Opinions about the chickenpox, measles, and rubella vaccines

[Soloist]

The cells used in the fetal cell line in question were from an abortion, done for ether reasons years ago. These lines are will continue to produce cells indefinitely. You cannot bring that child back to life by refusing vaccines, you can only kill now living children by exposing them to disease that CAN kill.

I wish that they would have used some other method of creating these lifesaving vaccines. That bell cannot be “unrung.” Rejecting vaccination only serves to endanger now living children.

While I do not agree with John on all of his stance, you should know your second sentence is completely false. These are not immortal cell lines and I've shown economics has already forced changing away in several nations. There even was a new cell line just made recently, MUi028.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The cells used in the fetal cell line in question were from an abortion, done for ether reasons years ago. These lines are will continue to produce cells indefinitely. You cannot bring that child back to life by refusing vaccines, you can only kill now living children by exposing them to disease that CAN kill.

I wish that they would have used some other method of creating these lifesaving vaccines. That bell cannot be “unrung.” Rejecting vaccination only serves to endanger now living children.

While I do not agree with John on all of his stance, you should know your second sentence is completely false. These are not immortal cell lines and I've shown economics has already forced changing away in several nations. There even was a new cell line just made recently, MUi028.

In the us, that would require a whole new NDA, and as far as I know, no such document has been submitted. It will not change here without that. Where is this coming from? I am fairly well tied in to the US , but not China anymore.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The cells used in the fetal cell line in question were from an abortion, done for ether reasons years ago. These lines are will continue to produce cells indefinitely. You cannot bring that child back to life by refusing vaccines, you can only kill now living children by exposing them to disease that CAN kill.

I wish that they would have used some other method of creating these lifesaving vaccines. That bell cannot be “unrung.” Rejecting vaccination only serves to endanger now living children.

While I do not agree with John on all of his stance, you should know your second sentence is completely false. These are not immortal cell lines and I've shown economics has already forced changing away in several nations. There even was a new cell line just made recently, MUi028.

In the us, that would require a whole new NDA, and as far as I know, no such document has been submitted. It will not change here without that. Where is this coming from? I am fairly well tied in to the US , but not China anymore.

Thailand. No surprise here. Can’t be a vaccine without a whole new NDA, so I would suggest it is has no bearing on the vaccine discussion.

[Soloist]

While I do not agree with John on all of his stance, you should know your second sentence is completely false. These are not immortal cell lines and I've shown economics has already forced changing away in several nations. There even was a new cell line just made recently, MUi028.

In the us, that would require a whole new NDA, and as far as I know, no such document has been submitted. It will not change here without that. Where is this coming from? I am fairly well tied in to the US , but not China anymore.

Thailand. No surprise here. Can’t be a vaccine without a whole new NDA, so I would suggest it is has no bearing on the vaccine discussion.

It has bearing when you try to present false/disproven information to justify it as a one time act. Not saying you intentionally did so.

[Judas Maccabeus]

In the us, that would require a whole new NDA, and as far as I know, no such document has been submitted. It will not change here without that. Where is this coming from? I am fairly well tied in to the US , but not China anymore.

Thailand. No surprise here. Can’t be a vaccine without a whole new NDA, so I would suggest it is has no bearing on the vaccine discussion.

It has bearing when you try to present false/disproven information to justify it as a one time act. Not saying you intentionally did so.

For the current generation of MMR vaccines it is. I can’t predict what the future holds, and will have to assess it when it comes. New MMR vaccines are at least 10 years away. The one time I was involved in amending an insert it took over 5 years, and that was just “use and administration “. Using a new cell line would be an entire new drug. Let’s hope that someone creates a better way of producing the medicines we need.

[Soloist]

Thailand. No surprise here. Can’t be a vaccine without a whole new NDA, so I would suggest it is has no bearing on the vaccine discussion.

It has bearing when you try to present false/disproven information to justify it as a one time act. Not saying you intentionally did so.

For the current generation of MMR vaccines it is. I can’t predict what the future holds, and will have to assess it when it comes. New MMR vaccines are at least 10 years away. The one time I was involved in amending an insert it took over 5 years, and that was just “use and administration “. Using a new cell line would be an entire new drug. Let’s hope that someone creates a better way of producing the medicines we need.

These lines are will continue to produce cells indefinitely.

Are you trying to argue this is factual?

[Judas Maccabeus]

It has bearing when you try to present false/disproven information to justify it as a one time act. Not saying you intentionally did so.

For the current generation of MMR vaccines it is. I can’t predict what the future holds, and will have to assess it when it comes. New MMR vaccines are at least 10 years away. The one time I was involved in amending an insert it took over 5 years, and that was just “use and administration “. Using a new cell line would be an entire new drug. Let’s hope that someone creates a better way of producing the medicines we need.

These lines are will continue to produce cells indefinitely.

Are you trying to argue this is factual?

So far, no limit has been reached. If there is one, there is considerable difference of opinion.

[Soloist]

So far, no limit has been reached. If there is one, there is considerable difference of opinion.

It’s not considerable difference of opinion this is documented and tested. I suggest you read up on the Hayflick limit.
Also read up on how many cells were wasted by the struggle over ownership with WI 38.
You should know all this I’ve certainly referenced it before they’re not immortal cell lines, an immortal cell line is only created when mutated by cancer or viruses.

I’ve also linked scientific research articles talking about the decay in replication rate and how time is increasing for those replications justifying a need for a new cell line.
Show me one scientific peer reviewed article that has replicated past 54 times or admit that is not controversial. There’s certainly plenty of propaganda where they’re trying to claim it’s immortal, but none of it is peer reviewed research. I’ve always held a position of factually backed science, and you have never been able to dispute my claims.

[Soloist]

Vials on Hand
Of the 189 vials produced, 5 were used for testing; 14 were used to derive a new PDL15
distribution bank; 22 have been stored off-site for disaster recovery; 22 have already been
distributed to vaccine manufacturers. There are therefore 126 vials on hand at NIBSC, with a
further 22 in reserve in off-site storage. There is thus a total remaining stock of 148 vials. 140
of the remaining 148 vials would be available for distribution. The remaining 8 would be held
back for potential future side-by-side performance testing of a replacement bank. The 22 vials
assigned for disaster recovery are intended for distribution in the ~2 year period following the
disaster, until a replacement bank becomes available. The replacement bank would not be
derived from the M02 (PDL 13) bank but from the original 1966 PDL 7 cells. There are 83
ampoules of the PDL 7 cells held at NIBSC and another 20 ampoules held off-site. The
current rate of distribution is ~9 vials per year. Therefore, at this rate the M02 bank can be
expected to last 16 years. Taking into account the 103 original PDL 7 ampoules, if the glass
seal of all ampoules remained intact, there would be the potential to maintain MRC-5
supplies for further ~350 years. In reality, it is likely that supplies can be maintained for at
least 50 years.

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default- ... nload=true

You can work through some production numbers here and consumption rate but 50 years is a far cry from no limit.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2765902119

I was slightly off, its 50 replications +/- 10.

[ohio jones]

I’ve always held a position of factually backed science, and you have never been able to dispute my claims.

This is an opinion thread. Don't go confusing us with facts.