Posted on 06/07/2021 5:31:47 PM PDT by ebb tide
Recently, a South Carolina newspaper published an article entitled, “Who is refusing COVID vaccines in SC—and why? Here’s what we found.” A trio of reporters detail numerous reasons: distrust of the government; an “I’m healthy enough” attitude; waiting a bit longer to let others be the “bleeding edge”; and wariness of the rollout. But they didn’t mention moral objections.
There is a split opinion in the Catholic Church about the morality of the vaccines currently in use. Many Catholic scholars and moral ethicists, including leading voices like Professor Robert George, have stated that the connection of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to abortion is so remote as to be acceptable. But some Catholics, such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider, reject this argument and argue that it’s immoral to take abortion-tainted vaccines. Other Catholics argue that it might be morally permissible to receive these vaccines, but it would be a better prophetic witness to refuse them and wait for completely ethical alternatives. But even Catholics who believe it is morally acceptable to receive the current vaccines acknowledge that a completely abortion-free option is the ideal.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
So, what is the status of these ethical vaccine choices? There are three possibilities currently in development, from Inovio, Sanofi, and Novavax.
Inovio claims to have “assembled a global coalition of collaborators, partners and funders” to develop and test their vaccine candidate, INO-4800. Their collaborators include the University of Texas, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Wistar Institute, as well as Université Laval in Quebec, Canada, and Fudan University in Shanghai, China. They report having received funding from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Defense, and they have done clinical trials in South Korea and China. They started phase 2 testing in November 2020, and according to their website they are awaiting “appropriate regulatory guidance and external funding” for “vaccine production and scale-up.” There is no projected date given.
A vaccine candidate seemingly further along in the process is the vaccine of Sanofi and its partner GlaxoSmithKline. Forbes magazine reported that “The joint Sanofi and GSK effort has run into challenges and their program is significantly behind early projections.” But Sanofi-GSK announced May 17 “the results of the Phase 2 trial of their COVID-19 recombinant vaccine candidate which demonstrated strong immune responses across all adult age groups. A global pivotal Phase 3 study is expected to start in the coming weeks.”
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
The Sanofi website shows their adjuvanted recombinant protein-based vaccine candidate currently in a “New Phase 2.” Sanofi is also partnering with Translate Bio to develop a different COVID-19 vaccine—an mRNA-based vaccine—which is still in the Phase 1/2 stage of testing, which started March 12.
Under “Operation Warp Speed,” the government granted Sanofi-GSK $300 million to start developing a COVID-19 vaccine and pre-ordered 100 million doses for delivery in 2020 for $2.1 billion with the option to purchase another 500 million this year. The government also entered into an agreement with Novavax “worth $1.6 billion to complete development, test and produce 300 million doses of its candidate vaccine.”
In April, WebMD reported that “Novavax’s COVID-19 Vaccine May Be Authorized Next.” And a few weeks ago, Politico called the Novavax vaccine “The most promising coronavirus vaccine you’ve never heard of.” The article pointed out that Novavax has never brought a product to market but that it was the dark-horse candidate to bolster supplies in the U.S. and beyond.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
However, on May 11, the New York Times reported that Novavax’s “highly protective vaccine would not be authorized in the United States or Britain until at least July, and that it would not reach peak production until the end of the year.” Novavax’s CEO, Stanley C. Erck, did say, “Nearly all of the major challenges have been overcome, and we can clearly see the light at the end of the tunnel.” That wasn’t good enough for Wall Street: Novavax traded down 17% upon the release of that statement.
On May 22, the stock regained some lost territory when Novavax announced that “it signed a memorandum of understanding to ‘explore the expansion of COVID-19 vaccine activities in South Korea.’” Novavax has been working with SK Bioscience to focus on the South Korean market with its NVX Cov-2373 COVID-19 vaccine, once it is approved, and also on a Covid/flu shot combo.
The Novavax vaccine, 96% effective against the original coronavirus in a global phase 2 study, apparently also is effective against variants. “A preliminary analysis of data from its U.K. Phase 3 trial showed that the vaccine was 89.3% effective and included protection from the U.K. variant B.1.1.7. The company also announced that the vaccine was 60% effective in a Phase 2b clinical trial in South Africa and included protection from the South African variant B.1.351.2.”
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
There is concern, however, that if approved for emergency use by the FDA, the Novavax vaccine will be hard to get in the United States because it will be shipped abroad. Besides the South Korea focus announced by the Maryland-based company, the Observer reports that “President Joe Biden hinted that Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate could be the next to receive emergency use authorization in the U.S. and would be shared with countries in need of aid. Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine is cheaper and easier to store than the mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech. It’s exactly what the world needs right now as the rollout of AstraZeneca’s and Johnson & Johnson’s affordable shots is paused due to safety concerns.”
It may also be what is needed right now by U.S. Catholics with ethical concerns about the existing vaccines.
Ping to my #14.
Yeppers.
As I often say: people I don’t trust wanting me to do something.
It’s amazing to me how much people blindly trust “experts” ... as the old story about how to tame wild hogs go, they’re so used to the free food and the fences put up one by one that they aren’t even noticing the gate getting shut for good.
Already have two vaccines that didn’t use fetal stem cells for any part of their research, development, or testing: Pfizer and Moderna. Sure, some are uncomfortable with the “newness” of the mRNA platform. Fair enough. But neither of them used fetal stem cells to make their vaccines.
And when each of the vaccine candidates listed above start wrapping up their Phase 3 clinical trials, they’ll have to submit their vaccine candidate to a third party for independent testing. That third party may - at their discretion - use fetal stem cells for that part of the process. However, the company going for FDA approval or Emergency Use Authorization has no means to control that. The third party has complete autonomy over their own testing process.
So while Pfizer and Moderna had their vaccines bottled, frozen, and ready to ship to hospitals before the third party independent testing took place, the lab doing that confirmatory testing chose to do so using fetal stem cells. Now a reasonable read here is that a product that never use fetal stem cells to be made isn’t suddenly tainted because someone did after-the-fact testing that was unethical with the product. To claim otherwise is to claim that if a lab bought a bottle of Tylenol off the shelf at Walgreens and tested it with fetal stem cells, all Tylenol forever would be tainted by abortion. That’s an absurd position to take.
They both use aborted baby cells in their testing so no. Try again
Not true. Both Pfizer and Moderna used the HEK-293 cell line (developed from the murder of a baby girl) for testing.
Update: COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-Derived Cell Lines
I agree and these are not vaccines, a vaccine is generally a dead virus or bacteria made into a drug. The mRna is gene therapy.
It’s arguable that the vaccine industry is more evil than planned murder
It’s a tight race for most evil
It absolutely does use DNA, but only in the host cells. They settled on a species of moth which gave the best and most reliable results. (No, I have no idea how they decided on that.)
Similarly, Moderna uses bacteria cells to get their mRNA.
The problem came in when the regulatory bodies insisted on testing using fetal stem cell lines.
It’s not clear if Novavax will escape that requirement, but their process (at least as far as they have publicly disclosed) has no dependence on fetal cells.
It all started with a aborted baby. Make all the excuses you want.
Already have two vaccines that didn’t use fetal stem cells for any part of their research, development, or testing: Pfizer and Moderna
_____________
That is a lie.
“It absolutely does use DNA, but only in the host cells. They settled on a species of moth which gave the best and most reliable results. (No, I have no idea how they decided on that.)”
You don’t understand the biology.
You’re mixing up the expression system used with the final vaccine.
No DNA or RNA is in the Novavax vaccine.
I’m not making excuses. Just pointing out the fact many neglect when it comes to where these cell lines come from. Why they are morally tainted.
I should have been more clear. That’s the point I was trying to make, in contradistinction to the Moderna approach. Which is also a rather elegant design in and of itself.
Plus no dead babies, which is a plus.
Got ya!
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.