CDC says "no safe levels of formaldehyde" - Page 3

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Calcium fluoride is naturally occurring. Sodium fluoride is a byproduct of industrial processes. They aren't the same thing.

Calcium fluoride is okay in small amounts, but more than small amounts and it is very toxic. Sodium fluoride is questionable in any amount. Definitely not a naturally occurring substance and not something that human beings would ever encounter in the real world. In large or small amounts.

Stop trying to confuse us with your facts. Just kidding, Deborah.

I think it's a common believe that calcium fluoride is naturally occurring and therefore sodium fluoride, which is a byproduct of the production of superphosphates (themselves toxic), is harmless in whatever amounts the experts recommend. Especially since some alternative health practitioners agree. You see, there frequently seem to be two sets of rules. When alternative health practitioners stray too far from mainstream medicine, they are wrong. When they agree, they prove that mainstream medicine is right about the topic in question, because alternative practitioners wouldn't recommend anything dangerous or useless, since they're "alternative". Of course, there is a huge problem of circular logic embedded somewhere in there....

[dymanic]

Originally Posted by mamakay

I haven't look that deep into formaldehyde, but what Offit uses for aluminum references in that paper didn't adjust for blood levels. So I doubt he calculated it for formaldehyde. That whole paper is completely pathetic on every level. It doesn't seem like he really put much thought into it when he slapped it together.

I'm not sure how much needs to be in the blood for formaldehyde to be a problem, but from what I've read about the biology, it would have to be quite a bit. From what I've read, your body processes it into basically nothing on contact...literally within seconds, probably. I forget the exact mechanisms, though. But when I looked into it a while back, my strong impression was that the amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is totally harmless.

You're confusing me here. Do you consider the amount of formaldehyde in vaccines harmless despite whatever concerns you may have about flouride and despite the fact that one of the studies Offit cited used oral exposure versus injection and despite the fact that vaccines may contain aluminum or thimerosal or any number of other things you might be concerned about, but which also aren't formaldehyde?

[Deborah]

This thread has some interesting bits.

Type of exposure does seem to matter. Formaldehyde is dangerous if inhaled, okay if added to the drinking water of rats, possibly okay if injected (but a study of injected formaldehyde hasn't actually been conducted?). Or does type of exposure matter for one substance: formaldehyde and not for another substance such as aluminum? On what basis? Surely none of these decisions should be made arbitrarily, but only on the basis of scientifically sound research.

And:

There are methods of testing for toxicity that show that a substance can be taken in at 600 times the level in vaccines and not damage the animal subjects (but dang, they were drinking it, not injecting it...) so how come some of the other vaccine ingredients haven't been tested this way?

The rules seem to move around a bit.

[TanyaS]

Yes, I think the issue is not necessarily about formaldehyde specifically. The fact is, there are simply too many unknowns regarding vaccine safety in general. The concerns about formaldehyde are just a drop in the bucket, imo.

[dymanic]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Type of exposure does seem to matter.

I'd say that to the extent that it does matter, it matters because different types of exposure may result in different amounts ending up in the bloodstream (assuming that the amounts are less than what is observed to cause irritation or allergic reaction in the eyes, throat, mucuos membranes, and respiratory tract; in which case some of the damage actually occurs before the stuff enters the bloodstream). Injested orally, formaldehyde is known to be toxic in large amounts; fatal, in fact, though the LD50's in rats are all over the place (100 mg/kg, 800 mg/kg, etc). I don't get that. Maybe some rats are tougher than others. What I do get is that listing formaldehyde among the scary ingredients in vaccines (especially when it's referred to as "embalming fluid" and printed in large, bold text) is a practice which may have considerable shock value, but very little scientific value, and hence does not contribute much to informed decision-making.

Originally Posted by TanyaS

Yes, I think the issue is not necessarily about formaldehyde specifically.

But this thread IS about formaldehyde specifically, and among the interesting bits in this thread is that while most of those who suggest that formaldehyde may be harmful in the amounts contained in vaccines do not even attempt to do so directly, but focus instead on other substances such as aluminum or floride (which isn't even in vaccines), the few that do focus on formaldehyde directly end up concluding that it probably isn't harmful in the amounts contained in vaccines.

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by Deborah

There are methods of testing for toxicity that show that a substance can be taken in at 600 times the level in vaccines and not damage the animal subjects (but dang, they were drinking it, not injecting it...) so how come some of the other vaccine ingredients haven't been tested this way?

The rules seem to move around a bit.

And so do the animals these things are tested on. If one species can't handle it, the study is thrown out and another species is used.

Can't do that with kids. (Can they?)

[Gitti]

nm

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by dymanic

But this thread IS about formaldehyde specifically, ....

the few that do focus on formaldehyde directly end up concluding that it probably isn't harmful in the amounts contained in vaccines.

But this thread is not about the few that end up concluding....

It is about the CDC and the Dr. of toxicology who reported as having said

"There are no safe levels of formaldehyde"


NONE!

[dymanic]

Originally Posted by Gitti

If one species can't handle it, the study is thrown out and another species is used.

The use of formaldehyde is not limited to products intended for human consumption. In order to evaluate the risks posed by occupational or other exposure, animals are preferred over humans as experimental subjects for obvious reasons. In studying the effects of a pathogen (or a vaccine) the applicability to humans of knowledge gained from animal studies is always subject to question, as pathogens tend to be host-specific to at least some degree, pathogens causing serious illness in one species often having little or no effect on another. But formaldehyde isn't a virus. Its toxic effects may be much more broadly generalized across a range of mammalian species. Hence, results obtained from exposing (say) rats to high levels of formaldehyde are not "thrown out"; quite the contrary; they are used as the very basis for recommendations on the safe use and handling of formaldehyde.

"There are no safe levels of formaldehyde"

There are, however, levels of formaldehyde too small to be detected, in the 0.02-0.05 ppm range. Though I can't claim to see inside of the head of the guy who made that statement, I seriously doubt that he was referring to levels below that threshold. Trying to perform experiments using amounts below (or even near) that threshold would be problematic, which may explain why these researchers used concentrations roughly fifty times that high:

In human volunteers exposed to 2.3 mg formaldehyde/m3 (1.9 ppm) for 40 min, there was no significant difference between pre- and post-exposure formaldehyde levels in the blood (2.77 ± 0.28 µg and 2.61 ± 0.14 µg/100 ml, respectively).
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/...onNumber:6.1.1

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by dymanic

Hence, results obtained from exposing (say) rats to high levels of formaldehyde are not "thrown out"; quite the contrary; they are used as the very basis for recommendations on the safe use and handling of formaldehyde.

Seem formaldehyde does not disagree with rats. Thus rats are the species of choice for testing formaldehyde. My point exactly!

[dymanic]

Originally Posted by Gitti

Seem formaldehyde does not disagree with rats. Thus rats are the species of choice for testing formaldehyde. My point exactly!

I just linked a rather lengthy document. Give it a closer look. Malorny et al. (1965) used dogs, McMartin et al. (1979) used monkeys, Malorny 1969 used rats, guinea-pigs, rabbits, and cats. Doesn't look to me like they're throwing out data based on species -- and get this: in all of those, route of exposure was intravenous infusion.

[attachedmamaof3]

It's kind of hard to focus on the evidence when there isn't any data on injection of formaldehyde. It is an unknown. Granted, it's likely to be a miniscule unknown, but still a blip on my radar.

Dymanic, I agree with you about the "weirdness" of those rat studies...how some rats seem to be more "susceptable" than others (for lack of a better word). IMO, this demonstrates additional need to be careful of what substances we subject our children's bodies to...because we just don't understand what REALLY happens (or why) ESPECIALLY not when used in conjunction with the other vaccine ingredients.

Since I don't know how my particular child will react to an increase of 10% of ANY naturally found substance in their bodies, I personally choose not to inject formaldehyde.

[attachedmamaof3]

Dymanic, all I saw were the dermal studies (where most of the doses were lost due to evaporation off of the skin)

Oh, nevermind...I just saw it under 'oral'. It doesn't really give any data..just rote facts that it was completed. Do you know if they used intermittent infusion/rapid/performed a flush or not? How long were the animals on an IV?

I noticed that it was mentioned that the formaldehyde didn't stay in the blood long because it rapidly converted to formate.

Formate has it's own issues correct? Even though it's rapidly metabolized by the body..it's been shown in numerous animal studies to be a mutagen and exposure (chronic) can damage the liver/kidneys.

I don't see how that's any better!! Oh, there's no formaldehyde because it's been converted..but......

See what I mean?? Too many factors, too much "unknown" for my peace of mind.

[dymanic]

Originally Posted by attachedmamaof3

Since I don't know how my particular child will react to an increase of 10% of ANY naturally found substance in their bodies, I personally choose not to inject formaldehyde.

Considering the short duration of the elevation over natural levels, that seems to me like an exceptionally cautious approach, but I certainly respect your right to take it. I think you might agree, however, that others also have the right to make their decision in the light of more complete information than that which is typically included in the "embalming fluid" shock presentation. If I were so concerned about the dangers of vaccination as to attempt to persuade others against it, and if I chose to mention formaldehyde as part of that effort, I'd be inclined to mention right up front that formaldehyde is a naturally ocurring byproduct of metabolism, and that the amounts in vaccines add less than a tenth to what even an infant's body contains already, because those who later learned of those details somewhere else could really only conclude one of two things: I had deliberately misled them; or I didn't know what I was talking about.

[attachedmamaof3]

Wouldn't that be a bit like telling a woman who doesn't want to be given any oxytocin "Don't you know it's present in your body already?". It's patronizing.

In this case, the concern is regarding formaldehyde inhalation (which I stated in my very first post on this thread is a completely different issue).

Yes, I understand the OP made the jump to formaldehyde in vaccines. Simply telling her that they aren't "technically" the same thing is fine. (ex. One is a sythetic urea-formaldehyde resin used in building materials and the other is a naturally occuring substance) since most people hear 'formaldehyde' and automatically think of stinky chemical plywood. It's an easy mistake to make!

Like I've made pretty clear, there are LOTS of things already in our bodies that I don't think anyone wants to "play" with the amounts of...add or subtract.

As for the short duration of elevation...yes, there's a short duration of elevation of formaldehyde...before it's converted into formate. It just doesn't go away...it's converted into another compound that has it's own issues, recycled back into the body (normal cycle) or excreted as waste.

Obviously I stated that it doesn't meet my personal comfort level, that to me it's an unknown.

Just because the OP or I don't agree with it being injected into my children (among other ingredients) doesn't mean I don't have a clue. And just because it's already in my body doesn't mean I still can't be concerned about the application.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by dymanic

If I were so concerned about the dangers of vaccination as to attempt to persuade others against it, and if I chose to mention formaldehyde as part of that effort, I'd be inclined to mention right up front that formaldehyde is a naturally ocurring byproduct of metabolism, and that the amounts in vaccines add less than a tenth to what even an infant's body contains already, because those who later learned of those details somewhere else could really only conclude one of two things: I had deliberately misled them; or I didn't know what I was talking about.

I completely agree, but it's sort of funny that that exact train of thought is how I feel about Offit's paper where he doesn't factor in thing like different types of exposure leading to different amounts in the lymphatic and circulatory system, and overall body burden.
Like he just wanted to be able to say "600 times the amount found in vaccines and it was perfectly safe!!!" for pure shock value.

The poop smells on both sides of this debate a lot of times. Hopefully we can agree on that.

[amnesiac]

I have removed some posts from this thread which are not consistent with our guidelines. Please remember to stay on topic from here on - safety of formaldehyde in vaccines. Also remember:

Do not post in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.
...
Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member. If you feel a member has posted or behaved inappropriately in a discussion, communicate directly with the member, moderator or administrator privately and refrain from potentially defaming discussion in a thread.

[dymanic]

Originally Posted by mamakay

I completely agree, but it's sort of funny that that exact train of thought is how I feel about Offit's paper where he doesn't factor in thing like different types of exposure leading to different amounts in the lymphatic and circulatory system, and overall body burden.

Offit's paper was not a study. It cited references to a couple of studies, but these do not comprise the entire body of knowledge about the effects of exposure to formaldehyde, and Offit did not imply that they do. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to assume that simply because one of these used oral exposure, nothing is known about the broader implications of exposure at the high levels to which Offit refers. For one thing, absorbtion of formaldehyde is (as far as I can tell) considered to be essentially complete by either inhalation or oral injestion. For another, I linked to a document which cites studies of the effects of formaldehyde in a variety of species, some of which included intravenous infusion as the route of exposure, and the fact that Offit did not cite these doesn't mean he doesn't know of them.

The poop smells on both sides of this debate a lot of times. Hopefully we can agree on that.

I'm still not quite sure if we agree that there is a debate at all as far as formaldehyde in vaccines is concerned.

[mamakay]

Offit's paper was not a study

Right. It's a persuasion resource. It just happens to have the opposite effect on parents when they check the references themselves.

For one thing, absorbtion of formaldehyde is (as far as I can tell) considered to be essentially complete by either inhalation or oral injestion.

I was looking for that a few days ago, and couldn't find anything on it. Do you have a link?

I'm still not quite sure if we agree that there is a debate at all as far as formaldehyde in vaccines is concerned.

There's not any debate on my end. A developmental neuroscientist on another board broke it down in detail a long time ago, and I checked her facts, and was satisfied that her take on the situation was accurate, and I filed formaldehyde away in my mind as a vaccine non-issue. I don't remember the details, though.But the issue is settled in my mind.

[dymanic]

Originally Posted by mamakay

I was looking for that a few days ago, and couldn't find anything on it. Do you have a link?

There are lots of references to formaldehyde being "readily absorbed" on oral injestion, but I haven't found one that explicitly states that oral injestion and inhalation are equivalent as far as absorbtion is concerned. One of the sources I've been looking at is Clinical Environmental Health and Toxic Exposures By John B Sullivan:

http://tinyurl.com/2ecr8c