RE: OT - Cancer Vaccine for dogs

[Guest guest]

Given respectable academic credentials in research statistics and many years of instruction from the school of hard knocks, I'm most painfully aware of the fact that the medical industry and pharmaceutical appendage is based on very little if ANY legitimate research, however logical and lyrical the wording may be. If I don't have very thorough info myself on this research, AND cannot verify that the results were reproduced by an impartial third party, then it would ONLY be safe to continue the same assumption as the NULL hypothesis that is required for all formal research, that the vaccine is ineffective (and that there never has been an effective vaccine). In less flowery language, the medical industry and the politicians getting their pockets lined are simply full of .........

From: Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>Subject: OT - Cancer Vaccine for dogsno-forced-vaccination Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 10:51 AM

http://www.petcance rvaccine. com/vaccine/ index.shtml_(http://www.petcance rvaccine. com/vaccine/ index.shtml)_http://www.amcny. org/technology/ melanomavaccine. aspx_(http://www.amcny. org/technology/ melanomavaccine. aspx)Good grief, what next?! Note that this is a DNA vaccine!Ingridhttp://www.irishwol fhounds.org/ vaccination. htmWhat Is Coming Through That Needle?The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine ContaminationBy

McReardenhttp://www.tetrahed ron.org/articles /vaccine_ awareness/ through_the_ needle.htmlEXCERPTS:Some of the newest types of vaccines are called subunit and naked DNAvaccines. Without going into the intricacies of their production, theyinvolve techniques used in genetic engineering. Subunit vaccines generallywill insert a viral or bacterial DNA section into the DNA from yeast, whichis allowed to reproduce in large quantities. The protein intended forinclusion in the vaccine is then separated from the yeast cells. In the caseof naked DNA vaccines, the viral or DNA gene is first reproduced, thenspliced into a plasmid (which is essentially free DNA, widely used inrecombinant technology), reproduced in bacteria or cells, and then separatedfrom them for inclusion in the

vaccine.Recombinant gene vaccines can also be produced via these methods forinstance, hepatitis B is now an exclusively recombinant vaccine (103, 104)One of the major concerns with these methods is the unpredictability andinteraction of the final vaccine product with the proteins or DNA of thehost. A document from the FDA states: Genetic toxicity: Integration of theplasmid DNA vaccine into the genome of the vaccinated subjects is animportant theoretical risk to consider in preclinical studies. The concernis that an integrated vaccine may result in insertional mutagenesis throughthe activation of oncogenes or inactivation of tumor suppressor genes. Inaddition, an integrated plasmid DNA vaccine may result in chromosomalinstability through the induction of chromosomal breaks or rearrangements. ?(105).Another group advises, Research findings in gene therapy and vaccinedevelopment show that

naked/free nucleic acids constructs are readily takenup by the cells of all species including human beings. These nucleic acidconstructs can become integrated into the cell's genome and such integrationmay 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 bacterialcells to mammalian cells, some of which may also be tumorigenic. (107).It seems obvious that there needs to be a new and open dialog regardingvaccines among the regulatory agencies, manufacturers, research and medicalcommunity, and the public. Many have been ridiculed for refusing vaccinationfor themselves or their children, but considering the occurrences ofshort-term adverse events and questionable efficacy (108), possiblelong-term health damage, and now also facing the potential of

wide-rangingloss of civil liberties (109), is it so surprising that many are questioningwhat the actual benefits are surrounding most vaccination protocols?Are the cases of damaged children, non-functional adults, the huge increasesin cancer rates, immune and chronic diseases to be simply and blindlyaccepted by the public as tolerable losses?As a citizen with a right to good health, please be advised of the followingissues. Vaccine quality in the U.S. (therefore in the world) relies for themost part, on manufacturers reporting to the FDA. Here is a relevantstatement from the CDC: Manufacturers are required to submit the results oftheir own tests for potency, safety, and purity for each vaccine lot to theFDA. They are also required to submit samples of each vaccine lot to FDA fortesting. However, if the sponsor describes an alternative procedure whichprovides continued assurance of safety,

purity and potency, CBER maydetermine that routine submission of lot release protocols (showing resultsof applicable tests) and samples is not necessary. (110)Yes, this is the scope of the quality-control protocol that oversees amarket worth billions of dollars, yet allowing all these contaminants intothe vaccines. It may be helpful to have an idea of the scope of theoperation to understand what we are dealing with here. We are advised thatLarge-scale cell culture operations for biotechnology products use millionsof litres of complex media and gases as well as huge quantities of organicand inorganic raw materials. These raw materials must always be assumed tocontain contamination by adventitious agents (111). And because there is apotentially large number of animal and human viruses (or viral segments)that could be entering into the final vaccine products, it would take anequally large bank of

molecular probes, as well as frequent, wide-spreadtesting, to screen for presence of these contaminating agents. This wouldobviously add time and expense for the manufacturers.What needs to be decided is this, is the effort and cost involved incleaning up these admittedly filthy medical products, worth the resultantbenefit to the public health? And since certain animal products arenecessary for the production of vaccines, it may also be necessary to cleanhouse at several levels, including the agricultural sector. It is no secretfor instance, that commercial chicken flocks raised for meat and eggs areoften carrying infectious avian leucosis virus, mentioned earlier in thisreport (112, 113, 114)For the record, the smallpox vaccine ordered by the U.S. government fromAventis is being produced on two types of continuous cell lines, the humanembryonic MRC-5 and the green monkey Vero cells (115). We

might also beadvised of one researchers thoughts, that normal embryo and foreskin cellspresumably 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 intoour bodies?The decision you make in accepting or refusing a vaccination can be a verypersonal one, but whatever you decide, do try to be informed of the truebenefits and risks. Nobody should be forced to submit to any medicalprocedure, especially one of questionable value. Please view the entirearticle at:http://www.tetrahed ron.org/articles /vaccine_ awareness/ through_the_ needle.html

[Guest guest]

Given respectable academic credentials in research statistics and many years of instruction from the school of hard knocks, I'm most painfully aware of the fact that the medical industry and pharmaceutical appendage is based on very little if ANY legitimate research, however logical and lyrical the wording may be. If I don't have very thorough info myself on this research, AND cannot verify that the results were reproduced by an impartial third party, then it would ONLY be safe to continue the same assumption as the NULL hypothesis that is required for all formal research, that the vaccine is ineffective (and that there never has been an effective vaccine). In less flowery language, the medical industry and the politicians getting their pockets lined are simply full of .........

From: Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>Subject: OT - Cancer Vaccine for dogsno-forced-vaccination Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 10:51 AM

http://www.petcance rvaccine. com/vaccine/ index.shtml_(http://www.petcance rvaccine. com/vaccine/ index.shtml)_http://www.amcny. org/technology/ melanomavaccine. aspx_(http://www.amcny. org/technology/ melanomavaccine. aspx)Good grief, what next?! Note that this is a DNA vaccine!Ingridhttp://www.irishwol fhounds.org/ vaccination. htmWhat Is Coming Through That Needle?The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine ContaminationBy

McReardenhttp://www.tetrahed ron.org/articles /vaccine_ awareness/ through_the_ needle.htmlEXCERPTS:Some of the newest types of vaccines are called subunit and naked DNAvaccines. Without going into the intricacies of their production, theyinvolve techniques used in genetic engineering. Subunit vaccines generallywill insert a viral or bacterial DNA section into the DNA from yeast, whichis allowed to reproduce in large quantities. The protein intended forinclusion in the vaccine is then separated from the yeast cells. In the caseof naked DNA vaccines, the viral or DNA gene is first reproduced, thenspliced into a plasmid (which is essentially free DNA, widely used inrecombinant technology), reproduced in bacteria or cells, and then separatedfrom them for inclusion in the

vaccine.Recombinant gene vaccines can also be produced via these methods forinstance, hepatitis B is now an exclusively recombinant vaccine (103, 104)One of the major concerns with these methods is the unpredictability andinteraction of the final vaccine product with the proteins or DNA of thehost. A document from the FDA states: Genetic toxicity: Integration of theplasmid DNA vaccine into the genome of the vaccinated subjects is animportant theoretical risk to consider in preclinical studies. The concernis that an integrated vaccine may result in insertional mutagenesis throughthe activation of oncogenes or inactivation of tumor suppressor genes. Inaddition, an integrated plasmid DNA vaccine may result in chromosomalinstability through the induction of chromosomal breaks or rearrangements. ?(105).Another group advises, Research findings in gene therapy and vaccinedevelopment show that

naked/free nucleic acids constructs are readily takenup by the cells of all species including human beings. These nucleic acidconstructs can become integrated into the cell's genome and such integrationmay 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 bacterialcells to mammalian cells, some of which may also be tumorigenic. (107).It seems obvious that there needs to be a new and open dialog regardingvaccines among the regulatory agencies, manufacturers, research and medicalcommunity, and the public. Many have been ridiculed for refusing vaccinationfor themselves or their children, but considering the occurrences ofshort-term adverse events and questionable efficacy (108), possiblelong-term health damage, and now also facing the potential of

wide-rangingloss of civil liberties (109), is it so surprising that many are questioningwhat the actual benefits are surrounding most vaccination protocols?Are the cases of damaged children, non-functional adults, the huge increasesin cancer rates, immune and chronic diseases to be simply and blindlyaccepted by the public as tolerable losses?As a citizen with a right to good health, please be advised of the followingissues. Vaccine quality in the U.S. (therefore in the world) relies for themost part, on manufacturers reporting to the FDA. Here is a relevantstatement from the CDC: Manufacturers are required to submit the results oftheir own tests for potency, safety, and purity for each vaccine lot to theFDA. They are also required to submit samples of each vaccine lot to FDA fortesting. However, if the sponsor describes an alternative procedure whichprovides continued assurance of safety,

purity and potency, CBER maydetermine that routine submission of lot release protocols (showing resultsof applicable tests) and samples is not necessary. (110)Yes, this is the scope of the quality-control protocol that oversees amarket worth billions of dollars, yet allowing all these contaminants intothe vaccines. It may be helpful to have an idea of the scope of theoperation to understand what we are dealing with here. We are advised thatLarge-scale cell culture operations for biotechnology products use millionsof litres of complex media and gases as well as huge quantities of organicand inorganic raw materials. These raw materials must always be assumed tocontain contamination by adventitious agents (111). And because there is apotentially large number of animal and human viruses (or viral segments)that could be entering into the final vaccine products, it would take anequally large bank of

molecular probes, as well as frequent, wide-spreadtesting, to screen for presence of these contaminating agents. This wouldobviously add time and expense for the manufacturers.What needs to be decided is this, is the effort and cost involved incleaning up these admittedly filthy medical products, worth the resultantbenefit to the public health? And since certain animal products arenecessary for the production of vaccines, it may also be necessary to cleanhouse at several levels, including the agricultural sector. It is no secretfor instance, that commercial chicken flocks raised for meat and eggs areoften carrying infectious avian leucosis virus, mentioned earlier in thisreport (112, 113, 114)For the record, the smallpox vaccine ordered by the U.S. government fromAventis is being produced on two types of continuous cell lines, the humanembryonic MRC-5 and the green monkey Vero cells (115). We

might also beadvised of one researchers thoughts, that normal embryo and foreskin cellspresumably 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 intoour bodies?The decision you make in accepting or refusing a vaccination can be a verypersonal one, but whatever you decide, do try to be informed of the truebenefits and risks. Nobody should be forced to submit to any medicalprocedure, especially one of questionable value. Please view the entirearticle at:http://www.tetrahed ron.org/articles /vaccine_ awareness/ through_the_ needle.html

[Guest guest]

I dread to think how many pet owners will fall for that spin, i.e. that this carcinogenic and lethal DNA concoction is a "therapeutic" vaccine used as "immunotherapy" AFTER the immune system has been destroyed with chemotherapy and radiation and cancers in animals have been caused by vaccinations in the first place.

Ingrid

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-dept/canine-practice/canine-melanoma-vaccine-gets-conditional-ok.aspx

"Dogs that received this vaccine showed increased survival time, according to the studies. At the conclusion of one published study of dogs with advanced disease, patients achieved a median survival time of 389 days.

“The development of this vaccine may offer oncologists a new option for treating canine melanoma patients,” said Tim Leard, DVM, Ph.D., director of biologics research and development at Merial.

“Beyond surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, oncologists can also consider therapeutic vaccination, which has performed well in extending the lives of dogs with oral melanoma in initial trials"

Given respectable academic credentials in research statistics and many years of instruction from the school of hard knocks, I'm most painfully aware of the fact that the medical industry and pharmaceutical appendage is based on very little if ANY legitimate research, however logical and lyrical the wording may be. If I don't have very thorough info myself on this research, AND cannot verify that the results were reproduced by an impartial third party, then it would ONLY be safe to continue the same assumption as the NULL hypothesis that is required for all formal research, that the vaccine is ineffective (and that there never has been an effective vaccine). In less flowery language, the medical industry and the politicians getting their pockets lined are simply full of .........

From: Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>Subject: OT - Cancer Vaccine for dogsno-forced-vaccination Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 10:51 AM

http://www.petcance rvaccine. com/vaccine/ index.shtml_(http://www.petcance rvaccine. com/vaccine/ index.shtml)_http://www.amcny. org/technology/ melanomavaccine. aspx_(http://www.amcny. org/technology/ melanomavaccine. aspx)Good grief, what next?! Note that this is a DNA vaccine!Ingridhttp://www.irishwol fhounds.org/ vaccination. htmWhat Is Coming Through That Needle?The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine ContaminationBy McReardenhttp://www.tetrahed ron.org/articles /vaccine_ awareness/ through_the_ needle.htmlEXCERPTS:Some of the newest types of vaccines are called subunit and naked DNAvaccines. Without going into the intricacies of their production, theyinvolve techniques used in genetic engineering. Subunit vaccines generallywill insert a viral or bacterial DNA section into the DNA from yeast, whichis allowed to reproduce in large quantities. The protein intended forinclusion in the vaccine is then separated from the yeast cells. In the caseof naked DNA vaccines, the viral or DNA gene is first reproduced, thenspliced into a plasmid (which is essentially free DNA, widely used inrecombinant technology), reproduced in bacteria or cells, and then separatedfrom them for inclusion in the vaccine.Recombinant gene vaccines can also be produced via these methods forinstance, hepatitis B is now an exclusively recombinant vaccine (103, 104)One of the major concerns with these methods is the unpredictability andinteraction of the final vaccine product with the proteins or DNA of thehost. A document from the FDA states: Genetic toxicity: Integration of theplasmid DNA vaccine into the genome of the vaccinated subjects is animportant theoretical risk to consider in preclinical studies. The concernis that an integrated vaccine may result in insertional mutagenesis throughthe activation of oncogenes or inactivation of tumor suppressor genes. Inaddition, an integrated plasmid DNA vaccine may result in chromosomalinstability through the induction of chromosomal breaks or rearrangements. ?(105).Another group advises, Research findings in gene therapy and vaccinedevelopment show that naked/free nucleic acids constructs are readily takenup by the cells of all species including human beings. These nucleic acidconstructs can become integrated into the cell's genome and such integrationmay 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 bacterialcells to mammalian cells, some of which may also be tumorigenic. (107).It seems obvious that there needs to be a new and open dialog regardingvaccines among the regulatory agencies, manufacturers, research and medicalcommunity, and the public. Many have been ridiculed for refusing vaccinationfor themselves or their children, but considering the occurrences ofshort-term adverse events and questionable efficacy (108), possiblelong-term health damage, and now also facing the potential of wide-rangingloss of civil liberties (109), is it so surprising that many are questioningwhat the actual benefits are surrounding most vaccination protocols?Are the cases of damaged children, non-functional adults, the huge increasesin cancer rates, immune and chronic diseases to be simply and blindlyaccepted by the public as tolerable losses?As a citizen with a right to good health, please be advised of the followingissues. Vaccine quality in the U.S. (therefore in the world) relies for themost part, on manufacturers reporting to the FDA. Here is a relevantstatement from the CDC: Manufacturers are required to submit the results oftheir own tests for potency, safety, and purity for each vaccine lot to theFDA. They are also required to submit samples of each vaccine lot to FDA fortesting. However, if the sponsor describes an alternative procedure whichprovides continued assurance of safety, purity and potency, CBER maydetermine that routine submission of lot release protocols (showing resultsof applicable tests) and samples is not necessary. (110)Yes, this is the scope of the quality-control protocol that oversees amarket worth billions of dollars, yet allowing all these contaminants intothe vaccines. It may be helpful to have an idea of the scope of theoperation to understand what we are dealing with here. We are advised thatLarge-scale cell culture operations for biotechnology products use millionsof litres of complex media and gases as well as huge quantities of organicand inorganic raw materials. These raw materials must always be assumed tocontain contamination by adventitious agents (111). And because there is apotentially large number of animal and human viruses (or viral segments)that could be entering into the final vaccine products, it would take anequally large bank of molecular probes, as well as frequent, wide-spreadtesting, to screen for presence of these contaminating agents. This wouldobviously add time and expense for the manufacturers.What needs to be decided is this, is the effort and cost involved incleaning up these admittedly filthy medical products, worth the resultantbenefit to the public health? And since certain animal products arenecessary for the production of vaccines, it may also be necessary to cleanhouse at several levels, including the agricultural sector. It is no secretfor instance, that commercial chicken flocks raised for meat and eggs areoften carrying infectious avian leucosis virus, mentioned earlier in thisreport (112, 113, 114)For the record, the smallpox vaccine ordered by the U.S. government fromAventis is being produced on two types of continuous cell lines, the humanembryonic MRC-5 and the green monkey Vero cells (115). We might also beadvised of one researchers thoughts, that normal embryo and foreskin cellspresumably 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 intoour bodies?The decision you make in accepting or refusing a vaccination can be a verypersonal one, but whatever you decide, do try to be informed of the truebenefits and risks. Nobody should be forced to submit to any medicalprocedure, especially one of questionable value. Please view the entirearticle at:http://www.tetrahed ron.org/articles /vaccine_ awareness/ through_the_ needle.html

[Guest guest]

I dread to think how many pet owners will fall for that spin, i.e. that this carcinogenic and lethal DNA concoction is a "therapeutic" vaccine used as "immunotherapy" AFTER the immune system has been destroyed with chemotherapy and radiation and cancers in animals have been caused by vaccinations in the first place.

Ingrid

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-dept/canine-practice/canine-melanoma-vaccine-gets-conditional-ok.aspx

"Dogs that received this vaccine showed increased survival time, according to the studies. At the conclusion of one published study of dogs with advanced disease, patients achieved a median survival time of 389 days.

“The development of this vaccine may offer oncologists a new option for treating canine melanoma patients,” said Tim Leard, DVM, Ph.D., director of biologics research and development at Merial.

“Beyond surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, oncologists can also consider therapeutic vaccination, which has performed well in extending the lives of dogs with oral melanoma in initial trials"

Given respectable academic credentials in research statistics and many years of instruction from the school of hard knocks, I'm most painfully aware of the fact that the medical industry and pharmaceutical appendage is based on very little if ANY legitimate research, however logical and lyrical the wording may be. If I don't have very thorough info myself on this research, AND cannot verify that the results were reproduced by an impartial third party, then it would ONLY be safe to continue the same assumption as the NULL hypothesis that is required for all formal research, that the vaccine is ineffective (and that there never has been an effective vaccine). In less flowery language, the medical industry and the politicians getting their pockets lined are simply full of .........

From: Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>Subject: OT - Cancer Vaccine for dogsno-forced-vaccination Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 10:51 AM

http://www.petcance rvaccine. com/vaccine/ index.shtml_(http://www.petcance rvaccine. com/vaccine/ index.shtml)_http://www.amcny. org/technology/ melanomavaccine. aspx_(http://www.amcny. org/technology/ melanomavaccine. aspx)Good grief, what next?! Note that this is a DNA vaccine!Ingridhttp://www.irishwol fhounds.org/ vaccination. htmWhat Is Coming Through That Needle?The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine ContaminationBy McReardenhttp://www.tetrahed ron.org/articles /vaccine_ awareness/ through_the_ needle.htmlEXCERPTS:Some of the newest types of vaccines are called subunit and naked DNAvaccines. Without going into the intricacies of their production, theyinvolve techniques used in genetic engineering. Subunit vaccines generallywill insert a viral or bacterial DNA section into the DNA from yeast, whichis allowed to reproduce in large quantities. The protein intended forinclusion in the vaccine is then separated from the yeast cells. In the caseof naked DNA vaccines, the viral or DNA gene is first reproduced, thenspliced into a plasmid (which is essentially free DNA, widely used inrecombinant technology), reproduced in bacteria or cells, and then separatedfrom them for inclusion in the vaccine.Recombinant gene vaccines can also be produced via these methods forinstance, hepatitis B is now an exclusively recombinant vaccine (103, 104)One of the major concerns with these methods is the unpredictability andinteraction of the final vaccine product with the proteins or DNA of thehost. A document from the FDA states: Genetic toxicity: Integration of theplasmid DNA vaccine into the genome of the vaccinated subjects is animportant theoretical risk to consider in preclinical studies. The concernis that an integrated vaccine may result in insertional mutagenesis throughthe activation of oncogenes or inactivation of tumor suppressor genes. Inaddition, an integrated plasmid DNA vaccine may result in chromosomalinstability through the induction of chromosomal breaks or rearrangements. ?(105).Another group advises, Research findings in gene therapy and vaccinedevelopment show that naked/free nucleic acids constructs are readily takenup by the cells of all species including human beings. These nucleic acidconstructs can become integrated into the cell's genome and such integrationmay 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 bacterialcells to mammalian cells, some of which may also be tumorigenic. (107).It seems obvious that there needs to be a new and open dialog regardingvaccines among the regulatory agencies, manufacturers, research and medicalcommunity, and the public. Many have been ridiculed for refusing vaccinationfor themselves or their children, but considering the occurrences ofshort-term adverse events and questionable efficacy (108), possiblelong-term health damage, and now also facing the potential of wide-rangingloss of civil liberties (109), is it so surprising that many are questioningwhat the actual benefits are surrounding most vaccination protocols?Are the cases of damaged children, non-functional adults, the huge increasesin cancer rates, immune and chronic diseases to be simply and blindlyaccepted by the public as tolerable losses?As a citizen with a right to good health, please be advised of the followingissues. Vaccine quality in the U.S. (therefore in the world) relies for themost part, on manufacturers reporting to the FDA. Here is a relevantstatement from the CDC: Manufacturers are required to submit the results oftheir own tests for potency, safety, and purity for each vaccine lot to theFDA. They are also required to submit samples of each vaccine lot to FDA fortesting. However, if the sponsor describes an alternative procedure whichprovides continued assurance of safety, purity and potency, CBER maydetermine that routine submission of lot release protocols (showing resultsof applicable tests) and samples is not necessary. (110)Yes, this is the scope of the quality-control protocol that oversees amarket worth billions of dollars, yet allowing all these contaminants intothe vaccines. It may be helpful to have an idea of the scope of theoperation to understand what we are dealing with here. We are advised thatLarge-scale cell culture operations for biotechnology products use millionsof litres of complex media and gases as well as huge quantities of organicand inorganic raw materials. These raw materials must always be assumed tocontain contamination by adventitious agents (111). And because there is apotentially large number of animal and human viruses (or viral segments)that could be entering into the final vaccine products, it would take anequally large bank of molecular probes, as well as frequent, wide-spreadtesting, to screen for presence of these contaminating agents. This wouldobviously add time and expense for the manufacturers.What needs to be decided is this, is the effort and cost involved incleaning up these admittedly filthy medical products, worth the resultantbenefit to the public health? And since certain animal products arenecessary for the production of vaccines, it may also be necessary to cleanhouse at several levels, including the agricultural sector. It is no secretfor instance, that commercial chicken flocks raised for meat and eggs areoften carrying infectious avian leucosis virus, mentioned earlier in thisreport (112, 113, 114)For the record, the smallpox vaccine ordered by the U.S. government fromAventis is being produced on two types of continuous cell lines, the humanembryonic MRC-5 and the green monkey Vero cells (115). We might also beadvised of one researchers thoughts, that normal embryo and foreskin cellspresumably 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 intoour bodies?The decision you make in accepting or refusing a vaccination can be a verypersonal one, but whatever you decide, do try to be informed of the truebenefits and risks. Nobody should be forced to submit to any medicalprocedure, especially one of questionable value. Please view the entirearticle at:http://www.tetrahed ron.org/articles /vaccine_ awareness/ through_the_ needle.html