DR STANLEY PLOTKIN
The „Godfather of Vaccines“, Stanley A Plotkin, is the world-renowned American physician who works as a consultant to vaccine manufacturers, such as Sanofi Pasteur, as well as biotechnology firms, non-profits and governments. In the 1960s, he played a pivotal role in discovery of a vaccine against rubella virus while working at Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. Plotkin was a
member of Wistar’s active research faculty from 1960 to 1991. Today, in addition to his emeritus appointment at Wistar, he is emeritus professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. His book, „Vaccines“,[1][2] is the standard reference on the subject.[3][4] He is an editor with Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, which is published by the American Society for Microbiology in Washington, D.C..
Vaccinegate
MRC-5 contained in Priorix Tetra – Complete genome sequencing
https://doi.org/10.4103%2F0972-6748.328833
Dr. Stanley Plotkin Bio: https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/author/splotkin
Dr. Stanley Plotkin is Emeritus Professor at the Wistar Institute and University of Pennsylvania, and is a consultant to the vaccine industry. He developed the rubella vaccine now used worldwide and has worked extensively on the development and application of other vaccines including polio, rabies, varicella, rotavirus and cytomegalovirus.
He is the author of more than 600 research papers and has edited several books including ‘Vaccines’, the standard text book on vaccination. Dr Plotkin has served as senior assistant surgeon with the Epidemic Intelligence Service, U.S. Public Health Service; director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; associate chairman of the Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania; medical and scientific director of Aventis Pasteur; and executive advisor to Sanofi Pasteur.
Dr. Plotkin’s professional awards include:
- Sabin Foundation Medal (2002);
- French Legion Medal of Honor (1998);
- Clinical Virology Award,
- Pan American Group for Rapid Viral Diagnosis (1995);
- the Distinguished Physician Award,
- Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (1993);
- Bruce Medal of the American College of Physicians (1987).
STORIES BY DR STANLEY PLOTKIN
VACCINE RESEARCHERS HAVE NEW TARGETS IN THEIR SIGHTS January 10th, 2011
On Jan. 11, 2018,
Vaccine Court Case Deposition Video
Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a world expert on vaccines,
was deposed for nine hours in court.
The statements below are in the following video segment from Dr Plotkin’s deposition
Q: Have you ever used orphans to study an experimental vaccine?
Dr. Plotkin: YesQ: Have you ever used babies of mothers in prison to study experimental vaccines ?
Dr. Plotkin: YesQ: Have you ever used individuals under colonial rule to study experimental vaccines ?
Dr. Plotkin: YesQ: Did you do so in the Belgian Congo ?
Dr. Plotkin: YesQ: Did that experiment involve almost a million people ?
Dr. Plotkin: Well, alright, yes.
Full 2018 Vaccine Court Case Deposition Video:
https://rumble.com/v1kvld1-dr.-stanley-plotkin-full-2018-vaccine-court-case-deposition.html
https://rumble.com/v1kvld1-dr.-stanley-plotkin-full-2018-vaccine-court-case-deposition.htmlhttps://rumble.com/v1kvld1-dr.-stanley-plotkin-full-2018-vaccine-court-case-deposition.html
Dr. Stanley Plotkin RE: Vaccine Experiments on Orphans, the Mentally Handicapped and Prisoners: https://rumble.com/vuboqa-dr.-stanley-plotkin-re-vaccine-experiments-on-orphans-mentally-handicapped-.html
Excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. Stanley Plotkin – January 11, 2018
https://julimination.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2b4ec-excerptsfromdr.plotkindepositionjanuary201828129.pdf
Excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. Stanley Plotkin – January 11, 2018
https://julimination.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2b4ec-excerptsfromdr.plotkindepositionjanuary201828129.pdf
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF STANLEY A. PLOTKIN, M.D.
New Hope, Pennsylvania January 11, 2018
Reported by: Maureen Broderick, RPR JOB NO. 135522
https://www.scribd.com/document/389327361/1-11-18-Matheson-Plotkin?fbclid=IwAR34exe-FUcadbyrorG7WybKcU7wywNftBeaYAnVnAhew-VPBPtPGhaells
VACCINE INGREDIENTS/EXCIPIENT SUMMARY – FEBRUARY 2020
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
VACCINE INGREDIENTS – UK
Vaccine Knowledge Project – University of Oxford
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/vaccine-ingredients
Just know we are being bombarded with trauma based mind control.
Remove yourself as much as you can from things that trigger you and find solace in things like family, walking, taking baths.
Outdoors is important.
They are trying to break us.
Excerpts from the Deposition
https://julimination.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2b4ec-excerptsfromdr.plotkindepositionjanuary201828129.pdf
of Dr. Stanley Plotkin
January 11, 2018
Vaccine Knowledge Project
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/vaccine-ingredient
University of Oxford, UK
Vaccine ingredients
Vaccine ingredients
- General information
- Active ingredients
- Added ingredients
- Products used in the manufacture of the vaccine
- Growing the active ingredients
- Further information
The information on this page is based on the best information that we can find from the available literature.
Page last updated Thursday, May 26, 2022
© Oxford Vaccine Group, The University of Oxford
Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine,
Churchill Hospital,
University of Oxford,
OX3 7LE.
Medical content reviewed by Professor Sir Andrew Pollard.
Please click here to contact us if you have comments about the Vaccine Knowledge website. We can’t answer all the individual queries we get, but we will use your suggestions and questions to improve the website. You should consult your doctor or other healthcare provider if you need specific advice on vaccines for you or your child.
The Vaccine Knowledge Project is funded by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Oxford Martin School.
The active ingredients
are grown in different ways
- Expand All
- Human Cell Lines
- HEK-293 cell line
- Animal Cell Lines
- Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
- Recombinant DNA Technology
- Bovine products
- Other growing media
Stanley Alan Plotkin developed vaccines in the United States during the mid to late twentieth century. Plotkin began his research career at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he studied the rubella virus. In pregnant women, the rubella virus caused congenital rubella syndrome in the fetus, which led to various malformations and birth defects. Using WI-38 cells, a line of cells that originated from tissues of aborted fetuses, Plotkin successfully created RA27/3, a weakened strain of the rubella virus, which he then used to develop a rubella vaccine. Plotkin’s rubella vaccine has prevented birth defects due to congenital rubella in developing fetuses and newborns.
Plotkin was born 12 May 1932 in New York City, New York, to parents Lee and Joseph Plotkin, who had immigrated to the United States from England. Plotkin’s father worked as a commercial telegrapher while his mother cared for Plotkin and his younger sister, Brenda. As an adolescent, Plotkin attended the Bronx High School of Science in New York City, New York. When Plotkin was fifteen, he read two books, Arrowsmith, a novel by Sinclair Lewis, and Microbe Hunters, a non-fiction science drama by Paul de Kruif. Both books told stories of scientists striving to discover the causes of diseases and to create vaccines against them. Plotkin later credited those books as his inspiration for studying science and medicine. After graduating from the Bronx High School of Science in 1948, Plotkin enrolled at New York University in New York City.
Plotkin graduated with his bachelor’s degree from New York University in 1952 and applied to the State University of New York Medical School at the Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. While at the Downstate Medical Center, Plotkin worked in the lab of Robert Austrian, who studied infectious diseases like pneumonia and meningitis caused by the bacteria, streptococcus pneumoniae. One classmate recalled that Plotkin had an insatiable curiosity and emphasized finding practical solutions to human health problems through rigorous experimentation, traits that Plotkin later attributed to his time spent working with Austrian. After Plotkin received his medical degree from the State University of New York Medical School in 1956, he moved to Cleveland, Ohio, where he spent a year as a pediatric intern at Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital.
In 1957, Plotkin planned to volunteer for the US Air Force rather than be drafted for military service in the Vietnam War. According to Plotkin, he wanted to join the Air Force to learn to fly planes. But because of his medical training, Plotkin instead served for three years in the Epidemic Intelligence Service of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia.
As an officer of the Epidemic Intelligence Service, Plotkin studied anthrax at the Wistar Institute. Plotkin later revealed that he requested that specific appointment because he hoped to work with the new director of the Wistar Institute, Hilary Koprowski, who had developed a preliminary oral polio vaccine. Polio was a common childhood disease that caused flu-like symptoms and sometimes affected the central nervous system, paralyzing some children. In addition to studying anthrax, Plotkin also studied the poliovirus in Koprowski’s lab. He researched alternative, experimental polio vaccines and tested the new polio vaccines in the Belgian Congo, later called the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
During his initial research at the Wistar Institute, Plotkin taught at the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1959. To obtain credentials as a pediatrician, Plotkin worked as a resident physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1961. In 1962, he left Philadelphia and transferred his pediatric residency to the Hospital for Sick Children in London, England. Plotkin later stated that he enjoyed his residency there because he believed the hospital attracted some of the most difficult medical cases and some of the best pediatric consultants in England. After obtaining his pediatric credentials, Plotkin returned to Philadelphia in 1963 where he resumed teaching in pediatrics as an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He also resumed research at the Wistar Institute with institute director Koprowski.
Upon returning to the Wistar Institute in 1963, Plotkin began studying the rubella virus. The rubella virus caused a common but often mild disease that caused rashes and flu-like symptoms in those infected. However, pregnant women infected with the rubella virus could pass the virus to their fetuses, who got congenital rubella syndrome. Congenital rubella syndrome can lead to miscarriage or birth defects in the heart, brain, eyes, and ears of the fetus. In 1963, an epidemic of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome broke out in Europe. In 1964 and 1965, the epidemic spread to the United States, causing birth defects in thousands of infants. After that epidemic, many researchers, including Plotkin, accelerated the development of a vaccine for rubella. According to Plotkin, he realized the importance of preventing rubella in pregnant women to prevent congenital rubella in their fetuses and the subsequent birth defects in infants.
Throughout the 1960s, Plotkin strove to develop a vaccine for rubella at the Wistar Institute. Plotkin built upon work conducted by virologists Thomas Huckle Weller and Franklin Allen Neva as well as Paul Douglas Parkman, all of whom isolated strains of the rubella virus in 1962 in the US. In the early 1960s cell biologists Leonard Hayflick and Paul Moorhead at the Wistar Institute developed the WI-38 strain, a human cell strain created using aborted fetal tissue. WI-38 cells, named after the Wistar Institute where they were developed, were among the first non-cancerous human cells that could be maintained for long periods of time without substantial degradation, making them well-suited for laboratory research. Using WI-38 cells, Plotkin cultured a new strain of the rubella virus called RA 27/3, a weakened strain of the rubella virus, which he and his research team then used to create a rubella vaccine in 1969.
However, Plotkin was not the only one to create a rubella vaccine. In 1968 at a National Institutes of Health conference, several rubella vaccine developers debated which of four possible vaccines was the best candidate for further production. Of the proposed vaccines, only Plotkin’s had used diploid human cells while other laboratories had used cells from ducks, dogs, and rabbits. Diploid human cells, like the WI-38 cells Plotkin used, have the same number of chromosome pairs as typical human body cells. Plotkin argued that diploid human cells were a better medium for growing weakened virus strains for vaccines because they better represented the human cells to be vaccinated.
Plotkin’s primary opposition at the conference was Albert Sabin, who had successfully created an oral polio vaccine, similar to Koprowski’s, that was widely used in the Soviet Union. Sabin objected that vaccines developed with human cells, like WI-38, contaminated vaccines with cancer causing viruses, a common theory at the time. Plotkin countered that there was not sufficient evidence to indicate such danger. He further asserted that Sabin’s objections came from religious, not factual, reasons due the origins of the WI-38 cells in aborted fetal tissues. Plotkin’s arguments convinced his colleagues of the benefits of his RA 27/3 rubella vaccine, eventually convincing Sabin himself. In 1969, Plotkin published his experimental results about his rubella vaccine, which became available for public use shortly thereafter.
After advocating for his rubella vaccine, Plotkin continued to balance his study of viruses and vaccines with his medical career. In the late 1960s, Plotkin collaborated with Koprowski and Tadeusz Wiktor at the Wistar Institute to create a vaccine for rabies, which became licensed for public use beginning in 1980. Plotkin also continued teaching pediatrics at the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania where he remained a professor until 1991. In 1972, Plotkin became the director of the infectious disease department as well as a senior physician in pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, where he remained for decades to follow. In addition to his vaccine research, Plotkin became a professor of virology at the Wistar Institute in 1974. In 1980, Plotkin married Susan, the coordinator of the pediatric AIDS Program at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The couple had two children, Michael and Alec.
Throughout the 1980s, Plotkin continued to develop vaccines for infectious diseases. In the early 1980s, Plotkin created several experimental vaccines for chickenpox, caused by the varicella virus, though those vaccines never made it to public production. In 1988, Plotkin published the first edition of Vaccines, a textbook detailing the history, theory, and creation of vaccines. The US National Foundation for Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, considered Vaccines, in its sixth edition as of 2013, to be the authoritative textbook in the field of vaccinology. Plotkin continued to seek out new vaccines, and in 1988, he published a paper for a preliminary vaccine for rotavirus, which causes severe diarrhea in infants and young children.
In 1991, a private vaccine company, Pasteur Mérieux Connaught Vaccines, offered Plotkin a position as the company’s medical and science director. Plotkin accepted and relocated to Paris, France, with his family later that year. In 1997, he returned to the US as a consultant for the multinational vaccine producer, Aventis Pasteur, later called Sanofi Pasteur, headquartered in Lyon, France. In 2006, Plotkin, collaborated with vaccine researchers Fred Clark and Paul Offit in the US to create a rotavirus vaccine, which they called RotaTeq, based on research Plotkin had started nearly twenty years earlier. Also that year, at the age of 74, Plotkin learned to pilot an airplane, fulfilling his earlier ambition.
Plotkin received many awards for his work as a physician and medical researcher. For his contributions to preventative medicine, in 1987, the American College of Physicians awarded Plotkin the Bruce Medal, and in 1993, the Pan American Group for Rapid Viral Diagnosis presented him with the Clinical Virology Award. In 1998, Plotkin also received the French Legion Medal of Honor. To honor his scientific work in vaccines and combatting infectious diseases, Plotkin received the Sabin Foundation Medal in 2002, the Maxwell Finland Award in 2009, and the Hamdan Award Medical Research Excellence in 2014.
Although retired, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, Plotkin consulted on issues of vaccines and remained involved with infectious disease and vaccine research, particularly for cytomegalovirus, which can cause infants to be born with abnormalities. He was a professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania and at the Wistar Institute.
1940 U. S. Census, Bronx County, New York, population schedule, Assembly District 7, Bronx, New York City, enumeration district (ED) 3-1189, sheet 9B, family 181, Joseph Plotkin household. http://1940census.archives.gov/search/?search.census_year=1940&search. city=&search.county=Bronx+County&search.page=2&search.result_type= image&search.state=NY&search.street=178th+E#filename=m-t0627-02490- 00479.tif&name=3-1189&type=image&state=NY&searchby=location&searchmode =browse&year=1940&index=18&pages=22&bm_all_text=Bookmark (Accessed May 20, 2016).
Arbeter, Allan M., Stuart E. Starr, and Stanley A. Plotkin. „Varicella Vaccine Studies in Healthy Children and Adults.“ Pediatrics 78 (1986): 748–56.
Austrian, Robert. „Bacterial Transformation Reactions.“ Bacteriological Reviews 16 (1952): 31–50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC180727/pdf/bactrev00008- 0036.pdf (Accessed May 23, 2016).
Clark, H. Fred, Frances E. Horian, Louis M. Bell, Karen Modesto, Vera Goueva, and Stanley A. Plotkin. „Protective Effect of WC3 Vaccine Against Rotavirus Diarrhea in Infants During a Predominantly Serotype 1 Rotavirus Season.“ Journal of Infectious Diseases 158 (1988): 570–87.
Clark, H. Fred, Paul A. Offit, Stanley A. Plotkin, and Penny M. Heaton. „The New Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine Composed of Bovine (Strain WC3) – Human Rotavirus Reassortants.“ Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 25 (2006): 577–83.
de Kruif, Paul. Microbe Hunters. San Diego: Harvest, 1926.
de Santis, Marco, Anna Franca Cavaliere, Gianluca Straface, and Alessandro Caruso. „Rubella Infection in Pregnancy.“ Reproductive Toxicology 21 (2006): 390–8.
„Dr. Stanley A. Plotkin to Receive the Hamdan Award for Medical Research Excellence in the Field of Vaccines.“ The Wistar Institute. 14 November 2014. http://wistar.org /news-and-media/press-releases/dr-stanley-plotkin- receive-the-hamdan-award-medical-research-excellenc (Accessed May 20, 2016).
Hayflick, Leonard. „The Limited in Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cells.“ Experimental Cell Research 37 (1965): 614–36.
Hayflick, Leonard and Paul S. Moorhead. „The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Strains.“ Experimental Cell Research 25 (1961): 585–621.
Katz, Michael. „Tribute to Stanley A. Plotkin, M.D.“ Speech Given at the Albert B. Sabin Gold Medal Address, Baltimore, Maryland, May 7, 2002. http://www.sabin.org/sites/sabin.org/files/Plotkin_medal_speech. pdf (Accessed May 20, 2016).
Koprowski, Hilary, Thomas W. Norton, George A. Jervis, Thomas L. Nelson, David L. Chadwick, Doris J. Nelsen, and Karl F. Meyer. „Clinical Investigations on Attenuated Strains of Poliomyelitis Virus: Use as a Method of Immunization of Children with Living Virus.“ Journal of the American Medical Association 160 (1956): 954–66.
Lewis, Sinclair. Arrowsmith. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1925.
National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. „Stanley A. Plotkin, MD: Recipient of the 2009 Maxwell Finland Award for Scientific Achievement.“ National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. http://www.nfid.org/ awards/plotkin.pdf (Accessed May 20, 2016).
Parkman, Paul D., Edward L. Buescher, and Malcom S. Artenstein. „Recovery of Rubella Virus from Army Recruits.“ Experimental Biology and Medicine 111 (1962): 225–30.
„Plotkin, Stanley Alan.“ American Men & Women of Science: A Biographical Directory of Today’s Leaders in Physical, Biological, and Related Sciences. 5 (2007): 1147.
Plotkin, Stanley A. „The History of Rubella and Rubella Vaccination Leading to Elimination.“ Clinical Infectious Diseases 43 (2006): 164–8. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S164.full.pdf+ html (Accessed May 20, 2016).
Plotkin, Stanley A. „Remarks upon Acceptance of the 2002 Albert B Sabin Gold Medal.“ Speech Given at the Albert B. Sabin Gold Medal Address, Baltimore, Maryland, May 7, 2002. http://www.sabin.org/sites/sabin.org/files/Plotkin_medal_speech. pdf (Accessed May 20, 2016).
Plotkin, Stanley, A. and Susan L. Plotkin. „The Development of Vaccines: How the Past Led to the Future.“ Nature Review Microbiology 9 (2011): 889–93.
Plotkin, Stanley A., Walter A. Orenstein, Paul A. Offit. Vaccines. 6th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier, Inc., 2013.
Plotkin, Stanley A., John D. Farquhar, Michael Katz, and Fritz Buser. „Attenuation of RA 27/3 Rubella Virus in WI-38 Human Diploid Cells.“ American Journal of Diseases of Children 118 (1969): 178–85.
Sabin, Albert B. „Strategies for Elimination of Poliomyelitis in Different Parts of the World with Use of Oral Poliovirus Vaccine.“ Review of Infectious Diseases 6 (1984): S391–6.
Salwen, Martin J. „Downstate at 150: A Celebration of Achievement Folio.“ SUNY Downstate Medical Center. http://www.downstate.edu/sesquicentennial/documents/AchievementFolio-web.pdf (Accessed May 20, 2016).
Weller, Thomas H. and Franklin A. Neva. „Propagation in Tissue Culture of Cytopathic Agents from Patients with Rubella-Like Illness.“ Experimental Biology and Medicine 111 (1962): 215–25.
Wiktor, Tadeusz J., Stanley A. Plotkin, and Hilary Koprowski. „Development and Clinical Trials of the New Human Rabies Vaccine of Tissue Culture (Human Diploid Cell) Origin.“ Developments in Biological Standardization 40 (1978): 3–9.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/stanley-alan-plotkin-1932
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/stanley-alan-plotkin-1932
- https://www.nature.com › articles › s41390-020-01112-yThe sixth revolution in pediatric vaccinology: immunoengineering and …In 2005, Stanley Plotkin proposed that new delivery systems would spur a new revolution in pediatric vaccinology, just as attenuation, inactivation, cell culture of viruses, genetic…
- https://www.chop.edu › centers-programs › vaccine-education-center › video › how-can-we-still-use-fetal-cell-line-1960s-make-vaccines-todayHow Can We Still Use a Fetal Cell Line from the 1960s to Make Vaccines …In this short video, Dr. Stanley Plotkin explains how fetal cells from the 1960s can still be used today when making vaccines. How Can We Still Use a Fetal Cell Line from the 1960s to Make Vaccines Today? | Children’s Hospital of …
- Continuous cell lines | Embryo Project EncyclopediaStanley Alan Plotkin developed vaccines in the United States during the mid to late twentieth century. Plotkin began his research career at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he studied the rubella virus. In pregnant women, the rubella virus caused congenital rubella syndrome in the fetus, which led to various …
- https://www.washingtonpost.com › nation › 2021 › 01 › 27 › expert-covid-vaccineAn expert on finally getting the covid vaccine he helped to create …27. Jan. 2021Stanley Plotkin, legendary vaccinologist, on the historic development and chaotic distribution of covid-19 vaccines. By Eli Saslow. January 27, 2021. I’ve been so focused on helping to develop…
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › 30408015Important New Resource for Clinicians Giving Expert Witness Testimony …Important New Resource for Clinicians Giving Expert Witness Testimony on Vaccines. Important New Resource for Clinicians Giving Expert Witness Testimony on Vaccines . Important New Resource for Clinicians Giving Expert Witness Testimony on Vaccines Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2018 Dec;37(12):e353. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002210. Authors Stanley A Plotkin 1 , Paul A Offit, Dorit Reiss. Affiliation …
- https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Stanley_PlotkinStanley Plotkin – WikipediaStanley Alan Plotkin (born May 12, 1932 [1]) is an American physician who works as a consultant to vaccine manufacturers, such as Sanofi Pasteur, as well as biotechnology firms, non-profits and governments. In the 1960s, he played a pivotal role in discovery of a vaccine against rubella virus while working at Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.
- https://cdn.who.int › media › docs › default-source › blue-print › stanley-plotkin_role-of-cop.pdf?sfvrsn=7d5fcd72_7PDF by Stanley A. Plotkin – World Health Organization4. Formerly called: Surrogate: An immune response that substitutes for the true immunologic correlate of protection, which may be unknown or not easily measurable. Levels of passively administered or maternal antibody that protect. Analysis of immune responses in protected and unprotected subjects in efficacy trials.
- https://www.amacad.org › person › stanley-plotkinStanley A. Plotkin | American Academy of Arts and Sciencesvor 6 TagenElected. 2021. Stanley A. Plotkin is Emeritus Professor of the University of Pennsylvania, and Adjunct Professor of the Johns Hopkins University. Until 1991, he
General information
Active ingredients share
The active ingredients are the parts of the vaccine made from viruses or bacteria, sometimes also called ‘antigens’. They challenge the immune system so that it makes antibodies to fight the disease – see our animation on ‚How do vaccines work?‘.
Vaccines contain tiny quantities of active ingredients – just a few micrograms (millionths of a gram) per vaccine. To give some idea of how small these quantities are, one paracetamol tablet contains 500 milligrams of the drug. This is several thousand times more than the quantity of the active ingredient you would find in most vaccines. Hundreds of thousands of individual vaccines could be made from a single teaspoon of active ingredient.
Some vaccines contain whole bacteria or viruses. In these cases, the bacteria or viruses will either be severely weakened (attenuated) so that they cannot cause disease in healthy people, or killed altogether (inactivated). Many vaccines contain only parts of viruses or bacteria, usually proteins or sugars from the surface. These stimulate the immune system but cannot cause disease. See our page on ‚Types of vaccine‘.
Compared with the number of viruses and bacteria in the environment that our bodies have to deal with every day, the amount of active ingredient in a vaccine is very small indeed. Most bacterial vaccines contain just a few proteins or sugars from the relevant bacterium. By contrast, it is estimated that 100 trillion bacteria live on the skin of the average human being, each of them containing many thousands of proteins which constantly challenge our immune systems.
A few vaccines in the UK schedule are made using recombinant DNA technology. Only one vaccine used in the UK contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
SPECIAL ARTICLES| DECEMBER 01 2003
Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Vaccines Contain Harmful Preservatives, Adjuvants, Additives, or Residuals?
Reprint requests to (P.A.O.) Division of Infectious Diseases, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Abramson Research Building, Rm 1202C, 34th St and Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: offit@email.chop.edu
Pediatrics (2003) 112 (6): 1394–1397.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.112.6.1394
Vaccines often contain preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or manufacturing residuals in addition to pathogen-specific immunogens. Some parents, alerted by stories in the news media or information contained on the World Wide Web, are concerned that some of the substances contained in vaccines might harm their children. We reviewed data on thimerosal, aluminum, gelatin, human serum albumin, formaldehyde, antibiotics, egg proteins, and yeast proteins. Both gelatin and egg proteins are contained in vaccines in quantities sufficient to induce rare instances of severe, immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions. However, quantities of mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, human serum albumin, antibiotics, and yeast proteins in vaccines have not been found to be harmful in humans or experimental animals.
- An Ounce of Anticipatory Guidance Is Worth a Pound of TestingJuanita K. Hodax et al., Hosp Pediatr, 2015
- Parents’ Vaccine Safety Concerns IncreaseAAP Grand Rounds, 2004
- Countering Vaccine HesitancyKathryn M. Edwards et al., Pediatrics, 2016
- Autism Not Caused by MMR VaccineAAP Grand Rounds, 1999
- Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Vaccines Cause Allergic or Autoimmune Diseases?Paul A. Offit et al., Pediatrics, 2003
- HPLC determination of valproic acid in human serumP. Kishore et al., Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kulturforschung
- Validated HPLC method for the determination of ranitidine in human serum and its application in a clinical pharmacokinetic studyKrishna Kumar et al., Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kulturforschung
- The Still Life of Objects – Heidegger, Schapiro, and Derrida reconsideredKerstin Thomas et al., Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, 2015
- »The Concept of a Person in Philosophical Anthropology«Wunsch et al., Zeitschrift für Kulturphilosophie, 2016
- Target Proteinuria: >1g/day proteinuria predicts rapid disease progression in IgAN1.Reich H, et al. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007; 18:3177–83.
The distortion of real-world data through meta-analyses.
Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies without restriction on publication dates, in which MCV1 was administered to infants younger than 9 months. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019. We included studies reporting data on strength or duration of humoral and cellular immune responses, and on vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness after two-dose or three-dose MCV schedules. Our outcome measures were proportion of seropositive infants, geometric mean titre, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, antibody avidity index, and T-cell stimulation index. We used random-effects meta-analysis to derive pooled estimates of the outcomes, where appropriate. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.
Findings Our search retrieved 1156 records and 85 were excluded due to duplication. 1071 records were screened for eligibility, of which 351 were eligible for full-text screening and 21 were eligible for inclusion in the review. From 13 studies, the pooled proportion of infants seropositive after two MCV doses, with MCV1 administered before 9 months of age, was 98% (95% CI 96–99; I2=79·8%, p<0·0001), which was not significantly different from seropositivity after a two-dose MCV schedule starting later (p=0·087). Only one of four studies found geometric mean titres after MCV2 administration to be significantly lower when MCV1 was administered before 9 months of age than at 9 months of age or later. There was insufficient evidence to determine an effect of age at MCV1 administration on antibody avidity. The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate derived from two studies of a two-dose MCV schedule with MCV1 vaccination before 9 months of age was 95% (95% CI 89–100; I2=12·6%, p=0·29). Seven studies reporting on measles virus-specific cellular immune responses found that T-cell responses and T-cell memory were sustained, irrespective of the age of MCV1 administration. Overall, the quality of evidence was moderate to very low.
Interpretation Our findings suggest that administering MCV1 to infants younger than 9 months followed by additional MCV doses results in high seropositivity, vaccine effectiveness, and T-cell responses, which are independent of the age at MCV1, supporting the vaccination of very young infants in high-risk settings. However, we also found some evidence that MCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months resulted in lower antibody titres after one or two subsequent doses of MCV than when measles vaccination is started at age 9 months or older. The clinical and public- health relevance of this immunity blunting effect are uncertain.
We developed search terms for each database using controlled vocabulary (appendix pp 2–7) to capture publications on the effects and safety of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months. The first dose of MCV given earlier than the recommended age is often referred to as MCV0, implying that two subsequent MCV doses are needed for optimal protection. Here, we refer to all first MCV doses as MCV1 and do not make any assumptions about the total number of doses needed for optimal protection. We searched for randomised and quasi- randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies reporting summary estimates or, where unavailable, patient-level data on humoral and cellular immunogenicity, vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness, and duration of protection of two-dose or three-dose MCV schedules with MCV1 administration before 9 months of age. When available, we also extracted data for the comparator group from included articles that reported MCV1 administration to infants aged 9 months and older. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria or study type and those that reported vaccines with non-standard high viral titres were excluded. A complete list of the exclusion and inclusion criteria is available in the appendix (p 8)
Search strategy and selection criteria
Our search strategy for this systematic review and meta- analysis consisted of four components: a library database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Proquest, and Global Health; a search of the WHO library database (WHOLIS) and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing database (IRIS); consulting the Working Group on Measles and Rubella from WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization in September 2015; and screening biblio- graphies of included articles and five key reviews.13,14,20–22 Additional references found in this way were subject to the same screening and selection process as articles found in the primary search. The results were restricted to articles in English, Dutch, German, French, and Spanish. We did not set any time limit to dates of published articles included in our search. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019.
We developed search terms for each database using controlled vocabulary (appendix pp 2–7) to capture publications on the effects and safety of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months. The first dose of MCV given earlier than the recommended age is often referred to as MCV0, implying that two subsequent MCV doses are needed for optimal protection. Here, we refer to all first MCV doses as MCV1 and do not make any assumptions about the total number of doses needed for optimal protection. We searched for randomised and quasi- randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies reporting summary estimates or, where unavailable, patient-level data on humoral and cellular immunogenicity, vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness, and duration of protection of two-dose or three-dose MCV schedules with MCV1 administration before 9 months of age. When available, we also extracted data for the comparator group from included articles that reported MCV1 administration to infants aged 9 months and older. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria or study type and those that reported vaccines with non-standard high viral titres were excluded. A complete list of the exclusion and inclusion criteria is available in the appendix (p 8).
After deleting duplicate studies, two reviewers selected 10% of the retrieved articles at random and independently reviewed the title and abstract according to the predefined set of inclusion criteria. The application of the inclusion criteria was consistent (≤10% disagreement between the two reviewers), indicating high concordance.23 The reviewers divided the remaining articles to continue the title and abstract screening separately. This selection process was also applied to the full-text screening of included articles (≤10% disagreement). In case of uncertainty about inclusion or exclusion, the reviewers consulted each other. Discrepancies during the selection process were resolved by a third reviewer.
We report our systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.24
Funding WHO
Source https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(19)30396-2.pdf
Criminal by Design
A Theory of Genetic Dimensions in the Law
Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 99, 2024
60 PagesPosted: 8 Aug 2023
Yaniv Heled
Georgia State University College of Law
Liza Vertinsky
University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Ana Santos Rutschman
Villanova University – Charles Widger School of Law
Date Written: July 28, 2023
Abstract
Since the biotechnology revolution of the 1970s, genetic science and genetic technology have captured people’s imaginations. They have become a centerpiece of how we understand ourselves, our relationship with other humans, other living beings, our environment, and—indeed—with the universe. Through this evolution of understanding, genetic phenomena have acquired many meanings, some rooted in objective reality and others subjective and dependent on individual perceptions and sentiments.
However, legal decision-making has not kept pace. Instead, the law reflects only a partial understanding of the multiple dimensions of these phenomena, as judges and legislators force genetic objects into narrowing legal pathways that neglect vital interests attached to these phenomena.
This disconnect between genetics and the law has intensified as uses of genetics have expanded in multiple areas, ranging from criminal law enforcement to parenthood determination, from the development of medical diagnostics and therapies to the rapidly growing direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry.
This Article identifies and analyzes the impact of the longstanding judicial and legislative practice of applying ill-fitting legal constructs to genetic phenomena. We use case studies drawn from various areas of law to show how efforts to squeeze genetic phenomena into existing legal categories results in a failure to adequately capture the full range of interests that individuals, families, and society have in genetic phenomena.
The state of genetic disconnect in case law and legislation addressing genetics highlights the need for a more comprehensive way of thinking about, and legally recognizing, interests stemming from the multiple dimensions of genetic objects. In response, we provide a conceptual framework for incorporating genetic phenomena more fully into the law. Our approach offers legislators, judges, regulators, and lawyers a new way of thinking about genetics in the law that accounts for and accommodates the full range of individual, group, and societal interests in genetic phenomena.
Keywords: Genetics, DNA, Genomics, Genetic Privacy, Genetic Information, Genetic Property, Genetic Interests, Genetic Dimensions, Gene Therapy, Myriad Genetics, Moore v. Regents, Greenberg v. Miami, Maryland v. King, Genetic Identity, Genetic Objects, Gina, Genetic Discrimination, Genetic Testing, Sequencing
Source: A THEORY OF GENETIC DIMENSIONS IN THE LAW
Building COVID-19 Vaccine Production Capacity in LMICs
Patents aren’t really the problem—usually
A woman receives a dose of a COVISHIELD COVID-19 vaccine, manufactured by Serum Institute of India, at her home on the outskirts of Ahmedabad, India, on December 15, 2021. REUTERS/Amit Dave
by Reid Adler, Julia Barnes-Weise, Ana Santos Rutschman, Bridie TelfordMay 26, 2022
Reid Adler, JD, is the chief legal officer of VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc., and a lecturer for the graduate program in Biotechnology at Johns Hopkins University.
Julia Barnes-Weise, JD, CLP, is the executive director of the Global Healthcare Innovation Alliance Accelerator (GHIAA), a non-profit organization that develops and shares tools and best practices for global health alliance formation.
Ana Santos Rutschman, S.J.D., is an assistant professor at the Center for Health Law Studies and Center for International and Comparative Law at Saint Louis University.
Bridie Telford is a global health consultant and development director for the Global Healthcare Innovation Alliance Accelerator (GHIAA).
This table was prepared by the authors using patent information from the VaxPaL database (as of Feb. 26, 2022), and combining it with World Bank Classifications. Patent filings were excluded from the analysis if expired or withdrawn.
Table: CFR/Caroline Kantis Source: Adler et al.
https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/building-covid-19-vaccine-production-capacity-lmics
PATENTABILITY OF BIOTECHNOLOGY: Does Article 6 of the Biotech Directive introduce a single European concept of morality in patent law?
JULIMINATION 
Hinterlasse einen Kommentar