or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Peanut oil in Vaccines causing massive peanut allergy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Peanut oil in Vaccines causing massive peanut allergy? - Page 7

post #121 of 309
Bad math is bad math.
post #122 of 309

Taximon - how do you know the student is a she and from Harvard? I couldn't see that in the link you provided (http://www.avoidingmilkprotein.com/vacandpea.htm

 

(But my bad for assuming "he" - very naughty of me, especially given its something I campaign against in my professional life!).

 

Here's the data that was presented in this science report in Section 2. 

 

Low vaccination rate group: 

Chautauqua Elementary School
650 Children Enrolled 149 Exempt from Immunization 3 Peanut Allergies
McMurray Middle School
350 Children Enrolled 40 Exempt from Immunization 0 Peanut Allergies

 

Normal vaccination rate group: 

Ridgebury Elementary School 

464 Children Enrolled 8 Exempt from Immunization 12 Peanut Allergies
East Ridge Middle School
738 Children Enrolled 30 Exempt from Immunization 10 Peanut Allergies

 

It is claimed that all 25 children with peanut allergies in these two groups are vaccinated.

 

Elementary school - among the 156 unvaccinated children there are 0 peanut allergies (0+/-2% using the "rule of 3"), and in 957 vaccinated children there are 15 peanut allergies (1.6+/-0.4%). These are statistically the same.

 

Middle school - 70 unvaccinated children, 0 peanut allergies (0+/-4%) and 1018 vaccinated children with 10 peanut allergies (1.0+/-0.3%). Also statistically identical. 

 

So so far not very convincing. The problem is the typical one - the numbers of unvaccinated children are just too small to prove anything. 

 

S/he then presents an online survey to which 312 US based people responded. All of these were parents of children with peanut allergies. Of these 6 had vaccine exemptions (which is 1.9+/-0.8% exemption rate). This is lower than the number s/he quotes for the nationwide exemption rate in 2006 (4.2%). This is a statistically significant difference at the level of about 3 sigma (would happen randomly less than 5% of the time). However see below about the comparison rate.

 

I didn't quickly find the 2006 data, but the 2011/2012 data is here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6133a2.htm

It shows a very wide geographical differences (ie. from <0.1% to >7%) depending on location in the US, although the median is 1.5%. So the nationwide rate needs an error larger than just statistical due to fluctuations by geography, and as a result I suspect that difference is within the error too. 

 

So it's a nice science report, albeit with a lack of attention to statistical significance.

 

But it's not peer reviewed (and I don't think would pass that test due to the problems I point out above), and it's definitely not a reason to start saying all peanut allergies are due to vaccination. In fact the 6 children with exemptions in the online survey seem to prove they can't cause all peanut allergies. 

 

 

post #123 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

What kind of regional science fair did he win with this study? (I mean high school, college?).


Nope not college, not high school. Middle school. She is a sophmore at Harvard (from google she is also on the rowing team there and majoring in folklore) . She wrote this in 2006 for the a Connecticut middle school regional science fair to make it to the state competition where she took second with her project on lunar effects on siblings. The link to the newspaper article on her state placement is here

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Students-shine-at-area-science-fairs-96154.php

I had to google because I was confused by an award winning science project at Harvard not including P values or anything to make up the statistics. Makes sense now. Actually for an 8th grader this research was out of this world caliber. However, I think I will trust research by MDs and PHds at the CDC before I take cues from 8th graders no matter how promising.
post #124 of 309

Wow! That's such an amazing project for a middle schooler. I hope Devi is still studying science. :) 

 

But also I think not exactly the standard of scientific research I want to base public policy on.

post #125 of 309
Wow good for Devi. No wonder she's at Harvard now!
post #126 of 309

bellfrost, welcome to Mothering.

 

I've removed your post as it was filled with indirect namecalling, implying that some here with a different opinion are morons. This is not the appropriate way to convey your own opinion or to debate a subject. You are welcome to repost without the namecalling insults. 

post #127 of 309
Since this has been dredged up already, here's something I thought after this thread had apparently died.

That study may have been done by a middle school student, but it shows a possible connection, and indicates to me that more research into this question is needed.

Before anyone argues that such research would be a waste of time and money, time and money spent by an independent researcher, even if it proves there is no connection, would go a long way toward convincing me of the safety of vaccinations. It's the pushing the industry funded studies down my throat that makes me uncomfortable with vaccination.
post #128 of 309
Pek the way a study is conducted matters. Like really really matters.
post #129 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

Since this has been dredged up already, here's something I thought after this thread had apparently died.

That study may have been done by a middle school student, but it shows a possible connection

 

 

No, there is no possible connection shown, as was explained upthread.

 

Quote:
Elementary school - among the 156 unvaccinated children there are 0 peanut allergies (0+/-2% using the "rule of 3"), and in 957 vaccinated children there are 15 peanut allergies (1.6+/-0.4%). These are statistically the same.

 

Middle school - 70 unvaccinated children, 0 peanut allergies (0+/-4%) and 1018 vaccinated children with 10 peanut allergies (1.0+/-0.3%). Also statistically identical. 


 

post #130 of 309
Of course the way a study is done really, really matters!! No one said it didn't!!

And I would like to see a study done using larger sample sizes by a third party (not pro or anti vax).
That is legitimate.
post #131 of 309
IT'S SO OBVIOUS...I spent a day researching the data presented here and by 'googling' simple questions like - are Vaccine companies using nut derivatives in vaccines? Apparently vaccine companies ARE using nut derivatives in vaccines and created legislature to hide it in their labeling in the 70's because they discovered it was affecting children (small scale at first). But it's gotten worse now.  How bout that one? As shown above in previous posts- a highschooler did a simple statistical survey and still people here say she's wrong when I find the highschooler's results quite overwhelming. I seriously wonder if vaccine companies hire bloggers to misinform people here or if these people who counter the obvious evidence have some other (hidden) agenda. So whats the deal. Seriously - there is so much common sense and scientific data presented here that I'm quite baffled by the people who keep saying it's impossible that vaccines are causing the nut issue. It's as if we are both looking at a Dog and some people on this blog keep insisting we are looking at an elephant. Kinda weird right? That's just my opinion smile.gif.

To the administrator -sorry for saying the word Moron about some other bloggers - its so strange how some people here are countering really intelligent conversation with quick dismissals. Although its a free world right?
Edited by bellfrost - 3/28/13 at 7:48am
post #132 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellfrost View Post

IT'S SO OBVIOUS...I spent a day researching the data presented here and by 'googling' simple questions like - are Vaccine companies using nut derivatives in vaccines? Apparently vaccine companies ARE using nut derivatives in vaccines and created legislature to hide it in their labeling in the 70's because they discovered it was affecting children (small scale at first). But it's gotten worse now.  How bout that one? As shown above in previous posts- a highschooler did a simple statistical survey and still people here say she's wrong when I find the highschooler's results quite overwhelming. I seriously wonder if vaccine companies hire bloggers to misinform people here or if these people who counter the obvious evidence have some other (hidden) agenda. So whats the deal. Seriously - there is so much common sense and scientific data presented here that I'm quite baffled by the people who keep saying it's impossible that vaccines are causing the nut issue. It's as if we are both looking at a Dog and some people on this blog keep insisting we are looking at an elephant. Kinda weird right? That's just my opinion smile.gif.

To the administrator -sorry for saying the word Moron about some other bloggers - its so strange how some people here are countering really intelligent conversation with quick dismissals. Although its a free world right?

I happen to agree with you, but lots of folks here are only impressed by scientific data or concrete evidence. Can you provide a link to hard evidence about the legislature you make reference to? I spent some time looking into this and could not find anything that would impress certain people here. Just a NYT article stating that peanut oil was used routinely in the 60's. 

post #133 of 309
I don't think anyone is saying its impossible that vaccines are causing but allergies.

What legislation was created in the 70s that protects vccine manufacturers?
post #134 of 309
Marnica if you have that nyt link handy I'd like to read it. I'll look for it on my own, too. Thanks.
post #135 of 309
As for the hs/ms science project, there are some issues like how her sample was selected, whether those schools are all in the same town, how her statistical analysis was done, etc. not to mention the fact that her statistical analysis did NOT find a significant difference as was already pointed out. In order for a study to be generalizable certain criteria have to be met.
post #136 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Marnica if you have that nyt link handy I'd like to read it. I'll look for it on my own, too. Thanks.

I don't - I can across it a few weeks ago but didn't bookmark it. Ill look but if you find it first let me know thanks

post #137 of 309
Quote:
In 1964 Merck produced the adjuvant 65-4 that contained up to 65 percent peanut oil plus Arlasel A, aluminum stearate, and other ingredients with 13-fold higher levels of antibodies than previous vaccines. During the 1970s and 1980s peanut oil became a common practice and ingredient in vaccines.

 

 

This is from Heather Fraser's book. I would have to get the book to hunt down the original source. I may try and get it from my public library if they have it. eta: my library does not have it but i ordered a used copy online for cheap. I will be really interested to read this and in particular see how well referenced this book is.

 

Here is the NYT reference:

 

The New York Times, Business Financial Section page 31, September 19, 1964, 

Headline: Peanut Oil Use In A New Vaccine. product patented for Merck said to extend immunity

post #138 of 309

http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60

 

In 1964, Merck announced that it had patented a revolutionary peanut oil vaccine adjuvant. This news was reported in 1964 and 1966in The New York Times[3] with follow up in medical literature through the early 70s. Merck’s Adjuvant 65-4 provoked such high levels of antibodies – 64 times higher than the same vaccine in an aqueous solution — that any vaccine to which it was added could produce many years worth of immunity. Was this potency safe? A 1973 WHO report co-written by Adjuvant 65-4 inventor Maurice Hilleman found the use of peanut oil was relatively safe if properly injected to avoid “severe adverse reactions”.[4] But the safety of the adjuvant was challenged by others including D. Hobson in the Postgraduate Medical Journal (March, 1973). Hobson documented the power of this adjuvant to sensitize recipients to vaccine proteins. This adjuvant created allergies.

 

 

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/djreprints/access/103910879.html?dids=103910879:103910879&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov+19%2C+1964&author=&pub=Wall+Street+Journal&desc=Merck+Says+Emulsion+Of+Peanut+Oil+Extends+Longevity+of+Flu+Shot&pqatl=google

 

 

actually several site make mention to this but you would have to read the right ones to find it - funny PRO vaccines never mention it orngbiggrin.gif must be the trouble some have in finding it

post #139 of 309
I'm aware the adjuvant was patented by Merck (which I guess means its only in merck vaccines if anything), but that is very different from actually being in use. The not adjuvants licensed in the us are aluminum salts.
post #140 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

As for the hs/ms science project, there are some issues like how her sample was selected, whether those schools are all in the same town, how her statistical analysis was done, etc. not to mention the fact that her statistical analysis did NOT find a significant difference as was already pointed out. In order for a study to be generalizable certain criteria have to be met.

Is this in response to something? If so, what?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Peanut oil in Vaccines causing massive peanut allergy?