After SB 277, medical exemptions to vaccine mandates for sale, courtesy of Dr. Bob Sears

Of course I might have been just as easily branded “anti-science” then as now for seeing past that round of deception that’s since become a primary purpose of the government-science complex that replaces the openness and the hearing out of any and all alternative conclusions with the rigid intolerance of so-called “settled science” not seen since the good doktor Bimler’s Germany.

For which you still have not offered any corroboration.

Returning to subject, I will share that I’m old enough to remember when Reynolds leveraged their cozy relationship with government and ran full page ads in the WSJ and others to share that there was “no scientific evidence” to connect “second hand smoke” to health issues.

I'm pretty sure they just use a rate card like everybody else, gramps.

AdamG #1501,

"1. Some if not all current shots do more harm than good"

As I pointed out before, 50% of DTaP shots are unnecessary.
Unnecessary vaccines obviously provide ZERO benefit and are NOT risk-free. So they definitely do more harm than good.

"2. No two batches of vaccines are the same"

Different vendors use different formulations.
Even the same vendor can use excipients from multiple suppliers. The general public thinks a flu shot is a flu shot.
But flu shots vary widely. The active ingredient can vary from 9-45 mcg (500% !).
See the comparison here:
https://mttmblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/flusum2014.pdf
Source: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm…

"3. No two patients respond the same to the same vaccine"
Some people get food allergy, anaphylaxis, others get GBS, yet others are symptom-free.

MJD #1495,

"My severely autistic son has atopy including egg allergy."

Sorry about you son's condition.

"Kudos to you and the FDA for making everyone aware of egg-allergy vaccine contraindications."

Current levels of egg-protein in the flu vaccine is considered safe for people with egg allergy. But the recommendation is to get the shot at a location where a "crash cart" is available and wait 30 min. to check for a reaction.

However, that's only half the story. The egg protein in the vaccines can still act as a "booster shot" for the allergy and make it less likely that one will grow out of it. No safe dose for injected egg protein has ever been determined. You won't hear about that from the FDA.

Eric H #1499,

"When was “the last time you checked?” And do you seriously believe FDA research is directed by new recruits? And that the bureaucracy is set up to give folks “opportunity” to join and “partake” in their own research?"

Even worse. The FDA/CDC bureaucracy (and vaccine makers) ignore the research by their OWN doctors.

The FDA/CDC doctors wrote: “Efforts should continue to identify less allergenic substitutes for gelatin currently used by vaccine manufacturers.”.

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

13 years later, gelatin in vaccines is still making kids sick.

http://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/Vaccines

"The egg protein in the vaccines can still act as a “booster shot” for the allergy and make it less likely that one will grow out of it. "

How can kids outgrow allergies if they keep getting food protein contaminated vaccines that serve as allergy booster shots?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/10/food-allergies-out…
"Doctors used to see children growing out of milk allergies in preschool years. But now "we see kids really holding on to milk allergies," sometimes into teen years, says Gupta, who presented the unpublished data at a meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology this week in Anaheim, Calif. The reasons for that shift — and the recent increases in child food allergies — are unknown, she says."

The reason seems pretty obvious to anyone who has looked into vaccine ingredients ...

To Eric H:
This statement is incorrect:
"The other question to be considered is whether spreading live virus contained in most vaccines might have unintended consequences that may even include the presence of an unexpected virus."
Of the vaccinations recommended for children under the age of 18 years, only the rotavirus, MMR and varicella vaccines are live virus vaccines.
DTaP, HIB, Pneumococcus, polio, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, meningococcus, and HPV vaccines are all NOT live virus vaccines.
So unless you feel that 3 of 11 vaccines is MOST, then most vaccines do not contain live virus. That is a FACT.

APV:

Please answer the question in #1490. If it was not DTaP, what caused the sensitization?

Am I a medical researcher? Do I have access to the raw data? No and No.
You are once again trying to get me to prove a negative. As we have told you numerous times already, we do not have to prove that vaccines don't cause allergies, you have to prove they do, and so far, while what you have isn't nothing, it's a long, long way from definite proof.

Julian Frost #1509,

"Am I a medical researcher? Do I have access to the raw data? No and No.
You are once again trying to get me to prove a negative. As we have told you numerous times already, we do not have to prove that vaccines don’t cause allergies, you have to prove they do, and so far, while what you have isn’t nothing, it’s a long, long way from definite proof."

In science, you either accept my position or provide an alternate explanation that BETTER explains the observed evidence. If you DON'T have an alternative explanation that is a better fit for the evidence, how can you be confident that my explanation is wrong?

It is like a flat earth believer saying, I have no proof that the earth is flat but the notion that the earth is round is wrong.

In science, you either accept my position or provide an alternate explanation that BETTER explains the observed evidence.

Except your "explanation" has already been rejected by the people researching if vaccines have a role in allergies.
To repeat my quote in #1338:

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.

p.s.
That's not how it works in science. I don't have to come up with a better explanation to show that your explanation is wrong.

Julian Frost,

You are avoiding a discussion of the details in the Japanese research papers because you are afraid you will be proven wrong.

kidzmd #1508,

You seem to be a real doctor. Your opinion on food protein contaminated vaccines/injections causing food allergies would be valuable.
Citations in #858, #1185.

The AAFA also points out that injections can cause sensitization.
https://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=16&cont=54

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/protein+sensitization

"a reaction that follows parenteral introduction of a foreign protein into the body. Symptoms of varying severity, including serum sickness, occur when the same foreign protein is reintroduced into the body at a later date."

Where has it been demonstrated that food protein contaminated vaccines are exempt from this definition?

APV:

You are avoiding a discussion of the details in the Japanese research papers because you are afraid you will be proven wrong.</blockquote.
No, it's because I couldn't be arsed refuting somebody yet again when said person has an idee fixee and a complete misunderstanding of how science and the scientific method work.

Out of idle curiosity,what is the highest post count a thread has gotten to here? Any over 2000? Can this be searched? I seem to recall one or two getting over 1700 in the past.

I don't remember. However, comments automatically close 90 days after a post goes live, in order to cut down on comment spam. Unfortunately, that means the comments to this post will remain open for more than two more months.

I could be wrong Orac, but I suspect you would be able to manually close the comments thread.

Julian Frost,

Definition of protein sensitization:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/protein+sensitization

“a reaction that follows parenteral introduction of a foreign protein into the body. Symptoms of varying severity, including serum sickness, occur when the same foreign protein is reintroduced into the body at a later date.”

Fact: Vaccines/injections contain numerous foreign proteins including food proteins.
Conclusion:Vaccines/injections, by definition, cause sensitization.

Now you should accept that or the burden of proof is upon YOU to demonstrate otherwise.

Orac,

I have provided numerous articles demonstrating that food protein contaminated vaccines/injections cause food allergy.
How about you writing an article about it? If you are a true scientist, I assume you will go where the science takes you?

Even better,write something about how bad the science is in the articles APV posted.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before

Lawmakers Consider Bill Eliminating Non-Medical Exemptions for Vaccines (NY State)

At least 20,000 infected in southeast Congo measles outbreak: U.N.

Roger Kulp #1522,

"bad the science is in the articles"

Please point out the "bad science".

Fact: Vaccines/injections contain numerous foreign proteins including food proteins.

You have failed to convincingly demonstrate this. In fact, in the first thread, you claimed that polysorbate 80 originally contained peanut oil and that the manufacturer then quietly changed the formulation and updated the information sheet to hide that fact.

Conclusion:Vaccines/injections, by definition, cause sensitization.

Your conclusion does not automatically follow from the premise. And your premise is dubious. In short, you are not even wrong.

VACCINE CHALLENGE, ANYONE?

Applicable to anyone who agrees with the current vaccine/injection schedule.
Get vaccinated/injected per schedule with dosage adjusted for your weight.

Examples:
Day one: Get 20 shots of Hep B, 20 shots of Vitamin K1 (avg. adult wt./newborn wt = 150/7.5=20)

At the 8 months visit: Get 7 shots EACH of 5 vaccines for a total of 35 shots in one sitting.
(150/20=~7)

Dr. Offit, Dr.Schuchat (CDC), Dr. Pan of California should all take this challenge to demonstrate the safety of our vaccines/schedule to parents.

California's Gov. Brown and every Senator/Assembly member who voted for SB 277 should be mandated to take this challenge before they can attend office.

Let's see how many people are willing to put their deltoid muscles where their mouth is.

Thanks to commenter Stuart H for the great idea.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/08/04/how-do-you-change-an-…

I seem to recall some of the antis frothing at the mouth about this girl's death when it was first reported.

Medical examiner: Girl's death not caused by HPV vaccination.

It was antihistamine overdose/intoxication.

APV #1526:

Let’s see how many people are willing to put their deltoid muscles where their mouth is.

On your nickel, right?

I didn't think you'd be willing to put your money...

Since many of us either had all of (or in some cases, like foreign travel & military service, more) our needed vaccinations, both as kids and adults, I find this "challenge" to be entirely spurious and illogical.

It, again, just shows why people like APV will never understand science, since they can't even pass immunology 101.

@APV: as soon as you work out the equivalency of the fluid volumes/muscle mass also. Because right now, you don't have that ratio, and injecting 0.2 ccs into an infant's thigh muscle is not the same as injecting 8ccs into an adult's deltoid.

As far as the active ingredients, I'd happily get the equivalent injections. Wouldn't hurt me any.

Orac says ( #1518),

... the comments to this post will remain open for more than two more months.

MJD says,

The Aug/Sept issue of Autism File is available and there is an interesting article about Mr. Wakefield, (pg 14-15).

Furthermore, I wrote an article in this issue entitled "Autism Pride in the Workplace", pg 35-38.

You can read these articles at:

http://en.calameo.com/read/004385485849445496724

“a reaction that follows parenteral introduction of a foreign protein into the body. Symptoms of varying severity, including serum sickness, occur when the same foreign protein is reintroduced into the body at a later date.”
Fact: Vaccines/injections contain numerous foreign proteins including food proteins.
Conclusion:Vaccines/injections, by definition, cause sensitization.
Now you should accept that or the burden of proof is upon YOU to demonstrate otherwise.

Part of the burden of proof is accounting for certain important facts which APV has established for us:

injecting food proteins directly into the bloodstream is perfectly safe and cannot possibly cause either sensitization or reaction;

injecting food proteins into the tissues of the gums is perfectly safe and cannot possibly cause either sensitization or reaction;

natural exposure to food particles, e.g. by handling food with scratched-up hands, is vanishingly rare;

muscle tissue responds entirely differently from either the bloodstream or the gums, in that exposure of muscle tissue to even nanograms of food proteins produces sensitization or, later, reaction;

muscle tissues can tell the difference between food proteins and pollen proteins, or food proteins and insect stings, but not the difference between food proteins and virus.

APV # 1524
"Please point out the “bad science”.

Clearly you are in the throes of some kind of Groundhog Day sydnrome.

syndrome!

Bill Price #1528,

"On your nickel, right?"

We have Orac. "principal investigator on a federal grant".
And vaccine makers would want to showcase their safe vaccines by making them available for free. No?

Lawrence #1529,

This is not about your needed vaccinations. This is about you demonstrating YOUR confidence in the safety of the vaccines and schedule, in an "apples to apples" comparison against the equivalent of a toddler's level of exposure.

MI Dawn #1530,

"as soon as you work out the equivalency of the fluid volumes/muscle mass also."

Looking at the Hep B vaccine package insert, there is only one 0.5 ml dose for 0-19 years of age. Can be administered in the thigh or deltoid depending on age.

"As far as the active ingredients, I’d happily get the equivalent injections."

Active ingredients? Nice try! If I could get vaccines with just the active ingredients, I would not be complaining here.
You should get the exact same contaminated vaccines with 7-20 intramuscular puncture wounds (no "equivalent injection" cheating allowed). We need an "apples to apples" comparison of the exact torture inflicted on a toddler's body, down to the amount of muscle, skin and nerve tissue torn and injected. This is to ensure that your body has the same opportunity to develop allergies and autoimmunity as a toddler's body.

LW #1532,

"injecting food proteins directly into the bloodstream is perfectly safe and cannot possibly cause either sensitization or reaction;"

Not "perfectly safe" but lower probability of sensitization because the immune system needs time to sensitize and quick clearance of the protein from the blood makes for sub-optimal immunogenicity.

"injecting food proteins into the tissues of the gums is perfectly safe and cannot possibly cause either sensitization or reaction;"

Not "perfectly safe" but low probability of sensitization.
We are living proof of that.

"natural exposure to food particles, e.g. by handling food with scratched-up hands, is vanishingly rare;"
Yes, natural exposure of food particles to the immune system, through wounds is rare.

"muscle tissue responds entirely differently from either the bloodstream or the gums, in that exposure of muscle tissue to even nanograms of food proteins produces sensitization or, later, reaction;"

The muscle tissue ENABLES the immune system to respond better.
"Most vaccines should be given via the intramuscular route into the deltoid or the anterolateral aspect of the thigh. This optimises the immunogenicity of the vaccine and minimises adverse reactions at the injection site. "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118997/

"muscle tissues can tell the difference between food proteins and pollen proteins, or food proteins and insect stings, but not the difference between food proteins and virus."

Not muscle tissue, but the immune system responds differently to food proteins and pollen proteins. And as posted before, pollen exposure is 24/7. Insect stings much rarer. Injected food proteins in nature, almost never. Hence the difference in evolved response.

Injecting food proteins directly into the blood stream can cause sensitization or reaction when viral proteins are also present in the vaccination.

Protein-protein interactions (e.g., food proteins, viral capsids) can form complexes having a quaternary structure which may induce both food allergy and viral immunity from said interaction.

Thus, having food proteins in vaccines violates the first rule of medicine. - DO NO HARM.

You should get the exact same contaminated vaccines with 7-20 intramuscular puncture wounds (no “equivalent injection” cheating allowed). We need an “apples to apples” comparison of the exact torture inflicted on a toddler’s body, down to the amount of muscle, skin and nerve tissue torn and injected.

When you say "we"... who exactly are you talking about?

Do you have some evidence that immune system is directly proportional to body mass?

Also, I think your multiple needles would skew the results - what you need is proportionally bigger needle, something akin to soda straw might work.

And what evidence would any of us have that you'd actually believe and accept the results of the study? So far you've dismissed any and all studies that don't show what you want them to show as corrupt or incorrect?

You should get the exact same contaminated vaccines with 7-20 intramuscular puncture wounds (no “equivalent injection” cheating allowed). We need an “apples to apples” comparison of the exact torture inflicted on a toddler’s body, down to the amount of muscle, skin and nerve tissue torn and injected.

When you say “we”… who exactly are you talking about?

I see that somebody is now down to dirt-common antivaccine tropes.

Julian Frost #1525,

"Fact: Vaccines/injections contain numerous foreign proteins including food proteins.

You have failed to convincingly demonstrate this."

Are you kidding?
CDC table here lists numerous food proteins contained in vaccines, including gelatin, egg, milk, soy, seaweed and vegetable oils (in Polysorbate 80, sorbitol).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipi…

"Conclusion:Vaccines/injections, by definition, cause sensitization.

Your conclusion does not automatically follow from the premise."

Why?

"you claimed that polysorbate 80 originally contained peanut oil and that the manufacturer then quietly changed the formulation and updated the information sheet to hide that fact."

Yes. They did not have to hide anything. They documented "peanut-free" after removing peanut. What's there to hide?

The alternative explanation is their documenting and review process was so shoddy that they missed a major allergen from the datasheet and did not catch it for years. These manufacturers are supposed to follow Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP which includes proper documentation) to ensure the quality of injectable grade pharmaceutical excipients. If they cannot be trusted to write an accurate datasheet, how can can you trust their product quality?

So either way, vaccine safety was in question.

Yes. They did not have to hide anything. They documented “peanut-free” after removing peanut. What’s there to hide?

We've had this discussion before. You are twisting evidence to support your claims. The fact that the manufacturer changed its datasheet does not automatically mean that polysorbate 80 contained peanut oil and that it was removed.

CDC table here lists numerous food proteins contained in vaccines,

Fair enough. I'll correct myself. You have failed to demonstrate that this is at a level capable of causing sensitisation.

“Conclusion:Vaccines/injections, by definition, cause sensitization.
Your conclusion does not automatically follow from the premise.”
Why?

The average shot size is 0.5ml. The contents undergo processing that destroys most proteins. That's why.

Julian Frost #1543,

"The average shot size is 0.5ml. The contents undergo processing that destroys most proteins. That’s why."

Citation please. And, you should know you are wrong. Because if the viral proteins (active ingredients) are destroyed, the vaccine is useless ...

gaist #1540,

"When you say “we”… who exactly are you talking about?"

Anyone interested in vaccine safety.

"Do you have some evidence that immune system is directly proportional to body mass?"

Fair question but let's see what the FDA does. The Hep B vaccine is formulated as a 0.5 ml dose for 19 years or less. A 1 ml dose for 20 years and above. Do you have evidence that your immune system takes a 50% hit on your 20th birthday? So the FDA formulates vaccine doses based on convenience of delivery rather than on medical safety. Immune system vs. mass is only one aspect. We are also talking about the body's ability to process the contaminants. That is definitely proportional to mass.

If a 0.5 ml dose for a 130 lb 19 year old is safe and effective, how is that exact same dose safe for a 7.5 lb newborn? It is a 1700% overdose.

Hep B package insert:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…

Our budding immunologist Krebiozen used weight adjustment to determine allergen dose across species (guinea pig vs. human newborn). No one questioned that.

So on the absurdity scale, what I am proposing fares far better than what the FDA is doing.

"Also, I think your multiple needles would skew the results – what you need is proportionally bigger needle, something akin to soda straw might work."

You prefer a straw sized needle, suit yourself ...

"And what evidence would any of us have that you’d actually believe and accept the results of the study? So far you’ve dismissed any and all studies that don’t show what you want them to show as corrupt or incorrect?"

ZERO studies have been provided regarding safety of food proteins contaminating vaccines/injections.

So APV has told us -- endlessly -- that the sensitization dose is much smaller than the elicitation dose. And APV is perseverating about food allergies.

How do we know someone has a food allergy? They eat the food and they suffer an allergic reaction.

Hmm.

How did they get exposed to the elicitation dose? Through the food that they ate.

How did they get exposed to the much smaller sensitization dose?

According to APV, they could not possibly have gotten exposed to the much smaller sensitization dose via the same route as the elicitation dose. No no no. The only way to get exposed to the much smaller sensitization dose is via injection.

Sure.

Julian Frost #1543,

"The fact that the manufacturer changed its datasheet does not automatically mean that polysorbate 80 contained peanut oil and that it was removed."

In that case, as I wrote, they have a shoddy documentation/review process, raising concerns about their product quality. These manufacturers are supposed to be FDA approved ISO XXX certified facilities. They cannot get a simple datasheet right?

"Fair enough. I’ll correct myself."

Thank you. You had me worried there ...

"You have failed to demonstrate that this is at a level capable of causing sensitisation."

First, your approach is wrong. BEFORE you inject ANYTHING into people, you have to first prove that the dosage level is safe. You don't go around injecting people with all kinds of stuff en masse and then ask the victims "to demonstrate that this is at a level capable of causing sensitisation."

Anyhow, I have demonstrated that this is at a level capable of causing sensitisation. However, it involves discussing THE DETAILS of studies I have provided. You have thus far REFUSED to discuss them.

For example:
“In the preliminary results investigating the immunogenicity of gelatin in DTaP, a trace amount of gelatin in DTaP was immunogenic.11 We examined 165 paired sera obtained before the first dose of DTaP and 1 month after the third dose of DTaP. Of 165 paired sera, 62 were obtained from the recipients of gelatin-free DTaP, and IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in none. In 103 recipients of gelatin-containing DTaP, IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in 2 recipients.”
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2899%2970508-7/fulltext

LW #1546,

The mouth is not a sensitization location for proteins. It is an elicitation location after sensitization occurs at any other location (muscle, gut, lungs, skin).

The mouth contains IgE coated mast cells that are involved in the elicitation response. The mast cells are not involved in initiating sensitization. IgE coating of the mast cells is the end result of sensitization.

The mouth is not a sensitization location for proteins.

Did I say the mouth? I'm pretty sure that food goes through the mouth and into other parts of the body. Like the gut, for example. Which APV is admitting is a sensitization location for proteins. So APV has now admitted that eating food can potentially cause food allergies.

How long did it take to extract that admission?

From http://www.vaccineseurope.eu/about-vaccines/key-facts-on-vaccines/how-a…

3. Purification
In a third step the antigen will need to be purified in order to produce a high purity/quality product.
This will be accomplished using different techniques for protein purification. For this purpose several separation steps will be carried out using the differences in for instance protein size, physico-chemical properties, binding affinity or biological activity.

Satisfied?

In that case, as I wrote, they have a shoddy documentation/review process, raising concerns about their product quality. These manufacturers are supposed to be FDA approved ISO XXX certified facilities. They cannot get a simple datasheet right?

You wrote no such thing. You simply claimed that because the manufacturer previously didn't put peanut oil on the "excluded items" list, that proved the polysorbate 80 contained peanuts and that the manufacturer quietly changed its processes to remove peanuts. Given that it is no small matter to change a production line to use new materials, your claim was patent nonsense. The most likely scenario is that peanut wasn't put on the exclusion list because it wasn't used in the factory at all, that nervous people contacted the manufacturer, and that to reassure people the manufacturer updated the exclusions list to include peanut.
Hardly "shoddy documentation" at all.

LW #1549,

"Did I say the mouth? I’m pretty sure that food goes through the mouth and into other parts of the body. Like the gut, for example. Which APV is admitting is a sensitization location for proteins. So APV has now admitted that eating food can potentially cause food allergies.

How long did it take to extract that admission?"

You missed the details as usual. Only the mouth is exposed to intact proteins in large quantities. The gut is exposed to proteins AFTER they have been processed. We have already discussed that gut sensitization occurs when you INTERFERE with the natural protein processing by using anti-ulcer medications.
In nature, without manual intervention, ingestion (and resulting gut exposure) produces TOLERANCE not SENSITIZATION.

So, you don't bother to understand the details but jump to conclusions.

Julian Frost #1550,

"You simply claimed that because the manufacturer previously didn’t put peanut oil on the “excluded items” list, that proved the polysorbate 80 contained peanuts and that the manufacturer quietly changed its processes to remove peanuts. Given that it is no small matter to change a production line to use new materials, your claim was patent nonsense. The most likely scenario is that peanut wasn’t put on the exclusion list because it wasn’t used in the factory at all, that nervous people contacted the manufacturer, and that to reassure people the manufacturer updated the exclusions list to include peanut.
Hardly “shoddy documentation” at all."

Can you explain why the allergen list contained several other allergens but a major allergen like peanut was missing?

They buy their raw materials from other vendors. So switching to a peanut-free supplier would involve no change to their production line.

"quietly changed "
They did not quietly change it, they NOW market their product as "non-peanut" origin.

It was argued that manufacturer's claiming "non-peanut" was pure marketing tactic and no manufacturer ever uses peanut.
If their marketing department was aware of the value of the "non-peanut" claim, why was it missing from the allergen list?

And all this because this vendor provided an allergen list. Other vendors don't even provide one. Do you know which vendor's polysorbate 80 went into your vaccine/injection?

APV:

The gut is exposed to proteins AFTER they have been processed.

Are you arguing that no proteins make it to the gut in a recognizable form? Because if that's true, you might want to explain why peanut allergy causes reactions while it is being digested, but my citrus allergy does not.

Actually, I'll save you the effort -- it's because as with most cases of Oral Allergy Syndrome, the pollen allergens do not survive even the briefest exposure to stomach acids, while peanut allergens do.

Calli Arcale #1553,

"Are you arguing that no proteins make it to the gut in a recognizable form?"

Whatever form and quantity of proteins reach the gut naturally, result in development of tolerance, NOT sensitization. That's my argument.

"you might want to explain why peanut allergy causes reactions while it is being digested,"

Type I immediate type IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions to peanut allergen occur when oral mast cells are exposed to the allergen. Long before digestion. You don't even have to swallow the peanut to develop allergy symptoms.

So perhaps you are referring to some delayed type non-IgE mediated reaction?

Julian Frost #1550,

"3. Purification
In a third step the antigen will need to be purified in order to produce a high purity/quality product. ...

Satisfied?"

You claimed proteins are destroyed. Your reference says purified. Completely different. Purification is not perfect. That's why the CDC lists so many allergens still present in the vaccines. So the reason you provided to reject my conclusion (below) has been invalidated.

"Conclusion:Vaccines/injections, by definition, cause sensitization."

Julian Frost #1003,

Missed that one ...
Food allergy is not a table injury. So burden of proof is on the victim and it is getting worse ...
http://suffolk.edu/documents/Law%20Journal%20of%20H%20and%20B/Daniels-7…

They buy their raw materials from other vendors. So switching to a peanut-free supplier would involve no change to their production line.

Dead wrong. All oils are different, and have different types/ratios of fats. Changing the oil used means that the production line would also have to be changed. It's the same as crude oil. A refinery set up to process North Sea crude would not be able to handle a shipment of Venezuelan crude.

You claimed proteins are destroyed. Your reference says purified. Completely different. Purification is not perfect.

Chemical inactivation is frequently used during purification. That would destroy proteins.

Missed that one …
Food allergy is not a table injury. So burden of proof is on the victim

That's "burden of persuasion". The burden of persuasion was on the victims to prove that vaccines caused autism. It was 50% plus a feather. They still failed. If someone wishes to approach the Vaccine Court with a claim of vaccines causing allergies, that person would face burden of persuasion, not burden of proof.

@ Julian Frost

It’s the same as crude oil. A refinery set up to process North Sea crude would not be able to handle a shipment of Venezuelan crude.

A employee from Total once explained to me how a bitumen field on the Italian seacoast was the perfect complement for crude oil they extracted from somewhere else.
Independently, the two oil fields weren't worth much, but mixed together in the right proportions...
So yeah, the supplier matters.

Heck, in our lab we are having troubles with something as trivial as using a different brand of supposedly "universal" high-precision pipette tips. I can only imagine the potential nightmare at the industrial process level when changing the source of raw material.

Julian Frost #1557,

"Chemical inactivation is frequently used during purification. That would destroy proteins."

If you destroy the proteins you destroy the vaccine. So you are still wrong.

APV (#1159):

If you destroy the proteins you destroy the vaccine. So you are still wrong.

Purification of the ingredient, way before addition to the vaccine. So you are still wrong. (Maybe you should pay attention to context?)

Richard Smith #1560,

"Purification of the ingredient, way before addition to the vaccine. "
Egg/Milk are not added to the vaccine. The virus is grown in the egg/milk medium. So "Purification of the ingredient, way before addition to the vaccine" is NOT possible.

If "Purification of the ingredient, way before addition to the vaccine" is being done, why are children with gelatin allergy reacting to vaccines?

Julian Frost, Helianthus, #1557, 1558,

http://askavantor.force.com/servlet/fileField?id=0BEG0000000TSTm

They source Polysorbate 80 from corn, palm, safflower and coconut. Only peanut needs a different production line?

And these could be blends, not pure palm or peanut. Further, any significant manufacturer will have second sourcing for their materials. You cannot have a production line tuned to one supplier ...

They source Polysorbate 80 from corn, palm, safflower and coconut. Only peanut needs a different production line?

Way to miss the point. All of those oils have different types of fats and different ratios of fats. They would use those oils in specific ratios (see Helianthus's comment re Total mixing oil from two fields). Adding/removing a type of oil (like peanut) would require them to change their processes, because now the raw material is different.

Almost forgot:

If you destroy the proteins you destroy the vaccine. So you are still wrong.

You do know that refinement, purification and inactivation techniques are now so advanced that they can get rid of specific proteins while leaving others intact, don't you?

You cannot have a production line tuned to one supplier …

Actually, you do. You ask your supplier(s) for material of a specific quality, within constrained parameters. And you make sure there are punitive clauses in the contract if the supplier starts sending you material outside of your specifications.

So... what viruses are grown in Polysorbate 80? Particularly, Polysorbate 80 with traces of peanut protein?

Actually if the production line is turning out FDA-approved pharmaceuticals you’ll more likely than not specify a single source for critical ingredients, not because different sourced products are physically different and the line needs to be altered but because they may not be biologically equivalent.

It’s cost- and time-consuming enough to validate new lots of the same product from a single source before use-- if you want to switch suppliers you’ll need to perform extensive testing demonstrating biological equivalence to the initial source’s product.

Julian Frost #1564,

"You do know that refinement, purification and inactivation techniques are now so advanced that they can get rid of specific proteins while leaving others intact, don’t you?"

That's even more damning. So you are claiming that we have the technology to clean up food proteins from vaccines but the FDA/CDC are still injecting these food protein contaminated vaccines and sickening our children.

Richard Smith #1566,

"So… what viruses are grown in Polysorbate 80? Particularly, Polysorbate 80 with traces of peanut protein?"

Polysorbate 80 is an excipient that is used in many vaccines. Viruses are not grown in it. Allergen in Polysorbate 80 are not disclosed by all suppliers. We don't know which vaccines contain Polysorbate 80 from which suppliers. We know that Polysorbate 80 is sourced from vegetable oil sources that include corn, safflower, coconut, palm, tapioca and most likely peanut.

Helianthus #1565,

"specifications"

So you agree that any decent product from a decent manufacturer involves specifications and tests for compliance.

Why is there no allergen content specification for vaccines/ injections?

Guidance for Industry
Immunotoxicology Evaluation
of Investigational New Drugs
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformat…

None of the vaccine package inserts refers to an immunotoxicology evaluation.

Guidelines are established only to be ignored?

That’s even more damning. So you are claiming that we have the technology to clean up food proteins from vaccines but the FDA/CDC are still injecting these food protein contaminated vaccines and sickening our children.

Nice twisting of the facts there, APV. You have nothing more than circumstantial evidence that vaccines are "food protein contaminated".

@APV (#1569):

Polysorbate 80 is an excipient that is used in many vaccines. Viruses are not grown in it. Allergen in Polysorbate 80 are not disclosed by all suppliers. We don’t know which vaccines contain Polysorbate 80 from which suppliers. We know that Polysorbate 80 is sourced from vegetable oil sources that include corn, safflower, coconut, palm, tapioca and most likely peanut.

Except, of course, when it's purified.

There's a hole in your argument,
Dear APV, dear APV,
There's a hole in your argument,
Dear APV,
A hole...

And around, and around, and around...

Vinu Arumugham (APV) writes,

Julian Frost #1525,

“Fact: Vaccines/injections contain numerous foreign proteins including food proteins.

You have failed to convincingly demonstrate this.”

Are you kidding?
CDC table here lists numerous food proteins contained in vaccines, including gelatin, egg, milk, soy, seaweed and vegetable oils (in Polysorbate 80, sorbitol).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipi…

You're lying.

That document does not state that there are vegetable oils in Polysorbate 80 as you claim it does.

Another lie to add to your long list.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You say,

“you claimed that polysorbate 80 originally contained peanut oil and that the manufacturer then quietly changed the formulation and updated the information sheet to hide that fact.”

Yes. They did not have to hide anything. They documented “peanut-free” after removing peanut. What’s there to hide?

You're lying. The product was never made with peanuts. Peanut was probably added because a customer wanted it called out and it is a common allergen.

This has been explained to you already, but you are now dishonestly pretending that you didn't know it.

Because you're a liar.

The

^The

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You say,

If a 0.5 ml dose for a 130 lb 19 year old is safe and effective, how is that exact same dose safe for a 7.5 lb newborn? It is a 1700% overdose.

You're lying. Here, you lie by claiming that a 0.5ml dose for a 130 lb. 19-year-old is the maximum safe dose for that weight individual.

You are such a liar.

Julian Frost #1572,

"Nice twisting of the facts there, APV."

Which facts?

" You have nothing more than circumstantial evidence that vaccines are “food protein contaminated”."

In #1543 you accepted your mistake. Are you going back?

Richard Smith #1573,

"Except, of course, when it’s purified."

Please provide reference demonstrating that purification results in ZERO residual allergen.

OccamsLaser #1574

"That document does not state that there are vegetable oils in Polysorbate 80 as you claim it does."

Polysorbate 80 is derived from oleic acid which in turn is derived from vegetable oils. The point is there is no specification for allergen content in Polysorbate 80. Therefore there is no guarantee that such a vegetable oil derived product is allergen free.

OccamsLaser #1577,

"Here, you lie by claiming that a 0.5ml dose for a 130 lb. 19-year-old is the maximum safe dose for that weight individual."

"maximum safe dose"?
Perhaps you can define it for us first?
Why don't you post a reference showing us the "maximum safe dose" of Hep B vaccine for a 19 year old?

FACT: There is NO SAFE DOSE established for food proteins in vaccines. When no safe dose has been established, where is the concept of a "maximum safe dose"?

FACT: There is no max. safe dose for ANY vaccine. The MINIMUM dose is determined by efficacy.

So if a 0.5 ml dose is effective in a 19 year old, why do you need 17x that dose, weight adjusted, for a newborn?

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You say,

OccamsLaser #1574

“That document does not state that there are vegetable oils in Polysorbate 80 as you claim it does.”

Polysorbate 80 is derived from oleic acid which in turn is derived from vegetable oils. The point is there is no specification for allergen content in Polysorbate 80. Therefore there is no guarantee that such a vegetable oil derived product is allergen free.

You're a liar, Vinu. A liar. You claimed that document from the CDC listed vegetable oil proteins as being "contained in vaccines."

You lied. You have no credibility whatsoever, because you lie all the time.

You're a pathetic pathological liar. Thanks for proving it in black and white, over and over again.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You said,

OccamsLaser #1577,

“Here, you lie by claiming that a 0.5ml dose for a 130 lb. 19-year-old is the maximum safe dose for that weight individual.”

“maximum safe dose”?
Perhaps you can define it for us first?
Why don’t you post a reference showing us the “maximum safe dose” of Hep B vaccine for a 19 year old?

FACT: There is NO SAFE DOSE established for food proteins in vaccines. When no safe dose has been established, where is the concept of a “maximum safe dose”?

FACT: There is no max. safe dose for ANY vaccine. The MINIMUM dose is determined by efficacy.

So if a 0.5 ml dose is effective in a 19 year old, why do you need 17x that dose, weight adjusted, for a newborn?

You lie again. You stated that a 0.5 ml dose is the maximum safe dose for a 19-year-old. You said that.

You also told a doctor that you were a medical student.

Such a liar.

OccamsLaser #1575,

"Peanut was probably added because a customer wanted it called out and it is a common allergen."

Can you explain why the allergen list contained several other allergens but a major (and common) allergen like peanut was missing?

Avantor markets it NOW as "non-peanut" origin. This was labeled a marketing gimmick in a previous thread. Injectable grade Polysorbate 80 is not sold to you and me at the local farmer's market. It is sold to professionals at pharmaceutical companies who (hopefully) know what they are doing. Why would an unprofessional marketing gimmick be necessary?

A more logical explanation is that "non-peanut" origin is a market differentiator from other Polysorbate 80s that are of peanut origin.

OccamsLaser #1583,

"You stated that a 0.5 ml dose is the maximum safe dose for a 19-year-old. "

Nonsense. Show me the post.
Here's what I wrote:

"If a 0.5 ml dose for a 130 lb 19 year old is safe and effective,..."

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

First, I note that you are such a coward that you won't address the point I raised about your lying to a (real) doctor when you claimed to be a medical student. So let's be clear about that: you're a liar.

Next, you now say,

OccamsLaser #1583,

“You stated that a 0.5 ml dose is the maximum safe dose for a 19-year-old. ”

Nonsense. Show me the post.

Here it is:

"If a 0.5 ml dose for a 130 lb 19 year old is safe and effective, how is that exact same dose safe for a 7.5 lb newborn? It is a 1700% overdose."

Your words.

You're a disgusting liar. But thanks again for proving it using your own words alone.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You say,

OccamsLaser #1575,

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

Can you explain why the allergen list contained several other allergens but a major (and common) allergen like peanut was missing?

Coward.

You said Avantor's Polysorbate 80 had been made from peanuts. You lied. Now you desperately attempt to run away from your claim. You have no courage at all. Sickening.

Avantor's Polysorbate 80 was never made from peanuts. They have stated that flatly. They have explained that a customer asked that it be added to the list of allergens absent from the product, so Avantor added it. That's all.

Please confess your lie about falsely claiming to a doctor that you were a medical student.

Coward.

OccamsLaser #1582,

I wrote:
"Yet today, the CDC table here lists numerous food proteins contained in vaccines, including gelatin, egg, milk, soy, seaweed and vegetable oils (in Polysorbate 80, sorbitol)."

You did not catch seaweed or milk either. The CDC table does not list seaweed nor milk. Before you claim I am lying about that:

Agar is from seaweed/algae.
casamino acid contains casein from milk.
Polysorbate 80, sorbitol contain vegetable oil.
So there, all the lies conveniently in one place. Enjoy.

It's a good day for my state.

On August 3, 2015, Public Act 099-0249 was enacted that changes the process for parents or legal guardians seeking a religious exemption to any required immunizations or examinations for their children. The new law requires that parents or legal guardians who object on religious grounds to complete a Certificate of Religious Exemption, which must also be signed by the physician, advanced practice nurse or physician assistant responsible for performing the student examination. The healthcare provider signature on this new form attests to informing the parent or legal guardian of the benefits of immunization and the health risks of not vaccinating the student. The certificate also requires the parent or guardian signature to attest to understanding that their child may be excluded from school in the case of a vaccine-preventable disease outbreak or exposure,

It's a start.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You say,

OccamsLaser #1582,

I wrote:
“Yet today, the CDC table here lists numerous food proteins contained in vaccines, including gelatin, egg, milk, soy, seaweed and vegetable oils (in Polysorbate 80, sorbitol).”

You did not catch seaweed or milk either. The CDC table does not list seaweed nor milk. Before you claim I am lying about that:

Agar is from seaweed/algae.
casamino acid contains casein from milk.
Polysorbate 80, sorbitol contain vegetable oil.
So there, all the lies conveniently in one place. Enjoy.

No.

You left out the one where you said you were a medical student.

Why did you leave that one out?

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You wrote,

the CDC table here lists numerous food proteins contained in vaccines, including gelatin, egg, milk, soy, seaweed and vegetable oils

You're lying. That table doesn't list vegetable oil proteins as being contained in vaccines. You made that up. Because you're a liar. It's what you do.

It's really quite extraordinary the damage you have done to your cause by lying so much here. I'm glad you're so open about it.

Are you a medical student?

You have nothing more than circumstantial evidence that vaccines are “food protein contaminated”.”

In #1543 you accepted your mistake. Are you going back?

Let's see what I said in the very next sentence.

You have failed to demonstrate that this is at a level capable of causing sensitisation.

Here's what you are arguing, APV, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
1) Polysorbate 80 was made from oils derived partially from peanuts, even though canola oil is a richer and cheaper source of oleic acid.
2) The processing is not good enough and a minuscule fraction of peanut protein remains in the polysorbate 80, even in the pharmaceutical grade stuff.
3) This polysorbate 80 is used in the making of vaccines, but the purification process is also insufficient to remove all of the stuff, and a minuscule amount of polysorbate 80 remains behind.
4) Despite going through two rounds of processing, enough peanut protein remains in a vaccine dose of 0.5mL to trigger sensitisation.
Do you now realise just why we find your hypothesis so preposterous?

Julian Frost #1592,

"Do you now realise just why we find your hypothesis so preposterous?"

Milk contamination in DTaP would have been viewed as "preposterous" until this:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/25520
AND, Polysorbate 80 is just one of SEVERAL food protein contaminants in vaccines.

"You have failed to demonstrate that this is at a level capable of causing sensitisation."
I did respond with the paired sera study as an example which you ignored.

Sensitiztion to gelatin in vaccines was also "preposterous" until the Japanese demonstrated that the gelatin was "poorly hydrolyzed".

No allergen specifications, no tests means no guarantee of purity. Very simple.

Julian Frost #1592,

"4) Despite going through two rounds of processing, enough peanut protein remains in a vaccine dose of 0.5mL to trigger sensitisation."

Do you know how much peanut protein is needed to sensitize? Do you know how much residual peanut protein can be present in Polysorbate 80? Without the numbers how can you talk about "preposterous"?

For example, 8-18 ng/ml of casein are enough for ELICITATION. Sensitization requires even less.

Milk contamination in DTaP would have been viewed as “preposterous” until this:

Here's the first sentence from the article you linked to.

Some children highly allergic to milk products should be watched with caution when receiving the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine because trace milk proteins in the vaccine could trigger reactions, researchers suggested.

"Could" and "suggested". Once again, you link to something that suggests that vaccines could cause allergic reactions, not that they do.

Julian Frost #1595,

No, these children DID have reactions to the vaccines. That was the reason for this study:
Anaphylaxis to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines among children with cow’s milk allergy
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/abstract

I thought the news article was post study but looks like it may have been pre-study. Sorry about that.

I looked at the Full text. In the Table showing "Clinical characteristics of the children who reacted to the tetanus vaccines", all of the children listed had a history of allergic reactions. The youngest was 4. In addition, it looks as if the vaccines were a bad batch and this was a once off. Pretty weak tea, as far as I can see.

Julian Frost #1597,

" In addition, it looks as if the vaccines were a bad batch and this was a once off."

Bad batch? When there is no spec. how do you decide which batch is bad and which batch is good? Use allergic children as canaries in the coal mine? I can see the "scientific method" at work here.

With anaphylaxis you cannot cheat. The symptoms appear in minutes. You cannot blame it on anything else. The cause and effect is obvious. Otherwise, you will find something else to blame for the anaphylaxis too.

If you have enough allergen in vaccines to elicit a reaction, you have more than enough to sensitize.
Sensitization however takes weeks after the vaccine is administered. So EVEN all those "good batches" are quietly sensitizing our kids. And given the delay to sensitization/diagnosis, the sensitization is conveniently blamed on everything under the sun except the vaccine.

How about "bad batches" of Polysorbate 80, hydrolyzed gelatin? Those can never happen right?
Ever heard of Murphy's law?
Bad batches WILL happen. With no specification to catch them, our children are getting injected with them all the time.
And we have proof all around us - the food allergy epidemic.

Got any evidence to refute Dr.Palevsky?
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/dr-larry-palevskys-comments-on…

When there is no spec.

We had this discussion on a previous thread, There are specs for vaccines, and for the raw materials used in them.

EVEN all those “good batches” are quietly sensitizing our kids. And given the delay to sensitization/diagnosis, the sensitization is conveniently blamed on everything under the sun except the vaccine.

As I showed in #1592, your hypothesis is, to put it kindly, implausible.

Got any evidence to refute Dr.Palevsky? [link to The Refusers]

Are you kidding me? Put "Palevsky" into the Search Box for this blog. Palevsky is a quack who practices alternative medicine like chiropractic on children and who appeared in "The Greater Good", an antivaccine propaganda film. And you link to "The Refusers"?!?! Seriously?!?! YGBSM.

Julian Frost #1599,

"There are specs for vaccines, and for the raw materials used in them."

Specifications limiting allergen content in vaccines/raw materials?
Citation?

I wanted you to refute the science in the article with evidence.
Not for how to find Dr.Palevsky background.

California licenses chiropractors (quacks according to you).
But you defend California's vaccine mandate?

Julian Frost #1599,

"Palevsky is a quack "

Why is he still licensed/certified and allowed to practice?

Interesting information about the quality of "testing" on vaccine safety and specifically the use of false placebos. Curious what the Borg and dissenters here might add about this.

Hartmann: The Science, the Politics & the Danger of Vaccines

@Eric H.: dude. A you*tube video? Seriously??? How many times have you been told we want PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE

Dawn -- Eric has been informed of this many many times. He keeps providing youtube videos because he has no peer reviewed literature to support his beliefs.

Well, it's worse than his regular youtube cites, this is a promotion for The Greater Good. Why he didn't just go to the original source is beyond my understanding. I suspect he has no clue how search works.

Eric - if you want a review of The Greater Good, see http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/18/anti-vaccine-propaganda-la…

As Dawn says, we'd like to see an authoritative source to back up any arguments you may have (and we know you don't have any), but could you at least find something written so we can get thru it faster and C&P the lies? Have some respect for our time.

I wanted you to refute the science in the article with evidence.

What science? Palevsky starts with a bald assertion that even on its face is dubious.

One scientific fact is clear – the injection of a foreign protein into the body, past the body’s primary immune defense system (skin, lining of the intestines and airway), in the presence of an adjuvant like aluminum, causes the internal immune system to see that injected protein as foreign.

Interesting then that injecting small amounts of protein into the body is a treatment for allergy.

There are more than a dozen other bio-immune markers in our bodies that can react to the presence of injected cow milk proteins, many of which cannot and are not measurable

Another dubious assertion. If the responses aren't measurable, how do we know they occur.

[Milk] and milk products are the number one food products recommended by the US government and the medical community for regular consumption by the American people.

False. Fruits, grains and vegetables are all recommended in higher amounts than dairy.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEat…
Palevsky is at best wrong and at worst a liar. Using him as a source is unwise.

Why is [Palevsky] still licensed/certified and allowed to practice?

Because it is not illegal for a physician to reject science based medicine and embrace quackery.

Specifications limiting allergen content in vaccines/raw materials?
Citation?

This comment on the last thread where you dropped your load contains links. I can't put more than 2 links in a comment or it automatically goes into moderation.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/05/no-the-cdc-did-not-just-ap…

Why is he still licensed/certified and allowed to practice?

Because he has not yet been caught breaking the law. Mere quackery in this country will not get one struck off (Otherwise doctors like Wolfson and Burzynski would no longer be in business).

@Eric_H

You sir, are a cavalcade cogency. A collectanea of common sense. A wondrous wizardly wordsmithy extraordinaire. The rope-a-dope thread virtuoso of verisimilitude. Clearly a gentleman and scholar. Yeah man, you're like groovy and all that, know what I mean, man? Just the bees-knees. And last, but not least, a swell guy with statistical confidence Cool & Hip interval range rating of 95.9% ±4. And so on and so forth etc etc etc...ad infinitum.

I agree. Yes, of course you're correct. You are the lone voice of reason and critical thinking in a waste land of willful-servitude, statis sycophantic lotus eaters and governmental boot-lickers. Just the concept of forced medication under coercion and threat is the direct antithesis and diametric opposite from the core structure on which the foundation of the U.S.A. was founded upon.

I only wished I had known this mindless behavior was so virulent *ta da dump...ting* in Cali prior to SB277 being passed or I would have invested head deep in Kool-Aide™. All in, baby! But maybe it's not too late for the mercury market *queue laughter*. I heard on the down-low, the sly that is, that this little thing called alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase or whatever, is hot, muy caliente, and a sure thing now. Now that SB277 has passed that is *wink wink nudge nudge*. Muah ha ha ha ha!

In closing, yes, I agree “my body my choice”. A concise, intrinsically important, and inalienable statement that(should) sums up the position of a rational mind. Whereas the absence only leaves us a slippery-slop of egregious individual and civil rights violations.

I have thoroughly enjoy your rapier wit and repartee, an opinion ,I am certain, that would elicit cavalcade of poo-pooing ghastliness from the Borg Collective, but privately admiring you from their secret special last bastion of reality and non right- think mental closet. Never give up. Hope just might exist after all. Just keep thinking, the glass really is half-full.

Regards,
Zardoz

Palevsky is a germ theory denialist who blames infections on "toxins".

The Mercola piece is worth a read,for a glimpse inside the thinking of an antivax doctor.In it,Palevsky cites the usual antivaccine tropes about the reasons kids die from diseases like measles is poor diet,poor sanitation,as well as how these diseases build immunity and character.

Wow that was a deep analysis... "it's a Youtube Video"... therefore...

Followed by the admonishment about repeated warnings that "youtube" videos are "not allowed"?

Well anyway... didn't think you'd have anything to say about the false placebos in the studies referenced. But if you change your mind, I'd not mind hearing you out.

Eric H, your illiteracy is just astounding.

Eric -- as you have been told many times since you first started posting on July 22nd, science requires a certain level of proof. This can't be met by videos because anybody can make a video. YouTube has no requirement that the video creator substantiate anything

So go ahead and post all the videos you like, but the fact remains that it's been a month, and you still haven't been able to come up with any corroboration for your opinions.

didn’t think you’d have anything to say about the false placebos in the studies referenced.

Please do let us know when you actually reference a study.

And we have proof all around us – the food allergy epidemic.

Not quite, Sherlock.

"In the largest study in children and adolescents so far none of the often anticipated health differences—such as allergies and the number of infections—were observed in vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects aged 1–17 years."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

Family Physician Describes Dying Patient’s Complications from Measles

Julian Frost #1606,

"Interesting then that injecting small amounts of protein into the body is a treatment for allergy."

Just because you can use a thorn to remove a thorn does not make it healthy to go around pricking yourself with a thorn.

My understanding is that such allergy therapy decreases IgE while increasing IgG. While the lower IgE provides short term relief. The long term effect of higher IgG is not known. We are still tinkering with the immune system with very little knowledge.

Specifications:
"http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/05/no-the-cdc-did-not-just-ap…"
Nice try but I already responded that those links were useless.
They have nothing to do with ALLERGEN CONTENT IN VACCINES, which is what I am talking about.

What does cGMP cover? Factory workers washing hands after using the restroom? I am asking for specifications NOT guidelines.

If there was a spec. why is it not referred on the Polysorbate 80 data sheet? The Kattan et. al paper on DTaP, milk allergy does not say the casein content violated an FDA spec.
The Japanese studies and the FDA/CDC studies of gelatin allergy do not mention a gelatin spec. Why no reference to a spec. in vaccine package inserts for say ovalbumin content?

So admit it, a spec. does NOT EXIST no matter how hard you try to torture the truth.

"Because it is not illegal for a physician to reject science based medicine and embrace quackery."
That describes Dr.Pan.

shay #1614,

The KiGGS study did not cover food allergy and is therefore irrelevant to our discussion.
"atopic disorders (allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, atopic eczema, bronchial asthma)"

Roger Kulp #1615,

Vaccines are effective. They are not safe. Avoiding vaccines is not the solution. Fixing safety problems is the solution.

ScienceMom; In answer to a question from way back when, I don't want kids to die. I'm just sick of all the whining. here's the thing: commodities need to have some value attached to them. Vaccines have no value attached to them right now aside from public health, which can't actually be marketed. If we artificially limit the supply in some areas, like say Marin, and add perks (parties for parents and kids, shorter wait times and toys available for vaccine compliant families), vaccines will acquire value among those whiny, burby, silicon valley types.
Aside from that, I'm also against waste. Right now, vaccines and pediatricians are wasted on Marin and Orange County. Better to relocate them to areas where they'll do some good.

APV, read the 'key messages' at the end.

APV

Just because you can use a thorn to remove a thorn does not make it healthy to go around pricking yourself with a thorn.

Nice use of non-sequitur there.

Nice try but I already responded that those links were useless. They have nothing to do with ALLERGEN CONTENT IN VACCINES, which is what I am talking about.

Ok then, let's reread them comment. I've extracted and highlighted the relevant parts. Firstly, the drug substance, which refers to the active ingredient.

Drug substance:A full description of the drug substance including its physical and chemical characteristics and stability; (snip) 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...including, for example, tests, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria relating to stability, sterility, particle size, and crystalline form.

"Specifications necessary to insure ... purity ... including ... acceptance criteria".
And now for the finished Drug product

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; 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

"specifications necessary to ensure the ... quailty [and] purity, ... including ... acceptance criteria."

So admit it, a spec. does NOT EXIST

I'm a software test analyst. My job is to test that newly developed software and new software versions do what theyre supposed to do. I've read specifications. If you don't realise that the above comments are talking about specifications for acceptable levels of contaminants (and thus allergens), I can't help you.

If there was a spec. why is it not referred on the Polysorbate 80 data sheet?

Because that's for public consumption. Rest assured, there would be a specification and the FDA would be given a copy.

The Kattan et. al paper on DTaP, milk allergy does not say the casein content violated an FDA spec.

Would they need to reference one? No. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

APV

Just because you can use a thorn to remove a thorn does not make it healthy to go around pricking yourself with a thorn.

Nice use of non-sequitur there.

Nice try but I already responded that those links were useless. They have nothing to do with ALLERGEN CONTENT IN VACCINES, which is what I am talking about.

Ok then, let's reread the comment. I've extracted and highlighted the relevant parts. Firstly, the drug substance, which refers to the active ingredient.

Drug substance:A full description of the drug substance including its physical and chemical characteristics and stability; (snip) 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...including, for example, tests, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria relating to stability, sterility, particle size, and crystalline form.

"Specifications necessary to insure ... purity ... including ... acceptance criteria".
And now for the finished Drug product

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; 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

"specifications necessary to ensure the ... quality [and] purity, ... including ... acceptance criteria."

So admit it, a spec. does NOT EXIST

I'm a software test analyst. My job is to test that newly developed software and new software versions do what theyre supposed to do. I've read specifications. If you don't realise that the above comments include specifications for acceptable levels of contaminants (and thus allergens), I can't help you.

If there was a spec. why is it not referred on the Polysorbate 80 data sheet?

Because that's for public consumption. Rest assured, there would be a specification and the FDA would be given a copy.

The Kattan et. al paper on DTaP, milk allergy does not say the casein content violated an FDA spec.

Would they need to reference one? No. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Orac, I somehow managed to double comment and it's been placed in moderation.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

Let's review some of your lies.

You claimed to be a medical student. You lied about that.

You stated that EMD Millipore’s Polysorbate 80 has wheat and maize in it, and you cited their allergen sheet as your proof for that claim. However, that allergen sheet says that it does NOT contain wheat or maize. So you lied about that.

You have stated that Avantor's Polysorbate 80 was made from peanuts. You lied about that. You also stated that Avantor will not say whether that product was made with peanuts prior to 2011. You're lying.

You've stated that it is a fact that there is virtually no food allergy found among unvaccinated children, but the rate of food allergies has reached epidemic levels among vaccinated children. But you are unable to provide citations to the studies you found that made this finding. You're lying.

You stated that you found a document from the CDC that stated that there were vegetable oil proteins in vaccines. But when you produced the document, it turned out you fabricated your claim -- the document did not contain the statement you said it did. Yet again, you lied.

You said that the maximum safe dose of Hep B vaccine for a 130 lb 19 year old is 0.5 ml. You then denied saying that. So you lied twice.

Please explain why you believe you, Vinu Arumugham, have any credibility.

Someone who claims to be a doctor, but really isn't, is a quack (one of the many forms).

What do you call someone who claims to be a medical student, but really isn't? A quacklet?

Are you a medical student?

What do you call someone who claims to be a medical student, but really isn’t?

In British military circles I believe he's what's called a "walt*."

(*short for Walter Mitty).

That sounds like an argument that vaccines shouldn't be a commodity. Not everything we care about is a commodity: right now I have cleaner air than people on the other side of the Cascades, and it's not because I'm paying for it, or doing something right, it's because of where the wildfires are.

Or, you can look for more ways to make them a commodity: does handing out coupons for grocery discounts make people more likely to get a flu shot, or does it just make it more likely that I'll get my flu shot at the Safeway instead of the Rite Aid?

Vicki:That sounds like an argument that vaccines shouldn’t be a commodity. Not everything we care about is a commodity.

To you and me , yes, that is true. But to the yuppies of Marin and Orange County, everything they care about, from peace of mind to health to religion, can be bought and marketed. Therefore a strategy of perks and scarcity makes more sense in those areas than science does.

While coupons are a good idea, most of the anti-vaxxers are upper middle class and own their own homes- basically, they're rich. I can't see that shaving a few dollars off the grocery bill would convince them to vaccinate. In urban LA, though, I could see that approach working.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You said,

The KiGGS study did not cover food allergy and is therefore irrelevant to our discussion.
“atopic disorders (allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, atopic eczema, bronchial asthma)”

Another excellent example of your dishonesty in this discussion. You specifically stated that "Increasing vaccinations correlate with increasing asthma." When a study is presented that says the opposite, suddenly the issue is "irrelevant."

So dishonest.

How's med school going?

Julian #1622,

A specification means, as it says, being SPECIFIC. What does "ensure the identity, strength, quality, purity," mean in such broad general terms? That is NOT a specification.
Purity requirements for dog chow are different from requirements for ice cream or injectable grade excipients.

Here is an example of a specification with REAL NUMBERS:
http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/trs/areas/vaccines/influenz…
"A.5.3 Haemagglutinin content
The test for haemagglutinin antigen concentration is performed as described in section
A.3.4.2.
The vaccine shall contain in each human dose at least 15 mcg of haemagglutinin of each
strain used in the preparation. "

"If there was a spec. why is it not referred on the Polysorbate 80 data sheet?

Because that’s for public consumption"

Nonsense. The general public is not buying injectable grade Polysorbate 80.

"The Kattan et. al paper on DTaP, milk allergy does not say the casein content violated an FDA spec.

Would they need to reference one? No."

You claimed it was a "bad batch". How does a researcher decide if it was a bad batch without comparing the sample to a specification? They ABSOLUTELY needed to talk about a spec. If the vaccine met specification, then the specification is broken and needs to be updated based on their findings. If the vaccine failed spec., the vaccine maker is at fault and has to fix their process. THAT'S THE WAY SCIENCE and ENGINEERING WORK to solve problems.

The shoddy process we have today ensures that vaccine safety will remain an oxymoron.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

First, let's make sure you understand something: You are in no position to question the FDA's or the CDC's integrity or honesty, because you're a proven liar.

Next, let's not forget another one of your extraordinarily serious lies: you 've been telling people that it is a fact that vaccine makers produce vaccines with peanut oil proteins in them. Again, you have stated that as a fact. But it's not a fact, as you of course know; you made it up. To scare people.

Please present documentation from a vaccine or vaccine ingredient maker, or from a laboratory that has conducted an analysis, stating that vaccines have peanut oil proteins in them.

If you cannot, then stop lying about it.

APV:

A specification means, as it says, being SPECIFIC.

Actually, the meaning is "name explicitly".

What does “ensure the identity, strength, quality, purity,” mean in such broad general terms? That is NOT a specification

Another total non-sequitur. Did you miss the word "specification" that appeared throughout my comment? For instance, "Specifications necessary to insure … purity". They are saying that there have to be specifications for those things. To then complain that that comment is not itself a specification is disingenuous.

If there was a spec. why is it not referred on the Polysorbate 80 data sheet?

Because that’s for public consumption”

Nonsense. The general public is not buying injectable grade Polysorbate 80.

The DATASHEET is what's for public consumption.
You are coming across as specious, APV.

Julian Frost #1631,

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

Can you explain that?

The injectable grade Polysorbate 80 datasheet is for pharmaceutical companies that use that product. Not for the general public.

OccamsLaser #1630,

According to you, all food proteins in vaccines are safe. So why should people be scared about peanut proteins in vaccines?
The CDC/FDA have documented that vaccines are contaminated with egg, milk, soy etc. There's plenty for people to be scared about EVEN WITHOUT peanut.

These are the facts and they are undisputed:
1. Vaccines are contaminated with numerous food proteins.
2. There is no safe dosage established and no regulation controlling the amount of food proteins in vaccines.
3. Vegetable oil is a raw material in the manufacture of Polysorbate 80.
4. There is NO regulation outlawing the use of peanut oil as a raw material for Polysorbate 80.

Avantor's datasheet and current marketing practices strongly suggest that they have used peanut as a raw material for their Polysorbate 80 in the past.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You're a liar.

You don't even deny that you've lied. Are you proud of being a dishonest person? Do you teach your children that they should lie to get what they want?

Here's your latest lie:

OccamsLaser #1630,

According to you, all food proteins in vaccines are safe.

Please produce the exact quotation of mine to which you refer. Your inevitable failure to do so proves that you are lying yet again. You have absolutely no integrity whatsoever,

You say,

The CDC/FDA have documented that vaccines are contaminated with egg, milk, soy etc. There’s plenty for people to be scared about EVEN WITHOUT peanut.

Oh, but you specifically said that vaccine makers produce vaccines with peanut oil proteins in them, and you specifically said that a CDC document you cited stated that there were vegetable oil proteins in vaccines. You lied about both of those things in an attempt to scare people. To terrify them. Do you know a word for a person who tries to terrify others to get what he wants?

You said,

These are the facts and they are undisputed:
1. Vaccines are contaminated with numerous food proteins.

Coward.

Stand behind your words. You said that vaccine makers produce vaccines with peanut oil proteins in them. Are you running away from your statement? Are you admitting that you lied about that?

You said,

Avantor’s datasheet and current marketing practices strongly suggest that they have used peanut as a raw material for their Polysorbate 80 in the past.

You're lying. Avantor never used peanuts as a raw material for their Polysorbate 80, nor have they ever suggested that they have. You have not, and cannot, produce a shred of evidence to the contrary, because you fabricated this claim. You're trying to terrify people by lying. How disgusting.

Why won't you have some courage and address the question about whether you are a medical student or not, as you claimed to be in correspondence with a doctor?

Is it because you're a coward?

Don't forget that one day, your children will read this. And they will have the same questions for you.

OccamsLaser #1634,

"Avantor never used peanuts as a raw material for their Polysorbate 80,"

Then why did they LEAVE OUT peanut (a major, common allergen) WHILE INCLUDING several other allergens in their "do not contain" list.

OccamsLaser #1628,

Here we are talking about food allergy. So the study is irrelevant.

If you want to talk about asthma, the KiGGs study shows that there were ZERO asthma cases in 1-5 year unvaccinated group (n=44).
There was 1.8% asthma in 1-5 year vaccinated group (n=3886).

Assume asthma was caused ONLY by NON-VACCINE causes.
The prevalence rate is 1.8%. Probability that a child will not develop asthma is 0.982.
What's the probability of the observed outcome (0/44 in the unvaccinated group)?
0.982^44=0.45. So there's a 45% chance that this outcome is explained by NON-VACCINE asthma causes. 55% chance the outcome is explained by VACCINES CAUSING ASTHMA.

You won't find that in the results of the study.

Another study showing ZERO asthma in an unvaccinated group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9345669

shay #1620,

If they did not study food allergy, they cannot conclude anything about food allergy in the "key message" section.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You are a gutless coward.

You won't stand behind your own words.

Go ahead. Let's see if you have any courage. State that Avantor is lying when they state that they have never used peanuts to make their Polysorbate 80.

I dare you.

But you won't say it, because you're a lying coward.

And you're still running away from your words, because you're dishonest, and you know it.

You said that vaccine makers produce vaccines with peanut oil proteins in them. That was a lie, and you're running away from your assertion.

You cited a CDC document that, you claimed, listed vegetable oil proteins as being in vaccines. That was a lie, and you're fleeing from your words, because you know it was a lie.

You said that you were a medical student. You represented yourself as one in a conversation with a doctor. Disgusting. And you have such a total lack of personal integrity that you won't even address this lie of yours.

Do you have the guts to directly accuse Avantor of covering up the fact that they used peanuts to make their Polysorbate 80?

We all know the answer.

Anatomy of a Vinu Arumugham (APV) lie:

- He reads a datasheet for a vaccine ingredient that says maize and wheat "are not present in the final
product."

- This does not fit with what he hoped the datasheet said, so he decides to lie about what's in the datasheet

- He declares that the product datasheet says it does contain maize and wheat

- As proof of his claim, he gives a reference to the datasheet, and hopes that no one makes the effort to actually pull the sheet and read it

- His lie is discovered and the proof is presented

- He quickly moves on to another lie and evades all questions about his fabrication

A simple approach, repeated over and over. His lack of integrity is sickening.

Vinu Arumugham (APV) wrote,

Assume asthma was caused ONLY by NON-VACCINE causes.
The prevalence rate is 1.8%. Probability that a child will not develop asthma is 0.982.
What’s the probability of the observed outcome (0/44 in the unvaccinated group)?
0.982^44=0.45. So there’s a 45% chance that this outcome is explained by NON-VACCINE asthma causes. 55% chance the outcome is explained by VACCINES CAUSING ASTHMA.

Assume flipped coins coming up heads was caused ONLY by NON-VACCINE causes.

The prevalence rate is 50%. Probability that a child will not flip heads is 0.5.

A group of 5 unvaccinated kids each flips one coin, and they all come up tails.

What’s the probability of the observed outcome (0/5 in the unvaccinated group)?

0.5^5=0.03125. So there’s a 3.1% chance that this outcome is explained by NON-VACCINE causes. 96.9% chance the outcome is explained by VACCINES CAUSING COINS TO COME UP HEADS.

OccamsLaser #1639,

I already responded to that in the previous thread. You conveniently ignore it.

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

APV

December 26, 2014
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.

APV:
1) You linked to the wrong comment.
2) You are now referring to influenza vaccine, not DTaP. Did you really think I wouldn't notice the attempted misdirection?
3) You left out that they had subjected the vaccines to tests, and that these tests found under half a microgram of ovalbumin.
If the manufacturing processes are so good that such little amounts of a substance remain, then a specification would likely be unnecessary and a waste of time. That doesn't mean that a more general specification doesn't exist, nor does it mean that testing never happens.
W.R.T. your claims about peanut oil being used to manufacture polysorbate 80, I did some reading. Polysorbate 80 is made from oleic acid. Canola oil is both far richer in oleic acid than peanut oil and cheaper.
Simple economics blows your accusation out of the water.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You claim,

OccamsLaser #1639,

I already responded to that in the previous thread. You conveniently ignore it.

You're lying. You never responded to the fact that your claim that Millipore's allergen sheet stated that the product contained wheat and maize was a lie, fabricated by you.

Would you like to respond to that now?

Let's review.

You stated as fact that the allergen sheet says that the Polysorbate 80 has maize and wheat in it.

The allergen sheet does not say that; you made it up. You lied.

Here's your chance to retract your fabrication about what the allergen sheet says.

Are you a medical student?

Julian Frost #1642,

"2) You are now referring to influenza vaccine, not DTaP."

We are talking about food allergens in ANY vaccine.
What are you complaining about?

"3) You left out that they had subjected the vaccines to tests, and that these tests found under half a microgram of ovalbumin.
If the manufacturing processes are so good that such little amounts of a substance remain, then a specification would likely be unnecessary and a waste of time. That doesn’t mean that a more general specification doesn’t exist, nor does it mean that testing never happens."

Provide us the citation showing "under half a microgram of ovalbumin" is safe.

"W.R.T. your claims about peanut oil being used to manufacture polysorbate 80, I did some reading. Polysorbate 80 is made from oleic acid. Canola oil is both far richer in oleic acid than peanut oil and cheaper.
Simple economics blows your accusation out of the water."

Avantor uses corn, palm, coconut, sunflower and NOT canola.
So there's more to it than the cheapest oleic acid you can find. EMD Millipore uses Maize and wheat as sources. Your simple economics is well, too simplistic.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You said that Avantor "changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources)."

Do you stand by this accusation, or are you retracting it? Avantor will be interested.

Are you a coward? Are you a medical student?

Avantor uses corn, palm, coconut, sunflower and NOT canola.

The corn oil is used for sorbitol. Sunflower oil is also cheaper than peanut oil and in the high oleic varieties, up to 85% oleic acid. Palm oil is 37% oleic acid and again, cheaper than peanut oil. Coconut oil is processed to reduce rancidification, which produces oleic acid as a byproduct that would otherwise go to waste.
The economic argument stands.
https://www.aaaai.org/Aaaai/media/MediaLibrary/PDF%20Documents/Practice…

When influenza vaccine skin testing was done in egg-allergic patients, subjects with positive skin test results had no reactions, or no greater rate of reactions, than those with negative
skin test results.

You know, I've never seen a coffee shop with a sign that clearly states that nobody pees in the coffee. Applying APV's rules of omission, does that mean that there's a lot of extra-bitter coffee out there?

APV, do you understand why you need to be honest?

Richard Smith #1647,

No you don't understand the problem correctly.
Avantor and EMD Millipore are saying that their Polysorbate 80 is sourced from maize, wheat, corn, safflower, coconut and palm. They are claiming that there is no residual maize, wheat, corn, safflower, coconut and palm in the final product, WITHOUT performing any testing.

So here is the equivalent:
The coffee shop make coffee WITH PEE.
Then claims there is no residual pee in the coffee and they don't test for the presence of pee in the coffee.

Now how does that sound?

OccamsLaser #1645,

"changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources)."

According to their datasheet and marketing material, that is exactly what they did and I stand by it.

Julian Frost #1646,

"When influenza vaccine skin testing was done in egg-allergic patients,"

That's elicitation. We are talking about sensitization. Pl. provide reference demonstrating safety w.r.t sensitization. As we have discussed, it takes less allergen to sensitize than to elicit a reaction.

While focusing on peanut in Polysorbate 80, you are missing another point. Even if they are not currently making our kids sick with peanut, they are continuing to make them sick with maize, wheat, corn, palm, sunflower and coconut proteins in their injectable grade excipients.

Would it make you any happier if your child has a life-threatening allergy to corn instead of peanut?

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You say,

OccamsLaser #1645,

“changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources).”

According to their datasheet and marketing material, that is exactly what they did and I stand by it.

You're lying.

Provide the exact quote from the datasheet that states that the product used to be of peanut origin. Not the statement that they added peanuts to the listing on the sheet of allergens not present that has caused you to guess that the product had previously contained peanuts -- that's your own inference, and your own alone, and it's wrong.

So, let's be perfectly clear about this: You are now claiming that the datasheet states that the product had previously been made from peanuts. Provide the exact quote from the datasheet that makes this statement.

Don't evade and continue to dance around. Give the quote. Not your speculation, not your inference.

You're telling everyone who reads your posts that Avantor's datasheet states that their Polysorbate 80 used to be made from peanuts. I'm calling you on your lie.

Provide the proof: quote the datasheet.

Avantor states that the product was never made from peanuts. If you have the guts -- which I say you don't -- make a direct statement accusing them of lying and covering up the fact that they used to make the product from peanuts.

I say you're too much of a coward to make that direct accusation.

Let's find out.

Nice goalpost shift there, APV.

Even if they are not currently making our kids sick with peanut, they are continuing to make them sick with maize, wheat, corn, palm, sunflower and coconut proteins in their injectable grade excipients.

Evidence needed.
In fact, I've decided to stop engaging you. As Occamslaser has made clear, you lied. You took the fact that Avantor's datasheet on polysorbate 80 had peanuts added to the excluded items list as proof that it was previously made from peanuts. You have continued to insist that it was, even after evidence refuting you was given. In #1650 you wrote:

According to their datasheet and marketing material, that is exactly what they did and I stand by it.

even though you can't point to proof that it was.

@Gray Falcon
August 24, 2015

"APV, do you understand why you need to be honest?"

Simple answer.No. he does not.

@APV (#1649):

Okay, so coffee made on the International Space Station, then.

OccamsLaser #1652,
"Avantor states that the product was never made from peanuts."

Reference?

Julian Frost #1653,

"You took the fact that Avantor’s datasheet on polysorbate 80 had peanuts added to the excluded items list as proof that it was previously made from peanuts."

Exactly. You have refused to answer a simple question. Why did a common, major allergen such as peanut go missing when other allergens are listed?
In science and engineering, a data sheet is EVERYTHING. You don't make guesses. If peanut is not in the excluded list, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME IT COULD HAVE PEANUTS. You could get someone killed by making assumptions.

And you have to acknowledge "YOU HAVE TO ASSUME IT COULD HAVE PEANUTS" is not the same as proven.

I'll toss this out for Vinu/APV to chew on.Lots of linky goodness at original blog post.Including a link to Vinu's pals at VacTruth.Basically Federal laws prohibit vaccine makers from "sneaking" peanut oil,or other "hidden" ingredients into vaccines.According to studies mentioned here,the myth peanut oil here is in vaccines goes back to investigational studies in the early 1960s into the provisional use of peanut oil as an adjuvant for vaccines.The idea was abandoned.

Next we have some actual scientists ripping Vinu's claims to pieces.Enjoy.

You could get someone killed by making assumptions.

And yet...that's all you do.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You write,

Julian Frost #1653,

“You took the fact that Avantor’s datasheet on polysorbate 80 had peanuts added to the excluded items list as proof that it was previously made from peanuts.”

Exactly. You have refused to answer a simple question. Why did a common, major allergen such as peanut go missing when other allergens are listed?
In science and engineering, a data sheet is EVERYTHING. You don’t make guesses. If peanut is not in the excluded list, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME IT COULD HAVE PEANUTS.

So, Vinu, which is it?

Are you claiming that it is a fact that it has peanuts, or is it an assumption that you are making?

Don't be evasive.

Give a direct answer.

If you have the guts.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You write,

OccamsLaser #1652,
“Avantor states that the product was never made from peanuts.”

Reference?

Avantor.

I mean, you did ask them, didn't you?

Are you claiming that it is a fact that the product was made with peanuts, or is it an assumption that you are making?

Don’t be evasive.

Give a direct answer.

Are you a medical student?

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You state as a fact that vaccines have peanut oil proteins in them. Not as an assumption you are making -- but as a fact.

Please produce the citation that shows that a particular vaccine contains peanut oil proteins.

Vinu arumugham (APV):

You claimed that the datasheet for Millipore's Polysorbate 80 states that the product contains maize and wheat. Not that those are raw materials for the product -- but that the sheet states that the product has maize and wheat in it.

Is it true that Millipore's data sheet for their Polysorbate 80 states that the product has maize and wheat?

This is a yes-or-no question. Do you have the courage to answer it directly, without evasion?

I doubt it.

Prove me wrong.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

According to you, Avantor's Polysorbate 80 is currently being made from sesame oil and the final product contains sesame oil proteins.

Do you have a laboratory analysis to back that up?

Then why did they LEAVE OUT peanut (a major, common allergen) WHILE INCLUDING several other allergens in their “do not contain” list.

My daughter's allergic to cats (also a common allergen). I note Avantor left out 'cats' while including several other allergens in their “do not contain” list.

Should I be concerned that Avantor’s vaccines contain 'cat'?

If not, why should the omission of ‘peanuts’ from the ‘do not contain’ list concern me?

I bought an apple pie the other day. I just searched the whole box, and there is nothing that tells me that the pie is cyanide free. They even helpfully mention that it was prepared and baked in a peanut-free facility; why did they LEAVE OUT cyanide (a major, universal poison)?

Richard Smith #1667,

If the next pie you buy comes with a note that says the pie is now made without cyanide, what does it tell you about the pie you bought the other day?

BTW, E 535 or sodium ferrocyanide is a food additive used as an anti-caking agent in table salt. So you may be enjoying a cyanide laced pie ...

JGC #1666,

Avantor says its Polysorbate 80 is of vegetable origin. Covers cats.

"If not, why should the omission of ‘peanuts’ from the ‘do not contain’ list concern me?"

It is not just the omission of peanuts. The context matters.

Let's look at the datasheet:
http://askavantor.force.com/servlet/fileField?id=0BEG0000000TSTm

Section 4 says:
"Allergen/Hypersensitivities Information: The products listed do not contain wheat, rye,
oats, barley, spelt, malt, triticale, gluten, other grains, soybean, eggs, yeast, canola, dairy
products, seafood products, peanuts, natural grape products, natural flavors, artificial flavors,
celery, lactose, sulfites, elemental sulfur, preservatives, MSG, disodium guanylate/inosinate,
artificial sweeteners, phenylalanine, additives, colorants, dyes, or natural rubber (latex)."

It has every major allergen (with the exception of sesame and tree nuts) and numerous less common allergens.

Section 6 says:
"Rev. 7; March 30, 2011 – Section 4: Added peanuts to the Allergen list; Corrected residual
solvents info for Ethylene glycol; minor formatting. (JLW)"

In this context, it is quite clear that Avantor was unable to guarantee that pre-2011, their products were peanut-free.
How can they have overlooked peanut when so many lesser allergens are listed?
Now they are unable to guarantee that it is free of sesame or tree nuts.

The data sheet alone should make it clear that pre-2011 products could be contaminated with peanut. Now they specifically claim that their product is non-animal and non-peanut origin. Why single out peanut now? Did Avantor find out that peanut is a major allergen only in 2011?

JGC #1666,

This product lists sesame and tree nuts are also absent.
http://askavantor.force.com/servlet/fileField?id=0BEG0000000TUGq

So Avantor is aware of the allergenicity of sesame/tree nuts but left it out here:
http://askavantor.force.com/servlet/fileField?id=0BEG0000000TSTm
Again, because they are unable to guarantee that this product is free of those allergens.

OccamsLaser #1664,

Here's what I wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/05/no-the-cdc-did-not-just-ap…

Get back to us when you have better English comprehension skills.

<blockquote.In this context, it is quite clear that Avantor was unable to guarantee that pre-2011, their products were peanut-free.
I think I'll start calling APV Humpty Dumpty. The fact that Avantor only added peanuts to the exclusion list does not mean that "Avantor was unable to guarantee that pre-2011, their products were peanut-free", despite Humpty Dumpty's blatherings.

So Avantor is aware of the allergenicity of sesame/tree nuts but left it out here

Sesame oil is costlier than other vegetable oils due to a worldwide shortage and the fact that it is mostly grown in developing countries, which makes automated extraction unviable. That you view the omission as proof that it was used speaks volumes.

You don’t make guesses. If peanut is not in the excluded list, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME IT COULD HAVE PEANUTS. You could get someone killed by making assumptions.

Can you help me decipher this bit from your #1657, APV?

These statements seems contradictory.

Aren't assumptions guesses too? And if they can get someone killed, why would you do it?

If the next pie you buy comes with a note that says the pie is now made without cyanide, what does it tell you about the pie you bought the other day?

It certainly doesn't tell you the pie you bought the other day did contain cyanide.

Avantor says its Polysorbate 80 is of vegetable origin. Covers cats.

Cats are 'vegetable'--are you sure? Maybe they're mineral (I bet you're a lot of fun to play 20 Questions with).

Now they are unable to guarantee that it is free of sesame or tree nuts.

Or cats. Or dolphins. Ectoplasm. Studebakers and Edsels. Why the list of things they’re apparently ‘unable to guarantee it’s free of’ is orders of magnitude larger than the list of things they can guarantee it’s free of. Shouldn’t we be just as concerned about all of these are we are of peanuts? What if it contains napalm? There’s not guarantee it doesn’t, after all, and I think a good argument can be made that napalm is much, much more dangerous than peanuts, and able to affect many more people—after all, everyone is ‘sensitized’ against napalm.

Sigh

@APV (#1668): You know, if you're one of those people that eats the whole apple, including the core, you're ACTUALLY (no "may" about it) enjoying a cyanide laced apple.

Of course, if some company decides to slap a "-FREE" label on their product, there's no way they're just jumping on the latest consumer fad bandwagon (or, more optimistically, addressing the latest issue of which consumers have become aware...), right? I mean, that virgin olive oil now says it's cholesterol free; just how much cholesterol did it have before (and just what sort of GMO plant/animal monstrosity were those original olives, as you don't usually get cholesterol from plants)? And of course, everything that now bears a "gluten-free" sticker on it was originally saturated in the stuff, right?

So, yeah, a notification that a product is peanut-free that appeared about the time that peanut-allergy awareness was peaking can only be explained by the peanut allergens actually previously existing in the product and being removed, and not as a response to a sudden influx of questions regarding the peanut allergen content of the product.

@Richard Smith: oh, DON'T get me started on food labeling. I lost all faith in the intelligence of my fellow humans when I was at the store and saw that the fruit was labeled as gluten-free. (And I have friends who HAVE celiac, so I'm very conscious about gluten foods if they will be with me for a meal).

Not to talk about cans of fish with the allergie-information: "Contains fish".
Well duh, I didn't expect to be able to buy a can of fish-free fish.

@Renate: yeah, like the Planter's Peanut packages that say "Caution: Contains Peanuts". Ya THINK?

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You say,

OccamsLaser #1664,

Here’s what I wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/05/no-the-cdc-did-not-just-ap…

Get back to us when you have better English comprehension skills.

OK, Vinu, let's take it step by step, because you seem to have great difficulty understanding simple written English, and your ability to tell the truth, as we have seen, is deeply deficient.

Did you, or did you not, state that Millipore's Polysorbate 80 has maize and wheat in it, and did you or did you not offer the datasheet as your proof, even though it says the opposite?

This is very straightforward.

Try to be honest.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

Please don't be a coward.

Make a simple, direct statement that Avantor used to make their Polysorbate 80 from peanuts and they lied about that on their datasheet.

Make a simple, direct statement that Avantor is lying now when they say they never made their Polysorbate 80 from peanuts.

Make a simple, direct statement that Avantor currently makes their Polysorbate 80 from sesame seeds.

Make a simple, direct statement that Avantor lies on their current datasheet by not disclosing that they make their Polysorbate 80 from sesame seeds.

Let's see whether you have the courage of your convictions.

I say you don't.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You said,

If the next pie you buy comes with a note that says the pie is now made without cyanide, what does it tell you about the pie you bought the other day?

Please provide your proof that Avantor states that their Polysorbate 80 product is "now made without peanuts."

Please note the wording, which you used in your attempt to draw a parallel to the apple pie hypothetical. Your wording -- not mine, not anyone else's. Yours.

The burden is now on you to prove that Avantor used that wording. Please pay particular attention to the word "now" that you used in your claimed parallel.

Any attempt to evade this simple question will reveal that you are dishonest. People evade when they are afraid of giving an honest answer.

Are you afraid?

I think so.

We'll find out shortly.

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You state as a fact that vaccines have peanut oil proteins in them. Not as an assumption you are making — but as a fact.

Please produce a citation that shows that a particular vaccine actually contains peanut oil proteins.

You're making this claim on the Internet, so you should be able to produce the proof (not just give your own assumption).

The proof. Please produce it.

Richard Smith #1676,

"consumer fad bandwagon"

Injectable grade Polysorbate 80 is sold to professionals in the pharmaceutical industry. If you are suggesting that those professionals are just as susceptible to such fad as ordinary consumers, then we may have a bigger vaccine safety problem than I have described ...

FOOD PROTEIN CONTAMINATED VACCINES CAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOOD ALLERGIES.

Straight from the horse’s mouth.
https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vacci…

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

Anybody want to argue with that?

Vinu Arumugham (APV):

You're evading. That's what dishonest people do.

Figures.

I'm not answering APV here. I already answered about his abstract on the Deisher post about the book he linked to. But to reiterate the final conclusion:

Overall, the committee concludes that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines.

P.S. APV: when will you learn that we WILL check your references and point out when you cherry pick parts?

If the next pie you buy comes with a note that says the pie is now made without cyanide, what does it tell you about the pie you bought the other day?

Some people are smart enough to realize that the pie they bought the other day never had cyanide in it to begin with.