.

There's really no nice way to say it; you're lying. I understand that you are probably consumed with emotions -- frustration, helplessness, anger -- due to your personal situation. However, people of integrity do not resort to lying in situations like yours, and you should be ashamed of yourself. By discarding your integrity, you are really not helping yourself or your family, though it might feel as though you are. What you are doing when you lie like that is destroying your credibility, and fatally crippling your ability to be taken seriously by intelligent people of character, among whose ranks you cannot count yourself, sadly.

Please take some time to ponder why you have decided that you must lie in order to pursue your goals. If you do not take some sort of action to improve your character, this kind of behavior will become habitual (if it is not already), with wide-ranging consequences. Are you already having problems at work?

APV:

Assuming that was you who referred to this, could you provide the name of the company and contact individual who told you they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80?

Thanks.

APV:

Why do you force your children to get vaccinations if you believe they cause autism due to the mechanism of injection alone?

Wow, this thread reads like the Moon cheese argument. APV goes on endlessly about his pet hypothesis and is met with reasoned and rather polite responses by people who know what they are talking about (especially Krebs-- props.). This APV doesn't understand the difference between IgG, IgE, and nonspecific mast cell degranulation. He seems oblivious to immunology basics-- antigen presenting, class switching, tolerance, and the mucosal immune response. He doesn't know the difference between an sf9 cell and a moth, nor the likely antigenic differences between a human kidney cell and a different human (not that either matters because there are no cells in vaccines). (Ever purify a protein, dude?) And he keeps reiterating the same tired arguments.

I often prescribe intravenous polysorbate 80 (wrapped around docetaxel) at much higher doses than APV is concerned about. It can, of course, cause anaphalactoid reactions, which are mediated by direct mast cell degranulation, not by a specific antigen or IgE. In fact patients who react can be rechallenged with the same drug with premedication and lower infusion rates.. something that would not be done in the case of true IgE-mediated anaphalaxis.

APV: I'd suggest you start by reading Janeway (assuming you have the prerequisite biology education to understand a grad-level immunology text).

CPD/Vinucube:

Why would you publicly state as a fact that vaccine makers produce vaccines with peanut oil proteins in them when you admit that you do not have evidence that this is true? Do you realize how irresponsible -- and dishonest -- you are being when you engage in this sort of fabrication?

OccamsLaser #837,

Was in #154, here it is again.
http://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/product/Tween%C2%AE-80-%28Polysorbate…

OccamsLaser #838,
technical.service@avantormaterials.com

VPD/Vinucube/Vinu:

You wrote,

"Re.Mercury: If you break a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) in your house, you are supposed to evacuate the house"

False.

Why do you feel that you are justified in engaging in this sort of fabrication? Does some part of you realize that if you stuck to the truth, you would be unable to make a compelling case for your position, so you are compelled to embellish information?

OccamsLaser #835,

I provided this back in #84 ... it has the citations.
https://foodallergycauses.wordpress.com/

VPD/Vinucube/Vinu:

This is so sad. Your dishonesty is more flagrant than I had thought.

I said @837,

"I want to bring to your attention another example of your dishonesty, in hopes that you will have the courage to engage in some valuable self-examination.

You have stated, as a matter of fact, that EMD Millipore’s Polysorbate 80 has maize and wheat in it. Elsewhere, you have admitted that you don’t know whether it does or not.

There’s really no nice way to say it; you’re lying."

You responded @842 with your proof of your claim that EMD Millipore’s Polysorbate 80 has maize and wheat in it:

"Was in #154, here it is again.
http://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/product/Tween%C2%AE-80-%28Polysorbate…"

Maybe you crossed your fingers and closed your eyes and wished, hope against hope, that no one would bother to check your information, and that we would just believe that EMD Millipore's allergen sheet would prove your claim that their Polysorbate 80 contains wheat and maize.

You were wrong.

Here's what your own link says, and this is a direct quotation:

"The following materials are used as raw material but are not present in the final product: Maize, Wheat"

Your dishonesty is breathtaking. At least anyone who bothers to read this long thread will discover that you are a liar.

APV/Vinucube/VinuA:

I asked for a specific citation for the following claim that you made:

“Increasing vaccinations correlate with increasing asthma, Type I diabetes, ulcerative colitis and of course food allergies [among those who have been vaccinated, but there has been no such increase among those who have not been vaccinated].”

You evaded, and provided only a link to a blog.

Please provide a specific citation that demonstrates that “Increasing vaccinations correlate with increasing asthma, Type I diabetes, ulcerative colitis and of course food allergies [among those who have been vaccinated, but there has been no such increase among those who have not been vaccinated]."

MadisonMD, #840,

It is my expectation that studies would be conducted for all vaccine excipients to determine safe quantities that can be present. I expect the results to be used to create specifications and test methods that are enforced.

It is unprofessional to manufacture products without specifications and in the case of vaccines, extremely dangerous.
Perhaps you can explain the lack of safety studies and specifications?

Researchers have called for the removal of gelatin and casein from vaccines. Gelatin and casein in vaccines have continued to cause anaphylaxis. As discussed before, if there is enough protein to cause anaphylaxis, there is more than enough protein to cause sensitization. Perhaps you can explain why the FDA has done nothing about this?

OccamsLaser #846,

And, you left out what it says after that:

"The following materials are used as raw material but are not present in the final
product: Maize, Wheat
We point out that we do not perform any testing on allergens in the above-mentioned
product."
Just like the FDA. They don't test it for safety but they know it's safe.

OccamsLaser #844,

You believe the FDA but you don't believe the EPA ...?
http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

OccamsLaser #839,

"Why do you force your children to get vaccinations if you believe they cause autism due to the mechanism of injection alone?"

Fantastic question. Every vaccination decision is an agonizing decision between vaccine-preventable deadly diseases and vaccine-induced deadly diseases. Parents should never ever have to face such a choice. Does that explain why I am fighting so hard for safer vaccines?

Mrs Woo #833,

Richet's anaphylaxis is a fundamental discovery that has been proven over and over to this day. Just because we have iPhones today does not mean the fundamentals of electricity have changed in a 100 years. You could be electrocuted today just as badly as you would have been a century ago.

Obviously, we have made huge discoveries in immunology since Richet but the fundamental concepts he discovered are unchanged.
Ignoring Richet's findings is therefore equally dangerous.

APV/Vinu A:

You're lying.

You stated that EMD Millipore's Polysorbate 80 has wheat and maize in it, and you cited their allergen sheet as your evidence for that claim. That allergen sheet says that it does NOT contain wheat or maize. You lied.

It really is amazing how dishonest you are.

APV/Vinu A.:

You wrote,
“Re.Mercury: If you break a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) in your house, you are supposed to evacuate the house”

I exposed this claim as false.

You now provide a link to the EPA that proves your claim was false.

Once again, you seem to think -- or hope -- that no one will check your citations and discover how dishonest you are. But you're wrong.

You also fabricate a position and attribute it to me when you write, "you believe the FDA but you don't believe the EPA?" Please provide a quotation of mine that supports your characterization of my position, or retract it. Like a person with integrity would.

APV/Vinu:

"Does that explain why I am fighting so hard for safer vaccines?"

Nothing explains why you lie so much. Except that you are a deeply dishonest person.

doug #831,

It seems to me these children had an underlying condition.
My understanding is that such intact protein should not be absorbed in normal healthy people. I believe Krebiozen wrote the same. The title itself says allergen absorption in FPIES.

OccamsLaser #854,

What exactly have you exposed as false?
So the EPA said "room" and I said "house" and it makes me a fabricator/liar? Perhaps you have photographic memory. I wrote my best recollection of what I had read.

Krebiozen 765#,

"Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE
Dilution:1 in 1e120 parts! There are not enough atoms in the universe to achieve that dilution. But it did not stop them from publishing it! Another case of eminence vs. evidence ?

While I’m not a fan of Benveniste’s work, you can easily achieve such a dilution using serial dilutions without requiring every atom in the universe. Homeopaths would be in big trouble otherwise."

No, homeopaths are in big trouble because such dilutions are impossible. At some point in the serial dilution, you have only one molecule left. Further dilution is not possible.
Basically, you are saying dividing 0 by 2 gives you something smaller than 0. It is absurd.

Krebiozen 825#,

"I’m also a little dubious about that paper since they cite Tomljenovic and Shaw as reputable sources which they most definitely are not."
So what is the deed that earned them their disrepute?

OccamsLaser #834,

Yes, that's in my blog, what's your point?
https://foodallergycauses.wordpress.com/

@APV:

I’m also a little dubious about that paper since they cite Tomljenovic and Shaw as reputable sources which they most definitely are not.”
So what is the deed that earned them their disrepute?

Orac has written about Tomljenovic and Shaw before. If you put the name "Tomljenovic" into the search box at the top of the page you'll get a number of articles written about Orac about their mendacity.

Written BY Orac about their mendacity.
Le sigh.

APV,

I think you lost track.
You provided both Anderson/Rosenau and the HG Wells references, not me.
I pointed out the 50 ng egg albumin in Anderson et. al.

You're right, I'm conflating all the century-old studies. I'll be more specific, though I don't think it really matters. You first cited Richet and I pointed out that contemporary studies by Anderson/Rosenau following up his work did not support what you claim. You then quoted a passage from their paper mentioning Wells, falsely claiming that, "they were able to observe sensitization to 50 nanogram ( I/20000000 gram) of egg-white in 1909", when the quote you provided clearly stated "purified egg-white".

I gave a link to Wells' paper that Anderson and Rosenaut referred to, to show you it was actually a protein purified from egg white by three fractional crystallizations, which is not the same thing at all. It's like claiming that 100 milligrams of apple seeds will kill a human, when actually it is 100 milligrams of cyanide which can be extracted from 300 grams of apple seeds that constitute a fatal dose.

You brought up HG Wells

I believe that was you in comment #505.

and used the “unpurified mixed protein numbers” for your calculation instead. You have ever since used that calculation to claim the quantity of ovalbumin in flu vaccines is safe.

I have pointed out that the evidence you claimed to support your hypothesis does not support it, yet you keep making the same erroneous claim. Is there something about protein purification you don't understand?

More importantly, Wells showed how much total egg white protein was necessary to sensitize a guinea pig. We can estimate from this how much ovalbumin would have been required, which is probably an underestimate given the existence of ovomucoid and other proteins. We don't know what specific proteins Well's fractional crystallization isolated, you are mistaken in assuming that they were ovalbumin. Once again you twist the evidence to fit your hypothesis.

The historical evidence does not fit your hypothesis, but I would be interested in seeing more recent studies from an era when the structure of different proteins was better understood. There probably is more evidence out there, since the immunological literature is so huge, but I'm not inclined to go hunting for it.

No, homeopaths are in big trouble because such dilutions are impossible. At some point in the serial dilution, you have only one molecule left. Further dilution is not possible.

Basically, you are saying dividing 0 by 2 gives you something smaller than 0. It is absurd.

Where did I claim there were any solute molecules left? That wasn't your initial objection to Benveniste's paper, you wrote "There are not enough atoms in the universe to achieve that dilution". That's not true; in science precision in language is important. You can achieve that dilution, though it is extremely unlikely that even one molecule of the solute remains. You can continue diluting, with the likelihood of a molecule remaining becoming smaller and smaller.

APV/Vinu A:

You wrote @857,

"What exactly have you exposed as false?
So the EPA said 'room' and I said 'house' and it makes me a fabricator/liar? Perhaps you have photographic memory. I wrote my best recollection of what I had read."

You have a problem.

The problem is that you have now established a pattern of dishonesty. One of the components of this pattern is that you make what you characterize as mistakes of recall when an falsehood you post is exposed. But the fact that you consistently make such "mistakes" in favor of your own position demonstrates that they are not mistakes at all; they are lies, and they are intentional.

The fact that you are lying is in your own words above. You make the claim that you would have to have a photographic memory to post accurate information for which you yourself are supplying the proof via links. I shouldn't have to explain that all you need to do when you want to post accurate information from a link is to follow the link and copy what it says. One doesn't need a photographic memory -- nor any memory at all.

Here are other examples of lies you have posted despite being in possession of, and even posting, links that contradict your claims, or despite admitting that you made them up (i.e. "remembered" information that, in fact, doesn't exist):

- You said that EMD Millipore's allergen certificate states that the product contains wheat and maize. The allergen certificate -- to which you linked -- says the exact opposite.

- You said that vaccine makers produce vaccines with peanut oil proteins in them

- You stated that a particular study "shows that unvaccinated children have zero incidence of asthma." Note the wording. This is a very, very dangerous lie.

- You asserted that “injecting proteins into mammals will cause them to develop an allergy.” Again, note the wording. Here, again, your lack of a photographic memory caused you to use the word "will," because that's how you "remembered" the information. You are terribly dishonest, and this sort of scaremongering is disgraceful.

- You have stated as fact that healthy, non-allergic people silently developing food allergies weeks after a vaccination is a huge problem. Your claim that this is in evidence is a frank fabrication; I'm not sure how you will write off this lie as the result of your bad memory.

- You have stated as fact that Increasing vaccinations correlate with increasing asthma, Type I diabetes, ulcerative colitis and of course food allergies among those who have been vaccinated, but there has been no such increase among those who have not been vaccinated, and when pressed for a citation, you only provide a link to your blog, which you claim has the citation somewhere within it. When you are again asked for the specific citation that supports this claim, you become even more evasive, writing, "Yes, that’s in my blog, what’s your point?" and you then supply the blog link again. In case you are unaware of it, evasion is a behavior that you engage in when you are afraid of providing an honest answer, because you are fearful of the consequences of that honest answer. In your case, you predisposition towards dishonesty leads you naturally to engage in evasions such as this, because you have convinced yourself that it is justifiable to be dishonest when pursuing your goals. You are apparently oblivious to the fatal damage you do to your image.

Your fabrication regarding the procedures for reacting to a broken CFL bulb does not have a major impact on your case as a whole. It is simply another example of your near-reflexive dishonesty wherein you distort information in a way that favors you, and your absurd excuse that your memory is imperfect -- despite your having in hand the very link upon which you claim your information is based, and which proves you wrong -- are clear indicators of how deeply your dishonesty runs.

At the risk of being repetitive, I want to highlight one of the best examples of what a dishonest person you are:

You claimed that the allergen certificate for EMD Millipore's Polysorbate 80 states that the product contains wheat and maize. The allergen certificate -- for which you provided the link -- states that the product does not contain wheat or maize. This sort of outrageous lie is bad enough, but the fact that you are too cowardly to simply admit that you lied -- or that you "misremembered" -- and that you stand by your claim, exposes you as a person devoid of integrity.

This does tie back to your self-assessment that were you a medical researcher, you would be too cowardly to investigate the hypothesis that injections are responsible for the "allergy epidemic" that you say exists. It is becoming clear that you have a very low opinion of yourself. It is also becoming clear that your opinion is accurate.

Vinu:

I asked you to provide the name of the company and contact individual who told you they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80. You only supplied a general email address. Please provide the name of the individual who told you the product has palm oil and coconut oil in it.

APV/Vinucube/Vinu a:

You wrote elsewhere,

“A typical flu shot contains 15 mcg of hemagglutinin (HA) protein per virus type and 0.5 mcg of ovalbumin protein. About 60% of US children who receive a flu shot get sensitized to the HA protein. The result is the immune system attacks HA proteins on subsequent exposure giving protection against the flu virus. One can expect 60/(15/0.5)=2% of those who receive the flu shot to get
sensitized to the ovalbumin protein.”

Did you post that function for determining the percentage of individuals who will be become sensitized to a substance based on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine and a ratio between the amounts of the two proteins under examination?

OccamsLaser,
My favorite example of APV's causal approach to veracity is his/her claim that less than 1 mg of polysorbate 80 in vaccines causes asthma, because a sheep's lungs are damaged when you wash them out with a polysorbate 80 solution. Even when I challenged this this ludicrous claim s/he still continued to defend it, writing:

It is not inconceivable that with several Polysorbate 80 containing vaccines injected into a kid , some of them will sustain lung injury.

Since saline and pure water will also cause damage when used to wash out lungs I assume that s/he also believe that saline and water in vaccine cause asthma (which is not lung injury anyway).

S/he even cited a review study as evidence that vaccines cause asthma. When I clicked the link I saw that the review concluded:

There is no association between diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine, oral polio vaccine or measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the risk of asthma.

Perhaps the most egregious error, as you pointed out, is the vaccinated /unvaccinated study looking at the prevalence of asthma and allergies, of which APV wrote:

This study shows that unvaccinated children had zero occurrence of asthma compared to 1.8-4.6% for vaccinated children. [...] One would have expected 2-4 of the unvaccinated kids to develop asthma.

A brief perusal of the paper finds that 2 of the unvaccinated children in the study had asthma, and that all results were within the range expected if there is no link between vaccines and asthma or allergies. It's hard to describe this as anything but a deliberate lie designed to scare parents away from vaccinating their children.

Krebiozen #863,

"but I would be interested in seeing more recent studies from an era when the structure of different proteins was better understood. "
That is exactly what I was saying. Where are the safety studies performed on the exact formulation of the various egg proteins present in current day vaccines?

"Where did I claim there were any solute molecules left? That wasn’t your initial objection to Benveniste’s paper, you wrote “There are not enough atoms in the universe to achieve that dilution”. That’s not true; in science precision in language is important. You can achieve that dilution, though it is extremely unlikely that even one molecule of the solute remains. You can continue diluting, with the likelihood of a molecule remaining becoming smaller and smaller."

If there are no solute molecules left, the concentration is defined as 0. Not 1 in 1e120.
When there are no solute molecules left, you can continue diluting? What kind of absurd concept is that?
We are not in the quantum physics domain yet. A molecule either exists in a solution or not. There are no probabilities.

APV, you are practicing medicine as it was in the Middle Ages: Someone comes up with a plausible-sounding explanation, and everyone simply accepts it as true. We deal in evidence-based medicine. We need evidence.

Krebiozen #867,

My blog says:
'This study shows that unvaccinated children had zero occurrence of asthma compared to 1.8-4.6% for vaccinated children."
The 1.8 and 4.6% numbers apply to children under 10 and the asthma occurrence reported was indeed 0. Where's the deliberate lie?

Here's another deliberate lie to scare parents:
“The strongest evidence in support of a possible association between vaccination and asthma comes from a prospective study of a cohort of children born in 1977 in Christchurch, New Zealand. In that study there was no evidence of asthma after 5 to 10 years of follow-up among 23 children who received neither pertussis nor oral polio vaccine, whereas asthma developed in >20% of 1184 children who had been vaccinated.”
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/439840

Kreb -

Even more egregiously than the example you cite of APV's dishonesty in this forum with regard to the vaccine/allergy review study is his far grander lie when referring to that same study in other venues, where perhaps he is even less concerned about his claims being scrutinized and exposed. There, he actually made the following representation:

"Unvaccinated children have zero incidence of asthma."

It is of great concern that someone would be knowingly spreading this sort of flagrantly false information about medicine. As he admits elsewhere, his crusade is all about his own kids, and he seems completely unconcerned about the potential damage to others' children for which he might be responsible.

Gray Falcon #869,

"We deal in evidence-based medicine. We need evidence."
Absolutely, please show me evidence that proves the quantities of food allergens present in our vaccines is safe.

APV- Only if you provide me evidence your practice of necromancy isn't driving up global temperatures.

APV is off his bleeding nut. Probably thinks colloidal silver is a cure all too.

Krebiozen #825,

The Japanese flu/egg study showed increases in anti-ovalbumin IgE which you dismissed because there was no clinical allergy.
Likewise for the auto-antibodies in dogs, you dismissed it since there was no evidence of autoimmune disease.

How do we know these antibodies are harmless? What if there is chronic increase in histamine due to the elevated IgE and the patient continuing to consume egg?
Can there be no ongoing tissue/organ damage that could reduce lifespan due to autoanti-bodies? How can you claim it is harmless?

And what about this?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1013792#t=articleBackground

OccamsLaser #865,

Phuong Tang. And you never know, I could be lying ...

APV/vinucube/Vinu A wrote,

"Here’s another deliberate lie to scare parents:
'The strongest evidence in support of a possible association between vaccination and asthma comes from a prospective study of a cohort of children born in 1977 in Christchurch, New Zealand. In that study there was no evidence of asthma after 5 to 10 years of follow-up among 23 children who received neither pertussis nor oral polio vaccine, whereas asthma developed in >20% of 1184 children who had been vaccinated.'
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/439840"

You forgot to include the part that came after that:

"The study was limited, however, by the small number of unvaccinated children (n = 23) and uncertainty about differences in medical care utilization between the two groups."

Actually, I'm quite certain that you didn't "forget" to include that vital information. You omitted it deliberately, because you're dishonest, as has been proven here.

Do you wonder what your children will think when they eventually learn what a dishonest person you are? Are you teaching them to lie when it serves their goals, too?

Vinu:

"Phuong Tang. And you never know, I could be lying …"

Unlikely, because lying about your contact's name doesn't further your goals. You seem to lie when the truth doesn't serve your cause.

For example, you stated that EMD Millipore's allergen certificate stated that their Polysorbate 80 contains wheat and maize. That was a lie you told because it supported your argument.

You don't seem to realize that when you lie in a way that supports your position, and when you are caught but refuse to admit your lies, you lose all credibility, and that damages your cause. You, personally, are responsible for impairing the overall cause of applying pressure to find out more about children's allergies, because you are so dishonest, as well as cowardly. Shame on you.

Krebiozen #867,

"It’s hard to describe this as anything but a deliberate lie designed to scare parents away from vaccinating their children."

1. The FDA is a $4.6 billion federal agency.
2. The CDC is a $6.6 billion federal agency.
3. In my blog site, I provided numerous peer-reviewed published references to support my claims.
Readers can verify for themselves if I am fabricating/lying/misinterpreting/embellishing or whatever else you choose to accuse me of doing next.
4. You are claiming that I am "lying to scare parents".
5. You have just admitted to the unprecedented level of distrust parents have for the FDA and the CDC, that they will base their vaccination decision on my noname blog site. A level of distrust the FDA and CDC have most definitely earned.

APV, if you deliberately make a statement that you know contradicts reality, you are, by definition, lying. We have proven you a liar, repeatedly. Give it up, you are not the genius you think you are.

"What exactly have you exposed as false?
So the EPA said “room” and I said “house” and it makes me a fabricator/liar? Perhaps you have photographic memory. I wrote my best recollection of what I had read"

You mean you didn't think of checking your facts before you made a claim, or even read your citation before you posted it? If you're not serious enough about making a case for your claims to make even the most trivial efforts to ensure that you're telling the truth, why should anyone waste their time reading your claims?

OccamsLaser #866,

I thought I already said, yes ...

Thomas #881,

Unfortunately, I have been unable to meet your high standards.
So you are welcome to stop reading my claims.

APV: High standards? If you think reading the items you post is too hard for you, consider another career.

I suggest you add a disclaimer on all your posts - how about "I made up some or all of this based on things I vaguely remember and wish were true." You could offer a reward for every true statement someone finds in what you write.

APV/vinucube/Vinu A.:

Are you thus claiming that this is the formula for determining the likelihood of developing an allergy to a protein?

"One can expect [amount of a protein, in mcg/25] of those who receive [an injection with that amount of that protein] to get sensitized to [that protein]."

APV/vinucube/Vinu A. wrote:

"Readers can verify for themselves if I am fabricating/lying/misinterpreting/embellishing or whatever else you choose to accuse me of doing next."

Right -- we've already verified that you are fabricating/lying/misinterpreting/embellishing, as has been proven above. Readers will indeed view that proof and conclude that you are dishonest; there is no other conclusion. In fact, even you have not denied that you have lied and stated as facts things for which you do not have evidence, so the case is clear.

For example, you claimed that EMD Millipore’s allergen certificate stated that their Polysorbate 80 contains wheat and maize, but you were lying, as has been proven. This proof is so undeniable, that even you do not deny it.

It is actually quite fascinating to see how a profoundly dishonest person such as you operates. Different liars use different tactics when they are exposed; yours seems to be complete avoidance of the subject. I guess that's the method you've chosen to try to preserve some semblance of self-respect. But eventually, your family will read this thread, and they will learn something very, upsetting about your character, and no amount of self-denial will undo that damage.

APV/vinucube/Vinu wrote;

"In my blog site, I provided numerous peer-reviewed published references to support my claims."

You're lying. Your blog site contains zero peer-reviewed published references that support the following claims you've made:

- EMD Millipore’s allergen certificate stated that their Polysorbate 80 contains wheat and maize

- Vaccines contain peanut oil proteins

- Healthy, non-allergic people silently developing food allergies weeks after a vaccination is a huge problem

- The Polysorbate 80 used in vaccines contains vegetable oils

- Unvaccinated children have zero incidence of asthma

- Injecting proteins into mammals will [not might] cause them to develop an allergy

- Increasing vaccinations correlate with increasing asthma, Type I diabetes, ulcerative colitis and of course food allergies among those who have been vaccinated, but there has been no such increase among those who have not been vaccinated

- According to the EPA, if you break a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) in your house, you are supposed to evacuate the house

This list is not to be taken as exhaustive. But it does prove that your assertion that your blog contains numerous peer-reviewed published references to support your claims is yet another lie.

What is your general opinion of people who lie? Do you believe that lying is justified in the service of what someone perceives as an important goal?

At this point, APV is just JAQing off.

He/She's been caught out in so many lies, Pinocchio would be jealous of the wood sported.

APV,

A molecule either exists in a solution or not. There are no probabilities.

Of course there are probabilities. If there are no probabilities, where did all the original solute molecules disappear to? You simply cannot admit to making a mistake, can you? It simply isn't true that there "are not enough atoms in the universe to achieve that dilution" as you can use serial dilutions as homeopaths do (or claim to - I wonder a bit).

The 1.8 and 4.6% numbers apply to children under 10 and the asthma occurrence reported was indeed 0. Where’s the deliberate lie?

The deliberate lie is claiming that "unvaccinated children had zero occurrence of asthma" when 2 of them did. You didn't mention that you had cherry-picked a subgroup. You also ignored the fact that there was no statistically significant association between vaccination and allergies/asthma even in that subgroup.

Cherry-picking bits out of a study that say the opposite of the study's conclusions is flagrant dishonesty. Generalizing from this to claim that “unvaccinated children have zero incidence of asthma” as you do in your blog is even more dishonest.

Here’s another deliberate lie to scare parents:

Again you have cherry-picked a bit out of a review study that in this case concluded:

There is no association between diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine, oral polio vaccine or measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the risk of asthma.

More blatant dishonesty.

The Japanese flu/egg study showed increases in anti-ovalbumin IgE which you dismissed because there was no clinical allergy.

These were small increases that are not clinically significant in the absence of clinical signs and symptoms, which the study clearly states these patients did not have: "no significant adverse reactions became apparent during the study period". As I have pointed out, the highest egg sIgE after vaccination was about 1.7 kIU/L. You need to see sIgE of 6.3 kIU/L to have a 90% probability of egg allergy.

You wrote, "Flu vaccine can cause egg allergy in healthy non-allergic individuals", yet the study you cited concluded that there is, "a potential risk of allergic manifestation after influenza vaccination"; no mention of influenza vaccine causing egg allergy.. Yet more blatant dishonesty.

Likewise for the auto-antibodies in dogs, you dismissed it since there was no evidence of autoimmune disease.

The study concluded that the association between vaccination and autoimmune antibodies, "does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship". Even if it does, it is normal to have low levels of autoimmune antibodies - for example the reference range for thyroid peroxidase antibody is up to 35 IU/mL. Also, the study authors have not published any follow-up studies which suggests to me that this was likely a red herring. Wouldn't they have followed these dogs to see if they did develop autoimmune disease?

How do we know these antibodies are harmless?

The lack of any association between vaccination and autoimmune disease in several large well-designed studies, for example this review of the subject states (my emphasis):

Theoretically, vaccines could trigger autoimmunity by means of cytokine production, anti-idiotypic network, expression of human histocompatibility leukocyte antigens, modification of surface antigens and induction of novel antigens, molecular mimicry, bystander activation, epitope spreading, and polyclonal activation of B cells. There is strong evidence that none of these mechanisms is really effective in causing autoimmune diseases. Vaccines are not a source of autoimmune diseases. By contrast, absolute evidence exists that infectious agents can trigger autoimmune mechanisms and that they do cause autoimmune diseases.

That's about as emphatic as it gets in a scientific paper.

What if there is chronic increase in histamine due to the elevated IgE and the patient continuing to consume egg?

What if? Then that's due to egg consumption, not the influenza vaccine, isn't it? I see no evidence here that the vaccine causes egg allergy.

Can there be no ongoing tissue/organ damage that could reduce lifespan due to autoanti-bodies? How can you claim it is harmless?

Because it is normal to have some autoantibodies, and because that study didn't even demonstrate a casual association between vaccination and autoantibody levels, much less any actual autoimmune disease.

And what about this?

What about it? A very rare condition, early-childhood membranous nephropathy, may be related to antibodies to bovine serum albumin, The study states:

Human exposure to bovine serum albumin is common through the diet and may also occur as part of medical therapy. In young children, cow's milk is a major source of bovine serum albumin. Small amounts of dietary proteins may be absorbed in an undigested or partially digested form from the gastrointestinal tract in healthy persons. IgG antibodies to cow's milk proteins are present in virtually all infants exposed to cow's milk and have been considered physiologic. Although circulating antibodies to bovine serum albumin have been detected in many human serum specimens, they were not associated with any detectable clinical event, except for IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy.

Isn't dietary exposure a much more likely cause of BSA allergy than the minuscule amounts present in vaccines? The WHO guidance advises a limit of 50 ng or less residual BSA per vaccine dose (PMID: 24841366). while a pint of milk contains at least 500 mg of BSA, that's 500 million nanograms.

It is unprofessional to manufacture products without specifications and in the case of vaccines, extremely dangerous.

Indeed. That's why vaccines are manufactured to specifications, of course. Do you mean to imply they aren't?

Just because you don't know what the specs are, and because they are different for each vaccine (can you imagine why a DNA vaccine would need different specs from live versus killed vaccine?). The FDA guidance spells out what is generally required to prove efficacy and safety (e.g. combo guidelines here). Afterwards, GMP is required with regular inspection of manufacturing. The particular manufacturer sets specs for each vaccine and this is submitted as part of the FDA registration. Did you ever notice that this is a required part of a New Drug Application. See Title 21 CFR314.50(d):

(1) Chemistry, manufacturing, and controls section. A section describing the composition, manufacture, and specification of the drug substance and the drug product, including the following:

Drug substance:A full description of the drug substance including its physical and chemical characteristics and stability; the name and address of its manufacturer; the method of synthesis (or isolation) and purification of the drug substance; the process controls used during manufacture and packaging; and the specifications necessary to ensure the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the drug substance and the bioavailability of the drug products made from the substance, including, for example, tests, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria relating to stability, sterility, particle size, and crystalline form.

drug product. A list of all components used in the manufacture of the drug product (regardless of whether they appear in the drug product) and a statement of the composition of the drug product; the specifications for each component; the name and address of each manufacturer of the drug product; a description of the manufacturing and packaging procedures and in-process controls for the drug product; the specifications necessary to ensure the identity, strength, quality, purity, potency, and bioavailability of the drug product, including, for example, tests, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria relating to sterility, dissolution rate, container closure systems; and stability data with proposed expiration dating.

Perhaps you can explain the lack of safety studies and specifications?

There is no such lack-- specs as shown above. My jaw dropped when I read "lack of safety studies."
O RLY? What is required by 21CFR314.50(d)(5)(vi)?
O RLY2?
O RLY3?
WTF, ARE YOU INSANE?

APV, please quit making sh!t up. I realize you don't understand it, but that doesn't give you a license to make stuff up.

Sigh. In the absence of a preview or edit function, maybe I need a new pair of glasses.

Worst bait-and-switch ever:

The Japanese flu/egg study showed increases in anti-ovalbumin IgE which you dismissed because there was no clinical allergy.
Likewise for the auto-antibodies in dogs, you dismissed it since there was no evidence of autoimmune disease.

How do we know these antibodies are harmless? What if there is chronic increase in histamine due to the elevated IgE and the patient continuing to consume egg?
Can there be no ongoing tissue/organ damage that could reduce lifespan due to autoanti-bodies?

See? Dogs, autoantinbodies! Eggs, IgE! Something something histamine! Human lifespans, vaccines something eggs something!

Presto!

Numerous times during this discussion, I have been asking for studies showing the safety of ingredients used in vaccines and specifications derived from such studies. I have seen none posted.
So you have to accept that the FDA is driving blind.

You, however, have been studiously refusing to accept the implications of the clear outcome of one study, playing out in real time as nothing short of a command performce, focused on a specific hypothesis that you yourself generated.

^ This should have been at the end, BTW.

So you have to accept that the FDA is driving blind.

Re Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA. Many of their papers have been examined and found wanting (an example of understatement.

For example, this WHO report from 2012:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/reports/Jun_2012/en/

The World Health Organization's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety reviewed

Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, 2011; 105: 1489–1499.
Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe? Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2011; 18(17):2630–2637.

at their June 2012 meeting. The report of that meeting read:

The GACVS reviewed 2 published papers alleging that aluminium in vaccines is associated with autism spectrum disorders and the evidence generated from quantitative risk assessment by a US FDA pharmacokinetic model of aluminium-containing vaccines.

GACVS considers that these 2 studies are seriously flawed. The core argument made in these studies is based on ecological comparisons of aluminium content in vaccines and rates of autism spectrum disorders in several countries. In general, ecological studies cannot be used to assert a causal association because they do not link exposure to outcome in individuals, and only make correlations of exposure and outcomes on population averages. Therefore their value is primarily for hypothesis generation. However, there are additional concerns with those studies that limit any potential value for hypothesis generation. These include: incorrect assumptions about known associations of aluminium with neurological disease, uncertainty of the accuracy of the autism spectrum disorder prevalence rates in different countries, and accuracy of vaccination schedules and resulting calculations of aluminium doses in different countries.

In case it hasn't been been already, I suppose this might as well be tossed out as as a treat.

MadisonMD #891,

Thank you for your detailed response.

I asked the FDA if they have determined a safe level of food proteins that can be present in vaccines. Their response:

“There is not, as you describe it, an FDA determined safe amount of a potentially allergenic ingredient contained in a vaccine. The FDA reviews vaccine composition in its entirety to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.”

Sanofi Pasteur wrote to me:

“Thank you for contacting Sanofi Pasteur.

There is no specification for residual egg protein (expressed as ovalbumin) for influenza vaccines in the United States, nor is testing of the final product required for ovalbumin content.

This study found 8-18ng/ml of casein in DTaP/TDaP which was causing anaphylaxis. They don't mention or compare their measurements with a specification.
Co-authors Drs. Sampson and Sicherer are well known oft-cited food allergy researchers. I would be surprised if they are unaware of such a specification.
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2811%2900747-0/fulltext

I stated:
"It is my expectation that studies would be conducted for all vaccine excipients to determine safe quantities that can be present. I expect the results to be used to create specifications and test methods that are enforced."

I am asking for example, how much egg proteins, milk proteins, soy, yeast, gelatin etc. can be present in a vaccine. If Polysorbate 80 is used, what is the specification for the amount of allergens it can contain.

None of the information you provided covers what I am asking.

I'm taking bets on how many more more comments the Troll is going to post.

900 hell ya!

@898
I see. You don't want to know how the world works. You prefer to lament that it doesn't work the way you think it ought. How silly of me to waste my time to explain.

MadisonMD #901,

APV wrote:
"It is unprofessional to manufacture products without specifications and in the case of vaccines, extremely dangerous."

MadisonMD wrote:
"Indeed. That’s why vaccines are manufactured to specifications, of course. Do you mean to imply they aren’t?"

So now you do agree that vaccines are manufactured without specifications, in an unprofessional manner and are extremely dangerous.

Krebiozen #890,

"Of course there are probabilities. If there are no probabilities, where did all the original solute molecules disappear to? You simply cannot admit to making a mistake, can you? It simply isn’t true that there “are not enough atoms in the universe to achieve that dilution” as you can use serial dilutions as homeopaths do (or claim to – I wonder a bit)."

No. A liter of water has about 3e25 molecules.
If you add an NaCl molecule to it, you get a concentration of 1:3e25 molecules. If the NaCl molecule is removed, you get 0 concentration.
In that volume, it is impossible to get any further dilution.
It is either 0 or 1 in 3e25. No probabilities.
If you increase the volume of the container to the size of the earth, you can get about 1:~1e49.
Otherwise, you are talking new physics. Homeopathic pseudophysics perhaps?

Krebiozen #770,

"It just isn’t that simple. For example, peanut allergy is more common in the UK than in Israel, even though, “peanut is introduced earlier and is eaten more frequently and in larger quantities in Israel than in the UK”."

And sesame allergy I believe is more common in Israel?
May be there is a much simpler explanation.
May be, just may be, UK vaccine makers used Polysorbate 80 contaminated with peanut protein and Israel's manufacturers used Polysorbate 80 contaminated with sesame protein?

APV/vinucube/Vinu A.:

Look, you lie a lot; you're a dishonest person. You do not even deny this; I suppose you feel it is justified because of the righteousness of your cause (it's not, of course). You have no integrity, and you've admitted to having no courage. You've made many unsupported statements and represented them as facts, and you are engaging in this dishonesty in a way that can frighten people. It is extraordinarily irresponsible to lie about medical information in a public venue, and that's exactly what you are doing.

You are also in the process of damaging efforts to raise awareness about allergy research, because a wildly dishonest person like you is publicly involved in trying to lead that effort. Another awful responsibility you bear.

You do know that one day, your children will read this thread. Can you give us an idea of how you will explain to them the lies you have told here?

Krebiozen #770,

"Short of inflicting infectious diseases on young children to prime their immune systems, or banning all potentially allergenic foods, what do you suggest we do? I know you have become fixated on the idea that vaccines cause allergies, but have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?"

No need to inflict diseases on people. Removal of gelatin, Polysorbate 80, have already been demonstrated in vaccines.
First step, enforce it on all vaccines/injections. Drs. Sampson/Sicherer have called for elimination of casein. They would not make that suggestion if they regarded it to be technically impossible. Next step, phase in removal of other food proteins.
Even if I am wrong, no harm is caused.

"https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/allergolint/46/4/46_4_249/_pdf

“Many cases are diagnosed as immediate-type
allergic reactions and it is well established that the IgE
antibody induced against the vaccine antigen or vaccine
components is responsible for the reactions."

Clearly says they are investigating a replacement for aluminum compounds because aluminum is well known to induce IgE against vaccine antigen or vaccine components.

Oh my word, APV.

So now you do agree that vaccines are manufactured without specifications, in an unprofessional manner and are extremely dangerous.

Are you delusional? No, I'm serious. In MadisonMD's comment at #891, s/he posted LINKS to actual specifications for vaccines. How on Earth can you interpret that as proof that vaccines are not made to specifications?
You are at best a liar and dissembler, and at worst delusional.

Drs. Sampson/Sicherer have called for elimination of casein. They would not make that suggestion if they regarded it to be technically impossible.

This is the saddest attempt at trying to maintain the fiction that the idea all along was to plot a fiendishly roundabout course to the Island of Underoos that I've ever laid eyes on.

I’m taking bets on how many more more comments the Troll is going to post.

What sort of point spread are you making book with here?

This is getting increasingly bizarre - I am not defending homeopathy!

No. A liter of water has about 3e25 molecules.
If you add an NaCl molecule to it, you get a concentration of 1:3e25 molecules. If the NaCl molecule is removed, you get 0 concentration.

Dilution does not involve removingsolute molecules. Also, I don't see how the number of water molecules is relevant, or useful; it's the solute molecule that matters.

In that volume, it is impossible to get any further dilution. It is either 0 or 1 in 3e25. No probabilities.

Of course it isn't impossible: add another 9 liters of water to your dilution that contains one NaCl molecule, mix thoroughly, and you now have a dilution of one molecule per ten liters or one in 3e26 molecules, if you prefer. Take a one liter aliquot of that solution. Is the NaCl in that aliquot or is it in the remaining nine liters? It must be in one or the other, which is where probability comes into play: there is a one in ten chance of the NaCl molecule being in the one liter aliquot.

If you increase the volume of the container to the size of the earth, you can get about 1:~1e49.
Otherwise, you are talking new physics. Homeopathic pseudophysics perhaps?

Serial dilution does not require 'new physics'. It's a common way of making large dilutions in chemistry, when you don't want to waste large volumes of solvent. Take 100 molecules of NaCl, dissolve in 100 mL of water and mix, giving 100 molecules per 100mL. Take a 1 mL aliquot, add to another 100 mL of water and mix, giving (on average) one molecule per 100 mL. Do this again and the chances of you having a single molecule of salt in the 100 mL of water are one in 100. Carry on to homeopathic extremes and the chances of a single molecule remaining start to approximate zero.

That's why Benveniste's 1e120 dilution is ridiculous, not because it is physically impossible, but because the chances of there being a single molecule remaining is, for all practical purposes, zero.

APV,

And sesame allergy I believe is more common in Israel? May be there is a much simpler explanation. May be, just may be, UK vaccine makers used Polysorbate 80 contaminated with peanut protein and Israel’s manufacturers used Polysorbate 80 contaminated with sesame protein?

That is your idea of a much simpler explanation? Inventing, out of whole cloth, the existence of protein contamination of vaccines by peanut and sesame proteins without a shred of evidence? It's true that some anonymous irresponsible lunatic has spread the rumor, on multiple websites, that sesame oil is used instead of peanut oil in vaccines, but I can find no evidence at all for either being used in any vaccines in use anywhere.

Differing diets seem to me to be the simplest explanation for different geographical distributions of food allergies.

May be, just may be, UK vaccine makers used Polysorbate 80 contaminated with peanut protein and Israel’s manufacturers used Polysorbate 80 contaminated with sesame protein?

ZOMG, we'd better do a study!

Done!

I take it that your data reduction will be up to your usual standards.

So now you do agree that vaccines are manufactured without specifications, in an unprofessional manner and are extremely dangerous.

Wow. Please read #891 and the links therein which explains this. The crib version: the FDA doesn't establish specs; the FDA provides guidelines for establishing specs according to Good Manufacturing Practice, and provides specific guidelines for vaccines. Manufacturers demonstrate exactly what their specifications are, as well as the evidence for safety that is submitted as a New Drug Application. If it isn't up to snuff, the application is rejected.

If they don't test to food allergens, that is because there has not been any hint that that is a problem. If you wanted scientists to further look into your hypothesis, you should stop making blatantly false statements-- nobody is taking you serious anymore.

@MadisonMD

APV doesn't know the first thing about GMP requirements and responsibilities. He/She is just JAQing off now.

Like most AV'ers - it's always the fault of a vaccine. It's never not the fault of the vaccine.

Topologically speaking, the GI tract is on the outside of the body. ;)

Of course, this doesn't mean anything immunologically speaking, because topologically, the human body is a coffee cup, and coffee cups have no immune system.

"What sort of point spread are you making book with here?"

That would dependent on Orac and the usual policy to close down older threads to additional comments, after 90 days...we could very well set a new record. This thread still has more than two months to run...and the Troll shows no signs of quitting.

Darwy, if it's "not the fault of the vaccine", then it's the fault of the materials (latex ports) in vials of the vaccine.

APV,

No need to inflict diseases on people. Removal of gelatin, Polysorbate 80, have already been demonstrated in vaccines.

If proteins in food are the cause of food allergies, not vaccines, as is consistent with all the evidence we have seen on this thread, and which every immunologist believes, apparently, then removal of these proteins from vaccines would be an enormous waste of time and money. It might prevent the occurrence of anaphylaxis after fewer than one in half a million vaccine shots, but it would doubtless cost millions or even billions of dollars to research every vaccine, develop a food-protein-free version, carry out the required clinical trials etc. etc..

First step, enforce it on all vaccines/injections. Drs. Sampson/Sicherer have called for elimination of casein.

"Called for elimination of casein" is a bit of an exaggeration; they wrote:

Manufacturer investigation and possible labeling or elimination of casein from the vaccines might avoid this risk.

The use of "possible" and "might" doesn't sound very demanding to me. The fact that the suggest labeling as a solution clearly shows that they are talking about existing casein allergies, not that vaccines can cause sensitization, as a label is only of use to someone who knows they are already sensitized.

They would not make that suggestion if they regarded it to be technically impossible.

How do you know that? The processes for manufacturing vaccines are extremely complex and I have no idea if it is possible to eliminate casein or other food proteins from vaccines completely. It's very difficult getting viruses, and to some extent bacteria, to grow in quantity in cultures, and bacteria tend to like eating the same things we do.

I note that the children in this study reacted to a few nanograms of casein, far lower than the amount required to sensitize, according to those old guinea pig studies we have looked at. Perhaps your claim that less protein is required to sensitize than to cause an allergic reaction is wrong.

Looking at animal allergy studies, I see that intraperitoneal or ingested proteins are used to sensitize, with 100 μg OVA and 1 mg alum (as adjuvant) per mouse - that's a lot of protein for such a small creature. I wonder why they don't use i.m. or s.c. injections.

Next step, phase in removal of other food proteins. Even if I am wrong, no harm is caused.

Who is going to pay the millions or billions of dollars required? I can think of many things that money would be better spent on.

“Many cases are diagnosed as immediate-type allergic reactions and it is well established that the IgE antibody induced against the vaccine antigen or vaccine components is responsible for the reactions.”
Clearly says they are investigating a replacement for aluminum compounds because aluminum is well known to induce IgE against vaccine antigen or vaccine components.

Yes, some people have allergic reactions to vaccines, and hypoallergenic vaccines are being developed, but nothing in this paper suggests that vaccines cause those allergies in the first place.

We know that foods are certainly the major source of sensitization to food proteins, so if you are going to eliminate egg proteins from vaccines in the hope of eliminating egg allergy, for example, you are going to have to stop anyone with a family history of allergies from eating eggs or egg products, ever.

Since the latter is clearly impractical, I don't see why the former would be desirable, except to prevent allergic reactions in those who are already allergic to eggs, of course, and severe allergy is already a contraindication for vaccines containing the relevant allergens.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Ar.:

You have publicly stated as fact that vaccine makers produce vaccines with peanut oil proteins in them.

You may be responsible for people not vaccinating their children out of fear that they will develop peanut allergy based on your assertion.

You have a responsibility to retract your claim and explain that it is unsupported by evidence.

Do you have the courage to do so, or are you as dishonest and cowardly as you claim the FDA is?

Removing all food proteins wouldn't be enough. We'd need to eliminate everything that cross-reacts with food protein as well.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Ar.:

You have publicly stated as fact that Polysorbate 80 itself is an allergen.

You may be responsible for parents not vaccinating their children out of fear that they will develop an allergy to Polysorbate 80 based on your assertion.

You have a responsibility to retract your claim and explain that it is false.

Do you have the courage to do so, or are you as dishonest and cowardly as you claim the FDA is?

APV/vinucube/Vinu Ar.:

You have publicly stated as fact that one Polysorbate 80 has tapioca in it, according to the vendor.

You're lying.

Julian Frost #907,

MadisonMD posted guidelines. Those are not specifications.
I was asking for product specifications that include the specifications for the allergen content. No one has posted that yet. If I am wrong, please point me to it.

justthestats #920,

Agreed.

OccamsLaser, #921

"You have publicly stated as fact that Polysorbate 80 itself is an allergen."
If I recall correctly, Narad posted references showing Polysorbate 80 can cause pseudoallergy.

You have publicly stated as fact that one Polysorbate 80 has tapioca in it, according to the vendor.

You know what vaccine manufacturers are like: in the absence of a specific regulation forbidding it they chuck any old stuff in. Tapioca has on occasion been mistaken for a foodstuff (I have the emotional scars to prove it), so who knows?

OccamsLaser #922,

See #180.

That was sarcasm, should it not be clear.

APV has become a clueless troll. It is time to either ignore him or have him banned.

MadisonMD #913,

"If they don’t test to food allergens, that is because there has not been any hint that that is a problem."

These seem like more than "hints" of a problem:

Gelatin in vaccines was proved to be the cause of gelatin allergy.

Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9.

Egg in the flu vaccine caused the increase of anti-ovalbumin IgE.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/pdf/epidinfect00008…

Gelatin in flu vaccine causing anaphylaxis:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131108090127.htm

Casein in TDaP/DTaP causing anaphylaxis:
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext

See #180.

Again this curious conflation of "made from" and "contains". What part of "we do not expect the listed allergens in the final product" isn't clear?

And a conflation of "allergy" and "pseudoallergy", which have different words to describe them because they are not the same thing.

APV:

MadisonMD posted guidelines. Those are not specifications.

You were being called out for your remark that

So now you do agree that vaccines are manufactured without specifications, in an unprofessional manner and are extremely dangerous.

Here's the money quote from MadisonMD's comment. I've bolded the relevant part.

Drug substance:A full description of the drug substance including its physical and chemical characteristics and stability; the name and address of its manufacturer; the method of synthesis (or isolation) and purification of the drug substance; the process controls used during manufacture and packaging; and the specifications necessary to ensure the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the drug substance and the bioavailability of the drug products made from the substance, including, for example, tests, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria relating to stability, sterility, particle size, and crystalline form.

Vaccines ARE manufactured according to a specification. In fact, given how modern manufacturing and mass production works, it would be astonishing if they weren't.

So now you do agree that vaccines are... and are extremely dangerous.

Only an antivaxxer could write that. Ever hear of the propaganda technique: big lie?

APV/vinucube/Vinu Aru:

You wrote @925,

"If I recall correctly, Narad posted references showing Polysorbate 80 can cause pseudoallergy."

But that's not what you said. You have publicly stated as fact that Polysorbate 80 itself is an allergen.

You're lying.

MadisonMD #913,

“If they don’t test to food allergens, that is because there has not been any hint that that is a problem.”

Before we inject anything into our babies, I would expect thorough safety testing. Your comment implies that the FDA injects stuff into our babies first and then looks for "hints" of a problem?
We have millions of kids who have developed food allergies due to an officially unknown cause. Is that a hint?

I hear "dose makes the poison" thrown around a lot. So why is the expectation that the FDA should determine a safe dose for allergens present in vaccines, an alien concept?

APV/vinucube/Vinu Aru:

I pointed out that you stated that one Polysorbate 80 has tapioca in it, according to the vendor of that product.

You responded @927,

"See #180."

Your post at #180 contains a link to the vendor's product information.

So, this is so simple for you. All you have to do to prove your claim that the vendor's Polysorbate 80 has tapioca in it is to provide the exact quote from that product information stating that their Polysorbate 80 has tapioca in it.

That's all you have to do. Post the exact quote.

This is a test of your honesty. Don't forget that one day, perhaps soon, your children will read this.

I'm a big proponent of the flu shot but I put it off because where I usually get it didn't have the quadrivalent shot I wanted and I am now paying the price. This flu strain mentioned above is really nasty so I hope heed the precautions. My question is, if the CDC knows that they don't have the right mix, why not work on getting the right combination out to everyone who still needs a shot. Why still give the shot that isn't the right mix, get the right mix out there now so that come January-February you can try to prevent some suffering. Does anyone know if they plan on getting an improved vaccine out? I personally think they were too caught up dealing with the Ebola crisis to put the proper effort into the flu vaccine. Lawmakers need to ensure that the CDC is fully funded and fully operational since it is rather important...

Krebiozen #930,

"Again this curious conflation of “made from” and “contains”. What part of “we do not expect the listed allergens in the final product” isn’t clear?"
They did not expect intact gelatin in hydrolyzed gelatin either.
What have you learned from the "poorly hydrolyzed gelatin" history lesson? It would have been caught, if there were specifications and tests for compliance.

"We point out that we do not perform any testing on allergens in the above-mentioned
product."
If you don't test it, it will automagically be 100% pure.
Contaminated Tylenol:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703866704575224523884970554
Bausch and Lomb:
http://www.allaboutvision.com/contacts/fungal-eye-infections.htm
We don't learn anything from history, do we? You don't test your product, your customer gets sick and that's when you find the problem.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Arum.:

Here's a future conversation you're going to have:

Your child: "Dad, I found a thread on the Internet where some people figured out that you were lying about a bunch of stuff having to do with our allergies. Why did you have to lie about that stuff? I looked at the links and stuff and they were right; you made a bunch of things up. You're always telling us how angry dishonest people make you, but now I found out that you're really dishonest."

You: "..."

Go ahead and fill that in. You're going to have to sooner or later.

Julian Frost #933,

"specifications necessary to ensure the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the drug substance and the bioavailability of the drug products made from the substance, including, for example, tests, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria relating to stability, sterility, particle size, and crystalline form."

It is talking about the manufacturer providing a specification for the drug substance alone. There is no mention of excipients or specification for allergens. According to that description, vaccines should have nothing other than the vaccine antigens.

Stop lying and go away, APV the troll.

Krebiozen #918,

"We know that foods are certainly the major source of sensitization to food proteins,"

No, you yourself pointed out that you cannot explain why the UK has more peanut allergy when diets in Israel consist of more peanuts and introduced earlier in life.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumu.:

You keep avoiding dealing directly with the lies of yours that have been exposed here.

Your kids will one day read this thread. You really should put your confession on the record to try to soften the blow to their image of you as an honest person with integrity and courage.

Why won't you address your numerous lies? Things really can't get much worse for you at this point, can they?

APV,

Before we inject anything into our babies, I would expect thorough safety testing. Your comment implies that the FDA injects stuff into our babies first and then looks for “hints” of a problem?

Of course they are thoroughly tested for safety - didn't you read MadisonMD's comment at #891? The links s/he provided clearly show that permitted ingredients are either those that are already known to be safe or are tested before the drug is approved. Post marketing surveillance continues looking for problems after approval, as far more people are exposed to the drug and rare problems may show up at this point. I don't know of any better way of testing a drug/vaccine. How would you go about checking for adverse reactions that might occur once in hundreds of thousands or even millions of doses?

We have millions of kids who have developed food allergies due to an officially unknown cause. Is that a hint?

You keep making this claim, but we do know what causes food allergies: exposure to foods combined with a genetic susceptibility and some other unknown factors. That's why people are allergic to the foods eaten in their cultures. The existence of unknown factors in the equation doesn't mean that it isn't food causing food allergies after all.

I hear “dose makes the poison” thrown around a lot. So why is the expectation that the FDA should determine a safe dose for allergens present in vaccines, an alien concept?

It isn't an alien concept, the links MadisonMD provided show very clearly that vaccine manufacturers have to provide the FDA evidence that every vaccine ingredient is safe at the given dose. I would bet a fair amount that the FDA chaps in charge of approving vaccines are very aware of what are potential allergens and in what doses.

They did not expect intact gelatin in hydrolyzed gelatin either.

Lapses in manufacturing standards occur, of course. By the way, it wasn't gelatin that was inadequately hydrolyzed, it was the collagen it was made from. Gelatin is hydrolyzed collagen.

What have you learned from the “poorly hydrolyzed gelatin” history lesson? It would have been caught, if there were specifications and tests for compliance.

How precisely would such a rare reaction have been caught before the vaccine was approved?

The estimates for the incidence of the severe anaphylaxis in 1994-1996 are: 6.84, 7.31, 4. 36, and 10.3 cases per million doses of gelatin-containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella vaccines, respectively.

How do you pick out an adverse reaction that affects one in 100,000 people or fewer without giving the vaccine to millions of people?

As for the imaginary contaminants in polysorbate 80....

If you don’t test it, it will automagically be 100% pure.

Apparently on your planet, "we do not expect the listed allergens in the final product" means it definitely contains the listed allergens. I very much doubt that any intact proteins could possibly survive the manufacturing process, and I suspect that the company has worded it with potential law suits in mind. Doesn't the wording and the addition of, "we do not perform any testing on allergens in the above-mentioned product" suggest that any drug companies making a vaccine using this product are expected to do some allergy testing?

Contaminated Tylenol:

This is a case of existing regulations not being followed. An FDA report, "found more than a dozen other violations at the facility used to make the products, detailed a series of sloppy manufacturing processes including failure to maintain equipment, properly train employees and correctly weigh ingredients".

Bausch and Lomb:

Again, this was not due to a lack of manufacturing specifications or regulations, but a failure to follow existing regulations:

FDA inspections of the facility, however, determined that Bausch + Lomb failed to maintain adequate temperature control in the production, storage and transportation of Renu With MoistureLoc produced at the Greenville plant.

Human nature being what it is, sometimes people will cut corners and fail to follow SOPs. Additional regulations and specifications will not change that.

We don’t learn anything from history, do we? You don’t test your product, your customer gets sick and that’s when you find the problem.

That's not the lesson I take from those cases. I see the FDA finding lapses in regulations and the company in question being sued. I also see the FDA changing its guidelines as a result:

Based on these outbreaks, a panel of eye care experts advising the FDA recommended that the agency adopt stricter guidelines for the testing of contact lenses and contact lens solutions. The panel also advised the agency to develop standardized lens care guidelines for consumers.

Nothing is perfect, but it seems to me the current system is working reasonably well.

It is talking about the manufacturer providing a specification for the drug substance alone. There is no mention of excipients or specification for allergens. According to that description, vaccines should have nothing other than the vaccine antigens.

That's not true. Go back and read the papers that MadisonMD linked to.

The "kosher tapioca" phrasing is pretting amusing in and of itself. (The issue is that sorbitol may be wheat-derived, i.e., chometz; it has nothing to do with the tapioca per se. What any of this has to do with injectables is a complete mystery.)

APV,

“We know that foods are certainly the major source of sensitization to food proteins,”
No, you yourself pointed out that you cannot explain why the UK has more peanut allergy when diets in Israel consist of more peanuts and introduced earlier in life.

Peanuts are commonly eaten in both Israel and the UK, which is why we see allergies to these foods and not to cassava or other foods that are not commonly eaten. There are presumably one or more of those unknown factors I mentioned in my last comment, perhaps the age at which foods are introduced to children.

You don't seem to have addressed the fact that no vaccines contain any amount of peanuts or sesame seeds, so they could not possibly induce peanut or sesame allergies.

Claims that some vaccine ingredients are not included in the package insert are untrue, as you can see from this set of FDA regulations for general biological products, which clearly states that labeling must include (my emphasis):

(k) The route of administration recommended, or reference to such directions in an enclosed circular;
(l) Known sensitizing substances, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information;
(m) The type and calculated amount of antibiotics added during manufacture;
(n) The inactive ingredients when a safety factor, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information;
(o) The adjuvant, if present;
(p) The source of the product when a factor in safe administration;
(q) The identity of each microorganism used in manufacture, and, where applicable, the production medium and the method of inactivation, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information;
(r) Minimum potency of product expressed in terms of official standard of potency or, if potency is a factor and no U.S. standard of potency has been prescribed, the words "No U.S. standard of potency."

Kreb -

"You don’t seem to have addressed the fact that no vaccines contain any amount of peanuts or sesame seeds, so they could not possibly induce peanut or sesame allergies."

Actually, APV has addressed that exact point the same way he has addressed so many others -- by lying. He's said that vaccine makers produce vaccines with peanut oil proteins in them.

Ordinarily, I would not discourage you from engaging someone who is wrongheaded. Progress can be made with the thickheaded, the lazy, the misinformed, the stubborn, and even the slightly crazy. But Vinu is fundamentally dishonest. That means that 1) you cannot change his position, because he will go so far as to lie to defend it, and 2) you don't really need to counter his points endlessly for the benefit of (non-dishonest) third parties who are following along, because Vinu has destroyed his own credibility so thoroughly that there is little possibility that anyone open-minded and reasonably intelligent will be taken in by his fabrications.

Before we inject anything into our babies, I would expect thorough safety testing. Your comment implies that the FDA injects stuff into our babies first and then looks for “hints” of a problem?

Don't be an idiot.
(1) The FDA doesn't inject anything into anybody.
(2) Safety testing is required for IND as per U.S. federal law cited in #891.

The core of the problem is that if someone comes up with a random implausible idea, say "vaccines cause hamartomas," then there is no specific safety test for that. So any antivaxxer could come up with any random implausible hypothesis that has not been tested. In your case, the only conceivable half-way plausible hypothesis would refer to certain influenza vaccines and egg allergies. And, if that is your particular concern, you can get egg-free flu vaccination, which is safe for people with egg allergies. End of story.

APV says:

It is talking about the manufacturer providing a specification for the drug substance alone.

OMG! Don't be such a flicking imbecile: Title 21 CFR314.50(d)(1):

Chemistry, manufacturing, and controls section. A section describing the composition, manufacture, and specification of the drug substance and the drug product

This is federal law linked above, and quoted for you above in #891. I asked you to re-read it above when you seemed to have missed the salient points. Are you pathologically unable to admit you are wrong, APV? You keeping digging your self further and further into a stinking hole of lies and ignorance!

MadisonMD #949,

"The core of the problem is that if someone comes up with a random implausible idea, say “vaccines cause hamartomas,” then there is no specific safety test for that."

Charles Richet showed more than a 100 years ago, that injecting proteins can cause sensitization and subsequent exposure can cause anaphylaxis. We are not talking about a "random implausible idea", we are talking about an established fundamental concept in immunology. So, where are the specific tests for allergen proteins in vaccines?

Krebiozen #947,

"Known sensitizing substances"
Please point us to the package insert of a vaccine that lists poorly hydrolyzed gelatin.
That's the problem of just listing something. Where is the specification for safety?
Casein is listed. People expected it to be removed. We won't spec/test for casein (like allergens in Polysorbate 80s) because we know it's not there ...
But it has a bad habit of showing up in the vaccine.

I took a class once from a toxicologist who was one of those responsible for getting a then-commonly used chemical banned, so I think APV's idea that people like him don't exist is a little funny.

Incidentally, he mentioned several times in class about how snails really hate BPA, even though it was never really on topic. I never did figure out why as a human I should care so passionately about snail preferences, but I guess he knew what he was talking about because eventually people started about banning it.

@APV
Is your company in the habit of handing out its specifications to any random person that asks? I know mine doesn't. But that doesn't mean we don't have them.

OccamsRazor,
Oh I know you're right, but I often find myself fascinated to see how people refuse to let go of a belief even when it clearly conflicts with reality. I'm getting bored, as this is has been going in circles for a while now. On the other hand, we are getting close to a thousand ;-)

I can't entirely parse APV's last comment anyway, so perhaps I'll drop it here.

We are not talking about a “random implausible idea”, we are talking about an established fundamental concept in immunology.

No, you just habitually fall back on obtuseness out of desperation.

How does cassava protein get into Tween 80? Identify and defend the plausibility of every fυcking step or go back to pretending to be a medical professional at Medscape.

You know what else might help? Telling everybody exactly how many cases of primary cassava allergy are known.

justthestats #954,

If my company makes a product that gets injected into kids, I expect the FDA to require them to make the specifications public.

Further, it does not make sense for each company to repeat studies on safe levels of egg protein in vaccines, for example. So, the expectation is such studies will be peer-reviewed published works. It is then available to organizations such as FDA/WHO to set vaccine industry standards for allergen safety levels.

Krebiozen #945,

"Apparently on your planet, “we do not expect the listed allergens in the final product” means it definitely contains the listed allergens. I very much doubt that any intact proteins could possibly survive the manufacturing process, and I suspect that the company has worded it with potential law suits in mind."

How did "poorly hydrolyzed gelatin" happen?
How did 8-18 ng/ml casein end up in DPT?

"Doesn’t the wording and the addition of, “we do not perform any testing on allergens in the above-mentioned product” suggest that any drug companies making a vaccine using this product are expected to do some allergy testing?"

Ok, the drug company should do allergy testing. Against which specification?

It looks to me like APV has now admitted that he fabricated several of the claims that he has posted. At least we might get some closure on this sad episode.

Did APV just answer himself in his last post and then suggest where the conversation should go?

Mrs. Woo -

I think he's replying to points Kreb made @945.

It looks to me like APV has now admitted that he fabricated several of the claims that he has posted.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he didn't know what tapioca actually is when he started babbling about it.

I often prescribe intravenous polysorbate 80 (wrapped around docetaxel) at much higher doses than APV is concerned about.

It has, of course, already trotted this out (some four or five hundred comments ago).

One might be inclined to wonder all the same where all the fυcking Herceptin anaphylaxis is.

Apologies to OccamsLaser for getting your nym wrong - it was 3 am in my time zone.

Also to Mrs. Woo, who directed a comment to me a few days ago that I didn't reply to. That was because I couldn't find it again; I wasn't meaning to be impolite! You admired my patience with APV but it's more that I'm curious to see just just how impervious to reason s/he is, and also that ifs/he is here arguing s/he isn't posting more unchallenged misinformation elsewhere, though that's probably not an efficient strategy.

@Narad #963

Let me paraphrase APV's coming answer, "Something, something, not IV injection, something, something, reaction at injection site, something something "

We need to tell all the diabetics to stop injecting insulin immediately as these proteins cause anaphylaxis and brain injury on a massive global scale.

insert 'all caps' wherever needed.

APV:

If my company makes a product that gets injected into kids, I expect the FDA to require them to make the specifications public.

Given that said specification could include trade secrets, and that the FDA has people who are qualified to check vaccine specifications and demand modifications if necessary, why?
Also, I'm fed up with your dishonesty. You claimed that MadisonMD's comments were proof that vaccines were not made to a specification when they proved that they were. When I called you out for it, you engaged in a goalpost shift with...

It is talking about the manufacturer providing a specification for the drug substance alone. There is no mention of excipients or specification for allergens.

MadisonMD @950 then pointed out your claims were false.
I can draw no other conclusion from your comments that you are wilfully ignoring inconvenient facts and lying when it suits you.

We need to tell all the diabetics to stop injecting insulin immediately

Sadly, there are people who would seriously go this way. Some anti-GMO folks who are very upset with yeast-grown insulin being a successful application of GMO tech, by example.

#951

Charles Richet showed more than a 100 years ago, that injecting proteins can cause sensitization and subsequent exposure can cause anaphylaxis. We are not talking about a “random implausible idea”, we are talking about an established fundamental concept in immunology. So, where are the specific tests for allergen proteins in vaccines?

Anaphalaxis? The risk of anaphlaxis to influenza vaccines is 0.65 per million. That's after sensitization to the same principle ingredients-- viral antigens which are often the same in subsequent years. Testing some trace antigen is immaterial as this involves repeat immunization with the same influenza antigens. It turns out that you can even give trivalent vaccine to individuals with severe egg allergy. All this has been tested, available in peer-reviewed literature and safety is known.

Anaphalaxis? The risk of anaphlaxis to influenza vaccines is 0.65 per million.

There are two things to note here, at least.

1. Vinu has silently backtracked (without a retraction, of course), from his original assertion:

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

2. The subsidiary evasion of "food-like" doses in order to elicit anaphylaxis seems to have been slipped in (e.g., comment 762) to hand-wave away the foregoing objection, even though it is still supposed to have explanatory power when convenient.

The only thing he has is trying to impress with hyperemetic displays from his two (nearly identical) blogs. As I've repeatedly noted, there are better sources to try use to back up his very own claims, but he's been too dense to even pick up on the hints.

* What would "FemtoThnk" do?

MadisonMD #969,

"Anaphalaxis? The risk of anaphlaxis to influenza vaccines is 0.65 per million. That’s after sensitization to the same principle ingredients– viral antigens which are often the same in subsequent years. Testing some trace antigen is immaterial as this involves repeat immunization with the same influenza antigens."

Thank you posting this. If I understand you correctly, I was predicting the same in post #202 regarding Flublok.
I wrote:
"Flublok advertises that they have 45*3=135 mcg of viral protein, 3X the normal amount. If next year’s strains are selected to be the same as this year’s, risk of anaphylaxis due to anti-influenza IgE could become a real problem."

A typical flu shot contains 15 mcg of hemagglutinin (HA) protein per virus type and 0.5 mcg of ovalbumin protein. About 60% (maybe more?) of US children who receive a flu shot get sensitized to the HA protein. One can therefore expect 60/(15/0.5)=2% of those who receive the flu shot to get sensitized to the ovalbumin protein as well?

Thank you posting this. If I understand you correctly, I was predicting the same in post #202 regarding Flublok.

No, put a fυcking sock in it. You have a specific go–no-go at #956, and that's not even getting to what the fυck excuse you could possibly disgorge for "failing to notice" this.

A typical flu shot contains 15 mcg of hemagglutinin (HA) protein per virus type and 0.5 mcg of ovalbumin protein. About 60% (maybe more?) of US children who receive a flu shot get sensitized to the HA protein. One can therefore expect 60/(15/0.5)=2% of those who receive the flu shot to get sensitized to the ovalbumin protein as well?

Did you not even fυcking notice comments 185, 834, and 866? Were you too busy pretending to be a medical student?

APV,
I can't ignore the reappearance of this brilliant piece of reasoning.

A typical flu shot contains 15 mcg of hemagglutinin (HA) protein per virus type and 0.5 mcg of ovalbumin protein.

This is true.

About 60% (maybe more?) of US children who receive a flu shot get sensitized to the HA protein.

How do you get from 0.65 per million to 60%? By, "get sensitized", do you mean 60% develop immunity in the form of IgG antibodies? If so, that's not an allergy, is it? I do not believe that 60% of children who receive an influenza vaccine develop an allergy to it. Are you confusing IgG and IgE again?

One can therefore expect 60/(15/0.5)=2% of those who receive the flu shot to get sensitized to the ovalbumin protein as well?

How did you get the idea that we can just assume the same dose-dependent immune response regardless of the protein involved, whether or not the subject is atopic, and even whether it's an IgG or IgE response? If immunology is that easy I suppose we can assume that 60/(15/135)=540% of people given Flublok will get sensitized to influenza hemagglutinin. Oh, wait....

Ignoring that blunder, according to your somewhat dodgy logic, surely we can expect 0.65/(15/0.5) = 1 per 45 million of those who receive the flu shot to develop an allergy to the ovalbumin protein as well, and perhaps 2% to develop IgG antibodies to ovalbumin.

Kreb964

How impervious to reason?

Thoroughly, obviously.

APV is attached to his/her little hypothesis umbilically. He probably feels that he would expire without it. Her entire life now depends on it. Like a creationist depends on the belief that Genesis is literally true, pure naked and unadorned - except for a literal fig leaf. Like metaphorical theology depends on belief that the fig leaf in Genesis is of the metaphorical genera. One way or another, by hook or by crook APV is going to believe and nothing and nobody is ever going to get him/her to say, hey, you know what, you are right and I was wrong. The evidence shows that vaccines do far more good than harm.

What APV will do is take all that has transpired here off to other sites to with less knowledgable participants. Prepared with ready made responses to virtually all possible objections.

There really is no satisfactory strategy for dealing with somone for whom the meaning of life is a personal belief for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and who wants the world to believe too.

(Would not in the least surprise me if APV is a creationist.)

Krebiozen #974,

"How do you get from 0.65 per million to 60%? By, “get sensitized”, do you mean 60% develop immunity in the form of IgG antibodies? If so, that’s not an allergy, is it? I do not believe that 60% of children who receive an influenza vaccine develop an allergy to it. Are you confusing IgG and IgE again?"

My understanding is that vaccine antigens cause the synthesis of BOTH IgG and IgE per study below, regardless of atopy status. Atopy may affect degree of sensitization?
0.65/million is the elicitation rate for a small (15 mcg) elicitation dose, not the sensitization rate. Per study below (n=3 for Fluzone), IgE synthesis is definitely more than 0.65/million and much closer to 100%.

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

"How did you get the idea that we can just assume the same dose-dependent immune response regardless of the protein involved"

Yes, that argument could go both ways. Ovalbumin (or any other egg protein present in the vaccine for that matter) could be more strongly immunogenic than the HA protein too?
So it seems a study should have been done to determine the safe levels for egg proteins in the vaccine?

Why are you lying about being a medical student at Medscape?

APV, there's one thing you need to learn if yo don't want to get repeatedly shown up here.
When you post a reference, the "shills and minions" (as we jokingly call ourselves) will click on the link, will read the study and will tear you a new one if it turns out you've misrepresented it.
I'm afraid I don't see the point of posting a link to that study. It's about Long Term Persistence of IgE Anti-Influenza Virus Antibodies in Pediatric and Adult Serum Post Vaccination with Influenza Virus Vaccine. Literally. That's its name. If it was about, say, antibody production against egg albumin after vaccination, you may have had a point.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham:

Thanks for admitting that you fabricated many of the supposed facts you've posted here and elsewhere on the Internet.

Are you coming to realize that lying doesn't serve your cause?

Wow, APV lies about being a medical student on Medscape?

How low can you go APV?

APV,

0.65/million is the elicitation rate for a small (15 mcg) elicitation dose, not the sensitization rate.

So your claim is that by some extraordinary coincidence influenza vaccines contain enough proteins to sensitize but not enough to elicit an allergic reaction, except in 0.65 in a million patients? The number of anaphylactic reactions to vaccines does not appear to be increasing, so how is it that people who get the vaccine every year become allergic to eggs that they eat, but never, apparently, to the egg proteins in the vaccine?

Per study below (n=3 for Fluzone), IgE synthesis is definitely more than 0.65/million and much closer to 100%.

We have been over this before. You don't know that the IgE antibodies have anything to do with the vaccine; they could well be due to exposure to wild influenza virus. Subject 5 is 16 years old, is clearly atopic (total IgE 132 IU/mL) and yet has only IgG antibodies despite having had an influenza vaccine, and all older subjects have both IgE and IgG antibodies, which supports this hypothesis.

How many times have I explained that IgE synthesis is not the same thing as sensitization, and that some production of IgE is normal? Even the study you cited says nothing about allergy to HA:

Our discovery also suggests that the IgE molecule has evolved to serve various beneficial functions, including anti-viral. However, at present, it is unclear how IgE promotes its activity in these viruses. [...] The results presented here suggest that IgE is associated with anti-influenza immunity and their memory responses.

Back to what you wrote...

“How did you get the idea that we can just assume the same dose-dependent immune response regardless of the protein involved”
Yes, that argument could go both ways. Ovalbumin (or any other egg protein present in the vaccine for that matter) could be more strongly immunogenic than the HA protein too?

Since we know that some proteins are more allergenic than others, and that small increases in IgE are of no clinical significance, your assumptions and your calculations are groundless.

So it seems a study should have been done to determine the safe levels for egg proteins in the vaccine?

Such studies have already been done, back when influenza vaccines were first being developed and since. Just a few examples, PMID: 14910853, PMID: 13692367, PMID: 1239018, PMID: 604096, PMID: 315676 and PMID: 11846867. From that last paper:

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. The risks of not vaccinating children, however, far outweigh the risk for allergy. Therefore, childhood vaccination remains an essential part of child health programs and should not be withheld, even from children predisposed for allergy.

Looks like your hypothesis was considered, investigated and rejected decades ago.

I’m afraid I don’t see the point of posting a link to that study.

I presume it has to do with this:

If one is exposed to large (food-like) quantities of virus/bacteria after a vaccination with the same, I suspect anaphylaxis will result.

He has already proved completely unable to quantify this (see #782). In the meantime, he conspicuously ignored my comment #773:

If only there were a disease that could selectively screw up production of IgG – bear with me here – and, say, pathogenically expressed the same protein that some other disease that is commonly vaccinated against also targeted for cell entry, then in this strange world, maybe it would occur to somebody to actually try to take advantage of the grossly attenuated immune memory and reintroduce massive amounts of a weakened form of that other disease to see if it would go to town on the first one.

I know, this is krraaayzee talk, but that there would be a sure-fire recipe for anaphylaxis.

Right?

A charitable explanation would be that he was just too damned stupid to understand the question or too busy responding to things where it was simpler to repeat the same fυcking shіt from his "blogs" over and over again.

A less charitable reason for his ignoring it is that he actually did understand what I was getting at (PDF).*

On balance, I'm going with the former.

* The genuine item was open access when it was "in press"; beats me.

Krebiozen #982

"So your claim is that by some extraordinary coincidence influenza vaccines contain enough proteins to sensitize but not enough to elicit an allergic reaction, except in 0.65 in a million patients?"

The gap between the sensitization dose and the elicitation dose is an evolutionary outcome.
If you were sensitized by one virus and a few weeks later if another single virus exposure could cause anaphylaxis, you would go extinct. Vaccine makers only use enough proteins to cause sensitization. Why would they add more virus proteins if a smaller quantity works? Of course, there are exceptions like Flublok and we have to see how they fare on the anaphylaxis front ...

BTW, the 0.65/million is not for influenza. MadisonMD probably had a different reference in mind ...

"The number of anaphylactic reactions to vaccines does not appear to be increasing, so how is it that people who get the vaccine every year become allergic to eggs that they eat, but never, apparently, to the egg proteins in the vaccine?"
Huge difference in the elicitation doses. Vaccines have 1 mcg. You usually eat a lot more than an mcg.

"Subject 5 is 16 years old, is clearly atopic"
Subject 5 received LAIV, which is more like a natural infection. It is best to leave the LAIV cases out.

"You don’t know that the IgE antibodies have anything to do with the vaccine;"
Vaccine antigens causing IgE synthesis has been demonstrated over and over since at least 1977.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/830756

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

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0264410X9400017H
They were worried enough about IgE synthesis to say "... aluminium as adjuvant may need re-evaluation."

"Since we know that some proteins are more allergenic than others, and that small increases in IgE are of no clinical significance, your assumptions and your calculations are groundless."

You have not demonstrated that egg proteins are less allergenic than HA proteins. So can how can you dismiss my calculation?

"Looks like your hypothesis was considered, investigated and rejected decades ago."

You have now accepted that the Richet allergy model was considered to be a risk factor for allergens present in vaccines, even by qualified researchers.

Papers 1,2 are references you provided.
Paper 1.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM195204032461403
They show 5 of 312 developed dermal sensitivity to egg white due to the egg proteins present in vaccines.

Paper 2.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1399-3038.2001.1r046.x/abs…
says "Some epidemiological studies in humans suggest an inhibitory effect of tuberculosis on allergy".

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

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

Aggravating factors for today's children:
1. They are not exposed to tuberculosis (thankfully) and derive no inhibitory effect against allergy (unfortunately).
2. They are more prone to allergies due to hygiene and sometimes even due to c-section birth.
3. They receive multiple vaccinations in one sitting. For example, DTaP has pertussis toxin and aluminum BOTH of which are known to act as adjuvants that enhance IgE synthesis. DTaP can be simultaneously administered with MMR. The various excipients in MMR and DTaP have their immunogenicity amplified by the adjuvants.

Considering all this, why no allergen quantity specification in vaccines?
Don't all these aggravating factors mean that the 1952 results need to re-visited?
Looks like "rejected decades ago", prematurely ...

@APV - the problem with what you are doing is that you take bits and pieces of various studies, which ends up allowing possible confounded into the results (some call this cherry-picking) and only pick pieces favorable to your pet hypothesis.

That isn't science. That is what a measured, balanced scientific approach attempts to avoid.

APV, where are the verifiable statistics that the influenza vaccine has caused as many pediatric deaths as the actual disease? This season influenza has now killed fifteen children:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

Anything other than the evidence the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease will be considered mindless trolling.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham:

Given that you have admitted fabricating many of the things you've put forth as facts, and that you lied about being a medical student, why should anyone believe anything you say?

@APV

BTW, the 0.65/million is not for influenza. MadisonMD probably had a different reference in mind …

Thanks for that. I incorrectly cited my reference because 0.65/million was for all vaccines. Here is the money quote from the article specific to influenza:

We observed no cases of anaphylaxis after vaccination with combined diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, influenza, inactivated polio vaccine, adult diphtheria-tetanus, or varicella.

There were 197,964 doses of influenza covered in this study. Here's another study that shows no association between influenza vaccine and anaphylaxis in 3.3 million doses.

Now quit being a jackass and admit you are wrong again. No, I guess you can't do that because antivaxxers like you are simply impervious to facts.

MadisonMD #988,

You wrote in #969:
"That’s after sensitization to the same principle ingredients– viral antigens which are often the same in subsequent years."

Do you still believe that or not? Any references?

And, anaphylaxis to vaccines is not my primary concern. As I have noted several times before, anaphylaxis is just the tip of the iceberg. It is proof that there is enough allergen in vaccines to cause sensitization.

If you are acting as an honest interlocutor, APV, please indicate all the erroneous statements of fact that you have made thus far in this thread. If you do so, then I will be more than happy to answer your questions. Otherwise, you are a waste.

APV,

The gap between the sensitization dose and the elicitation dose is an evolutionary outcome.

You still seem to think that anaphlaxis has evolved because it has some kind of survival advantage. It hasn't, it's the result of a glitch in our defenses against parasites.

I remind you that Wells found that 0.63 micrograms of egg protein sensitized a 300 gram guinea pig, smaller doses produced "no sensitization whatever" and fatal anaphylaxis only occurred after sensitization with 5-10 times this dose i.e. 3.15 to 6.3 µg .

Since a 6-month-old child weighs at least 6.7 kg, 22 times as much as the guinea pig, we can expect anything less than 13 µg of egg protein (or 9 µg ovalbumin since egg white protein is 65% ovalbumin) to cause "no sensitization whatever", and only more than 65 µg to sensitize sufficiently to cause fatal anaphylaxis.

If you have any more recent evidence that less ovalbumin than this can sensitize sufficiently to cause clinical allergy, do share. Otherwise this is a dead hypothesis that would be pushing up the daisies if you hadn't nailed it to its perch.

Are we reaching the 1,000 posts before the end of 2014?

APV, where are the statistics of pediatric deaths due to the influenza vaccine? Until you provide the statistics that the vaccine has killed at least fifteen kids in the USA each year, you are just trolling.

Renate, I'm not sure it counts if APV keeps posting the same fallacies over and over again, causing other posters to keep posting the same corrections over and over again.

The short APV.

Indeed, Shay, we're approaching an infinite do-loop with APV... *SIGH*

APV still hasn't responded to the observation thatthere are lots of ways to get food proteins "injected" into the body: knifeslips while preparing food or butchering animals, handling food with scratched hands, eating with a cut or other injury inthe mouth, being bitten or scratched by an animal, getting stuck by a thorn ... If *any* protein injected into the body *will* cause anaphylaxis on the next exposure, why didn't the human species -- or even all mammalian species -- go extinct a long time ago?

APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham:

Now that you admitted making things up, can you tell us (and your children, who will read this) what drove you to be so dishonest? Have you realized that you are engaging in all those dishonest acts that you have accused government agencies and researchers of doing?

Please explain why you decided to lie.

Scottynuke,

Indeed, Shay, we’re approaching an infinite do-loop with APV… *SIGH*

Fear not, I, for one, have an exit strategy.
WHILE NOT BORED
REFUTE
WHILE END

I just got a weird message complaining that my comment was from 2015 (which looks reassuringly similar to 2014 for those of you still there).

I do like APV's claim (from Narad's last link) claiming that live nasal vaccines inject "live viruses on to your olfactory nerve that is millimeters away from your brain". I'm never breathing again, just in case.

Come on, APV! Kids are dying from influenza!

So where is that verifiable data that more kids die from the vaccine? Why won't you tell us?

I just got a weird message complaining that my comment was from 2015 (which looks reassuringly similar to 2014 for those of you still there).

Hang on one sec'.

OK, yah, clearing cookies fixes it (I was getting "wrong answer [2014]" or thereabouts).

I mentioned this a while ago to Orac while I was bringing a donated G3 iBook (OS X 10.3.9) around, and the same thing was happening on the naive installed browsers. Naturally, I sounded like a nut.

If you look really closely during a page load, you'll see the WP antispam plugin "Current ye@r" line. After the cookie clear, it was filled in with 2.2, which I take to be the version. On the ancient machine, changing the prefill to the correct year allowed posting.

How it autofills itself with the correct answer and what it's good for are likely to be dreary subjects of investigation.

OK, it appears to be some approach aimed at people who are too brain-dead to figure out how to prevent direct injection to wp-comments-post.php on their own, which definitely fits.

I’m not sure it counts if APV keeps posting the same fallacies over and over again, causing other posters to keep posting the same corrections over and over again.

I just wish he would try applying his AI engine instead. Or switch it off and post for himself, whichever.

Krebiozen #991,

PMID: 14910853
Allergy to viral and rickettsial vaccines. III. Influence of repeated inoculations on the acquisition of egg allergy

The reference you provided demonstrates that even in a population protected against allergy (by tuberculosis infection), egg proteins in vaccines caused the development of dermal sensitivity to egg proteins. You have thus provided even more evidence in support of the Richet allergy model.

APV, who gets vaccinated for typhus? By the way, that study was from 1952.

Also, where are the statistics showing that the influenza vaccine causes as many deaths to children as does the disease? A disease that as of this week as killed fifteen kids:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

Until then you are just a troll.