Share |

PrintPrintable version



Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

thedoctorwithin.com
Tim O’Shea
reprinted in Spizz magazine, July 2011

201302221004.jpg

Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden?

Before 1900, violent reactions to peanuts were unheard of. Today over a million children in this country are allergic to peanuts.

What happened? Why is everybody buying EpiPens now?

Looking at all the problems with vaccines during the past decade, [2] just a superficial awareness is enough to raise the suspicion that vaccines might have some role in the appearance of any novel allergy among children.

But reactions to peanuts are not just another allergy. Peanut allergy has suddenly emerged as the #1 cause of death from food reactions, ( [1] p 114) being in a category of allergens able to cause anaphylaxis. This condition brings the risk of asthma attack, shock, respiratory failure, and even death. Primarily among children.

New research in Heather Fraser’s 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic defines the vaccine connection much more specifically. We now learn that a class of vaccine ingredients – excipients – is more than a likely suspect in what may accurately be termed an epidemic.

But let’s back up a little. We have to look at both vaccines and antibiotics in recent history, and the physical changes that the ingredients in these brand new medicines introduced into the blood of children.

Before 1900, anaphylactic shock was virtually unknown. The condition of sudden fainting, respiratory distress, convulsions, and death did not exist until vaccinators switched from the lancet to the hypodermic needle. That transformation was essentially complete by the turn of the century in the western world.

Right at that time a new disease called Serum Sickness began to claim thousands of children. A variety of symptoms, including shock and death, could suddenly result following an injection of vaccine. Instead of covering it up, the connection was well recognized and documented in the medical literature of the day. Serum Sickness was the first mass allergenic phenomenon in history. What had been required for its onset apparently was the advent of the hypodermic needle.

When the needle replaced the lancet in the late 1800s, serum sickness soon became a frequent visitor to the child’s bed. It was a known consequence of vaccinations. Indeed, the entire field of modern allergy has evolved from the early study of Serum Sickness coming from vaccines.

Early researchers like Claude Von Pirquet recognized that vaccines had 2 primary effects: immunity and hypersensitivity. The one was the price of the other. In other words, if we were going to benefit from the effects of mass immunization, we must accept the downside of mass hypersensitivity as a necessary co-feature. Modern medicine has decided that this double effect should be kept secret, so they don’t allow it to be brought up much.

But many doctors in the early 1900s were dead set against vaccines for this precise reason. The advertised benefit was not proven to be worth the risk. Doctors like Walter Hadwen MD, and Alfred Russell Wallace saw how smallpox vaccines had actually increased the incidence of smallpox. [2,3] Wallace was one of the primary demographers of the age, and his charts showing the increase in smallpox death from vaccination are meticulous primary sources.

Another principal researcher of the early 1900s was Dr Charles Richet, the one who coined the term anaphylaxis. [4] His field was the reactions that some people seemed to have to certain foods. Richet found that with food allergies the reaction came on as the result of intact proteins in the food having bypassed the digestive system and making their way intact into the blood, via leaky gut. Foreign protein in the blood, of course, is a universal trigger for allergic reaction, not just in man but in all animals.

But Richet noted that in the severe cases, food anaphylaxis did not happen just by eating a food. That would simply be food poisoning.

Food anaphylaxis is altogether different. This sudden violent reaction requires an initial sensitivity involving injection of some sort, followed by a later ingestion of the sensitized food. Get the shot, then later eat the food.

The initial exposure created the hypersensitivity. The second exposure would be the violent, perhaps fatal, physical event.

Richet’s early work around 1900 was primarily with eggs, meat, milk and diphtheria proteins. Not peanuts. The value of Richet’s research with reactive foods was to teach us the sequence of allergic sensitivity leading to anaphylaxis, how that had to take place.

Soon other doctors began to notice striking similarities between food reactions and the serum sickness that was associated with vaccines. Same exact clinical presentation.

Next up was penicillin, which became popular in the 1940s. It was soon found that additives called excipients were necessary to prolong the effect of the antibiotic injected into the body. The excipients would act as carrier molecules. Without excipients, the penicillin would only last about 2 hours. Refined oils worked best, acting as time-release capsules for the antibiotic. Peanut oil became the favorite, because it worked well and was available and inexpensive.

Allergy to penicillin became common, and was recognized as a sensitivity to the excipient oils. To the present day a standard screening test in all clinics is always to ask a new patient about possible allergies to antibiotics. That’s what the allergy is – a sensitivity to the excipients.

By 1953 as many as 12% of the population was allergic to penicillin. But considering the upside with bacterial infections, it was still a good deal – a worthwhile risk.

By 1950 antibiotics were given out like M&Ms. Soldiers, children, anybody with any illness, not just bacterial. Despite Fleming’s severe warnings against prophylactic antibiotics, antibiotics were given indiscriminately as the new wonder drug. Just in case anything. Only then, in the 1950s, did peanut allergy begin to occur, even though Americans had been eating peanuts for well over a century. Remember – just eating peanuts cannot cause peanut allergy. Except if they are allowed to become moldy of course, in which case aflatoxins are released. But that’s really not a peanut allergy per se.

But even when peanut allergy did appear, the numbers of cases were fairly small and it wasn’t even considered worthy of study.

The change came with vaccines. Peanut oils were introduced as vaccine excipients in the mid 1960s. By 1980 they had become the preferred excipient. They were considered adjuvants – substances able to increase reactivity to the vaccine. This reinforced the Adjuvant Myth: the illusion that immune response is the same as immunity [2]: the pretense being that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred.

Historically, those researchers who challenged this Commandment of vaccine mythology did not advance their careers.

The first study of peanut allergies was not undertaken until 1973. It was a study of peanut excipients in vaccines. Soon afterwards, and as a result of that study, manufacturers were no longer required to disclose all the ingredients in vaccines.

What is listed today in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula. Suddenly that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers must be protected. They only had to describe the formula in general.

Why was peanut allergy so violent? The famous Maurice Hilleman found that even the most refined peanut oils still contained some traces of intact peanut proteins. This was the reason doctors were directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous – a greater chance of absorption of intact proteins, less chance of reaction.

But that obviously wasn’t enough to prevent sensitivity. The fundamental law of nature always applies: no intact proteins in the body. A million years of Natural Selection didn’t create the mammalian immune system for nothing. Put intact proteins, peanut or whatever, for any imagined reason into the human system and the inflammatory response will fire.

Although peanut allergies became fairly common during the 1980s, it wasn’t until the early 1990s when there was a sudden surge of children reacting to peanuts – the true epidemic appeared. The Mandated Schedule of vaccines for children doubled from the 80s to the 90s:

1980 – 20 vaccines

1995 – 40 vaccines

2011 – 68 vaccines

It would be imprudent enough to feed peanuts to a newborn since their digestive system is largely unformed. But this is much worse – injecting intact proteins directly into the infant’s blood. In 36 vaccines before the age of 18 months.

As vaccines doubled between the 1980s and the 1990s, thousands of kids were now exhibiting peanut sensitivities, with many violent reactions that were sometimes fatal.

Following the next enormous increase in vaccines on the Mandated Schedule after 9/11 whereby the total shot up to 68 recommended vaccines, the peanut allergy soon reached epidemic proportions: a million children: 1.5% of them. These numbers fit the true definition of epidemic even though that word has never been used in mainstream literature with respect to peanut allergy, except in Fraser’s book.

Many researchers, not only Heather Fraser, could see very clearly that

“The peanut allergy epidemic in children was precipitated by childhood injections.”

( [1], p106)

But with the newfound research, the medical profession will do what they always must do – bury it. Protect the companies. So no money will be ever allocated from NIH to study the obvious connection between vaccine excipients and peanut allergy. That cannot happen, primarily because it would require a control group – an unvaccinated population. And that is the Unspoken Forbidden. Same line of reasoning that has prevented Wakefield’s work from ever being replicated in a mainstream US clinical study. No unvaccinated populations. Which actually means no studies whose outcome could possibly implicate vaccines as a source of disease or immunosuppression. Vaccines as a cause of an allergy epidemic? Impossible. Let’s definitely not study it.

Instead let’s spend the next 20 years looking for the Genetic Link to the childhood peanut allergy epidemic…

In such a flawed system, any pretense of true clinical science is revealed as fatally handicapped of course: we are looking for the truth, wherever our studies shall take us, except for this, and this, and oh yes, this.

FRAME OF REFERENCE

So in addition to all the other problems with vaccines delineated in this text, now we have a new one – peanut oil excipients. Which all by themselves can cause severe even fatal episodes of shock, as well as chronic allergy, even if we didn’t already have the mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, and the attenuated pathogens which the manufacturers do admit to.

Quite a toxic burden to saddle the unprotected newborn with. No wonder the US Supreme Court refers to vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe.”

references

1. Fraser, H, The Peanut allergy epidemic, Skyhorse 2011

2. O’Shea, T, Vaccination is not immunization, thedoctorwithin 2010

3. Wallace, AR, Vaccine delusion, 1898

4. Richet, Nobel lecture, acceptance speech, 11 Dec 1913



  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)




0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.laleva.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1758

Leave a comment

Receive updates

Subscribe to get updates of this site by email:

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Other sites of ours