Table of Contents[Hide][Show]
The National Institute of Health finally declared formaldehyde a carcinogen after years of dragging its feet. This is the 12th cancer list released by the NIH through its subsidiary program, The National Toxicology Program.
Formaldehyde is a very common chemical used in manufacturing and the risk of exposure to consumers is high due to its pervasiveness. That “new car” smell is really formaldehyde as is the smell in new homes. It’s a frequent ingredient in many if not most cosmetics.
Workers in hair salons, mortuaries, particleboard, and plywood manufacturing typically have the most occupational exposure to formaldehyde. Embalmers in mortuaries suffer from leukemia at higher rates than normal as well as cancer of the nasal passages and mouth.
Evidence of Formaldehyde as a Carcinogen is High
John Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program, said that evidence of formaldehyde’s carcinogenicity is strong. Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer at the American Cancer Society said that “all a reasonable person can do is manage their exposure and decrease it to as little as possible.”
Not surprisingly, The American Chemistry Council, a trade association representing companies that make and use formaldehyde, rejected the new report with the statement “we are very concerned that politics may have hijacked the scientific process.”
Formaldehyde Used in Vaccines
As with other toxins such as mercury, this new government warning concerning formaldehyde is contradictory and confusing.
How could the government recommend limiting exposure to formaldehyde as much as possible and yet at the same time recommend injecting your child with frequent doses of it via 25 recommended vaccines by the age of 6 months, 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months, 43 vaccines by the age of 4-6 years old and a whopping 68 vaccines by the ages of 11-12 years old?
Could one cause of the increasing cases of childhood cancers be due to the use of formaldehyde in vaccines? This question was conveniently left out of the government’s report, but this pressing question arises nonetheless.
Oh, and if you’re worried about cancer for yourself, remember that the CDC recommends 141 vaccines for adults! Considering that 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women are stricken with cancer in their lifetime and this is predicted to double by 2050, it seems wise to skip the shots, doesn’t it?
It seems that smart parents will avoid vaccines for their children based on the government’s warnings about formaldehyde and utilize the benefits of homeopathic nosodes as a safe, nontoxic alternative should the rare situation of a localized epidemic ever arise.
The government may be talking out of both sides of its mouth with regard to the dangers of formaldehyde, but parents can’t afford to be confused about its dangers where the health of their children is concerned.
Sources
New York Times, Warnings Issued for Formaldehyde and Styrene
Vaccine Information Coalition, Amount of Vaccines
Here’s a chemist’s take on the idea of actual formaldehyde being in cosmetics. She gets into the details at about 50 seconds in.
youtube.com/watch?v=yjps86lrMdA&t=434s
I just bought a new car and I thought I had read somewhere how to get rid of that “new car smell” which I now can see is the formaldehyde, but now I can’t find it. Any ideas? I think the smell is giving me a headache….
Thanks! Some people are so committed to the status quo that they will not move from their stance, and often require “evidence” from medical/government run sources. Sorry but the CDC, NIH, etc. are not going to give those. FYI:
The formaldehyde/cancer connection bothers me. My mother was a chemist when she got pregnant with me and was working with formaldehyde. Over the years I have suffered from asthma like conditions, psoriatic arthritis and digestive issues. When I saw the autism /mercury correlation I put my children on a delayed vaccination schedule. Being vaccinated did not protect my children from getting whopping cough at the age of 8, so I would have to say make your decision wisely. Have all your information at hand.
It’s the same mixed message that government gives women who are pregnant. Limit your mercury exposure by limiting the quantities of fish known to have high levels of it, but please do get your flu shot that contains methyl mercury in it. Did you all read the article that links toxins in the environment to autism, including methyl mercury and possible phthalates? It would be interesting to see a study if the rates of autism are leveling out in Europe since they are banned. I read that even organic canned goods have been found to have phthalates in them. Of course, that doesn’t help that our fish sources are now containing phthalates because of the plastic garbage patches in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Then there is the mercury toxicity in the pesticides of high-fructose corn syrup (in things tested like Yoplait Strawberry yogurt of all things, or Hershey’s syrup. I watched the Fox news clip where they were sharing with their audience and both doctors talk about the report, the mercury and that this is pretty great study, yet when asked about vaccines at the end of the report — oh no, no link. HEADSLAM. You just said there was a link between one of the ingredients still left in some vaccines, that are recommended to pregnant women. Even RhoGAM, the shot they give women for blood incompatibility has mercury in it (unless the woman is smart enough to ask for the one that does not have it).
I’m not really sure. I do think it is more than the thimerosal in the vaccines that leads to autism. There are so many other toxins, viruses etc in there.