What is Vaccine Beer

Vac beer contains live yeast cells that produce harmless viral proteins. It’s a new food product that can elicit antibody responses against viruses.

I’ve homebrewed beer off and on for 30 years. When I saw that feeding lab mice with engineered brewer’s yeast could induce protective antibody responses against the virus I study, my instant first thought was, “well, I can definitely do that at home.”

In this post, I’m mirroring the independent manuscript I wrote describing my home experiments. There’s also an institutional manuscript showing that drinking beer made with vaccine yeast induced a strong antibody response in me. Tina Saey’s excellent coverage of the controversies surrounding the new tech can be found here.

In the near future, I hope to convince major brewing yeast suppliers to start offering “vac yeast” for microbrewers and homebrewers to play with. While we wait for that to happen, it’s already possible for independent scientists to try all this stuff at home, exactly as I did.

The Supplemental section of the posted manuscript contains a wealth of technical detail about our methods for homebrewing and drinking vac beer. Unfortunately, the detailed methods too long for the blogging platforms, so I’ll simply direct interested readers to the Zenodo posting.

The appendices of the home experiment manuscript are given separate coverage here and here.

---

Vaccine Beer: A Personal Healthcare Report (v.2)

Christopher B. Buck

Independent Scientist, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Abstract

Recent results suggest that live yeast expressing vaccine antigens can elicit an immune response in mice when delivered in the form of food. In this study, I conduct an n-of-1 self-experiment to explore the idea that the mouse results can safely be extended to myself. I reasoned that the experiment stands a good chance of serving my own general health interests. I bioengineered brewer’s yeast to express the BK polyomavirus major capsid protein as a model vaccine antigen. I then used the yeast to homebrew beer. Drinking prime and boost doses of the bioengineered yeast did not cause any discernible adverse effects. The results demonstrate that food manufacturers and home cooks can independently explore the development of food-based vaccines in a basic kitchen environment.

Introduction

In common parlance, the familiar term “vaccine” refers to a class of medical products that are intended to prevent and treat infectious disease. While it’s true that all commercial vaccines that might be recommended at a routine physical are FDA-approved drugs that have been proven safe and effective, these familiar products are only one aspect of the scientific usage of the term vaccine. For example, here is a scientific definition from the National Cancer Institute (NCI):

Vaccine: A substance or group of substances meant to cause the immune system to respond to a tumor or to microorganisms, such as bacteria or viruses. A vaccine can help the body recognize and destroy cancer cells or microorganisms.

The definition focuses on the ability of the vaccine to elicit an immune response, regardless of whether the immune response is intended to prevent or treat disease in the recipient. Research scientists often investigate the effects of antiviral vaccines on the function of the immune system using model animals that cannot be infected by the target virus (Soleymani et al., 2025). In other cases, vaccines are used to support innate immune responses that are not specific to any particular pathogen (Zhang et al., 2026). These cases demonstrate that the purpose of applying a vaccine is not always to prevent a specific disease in the vaccinated individual. In other words, the scientific definition of the word vaccine simply denotes the intent to elicit an immune response against an antigenic target and does not necessarily imply a disease-prevention intent for the recipient.

Findings from an NCI team show that food-grade brewer’s yeast expressing the coat protein of BK polyomavirus (BKV) can be immunogenic when fed to lab mice (Soleymani et al., 2025). The results are exciting because food-based vaccine approaches are fast and cheap to develop. More importantly, food products can immediately be marketed with the intent of supporting the normal healthy structure and function of the human body (21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)).

In this report, I explore the idea that the NCI’s food-based vaccine strategy can be safely extended to humans. My approach follows the centuries-old tradition in which vaccine scientists voluntarily test initial products on themselves (Contagion, 2011; Hanley et al., 2019; Weisse, 2012). The purpose of the study is to confirm the predicted safety of food-grade bioengineered BKV yeast and to investigate whether the yeast elicit an immune response. The self-experiment was conducted in my home kitchen using only my own personal resources as a private citizen.

Although I am not at risk of any known BKV diseases, I entertain the hope that the immune responses I might experience during the study could benefit my general health. I aim for this to be the beginning of a movement to democratize vaccine development by making the process freely accessible to individual citizens (Jain, 2025; Kraushaar, 2024; Mastroianni, 2023).

Materials and Methods

Ethics statement. In my view, scientific self-experimentation in service of individual healthcare is a fundamental human right (C. Buck, 2022; C. B. Buck, 2023). My viewpoint rests on a long tradition of scientists ethically testing research findings on themselves and is supported by the Nuremberg Code, which explicitly allows for the possibility of ethical self-experimentation (Hanley et al., 2019; Sills et al., 2020). The right is self-evident under the ethical Principle of Autonomy (Childress, 1990; Gauthier, 1993). Detailed reasoning on this issue is presented in Appendices A and B.

The independent generation, consumption, and sale of bioengineered organisms is allowed under US law (Kramer, 2023). In my view, the bioengineered yeast described in this report satisfy self-asserted Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) food standards (FDA, 2017). Detailed reasoning on this issue is presented in Appendix C.

The individual healthcare activities documented in this report did not use any confidential information, did not use or generate any intellectual property, did not generate any revenue or equity, and did not solicit, receive, or use any government resources. The self-experiments were conducted in a home environment outside of work hours and do not in any way invoke my professional titles. This report does not provide any professional services and does not endorse any persons, entities, or products.

Plasmid construction. The sequence of pGustiv was downloaded from the NCI Lab of Cellular Oncology’s public technical page. The sequence was synthesized as a set of cloned fragments by GeneUniversal.com. Fragments were recombined in a home lab setting using traditional restriction enzyme-based cloning methods (NEB.com). Scientific equipment was purchased from The-Odin.com or via Amazon.com. The finished pGustiv plasmid is publicly available for any purpose, including human studies or commercial purposes, under OpenMTA (Kahl et al., 2018) via Addgene.org. I note that various companies, including Gene Universal, offer custom cloning services that would obviate the need for home laboratory equipment.

Yeast transformation. Detailed methods for transforming yeast and producing beer are provided in the Supplemental Methods section of Version 1 of this preprint. In addition, I note that many companies, including Gene Universal, offer yeast transformation services.

Yeast strains of interest were transformed with pGustiv using a yeast transformation kit (The-Odin.com) and selected on YPD-agar plates (KDmedical.com) with 6 mM formaldehyde (SigmaAldrich.com). Six colonies were pooled into liquid YPD with 6 mM formaldehyde (YPD-6) and cultured with orbital shaking at 30ºC for several hours prior to streaking onto malt extract plates (OlympusMyco.com). Six of the largest and most fluorescent colonies were picked into 250 µl of YPD-6 and cultured overnight. The culture was then progressively stepped up to 25 mL and 250 mL of YPD-6 in stirred Erlenmeyer flasks.

Beer. Detailed methods for production of initial homebrewed batches of transformed yeast are provided in the Supplemental Methods section of Version 1 of this preprint. Simplified methods used for later batches of yeast are provided in Appendix D (below).

Yeast cells from a 250 mL flask were centrifuged (LabFish.com) at 650 x g and the YPD-6 supernatant was discarded. Collected yeast cells were pitched into one liter (~one quart) of 1x Propper starter broth (OmegaYeast.com) in a 5-liter (~one gallon) continuous brewing jar (CulturesForHealth.com). The starter was cultured on a heated stir plate until expression of the green fluorescent protein (GFP) marker gene started to become evident, roughly 6-12 hours. Three liters (~3 quarts) of filtered tap water and 0.5 kg (~1 pound) of dry malt extract from a MoreBeer.com Flash Hefeweizen kit were added to the fermenter. Thirty grams (~1 ounce) of Saphir hop pellets (Artisan Hops) were steeped in a French press (Frieling.com) in 0.5 L (~1 pint) of boiling water. The hop tea was cooled and pressed and the filtrate was added to the fermenter. Fermentation was conducted at 24 to 34ºC (75-93ºF), depending on yeast strain.

The home kitchen environment did not have the resources to quantitate VP1 dosing, but a rough estimate would be that, indexed to body mass, I consumed roughly 1/38th of a mouse dose of induced live yeast during each roughly five-day dosing window.

Self-experiments. I conducted pilot self-experiments by consuming yeast on an arbitrary “best guess” convenience schedule consisting of one or two pints (0.5 L) of beer per day.

Robust GFP expression was observed in the fermenting beer starting roughly 36 hours after pitching, at which point a pint of fresh beer with suspended live yeast was decanted from the stirred fermenter and immediately consumed at fermentation temperature. At day 3 of the fermentation, the remaining beer was distributed into one-pint flip-top bottles and carbonated by the addition of 1% (w/v) maltose (LabAlley.com).

Detailed methods for production of foods consumed alongside the vaccine beer are presented in the Supplemental Methods section of Version 1 of this preprint. In brief, a 20 mg dose of famotidine was taken about an hour in advance of some pints, in hope of partially neutralizing stomach pH to promote the survival of live yeast. Sugar-free calcium carbonate antacid tablets were chewed alongside some meals, with the same rationale. In some cases, a pint of water was consumed about ten minutes prior to drinking the pint of beer, in hope of rinsing stomach acid into the duodenum. Some pints were consumed on an empty stomach, while others were consumed alongside maltose-rich foods, in hope of achieving prebiotic yeast-feeding effects. Some of the pints were consumed together with a high-fat meal, exploring the idea that the secretion of bile salts might help promote yeast lysis and release of BKV VLPs in the duodenum. In summary, the prime and boost dosing schedules consisted of one or two pints of vaccine beer per day over the course of about five days.

Results

The traditional Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement (UBMTA) used by the NCI team stipulates that transferred materials cannot be used in human subjects. The UBMTA also forbids further sharing or resale of transferred materials. It was therefore necessary to independently recreate the pGustiv sequence reported by the NCI through de novo DNA synthesis. Plasmid construction was conducted in my home kitchen. The finished plasmid is freely available via Addgene under OpenMTA, which allows for use in humans and commercial resale (Kahl et al., 2018).

The pGustiv plasmid was initially transformed into Pakruojis Lithuanian Farmhouse Ale Yeast (WLP4047) in my home kitchen. The transformed yeast strain was used to brew batches of roughly a gallon (4 L) of beer. I drank one or two pints (0.5-1 L) of the resulting vaccine beer per day over the course of about a week (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Vaccine beer in the kitchen environment. The pGustiv plasmid is designed to co-express enhanced green fluorescent protein (GFP) alongside the BKV VP1 vaccine antigen. GFP expression was confirmed by illuminating beer containing suspended live yeast under blue LED lights and then photographing it using a cellphone outfitted with an orange filter.

The wheat ale yeast strain (WB-06) that comes with the Morebeer Flash Hefeweizen kit also produces a flavorful live-yeast beer. Results from the NCI team suggest that the wheat ale strain may exhibit somewhat higher and more stable vaccine antigen expression than the Pakruojis strain. I drank booster doses of vaccine beer made with the wheat ale strain starting at roughly week seven after the Pakruojis priming doses. A second round of booster doses using WB-06 beer was consumed about seven weeks later.

The NCI team’s vaccination experiments with mice suggest that it’s important for live yeast to shuttle the fragile vaccine antigen past the stomach acid barrier. I suspect it’s also important for the yeast cells to eventually break open and release the antigen so it can directly bind the surface of specialized immune presentation cells called M cells in the small intestine (de Aizpurua & Russell-Jones, 1988). I have entertained multiple hypotheses about which foods might be most effective for facilitating these processes. I don’t know which, if any, of the hypotheses are true, and some of the hypotheses are mutually exclusive. I adopted a bet-hedging strategy in which I implemented different strategies on different days.

In healthy individuals, yeast can persist in the gut for periods of up to a few days (Pecquet et al., 1991). One hypothesis is that it might be possible to restimulate antigen expression in yeast residing in the small intestine. The MAL32 promoter system used in pGustiv is activated by maltose, so eating maltose-rich foods might restimulate antigen expression. A complicating factor is that glucose suppresses the MAL32 promoter, even in the presence of high levels of maltose (Meurer et al., 2017). In essence, yeast cells are set up to utilize glucose as a preferred “snack food” before they activate the machinery to metabolize other sugars, such as maltose.

In pilot self-experiments, eating maltose-rich/low-glucose foods alongside vaccine beer sometimes correlated with mild bloating and flatulence, reminiscent of the familiar effects of eating beans. I also considered the hypothesis that gut fermentation might produce ethanol at levels that could produce inebriating effects beyond what might be expected from drinking a pint of beer. I did not sense any signs of ethanol intoxication during the experiments. This is consistent with the idea that so-called “autobrewery” effects are extremely rare and are typically associated with microbes unrelated to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae used in this study (Hsu & Schnabl, 2026). No other discernible side effects were detected at any point during or after the experiments.

Before and after drinking vaccine beer, I collected serum samples from myself via fingerstick. I established a non-equity non-profit recreational organization, Gusteaucorp.org, to serve as a public repository for my own serum samples. Repository samples were shared with the NCI team at no cost, with an invitation to test the samples for serum antibodies specific for BKV VP1. The results of the testing are reported in a separate NCI-led manuscript (Soleymani et al., 2025).

Discussion

There is an urgent need to find ways to make vaccine development faster, cheaper, easier, and more broadly accessible. Food-based vaccine approaches can achieve these goals.

In the United States, there has been a growing movement to downplay the safety and efficacy of traditional injection vaccines, and government officials have begun implementing policies restricting access (O’Reilly, 2025). Food-based vaccine approaches could help put autonomous decision-making authority back in the hands of individual Americans. Homemade vaccines might also help overcome some of the skepticism and fear surrounding injected vaccines developed by pharmaceutical conglomerates.

The existing regulatory framework in the US empowers food producers to sell innovative new products. For example, a number of companies have developed bioengineered brewer’s yeast strains that express enzymes intended to make beer more flavorful (Kramer, 2023). Other yeast-based food products have been tested for their ability to support the normal healthy structure and function of the immune system (Jensen et al., 2011; McFarlin et al., 2023; Moreno et al., 2025; Roos et al., 2018). Food-grade yeast carrying vaccine antigens of interest are a new entrant in this fascinating segment of the American food market.

Colleagues have expressed the concern that because vaccines are typically considered drugs, potentially antigenic bioengineered yeast should only be developed under the authority of the FDA drug approval process. This concern overlooks the fact that foods can have healthful properties without being considered drugs. Limes, which have long been used to prevent and cure scurvy, are a classic example. If a modern farmer were to label limes with the stated intent of curing scurvy, the labeled limes would be subject to the authority of the FDA drug approval process. The reverse is not true. The fact that limes can be used to cure disease does not mean limes can no longer be marketed as food. The law focuses on manufacturer intent, as reflected by product marketing literature. Food-based vaccines can occupy the same market space as limes, so long as the food-vaccine product focuses only on structure-function effects and refrains from making claims about disease. Detailed reasoning on these issues is presented in Appendices A-C.

Evaluation of the possible medical efficacy of food-based vaccine strategies will be an important future aim that can be conducted under FDA investigational new drug applications. Meanwhile, consumers are free to immediately begin exploring this exciting new class of food products (C. Buck, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c).

Disclosures

I am employed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where I am a member of a team developing food-based vaccine technology. The results and ideas presented in this report exclusively represent my personal identity as a private citizen and do not represent my views as a federal employee or the official views of NCI. This study was conducted as a personal health activity during my free time and did not use any government resources.

References

Buck, C. (2022). The Freedom to Choose Medicine Is a Civil Right. Viruses Must Die. https://cbuck.substack.com/p/the-freedom-to-choose-medicine-is

Buck, C. (2025a). The Ethics of Self-Experimentation. https://cbuck.substack.com/p/the-ethics-of-self-experimentation

Buck, C. (2025b). Vac Beer Is a Lawful Consumer Product. https://cbuck.substack.com/p/vac-beer-is-a-lawful-consumer-product

Buck, C. (2025c, December 19). The Vaccine Revolution Will Now Be Televised [Vaccine beer: Coming soon to a brewery near you]. https://cbuck.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-revolution-will-now-be

Buck, C. B. (2023). The mint versus Covid hypothesis. Medical Hypotheses, 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2023.111047

Childress, J. F. (1990). The Place of Autonomy in Bioethics. Hastings Center Report, 20(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/3562967

Contagion. (2011, September 9). [Video recording]. Warner Bros. Pictures. https://www.warnerbros.com/movies/contagion

de Aizpurua, H. J., & Russell-Jones, G. J. (1988). Oral vaccination. Identification of classes of proteins that provoke an immune response upon oral feeding. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 167(2), 440–451. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.167.2.440

de Melo Pereira, G. V., Maske, B. L., de Carvalho Neto, D. P., Karp, S. G., De Dea Lindner, J., Martin, J. G. P., de Oliveira Hosken, B., & Soccol, C. R. (2022). What Is Candida Doing in My Food? A Review and Safety Alert on Its Use as Starter Cultures in Fermented Foods. Microorganisms, 10(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10091855

FDA. (2017). Guidance for Industry: Regulatory Framework for Substances Intended for Use in Human Food or Animal Food on the Basis of the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-regulatory-framework-substances-intended-use-human-food-or-animal-food-basis

Gauthier, C. C. (1993). Philosophical Foundations of Respect for Autonomy. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 3(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0103

Han, X., Wang, L., Li, W., Li, B., Yang, Y., Yan, H., Qu, L., & Chen, Y. (2015). Use of green fluorescent protein to monitor Lactobacillus plantarum in the gastrointestinal tract of goats. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 46(3), 849–854. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-838246320140556

Hanley, B. P., Bains, W., & Church, G. (2019). Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists. Rejuvenation Research, 22(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2018.2059

Hsu, C. L., & Schnabl, B. (2026). Microbial ethanol production in patients with auto-brewery syndrome. Nature Microbiology, 11(2), 348–349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-025-02250-x

Jaime, J. C., Young, A. M., Mateo, J., Yap, T. A., Denholm, K. A., Shah, K. J., Tunariu, N., Sassi, S., Karapanegiotou, L., Mansfield, D., Molife, L. R., Harrington, K. J., & De Bono, J. S. (2012). Phase I clinical trial of a genetically modified and oncolytic vaccinia virus GL-ONC1 with green fluorescent protein imaging. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(15_suppl), 2530.

Jain, H. (2025). Cottage-Core Biotech. Mundane Beauty. https://www.mundane.beauty/p/cottage-core-biotech

Jensen, G. S., Redman, K. A., Benson, K. F., Carter, S. G., Mitzner, M. A., Reeves, S., & Robinson, L. (2011). Antioxidant bioavailability and rapid immune-modulating effects after consumption of a single acute dose of a high-metabolite yeast immunogen: Results of a placebo-controlled double-blinded crossover pilot study. Journal of Medicinal Food, 14(9), 1002–1010. https://doi.org/10.1089/jmf.2010.0174

Kahl, L., Molloy, J., Patron, N., Matthewman, C., Haseloff, J., Grewal, D., Johnson, R., & Endy, D. (2018). Opening options for material transfer. Nature Biotechnology, 36(10), 923–927. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4263

Kramer, A. (2023, July 18). The Secret Ingredient in Your Craft Beer? Gene-Edited Yeast. https://www.wired.com/story/the-secret-ingredient-in-your-craft-beer-gene-edited-yeast/

Kraushaar, L. (2024). Individualised Lifestyle Medicine—The FDA-Approved N-Of-1 Method To Test Drive Health Advice. Read or Die. https://medium.com/read-or-die-hq/individualised-lifestyle-medicine-the-fda-approved-n-of-1-method-to-test-drive-health-advice-29e502153522

Mastroianni, A. (2023). Let’s build a fleet and change the world. Experimental History. https://www.experimental-history.com/p/lets-build-a-fleet-and-change-the

Mauersberger, S., Ohkuma, M., Schunck, W.-H., & Takagi, M. (1996). Candida maltosa. In Nonconventional Yeasts in Biotechnology: A Handbook (pp. 411–580). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-79856-6_12

McFarlin, B. K., Bridgeman, E. A., Vingren, J. L., & Hill, D. W. (2023). Dry blood spot samples to monitor immune-associated mRNA expression in intervention studies: Impact of Baker’s yeast beta glucan. Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 219, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2023.09.006

Meurer, M., Chevyreva, V., Cerulus, B., & Knop, M. (2017). The regulatable MAL32 promoter in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Characteristics and tools to facilitate its use. Yeast (Chichester, England), 34(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/yea.3214

Moreno, M. L., Nieves, C. J., Hebert, K., Vivas, C. A., Rivero-Mendoza, D., Colee, J., Tompkins, T. A., & Dahl, W. J. (2025). Yeast Beta-Glucan Enhances Antibody Response Following Influenza Vaccination—A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Trial. Journal of Dietary Supplements, 22(5), 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390211.2025.2539876

NCPHSB. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

O’Reilly, K. B. (2025). Latest ACIP move is dangerous to the nation’s health. Prevention & Wellness. https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/prevention-wellness/latest-acip-move-dangerous-nation-s-health

Pecquet, S., Guillaumin, D., Tancrede, C., & Andremont, A. (1991). Kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae elimination from the intestines of human volunteers and effect of this yeast on resistance to microbial colonization in gnotobiotic mice. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 57(10), 3049–3051. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.57.10.3049-3051.1991

Ray, U., Cinque, P., Gerevini, S., Longo, V., Schippling, S., Martin, R., Buck, C. B., & Pastrana, D. V. (2015). JC Polyomavirus Mutants Escape Antibody-Mediated Neutralization. Science Translational Medicine, 7(306), 306ra151.

Richards, H. A., Han, C.-T., Hopkins, R. G., Failla, M. L., Ward, W. W., & Stewart, C. N. (2003). Safety Assessment of Recombinant Green Fluorescent Protein Orally Administered to Weaned Rats. The Journal of Nutrition, 133(6), 1909–1912. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.6.1909

Roos, T. B., de Moraes, C. M., Sturbelle, R. T., Dummer, L. A., Fischer, G., & Leite, F. P. L. (2018). Probiotics Bacillus toyonensis and Saccharomyces boulardii improve the vaccine immune response to Bovine herpesvirus type 5 in sheep. Research in Veterinary Science, 117, 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.12.022

Savica, V., Calò, L. A., Santoro, D., Monardo, P., Mallamace, A., & Bellinghieri, G. (2011). Urine therapy through the centuries. Journal of Nephrology, 24 Suppl 17, S123–S125. https://doi.org/10.5301/jn.2011.6463

Sills, J., Estep, P. W., & Church, G. M. (2020). Transparency is key to ethical vaccine research. Science, 370(6523), 1422–1423. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf4851

Soleymani, S., Tavassoli, A., Emilija, V., Gedvilaite, A., Asiedu, C., Pastrana, D. V., & Buck, C. B. (2025). An Edible Polyomavirus Vaccine. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17969224

Sospedra, M., Schippling, S., Yousef, S., Jelcic, I., Bofill-Mas, S., Planas, R., Stellmann, J. P., Demina, V., Cinque, P., Garcea, R., Croughs, T., Girones, R., & Martin, R. (2014). Treating Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy With Interleukin 7 and Vaccination With JC Virus Capsid Protein VP1. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 59(11), 1588–1592. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu682

Weisse, A. B. (2012). Self-experimentation and its role in medical research. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 39(1), 51–54.

WHO. (2005). Formaldehyde in Drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. World Health Organization. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/wash-documents/wash-chemicals/formaldehyde-bd-130605.pdf

Zhang, H., Floyd, K., Fang, Z., Hoffmann, F. A., Lee, A., Froggatt, H. M., Bharj, G., Xie, X., Eppler, H. B., Santagata, J. M., Wang, Y., Hu, M., Fox, C. B., Arunachalam, P. S., Baric, R., Suthar, M. S., & Pulendran, B. (2026). Mucosal vaccination in mice provides protection from diverse respiratory threats. Science, 392(6800), eaea1260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aea1260