For the past half century they have been using aborted fetal cells to produce vaccines. Vaccines that we all have received, or injected to our children, mostly without any knoweldge of the manufacturing process. Behind the shield for measles, mumps, varicella, poliomyelitis, hepatitis A and yellow fever, there are two pregnancies voluntarily interrupted at the third and fourth month. Two children never born.
A Swedish female aborted in 1962 and an English boy in 1966. Fibroblasts (connective tissue cells) were extracted from their lungs to create the WI-38 and MRC-5 cell lines, which are still in use. They are the culture media that make viruses suitable for putting into vaccines.
Why do most of us ignore or have ignored this "casual" use of the two fetuses? And how many of us, once informed, would be ready to accept, without the slightest moral scruple, the section of a small human body to produce a drug? One, two or a hundred thousand fetuses: for those who are enraged, there is no difference. Today, yesterday or 50 years ago, abortion is always an abortion.
Furthermore, we have found out from the statements of Stanley Plotkin, a doctor and consultant for Sanofi-Pasteur, that 76 fetuses were sacrificed to design vaccines at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. Here.
Try and try again. Then, the result: to combat an exanthematic disease, dangerous only for pregnant women (which would be useful to contract as a child, since, with the natural disease, you get immunity for life) the children of those who reject their motherhood, are killed and made into pieces. As if it were a karmic counterbalance like in Dante...
When the WI-38 and MCR-5 cell lines will extinct (no line is eternal) they will be replaced by other "spare parts", in short, with a new fetus.
We wonder what is the sense of preventing the use of embryonic cells for research (how many debates on the subject and European Parliament’s sentences ) and using, without stating it openly, those fetal to manufacture pharmaceutical sera. Certainly it’s not that by "keeping a crime hidden" the moral implications are lost.
I'm enraged, of course.
I was unaware of it all at the time of vaccinating my girls and I do not feel justified. Neither my pediatrician, nor the health care workers had informed me. It will be objected that there is no crime since those women voluntarily aborted: yes, they are free to chose, but those who oppose abortion and ignore how these vaccines are produced make a choice that does not belong to them, an immoral choice. They becomes accomplices in spite of themselves.
I have been deceived. And with me millions of parents.
Even today, within the "right information" that is the necessary condition to proceed to any health treatment, there is not even a hint of explanations about the manufacturing processes.
Yet we have grown up respecting other people’s beliefs and rituals, even if we don’t go along with them. No one would ever dream of disregarding the religious diets guaranteed to all Jewish or Muslim children: woe to those who offer them ham or pork chops at school meals. God forbid. We do not understand, we do not agree but we respect . The impure pig can’t be touched, but the child can.
The church.
Read here the first pronouncement of the Pontifical Academy for Life (established by Pope Woityla in 1994) on vaccines made from fetal cells. It was 2005. Informed of how those cell lines were produced, the prelates invited the faithful to rebel. We speak of "true and illicit cooperation with evil". We read: "Citizens are entitled to resist by conscientious objection ...". Not just. The call is to "oppose by all means" and to lobby companies to create alternative cell lines and ask for "rigorous legal control". The Academy admits the exception in case of danger of life for themselves or others. More information here and here.
Turnaround.
Twelve years later, the Pontifical Academy changed its pace. I would say in fact they turned around, read here. "In the past, vaccines may have been prepared using cells from aborted human fetuses, but currently the cell lines in use are very far away from the original abortions." And moral cooperation to evil? "Solved thanks to the progress of medicine ...". What does it mean?
Conscientious objection.
Conscientious objection, however, is a personal act, which stems from one's own feeling, Church or not. Not all Muslims refrain from eating pork and drinking alcohol, but many respect these rules. Not all Christians consider life sacred, but many do. Same for the Buddhists, there are those who do not kill the plant pests and those who exterminate the whales. What makes the difference in the field of morals and guides behaviors is one's self conscience.
How you can not expect a Muslim child or a Jew to eat salami or that a Catholic objectionist practice an abortion (in fact in all hospitals there are gynecologists who are objectors and those who are not, for some abortion is a right, for others it is a right not to practice it) in the same way, as it is accepted that someone produces and uses those vaccines, the opposite choice must also be respected. This is the conscientious objection.
If I were in risk of death and my life-saving drug had grown on human cells? Different discussion but today there are no life-saving drugs derived from fetal cell lines, there are only vaccines, preventive means for diseases that, at the time of vaccination, you do not even know if they will occur. So I say no, thank you.
My objection will not change the world, but reflects my conscience as the choices that define us. Many "no" could induce industries to diversify production. It happened with palm oil in biscuits, with glutamate in soup nuts, with refined sugar in some sweets. It will happen even with fetuses, I sincerely hope so.
The conference.
The subject, which is highly topical, will be discussed next March 13 at the conference " Faith, Science and Conscience " which will take place in Rome at the Casa Bonus Pastor, via Aurelia 208. Promoted by Renovatio21 cultural association , with the participation of the cardinal S.E.R. Raymond Leo Burke. The researcher Theresa Deisher will give a speech - we can listen to her at the Biologists' conference here. Deisher claims to have found traces of fetal DNA in some vaccines and this presence could explain the unleashing of autoimmune responses.
Then Debi Vinnedge, a scholar; Stefano Montanari, scientist; Martina Collotta, doctor. Admission on free offer with reservation obligation, Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.
Montanari will remember that the fetal cell lines are more than two. "At the moment there are about thirty vaccines made with the two WI-38 and MRC-5 cell lines as well as beauty creams. But other cell lines are being prepared ". Montanari claims himself to be agnostic, "I believe only in the facts but I do not understand how the Church can affirm that a 50 years ago abortion is less of an abortion. From what it seems reading the Canon law which makes an abortion - or who induces or benefits from it - commits a mortal sin and is liable to excommunication latae sententiae (meaning that one is immediately excommunicated) ". For Montanari also the Muslim and Jewish communities would have the right to express themselves on the issue and be heard because "in the preparation of all the vaccines they use pig jelly as a thermal stabilizer".
Among others, Martina Collotta will explain how an abortion occurs; she will say that those aimed at cell lines "leave the fetus intact. And the fetus must be absolutely healthy ". Therefore the interest of the industries is not on the spontaneously aborted babies, that could be carriers of some malformations, but on those aborted by choice.
Yes, there is always a choice.
