Aborted Fetal Tissue in Vaccines

The Vaccine Controversy has been going on for some time now, and Christian parents often wonder what is right. They hear debates and arguments for and against vaccines, but they don't know what is best for their children. However, few people are aware of one of the most important aspects: the use of aborted fetal tissue in many of the vaccines. Chickenpox, Hepatitis A, Rubella, Measles/Mumps/Rubella, Polio, Rabies, Shingles, Smallpox, Flu, Swine Flu, and HIV are just a few. This branch of ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) has long been kept from the public eye since as early as 1959. A coalition of Doctors from Karolinska Institute of Stockholm, Sweden; Wistar Institute, which performs research for the University of Pennsylvania; and Merck Research Institute which manufactures most of the immunizations for the US, conducted the first research using aborted fetal tissue. Their claim was that they were trying to find a safe culture for growing the needed viruses for vaccines that would possibly cause them to be more effective. The rubella outbreak in 1964 proved to be an open door of opportunity for testing the effectiveness of their immunizations. The hastily formulated rubella vaccine was first tested on Pennsylvanian orphans, and then sold to doctors' offices for the general public. It wasn't long before other unethical specimens entered the market without the public's knowledge. Some questions arise. First, was there a need for new vaccines? And are these vaccines safer, as was asserted? To answer this, let's examine the rubella vaccine; when the first one tainted with aborted fetal cells was introduced, there already were two preexisting rubella vaccines made from animal cells that worked just as well as the newer one. Also, if there were a reason for a new injection, adult stem cells could have been used. Also, the Japanese formulated their injection by swabbing the throat of an infected child and developing the culture in rabbit tissue. As far as safety goes, rubella itself is quite harmless. In fact, the New England Medical Journal states, "In children and adults, rubella is usually mild and may even go unnoticed. Children generally have few symptoms, but adults may experience fever, headache, malaise, and a runny nose before the rash appears…Lifelong immunity to the disease follows infection." The only danger involves a baby whose mother contracts the disease in her first trimester of pregnancy, and the baby could develop CRS, Congenital Rubella Syndrome, which may cause deafness, heart problems, mental retardation, and liver damage. Because of this, some say that the immunization is necessary for the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn babies. However, cases of CRS are rare; in fact, in the year 2004, there were no recorded cases. Currently, doctors test a mother for rubella during her first office visit, and, if she tests positive, a series of antibodies are given to her, so the child is in no endangerment. The real hazard is the vaccine itself. Merck, the manufacturer, includes a product insert that warns of side effects which include: encephalitis, pneumonitis, pancreatitis, diarrhea, vomiting, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, purpura, leukocytosis, myalgia, chronic arthritis, febrile convulsions, seizures, aseptic meningitis, nerve deafness, and death among several others[i]. It seems as though this injection is unsafe and evidently unnecessary. The chickenpox vaccine is another good example. Those who have had chickenpox will most likely agree that it, too, is mild, and hardly needs to be vaccinated against. Unfortunately, it is often required for public school attendance. Natural immunity to the illness by the age of nine is quite common, even if it is never contracted. Mothers who have had the illness pass on a temporary immunity to their newborns, especially if the child is breast-fed. Those who were vaccinated are more likely to suffer from shingles later in life, and are not actually immune to the disease. A day care facility in New Hampshire experienced a chickenpox outbreak when a vaccinated child infected a vaccinated sibling who in turn infected all vaccinated children in the day care. Only those who had actually had the illness before remained healthy[ii]. Again, the peril is in the vaccine, not the disease. A JAMA report warns of seizures, paralysis, and inflammation of the brain and spinal cord due to the immunization[iii]. Perhaps the most frightening aspect is where this could lead in the future. At one time it was believed that the original embryonic cell lines were "immortal" and no new tissue would be needed, but nothing could be further from the truth. Research has found that the cells live only as long as the approximate lifespan of the donor, causing them to have to be replaced. This could lead to an increase in abortions. The Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1955, stated, "[O]f the 122 women who indicated that they would consider an abortion if they were pregnant, (17.2%) stated that they would be more likely to have an abortion if they could donate tissue for fetal tissue transplants…[iv]" Some manufacturers are looking for fetuses that are at a gestational age at which the baby could still survive outside of its mother. Another major concern is the making of money from selling dismembered babies. According to some "sales lists", abortionists may charge $150.00 - $999.00 for a fetal brain. Some offer 30% off damaged tissue. New Zealand reports label fetuses "a sought-after product". Abortion clinics also charge extra fees for removing organs and such on site. Their cold approach to innocent human life is appalling. Government legislation and liberal organizations worsen the problem. Arizona's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decided that ending this research interfered with Roe v. Wade. New Jersey also allows cloned embryos to be implanted in a mother, but the fetus must be terminated before birth, allowing the tissue to be used for "science". Pro-Choice Resources Center, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Catholics For a Free Choice came together in 2003 to discuss how to eradicate the laws on the right of conscience. One participant stated, "No one has the right to commit malpractice. If we can establish that a standard of care is being violated, the public interest in patient health will clearly outweigh the sectarian hospitals' or insurers' right to limit care. Finding a better name than 'conscience clauses' should be a key part of that strategy." They also proposed that they join liberal movements on separation of church and state, religious freedom issues, and gay rights to help break down conscience laws. Parents and Christians must respond to such a heinous and deadly practice. It is important to alert doctors to this issue. One doctor said, "Most physicians are not aware of the source of the vaccines. I had to investigate the issue when one of my patients expressed concern. Only then did I learn this." A nurse in Virginia wrote, "I am dismayed to find that the vaccines I have trusted, received, and administered over the years were made from cell lines derived from aborted human fetuses. The use of these vaccines for my family, and my administration of them as a nurse, violates my religious beliefs as well as my personal sensibilities." Knowledgeable doctors should also alert parents. One physician stated, "At least 50% of the patients are shocked to find out the source of these vaccines, and I have had patients opt not to vaccinate their children on that basis alone." Thankfully, for parents who do want their children vaccinated there are ethical options for any vaccine (except chickenpox and rubella), and they may speak with their pediatrician and have them special ordered. As Christians, it is against God's Word to endorse such behavior that equates to murder and to put our own children at risk by giving them something so potentially harmful. For additional information, please visit Children of God for Life, at www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccinetruth.htm Sophie Koeppel lives in Wilson, WI. notes: i Merck Product Insert (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf) ii Dr. Jane Seward et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 12-16-01; Report: NH chickenpox outbreak iii JAMA REPORT 9-13-00, Vol. 384, No. 10, Pgs 1271-1279 iv Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995, 153: 545-552

Actually, most if not all of this research and vaccine production is done with embryos from fertility clinics.

Actually you are wrong Cold Heat; vaccines are not produced from discarded embryos from fertility clinics nor do as some have claimed, do vaccines contain fetal tissues. And not all vaccines are grown in the human cell lines and those that are grown in human cell lines, those cell lines came from two abortions that took place nearly 50 years ago.

Vaccines DO NOT Contain Fetal Tissue

Human Cell Strains in Vaccine Development

I am very much pro–life and I would very much like to see all vaccines, where ever possible, not grown in those two human cell lines that came as the result of those two abortions where ever more ethical alternatives are available. But it is a lie (or perhaps more of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the biology and science in immunology) to say that vaccinations require a steady supply of newly aborted babies in order to make them or that all vaccinations contain fetal tissues. Neither is factually true.

If not one abortion ever took place after the two that are used in developing the MRC-5 cell line (from an abortion that was performed in September, 1966) or the WI-38 cell line (from an abortion that was performed in July, 1962) the only two cell lines used in growing some vaccines, it would have made no difference in that no further abortions were or are necessary in order to grow those vaccines that use those two self promulgating cell lines. Those abortions took place and some 50 years later there is nothing we can do about that now, but although we can take a stand that abortion is morally and ethically wrong and that those abortions and no others should have ever taken place, we can perhaps see that those babies deaths were not in vain.

Children of God for Life undoubtedly have the best of intentions and they certainly have their heart in the right place but even if their intentions are good, they are promulgating some very bad and unscientific information. By scaring parents from getting their children immunized against dangerous, debilitating but yet very preventable diseases, they put many children at risk for unnecessary death or lifelong disability. It should also be mentioned that Measles is making a comeback because of the anti-vaccination crowd, whatever their intention and that Measles can and does cause spontaneous abortions and severe birth defects even in mothers who had either had Measles or had been vaccinated against it because the fetus, inutero has no defense against it. There are many other preventable and potentially deadly diseases that we have vaccinations for that are making a comeback because of third world unvaccinated populations streaming across our unprotected boarders and also in large part because of the anti-vaccination folks, some of them pro-lifers and some of them the Jenny McCarthy liberal types.

I am not and in no way trying to rationalize and I am in no way promoting abortion as a good thing nor am I defending the comments made by Cold Heat some of which I find odd if not offensive. And abortion is something that I think is the murder of an innocent human. But I am trying to promote the truth and facts as they are.

But if you get your children or yourself immunized against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, the MMR vaccine, or the Chicken Pox vaccine or any other vaccine, you are not and in no way contributing to or promoting further abortions and you may very well be saving your child from an unnecessary early death or helping to prevent the spread of those diseases from infecting the more vulnerable who are either too young to be vaccinated or have immune systems that make vaccinations not of use to them, or can’t get them or those who get vaccinated but haven’t had enough time to build up the necessary immunity.

I am pleading for some knowledge and education and some common sense in this discussion. I think, sadly that I am probably hoping for too much. Too many people have made up their minds and think/believe absent actual facts at hand that all vaccinations = aborted babies. Sadly some of the same people who grieve the unnecessary death of the unborn, seem to turn a blind eye to the unnecessary deaths of children who die unnecessarily from very preventable diseases.

Thanks for the ping, MD Expat.

This entire article is full of inaccuracies, if not outright lies. I am disappointed that a publication calling itself “A Conservative Newspaper Promoting, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” would publish such misleading and dangerous bilge.

Yes, it is true that many vaccines are produced using the aborted fetal cell lines. And it is highly unfortunate that those children (one little boy and one little girl) had to die in that brutal manner. However, no other children have to die to continue to use those cells, because the cell lines, like all established cell lines, are essentially immortal. There are, in fact, many other cell lines that would work equally well for the production of vaccine viruses. MDCK (dog cells) and Vero (monkey cells) are commonly used for vaccine research and development.

Although I would encourage anyone who dislikes the use of fetal cells for vaccine production to write to the companies using them to express their displeasure, I should point out that changing to a morally acceptable cell line is not trivial. Even using the exact same virus, the company would essentially have to start almost at step one to establish a different cell line for production. All of the safety and efficacy studies would have to be repeated. This would take years and billions of dollars; the company would most likely lose any kind of patent protection by the time they receive FDA approval.

Companies are, however, cognizant of the fact that many people do find the use of fetal cell lines repugnant. (Yes, I have seen this explicitly stated in research publications.) Many new vaccines are being developed, and many companies are avoiding the use of fetal cell lines and sticking to other, less morally objectionable, cell lines. So, while expressing these concerns to the companies currently using fetal cell lines won’t change any current vaccine growth practices, it will have an effect on future vaccines.

Now, as to rubella—this article was completely disingenuous about it. It points out that there were no cases of congenital rubella syndrome in 2004—without mentioning that the CDC declared the US rubella-free in 2004. (Rubella fact page: http://www.cdc.gov/features/rubella/ ) The US managed this through an extensive vaccination campaign. We still need the vaccine, because rubella still exists in other countries. International travel is so easy and convenient that infected people can carry a disease thousands of miles before they even show symptoms. Rubella is usually mild in children, but in adults can cause arthritis and even a potentially fatal encephalitis. It is devastating to babies—during a two year epidemic in the 1960s, ~11,000 babies died and another 20,000 had birth defects from rubella, in the US.

Another highly disingenuous part of the article is its description of vaccine side effects. Manufacturers are required to disclose *all* adverse events that occur during a clinical trial, whether it is related to the vaccine or not. Here is a severe adverse effect that I saw listed: “One patient did not complete the study due to death in a bicycle accident, which was not considered related to the study.” You don’t need a PhD to figure out that many of the adverse events listed in the package insert are clearly not related to the vaccine; you just need a bit of common sense. Just about any event that has the suffix “-itis” is caused by an infectious agent—which excludes the vaccine, since vaccines are sterile.

Here, I must take a moment to describe what a vaccine is, since many people do not seem to understand this part. A vaccine consists of a pathogenic bacteria or virus, or biological molecules extracted from those. In the case of bacteria, they are killed so they cannot cause infection. Viruses are killed, or are specially designed “attenuated” strains that cannot cause clinical disease. The biological molecules cannot cause disease, either. Since the processing of these pathogens to make vaccines renders them incapable of causing disease, I will call them “antigens.” These antigens are suspended in an inert buffer. Sometimes, preservatives are added to prevent microbial growth after manufacture—this is especially important in multi-dose vials, since the act of inserting a sterile needle into the vial can introduce microbes by momentarily breaking the vial’s seal. Adjuvants are sometimes used, because they act to amplify the effect of the antigen so that a lower dose can be used. Once introduced into the body, these antigens look like foreign invaders and the immune system reacts accordingly. After about two weeks, the immune system has learned what those invaders look like, so that when it encounters the real pathogen, it recognizes it and responds immediately. Even if you get sick, the illness is mild because your immune system was already trained to respond to it.

Now, back to vaccine adverse effects. Yes, vaccines do cause some adverse effects. Some of these are due to allergic reactions. Others are due to the antigen itself. Since the antigen comes directly from a pathogen, an adverse effect to the antigen would almost certainly result from exposure to that pathogen. And, in the case of pathogen exposure, the adverse effect would be much worse—because the pathogen replicates uncontrollably in the body, so the person is exposed to far more of the noxious agent.

This is a bit long already, but I just want to say one more thing, about the supposed search for new fetal cell lines. It is untrue that the cell lines in use since the 1960s have a lifespan equal to that of the “donor.” The reality is that cells can be preserved frozen in liquid nitrogen indefinitely. I’m not sure how manufacturers handle the cells, but I know that researchers typically grow several flasks of cells, then freeze dozens of vials for future use. When they start using cells from a vial, they keep count of the number of generations that occur since they thawed the vial. After a certain number of generations, they either analyze the cells to make sure they still have all of the expected properties, or they throw them away and thaw a new vial. I used to use cells for about 15 to 20 generations. I have *never* seen a cell line with a set life-span; they truly are immortal. Hela cells, in use since the early 1950s, are still alive and well all over the world—despite the death of their donor in 1951.

Thanks for the thoughtful response to the article. However, since the article that was posted relied heavily on the info at COGforlife.org (http://www.cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/), I wouldn't call it a "lie" unless the writer knew the info to be false. You say "no other children have to die to continue to use those cells, because the cell lines, like all established cell lines, are essentially immortal." However, Hayflick stated that this had been proven false (The Limited In Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cell Strains, Experimental Cell Research, 37, pg 628, 1965; and Mortality and Immortality at the Cellular Level: A review, University of California, San Francisco, August, 1997). Do you have a different study to support your claim?

You also state that "during a two year epidemic in the 1960s, ~11,000 babies died and another 20,000 had birth defects from rubella, in the US." However, according to this newsletter, the 11,000 deaths were from miscarriages and surgical abortions.

I also find it disingenuous to point out the "hazards" of a disease in the worst-case sense without including the likelihood of occurrence which is also needed to determine risk. Decisions to vaccinate or not are typically risk-based decisions where the information is difficult to obtain as far as risk goes. Now, with the added moral implications of many vaccines being produced using aborted fetal tissue, that decision gets much easier for those who feel strongly about it.

I should point out that changing to a morally acceptable cell line is not trivial. Even using the exact same virus, the company would essentially have to start almost at step one to establish a different cell line for production. All of the safety and efficacy studies would have to be repeated. This would take years and billions of dollars; the company would most likely lose any kind of patent protection by the time they receive FDA approval.

As an advocate for the lives of babies murdered by abortion, I find this statement to be highly offensive.

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.