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 12

post #221 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The flu vaccine doesn't have an adjuvant. No us flu vaccines use adjuvants.

CONGRATULATIONS! you just proved you do not read! (mere seconds that took for her to post!! a new record

good thing other DO read!

 

 

and oh so wrong you are twins.gif they DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and so does HBV & HPV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

post #222 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulieWojo View Post

could yo
do you mind giving a link so I can read more about this?

I will try to find something on my own as well, but I'd like to see what you've read about this.

 

Ok, not sure what you want more info on.

 

Re him not being a neutral third party: He's very active in the international medical council on vaccination, formerly medical voices.  This is an anti vaccination group.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/tag/harold-buttram/

 

Re his being a frequent expert witness: A quick google search turns up a lot of cases he's worked on

https://www.google.com/search?q=harrold+buttram+testifies&aq=f&oq=harrold+buttram+testifies&aqs=chrome.0.57.3100&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

He advocates that shaken baby syndrome is really caused by vaccines, which is a position I think has been discredited, others will of course disagree, but that damages his credibility with me.  One particular case he testified in, that of Alan Yurko, the autopsy of the baby involved showed broken ribs that had partially healed (showing a pattern of abuse over time), spinal cord injuries, bruises on the side of the head, and Yurko had admitted to hanging the baby upside down by its ankles and hitting him.

post #223 of 309

What are you talking about serenbat?  Less emoticons more exposition.

post #224 of 309

Are you saying that the flu vaccine does contain adjuvants?

 

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/panflu/news/nov1512vrbpac.html

 

 

Quote:
No seasonal flu vaccines used in the United States contain adjuvants, nor does the existing H5N1 vaccine in the US emergency stockpile. The government has acquired a supply of adjuvants for possible emergency use, but they are not part of a specific vaccine.

 

(keep in mind pandemrix and as03 are not currently licensed in the us)

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not clear on what you're talking about.  I'd appreciate it if you could clarify.  If you're saying I didn't read the ingredients list you posted, I've read that many times, including recently.  I already knew the list didnt' contain aluminum, because flu vaccines used in the US don't have adjuvants.

post #225 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not clear on what you're talking about.  

PLEASE, like so many others have asked prior, read what I posted and look at the chart -it's REAL

It's SUPER SIMPLE - page 38 - TOP right chart

I can't make it any more clear, you need to read it.

 

 

exactly what I linked and stated and copied the info 

 

 

You are wrong. 

post #226 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post
flu vaccines used in the US don't have adjuvants.

 

 

again, they DO! 

Table 2. Non-aluminum vaccine adjuvants currently used in licensed products. 

 

PAGE 38 very very clear 

post #227 of 309

I did read that.  As I already stated, you may want to see which of those vaccines are actually licensed in the us.

post #228 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I did read that.  As I already stated, you may want to see which of those vaccines are actually licensed in the us.

You spent pages stating ALL adjuvants were aluminum in the US.

You spent post after post saying there were not adjuvant in flu vaccine. Both statements are incorrect. Since you read, now you know.

 

 

 

 

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/aluminum-adjuvants-vaccines   this gives a nice way to look up all not just flu vaccines

 

Inactivated Polio Virus (IPV) vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR), varicella vaccineand influenza vaccines do not contain aluminum salts.

 

 

Available VaccinesTop

Abbreviations: Trivalent inactivated influenza virus vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated trivalent influenza virus vaccine (LAIV).

Product: Agriflu (TIV)
Manufacturer: Novartis
Year licensed: 2009
Indications: For persons ages 18 years of age and older.

Product: Fluzone High Dose (TIV)
Manufacturer: Sanofi Pasteur 
Year Licensed: 2009
Indications: For persons ages 65 years and older.

Product: Afluria (TIV) 
Manufacturer: CS Limited
Year Licensed: 2007
Indications: For persons 6 months of age and older.

Product: FluLaval (TIV)
Manufacturer: ID Biomedical Corporation of Quebec 
Year Licensed: 2006
Indications: For persons 18 years and older.

Product: Fluarix (TIV)
Manufacturer: GlaxoSmithKline
Year licensed: 2005
Indications: For persons ages 3 years or older.

Product: FluMist (LAIV)
Manufacturer: MedImmune Vaccines 
Year Licensed: 2003
Indications: For persons 2 through 49 years of age.

Product: Fluvirin (TIV)
Manufacturer: Novartis
Year Licensed: 1988
Indications: For persons 4 years of age and older.

Product: Fluzone (TIV)
Manufacturer: Sanofi Pasteur 
Year Licensed: 1978
Indications: For persons 6 months of age and older.

FluMist, Agriflu, and Fluarix do not contain thimerosal. Afluria, Fluvirin and Fluzone are available with reduced thimerosal formulation.

 
 
per my post #199 - about MF59  
 

 

 
MF59 has been used in licensed influenza vaccine (Fluad) with good safety in more than 20 countries since 1997 [131,132].  
post #229 of 309

What I said was that no flu vaccines used IN THE UNITED STATES contained adjuvants.  Which is true.  The vaccines you've found that use adjuvants are not used in the united states.  And I said all adjuvants used int he us are aluminum based, which they are.  AS04 is aluminum based and I specifically mentioned it when I talked about adjuvants many posts ago.  You haven't actually posted anything that contradicts either of those statements.

 

MF59 is not licensed in the United States.

 

http://www.violinet.org/vaxjo/vaxjo_detail.php?c_vaxjo_id=62

post #230 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

For starters because he seems to spend an awful lot of time as a paid expert witness shaken baby cases.

I should edit that, I'm assuming he's paid. Maybe he's donating his expertise. Either way, he advocates that shake baby syndrome is really a vaccine injury. I believe that theory is pretty thoroughly discredited, so it damages his credibility with me. Additionally, he has testified even in cases where the defendant has confessed to abusing infants horribly that their injuries were really due to vaccines. He has made and advocates a variety of claims about vaccines that I disagree with. He's not just some neutral third party, he is deeply involved in the anti vaccine movement.

That being said, I'm not throwing it completely out, I'm saying I'm skeptical and to be convinced I would need more information about what he found and how.

The reason why I asked for you to provide a link was because I wanted to see if you had read something that actually says that he "advocates that shaken baby syndrome is really a vaccine injury."  The way you write that indicates that you think that Dr. Buttram believes, all encompassingly, that all cases of SBS are really vaccine injury.

 

I have read about the Baby Alan case.  Unless you were actually there, or watched the trial, the reports that his father admitted to hanging him by his feet and hitting him, IMO were lies.  At the time, I couldn't find a single credible source for this information.  The only place I read that was on one of the most biassed websites that describe anti vaxers as vile liars and loons.  http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/07/the-vilest-antivaccine-lie-that-wont-die/

 

On the issue of the baby's broken ribshttp://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/storyofbabyalan.html I am only going to quote this one sentence because this is taking the thread off topic.

  Next, different sizes of callus might just as well have indicated a difference in severity of the injuries rather a difference in time of occurrence. 

 

If these are your reasons for discrediting Dr. Buttram, then I just can't agree.  Obviously most cases of SBS are abuse.  But in the few instances that it was vaccine injury, thank God for people like Dr. Buttram who speak up and do the right thing, even though people like you will discredit him and make him out to be crazy.  Baby Alan's father's conviction was eventually overturned and he was let out of prison.  If he actually admitted to abusing his baby, I doubt they would have let him go free.  If he admitted it, what would have been the point of a trial in the first place? 

post #231 of 309

I guess I just don't get this thread. The vast majority of US kids are fully vaxed or mostly vaxed and yet the incidence of peanut allergies is less than 1% of the population. How could vaccines possibly be a threat for peanut allergies if 98% or so of kids have had the vaccine exposure and nevertheless haven't developed said allergies? (If 99% of kids are vaccinated and 99% of kids don't have peanut allergies, assuming ALL kids with peanut allergies were vaccinated, that still leaves 98% of kids who don't have peanut allergies.) Thinking there must be peanut oil in vaccines because peanut allergies are on the rise simply makes no logical sense to me. headscratch.gif Also, I'd think we'd see a higher rate of kids with peanut allergies having an anaphylactic reaction to their vaccinations. 

post #232 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

I guess I just don't get this thread. The vast majority of US kids are fully vaxed or mostly vaxed and yet the incidence of peanut allergies is less than 1% of the population. How could vaccines possibly be a threat for peanut allergies if 98% or so of kids have had the vaccine exposure and nevertheless haven't developed said allergies? (If 99% of kids are vaccinated and 99% of kids don't have peanut allergies, assuming ALL kids with peanut allergies were vaccinated, that still leaves 98% of kids who don't have peanut allergies.) Thinking there must be peanut oil in vaccines because peanut allergies are on the rise simply makes no logical sense to me. headscratch.gif
 Also, I'd think we'd see a higher rate of kids with peanut allergies having an anaphylactic reaction to their vaccinations. 

I don't get it either. Especially as Rrrrrachel provided proof several posts up that there is no peanut oil in use in any US licensed vaccine.

It struck me reading what you posted, that its also true that 98-99% of kids are not autistic (range depending on if you want to use 1/88 or 1/50 as the fraction who are), and yet we keep having to debate if that could be caused by vaccines too.
post #233 of 309
Erigeron those stats aren't correct - at least in our school district - lots of peanut allergies and autism. Beside is 1 out of 50 kids not a lot? That's 2 percent. You wanna play with those odds having kids? Seems risky if you wanna have a few kids.

We were talking excipients earlier - funny how it's come full circle now because the very first post on this forum a long time ago was this......(page 1, post 1).....

It is important to note that in 1973, when peanut allergies were still relatively rare, a study was conducted on the effects of peanut excipients in vaccines. Not long after it was published; however, government regulators decided that vaccine manufacturers no longer had to label peanut excipients in vaccines, which means pediatricians, parents, and others who wanted to avoid peanut excipients for safety reasons could no longer effectively do so.

"What is listed today in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula," adds Dr. O'Shea. "Suddenly that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers must be protected. They only had to describe the formula in general."

So.....I guess my position on peanut excipients is reflective of this first post. I agree Rrrrrachel - why don't vaccine companies have to list them and are they a secret or what - you've obviously dug looking for peanut oil in vaccine listings - so what now ..... Can a simple scientific diagnostic test find peanut oil in vaccine? I think lawsuits and a nationwide panic come into play - plus it seems that peanut oil is the best acting excipients. Manufacturers may not have a scientific alternative.

FYI - we still use the same electricity technology and light bulbs from the late 1880's so when something kinda works - no one bothers switching it out if no one has a better idea or if no one makes demands
Edited by bellfrost - 4/3/13 at 12:04am
post #234 of 309

It just come down to what sources you want to believe.

post #235 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellfrost View Post

FYI - we still use the same electricity technology and light bulbs from the late 1880's so when something kinda works - no one bothers switching it out if no one has a better idea or if no one makes demands

? You might, but I'm using low energy light bulbs which weren't available even 20 years ago, plus energy saving appliances and all sort of improvements since the 1880s. I think you're mistaken in this belief.
post #236 of 309
Yes bell frost, a simple test could provide conclusive proof.


It's simply not true that vaccine manufacturers only have to describe the formula "in general"
post #237 of 309
And there are a lot of different kinds of light bulbs. Not just incandescent.
post #238 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulieWojo View Post

It just come down to what sources you want to believe.

Partially. But for me it also comes down to what seems the most plausible and makes the most sense. But the sources definitely play a role.
post #239 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulieWojo View Post

The reason why I asked for you to provide a link was because I wanted to see if you had read something that actually says that he "advocates that shaken baby syndrome is really a vaccine injury."  The way you write that indicates that you think that Dr. Buttram believes, all encompassingly, that all cases of SBS are really vaccine injury.

I have read about the Baby Alan case.  Unless you were actually there, or watched the trial, the reports that his father admitted to hanging him by his feet and hitting him, IMO were lies.  At the time, I couldn't find a single credible source for this information.  The only place I read that was on one of the most biassed websites that describe anti vaxers as vile liars and loons.  http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/07/the-vilest-antivaccine-lie-that-wont-die/


On the issue of the baby's broken ribs
http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/storyofbabyalan.html
 I am only going to quote this one sentence because this is taking the thread off topic.
 
 Next, different sizes of callus might just as well have indicated a difference in severity of the injuries rather a difference in time of occurrence. 


If these are your reasons for discrediting Dr. Buttram, then I just can't agree.  Obviously most cases of SBS are abuse.  But in the few instances that it was vaccine injury, thank God for people like Dr. Buttram who speak up and do the right thing, even though people like you will discredit him and make him out to be crazy.  Baby Alan's father's conviction was eventually overturned and he was let out of prison.  If he actually admitted to abusing his baby, I doubt they would have let him go free.  If he admitted it, what would have been the point of a trial in the first place? 

His conviction was overturned on a technicality.
post #240 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

I guess I just don't get this thread. The vast majority of US kids are fully vaxed or mostly vaxed and yet the incidence of peanut allergies is less than 1% of the population. How could vaccines possibly be a threat for peanut allergies if 98% or so of kids have had the vaccine exposure and nevertheless haven't developed said allergies? (If 99% of kids are vaccinated and 99% of kids don't have peanut allergies, assuming ALL kids with peanut allergies were vaccinated, that still leaves 98% of kids who don't have peanut allergies.) Thinking there must be peanut oil in vaccines because peanut allergies are on the rise simply makes no logical sense to me. headscratch.gif

 

Because trigger in susceptible individuals is not the same as cause.  If peanut oil  in vaccines triggers a peanut allergies in 1% of people that is something I want to know.  If it triggers it in a different amount - I want to know what the amount is.  I need these numbers for proper risk assessment.   Clearly peanut oil (if it is in vaccines) does not equal peanut allergies, or most people would have peanut allergies.  

 

 

Also, I'd think we'd see a higher rate of kids with peanut allergies having an anaphylactic reaction to their vaccinations. 

 

 

I would expect to as well.  The only caveat (and I know little about allergies) I have is if it takes less of an ingredient to sensitize a person to an allergen than to cause a reaction.  Ex:  if it takes 5 ml of xyz to sensitize, but 10ml to cause a reaction, then if a vaccine has 7ml, it might sensitize a person to an allergen even if subsequent vaccinations do cause  reactions.  

 

It would not surprise me at all  if vaccines were implicated in allergies - but more from a hygiene hypothesis sort of way - our current life does not provide children with enough variety of viruses (among other things) to keep their immune system working well.  

 

quick overview of hygiene hypothesis:

http://fooddrugallergy.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=40


Edited by kathymuggle - 4/3/13 at 12:00pm
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?