So, I have a question which may sound snarky, but isn’t meant that way.
Are these vaccines using a fetal cell line, which is derived originally from fetuses and propagated, or do they need a continual supply of new cells?
Some would say that it doesn’t matter, the source is the original sin. Others might see a difference.
This is a technical question, not a religious or political one.
Not sure. There are some resources that suggest there is a continual supply of fetal stem cells from the abortion industry to the vaccine industry
The article says it’s from the stem cell line, which means that they’re propagating cells from a pre-existing line, not directly from an aborted child.
But the line can still be traced back to a child.
I’m not at all fond of this, and I don’t think they should be able to use these stem cell lines (lots of other sources of stem cells at this point) but as to whether it will stop me from getting the vaccine...probably not, as I take care of two high risk parents.
If I had to take a stab at a reason, it would be that when you introduce new cells and cell lines into the mix, you are adding a new variable to the equation, which science tries to reduce, so that you can get closer to cause and effect. However, they may try to compare a new cell line to an older one and see what the difference is when it comes to producing vaccines.
The former.
The OP is incorrect in saying "all". The Sanofi-Pasteur vaccine is made in insect cell lines (fall armyworm, to be specific), not with human fetal cell lines. (They've used that tech to make a flu vaccine already.) Here's hoping it works.