Grateful for the link Godfrey and thank you for posting.

An interesting FDA paper, which concentrates on oral allergens, including Gluten. Casein and peanut sensitivities. The page was 'updated' 25-03-14, although we are not privy to whether that entailed any additions or deletions to the original 2006 paper. A lack of specific data on allergen content of certain foods and formulas, seems to be a general theme, although these do not seem to have been studied in any depth during the 8 intervening years. Vaccine adjuvents are not mentioned in relation to food allergies.

Here's what the FDA says about peanut and soy refined oils:-
Comments in brackets were originally reproduced in form format, but this thread only reproduces text.

"There are surprisingly few data available in the published scientific literature reporting on the levels of proteins in highly refined oils. The criteria used to evaluate studies measuring protein levels in food oils are shown in Table IV-7 and applied in Appendix 3.

Table IV-7. Specific Criteria for Evaluating Protein in Oil Studies

1. Has the study been published in a peer-reviewed journal?
(Published, peer-reviewed studies are preferred, although unpublished studies can be considered).

2. Was the oil completely described, including all refining and treatment steps?
(The level of processing must be known both to compare values among studies and because each processing step may change the level of protein in oil).

3. Was the method used to extract the protein completely described?
(Extraction procedures should be described in sufficient detail to allow the extraction to be reproduced and, ideally, extraction efficiencies should be measured and reported).

4. Was the method used to quantify protein levels completely described?
(The lack of these data increases the level of uncertainty).

5. Were replicate samples or batches tested, and was there a statistical analysis of these data?
(The lack of these data and statistical analysis increase the level of uncertainty)."

So there we have it refined peanut & soy oils, both known to have been used in vaccine adjuvents, cannot be relied on NOT to contain potentially allergen causing protein fragments.

Let's be clear that it is known as far as it can be tested (and it can't on human infants) that thimerosal leaves a residue of mercury in the brain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280342/

So, the test was not performed on human infants but on the principle of primum non nocere there are overwhelming reasons to operate on the basis that it is not efficiently flushed from system.

Back in 2005 I was having exchanges with a licensing authority official who said they preferred to rely on epidemiology rather than animal testing.

Eindeker;

I have never subscribed to the belief that it is only thimerosal that is the issue, though I do find it telling that the substance was removed from veterinary vaccines many years ago due to side effects.

However, you are perhaps being a little disingenuous if you choose to use the California rates to prove anything about autism. You appear to believe that a rate of 1 in 10 000 is the same as a rate of 1 in 68. ( because 'better diagnosing" is always responsible for an increased rate.)

Using that argument it is very possible that right now, the Californian rates of people with autism have actually gone down with the removal of thimerosal, and the recorded increase is actually purely from "more awareness" and "better diagnosing".

I don't believe that . Theoretically though, you should..

Passionless drone wrote a glorious article once ( you can find it on the internet) called "The incredible shrinking God of the Gaps" definitely one of my all time favorites describing the incredible mental gymnastics required to make 1 in 10000 = 1 in 68.

I suspect there is a lot more going on than just a single substance in vaccines.

And I suspect that changing the vaccine schedule so that we are now vaccinating the fetus for influenza while in the womb may also turn out to be a very strong risk factor.

I worry that we may already be seeing the beginning of transgenerational effects. As we know, a family history of mercury injury such as pinks disease is already linked with a transgenerational increased risk of autism.

And we are finding that pesticide exposure can also have multigenerational effects.

I am very scared about what we are doing long term.

And I am watching our current falling fertility rates amongst the young. At the moment, no proof that our young are less fertile than before, maybe the rates are dropping for other reasons. But.. I watch the way fertility rates are dropping among the young,( and the attendant rise in a multitude of autoimmune illnesses), and worry about just what we are doing, and what we have done.

Sometimes I think we are all dancing in the dark while the lights slowly go out..

Eideker,
What is the autism rate in Scandinavian countries? I have read it is a fraction of what it is here, and it is usually the higher-functioning Asperger's variety. Which would make sense, since they give a much lower number of vaccines than are routinely recommended and often accepted here.

Godfrey'

So you know for a "FACT" there is no refined oil? Or you know for a "FACT" that the refined oil used was not made out of peanut oil?
How do you know this since many times they put in trade names instead of scientific names?

And because I had to explain this to you ====

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

And -- drum roll - here----

What do they call this magical fairy dust --- something scientific or might they just decide to go with a trade name. Their choice.

@ Teresa You can't answer my question. It's an important one in the debate about thimerosal and autism. It may be that in itself, flu vaccines with thimerosal and pregnancy and in babies, can account for many many cases.

The only problem with this hypothesis is that is California banned thiomerasol containing flu vaccine in 2006 so have autism rates gone down subsequently in California? NO, so Thiomersal in flu vaccines obviously isn't to blame, in California, at least. And with only 50% of pregnant mums getting flu vaccine, even if 100% of these had the thiomersal version that should have led to a dramtic reduction in autism, only trouble is there hasn't been

@ Benedetta please explain your hang up with this name, do you worry about US or UK spelling (they're different) or the commercial name Merthiolate, what's your issue, do you call salt sodium chloride in your house?

@ Jenny it's your beloved peanut oil canard again: the peanut adjuvant never got an FDA licence even Bob (?), or someone, admitted they could find no evidence of a peanut oil vaccine ever having been used in humans, Jenny perhaps I should be a little more forceful

PUT UP (the evidence) OR SHUT UP....

@ Linda1 "and it really isn't fair to say that Dr. Palevsky doesn't know what he's talking about because you don't know the depth of his knowledge base on the issue

I have a very good idea of his state of knowledge Linda:

"casein that is potentially injected into the body is from the Menactra vaccine. Casein hydrolysate is used to make the Mueller-Hinton agar, which is the growth medium for the manufacturing of the Menactra vaccine", please show me any data that states the immunologically intact casein protein is present in casein hydrolysate, a total acid hydrolysis process, I'll wait, because it isn't and the good doctor is just making stuff up, perhaps you'd care to ask him?

@Greg "Do you believe there has been a relatively recent (80s -90s), real, signifcant increase in autism cases? Do you believe in regressive autism? Do you think there is a strong environmental component to autism causation?"
I have no idea, I do not have the experience, although reading the evidence there is clearly a genetic link to autism, sibling frequency then monozygote twins. What I will discuss, when I am allowed, is what I know about as a scientist, maybe the forthcoming study referred to by Dr Insel will shed more light on the genetic element in, apparently looking at autism rates in siblings of autistic children, either vaccinated or non-vaccinated.

Lawrence;
That was not the question - so no it is not better.

My question was; Why do they call Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium not by it's scientific name but intead it is listed as thimerosal.

Remember we were discussing Linda's complaint that there were mystery namees and you and your partner laughed at her and said that they were scientific names.

So I am asking you how scientific is the name thimerosal?

Eindeker,

You can't answer my question. It's an important one in the debate about thimerosal and autism. It may be that in itself, flu vaccines with thimerosal and pregnancy and in babies, can account for many many cases.

Now Eindecker,
If you are aren't sure about formula protein processing, but both processes (vaccine and formula) are called hydrolyzed, then it is an open question as to whether hydrolyzed proteins in vaccines and formula share the same slight potential for antigenicity, and it really isn't fair to say that Dr. Palevsky doesn't know what he's talking about because you don't know the depth of his knowledge base on the issue. You would have to ask him directly how he arrived at his position in order to judge.

@Eindecker

While I also share the reservation that thimerosal is the prime culprit causing autism, I think you must also see John's point that the vaccine-autism science so far has been shoddy to put it mildly. Also, With the strong circumstantial evidence linking vaccines to autism, I don't believe the results of a vax/unvax study will shake the skepticism. On this matter, I kindly ask that you set aside your scientist hat, and share your views on these questions: Do you believe there has been a relatively recent (80s -90s), real, signifcant increase in autism cases? Do you believe in regressive autism? Do you think there is a strong environmental component to autism causation?

Eindecker,
I want to emphasize too, that Dr. Allen-Vercoe states that until a child's gut flora is established at age 3, that the establishment of what will be that child's stable "normal" flora for the rest of his life will be especially vulnerable to alterations from medical interventions like antibiotics - that this is a critical time. I will add that this is also when children are barraged with powerful repeated doses of immune system challenging vaccines, some that contain thimerosol (flu at 25ug/dose and others at "trace" amts).

Hi Linda1. My thoughts exactly on the microbiome.

Eindeker - The page you refer to has no reference to thimerosal.

Eindeker

"Of course I'm not arguing that thiomersal should be reinstated, but see my comment above, and it's not needed as a preservative now with the development of reliable single dose technology."

Do you agree that .. begining in 1999 .. it was at the very least reckless or careless of public health officials .. to recommend and approve thimersoal laced vaccines .. that doubled the exposure of children .. by the age of two?

Do you agree the very least public health officials should have done was profusely APOLOGIZE to parents for exposing their precious children to thimerosal as they carelessly/recklessly increased the numbers of vaccines?

By the way .. do you also agree .. since "it's not needed as a preservative now with the development of reliable single dose technology" .. the WHO continued use of thimersoal in childhood vaccines in third-world countries comes very close to what could qualify as a crime against humanity?

"If I was a US citizen would I be pushing for a vaccinated v unvaccinated study? No I'd be waiting for the Insel report first to see if it needs to be replicated on a larger scale & what it is showing"

So ... as someone who presents himself as somewhat of an expert on the subject .. you are quite willing to "wait for the Insell report"?

Why hasn't this "no brainer study" already been done .. as I said .. the legislation seeking to fund it has been ignored by Mr. Insell for about ten years? Why should anyone be required to "wait" until Mr. Insell finally stops "dragging his feet" and decides to do what should have been done ten years ago?

Indeed .. do you have ANY valid reason to explain the incomprehensible actions of the entire bureaucracy of public health CDC/FDA/HHS/IOM/IACC and Insell .. for vigorously opposing (stonewalling)this study for ten years?

Enough .. I'm done with this issue also.

Eindecker,
Your statements about adult and baby gut flora are not based on fact since the microbiome is just now being explored. See Dr. Emma Allen-Vercoe's presentation http://media.archildrens.org/Mediasite/Play/bdfd849131f34558b3ff0df23d5479991d
where she explains that the number and type of organisms in the human gut isn't yet clear - they have only estimates. I doubt that your statement about an infant's gut is accurate either. And since, as you say, thimerosol's affect on human gut flora has not yet been studied, you can't deny the possibility that there is an effect. As a "simple scientist" surely you know that all kinds of surprises are found when previously held beliefs are tested.

You never did respond to my last post re antigenicity of hydrolyzed proteins. You stated that protein hydrolyzation in vaccines resulted in nonantigenicity. I said that based on the hypo not non allergenicity of protein hydrolyzed formulas, that I wouldn't expect vaccine proteins similarly processed to be greeted differently by the immune system. I then asked if there is a difference between the hydrolyzation of vaccine proteins vs. infant formula proteins. Do you know? Because if there is no difference, then the vaccine proteins, in this case bovine and soy, must also be allergenic to some.

Eindeker-

Do you have data on how many pregnant women receive a thimerosal flu shot? How about babies? Also, since the microbiome is being implicated as a big factor in autism, do you know how many vaccines use thimerosal in their processing, ie trace amounts in the vaccine? The toxicity to the gut flora cannot be dismissed.

@ Eindeker

"Please show any evidence that removing thiomersal has had any effect whatsoever on the incidence of autism, I wait for your evidence."

Are you suggesting that thimerosal should be returned to childhood vaccines at the same levels that my grandson was exposed to? Indeed .. if it does not cause autism .. what does it cause that required it be removed from childhood vaccines?

By the way .. while "you are waiting for my evidence" .. I am patiently "waiting" for Poul Thorsen .. the CDC sponsored .. federally indicted .. fugitive from American Justice .. who was the guy who produced the most quoted (IOM) "Danish" study that supposedly "proved" autism actually increased in Denmark .. AFTER thimerosal was removed.

I eagerly await this fraud's capture and prosecution in the U.S. .. maybe we can learn the identities of those "named and unnamed co-conspirators" also indicted.

While Poul has proven himself to lack any professional integrity .. I am grateful Poul is YOUR guy .. and .. not MINE.

"Looking at your comment do you acknowledge the tremendous global effect of vaccines on the almost total elimination of polio?"

I would suggest you read "The Virus and the Vaccine" by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher .. which presents an extraordinarly detailed examination of the serous health consequences arising from Salk's reckless/careless use of "monkey kidneys" to create his polio vaccine.

"Regarding your question of a vaccinated v unvaccinated study, as a non-US national I have no role to play in this but wait to see the results of the study that Insel refers to."

I did not ask you to "play a role" .. I asked you to simply COMMENT .. on whether or not YOU would publicly announce to AoA readers that YOU would support pending federal legislation to fund the "vaccinated v. unvaccinated" study.

Again .. if not .. why not? As Lawrence says .. "it's a no-brainer"

Dear John
I'm a simple scientist, I look at data to draw conclusions, I'm not interested in your musings re toxic culture (a nice pun) & bad science, I'll ask you the same question as Bob, where is the evidence that removing thiomersal has shifted autism incidence, maybe a plausible hypothesis to begin with but the actuality showed no effect, or have I got it wrong?

Eindeker

Well, actually my point is something else fundametally: it is not specifically about thimerosal or peanuts (which incidentally I never mentioned) it is about culture. Lawrence can prate about scientific method. But if we had scientific method we would be meticulously following up the adverse consequences: instead we have an agressive culture of assertion and denial in which the reality is that products are inevitably neither as effective or as safe as their official profile: they couldn't possibly be (and the studies themselves are a pack of lies). Thimerosal is interesting because mercury is a deadly toxin (the quantities in a single shot 250 times the hazard level for toxic waste) and they just went on adding more. IT'S THE CULTURE. We have this arrangement whereby vaccines are mandated, and manufacturers have effectively no liability. We have the US national rubbish dump of cases reported to VAERS (nearly half a million by now despite passive reporting). And they go on adding more products as if there is no limit (hence Offit's preposterous and terrifying 10,000 vaccine theory).

If anything the system in the UK is even more slippery. All the systems by which the products could be properly monitored have been short-circuited. Parents are ignored, insulted, bullied, concerned scientist are harassed and isolated, and this could not be more prejudicial to good science or product safety.

It's the culture: it is bad science and toxic politics together with an increasingly chronically sick and neurologically impaired population. Of course, with this blanket bombardment of multiple products the picture is extremely confused (and that incidentally is how the scientific bureaucrats would prefer to leave it) but it is all a reckless and irresponsible experiment.

Dear John
This contribution adds nothing as it focuses on the alledged link between thiomersal and autism and your claimed defects in the various studies. John you ignore the massive elephant in the room: thiomersal has been removed from almost all US vaccines and entirely from Danish & Icelandic vaccines for much longer: what has been the effect on autism statistics? Absolutely nothing.
Arguing over finer points of previous studies is as pointless as medieval theological discussions on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The actual data shows that removing thiomersal from vaccines has had no effect on the incidence of autism, and please don't come back with "Oh it must be because of aluminium adjuvants whose toxic effects have filled the gap left by thiomersal" I'm sure you won't but for anyone tempted to please look at the normal physiological blood concentrations of aluminium and how much these are elevated in animal models by vaccine adjuvants (it's 5%)
This mainly well tempered discussion has run its course, no one has provided any evidence that peanut oil based adjuvants were ever used in human vaccines, they were never licensed by the FDA for vaccine use, and I don't think you buy the argument "they" don't have to disclose biological components in vaccines oh yes they do & have to make a full disclosure of all components and manufacturing processes as part of the US & European licensing process. Manufacturing processe are liable to unannounced FDA inspections at any time to examine production records, it would be commercial suicide (& pointless when there are safer alternatives) to try & conceal crucial components that are not actually licensed for use. I guess that you & other correspondents here have never been on the receiving end of an FDA inspection?

@ Lawrence .. I'm done.

I am sorry that I wasted my time .. and .. apparently yours .. trying to get an "honest" answer out of you.

Be well and I hope you have a good life.

@Benedetta - International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry calls it: Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium

Is that better?

@Jenny - if those ingredients are listed for animal vaccines and not for human vaccines, it is for the simple reason that human vaccines do not contain them.

@Bob - plenty of retrospective studies have been done, none of which (either here or elsewhere) have shown any connection between vaccines & autism rates, or vaccines & other neurological issues.

Just because you believe that anyone (or everyone) is biased, does not make them so - people that disagree with you aren't Shills or being paid (as much as you would like to believe it to be so).

As to the calls for a "Prospective" Study - it does have huge ethical implications, for all of the reasons that have been articulated time and time again.

Just because you don't like the facts that have been presented (over and over and over again), doesn't make them wrong.....it just makes you incapable of considering that you might be wrong.

@ Lawrence and Eindeker

Would you publicly announce to AoA readers that you support pending federal legislation to fund a scientific, independent study of "vaccinated v. unvaccinted" populations?

If not .. why not?

Is the big study that Insel has coming out pretty soon the one that is studying unvaccinated siblings of kids that had autism?

Eindeker,
If you read Fraser's book and consider her extensive documentation of her thesis, what it really boils down to is whether you really want to get the Hib vaccine for your child (or the other killed-virus vaccines as well), whether you believe that he is going to be at greater risk of developing a severe or fatal case of Hib meningitis or of a possibly fatal and always disabling peanut allergy from the vaccine. The risk of peanut allergy is one in 50 for children who get that vaccine, 0 in children that don't get it. And, of course, the vaccine often causes many other reactions as well, up to and including death. Breastfeeding and keeping the child out of day care offer very good protection from meningitis, and the risk of dying from Hib meningitis virtually disappears after two years of age. Of course some families who cannot breastfeed babies and/or absolutely have to put them in day care may feel they have no choice but to have the vaccine given to their child, and take their chances. What is paramount is that all families know the truth about both the diseases and the vaccines and be allowed to freely make their choice.

Fraser talks in the last chapter of her book about the moment a society reaches the crossover point at which the vaccines become more dangerous than the diseases. She thinks that because of vaccine-induced autism and allergies, we've already reached that point, as may be seen by the ever-growing numbers of parents just saying no to the vaccines.

@ John & Bob
You are dismissing any findings of these studies, despite not knowing authors, databases used, statistical analysis methods, results or conclusions in advance of publication, that's showing real intellectual rigor, a bit like the continual claims re peanut oil adjuvants for which there is absolutely no evidence of use in human vaccines.

Can I just ask that when the study data and conclusions are publically available they are not instantly dismissed because they may not fit with someone's preconceived ideas.

In view of many of the contributions to this discussion I feel it is quite appropriate to turn the oft repeated claim of the alleged establishment view of "whatever the cause it cannot be vaccines" on it's head to become the Age of Autism dogma to "whatever the cause it must be vaccines"

@ Bob I'm afraid (glad?) I don't have the privilege of a Congress representative

Godfrey: you can see some information on these matters through patents filed.

@cia parker:

"excipients and culture medium. They are 'trade secrets' and who knows what is in them"

As I noted below, this contention is based on a confusion between Exemption 4 of the FOIA and biologics labeling, which are unrelated.

Eindeker

Of course, you are quite right that you can't trust a word that Insel says. This was on top of touting at the same hearing an Australian study which was simply a meta-analysis of all the old bogus studies. Rep. Posey quipped that he hoped that Insel would have something to show him which had nothing to do with Poul Thorsen when he produced the new study: indeed it was all the usual suspects Verstraeten, Madsen, Andrews, Price, DeStefano etc, rubbish in rubbish out. Insel also has a soft spot for the English adult autism survey purports to show that there like numbers in the adult population - extrapolated from just 19 cases none of which had a proper diagnosis. It really doesn't matter how badly done it is providing it bolsters the NIH and the CDC position. He has zero credibility.

"Since there are a few doctors that are represented here (very few) - why don't you get them to send vaccine lots out for testing? Then you would see exactly what the vaccines contained? Seems like a no-brainer for the likes of AoA."

You know what, Lawrence...A major difference between you and I is that I question the status quo and you defend it just because it is the status quo. That's not being very scientific, to accept what you think is the mainstream view as set in stone and beyond question. I wish that you would use the same tactics with your beloved super heroes in Pharma and public health at CDC, NIH, FDA and the politicians protecting them, that you use here. I wish you would apply the same standard all around. Why don't you ask THEM for evidence for what THEY do and say? Why don't you question the quality of the information, history and "evidence" that they present, in the same way that you question whatever I or anyone here presents? I raised a point about vaccine manufacture and administration quality control and instead of considering my point, you come back with some snarky slam about why doesn't one of the "few doctors" here do it? If you are sincerely examining this issue, you would have considered my point at face value and either agreed that I have a point or not, based on what is in fact going on with manufacturing and administration of vaccinations. Instead, you argue just to argue. You aren't sincerely discussing to explore and share ideas and information in order to move forward in understanding. You have no respect for me or anyone here. You are here to belittle. You have me and everyone here "at the likes of AOA" stereotyped in your mind as the enemy that must be fought, regardless. You've made it obvious with your conduct that nothing I say can possibly get through that thick wall in your head. In your mind you have put public health officials and anyone who they do business with high up on a pedestal as perfect and beyond reproach. You naively defend without thinking anything that you're told, unless it's by someone here, and then you want "evidence".

Lawrence - my apologies if reality comes up againist scientific bias..

I don't have personal experience about other countries, but in Scotland where I live, peanut, egg and other child allergies are profoundly changing procedures and protocols in schools and nurseries.

Baking and eating the baked items, used to be a wonderful learning and social experience, but this is no longer permitted. Most manufactured common ingredients now have disclaimers 'may contain nut residues'. Worse- parents can bring in a birthday cake to enable their child to blow out the candles, but not one crumb of the cake can be eaten by children on school premises. This applies regardless of whether the cake is home baked or bought in a shop.

These days every scool and nursery class can expect one or two children with ASD, and several with assorted allergies including peanut. Asthma and diabetes are now common. Classroom cupboards now typically contain several inhalers and packets of biscuits for the diabetic children. Teachers also require special training to cope with these cases. They are simply NOT coping with the ever rising numbers. All that is happening is more and more 'bans' on what is brought into schools, but unless children are subjected to the kind of security checks carried out at airports, sharing their smuggled treats, can have disastrous consequences.

Allergies can manifest in simple rashes, or at the other end of the scale, anaphylactic shock. Yes-teachers are now being trained to administer emergency adrenalin. Where will it all end?

For vaccine manufacturers to bleat 'non proven' is disgraceful, particularly since they are permitted to list several vaccine ingredients under a single generic title. Whatever happened to the caveat of erring on the side of safety? Peanut allergies are amongst the most dangerous and if there is even the smallest suspicion that peanut oil is present in those 'any vegetable oil' adjuvant ingredients, then it should be removed immediately. There are plenty of other alternatives.

Lawrence,

Let's stop acting like we don't all know that pharmaceutical companies play by rules of their own making (see the Wyeth Internal Correspondence excerpts I provided earlier), are regularly (but not often enough!) convicted of criminal behavior (http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma), and are most likely not monitored frequently enough (if at all) or properly (e.g. average-sized babies in the early 1990s were given 125X the "safe" amount of mercury in vaccines at just their 2-month "well-baby" visits, never to be well again).

I am reading from the bottom, so please excuse me if this has already been covered.

"From VacTruth: '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]"

The reference [1] here is to this page. I am afraid that it is hopelessly confused.

GRAS is a term that is applied to food additives. It is not relevant to the labeling of biologics. Moreover, peanut oil itself is not categorized as GRAS; the only mention in the SCOGS database (which is searchable from the foregoing FDA link) is about its use in paper and cotton food packaging.

The references to the FOIA are similarly misguided, as the exemption of trade secrets in FOIA requests has nothing to do with drug labeling.

One correct piece of information, in the quote from the FDA CBER, is that the labeling requirements for drugs are set forth in 21 CFR 610.61. Subsection (l) explicitly includes "known sensitizing substances," which would clearly encompass peanut allergens.

I find no credible evidence here for the ability to hide a peanut-oil-adjuvant.

@ Benedetta - my apologies if reality has a scientific bias....

"why on earth would manufacturers use an acknowledgedly toxic adjuvant when there are alternatives?"

You mean like aluminum or squalene? (sorry, you left yourself wide open)

You're right. My lack of familiarity with the CDC pink book terms does not automatically mean that they're hiding anything. And I appreciate your pointing that out. But, sorry, there is still the possibility, as Dr. Palevsky points out. I'm not convinced that some ingredients used in manufacturing don't have to be disclosed and I would not automatically discount what both Dr. Palevsky and Dr. O'Shea say because I can't find documentation at the moment. As Benedetta wisely pointed out in this discussion, it's a matter of whether you trust our public health officials or not. The way they conduct the vaccine program and the supposed safety studies and the definite illicit relationships with industry, and the way that they deny vaccine injuries, makes me extremely cynical.

My reason for believing that protein hydrolyzed casein and soy as vaccine ingredients would not be completely nonallergenic, is because I know that protein hydrolyzed bovine infant formula is made for allergic infants and is tolerated by most, but there are some infants who will have an allergic reaction to even those formulas, and I would think that an injected substance would have more potential for reactivity than one that is ingested and has at least the gut lining as defense, even if it is permeable to varying degrees depending on the infant's age. Is the hydrolyzation process for vaccine proteins difference than the process used to hydrolyze infant formula?

Eindeker and Lawrence are all here to help us all understand that vaccines are safe and it is all science based good mother's milk stuff.

When they say this soy - or anything else like eggs and cow's milk has been refined right on down to amino acids -- you better believe that not one teeny tiny molecule of soy or what ever -- never - never gets through.

Thank you Eindeker and Lawrence - but I do understand. Understanding come pretty clear with the image of your child having an immediate vaccine reaction; dances forever in your head, as you read all this stuff. It colors everything till it become very vivid..

Mysterious sounding names -- Linda is just fine -- in which Eindeker and Lawrence (very good at scrabble I am sure) says oh no, no - that there are them scientific names.

Yes scientific names like ethyl mercury -- which they call Thimerosal - now what is the basis for the them calling it thimerosal?

I thought I would ask since we have two geniuses here to show us the way, by asking us wise questions that will make us think.

Except we are thinking and reading and giving them lots of stuff that they really don't want to know -- in which they will twist and turn in the wind to change the facts we give them. .

@Laura - then you can provide similar documentation for human vaccines, correct?

I am still waiting for Ms. Parker to provide the 1973 Federal Law or Regulation that allowed vaccine manufacturers to omit ingredients....and the amended law / regulation that permits vaccine manufacturers to ignore the already cited FDA labeling regulations for biological products.

Here's proof that animal vaccines have ingredients and/or concentration levels that are "proprietary". I have no doubt that the same holds true for human vaccines. Some of the manufacturers make both animal and human vaccines (e.g. Pfizer).

http://fearlessparent.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/animalvax.pdf (see top of pg. 3)

http://www.qcsupply.com/media/pdf/msds2/540452MSDS.pdf (pg. 1)

Now, for some proof that vaccine manufacturers cannot be trusted to do what is right. For many years, perhaps going back to 1979, some (all?) vaccine lots have been separated and mixed, so that "hot lots" can't be easily detected or traced. It began in 1979 with the limiting of distribution of vaccines from a single lot to one place, and also sending vaccines from multiple lots to fulfill large orders, after a number of infants died following their DPT vaccines (many of which were from the same lot). Today, and for the past many years (going back to 1979?), according to a friend of mine who worked in a hospital pharmacy for many years, vaccines can be shipped in boxes that contain vaccines from mixed lots (I confirmed this with a doctor I know, too). Apparently, only vaccines are allowed this special status of being shipped in mixed lots.

Below are 2 excerpts from an Internal Correspondence by Wyeth, dated 8-27-79, which I unfortunately cannot cut and paste here, as it is from a slide that was part of a ppt presentation by Louise Habakus (co-editor and contributing author of the excellent book "Vaccine Epidemic"). This Internal Correspondence was issued following incidents in 1978-1979, when 11 babies died within 8 days of a DPT shot. Nine of them had been vaccinated with the same lot of pertussis vaccine, Wyeth #64201. Five died within 24 hours of vaccination (four from the same lot).

"After the reporting of SIDS cases in Tennessee, we discussed the merits of limiting distribution of a large number of vials from a single lot to a single state, county, or city health department and obtained agreement from senior management staff to proceed with such a plan."

"Allocation of stock to Distribution Centers is designated by lot number in a manner designed to leave the maximum variety of lot numbers in Great Valley and Marietta to service substantial orders."

One must ask why such plans would be implemented. How would these plans in any way, shape, or form alert the public about, and protect the public from, a "hot lot"? Answer: They wouldn't.


@ Bob & Linda1
Maybe the peanut oil in vaccines discussion has run it's course but if you want a good review on adjuvants can I suggest you read http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200475a.html it is a few years old but you will see the peanut oil formulation was never used commercially "In general, these adjuvants are too toxic for routine human prophylactic vaccine use, although they may be suitable for use in terminal conditions such as cancer where there is a greater tolerance of side-effects", referring to oil in water emulsions such as Adjuvant 65. This comment was made in the open scientific literature, why would a manufacturer use this when there are other alternatives?

Linda1 let me answer to your question: "But do you think that there might be some peanut hiding in any of these other names? Medium 199? HEPES? Lipids? Amino Acids? Would they disclose without really disclosing?
A few more questions:
Do you think they really use eagles?"
Medium 199 is a defined growth medium for cell culture, no peanut oil, HEPES is an acronym for an organic buffer, no peanut oil, amino acids are amino acids, no peanut oil and finally Eagles medium is named after the person who formulated it Harry Eagle, how do I know well 15 years of working in the business of making culture media is a good start.
@ Bayareamom I'm sorry but Dr Palevsky has overlooked some basic facts in his article: what is used in culture media is not soy protein but a tryptic soy digest, the soy protein is broken down to small peptones & polypeptides that have no antigenic resemblance to the original soy protein, similarly casein, milk protein, is not used in culture media, it is an acid digest of casein (hydrolysate) which consists entirely of amino acids, they have no immunogenicity at all; Palevsky actually says "Another source of casein that is potentially injected into the body is from the Menactra vaccine. Casein hydrolysate is used to make the Mueller-Hinton agar, which is the growth medium for the manufacturing of the Menactra vaccine" I'm afraid he clearly doesn't understand the difference between casein and casein hydrolysate

Putting intact proteins such as soy or casein would have no nutritional value for the bacteria you are trying to grow, they cannot take up such large molecules, they need to be digested to much smaller fragments.

So despite Dr Palesvky's speculation, bacterial culture media used in vaccines are not contributing to milk or soy allergies

I am giving a lecture to a group of doctors in about a month. My goal is to educate them about biomedical intervention for autism, and in particular the co-morbid conditions associated with it. One alarming slide coming from the Centers for Disease Control is the latest statistics on autism at 1 in 68 kids as of March 2014. I cannot remember a time when this many people, in a very short period of time, are being diagnosed at rapid rates and medicine and government is not in a panic to find out why. They keep funding money down the rabbit hole of genetic research when it is plain to see what is driving this epidemic.

Re vaccine ingredients from the CDC 2013:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

I do not see peanut disclosed here (that doesn't mean that peanut wasn't used in the past or is in use now and doesn't have to be disclosed), but there are all kinds of other yummy and exotic ingredients listed that we all want to be injected with including dog, monkey, cow and pig cells, fetal bovine serum (how can THAT be kosher?), human diploid cell cultures, embryonic guinea pig cell cultures, human embryonic lung cultures. Oh, and the CDC says of the Rotavirus vaccine : "Porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV-1) is present in Rotarix. PCV-1 is not known to cause disease in
humans.]"

It isn't known to cause disease, not that IT DEFINITELY DOESN'T CAUSE DISEASE, NO WAY, CAN'T HAPPEN - IT ISN'T KNOWN to cause disease in humans. But they give this to EVERY baby in the developed world to prevent an illness that, in the SMALL NUMBER that get it, recover, all without the risk of having pig virus injected into them. Pigs are so close to humans biologically, that their organs have been transplanted into humans, but this pig virus being injected into EVERY HUMAN INFANT is nothing to worry about.

This reassurance comes from the club that leaves small pox virus around the office in a cardboard box.

@Ms. Parker - if there was a regulation or a federal law that suddenly allowed vaccine makers (or anyone else, for that matter) to be exempt from listing all of the ingredients, certainly you can point me to the specific reference....

As to the remark that "I do my own research," I have done so - and I have provided the link to the FDA regulations that require that all "biological products" of which vaccines are classified as one, that require that all ingredients used in the product directly or as part of the manufacturing process must be included on the label.

If you have a specific reference that allows vaccine makers to circumvent this, I'm sure that you can provide it, can't you?

Law,
I'm trying to remember where I read about the investigation into peanut oil in vaccines being immediately followed by a law that manufacturers didn't have to put vaccine ingredients on the label. I haven't remembered the book yet, but have found this:
From VacTruth: "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]

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

What is listed in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula. Same with the inserts. Suddenly after 1973, that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers knew it must be protected. Intellectual property. So now they only were required to describe the formula in general."

Shoot Barbara - you are never going to get to the bottom of that.

I am still trying to figure out if a panic attack is really a racing heart - and they take a benzo to slow it down - why is that considered just a panic attack???

And if you are having myclonic jerks with the panic attack that is really a racing heart why is that not considered some kind of heart condition like tachycardia.

And is benzos really a good seizure medicine???
and is benzos really a good heart medicine -- for a racing heart that can turn around and also beat slow?

But mostly the docs don't seem concerned - or care - you end up dead - well you died - next patient please

@Lawrence,

Instead of asking me, or any of the rest of us here, why don't you do your OWN due diligence? Or here's a thought: How about writing to Dr. Lawrence Palevsky for some of this information, or perhaps Dr. Tim O'Shea?

I don't perform research for others. I provide links to various information, but it's up to those reading to take it from there.

You've got the link provided to a medical journal from one of my earlier posts as well. READ. I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for by simply googling for the info.

Trying to find correct information in the USA is difficult. I'm in the process now of having my son's tachycardia and arthritis put together and explained as an autoimmune disease resulting from adjuvants. It makes no difference to any doctor that an 18 year old boy has to have synovial fluid drained from his knee, or that he limps, or that it happens to him not every day, but every couple of years. To the doctor , I'm reaching to explain the unexplainable.."and it's not vaccines". Of course it's vaccine.
http://www.termedia.pl/Czasopismo/Reumatologia-18/Streszczenie-21947
Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) is a newly identified syndrome dealing with pathological effects of adjuvant use. In recent years observations have shown that a number of clinical situations displaying similar features can be associated with an overactive immune response and with the inflammatory effect of adjuvants administration. Chronic stimulation of the immune system by substances used as adjuvants may lead to the occurrence of numerous symptoms such as chronic fatigue, arthritis, myalgia, cognitive impairment and neurological disorders. The aim of this article is to present how and why adjuvants – while allegedly causing no specific immune response – may become a cause of development of autoimmune diseases.

Bob, Law, and Barbara J,
Peanut oil is the correct term. It was used to adjuvant penicillin shots in the '40s, and caused the very first appearance of peanut allergies. Vaccine researcher Hillemann was enthusiastic about peanut oil as an adjuvant in vaccines because he was sure it would be safer than the mineral oil that had often been used up until then, although he wrote that he was aware of and concerned about its potential to cause peanut allergies, as ANYTHING can do when injected into the body and absorbed into the blood. Adjuvant 65-4, 65% peanut oil, was not licensed in the US because the arlacel in it caused tumors in lab mice, but it was licensed and used in the UK. Many adjuvants licensed in the US included peanut oil in the ingredients on their patent applications. Heather Fraser's book is excellent, giving excruciatingly painful documentation on this crime against humanity. No peanut allergies in children until the '60s (peanut oil started to be used in some adjuvants then), but they didn't really take off until the '70s, with one child dying when he ate peanut flavored ice cream in 1970. The rate of peanut allergies tripled in the US in only three years shortly after the introduction of the Hib vaccine in around 1987. The Hib vaccine is particularly dangerous because the Hib pathogen resembles peanut protein in its structure, setting up cross-reactivity (also detailed by Fraser). There were no peanut allergies in China until they introduced the Hib vaccine, and then they immediately got them. Both China and India have always eaten a lot of peanuts, but India still has almost no peanut allergies because not many children get the Hib vaccine. China now has a lot. Country after country, Fraser gives their rate of peanut allergy before and after Hib, in country after country it's like 3 before the year they introduced Hib, and then 3,000 immediately after. There were NO peanut allergies anywhere in 1900. They used to call allergies serum sickness, because it was so obvious that injected substances caused allergies. Not multiple possible causes, that was it, the only cause of food allergies (bee stings etc. have always been able to cause allergiews because the venom is injected by the insect into the blood). At that time they had milk and egg allergies, but no peanut allergies before peanut oil was used as an adjuvant. A lot of people got cotton seed allergies in the '40s and '50s, because they used cotton seed oil to adjuvant injected drugs, and it made many people allergic to it, many even died of it. In those days, they put two and two together, were appalled, and banned the use of cotton seed oil as an adjuvant. And then cotton seed allergies entirely disappeared! These days there's way too much money riding on making people get all the shots, including the peanut-oil adjuvanted, cross-reactive Hib vaccine.
A commission was set up to look at the problem of vaccines and peanut allergies in 1973, but the result was that a law was passed so that vacine companies wouldn't have to list all the ingredients of the vaccine and its adjuvants on the package.
I'll bet you could get us some insider information on this tragic situation, Law, could you do that for us?

@Bayareamom - please cite the relevant Federal Regulations that allow vaccine manufacturers to avoid listing any specific ingredient or "sensitizing agent," as peanut oil would be, based on the following regulation:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=610&showFR=1&subpartNode=21%3A7.0.1.1.5.7

@Bayareamom - let's see....the one PubMed article you quote is an experiment related to injections given to pigs, not to people.

The rest is merely a regurgitation of the various conspiracy theories that somehow manufacturers of vaccines have been using Peanut Oil & managing to hide the fact for decades....the FDA regulations that I cited earlier require, under law, that all ingredients must be labeled.

If you have a regulation or amendment that somehow allows vaccine makers to circumvent this regulation, I would like to see it.