The phrase “confirmatory testing” has been invoked as the basis for the ethical consideration of the three lead COVID-19 vaccines, Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Moderna and Pfizer are considered more morally permissible because their connection to abortion is very remote since they only used an aborted fetal cell line in something called “a confirmatory test.” AstraZeneca, in contrast, grows the vaccine in fetal cell lines in an ongoing way, and moral theologians say it should be avoided in favor of Moderna or Pfizer.
This critical phrase, “confirmatory test,” is due for an examination. I will argue that testing and production are ethically equal if the testing is ongoing. The purpose of this argument is to put aside the COVID-19 ethical debates and unite as one voice to call for an end to the use of aborted children in research.
Point 1: “Remote cooperation in evil” is not a new term.
To quickly review the ethics, the moral liceity of using vaccines produced in fetal cell lines is not a new judgment. The Pontifical Academy for Life in 2005, and three years later in 2008 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its “Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions,” provided guidelines for Catholics on the permissibility of receiving vaccines whose origins are connected with cells coming from an aborted child. Such vaccines were deemed morally illicit, but their use is morally licit in certain situations because the patient’s use is only “remote cooperation in evil.” It is not, after all, the fault of the patient that researchers, industries, and government provide no alternative.
Permission for using unethically produced vaccines comes with obligations, however. Use is only licit if:
1) the need to protect individuals and populations is grave,
2) there is no alternative,
3) one continues to reject the evil of abortion and the use of aborted children in research.
Parents and doctors have been operating under these guidelines for several decades. At both an individual and a social level, it is difficult to, on one hand, accept the vaccines while, on the other hand, reject them.
At the individual level, the faithful must exercise prudential judgment. Just like the Church does not dictate whom to marry or how many children to raise, the Church provides moral guidance on vaccines. Each person must make his or her own decision. To do that about vaccines, one needs good scientific information too. At a social level, it is undeniably harder to make the case against abortion and the use of aborted children in research when moral theologians have made it known that benefiting from these practices can be morally licit.
Point 2: Moral assessment depends on accurate information.
To navigate the morality of novel situations in challenging times, accurate information is necessary. A review of the science seems warranted, especially since so much information has been circulating and we now have some benefit of hindsight.
Traditional attenuated virus vaccines are grown in cells. Much like a seed needs soil to grow, the weakened form of the viruses for vaccines need a medium to grow. Vaccines that are grown in HEK293, or any other abortion-derived cells, are morally illicit. HEK293 cells are a cell line derived from a healthy aborted child in the 1970s. The cells were cultured by scientist Alex Van der Eb and Frank Graham in their lab at the University of Leiden, Holland. The name HEK stands for “human embryonic kidney,” the 293rd experiment. It is worth noting that these were not early embryos, as the word is used today, but what we now identify as fetuses. The aborted child had to be old enough for the adrenal organs to have developed.
The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are new kinds of vaccines called mRNA vaccines. These are not grown in cells but synthesized as molecules. The mRNA is coated in a nanolipid and injected into the body where it synthesizes (expresses) the spike protein (an antigen). The immune system responds with antibodies. The spike protein is the part of the coronavirus that interacts with the body’s cells, so if the immune system builds up antibodies to the spike antigen, the patient is protected against the whole COVID-19 virus.
On August 5, 2020, the pre-clinical trials for the Moderna vaccine were published in the journal Nature, “SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness.” The team of researchers described testing protocols. According to the methods section, the in vitro mRNA expression lab tests were done by transiently transfecting (introducing) HEK293 cells with mRNA that encodes for the spike protein. They did this test to see if the mRNA would make the spike protein in the cells like it is supposed to do in the body. The team also tested the vaccine on mice and demonstrated that it induced antibodies against COVID-19 infection.
Likewise, on September 8, 2020, Pfizer’s team published their pre-clinical trials, “A prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike RNA vaccine is highly immunogenic and prevents lung infection in non-human primates.” They also reported results from in vitro mRNA expression lab tests. The mRNA molecule was incubated in HEK293 cells followed by structural characterization of the expressed protein. Tests in rhesus macaques and mice were also successful.
Both Moderna and Pfizer, then, claim to use HEK293 in in vitro lab testing for their vaccines.
Point 3: Focus on “confirmatory testing” derailed the ethics.
The in vitro testing was ignored for the most part. Back in May of 2020, the Charlotte Lozier Institute had claimed that both the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines are “ethically uncontroversial” because they do not use fetal cell lines. An mRNA vaccine is not grown in cells like traditional vaccines are, so it seemed at the time, perhaps, that the ethical issue had been avoided.
At the end of September, nearly two months after the Moderna report and one month after the Pfizer (mentioned above), Charlotte Lozier updated their summary to say that Moderna and Pfizer use the HEK293 fetal cell line in research and something called “confirmatory testing.” This term was not, at that time, defined in terms of exactly what the researchers were doing in the laboratory.
Unfortunately the term was interpreted by Catholic scientists, bioethicists, and theologians as a one-time test, which was taken to mean that the connection to abortion was doubly or triply remote because not only did the vaccine not touch the cells, it was not produced in the fetal cell line in an ongoing way.
By mid-November as the phase III trials were completed on thousands of people, the message spread rapidly that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine pose no ethical issues, again, without any specific definition of the meaning of “confirmatory test.” Meanwhile Moderna’s stock went from $67 per share on October 30 to $170 by December 8, 2020.
To be clear, it is not apparent whether there is any causation to this correlation, but this much is a fact of history now. The bioethicists, moral theologians, and clergy did not question the meaning of this phrase “confirmatory testing” as the message spread widely that these vaccines are ethically uncontroversial.
It began as reports of successful phase III trials for Moderna were published on November 16. Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute wrote at National Review that “Moderna COVID Vaccine Did Not Use Fetal Cells,” citing the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute.
On November 17, Dr. John Brehany, director of institutional relations at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), was quoted by the Catholic News Agency in “The ethics of Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine” as saying that while Moderna has some association with the use of cell lines from elective abortions, “its vaccine was not produced using HEK293 cells.”
On November 18, Zelda Caldwell wrote at Aleteia that “Both Moderna and Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccines were made without fetal cells,” again citing the Charlotte Lozier Institute. The author stated, “Unlike some other vaccines in development, both vaccines were made without the use of fetal cells, or for that matter, any cells at all.”
On November 22, Public Discourse, the journal of the Witherspoon Institute founded by Ryan Anderson, published an article by Fr. Matthew Schneider, “Vaccines and Doubly Remote Cooperation in Evil,” claiming that “both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem to pose no significant moral concern.” Fr. Schneider cited the Charlotte Lozier Institute stating that the difference between production and testing provides another level of remoteness. If HEK293 is used in testing, he reasoned, it is not morally problematic because “a test is done once and is already completed by the time you get vaccinated.”
Many more authors commented from there, too many to list.
The NCBC published a statement on December 8 titled “Points to Consider on the Use of COVID-19 Vaccines.” The language was repeated, saying that these two vaccines “do not use abortion derived cell lines in the manufacturing process but did use them at one point in development, such as for confirmatory testing.” NCBC said they are “preferable to those that utilize abortion-derived cell lines in more than one phase of development and, in particular, in the manufacturing process.”
This message spread throughout the United States and even to the Vatican. Crux reported: “The Pontifical Academy for Life and Catholic bishops around the world, including the chairmen of the U.S. bishops’ doctrine and pro-life committees, have said it is not immoral to be vaccinated with vaccines like the Pfizer/BioNTech product because any connection they have to aborted fetuses is extremely remote. Such cells derived from those fetuses were used only in a testing phase but not in the production phase.”
On December 11, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a statement, “Moral Considerations Regarding the New COVID-19 Vaccines,” echoing the idea that some pharmaceutical companies are “making use of a morally compromised cell line only for a confirmatory test of the vaccine’s efficacy.”
The language was repeated in diocese after diocese after diocese (etcetera) as encouragement to use the Moderna or Pfizer instead of other vaccines grown in fetal cell lines spread. The bishops found the AstraZeneca vaccine to be “more morally compromised” and consequently concluded that this vaccine “should be avoided” if there are alternatives available.
At a time when Catholics should have been united with one voice demanding that the market provide ethically produced vaccines, leaders missed the moment.
Point 4: Ongoing quality control testing is the determining factor.
So, what kind of testing is done during production? That is the critical question relevant to the moral assessment. The answer is: we do not know, but we can look in the scientific reports linked above for an idea. The in vitro lab tests described in both Moderna’s and Pfizer’s pre-clinical trial reports were not ever claimed to be a one-time confirmatory test, not even by the companies themselves. No one used that language except the Charlotte Lozier Institute and those who referenced them.
Typically, in research and development, scientists use pure knowledge gained from the scientific method (research) and apply it to solve problems. Once a potential product has been identified, work to bring the product to market (development) begins. If that is successful, the goal is then to figure out how to scale up the lab synthesis to a manufacturing facility, the same way a cook scales up a recipe to feed a crowd. Small problems are magnified when you go from feeding four to feeding four hundred, and they need their own solutions.
For the mRNA vaccines, it only makes sense that the in vitro lab test (described above) would also become an essential part of the production process for ensuring the vaccine is produced as it was designed in the laboratory, especially a development that was as rushed as the COVID-19 vaccines to distribute globally. In manufacturing, this production testing is commonly known as quality control (QC) testing. Even bottling water requires strict quality control testing.
Therefore, when an R&D project is scaled up to production, it is standard practice to migrate the same lab tests from research and development to quality control. That is, simply, how the scientists and engineers know they are making the same product as designed in the lab. Quality control testing is not separate from, or ancillary to, production; to repeat, it is essential to production, a mature applied science unto itself, existential to manufacturing. Imagine the consequences if a pharmaceutical company started producing vaccines without ongoing testing!
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) explains how a new vaccine is developed and approved for manufacturing. Moderna’s and Pfizer’s pre-clinical trials follow the plan. Vaccine development is done in the laboratory before tests are done on animals and then humans.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also must approve manufacturing to make sure they comply with the “Current Good Manufacturing Practice” regulations. The FDA regulates the quality of pharmaceuticals very carefully because batches of medicines must meet quality standards to ensure safety and effectiveness. Quality control testing is key. The new vaccines for COVID-19 are being rushed to production under an emergency approval process, so we do not know what the licensed manufacturing plan will be.
Since the HEK293 cell line is used in the in vitro lab test, it stands to reason that it is part of the production process to ensure the mRNA is synthesized and performs as expected. Some bioethicists have argued that the remoteness lies in the fact that the vaccine injected into the body does not contain fetal cells or touch fetal cells, but this is irrelevant to the ethical question. The determining criteria is whether the aborted fetal cell line is used in ongoing production.
Hence: Quality control testing and production are ethically equal.
To summarize, if the in vitro lab test is part of the production manufacturing protocol, and it almost certainly is, then the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are no different ethically than the AstraZeneca vaccine or any other vaccine grown in fetal cell lines. In both cases, the production of the vaccine depends on the ongoing use of the illicit fetal cell line. To accept the vaccine means accepting the continued use of cells originating from an aborted child. Given the horrifying way aborted children are still being butchered for scientific research, this is not a time for complacency.
So: Stick with zero-tolerance of abortion.
It is troubling that the moral assessment of the COVID-19 vaccines depended on the use of an ambiguous term. Such vagueness renders individual prudential judgement impossible. More so, it has cost us in the effort for social change toward the sanctity of life.
How will Catholics effectively protest the use of aborted children in research when industry, university, and government officials know that Church leaders will deem it morally licit for the 77 million US Catholics to benefit from such research without much of a critical assessment? There is a solution though.
Moms have a saying about evil when kids want to argue that a little wrong should be okay. “It’s like poop in brownies. If I baked you a pan of brownies and told you that I accidently got some of the baby’s poop in the mix while stirring the batter, would you eat a brownie from the pan?”
Obviously, no. It does not matter if there is the tiniest smudge of poop, or if there is one or two bigger chunks, nobody is having it. In the professional realm, we call this “zero-tolerance.” A company that has a zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse, for example, is not going to engage in a debate about whether one case of employee abuse is acceptable while two or three would cross a line. None of it is acceptable.
To bring this idea into the COVID-19 vaccine and aborted fetal cell line debate, I propose that the pro-life community get back zero-tolerance of the evil of abortion. Stop arguing about whether testing is better than production and specifically demand that all testing and production be ethically performed. Then focus energy on demanding an end to the use of aborted children in research and an end to abortion absolutely. As the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instruct, that should have been the guiding principle all along.
Stacy Trasancos is executive director of St. Philip Institute, chief research officer of Children of God for Life. She was senior research chemist at DuPont, has a PhD in chemistry, MA in dogmatic theology, and seven children.
I am in 100% agreement with Stacy. When it comes to sin zero tolerance is the only choice. The remotest use of murdered baby cells in any part of vaccine development is participating in the evil of abortion. To use the vaccine is also to be complicit in the abortion of the baby.
EXCELLENT ARTICLE! Thank you for the clarity. So disappointing we missed this opportunity for standing for life.
How do we get out of receiving this vaccine? I am reading many articles stating that this vaccine will become mandatory. I already called the department of health here in Florida and they stated that they only give exemptions for children. I would like to be prepared and have some type of exemption ready.
Hopefully, many will be able to take a medical exemption as the list of contraindications continues to expand. https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/eua-fact-sheet-recipients.pdf. There are many reasons you and your physician may decide the risks do not outweigh the benefits. Especially if you have allergies. PEG allergy testing could be a simple out, as many are now becoming sensitive to PEG products in their everyday use. With the unknown effects on fertility, it seems anyone wanting to ever again achieve pregnancy in their childbearing years might find this a good medical reason to decline. Pregnancy, Nursing, Children under 16, autoimmune disorders etc. would be a valid medical exemption it appears among others listed on the fact sheet. With so many unknowns, hopefully one can consult their physician to decide if the vaccine is in your best interest.
Your exemption is your “no!” You have to be willing to be uncomfortable & inconvenienced. No employers have successfully mandated the experimental gene therapy yet. If your employer threatens to mandate, go to freedom@icandecide.org. They have had successful lawsuits changing employers “mandates”.
Dr. Trasancos, THANK YOU! I agree with all these wonderful replies, and I applaud each and every reply! My husband has asked me to make a copy of your article because he plans on sharing it at his Baptist Sunday School class!
Someone please explain how we reconcile “zero-tolerance” if we are going to use hundreds of company’s products daily who directly or indirectly contribute money to Planned Parenthood? I’m struggling to see the difference between receiving a vaccine where HEK was used remotely and using AT&T cell service, who I may send money to each month for a bill, and who in turn sends money to Planned Parenthood.
Billy, excellent question about reconciling to “zero-tolerance” when one chooses to use AT&T cell phone service and inadvertently uses other services or products that are directly or indirectly contributing to Planned Parenthood! First, we have chosen not to use AT&T because of their Planned Parenthood connections. Also, are you aware that Star Bucks is also a Planned Parenthood contributor! Several years ago, I signed up to do volunteer work for Catholic Charities, at which time, my husband informed me that Catholic Charities receives government funding!!! So, I made the decision NOT to volunteer at Catholic Charities because the government ALSO FUNDS Planned Parenthood!
I don’t know if this helps you, but I try and do the best I can when it comes to committing outright bad choices.
I believe zero tolerance begins with enough is enough. Should we boycott every such product-yes! Have we been complacent? Naive? or just never thought that hard about it? Probably. Often, to the dismay of finding out, after years of use, they were produced or tested on fetal cell lines and adopting a defeatist attitude. Enough of the testing on fetal cells-for any reason-for any product or breakthrough advancement. Period. This is where we draw a line in the sand and say “NO MORE!” Why now? Maybe because using or consuming a product didn’t affect us in the very personal way an injection does. Maybe because we expected better of these companies, not the same or worse. Especially in light of a newly touted mRNA technology . It stands to reason we would expect new technology to advance past the use of fetal cell use. Especially in light of the pro-life progress in restriction of fetal tissue use in 2019 which Warp Speed promptly bypassed for Covid-19 vaccines. Until groups such as COG and and the St. Philip Institute exposed these practices for the gruesome practices they entail, we really didn’t know or take the time to hold these companies accountable, protest or demand alternatives. The darkness is being brought to the light. Scientific advancement brings hope that we can rise above past mistakes and use the science at hand to do better. Just as an infant wakes his mother to feed, the quiet stirring in the night, when unattended, for too long, becomes a loud urgent scream that must be attended to. We are being “woke” to the tragic use of aborted fetal tissue, procured, sold, experimented on and profited from by Planned Parenthood and these companies. We can do better and we should do better and the time is now, with one collective voice. “A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH, WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING, RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN; AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED, BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE.” Mathew 2:18
Thank you, Karl! I too agree completely with Stacy’s argument. How refreshing her reasoning is. We need, to have zero tolerance for the sort of casuistry which allows us to avoid facing up to the evil of abortion.
Mary Teresa, in response to your “zero tolerance” and Dr. Stacy’s argument (I totally support zero tolerance) and the controversy that allows some to avoid facing up to the evil of abortion is the manner in which some view “ethical” standards vs “moral” standards? Ethical standards, in my way of thinking, conform to professional standards of conduct; whereas, moral standards relates to or deals with those of us who are capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Principles and standards, or habits we were taught as to what is right or wrong.
In my words: ethical standards are “man’s” standards and moral standards are “God’s” standards as in the 6th Commandment “thou shall not kill” Ex. 20:13; and in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus showed that His coming had not canceled the Commandments. He specifically mentions the law against killing in Matt. 5:21.
Commandments 6-9 pertain to our relationship to one another. The breakdown of these guidelines are plunging America into decay. We should not want to harm others especially those at home. As we all know, God created us in His image and no one has the right to take another person’s life. The Ten Commandments are still relevant today; and as Christians, people need to see God’s Word alive in us. The teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ are the best guidelines known to man.
As a former 4th Grade Faith Education teacher, I strongly believe in teaching the 10 Commandments to our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren! Peace and blessings, Josie Collins
Karl Heilman I am with you on this.
The church has told us that 1) there is no untainted vaccine on the market to help save lives, 2) the cell line used in Pfizer and Moderna does not have aborted cells in the vaccine, 3) since the tissue cell line was from 1972 and children are not currently being aborted for this vaccine’s testing or development, then it is okay to get the vaccine. It is one’s choice whether they should get the vaccine or not I agree that there should be no mandates. However, that being said, let me posit a question. Say a man was murdered who had typhoid fever. Would it be evil to use cells from the dead to develop a vaccine against typhoid which would save millions from death? From evil, God can allow good. That does not mean that we want to advance murder or cooperated in the man’s murder if we take the typhoid vaccine. Now, if we complacently do not tell vaccine manufacturers that we do not want any vaccines derived from aborted children, then we would be held responsible for those who continue to use aborted tissues in their scientific methods.
I am fortunate that I had the Pfizer vaccine with no bad side effects. People who have not received a vaccine are dying. It is obvious to me that vaccines are saving lives. Why not get the vaccine and help us get to herd immunity sooner?
You are not being told the whole truth. People are dying with the vaccine which has been shown to neither prevent one from contracting or transmitting the virus. UC Davis has just come out with a study that showed that adolescent boys and young men are at higher risk from the shot than from the disease. But as to your analogy; it fails because the man was NOT murdered in order to get to his cells to develop a vaccine. If he were, then, no, I would not take a typhoid vaccine developed from a murder deliberately committed in order to develop a vaccine.
Karl Heilman I agree with you totally. We cannot be complicit in any way to abortion. That is how the world has arrived at the state it is in. Human life is Sacred from conception to natural death. Abortion is NOT natural death.
This is a wonderful expose, thank you. For those of us who are concerned with the church acceptance of tainted vaccine, can you tell us if, and when an ethical vaccine will be offered. Is there one even being developed? thank you all you do.
I agree ?%
There are ethical, traditional vaccines being made from the attenuated virus. However, they are in first phase testing. UAB in Birmingham has steadily pursued the tried and true vaccine method. The fast track would certainly be more appropriate for these proven vaccines. However, the mRNA technology is the prodigal child, because it has had such a difficult time being accepted or successful. mRNA technology will continue to rely on fetal cells because they “are simply the best, most predictable, quickest and FDA approved cell lines available”. However, more cell lines, fresh cell lines and new cell lines will ultimately be in demand. Selling for @$400 each, they are also the most profitable. Supply and demand-we are already seeing abortions being done to procure the most intact specimens. Warp speed opened the Pandora’s box for fetal cell research once again. We are being conditioned to accept this remote evil as a precursor to full on fetal cell usage.
Thank you Dr Trasancos for explaining why and how cells from an aborted baby were and are being used to test the vaccines. You are right to bring this practice to our attention and to argue for zero tolerance in the use of cells from aborted babies and to argue for an end to abortion entirely.
Thank you for writing about the subject of making compromises with evil. The world has brought so many problems on itself this way. Just small compromises here and there by basically “good” people, not realizing how much damage it will cause.
Can we do any action to support a company ahead of time to do ethical testing? otherwise what is going to change?
Two companies needing support are Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute and John Paul 2 Medical Research Institute.
https://soundchoice.org “We research the dangers of using aborted fetal material in biologics and seek alternative treatments and products which are ethically acceptable. We promote awareness about the widespread use of fetal human material in drug discovery, development and commercialization, and the rights of every consumer to know what is in their products, including residual human DNA, and to refuse those products.
We support gains made in adult stem cell research and link to other organizations who are doing independent research into the medical and moral hazards of using aborted fetal material.”
https://www.jp2mri.org/campaign-covid19-vaccine “Please join this important campaign by making a meaningful, tax-deductible contribution and earmark your donation towards our “Campaign for Cures” program. The John Paul II Medical Research Institute is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity, as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. Your gift to the John Paul II Medical Research Institute may qualify as a charitable deduction for federal tax purposes as permitted by law. The support of donors is at the heart of advancing research and education at John Paul II Medical Research Institute. Your generous donations will advance the development of a COVID-19 vaccine in a fashion that reflects pro-life values.”
It seems the question we must ask ourselves is: Is it morally acceptable to participate in the intrinsic evil of abortion, even remotely? See Veritatis Splendour
80. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.
What a concrete action can we take to unite ourselves and “bombard” our bishops, governement , producers of the vacciness? I totally agree with the zero tolerance. Yet the statement on this website is just not enough. Any idea?
The HEK293 baby was not a normal baby. At least 1/3 of this child’s cells have 64 chromosomes. Humans typically have 46. It is unlikely that the baby would have made it to full term – and the researchers knew that. This child has been used primarily for research and development, but not for product use as an ingredient until now. HEK293 cells were combined with Adenovirus 5 and 26 to help produce the platforms for several of the vaccines and is utilized in the production of the spike protein for CV.
When you look that up, you will not that it has been 95% purified.
It would seem then, logically, it is 5% impure – meaning some dna/genetic material has made it through whatever process is used to purify and remove the dna/genetic material.
That should not be the determining factor as to whether or not you want to utilize a product that is made with aborted babies (for any reason – whether they are healthy or unhealthy) but knowing that this child’s cells are carcinogenic and have a number of very serious, documented cancer genes associated with it based on years of cancer research should give someone enough pause to ask if it is ethical to inject carcinogenic material into everyone around the world. ALL of these vaccines have been built on carcinogenic cell lines whether they are using aborted fetal cell lines or the adult cell lines that were taking from individuals with active lung cancer and chronic myeloid leukemia.
Can you someone please tell me why it is ethical to inject carcinogenic cells into humans?
Shelley…do you have a link for this information? I would be very interested to read about it. Thanks.
Thank you for this extensive review!
Dr. Trasancos, thank you and Mrs. Vinnedge for all your work! I found information on this website under “Take Action” to contact several drug companies to register complaints about their use of aborted fetal cell lines. We also need contact information for Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson&Johnson, and others to let them know that we do not accept their “unethical” (I would say evil) vaccines, and they must stop these practices right away!
I have to admit being more than a little irked upon reading all of the same articles ( and more), like those you referenced. I noticed how many of these articles and commentary (not all, but many) came from people who clearly had not the expertise either in understanding how the original cell lines came about, or the circumstances of obtaining fetal tissue (then or now), or the medical science being used etc. If we don’t have the correct facts a correct moral analysis won’t happen. Thank you for your contribution to clearing up the mess.
Am I wrong to be a little annoyed that many of these folks who wrote articles in Catholic publications quite obviously didn’t bother to consult with Debi Vinnedge who has been working on these issues for decades? Or you? Or other prolife leaders who have had “boots on the ground” with the issue of aborted fetal tissue and know when we are getting sharked by “ethical” slight-of-hand? My message to priests, bishops, theologians and ethicists …figure out the treasure you have in the leaders of the prolife movement (many of whom are women) and the dedicated people who share that mission. Start working with us and listening to us instead of undermining our work.
Excellent, thank you, this is the best I’ve read around this subject and I loved the poopy brownie analogy. I believe satan is behind all the chaos, contradiction and incongruity associated with this global situation, and Bible prophecy is unfolding in front of us. I cannot see how the use of aborted tissue can be anything other than an abomination to our Heavenly Father and creator and our Lord Jesus, and for that matter the use of animals too, in research and testing. Regardless of how human or non-human tissue is used, it is still an abomination to God and just as you can’t be a little bit pregnant, you can’t use the tissue just a little bit. If the vatican is advising that certain vaccine are not to be used unless there isn’t another, then really the inference is you can and no doubt should have them. Therefore, in these circumstances I would not accept any vaccine at all unless forced on me against my will and but instead I will put my faith in our Heavenly Father and not man.
“it stands to reason that it is part of the production process to ensure the mRNA is synthesized and performs as expected. “ I agree about the necessity of QC in production of each batch of vaccine. However, the method of QC seems to be only assumed by the author, based on regular pharmaceuticals. However since the vaccine product is mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna), to test the RNA quality and quantity the next generation RNAseq method I would be be more appropriate faster, and cheaper than protein expression tests in cell lines. Is there any published method on routine manufacturing QC of each vaccine?
It would be good news indeed if we could confirm that QC testing did not rely on fetal cell lines.
I find it perplexing that the USCCB wrote the following letter https://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/upload/Letter-to-FDA-urging-ethical-COVID-vaccines.pdf back in April 2019 but did not admit to the use of fetal cells (in fact many statements from Catholic leadership denied it) until one week before the vaccine was offered. It seems the prudent time to mobilize and ask for ethical alternatives would have been in April when there was time and incentive to do so. What protest or demand for alternative will be enough to give incentive to fast track an ethical vaccine now? Especially in light of being told it’s only a little cooperation in evil and the neighborly charitable thing to do. Had we been warned and asked to protest the monetary incentives given to these mRNA vaccines, while informing them we would be refusing anything less than ethical vaccines, we may have had a choice. I feel betrayed by the Shepherds who did not sound the alarm or support the ones, such as Bishop Strickland, who boldly proclaimed truth! President Trump promised a vaccine by Nov 2nd to ensure his re-election. Did Church leadership overlook the lifting of the fetal cell tissue research ban that came with Warp Speed in order to secure the re-election on a pro-life ticket? How pro-life can one be to give incentives to those profiting from aborted childrens cells and creating a demand for more? Yes, your are correct, our faith must remain in the Church Jesus Christ founded and not the humanity acting within it or even despite it.
Agree. I just completed an essay entitled, “The Moral Hazard of Covid-19 Vaccines That Have Been Tested Using Aborted Fetal Tissue: A Comparison to the Moral Dilemma of Using Data Derived from Nazi Experiments on Prisoners of War and on Jews of the Holocaust For the Purposes of Saving Lives.” Approaches the issue in a manner that I believe will make the immorality of using HEK-293 as experimental subjects very tangible.
http://kevindmcmahon.com/Covid-19/Essays/The%20Moral%20Hazard%20of%20Abortion%20Tainted%20Covid-19%20Vaccines%20.pdf
I just read your excellent essay. To extend the analogy, imagine a German pharmaceutical company in 1943 who obtains from Nazi scientists kidney cell lines extracted from a Holocaust victim and uses the cells to test a promising new vaccine. This company also happens to donate large sums of money yearly to Auschwitz to fund the slaughter of even more Jews.
We have just such a company here in America. They are called Pfizer (one of the top yearly donors to Planned Parenthood).
Can we in good conscience even consider receiving a vaccine produced by this company, even if they they only used fetal cell lines for confirmatory testing?
Thank you, Burton, for reading my essay. Your analogy is perfect. Unfortunately, with the Pope and the Pope Emeritus having already taken the vaccine along with the Vatican and USCCB giving their stamps of approval it would seem like we are in an up hill battle. Nevertheless, we continue to speak the truth in love and pray like crazy. God bless.
Thank you! So helpful! God bless you!
Thanks, Dr Stacey. Heard you on Relevant Radio and used this article to help me write my Respect Life column for my church bulletin. I had heard elsewhere about the testing issue, and I worked for a medical journal for 25 years as a graphics designer/editor. That’s where I encountered the crazy world of pharma…and “data”…and medspeak.
In the design process in engineering, testing is part of the process.
Suppose Ford crash tested a car using real humans who died, but did not use any human body parts in the construction of the car itself. It would be ridiculous to claim that the process of bringing that car to market was ethically acceptable.
“Production,” could and likely should be read as including testing, but it is an ambiguous term.
Thus, the phrase “production or testing’ should be used when talking generally about vaccines that are using tainted cell lines. Otherwise, “fact checkers,” focus on a definition of production that does not include testing to whitewash any vaccine that only used tainted cell lines in testing.
We are in a very serious ethical trap! I guess almost everyone takes Vitamin C, Vitamin D or Tylenol. These compounds have been tested/used in HEK293 cells So these compounds are also “tainted”. Most of our drugs were tested at least once in an immoral system. And any ethically developed pharmaceutical can be “tainted” with a newer unethical test.
The author of the article only assumes that protein expression system (I.e. HEK293 expression) is used for QC, however for an mRNA product an RNAseq would be a more appropriate technique. But this is also assumption! The QC is a missing information, and not necessarily use immoral cells!
At this point we can say or sure that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are produced without using immoral cells, but were tested immoral confirmatory experiments. This is referred as tainted, but this is not part of the production!
This means morally produced, but immorally tested!
However based on this logic, we should stop taking Vitamin C, Vitamin D and Tylenol too, because they were tested in HEK293 cells.
Good point, IC! That’s why we need to move past the vaccine issue and work to end any research using aborted children.
What and whose cells are used in testing cosmetics and household products?
Except that God made Vitamin C for us in fruits and vegetables. And He made our bodies to produce Vitamin D with a little sunlight. Also in milk which we can drink.
Tylenol just depletes your glutathione levels which can lead to an increased disease state in the body. Our family has lived for over two decades without taking it.
Dear sisters and brothers in Christ, this is a very good article. I have commented previously and now have written this for my own parishioners “Considerations on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines” https://frchriswebbmail.medium.com/considerations-on-the-morality-of-using-some-anti-covid-19-vaccines-8939b5816d17
Very informative blog, Fr. Chris. I posted a link at my web site where I keep good resources on Covid-19 available for myself and others who I share this information with (mostly my fellow parishioners and friends): http://kevindmcmahon.com/Covid-19/covid-19%20index.html
Dear Kevin, thank you for your kind words. I have now posted a link to your site for my parishioners!
Dear Stacy & Debi, and Contributors,
I only recently became aware of the horrific connection of abortion-derived cells and vaccines production. I much appreciate your excellent website and the many great resources addressing, clarifying, and providing tools for dealing with the Covid-19 vaccines ethical and moral issues.
This article in particular was very enlightening. It made me think about other medicines and vaccines that are in broad use without the public awareness of the innocent human beings sacrificed in their development/testing/production.
I hate to ask this but I must: What about veterinary vaccines? Most if not all states have laws requiring pets to be vaccinated against rabies, even if they are indoors only. My cats don’t ever want to go out, as they associate the front door with going to the Veterinarian! Please bear with my story – it may help others, and I have some urgent questions at the end.
Years ago we experienced a township staff member door-to-door visit to discover all pets ownership, registering our cats by the city, and requiring mandatory yearly licenses, given only to rabies-vaccinated animals. Recently learning the sad news about tainted vaccines, I researched the Purevax Rabies adjuvant-free 1 year vaccine that my feline-specialist Veterinarian uses on my cats.
The product was developed in Europe by Merial in 2011 and in 2020 the marketing authorization was transferred to Boehringer Ingelheim. When I asked my Vet for the package insert/prescribing information, she gave me “Information about feline rabies” which only addressed the need for this “advanced protection against a fatal disease” (no technical information). Eventually I was able to find the SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION by the European Medicines Agency here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/purevax-rabies-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
Quoting that document, I was relieved to find that the vaccine is made on chicken embryo cells
• page 1, COMPOSITION
◦ The vaccine contains a recombinant canarypox virus expressing the rabies glycoprotein G (vCP65) as active ingredient and is a ready-to-use single dose liquid suspension without adjuvant or preservative.
• page 2, METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
◦ The manufacturing method is a classical vaccine manufacturing process involving growth on chicken embryo fibroblasts prepared from specific pathogen free (SPF) eggs. Three main steps are concerned: 1) preparation of the active substance, 2) preparation of the filled vaccine and 3) packaging of the finished product.
But have found testing in human cell lines on
• page 6-7, IN VITRO STUDIES
◦ The in vitro replication of the recombinant canarypox virus vCP65 was studied in avian primary cells and in mammalian cell lines from cats, dogs, horses and humans, and compared with that of the parental canarypox virus (CPpp). vCP65 and CPpp did not replicate in any of the four mammalian cell types during six successive passages, whilst multiplication was observed in primary chicken embryo cells for both viruses. Therefore the insertion of the rabies protein G gene did not modify the host specificity of the canarypox virus.
◦ Another in vitro study was designed to determine whether the recombinant canarypox virus vCP65 or the parental canarypox virus (CPpp) could be adapted to growth in two mammalian cell lines. Multiplication of vCP65 and CPpp was tested in three different cell types, from chickens, monkeys and humans. vCP65 and CPpp did not replicate in any of the two mammalian cell types during ten successive passages, whilst multiplication was observed in primary chicken embryo cells for both viruses with no loss of titre. In simian cells, levels of virus fall below the level of detection after two passages for CPpp and one passage for vCP65. In human cells, neither virus was directly detected after passage 1. There was no evidence of adaptation of either virus to growth in simian or human cells. Therefore the insertion of the Rabies protein G gene did not modify the host specificity of the canarypox virus.
I highly value your opinion. My questions:
1. What are the chances that the human cell line was of embryonic/fetal origin?
2. Could this be a one-time effort to determine the potential for replication and adaptability to growth, or are these kinds of studies ongoing (and therefore dependent on continued supplies from abortions, if in fact thus sourced)?
3. What is your assessment about the morality of using this vaccine? If you had a cat, would you vaccinate with this?
4. Reviewing the Scientific Information, do you have any questions/reservations about this product?
5. Can you help me phrase questions regarding the cell lines so that we get the appropriate information without alarming the company? I found a Boehringer Ingelheim link that I can then use, and share their response,if any. https://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com/contact-form
I shutter that my innocent pets may have been inadvertently contributing to the abortion industry. I eagerly await your thoughts, as my kitties are due for their mandatory vaccinations by the end of this month.
Thank you so much and may God grace you with continued wisdom, prudence, and fortitude.
Maria
Thank you, Mr. McMahon. You have made this moral issue much more clear to me. Why didn’t the Church or moral ethicists explain this BEFORE the vaccines were developed, tested and produced? An outcry from millions may have helped prevent the dilemma for at least Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. It makes me very sad. I won’t stop my 94 yr. old mother from being vaccinated, as she is going to be living in a nursing home soon. Me? Now I don’t know what to do. When the pope took the vaccine did he comment on the moral dilemma? Is the greater good considered the dominating moral question?
MPMahar- the question of the “greater good” is a more than slippery slope. Justifying any form of evil for greater good is still evil in the end. Millions of people have said those same things to justify abortion itself. They will say that it is more just to kill a child in the womb that has medical anomalies and likely to live less than an hour outside the womb for the greater good. They will also say- I cannot take care of this child thus it’s better to just abort.. as it is the greater good. Or the mother who has cancer needing chemo- they will say abort the baby to save yourself as it is the greater good… You can see how that argument falls short of the Glory of God and his power and sovereignty over life! I think of Paul’s words…
ROMANS 6
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
I don’t think the argumentation of this article is correct for at least two reasons:
1) As other comments already pointed out, the ongoing use is _assumed_ in one case but known in the other. But without more information this has to be posed as an hypothetical, “If the cells are used in ongoing QC, then…”
2) There would still be a difference as in the manufacturing case the cells are essentially related to the final product, and in te QC case only accidentally related.
That is, if the cells were being used only in QC testing that would be unethical, but, it would be possible to switch to another, ethical method of testing and the product would remain exactly the same in every way, before and after the change, because the particular method of testing wasn’t part of the “material cause” of the vaccine itself. On the other hand, in the manufacturing/production case, switching to different cells would result in a different product being made. This is also possible (Sanofi did it with their polio vaccine) but it demonstrates that the cases are not strictly equivalent.
Can’t thank you enough for your clarity on this topic. I am frustrated at so many levels.
Thank you Stacy for a very good article and fills up a very important gap in this whole vaccine ethics debate. Very insightful of you to spot this that virtually every church authority is getting their information from The Charlotte Lozier institute. While they mean well your expertise in this area cleary shows whats most likely happening and as its up to Pfizer and moderna to show that their experimental vaccine is safe. The fact that we don’t know if their is continuing use of babies in the manufacturing process shows clearly that there is no transparency and every citizen has a right to know of the manufacturing process
Thank you, thank you thank you! This is exactly what I needed- clarity on why no to Moderna and Pfizer. Using aborted babies in the development and testing of the “vaccine” is as equally reprehensible as in the direct cell line. Thank you again.
We are at a crossroads…lives of he martyrs lived out. No doubt the shot will be used as a hammer for access to college, school attendance, graduation requirement, Medicare, keeping ones retirement, and worse, mere access to church…if there will be any. Our choice will come down to this. Faith and Trust in God? Or, capitulation. Will we be St. Polycarp? Or his servant trying to convince him to just give a pinch of incense to the pagan god? The government and corrupted medical industry are already on the march. Our families and our priests will think we’re unreasonable. We’ll be labeled as mentally unstable and court orders will be drawn up to have us “committed”.
I don’t think I agree that they would label us unstable… I do however agree that vaccines will play an increasing role in denying access to “extra” things in society such as college, public school and many job choices.
I gladly will side with Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Conrad Grebel, Clement of Rome and many others. Many will reject those that take a stand, but this battle is not just over vaccines… Many other treatments are included… Will we be as Asa? or choose to seek God first?
I totally agree with Caleb.I think we now have to become martyrs for our faith .Like Jesus we have to take up our cross and follow Him to where? CALVARY. He never said it would be easy. We will be fighting against our own families and friends on this issue but if we stand united God will do the rest. These innocent lives by their shedding of their blood is a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance. Vengeance is mine says THE LORD.
Well said Wanda…look where are 6 months later.
I wonder of Stacy you might comment on the article in the link below please. There seem to be missing links in the line of argument, just as there are assumptions (admitted!) in your own (like on-going QC).
Thereafter, it’s a case of what do we Prudentially DO with these gaps and/or assumptions ….
Many thanks indeed, and every blessing
https://cogforlife.org/2021/01/07/covid-19-vaccine-hek293-testing-and-production-are-ethically-equal/
Gremlin: Wrong link https://www.eakc.net/2020/12/31/do-pfizer-or-moderna-use-embryonic-stem-cells-or-fetal-tissue-in-vaccine-development-the-answer-is-no/
Hi, and thanks for the link. That information is correct in that the Moderna and Pfizer do not contain fetal cells nor are they used in production. It is also true that the Vatican said we can use the vaccines if there are no alternatives. However, I do not agree that we should just leave it at that and shrug off fetal cell lines. They were derived from fetal tissue from aborted children. There is much, much more research happening today that uses the bodies of aborted children. If Catholics are going to say that we can always benefit from abortion and call it remote cooperation, then at some point we are part of the problem too for not opposing this practice. If they want to call it remote cooperation perpetually, what they are really saying is that they are just fine with fetal tissue research.
Well said Stacy.
I agree 100%
My own prayers at this point are for the Supreme Court in USA re Roe … For the problem is upstream of the fetal cells and concerns abortion itself. The tragedy is that the stable doors are now well and truly open, with the entire herd of horses rampaging across Big Pharma paddocks …