Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, new antivirals designed to treat COVID-19 at the onset of symptoms, are of great interest to many. I had previously posted information on Molnupiravir, having reviewed two development studies, both employing animal models in testing. The update announced that Molnupiravir had been ethically derived and developed based on the review of these two studies. My assessment was, unfortunately, premature and in error. A third study, submitted in September of 2020 and clearing peer-review in January of 2021, disclosed that humanized lung-only mice were used in transfection and testing of Molnupiravir. These mice were humanized using aborted fetal lung and thymus tissue. It is remarkable that three separate development efforts, all seeking to do the same thing, were undertaken in the development of this drug but the fact remains that aborted fetal tissue was employed in one of the studies.
The development of Paxlovid was documented initially in September of 2020 and was updated with new results shortly after the original submission. This study described the use of several in vitro processes using MRC-5 cell lines and Vero-6 cell lines.
It is clear that these new antivirals, yet to be authorized for use, are morally compromised by the use of aborted fetal tissue and cell lines in their development.
Thank you for this information, and your diligence in getting it.
If the Molnupiravir that ends up being produced was tested only on Calu-3 or Vero E6 cells, rather than the fetal cells, would that not make it ethical??
Thank you for this site
The humanized mice used to test Molnupiravir in that third study were “humanized’ by using aborted fetal lung and thymus tissue. I see no difference between this testing and testing in aborted fetal cells. It is not ethical in my view.
My understanding is that fetal cells from aborted babies are taken while the baby is still alive in order to be usable. Thats immoral enough for me to believe any stage of research for anything using such cells is immoral.
Jose, thanks for this unfortunately gruesome information. Would you be able to provide documentation confirming that the human lung tissue injected into the mice in the molnupiravir study were indeed from aborted babies and not from another adult source please?
I’m not questioning the legitimacy of your statement but simply desire to be thorough in my own research and reading before passing the information along to others.
This is truly revolting and evil.
Thanks.
Amy, here’s the documentation trail:
https://www.genengnews.com/news/sars-cov-2-infection-prevented-and-treated-in-human-lung-tissue-model/ – News story in Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03312-w – The article in Nature, referenced in the article mentioned above
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6776695/ – Referenced in Materials and Methods section of the Nature article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4120191/ – Additional research funded by the NIH
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7097366/#CR1 – Additional research funded by the NIH
Wahl, et al., is the central reference in this specific case. There is more to this body of work, but what is listed should be enough.
The documentation that was presented shows that it wasn’t tested by Merck or Ridgeback but by independent researchers who did the study. What testing did Merck & Ridgeback do?
Can someone please answer LizErt’s reply? A good point is that 3rd party testing doesn’t taint morally the product. If Merck didn’t do the immoral testing, the moral flaws are in the 3rd party not with Merck nor its development. Who did the third study that has moral problems?
The foundational research was done at Emory University, funded by a variety of grants from the NIH. The original biologics code was EIDD-2801. Merck and Ridgeback acquired the rights from the research team that invented Molnupiravir. They paid for it. Subsequent testing and clinical trials were an extension of this original body of work, not a separate body of work. Here’s an excerpt from Merck’s website that gives one an idea of Molnupiravir’s origins and how Merck acquired the rights to the drug. This is not at all uncommon – universities and research labs are not in the business of manufacturing and view pharmaceutical companies as a funding source and market for their work.
About Molnupiravir
Molnupiravir (EIDD-2801/MK-4482) is an investigational, orally bioavailable form of a potent ribonucleoside analog that inhibits the replication of multiple RNA viruses including SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. Molnupiravir has been shown to be active in several models of SARS-CoV-2, including for prophylaxis, treatment, and prevention of transmission, as well as SARS-CoV-1 and MERS. EIDD-2801 was invented at Drug Innovations at Emory (DRIVE), LLC, a not-for-profit biotechnology company wholly owned by Emory University and is being developed by Merck & Co., Inc. in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics. Since licensed by Ridgeback, all funds used for the development of EIDD-2801/MK-4482 have been provided by Wayne and Wendy Holman and Merck.
https://www.merck.com/news/interim-results-from-phase-2-3-studies-of-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-therapeutic-for-mild-to-moderate-covid-19-presented-at-the-european-congress-of-clinical-microbiology-i/
The first ncbi article referenced here describes humanized mice and that fetal lung tissue was used:
Ethics statement
Animal studies were carried out according to protocols approved by the Institutional Use and Care Committee at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and in adherence to the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
Generation of humanized mice
LoM were constructed by implanting two pieces (~2–4 mm3) of human fetal lung tissue (Advanced Bioscience Resources) subcutaneously into the back (right and left back or upper and lower back) of 13–18-week-old male and female NOD.Cg-Prkdcscid ll2rgtm1Wjl/SzJ mice (NSG mice; The Jackson Laboratory), creating two separate human lung implants. Engraftment and expansion of the human lung implants was monitored by palpation. After 12 weeks postimplantation, the lung implants are readily palpable under the skin of the mice and easy to manipulate for experiments. The lung implants persist for at least 12 months postimplantation (last time point analyzed). BLT-L mice were constructed by implanting a sandwich of human fetal thymus-liver-thymus tissue (Advanced Bioscience Resources) under the kidney capsule of irradiated (200 rad) 10–15-week-old male and female NSG mice. Two pieces of autologous human lung tissue (~2–4 mm3) were implanted subcutaneously into the right and left back. Following tissue implantation, animals received a bone marrow transplant (via tail-vein injection) of autologous liver-derived human CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells. The non-CD34+ cell fraction was used for four-digit HLA typing at the HLA-A, B and C loci. Reconstitution of BLT-L mice with human hematopoietic cells was monitored longitudinally by flow cytometry as previously described13,14,62–64. Mice were maintained by the Division of Comparative Medicine at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Is the human implants in the pill as well, or just used in the testing?
Serious Question: What is one to do if the “vaccinations” and now the therapeutics (monoclonal antibodies, Merck and Pfizer pills) are deemed morally unacceptable? I am over age 65 and have just been trying to live “Covid-safe.” I was praying for the pills to be good moral medications. I will keep praying for the Lord to provide morally acceptable vaccinations and cures. Outside of that, what can be done if Covid is contracted?
I have heard that 5% of the population will not take the injections based on conscience. Why is it that our country will not allow us to purchase and use the morally produced vaccines that are currently available in Germany and India for example?
Joan, there are therapeutic alternatives. Ivermectin treatment protocols have proven their worth in an increasing number of peer-reviewed studies and many physicians that have seen positive results are becoming more and more vocal. I present that as an alternative – I don’t mean to push it as ‘the only way’.
Allow me to be a bit editorial on the question of availability of alternatives. The behavior of our government and government agencies is clearly not centered on improving public health and safety. Take a step back and take it all in. Very little, if any, of the pandemic management makes any sense. The mandates don’t make sense and are illegal (compelling and coercing individuals to accept experimental medicines). The vaccines do not prevent infections or transmissions. The Omicron mutation is not well-handled by the current vaccines, but the best course of action is to take a booster, which is nothing more than another dose of the stuff that doesn’t work in the first place. Children are not at risk but vaccinating our children is now being sold to the public with increasing intensity. Boosters in perpetuity and you will never be fully vaccinated. Masks don’t work, until they do, and one should wear two masks just to make sure that they don’t work more effectively. Natural immunity doesn’t count, even though it is infinitely more effective than the vaccines. Everyone needs to be vaccinated and boosted except the millions that cross our borders illegally, coming from who-knows-where and infected with who-knows-what. Physicians that merely question COVID standards of treatment (from the government) and propose alternatives are brought up before review boards and disciplined. Facts are ignored and falsehoods are sold hard as facts. The individuals and organizations that have delivered us, collectively and individually, to this point are not going to do a thing to fix it because – here it comes . . . – they WANT it this way. It is the theatre of the absurd and we need to stop applauding. We should not give in to the fear and take charge of ourselves, like we should have done all along.
Your response is truly appreciated. It is disturbing that our world of (many) scientists chooses to use the cells, tissues and organs of God’s precious unborn children for experimentation. It is a “Frankenstein” nightmare that they find it acceptable to rely on aborted babies to test and make medicines. There is such moral depravity in our government. I am pleased that you can confirm that Ivermectin and the vitamins are morally acceptable. Is there any connection to the fetal cells with Budesonide as I have heard that this is also an alternative drug in the treatment of Covid 19. God’s blessings. Thank you.
Joan, Budesonide was originally patented in 1973, four years before HEK-293 was available to the research community. Budesonide is a corticosteroid and synthesis of this family of adrenal hormones had been long established before the advent of fetal cell lines. Testing was largely done using rodent models and human trials.
Joan, may God honor your desire and intention to be discerning in the medicines you use.
You would find a lot of great information on alternative prevention and treatment strategies at the following two websites:
http://www.flccc.net – look at the protocols for prophylaxis/prevention and early outpatient treatment. Lots of what is used are appropriate doses of vitamins and minerals that have been found safe and effective and are in no way associated with abortion. And ivermectin is not to my knowledge associated with it either.
Also, aapsonline dot (org?) or dot (com?) – can’t recall off top of my head. They have a PDF file you can download with prevention and early treatment options as well.
Thank you, Amy, for providing those resources. It is not easy to find whether or not specific medications are morally acceptable. I am currently interested in knowing more about Fluvoxamine as a Covid therapeutic and the Walter Reed SpFN vaccine currently being tested. I am grateful for the work of the Children of God website.
Joan, the spike ferritin vaccine developed at Walter Reed was developed using aborted fetal cell lines and it is almost certain that the cell lines will be used in its production.
I wish that a law could be passed that would require the patient to be informed, as part of informed consent, if fetal cells have been used in the development or testing of a product. Are you aware of any efforts to push such legislation? If would be extremely difficult for anyone outside of a manufacturer’s company to research and determine this for all of the medical products available. But, shouldn’t individual manufacturers be able to provide that information on their own products?
Thank you for the very important informative work that you do at COGforLife.
Alice, I think you are very much on the right track. There is opportunity to strengthen informed consent and a labeling/patient information law clearly indicating the use of aborted fetal tissue or cell lines in the research, development, testing and production of medications would do much to change things. If this information were easily discoverable by consumers, pharmaceutical companies would see an almost immediate shift in market behaviors.
Here comes 2022. Sounds like an opportunity to do some things differently!
After years of taking the flu vaccine, I felt betrayed when I realized that I had no idea if they were morally compromised.. A doctor would unlikely to know either. So, I have adopted the stance that I will assume any vaccine is not moral, unless I learn otherwise.
If the patient were required to be informed, then I am not sure how that would affect the number of patients that would refuse a vaccine. People like me, would now accept the ethical ones, rather that do a blanket rejection of the vaccines. But, it may also cause more people to reject it, having learned that it was immorally created for the first time.
I don’t know how the drug manufacturers would respond. They may not care about the patients that don’t agree with their immorality. But since they don’t make this information easy to find, they perhaps do care what the patients think of it. And they may be motivated to stop the practice.
Joe, the flu shots traditionally have been grown in avian cells – chicken eggs, for the most part. Manufacturers have been developing alternatives to better isolate themselves from chicken egg supply constraints. Insect cell lines and canine cell lines have been tested and approved. Here’s a link to the current season’s flu shots, and all are cultured in avian, canine or insect cells. Flu shot information is about two-thirds of the way down the page. I hope you find this information useful.
Praise God! We have a new tool in our toolbox of Covid-19 therapeutics. The Lancet has published a brand new study (Jan. 2022) with details on the use of Fluvoxamine: “Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation.” It is known to be safe and very inexpensive. Best of all, I found out from one of the authors, Professor Lenze, M.D, that the drug has no association with aborted human fetal cells (neither in development, production or testing.) He said the drug was synthesized the old-fashioned way! For that I am grateful to the Lord. There is something to be said about producing medicines as they once were without experimental use of God’s preborn babies.
Joan,
Fluvoxamine is an SSRI, among the first developed and brought to market. It was developed and is used to treat psychiatric conditions, most commonly obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression. It is off-patent and inexpensive, as you say.
Fluvoxamine may very well have something to offer as far as a recuperative treatment for COVID-19 but I don’t think it will be available as a treatment any time soon. The Lancet article was published over two months ago and there is nothing pending before the FDA for an authorization. It may be authorized for use in the EU but that does not affect its use here in the U.S.
Why? You correctly mentioned that fluvoxamine is inexpensive. Just like ivermectin and HCQ. It is off-patent. It does not fit with the predetermined approach – new drug development (‘vaccines’ and monoclonal antibodies), lots of federal cash, the alphabet soup agencies involved in the development process. This is pure speculation on my part, but fluvoxamine will end up in the same basket as ivermectin and HCQ.
Here’s a link to the FDA/NIH guidelines page for fluvoxamine: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/immunomodulators/fluvoxamine/
‘Insufficient evidence . . .’ Just like their take on ivermectin and HCQ.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/96431
Thank you for your research and info on the ethical status of the treatments. I’m thinking that should I test positive for covid I could share with my physician ,that the diagnosis is depressing and he could prescribe fluvoxamine with an approved code for usage.
Whatever it takes! Improvise, overcome, adapt . . .
Is anyone familiar with Tollovid? I’ve been reading that it’s a stronger alternative to Ivermectin and no prescription is required. I’ve been taking Ivermectin as an alternate to vaccination. For me, the cost looks to be the same.
Does Corbevax use fetal cells in its development, testing, or quality control?
Corbevax was ethically researched, developed and tested. It is produced ethically as well. The manufacturer has not initiated trials in the U.S. and it does not appear that they plan to do so.
Thank you for your reply. I was hoping that, since it is from Texas, there might be hope.
I’ve got covid, they say, but am being asked to take paxlovid; will this clear up? why shouldnt I?
Mix, we cannot give medical advice. We are not medical doctors. If you are concerned about the ethics of Paxlovid, this drug’s development was ethically compromised. Only you can decide if taking this antiviral is the right thing for you. Please consult with your doctor on the medical questions and we’re happy to assist you with information that may help you determine a prudent course of action for you.
I have just recovered from omicron, and found that the FLCCC Alliance protocols were easy to follow, and kept my symptoms in check, while allowing me to follow my conscience, and refuse the jab and the tainted anti-virals.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/
I have Covid and my doctor has prescribed Paxlovid. I read that the development was compromised, but does the actual medication itself contain fetal cells? Does the Catholic Church give guidelines in using products like this?
Andrea, Paxlovid does not contain fetal cells. Aborted fetal cell lines were used in preclinical testing and were an essential component of the drug’s development.
Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate your help and all the great work you do.
God bless you all,
Andrea