Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[nett]

I am curious about ibuprofen/Tylenol. if this is in fact true, what do people use as an alternative to a childhood fever?

Ibuprofen and Tylenol were developed and brought to market before anyone did research with fetal stem cells. Ken is just making stuff up.

I am also curious about the metformin? is there an alternative that can be used instead?

Metformin was brought to market in 1957 in France and fetal stem cells were not used in its development.

I did not see levothyroxine on the list...I suppose I need to check that one out.

The list is not "comprehensive", it is a made-up list used to try to discredit people who question modern vaccines developed using stem cells.

Note that Patheos is an ultra-left-liberal religious site, it is not a science or medicine based site. Most of the writers there are very liberal. The site has a very strong pro-abortion and pro-vaccine stance, and dedicates many articles to mocking anyone who questions vaccine safety.

I am not making stuff up. Drug companies do not cease all research on a drug once they gain FDA approval and bring it to market. They continue to do ongoing safety research and ongoing research as to the drugs effectiveness for different uses, dosages, etc. long after the FDA has approved it. So the Tylenol that you buy today is the culmination of a long process to testing and development, continuing up to the present day, and that process includes stem cell testing. It is no different from car companies who continue to do safety research despite the fact that seat belts and air bags were approved and required decades ago.

If you want to buy Tylenol that has not been developed and tested using stem cells, you need to find a source of Tylenol manufactured before 1980. But I expect those doses would have been expired 35 years ago. The same thing applies to most other common prescription and OTC drugs.

Whether it's tested on fetal cells after release is irrelevant. You've repeated the same incoherent argument a bunch of times now. If you really don't understand that difference, then you really should just follow the ethical position of someone like Soloist, who is clearly capable of more sophisticated philosophical thought. If you do understand the difference, then you're just creating foolish background noise, which is not helpful.

[Ken]

Ibuprofen and Tylenol were developed and brought to market before anyone did research with fetal stem cells. Ken is just making stuff up.



Metformin was brought to market in 1957 in France and fetal stem cells were not used in its development.



The list is not "comprehensive", it is a made-up list used to try to discredit people who question modern vaccines developed using stem cells.

Note that Patheos is an ultra-left-liberal religious site, it is not a science or medicine based site. Most of the writers there are very liberal. The site has a very strong pro-abortion and pro-vaccine stance, and dedicates many articles to mocking anyone who questions vaccine safety.

I am not making stuff up. Drug companies do not cease all research on a drug once they gain FDA approval and bring it to market. They continue to do ongoing safety research and ongoing research as to the drugs effectiveness for different uses, dosages, etc. long after the FDA has approved it. So the Tylenol that you buy today is the culmination of a long process to testing and development, continuing up to the present day, and that process includes stem cell testing. It is no different from car companies who continue to do safety research despite the fact that seat belts and air bags were approved and required decades ago.

If you want to buy Tylenol that has not been developed and tested using stem cells, you need to find a source of Tylenol manufactured before 1980. But I expect those doses would have been expired 35 years ago. The same thing applies to most other common prescription and OTC drugs.

Whether it's tested on fetal cells after release is irrelevant. You've repeated the same incoherent argument a bunch of times now. If you really don't understand that difference, then you really should just follow the ethical position of someone like Soloist, who is clearly capable of more sophisticated philosophical thought. If you do understand the difference, then you're just creating foolish background noise, which is not helpful.

FDA approval is just a bureaucratic process involving paperwork. Can you explain how product testing with stem cells prior to FDA approval is functionally, ethically, or morally different from product testing using stem cells after FDA approval?

[Josh]

FDA approval is just a bureaucratic process involving paperwork.

What?

Can you explain how product testing with stem cells prior to FDA approval is functionally, ethically, or morally different from product testing using stem cells after FDA approval?

Aspirin (1899) predates the FDA existing (1906, but they didn't regulate drugs as we know the until 1962).

So let's get the topic of "FDA approval" out of the way.

How, exactly, is me taking an aspirin involving fetal stem cells?

[Ken]

FDA approval is just a bureaucratic process involving paperwork.

What?

Can you explain how product testing with stem cells prior to FDA approval is functionally, ethically, or morally different from product testing using stem cells after FDA approval?

Aspirin (1899) predates the FDA existing (1906, but they didn't regulate drugs as we know the until 1962).

So let's get the topic of "FDA approval" out of the way.

How, exactly, is me taking an aspirin involving fetal stem cells?

Aspirin continues to be tested and researched for safety, interactions with other drugs, and for specific new uses. For example, recently there was a big push to research daily low-dose aspirin as a blood thinner to prevent heart attacks and heart disease. Which is an entirely different use and dosage from what it was first developed for. If you go to the pharmacy and buy a bottle of Bayer Aspirin you are buying a product from a company that engages in widespread ongoing testing and research using stem cells, and you are buying a specific product that has been extensively tested with stem cells.

Whether you find that problematic is up to you.

[violet]

actually, it is a problem for me.

and my family and our children.

I suppose I am going to have to do a lot more research. I had no idea...and at this point, I don't know what to believe.

[Josh]

Aspirin continues to be tested and researched for safety, interactions with other drugs, and for specific new uses. For example, recently there was a big push to research daily low-dose aspirin as a blood thinner to prevent heart attacks and heart disease. Which is an entirely different use and dosage from what it was first developed for. If you go to the pharmacy and buy a bottle of Bayer Aspirin you are buying a product from a company that engages in widespread ongoing testing and research using stem cells, and you are buying a specific product that has been extensively tested with stem cells.

Whether you find that problematic is up to you.

The last time I bought aspirin, I bought an off-brand and (if I recall correctly) the place of origin was India. The last time I bought anything from Bayer was when I bought some Roundup to spray weeds in the driveway.

The fact people are doing all kinds of research on over the counter medicine is IRRELEVANT. Fetal stem cells were not used in the development of and testing of aspirin before bringing it to market.

The same goes for the other list of medicines you listed. Metformin was brought to market in 1957. No fetal stem cells were involved or used.

The vaccines, on the other hand, are different. Fetal stem cells played a major role in their development from day one. There was never a time you could go and get a Pfizer COVID vaccine that wasn't tested on fetal stem cells.

[Josh]

actually, it is a problem for me.

and my family and our children.

I suppose I am going to have to do a lot more research. I had no idea...and at this point, I don't know what to believe.

Ken is a notorious pro-vaxxer and also is pro-abortion. I wouldn't worry about anything he says.

[nett]

I am not making stuff up. Drug companies do not cease all research on a drug once they gain FDA approval and bring it to market. They continue to do ongoing safety research and ongoing research as to the drugs effectiveness for different uses, dosages, etc. long after the FDA has approved it. So the Tylenol that you buy today is the culmination of a long process to testing and development, continuing up to the present day, and that process includes stem cell testing. It is no different from car companies who continue to do safety research despite the fact that seat belts and air bags were approved and required decades ago.

If you want to buy Tylenol that has not been developed and tested using stem cells, you need to find a source of Tylenol manufactured before 1980. But I expect those doses would have been expired 35 years ago. The same thing applies to most other common prescription and OTC drugs.

Whether it's tested on fetal cells after release is irrelevant. You've repeated the same incoherent argument a bunch of times now. If you really don't understand that difference, then you really should just follow the ethical position of someone like Soloist, who is clearly capable of more sophisticated philosophical thought. If you do understand the difference, then you're just creating foolish background noise, which is not helpful.

FDA approval is just a bureaucratic process involving paperwork. Can you explain how product testing with stem cells prior to FDA approval is functionally, ethically, or morally different from product testing using stem cells after FDA approval?

Did I mention FDA approval?

[RZehr]

Here’s a question I’m wondering about.
Is there any medicine (such as aspirin) that was developed prior to any fetal cell testing, which was later tested on fetal cells and some new information was gained from that fetal cell line testing that caused the medicine to be pulled or repurposed?

[Soloist]

Here’s a question I’m wondering about.
Is there any medicine (such as aspirin) that was developed prior to any fetal cell testing, which was later tested on fetal cells and some new information was gained from that fetal cell line testing that caused the medicine to be pulled or repurposed?

It wouldn't surprise me if it was repurposed based on that, but its unlikely it would be pulled based on that. More specifically they would pull a medication for issues in the broader population. Off label use would prompt doing further studies possibly with cells to determine if it actually worked for it.