There is a flu vaccine made without eggs. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777773I think that is the one they are still working on and isn't available to everyone at this time. I can't tell because one needs to sign into Medscape to read about it. Sorry, i must have clicked on the wrong link. I hate links that require a sign-in and wouldn't have sent it if I'd realized it. Here are two links that don't require sign in. APV also mentioned Flublok. It is new but has been approved by the FDA. Your doctor may be able to get it, possibly for this year, but definitely for next year. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-flu-vaccine-for-people-allergic-to-eggs/ http://www.flublok.com/FactSheet.pdf
Vaccines, electricity, automobiles, flight must all be irrelevant to you because they are all from a 100 years ago? As I have pointed out several times, the fact that vaccines work is THE PROOF that Richet's findings are not only still relevant but fundamentally important. In case you did not know, he coined the term anaphylaxis. Anyone who finds vaccines may cause undesirable effects must be a fraud correct?100 years ago, people were electrocuted by the by the wires running under the streets and cars had plate glass windshields that would kill you in a minor accident. We know more about all of these things now. And no, anyone who finds vaccines may cause undesirable effects is not a fraud, not if what they find can be demonstrated as true using repeated experiments. We know this happens because the vaccines and how they are produced is improved all the time. Only you think in this dichotomous manner that anyone who disagrees with you is ignoring the research you have found.
There is a flu vaccine made without eggs. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777773I think that is the one they are still working on and isn't available to everyone at this time. I can't tell because one needs to sign into Medscape to read about it. Sorry, i must have clicked on the wrong link. I hate links that require a sign-in and wouldn't have sent it if I'd realized it. Here are two links that don't require sign in. APV also mentioned Flublok. It is new but has been approved by the FDA. Your doctor may be able to get it, possibly for this year, but definitely for next year. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-flu-vaccine-for-people-allergic-to-eggs/ http://www.flublok.com/FactSheet.pdf Thanks Lois. I hate such links too, but I very much appreciate these and will talk to my dr about this when I can.
I figured this would end with a temper tantrum from APV. But just ending is almost as good.
I figured this would end with a temper tantrum from APV. But just ending is almost as good.Agreed
I figured this would end with a temper tantrum from APV. But just ending is almost as good.In this "game" the kid with the most evidence wins. So no temper tantrum from me. Here's another random thought. Latex allergy is so common, that every time you visit a doctor, the nurse asks you if you are allergic to latex. Multi-use injection vials contain natural rubber latex caps. When the syringe pierces the cap, it tears off the latex and the needle is contaminated with latex which gets injected into your body. Result, you develop latex allergy. Similarly, when the needle pierces the skin/muscle, it tears off skin/muscle protein and deposits it into your body. Predicting the result is left as an exercise to the reader.
I figured this would end with a temper tantrum from APV. But just ending is almost as good.In this "game" the kid with the most evidence wins. I haven't seen much of that in this thread.
Similarly, when the needle pierces the skin/muscle, it tears off skin/muscle protein and deposits it into your body. Predicting the result is left as an exercise to the reader.You realize this would apply to all use of needles ever. Pretty much everyone should be allergic to skin/muscle protein according to this theory.
I haven't seen much of that in this thread.It is easy to miss ...
You realize this would apply to all use of needles ever. Pretty much everyone should be allergic to skin/muscle protein according to this theory.Yes, all use of needles ever is absolutely right. Everyone is at risk but not everyone will become allergic. Even though vaccines are tweaked for maximum efficacy, they may only work in half the people. Vaccine makers add more viral/bacterial protein or add adjuvants to increase the sensitivity of the immune system or recommend a course of 3-4 vaccine shots of vaccines such as DTaP to cover >90% of people. Skin/muscle and other undesirable proteins are of course injected without tweaks for efficacy. So they "work" in 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 people, giving them an allergy. Probability of allergy development depends on needle size, adjuvants in the injection, number of injections at the same time, the health of your immune system, etc. Dr. Classen wrote: "The concept of epitope spreading applies. If a macrophage has on its surface a tetanus immunogen and an self immunogen then the body will start developing immunity to the self immunogen as well. The self immunogen does not have to be in the vaccine only on the MHC molecules of a macrophage presenting the vaccine antigen (ie tetanus)." In other words, injecting skin/muscle protein with saline is safer than skin/muscle protein injected with other antigens. With multiple foreign allergens/antigens and more macrophages arriving to clean up, it looks like the immune system goes into a buy-one-allergy-get-one-allergy-free mode due to epitope spreading. Das, KM; Dasgupta, A; Mandal, A; Geng, X (1993). “Autoimmunity to cytoskeletal protein tropomyosin. A clue to the pathogenetic mechanism for ulcerative colitis". J Immunol 150 (6): 2487–2493. PMID 8450225.
I often wonder if the people worried about vaccines and medical care in general are also the ones spreading ignorant ideas about Ebola too? It really behoves people to educate themselves about such things and not go with pseudo-science or fear-mongering concerning these things.
I often wonder if the people worried about vaccines and medical care in general are also the ones spreading ignorant ideas about Ebola too? It really behoves people to educate themselves about such things and not go with pseudo-science or fear-mongering concerning these things.I"m not going to bother finding the study, but there is data that if someone believes one thing, like flouridation is poison, then they are more prone to believe another, like GWB orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. I know a few people like this personally. It seems they read some things, or see something like 9/11, and they can't explain it, they don't evaluate it critically, and it is upsetting, so they skip into the world of conspiracy theories. Once there, everything becomes tied into the theory. Since the basis of the theory is that we can't penetrate the veil of secrecy, any argument showing a lack of evidence becomes evidence that the evidence is being hidden.
I often wonder if the people worried about vaccines and medical care in general are also the ones spreading ignorant ideas about Ebola too? It really behoves people to educate themselves about such things and not go with pseudo-science or fear-mongering concerning these things.I"m not going to bother finding the study, but there is data that if someone believes one thing, like flouridation is poison, then they are more prone to believe another, like GWB orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. I know a few people like this personally. It seems they read some things, or see something like 9/11, and they can't explain it, they don't evaluate it critically, and it is upsetting, so they skip into the world of conspiracy theories. Once there, everything becomes tied into the theory. Since the basis of the theory is that we can't penetrate the veil of secrecy, any argument showing a lack of evidence becomes evidence that the evidence is being hidden. I don't doubt it one bit that if a person falls for one piece of tripe, they fall for more- just by my own observations.
At this point, I’m curious why APV is continuing. His posts are getting increasingly repetitive. I know why I respond, because I know others might come here looking for information, and I want to give some kind of balance. Whether or not I get it right is up to others to judge, but at least I give them something to consider. APV doesn’t seem interested in an opposing view at all, just sophists arguments.
At this point, I'm curious why APV is continuing. His posts are getting increasingly repetitive. I know why I respond, because I know others might come here looking for information, and I want to give some kind of balance. Whether or not I get it right is up to others to judge, but at least I give them something to consider. APV doesn't seem interested in an opposing view at all, just sophists arguments.15 million people are suffering an incurable life-threatening disease. Instead of opposing for opposition sake and balancing for balancing sake, why don't you provide an opposing hypothesis that explains what caused this disease and provide the appropriate references for your hypothesis? I have provided my hypothesis and references. If you think it's wrong, feel free to point out *specifically* what's broken or provide your own counter hypothesis.
15 million people are suffering an incurable life-threatening disease. Instead of opposing for opposition sake and balancing for balancing sake, why don't you provide an opposing hypothesis that explains what caused this disease and provide the appropriate references for your hypothesis? I have provided my hypothesis and references. If you think it's wrong, feel free to point out *specifically* what's broken or provide your own counter hypothesis.It's been difficult at times to figure out what your central point was, allergies, side affects, quality control, but I would not have selected "15 million people are suffering an incurable disease" out of what you have been saying. Of the many "diseases" you've mentioned, which one are you referring to?
15 million people are suffering an incurable life-threatening disease. Instead of opposing for opposition sake and balancing for balancing sake, why don't you provide an opposing hypothesis that explains what caused this disease and provide the appropriate references for your hypothesis? I have provided my hypothesis and references. If you think it's wrong, feel free to point out *specifically* what's broken or provide your own counter hypothesis.It's been difficult at times to figure out what your central point was, allergies, side affects, quality control, but I would not have selected "15 million people are suffering an incurable disease" out of what you have been saying. Of the many "diseases" you've mentioned, which one are you referring to? Food allergies. I learned that Charles Richet's model can explain the food allergy epidemic because vaccines/injections contain many food allergens. This of course brings up vaccine quality control and side effects. Any good scientific hypothesis should be able to make testable predictions. With the Charles Richet model, one can predict that if you inject lung proteins, pancreatic proteins, or muscle protein (tropomyosin), (as we do with vaccines/injections) that the patients are likely to develop asthma, Type I diabetes, or ulcerative colitis respectively. I provided references that show that this prediction is likely to be correct. The studies show causation. Then there is the observation of correlation. Increasing vaccinations correlate with increasing asthma, Type I diabetes, ulcerative colitis and of course food allergies. The central point therefore is vaccine safety that encompasses all of the above.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people like to blame anything they can in relationship to their own issues, even if it’s not true and they can only find pseudo-science to back up their accusations.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people like to blame anything they can in relationship to their own issues, even if it's not true and they can only find pseudo-science to back up their accusations.I have asked several times that you *specifically* point out the "pseudo-science" in any of my posts and you have failed to do so.
In 2005 I learned that the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends antibiotics before dental procedures for people with certain heart conditions. This was to prevent mouth bacteria that the enter the blood during the dental procedure from infecting the heart.
The recommendation did not make sense. People brush and floss so frequently that the risk of infection with these activities were far greater than risk of infection during a dental procedure.
In 2008, the AHA changed its recommendation citing exactly the reason above.
http://www.ada.org/en/member-center/oral-health-topics/antibiotic-prophylaxis
Expert organizations can be dead wrong for years. Another such example is annual dental X-rays causing brain tumors.
Goes back to the same point. Question everything and then question the answers you receive from the experts.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people like to blame anything they can in relationship to their own issues, even if it's not true and they can only find pseudo-science to back up their accusations.I have asked several times that you *specifically* point out the "pseudo-science" in any of my posts and you have failed to do so. And several times I pointed out that your answers are in your own posts. I even clicked a link within a link you provided and put it in a post. Someone else pointed out that you were misinterpreting the responses you got from the doctors you emailed. I can't remember if I gave you the Wikipedia page about Classen or just told you about it. That one has links to the studies that were follow ups to his work. Since then I've just ignored your repeated requests. I assumed you were just doing it to annoy me.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people like to blame anything they can in relationship to their own issues, even if it's not true and they can only find pseudo-science to back up their accusations.I have asked several times that you *specifically* point out the "pseudo-science" in any of my posts and you have failed to do so. And several times I pointed out that your answers are in your own posts. I even clicked a link within a link you provided and put it in a post. Someone else pointed out that you were misinterpreting the responses you got from the doctors you emailed. I can't remember if I gave you the Wikipedia page about Classen or just told you about it. That one has links to the studies that were follow ups to his work. Since then I've just ignored your repeated requests. I assumed you were just doing it to annoy me. Sorry, we have had too many posts so you do have to be even more specific ! "I even clicked a link within a link you provided and put it in a post." Is that referring to the ACAAI? I responded to it. "Someone else pointed out that you were misinterpreting the responses" I could not find that, sorry. Classen: As I responded, even if the Classen study had a problem, here is one more. Vaccinations may induce diabetes-related autoantibodies in one-year-old children. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14679101 As I also pointed out, of the current HiB vaccines, *only* Sanofi's ActiHiB HiB vaccines has pancreatic digest -- the risk factor for diabetes. Unless the studies accounted for exactly what was contained in the HiB vaccines at the time they were conducted, the results are going to be predictably inconclusive. So I believe I have addressed the issues you have pointed out in my posts. The key aspect to remember is the authors were all focused on the HiB viral strain as being the problem. I am pointing out that is not the case. The culprit according to the Charles Richet model is the pancreatic digest in some HiB vaccines that is to blame. To make matters more complicated, there are now "pancreatic digest" available from plant sources. So this could result in food allergy instead of Type I diabetes. So unless studies pay very careful attention to such details, the results will be confusing. http://blog.blsvh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Vaccine-induced-autoimmunity.pdf says: “Diabetes mellitus The fact that the incidence of type I diabetes is increasing rapidly in children in many countries around the world has raised the question about the role of vaccination as an important candidate contributing to this phenomenon. There are conflicting data concerning this issue. One group suggested that the timing of vaccination is important in the development of type I diabetes and that Hemophilus influenzae type B vaccine can increase the risk for the development of diabetes if given at age 2 months or older [19]. On the other hand, a 10 year follow-up of more than 100,000 Finnish children who participated in a trial of HiB vaccination did not find an increased risk for the development of type I diabetes [26]. Nevertheless, a recently published study in a non-selected cohort of 4,400 babies in southeast Sweden disclosed that HiB vaccination stimulates the immune system. This non-specific stimulation may have a polyclonal effect and thereby increase the production of glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and tyrosine phosphatase antibodies, thus increasing the risk of developing type I diabetes in this population [27]. Therefore, the authors postulate that HiB vaccination might be of importance under special circumstances when pancreatic b cell-related immune response is activated by other mechanisms. On the other hand, a recently published study following a cohort of Danish children did not reveal an increased risk of type 1 diabetes among children vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine as compared with unvaccinated children [28]." I provided the Richet allergy model as the mechanism the author’s are postulating.