I have a very basic question. What is the evolutionary purpose behind anaphylaxis?
I understand this:
"At the first injection, the organism was taken by surprise and did not resist. At the second injection, the organism mans its defences and answers by the anaphylactic shock."
But I don't understand why throat-closing symptoms would improve your odds of survival or reduce the threat you were sensitized to. For example, why does your blood pressure drop? Why constrict bronchioles?
"...The animal will rapidly develop severe vascular shock and die within a few minutes...
- combination of venule constriction and
- capillary dilation
- results in pooling of blood in the peripheral circulation
There is no evolutionary purpose behind anaphylaxis, It is a completely artificial situation.
As you may know, the part of the immune system involved in allergic reactions, anaphylaxis is the same one that defends against parasites, worms.
When a worm (say hookworm) attempts to enter through the skin (it is like the first injection) we get sensitized (create IgE antibodies against hookworm proteins). The next time the hookworm attempts to enter, we develop an itch (IgE mediated histamine release), minor, local allergic reaction, we scratch and potentially physically remove the worm. This is the intended, evolved purpose of minor, local, allergic reaction. If we were to eat a spoonful of hookworms, we would suffer a severe allergic reaction/anaphylaxis. But that would never happen in nature.
Now, artificially, we are teaching the body to attack egg proteins as if it were from a parasite, by injecting egg protein contaminated vaccines. Then when we eat a spoonful of egg, we suffer anaphylaxis.
Similarly, if you were to inhale parasite eggs, the IgE mediated histamine release will cause you to sneeze (minor allergic reaction), to expel the eggs. However with aeroallergen contaminated vaccines, aeroallergens are recognized as parasite eggs. Since you breathe aeroallergens all the time, you suffer allergies and asthma. With enough severity, it can kill.
Please see details on stomach acid killing parasites, sensitization to aeroallergens and GERD.
Aeroallergen contamination of multi-dose and reconstituted vaccine vials cause the development of asthma, gastrointestinal diseases and proves vaccine makers and vaccine safety regulators are incompetent
The calculated probabilities appear to be incorrect. For 4 vs. 1 events with large nearly-equal populations, the R language gives a p-value of 0.37 or 37%, far from the 1.5% claimed above.
prop.test(c(1, 4), c(21920,21920))
For 7 vs. 1 event the p-value is 0.077.
R is well vetted, and the documentation page cites references.
As a simple check one can consider a Poisson process with mean 4. The probability of observing 0 or 1 events is 9%, which should be considered a lower limit.
I have a very basic question. What is the evolutionary purpose behind anaphylaxis?
I understand this:
"At the first injection, the organism was taken by surprise and did not resist. At the second injection, the organism mans its defences and answers by the anaphylactic shock."
But I don't understand why throat-closing symptoms would improve your odds of survival or reduce the threat you were sensitized to. For example, why does your blood pressure drop? Why constrict bronchioles?
"...The animal will rapidly develop severe vascular shock and die within a few minutes...
- combination of venule constriction and
- capillary dilation
- results in pooling of blood in the peripheral circulation
- drastic drop in blood pressure.
If exposed to the aerosol, it will equally...
- rapidly die from
- bronchial constriction."
There is no evolutionary purpose behind anaphylaxis, It is a completely artificial situation.
As you may know, the part of the immune system involved in allergic reactions, anaphylaxis is the same one that defends against parasites, worms.
When a worm (say hookworm) attempts to enter through the skin (it is like the first injection) we get sensitized (create IgE antibodies against hookworm proteins). The next time the hookworm attempts to enter, we develop an itch (IgE mediated histamine release), minor, local allergic reaction, we scratch and potentially physically remove the worm. This is the intended, evolved purpose of minor, local, allergic reaction. If we were to eat a spoonful of hookworms, we would suffer a severe allergic reaction/anaphylaxis. But that would never happen in nature.
Now, artificially, we are teaching the body to attack egg proteins as if it were from a parasite, by injecting egg protein contaminated vaccines. Then when we eat a spoonful of egg, we suffer anaphylaxis.
Similarly, if you were to inhale parasite eggs, the IgE mediated histamine release will cause you to sneeze (minor allergic reaction), to expel the eggs. However with aeroallergen contaminated vaccines, aeroallergens are recognized as parasite eggs. Since you breathe aeroallergens all the time, you suffer allergies and asthma. With enough severity, it can kill.
Please see details on stomach acid killing parasites, sensitization to aeroallergens and GERD.
Aeroallergen contamination of multi-dose and reconstituted vaccine vials cause the development of asthma, gastrointestinal diseases and proves vaccine makers and vaccine safety regulators are incompetent
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2544037
The calculated probabilities appear to be incorrect. For 4 vs. 1 events with large nearly-equal populations, the R language gives a p-value of 0.37 or 37%, far from the 1.5% claimed above.
prop.test(c(1, 4), c(21920,21920))
For 7 vs. 1 event the p-value is 0.077.
R is well vetted, and the documentation page cites references.
https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/stats/versions/3.6.2/topics/prop.test
There is even an online version of R: https://www.mycompiler.io/new/r
Thanks for the pointers. I ran it online and it said:
--------------
2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction
data: c(1, 4) out of c(21920, 21920)
X-squared = 0.80009, df = 1, p-value = 0.3711
alternative hypothesis: two.sided
95 percent confidence interval:
-0.0003824030 0.0001086803
sample estimates:
prop 1 prop 2
4.562044e-05 1.824818e-04
Warning message:
In prop.test(c(1, 4), c(21920, 21920)) :
Chi-squared approximation may be incorrect
[Execution complete with exit code 0]
-------------
I have no idea what assumptions were made and if the calculations/interpretation are valid.
I'd like to see a probability calculation with all the inputs/assumptions/equations so I know how to interpret the output.
I believe the source code is here, with lines 103-114 and 140, 144 most relevant:
https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/trunk/src/library/stats/R/prop.test.R
As a simple check one can consider a Poisson process with mean 4. The probability of observing 0 or 1 events is 9%, which should be considered a lower limit.