dad sent me a link to a site leading to this….pretty interesting read:
I'd be more interested in it if it wasn't on a 'crank' site. That site has an "agenda". Beware of the word "truth" in a site's name, lol, since truth means, 'we are against'!
There are, as is usually the case with evangelists, many inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
1. Discussing "peanut food allergies" and then "refined peanut oil" in vaccines as if they are one and the same. They are not. What the article did not say is that highly refined peanut oils are very rarely associated with peanut allergic responses and experiments have born this out. Unrefined or cold pressed, perhaps, but highly refined no.
2. Shaken baby syndrome is a whole big thing and to isolate some theorized correlation to peanut oil in vaccines based on one report (which seems tough to locate by the way), is misleading. Have vaccines been proposed to be one possible factor? Yes. But this is a "syndrome" which means it is a group of occurences and contrary to the popular belief of even many doctors, they do not always have to occur together. Many many theories have been put forth to explain cases of so-called "shaken baby syndrome" where parents or care-givers have been unjustly accused of abuse. Vaccines being one of them and "peanut oil" not being a major part of that at all.
The question to ask is "is peanut oil in vaccines associated with hypersensitivity or allergic reactions"? Not, is it associated with "shaken baby syndrome". This is completely divisive. The article skips over the central question to a more emotionally charged (supposed) associated with infant death! The average reader is supposed to get upset and ignore the lack of FACTS about the risk of adverse reactions.
I don't know anything about drug and vaccine labeling but peanut oil is not on the list of "allegens" that must be listed on food labels according to the FDA's allergen labelling guidelines. This is from the FDA:
Edible oils can be derived from major food allergens such as soybeans and peanuts, and they may contain variable levels of protein (Taylor and Hefle, 2001). The consumption of highly refined oils derived from major food allergens by allergic individuals does not appear to be associated with allergic reactions. For example, Taylor et al. (1981) and Bush et al. (1985) did not observe any reactions to refined peanut or soy oils in 10 and 7 allergic patients, respectively. On the other hand, unrefined or cold-pressed oils that contain higher levels of protein residues (Taylor and Hefle, 2001) may cause allergic reactions. For example, Hourihane et al. (1997b) reported that 6 of 60 peanut allergic individuals reacted to crude peanut oil but none responded to refined peanut oil. Similarly, Kull et al. (1999) reported that 15 of 41 peanut allergic children responded positively to crude peanut oil in skin prick tests, but none responded to refined peanut oil. The actual protein levels reported in various edible oils varies, probably due to differences in the oil, refining process, and the protein detection analytical method used. Crevel et al. (2000) reported that crude peanut and sunflower oils contained 100 to 300 µg/ml of protein, but that the most highly refined oils contained 0.2 to 2.2 µg/ml of protein. Intermediate protein concentrations were seen for partially processed oils. Teuber et al. (1997) showed that the amount of protein in both crude and refined gourmet nut oils varied both by type of oil and degree of processing; the reported values ranged from 10 to 60 µg/ml for various unrefined oils and from 3 to 6 µg/ml for the refined oils. Other investigators reported undetectable levels of proteins in refined edible oils (Hoffman et al., 1994; Yeung and Collins, 1996; Peeters et al., 2004) using assays with detection sensitivities of <0.3 ng/ml (Peeters et al., 2004) and 0.4 mg/kg (Yeung and Collins, 1996).
The mission of that site, which has been linked to, is to prove that vaccines do more harm than good and that they had no role in the reduction (and even eradication) of many diseases. So while the following is not related to the peanut oil in vaccines article it is related to the the central purpose of the article and site which is to villainise vaccines:
Vaccines reduce disease
By Richard Gayle
October 19, 2009
Fighter for truth and science Ben Goldacre tweeted a link to a nifty blog post showing just how safe the Gardasil HPV vaccine is. Using easy-to-understand graphics, the post (on the very nice Information is Beautiful blog) makes it very clear that comparing the good it does to the very tiny risk, Gardasil is a monumental achievement. Actually, just all on its own it’s a big advancement in the fight against cancer. The post also puts it in place among other low-risk dangers like getting hit by lightning or being killed in an earthquake. I like that; I myself have compared it with dying from falling off a chair. more
I am so glad to see this. I had seen the graphic all around the web but it had lost its link to the original. It helps place the risk in much better perspective. The risk-reward equations for vaccines is just not well understood by many people.
I have had people tell me that vaccines really do nothing, that polio and smallpox were not eradicated by vaccines but by better hygiene. Awfully coincidental. Let’s look at some data.
rates of paralytic poliomyelitis from
1950 to 200 chart from CDC"
This is from the CDC and shows the rates of paralytic poliomyelitis in the US (PDF). According to the CDC, the rates of polio had actually increased from the 1800 because of increased sanitation. IN those earlier times, children were probably exposed on a regular basis, even while in the womb, and developed immunity without the resulting paralysis. Polio is especially deadly the older the patient is.
As they state:
In the immediate prevaccine era, improved sanitation allowed less frequent exposure and increased the age of primary infection. Boosting of immunity from natural exposure became more infrequent and the number of susceptible persons accumulated, ultimately resulting in the occurrence of epidemics, with 13,000 to 20,000 para- lytic cases reported annually.
So, 20,000 cases down to 61 in 10 years. All after the vaccine was introduced. Let’s look at another disease. Measles:
US Measles Rates from 1950 to 2000
US Rubella Rates from
1950 to 2000
or mumps (vaccine licensed in 1967)
US Mumps Rates from
1967 to 1994
Just a coincidence that the numbers of people infected with these diseases dropped dramatically after the vaccine was licensed? I don’t think so.
We eradicated smallpox due to the use of a vaccine and are well on the way to eradicating the polio virus. The only time many of these diseases appear in the US is when a high enough percentage of people fail to get vaccinated. This causes herd immunity to fail, allowing the disease to spread to many susceptible people.
While the Amish do vaccinate themselves (there appears to be no religious reasons prohibiting vaccines. Surveys indicate that their main concern is ‘fear of side effects.’), the rates have often been lower than needed for herd immunity, resulting in outbreaks of serious diseases, such as pertussis, in their communities.
When people fail to get immunized, they not only put themselves at risk, they put others at risk also.
The disease can not spread unless there are enough people around who are able to spread it. For a lot of these illnesses, less than 85% immunized means that the disease can cause a lot of damage.
Vaccination has a strong community rationale. One that is some cases can be more important than a personal belief. It depends on just how dangerous a particular epidemic is to the community.
And vaccinations do reduce the spread of epidemics.
i read a little more of the site before i went back to work. just more quackers :)
its very interesting though that it can manifest in ways that is very close to shaken baby syndrome.
Well the thing is many things can.
The only reason that I checked out the site more indepth rather than just reacting to the article was the word "truth". Like I said…that is a dead giveaway.
check this out:
down towards the bottom….how we exchanged flu for asthma…smallpox for autism…blah blah blah. garbage. i noticed no references for those comments….i need to do some searchings online.
From Gustrength's Blog:
The study that first suggested a link between vaccines and autism and spurred a long-running, acrimonious debate over the safety of vaccines has been retracted by the British medical journal that published it. The withdrawal supports the scientific evidence that vaccinations don’t cause autism, but isn’t likely to persuade advocacy groups that believe in a link. - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041212437364420.html