Monday, May 11, 2009

The Toxin Gambit Part 1: Formaldehyde

We will be conducting a multiple-part series describing some of the vaccine constituents that many consider 'toxins' or just have what the actual chemical is, just plain wrong. The first part of our series will be dedicated to information regarding formaldehyde, what it is, why it is in vaccines and any health implications. So thank you to Valo for your suggestion.

For the purpose of this series, it is important to understand the metric scale, not so much the actual measurements but their relationship to one another. For example, if a microgram (mcg) is a grain of sand, then a milligram (mg) is a slice of American cheese, so a gram (g) is an average 5.5 year-old boy and a kilogram (kg) would be 7 H2 Hummers. Again, these aren't actual weights, volumes or measurements, but rather, their differences on a visual scale.

Formaldehyde is a naturally-occurring chemical that can also be synthesised. The chemical formula is CH2O and is also known as methanal (not to be confused with methanol), formal and methyl aldehyde. It is also not to be confused with formalin, which is an aqueous solution of formaldehyde. Numerous isomers of formaldehyde exist but they are not formaldehyde. It is used in the manufacture of resins that are then used for the production of pressed wood products, paper, textile fibres, adhesives and plastics (EPA 2009 and WHO 2006). Of course, those involved with the manufacturing of products with formaldehyde may sustain occupational exposure and subsequent pathologies (EPA, 2009 and WHO, 2006). Formaldehyde is also a by-product of tobacco smoke and combustion reactions from stoves, kerosene space heaters and automobiles (EPA 2009).

Naturally occurring sources of formaldehyde are found in plants, fruits, vegetables, animals (including humans) and seafood (Mason et al. 2004 and Inchem 1989). Table 14 of the Environmental Health Programme on Chemical Safety: Formaldehyde, and Table 95.2, Chapter 95: Formaldehyde, lists some commonly-consumed foods and their formaldehyde concentrations. (Clary and Sullivan 2001 and Inchem 1989). In a study of Shiitake mushrooms, investigators reported formaldehyde concentrations of 100-300 mg/kg; this wide variation is a result of a combination of analysis techniques, naturally-occurring formaldehyde and also possible contamination with exogenous formaldehyde (Mason et al. 2004).

Formaldehyde is a normal, essential human metabolite with a biological half-life of about 1.5 minutes (Clary and Sullivan 2001). It is endogenously produced and is involved with methylation reactions for and biosynthesis of some proteins and nucleic acids. It is also rapidly metabolised to formate and excreted in urine or to carbon dioxide and exhaled (WHO, 2006 and Clary and Sullivan 2001). Some common routes of exposure for exogenous formaldehyde include dermal, from occupational handling, inhalation, from occupational exposure and environment, oral via dietary intake and of course, intramuscularly or subcutaneously from vaccines. (Franks 2005, Clary and Sullivan 2001 and Inchem 1989).

Human normal blood concentrations of formaldehyde are 2.74 +/- 0.14 mg/L (Franks 2005). The average adult male (86 kg) in the U.S. has a blood volume of 5.8 litres; the average adult female (74 kg) has a blood volume of 5.0 litres and an average 2 month old infant (5 kg), 0.43 litres. So this translates to 15.1-16.7 mg of normal formaldehyde range in an adult male, 13.0-14.4 mg in an adult female and 1.1-1.2 mg in a 2 month-old infant which works out to be 0.22-0.24 mg/kg (CHOP 2008 and Franks 2005). Using the visual scale provided earlier for the infant, that would be a little more than 1 slice of American cheese/35 H2 Hummers.

Toxic levels of formaldehyde can induce a variety of illness from localised skin/respiratory tract irritation to cancer (Bosetti et al. 2008, Sundstrom et al. 2001 and Pandley et al. 2000). Inhalation of 1.0-2.0 parts per million or ppm (ppm=mg/kg) is considered mildly irritating, while 3.0 ppm causes moderate eye irritation although there is variation of sensitivity in individuals (Sundstrom et al. 2001 and Inchem 1989). Chronic inhalation studies on rats and mice have resulted in nasal cavity squamous cell carcinomas, when exposed to levels above 6-15 ppm (Bosetti et al. 2008 and Clary and Sullivan 2001). Formaldehyde toxicity resulting in death occurs in humans at a volume of about 60-90ml (Pandey 2000). The CDC conducted a survey of 'travel trailers' used for displaced people from hurricanes Katrina and Rita and found levels ranging from 0.003-0.59 ppm with an average of 0.077 ppm (CDC 2008). Thus far, only symptoms of local irritation have been reported (CDC 2008). A 2005 study of single-family homes in 3 cities detected an average of 0.17 ppm and 0.016-0.025 ppm in travel trailers (Weisel et al. 2005).

Formaldehyde in vaccines is left over from the production process, where it serves a couple of different functions, depending upon the type of antigens used. Essentially, it is used for killing cells and/or inactivating toxins. For example, the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine is a toxoid vaccine. The toxins produced by the bacteria are what causes illness in humans and what we need antibodies against. The addition of formaldehyde internally cross-links the toxin and also cross-links it to other toxins, effectively detoxifying to eliminate pathogenicity. Viral vaccines such as influenza and hepatitis A vaccines utilise formaldehyde to inactivate viral activity, allowing the recipient to produce antibodies to the antigens without pathogenicity (Aunins et al. 2000).

The actual amount in vaccines is minuscule, even when considering an infant that receives the full CDC schedule. If you look at this table, it contains a list of vaccines and their final formaldehyde content. Not included in this table is Pentacel which contains 0.005mg of formaldehyde. If all vaccines are given as per the CDC recommendation and separately, the most a 2 month old infant would receive is 0.1204 mg of formaldehyde or 120.4 mcg. Going back to what normal formaldehyde levels for a 5kg, 2-month old infant are 1.1-1.2 mg or 0.22-0.24mg/kg so the total formaldehyde exposure from vaccines would raise that to 1.22-1.32 mg or raises the baseline level by less than 1 grain of sand/35 Hummers. Put another way, the amount contained within a vaccine is more than 50 times less than what is in a pear.

Given what is known about human formaldehyde metabolism, excretion and toxic levels, along with what is actually in vaccines, we hope that this gives some perspective about the safety of the amount of formaldehyde that an infant would receive via vaccines. There is simply no valid argument, beyond the scope of fear-mongering that formaldehyde exposure from vaccines is implicated in any health problems, whatsoever.

References:
Aunins JG, Lee AL, Volkin DB. Vaccine Production. In: Bronzino JD, ed. The Biomedical Engineering Handbook 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Springer Publishing; 2000. http://books.google.com/books?id=T2UIoAxcFdIC&pg=PT175&lpg=PT175&dq=&source=bl&ots=J4Skfly-bt&sig=InDm5MbbsfSOztSu5WoeSGAYh7A&hl=en&ei=s938SciZD4TCM6Gi8csE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8. Accessed May 10, 2009:105-8—105-9.

Bosetti C, McLaughlin JK, Tarone RE, Pira E, La Vecchia C. Formaldehyde and cancer risk: a quantitative review of cohort studies through 2006 . Annals of Oncology. 2008; 19:29-43. http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/29.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2009.

The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). Vaccine Education Center Web site. http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=75809. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Clary JJ and Sullivan, Jr. JB. Formaldehyde. In: Sullivan, Jr. JB and Krieger GR, eds. Clinical Environmental and Toxic Exposures. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2001. http://books.google.com/books?id=PyUSgdZUGr4C&pg=PA1008&lpg=PA1008&dq=formaldehyde+human+normal+metabolite&source=bl&ots=IJTP64uYmW&sig=jttT7L4_AseC6hm3eVXzUP56hQI&hl=en&ei=Gmv7SfTkJ46UMrvr3dQE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1. Accessed May 10, 2009:1007-1008 and 1010.

Indoor Air Quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Web site. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formaldehyde.html. Accessed and link repaired Aug 1, 2012.

Franks SJ. A mathematical model for the absorption and metabolism of formaldehyde vapour by humans [abstract]. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2004; 206(3):309-320. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXH-4F7B42G-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7617394a3010f1b021e3164141aefec1. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Environmental Health Criteria 89: Formaldehyde. International Programme on Chemical Safety (INCHEM) Web site. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc89.htm#SubSectionNumber:5.1.4. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Mason DJ, Sykes MD, Panton SW, Rippon EH. Determination of naturally-occurring formaldehyde in raw and cooked Shiitake mushrooms by spectrophotometry and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry [abstract]. Food Additives and Contaminants. 2004; Nov;21(11):1071-1082. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Edb=all?content=10.1080/02652030400013326. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Pandey CK, Agarwal A, Baronia A, Singh N. Toxicity of ingested formalin and its management [Abstract]. Human & Experimental Toxicology. 2000;Jun,19(6);360-366. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10962510?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citationsensor. Accessed May 10, 2009. PMID: 10962510.

CDC Final Report on Formaldehyde Levels in FEMA-Supplied Travel Trailers, Park Models, and Mobile Homes Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/trailerstudy/pdfs/FEMAFinalReport.pdf. July 2, 2008. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Weisel CP et al. Relationships of indoor, outdoor, and personal air (RIOPA). Part I. Collection methods and descriptive analyses [abstract]. Research Report (Health Effects Institute). 2005;Nov(130 Pt 1):1-107; discussion 109-127. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Cmd=ShowLinkOut&Db=pubmed&TermToSearch=16454009&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVCitation. Accessed May 10, 2009. PMID: 16454009.

IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. World Health Organization (WHO). Volume 88 Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butxypropan-2-ol. 2006. Web site. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol88/volume88.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2009.

60 comments:

  1. Holy cow. You actually explained all of it. Bravo, and thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent summary. I love the comparison to formaldehyde in a pear!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you and I'm glad that it was informative, just what we were going for.

    As an amusing side note, I tried to comment on this quaint, little antivax blog in an effort to provide accurate information regarding formaldehyde in vaccines. But it appears as though the owner is moderating comments.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nicely done, and glad to find your blog, after having followed your efforts on the Babycenter (anti)vax board. I read your exchange with anti-vax Dawn on her blog with great amusement, before she pulled the usual plug with the "so much we don't know" flourish.

    Add y'all to my humble blogroll.

    ReplyDelete
  5. With the news that there has been a case of polio in Argentina, do you guys think you can do some kind of emergency piece on this news? can you tell us abou tOPV v IPV, travel, protection against transmission, and about the polio virus itself-- does it live in the community waiting for vaccine numbers to drop? could it come back even to clean, first world nations?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon, We are trying to find out more information on the case. When we do, we can certainly break it down for our readers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Case closed times ten. This blows Paul Offitt's explanation out of the water, by the way. It's nice to have such an exhaustive treatment of a commonly raised concern.

    ReplyDelete
  8. how does natural formaldehyde compare with a formaldehyde releaser like aspertame?

    I personally have no issue with the natural formaldehyde in food or me for that matter.

    However as soon as I drink a diet coke I ache.

    If I use a cream with a formadehyde releaser then I get excema.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous, it's the same. Aspartame metabolism produces methane and then that is converted to formaldehyde and then that is converted to formalin. It's chemically identical.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Could you explain the difference that exist between exposure due to inhalation, ingestion, etc versus injection directly into muscle and the bloodstream? Has this difference been studied and compared? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Unknown, here is a fact sheet that you may find helpful: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1219908739327

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not quite sure if that fact sheet answers the question or has done the research in question. I don't see any mention of exposure by "injection" which would cause the formaldehyde to bypass the cellular immune response. All the other points of entry would activate this cellular immune response. I'm looking for a real study done on the affects of formaldehyde when ingested, inhaled, etc vs injected directly into muscle/blood stream (intramuscularly, subcutaneously). Does this research exist to your knowledge? What are your thoughts on these differences of entry into the body?

    ReplyDelete
  13. For starters unknown, you seem to be confusing formaldehyde with something else. Formaldehyde has nothing to do with immune activation, cellular or otherwise. So no, there is no research that will answer your question because you aren't asking the right question.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I was under the impression that when a foreign agent enters the body via inhalation, or via the skin or nose, etc it activates the cellular (cell-mediated) immune response. This is the first level of defense against foreign agents, pathogens, virus, bacteria, etc. Pretty much any article I bring up on immunology states this. My question is simply whether or not you know of any research or studies done that compare methods of entry of foreign agents into the body. It is reasonable to question whether injecting directly into the blood stream, muscle tissue might be more harmful than ingesting or inhaling. After all, the first line of defense in the immune system is attempting to keep the foreign agent from getting to the blood in the first place. One would naturally assume that it could be dangerous to bypass this natural immune response by injecting foreign pathogens directly into the blood. So again, do you know of any studies done comparing method of entry? Not just for formaldehyde, but also for aluminum, mercury, etc? I think this would be a critical piece of research in helping to prove vaccine safety.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unknown, perhaps you should read the blogpost on the topic you are commenting/asking questions about. Formaldelhyde isn't a "foreign agent", our bodies produce it and it is an essential metabolite. As such, when it is injected, it is no different that what is already present in our bloodstream and is metabolised in exactly the same way. This is also explained in the blogpost. Formaldehyde is not a pathogen either, neither is aluminium and mercury. Perhaps you wish to formulate a specific question.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Formaldehyde is a gas. So when it is added to a liquid vaccine it no longer exists as pure "formaldehyde", the gas. It is chemically impossible to add formaldehyde to a liquid substance and still call if formaldehyde. Formaldehyde does not dissolve in water, but instead instantly reacts with the water to change into a completely new and different substance called methylene glycol. Not only is it completely different, methylene glycol belongs to an entirely separate chemical family. Formaldehyde is a gas and methylene glycol is a liquid with very different chemical properties. Now, if a vaccine were only pure water, we would be talking about Methylene Glycol. But since vaccines contain many other additives, it would take sophisticated chemical testing to determine what it is actually becoming once added to the vaccine. I'm not sure this has ever been done.

    This "mislabeling" of formaldehyde as an ingredient in vaccines, is basically the exact same situation that occurred in the nail polish industry. Nail polish manufacturers were listing formaldehyde as one of the ingredients in their nail polishes until it was discovered that inhaling formaldehyde gas over long periods of time can cause cancer. Suddenly advocacy groups were claiming that these nail polishes contained a dangerous, cancer causing ingredient. This was false however, since formaldehyde, as a gas, cannot exist as formaldehyde in a liquid. It changes completely. So a guy named Doug Schoon, Co-chair of the Nail Manufacturer’s Council, worked with others in the industry to officially correct the naming error, which was finally approved in December 2008 and is now in effect. Manufacturers using formalin in nail hardeners can now use the correct name for this ingredient, “methylene glycol”. He says that, "If you find “formaldehyde” on a cosmetic label, you will know this is an incorrect name and you can be sure that formaldehyde was NOT added to the product. You can also be sure that the formaldehyde related cancer risks claimed by these advocacy groups doesn’t apply to cosmetics." Why? Because formaldehyde is a gas and is impossible to mix in liquid without a chemical change, thus creating an entirely new and different compound.

    So the real question here isn't even about formaldehyde. The real question is, what is this formaldehyde becoming once added to the liquid vaccines? Formalin? Formol? methylene aldehyde? Paraforin? Morbicid? Oxomethane? Polyoxymethylene glycols? Methanal? Formoform? Superlysoform? formic aldehyde? Formalith? Tetraoxymethylene? Methyl oxide? Karsan? Trioxane? Oxymethylene? methylene glycol? You get the point? Once you determine the new compound created, then you must determine what it's affects are, both immediate and long term on the body and our health.

    Quotes taken from: http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/08/exposing-the-formaldehyde-myth/

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mindquest, an aqueous solution of formaldehyde is often referred to as formalin and in spite of reaction with water to form methylene glycol, there are still formaldehyde molecules that are chemically identical to what is found naturally in animals. Perhaps you should read better sources for your information rather than cutting and pasting from a guy's blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have attitude, which is a serious turn-off to concerned parents like me who are seeking informed information. I don't care how smart you are or think you are, if you speak with attitude then you're gonna be ignored.

      Delete
    2. Hopefully your ego will calm and at that point I look forward to returning and finding fewer "I know this..." "I know that..." "I'm better than you..." "I'm smarter than you...." "You're an idiot..." "You are all crazy...." self-righteous, self-serving rants which only end up in showing the world how insecure you are.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, I provided copious references and links to support my information. Take it or leave it. Go take your tone-trolling somewhere else; I'll give you the facts with some attitude, not tell you what you want to hear with saccharine.

      Delete
  18. Lol, yet I suppose if I had pasted information from YOUR blog, I would be a hero, right? Get over yourself.

    But let me get this straight. Since, according to you, there are still formaldehyde molecules, then it is OK to assume that the new chemical compound created in the reaction is "safe"? Are you serious? How can anyone take you or your "blog" serious? You know nothing about chemistry. You know, cyanide is a naturally occurring chemical as well. Maybe you could benefit from injecting some into your body.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mindquest, as you can see I've provided several reputable sources for this post which you can access. Vaccine excipients are tested and cannot contain novel compounds or must go through clinical trials and re-licensed or be considered adulterated.

    Formaldehyde metabolism and safety threshold are well-documented and the amount in a vaccine suite does not even raise a detectable blood level above baseline. I also clearly know more chemistry than you given the one and only source you chose to provide and your absurd comparison to cyanide also demonstrates your ignorance. Try using valid and reputable sources to understand a topic instead of seeking out self-serving, uncited ones to support your pre-conceived beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I can't get much more unbiased than a post regarding the chemistry of formaldehyde in the nail polish industry. If anything, that should show you that I'm interested in an unbiased position based on facts, not based soem anti-vax propoganda. However, whatever "reputable sources" you think you found here are not comparing the same things. You're committing the same mistake that I pointed out. It will do you no good whatsoever to talk about formaldehyde on it's own in a vaccine, since once it hits the liquid it changes into a different chemical entirely. It's no longer formaldehyde at all. So why are you trying to show the affects of formaldehyde on the body? Pure formaldehyde is a gas and is a carcinogenic at that. It's highly toxic and that's why it's use is regulated and safety parameters must be met. But we shouldn't even be talkging about "pure" formaldehyde because it's completely different than what someone is getting in a vaccine. You obviously don't understand this yet. And the cyanide example was spot on. It goes right along with your "since it occurs naturally it must be safe" theory. I think you're in the wrong line of work or whatever this blog represents for you. It's not any more reputable or accurate than whale.to.

    ReplyDelete
  21. But does cyanide occur naturally in the body? Also, if formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body (per SM) and formaldehyde cannot be pure in liquid form (per MQ), what form is it in then when it's in the body naturally?

    ReplyDelete
  22. You're committing the same mistake that I pointed out. It will do you no good whatsoever to talk about formaldehyde on it's own in a vaccine, since once it hits the liquid it changes into a different chemical entirely. It's no longer formaldehyde at all.

    You are hung up on semantics and I made the mistake of playing into that. You are taking another, rather amateur and financially-interested blogpost from the cosmetic site and treating it as gospel. Well the fact is, is that he is wrong too. Formaldehyde exists in aqueous solution (dissolved in water) as methylene glycol (H2C(OH)2). This reaction is freely reversible and is not a "different chemical entirely" as water is removed, formaldehyde is emitted, conversely, as formaldehyde is inhaled, the water in mucous membranes converts formaldehyde to guess what? Methylene glycol (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10509029). Does that mean it's harmless in sufficient quantities? Of course not, it's still formaldehyde that will do what formaldehyde does if toxic threshold is achieved. Otherwise it is harmlessly metabolised and excreted. Ironically, your source is arguing that methylene glycol in nail products is harmless based upon the erroneous idea that it isn't formaldehyde. But strangely, a product called Brazilian Blowout which listed an ingredient called methylene glycol was causing problems with consumers and hair industry workers: http://www.webmd.com/healthy-beauty/news/20110907/fda-brazilian-blowout-hair-straightener-is-dangerous

    How can this be if methylene glycol isn't formaldehyde? What do you suppose is going on? Simple, since the reaction is reversible, the removal of water causes formaldehyde gas to be emitted, not to mention the 20% of free formaldehyde already present in methylene glycol. So much for an entirely different chemical.

    So why are you trying to show the affects of formaldehyde on the body? Pure formaldehyde is a gas and is a carcinogenic at that. It's highly toxic and that's why it's use is regulated and safety parameters must be met. But we shouldn't even be talkging about "pure" formaldehyde because it's completely different than what someone is getting in a vaccine.

    See previous comment. To use the reverse analogy; you are claiming that my potatoes won't be salty if I boil them in a pot of water with a cup of salt dumped in because sodium and chloride ions disassociate. All toxicological studies are done using liquid formaldehyde, formalin or methylene glycol where applicable so the comparison is apples to apples.

    And the cyanide example was spot on. It goes right along with your "since it occurs naturally it must be safe" theory.

    Perhaps you should actually read the blog post since I clearly stated what toxic levels are for different exposures along with reputable citations. It is just simply the amount of formaldehyde/formalin/methylene glycol in a vaccine is negligible and is orders of magnitude lower than the lowest toxic exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi MR, let me know if my post after yours answers your questions.

    And here's another article for MindQuest who thinks that methylene glycol is a completely different chemical: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/business/brazilian-blowout-agrees-to-a-4-5-million-settlement.html

    You might want to question your cosmetics source and his grasp of chemistry.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you had read my original post better you'd understand my position. Vaccines are not "pure" water. So you have no idea what you are actually creating by adding the formaldehyde to the vaccine. It can react to all of the liquid additives in the vaccine, not just the "water" part. So, in all honesty, you have no idea what is being created in the vaccine by those chemical reactions. Even your own post admits that there are many different combinations and synthetic compounds created for a wide range of fields. So again, there is no telling what is actually being created and whether or not it is dangerous long term. Simply measuring formaldehyde isn't even a valid way of measuring vaccine safety since very little if any has a change of "reversing" back into Formaldehyde in the body. It is staying in it's new state, whatever that is. So, your premise is a really poor way of looking at this issue in the first place since you are pretending that a vaccine is ONLY "pure" water and nothing else exists for formaldehyde to react with. That would be the proper study to conduct.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If you had read my original post better you'd understand my position.

    I've been responding to you so obviously I've read your original post. Your stipulation that aqueous formaldehyde is a COMPLETELY different chemical than formaldehyde gas is wrong and I have adequately demonstrated it.

    Vaccines are not "pure" water.

    I hate logical fallacies; please try to refrain from falling back on them. Note: I never said that vaccines were pure water.

    So you have no idea what you are actually creating by adding the formaldehyde to the vaccine. It can react to all of the liquid additives in the vaccine, not just the "water" part. So, in all honesty, you have no idea what is being created in the vaccine by those chemical reactions.

    Um yea we do. Now it isn't a bad question to ask, "Will we create novel chemicals by adding these things together?" and testing for that (I trust you are familiar with things like mass spec and GLPC). But to merely assume that novel chemical formations are occurring is lazy. Here is an exercise for you; here are the vaccine excipients http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf now taking into account bond strength, type and length, catalytic activity, concentration, molecular stability, etc. and see what kind of novel chemicals can be conceivably formed.

    Even your own post admits that there are many different combinations and synthetic compounds created for a wide range of fields. So again, there is no telling what is actually being created and whether or not it is dangerous long term.

    You are being terribly dishonest. You can do as I suggest above or understand a point I tried to convey to you earlier. Vaccines are tested constantly; they've been thoroughly tested prior to licensure and contain what they state they contain if they don't, they're pulled or recalled. Do you really think that pharma and FDA, EMEA or what have you for oversight biologists and chemists can't identify what is in a vaccine and just say "oh fuck it"?

    Simply measuring formaldehyde isn't even a valid way of measuring vaccine safety since very little if any has a change of "reversing" back into Formaldehyde in the body. It is staying in it's new state, whatever that is. So, your premise is a really poor way of looking at this issue in the first place since you are pretending that a vaccine is ONLY "pure" water and nothing else exists for formaldehyde to react with. That would be the proper study to conduct.

    What did I say about toxicological studies? It isn't my premise by the way, it is that of leading toxicologists so go argue with them and read this before continuing to make an ass of yourself: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.pdf

    My premise also isn't vaccines are pure water, yet again. Feel free to find anywhere that I stated or even implied that. The fact remains that you were incorrect about the chemical properties of aqueous formaldehyde and you are incorrect about measuring aqueous formaldehyde and identifying stability in vaccines. If you have something novel to add to this, great, otherwise piss off.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That answers my question. I was mostly posting it for logical thinking's sake.

    MQ: I have no scientific training, however:
    "So you have no idea what you are actually creating by adding the formaldehyde to the vaccine. . . . So, in all honesty, you have no idea what is being created in the vaccine by those chemical reactions."
    These statement strike me as terribly misinformed. Anyone who has taken a high school chemistry course can tell you that, yes, chemicals react, and, yes, we can tell what they turn into when they react. Any Chemist worth their paycheck (and I have a friend who is one) can tell you what chemicals are in a substance and what the likely outcome is for any mixture of chemicals. So even if you choose not to trust what Chemists think will happen when you mix two substances, you can trust that they know what is in a substance.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Formaldehyde in vaccines is present for the purpose of stabilizing the vaccine. In the industrial world, formaldehyde is a highly toxic gas used in the manufacture of plastics, plywood adhesives, resins, dyes, sugar, rubber and textiles. In most manufacturing processes and vaccine uses, it is used in a liquid form stabilized in methanol. Depending on the individuals tolerance or sensitization levels, new cars, homes, and carpets are an allergan to many people, especially to those who are sensitive to Formaldehyde.

    Effects of Formaldehyde on the human body vary depending on how it is absorbed into the body, but some typical effects of Formadehyde are:

    It weakens the immune system, causes neurological system damage, genetic damage, metabolic acidosis, circulatory shock, respiratory insufficiency and acute renal failure, as well as being a sensitizer which means it can make you sensitive to many other things, it is corrosive if ingested, and it is a suspected carcinogen. A friend of mine son's onchologist implied that formaldehyde in vaccines may have been the trigger for his leukemia.

    Formadehyde may be listed on an ingredient list under many different names including formaldehyde, fomalin, formic aldehyde, methanol, methyl aldehyde, methylene oxide, oxomethane, and paraform, although formaldehyde in vaccines is typically listed as formaldehyde or formalin. Formadehyde has been given a rating of 0.1 PPM for a safe level, but after the FEMA trailer incident in New Orleans, they have re-evaluated this mindset and found that due to individual sensitivities, even this is not a safe level and many suffered ill effects as a result. The latest verdict is, there is no safe level of formaldehyde for the human body, yet a very significant amount is used in vaccines. This ppm measurement is in a gasseous state, (like air), when put into liquid form it is typically 30-50% formaldehyde, which means a very concentrated level.

    Considering that babies typically have weak lungs and no immune system, it really does not sound like a prudent action to inject a young baby with a HIB, DPT or DTaP vaccine that is stabilized in formaldehyde. A baby that may be genetically sensitive to begin with does not have the body or the immune system developed to handle such an assault, and as a result common sense should tell us a baby just might suffer any number of serious reactions or conditions.

    Formadehyde has been indicated by some in connection with chemically induced asthma and Chronic exposure leads to many adverse side effects, including ADD and ADHD.

    The Government Agency for Toxic Substances says children are more susceptible to formaldehyde than adults. Babies immune systems continue to develop well after birth, so a babies body is not ready to fight of such an assault on the system. It is also estimated that between 10% and 20% of the population are sensitive to Formadehyde, so when you have formaldehyde in a vaccine and inject it into your newborn baby, you have no idea if your child is sensitive or not. It is not much different from playing Russian Roulette, however you may not see the effects for 6 years or more, or you may see the effects immediately, and they may be lifelong.

    Vaccines that use formaldehyde include but are not limited to:

    (Vaccine - form of formadehyde)
    DTaP - Formaldehyde
    HIB - Formalin
    BioThrax - Formaldehyde
    DPT - Formaldehyde
    FluShield - Formaldehyde
    Havrix Hepatitus A - formalin
    IPOL Polio vaccine - formaldehyde
    JE-VAX (Japanese Ancephalitis) - Formaldehyde
    Tripedia DTP - formaldehyde
    typhoid - Aspartame (aspartame converts to formaldehyde in the body and clings to protiens).

    Formaldehyde in vaccines creates a toxic soup.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Excerpts from interview with Helen V. Ratajczak, PhD: During her career, Dr. Ratajczak developed an ELISA assay for Rat Alpha-2-Macroglobulin, the most sensitive acute phase reactant protein for the rat, and also quantitated acute phase reactant proteins in the dog and monkey. She also conducted acute toxicology studies and both in vivo and in vitro immune assays, and has studied the immunotoxicologic properties of many compounds, including immunosuppressive and immunostimulatory drugs, in several animal species including mice, rats, nonhuman primates, and humans


    Q. 12. Please talk about how adjuvants are designed to over-stimulate immune response that, in turn, can attack brain microglia and astrocytes. What happens? Do adjuvants interfere with nerve pathway development? Do they incite glutamate and quinolenic acid? What are the resultant consequences?

    A: The adjuvant and the antigen are two separate components of a vaccine. The antigen is the component that the vaccine is designed to protect against, such as influenza. The adjuvant is the added component that causes an enhancement of the immune response by slowing the release of the antigen into the body. The immune system responds to the presence of antigen and terminates the response once the antigen is eliminated. When the antigen is mixed with an insoluble adjuvant, a focus is formed, and the antigen within the focus slowly leaks into the body, giving a prolonged antigenic stimulus. (Tizard, 1988).

    In the case of the immune system’s attack on brain microglia and astrocytes, there is a cross reaction of the antibody against the antigen and the brain cells. (The configuration of the brain cells or parts of them is similar to the antigen.) Therefore, the immune system attacks the brain cells. [Refer to HVR’s answer to question 1 in Part 1.]

    The adjuvant, as stated above, causes the antigen to be released to the body very slowly, thus augmenting the immune response. Indirectly, the adjuvant could be responsible for the interference with the development of nerve pathways, but the direct reason is the cross-reaction of specificity of the immune system.

    Besides eliciting an immune response that is specifically against the antigen, the vaccine elicits a number of cytokines or factors, which enhance or regulate the immune response. The cytokines caused by the vaccine cause the secretion of harmful chemicals including two excitotoxins, glutamate and quinolenic acid (Blaylock, 2008). These chemicals elicit an excitatory reaction in the neurons, and create cellular toxicity and inflammation if too much accumulates (Jepson, 2007; Reynolds, 2007).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Q. 14. Can you please discuss the interaction of mercury as found in Thimerosal (49.6% Hg) and aluminum together in a vaccine.

    A: The addition of Thimerosal to a vaccine in an adjuvant containing aluminum can result in a synergistic toxicity. (See Haley, 2005). Haley reports that aluminum hydroxide alone showed no significant death of neuron cells in culture at six hours, and only slight toxicity over 24 hours. Similarly, Thimerosal caused only a slight increase in neuron death at 6 hours. When Thimerosal and aluminum hydroxide were added together, neuronal death increased to 60%. This is an example of a synergistic effect of two toxicants.

    Q: Lastly, what are your personal thoughts about vaccines and their implications in Autism and other childhood diseases or syndromes?

    A: Vaccines have saved a great many lives throughout the years since they were first developed in the Middle East centuries ago, with the intradermal application of powdered smallpox scabs (variolation) for the prevention of smallpox. However, it is important to remember the wisdom of the Hippocratic oath to “First, do no harm”. Epidemiologic data suggest that vaccines are intimately involved with autism. As more vaccines were given to children, and given at earlier ages, the incidence and prevalence of autism increased. [CJF emphasis]

    There are many aspects of vaccines that cause autism. Some examples follow: The pertussis component of the DPT vaccine integrates into the G proteins, which are regulatory proteins, inhibiting their function (Megson, 2000). The metal aluminum in the adjuvant(s) accompanying the vaccine(s) is toxic (Shaw and Petrick 2009). In addition, the mercury in the preservative thimerosal is a known nerve toxin. This preservative was removed from most childhood vaccines around the year 2000 (Schechter and Grether, 2008), but still is present in some vaccines, the most pertinent being influenza, which is sometimes given to pregnant women. The fetus is thus exposed to mercury, a nerve toxin, when the brain is in its most formative stages.

    About the time thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines, the host for the growth of some viral components of vaccines was changed from animal to human tissue. When a virus grows it takes some of the DNA of the host cells with it. This means that the vaccine using the virus now contains human DNA, which can be incorporated into the vaccine recipient’s DNA by homologous recombination. Now the vaccine recipient has altered DNA or altered self, which is attacked and killed by the immune system. Much of this killing occurs in the brain.

    The federal government and Dr. Gerberding, Director of Vaccines at Merck & Co., Inc. say that autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination (Child Health Safety, 2010).

    It would be very beneficial if tests of the safety of vaccines were conducted on the following:

    Increasing the age at which the vaccines are given
    (Many vaccines are given at 2 months of age, which is the most vulnerable age. At that age, the immune protection given by the mother is on the wane and the infant’s immune system is not yet competent.)

    The effects of injecting more than one vaccine at the same time, with perhaps toxic levels of the metals in adjuvants
    Preparation of a thimerosal-free influenza vaccine
    Cessation of the practice of giving vaccines to children who are ill or are immunologically incompetent
    Design of safer vaccines (without preservatives and without human DNA)
    Conduction of safety tests on animal models prior to clinical safety tests

    ReplyDelete
  30. Also, please check out the following link for some new information (peer-reviewed) regarding Formaldehyde.

    http://vaccinesexposed.blogspot.com/2009/05/formaldehyde-harmless-in-vaccines.html

    Read down through the comments as well for links to studies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ha. I just saw your comments among the replies to the link I posted above. I think Dawn had you pegged perfectly by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Formaldehyde in vaccines is present for the purpose of stabilizing the vaccine.

    Nope; it's present due to leftover from the manufacturing process to inactivate viruses and bacterial toxoids. Let's see what else you have gotten wrong.

    A friend of mine son's onchologist implied that formaldehyde in vaccines may have been the trigger for his leukemia.

    Oh that didn't take long. No for the child's own formaldehyde production exceeds that of all of the vaccines by several mg/kg of body weight. So I would either get a new oncologist or get a clue.

    Considering that babies typically have weak lungs and no immune system, it really does not sound like a prudent action to inject a young baby with a HIB, DPT or DTaP vaccine that is stabilized in formaldehyde. A baby that may be genetically sensitive to begin with does not have the body or the immune system developed to handle such an assault, and as a result common sense should tell us a baby just might suffer any number of serious reactions or conditions.

    Really? No immune system? Well how do they live in that rather unsterile uterine environment and come through that rather unsterile cervix and then out into the world sans sterile bubble? And weak lungs? Unless they have a disorder, the lungs are just fine and since they aren't inhaling formaldehyde it isn't an issue. If a child is "genetically predisposed" to something regarding formaldehyde (you're just puking up a lot of vapid bullshit and don't elaborate) then don't you think their going to have a little problem with their own formaldehyde production and what's in food? It's like saying they are going to have a problem with oxygen.

    Formaldehyde in vaccines creates a toxic soup.

    Oh gee how original. Anything of substance you'd like to qualify that with?

    Go clog up someone else's blog with your bullshit. What does that nutbar Ratajczak have to do with formaldehyde? I take the time to respond to comments so I don't take kindly to spam.

    Also, please check out the following link for some new information (peer-reviewed) regarding Formaldehyde.

    http://vaccinesexposed.blogspot.com/2009/05/formaldehyde-harmless-in-vaccines.html

    Read down through the comments as well for links to studies.


    Let's see, I wrote an entire post about the subject with excellent expert references and you want me to "check out" some mummy blog (which I already have long ago) written by a half-wit whose idiocy is only rivalled by your own. You dimwit.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ha. I just saw your comments among the replies to the link I posted above. I think Dawn had you pegged perfectly by the way.

    Yea, stick with Dawn, you're peas in a pod.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mummy blog? That's exactly what YOUR blog is...SCIENCE MOM! Lol. You are way to into yourself.

    Ratajczak is a nutbar? Haha. You just completely exposed yourself as a completely biased, blinded by your own agenda, mommy blogger. Ratajczak is only an incredibly respected expert on immunology and immunotoxicology. But I suppose your supposed "experts" are better than other "experts". You are a sad individual unable to see anything through reality. You only see through your own hyper-biased opinion and only validate your own resources. Nobody else has anything valid to say according to you, except for YOUR so called experts. Go tell VAERS that vaccines are 100% safe and harmless. Go tell the NVICP that vaccines are 100% safe and harmless. Your so called expert opinion is disproved by reality and even the federal gov't admits that every time they award another devastated family millions of dollars in compensation for their vaccine injured children.

    The problems with vaccines, and this would be obvious to anyone without a vaccine pushing agenda, is not that they will hurt EVERYONE, ALL the time. It's that there is a one size fits all approach used that doesn't take into account each individual's unique makeup and conditions. For a perfectly healthy child, from a strong line of DNA, and with no known history of reactions, etc they will most likely be fine. But since doctors do not even take the time to do an in depth analysis of these things, they give out vaccines as if they were candy and it's a proven fact that many children have adverse reactions, some even resulting in death. A 6 pound baby receives the exact same quantity and potency of vaccine that a full grown 200 lb adult receives. This one size fits all approach is dangerous and irresponsible. Dr. Ratajczak explained in detail that there is a compounding effect when it comes to vaccines that is dangerous. We all know there are now 6 in 1 vaccines being given. And Dr. R cited many studies done to back up her own research. But of course, everyone else is an ignorant fool except you and your "expert" resources. What a joke.

    Protection from disease has much more to do with socio-economic factors; cleanliness, proper sewage treatment, hygiene, clean water, proper trash collection and clean up, etc than it has to do with a vaccine. Scarlet fever and typhoid fever declined on the exact same trend as all other infectious diseases and yet no vaccine existed for these diseases.

    Your vaccine peddling blog is pointless if you aren't going to be intellectually honest and present both sides of the coin. Even the CDC admits vaccines carry risks. That's why the booklet that comes with each vaccine is about a mile long with side effects.

    And ever heard of Vaccine Derived Poliovirus? Yes, it's an actual disease now. India already had it's first case of the year. Yea, it's polio caused by the very vaccine supposedly used to prevent it. It causes paralysis. Wild polio only causes paralysis about 0.5-1% of the time. So the vaccine is more dangerous that the actual disease. Way to go! You guys are geniuses!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mindquest, Catherina and I are professional scientists. What are Dawn's credentials again? This will be your last post unless you can stay on topic; this isn't a venue for your idiotic anti-vaxx rants. Considering you didn't even know that methylene glycol was aqueous formaldehyde, you have a lot to learn before you lecture me. And yes, Ratajczak is an expert in her field not on formaldehyde and not in autism where she recently went off the rails. So yes, the experts I cited with regards to physiological formaldehyde toxic doses, safety threshold and health effects are more qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  36. What? I didn't know MG was aqueous Formaldehyde? Since when? I posted that in my very first post. That just confirms my point that you really don't read what anybody else actually says. You think you're right so you shut all other facts out. Ratajczak is an expert in immunology and immunotoxicology. In other words, how the immune system operates and how it reacts to toxins, foreign agents, etc. What more qualified person would you need to tell you the effects of introducing foreign agents into the immune system, etc? If you would take the time to actually read the whole interview, she actually agrees that the levels of Formaldehyde in vaccines are far less than what is naturally occurring in the body. So, she agrees with you on that front. I bet you REALLY love her now, huh? Now I bet she will become one of your experts regarding formaldehyde. But when you thought she opposed your view, she wasn't qualified. What a joke. You really need to take off the blind loyalty to vaccines if you are ever going to see the issue clearly. You are entirely too convinced that they are 100% safe and effective and that's just not the case.

    As I already pointed out, even the Fed gov't accepts the responsibility for the dangers of vaccines and to date has paid out over 2 BILLION dollars to vaccine injured persons and their families. There are 1000's of cases pending.

    And by the way, those most likely to oppose the current vaccination propaganda and out of control schedule are white, upper class families, where both parents went to college and have degrees. So those with the most resources at their disposal, who are better educated, and have the means to shop for a pediatrician that can accommodate their desires are the most likely to not vaccinate as recommended by the CDC (translate: federal gov't) It's the poor who don't have any other options at their disposal, who rarely have access to information from both sides of the argument and who can't afford to go against their gov't provided pediatrician who are more likely to vaccinate.

    That is very telling in and of itself. Any basic study of vaccines will show their are risks associated with them. It's up to the parents to weigh all the information and decide of the risks outweigh the benefits. If you look at the history of infectious disease, how mortality rates declined to practically zero almost in unison for all infectious diseases BEFORE the use of vaccines, it should be obvious to anybody that the risks associated with vaccines far outweigh any benefits. Vaccines spread the diseases they supposedly protect from. Vaccine recipients can "shed" for up to 2 weeks after received a vaccine. Vaccine induced polio is a real disease caused by the polio vaccines and it cripples people worse than wild polio. And I'm not even getting into autoimmune diseases, seizure disorders, etc. All of these are associated with vaccines and this is easily verifiable through VAERS or NVICP. So, even IF Formaldehyde is "safe" in vaccines...what exactly does that prove in regard to vaccine safety? All of these reactions and risks mentioned above are still REAL and you can't escape from that fact.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mindquest - one acronym: IPV

    As for Formaldehyde - you are not introducing a "foreign" substance into the body with any residual formaldehyde in a given shot.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What? I didn't know MG was aqueous Formaldehyde? Since when? I posted that in my very first post. That just confirms my point that you really don't read what anybody else actually says.

    Yes, and I did read what you wrote as is obvious in my subsequent responses to you. You seemed to be under the impression that since aqueous formaldehyde was methylene glycol that it was a completely different chemical and thus be doing all kinds of dreadful things. You were obviously wrong about that.

    If you would take the time to actually read the whole interview, she actually agrees that the levels of Formaldehyde in vaccines are far less than what is naturally occurring in the body. So, she agrees with you on that front. I bet you REALLY love her now, huh? Now I bet she will become one of your experts regarding formaldehyde. But when you thought she opposed your view, she wasn't qualified. What a joke.

    No, I prefer my experts stay consistent and in the realm of their expertise. Why you would use her on the topic of formaldehyde safety in vaccines is beyond me but then again, you're all over the place to begin with.

    As I already pointed out, even the Fed gov't accepts the responsibility for the dangers of vaccines and to date has paid out over 2 BILLION dollars to vaccine injured persons and their families. There are 1000's of cases pending.

    And your point is? Isn't it nice to have a compensation scheme available for putative vaccine injuries? Can you name any other industry which has a mechanism in place to compensate injuries with the use of their products? Given that 2/3 of vaccine injury claims are not found viable and with the low burden of proof and also that compensation is not proof of causation, it doesn't appear to support your contention that vaccines are the horrible "toxic soup" death traps you purport them to be.

    And by the way, those most likely to oppose the current vaccination propaganda and out of control schedule are white, upper class families, where both parents went to college and have degrees. So those with the most resources at their disposal, who are better educated, and have the means to shop for a pediatrician that can accommodate their desires are the most likely to not vaccinate as recommended by the CDC (translate: federal gov't)

    Again your point being? That these "white educated upper middle class" beings are entitled prats? This trope is also getting old as "educated" merely means college, not that they have relevant degrees in the sciences. I have multiple higher degrees, doesn't mean I'm qualified to be a lawyer or defend myself in a court of law which is really tantamount to what your referenced group is doing. They have deluded themselves into thinking that because they have some higher education in liberal arts that they can Google their way into becoming a doctor or scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If you look at the history of infectious disease, how mortality rates declined to practically zero almost in unison for all infectious diseases BEFORE the use of vaccines, it should be obvious to anybody that the risks associated with vaccines far outweigh any benefits.

    Wow, is this your own "higher education" talking? Not only were mortality rates not "practically zero" before the vaccines but disease risks still outweigh vaccine risks. Let's take a look at your so-called "practically zero mortality rates" before vaccines:
    Pertussis: Up to 9,000 deaths (mostly infants) each year.
    Measles: ~450 deaths/year although vastly under-reported along with cases. This also doesn't include SSPE cases which are 100% fatal.
    Hib: Nearly 1,000 children died each year from complications of invasive Hib disease.

    I could go on but you could also use your super-duper education to read the stats: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm and then perform the requisite mental contortions to disbelieve them. So tell me the maths you use to calculate the risk of vaccination is higher than risk of disease and complications.

    Vaccines spread the diseases they supposedly protect from.

    Oh do tell. Which vaccines spread disease and how does that compare to the wild-type disease?

    Vaccine recipients can "shed" for up to 2 weeks after received a vaccine.

    Which vaccines? And do you know the difference between "shedding" and "transmission"?

    Vaccine induced polio is a real disease caused by the polio vaccines and it cripples people worse than wild polio.

    No, it isn't "worse" because it's a reversion to wild-type (fabu education you have there). It also occurs about once/750K-1 million doses. How does that compare to the wild-type?

    And I'm not even getting into autoimmune diseases, seizure disorders, etc. All of these are associated with vaccines and this is easily verifiable through VAERS or NVICP.

    Such awesome sources you are using there. Do you know that VAERS is a passive reporting system? That there is no way to establish causality? Anyone can enter a report? And NVICP, how does that establish causality? Do you therefore accept that vaccines don't cause autism then? Because they said so you know.

    So, even IF Formaldehyde is "safe" in vaccines...what exactly does that prove in regard to vaccine safety? All of these reactions and risks mentioned above are still REAL and you can't escape from that fact.

    Of course, shift those goalposts and throw in red-herrings to deflect from the fact that you were so undeniably, blatantly wrong about formaldehyde to begin with. And so not expected because anti-vaccinationists are such liars. Instead of saying, "oops, sorry I was wrong, thanks for the correct information" you launch into a tirade about every whacko complaint regarding vaccines. Now, this post is about formaldehyde; if you want to post off-topic, go to our forum otherwise your posts will be dropped into the spam folder from here on out. I have been more than patient with you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mindquest, I deleted your comment from here and moved it to the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thanks for this-- the visuals are very helpful and easy to understand even for a non-scientist like me :)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Amber, thank you very much and I'm glad you found it helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  43. interesting piece.

    the negative effects from formaldehyde exposure are seen at much less than .077ppm, I get that you are providing averages, not sure that is helpful though if people are reacting at levels far below that average, it's kinda misleading isn't it?

    given that a vaccine is injected and ends up in the bloodstream, is it really helpful to compare the amount in something which is eaten and goes through the digestive process, where after "processing" by enzymes a comparatively small amount ends up in the blood? an example would be alcohol, 1.5ml of pure alcohol injected would kill a person, 150ml pure alcohol ingested will get you a little bit drunk.

    Perhaps a better comparison might be with the exposure during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, where "average" exposure of 0.077ppm were causing reactions. This exposure was through the skin and inhalation, which leads more directly to the bloodstream than does ingestion, and so we can infer much more about potential toxicity from this example.

    to put it another way, a pear (which is quite high in formaldehyde, compared to an apple (6-22ppm)) contains a maximum of 60ppm formaldehyde (and as low as 39ppm), you say that a pear, contains 50 times the level in a standard vaccine... this would be what 1.2ppm? 1.2ppm injected directly into my child, when we have established that less than .077ppm IN THE ATMOSPHERE will cause reactions (actually much lower, the safe limit defined by the EPA is .016ppm). lets not forget normally more than one vaccine is given at a time. going back to alcohol, you say a pear contains 50 times the amount that is in a vaccine, like this shows its safe, i can probably drink 1000 times more alcohol than i can inject, that is, injecting alcohol makes it something like 1000 times as dangerous as drinking it... I think we have established that just because you can ingest something, does not mean it is safe to inject it. the fact this actually has to be explicitly stated is very telling.

    Exposure to as low as .1ppm in the atmosphere will cause allergies, irritation and neurological effects (including impaired learning and memory, sound familiar?). You start to see "reduced survival" above 6ppm in the atmosphere. Seeming safer by the minute. So, you know, we have some other evidence, admittedly not airtight, but, some of the problems anti-vaxxers are claiming to be related to vaccinations (that is learning impairments and allergies) can be observed to be caused by formaldehyde exposure in the environment above .1ppm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot about the formaldehyde that is created in your body as part of cell metabolism. It is much more than in any vaccine, and since it is in the cells it gets to the bloodstream just as fast.

      Delete
    2. I have to cry foul ball on the claims, at least in part.
      When I was in junior high school, we still dissected animals as part of biology. We still did projects that involved the dissections.
      I had taken home specimens for a project involving brain evolution and comparison between fish, frog, cat and pig brains.
      As all were immersed in formaldehyde, the space I was working in (basement) was confined and it took quite a bit of work to extract an intact brain, I suffered severe formaldehyde intoxication.
      According to the anonymous information, I should have suffered significant impaired learning and memory. 5 years later, I declined membership in MENSA.
      I have read quite a few case histories regarding formaldehyde intoxication, as it IS abused by substance abusers.
      Again, cognitive impairment, learning impairment and memory impairment was with chronic usage, not transitory usage.
      Indeed, to use the anonymous candle, we all should be with the memory of house cats, as our bodies create formaldehyde as part of normal physiological processes.
      As in 2.12-3.18μg/mL being normal in human blood.
      So, with no due respect to the anti-vaxxers, I have to proclaim their claims as pure, distilled hogwash.
      With a side dish of cattle cookies.

      Delete
  44. Add to that and anonymous isn't taking into consideration that the amount of formaldehyde found in the blood following vaccination doesn't even raise the basel level. Also, the half-life of formaldehyde is only 15 minutes. Anonymous' abuse of numbers and chemistry just demonstrates the innumeracy and scientific ignorance of anti-vaxxers.

    Put the science down buttercup; you're going to hurt yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oops, forgot my decimal point, 15 minutes should have been 1.5 minutes. And I thoroughly discuss dermal and inhalation along with what happens to formaldehyde anonymous. Please do read first.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 150ml pure alcohol ingested will get you a little bit drunk.

    150ml pure alcohol is half a bottle of vodka - if that only gets you a little bit drunk, you must be a 6'6" 300 pound rugby player.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While drinking half a bottle of vodka may not kill you, it would make you very very sick. And according to this, it might kill you if you weighed less than 100 pounds, and if you were three times that weight you'd have ten times that which is considered legally drunk (150 ml would be ten drinks).

      Delete
    2. Chris, I weigh 185 pounds and have consumed a half bottle of vodka with minimal ill effects the next day.
      It was rather a tradition at the time in the military.
      However, I always ensured hydration, as that is the primary cause of hangover symptoms.
      I've known many others who did the same, with the same minimal ill effects as long as hydration was maintained when abusing alcohol.

      That said, I do NOT recommend abusing alcohol. It's not healthy to one's liver and for some, bodes poorly toward retaining employment and a stable family life.

      Delete
    3. When I wrote that comment there was a story in the local news about a college student who had died from alcohol poisoning. I tried but could not find how much she had consumed (only that she also had energy drinks), but I did find the table I linked to (hard to see on this blog, but it is the word "this" in my second sentence).

      Delete
  47. Thanks for the information. I knew about biological attenuation, but didn't know that the toxins were cross linked by formaldehyde. I was a bit curious about why it was used though, now I know! :D

    ReplyDelete
  48. the fear from formaldehyde is widespread among anti-vaxxer.

    But the real concentration in a TBE vaccine (against tick borne encephalitis) dilutes your normal formaldehyde concentration in the muscle.

    I told this in a radio discussion to a anti-vax lady (Petek-Dimmer) then she wrote in her anti-vax book, that there is a difference in formaldehyde which is produced by the body (HCHO) to the chemically produced formaldehyde (HCHO).

    In the first moment I found this argument rather stupid. What is the difference between HCHO and HCHO ?
    But there is a difference not from a molecular point of view, but from the atomic composition.
    HCHO produced in the body has the natural content of radioactive 3H and 14 C, whereas the radioactivity from HCHO produced from oil has gone.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jeez, it doesn't seem to matter what reasonable responses are provided to this blogger, she just seems to ignore major points, get nasty and start name calling. Way to win an argument!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What "reasonable responses" would those be Mr. Levey?

      Delete
  50. Mr Levey, you're new here, and from what I can see you haven't posted any comments about the topic of this blog.

    Have you any, um, comments, about the topic being discussed here...or are you just a tone troll?

    ReplyDelete