By following the linked sources, I got here: Detailed article by doctor O'Shea
This article has some fascinating history and information on the topic. Here is a summary:
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.
Another principal researcher of the early 1900s was Dr Charles Richet... Richet found that with food allergies the reaction came on as the result of intact proteins in the food... making their way intact into the blood. 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.
And the kicker!
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.
The only question I would have concerns the increased prevalence of allergies to foods other than nuts, such as eggs and milk for example. Are these proteins used in vaccines as well, or are there similar protein structures which could cause such reactions?
Finally, as the article points out, a truly scientific study to confirm the correlation is, "conveniently impossible" because, due to the massive inoculation campaigns...
...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.
Sorry for the somewhat long-winded post, but I sincerely found this quite interesting... THANKS AGAIN!
the Billmeister
p.s.
This being ATS and all, I have to post this little diddy (found in the same linked article) :
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.
Not to sure what to make of that.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Billmeister because: problem with the whole "trying to bold the text" thingy!
