Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[Bootstrap]

There is a problem between the sender and the receiver on these messages apparently or we lack critical reading and writing skills.

I sometimes feel the same way. I feel that you ignore a lot of what I say and miss things that seemed conclusive to me. We don't think the same way, and this is an emotionally important topic for both of us, precisely because we both want to protect life. So sometimes we are going to talk past each other. I don't think that is intentional, for you or for me.

Publicly stating its wrong to use the cells and then using them is like saying alcohol is wrong and then taking a swig.

The sites that I have read treat HEK-293 differently than new cell lines, discuss where the cells come from, and discuss the entire issue in terms of whether use promotes abortion. To me, this policy is the kind of thing we should want:

In June 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would no longer provide intramural funding for government research that requires new acquisition of tissues harvested from victims of ongoing elective abortion, would empanel an ethics review board to review all new or renewal extramural research applications proposing use of fetal tissue, and would provide funding to optimize and develop alternative research models that do not rely on human fetal tissue from elective abortions. Funding of new research using abortion-derived cells established prior to the new HHS rule (i.e., HEK293, Per.C6) was allowed to continue.

Isn't that the kind of policy we should want? To me, choosing a vaccine that was developed under that rule is actually a move in support of that policy.

I guess I don't see the hypocrisy that you see here.

[joshuabgood]

Should I return my land to the Lenape?

Are you going to continue to profit from future exploited land?

Probably. My property value has increased about a 100k in the last 6 years. Literally 50%...

I have benefitted from the colonial militias and immorality of the Roger (I believe) Penn's trickery.

[Ernie]

I don't know of anyone opposed to alcohol who takes a swig of beer now and then. I avoid alcohol as much as I can but I have not made it an ethical issue. All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful but I will not be brought under the power of any. That is why I avoid it whenever I can.

But you do know people who are opposed to fetal cells and are fine benefiting from them. It was an example of situational ethics.
The example to which you responded to, you illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. You find it inconsistent for someone to stand against alcohol and drink it.

I think maybe we are talking past each other...

[Ken]

Hypothetical question:

A new viral disease emerges in the world in 2025 that is poised to kill millions of people around the globe before being brought under control. A leading pharma company decides to tackle the problem of developing and manufacturing a new vaccine. They have three choices in terms of strategy:

Choice 1: Use the HEK 293 stem cell line in the initial research and testing phase of vaccine development because their scientists tell them that is the fastest way to bring vaccine into development. As a result they develop a vaccine that reaches production 6 months faster.

Choice 2: Avoid using stem cells in the initial research and testing phase but eventually come up with the same exact vaccine. It just takes them 6 months longer due to less efficient research and testing methods. Meanwhile during those 6 months an additional 1 million people die of the disease worldwide and the pandemic lasts 6 months longer than it otherwise would have causing more widespread economic and social misery around the globe.

Choice 3: Avoid using stem cells in the initial research and testing phase which is rushed forward on the same schedule as choice 1 but produces a less effective vaccine due to handicapped research techniques. The vaccine is released and distributed on the same schedule as Choice 1 but because the vaccine is less effective, an additional 1 million people die and the pandemic lasts an additional year longer because the vaccine is less effective causing more economic and social misery around the globe.

Which of these three courses of action produces the optimal result from a ethical perspective?

[Soloist]

Which of these three courses of action produces the optimal result from a ethical perspective?

Frame the question, control the narrative.

Ken you are driving down a 20 degree angle, your brakes fail, regardless of what you do, either you hit Grandma at the bottom of the cliff while she is fending off masked bandits which you also kill (with grandma) or a school bus full of screaming children. No other choice, no other option. You have to kill one.

Might as well hop out of the truck, ride your killer whale while killing the bandits and grandma.


Obviously you care about life as do we all. I can't chose to kill a ISIS bomber over 1000s people anymore then I can answer your question. This is situational ethics. I will never be in that place to make that choice.

Pfizer could have been fully ethical if they used an ethical source for ACE-2 testing rather then HEK-293. The option was there that would end up exactly where we are now, except I would have been in the Pfizer trial. Anabaptists before served our country with their life doing medical research rather then shooting people, I would too.

[Soloist]

The sites that I have read treat HEK-293 differently than new cell lines, discuss where the cells come from, and discuss the entire issue in terms of whether use promotes abortion. To me, this policy is the kind of thing we should want:

In June 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would no longer provide intramural funding for government research that requires new acquisition of tissues harvested from victims of ongoing elective abortion, would empanel an ethics review board to review all new or renewal extramural research applications proposing use of fetal tissue, and would provide funding to optimize and develop alternative research models that do not rely on human fetal tissue from elective abortions. Funding of new research using abortion-derived cells established prior to the new HHS rule (i.e., HEK293, Per.C6) was allowed to continue.

Isn't that the kind of policy we should want? To me, choosing a vaccine that was developed under that rule is actually a move in support of that policy.

I guess I don't see the hypocrisy that you see here.

I repeat my question to you. Why are you unwilling to publicly state you will not use fetal derived treatments after 1972?

https://www.gmp-creativebiolabs.com/per ... nes_74.htm

The PER.C6 cell line is a superduper and commercial available manufacturing system that can be used to produce a variety of biopharmaceutical products, including vaccines, gene therapy products, antibodies and other therapeutic proteins. Up to now, more than fourteen biopharmaceutical products utilizing the PER.C6 cell line are in Phase I/II clinical trials, for example, the MOR103 mAb, a human IgG antibody against granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor in clinical development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis; another example is CL184, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the rabies virus, which has been granted FDA fast-track approval status. Furthermore, mostly PER.C6-based vaccines against tuberculosis, malaria and HIV are also currently in clinical trials

https://promocell.com/in-the-lab/human- ... ell-lines/

Primary cells, however, don’t live forever. They undergo senescence processes and have limited potential for self-renewal and differentiation. As they age, they show morphological and functional changes, which is why you should use them in early passages. The genetic characteristics and age of the donors are also important, as their cells can behave differently under the same culture conditions. This can be a good thing when you are investigating how specific cellular features differ across the population or when testing new compounds. On the other hand, do your tests require low variance? Then use cells from the same donor. One advantage of human primary cells is that you needn’t rely on animal models. This means you can avoid inter-species differences – such as in anatomy, molecular pathways and metabolism – which can affect drug toxicity and mode of action.

Lets go shopping shall we?

Airway Epithelial Cells
Cardiac Myocytes
Chondrocytes
Endothelial Cells
Fibroblasts
Follicle Dermal Papilla Cells
Keratinocytes
Mammary Epithelial Media
Melanocytes
Osteoblasts
Pericytes
Preadipocytes
Renal Epithelial Cells
Skeletal Muscle Cells
Smooth Muscle Cells
Supplements and Reagents

Which category of fetal cells would you like to buy today? This stuff is available in multiple flavors and suppliers often with very limited sourcing information that requires quite a lot of digging to determine. 75% of them are new cell lines from abortion and this is 1 company.

[Bootstrap]

The sites that I have read treat HEK-293 differently than new cell lines, discuss where the cells come from, and discuss the entire issue in terms of whether use promotes abortion. To me, this policy is the kind of thing we should want:

In June 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would no longer provide intramural funding for government research that requires new acquisition of tissues harvested from victims of ongoing elective abortion, would empanel an ethics review board to review all new or renewal extramural research applications proposing use of fetal tissue, and would provide funding to optimize and develop alternative research models that do not rely on human fetal tissue from elective abortions. Funding of new research using abortion-derived cells established prior to the new HHS rule (i.e., HEK293, Per.C6) was allowed to continue.

Isn't that the kind of policy we should want? To me, choosing a vaccine that was developed under that rule is actually a move in support of that policy.

I guess I don't see the hypocrisy that you see here.

I repeat my question to you.

Before you repeat an earlier question that I have already answered, could you please answer the question I give above? I think that's one reason it can feel like we are talking past each other - your response essentially ignores the content of the post you responded to. It is quite literally talking past me, in its purest form.

Most of your post is not about the ethics of the Moderna vaccine. I specifically chose a vaccine that did not use cell lines from after 1972. I mentioned a policy above, saying that I think it is good. You did not respond to that at all. You seem to feel I was doing something really wrong by doing that. What?

[Bootstrap]

Hypothetical question:

A new viral disease emerges in the world in 2025 that is poised to kill millions of people around the globe before being brought under control. A leading pharma company decides to tackle the problem of developing and manufacturing a new vaccine. They have three choices in terms of strategy:

Choice 1: Use the HEK 293 stem cell line in the initial research and testing phase of vaccine development because their scientists tell them that is the fastest way to bring vaccine into development. As a result they develop a vaccine that reaches production 6 months faster.

Using no new cell lines since 1972. To me, that seems reasonable in order to save millions of lives.

Choice 2: Avoid using stem cells in the initial research and testing phase but eventually come up with the same exact vaccine. It just takes them 6 months longer due to less efficient research and testing methods. Meanwhile during those 6 months an additional 1 million people die of the disease worldwide and the pandemic lasts 6 months longer than it otherwise would have causing more widespread economic and social misery around the globe.

Would it have taken 6 months longer? Suppose fetal cell lines were simply unavailable for this kind of research. What would the actual impact be?

Choice 3: Avoid using stem cells in the initial research and testing phase which is rushed forward on the same schedule as choice 1 but produces a less effective vaccine due to handicapped research techniques. The vaccine is released and distributed on the same schedule as Choice 1 but because the vaccine is less effective, an additional 1 million people die and the pandemic lasts an additional year longer because the vaccine is less effective causing more economic and social misery around the globe.

Again, are there ways to avoid using fetal cells that would not result in this outcome?

[Bootstrap]

Lets go shopping shall we?

Right now, I am shopping only for Covid-19 vaccines. That seems to be complicated enough, and it takes me time to research each question and understand it. FWIW, I have gotten most of my vaccines from a Christian medical facility that at least claims they research these ethical questions.

I doubt that I am shopping for most of the things in your list. Certainly not in this thread.

[Soloist]

The sites that I have read treat HEK-293 differently than new cell lines, discuss where the cells come from, and discuss the entire issue in terms of whether use promotes abortion. To me, this policy is the kind of thing we should want:

In June 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would no longer provide intramural funding for government research that requires new acquisition of tissues harvested from victims of ongoing elective abortion, would empanel an ethics review board to review all new or renewal extramural research applications proposing use of fetal tissue, and would provide funding to optimize and develop alternative research models that do not rely on human fetal tissue from elective abortions. Funding of new research using abortion-derived cells established prior to the new HHS rule (i.e., HEK293, Per.C6) was allowed to continue.

Isn't that the kind of policy we should want? To me, choosing a vaccine that was developed under that rule is actually a move in support of that policy.

I guess I don't see the hypocrisy that you see here.

I don't have any desire to get involved it the politics of these groups trying to ban federal funding. COG and Lozier Institute both are seeking to change the governmental stances through lobbying and political power of the world. I don't want to do that. My whole stance is to call people to the fact of the abortion industry getting utilized by the medical world more and more and that these vaccine cell lines that everyone knows about, MRC-5, WI-38, HEK-293, PER-C6... and some lesser known IMR-90, IMR-91, RA-273, WI-26, WI-44, Lambda.hE1 and the latest WALVAX 2. Those are just the vaccine cell lines... there are well over 100 more cell lines used. During Pres Trump's administration we bought another 60 cell fetal cell lines from Israel too. Each cell line represents multiple abortions and we have medications being produced from fresh abortions as well. This is what I'm speaking about.
Lozier institute wouldn't find it ethical to use HEK-293 for production, they gave it a pass on testing, I do not.
Also consider that most of these cell lines are not government funded, but developed by private companies for profit. It doesn't effect them to have any governmental laws on funding passed. The only thing that will change the practice is economics. Supply and demand, if we demand an ethical option by refusing unethical options, they would do it if it actually was beneficial to them. As it is, Christians compromised on the WI-38 back in the day, and 20 years later did it again and so on and so on and will continue to as new cell lines are developed and used 20 years after the fact. Its easier to get someone to benefit from old cell lines then new cell lines regardless of if it was done during their lifetime or not. If they started using a cell line created this year, there would be outrage. As it is, the outrage from using these "older" cell lines is very muted.

Boot, will you commit to not using new fetal cells generated after 1972 for testing, medication or for vaccines? or is this just all relative to you?

This is not academic to me at all. I want to protect lives. I think you are saying that the only fetal cell lines came from HEK-293, a child killed in 1972?

I think it's easier to protect the lives of the living than to protect the lives of the already-dead. I took the time to research this before getting the Moderna vaccine, I think I do take this seriously. At the same time, I'm looking for information, I don't consider myself accountable to you nor you to me. I might make different choices than you and vice versa. I do want to hear how you understand this so I can decide whether I need to change the way I think about the issue.

This is what you said in response to my question. I don't see you saying a yes or a no here. Care to clarify?
I certainly think I've answered your question with a no with a far more detailed explanation.

Most of your post is not about the ethics of the Moderna vaccine. I specifically chose a vaccine that did not use cell lines from after 1972. I mentioned a policy above, saying that I think it is good. You did not respond to that at all. You seem to feel I was doing something really wrong by doing that. What?

or was this your answer saying you would not use cells after 1972?
As for it not being about Moderna, its a package deal in my mind. Supporting one over the other, they don't care as long as you use the next product. This argument will turn into a hypothetical year 2030, "I specifically chose a cell line from 2006, thats good right?" This is what each generation does.