Posted on 06/27/2013 5:22:04 PM PDT by neverdem
In 1962, Leonard Hayflick created a cell strain from an aborted fetus. More than 50 years later, WI-38 remains a crucial, but controversial, source of cells.
The woman was four months pregnant, but she didn't want another child. In 1962, at a hospital in Sweden, she had a legal abortion...
--snip--
“Other vaccines are produced in a completely morally non-objectionable way. So why aren't we doing this with all vaccines?” says Debi Vinnedge, the executive director of Children of God for Life, a group based in Largo, Florida, that opposes the use of WI-38 in vaccine-making. In 2003, Vinnedge wrote to the Vatican asking for an official position on whether Catholics could ethically receive vaccines made using cells from aborted fetuses. She waited two years for an answer. The letter, when it came, concluded that where no alternative exists, it is “lawful” for parents to have their children immunized with vaccines made using WI-38 and MRC-5, to avoid serious risk to their own offspring and to the population as a whole.
Still, the Vatican wrote, faithful Catholics should “employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries” that use such cells. Merck, a major producer of Plotkin's rubella vaccine, has been a perennial target of abortion opponents, who have pressed the issue at Merck's US shareholder meetings. (Merck said in a statement to Nature that “it would be exceedingly difficult, if at all possible, to develop and test an alternative”, and emphasized the vaccine's long record of safety and effectiveness.) The irony of the protest is not lost on Plotkin. “I am fond of saying that rubella vaccine has prevented thousands more abortions than have ever been prevented by Catholic religionists,” he says.
Profits from Merck's rubella vaccine represent a big slice of the billions...
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Checking on Wadman’s background reveals obvious liberal indoctrination.
Just another trash piece that attempts to defend the abortion industry. It’s only been a few weeks since the horrors of the blacked out Gosnell murders crossed the media’s radar for a fraction of a media time unit. And here we have a liberal reporter advocating cutting up baby parts to ensure supply of life-saving vaccines replete with so-called approvals of the Catholic Church.
The lung cells used in her writeup could easily have come from a biopsy of an adult or from a person who donated their body to science. The cells are treated to undergo cell division which entails a very small sample to start. The divided cells and are then used for vaccine research.
Why defend the murder of babies when there are plenty of adult donors?
That question never crossed this morally repugnant writer’s mind or conscience.
I never heard a word about this stuff in medical school.
She’s talking about a technique used about 50 years ago. Cell tech has come a very long way since. As a periodical ‘Nature’ should be taken to the woodshed over paying a liberal reporter to advocate cutting up babies for parts. At a minimum their NIH funding support should be reviewed.
I think the piece is the beginning of an orchestrated damage control and persuasion campaign to get back the support of women who may have seen the horrors of the Gosnell trial.
Thanks for the link.
Murder can never be legal. The irony in liberalism is that it always works to harm the most harmless, the innocent and the weak.
There is part of this child that they have keeping alive for over 50 years?
Her cells are being kept alive? Sick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.