Posted on 07/18/2005 10:22:11 AM PDT by NYer
LARGO, FL, July 18, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Pontifical Academy for Life under the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued an "approved" study regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines. The study was undertaken in response to a US group called Children of God for Life, which has for years fought for the creation of ethical vaccines which are not 'tainted' by abortion.
In the document published in Medicina e Morale by the Center for Bioethics of Catholic University in Rome and titled, Moral Reflections On Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Aborted Human Foetuses, Vatican officials put the burden of guilt 100% on the pharmaceutical industry, comparing their moral complicity to that of the abortionists themselves.
The 8-page document, which has been anxiously awaited for several years by pro-life parents and physicians nationwide states that, doctors and families "have a duty to take recourse to alternatives, putting pressure on political authorities and health systems...They should use conscientious objection and oppose by all means " in writing, through various associations, mass media, etc, - the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus..."
The document, which can be viewed in full at http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm also supports parents who refuse to use the vaccines, citing that those who have been forced to vaccinate experience "a moral coercion of the conscience ... an unjust alternative choice which must be eliminated as soon as possible."
Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life Executive Director, who has battled this issue for years and received the document and letter directly from Bishop Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
"We brought the matter to Canon lawyers at the St. Joseph Foundation prior to sending an appeal on to the Vatican," Vinnedge said. "There is a serious problem when parents are denied the right to abstain from these vaccines in accord with State law, simply because there was nothing from the Vatican directly addressing it."
Vinnedge says the Vatican document, which calls for "rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers" should also spur action on their Fair Labeling and Informed Consent Act, introduced to members of Congress earlier this year. The legislation requires that pharmaceutical companies give full disclosure whenever aborted fetal or embryonic cell lines are used in their products.
Dr Steven White, President of the Catholic Medical Association agreed. "We must demand that the pharmaceutical industry provide accurate information on the origin of all vaccines so that we are able to make informed decisions in accord with our moral conscience - and we must mobilize to support development of ethical alternatives," he said.
Bump!
Does anyone have a list of the implicated vaccines?
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Is The Pontifical Academy for Life saying that parents have a moral duty not to have their children vaccinated with vaccines developed through techniques associated with abortion? Are parents who have their children vaccinated with such vaccines acting immorally?
| Disease | Vaccine Name | Manufacturer | Cell line (Fetal) |
| Chickenpox | Varivax | Merck & Company | WI-38 and MRC-5 |
| Ebola - Under Development | Unknown | Crucell & N.I.H. | PER C6 |
| Flu - Under Development | Unknown | Vaxin | PER C6 |
| Flu - Under Development | Unknown | MedImmune | PER C6 |
| Hepatitis A | Havrix Vaqta |
Glaxo SmithKline Merck & Company |
MRC-5 MRC-5 |
| Hepatitis A-B Combo | Twinrix | Glaxo/SmithKline | MRC-5 |
| HIV - Under Development | MRK-AD5 | Merck & Company | PER C6 |
| Measles, Mumps, Rubella Mumps-Rubella Measles-Rubella |
MMR II Biavax II MR-VAX |
Merck & Company | RA273 and WI-38 |
| Polio | Poliovax | Aventis-Pasteur | MRC-5 |
| Rabies | Imovax | Aventis-Pasteur | MRC-5 |
| Sepsis | Xigris | Eli Lilley | HEK 293 |
| Smallpox | Acambis 1000 | Acambis | MRC-5 |
For more information on Xigris, PER C6, 293 Cell Lines and AD5 Vectors
most vaccines contain a toxic metal, mercury under the name of thimerosal, mercury is not allowed in school labs anywhere in the USA and we wonder why children get seizures, add, ADHD, asthma and other diseases after immunizations.
|
Disease |
Vaccine Name | Manufacturer | Cell line |
| Polio | IPOL | Aventis-Pasteur | Monkey kidney cells |
| Mumps | Mumpsvax | Merck & Company | Chick embryo |
| Rabies | RabAvert | Chiron Therapeutics | Chick embryo |
| Measles | Attenuvax | Merck & Company | Chick Embryo |
| Smallpox | Acambis 2000 | Acambis-Baxter | Vero (Monkey) |
| Smallpox | MVA | Acambis-Nordis Bav. | Chick Embryo |
| Flu | FluVirin FluShield FluZone |
Chiron Wyeth Ayerest Aventis Pasteur |
Chick embryo |
| Flu | FluBlok | Protein Sciences | Caterpillar cell line |
Vaccine Alternatives Available In The United Kingdom
NOT FDA APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES
| Disease | Brand name | Company | Cell line |
| Rubella | Takahashi Strain | Kitasato Institute | Rabbit kidney |
| Hepatitis A | Aimmugen | Chemo-therapeutic Institute Japan (Kaketsuken) | Monkey kidney |
We are currently working in conjunction with the Foreign Manufacturers
to obtain these vaccines in the United States.
The Rubella vaccine, produced by Merck & Company was taken from an aborted baby during the 1964 rubella epidemic when some mothers were advised to have abortions, rather than risk their child being born with Congenital Rubella Syndrome. It was from the 27th baby aborted and immediately dissected that the active rubella virus was finally found. It was commonly referred to as RA27/3, where R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=third tissue culture explant. The abortionist collaborated with the Wistar Institute to collect the aborted babies in order to isolate the virus. The vaccine virus was then cultivated in the lung tissue of another aborted female baby, approximately 3 months gestation. (WI-38) (Attenuation of RA27/3 Rubella Virus in WI-38 Human Diploid Cells, Plotkin, Stanley, et. al., American Journal of Disease of Childhood, 118:178-185, 1969.) This abortion was performed because "the parents felt they had too many children." (G. Sven, S. Plotkin and K. McCarthy, Gamma Globulin Prophylaxis; Inactivated Rubella Virus; Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines, American Journal of Diseases of Children, vol. 118, August 1969).The new vaccine was developed in Philadelphia, Pa. and tested on orphans. (American Journal Diseases of Children, Vol. 110, Oct. 1965) Considering that there was already two licensed rubella vaccines on the market and considering that they could have done exactly what the Japanese did in order to isolate the rubella virus (they swabbed the throat of an infected child), it is obvious this vaccine was created in order to justify fetal tissue research. It is also important to note that Rubella is basically a harmless childhood disease that is only considered to have possible serious effects on the unborn child when a pregnant woman is exposed to the virus during her first trimester. Should this occur, 20-25% of these cases will develop some form of Congenital Rubella Syndrome, which may cause malformations of the heart, eyes or brain, deafness, or liver, spleen and bone marrow problems.
Other Sources: Christina Abel RN.
Merck & Company
Additional Facts - Hepatitis A
Havrix, the vaccine used to treat Hepatitis-A, uses a virus strain (HM175) propagated in MRC-5 human diploid (lung) cells which were taken from a male fetus aborted at 14 weeks gestation. These cells are lysed to form a suspension which is purified through ultrafiltration and gel permeation chromatography. The method is referenced to a standard using an Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (E.L.I.S.A.) and is expressed in terms of units (E.L.U.)
Havrix contains a sterile suspension of inactivated virus strains. The adult dosage consists of not less than 1440 E.L.U. viral antigen, 0.5mg of aluminum as aluminum hydroxide and 0.5% of 2-phenoxyethanol as a preservative. Other excipients are amino acid supplement (0.3%) in a phosphate buffered saline solution, polysorbate 20 (0.05mg/ml), MRC-5 cell proteins not greater than 5mgg and traces of formalin, not greater than 0.1mg.
The Centers for Disease Control noted that the best way to control Hep-A is to practice good hygiene, as the disease is spread through contact with fecal matter. Also, the product inserts for both Havrix and Vaqta show that the vaccine itself is not without problems. Neither vaccine has been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or its potential to impair fertility. It is also not known whether the vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.
**********************************
Source: Glaxo SmithKline, Merck Package Inserts; CDC
Additional Facts - Chickenpox
VARIVAX was developed with the use of aborted fetuses. It uses both the human cell lines, named WI-38 (Wistar Institute) and MRC-5 (Medical Research Council). The vaccine contains residual components of their DNA and protein. The cell lines were derived from the lung tissue of an aborted female at 3 months gestation and an aborted male at 14 weeks gestation. The cells of these fetuses were then developed in a lab culture to produce several vaccines.
VARIVAX also contains MSG (monosodium glutamate) in 2 forms, according to Jack Samuels, an expert on MSG. According to the FDA, MSG is not advised for infants, children, or pregnant women or children of childbearing age, and people with affective (mental/emotional) disorders.
According to VARIVAX product literature, the vaccine contains gelatin and trace amounts of neomycin, and should not be given to people allergic to them; it should not be given to anyone with an immune disorder, or anyone receiving drugs which affect the immune system such as chemotherapy or steroids; it should not be given to people with untreated tuberculosis or certain other infections.
Dr. A. Lavin of the Department of Pediatrics, St. Luke’s Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, strongly opposed licensing VARIVAX, “Until we actually know...the risks involved in injecting mutated DNA [the vaccine] into the host genome [children].”
Studies show that up to 3% of VARIVAX recipients contract chicken pox from the vaccine, and that some chicken pox cases may be contracted from recently vaccinated children. Vaccine recipients may therefore pose a health risk to pregnant mothers or family members with chronic health problems or compromised immune systems.
Some studies suggest that chicken pox in a vaccinated child may be milder than in an unvaccinated child. However, some experts believe that this may be due to the vaccine suppressing the illness, which could actually signal a more serious underlying chronic condition. For example, “Atypical measles” is a disease that occurs only in people previously vaccinated for measles, and it is far more serious than regular measles. It is not yet known if “atypical chicken pox” cases will appear as a result of the use of VARIVAX.
The FDA VAERS' (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) first year surveillance of VARIVAX included over 1,500 reports. 76 were serious adverse reactions that included 2 deaths. While a VAERS report does not prove a causal relationship between the vaccine and the death or disability that follows, the vaccine is highly suspect in all such reports.
The FDA has stated that fewer than 10% of serious adverse reactions and deaths following vaccines are reported; independent researchers cite lower rates. The federal government has paid families of vaccine killed and disabled children nearly $100 million in taxpayer dollars each year since 1986 through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVCIP).
Source: P.R.O.V.E. (Parents Requesting Open Vaccination Education)
ALSO READ THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE BY DR. CHRIS KAHLENBORN ON MEDICAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS VACCINE!
At the very least we must push for the development of ethical alternatives.
What do you think? Would you want your child shot up with vaccines made from aborted fetuses?
I was not aware that these common vaccines used murdered babies.
Yikes.
I'm not a parent so I won't guess, but I can imagine a parent wanting their children vaccinated with commonly-available vaccines. Maybe not, though.
What's the law on having your child vaccinated against rubella?
You would be amazed at what goes into these vaccines! For example, the DPT shot is administered 4 times and spread out over several months. Before administering it, parents are given a letter explaining the possible side effects which include death. There are cases of children who died after their 3rd dose. This vaccination is mandatory as are a host of others.
Well maybe it is the fetus tissue and not the thermasil that has poisioned our children. I firmly believe it was the shots that affected my kiddo.
Thanks for the info.
Thank you for posting these statistics and detailed information.
I am shocked at this! I had no idea that aborted babies were used to make these vaccines.
I think I am going to go throw up.
"Vatican Condemns Vaccines Made with Tissue Obtained by Abortion"
I thought the headline read "Vatican Condoms Made With Tissue Obtained by Abortion." Yikes.
MMR vaccination is almost universally required before children enter grade school.
Actually, the linked document explains that all of the vaccines are "allowed by the church" inasmuch as it can be morally permissable for Catholics to use them if there are no alternatives, and a suitably proportionate reason exists. (The document specifically mentions that leaving people susceptible to rubella makes more abortions likely.)
But it also says that parents should be allowed to opt out.
OTOH, the document blasts the pharmaceutical manufacturers for using the abortion-derived cell cultures, and also for not providing alternatives.
A very apropos topic, with school starting soon.
And Gray's Anatomy contains information gleaned from Nazi experiments on Jews during the Holocaust. We don't burn useful textbooks, and we don't destroy useful vaccines simply because of the means by which they were obtained. If the Catholic Church is concerned about this, then they should work to make certain that it doesn't happen in the future, rather than warning parishoners away from currently available vaccines.
Question: when it talks about being "tainted" by abortion, are we saying that the tissues of aborted babies are present in these vaccines or that we object because aborted tissues were used in the development of the vaccines?
>>This vaccination is mandatory as are a host of others.<<
One mere reason to homeschool.
>>One mere reason to homeschool<<
Ooops, even spellcheck failed me.
Make that one MORE reason to homeschool.
Of course, you can't go to school if you don't have your vaccinations.
But if you have AIDS, then you MUST be allowed to go to school, and mingle, in order that your rights not be denied (no matter if you expose others or not).
Or to put it another way - would you like your child vaccinated with toxins from population control cabals that will make them autistic or sterile???
Is it ethical to take orders about your health from high-weirdness Frankenstein pseudo-scientists and quacks pushing toxins and the culture of death on the population?
Aren't children allowed an exemption from vaccines if their parents object on religious or ethical grounds?
Or on a lesser note, if a child has a peanut allergy, my daughter cannot bring a peanut butter sandwich for lunch.
My child eats very little else that can be packed into a lunch but God forbid that someone seperate the child with the allergy.
I thank God everyday for the FReepers that helped convince my hubby that homeschooling is the best thing for my girls.
Re: peanut allergy. That is a very serious allergy and the prohibition against the other children bringing the offensive substances to school is for a valid reason. The "essences" get into the air that the allergic child breathes and can put him/her into the hospital -- or worse, kill him.
My granddaughter was visiting last week, and I had to make my house a "nut free" zone. That is why my office is presently stocked with pistachio nuts. But, my husband and I had to remember to wash our hands after consuming them if we were going to meet our granddaughter for lunch -- as we did several time during her visit.
You would be amazed at how many products are forbidden. If you carefully read the labels of many bakery items you will see that they often state, "producted in a facility that also uses nuts." Those items are forbidden too.
My son-in-law had a horrible experience in his office one day. He is in the publishing business and a traveling editor came in to work on a project. They were working well into the night to meet a deadline and the staff ordered out for food. The lady knew she was allergic to peanuts and informed everyone. THey were ordering CHinese, so they were careful to order all the dishes without nuts. However, they forgot that almost all Chinese food is prepared with peanut oil.
To make a long story short, the visiting editor ate the food and had a reaction and DIED before the para-medics could arrive!
I am simply appalled by this news!
No wonder there are forces in the medical field that want the evil practice of abortion to continue! Big money in it beyond the obvious fees collected from the patient.
One wonders whether many Catholics will see it the same way.
I understand the seriousness of it.
However, the question is, why is it that my child cannot bring peanut butter to school if there is an allergy? Why should she not be allowed to bring a sandwich because of someone else's allergy. (Understand that my child does not eat meat and peanutbutter is the only protein she would get at lunch).
You state that you have nuts in your office and take precautions. If my child had a serious nut allergy, I would isolate him/her, not expect the entire school to take the precautions for me.
Sorry, but to me, restricting the entire school for one child is backward.
bttt
Coleus,Pro-Life bump again.
I don't think you really understand the extent of the problem. Nobody is discriminating against your child. Have you ever smelled a peanut butter sandwich when you walked into a room? That peanutty aroma also contains microscopic oil particles that are DEADLY to someone with a peanut allergy. That is why peanuts are no longer served on airplanes.
Add to the problem that small children have at luch when they "share" with their friends, or eat sloppy and have traces of their sandwich on their faces and hands after lunch that can be transferred to another person or a common surface.
It didn't make sense to me either, until my son exlained it to me. Then I was happy to co-operate.
Concerning your child: you are doing her no favors if you don't introduce a wide range of foods to her. I know. I was a picky eater too. When I got to college I quickly learned that I had to eat what was served or 1) starve, or 2) used hard earned cash to get something else!
I raised 4 kids myself and I know that they can be difficult, but we had one rule (even for the picky ones): eat what is served, or go without.
The only concession we made was to leave the mustard OFF sandwiches for one of them. They all grew up great, are considerate of others, finished college with higher degrees, married good folks, gave us terrific grandchildren, and still love us!
There are other sources of protein besides peanut butter. And you child is still able to enjoy PB before and after school. Better a little sacrifice than being responsible for a classmate's death, or hospitalization.
Think of PB asif it were a gun in the case of an allergic child. Would you think that it was too restrictive if your child was prevented from bringing a loaded pistol to class? (Even if there was no intention to use it.) It's really the same thing.
YOU are presuming a lot when YOU lecture that all allergic people should be kept behind closed doors and the school should banish any children who interfere with your child's desires. I was NOT lecturing you -- just offering some honest advice through hard earned experience.
Personally I have never heard of a pediatrician who recommended that a child eat no protein but peanut butter. But keep in mind that most MDs had only a week of nutritianal training in Medical School. The wonderful thing about our universe is that there are many forms of delicious and healthy proteins readily available in our food supply. Try your library, or the Internet. You may be amazed! You will also find this same peanut prohibition if you get out and about in other places too. I know a Sunday school near here that designates peanut free zones in their Sunday morning religious programs. Are you suggesting that the minister should just banish all of the peanut-allergic children from church?
What are you going to do if your child DEVELOPS an allergy to peanut butter some day? That happens, you know. Humans develop various allergies throughout their lives, and sometimes they overcome them, as well.
Many children have autism, and the immunization shots are suspected. They blame it on the mercury, but who knows?
And the government and pharmaceutical companies will ensure that neither you, nor I will ever know. I'm old enough to remember the introduction of the polio vaccine and the others that followed. Odd ... none of my classmates suffered from autism or ADHD or any of these other 'neurological' diseases. Not a one! Back then boys could be boys. It was expected that they would use recess to settle scores in the school yard. Now, boys are expected to sit quietly behind their desks, hands folded, just like the girls. May God have mercy on us all.
No they didn't, and our school offered government-provided, surplus peanut butter with which they made 5 cent sandwiches. However, that does not mean that the problem wasn't there. They just didn't know what caused the kids to be sick. My cousin died from previously undiagnosed diabetes during that era, and she was under the doctor's care in a hospital at the time! Medical personnel are much more knowledgeable these days.
My little granddaughter spent several days in the hospital last winter because well-meaning friends brought dinner to the family that included brownies that had no visible nuts. Her mother was restricted to bed with a strained back. The brownies were Little Debbie's and had been removed from the wrapper and placed on a pretty dish before they arrived at the home. My son served them to the kids after checking them over carefully, but there were invisible ground nuts in them. Poor little Lydia wound up in the ER, unable to breathe, and spent a couple of days on oxygen. This was a case where the brownie had been baked in a facility that also baked items that included nuts, and they are not always as careful as they should be about cleaning everything between recipes. It's those pesky oils and essences again. They just linger. (And nobody got sued over this incident.)
With all your background in nutrition, I'm sure that you could come up with a suitable substitute protein for your child's lunch. Or, you can continue to keep your child home and continue to blame the "unfair" folks who run the schools who are "distriminating" against your child who is on the self-imposed limited diet. It's your choice, and you have made it. I'm glad you are happy with it, but it may limit your child's experiences in the future.
I can assure you that no one with severe allergies wants the world to change for them. They just want to stay out of the hospital and out of the grave. To use your own words, "This is not a matter of [my] the child's desires. It is a matter of her health"
In your day (and mine), autistic children were institutionalized. Many of their families just signed them over to the state (they were advised to do that by their docotrs) and forgot about them. Most likely you were unaware of their existence.
>>Or, you can continue to keep your child home and continue to blame the "unfair" folks who run the schools who are "distriminating" against your child who is on the self-imposed limited diet. It's your choice, and you have made it. I'm glad you are happy with it, but it may limit your child's experiences in the future.<<
Oh my sure there is many a homeschooling mother on this board who will disagree with "limiting a child's experiences in the future".
I never used your words in quotations above, you did. Seems like a little projection going on there. And my daughter is not on a "self-imposed" limited diet. That is a presumption you are making again.
I never said that there were unfair folks, I stated that sending a child to school who is in as much danger as you portray is reckless. Many of the school districts today go to the extreme and many a parent plays on it. We must restrict the many instead of restricting the child in danger.
I have friends with children who have dietary restrictions. They feed their children their own food and do not inflict their problems on others. I'm sorry that your Granddaughter ended up in a hospital, but that is the boundries one must take with a sick child. Nothing in the mouth execpt what a parent provides.
The danger from those nuts would still exist in a school situation. No visable nuts right. What parent would know that they were there and what six year old might not offer a goodie to her friend.
Sending that child to a school is simply putting her in harms way.
Both of my daughters are allergic to mosquito bites and will die from bee stings. Do I send them out into a field unprotected without an Epi-kit close by? My daughters have the same risk of death, but do I put them into the situation? I don't think so. And neither do I tell the school that no child may go on a field trip to a local pond to catch tadpoles because mine can't go. We ran into that when she was in school and she did not go.
Some degree of reason is needed here.
Parent-imposed restricted diet? Is that more accurate?
Yes, I had a child allergic to bee stings too. However, she went to school, camp, etc. She's now a mom with 2 of her own and is an avid gardener, and they do everything anybody else does. She's also allergic to pine tree pollen. Do you think I could protect her from that? No, it interferes with her beautiful singing voice during pollen season, but she still has ample opportunities to use her God-given talent at church and in her studio.
Unfortunately, you cannot see yourself and your own unreasonable demands on the rest of the world. Your child is not in danger of dying because of peanut butter in the environment, but all children who have that problem must stay cloistered so that your kid can eat their peanut butter in public without regard for the health of others because YOU don't want your children to consume any other kind of protein. What's more, I really don't think that it matters to you what the school says about PB sandwiches. You would be homeschooling anyway. I'm sure that PB not the primary reason you keep your children home. Of course, according to you, the whole PB allergy is a scam perpetrated by the trial lawyers!
The schools and churches and airlines have made reasonable accomocdations for the handicapped -- just like handicapped parking places -- until the kids are old enough to take care of themselves. Some folks, like my son in law's visiting editor, never seem to reach the level of caring for themselves, however. And the enclosed environment on a plane (with the recirculated air) makes the peanut essences dangerous to anyone aboard who suffers from this allergy. The story about my granddaughter was simply to illustrate that there is a real danger, a fact which you want to deny.
I can assure you that her parents are VERY careful and always bring their own food, but accidents happen. It is just incumbant on me to remove nuts from my home when she is here. I am happy to do that and am not complaining, although you might think that it is a great inconvenience. The offending brownie was from a trusted friend from their church as part of a meal to help out my son's family in a crisis when my daughter in law was incapacitated from a back injury. It was offered in good faith with no intent to harm anybody.
I am so happy that you are able to home school your kids, and I hope they grow up strong and healthy and even learn to be considerate of other people along the way. Jesus taught that the Golden Rule was above all other laws and it is good to pass that concept on to our children. i.e., *I won't put your child's life in danger because I wouldn't like it if you put my child's life in danger*
Enjoy your kids while they are young.
Pro-lifie Alert!
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.