do you know?

What Is Coming Through That Needle?
The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine Contamination
Benjamin McRearden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)

Bovine viruses

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 of vaccine.”(7)

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).

Scientists from 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)

Continuous 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 state (21).

This journal 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?

Furthermore, 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 product.”(31)

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.

Other simian 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?

Other bovine viruses

Another contaminating 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 process.

Contamination 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)

The clincher 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.

Contaminants 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.

Avian leukosis 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)

Toxin contamination

The unintentional 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).

Bacterial contamination - nanobacteria

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.

Bacterial 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).

Mycoplasmas and 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).

Cross-contamination 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).

Let’s fast-forward 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).

The situation 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 (96).

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 flavor?

Additional 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 and tissues.

Mass immunization 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
(101, 102).

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, 113, 114)

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?

The decision 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.

References / Notes

[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.]

1. Trijzelaar 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 11285633.

4. Rolleston 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.

8. Giangaspero 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 8789057.

10. Brock, KV. Pathogenesis of BVDV Infections.
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~brockkv/path.htm and
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~brockkv/terms.htm

11. Stoffregen 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. PMID 11042409.

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 1650802.

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.

16. Harasawa 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. PMID 1665461.

18.
http://www.nybloodcenter.org/PatentsAndLicensing/SDTechnolog....

19. Giangaspero 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.

20. Harasawa 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/TI....

21. Contreras 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 4066602.

22. Levenbook 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.

28. Amosenko 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.

29. Thyagarajan 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).

30. Ruscetti 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.

31. Hilleman 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.

33. Arrington 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.

35. Shivapurkar 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. PMID 11897287.

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. PMID 1179876.

39. Schuurman R, van Steenis B, Sol C. Bovine
polyomavirus, a frequent contaminant of calf serum. Biologicals 1991
Oct;19(4):265-70. PMID 1665699.

40. Nettleton 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. PMID 7396725.

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.

42. Erickson 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.

43. Kniazeff 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. PMID 172434.

44. Michalski 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. PMID 4285488.

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. PMID 11264350.

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. PMID 9066079.

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.

62. Kreeftenberg 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.

64. Fumarola 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.

66. Whitaker 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

68. Breitschwerdt 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=....

69. Nanobacteria detected in vaccines. NanoNews 2001
July;1(2). Article available at
http://www.nanobaclabs.com/Files/Newsletter/JulyNANONEWS1.pd....

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

72. Mycoplasma Detection Kit.
http://www.atcc.org/Products/MycoplasmaDetectKit.cfm

73. Mattman LH, 2001. Cell wall deficient forms:
stealth pathogens (3rd ed.). CRC Press.

74. Uphoff CC, Drexler HG. Prevention of mycoplasma
contamination in leukemia-lymphoma cell lines. Hum Cell 2001
Sep;14(3):244-7. PMID 11774744.

75. Mycoplasma Detection and Eliminat