Neocutis Shocking Response Letter

Dear Readers:
Below is the shocking response received from Neocutis President, Mark Lemko to one concerned woman who wrote to ask them about their use of aborted fetal material.  Our comments to correct his patently false statements follow the email but I am sure you will be able to figure out quickly as you read this that these people have no shame, no morals, no souls.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Mark Lemko <Mark.Lemko@neocutis.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Subject: NEOCUTIS

Dear L. Hall:Perhaps a simple response is the best.

We believe we are the victims of vicious and damaging misinformation.

We feel that we are in complete compliance with the laws of God and the laws of man.

We were not involved with the acquisition of the original sample of fetal tissue.

However, we know the sample was obtained in a legally, morally, ethically and medically correct manner.

None of our products contain any of the original fetal cells or tissue. None of our products contain aborted babies. Our lysate is prepared from cultured fibroblasts that have never been part of a fetus.

We are not abortionists nor do we condone voluntary or procured abortion and as such have a clear mind that we have not committed or are complicit in an evil act.

Mark J. Lemko

The Facts

“We believe we are the victims of vicious and damaging misinformation.”

1) The only ones here who are victims are the aborted babies and the women who have been shamelessly exploited and duped!  The information we have provided is straight from Neocutis’ own words, from the NIH, PubMed and Science publications.

“We feel that we are in complete compliance with the laws of God and the laws of man.”

2)  No one who exploits and uses another human being for profit is within any laws of God or man.  Are we to believe that God condones using the remains of butchered children to make some woman look more youthful?  He can’t be serious.

“We were not involved with the acquisition of the original sample of fetal tissue.”

3) They most certainly were involved with the acquisition of the original sample of fetal tissue.  You see, Neocutis is – again in their own words: “a spin-off from the Medical School of the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland” – where the original abortion was done.  In any case, perhaps the response we received from Dr Dianne Irving says it best as she notes:
“Even the law recognizes “complicity” in a crime. When a bank is robbed, not only are the robbers arrested but also the guy who drives the get-away car, those who harbor the robbers, the other bank where the money is laundered, etc. And they are charged equally. When a drug dealer is arrested, so too are those who grew the poppies, those who transported the drugs, those who facilitated the drug deals, even the banks or other financial institutions that laundered the money from the drug dealing. Likewise, in ethics, those who are complicit with an immoral act are guilty as well as those who initially perpetrated the immoral act.”

“However, we know the sample was obtained in a legally, morally, ethically and medically correct manner. ”

4) There is nothing in the harvesting of aborted baby body parts that is moral or ethical.  Legal, perhaps.  Medically correct? You mean of course that the abortion was done in a manner that would ensure the fetus was delivered intact for research purposes.  Can’t do that with a saline abortion or a D&E method.  But prostaglandin abortions cause the woman to go into mini-labor and pass the intact baby.  So yes, they did their abortion in a manner that was medically correct for what they needed.

“None of our products contain any of the original fetal cells or tissue. None of our products contain aborted babies. Our lysate is prepared from cultured fibroblasts that have never been part of a fetus.”

5) How stupid does this person think we are?  Does he truly believe we are going to open a jar of one of their skin creams and find fetal tissue and aborted babies in there?  Their lysates he mentions, however, are most certainly part of the aborted baby.  Here is how the product was developed – again – in their own words:

“A cell bank was established starting with a single skin biopsy of fetal skin tissue. The cell bank is stored frozen in liquid nitrogen and can be kept for many years, thereby providing a sustained supply of cells for PSP® production over decades. PSP® (Processed Skin Cell Proteins) is obtained after cell lysis of cultured skin cells originating from this cell bank.”

Neocutis Bio-restorative Skin Cream with PSP™ (a proprietary cosmetic ingredient developed at the University of Lausanne) is the only product containing the specific natural human growth factors and cytokines associated with natural bio-restoration of the skin. The unique formulation of PSP™ provides skin with the optimal balance of skin nutrients helping to preserve or restore skin when stressed.

In order to produce PSP®, frozen cells from one or several ampoules of the Working Cell Bank are thawed, transferred into appropriate cell culture vessels and then expanded under standard cell culture condition respecting stringent manufacturing procedures. Thereby, cells from one Working Cell Bank ampoule are multiplied to yield several billion cells (Figure 2). These cells are then harvested, carefully washed and prepared for cell disruption. Cell disruption or lysis is realized by several freeze-thaw cycles and allows obtaining a mixture comprising skin cell proteins, called PSP® or ‘Processed Skin Cell Proteins’. Freeze-thawing is a relatively gentle process [22] and allows the production of a naturally balanced mixture of skin cell proteins present in the cells at the moment of cell disruption.” (end of quote)

If the lysates did not contain those original intact human fetal skin cell qualities and proteins, they would be worthless!

“We are not abortionists nor do we condone voluntary or procured abortion and as such have a clear mind that we have not committed or are complicit in an evil act.”

6) They may not believe that they are guilty of complicity in an immoral act, but the Vatican most certainly does:

From Dignitas Personae (Pope Benedict XVI December 2008)
The use of human “biological material” of illicit origin

  1. For scientific research and for the production of vaccines or other products, cell lines are at times used which are the result of an illicit intervention against the life or physical integrity of a human being. The connection to the unjust act may be either mediate or immediate, since it is generally a question of cells which reproduce easily and abundantly.

This “material” is sometimes made available commercially or distributed freely to research centers by governmental agencies having this function under the law. All of this gives rise to various ethical problems with regard to cooperation in evil and with regard to scandal. It is fitting therefore to formulate general principles on the basis of which people of good conscience can evaluate and resolve situations in which they may possibly be involved on account of their professional activity.

It needs to be remembered above all that the category of abortion “is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos. This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted in some countries… [T]he use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person”.54 These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave moral disorder.55

  1. A different situation is created when researchers use “biological material” of illicit origin which has been produced apart from their research center or which has been obtained commercially. The Instruction Donum vitae formulated the general principle which must be observed in these cases: “The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. In particular, they cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies if their death has not yet been verified and without the consent of the parents or of the mother. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided”.56

In this regard, the criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient. According to this criterion, the use of “biological material” of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation.The criterion of independence is not sufficient to avoid a contradiction in the attitude of the person who says that he does not approve of the injustice perpetrated by others, but at the same time accepts for his own work the “biological material” which the others have obtained by means of that injustice. When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust.57   Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles.

At times, the objection is raised that the above-mentioned considerations would mean that people of good conscience involved in research would have the duty to oppose actively all the illicit actions that take place in the field of medicine, thus excessively broadening their ethical responsibility. In reality, the duty to avoid cooperation in evil and scandal relates to their ordinary professional activities, which they must pursue in a just manner and by means of which they must give witness to the value of life by their opposition to gravely unjust laws.

Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life.

You see Mr. Lemko -There is no “simple response” when it involves profiteering from the destruction of another human being!

Obviously Mr Lemko didn’t count on anyone actually looking at the research documents.  Click here for the full facts: https://cogforlife.org/2009/10/09/neocutis-facts/