Formaldehyde/Aluminum in Vaccines

[Guest guest]

> The mercury is only one of the issues.. How about the

Formaldehyde?.,.... it

> is not there to preserve the vaccine... and there are not safe

levels of it

> allowable by the OSHA in any work related manner..

>

> Formaldehyde glues itself to the CELL WALL and thus to the disease

and then

> to the cell of the individual of whom it injected .... This is and

> " ADJUVANT " ... Adjuvant is there so that the body's natural

defenses of

> rejecting toxic material cannot be enforced... Thus the

formaldehyde is

> there to make sure that your body never gets rid of the

disease..., and of

> course, it can never fully experience the disease in order to give

you the

> proper lifelong, permanent, natural immunity to that disease...

>

> .....Not to mention the Aluminum that sticks in the brain and

cause memory

> loss... similar to the mercury... which, by the way.. is not

longer in these

> vaccines... How about the DNA of the animal tissue that the

disease was

> grown upon... What animal or other human's DNA is spinning around

in you and

> your precious infants and children...? How about that animal's or

human's

> hereditary diseases? Remember this is how we all got the SV40

virus in our

> tissues from the POLIO grown on the Green Monkey Kidneys... This

is still

> how the vaccine for POLIO whether it be oral or injectable is

manufactured

> to this day...

>

> Truthful?... They are never going to be " TRUTHFUL " ... there is too

much

> garbage that are in any vaccine for the pharmaceutical companies

to be

> forthcoming and forthright about it... This will run them right

out of

> business... Remember there are shareholders of my 401Ks that are

depending

> upon these companies to continue the madness...

>

> God Bless US ALL.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: " PROVE " <newsletter@v...>

> <georgic@s...>

>

>

> > [PROVE Note: Fresh from overseas - the deceit and conflicts are

universal]

> >

> > http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=941292004

> >

> > Be truthful about vaccines or keep away from my children

> >

> > CARMEN REID

> > OK, I thought I would be able to write something calm and

balanced,

> drawing on both sides of the arguments for and against childhood

> vaccinations. But I'm so furious at being LIED to time after time

by the

> government that nothing very calm comes to mind.

> >

> > I made sure my children's vaccinations did not include the

mercury- based

> preservative thiomersal, despite assurance from the Glasgow public

health

> doctor himself, on the phone, that it was " perfectly safe " .

> >

> > Now, lo and behold, a new five-in-one injection is being spun

as " good

> news, it's mercury-free " - so that we don't ask any questions

about what

> else is in it or whether our babies should be injected with five

diseases in

> one day.

> >

> > According to the Department of Health, this is not because

thiomersal

> isn't safe, it's about " reducing mercury in the environment " . What

total

> horse manure! What about banning mercury fillings for children

then, as they

> do in Canada and other enlightened countries - wouldn't that help

reduce

> mercury " in the environment " as well as in our children's brains

and

> bloodstreams?

> >

> > Instead of mercury, the new vaccination contains aluminium and

> formaldehyde, both known neurological toxins, held by some experts

as

> equally responsible for autism. Just thought you'd like to know.

> >

> > Formaldehyde - banned from cot mattresses because of a link to

cot death -

> is going to be injected directly into our babies' bloodstreams at

two, three

> and four months of age. I can't be the only parent who thinks this

might be

> risky.

> >

> > Inventing new vaccine cocktails is mega business, of course.

Anyone heard

> of the patenting system? New vaccines are patented for 10 or 15

years,

> during which time maximum money is made from them. After that, the

profits

> fall off. Unless, of course, you can come up with a new version to

patent.

> >

> > The MMR vaccine was introduced in the late 1980s - after some

heavy sales

> pitching by the drug companies, no doubt - because the patents had

expired

> on the highly safe and successful single Measles and Rubella

injections in

> use in Britain for 20 years. Don't believe me? Just wait a year or

two. The

> MMR patent is due to expire, but not to worry - the lovely new

MMRV (which

> includes added chickenpox protection) will probably be snapped up

by our

> gullible Department of Health instead.

> >

> > Parents will be inundated with stories of 'How Chickenpox Kills'

to help

> us make up our minds.

> >

> > It may be the goal of the medical establishment, or at least the

> vaccination manufacturers, to inoculate every illness out of

existence, but

> new diseases, new mutations keep emerging. Our only true insurance

policy is

> a fantastic immune system, and that's just what vaccinations stand

accused

> of threatening.

> >

> > Autism? ME? Asthma? Allergies? All extremely rare 30 years ago.

You can

> find plenty of immunologists who will express concern at the links

to mass

> vaccination.

> >

> > When you catch, say, rubella, the virus enters your respiratory

system

> first, so your immune system is on the alert before the disease

hits your

> bloodstream. Your temperature goes up as your body fights back,

finally your

> skin breaks out as the toxins are thrown off. The vast majority of

children

> recover and have a lifelong immunity, passed on through the

placenta and

> breast milk to babies.

> >

> > Vaccinating a mutated or dead version of a virus directly into

the

> bloodstream may not have the same effect. It may not be thrown off

in the

> same way, it may not protect you for as long, it may not protect

your baby.

> >

> > Mumps used to be a childhood illness, but currently Strathclyde

is

> suffering from a teen epidemic, although all these teenagers will

have had

> MMR. Measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox can all be far more

serious if

> you contract them as an adult.

> >

> > It is extraordinary to think that my parents' generation were

taken to

> measles parties as children, yet this illness is now being touted

as a

> 'killer'. One set of statistics I unearthed on an internet trawl

claimed a

> child under five has a 0.01% chance of catching measles, a 0.3%

chance of

> dying from it, yet a 0.2% chance of being autistic as a result of

vaccine

> damage.

> >

> > Yes, the Department of Health knows perfectly well that vaccines

can

> damage children, the possible side-effects come listed on the box.

But in

> the past, I have interviewed parents who have told me with tears

in their

> eyes and certainty in their hearts that their children were fine

before

> vaccination, yet their own doctors, the health board and the

government will

> not accept their evidence.

> >

> > I'm not anti-doctor, I'm not anti-medicine (usually). But I am

extremely

> anti-hogwash, propaganda, blackmail and misinformation. How can

any parent

> expect to be given both sides of the argument from a GP paid a

bonus to keep

> vaccination levels up?

> >

> > Just tell us the truth. Let us make our well-informed minds up.

Until

> then, anyone coming near my children with a new improved

vaccination can

> take a running jump.

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Drug firms supplying new 5-in-1 baby jabs fund head of government

> vaccination committee

> > By Hennessy, Political Editor

> > (Filed: 15/08/2004)

> >

> >

>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=FEUFXUOYR3IVHQFI

QMFSM5W

> AVCBQ0JVC?

xml=/news/2004/08/15/ndrug15.xml & sSheet=/news/2004/08/15/ixnewstop

> .html

> >

> > The chairman of the Government committee that approved the use

of the new

> five-in-one inoculation for babies receives financial support for

his work

> from the sole suppliers of the vaccine.

> >

> > Langman, who chairs the Joint Committee on Vaccination

and

> Immunisation, receives " industrial support " funding from Merck

Sharp and

> Dohme (MSD) for his work as a professor of medicine at Birmingham

> University.

> >

> > The vaccine will protect children against diphtheria, tetanus,

whooping

> cough, Hib and polio

> > He has also declared a " non-personal interest " - defined as an

interest

> that " does not benefit a member personally but which does benefit

their

> position or department " - in another drugs company, Aventis

Pasteur.

> Together, the drug manufacturers form Aventis Pasteur MSD, the

company that

> will supply the vaccine in Britain.

> >

> > The decision to introduce the vaccine, which will protect

children against

> diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Hib and polio, was announced

by the

> Government last week.

> >

> > Ministers said that the change was being introduced so that

infants no

> longer have to be exposed to the mercury-based preservative,

thiomersal,

> which is contained in the existing whooping cough vaccine.

> >

> > The disclosure last night raised fresh concerns among health

campaigners

> over the links between senior figures in the medical establishment

and large

> drugs companies.

> >

> > The Department of Health said last night that Prof Langman had

declared

> his interests in " strict accordance " with the committee's code of

practice.

> >

> > As chairman of the joint committee, Prof Langman led a number of

> discussions leading up to last week's announcement that all babies

would be

> given the jab at the age of two months.

> >

> > In his declaration of interest, Prof Langman said that he

has " industrial

> support " from MSD, in addition to two other drugs companies.

> >

> > The Department of Health said that MSD provided funding for Prof

Langman's

> university work including " support for clinical trials of

treatment for

> colorectal cancer and advice on chronic digestive disease " . It

declined to

> say how much.

> >

> > Jackie Fletcher, the founder of the Jabs parents' support group,

said:

> " This does raise serious questions about the integrity of these

committees,

> which are always billed as wholly independent.

> >

> > " What we have been campaigning for is full transparency. The

powers that

> be need to be squeaky clean. They've got to be seen to be above any

> potential conflicts of interest. "

> >

> > A spokesman for the Department of Health said: " Prof Langman has

not

> received any personal benefit from Aventis Pasteur MSD since

becoming

> chairman of the JCVI. The code makes it clear that in such cases of

> non-personal interests it is not necessary for people to stand

aside from

> the work of the committee. "

> >

> > The inoculations will begin on September 27. Prof Langman

declined to

> comment.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -----------------------------------------------------------------

--

> > Dawn

> > PROVE(Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)

> > prove@v... (email)

> > http://vaccineinfo.net/ (web site)

> > -----------------------------------------------------------------

--

> > PROVE provides information on vaccines, and immunization

policies and

> practices that affect the children and adults of Texas. Our

mission is to

> prevent vaccine injury and death and to promote and protect the

right of

> every person to make informed independent vaccination decisions for

> themselves and their family.

[Guest guest]

Makes you wonder if the vaccine manufacturers deliberately tried to

causes DNA damage to our children. Why else would they inject all

this neurtoxins into a baby.

Donna

> Formaldehyde is a xenobiotic and toxic. It can also form an

adduct, A complex

> that forms when a chemical binds to a biological molecule, such as

DNA or

> protein.

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to repost some info on formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde is a xenobiotic and toxic. It can also form an adduct, A

complex

that forms when a chemical binds to a biological molecule, such as

DNA or

protein. So, in essence you are putting formaldehyde in your body to

stay.

Glutaraldehyde is a disinfectant mentioned below which is also used

in many

vaccines. The varicella vaccine contains it, and also EDTA a

chelator. More

info below.

To check out Aluminum please visit.

http://users.adelphia.net/~cdc/VaccineIngredients.htm#Aluminum

Identification and quantification of in vitro adduct formation

between

protein reactive xenobiotics and a lysine-containing model peptide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed &

dopt=Abstract & list_uids=12539141

Formaldehyde Accumulation Seen From Ingested Aspartame (Monsanto

Product) --

Item #10002

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10002.htm

Formaldehyde Accumulation Seen From Ingested Aspartame (Monsanto

Product)

Return to Monsanto Investing News web page.

Research conducted by scientists at the University of Barcelona and

published

in the scientific journal Life Sciences (Vol. 63, No. 5, Pp. 337-349,

1998)

shows that animals given aspartame at doses obtainable by humans had

an

accumulation of formaldehyde (bound to proteins) known as " adducts. "

These

formaldehyde adducts difficult to eliminate and are well known to

cause chronic

toxicity. Formaldehyde has been shown to cause damage to the nervous

system, immune

system and irreversible genetic damage. The authors conclude

that " aspartame

consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to

the formation

of formaldehyde adducts. "

An extremely large number of adverse reaction reports have been

linked to the

ingestion of Monsanto-produced aspartame. (See the following document

for an

analysis of the toxicity reports: Reported Toxicity Reactions FAQ.)

It was

recently detailed that nearly 100% of independent research has found

problems

with aspartame. Now, this research showing formaldehyde adduct

accumulation will

likely lead to a much larger number of lawsuits against Monsanto for

aspartame

poisoning than the one that had filed earlier this year.

Isolation of a 2:1 hydrochlorothiazide-formaldehyde adduct impurity

in

hydrochlorothiazide drug

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed &

dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11516917

http://www.pathology.unc.edu/graduate/susan-hester-dissertation-

abstract.htm

Genetic Events Involved in Formaldehyde-Induced Carcinogenesis

D.

Hester, Ph.D.

Dissertation research performed under the direction of C.

Wolf

ABSTRACT

    Formaldehyde (FA) is cytotoxic and carcinogenic in the nasal

respiratory

epithelium of rats and mice.  Human exposure to formaldehyde is

either

occupational or environmental. However, there is little evidence

directly linking

formaldehyde to human cancer.  Glutaraldehyde (GA) is also cytotoxic

to the

respiratory epithelium inducing similar tissue responses, including

respiratory

dysplasia, goblet cell hypertrophy, and squamous metaplasia but not

cancer.  Both

chemicals induce regenerative cell proliferation and similar

microscopic

lesions after four weeks or less of treatment.  Little is known

about the levels

of cell death induced by exposure.  I hypothesized that FA induced

less

apoptosis than GA.  This hypothesis was tested through the use of

gene expression

analysis.  F344 male rats received formaldehyde (400mM),

glutaraldehyde (20mM),

or water by intranasal instillation 5 days a week for 1, 5, or 28

days. 

Respiratory and transitional epithelium was isolated from the nose

after euthanasia

and TrizolTM infusion.  Total RNA was recovered, then cDNA  probes

were

generated and hybridized to ClontechTM Rat Toxicology II macroarrays,

followed by

phosphoimaging, and analysis of differential gene expression.  

Multiple a

pproaches were used to analyze the data.  80 genes were identified

that best fit an

ANOVA model.  Thirty-seven of the 80 were associated with subchronic

(28 days)

exposure and 43 were associated with acute toxicity (1 and 5 days). 

When

comparing formaldehyde to glutaraldehyde, 49 genes were significantly

altered (p<

0.05) and were represented by 3 functional categories: DNA repair,

apoptosis,

and xenobiotic metabolism.  Expression after FA treatment could be

completely

discriminated from GA at 5 days.  GA treatment resulted in higher

expression

of proapoptotic genes but lower expression of DNA repair and

metabolism genes

than FA.  These data suggest that FA and GA induce similar

phenotypic

expression of toxicity, however, FA induced greater expression of DNA

repair genes but

less expression of apoptotic genes than GA.  Less apoptosis would

mean that

FA-damaged cells could survive accounting for FA’s ability to

induce nasal

cancer in the rodent.