My topic yesterday was When doctors betray their profession. In my post, I talked about some very unethical doctors representing tobacco companies in lawsuits against them seeking compensation for death and injury due to smoking, as well as to doctors and scientists peddling pseudoscience and quackery representing claimants in the Autism Omnibus action several years ago, in essence supporting the scientifically unsupported idea that vaccines cause autism. The reason I brought this up was to show doctors behaving badly in "conventional" and not-so-conventional medical-legal situations. Unfortunately, that's not all the physician shenanigans that go on. Indeed, a reader of mine (who wishes to remain anonymous) attended a recent vaccine "open house" in Culver City, CA on July 16 and provided me with an account of the goings-on there. This particular antivaccine event was remarkable because it featured a frequent topic of this blog, antivaccine pediatrician Robert "Dr. Bob" Sears. It was a meeting advertised on Dr. Bob's Facebook page a week ago, in which he promised:
We'll discuss how SB 277 will affect your family next year, what you can do about it, and what efforts are being made to overturn the new law. Learn what your options are and understand which children will be exempt from the new vaccine requirements. Join me, Eric Gladen, Melissa Floyd, and others for an eventful informative discussion and Q and A. See you there.
Dr. Bob, you remember, is famous for writing a "skeptical" vaccine book beloved by the antivaccine movement. More recently, he's been a vocal critic of SB 277, even going so far as to take a cue from the whackjob wing of the antivaccine movement and sarcastically suggest that its passage would lead to, in essence, nonvaccinating parents and children being forced to wear the vaccine equivalent of the yellow Star of David that the Nazis forced Jews to wear for easy identification and ostracization. Yes, Dr. Bob went full Godwin over SB 277, after a history of blowing the antivaccine dog whistles such as "freedom" and "parental rights."
SB 277 is, of course, the recently passed California law that will eliminate religious and personal belief exemptions (PBEs) to school vaccine mandates. It is a law that I had never thought possible before, particularly in California given that California is ground zero for the antivaccine movement in the US, particularly affluent areas in the Bay area, Hollywood and Santa Monica, and Dr. Bob's neck of the woods in Capistrano Beach, just north of San Diego, where Dr. Bob caters to just such a clientele. Assuming the notes I was given are accurate (and I have no reason to believe they are not), it shows Dr. Bob behaving just as badly as any of those tobacco company expert witnesses trying to deny that it was most likely tobacco that caused head and neck cancer in plantiffs suing tobacco companies. Basically, Dr. Bob gave a workshop to parents on how to keep on avoiding vaccinating while at the same time making, in essence, a pitch for business from nonvaccinating parents looking for a physician to write a letter recommending a medical exemption. This should not be surprising, given that Dr. Bob has of late been letting his antivaccine freak flag fly more. Indeed, at the recent conservative/libertarian confab known as FreedomFest a week and a half ago, Dr. Bob debated Ron Bailey on the issue of whether vaccines should be mandatory. Basically, he played Julian Whitaker's role from a similar debate hosted by FreedomFest three years ago; i.e., the antivaccine side.
In any event, the antivaccine town hall in Culver City started with a long PowerPoint presentation full of antivaccine misinformation and errors that was over an hour long. Dr. Bob didn't give this presentation, and my reader didn't say who did. It doesn't matter much, anyway, because Dr. Bob was clearly the star of the show and spoke next. After stating how much he hates the law and acknowledging how much all the attendees hate the law, he got into his main topic, namely how to comply with the law without vaccinating. From the notes I'm adapting and turning into my usual jaunty prose, his talk was chock full of misinformation and disingenuousness. You can get some idea of the sorts of things Dr. Bob said by checking out this Facebook post from three weeks ago. His talk basically stuck to the same outline, with some additions that perhaps he didn't want to put in writing.
First, if you don't think Dr. Bob is antivaccine, consider this. He started out by referring to autism as a "known side effect" of vaccines. It is not, and he knows it. If he doesn't know it, he is utterly incompetent in evaluating evidence or was cynically pandering to his audience. Take your pick. He also told the audience that the American Academy of Pediatrics will issue guidelines about medical exemptions, but that it will be "much narrower than" what he does. (Surprise! Surprise!) Anyone want to guess whether he'll be even more looser in issuing exemptions than Dr. Jay Gordon will be? My guess is that he will, as Dr. Jay seems unwilling to stretch things too far beyond what is medically justifiable, at least comparatively speaking.
Among the tidbits of information Dr. Bob dropped on his audience were:
- A description of an effort to amend the law to allow chiropractors and naturopaths to issue medical exemptions. I know antivaccinationists tried to get that slipped into SB 277 and failed. One can only hope the legislature doesn't fall for that one. If you think Dr. Bob will give an exemption to virtually anyone who wants one, just let chiropractors and naturopaths write exemptions based on "aggregate toxicity" or something like that.
- A suggestion that parents seek out a DO because, or so Dr. Bob thinks, they tend to be more "open minded" than MDs. Personally, this hasn't been my experience, at least not in the US, but I don't know many DO pediatricians or primary care docs. One of the best surgical intensivists I ever knew was a DO, as is one of the premier phase I cancer clinical trialists in the country.
- Another suggestion that parents seek out physicians in solo or small private practices rather than larger groups. The reason for this one to me is obvious. Larger groups tend to have more explicitly codified practice guidelines.
Aligning himself with his audience, Dr. Bob stated "We have to work on the way we have been perceived—we have been maligned." The "we," of course, are parents who attend sessions given by antivaccine doctors on how to comply with SB 277 and still refuse to vaccinate; i.e., antivaccinationists.
Here's where Dr. Bob got into the nitty-gritty of telling parents just how they can do that. Remember that the law doesn't take effect until the 2016-2017 school year. So, according to Dr. Bob, here are the ways to get around the law other than home schooling. The first method is to et an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that specifies regular classroom time. For those who have no experience with them, let me briefly explain. IEPs are mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for children with special needs. If a child receives special educations services, he must have an IEP that includes a description of how the child is doing, the child's specific annual education goals, specific special education supports and services that the school will provide to help the child reach those goals, modifications and accommodations the school will provide to help the child make progress, and other information. To comply with federal law, SB 277 specifically stipulates that the law "does not prohibit a pupil who qualifies for an individualized education program, pursuant to federal law and Section 56026 of the Education Code, from accessing any special education and related services required by his or her individualized education program." So you can see where Dr. Bob was dishonestly going. In fact, he was quite explicit. He recommended that parents seek an IEP, even for "minimal speech delay or learning issue" when the child is 2 or 3 years old so that they have it later and will be "protected" from SB 277 for the entire child's school career. This is gaming the system at its most blatant.
Naturally, the other option is a medical exemption. Dr. Bob, as did Dr. Jay before him, characterized whether or not a medical exemption is granted as being "completely up to the opinion of the doctor," which unfortunately is basically true. This led him to recommend "seeking out open-minded doctors," doctors who, apparently, agree with his non-evidence-based reasons for not vaccinating, including:
- Prior vaccine reaction in child, sibling, parent, or more distant relative (protected by mention of "family history" in SB277)
- Family history of autoimmune disease. He added: "And everyone has autoimmune disease in their family." (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, say no more!) The audience laughed appreciatively. He went on: "So an openminded doctor could use a family history of vitiligo, celiac disease, autoimmune thyroid disease, or other disease on to support a medical exemption."
- Autism, learning disorders, and ADHD
- Allergies, esp if more severe
- Other chronic conditions
Of course, none of these are evidence-based reasons except for a personal prior severe reaction to a previous vaccine or a severe allergy to a vaccine component (which would only be valid as a reason not to use that vaccine). Such reactions or allergies in family members don't count, although unfortunately "family history" was placed into the law as a potential reason to grant a medical exemption. Given that Dr. Bob appears poised and ready to start passing out medical exemptions like candy, it's not surprising that he mentioned the state medical board; it's also one part of his message that's not in his Facebook post on the subject. In brief, he told the audience that he had spoken to someone at the California Board of Medicine and been told that to date "they have not investigated any doctor for writing medical exemptions." He stated they could, but to get involved they would need someone to file a complaint about a specific case. Yes, clearly Dr. Bob has thought about this issue and made preparations to cover his posterior, to the point where he apparently believes that if the board investigates, "nobody would get into trouble, they would just void the exemption." Personally, I wouldn't be so sure of that, but apparently Dr. Bob is sure enough to be telling parents this, even adding, "There might be people out to get me, but not the Medical Board."
Not yet, perhaps. Here's hoping that can be changed.
Next up, Dr. Bob talked strategy, asking that audience members not try to get a medical exemption if they have other options. Indeed, he even asked them to "save those for the people who are not grandfathered in; wait until your 3rd grader is about to be a 7th grader before seeking an exemption." What he meant by this is as follows. Under SB 277, exemptions are good until certain "checkpoint" years, which typically occur when a child first enrolls in a new school (no matter what age), when a child reaches kindergarten, and when a child reaches 7th grade. Any child who already has an exemption (medical or PBE) at the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year will be able to keep that exemption until the next "checkpoint" year. So if a parent gets a PBE for her child entering kindergarten in 2016, that exemption would be good until the child reaches seventh grade or moves to another school. He also discussed taking advantage of "conditional entry" in order to spread vaccines out over years. "Conditional entry" means that a child who hasn't met all the vaccine requirements can still be enrolled as long as there is a plan to eventually complete required vaccinations, which usually requires a note from a doctor outlining the plan. Dr. Bob actually advised dragging this process our over months or even years, only getting vaccines when the school absolutely insists on it, and hoping the school is too busy to call, saying, "You might not get by with this in a regular public school, so try charters and small private schools—seek those schools out." To be honest, I'm not sure about that; I'd guess it might be easier to get lost in the shuffle of bureaucracy in a large public school and thus drag things out.
After Dr. Bob's talk people lined up to ask him questions, may of which were a about whether condition X would allow him to grant a medical exemption. My reader reported that he said yes to several, including conditions like celiac disease in a relative, vague "neurodevelopmental issue" in a sibling, having a "grandfather who got diabetes after the pneumonia shot" (my jaw dropped when I read this one in the account), a mother with vitiligo (ditto), and other equally ridiculous reasons. He only hesitated once, when a parent who described his daughter getting "recurrent mouth ulcers" after a vaccine. For this one he said he'd have to discuss it in further detail at an office visit.
Of course he would.
After the main meeting broke up, there was a smaller group of parents still asking Dr. Bob questions, his answers to some of which were overheard. For instance, he was asked how much an office visit costs (his answer: $180) and whether he took insurance (his answer: no, other than TriCare). At one point, a woman approached and told Dr. Bob that her pediatrician whom she otherwise liked would not issue an exemption, asking if he would see her for a one-time visit. His response? "I would be happy to provide that service." He also confirmed that a one-time medical exemption visit is $180 and that he'd be willing to issue such an exemption and send the child back to his primary pediatrician. When asked whether that was a conflict of interest, Dr. Bob was taken aback, reacting with genuine surprise and answering, "Do you expect me to see them for free?" According to my reader, Dr. Bob seemed genuinely not to understand the point of the question. At another time, he seemed to try to defend himself by pointing out how infectious diseases are bad, that he wrote about how bad they are in his book as well as how vaccines prevent them. When asked why he did not mention any of this to the audience, he responded, "This is about politics, I do talk about that to other audiences."
Sure. I'll bet he does.
Three weeks ago, I asked the question, Will SB 277 enrich antivaccine doctors? The answer is clearly yes, particularly for Dr. Bob Sears. From my perspective, he's basically offering to sell medical exemptions to parents for $180 a pop, and he couldn't be more blatant about what he's doing if he tried. Indeed, I'm surprised just how closely my reader's report aligns tightly with Dr. Bob's advice posted on his Facebook page. The only differences were his more jocular manner and his demonstration that he's thought about how to issue exemptions for sale without having the California Board of Medicine come after him. As far as I'm concerned, he's become just like doctors who run prescription mills or sell prescriptions for medical marijuana. He has no honor.
- Log in to post comments
@ APV
When it comes to little things like biological reactions at the scale of the whole population of a given species, I'm afraid the only way to fix it is to rebuild the whole universe.
In other words, it may be possible to make vaccines less prone to induce over-reactions.
But it is next to impossible to make them completely safe for the whole population. You can only adjust one side of the equation, the vaccine; you cannot do much about the other side, the large variability of the human population.
APV:
<blockquote.Also, it is unacceptable that the vaccine injury court places the burden of proof on the victim.
NO. IT. DOESN'T. You are straight up lying. Vaccine Court, like Civil Court, rules on likelihood. The expression I've seen used is "50% plus a feather". If the Special Master decides that it's more likely than not that the vaccine caused the injury, compensation is awarded.
Isn't this also advocating an attitude of guilty until proven innocent?
I would also like APR to detail what he would find acceptable evidence for vaccines not causing a particular "injury" (for his detailed scientific-legal arguments, I'll let him choose between peanut allergy and autism as an example).
APV, not APR. Apologies.
If mechanical failures are known to cause death due to vehicular accidents, fix the damn motor industry!
Eric H.,
If you are really interested (which I doubt) check out Hans Rosling's Ted Talk explaining how this works. Most people don't want more mouths to feed than they can afford so, thanks largely to vaccines, places like Bangladesh now have a much lower infant mortality rate than they used to and the birth rate is now about two children per couple, which is sustainable.
I'm not citing this as evidence, by the way. The evidence for population changes etc. is widely available if you wish to check it, it is Rosling's unique way of presenting the data that is my reason for posting a YouTube video.
Eric H.,
I thought it was aspirin that killed all the Spanish Flu victims, or a lack of homeopathy, or Haemophilus influenzae (a bacterium associated with influenza). I have seen all these blamed by various cranks at various times. I think it was simply a zoonotic virus that jumped ship from a bird or pig population, like influenza viruses often do.
The article you linked to was written by Eleanora McBean, a rabid antivaccine nut who has her own section on whale.to (not safe for sanity), a sure sign of a terminal crank. For example, she claimed that Typhoid Mary (Mary Mallon) did not carry typhoid, and was the victim of "a victim of medical stupidity and ignorance", even though it was found at the time that Mallon's gall bladder was teeming with typhoid bacilli. I wouldn't believe a single word McBean wrote.
Somewhere above in this thread I posted a link regarding a new study in Science that reported measles has a serious effect on general immunity. I was looking at the comments today: the USA versus Andorra is hilarious. I had not realised that Andorra was that 'primitive' :)
I highly recommend having a look. http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-new-study-with-big-implications-for-… and scroll down past the blurbs for other stories.
However, the argument you're trying to make absolutely falls apart without the premise:
Needless to say, no one here believes in even the weaker version of this that might be adopted through charity, "APV would not be complaining, unless he had what reasonable people would consider an actual reason."
I doubt that anyone in the world believes in the stronger claim necessary for your argument, "APV has the oracular power to distinguish unerringly whether there is a reason for actual complaint, so the fact that he is still harping on a particular subject proves there is something there which justifies all his droning."
Actually it's you who doesn't understand how language works. "Specification" is not tacit for "minimum concentration of potential allergens". If that's what you wanted then that's what you should have asked for. As I say to my nine-year old, "Use your words sweetie".
What you are asking for doesn't and can't exist; it's like asking for exact death dates for people. Your notion that the trace amounts of potential allergens that may or may not be present in vaccines are causing allergies when infants are bombarded, on a daily basis with exponentially more potential allergens is positively absurd.
Why the fsck are you wasting everyone else’s time by posting things that you “[are] neither placing faith in this writing, nor discounting”?
Because he is deluded enough to think that his sallyrandification will distract attention away from the emptiness of his claims.
I think it's a reference to this.
Needless to say, there is a precedent for people being murdered by their governments. However, the UN is not a government. Its political power would not be enhanced by population reduction. And anyway, governments don't murder people simply because there are too many of them. There has to be a political motive.
Nomad #997,
Washing hands does not hurt anyone. Vaccines do.
Science Mom #1011,
"Actually it’s you who doesn’t understand how language works. “Specification” is not tacit for “minimum concentration of potential allergens”."
Here what is posted in #923,
"THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION FOR ALLERGEN CONTENT IN VACCINES/INJECTIONS."
Now post the spec. or accept that vaccine are unsafe.
APV, Eric H, I spend 99% percent of my time reading people other than you. If you want me to believe you, you have to do the work in providing evidence. I have no reason to go out of my way for either of you, not when other people are bothering to look for evidence.
Science Mom #1101,
"Your notion that the trace amounts of potential allergens that may or may not be present in vaccines are causing allergies when infants are bombarded, on a daily basis with exponentially more potential allergens is positively absurd."
Route of exposure matters, if you bother to understand the science of allergy and the numerous references I provided.
Vaccines contain bits and pieces of viruses and bacteria.
You are exposed to bits and pieces of viruses and bacteria all the time. Why don't you develop immunity? Why do you need vaccines?
The answer is you need bits and pieces of viruses and bacteria in certain concentration, with certain adjuvants most commonly injected to immunocompetent sites in the body to reliably gain immunity. Same applies to the allergen contaminants.
Are you seriously that thick? Here is the comment I responded to:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/07/22/after-sb-277-medical-exemp…
I even quoted you.
You really are an excellent example of DIY "research". Vaccines are not unsafe due to trace amounts of potential allergens, any more than our food is unsafe because all potential allergens are not quantified on the labels.
Gray Falcon #1016,
See #858. What more evidence do you want?
Science Mom, #1018,
Since you have been following the thread, it should be obvious what spec. I was referring in that post. Stop giving excuses.
"Vaccines are not unsafe due to trace amounts of potential allergens, "
Proved you wrong with my references long back.
And the FDA/CDC doctors agree that you are wrong.
https://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=16&cont=54
Injections cause sensitization per the AAFA above.
APV: How about something that's actually about vaccines?
Pointing out how wrong-headed your assertions are =/= not understanding.
OMH you can't be serious. And I'm being really generous here.
So you seem to grasp concentration but only invoke the importance of it when it suits you. Why aren't all vaccinated children allergic to potentially allergenic excipients?
Considering I quoted what I was responding to, it wasn't obvious.
No you haven't proved anything other than your lack of basic science comprehension. Your "evidence" is completely tortured to support your beliefs.
@ APV
Not exactly true.
Repeated hand washing leads to desquamation, which in turn may promote skin ulceration and infection.
(and the tightening of the skin may be accompanied by a temporary loss of finger dexterity, not something good in many delicate professions)
It's actually one of the reasons hand washing is sometimes difficult to enforce in hospital settings. When washing leaves your hands all uncomfortably dry, it's easier to "forget" to do it again.
It could be a trivial matter. You just need to have some cosmetic cream handy to put a bit of fat back on your skin.
Not an option if you are scrubbing yourself before entering the surgical operation room.
Damages are even more likely if you do it 20 times every day.
Trivia: that's why surgical gloves were invented.
Uh -- you are aware, aren't you, that there are many different kinds of viruses and bacteria, and that immunity to one generally does not give you immunity to others?
Sarah A. "Someone who thinks that the gov’t stating that the sky is blue is irrefutable evidence that it’s actually orange is what we generally call a “conspiracy theorist.” ... not sure who "we" is in that, but I suppose you may call someone that declares the sky orange anything you like. I won't mind.
And then there's this insidious and dishonest drivel Sarah A.
Don’t worry – all those women weren’t really raped, they just had “morning after remorse....I wanted to make sure any latecomers to the party were aware of the full depth of Eric H’s moral turpitude."
The libelous smear concerning some imagined "moral turpitude" on my part is way over the top. My position has been clear from the top of the thread. I am 100% opposed to all forms of rape and also 100% opposed to phony "consent" under duress of coercion by the threat of "consequences". I've never been a party to anything remotely close to rape.
Whereas I'm not sure how one man might be in a position to "apologize" for the actions of a rapist, unlike those with severe cognitive dissonance here... I'd certainly not be the one to make any excuses nor plea for soft treatment of any scumbag guilty of rape, nor of anyone else leveraging false authority to gain submission of another for any unwelcome touches, or treatment.
You've clearly have everything bass ackwards Sara A.
Some here are towing the "my body my choice" but only when there's a helpless passenger on board to be sacrificed for "greater good". Those that support injections less genuine consent less fear of retaliation would be the real "rape apologists" if there are any on this thread.
Now let's replace your misleading paraphrase with my actual statement... "Whereas I agree that the word “rape” is overused to describe trivial matters of 'hurt feelings', 'day after remorse' and other foolishness, the concept of getting injected with a shot when you have no say in the matter is a very heavy matter."
I had already clarified what was meant by "day after remorse". And I sure as hell was not referring to remorse, that in your twisted world view, might only develop the day after an actual rape!
Whether you're a disciple of the Andrea Dworkin that informed the world that "all sex was rape" it is very possible to disagree with that notion without earning the title of "rape apologist".
The insane "affirmative consent" laws passed by the same vile Democrat politicians insults women, harms genuine rape victims, and takes time away from genuine cases in response to the whims of a new category of "victims" of their own consensual encounters.
The notion so absurd, and corresponding laws so poorly written, that one can reinvent a past evening's fully consensual encounter as "rape". If you don't see that as problematic, you may just be a true doctrinaire of everything dumb about Democrats and a veritable Dworkin disciple.
And if there's a "depth of moral turpitude" to discuss, it'd be yours Sarah A for supporting something so vile and especially for your participation in the usual game of libelous slander here and wherever else you might play that dishonest game.
You're the one who first compared vaccination to rape, Eric H. That's what is vile.
AdamG @ 994.
That skit is hilarious! Thanks; I've never seen the show before. (not much of a TV watcher).
I think Orac may have mentioned something to the effect that if you keep up your inane, vile babbling about rape, "morning after remorse," the vaccination=rape meme, etc., that you wouldn't be around here much longer. I wonder if you remember that.
If you liked that, you should acquire and watch all of Curb Your Enthusiasm immediately :)
Eric H,
You're not winning the debate here nor will you ever, but for someone like me who dislikes a law such as SB 277, you push me in the direction of supporting it.
I really don't care about your persona on the rest of the web. But had I not known somewhat more about you or the theme of your comments on other sites I would have wondered if you were a troll for "Big Pharm Govt" because of how well you discredit their opposition.
To use the phrase at all equates to saying that women routinely handle emotional discomfort by accusing innocent people of crimes, with the aim of subjecting them to severe punishment and loss.
There is no such phenomenon. It's a very extreme thing to do. And only a very exceptionally disturbed person would do it.
That people believe it's quite likely to be the explanation for any given rape accusation is the chief reason that most women do not report their rapes.
And what that means is:
As a direct result of your propagation of the mythic phenomenon of "morning after remorse," most rapists will continue to operate with impunity, just as they have done for the whole of my lifetime and likely will continue to do for the whole of your daughter's, as well as for that of her daughter, should she have one.
If you're really 100 percent opposed to rape, you should therefore stop saying it.
And I believe you are, btw; I also believe you would intervene if you saw one occurring. And I'm not personally attacking you. I'm just explaining what the problem is.
You might not intend it. But if you reflexively reach for phrases like "morning-after remorse" when the subject of rape comes up -- as if that was what it was effing about; as if women in their 20s were any likelier than you are to deal with the stupid things they did when drunk by attempting to send men to jail -- you are being a rape apologist.
If that's not what you want, stop doing it.
Incidentally, I guarantee you that you can search high and low without coming up with more than a small number of anecdotal examples of women making false rape accusations because they'd had consensual sex and didn't like the consequences. And almost all of them will be unstable, insecure people acting impulsively out of fear.
As I've already said, it's an extreme thing to do, not a first resort.
FFS. There is no such category. You are talking about genuine rape victims, the majority of whom are routinely disbelieved when they report the crime because it's culturally commonplace to assume that it's part of the natural order of things for women to attempt to make themselves victims of their own consensual encounters.
And that's not effing true. It's a vile cultural fantasy that enables rape to flourish.
Eric H., seriously. Who would do that? Would you? Would the people you know? Does it seem likely to you that large numbers of women would gain more than they would lose by doing it?
The point of those laws is to make it emphatically clear that consent is a necessary prerequisite to sex. And that's all. People are perfectly free to comply with them in whatever way and to whatever extent they wish. It's not like the government is going to be there writing desk tickets.
They do not redefine consensual sex as rape. The absence of "yes" does not mean "no." All that stuff is nonsense.
I personally don't think those laws are going to change a damn thing. And Andrea Dworkin was a lunatic who has always had so very few disciples that the odds of any individual being one are vanishingly low.
So stop straw-manning. What you're saying is genuinely problematic and harmful. By which I mean: It causes harm that you say it. It's not good for women. It's not good for men. It's not good for the sexual health and well-being of the nation. It's just good for rapists.
Seriously. People suffer because of those beliefs. They're harmful myths. Quit propagating them.
Naard
Ah yes, Rima Laibow (Google was my friend.)
This is a woman who was b***h slapped by the FDA for saying ebola was a germ warfare of the US government,and that her nano/colloidal silver generator was the only cure.Labiow also peddled her quackery to the governments of Nigeria and Liberia,where it was abandoned as a failure.
And then there was Laibow's YouTube video after the Adam Lanza shootings.
Am I a horrible person for finding it darkly hilarious that Eric H keeps trying to "clarify" his already all-too-clear statements in the (apparently sincere) belief that our opprobrioum must be due to some misunderstanding on our parts, only to reveal ever viler depths of ignorance?
@Ann - thanks for explaining the problem with Eric's statements better than I could - I'm no feminist scholar (I had to look up Andrea Dworkin - wow), but you don't need a degree in Women's Studies to know that a sentence like "the word "rape" is misused to describe..."day after remorse"" is basicaly a dog whistle for "any woman who claims she was raped is a lying slut until proven otherwise."
And just to clarify, "morning after remorse" was an inadvertant misquote on my part; what Eric actually wrote (waaay back at #12) was "day after remorse." It obviously doesn't change the meaning of the phrase, though, so I'm a bit confused as to why he considers this a "misleading paraphrase."
The raving about "twisted world views" and "libelous slander" was positively Lowell-Hubbsian.
Somehow, I don't think the requested legal argument is ever going to arrive.
One hundred quatloos that the "legitimate rape" that he is so eager to assure everyone that he is totally 100% against has a definition that involves things like "stranger" and "knifepoint."
#1
#1026
Sigh. What does it take to pop such a bubble if it's resistant to this much dissonance?
As an aside, I wonder what Eric would make of the last time one of his ilk tried this routine here. At least that one was smart enough to attempt to construct actual arguments.
ann... not entirely in agreement, but I appreciate the spirit of your eloquent comments and guidance.
AdamG, I wasn't the one that rehashed that... mine was in response to a rather serious bit of libelous smear (#985) that, I believe, required answer. You provided material on the merits of vaccination, and you were kind enough to provide specific critique on the Silent Epidemic. I still intend to explore that and weigh that to form the best understanding with respect to the risks and benefits associated with current vaccination protocols. Becoming familiar with new research/information requires time investment and I've been running a bit short of that lately with month-end and other concerns. If you're bored waiting do inform how #1 and #1026 count as "dissonance". Whether or not you like the comparison, and whether they're truly the most wildly unrelated concepts imaginable, I'm passionately opposed to both.
JP always glad for the levity of your comedic interludes.
Not a Troll... You're the only one responsible ultimately for whatever position. Not sure what gripe you have with me, but it would be a bit childish though to adopt a contrary position simply based on some emotion about how much you like or dislike someone representing one position or another. If I may dare to ask, in spite of my being such a very bad bad man... what is it that you didn't personally like about SB277?
I would take that bet.
People who really think that way don't say stuff like:
And anyway, he said "genuine" not "legitimate." And there is a difference, particularly in the context of affirmative consent laws. (That difference being: He's not denying that some rapes aren't legitimate, he's asserting that sex without affirmative consent isn't necessarily rape, which it isn't.)
Anyway. As you were.
That should be "are legitimate," not "aren't legitimate."
Sarah A:
Nah, I found it, not perhaps hilarious, but very interesting. The thing is, Eric H started on his rape stuff right out of the gate, and went straight into the legitimate rape routine, and I think everyone was familiar with what he was doing But he had no idea, he just assumed that of course he was misunderstood. It's that naive assumption that he had to be misunderstood that interests me.
APV:
I was responding to Eric H, who has structured his entire argument exclusively around personal agency, and then undermined the whole thing by accepting limitations to that agency.
However, if you'd like to examine the hypocrisy in your own personal argument, yes, let's talk health risks. Unvaccinated people present health risks to those around them. That is, you may recall, the entire point of SB 277, which, again, you may recall is the subject of this post.
If you are concerned with the very small health risk associated with receiving a vaccine, why are you also not concerned with the significantly larger health risks of contracting a vaccine preventable illness from an intentionally unvaccinated person?
Some people have trouble understanding that inaction can create risk. Is that where you're getting stuck? Do you believe that you can't be responsible from anything that happens as a result of your inaction? Or are you arguing from that familiar position of libertarian selfishness and ignorance, where your mostly imagined fears of health risks are all that matters and you don't give a damn about the risks you subject the people around you to?
In any case, SB 277 gives you a way out. Eric H has been told this time and time again, but he's far too committed to arguing the opposite so he'll never change his tune. You are not going to be forced to accept those minute health risks. Despite all the hullabaloo, the social contract does not require you to get any fluids injected under your skin, or into your nose, or anything. However, if you choose inaction out of overblown fear of health consequences, you accept other consequences as a part of that choice.
You should support this. If you're concerned about health risks then you should appreciate that other people have concerns about health risks from vaccine preventable diseases. Instead you're arguing that they should have to accept greater health risks to their children because of your laser-like focus on a significantly smaller health risk.
I don't see how you can take that position without accepting that it's not really health risks which are motivating you.
@Ann #1041
Actually, I think the second clause of that sentence is referring to vaccination. Or am I misunderstanding your reasoning? I don't see how the first clause gives any indication as to what he considers "real" rape - only that he thinks it should be severely punished. In fairness, I have no way of knowing what he considers "real" rape because he hasn't said - but given the general trend of his statements so far I can't honestly say I'd willing to take JP up on her bet (besides, the dollar is doing really poorly against the quatloo right now.)
Sarah A
JP sure as heck doesn't have anything serious to say. Any that took her bet should pay up as "my definition" is taken primarily just from two places... the Dictionary:
noun
1. unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
2.statutory rape.
3.an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
4. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
verb (used with object), raped, raping.
5. to commit the crime of rape on (a person).
6.to plunder (a place); despoil:
The logging operation raped a wide tract of forest without regard for the environmental impact of their harvesting practices.
7.to seize, take, or carry off by force.
verb (used without object), raped, raping.
8.to commit rape.
And the legal definition as presented in reasonable detail here:
Legal Definition of Rape
For those that placed the better bet, be sure to spend that One hundred quatloos wisely!
You just had a choice between 2 options:
1. Invest time in deepening your understanding of this topic
2. Talk more about rape
Which did you choose and why?
Eric H,
It's nice to see your pleasant side again. Did I ever write that you were a very bad bad man? I've never thought that so I'm pretty sure I didn't.
My comments are intended to give you feedback that your writings are not going to convince anyone of your position or even to take you seriously. In addition, they reinforce stereotypes. If you are that stereotype, that is fine. It's just that I've never interacted with someone who fit that description and it's a little troubling.
Also, if you don't care if anyone accepts your position and are only hanging out here while you work on learning some things from the people who know a lot more than you, I'm fine with it. But if that is the case, would you skip the snark and stay on subject?
"...what is it that you didn’t personally like about SB277"
That it needed to exist at all.
I still intend to explore that and weigh that to form the best understanding with respect to the risks and benefits associated with current vaccination protocols. Becoming familiar with new research/information requires time investment
Aaand we're right back where we started.
Versus:
I don't think consistency is Eric's strong suit.
@#1044 --
I don't know. The truth is that we live in a world where it's almost impossible to successfully prosecute any kind of rape other than stranger-at-knifepoint.
So from that point of view, I suppose it's a safe bet.
...
Well. It's kind of a nuanced thing. But I would not expect someone who thought rape was something that only happened when a scary stranger (probably black) jumped out of the bushes and attacked a virtuous woman (probably white) to use the word "scumbags" rather than "animals," or something of that nature.
But I can't really explain it. It just read as sincere to me. I guess if that's a naive illusion, I prefer to cherish it.
Sarah A... the smear and insults that required (to my best judgment) answer certainly distracted. AdamG... apart from being compelled to answer to libelous smear, it'd be pretty much radio silence until I can make time to continue with the enlightened vaccine efficacy and safety part of the conversation.
I still intend to explore that
Then why do you keep dicking around with comments about a non-existent Spanish flu-AIDS/vaccine nexus?
Science Mom "I don’t think consistency is Eric’s strong suit." That's cute. my rejection of shots in response to the law is not quite the same as changing an opinion based on liking someone or not... but still some credit is due for that attempt. Keep up the great work.
No Shay... I believe I'm done "dicking around" with that.
Why did you even bother except as a feeble attempt at distraction?
And its no smear to point out the rape analogy you used in your very first post.
Shay... I believe it's now you that's trying to keep that ball of feeble distraction rolling. Consider that topic done until the next round of drivel.
Nomad #1043,
"If you are concerned with the very small health risk associated with receiving a vaccine, why are you also not concerned with the significantly larger health risks of contracting a vaccine preventable illness from an intentionally unvaccinated person?"
For me it is NOT a very small health risk. My son developed multiple life-threatening food allergies from these contaminated vaccines.
I am all for having more people vaccinated. The right way to do that is to MAKE THE VACCINES SAFER. Have OPEN discussions about safety problems AND FIX THEM QUICKLY.
It has been known for decades that food protein contaminated vaccines cause food allergies. Why are vaccines still contaminated with food proteins? Why is there no warning on the package insert about this risk? Why are doctors being kept in the dark as a result?
Parents should NEVER EVER have to choose between deadly vaccine preventable illness and life-threatening vaccine induced illness. That's the choice parent face today.
SB277 is the wrong solution.
Oh what a special snowflake you are. "Radio silence" is what we want from you until you can make that time. What reason would you have to post here until that time other than your ego?
I think we've all been waiting for your part of that conversation to begin any day now.
No, it's exactly the same piss poor emotive reasoning.
FTFY
LW #1025,
"Uh — you are aware, aren’t you, that there are many different kinds of viruses and bacteria, and that immunity to one generally does not give you immunity to others?"
Yes, before you get exposed to any virus, you are more likely to have been exposed to bits and pieces of that same virus.
People don't develop immunity (at least not efficiently) by such exposure. That is why they are still susceptible and need vaccines.
Science Mom, #1061,
"It has been known for decades that food protein contaminated food cause food allergies."
References please.
AdamG... really love beating a dead horse don't you. I don't consider defending from libelous smear would count as my primary nor most favored "ego boosting" activity.
Science Mom... wow... thank you for that brilliant refutation. Splendid and Fantastic. Had you considered a career in talk radio?
AdamG... before you jump on it... my ever inflating ego had caused me to rush through and leave a grammar error. Please accept this replacement "I don't think I'd count defending from libelous smear as my primary nor most favored 'ego boosting' activity."
Gray Falcon #1021,
"APV: How about something that’s actually about vaccines?"
#858 is about vaccines.
@Ann
Sadly, I've seen (or more accurately, read) lots of guys go on and on about how they think "real" rapists should be drawn and quartered to demonstrate how not-sexist they are right before they go on to say something like "marital rape laws will encourage wives to blackmail their husbands" or "but that's just what happens when you get drunk at a frat party."
But in fairness to Eric H, he does seem genuinely clueless about the odious implications of his belief that people routinely misuse the word "rape" to mean "day after remorse" (I'd have thought my comment at #985 made it painfully clear - but apparently it was a little too painful for him to get the point.) After his tirade at #1026, I begin to think that he's motivated more from a desire to belittle anything "liberals" consider important than from misogyny, though of course the two are hardly mutually exclusive.
^Wow - that's directed at comment #1051 - which was the last comment when I started typing.
I greatly admire the fortitude of rational and science-based commenters who will push a threat like this out to such outrageous lengths, but given the dreadfully low quality of the arguments being countered, and the minuscule number of readers still hanging out here, I question their wisdom.
Ach! A THREAD like this, not threat.
Helianthus #1024,
"Trivia: that’s why surgical gloves were invented."
And thus began the era of latex allergy.
Multi-dose vial caps made of latex rubber contaminate vaccines/injections. This sensitizes people to latex, causing latex allergies.
Hospital workers OTOH are more likely to develop latex allergy due to frequent contact with gloves.
Vaccines are contaminated with many food proteins. There seems to be no plan to fix that. However, in a positive development, latex rubber caps are being phased out.
Is this a case of the medical profession protecting their own?
Consider that topic done until the next round of drivel.
Instead of posting more drivel, why don't you focus on answering the legitimate science questions that you've been asked?
Science Mom, #1061,
“It has been known for decades that food protein contaminated food cause food allergies.”
And of course you are wrong.
Exposure via oral route PRODUCES TOLERANCE NOT ALLERGY. Demonstrated here:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414850
and here:
“The phenomenon of oral tolerance was first described by Wells and Osborne in 1911.5,6 They used guinea pigs to show that inclusion of egg white, purified egg allergens, or oats in the diet rendered the animals hyporesponsive to sensitization and anaphylaxis to those proteins. ”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807570/
Science Mom #1023,
"No you haven’t proved anything other than your lack of basic science comprehension. Your “evidence” is completely tortured to support your beliefs."
In:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/6/e71.long
the FDA/CDC doctors wrote:
“Nonetheless, our cases with anti-gelatin IgE required some previous exposure to gelatin to become sensitized, and this may have come through ingestion of gelatin-containing food or injection of gelatin-containing vaccines.”
Please demonstrate your science comprehension and tell us what the doctors meant. Especially the part about gelatin-containing vaccines.
Science Mom, #1022,
"Why aren’t all vaccinated children allergic to potentially allergenic excipients?"
The DTaP vaccine is DESIGNED to provide immunity. Yet after the first DTaP vaccine, only 68% of the recipients develop immunity. That is why you need five DTaP shots.
Food allergen contaminants in vaccines are NOT designed to make children allergic. So only some children develop allergy to the allergens.
Science Mom,
Pattern of sensitization to honeybee venom in beekeepers: a 5-year prospective study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17063668
Bee sting causes bee sting allergy. A case of natural injection causing a natural allergy.
Man-made food protein injections causes the man-made food allergy epidemic.
You don't need to invent any new science to explain it.
You can't make this stuff up.
So you're going away forever?
^ There should actually have been another "[sic]" after "answer to." So many infelicities, so little time. The "progression of tenses" after the modal also seems dicey, but then again, this is someone who – apparently in earnest – has "cited" The Phone Company "the Dictionary."
food protein contaminated food cause food allergies.
Sadly, a diet of food that is not "contaminated with food protein" leads quickly to starvation.
APV:
And here is the problem. You claim that "we" know many things that are not in fact generally known to be true in order to make your argument. I'm surprised you think you can do that, given your last attempt to show that the alleged contamination even existed flopped when you revealed that you used an abstract alone as your reference, and you didn't even understand what it said at that.
In any case, as I said before: You are still free to reject vaccines. No one can force you to accept the preponderance of evidence, you are free to take any contrary position you wish. What you are not free to do is subject others to risks which are actually known, which are measurable, in order to avoid a risk that you can't even demonstrate exists.
I don't see how it could be any other way. You just can't allow a universal personal belief exemption. I can't claim an exemption from the prohibition against drunk driving because I believe, from my own experiences, that alcohol improves my ability to drive. A germ theory of disease denialist cannot start up a restaurant but leave all their food sitting out at room temperature because they don't believe in food safety practices.
APV:
Sorry, I forgot, one other thing. My best friend's family has a history of severe allergies to bee stings. They are not bee keepers.
What vaccine contains bee venom? Without the natural injection explanation it seems that this can't be a natural allergy based on your explanations. So what vaccine gave them all bee sting allergies?
APV #1058:
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Wow. Take a couple days away from the comments and look how many have cropped up. I haven't had a chance to pore through all of them (though skimming I see that Eric is still defending is execrable rape analogy), but has he bothered to provide evidence in support of his comments that there are "low quality shots wrongly declared “safe and effective””? Has he provided any examples of citizens California being forcibly vaccinated? Or evidence supporting his claim that the vaccinated are a greater risk to the unvaccinated than the unvaccinated are to the vaccinated?
And once again you completely ignore the rest of the study which concluded that prior DTaP vaccination made no difference in reported allergic reactions. The investigators of the study cannot and did not establish that anti-gelatin IgE was from vaccination. Is it possible in extremely rare cases? Of course but that is not a basis for your absurd claims.
Did you miss the part about the Mexicans or something?
has he (Eric H) bothered to provide evidence in support of his comments that there are “low quality shots wrongly declared “safe and effective””? Has he provided any examples of citizens California being forcibly vaccinated? Or evidence supporting his claim that the vaccinated are a greater risk to the unvaccinated than the unvaccinated are to the vaccinated?
In a word? No.
Multiple allergies? To what foods? Which vaccines contain those foods?
I found this report that surveyed almost 40,000 households about childhood food allergies. They listed the most common allergies: peanut, milk, shellfish, tree nut, egg, fin fish, strawberry, wheat, and soy. Milk and eggs are common in the diet. There is no evidence that peanuts are used in vaccine manufacture, and the rest ... APV, do you think manufacturers are sneaking strawberries into vaccines?
Also, blacks and Asians were more likely to report "convincing" allergies but less likely to report "confirmed" allergies than whites -- suggesting less contact with the medical profession. Do you, APV, think that they had more vaccines that produced more allergies?
@ Todd #1085
IKR, no, no, and no.
Welcome back :-)
And this is not consistent with what you have claimed.
Oh look another abstract mining expedition. Beekeepers developing sensitisation to a highly allergenic foreign protein. How shocking. And this has what to do with vaccines?
You're right so why are you abusing science to perpetuate your ridiculous claims?
Science Mom #1087,
"And once again you completely ignore the rest of the study which concluded that prior DTaP vaccination made no difference in reported allergic reactions. The investigators of the study cannot and did not establish that anti-gelatin IgE was from vaccination."
I did not claim they did.
"Is it possible in extremely rare cases? Of course ..."
Ok, now we seem to be making progress.
So you DO accept sensitization by contaminated vaccines is possible. Good.
What makes sensitization rare or common?
The quantity of the allergen.
Which you have accepted is NOT specified or regulated.
Therefore rates of allergy vary depending on the contamination. Japan had more gelatin contamination at the time of the study than US vaccines (data in the same paper).
That explains why the US authors did not see the same result as the Japanese.
@#1088 --
No.
But since I know he's not too shy to say "immigrants" when he means "immigrants," I take his not having said it as an indication that it wasn't what he meant. I could be wrong about that. But it's not an unreasonable surmise.
If you think the views he's expressing are hateful and harmful, I do agree with you. And fwiw, I think his views on immigrants are both repellent and inexcusable.
But that doesn't mean I think he is. I don't make any claims for that attitude. Possibly yours is wiser and more effective, for all I know. It just happens to be how I roll in this instance.
So. If your personal estimation of him is lower than mine, I don't have any argument with you. I just don't agree.
And I don't really see what else there is to be said about it. People frequently differ in their personal estimations of others. Because personal estimations are personal. Do we really have to fight about it?
@ann:
Huh? I was just pointing out (since it was a brief mention, I thought you might have missed it) that he explicitly agreed with Donald Trump that we are "actively importing 'rape culture'" from Mexico, i.e., those dirty Mexicans are crossing our borders and raping our women. It's not even a dog whistle, it's just a straight up statement of prejudice/racism/xenophobia/whatever.
That's fine, whatever. Since this is the internet, though, I don't have much choice but to take him at his word, which is appalling and deserves only mockery if anything, as far as I'm concerned.
@Helianthus and shay
I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!
Mostly wrong. There is quantity and allergenicity. Excipients are listed and mostly quantified as in trace amounts. Do you know what that means? Do you have any clue whatsoever that each dose of vaccine vial would have to be tested in order to simply verify that some potentially-allergenic excipients may be present in some vaccines in trace amounts. Furthermore your own reference quantifies gelatin in vaccines.
JFC read your own reference U.S. vaccines are produced with a highly hydrolysed low molecular weight gelatin. Do you know what that even means? Do you also realise that you just admitted your own reference does not support your claim?
How have you reliably established that the food alleriges your son developed, which you believe were casued by contaminated vaccines, actually were caused by contaminated vaccines, APV?
Be specific.
it is, I trust, on some basis other than a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
APV, your evidence that risk that a vaccine will induce a life-threatening illness is equal or greater than the risk the infectious disease that vaccine protects against will itself induce a life-threatening illness would be...what, exactly?
I mean, you do actually have some--right?
*YAWN*
Good, over one thousand comments. What did I miss? Can anyone synthesize the comments so far? You know, tl;dr it all for me?
Don't bother. Seriously. This thread has the lowest content/comment ratio in some time.
On one hand, Eric H maintains that repeatedly comparing vaccinations to rape and whining about affirmative consent and 'gals' throwing rape accusations during "morning after remorse" is not being a rape-apologist.
And on the other hand, insisting that any youtube video or conspiracy site (up to and including infowars and mercola) is a valid and truthful source until someone makes a point-by-point refutation, after which they remain valid quotable sources pending unspecified future reading.
APV keeps insisting vaccines cause allergies, no matter how many times his claims are proven incorrect and despite his own sources contradicting him.
The rest have by now been reduced to reminding those two that their claims have been refuted already, and poking holes in their arguments for fun. Imho. The thread is dead. Long live the thread.
Hey, Ren!
tl;dr: APV continues to insist vaccines lead to life-threatening food allergies. Eric H continually compares vaccines to rape. MJD has been told he's in auto moderation for his latex idee fixe. Everyone else is dealing with the SIWOTI syndrome of those 3, and there have been a few rambles off regarding food, vacations and the usual.
In that case, I definitely misunderstood you, and maybe misunderstood the implication of that remark.
My apologies. I confidently expect to understand what I read, and have some reason to do so. But complacency leads to some doozies sometimes.
@ann:
Not sure if you meant my remark or the creature's, but if you review the comment I was referring to, between the linked article and the reference to Donald Trump, it seems clear as a bell to me what old Eric H. was trying to say.
Ren says (#1100),
Can anyone synthesize the comments so far?
MJD says,
25% incoherent insolence (e,g., Orac, Lawrence)
25% disrespectful insolence (e.g.,Orac, Ren)
25% respectful insolence (e.g., Orac, MI Dawn)
24.9999% Pro-vaccine safety (e.g., APV, Science Mom)
00.0001 automatic moderation (i.e., MJD)
Shut this thread down Orac!
APV:
Case study for you. I have a nasty latex allergy, basically contact causes my epidermis to blister and slough off. This is sometimes followed by secondary infections. I didn't develop it till my 20s, when I started to wear surgical gloves regularly. It did not start when I was a child getting most of my vaccines. I still can get my yearly flu shot and any other vaccines without more than the usual aftereffects. I also have no food allergies despite my history of pollen, mold and animal dander allergies (which I have mostly grown out of) and being up to date on recommended vaccines.
My older daughter, OTOH, has an allergy to shrimp. She did not get this from a vaccine. She got it at 6 years of age when we spent a holiday by the sea and ate lots of shrimp. It developed right after that. She still has no other allergies and does not react unusually to her vaccines.
Yeah, CSB, but just another reason you're full of crap.
TBruce - are you sure your daughter didn't mainline shrimp after you went to sleep? Did you find cocktail sauce in her luggage?
Actually, we already know that shrimp allergies are caused by vaccines. Vaccines may include agar. Agar comes from seaweed. Seaweed comes from the ocean. The ocean contains shrimp. If the seaweed weighs the same as a duck, it's made of wood - and therefore, shrimp.
Well, I miss Lilady along with her repeated admonitions that we should not feed the trolls.
(BTW, though, I'm grateful to those who pointed me towards various means to implement killfiles at this site.)
Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Ms. Jizabel P! (aka JP) How delightful that you're still here with the asinine ASSumptions, insults and other gems of assorted and sordid leftist drivel. Perhaps my comment here will help clear things up.
"@ann:
Huh? I was just pointing out (since it was a brief mention, I thought you might have missed it) that he explicitly agreed with Donald Trump that we are “actively importing ‘rape culture'” from Mexico, i.e., those dirty Mexicans are crossing our borders and raping our women. It’s not even a dog whistle, it’s just a straight up statement of prejudice/racism/xenophobia/whatever.
'So. If your personal estimation of him is lower than mine, I don’t have any argument with you. I just don’t agree.'
That’s fine, whatever. Since this is the internet, though, I don’t have much choice but to take him at his word, which is appalling and deserves only mockery if anything, as far as I’m concerned."
As for agreeing with the very very bad man Donald Trump, I'm not necessarily enrolled fully in the Trump cheer leading squad. Still I know plenty of "Mexicans" (mostly hardworking Americans of Mexican Heritage) that do completely agree with his statements including a good friend that was also an immediate neighbor. He posted this on his own FB page citing the viewpoint of another Mexican American...
Here it is:
Hispolitica - Trumps Controversial Mexican Comments are Accurate
As for your own blather about "those dirty Mexicans"... those are your words, not mine. And before you take the next step with smear about how I might be “anti-immigrant”, several of my family members immigrated, and I myself wouldn’t even exist were it not for a grandfather’s story of immigration with assimilation.
I'm not sure how agreeing with some Mexicans and disagreeing with others makes me all that "racist" much less "a xenophobe"... I'd ask you to help me with that but I doubt you're up to any intelligent discourse.
I'm rather certain, in spite of your condescension towards legal Mexican immigrants, you are not "racist against Mexicans" either, but since "it is the Internet" I can only take you by your own words. By these I'd assume you to be intellectually lazy and a full doctrinaire of every last bit of Marxism you've been spoon fed in whatever schooling. And that you're here only to react to whatever "triggers" with vulgar and immature insults like "jizzmop" (#401) and the standard dishonest drivel of all those conditioned responses of a cognitively challenged Democrat Party doctrinaire.
In case you were genuinely unaware, not all Mexicans support aiding and abetting criminal activity nor the current administration's actions to thwart efforts of individual States and law agencies that dare attempt their own enforcement of existing Federal immigration law.
As for the importation of "rape culture"... It's either "a culture" or it's not. You cannot make statements about its existence and ignore that some cultural values arrive by immigration.
I'd say the 80% stat provided by my link tells a story. That's not Trump's version... that's from one of your own favorites, Huffington Post!
Huffington Post on Central American Immigrants
Now not all "rape culture" comes from Mexico where the age of consent is 12 years. Some of it comes from other parts of the world more comfortable with Sharia Law than any sort of democracy. Some with age of consent of 9. Places where "rape" hasn't happened at all unless four male witnesses testify it did. And where the victim ultimately suffer additional and severe punishment for daring to stand up for themselves. A grim reality for countless women almost completely ignored by domestic Feminists driving about with their COEXIST bumper stickers and championing the all-so-important cause of sending someone else the bill for their birth control to counter the so-called "war on women".
Given the massive unchecked influx of immigration less assimilation from all over, I'm beginning to believe that the college campus has indeed become an increasingly dangerous environment for female students. So however horrible an idea the so-called “affirmative consent” laws might be for everyone, I suppose I can relate to the idea that “something has to be done”. Still as with every problem, the solutions proposed by bureaucrats are more often than not worse than the problem they are deployed to “solve”.
And now let's resume conversation with the adults...
#451... Krebiozen"Over a million people enter the US every day, so good luck with that plan."
Quick question for Krebiozen... doesn't keeping the farm gate closed some of the time factor in at all in herd immunity theory?
JGC #1099,
The part you don't understand is that I don't want to make that decision AT ALL. If vaccines were not contaminated with food proteins, that decision would be a lot easier.
I love the scent of dead horses in the morning. It smells like.... flogging.
Some day this thread's gonna' end.
Yes, we're so much better off here, where a well-liked man can be publicly accused of rape when thirty-odd women independently report what he did to them. Many America police departments will bully a woman into withdrawing her accusations; Americans will (often effectively) threaten to ostracize a family if they report that a religious leader raped their child; we're asked to feel sorry for (white, Christian) teenagers who didn't get to play football for a while because they raped an unconscious teenager, recorded the rape on their cell phones, and shared it with their friends.
But none of that counts as rape culture, right Eric?
Vicky,
You didn't ready my wording very carefully I certainly didn't suggest anything so foolish that "only immigrants rape" if that's what you're inferring.. Anyway glad you were able to find an example of non-immigrants performing vile atrocities. I'm all for the maximum penalty for all involved in this and any other crime of this nature. I certainly wouldn't be among those responding to whatever ridiculous calls for soft treatment.
Vicky... apologies for some mistyping... substitute "read" for "ready"
"Ms. Jizabel P"
Hey, JP - I think he likes you.
TBruce #1107,
I never claimed that vaccines are the ONLY way that one can develop an allergy. Vaccines/injections are a VERY EFFICIENT means of giving people allergy.
You could have developed latex allergy from the latex dust on your hands, inhalation, latex contaminated vaccines or some combination of them.
"She got it at 6 years of age when we spent a holiday by the sea and ate lots of shrimp. It developed right after that."
Did she react immediately or on the next exposure several weeks later?
Have you ruled out scombroid poisoning?
Did she take antacids immediately after consuming shrimp?
Science Mom #1097,
"There is quantity and allergenicity. "
Yes, a safety study to determine a safe quantity of an allergen in vaccine/injections should include the study of allergenicity in the presence of multiple allergenicity enhancing adjuvants such as pertussis toxin and aluminum salts.
"Excipients are listed and mostly quantified as in trace amounts. Do you know what that means?"
Yes, trace quantities are specifically what cause the allergy.
Make that "very trace":
"We believe that the vaccine may have very trace milk protein in some lots."
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/25520
Remember, if there is enough allergen to cause an allergic reaction, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH to cause sensitization.
"In the preliminary results investigating the immunogenicity of gelatin in DTaP, a trace amount of gelatin in DTaP was immunogenic.11 We examined 165 paired sera obtained before the first dose of DTaP and 1 month after the third dose of DTaP. Of 165 paired sera, 62 were obtained from the recipients of gelatin-free DTaP, and IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in none. In 103 recipients of gelatin-containing DTaP, IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in 2 recipients."
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2899%2970508-7/fulltext
You wrote:
"Do you have any clue whatsoever that each dose of vaccine vial would have to be tested in order to simply verify that some potentially-allergenic excipients may be present in some vaccines in trace amounts."
Nope. You don't have to test each dose. Ever heard of statistical quality control?
Flu vaccine has 15 mcg of HA protein per virus per dose.
Do you think every dose is tested?
"Furthermore your own reference quantifies gelatin in vaccines."
Until safe dosage levels are established, throwing quantities around is useless.
"your own reference U.S. vaccines are produced with a highly hydrolysed low molecular weight gelatin. Do you know what that even means? "
Yes, I do.
1. If this gelatin is harmless, kids allergic to gelatin should have no reaction to vaccines.
CDC does not think so:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm
And gelatin in vaccines is still making kids sick today:
http://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/Vaccines
You see, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ... er ... injecting ....
2. Goes back to specifications. What is the specification for residual intact gelatin protein in hydrolyzed gelatin? Is that a safe level? No one has done that homework.
3. Not all vaccines contain this hydrolyzed gelatin.
4. How do you justify kids still getting sickened by gelatin in vaccines, 13 years after the Vitali et. al. paper?
"Do you also realise that you just admitted your own reference does not support your claim?"
So, my references support my claims just fine.
APV:
Scombroid poisoning? Antacids?
Yeah, I cooked up a nice dish of rotten mackerel with Pepto-Bismol. My daughter's favourite. Too bad she can't eat it now.
This guy's crazy!
Dr. Leonard Horowitz: Emerging Viruses AIDS & Ebola...
(or maybe not)
@herr doktor bimler #1110
Hey! I saw Plate O'Shrimp at a sleazy dive in Somerville, across the tracks from the Star Market. Right about the time Repo Man came out, IIRC. Thanks for the happy memories.
Time for the ultimatum question.
APV, you claimed that:
Several people have asked you to verify this claim. If you do not put up hard evidence in support of this claim within your next 3 posts, we will assume that you have no evidence for your claim, and that you are simply rectally sourcing your data.
Eric H,
If people constantly and consistently 'misunderstand' your typings, maybe the problem isn't them. Maybe it's what you write. For example,
You may argue you never said "only immigrants rape", but if I said "Now not all Eric H says is misogynistic. Some of it is rasist and repulsive" you wouldn't necessarily read it as meaning around 37% of what Eric H says is misogynistic, rasist or repulsive.
How I got that statistic you ask? Why, it's the percentage of rapes in the US not done by white non-hispanics. 63% of rapes in the US are done by white men. And want to know the really weird part? Population of the us is about 63% white. (source for rape statistics http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf (warning, PDF), source for population statistics wikipedia)).
So it would seem a certain percentage of men regardless of ethnicity are violent asshoIes. It's not imported, because, sadly, it doesn't need to be.
And, no matter how many times you refer to Sharia laws, low ages of consent or negligible punishments in foreign lands, countries like United States, Sweden, Belgium, New Zealand, Australia and Finland populate the top of the rape statistics.
As for your HuffPost-story (and it's not a local favourite as a scientific source either), it doesn't convince me otherwise. Vulnerable women are preyed by brutes everywhere. " ... according to a survey by the Alaska Federation of Natives, the rate of sexual violence in rural villages like Emmonak is as much as 12 times the national rate. And interviews with Native American women here and across the nation’s tribal reservations suggest an even grimmer reality: They say few, if any, female relatives or close friends have escaped sexual violence." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/us/native-americans-struggle-with-hig…)
(If the national average is one in six women are assaulted, how the heII do you get places where it is twelve times that much, but anyways...)
If you're not man enough to realize you've been wrong, and no amount of digging will get you out - maybe just move on to other subjects?
And as for
Why don't you summarize what is it you want to discuss about the video and why you think/don't think this guy is crazy. Show me you've seen it, and what you've understood of it.
gaist... "according to a survey by the Alaska Federation of Natives, the rate of sexual violence in rural villages like Emmonak is as much as 12 times the national rate."
Interesting... first (reported) rape is presented as even from one race demographic to the next. And then the Native American stats. And if it's 1 in 6 otherwise, the "12 times" national rate could mean that on average each woman is assaulted twice. (so not impossible)
But anyway, there's either such a thing as "rape culture" or it's just a human condition. I personally don't believe all cultures to be equal and especially not in their treatment of women, and I believe there are major statistics concerning rape and other crime not owed to "Mexicans" but to a specific quality that arrives when their government rather than proper US immigration protocols determine which arrive and it what numbers.
I actually don't know yet what I think of the rather strong "don't trust the government with medicine" message of Horowitz. But I figured some here might have opinion. So I shared here to to see what others might think.
But anyway I enjoyed your sensible reply.
OK, so I was actually putting thought into a response to the reappearance of Eric Lars Hanson, of fake Web-design company* "ELH1" and provider of "perfect experience to as many as 4 per day, 28 per month 197 per year and a total of more than 1200 new Lexus and Acuras," when I noticed this continuation of the "big red fire ball at center of our solar system" routine:
It certainly has the stamp of, if not an auteur, an artisan.
Who are you Poindexters to call it the "main"...?
There is of course a speculatively humorous Dworkinesque MHD detour, but I'll let him try to figure that out for himself.
^ I forget what the target of the footnote callout was supposed to be and regard the matter with complete indifference.
So that's it then Eric H. You'd rather talk about Mexicans and Donald Trump then the role of personal agency in vaccine choice.
I mean, I'm not surprised, I pretty much saw that coming, but I'm glad we were able to establish it clearly. Your basis for coming here was just a pretense, an excuse. You thought it was convenient to use at the time, but you didn't think about what that position would mean if you were to hold it consistently, and now that you've realized the trap you've made for yourself you'd rather talk about foreigners raping our women.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, chickenshit.
@Narad
Thanks for the tip about ELH1. It's been a long time since I saw a resume that was the product of an innumerate job coach using a word-salad generator. Even longer since I saw one that listed 80 WPM as a skill. Now if he could just get that up to 80 WPM with his thumbs he'd have a skill which is of true value in the workplace.
I have read hundreds of resumes in my career, and this one would go into the pile marked "Hopped on the crazy train in 2011 and never got off."
Made my morning. . .
Post #1121 -- more sallyrandification from Eric H.
Regarding poster APV/Vinu Arumugham:
He has been caught in numerous lies and fabrications in previous threads here. As Narad pointed out, he has falsely claimed to be a medical student. He has also claimed that the makers of certain vaccine ingredients have stated in their product information sheets that those products contain specific substances, perhaps hoping that no one would actually bother to pull those sheets and verify his claims; in fact, the information sheets state precisely the opposite of what he claimed they said. I further note that he has not denied engaging in any of these lies when he has been confronted with them.
We do get folks here, like Eric H, who take a position and provide evidence that itself is inaccurate, and we can work through that with them, as is being done here. But when someone takes a position and fabricates their evidence, there is no end to it, and it must be assumed that all supposedly factual evidence he offers is made up. I see little value in debating someone who simply lies, as does Vinu Arumugham.
It is sad that people who have children with food allergies have been saddled with a vocal advocate who is so profoundly dishonest.
You mean this Leonard Horowitz?
I do hope you all read Gustavo Arellano,who has been writing the most excellent ¡Ask a Mexican! syndicated column for at least the last dozen years or so.Recently Arellano posted this rebuttal to The Donald,that traced the history of the stereotype of Mexicans as nothing but rapists preying on helpless gabachas.Arellano went even further in this update,citing government statistics.
The conclusion:
"For those who don’t comprende: white American citizens are far more rape-y than Mexicans can ever hope to become. So when are gabachos going to jump on that pandemic?"
Julian Frost #1123,
"Several people have asked you to verify this claim. If you do not put up hard evidence "
Science Mom has agreed that vaccines can cause sensitization based on the evidence I have provided.
So YOU need to pay attention to the evidence I have provided, read and UNDERSTAND it.
TBruce #1120,
Why don't YOU tell us how your daughter was sensitized? Pl. include relevant references.
Why don't you post the studies demonstrating that the current food protein contamination levels in vaccines/injections are safe?
So, um which Mexican government agency is in charge of selecting who is allowed to leave their village and find a coyote to smuggle them across the border.
How do you apply to the gov't to get one of these I have been selected by my government to be sent to the USA visas or whatever official paperwork trail would come with any sort of systematic bureaucratic selection process by which law-abiding citizens who just want to earn enough money to improve the quality of life for their family are excluded and criminals are preferentially allowed to get close enough to the border to slip across permission or no?
Can you imagine a criminal applying to the gov't to get a hall pass to go to the USA or a smuggler refusing their fee because you don't have the proper allowed to emigrate illegally paperwork?
Now they aren't doing anything to slow down the criminals who run the illegal smuggling operations I get as an argument. After all it costs money to shut stuff down they may not want to spend.. However, you speak as if you believe the Mexican gov't is spending the money to pick and choose who the coyotes (are they really gov't employees) smuggle across or who tries to get across when they happen to be near the border.
Science Mom #1087,
"Is it possible in extremely rare cases? Of course ..."
Is that 1 in 1000, 1 in a million? Pl. include relevant references in your response.
Eric H wrote,
Dr. Dick Pan’s own description of the “consequences” that I would argue are 1. not the end game and 2. serious enough to call it “mandatory” .
Here are those words spoken by the man himself:
“Yes, parents have the right to refuse vaccination for their chidren, but to protect other parents’ and children’s rights, these families must then accept the consequences of their decisions: no admittance to public preschool, school, college, or workplace.”
...
There are plenty of Dr. Dick Pan pals and loyalists here, so maybe they might clarify what he could have meant when he himself said:
“…these families must then accept the consequences of their decisions: no admittance to public preschool, school, college, or workplace.”
...
Narad… seriously? I did not source this from Mercola… and in fact I have a screen shot from Pan’s own FB page! Are you suggesting these are not his own words?
...
But anyway here we are with Dr. Pan’s own words being 2nd guessed. Perhaps he’s the one with the biggest a credibility problem since his own supporters don’t even believe his own words.
...
Still amazing that such dedicated supporters don’t seem to believe his own words from his own post on his own FB page.
...
actually he put it in quotes… without crediting another speaker, so perhaps the script was written for him.
...
he posted on his FB and probably Twittered the words too without bothering to attribute the words to someone else
...
the exact post is exactly as I’ve reposted (via screen capture) here: https://www.facebook.com/smartmeteraction/photos/a.1005656736132809.107…
...
he made it his by posting it prominently without offering anyone else credit. Guessing much of his career runs like that.
I'm not sure whether you are terribly stupid, deeply dishonest, or both. In this case, you did one of two things -- or perhaps both of them:
1) [Really, really stupid] You are so stupid that when you saw Dr. Pan post a link to an article by Dr. Horst D Weinberg in Contemporary Pediatrics, along with a clearly-indicated pull quote, you ignored the link, the article lead-in that was posted, and the quotation marks, and you thought those were Dr. Pan's own words. I hope you're not this stupid, but, sadly, I can't rule it out.
2) [Dishonest] You saw the link to the article and the article lead-in that was in Dr. Pan's post, and you saw the quotation marks (how could you possibly miss all that?), but you decided to fabricate the attribution to Dr. Pan in order to make your argument. In furtherance of that, when pressed to provide evidence that those were Dr. Pan's own words, you produced a screen shot that cropped out the article lead-in and link in order to conceal the true source.
So, Eric, which is it? Stupid, dishonest, or both?
Oh my, you aren't using me as validation for your abuse of the literature. It's possible that in certain circumstances such as described in Japan although even those investigators were reluctant to establish causation. That's the difference between responsible investigators and cranks like you.
So rare it can't be quantified.
He did tell you and your own references support that. Are you saying shrimp allergenic proteins are in vaccines?
APV I'm having some difficulty reconciling these statements perhaps you could clarify.
Emphasis mine and...
@Science Mom
But, you said that it was possible that vaccines could, in extremely rare cases, sensitize someone to an allergen. In Vinuland, mathematical possibility = factual causation. Since it is possible (in some vanishingly small quantity), therefore his kid's allergies were cause by vaccines.
Here on Earth, on the other hand, the mere possibility is not evidence that one's claim is, in fact, true.
“Do you have any clue whatsoever that each dose of vaccine vial would have to be tested in order to simply verify that some potentially-allergenic excipients may be present in some vaccines in trace amounts.”
Why am I even bothering to explain to such a lying dunderhead? Because not all media excipients make it into each dose at the same quantity during the filtration process. You are demanding quantification, why I don't know since any amount of anything potentially allergenic won't be "accepted" by you.
According to you there is no safe level.
The CDC lists severe allergic reactions to any vaccine excipient as a contraindication and you're complaining. And if they didn't? It's a blanket precaution. Your own reference stated that the children with severe egg allergies they tested could be safely vaccinated with flu jabs with no more than a localised reaction.
An internet diagnosis? That isn't proof of any causation.
Thanks Occam'sLaser for reminding me of this. This conversation has been no different in terms of his/her making demonstrably false statements about his/her own references and failing to establish any sort of consistency.
That's two posts without hard evidence, APV. And no, the claims you made do not rise to the status of hard evidence.
1) What was the allergy your child suffered?
2) What is your evidence that vaccination (and not some other possible cause) was the reason for your child developing said allergy?
Getting back to Dr. Bob,maybe some of you in Southern California,might want to crash Sears next Town Hall where he tells parents how to get around SB277.
OccamsLaser, "So, Eric, which is it? Stupid, dishonest, or both?"
Option A, "stupid"... seems a bit unlikely. I believe I've only been called "stupid" by anonymous online blowhards that found themselves losing an argument, and I'm not certain you have enough of your own to recognize much less make meaningful assessment of my intelligence.
Option B, "dishonest". I can honestly say that would be completely implausible.
Option C, Even more ridiculous... so, I'll go with the unspecified option...
D. Good Looks, charm, and failed logic on your part.
So now that we're done with that little exercise, which are you?
@Eric H
Hey, Eric. Any evidence to support your claims yet? And I'm asking for primary sources. You're all about facts standing or falling on their own merit, so I know you won't just post someone else's opinion of evidence in lieu of the actual evidence itself.
Thanks for the reminder and encouragement Todd W.
Were you referring to my claim of individual rights to make choices? Or was there some other claim that requires urgent answer before month-end?
Riiight. Your picture and your petulant, hand-waving drivel are evident. You would have to attribute failed logic to everyone else.
Eric -
Option A, “stupid”… seems a bit unlikely. I believe I’ve only been called “stupid” by anonymous online blowhards that found themselves losing an argument, and I’m not certain you have enough of your own to recognize much less make meaningful assessment of my intelligence.
Option B, “dishonest”. I can honestly say that would be completely implausible.
Option C, Even more ridiculous… so, I’ll go with the unspecified option…
D. Good Looks, charm, and failed logic on your part.
So now that we’re done with that little exercise, which are you?
We're not done with the exercise.
If you're not stupid, you of course knew that Dr. Pan was quoting from an article by Dr. Horst D Weinberg, because it was incredibly obvious -- in the post to which you refer, he provided not just a link to the article, but the article's title, source, and lead-in as well.
Since you're not stupid, and you therefore knew the words were not Dr. Pan's but instead were from Dr. Weinberg's article, you're incredibly dishonest, because you lied about whose words they were and you purposely cropped out the link to the article, the article title, and the source website in the screenshot you posted.
If you're just stupid, it's an honest mistake.
So to continue the "exercise," what's your explanation for your repeated misrepresentations?
Were you referring to my claim of individual rights to make choices?
Everybody here supports an individual's right to make choices, and to live with the consequences of those choices, so this is irrelevant.
When are you going to stop posting feeble attempts at distraction and provide the evidence to support your claims about vaccines? It's only been what, a week now?
OccamsLaser...
Not sure how attributing a post on Pan's FB page to Pan is all that large of "an honest mistake" much less one that would set in motion a major campaign to find out who might be "stupid."
Whenever I post something that quotes someone else, I offer them full credit.
For example... "Politicians are the lowest form of life. And liberal democrats are the lowest form of politician", Gen. George S. Patton.
I sure wouldn't be at all surprised if posting that, especially less the due credit to a 3rd party, were someone to take my FB post and or Tweet as an expression of my own sentiments if not my own statement. And if there were necessity to declare someone "stupid" it would be the man responsible for the post.
Anyway if Pan would be so upset by such a grave error of counting his post as his words or sentiment, I'd have to ask why he'd bother with the post.
I'm rather certain there are those in the esteemed group participating in this thread that actually personally know and have lunch with Pan... so why not ask him whether 1. He agrees with the words he posted and 2. Why he chose to post less credits to whomever else if he doesn't fully support the statement.
Finally a number of you raised all sorts of hell on the thread about this. So perhaps it's also time to introspect as to, if you don't yourself agree with the words he posted, whether you might have other disagreements with the man largely responsible for SB277.
As for me, unless Pan's going to pull a Weiner and suggest his account was hacked, I'll continue to count his post as reflective of his sentiment on the subject of "consequences" to be expected by kids for parents that dare exercise of "their right" to reject all or some vaccines.
Either way no big deal. Pan isn't my doctor and I sure don't recognize his authority to make my medical decisions as a Democrat politician either.
For example… “Politicians are the lowest form of life. And liberal democrats are the lowest form of politician”, Gen. George S. Patton.
Since the term "liberal democrat" as a pejorative did not come into common use until well after WWII, Eric H is once again demonstrating that he is either stupid or dishonest.
(Not to mention he's still dancing around the questions he's been avoiding for a week).
@shay... what "claim about vaccines?" That some if not all current and/or future shots may cause harm to some and might even do more harm then good overall? Each vaccine has its own overall formulation, and no two batches can be guaranteed the same! And no two patience will have the exact same reaction to any of these shots.
So... how on Earth could I possibly make scientific statements about countless new vaccines being developed that will also be required for all that aren't "home schooled"?
I'd need to be more than just an MD... I'd have to be a psychic witch doctor or some sort of prophet. Whereas I should be flattered if you think I might be qualified to settle the science of all current and future injections, I'm rather certain nobody is quite that good. Not even APV nor "Science Mom"!
What I can provide (if you can simply wait till after month-end) is all kinds of insider information by pharmaceutical reps and CDC whistle blowers. And if the thread's open, I'll be all too happy to share as much as I can find. I'll also make the investment to analyze links I've been provided, since, again, as I stated many times before, I'm here to teach and learn!
Oh, look who's back. I assume your reappearance means that you've finished all that reading you had to do and are now ready to grace us with your rational, well-researched argument as to why either a) people should be allowed to take advantage of the benefits of living in a society while refusing to take reasonable precautions to ensure that their participation doesn't harm others, and/or b) vaccination against common, contagious, and potentially lethal childhood illnesses fails to meet your criteria for a "reasonable precaution" against spreading disease in an institutional setting where large numbers of susceptible children are packed in a shared airspace.
Shay,
We all have our talents... dancing isn't really my forte! But some say I have an excellent singing voice.
The General Patton quote was provided as illustrative example. I also sort of believed it to be a legitimate quote, but if you disagree, I don't mind at all if you'd be so kind as offering more evidence apart from "common usage" of "liberal democrat" as a "pejorative" to the contrary.
More than a little off topic, but I sure don't mind having some fun.
I'm also glad you've come to realize "liberal democrat" is now a "pejorative." I certainly agree it may not have been when Patton made his own observation. Clearly he was a wise sage.
Thank you Sarah A. I tend to make time to address the personal smear and libelous attacks. But break time is over. As I indicated a few comments up, I'll have the luxury of the harder work of learning very soon. Fortunately it doesn't take near as much time to call out absurdity.. so no harm no foul.
In this case, you should be "offering" the "credit" to Charles M. Province, who appears to have simply made it up.
^ Not that merely attaching a name to a string of words is how attestation "full credit" works, but there's no particular reason at this point to expect anything resembling any form of competence from Eric Hanson.
Eric -
You're being very evasive. That is, of course, a form of dishonesty.
So, did you or did you not know that the quote was from Dr. Weinberg’s article for which Dr. Pan posted the title, publication web site, lead-in, and link, and which he enclosed in quotation marks that clearly indicated Dr. Pan was quoting from that article?
Let's see if you can give an honest, direct answer to this simple question.
This is somewhat off-topic. Or not, given how much vitriol Er!k H has dripped on Dr. Pan's reputation.
A woman named Katherine Duran wants to recall all of the California legislators who voted in favor of SB277. She has succeeded in starting a recall petition against Dr. Pan.
If you would like to support Dr. Pan (even if you don't live in his district, Senate District 06, or even if you don't live in California) please go to the link below and endorse Dr. Pan.
http://www.keepdrpan.com/stand_with_dr_pan
Glad we're back to actual science, Eric. Can you tell us sprecifically what evidence convinced you that:
1. Some if not all current shots do more harm than good
2. No two batches of vaccines are the same
3. No two patients respond the same to the same vaccine
We should investigate whether these ideas stand or fall on their own merit, no?
I await your searing expose with bated breath.
Don't bother; remember that bit about your audience knowing your material better than you do?
Perhaps you'd like to list the items queued for your promised "reading time-out," so everyone can make sure you haven't overlooked anything.
And Eric H once again demonstrates that he never bothers to check his sources, that he really, really has a problem with reading comprehension, and he conveniently forgets some of the statements he made earlier on vaccine safety and efficacy.
(Occam's Laser -- don't hold your breath. He's had since last Wednesday to support his half-assed statements about vaccines and he's still waving his fans).
Oh, and Eric? "Sand n*****" is a pejorative, as well. Just because it's being used doesn't mean it has any validity.
Shay #1165... Brilliant! You're certainly right that not all pejoratives have "validity". I believe you're the one that pointed out that "liberal democrat" had become "a pejorative". And I certainly agree with you. Not sure how the other example popped into your head, but I'd not recommend saying that out loud, much less sharing on a public thread.
Thank you Narad... if you speak for everyone else here, I'll thank you for lifting the burden of such immense responsibility. Perhaps time could be better spent elsewhere.
Liz Ditz #1161. Interesting that being assigned credit for one's own post might count as "vitriol".
Anyway, glad to see the recall efforts... Might just be a "Great State of California" after all. We'll see how that goes.
Narad... "In this case, you should be “offering” the “credit” to Charles M. Province, who appears to have simply made it up."
Rather doubt it, and I think you're slandering two soldiers with one assumption. But still I'd be pleased to salute whichever soldiers that might be credited in the sharing of such wisdom.
OccamsLaser writes:
"You’re being very evasive. That is, of course, a form of dishonesty.
So, did you or did you not know that the quote was from Dr. Weinberg’s article for which Dr. Pan posted the title, publication web site, lead-in, and link, and which he enclosed in quotation marks that clearly indicated Dr. Pan was quoting from that article?"
I have no idea what you're even talking about. I never ever saw anything of it but the post as it appeared on Pan's FB. It was so interesting to me that I took screen shot which I later presented in evidence... exactly as it appeared. I've been blocked from his FB and my comments there scrubbed, so I have no way to know whatever edits might have subsequently been made.
For what I hope might be the final time... here it is:
Dr. Pan's own FB Post
This is really getting silly!
So is your continual avoidance of questions you are afraid to answer.
Oh, and the "sand n*****" is from Orac's post of this morning. It's evidently how one of your anti-vaxx fellow-travelers is referring to the Surgeon General.
Shay... i think you might need a cognitive therapist.
Why would there be "questions" I might be "afraid to answer" concerning Pan's post?
As for the usual guilt-by-association drivel, I'm sure plenty of folks have plenty to say about the Surgeon General, but I'll only be responsible for my own words.
Why's that?
That's nice. Of course, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, you don't know what the word means.
Eric H: To answer your question about "individual rights to make choices", yes you have that right, but you also have consequences. Your right to not vaccinate< my right to not be infected by you.
Frankly, I think that you might be better off if we applied an older version of infection control: quarantine. Your right to freedom of movement is superseded by the right of every individual in the community to not be infected by you. An ancient and generally effective method for human-to-human transmissible diseases.
Face it, by living with other humans you are subject to limitations on perfect freedom. That you have gotten to be an adult without acknowledging this does not speak well of you.
Shay… i think you might need a cognitive therapist.
And you need to stop lying and answer the questions you've been dodging for a full seven days now.
The chances of George Patton (or anyone else of his era) using the term "liberal democrat" are roughly equal to the chances of Abraham Lincoln's describing U.S. Grant's activities in 1865 as "just peachy."
Words have meaning and history. You should read up on the subject some time.
Indeed they do.
For example, this John Stuart Mill quote:
The page providing the quote indicates when, where and to whom it was made.
Sorry, forgot to provide the page link.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/76179-i-did-not-mean-that-conservatives…
Eric, you write,
I have no idea what you’re even talking about. I never ever saw anything of it but the post as it appeared on Pan’s FB. It was so interesting to me that I took screen shot which I later presented in evidence… exactly as it appeared. I’ve been blocked from his FB and my comments there scrubbed, so I have no way to know whatever edits might have subsequently been made.
For what I hope might be the final time… here it is:
Dr. Pan’s own FB Post
This is really getting silly!
Oh, it's not silly at all. It's really revealing.
You're still being evasive. A sign of further dishonesty.
Here's the question again. Will you evade it yet again, or will you answer it honestly?
Did you or did you not know that the quote in the post as it appeared on Pan’s FB page was from Dr. Weinberg’s article for which Dr. Pan posted the title, publication web site, lead-in, and link, and which he enclosed in quotation marks that clearly indicated Dr. Pan was quoting from that article?
It's a simple question. What's your answer?
@Eric H
No one here challenges your claim of individual rights, nor does SB277 remove that right, so no to that question. Rather, I'm referring to the questions that I've posed you several times now that you have studiously ignored or dodged.
@Eric H
As for that pic of Dr. Pan's post, you have stated, repeatedly, that you took that screenshot. It is very clearly cropped off, as Occam's Razor has pointed out.
You have also attributed the words to Dr. Pan, first explicitly ascribing them to him, then suggesting that they were written for him by someone else.
So, in addition to Occam's question, I'd also like pose a couple:
1) Why did you crop off the screenshot so that it did not show the full post?
2) Why did you claim Dr. Pan as the origin of that quote?
I want to add, for anyone's benefit, that I ran the Patton quote from #1151 past the spousal unit (a retired Marine, a Republican, and a pillar of the local Methodist church, and therefore someone with whom Eric H might assume -- mistakenly -- he has something in common).
Since the two of us spend a lot of time visiting battlefields and reading military science and history, I wondered if his take on the authenticity of the quotation would be akin to mine. It was.
Should have posted this in response to Eric back @ 1111.Entertaining little story that shows Republicans in their true colors,so to speak.
/Off to a Bernie rally.
It is exactly for situations like this that FIFUDOS was coined.
Science Mom #1139,
"It’s possible that in certain circumstances such as described in Japan although even those investigators were reluctant to establish causation. "
Not only did they establish causation, THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM by removing gelatin from vaccines.
Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP—an ultimate
solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy
http://oxfordhbot.com/library/vaccinations/vaccines-allergies-asthma/50…
AND, FDA/CDC doctors agreed with them.
"Are you saying shrimp allergenic proteins are in vaccines?"
Two possibilities.
1. Seafood contaminated with algae.
Vaccines contain agar a seaweed/algae protein.
2. Shrimp allergy has been linked to tropomyosin antibodies.
Tropomyosin is a human muscle protein as well.
An intramuscular shot can cause synthesis of antibodies to tropomyosin.
"“Is it possible in extremely rare cases? Of course …”
Is that 1 in 1000, 1 in a million? Pl. include relevant references in your response.
So rare it can’t be quantified."
You made a statement. Pl. provide a reference to support it.
Otherwise, you have to accept that you have no evidence that it is rare.
I have provided evidence showing 2% of those injected with gelatin containing DTaP developed sensitization.
36 out of a 100 patients developed anti-ovalbumin IgE after flu shots.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/pdf/epidinfect00008…
Paper 1.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM195204032461403
They show 5 of 319 developed dermal sensitivity to egg white due to the egg proteins present in vaccines.
Paper 2.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection may protect against allergy in a tuberculosis endemic area.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16393268
The children in Paper 1, were all under treatment for tuberculosis.
So the authors seem to have unknowingly selected a population with some protection against allergy.
So even in a population with some protection against allergy, sensitivity was detectable in 1.6% of the patients, in 1952.
Patients developed IgE to the influenza virus itself.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x/pdf
100% of the adults developed IgE to the virus itself:
http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm
SENSITIZATION TO PROTEINS IN VACCINES IS DEFINITELY NOT RARE!
Science Mom #1140,
"APV I’m having some difficulty reconciling these statements perhaps you could clarify."
Sure. As you know, ingested proteins are denatured by stomach acid. Antacids, anti-ulcer medications such as PPI reduce stomach acid and interfere with protein digestion.
This can result in sensitization. That was the reason for the antacid question to TBruce. And TBruce made a joke of it.
Anti-ulcer drugs promote IgE formation toward dietary antigens in adult patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15671152
Long time no see, Antaeus Feldspar!
My memory for what acronyms stand for is impaired. Or sub-optimal.
So what you are saying is that food can only cause sensitisation if taken with an antacid, even just once.
No wonder TBruce made a joke of it.
The ridiculous OccamsLaser writes... "Did you or did you not know that the quote in the post as it appeared on Pan’s FB page was from Dr. Weinberg’s article for which Dr. Pan posted the title, publication web site, lead-in, and link, and which he enclosed in quotation marks that clearly indicated Dr. Pan was quoting from that article?"
We must be looking at a different post. Did you not see the screenshot I provided? Do you not believe your own eyes?
Please let me know where you see some credit to some article by a Weinberg? Please take your time.
Also once you acknowledge there is none, please inform how I was somehow expected to know anything much care about some Weinberg other than that he's not my doctor. Once we've figured that out be sure to inform as to how not knowing Weinberg and his article could possibly prove me prove me "stupid" much less "dishonest!"
I still am left with no way to even guess how any of this might matter in the slightest unless you seriously believe that Pan disagrees with what I'm now to believe was plagiarized or otherwise owed to some Weinberg article? If not, why'd Pan share it less any mention of Weinberg, and why on Earth would anyone spend any time on all the second guessing about who might have made the right guesses about some politician's post?
All I can say is you must be all caught up with your your own shots! You're most certainly the perfect example of "FIFUDOS" if not completely insane.
To the rest of you I'd only ask, why is everyone so darned embarrassed about the words Pan thought important enough to post exactly? If you truly find those words so embarrassing why cannot we just agree to agree?
And Todd W... when I captured the screen shot using a Mac, I cropped the comment just at the comment field... if you wipe your bifocals with whatever tissue available, you'll see the top upper edge of the comment box. I had no idea I'd be arguing with fools about whether Pan posted something or not at the time of performing that screen capture in early June. And frankly I'd have assumed the Borg here to mostly all agree with the words whether they turned out to be his or plagiarized or otherwise attributable to whatever Weinberg.
Science Mom - I suppose if you had a biscuit (which contains baking powder, baking soda, or both) along with your shrimp that'd be enough for APV.
http://imgur.com/PmJeCVC
Roger Kulp #1183. Not sure if I'm as much a Republican as anti-Democrat. But anyway hope you enjoy that Bernie rally.
<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/06/once-upon-a-time-bernie-sanders-blame… Sanders Blamed Cervical Cancer on "Lack of Orgasms"
Guess that's what he tells all the girls... before leaving them with an increased risk of cervical cancer and otherwise disappointed. I'm starting to see why some of my friends are such avid supporters... it's about the first thing he said that might be counted worthy of repeating (with cocktail in hand at the bar of course!)
Apologies for forgetting to close the HTML tag...
Here it is Bernie Sanders Blamed Cervical Cancer on "Lack of Orgasms"
The subject, it is changed.
AdamG... That's an empty comment box Bub! You ever use Facebook before? Who's "the moron"?
herr doktor.... Well at least the Bernie Sanders claim shared in response to Kulp's comment is still arguably related to "medical choices" But this whole hysterical reaction to a Pan posting certainly seems to be something of an empty boat on rough waters.
No Eric, it's not.
http://i.imgur.com/9NyUm3L.png
I think it's worth doing some serious self examination about why you are unable to admit to any errors whatsoever, even ones as trivial as this.
To the rest of you I’d only ask, why is everyone so darned embarrassed about the words Pan thought important enough to post exactly?
If posters here were embarrassed, the topic would have been dropped long ago. Why did it take you seven paragraphs to still not answer Occam's question?
Hi Eric! Now, we are making real progress on the determination about whether you are stupid or dishonest, or both. Based on your latest post, stupid has the upper hand, but there might also be a healthy dollop of dishonesty at work, too.
You write,
The ridiculous OccamsLaser writes… “Did you or did you not know that the quote in the post as it appeared on Pan’s FB page was from Dr. Weinberg’s article for which Dr. Pan posted the title, publication web site, lead-in, and link, and which he enclosed in quotation marks that clearly indicated Dr. Pan was quoting from that article?”
We must be looking at a different post. Did you not see the screenshot I provided? Do you not believe your own eyes?
Please let me know where you see some credit to some article by a Weinberg? Please take your time.
Also once you acknowledge there is none, please inform how I was somehow expected to know anything much care about some Weinberg other than that he’s not my doctor. Once we’ve figured that out be sure to inform as to how not knowing Weinberg and his article could possibly prove me prove me “stupid” much less “dishonest!”
I still am left with no way to even guess how any of this might matter in the slightest unless you seriously believe that Pan disagrees with what I’m now to believe was plagiarized or otherwise owed to some Weinberg article? If not, why’d Pan share it less any mention of Weinberg, and why on Earth would anyone spend any time on all the second guessing about who might have made the right guesses about some politician’s post?
All I can say is you must be all caught up with your your own shots! You’re most certainly the perfect example of “FIFUDOS” if not completely insane.
To the rest of you I’d only ask, why is everyone so darned embarrassed about the words Pan thought important enough to post exactly? If you truly find those words so embarrassing why cannot we just agree to agree?
And Todd W… when I captured the screen shot using a Mac, I cropped the comment just at the comment field… if you wipe your bifocals with whatever tissue available, you’ll see the top upper edge of the comment box.
So let's take this step by step, because your stupidity and/or dishonesty needs to be exposed.
You say,
We must be looking at a different post. Did you not see the screenshot I provided? Do you not believe your own eyes?
I do indeed see the screenshot you provided. And I most certainly do believe my own eyes. My eyes tell me that you cropped the screenshot in such a way as to eliminate the title of, publication web site of, lead-in from, and link to the article from which the quote was pulled.
That cropping you did was either very stupid, or very dishonest. Which is it?
You say,
Please let me know where you see some credit to some article by a Weinberg? Please take your time.
It won't take any time at all to find. It's right in the post. You cropped it out. Stupid or dishonest? Let us know.
Also once you acknowledge there is none, please inform how I was somehow expected to know anything much care about some Weinberg other than that he’s not my doctor.
Well, here you have a problem, because there is an article title, a publication web page URL, the article lead-in, and a direct link to Dr. Weinberg's article from which the quote was pulled, all right in Dr. Pan's post that you read. That's how you were expected to know. You cropped those things out of your screen shot. Stupid/dishonest?
when I captured the screen shot using a Mac, I cropped the comment just at the comment field… if you wipe your bifocals with whatever tissue available, you’ll see the top upper edge of the comment box.
Here's your problem.
That's not the upper edge of the comment box.
Got bifocals?
So, Eric, are you so stupid that you didn't know Dr. Pan was quoting Dr. Weinberg's article despite the fact that Dr. Pan placed the text in quotes, provided a link to the article complete with the article title, the publication URL, and the article lead-in? Or are you so dishonest that you cropped those items out of your screen shot?
Or both?
Eric -
You write,
That’s an empty comment box Bub! You ever use Facebook before? Who’s “the moron”?
That would be you.
Ever used Facebook before?
Looking forward to your admission that you are stupid or dishonest, and, now, that you have never used Facebook before.
Adam G... Just rechecked Pan's page... although blocked and unable to post comment there are now NO posts showing from end of May and June 14. So apparently he himself found his own post embarrassing enough too!
Check for yourself on his own page... Let me know if you see anything different.
https://www.facebook.com/RichardPanMD
Hi Eric!
You're evading.
We wait.
OccamsLaser... You're obviously not someone to take seriously. Be sure to get your flu shots and drink plenty of that splendid tap water! I think it's time to leave you to play with kids your own age level.
Science Mom #1187,
"So what you are saying is that food can only cause sensitisation if taken with an antacid,"
Yes, in other words, we evolved to safely ingest proteins.
If ingested proteins caused allergy, we would have been extinct. Now if we interfere with the natural protection with antacids, we increase the likelihood of developing allergies.
In the case of food protein contaminated vaccines/injections, we bypass this natural protection entirely and the result is allergies.
" even just once."
Don't know. That may depend on atopic status of the individual. If a child ate a "lot of shrimp" as TBruce wrote, a tummy ache and antacid seemed like a possibility.
I'm wholly indifferent, as it has nothing to do with SB 277. Of course, you've completely ignored at least one observation of this.
At this point, you're just back to whatever moronic conspiracy theory – which I don't recall your elaborating – involving "insidious forces," the Federal Reserve, and the CIA.
Given that you've also pointedly refused to advance anything vaguely resembling a legal argument despite multiple requests, which would not actually require an imaginary "reading time-out," I'm left with the conclusion that the conspiracy theory is all you've got and that "Dick Pan" is an agent of the conspiracy.
Eric -
But you are taking me seriously. Very, very seriously. Because I am making you very uncomfortable. Frightened, actually. uncomfortable, frightened people run away.
That's what you are doing. Running away in fear. Fear of facing the truth. The truth about yourself.
People rarely fear facing the truth that they are dishonest, because they already know it and try to use it for gain. But people very much fear facing the truth of their stupidity. That's what appears to be happening to you here.
Tell us, Eric, now that you've cleaned your bifocals, is that a comment box you cropped out of your screen shot?
I guess that finally answers this one.
AdamG... "I think it’s worth doing some serious self examination about why you are unable to admit to any errors whatsoever, even ones as trivial as this."....
Now you're treading dangerously close to some profound truth... it would seem trivial to me too. But it's apparently very serious business to some of the folks here.
I was sitting right here when I took the screen shot. FB does minor formatting changes from time to time, but unless I was hallucinating on some fantastic shrooms, it was a comment box.
Maybe you can ask Pan since it's so critical to somebody's quality of life. While you're at it ask why all posts from end of May to June 14 were taken down.
You've misunderstood. It's a been used here as an illustrative example of your very active denialism, your cropping of a screenshot has zero to do with 'profound truths.'
If you agree it's trivial as you say, then why don't you get back to telling us specifically what evidence convinced you that:
1. Some if not all current shots do more harm than good
2. No two batches of vaccines are the same
3. No two patients respond the same to the same vaccine
Eric -
You write,
I was sitting right here when I took the screen shot. FB does minor formatting changes from time to time, but unless I was hallucinating on some fantastic shrooms, it was a comment box.
It wasn't a comment box, as has been explained and proven. And I think you are not serious about the hallucinogenics reference.
Therefore, you are either very stupid, or you're dishonest.
So, which is it, Eric? Are you so stupid that you read Dr. Pan's post and despite the presence of quotation marks around the pulled quote, the title of Dr. Weinberg's article (in a big font!), the lead-in text of the article, a link to the article, and the URL of the publication's web site, you thought those were Dr. Pan's own words?
Or are you so dishonest that you of course knew all that, because you read the post, but you cropped it in such a way as to hide that information and are now making the laughable claim that the fragment of the link box is actually a comment box?
What's your explanation, Eric? It's not the fact that you were on drugs.
Stupid or dishonest?
Don't run away from the truth.
You came to this conclusion in spite of your own references to the contrary. Good to know the depths of your depravity.
But he told you no antacids were involved. So how do you reconcile your claim of food allergies without the allergenic proteins being present in vaccines? And this is the problem with idées fixes; the level of mental gymnastics you have to perform to keep them intact is far more absurd and tedious than examining the actual evidence.
I suppose you'd have to maintain that cockamamie notion to perpetuate your delusion of superiority however no one is embarrassed by the quote you attributed to Dr. Pan. It's the fact that you are too stupid/dishonest (not mutually exclusive) to vet your sources and admit when you got it abysmally wrong. This concept is actually frightfully simple.
Eric -
You wrote,
why’d Pan share it less any mention of Weinberg[?]
He didn't. He cited it by title, link, and publication.
You cropped that out.
Stupid or dishonest?
Eric -
You wrote,
Bernie Sanders Blamed Cervical Cancer on "Lack of Orgasms"
Guess that’s what he tells all the girls… before leaving them with an increased risk of cervical cancer and otherwise disappointed. I’m starting to see why some of my friends are such avid supporters… it’s about the first thing he said that might be counted worthy of repeating
What exactly did he say?
APV, that's five posts where instead of giving proof that your child has allergies that were induced by vaccination, you have gone round in circles using evidence that has been shown to be dubious.
We can therefore conclude that you have no hard evidence that vaccines caused your child's allergies, that you have an idee fixee about it, and that no amount of evidence will change your mind.
I didn't answer APV's nosy questions because frankly, he, she or it bores me to death. However, I should clear some stuff up. My daughter's shrimp allergy hit her the second time we had a shrimp boil. No, there wasn't any antacid given because she had no GI distress. She developed itchy bumps all over her skin. If she eats more than one or two shrimp now, many years later, the same thing happens. No, there wasn't any scombroid poisoning. The rest of our family ate exactly the same thing and had no symptoms.
I'm done.
FFS!
Over 1200 posts serving to demonstrate what I pointed out in #3: can't muster a coherent argument; resorts to offensive "re-interpretations" of well accepted terminology; doesn't understand informed consent.
I see APV is back to the shrimp-contaminated vaccine theory.
I'm using agar to grow bacteria. Maybe I should worry about bacteria developing allergy to seafood.
APV, do some math for us, will you? You have found articles with written amounts of proteins needed for sensitization.
On this basis, calculate how much shrimp protein you will need in one vaccine to get sensitization. Then compare with the actual amount of agar found in a 1-mL vaccine, and calculate the ratio shrimp/agar you will need for contaminated agar to bring that much shrimp protein.
Then explain to us how no-one is noticing that there is more shrimps than algae in the agar-processing vats.
'Someone' called SmartMeter Action has posted a new screenshot and admitted that there is a link at the bottom that happens to include the title, link, publication and lead of the article that Pan is quoting from. With quotation marks and ellipses (there's no reason for ellipses if you aren't cutting words out of someone else's quote).
Perhaps Eric could repeat the apology and admission of error here as well?
https://www.facebook.com/smartmeteraction/photos/a.1005656736132809.107…
Deb,
To be fair that's a different quote, but I think it does show that Pan posts quotations in that format from people as talking points. I assume Eric agrees with the original quotation, otherwise he wouldn't have posted it, right?
Oops. Thanks Krebiozen. I could claim I was demonstrating the dangers of not checking things properly, or I could just admit I rushed it and made a mistake. My apologies.
@Eric H
Still avoiding those other questions I asked you, eh?
Regarding the quote on Dr. Pan's FB page, I'll just leave this here. So, Eric, have you learned how to use Facebook yet?
I am an obsessive person, also boundlessly optimistic, so I still hoping for details about those
Is it possible to point to archived copies of these scrubbed CDC stats within the Internet Archive? Or is the Internet Archive itself part of the conspiracy?
Science Mom #1211,
"You came to this conclusion in spite of your own references to the contrary. "
You have to be more specific. What reference is contrary to my conclusion?
Please don't forget that Vinu Arumugham (APV) is a serial liar, as has been proven repeatedly on this forum.
He has also utterly failed to substantiate his claim that there is a food allergy epidemic but only among vaccinated children.
Julian Frost #1215,
"evidence that has been shown to be dubious."
Pl. be specific. Are you claiming FDA/CDC doctors concluded that gelatin containing vaccines cause gelatin allergy based on dubious evidence?
Vinu Arumugham (APV) has been caught impersonating a medical student.
He is a deeply dishonest person who will lie in an attempt to further his arguments. Sad.
No, I'm saying they concluded no such thing.
Deb,
I made the same mistake and noticed just before I hit submit ;-)
Herr Doktor #1223
Remember that in his first post under this item EH assumed that because he was the first poster that all other comments had been scrubbed or something...Doesn't fill me with confidence, which is reinforced by every other comment of his subsequently.
@Deb in Oz
This really isn't cricket! In the short space between #1229 and #1231 you demonstrated how one retracts and apologizes for an erroneous post. It is not fair to EH, who has yet to demonstrate this ability in over a week.
#1219. The forensics work here is nothing short of impressive. What I honestly believed was the top of a comment box was identified by the other Borg members as evidence of an actual article link. Indeed I posted another Jun 7 post that was complete with a CBSNEWS.COM and formatted within a the same rectangle. I first addressed it there and was working on statement to share here but ran out of time. Anyway I now accept that there was likely more than empty comment box. Had I noticed I would have captured that with the rest of the screen shot, but I had not. Of course had Pan left the posts between May 30 and June 14 on his page would have saved a lot of torment and brain bleed as we could simply have referred back to that.
Anyway what I guess we can all agree to be Weinberg's words are no longer displayed on Pan's page, and don't seem to be much appreciated here either.
Bottom line, It seems an honest error was made on my part and for that the appropriate apologies owed, and hereby offered. So now we can move on or rehash this as a central point of the next 1000 comments. I'd vote for moving on, but only the Borg can decide.
Good! Please tell us specifically what evidence convinced you that:
1. Some if not all current shots do more harm than good
2. No two batches of vaccines are the same
3. No two patients respond the same to the same vaccine
ToddW! #1222
And there's the permalink! A bit late but thank you! So apparently the comment was "hidden from timeline" but not deleted from Pan's page.
Adam G... #1233. Yes sir... appreciate your patience. Although any of the MD's will likely confirm #3 for you, still attending to month-end urgency and it's my intention is to offer quality answer to all 3 on or before August 1! (and then work up the thread backwards for any other questions and challenges deserving answer)
No, they won't, because there's no evidence that no two people respond the same to the same vaccine. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Again, we await your response with bated breath.
Eric H,
I may well catch flak for this but after having worked my own corporate America stint, why don't you just meet your month-end commitments and then tackle Adam's three questions instead of committing to an Aug 1 deadline?
It's not like anyone here is going anywhere, and as long as Adam isn't holding his breath, a few more days won't make much difference after they've stuck it out for over a week now with your failing around.
Eric -
You wrote,
#1219. The forensics work here is nothing short of impressive.
No; it just seems that way to you, because you're stupid. In reality, all anyone had to do was to put a snippet of the article quote into Google, and Dr. Pan's original Facebook post would be returned as the very first hit. This does tend to confirm that your hugely embarrassing performance here is due primarily to your low intelligence, though it doesn't eliminate the possibility of dishonesty as well.
What I honestly believed was the top of a comment box was identified by the other Borg members as evidence of an actual article link. Indeed I posted another Jun 7 post that was complete with a CBSNEWS.COM and formatted within a the same rectangle. I first addressed it there and was working on statement to share here but ran out of time. Anyway I now accept that there was likely more than empty comment box. Had I noticed I would have captured that with the rest of the screen shot, but I had not.
You miss the point. It's not about the screenshot, which was just negligently sloppy, if not intentionally misleading. It's about the fact that before you even took the screenshot, you read the actual post. And yet, despite the fact that the quote was in quotation marks, despite the presence, in a large font, of the article's title, despite the presence of a link to the article, despite the presence of the lead-in of the article, and despite the presence of the publication's URL, you were too stupid to realize that Dr. Pan was quoting from the cited article. As a result of your total failure to read and comprehend this extremely simple piece of written information, you made a complete idiot of yourself here for dozens of posts.
Of course had Pan left the posts between May 30 and June 14 on his page would have saved a lot of torment and brain bleed as we could simply have referred back to that.
Note that the torment and brain bleed occurred to you only, as is perfectly appropriate. All the intelligent people here knew the truth of the matter. For anyone sufficiently interested, ten seconds with Google gave us Dr. Pan's complete post, but you were too stupid to find it despite having an extremely compelling interest in doing so, after being too stupid to understand the post the first time you read it. "Torment and brain bleed" is what happens to you when you are stupid but refuse to admit it to yourself.
It seems an honest error was made on my part and for that the appropriate apologies owed, and hereby offered.
Thanks. What you seem to be completely missing is that this is not an isolated incident or some sort of anomaly. Instead, it's an example of a deeply-embedded part of your intellectual makeup, or lack thereof. To wit: You are largely incapable of reading and understanding very simple written material, and you don't understand how to evaluate assertions. You're not intellectually equipped to handle that process. That's why you are constantly making mistakes, and why all your claims carry no weight whatsoever.
You are a spectacular example of a person exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect. Are you familiar with it?
Apologies for the failure to properly close the italics tag in my previous post. Here's the last bit with (I hope) proper formatting:
It seems an honest error was made on my part and for that the appropriate apologies owed, and hereby offered.
Thanks. What you seem to be completely missing is that this is not an isolated incident or some sort of anomaly. Instead, it’s an example of a deeply-embedded part of your intellectual makeup, or lack thereof. To wit: You are largely incapable of reading and understanding very simple written material, and you don’t understand how to evaluate assertions. You’re not intellectually equipped to handle that process. That’s why you are constantly making mistakes, and why all your claims carry no weight whatsoever.
You are a spectacular example of a person exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect. Are you familiar with it?
And now we're to the "dodging the answer" portion of our programme. How are people acquiring allergies to food proteins if the only exposure is eating them? Your own references discuss this. It's not a hard question and shouldn't involve antacids.
Julian Frost #1228,
"No, I’m saying they concluded no such thing."
In:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/6/e71.long
the FDA/CDC doctors wrote:
“Nonetheless, our cases with anti-gelatin IgE required some previous exposure to gelatin to become sensitized, and this may have come through ingestion of gelatin-containing food or injection of gelatin-containing vaccines.”
Please tell us what the doctors meant. Especially the part about gelatin-containing vaccines.
Science Mom, #1240,
"And now we’re to the “dodging the answer” portion of our programme. How are people acquiring allergies to food proteins if the only exposure is eating them? Your own references discuss this. It’s not a hard question and shouldn’t involve antacids."
I am not aware of a study showing people acquiring allergies when the only exposure is eating. I requested you to post studies and you have been unable to post it.
As I already wrote, people develop TOLERANCE, NOT ALLERGY, to the proteins they ingest.
I am not aware of MY references demonstrating this. Pl. quote .
Helianthus #1218,
Menomune and Menactra package inserts do not document the amount of agar.
Repeating something, especially in allcaps, doesn't make it true. Your own references which stipulate allergies to food proteins not present in vaccines:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/6/e71.long
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414850
Let the hand-waving begin.
APV #1241 asks:
APV, please tell us what the doctors meant, especially the part about "may".
You sh!twit. Agar is sugar.
Science Mom, TBruce, Julian Frost,
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414850#t=article
Can you explain how children in the avoidance group (they avoided eating peanuts ) developed peanut allergy?
Science Mom #1246,
IgE to agar-agar:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.056006580.x…
Science Mom #1244,
"stipulate allergies to food proteins not present in vaccines:"
How did you jump to that conclusion?
It's easy to tell when Vinu Arumugham (APV) is lying.
He's typing.
Bill Price #1245,
APV, please tell us what the doctors meant, especially the part about “may”.
If your antacid tablet contained gelatin for example, you could develop gelatin allergy. The "may" accounts for such possibilities.
Better yet since you are the one denying that food can cause food allergies:
a.) Why did some children in the exposed group still get peanut allergies and...
b.) If no peanut products are in vaccines then how can you attribute peanut allergies to vaccines, along with other food proteins which aren't present in vaccines.
A weak allergenic response to a highly unreliable test and agar-agar isn't the same as biological agar.
Was anyone ever convinced you were a med student?
With you there was no jump. Go ahead and explain why people develop food allergies to proteins which aren't even present in vaccines or in such negligible amounts they can't even be measured.
It's a possibility (maybe) that APV's idée fixe is supported, thus it's a certainty, since it's APV's very own idée fixe.
Furthermore APV, why did any children develop peanut allergies whether they were exposed later or earlier if only tolerance is acquired via oral exposure?
Science Mom #1256,
"Furthermore APV, why did any children develop peanut allergies whether they were exposed later or earlier if only tolerance is acquired via oral exposure?"
If you have not figured that out yet - vaccines.
Just because it is not listed in the package insert does not mean there is no peanut protein in the vaccine.
Polysorbate 80 and sorbitol are plant derived excipients.
They could be contaminated with any of the plant proteins from which they were derived including peanut.
Even the pharmaceutical companies are surprised by this lack of regulation:
http://www.excipientfest.com/europe/pdf/EFE14%20June%2024,%20A1%20The%2…
Slide 6:
“How is excipient
manufacture regulated?
• To the surprise of many the
manufacture and supply of excipients
is unregulated by any agency
• European legislation puts the onus on
the user, the MA holder to ensure that
starting materials are of a ‘suitable’
standard”
Anything goes ...
Science Mom #1253,
"a highly unreliable test "
Are you going to provide evidence?
Science Mom #1252,
"a.) Why did some children in the exposed group still get peanut allergies and…"
It is not digital logic.
Some people develop more tolerance than others.
Some people develop more severe allergies than others.
In the avoidance group, with no tolerance, there were a lot more incidences of allergy. In the peanut consuming group, tolerance reduced the occurrence of allergy.
Hasn't Vinu Arumugham previously claimed that exposure to a pathogen that one had been vaccinated against would, of Richeotian necessity, cause anaphylaxis?
I think the context was influenza, but I've long since lost interest in this sad monomania. Perhaps he could try to get FemtoThink to try to reproduce the behavior.
I've forgotten where the source repository is, or went, whatever.
TBruce #1216,
First, sorry to hear about your family's allergy problems.
Sorry about the nosy questions but I hoped there would be interest in an open discussion to try to understand the cause of the allergy.
As I wrote before, protein ingestion induces tolerance.
If the hypothesis is that your daughter developed allergy from ingestion, you have to explain the inconsistency.
OTOH, if the hypothesis is that she developed the allergy from vaccines, it is consistent with the evidence from all the studies I posted.
Allergy can develop in stages. It need not be from just one shot. It is well known that whole limb swelling occurs after the 3rd or 4th dose of DTaP. So allergy intensity increases with number of shots.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10617749
Which vaccines have shrimp in them?
Narad #1260,
"Hasn’t Vinu Arumugham previously claimed that exposure to a pathogen that one had been vaccinated against would, of Richeotian necessity, cause anaphylaxis?"
Yes, a pathogen protein exposure in sufficient quantities (like a subsequent vaccine shot).
This could be a case of allergy to the vaccine proteins:
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/child-with-allergy-to-DTap.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10617749
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/influenza-vaccine-anaphylaxis.aspx
"The fact that the skin tests were positive suggests that these were in fact an IgE mediated reactions, perhaps to the viral proteins themselves. "
Same Dr. Kelso, who co-authored the Vitali Pool FDA, paper.
And which have tomato, strawberries and aspirin?
Because I have a close friend who would like to know.
In other news,Kerri Rivera may be starting to move away from Chlorine Dioxide,and embrace GcMAF.
APV @1241:
The operative word in that sentence is MAY. We have had this argument on a previous thread that also ran to over 1000 comments. The fact that "x might have caused" is not the same as "x caused" seems to elude you.
It is also curious how it is "clear" that the authors meant through ingestion of gelatin-containing food as meaning such foods ingested with antacids only, despite any words to the effect by the authors, but may have come through [...] injection of gelatin-containing vaccines means that it can only be vaccines that did it.
Skimming through the comments a bit more...
APV,
But from the link you provided, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15671152),
"Before a 3 months course of anti-ulcer medication 15 of 152
gastroenterological patients (10%) had elevated specific IgE to at least 1 of 19 tested food
allergens. Similarly, in control subjects 5 of 50 (also 10%) had preexisting food-specific IgE. "
How did 10% of the mice get allergies before the study begun, if the only way to get food allergies was with antacids?
Don't forget the special peach-containing vaccines that are only distributed in the Mediterranean.
Generally speaking, mammals are born without teeth and cut them later, a process which produces open wounds in the mouth through which food proteins are inevitably introduced into the blood. This happens again when the baby teeth fall out and adult teeth grow in. If food proteins introduced into the blood caused allergies, we would have been extinct. We are not extinct. Therefore, by APV's own irrefutable logic, food proteins introduced into the blood do not cause allergies.
I guess I'll just refer back to this thread whenever APV shows up to spout his idée fixe. Positively daft.
Vinu Arumugham (APV) said,
Polysorbate 80 and sorbitol are plant derived excipients.
They could be contaminated with any of the plant proteins from which they were derived including peanut.
He's lying.
OccamsLaser, that's par for the course for APV. He first popped up on this thread where he insisted that polysorbate 80 contained peanut oil. That was the thread I referred to earlier.
Your information on Excipients is not completely accurate. Excipients are regulated to varying degrees in many countries - in the USA they must be made according to GMPs (there is a national standard ANSI 363) , in Europe there is a guidance that covers EU Excipient Risk Assessment, and in China and Brasil there are also Excipient GMP requirements. Janeen Skutnik President IPEC Federation
APV has argued that there is no standard or specification stating the maximum amount of various food proteins which are allowable in vaccines, thus they must be assumed to be contaminated by those food proteins.
Janeen Skutnik #1274,
"Janeen Skutnik President IPEC Federation"
Thank you for the response.
My understanding is that GMPs safeguard against UNINTENTIONAL contamination.
But contamination from growth media and excipients are BY DESIGN and GMP will provide no protection.
Perhaps you are the best person to answer this question.
Has a safe dosage level been established for allergens such as egg, milk, and various vegetable proteins that are present in injected pharmaceutical products?
The FDA (via email) said such a level has not been established.
USP said they do not regulate it.
Sanofi Pasteur (via email) said there is no specification limiting ovalbumin content for US vaccines.
Uhh…APV? You do realize that “contamination by design” represents a complete oxymoron, don’t you?
Vinu Arumugham (APV) fabricates evidence to support his position. He has lied repeatedly in multiple venues on the Internet, and he was caught impersonating a medical student.
He's a very, very dishonest person.
For some good news on vaccines, the WHO is reporting that the Ebola vaccine developed in Canada is looking very promising.
Uhh…APV? You do realize that “contamination by design” represents a complete oxymoron, don’t you?
This has been pointed out to him before; I think that his equipment is set to transmit only.
APV you might find ths interesting.
This blogger has outed another one of Sherri Tenpenny and Greeenmedinfo's lies about vaccines and immunity,by simply contacting the author of the original study Tenpenny and Greenmedinfo cited.
APV
You (personally) "may" be hit by a meteorite the next time that you step outside you home.
Vaccines "may" be the cause of food allergies.
I believe the word "may" denotes a similar, quantifiable, almost negligible risk for the two examples. Please tell me, with references showing the quantification, why you are asserting that I am wrong and the "may" associated with vaccines means a certainty.
For good measure, you could also explain why, if vaccines always cause food allergies as you assert, all vaccinated people who have subsequently eaten do not appear to have died from anaphylaxis (with references, please).
JGC #1277,
" ... “contamination by design” represents a complete oxymoron, ..."
Evaluation of Egg Protein Contamination in Influenza Vaccines
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(09)02305-7/abstract
As you can see, egg protein in influenza vaccines is a contaminant. And egg protein did not get there by ACCIDENT. It is there because the virus was grown on eggs.
So vaccines are contaminated by design, thus making "vaccine safety" an oxymoron.
Stuartg #1282,
"if vaccines always cause food allergies as you assert,"
You are putting words into my mouth.
Pl. see #1185.
Per the studies in that post, vaccine induced food allergy has been shown to vary from 1.6% to 36%.
Vaccine induced allergy to the vaccine antigen proteins can be as high as 100%.
@APV, I am puzzled as to why you have not graced us with an explanation as to why babies do regularly not die of anaphalytic shock from food proteins that get into their blood while they are teething.
Mephistopheles O'Brien #1275,
"APV has argued that there is no standard or specification stating the maximum amount of various food proteins which are allowable in vaccines,"
Correct, no specification exists for a SAFE DOSE of injected allergen.
" thus they must be assumed to be contaminated by those food proteins."
No. It is a fact that vaccines are contaminated with food proteins. Food protein contaminated vaccines with no safety spec. for contamination levels, means vaccines are unsafe. It is not that complicated ...
So this friend of mine is allergic to grass, which sucks for him, as he has about 40 acres of the stuff, and the fields the cows* aren't in have to be mown. Twice a week, he goes in and gets a shot to help him get over the allergy.
This confuses me, as APV claims that shots cause allergies. Is he being lied to? Would it be better if he sprinkled a few lawn clippings on his salad?
*Pi$$es him off to no end when I call them 'cows'. It seems the proper term is 'cattle'. Black angus, to be specific. Dayum, they taste good.
http://i.imgur.com/njGdZwE.jpg
Johnny, I wonder what your friend would think of the "Oreo Cookie Cow" nick-name for the Belted Galloways. When I see them, it just seems to fit.
A recent study found that anaphylaxis occurred rarely after pediatric immunization, and not at all after routine infant and preschool immunization.
Very rare,but not completely unknown.
The evil CDC even says if a child has severe anaphylaxis after even one vaccine,they should not be vaccinated.They need to be protected by herd immunity.APV if your doctor continued to vaccinate your child after an episode of anaphylaxis,they were clearly in the wrong.Your anger should be directed at your doctor,not at vaccines.You should be speaking out for other parents to vaccinate their children,to maintain the herd immunity to protect your child.
I have met so many parents of sick and disabled children,in various web forums over the years.Parents whose children have preexisting medical conditions and should not have been vaccinated,and have become rabid antivaxers.Their anger is always directed at the vaccines,when it should be directed at the doctors who vaccinated their children.Doctors and patients/parents alike need to accept the fact that not every doctor knows everything.
LW, #1285,
"@APV, I am puzzled as to why you have not graced us with an explanation as to why babies do regularly not die of anaphalytic shock from food proteins that get into their blood while they are teething."
Food proteins getting into the blood through teething sores is not an efficient sensitization mechanism. As you have pointed out, we would otherwise have been extinct.
Vaccines are usually injected into muscle for optimal immunocompetence.
Unfortunately, the co-injected food proteins will therefore also invite a strong immune response, resulting in efficient sensitization. Further, we have adjuvants in vaccines that boost the allergic response.
The importance of injecting vaccines into muscle
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118997/
gaist #1268,
"How did 10% of the mice get allergies before the study begun, if the only way to get food allergies was with antacids?"
Those were people, not mice.
gaist #1264,
"And which have tomato, strawberries and aspirin?
Because I have a close friend who would like to know."
"Allergy" to tomato and strawberries are more likely to be cases of histamine intolerance. Aspirin allergy is a separate mechanism by itself. We are talking about food allergies that are classified as Type I IgE-mediated hypersensitivity disorders that are different from the other two.
As I have stated before, vaccine package inserts are incomplete and do not list ALL allergens. Allergens in excipients can vary as different batches may have excipients from different suppliers. If you DO have IgE mediated tomato/strawberry allergy, you will find out if they are in a vaccine only when you have a reaction to the vaccine.
Julian Frost #1266,
I have provided studies that show that vaccines causing allergies in 1.6-36% of vaccine recipients. The FDA/CDC doctors wrote that gelatin containing vaccines are a cause of gelatin allergy because of the evidence. Are you suggesting they were speculating?
If you bothered to read the stuff you keep posting, you would observe that yes, they are speculating. One observes this from the language they use—may— and the context of the statement you're relying on.
Roger Kulp #1290,
An allergic patient having an allergic reaction to a vaccine is just the tip of the iceberg. For each such reaction, there are thousands of healthy non-allergic people who DEVELOP allergies due to these food protein contaminated vaccines. THAT is the real problem.
Bill Price #1295,
"If you bothered to read the stuff you keep posting,"
Obviously you did not bother to read. So here is the evidence again.
“In the preliminary results investigating the immunogenicity of gelatin in DTaP, a trace amount of gelatin in DTaP was immunogenic.11 We examined 165 paired sera obtained before the first dose of DTaP and 1 month after the third dose of DTaP. Of 165 paired sera, 62 were obtained from the recipients of gelatin-free DTaP, and IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in none. In 103 recipients of gelatin-containing DTaP, IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in 2 recipients.”
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2899%2970508-7/fulltext
Johnny #1287,
Pollen allergies are different from food allergies.
You are not prescribed Epipen for pollen allergies but they do for food allergies. Different problems, different solutions.
Pollen allergies are natural. Food allergies are man-made.
APV:
FTFY.
That is incorrect. They wrote that vaccines MAY cause allergies, not that they did.
Praise the Lord!! Realisation finally dawns on APV!! The word MAY says that they were speculating that vaccines MIGHT cause allergies, not that they did.
Science Mom,
You could just refer to this thread where APV produced the exact same evidence which was debunked in the exact same way, but this apparently didn't penetrate APV's brain. APV seems to be incapable of learning. Just one example: a small increase in IgE is part of a normal immune reaction, as we are learningn that IgE is involved in immune reactions to pathogens such as viruses, as well as parasitic infection, but in atopy this reaction is exaggerated. APV kept (keeps it appears) misinterpreting studies that show an increase in IgE within the normal range to mean that allergy was induced, when the papers explicitly state that clinical allergy was not present. That's why I haven't bothered engaging him much on this thread. Hermetically sealed skull syndrome.
You've completely missed my question.
You claim that shots that cause allergic reactions also cause allergic sensitivity. My friend, twice a week for months, receives a shot that causes an allergic reaction so bad that he has to sit around at the doctors office after receiving the shot, in case his reaction is so bad that he requires medical help.
Now you might say that he doesn't eat grass pollen, but being surrounded by 40 acres of the stuff, there's no doubt he does, as do you and me. Every time we breath, it coats our throat, and we swallow it. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
So why do vaccines cause food allergies, but allergy shots don't?
His biggest questions would be 'how do they taste, how fast do they reach market weight, how much feed do they need to gain a pound of weight, can I make money raising them?'. His cows aren't decorations or pets, they are money and food.
My question would be 'are they cream filled?'.
APV@ 1291
Unfortunately, the co-injected food proteins will therefore also invite a strong immune response, resulting in efficient sensitization.
Citation please.
"My question would be ‘are they cream filled?’."
Yuk, yuk, yuk!
Actually that was a pretty good one and I'll have to use it with my friends when we come across a herd again.
For your friend, they get good press.
Krebiozen #1300,
"as we are learningn that IgE is involved in immune reactions to pathogens such as viruses,"
"We are learning" now because we ignored Richet's findings from a hundred years ago.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-l…
"On the other hand all the proteins without exception produce anaphylaxis: one has seen this with all sera, milks, organic extracts whatsoever, all vegetable extracts, microbial proteinotoxins, yeast cells, dead microbial bodies. It would be of more interest now to find a protein which does not produce anaphylaxis than to find one that does."
You insist that food protein exposure to GI mucosa is the cause of the food allergy epidemic.
Induction of tolerance to ingested proteins was demonstrated over a hundred years ago.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807570/
“The phenomenon of oral tolerance was first described by Wells and Osborne in 1911.5,6 They used guinea pigs to show that inclusion of egg white, purified egg allergens, or oats in the diet rendered the animals hyporesponsive to sensitization and anaphylaxis to those proteins. ”
How do you explain the results of this NEJM peanut study? Why did the patients that AVOIDED GI mucosa exposure to peanuts develop peanut allergy? How did peanut exposure occur at all?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414850
"papers explicitly state that clinical allergy was not present."
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2899%2970508-7/fulltext
"We examined 165 paired sera obtained before the first dose of DTaP and 1 month after the third dose of DTaP. Of 165 paired sera, 62 were obtained from the recipients of gelatin-free DTaP, and IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in none. In 103 recipients of gelatin-containing DTaP, IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in 2 recipients. Later, when they received measles vaccine, one developed urticaria 20 minutes after measles vaccination, but the other did not. "
Developing urticaria after vaccination is clinical allergy. And this was after only 3 doses of DTaP.
Children normally get 5 DTaP shots. And we know IgE builds up with repeated allergen injection.
"Hermetically sealed skull syndrome."
Keeps the hot air out.
Roger Kulp #1302,
Pl. see #1185.
Johnny #1301,
Quantity and type of protein matters. Some quantities will sensitize, other quantities can help desensitize.
Allergy shots with certain quantities of allergen have been shown experimentally to help desensitize. Pollen allergy shots have low risk of anaphylaxis in contrast to food allergy shots. So food allergy is not treated with allergy shots.
The quantity of viral protein present in vaccines usually result in the synthesis of IgG and IgE antibodies. But there was not enough egg protein in the vaccine to develop IgG but IgE did develop as shown below.
"In most vaccinees, IgG-specific antibody to egg protein did not rise significantly after immunization. It is thus likely that the current vaccine product does not contain enough egg protein to stimulate an IgG antibody response. Contrary to
the IgG response, IgE specific to Fl rose significantly after immunization in a considerable number of vaccinees, "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/pdf/epidinfect00008…
So depending on the route of exposure, quantity, protein type, there can be varied immune responses.
Therefore, mass injection of uncontrolled levels of food proteins with no safety studies is an unscientific approach to public health. The disastrous result - the food allergy epidemic, is a predictable outcome.
Yes, that's why I gave up and why I engaged to begin with remembering vividly you and Narad demonstrating his profound ignorance and abuse of the literature he is using, is beyond me. These obsessives are rather tragic to watch anyhow.
APV,of all your links,the only one that might still have any merit,is the one about gelatin and DTaP,
The articles you cite on the influenza vaccines are all about increased immunity as an added bonus,not unlike the recent studies out of China about the MMR vaccine.The study by Tamar A. Smith-Norowitz et al and the letter by Karl Albert Brokstad are all about beneficial autontibodies remaining after the vaccine was thought to have worn off. Brokstad states there was no anaphylaxis.
The study by Obihara et al appears to be one of those rare (?) cases where a natural infection,in this case Mycobacterium tuberculosis,protects against developing future allergies.One can argue if having Mycobacterium tuberculosis might be worse than having allergies,but that is beside the point you are making.
Your article about egg allergies and flu shots is from 1987.Hopelessly outdated.There is now a flu vaccine <a href=" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-flu-vaccine-for-people-allergic-to-eggs… from insect cells that does not use eggs.
So APV's century-old Nobel prizewinner's speech said that any protein introduced into the blood without going through the digestive system sensitizes the body so as to produce anaphalytic shock. But APV assures us that it's not *any* protein, only food proteins; pollen proteins don't count. And APV assures us that food proteins introduced directly into the bloodstream don't count; the food proteins must be introduced into the muscles. Gums are apparently the same as blood in this regard. And APV says that nanograms of food particles are enough except that they require adjuvants that his century-old source didn't mention. And APV says that if vaccine safety specifications don't set limits on every conceivable contaminant, Big Pharma will randomly add peanuts, shrimp, strawberries, or whatever else happens to be lying around the factory. Perhaps workers' lunches.
I think I've got this straight now.
Vinu Arumugham (APV) does not have confidence in his own hypothesis. The evidence for this is that he has decided to resort to fabricating information about vaccine ingredients.
I note that when these lies are exposed, he doesn't deny having made up the information, just as he doesn't deny that he has impersonated a medical student.
LW #1309,
"So APV’s century-old Nobel prizewinner’s speech said that any protein introduced into the blood without going through the digestive system sensitizes the body so as to produce anaphalytic shock. But APV assures us that it’s not *any* protein, only food proteins; pollen proteins don’t count. And APV assures us that food proteins introduced directly into the bloodstream don’t count; the food proteins must be introduced into the muscles. Gums are apparently the same as blood in this regard."
It's quite simple. Naturally occurring allergen exposure modes and quantities are safe as we have evolved to exist in that environment. That covers pollen and food proteins in teething wounds.
"And APV says that nanograms of food particles are enough except that they require adjuvants that his century-old source didn’t mention."
Adjuvants were discovered by accident after Richet's time. Vaccines contaminated with aluminum from the vats, unexpectedly worked better. So now they add aluminum salts by design. Unfortunately, aluminum salts not only boost immune response, they bias towards allergy.
"APV says that if vaccine safety specifications don’t set limits on every conceivable contaminant, "
You are putting words into my mouth. We need a safety specification for the proteins of every food item used in the manufacture of a vaccine. If you are going to use egg, coconut, soy and milk to manufacture a vaccine, then you need a specification for those items. You don't need one for strawberry.
Roger Kulp #1308,
"Your article about egg allergies and flu shots is from 1987.Hopelessly outdated.There is now a flu vaccine <a href=" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-flu-vaccine-for-people-allergic-to-eggs… from insect cells that does not use eggs."
Flu vaccines are made using eggs, the same way they have been made for 70 years. And the 1987 study is outdated? How?
The insects are from moth larvae. If you have egg allergy, you can with difficulty avoid eggs. How are you going to avoid moth dust? This is a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire ...
@LW #1309: It's a bit more complicated. My concern is that you may have been unwittingly exposed to a bit of bait-and-switch. To get around those who object to vaccinations, there's a conspiracy to add oral vaccines to rice:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100952
The trick was to first develop transgenic rice with reduced levels of the antigen-provoking proteins responsible for allergic reactions in those with food allergy to rice:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055998
Spoof, err, proof that vaccines have already been secretly introduced into foods, including rice, is everywhere, such as the case of an infant in Louisiana who developed gastrointestinal food hypersensitivity after being exposed to a trivial amount of rice protein after chewing on the cellophane wrapping from a rice cake. Adverse effects from the mass oral vaccination program, although so far mostly seen in infants, are being cleverly disguised as nothing more than isolated cases of non-IgE-mediated, food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES). Stealthily masking the program, the toxic reactions are being excused as nothing more than metabolic disorders, acute gastroenteritis, severe gatroenterosophageal reflux disease, or trifling cases of sepsis or ileus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23715655
You just make this up as you go along, don't you?
It has been pointed out many times on this site that aluminum is common in the Earth's crust. If one of our ancestors got his hands scratched up, he likely got aluminum in the wounds and when he then held food in his hands, he would have both aluminum and food proteins together in the wounds.
The amount of food protein introduced into the body in the scenario above is much greater than the hypothetical amount introduced via a vaccine.
By the way, you do know it's silly to say that the body will be sensitized by food proteins injected into muscles but not food proteins injected into the gums and bloodstream while teething, right? Not to mention that denying that food proteins injected into the blood cause sensitization and anaphalytic shock flatly contradicts your own favorite Nobel prizewinner.
LW #1314,
"It has been pointed out many times on this site that aluminum is common in the Earth’s crust. If one of our ancestors got his hands scratched up, he likely got aluminum in the wounds and when he then held food in his hands, he would have both aluminum and food proteins together in the wounds."
And he may have developed allergies and died of anaphylaxis. How does that make any difference to what we are talking about?
"By the way, you do know it’s silly to say that the body will be sensitized by food proteins injected into muscles but not food proteins injected into the gums and bloodstream while teething, right?"
No. It is as silly as claiming that intramuscular vaccines are just as effective if administered intravenously.
"Not to mention that denying that food proteins injected into the blood cause sensitization and anaphalytic shock flatly contradicts your own favorite Nobel prizewinner."
I said it is not as efficient. Theoretically it is of course possible. And quantity of allergen injected matters as well.
LW 1314#
Krebiozen worte:
" as we are learningn that IgE is involved in immune reactions to pathogens such as viruses, "
Vaccines cause IgE to viral proteins (allergy to viruses). Allergy to viruses is part of why vaccines work. So the best proof that vaccines cause food allergy may be the fact that vaccines work.
Science Mom,
Gentle reminder that there are a lot of pending evidence requests for claims you have made ...
#1142
"Because not all media excipients make it into each dose at the same quantity during the filtration process."
In other words, you are claiming SQC does not work?
One more for the evidence request list ...
Vinu Arumugham (APV) is a serial liar and a coward. He is intent on spreading fabricated information about vaccine ingredients, among other things. This is very dangerous behavior, as parents who do not know better might believe his falsified claims, resulting in their endangering their children by failing to vaccinate them. In a very real sense, he might be spreading death.
This lengthy thread exposes many of Vinu Arumugham's lies on this subject.
And, again, Narad discovered that Vinu Arumugham impersonated a medical student in conversations with real doctors.
Vinu Arumugham has never denied any of these lies and fabrications.
Julian Frost #1299,
"The word MAY says that they were speculating that vaccines MIGHT cause allergies, not that they did."
Speculating in a technical article is unprofessional. How did it escape peer-review and result in acceptance of the article?
Being FDA/CDC doctors, of all things, why would they speculate it was vaccines?
Has it occurred to you that it is the posters here who are speculating that food protein contaminated vaccines do not cause allergies? They have produced ZERO evidence to back their claims ...
Johnny #1313,
"You just make this up as you go along, don’t you?"
No. I don't. You see, unlike most other people here, I post numerous references, which do the talking.
Speculation is unprofessional only if it is on point with the article, e.g., substituting for results. If it's (a)pointing at something that's not in the article's scope, (b)suggesting directions for future study or (c)discussing methodological limitations ('we can't know why our subjects had these characteristics, but perhaps...'), it most certainly is a professional action.
The FDA and CDC are responsible, in part, for monitoring vaccine safety and efficacy. Why would they not mention such possibilities, even as speculation?
So how do you explain all the moth allergies before such a vaccine was produced?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000386.htm
You do realize not everything related to the immune system is an allergic reaction?
Also,citation, please.
I was going to answer APV's "unprofessionalism" accusation in #1319, but Bill Price has already posted a proper refutation.
As for:
As you were told in the very first thread where you made your claims, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that vaccines are responsible for sensitisation. You, therefore, are the one who has to bring the evidence. We are not obliged to prove a negative.
And the talking that they do does not say what you think they say. In fact, one of the links you gave in the first thread clearly stated that vaccination programs are not responsible for allergies.
and...
The scenario described -- holding food in scratched-up hands -- would have been common in the pre-bandaid rough-and-tumble world in which we evolved. APV seems to be under the delusion that selection only applies when a situation is encountered 24/7 but it doesn't.
Let's review what we've learned about human evolution from APV:
Pollen is so common that we have evolved to tolerate inhaling it, eating it, and injecting it into the bloodstream or tissues without developing anaphylaxis. Insect stings are common enough that we have likewise evolved to tolerate injection into the bloodstream or tissues without, in general, developing anaphylaxis (though some do).
Food proteins are so distinctly different from pollen that we have evolved an entirely separate immune mechanism for dealing with them: food proteins injected into the bloodstream are tolerated without developing anaphylaxis; food proteins introduced into the tissues of the gums are tolerated without developing anaphylaxis; even a nanogram of food proteins introduced into the muscles, however, sensitizes the body so that the next exposure will cause anaphylaxis.
Vinu Arumugham (APV) -
You wrote,
Johnny #1313,
“You just make this up as you go along, don’t you?”
No. I don’t. You see, unlike most other people here, I post numerous references, which do the talking.
You're lying.
Where did you post a reference that shows that you are a medical student, as you claim?
Where did you post a reference that food allergies have skyrocketed among the vaccinated, but have remained near zero among the unvaccinated?
Where did you post a reference that states that Avantor's Polysorbate 80 contains peanut oil, as you claim?
Nowhere. Because you're a serial liar.
Maybe one day, when your kids Google your name, you will finally have to explain all your dishonesty. Start thinking about your answers to their inevitable questions.
Bill Price #1322, Julian Frost #1324,
Here:
https://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=16&cont=54
The AAFA lists inhalation, ingestion,touch and injection as the possible routes of sensitization.
Kids are not known to inhale gelatin or wallow in pools of gelatin. So the Pool study mentions ingestion and injection. And I have provided references demonstrating that ingestion induces tolerance. Reference 11 in the Pool study says:
“In the preliminary results investigating the immunogenicity of gelatin in DTaP, a trace amount of gelatin in DTaP was immunogenic.11 We examined 165 paired sera obtained before the first dose of DTaP and 1 month after the third dose of DTaP. Of 165 paired sera, 62 were obtained from the recipients of gelatin-free DTaP, and IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in none. In 103 recipients of gelatin-containing DTaP, IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in 2 recipients.”
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2899%2970508-7/fulltext
Which of course is sheer coincidence, right?
So you can twist, spin and deny the results of peer-reviewed published articles but you cannot change the fact that food protein contaminated vaccines cause food allergy.
Julian Frost #1325,
"In fact, one of the links you gave in the first thread clearly stated that vaccination programs are not responsible for allergies.'
Pl. point out which one. We are talking specifically about food allergies. Let's not confuse it with studies looking at atopic dermatitis or allergic conjunctivitis vs. vaccines, which I think is what you may be referring.
gaist #1323,
"So how do you explain all the moth allergies before such a vaccine was produced?"
Never claimed vaccines are the ONLY cause of moth allergies. Vaccines are an efficient cause of allergies.
"Also,citation, please."
Last two references in #1185.
Note that Vinu Arumugham does not deny that he's lied repeatedly about all sorts of matters. I will also note that he has admitted to being a coward who, if he worked in medical research, would not investigate a possible connection between vaccines and allergies, because he would be afraid of losing funding. How disgusting.
And your evidence for moth allergies increasing after the insect egg-cultured flu vaccine came out would be...?
gaist #1332,
"And your evidence for moth allergies increasing after the insect egg-cultured flu vaccine came out would be…?"
Insect cell culture, not insect egg. The insect used is a moth larva.
A standard flu vaccine contains 15 mcg of HA viral protein per virus strain per dose. 100% of people injected with this vaccine develop allergy to the virus. Part of why the vaccine works. Last two references in #1185.
The Flublok vaccine contains up to 28.5 mcg of baculovirus and Spodoptera frugiperda cell proteins. You predict the outcome.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…
LW #1326,
Things to keep in mind:
Wounds close quickly otherwise you would bleed to death.
So time window available for food protein exposure is quite small.
The wound may have to be inflicted by a food item. Making it a much more infrequent event.
In the "pre-bandaid rough-and-tumble world", the wound is more likely to be infected. Death due to infection would make the role of allergy moot. So natural selection would have tended to reduce clumsiness (that resulted in the injury) than increase tolerance to food protein exposure.
Teething is a childhood sensitization mechanism. Those that sensitize would die without producing offspring. Thus making it a very efficient natural selection force.
BTW, your alternative explanation that is consistent with ALL the observed phenomena below is very welcome:
Food allergy epidemic
The vaccine/gelatin/allergy events in Japan
The NEJM peanut study results
Richet's findings
Vaccines causing IgE synthesis to vaccine antigens
etc. ...
Vinu Arumugham (APV):
Things to keep in mind:
You lie all the time.
You were caught impersonating a medical student.
You fabricated the contents of manufacturers' data sheets.
LW #1326,
"even a nanogram of food proteins"
Some interesting numbers:
HA viral protein per strain per dose in regular influenza vaccine - 15 mcg. Produces (desirable) virus allergy in 100% of patients. [1][6]
Baculovirus + moth larva cells in the Flublok vaccine - 28.5 mcg. [2]
HA viral protein per strain per dose in the Flublok vaccine - 45 mcg. [2]
Egg protein in today's flu vaccines - 0.4 mcg. [1]
Egg proteins in the 1967 flu vaccines - 7.4 mcg/ml. [3]
Egg proteins in the 2009 flu vaccines - 38.3 mcg/ml. Not a typo. [4]
Casein in DTaP/TdaP - 8-18 ng/ml. Caused allergic reactions. [5]
Gelatin in DTaP (Japan) 48-200 ug/ml. Caused sensitization to gelatin. [7]
Gelatin in MMR (US/Japan) 1-14.5mg. Caused reactions in US/Japan. [7]
[1] http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…
[2] http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC377279/pdf/applmicro00114-0…
[4] http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2809%2902305-7/fulltext
[5] http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext
[6] http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm
[7] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/6/e71.long
APV@ 1328
Kids are not known to inhale gelatin or wallow in pools of gelatin. So the Pool study mentions ingestion and injection.
The page you cite lists insect stings as a mode of injection.Are gelatin containing vaccines among those given to newborns?
Since most food allergies are introduced via the GI tract,have you considered the possibility you might have given your child a commercial infant formula that contained gelatin?I think a few do,but it is very hard to find ingredients for each brand on the web.The amount given to a baby as formula feedings would certainly be a lot greater than that in a vaccine,and probably enough to cause anaphylaxis.
APV:
Your comment:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/05/no-the-cdc-did-not-just-ap…
The URL of "Paper 2" which you mentioned in your comment.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1399-3038.2001.1r046.x/abs…
The money quote from the paper:
Satisfied?
APV,
I take it you meant the "jumping from frying pan into the fire" to refer to people now turning allergic to moth dust, right?
So, while not every moth allergy is caused by vaccines, if your hypothesis was correct there should be a visible increase in moth allergies? So, got any evidence for it or did you just assume it must be true?
Wait, what? Are you saying that vaccination works by making us allergic to the viruses and bacteria? Seriously?
"That's not how it works!
That's not how ANY of this works!"
@ Julian
APV has found a study where anti-flu IgE were found and measured post-vaccine injection and concluded it's the same as being allergic to the flu.
Which, of course, is confirmed by real-life cases of allergic reactions of vaccinated people to sick people sneezing in their general direction.
Um, maybe I should add a "sarcasm" tag. Or at least a "citation please" tag.
Not this again. Vaccines work by making people allergic to pathogens? Back into the killfile with poor deluded APV...
@Helianthus: I had the same "Wait...WHAT????" reaction to the 100% allergic reaction to the flu shot statement from APV. Strangely, I've never had an allergic reaction to a flu shot, thimerosal-containing or not (I always ask for extra... :) ) I HAVE had an allergic reaction to medication so I know the difference.
I wish I could use a killfile for APV at work.
All, #1340-44
In #1300 Krebiozen wrote:
"Just one example: a small increase in IgE is part of a normal immune reaction, as we are learningn that IgE is involved in immune reactions to pathogens such as viruses"
pointing to the Tamar et. al paper.
Everybody yawned.
I pointed to that exact same study and said that it shows anti-influenza IgE synthesis in 100% of those receiving the intramuscular shot.
Everybody pounces (including Krebiozen)! How weird is that?
"The finding that specific IgE was significantly raised after
influenza vaccination is supported by earlier studies in
mice [4], and is important since IgE is present on mast cells.
Histamine from, for example, mast cells, is known to
influence histamine receptors and production of cytokines
in a Th1 type profile through histamine 1 receptor (H1R)
and proliferation of CD4þ T cell subsets, and to negatively
regulate both Th1 and Th2 responses through histamine
2 receptor (H2R) [5]. Mast cells also produce
several cytokines of importance in viral defence and in
allergic reactions. This is of interest since we found a
significantly higher level of influenza specific IgE after
vaccination with influenza which might indicate a participation
of IgE in viral defence. IgE may attach to virus and
if connected to mast cells cause activation and participation
in the viral defence, as mediators released from mast
cells may turn the immunological response towards a Th1
profile, recruiting for example, T lymphocytes, and thus
protect against viral infection."
Influenza Specific Serum IgE is Present in Non-Allergic
Subjects
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x/pdf
The title emphasizes non-allergic because somehow IgE synthesis is wrongly associated with allergic subjects alone. IgE attached to mast cells is the exact same mechanism operating in food allergy.
So none of this new. Nobody should have been surprised by the role of IgE in viral defense.
What happens when you inject egg proteins with the viral proteins?
The body treats it as yet another viral protein in the vaccine. It creates a robust IgE mediated defense against egg proteins the EXACT same way as it did for the viral proteins.
We just trained the immune system to defend against the viral proteins AND the egg protein.
It faithfully does the job as trained. And we fault it for being "overactive". Richet told us exactly this, 100 years ago. We haven't learnt a thing from him.
Dr. Kelso who co-authored the Pool et. al. paper on gelatin allergy:
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/influenza-vaccine-anaphylaxis.aspx
“The fact that the skin tests were positive suggests that these were in fact an IgE mediated reactions, perhaps to the viral proteins themselves. ”
So, why don't people develop anaphylaxis to NATURAL exposure to virus against which they have been vaccinated? It is the quantity. If you placed a spoonful of virus in your mouth, you will suffer anaphylaxis. People cannot do that. But with food, that is exactly what they do all the time. Hence foods cause anaphylaxis. Natural virus exposure quantities cause "micro allergic reactions". Perhaps a sneeze or two that blow away the viruses. The first line of defense. No Epipen needed.
BTW, IgE synthesis to vaccine antigens have been known since at least 1977.
IgE synthesis in man. I. Development of specific IgE antibodies after immunization with tetanus-diphtheria (Td) toxoids.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/830756
gaist #1339,
"So, got any evidence for it or did you just assume it must be true?"
It is a prediction I am making. Flublok and Cervarix that use the moth larva cells are relatively recent developments. We have to wait and see. Doctors don't know that moth larva allergy can be caused by these vaccines as it is not listed as a side effect in the package insert. So they mat not report it. Even if they report it, will it be swept under the carpet? We have to find out ...
Vinu Arumugham (APV) -
How weird is that?
Not nearly as weird as you lying to a doctor about being a medical student.
Right?
Julian Frost #1338,
"In conclusion, vaccination programs do not explain the increasing prevalence of allergic diseases, but individual children may uncommonly develop an allergic reaction to a vaccine.
Satisfied?"
The authors wrote:
"There is evidence that pertussis and diphtheria/tetanus antigens elicit immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody formation as part of the immune response."
Then:
"In children, however, sensitization to unrelated antigens or development of allergic diseases do not seem to be augmented."
"do not seem" is speculation, correct?. They provide evidence and then they speculate to the CONTRARY. Why?
A few sentences later the speculation becomes fact, denying the evidence already presented.
" vaccination programs do not explain the increasing prevalence of allergic diseases"
I can see how this can be especially satisfying to you!
Roger Kulp #1337,
"Are gelatin containing vaccines among those given to newborns?"
If newborns are defined as under 28 days old, does not seem so.
"you might have given your child a commercial infant formula"
We did not feed him formula.
Amazing how many antivaxxer parents admit among themselves that their completely unvaccinated kids have peanut (and other food) allergies.
APV, we have gone over this before.
That does not mean that the evidence was incontrovertible. Evidence can be circumstantial.
That means that their results were not hard enough to definitively say that vaccines induce allergies. They were saying that vaccines might cause allergies but the evidence was not yet solid enough to say that they do.
APV,
Except it didn't create a robust defense, it led to a feeble, barely measurable response. An allergic reaction is a hypersensitivity reaction that often leads to increases in IgE levels far greater than the tiny increases shown in the papers you have cited - I have often seen IgE levels in the thousands, mine was 220 kU/L last time I checked, and I have no allergic symptoms. I think you are giving way too much significance to small changes in IgE levels.
Prove it.
People have been reacting to allergens in quantities much smaller than a spoonful.
It's actually part of your schtick. You have been arguing for ages that the tiny amounts of food proteins in vaccines (if any) are good enough to elicit allergy. Now you are contradicting yourself.
Viruses are tiny particles bristling with antigen epitopes, a wonder of nature's efficiency at creating self-contained payload-delivery systems. Viruses are also way much smaller than a chicken egg. You can pack quite a huge number of them on the head of a pin.
If there are enough of them to trigger a normal immune reaction, there would be more than enough to trigger an allergic reaction, if the host's body was feeling this way.
Helianthus -
You have been arguing for ages that the tiny amounts of food proteins in vaccines (if any) are good enough to elicit allergy.
You're mixing up sensitization and elicitation.
Krebiozen #1353,
"mine was 220 kU/L last time I checked, and I have no allergic symptoms."
I don't know how to interpret your total IgE number.
In:
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext
a patient with as low as 58.9 kIU/L milk-specific IgE reacted to the 8-18 ng/ml of casein in the TdaP vaccine.
In:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x/pdf
post-vaccination anti-influenza IgE varies from 110-1100ng/ml or about 45-450kIU/L.
In:
http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm
post-vaccination anti-influenza IgE was >100kIU/L.
So clearly these are significant levels of anti-influenza IgE.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/1/e12.long
Synthesis of IgE to vaccine antigens due to aluminum adjuvant, is the most likely reason for whole limb swelling reactions associated with 4th or 5th dose of DTaP.
Seasonal split influenza vaccine induced IgE sensitization against influenza vaccine
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X15009123
Helianthus #1354,
"Prove it.
People have been reacting to allergens in quantities much smaller than a spoonful."
You don't have to take it literally ...
But, 4th of 5th dose of DTaP causes a reaction due to sensitization to the vaccine antigens.
That's much less than a spoonful.
"It’s actually part of your schtick. You have been arguing for ages that the tiny amounts of food proteins in vaccines (if any) are good enough to elicit allergy. Now you are contradicting yourself."
As Occamslaser wrote, you seem to be mixing sensitization and elicitation. Elicitation dose can be 5 to > 20x of the sensitization dose.
"Viruses are tiny particles bristling with antigen epitopes, a wonder of nature’s efficiency at creating self-contained payload-delivery systems. Viruses are also way much smaller than a chicken egg."
I don't know why you are comparing chicken egg to virus sizes.
The appropriate comparison would be between a virus and the size of an egg protein molecule.
"You can pack quite a huge number of them on the head of a pin.
If there are enough of them to trigger a normal immune reaction, there would be more than enough to trigger an allergic reaction, if the host’s body was feeling this way."
The HA protein is about 60 kDa. There are about 400 HA "spikes" per virus.
There are 1000 viruses per human infectious dose (HID).
Amount of HA protein in HID = 60000*400*1000/6e23 = ~40 femtogram.
The smallest dose that I am aware of that elicits an allergic reaction is 4ng of casein in a TdaP vaccine.
So the amount of virus you receive which is enough to cause an infection is 100000X less than an elicitation dose. So you may sneeze due to this "micro allergic reaction".
OTOH, a flu vaccine has almost a billion times that dose (15 mcg of HA). So you can have an allergic reaction to a subsequent injection of the same strain.
http://www.influenzareport.com/ir/virol.htm
http://www.rapidreferenceinfluenza.com/chapter/B978-0-7234-3433-7.50009…
And definitely people eat several orders of magnitude more than 40 femtogram of food proteins, thus making allergic reactions a certainty in sensitized people.
It hasn't occurred to you that once those influenza viruses start replicating in the body, you will be exposed to increasingly large 'doses' of viral protein, with thousands of viral particles per mL of blood?
Wait, he's now claim that viruses can cause allergies to viruses?
APV:
If you placed a spoonful of virus in your mouth, you will suffer anaphylaxis
Krebiozen:
Viruses are tiny particles bristling with antigen epitopes, a wonder of nature’s efficiency at creating self-contained payload-delivery systems. Viruses are also way much smaller than a chicken egg. You can pack quite a huge number of them on the head of a pin.
In the case of iridoviruses, when there are enough of them they condense into crystalline arrays within the host, like an opal or a diffraction grating, and the host -- usually an insect larva -- literally turns rainbow coloured (hence "iridovirus"). What I'm saying is that the infected larva is mostly virus by the time it dies.
Now I have seen small mammals eat infected grassgrub larvae (further evidence that dogs will eat anything). Yet they did not suffer anaphylaxis. It appears that yet another of APV's predictions cannot survive in the real world.
@APV (#1330):
So... Are people eating moths with antacids?
Re my #1361 above: Wait, I've got it! People get nervous, and take antacids to calm the "butterflies" in their stomach, but they were actually moths!
FACT; scientific knowledge is FAR from perfect. What science has uncovered is DWARFED by what is still not understood.
The causes of autism are not yet fully understood. Autism is most likely due to a combination of multiple adverse exposures and genetics.
Scientific understanding evolves over time as more is learned. Consequently, much of what science believes today, will be discarded in the future as better information becomes available.
Furthermore, the use of un-killed vaccines should be banned, as they WILL cause harm to a certain portion of the population. There is NO legitimate excuse for the use of un-killed vaccines.
Finally, I do NOT have to "prove" anything to anyone else, for my family and I to decide whether or not our children will be vaccinated with certain vaccines. My family understands better than anyone else, our family's medical history and what WE consider to be acceptable risks for OUR children.
Anyone who has concerns about being exposed to contagious diseases should vaccinate themselves and their children appropriately, and/or take other steps to protect their own and their children's health, period.
True but that doesn't mean vaccinesdidit particularly in light of the numerous studies which have examined vaccines in numerous ways.
You aren't a scientist or anything remotely resembling one are you? Are you aware that there are many different different scientific disciplines and for many, your blanket fappery doesn't apply.
What do you suggest then? And help me out here, you are fine with your children catching the wild-type diseases but go into apoplexy over a modified live viral vaccine?
Spoken like a true, privileged, over-entitled, arrogantly-ignorant, selfish prat.
Elizabeth:
Very true! But it's no excuse for abandoning what science *has* uncovered, or for standing in the corner wringing our hands at the unfairness of life when we have enough knowledge to do something about at least some of it.
"Unkilled" vaccines is an interesting turn of phrase, incidentally. Is there some problem with the phrase "live"? I'd be very happy if all our vaccines had only dead pathogens. But for a lot of them, this makes them not work. Diseases like measles, when endemic in a population, are a much bigger problem than any harm done by measles vaccine. The only thing protecting us from measles right now is the measles vaccine, which is live. This live vaccine results in far fewer deaths than endemic measles does. So i must conclude that either you are being dishonest, or you reject live vaccines because it's icky to inject live pathogens. Are you really comfortable condemning a lot of people to death on the basis of ickiness?
(I realize measles kills a tiny fraction of those it infects. Thing is, it infects nearly every immunologically naive person it encoutners, so that's still a hell of a lot of people.)
So called "Science Mom," any time you make an assumption based on zero evidence, you show your own complete lack of logical or scientific thinking.
In fact, I AM a scientist trained in Biochemistry. I have conducted medical research and have done teaching.
I am probably more qualified than most to assess scientific data, evidence, and theory than most of those posting on this blog.
Science is far from infallible. And it is subject to biased interpretation and even fraud. For instance, the CDC has been caught throwing out inconvenient data, publishing results before collecting all the data, and catering to special interests. For example, see Princeton edu lecture by Dr. Marc Edwards; "Lead astray by the EPA."
Even the most ethical of researchers can design studies which fail to accurately reflect or measure reality.
ALL studies suffer from limitations. Even a body of evidence from many different studies can end up being wrong.
What is widely accepted as a scientific fact or truth today, can be flipped on it's head in a day.
The effects of combinations of vaccinations administered all at once or in close succession have not been sufficiently studied. Nor do we have enough information about specific genetic factors and other environmental exposures which can influence a negative vaccination outcome.
So, "what science *has* uncovered" (@ Calli Arcale) is neither guaranteed to be correct nor a sufficient guide to protect every individual when it comes to vaccines.
There should be much more vigorous screenings of children and adults for hidden contraindications, before vaccinations are administered, especially in the case of live vaccines,.
Of course that involves more cost. But in my opinion, it is a necessary and justifiable cost.
STILL, the final say about any particular vaccination should belong to the individuals and the parents of the children receiving them.
Those who have not been vaccinated pose no threat to those who have been vaccinated. There is a small minority of people who could be at risk because of suppressed immunity and other factors. But they should already be taking extra precautions.
I know because I am one of them.
In fact, as a child, I was required to stay home from school (by my doctor's orders) whenever my classmates were administered live vaccines, because I was at risk of being infected by them. And my siblings could not be vaccinated either, for the same reason.
.
"Science is far from infallible. "
And those who do science know this, this is why they do more science in order to get a better understanding.
"I know because I am one of them.
In fact, as a child, I was required to stay home from school (by my doctor’s orders) whenever my classmates were administered live vaccines, because I was at risk of being infected by them. And my siblings could not be vaccinated either, for the same reason."
The smallpox and oral polio vaccines are no longer part of the American pediatric schedule. The TB vaccine has never been part of that American schedule.
Not me! Shall we discuss the actual science, and not generalities about the existence of fraud?
OK, can you propose the specific study you would like to see conducted? You are in medical research, after all.
Which vaccines? How do you define "negative vaccination outcome"?
I am probably more qualified than most to assess scientific data, evidence, and theory than most of those posting on this blog.
Woo-hoo! CV competition!!
And that would be an obvious no you aren't based upon what you have stated so far. All the training and experience in the world is no guarantee that one will come to the correct conclusions based upon the best available evidence. Would you like a list of physicians and PhDs who reject SBM and just make it up?
Oh look a #cdcwhistleblower true believer. Since when is the CDC the same as the EPA?
And vaccine research will do this how? You want to show us your science chops, now is a really good time to do that.
I love this vapid gambit. What "screening" would you have every infant undergo Elizabeth?
It does. Anyone coming through your door, holding your infant down and vaccinating?
So much for your, "I know more than all of you eggheads combined" gonad-swinging. Do tell, what "extra precautions" do you take to keep from getting infected by people who exhibit no symptoms? How are you going to keep from becoming infected by your unvaccinated children going to school aka Petrie Dish?
Oh really? So you stayed home for months on end and all of your classmates told you they received a live viral vaccine? Do you know what kind of contact it would take for transmission to occur and that would only be for OPV and Smallpox in the U.S. and depending upon when? Even if you are that medically fragile, you should be thanking everyone else who vaccinates for protecting you. For someone so allegedly learned as you, you sure spouted off some pretty dumb canards.
Do tell. What is your position? Are you the principal investigator on a federal grant? (I am.) Do you have your own lab? (I do.) Given the straw men about science you deconstruct and your liberal use of the "science was wrong before" distortion. Seriously? What is your area of research interest. Impress me.
So you think. So far I'm not particularly impressed by what I see.
Krebiozen #1358,
"It hasn’t occurred to you that once those influenza viruses start replicating in the body, you will be exposed to increasingly large ‘doses’ of viral protein, with thousands of viral particles per mL of blood?"
1. We are talking about patients who have developed anti-influenza IgE due to a vaccine or an infection.
So, they are less likely to be infected by this exposure inthe first place and even less likely to develop viremia.
2. Let's assume that viremia did occur. In your viremia case, the viral load was ~30,000 virus/ml.
The human body has about 5L of blood, giving 150 million virus particles or 150,000 HID (human infectious dose). One HID has 40 femtogram of HA protein. 150,000 HID is 6 nanogram. So there is 2500X less HA protein in the whole body than in a regular flu vaccine (15 mcg).
3. IIRC, allergy response is down regulated once infection begins. Can't seem to find a good reference.
herr doktor bimler #1360,
The viral proteins only count for allergy if they can attach to a mast cell bound IgE. In other words, only surface displayed proteins matter. In a crystalline form, most of the protein is uselessly locked inside the crystal.
Richard Smith #1361,
We are talking about Flublok and Cervarix vaccines developed using moth larva cells. The Flublok vaccine contains 28.5 mcg of baculovirus and moth larva cell proteins.
Elizabeth 1366#,
"There should be much more vigorous screenings of children and adults for hidden contraindications, before vaccinations are administered, especially in the case of live vaccines,."
Further, we overvaccinate to cover a small minority.
68% develop immunity after only one dose of DTaP.
Yet they receive 4 more doses and suffer the side effects of milk allergy and whole limb swelling.
Perhaps a non-invasive buccal swab test can be developed to test for DTaP immunity? This would avoid the unnecessary vaccination of patients who have already developed immunity. 50% of the DTaP doses are probably unnecessarily administered now.
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/162.long
APV #1375 sez:
Certainly, Vinu. You should get to work doing just that.
"Science Mom," clearly you are anything but. You are nothing but an attack dog who regurgitates pro-vaccine talking points, while pretending to be educated. Your pathetic, ignorant, and unnecessarily vicious attempts to belittle anyone who DARES to disagree with your agenda, only makes you look small and nasty.
Dr. Edwards' lecture is not only about his work for the EPA, but involves a CDC study on lead exposure which was clearly fraudulent. You really ought to watch his presentation, before making dumb assumptions.
Dr. Edwards was given the MacArthur Genius Award for his ground-breaking work on galvanic corrosion.
Your understanding of vaccines seems just as superficial as your assessment of Dr. Edwards, his work, and the contents of his Princeton lecture.
One example of screening for preconditions which would put people at risk for harm from vaccinations, would be to check them for mitochondrial defects. (7% to 20% of children have mitochondrial defects.)
You claim that parents have complete choice. But about sixteen years ago, when my brother and his wife refused to let their infant daughter have a dangerous vaccination, the doctor threatened to have them jailed. A few days later that vaccination was shown to cause seizures and deaths in infants.
Finally, in response to your snide comment about my childhood health status and school vaccinations. Once again you display your signature stupidity. Obviously the schools inform parents about planned school vaccinations. And my doctor advised my parents and my school, that neither I nor my siblings would be able to be vaccinated with the live vaccine (Sabin) or attend school for a period of time.
The only true believers are those like you who cannot understand (or possibly even read scientific studies,) but just mindlessly rely on the opinions of others - or more specifically, the pronouncements of certain government agencies and their government-employed scientists.
Do what you will with your own children. But do not presume to dictate to my family or others, what we must do with ours. Our children are not just collateral damage for your precious vaccination experiments.
Firstly, citation needed for the 7 to 20% claim. Secondly, what are the practical effects of said defects? Thirdly, what would the costs of screening be and what would the benefits be?
Elizabeth: "One example of screening for preconditions which would put people at risk for harm from vaccinations, would be to check them for mitochondrial defects. (7% to 20% of children have mitochondrial defects.) "
Which particular mitochondrial sequences are to be included? Be specific, provide their names.
Hmmm, looking at my son's results looking for the particular genetic sequence that caused his heart's abnormal muscle growth I see it checked for MTTG, MTTI, MTTK and MTTQ. Unfortunately he did not have any of those, nor the fourteen other known sequences that cause hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
So, really, provide the names of the particular mitochondrial sequences one would have to spend lots of real money to find.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy occurs in about one in five hundred persons. When we first learned about it a dozen years ago there were no known genetic sequences, and the most common reason for diagnosis was "sudden death." It is apparently the most common reason for "sudden death" of young athletes, followed by a few other cardiac conditions like Long QT Syndrome. So a decade ago there were no known genetic sequences, but three years ago there were eighteen. There may be more now, we don't know. This paragraph is to just let you know how us plebeians get tuned into this genetic stuff. Mostly because we get referred to genetic doctors, who really really encourage us to pay for a full genetic scan if the results are negative (it is five figures!) so they can get a hint of a new location.
By the way, where in the USA is the Sabin vaccine still used? As we said there were only two vaccines that shed viruses, the OPV and smallpox. Neither are on the present American pediatric schedule, so that is a dead argument.
@elizabeth
Why should any rational person believe a word you say when you will not actually support your assertions?
I highly doubt you actually are working in biochemistry, given your lack of actual science you've posted here
#1366 I am probably more qualified than most to assess scientific data, evidence, and theory than most of those posting on this blog.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
OK, now that we've got that out of the way... I actually hear this all the time from the crackpots: they love science, they vaccinate their kids, they have advanced degrees in SCIENCE, they've done their own research, blah blah blah.
But what they never do is act like scientists, and by that I mean engage in an honest and sincere give & take over the issues at hand - accepting responsibility for understanding the issues that are genuinely in contention and freely admitting to error when a mistake has been made. I make mistakes all the time, honest mistakes in the service of getting to the core of the matter, but no one holds them against me.
Your crackpot is invested in the Lie, so he (or she, as the case may be) can not afford to admit to a mistake. When caught in a stupid, he skips off to the next blathering point and trusts that anyone with the bad manners to bring up the previous mistakes will be lost in the torrent. Instead of acting like a scientist he acts like a pale reflection of some demented vision from a generation or two ago as to what a scientist is supposed to sound like: the old THESE ARE THE HANDS OF A SURGEON! cliché from a 1930s melodrama.
“Science Mom,” clearly you are anything but. You are nothing but an attack dog
Are there any vacancies for "Yappy little Pomeranian who will piddle on the floor if ignored"? Asking for a friend.
FACT; scientific knowledge is FAR from perfect.
But it is only a FACT according to science. So we can't trust it.
Has Eric H posted all that wonderful, top secret stuff he was wittering about? Did I miss it? It is 6th August now...
Apparently you gang of pro-vaccine thugs who have dominated this blog for over two weeks, are more interested in applying Alinsky bullying tactics than in any honest discussion of the risks of vaccines. Whenever anyone posts the detailed documentation you demand (like APV,) you just ignore it and attack someone else like a pack of rabid wolves.
You either have far too much time on your hands, or you are on the vaccine-peddling government payroll.
In a crystalline form, most of the protein is uselessly locked inside the crystal.
For those keeping score: in his latest attempt to shelter his world-view from inimical facts, APV has just asserted that when viroids condense into a crystalline lattice, their external proteins are "uselessly locked away" and unable to interact with the cells of a new host which ingests them.
Which is why viruses died out billions of years ago.
Alinsky bullying tactics
Ah, another rightwing mouth-frother.
Given that Elizabeth can't understand the fundamental flaws in APV's "science" speaks volumes of her education.
Alinsky bullying tactics
See, my general philosophy is that "pointing and laughing" is a legitimate response to people being eedjits and barmpots. If not a moral duty, because if you don't point and laugh, how will they ever know any better?
Elizabeth, in contrast, thinks that this is "Alinsky bullying tactics". But if they are tactics, they are tactics that anyone can use; the question is, are the tactics effective?
If pointing and laughing at eedjits are not effective tactics then I have no idea why Elizabeth is calling for the WHAAmbulance
If they are, then she is at liberty to do the same in return.
FTFY.
If Elizabeth is a medical researcher, she should hide her head in shame or protest her instructors' lousy teaching.
Those who have not been vaccinated pose no threat to those who have been vaccinated. There is a small minority of people who could be at risk because of suppressed immunity and other factors. But they should already be taking extra precautions.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Elizabeth, as a "medical researcher" you should know that no vaccine has 100% effectiveness. Nor does having the disease promise immunity. As I have said before, I had mumps as a child. I have had several MMRs because I show no immunity to mumps. I live in dread that some numpty like your child will get the mumps and give it to me. Which I really don't want at my age of 50+.
I call BS on your degree. As the mother and sister of people with science degrees, I can't believe you had a good education unless you let your brains wither due to too much antivax reading.
Elizabeth: the concept of herd immunity may not have been covered in your undergraduate work; but there's plenty of information at reliable sources that you could look up.
Your assumption that your decision only affects your children is incorrect. This winter, fifteen babies at a Chicago-area daycare caught the measles because they were too young to be vaccinated.
Elizabeth: "I am probably more qualified than most to assess scientific data, evidence, and theory than most of those posting on this blog."
Elizabeth:"Those who have not been vaccinated pose no threat to those who have been vaccinated."
Well, so much for "qualifications". :(
I suspect Elizabeth's research credentials mostly involve doing Google searches and watching YouTube videos to confirm her biases.*
Suggestion: if you want to complain about "bullying", stop lashing out at others with lame insults.
*my B.S. meter also is triggered by the people I see posting reviews of antivax books on Amazon, who refer to themselves as R.N.s who have Seen First Hand how terrible vaccines are. In this case, R.N. probably stands for Ridiculous Ninny.
A lecture isn't a citation nor evidence and you should know that given all your sciency awesomeness.
You haven't even established risk and you want to screen all infants for a highly heterogenous disorder which doesn't even manifest in disease all the time? What tests should be conducted? What is the cost:benefit? I trust you have worked this out to make such a proclamation.
"A dangerous vaccination"? What "dangerous vaccination" would that be? How is a single doctor threatening something beyond his scope (assuming your fantastical tale is even true) taking parental choice away from children now?
Obviously? You present yourself as having infants or young children back at #1363 which would have put you at an age where you would have received vaccines at a physician's office or clinic along with your classmates. But now you are stating that it was during a time when you received them at elementary school which would be 60s or early 70s. So how is that obvious? Again, if you are that medically-fragile then why aren't you thanking people who vaccinate for protecting you instead of trying to erode vaccination rates?
Why don't you present your research to us poor mindless sheeple so we can decide for ourselves? I have yet to see a single citation to support your rather odd statements.
Who is dictating what you have to do with your family? SB277 removes PBEs and RBEs so you have to home-school if you don't want to vaccinate. But why can't you get a medical exemption?
Elizabeth:
There are never any guarantees in life, Elizabeth. We don't know everything about immunology or vaccination, becuase we are not God. But you act as if this is the same as not knowing anything, and that's a dangerously naive attitude because it excuses the sins of omission.
I can understand not feeling that we know enough about something, so being reluctant to take an action. It's the very human tendency to think that we are less to blame for allowing a tragedy than for committing one.
But honestly, I don't like it to be about blame. I care more about the outcome than who to blame/credit with it. If I choose not to vaccinate, and my child is blinded by measles, I may not have directly caused her blindness, but she'd still be blind. I would much rather she not be blind. And honestly, I would feel at fault that it happened through my inaction. Perhaps you would not feel guilty if that happened to your child, I don't know; I don't presume to speak for you.
We do know that children who get vaccinated are far less likely to die young or be disfigured or to have to spend time in a hospital or become infertile and so forth. That is more than enough for me to know I can't hide behind ignorance as an excuse for inaction.
tl;dr: It's true we dont' know everything. But it's a lie to imply this means we know nothing, and it's a terrible excuse for doing nothing.
Chickenpox.What's the harm?
Elizabeth: "You either have far too much time on your hands, or you are on the vaccine-peddling government payroll."
Really? Because I was asking you to provide substantial evidence to support this statement from you: “One example of screening for preconditions which would put people at risk for harm from vaccinations, would be to check them for mitochondrial defects. (7% to 20% of children have mitochondrial defects.) ”
I read off the mitochondrial defects my son was tested for his genetic heart disorder. Then I asked you to name the particular mitochondrial genetic sequences that would test children for. I assumed you would know as a someone trained in biochemistry that worked as a medical researcher. Obviously, I was wrong.
By the way, taking one undergraduate biochem class and taking care of lab animals or being the front desk receptionist does not make you a medical researcher.
By the way, I am only a mother of a young man with several medical issues. I avoided biology classes, but actually took one at a community college, plus read lots of actual science books from the library just to understand what most of the medical specialists were telling us (and they and their staff are pretty good at explaining stuff to us plebes). I do not have a Google U education, but I know my deficits. And I have become very good at identifying regurgitated bovine excrement, including what you are spewing.
Elizabeth, as I stated in #1368, I'd be happy to have "an honest discussion of the risks of vaccines" as you suggest, especially with a fellow medical researcher and educator. How about you pick one of the following topics to start with:
1. Which vaccines have risks that outweigh the benefits? How do you define “negative vaccination outcome”?
2. Can you propose the specific study you would like to see conducted regarding genetic factors and environmental exposures?
Not that I'm aware--can you supply a few examples of each (and please, please don't waste all our time by citing Thompson/Hooker's completely unproven claims as evidence the CDC has been caught throwing out inconvenient data).
What would constitute 'sufficient', then, if the body of existing studies (e.g., the IOM’s 2013 study “Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies”, Destefano’s “"Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism") coupled with ongoing post-marketing surveillance is insufficient?
What “hidden contraindications” are you speaking of here? Be specific, and indicate exactly what evidence demonstrates that they are do indicate those exhibiting them are not suitable candidates for routine vaccination?
Let's assume this is true (it;s not, given that vaccines are not 100% effective at generating protective titers). Did you have a point?
They still remain a threat to others who are not or cannot be vaccinated (infants too young to be vaccinated anyone who is immunosuppressed as a result of chemotherapy, for example) as well as remaining themselves at unnecessary risk of infection by the diseases vaccines protect against. Recall the primary reason why we vaccinate is to protect the people who are vaccinated against infectious disease.
Again, the wolf pack acts in unison to attack. - So predictable and so boring.
The following is a list of "power tactics" Alinsky outlined in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. Note that Alinsky's list is devoted solely to tactics (i.e., methods for accomplishing goals) and does not specify any particular targets of those tactics (e.g., health care, religion, gun control):
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right — we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Orac and his wolf pack are masters of these tactics. - As anyone who has read their endless posts can see.
True scientists are understand that science still has much to learn. They are not so rigidly wedded to their agendas and viewpoints that they cannot admit that they don't have all the answers. They are not closed-minded, or viciously defensive. Rather, true scientists remain open to other possibilities and desire to expand scientific inquiry, not shut it down or insist on their particular dogma.
Anyone who uses Alinky's power tactics is NO scientist. They are nothing but arrogant, self-serving, agenda peddlers.
Elizabeth, are you saying you're not a scientist?
Definitely a Troll, nice use of power tactic #4.- Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
And of #13 - Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Keep discrediting yourself, Troll.
@APV (#1374):
That's very nice. So these are vaccines that aren't vaccines?
@APV (#1330):
But does Elizabeth know all the Rules of Acquisition?
@Elizabeth: how about answering questions instead of sitting on your high horse?
We have asked you for proof of some of your statements. As a scientist, I'm sure you know citations are important.
What vaccines are more dangerous than the disease itself?
What would you propose as a study of the vaccine schedule and how would you get it past an IRB?
How would you establish the cost-effectiveness of screening every newborn for a rare problem like mitochondrial issues?
I'm asking politely. Please give us some answers.
@Elizabeth
Might I make a friendly suggestion? If you want to convince anyone here that your claims are valid, you should provide links to some reputable published science to support your contention.
If, on the other hand, you want to be laughed at, then bandy about insults and complaints about tone or tactics, while not backing up any claims that you make.
Doing the former isn't necessarily a guarantee that you'll be treated kindly, but engaging in the latter will, of a certainty, result in your being ridiculed and asked, repeatedly, to back up your assertions.
Just by the by, have you ever read it, or are you merely cutting and pasting as a sad evasion technique. I mean, mine's boxed up somewhere, but the weird obsession with it is awfully telling.
Why don't you get down to some serious questions instead of inoning this stuff over and over? I haven't even noticed your making any specific connections from the responses you've received to the Magic List.
Elizabeth:
Can you and I start doing this then? Let's ignore the Alinsky playbook stuff and stick to scientific inquiry. Where should we start? I provided 2 jumping off points in #1398, but you're welcome to start the scientific inquiry wherever you choose.
One last thought for you religious vaccine peddlers.
My first duty is to ensure the safety of my children and family, NOT the collective. And I will do so.
The FACT that science cannot adequately predict who will be harmed by any given vaccine or combination of vaccines, is precisely why I will weigh the risks vs benefits for my family , given what I know about their INDIVIDUAL medical status, NOT anyone else.
Furthermore, I will fight ALL attempts to marginalize those who choose to forego certain vaccinations, force people who must earn a living to home school, or face other government penalties, designed to strong-arm people.
I applaud doctors like Bob Sears for risking his career to help those who have reasonable concerns about vaccines and their children's health.
^ Moreover, perhaps you could explain what's so "radical" about anything that's been said to you, viz., justify why you're invoking this stale talking point beyond a kneejerk response to being reasonably questioned.
Aren't these guys, who are sadly delusional about how the law works, the actual people who should be taking Alinsky out for a spin?
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince[*] was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
[*] Have you read that, either?
You told us before that nobody has enough information to predict who will have a "negative vaccination outcome." You can't have it both ways. Why can you predict the outcome for your children, but no study can?
Why won't you tell us what those reasonable concerns actually are?
Elizabeth, I haven’t attacked you, ridiculed you, or engaged in any of the other tactics you describe in your post @1400. I’ve instead asked specific questions directly addressing statements in your post @1366 (for example, what you would consider to constitute sufficient study of the effects of combinations of vaccinations administered all at once or in close succession).
Surely you don’t consider simply being asked to support or to expand upon your stated position to represent bullying?
So, you'd rather flounce than defend your evasive bluster? So it goes.
Elizabeth, I was pointing out that you did not answer the questions put to you about your statement that you are "probably more qualified than most" but moved on to an entirely different point entirely.
You can take what I wrote however you will but I'm sure the other commenters here can attest to the fact that I have no idea about tactics. I don't like liars though and if you lied about your education or occupation then there is no reason to take you seriously at any point.
Elizabeth: yeah, anyone could've predicted that folks here would not let you get away with hand-waving. Now, what's unfortunately equally predictable is someone who pretends to be scientific giving up once she's called on it and attempting to shift the conversation to the topic of how mean everybody is being.
You pretend that incomplete data is the same as no data. That's not scientific. I'm sorry. And deciding not to vaccinate because we aren't omniscient on the topic isn't prudent, it's willful rejection of what we do know so you can justify your inaction. Call us meanies if it makes you feel better, but it won't support your case.
The prohibition on enrollment in public schools was not enacted with the intent of marginalizing or strong –arming anyone, Elizabeth. It was enacted to ensure that a choice not to vaccinate one’s children will not place other members of society at an increased risk of contracting an infectious disease.
Power tactic #3- Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Adam, in case you have NOT understood this yet, I am NOT going to engage in your games.
Let researchers in the field of immunology design the appropriate studies. Surely some of those who have families of their own, understand the need to find out more about individual susceptibility to harm from vaccines.
Their findings should be fascinating.
What you don't seem to understand is that some of us, including me, are those researchers. The sadly ironic thing is that arrogant, privileged folks like you actually do more harm than good to their own cause by demonizing those of us who have actually dedicated their lives to implementing what they want, e.g. genetic testing for adverse event risk.
@: #1400
At least your comments were posted.
From what I understand, many anti-vax blogs won't publish comments that go against the anti-vax sheeple group think, e.g., link to scientific study that contradicts whatever stupidity an anti-vax author is spouting.
From what I've observed, comments that are published and contradict anti-vax group think are immediately attacked by the anti-vax denizens of the site.
In this regard, I don't think you have anything to complain about in your experiences here.
Not like you had anything to say anyway and what you did offer can be distilled down to the usual "I don't wanna" squealing of brain dead pseudo-libertarians.
So much for sticking the flounce.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that immunologists should design the "appropriate studies" that you refuse to define?
Since you reject science what exactly are you using to come to this conclusion? You have been quite evasive on this point.
Fight away but you are having the wrong fight as others have pointed out. Coming onto a blog crawling with scientists to pick a fight and impersonating a scientist seems pretty myopic to me though.
How exactly has Bob Sears risked his career? It seems to me that Bob Sears is going to carve out a nice little phony medical exemption and phony IEP diagnosis mill niche for himself. Now why don't you come up with all that research you've been busy with to share with us sheeple instead of whining about tone? You came here voluntarily with claws out remember?
Adam, as a self-proclaimed expert in immunology and vaccine safety, why don't YOU list all the individual causes of adverse reactions, including mortality, due to particular vaccines and vaccine combinations?
#1422: Quoth the self-proclaimed pot...
That sure is a lot of information for me to list before you'll discuss anything! Since you've left it rather open ended, why don't we start here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26216331
Surely you must have seen this study, being so interested in pediatric vaccine research. Did you find any shortcomings with it? What sorts of follow-up studies would you plan?
Me at # 1414 correction to "I don’t like liars..". It should be "I don't like it when people lie..."
@Elizabeth
I refer you again to the friendly advice I gave you in comment #1406.
Once again....
Define "sufficiently." Remember,
If you can't or won't define sufficiently, you're simply reinforcing the overall impression that you came out of the gate lying and have reverted to your true nature, viz., all-around incoherent, evasive, antivaccine/glibertarian blowhard and fantast.
* Constructing an English sentence, on the other hand....
But Elizabeth, didn’t you previously claim “I am probably more qualified than most to assess scientific data, evidence, and theory than most of those posting on this blog”?
How can you then argue that the design of such studies is outside your field of expertise?
Power tactic #3- Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
So Elizabeth has gone from being more experienced and knowledgeable on the topic than anyone else, to whinging that everyone else knows more than her and it's unfair?
But at least the other commentors have gone from being "attack dogs" to being a "wolf pack", which is progress, I suppose. Who's Akela? Who's Bagheera?
#1384... Murmur... Thanks for remembering me! The "secrets" of deep truth and wisdom have been put on hold for a bit since my own contributions are avocational, and I'm not among the government sponsored professionals here.
I'm sure all the full-time Borg here will still be deeply immersed when I have opportunity to resume with the all-so "scientific" exploration. For now I'll just say that it is truly amazing how the body of esteemed "scientists" and "researchers" here have the luxury to monitor and react to any dissenting comments with such attention!
Until then here's a little food for thought, or perhaps the more typical immediate and all-so-"scientific" reaction on the food allergy question...
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78023-direct-evidence-from-the-cdc-t…
Narad, so good of you to drop the proverbial trousers and proudly display your powerless little guy with the full endorsement of Alinsky (unless you were meaning to endorse content of the other book.) That certainly helps to put yours and the comments of your Comrades in the appropriate light.
Narad writes... "Aren’t these guys, who are sadly delusional about how the law works, the actual people who should be taking Alinsky out for a spin?
“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince[*] was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
For now I’ll just say that it is truly amazing how the body of esteemed “scientists” and “researchers” here have the luxury to monitor and react to any dissenting comments with such attention
Years of experience. It really doesn't require that much effort when you know what you're doing, Eric.
Instead of bringing up two new topics, when are you going to answer the questions posed to you over fifteen days ago?
Oh, look what's back, with none of what it promised.
Since the rest of your comment, which is supposed to connect me with Alinsky or something, is completely incoherent, which proverb woulld that be?
HTH. HAND.
Darn, a couple of busy days in the lab and just look at all the fun I've missed.
The FACT that science cannot adequately predict who will be harmed by any given vaccine or combination of vaccines, is precisely why I will weigh the risks vs benefits for my family , given what I know about their INDIVIDUAL medical status
I'm curious - since you take the tack that "science doesn't know everything, therefore I can believe whatever i want," how exactly do you go about weighing the risks and benefits for your family - kill a goat and read its entrails?
Incidentally, while the benefits of seat belts greatly outweigh the risks on average, there's no way to predict whether your child will be one of the unlucky ones who gets trapped in a burning or sinking car. Do you think this is adequate reason to let your kids ride in the car without a seat belt on? Why or why not?
Until then here’s a little food for thought, or perhaps the more typical immediate and all-so-“scientific” reaction on the food allergy question…
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78023-direct-evidence-from-the-cdc-t…
APV / Vinucube is quite capable of making a fool of himself without your link to his effusions elsewhere, though I am sure he appreciates your assistance.
Don't sweat it, Eric.
We know you've probably been busy setting up home schooling and all.
If you haven't done this already, I was thinking that you could touch base with Dr. Bob and sound him out about a medical exemption based on your established family history of Dunning-Kruger ... no doubt a result of "vaccine damage".
Not sure whether he'd go for this ... or at least go for it at his regular fee, if you get my drift ... but it's worth a shot and your comments here more than support the Dunning-Kruger finding.
Anyway, drop back in 2025 and let us know how your research into actual science is going ... if you have time to get to it by then.
No rush though ... other crackpots and conspiracy loons will likely visit and fill in during your absence.
Richard Smith #1403,
"Never claimed vaccines are the ONLY cause of moth allergies."
You need to pay attention to the context.
My post was in response to #1323:
"So how do you explain all the moth allergies before such a vaccine was produced?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000386.htm"
Sarah A @ OMG 1433 ...
An irrelevant side story about a sinking car.
Some years ago a woman in my area drove a car off a bridge while taking her kids to school in winter. It fell 20 feet or so, and landed on its roof in the freezing water.
Two young doctors were in the next car. They immediately jumped in and rescued the two young boys. But by the time they got the woman out, her head had been underwater for what seemed like far too long. They laid her out on the bottom of the car and started to work on her, hoping against hope.
In a few moments she sputtered to life, and it turned out had no long-term problems. Why? The mamallian diving reflex had shut her down because of the cold water, and her brain had come through intact.
She later wrote a letter to the paper pointing out that while the seat belt had complicated her extrication, she would have died on impact if she'd landed on her head from that height.
AdamG #1398,
"Which vaccines have risks that outweigh the benefits?"
To answer that question, the risks have to studied.
The FDA has failed miserably in doing that.
Not one study has been posted here demonstrating that the level of food protein contamination in vaccines is safe. So basically the risk part of the calculation has not been determined at all.
How can we know if the benefits outweigh the risks if the risks have not been studied at all?
Lawrence #1388,
" fundamental flaws in APV’s “science” "
Care to point any out?
In fact, I pointed out the fundamental flaw in Krebiozen's GI mucosa hypothesis for food allergy in #1304.
I assume that no response means Krebiozen agrees that the GI mucosa explanation for food allergy sensitization is unworkable. Leaving food protein contaminated vaccines as the main contributor to the food allergy epidemic.
herr doktor bimler #1434,
"APV / Vinucube is quite capable of making a fool of himself "
Care to point out an example?
palindrom: "An irrelevant side story about a sinking car."
Wow.
Seriously, that was an awesome story.
(I got broken ribs from only having a lap belt when then boyfriend now hubby totaled his parent's very old car in a slow motion head on accident. Sure, I had to spend the weekend in the hospital, and my ribs hurt for a couple of years, but just as I saw the dashboard get closer too fast the belt prevented my skull being crushed on it... it just broke a couple of ribs.)
Chris @1441 (gulp!) -- Glad you enjoyed the story! It's entirely true, or at least as I recall the vivid local newspaper accounts at the time.
herr doktor bimler #1386,
"In a crystalline form, most of the protein is uselessly locked inside the crystal.
For those keeping score: in his latest attempt to shelter his world-view from inimical facts, APV has just asserted that when viroids condense into a crystalline lattice, their external proteins are “uselessly locked away” and unable to interact with the cells of a new host which ingests them."
You misunderstood. If viruses in crystalline form are ingested, only the surface proteins on that crystal can interact with the mast cells. How are the proteins inside the crystal going to interact with the mast cells? So you cannot count the entire crystal's worth of proteins as the exposure dose. You can only count the proteins on the crystal surface as the exposure dose.
#1435 DGR
Not sure your credentials beyond forming words and a mildly above average wit, but whatever imaginings of an ability to diagnose various conditions via the Interweb are clearly outperformed by your dedication to every possible expression of Democrat dogma.
This gem is particularly revealing: (#91) "Probably spends a lot of time at the gun range discussing this nonsense with like minded crackpot parents while the kids practice shooting their 100% safe Uzis."
Keep up the great work.
Here are a few clues in case you might like to participate in adult conversation sometime between now and 2025.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Sarah A. #1433.
In extremely rare cases, seat belt use causes loss of life. Still overall they serve as an good example of something that helps more often than hurts.
If the current and future schedules of vaccines being pushed by threat of consequence were as "all good" and "no harm" as seat belts, there'd be no Canary Party nor any cause to push shots on the unwilling.
http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/08/pushing-a-false-dichotomy-on-…
herr doktor bimler #1386,
"iridoviruses"
First, YOU have to provide evidence that iridoviruses infect mammals. Otherwise, how did the mammal get sensitized?
@herr doktor bimler #1429:
It's a reference to The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling. Akela is the wolf pack alpha. Bagheera is a black panther.
APV,
I don't agree with anything you have written. I think you have a delusional idée fixe that is contradicted by large amounts of evidence and supported by hardly any and that you are a fine example of the Dunning Kruger effect. It's not even an interesting loony idea. Don't bother responding as I have kill-filed you and I will not see your response.
It’s a reference to The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling.
It is, indeed, <i<my reference. I was wondering who in the RI commentariat corresponds to the roles of Akela and Bagheera. I can easily imagine Narad as a black panther.
First, YOU have to provide evidence that iridoviruses infect mammals. Otherwise, how did the mammal get sensitized?
This appears to be an interesting new stipulation from APV. Apparently ingested proteins only lead to sensitisation if they are part of an infection. Perhaps other readers can work out how to reconcile this with the earlier stipulation that any virus protein, placed in the mouth in macroscopic quantities, will inevitably cause anaphylaxis.
“APV / Vinucube is quite capable of making a fool of himself ”
Care to point out an example?
I appreciate the time-saving assistance.
@hdb: I'd consider myself a wolf, but not necessarily Akela. I would have considered lilady as Bagheera. Perhaps Krebiozen is Akela?
#1430
I'm retired, so I have time a-plenty and like to keep my brain active.
And check my location...Nothing to do with any government of yours.
And I'm still waiting for those wonderful revelations...
Hmmmmmm "Elizabeth" flounces away, after not showing us her amazing "I am the ONLY REALLY TRUULY sclentist here" skils, but references Alinsky, and then Eric H, in his first post back, also references Alinsky. Sock puppet?
Murmer -- Eric (and Elizabeth, and PeterT, and Joseph) fail to grasp that they are not the first (or even thousand and first) anti-science activist to arrive here, confident that they will be able to stun the denizens with their irrefutable arguments.
Orac's annoying habit of not banning or deleting posters (except in extreme case) means that Eric et al are what is referred to in my former line of work as pre-registered targets.
That explains why there are no people or organizations advocating repeal of mandatory seat belt laws or mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists.
But that doesn't answer the question, APV, which was "Which vaccines have risks that outweigh the benefits?" You didn't identify even a single vaccine.
What--did you think no one would notice?
JGC #1456,
For a scientific answer, you need data. I am pointing out that the data does not exist.
In your world who cares about data? You just jump to conclusions.
herr doktor bimler #1450,
"This appears to be an interesting new stipulation from APV. Apparently ingested proteins only lead to sensitisation if they are part of an infection. Perhaps other readers can work out how to reconcile this with the earlier stipulation that any virus protein, placed in the mouth in macroscopic quantities, will inevitably cause anaphylaxis."
Nonsense. If you paid attention, we were talking about people being sensitized to the virus by viral proteins in the vaccine first.
For iridovirus, I am not aware of a vaccine. So sensitization can only occur in nature by infection.
Now provide the evidence that iridoviruses infect mammals instead beating around the bush or accept that you don't know what you are talking about.
Krebiozen #1448,
I'll take that as an admission that your GI mucosa hypothesis of food allergy is bogus.
That was the only alternative explanation ever offered for the food allergy epidemic. With that gone, it is obvious that the main contributor to the food allergy epidemic are food protein contaminated vaccines/injections.
So you're now asmitting that no evidence exists suggesting any vaccine is inappropriately safe, and your concerns regarding vaccines inducing food allergies are completely unfounded, being nothing other than a jump to conclusions?
Have I got that right?
@APV (#1436):
Context does help, doesn’t it? Such as, in the context of this thread, one or more people have hypothesized that everybody is born allergy-free, and only develop allergies from contaminated injections or ingestion augmented by such substances as antacids or the like. Given that context, gaist asked you how moth allergies developed before moth-based vaccines came along, to which you responded that you never claimed vaccines were the only cause of moth allergies.
Now, given the above hypothesis of allergy development, eliminating the moth-based vaccine cause for moth allergies leaves few other methods of acquiring the allergy, including ingestion of the potential allergen shortly before or after something such as an antacid. Hence my (I trust you understand, tongue-in-cheek) suggestion (#1361) that at least some of the non-vaccine moth allergies resulted from “eating moths with antacids.” I also trust you understand that my alternate explanation in #1362 is not entirely serious, either. True, I didn’t outright say I was only hypothesizing about the cause of non-vaccine-caused moth allergies but, if you’d been paying attention to the context, surely you’d have figured that out?
So, given the context of #1361 and #1362, I’m sure you can understand my confusion when you replied (#1374) that the discussion was about two moth-based vaccines. Since in #1330 you state that you’ve never claimed vaccines were the only cause, and in #1361 and #1362 I propose possible causes (however facetious) for such non-vaccine allergies, your reply (in context) does sound like you are dismissing the suggestions because of the two vaccines. This, of course, is silly; if you were just going to dismiss the moth+antacid hypothesis, you could have just called it for the silliness it was. Your peculiar response came across as insisting that the non-vaccine moth allergies I was talking about were actually caused by the two vaccines, thus my mention of “vaccines that aren’t vaccines” to point out the apparent paradox.
Ah, well, I’ve typed way more on this than I intended, or was even necessary, all in defense of a silly joke that someone seems bound and determined not to acknowledge.
TL;DR: Yay, context!
Oh it doesn't, does it? Then why did a search on vaccine safety return literally 13961 hits on PubMed?
Once again, you reveal your ignorance.
JGC #1460,
I have posted numerous references of vaccine safety problems determined AFTER the vaccines were approved.
The point is the FDA claims to approve vaccines based on a benefit/risk assessment. But they never studied the risk part completely. That is the reason why there are so many problems with approved vaccines. That is why we have the data NOW demonstrating the problems. The ONLY way to assess ALL the risk is to systematically study every ingredient (and their interactions ) that go into vaccines. Something that should have been performed BEFORE approval.
You can try to spin, twist, misinterpret all you want. It does not the change the facts in the references I have posted.
"Oh it doesn’t, does it? Then why did a search on vaccine safety return literally 13961 hits on PubMed?
Once again, you reveal your ignorance."
So why is it so difficult for ANY of you to post even ONE study demonstrating the safety of food proteins in vaccines?
Suggests that you should find better research methods than counting hits.
#1454... Shay's back to promote and advance "science"! How delightful.
What was the "scientific question" left unanswered by the "anti-science" folks here exactly. Was it about catching the flu or something like that?
Meanwhile, back to the subject of vaccine choice... The abundant CDC and government corruption is another concern for anyone that legitimately cares about the reliability of vaccine safety information. Of course to the Borg here, merely calling attention to this is "anti-vax", and, even more absurdly, "anti-science".
CDC Whistleblower Testifies before Congress
#1452 Murmur... I’m retired, so I have time a-plenty and like to keep my brain active. Too bad it's not.
^ Is that click-bait you have going on here, Eric H?
The title of the article is (emphasis mine)" is Will CDC Whistleblower on Vaccines Testify Before Congress?" and now where in the article does it say that he will testify.
Further confirmation for Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
My comment should read:
The title of the article is (emphasis mine)” Will CDC Whistleblower on Vaccines Testify Before Congress?” and no where in the article does it say that he will testify.
This is what you get when you sleep without CPAP which I have been doing far too much of the lately. The upside is I don't have to do drugs to enter altered states.
Julian Frost #1462,
"Then why did a search on vaccine safety return literally 13961 hits on PubMed?
Once again, you reveal your ignorance."
You should patent your excellent research methods.
A search for "vaccine risk" on pubmed produces 26788 results.
A search for "vaccine adverse effects" on pubmed produces
28900 results.
Proves a lot, does it not?
Richard Smith #1461,
Let me try to make it simple.
https://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=16&cont=54
As the AAFA site says, sensitization can occur due to inhalation, ingestion, touch or injection.
We naturally inhale, ingest and touch moth proteins. We have evolved to tolerate it with no more than a nuisance-level allergy.
Injecting moth proteins is a new man-made route of sensitization now. The safety of such injections has not been studied. In typical FDA fashion, they made the bogus claim that the benefits outweigh the risk and approved these vaccines without any safety study of allergy related to injected moth proteins.
APV: Shall I compare thee to a new carpenter's pencil? Thick, and missing the point.
" The abundant CDC and government corruption"
Like fish in a barrel.
Amazing how you have time to pop in here and post and yet somehow can't manage to do the research that will provide all the proof you've been promising to Adam and the herr doktor (among others).
Troll@1467 -- what else did you expect?
We are told that the regular influenza vaccines with 15 mcg HA protein per virus per dose is safe and effective (trivalent vaccine total of 45 mcg).
The Flublok influenza vaccine has 45 mcg per virus per dose (trivalent vaccine total of 135 mcg).
Can anyone explain why? Not 5% or 10% more but 200% more active ingredient?
Flublok vaccine package insert:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…
"Reactogenicity data from a small Phase 2 trial (Study 5) in adults 18 through 49 years of age, 153 of whom received Flublok 135mcg, are not presented. However, subjects from Study 5 are included in the description of deaths and serious adverse events (SAEs)."
And to make matters worse, only one of the 5 studies used for the vaccine approval was based on this 135 mcg vaccine. It is not even clear which Flublok vaccine was used for the other trials.
Such shoddy methods should give us great confidence in the safety of these vaccines?
No useful systematic study of allergy was performed BEFORE approval.
They provide this "catch all" disclaimer:
"The following events have been spontaneously reported during post approval use of Flublok. They are
described because of the strength of the causal relationship to Flublok and their potential seriousness.
Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible
to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure.
Immune system disorders: anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions, allergic reactions, and other forms of
hypersensitivity. "
Richard Smith #1472,
" I’ve typed way more on this than I intended, "
"Thick, and missing the point."
You see, the point was lost somewhere ...
So I pressed reset and tried to provide a clear picture.
AVP says (#1475),
The Flublok influenza vaccine has 45 mcg per virus per dose (trivalent vaccine total of 135 mcg).
Can anyone explain why?
Not 5% or 10% more but 200% more active ingredient?
MJD says,
Hint: Immunologic adjuvant
APV
Somehow, you seem to have left the freeway, the main roads, the side roads, and even the cul-de-sacs of research. You've ended up on a sheep trail that runs out when the sheep have nothing else to follow.
Others have followed your dead end, realised it for what it is, abandoned disproven speculation, and gone on to more productive efforts.
If you believe your ideas are valid, then you need to document them with peer reviewed research. Others have pointed out, better than I could, that your references don't say what you think they say.
Rather than saying others should do the research, what is stopping you from doing it yourself?
Heading for #1500 and Eric's back! Boy Howdy!
Finding the exchanges on this thread, uhhh, unusual, and as such became curious about the dramatis personae involved in forming it, specifically Mr. Eric L. Hanson. While a conspiracy obsessed, fringe right-wing car salesman might not be unique enough to be interesting, a conspiracy obsessed, prog-metal, fringe right-wing, East Bay car salesman is not exactly a stock character. But since those minimal story elements both intersect and collide with my own life experiences, I got curious enough to go to the Goog and find out what more I could learn about Eric. [Intending no harm btw, in any space cyber or meat...]
Among my 'discoveries': Eric has posted a fair amount of stuff on the Web over the years, and until he showed up here, he was a lonely cyber-dude as virtually no one cared enough about his scribblings to warrant a reply.
So it strikes me that by scribbling back at ELH1, y'all have validated his internet being, pulling him out from between the Scylla and Charybdis of solipsism and existential crisis... Which some minions might be loathe to do lest it encourage him.
But, it's obvious many minions like having trolls to spar with, so maybe you do want to encourage Eric... And maybe the sparring meets some kind of human need. See, the more I tried to puzzle out this thread the less judgmental I became. On the surface it appears absurd, pointless, 'stupid'. But if, beneath that, the minions are filling some previously under-met need for Eric, I think that's kind of sweet. On the other hand, if we've reached a spot where games based on baiting, biting, snarking confrontation yada yada yada are our only escapes from solipsism and/or confronting existential dread, that's pretty sad.
[Digression 'Lightbulb' thought: This all might have some metaphoric relevance to the ongoing discussion-of / freak-out-over placebo effects, but I'm not sure what...]
Confession: I've been realizing lately just how much my own postings on the Web – including here – are a fairly pathetic form of reaching out from a desperate place of loneliness and isolation. I'm reluctant to trash Eric, lest I be doing so too much out of jealousy of the attention he's getting...
APV, on the other hand, can just go f*** himself, as far as I'm concerned... :-) BORING! At least, Eric's sh!tshow bluster is entertaining...
____
[Personal to Eric. minions please skip:
Checking into you on the web led to Relic, which led to all the stuff about John Mitchell, Dead Prophesy etc. He does seem to have been a great guy, loved by all. I'm truly sorry you lost your friend. I'm not really a metal guy — I think Steve Vai's awful – but I was genuinely moved by the guitar work at the end of 'Dead Prophesy – a lot more artful than anything I've ever heard from Vai, for sure. From the fragments I can see on the Web, John's story seems the stuff of genuine tragedy. Compelling enough to make me really curious about some of the missing pieces (yeah, 'none of my business' maybe, but so much of 'Relic: Behind The Music' is out there, can you blame me?): Did Chris and John split because of the cancer? (Since she seems to have been scrubbed from John's life, I wondered if she ran away when she discovered he was sick, or when he got worse, or something hurtful like that...) She's in hospital scrubs in her #DocteurFeelgood Twitter pic showing the Tommy Lee sig tatoo on her butt. Did she work in healthcare? As what? I see Tami is/was an RN. Did she know John was, well, dying when they got together? (Brave? Delusional? Both?) Did she 'convert' him to a more Godly view, or did they meet at some prayer event, or what? Am I correct in guessing John and his people didn't share your politics, and you didn't share their degree or direction of spirituality (though you may have respected it...)? Did you write, or contribute to the obit that's still up at CFCS? It says "Much of his music was inspired by and about his long battle with cancer..." So when did he get sick, and when was cancer diagnosed? If he was healthy back in when Relic's began the Medieval Warrior Metal thing, did the myth of Synesius seeking revenge on the Red Dragon who took his eye, 'his Guitar the only thing that reminds him of his duties' express other stuff from his life, or just an imaginary world totally disconnected from doing excavation work in Livermore. Either way, if he created the Synesius story before he got sick, the way it fits after is even more interesting, story-wise.
Not that I expect any answers, just 'it doesn't hurt to ask'. I'm not looking for info to hurt anybody. I come from a family of musicians, we've had our own dramas and characters — so musician stories interest me mainly because they engage my sympathy...]
APV @1470: I was semi-sarcastically pointing out that your claims of a lack of evidence were likely wrong.
Stuartg #1478,
"If you believe your ideas are valid, then you need to document them with peer reviewed research."
Already did.
" Others have pointed out, better than I could, that your references don’t say what you think they say."
That shows their inability to understand the references.
"Rather than saying others should do the research, what is stopping you from doing it yourself?"
Last time I checked, I am not the one responsible for vaccine safety in this country. So the FDA/CDC must do the research.
And your alternative scientific explanation that covers ALL the following phenomena is very welcome:
Food allergy epidemic.
The Japanese vaccine/gelatin allergy event.
The NEJM peanut study.
Richet's findings.
You cannot criticize an explanation WITHOUT providing evidence OR providing an alternative explanation that better explains the observed evidence.
APV,
Actually, that was a personal opinion, not a criticism, and as such didn't need a reference.
But if you really want a reference:
ISBN: 9780521177313
Title: Essential Epidemiology : An Introduction for Students & Health Professionals 2E
Author: Webb, P. & Bain, C.
Imprint: Cambridge University Press
Maybe after reading that, and it's references, you'll be able to understand why the information you supply doesn't say what you think it does.
APV
"That shows their inability to understand the references."
No. Everyone else gets the same information from your references. You are the only person that sees something different in them.
"Last time I checked, I am not the one responsible for vaccine safety in this country. So the FDA/CDC must do the research."
Last time I checked, the USA was the land of opportunity. The only person to stop you from joining the FDA and partaking in the research is yourself.
So why don't you?
shay @1474, good question...
I'm not really sure but after seeing the ways in which people are willing to MSU in these threads, I can say that my expectations are rapidly diminishing.
What's amazing is that after all this time he still doesn't realize that if you post a link here, people will read it (and then call you out on your mendacity).
"Everyone else gets the same information from your references. You are the only person that sees something different in them."
What do you see in this title:
Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP—an ultimate
solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy
http://oxfordhbot.com/library/vaccinations/vaccines-allergies-asthma/50…
Do you see something different than what I see?
Science Mom accepted that vaccines cause food allergy in "extreme cases" (without providing evidence for the "extreme case" claim). So the claim that I am the "only person" who sees it different does not hold water.
Stuartg #1478,
” Others have pointed out, better than I could, that your references don’t say what you think they say.”
According to references I provided, gelatin in vaccines caused the development of gelatin allergy in Japan which they solved by removing gelatin from vaccines.
Since you claim that the studies don't say what I think they say, please tell me what happened in Japan, the way you see it from those references.
APV,
Obviously , you didn't like my answer. You're trying to move the goalposts again.
Read my reference. I'll wait.
APV:
Yes, actually. I see evidence that people with pre-existing allergies to gelatin had allergic reactions when administered vaccines containing gelatin. You, on the other hand, see incontrovertible evidence that vaccines cause allergies.
Julian Frost #1489,
"When we investigated the postmarketing research during the period from 1989 to 1993, there was no report of anaphylaxis among 974,000 recipients of MMR vaccine produced by the Kitasato Institute despite the fact that the Kitasato Institute used the same lot of gelatin at the same concentration as that used from 1994 on in the monovalent measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines."
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2899%2970508-7/fulltext
Could you please explain the above outcome? If pre-existing allergies were the cause, there should have been NO change in gelatin related anaphylaxis rate in 1994. Why did the gelatin related anaphylaxis rate increase in 1994?
APV,
"What do you see in this title?" "Can anyone explain why?" "How did the mammal get sensitized?" "Could you please explain the above outcome?"
Asking commenters to explain your own references suggests a rudimentary lack of knowledge on your part.
As to "Do you see something different than what I see?" that's already been answered.
I suggest that you go back to (or even learn) the basics. The reference I gave you, or an equivalent, should enable you to answer most of your own questions without relying on others.
Am I the only one who sees this thread going round and around like...It has gotten just as pointless and just as futile.Are you guys going to give it up,or is this going to go on like this for another 1500 posts or more.
I'll check back in a couple o days.
Stuartg $1491,
You made the general statement that posters here see things different in the references than me. I am asking you to focus on a specific example so we can see WHY we see it differently.
So why don't you focus on one specific aspect like in #1490?
When Krebiozen claimed GI mucosa sensitization is the cause of food allergy, NO ONE except me challenged him.
The NEJM study nailed that, demonstrating that the GI mucosa sensitization hypothesis is WRONG.
Science is not a democracy. There was a time when the majority view was that the earth was flat.
So just because a lot of people here see things different than me, does not mean they are right ...
Please read my references and tell me why YOU think it is saying something different than my interpretation, instead of relying on somebody else's view.
#1466
You haven't posted anything which requires much thought: as I pointed out at the top, a whole lot of incoherence and lack of a structured argument. I got better from my nephew when he was 5...
And you still haven't provided all that wonderful stuff you claimed you had. Strange that...
Science Mom says (#1086),
We have evolved to tolerate food proteins, we’d be kind of screwed if we didn’t. But we are also not clones. Certain genotypes will produce allergy-prone phenotypes.
MJD says,
Furthermore, we may evolve to not tolerate some food proteins, we’re kind of screwed if vaccines contain such proteins (e.g., egg protein).
@APV,
My severely autistic son has atopy including egg allergy.
Kudos to you and the FDA for making everyone aware of egg-allergy vaccine contraindications.
It's clear that APV is the MVP for vaccine safety on this thread.
Allowing for your goalpost shift (citing a different source this time around), once again you confirm that you interpret the evidence far more harshly than we do. Here's the last sentence from the absract.
"may have".
MJD says,
A bit off topic but the picture of the smiling Mr. Wakefield is quite peculiar.
Does his neck tie usually extend past his hips or is this a new fashion statement?
Absent minded professor, scholar, innovator, maybe?
Julian Frost #1496,
Please answer the question in #1490. If it was not DTaP, what caused the sensitization?
Why did this (below) happen, if it were not DTaP?
“In the preliminary results investigating the immunogenicity of gelatin in DTaP, a trace amount of gelatin in DTaP was immunogenic.11 We examined 165 paired sera obtained before the first dose of DTaP and 1 month after the third dose of DTaP. Of 165 paired sera, 62 were obtained from the recipients of gelatin-free DTaP, and IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in none. In 103 recipients of gelatin-containing DTaP, IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in 2 recipients.”
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2899%2970508-7/fulltext
"(citing a different source this time around)"
The Japanese did a thorough investigation of this problem involving numerous studies. Please allow me to cite the relevant ones as needed. The Nakayama et. al. paper is reference [3] in the original Kuno-Sakai et. al. paper. It is not some unrelated paper. They are all investigating the same problem.
StuartG writes "Last time I checked, the USA was the land of opportunity. The only person to stop you from joining the FDA and partaking in the research is yourself.
So why don’t you?"
When was "the last time you checked?" And do you seriously believe FDA research is directed by new recruits? And that the bureaucracy is set up to give folks "opportunity" to join and "partake" in their own research?
There have been a few strange detours here, but StuartG just might take the prize.
#1479 sadmar...
Appreciate the interest. I'm certain both the Borg and the few offering dissenting viewpoints here may share much more in common than an interest in the subject of vaccination policy.
Still I should clarify that I've not been acting representative here of any "fringe" conservative groups, nor any auto dealership franchise or brand. Nor are my ideas necessarily indicative of the thoughts of any other members of nor those closely related to Relic or any other entity.
Returning to subject, I will share that I'm old enough to remember when Reynolds leveraged their cozy relationship with government and ran full page ads in the WSJ and others to share that there was "no scientific evidence" to connect "second hand smoke" to health issues.
I also remember how absurd all of that industry sponsored "science" was to me then, and how preposterous the notion that the unfiltered end of a cigarette combined with whatever a smoker might exhale after drawing from the other would magically be free of any potential for harm.
Of course I might have been just as easily branded "anti-science" then as now for seeing past that round of deception that's since become a primary purpose of the government-science complex that replaces the openness and the hearing out of any and all alternative conclusions with the rigid intolerance of so-called "settled science" not seen since the good doktor Bimler's Germany.
And as a quick reminder to all... the issue deserving primary attention here is whether there are any vaccines that don't have neurotoxins added as "preservatives" or "to make them work better".
And then whether there is possible merit to the wild notion that neurotoxins might cause neurological effects, at least in the more vulnerable of those receiving shots.
The other question to be considered is whether spreading live virus contained in most vaccines might have unintended consequences that may even include the presence of an unexpected virus.
In addition there is a question whether all ill effects that might happen are accidental at all since government "health" has a rather dubious track record, and obviously is not always here to "help and protect people."
Finally, with special attention to that last hugely important concern, whether or not the State has some rights to inject unwilling citizens, whether by brute force, or by threat of whatever "consequences" and "marginalization" of vaccine clear kids and/or adults.
One doesn't need any particular medical degree to answer that one. Just a basic understanding of the role of government to secure individual rights, which obviously include medical and health choices. The Americans here put the individual and individual rights above any real or imagined "greater good" being peddled by collectivists.
To recycle a favorite mantra of collectivists... "My Body My Choice!"
Food for thought from the all-so dubious sources...
Dr. Humphries on Vaccine Safety "They don't want you to hear the other side"
Dr. Maurice Hilleman in his own words These has been written off as "sarcasm" on his part, and that he was only "playfully mocking" those "conspiracy nuts". But if that's truly the case more care should be taken, especially a a subject of such importance to public health.
Offering correction to last line before the grammar police arrive. I meant to type "...especially on a subject of such importance to public health.
What evidence convinced you that:
1. Some if not all current shots do more harm than good
2. No two batches of vaccines are the same
3. No two patients respond the same to the same vaccine