# Moral Question: Vaccine Ingredient WI-38 & WALVAX-2 -- Aborted Fetal Tissue



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 13, 2019)

This question has nothing to do with being for or against vaccines from a health standpoint. This is an exercise in applying Theology to modern issues. In other words its a moral question. Here it goes....

I researched ingredients to common vaccines like the Measles. An ingredient called WI-38 is an example ingredient of several found in some vaccines like measles. Its basically cells from an aborted featus' lungs from an abortion dated in 1960.. So its not a recent abortion but it was developed during the original creation of the vaccine three generations removed. In other words scientists used aborted fetus cells and currently grow those cells in a lab over the course of many years. They are reaching their maxium life in which China created WALVAX-2 in 2015 by using recently aborted fetus’. I suspect its going to replace WI-38 when its no longer viable since they have a limited lifespan. Google the names and you will find plenty of info.

Is it sinful/moral to knowingly use a vaccine with WI-38 (1960 aborted fetus cells)?

Is it sinful/moral to knowingly use a vaccine with WALVAX-2 (2015 aborted fetus cells)?

This is not a debate over if somebody should vaccinate. Its a debate over the moral question from a theological vantage point. Through this moral question one may decide they should not vaccinate.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 13, 2019)

This is definitely a tough subject.

I posted this in a Facebook group and somebody stated the following scenario. If somebody gave you stolen goods you are not legally allowed to sell them or use them. The parallel would be God's law forbids us from committing an abortion. Therefore, using or selling those parts would still be violating God's law in a different degree. Thoughts on this?

Are there any biblical stories that you can draw parallels from?


----------



## earl40 (Feb 13, 2019)

I wonder if this would follow the idea of don't ask for conscience sake?


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 13, 2019)

earl40 said:


> I wonder if this would follow the idea of don't ask for conscience sake?



Unfortunately now that you read this you know. I also don’t think ignorance can be used regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40 (Feb 13, 2019)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Unfortunately now that you read this you know. I also don’t think ignorance can be used regardless.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



So I am to ask if the vaccine was made with the aborted babies?


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 13, 2019)

earl40 said:


> So I am to ask if the vaccine was made with the aborted babies?



No, I am saying for the measles vaccine you already know this to be true and others on the market. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 13, 2019)

earl40 said:


> So I am to ask if the vaccine was made with the aborted babies?



Gen 26:9 So Abimelech called Isaac and said, “Behold, she is your wife. How then could you say, ‘She is my sister’?” Isaac said to him, “Because I thought, ‘Lest I die because of her.’”
Gen 26:10 Abimelech said, “What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.”



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 13, 2019)

The general equity of the prohibition on receiving stolen goods precludes us from knowingly receiving vaccines made from the parts of aborted babies. If it is wrong to receive stolen goods and profit from property that does not legitimately belong to you, how much more, then, is it wrong to receive the body parts of those unjustly murdered through abortion. 

I am sure that someone else can state this matter more cogently that I can at present, but I hope that the above paragraph at least makes some sense.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 13, 2019)

So much of the information on the topic comes through sources with a particular viewpoint, like anti-vaccination folks. A potentially reliable source, a children's hospital in Philly, suggests only certain types comes from an historic aborted cell medium:

"Varicella (chickenpox), rubella (the “R” in the MMR vaccine), hepatitis A, one version of the shingles vaccine, and one preparation of rabies vaccine are all made by growing the viruses in fetal embryo fibroblast cells."

We don't typically use the rabies vaccine on humans in the US, and parents are divided on the low effectiveness of the chickenpox shot. That leaves rubella. Getting shots divided into individual components can be tough, as our family found out when we tried to slow the schedule for our last son.

I'd love to have a fuller picture of the situation. Thanks, Robert, for raising the issue. It's frustrating what we don't know in such an informed time.

In answering the original question, might it come down to a tough choice in a fallen world: a known 6th commandment violation involving two women years ago versus potential health problems and deaths in the future?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 13, 2019)

This does appear nothing hidden for the new Chinese proposed source of vaccines to replace the old ones which while they no long are developed form tissues, the cell lines certainly go back to the original abortion fo the 1960s. http://ethicalresearch.net/positions/the-ethics-of-the-walvax-2-cell-strain/ this other line gives the RCC's position. https://www.verywellhealth.com/do-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-tissue-260337


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2019)

RobertPGH1981,

This is a heavy topic indeed. It would seem that you have already made both a good theological and ethical argument against using such vaccines. 

How is this being received on the Facebook discussion?


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 13, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This does appear nothing hidden for the new Chinese proposed source of vaccines to replace the old ones which while they no long are developed form tissues, the cell lines certainly go back to the original abortion fo the 1960s. http://ethicalresearch.net/positions/the-ethics-of-the-walvax-2-cell-strain/ this other line gives the RCC's position. https://www.verywellhealth.com/do-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-tissue-260337


So it does appear there are better choices (from the first article):
"The FDA has approved two alternative cell strains derived from human and non-human tumorigenic tissue, neither of which is implicated in destruction of human beings. And the FDA still licenses vaccines (mumps and measles vaccine) that are produced from cell substrates taken from chick embryos."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 13, 2019)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> This question has nothing to do with being for or against vaccines from a health standpoint. This is an exercise in applying Theology to modern issues. In other words its a moral question. Here it goes....
> 
> I researched ingredients to common vaccines like the Measles. An ingredient called WI-38 is an example ingredient of several found in some vaccines like measles. Its basically cells from an aborted featus' lungs from an abortion dated in 1960.. So its not a recent abortion but it was developed during the original creation of the vaccine three generations removed. In other words scientists used aborted fetus cells and currently grow those cells in a lab over the course of many years. They are reaching their maxium life in which China created WALVAX-2 in 2015 by using recently aborted fetus’. I suspect its going to replace WI-38 when its no longer viable since they have a limited lifespan. Google the names and you will find plenty of info.
> 
> ...


Am I wrong in thinking that this essentially the same thing as cannibalism? We're consuming parts of children, correct? Sure, they don't pass through our digestive tract, but is it really much different?


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 13, 2019)

This is very interesting information. And is causing me to rethink things I had not thought of before.

1. Would it be wrong to take an organ transplant, if the the original host was wrongfully murdered (assuming the recipient was not the murderer?

2. Kids are still dying in the US from measles, what would be alternatives to prevent this (outside of the abortion derived vaccines) ? It sounds like there are some measle Vacines that don’t find their origins in aborted babies.

3. What exactly would one be guilty of for giving this vaccine to their children? I belief some of our taxes actually fund abortions, yet we still pay them. Again, just thinking out loud.

4. Should church discipline be brought against families in churches who get the vaccines for their newborns?

5. Is getting this vaccine any different from buying, clothes, groceries, devices from a store that supports planned parenthood?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 13, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> 1. Would it be wrong to take an organ transplant, if the the original host was wrongfully murdered (assuming the recipient was not the murderer?


This would deserve a thread itself, but the more fundamental question is whether we are at liberty to have our body parts (which are parts of our person, are united to Christ, will be raised at the last day, etc.) removed and joined to other people in the first place.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 13, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> This would deserve a thread itself, but the more fundamental question is whether we are at liberty to have our body parts (which are parts of our person, are united to Christ, will be raised at the last day, etc.) removed and joined to other people in the first place.


Tyler would you not give your son a kidney if he needed it and you were a perfect match?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 13, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> This would deserve a thread itself, but the more fundamental question is whether we are at liberty to have our body parts (which are parts of our person, are united to Christ, will be raised at the last day, etc.) removed and joined to other people in the first place.





Grant Jones said:


> Tyler would you not give your son a kidney if he needed it and you were a perfect match?


Or would you do a blood transfusion to save life?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that this essentially the same thing as cannibalism? We're consuming parts of children, correct? Sure, they don't pass through our digestive tract, but is it really much different?


This is what initially went through my mind, too. Taking the parts of another person to benefit yourself...


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2019)

The major difference is involvement of the will. 


Grant Jones said:


> Tyler would you not give your son a kidney if he needed it and you were a perfect match?





Stephen L Smith said:


> Or would you do a blood transfusion to save life?


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 13, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> This is what initially went through my mind, too. Taking the parts of another person to benefit yourself...


So if you needed a heart transplant, and further let’s assume you have young children and a wife, (only saying this because I do not know you).........you would not pursue it?


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> So if you needed a heart transplant, and further let’s assume you have young children and a wife, (only saying this because I do not know you).........you would not pursue it?


I personally am not ascribing to the notion that the physical body must remain intact for theological reasons (I’m not talking about harmful dismemberment or something). I would pursue the transplant. I see a massive distinction. The person who dies in an accident has volunteered as an organ donor. They chose this. It is a contract of sorts being fulfilled with outcomes desired. Abortion isn’t so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 13, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> The major difference is involvement of the will.


A parent’s will in getting a vaccine is usually so they don’t die of a particular viruse...I assume. Abo


Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> I personally am not ascribing to the notion that the physical body must remain intact for theological reasons (I’m not talking about harmful dismemberment or something). I would pursue the transplant. I see a massive distinction. The person who dies in an accident has volunteered as an organ donor. They chose this. It is a contract of sorts being fulfilled with outcomes desired. Abortion isn’t so.


Do you avoid commerce with businesses that pay for abortions?

The line of thinking seems to be, getting your kids vaccinated (those mentioned in The OP) supports murdering babies. Does not also buying goods from businesses that fund pro-choice?https://familycouncil.org/?p=14353

P.S. I am not concluded one way or another on the OP.


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 13, 2019)

Maybe we can get some Pastorly wisdom on the OP


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2019)

@Grant Jones 

Some things seem to not be possible to avoid in our time. We may be aware and we are may not be. I think we are largely less aware. If we can avoid it, we ought to. I also believe God will ultimately punish those who put people into such positions. I hope they repent even knowing that others will take their place. My wife and I made those decisions for our daughter.


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 13, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> My wife and I made those decisions for our daughter.


Do you mean that you did have the vaccinations?


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Do you mean that you did have the vaccinations?


We chose not to.

PS. I'm not up for debating this point. Parents can and should make their own choices in the matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 13, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> We chose not to.
> 
> PS. I'm not up for debating this point. Parents can and should make their own choices in the matter.


I see. Regardless how I land, I am thankful for the post. While it does cause me some remorsee with my two daughters having been vaccinated, I will definitely be reconsidering this topic with any kids (Lord willing).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 13, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Tyler would you not give your son a kidney if he needed it and you were a perfect match?


I understand the seriousness of the scenario. There is a man I know (for whom I have a great deal of love and respect) who recently _did _give his kidney to save his son's life, and I was not about to try and stop him, nor do I judge him for it. The question is, however, am I at liberty to give my members away? I don't own myself.


Stephen L Smith said:


> Or would you do a blood transfusion to save life?


In my opinion, a blood transfusion is a different matter. It's a bodily fluid that is constantly being produced and destroyed. 

Brothers, I love you, but I don't want answer any more questions about this on this thread. I have already done my share of sidetracking. I'll be happy to discuss these matters on another thread or in a PM.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Von (Feb 14, 2019)

Just a clarification of the facts:
They don't *include* the foetal cells as an ingredient of the vaccine. It is the growth medium on which the vaccine is developed/grown.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 14, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> So much of the information on the topic comes through sources with a particular viewpoint, like anti-vaccination folks. A potentially reliable source, a children's hospital in Philly, suggests only certain types comes from an historic aborted cell medium:




All of the information on the ingredients I obtained directly from the CDC website. WI-38 is an ingredient so I verified several sources on what that meant. I think when Philly Hospital position is based upon the fact that the cells are grown in a lab and three generations removed. There is no way to get around the fact that if you take the vaccine you are injecting the virus which is grown on the cells from an aborted fetus from 1960 since its an ingredient. I do not think that the vaccine can be made without those cells... at least for now. If people don't make a point that this isn't acceptable WARVAX-2 will be used which I see as enabling the Pharma companies to not seek alternate means. Its a really tough subject to navigate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 14, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> This is a heavy topic indeed. It would seem that you have already made both a good theological and ethical argument against using such vaccines.
> 
> How is this being received on the Facebook discussion?



Here are a few direct quotes from Facebook none of which are theological in nature: 

1. "This question has been faced before in another context. At the end of WW2, the question arose, should we use the results of the Nazi's experiments on Jews in the concentration camps. Ignoring for a moment the fact that they were scientifically dubious, there was real question as to whether we should use their results." 

2. "Let me give you a similar example. 

It is rare for people who freeze to death to be obliging enough to wear appropriate monitoring equipment for research purposes. Therefore much of our medical knowlege of hypothermia comes from those enterprising Nazi scientists who managed to "convince" Jewish "volunteers" to be submerged in water of varing temperatures for prolonged periods UNTIL DEATH. 

While we have repeated some of these experiments, we seem to feel the need to remove the subjects before death, and therefore limit our information. 

What do we do with the data generated by these experiments, horrific as they are, from the 1930s? Do we take advantage of the information to save current victims, or do we take a stand on principal and pretend that they never happened, potentially costing lives NOW?"

I think the issue with the parallel between the Vaccine Ingredient WI-38/Warvax-2 and WW2 data is the continuous nature of the abortion rate. I don't see a reason to terminate the data from WW2 studies. However, since WI-38 is coming close to the end of its lifespan WARVAX-2 should be used continuing the cycle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 14, 2019)

Von said:


> Just a clarification of the facts:
> They don't *include* the foetal cells as an ingredient of the vaccine. It is the growth medium on which the vaccine is developed/grown.



Here is the direct link to the CDC's website which provides the ingredients referred to as contents. Here is a screenshot below to save you time if you don't want to look at the page. Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)





https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

I am not a DR so if I am reading it wrong its due to the fact that the column to the right is titled contents. The top paragraph on the page says the following:

"Others are residual trace amounts of materials that were used during the manufacturing process and removed. These include: Cell culture materials, used to grow the vaccine antigens. For example, egg protein, various culture media. Inactivating ingredients, used to kill viruses or inactivate toxins. For example, formaldehyde. Antibiotics, used to prevent contamination by bacteria. For example, neomycin."


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 14, 2019)

It appears that the Roman Catholic Church raised concern about this in years past and here is their official statement. 

http://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 14, 2019)

Here's a good book if you want to research vaccines, what's in them, dangers, etc.

https://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Safe...0150568&sr=8-1&keywords=vaccine+safety+manual

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hammondjones (Feb 14, 2019)

We do not use those particular vaccines. We feel that it legitimizes the potential further use of such methods, and we don't want to be part of it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 14, 2019)

I am not in the groups known for promoting “all vaccines are BAD”. I do think there is a missing piece on this thread that vaccines VERY often can be accredited for preventing death. It is always easier to critique systems that take a “preventative” approach because if they actually work, then it is always easy to question “did I really need it” and often times can easily be seen as unneeded. Whereas with reactive approaches the question is always “why did we NOT do something”.

However for many that have opted out of vaccines to there own death or the death of others, those who died do not get a chance to wonder “maybe I should have taken the shot”. It is a good work to look into what you are being Injected with and try and make the best decision morally with each vaccine. However I keep a FAR distance from those who enter the world of the paranoid and to become teetotalers with any and ALL vaccines. Bottom line ALL vaccines are not harmful. One can simply look as the MASS death tolls in history to see their benefit. This in no way excuses those who murder the unborn to make drugs and because the components mentioned in the OP is tied to abortion we need to at least pause and seriously consider.

This I think is a matter of conscience. Unless you are able to be logically consistent and avoid purchasing from any of the listed companies here:
https://familycouncil.org/?p=14353

Was I guilty of sin when I purchased a coffee from Starbucks in my hotel this morning since i know they support planned parenthood? I sure hope not


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 14, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Was I guilty of sin when I purchased a coffee from Starbucks in my hotel this morning since i know they support planned parenthood? I sure hope not



What Starbucks does with their money after we pay for is on their conscience. If Starbucks somehow used aborted fetus' in their coffee production it would be a better parallel. I guess the ultimate question here is 

"Does the vaccine require aborted fetal tissue to be effective? If not, why are they not seeking other means to produce the vaccine." Answer: nobody is pushing them to do so...


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 14, 2019)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> What Starbucks does with their money after we pay for is on their conscience.



These are good thoughts.

Why can’t this same logic be used for the vaccine. No one is forcing Starbucks to decide to fund Planned Parenthood. No one is forcing the chinese to use aborted fetus material as other alternatives could be developed.

P.S. It is because of this that even though I am now much more hesitant to get the measle vaccine, this is a matter for individual family conscience.


----------



## Nate (Feb 14, 2019)

A point of clarification: these vaccines are not produced using cells from an aborted child. The vaccines are produced using a cell line derived from the aborted child. This may not seem like an important distinction, but it is. 

The cell line (WI-38) derived from the aborted child does not possess any physical substance from the aborted child. It does contain the same genetic code possessed by the child, but this is information, not a physical substance. The WI-38 cells are composed entirely of biological material unrelated to the aborted child. So, these vaccines are produced using cells containing no physical material from any aborted children; rather, they are produced using cells that contain genetic information from an aborted child's lung cells.

Certainly, Christians can still object to products made from these derived cell lines, but we should not propagate the false claim that vaccines are made from pieces and parts of aborted babies.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 14, 2019)

Nate said:


> A point of clarification: these vaccines are not produced using cells from an aborted child. The vaccines are produced using a cell line derived from the aborted child. This may not seem like an important distinction, but it is.
> 
> The cell line (WI-38) derived from the aborted child does not possess any physical substance from the aborted child. It does contain the same genetic code possessed by the child, but this is information, not a physical substance. The WI-38 cells are composed entirely of biological material unrelated to the aborted child. So, these vaccines are produced using cells containing no physical material from any aborted children; rather, they are produced using cells that contain genetic information from an aborted child's lung cells.
> 
> Certainly, Christians can still object to products made from these derived cell lines, but we should not propagate the false claim that vaccines are made from pieces and parts of aborted babies.


Thank you very much for sharing this, especially considering your field of work!


----------



## timfost (Feb 14, 2019)

Which one of us does not already benefit from the death of an innocent Man?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Feb 14, 2019)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> No, I am saying for the measles vaccine you already know this to be true and others on the market.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I didn't read this whole thread, but supposedly you can still ask for the older vaccs made in Japan on non human tissue. Right?


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 14, 2019)

Nate said:


> The cell line (WI-38) derived from the aborted child does not possess any physical substance from the aborted child. It does contain the same genetic code possessed by the child



I am not a doctor but I see that you are making a distinction above. But quite honestly I am not seeing much of a difference. Still confused I guess you can say since the CDC website says it contains WI-38 which is short for 'Human diploid lung fibroblasts'. My understanding is that those cells are the cells that are still alive and making the vaccine possible. What am I missing? 

The insert describes the process as: 

*"The Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts.{1,2}"*

*1*. Plotkin, S.A.; Cornfeld, D.; Ingalls, T.H.: Studies of immunization with living rubella virus: Trials in children with a strain cultured from an aborted fetus, Am. J. Dis. Child. 110: 381-389, 1965. 
*2. *Plotkin, S.A.; Farquhar, J.; Katz, M.; Ingalls, T.H.: A new attenuated rubella virus grown in human fibroblasts: Evidence for reduced nasopharyngeal excretion, Am. J. Epidemiol. 86: 468-477, 1967.

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM123789.pdf


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 14, 2019)

lynnie said:


> I didn't read this whole thread, but supposedly you can still ask for the older vaccs made in Japan on non human tissue. Right?



I don't think you can actually. THe measles vaccine used to be just the measles and then they moved to giving everybody Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Hence the abbreviation MMR. I am not sure what other alternatives everybody has to be honest.


----------



## Von (Feb 15, 2019)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> "Others are residual trace amounts of materials that were used during the manufacturing process *and removed*..."


They have to mention it. Just like "THIS PRODUCT WAS MADE IN A FACTORY THAT PRODUCES NUTS - MAY CONTAIN TRACES."
Any ingredient (like egg, if the culture is grown on egg) must be mentioned, for possible allergies, etc. 

This might sound like semantics, but the reason why this is important is that as soon as some of your facts are not true, you lose credibility in the things that are. The issue that you raised, of people benefiting from sinful practices is a valid issue, and it is making me think (and I am a pro-vaccine medical practitioner). But stick to the facts, otherwise you are losing the group that needs convincing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2019)

A tentative hypothesis:

If the wages of sin is death, perhaps that is why the autism and vaccine-complication rates are sky-rocketing in the US. It may be a result of us using sinful means to "protect" ourselves.

After thimerosal was removed from most vaccines, autism rates still did not drop, but kept steadily rising. Merck’s aluminum adjuvant may still be the culprit.

But there is another possibility: Just as cannibals in New Guinea suffered central nervous system effects from eating other humans, perhaps we are now experiencing ailments from the same cause (injesting alien animal and human-derived proteins directly into our systems).

Regressive autism is not genetic. It must be triggered by an external event that can create hundreds of different DNA breaks and mutations. What is that trigger you may ask? I think it might be vaccines. The DNA of other humans might just do it.

I do believe either the (1) ingredients used in vaccines, (2) the early dates of vaccinations, (3) or the multiple vaccinations at once, is probably a cause of some autism.

The dramatic rise in autism is not merely a reporting error and it must be either environmental or associated with foods or things we ingest into our bodies. Even if the substance derived from an aborted baby is not the dead baby but only derived from the dead baby, merely containing the genetic information may still be enough to mess up our systems.

I am not anti-vax. But the nature of what composes a vaccination has drastically changed since the days of protecting America against polio.

Remember, the government denied Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome for years.

The Vatican has ruled that the good of protecting life outweighs the bad of using these vaccinations. But MAYBE the good does not outweigh the bad and we are reaping the rewards now upon the younger generations.

I believe this needs to be investigated. But since the issue can be so partisan, it is not likely to be investigated objectively. Some groups ARE investigating this link:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/is_aborted_fetal_dna.html

"How could the contaminating aborted fetal DNA create problems? It creates the potential for autoimmune responses and/or inappropriate insertion into our own genomes through a process called recombination. There are groups researching the potential link between this DNA and autoimmune diseases such as juvenile (type I) diabetes, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Our organization, Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, is focused on studying the quantity, characteristics and genomic recombination of the aborted fetal DNA found in many of our vaccines."


My wife and I are both RNs. We've vaccinated our children because we live in the jungle. But we've gone to great effort to do it safely. We get single-dose vaccines. We vaccinate very late. We only vaccinate for one thing at a time. We avoid anything that doesn't seem needed. We try to avoid some brands of vaccines (sometimes you have a choice). 

We completed a region-wide vaccination program for the tribe where we work and were recognized by the government here for our work, and we believe vaccines are better than death in a dirty tribal situation. However, we do believe there is something wrong with vaccines produced recently. We believe they are triggering responses in some kids, sometimes severely in children. It overwhelms their immune system and triggers an automimmune response. We do not know the reason, though. We suspect it is the additives, the animal proteins sometimes found in some vaccines, or, perhaps, the genetic info found in some vaccines. 

We do think that in 20 years we will know more. And I believe the anti-vaxxers will be somewhat vindicated, though they look crazy to many people right now.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2019)

and again:

_"Could genomic insertion of the aborted fetal DNA, found in some of our childhood vaccines since 1979, be an environmental trigger for autism? Could the fact that genes critical for nerve synapse formation and nervous system development are found on the X chromosome provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease found in boys? Could the “hot spots” identified in these autism-associated genes be sites for insertion of contaminating aborted fetal DNA?

These questions must be answered, and quickly. Recent literature suggests that autism spectrum disorder may now impact one out of every 100 children. The pharmaceutical industry is also currently moving to replace more animal-produced vaccines with aborted-fetal-cell production and also to produce biologic drugs using aborted fetal cells.

The practice of using aborted fetal cells for vaccine and drug production creates wrenching moral dilemmas for parents and consumers, ignores informed consent rights, and exposes our children and ourselves to contaminants lacking safety evaluations. We cannot ignore this issue in good conscience, and we cannot afford to wait."_

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/is_aborted_fetal_dna.html


----------



## Nate (Feb 15, 2019)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I am not a doctor but I see that you are making a distinction above. But quite honestly I am not seeing much of a difference. Still confused I guess you can say since the CDC website says it contains WI-38 which is short for 'Human diploid lung fibroblasts'. My understanding is that those cells are the cells that are still alive and making the vaccine possible. What am I missing?



You are not missing anything if your point is to simply state that vaccines are produced using a human cell line that was developed from an abortion. 

My point was that it is incorrect to claim that vaccines are produced using cells or tissues that were actually from an abortion; _i.e._, a mass of tissue or cells were taken from an aborted child, and it is now those cells that are used to produce vaccines. The mass of cells from that abortion are long gone. The WI-38 cell line in question was built from those cells, but are not the same physical stuff as those cells.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 15, 2019)

Nate said:


> The mass of cells from that abortion are long gone.



This is where I am lost on this topic because trace amounts can be found within vaccines of WI-38. So quick question.. If we tested the vaccine would the DNA (if this is even possible) show that its from the aborted fetus, or would it be something completely different?


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 15, 2019)

Romans922 said:


> Here's a good book if you want to research vaccines, what's in them, dangers, etc.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Safe...0150568&sr=8-1&keywords=vaccine+safety+manual



Thanks for the recommendation. I just purchased the book. My wife has always been very health conscience and goes to great lengths to eat organic foods while avoiding GMO. I have noticed a parallel between Anti-Vaxers and Vegan/Vegitarians who avoid perservatives, eat organic ect... I avoid them as well but I am not as strict as she is when it comes to diet. With my wife and I expecting our first child in a month this has been front and center on my mind. 

Have you noticed a similar parallel?


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 15, 2019)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Have you noticed a similar parallel?


I have, which only gives me more pause to embracing the anti-vaccine world.

Occupationally I am very familiar with the non-GMO and “Organic” Foods. Trust when i say it mostly consist of marketing schemes vs. the supposed health benefits which the camps of people buy hook-line-Sinker because of a label or online web article. It is a complete different story when you actually see the differences in how the food is grown and made.

P.S. I will keep my opinions about vegetarians to myself or else I will get the meat sweats.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2019)

Organic foods are healthier overall (a little better nutrition and a LOT less contaminants):

Mayo clinic affirms this here: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-...thy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880

The only drawback is that organic foods go bad faster and you need to check it more. E-coli is lettuce has killed more people suddenly than Twinkies, but that doesn't mean you should eat Twinkies.

Also:
"The organic foods, such as fruits and vegetables, were 30 percent less likely to contain detectable levels of pesticide residues. Two studies found higher levels of pesticide traces in the urine of children who ate non-organic foods. However, no more than 6 percent of the foods covered in the studies exceeded allowable limits of pesticide residues." Here: https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/nutrition/benefits-of-organic-food/

The fact that pesticde traces are even found in the urine of ouer children is distressing. I would think 0.0 levels of that is desired. 

Also, "the researchers found a 30 percent lower rate of detectable contamination in organically-grown produce.." That is HUUUGE. That is enough for me to pay more for my children's food.

The US government has given us bad diet advice for years. They've lost all credibility. They've told us for years that eggs and milk and butter were bad and are now telling us that eggs and real butter might be better for you.... you can't trust the gov't. They'll tell you black is white and white is black...and that butter and bacon is bad for you!


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 15, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The US government has given us bad diet advice for years. They've lost all credibility. They've told us for years that eggs and milk and butter were bad and are now telling us that eggs and real butter might be better for you.... you can't trust the gov't.


 Perg,

Science changes. This occurs in more places than the government. When you say the government is untrustworthy are you aware that there are Christians that work for the US government that are trustworthy. Or are you giving blanket conclusions based on past valid evidence (this is what I assume you are doing). Would it be equally valid for me to blanket missionaries as being untrustworthy because of documented missionary examples of abuse? I would not do this of course, but that appears to be the logic expressed. Are there untrustworthy people in the government? Absolutely! Are there trustworthy, diligent, Christian employees that strive to work with honesty and integrity that fall under your label of government? Absolutely!

P.S. Your government is one that establishes what meets the definiton of what can be legally labeled as “Organic”, but I guess you DO trust that.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 15, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The only drawback is that organic foods go bad faster and you need to check it more. E-coli is lettuce has killed more people suddenly than Twinkies, but that doesn't mean you should eat Twinkies.


Don’t worry brother, you can still eat your twinkies:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tr...recipe-help-you-through-twinkiepocalypse.html


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 15, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Perg,
> 
> Science changes. This occurs in more places than the government. When you say the government is untrustworthy are you aware that there are Christians that work for the US government that are trustworthy. Or are you giving blanket conclusions based on past valid evidence (this is what I assume you are doing). Would it be equally valid for me to blanket missionaries as being untrustworthy because of documented missionary examples of abuse? I would not do this of course, but that appears to be the logic expressed. Are there untrustworthy people in the government? Absolutely! Are there trustworthy, diligent, Christian employees that strive to work with honesty and integrity that fall under your label of government? Absolutely!



The USDA should not be giving diet advice. They've consistently have gotten it wrong for decades: We’re All Guinea Pigs in a Failed Decades-Long Diet Experiment

They've promoted low fat even when high sugar and high carbs were involved. They've ignored the impact of white sugar and targeted fat. They've promoted highly processed grains over steak and eggs and butter.

They've demonized eggs and butter. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/opinion/when-the-government-tells-you-what-to-eat.html

They've told us to reduce salt intake. The Food Pyramid is a farce. In school lunches pizzas are listed as a vegetable. It is insane.

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/n...sts-government-should-not-give-dietary-advice

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2015/02/19/ok-cholesterol/

https://cei.org/blog/bad-science-cdc-forced-reverse-its-recommendations-salt

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/usda-dietary-guidelines-diabetes_n_5635554

Sure, there might be Christians who work for the USDA, but if so, they ought to hang their heads in shame over their stupidity. 

Seeing the incompetence of the USDA about diet, and seeing how the US Gov't covered up Agent Orange and the use of LSD on its own citizens, among other things, it is not hard to see the US gov't getting it wrong also (or outright lying) when they deny that vaccines cause autism. 

Trust in the gov't is a foolish venture.


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 15, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Sure, there might be Christians who work for the USDA, but if so, they ought to hang their heads in shame over their stupidity.


Wow.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate (Feb 15, 2019)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> This is where I am lost on this topic because trace amounts can be found within vaccines of WI-38. So quick question.. If we tested the vaccine would the DNA (if this is even possible) show that its from the aborted fetus, or would it be something completely different?



It's a bit difficult to follow your statements and question as they contain phrases that suggest a misunderstanding of what vaccines and WI-38 cells actually are. But I think the main point is this: WI-38 cells are a cell line. A cell line is definitely still a group of cells, but it is not the same group of cells that were taken from their organism of origin (in the case of WI-38, the organism of origin was an aborted child). The individual cells that constitute a cell line are built with biological materials that are purchased from a scientific supply company (or made in-house by individual scientists). 

To produce a cell line, cells from the organism of origin are isolated, and then scientists add the other biological materials to the isolated cells. The isolated cells then use these materials to build new cells that essentially preserve the DNA information and general attributes of the isolated cells. Due to the inherent nature of cells, all of the physical material that made up the originally isolated cells is metabolized or degraded within a few generations of new cells being built. In the case of the WI-38 cell line used for vaccine production, these cells are many generations removed from the original cells, and therefore none of the physical material from the original cells that were taken from the aborted child remain. Yes, the DNA sequence of the WI-38 cell line matches that of the aborted child, and IF any of the WI-38 DNA finds it's way into vaccines, that DNA will match that of of the aborted child. However, in the case of cell lines, a DNA match means a match of information (the information simply being ordered sequences of nucleotides) rather than a match of physical material to organism of origin.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username4000 (Feb 16, 2019)

Can someone enlighten me on what difference it makes if it’s not the dead baby’s cells, or if none are present? Seems to my mind that there’s a chain of events between killing a baby and my son receiving the vaccine, even if it’s not the exact same cells or if no cells are present at all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Feb 16, 2019)

This is an interesting link to a Catholic group. Very scholarly with a long bibliography at the end on this topic.

https://cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/


----------



## LongWar (Feb 17, 2019)

Heavy topic indeed. I will take the minority position, although I am not fully convinced of it. Since the aborted child was not murdered for the purpose of harvesting cells, I do not believe it is sinful to use those cells to save other lives. I think Grant made a parallel to harvesting organs from a murder victim. It would be different if the aborted child were killed for the purpose of harvesting parts.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (Feb 17, 2019)

koenig said:


> Can someone enlighten me on what difference it makes if it’s not the dead baby’s cells, or if none are present? Seems to my mind that there’s a chain of events between killing a baby and my son receiving the vaccine, even if it’s not the exact same cells or if no cells are present at all.



That an event in a chain is sinful does not mean that the chain throughout is sinful any more than our joining a church makes us participants in Judas' betrayal of Christ. While we may not sin that good will result, nevertheless we know that God, in his providence, does oftentimes bring good out of sin, and we may happily enjoy that good while shunning the sin.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 18, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> That an event in a chain is sinful does not mean that the chain throughout is sinful any more than our joining a church makes us participants in Judas' betrayal of Christ.



This parallel doesn't seem to match exactly. The ongoing nature of abortion and the fact that Walvax-2 (2015) will eventually replace WI-38 (1960) should make one pause. Why does it require an aborted fetus' cells? Its different than supporting business that support abortion because it happens afterwards. A better example would be a business using abortion in its means of production. 

Why are other means not sought after? Answer, because nobody is making it an issue.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 8, 2019)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=243721619837646





Not sure how to see this except to go to facebook. Watch to the end, it seems important to know these things when talking about vaccines. 

Also, the video is a good response to some posts on this thread.

As you can see, the date is 2018 (recent). This is some form of a court case dealing with vaccines. The one being questioned is a leading vaccine scientist, and a devout atheist (as he testifies).


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 8, 2019)

I don't think it's right to use vaccines made with fetal tissue for ethical/moral reasons and also for health reasons.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

