Coronavirus Outbreak

[Bootstrap]

I agree. If I objected to using vaccines because they are tested with HEK-293, then I would object to anything tested with HEK-293, wouldn't I? Why would this be immoral for initial testing but perfectly moral for testing after initially going to market? I don't understand the ethical reasoning.

A line has to be drawn at some point and I have chosen this point.

The same question could be asked as to why the Amish use propane washers or why Nationwide doesn't use internet except at the library.

The reasons have been given and expressed compared to a car and I will express it again for your benefit.

An F150 is produced in 2000. You buy the car brand new. 5 years later you go to buy another F150. You find out they tested the new 2005 model on live humans with crash testing rather then crash dummies. You decide rather then buying a new model, you buy a used 2000 model that is less used then yours.
The company isn't ethical, but the original car still is.

Except in this case, you aren't buying a used F150 from a third party, you are buying it directly from Ford, which profits from it. You aren't buying someone's stash of Ivermectin from 2000, you are buying directly from the drug industry, perhaps from the same companies that are doing the testing you object to. But maybe you have done your homework and are buying from companies that are not doing such research

For a thought experiment, Vitamin C is naturally occurring in Rose buds and other sources. A company decides they want to produce a pill with Vit-C in it. Nothing wrong yet right? Now years after they decide they want to do testing on a new cell line and sell the drug for new uses as well.
In the argument against those who have taken a stand, Vitamin C is now unethical. Many mainstream OTCs are sold by many different companies, so if I felt, for example, the makers of Tylenol were unethical, I could use one of various offbrands of Acetaminophen. That being said, most of the post testing isn't done by the producer but rather other scientists not necessarily affiliated. Really it comes down to how much research you personally wish to do or not do to make a determination of your personal ethics.

Wouldn't it depend on the source? Vitamin C from rose buds is not unethical, but Vitamin C from a particular source might be unethical.

[Bootstrap]

You can choose to take a stand, but so far I don't see you two taking a stand on fetal cell use at any level so you are entirely consistent.
As they say, the only consistent stance is no stance at all.

That's neither true nor fair. I have consistently said that I am weighing the life of a child killed in the 1970s against lives that can be saved today, also considering whether I am encouraging anyone to kill children in the name of medical research. I cannot save the life of the child whose cells were used to start the HEK-293 line, I might be able to save the lives of people who are currently living. I think that's a clear ethical stance, it's different from yours.

I'm also not sure who "you two" are. There's only one of me. You are responding to a post that quoted Dan, Ernie, and Ken, then offered my opinion. Ken's views and mine are rather far apart on abortion.

Another stand could be taken simply objecting to use of any new cell line use, which you declined to agree to, Boot, in a past discussion on this very subject. Ultimately, you can condemn a stance you don't understand, or you can attempt to understand it.

I'm saying it doesn't seem consistent to me, which is very different from condemning it. Which is another way of saying that I do not understand it. I'm not sure that you understand my stance either. Incidentally, I see a lot of this on MN - if someone disagrees, they must be condemning the other person or hating them or whatever, it's a way of turning up the heat and changing the subject, putting the other person on the defensive. It makes it harder to focus on facts and ethical questions. It makes it harder to discuss something as brethren.

Clearly, if someone were to propose aborting a baby in order to develop or test drugs, I would object to that. But there are more than 800,000 abortions a year in the United States, they are not performed in order to produce cells for testing, I think this is morally equivalent to accepting a heart transplant from a murder victim. I do not approve of the murder, but the organ donation did not cause the murder, and it can save a life. There are places where people may indeed be murdered in order to sell organs, and I would only accept a heart transplant if I knew they would not accept organs from these sources.

So far, all I have decided is that I am not boycotting the use of HEK-293, from the 1970s. Almost all of the fetal cell testing for drugs or vaccines I have taken seems to involve HEK-293 or the Johnson & Johnson equivalent (can't remember the name offhand). I don't take drugs routinely, so I haven't done a lot of research on this.

I may have reached different conclusions than you do, but I have wrestled with the ethics. And I appreciate the fact that you wrestle with the ethics and are sharing what you have learned.

[Ernie]

The problem is that Ivermectin, Remdesivir, and Hydrodcychloroquine also all have had fetal cell line HEK-293 used in their testing (as have virtually every modern medicine including aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofen, Sudafed, Benadryl, Lidocaine, Pepto Bismol, Maalox, Tums, Lipitor, Toprol, etc., etc., etc.). To be consistent on this point, you'd have to reject almost any medicine that has been developed or tested over the past 50 years.

Dan, Tylenol for example was developed long before the use of fetal cells, correct. So any testing of pharmaceuticals in more recent years was not used in the development of the drug, correct? Therefore it is not quite the same comparison, right?

Seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

Like you are saying that you could never buy or live in a house that was built by slaves. But you are fine living in a house that gets cleaned by slaves.

But you can rationalize whatever you want I guess. We all do the same thing at some level.

No, the point I was making is that I could produce a product ethically, and someone else could come along years later and use it unethically, but that does not mean that my product was made unethically or is connected to unethical organizations. Now if I gave consent for it to be used unethically or tested in an unethical manner at a later time, that is a different story altogether.

[Bootstrap]

No, the point I was making is that I could produce a product ethically, and someone else could come along years later and use it unethically, but that does not mean that my product was made unethically or is connected to unethical organizations. Now if I gave consent for it to be used unethically or tested in an unethical manner at a later time, that is a different story altogether.

I haven't checked that carefully, but I think Merck is the manufacturer of Ivermectin, and I think Merck regularly uses HEK-293. Is this true? Has Merck used HEK-293 to test Ivermectin for particular purposes?

I think Merck also regularly uses newer lines.

[ohio jones]

I haven't checked that carefully, but I think Merck is the manufacturer of Ivermectin, and I think Merck regularly uses HEK-293. Is this true? Has Merck used HEK-293 to test Ivermectin for particular purposes?

I haven't researched this in depth, but it does seem like the facts are mercky.

[Szdfan]

I haven't checked that carefully, but I think Merck is the manufacturer of Ivermectin, and I think Merck regularly uses HEK-293. Is this true? Has Merck used HEK-293 to test Ivermectin for particular purposes?

I haven't researched this in depth, but it does seem like the facts are mercky.

I don't know whether to applaud the pun or groan.

[Bootstrap]

I haven't checked that carefully, but I think Merck is the manufacturer of Ivermectin, and I think Merck regularly uses HEK-293. Is this true? Has Merck used HEK-293 to test Ivermectin for particular purposes?

I haven't researched this in depth, but it does seem like the facts are mercky.

Sure, but give it your best shot.

[Bootstrap]

I haven't checked that carefully, but I think Merck is the manufacturer of Ivermectin, and I think Merck regularly uses HEK-293. Is this true? Has Merck used HEK-293 to test Ivermectin for particular purposes?

I haven't researched this in depth, but it does seem like the facts are mercky.

I don't know whether to applaud the pun or groan.

Puns are for groan people.

[Soloist]

Except in this case, you aren't buying a used F150 from a third party, you are buying it directly from Ford, which profits from it. You aren't buying someone's stash of Ivermectin from 2000, you are buying directly from the drug industry, perhaps from the same companies that are doing the testing you object to. But maybe you have done your homework and are buying from companies that are not doing such research


Wouldn't it depend on the source? Vitamin C from rose buds is not unethical, but Vitamin C from a particular source might be unethical.

Some people look into things decide its too much to dig into and throw their hands up and accept everything. Others also find they don't have the time and draw a line to take a stand somewhere.

If I find a medication I use has been tested on fetal cells for either production or research for a reformulation I would either change companies or not use it. With that being said, its close to an hour of work to dig into one medication to properly research and determine if its acceptable and avoids contamination with this horrible practice. I have checked my essential medications, my tremor medication I need for work is clean, but less effective on my tremor as time goes on. The alternatives are both unwise for myself (due to completely other reasons) and much more likely to have been tested.
Cancer treatments are often very tied in with this sort of research, my stance likely cuts off most if not all modern cancer treatments. Many if not all antivirals are closed off as well. Most 2d or 3d generation antibiotics are closed off as well.
I cannot answer for every bit of research done on a drug, but I can draw a line for approval testing which is a much simpler bit of research to look into versus trying to determine if Joe scientist works for this company or if he arbitrarily researched a new idea on a old drug.

While one might say this is inconsistent, I say it is a line I have taken to not cross. The alternative which might be more consistent until we start discussing children would be to be a faith healer which isn't something I have rejected but I have not decided to do at this point.

[Soloist]

You can choose to take a stand, but so far I don't see you two taking a stand on fetal cell use at any level so you are entirely consistent.
As they say, the only consistent stance is no stance at all.

That's neither true nor fair. I have consistently said that I am weighing the life of a child killed in the 1970s against lives that can be saved today, also considering whether I am encouraging anyone to kill children in the name of medical research. I cannot save the life of the child whose cells were used to start the HEK-293 line, I might be able to save the lives of people who are currently living. I think that's a clear ethical stance, it's different from yours.

I'm also not sure who "you two" are. There's only one of me. You are responding to a post that quoted Dan, Ernie, and Ken, then offered my opinion. Ken's views and mine are rather far apart on abortion.

I am directly referencing fetal cell testing, not a broader stance on abortion. You two are quite outspoken (Ken and Boot) about how a stance on fetal cell testing seems inconsistent.
You have accepted the use of that cell line and by statements below view it as no different then a murder victim donating their organs. At some point, fetal organs will be used and will you hold the same stance?

Another stand could be taken simply objecting to use of any new cell line use, which you declined to agree to, Boot, in a past discussion on this very subject. Ultimately, you can condemn a stance you don't understand, or you can attempt to understand it.

I'm saying it doesn't seem consistent to me, which is very different from condemning it. Which is another way of saying that I do not understand it. I'm not sure that you understand my stance either. Incidentally, I see a lot of this on MN - if someone disagrees, they must be condemning the other person or hating them or whatever, it's a way of turning up the heat and changing the subject, putting the other person on the defensive. It makes it harder to focus on facts and ethical questions. It makes it harder to discuss something as brethren.

I don't view people on here primarily as brothers. No offense intended, but you and I would never attend the same church or have the same modus operandi about our faith. There are very few people on here I would view as brothers and partly this is how much I know them, and partly differing views on many things outside of vaccine/fetal cells. I don't change subjects but I've seen several people state some strong claims and then when I respond, they simply don't reply anymore or repeat the claim later for me to respond again to. Civil conversations carry more weight then heated ones and I have no desire to flame someone over differing views. I won't mince words though or use lots of pillows as Mennonites do.
I can accept you desire to serve the Lord, and perhaps we will see each other in heaven but God is the judge, not us.

Clearly, if someone were to propose aborting a baby in order to develop or test drugs, I would object to that. But there are more than 800,000 abortions a year in the United States, they are not performed in order to produce cells for testing, I think this is morally equivalent to accepting a heart transplant from a murder victim. I do not approve of the murder, but the organ donation did not cause the murder, and it can save a life. There are places where people may indeed be murdered in order to sell organs, and I would only accept a heart transplant if I knew they would not accept organs from these sources.

While no abortion is done currently to develop, test, collect... the fact is the drug companies are actively looking and have contracts with abortion companies to provide fresh tissue.
I would find your stance just as confusing as you find mine. The patient choosing to abort or not is not my primary point of contention, and more people would likely be pleased if they knew their unwanted child could save life. This doesn't change the horrible practice dependent on future abortions. One could ask the hypothetical question, can our medical tech continue the same way it has if abortions stopped tomorrow? Clearly this isn't going to happen but the answer to that question is more of the objection and my part in utilizing abortion for my own increased life.

So far, all I have decided is that I am not boycotting the use of HEK-293, from the 1970s. Almost all of the fetal cell testing for drugs or vaccines I have taken seems to involve HEK-293 or the Johnson & Johnson equivalent (can't remember the name offhand). I don't take drugs routinely, so I haven't done a lot of research on this.

I may have reached different conclusions than you do, but I have wrestled with the ethics. And I appreciate the fact that you wrestle with the ethics and are sharing what you have learned.

Yes you have decided not to boycott the use of HEK-293, or Per-C6 and likely the future cell lines would get the same treatment based on the logic

But there are more than 800,000 abortions a year in the United States, they are not performed in order to produce cells for testing, I think this is morally equivalent to accepting a heart transplant from a murder victim. I do not approve of the murder, but the organ donation did not cause the murder, and it can save a life.

They don't need to plan abortion to make a cell line, there is plenty of evil to benefit from already.