As you read this list, understand cell lines and vaccines do become contaminated. This is often hidden under the term “adventitious agents.”
Disgusting Ingredient #1: Cells From Aborted Fetus
Aborted fetal cells, listed on vaccine package inserts as “Human Fetal Diploid Cells.” Two aborted fetal cell lines, WI-38 and MRC-5, have been grown under laboratory conditions since the 1960s.
The cells are used to grow viruses used which are then collected from the cell cultures and processed further to produce the vaccine itself.
Terms to Investigate: PERC6, MRC5, WI-38, HEK-293
Which Vaccines? Adenovirus vaccine, DTaP vaccine, Hep A vaccine, Hep B vaccine, MMR vaccine, Rabies vaccine, Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine
Disgusting Ingredient #2: Serum From Aborted Calf Fetus Blood
One of the more grotesque methods involved in vaccine manufacturing is the collection of fetal bovine serum. The purpose for serum is providing a nutrient broth for viruses to grow in cells.
How is the blood collected?
According to the Humane Research Australia website:
After slaughter and bleeding of the cow at an abattoir, the mother’s uterus containing the calf fetus is removed during the evisceration process (removal of the mother’s internal organs) and transferred to the blood collection room. A needle is then inserted between the fetus’s ribs directly into its heart and the blood is vacuumed into a sterile collection bag. This process is aimed at minimizing the risk of contamination of the serum with micro-organisms from the fetus and its environment. Only fetuses over the age of three months are used otherwise the heart is considered too small to puncture.
Once collected, the blood is allowed to clot at room temperature and the serum separated through a process known as refrigerated centrifugation. 
Terms to Investigate: Fetal Bovine Serum
Which Vaccines? Adenovirus vaccine, MMR vaccine, Rotavirus vaccine, Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine
Disgusting Ingredient #3: Cells From Armyworms
The FDA approved the Flublok vaccine on January 16, 2013.
This new technology is being touted as the wave of the future. It utilizes an insect cell line (expresSF+®) that is derived from cells of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda.
The vaccine package insert for Flublok also mentions:
Each 0.5 mL dose of Flublok may also contain residual amounts of baculovirus and host cell proteins (≤ 28.5 mcg), baculovirus and cellular DNA (≤ 10 ng) … 
Terms to Investigate: insect cell line (expresSF+)
Which Vaccines? Influenza vaccine
Disgusting Ingredient #4: Cells From Monkey Kidneys
As mentioned above, monkey kidney tissue is used to support the growth of certain viruses used in vaccine production. There remains a huge controversy over using these cells and their role contaminating the polio vaccine in the 1950s.
The story is best told in the Congressional papers of a courageous scientist, Bernice Eddy. The Executive Reorganization and Government Research of the Committee on Government Operations United States Senate, Ninety-Second Congress, Second Session  states on page 500:
The next and only serious vaccine crisis that has occurred since the polio episode was the realization in mid-1961 that a monkey virus later shown to cause tumors in hamsters was contaminating both polio and adenovirus vaccines. The virus, known as SV40, was entering the vaccines and, just as in the polio case were surviving the formalin treatment.
There were several states by which the full extent of the SV40 problem became known. First was the discovery in 1959-1960 by a DBS scientist, once again Bernice Eddy, that an unknown agent in the monkey kidney cells used to produce polio and adenovirus vaccines would cause tumors when the cells were injected into hamsters.
In 1954 Eddy, as a polio control officer, found live virus in supposedly killed polio vaccine; in 1955 she was relieved of her duties as polio control officer … After her discoveries concerning the SV40 virus, her staff and animal space were reduced and she was demoted from head of a section to head of a unit.
… even when the contaminating virus was found to be oncogenic [cancer causing] in hamsters, the DBS [Division of Biologics Standards] and its expert advisory committee decided to leave existing stocks on the market rather than risk eroding public confidence by a recall.
There has been a tendency on the part of certain higher government circles to play down any open discussion of problems associated with vaccines … 
Terms to Investigate: Vero (monkey kidney) cell culture, SV40, Bernice Eddy
Which Vaccines? DTaP vaccine, Japanese Encephalitis vaccine, Polio vaccine, Rotavirus vaccine, Vaccinia vaccine
Disgusting Ingredient #5: Cells From Dog Kidneys
On November 20, 2012, the FDA approved the seasonal influenza vaccine, Flucelvax, manufactured by Novartis. 
This vaccine is mass-produced using the continuous cell line Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) as vaccine cell substrate. 
Terms to Investigate: Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK)
Which Vaccines? Influenza vaccine
Disgusting Ingredient #6: Mouse Brain
Viral vaccines prepared in tissue culture or mouse brain have been used in many Asian countries. According to the CDC website, the inactivated mouse brain-derived JE vaccine used in the United States since 1992 is no longer available. 
Of course, with any vaccine, the adverse reactions are rarely tracked and downplayed by medical authorities. However, the injuries from vaccines can be quite serious. [7, 8]
Terms to Investigate: inactivated mouse brain (IMB), suckling mouse brain (SMB), JE virus (Beijing-1), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)
Which Vaccines? Japanese encephalitis vaccine, Rabies vaccine
Disgusting Ingredient #7: Chicken Embryos
Chickens and their embryos have long been used in the production of vaccines.
These methods were popularized in the 1920s and 1930s by Thomas Rivers and others at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. 
Terms to Investigate: Chick embryo
Which Vaccines? Influenza vaccine, Rabies vaccine, Yellow fever vaccine
Florida woman – who had been serving a 20-year sentence for firing what she described as a warning shot at her abusive husband – was released from jail Wednesday night, according to a report from First Coast News. Her bond was set at $200,009.
Although no one was injured in the incident, a jury convicted Alexander of multiple counts of aggravated assault with a firearm in 2012, requiring a 20 year sentence thanks to Florida’s “10-20-Life” law, which sets mandatory minimum sentences for crimes committed with a gun. Her conviction was overturned in September when a judge ordered a retrial after finding that the jury instructions in her original trial were erroneous and had unfairly put the burden on Alexander to prove that she had fired her shot in self-defense.
Alexander has spent more than 1,000 days behind bars, according to her lawyers’ count, keeping her away from her youngest child for most of the first three years of her life.
The organizers behind the Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign cheered her release in a statement Thursday on the group’s Facebook page.
“We are thrilled that Ms. Alexander will be able to prepare for her new trial amid the support and love of her children and family from whom she has been separated far too long,” the statement read. “The Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign is more determined than ever to win complete exoneration for Marissa Alexander.”
Barneys New York CEO Mark Lee today announced that the luxury department store will begin requiring young black males to provide proof of income before shopping at its flagship location on Madison Avenue. Lee—who has led the company since 2010—said the new policy will “prevent incidents like the one that occurred in April,” when a black teenager was arrested on suspicion of credit card fraud after Barneys employees didn’t believe he could afford the $350 belt he purchased.
Lee said that, in a perfect world, anyone could walk off the street and shop at Barneys. “But the reality is that most people can’t afford our beautiful, high-end products,” Lee explained, “and some people—almost always young black males—resort to credit card fraud to get them.”
Barneys’ new policy will require all African American males under the age of 30 to show security guards pay stubs or income tax forms before being granted admittance into the store. “This way,” Lee said, “once they’re inside, we’ll know for sure what they can and can’t afford, and we won’t be forced to racially profile them.”
Lee admitted that the new policy was conceived in response to a lawsuit brought against the company by 19-year-old engineering student Trayon Christian. In April, Christian used his debit card to purchase a $350 designer belt from Barneys’ Madison Avenue location. Outside, undercover NYPD officers—who had been alerted to a possible case of credit card fraud by a Barneys employee who believed Christian couldn’t afford the belt—stopped Christian, handcuffed him, and took him to the 19th Precinct stationhouse. Eventually, Christian was released without charges, but he is now suing Barneys New York and the NYPD over the incident.
“What happened to that young man is unfortunate,” Lee said, since Christian was paying for the belt with money he earned as a work-study student. “But if this policy had been in place back in April, we could have avoided the whole thing. Trayon would have been perfectly free to buy that belt without being accosted.”
“On the other hand, we wouldn’t have let him anywhere near the formal wear section,” Lee said. “I don’t care how hard you work, no college student can afford that stuff unless they’re selling crack or pimping bitches on the side.”
These days, we’re all paying more to travel. And not just for the plane ticket, either. As the airlines look to find new and creative ways to squeeze just one more shiny penny out of each and every passenger who climbs aboard, the pounds count.
Some pounds, anyway. Drag your suitcase up to the counter, put it on the scale. Even just a hair over? There’s a fee for that.
So why, then, do some airlines still try to look the other way when those extra pounds belong to the passenger’s body?
Some airlines call them, diplomatically, “customers of size.” Their doctors would likely use the word obese. A growing chorus of travelers – tired of sharing valuable real-estate on a long-haul flight with someone’s love handles – use words we won’t even print here.
Seriously – why not charge passengers the same as their luggage?
Well, that’s easy. Luggage, after all, doesn’t have feelings. People do.
Not that fatties are getting a free ride; in the past few years, airlines have become far less awkward about stating their policies on obese passengers right up front. Sometimes the policies are written out, plain as day, other times not. But few and far between are the airlines that aren’t looking to ensure that passengers carry their own weight.
Southwest Airlines was ahead of the pack with its up-front – and many have said, rather cold – policies regarding the customer of size.
It’s simple, they say. Either you fit in the 17 inches between the armrests, or you don’t. If not, you buy a second seat, or risk having one forced on you when you show up at the airport – agents are given leeway to decide whether or not a passenger fits. AirTran, set to merge with Southwest, has adopted the same policy.
Even United, which used to give the equivalent of a terse “no comment” on the matter, when pressed, has now relented. Clearly-stated policy now urges the customer who “requires extra seating” – hint, hint – to take care of business before boarding the plane. As in, purchase an extra seat. As on other airlines with such a policy, you take your chances at the airport – staff are empowered to refuse you at the gate if you haven’t bought the second seat.
It’s no wonder even the most reticent of airlines are jumping on the second seat bandwagon – according to the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (yes, there is such a thing), seat size – typically 17 to 18.5 inches – hasn’t kept up with passenger size; the association says that between 1960 and 2002, Americans on average went up by about 25 pounds each.
Is this increasingly hard line the airlines are taking just a bit unfair?
Frankly, as I’ve proposed in the past, there’s a better way. Install a couple of rows of extra wide seats (two by two configuration instead of the typical 3 by 3) in economy class, and perhaps charge a reasonable premium for them. No extra perks, no extra legroom, just extra width.
Some flyers, particularly those who have been blindsided by the policy when they show up at an airport, think the airlines have gone too far; Southwest, for one, has been sued multiple times by passengers who say that airline employees ruined their trip.
That may all be coming to an end, though – an appeals court recently ruled that passengers of size in the United Kingdom may no longer take legal action against carriers when they feel they’ve been discriminated against; in fact, experts say there that a possible “fat tax” could be the next step – can you imagine being ordered on the scales before boarding?
That might be taking it a little bit too far – even for those of us who don’t spill over the armrest.