aborted fetal tissue?

[Guest guest]

We are having a discussion on another list about whether there is

actual aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. Someone on the list says

there cannot be any tissue in the actual vaccine becaue our body would

reject it and it would cause a host of problems. They acknowledge that

they are grown in aborted fetal tissue but that none of the actual

tissue is in the vaccine. Is this true?

[Guest guest]

hi

it is my understanding that aborted fetal tissue is in the Hep A,

varicella, and MMR vaccines.

here is a good website

http://users.adelphia.net/~cdc/Vaccines.htm

it has the package inserts of the vaccines, which list specifically

what is in them. Some do list that there is aborted fetal tissue in

them.

[Guest guest]

See my webpage

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/abortedtissue.com

PLEASE, please everyone go to my pages so you know what is there

Sheri

At 04:14 PM 11/04/2004 -0000, you wrote:

>

>

>We are having a discussion on another list about whether there is

>actual aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. Someone on the list says

>there cannot be any tissue in the actual vaccine becaue our body would

>reject it and it would cause a host of problems. They acknowledge that

>they are grown in aborted fetal tissue but that none of the actual

>tissue is in the vaccine. Is this true?

>

>

>

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL

OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

******

" Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.

Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy

knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information

and religions destroy spirituality " .... Ellner

[Guest guest]

Cell lines are made from human aborted fetal tissue. Viruses are replicated

using these cell lines. Vaccine recipients will receive residual components

(DNA) as state by manufacturer on product inserts.

Further details by presentation available for broadband connection at

http://poisonevercure.150m.com/Presentations/abortion-vaccines/abortion-vacc

ines.PPT

-

We are having a discussion on another list about whether there is

actual aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. Someone on the list says

there cannot be any tissue in the actual vaccine becaue our body would

reject it and it would cause a host of problems. They acknowledge that

they are grown in aborted fetal tissue but that none of the actual

tissue is in the vaccine. Is this true?

[Guest guest]

This is what was sent to me on vaccines by the Ethics & Medics, a

Catholic Perspective on Moral Issues in The Health and Life Sciences.

www.ncbcenter.org

Vaccines Originating in Abortion

Many commonly used vaccines have their origin in cell lines that were

originally developed from an aborted fetus. This poses a serious

moral dilemma for those who oppose abortion. Two questions need to be

examined: first, may a Catholic, in good conscience, use vaccines

derived from aborted materials, or is one obliged to refuse them?

And, second, may a Catholic parent refuse to vaccinate a child?

Vaccines and ation

The production of vaccines begins with a growth of a weakened strain

of a known virus in culture. When this weakened strain is processed

and later injected into the body, it provokes an immune response that

leads to the production of antibodies. Should a person who has been

immunized encounter the virus at full strength, his body is ready to

fend off the infection.

Two human cell lines (MRC-5 and WI-38) that are used to grow these

weakened virus strains have their origins in cells derived from the

lung tissue of aborted fetuses (Dan Maher, " On the Use of Certain

Vaccines, " unpublished manuscript (1998, NCBC). Although these human

cell lines could have been produced using cells taken from other

sources (thus avoiding the moral problem entirely), the fact is that

they were not. In many cases, there is no other choice than either to

make use of a tainted vaccine or to forgo vaccination altogether.

Thus " Meruvax, " a widely used vaccine for rubella (German measles)

sold by Merck & Co., Inc., uses the WI-38 cell line. The chicken pox

vaccine " Varivax, " produced by the same company, uses both MRC-5 and

WI-38. Kline Beecham offers a vaccine called " Havrix " that has

it origins in MRC-5. " Havrix " gurards againstscralet fever, rheumatic

fever, kidney inflammation, and other hepatitis A infections.

Whether immunizations with these vaccines is permissible depends upon

whether their use involves the Catholic in cooperation with evil.

Briefly, formal cooperation arises when an individual shares in the

intention or the action of another who does what is wrong. Immoral

material cooperation occurs when one who copperates makes an

essential contribution to the circumstances of a wrongdoer's act.

Thus the question about vaccines derived from aborted fetuses

concerns whether or not their use involves the Catholic in immoral

cooperation with the evil of abortion.

The answer, in short, would appear to be " no. "   For it seems

impossible for an individual to cooperate with an action that is now

completed and exists in the past. Clearly, use of a vaccine in the

present does not cuase one who is immunized to share in the immoral

intention or action of those who carried out the abortion in the past

Neither does such use provide some circumstance essential to the

commission of that past act. Thus use of these vaccines would seem

permissible.

The following is some research I did in 2000. It is a copy and paste.

This has also been posted on this list before.

I contacted Father Torraco three years ago. He sent me all

the information on the cell lines they use, and exactly where they

came from. Now, he is a member of COG.

The Catholic Bioethics organization sent me a book load of

information. From reading this, I get the distinct impression they

are saying that if that is the only vaccine available than the good

of children's health comes first. But, Fr. Torraco, ain't buying

this. We know for a fact that different countries do not use HDC in

their vaccines.

Father Torraco's reply.

The arguments that have been used to justify the use of vaccinations

derived from cell lines of aborted fetuses are flawed in a number of

ways. The two basic points of these arguments are that 1) these

vaccines are the only available alternative to the spread of the

disease (hepatitus A, a viral infection of the liver); 2) the

individual receiving the vaccine is not in immoral cooperation with

the evil of abortion.

HOW THE VACCINES ARE DEVELOPED

Before explaining why these two basic points and their accompanying

arguments are flawed, it is helpful to review what essentially is

involved in the development of these vaccines. In his article, " The

Moral Implications of Fetal Tissue Vaccines " (available at

http://www.all.org), Kellmeyer explains:

" In order to produce a bacterial or a viral vaccine, laboratory

personnel must have large quantities of the bacterium or virus in

question. Fortunately, bacteria can be grown in large quantities

simply by giving them the equivalent of chicken broth. Unfortunately

a virus, a simple strand of DNA or RNA, isn't as capable. A virus

needs cellular machinery, machinery it doesn't have, in order to

reproduce. It must insinuate itself into a cell, hijacking the cell's

machinery. To grow large quantities of virii, a tissue culture,

essentially a vast " lawn " of cells which coat the inside of the flask

like scales on a fish, must be prepared. The virus is placed in

contact with the cell tissue, invades the cells, hijacks the cellular

machinery, and reproduces itself. After large numbers of viruses have

grown, they are removed from the cell culture, inactivated, and

processed in order to produce the vaccine.

The problem is that viruses need good cells to hijack. The cells must

provide excellent machinery for virus production, and be easy for the

virus to invade. Two human cell lines used to produce cell cultures,

WI-38 and MRC-5, have problematic origins. WI-38 is normal lung

tissue taken from a three-month old female child aborted in

Philadelphia in 1961. MRC-5 is normal lung tissue taken from a 14-

week old male child aborted because a Swedish couple wanted no more

children. Both cell lines support a broad range of rhinoviruses. Both

are " immortal, " which means they reproduce rapidly and self-

consistently enough to remain essentially similar to the tissue taken

from two dying bodies over thirty years ago. "

FLAWED MORAL ARGUMENTS

If you examine the two basic points made by the arguments for the

moral justification of these vaccines, you will notice that they are

intimately related. 1) The first point (they are the only

alternatives to treating the disease) is essentially a matter of

arguing that they are morally justifiable because we NEED them. 2)

The second point (the person receiving the vaccine does not WILL the

abortion from which it is derived) is essentially a matter of arguing

that, because the abortion at issue happened so long ago and that no

further abortions are required for this vaccination, receiving the

vaccination is morally justifiable.

The first point is flawed for a number of reasons. First of all,

leaving it simply at saying that something is morally justifiable

because I NEED it as a means to an end, and indeed, a good end (

preservation of one's life) is absolutely identical with the

Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means (or, that

evil may be done in order to accomplish good) and, thus, absolutely

unacceptable and morally indefensible. Secondly, precisely because

this Machiavellian principle is morally indefensible, one needs to

examine the very thing needed in this particular case -- cell lines

from aborted fetuses. To say that one NEEDS the cell lines of aborted

fetuses to preserve one's life is inseparable from saying that one

NEEDS the abortions -- intrinsically evil actions -- that make the

cell lines available. And this is where the point of the first

argument meets -- and betrays -- the point of the second argument.

To say that a person receiving this vaccination -- derived from a

fetus aborted long ago -- does not WILL the abortion that makes the

vaccination possible may well be true in the individual and isolated

case of the person who does not know the origin of the vaccine.

However, one cannot base the moral argumentation for a practice

intended for the entire population upon the ignorance of this person

or upon the correct moral behavior of the individual recipient of the

vaccine. In fact, the second argument in favor of the moral

justification of the use of these vaccines not only very clearly

presupposes the knowledge of the origin of the vaccine, but also

advocates that society in general adopt the use of this vaccine. With

that knowledge in place, and with the institutionalization of the

vaccine within the very fabric of society in place, to say that a

person receiving this vaccination -- derived from a fetus aborted

long ago -- does not WILL the abortion that makes the vaccination

possible is patently false. If I NEED it (and it is a NEED that can

be satisfied only by an aborted fetus) and I defend my NEED, I WANT

it. The person receiving the vaccination may well be living long

after the fetus was actually aborted, and had no involvement in and

may even have no knowledge of the PARTICULAR and ACTUAL fetus that

was aborted. However, the remoteness in time is not sufficient for

arguing that there is no act of the will on the part of the recipient

of the vaccine, even if only an elicited act of the will (an act

of " pure will " within one's own soul that involves no bodily action

whatsoever, and can be identical with passive acceptance).

On this issue, and so many like it, we desperately need to see more

than a few feet in front of us. Thinking that we know what we NEED

here and now does not necessarily mean that we do know or, therefore,

that we should WANT it. This is why it would be wise to abide by the

US Bishops' directive forbidding the use of tissue from aborted

fetuses, even for therapeutic purposes. This is also why it would be

wise to heed the directive of the Holy See's 1987 document, Donum

Vitae (Gift of Life): " The corpses of human embryos and fetuses,

whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected

just as the remains of other human beings.... the moral requirements

must be safeguarded, that there be no complicity in deliberate

abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also, in the case

of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial

trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited. "

Fr. F. Torraco

>

> We are having a discussion on another list about whether there is

> actual aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. Someone on the list says

> there cannot be any tissue in the actual vaccine becaue our body

would

> reject it and it would cause a host of problems. They acknowledge

that

> they are grown in aborted fetal tissue but that none of the actual

> tissue is in the vaccine. Is this true?

>

>