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

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?

I have several years of experience working with cell lines from a variety of tissues and a variety of organisms, including human. Cell lines are immortal--they do not die out. They *can* change over time just through random mutation, which is why researchers take the steps I outlined in the previous post. Either they must analyze the cells to make sure they are what the researchers expect them to be, or they use the cells for a limited number of generations and then start with a fresh batch from the freezer. However, as long as one provides those cells with fresh medium, warmth, and a steady supply of carbon dioxide, they will live for as long as the researcher feels like taking care of them.

The exception to cultured cell immortality is in the case of "primary" cells. Those cells have never been made immortal, and they will die out after several generations. I did not mention those before, because none of the cell lines used for vaccine production are primary cells.

The references you provided are not applicable to immortalized cell lines. I couldn't look up the first one, but the date tells me that it is a publication from fairly early days of cell culture, when there were few immortalized cell lines--and people might not have known how to make them immortal. The second one refers to primary cells.

I can assure you that the mouse cell line I used in graduate school nearly 20 years ago is still in use--and the original donor mouse probably died in the 1970s.

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 was stating exactly what is posted at the CDC website, which you can examine for yourself at the link I provided. The CDC doesn't mention miscarriages or abortions. For all I know, those 11,000 miscarriages and abortions represent another 11,000 rubella deaths that the CDC did not mention.

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.

Nothing disingenuous here. If you have never had measles or been vaccinated against it, your chance of developing measles upon exposure is nearly 100%. You have about a 0.1% chance of dying from it, and twice that chance of developing a permanent disability.

One problem with the "risks" so often featured at anti-vax websites is that they exaggerate those risks way out of context, and never compare them to the real risks of the disease prevented by the vaccine. The simplest way to put it is that if a child has a reaction to the vaccine, they are protected from experiencing a reaction many times more severe to the actual disease.

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.

This was not meant to be an emotional statement, nor was it a statement of opinion. As a scientist, I try to relay the facts as dispassionately as possible and keep them as free from my own thoughts and feelings as I can.

When I said that it is not a trivial matter for a company to switch out cell lines, that is exactly what I meant. While it may sound simple to you to substitute MDCK (dog cell line) for WI-38 cells, in the eyes of the FDA, that substitution means that the vaccine produced is NOT the vaccine the company tested and submitted for approval. From a technical point of view, substituting a cell line means having to do all of the basic groundwork--growth of the virus in the alternate cell line must be characterized, growth conditions have to be optimized, and the process has to be scaled up to manufacturing quantities. On the regulatory side, the new vaccine candidate must go through animal tests, then the phase 1, 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 studies in human volunteers selected to represent the target patients who will receive the vaccine, etc. etc. This is going to take years and a few billion dollars. As I said, it is *not* trivial.

To make a long story short, simply exchanging the cell line used to make a current vaccine is not going to happen. Your best bet is to put pressure on companies to stick to using non-objectionable cell lines when they develop new vaccines.

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.