OT - Cancer Vaccine for dogs

[Guest guest]

http://www.petcancervaccine.com/vaccine/index.shtml_

(http://www.petcancervaccine.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!

Ingrid

http://www.irishwolfhounds.org/vaccination.htm

What Is Coming Through That Needle?

The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine Contamination

By McRearden

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/through_the_needle.htm

l

EXCERPTS:

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. (therefore in the world) 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 an

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 researchers 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. Please view the entire

article at:

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/through_the_needle.htm

l

[Guest guest]

http://www.petcancervaccine.com/vaccine/index.shtml_

(http://www.petcancervaccine.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!

Ingrid

http://www.irishwolfhounds.org/vaccination.htm

What Is Coming Through That Needle?

The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine Contamination

By McRearden

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/through_the_needle.htm

l

EXCERPTS:

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. (therefore in the world) 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 an

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 researchers 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. Please view the entire

article at:

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/through_the_needle.htm

l