It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finnish scientists find allergy vaccine

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

A group of scientists from Finland claims to be close to a vaccine which can prevent any kind of allergy, and change the lives of millions all over the world.


“We believe that curing allergies is about changing or modifying the genetic structure of the allergen molecules inside of your body, so we want to eliminate the cause of the allergy, instead of removing symptoms,” Professor Rouvinen told Forbes magazine. After allergens are modified in the patient`s body, he will hypothetically develop a natural immunity against each type of allergy they have been vaccinated for.

Source

Interesting news. My mother has a pretty strong allergy and is often having negative symptoms. I can see this as being a great thing for many people, so long as it isn't bought up by a major drug company and hidden away or provided at ridiculous prices with who knows what harmful additives.




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
That would be nice. I developed an allergy to shrimps when I was 15. And would so love to eat some again in garlic butter...


But, with...


65 million ( allergic people *) in the US alone


Big Pharma won't be too tolerant about this seeing how much money they would lose.
In 5-7 years, much can happen.

I hope they succeed for real, without added crap in it, as you say.

* ( Parenthesis above from me. )



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by trollz
 


This is a very dumb idea.
If we are allergic to something there is a reason for that.
We need to remove the environmental factors that are increasing rates of allergies.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


Most allergies are not environmental. They are often to common substances such as foods, grass, plants, common molds etc...


Anyways, avoiding my twice monthly shots would be awesome!



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


Most allergies are not environmental. They are often to common substances such as foods, grass, plants, common molds etc...


Anyways, avoiding my twice monthly shots would be awesome!
That is what I mean by environmental. The things you list like grass, plants and molds are a given and not much can be done to avoid them.

But we are witnessing huge spikes in the number of children born with or developing dangerous allergies.
This would mean that something we come into contact with is making our children more likely to get them.
A possible culprit is our unhealthy diets and lifestyles. We use bad manufacturing techniques, bad ingredients, dangerous chemicals and huge amounts of harmful additives like sodium which could be leading to the spike in numbers.
But then again it could be a number of other things that is causing this.

My point is that it is not much good trying to cure this problem we need to try and prevent it.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition
reply to post by trollz
 


This is a very dumb idea.
If we are allergic to something there is a reason for that.
We need to remove the environmental factors that are increasing rates of allergies.


People have always been allergic to things. Your response is the only dumb thing.

What is the reason someone is allergic to shellfish, or peanuts, or pollen. Why is it "dumb" to cure that?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by trollz
 


Decongestants and Antihistamines make way, way to much money for the pharma industry to allow this potentially new thing to ever come out. Remember, modern "medicine" isnt about curing... its about treating.

Expect something horrible to happen to the scientists, or this research to magically vanish after Glaxo et al mysteriously turn up owning the company or institute that these scientists work for.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by HumanCondition
reply to post by trollz
 


This is a very dumb idea.
If we are allergic to something there is a reason for that.
We need to remove the environmental factors that are increasing rates of allergies.


People have always been allergic to things. Your response is the only dumb thing.

What is the reason someone is allergic to shellfish, or peanuts, or pollen. Why is it "dumb" to cure that?


Many allergies are being caused by contaminants in the manfucturing process and the environment, not the actual food themselves. The common blood allergy tests (such as RAST) are known to be ineffective because they can't test or identify all the chemicals, drugs, and food additives that end up in the final food products.

A milk allergy may actually be caused by drugs injected into the cows or chemicals that seep into the product from the plastic or carton containters. Not to mention that many food and beverages often travel upon factory equipment and get exposed to toxic lubricants and oils.


According to a recent study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, scientists have found through analysis that one single glass of milk can contain a delightful (or not) medley of up to 20 different kinds of painkillers, antibiotics and growth hormones.

www.naturalnews.com...

Also, you probably shouldn't be so quick to call someone else's response dumb when the very next thing you do is ask a question instead of actually backing up your opinion with some solid facts. Just saying.


edit on 2-6-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by HumanCondition
reply to post by trollz
 


This is a very dumb idea.
If we are allergic to something there is a reason for that.
We need to remove the environmental factors that are increasing rates of allergies.


People have always been allergic to things. Your response is the only dumb thing.

What is the reason someone is allergic to shellfish, or peanuts, or pollen. Why is it "dumb" to cure that?
Clearly I said 'increasing rates of allergies'.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
This news, although a new article at RT, is actually four years old. I live in Finland and we have no such vaccine here now in 2012. Maybe their brave idea crashed and burned?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Weren't peanut allergies almost non-existent in the 90s until peanut oil was used in vaccines, and then the allergy rates exploded?

Isn't it debatable that vaccines can induce certain allergies? O.o



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by manicminxx
Weren't peanut allergies almost non-existent in the 90s until peanut oil was used in vaccines, and then the allergy rates exploded?

Isn't it debatable that vaccines can induce certain allergies? O.o
I am not sure about how existent they were before the 90's but the rates tripled in the mid 90's.
Certainly a vaccine that uses peanut oil could inhibit such an allergy but there is no real way to know for sure. Problem is they were probably exposed to many other possible inhibitors.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
Also, you probably shouldn't be so quick to call someone else's response dumb when the very next thing you do is ask a question instead of actually backing up your opinion with some solid facts. Just saying.


edit on 2-6-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)


Perhaps you missed the fact I was responding to THEIR calling something dumb. Just saying.

And while there may be alternate methods for reducing allergies they will still exist, so you offered nothing of value in the long run. Just saying.

Now how about you answer the meat of my post which is how is curing people of irritating/life threatening allergies dumb?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by HumanCondition
reply to post by trollz
 


This is a very dumb idea.
If we are allergic to something there is a reason for that.
We need to remove the environmental factors that are increasing rates of allergies.


People have always been allergic to things. Your response is the only dumb thing.

What is the reason someone is allergic to shellfish, or peanuts, or pollen. Why is it "dumb" to cure that?
Clearly I said 'increasing rates of allergies'.


Increasing rates means that allergies will persist at a lower rate even after you account for environmental factors increasing the rates. So how is this dumb?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
Also, you probably shouldn't be so quick to call someone else's response dumb when the very next thing you do is ask a question instead of actually backing up your opinion with some solid facts. Just saying.


edit on 2-6-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)


Perhaps you missed the fact I was responding to THEIR calling something dumb. Just saying.

And while there may be alternate methods for reducing allergies they will still exist, so you offered nothing of value in the long run. Just saying.

Now how about you answer the meat of my post which is how is curing people of irritating/life threatening allergies dumb?


I apologize. It was silly of me to assume that someone critcizing someone else's opinion actually understands how allergies work.

An allergy symptom happens when your body's immune system discovers that something entering or making contact with your body has caused you harm in the past.

Now imagine you were eating deli meats that contain toxic chemicals that can't be broken down and digested in your stomach or intestine. Over time, your body would flag this chemical as an invader and everytime you eat a food with this chemical you would get an allergic reaction, such as hives, cold, runny nose, fever, etc. The most extreme reaction would be your throat closes down the minute the meat entered your mouth.

So these doctors are proposing to change your DNA so that your body WON'T tell you that something you are eating is causing you internal harm. Ultimately, people could eat their deli meats full of chemical toxins without any symptoms while they unknowingly cause long-term damage to their bodies.

Many people have developed food insensitivies that eventually developed into a full blown allergy when they ignore the signals their body is sending them. However, I can't speak for non-food allergies.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MaryStillToe
 


Ok, now that you are done making yourself look foolish since you have no idea how allergies work though claiming I don't.

Allergies are a form of auto-immune disorder. The body has a reaction to something it SHOULDN'T.


In allergies, the immune system reacts to an outside substance that it normally would ignore.

www.nlm.nih.gov...

Now lets look at the crap you have to say which has nothing to do with reality.

Many people have developed food insensitivies that eventually developed into a full blown allergy when they ignore the signals their body is sending them. However, I can't speak for non-food allergies.

Here is the truth.

When you have a food allergy, your immune system mistakenly identifies a specific food or a substance in food as something harmful. Your immune system triggers cells to release antibodies known as immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to neutralize the culprit food or food substance (the allergen). The next time you eat even the smallest amount of that food, the IgE antibodies sense it and signal your immune system to release a chemical called histamine, as well as other chemicals, into your bloodstream.


Key words are mistakenly identifies. This means your body has an allergic reaction to something it shouldn't which has nothing to do with eating toxic chemicals. This is shown that 10 people can eat the same thing with only one have a reaction.

So these doctors are proposing to change your DNA so that your body WON'T tell you that something you are eating is causing you internal harm. Ultimately, people could eat their deli meats full of chemical toxins without any symptoms while they unknowingly cause long-term damage to their bodies.

No they are proposing to end allergies such as peanut allergies which can kill children who are not even touching peanuts. Nevermind it's not peanuts it's somehow harmful chemicals since peanuts are a food allergy.

They are proposing ending deaths from allergic reactions to bee stings. Or is that more harmful chemicals.

How about you get educated on what they are actually doing and what allergies are before you try to make yourself seem superior. You can start by learning about what they meany by allergen molecule.

Then again, who wants to cure diseases such as asthma, rhinitis, urticaria, and anaphylaxis. Much better people suffer.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04


Allergies are a form of auto-immune disorder. The body has a reaction to something it SHOULDN'T.


In allergies, the immune system reacts to an outside substance that it normally would ignore.

www.nlm.nih.gov...



Yeah, and pizza is a vegetable... no wonder, people will believe anything they are told if it comes from a .gov source.
You better double check your source of info before making such statements.
There are doctors and researches that will show you the truth if you care enough to seek for it. To copy/paste from the first site that popped out in your google search is hardly a sign that you know what are you talking about.
Allergies are not auto-immune disorders, but immunity system at work. Even less they are diseases that can be prevented with a vaccine.
But changing the human DNA so we can can better eat the monsanto crap and all the toxic fast food without the side effects seems so logical, why not? More money to be made from the sheeple. What will be next, a vaccine for "anti-governmental psychological tendencies'?

Allergies: the threshold of reactivity

Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic




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.


Enjoy, and maybe learn something.


edit on 5-6-2012 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat
 



The first documented case of anaphylaxis was in 2641 BC, when King Menes of Egypt died from a Wasp sting.

www.allergy-clinic.co.uk...

I wonder what vaccine he took, do you know?

Can't argue with stupid I suppose.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by WhiteHat
 



The first documented case of anaphylaxis was in 2641 BC, when King Menes of Egypt died from a Wasp sting.

www.allergy-clinic.co.uk...

I wonder what vaccine he took, do you know?

Can't argue with stupid I suppose.


Wasp sting is not peanuts. It's venom and it's SUPPOSED to hurt you. Some people are more sensitive to it than other, but EVERYONE is hurt from WASP sting. It's not the same as food allergies.
I bet you didn't even bothered to read the links I posted. I suppose that being offensive is your idea of being smart; who needs to check the facts after all?
Anything else to cover your ignorance?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by WhiteHat
 



The first documented case of anaphylaxis was in 2641 BC, when King Menes of Egypt died from a Wasp sting.

www.allergy-clinic.co.uk...

I wonder what vaccine he took, do you know?

Can't argue with stupid I suppose.
I dont think anyone is arguing they didn't exist before the 90's but this is where the concern comes in:
Peanut Allergy Cases Triple in 10 Years

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by HumanCondition
reply to post by trollz
 


This is a very dumb idea.
If we are allergic to something there is a reason for that.
We need to remove the environmental factors that are increasing rates of allergies.


People have always been allergic to things. Your response is the only dumb thing.

What is the reason someone is allergic to shellfish, or peanuts, or pollen. Why is it "dumb" to cure that?
Clearly I said 'increasing rates of allergies'.


Increasing rates means that allergies will persist at a lower rate even after you account for environmental factors increasing the rates. So how is this dumb?
Increasing rates means that rates are increasing from a lower rate into a high one.
Obviously something has sparked a triple in cases.
That is clearly some external environmental factor driving such a rapid and unnatural increase.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join