Fr. Matthew Schneider wrote an article in January of this year that generated much attention and discussion. In part, the article calls the reader’s attention to the ubiquity of aborted fetal cell lines in the testing of medications. The third paragraph of the article states:
“Below I will list out a sample of drugs tested on HEK-293 like Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, point out errors in their reasoning, point to two ethical things we should do as Catholics, and conclude with a point on over-thinking remote cooperation in evil.”
The errors in reasoning refers to those that argue against vaccines like those from Moderna and Pfizer since the vaccines and those like them offer benefit from abortion, and acceptance amounts to approval of abortion at some level. Fr. Schneider points out that such a standard should not be uniquely applied to vaccines, rather the standard should be applied to all medications. He points out inconsistency since there is no outcry, no application of the standard to other medications.
I would be in complete agreement with Fr. Schneider but for a couple of pesky, very important facts.
Let’s address the easy one first. It has not been common knowledge that aborted fetal cell lines are liberally and frequently used in pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter medications, artificial sweeteners and flavorings, and even some cosmetics. There are many reasons for this public ignorance but this is a topic for another day. Suffice to say that ignorance is a defense in this case. We did not know. I did not know. One cannot be inconsistent if one is not in possession of all relevant facts, especially if the facts are not easily discoverable. We know now, though.
Fr. Schneider himself did not possess the information that built his now-famous list of common medicines that have been tested in HEK-293 cell lines. He asked a medical doctor, Dr. Lisa Gilbert, to provide him with that list.
Now, let’s address the second fact. Fr. Schneider asserts that the medications on his list were tested in HEK-293 cell lines like the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines (emphasis added). Unfortunately, this assertion falls apart when one digs a little deeper beyond the results of a Google search.
The use of aborted fetal cell lines in the research and development processes of the COVID-19 vaccines are amply documented on this website, so I will not unpack that whole suitcase here. Aborted fetal cell lines were used in the foundational research (synthesis of the SARS CoV-2 spike proteins), the vaccine development process and validation assessment prior to initiating clinical trials. It is correct to say that these vaccines would not exist but for the use of aborted fetal cell lines.
Fr. Schneider’s article equates the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccine development to the ‘testing’ applied to his list of often-prescribed and common OTC medications. They are not – I repeat – they are not the same thing. Fr. Schneider’s reference to aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) as one of the OTC drugs ‘tested’ in aborted fetal cell lines is the best example to demonstrate the problem with his argument. Acetylsalicylic acid was first produced by French chemist Charles Frédéric Gerhardt in 1853 and the U.S. patent for aspirin was awarded to Bayer in the year 1900. Of course, aborted fetal cell lines were in the distant future, rendering their use in the development of aspirin an impossibility.
Fr. Schneider is referring to the subsequent use of aspirin (already developed, free of any association with abortion) and aborted fetal cell lines in some other experimental application, documented and published many years after aspirin hit the shelves. That does not retrospectively taint the development of aspirin as immoral. Is Henry Ford responsible for drunken driving or John Moses Browning responsible for armed robberies? Of course not. An immoral or irresponsible act subsequent to, and completely unrelated to, the creation of an object used in the commission of the act does not make the creator of that object an accessory or complicit in any way. I researched fourteen of the drugs on his list and found that thirteen of them fall into the same category as aspirin.
Tums, another example from his list, would be laughable if the backdrop were not so serious. Tums is a well-known antacid preparation, nothing more than calcium carbonate and sugar. It reacts with stomach acid to relieve indigestion. The effects of calcium carbonate have been known for ages and the industrial sources of this compound are sea shells, egg shells, limestone and chalk, to name a few. It is also present in broccoli and other green vegetables. It is literally everywhere. Decades ago, the Lewis-Howe Company decided to purify calcium carbonate, mix it with sugar, press it into tablets and sell it as an antacid. They wouldn’t have ‘tested’ (they didn’t) in aborted fetal cell lines for a number of reasons, the most important reasons being 1. The nature of Tums’ therapeutic effect – the neutralization of digestive acids in the upper GI. It does what it does without entering human cells – it reacts with acids in the stomach, producing water and carbon dioxide in the process, and, 2. Testing in aborted fetal cell lines would have been an impossibility since Tums was first produced in 1930. Just like aspirin, it’s quite a bit older than aborted fetal cell lines.
Moral equivalence and factual errors aside, the article kicks over a basic but very important point. The debate is unreasonably, irrationally focused on the PRODUCT – this drug is bad, that vaccine is immoral and so on. The problem is the PRACTICE. Aspirin was not morally soiled by the French chemist who first produced acetylsalicylic acid. The immoral ACT (practice) that involved the PRODUCT came later, over a century later. Getting mad at aspirin won’t change the practice.
Fr. Schneider does raise some points on which we should all reflect. He mentions that an almost exclusive focus on avoiding evil, extending to all degrees of remote cooperation, frustrates our ability (obligation, really) to do good. “Doing good, not avoiding evil, is the height of Christian morality”, are his words in summary of this point and I could not agree more! Imagine the progress we might make if we focus the intensity and energy associated with avoiding vaccines and other drugs with varying degrees of moral compromise on effecting behavioral, legislative and regulatory change. Changing hearts and minds. Ultimately, that is what all people of goodwill seek and we should check our individual and collective inclinations to better serve this most worthwhile end. I think he is absolutely right.
While we’re at it, let’s address a few other technicalities. Much has been discussed and written on how and why the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are different, even to the extent that some consider one less evil (or more moral) than the other. What is true is that there is no practical difference between the two. I consider it a waste of time and energy perpetuating that argument, so let’s put the measuring tape away once and for all.
And let’s stop talking about aborted fetal cells in the product. Cell lines are used as expression and growth media or a test medium to measure cytotoxicity – there are no aborted fetal cells in any of the vaccines, the stuff that goes into the patient’s arm, even the vaccines that are grown in the cell lines. The vaccines that are actually grown in the cell lines do contain ‘residual components’ of the cells, but this is what little remains after the purification process which destroys the cells as the active ingredient of the vaccine is harvested. There are acceptability thresholds established by the FDA for these ‘residual components’ (cellular debris), not unlike the thresholds established for insect parts and rodent hairs in wheat flour, but there are no complete fetal cells in the vaccines.
Lastly, I’d like to draw from Fr. Schneider’s exhortation to do good and the fact that we are much more aware of the current state of affairs. The desire to know everything is understandable but, in the end, not useful. Our mission is to end the use of aborted fetal tissue in scientific research. We know enough to get to work on that. Aborted fetal cell lines came from aborted fetal tissue. I see no material difference between them from a moral perspective. The current administration has greenlighted federal funding for aborted fetal tissue research. What is going on outside of the vaccine bubble is frightening, truly monstrous, and it promises to get worse. Much worse unless we get our collective act together and focus great intensity and determination on effecting change. It is the PRACTICE, not the PRODUCT, that needs to change. Let’s get after it.
We haven’t begun to know how marvelous and amazing God’s creations work.
I believe that having the aborted tissue anywhere near where they are making a vaccine or product is bad. You can’t grow vaccines in aborted tissue and call it moral. I suspect there is more going on that meets the eye. We might not see something visable but there is something we still don’t comprehend exchanging or transferring from cell to cell. And at this time I don’t think we recognizeit.
Another place to look outside of vaccines is embryonic stem cell research. Sadly, I recently found out that St. Jude Children’s Hospital now funds embryonic stem cell research. I called donor relations and the woman I spoke with confirmed it. Imagine: on one hand they are treating children for childhood cancers yet on the other they are ripping others apart for their research. They will never get another dime from me and they know it!
St. Jude also confirmed that they mandated their employees and misc. staff to get the vaccine. So sad.
When a healthy baby is born. The clipped umbilical cord my and placenta are disposed of. Many research hospitals, harvest stem cells from the delivered umbilical cord /placenta. This has nothing to do with an aborted baby. That is not to say stem cells aren’t also taken from the unborn which is a nightmare.
The argument that we cannot benefit from the deaths of innocents, no matter how long or what science has done can unfortunately be easily flipped upside down. Are we all not still benefiting from killing the innocent in the name of paganism in order to gain land? And years later, can give thanks to that slaughter and all the US money received from this new Indianless America. Want to justify/right size your argument? Give the Indians their lands back. First things first. Or remain Hippocrates and continue to deny what America has historically done in the name of God.
Aaron, that’s quite the straw man in the context of the use of aborted fetal tissue in science. I’m reasonably certain that if we, as a society, return everything to indigenous peoples many problems will remain unsolved and we might create new ones.
The history of man’s inhumanity to man is vast and broad. That there are very important issues outside of the world of aborted fetal tissue in science and commerce is not disputable, but, as an organization, we have chosen to focus on this particular calamitous exploitation and inhuman behavior as our mission.
I wish you great success in your chosen crusade. In fact, I’m happy to exchange ideas with you off-line but we’re going to stick to our chosen crusade and do our best to make a tangible and lasting difference.
Let’s not forget that the green light for the current cooperation with evil being received by nearly 40% of the US Population was Trump’s doing. He was at the helm and permitted and funded each of them and has taken it himself. He also authorized the purchase of 70 cell lines from Isreal that were harvested by creating and destroying embryos. These are 70 brand new lives extinguished.
Yes, This administration is doing even more. Trump as a Christian will have contributed to the greatest most extensive use of the HEK 293 cell line over the shortest time in US history likely. The vaccines along with therapeutics are going to be used on nearly the entire population of US adults, likely the majority of 12-17 year olds and possibly 11 and under. The use in confirmatory testing was well established from the outset. Use in creating the spike proteins was also clear with the NIH supplying them. Early on Bishops spoke out but were silenced. When ask for comment around the election, there was little pushback against Trump and pence. No surprise. Horrible to stay quite while they selected this path.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nih-approves-70-new-human-embryonic-stem-cell-lines-for-use-in-federally-funded-research?fbclid=IwAR2_0er24HlZcScvvmn0cn5KcGCZEGTaD1SEH01-839zrQrAijGldcyKOLc
Uhm. There are in FACT aborted fetal DNA IN the vaccines. Where in the world did you get the false notion that there is NO aborted fetal DNA in them!!!??? Do you even read this website??!
“And let’s stop talking about aborted fetal cells in the product. Cell lines are used as expression and growth media or a test medium to measure cytotoxicity – there are no aborted fetal cells in any of the vaccines, the stuff that goes into the patient’s arm, even the vaccines that are grown in the cell lines. The vaccines that are actually grown in the cell lines do contain ‘residual components’ of the cells, but this is what little remains after the purification process which destroys the cells as the active ingredient of the vaccine is harvested. There are acceptability thresholds established by the FDA for these ‘residual components’ (cellular debris), not unlike the thresholds established for insect parts and rodent hairs in wheat flour, but there are no complete fetal cells in the vaccines.”
Elizabeth, that there may be DNA in a vaccine grown in fetal cell lines is not in dispute. I never said there wasn’t. What is said quite clearly is that there are no fetal cells in the vaccines. There is something else that is not disputable – DNA is a molecule, not a cell. Nor are proteins, fragments of nucleotides and other forms of cellular debris. What I said is correct. I suggest you read it again.
@Elizabeth I’m a bit new to this discussion. Could you kindly point me to the best source you know of that establishes that there indeed *is* aborted fetal DNA in either of the current mRNA jabs?
There is no aborted fetal DNA in the mRNA products. Aborted fetal cell lines were used in the research, development and testing of these products but are not used in the formulation that actually goes in the vial.
PS. I like your dog!
@ leasjahasr
I have read The Vaccine Book by Dr Robert W Sears. In it he discusses the childhood vaccines that are developed using fetal cells and do contain human DNA.
“MMR, Chickenpox, Hep A, and Pentacel combo vaccine use cells extracted from two aborted infants to grow the viruses used in the vaccines… The human cells, of course, aren’t in the final vaccine product, but DNA from these cells is…” (I have the second edition of this book and that quote is from p 232.)
I know that this is not answering your question about the current “vaccine,” but at least we have this documentation which raises more than a few concerns about how “removed” the baby’s life actually is from the vaccine…
@Elizabeth I have limited access to Dr. Sears’ book, so I am not able to exhaustively search it.
The full sentence you quoted seems to be, “The human cells, of course, aren’t in the final vaccine product, but DNA from these cells is, as is disclosed in the vaccine product inserts.” Below, I’ve linked to package/product inserts for both mRNA COVID jabs as well as the other vaccines Dr. Sears mentioned. There is no mention of DNA in the first six inserts linked. The seventh, eighth, and ninth vaccines say they contain DNA from the MRC-5 cell line. The tenth says it contains DNA, but doesn’t specify the source.
1.
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers https://www.fda.gov/media/144637/download
2.
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
3.
mmr_ii_pi.pdf https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
4.
Twinrix Hepatitis A https://gskpro.com/content/dam/global/hcpportal/en_US/Prescribing_Information/Twinrix/pdf/TWINRIX.PDF
5.
Havrix Hepatitis A https://gskpro.com/content/dam/global/hcpportal/en_US/Prescribing_Information/Havrix/pdf/HAVRIX.PDF
6.
Package Insert – Pentacel https://www.fda.gov/media/74385/download
7.
Proquad_pi_4171.pdf (MMR) https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/p/proquad/proquad_pi_4171.pdf
“[E]ach 0.5-mL dose of the vaccine … contains … residual components from the manufacturing process: MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein…”
8.
Package Insert – Varivax/chickenpox (Frozen) https://www.fda.gov/media/76008/download
“The product also contains residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein.”
9.
Package Insert – Varivax/chickenpox (Refrigerator) https://www.fda.gov/media/76000/download
“The product also contains residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein.”
10.
Hepatitis A vaqta_pi.pdf https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/vaqta/vaqta_pi.pdf
“[T]he vaccine contains … less than 0.1 mcg of nonviral protein…[and] less than 4 x 10–6 mcg of DNA…”
Package Insert – Pentacel https://www.fda.gov/media/74385/download
So it seems – by using the criterion Dr. Sears used in his book – neither the Moderna nor Pfizer jabs contain DNA – or any other material – from aborted babies.
I agree that the J&J jab *does* contain material from aborted babies.
*None* of the above, however, excuses the use of aborted fetal cell lines to develop and/or test vaccines or any other pharmaceutical.
Anyone’s DNA, being used without their express permission, is an offence in itself. Why would I want to take medicine, of any kind, that includes the DNA of a child, killed by murder in demand? Don’t even get me started on the fact that we have no idea what mixing the dna of two persons means, detrimentally, in the long run; particularly where experimental jabs are concerned. The fact that several jabs are needed, means a person gets, to use laboratory geek speak, more than one child’s “residual dna”. I do agree that it is the practice that is the problem, but let’s not allow these companies off the hook by minimising the biological damage they have created. These children..and their DNA..deserve to rest in peace, as do we all.
On another note, consider former President Trump actually being upset about not getting credit for getting these vaccines that use the fetal cell lines.
“ Former President Trump on Friday complained that his administration hasn’t been given enough credit on coronavirus vaccines, a day after vaccinated Americans were advised they can go without masks in most settings — a major milestone in the fight against the pandemic.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/553526-trump-bemoans-lack-of-vaccine-credit-amid-mask-news
I had a number of problems with Fr Schneider’s tweet fest and articles on this topic but because he is both a social media priest and an “expert” he got a lot of traction. He and a number of other Catholics evaluating this situation seemed to not have an idea about the larger context of using aborted fetal tissue, historically and currently. They put forward an implied “just this one baby”, “lots of years ago”, “no direct coordination between research and ongoing abortions” etc. All of this puts the wrong picture into people’s minds that this isn’t really anything to get too excited about… gee why don’t why get upset about bananas being unethically harvested or something? I really question why Fr Schneider did this. What was his underlying assumption that did not allow him to go beyond his tidy internet analysis? He really painted people who are upset and object to this situation as being illogical dopes. He also did not give any credit or due respect to people who have worked for years on documenting the realities of medical research and abortion ties. At the very least he might have taken seriously the work of Ms Vinnedge, since he presumably should know about her from the 2005 PAL letter.
This is a very excellent informative article. Many thanks for all your hard work! Can you provide us with results of the prescription drugs and OTC drugs you researched as to if they are in the same category as aspirin as you explained it.
How would we research a particular drug to find out if it exists only because of the use of aborted fetal cells in production and/or testing or if the drug was already in existence before using it for any research using aborted fetal cells? For instance: common blood pressure drugs like metoprolol or lisinopril?
Linda, the easiest way is to look up when the drug received FDA approval. That is easy. Looking into the actual dependent research for a specific drug gets much harder. The ACE Inhibiter was researched extensively with fetal cells and to some degree all modern ACE drugs are dependent on that research. I looked into Lisinopril and I wasn’t able to find the documents very quickly at all. I saw dates for Lisinopril ranging from 1987 to 2003 and from what I understand the drug Lisinopril was reformulated at least once. I would say Captopril (an older ACE Inhibiter) would be free from it but I’m not sure about the more modern inhibiters. This isn’t easy research as generally speaking no one seems to care to go back and look at old FDA approval documents and they don’t seem as detailed on the cellular side back then.
I looked into this back when I saw the first posting by Fr. Schneider and was quickly able to disprove the premise of the article. It did however open up a terrible truth that most modern medications are tainted.
I personally took a stand for convenience mostly given the difficultly of researching this to not use medication developed after 1980. I don’t see many taking this kind of stance really.
Yes; excellent question Linda! I would like to know as well!
And in fact it was not one cell line HEK293 that was produced 40 years ago from one abortion. Cell lines degrade and need to be ‘refreshed’. so there have been ongoing tests, by now in the thousand, to keep HEK293 ‘alive’. These tests have in many cases required another new abortion to be carried out, by CA section so that the ‘test team’ can access live cells, only minutes old.These test have been done right up until 2015 I believe to develop new lines and refresh old ones. How many abortions? We will probably never know, Probably thousands. it is truly monstrous. And that the Pope, and many Bishops ‘don’t know’ this. I find it hard to believe that the Pope does not know. What we are looking at here with the Prelates of the Catholic Church is culpable ignorance. May God have mercy on them, and us, if we do not speak out. Pat
Could you, Pat give more information about that: “Cell lines degrade and need to be ‘refreshed’. so there have been ongoing tests, by now in the thousand, to keep HEK293 ‘alive’. These tests have in many cases required another new abortion to be carried out, by CA section so that the ‘test team’ can access live cells, only minutes old.These test have been done right up until 2015 I believe to develop new lines and refresh old ones. How many abortions? We will probably never know, Probably thousands”. Where can I read more?
Allow me to clarify a bit. HEK-293 has not been ‘refreshed’, as the genetic modification of the originally cultured cells with DNA from an adenovirus resulted in the cells’ ability to replicate indefinitely. There HAVE been modifications to the cell line over the years, mostly to vary the cell line’s expression characteristics to better suit specific applications. The following link provides a summary of these modification types: https://biomedpharmajournal.org/vol11no2/the-scattered-twelve-tribes-of-hek293/
There is no question whatsoever that a great deal of additional work has been directed at new cell lines and cell strains. Among the most recent is the WalVax-2 strain, developed in 2015 specifically to support vaccine development as a replacement for the MRC.5 cell strain and, to a lesser degree, WI-38. Both of these are cell strains – different from cell lines – because they are genetically unmodified and will not replicate indefinitely. They are subject to the ‘Hayflick Limit’ which basically states that the cell strain will divide and grow over a period of time consistent with the life span of the donor organism, so, if the source is human then the cell strain will have a ‘life’ somewhere between 70 and 90 years.
WalVax-2 is but one example. I queried a biologics database (aggregated) for fetal cell lines and found that there are 1,559 fetal cell lines, strains and variations thereof commercially available as of May 2021. Pat’s point about ongoing research and testing is quite correct in this sense. HEK-293 has not required ‘refreshing’, but the exploitation of the killed unborn continues.
Yes sure, and taking into consideration the helpful comments by Jose here below (thank you). I will post a couple of links here also but during some research I have discovered some additional information regarding the development of the HEK293 cell line back in 1973, which is that the researcher/developer Dr Van der Eb used not only human embryonic kidney cells, (“The fetus, as far as I can remember was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at the time, but it got lost, all this information. The kidneys of the fetus were then isolated and the kidneys cells were isolated…” Dr Van der Eb) but they also used human embryonic lung cells, and later 1985 used embryonic retinal cells.
(“So I isolated retina from a fetus, from a healthy fetus as far as could be seen, of 18 weeks old. There was nothing special with a family history or the pregnancy was completely normal up to the 18 weeks, and it turned out to be a socially indicated abortus, abortus provocatus, and that was simply because the women wanted to get rid of the fetus. We got this.”)
This cell line became the PER.C6 cell line.
These comments are shocking and show the complete disregard the researchers had, and have, for human life – the fragile life of a baby in its mother’s womb. Furthermore, Dr Van der Eb says, “Again I remind you that both cell lines (HEK293 & PER.C6) were made in my lab for different reasons…and we have done many different transformation studies after that, not transformation studies, but gene expression studies with human embryonic kidney cells in the years following that up to now…”
So while he does not mention further abortions it seems certain that many more were done, procured, obtained, sanctioned, for these experiments. What a shocking indictment of this morally bankrupt sector of the medical research establishment. And now our bishops want us to cooperate with this grave evil.
It seems their supernatural faith is absent.
The above transcripts were taken from the USA FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Gaithersburg, May 16, 2001.
See also;
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-unborn-babies-used-for-vaccine-development-were-alive-at-tissue-extraction
I know they do something to the cells that does what they call immortalizing them. That way they can theoretically use them forever. The problem with that, is that the cells can then cause cancers in the animals they test and in the people that end up taking the drugs made from them. Even after they supposedly “purify” them, many of those drugs side effects labels, state that cancers can occur. Regardless, it’s a despicable practice and I’m sure there are thousands and thousands of poor babies used for all kinds of sickening things we may not know about for a very long time.
Thanks Lisa, do you have a site you can direct me to on this? We need to discover the truth on this issue.
Pat, I have read the article you posted but it seems these 12 cell lines all came from the original. Am I missing something? Do you by chance have information on the “refreshing” of this cell line b/c I am very interested in this as I have wondered this myself. Thank you!
Melissa, it seems my ‘refreshing’ comment has taken on a life of its own! I understand that the HEK293 cell line will grow indefinitely (immortal), see Jose’s comments above. However if you look at this link https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1096/fj.01-0995fje you will find that another cell line, derived from an aborted baby, HER224, (human embryonic retinal cells), were used to further study and manipulate transformed cell cultures referenced to HEK293.My point is that I think we need to look at the broader picture here. Experimentation with cells taken from live human babies, that were aborted, and kept alive for a short period in some cases, before they were dissected – alive, has been going on since at least since 1936 and right up to the present day. I believe there are currently 1500 separate cell lines derived from aborted babies in use at this moment, for vaccine and other research, that we know of. Researchers in these fields are not particularly transparent with all of the data they post, and when you start to look you will find there are more than a few dead ends, where the researchers of, say Paper A, that you are reading, reference Paper D. But when you go to look at that you find that it was never published, at least not where the public can see it. What else is being hidden? Also the link posted below by Simone (May24) on exploring the dark world of vaccines and fetal tissue is well worth reading, even if it is shocking and rather macabre. Hope this helps a little.
I’ve seen no mention of the word “cannibalism” (the practice of eating the flesh of one’s own species) and while we are not technically “eating the flesh” the term seems appropriate to me in regard to this practice, for indeed we are cannibalising our young. Born or unborn, human beings are of our own species. Nor will Life ever spring from death. I would much prefer to die myself than be injected with something resulting from another person’s death.
Thank you for your precise and clear presentation of the truth in this most horrific matter.
Amen ! I Agree with you Dorothy
Agreed! How can the pope or the bishops not have this information ? Utterly absurd.
It’s the laity’s duty to inform them. Write, call, request a reply. Repeat.
Here is another article that deserves wide circulation…and underscores that in order to have viable fetal tissues/organs for research, they must be harvested during the abortion process WHILE THE BABY IS STILL ALIVE. I don’t care how far removed today’s medicines/vaccines/food flavorings are from that initial extraction – it is still torture and murder that we are profiting from, however remotely. And now that I know, I, for one, can no longer cooperate with any it… https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/05/17/exploring-the-dark-world-of-vaccines-and-fetal-tissue-research-part-1/
The idea that we can take the vaccine for the common good because we already remotely cooperate with fetal research in everything is a non sequiter. Not being able to do everything doesn’t make it okay to do nothing. It is precisely because our lives and the lives of loved ones are at stake that people, except those with EXTREMELY vulnerable health and their immediate regular caregivers should not take the vaccine. The vaccine is not a ticket to immortality. Please do not kill a young girl if it is necessary to prolong my life another three to ten years, or even of those I love. If it is as important as all that uncompromized vaccines and and will be developed, but they won’t be if we do not demand that they are. Do not mistake laziness and inscrupulosity for compassion.
“Not being able to do everything doesn’t make it okay to do nothing.” – Ron, your statement really cuts through it all. And it sings! Sincere thanks for your thoughts.
Ron, Why would there be an “except?” Would you really trust those who profit from the use of aborted babies to protect your loved ones with “extremely vulnerable health?” Or does the health of the “extremely vulnerable” somehow justify the means?
I might clarify the discussion made between “avoiding evil” and “doing good”. It is not ok to cross one’s fingers and say, “i can do thus and so and ignore the evil in it because it does good.” The avoidance of evil can cause us to sharpen our trust in the LORD God and wait upon Him for His deliverance.
Great content! Keep up the good work!
If we HAVE to get vaccinated, for some reason, like to get or keep a job or for whatever reason, what are the vaccines without fetal use and without mRNA or bad stuff?
Vic, there are none at available at this time if you are a U.S. resident. Only two ethically derived vaccines remain in consideration – BAT/Kentucky BioProcessing and Covaxin. The Medicago vaccine was recently tested in aborted fetal cell lines.
Mr. Transancos, would your group consider formulating a comprehensive document for use by university students seeking a religious exemption? Very hard right now to articulate personally held ethics of respect for life when the UC system literally links to the statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Covid “vaccines”. Incidentally, the Catholic church’s statement is the only religious statement in the Resource Links. The hierarchy have made it next to impossible to claim religious exemption as a Catholic.
I will work on that and post it within the next few days. I have prepared more than a few and I believe a general framework that can be modified to suit specific requirements can work.
Thank you!
Thank you very much and God bless you.
I’ve kind of tried to do that here: fetaltissue.org/faulty-assumptions — this is heavily based on and indebted to Debi Vinnedge’s work.
I love the article Jose! This is a very helpful piece of research with some great examples.Don’t you think it’s fair to say there is a difference in proximity to the aborted child in the AZ & J&J ones? I think folk like to know, as indicated in comment above, that they are ingesting DNA fragments of the victim in each dose of these vaccines? The abortion benefit is more tangible and direct? They all have abortion benefit, but it’s different again to be receiving the child’s DNA (even if slightly modified). It’s closer to a kind of Molech sacrifice, where all must partake in the sacrifice. A kind of unholy sacrament?
Theresa Deisher showed that the tolerance levels for DNA are often far exceeded. And Corvelva proved that an entire human genome was found in one vaccine dose. That seems not without moral significance?
I personally wouldn’t take either, cos conscious abortion benefit I want to run a mile from. But I can see reasoning to distinguish the two categories? I’d love to know how the mRNA is made. My wife seems to think it also may reflect the childs DNA, like a mirror so to speak. So it may in fact be very similar, in that it contains an imprint of the child. Which is may be what you were getting at with this statement? >>>
“Aborted fetal cell lines were used in the foundational research (synthesis of the SARS CoV-2 spike proteins), the vaccine development process and validation assessment prior to initiating clinical trials. It is correct to say that these vaccines would not exist but for the use of aborted fetal cell lines.”
Any more articles you can point me towards on this front?
This is a helpful document from National Catholic Bioethics Center
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e3ada1a6a2e8d6a131d1dcd/t/60f85922ae6a2d324b74741e/1626888482625/NCBC+Vaccine+Exemption+Resource+updated.pdf
@thomasfmseidler: Thank you!!! What an amazing summary. Huge help, especially with all the footnotes.
Great work everyone, keep it up. The truth will be out!
The cell lines come from aborted babies.
That is enough for me.
Thank you so much for all the research presented here. I am appalled at how much I didn’t know about the fetal cell lines used in the medical field. As a pharmacist, I should have known about this years ago from the Christian school I attended for my degree. It blows my mind how well this has been hidden! After discovering fetal cells being used in vaccine research, I began digging to find out what other medications had been done the same. I found your site and have been reading through all your articles. I did have a question about the product list provided on the site. You have included Nestle products (refrigerated coffee creamers) does that include Starbucks Double shot energy drinks? I find differing information on the internet and am unsure how to go about confirming this information. Thanks!
I have a question. I was talking to my son tonight. He’s a Catholic priest in La Grange, Texas. We were discussing the COVID vaccine. He said our Bishop , in a letter to us all, stated the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine only used aborted cells in testing , not production, like the J&J vaccine. Therefore they are ‘ more ethical’ to receive. Is this correct ? Thank you.
In my opinion, this is rationalizing, not reasoning. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines owe their existence to aborted fetal cell lines. Many repeat that Pfizer and Moderna only used aborted fetal cell lines in a one-time, confirmatory test. That is made-up claptrap. There is no such thing as a ‘one-time test’ in science, especially in biomedical research. And ‘confirmatory’, in this context, was a made-up term.
It comes down to this – does a ‘little bit of evil’ make any sense?
I understand that it’s wrong to do evil in the name of good, but at some point doesn’t the ‘quantity’ of the material cooperation, the present intent, and the degree of removal from the actual evil affect the quality of it? To write this message I’m using a PC with components (AMD), purchased online (Amazon), on an operating system (Microsoft), over an ISP (AT&T); all of these companies have donated a fraction of the money I’ve paid them to Planned Parenthood or some other immoral cause. This is all publicly available information, so the only way I could safely say I’m exculpable through my ignorance would be to claim laziness or apathy also, which is really no excuse at all. Even some of my tax money goes to fund abortion. One degree further would be when I purchase something, even from a 100% morally unobjectionable source, if I could find one, and then they pay taxes on their profit from my purchase. At what point do we say ‘the current act I’m doing, with good intent, is my focus, and not the objectionable actions taken in the past, present, or future that are inextricably tied to my current action’?
As a parallel hypothetical: what if Smith & Wesson were the only gun manufacturer, and when they develop a new line of handguns they test it out along the way by shooting the cadaver of someone who had been euthanized long ago, so they can tweak the design until they’re happy with it. Then they put the body back on ice, put the gun into production, and sell millions of them around the world. Assume an armed assailant breaks into my home, intent on harming or killing me and my family; is it immoral for me to defend us with this gun because I am aware of the objectionable and immoral testing Smith & Wesson did with it? Am I required to defend myself with my fists instead, or some other lesser weapon that was created without recourse to immoral testing, even if I think my decision to do so may result in the deaths of myself or my family? I would think not. In fact, I would say that if I believed it to be the most effective way to save the lives of myself and my family, using it would not be a ‘little bit of evil,’ it would be a moral good on my part, despite the moral evil done by Smith & Wesson.
Also, what am I accomplishing by not using it? Will less use of their handgun (by one person) cause them to do less testing and develop fewer new guns? Or would my potential unarmed death be used as a statistic to fuel a push for more self defense with their guns? It could go either way, there are enough degrees of separation from me that I have no way of knowing, but I do have a much better idea of the risks in front of me right now with the armed intruder…the further removed from that decision I get, the less impact I will have, and the more unclear the results of my decision will be.
In my opinion, there’s definitely a quantitative and qualitative consideration to every moral decision, weighing the positive reasons for our actions versus the degree of remote material cooperation there may be with immoral actions (which there will be in almost every decision we make that involves material things); that’s why we have the virtue of prudence, to help us decide complex issues on a case-by-case basis.
Thanks for your work by the way! Even if I don’t quite agree on this point, there’s a ton of valuable information here.
I agree, it is just semantics. The Bishop is incorrect, babies died to produce these vaccines – period. The ends can never justify the means. The vaccine is also not a vaccine! it’s gene therapy and has the ability to alter your DNA, it is dangerous, unsafe, unethical, immoral and quite frankly – evil. I beg the clergy to wake up! Blessings.
Thank you both for your feedback. I heard your wife speak in Bryan a couple of weekends ago Dr Trasancos. I thanked her when I saw her in the back of the church. Now I realize it was you standing next to her. I’ve been praying about this vaccine a lot. I’m a critical care nurse and have seen the effects of COVID first hand. It’s scary. Our hospital …. CHI St Joseph is now mandating the vaccine….. by November 1st. My planned retirement date was October 30. God is good. But there are many there who don’t want it. They’ve formed a group and filed for a religious exemption. We shall see.
I recommend people call the lawyers at the St Thomas More Society. They are formulating good letters for people who have conscience objections to the vaccines that were made using aborted fetal tissue: https://thomasmoresociety.org/attorney/
A great “re”-awakening of perspective and thought – thank you to all on this page: author and commenters
My shared perspective and thoughts are around inalienable (God given) birth rights: those around privacy of (medical) of person, and rights of consent.
There are no civil or criminal arguments against one’s declaration of bodily/conscience autonomy, thereby NEGATING the idea that one has to be “exempted” from a mandated requirement/request.
Declare AND ASSERT your (God given, NOT Government given), position in any choice of statements like: “no, thank you”, “I Do Not Consent”, or “I shall not share my private information”, and if coerced, harassed, or assaulted, follow up with Notice’s of Liability.
You go, Janice! You hit that nail on the head with a sledge hammer.
Amen.
Since you are so concerned about facts I would like to point out that aborted fetal cell lines may have only been in use since the 1970’s, but the use of aborted fetal tissue has been used in medical research since the 1930’s when when fetal kidney cells were used to develop the polio vaccine, saving over 500,000 lives and countless people permanent disability.
We are well aware of that, and those facts are not in dispute. Hundreds of babies were butchered in the development of the polio vaccine. What point are you trying to make?
Personally speaking, it is disturbing that someone would justify the killing of another in the name of ‘benefit’.
Yes correct! The principle is that, ‘You can never perform evil to create a good.” It’s quite possible that the horrific experiments conducted by Joseph Mengele and his ilk contributed in some way to modern medicine. Does that then justify what they did?
those fetal cells degrade over time and they have to get new ones. do the research…
Shannon, this is interesting considering my about face. I still doubt the ‘immortal’ tag. Do you have some research or links I could look at? Many thanks.
There are two questions here. One is straightforward and it has to do with the difference between a cell strain and a cell line. ‘Cell line’ is used generically, and incorrectly – I do it, too – to refer to a cell strain. A strain is an unmodified primary culture that is able to replicate for a period of time, but it ages just like the source organism. Telomeres shorten with every generation and the strains age just like we do. WI-38, MRC.5 and WalVax-2 are examples of cell strains. They have a life expectancy and at some point the cells will just stop replicating, requiring replacement. That means more tissue from more ‘aborted’ children. I qualify ‘aborted’ because the processes employed these days are much more like a contract killing than they are anything else.
Cell lines are modified or have an anomalous origin. The HeLa cell line came from a cervical cancer tumor from a woman name Henrietta Lacks. Cancer cells do not replicate like normal cells – they replicate rapidly and indefinitely because they are diseased. HeLa was the first human cell line and, while it is prone to mutation (cancer, remember), it has grown robustly for decades and continues to do so.
The second question centers on engineered ‘immortality’. HEK-293 was made ‘immortal’ by way of a genetic modification. Sheared adenovirus DNA (Adenovirus Ad-5) was inserted into the fetal kidney cells to make them ‘immortal’. Time will tell if that is, in fact, true. It is hard for me to believe that any material life form can live forever.
This ‘immortality’ is often used as a way to get cozy with their use. ‘It’s immortal. There’s no need for any more abortions because the cell line does not need to be replenished.’, goes the argument. That may be strictly correct with respect to that specific cell line, however, the research and development efforts focused on new and more specialized cell lines and cell strains has accelerated over the years. There is an aggregated database of biologics known as the Cellosaurus. I queried that database in May of this year and ran a count of unique instances of human fetal cell lines and cell strains. As of the date I ran the query, there were 1,559 human fetal cell lines and cell strains commercially available to researchers and manufacturers.
Please let that number sink in. Think about it next time someone argues that ‘it was just one or two abortions and it was so long ago’…..
Thank you Jose, that is again timely, but also tragic and quite overwhelming. So much death, so much brutality is hard to comprehend. May God have mercy on us all.
Jose could you elaborate please on the ‘contract killing’ descriptive. I think I know what you mean, but more information would be invaluable.
I’m happy to. Let’s use the development of WalVax-2 as an example. The research team was tasked with developing a replacement for the MRC.5 cell strain and, secondarily, WI-38 as both were nearing the end of their useful life. These were the hitmen, hired by others. The research team set about to accomplish their task in a thorough and careful manner. ‘Donor’ mothers and fathers were interviewed and carefully screened so that the best possible tissue sources could be identified. The mothers and fathers had to be free of any significant chronic illnesses and this extended into family histories as well. Certain professions and types of employment were disqualifiers due to the likelihood of substance exposure that could compromise the quality of the tissue. Genetic screenings were done on the mothers and fathers. This was very carefully thought through and executed, a very calculated series of tests. At the end of it all, nine children were selected and the end of their lives was carefully planned. A certain gestational age was desired and, to minimize the possibility of damaging the tissues, the research team devised and filed to patent a novel form of induced abortion (birth with the intent of causing the child’s death).
The dates on which the children would meet their end were selected and the process for the harvesting of their tissues was precisely orchestrated. Labor was induced, the child was born (alive) and its tissues were immediately harvested and preserved, the culmination of the orchestrated plan to obtain the freshest tissues possible and of the highest quality that would be used to establish a new fetal cell strain that would support medical research for decades.
This is a contract killing, a ‘hit’ if you will, in a true sense. You have an individual or a group of individuals that stands to profit or gain from the death of another or others, and they hire the necessary skills needed to bring that about. They provide the specifications, conditions and the funding to those that will execute on these parameters in ways that maximize the probability of success. So, there you have it. A contract killing, but not a newsworthy one, not like what happens in the world of organized crime. Hey, wait a minute . . . organized crime. That shoe fits, too.
Jose, that is truly shocking, and evil – devoid of any humanity. Do you have any references for this at all? I know that seems absurd, but is always good to verify when someone asks where the information came from.
Yes, they wrote it down. Here’s a link to the publication where the higher-level information is referenced.
That’s horrifying seeing how callously the baby’s death is spoken about by researchers. Thanks Jose.
If I’m reading it right though, these were planned elective abortions that were screened by researchers to find the best ‘donors’, right? It’s still murder, but I would think it would make the contract killing analogy a little less apt, since in normal contract killings the killer isn’t hired to murder a victim who is already about to be murdered. But maybe I’m misreading what they’re saying.
Consider the fact that the planned killing serves an altogether different purpose. Beyond recognition that abortion has been state-sponsored as population control in China for decades, the financial motives and the fact that this research was undertaken off-shore to escape what laws we have that would complicate the effort make the contract killing analogy more clear.
Many thanks Jose.
Jose, can you show me some information on DNA in the Covid-19 vaccinations please?
Pat, the mRNA vaccines do not contain any DNA. Synthesized RNA is how these vaccines work, however, there is no human DNA in the finished produce. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine may contain traces of genetic material from the cell lines as this vaccine is grown (produced) in aborted fetal cell lines. The purification process prior to packaging is not perfect and there may be some cellular debris, including fragments of genetic material and whole DNA molecules, in the finished product.
Thanks Jose. But are not several of the Covid-19 vaxs produced in human cell lines/strains, so surely it would be more than just the J&J vax that can contain DNA. I believe that the Astrazenca vax may be among this group.
The 2018 depositions of Stanley Plotkin, are very illuminating on this point with regards to human DNA in MMRII, Varivax, rabies and a multitude of other vaccines which he admits do contain shredded human DNA in the trillions of molecules and which he admits, in theory, could combine with the hosts’ DNA, but that no studies have ever been done to prove or disprove this point. This tells me there is likely a strong case for a similar contamination among the Covid-19 vaxs produced in human embryonic cell lines/strains. What do you think?
Hi Jose,
Can you comment on this please? Blessings, Pat
SHOCKER: Three existing covid vaccines actually contain DNA (not just RNA) for spike protein synthesis inside your body
Wednesday, September 29, 2021 by: Lance D Johnson
Tags: adenovirus-vectored vaccines, bad medicine, badhealth, badmedicine, badscience, DNA experiments, DNA vaccines, gene experiments, immune system, immune system reprogramming, mRNA, pathogenic priming, pharmaceutical dependence, protein synthesis, spike protein, T-cell response
Bypass censorship by sharing this link:
(Natural News) The various COVID vaccines being rushed into existence do not operate as traditional biologics (vaccines) and are being falsely represented and regulated as such. Standard vaccines introduce attenuated (weakened) forms of a target virus, in conjunction with inflammatory adjuvant and other chemicals. These new mRNA, adenovirus-vectored, and DNA vaccines utilize the “software” of the virus, forcing the body to make copies of it.
Professor Jonathan Gershoni from Israel’s Tel Aviv University explains that three covid vaccines on the market are actually DNA vaccines. Inoculations manufactured by Sputnik V, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson contain DNA (not just RNA) that is inserted into the nucleus of human cells to ultimately translate and replicate lab engineered spike proteins.
India is getting a new type of DNA vaccine made by Zydus Cadila; it will be called ZyCoV-D. This vaccine contains less DNA than the other DNA vaccines and that DNA is not concealed by a viral vector (adenovirus). For these vaccines, the 1,200 amino acid sequence of the coronavirus spike protein is contained in a plasmid, and it is administered intra-dermally in a three dose, three-month protocol using a high-pressure stream of liquid containing the DNA.
Gene experiments, cellular reprogramming and the destruction of the innate immune system
The adenovirus-vectored covid vaccines all contain DNA from the engineered spike protein. These vaccines stealthily deliver DNA from the bioweapon, concealing it in an adenovirus shell. Once the spike protein DNA bypasses the innate immune system, its genetic instructions are transcribed into the human cells, mass producing lab engineered spike proteins.
The pharmaceutical media and the fact checkers continue to lie about the experimental, gene-altering science behind new COVID vaccines. In unison, they claim that the vaccines do not alter human DNA or change genetic expression. However, these vaccines are genetic experiments designed to keep humans dependent on vaccine updates; the inoculations were designed to breach the innate immune system for the purpose of altering how cells read the body’s own genetic code.
The adenovirus-vectored vaccines carry the spike protein DNA into the cell by using the adenovirus to subvert the innate immune response. The mRNA vaccines use lipid nano-particles to conceal the instructions and slip them into the ribosomes of the cell. In the initial process of subverting the immune system, these vaccines do not beckon a strong enough T cell response to elicit adequate T helper 1, T helper 2, and memory B cells. Because the innate immune system is not exposed to the whole virus, including the envelope and the nucleocapsid, the immune system SUFFERS. This incomplete and subverted immune response primes the body for severe disease upon subsequent re-infection.
No guarantee these gene-altering experiments are temporary
With this new vaccine technology, the messenger RNA or the DNA of a foreign, lab engineered spike protein is inserted into the body to overwrite the natural protein synthesis of the affected cells. Once this natural transcription process is re-engineered by the vaccines, there’s no guarantee that the cells will stop using this foreign code. There are no studies mapping where the spike proteins travel to in the body, how long they might last, or if their replication alters protein synthesis indefinitely and becomes a part of human cells or human DNA.
Because DNA is unable to transcribe by itself, the DNA vaccines must insert the foreign DNA into the nucleus of the human cell. This allows messenger RNA to make a disposable copy of the DNA, preparing instructions for protein synthesis in the ribosome. The RNA has the ability to interact with the ribosomes of the cell, and is responsible for encoding the type of protein the cell is instructed to manufacture.
As predominant mutations of the spike protein are discovered in the wild, vaccine makers can study that DNA and retool the DNA and mRNA in their vaccines, to replicate new sequences of spike protein in humans each year.
Dr. Trasancos, After reading this informative article, I was shocked to see Caleb’s response from May 18, 2021:
“The ACE Inhibiter was researched extensively with fetal cells and to some degree all modern ACE drugs are dependent on that research. I looked into Lisinopril and I wasn’t able to find the documents very quickly at all. I saw dates for Lisinopril ranging from 1987 to 2003 and from what I understand the drug Lisinopril was reformulated at least once. I would say Captopril (an older ACE Inhibiter) would be free from it but I’m not sure about the more modern inhibiters. This isn’t easy research as generally speaking no one seems to care to go back and look at old FDA approval documents and they don’t seem as detailed on the cellular side back then.
I looked into this back when I saw the first posting by Fr. Schneider and was quickly able to disprove the premise of the article. It did however open up a terrible truth that most modern medications are tainted.
I personally took a stand for convenience mostly given the difficultly of researching this to not use medication developed after 1980. I don’t see many taking this kind of stance really.”
Are you aware of any blood pressure medications that have not been developed or tested with aborted fetal cells? Caleb seems to think that Captopril may be, but doesn’t’ seem to be certain. This is very concerning to me as Lisinopril (which am currently taking) keeps my blood pressure under control when other medications have not.
Also, if most modern medications are tainted, how do we find out for sure when one is prescribed for us (especially in a situation that needs immediate and continuing meds)? Do we forgo any medication that we do not know the complete history of?
What can we do to force these companies to make ethical procedures and products, and what can we do in the time before they change their practices? Not using any medication developed after 1980 is not possible for most people.
Your guidance would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Dr. Trasancos, could you please respond to this? What do those of us do when there is no alternative prescription for ones tested in aborted fetal cell lines? Is it morally permissible to use these drugs?
Theresa, it is morally permissible to use ethically compromised medications and treatments when there are no uncompromised alternative medications, provided:
1. There is grave need, and,
2. One commits to making a difference to end the unethical practices.
What constitutes a grave need? Your prayerfully and properly formed conscience will tell you if your need is grave. Only you have full understanding of your circumstances and whatever your decision, it must be respected.
I donated the cord blood, when my baby is born so those stem cells could be used for research. Cord blood stem calls are very special, how do we get the word out about cord blood for stem cell research?
Dr. Trasancos,
Help me understand your reasoning in reference to the comparison of drugs tested with fetal cell lines (i.e. Aspirin) with the Vaccines developed with these same cell lines. You use the analogy of Browning not being responsible for armed robbery using a weapon that was produced by Browning. This would be true assuming that Browning has no cooperation with this evil and only manufactured the weapon. However, in the case of a drug like Aspirin, would not the company that produces Aspirin be in cooperation with the evil of abortion if they sponsor or fund the testing?
I actually referred to John Moses Browning, the designer of many modern firearms, not the Browning Arms Company. In this context, the agent of discovery. At issue is the tainting of an object (a drug or a firearm) through its use, an action subsequent to its discovery. It was Fr. Schneider that made the statement of equivalence – that these common drugs were developed and tested in the same manner as the COVID-19 vaccines. These vaccines would not exist BUT FOR the use of aborted fetal cell lines. I used what Fr. Schneider claimed as supporting evidence for Tums in a previous response, so I’ll use his supporting evidence for aspirin here since you mentioned it.
The first reference for aspirin is a paper describing a purely exploratory examination of acetylsalicylic acid’s inhibiting effects on capsaicin and heat induced responses in dorsal root ganglia neurons. Here’s what one needs to know about this paper:
1. None of the authors had any affiliation to a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
2. The nature of the research was purely exploratory and had nothing to do with the composition of aspirin as an outcome or focus.
So, in this case, the composition of aspirin was not the focus of the experiment and no one involved was affiliated with the aspirin value chain in any way – no industry funding or sponsorship.
The second reference is pretty much a swing-and-a-miss. This study focused on identifying potential salicylic acid binding proteins. Over 2,000 potential binding proteins were identified. The problem here is that what one buys in a bottle labeled ‘Aspirin’ is acetylsalicylic acid, not salicylic acid. The latter is not aspirin, although it is a salicylate. Salicylic acid is treated with acetic anhydride, turning salicylic acid’s hydroxyl group into an ester group. That, then is aspirin. The key here is a manufacturer cannot sell salicylic acid as aspirin. That would be an error with enormous attendant consequences. And salicylic acid and acetylsalicylic acid are NOT the same, chemically or therapeutically. Lastly, this research was undertaken by the Boyce Thompson Institute, an independent research lab at Cornell University. Obviously, it is not in the business of manufacturing aspirin and it is not affiliated with or funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers.
In conclusion, the discovery and development of aspirin did not employ fetal cell lines (chronologically impossible). What has been claimed and supported as subsequent testing of aspirin has nothing to do with its manufacture and none of the researchers involved in the references cited are part of the aspirin value chain. Unless, of course, they are end consumers of aspirin. But that’s it.
Thank you, Dr. Trasancos, for your reply. It seems to me that the issue of whether or not the manufacturer has used fetal cell lines in the testing of the current product that I might purchase is a critical factor in determining if I am cooperating in evil. If, as you cite in your example about these studies on aspirin, an outside researcher (not funded by the manufacturer) is using these cell lines then the manufacturer (and subsequently me as the purchaser) would not be guilty of any cooperation with the evil act of using these cell lines. However, if testing or research using these fetal cell lines is sponsored by the manufacturer then cooperation exists regardless of the fact that the medicine was developed years ago without the use of these cell lines. Thank you for bearing with me while I try to form my conscience on this issue. Please let me know if you see any flaws or omissions in my reasoning here.
I think that’s a good point…and another avenue to consider would be testing done after-the-fact that influences FDA recalls. What if a drug is recalled because of third-party testing that shows harmful long term effects? I think some studies were done on ranitidine for instance, using HEK293. I’m not sure how much of a role those studies played in the FDA recalling it, but if they did play a part, and I still had Zantac on hand (which I used for years on multiple babies) would I be ethically required to continue giving it to them since the knowledge of its potentially harmful effects was gained unethically? It’s a slippery slope, since once knowledge is obtained, we can’t un-know it and re-learn it ethically. It raises the question of whether or not it’s even possible at this point to create a covid vaccine ethically, or would they be building on knowledge already gained unethically?
In my opinion, it’s all just an issue of prudence. When there are multiple simultaneous effects, both good and bad, we have to weigh the possible risks, benefits, and ethical concerns, and determine the most appropriate course of action for our own situations. If a vaccine was tested unethically by its manufacturer, and I was guaranteed to die if I didn’t take it and guaranteed to live if I did, rather than leave my kids fatherless I believe it would be ethically acceptable to make use of it if there were no alternative, while of course voicing my objections to the manner of testing done. On the other hand, if the vaccine prevented a day or two of discomfort from a runny nose and headache, I think the ethical course of action would be to avoid it, while of course also voicing my objections to the manufacturers and my representatives. Those are extreme examples, with the covid vaccines falling somewhere in the middle…further towards one side or the other depending on personal situations and subjective risk assessment.