Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The honest, truthful representation of medicine and health care in America –

Any medical doctor, health care professional, nurse or surgeon with a prescription pad making out a prescription for any of us would only be truthful and honest, if he or she actually said this to us when making out that prescription –

“I’m prescribing this for you and once you take it you won’t be able to pee or relieve yourself as long as you are on it. You won’t be able to sit up or drive a car or vacuum the house because it will make your heart race and cause vertigo and dizziness.

You will be nauseated whether you eat or not and you won’t be able to metabolize food so expect water gain, edema and increased fat weight gain while your body is actually starving for nutrients.

And, you can have heart failure like 1 in every 3 people who take it. However, kidney and liver failure are more likely before it gets to the point of causing a heart attack. Sometimes, it has done all three with kidney, liver and heart failure. It has killed some people, maybe about half the people who took it in India and Uganda where the drug company studied it, but some of those people in the test group were two years old.

But, it is absolutely safe.

And if you want to take a piss so bad that it’s causing extraordinary pain and you have a fever or your skin turns yellow, call me and I’ll add another drug to it that will allow you to pee. – it hardly has any side effects at all, but these drugs won’t hurt you.

They do cause blood clots, vision loss, hair loss and you might have hallucinations, itchy skin, trouble breathing, vomiting, and it is known to cause holes in the stomach and the stomach lining, and you may not able to sleep, but that’s okay and to be expected.

At least it will take care of (the shit you were in here complaining about.) A lot of people do have suicidal thoughts and those are caused by this drug so don’t worry about it.”

– cricketdiane, 10-09-09

***
Yasmin Side Effects Lawsuit
Keywords: Yasmin Stroke Lawyer Side Effects Lawsuit Yasmine

If you use Yasmin, you should be aware that this popular birth control pill has been associated with some very serious side effects. These include life-threatening blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. Since 2004, at least 50 deaths have been reported in women taking Yasmin and similar contraceptives.

Yasmin contains a very different type of progestin called drospirenone. Drospirenone is known to carry some health risks not seen with other forms of the hormone. Unfortunately, these risks were downplayed in Yasmin’s early marketing campaigns, and its benefits were exaggerated. In fact, in 2003, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) ordered the maker of Yasmin to stop running a commercial that made such claims.

Because of the exaggerated claims made in Yasmin promotions, millions of women chose it as their birth control. Unfortunately, these same promotions left many Yasmin users unaware of its serious health risks. The maker of Yasmin must be held accountable for the injuries caused by this drug.

If you or someone you love suffered a blood clot, heart attack or stroke while taking Yasmin, you may be entitled to compensation. Please contact one of our Yasmin side effect lawyers right away to protect your legal rights.
Yasmin Side Effects

Some of the Yasmin side effects reported to the FDA over the years include:

* Heart Attack
* Cardiac Arrhythmias
* Stroke
* Pulmonary embolism (an artery in the lung is blocked)
* Blood Clots (Non-Vaginal)
* Kidney Failure
* Seizures
* Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
* Gallbladder Disease
* Hepaic Adenomas
* Sudden Death

All birth control pills, including Yasmin, increase the risk of blood clots, strokes and heart attacks. But because Yasmin is made with drospirenone, it carries additional risks. Most notably, it can increase the levels of potassium in the blood, which can lead to a disorder called hyperkalemia in high risk patients. This condition may result in potentially serious heart and health problems, including fatal cardiac arrhythmias. High potassium levels are especially dangerous for people who are obese, or who have diabetes or high blood pressure.

Since early 2004, the FDA has received over 50 reports of deaths in women who were taking Yasmin and other drospirenone-containing contraceptives. Many of the Yasmin deaths reported to the FDA involved elevated potassium levels. Some of the women in the reports were as young as 17. The deaths were caused by a variety of ailments, including cardiac arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, intracardiac thrombus (blood clots in the heart), pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs) and stroke in women in their child bearing years.
Yasmin FDA Warning Letter

In 2003, the then-maker of Yasmin, Berlex Laboratories (acquired by Bayer in 2006) received an FDA warning letter about a Yasmin TV ad the agency said was misleading. The unifying theme of the ad, typified by the tagline “Ask about Yasmin, and the difference a little chemistry can make? suggested that Yasmin is better than other birth control pills because of drospirenone and the way in which it is metabolized in the body. This “chemistry” difference was presented as a product benefit, according to the FDA.

In the warning letter, the FDA said it was not aware of substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience demonstrating that Yasmin is superior to other birth control pills or that the drospirenone in Yasmin is clinically beneficial. The FDA also found that the advertisement “fails to communicate that the potential to increase potassium is a risk” or that “increased serum potassium can be dangerous.”
Yasmin Side Effects Lawsuit

In the summer of 2009, several lawsuits were filed by women who claimed Yasmin made them ill. They allege Bayer overstated the benefits of Yasmin and failed to warn that it could put women at risk of serious injury. It is expected that many such Yasmin lawsuits will be filed in the future.

Our Yasmin side effect lawyers are continuing to offer free case evaluations to victims of Yasmin side effects. If you or someone you love suffered from a blood clot, heart attack or stroke while taking Yasmin, we urge you to contact us as soon as possible. Simply fill out our online form, or call 1-800 LAW INFO (1-800-529-4636) to discuss your case with one of our Yasmin side effect lawyers today.

http://www.yasmin-side-effects-lawyer.com/

***

My Note –

But it works. Dead people don’t get pregnant.

– cricketdiane

***

(and this is how much the United States government and FEMA under the Republican administrations both in the Federal, State and Local governments have thought of the health and welfare and well-being of America’s citizens -)
Particleboard Main Source of Formaldehyde Fumes in Toxic FEMA Trailers
Date Published: Thursday, July 3rd, 2008

Immediately following the Hurricane Katrina devastation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ordered about $2.7 billion worth of trailers and mobile homes to house Katrina victims. FEMA’s requirements were detailed in a mere 25 lines, with minimal details regarding occupant safety. Today, industry and government experts say the Toxic FEMA Trailers are linked to a public health catastrophe involving 300,000 people, many children, who were exposed to high formaldehyde levels exceeding the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended 15-minute exposure limit for workers. Fifteen minutes is the limit at which acute health symptoms begin to appear in sensitive individuals.

While the CDC found that although levels of formaldehyde varied from unit to unit of a particular brand, nearly all brands of Toxic FEMA Trailers tested had units with high formaldehyde levels. The CDC “supported the need to move quickly,” and get people out of FEMA housing before summer, as heat can increase formaldehyde fumes. In a previous CDC study, scientists tested air quality inside hundreds of Toxic FEMA Trailers and mobile homes occupied by Katrina victim and detected potentially dangerous levels of formaldehyde in many units. Pilgrim International, Inc.; Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.; Thor Industries, Inc.; and Coachmen Industries, Inc. were the trailers reviewed in the CDC study.

Now, particleboard appears to be one of the main sources of potentially harmful fumes in the government-issued Toxic FEMA Trailers. The report issued by the CDC in Atlanta recommends using different building materials to produce emergency housing for FEMA. The CDC also said that better ventilation in the units could make them safer. Scientists speculate that formaldehyde levels in the Toxic FEMA Trailers were higher than in mobile homes because they contain more composite wood products, such as particleboard, in a smaller space, and with poorer ventilation. The latest tests—conducted to determine which components were responsible for emitting formaldehyde fumes—were performed by California’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories.

Formaldehyde is an industrial chemical that can cause nasal cancer, may be linked to leukemia, and worsens asthma and respiratory problems. Within months of moving into the trailers, residents began complaining about unusual sickness; breathing problems; burning eyes, noses and throats; and even death. Formaldehyde is emitted from the resins and glues used in many construction components, including particleboard flooring, plywood wall panels, composite wood cabinets, and laminated countertops. Emissions are greatest in warm weather and when trailers are newly constructed. (and in curtains and carpets. – my note)

Michael McGeehin, director of the CDC’s division of environmental health hazards, said the report’s findings only apply to FEMA trailers that sheltered Gulf Coast storm victims. “They do not apply to other trailers in use elsewhere in the country,” he said. Although the CDC maintains that formaldehyde emitted by each trailer part didn’t exceed limits set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban and Development, McGeehin said those HUD standards were meant for larger mobile homes.

Becky Gillette, formaldehyde campaign director for the Sierra Club, said the test results highlight the “terrible inadequacies” of the HUD standards, which date back to 1984.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am and is filed under Health Concerns, Legal News, Toxic Substances.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3392

***

Formaldehyde Chemical Information

formaldehyde – A colorless poisonous gas synthesized by the oxidation of methanol and used as an antiseptic, disinfectant, histologic fixative, and general-purpose chemical reagent for laboratory applications. Formaldehyde is readily soluble in water . . . (NCI04)

(from – )

www.medications.com/drugs/formaldehyde

***

From wikipedia entry about Formaldehyde –

Aqueous solutions of formaldehyde are referred to as formalin. “100%” formalin consists of a saturated solution of formaldehyde (this is about 40% by volume or 37% by mass) in water, with a small amount of stabilizer, usually methanol to limit oxidation and polymerization. A typical commercial grade formalin may contain 10–12% methanol in addition to metallic impurities such as aluminium (3 ppm), iron (1 ppm) and copper (1 ppm).

“In view of its widespread use, toxicity, and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health.”[3]
Safety

Occupational exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation is mainly from three types of sources: thermal or chemical decomposition of formaldehyde-based resins, formaldehyde emission from aqueous solutions (for example, embalming fluids), and the production of formaldehyde resulting from the combustion of a variety of organic compounds (for example, exhaust gases). Formaldehyde can be toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic.[2] Because formaldehyde resins are used in many construction materials it is one of the more common indoor air pollutants.[19] At concentrations above 0.1 ppm in air formaldehyde can irritate the eyes and mucous membranes, resulting in watery eyes.[20] Formaldehyde inhaled at this concentration may cause headaches, a burning sensation in the throat, and difficulty breathing, as well as triggering or aggravating asthma symptoms.[21][22]

Formaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that there is “sufficient evidence” that occupational exposure to formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer in humans.[2] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows no more than 16 ppb formaldehyde in the air in new buildings constructed for that agency.[23] The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also announced limits on the formaldehyde levels in trailers purchased by that agency.[24]

Formaldehyde can cause allergies and is part of the standard patch test series. People with formaldehyde allergy are advised to avoid formaldehyde releasers as well (e.g., Quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea, and diazolidinyl urea).[25] Formaldehyde has been banned in cosmetics in both Sweden and Japan.

[ . . . ]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde

***

FORMALDEHYDE (37% SOLUTION, methanol free)     ICSC: 0695

Date of Peer Review: October 2004

Methanal
Formalin
CAS #     50-00-0     H2CO
RTECS #     LP8925000     Molecular mass: 30.0
UN #     2209

EC #     605-001-00-5
TYPES OF HAZARD / EXPOSURE     ACUTE HAZARDS / SYMPTOMS     PREVENTION     FIRST AID / FIRE FIGHTING
FIRE     Combustible.
NO open flames.
Water in large amounts, water spray.
EXPLOSION

EXPOSURE
AVOID ALL CONTACT!

Inhalation     Burning sensation. Cough. Headache. Nausea. Shortness of breath.
Local exhaust or breathing protection.
Fresh air, rest. Refer for medical attention.
Skin     Redness.
Protective gloves. Protective clothing.
Remove contaminated clothes. Rinse and then wash skin with water and soap.
Eyes     Causes watering of the eyes. Redness. Pain. Blurred vision.
Face shield, or eye protection in combination with breathing protection.
First rinse with plenty of water for several minutes (remove contact lenses if easily possible), then take to a doctor.
Ingestion     Burning sensation. Nausea. Shock or collapse.
Do not eat, drink, or smoke during work. Wash hands before eating.
Rinse mouth. Refer for medical attention.
SPILLAGE DISPOSAL     PACKAGING & LABELLING
Ventilation. Remove all ignition sources. Chemical protection suit. Personal protection: filter respirator for organic gases and vapours. Do NOT let this chemical enter the environment.
EU Classification
Symbol: T
R: 23/24/25-34-40-43
S: (1/2-)-26-36/37/39-45-51
Note: [B, D]
UN Classification
UN Hazard Class: 8
UN Pack Group: III

http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0695.htm

***

My Note –

but for some reason it is okay for pharmaceutical and health care industry product manufacturers / drug manufacturers to use formaldehyde in the process of drug manufacturing that are being directly into the bloodstream even though the process is leaving remnants of the formaldehyde in the completed product / drug / surgical glue / birth control pills and vaccines which are injected, ingested and internalized directly into the human body.

It is barbaric to call that health care.

– cricketdiane

***

Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see “Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials” and “Thimerosal Toxicity”, below).

http://www.autismcoach.com/FDA%20Thimerisol%20Information.htm

**

MERCURY POISONING _ from wikipedia entry –

Mercury poisoning can also result from exposure to soluble forms of mercury (such as mercuric chloride or methylmercury), inhalation of mercury vapor, or eating fish contaminated with mercury. (and from injected medical pharmaceuticals that have used mercury derivatives for preservatives – my note).

Toxic effects include damage to the brain, kidney, and lungs.[1] Mercury poisoning can result in several diseases, including acrodynia (pink disease), Hunter-Russell syndrome, and Minamata disease.[2]

Symptoms typically include sensory impairment (vision, hearing, speech), disturbed sensation and a lack of coordination. The type and degree of symptoms exhibited depend upon the individual toxin, the dose, and the method and duration of exposure.
Signs and symptoms

Common symptoms include peripheral neuropathy (presenting as paresthesia or itching, burning or pain), skin discoloration (pink cheeks, fingertips and toes), edema (swelling), and desquamation (dead skin peels off in layers).

Because mercury blocks the degradation pathway of catecholamines, epinephrine excess causes hyperhidrosis (profuse sweating), tachycardia (persistently faster-than-normal heart beat), mercurial ptyalism (hypersalivation) and hypertension (high blood pressure). Mercury is thought to inactivate S-adenosyl-methionine, which is necessary for catecholamine catabolism by catechol-o-methyl transferase.

Affected children may show red cheeks and nose, erythematous lips (red lips), loss of hair, teeth, and nails, transient rashes, hypotonia (muscle weakness), and photophobia. Other symptoms may include kidney disfunction (e.g. Fanconi syndrome) or neuropsychiatric symptoms (emotional lability, memory impairment, insomnia).

Thus, the clinical presentation may resemble pheochromocytoma or Kawasaki disease.

An example of desquamation of the hand of a child with severe mercury poisoning acquired by handling elemental mercury is this photograph in Horowitz, et al. (2002).[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning

***

About Aluminum (from wikipedia) –

Health concerns

Despite its natural abundance, aluminium has no known function in living cells and presents some toxic effects in elevated concentrations. Its toxicity can be traced to deposition in bone and the central nervous system, which is particularly increased in patients with reduced renal function.

Because aluminium competes with calcium for absorption, increased amounts of dietary aluminium may contribute to the reduced skeletal mineralization (osteopenia) observed in preterm infants and infants with growth retardation. In very high doses, aluminium can cause neurotoxicity, and is associated with altered function of the blood-brain barrier.[51]

A small percentage of people are allergic to aluminium and experience contact dermatitis, digestive disorders, vomiting or other symptoms upon contact or ingestion of products containing aluminium, such as deodorants or antacids. In those without allergies, aluminium is not as toxic as heavy metals, but there is evidence of some toxicity if it is consumed in excessive amounts.[52]

Although the use of aluminium cookware has not been shown to lead to aluminium toxicity in general (according to some studies done by the makers of that cookware),  excessive consumption of antacids containing aluminium compounds and excessive use of aluminium-containing antiperspirants provide more significant exposure levels.

Studies have shown that consumption of acidic foods or liquids with aluminium significantly increases aluminium absorption,[53] and maltol has been shown to increase the accumulation of aluminium in nervous and osseus tissue.[54] Furthermore, aluminium increases estrogen-related gene expression in human breast cancer cells cultured in the laboratory.[55] These salts’ estrogen-like effects have led to their classification as a metalloestrogen.

Because of its potentially toxic effects, aluminium’s use in some antiperspirants, dyes (such as aluminum lake), and food additives is controversial. Although there is little evidence that normal exposure to aluminium presents a risk to healthy adults,[56] several studies point to risks associated with increased exposure to the metal. Aluminium in food may be absorbed more than aluminium from water.[57] Some researchers have expressed concerns that the aluminium in antiperspirants may increase the risk of breast cancer,[58] and aluminium has controversially been implicated as a factor in Alzheimer’s disease.[59]

According to The Alzheimer’s Society, the overwhelming medical and scientific opinion is that studies have not convincingly demonstrated a causal relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease.[60] Nevertheless, some studies cite aluminium exposure as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, as some brain plaques have been found to contain increased levels of the metal. Research in this area has been inconclusive; aluminium accumulation may be a consequence of the disease rather than a causal agent. In any event, if there is any toxicity of aluminium, it must be via a very specific mechanism, since total human exposure to the element in the form of naturally occurring clay in soil and dust is enormously large over a lifetime.[61][62] Scientific consensus does not yet exist about whether aluminium exposure could directly increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.[60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

(check out the information about Teflon and what it is now known to cause sometime and aluminum toxicity is known although not indicated in this wikipedia article.)

***

My Note –

Not only are these vaccines using an aluminum based carrier for its liquid which is injected into the human body, but it is also deriving certain constituents for the vaccine using formaldehyde at different states in the process. These formaldehyde molecules are not fully removed from the vaccine serums and are also directly injected into the human body, particularly in infants, children whose bodies are developing, pregnant women and elderly, among others.

***

http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Infanrixhexa/200500en6.pdf

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION
This module reflects the initial scientific discussion for the approval of Infanrix Hexa.

This scientific discussion has been updated until 01.11.02. For information on changes after
01.11.02 please refer to module 8B.

1. Introduction
Infanrix hexa is a combined vaccine, which contains
• diphtheria toxoid (D), adsorbed
• tetanus toxoid (T), adsorbed
• three purified pertussis antigens (pertussis toxoid (PT), filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) and
pertactin (PRN; 69 kiloDalton outer membrane protein), adsorbed
• the purified major surface antigen (HBsAg) of the Hepatitis B virus (HBV), adsorbed
• three types of inactivated Polioviruses (IPV type 1: Mahoney strain; IPV type 2: MEF-1 strain;
IPV type 3: Saukett strain)
and
• a conjugate of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) capsular polysaccharide and Tetanus
toxoid (PRP-T), adsorbed.

**

The first five components are in a liquid aluminium salt adsorbed state (suspension for injection) whereas the Hib component is a lyophilised powder adsorbed onto aluminium salt. Prior to
administration, the lyophilised Hib powder has to be reconstituted with the liquid suspension for injection containing the DTPa-HBV-IPV component.

In the following this combination vaccine will be referred to as “Infanrix hexa” or as the “candidate vaccine”. The components of the vaccine will be referred to as “DTPa-HBV-IPV component” or “Hib component”.

All antigens of Infanrix hexa have already been licensed, either in monovalent vaccines or as combined vaccines in EU member states and are manufactured by the applicant (e.g. Infanrix HepB: D, T, Pa and HBV; Infanrix IPV: D, T, Pa and IPV; Hiberix: Hib). Infanrix hexa is thus a new combination of known and approved antigens.

The rationale for the development of this combination vaccine is : to facilitate the universal vaccination of infants against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and invasive disease caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b, in countries recommending the use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine as well as universal vaccination against hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b by simplifying vaccine delivery.

The therapeutic indication for Infanrix hexa is “for primary and booster vaccination of infants against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and disease caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b”.

2. Part II: Chemical, pharmaceutical and biological aspects Composition
The composition of Infanrix hexa is given in Table 1.

To potentiate the immune response, D, T, pertussis antigens (PT, FHA and PRN), and HBsAg are adsorbed on aluminium salts (aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate) which are well-known
and universally accepted immunopotentiating agents. The IPV component, although not pre-adsorbed for formulation, does adsorb when mixed with the other antigens. The Hib component is adsorbed also.

[ . . . ]

During its meeting on 19-21 October 1999, the CPMP agreed that a GMP inspection of the manufacturing sites was not necessary.

**
Control of starting materials
D and T –
Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids are obtained by formaldehyde treatment of purified Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Clostridium tetani toxins. The toxoids are produced and controlled by Chiron-Behring, Marburg, Germany as previously described and approved for Infanrix HepB.

PT, FHA and PRN
The acellular pertussis vaccine components are obtained by extraction and purification from phase I Bordetella pertussis cultures, followed by irreversible detoxification of the pertussis toxin by glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde treatment, and formaldehyde treatment of FHA and PRN.

The antigens are produced according to the methods approved for Infanrix HepB. They comply with the
specification limits and are tested as approved for Infanrix HepB.

The pertussis antigens comply with the requirements of the Ph. Eur. monograph 1356 (1999 supplement).

Elimination of adenylate cyclase, tracheal cytotoxin and dermonecrotic toxin was demonstrated for all the production scales validated. Absence of residual pertussis toxin is shown on each lot of the threeantigens using the CHO cell test. The histamine sensitisation test in mice is not carried out at that stage but is performed on the finished product.

Elimination of detoxifying agents and other reagents has been validated. (except that it only requires a certain degree of detoxifying to pass both the manufacturers testing and the FDA / EU regulators / industry testing – my note) Polysorbate 80 is the only quantifiable reagent that remains in the bulk antigens (approximately 40 ?g/dose).

Results of in process and quality control tests indicate that the production process is adequate. Virus yield after culture is reproducible. Purification gives a product of consistent quality from which proteins and VERO cell DNA are virtually eliminated. ( another indication that purity doesn’t include complete elimination of toxins used during the process of manufacturing.)

Inactivation is performed in standard conditions using formaldehyde and effective inactivation is consistently achieved.
For quality control, all the tests recommended by WHO and Ph. Eur. are performed.

(My note – these vaccines along with other drugs / pharmaceutical products use formaldehyde through and during different stages of the products manufacture. The final combined product could have active percentages of formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum and various other toxins allowable by the authorities who ought to know better, or they need to go back and re-learn chemistry, human metabolism and physiology.)

PRP-T
The manufacture and testing of the PRP-T active ingredient of the Hib adsorbed component is described in Ph. Eur. Monograph 1219 on Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (1998) and WHO TRS 814 (note the 1991 version is under revision). It involves the following steps:

• fermentation of Haemophilus influenzae type b (strain 20,752) based on the seed lot principle,
• extraction and purification of PRP,
• activation of PRP with cyanogen bromide and adipic acid dihydrazide,
• coupling to purified tetanus toxoid,
• purification of the conjugate by size exclusion chromatography,
• diafiltration.

Control of intermediate products
Intermediate products are prepared in advance and a shelf life is claimed for them. These are the adsorbed DT concentrate, the adsorbed PT, FHA and PRN concentrates, the trivalent polio concentrate and the tetanus toxoid concentrate used to prepare the purified tetanus toxoid for coupling with the
PRP component.

As the adsorbed DT concentrate is prepared at Chiron-Behring, Marburg, Germany, the product is
released by them and retested at SB Biologicals prior to use. Each lot of DT concentrate is tested for

As the adsorbed DT concentrate is prepared at Chiron-Behring, Marburg, Germany, the product is released by them and retested at SB Biologicals prior to use. Each lot of DT concentrate is tested for

aluminium, formaldehyde, sodium chloride and 2-phenoxyethanol content, for pH and sterility, for potency in animals, specific toxicity and for absence of blood group substances. Batch analysis data show consistency of production and quality.

The adsorbed Pa antigen concentrates are prepared at SB Biologicals and are in process tested for pH and sterility after adsorption and prior to use.

[ . . . ]

The tetanus toxoid concentrate used to prepare the purified tetanus toxoid for coupling with the PRP component is manufactured by Chiron-Behring. The tetanus toxoid concentrate complies with Ph. Eur. 452 (bulk purified toxoid) and WHO (TRS No. 800, 1990) requirements. The tests performed for
release are sterility, antigenic purity, absence of tetanus toxin, reversion to toxicity, formaldehyde content, sulphate content, sodium chloride content and pH. Batch release protocols from Chiron- Behring are provided in the application. This intermediate may be stored at +2?C to +8?C for a
designated time before being processed at SB Biologicals. The shelf life is supported by stability data.

The other tests performed on each final bulk vaccine are pH, sterility, 2-phenoxyethanol content and formaldehyde content. Each final container lot is tested for appearance, identity for all antigens,
volume, pH, aluminium content and as indicated above, for HBV and IPV content (in vitro potency).

Validation data for these methods are presented in the application. The specification limits and tests performed are in accordance with Ph. Eur. monograph 153 (1999 supplement) “Vaccine for Human use”, where applicable.

http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Infanrixhexa/200500en6.pdf

200500en6.pdf

***

My Note –

I don’t disagree with the value of vaccinations. I disagree with the use of known toxic and poisonous substances being used in the vaccines and other medicines which are causing more harm than the diseases they are intended to vaccinate against or help with. They don’t have to be made that way with those particular chemicals used in the manufacture and as carriers for drugs and vaccines which are injected or ingested directly into the body. That is a complete betrayal of public trust and defies the whole concept of health, health care and medicine.

–  cricketdiane

***

Amino Resins and Phenolic Resins Production
Final rule published January 20, 2000

* Amino/phenolic resins are primarily used in the manufacture of plywood, particle board, adhesives, wood furniture, and plastic parts.
* A number of toxic air pollutants, including formaldehyde (a probable human carcinogen), phenol, methanol, xylene, and toluene, are released during the resin manufacturing process.
* EPA’s rule establishes emission limits or control efficiency requirements for several emission points: reactor batch process vents, non-reactor batch process vents, continuous process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and heat exchange systems. The rule encourages the use of pollution prevention measures and provides flexibility by allowing the use of a variety of control strategies rather than specific control devices.
* The rule affects new and existing amino/phenolic resin manufacturing facilities. EPA has identified 100 existing facilities that may be affected. The rule will reduce air toxics emissions by approximately 360 tons per year, a 51 percent reduction from 1992 levels.

Secondary Aluminum Production
Final rule published March 23, 2000

* Secondary aluminum plants recover aluminum from beverage cans, foundry returns, and other aluminum scrap. These facilities release air toxics during both preprocessing operations (such as aluminum scrap shredding, drying, and decoating) and furnace operations (such as aluminum melting, refining, and alloying).
* Secondary aluminum plants emit a variety of toxic air pollutants. These air toxics may include up to 11 metals, organic compounds, and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and chlorine. The health effects associated with exposure to these air toxics can include cancer, respiratory irritation, and damage to the nervous system.
* EPA’s rule establishes emission standards for metals, dioxin/furans, organic hazardous air pollutants, and acid gases for larger secondary aluminum plants. The rule also establishes standards for dioxin/furan emissions from smaller secondary aluminum plants.
* Affected sources can achieve the emission reductions required by the rule through the use of pollution-control equipment and/or through a variety of pollution-prevention measures, including work practices and operating practices. The rule provides flexibility to the industry by offering alternative compliance and monitoring options. To reduce monitoring and emissions testing costs, the rule uses particulate matter as a surrogate for metals, total hydrocarbons as a surrogate for organics, and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for total emissions of hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and hydrogen fluoride.
* The rule will affect 80 large secondary aluminum plants. Hundreds of smaller plants may be subject to limitations on emissions of dioxin/furans. The rule will reduce nationwide emissions of air toxics by about 12,420 tons per year, a reduction of nearly 70 percent from current levels. In particular, hydrogen chloride emissions will be reduced by about 12,370 tons per year or by 73 percent, and emissions of metals will be reduced by about 40 tons per year, a reduction of over 60 percent from current levels.

http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/takingtoxics/sum4.html

***

http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Scientists-Decry-IRIS-Changes-9-17-08.pdf

Scientists-Decry-IRIS-Changes-9-17-08.pdf

The GAO report provides several examples of interference by EPA’s political appointees, DOD, and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to delay or weaken IRIS assessments. 5

These include:
• Naphthalene, a possible cancer-causing agent of jet fuel.6 Six years after initiating the IRIS review, the EPA has sent it back to the drafting stage after repeated objections from OMB and DOD;

• Royal Demolition Explosives (RDX), used in munitions.7 RDX is a possible carcinogen known to leach from soil to groundwater. EPA delayed its review by seven years at the request of the DOD to wait for DOD-sponsored research. Some of that research is still outstanding.

• Formaldehyde, is a cancer-causing gas used to manufacture building materials such as pressed wood.8 The EPA began an IRIS assessment of formaldehyde in 1997. In 2004 members of Congress requested that the assessment be delayed until the completion of a large epidemiological study from the National Cancer Institute. In the absence of a completed IRIS assessment, the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation relied on a cancer risk assessment provided by an industry-funded organization in drafting its 2004 rule regulating formaldehyde emissions.

The industry study found formaldehyde to be 2,400 times less potent than the proposed IRIS value, which was based on robust, peer reviewed science. This weaker value was used to justify exempting certain plywood and composite wood manufacturing facilities from regulation under the Clean Air Act.9 The rule was later struck down by a federal court, but the IRIS assessment remains unfinished 11 years after it was begun.

• Trichloroethylene, TCE, a solvent used as a degreasing agent. TCE is one of the most common contaminants of superfund sites across the nation, and has been linked to cancer, including childhood cancer, and birth defects.10 The IRIS draft was initiated in 1998, and in 2001 said TCE was ‘highly likely’ to cause cancer, and specifically noted the added health risks when exposures took place during childhood. Now, ten years after beginning the assessment, it is back at the draft stage.

Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate. Report No. GAO-08-440; March 2008. Available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08440.pdf

4 Toxic Chemicals: EPA’s New Assessment Process Will Increase Challenges EPA Faces in Evaluating and Regulating Chemicals GAO-08-743T April 29, 2008. Summary at
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-743T

5 GAO report. Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s
Integrated Risk Information System. Pages 37-42
6 ATSDR ToxFAQs for naphthalene. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts67.html
7 ATSDR ToxFAQs for RDX. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts78.html
8 ATSDR ToxFAQs for formaldehyde. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts111.html

Toxicological Profile
for
Formaldehyde
July 1999

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html

9 GAO report pages 37-39.
10 ATSDR ToxFAQs for trichloroethylene. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts19.html

Tetrachloroethylene, or perchloroethylene (perc), a dry cleaning and degreasing chemical which is a widespread groundwater contaminant. The IRIS assessment of perc was initiated in 1998.

In 2006 Risk Policy Report revealed that the assessment was held up when EPA scientists rejected a directive from George Gray, a political appointee who directs the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, to reanalyze cancer risks using a “nonlinear” model which assumes a safe level of exposure. 11 The scientific staff insisted scientific evidence would not support using that model.

This assessment is still being delayed.12

**
The GAO’s scathing critique concluded that the new procedures would sacrifice public trust in open government, compromise scientific credibility, and delay or derail the public release of robust scientific assessments needed by governments to set health-protective limits for hazardous chemicals.13 Moreover, GAO concluded that, “given the importance of the IRIS program to EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment, Congress should consider requiring EPA to suspend its new process…” These changes would compound what has already become an intolerable delay in completing new and updated assessments. The GAO report summary notes that,

“The IRIS database is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA has not been able to routinely complete timely, credible assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 ongoing assessments–a total of 4 were completed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.” 14 The GAO concludes that, “recent assessment process changes, as well as other changes EPA was considering at the time of GAO’s review, further reduce the timeliness and credibility of IRIS assessments.”15

**

The EPA IRIS program serves a critical scientific service to the public, and must be preserved and protected to conduct its work without political interference. The EPA’s authority to determine the risks posed by hazardous chemicals should not be compromised by interference from other federal agencies or industry stakeholders with conflicted interests.

EPA’s recent changes undermine the scientific integrity of the IRIS process, and weaken protections for public health and the environment. We implore you to defend your staff and the agency by withdrawing the new IRIS procedures and ensuring that health assessments are established in an
open process, free from inappropriate political interference or inappropriate policy considerations.

11 Clean Air Report via InsideEPA.com. Staff rebuff ORD Chief’s bid for new risk study for key solvent. Inside Washington Publishers. Vol. 17, No. 20. October 5, 2006. Originally reported in Risk Policy Report, September 26,
2006, p1.

12 On January 25, 2007 the California Air Resources Board ordered the phase out the use of perchloroethylene, from dry cleaning, with a complete ban by 2023, See details in news release at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr012607b.htm

13 Toxic Chemicals: EPA’s New Assessment Process Will Increase Challenges EPA Faces in Evaluating and
Regulating Chemicals GAO-08-743T April 29, 2008. Summary at
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-743T

14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.

(From pp. 2-3)

http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Scientists-Decry-IRIS-Changes-9-17-08.pdf

***

***

The IRIS database contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals. This testimony highlights GAO’s work on toxic substances, focusing on (1) its March 2008 report, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System and (2) key changes to the IRIS assessment process EPA included in its revised IRIS assessment process released on April 10, 2008. It also highlights the findings of two GAO reports on EPA’s regulation of toxic chemicals. For the IRIS report, GAO analyzed EPA data and interviewed officials at relevant agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-743T

***

EPA Chemical Assessments: Process Reforms Offer the Potential to Address Key Problems
GAO-09-774T June 11, 2009
Highlights Page (PDF)   Full Report (PDF, 13 pages)   Accessible Text

Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals. Toxicity assessments in the IRIS database constitute the first two critical steps of the risk assessment process, which in turn provides the foundation for risk management decisions. Thus, IRIS is a critical component of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental decisions, policies, and regulations. GAO’s 2008 report on the IRIS program identified significant concerns that, coupled with the importance of the program, caused GAO to add EPA’s processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high-risk area in its January 2009 biennial status report on governmentwide high-risk areas requiring increased attention by executive agencies and Congress. This testimony discusses (1) the findings from GAO’s March 2008 report Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System and related testimonies and (2) GAO’s preliminary evaluation of the revised IRIS assessment process EPA issued on May 21, 2009. For this testimony, GAO supplemented its prior audit work with a preliminary review of the new assessment process and some IRIS productivity data.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-774T

***

Amino Resins and Phenolic Resins Production
Final rule published January 20, 2000

* Amino/phenolic resins are primarily used in the manufacture of plywood, particle board, adhesives, wood furniture, and plastic parts.

* A number of toxic air pollutants, including formaldehyde (a probable human carcinogen), phenol, methanol, xylene, and toluene, are released during the resin manufacturing process.

* EPA’s rule establishes emission limits or control efficiency requirements for several emission points: reactor batch process vents, non-reactor batch process vents, continuous process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and heat exchange systems. The rule encourages the use of pollution prevention measures and provides flexibility by allowing the use of a variety of control strategies rather than specific control devices.

* The rule affects new and existing amino/phenolic resin manufacturing facilities. EPA has identified 100 existing facilities that may be affected. The rule will reduce air toxics emissions by approximately 360 tons per year, a 51 percent reduction from 1992 levels.

Secondary Aluminum Production
Final rule published March 23, 2000

* Secondary aluminum plants recover aluminum from beverage cans, foundry returns, and other aluminum scrap. These facilities release air toxics during both preprocessing operations (such as aluminum scrap shredding, drying, and decoating) and furnace operations (such as aluminum melting, refining, and alloying).

* Secondary aluminum plants emit a variety of toxic air pollutants. These air toxics may include up to 11 metals, organic compounds, and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and chlorine. The health effects associated with exposure to these air toxics can include cancer, respiratory irritation, and damage to the nervous system.

* EPA’s rule establishes emission standards for metals, dioxin/furans, organic hazardous air pollutants, and acid gases for larger secondary aluminum plants. The rule also establishes standards for dioxin/furan emissions from smaller secondary aluminum plants.

* Affected sources can achieve the emission reductions required by the rule through the use of pollution-control equipment and/or through a variety of pollution-prevention measures, including work practices and operating practices. The rule provides flexibility to the industry by offering alternative compliance and monitoring options. To reduce monitoring and emissions testing costs, the rule uses particulate matter as a surrogate for metals, total hydrocarbons as a surrogate for organics, and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for total emissions of hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and hydrogen fluoride.

* The rule will affect 80 large secondary aluminum plants. Hundreds of smaller plants may be subject to limitations on emissions of dioxin/furans. The rule will reduce nationwide emissions of air toxics by about 12,420 tons per year, a reduction of nearly 70 percent from current levels. In particular, hydrogen chloride emissions will be reduced by about 12,370 tons per year or by 73 percent, and emissions of metals will be reduced by about 40 tons per year, a reduction of over 60 percent from current levels.

Forward to Summaries of Related Solid Waste Incineration Rules
Local Navigation

* Taking Toxics Out of the Air – Contents
* Part 1 – Main Body of Brochure
* Part 2 – Summaries of EPA’s Final Air Toxics MACT Rules
* Part 3 – Summaries of Related Solid Waste Incineration Rules

* EPA Home

Last updated on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/takingtoxics/sum4.html

***

http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/takingtoxics/sum4.html

***

***
shapingourlegacy.pdf

In the Shadow of Chemical Valley

We thought it was normal.

We thought that seven miscarriages was normal.

We thought that the host of respiratory problems – 40 percent of our community requires a puffer to breathe – was normal.

We thought that sirns going off in the middle of the night was normal.

We thought that your shoes turning orange in the spring from the melting snow and the chemicals landing on the grass was normal.

It’s not.

— Ronald Plain, Aamjiwnaang First Nationa

The 850-person Aamjiwnaang First Nation community lives in the shadow of what is called Chemical Valley in the Canadian town of Sarnia, Ontario (about one hour north of Detroit, Michigan). Each year, 52 Canadian and US industrial facilities that are located within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) of their community pollute the air with more than 10 million kilograms (23 million pounds) of chemicals suspected to cause reproductive and developmental problems, as well as over 410,000 kilograms (900,000 pounds) of chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer or to disrupt the endocrine system. National Geographic has described Chemical Valley as the most polluted spot in North America.

from a 2005 report –
Shaping Our Legacy: Reproductive Health and the Environment
http://www.prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/pubs/shapingourlegacy.pdf

Also – in the same document, from the paragraph entitled –
“Implement a national, comprehensive chemical testing policy for both pre- and post- market chemicals.”

Pharmaceutical drugs and new pesticides must undergo testing for health and safety before the government will register them for use. However, companies do not have to provide evidence that chemicals used in all other consumer and industrial products are safe before or after they are manufactured and sold. As a result, only a small percentage of the approximately 87,000 chemicals registered for use in this country (in the US) have been evaluated for effects on health, and these studies only crudely evaluate effects on reproductive health.

For example, only 7 percent of the nearly 3,000 chemicals we produce or import the most (over 1 million pounds a year) have undergone basic health and environmental testing. We know very little about the toxicity of the products we use every day and the chemicals that contaminate our air, water, food and bodies. We also don’t know exactly how chemicals are getting into our bodies, which makes it very difficult to take steps to eliminate exposure.

A national program to test all pre- and post- market chemicals will help to fill the void of information on the hazards of chemicals in our environment. This testing program should evaluate risks to the environment and wildlife as well as to human health.

It should test for the effects of exposure during all stages of development and look for effects throughout the lifespan. It should test or otherwise account for our exposure to mixtures of chemicals, particularly chemicals that may cause similar damage. And it should identify the potential for chemicals to enter the human body. Knowledge gained from this testing program will support solid, scientifically based policymaking. It will enhance material safety data sheets (information materials that inform workers of chemical hazards) and consumer product labeling, and will allow for a more informed medical and public sector.

&& (from the same document) &&

Change the triggers of action used to make policy decisions about regulating potentially harmful chemicals.

Current U.S. regulations permit use of most chemicals without evaluating their ability to produce harm. At the same time, they do not require companies to conduct any research that would produce evidence of harm for chemicals other than pesticides. Lack of research and lack of information translate into continued production and use. Even when government or independent researchers produce evidence, it takes years and major court battles to ban or restrict the use of chemicals.

A protective public health policy would turn our current paradigm on it s head. It would take protective action when there is an indication of harm rather than waiting for absolute proof of harm. It would require information on the health effects of all chemicals used or registered for use. And, it would direct the most intensive action be taken on the most commonly used chemicals that we know the least about.

[ . . . ]

Recent environmental reproductive health research has produced a new body of information and understanding that has yet to be incorporated into the risk assessment process.

[ . . . ]

Updating hazard and risk assessment protocols and guidelines to reflect these and other scientific discoveries will help to ground health standards in science and thereby maximize public health protections.

Expand information on chemicals in products given to consumers and workers.

Consumer product labeling and worker access to information on industrial chemicals are inadequate. [ . . . ] Right-to-Know laws should be improved so that consumers and workers can access information on all of the chemicals used in a product or in the workplace.

Revise occupational health standards so that worker health is protected.

Occupational safety laws and regulations allow workers to be exposed to far higher levels of chemicals than the general public. For example, they can be exposed to about 330 times higher levels of arsenic and about 70 times higher levels of methanol. At least 2100 chemicals used in commerce are known to harm reproduction. An additional 250 are suspected to do the same.

Several steps can be taken to improve worker protection from chemical exposure. One, reduce permissible occupational exposure levels to chemicals that harm reproduction and development so that they are more in line with environmental exposure limits. Two, change permissible exposure limits to reflect the toxicity of exposure to mixtures of chemicals used in the workplace, rather than exposure to individual chemicals. Three, expand exposure assessment and monitoring in occupational settings. Finally, expand occupational health researchers’ access to workers, so that health consequences can be identified and corrected.

From the document and link listed above and delivered at “The Summit on Environmental Challenges to Reproductive Health and Fertility” (2005?)

“One point became increasingly clear during the Summit: Communication may be a bigger impediment to progress than our lack of knowledge. The array of stakeholders committed to understanding and improving environmental reproductive health includes fields that have traditionally been separated by institutional and cultural divides. Each of these fields speaks a different, highly specialized language and often communicates in a way that assumes their audience holds background expertise in the topic.

Overcoming the lack of common frameworks, language and expertise as well as cultural barriers will require substantial effort and commitment. Courage to step out of one’s particular specialty area and interact with experts from different fields is mandatory. So too, is the ability to incorporate one’s partners’ goals, needs and directions. Simplifying technical information so that nonexperts can understand and participate in multi-disciplinary collaborations requires time and effort, and therefore resources and patience.

http://www.prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/pubs/shapingourlegacy.pdf

***

Web sites geared towards the general public –

Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE)
www.healthandenvironment.org

CHE’s website includes:

* A searchable database that summarizes the links between chemical exposures and approximately 180 human diseases or conditions (database.healthandenvironment.org)

* Scientist-reviewed papers on the links between chemical exposures and numerous reproductive health diseases and disorders (www.healthandenvironment.org/science/papers)

(And from the chemicals list – )

Formaldehyde –

A chemical that is used to produce fertilizer, paper products, plywood, and urea-formaldehyde resins. It is also used as a preservative in some foods and in many products used around the house, such as antiseptics, medicines and cosmetics. Automobile engines, power plants, manufacturing facilities, incinerators, cigarettes, gas cookers, some household cleaners and open fireplaces release formaldehyde into outdoor and indoor air. The air is also contaminated when formaldehyde-containing carpets, permanent press fabrics and manufactured wood products off-gas (give off fumes). Most of our exposure to formaldehyde comes from breathing it (or ingesting it from medicines and foods where it was used as a preservative, my note) but we can also be exposed through skin contact with formaldehyde-containing products (pgs. 28-29).
From pp. 59-60 of the above document

http://www.prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/pubs/shapingourlegacy.pdf

***

Lead – A naturally occurring metal that has been mined and used for thousands of years and, as a result, has spread throughout the environment. Lead is used in batteries, ammunition, building construction, certain ceramic glazes, (water plumbing and other) pipes, and is part of solder, pewter and certain metal alloys. Lead was used widely in paints until 1978 and was added to gasoline in the United States until 1996 (most lead was phased out of use by the mid-1980’s) – (but isn’t it still in airplane fuels and some others? – my note) People are exposed to lead by drinking water that is contaminated either at the source or by lead-containing solder in pipes, by inhaling or ingesting lead contaminated dust or soil, or by eating lead-contaminated foods.

[ from pp. 60 of the above document]

***

My Note –

and believe it or not, I have seen somewhere that the hormones, estrogen and progesterone used in human birth control pills was sequestered from the urine of some pregnant animal species using formaldehyde to do it. Then later in the process of manufacturing the birth control pills, the formaldehyde is taken back out except for whatever “acceptable” remnants of it are allowable by the FDA and other regulators whose loyalty is to the manufacturing pharmaceutical corporations, rather than to people, traditionally.

I will find the scientific papers that I had found online last year about it which included how many ppb of formaldehyde remaining in the birth control pills was found to be acceptable.

And, that is about how much concern for good health, long life and quality of life that the medical community, health care industry professions and corporations, pharmaceutical companies and health care providers generally have had for us. So, don’t tell me that the example at the start of this blog is outlandish – because it is excessively common for such a wide range of drugs that the likelihood is, some corner has been cut during manufacturing by pharmaceutical and health care industry corporations which are causing most, if not all, of the preventable side effects and drug-based negative health consequences of nearly every pharmaceutical, vaccine and product they produce.

Maybe injecting the human body with formaldehyde laced drugs, birth control pills, vaccines and other products like surgical and specifically, heart surgery glues is mortally lethal, dangerous and making people sick or dead.

And, maybe from using thimerisol, aluminum salts, mercury and similar known toxic substances into the human body in the name of “health care” when they are known to cause cancer, dementia, neurological damage, mental retardation, damage to internal organs and countless other hellish living nightmares – maybe, just maybe, that is barbaric and wrong.

– cricketdiane

***

The following information on the levels of mercury and other preservatives is public information taken from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration web site.
Introduction

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes. Over the past several years, because of an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products have been raised. Indeed, because of these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has worked with, and continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines.

Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (> 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose.

http://www.autismcoach.com/FDA%20Thimerisol%20Information.htm

***

Thimerosal as a Preservative

Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see “Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials” and “Thimerosal Toxicity”, below).

At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.

http://www.autismcoach.com/FDA%20Thimerisol%20Information.htm

***

My Note –

***

Gelatin-resorcinol-formaldehyde glue has excellent
hemostatic characteristics and is widely used for dissecting
aneurysm; however, some problems concerning GRF
glue have been reported. Fukunaga and associates [4]
reported nine cases of aortic root redissection after reconstruction
of dissecting aneurysms using GRF glue.
They considered that the complications were likely to be
caused by the toxic effects of formaldehyde, particularly
in cases where an excessive amount of formaldehyde was
present that was not chemically bound to resorcin. Coronary
ostial stenosis after complete replacement of the
aortic root and reimplantation of the coronary arteries
was observed in several circumstances in which no GRF
glue was used. It might be related to the suture technique
at the coronary ostium, particularly if a small Dacron
graft is used for reimplantation. In our case, it is conceivable
that ostial stenosis occurred as a result of inappropriate
use of GRF glue rather than a technical problem,
because T1 scintigraphy, electrocardiography, and TEE
showed no abnormalities on discharge and it occurred
bilaterally and simultaneously. Bingley and associates [5]
reported that some months to years after the initial use of
GRF glue, tissues were extremely fibrosed at the site of
glue application, and a number of patients had redissection
of the aortic root where GRF glue had been applied.

In our case, an excessive amount of formaldehyde could
have induced bilateral ostial stenosis of the coronary
arteries owing to redissection of the coronary ostia accompanied
by fibrosis at the site of glue application;
however, it is impossible to verify the adverse effects of the formaldehyde because histologic examination was not done. (and they couldn’t use known toxicity studies on formaldehyde from anything else – my note)

Bachet and associates [2] recommended that as few as two or three droplets of formaldehyde are sufficient to polymerize 1 mL of gelatin resorcinol mixture. To avoid ostial stenosis, the glue is injected between the dissected layers, with special care directed not to contaminate the coronary ostia. A few drops of formaldehyde are then added to the glue by using a cannula-tipped syringe. Thereafter, the layers should be compressed to
improve the polymerization process.

The authors thank Naoko Ishizuka, MD, Department of Cardiology,
The Heart Institute of Japan, Tokyo Women’s Medical
University, for her skillful evaluation of echocardiography.

http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/72/5/1735.pdf

***

A protective public health policy would turn our current paradigm on it s head. It would take protective action when there is an indication of harm rather than waiting for absolute proof of harm. It would require information on the health effects of all chemicals used or registered for use. And, it would direct the most intensive action be taken on the most commonly used chemicals that we know the least about.

(from – )

http://www.prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/pubs/shapingourlegacy.pdf

***

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/locate?searched=1&order_by=rel&order_in=d&rpp=10&keyword=Databases&search_type=site&add_topic=&add_type=&add_year=&add_fed_type=&add_fed_desc=&order_by=date

Databases (search term used)

***

(See above in text of document)

EPA Chemical Assessments: Process Reforms Offer the Potential to Address Key Problems
GAO-09-774T June 11, 2009
Highlights Page (PDF)   Full Report (PDF, 13 pages)   Accessible Text

Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals. Toxicity assessments in the IRIS database constitute the first two critical steps of the risk assessment process, which in turn provides the foundation for risk management decisions. Thus, IRIS is a critical component of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental decisions, policies, and regulations. GAO’s 2008 report on the IRIS program identified significant concerns that, coupled with the importance of the program, caused GAO to add EPA’s processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high-risk area in its January 2009 biennial status report on government-wide high-risk areas requiring increased attention by executive agencies and Congress. This testimony discusses (1) the findings from GAO’s March 2008 report Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System and related testimonies and (2) GAO’s preliminary evaluation of the revised IRIS assessment process EPA issued on May 21, 2009. For this testimony, GAO supplemented its prior audit work with a preliminary review of the new assessment process and some IRIS productivity data.

*******

Medicine, medical doctors, health care, formaldehyde in birth control pills and vaccines, thimerisol continues to be in flu vaccines given to children and pregnant women and elderly, aluminum is being injected into people with every vaccination and in many injected drugs, truth, honesty and health care reform – Any medical doctor, health care professional, nurse or surgeon with a  prescription pad making out a prescription for any of us would only be truthful and honest, if he or she actually said this to us when making out that prescription –

*********

Modern homes often poison their occupants through toxic chemicals found in numerous building materials. Certain manufactured wood products such as plywood, particleboard, and oriented strand board (OSB, also known as wafer board or chip board) contain formaldehyde resins that are used to bind the wood fibers together. (Formaldehyde is the chemical biologists use to preserve biological specimens.) Studies show that these materials release formaldehyde and other toxic chemicals into room air long after a building is completed.

Potentially toxic chemicals are also found in furniture made from particleboard, furnishings such as carpeting and curtains, as well as paints, stains, and finishes. Appliances like water heaters and furnaces can also release toxins (in this case, carbon monoxide). So not only are our homes poisoning the many species that share this planet with us, they’re also poisoning the people they’re meant to serve.

http://www.realgoodssolar.com/solar/p/The-Impacts-of-Modern-Building.html

***

http://www.healthandenvironment.org

Thimerosal as a Preservative

Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see “Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials” and “Thimerosal Toxicity”, below).

At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.

http://www.autismcoach.com/FDA%20Thimerisol%20Information.htm

******

Epidemics of methylmercury poisoning also occurred in Iraq during the 1970s when seed grain treated with a methylmercury fungicide was accidentally used to make bread (Bakir et al. 1973). During these epidemics, fetuses were found to be more sensitive to the effects of methylmercury than adults. Maternal exposure to high levels of methylmercury resulted in infants exhibiting severe neurologic injury including a condition resembling cerebral palsy, while their mothers showed little or no symptoms. Sensory and motor neurologic dysfunction and developmental delays were observed among some children who were exposed in utero to lower levels of methylmercury.

(from web site above)

***

Kharasch was born in Ukraine in 1895 and immigrated to the United States at the age of 13. In 1919, he completed his Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Chicago and spent most of his professional career there. Most of his research in the 1920’s focused on organo-mercuric derivatives. He synthesized an important anti-microbial alkyl mercuric sulfur compound, thimerosal[2], commercially known as Merthiolate, which he patented in 1928 and assigned to the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company. Merthiolate was introduced as a vaccine preservative in 1931, and by the late 1980’s thimerosal was used in all whole-cell DPT vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Kharasch

***

Merthiolate poisoning

Merthiolate is a mercury-containing substance that was once widely used as germ-killer and a preservative in many different products, including vaccines.

Merthiolate poisoning occurs when large amounts of the substance are swallowed or come in contact with your skin. Poisoning may also occur if you are exposed to small amounts of merthiolate constantly over a long period of time.

This is for information only and not for use in the treatment or management of an actual poison exposure. If you have an exposure, you should call your local emergency number (such as 911) or the National Poison Control Center at 1-800-222-1222.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002678.htm
***

Q&A; First Aid or Not?
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY
Published: Tuesday, June 30, 1998

Q. Whatever happened to Mercurochrome and Merthiolate? How do they work?

A. Mercurochrome is a trade name for merbromin, a compound containing mercury and bromine. Merthiolate is a trade name for thimerosal, a compound containing mercury and sodium.

Both these compounds kill some (but not all) disease-causing microbes by denaturing enzymes and other proteins so that the microbes’ metabolism is blocked; they do this by breaking up chemical bonds in the proteins.

Both have been widely used as topical antiseptics, applied to the surface of the skin of a living body. Thimerosal is still often used to help rid skin of bacteria before medical procedures. Mercurochrome is not widely used anymore.

Both Mercurochrome and Merthiolate (and iodine preparations, too) sting when applied to broken skin and can interfere with healing. Experts now recommend that first aid kits contain newer antibacterial creams, especially those containing bacitracins, a class of antibacterials first produced by other microorganisms.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/30/science/q-a-first-aid-or-not.html

***

November 11, 2003

Eli Lilly and Thimerosal

By Annette Fuentes

Thimerosal is an organic compound that is 49.6 percent ethylmercury. Eli Lilly and Co., the Indianapolis-based drug giant, developed and registered thimerosal under its trade name Merthiolate in 1929 and began marketing it as an antibacterial, antifungal product. It became the most widely used preservative in vaccines. Thimerosal cannot be used with live-cell vaccines, such as MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) or polio, because it would kill the vaccine. The only research looking into the safety of thimerosal was done in 1930 by Eli Lilly-sponsored doctors, who injected it into 22 patients with meningitis. The human experiments failed to prove that thimerosal was nontoxic. Nonetheless, researchers H.M. Powell and W.A. Jamieson published a study in September 1931 in the American Journal of Hygiene that stated thimerosal had a “low order of toxicity” for humans, without mentioning that the human subjects were ill and subsequently died. Internal Lilly documents from the time, however, revealed that the company’s researchers were worried about Merthiolate’s “burning qualities” when used on the skin. By 1935, Eli Lilly’s Jameison had further evidence of thimerosal’s toxicity when he received a letter from a researcher who had injected it into dogs and saw severe local reactions, leading him to state: “Merthiolate is unsatisfactory as a preservative for serum intended for use on dogs.”

In the 70 years since thimerosal/Merthiolate was developed, the FDA never required Eli Lilly to conduct clinical studies of its safety, despite ample evidence of its toxicity and its highly allergic properties. In fact, the FDA today still refers to the 1931 Powell and Jameison study on its Web site as indication of the “safety and effectiveness” of thimerosal as a preservative. Thimerosal/Merthiolate was widely used in over-the-counter products, including ointments, eye drops, nasal sprays and contact lens solution. In 1998, the FDA finally banned Thimerosal for use in OTC products—18 years after it began a safety review of mercury-containing products. It took another year before the CDC and the FDA would ask manufacturers to remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Eli Lilly stopped making Merthiolate-containing products in the mid-’80s but still profits from licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies around the world.

Eli Lilly faces hundreds of civil lawsuits from parents who blame thimerosal for their autistic children. But the pharmaceutical giant has powerful friends in the White House and in Congress. The elder George Bush sat on Lilly’s board of directors in the 1970s, and White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels was a Lilly executive. Lilly CEO Sidney Taurel was named by President George W. Bush to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. In November 2002, Congress passed a provision, tucked into a spending measure for homeland security, to indemnify Eli Lilly from lawsuits and require families to seek compensation through the federally funded Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It was repealed in February 2003 after public outcry. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) still hopes to pass a similar bill. Congressional consideration for Eli Lilly makes sense: In the 2002 election cycle, the company gave more than $1.5 million to federal candidates, with three quarters to Republicans, making it the fourth-biggest giver in the pharmaceutical industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the current election cycle, the company already has given close to $230,000 (67 percent to Republicans) to federal candidates.

Eli Lilly may be determined to avoid liability for thimerosal, but that doesn’t mean it has abandoned children with neurological problems. This year, the FDA approved Straterra, a new Eli Lilly drug for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The irony that Eli Lilly profits from damaged children is not lost on parent Robert Krakow: “When Eli Lilly is promoting Straterra on TV, saying up to 10 percent of children can be helped, you realize what we are up against.”

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/649/

***

In the U.S., the only exceptions among vaccines routinely recommended for children are some formulations of the inactivated influenza vaccine for children older than two years.[5] Several vaccines that are not routinely recommended for young children do contain thiomersal, including DT (diphtheria and tetanus), Td (tetanus and diphtheria), and TT (tetanus toxoid); other vaccines may contain a trace of thiomersal from steps in manufacture.[2]

Outside North America and Europe, many vaccines contain thiomersal; the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration.[7]

Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).[8] In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.[2]

Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.

[etc.]

Thiomersal was used as a preservative (bactericide) so that multidose vials of vaccines could be used instead of single-dose vials, which are more expensive. By 1938, Lilly’s assistant director of research listed thiomersal as one of the five most important drugs ever developed by the company.[3] Thiomersal’s safety for its intended uses first came under question in the 1970s, when case reports demonstrated potential for neurotoxicity when given in large volumes as a topical antiseptic. At the time, the DPT vaccine was the only childhood vaccine that contained it; a 1976 United States Food and Drug Administration review concluded that this use of thiomersal was not dangerous.[3] Concerns about mercury arising from Minamata disease and other cases of methylmercury poisoning led U.S. authorities to lower reference doses for methylmercury in the 1990s, about the same time that autism diagnoses began rising sharply. In 1999, a new FDA analysis concluded that infants could receive as much as 187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury during the first six months;[23] lacking any standard for ethylmercury, it used methylmercury-based standards to recommend that thiomersal be removed from routine infant vaccines in the U.S., which was largely complete by summer 2001.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

***

Advertisements