or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Shocking revelation about formaldehyde in pears - it's 120 times more than in a vaccine!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shocking revelation about formaldehyde in pears - it's 120 times more than in a vaccine! - Page 5

post #81 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

pro - would you inject pear juice into your body in the same way as vaccines are injected?

If it protected me from potentially serious disease and was safety tested to the level of currently licensed vaccines, then sure.

I also really like pears. Probably eaten hundreds of them in my lifetime.
post #82 of 125

Rachel - so it would be totally safe to inject the amount of formaldehyde present in a pear (120x the vax!) and you'll be okay? What about 2 or 3 pears worth? Pears are the only fruit that my dd can eat, so that means a lot of them!

post #83 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Well, formaldehyde might be of lesser concern than the other ingredients in vaccines, true. But injecting it still has the potential to harm so I think it is still a legitimate concern. I am not about to inject even a minute amount of embalming fluid into my body for no good reason.

The formaldehyde in vaccines is not the same as embalming fluid.
post #84 of 125
Quote:
Formaldehyde in our bodies = H2CO (natural)
Formaldehyde in vaccines = H2CO (synthetic)
Formaldehyde in embalming fluid = H2CO+CH3OH+CH3CH2OH+solvents
Formaldehyde in plywood = H2CO+NH2CONH2+CH3OH+HCOOH+H2O

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/03/13/common-anti-vaccination-myths-and-misconceptions/
post #85 of 125

Injecting synthetic formaldehyde into the body is still probably not a good idea. 

post #86 of 125
You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but there's scientific evidence to back it up. If you just don't like the idea that's certainly up to you.
post #87 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but there's scientific evidence to back it up. If you just don't like the idea that's certainly up to you.

And I am cool with you choosing to inject your child with a synthetic version of a naturally occurring substance in the body that has the potential to sensitize them to it.  (There's science to back that up too.)

 

Each to their own.


Edited by Mirzam - 3/20/13 at 4:07pm
post #88 of 125
I'm not sure there is science to back that up. Is formaldahyde a protein? The research you posted before (from the early 1900s) only applied to certain kinds of substances.
post #89 of 125

Where is the proof that H2CO in a synthetic version is somehow more dangerous than H2CO in a natural version?  I'm not entirely sure the body knows the difference, and since you seem to be, I'd like to know why?

post #90 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm not sure there is science to back that up. Is formaldahyde a protein? The research you posted before (from the early 1900s) only applied to certain kinds of substances.

It does not have to be a protein, Charles Richet used the toxin from a jelly fish to sensitize and produce a reaction. The body can react to natural substances like squalene adjuvant with an auto antibody response. It is a crap shoot injecting these substances into living organisms.

 

Nothing is black and white - gray areas abound with vaccines.

post #91 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Where is the proof that H2CO in a synthetic version is somehow more dangerous than H2CO in a natural version?  I'm not entirely sure the body knows the difference, and since you seem to be, I'd like to know why?

I don't need to show you proof synthetic H2CO is dangerous. The onus in on the pharma companies to prove it is safe. 

 

Do you think the body know the difference between synthetic vitamin E and natural vitamin E? or Synthetic D2 compared to sunlight? Both synthetic substances can be toxic. 

post #92 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Earthrootstarsoul, I'd like to see some evidence for that claim, since its contrary to what I've seen elsewhere, including websites that have nothing to do with vaccination.


My 1200+ page Organic Chemistry textbook.  Organic Chemistry, 6th edition by L. G. Wade, Jr.  published by Pearson Prentice Hall.

post #93 of 125

My question was "Is the formaldehyde in vaccines naturally occurring or synthetic?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Becky I've read before that its the same type the body produces naturally. I'll have to see if I can find that reference again. For now I guess take it fwiw.

 

I'm glad we now know the truth--that it is indeed synthetic. I had a hunch it was!

Now, let's find out if the synthetic version is harmful to humans. I also have a hunch on that one!

post #94 of 125
Yes, it's synthetic, but also yes, it's the same kind the body produces naturally.
post #95 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Yes, it's synthetic, but also yes, it's the same kind the body produces naturally.

 

Like syntocinon is exactly like oxytocin?

post #96 of 125
I don't know anything about that.
post #97 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Where is the proof that H2CO in a synthetic version is somehow more dangerous than H2CO in a natural version?  I'm not entirely sure the body knows the difference, and since you seem to be, I'd like to know why?


I would also like to know the answer. I am skeptical of the safety of synthetic formaldehyde. I am also unsure if the body knows the difference. Sometimes, the body does know the difference between natural and synthetic, so I would appreciate help with this. Links anyone? A brief search turned up nothing.

post #98 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post


I would also like to know the answer. I am skeptical of the safety of synthetic formaldehyde. I am also unsure if the body knows the difference. Sometimes, the body does know the difference between natural and synthetic, so I would appreciate help with this. Links anyone? A brief search turned up nothing.

I think this is a reasonable position. That's all I've got.
post #99 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post


I would also like to know the answer. I am skeptical of the safety of synthetic formaldehyde. I am also unsure if the body knows the difference. Sometimes, the body does know the difference between natural and synthetic, so I would appreciate help with this. Links anyone? A brief search turned up nothing.


No one has posted exactly what kind of aldehyde is in pears, so I can't answer that.  The difference between natural and synthetic is often chirality, and real formaldehyde isn't chiral. 

 

For example natural vitamin E is d-alpha tocopherol, and synthetic is an even mix of d- and l-alpha tocopherol.  The l- version is useless. 

post #100 of 125
Thread Starter 

Here's a visualisation of the kind of formaldahyde in your body (which should be the same as in pears) versus the trace amounts found in vaccines.

 

*

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Shocking revelation about formaldehyde in pears - it's 120 times more than in a vaccine!