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.