No one opposes Stem Cell Research

[OKgrannie]

Vatican Statement on Aborted Fetal Vaccines

Vaccines currently produced using human cell lines that come from aborted foetuses



To date, there are two human diploid cell lines which were originally prepared from tissues of aborted foetuses ( in 1964 and 1970) and are used for the preparation of vaccines based on live attenuated virus: the first one is the WI-38 line (Winstar Institute 38), with human diploid lung fibroblasts, coming from a female foetus that was aborted because the family felt they had too many children (G. Sven et al., 1969). It was prepared and developed by Leonard Hayflick in 1964 (L. Hayflick, 1965; G. Sven et al., 1969)3 and bears the ATCC number CCL-75. WI-38 has been used for the preparation of the historical vaccine RA 27/3 against rubella (S.A. Plotkin et al, 1965)4. The second human cell line is MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) (human, lung, embryonic) (ATCC number CCL-171), with human lung fibroblasts coming from a 14 week male foetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" from a 27 year old woman in the UK. MRC-5 was prepared and developed by J.P. Jacobs in 1966 (J.P. Jacobs et al, 1970)5. Other human cell lines have been developed for pharmaceutical needs, but are not involved in the vaccines actually available6.

The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:

A) Live vaccines against rubella8 :

- the monovalent vaccines against rubella Meruvax®!! (Merck) (U.S.), Rudivax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Ervevax® (RA 27/3) (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium);

- the combined vaccine MR against rubella and measles, commercialized with the name of M-R-VAX® (Merck, US) and Rudi-Rouvax® (AVP, France);

- the combined vaccine against rubella and mumps marketed under the name of Biavax®!! (Merck, U.S.),

- the combined vaccine MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) against rubella, mumps and measles, marketed under the name of M-M-R® II (Merck, US), R.O.R.®, Trimovax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Priorix® (GlaxoSmithKline UK).



B) Other vaccines, also prepared using human cell lines from aborted foetuses:

- two vaccines against hepatitis A, one produced by Merck (VAQTA), the other one produced by GlaxoSmithKline (HAVRIX), both of them being prepared using MRC-5;

- one vaccine against chicken pox, Varivax®, produced by Merck using WI-38 and MRC-5;

- one vaccine against poliomyelitis, the inactivated polio virus vaccine Poliovax® (Aventis-Pasteur, Fr.) using MRC-5;

- one vaccine against rabies, Imovax®, produced by Aventis Pasteur, harvested from infected human diploid cells, MRC-5 strain;

- one vaccine against smallpox, AC AM 1000, prepared by Acambis using MRC-5, still on trial.

WikiAnswers - Are aborted fetuses used to make vaccines

Are aborted fetuses used to make vaccines?

Due to the advances in Molecular Biology, nearly all vaccines used today consist of coat protiens made from rDNA (e.coli), not fetuses.

 

[OKgrannie]

I will die a long, painful death before I will take any treatment which is in any way derived from embryonic stem cell research. Have fun selling your souls. I hope it's worth it.

Edit: Just to make sure I'm being clear, I'm referring explicitly to research which uses aborted fetuses.

Do you consider fertilized eggs discarded from in vitro fertilizations to be "aborted fetuses"? Most of us don't.


(copy and paste this link)
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Is_Stem_Cell_Research_Ethical$.asp

But there is hope. What if the scientists "merely" needed to destroy excess fertilized eggs from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures that are only a few days old and have not yet been implanted in a woman's uterus? Is the destruction of these "pre-embryos" ethically acceptable to us? That is exactly the debate that currently rages regarding stem cell research.

While stem cells can be derived from aborted fetuses and even adults, the best source for stem cells is the small clump of cells that compose the early zygote only a few days following conception. Therefore, to best investigate the latent possibilities inherent in stem cells, scientists wish to use the approximately 100,000 "excess" frozen pre-embryos that are "left over" from earlier IVF attempts. Is it ethical to allow the destruction of pre-embryos to obtain stem cells for research that may some day save thousands of lives?

 

[Felicity]

WikiAnswers - Are aborted fetuses used to make vaccines

Are aborted fetuses used to make vaccines?

Due to the advances in Molecular Biology, nearly all vaccines used today consist of coat protiens made from rDNA (e.coli), not fetuses.

Kind of an important qualifier, don't you think?

 

[Felicity]

Do you consider fertilized eggs discarded from in vitro fertilizations to be "aborted fetuses"? Most of us don't.

"Fertilized egg" is a euphemism for the human organism at a very early stage of development. It's not an egg, fertilized or otherwise--It's a human being. I consider it disgusting that human beings can be so cavalierly "discarded." You claim "most of us don't" consider these organisms "aborted fetuses"--well, there are several problems there:

1. "most of us" are ignorant of the science involved and what it actually does.
   
2. the human is at an earlier stage of development, so no, it would not be a fetus--it would be a human at the embryonic stage of development.
   
3. an abortion is an intentional killing of a human prior to birth while it remains in a woman's womb--so technically it's not an abortion--it's another atrocity perpetrated against a particular segment of human beings.
   
4. "most of us" is the ad populum fallacy--didn't you ever tell your kids, "well if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it?!"

 

[OKgrannie]

"Fertilized egg" is a euphemism for the human organism at a very early stage of development. It's not an egg, fertilized or otherwise--It's a human being. I consider it disgusting that human beings can be so cavalierly "discarded." You claim "most of us don't" consider these organisms "aborted fetuses"--well, there are several problems there:

1. "most of us" are ignorant of the science involved and what it actually does.
   
2. the human is at an earlier stage of development, so no, it would not be a fetus--it would be a human at the embryonic stage of development.
   
3. an abortion is an intentional killing of a human prior to birth while it remains in a woman's womb--so technically it's not an abortion--it's another atrocity perpetrated against a particular segment of human beings.
   
4. "most of us" is the ad populum fallacy--didn't you ever tell your kids, "well if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it?!"

So IOW, most of us are correct when we don't consider "it" to be an aborted fetus. And those of you who aren't ignorant of the science involved confirm that. Those few of you who are not ignorant of the science involved do very little protesting of the creation of surplus zygotes for in vitro, but you're very vocal about those surplus zygotes being used for a practical purpose.

 

[OKgrannie]

Originally Posted by OKgrannie
WikiAnswers - Are aborted fetuses used to make vaccines

Are aborted fetuses used to make vaccines?

Due to the advances in Molecular Biology, nearly all vaccines used today consist of coat protiens made from rDNA (e.coli), not fetuses

.

Kind of an important qualifier, don't you think?

Since there's no evidence that fetuses were aborted for the purpose of making vaccines, I don't think it's significant.

 

[Felicity]

Those few of you who are not ignorant of the science involved do very little protesting of the creation of surplus zygotes for in vitro, but you're very vocal about those surplus zygotes being used for a practical purpose.

I think you may recall the last time I tried to discuss IVF??? It was as though I had killed a sacred cow!:shock:

 

[Felicity]

Since there's no evidence that fetuses were aborted for the purpose of making vaccines, I don't think it's significant.

It doesn't matter if that was the "purpose" for which they were aborted--One was because the parents didn't want another kid, and the other was because the mother had psych issues--I don't like the idea of "using" human beings for profit. Loads of money was made off those two babies. Just like I think it's immoral to buy body parts for transplant, I think it's wrong to do this.

You are right, however, that it should not contribute to more deaths. IVF, though, absolutely contributes to innumerable deaths.

 

[gunner]

Me too. I am disgusted about what I have learned about vaccinations.

Its terrible how all those millions of people have been saved.....by practical research.

Paul.

 

[prometeus]

It doesn't matter if that was the "purpose" for which they were aborted--One was because the parents didn't want another kid, and the other was because the mother had psych issues--I don't like the idea of "using" human beings for profit. Loads of money was made off those two babies. Just like I think it's immoral to buy body parts for transplant, I think it's wrong to do this.

But the other side of the coin says that the aborted fetuses have made it possible for good health of untold numbers of children. Why should we forgo that benefit if the abortion was not performed for that reason? It would be the same as giving up freedom because people were killed for it and to boot they were killed specifically for it.

 

[111john111]

But the other side of the coin says that the aborted fetuses have made it possible for good health of untold numbers of children. Why should we forgo that benefit if the abortion was not performed for that reason? It would be the same as giving up freedom because people were killed for it and to boot they were killed specifically for it.

It's quite clear it's only the aborted fetuses who made it possible to the better health of living children. I liked the way you quote examples.

 

[traillius]

Once again, ignorance is bliss. These people say they want cures, but I think they want something else, power, prestige, money, a desire to be right, ...
You would think people who claim to be compassionate, would support cures that happen today, such as the woman whose nasal epithelial cells regrew her own spine. ( I will look for the link later ). But no! Instead its " the potential, the potential, .... And " science takes time..." In the meantime they ignore the breakthroughs that are already occuring and which have been for several years. Last time I checked, the score was
Adult cells 73 vs. Embryonic cells 0. Sheesh, betting on the underdog is one thing. this is betting on the dead dog...
All links are forthcoming.
Edit:
a link to a fact sheet detailing results
stemcellresearch.org - Fact Sheet: Adult Stem Cells (72) v. Embryonic Stem Cells (0)
If anyone charges me or the source with lying, than the burden of proof is upon them to show any falsehood. Or they can persist in ad hominem attacks.

 

[American]

You display a fundamental lack of knowledge about stem cells, bio-technology, and how research works. Embryonic stem cells are being studied in the research phase. That means that practical application is still a ways in the future. American Corporations are unlikely to fund such long term projects, especially not with the incredibly short-sighted behavior they display today. Pharma companies are even less likely to invest, as they make their profits from repacking drugs that suppress symptoms, and they would probably loose money from cures. Historically most research of this nature has been funded by governments.

Adult stem cells have been studied for considerably longer, yet have fairly fundamental biological restrictions on what we can do with them. Adult stem cells will certainly play their part, but are unlikely to ever offer the kind of applications that embryonic stem cells can. Statements such as



are pure falsehood. You might well claim we can cure cancer by prayer and hugs.

Bush's refusal to allow funding for new embryonic stem cells seriously hurt the research into a potentially life-saving medical research. It also put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to the U.S.

I can understand if you have moral objections to embryonic stem cell research, and even if you want to stop the research entirely to save the embryos. However, posting falsehoods about science and technology is simply unacceptable. If you want to make your case for the ethics of protecting embryos, do it without lies and deception.

You know the minute someone starts their post with "You display a fundamental lack of knowledge about stem cells.....", they are done. Their credibility is zero. It's now a personal attack on the intelligence of the other poster.

 

[gabrielh]

Really informative post. I stand on the opinion that it is imperitive we federally fund this type of research. Breakthroughs can be made in all types of ailments. Federal funding will only get us there sooner.

I do understand your feelings on human embryos. The use of embryos is a very sensitive topic and one worthy of discussing. It is my personal belief, based on the scientific definition of life, that an embryo is merely a potential human beings; in fact, the stem cells from these embryos can be used to synthesize virtually any organ or made to develop into the cells of other organisms completely. However, I do have the view that, at present time, neither side on this issue can claim to KNOW for certain whether this is merely a potential human life, or one that is far further in development than we can understand. I'm sure this is where religious discussion comes in, so I'll leave it at that before we venture too off topic.

It is sad that the media is as corrupt as it is. You'll find more legitimate sources on forums like these than any television network, and that goes for CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. All of which are very openly biased, even if they don't realize how open they are.

Though not a Bush fan, I think he got more flak than he deserved on a lot of things considering how the media reported certain issues.

 

[prometeus]

Last time I checked, the score was
Adult cells 73 vs. Embryonic cells 0. Sheesh, betting on the underdog is one thing. this is betting on the dead dog...

For thousands of years people thought that the Earth was flat. Doe that mean they should have stopped looking?