Wisconsin Regulators Deny Consumers Choice to Purchase Soy-free Eggs on the Market for 7 Year

[Zippyjuan]

Zip team are statists, and probably paid trolls. In their world, it is OK for people to die from vaccines or food allergies, as it is all part of the "Greater good" for society and a reason for government to control every aspect of our lives.

I have already shown, using sources you provided, that dying from a vaccine is one of the least likely ways to die in the United States. Very few actually die from food allergies as well. There is not a ban on "soy free eggs" as claimed either. Fear mongering.

 

[Created4]

I have already shown, using sources you provided, that dying from a vaccine is one of the least likely ways to die in the United States. Very few actually die from food allergies as well. There is not a ban on "soy free eggs" as claimed either. Fear mongering.

You have shown nothing, because you have nothing.

To support my premise, which is that some people die from vaccines (or food allergies) which is routinely censored and squashed in the mainstream media (and probably also why you are employed to troll here) I simply need to prove this is true. And it is true. This fact is not even in dispute.

Your belief that those numbers are "insignificant" is just that: a belief. You have provided no proof to back up your statements of belief. You have to (try) rely on emotional language like "fear mongering." You follow the mainstream media game plan exactly.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You have shown nothing, because you have nothing.

To support my premise, which is that some people die from vaccines (or food allergies) which is routinely censored and squashed in the mainstream media (and probably also why you are employed to troll here) I simply need to prove this is true. And it is true. This fact is not even in dispute.

Your belief that those numbers are "insignificant" is just that: a belief. You have provided no proof to back up your statements of belief.

If they are significant, prove it. If you can. What is "significant exposure" in this case to isoflavones? Are three to nine micrograms a "significant exposure"? You claimed people have died from eating "soy contaminated eggs". How many?

How much of an allergen is needed to cause an anaphylactic shock and potentially kill someone?

Since you suggest it occurs, you must have an answer to your own question. Perhaps you could share that with us.

Maybe if we just look at anaphylactic shock deaths a year and ignore those caused by eggs. Is this a common thing?

https://www.aaaai.org/global/latest-research-summaries/Current-JACI-Research/death-anaphylaxis

The authors found that case fatality rates were between 0.25% and 0.33% among hospitalizations or ED presentations with anaphylaxis as the principal diagnosis. These rates represent a total of between 63 and 99 deaths per year in the US, ~77% of which occurred in hospitalized patients.

These results suggest that the overwhelming majority of hospitalizations or ED presentations for anaphylaxis did not result in death, with an average case fatality rate of 0.3%.

Eat "soy eggs- Die!"
Get vaccinated. Die!

 

[Created4]

If they are significant, prove it. If you can. What is "significant exposure" in this case to isoflavones? Are three to nine micrograms a "significant exposure"? You claimed people have died from eating "soy contaminated eggs". How many?

I have addressed your circular reasoning in the past. You are the one making the claim for "significant" - not me. Burden of proof on you. You are arguing with yourself.

How much of an allergen is needed to cause an anaphylactic shock and potentially kill someone?

Since you suggest it occurs, you must have an answer to your own question. Perhaps you could share that with us.

Public/common knowledge. Look it up if you don't know.

Severe cases are usually caused by ingesting the allergen, but some people experience a severe reaction upon contact.

Six vaccines (MMR, varicella, influenza, hepatitis B, tetanus, meningococcal) are recognized as a cause for anaphylaxis, and HPV may cause anaphylaxis as well.

Wikipedia with linked sources.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I have addressed your circular reasoning in the past. You are the one making the claim for "significant" - not me. Burden of proof on you. You are arguing with yourself.




Public/common knowledge. Look it up if you don't know.





Wikipedia with linked sources.

Wiki?

Six vaccines (MMR, varicella, influenza, hepatitis B, tetanus, meningococcal) are recognized as a cause for anaphylaxis, and HPV may cause anaphylaxis as well

.

How many cases of anaphylaxis have been caused by those vaccines? Why don't you share numbers on anything? Because they don't support the claims? Oh yeah- they are "hidden". Thanks anyways.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/580017

Rate of Anaphylaxis After HPV Vaccine Higher Than Other Vaccines, Australians Report

Scary headline, right? But what are the facts? Two in a billion is twice as often as one in a billion. But is either number "common"? How many cases were reported? Let's read the article and see.

Australian researchers report that the rate of anaphylaxis after administration of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil (Merck), appears to be significantly higher than that reported for other vaccines administered in similar school-based programs. However, the overall rates were very low, and each of the 8 confirmed cases recovered completely with no serious sequelae.

"Anaphylaxis following HPV vaccination is a rare event, as defined by the World Health Organization, and it should not curtail population-based HPV vaccination programs," the researchers conclude. The team, headed by Julia Brotherton, MD, from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, in Westmead, Australia, detail their findings online September 1 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ).

Wow! Eight cases! Panic!

Related commentaries also emphasize the rarity of the reactions and offer reassurance on the safety of the vaccine.

Data from this Australian study "provide compelling evidence that the vaccine is remarkably safe," say CMAJ editor-in-chief Paul Herbert, MD, and colleagues in a related editorial. They point out that the only serious adverse events noted with careful follow-up of over 260,000 vaccine doses were very rare cases of anaphylaxis (2.6 events per 100,000 doses). "There were no cases of anaphylactic shock. All of the girls recovered completely, usually rapidly after receiving epinephrine/adrenaline," they add.

Get vaccinated- die from anaphylactic shock!

That rate was higher than other vaccines. So how many of them?

In contrast, a 2003 school-based program for meningococcal C vaccination had identified only 1 case of anaphylaxis (giving a rate of 0.1 per 100,000 doses administered). However, if a review similar to the current one had been conducted, another 2 cases would have been identified, the researchers comment. When all 3 cases are included, the estimated rate becomes 0.4 cases per 100,000 doses administered.

Well, eight is more than one (or three). But both are extremely rare outcomes (four in a million according to the article). Not common as you poorly try to suggest.

That was Australia. What about the United States? Same article- second page.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/580017#vp_2

Reported Rate Is Lower in United States

The rate in this Australian study is much higher than has been reported in the United States. In his commentary, Dr. Halsey notes that the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System received 15 reports of anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reactions following HPV vaccination during 2007, and 11 cases have been reported as of July 21 this year. He also notes that more than 13 million doses of the vaccine have been distributed as of the end of 2007.

"Although there may have been some underreporting, the rate of about 1 case per 1 million vaccinations is consistent with the rate of anaphylaxis following several other vaccines," he comments.

Only one in a million? Gee- I thought it was supposed to be some common thing.

 

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1995783/

Anaphylaxis as an adverse event following immunisation

Incidence

Anaphylaxis following immunisation is a rare event. Even the largest pre‐licensure vaccine trials are unlikely to detect a single case, let alone provide an estimate of incidence. The onus for detection of anaphylaxis falls to national post‐marketing surveillance systems. The “yellow card” reporting system of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the UK (www.mhra.gov.uk) received 130 reports of anaphylaxis associated with immunisation in the six years from 1997 to 2003, suggesting a rate of 1 per million doses.5 Likewise, the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (http://vaers.hhs.gov) recorded 452 reports of “anaphylactoid reactions” in over 1.9 billion doses of vaccine administered countrywide over a 10‐year period.6 This yields an estimated incidence of 0.2 cases per million doses. All post‐marketing surveillance systems rely on passive reporting of cases and are prone to under‐reporting. Also these incidences are of overall rates of reaction and do not reflect incidences following individual vaccines.

There are a limited number of studies specifically addressing the incidence of anaphylaxis as an AEFI. Patja et al describe 30 cases of anaphylaxis occurring after MMR vaccination over a 14‐year period, deriving an incidence estimate of 1 per 100 000.7 In a retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records, Bohlke et al identified five cases of anaphylaxis in 7.5 million doses of vaccine, giving an incidence rate of 0.65 cases per million doses.8 Yet in two of these five “cases”, uncertainties remained about the true nature of these events. The retrospective design of this study made it impossible to clarify these further. As with most advanced immunisation programmes, children received combination vaccines with multiple immunisations at a single clinic visit, making it impossible to attribute risk to a single vaccine or component. These studies exemplify the difficulty of describing anaphylaxis as an AEFI in any detail using retrospective analyses.

Eating a banana is more dangerous.