Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Medicine Science

Corvelva and “Vaccinegate”: Italian antivaxers produce a dubious “scientific report” on fetal DNA in vaccines

The Italian antivaccine group Corvelva published a really bad “scientific report” claiming fetal DNA in vaccines is dangerous based on a dubious next generation sequencing analysis whose methods are not described. It’s not. To believe its claims, you have to believe that DNA can do anything.

Antivaccine misinformation never dies. It’s just continuously recycled into another form. As I like to say, whenever you think you’ve seen the last of a particular bogus antivaccine claim, think of the end of a 1980s slasher film and what happens to the killer at the end, you know, Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, or Freddie Krueger. YOu know what happens. It looks for all the world as though the killer is dead or otherwise eliminated, but he always—always!—comes back to kill more teenagers in the sequel. So it is with antivaccine claims. This time around, I’ve been sensing a stirring in the antivaccine crankosphere, with a particular bit of antivaccine pseudoscience appearing in multiple places. I first saw it late last week at Health Impact News. Then I saw it on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s repository of antivaccine propaganda, Children’s Health Defense. Then I saw it it at Mike Adam’s repository of conspiracy theories, quackery and vileness. (I had missed it there because I rarely bother to check out Natural News any more.) Basically, it’s a new spin on the claim that there are “fetal cells” in vaccines involving the MRC-5 cell line, and it’s a really dumb one, courtesy of an Italian group called Corvelva.

I, of course, have discussed the deception of the “aborted fetal cells” (which all too often morphs into “aborted fetal tissue” when antivaccine ignoramuses tell the tale) in vaccines. The origin of this particular antivaccine trope comes from a grain of truth, which antivaxers twist beyond recognition. In brief, viruses used to make certain vaccines are cultured in human cell lines derived from aborted fetuses, like the WI-38 cell line, which is a human diploid fibroblast cell line derived from the lung of a three month old fetus aborted therapeutically in 1962, while the MRC-5 cell line was derived from lung tissue of a 14 week old aborted caucasian male fetus in 1966. Of course, there’s a huge difference between a cell line that was derived from a fetus 57 or 53 years ago and actual “fetal cells.” While it’s correct to say that WI-38 and MRC-5 cells were derived from aborted fetuses, they are many generations (replications) removed from the original cells from the original fetuses used. Even though that most anti-abortion of religions, the Catholic Church, although not thrilled with vaccines made in these cell lines, recognizes the great good vaccines do and concludes that the extreme good of protecting children’s lives from deadly diseases far outweighs the distant evil—vaccines using fetal cells to grow virus have saved millions of lives and prevented billions of cases of disease—that created the cell lines, urging its members to vaccinate their children. This, of course, does not stop antivaxers from trying to appeal to those whose religions condemn abortion by claiming that there are “fetal parts” or “fetal cells” in vaccines and therefore vaccinating is against their religion.

The claim that fetal “parts” are in vaccines serves another purpose to antivaxers. A major strategy used by antivaxers to frighten parents into refusing vaccines is to portray vaccines as somehow “dirty,” “contaminated,” or just plain yucky. To that end, they like to claim that there are all sorts of horrendous “toxins” in vaccines, ignoring the adage that the dose makes the poison and that one of these “toxins” (formaldehyde) is a normal product of human metabolism and harmless in small amounts. Another tactic is to describe vaccines as being made using cultured cells and cell lines from chickens, dogs, monkeys, hamsters and insects. The “fetal parts” gambit has morphed into a variety of subclaims designed to portray vaccines as dirty, the most prominent of which is the claim that DNA from the fetal cells contaminates the vaccine, somehow gets into human neurons, recombines with the DNA there, producing foreign proteins that show up on the surface of the neurons and provoke an immune response (autoimmunity), thus damaging the neurons. I’ve already explained in my usual painful detail how utterly ignorant of biology and homologous recombination one has to be to accept this hypothesis as anything other than incredibly implausible at best, with no evidence to support it, to boot. Hilariously, one of the most cited (by antivaxers) articles pushing this idea left a typo in about “homologous recombinaltion tiniker” when it meant homologous recombination, the process by which DNA strands can break and recombine when stretches of DNA with the same sequence come together. In the minds of antivaxers, these minute bits of DNA from the fetal cell line used to grow certain vaccines truly have magical properties; they can do almost anything!

Which brings us to MRC-5. To amuse myself, let me let Mike Adams be the first to tell you the claim, just because it’s so far over the top. Basically, a laboratory in Italy has apparently sequenced the genome of the MRC-5 cell line, and, according to Adams:

What’s clear from this genetic sequencing is that the vaccine industry is inoculating children with engineered cancer.

Adams gets this from Child Health Defense, which got it from a report by these Italian scientists. Basically, the Corvelva group claims to have found a complete human MRC-5 genome in a lot of Priorix Tetra vaccine (A71CB256A). Priorix Tetra is an MMRV (measles-mumps-rubella-varicella) vaccine made by GlaxoSmithKline. The rubella and varicella viral stocks for this vaccine are grown in MRC-5 cells, while the other two are grown in chick embryo cells. Here’s how RFK Jr.’s fever swamp described the findings:

The Corvelva team summarized their findings as follows:
  1. The fetal cell line was found to belong to a male fetus.
  2. The cell line presents itself in such a way that it is likely to be very old, thus consistent with the declared line of the 1960s.
  3. The fetal human DNA represented in this vaccine is a complete individual genome, that is, the genomic DNA of all the chromosomes of an individual is present in the vaccine.
  4. The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual.
  5. 560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.
  6. There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer.
  7. What is also clearly abnormal is the genome excess showing changes in the number of copies and structural variants.

I’ll get to the report (PDF here) in a minute, although I will mention right here that this is not an article reporting medical research in the peer-reviewed medical literature. It wasn’t even published in a bottom-feeding predatory journal. Rather, it was published as a monography. (I wonder why.) I’ll also note that this group called it “Vaccinegate,” and that this isn’t Corvelva’s first antivaccine rodeo. As Vaxopedia described, late last year, the group published a highly dubious analysis of Infanrix Hexa and claimed to have found “65 signs of chemical contaminants of which only 35% is known” and “7 chemical toxins.” Basically, the scientists there are unnamed, and the group has a history of producing dubious “science” for Italian antivaxers.

Before I look at the findings and explain why they don’t say what Corvelva, RFK Jr., and Mike Adams think they say, I also feel obligated to note that Corvelva’s report includes nothing in the way of detailed methods, so that scientists can evaluate their findings. This is about all we get:

New generation sequencing have become the preferred tool for in-depth analysis in the field of biology and medical science, especially high precision ones. Thanks to these tools, we can approach in a more modern and comprehensive way a number of applications such as de novo sequencing, metagenomic and epigenomic studies, transcriptome sequencing and genome re-sequencing.

This last one (re-sequencing) is largely used in human field, both for research and diagnostic purposes and consists of NGS – Next Generation Sequencing of an entire single genome, to map the Single Nucleotide mutations (SNP), insertions and deletions of more or less long sequences that have occurred in certain locations of the genome, and variations in the number of copies of genomic portions/genes (CNV, Copy Number Variants).

This procedure helps to understand the development mechanism of some pathologies, in order to identify the directions for a future clinical treatment as in the case of cancer for example. Indeed, by this method the genetic heritage of a cancer patient can be fully decoded in both normal and cancerous tissue, thus allowing us to comprehend what exactly has changed within the genome, and, if possible, how to intervene with targeted measures.

I think they mean next generation sequencing (NGS), not “new generation sequencing,” but I’ll let it pass because English is clearly not their first language. Yes, NGS is a powerful tool that allows sequencing of whole genomes in a tiny fraction of the time that it used to take. In a study like this, methods matter. They matter a lot. How did Corvelva prepare the sample for NGS? How did it initially discover that there were human DNA sequences detectable? How did they amplify the DNA? (There’s an amplification step for NGS that can introduce noise.) How were the reads done? The sequencing analysis and computational methods? How did the authors make sure there wasn’t any cross contamination? These are all critical questions for which there are no answers. The “scientists” at Corvelva seem to think we should just trust that they know what they’re doing. Here’s the thing, though. In science, we never trust that other scientists know what they’re doing. They have to show us that they do, and part of the way they show us is by giving us the methods.

Here’s all they say:

This same procedure has been performed on the human genome in Priorix​® Tetra lot n. A71CB256A, genome which belongs to cell line MRC-5 (of fetal origin); the work has been carried out by a company in the USA, that routinely deals with human genome re-sequencing analysis. *


* the name of the laboratory that has performed the analysis will be included in the next formal complaint we will file at the Public Prosecutor of Rome and as well at the Italian and European regulatory bodies. The associations who are filing the analysis funded by Corvelva will be promptly kept up to date with these shocking results too. We are no denying that we feel, especially as parents, distressed by these results we are reporting – as if what we have found out so far was not enough to worry about.

So basically Corvelva sent a sample to a lab in the US, paid it to do the work, and accepted whatever came back. That is not impressive, and there is no reason not to name the laboratory here in this report. Also, they only looked at one lot of vaccine. Replication is important, and there’s no way of knowing whether this result was just a fluke.

Let’s go back and look at point #4, though, the “finding” that the allegedly MRC-5 human genome sequenced was “clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome.” Let’s for the moment accept this finding as not an artifact. The only proper response to this is: So what? MRC-5 is a cell line that’s been passaged for well over 50 years. Cell lines develop genetic abnormalities with time. There’s an even more amusing thing to consider, though,. Reading the report, I noticed that Corvelva compared the sequence they claim to have found in the vaccine with the sequence of a normal human genome using a special circular plot that shows abnormalities in terms of deletions . What didn’t they compare it to? As far as I can tell, they didn’t compare it to DNA from a sample of MRC-5 cell line.

What about #5, the bit about “560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications”?

The Corvelva report concludes:

The human genomic DNA contained in the Priorix lot vaccine. n. A71CB256A is evidently anomalous, presenting important inconsistencies if compared to a typical human genome, i.e. the one of a healthy human being. There are several unknown variants (not noted in public databases) and some of them are located in genes involved in cancer. What is also apparently anomalous, is the excess of genome that shows changes in the number of copies (CNV) and structural variants (SV), such as translocations, insertions, deletions, duplications and inversions, many of which involve genes.

Based on this, RFK Jr. claims:

What are we saying? We are saying that the DNA contained in these vaccines is potentially TUMORIGENIC and that the guidelines to which the supervisory bodies are appealing are NOT ADEQUATE. Moreover, we are publicly denouncing a SERIOUS OMISSION in taking those PRECAUTIONAL measures which, on the other hand, are urgently requested for antacid drugs.

Our results greatly reinforce the experimental observations of Dr. Theresa Deisher and especially the fact that the contaminant fetal DNA present in all samples analyzed in varying quantities (thus uncontrolled) is up to 300 times higher than the limit imposed by the EMA for carcinogenic DNA (10 ng/dose, corresponding to DNA contained in approximately 1000 tumor cells, derived from a statistical calculation, while the precautionary limit is 10 pg/dose), a limit that must also be applied to MRC-5 fetal DNA which inevitably contaminates Priorix tetra.

As a consequence, this vaccine should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health, in particular to the pediatric population which is much more vulnerable to genetic and autoimmune damage.

I laughed out loud when I read this. I’ve written about Theresa Deisher’s execrable science more times than I can remember. Remember, she’s the one who claims that tiny amounts of fetal DNA somehow make it to the brain (never mind that pesky blood-brain barrier), recombine in neurons with host DNA to make defective proteins that show up on the cell surface and provoke an autoimmune response leading to autism and other neurologic conditions. As for Corvelva’s claims that this DNA is tumorigenic? First, there’s no evidence that it is. Modifications in 560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer? Which genes? Which modifications? Specifics matter. Look at the BRCA genes. Most of the variants detected are of unknown or no significance. In addition, even if this DNA were potentially carcinogenic, it’s not going anywhere. Remember, vaccines are injected intramuscularly, where the antigens basically stay. Ah, Corvelva implies, but what if they get into cells?

I have experience with working with DNA, human, mouse, and otherwise, including injecting it into tissues and trying to get it to express the protein for which it encodes. This is not a trivial matter. Think of it this way. If it were, gene therapy would be an almost trivial matter. But it’s not. In general, it’s difficult to induce human cells to take up foreign DNA in tissue. Even with viral vectors, it’s hard to get more than a small percentage of cells not only to take up the DNA but to express detectable levels of protein. Muscle is one tissue that can take up naked plasmid DNA and actually express it. Indeed, this technique has been used to generate cancer vaccines, where plasmid DNA is injected into the muscle in order to cause it to make a certain protein, which then provokes an immune response. But doing this is not easy, and the DNA is not detectably incorporated into the DNA of the muscle cells. Its gene expression is extranuclear (outside the nucleus).

But that’s not all. Even human cells that can take up random bits of extracellular DNA at very low efficiency (like muscle) do not integrate that DNA into their genome. Even if the DNA did reach the nucleus, recombination into the host genome would be both random and rare. Each cell would incorporate different bits of DNA into different locations in its genome. The bottom line is that, even if that tiny amount of fetal DNA had any carcinogenicity, most of it would simply be broken down in the extracellular space, and the only cells it might get into would be muscle cells and (maybe) immune cells.

In other words, it’s really, really, really hard to get naked DNA not in a virus to be expressed or even into cells, but, hey, to Covelva, it seems that this tiny, tiny amount of fetal DNA is magic. It can do everything above and then cause cancer too! Mike Adams, of course, goes even further:

This conclusion appears to confirm that MRC-5 cell lines used in vaccines have been genetically modified to make them more likely to cause cancer in vaccine recipients. Subsequently, vaccine mandates are actually forcing children to be injected with cancer genes so that they become future customers of Big Pharma’s for-profit cancer treatment “solutions” which are incredibly toxic to human health.

Human children, in other words, are being injected with the genetically modified DNA of another aborted human child in order to cause cancer on a nationwide scale, all to benefit the bottom line of the pharmaceutical industry that pushes total censorship about any criticism of vaccines or vaccine ingredients.

And, of course, a video:

I also note that Corvelva is hosting this video on YouTube. So much for not being antivaccine. Of course, the name for which CORVELVA is an abbreviation is Coordinamento Regionale Veneto per la Libertà delle Vaccinazioni, which stands for “Veneto Regional Coordination for Vaccine Freedom,” and the group’s guiding principle is “the free choice of vaccinations.” This is, of course, Adams being Adams, overblown and full of conspiracy theories and nonsense. For one thing, Priorix Tetra isn’t even used in the US; here the MMRV vaccine of choice is ProQuad, which is manufactured by Merck.

It just goes to show that everything old is new again. The claim that vaccines made using a fetal cell line is a (relatively) old claim used to appeal to the religious not to vaccinate. Failing that, adding the claim that these vaccines are somehow dangerous because of the tiny amounts of fetal DNA from the cell lines can cause autism (and now cancer) serves to appeal to the nonreligious antivaxers through a modified use of the “toxins gambit” commonly used to portray vaccines as “dirty,” “diseased,” and just plain gross, all to evoke disgust. I wouldn’t trust this report from Corvelva at all; unfortunately, thanks to antivaxers good at fear mongering, it might end up being necessary for health authorities to redo this analysis with competent scientists who know how to do NGS, to include the proper controls, to prepare the samples properly, and, most importantly of all, to do the complex analysis properly. In the meantime, antivaxers will continue to make hay with this highly questionable report.

Finally, it figures. As I was finishing up this post, I an article published at Joe Mercola’s supplement story and quackery extravaganza that’s about—you guessed it—fetal DNA in vaccines. It’s not specifically about the Corvelva “study,” but rather a more general survey. I suppose I might have to take this one on too at some point soon.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

103 replies on “Corvelva and “Vaccinegate”: Italian antivaxers produce a dubious “scientific report” on fetal DNA in vaccines”

Dr. Deisher work tried to claim, badly, as you point out, that vaccines cause autism. Not cancer. In addition to your wonderful points about why this means little, I think it’s also an example of an anti-vaccine view that every problem is every other problem for the purpose of blaming it on vaccines. Even if Dr. Deisher had shown that the cell line DNA had anything to do with autism – and thank you for showing the crater-size-holes in that claim – how would it support this new claim?

She did start musing about vaccines causing cancer after one of hers died from cancer. It is one of her latest letters:

I am surprised they claimed “Our results greatly reinforce the experimental observations of Dr. Theresa Deisher…” As far as I can tell SoundChoice is in a little office building that shows no sign of having any kind of laboratory (no venting system, they are not the only tenants). It seems she does lots of literature searches, and does some interesting projections on many cherry picked articles.

Check out 1749 Dexter Ave N:,-122.3423179,3a,75y,304.61h,88.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stons5BSEWs_UG9z7UdHW0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

“one of hers” should be “one of her sons”… I do appreciate her grief, but not to the detriment of other children.

Ooh, look! Just up the street is the Swedish Club!
I have got to get to their Christmas Market this year. I need one of those red wooden horses.

As for the building for “Sound Choices”, yeah, not a lab. Not at all. (Beyond the lack of ventilation, labs are expensive because of the HVAC and the plumbing, so you want to build a building big enough for enough tenets to recoup the cost of building it in the first place.) And if it did have a lab the landlord would have raised the rates, kicked these weirdos out and gotten in one of the dozen + biotech startups.

@ Chris:

I always wonder what turns someone- including someone with a reasonable education- towards woo:
– most of the anti-vax advocates we read have children on the spectrum
– woo-meisters discuss how SBM failed their family members who died of cancer and CVD ( Adams, Null )
– perhaps Deisher did so as well after her son’s death
We often encounter anger and hatred from parents who blame vaccines ( and vaccine supporters) for ASDs.
Perhaps the tilt towards pseudoscience was always there but it took traumatic events to release it outwards.

She accepted to come to our meet-up group to discuss her ideas. One the evening it was scheduled she was late, and then messaged the organizer that her son was going into hospice. So we figured with that kind of loss she would not reschedule.

We were surprised when she did reschedule, and when she came she was quite fired up. There is a reason I claim that I have been yelled at by her. It was then that I started to read up on the SoundChoice website and noticed that she added cancer to “things vaccines cause.”

She obviously channels grief much differently than most of us.

Denice, Dr. Deisher’s son was diagnosed with cancer in 2014 and died within a year. Dr. Deisher was speaking up against vaccines at least since 2009 (I wrote about her son’s tragic death, and her case in NVICP).

To be fair, she is local to me, plus her cancelling her presentation at a meetup was due to her son’s condition. This is why it sticks in my head more than yours.

By the way, I have always been suspicious of her autism angle. Neither of her kids are/were on the spectrum. I have a feeling that she found “something” to pin the fetal cell bit on, and went on from there. I feel the same way as Matt Carey does about those who use our kids to promote their own agenda ( , which I read in a paper form in the waiting room for my autistic kid to see his cardiologist).

Also, as per what I read in the book The Vaccine Race, the fetal cell line was a way for Stanley Plotkin to avoid the issues of spurious genetic sequences after the discovery of possible issues with the SV40 virus in primate cell lines. He wanted to prevent a possible cause of cancer! Which turned out not to be an issue, though there were issues with other non-human cell lines (joint reactions):

Maurice Hilleman was fine with the rubella strain for his original MMR vaccine was changed to the safer one from Plotkin. As noted in Paul Offit’s biography of Hilleman: Vaccinated.

Of course they won’t subject their methods to scrutiny because they’re dubious. Filter sterilisation of of cells is going to create random genomic fragments and even if an entire genome should make it through, they would have had to amplify it which is considerably altering the conditions of an IM injected vaccine. I wouldn’t rule out that they simply sent a sample of the MRC-5 cell line to another lab. Then, of course is their problem of not publishing their alleged sequence. Just more silly propaganda to keep themselves relevant.

We are saying that the DNA contained in these vaccines is potentially TUMORIGENIC

As if the DNA from an immortalized fetal cell line should look anything like normal human DNA –if that’s their DNA source, it should look like it came from a worse-than-dead cancer patient. And this overlooking the fact that NGS has a significant amplification step IIRC (watch out for that noise!)

I still have to do a double take that naturopaths are glomming on to injectible stem cell treatments, putting those cells into people’s spines and other places, as if that’s is the greatest panacea anybody’s ever found, yet come back to arguments like this when they want to smear vaccines. I am remembering correctly; I know these stem cell clinics are often being managed by doctors who have fallen from the purer faith, but there were also naturopaths who have gone the dubious stem-cell route, correct? What seems more harmless: sheared up pieces of DNA by itself or intact genomes of DNA pre-secured in all the cellular machinery necessary to make it operate?

And didn’t someone get a tumor from those injected stem cells?

I was also a bit surprised by the fact that some quack-clinics seem to have little problems with injecting stem cells, but somehow vaccines seem to be a problem, because of DNA.

Which one gets the quack more money? Internal consistency doesn’t pay your Bastyr tuition.

When I think about the amount of work real stem cell researchers have gone to, to show that their cells are not tumorgenic, and then you have all these yayhoos and yabbos injecting god-only-knows what god-only-knows where, well it’s enough to make your blood boil. Metaphorically.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

A quick question, as someone who has done basically no cell culture work since my undergraduate days: how do they get around the doubling limit for use of these cells decades now after the line was established in the 1960s? Someday, you run out of the original and these only ever live about 50 doublings. Is the power of the doubling in the first few generations really that big or is there a stem cell that is being used as a stock to produce differentiated lung tissue (for WI-38, for example)?

@ Foolish physicist

It’s simple, as stem cells do express telomerase. It’s the telomeres that get shorter with each replication, with the cells expressing telomerase able to replenish them and thus replicate indefinitely. If primary cells express telomerase, there is no need to make them immortal as they already are. Cancer cells carry mutations that make them restart expression of telomerase. I’m not an expert in fetal cells, but I would think the selection of telomerase expressing cells is not difficult there as most tissues will carry some stem cells.

That said, mutations over the years, modifications to render the line more stable (the great innovation from the NIH 3T3 line) and better producing, and the actual constructs to be useful in vaccine production are not surprising. In fact, they’re vital for use.

” ( never mind that pesky blood brain barrier”)

But If anti-vaxxers did consider the BBB, they might not have any research ideas .**

So another god-awful study will be quoted by the usual suspects as activists like Kim Rossi and Katie Wright scoff at research involving patterns of gaze in infants or genetics.

** and I forgot all about the ‘tiniker’: thanks for the laugh.

The adjuvants in the vaccines are used to by pass the BBB you moron! That’s exactly their job. Heard of Polysorbate 80 ?!?

Polysorbate 80 is used as an emulsifier by the pharmaceutical industry to enhance the delivery of chemicals/drugs from the blood into the brain across the blood brain barrier (BBB). … Polysorbate 80 is one such chemical that helps in this delivery.”

What is polysorbate 80?

Polysorbate 80 is used as an emulsifier/stabilizer in vaccines, but you won’t find any safety information from CDC documents. It’s not listed on the CDC Ingredients of Vaccines Fact Sheet.

The definition states: “Polysorbate 80 is a common excipient and solubilizing agent used in the pharmaceutical industry. Polysorbate 80 (also known as polyoxyethylene-sorbitan-20 mono-oleate, or Tween 80) is used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry in lotions, medical preparations (eg vitamin oils, vaccines, and intravenous preparations) and as an excipient in tablets. A solubilizing agent acts as a surfactant and increases the solubility of one agent into another. A substance that would not normally dissolve in a particular solution is able to dissolve with the use of a solubilizing agent.”

In other words, it allows the vaccine ingredients that normally behave like oil and water, to mix.

For those interested, a great recent book explains the development of the two cell lines used in vaccines.
Meredith Wadman. “Vaccine Race: Science, Politics, and the Human Costs of Defeating Diseases.”
Among other things, it discusses why human cell lines were chosen and the safety research done.

The book also discusses development of rubella vaccine. For the most part rubella is an extremely mild disease in children, though rare adverse events do occur; but given its 12 – 14 day incubation time, if a non-vaccinated woman is exposed to it during that time period or during pregnancy, especially the 1st trimester, risk of miscarriage, still birth, or congenital rubella syndrome (deafness, blindness, seizure disorder, mental retardation, microcephaly) is more than 95%. During the early 1960s, one epidemic of rubella resulted in over 30,000 cases. I repeat, over 30,000 cases. This is a perfect example of the need for herd immunity. Not vaccinating one child can lead to catastrophic results.

In the minds of antivaxers, these minute bits of DNA from the fetal cell line used to grow certain vaccines truly have magical properties; they can do almost anything!

Eh, someone vaccinated got mutated into Wonder Woman, and another one turned into The Hulk. It’s true, I read it on VAERS.
With Flu season approaching, I’ll have to ask my physician about the vaccine. If the vaccine is grown on arthropod cells, any chance I may become Spiderman and start sprouting silk?

@Athaic – Fall army worms make silk and this may help….”FluBlok is made using genetic engineering. Just one piece of human flu virus is grafted onto an insect virus and it’s grown in the cells of the fall army worm.”

Re: Amazing spiders, are you aware spider silk for vaccines and other uses is being tested?

Your post explaining bias was thorough. I appreciate your effort b/c the shhtt was getting tedious. The part about Bonnie Offitt cracked me up! I agreed with most except the conspiracy theory label. However, I’ve been called worse things and don’t take any of this too seriously.

Anyway, I like your quote, “If only we humans tried to develop ways to try to minimize biases when considering a topic…” I wonder if it is even possible…maybe with AI.

No. I believe there’s a whole thing about creating unintentional inbuilt bias in expert systems. Not that I’m an AI expert but I recall reading something about this ages ago.

That’s why statistics are useful. You can argue about how they are applied but not about the answer you get once the method is agreed.

Oh, it would be nice if AI worked like that. Sadly it has all the biases that it was programmed with.

For example: Amazon decided to use AI in their applicant screening system, to remove the human bias. When they ran tests the system regularly scored women lower. Because it had been trained on the resumes of primarily men. So any instance of the word “women” (like Women’s chess club, Society of Women Engineers) was marked against the candidate. (

Sadly, it goes back to the oldest principle in computing, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

@ Natalie White

i know, my idea about flu grown in arthropods came from reading a previous post from you where you wrote about this flu-bearing worm.

And yes, silk is a very odd material. There was a TV show two weeks ago on the French/German TV focused on insect biomaterials. Silk, chitin, antimicrobial proteins… it was really fascinating. Icky, especially the part about the insect whose name is simply ‘necrophage’. I’ll let you guess what is its main source of food (you may want to avoid googling a video).

“If only we humans tried to develop ways to try to minimize biases when considering a topic…” Ah, I was going for sarcasm, because aiming for accuracy/avoiding biases while trying to document how stuff works has been a big concern for humans since, well, at least the Ancient Greek natural philosophers. IOW, I was hinting at the long human endeavors with anything scientific.
Sometimes we ended up spectacularly off the mark. Some other times, close enough to get more good than harm out of it.
I like to think that documenting how we determined how something is working and then submitting it to colleagues for review and replication has helped us humans a lot in figuring out the universe.

There is an assay by Isaac Asimov which I love, “The Relativity of Wrong”. There are a few versions which can be found on the intertubes, if you would like a light reading.

“Sadly, it goes back to the oldest principle in computing, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).”

It doesn’t have to be blatant. Early work with texttovec showed a similar issue: if you took the embeddings of king, queen, and woman, and (paraphrasing) asked for the result of king+women, queen popped out.

But if you tried the same thing with doctor, woman, and nurse, doctor+woman resulted in nurse. The training data was a good part, of not majority of, wikipedia text.

Biases don’t always come from garbage — they can reflect data particulars that wouldn’t ordinarily be seen as problematic.

@ dean: You’re right. GIGO is a very old term, and sometimes now it’s used to mean “if you don’t know what you’re putting in you might not get out what you expect.”

In the Amazon example, I’m sure they didn’t intend to train their AI that way. In fact, I’m pretty sure they were training the AI in order to deal with their known human bias problem (against women and minorities). But they didn’t think to change the material they were training the AI on (current employees’ resumes), even though the current employee group had already been subject to the bias.

The folks I know who are working in machine learning and AI have said that you often learn more about your data set and your engineers from what the algorithms give you than about the question you were trying to ask.

What Corvelva fails to reveal (in addition to the identities of its “scientists” and reference lab) is the source of its funding. There was controversy over one donation from Italy’s National Order of Biologists, but where is the rest of Corvelva’s money coming from?

Published studies typically require financial disclosure statements. By not publishing, Corvelva gets around this requirement.

Published studies typically require financial disclosure statements. By not publishing, Corvelva gets around this requirement.

True but by avoiding scrutiny their “work” will remain just faecal matter for the anti-vaxx loons to share with each other and won’t gain any recognition by the scientific community, much like Deisher’s “work”.

Exactly: woo-meisters and anti-vaxxers claim that they have “peer review” (sic) studies to prove their bent but when we look closely, it’s crapola like this or insider secrets like Verstraeten or the Whistleblower, Thompson.

Actually, I forgot to mention. Here, they describe their funding:

These latest analyses were made possible thanks to the active contribution of the French associations Association Liberté Informations Santé (ALIS), Ligue nationale pour la liberté des vaccinations (LNPLV) and the Australian Association Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN), that we thank.

Funded by antivaccine groups. Of course.

Maybe I have missed in the text, but apparently Corvelva submitted it to the F1000Research and has been in limbo after 3 rounds of reviews. For those not familiar with F1000Research Journal, it is an open-access journal that will get reviewers that are considered experts in the field (thus the F1000 for Faculty of 1000) that will review openly (no anonymous filter) the paper. It is an interesting lesson for those that don’t know how peer-review works (this one shows you openly what is normally hidden behind anonymity) and also deconstruct the myth that journals will give a free ride to Big Pharma shills. Pharma shills or not, everyone publishing in peer-reviewed journals are treated the same, with rigor and data robustness put first. You can read the original reviewer comment, their identity and see how Corvelva responded.
The last update was on July 29 2019. I guess what Corvelva could not pass through peer-review filter ended up in a monograph. If you cannot fix your manuscript by the third of review, maybe your “study” is simply too lame to be published.

I think that was a previous Corvelva report. The F1000 manuscript cites a “IGA Technology Services” as having performed the analyses. It’s anyone’s guess why Corvelva have changed labs, outsourcing the job of making stuff up to a US lab in the latest emission.

Federica Cattonaro and Fabio Marroni – authors of that contested F1000 manuscript – run IGA Technology Services.

They have walked back on their claims, in the course of trying to get the manuscript published. All the substantive claims about vaccine contaminants (as found through their proprietary method) disappeared in the first revision, leaving only methodological claims… “Here is our technique for taking short, PCR-amplified fragments of DNA and matching them to the most likely source genome(s). It isn’t completely crap.” The reviewers were of the opinion that “Well, it is completely crap”, leading to a second cycle of revision.

According to that earlier Corvelva report, “the original documents are protected subject-matter by a nondisclosure agreement with the analysis laboratory and the researchers who performed the tests. All subject-matter will be presented to the investigation bodies as an attachment to a Complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.” That doesn’t seem to have happened. Everyone involved has decided not to talk about it again and pretend it never happened.

I happen to work in an NGS core facility. This is my specialty.

1) we absolutely prefer to use no PCR in preparation of samples for Whole Genome Sequencing, and if we do it is the minimum number of cycles. We DO NOT do whole genome amplification in normal WGS, because it skews the results like crazy. To sequence from a vaccine, they must’ve used WGA, so their copy number values (undoubtedly a major source of their “560 genes were altered!!??!?” claim) are useless.

2) wow, the decades-old cell line that has been passaged thousands, maybe millions of times, has SNPs? You don’t say.

3) the circle plots used to visualize WGS data are optimized for tumor/normal pairs (or wild type vs knockout, treated vs untreated, etc.). so you’re looking at the mutations of a tumor compared to a normal from the same patient, thus subtracting out the normal SNPs you’d find in any human. To compare these cells to the human genome in NCBI and call that meaningful is…not good analysis.

4) all of this is meaningless without knowing the coverage — we sequence at 80X, typically, and that’s with unamplified material. i bet they couldn’t even hit 80X after WGA, no matter how much they sequence

5) if they actually had an a priori hypothesis, they would have done a targeted cancer panel, not WGS. WGS is a last-ditch attempt to find something in human samples where targeted panels were negative or inconclusive*

*note: this is especially specific to cancer research, but they were obviously aiming broadly so they could say something, they didn’t care what it was. there are obviously valid scientific reasons to do human WGS first.

Since you seem like you might be the person to ask, I have a quick question regarding point 2.)

How do they keep a non-immortal cell line –used for full scale manufacture– viable despite a million passages? Someone above pointed out to me that these vaccine lines are not immortal. Is the power of cell doubling from a fetal sized tissue sample really so great that the manufacturing strains have never gotten more than a few doublings from the freezer stock of the 1960s original? Just trying to wrap my head around it…

There’s no way that cell line has been passaged a million times. Even “immortalized” cells tend to crap out long before that, and these cells were isolated from a human fetus. They’re not really a true immortalized cell line; they just have a lot more population doublings than the average cell because they were isolated from a fetus. On the Coriell Institute website (which sells MRC-5), it says that the frozen MRC-5 cells being sold were frozen down at a population doubling level of 27 and can go 40-50 more doublings before becoming senescent. In any event, between the changes that occur in cells with prolonged cell culture over many population doublings plus the likely artifacts introduced into the copy number counts by the amplification step needed to get the tiny amount of fetal DNA in the vaccine to be enough for next generation whole genome sequencing, the copy number estimates and the claims about SNPs and mutations introduced into 560 cancer causing genes are meaningless.

Just looking at the table of results in their “paper”, the coverage is less than 1x on average across all chromosomes. This is appallingly low quality data on which to base any conclusions.

I don’t actually know, so I hope someone else chimes in! I don’t work in cell culture, but as is I handle a lot more cancer lines and immortalized lines.

‘Antivaxxers’ say, it’s always the vaccines? Provaxxers say, it’s never the vaccines. I say let’s have more COI free research.

So you want to be free to lie, and ignore those who tell you are wrong.

Anyone who thinks kids should get the full blown diseases instead of a vaccine is an ignorant sadistic child hater.

Provaxxers say, it’s never the vaccines.

Nice strawman there.

I say let’s have more COI free research.

Show evidence that a lot of current vaccine research has conflicts of interest.
Give examples of this conflict of interest free research.

I am guessing that they don’t report the methods because they don’t know the methods, they just sent the sample to the lab and waited for the results.

True, but most labs offering that service will send a description of their methods along with the final report. At least, reputable ones do. My guess is that they don’t understand the methods and have no clue about them.

We track publications of investigators that use our core. We of course send methods upon request to any of our users, specific to their project (such as input amount). Not everyone asks for methods, and inevitably, the people that don’t either have woefully inaccurate accounts in their papers or flat-out incorrect statements (like indicating we sequenced on an instrument we haven’t had for 5 years).

RE: In addition, even if this DNA were potentially carcinogenic, it’s not going anywhere. Remember, vaccines are injected intramuscularly, where the antigens basically stay. Ah, Corvelva implies, but what if they get into cells?

CRISPR gene editing is a method by which the genomes of living organisms may be edited. There using these methods in 8th grade science projects. Its a proven science for getting DNA to be incorporated into a living host. Stop pretending that this is unlikely, You are a shill and we all can see it.

I’ve inserted genes in a “living host”. But it was a bacteria. That is (nearly) 8th grade science.

Making changes to the nuclear DNA of an adult multi-cellular organism? So much harder. Making germ-line mutations? Honestly, easier, as long as you’re willing to wait a generation. (I have a friend who is working to CRISPR all the mice of Nantucket to address Lyme disease.)

But here’s the thing. CRISPR is a long, long, long way away from any old vaccine. It has to be done in a lab. It doesn’t just happen. It takes a lot of work and a lot of failures and a ton of specialized materials and equipment and expertise. That would be like saying “an appendectomy is possible (with lots of people and equipment and medicines), therefore I removed my appendix when I sneezed last week”. Nope, not how this works.

Well isn’t that what viruses do, move genes, they seemed to have grown this stuff in some really messed up cells with lots of defects that the virus can incorporate into and propagate. Those long flu like symptoms you get after a shot could be those virues moving and multiplying through your body with some of these errors you speak of..

Those long flu like symptoms you get after a shot could be those virues moving and multiplying through your body with some of these errors you speak of..

No they couldn’t. The viruses have been injured so they can’t propagate.

NoMoreEvil: Nope, because the flu shot is a dead virus vaccine. (The flu vaccine nasal spray is a weakened live virus, but the shot is dead.)

Those symptoms? That’s your immune system doing it’s thing, seeing the dead flu, identifying it as a pathogen, releasing cytokines and building immune memory. Most of the symptoms you experience while sick are your immune system reacting to the pathogen.

When viruses get into cells to replicate they make use of the cell’s mechanisms, but the virus doesn’t integrate into the nuclear DNA of the cell. If it was that easy to get DNA into the nucleus of a cell we would have cured diabetes with gene editing a long time ago.



I realise it’s awkward sometimes in these days of autocorrect but….

There are some real howlers in that list, like number 13. Someone who don’t want to get her daughter dehydrated, because she might end in a hospital, where they might give her an IV.
If you don’t want to get your child at some point of it’s life in a hospital, perhaps the best advice is: “Don’t reproduce.”

Greg: ”I say let’s have more COI free research.”

So you don’t think Corvelva should be doing any research? That’s more than anyone here is saying. After all, Corvelva has a declared antivaccine agenda and while it doesn’t disclose its funding sources, donations undoubtedly come from antivaxers. That’s a glaring conflict of interest.
Dismissing vaccine research on the grounds of ”conflict of interest” means that any studies funded or otherwise supported by SafeMinds, foundations with an antivax bent or antivaccine pediatricians (like Paul Thomas) must be automatically ignored too.

Since there’s so pitifully little research (and of such poor quality) coming from antivaccine groups, antivaxers can’t afford to toss out any studies tainted by COIs. There’d be virtually nothing left. 🙁

Thanks for this, Orac. Our NZ plague enthusiasts were waving the Corvelva thing around yesterday, claiming it was a slam-dunk that vaccines are baaaad. I’d already looked at previous postings from that ‘lab’ (I hesitate to call them articles & the space Corvelva uses, a lab) so was able to explain why it was not likely to be what was claimed. But so nice to have a full refutation from you.

In the early 1800s, following introduction of Jenner’s Smallpox Vaccine, made from COWpox, antivaccinationists portrayed half human half cow-like pictures. Back in the 1950s, some of the vaccines I received were grown in chick embryo eggs. Is that why I woke up early and my parents had to restrain me from going outside, crowing, thus, disturbing the neighbors???

I think that the chick embryo vaccines are protective. After all, it’s the antivaxxers who are chicken.

You don’t want to run a-fowl of the antivaxxers. Chick out what you’re writing before you submit b/c you can’t turn the cluck back…

Far be it from me to egg you on. If you could shell-ve the yolks, that would be mighty white of you…

Fragments of DNA surround us, e.g., dead insects, sloughing off of skin cells, etc. We are exposed to it from our water, food, breathing, and scratches to our skin. As Orac writes, the risk of any getting incorporated in our DNA is extremely low and getting incorporated in a section that will have an effect even more remote. In fact, our genome has fragments of lots of DNAs, e.g. from microbes, etc.

Just to illustrate how woo works its magic…

A few days ago, Mikey wrote about Corvelva on NN, today his minion, Huff, includes this “research” in a story about the death of Bernie Sanders’ daughter-in-law from cancer.
I imagine that he is trying to get readers to link vaccines somehow and increase fear. The deceased woman was rather young: a mother of 3 children and a SB professional ( neuropsychology) perhaps suggesting a cause for her condition, she probably supported vaccines, worked in a lab with neuroSTUFF! etc. NOW she’s gone!

Cognitive psychologists know that people often fill gaps in information ( visual or verbal) with all sorts of material, some of it past knowledge or ventures about underlying causes or future predictions, usually fitting in neatly amongst their prejudices. If you read NN, you’ll probably already be attributing causes about causation ( ” Oh, she was around formaldehyde a lot”, ” Too many vaccines” etc.)

@Athaic – Necrophage. I know enough latin to break that down. Glad they’re here to clean up. Reminds me of macrophages – the scavengers that come to eat the foreign material at vaccine injection and infection sites.

Oh sarcasm. I mistakenly thought you were speaking in earnest by not assuming you read my post or making the connection.

I read the Asimov essay. Interesting he used flat earth as the example, however, he still started with the belief the earth is sphere-like. I understand relativity and the limitations of black/white – good/bad thinking. Interestingly enough, I have encountered many absolutists on this site.

BTW, if it matters, I am not a flat earther.

It’s not a belief if it’s true. It’s a fact.

However, it’s an important point. If you start off with an unfounded belief and treat it as a fact then everything you say is tainted. You can see it in the whole ‘Greg thinks everyone is a shill’ debacle. Unfounded fact = vaccines cause autism, conclusion = anyone saying otherwise must be spreading misinformation for remuneration.

The wise person builds their house on the least sand like substance they can find.

A healthy understanding of the scope and limits of reasoning, and the continuous nature of certain transitions, is very important. And it has nothing to do with what you are saying, certainly not relativity theory.

I’ve heard the ‘oh y’all are black-and-white thinkers who can’t see the big picture’ song and dance many, many times. It’s boring. If you want to criticize someone on the basis of excessively binary thinking, fine – show us how their thinking is excessively binary and how it affects their conclusions. You give no examples; I believe that the reason is that you don’t have any, and are just blowing smoke. But you are free to prove me wrong, if you can actually produce an evidence-based argument.

My prediction is that this commentator will come back with the same vague and unevidenced charges of closed-mindedness. The reality is that genuine open-mindedness is not displayed by the majority of Orac’s ‘critics’, because it’s all just empty insults and verbal abuse, with no coherent reasons given.

Isn’t science about shades of differences? Being able to predict how likely events are ? How situations vary? Two patients undergo the same surgical procedure but have different expected outcomes because of different qualities they embody ( age, sex, degree of progression/ disability, level of income – unfortunately- etc)

Some psychologists believe that the general public are naïve scientists; i.e. they try to explain causation, associations, outcomes etc in simplistic ways that seem meaningful to them, not through observation and research or studying what research has shown… I have encountered this both in RL and on the net.
— Amongst a group of family members of people with SMI, some ( not all) would attribute the condition to unlikely events: a teacher was cruel to a girl and later, she developed a bipolar condition; someone rejected a boy and he later experienced schizophrenia. Some others understood that these illnesses have strong links to heredity. Also, the more naïve were interested in non-standard treatments, like diets and supplements rather than meds, therapy and education as the most likely treatments to have effect. The naïve views resemble alt med explanations and treatment plans that we have seen amongst woo-meisters.

— On the net, I am often astonished to hear anti-vax mothers insult and ridicule research that looks into genetics or very early indicators of ASDs. ( see @ Kim Ross1111; that links to Katie Wright’s twitter) because they don’t accept those realities ( ASDs have a strong genetic component and they can be detected in infants prior to most vaccinations). Rossi has a degree from a “good” school and Wright has two graduate degrees in related areas of study. But they WANT TO BELIEVE. They display photos of their children as infants , smiling, saying that these kids didn’t have autism at age 6 months ( very recently)- they were not born with it!
Similarly, they might accept treatments that have little to do with ASDs like avoiding gluten or casein, trying supplements or using more dangerous suggestions like bleach or chelation because they have unrealistic ideas about what ASDs are and how to treat them.

Similarly, anyone who supports research into genetics or early indicators is labelled as ” bought” by Pharma rather than coming to that conclusion through study.

@ Denice

Isn’t science about shades of differences? Being able to predict how likely events are ?

My own definition of science is about understanding how the universe is ticking, in defining objectively cause-and-effect relationships between stuff. But yes, it’s lacking an important point. If some cause-and-effect is fuzzy (and in biology, most are), then our understanding will, by necessity, have to include this fuzziness.
Which is not the same thing as “oh, it’s not a perfect cause-and-effect thread, so we know nothing”. Determining which events are more likely and which ones are not, is part of an accurate description of the universe.

Some psychologists believe that the general public are naïve scientists

This seems a very accurate observation. Our human brain is build for pattern-recognition and worldview-reconstruction, after all. Everybody has the tools, all we need is some pointers to be as accurate and objective as possible when using them.
To paraphrase Auguste Gusteau from the cartoon Ratatouille, everybody can be a scientist.
With exactly the same limits as in the cartoon: to be a good scientist takes skill and discipline and training. So ‘naive’ pretty well describes someone who is lacking in training and feedback on their endeavors.
But that shouldn’t stop people from trying, as long as they are watching for their own limits. Even trained scientists regularly fail at self-awareness.

@ Natalie White

if it matters, I am not a flat earther.

I didn’t say you were. And you missed one point in Asimov’s story. Or a few.

One important point he raised is that, for each of the groups he talked about, their belief/understanding of the world was logical, based on the information which was available to them.
Another important point, and a corollary of the first one, was that, at their scale, their beliefs were mostly correct, i.e. it allowed most people to go around each day. If you travel by following landmarks, you won’t get lost no matter what you believe about the shape of the planet. It’s when you start navigating around the oceans, or go flying in the atmosphere, or worse, in space, that the little inaccuracies of your worldview model become deadly.

But the reason I like this story is for its initial purpose, which was Asimov’s way of debunking the old canard “Science has been wrong before”.
There may be cases of science having been so wrong, our worldview made a U-turn when more accurate knowledge became, well, known, and we had to toss away all the previous knowledge on the topic. The medical “theory” of the four humors may be one such case.
But that’s a rare occurrence (well, leaving aside religious-driven or politic-driven science, à la Lysenko; or like the sus-mentioned medical theory of humors, which was more metaphysical than scientific in its foundation).
In most cases, it was more about incremental changes upon the existing knowledge. Our ancestors may have been off the mark, but most of them were not more iod!t than us and were aiming in about the right direction.
As another example, Einstein didn’t made Newton obsolete. His discoveries improved on the knowledge we got from Newton, and gave us more tools and more accuracy.

We may learn some days stuff about vaccines which will make us say “oh gosh, so we were doing that wrong”.
But I don’t expect it to be so earth-shattering that we will throw all our current knowledge about human immunity and vaccination into the garbage bin.
If anything, a spin-off of the vaccine technology is a whole industry, and a successful one, dedicated in producing antibodies for research purposes through the vaccination of rats, rabbits, goats, horses, llama… Heck even sharks, today.
The existence of this industry is telling me that the science around vaccination must not be that wrong.

So I’m just wondering what methods you use in your labs to do your own testing on the vaccines ??
Also, isn’t peer review just asking people who believe the same as you do to endorse your statements ??

Probably the same as you use in your lab Heather.

Also, given the incestuous nature of anti-vax research, complaining about peer review is definitely a sand-like substance.

Not that peer review is perfect. It’s not but who else can you ask to check your conclusions but other people in the same profession? If I have a problem at work, I ask my team mates, the machine manufacturer or the part manufacturer. I don’t ask a teenager at McDonalds or the guy who delivers the milk or my doctor. They ain’t qualified.

Do Google Scholar search with “vaccine safety”. It returns lots of data about “how vaccine safety is tested”.

“Also, isn’t peer review just asking people who believe the same as you do to endorse your statements ?”

If you honestly believe this then you don’t know what you are talking about. No, scientific disciplines are not like-minded tribes/cliques. It’s insulting to be told this, after the time, training, and genuine self-questioning my scientific training required. Offensively ignorant.

“isn’t peer review just asking people who believe the same as you do to endorse your statements ??”
I take it you never heard jokes about the infamous reviewer #2…

“isn’t peer review just asking people who believe the same as you do to endorse your statements ??”

If you’d ever submitted a paper for publication and peer review, you’d realize how competitiveness in one’s field (as well as professional and sometimes personal agendas) can make it hard on study authors. Peer review is typically far from a free ride.

Ok guys, I think I’m on to something with the Corvelva/Mike Adams video. I just realized that they said that “560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.” I work with cancer genes and that number sounded way too high, so I confirmed that the NIH hasn’t updated the census of associated genes since 2004. There are only 291 associated cancer genes. So – where did they get the 560 number?

I believe it was pulled from a widely known paper about somatic (meaning the variant in the tumor, not a germline change) variants in Breast Cancer genomes – of which there are 560. Looks like whoever wrote the Corvelva “study” was super lazy and just googled “cancer genes” and copy and pasted from there. SO irritating.

Looks like whoever wrote the Corvelva “study” was super lazy and just googled “cancer genes” and copy and pasted from there.

I don’t think lazy is the adjective you were looking for there.

Perhaps instead of making a fuss about the tiny amount of alleged fetal material in some vaccines, they should worry about the huge amount of genuine fecal material in all of their writings.
And as they say repeatedly throughout “Veep”, “It isn’t a “gate”.”

Orac et al.:

I am chiming in to say i think you guys are right about the Corvelva report and Dr Deishers DNA theory.

It lacks supporting evidence and does not seem biologically plausible. The studies i found on toxicity of free DNA did not find harmful effects or that it induced strong enough inflammation to cause injury or neurological damage. Free DNA is very mildly and transiently inflammatory. Does not cause strong enough or persistent enough inflammation explain vaccine injury.

RFK and other activists pushing this theory are wrong, again. They need to be more skeptical and not buy into every vaccine injury theory that comes along.

I got a question to yall… How come SIDS are higher in the countries with larger vaccination schedules.. Im not an expert but while you explain the DNA beeing an issue away I seen lots of reports about vaccine reactions that are not even looked at proberly by the medics. Related or not , often SIDS are labelled when its suposedly unknown whithout looking deeper. All the enhanced adjuvants and so forth its all said to have no health effect.. yet the more vaccines one gets the sicker they are overall. Im from germany, there are children docs that speak up and say that their children patients without vaccines are healtheir overall. Less Allergies, eczema , the list is long. Why is there no focus on getting the Immunsystem healthy and strong ? EAting healthy ? lifestyle ? that seems no point of considertation anywhere , just a few modern hippies that seem to think like that. Why are we not informed in the public that the last blood leaving the placenty after birth transfers most of the setup for the babies immunsystem. Early clambing is the norm and then the blood that could make the baby stronger for all his life is taking for research on desease that could have been prevented if the blood stayed in the first place. Breastfeeding is not tought to general public on why that is important for the Immunsystem .. to many things are not adding up … I dont trust the industries anymore, they have customers not patients. Cannabis got made illigal despite the fact its known for its medical potential.. many many things dont add up. I learned how to make my body strong with nutrition, using herbs for caughs and more .. We have lost it in this society, even the potential of our own mind has been forgotten. How do Placebos work ? If we only knew how to make thsui effect beneficial for us … The thyme tea I drank helped after one cup but the caugh sirup did nothing on me for days… Yeah something is very wrong and vaccines are not safe. Measles for example are more dangerous for adults and with all the mass vaccination we are not lowering the risk of the desease .. we are making it higher for adults to get in trouble. What hurts me the most is the underreporting of vaccine reactions , so many parents report how their child reacts just hrs after the vaccines but doctor dont even take those signs serios and treat with some synthetic chemicals. Just how they get indoctrinated by public science that vaccines are safe, they transfer that to not report or look deeper into most reactions. Longterm effects of vaccinations are not studied neither. All the adjuvants and ingredients cant be safe. Having worked in Pharma its pretty clear to me that the subject is not a patient but rather a customer, quiet clearly. 80 % of the budget is used for Marketing and 10% used for Research .. I started looking behind curtains and we are taken so much of our own powers and our own healing potential , next thing is microchipping so the control over the population is complete. Fear and Money rule our society.. We need to realise our origins in nature and that emotions like fear are very negative influences for our overall health but thats how the system works. So we keep feeding it. Take Grounding for example.. one guy had to guts to study it a bit. Noone in the medicla world is takign a look at the fact that we are electromagnetic beeings. The hearts elelctromagnetic field is much bigger then the brains. To walk barefoot and release chargings in the body is reducing inflamation , one of the main causes for desease.. Proof me wrong on thsi one , but hes gonne make thsi research ? its free to everyone and noone is able to make money on that knowledge. Will the medical world inform the public abotu this ? Most likely not.. there is no profit.

Thank you for this post on Corvelva and “Vaccinegate.” Though I am not working in this field at all, I did pay attention in all of my college biology courses, and have enough of an understanding of telomerase, cell barriers, and the need for a virus as a carrier to penetrate these barriers and mutate dna effectively for a specific outcomes. Obviously I am not going to be winning any nobel prizes here with my limited understanding of micro-biology. However, one thing I do understand as a parent is the incredible amount of fair surrounding this subject. It is something many parents feel is out of their control, and as anyone here who is a parent knows, you would do anything to protect your child. Honestly, I do not think more posts that cite real science to debunk these pseudo-science studies will do anything to quell the fears of the parents in the anti-vax camp (except people like me with enough knowledge to understand the science involved).

As most of your are already aware, many people have only the information they have to make judgements and decision on whether something is safe or not (uninformed or not). When fear kicks in, every human being thinks and act irrationally, as the emotion of fear takes over.

I actually support the idea of doing some sort of publicly broadcasted scientific, peer-reviewed tests, with scientists patient enough to explain it in a way that a person without a college degree would be able to understand. I think this would go a long way in quelling fears. I have no doubt that the scientists who engineer these vaccines are careful and at least 99% of them have the best of intentions to help people. However, I think there is a common distrust of big-pharma from both the the anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine camps, as they have exhibited business practices that seem to value profit over customer safety in the past with some of their products.

Wrapping up, I just wanted to thank you again for taking the time to write this response. It was very helpful.

It’s interesting that the author of this article actually admits that immune cells could take up foreign DNA from a vacxine.. that it’s tecbnictech possible, but unlikely or rare..
And then spend ages talking about other stuff almost as a distraction from this very important point. So how rare does it need to be in order to be no concern at all I wonder. It surprises me how quickly the author admits and then if ignores the important implications of this.
Even if it was a rare thing, it could still be a major issue when you consider how many vaccines are given per annum.
Remember SV40 in polio.. responsible for potentially millions of cancer cases over a decade of use. And for that we haven’t even gotten an apology from the vaccine manufacturers. Nothing.
I agree with some of the points made in this article however the bias and overall disdain for those that question vaccine safety given the poorpoor t record of the vaccines manufacturers is alarming. I’m neutral.. I’m not ridiculously pro vaccine or anti. I see there are genuinely safety issues with them. As EPA said vaccines are inherantly risky. They have to be by their design. I’m suspicious of those that are so trustworthy of vaccine manufacturers when they have done so many sneeky things over the years.. falsifying drug data to get approval.. massive fines in court for such things. And also tactics to sway public opinion using public relations companies. The vaccine manufacturers are not unlike other for profit corporates. They used mercury in vaccines and still do to an extent simply to save money on storage and transport costs. When mercury is known to be a risky invredient.
Many more examples exist.

Vaccines have tested extensively:
extremely rare side effects that MAY ( or may not) be associated with them have been uncovered such as
–rotavirus and intussusception in infants – perhaps 1 per 100,000- in an earlier form of the vaccine**
–H1N1 and Guillain-Barre 1 per 10,000 IIRC **
AND in cats ***
a cancer at the injection site, about 1 in 10,000

If they can find those, I wouldn’t worry too much

** although having the illness may be worse
*** since it’s Caturday

Never mind that polysorbate 80 is in several vaccines. And what is polysorbate 80 used for? To cross the blood brain barrier!

Can you please provide that the amount of that emulsifier in vaccines is dangerous. Just post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that an ingredient in ice cream that makes it stay mixed is dangerous when used for just about the same reason in vaccines.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading