Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Peanut oil in Vaccines causing massive peanut allergy? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
07-03-2013 02:49 PM
Taximom5

 Not sure if vaccines still use excipients derived from peanut oil.  The companies never admitted it, and were never required by law to disclose all ingredients, as excipients and adjuvants are considered trade secrets, protected by law.

 

http://barbfeick.com/vaccinations/allergy/801-secret_ingredients.htm

07-03-2013 10:15 AM
Greenlea

Nevermind, got my answer.

07-03-2013 08:43 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asiago View Post

Then on the opposite end are the undeveloped countries with aid workers distributing Plumpy Nut ( Nutriset) an enriched peanut paste, to the malnourished children who are flourishing on it.

Is that really the opposite end, though?  In the US, the vast majority of children are flourishing on peanut butter, too.  But there are some with severe allergic reactions, which DO get reported.  But the severe vaccine reactions usually don't.

 

In the undeveloped countries, neither the vaccine reactions nor the severe allergies would get reported, or even recognized, as most people do not have ready access to medical care, or have anyone to whom they can actually report reactions.

07-03-2013 04:44 AM
Asiago Then on the opposite end are the undeveloped countries with aid workers distributing Plumpy Nut ( Nutriset) an enriched peanut paste, to the malnourished children who are flourishing on it.
07-03-2013 03:27 AM
grandmomtosky children are having reactions to vaccines...it should be a crime the way so many "doctors" ignore these reactions, and tell parents that they are normal, no reason to bring little junior in for a check..where the doctor would not be able to dismiss them as easily as they do over the phone.
05-14-2013 08:49 AM
Marnica
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 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? 

Found this and thought it may be relevant to this discussion. While it may not address vaccine injury specifically. It does state that in fact the bolded above is NOT true. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-parents-tried-shaken-baby-syndrome-wrongly-convicted-expert-warns.html

04-04-2013 01:55 PM
Rrrrrachel Serenbat believe it or not I'm pretty well educated on a variety of issues. Particular special education issues as it happens. I don't always need to read your links.

It's not that children with disabilities weren't in school (although certainly depending on the era some of them weren't) but they were more likely to go undiagnosed.
04-04-2013 01:51 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I guess it depends on whether you think you're more likely to find something once you actually start looking. I think that when schools started going looking for kids with disabilities they started finding them. If you disagree with that I'm not sure what else to say.
http://www.childfindidea.org/

well, it's clear again you could not have even looked at the link I provided prior to posting

 

just how do you think children were accounted for years before "special ED"? like those who were not in school - do you think society had no idea why they did not attend school and what medical condition prevented them from attending? So suddenly we know something we never knew prior was really happening! headscratch.gif wow- just wow!!!

04-04-2013 01:46 PM
Rrrrrachel I guess it depends on whether you think you're more likely to find something once you actually start looking. I think that when schools started going looking for kids with disabilities they started finding them. If you disagree with that I'm not sure what else to say.
Quote:
Child Find is a component of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that requires states to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities, aged birth to 21, who are in need of early intervention or special education services. This Child Find web site is mainly focused on Part C of the IDEA, the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities. However, much of the information and many of the links listed on the Child Find web site can be useful in conducting child find for all young children, not just child find for infants and toddlers.

http://www.childfindidea.org/
04-04-2013 01:44 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Serenbat these laws require schools to actively identify and serve students with special needs, including autism. Starting at birth school systems have to provide services, like project child find, that actively seek out children with special needs. I don't see how that could possibly not impact diagnosis.

apparently you did not have civics or forgot why we have most laws - regarding "special ED" - it's called discrimination, has nothing to do with diagnosis increase. This is the link you need to look at - http://www.archives.nysed.gov/edpolicy/research/res_guides_disability_hist.shtml 

 

 

 

1975 Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, guaranteed a free, appropriate public education to children with disabilities in every locality across the country. The law was reauthorized in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Among the specific provisions:

•  State and local schools must provide substantial special education services to all children with disabilities.

•  Each child has the right to an Individualized Education Program (IEP) designed to meet his or her unique needs.

•  Each child's education must be provided in the least restrictive environment available.

•  Procedural safeguards guarantee the rights of each child and family.

•  The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA required that children with disabilities have access to the general curriculum.

 

 

 

Services must be provided- to all, we use to not have that- this county use to discriminate. Programs to assist came about out of discrimination, not increase in disorder,etc.

 

 

 

You seem to want to so badly push your agenda that increases are sooooo greatly impacted by better diagnosis, no matter how you spin it, your view comes out crystal clear.

04-04-2013 01:43 PM
Rrrrrachel I'm not convinced we would be very good at detecting moderate autism in previous generations is all I'm saying. Severe autism sure, although it might've sometimes been called something else. But I guess it depends a lot on what you mean by "moderate"
04-04-2013 01:39 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I haven't reviewed your math, but I don't think it's fair to assume moderate autism wouldn't be caught in previous generations.

I assume moderate autism would be caught in previous generations - which is thus an argument for an increase in the real rate of moderate autism.

 

The study did not define what was meant by moderate autism, sadly.  It did say it asked parents if the child was mild, moderate or severe.

04-04-2013 01:29 PM
Rrrrrachel Serenbat these laws require schools to actively identify and serve students with special needs, including autism. Starting at birth school systems have to provide services, like project child find, that actively seek out children with special needs. I don't see how that could possibly not impact diagnosis.
04-04-2013 01:20 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Serenbat, there was a lot of legislation involved for one thing.

http://nichcy.org/laws

I also think attitudes towards seeking help and diagnosis has changed in the last half century or so, but that's more a hunch than anything I have data to support.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

When you're considering the increase in something like autism remember, too, that special Ed services have changed drastically since the 70s. Things like project child find didn't exist back then. That makes a huge difference.
 

What you said makes no sense! They aren't connected! You don't receive a diagnosis because you have special ED services! 

 

We are not seeing an increase in autism or any other disorder or disease because we have "special service" to deal with it- that is simply untrue.

 

We do not have increase of diagnosis because of legislation, that's like say we have the Voting Rights Act (that is also legislation) because we have more African Americana - it's not true, not even close to being an accurate statement.

04-04-2013 12:44 PM
Rrrrrachel Serenbat, there was a lot of legislation involved for one thing.

http://nichcy.org/laws

I also think attitudes towards seeking help and diagnosis has changed in the last half century or so, but that's more a hunch than anything I have data to support.
04-04-2013 12:41 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

When you're considering the increase in something like autism remember, too, that special Ed services have changed drastically since the 70s. Things like project child find didn't exist back then. That makes a huge difference.

and why do you think that occurred?

 

 

 

 

I could not make sense of what you wrote, that is why I asked

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post


You do not understand correctly. It is most likely both diagnosis and actual increase. Hence, why I said "I don't personally know how much is diagnosis and how much is actual change" But we can't know how much IS actual change because the rates we are comparing are apples and oranges.

 

 

From what you posted I still feel you are saying it's about diagnose and the criteria that you are questioning, that was all I was asking you- I got that, not miss understanding - just wanted clarification.    

04-04-2013 12:39 PM
Rrrrrachel I haven't reviewed your math, but I don't think it's fair to assume moderate autism wouldn't be caught in previous generations.
04-04-2013 12:28 PM
kathymuggle

So, crunching a few numbers from figure 3 of the study I linked:

 

I am going to compare those aged 6-17 diagnosed before and after 2007.  I am rounding to a whole number.

 

17% of those born before 2007 were consider to have severe autism.  17/100 of 1/150 (prevalence in 2007) means in 2007 about 1/882 people had severe autism.

 

34% had moderate autism (a cohort I doubt would have been missed  in earlier generations)  34/100 of 1/150 is 1/441.  In 2007 about 1/441 people had moderate autism

 

Consider today in 6-17 year olds:

 

7% are severe - so 7/100 of 1/50  =1/714.  So today, 1/714 have severe autism.

 

35% are moderate:  35/100 of 1/50  =1/142.  Today, 1/142 have moderate autism

 

It look like severe has gone up a bit, and moderate has gone up a lot.  

 

Any glaring issues in my math?

04-04-2013 12:25 PM
Rrrrrachel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

You said "most" is that not "vast majority". When questioned by Kathy, you said you in fact didn't know, but would look into it.

And I specifically clarified that by most I meant anywhere north of half. That's very different than vast majority.

Dakota, I saw a small study recently that applied the urgent criteria to a group of adults screened as children for some type of delay and found 40% of them would qualify as autistic under current criteria, both severe and mild.

Again, the changing criteria is far from the only influence at play. Our approach to identifying special needs children has changed drastically in the last few decades, and that's reflected in diagnosis across the board.
04-04-2013 11:33 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post


Personally, I would like to see statistics on the rates of classic low functioning autism alone. I would like to see how the actual rates are changing and see what the increase is. Because high and moderate functioning autistics, asberger syndrom and PDD-NOS were not included in 1970 so we can't compare the rate of ASD to the rate of Autism in 1970 because it is not the same thing.
I would, too.  I have looked -several times -and have not gotten very far. I would expect those type of figures to be readily available - but they are not.  It is sad how little information we have on such a prevalent issue.  I think those that are very high functioning could have been undiagnosed in the past.  I don't buy it for moderate-severe autism, though.  I read somewhere that even accounting for moving people out from the umbrella of mental retardation an under the umbrella of autism does not cut it.
 

ETA:  I found this:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr065.pdf

 

Comparing children diagnosed before 2007 and after, it does show an decrease in the number of children listed as severe, although moderate is holding its own.    Of course, a decrease in percentage does not mean there wasn't an increase in numbers. I would also like to see numbers going back much farther than 2007. 

04-04-2013 11:30 AM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

According to the CDC, (not sure if this is the most up to date figure*) 13.7% of children in the US have a developmental disability, so a vast majority of these kids were missed and are now in the system because of better special ed services?

 

 

Over the last 12 years, the

  • Prevalence of DDs has increased 17.1%—that's about 1.8 million more children with DDs in 2006–2008 compared to a decade earlier;
  • Prevalence of autism increased 289.5%;
  • Prevalence of ADHD increased 33.0%; and,
  • Prevalence of hearing loss decreased 30.9%.

 

 

* Obviously the autism figures are not

Who said vast majority?

 

You said "most" is that not "vast majority". When questioned by Kathy, you said you in fact didn't know, but would look into it.

04-04-2013 11:23 AM
Dakotacakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

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. 

You do not understand correctly. It is most likely both diagnosis and actual increase. Hence, why I said "I don't personally know how much is diagnosis and how much is actual change" But we can't know how much IS actual change because the rates we are comparing are apples and oranges.

Personally, I would like to see statistics on the rates of classic low functioning autism alone. I would like to see how the actual rates are changing and see what the increase is. Because high and moderate functioning autistics, asberger syndrom and PDD-NOS were not included in 1970 so we can't compare the rate of ASD to the rate of Autism in 1970 because it is not the same thing.

I never said that food allergies weren't increasing. They clearly are. and I don't THINK the criterea have changed for food allergies the way they have for autism. I just don't believe they are increasing from vaccines nor do I think there is secret peanut oil conspiracy in vaccines producing peanut allergies.
04-04-2013 11:10 AM
Rrrrrachel
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

"Most" is very broad.  Do you have a tighter ball park figure than 51-99%?

Not off the cuff, no.  I haven't read up on it lately.  I think there is some relevant research out there, I'll see if I can dig it up.

04-04-2013 11:09 AM
Rrrrrachel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

According to the CDC, (not sure if this is the most up to date figure*) 13.7% of children in the US have a developmental disability, so a vast majority of these kids were missed and are now in the system because of better special ed services?

 

 

Over the last 12 years, the

  • Prevalence of DDs has increased 17.1%—that's about 1.8 million more children with DDs in 2006–2008 compared to a decade earlier;
  • Prevalence of autism increased 289.5%;
  • Prevalence of ADHD increased 33.0%; and,
  • Prevalence of hearing loss decreased 30.9%.

 

 

* Obviously the autism figures are not

Who said vast majority?

04-04-2013 10:59 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


Yeah sorry autocorrect really did a number on that. It should say something to the effect that I think most of the increase is due to improved diagnosis/changing diagnosis criteria, where most is something more than half.

"Most" is very broad.  Do you have a tighter ball park figure than 51-99%?

04-04-2013 10:56 AM
Mirzam

According to the CDC, (not sure if this is the most up to date figure*) 13.7% of children in the US have a developmental disability, so a vast majority of these kids were missed and are now in the system because of better special ed services?

 

 

Over the last 12 years, the

  • Prevalence of DDs has increased 17.1%—that's about 1.8 million more children with DDs in 2006–2008 compared to a decade earlier;
  • Prevalence of autism increased 289.5%;
  • Prevalence of ADHD increased 33.0%; and,
  • Prevalence of hearing loss decreased 30.9%.

 

 

* Obviously the autism figures are not

04-04-2013 10:47 AM
Rrrrrachel When you're considering the increase in something like autism remember, too, that special Ed services have changed drastically since the 70s. Things like project child find didn't exist back then. That makes a huge difference.
04-04-2013 10:46 AM
Rrrrrachel I don't see where dakotacakes claimed there was no real increase, in autism or allergies, but you know what they say about me and reading.
04-04-2013 10:44 AM
Rrrrrachel
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

What does this mean?
Yeah sorry autocorrect really did a number on that. It should say something to the effect that I think most of the increase is due to improved diagnosis/changing diagnosis criteria, where most is something more than half.
04-04-2013 10:42 AM
serenbat
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. 

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off