Concerns over use of formaldehyde in vaccines highlighted in the book ‘Vaccine Science Revisited’

Posted: June 7, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Research into concerns over the use of formaldehyde in vaccines is examined closely in our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?

Relevant excerpts from the book relating to this vexing issue, and other issues concerning vaccine safety, follow:

When formaldehyde enters a cell, it attaches itself to the DNA strand. This can be concerning because it can cause certain genes to be turned off when we need them turned on. Once this happens it’s very difficult to reverse or turn back on[184].

Dexter French wrote a research paper on using formaldehyde in vaccines. He expressed concern about its stability: “Formaldehyde, however, owing to the very compact structure of the molecule and its high reactivity, is a particularly versatile reagent with a vast range of possible reactions.”[185]

On the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Open Chemistry Database, it says that liquid form of FA (formalin) “is considered a hazardous compound, and its vapor toxic.”[186] It also says: “Formaldehyde is a Standardized Chemical Allergen. “Aqueous formaldehyde is corrosive to carbon steel, […]. “When liquid formaldehyde is warmed to room temp in a sealed ampule, it polymerizes rapidly with the evolution of heat […]”[187]  

Under the header Disinfectants, it defines formaldehyde as: “[…] used on inanimate objects that destroy harmful microorganisms or inhibit their activity. Disinfectants are classed as complete, destroying SPORES as well as vegetative forms of microorganisms, […]”[188]

It sounds to us like formaldehyde in liquid form can have harmful effects. We understand the dosing is the argument here, but a safe dose is not the same for every single person. And how does formaldehyde react…

Synergism Unfortunately, in vaccines, it seems the synergistic effects of the toxins have never been studied. However, other fields of study have expressed concern for toxic synergism and researched the synergistic effects it has on our bodies when exposed to multiple toxins simultaneously. As with the paper we mentioned earlier regarding accumulation of formaldehyde, this study shows synergistic effects when…

The interesting part of the study was the fact that when the mice were exposed to toxins alone or formaldehyde alone, it “had little or no effect on the mouse brain.” When the mice were co-exposed to air pollutants and formaldehyde, it “had a significant synergistic adverse effect.”[190]

The paper also states that “[t]hese safe levels for alone exposure turned into dangerous at co-exposure.”[193]

A study by the biopharmaceutical company, Pfizer, showed the impact formaldehyde and other impurities can have on the proteins used in their pharmaceutical products. The authors of this paper made note of the fact that p80 is efficient at forming formaldehyde: “Both formaldehyde and formic acid can be formed from oxidative degradation of polysorbates.”[196]

The authors don’t just concern themselves with polysorbates, of which polysorbate 80 appears most potent, they state that: “These residual impurities and contaminants can potentially impact the protein stability significantly.”[197]

In their conclusion they summarize the limitations of the manufacturing process by saying that: “Although many process-related impurities are routinely monitored, contaminants are generally not, […]. This is because the level of these contaminants in a drug product is often too low to be detected by traditional analytical methods, and does not lead to serious safety concerns.”[198] We find their comment that “it does not lead to safety concerns” after stating these “contaminants can potentially impact the protein stability significantly” rather interesting given much of the paper is about safety concerns.

So, we have known this for at least 25 years, yet when it’s put in vaccines scientists don’t bother to test it. It appears that once these substances have been added to the vaccine, the concern for toxicity magically disappears.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the potency of EtO and observed that in mammalian cells, its: “[…] effects include gene mutations, micronucleus formation, chromosomal aberrations, cell transformation, unscheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromatid exchange, and DNA strand breaks.”[234]

Sounds to us like the perfect recipe for causing cancer. And on that note, how much does vaccine research take into account long term, harmful health effects as opposed to merely childhood health risks? For example, how much research takes into account whether vaccines in childhood could cause autoimmune disorders in early adulthood, or cancer in middle-age, or Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in old age?

One cannot help but wonder about the vaccines’ role in all this. As our brain uses a lot of oxygen, it is prone to much oxidative stress. Compared to a healthy active person, the brain of an infant or an elderly person is less likely to be able to fight the stress. This can lead to such things as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease in the elderly[252].

According to our calculations, this means that a substance needs to contain 400 ppb of thimerosal to be considered hazardous waste. Compared to the 50,000 ppb thimerosal in the influenza vaccine, we can safely say that it contains more than a hundred times more thimerosal than the legal limit of a toxic waste.

It’s important to note not all flu vaccines contain thimerosal. There are flu vaccines available that are labeled “thimerosal-free”. We encourage those who decide to be vaccinated against the flu to ask which flu vaccine you’re about to receive.

We’re not sure how relevant their findings are because, as we understand it, all they are saying is that it appears the GSH is clearing out the mercury as it’s supposed to do or that the body is actively eliminating the toxin. These are healthy infants, so this is to be expected. But the paper makes no mention of the expected amount of mercury to be excreted when injected with the vaccines these infants were given.

Since they didn’t collect stool sample from the control group, in order to compare and to see if dietary sources contaminated with mercury could be a factor, they chose nine other babies (unrelated to the study) who had not been injected with thimerosal-containing vaccine. The babies in this group, which was less than half the size of the regular control group, turned out to have a “significantly lower” amount of mercury in their stool. This is only to be expected and not at all surprising. God only knows why they deviated from the study design in this manner, omitting the control group infants and picking nine other infants who were not a part of the study, is a mystery to us. They didn’t explain this.

The researchers also measured the blood half-life of ethylmercury by measuring the mercury blood levels consistently over many days. In the end they estimated the half-life to be seven days. This means that when the mercury was no longer measurable in the blood, it was assumed to be cleared out of the body.

To be continued…


VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon:

(Book’s Amazon review rating = 4.4 out of 5 stars).



Leave a Reply (email address NOT required)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s