What Is Coming
Through That Needle?
of Pathogenic Vaccine Contamination
In recent times mankind is experiencing
a situation never previously encountered, that being the threat
of release of pathogens intended to kill or disable large numbers
of people. That danger has prompted certain health agencies
to prepare for possible mass vaccination of the populace. The
purpose of this report is to examine the existing scientific
evidence of pathogenic contaminants in vaccines. This summary,
while making no claim of being a complete review of the subject,
will point out sufficient examples and illustrations of contamination
with bacteria, viruses, and their components, so as to enable
the reader to make a more informed decision regarding accepting
a vaccination (or forcing others to receive one). It is presented
in a format intended for the public, their physicians, and
their agency or governmental representatives, and may be freely
copied in its entirety.
If you as an
individual are too busy to read this brief summary in one sitting,
please be aware there is ample evidence in the scientific literature
that serious viruses, bacteria; or components and toxins there
from; as well as foreign animal or cancer-related proteins and
DNA are finding their way into the commercial vaccines intended
for humans, pets, and agricultural animals. If you are interested
in the short and long-term health of yourself and those you care
about, or serve as a public servant or medical advisor, you do
owe it to yourself to be informed.
In the production
of viral vaccines on a commercial scale, the virus of concern
must be reproduced in large quantities. Viruses cannot survive
or reproduce without being introduced into cells that nourish
them, which enables the viral reproductive activity. In that
sense all viruses can be considered parasitic on other cells.
Living cell types commonly used to reproduce viruses in the lab
include monkey kidney cells, chicken embryos, as well as other
animal and human cells. These cells must also be nourished with
food, and are most often fed with a nutrient mix containing in
large part, bovine (cow) calf serum (usually, serum extracted
from fetal calf blood). This product can carry many types of
bovine blood-borne viruses, and is one of the primary sources
of vaccine contaminants. A journal article states, “a potential
risk associated with the production and use of biological products
is viral contamination. This contamination may be present in
the source material, e.g. human blood, human or animal tissues,
cell banks, or introduced in the manufacturing process through
the use of animal sera...”(1)
The viruses and
other agents that can contaminate bovine calf serum are numerous.
One of the most prominent is a pestivirus called bovine viral
diarrhea virus (2). More specifically, we see in several scientific
journal sources these types of statements: “contamination of
a vaccine as a consequence of infection of fetal calf serum”(3); “many
batches of commercially available serum are contaminated with
viruses such as BVD” [bovine viral diarrhea] (4); “virus was
isolated from 332 of 1,608 (20.6%) lots of raw fetal calf serum
obtained specifically for the Center and 93 of 190 (49%) lots
of commercially available fetal calf serum (5); “agents most
frequently detected in CCL's [continuous cell lines] have been
bovine viral diarrhea virus and mycoplasma. Our laboratory has
consistently found that the source of bovine viral diarrhea contamination
of CCLs has been the use of contaminated fetal bovine cell culture
enrichment serum”(6); and finally, “In conclusion, most commercially
available bovine sera are contaminated with BVDV and, although
there is no evidence that the virus is infectious, bovine sera
should be screened for this virus…for the development or production
Can this virus
cause infection or disease in humans? New evidence shows this
is possible, as researchers have found a new strain that was
isolated from human cells, and it is very closely related to
the bovine strains (8). One study finds that an alarming 75%
of all laboratory cell lines examined were contaminated with
pestivirus strains; of these, all of the bovine cell lines were
contaminated with one of three possible BVDV strains; cell lines
from other animal sources including primates, sometimes contained
one of these BVDV strains (9).
There is now
heightened concern that this virus and others can cross species
lines, creating new strains as they adapt to their new hosts,
and this would include passage of the virus to and from humans.
Whether the human strain of BVDV causes overt illness is uncertain,
because physicians may be uninformed and not even be looking
for this virus. It may be useful however, to compare the infection
patterns in cattle. They can be persistently infected at a low
level for their entire life with a non-pathogenic strain of the
virus. Under these conditions, they consistently create and shed
virus into the surrounding environment, which then infects other
animals. The virus can nonetheless become lethal to the animal
if it mutates, with the new form also causing “visible cell damage
and death” in cultured conditions (10). The animal succumbs to
gradual or acute deterioration of the gastrointestinal mucous
lining, which produces diarrhea and its eventual demise. However,
mutated virus is not always necessary to provoke debilitating
illness and death, and ordinary virus can be isolated from the
cow’s pancreas, adrenal glands, and pituitary glands (11); the
virus has also been documented as causing serious pulmonary illness
(12). A study describes an outbreak of disease among goats due
to a vaccine contaminated with a bovine pestivirus; oddly, these
animals experienced reproductive failure and lesions to the central
nervous system (13). So, can these disease symptoms in varied
organs and tissues also occur in humans when they carry this
virus short or long-term?
A cursory examination
of the literature indicates this may be occurring. One revealing
study tells us “faeces from children under 2 years old who had
gastroenteritis that could not be attributed to recognised enteric
pathogens were examined…for Pestivirus antigens. Such antigens
were detected in 30 of 128 episodes of gastroenteritis…The diarrhoeal
disease in children excreting Pestivirus antigens resembled that
in other children except that it was more commonly associated
with signs and symptoms of respiratory inflammation.”(14) There
are also concerns regarding a pattern of pestivirus infection
in infacts born with microcephaly, a condition wherein the head
or cranial capacity is unusually small (15, 16).
the USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratory describe the
situation quite clearly, and give an indication of the seriousness
of the problem: “The high frequency of virus and antibody detection
in individual animal or small pool samples suggests that any
large pool of unscreened sera will be contaminated. Infection
of cell cultures with BVDV can lead to interference with the
growth of other viruses. Vaccine produced on contaminated
cells may in turn be contaminated, leading to seroconversion
or disease in the vaccine. The safety, purity, and efficacy
of viral vaccines require BVDV testing of ingredients, cell substrates
and final product.”(17) And here is a similar statement from
a New York Blood Center: “Bovine viral diarrhea virus, whose
small virion size does not allow 100% assurance of its removal
by filtration, may potentially contaminate every lot of commercially
produced fetal bovine serum.”(18)
In reality though,
how much of this particular viral contaminant has trickled into
humans? Well, in spite of manufacturers and regulatory agencies
claiming efficacy of their testing procedures, one 2001 study
found 13% of human MMR, polio, or Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccines
tested positive for pestivirus RNA (19). And another researcher
observes, “serum antibodies against BVDV have been detected in
approximately 30% of human population who had no contact with
potentially infected animals.”(16) Also, “pestiviruses adapted
to human cell cultures may be harmful because serious BVDV infections
in humans have been frequently suggested…The BVDV persistently
infected in cell cultures used for vaccine productions have been
shown to be a source of contamination in live virus vaccines.
It is, therefore, prerequisite to examine pestivirus contamination
in cell cultures to avoid secondary infections in humans as well
as in animals.”(20)
immortal cell lines
This same scientist
brings up another important issue. Because many medical-use biological
products (including vaccines) are now being cultured or produced
on what is called “continuous” cell lines (i.e., these are cell
cultures consisting of “immortal” or cancerous types of cells
because they have no limits on how many times they can divide),
there is concern that viral contamination of these cell lines
with a pathogen like bovine viral diarrhea virus, could spread
cancer-promoting material into the human recipient. How could
this happen? Briefly, it works like this. The virus (which in
this case has a single strand of RNA for its genome) is capable
of incorporating RNA from the cells in which it has been cultured,
into its own genome. If any contaminant RNA virus is present
in a culture that contains immortal cancerous cells, this virus
can easily mutate to include unwanted oncogenic material, which
can then get passed into the biological product intended for
human medical use (16).
Were you aware
that biological products, including some common vaccines (for
instance, polio and rabies), are being produced on “continuous” immortal
cell lines? Manufacturers, scientists, and agencies will often
assure us that these cells themselves are not “tumorigenic”,
i.e., they do not cause tumors per se. A closer look however,
shows this is not always the case. While lab culturing may indicate
that these types of cells are not immediately changing to overt
tumor cells, it is now well-known in the scientific community
that after these cells have been repeatedly cultured a certain
number of times, something causes them to convert to a cancerous
article summary addresses the issue in regards to Vero cells,
which is a continuous cell line coming from the African green
monkey, and is commonly used in vaccine production. It states, “One
of the current criteria for evaluating the acceptability of cell
lines for use in vaccine production is lack of tumorigenicity.
Vero cells represent an example of a class of cells known as
continuous cell lines. They were derived from African green monkey
kidney, and their growth properties and culture characteristics
have many advantages over other cell substrates for use in vaccine
production. We have tested Vero cells for tumorigenicity in nude
mice and in a human muscle organ culture system, and found a
significant increase in their tumorigenic potential with increasing
passage numbers. Cells at passage 232 and higher produced nodules
in all nude mice inoculated.”(22) [The term “passage” in this
context means the number of times a cell line has been cultured].
There is another
very important issue reported in studies that is evidently being
largely ignored as regards long-term vaccine effects and safety.
There is obvious evidence that in the lab, continuous immortal
cell lines react differently between one type of animal species
and another (21, 23). As an example, tissue from one species
will allow the immortal cell to induce a cancerous change more
quickly, in comparison to tissue from a different species. These
results then beg the following questions. How extensively have
these continuous cell lines been tested on human tissues, and
would the results vary from one type of tissue to another? And
what happens over the long term…if an immortal cell from a vaccine
culture makes its way into the final vaccine product, does it
keep dividing in the human body? Another scenario might suggest
the tumor-promoting portion of its DNA inserting into a viral
genome, which then gets injected into the body… what happens
at that point?
given the evidence that closely-related animal species (as an
example, various species of monkeys) react differently to immortal
cells, do we also need to consider that any one vaccine intended
for all humans might ultimately react differently among the various
races, ethnic groups, and sexes? And what are the effects of
the vaccine contaminants on persons with immune depression, on
the elderly, or on infants?
A letter from
the FDA to vaccine manufacturers dated as recently as March 2001
shows that this issue regarding immortal cell lines is still
of concern. It states, “In general, CBER [Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research] currently views Vero cells as an acceptable
substrate for viral vaccines, but has residual concerns…CBER
recommends that all products derived from Vero cells be free
of residual intact Vero cells. If your manufacturing process
does not include a validated filtration step or other validated
procedure to clear residual intact Vero cells from the product,
please incorporate such a procedure into your manufacturing process.”(24)
It is now 16 years after the WHO gave a go-ahead (in 1986) to
use continuous cell lines for vaccine production (25), and yet
there are very basic safety questions not resolved by
the manufacturers, agencies, and scientific community, much less
the finer details (26, 27). One 1991 study reports: “Cell substrate
DNA was shown to be an abundant contaminant in the clarified
preparations of the Sabin type 1, 2 and 3 poliovaccines produced
on a continuous cell line”(28). Another indicates that immortal
cell lines showed 100-times greater number of DNA recombination
events compared to normal cells (29). As one researcher states, “Using
neoplastic cell lines as substrates for vaccine development could
inadvertently result in viral-viral or viral-cellular interactions
whose biological consequences are unclear…viral-viral and viral-cellular
interactions can result in the generation of new retroviruses with
pathological consequences.”(30). We note the term “neoplastic” means
the quality of having an abnormal growth characteristic.
There is an even
stronger statement dating back to 1990. A scientist in the field
writes, “The present concern is for safety of vaccines made using
transformed or neoplastic mammalian cells that may contain endogenous
contaminating viruses or integrated gene sequences from oncogenic
viruses. There is also concern for use of plasmid vectors employing
promoter elements from oncogenic viruses. The principal concern
for safety lies with retention of residual DNA in the vaccine, especially
since induction of cancer is a single-cell phenomenon, and a
single functional unit of foreign DNA integrated into the host
cell genome might serve to induce cell transformation as
a single event or part of a series of multifactorial events.
Current proposed standards for vaccines would permit contamination
with up to 100 pg [picograms] of heterologous DNA per dose. This
is equivalent to about 10(8) ‘functional lengths’ of DNA. Total
safety would seem to require complete absence of DNA from the
Please note that
10(8) means 10 to the power of 8, or 100,000,000 “functional
lengths” of DNA are allowed per dose of vaccine. Is there
something wrong with this picture? How long will the general
public be subjected to these vaccine products that according
to this information, are nowhere near safe?
It has taken,
for instance, approximately forty years for the scientific community
to finally acknowledge that we have a serious problem as a result
of the contamination of polio vaccines with simian virus 40 (SV40)
in the late 1950s-early 1960s. There has been previous evidence
of some human brain and other tumors containing this virus (32,
33), but the medical community has been slow to acknowledge a
definitive link between SV40 and cancer in humans. However, two
independent research teams have recently found this virus present
in 43% of cases of non-Hodgkins lymphoma (34, 35). Another study
found it present in 36% of brain tumors, 16% of healthy blood
cell samples, and 22% of healthy semen samples (36). And strangely,
SV40 has now been found to infect children (37). Considering
that children of this era, are not supposed to be receiving the
virus via the vaccine contamination route, this would therefore
imply that SV40 is being transmitted from one human to another,
in ways not previously known.
viruses may also be contaminating the (Vero) monkey cell lines
used for vaccine production. One example from the literature
cites the contamination presence of SV20, which is a oncogenic
simian adenovirus (38).
Simply put, are
we in a state of denial that vaccines are ultimately transmitting
viruses, DNA, and proteins into humans from foreign animal sources
(and possibly unhealthy human sources), and that this may be
strongly contributing to the incredible upsurge in cancers and
serious chronic diseases? Are these foreign animal genes altering
your DNA? Furthermore, given that viral presence can sometimes
take years to manifest actual disease symptoms, and then considering
the tendencies of health-related agencies and corporations towards short-term solutions
and profits, will we ever truly know the long-term consequences
until it is too late?
virus found in the calf serum used for vaccine production is
bovine polyoma virus (polyoma viruses are strongly associated
with cancer); one pertinent article is titled “Bovine polyoma
virus, a frequent contaminant of calf serum”(39). Other contaminants
include a virus from the parvovirus family (40); another study
cites “virus-like particles” and “mycoplasma-like agents” in
68% and 20% of the samples, respectively (41); and yet another
mentions the presence of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus
(aka bovine herpes virus 1), and parainfluenza-3 virus in addition
to the common BVDV (42). An interesting report from 1975 not
only affirms the presence of these viruses in calf serum, and
mentions the additional presence of bovine enterovirus-4, but
also tells us that 25% of serum lots that were pre-tested by
the suppliers and “considered to be free of known viral contaminants” were
actually contaminated with bovine viruses (43). It should be
obvious that any bovine blood-borne virus (including serious
retroviruses such as bovine leukemia virus, bovine visna virus,
and bovine immunodeficiency virus) could ultimately end up in
human or animal vaccines via the use of calf serum in the manufacturing
of calf serum with certain bovine herpes viruses, and the possible
implication for human health, deserves a bit of scrutiny. It
is known that bovine herpesvirus-1 replicates easily in a human
embryo cell line called WI-38 (44). It is also known that bovine
herpesvirus-4 is quite “persistent” in calf serum, and has a
wide host range, including human cells (45). In fact, this particular
virus strongly replicates in two human embryonic cell lines,
WI-38 and MRC-5, enough so to prompt one author to give these
details and a warning: “PCR [polymerase chain reaction] detected
a 10,000-times-higher level of BHV-4 [bovine herpesvirus-4] DNA… the
supernatant indicated a 100-fold increase of infectious particles.
Since this is the first bovine (human herpes virus 8 and Epstein-Barr
virus related) herpes virus which replicates on human cells in
vitro, the danger of possible human BHV-4 infection should not
be ignored.” (46)
to this possible contamination, is that these same human cell
lines WI-38 and MRC-5 are two of the most common human cell
lines used to manufacture viral vaccines, (for example -
rubella, chickenpox, smallpox) and these cell lines are of course,
commonly nurtured with calf serum.
from chicken sources
Some viral vaccines
are produced by growing the virus in chicken eggs. Common human
vaccines manufactured by this method include influenza, mumps,
measles, yellow fever, and others. Like the vaccines that include
bovine-source materials, those derived from chicken embryo culture
are plagued with some very serious viral contamination problems.
virus (aka avian leukemia virus or ALV) is a retroviral pathogen
that infects large segments of the modern poultry industry, is
present in commercial chickens and eggs, and thus exposes humans
on a consistent basis (47). An interesting virus in the sense
that it can be considered a “parent”, it easily transforms into
a dizzying array of related viruses by hijacking one of numerous
cancer-related gene segments from its host, and inserting it
into its own genome. Furthermore, it has the additional capability
of inserting itself into the host (including human) genome, hiding
out so to speak, and causing cancerous cell transformation from
that location. There is now much scientific literature available
that describes the various active mechanisms of this and other
cancer-associated viruses (48). Viruses that originate from the “parent” avian
leukosis virus, include the potent Rous sarcoma virus, Rous-associated
viruses, avian myeloblastosis virus, avian myelocytoma virus,
avian erythroblastosis virus, Fujinami sarcoma virus, etc. One
group of researchers studying the mechanism of ALV writes, “Serial
passaging of a retrovirus that does not carry an oncogene on
such cultures leads with a high frequency to the emergence
of new viruses that have transduced oncogenes…”(49). In other
words, given the right growth conditions, ALV can easily transform
into other closely related viruses that are known to be cancer-related.
Just how common
is this avian leukosis virus in viral vaccines? The first evidence
of contamination came to light in the 1960s when yellow fever
vaccine was found to contain it (50). Since that time, it is
common knowledge in the industry that this virus (or components
thereof) still linger in human and animal vaccines (51). Indeed,
the respected Fields Virology text (year 2001 edition) states, “At
the present time, vaccines produced by some of the world’s 12
manufacturing institutes are contaminated with avian leukosis
virus”(52). One point that researchers in this field do agree
upon, are the presence of ALV, avian endogenous virus, avian
reticuloendotheliosis virus (another poultry retrovirus), and
also an enzyme called reverse transcriptase (a component of retroviruses)
in final vaccine products intended for human use, especially
the mumps, measles, yellow fever, and influenza vaccines (53,
54, 55). What they do not agree upon are the effects on humans
in terms of transmission, infection, and possible subsequent
disease. A recent study coming out of the U.S. CDC (Centers for
Disease Control), which analyzed frozen blood serum samples from
children that had received MMR vaccinations, reports no avian
viral presence in these samples (56).
And yet, we see
reports from other researchers that make us question the results
of that study. As is often the case with viruses, some strains
will show particular affinities for certain types of tissues
or growth conditions, and ALV is no exception (57). One researcher
makes the effort to explain, “Because of the difficulty in infecting
mammalian cells in vitro with these viruses, it is generally
held that they do not infect humans…Our results show that exposed
poultry workers and subjects with no occupational exposure
to these viruses have antibodies in their sera specifically
directed against ALSV [Avian leucosis/sarcoma viruses]… Further
investigation into whether these findings mean that virus has
been integrated into the human genome is needed, to assess the
public health implications of these results.”(58). He also explains
in another article, that given the known behavior of these viruses
in mammalian cellular culture, a blood serum test will not always
provide the correct evidence of viral presence in the human body
(47). In other words, does the virus (or viral antibodies) need
to be actively present in the blood stream at the time of the
blood draw? What if the viral particles have retreated into other
tissues? Thus the CDC study mentioned above may not have presented
an accurate assessment of viral presence, or long-term effects
from the numerous ALV-associated “offspring” viruses. Considering
that ALV can for example, easily capture the human “erbB” oncogene
(59), and that erbB as well as the oncogene called myc are strongly
associated with common forms of human breast cancer, it seems
that the issue of ALV vaccine contamination would deserve a high
level of attention! (By the way, the general reader should not
feel intimidated by the abbreviations associated with oncogenes…erb
refers to “erythroblastosis”, and myc refers to myelocytomatosis,
which are the names of two ALV-associated offspring viruses).
A well-known microbiology text reinforces these concepts by teaching, “Proto-oncogenes
become incorporated into retroviral genomes with surprising ease.” (60)
presence of bacterial-source toxins (called “endotoxins” or “exotoxins”)
in human and veterinary vaccines has been recognized for many
years. Such toxins are originally present in source materials,
or are produced as a result of bacterial infection during the
manufacturing process (61, 62). The various methods used in attempts
to eliminate viruses and bacteria from vaccines are simply not
effective in the removal of these problematic toxic proteins
(63). Several observers have expressed concern that the presence
of endotoxin may be a source of severe adverse reactions seen
in some individuals after receiving a vaccine (61, 64). Some
vaccines, such as those for diphtheria and tetanus, are specifically
created to induce a protective mechanism in the body against
the bacterial toxin; however, vaccines prepared from bacteria
can contain appreciable and potentially dangerous lingering amounts
of toxin, despite the steps used during manufacture to decrease
the toxic potency, as described in this comment: “Vaccines composed
of gram-negative bacteria contain endotoxin in considerable amounts.
This may result in adverse effects after vaccination of sensitive
animals.” (65). It has also been reported that bacterial toxin
contamination residing in calf serum, can cause breaks in the
DNA of human cells (66).
contamination - nanobacteria
is a recently discovered pathogen that infects humans. Now considered
to be the smallest existing bacterial form known to science,
it escapes through common filtering processes, and can easily
invade other cells and cause cell death. Nanobacteria also are
classed as “pleomorphic”, that is, they have the ability the
change physical form. A human variety of this pathogen has been
found to cause or be associated with a host of disease conditions,
only a few of which include atherosclerosis, coronary artery
/ heart disease, kidney stones and kidney disease, arthritis,
MS, alzheimers, some cancers, and other conditions (67).
Since this species
of bacteria is specific to mammals, and must be lab-cultured
in mammalian blood or serum, it is not surprising that this variety
of nanobacterium has been isolated as a contaminant from bovine
calf serum, other mammaliam bio-products, and vaccines. One study
reports that 100% of serum of cattle in a US herd showed antigens
to nanobacteria, and cites another report from Europe that, “more
than 80% of commercial bovine serum lots contain Nanobacterium” (68).
Obviously, any vaccines that must incorporate mammalian products
during production (which would include cow, monkey, or human
cells, blood or serum), will be prone to nanobacterial contamination.
This was indeed verified when a group of researchers found that
2 out of 3 lots of inactivated polio vaccine, and 3 out of 6
lots of veterinary vaccines were contaminated with nanobacteria.
They also point out that the bacteria could be coming from calf
serum and contaminated culture cell lines (69). Any reasoning
person with a basic knowledge of vaccine production can deduce
that nanobacteria have undoubtedly been infecting humans in a
fairly widespread manner via vaccination procedures. One might
also wonder whether it has contributed to the current prevalence
of atherosclerosis and generalized heart disease.
contamination – mycoplasmas and related forms
If there is any
one type of bacterial contamination in vaccines that warrants
particular attention, it would be mycoplasmas. These small organisms
have a structure not characteristic of most forms of bacteria,
i.e., they usually contain a thin outer membrane as compared
to the more complex walls of common bacterial forms. They are
described as being capable of slipping through filtration procedures,
and can transfer to other media through the air or via routine
handling in the lab (70). One source states that “less than 10%
of laboratories actually test for infection/contamination regularly”…that
mycoplasmas are “influencing almost every aspect of cell biology”…and
that labs “which do not test for mycoplasma probably harbour
contaminated cell lines and may even have their entire stocks
contaminated, as mycoplasma spreads readily along cell lines
via regents and media, the operator and the work surface” (71).
They are resistant to certain types of antibiotics used to kill
other bacteria (70, 72), and are subject to changing form under
varying physiological or biochemical conditions (73).
The journal and
industry literature is filled with references to the problems
of mycoplasma contamination in cell cultures and vaccines. Various
studies cite corrupted cell lines ranging in occurrence from
5% to 87% (71, 72, 74, 75, 76), and as we now know, once this
pathogen is in the cell culture being used to make the vaccine,
it is liable to end up in the final product (77, 78, 79,80).
One author states, “Mycoplasma contaminants can be considered
important not only because of their role as pathogens but also
because they may indicate that insufficient care has been taken
during vaccine manufacture or quality control.” (81). Species
of mycoplasmas that have polluted the cell cultures include Mycoplasma
hominis, M. fermentans (implicated in Gulf War illness), M. arginini,
M. hyorhinis, M. orale, M. pirum, M. pneumoniae, and Acholeplasma
laidlawii (75, 76, 82). Any reputable company that sells tissue
or cell culture material, also must test for and sell kits to
detect mycoplasmas (72, 75, 76, 83, 84).
associated variant forms have long been associated with many
disease processes, including cancer, chronic illnesses such as
chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, arthritis, Gulf War Illness,
and many others (73, 85, 86). It would be impossible to cite
all the pertinent references in this short report, on this vast
arena of microbiology that is often ignored by much of the medical
community, sometimes with tragic consequences. Mycoplasmas without
question have the capability of altering cell membranes and their
antigens, disrupting DNA, and altering cellular metabolism both
in vitro and in vivo (70, 71, 72, 73, 86).
of cell lines
As we recall
that all viral vaccines can only be produced with the use of
cells, the purity of the cell lines an important issue. The most
famous example of many cell lines becoming contaminated from
outside sources, occurred when the famous and extremely fastidious
HeLa cancer cells started showing up in labs across the world
in the 1960s. The phenomenon is well-documented (87, 88, 89,
90), and is even the subject of an entire book (91). One study
from 1976 cited a litany of contamination in all primary and
continuous cell lines that were examined – many viruses were
found, as well as HeLa cells (92). As the years progress, the
reports continue to come in: one from 1984, for instance, tells
of inter- and intra-species cell cross-contamination, that 35%
of all cell lines were corrupted, and that most of these lines
were (originally) cells of human origin (93).
to 1999. A study in Germany finds that the problem is continuing,
if not worsening. In a survey of human cell lines, the most common
cross-contaminants came from “classic tumor cell lines”; that
these polluted lines had been unknowingly used in “several hundred” projects
which generated potentially false reports; and that they considered
it a “grave and chronic problem demanding radical measures” (94).
is such that several scientists were prompted to write a letter
to the respected journal “Nature” in January 2000, calling for
immediate action to institute procedures that would verify the
purity of cells used for research and production of biological
products, ensure freedom from mycoplasma, and include biohazard
information (95). (Did I hear that correctly – cells can be considered
a biohazard)? Has anything changed since then to remedy the situation?
There is another report from Jan. 2002, that two major cell lines
used in research projects actually turned out to be HeLa cells
I ask the reader
to now recall information from earlier in this report, that there
are proposals being considered to produce vaccines and other
biological products using distinctly cancerous cell lines, including
HeLa (25). Does this seem reasonable, especially since the current
lines are already dangerously tainted with HeLa and possibly
other cancerous cells? Please remember the 100,000,000 allowable
pieces of cell-source DNA allowed per dose of vaccine (and this
does not include the viral contaminants). Anyone care for a small,
under-the-skin serving of human cancer-cell-component soup? With
maybe a few monkey cell fragments for garnish, and viruses for
points to consider
There are several
issues the public and medical community may want to be aware
of concerning safe administration of vaccines. The human and
animal body has normal barriers that help to protect against
infiltration by foreign agents, among them are the skin, the
respiratory and intestinal mucous linings, and the blood-brain
barrier. The puncture of skin by a needle breaches that barrier.
A group of researchers states, “Virus contamination of bioproducts
such as vaccines, blood products or biological material used
in surgery and for transplantations also is more hazardous because
the application of contaminating virus usually occurs by circumvention
of the natural barrier systems of the body…virus contamination
of bioproducts should be considered as a hazard no matter which
method has been used for its detection.” (97). Of even more concern,
is the administration of vaccines nasally (through the nose),
or accidental passage via that route (98). Fields Virology text
(2001) says, “The olfactory tract has long been recognized as
an alternative pathway to the CNS [central nervous system]…olfactory
neurons…are unprotected by the blood brain barrier.” While that
writer particularly addresses the flavivirus family [i.e., “intranasal
inoculation of flaviviruses may result in lethal encephalitis” (99)],
this pattern of potential danger may deserve further attention
than it currently receives, especially if there ever is consideration
to use a method of nasal inoculation for mass vaccination of
the public or military, and there may be contaminating viruses
or toxins in a vaccine that have an affinity for nerve cells
programs often use jet injectors to save the time and inconvenience
associated with needles and syringes. However, a study published
in July 2001, found that the four injectors tested had the capability
of transferring tiny amounts of fluid and blood (and thus, viruses
such as hepatitis B and C, HIV, etc.) from one recipient to the
next (100). Numerous other articles confirm the danger, and question
the safety of these devices, including one study that reported
an outbreak of hepatitis B associated with use of a jet injector
Some of the newest
types of vaccines are called “subunit” and “naked DNA” vaccines.
Without going into the intricacies of their production, they
involve techniques used in genetic engineering. Subunit vaccines
generally will insert a viral or bacterial DNA section into the
DNA from yeast, which is allowed to reproduce in large quantities.
The protein intended for inclusion in the vaccine is then separated
from the yeast cells. In the case of naked DNA vaccines, the
viral or DNA gene is first reproduced, then spliced into a plasmid
(which is essentially free DNA, widely used in recombinant technology),
reproduced in bacteria or cells, and then separated from them
for inclusion in the vaccine. Recombinant gene vaccines can also
be produced via these methods – for instance, hepatitis B is
now an exclusively recombinant vaccine (103, 104)
One of the major
concerns with these methods is the unpredictability and interaction
of the final vaccine product with the proteins or DNA of the
host. A document from the FDA states: “Genetic toxicity: Integration
of the plasmid DNA vaccine into the genome of the vaccinated
subjects is an important theoretical risk to consider in preclinical
studies. The concern is that an integrated vaccine may result
in insertional mutagenesis through the activation of oncogenes
or inactivation of tumor suppressor genes. In addition, an integrated
plasmid DNA vaccine may result in chromosomal instability through
the induction of chromosomal breaks or rearrangements.” (105).
Another group advises, “Research findings in gene therapy and
vaccine development show that naked/free nucleic acids constructs
are readily taken up by the cells of all species including human
beings. These nucleic acid constructs can become integrated into
the cell's genome and such integration may result in harmful
biological effects, including cancers.” (106). And to reiterate
the danger of tumorigenic cell lines, a researcher says, “More
recently, recombinant DNA technology has expanded beyond bacterial
cells to mammalian cells, some of which may also be tumorigenic.” (107).
It seems obvious
that there needs to be a new and open dialog regarding vaccines
among the regulatory agencies, manufacturers, research and medical
community, and the public. Many have been ridiculed for refusing
vaccination for themselves or their children, but considering
the occurrences of short-term adverse events and questionable
efficacy (108), possible long-term health damage, and now also
facing the potential of wide-ranging loss of civil liberties
(109), is it so surprising that many are questioning what the
actual benefits are surrounding most vaccination protocols? Are
the cases of damaged children, non-functional adults, the huge
increases in cancer rates, immune and chronic diseases to be
simply and blindly accepted by the public as “tolerable losses”?
As a citizen
with a right to good health, please be advised of the following
issues. Vaccine quality in the U.S. relies for the most part,
on manufacturers reporting to the FDA. Here is a relevant statement
from the CDC: “Manufacturers are required to submit the results
of their own tests for potency, safety, and purity for each vaccine
lot to the FDA. They are also required to submit samples of each
vaccine lot to FDA for testing. However, if the sponsor describes
an alternative procedure which provides continued assurance of
safety, purity and potency, CBER may determine that routine submission
of lot release protocols (showing results of applicable tests)
and samples is not necessary.” (110) Yes, this is the scope of
the quality-control protocol that oversees a market worth billions
of dollars, yet allowing all these contaminants into the vaccines.
It may be helpful
to have an idea of the scope of the operation to understand what
we are dealing with here. We are advised that “Large-scale cell
culture operations for biotechnology products use millions of
litres of complex media and gases as well as huge quantities
of organic and inorganic raw materials. These raw materials must
always be assumed to contain contamination by adventitious agents” (111).
And because there is a potentially large number of animal and
human viruses (or viral segments) that could be entering into
the final vaccine products, it would take a equally large bank
of molecular probes, as well as frequent, wide-spread testing,
to screen for presence of these contaminating agents. This would
obviously add time and expense for the manufacturers. What needs
to be decided is this – is the effort and cost involved in cleaning
up these admittedly filthy medical products, worth the resultant
benefit to the public health? And since certain animal products
are necessary for the production of vaccines, it may also be
necessary to clean house at several levels, including the agricultural
sector. It is no secret for instance, that commercial chicken
flocks raised for meat and eggs are often carrying infectious
avian leucosis virus, mentioned earlier in this report (112,
For the record,
the smallpox vaccine ordered by the U.S. government from Aventis
is being produced on two types of continuous cell lines, the
human embryonic MRC-5 and the green monkey Vero cells (115).
We might also be advised of one researcher’s thoughts, that “normal
embryo and foreskin cells presumably represent a state in development
which is genetically unstable, rendering them considerably more
susceptible to malignant transformation.” (116). Are remnants
of these types of cells something we want injected into our bodies?
you make in accepting or refusing a vaccination can be a
very personal one, but whatever you decide, do try to be
informed of the true benefits and risks. Nobody should be
forced to submit to any medical procedure, especially one
of questionable value.
[Items with a
PMID number will usually have abstracts available to read. Go
to the PubMed website: http://www4.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and
enter the accession number into the search box.]
B. Regulatory affairs and biotechnology in Europe: III. Introduction
into good regulatory practice--validation of virus removal and
inactivation. Biotherapy 1993; 6(2):93-102. PMID 8398576.
2. Vilcek S.
Identification of pestiviruses contaminating cell lines and fetal
calf sera. Acta Virol 2001 Apr;45(2):81-6. PMID 11719986.
3. Barkema HW,
Bartels CJ, van Wuijckhuise L, Hesselink JW, Holzhauer M, Weber
MF, Franken P, Kock PA, Bruschke CJ, Zimmer GM. Outbreak of bovine
virus diarrhea on Dutch dairy farms induced by a bovine herpesvirus
1 marker vaccine contaminated with bovine virus diarrhea virus
type 2. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd 2001 Mar 15;126(6):158-65. PMID
WB. Bovine serum: reducing the variables through the use of donor
herds. Dev Biol Stand 1999;99:79-86. PMID 10404879.
5. Bolin SR,
Matthews PJ, Ridpath JF. Methods for detection and frequency
of contamination of fetal calf serum with bovine viral diarrhea
virus and antibodies against bovine viral diarrhea virus. : J
Vet Diagn Invest 1991 Jul;3(3):199-203. PMID 1655059.
6. Erickson GA,
Landgraf JG, Wessman SJ, Koski TA, Moss LM. Detection and elimination
of adventitious agents in continuous cell lines. Dev Biol Stand
1989;70:59-66. PMID 2759356.
7. Yanagi M,
Bukh J, Emerson SU, Purcell RH. Contamination of commercially
available fetal bovine sera with bovine viral diarrhea virus
genomes: implications for the study of hepatitis C virus in cell
cultures. J Infect Dis 1996 Dec;174(6):1324-7. PMID 8940226.
M, Harasawa R, Verhulst A. Genotypic analysis of the 5'-untranslated
region of a pestivirus strain isolated from human leucocytes.
Microbiol Immunol 1997;41(10):829-34. PMID 9403511.
9. Harasawa R,
Mizusawa H. Demonstration and genotyping of pestivirus RNA from
mammalian cell lines. Microbiol Immunol 1995;39(12):979-85. PMID
10. Brock, KV.
Pathogenesis of BVDV Infections. http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~brockkv/path.htm and http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~brockkv/terms.htm
B, Bolin SR, Ridpath JF, Pohlenz J. Morphologic lesions in type
2 BVDV infections experimentally induced by strain BVDV2-1373
recovered from a field case. Vet Microbiol 2000 Nov 15;77(1-2):157-62.
12. Meehan JT,
Lehmkuhl HD, Cutlip RC, Bolin SR. Acute pulmonary lesions in
sheep experimentally infected with bovine viral diarrhoea virus.
J Comp Pathol 1998 Oct;119(3):277-92. PMID 9807729.
13. Loken T,
Krogsrud J, Bjerkas I. Outbreaks of border disease in goats induced
by a pestivirus-contaminated orf vaccine, with virus transmission
to sheep and cattle. J Comp Pathol 1991 Feb;104(2):195-209. PMID
14. Yolken R,
Dubovi E, Leister F, Reid R, Almeido-Hill J, Santosham M. Infantile
gastroenteritis associated with excretion of pestivirus antigens.
Lancet 1989 Mar 11;1(8637):517-20. PMID 2564059.
15. Potts BJ,
Sever JL, Tzan NR, Huddleston D, Elder GA. Possible role of pestiviruses
in microcephaly. Lancet 1987 Apr 25;1(8539):972-3.
R. Latent Risk in Bovine Serums Used for Biopharmaceutic Production. http://www.asmusa.org/pcsrc/sum02.htm
17. Levings RL,
Wessman SJ. Bovine viral diarrhea virus contamination of nutrient
serum, cell cultures and viral vaccines. Dev Biol Stand 1991;75:177-81.
M, Vacirca G, Harasawa R, Buttner M, Panuccio A, De Giuli Morghen
C, Zanetti A, Belloli A, Verhulst A. Genotypes of pestivirus
RNA detected in live virus vaccines for human use. J Vet Med
Sci 2001 Jul;63(7):723-33. PMID 11503899.
R, Mizusawa H. Detection of Pestiviruses from Mammalian Cell
Cultures by the Polymerase Chain Reaction. Proceedings of 3rd
Internet World Congress on Biomedical Sciences 1996.12.9-20 Riken,
Tsukuba, Japan. http://www.3iwc.riken.go.jp/CONGRESS/SYMPO/SBB0202/AK0111/TIT.HTM
G, Bather R, Furesz J, Becker BC. Activation of metastatic potential
in African green monkey kidney cell lines by prolonged in vitro
culture. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 1985 Nov;21(11):649-52. PMID
IS, Petricciani JC, Elisberg BL. Tumorigenicity of Vero cells.
J Biol Stand 1984 Oct;12(4):391-8. PMID 6526826.
23. Furesz J,
Fanok A, Contreras G, Becker B. Tumorigenicity testing of various
cell substrates for production of biologicals. Dev Biol Stand
1989;70:233-43. PMID 2759351.
24. Letter to
Sponsors Using Vero Cells as a Cell Substrate for Investigational
Vaccines. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Food and Drug Administration, Division of Vaccines and
Related Products Applications, March 12, 2001. www.fda.gov/cber/ltr/vero031301.htm
25. U.S. Dept.
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and
Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
Evolving Scientific and Regulatory Perspectives on Cell Substrates
for Vaccine Development. http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/0907evolv.txt
26. Lewis AM
Jr. Developing an approach to evaluate the use of neoplastic
cells as vaccine substrates. Dev Biol (Basel) 2001;106:37-42;
discussion 42-3. PMID 11761251.
27. Purcell DF.
Pathogenesis of replication competent retroviruses derived from
mouse cells in immuno suppressed primates: implications for use
of neoplastic cells as vaccine substrates. Dev Biol (Basel) 2001;106:187-98;
discussion 199, 253-63. PMID 11761231.
FA, Svitkin YV, Popova VD, Terletskaya EN, Timofeev AV, Elbert
LB, Lashkevich VA, Drozdov SG. Use of protamine sulphate for
elimination of substrate DNA in polio vaccines produced on continuous
cell lines. Vaccine 1991 Mar;9(3):207-9. PMID 1645900.
B, McCormick-Graham M, Romero DP, Campbell C. Characterization
of homologous DNA recombination activity in normal and immortal
mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res 1996 Oct 15;24(20):4084-91.
PMID 8918816 (full text article available free at this link).
SK. Generation of mink cell focus-inducing retroviruses: a model
for understanding how viral-viral and viral-cellular interactions
can result in biological consequences. Dev Biol (Basel) 2001;106:163-7;
discussion 167-8, 253-63. PMID 11761228.
MR. History, precedent, and progress in the development of mammalian
cell culture systems for preparing vaccines: safety considerations
revisited. J Med Virol 1990 May;31(1):5-12. PMID 2198327.
32. Butel JS,
Lednicky JA. Cell and molecular biology of simian virus 40: implications
for human infections and disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Jan
20;91(2):119-34. PMID 9923853.
AS, Lednicky JA, Butel JS. Molecular characterization of SV40
DNA in multiple samples from a human mesothelioma. Anticancer
Res 2000 Mar-Apr;20(2A):879-84. PMID 10810370.
34. Vilchez RA,
Madden CR, Kozinetz CA, Halvorson SJ, White ZS, Jorgensen JL,
Finch CJ, Butel JS. Association between simian virus 40 and non-Hodgkin
lymphoma. Lancet 2002 Mar 9;359(9309):817-23. PMID 11897278.
N, Harada K, Reddy J, Scheuermann RH, Xu Y, McKenna RW, Milchgrub
S, Kroft SH, Feng Z, Gazdar AF. Presence of simian virus 40 DNA
sequences in human lymphomas. Lancet 2002 Mar 9;359(9309):851-2.
36. Bu X, Zhang
X, Zhang X, et Al. A study of simian virus 40 infection and its
origin in human brain tumors. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi
2000 Feb;21(1):19-21. PMID 11860751.
37. Butel JS,
Jafar S, Wong C, Arrington AS, Opekun AR, Finegold MJ, Adam E.
Evidence of SV40 infections in hospitalized children. Hum Pathol
1999 Dec;30(12):1496-502. PMID 10667429.
38. von Mettenheim
AE. Studies on simian viruses as possible contaminants of inactivated
virus vaccines. I. Direct and serologic detection of simian adenovirus
SV20. Zentralbl Bakteriol [Orig A] 1975 Jul;232(2-3):131-40.
R, van Steenis B, Sol C. Bovine polyomavirus, a frequent contaminant
of calf serum. Biologicals 1991 Oct;19(4):265-70. PMID 1665699.
PF, Rweyemamu MM. The association of calf serum with the contamination
of BHK21 clone 13 suspension cells by a parvovirus serologically
related to the minute virus of mice (MVM). Arch Virol 1980;64(4):359-74.
41. Fong CK,
Gross PA, Hsiung GD, Swack NS. Use of electron microscopy for
detection of viral and other microbial contaminants in bovine
sera. J Clin Microbiol 1975 Feb;1(2):219-24. PMID 51855.
GA, Bolin SR, Landgraf JG. Viral contamination of fetal bovine
serum used for tissue culture: risks and concerns. Dev Biol Stand
1991;75:173-5. PMID 1665460.
AJ, Wopschall LJ, Hopps HE, Morris CS. Detection of bovine viruses
in fetal bovine serum used in cell culture. In Vitro 1975 Nov-Dec;11(6):400-3.
FJ, Dietz A, Hsiung GD. Growth characteristics of bovine herpesvirus
1 (infectious bovine rhinotracheitis) in human diploid cell strain
WI-38. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1976 Feb;151(2):407-10. PMID 175382.
45. Egyed L.
Bovine herpesvirus type 4: a special herpesvirus (review article).
Acta Vet Hung 2000;48(4):501-13. PMID 11402667.
46. Egyed L.
Replication of bovine herpesvirus type 4 in human cells in vitro.
J Clin Microbiol 1998 Jul;36(7):2109-11. PMID 9650976.
47. Johnson ES.
Poultry oncogenic retroviruses and humans. Cancer Detect Prev
1994;18(1):9-30. PMID 8162609.
48. For example,
see Nevins JR, “Cell Transformation by Viruses”, in Knipe DM
et al (ed.), 2001. Fields Virology (4th ed), Vol. I, chapter
10, p.245-283. Lippincott. Also see Joklik WK, “Tumor Viruses”,
in Joklik WK et al, 1992. Zinsser Microbiology (20th ed), chapter
59, p.869-905. Appleton & Lange.
49. Felder MP,
Eychene A, Laugier D, Marx M, Dezelee P, Calothy G. Steps and
mechanisms of oncogene transduction by retroviruses. Folia Biol
(Praha) 1994;40(5):225-35. PMID 7895853.
50. Harris RJ,
Dougherty RM, Biggs PM, Payne LN, Goffe AP, Churchill AE, Mortimer
R. Contaminant viruses in two live virus vaccines produced in
chick cells. J Hyg (Lond) 1966 Mar;64(1):1-7. PMID 4286627.
51. Payne LN,
Biggs PM, Chubb RC, Bowden RS. Contamination of egg-adapted canine
distemper vaccine by avian leukosis virus. Vet Rec 1966 Jan 8;78(2):45-8.
52. Knipe DM
et al (ed.) 2001. Fields Virology (4th ed), Vol. I, p.1103. Lippincott.
53. Johnson JA,
Heneine W. Characterization of endogenous avian leukosis viruses
in chicken embryonic fibroblast substrates used in production
of measles and mumps vaccines. J Virol 2001 Apr;75(8):3605-12.
54. Maudru T,
Peden KW. Analysis of a coded panel of licensed vaccines by polymerase
chain reaction-based reverse transcriptase assays: a collaborative
study. J Clin Virol 1998 Jul 24;11(1):19-28. PMID 9784140.
55. Tsang SX,
Switzer WM, Shanmugam V, Johnson JA, Goldsmith C, Wright A, Fadly
A, Thea D, Jaffe H, Folks TM, Heneine W. Evidence of avian leukosis
virus subgroup E and endogenous avian virus in measles and mumps
vaccines derived from chicken cells: investigation of transmission
to vaccine recipients. J Virol 1999 Jul;73(7):5843-51. PMID 10364336.
56. Hussain AI,
Shanmugam V, Switzer WM, Tsang SX, Fadly A, Thea D, Helfand R,
Bellini WJ, Folks TM, Heneine W. Lack of evidence of endogenous
avian leukosis virus and endogenous avian retrovirus transmission
to measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine recipients. Emerg Infect
Dis 2001 Jan-Feb;7(1):66-72. PMID 11266296. Full article text
available at www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/hussain.htm
57. Arshad SS,
Howes K, Barron GS, Smith LM, Russell PH, Payne LN. Tissue tropism
of the HPRS-103 strain of J subgroup avian leukosis virus and
of a derivative acutely transforming virus. Vet Pathol 1997 Mar;34(2):127-37.
58. Johnson ES,
Overby L, Philpot R. Detection of antibodies to avian leukosis/sarcoma
viruses and reticuloendotheliosis viruses in humans by western
blot assay. Cancer Detect Prev 1995;19(6):472-86. PMID 8925516.
59. Raines MA,
Maihle NJ, Moscovici C, Crittenden L, Kung HJ. Mechanism of c-erbB
transduction: newly released transducing viruses retain poly(A)
tracts of erbB transcripts and encode C-terminally intact erbB
proteins. J Virol 1988 Jul;62(7):2437-43. PMID 2897475.
60. Joklik WK, “Tumor
Viruses”, in Joklik WK et al, 1992. Zinsser Microbiology (20th
ed.), chapter 59, p.889. Appleton & Lange.
61. Geier MR,
Stanbro H, Merril CR. Endotoxins in commercial vaccines. Appl
Environ Microbiol 1978 Sep;36(3):445-9. PMID 727776.
JG, Loggen HG, van Ramshorst JD, Beuvery EC. The limulus amebocyte
lysate test micromethod and application in the control of sera
and vaccines. Dev Biol Stand 1977;34:15-20. PMID 838139.
63. Sharma SK.
Endotoxin detection and elimination in biotechnology. Biotechnol
Appl Biochem 1986 Feb;8(1):5-22. PMID 3548752.
D, Panaro A, Palma R, Mazzone A. Endotoxic contamination of biological
products (ribosomal vaccines, viral vaccines and interferon).
G Batteriol Virol Immunol 1979 Jan-Jun;72(1-6):72-7. PMID 95449.
65. Cussler K,
Godau H, Gyra H. Investigation of the endotoxin content of veterinary
vaccines. ALTEX 1994;11(5):24-29. PMID 11178403.
AM, Smith EM. Effect of bacterial toxins in serum on the chromosomes
of WI-38. Dev Biol Stand 1976 Dec 13-15;37:185-90. PMID 801471.
67. See “What
are nanobacteria?” at http://www.nanobaclabs.com/PageDisplay.asp?p1=6578
EB, Sontakke S, Cannedy A, Hancock SI, Bradley JM. Infection
with Bartonella weissii and detection of Nanobacterium antigens
in a North Carolina beef herd. J Clin Microbiol 2001 Mar;39(3):879-82.
PMID 11230398. Full article text available at http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/39/3/879?view=full&pmid=11230398
detected in vaccines. NanoNews 2001 July;1(2). Article available
70. Cell Culture
Contamination Example. Mycoplasma. http://www.unc.edu/depts/tcf/mycoplasma.htm
71. Prasad E,
Lim-Fong R. Mycoplasmas. http://www2.provlab.ab.ca/bugs/biologos/9702mypl.htm
Detection Kit. http://www.atcc.org/Products/MycoplasmaDetectKit.cfm
73. Mattman LH,
2001. Cell wall deficient forms: stealth pathogens (3rd ed.).
74. Uphoff CC,
Drexler HG. Prevention of mycoplasma contamination in leukemia-lymphoma
cell lines. Hum Cell 2001 Sep;14(3):244-7. PMID 11774744.
Detection and Elimination. http://www.dsmz.de/mutz/mutzmyco.htm
Detection Kit. http://www.biovalley.fr/anglais/biology/mob_cc.htm
77. Kojima A,
Takahashi T, Kijima M, Ogikubo Y, Tamura Y, Harasawa R. Detection
of mycoplasma DNA in veterinary live virus vaccines by the polymerase
chain reaction. J Vet Med Sci 1996 Oct;58(10):1045-8. PMID 8916012.
78. Kojima A,
Takahashi T, Kijima M, Ogikubo Y, Nishimura M, Nishimura S, Harasawa
R, Tamura Y. Detection of Mycoplasma in avian live virus vaccines
by polymerase chain reaction. Biologicals 1997 Dec;25(4):365-71.
T, Sovova V, Ivanov I, Opalchenova G. Comparison of methods used
for detection of mycoplasma contamination in cell cultures, sera,
and live-virus vaccines. Folia Biol (Praha) 1993;39(5):270-6.
GL, Nass M, Nicolson N. Anthrax vaccine: controversy over safety
and efficacy. Antimicrobics and Infectious Disease Newsletter
(Elsevier Science) 2000. Article located at http://www.flatlandbooks.com/anthrax.html
DH. A survey of mycoplasma detection in veterinary vaccines.
Vaccine 1986 Dec;4(4):237-40. PMID 3799018.
82. Kong F, James
G, Gordon S, Zelynski A, Gilbert GL. Species-specific PCR for
identification of common contaminant mollicutes in cell culture.
Appl Environ Microbiol 2001 Jul;67(7):3195-200. PMID 11425741.
testing by PCR. http://locus.umdnj.edu/nia/qc/myco.html
sp. Reagent Set. http://www.euroclone.net/mol_biology/mycoplasma.htm
PB. Cancer and cell wall deficient bacteria. Med Hypotheses 1990
May;32(1):1-9. PMID 2190063.
86. Baseman JB,
Tully JG. Mycoplasmas: sophisticated, reemerging, and burdened
by their notoriety. Emerg Infect Dis 1997 Jan-Mar;3(1):21-32.
PMID 9126441. Full text article available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm
87. Gartler SM.
Apparent Hela cell contamination of human heteroploid cell lines.
Nature 1968 Feb 24;217(5130):750-1. PMID 5641128.
88. Lavappa KS.
Survey of ATCC stocks of human cell lines for HeLa contamination.
In Vitro 1978 May;14(5):469-75. PMID 566722.
WA, Daniels DW, Flandermeyer RR. Cross-contamination of cells
in culture. Science 1981 Apr 24;212(4493):446-52. PMID 6451928.
90. Gold M. The
cells that would not die. Science 81 1981 April; 29-35.
91. Gold M, 1986.
A Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman's Immortal Legacy and the Medical
Scandal It Caused. State University of New York Press.
SA, Tsareva AA, Mikhailova GR, Perekrest VV, Gushchin BV. Several
methodologic problems in the control of cell cultures. Vopr Virusol
1976 May-Jun;(3):371-9. PMID 983006.
93. Hukku B,
Halton DM, Mally M, Peterson WD Jr. Cell characterization by
use of multiple genetic markers. Adv Exp Med Biol 1984;172:13-31.
94. MacLeod RA,
Dirks WG, Matsuo Y, Kaufmann M, Milch H, Drexler HG. Widespread
intraspecies cross-contamination of human tumor cell lines arising
at source. Int J Cancer 1999 Nov 12;83(4):555-63. PMID 10508494.
95. Stacey GN.
Cell contamination leads to inaccurate data: we must take action
now. Nature 2000 Jan 27;403(6768):356. PMID 10667765.
96. Kniss DA,
Xie Y, Li Y, Kumar S, Linton EA, Cohen P, Fan-Havard P, Redman
CW, Sargent IL. ED(27) Trophoblast-like Cells Isolated from First-trimester
Chorionic Villi are Genetically Identical to HeLa Cells Yet Exhibit
a Distinct Phenotype. Placenta 2002 Jan;23(1):32-43. PMID 11869090.
97. Buttner M,
Oehmig A, Weiland F, Rziha HJ, Pfaff E. Detection of virus or
virus specific nucleic acid in foodstuff or bioproducts--hazards
and risk assessment. Arch Virol Suppl 1997;13:57-66. PMID 9413526.
98. Monath TP,
Cropp CB, Harrison AK. Mode of entry of a neurotropic arbovirus
into the central nervous system. Reinvestigation of an old controversy.
Lab Invest 1983 Apr;48(4):399-410. PMID 6300550.
99. Burke DS,
Monath TP, “Flaviviruses”, in Knipe DM et al (ed.), 2001. Fields
Virology (4th ed), Vol. I, chapter 33, p.1057. Lippincott.
PN, Abuknesha RA, Andrews NJ, Samuel D, Lloyd JS. A model to
assess the infection potential of jet injectors used in mass
immunisation. Vaccine 2001 Jul 16;19(28-29):4020-7. PMID 11427278.
101. Canter J,
Mackey K, Good LS, Roberto RR, Chin J, Bond WW, Alter MJ, Horan
JM. An outbreak of hepatitis B associated with jet injections
in a weight reduction clinic. Arch Intern Med 1990 Sep;150(9):1923-7.
102. Brink PR,
van Loon AM, Trommelen JC, Gribnau FW, Smale-Novakova IR. Virus
transmission by subcutaneous jet injection. J Med Microbiol 1985
Dec;20(3):393-7. PMID 4068027.
WJ, Buynak EB, Maigetter RZ, Wampler DE, Miller WJ, Hilleman
MR. Human hepatitis B vaccine from recombinant yeast. Nature
1984 Jan 12-18;307(5947):178-80. PMID 6318124.
MR. Yeast recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. Infection 1987 Jan-Feb;15(1):3-7.
105. Points to
Consider on Plasmid DNA Vaccines for Preventive Infectious Disease
Indications. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Office of Vaccine Research and Review,
December 1996. Full article available at http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/plasmid.txt
106. Ho M, Ryan
A, Cummins J, Traavik T. Slipping through the regulatory net:
'Naked' and 'free' nucleic acids. TWN Biotechnology and Biosafety
Series No. 5, 2001. Available at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/biod5.htm
JC. Safety issues relating to the use of mammalian cells as hosts.
Dev Biol Stand 1985;59:149-53. PMID 3891461.
A. Dispelling vaccination myths: an internationally published,
referenced report. 1998. Report available at http://www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/chf/myths/dvm1.htm For
statistics regarding adverse events, see the link at http://www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/chf/myths/dvm11.htm
109. See a discussion
of issues surrounding proposed forced smallpox vaccination at:
Fisher, BL. Smallpox and forced vaccination: what every American
needs to know. The Vaccine Reaction, Winter 2002. Article available
at http://www.909shot.com/smallpoxspecialrpt.htm. The
entire text of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, currently
being considered by the various U.S. state governments is available
Vaccine Program Office, Vaccine Fact Sheets: Vaccine Product
Approval Process. Article available at http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/fs_tableII_doc2.htm
RL. Raw materials as a source of contamination in large-scale
cell culture. Dev Biol Stand 1998;93:21-9. PMID 9737373.
112. Fadly AM,
Smith EJ. Isolation and some characteristics of a subgroup J-like
avian leukosis virus associated with myeloid leukosis in meat-type
chickens in the United States. Avian Dis 1999 Jul-Sep;43(3):391-400.
AA, Benkel BF, Chambers JR, Sabour MP, Gavora JS, Dickie JW.
Characterization of four endogenous viral genes in semi-congenic
lines of meat chickens. Poult Sci 1999 Jun;78(6):873-7. PMID
114. Pham TD,
Spencer JL, Johnson ES. Detection of avian leukosis virus in
albumen of chicken eggs using reverse transcription polymerase
chain reaction. J Virol Methods 1999 Mar;78(1-2):1-11. PMID 10204692.
Kopelovich L. Are all normal diploid human cell strains alike?
to carcinogenic mechanisms in vitro. Exp Cell Biol 1982;50(5):266-70.