This post is a series of Facebook posts. It is too difficult to find things on there, though... so here they are. I will add another portion later covering the bacteria that is needed to help resolve the peanut allergy problem.
***********************************
If you or someone you know has a peanut allergy, this article covers some of the possible reasons.
There is some promising research which shows a bacteria present in many raw milk cultures may lower the risk of anaphylaxis.
It is important to consider all potential reasons... No matter how uncomfortable it makes you.
From the article: "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."
Video highlights of the last Congressional Hearing on Autism. Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic by Dr Tim O'Shea www.thedoctorwithin.com
Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to
peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden? Before 1900,
reactions to pean…
******************************
So... From this excellent article... this is what every man, woman and
child needs to know about vaccines: "Vaccine manufacturers do not have
to disclose all vaccine ingredients to consumers.
It is important
to note that in 1973, when peanut allergies were still relatively rare,
a study was conducted on the effects of peanut excipients in vaccines.
Not long after it was published; however, government regulators decided
that vaccine manufacturers no longer had to label peanut excipients in
vaccines, which means pediatricians, parents, and others who wanted to
avoid peanut excipients for safety reasons could no longer effectively
do so.
“What is listed today in the Physicians Desk Reference in
each vaccine section is not the full formula,” adds Dr. O’Shea.
“Suddenly that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers
must be protected. They only had to describe the formula in general.”
Since that time, peanut allergies have only gotten more prevalent and
more severe, and the vast majority of the population has no idea that
peanut excipients still used in vaccines are largely responsible. Will
this ever change? Only if government regulators and medical authorities
suddenly develop consciences will this monumental medical fraud be
widely exposed and properly addressed.
In his book
The Doctor
Within, Dr. Tim O’Shea argues that vaccines are largely responsible for
both the advent and increased prevalence of peanut allergy, noting that
many vaccines and even antibiotic drugs contain excipients derived from
peanut oil. Since it is a relatively inexpensive oil to produce, refined
peanut oil became widely adopted as an excipient of choice in the
production of vaccines during the 1960s, and it is still widely used
today for this purpose."
More than one million children living in America today suffer from peanut…
****************************
This
is what is on the FDA website regarding peanut oil. Although I am
still looking, I believe it is grandfathered in as law. As far as I can
tell, it appears that This means it does not have to be listed as an
ingredient or process and can be protected by trade secret laws.
From the FDA review : "Based on these considerations, the Select
Committee concludes that: There is no evidence in the available
information on coconut oil, peanut oil, and oleic acid that
demonstrates, or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the
public as they are now used in paper and cotton packaging material for
food at levels now current or as they might reasonably be expected to be
used for such purposes in the future. There is no evidence in the
available information on linoleic acid that demonstrates, or suggests
reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the public when it is used as
a nutrient or dietary supplement at levels now current or that might
reasonably be expected in the future."
**************************************
An
overview of the GRAS process. From the paper : "You see, Doctor, we
understand that vaccine manufacturers are protected by trade secrets and
are not obliged to reveal all the ingredients in vaccines, even to
doctors. These secret substances are termed “GRAS” (short for “Generally
Recognized As Safe”). One of them is peanut oil:
“The exact
composition of vaccines cannot and will not be disclosed under an
exemption that protects business information with the Access to
Information Act in Canada and the Freedom of Information Act in the US.
Similarly, trade secrets are also exempt under the British Freedom of
Information Act. Thus the guidelines to label refined peanut oil/moral
obligation to label peanut oil are in conflict with laws protecting
trade secrets. Full disclosure of excipients was not and continues not
to be general practice in the US or Canada.” [1]"
Can
a food manufacturer determine that an ingredient is generally
recognized as safe (GRAS) and maintain trade secrets information on that
ingredient?
******************************************************
From the article: "It would be nice to think that experts who sit on
the committees that approve vaccine safety and licensing would make note
of the rise in allergies to these foods in the general population, and
be able to make the link that the development of these allergies is due
to the body's immune rejection of ingested food proteins resulting from a
prior immune reaction to injected vaccine food proteins. It would also
be nice to think that at least the proper safety studies would be done
to see if the injection of these food proteins manifests in a clinically
significant way in humans. Many clinicians, and parents, are already
seeing this connection. I believe, however, that these experts are not
doing their due diligence, and are looking right past the evidence.
There seems to be a concerted effort to avoid doing the studies that
would solidify our scientific knowledge. Until then, I support the
precautionary principle."
********************************************************
This
is a clinical trial using adjunct 65-4 (a peanut oil derivative) ....
Why am I posting this? Because as I research I see where all pro vax
sources swear up and down there is not now, nor has there been, peanut
oil as an adjunct. This clinical trial says otherwise.
Always, always, always follow the money.
They use this oil because it makes vaccines effective for a longer
period of time. I do not know what name it goes by.... But someone here
is not being honorable. I would suggest industry has the ethical
issues.
A
comparison was made of the antibody response and subjective reactions
to zonally-purified influenza vaccine in aqueous suspension and in
peanut oil adjuvant 65-4. Both preparations contained 700 CCA units of
A/Aichi/2/68, and...
************************************
FYI...
if you read this article to the end and wonder what is a great
anti-viral... I will tell you my little secret.... (shhhh)... It is PINE
NEEDLE TEA! Made with pine needles from your area. And hot water.
And local honey. Yes, yes... I know... expensive beyond belief but
there you go. (/sarc)
From the article: "For so many, the peanut
allergy "phenomenon" is solved. It's your body's current hyper-immune
response from being injected with peanut oil in vaccines for years. End
the vaccination violence! There is NATURAL IMMUNITY available in Nature,
hence the name. Do your own research."
Learn more:
Peanut allergy 'phenomenon' solved
**********************************
This one is a "blast from the past".... 1964 to be precise. Near the beginning of peanut oil being used to maintain titers for longer.
*********************
From
me: If I had a child with a peanut allergy, I would exercise a
skeptical amount of overabundant caution regarding vaccinations.
Certainly I would research it.
I have spent several hours
looking at the "pro-vaccine" sites - especially regarding peanut allergy
issues. All they seem to have is "it is not listed on the ingredients
or in the process"...... and "they are not going to put something in
that is not listed". Since I believe the first statement is irrelevant
and the second statement to be untrue, I would be very very cautious
regarding vaccines.
I am studying the best way to reduce the
reaction to peanut allergies. The heart of this problem may be resolved
with a bacteria commonly found in cultured raw milk products. Still
researching though.
Food allergies and vaccines .... and a
possible road to (either partial or complete) recovery using lacto
fermented foods is generally the answer.
From the article: " research published in Heather Fraser’s 2011 book,
The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, illuminates the vaccine connection much
more specifically. Peanut oil is used as a vaccine excipient. And, this
usage has become increasingly widespread until, by the 1980s, it was the
preferred excipient. Prior to 1980, peanut oil was used occasionally,
or not at all.
An excipient is defined as a component other than
the original medication. This is a problem with vaccines, because it is
so difficult to define the original “medication” in a vaccine. In
general, excipients are the substances added to preserve, stabilize or
otherwise dilute the viral antigens.3
Peanut oil (even the most
refined) still contains some traces of intact peanut proteins. Intact
proteins do not belong in the human body. The digestive system is
designed to break down these antigenic substances into peptides and
amino acids, non-allergenic building blocks of proteins, which your body
then uses to build tissue.
This contamination with intact,
allergy inducing proteins is why doctors are directed to inject vaccines
intramuscularly, rather than intravenously in hopes of lessening the
chance of reactions. However, it is obvious from the epidemic of peanut
allergies that this measure has been inadequate..........
........So, our children are being injected with a substance that can
cause life-threatening allergic reactions, and what was the government’s
response? The first study of peanut allergies that focused on the use
of peanut oil in vaccines was conducted in 1973. Soon afterwards, and as
a result of that study, manufacturers were no longer required to
disclose all of the ingredients in their vaccines, thereby limiting
their liability. The detailed information became “proprietary” and the
precise ingredient list was no longer disclosed.
However,
childhood vaccination has become the sacred cow of pediatrics. Many of
the parents in my practice, who do not wish to have their children
vaccinated, are regularly abused by health care professionals, both
doctors and nurses.
***************************************
On
the subject of Peanut allergies, peanut oil as an adjuvant and vaccine
labeling: Please exercise an abundance of caution in vaccinating if
your child has peanut allergies.
So.... on to the labeling for
vaccines. The question is "can vaccine ingredients and processes be
protected by trade secrets?" I always find if you just go step, step,
step, step and not shy away from what you find, eventually the truth
becomes known.
My steps took me to several court cases between
big companies (two equal adversaries). So far... trade secrets are
alive and well in the pharma industry. As I am traveling this path, I
see hints that as long as the FDA approves it, trade secrets rule, even
on labeling. However, confirming that knowledge is further down the
road for another day.
So, from two mega-giant pharma corporations fighting it out in court over the chickenpox vaccination:
From the records: "In the present case, Merck's initial disclosure
described its entire process as a protectable trade secret. Then,
following discovery, it narrowed that broad trade secret claim to fit
the particular aspects of the production process Merck claimed were
misappropriated by SmithKline. SmithKline was initially put on notice
through Merck's broad disclosure but was subsequently informed well in
advance of trial of the specific aspects of the trade secret Merck
believed SmithKline misappropriated. It cannot be said SmithKline was
prejudiced in any way........
......The term trade secret
encompasses a process that “[d]erives independent economic value, actual
or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily
ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic
value from its disclosure or use; and is [ ] the subject of efforts
that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” 6
Del. C. § 2001(4). Whether the trade secrets were generally known or
readily ascertainable and whether Merck took reasonable precautions to
protect their secrecy is a question of fact. See Injection Research
Specialists, Inc. v. Polaris Indus., L.P., Fed. Cir., 168 F.3d 1320, 48
U.S.P.Q.2d 1719, 1726 (Aug. 13, 1998). Such a finding is reviewed for a
determination of whether it is supported by substantial evidence, see
Collins v. Burke, Del.Supr., 418 A.2d 999, 1004 (1980), and is not
clearly erroneous. See Levitt v. Bouvier, Del.Supr., 287 A.2d 671, 673
(1972).
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/de-supreme-court/115896
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS CO v. MERCK CO INC as heard in DE Supreme Court
************************************
So...
Adjuvants and allergies. CAN a pharma company use an adjuvant such as
peanut oil or other things without listing it in their process or on
their ingredient list?
This "money quote" is at the bottom of this very, very long page. I think it speaks for itself.
"*Includes only those formulations whose data are available in the public literature"
Letter in PDF format
