There is a case being litigated that brings the issue of coercively questioning employees about their medications before a court of law. This all started with a blog post by Fr. Matthew Schneider, “If Any Drug Tested on HEK-293 Is Immoral, Goodbye Modern Medicine.” The following is a version of an exhibit prepared in support of plaintiffs’ counsel. A number of readers requested access to this summary, and I have decided to post it, but any specifics associated with the case being litigated cannot be disclosed.
I wish to call attention to a comment made in the preface of the summary, mentioning the real and very serious impacts this whole issue has had on many individuals and families. We hear the stories every day. Lives have been turned upside-down, careers have been ended, jobs have been lost, families have had to deal with inability to pay the rent or the mortgage, educations have been suspended, grandparents have gone isolated. I wonder if the people involved, particularly Fr. Schneider and those who use his list, realize the very real consequences and damage that has been done to people of faith, conscience, and good will. We have fought on behalf of these people, not because we sought after it but because they contact us in panic and despair, and thankfully, we have prevailed almost every time. Like many, I have often questioned the motive of those who resort to coercion to enforce vaccine mandates. It seems evil.
Here is the summary and list I compiled and submitted.
Examination of the Conway Regional Health System/Fr. Matthew Schneider List of Medications: Discovery, Origins and Development
Preface
The origin of this list dates back to a blog post written by Fr. Matthew Schneider in January of 2021. The post originally appeared on his personal blog, linked to here: “If Any Drug Tested on HEK-293 Is Immoral, Goodbye Modern Medicine.”
The blog post was not immediately notorious, as personal blogs tend to have limited reach and readership. The post was brought to my attention several months later, framed in the context of the broader COVID-19 vaccine debates. Fr. Schneider’s intent was to point out hypocrisy and inconsistency on the part of those that took an absolute position on the question of morality, of the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the foundational research, development, and testing of the three authorized COVID-19 vaccines. A statement of equivalence was made, that a great many prescription and OTC medications in common use were tested using aborted fetal cell lines in the same manner as the three authorized COVID-19 vaccines.
The research and development teams for the individual vaccine candidates all leveraged a common body of work funded by the National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that being the foundational research leading to the synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 subunit spike proteins.[1] This body of work employed aborted fetal cell lines, specifically FreeStyle 293 (trade name for HEK-293), as an expression medium for the subunit proteins.
Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer all referenced this work in the subsequent development of their vaccine candidates. Beyond that, all three companies used aborted fetal cell lines as expression media for development and testing purposes.[2] This is not disputable as the specific applications are documented in the scientific literature.
A thorough review of the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the research, development and testing of the three authorized (and one approved) vaccine leads one to conclude that these vaccines would not exist but for the use of aborted fetal cell lines.
This establishes the foundation upon which one evaluates the statement of equivalence. I did so in May of 2021 in the following article, posted on the Children of God for Life, Inc., website: “Let’s Get a Few Things Cleared Up: Testing, Cell Lines, and Fetal Tissue.”
The commentary did not originally include a summary of the underlying research. The research summary for the fourteen medications selected from the list was subsequently posted on the Children of God for Life, Inc., website in September of 2021 in response to requests from readership. The summary, combined with additional research, follows these prefacing comments.
The general argument and a good portion of the list of medications presented by Fr. Matthew Schneider was used by Conway Regional Health System, a hospital in Conway, Arkansas, as a means to pressure and further burden employees seeking religious exemptions from vaccine mandates. This approach has since been adopted by many other organizations and one may conclude that the reason for this adoption is the same, to further pressure and burden individuals seeking reasonable accommodation for their sincerely held religious beliefs, claiming relief from mandatory vaccine policies. I offer these observations from an authoritative and credible position, having personally counseled many hundreds of individuals seeking religious exemptions from these mandates and having seen the exact same list used by many organizations, among them federal contractors, government employers at the local/state/federal level and employers in the private sector. This argument and general line of thought has caused a great many people of faith and good will a great deal of stress and upheaval in their lives, at times leading to the loss of careers, the indefinite suspension of education and anguish over how to provide for their families.
In the pages that follow, it is quite clear that the origins of most of the listed medications pre-date the availability of aborted fetal cell lines and cell strains. HEK-293, the most commonly used of the aborted fetal cell lines, was deposited in 1973 and was made available to the medical research community in 1977. It would be impossible for any drug developed before 1977 to satisfy the statement of equivalence presented by Fr. Matthew Schneider and subsequently extended by Conway Regional Health System and other organizations.
That aborted fetal cell lines are liberally used in medical research is absolutely true. Indeed, some of the listed medications have been involved with research and/or testing with aborted fetal cell lines subsequent to their development and being brought to market but many of these applications have been indirect, in that the applications had nothing to do with the integrity and formulation of the drug in question and had no bearing on the drug’s formulation and manufacture. A review of the references cited in Fr. Schneider’s blog post and the following references will reveal this.
I am available to discuss the details associated with the summary materials presented herein and the contact information follows.
Prepared by:
Jose L. Trasancos, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer, Chairman
Children of God for life, Inc.
jose@cogforlife.org
References
[1] Wrapp, et al, Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation, Science, 13 Mar 2020, Vol 367, Issue 6483, pp. 1260-1263, link: Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation.
[2] Individual publications linked here: COVID-19 Guidance.
Research Summary
HEK-293 was first available to researchers in 1977, long after many of these products were developed. Their development could not have depended on the use of HEK-293. Four of the 33 listed medications, all four being vaccines whose development history was already well-known, were developed using aborted fetal cell lines or strains (12.1% of the total number of drugs). Note: Tylenol Cold & Flu is a combination of four medications, two of which are documented elsewhere in this summary.
Hydroxychloroquine was first approved for medical use in the U.S. in 1955.
Ivermectin‘s discovery and development used broad animal trials. Ref: Pesticide Synthesis Through Rational Approaches (acs.org).
Albuterol (Ventolin) was discovered in 1966 and marketed in the UK as Ventolin in 1969. Ref: Landau R (1999). Pharmaceutical innovation: revolutionizing human health. Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Press. p. 226.; Fischer, Jnos; Ganellin, C. Robin (2006). Analogue-based Drug Discovery. John Wiley & Sons. p. 321.
Aspirin was first discovered in 1853. A U.S. patent was awarded to Bayer in 1900. Ref: Aspirin – Wikipedia. The first reference given by Fr. Schneider 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 are the relevant details of the paper: 1) None of the authors had any affiliation to a pharmaceutical manufacturer, nor was the research funded by 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. The second reference from Fr. Schneider has nothing to do with aspirin. 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. It is important to note that salicylates are naturally occurring. Salicylic acid is treated with acetic anhydride, turning salicylic acid’s hydroxyl group into an ester group. That, then is aspirin. Salicylic acid and acetylsalicylic acid are not the same, chemically or therapeutically. Last, this research was undertaken by the Boyce Thompson Institute, an independent research lab at Cornell University. The research was not done on behalf of any pharmaceutical manufacturer.
Lidocaine was discovered in 1946 and brought to market in 1948. Ref: Scriabine, Alexander (1999). “Discovery and development of major drugs currently in use.” In Ralph Landau; Basil Achilladelis; Alexander Scriabine (eds.). Pharmaceutical Innovation: Revolutionizing Human Health. Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Press. p. 211.
Metformin was discovered in 1922 and first marketed in France in 1957. Ref: Fischer J (2010). Analogue-based Drug Discovery II. John Wiley & Sons. p. 49.
Metoprolol was first developed in 1969 and patented in 1970. Ref: Fischer, Jnos; Ganellin, C. Robin (2006). Analogue-based Drug Discovery. John Wiley & Sons. p. 461.
Tums is nothing more than calcium carbonate and sugar. It was developed in 1928 by James Harvey Howe, in the basement of his house and first produced for sale in 1930 by the Lewis Howe Company. Ref: Tums – Wikipedia. The two papers cited by Fr. Schneider have nothing to do with Tums, antacids or any other kind of commercial medication. The subject of both papers is the exploration of nano-structured calcium carbonate and other compounds as part of gene insertion techniques. What was presented as evidence for Tums was not even remotely related to the claim.
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) has some disagreement as to the date of discovery, but the general consensus is 1877. Ref: Morse, H.N. (1878). “Ueber eine neue Darstellungsmethode der Acetylamidophenole” [On a new method of preparing acetylamidophenol]. Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft (in German). 11 (1): 232–233.
Ibuprofen was discovered in 1961 and first marketed in the UK in 1969. Ref: Halford GM, Lordkipanidzé M, Watson SP (2012). “50th anniversary of the discovery of ibuprofen: an interview with Dr Stewart Adams – PubMed (nih.gov).” Platelets. 23 (6): 415–422.
Dextromethorphan was patented in 1949 and approved for medical use in 1953. Ref: Fischer, Jnos; Ganellin, C. Robin (2006). Analogue-based Drug Discovery. John Wiley & Sons. p. 527.
Pepto Bismol was first sold in 1900 as Bismosal. Renamed Pepto-Bismol in 1919. Ref: Bismuth subsalicylate – Wikipedia.
Maalox was first produced commercially in 1949. Ref: Maalox – Wikipedia.
Pseudoephedrine was discovered 1889, most OTCs with pseudoephedrine content pre-date the advent of fetal cell lines. Ref: Ladenburg, A.; Oelschlägel, C. (1889). “Ueber das “Pseudo-Ephedrin” [On pseudo-ephedrine]. Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft (in German).
Ex-Lax and Senokot both have an active ingredient, senna glycoside (Lexicomp Online, Lexi Drugs Online, Hudson, Ohio: Lexi-Comp, Inc.; April 17, 2014). As senna glycoside breaks down in the lower GI, the products of this breakdown are a direct irritant to the lining of colonic wall, thus inducing fluid secretion (Sharkey KA, Wallace JL (2011). “Chapter 46. Treatment of Disorders of Bowel Motility and Water Flux; Anti-Emetics; Agents Used in Biliary and Pancreatic Disease.” In Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollmann BC (eds). Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. New York, NY (12th ed). Therapeutic use of senna is centuries-old. Ex-Lax was first produced commercially in 1906, having been ‘invented’ by Max Kiss, his contribution being to combine the active ingredient with chocolate (Building of the Day: 423-443 Atlantic Avenue | Brownstoner). Senokot, with the same active ingredient, was first produced with standardized senna in the mid-20th century (The Story of Senokot Products – Medications – Medical Brand Names).
Motrin is a trade name for ibuprofen. See ibuprofen, above.
Zostavax: FDA approved in 2006, developed and submitted by Merck & Co (Mitka M (July 2006). “FDA approves shingles vaccine: herpes zoster vaccine targets older adults.” JAMA. 296 (2): 157–8. doi:10.1001/jama.296.2.157. PMID 16835412). MRC.5 fetal cell lines were used in its development and manufacture. Merck & Co. pulled Zostavax from the market in May of 2020 and it is no longer available in the United States.
Benadryl (diphenhydramine) was discovered in 1943 by Dr. George Rieveschl at the University of Cincinnati, approved and licensed by the FDA in 1946. Sneader, Walter, John Wiley & Sons 2005, p.405-406. Ref. See PowerPoint presentation by Adam Nasir and Corrigan Hortan.
Sudafed is a trade name for pseudoephedrine. See pseudoephedrine, above.
Preparation H originated as a sunburn ointment and was acquired by American Home Products, Inc., in 1935.
Enbrel (etanercept) was first developed by Dr. Bruce Beutler, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, with the first patent related to etanercept filed in 1989. Development employed HL60 cell lines (adult human myeloid leukemia), CHO cell lines (Chinese Hamster Ovary) and SK MEL-109 cell lines (adult human skin melanoma). No fetal cell lines were used in the research and development processes. Ref: Peppel, Beutler, et al., Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1991 Dec 1; 174(6): 1483–1489.
The first patent application, filed in September of 1989 (application US40324189A) by Dr. Beutler and his research team, was approved in August of 1995. Immunex Corporation entered into a financial agreement with Dr. Beutler and the Board of Regents of the University of Texas to buy the rights and license the patent to etanercept in September of 1998. This began what many consider to be the first “Patent Thicket” ever used to extend the earnings potential of a patent drug, involving 47 patents from the first approval in 1995 through 2019.
Immunex filed subsequent patents, one of them coincident with the purchase and licensing from Dr. Beutler, et al. and the UT Board of Regents in which they describe the production process of etanercept (soon to be Enbrel), and this production process made use of the WI-26 fetal cell strain as an expression medium. Amgen acquired Immunex in 2002, along with all patents and rights associated with Enbrel (etanercept).
Historical note: Dr. Bruce Beutler was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2011 for his discoveries related to etanercept.
MMR Vaccine (Priorix) has long been known to be grown in fetal cell lines. WI-38 and MRC-5 aborted fetal cell lines and the RA27-3 rubella viral strain were employed in the development and production of the Priorix vaccine, which was approved by the FDA and licensed since May 2008.
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) See Tylenol.
Claritin (loratadine) was discovered by Dr. Frank Villani and Dr. Charles Magatti in 1976, working at a Schering AG facility in Italy. No aborted fetal cell lines were used in the research or development of loratadine. Ref: “Blockbuster Drugs: The Rise and Fall of the Pharmaceutical Industry.”.
Zoloft (sertraline) was discovered by Dr. William Welch in 1977, working in Pfizer’s research labs. Sertraline was developed and tested using in vitro and in vivo rat models. Homogenated rat liver and brain tissue media were used. No aborted fetal cell lines or strains were used in the research and development of sertraline. Ref: Welch, W., Discovery and Pre-Clinical Development of the Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Sertraline, Advances in Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 3, pages 113—148, 1995 JAI Press Inc.
Azithromycin was discovered in 1980 in Croatia by a team from Pliva Pharmaceuticals, headed by Slobodan Đokić. This antibiotic was developed and tested using an array of different bacterial cultures, which is typical for antibiotics. Azithromycin was synthesized from a series of chemical modifications to erythromycin. Ref: “The Story of Azithromycin”.
Pfizer negotiated the U.S. patent rights with Pliva Pharmaceuticals. Ref: U.S. Patent Number US4517359A.
Varilrix was developed in 1981, approved and licensed for use in 1984. This vaccine is grown in the WI-38 fetal cell strain.
Havrix was approved and licensed for use in 1985 (manufacturer Glaxo SmithKline). Havrix is a trade name for a Hep-A vaccine with several other trade names from other manufacturers using similar formulations in the market. This specific formulation is grown in MRC-5 aborted fetal cell strains.
Prilosec and Prilosec OTC (omeprazole) is a proton pump inhibitor. This drug’s mechanism of action is external to the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract. This drug, and many that share its mechanism of action, were developed and tested using simulated gastric fluids in vitro. No fetal cell lines or cell strains were used in the drug’s discovery or development. Ref: U.S. Patent US20040248942A1.
Simvastatin (Zocor) is summarized in an excerpt from U.S. Patent US10793884B2: “Lovastatin” (Mevacor) is a fungal polyketide produced by Aspergillus terreus (see, e.g., A. W. Alberts, J. et. al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 1980, 77, 3957-3961 and A. Endo, J. Antibiot. 1980, 33, 334-336; and J. K. Chan, et. al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 3334-3336; Y. Yoshizawa, et. al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 2693-2694). Simvastatin was developed using generally similar bacterial fermentation techniques but employed e. Coli strains to produce the polyketides. No aborted fetal cell lines or strains were employed in the research and development of Simvastatin. Ref: U.S. Patent US10793884B2.
Lipitor (atorvastatin) is a synthetic statin compound, first made in 1985. In vitro testing during development employed rat models (homogenated rat livers). No fetal cell lines or strains were employed during research and development. Refs: Roth BD (2002). “The discovery and development of atorvastatin, a potent novel hypolipidemic agent.” Progress in Medicinal Chemistry. 40. pp. 1–22.; U.S. Patent US5686104A.
Tylenol Cold and Flu has the following ingredients: Acetaminophen, dextromethorphan (cough suppressant), phenylephrine (decongestant) and guaifenesin (expectorant). Guaifenesin has been in medical use since 1933, phenylephrine since 1938, and dextromethorphan since 1953. All of the ingredients in this preparation pre-date aborted fetal cell lines and cell strains by decades. Development and testing of the ingredients could not have employed aborted fetal cell lines or strains. Refs: Morris H, Wallach J (2014). “From PCP to MXE: a comprehensive review of the non-medical use of dissociative drugs“, Drug Testing and Analysis. 6 (7–8): 614–32. (dextromethorphan), Fischer J, Ganellin CR (2006). Analogue-based Drug Discovery, John Wiley & Sons. p. 541. (phenylephrine), Riviere JE, Papich MG (2013). Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, John Wiley & Sons. p. 287 (guaifenesin).
Great clarification. The use still lends confidence to the ethic of employing such as illicit materials at all. They are immoral. Regardless. Liken it to money from the mob.
I need no convincing. At some point, one must question the value of incremental knowledge, because knowing all is impossible and one need not know everything in order to act properly and prudently. I have been saying for some time, it is the PRACTICE, not the PRODUCT. We can continue to chase every little detail but we must realize that there is no end to that road. At the end, we will have accumulated vast information and done nothing with it.
Great words of wisdom. Thanks so much for all of this research and truth you are distributing. Its always refreshing to see the truth come to the light!
“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
John 1:5
Thank you for this. Your timing is providential. I just received a request for resources to assist an individual at risk of losing his job over an onerous (seemingly designed to deny) religious exemption process. Your summary and research should be of great benefit.
God Bless,
Burton Burkholder
The “Catholic Answers” magazine, in their NOV-DEC 2021 issue, had a response to a letter in which they (Catholic Answers, not the letter) gave the “but these other products were tested on aborted fetal cell lines and so you’re a hypocrite if you refuse an abortion tainted COVID-19 vaccine but not these products” argument. When I responded why that was wrong (referring to the work of Dr. J. Trasancos), I was told that some of the post-market immoral tests were to see if the product caused some bad problem (eg. heart problems, or vision problems) and presumably if the test failed, that the drug would’ve been pulled from the market. So, post-market immoral testing can be just as important to the availability of a drug as pre-market testing.
Although that is a good point, it’s also possible, as I pointed out, that the government would just slap a warning label on the drug. Also, the post they gave me for their information didn’t really uphold their supposition that the drugs would’ve been pulled from the market if they had failed these post-market tests. It was all a bunch of maybes.
“Catholic Answers” said they got a lot of feedback similar to mine, and would be doing a follow-up in a future issue. I hope they get Dr. J. Trasancos involved (not that I want him to be busier, but I do want the good doctor’s research to get a wider audience).
Laura,
That ‘post-market testing’ is purely speculative on the part of the editor. I urge you to read the article I link below written by a medical doctor. Dr. Paul Casey does an outstanding job of defining the line between pure research techniques and medical testing. He further asserts that once a drug has been approved and licensed, it is not subject to re-testing. The Catholic Answers position deals with something that would be identified in clinical trials and would then be known as part of the application process for approval, if applicable.
Dr. Casey’s article is definitely worth reading. It covers a lot of material, but it is well-organized, well written and very informative.
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2021/12/09/the-everything-was-tested-on-hek-lie/
I just read that the FDA granted authorization to AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a monoclonal antibody treatment for the prevention of COVID-19 on people who are immunocompromised and those who are allergic to the vaccine. Any news on whether that treatment has employed the use of fetal cells in its development or not?
I researched this earlier this morning and found that Expi-293 cell lines were used to serially evaluate the mAb combination on several mAb-resistant mutations.
I’ve never heard of that cell line, but I gather it’s another cell line from an aborted child? Are there any adult cell lines for testing purposes, or are they all from abortion?
Kelly, Expi-293 is a trade name associated with a version of HEK-293. There are THOUSANDS of cell lines available to researchers. As of the Summer of 2021 (last I checked the database), there are 1,559 aborted fetal cell lines in the biologics catalog and a larger number of adult cell lines.
Any more monoclonal antibody treatments currently available that are NOT derived from fetal tissue cell lines?
Check our FAQ page. There is one mAb that is ethically derived.
Thank you very much for your thorough research in this important field.
One comment: is it possible to change the references to Wikipedia pages and replace them with the original sources? Wikipedia is widely scoffed at in academic circles and I don’t want your credibility diminished in any way.
Pablo, thank you for your concern, but I’m not worried about it. We should be concerned with the reliability of the content, not the trappings of the source. For the nature of the information cited, Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable source and I’ll bet a cookie or two that most who publicly scoff at Wikipedia are frequent users themselves.
I’ve spent a goodly amount of time among academics and scoffing is a core competency among many of them. A scoff or sneer cannot make false something that is true.
I think the premise, that failing to do something with absolute consistency based on some particular outside standard makes one a “hypocrite”, is wrong. We are always to judge our own particular circumstances as well, in order to be prudent. Subsidiarity. These folks charging hypocrisy are being obtuse. I can in fact be selective about the kinds of actions I choose, while generally opposing the injustice. The real problem is that others are refusing to acknowledge that individuals should be able to discern their particular situation and conscience, preferring to act as controllers who dictate their standards and enforce them on others without regard to their circumstances and conscience. There is no problem of “hypocrisy” in being selective over which medicines I feel I wish to use or refuse and the particular reasons. Even the moral arguments laid out in the 2005 PAL letter to Mrs Vinnedge, acknowledge that people may choose or not choose certain courses of action based on their own particulars, while being opposed to the injustice involved. Would we demand absolute consistency to other’s standards on issues of child labor or racism? If we did a whole lot of people would have some explaining to do.
This discussion points out the need for the Human Cell Product Labeling Act, see it on American Life League’s website at: https://all.org/human-cell-product-labeling-act/
Similar labeling of products for cancer causing materials is mandated by California’s Prop 65 and thus shows up on products sold in other states as well since the manufacturers are apparently not making a special packaging just for California. Thus, the proposed Act above need not be passed by every state in order to bear fruit nationwide. Even if it were just passed in one state, the information required by the Act would expose product origins to people across the country. The language of the proposed Act above actually lifts some language directly from Prop 65 sections 25249.6-7. Notice also the enforcement mechanism, it is similar to that of the new Texas abortion law in that a violator is subject to a civil lawsuit.
Has there been any successful cases of someone getting the exemption in the Military? I have a friend who applied but effectively they are refusing to process his paperwork and tell him he has to comply or else.
Caleb, that appears to be the approach being applied in all branches of military service. I have heard from several sources that the ‘slow walk’ and avoidance are the tools of choice. A decision to evade the problem is the decision of cowards . . .
I have a son in the USAF who tested positive twice with COVID-19; probably had it once, the time he lost taste and smell and had cold and cough for a few days.
The USAF, in my son’s situation, are walking the ball slowly for separation. He submitted a religious exemption and is awaiting word. He is a great patriotic American, an excellent Airman, and a unabashed Christian who offered his very life at a time that China is preparing to strike us hard.
The military leadership, some are pathetically “woke”, but some must be wondering why they are gutting their military readiness this way? Insanity or pre-meditated treason…
Erik, I’m personally saddened to hear this story. When I served, officers actively avoided political influence and focused on mission. Times are so different now, and not in a good way. Please convey my heartfelt appreciation to Airman Rivers for having the proper sense of duty, his true patriotism and the fortitude to stand up for what is right.
Thank you for your kind words Dr. Trasancos, and thank you for all that you and your team at C of G For Life do.
I don’t want to even support thr company that uses HEK293 to develop their products, and since nearly all brands are now owned by just a few huge corporations, I cannot see how we can use any of their products. For example, my Seventh Generation spray I found is actually owned by Unilever. Searched patents and found 13 hits for Unilever. Some of the patents seems to have to do with hair care products. How can we support these companies anymore? Time to come out of Babylon completely.
Good day,
My question is regarding Enbrel.
It is my understanding that fetal cell lines are used to produce it.
I stopped using it, but not without personal consequences.
Thoughts?
Norma,
Yes, the production process for Enbrel makes use of aborted fetal cell strains, in this case WI-26. From the exhibit above:
Immunex filed subsequent patents, one of them coincident with the purchase and licensing from Dr. Beutler, et al. and the UT Board of Regents in which they describe the production process of etanercept (soon to be Enbrel), and this production process made use of the WI-26 fetal cell strain as an expression medium. Amgen acquired Immunex in 2002, along with all patents and rights associated with Enbrel (etanercept).
Hello, i am in great distress: I have high blood pressure and until a few months ago I was taking candesartan. But when I found out that it is tested, like all sartans, on HEK293 cells, I switched to a supplement but it is not very effective and I often feel sick. Do you guys know if there is an ethical medication for hypertension that I can get prescribed?
Thank you for now.
Paola,
Metropolol is a beta blocker that has been used for decades to control high blood pressure. It was developed, patented and licensed before the advent of aborted fetal cell lines.
Candesartan (TCV-116) is an exception to your statement. It was developed ethically, using rodent models in development and testing. Here’s link to the relevant paper.
I am very grateful to you for this valuable information. God bless you!
Can you tell me if ROSUVASTATIN Calcium (CRESTOR) used the fetal cell lines or is this a statin like Lipitor (atorvastatin) which is a synthetic statin compound, first made in 1985. In vitro testing during development employed rat models (homogenated rat livers). No fetal cell lines or strains were employed during research and development. Thank you!
Robert, Rosuvastatin is a synthetic analogue with a development history very much like atorvastatin. Rodent in vitro models were used in its development as well.
So no aborted fetal cells HEK-293 used in origin devlopment. This is very good news! Do you have a medical link that you can pout me to for this info? Thank you and may the Lord bless you and the Children of God.