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 14

post #261 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And I'm not sure that characterization of anaphylaxis is correct based on some other things I'm reading. Do you have any verification for that?

What are you reading?
post #262 of 309
This, for example.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/anaphylaxis/DS00009

It sure sounds like its a lot more than some swelling due to contact with the allergen. It sounds much more systemic.
post #263 of 309
"An anaphylactic reaction is caused by the sudden release of chemical substances, including histamine, from cells in the blood and tissues. These cells are mast cells and basophils.

The release is triggered by the reaction between the allergic antibody (IgE) with the substance (allergen) causing the anaphylactic reaction."

This is a quote from http://www.allergy.org.nz/Allergy+help/A-Z+Allergies/Anaphylaxis.html


Note, the allergen is present to start the reaction. Should the substance get into the bloodstream before being surrounded by white blood cells, then the circulatory system is at risk. This causes changes in blood pressure. If the allergen reaches the heart, then it can cause the heart to stop. I cannot find backing for that on the Internet, but as a person allergic to bee stings, I had that drilled into my head as a child by doctors. So if I'm stung, and there is swelling going in the direction of the heart, I need immediate attention. .
post #264 of 309
This just doesn't make sense. People who have egg allergies have anaphylactic reactions to vaccines. It happens very rarely but it happens. People with severe peanut allergies can get anaphylaxis from topical contact. It's not just swelling at the point you come into contact with the allergen. This is an odd claim.

So something that is consumed, like a peanut butter sandwich, gets into the bloodstream and causes anaphylaxis more quickly and frequently than something's that's injected, like a vaccine?
post #265 of 309
And how is a substance going to get surrounded by white blood cells before it gets to the bloodstream?


http://www.worldallergy.org/public/allergic_diseases_center/anaphylaxis/anaphylaxis.php
Quote:
Anaphylaxis is an acute, life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction, involving the whole body, which is usually brought on by something eaten or injected.
post #266 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


His conviction was overturned on a technicality.

The judge who overturned his conviction said, “Because of that I think it does cast doubt on the entire trial,” Lawson held. “I don't know how you can maintain public trust in a system of justice if you let stand a conviction obtained through reliance on an autopsy that is later so thoroughly discredited."

post #267 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulieWojo View Post

The judge who overturned his conviction said, “Because of that I think it does cast doubt on the entire trial,” Lawson held. “I don't know how you can maintain public trust in a system of justice if you let stand a conviction obtained through reliance on an autopsy that is later so thoroughly discredited."

Source: http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday85.htm

post #268 of 309

So let's see, there are oil - water emulsion adjuvant in veterinary vaccines, meaning our food chain, in the chicken who produces the flu vaccine egg- oh we don't get to know that! Peanuts are fed to animals, chickens too, it's used as a vehicle for vaccines delivery in chickens. We had the pesky issues with Anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Syndrome and all that denial with that mess. We have an oil-water emulsion adjuvant with Crevarix, we just had approval for H5N1, oil-water emulsion adjuvant was used in the Canadian flu vac, used in European vaccines. We do have food allergies, 8 foods produce 90% of all food allergies, 4 out 100 children are allergic to peanuts, but that must be like autism - better detection. Peanut allergies now in other countries and growing. 

 

Well, no past history of denial by the government, no real increase in children, so everything is just fine - no peanut oil in our systems! winky.gif

post #269 of 309
The H5n1 vaccine has not been approved for use in the is yet.
post #270 of 309

http://www.gsk.com/media/press-releases/2013/Regulatory-update-GlaxoSmithKline-receives-complete-response-from-FDA-for-candidate-pandemic-H5N1-adjuvanted-influenza-vaccine.html

if you think a mere administrative matter is going to stop it - dream on.

 

A Complete Response letter is issued by FDA when a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) action date nears and additional review time is needed prior to approval. In this case, the Complete Response letter was triggered due to an administrative matter that has recently been rectified.

post #271 of 309
But it still hasn't been approved.
post #272 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

 but that must be like autism - better detection. Peanut allergies now in other countries and growing. 

 

Well, no past history of denial by the government, no real increase in children, so everything is just fine - no peanut oil in our systems! winky.gif

 

 

I was reading the article (linked below) about why there was a rise in peanut allergies, when I saw this line and calmly refrained from bashing my head against a wall   It reminded me so much of an autism issue:

 

"a number of people say the rise in <peanut allergies> statistics is just due to better diagnoses than in the past"

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/food-allergy/peanut/peanut-allergies-increasing.htm

 

 

Do you think if we start physically sprouting extra thumbs some people will say the rise in thumb-sprouting is not a real rise, but due to better diagnosis???


Edited by kathymuggle - 4/4/13 at 7:43am
post #273 of 309
That wouldn't be any more rediculous than denying categorically than some of it is due to a rise in diagnosis.
post #274 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

That wouldn't be any more rediculous than denying categorically than some of it is due to a rise in diagnosis.

If you are talking to me, I tend to think about half of the rise in autism is due to better diagnosis, awareness, etc.  I believe this due to several studies I have read.    That is hardly "categorically denying."  

 

If I have come across in any other fashion, it because some people try and say most or all of the rise in autism is due to better diagnosis, a position that frustrates the heck out of me, as it smacks of denial.  You cannot work on a problem or issue if you won't even acknowledge it.    

 

In any event, back to peanuts...

post #275 of 309
I think most of it issue to diagnosis, where most is anything more than half. So not that different from what you think. I think saying all of it is is a pretty fringe position.
post #276 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think most of it issue to diagnosis, where most is anything more than half.

What does this mean?

post #277 of 309

For those that believe better diagnosis plays a "significant" role, ie half of the increase is due to to diagnosis, how does one explain these figures? Are you saying that in 1970 the 1 in 14,857 should really have been 1 in 100 (based on the current 1 in 50 figure), how did these people make such a huge mistake in their calculations?

 

 

US autism prevalence numbers in the years they were reported (birth years and ages vary from study to study).

 

 

 

1970    1 in 14,857 (Wisconsin)                                                   2009     1 in 235 (California DDS)

1987    1 in 8333 (North Dakota)                                                 2009     1 in 110 (11 States, ASDs)

1989    1 in 2500 (Utah)                                                             2009    1 in 91 (National Phone Survey, ASDs)

1999-2003   1 in 321 (California)                                                 2010   1 in 124 (Salt Lake City – 8s, ASDs)

2001    1 in 150 (Brick, NJ)                                                        2010   1 in 83 (Wisconsin Schools, ASDs)

2001    1 in 625 (Texas Schools)                                                2011   1 in 213 (San Franciso Bay Area, ASDs)

2002    1 in 671 (California)                                                         2011     1 in 108 (EI in Massachusetts, ASDs)

2003    1 in 192  (Minnesota Schools ASDs)                                2012     1 in 88  (14 States ASDs)

2007     1 in 150 (14 states ASDs)                                              2012     1 in 57  (Metro New Jersey 8s, ASDS)

2009     1 in 125  (South Carolina 4s ASDs)                                 2013     1 in 50  (National Phone Survey, ASDs)

 

http://canaryparty.net/index.php/the-news/125-vaccines-and-autism--answering-the-wrong-questions

post #278 of 309

and to add to the GREAT chart by Mirzam

 

http://www.peanutallergy.com/statistics-and-facts.html  Four out of every 100 children have a food allergy.  Maybe when the number are like Autism (1 in 50) it will matter!

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm

 

 

 

 

still wondering about this

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think most of it issue to diagnosis, where most is anything more than half.

What does this mean?

post #279 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

For those that believe better diagnosis plays a "significant" role, ie half of the increase is due to to diagnosis, how does one explain these figures? Are you saying that in 1970 the 1 in 14,857 should really have been 1 in 100 (based on the current 1 in 50 figure), how did these people make such a huge mistake in their calculations?


US autism prevalence numbers in the years they were reported (birth years and ages vary from study to study).



1970    1 in 14,857 (Wisconsin)                                                   2009     1 in 235 (California DDS)
1987    1 in 8333 (North Dakota)                                                 2009     1 in 110 (11 States, ASDs)
1989    1 in 2500 (Utah)                                                             2009    1 in 91 (National Phone Survey, ASDs)
1999-2003   1 in 321 (California)                                                 2010   1 in 124 (Salt Lake City – 8s, ASDs)
2001    1 in 150 (Brick, NJ)                                                        2010   1 in 83 (Wisconsin Schools, ASDs)
2001    1 in 625 (Texas Schools)                                                2011   1 in 213 (San Franciso Bay Area, ASDs)
2002    1 in 671 (California)                                                         2011     1 in 108 (EI in Massachusetts, ASDs)
2003    1 in 192  (Minnesota Schools ASDs)                                2012     1 in 88  (14 States ASDs)
2007     1 in 150 (14 states ASDs)                                              2012     1 in 57  (Metro New Jersey 8s, ASDS)
2009     1 in 125  (South Carolina 4s ASDs)                                 2013     1 in 50  (National Phone Survey, ASDs)

http://canaryparty.net/index.php/the-news/125-vaccines-and-autism--answering-the-wrong-questions

They didn't make such a huge mistake in their calculation. It is that they were calculating something different than we are calculating today. In 1970 only those who were profoundly and classically autistic were diagnosed as autistic. People with PDD-nos and Asbergers and less profound cases of autism were simply considered troubled or awkward and not given services. We have expanded the definition of what autism is and that fundamentally HAS to account for some of the increase (I personally don't know how much is that and how much is real change) it is like if I gave you the rate of Breast cancer in 1970 and then the rate of all cancers in 2013 . I am sure there has been an increase but a lot is also do to expanding what it is that I am counting.

Also if vaccines where what is causing this these numbers also make zero sense. Because the vaccine schedule isn't increasing at this rate either. But somethings are like cell phones, and wi-fi, number of people on message boards etc. In ten years we went from 1 in 2500 to 1 in 321 (by these numbers which are comparing different localitites). there wasn't a 100% increase in vaccines so why all the sudden did vacciens start causing autism between 1989 and 1999?
post #280 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post


They didn't make such a huge mistake in their calculation. It is that they were calculating something different than we are calculating today. In 1970 only those who were profoundly and classically autistic were diagnosed as autistic. People with PDD-nos and Asbergers and less profound cases of autism were simply considered troubled or awkward and not given services. We have expanded the definition of what autism is and that fundamentally HAS to account for some of the increase (I personally don't know how much is that and how much is real change) it is like if I gave you the rate of Breast cancer in 1970 and then the rate of all cancers in 2013 . I am sure there has been an increase but a lot is also do to expanding what it is that I am counting.

Also if vaccines where what is causing this these numbers also make zero sense. Because the vaccine schedule isn't increasing at this rate either. But somethings are like cell phones, and wi-fi, number of people on message boards etc. In ten years we went from 1 in 2500 to 1 in 321 (by these numbers which are comparing different localitites). there wasn't a 100% increase in vaccines so why all the sudden did vacciens start causing autism between 1989 and 1999?

so if I understand you, it's still is all about diagnose and the criteria-correct? 

 

so that means there is no increase - according to you? all the data is not accurate because of the expanded definition - correct?

 

 

 

and the CDC must be wrong about food allergies- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm

From 1997 to 2007, the prevalence of reported food allergy increased 18% among children under age 18 years. 

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?