No, Vaccines Do Not Contain Aborted Fetuses

October 13th, 2014
submit to reddit Share

Yet another claim about vaccines and autism has been making the rounds.  It claims that autism may be the result of human fetus tissue, which is present in vaccines and is incorporated into the DNA of the individual vaccinated.

The implications beyond autism are disturbing to many, especially those who oppose abortion.  In any case, it seems very offputting to think about being injected with the cells of a dead fetus.

Via CBS News:

Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review
Most people will find it hard to believe that human DNA is contained in up to 23 different vaccines due to the fact a lot of the viruses are grown on aborted fetal tissue. As a result of the viruses being grown on aborted fetal tissue it is nearly impossible to separate residue from the fetuses completely from the vaccines. This adds a whole new element to the vaccination debate for those who are pro life. I don’t think many people would knowingly inject aborted fetal tissue into their children. Would you?

In a recent study by the Journal of Immunotoxicology entitled Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review, the report even goes so far as to say that this can be linked to the spike in rates of autism. The basic reason the Journal points out the immune system is tricked into associating harmful viruses with human DNA. Then the immune system starts attacking human tissue in your own body. The scientist Helen Ratajczak who did the study and wrote the report says,

“Because it’s human DNA and recipients are humans, there’s homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it’s changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it’s an ongoing inflammation. It doesn’t stop, it continues through the life of that individual.”

This is absolutely not a scientific review. This is just banter from a known anti-vaccine activist who likes to get media attention. Such unscientific claims are not uncommon and often are inflammatory or gut-wrenching.

There is absolutely no human tissue present in vaccines. However, even if there was, it would not cause the recipient to somehow absorb the genetic material.
Rather, the body would quickly mount an immune response to the foreign cells, which can be dramatic and, in extreme cases, even result in death. This is why powerful immune-suppresant drugs are require for organ donation.

Of course, we are exposed to the DNA of other individuals all the time. Kissing someone is likely to transfer skin cells from inside the mouth and result in ingesting some of the cells, along with their DNA. Sex involves the exchange of body fluids that are teaming with human DNA. DNA is also present in blood transfusions. Studies have found that the DNA of a blood donor can be detected in a recipient up to a week after the transfusion. However, the DNA never incorporates into the other cells of the body.

There’s also plenty of DNA and genetic material in the animal and plant material we constantly eat. Despite what many anti-gmo activists say, this DNA doesn’t affect the body of anyone who eats it. It’s mostly broken down in the digestive tract anyway, but regardless, it is not absorbed directly into living cells.

If any of this were true, it would have vast implications. It would also mean that handling blood or bodily fluids would carry additional hazards, beyond viruses or bacterial pathogens. The blood could actually modify your own genetic code. Criminals who are afraid they may have left DNA at a crime scene could just expose themselves to human tissue samples, altering their DNA and assuring that any DNA tests come up negative.

On the bright side, It would make it easy to alter the DNA of any individual, offering new treatments for genetic disease. Those who receive donated organs could have their DNA changed to that of the donor and thus avoid rejection. But, of course, none of this is real and human tissue can’t do that.

Where this seems to have come from:

Many viruses require human cells to grow in. When these viruses are needed to produce vaccines, it is common to use human sell cultures.  These are simply cells that are alive in the laboratory but not part of any person.  Human cells are obtained from certified cell banks.

These cultures come from a number of “lines,” meaning they are clones of a given group of cells.  Many of these cell lines date back to the 1960′s and have been used to produce vaccines up to the present day.  Of course, the original cells need to come from somewhere.  These cells could be sourced from any number of specimens.  It would be possible, for example, to draw cells from a biopsy of a healthy person and create a culture from them.

All adult cells have what is known as the Hayflick limit.  It’s  limit to the number of times  a cell can reproduce.  If adult cells were used for tissue cultures, they would have to be reharvested and new tissue cultures made on a frequent basis.  Fetal cells can survive for many more generations, making them ideal for producing tissue cultures.

Some of these cell lines originated with electively aborted fetuses.  Others did not.  However, in no case are actual fetal cells, from the original fetus used in the production of vaccines.  These are many generations away from the original cultured cells.

In fact, even the Vatican, which is strongly opposed to abortion has issued a statement saying that these vaccines are perfectly fine to use.

One should also remember that there are no human cells in the final product.  The viruses are extracted from the cell culture and processed, leaving very little residual matter from the tissue culture in the final vaccine.


This entry was posted on Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 12:24 pm and is filed under Bad Science, media, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



115 Responses to “No, Vaccines Do Not Contain Aborted Fetuses”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

  1. 101
    Shafe Says:

            Sarah said:

    I am here because I am having interesting discussions with Shafe and George. I’m awaiting Shafes response to my comments on polio, and I am still thinking about my response Georges excellent point about organic food, and where I should draw the line in ethical stances.

    It appears I’ve left you waiting all weekend. Your comments regarding polio aren’t particularly germane to my point. Regardless of your assessment of the low death rate or the quality of life on a ventilator, polio is real, and in non-immunized populations can spread widely, leading to death in some and maiming others. It is also a very real fact that polio can be beaten with the use of a low-cost, low-risk vaccine.

    But beyond polio, thanks to my children’s vaccination schedule, I’m not faced with the constant threat of them contracting any number of diseases including measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, certain flu strands, pneumococcal disease, chicken pox (and shingles later in life), hep A, hep B, and some forms of meningitis. Thanks to immunizations of previous generations, smallpox is so thoroughly beaten that my children don’t even need to be immunized against it. It’s also true that thanks to herd immunity, even if I failed to vaccinate my children, they would probably still be safe, but that kind of irresponsible inaction diminishes the very herd immunity that protects the immune-compromised who cannot elect to be vaccinated. Failing to vaccinate is endangering your neighbor’s children. Shame on those who would promote such a thing.

    Where cost is concerned, I find it maddening to suggest that we regress to a state where our healthcare system is forced to treat diseases that are easily and cheaply prevented.

    You’re entitled to your ethical reservations about using technology developed using aborted fetuses, but at least recognize that the cost of refusing immunizations and convincing others to do so is extreme.

    I’m ready to stop beating this dead horse. I find it bizarre that anyone even needs convincing of the importance of vaccines.


    Quote Comment
  2. 102
    Sarah Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Sarah, I have wasted enough time with you. You simply do not know what you are talking about, and you assume you are. Research especially in scientific topics doesn’t mean cherry-picking evidence that you think supports your opinions, and then misinterpreting to read into it things that are not there. If you are working backwards to a desired conclusion, and have loose criteria for what counts as evidence, and allow tangential and circumstantial evidence – you can build a case for literally any theory, no matter how implausible and this is what you (or those that you follow) are doing on this subject.

    Real scientific research means gathering ALL the data and weighing it across every parameter, and you are just not doing this. Furthermore to the extent it is taught at all in modern Western education, the dialectic approach that is emphasized is that of balanced inquiry: you are making one set of assertions, I am making another, and they are presumed equal. While this is useful in evaluating issues in the social and political sphere, it has little utility in science which is largely practiced by constructive empiricism.

    You are also functionally innumerate as evidenced by your inability to analyze statistical data, and this makes it almost impossible for you to get a clear picture of the truth. Nor do you have the foundation in the sciences that would allow you to interpret what you read properly. Without these tools at your disposal you simply cannot hold a considered opinion in these matters, and worse you cannot see that this is the case.

    Because of this your focus is far too narrow. Even now there are vaccines available across the spectrum that do not depend on human sourced tissue to produce. Most of these come from cell lines derived from chick embryos, and this is considered a better medium by manufactures for any number of reasons.

    Claims that the whole domain of vaccinations depends on a supply of aborted tissue is simply incorrect, as is the broad assertion that vaccination is generally ineffective, and thus unnecessary. This in itself demonstrates a deep ignorance and a willingness to believe unsubstantiated propaganda uncritically and makes any continued exchange a sterile exercise – if you are going to believe based on arbitrary preconceived notions, nothing I can table will sway you.

    Lastly, and finally, your outrage is misplaced. Current ethical standards are very restrictive when it comes to obtaining material from abortions and unused in vitro fertilization embryos (the latter being the prefered source for human cells these days) for medical purposes. However such restrictions do not apply it would seem to the cosmetic industry. Apparently there is an established trade and an active market in foetal tissue for collagen (among other things) in beauty products, drawing heavily on Chinese, and Russian abortion clinics. I would think if you were going attack the use of aborted tissue, I would submit you should be focusing on this domain where it would be very difficult for anyone to construct a positive moral and ethical justification, and where the volumes of material involved are several orders of magnitude higher than that obtained for medical uses.

    Then by all means please stop wasting it.

    If you are going to lie, both about facts and also about what I say in my arguments I am clearly wasting my time with you.

    You stated the following comment:
    “The human cell lines that are used in the production of some vaccines (WI-38 and MRC-5) were derived from embryonic tissue from three elective, medically indicated abortions conducted in the 1960s. These cell lines are self-sustaining and additional abortions are not needed to continue producing vaccines.”

    That is a lie. They are not self sustaining, and further abortions whether needed or not, have been used to manufacture more vaccines. WI-38 and MRC-5 are not self sustaining, and more abortions have been used to produce vaccines that were not restricted to the 60′s.

    This a fact. You will most likely state it is irrelevant, because me refusing vaccinations does not stop any of it from occurring. But that is irrelevant to me as I never stated I believed that it did…I have said this so many times but you refuse to accept it.

    I did not say ALL vaccines are produced using foetal cell lines…but I’m sure you knew this already and just misrepresented what I said in order to accuse me of being stupid. The main childhood vaccines are. Yes there are alternatives that could be used instead, but for some reason, even after much protest from people who would like this to happen, vaccine manufacturers like MERCK, have refused. So perhaps your distress at people refusing these vaccines could best be served by pressuring companies like MERCK to produce these vaccines that you mention are made from ethical sources?? (as I have mentioned several times before but you again have brushed off). That they could make but are just refusing to, for the reason I have mentioned that you do not find accurate (that foetal cell lines are needed).

    I also was aware of the foetal tissue market to produce cosmetics. This doesn’t some how take my focus away from the immorality of vaccine manufacturing. I can care about both, and I do.

    Your argument about aborted babies used in vaccine production and medical research, being something that should not horrify me because the numbers are apparently too small to be significant, is only relevant to someone who thinks that the murder and exploitation is only immoral if the numbers exceed some supposed “moral limit”.

    If I’m supposed to believe what you and vaccine advocates tell me, about the abortions from the past used to make vaccines only being 3! then it wasn’t exactly a huge “roaring trade” that is a concern from the past that isn’t anymore is it? If it was worth me caring about when it was supposedly only 3 from the 60′s (it wasn’t but the numbers are irrelevant to me) then I’m not going to stop caring about it today, just because according to you, it is supposedly happening less frequently now.

    If using aborted foetal material is wrong it doesn’t make it better if something good is made out of it. Murder and the exploitation of that murder, does not become okay because it saves the lives of other people who are wanted. Especially if those lives can be saved in other ways that are not being utilised, because everybody keeps relying on the murderers provision instead. (e.g. companies like Merck refusing to use other sources for their vaccines, when they supposedly have no valid reasons to do so because according to you, chick eggs embryos are more suitable)

    If a serial killer used what he was doing to save the lives of children, he shouldn’t be allowed to continue because some people derive benefit…even if the people who benefit hugely, out number the people he murders to do it. Even if it is considered legal at the time it is done, and even medically ethical to the majority of people that exist.

    If the serial killer only used three of the people he killed for life saving medicine, and then kept killing people but didn’t use any more of the dead bodies to make medicines any more, then it doesn’t make it a “stupid waste” of time, for people to refuse to benefit from the three murders that made the drugs. Even if the refusal has no impact on the murderer and he keeps doing it.

    If people refused to benefit from this, and their refusal cost their life, and yet didn’t stop the serial killer from murdering people, then this is not the stupid irrational thing you are proposing. Especially if there are other ways of saving these peoples lives, that do not involve the bodies of those murdered, that these people risk and give their lives to protest over. But go ahead and think what you like.

    I don’t want to engage with you anymore if you are just going to lie about things, and then misrepresent what I say to discredit me.


    Quote Comment
  3. 103
    BMS Says:

            Sarah said:

    I don’t want to engage with you anymore if you are just going to lie about things, and then misrepresent what I say to discredit me.

    Does this mean that you’re going away?! Please do, because I think that everyone reading this stopped caring about the stubbornly misinformed nonsense that you’re been depositing on this blog for at least a dozen comments now.

    By going on and on, ad nauseam, you’ve merely demonstrated that you cannot tell lies from truth and facts from the “factoids” put out by the anti-vax community. It’s clear that you’re both intellectually and morally bankrupt. You’d rather waste your time worrying about some piece of fetal tissue that was terminated half a century ago than the lifetime of suffering of a child that has to spend the rest of his or her days on a ventilator (oh … but they’re so much better than an iron long — please excuse me while I vomit) due to an entirely preventable disease.

    Frankly, it is my opinion that you’re simply a disgusting person, and I really would like it if you would just leave now and crawl back under that rock you came from. Thank you in advance.


    Quote Comment
  4. 104
    DV82XL Says:

    You pathetic, stupid little girl, you haven’t processed a thing I have written, and you still cannot see how deeply in error you are. Correcting your silly notions is not lying. You have decided you know how things are and you categorically refuse to consider evidence to the contrary. You are a pathetic fool, and I will not let you be, but rather I will continue to expose you for the ignorant fraud that you are.

    As for discrediting you – you are already doing a good job of it yourself. This blog is followed by those with a great deal of training in the sciences and far more life experience than you have – they are not going to be fooled by the sort of nonsense you post. asking them to sacrifice their children’s health on the ill informed sayso of someone so obviously not that far out of childhood herself for some pretentious, poorly conceived metaphysical notions you show no evidence of understanding yourself is risible.


    Quote Comment
  5. 105
    drbuzz0 Says:

    I cannot believe this debate is still going on.


    Quote Comment
  6. 106
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I cannot believe this debate is still going on.

    As long as rubbish is being posted, we will take a stand against it – it’s what we do.


    Quote Comment
  7. 107
    Sarah Says:

            Shafe said:

    It appears I’ve left you waiting all weekend. Your comments regarding polio aren’t particularly germane to my point. Regardless of your assessment of the low death rate or the quality of life on a ventilator, polio is real, and in non-immunized populations can spread widely, leading to death in some and maiming others. It is also a very real fact that polio can be beaten with the use of a low-cost, low-risk vaccine.

    But beyond polio, thanks to my children’s vaccination schedule, I’m not faced with the constant threat of them contracting any number of diseases including measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, certain flu strands, pneumococcal disease, chicken pox (and shingles later in life), hep A, hep B, and some forms of meningitis. Thanks to immunizations of previous generations, smallpox is so thoroughly beaten that my children don’t even need to be immunized against it. It’s also true that thanks to herd immunity, even if I failed to vaccinate my children, they would probably still be safe, but that kind of irresponsible inaction diminishes the very herd immunity that protects the immune-compromised who cannot elect to be vaccinated. Failing to vaccinate is endangering your neighbor’s children. Shame on those who would promote such a thing.

    Where cost is concerned, I find it maddening to suggest that we regress to a state where our healthcare system is forced to treat diseases that are easily and cheaply prevented.

    You’re entitled to your ethical reservations about using technology developed using aborted fetuses, but at least recognize that the cost of refusing immunizations and convincing others to do so is extreme.

    I’m ready to stop beating this dead horse. I find it bizarre that anyone even needs convincing of the importance of vaccines.

    Hi Shafe,
    You don’t need to convince me of the importance of vaccination. You have given me a lot to think about and reflect on, so thank you again for being civil, and not abusive. I don’t agree with vaccinating, and don’t believe the benefits outweigh the risks, but the civility you have shown I respect enough to decide to be more open minded in my research and re-evaluate my anti vax (that don’t have an abortion link) stance. Whether I believe vaccines work or not is kind of a separate issue though, that doesn’t, and never needed to be, debated on here.

    I don’t expect everyone to stop vaccinating. I just expect people to care about the abortion connection, and stop lying about it (e.g. saying its only 3 from the 60′s and that no other abortions have been used to make more vaccines), stop holding up the scientists who exploited them as heros and to stop dismissing it as an important issue because fetal cell matter is no longer present.

    My position in refusing them is an extreme one. I realise that…but I think using murdered babies to make medical products and cosmetics IS pretty extreme….Don’t you? To me it is the stuff of horror movies! So I thank you again for respecting that I am entitled to hold reservations about it.

    If you are pro vaccine, and have children you want to protect with vaccines, then I can certainly respect this. You didn’t kill the babies, or use them to make vaccines…you shouldn’t be expected to do something (that if vaccines do in fact work as you say) risks the life of your children, over something you weren’t responsible for. That is why the Pope made the statement he did. So that people could still vaccinate if they so chose, but still be able to protest the practice in other ways, and avoid justifying it E.g. signing the current petitions asking Merck to produce a more ethical vaccines.

    Refusing vaccines is just one of the ways to make a stand about it. Other people who refuse need to come to the decision to do this themselves! Not because I convince them to!

    If you aren’t religious, or pro-life, then you can’t be expected to take any sort of stance on it all….But brushing it off as an issue for others (which I know you haven’t done..but others here clearly have!) because of the time that has elapsed, and because there isn’t any tissue present is really really awful.

    I don’t have children am fully vaccinated, but have also contracted almost every disease I’ve been vaccinated against as well…measles 3 times before I turned 8….so it’s highly likely I am one of the people that vaccines don’t work for. I only found out about the abortion connection to vaccines late last year, so I am fully up to date with everything anyway. So whether vaccines work or not, I’m not personally endangering anyone if it turns out they do work.

    I wont be commenting here anymore. I appreciate being challenged and having others disagree with me, I find it a good way to learn, I can also tolerate a certain amount of abusive bullying…for the sake of learning to debate in hostile environments. But I feel I’ve had enough to be honest. And I’m certainly not going to engage with DV82XL when he keeps lying and being so horrible. He might know a lot about science but that’s no excuse to be so rude. You I’m sure are just as knowledgeable, but you are clearly mature enough to not be so degrading to people who don’t share your amount of scientific knowledge, or the same views.

    Thanks again for the discussion and the opportunity to re-evaluate my views


    Quote Comment
  8. 108
    Sarah Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You pathetic, stupid little girl, you haven’t processed a thing I have written, and you still cannot see how deeply in error you are. Correcting your silly notions is not lying. You have decided you know how things are and you categorically refuse to consider evidence to the contrary. You are a pathetic fool, and I will not let you be, but rather I will continue to expose you for the ignorant fraud that you are.

    As for discrediting you – you are already doing a good job of it yourself. This blog is followed by those with a great deal of training in the sciences and far more life experience than you have – they are not going to be fooled by the sort of nonsense you post. asking them to sacrifice their children’s health on the ill informed sayso of someone so obviously not that far out of childhood herself for some

    No actually, you are the pathetic one. If vaccines work and people refuse them because of bullies like you then the blood is on your hands. Learn something from the other people on this site who can talk to people about things will civility and respect.

    pretentious, poorly conceived metaphysical notions you show no evidence of understanding yourself is risible.


    Quote Comment
  9. 109
    Sarah Says:

            BMS said:

    Does this mean that you’re going away?! Please do, because I think that everyone reading this stopped caring about the stubbornly misinformed nonsense that you’re been depositing on this blog for at least a dozen comments now.

    By going on and on, ad nauseam, you’ve merely demonstrated that you cannot tell lies from truth and facts from the “factoids” put out by the anti-vax community. It’s clear that you’re both intellectually and morally bankrupt. You’d rather waste your time worrying about some piece of fetal tissue that was terminated half a century ago than the lifetime of suffering of a child that has to spend the rest of his or her days on a ventilator (oh … but they’re so much better than an iron long — please excuse me while I vomit) due to an entirely preventable disease.

    Frankly, it is my opinion that you’re simply a disgusting person, and I really would like it if you would just leave now and crawl back under that rock you came from. Thank you in advance.

    And you are quite frankly immature and disgusting. At least DV82XL engaged and helped me understand somethings, you just popped up out of know where to abuse and bully…..how old are you?? Do you actually ever make comments on this blog that are of value or do you just watch other people and then pop up every now and again to insult people? If people refuse vaccinations because of Your bullying the blood is on your head as well


    Quote Comment
  10. 110
    Radank Says:

    Actually, it is in tha vaccines.
    Additionally, a non-tumorigenic MDCK cell line was discussed for the manufacture of a live, attenuated influenza virus vaccine (VRBPAC 2008). Since this clone of MDCK cells was not tumorigenic, the level of residual cell-substrate DNA in the final product was low and reduced in size, and the route of vaccine administration was intranasal, the majority of the Committee supported the evaluation
    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM319573.pdf


    Quote Comment
  11. 111
    DV82XL Says:

            Radank said:

    Actually, it is in tha vaccines.
    Additionally, a non-tumorigenic MDCK cell line was discussed for the manufacture of a live, attenuated influenza virus vaccine (VRBPAC 2008).

    The discussion was never about media made from cell lines derived from human tumors, only those sourced from fetal tissue. The MDCK cell line is from non-human precursors, and again is is not germane to this discussion.


    Quote Comment
  12. 112
    irma Says:

    The fact that there is a debate/discussion about this (whether or not it’s valid for someone to question it-really? LOL), covering human tumors vs. aborted fetal tissue [and that's not even getting into peanuts, eggs, etc etc used in vaccines] is amazing to me. I am pro choice, but I find the self titled ‘pro science intellectuals’ to be just as close minded as they accuse others of being, on this issue. And on many other issues related to the new religion of ‘science’ that seems to be sweeping the nation/world today. I read this article b/c the title implied that many other sources about ingredients in vaccines [including CDC website ingredient list and FDA package inserts downloaded online] are incorrect. And I didn’t want to contribute to misinformation, as I continue to research historical, pharmaceutical, government, etc aspects of vaccines.

    Instead, I find an article that admits that cell tissue is in fact used, but the author deems it insignificant b/c it’s several generations old and there’s no way that tissue can be present in vaccines. Well, glad your subjective view that it’s not important counts as fact, in your world. In other worlds, it does not. Also, science of today is not the final word. So whether or not there is transfer of human protein, DNA, etc is not concluded, only understood via the limitations of today’s research and technology. Science is an inquiry, not an absolute fact.

    That aside, even if fetal cell tissue is used to manufacture or culture only a single vaccine, it is reasonable that a person may have moral objection. Just because ‘it’s only a few, it was generations ago, fetal cells are more potent and vaccines are important’ does not negate this objection. The real question we should all be asking is: Why do vaccines contain all of these ingredients, including the aforementioned peanuts and eggs, along with a host of other toxins? Oh yes, mercury is supposedly no longer present, but aluminum has replaced it-and most neglect to mention this in the debate. The fact that ‘no all’ vaccines contain all ingredients is irrelevant.

    I suppose the better question would be: Can modern science some up with a more sophisticated means of preventing these diseases? I don’t look at vaccines as a modern miracle. I look at them as a temporary trend that, like all science, will evolve. Unfortunately, those who worship the alter of modern science seem to forget this. And medicine and science are both corporate industries at this point, rather than altruistic ventures in human health. So the idea that vaccines can be replaced by something more sophisticated in the future is not an investment the current medical industries are interested in. Why would they be, when they make so much money on vaccines?

    Also, why do some people, who call themselves pro science, get so upset when anyone questions safety or efficacy of a pharmaceutical product? Why would those who claim to be pro science get so upset about questioning ingredients, methods and procedures for products designed for human consumption/injection? Ethics is an important part of science. The idea that it ‘doesn’t matter’ what’s in the vaccines b/c they work is borderline sociopathic. It’s not detached scientific inquiry, but rather denies dissent based on a biased worldview. I don’t understand this. It seems reasonable and logical to question. And it seems reasonable to also support certain vaccines, but think others are not as useful or necessary [ie, chicken pox, or Hep B for infants, etc]. But as with most topics in American culture today, it seems we must ‘pick a team or go home’. And we only get a choice between two teams. I’d say this mindset is hardly scientific. And hardly freedom oriented. I’m also surprised we don’t look to Europe, Japan and other countries who outperform us in math and science. A quick glance shows their vaccines schedules to be 1/3 of that in the US, and that certain vaccines are banned there but promoted in the US.

    On a final note, re: religious views and freedom, it doesn’t matter if those who are pro science believe that all religions are ridiculous. That we have a science vs. religion dichotomy at play is a product of the divide and conquer mindset of our rulers. Only those who believe they are intellectually superior do not see how they are being played. As mentioned, I am prochoice, and not religious. That said, I never want to see a world where another’s spiritual views are dictated via science or any other ‘model’. These scientific viewpoints are always man made and can never be proven, not all that different from the religious views that are criticized. One’s spirituality or lack thereof is a personal choice, a subjective experience and this includes an exercise in rationality and logic. It cannot be proven or disproven. We all know Einstein’s quote about imagination being more important than knowledge. Not sure that’s true, but certainly imagination allows for new scientific inquiry, research, innovation and knowledge.


    Quote Comment
  13. 113
    Anon Says:

            irma said:

    The fact that there is a debate/discussion about this (whether or not it’s valid for someone to question it-really? LOL), covering human tumors vs. aborted fetal tissue [and that's not even getting into peanuts, eggs, etc etc used in vaccines] is amazing to me. I am pro choice, but I find the self titled ‘pro science intellectuals’ to be just as close minded as they accuse others of being, on this issue.

    Translation: “I’m a pro-coathanger anti-vaccination concern troll but would rather people think I’m not crazy”.

            irma said:

    Also, science of today is not the final word.

    No, but it’s better than your imagination.

            irma said:

    I suppose the better question would be: Can modern science some up with a more sophisticated means of preventing these diseases?

    Given how effective and how cheap vaccines are it’d be pretty hard to improve on them, for diseases vaccines can wipe out such as smallpox (already done), polio, measles, etc it might not even be worth trying given that any improvement if possible will be small compared to what you could get if you spent the resources elsewhere.

            irma said:

    Why would they be, when they make so much money on vaccines?

    Actually they don’t make much money on vaccines, treating the diseases that occur when people don’t vaccinate is more profitable.

            irma said:

    Also, why do some people, who call themselves pro science, get so upset when anyone questions safety or efficacy of a pharmaceutical product?

    Because most people who question safety or efficacy of drugs that get through the rigorous trials and go on sale are quacks and their concerns baseless, not to mention that most of the questions have already been answered multiple times.

            irma said:

    Why would those who claim to be pro science get so upset about questioning ingredients, methods and procedures for products designed for human consumption/injection?

    Because your concerns are baseless and people like you refuse to accept reality.

            irma said:

    And it seems reasonable to also support certain vaccines, but think others are not as useful or necessary [ie, chicken pox, or Hep B for infants, etc].

    http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu08.html
    Looks like there is a good reason for the chicken pox vaccine.

            irma said:

    But as with most topics in American culture today, it seems we must ‘pick a team or go home’. And we only get a choice between two teams. I’d say this mindset is hardly scientific.

    That’s because you don’t know want scientific means.

            irma said:

    And hardly freedom oriented.

    Oh right, the health freedom bulls***. The fact is that your right to spread germs ends at my nose.

            irma said:

    I’m also surprised we don’t look to Europe, Japan and other countries who outperform us in math and science. A quick glance shows their vaccines schedules to be 1/3 of that in the US, and that certain vaccines are banned there but promoted in the US.

    Evidence?

            irma said:

    Only those who believe they are intellectually superior do not see how they are being played.

    That seems to describe you quite well, given that your concern-trolling for quacks.

            irma said:

    These scientific viewpoints are always man made and can never be proven,

    Yes they can, in fact they have, otherwise they wouldn’t be scientific viewpoints.

            irma said:

    not all that different from the religious views that are criticized.

    Actually they are very different, religion is made up, science is a process which involves checking to see if a hypothesis fits reality and discarding those that don’t.

            irma said:

    We all know Einstein’s quote about imagination being more important than knowledge. Not sure that’s true, but certainly imagination allows for new scientific inquiry, research, innovation and knowledge.

    Yes, but to be a scientist imagination has to be disciplined.


    Quote Comment
  14. 114
    Loo Says:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/medical-researchers-say-fetal-tissue-remains-essential/


    Quote Comment
  15. 115
    DV82XL Says:

    The new vaccine — rVSV-ZEBOV — against Ebola virus was not developed using fetal tissue or fetal cell lines, but rather with Vero, a monkey cell line.

    http://www.google.com/patents/WO2004011488A2?cl=en


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string jwb8pb to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam