5 in 1, seasonal flu and swine flu jab.

[nappyaddict]

Does anyone know if the Celvapan vaccine for swine flu does contain the nano chip or not? I can't find anything concrete about it, apart from that it is the only thimerosal and squalene free one.

Also I know you can get a thimerosal free seasonal flu vaccine, but is it squalene free as well and does anyone know what it's brand name is?

Is Infanrix the only brand of the 5 in 1 vaccine? I wouldn't be willing to give this until at least 2 years when the company itself lists SIDS as a side effect.

https://www.gsksource.com/gskprm/htdocs/documents/INFANRIX.PDF

Infanrix is the 3 in 1 just for Diptheria, Tetanus and Whooping Cough.

There is also Infanrix-IPV This is a 4 in 1 for diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough and polio.

Infanrix-IPV+Hib is a 5 in 1 vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib infection aswell.

Pediacel is the 5 in 1. It's patient information leaflet can be found on here It's for diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib.

Pediarix is another 5 in 1. This one is for diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and hepatitis B. It does not contain thimerosal as a preservative. Thimerosal is used during the early stages of production, and subsequently removed, leaving only a clinically insignificant trace.

This is it's patient information leaflet.

Pentacel This one is also for diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and hib.

All of the above vaccines contain aluminium and traces of formaldehyde which both have similar concerns to thimerosal. When they say traces they say it is clinically insignificant however they mention if you are allergic to formaldehyde not to have it Slight contradiction there!

Nano-chips in vaccines are currently science fiction.

I'm aware that you can find people online who talk about such scenarios but there really is no reason to suggest this is possible or likely.

If you are convinced that anyone had the motivation and means to do this, vaccines would probably not be the best choice.

Mobile phones would be a much better starting point.

You mention SIDs as being listed as a side effect.
If you'll forgive me it's not.

It's listed a event recorded during post marketing experience.

This is simply a list of serious events which happened to occur within a short time of the vaccination.

This does not ensure causation.

You asked about flu vaccine ingredients, a starting point might be the NHS website which lists all the brands available as well as some information on ingredients.

As for your final comments on aluminium, formaldehyde and thiomersal, I'm happy to discuss your concerns about those ingredients.
But I don't want to make assumptions about what they are.

My concerns are that I don't want to inject toxix metals into my child's body!!

Celvapan also contains traces of formaldehyde.

I am yet undecided as to whether "traces" of this would be enough to stop me from giving it DS.

Being as The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen and all.

A lot of vaccines do contain formaldehyde.

A lot of foods contains formaldehyde.

What makes something toxic is the dose (and to a lesser extend mode of delivery).

If you add up all the formaldehyde in all the vaccines your child will get up to their sixth birthday, it's equal to about 1/10 of one banana.

Formaldehyde is not harmful in these doses.

This dose issue also applies to aluminium and thimerosal.

But my DS when he was of the age to receive the 5 in 1 was only having breastmilk. Anything else was IMO "toxic" to him until he was old enough to eat food at 26 weeks.

From someone's blog who I follow:

"In fact our Son's onchologist said that formaldehyde in vaccines was likely to have been the trigger for his leukemia."

"Formaldehyde was given a rating of 0.1 PPM for a safe level, but after the FEMA trailer incident in New Orleans, they have re-evaluated this mindset and found that due to individual sensitivities, even this is not a safe level and many suffered ill effects as a result. The latest verdict is, there is no safe level of formaldehyde for the human body, yet a very significant amount is used in vaccines. This ppm measurement is in a gasseous state, (like air), when put into liquid form it is typically 30-50% formaldehyde, which means a very concentrated level."

"It is also estimated that between 10% and 20% of the population are sensitive to Formaldehyde, so when you have formaldehyde in a vaccine and inject it into your newborn baby, you have no idea if your child is sensitive or not. It is not much different from playing Russian Roulette, however you may not see the effects for 6 years or more, or you may see the effects immediately, and they may be lifelong."

Sorry forgot to say if you can tell me whether any of that information is false I would appreciate it.

Solid foods aren't "toxic" to young infants.

Young infants don't the digestive environment to benefit from much else at this stage but that has no relation to toxicity.

Vaccines don't require a mature gastrointestinal system.

Some medications do which is why not many medications are taken orally in the fist few months of life.

I assume you're quoting from here.

There does appear to be a link between formaldehyde and leukaemia.
But this link can only be found in workers who have exposed to levels 100s of time higher than that in vaccines over many years.
And even in those cases, the lag time to onset of leukaemia is likely decades.

All of this points to how unlikely the leukaemia of a young man can be triggered by vaccination.

To the second quote you mention, formaldehyde is found almost everywhere, including within human cells.
Thus it is quite odd to say there are no safe levels of formaldehyde.

What I think he means, is that there is no safe dosage in gaseous form.
Even then I might disagree.

More relevantly you need more than 600x the total amount of formaldehyde from vaccines per unit of body mass to demonstrate cancerous tendencies in animals.

You quote one more paragraph but I confess without some reference/definition of what he means by "sensitive to formaldehyde" I really can't offer any opinion on it.
Sorry.

Have I been clear?

I will have to disagree with you on the point about solid food. I will assume you know I don't mean the true definition of toxic by the fact I put the word in inverted commas.

I suppose he's saying there's no safe level of anything if you happen to be allergic to it and as formaldehyde is something a lot of people are allergic or sensitive to then it's an odd thing to put in a tiny babies body before you would know if they were sensitive to it or not

"If you add up all the formaldehyde in all the vaccines your child will get up to their sixth birthday, it's equal to about 1/10 of one banana" Is that adding it up in it's gaseous or liquid state?

Formaldehyde is a class 1 carcinogen

Formaldehyde is in a large number of vaccine's,

Formaldehyde: Formaldehyde is a class 1 carcinogen, labelled by

the Environmental Protection Agency in the US as a ?hazardous waste.?

?According to Dr. Penny Stanway, famous author of ?Breast Is Best? and ?Green Babies?, Clearly, this shows that even doctors themselves are sometimes unaware of the toxic ingredients in vaccines, they simply administer them,

Formadehyde has been given a rating of 0.1 PPM for a safe level, but after the FEMA trailer incident in New Orleans, they have re-evaluated this mindset and found that due to individual sensitivities, even this is not a safe level and many suffered ill effects as a result.

The latest verdict is, there is no safe level of formaldehyde for the human body

yet a very significant amount is used in vaccines.

My understanding is that the formaldehyde used in vaccines (and which is present in the human body) is not, chemically, the same as the formaldehyde used in industry. It seems there are quite significant differences between the two substances; however, this is bandied about a lot in vaccine discussions because 'formaldehyde' has a lot of scary connotations and everyone knows how toxic it is. The formaldehyde in vaccines is NOT the same stuff.

However. Is it really a good idea to inject a substance - which is chemically very similar to a substance found throughout the body - into the body at the site of an induced immune response? I wonder this about squalene as well.

The assertion that x, y or z is fine to inject with vaccines because it is already present in the body or in our food is problematic. The human body is finely balanced, biochemically. Each component has its place and a function. Aluminium is present in many foodstuffs, but we're fine because the digestive system is designed to prevent substances such as aluminium from getting into the blood and travelling around the body - to the brain, for instance. Inject it and you're shoving it in where it has no business being, where the body is not equipped to remove it, without even asking where it will go from there. The only 'safe' limits we have for aluminium are based on ingested aluminium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has established safe limits for injected aluminium in adults, never mind in babies or small children

Just adding to this that the meningitis C and pneumococcal vaccines also contain aluminium.

For those considering singles or aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde free jabs:

Single tetanus - contains aluminium and formaldehyde
Single polio - contains formaldehyde
Single diptheria - contains aluminium and formaldehyde
Single hib - aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde free
MenACWY - aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde free
Hib/men c - aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde free
single measles - aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde free
single rubella - aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde free

We are considering giving DS single hib, measles and rubella and possibly one of the men c ones.

So you take advice from someone who cannot spell oncologist, a non expert but not from experts / medics, interesting.

There is a huge difference between a vaccine and a mobile home treated with formaldahide which you are forced to live in for years.

Do you know that chocolate is poisonous? But no one knows the exact limit where it will kill you? Ie chocolate is toxic, will you at any time consider giving your child a chocolate button?

ppm measurement is in a gasseous state, (like air), when put into liquid form it is typically 30-50% formaldehyde, which means a very concentrated level. this makes no scientific sense.

They DO NOT say SIDS is a side effect, they say it has been reported in an unconfirmed population, any reporting of the health of young children from 0 - 5 will (unless it is a tiny amount) include SIDS, it is sad but true.

JazzDalek have you heard of the blood brain barrier?

No I take advice from an ex GP who has done extensive research on this.

nappyaddictthen why are you reading blogs and posting on here?

Because I know other people on here follow the same research and like me are looking for alternatives to the usual vaccines offered.