| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JanineRoberts
United Kingdom
19 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2008 : 22:04:26
|
Highly contaminated vaccines PDF Print E-mail
View Comments
Written by Janine Roberts
Monday, 18 August 2008 01:47
Extract from chapter of the book Fear of the Invisible..
This article follows on from the one i have posted on MMR contamination but explains what is happening more broadly - it is drawn from my new book on vaccines and viruses Fear of the Invisible.
From the official US transcripts of recent unreported meetings of US and UK vaccine safety scientists....
All ways of making vaccines have their dangers. Dr Hayflick, a well-reputed scientist involved for many years with vaccines, described at the conference how the ‘Primary Culture' method of taking cells from ‘sacrificed animals' or bird embryos ran into problems when ‘it became apparent that these cells contained many unwanted viruses, some of which were lethal to humans.' He noted: ‘Latent viruses were such a problem with primary monkey kidney cells that a worldwide moratorium on the licensing of all polio virus vaccines was called in 1967 because of death and illnesses that occurred in monkey kidney workers and vaccine manufacturing facilities'. The contaminating virus then blamed was the deadly Ebola. This was most serious, but again I could find no record of the public being informed about this suspension or the Ebola.
The top UK government expert present at this conference, Dr Phil Minor of the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control, added that the polio vaccine had originally been so polluted that it's doses contained as much monkey virus as poliovirus! I had no idea that so much monkey virus was in this vaccine given to hundreds of millions of children.
Then there was another shock for me. I had been assured two years earlier at the SV40 Workshop held by the NIH in Washington that the polio vaccine was no longer contaminated with SV40 - and consequently I had so assured the UK public in our resulting Channel 4 television documentary. Now I learnt I had been misled and consequently had seriously misinformed the public. Scientists reported to this meeting that ‘SV40 sequences' remained in the poliovirus seed used for the current polio vaccines.
...........
AND MMR ...
Dr Heyrick told of how the eminent Dr Maurice Hilleman, the scientist I earlier interviewed about the MMR vaccine, had used what he thought was an ‘intestine-based cell line' to make an adenovirus vaccine, only to discover to his horror that his cell line had been invaded and taken over by the aggressive cervical cancer virus known as HeLa.
I also learnt that DNA fragments contaminate vaccine lots and remained extremely active and dangerous. Dr Golding feared they might combine with other genetic codes in the vaccine lots - and thus create a mutant viral strain that could get in the individual doses of vaccine.
The removal of this contaminating DNA has proved impossible. The US government in 1986 recommended a weight limit for contaminating DNA of 100 picograms per vaccine dose. But the manufacturers could not meet this safety recommendation, as was explained at this Workshop.
Their failure again led the government to relax its standards, applying the 100 picograms limit solely to vaccines produced from cancerous cells, and allowing one hundred times as much contaminating DNA (10 nanograms) in vaccines produced on other types of cells. But the meeting was told that vaccine manufacturers now admitted they could not meet even this lower standard of ‘purity.' Thus high levels of hazardous DNA pollution remain in many vaccines.
This failure was a great concern to the meeting. Many of the doctors present worried that such a great amount of DNA fragments might cause viral mutations in the vaccines. ‘Naked' DNA (with no protein coat) is known to be highly reactive said Dr. Phil Krause. He then calculated; ‘If there are 10 nanograms of residual DNA per dose, which is the current WHO recommendation, and if two doses were recommended per child, as is the case with MMR vaccine, and the infectivity of viral DNA in the vaccine were comparable to that of purified polyoma virus DNA, we can calculate the theoretical infectivity risk. ... For a vaccine that is universally administered to the 4 million children born in the US every year, this would represent about 500 infections per year, clearly an unacceptable rate.'
This shocked me. If he was right, and it seemed he was (none of the experts present questioned his calculations), this surely meant the current MMR vaccine is potentially very dangerous. Krause also had only added up the risk from the one vaccine. What when to it is added the contaminating DNA in all the other vaccines?
------- and later on at the vaccine safety meeting..... (I am putting together parts of my chapter here)
Dr Krause also stated: ‘Of course, in the context of DNA vaccines, we are talking about injecting even larger quantities of DNA into people.' He was speaking here about the new DNA vaccines being developed as ‘safer' than our current vaccines.
Another important safety issue was raised. ‘What would this contaminating DNA do when it was injected into humans in vaccines? Could it change our own DNA? Could it cause cancers - or autoimmune diseases?' ‘When you consider that almost everyone of these vaccines is injected right into the tissue that is the preferred site for DNA gene therapy ... I think you couldn't do much more to get the DNA expressed [to get contaminating DNA taken up by human cells] than to inject it into a muscle in the way it's being done.'
Another speaker lamely admitted: ‘I chaired the committee that licensed the chickenpox vaccine, and it [residual DNA] was actually an issue that we considered at that time. We looked among recipients of the vaccine for evidence of an autoimmune response associated with the DNA included in that vaccine.' He then added: ‘Actually, we didn't look, we asked the company to look and they did not find one.'
Walid Heneine of the CDC asked: ‘No one has mentioned how much DNA we now have in the licensed vaccines. I mean, how much are we being exposed to? Do we have any idea how much is in the viral vaccines, like yellow fever, measles, mumps vaccines? Do the regulators have an idea from the manufacturers, how much DNA there is?'
DR. Loewer replied: ‘I have no idea. Nobody that I know has mentioned it.'
Dr Becky Sheets from CBER then confirmed the suspicions of many when she responded. ‘I think that the vast majority of licensed vaccines, U.S. licensed vaccines, have not been tested for residual DNA. The few that have been tested are the ones that have been licensed in the last few years, including varicella and Hepatitis A.'
She then added: ‘I wanted to respond to an earlier question regarding how purified are live viral vaccines [like MMR] - [the answer is] minimally purified.'
These presentations made some of the experts very uneasy. Dr. Desrosiers stated: ‘I don't worry so much about the agents that one can test for. I worry about the agents that you can't test for, that you don't know about.
Dr Greenberg agreed, He said he was: ‘worried also about the agents that aren't known'. He continued: ‘There are still countless thousands of undiscovered viruses, proteins, and similar particles. We have only identified a very small part of the microbial world - and we can only test for those we have identified. Thus the vaccine cultures could contain many unknown particles.'
Another doctor said: ‘As time goes on, of course, new viruses are discovered and new problems arise. The foamy virus has been [recently] identified as one that we should be really sure is absent from these vaccines.'
The Chairman of the Workshop then asked Dr Maxine Linial: ‘Maxine, does anybody know if vaccines have been checked for foamy virus contamination?'
She replied: ‘As far as I know, no.'
‘You mean nobody has looked or as far as you know?
She responded; ‘I don't know. There are very few reagents. I mean, there are reagents for the so-called human or chimp foamy virus, but as far as 1 know, there are no good antibody reagents.' In other words, they could not tell if the vaccines contained foamy viruses. (‘Reagents' are antibodies to known virus particles.)
The experts voiced other concerns. ‘And I'll be honest and say that I'm surprised that primary African green monkey kidney cells continue to be used, and I'm a little bit disappointed that FDA and whoever is involved had not had a more serious effort to move away from primary African green monkey kidneys. We all know that there are a number of neurodegenerative conditions and other conditions where viral causes have been suspected for years and no viral agent identified. Maybe they're caused by viruses, but maybe they're not.'
Another doctor said: ‘We need to consider again some of the issues of residual DNA. Is it oncogenic? We had a lot of experience with chicken leucosis viruses in chick embryo cells beginning back in 1960. And the thing about them is they are not easy to detect because they don't produce any pathogenic effect.'
An unnamed participant added; ‘I have to express some bewilderment [at this talk of dangerous contamination], simply because, as I mentioned last night, the vero cell, which under many conditions is neoplastic [cancerous], has been licensed for the production of IPV and OPV [the common polio vaccines] in the United States, Thailand, Belgium and France.' The current polio vaccines thus run the risk of having oncogenes in them. Again this was news to me. I had no idea that the polio vaccine might be grown on cancer cells.
Dr. Rosenberg added, unreassuringly: ‘When one uses neoplastic cells as substrates for vaccine development, one can inadvertently get virus to virus, or virus to cellular particle, interactions that could have unknown biological consequences.'
Dr. Tom Broker said we had to be concerned about ‘papilloma virus infections' in the vaccine ... ‘One of the more remarkable facts of this family of diseases is that since 1980 more people have died of HPV disease than have died of AIDS.'
Dr. Phil Minor, from the UK National Institute of Biological Standards and Control, told of another disaster. ‘Hepatitis B was transmitted by yellow fever vaccine back in the 1940s. The hepatitis B actually came from the stabilizers of the albumin that was actually put in there to keep it stable'
He continued: ‘For many years, rabies vaccines were produced in mouse brain or sheep brain. They have quite serious consequences, but not necessarily associated with adventitial agents. You can get encephalitis as a result of immune responses to the non-invasic protein.' ‘Influenza is an actuated vaccine. Again, it's not made on SPF eggs, that is, specified pathogen-free eggs. They are avian leukosis virus free, but they are not free of all the other pathogens that you would choose to exclude from the measles vaccine production system.'
Dr Minor, the UK's top vaccine safety officer, then added: ‘So even today then you have to bear in mind that a large amount of vaccine that's made is made on really quite crude materials, from an adventitious agent point of view. It's not a trivial usage. In fact, when consider what vaccines are actually made on these days, they are quite primitive in some respects.'
These warnings were coming from a doctor working for the UK government who asked me at a later meeting not to pass on vaccine information that would alarm parents.
He went on to discuss SV40 and the polio vaccine. ‘It's a very common polyoma virus of old world monkeys, and particularly rhesus macaques. The difficulty with this was that, when the rhesus macaque monkeys are sacrificed and a primary monkey kidney culture made from him or her, as the case may be, a silent infection is set up. So there is evidence of infection [found] just by looking at the cultures. In fact, these cultures can throw out as much SV40 as they do polio [virus].' ‘The problem was that the cell cultures didn't show any sign of having defects, when they were actually infected with SV40.'
It seemed that SV40, and its accompanying proteins and genetic codes, would never have got into so many humans if they had not contaminated the vaccine - and that they were only dangerous when moved into a species for which their presence was not natural - such as into humans and into cynomolgus (African Green) monkeys.
Dr Minor continued: ‘Wild caught monkeys were being used extensively in vaccine production. Up to a half of the cultures would have been thrown away because of adventitious agent contamination, mainly foamy virus, but certainly other things as well.'
But, they could not be certain what viruses were present. They could be mistaking SV40 for other viruses. Why? He explained because antibody tests are used to test for its presence - and such tests are not all that accurate. Antibodies don't only react to a specific viral protein. They may ‘cross-react' against other things. ‘What you could also argue is that you are not picking up SV40 specific antibodies at all, and they could be other human polyomas [viruses] like the BK or the JC, and it's cross-reacting antibodies that we're picking up. I think that is still a thing that needs to be resolved.'
‘The point about this long story which I have just been telling you about SV40 is that SV40 was a problem between 1955 and 1962, and it's now 1999, and we still don't really know what was going on. So if you actually make a mistake, it's really quite serious. It may keep you occupied for the rest of your working life. ‘
Then Dr Minor made a still more alarming admission: ‘Now the regulatory authorities in the room will be well aware of a large number of other examples of this type which don't actually get published. I think that's not so good. I think this stuff really should be out there in the public literature.
Another UK expert then took the stand. It was Dr. Robertson from NIBSC and, as he explained, ‘for those of you who don't know, NIBSC is CBER's cousin from across the pond in the U.K.' In other words, it was the top UK vaccine safety monitoring body. He started off on a reassuring note: ‘There is no evidence for any increase in the incidence of childhood cancers since the onset of measles, mumps vaccination.' But he then said: ‘But, I think, as a scientific community, unless we do something at least for the future, we might be in a very difficult situation to defend certain issues. If I confronted some of the violent ideologically pure Greens in our country, [telling them what we have been discussing here]: I'm sure they would say: ‘Shut it down because this is unsafe, totally unsafe.'
It was thus that I learnt that our vaccines are a veritable soup, made up not just of viruses that should or should not be there, but also thousands of bits of viruses and of cells, DNA and RNA genetic codes, proteins, enzymes, chemicals and perhaps oncogenes and prions. The vaccine was monitored for the presence of only a very few of these particles and vaccine lots are thrown away only if these are found.
In other words, the vaccines we give our children are liquids filled with a host of unknown particles, most of which came from the cells of non-humans: from chickens, monkeys, or even from cancer cells.
Truly we do not know what we are doing or what are the long-term consequences. All that is known for sure is that vaccines are a very cheap form of public medicine often provided by governments to ensure the public that they really do care for the safety of our children.
... the chapter continues....
Janine Roberts
author of 'Fear of the Invisible'
How scared should you be of Viruses and Vaccines... |
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 12:00:53
|
wow, that's not a scaremongering headline, is it?
also, if this is really taken from your book, then you may want to get a better editor:
"Truly we do not know what we are doing or what are the long-term consequences. All that is known for sure is that vaccines are a very cheap form of public medicine often provided by governments to ensure the public that they really do care for the safety of our children."
The word you're after is reassure, not ensure |
 |
|
|
Truth Seeker
United Kingdom
978 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 12:55:11
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by thomas p[/i]
[br]wow, that's not a scaremongering headline, is it?
also, if this is really taken from your book, then you may want to get a better editor:
"Truly we do not know what we are doing or what are the long-term consequences. All that is known for sure is that vaccines are a very cheap form of public medicine often provided by governments to ensure the public that they really do care for the safety of our children."
The word you're after is reassure, not ensure
I know many parents are not fully convinced but go along with the conditioning and scaremongering and are bullied into jabs and as a result often may subsconciousley resent parents who have made fully informed decisions themselves to not vaccinate.
Vaccinations cause chronic diseases is as fully an accurate things to say as "smoking kills" warnings on cigarette packs. |
Edited by - Truth Seeker on 08/29/2008 13:04:19 |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 14:42:31
|
Truthseeker, the headline is "All vaccines severely contaminated".
do you think that this is
(a) accurate and balanced
(b) a touch on the doom-laden side
or
(c) irresponsible and scaremongering.
I, obviously, go for c. |
|
|
|
whatif
USA
286 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 16:32:06
|
Thanks for the multiple postings Janine!--it's extremely interesting to read about what goes on behind those dark closed doors.
Notwithstanding Janine's excellent piece, by the very definition of contamination:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contaminates
vaccines are contaminated.
It's just a matter of the degree to which Janine, most rightly, should be raising many a eye brow. And, reactions would vary among each unique individuals physiological makeup.
Perhaps, you thomas p, could tell us of the stuff that's in those vials that, either are-not or cannot be tested for. Please do tell...would those items of interest, after being grown in such a phunky state, be considered purifying or contaminating? Please do tell thomas p.
|
Edited by - whatif on 08/29/2008 20:21:58 |
|
|
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
1254 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2008 : 18:01:13
|
| It looks to me like dirty doctor syndrome again. Semmelweis doesn't seem to have touched vaccinology. I wonder what Janine Roberts left ou which ensures the purity and safety of the product? |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 11:08:26
|
Vaccines are manufactured underr conditions of Good Laboratoy Practice (GLP) and Good Manufacturing Practince (GMP).
All manufacturing sites are subject to insepctions with no notice and have to be prepared for them 24/7. If "All vaccines" were "severely contaminated" then we would know about it.
If even some wew slightly contaminated then this should be spotted before the relevant batch reaches the public.
This headline is ludicrous scaremongering. How can any of you possibly defend it? |
|
|
|
Rosemary
United Kingdom
2068 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 14:29:53
|
thomas in reply to your comment,
If "All vaccines" were "severely contaminated" then we would know about it.
"If even some were slightly contaminated then this should be spotted before the relevant batch reaches the public."
... therefore tell me thomas:
What is being done to prevent transmission of avian viruses and retroviruses to recipients of the MMR vaccine ?
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/7/5843
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
|
Edited by - Rosemary on 09/01/2008 14:35:22 |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 15:07:38
|
Rosemary,
I know how closely you read everything you post, so it comes as some surprise to me that you missed the concluding third of the 12-line abstract you linked to.
Here it is, for your delectation
"Nonetheless, infectivity studies on susceptible 15B1 chicken cells gave no evidence of infectious ALV, which is consistent with the phenotypes of the ev loci identified in the CEF. PCR analysis of ALV and EAV proviral sequences in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 33 children after measles and mumps vaccination yielded negative results. Our data indicate that the sources of RT activity in all RT-positive measles and mumps vaccines may not be similar and depend on the particular endogenous retroviral loci present in the chicken cell substrate used. The present data do not support transmission of either ALV or EAV to recipients of the U.S.-made vaccine and provide reassurance for current immunization policies."
So, it looks like there's nothing to worry about - it has been investigated and there's no problem.
Phew, what a relief. |
|
|
|
MinorityView
USA
611 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 15:53:28
|
Touching faith in the powers that be, Thomas.
But whatever.
Aged survivor of many years of alternative health care...and one vaccine, administered by a doctor without the consent of my parents, 50 years ago. |
|
|
|
Rosemary
United Kingdom
2068 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 16:12:33
|
Good try thomas,
The reseach mentioned was funded by the CDC ,
so of course the CDC are never going to admit that avian retroviruses are being transmitted to vaccine recipients.
Adventitious Viral Genomes in Vaccines but Not in Vaccinees
" In this issue, Hussain and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Harvard University report that recipients of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine show no evidence of infection by endogenous avian retroviruses, even though viral genomes and reverse transcriptase activity have been detected in vaccine preparations. Influenza, yellow fever, and MMR vaccines are usually prepared in embryonated eggs or in cultures of chick embryo fibroblasts (CEF). These fibroblasts contain and express endogenous retroviral genomes (1). In any vaccine, adventitious agents in the cellular substrate may contaminate the biological product. In live, attenuated vaccines, such contaminants are not inactivated, and endogenous retroviruses by their very nature as Mendelian transmitted genomes are particularly difficult to eliminate. Endogenous retrovirus release also has ramifications for pharmaceutical proteins made in cell substrates (e.g., monoclonal antibodies) and for xenotransplantation (2,3)."
*However, it may be useful to probe the possibility of interaction between endogenous avian viruses and the infectious components of MMR
(5.) Dougherty RM, Harris RJ, Biggs PM, Payne LN, Goffe AP, Churchill AE, et al. Contaminant viruses in two live virus vaccines produced in chick cells. J Hyg 1966;64:1-7.
(11.) World Health Organization. Reverse transcriptase activity in chicken-cell derived vaccine. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 1998;73:209-12.
So where do these endogenous avian retroviruses end up in the human genome when they are transmitted to humans or infect humans ?
Surely with all the current research on human endogenous retroviruses there must be a way to confirm the prescence of these endogenous avian viruses in the human genome ?
|
Edited by - Rosemary on 09/01/2008 16:29:42 |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 16:29:14
|
I see, so you cite the abstract 'cos the title suits your argument, but when I actually read it and find that it doesn't, then it can be rubbished 'cos it's funded by the CDC.
Fantastic. |
|
|
|
Rosemary
United Kingdom
2068 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 16:45:54
|
Evidence of Avian Leukosis Virus Subgroup E and Endogenous Avian Virus in Measles and Mumps Vaccines Derived from Chicken Cells
thomas as you can see avian viruses are present in the vaccines
therefore if they have been transmitted to humans ?
Then there must be ways to confirm the genetic location of these endogenous avian retroviruses in humans ? |
Edited by - Rosemary on 09/01/2008 16:59:19 |
|
|
|
thomas p
United Kingdom
314 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 18:51:16
|
To again quote what I quoted earlier:
"PCR analysis of ALV and EAV proviral sequences in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 33 children after measles and mumps vaccination yielded negative results."
Translation: We looked for them in the kids' genomes and they weren't there. Therefore, Avian Leukosis Virus Subgroup E and Endogenous Avian Virus were not transmitted to the kids, or at least were not taken up in the kids' cells.
"The present data do not support transmission of either ALV or EAV to recipients of the U.S.-made vaccine and provide reassurance for current immunization policies."
Translation: The viruses were not transmitted to the kids. |
|
|
|
MinorityView
USA
611 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 23:19:03
|
Thomas, you realize that you are admitting that the vaccines are, indeed contaminated, right?
All you are saying is that for this particular vaccine and this particular group of children, no harm appears to have been done. I'm not sure this is going to reassure all of the parents who've been told for years how carefully vaccines are tested for safety and purity.
Aged survivor of many years of alternative health care...and one vaccine, administered by a doctor without the consent of my parents, 50 years ago. |
|
|
|
Aasa
Canada
771 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 02:26:14
|
If vaccines are not being evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and the potential to impair fertility, who knows what else is in them? With cancer rates rising in recent years, why would anyone want to willingly be administered a vaccine which has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity? I'd rather take my chances with the infectious diseases, especially the ones most people easily survived even in the mid 1900s.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
All vaccines severely contaminated
