BACKGROUND: This study began as a “wild idea” that vaccinations or medicine could be causing peanut allergy. It soon turned into a horrible realization. A very small amount of food proteins from many sources are considered inert ingredients that fall under trade secret protection and are not on the vaccine inserts. Various studies have shown that injecting an animal with protein is one method of inducing an allergy. Every study done of food allergy that could be located does not disprove this theory. There was a study done on Indonesian and Thai children that has been frequently quoted as saying that there are no peanut allergies in Thailand or Singapore in spite of the high consumption of peanuts. Evidence was presented that Singapore has a major problem with peanut allergy. The study itself says that many children reacted to peanuts in a skin prick test and that it eliminated a number of children from the study. The “hygiene theory” was examined and found to have no merit. Evidence of a long list of food protein that can be used in vaccine production has been found in various patents on-line. The increased childhood vaccination schedule coincides with the increase in food allergies in industrialized nations. The lower incidence of food allergies in less industrialized nations also coincides with a lower vaccination rate. The lower incidence of food allergies in the Hispanic population of the United States also coincides with a lower vaccination rate. The evidence of food allergy in animals has only been found in vaccinated animals. Evidence of ingredients that can be one of the patented adjuvants with various food oils has been presented. Evidence that “pharmacy grade” peanut oil still contains peanut protein has been presented. Package inserts have been examined and found to have ingredients that do not disclose its actual composition. EVERY SINGLE FOOD ALLERGY THAT I HAVE FOUND, I HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT FOOD LISTED AS AN INGREDIENT IN A VACCINE OR MEDICAL PRODUCT.

Many of these pages were copied from my blog. The blog grew too big and was too hard to follow. The links listed below link to the article in my blog. Use the buttons to the right to go to the article on this website. If you’d like to leave a comment, you can do so on the blog or you can e-mail me by way of the contact page- bfg

1. Vaccines are given to create an immune response from the body. It only makes sense that the body treats anything in the vaccine as an invader that needs to have an antibody created to combat it. That is why we give vaccines. But if the vaccine has a trace of food in it such as egg or peanut, it only makes sense that the vaccine can cause a food allergy.

2. Peanut oil is used in vaccines in adjuvants or as a vaccine carrier. The ingredients of adjuvants or vaccine carriers are not listed individually on the package insert. So the physician would have no way of knowing that there was peanut oil in the vaccine. The ingredients of adjuvants is considered a “trade secret” and has the protection of many governments not to be revealed.

3. Peanut allergy decreases in populations that have decreased percentage of vaccinated children. There are a number of studies that link vaccinations to allergies.

4. Peanut allergy is almost unknown in Israel. The population eats lots of peanuts. Israel produces sesame oil. Israel manufactures its own vaccines. Sesame is a major allergy there. Hypothesis: Sesame oil is used instead of peanut oil in the vaccines used in Israel.

5. Study that is frequently cited saying that Indonesia and Thailand people do not suffer from peanut allergies was erroneous. Many children in the study reacted to peanuts in the skin prick test. The study relied on parents of report food reactions. I found a Thai parent quoted on the Internet saying that her child had a peanut allergy. I also found a physician from Singapore stating that peanut allergy is a major problem there.

6. The “hygiene” theory points out that there is less food allergy in underdeveloped countries. They speculated that the people and environment is less clean so it is the early exposure to bacteria, etc. that protects against allergies. However, children as young as 8 months have been diagnosed with peanut allergy and it is only since 1990 that peanut allergies have become a huge problem. The populations in the underdeveloped countries are also not as compliant with childhood vaccinations which would account for less peanut allergy.

7. The United States and China are major producers of peanut oil and vaccinations. There are many patents for products used in vaccines that contain peanut oil.

8. The secondary causes of peanut allergy are due to young children having a “leaky gut”, immature digestive system. Introducing foods too soon can lead to allergies. Medicines given with traces of peanut protein could lead to an allergy. Also antibiotics kill off good bacteria as well as bad and can lead to an overgrowth of yeast which can cause food allergy type problems. I don’t know if any infant formula in the United States contains peanut oil. One website said it was more of a problem in Europe.

9. Our vaccinated animals are getting food allergies Dogs are allergic to peanuts. Searching the Internet – I found a wild elephant allergic to wheat; the elephant had been immunized. (Wheat germ oil is used as a carrier of vaccines. Wheat protein is used to manufacture vaccines/medicines.)

10. The statistics for allergies is appalling!! The allergy epidemic increased with every new mandate for more childhood immunizations.

11. How pure can we make peanut oil? I assume it is highly refined but it only would take a teeny weeny bit of peanut protein in a vaccine to create a problem. That is, of course, assuming that it is ONLY the peanut protein that causes the allergy. Using my “guessing” math, only 1 shot out of 1680 would need to be contaminated to create a peanut allergy in 1 in 70 people in Great Britain.

12. Vaccine adjuvants/ vaccine carriers contain many other oils/ingredients. These other ingredients could account for allergies to other foods. Fish oil is used. Shellfish can be mixed in with the fish by-products which are used to make fish oil. Wheat germ oil, corn oil, soy oil are used. Milk and eggs are also used in the production of vaccines. I expect that the oils are mixed in the vaccines so that you might get a vaccine with peanut oil and soy oil in it or any number of other oils.

I keep looking but so far, I have been unable to DISPROVE my theory. And perhaps that is because VACCINES ARE A MAJOR CAUSE OF FOOD ALLERGIES!!

Admin edit: as ever with this sort of post, long on assertions, short on supporting evidence.

These findings, combined with the lack of convincing evidence for histamine-releasing properties of IgG4 in humans, and lack of any controlled studies on the diagnostic value of IgG4 testing in food allergy, do not provide any basis for the hypothesis that food-specific IgG4 should be attributed with an effector role in food hypersensitivity.

We are still waiting for confirmation from the notes from Holford’s recent talk at the Allergy and Gluten Free Show. However, it looks like Holford mentioned a well-known IgG testing service on several occasions as well as selling out the test-kits at the back of the room. tbc but, there are rumours that he claimed:
*he was working in allergy clinics back in 1980
*most food allergies can be reversed and can be unlearned
*he has treated “thousands and thousands of people with allergies” .
Most pertinently for the IgG test, Holford said:
*as a clinician he finds that IgG accounts for more food reactions
*IgG doesn’t have IgE histamine reaction or Mast cell degranulation
*IgG is the “new kid on the block although there is 15 years of research now”
*”[S]ome critics have said that “Everyone has IgG reactions you just develop it to any food you eat”. That is nonsense. If your body’s healthy you do not develop IgG reactions to foods.”

Now, he was using ‘reactions’ and ‘antibodies’ quite loosely but even so, that last one is remarkable. One of the significant issues with Holford’s talks seems to be that he puts up slides of tremendously complex processes, with the technical vocabulary, and sometimes uses that vocabulary which rather loses his audience. And then he uses everyday terms so loosely that it is difficult to discern what he is trying to say. But I would hope that even he realises that the general population does produce IgG antibodies in response to eating foodstuffs.

We’ll write more on this but suspect that Holford would argue that he is discussing a non-histamine mechanism so this is irrelevant. Plus, the authors seem to hedge their bets by referring to “(imminent) food allergy or intolerance” in their conclusion.

The position paper (pdf) says:

Positive IgG4 tests to foods therefore do not indicate the presence of food allergy, but are probably reflecting prolonged exposure to food components…
[T]he presence of IgG4 antibodies against food antigens should probably be interpreted as a result of antigen exposure, rather than of disease, and their presence will, if anything, presumably rather be beneficial than detrimental to the individual…
Food-specific IgG4 does not indicate (imminent) food allergy or intolerance, but rather a physiological response of the immune system after exposition to food components. Therefore, testing of IgG4 to foods is considered as irrelevant for the laboratory work-up of food allergy or intolerance and should not be performed in case of food-related complaints. [pp. 795-6]

Bearing in mind that the industry would try to confuse consumers by highlighting that this paper is about: IgG4, sometimes RAST rather than ELISA and refers to ‘imminent’ rather than the delayed reactions that nutritionistas etc. talk about, I would prefer it if the authors had issued a more unambiguous conclusion but that is neither here nor there. For those who are looking for wiggle room (or prefer to ignore such studies), the wiggle is there. And, let us recall, Holford is the man who prefers his anecdote of 2 people to a systematic review of 230,000+.

Edit to add in link to position paper.

‘Testing for IgG4 against foods is not recommended as a diagnostic tool: EAACI Task Force
(Allergy journal)

Abstract:
Serological tests for immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) against foods are persistently promoted for the diagnosis of food-induced hypersensitivity. Since many patients believe that their symptoms are related to food ingestion without diagnostic confirmation of a causal relationship, tests for food-specific IgG4 represent a growing market. Testing for blood IgG4 against different foods is performed with large-scale screening for hundreds of food items by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-type and radioallergosorbent-type assays in young children, adolescents and adults. However, many serum samples show positive IgG4 results without corresponding clinical symptoms. These findings, combined with the lack of convincing evidence for histamine-releasing properties of IgG4 in humans, and lack of any controlled studies on the diagnostic value of IgG4 testing in food allergy, do not provide any basis for the hypothesis that food-specific IgG4 should be attributed with an effector role in food hypersensitivity. In contrast to the disputed beliefs, IgG4 against foods indicates that the organism has been repeatedly exposed to food components, recognized as foreign proteins by the immune system. Its presence should not be considered as a factor which induces hypersensitivity, but rather as an indicator for immunological tolerance, linked to the activity of regulatory T cells. In conclusion, food-specific IgG4 does not indicate (imminent) food allergy or intolerance, but rather a physiological response of the immune system after exposition to food components. Therefore, testing of IgG4 to foods is considered as irrelevant for the laboratory work-up of food allergy or intolerance and should not be performed in case of food-related complaints.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/genetic-testing/FL00076/rss=1

California health regulators have dealt a blow to direct-to-consumer genetic testing start-ups by demanding that 13 companies halt sales in the state until they prove they have met quality and reliability standards.

The Department of Public Health sent the cease-and-desist letters last week, after an investigation spurred by consumer complaints about the tests’ accuracy and costs, a department spokeswoman said Monday…

[P]ublic health officials have urged consumers to be skeptical, pointing out that most of the research is in its earliest stages and that doctors have little training in interpreting the results.

And, consequently, your own GP etc. is probably not in a position to give you a sanity-check on any worrying information that you receive from private genetic tests. (As ever, Gene Sherpa has something of interest to say on a related issue and comments on the California ruling.)

As has been said, I guess Bustin may only be advising them on how to do PCR properly, but if I was him I might be wondering who I was holding hands with.

I would think it was entirely above suspicion if I saw that Bustin was involved with it in an advisory capacity.

But, I would have been impressed by the involvement of Profs. Smith and Cowen with FFTB before reading about it here. What are SAB’s for if they are not a guarantee of intellectual and business rigour and ethics? Or, should there be a disclaimer: “Our SAB’s involvement is related only to the science and is not a comment on the efficacy or real-world relevance of the tests that we offer as a business. Nor should it be assumed that their expertise underpins any claims that we make for the diagnostic value of our tests. Nor the nutritional or other pharmacological recommendations that we makes as part of our analysis”.

I imagine that it’s entirely possible that Prof. Bustin’s advice to Genetic Health about this kind of testing is critical and fastidiously objective, reflecting current levels of knowledge. But somebody happening on such a site is more likely, I think, to view his membership of their SAB as suggestive of endorsement, and that is a problem.

I can’t tell you how perplexed and disappointed I am that everyone’s favourite PCR pin-up, Prof Stephen Bustin, is one of the SAB for that place.