"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. If we want to really weigh the benefit vs. risk, the vaccine clinical trial must be well designed. The Richet allergy model predicts ~2% of people who receive a flu vaccine may develop egg allergy. (1) Flu vaccine clinical trials check for "solicited adverse events" which don't include immune disorders such as food allergy. (2) Some trials do not report any events that affect less than 5% of the subjects. "In Study 5, headache was the only unsolicited adverse event that occurred in ≥ 5% of subjects 239 who received AFLURIA or placebo (12% versus 11%, respectively)." Afluria vaccine package insert ] Forget 1 in a million or 1 in 50, they don't even report adverse events as common as 1 in 20. So egg allergy would never be reported. Some vaccine trials inject 500 mcg of aluminum hydroxide into subjects in the control group. Why inject anything into the control group? What are they trying to mask? Pl. see pg. 5 here ] Vaccine trials are at best poorly designed to detect immune disorders and at worst, designed to manipulate the outcome. So any claim from the FDA about vaccine benefits outweighing the risks based on such studies is a bogus claim. "you'd have to connect every case of egg allergy to vaccines" I am not assuming that. Simply based on IgE synthesis in 100% of the patients who receive 15 mcg of viral protein, I am predicting the probability of egg allergy (anti-ovalbumin IgE) based on the amount of ovalbumin present in the vaccine. "most accidents happen at home" There is an aircrash once in 1.2 million flights. Aircraft makers don't design aircraft to crash that often. They are accidents - unexpected combination of events resulting in a crash. With an average of 0.5 mcg of ovalbumin in a flu vaccine, one can expect 1 in 50 people to develop egg allergy even if everything goes as planned ... in other words, today's vaccines are accidents waiting to happen. So even if the FDA were to improve the broken clinical trials, the vaccines seem to be broken by design ... because they are using technology developed in the 1930s ...
(2) Some trials do not report any events that affect less than 5% of the subjects. "In Study 5, headache was the only unsolicited adverse event that occurred in ≥ 5% of subjects 239 who received AFLURIA or placebo (12% versus 11%, respectively)." Afluria vaccine package insert ] Forget 1 in a million or 1 in 50, they don't even report adverse events as common as 1 in 20. So egg allergy would never be reported. ... Vaccine trials are at best poorly designed to detect immune disorders and at worst, designed to manipulate the outcome. So any claim from the FDA about vaccine benefits outweighing the risks based on such studies is a bogus claim....As long as you believe that is what is happening and that the scientific method is incapable of catching bogus claims, there isn't much point in trying to have a reasonable conversation with you. You take one line out of one study or off of an insert, or whatever you did, and turn it into "Some trials do not report any events that affect less than 5% of the subjects."
"you'd have to connect every case of egg allergy to vaccines" I am not assuming that. Simply based on IgE synthesis in 100% of the patients who receive 15 mcg of viral protein, I am predicting the probability of egg allergy (anti-ovalbumin IgE) based on the amount of ovalbumin present in the vaccine.What I said is, to get your 1 in 50 number, you'd have to make that connection. So if you say you aren't making that connection, then you can't use that stat. But then you go ahead and do just that in your next statement:
...... one can expect 1 in 50 people to develop egg allergy even if everything goes as planned ... in other words, today's vaccines are accidents waiting to happen. So even if the FDA were to improve the broken clinical trials, the vaccines seem to be broken by design ... because they are using technology developed in the 1930s ...
(2) Some trials do not report any events that affect less than 5% of the subjects. "In Study 5, headache was the only unsolicited adverse event that occurred in ≥ 5% of subjects 239 who received AFLURIA or placebo (12% versus 11%, respectively)." Afluria vaccine package insert ] Forget 1 in a million or 1 in 50, they don't even report adverse events as common as 1 in 20. So egg allergy would never be reported. ... Vaccine trials are at best poorly designed to detect immune disorders and at worst, designed to manipulate the outcome. So any claim from the FDA about vaccine benefits outweighing the risks based on such studies is a bogus claim....As long as you believe that is what is happening and that the scientific method is incapable of catching bogus claims, there isn't much point in trying to have a reasonable conversation with you. You take one line out of one study or off of an insert, or whatever you did, and turn it into "Some trials do not report any events that affect less than 5% of the subjects."
"you'd have to connect every case of egg allergy to vaccines" I am not assuming that. Simply based on IgE synthesis in 100% of the patients who receive 15 mcg of viral protein, I am predicting the probability of egg allergy (anti-ovalbumin IgE) based on the amount of ovalbumin present in the vaccine.What I said is, to get your 1 in 50 number, you'd have to make that connection. So if you say you aren't making that connection, then you can't use that stat. But then you go ahead and do just that in your next statement:
...... one can expect 1 in 50 people to develop egg allergy even if everything goes as planned ... in other words, today's vaccines are accidents waiting to happen. So even if the FDA were to improve the broken clinical trials, the vaccines seem to be broken by design ... because they are using technology developed in the 1930s ...If people pulled their heads out of the sand, the evidence is right under their noses .. since 1987 at least ... Serological examination of IgE- and IgG-specific antibodies to egg protein during influenza virus immunization BY N. YAMANE AND H. UEMURA Link to paper ] "Contrary to the IgG response, IgE specific to Fl rose significantly after immunization in a considerable number of vaccinees, the results suggesting that influenza vaccine may play a role in sensitizing an individual to egg protein." "You take one line out of one study or off of an insert" If you looked at that insert, you will find EVERY one of the 7 studies report only events occurring in >5% of the subjects. The one line was a quick sample for those too lazy to read the entire insert ... "... scientific method is incapable of catching bogus claims ..." Perhaps the scientific method is capable of catching bogus claims in a purely scientific endeavor. Vaccines involve profits/politics/government research grants and as you can see, science takes the back seat.
"You take one line out of one study or off of an insert" If you looked at that insert, you will find EVERY one of the 7 studies report only events occurring in >5% of the subjects. The one line was a quick sample for those too lazy to read the entire insert ...Which is not proof for the statement you made.
"... scientific method is incapable of catching bogus claims ..." Perhaps the scientific method is capable of catching bogus claims in a purely scientific endeavor. Vaccines involve profits/politics/government research grants and as you can see, science takes the back seat.No I don't see that, only you do. You see things that aren't there. What are these politics? Where are the profits? It should be easy to show those. You only mention them now as a justification. You can't condemn science because you need it to make your case. But since it is not supporting you, you have to claim conspiracy.
"You take one line out of one study or off of an insert" If you looked at that insert, you will find EVERY one of the 7 studies report only events occurring in >5% of the subjects. The one line was a quick sample for those too lazy to read the entire insert ...Which is not proof for the statement you made.
"... scientific method is incapable of catching bogus claims ..." Perhaps the scientific method is capable of catching bogus claims in a purely scientific endeavor. Vaccines involve profits/politics/government research grants and as you can see, science takes the back seat.No I don't see that, only you do. You see things that aren't there. What are these politics? Where are the profits? It should be easy to show those. You only mention them now as a justification. You can't condemn science because you need it to make your case. But since it is not supporting you, you have to claim conspiracy. Anti-vaccers often do such things, but of course most can't see what they are doing.
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? It isn't. The question you should be asking is, why did the CDC not have a vaccine in time to stop Ebola in West Africa? Do you think the CDC are magicians? Ebola was not discovered yesterday, it has been known for decades. So are a lot if diseases that no vaccine has been created for. Just like the FDA, the CDC has been sleeping at the switch. You are living in Neverland. FDA approved Vioxx that was better at killing people than pain. Why don't you offer your obviously superior knowledge and skills to the CDC and the FDA? 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? Well, they haven't had you on staff, so they're bound to make mistakes. 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. Tell them immediately. It would be highly irresponsible of you to keep all the valuable information and intelligence you have to yourself. Go to Washington and help the CDC and FDA out. You will save the world and you will be a hero. Get crackin' immediately. You aren't doing anyone any good shooting off your mouth here.
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. Since you seem to be the ony person with the ability to identify dangerous vaccines and to create safe ones, go to the CDC and FDA immediately and tell them what they are doing wrong. You owe it to the world.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.
"You take one line out of one study or off of an insert" If you looked at that insert, you will find EVERY one of the 7 studies report only events occurring in >5% of the subjects. The one line was a quick sample for those too lazy to read the entire insert ...Which is not proof for the statement you made.
"... scientific method is incapable of catching bogus claims ..." Perhaps the scientific method is capable of catching bogus claims in a purely scientific endeavor. Vaccines involve profits/politics/government research grants and as you can see, science takes the back seat.No I don't see that, only you do. You see things that aren't there. What are these politics? Where are the profits? It should be easy to show those. You only mention them now as a justification. You can't condemn science because you need it to make your case. But since it is not supporting you, you have to claim conspiracy. I don't know what proof you are talking about. There is enough evidence if you care to look for it that the clinical trials are poorly done. The last time I checked, pharmaceutical companies were not running charities, they are in business for profit. Congress enacted laws ensuring that pharmaceutical companies are not liable for vaccines injuries. You have a for profit business with no liability for product safety, what do you expect? Vaccine safety went down the toilet. The FDA and CDC have already declared that vaccines are safe. So why would government research grants be made available for anyone who wants to look into vaccine safety? Bogus claims go unchallenged. So this is the "scientific method" that's going on. Science is working just fine for me. I don't have to condemn it. It is the pseudo science at the FDA/CDC that is hurting our kids and needs to be fixed. I have provided solid scientific evidence over and over again. None of you have challenged it with counter evidence that stood up to scrutiny. I can only take the horse to the water ... I have not heard a word about the N. YAMANE et al. reference I provided. Do you accept it? Here's the "scientific method" of our pharmaceutical companies which the FDA and CDC seem to rubber stamp: http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/eminence-vs-evidence says: "A final note A recent study from US Public Citizen found that, since 1991, there have been 239 legal settlements, totaling $30.2 billion in federal and state penalties, levied against US pharmaceutical companies. There’s a real laundry list of crimes, but defrauding the government, hiding drug safety information, and hawking drugs for purposes beyond which they are approved are the main ones. Drug companies have pledged to change, signed ‘corporate integrity agreements’ and indicated that they want to move on, promising a better future. We can be hopeful, but we also have to be realistic. Paying huge fines for illegal activity is one thing, but will they be still playing the eminence game? Will they continue to fund their own experts and do research that goes through a selective reporting of ‘the evidence’? Sadly, that’s probably going to be the case so you must immunise yourself: keep asking questions and questioning answers."
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? It isn't. The question you should be asking is, why did the CDC not have a vaccine in time to stop Ebola in West Africa? Do you think the CDC are magicians? Ebola was not discovered yesterday, it has been known for decades. So are a lot if diseases that no vaccine has been created for. Just like the FDA, the CDC has been sleeping at the switch. You are living in Neverland. FDA approved Vioxx that was better at killing people than pain. Why don't you offer your obviously superior knowledge and skills to the CDC and the FDA? 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? Well, they haven't had you on staff, so they're bound to make mistakes. 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. Tell them immediately. It would be highly irresponsible of you to keep all the valuable information and intelligence you have to yourself. Go to Washington and help the CDC and FDA out. You will save the world and you will be a hero. Get crackin' immediately. You aren't doing anyone any good shooting off your mouth here. I am not one who is getting paid to get this job done. I have of course brought all these problems to the attention of the FDA and CDC repeatedly. It is not as if they don't have the technology to create an Ebola vaccine. Otherwise, how are they conjuring one up now? With a $6 billion dollar a year budget, I expect to see some "magic" instead of excuses.
Great piece here. According to this guy], you APV are being funded by Big Pharma to promote the anti-vaxxers.
CFI is blocking the full URL, the title I found was “Big Pharma supports the antivaccine movement–the real conspiracy” from May 11 this year.
Great piece here. According to this guy], you APV are being funded by Big Pharma to promote the anti-vaxxers. CFI is blocking the full URL, the title I found was "Big Pharma supports the antivaccine movement–the real conspiracy" from May 11 this year.I wish. But Big Pharma definitely owes me money because they hurt my son. We get our vaccines at Walgreens and CVS now. May be we should be able buy them at McDonald's too? You can then order your vaccine with fries ... in it. After all vaccines already contain vegetable oil and salt, it is just a matter of adding the potatoes. With everyone developing fries allergy, we will get rid of the obesity epidemic and along with it the Type II diabetes epidemic. Now that idea should be worth a big chunk of change to Big Pharma ...
Great piece here. According to this guy], you APV are being funded by Big Pharma to promote the anti-vaxxers. CFI is blocking the full URL, the title I found was "Big Pharma supports the antivaccine movement–the real conspiracy" from May 11 this year.I wish. But Big Pharma definitely owes me money because they hurt my son. Oh, so this is what this is all about. Your child was one of the people who were 1 in several thousands for whatever reason and you want to say that all vaccines are bad. IF you read the info doctors give the parents before giving your child the vaccine, you would see that they give stats on how many people might have an adverse reaction to the vaccine, which is generally 1 in several thousands.
We get our vaccines at Walgreens and CVS now. May be we should be able buy them at McDonald's too? You can then order your vaccine with fries ... in it. After all vaccines already contain vegetable oil and salt, it is just a matter of adding the potatoes. With everyone developing fries allergy, we will get rid of the obesity epidemic and along with it the Type II diabetes epidemic. Now that idea should be worth a big chunk of change to Big Pharma ...So you're including the antibiotics in the bovine, chicken, and sow meat as vaccines? I'm a vegetarian and I know the difference between vaccines and antibiotics that are massively given to other animals. This massive distribution of antibiotics in other animals which a vast majority of humans consume is a problem, but there aren't any vaccines in that pink slime that McD's sells and passes off as 100% animal muscle. However, the Type II diabetes comes from over eating and not enough exercise, not from Big Pharma tainting the food people eat at McDs although with how much sodium McD's has in their food, that is enough to kill anyone. Not only that, many of the "meals" (which are not meals) gives a person the full day supply of their caloric intake. Who's developing "fry allergies"? I don't know of anyone, except vegetarians and vegans, due to the fact that McD's soaks their fries in bovine fat before frying them in veg oil, who is "allergic" to fries. I really think you have a misunderstanding of how vaccines are distributed and what goes into human food, even how various corporations prepare the food for humans who eat meat (as well as fries laden in animal fat). Now if you really want to attack fast food corporations for their contribution in the diabetes, strokes, high blood pressure, heart attacks, and antibiotic resistance, please get it right, but you cannot accuse them of causing a dangerous reaction to vaccines. Vaccines just don't work that way. Unless you are talking about the Ronald McDonald House giving vaccines, but if I remember correctly, that is just a place for family members of a sick child to stay while the child is in the hospital not a place that distributes medical care.
Mriana,
“Oh, so this is what this is all about. Your child was one of the people who were 1 in several thousands for whatever reason and you want to say that all vaccines are bad. IF you read the info doctors give the parents before giving your child the vaccine, you would see that they give stats on how many people might have an adverse reaction to the vaccine, which is generally 1 in several thousands.”
Yes, that is absolutely what this is all about. I did not say all vaccines are bad. I said all vaccines have safety problems that need to be fixed.
This is what doctors give you:
It does not give any statistics nor does it warn that you may develop life-threatening egg allergy.
Statistics would be nice but above all, I want a safer product.
As I posted before, this study shows 1 in 10 people developed egg allergy, not 1 in several thousands …
Serological examination of IgE- and IgG-specific antibodies to egg
protein during influenza virus immunization
BY N. YAMANE AND H. UEMURA
Link to paper
“Contrary to the IgG response, IgE specific to Fl rose significantly after immunization in a
considerable number of vaccinees, the results suggesting that influenza vaccine
may play a role in sensitizing an individual to egg protein."
All the info that doctors gave me on vaccines had stats concerning the adverse reactions. What you linked to is not what doctors have ever given me when it comes to vaccinations and it was a lot more info about the vaccine than that. I’m not sure what doctors you went to, but the doctors we had did far better than what you linked to.
As I posted before, this study shows 1 in 10 people developed egg allergy, not 1 in several thousands ...As we said before, it doesn't show that.
As I posted before, this study shows 1 in 10 people developed egg allergy, not 1 in several thousands ...As we said before, it doesn't show that. Table 1 shows for egg white (F1) allergen the IgE titres were significantly high in 16% of the patients pre-immunization. Post-immunization, it was high in 26% of the patients. There were 100 patients in the study. So 26-16=10 of them developed significant egg white IgE after immunization. That's 1 in 10 patients. The authors wrote: "Contrary to the IgG response, IgE specific to Fl rose significantly after immunization in a considerable number of vaccinees, the results suggesting that influenza vaccine may play a role in sensitizing an individual to egg protein."
All the info that doctors gave me on vaccines had stats concerning the adverse reactions. What you linked to is not what doctors have ever given me when it comes to vaccinations and it was a lot more info about the vaccine than that. I'm not sure what doctors you went to, but the doctors we had did far better than what you linked to.It is my understanding that doctors will provide FDA/CDC approved patient information documents. So please post pointers to the documents.
All the info that doctors gave me on vaccines had stats concerning the adverse reactions. What you linked to is not what doctors have ever given me when it comes to vaccinations and it was a lot more info about the vaccine than that. I'm not sure what doctors you went to, but the doctors we had did far better than what you linked to.It is my understanding that doctors will provide FDA/CDC approved patient information documents. So please post pointers to the documents. I wish I could. The last one I got (paper form) was 8 years ago, when my younger son got his last vaccination while living with me. I don't have the paper any more so I don't have a clue where to point you, but I do know it had the stats concerning adverse reactions on it.
Mriana, you are probably thinking of the VIS or Vaccine Information Statement. These are standard documents we are required to provide to patients before giving a vaccine.
The VIS for the DTaP vaccine is available here for review (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/dtap.pdf)
A full list of Vaccine Information Statements for other vaccines can be found here: Vaccine Information Statements (VISs) | CDC
That looks more like it, macgyver. It does have stats on it and that’s what I remember seeing (ie 1 in 10 and 1 in 1000 etc)