vinucube

Direct evidence from the CDC that vaccines cause food allergies

Recommended Posts

Hi,

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has a document called "Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)".
You can find it here:
Reference 79 in the document is the following paper:
Nakayama T, Aizawa C, Kuno-Sakai H. A clinical analysis of gelatin allergy and determination of its causal relationship to the previous administration of gelatin-containing acellular pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:321--5.
Link to the paper:
The paper concludes:
"Most anaphylactic reactions and some urticarial reactions to gelatin-containing measles, mumps, and rubella monovalent vaccines are associated with IgE-mediated gelatin allergy. DTaP immunization histories suggest that the gelatin-containing DTaP vaccine may have a causal relationship to the development of this gelatin allergy."
Charles Richet, a Nobel Prize winning doctor discovered (over a hundred years ago) that proteins injected into the bloodstream will result in the development of allergy to that protein.
Exact same conclusions, a hundred years apart ...
In other words, food proteins in vaccines can cause the development of food allergies.
Here is the CDC's document showing vaccine ingredients:
Several vaccines still contain gelatin. They also of course contain other food proteins such casein (milk), eggs and yeast.
More evidence:
Why is the CDC knowingly vaccinating our kids with vaccines that can cause life-threatening food allergies?
How many children have to die before our vaccines are made safe?
Why should we have to choose between vaccine preventable diseases and vaccine induced life threatening food allergies?
Thanks.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is the CDC knowingly vaccinating our kids with vaccines that can cause life-threatening food allergies?

 

 

Because it protects vastly more than it harms

 

How many children have to die before our vaccines are made safe?

 

 

Far less than the millions who would die with out vaccines....

 

Why should we have to choose between vaccine preventable diseases and vaccine induced life threatening food allergies?

 

 

Because the diseases they prevent are many orders of magnitude more dangerous than the food allergies they might trigger....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Then why does the CDC lie about it? Why don't they place a warning label on the vaccine insert?

 

The CDC survey suggests that about 1 in 20 U.S. children have food allergies. That’s a 50 percent increase from the late 1990s. For eczema and other skin allergies, it’s 1 in 8 children, an increase of 69 percent.

“We don’t really have the answer,” said Dr. Lara Akinbami of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the senior author of the new report released Thursday.

So you would be willing have your child die of life-threatening food allergies for the "public good" because vaccine manufacturers are too lazy to make a safer vaccine?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is the CDC knowingly vaccinating our kids with vaccines that can cause life-threatening food allergies?

How many children have to die before our vaccines are made safe?
Why should we have to choose between vaccine preventable diseases and vaccine induced life threatening food allergies?

 

Your argument is a rather blatant strawman - no one ever said vaccines - or any other medication is side effect free. The CDC doesn't lie about it - in fact your evidence that they cause food allergies COMES from the CDC. Here's a standard warning label from the MMR vaccine documenting possible anaphylactic reaction to those allergic to eggs: http://www.rxlist.com/m-m-r-ii-drug/warnings-precautions.htm

 

Second, your title is plain fallacy - the article you cite does not provide direct evidence that vaccines cause food allergies. It demonstrates that vaccines can cause reactions in people susceptible to food allergies and speculates that vaccines may have a causal relationship in the development of allergies.

 

But to put it the whole issue into perspective, the risk of an anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine is approximately 0.65 in one million. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14523172 and to further put that in perspective, the risk of death for infant measles is around 3 in 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles Regardless of the role of vaccines in food allergies, the risk/benefit analysis on vaccine use - an analysis which applies to ANY medication, is fairly straightforward.

 

I, along with around 2% of the human population http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/links/730-therapeutic-antibiotic-use.html (so a risk factor about 30,000 times higher than vaccines) suffer an anaphylactic reaction to penicillin. Many, many drugs widely taken by the population have far, far higher incidence of serious side effects than vaccines. The is a risk of side effects with ANY medication. singling out vaccines and making out that it's a grand conspiracy shows a considerable lack of rudimentary understanding of medicine and anatomy.

 

I'd be interested in how you feel about any surgical procedure. Death induced by general anesthesia is about 34 to one million - making any form of surgery inherently about 52 times more dangerous than a vaccine. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/09/21/surgery-survival.html

Edited by Arete
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arete,

 

You are confusing two issues. Everyone knows and it is well documented that vaccines can result in anaphylaxis in people who already have allergies.

The CDC has never admitted that vaccines can CAUSE the food allergies. Please show me where they have made this admission.

Show me where CDC has documented that a vaccine side effect includes development of food allergies.

15 million Americans have developed food allergies. You are belittling the problem and risk of life-threatening food allergies. Unless you have to carry an Epipen for the rest of your life, you probably don't understand the nature and magnitude of this problem.

 

If as some have implied, food allergies are a well known side effect of vaccines, why does the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program neither list it nor compensate the victims?

 

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/adverseeffects.pdf

Edited by vinucube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Translated: Lalalala... I can't hear you... Vaccines are evil no matter how profoundly you debunk my claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iNow,

 

If you have even a shred of evidence showing vaccines DO NOT cause food allergies, please present it. I am not claiming anything more than the CDC's own references.

 

The CDC's Dr. Lara Akinbami who authored a survey of food allergies says she does not know what's causing the skyrocketing food allergy epidemic.

CDC's own references show vaccines cause food allergies. They need to make up their mind. They can't have it both ways.

 

Our generation survived childhood in the third world with a handful of vaccines and food allergies were unheard of. My kids get 20-30 vaccines. 5 shots in one sitting.

Developed food allergies at 2. Spent a night in the ICU following anaphylaxis to the MMR vaccine. One bite of a veggie burger without mayo meant a visit to the ER. I worry everyday if he is going come back alive from school. Does this sound like normal acceptable life to you?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arete,

 

You are confusing two issues. Everyone knows and it is well documented that vaccines can result in anaphylaxis in people who already have allergies.

The CDC has never admitted that vaccines can CAUSE the food allergies. Please show me where they have made this admission.

Show me where CDC has documented that a vaccine side effect includes development of food allergies.

15 million Americans have developed food allergies. You are belittling the problem and risk of life-threatening food allergies. Unless you have to carry an Epipen for the rest of your life, you probably don't understand the nature and magnitude of this problem.

 

If as some have implied, food allergies are a well known side effect of vaccines, why does the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program neither list it nor compensate the victims?

 

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/adverseeffects.pdf

 

 

Repeating myself:

 

 

Second, your title is plain fallacy - the article you cite does not provide direct evidence that vaccines cause food allergies. It demonstrates that vaccines can cause reactions in people susceptible to food allergies and speculates that vaccines may have a causal relationship in the development of allergies.

 

 

You have presented no evidence that vaccines cause food allergies: so we either have a plain fallacy, or a non issue.

 

Are you offering new evidence? Otherwise there is little to discuss that hasn't already been comprehensively debunked.

Edited by Arete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you have even a shred of evidence showing vaccines DO NOT cause food allergies, please present it. I am not claiming anything more than the CDC's own references.

 

 

That's not the way it works

"If you have even a shred of evidence showing vaccines television shows DO NOT cause food allergies, "

You are asking for proof of a negative and that's just plain illogical.

 

The truth is that we simply do not know what causes food allergies.

While there is a plausible (though not proven) hypothetical link between vaccines and food allergies, there is no such link for other allergic reactions and those too are increasing.

How can you be so sure that the rise in food allergies isn't caused by whatever factor is causing the rise in hay-fever and asthma?

 

I'm sorry to hear of your kid's allergies and I realise that the effects are devastating.

But they are still alive.

In the days before vaccination it's likely that you would be mourning the death of more than half of your children.

Do vaccines still look so bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Then why does the CDC lie about it? Why don't they place a warning label on the vaccine insert?

 

The CDC survey suggests that about 1 in 20 U.S. children have food allergies. That’s a 50 percent increase from the late 1990s. For eczema and other skin allergies, it’s 1 in 8 children, an increase of 69 percent.

“We don’t really have the answer,” said Dr. Lara Akinbami of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the senior author of the new report released Thursday.

 

So you would be willing have your child die of life-threatening food allergies for the "public good" because vaccine manufacturers are too lazy to make a safer vaccine?

If you are going to quote a story, you should make it clear you are doing so and provide a link

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/parents-see-more-food-skin-allergies-children/

 

“We don’t really have the answer” means they don't have an answer. It does not mean that vaccines are causing it.

 

If vaccines were the cause, why has there been an increase if allergies? Are we doing more vaccinations all of the sudden? While correlation is not causation, you haven't even presented a correlation from which to investigate a possible cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Because it protects vastly more than it harms

 

 

 

Far less than the millions who would die with out vaccines....

 

 

 

Because the diseases they prevent are many orders of magnitude more dangerous than the food allergies they might trigger....

 

I may be wrong, but can't vaccines cause genetic mutation within the offspring of the person who takes the vaccine?

If you are going to quote a story, you should make it clear you are doing so and provide a link

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/parents-see-more-food-skin-allergies-children/

 

“We don’t really have the answer” means they don't have an answer. It does not mean that vaccines are causing it.

 

If vaccines were the cause, why has there been an increase if allergies? Are we doing more vaccinations all of the sudden? While correlation is not causation, you haven't even presented a correlation from which to investigate a possible cause.

If there was an increase in the size of the population(drastically), then one might notice a change in the amount of people who have allergies. Though, I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was an increase in the size of the population(drastically), then one might notice a change in the amount of people who have allergies. Though, I could be wrong.

That's what I would expect as well. But the numbers don't match up in other vaccination nonsense like the purported results of autism, and there's no evidence presented that it shows up here, either; there's no correlation. Just bald assertions and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, but can't vaccines cause genetic mutation within the offspring of the person who takes the vaccine?

If there was an increase in the size of the population(drastically), then one might notice a change in the amount of people who have allergies. Though, I could be wrong.

No, they can't.

No, the proportion of children with a given condition should stay the same.

of course, a bigger population might make other differences and those differences might affect the incidence of allergies.

For example, with more people, you might have a bigger town so those in the middle would be exposed to more traffic fumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note, there are vaccines that prevent food allergies, so (in addition to the above) that's another direct contradiction to the generalized and inaccurate assertion in the OP.

 

 

 

TBH, I really have little interest in debating people like this, yet another anti-vaxer pig ignorant moron, so will just share the below as an FYI to readers and be done with it:

 

Vaccines_save_lives_cure_disease.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Please do not let this descend into a flame war - implied negative characterisation of other posters, no matter what views they espouse, is against the rules.

 

 

On another note, ... snipped

 

TBH, I really have little interest in debating people like this, yet another anti-vaxer pig ignorant moron, so will just share the below as an FYI to readers and be done with it:

 

Back onto the substance of the thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccinations vs. no vaccinations is the wrong debate.

 

We are talking about safe vaccines vs. today's unsafe vaccines.

 

To perform a cost/benefit analysis of safe vs. unsafe vaccines, first the CDC/FDA and vaccine manufacturers have to admit their vaccines are unsafe and cause food allergies.

The evidence is overwhelming.

 

A vaccine works by injecting viral proteins into the blood stream. The immune system develops a response which is used to rapidly react to a future introduction of the same viral protein.

The immune system however, does not know the difference between viral proteins and food proteins. All foreign proteins are treated the same. Charles Richet demonstrated this a hundred years ago.

Since then, the same mechanism has been demonstrated numerous times.

 

Dr. Platts-Mills [3], Untersmayr [4], and Nakayama T, Aizawa C, Kuno-Sakai H. A clinical analysis of gelatin allergy and determination of its causal relationship to the previous administration of gelatin-containing acellular pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:321--5, have all demonstrated the same mechanism over and over again.

In fact, this effect is used to teach immunology. BALB/c mice are intraperitoneally injected with ovalbumin and alum. When challenged with ovalbumins later, the mice exhibit anaphylaxis.

Kids vaccine schedules have increased to 20-30 vaccines. In one sitting they get up to 5 vaccines. With 5 vaccines loaded with food protein contaminants, 5 doses worth of powerful adjuvants (that boost the immune response to both the viral proteins and food proteins) circulating in the blood stream at a time, the predictable result is a food allergy epidemic.

I don't how much more evidence is needed for people to start acting on the problem. Even if CDC/FDA/vaccine makers think more evidence is needed, they have done nothing for decades to study the issue. While continuing to add more vaccines to the schedule.

 

So the cost/benefit analysis is about admitting the problem and developing vaccines without food protein contamination vs. the status quo of giving millions more kids life-threatening food allergies using current contaminated vaccines.

 

Thanks.
Edited by vinucube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't how much more evidence is needed for people to start acting on the problem.

 

 

 

Any would be a start.

 

 

 

Second, your title is plain fallacy - the article you cite does not provide direct evidence that vaccines cause food allergies. It demonstrates that vaccines can cause reactions in people susceptible to food allergies and speculates that vaccines may have a causal relationship in the development of allergies.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccinations vs. no vaccinations is the wrong debate.

 

We are talking about safe vaccines vs. today's unsafe vaccines.

 

To perform a cost/benefit analysis of safe vs. unsafe vaccines, first the CDC/FDA and vaccine manufacturers have to admit their vaccines are unsafe and cause food allergies.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Then how about showing how the increase in food allergies matches some increase in vaccinations? Overwhelm us with some actual facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arete,

 

You wrote the paper "speculates that vaccines may have a causal relationship in the development of allergies."

 

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology I believe is a reputed peer reviewed journal. It is not going to accept and publish speculation as you claim the paper's conclusion to be.

If it is speculation as you claim, the CDC has chosen the paper as reference to base its recommendation on immunization practices. Perhaps you have just stumbled on yet another reason to be concerned about CDC's ability to keep vaccines safe. So which one is it?

 

"Any would be a start."

Dr. Platts-Mills [3], Untersmayr [4], and Nakayama T, Aizawa C, Kuno-Sakai H. A clinical analysis of gelatin allergy and determination of its causal relationship to the previous administration of gelatin-containing acellular pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:321--5, have all demonstrated the same mechanism over and over again.

In fact, this effect is used to teach immunology. BALB/c mice are intraperitoneally injected with ovalbumin and alum. When challenged with ovalbumins later, the mice exhibit anaphylaxis.

So papers referenced above and Charles Richet's findings are bogus?


Then how about showing how the increase in food allergies matches some increase in vaccinations? Overwhelm us with some actual facts.

 

You can start with this:

 

"the rise in allergy and asthma that has occurred since the 1950's is certainly not explained by changes in the frequencies of susceptibility alleles in the human population. there must be another reason. pollution was pretty much ruled out by the re-unification of germany, when it was found that eastern germany, which had had much pollution but little allergy suddenly started having allergy rates similar to western germany. perhaps it would be worth having a look at their vaccine protocols?"

 

You can see Dr.Matzinger's full response here.


Then how about showing how the increase in food allergies matches some increase in vaccinations? Overwhelm us with some actual facts.

http://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats

Edited by vinucube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can start with this:

 

"the rise in allergy and asthma that has occurred since the 1950's is certainly not explained by changes in the frequencies of susceptibility alleles in the human population. there must be another reason. pollution was pretty much ruled out by the re-unification of germany, when it was found that eastern germany, which had had much pollution but little allergy suddenly started having allergy rates similar to western germany. perhaps it would be worth having a look at their vaccine protocols?"

"Perhaps it would be worth a look" is a research question. It is not evidence of any result.

 

You can see [/size]Dr.Matzinger's full response [/size]here.[/size]

 

http://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats

So why 18%? The number of vaccines went up 80%. And why would more of the same cause the increase? At best, you've shown a weak correlation. That might mean something if that was the only variable and nothing else has changed over time. Are all other countries that have similar immunization schedules seeing the same thing?

 

You post a paper that says when gelatin is used in a vaccine, the subject can become allergic to gelatin. But it's a huge step to extrapolate this to food allergies in general. Peanut allergies are rising as well. Do the vaccines have peanut butter in them? What about all the other food allergies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Arete,

 

You wrote the paper "speculates that vaccines may have a causal relationship in the development of allergies."

 

 

So papers referenced above and Charles Richet's findings are bogus?

 

 

I don't believe you've read the paper (singular, n.b.) you're citing, as it doesn't present the finding you keep saying it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Perhaps it would be worth a look" is a research question. It is not evidence of any result.

 

 

So why 18%? The number of vaccines went up 80%. And why would more of the same cause the increase? At best, you've shown a weak correlation. That might mean something if that was the only variable and nothing else has changed over time. Are all other countries that have similar immunization schedules seeing the same thing?

 

You post a paper that says when gelatin is used in a vaccine, the subject can become allergic to gelatin. But it's a huge step to extrapolate this to food allergies in general. Peanut allergies are rising as well. Do the vaccines have peanut butter in them? What about all the other food allergies?

 

Not all vaccines have food proteins (fortunately). The quantity of food proteins in vaccines also varies more than a thousand-fold.

 

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/gelatin-allergies.html

Gelatin content of vaccines licensed in the United States, 2008 Vaccine Trade Name Quantity (per dose)

DTaP Tripedia 0.0015 mg

influenza Fluzone ≤0.025 mg

Flumist 2 mg

measles, mumps, rubella MMR II 14.5 mg

varicella Varivax 12.5 mg

shingles Zostavax 15.58 mg

rabies Rabavert < 12 mg

 

As I wrote before, at a higher level, the mechanism that makes a vaccine work and gives you protection is the exact same mechanism involved in giving you food allergies.

You can think of immunity to a virus as developing an allergy to that virus in the vaccine.

 

The first dose of a vaccine gives ~70% of the recipients protection. The second dose ~99%. The third gets very close to 100%.

Same for food allergies. More doses of the same vaccine can be expected to give more people food allergies.

 

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40649

"Wood says that research over the last three decades indicates that the number of people with allergies is skyrocketing in developed and developing countries, but not in underdeveloped areas."

 

The most likely source of peanut allergy is Vitamin K injections given to newborns to prevent Vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). Unlike vaccines, getting the ingredient list of injections is not easy. We know they contain fatty acids. Likewise, vaccines contain lipids. With such broad categories, it is difficult to investigate. Could be a wide variety of nut oils and/or peanut oil.

 

Vaccines contain casein (milk), eggs, yeast, gelatin, agar (seaweed derived). Seaweed can contaminate seafood and account for seafood allergies. That covers the majority of food allergies.

 

For details, please see: https://sites.google.com/site/vaccineinducedfoodallergy/

 

 

 

Dr. Platts-Mills [3], shows that tick bites introduce alpha-gal into the blood stream resulting in people developing alpha-gal allergy (red meat allergy). Subsequent exposure to red meat can cause anaphylaxis.

 

Charles Richet injected sea anemone toxin into a dog and it developed an allergy to it. Subsequent injection of the same toxin caused anaphylaxis.

 

When stomach acid is reduced, food proteins we eat are not broken down. The food proteins are absorbed intact into the bloodstream. Just as if you received a food protein contaminated vaccine. Untersmayr [4], shows omeprazole - a stomach acid reducer caused patients to develop food allergies.

 

Then of course we have Nakayama T et al. demonstrating gelatin in vaccines causing gelatin allergy.

 

Intraperitoneal injection of ovalbumin and alum into BALB/c mice and demonstrating development of allergy is of course a commonly used experiment in immunology.

 

So we have several independent and varied sources of information all confirming the exact same immune system allergy development mechanism at work.

 

Then of course we have increasing number food protein contaminated vaccine doses correlating with skyrocketing food allergies.

 

If some people think all of this is some how a grand coincidence that must be dismissed, I am sorry I don't think I can help.

 

I expect reasonable people to look at this and demand that CDC/FDA and vaccine makers immediately work to save our children.

 

For those interested in the details of the actual mechanism:

 

When food proteins are injected in to the blood stream, a type I hypersensitivity reaction against an allergen, encountered for the first time, causes a response in a type of immune cell called a TH2 lymphocyte, which belongs to a subset of T cells that produce a cytokine called interleukin-4 (IL-4). These TH2 cells interact with other lymphocytes called B cells, whose role is the production of antibodies. Coupled with signals provided by IL-4, this interaction stimulates the B cell to begin production of a large amount of a particular type of antibody known as IgE that are specific to the food proteins. Secreted IgE circulates in the blood and binds to an IgE-specific receptor (a kind of Fc receptor called FcεRI) on the surface of other kinds of immune cells called mast cells and basophils, which are both involved in the acute inflammatory response. The IgE-coated cells, at this stage are sensitized to the allergen (food proteins).[1] [2]
Mast cells and basophils are found in large numbers in and around the mouth. These locations are prone to injury and thus need more protection against infection. These mast cells and basophils are now IgE-coated and primed to react to the food proteins.
If the vaccinated person now eats these foods, the food proteins bind to the IgE molecules held on the surface of the mast cells or basophils in the mouth. Cross-linking of the IgE and Fc receptors occurs when more than one IgE-receptor complex interacts with the same food allergenic molecule, and activates the sensitized cell. Activated mast cells and basophils undergo a process called degranulation, during which they release histamine and other inflammatory chemical mediators (cytokines, interleukins, leukotrienes, and prostaglandins) from their granules into the surrounding tissue causing several systemic effects, such asvasodilation, mucous secretion, nerve stimulation and smooth muscle contraction. This results in rhinorrhea, itchiness, dyspnea, and anaphylaxis. Depending on the individual, the allergen, and the mode of introduction, the symptoms can be system-wide (classical anaphylaxis), or localized to particular body systems; asthma is localized to the respiratory system and eczema is localized to the dermis.[2]

In other words, an allergic reaction occurs to the foods that contain the food proteins which were present in the vaccine.

 

Thanks.

Edited by vinucube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part that has is relevant is that that exposure to allergens (by whatever means) can cause allergies is some persons. Vaccines are obviously not exempt from it. However the vast majority does not appear to exhibit issues, indicating that there may be individual links that are worthwhile to explore. This is quite an endeavor and is likely going to take a long while until we elucidate the mechanisms and implement ways to diagnose it on an individual level (i.e. establish personalized medicine).

 

However, to answer OP:

 

Why is the CDC knowingly vaccinating our kids with vaccines that can cause life-threatening food allergies?

How many children have to die before our vaccines are made safe?
Why should we have to choose between vaccine preventable diseases and vaccine induced life threatening food allergies?

 

It is because the benefits far outweigh any risk. The link to allergies are relatively weak (and as others pointed out there is not enough data to clearly link the rise of allergies with vaccinations on the population level), whereas the benefits are well known. On the same note you could ask why anyone would feed their kids peanuts, gluten, seafood etc. as they may at some point trigger allergies (or not). Or why do we dare to use cars as the toxins produced are well-known to have adverse effects on human health?

 

Finally, it should be added that often it is not clear whether the kids may not only have a predisposition to food allergy, but may be already allergic for other reasons. In the cited study for example, they appear to have measured IgE only after having adverse effects. I.e. there may have been sensitized already.

Edited by CharonY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is because the benefits far outweigh any risk." In a vaccine vs. no vaccine debate, yes.

In a safe vaccines vs. unsafe vaccines debate, I don't think so. The cost of developing safer vaccines does not outweigh the cost of the number of children lost to anaphylaxis.

 

More evidence from the CDC:

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has a document called "Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)".

You can find it here.
Reference 168 in the document is the following paper:
Sakaguchi M, Nakayama T, Inouye S. Food allergy to gelatin in children with systemic immediate-type reactions, including anaphylaxis, to vaccines. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996;98:1058--61.
Link to the paper.
The paper concludes:

Twenty-four of the 26 children with allergic reactions to vaccines had anti-gelatin IgE ranging from 1.2 to 250 Ua/ml. Seven had allergic reactions on ingestion of gelatin-containing foods. Of these, two had reactions before vaccination, and five had reactions after vaccination. All the control children without allergic reactions to vaccines had no anti-gelatin IgE.

CONCLUSION:

We reconfirmed a strong relationship between systemic immediate-type allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, to vaccines and the presence of specific IgE to gelatin. Moreover, some of the children also had allergic reactions to food gelatin before or after vaccination.

" Or why do we dare to use cars as the toxins produced are well-known to have adverse effects on human health?"

We have admitted that cars pollute and are working on cleaning up.

17 years after Sakaguchi M et. al. above, we have not even admitted it is problem. Food allergies are not even listed as a possible side effect on vaccine inserts. The first step to address a problem is to admit that it exists.

Thanks.

Edited by vinucube
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So the cost/benefit analysis is about admitting the problem and developing vaccines without food protein contamination vs. the status quo of giving millions more kids life-threatening food allergies using current contaminated vaccines.

 

Thanks.

 

 

You keep referring to these proteins as "contamination". Do you know why and how they are used in vaccine development? If yes, what do you propose developers use instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.