Posted on 05/31/2013 4:58:43 PM PDT by Sopater
The Vaccine Controversy has been going on for some time now, and Christian parents often wonder what is right. They hear debates and arguments for and against vaccines, but they don't know what is best for their children. However, few people are aware of one of the most important aspects: the use of aborted fetal tissue in many of the vaccines. Chickenpox, Hepatitis A, Rubella, Measles/Mumps/Rubella, Polio, Rabies, Shingles, Smallpox, Flu, Swine Flu, and HIV are just a few. This branch of ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) has long been kept from the public eye since as early as 1959. A coalition of Doctors from Karolinska Institute of Stockholm, Sweden; Wistar Institute, which performs research for the University of Pennsylvania; and Merck Research Institute which manufactures most of the immunizations for the US, conducted the first research using aborted fetal tissue. Their claim was that they were trying to find a safe culture for growing the needed viruses for vaccines that would possibly cause them to be more effective. The rubella outbreak in 1964 proved to be an open door of opportunity for testing the effectiveness of their immunizations. The hastily formulated rubella vaccine was first tested on Pennsylvanian orphans, and then sold to doctors' offices for the general public. It wasn't long before other unethical specimens entered the market without the public's knowledge. Some questions arise. First, was there a need for new vaccines? And are these vaccines safer, as was asserted? To answer this, let's examine the rubella vaccine; when the first one tainted with aborted fetal cells was introduced, there already were two preexisting rubella vaccines made from animal cells that worked just as well as the newer one. Also, if there were a reason for a new injection, adult stem cells could have been used. Also, the Japanese formulated their injection by swabbing the throat of an infected child and developing the culture in rabbit tissue. As far as safety goes, rubella itself is quite harmless. In fact, the New England Medical Journal states, "In children and adults, rubella is usually mild and may even go unnoticed. Children generally have few symptoms, but adults may experience fever, headache, malaise, and a runny nose before the rash appears…Lifelong immunity to the disease follows infection." The only danger involves a baby whose mother contracts the disease in her first trimester of pregnancy, and the baby could develop CRS, Congenital Rubella Syndrome, which may cause deafness, heart problems, mental retardation, and liver damage. Because of this, some say that the immunization is necessary for the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn babies. However, cases of CRS are rare; in fact, in the year 2004, there were no recorded cases. Currently, doctors test a mother for rubella during her first office visit, and, if she tests positive, a series of antibodies are given to her, so the child is in no endangerment. The real hazard is the vaccine itself. Merck, the manufacturer, includes a product insert that warns of side effects which include: encephalitis, pneumonitis, pancreatitis, diarrhea, vomiting, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, purpura, leukocytosis, myalgia, chronic arthritis, febrile convulsions, seizures, aseptic meningitis, nerve deafness, and death among several others[i]. It seems as though this injection is unsafe and evidently unnecessary. The chickenpox vaccine is another good example. Those who have had chickenpox will most likely agree that it, too, is mild, and hardly needs to be vaccinated against. Unfortunately, it is often required for public school attendance. Natural immunity to the illness by the age of nine is quite common, even if it is never contracted. Mothers who have had the illness pass on a temporary immunity to their newborns, especially if the child is breast-fed. Those who were vaccinated are more likely to suffer from shingles later in life, and are not actually immune to the disease. A day care facility in New Hampshire experienced a chickenpox outbreak when a vaccinated child infected a vaccinated sibling who in turn infected all vaccinated children in the day care. Only those who had actually had the illness before remained healthy[ii]. Again, the peril is in the vaccine, not the disease. A JAMA report warns of seizures, paralysis, and inflammation of the brain and spinal cord due to the immunization[iii]. Perhaps the most frightening aspect is where this could lead in the future. At one time it was believed that the original embryonic cell lines were "immortal" and no new tissue would be needed, but nothing could be further from the truth. Research has found that the cells live only as long as the approximate lifespan of the donor, causing them to have to be replaced. This could lead to an increase in abortions. The Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1955, stated, "[O]f the 122 women who indicated that they would consider an abortion if they were pregnant, (17.2%) stated that they would be more likely to have an abortion if they could donate tissue for fetal tissue transplants…[iv]" Some manufacturers are looking for fetuses that are at a gestational age at which the baby could still survive outside of its mother. Another major concern is the making of money from selling dismembered babies. According to some "sales lists", abortionists may charge $150.00 - $999.00 for a fetal brain. Some offer 30% off damaged tissue. New Zealand reports label fetuses "a sought-after product". Abortion clinics also charge extra fees for removing organs and such on site. Their cold approach to innocent human life is appalling. Government legislation and liberal organizations worsen the problem. Arizona's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decided that ending this research interfered with Roe v. Wade. New Jersey also allows cloned embryos to be implanted in a mother, but the fetus must be terminated before birth, allowing the tissue to be used for "science". Pro-Choice Resources Center, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Catholics For a Free Choice came together in 2003 to discuss how to eradicate the laws on the right of conscience. One participant stated, "No one has the right to commit malpractice. If we can establish that a standard of care is being violated, the public interest in patient health will clearly outweigh the sectarian hospitals' or insurers' right to limit care. Finding a better name than 'conscience clauses' should be a key part of that strategy." They also proposed that they join liberal movements on separation of church and state, religious freedom issues, and gay rights to help break down conscience laws. Parents and Christians must respond to such a heinous and deadly practice. It is important to alert doctors to this issue. One doctor said, "Most physicians are not aware of the source of the vaccines. I had to investigate the issue when one of my patients expressed concern. Only then did I learn this." A nurse in Virginia wrote, "I am dismayed to find that the vaccines I have trusted, received, and administered over the years were made from cell lines derived from aborted human fetuses. The use of these vaccines for my family, and my administration of them as a nurse, violates my religious beliefs as well as my personal sensibilities." Knowledgeable doctors should also alert parents. One physician stated, "At least 50% of the patients are shocked to find out the source of these vaccines, and I have had patients opt not to vaccinate their children on that basis alone." Thankfully, for parents who do want their children vaccinated there are ethical options for any vaccine (except chickenpox and rubella), and they may speak with their pediatrician and have them special ordered. As Christians, it is against God's Word to endorse such behavior that equates to murder and to put our own children at risk by giving them something so potentially harmful. For additional information, please visit Children of God for Life, at www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccinetruth.htm Sophie Koeppel lives in Wilson, WI. notes: i Merck Product Insert (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf) ii Dr. Jane Seward et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 12-16-01; Report: NH chickenpox outbreak iii JAMA REPORT 9-13-00, Vol. 384, No. 10, Pgs 1271-1279 iv Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995, 153: 545-552
The Vaccine Controversy has been going on for some time now, and Christian parents often wonder what is right. They hear debates and arguments for and against vaccines, but they don't know what is best for their children. However, few people are aware of one of the most important aspects: the use of aborted fetal tissue in many of the vaccines. Chickenpox, Hepatitis A, Rubella, Measles/Mumps/Rubella, Polio, Rabies, Shingles, Smallpox, Flu, Swine Flu, and HIV are just a few. This branch of ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) has long been kept from the public eye since as early as 1959.
A coalition of Doctors from Karolinska Institute of Stockholm, Sweden; Wistar Institute, which performs research for the University of Pennsylvania; and Merck Research Institute which manufactures most of the immunizations for the US, conducted the first research using aborted fetal tissue. Their claim was that they were trying to find a safe culture for growing the needed viruses for vaccines that would possibly cause them to be more effective. The rubella outbreak in 1964 proved to be an open door of opportunity for testing the effectiveness of their immunizations. The hastily formulated rubella vaccine was first tested on Pennsylvanian orphans, and then sold to doctors' offices for the general public. It wasn't long before other unethical specimens entered the market without the public's knowledge.
Some questions arise. First, was there a need for new vaccines? And are these vaccines safer, as was asserted? To answer this, let's examine the rubella vaccine; when the first one tainted with aborted fetal cells was introduced, there already were two preexisting rubella vaccines made from animal cells that worked just as well as the newer one. Also, if there were a reason for a new injection, adult stem cells could have been used. Also, the Japanese formulated their injection by swabbing the throat of an infected child and developing the culture in rabbit tissue. As far as safety goes, rubella itself is quite harmless. In fact, the New England Medical Journal states, "In children and adults, rubella is usually mild and may even go unnoticed. Children generally have few symptoms, but adults may experience fever, headache, malaise, and a runny nose before the rash appears…Lifelong immunity to the disease follows infection." The only danger involves a baby whose mother contracts the disease in her first trimester of pregnancy, and the baby could develop CRS, Congenital Rubella Syndrome, which may cause deafness, heart problems, mental retardation, and liver damage. Because of this, some say that the immunization is necessary for the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn babies. However, cases of CRS are rare; in fact, in the year 2004, there were no recorded cases. Currently, doctors test a mother for rubella during her first office visit, and, if she tests positive, a series of antibodies are given to her, so the child is in no endangerment. The real hazard is the vaccine itself. Merck, the manufacturer, includes a product insert that warns of side effects which include: encephalitis, pneumonitis, pancreatitis, diarrhea, vomiting, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, purpura, leukocytosis, myalgia, chronic arthritis, febrile convulsions, seizures, aseptic meningitis, nerve deafness, and death among several others[i]. It seems as though this injection is unsafe and evidently unnecessary.
The chickenpox vaccine is another good example. Those who have had chickenpox will most likely agree that it, too, is mild, and hardly needs to be vaccinated against. Unfortunately, it is often required for public school attendance. Natural immunity to the illness by the age of nine is quite common, even if it is never contracted. Mothers who have had the illness pass on a temporary immunity to their newborns, especially if the child is breast-fed. Those who were vaccinated are more likely to suffer from shingles later in life, and are not actually immune to the disease. A day care facility in New Hampshire experienced a chickenpox outbreak when a vaccinated child infected a vaccinated sibling who in turn infected all vaccinated children in the day care. Only those who had actually had the illness before remained healthy[ii]. Again, the peril is in the vaccine, not the disease. A JAMA report warns of seizures, paralysis, and inflammation of the brain and spinal cord due to the immunization[iii].
Perhaps the most frightening aspect is where this could lead in the future. At one time it was believed that the original embryonic cell lines were "immortal" and no new tissue would be needed, but nothing could be further from the truth. Research has found that the cells live only as long as the approximate lifespan of the donor, causing them to have to be replaced. This could lead to an increase in abortions. The Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1955, stated, "[O]f the 122 women who indicated that they would consider an abortion if they were pregnant, (17.2%) stated that they would be more likely to have an abortion if they could donate tissue for fetal tissue transplants…[iv]" Some manufacturers are looking for fetuses that are at a gestational age at which the baby could still survive outside of its mother. Another major concern is the making of money from selling dismembered babies. According to some "sales lists", abortionists may charge $150.00 - $999.00 for a fetal brain. Some offer 30% off damaged tissue. New Zealand reports label fetuses "a sought-after product". Abortion clinics also charge extra fees for removing organs and such on site. Their cold approach to innocent human life is appalling.
Government legislation and liberal organizations worsen the problem. Arizona's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decided that ending this research interfered with Roe v. Wade. New Jersey also allows cloned embryos to be implanted in a mother, but the fetus must be terminated before birth, allowing the tissue to be used for "science". Pro-Choice Resources Center, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Catholics For a Free Choice came together in 2003 to discuss how to eradicate the laws on the right of conscience. One participant stated, "No one has the right to commit malpractice. If we can establish that a standard of care is being violated, the public interest in patient health will clearly outweigh the sectarian hospitals' or insurers' right to limit care. Finding a better name than 'conscience clauses' should be a key part of that strategy." They also proposed that they join liberal movements on separation of church and state, religious freedom issues, and gay rights to help break down conscience laws.
Parents and Christians must respond to such a heinous and deadly practice. It is important to alert doctors to this issue. One doctor said, "Most physicians are not aware of the source of the vaccines. I had to investigate the issue when one of my patients expressed concern. Only then did I learn this." A nurse in Virginia wrote, "I am dismayed to find that the vaccines I have trusted, received, and administered over the years were made from cell lines derived from aborted human fetuses. The use of these vaccines for my family, and my administration of them as a nurse, violates my religious beliefs as well as my personal sensibilities." Knowledgeable doctors should also alert parents. One physician stated, "At least 50% of the patients are shocked to find out the source of these vaccines, and I have had patients opt not to vaccinate their children on that basis alone." Thankfully, for parents who do want their children vaccinated there are ethical options for any vaccine (except chickenpox and rubella), and they may speak with their pediatrician and have them special ordered. As Christians, it is against God's Word to endorse such behavior that equates to murder and to put our own children at risk by giving them something so potentially harmful.
For additional information, please visit Children of God for Life, at www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccinetruth.htm
Sophie Koeppel lives in Wilson, WI.
notes:
i Merck Product Insert (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf)
ii Dr. Jane Seward et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 12-16-01; Report: NH chickenpox outbreak
iii JAMA REPORT 9-13-00, Vol. 384, No. 10, Pgs 1271-1279
iv Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995, 153: 545-552
Bump
So they use what would have been dumped in the landfill and you are shocked and want to do what?
Have funeral?
Pay the woman who tossed the baby...
Prohibit the use of human tissue for research?
What?
Basically every vaccine there’s ever been? Is this true?
I knew it was in vaccines, but I didn’t know it was in so many!
Don't be too gullible.
YOU don’t be gullible.
I did extensive research on this years ago when deciding whether or not to vaccinate my children.
This is a known fact and not new news.
Well yeah.....it depends....
The chickens were all upset when we used chicken eggs...
The cows got bent out of shape when we used bovine cells.
So now the Humans are upset...
I suppose we could try fish...
Children of God for Life just this month released their updated vaccine chart. No, this is not fishy. It is the truth.
http://www.cogforlife.org/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf
Don’t be so flip, there’s a place with hot heat for that.
and what is worse is that there used to be alternative-derived vaccines, but more and more these have been discontinued. or docs will just tell you the vaccines arent from aborted tissue lines when they are. you’re a peon, how will you ever prove different?
If it really came down to needing THIS, a few spare cells which the fetus would never miss could probably be gotten from patients of in-utero surgery, and then these cells could be multiplied in the lab to the hearts’ desire of scientists. No ethical shadow at all. But I keep wondering if it is lobbies of the godless, rather than even “disinterested” science, that comes up with this. Normally the unborn don’t GET these diseases. Why would their cells be logical growth media for them?
this was all the left’s intent to show good could come from abortions, plus it was free to them as it was waste tissue. that’s the reason.
yeah, to try to glorify it (not even redeem, which suggests a disadvantaged state to start with)
What is best, a vaccine that is targeted to a virus that infects a Human, or a Chicken?
Vaccines have been targeted where possible to humans for the best part of the last 50 years. Technology continues to add methods where some vaccines and medicines that were rendered from animal tissue, like most were originally, have now where possible been better targeted to human cells and as a result more effective, longer lasting, just better...
So what's the answer here...Do we label it as immoral to use discarded human tissue and just chuck it? or do we use it to better the medical profession and it's capabilities?
That answer is clear to me, but for some it seems not. I think that if explained in full and a vote taken the results would be clearly in favor of not wasting the tissue. But if not, I frankly don't have any young children, even my grand kids are beyond vaccine age, so I really don't care. I'll leave it up to those with something to lose.
Why such a pressing need to get the media from FETUSES? Why not from plain old human volunteers. Why so easily breach the moral bright lines that used to exist? The strange rush to do so is cause for pause; I do not believe “disinterested science” is behind this.
Actually, most if not all of this research and vaccine production is done with embryos from fertility clinics. Several are created for most cases. After implant they are slated for destruction and we use them. They are donated per law passed quite some time ago when this issue first came up. As to what they do with stuff from abortions, I suspect various states probably deal with it differently as most hospitals are regulated closely by state laws first and then federal.
Prior to the embryo use, they got it where they could. But I don’t know much about that...
what it is made from is just a growth medium. we could make all vaccines without aborted tissue. there is no difference in effectiveness, and as i said there used to be vaccines that were made without aborted tissue, and they were identical in effectiveness.
Well, they do use volunteers for making serums...But what were are talking about here is disease Immunizations, like small pox, Rubella.....etc. As well as anti viral serums that are produced by the tank load....and always in short supply.
The needs are great, shortages have been a issue lately but it’s not shortages that the human tissue is used for, It’s effectiveness and targeted accuracy of the antibodies or vaccines. If the vaccine is a bit off, the antibody produced after it is injected can be only partly effective. But would work great on a chicken...
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.