Sorry, we have had too many posts so you do have to be even more specific !I and others have repeatedly pointed out that you ignore what we say and what experts say. Yes, you're right, too many posts. It's a form of argument you are using known on the internet as "Gish Gallop", just keep listing things and making long lists and demanding everyone respond to every detail. The fact that everyone does not respond to everything you say does not mean there is no response, it does not mean any one of your conclusions is correct or that your overall theme is correct. If you are truly sorry for creating this mess, then you could show that by attempting to clean it up. I have not made more than a couple links in this thread, so finding where I linked something should not be a challenge.
For anyone interested, the Richet allergy model with detailed description and all the references is here:
Here’s a quick pictorial view:
Childhood Immune Disorder Risk Map per the Richet Allergy Model
APV, Lausten’s link is more of a reliable link than the one’s you posted. His is real science, while the links you gave (APV) are pure pseudo-science.
APV, Lausten's link is more of a reliable link than the one's you posted. His is real science, while the links you gave (APV) are pure pseudo-science.The study Lausten points to is the same study Scott_Pryor posted at the very beginning of the discussion. If you read my response, you will understand why Dr. Offit's study is broken. Here's the detail again: On Dr. Offit’s paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12612250/ Dr. Offit’s paper does not consider the effect of all these undesirable proteins present in vaccines at all. Dr.Offit also fails to consider the effect of adjuvants in vaccines. He refers to adjuvants in the rabbit experiment and in that case the vaccines did cause the development of autoimmune disease as expected. Therefore, most of his discussion on vaccine mechanisms are invalidated. Polysorbate 80 is used in the laboratory to cause lung injury in animals for experiments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14739807 Some vaccines contain Polysorbate 80. Dr. Offit’s paper refers to an asthma study. It makes no mention of whether the vaccines studied contained Polysorbate 80. Without that information, the study results are inconclusive. Dr. Offit’s paper refers to a study where children were provided one of the following vaccines: 2-component diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine; 5-component diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, diphtheria-tetanus-whole-cell pertussis; or diphtheria-tetanus. If all these vaccines had the same food allergens, then the study would of course show no difference in allergy among the patients. No conclusion can be drawn from the results unless the allergens in the vaccines are noted and described. This study is therefore useless without the allergen information. Dr.Offit, et al., inexplicably draw sweeping conclusions from such invalid, incomplete or inconclusive studies. Dr.Offit is the inventor of the Rotateq vaccine. But he admits even he does not know how it works. So Dr.Offit is using eminence-based science not evidence-based science, to push his invalid conclusions. Then what about the conflicts of interest of a man who made tens of millions of dollars selling his vaccine to vaccine makers? http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/eminence-vs-evidence Lausten also correctly pointed out that science is about paying attention to detail. Since Dr.Offit has glossed over all the relevant details, perhaps his paper is a great example of pseudo-science?
That’s why I don’t want to get into a link war with you. You just misinterpret them. For instance, the fact that Polysorbate 80 was used to induce a lung problem is not an indictment of Polysorbate 80. It’s what else was injected and how it was injected. Polysorbate 80 is also in lots of foods, should we stop eating it?
That's why I don't want to get into a link war with you. You just misinterpret them. For instance, the fact that Polysorbate 80 was used to induce a lung problem is not an indictment of Polysorbate 80. It's what else was injected and how it was injected. Polysorbate 80 is also in lots of foods, should we stop eating it?Nothing else was injected. "In five sheep, lung injury was induced by lavage with 0.2% polysorbate 80 in saline." "Polysorbate 80 is also in lots of foods, should we stop eating it?" Fundamental concept that you need to understand is that what is safe to eat is NOT safe to inject! Vaccine makers seem to make this exact same mistake. Looks like anything you can eat can be found in a vaccine. If you don't have ulcers, you can safely eat cobra venom but obviously you don't want to inject it. Polysorbate 80 or anything else you eat, goes through various digestive processes, sequentially, rendering most foods safe for absorption into the blood. I don't know if Polysorbate 80 is safe to eat or not. I know it is present in food but I have no idea if there are long term problems associated with consuming it. Injecting it bypasses all these natural protections and sends the Polysorbate 80 circulating all through the body where it was never ever meant to be. People and animals never ever evolved to handle proteins (or Polysorbate 80 or worse) being injected into them especially combined with adjuvants. Proteins were only supposed to be ingested. Naturally, pollen proteins are injected into people by insects such as mosquitoes. You develop pollen allergies. Pollen allergies are probably as old as mammals and mosquitoes. But pollen allergies rose in the last two hundred years. A possible reason, humans had aluminum compounds circulating in their blood (aluminum compounds act as adjuvants, boosting immune sensitivity). Where did the aluminum come from? Water treatment plants? Alum or aluminum compounds are used to clarify turbidity. The same property is used in vaccines. Just as alum collects and holds particles of dirt in water, alum collects and hold viral proteins exhibiting the proteins for a longer period of time. Thus allowing the immune system time to develop an immune response. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80120-pollen-allergies-related-to-insect-bites-and-water-treatment-plants/ "It's what else was injected and how it was injected." Injecting viral proteins to gain protection against diseases may been one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine. But why don't we ask the same question about vaccines? It's what else was injected and how it was injected that could prove to be one of modern medicine's greatest failures ...
Naturally, pollen proteins are injected into people by insects such as mosquitoes. You develop pollen allergiesNo you don't. Most people have an allergic reaction. That's different than developing an allergy. That scienceforum person is as crazy as you are. You are just feeding off each other. Cut it out. You can't just pick something randomly out of the modern world and then say it is the cause of a randomly selected problem in the world. It's like saying global warming is a result of the reduction in pirates, and not the Somali kind. To reduce global warming, we all should be wearing eye patches and saying "arrrrr" It's hard to find information that replies to what you say, because you are making the claim. Scientists don't waste their time going around saying "that's not true". They know how things work and how to test them for safety. Here's a blog, maybe more your style. She is talking about peanut oil, but maybe what she says about adjuvant will be helfpul. ] Specifically, in her #2
the idea that peanut oil in vaccines is somehow magically sensitizing children to allergies has no basis in reality. First off, the adjuvant that's most often referenced in all this is a Merck product that was developedin the 1960s, well before the onset of the wave of food allergies. (Anadjuvant is an ingredient, most often a metal or mineral salt, that's added to vaccines as either a preservative or as a "booster" to enhance immune reaction.) Second, any peanut oil used in these situations would be in a highly-purified form that would be extraordinarily unlikely to contain peanut protein residue. Third, a quick perusal of vaccine inserts (I did this years ago, but did it again now just to make sure) does not turn up Merck 65-4 adjuvant or peanut oil in any form that I could find.Note this too. And this is why I'm so adamant that you stop.
Advocates: before you start spreading this next round of hysteria on your sites, remember that there's a potential negative outcome here. There are babies that will die as a result of people's choices about whether to vaccinate. If you spread it, you own it.
Lausten,
To say that you only have to chose between today’s unsafe vaccinations or no vaccinations is an either-or fallacy.
There is a third option. MAKE VACCINES SAFE.
Vaccine inserts only tell you Polysorbate 80 is present in vaccines. Every vendor that makes Polysorbate 80 has a different formula. You won’t find that in the vaccine insert. So foodallergybitch.blogspot.com is dead wrong and ignorant.
This Polysorbate 80 has kosher certified tapioca in it. You won’t find that listed in the vaccine insert.
http://www.croda.com/guidelines/healthcare/Health_Care_guide.pdf
This Polysorbate 80 has maize and wheat. You won’t find that listed in the vaccine insert.
http://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/product/Tween®-80-(Polysorbate),MDA_CHEM-817061#documentation
Another vendor privately responded to me saying they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.
So you know what food allergies to expect in the next wave of the epidemic.
So just because Merck 65-4 is not listed does not mean there is no peanut oil in the vaccine.
Begs the question, if Merck 65-4 peanut oil adjuvant was so safe and effective, why did they stop using it in vaccines? Is there something the FDA does not want to tell us?
This is the HUGE problem the FDA has created by not having a specification at all. There must be a list of safety tested ingredients and levels that are allowed in vaccines. Every vaccine maker must provide a test report showing ALL the ingredients are in compliance with the levels specified. That’s the engineering and scientific approach to vaccine manufacturing. We have specifications and tests for cars and aircraft. For vaccines we have this sloppy mess. Does this look like science to you? Does this look like attention to detail to you?
“No you don’t. Most people have an allergic reaction. That’s different than developing an allergy.”
If you removed your pirate eye patch and read carefully, you will find that I am not relating random things but there is a method to the madness!
Many people have an immediate allergic reaction to an insect’s saliva (elicitation). What that means is sometime earlier, when they were injected with the saliva for the first time, they would have developed the allergy sensitization). Unlike an elicitation, during sensitization there will be no symptoms. As I wrote before, elicitation usually requires more allergen than sensitization.
So pollen injected by mosquitoes can cause sensitization but unlikely to cause elicitation. But when you breathe in large quantities of pollen, you develop allergy symptoms (elicitation).
Pollen allergy being caused by insect bites is one more prediction of the Richet allergy model. I don’t have a reference for this … yet. If someone decides to study it, we will find out if the hypothesis is true …
What that means is sometime earlier, when they were injected with the saliva for the first time, they would have developed the allergy sensitization).No, it doesn't mean that at all. We are born with the reaction to insects. Look it up.
That's why I don't want to get into a link war with you. You just misinterpret them. For instance, the fact that Polysorbate 80 was used to induce a lung problem is not an indictment of Polysorbate 80. It's what else was injected and how it was injected. Polysorbate 80 is also in lots of foods, should we stop eating it?Nothing else was injected. "In five sheep, lung injury was induced by lavage with 0.2% polysorbate 80 in saline." "Polysorbate 80 is also in lots of foods, should we stop eating it?" Fundamental concept that you need to understand is that what is safe to eat is NOT safe to inject! Vaccine makers seem to make this exact same mistake. Looks like anything you can eat can be found in a vaccine. If you don't have ulcers, you can safely eat cobra venom but obviously you don't want to inject it. Polysorbate 80 or anything else you eat, goes through various digestive processes, sequentially, rendering most foods safe for absorption into the blood. I don't know if Polysorbate 80 is safe to eat or not. I know it is present in food but I have no idea if there are long term problems associated with consuming it. Injecting it bypasses all these natural protections and sends the Polysorbate 80 circulating all through the body where it was never ever meant to be. Should ebola become a pandemic can we assume you will reject a vaccine if one is developed? After all, it might contain something scary. Lois People and animals never ever evolved to handle proteins (or Polysorbate 80 or worse) being injected into them especially combined with adjuvants. Proteins were only supposed to be ingested. Naturally, pollen proteins are injected into people by insects such as mosquitoes. You develop pollen allergies. Pollen allergies are probably as old as mammals and mosquitoes. But pollen allergies rose in the last two hundred years. A possible reason, humans had aluminum compounds circulating in their blood (aluminum compounds act as adjuvants, boosting immune sensitivity). Where did the aluminum come from? Water treatment plants? Alum or aluminum compounds are used to clarify turbidity. The same property is used in vaccines. Just as alum collects and holds particles of dirt in water, alum collects and hold viral proteins exhibiting the proteins for a longer period of time. Thus allowing the immune system time to develop an immune response. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80120-pollen-allergies-related-to-insect-bites-and-water-treatment-plants/ "It's what else was injected and how it was injected." Injecting viral proteins to gain protection against diseases may been one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine. But why don't we ask the same question about vaccines? It's what else was injected and how it was injected that could prove to be one of modern medicine's greatest failures ...
Should ebola become a pandemic can we assume you will reject a vaccine if one is developed? After all, it might contain something scary. LoisWe have the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), so why is Ebola out of control? The question you should be asking is, why did the CDC not have a vaccine in time to stop Ebola in West Africa? Ebola was not discovered yesterday, it has been known for decades. Just like the FDA, the CDC has been sleeping at the switch. FDA approved Vioxx that was better at killing people than pain. So an FDA approved Ebola vaccine may turn out to be more efficient at killing people than Ebola itself. Vaccine quality is a mess when the FDA had all the time in the world. What would you expect when they have to fast-track vaccine approval in the middle of a pandemic? So, now would be a good time to fix vaccine safety at the FDA and CDC to give us safer and timely vaccines before the next pandemic.
IgE and IgG are synthesized on exposure to allergens. You are not born with them. If people can be born with antibodies to insect proteins, perhaps they can be born with antibodies against measles, pertussis,tetanus too? Vaccines would be unnecessary. I have not heard of that yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8814051 Breast-fed newborns get antibodies from the mother for temporary protection. That would not be necessary, if they are born with antibodies.What that means is sometime earlier, when they were injected with the saliva for the first time, they would have developed the allergy sensitization).No, it doesn't mean that at all. We are born with the reaction to insects. Look it up.
We have the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), so why is Ebola out of control?Because this is the real world, not some cartoon fantasy. You can't just open a "center" for something and have it solve all of life's problems.
IgE and IgG are synthesized on exposure to allergens. You are not born with them. If people can be born with antibodies to insect proteins, perhaps they can be born with antibodies against measles, pertussis,tetanus too? Vaccines would be unnecessary. I have not heard of that yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8814051 Breast-fed newborns get antibodies from the mother for temporary protection. That would not be necessary, if they are born with antibodies.Okay, it's much worse than I thought. You are not only unwilling to listen to the science specifically involving vaccines, but apparently any biology at all. You can't teach someone it they don't have some level of trust of the teacher. Even if you want to disagree with the teacher, you still have to understand their case, then demonstrate how they are wrong. You haven't done that.
IgE and IgG are synthesized on exposure to allergens. You are not born with them. If people can be born with antibodies to insect proteins, perhaps they can be born with antibodies against measles, pertussis,tetanus too? Vaccines would be unnecessary. I have not heard of that yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8814051 Breast-fed newborns get antibodies from the mother for temporary protection. That would not be necessary, if they are born with antibodies. Babies get antibodies from their mothers but not antibodies for everything--only what the mother has. And the antibodies babies get are not long lasting. They have to build up theiir own immunity, with the help of vaccines. LoisWhat that means is sometime earlier, when they were injected with the saliva for the first time, they would have developed the allergy sensitization).No, it doesn't mean that at all. We are born with the reaction to insects. Look it up.
IgE and IgG are synthesized on exposure to allergens. You are not born with them. If people can be born with antibodies to insect proteins, perhaps they can be born with antibodies against measles, pertussis,tetanus too? Vaccines would be unnecessary. I have not heard of that yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8814051 Breast-fed newborns get antibodies from the mother for temporary protection. That would not be necessary, if they are born with antibodies. Babies get antibodies from their mothers but not antibodies for everything--only what the mother has. And the antibodies babies get are not long lasting. They have to build up theiir own immunity, with the help of vaccines. Lois Agreed, with one little tweak, safe vaccines.What that means is sometime earlier, when they were injected with the saliva for the first time, they would have developed the allergy sensitization).No, it doesn't mean that at all. We are born with the reaction to insects. Look it up.
We have the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), so why is Ebola out of control?Because this is the real world, not some cartoon fantasy. You can't just open a "center" for something and have it solve all of life's problems.
IgE and IgG are synthesized on exposure to allergens. You are not born with them. If people can be born with antibodies to insect proteins, perhaps they can be born with antibodies against measles, pertussis,tetanus too? Vaccines would be unnecessary. I have not heard of that yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8814051 Breast-fed newborns get antibodies from the mother for temporary protection. That would not be necessary, if they are born with antibodies.Okay, it's much worse than I thought. You are not only unwilling to listen to the science specifically involving vaccines, but apparently any biology at all. You can't teach someone it they don't have some level of trust of the teacher. Even if you want to disagree with the teacher, you still have to understand their case, then demonstrate how they are wrong. You haven't done that. You said look it up. I did and posted http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8814051 which shows your understanding is incorrect. Mosquito bite reactions are IgE,IgG mediated as shown in the paper. IgE, IgG antibodies are part of adaptive immunity. Innate immunity is what you are born with. Innate immunity is not antigen specific. You acquire immunity to proteins you are exposed to by synthesizing antigen-specific IgE, IgG - adaptive immunity. If you disagree, please post the reference. "Even if you want to disagree with the teacher, you still have to understand their case, then demonstrate how they are wrong. You haven't done that." You have to be specific. I cannot address vague statements.
"Even if you want to disagree with the teacher, you still have to understand their case, then demonstrate how they are wrong. You haven't done that." You have to be specific. I cannot address vague statements.The point of my statement is that you are not open to disagreement. It's like talking to a deaf person. Making sounds is pointless because they can't hear them. Someone needs to use sign-language or something that you understand. I don't know what that is. You just post things and say "this means your wrong" when they don't mean that at all. That study had nothing to do with developing an allergy to mosquitos after getting bit. You made the claim, you prove it. And what does "safe" mean to you? If there is a 1 in a million chance a vaccine will give me an allergy vs a 1 in 200,000 chance I will die from the flu without it, I'll take the shot.
"Even if you want to disagree with the teacher, you still have to understand their case, then demonstrate how they are wrong. You haven't done that." You have to be specific. I cannot address vague statements.The point of my statement is that you are not open to disagreement. It's like talking to a deaf person. Making sounds is pointless because they can't hear them. Someone needs to use sign-language or something that you understand. I don't know what that is. You just post things and say "this means your wrong" when they don't mean that at all. That study had nothing to do with developing an allergy to mosquitos after getting bit. You made the claim, you prove it. And what does "safe" mean to you? If there is a 1 in a million chance a vaccine will give me an allergy vs a 1 in 200,000 chance I will die from the flu without it, I'll take the shot. The study was about reactions to mosquito bites being IgE, IgG mediated. That proves they are part of adaptive immunity, not innate immunity. I said that proves your claim that "We are born with the reaction to insects" is wrong. In a previous post I wrote that as far as mosquito bites sensitizing you for pollen allergy, I DON'T have a reference. It is an as yet untested prediction of the Richet allergy model. "If there is a 1 in a million chance a vaccine will give me an allergy vs a 1 in 200,000 chance I will die from the flu without it, I'll take the shot." Please find a reference for these probabilities and post it. According to the Richet allergy model, with current flu vaccines, there is more than a 1 in 50 chance of developing an egg allergy. 15 million people have food allergies. So that is not a 1 in a million chance. According to the Cochrane collaboration, 90% of those killed by the flu are over 65. And in people over 65, the flu shot almost has no effect. Those are the statistics you should be considering for the next flu shot. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/full Safe means a probability of life-threatening adverse events better than at least 1 in a billion because we administer 3 billion shots in a generation of kids. I am open to disagreement if you provide the data.
"If there is a 1 in a million chance a vaccine will give me an allergy vs a 1 in 200,000 chance I will die from the flu without it, I'll take the shot." Please find a reference for these probabilities and post it. According to the Richet allergy model, with current flu vaccines, there is more than a 1 in 50 chance of developing an egg allergy. 15 million people have food allergies. So that is not a 1 in a million chance. According to the Cochrane collaboration, 90% of those killed by the flu are over 65. And in people over 65, the flu shot almost has no effect. Those are the statistics you should be considering for the next flu shot. Safe means a probability of life-threatening adverse events better than at least 1 in a billion because we administer 3 billion shots in a generation of kids. I am open to disagreement if you provide the data.I gave those numbers only as illustration, based very roughly on numbers like these.] You made up numbers from a made up connection between egg allergies and vaccines. For your numbers to work, you'd have to connect every case of egg allergy to vaccines, easily shown to be false. If "safe" means 1 in a billion, you should probably never leave your house, oh wait, most accidents happen at home.