Are there vaccine ingredients which may not be disclosed ("hidden", "trade secret", or similar)?

submitted by wizzwizz4 from skeptics.stackexchange.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

Is fetal tissue from abortions listed on the ingredients of any vaccines?

Human diploid cells?

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

No, so you know it's not in there. You can stop spreading lies now.

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

Unfortunately, they do use cells from aborted fetuses. This is a fact.

Here's a link and except from an official white paper from be the Catholic Church, concerning the use of fetal cells in multiple 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

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

There is a difference between using human tissue in the development and using it in production. If it was necessary for production, a constant stream of human cell material would be necessary. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_fetal_tissue_in_vaccine_development

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

There is a difference between using human tissue in the development and using it in production. If it was necessary for production, a constant stream of human cell material would be necessary. Read about it here:

The virus needs to be reproduced to create the vaccines listed on the previous link.

Each vaccine was developed from human fetal cells, in order to develop the vaccine manufacturing process.

This manufacturing process requires process validation, and validation if the raw materials to demonstrate reliable/on-going manufacturability.

They need to continue using human cells to culture the virus, and if they didn't, then they'd declare what cellular material was used as a substitute. They would love to distance themselves from the use of fetal tissue, so this is a no brainier.

The human cells may be mostly filtered out of the vaccine.

However, there's no possibility of removing 100% of the human proteins, etc.

These process byproducts will remain in the vaccine solution as contaminants.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

However, there's no possibility of removing 100% of the human proteins, etc.

Of course not. Some of those proteins make up the vaccine. But I've got a couple of questions for you:

  • What counts as a "human protein"?
  • Why is it a problem if they're present?

The second one is the important one; I'm struggling to understand your point of view, and in my experience when I feel as certain as I currently do I'm usually wrong.

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

/u/Tom_Bombadil

Could you answer my questions please? It's frustrating when you go silent when somebody goes off-script.

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

Technically it is used in production.

You're right about the constant stream of human cell material being necessary. However, this material can be acquired by allowing the existing stem cells to replicate. Currently, we're still using cultures from the 60's, and by the time that runs out we'll probably have a replacement.

No foetuses need to be aborted to create vaccines. The foetuses used for the strains were aborted for other reasons. If you consider that a foetus gains a soul at conception or soon after, this won't console you much – if it helps, these stem cell cultures have gone on to reduce Rubella-related miscarriages and congenital rubella syndrome, saving the lives of many babies (by every definition of "baby" from "point of conception onwards" to "two years or older").

It's a dreadful thing that we're having to use embryonic stem cells, but if it even saves one life I'm all for it. And, so far, it's saved hundreds and hundreds.