By Hilary Butler
WAVES Vol. 11 No. 3  p. 21

Vaccine researchers and boffins were baffled in 1994 when Father Chamberlain of Ampleforth College in York, England, and Moslems throughout the country protested that they didnít want their children injected with a vaccine made from aborted foetal tissue.
They were caught in a dilemma, because while they believed that ëhuman diploid tissueí, as they so sanitarily call it, was the medium of choice for culturing viral vaccines, they couldnít tell the public why aborted foetal tissue was preferable without discussing what was wrong with animal cultures.  To do that would not only reveal some very unpleasant surprises, but would also show the public that important information has always been kept out of their sight. 
Rather than put the cat amongst the pigeons by openly discussing the issues, they firstly denied that the rubella vaccine was made from aborted foetal tissue.  When confronted with the medical evidence, they tried to shut the ërenegadesí up by saying that if their children didnít have the vaccine the parents would be responsible for epidemics, disabilities and deaths.
Previous issues of WAVES have discussed tetanus and diphtheria.  The focus of this issue is rubella.  This article discusses the culture media of some vaccines, and why the use of aborted foetal tissue for culture media has for a long time been considered "the heart of the emerging biotechnology industry" by Dr. Leonard Hayflick, the person who developed it.1
As far back as 1964, concern was expressed regarding biological contaminants in the cultures for oral polio vaccine:
"...enzyme inhibitors and other activators, or other biocatalysts (protease!) of tissue culture origin may remain present in an active state in some batches of commercially prepared vaccine.  The practical significance of similar findings is unknown as yet.  This is only to illustrate the scarcity of our knowledge of biological agents, in mass production and application".2
If you had received the early oral polio vaccine, the vaccine manufacturerís insert might have read:
"Öis a mixture of three types of attenuated polio viruses which have been propagated in Cercopithecus monkey kidney cell culture.  The cells have been grown in the presence of Eagles basal medium consisting of Earleís balanced salt solution containing amino acids, antibiotics and calf serum.  After cell growth, the medium is removed and replaced with fresh medium containing the inoculating virus but no calf serum.  The final vaccine is diluted with a modified cell culture maintenance medium containing sorbitol."3
This is the very vaccine which 2.2 million out of 2.5 million New Zealanders were given and which was contaminated with the SV40 virus.  You may wonder why this virus was called SV40.  Because prior to it being noted in 1956, 39 other simian viruses had also been discovered in polio vaccine medium.  After this time, large-scale antibody testing revealed that other contaminants, such as Mason-Pfizer monkey virus, had been in commercial batches of the polio vaccine.
By 1968, all sorts of viruses (adenoviruses, papovaviruses, herpesviruses, poxviruses, picornaviruses, enteroviruses, myxoviruses and reoviruses) had been discovered ? the mentioned numbers were up to SV59, and the author stated:
"This group represents agents which have been studied to sufficient degree permit at least tentative classification into known, or recognised, families of viruses.  Many additional agents have been recovered from monkeys, or from latent infections in tissue culture which were not included in the table or in the text."4
Another monograph written about the same time details all the contaminants known to be in all the other different culture media.  It is over 600 pages long and the facts make horrific reading.5  Just how many of these culture contaminants got through will never be known, since serological testing was limited. 
But it was within this framework that the idea of aborted fetal tissue was conceived (no pun intended) since researchers were looking for a material which would not have viruses from other species.
If you lived in America in 1971, your rubella vaccine may well have been cultured in:
"Öcanine kidney or duck embryo tissue."6 
Or, if you lived in Japan in 1990:
"The measles and mumps components were produced in chick embryo culture and the rubella component was produced in primary rabbit kidney cell cultures."  7
Diphtheria toxins are prepared in:
"Övery complex media of meat extracts and peptone."8
These media have a problem with: 
"Öthe secretion of many non-toxic (accessory)
 WAVES Vol. 11 No. 3  p. 22

 antigens during prolonged incubationÖ(which) may cause allergic reactions."9
Note the words "accessory antigens".  Accessory is a ësanitisedí word for "unwanted" or "contaminants".  The word they might use now is "adventitious".
More recent information on the diphtheria vaccine does not inspire confidence:
"Most diphtheria vaccines are impure mixtures of formaldehyde-inactivated diphtheria toxin with ~50% antigenically active toxoid; the rest contains other proteins from culture fluidsÖThe US Food and Drug Administration does not have specific requirements for the purity of toxoid for childhood vaccines, but requires vaccines for adults to be >50% pure toxoid." 10
What are these extra proteins from culture fluids?  They donít say.
Tetanus toxins are prepared in a medium that is:
"Öprepared by the digestion of beef muscle and liver...The medium most commonly used at present contains an enzyme digest of casein and beef heart infusion."13
 "A combined DT vaccine contains a large number of antigens, i.e. the two toxoids and the remaining impurities, and in such a vaccine, aluminium may no longer be a major cause of side-effects."11
Note the words "large number of antigens".  Note, also, that these remaining impurities out rank aluminium as a major cause of side effects.
Most New Zealand doctors have no idea of any of this information, or even itís potential relevance to culture media.  At best, they might have read an article entitled "The complete guide to immunisation" in which an immunologist covers the entire topic in the following completely vague way:
 "Many antigens in current vaccines are irrelevant and may actually be harmful."12
This is assuming they actually read the paragraph entitled "The future of vaccines".
Some readers may be aware that the New Zealand vaccine gurus want to introduce a rotavirus vaccine to try and prevent diarrhoea in babies.  This diarrhoea can be rampant in hospitals and spreads like wildfire in bottle-fed babies.  But it doesnít affect fully breastfed babies.  When this vaccine was first trialled in Venezuela, they noticed some problems:
 "Öunfortunately caused rises of transaminase activities in human volunteers"14
This particular vaccine was found to have been contaminated with a simian (monkey) foamy virus derived from the tissue culture cells used.
Transaminase activity occurs when a class of enzyme (protease) converts an amino acid into a 2-keto acid.  In other words, the monkey virus caused this.  The authors go to great lengths to say that they donít think the foamy virus did it, but that they donít really know enough to mention it!  ? except that the word "unfortunately" indicates that they didnít like what they saw.  Two other cultures for rotavirus vaccines are also mentioned in this article: calf rotavirus and rhesus rotavirus.  Most vaccines, regardless of their animal tissue source, contain foetal calf blood.
In New Zealand before the MMR vaccine was introduced, children were injected with an English measles vaccine called Rimevax.  Here is its derivation:
 Number of times passaged:
 X 24 in human kidney cultures
 X 28 in human amnion
 X 6 in egg amnion
 X 13 in chick embryo cells
X 85 In chick embryo cells = Rimevax.

So here we also have human kidney and amnion cultures.  Where do they come from?  And eggs/chickens ? well thatís different.  But is it better?
Anyone having a ëflu vaccine which is also made in chick embryo cells receives dead avian leukosis viruses along with it.  Leukosis viruses are more correctly called leukosis sarcoma viruses because they cause many kinds of cancers in chickens and are transmissible.  But it is not considered a ëhumaní issue:
"Even in highly developed countries, no attempt has been made to eliminate the use of avian leukosis-containing henís eggs in the large scale production of inactivated influenza vaccine because there is no perceived safety issue; especially since avian leukosis is killed along with the influenza virus before being administered to humans in the form of a vaccine."  16
The same page states that:
"Öfor many years, all live yellow fever vaccines were produced in such eggs, and the vaccine contained live avian leukosis."
Because one retrospective study showed no increased risk for cancer in yellow fever vaccine recipients, chicken leukosis virus in vaccines is not considered to be of concern.
When New Zealand conducted a government- ordered inquiry into SV40 contaminated vaccine, which almost everyone in this country was given, the issue of contaminants was white-washed.  The fact is that there are, and have been, many, many contaminants in vaccines.  I have mentioned less than 0.1% of the known contaminants.
But how many of you know that children who received SV40 contaminated vaccines developed four times more melanomas than children who didnít receive the contaminated vaccine?17  And that SV40 has been found, 40 years later, in brain tumours in people who received this vaccine?18 And that more recent research has implicated SV40 as a major catalyst in asbestosis cancer?22  New
 WAVES Vol. 11 No. 3  p. 23
 Zealand has the highest proportion of SV40 contaminated population of any country in the world.  Could this help explain why New Zealand also has one of the highest rates of certain cancers in the world, such as melanomas?
The NZ Government said that SV40 wasnít a contaminant because the virus occurred "adventitiously" in monkeys, and that the levels of contamination were insignificant and not dangerous. 
Not so.  It was only in 1988, after Keerti Shahís presentation on SV40 at a conference on cell lines, that a French scientist stood up and said that they had retested batches of 1950ís vaccines, and found that many vials had more SV40 than polio virus.19  This information was not published in the written media.
And the cover-up continues to this day.  At a recent FDA-sponsored SV40 workshop to allocate new funding (Jan 27 and 28, 1997), many researchers gathered and presented evidence that SV40 was causing problems.  Only one person, Keerti Shah, presented a paper showing that SV40 presented no problemsÖKeerti Shah was the only person granted the new funding.
What will these researchers discover next?
In a previous article on smallpox, I mentioned that the huge problems with the smallpox vaccine were only even tentatively alluded to following its worldwide discontinuation; and are, even today, still not generally known about, or acknowledged. 
But the fact is that if you really want to get depressed about vaccine contaminants, the medical literature can fulfil all your expectations and more ? if you know where to look!  The real experts know that, and this is why aborted foetal cells (human diploid cells) were seen as an ideal vaccine culture medium and "the heart of the emerging biotechnology industry" ? because any contaminants are ëhumaní and therefore ësaferí than the things they never told you about.
Polio, rubella, measles, adenovirus and, more recently, rabies and Hepatitis A (Havrix) vaccines are now being made by some companies on "human diploid cells" (i.e. aborted foetal cells).  There was medical opposition to this in the 1960ís: 
 "The major reasons for the initial resistance to change to diploid cells were: 
1. The possibility they contained a hypothetical human cancer virus or some other latent virus.
2. The possibility that they would spontaneously transform (change from normal to cancerous).
3. When compared to commonly used primary monkey kidney cells known to contain many latent viruses (some of which killed several workers), ëThe devil you know is better than the devil you donít knowí
4. Vaccines are licensed, not cell substrates."  20

In this same book, there was considerable discussion about other culture viruses which contaminated non-vaccine products, such as monoclonal antibodies, which are used as tracers for certain types of cancer.  Concern was expressed about the number of rodent viruses in these biologicals given to cancer patients:
"It would seem reasonable to say that any rodent virusÖwould also be considered undesirableÖand will also increase our list of undesirable pathogens by at least another 10 viruses.  Does this mean that the now small number of remaining viruses pose no threat to humans?  Unfortunately we cannot even be sure of that, because many of them have not been tested extensively for replication in human cells.  Prior to the advent of rodent monoclonals there was no need to know this type of information."21
What happens when you put these live viruses into cancer patients?  No one knows.  What we do know is that cancer patients excrete massive quantities of viruses into the environment anyway. 
But the worst thing is that researchers only look at a problem when it stares them in the face, or bites them on the bottom.  If there is "no need to know" or they donít conceive that there could be an issue, they donít think to look for it.
This happened recently with regard to the MMR vaccine.  Two Japanese researchers decided to look at MMR vaccines (which Japan had discontinued using) out of interest, because:
 "The problem of pestiviruses in cell cultures and in foetal bovine serum has long been a recognised problem not only in laboratories but also among leading vaccine manufacturersÖDetection of pestivirus contamination in viral vaccine has been hampered because most (99%) of the pestivirus strains are non-cytopathic cell cultures."23
Vaccine manufacturers assume that if the cells stay normal, there are no viral contaminants.  But pestiviruses do not cause cell cultures to change.  The Japanese used new tests not usually used on vaccines and found infectious pestivirus in MMR vaccines and in two monovalent Mumps/Rubella vaccines made on primary chicken embryo cell culture, primary rabbit kidney cell cultures, and foetal bovine serum, supplied by licensed manufacturers. 
The point here is that pestiviruses (which have caused problems in veterinary vaccines) were only found when they were seriously looked for, with tests the manufacturers did not normally use.  Why hadnít the manufacturers detected them previously?  Because manufacturers only institute testing when a problem is revealed which could threaten their financial security.
The Moslems and Roman Catholics in England took their stand against the use of aborted foetal tissue as a religious or moral issue.  These days, with vaccine technology rampaging ahead, the use of
 WAVES Vol. 11 No. 3  p. 24
 aborted foetal tissue could be superceded by DNA vaccines, viral vector vaccines, capsids ? a huge array of technology beyond the comprehension of most ordinary doctors, let alone people like us.  The complicated nature of the new technology will demand a "trust us" attitude from the public more than ever before.  This leads to the most important issue of all ? the question of manís supposed omnipotence or infallibility, and the ever-growing numbers of medical skeletons in the closet that the public never ever get to know about. 
It could be that future vaccines contain substances that their inventors never knew about, just as past vaccines have.  When deciding on any vaccine, it is vital to consider not only what we do know but also the possible unknowns. 
And the ultimate question readers will have to answer, regardless of the type of vaccine being promoted as the latest magic bullet is:
Do I want this stuff injected into myself or any member of my family?
 GLOSSARY
Antigen: a soluble substance that causes the body to produce an immune response.
Non-cytopathic: does not damage or cause changes in cells.
Peptone:  a secondary protein formed by the action of enzymes on protein.
Pestivirus:  a mucosal disease virus from the family of Togaviridae.
Protease: an enzyme that breaks down the peptide bonds that form amino acids into proteins.
Rotavirus: a virus having a wheel-like appearance that causes gastro-enteritis and diarrhoea.
Sorbitol:  a sugar substitute used by diabetics and also used in drip-feeding.
 

REFERENCES
1. Hayflick, Dr Leonard (1992).  Science, Vol. 257.  21 August 1992 p. 1027.
2. Kovacs, Dr Ernest (1864) The biochemistry of poliomyelitis vaccine.  Pergamon Press, 1864 p. 162
3. Lederle.  ORIMUNE polio vaccine (manufacturerís insert).
4. Hull, Dr. R.N. (1968). The simian viruses.  Virology monograph 2.  Springer-Verlag N.Y. Inc., 1968 p. 50.
5. National Cancer Institute (1968). Cell cultures for virus vaccine production.  Monograph 29.  U.S. Dept. Health Education and Welfare, 1968.
6. Journal of Immunology.  Vol. 107, September 1971, p. 810.
7. Makino, S. et al.(1990).  Archival Journal of Diseases in Childhood, Vol. 144, August 1990 p. 53.
8. New Developments with Human Veterinary Vaccines.  1980 p. 5.
9. Ibid.  p. 54.
10. Journal of Infectious Diseases.  Vol. 171, 1995, pp. 763-7.
11. Acta Pediatric.  Vol. 83, 1994, p. 162.
12. Penny, Dr. Ronal (1990).  The complete guide to immunisation part 1.  New Ethical Vol. 27 No. 4, April 1990 p. 45.
13. New Developments in Human Veterinary Vaccines.  1980 p. 57.
14. Archives of Disease in Childhood.  Vol. 61, 1986, pp. 211-12.
15. British Medical Journal.  Vol. 292, 19 April 1986, p. 1044.
16. Petricianni, John C. (1988). Changing attitudes and actions governing the use of continuous cell lines for the production of biologicals.  WHO, 1988, p. 18.
17. Geissler, E. et al. (1980). Viruses in naturally occurring cancers in, SV40 like virus and human tumours.  1980 p. 350.
18. Oncology July 1995.
19. Continuous cell lines as substrates for biologicals.  Abstract No. 6.  Department of Health and Human Services, Arlington Virginia, USA.  May 26-29, 1988.  Discussion which followed the presentation of Abstract No. 6 does not appear in the text.
20. Ibid.  Abstract No. 2. 
21. Ibid.  Abstract No. 17.
22. New Scientist 21 May 1994, p. 4.
23. Journal of Clinical Microbiology June 1994, pp. 1604-5.