all 11 comments

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Misleading title! I think this is my job now.

"Human diploid cells" doesn't mean "aborted fœtal tissue". It doesn't mean aborted tissue at all, actually. The term applies to all human cells except: * Sperm cells; and * Egg cells

Though WI-38 and MRC-5 are both cell strains produced from aborted fœtuses, those cells don't get into vaccines. I'll focus on WI-38, since you're probably American and MRC-5 is the British fœtal tissue strain.

The chain of discovery behind vaccine development includes: (1) isolating the etiological agent that causes a disease (a virus in the example discussed here); (2) developing a method of enabling the virus to reproduce so that sufficient progeny are produced to make a vaccine (viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that are unable to reproduce without a living cell as a host); (3) attenuating or killing the virus so it can no longer produce disease; (4) purifying the vaccine; (5) testing the vaccine for safety and efficacy; (6) storing and transporting it safely (this may require refrigeration); and then (7) distributing it to the population.

The Role of the WI-38 Cell Strain in Saving Lives and Reducing Morbidity, which can safely be assumed to be correct about the production of vaccines.

Step 2 is the point in which WI-38 cells are used in the development of viral vaccines (not bacterial or fungal!), and it's only used for that purpose. The cells have no way of finding their way into the subsequent stages, as they're literally orders of magnitude too big to fit through the filters.

So no, aborted fœtal tissue does not find its way into vaccines. It's used in the production of vaccines as virus factories, but none is included in the actual shot.


Opinion: It's cells derived from the lung tissue of one of two fœtuses that would've been aborted anyway. It's salvage. The alternative was wasting them, and not making the many medical advancements that have saved many lives (even discounting vaccines). It makes me a little squeamish, but I don't see a major ethical problem with this.

The (morally) absolute worst analogy I can think of is that it's like transplanting the organs of a murder victim to save the lives of other people, where the family gave consent instead of the victim. They're dead anyway; what's bad about saving other people's lives with their lungs?

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Once again, you fail to understand the point. I'm interested in the facts about vaccination. The abortion issue is an entirely separate subject. Please put your on your analysis cap back on.

I'm sure that you'll agree that it is common knowledge that there are serious risks associated with injecting human material into another person, correct?

I'm sure you'd also agree that parents deserve to be informed, and must consent to; having human material injected into their child, right???

Can you think of an ethical reason to misinform the public about this??? At this point you have to be asking yourself: Why do they keep saying that Vaccines are Safe and effective, when it is obvious that they are not safe?

What is really going on with these vaccines??? Right???

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I'm sure that you'll agree that it is common knowledge that there are serious risks associated with injecting human material into another person, correct?

Yes. They are not.

I'm sure you'd also agree that parents deserve to be informed, and must consent to; having human material injected into their child, right???

They don't need to if it is not.

Can you think of an ethical reason to misinform the public about this???

No. That's why I posted my comment.

What is really going on with these vaccines???

In order to put (non-functional, same-antigen) viruses into the vaccines, they need to make the viruses. In order to do that, they need virus factories (i.e. cells) that the viruses can infect. They used to use monkey cells, but they realised that they couldn't get monkey cells that weren't also producing dangerous viruses which really would've given you reason to distrust the vaccines!

A tissue culture developed from an aborted fœtus was discovered to be completely free of viruses (it was heavily tested), and so was utilised for this purpose to make the produced viral vaccines safer. I'm not saying that there aren't potential ethical concerns with this, but there are so many reasons that human material isn't in the vaccines.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You are willfully denying the facts.

The Catholic Church's recognizes that fetal tissue is used in the production of the following vaccines:.

MORAL REFLECTIONS ON VACCINES PREPARED FROM CELLS DERIVED FROM ABORTED HUMAN FOETUSES.

The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:

A) Live vaccines against rubella8:.

  • the monovalent vaccines against rubella Meruvax®!! (Merck) (U.S.), Rudivax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Ervevax® (RA 27/3) (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium); the combined vaccine MR against rubella and measles, commercialized with the name of M-R-VAX® (Merck, US) and Rudi-Rouvax® (AVP, France); the combined vaccine against rubella and mumps marketed under the name of Biavax®!! (Merck, U.S.),.
  • the combined vaccine MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) against rubella, mumps and measles, marketed under the name of M-M-R® II (Merck, US), R.O.R.®, Trimovax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Priorix® (GlaxoSmithKline UK).

B) Other vaccines, also prepared using human cell lines from aborted foetuses:. .

  • two vaccines against hepatitis A, one produced by Merck (VAQTA), the other one produced by GlaxoSmithKline (HAVRIX), both of them being prepared using MRC-5;.
  • one vaccine against chicken pox, Varivax®, produced by Merck using WI-38 and MRC-5;.
  • one vaccine against poliomyelitis, the inactivated polio virus vaccine Poliovax® (Aventis-Pasteur, Fr.) using MRC-5;.
  • one vaccine against rabies, Imovax®, produced by Aventis Pasteur, harvested from infected human diploid cells, MRC-5 strain;.
  • one vaccine against smallpox, AC AM 1000, prepared by Acambis using MRC-5, still on trial.

However, as the same vaccines are prepared from viruses taken from the tissues of foetuses that had been infected and voluntarily aborted, and the viruses were subsequently attenuated and cultivated from human cell lines which come likewise from procured abortions, they do not cease to pose ethical problems. The need to articulate a moral reflection on the matter in question arises mainly from the connection which exists between the vaccines mentioned above and the procured abortions from which biological material necessary for their preparation was obtained.

Application to the use of vaccines prepared from cells coming from embryos or foetuses aborted voluntarily

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Excluding the quoted paragraph, yes, that is what I said.


I will now address the falsehoods contained within the quoted paragraph.

However, as the same vaccines are prepared from viruses taken from the tissues of foetuses that had been infected and voluntarily aborted

This is not how it works. The whole point is that the fœtal lung tissue is not infected with anything, so it's safe to use.

and the viruses were subsequently attenuated and cultivated from human cell lines which come likewise from procured abortions

I'll ignore the "subsequently attenuated and cultivated", but it's wrong to use the plural form "abortions" when in fact there is only one abortion involved here.

they do not cease to pose ethical problems.

They will never cease to pose ethical problems, even if everybody were to agree on an ethical "solution". What's the alternative? It going away? A logical problem doesn't go away when you solve it; it continues to be posed. I don't understand what this means.

The need to articulate a moral reflection on the matter in question arises mainly from the connection which exists between the vaccines mentioned above and the procured abortions from which biological material necessary for their preparation was obtained.

If you say so. Personally, I would consider other things more significant in determining whether moral reflection articulation is necessary in this case, but this is not relevant.

Application to the use of vaccines prepared from cells coming from embryos or foetuses aborted voluntarily

This is similarly meaningless. The only meaningful statement in that quote is:

the same vaccines are prepared from viruses taken from the tissues of foetuses that had been infected and voluntarily aborted

which is false.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The whole point is that the fœtal lung tissue is not infected with anything, so it's safe to use.

So you concede that fetal tissue is used to make vaccines. This is a good sign. Progress.

The info that you are attemy to refute is cited verbatim from the Vatican's official position on this subject. The link is included in a previous comment.

I'm not interested in debating your opinion on their research. However, feel free to voice you dissent with them, and pursue this in any way you see fit.
Let me know how it goes.

I'm hoping that you've begun to noticed a pattern in this vaccine discussion we've been having.

A) I post a link to a vaccine damage related video, or article.

B) You claim that some detail about my claim is incorrect.

C) I present you with factual information that reinforces my position, and contradicts your objection.

D) You deny some other secondary detail about the facts presented.

And on, and on...

Ultimately, my intention is not to fact find every contention that you make with my submissions. My intention is to create awareness about the very real risks associated with vaccines; especially when administered to young children.

Vaccines are not safe, and their effectiveness is questionable; at best (MMR vaccinated people still get measles, and mumps, and rubella, etc., And are in certain situations more contagious than unvaccinated infected. This is a fact.).

I'm sure I'll post more about this shortly, so please be patient.

My concern is the fact that most people are intentionally misled about the very real risks associated with being vaccinated. If people understand the risks that are associated with vaccines, and feel that the benefits outweigh the risks, then I would have no issue.

Unfortunately, the public is intentionally misled.

Do you really think people would want to receive vaccines made from aborted tissue to receive some flimsy (at best) protection from a illness that they will almost certainly never encounter? That's absolutely absurd.

Do you know anyone with hepatitis B? I'm sure not.
Can you think of a good reason to administer a hepatitis B vaccine to a baby, immediately after birth??? That's madness!
Can you honestly think of a decent reason for this??? I cannot.

At this point, I'm hoping you're starting to see that we've all been misled, and hopefully we are in agreement that sometime is very wrong with the current medical system/industry. The Facebook propaganda is being pushed, because people are finally asking questions.

The public is waking up to the truth.

If you are concerned, and are interested in a high quality source for information, then search YouTube for Dr. Suzanne Humphries.
She's a doctor who believed the big pharma propaganda for years, and then investigated for herself. Her material is technical, but reasonably cogent.

I assure you that you will be horrified by the facts.

Good luck.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So you concede that fetal tissue is used to make vaccines.

But it's not present in the vaccines.

MMR vaccinated people still get measles, and mumps, and rubella, etc.,

Well, it never claimed 100% effectiveness, so this isn't evidence that it's ineffective. A proper, Edward Jenner-style ethically-questionable study would be required to determine how effective it is in the real world, and I'm sure that it can be improved.

And are in certain situations more contagious than unvaccinated infected.

You've provided no evidence for this, and are now claiming that it's a fact? Isn't that the behaviour that you're criticising on the part of the CNC or DFA?

Do you really think people would want to receive vaccines made from aborted tissue

Made with, not made from.

Do you know anyone with hepatitis B? I'm sure not.

Yes. Many, many people I know have had it (mostly adults). I'm pretty sure most over a quarter of people have had it.

Can you honestly think of a decent reason for this???

The antibodies from the mother don't last very long, and infant mortality is bad, and Hepatitis B has a 30–180 day incubation period so people who don't appear infected can be infected.

I cannot.

Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It's the same principle behind encryption; anyone can make an encryption scheme that they themselves cannot break. What's difficult is creating one that someone else can't break.

At this point, I'm hoping you're starting to see that we've all been misled

One or both of us have. And as a rule, we've all been misled about something. But I'm going to need evidence before I think that we've been misled about this. If we've been misled, then certain underfunded governmental organisations in other countries must also have been misled because they don't have the budget for poisoning their citizens.

The Facebook propaganda is being pushed

Obligatory "alternatives exist".

Dr. Suzanne Humphries

Her website's HTTPS (https://drsuzanne.net/) is no or trivial security, easily bypassed. This website is probably self-hosted, and the software not updated. I don't know why I'm saying this; she's a doctor, not a sysadmin.

This page is well-researched.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You have once again decided to *slide the topic of discussion into tangential details.

I started responding but then I got bored. You are probably not ready for this, but I think it's time for the real red pills.

Would it suprise you to learn that an estimated 30,000,000 vaccines were contaminated with a cancer causing virus called SM-40?

The discovery of SV40 revealed that between 1955 and 1963 around 90% of children and 60% of adults in the U.S. were inoculated with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.[3]

This is the reason for the cancer epidemic that has swept the planet since the 60's.

Here's another gem...

MERCK - CANCER - SV40 and AIDS in VACCINES - ADMISSION BY Dr Maurice Hilleman

I have more sources on the AIDS vaccine relationship. I'll let you ponder these, though.

Wizzwizz4. Do you still believe that vaccines are "Safe and effective"?

So you concede that fetal tissue is used to make vaccines.

But it's not present in the vaccines.

Fetal tissue is not a catalyst. It is partially consumed by the virus; to produce more virus. These viruses are then used to make more vaccine, and so on.

There is no purification process that can remove 100% of the contaminants, while leaving behind the viral byproducts that are intended for use as a vaccine. This technology simply does not exist. Similarly there is no way to remove all fetal tissue, or remove all virally produced byproducts.

This is an obvious fact. Nanotechnology is in it's infancy. This could never be filtered conventionally, so this is definitely a nano technology. Good luck mass producing something like this in the near future.
Also, nano has other undesirable risks, so this may never be a safe option.
The reality of vaccine production is kept from the public for a reason.

MMR vaccinated people still get measles, and mumps, and rubella, etc.,

Well, it never claimed 100% effectiveness, so this isn't evidence that it's ineffective. A proper, Edward Jenner-style ethically-questionable study would be required to determine how effective it is in the real world, and I'm sure that it can be improved.

Why not a double blind study between vaccinated and unvaccinated to evaluate for safety. The control group is always another vaccinated group, rather than unvaccinated.

There are no downsides for the vaccine manufacturer to distribute unsafe vaccines. They are indemnified from all legal responsibility. Damaged families have to go to a vaccine court, which is not even part of the court system. It is part of the executive branch, similar the FDA, or CDC, etc. This "court" issues damage compensation. The vaccine manufactures are never on trial. Look it up yourself.

And are in certain situations more contagious than unvaccinated infected.

You've provided no evidence for this, and are now claiming that it's a fact? Isn't that the behavior that you're criticizing on the part of the CNC or DFA?

Vaccinated persons who are infected often show no symptoms. For this reason, they can spread a disease without their knowledge. You can easily find this if you look it up.

Do you really think people would want to receive vaccines made from aborted tissue

Made with, not made from.

Viruses are used to infect fetal tissue, and reproduce the virus. Viruses only consume a small portion of the fetal material. There is no way to separate 100% of the fetal material.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The discovery of SV40 revealed that between 1955 and 1963 around 90% of children and 60% of adults in the U.S. were inoculated with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.[3]

Oh, thank goodness; it was less harmful than I'd have thought! Note that this was because the vaccine _didn't use fœtal cells, but instead used contaminated monkey cells.

This is the reason for the cancer epidemic that has swept the planet since the 60's.

Eh, no. The study I linked to earlier said that, 35 years later, there was less cancer than expected; the contaminated vaccines had little effect. The reason for the cancer epidemic is people surviving other things.

MERCK - CANCER - SV40 and AIDS in VACCINES - ADMISSION BY Dr Maurice Hilleman

I have more sources on the AIDS vaccine relationship. I'll let you ponder these, though.

That's Bayer. They put HIV in everything. I suppose whether vaccines are safe depends on whether you count Bayer. Again, the whole point of using this strain of fœtal lung tissue is so you don't get contamination. It sounds like you want to eat your cake and have it too.

Fetal tissue is not a catalyst. It is partially consumed by the virus; to produce more virus. These viruses are then used to make more vaccine, and so on.

Well, technically. But by that metric your plastic bags contain animal tissue, even though not even DNA is there, simply because the atoms in the molecules used to make up animals.

There is no purification process that can remove 100% of the contaminants, while leaving behind the viral byproducts that are intended for use as a vaccine.

A filter.

That technology does not exist.

Stating things without evidence doesn't make them true, just because you've provided evidence for other things.

Similarly there is no way to remove all fetal tissue, or remove all virally produced byproducts.

A filter, and what's a virally-produced byproduct? Viruses aren't alive. They're quines in a protein shell.

This is an obvious fact. Nanotechnology is in it's infancy.

That doesn't mean it's not amazing.

This could never be filtered conventionally, so this is definitely a nano technology.

No way? Really? Because they exist. And these too.

Good luck mass producing something like this in the near future.

It's succeeded in the near past. You don't do research unless it's to evidence your side of the argument; why not?

Why not a double blind study between vaccinated and unvaccinated to evaluate for safety. The control group is always another vaccinated group, rather than unvaccinated.

The control group is always vaccinated afterwards, because of the assumption that vaccination is better than no vaccination. So far, I still think that vaccination is preferable to no vaccination – though, as always, I'll trace the source to make sure it's not from Bayer.

There are no downsides for the vaccine manufacturer to distribute unsafe vaccines. They are indemnified from all legal responsibility.

This is a problem. It, however, has no bearing on the safety of properly manufactured vaccines, and if we can show that vaccines are / aren't being properly manufactured then this is moot. At this point, it depends on how we're defining things, so I'm not going into this in detail.

Damaged families have to go to a vaccine court, which is not even part of the court system. It is part of the executive branch, similar the FDA, or CDC, etc. This "court" issues damage compensation. The vaccine manufactures are never on trial. Look it up yourself.

This is US-centric – other countries don't have such stupid laws – and see above.

Vaccinated persons who are infected often show no symptoms. For this reason, they can spread a disease without their knowledge. You can easily find this if you look it up.

Congratulations, as always, on finding good sources. You're not linking to the crackpot sites as evidence, which means I always have to double-check my assumptions. That sounds plausible; vaccination doesn't stop you from being infected, and doesn't magically supercharge your immune system; it merely identifies the pathogens to your immune system.

Viruses are used to infect fetal tissue, and reproduce the virus.

True.

Viruses only consume a small portion of the fetal material.

I do not know, but this sounds plausible.

There is no way to separate 100% of the fetal material.

False; see above.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

! Note that this was because the vaccine _didn't use fœtal cells, but instead used contaminated monkey cells.

Why wasn't this 30,000,000 vaccines contaminated with a cancer causing monkey virus front page news? Especially, if nothing happens as a result? This line of reasoning is mind boggling.

If you believe the white wash report, then why did the world see an explosion of cancer after the 60's? 15 cases of cancer out of 30,000,000 cancerous virally infected doses of polio vaccine is beyond absurd. The main virologist timing the program had two seriously injured grandchildren, as a result of the first round of polio doses.
It is difficult to find words to describe the level of your abject denial if the facts.

At this point, I am far beyond unconcerned with your beliefs, or inability to recognize obvious facts, vs. propaganda. It seems suspicious to me how readily you defend industry failures, or dispute risky situations using implausible/impractical solutions.
However, we each have our own life experiences, so let's both assume that is the most probable explanation for our differences in opinions.

Ultimately, the vaccine industry's numerous cover ups, recalls, and $4,000,000,000 in lawsuit payments irrefutably demonstrates the fact that there is a serious problem, which warrants public discussion, and investigation.

You're expectations of "safe and effective" and tolerance level of acceptable risk is fundamentally different than mine.

It's not my responsibility to prove that vaccines are unsafe. The burden of safety is on the manufacturers to prove. The Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that they are inherently unsafe. So, that will be enough evidence for the majority of people, assuming that this info is made available to the public. It is unfortunately suppressed in the media.

We clearly have fundamentally differing views on this issue, so we should agree to disagree.