Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden?
Before 1900, reactions to peanuts were unheard of. Today almost a 1.5 million children in this country are allergic to peanuts.
What happened? Why is everybody buying EpiPens now?
Looking at all the problems with vaccines during the past decade, [2] just a superficial awareness is enough to raise the suspicion that vaccines might have some role in the appearance of any novel allergy among children.
But reactions to peanuts are not just another allergy. Peanut allergy has suddenly emerged as the #1 cause of death from food reactions, being in a category of allergens able to cause anaphylaxis. This condition brings the risk of asthma attack, shock, respiratory failure, and even death. Primarily among children.
Sources cited in Heather Fraser’s 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic suggest a vaccine connection much more specifically. We learn that a class of vaccine adjuvants – excipients – is a likely suspect in what may accurately be termed an epidemic. [1]
But let’s back up a little. We have to look at both vaccines and antibiotics in recent history, and the physical changes the ingredients in these brand new medicines introduced into the blood of children.
ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK AND ALLERGY
Before 1900, anaphylactic shock was virtually unknown. The syndrome of sudden fainting, respiratory distress, convulsions, and sometimes death did not exist until vaccinators switched from the lancet to the hypodermic needle. That transformation was essentially complete by the turn of the century in the western world.
Right at that time, a new disease called Serum Sickness began to afflict thousands of children. A variety of symptoms, including shock, fainting, and sometimes death, could suddenly result following an injection.
Instead of covering it up, the connection was well recognized and documented in the medical literature of the day. Dr Clemens Von Pirquet, who actually coined the word “allergy,” was a leading researcher in characterizing the new disease. [5] Serum Sickness was the first mass allergenic phenomenon in history. What had been required for its onset, apparently, was the advent of the hypodermic needle.
When the needle replaced the lancet in the late 1800s, Serum Sickness soon became a frequent visitor to the child’s bed. It was a known consequence of vaccinations. Indeed, the entire field of modern allergy has evolved from the early study of Serum Sickness coming from vaccines.
VACCINE HYPERSENSITIVITY
Von Pirquet recognized that vaccines had 2 primary effects: immunity and hypersensitivity. [5] He said they were inseparable: the one was the price of the other.
In other words, if we were going to benefit from the effects of mass immunization, we must accept the downside of mass hypersensitivity as a necessary co-feature. Modern medicine has decided that this double effect should be kept secret, so they don’t allow it to be brought up much.
Many doctors in the early 1900s were dead set against vaccines for this precise reason. The advertised benefit was not proven to be worth the risk. Doctors like Walter Hadwen MD, Wm. Howard Hay, and Alfred Russell Wallace saw how smallpox vaccines had actually increased the incidence of smallpox. [2,3] Wallace was one of the principal epidemiologists of the age, and his charts showing the increase in smallpox death from vaccination are unassailable – meticulous primary sources.
Another landmark researcher of the early 1900s was Dr Charles Richet, the one who coined the term anaphylaxis. [4] Richet focused on the reactions that some people seemed to have to certain foods. He found that with food allergies, the reaction came on as the result of intact proteins in the food having bypassed the digestive system and making their way intact into the blood, via leaky gut.
Foreign protein in the blood, of course, is a universal trigger for allergic reaction, not just in man but in all animals. [6]
But Richet noted that in the severe cases, food anaphylaxis did not happen just by eating a food. That would simply be food poisoning.
Food anaphylaxis is altogether different. This sudden, violent reaction requires an initial sensitization involving injection of some sort, followed by a later ingestion of the sensitized food. Get the shot, then later eat the food.
The initial exposure creates the hypersensitivity. The second exposure would be the violent, perhaps fatal, physical event.
Richet’s early work around 1900 was primarily with eggs, meat, milk and diphtheria proteins. Not peanuts. The value of Richet’s research with reactive foods was to teach us the sequence of allergic sensitivity leading to anaphylaxis, how that had to take place.
Soon other doctors began to notice striking similarities between food reactions and the serum sickness that was associated with vaccines. Same exact clinical presentation.
PENICILLIN
Next up was penicillin, which became popular in the 1940s. It was soon found that additives called excipients were necessary to prolong the effect of the antibiotic injected into the body. The excipients would act as carrier molecules. Without excipients, the penicillin would only last about 2 hours. Refined oils worked best, acting as time-release capsules for the antibiotic.
Peanut oil became the favorite, because it worked well, and was available and inexpensive.
Allergy to penicillin became common, and was immediately recognized as a sensitivity to the excipient oils. To the present day, that’s why they always ask if you’re allergic to penicillin. The allergy is a sensitivity to the excipients.
By 1953 as many as 12% of the population was allergic to penicillin. [1] But considering the upside with life-threatening bacterial infections, it was still a good deal – a worthwhile risk.
By 1950 antibiotics were being given out like M&Ms. Soldiers, children, anybody with any illness, not just bacterial. Despite Alexander Fleming’s severe warnings against prophylactic antibiotics, antibiotics were given indiscriminately as the new wonder drug. Just in case anything. [7] Only then, in the 1950s, did peanut allergy begin to occur, even though Americans had been eating peanuts for well over a century.
Remember – just eating peanuts cannot cause peanut allergy. Except if they are allowed to become moldy of course, in which case aflatoxins are released. But that’s really not a peanut allergy.
When peanut allergy did appear, the numbers of cases were fairly small and initially it wasn’t even considered worthy of study.
THE RISE OF VACCINES
The big change came with vaccines. Peanut oils were introduced as vaccine excipients in the mid 1960s. An article appeared in the NY Times on 18 Sept, 1964 that would never be printed today. [8] The author described how a newly patented ingredient containing peanut oil was added as an adjuvant to a new flu vaccine, in order to prolong the “immunity.” The oil was reported to act as a time release capsule, and theoretically enhanced the vaccine’s strength. Same mechanism as with penicillin.
That new excipient, though not approved in the US, became the model for subsequent vaccines. ([1] p 103)
By 1980 peanut oil had become the preferred excipient in vaccines, even though the dangers were well documented. [9] It was considered an adjuvant – a substance able to increase reactivity to the vaccine. This reinforced the Adjuvant Myth: the illusion that immune response is the same as immunity [2].
The pretense here is that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred. This fundamental error is consistent throughout vaccine literature of the past century.
Historically, researchers who challenged this Commandment of vaccine mythology did not advance their careers.
The first study of peanut allergies was not undertaken until 1973. It was a study of peanut excipients in vaccines. Soon afterwards, and as a result of the attention from that study, manufacturers were no longer required to disclose all the ingredients in vaccines.
What is listed in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula. Same with the inserts. Suddenly after 1973, that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers knew it must be protected. Intellectual property. So now they only were required to describe the formula in general.
Why was peanut allergy so violent? Adjuvant pioneer Maurice Hilleman claimed peanut oil adjuvants had all protein removed by refining. [9] The FDA disagreed. They said some peanut protein traces would always persist [10]- that even the most refined peanut oils still contained some traces of intact peanut proteins. This was the reason doctors were directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous – a greater chance of absorption of intact proteins, less chance of reaction.
But all their secret research obviously wasn’t enough to prevent sensitivity. Mother Nature bats last: no intact proteins in the body. Put intact proteins, peanut or whatever, for any imagined reason into the human system and the inflammatory response will fire. And since the goal of oil emulsion adjuvants was to prolong reactivity in the first place – the notion of time-release – this led to sensitization.
PEANUT ALLERGY EPIDEMIC
Although peanut allergies became fairly common during the 1980s, it wasn’t until the early 1990s when there was a sudden surge of children reacting to peanuts – the true epidemic appeared. What changed? The Mandated Schedule of vaccines for children doubled from the 80s to the 90s:
It would be imprudent enough to feed peanuts to a newborn, since the digestive system is largely unformed. But this is much worse – injecting intact proteins directly into the infant’s body. In 36 vaccines before the age of 18 months.
A new kind of anaphylaxis appeared with peanut reactions: reverse anaphylaxis. (p 172, [1]) The reaction was not only to the sensitizing antigen, but to the weird new antibodies that had just been introduced in the human species by the new antigen.
As vaccines doubled between the 1980s and the 1990s, hundreds of thousands of kids were now exhibiting peanut sensitivities, with frequent cases of anaphylaxis reactions, sometimes fatal.
But nobody talked about it.
Following the next enormous increase in vaccines on the Mandated Schedule after 9/11, whereby the total shot up to 68 recommended vaccines, the peanut allergy soon reached epidemic proportions: a million children: 1.5% of them. These numbers fit the true definition of epidemic even though that word has never been used in mainstream literature with respect to peanut allergy, except in Fraser’s odd little book.
Many researchers, not just Heather Fraser, could see very clearly that
“The peanut allergy epidemic in children was precipitated by childhood injections.”
( [1], p 106)
But with the newfound research, the medical profession will do what they always must do – bury it. Protect the companies. So no money will be ever allocated from NIH to study the obvious connection between vaccine excipients and peanut allergy. That cannot happen, primarily because it would require a control group – an unvaccinated population. And that is the Unspoken Forbidden.
Same line of reasoning that has prevented Wakefield’s work from ever being replicated in a mainstream US clinical study. No unvaccinated populations. Which actually means no studies whose outcome could possibly implicate vaccines as a source of disease or immunosuppression. Vaccines as a cause of an allergy epidemic? Impossible. Let’s definitely not study it.
Instead let’s spend the next 20 years looking for the Genetic Link to the childhood peanut allergy epidemic…
In such a flawed system, any pretense of true clinical science is revealed as fatally handicapped of course: we are looking for the truth, wherever our studies shall take us, except for this, and this, and oh yes, this.
Evidence for the connection between peanut excipients and vaccines is largely indirect today, because of the circling of the wagons by the manufacturers. It is very difficult to find peanut excipients listed in the inserts and PDR listings of vaccines. Simple liability.
FRAME OF REFERENCE
So in addition to all the other problems with vaccines delineated in our text, now we have a new one – peanut oil excipients. Which all by themselves can cause severe, even fatal, episodes of shock, as well as chronic allergy – irrespective of the mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, and the attenuated pathogens which the manufacturers do admit to.
Quite a toxic burden to saddle the unprotected newborn with. No wonder the US Supreme Court refers to vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe.”
Childhood allergies doubled between 1980 and 2000, and have doubled again since that time. [11] Theories abound. Childhood vaccines doubled at the same time. Why is there a virtual blackout of viable discussion about this glaring fact?
The epidemic of peanut allergy is just one facet of this much broader social phenomenon. We have the sickest, most allergic kids of any country, industrialized or not, on Earth. A study of the standard literature of vaccines is identical to a study of the history of adjuvants – an exercise in cover-up and dissimulation. Unvaccinated children don’t become autistic. And they don’t go into shock from eating peanuts.
But there can never be a formal clinical study where the control group is unvaccinated. NIH would never do that. They cannot. They know the outcome.
Jones, S, Peanut oil used in a new vaccine New York Times 18 Sep 13
HOBSON, D, MD, The potential role of immunological adjuvants
in influenza vaccines Postgraduate Medical Journal March 1973 , no. 49, p 180. http://pmj.bmj.com/content/49/569/180.full.pdf
Does that matter if it's real information? Copy and paste is a fantastic function for sharing knowledge. More people in this sub should use it to share articles and links.
A quick search of r/medicine and r/science shows the last posts that contained the keywords 'peanut allergy' were 232 and 226 days ago and had nothing to do with this topic. In fact there was nothing on the first page of either search keyword under 'new' or 'relevant' that related to vaccines and peanut allergies.
There is a common assumption because of the name of these subs they are bastions of free thinking individuals who, though their highly trained backgrounds, engage in open fact based discussions.
I have posted many times in both under other accounts, as the history of this one does not allow valid discussion. What is found there is a lot of people who have a vested interest in the status quo. Sort of like Harvard, unfortunately....
As always, I will not be responding again because of the personal attack.
A quick search of your history shows this is the only sub in which you post. So you're credibility is zilch.
Oh and it's funny how you tried to post a few times on the Harvard sub to try and legitimize yourself for your top mind friends.
Unless the admission standards at Harvard have been dramatically lowered, there's no way in hell someone as stupid at you graduated from there. No way in hell.
There was an explosion in peanut allergies after Merck first added peanut oil into some of their vaccines. Israel don't use peanut oil, they don't have peanut allergies either, instead they use sesame oil, and that is why so many people there have sesame allergies in Israel
Stop playing games, if you wanted to research this you would do so yourself, you clearly have other reasons to be posting what you have and I'm not going to spend time spoon-feeding someone who most likely has an agenda and will refuse any evidence showing that vaccines can cause harm
if you wanted to research this you would do so yourself, you clearly have other reasons to be posting what you have and I'm not going to spend time spoon-feeding someone who most likely has an agenda and will refuse any evidence showing that vaccines can cause harm
Well, I have and what I've found is the following:
ALL vaccine ingredients are marked by law. There's no hidden ingredients that aren't specifically labeled. Childhood shots do not contain peanut or sesame oils regardless of location of manufacture. Peanut based adjuvants were tested but never made commercially available outside of trials. The most interesting piece to me is the reason for the increase in peanut allergies in the West (US, UK, etc) and how it seems to be limited to only a few western countries. Coincidentally these western countries are also the only countries to medically recommend that pregnant women avoid peanuts while pregnant and nursing. As such I've concluded from my research that the reason for the increase, and the cause of most peanut allergies is lack of early exposure. Since the child isn't exposed to the peanut allergens before they develop an immune system, their chance of being allergic is increased. So, if you're done insulting me, I'd like to know where you got your information so I may review it for myself.
edit: and for the record. I not only believe but know that vaccines can cause harm along with the benefits. I simply don't assume they must cause harm in all cases in which someone claims they have. The side effects are well known and documented, and do occur for a rare minority of people.
Actually, I have a theory that something like this is behind people's gluten issues - that the body, when encountering a negative reaction to something like glyphosate or folic acid, blames the concomitant protein and thus then mounts an immune response when it sees the protein, whether or not it sees the irritant that caused it to associate the protein with danger.
No, it's real. Thank deity for the Atkins diet because I never would have realized the crippling heartburn was all due to bread and oats. I can actually manage it now and don't have to take heartburn pills which fuck patients' health up even worse due to their messing up vitamin absorption.
It makes me sad that people downplay other people's health issues because they haven't themselves experienced it and because it's a popular thing to do. And then to actively ward people away from information and foods that might help them heal! Be better.
No, it's real. Thank deity for the Atkins diet because I never would have realized the crippling heartburn was all due to bread and oats.
There's a bunch of things that can cause those symptoms that are not gluten based but present in those foods.
I can actually manage it now and don't have to take heartburn pills which fuck patients' health up even worse due to their messing up vitamin absorption.
Are you referring to Prilosec? Gluten sensitivity doesn't manifest as heartburn. I think you'd see the same benefit from any diet that reduces carbohydrates. Have you tried any of the various forms of Mediterranean or vegetarian inspired diets to see if the effect is similar?
It makes me sad that people downplay other people's health issues because they haven't themselves experienced it and because it's a popular thing to do.
That's not what I'm doing. The nocebo effect is well documented and the symptoms experienced are real although the cause may not be.
Gluten allergy/celiac may not. But allergies and sensitivities are different (as some of my medical professional family members continue to beat into us!) No one has done very much to study the real sensitivity reactions people have to wheat products because it's far more lucrative to stuff daily pills down people's throats, then have them continue to pay you for the diseases and issues that continue to happen thereafter. It's like MTHFR gene mutation testing - easy thing to do and would help people realize what's actually going wrong with their metabolism, but no one does it, it's faster and more lucrative to just keep shoving pills down someone's throat than to prescribe a different diet or EGAD! fix the corruption in our food chain.
Edit: And what really kills me is that "gluten free" foods are now being fortified. Where fortification is likely what sensitized me to gluten in the first place. Incredibly frustrating.
No one has done very much to study the real sensitivity reactions people have to wheat products because it's far more lucrative to stuff daily pills down people's throats, then have them continue to pay you for the diseases and issues that continue to happen thereafter.
It's like MTHFR gene mutation testing - easy thing to do and would help people realize what's actually going wrong with their metabolism, but no one does it, it's faster and more lucrative to just keep shoving pills down someone's throat than to prescribe a different diet or EGAD! fix the corruption in our food chain.
I can say that this isn't true. The MTHFR gene provides instructions for making an enzyme that plays a role in processing amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. This particular enzyme is important for a chemical reaction involving forms of the vitamin folate (also called vitamin B9), a reaction required for the multistep process that converts the amino acid homocysteine to another amino acid, methionine. The body uses methionine to make proteins and other important compounds. So this gene doesn't really do anything in relation to many of the maladies that naturopaths 'diagnose' in relation to it.
I don't know much about naturopaths, never been to one.
I am telling you, and it may not be cool not to listen, but you may one day be in the same boat - people are in pain when they eat certain foods. I'm in pain after I eat gluten - and like I said, it likely has nothing to do with the gluten but with the fact that my body associates gluten with glyphosate or synthetic folic acid, heck if I know, because they go hand-in-hand.
You can keep arguing with me if it makes you feel better, that's fine - but please remember this if you have a loved one going through it - ask them to skip the grains for a few days and report back to you.
It's not in any way a "nocebo" for me - I only discovered the issue years and years ago by accident, way before the "gluten free" craze. Went on Atkins, after a week, was like, "Holy shit, it's not the wine!" I also wonder what the rates of esophogeal cancer are going to be like in the next twenty years, it's really worrisome.
Edit: Oh, and here's why I think it's the folic acid, and the gluten's just a casualty - I and others I know with the same issue also react to enriched grits (corn!) and oats. I can eat regular grits all day long, but enriched is pain within the hour. But organic wheat causes a reaction, too. Wonder if there's something related to corn protein that you don't associate corn itself with the reactive agent when the agitator is absent, but you do react to wheat when the agitator is absent.
I really wish we could get some real research done on this subject instead of people parroting "it's all in your head," especially due to the fact that esophogeal agitation can lead to esophogeal cancer and people self-treating or doc-treating with daily antacids/PPIs leads to serious long-term harm.
I am telling you, and it may not be cool not to listen, but you may one day be in the same boat - people are in pain when they eat certain foods. I'm in pain after I eat gluten - and like I said, it likely has nothing to do with the gluten but with the fact that my body associates gluten with glyphosate or synthetic folic acid, heck if I know, because they go hand-in-hand.
You might think I'm not listening, and that's fine, but what I'm saying to you is you may have a more serious issue and you're just band-aid'ing the problem or worse. I'm glad to hear you're not seeing a naturopath. Many of those folks are indeed pill pushers and scam artists. I'm also not denying that you may think you have a problem with gluten, or that you experience actual side-effects from the consumption of it. I'm giving you the current medical information as I know it and as it is documented to help you in making the decisions you think are best for you.
That being said, you're body won't confuse gluten with folate. Living a gluten free diet may leave you lacking the correct amount of folate. If the problem is glyphosate, then you don't have a gluten issue at all but rather a reaction to having multiple other nutrients chelated and made not-biologically-available, meaning you can't process them because your body doesn't 'see" them. That being said, I'd expect the symptoms to show as being far far worse than just heartburn. Hell, it'd look like heavy metal poisoning. If you think you're being poisoned with roundup, it is not coming from wheat products.
I'm aware. The two are interchangable nutrients for most people but folic acid is the synthetic. This is why I mention the fact your diet may be low in folate, not folic acid. So if you have any sort of liver disorder, folic acid is not your friend, folate is.
edit:
and that would explain the heartburn. You're getting the synthetic which is converted in the liver causing a reaction vs folate which is converted via the standard folate process in your digestive tract. So you could eat a traditional diet, with gluten assuming no added folic acid.
Yeah, I eat a lot of leafy greens for this reason, and also sprouted grain breads, which interestingly don't cause as many side effects as even organic, non-enriched bread. Expensive, though. Have a friend with an identical issue whose doctor recommended methylfolate supplements.
So based on our conversation, and I'm only attached to medical research teams, not a medical professional, I'd probably recommend you get your liver function tested. Ever had gall stones or other problems with your gall bladder?
Hey, good detective work, thanks - actually, liver is usually great, except homocysteine usually high - and occasional gallbladder area pain (no stones) almost always resolved via fasting for a day or two and keeping up on B12 (it's beginning to be really, really hard to find methylcobalamin over-the-counter in a drug store now, used to be available in any drug store) and food-derived probiotics.
This all seems to fall in line nicely with MTHFR mutation symptoms, which took me a lot of work and Duckduckgoing, but I'm starting to see it publicized a lot more (Daily Beast of all places just did a pseudosciency, but helpful, article on it).
Hey, good detective work, thanks - actually, liver is usually great, except homocysteine usually high - and occasional gallbladder area pain (no stones) almost always resolved via fasting for a day or two and keeping up on B12
It's all about the medical knowledge fo how these systems work together. The more education we have on how the systems actually function, which is hard to get due to all the bullshit pseudoscience from naturopaths and some conspiracy theorists, the more easily we can determine what's wrong. This explains why the Atkin's diet has alleviated some symptoms, but I'd recommend you find a new diet. The Atkin's diet is really high fat, which keeps the gall bladder empty (as you're using that bile to break down the fats) but those fats are going to cause other problems over the long term.
This all seems to fall in line nicely with MTHFR mutation symptoms
Well, I'd take that reasoning with a grain of salt. Most of the stuff I've read stating there's any sort of 'symptom' for these mutations claims everything under the sun is caused by them.
I remember when a vaccine containing Gluten first appeared in Sweden, there was an explosion of Gluten allergies, then Big Pharma desperately got some shills to cover up the vaccine link
Any idea which vaccine it was? I always assumed my issues were either due to folic acid supplementation or glyphosate. I don't remember getting any vaccines around or near the time of onset, but maybe tetanus (I think that would have been tDAP at that time)?
The whole vaccine/Autism cover-up certainly got a lot of people interested in the safety of vaccines, especially to see that the dangerous vaccines were never stopped, instead just allowing more healthy children to be made Autistic by the vaccines. How can anyone ever trust this industry again? Fortunately there are brave whistleblowers from within it who expose the crimes so as all can see.
Vaccines have saved millions of lives. While I'd want to keep a close regulatory eye on greedy, top level pharma execs who'd be willing to cut safety corners to increase profits, I'm sure a lot more frontline industry workers would be up in arms about unsafe products.
My father had peanut allergy back in the 60's so no, not a conspiracy topic. People are allergic to a certain thing. Just because someone wrote a book or paper and it was published doesn't mean a thing to me, weather I agree or not. Life experience is what i know.
That fits in as some vaccines first started using peanut oil in the 60's. In the 1930s there was cottonseed oil in vaccines, followed by a short-lived spate of cottonseed oil allergies of about a decade that quietly went away with a change in formula. In the 1960s and 1970s a flu vaccine used peanut oil.
Everyone I knew who was allergic to peanuts, injected pure peanut oil. Either they got over it (my Father) or they didn't.
There are far greater problems in the world. Please, look into those.
Missle_tits "There are far greater problems in the world"
If you make silly comments like that everyone here will assume you're simply PR trying to push people away from investigating the harm caused by Big Pharma products. They will also likely assume that your story about your father was made up too.
I'm not saying that you are such a poster, just giving you a heads-up that people here will think you are so won't take your posts seriously.
Children die from peanut allergies, that makes it important whether that suits you or not.
Even better if we can fix the vaccines to stop the root cause of peanut allergies, which will sometimes result in death, because we don't always know which foods have peanuts in.
Yeah, I eat a lot of leafy greens for this reason, and also sprouted grain breads, which interestingly don't cause as many side effects as even organic, non-enriched bread. Expensive, though. Have a friend with an identical issue whose doctor recommended methylfolate supplements.
A quick search of your history shows this is the only sub in which you post. So you're credibility is zilch.
Oh and it's funny how you tried to post a few times on the Harvard sub to try and legitimize yourself for your top mind friends.
Unless the admission standards at Harvard have been dramatically lowered, there's no way in hell someone as stupid at you graduated from there. No way in hell.
48 comments
14 HarvardGrad007 2015-10-12
Yes, and yes again.
Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic by Dr Tim O’Shea www.thedoctorwithin.com
Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden?
Before 1900, reactions to peanuts were unheard of. Today almost a 1.5 million children in this country are allergic to peanuts.
What happened? Why is everybody buying EpiPens now?
Looking at all the problems with vaccines during the past decade, [2] just a superficial awareness is enough to raise the suspicion that vaccines might have some role in the appearance of any novel allergy among children.
But reactions to peanuts are not just another allergy. Peanut allergy has suddenly emerged as the #1 cause of death from food reactions, being in a category of allergens able to cause anaphylaxis. This condition brings the risk of asthma attack, shock, respiratory failure, and even death. Primarily among children.
Sources cited in Heather Fraser’s 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic suggest a vaccine connection much more specifically. We learn that a class of vaccine adjuvants – excipients – is a likely suspect in what may accurately be termed an epidemic. [1]
But let’s back up a little. We have to look at both vaccines and antibiotics in recent history, and the physical changes the ingredients in these brand new medicines introduced into the blood of children.
ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK AND ALLERGY
Before 1900, anaphylactic shock was virtually unknown. The syndrome of sudden fainting, respiratory distress, convulsions, and sometimes death did not exist until vaccinators switched from the lancet to the hypodermic needle. That transformation was essentially complete by the turn of the century in the western world.
Right at that time, a new disease called Serum Sickness began to afflict thousands of children. A variety of symptoms, including shock, fainting, and sometimes death, could suddenly result following an injection.
Instead of covering it up, the connection was well recognized and documented in the medical literature of the day. Dr Clemens Von Pirquet, who actually coined the word “allergy,” was a leading researcher in characterizing the new disease. [5] Serum Sickness was the first mass allergenic phenomenon in history. What had been required for its onset, apparently, was the advent of the hypodermic needle.
When the needle replaced the lancet in the late 1800s, Serum Sickness soon became a frequent visitor to the child’s bed. It was a known consequence of vaccinations. Indeed, the entire field of modern allergy has evolved from the early study of Serum Sickness coming from vaccines.
VACCINE HYPERSENSITIVITY
Von Pirquet recognized that vaccines had 2 primary effects: immunity and hypersensitivity. [5] He said they were inseparable: the one was the price of the other.
In other words, if we were going to benefit from the effects of mass immunization, we must accept the downside of mass hypersensitivity as a necessary co-feature. Modern medicine has decided that this double effect should be kept secret, so they don’t allow it to be brought up much.
Many doctors in the early 1900s were dead set against vaccines for this precise reason. The advertised benefit was not proven to be worth the risk. Doctors like Walter Hadwen MD, Wm. Howard Hay, and Alfred Russell Wallace saw how smallpox vaccines had actually increased the incidence of smallpox. [2,3] Wallace was one of the principal epidemiologists of the age, and his charts showing the increase in smallpox death from vaccination are unassailable – meticulous primary sources.
Another landmark researcher of the early 1900s was Dr Charles Richet, the one who coined the term anaphylaxis. [4] Richet focused on the reactions that some people seemed to have to certain foods. He found that with food allergies, the reaction came on as the result of intact proteins in the food having bypassed the digestive system and making their way intact into the blood, via leaky gut.
Foreign protein in the blood, of course, is a universal trigger for allergic reaction, not just in man but in all animals. [6]
But Richet noted that in the severe cases, food anaphylaxis did not happen just by eating a food. That would simply be food poisoning.
Food anaphylaxis is altogether different. This sudden, violent reaction requires an initial sensitization involving injection of some sort, followed by a later ingestion of the sensitized food. Get the shot, then later eat the food.
The initial exposure creates the hypersensitivity. The second exposure would be the violent, perhaps fatal, physical event.
Richet’s early work around 1900 was primarily with eggs, meat, milk and diphtheria proteins. Not peanuts. The value of Richet’s research with reactive foods was to teach us the sequence of allergic sensitivity leading to anaphylaxis, how that had to take place.
Soon other doctors began to notice striking similarities between food reactions and the serum sickness that was associated with vaccines. Same exact clinical presentation.
PENICILLIN
Next up was penicillin, which became popular in the 1940s. It was soon found that additives called excipients were necessary to prolong the effect of the antibiotic injected into the body. The excipients would act as carrier molecules. Without excipients, the penicillin would only last about 2 hours. Refined oils worked best, acting as time-release capsules for the antibiotic.
Peanut oil became the favorite, because it worked well, and was available and inexpensive.
Allergy to penicillin became common, and was immediately recognized as a sensitivity to the excipient oils. To the present day, that’s why they always ask if you’re allergic to penicillin. The allergy is a sensitivity to the excipients.
By 1953 as many as 12% of the population was allergic to penicillin. [1] But considering the upside with life-threatening bacterial infections, it was still a good deal – a worthwhile risk.
By 1950 antibiotics were being given out like M&Ms. Soldiers, children, anybody with any illness, not just bacterial. Despite Alexander Fleming’s severe warnings against prophylactic antibiotics, antibiotics were given indiscriminately as the new wonder drug. Just in case anything. [7] Only then, in the 1950s, did peanut allergy begin to occur, even though Americans had been eating peanuts for well over a century.
Remember – just eating peanuts cannot cause peanut allergy. Except if they are allowed to become moldy of course, in which case aflatoxins are released. But that’s really not a peanut allergy.
When peanut allergy did appear, the numbers of cases were fairly small and initially it wasn’t even considered worthy of study.
THE RISE OF VACCINES
The big change came with vaccines. Peanut oils were introduced as vaccine excipients in the mid 1960s. An article appeared in the NY Times on 18 Sept, 1964 that would never be printed today. [8] The author described how a newly patented ingredient containing peanut oil was added as an adjuvant to a new flu vaccine, in order to prolong the “immunity.” The oil was reported to act as a time release capsule, and theoretically enhanced the vaccine’s strength. Same mechanism as with penicillin.
That new excipient, though not approved in the US, became the model for subsequent vaccines. ([1] p 103)
By 1980 peanut oil had become the preferred excipient in vaccines, even though the dangers were well documented. [9] It was considered an adjuvant – a substance able to increase reactivity to the vaccine. This reinforced the Adjuvant Myth: the illusion that immune response is the same as immunity [2].
The pretense here is that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred. This fundamental error is consistent throughout vaccine literature of the past century.
Historically, researchers who challenged this Commandment of vaccine mythology did not advance their careers.
8 HarvardGrad007 2015-10-12
continued...
KEEPING PEANUT ADJUVANTS A SECRET
The first study of peanut allergies was not undertaken until 1973. It was a study of peanut excipients in vaccines. Soon afterwards, and as a result of the attention from that study, manufacturers were no longer required to disclose all the ingredients in vaccines.
What is listed in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula. Same with the inserts. Suddenly after 1973, that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers knew it must be protected. Intellectual property. So now they only were required to describe the formula in general.
Why was peanut allergy so violent? Adjuvant pioneer Maurice Hilleman claimed peanut oil adjuvants had all protein removed by refining. [9] The FDA disagreed. They said some peanut protein traces would always persist [10]- that even the most refined peanut oils still contained some traces of intact peanut proteins. This was the reason doctors were directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous – a greater chance of absorption of intact proteins, less chance of reaction.
But all their secret research obviously wasn’t enough to prevent sensitivity. Mother Nature bats last: no intact proteins in the body. Put intact proteins, peanut or whatever, for any imagined reason into the human system and the inflammatory response will fire. And since the goal of oil emulsion adjuvants was to prolong reactivity in the first place – the notion of time-release – this led to sensitization.
PEANUT ALLERGY EPIDEMIC
Although peanut allergies became fairly common during the 1980s, it wasn’t until the early 1990s when there was a sudden surge of children reacting to peanuts – the true epidemic appeared. What changed? The Mandated Schedule of vaccines for children doubled from the 80s to the 90s:
1980 – 20 vaccines 1995 – 40 vaccines 2011 – 68 vaccines
It would be imprudent enough to feed peanuts to a newborn, since the digestive system is largely unformed. But this is much worse – injecting intact proteins directly into the infant’s body. In 36 vaccines before the age of 18 months.
A new kind of anaphylaxis appeared with peanut reactions: reverse anaphylaxis. (p 172, [1]) The reaction was not only to the sensitizing antigen, but to the weird new antibodies that had just been introduced in the human species by the new antigen.
As vaccines doubled between the 1980s and the 1990s, hundreds of thousands of kids were now exhibiting peanut sensitivities, with frequent cases of anaphylaxis reactions, sometimes fatal.
But nobody talked about it.
Following the next enormous increase in vaccines on the Mandated Schedule after 9/11, whereby the total shot up to 68 recommended vaccines, the peanut allergy soon reached epidemic proportions: a million children: 1.5% of them. These numbers fit the true definition of epidemic even though that word has never been used in mainstream literature with respect to peanut allergy, except in Fraser’s odd little book.
Many researchers, not just Heather Fraser, could see very clearly that
“The peanut allergy epidemic in children was precipitated by childhood injections.” ( [1], p 106)
But with the newfound research, the medical profession will do what they always must do – bury it. Protect the companies. So no money will be ever allocated from NIH to study the obvious connection between vaccine excipients and peanut allergy. That cannot happen, primarily because it would require a control group – an unvaccinated population. And that is the Unspoken Forbidden.
Same line of reasoning that has prevented Wakefield’s work from ever being replicated in a mainstream US clinical study. No unvaccinated populations. Which actually means no studies whose outcome could possibly implicate vaccines as a source of disease or immunosuppression. Vaccines as a cause of an allergy epidemic? Impossible. Let’s definitely not study it.
Instead let’s spend the next 20 years looking for the Genetic Link to the childhood peanut allergy epidemic…
In such a flawed system, any pretense of true clinical science is revealed as fatally handicapped of course: we are looking for the truth, wherever our studies shall take us, except for this, and this, and oh yes, this.
Evidence for the connection between peanut excipients and vaccines is largely indirect today, because of the circling of the wagons by the manufacturers. It is very difficult to find peanut excipients listed in the inserts and PDR listings of vaccines. Simple liability.
FRAME OF REFERENCE
So in addition to all the other problems with vaccines delineated in our text, now we have a new one – peanut oil excipients. Which all by themselves can cause severe, even fatal, episodes of shock, as well as chronic allergy – irrespective of the mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, and the attenuated pathogens which the manufacturers do admit to.
Quite a toxic burden to saddle the unprotected newborn with. No wonder the US Supreme Court refers to vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe.”
Childhood allergies doubled between 1980 and 2000, and have doubled again since that time. [11] Theories abound. Childhood vaccines doubled at the same time. Why is there a virtual blackout of viable discussion about this glaring fact?
The epidemic of peanut allergy is just one facet of this much broader social phenomenon. We have the sickest, most allergic kids of any country, industrialized or not, on Earth. A study of the standard literature of vaccines is identical to a study of the history of adjuvants – an exercise in cover-up and dissimulation. Unvaccinated children don’t become autistic. And they don’t go into shock from eating peanuts.
But there can never be a formal clinical study where the control group is unvaccinated. NIH would never do that. They cannot. They know the outcome.
Read the Full Article here: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/vaccines-and-the-peanut-allergy-epidemic/
References
Fraser, H, The Peanut allergy epidemic, Skyhorse 2011
O’Shea, T, Vaccination is not immunization, thedoctorwithin 2013
Wallace, AR, Vaccine delusion, 1898
Richet, C, Nobel lecture, acceptance speech, 11 Dec 1913 Nobel Lectures Physiology or Medicine 1901-1921, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1967 www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-lecture.html
Von Pirquet, C, MD, On the theory of infectious disease Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 80, January 1987
O’Shea, T, Allergies: the threshold of reactivity www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/Allergies-The-Threshold-of-Reactivity/
O’Shea, T, The post antibiotic age www.thedoctorwithin.com/antibiotics/Post-Antibiotic-Age/
Jones, S, Peanut oil used in a new vaccine New York Times 18 Sep 13
HOBSON, D, MD, The potential role of immunological adjuvants in influenza vaccines Postgraduate Medical Journal March 1973 , no. 49, p 180. http://pmj.bmj.com/content/49/569/180.full.pdf
Technical Report # 595, Immunological Adjuvants, World Health Org. 1976. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_595.pdf
FDA: March 2006. Approaches to Establish Thresholds for Major Food Allergens www.fda.gov/downloads/food/labelingnutrition/foodallergenslabeling/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/ucm192048.pdf
O’Shea, T, The threshold of reactivity www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/Allergies-The-Threshold-of-Reactivity/
-4 [deleted] 2015-10-12
[deleted]
6 MurrueLaFlaga 2015-10-12
Does that matter if it's real information? Copy and paste is a fantastic function for sharing knowledge. More people in this sub should use it to share articles and links.
-11 [deleted] 2015-10-12
[deleted]
9 lucycohen 2015-10-12
Not at all, they don't teach about peanut allergies coming from vaccines in school, he/she has researched this for themselves.
Anyway, you said "There are far greater problems in the world", so seems strange you are wasting your time in this thread.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-12
ROFLMAO!
This shit was posted in /r/medicine and /r/science a while ago.
It was demolished.
For someone falsely claiming to be a ducking Harvard graduate, you really should be much smarter than the totality of your posts.
Not only are you a complete liar, you're also a fucking idiot who's only taken seriously in this sub.
1 HarvardGrad007 2015-10-12
A quick search of r/medicine and r/science shows the last posts that contained the keywords 'peanut allergy' were 232 and 226 days ago and had nothing to do with this topic. In fact there was nothing on the first page of either search keyword under 'new' or 'relevant' that related to vaccines and peanut allergies.
There is a common assumption because of the name of these subs they are bastions of free thinking individuals who, though their highly trained backgrounds, engage in open fact based discussions.
I have posted many times in both under other accounts, as the history of this one does not allow valid discussion. What is found there is a lot of people who have a vested interest in the status quo. Sort of like Harvard, unfortunately....
As always, I will not be responding again because of the personal attack.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-12
A quick search of your history shows this is the only sub in which you post. So you're credibility is zilch.
Oh and it's funny how you tried to post a few times on the Harvard sub to try and legitimize yourself for your top mind friends.
Unless the admission standards at Harvard have been dramatically lowered, there's no way in hell someone as stupid at you graduated from there. No way in hell.
2 lucycohen 2015-10-12
There was an explosion in peanut allergies after Merck first added peanut oil into some of their vaccines. Israel don't use peanut oil, they don't have peanut allergies either, instead they use sesame oil, and that is why so many people there have sesame allergies in Israel
2 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
Any documentation for these claims?
Specific claims I'm interested in are:
There was an explosion in peanut allergies after Merck first added peanut oil into some of their vaccines.
Israel don't use peanut oil, instead they use sesame oil
that [vaccines]is why so many people there have sesame allergies in Israel
-4 lucycohen 2015-10-12
Stop playing games, if you wanted to research this you would do so yourself, you clearly have other reasons to be posting what you have and I'm not going to spend time spoon-feeding someone who most likely has an agenda and will refuse any evidence showing that vaccines can cause harm
2 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
I assure you, I'm not.
Well, I have and what I've found is the following:
ALL vaccine ingredients are marked by law. There's no hidden ingredients that aren't specifically labeled. Childhood shots do not contain peanut or sesame oils regardless of location of manufacture. Peanut based adjuvants were tested but never made commercially available outside of trials. The most interesting piece to me is the reason for the increase in peanut allergies in the West (US, UK, etc) and how it seems to be limited to only a few western countries. Coincidentally these western countries are also the only countries to medically recommend that pregnant women avoid peanuts while pregnant and nursing. As such I've concluded from my research that the reason for the increase, and the cause of most peanut allergies is lack of early exposure. Since the child isn't exposed to the peanut allergens before they develop an immune system, their chance of being allergic is increased. So, if you're done insulting me, I'd like to know where you got your information so I may review it for myself.
edit: and for the record. I not only believe but know that vaccines can cause harm along with the benefits. I simply don't assume they must cause harm in all cases in which someone claims they have. The side effects are well known and documented, and do occur for a rare minority of people.
2 kebutankie 2015-10-12
And the pesticides?
5 dejenerate 2015-10-12
Actually, I have a theory that something like this is behind people's gluten issues - that the body, when encountering a negative reaction to something like glyphosate or folic acid, blames the concomitant protein and thus then mounts an immune response when it sees the protein, whether or not it sees the irritant that caused it to associate the protein with danger.
2 Alcorr 2015-10-12
Much of the problem with gluten is that the body just isn't designed to handle so many grains/gluten.
1 HarvardGrad007 2015-10-12
Interesting thought.
0 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
The Gluten thing has been categorized as a nocebo effect for those without a diagnosis of Crohn's disease or something similar for quite a while now.
-1 dejenerate 2015-10-12
No, it's real. Thank deity for the Atkins diet because I never would have realized the crippling heartburn was all due to bread and oats. I can actually manage it now and don't have to take heartburn pills which fuck patients' health up even worse due to their messing up vitamin absorption.
It makes me sad that people downplay other people's health issues because they haven't themselves experienced it and because it's a popular thing to do. And then to actively ward people away from information and foods that might help them heal! Be better.
2 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
There's a bunch of things that can cause those symptoms that are not gluten based but present in those foods.
Are you referring to Prilosec? Gluten sensitivity doesn't manifest as heartburn. I think you'd see the same benefit from any diet that reduces carbohydrates. Have you tried any of the various forms of Mediterranean or vegetarian inspired diets to see if the effect is similar?
That's not what I'm doing. The nocebo effect is well documented and the symptoms experienced are real although the cause may not be.
0 dejenerate 2015-10-12
Gluten allergy/celiac may not. But allergies and sensitivities are different (as some of my medical professional family members continue to beat into us!) No one has done very much to study the real sensitivity reactions people have to wheat products because it's far more lucrative to stuff daily pills down people's throats, then have them continue to pay you for the diseases and issues that continue to happen thereafter. It's like MTHFR gene mutation testing - easy thing to do and would help people realize what's actually going wrong with their metabolism, but no one does it, it's faster and more lucrative to just keep shoving pills down someone's throat than to prescribe a different diet or EGAD! fix the corruption in our food chain.
Edit: And what really kills me is that "gluten free" foods are now being fortified. Where fortification is likely what sensitized me to gluten in the first place. Incredibly frustrating.
2 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
I don't know that this statement is true. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gluten+sensitivity+studies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CBsQgQMwAGoVChMI7a6vj-K_yAIVxHY-Ch1tQA7z
I can say that this isn't true. The MTHFR gene provides instructions for making an enzyme that plays a role in processing amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. This particular enzyme is important for a chemical reaction involving forms of the vitamin folate (also called vitamin B9), a reaction required for the multistep process that converts the amino acid homocysteine to another amino acid, methionine. The body uses methionine to make proteins and other important compounds. So this gene doesn't really do anything in relation to many of the maladies that naturopaths 'diagnose' in relation to it.
0 dejenerate 2015-10-12
I don't know much about naturopaths, never been to one.
I am telling you, and it may not be cool not to listen, but you may one day be in the same boat - people are in pain when they eat certain foods. I'm in pain after I eat gluten - and like I said, it likely has nothing to do with the gluten but with the fact that my body associates gluten with glyphosate or synthetic folic acid, heck if I know, because they go hand-in-hand.
You can keep arguing with me if it makes you feel better, that's fine - but please remember this if you have a loved one going through it - ask them to skip the grains for a few days and report back to you.
It's not in any way a "nocebo" for me - I only discovered the issue years and years ago by accident, way before the "gluten free" craze. Went on Atkins, after a week, was like, "Holy shit, it's not the wine!" I also wonder what the rates of esophogeal cancer are going to be like in the next twenty years, it's really worrisome.
Edit: Oh, and here's why I think it's the folic acid, and the gluten's just a casualty - I and others I know with the same issue also react to enriched grits (corn!) and oats. I can eat regular grits all day long, but enriched is pain within the hour. But organic wheat causes a reaction, too. Wonder if there's something related to corn protein that you don't associate corn itself with the reactive agent when the agitator is absent, but you do react to wheat when the agitator is absent.
I really wish we could get some real research done on this subject instead of people parroting "it's all in your head," especially due to the fact that esophogeal agitation can lead to esophogeal cancer and people self-treating or doc-treating with daily antacids/PPIs leads to serious long-term harm.
1 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
You might think I'm not listening, and that's fine, but what I'm saying to you is you may have a more serious issue and you're just band-aid'ing the problem or worse. I'm glad to hear you're not seeing a naturopath. Many of those folks are indeed pill pushers and scam artists. I'm also not denying that you may think you have a problem with gluten, or that you experience actual side-effects from the consumption of it. I'm giving you the current medical information as I know it and as it is documented to help you in making the decisions you think are best for you.
That being said, you're body won't confuse gluten with folate. Living a gluten free diet may leave you lacking the correct amount of folate. If the problem is glyphosate, then you don't have a gluten issue at all but rather a reaction to having multiple other nutrients chelated and made not-biologically-available, meaning you can't process them because your body doesn't 'see" them. That being said, I'd expect the symptoms to show as being far far worse than just heartburn. Hell, it'd look like heavy metal poisoning. If you think you're being poisoned with roundup, it is not coming from wheat products.
0 dejenerate 2015-10-12
Folate != folic acid.
1 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
I'm aware. The two are interchangable nutrients for most people but folic acid is the synthetic. This is why I mention the fact your diet may be low in folate, not folic acid. So if you have any sort of liver disorder, folic acid is not your friend, folate is.
edit:
and that would explain the heartburn. You're getting the synthetic which is converted in the liver causing a reaction vs folate which is converted via the standard folate process in your digestive tract. So you could eat a traditional diet, with gluten assuming no added folic acid.
0 dejenerate 2015-10-12
Yeah, I eat a lot of leafy greens for this reason, and also sprouted grain breads, which interestingly don't cause as many side effects as even organic, non-enriched bread. Expensive, though. Have a friend with an identical issue whose doctor recommended methylfolate supplements.
1 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
So based on our conversation, and I'm only attached to medical research teams, not a medical professional, I'd probably recommend you get your liver function tested. Ever had gall stones or other problems with your gall bladder?
1 dejenerate 2015-10-12
Hey, good detective work, thanks - actually, liver is usually great, except homocysteine usually high - and occasional gallbladder area pain (no stones) almost always resolved via fasting for a day or two and keeping up on B12 (it's beginning to be really, really hard to find methylcobalamin over-the-counter in a drug store now, used to be available in any drug store) and food-derived probiotics.
This all seems to fall in line nicely with MTHFR mutation symptoms, which took me a lot of work and Duckduckgoing, but I'm starting to see it publicized a lot more (Daily Beast of all places just did a pseudosciency, but helpful, article on it).
1 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
It's all about the medical knowledge fo how these systems work together. The more education we have on how the systems actually function, which is hard to get due to all the bullshit pseudoscience from naturopaths and some conspiracy theorists, the more easily we can determine what's wrong. This explains why the Atkin's diet has alleviated some symptoms, but I'd recommend you find a new diet. The Atkin's diet is really high fat, which keeps the gall bladder empty (as you're using that bile to break down the fats) but those fats are going to cause other problems over the long term.
Well, I'd take that reasoning with a grain of salt. Most of the stuff I've read stating there's any sort of 'symptom' for these mutations claims everything under the sun is caused by them.
-1 lucycohen 2015-10-12
I remember when a vaccine containing Gluten first appeared in Sweden, there was an explosion of Gluten allergies, then Big Pharma desperately got some shills to cover up the vaccine link
2 theskepticalheretic 2015-10-12
Any evidence of these assertions?
The ones I'm interested in ehre are:
I remember when a vaccine containing Gluten first appeared in Sweden, there was an explosion of Gluten allergies
Big Pharma desperately got some shills to cover up the vaccine link
Thanks.
1 dejenerate 2015-10-12
Any idea which vaccine it was? I always assumed my issues were either due to folic acid supplementation or glyphosate. I don't remember getting any vaccines around or near the time of onset, but maybe tetanus (I think that would have been tDAP at that time)?
-3 wingbatwu 2015-10-12
Autism didn't work, so...
-1 lucycohen 2015-10-12
The whole vaccine/Autism cover-up certainly got a lot of people interested in the safety of vaccines, especially to see that the dangerous vaccines were never stopped, instead just allowing more healthy children to be made Autistic by the vaccines. How can anyone ever trust this industry again? Fortunately there are brave whistleblowers from within it who expose the crimes so as all can see.
0 wingbatwu 2015-10-12
Vaccines have saved millions of lives. While I'd want to keep a close regulatory eye on greedy, top level pharma execs who'd be willing to cut safety corners to increase profits, I'm sure a lot more frontline industry workers would be up in arms about unsafe products.
-8 Missle_tits 2015-10-12
My father had peanut allergy back in the 60's so no, not a conspiracy topic. People are allergic to a certain thing. Just because someone wrote a book or paper and it was published doesn't mean a thing to me, weather I agree or not. Life experience is what i know.
2 lucycohen 2015-10-12
That fits in as some vaccines first started using peanut oil in the 60's. In the 1930s there was cottonseed oil in vaccines, followed by a short-lived spate of cottonseed oil allergies of about a decade that quietly went away with a change in formula. In the 1960s and 1970s a flu vaccine used peanut oil.
1 HarvardGrad007 2015-10-12
That's another topic to research, thanks Lucy.
-12 Missle_tits 2015-10-12
Everyone I knew who was allergic to peanuts, injected pure peanut oil. Either they got over it (my Father) or they didn't. There are far greater problems in the world. Please, look into those.
2 lucycohen 2015-10-12
Missle_tits "There are far greater problems in the world"
If you make silly comments like that everyone here will assume you're simply PR trying to push people away from investigating the harm caused by Big Pharma products. They will also likely assume that your story about your father was made up too.
I'm not saying that you are such a poster, just giving you a heads-up that people here will think you are so won't take your posts seriously.
Children die from peanut allergies, that makes it important whether that suits you or not.
-10 Missle_tits 2015-10-12
If children are allergic to peanuts, it's up to their parents to see to their safety. Shit happens. Parenting rules
5 lucycohen 2015-10-12
Even better if we can fix the vaccines to stop the root cause of peanut allergies, which will sometimes result in death, because we don't always know which foods have peanuts in.
-9 Missle_tits 2015-10-12
So I guess parenting is not a factor from your down vote.
2 MurrueLaFlaga 2015-10-12
Anecdotal experiences are what you know.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2015-10-12
I think the woman who wrote the book may have better credentials than 'My father had peanut allergy back in the 60's'.
My guess, your just replying to the title...
1 Scarytownterminator 2015-10-12
Because I'd trust a historian over anyone that's studied medicine. /s
-12 Missle_tits 2015-10-12
Peanut allergy, as I regard it, is just another conspiracy topic. Not just my father but others I have known in the last 5 decades.
0 Lose__Not__Loose 2015-10-12
Yes, it's a conspiracy topic and that's why it's being discussed here.
-2 Missle_tits 2015-10-12
Why don't we see something on Honey allergies. That's a fairly large topic of discussion?
0 Sjwpoet 2015-10-12
Obvious turfers are obvious.
0 dejenerate 2015-10-12
Yeah, I eat a lot of leafy greens for this reason, and also sprouted grain breads, which interestingly don't cause as many side effects as even organic, non-enriched bread. Expensive, though. Have a friend with an identical issue whose doctor recommended methylfolate supplements.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-12
A quick search of your history shows this is the only sub in which you post. So you're credibility is zilch.
Oh and it's funny how you tried to post a few times on the Harvard sub to try and legitimize yourself for your top mind friends.
Unless the admission standards at Harvard have been dramatically lowered, there's no way in hell someone as stupid at you graduated from there. No way in hell.