Koch Industries Funds Attack on Science Linking Formaldehyde and Cancer

[kgrandia]

Further revelations have come to light since the recent expose in the New Yorker about Koch Industries' David Koch and his company's involvement in the industry-led effort to downplay the links between formaldehyde and cancer.

Turns out that the president of one of Koch Industry's subsidaries was the Chair of pro-Formaldehyde (yes, there is sadly such a thing) lobby group called the Formaldehyde Council.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/koch-industries-funds-att_b_707616.html

[Sinistrous]

1. This reminded me of all the hours I spent

up close and personal with the insides of a dogfish in freshman biology lab.

(Sorry for the semi-hijack.)

[kgrandia]

2. You mean

You mean just plain nasty?

[Sinistrous]

4. Huh?

[HuckleB]

7. Science is bad, apparently.

[HuckleB]

10. Maybe it's bad to point out reality?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9

[indepat]

3. Evil is as evil does and such as this appears to be the works of very evil MFers

:)

[KT2000]

5. It is really too bad

they care only about money and not their fellow humans.

Where other countries have seen fit to regulate formaldehyde, the US maintains a voluntary system. That means that every 10th particleboard carries a warning. That means that babies and children are exposed to formaldehyde in their homes, schools and in their clothing.
New parents will prepare the nursery not realizing that most of the products they put in there: bedding mattresses, paint, flooring, curtains, new furniture - have formaldehyde.
The baby comes home to a formaldehyde gas chamber.
Good doctors and concerned citizens have been fighting for years to get legal standards but have not been successful against the likes of the Kochs and their sycophants.
Too bad for the kids.

[mzmolly]

6. And many here unwittingly support the Koch

crusade by advocating to keep formaldehyde in vaccines. Sad, isn't it? :hi:

[laconicsax]

8. I for one, think it would be best for vaccines to contain live, unweakened viruses.

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

9. +1

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

11. How about finding an alternative

to formaldehyde instead? :eyes:

[laconicsax]

12. By all means--let's find a non-toxic substance that kills stuff and keeps viruses from reproducing.

:eyes::eyes:

[mzmolly]

13. Ever hear of heat? How about hydrogen peroxide which

becomes water after a given time frame? Both HAVE been used as an alternative to formaldehyde. But by all means, let's pretend that no non-toxic methods exist and continue being played by the Koch brothers.

[laconicsax]

15. Hydrogen peroxide?

It's highly combustive, even in a diluted, vaporized form. It's also corrosive and toxic. Hell, the Nazis experimented with it as both a rocket fuel and a poison for their 'final solution.'

Less than a month ago, a spill of the stuff in Manhattan warranted shutting down part of the city and calling in a hazmat team. The process by which it decomposes into water is a big part of what makes it dangerous.

You're complaining about residual trace amounts of a preservative and suggest replacing it with a combination rocket fuel/cleaning solvent. I can see you're really concerned with what's used in the manufacture of vaccines. :eyes: But by all means, let's pretend that the barely trace amount of formaldehyde in vaccines poses a SERIOUS FUCKING THREAT and continue being played by alt-med snake oil pushers.

[mzmolly]

16. "INACTIVATING PATHOGENS WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE FOR VACCINE PRODUCTION"

A few studies for your perusal.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008039171">"INACTIVATING PATHOGENS WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE FOR VACCINE PRODUCTION"

The present disclosure provides methods for producing a vaccine composition containing a pathogen that is rendered noninfectious by exposure to hydrogen peroxide. The methods disclosed herein are suitable for the preparation of vaccines for a wide variety of pathogens, including viruses, bacteria and parasites. The disclosure also provides vaccine compositions (medicaments) containing a pathogen inactivated by exposure to hydrogen peroxide. Methods for eliciting an immune response in a subject by administering vaccine compositions containing a hydrogen peroxide inactivated pathogen are also provided.

...

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008039171">Immunogenicity and safety of a pertussis vaccine composed of pertussis toxin inactivated by hydrogen peroxide, in 18- to 23-month-old children

A new pertussis vaccine, composed of purified pertussis toxin inactivated by hydrogen peroxide and adsorbed onto aluminum hydroxide (NICHD-Ptxd), was injected into 60 children aged 18 to 23 months without a history of pertussis or pertussls vaccination. Two doses of toxoid, 10 and 50 μg, were used. Two injections, given 8 to 12 weeks apart,ellcited increases in serum levels of antitoxin and IgG antibodies in 56 children who had no detectable antitoxin (<5 units) before vaccination. Four children with detectable antitoxin (>-5 units) before the first vaccination had pronounced antibody increases after the first dose. After the second dose, the geometric mean antitoxin concentration was 29 units with the 50 μg dosage and 10 units with the 10 μg dosage (p<0.001). Serum antibody levels elicited by two injections of 50 μg were similar to those in patients convalescing from pertussis. A third injection given to seven children 9 to 10 months after the second injection gave a booster response, with high levels of antitoxin (160 to 1280 units) and of IgG antibodies. With few exceptions the antibody response was restricted to the IgG class. Transient local reactions ≥2 cm in diameter occurred in 14% of the children after the first dose and in 44% after the second and third doses. Moderate fever was recorded after 6% of all injections. There were no changes in peripheral blood leukocyte counts or fasting blood glucose levels measured before and 24 hours after the first injection. We conclude that NICHD-Ptxd is immunogenic in children. No serious adverse effects were noted.

...

Safety and immunogenicity of hydrogen peroxide-inactivated pertussis toxoid in 18-month-old children.

The immunogenicity and adverse effects of an acellular pertussis vaccine consisting of a purified pertussis toxin inactivated with hydrogen peroxide (PTxd) was evaluated. Children aged 15 to 30 months were injected with 10 (n = 33) or 50 micrograms (n = 34) of PTxd or with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole cell pertussis vaccine (DTP) (n = 34). All children had previously received three doses of DTP during infancy. Both dosages of PTxd induced higher IgG antibody (p less than 0.05 for 10 micrograms dose and p less than 0.01 for 50 micrograms dose) and pertussis antitoxin responses (p less than 0.01 for 50 micrograms dose) than DTP. The 50 micrograms dose gave slightly higher (though not significantly) antibody responses than the 10 micrograms dose of PTxd. None of the vaccines induced detectable IgM or IgA antibody responses to pertussis toxin. At 24 h, local reactions occurred in none of the children injected with 10 micrograms PTxd, 12% with 50 micrograms PTxd and 78% with DTP. Fever at 24 h occurred in 13% after 10 micrograms PTxd, in none after 50 micrograms PTxd and in 53% after DTP. Recipients of DTP, but not of PTxd, had significant increases in neutrophils and decreases in lymphocytes and haematocrit at 24 h (all p less than 0.05). None of the groups showed changes in blood glucose at 24 h. PTxd induced pertussis toxin antibody levels similar to those observed in patients convalescing from natural pertussis. This acellular pertussis vaccine deserves further evaluation for safety and immunogenicity in infants and for efficacy in preventing pertussis.

http://sci-toys.com/ingredients/hydrogen_peroxide.html">Hydrogen peroxide breaks down into water and oxygen rendering it harmless after time. The substance is currently used in the manufacture of http://www.rxlist.com/certiva-drug.htm">some vaccines. Thus, your "fear mongering" above clearly means your officially in the "anti-vaccine" category now. Welcome aboard! :sarcasm:

If you're going to feign expertise you CLEARLY lack, try to tone down the hyperbole a bit.

FYI - I'm wrapping up this conversation before taking a long DU break, but I will not let the arrogant and ignorant, define reality (on behalf of the Koch family) before I move on.

[laconicsax]

17. Funny how you see your own arguments as hyperbolic and "fear mongering."

Your opposition to formaldehyde is laughable in the face of your acceptance of hydrogen peroxide. Both are "toxic" chemicals, yet one is part of some "evul pharma conspiracy" and the other is "safe." I wonder why that is...you wouldn't just be trying to push an anti-vax agenda, would you?

Did you accidentally let it slip that your agenda is anti-vaccine with that sarcastic welcome?

Formaldehyde is currently used in the manufacture of some vaccines. Thus, your "fear mongering" above clearly means you're officially in the "anti-vaccine" category.

If you're going to feign expertise you CLEARLY lack, try to tone down the hyperbole a bit.

FYI - I look forward to the reduction in anti-vax nonsense as a result of your break.

Oh, and by the way, guilt by association is just a passive ad hominem...you know, the kind of fallacy used in place of an actual argument.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

21. Huh?

Extra user names?

"Both sarcasm and that fact are lost on you."

What? Did you mean, "Both are sarcasm and that fact is lost on you" but you got confused by which verb tense to use and what order words go in?

"I bet extra user names come in handy in such cases?"

What the hell are you talking about? Are you again accusing me of having sockpuppet accounts? If so, why not come right out and name the multiple accounts you think I have? If not, then what the he'll are you talking about.

Didn't you say you were signing off and taking a break?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

23. Neither is lost on me, but thanks for using complete sentences.

I think the problem here is that you aren't entirely clear on how to use sarcasm. (You've demonstrated a resistance to facts in the past, so I that part isn't on me either.) You see, when you make an assertion or take a position and argue in support of it, it makes no sense to later claim that an identical remark was sarcastic. Sarcasm only works when it is clear that the meaning is the opposite of what is said; it isn't sarcasm if you argue the point you claim is sarcasm.

I still find it hilarious that you regard the type of argument I made against hydrogen peroxide as hyperbole and lacking basis in reality when they are the EXACT SAME as the types of argument made against formaldehyde by the same anti-vax movement whose talking points you so readily parrot on this forum.

My "friend" with the +1 is HuckleB, not me. You have accused me of having sockpuppet accounts on more than one occasion. If you believe this to be true, alert on it and ask the mods to intervene. All you're accomplishing by continually accusing me is distracting from the fact that you don't have a legitimate argument. I'd like to think that you're capable of more than ad hominem attacks and red herrings, but the evidence is starting to suggest otherwise.

[HuckleB]

26. Hmmmm.

She said I was on ignore. You can't trust the anti-vaccine crowd with anything.

:evilgrin:

[laconicsax]

29. You're only somewhat ignored.

The response is deleted now, but I believe the relevant part was along the lines of "tell your "friend" that only his threads are blocked" or something like that.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

28. It really does speak for itself, doesn't it?

You posted a bunch of copy-paste excerpts in blue and everything since has been deleted. (Hint: If you don't want your posts deleted, leave out the personal attacks and similar garbage.)

Since you don't seem to understand what you posted, I'll repeat part of your post below in a way that might help you understand it better:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394">Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans,73 and animals that are exposed to large quantities of formaldehyde (a single dose of 25 mg/kg or chronic exposure (in drinking water) at doses of 80–100 mg/kg/day) do not develop malignancies.74,75

*The quantity of formaldehyde contained in individual vaccines does not exceed 0.1 mg (Table 5). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for 2 reasons. First, formaldehyde is an essential intermediate in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of thymidine, purines, and amino acids.76 Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of formaldehyde in their circulation (approximately 2.5 µg of formaldehyde/mL of blood).77 Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-of 5 kg and an average blood volume 85 mL/kg, the total of formaldehyde found naturally in an infant’s circulation would be approximately 1.1 mg—a value at least 10-fold greater than that contained in any individdual vaccine. Second, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been given safely to animals.74,75

Really, you should start your vacation already.

[mzmolly]

30. I hope you didn't work too hard on that distraction above? I've addressed

these sloppy assertions by Offit (to you and others from the Portland area) several times. I've noted that the 600 fold higher amount given to animals was done so in drinking water, which ultimately, changes the chemistry and renders it harmless. I've noted that rats (who were given the tainted water) react to formaldehyde differently than monkeys. I've also noted that ingesting formaldehyde hasn't had the same consequence as other avenues of exposure according to studies.

Once again, in spite of your colorful advocacy for Offit and the Koch brothers, the EPA and other scientific bodies have classified formaldehyde as a HUMAN carcinogen. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehyde

Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Research studies of workers exposed to formaldehyde have suggested an association between formaldehyde exposure and several cancers, including nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia.

You said everything I posted was deleted? No it wasn't. My post about viable, safe alternatives to formaldehyde remains, as does your ignorant post prior, and your foolish response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=92256&mesg_id=92365

Please continue trying to save face, and have your friend(s) come along and pretend you're saying something that makes sense.

Yes, off to take that break. :hi:

[laconicsax]

34. Are you trying to miss the point, or desperately trying to pretend it isn't there?

My "ignorant" post was a satire of the ridiculous hyperbole that you and other anti-vaxers use when talking about formaldehyde. It's based on the fact that everything is potentially deadly given the right dose. After all, the dose makes the poison.

That you insist on missing that point continues to speak volumes about your agenda for posting here. Sunlight is a known carcinogen too unless you read The Secret (you wished melanoma on yourself). The dose makes the poison.

I said that everything you posted after the blue blather was deleted. I know you like to make partial posts that leave out verbs, adjectives, and even entire sentences when you post, but I try to say what I mean the first time. Try reading all of it before saying something demonstrably false.

It's not my fault that multiple DUers who call you on your anti-vax nonsense live in a large metropolitan area. If we're going by location in user profiles, I could accuse you of having tons of sockpuppet accounts--every anti-vaxer living in the US is a suspect. :eyes:

[mzmolly]

32. Forgot to add I also noted why the "10 fold greater amount" claim is misleading.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=92256&mesg_id=92321

The actual amount of free formaldehyde in humans is in the picogram or < range.

[uppityperson]

41. !

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

19. +1

[laconicsax]

24. Careful, people will think that we're the same person!

Conspiracy everywhere!!!

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

25. Well, then you really have to share those Big Pharma kickbacks of yours!

[mzmolly]

14. My conversation with a toxicologist on formaldehyde as it relates to vaccination.

My question - "What is your opinion on the assertion our bodies make formaldehyde so we needn't worry about it being in vaccines?"

Answer - "The formaldehyde that our body makes is during metabolism and therefor it is bound to enzymes and is not free. *The actual free amount of formaldehyde in organs, blood etc is in the picogram range or less. Yes, we need to be concerned about the formaldehyde used in vaccines."

I then posed a question about possibly ridding the body of the substance shortly after vaccination.

"If you are referring to detoxification, none is available. Formaldehyde conjugates to proteins and DNA. The modified proteins (denatured) are slowly removed with time, e.g. formaldehyde-albumin conjugates. The binding to DNA may lead to mutations."

I followed up - "Does the injected form of formaldehyde (via vaccination) differ from exposure in our environment? For example I'm reading a pamphlet (see below) put out by formaldehyde.org in which they deny any science that indicates the substance is dangerous. They cite the fact that formaldehyde is in every day products to bolster their case."
http://www.formaldehyde.org/_base/pdf/fact_sheets/11_01_07-FormadehydeFactsandBackgroundInforma

Answer - "This is a group that is funded by formaldehyde producers. Ignore everything they say.
Injected fluids and chemical can get into the systemic circulation."

I now realize Koch industries funds much of the 'science' about the supposed harmlessness of formaldehyde. Unfortunately 'respected' physicians who are published in the AAP are doing the bidding of the Koch brothers by promoting the 'formaldehyde is harmless' meme.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394">Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans,73 and animals that are exposed to large quantities of formaldehyde (a single dose of 25 mg/kg or chronic exposure (in drinking water) at doses of 80–100 mg/kg/day) do not develop malignancies.74,75

*The quantity of formaldehyde contained in individual vaccines does not exceed 0.1 mg (Table 5). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for 2 reasons. First, formaldehyde is an essential intermediate in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of thymidine, purines, and amino acids.76 Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of formaldehyde in their circulation (approximately 2.5 µg of formaldehyde/mL of blood).77 Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 mL/kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found naturally in an infant’s circulation would be approximately 1.1 mg—a value at least 10-fold greater than that contained in any individual vaccine. Second, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been given safely to animals.74,75

[HuckleB]

20. Reality Check.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x92306

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

33. Let's make this as simple as possible. Anti-vaccine nonsense is anti-vaccine nonsense.

"Are vaccines filled with harmful toxins like antifreeze, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, and mercury?

No the ingredients in vaccines are not as toxic as Jenny McCarthy would have you think. The dose makes the poison, not the toxin.

Ethylene glycol (antifreeze) is not an ingredient in vaccines; the actual ingredient is polyethylene glycol, which sounds the same but is completely different. It’s kind of like saying that salt has chlorine in it.

Trace inert amounts of formaldehyde can be found in vaccines, but only a microscopic amount compared to the amount encountered in auto exhaust and the modern environment. We are even exposed to formaldehyde when we digest fruit. It’s not some toxin thrown in for sinister purposes. Formaldehyde insures that vaccines are sterilized so your children don’t get a flesh-eating Strep bacteria. And if all that info isn’t enough, the point is moot because formaldehyde chemically breaks down in aqueous solutions like vaccines.

..."

From: http://sciencebasedparenting.com/vaccines/

[HuckleB]

35. Meanwhile, homeopaths continue to work hard to kill people.

Doctors warn over homeopathic 'vaccines'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11277990

[mzmolly]

36. Offit and his pro-cancer friends help Koch brothers attack science linking formaldehyde and cancer

"Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans..." ~ Paul Offit/Rita Jew

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394

Just adding this back to the record given the last post of this nature (above) was deleted due to my sloppy wording.

[HuckleB]

37. Two small parts of the history of anti-vaccine groups demonizing scientists like Dr. Paul Offit.

The National Autism Association’s embarrassing spitefulness
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/the-national-autism-associations-embarassing-spitefullness/

An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience

Just to set the record straight.

[mzmolly]

38. "Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans..." ~ Paul Offit/Rita Jew

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394

The quote speaks for itself. Those who do the dirty work of Koch Industries, at the expense of our children, should be ashamed.

[HuckleB]

39. Immunization Demystified

http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2009spring/article2.html

"Inactivating agents: Manufacturers use several chemicals to kill or weaken pathogens for use in vaccines. The most familiar (and notorious) is formaldehyde. Formaldehyde has a rap sheet, there’s no doubt. The Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the chemical as a probable human carcinogen if exposure is unusually high or prolonged, and inhalation can cause a whole range of symptoms from watery eyes, coughing and headache to asthma attacks. But researchers have found that the amounts in vaccines cause no harm. In fact, all humans carry small quantities of formaldehyde in their blood — it’s a byproduct of healthy metabolism. The amount normally in an infant’s circulation exceeds the amount in an infant vaccine dose by at least tenfold."

[mzmolly]

40. "The actual free amount of formaldehyde in organs, blood etc is in the picogram range or less."

Again, when Offit and other Koch brother advocates assert that the amount of formaldehyde in an infants body is greater than the amount found in vaccines, it's misleading, here's why ~

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=92256&mesg_id=92321