conscientious objectors to vaccines, forced out of California Schools.

"California governor signs strict new vaccination law" SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Jerry Brown wasted no time Tuesday in signing a contentious California bill to impose one of the strictest school vaccination laws in the country following an outbreak of measles at Disneyland late last year.

Brown, a Democrat, issued a signing statement just one day after lawmakers sent him the bill to strike California's personal belief exemption for immunizations, a move that requires nearly all public schoolchildren to be vaccinated. The bill takes effect next year.

"The science is clear that vaccines dramatically protect children against a number of infectious and dangerous diseases," Brown wrote. "While it's true that no medical intervention is without risk, the evidence shows that immunization powerfully benefits and protects the community."

California joins Mississippi and West Virginia as the only states with such strict requirements.

What the law means is, "No vaccine, no school," CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman said on "CBS This Morning." "Children in daycare, children in public schools, children in private schools ... they will have to be vaccinated against certain diseases, and I mean have to."

Previously, state law allowed families to opt out for personal or religions reasons, and last year about 13,000 California families did so. Health officials say communities with low vaccination rates helped fuel the spread of measles over the winter.

Measles outbreak ignites fierce debate among moms online
The measles outbreak that started in Disneyland in December isn't slowing down. The total is up to at least 155 cases in 16 states with the lates...
Democratic Sens. Richard Pan of Sacramento and Ben Allen of Santa Monica introduced the measure after the Disneyland measles outbreak infected more than 100 people in the U.S. and Mexico.

The bill likely would be successful in increasing immunization rates and stopping the spread of disease, pediatric doctors said Monday after the state Senate sent the legislation to the governor.

Medical exemptions would still be granted to children with serious health issues. The measure applies to public and private schools, as well as day care facilities.

Mom's "angry as hell" Facebook post about measles goes viral
The bill has seen heated opposition from parents who have come by the thousand to protest at the Capitol in recent weeks. The topic has drawn such acidic debate that the authors have been added under extra security and a recall effort has been launched against at least two lawmakers who supported the proposal.

Opponents assert that the state is eliminating informed consent and trampling on parental rights. Similar legislation was dropped in Oregon earlier this year because opposition was so fierce.

Despite fervent pushback, the bill passed both the California Legislature with bipartisan support.

Brown said he was able to support the measure because the authors agreed to make it easier to obtain medical exemptions. SB277 was amended to allow doctors to use a family's medical history as an evaluating factor.

The authors also agreed to establish a grandfather clause, allowing students who currently claim a personal belief exemption to maintain it until their next vaccine checkpoint. Checkpoints occur in kindergarten and seventh grade.

Children whose parents refuse vaccination can try to obtain a medical exemption. The only other option, Klieman said: "You would have to take your child out of school if you have a religious or personal feeling about this, and home-school your child."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-governor-signs-strict-new-vaccination-law/

Quote: "What the law means is, "No vaccine, no school"

I don't know which is more toxic, the vaccine or the public school! Maybe best to avoid both.

RE: ///I don't know which is more toxic, the vaccine or the public school! Maybe best to avoid both.///

I agree.
The new law also includes all private schools.
It will not be long before they attack the homeschool families forcing unethical vaccines on all.

The disturbing trend is that religous rights are being trampled on,.

I feel that persecution is coming down this pipe.
down this pipe those like Ken Ham and James Dobson are on the wrong side of the issue, down this pipe we do not have a strong religious right defending us legislatively.

RE: ///Sorry, off topic.///

No, your post was not off topic.
I have a friend whom visited Chili but discovered there vaccine Laws are worse than ours.

edit add : The issue is that the World health organization (WHO) Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 and United Nations Millennium Development Goals, are Global not just national.

To vaccinate or not to should be a personal decision, I agree, not mandated by the gov. However, I do have a couple opinions on the subject.

I am 68 years old, birthed five children. And they all had childhood immunizations. Back then folks who did not vaccinate were on the fringe and considered weird but it has changed a lot since then.

If you live in a state that mandates immunizations I suggest you wait until the child is older before subjecting them to the vaccine. We waited to have our youngest immunized until he started school - not because of a reluctance against vaccine but because I procrastinated! He is healthy in spite of having had chicken pox several times.

I am all for polio immunizations. My husbands family was afflicted with polio back in the 1950s. His oldest brother had all three kinds. I saw what it did to him and in no way would I put my child at risk for that if there is any way to prevent it.

As my BIL aged he came down with post-polio syndrome. And he died a few years ago, fortunately. It is awful, bad.

My SIL also had polio but a mild case of it; I know several others like her but they are doing OK, not fine, but tolerable.

Seems to me this is an issue that defies an absolute answer but does require a parent to examine closely the effects of these vaccines and what are the possibilities of my decision.

On the other hand, it might be wiser to make this a matter of prayer before doing your research because its influence can be profound - depending on the source of your info.

My opinion.

Sandra

Wise words. There is much alarmism out there on this topic.

Sister Sandra, I appreciate your response!

For me something did not feel right about vaccines.
And as with many things it has been difficult to determine if those feelings originated from God or from my upbringing.

So I started researching and as I have posted before what I found as fact is that these vaccines are produced from Aborted Cell Lines :

Disease
Vaccine Name
Manufacturer
Cell line

Adenovirus
Barr Labs., Inc
WI-38

Chickenpox
Varivax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

WI-38

Chickenpox
Varivax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Polio, HIB
Pentacel
Sanofi Pasteur
MRC-5

Hepatitis A
Havrix
GlaxoSmithKline
MRC-5

Hepatitis A
Vaqta
Merck & Co.
MRC-5

Hepatitis A-B
Twinrix
GlaxoSmithKline
MRC-5

Measles, Mumps, Rubella
MMR II
WI-38

Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox
ProQuad
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

Rabies
Imovax
Sanofi Pasteur
MRC-5

Rubella
Meruvax II
Merck & Co.
WI-38

Shingles
Zostavax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5

....

.There are currently no U.S. approved alternatives for Adenovirus, Chickenpox, Hepatitis A, Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Shingles. Merck & Co. announced in 2008 that their Mumps and Measles alternatives, Mumpsvax and Attenuvax, will no longer be produced. The new version of the Adenovirus vaccine is currently only approved for use for military personnel.

Those Facts are something that the majority of Christians have no idea about including many many Doctors.

Right to Life of Michigan
http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html

Yes but there are 2 sides to that story as well. The gotquestions website talks about it.

Sister Sandra wrote : RE :
///I am all for polio immunizations. My husbands family was afflicted with polio back in the 1950s. His oldest brother had all three kinds. I saw what it did to him and in no way would I put my child at risk for that if there is any way to prevent it.
As my BIL aged he came down with post-polio syndrome. And he died a few years ago, fortunately. It is awful, bad.
My SIL also had polio but a mild case of it; I know several others like her but they are doing OK, not fine, but tolerable.
Seems to me this is an issue that defies an absolute answer but does require a parent to examine closely the effects of these vaccines and what are the possibilities of my decision. ///

That is what makes this a very difficult issue. It appears that vaccines do work, atleast in preventing the diseases that they are specified to treat.

Where is God in all of this ? What does the Bible say about pestilence ? These are the type of questiones that I ask myself and that I think we all should ask and search the scriptures for.

And are these Vaccines preventing death or only preventing death from certain diseases while increasing other deathly diseases such as Cancer ? I do not know, at this time none of us knows, but this is what I have found so far.

At the height of the Polio epidemics about 3,000 people a year died from Polio.

"In 2012, there were an estimated 13,776,251 people living with all cancer sites in the United States.
Estimated New Cases in 2015 1,658,370
Percent Surviving 5 Years 66.5%
Estimated Deaths in 2015 589,430 "
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

"Since 1950, the overall cancer incidence has increased by 44 percent; the incidence of breast cancer and male colon cancer by about 60 percent; testis, prostate and kidney by 100 percent; and other cancers, such as malignant melanoma, multiple myeloma and some lymphomas, by over 100 percent." http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/truth-about-cancer/facts-you-need-to-know-about-cancer

Could these vaccines be one of many contributing factors in the rapid rise of Cancer ? here is what I am finding

Many of these vaccines have not been researched to determine if they are contributing to the rise in Cancer.

also as I have posted before :"Almost 92% of our children have been given vaccines made using aborted fetal cell lines, which are contaminated with aborted fetal cell DNA and a retrovirus. To date, 24 vaccines (10 of these are used in the US) contain components that are produced using aborted fetal cell lines. These cell lines are MRC-5 and WI-38"....
.Is this safe? We don’t know.
Studies have not yet been done to determine the health consequences of injecting contaminating aborted fetal DNA and materials into our children, into our bodies, or into our skin.
http://soundchoice.org/aborted-fetal-products/vaccines/

An important point that Megan Heimer's artical pointed out:

"In the Bible, blood represented the life force of the human or animal. Human blood was to be kept pure under all circumstances and free of contaminants like animal parts and blood (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11, 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, Leviticus 17:10, Acts 15:20, and Acts 15:29).
Bovine cow serum for example, is often contaminated with viruses that cause viral diarrhea. In 2012, Merck recalled over a million doses of their PedVaxHib (Hib vaccine) and ComVax HiB/Hepatitis B combination vaccine because of Bacillus Cereus contamination, a bacteria that typically causes diarrhea and food poisoning. The polio vaccines used in the 1950’s and 60’s were contaminated by the SV40 virus from monkey kidney cells now responsible for several different types of cancer including brain and bone cancer, lymphomas, leukemia, and mesothelioma, and can be passed to subsequent generations via maternal antibodies from those vaccinated with contaminated vaccines"
http://www.livingwhole.org/god-does-not-support-vaccines/
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=54909&forum=34

It does seem that we are crossing Biblical lines even in those vaccines that are not derived from Aborted Cell Lines.
and not without repercussions as Megan rightly pointed out : "The polio vaccines used in the 1950’s and 60’s were contaminated by the SV40 virus from monkey kidney cells now responsible for several different types of cancer including brain and bone cancer, lymphomas, leukemia, and mesothelioma, and can be passed to subsequent generations via maternal antibodies from those vaccinated with contaminated vaccines"

to be continued.

I am not sure what the big problem is. If a person is against vaccines they can either move from CA or homeschool their kids. There are many many reasons I would never move to CA. I don't even want to visit particularly.

"The polio vaccines used in the 1950’s and 60’s were contaminated by the SV40 virus from monkey kidney cells now responsible for several different types of cancer including brain and bone cancer, lymphomas, leukemia, and mesothelioma, and can be passed to subsequent generations via maternal antibodies from those vaccinated with contaminated vaccines"

from the SV40 foundation :
"The Discovery of Simian Virus 40 (SV40)

Between 1959 and 1960, Bernice Eddy, Ph.D., of the National Institute of Health (NIH) examined minced rhesus monkey kidney cells under a microscope.[16] These were the cells of the same species of monkeys used to create and produce the oral polio vaccine. Dr. Eddy discovered that the cells would die without any apparent cause. She then took suspensions of the cellular material from these kidney cell cultures and injected them into hamsters. Cancers grew in the hamsters.[17] Shortly thereafter, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. discovered what would later be determined to be the same virus identified by Eddy.[18] This virus was named Simian Virus 40 or SV40 because it was the 40th simian virus found in monkey kidney cells.

In 1960, Doctors Benjamin Sweet and Maurice Hilleman, the Merck scientists who named the virus SV40, published their findings:

Viruses are commonly carried by monkeys and may appear as contaminants in cell cultures of their tissues, especially the kidney . . . . The discovery of this new virus, the vacuolating agent, represents the detection for the first time of a hitherto "non-detectable” simian virus of monkey renal cultures and raises the important question of the existence of other such viruses . . . . As shown in this report, all 3 types of Sabin’s live poliovirus vaccine, now fed to millions of persons of all ages, were contaminated with vacuolating virus.[19]

The vacuolating virus was another name for SV40.

In 1962, Dr. Bernice Eddy published her findings in the journal produced by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. She wrote:

There is now an impressive list of oncogenic (cancer causing) viruses””the rabbit papilloma, polyoma, Rous sarcoma, the leukemia viruses . . . . It has been known for a number of years that monkeys harbor latent viruses . . . . The (SV40) virus was injected at once into 13 newborn hamsters and 10 newborn mice. Subcutaneous neoplasms indistinguishable from those induced by the rhesus monkey kidney extracts developed in 11 of the 13 hamsters between 156 and 380 days . . . .[20]

Subsequent studies performed in the early 1960s demonstrated that SV40 caused brain tumors in animals[21] and that SV40 could transform or turn cancerous normal human tissue in vitro.[22] A disturbing experiment performed during this era also suggested that SV40 could cause human cancers in man in vivo.[23] In 1964, Fred Jensen and his colleagues took tissue from patients who were terminally ill with cancer.[24] They exposed the tissue to SV40 and then after it was transformed, they implanted the tissue back into the patient.[25] These implants grew into tumors in their human hosts.[26] This suggested the possibility that SV40 could cause cancers in man..... read much more : http://sv40foundation.org/CPV-link.html

also

"All health authorities agree that both the Salk Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) and Sabin Oral or "live” Polio Vaccine (OPV) were contaminated with SV40 up until 1961. The contamination has been estimated to have exposed up to 30 million Americans and millions more in the USSR (where the OPV clinical trials were conducted) and other countries. In 1961, federal regulations went into effect in the U.S. (and similar regulations went into effect in other parts of the world) that required that polio vaccines be free of SV40. The new regulations in the U.S., however, did not require that: 1) the SV40 contaminated seeds used to make every "batch” or "lot” of vaccine be discarded; 2) the recently manufactured contaminated vaccines be discarded.

1961-1963 In the U.S., federal law did not require that SV40 contaminated vaccines be discarded if they were manufactured before the new regulations went into effect. This meant that vaccines contaminated with SV40 were administered to children and adults until they were used up. This is estimated to have happened some time in 1963. Millions of people were unnecessarily exposed to SV40 because of economic pressures (the vaccine manufacturers did not want to throw away millions of vaccine vials) and political concerns about the public’s trust in the government’s polio vaccine campaign. (The federal government did not want publicity about manufacturing problems related to polio vaccines especially after the so-called Cutter incident in which children were reportedly paralyzed and killed from virulent polio vaccines.)"

http://sv40foundation.org/SV40-from-PV.html

I am against outlawing the personal exemption when it comes to vaccinations. There are a couple of reasons for this:

1.) It certainly infringes upon individual religious liberty.
2.) It can be a "gateway" for politicians in the government deeming other things to be "dangerous" and allow them to circumvent the faith or personal beliefs of the individual or family.

This entire legislative push is built upon a straw man -- pretending that there is some sort of epidemic in California created by the lack of vaccinations. There just aren't many of these diseases in the state that would merit such a hysterical push in the first place. The individuals who are at greater risk of the diseases in question are those who have not been vaccinated and no one else. There is more evidence of death and disease from things like alcohol and fattening foods than the lack of a measles vaccine in California. Will the politicians go after the alcohol industry or Cheetos? I doubt it.

Still, I would like to offer a kind warning.

Vaccines do work. Period. There are reasons why the western world hasn't seen any major pandemics like the Spanish flu, polio or, yes, measles over the greater part of the last century. It is because people have been vaccinated.

While anyone is free to consult whatever sources that they want when researching these matters for themselves, they should be mindful of the dangers of false correlation, fallacious causality or relying upon a handful of carefully-chosen and often poorly-interpreted "studies" while neglecting the overwhelming amount of research conducted in good-faith.

The "holistic" health industry (i.e., "natural health movement") often decries the mainstream research of science as being "faulty" or motivated by some nefarious entities (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, corporations, hospitals, etc...) without real evidence of any nefarious activity. I have read through many of those websites and books. They raise many rumors, insinuations and even blatant accusations. Most ironically, they often cite a very limited number of "studies" to corroborate their views. If they are against such science, then why do they pick-and-choose the few studies that they believe favor their beliefs?

I would just urge caution in this. Vaccines do work. Claims of "cancer" and other scare tactics from vaccinations are built upon an amazing lack of evidence.

edit: If you find something that was posted that is inaccurate than please specifically point it out and lets discuss it in detail.
Otherwise please for the sake of honesty try to refrain from undermining and misconstruing what has been posted by creating a strawman.

You're mistaken, proudpapa. I didn't misrepresent you. I didn't even point the finger at you. I simply offered a kind warning to everyone about being careful about what we post on a topic like this.

I will add this: We should be very careful not to suggest or insinuate something of a medical nature that is mere rumor, unsubstantiated, unproven or very likely incorrect. For instance, there is no credible study that links vaccines to autism -- despite a sizable group that claims otherwise.

Unfortunately, some websites (particularly those from "holistic" practitioners) will repeat -- over and over again -- claims and try to introduce a smidgen of "evidence" that is largely debunked, discredited elsewhere or nonacademic in nature or methods.

I apologize if it seemed like I was pointing the finger at you. It isn't you at all. Rather, I am upset about misinformation/disinformation regarding vaccines in general. There are many myths, rumors and accusations that should be carefully weighed, researched before we entertain them as being truth.

Like I said, I am against what the politicians in California recently voted upon. Like you said, this could be a way in for politicians from the government to dictate to us what we can or cannot teach our children -- because they think that they know what is best.

Please read what has been posted, If you find anything that is "misinformation/disinformation" regarding what has been posted please specifically point it out so that we may discuss it.

The most important thing is that Christians are aware that many vaccines are produced from Aborted Cell Lines.

Again, proudpapa, I wasn't replying explicitly in regard to the posts that you (or anyone else specifically) posted.

I noticed this thread and the other one (the posting of the article that boldly declared "God Does Not Support Vaccines") and felt a need to emphasize caution. I can say that I strongly disagree with Megan Heimer's premise in that article as well as her supporting claims. However, I think that it would take a longer rebuttal that I think has been previously discussed in SermonIndex forums (and elsewhere) over the years. More importantly, there are some legitimate reasons why scientists overwhelmingly reject her claims (e.g., linking vaccinations to autism, cancer, etc...).

As a Christian, I am obviously against abortion and I certainly think that there are some spiritual and ethical questions about vaccines that are cultured in cell lines that are descended from cells taken from aborted children. Even so, I would point out that there is a slight difference between stating that vaccines are "produced from aborted cell lines" and vaccines that were cultured in cells that are descended from cells extracted decades ago from an aborted child. There are, of course, spiritual, moral and ethical questions about this either way -- but it is important to be exceedingly clear.

Once again, my post was not directed at you (or any other poster here) or even anything that you specifically wrote. Vaccines work -- and have protected many people from diseases. Not only do they protect individuals from dying from those diseases by preventing them from being contracted in the first place, but they also prevent other debilitating issues tied to those diseases. Not only do people no longer die from polio in the United States, there are no individuals who have survived yet suffer from the terrible, life-long issues from the disease.

In a strange sort of way, our bodies are "vaccinated" throughout our lives (and especially during childhood) by the air we breathe, the things we eat, the germs we encounter, the water we drink, etc... I read a study a few months ago that postulated the potential dangers of over-protecting children throughout their childhood from germs -- and how that it might prevent their bodies' natural defense against such things as they grow. The discovery of the potential of modern vaccination has helped protect billions of people (including children).

I don't mean to be combative in any way other than to encourage all of us to not limit our study of vaccines to a newspaper articles, holistic websites or groups that take a stand against vaccinations -- especially if we decide to take a public stand or make declarations. Again, I am not saying anyone here is doing this (although the author of the article that was posted in the other thread did just that). I would urge people to ask doctors, scientists and other medical professionals why they don't believe that vaccinations cause autism, cancer, etc...

Here is a morsel to chew on in regard to the claim that vaccinations contribute to autism:

Many countries use identical vaccinations as the United States. In fact, some nations get their vaccinations from labs in the U.S. However, the rates of autism in the United States are much higher than every other country -- including nations that use the same vaccines. Why is that? Those who have looked at claimed links first consider common "all things equal" logic or factors before identifying what they believe to be a culprit. The same can be said of cancer. Variables and controls are considered when it comes to such things (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, access to health professionals who diagnose diseases, economics, climate, access to water/food, etc...), and the U.S. rate of autism is still much higher across the board regardless of those variables. While it certainly wouldn't necessarily rule out vaccinations as a potentially contributing factor in any disease or condition, it does speak volumes about vaccinations being a central cause.

Anyway, I think that I might have written too much. I don't mean to cause a conflict or point the finger at anyone; rather, I simply want to urge caution for each one of us.

As a Christian I believe we all should take vaccines without asking question about what it is made of. Apostle Paul wrote that Christians can eat meat sold in market without asking questions. Same way if the government is saying certain vaccine will prevent certain diseases, then we can eat it without asking questions. I take medicines when needed. When ever I take them, I pray that "Lord this is just a chemical and it has no authority or power over my Body than what you have. If you are willing, you can give me a healing through this chemical pill."

I do not find anything spiritual in not taking medicines. Jesus himself healed a blind man using clay and his saliva. But to another man born blind he just spoke a word and he regained his sight. So I believe Jesus used different ways to heal people, just to show that God can even use a clay to bring healing. Then how far is a small medical pill? Can not God use it for our healing? Imagine if the blind man thanked the clay and spread the news that the clay has some healing power. How stupid it will be? So even though God grants us healing through medicines, we should always glorify God for healing us. Not the medicines.

Also in this case, the government wants everyone to take vaccine to eradicate a particular germ. As a Christian we should obey this good intention of Government as much as possible.

Often times titles mislead individuals whom are not well researched on a topic such as : "Vaccines DO NOT Contain Fetal Tissue"
people whom are not well researched on the issue, often times only read a heading similar to this one and recieve a false impression that there is no connection between aborted fetal tissue and many vaccines.

Often times the content of such articles will deceitfully build a strawman by which it will play word games in an attempt to discredit the opposing view and confuse the reader.

unfortunately such games with words leave people in confussion and when you make factual statements such as : 'There are some Cell Lines from aborted babies that are being used to create some vaccines'

Many become sceptical and feel that such a statement is questionable.

It is an uncontested fact that many vaccines are produced using aborted cell lines!

I believe the 'Right to Life of Michigan' has done an excellant job at articulating the correlation between some vaccines and aborted babies :

"Vaccines, Abortion & Fetal Tissue

For several years now, information has circulated among prolife groups and individuals regarding the development of very common vaccines through the use of tissue taken from aborted babies. While initially the reports and information were not conclusively documented, further detailed research by several prolife groups has provided direct proof of a connection between aborted fetal tissue and many vaccines. That connection, and its implications for whether prolife citizens should consider using the vaccines, raises some complicated issues. In sorting through those issues, this LifeNotes will address the basic science involved, the documentation of the abortion-vaccine connection, the moral/ethical questions about using abortion-tainted vaccines, and information about available alternative vaccines.

Basic vaccine and cell line science

The vaccine process works by collecting samples of the actual virus, then growing and altering them in the laboratory to make a weakened strain of the disease. The weakened strain is put into a serum and administered into the body (usually by injection). The body’s immune system is more capable of attacking and destroying the weakened virus, and thus develops the ability to effectively fight off the actual disease should the person ever be exposed to it. The advent of vaccines was a major milestone in medicine, saving millions of lives and saving many others from the devastating effects of diseases like polio and diphtheria.

In order to develop the weakened viral strain, there must be a medium or "cell culture” to grow it in. The virus invades the culture cells, feeds off the cell, matures, and multiplies. The cell cultures are a single type of cell that multiplies itself in a predictable fashion and can be sustained in a laboratory setting for years, even decades. These long-lasting cell cultures are called "cell lines.” The original cells that start these cell lines have been taken from a wide variety of sources, from monkey embryo and kidney cells, to chicken and rabbit embryos, and tragically, from aborted human babies.

The issue of concern is that many common vaccines were developed using cell lines that originally were cells taken from electively aborted babies. The vaccines themselves do not contain fetal cells, but there are significant "residual” biological components from the fetal cells that have been assimilated into the vaccine, including cell proteins and measurable portions of fetal DNA.

Cell lines originating from aborted babies

There are two particular fetal cell lines that have been heavily used in vaccine development. They are named according to the laboratory facilities where they were developed. One cell line is known as WI-38, developed at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA. The other is MRC-5, developed for the Medical Research Council in England. WI-38 was developed by Dr. Leonard Hayflick in 1962, by taking lung cells from an aborted female baby at approximately the end of the third month of pregnancy. Dr. Hayflick’s article published in the journal Experimental Cell Research states that three cell lines, WI-26, WI-38, WI-44 were all developed from aborted babies. "All embryos were obtained from surgical abortions and were of approximately three months’ gestation.”(1) Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who developed a Rubella vaccine using WI-38, addressed a question at an international conference as to the origin of WI-38. Dr. Plotkin stated:

"This fetus was chosen by Dr. Sven Gard, specifically for this purpose. Both parents are known, and unfortunately for the story, they are married to each other, still alive and well, and living in Stockholm, presumably. The abortion was done because they felt they had too many children. There were no familial diseases in the history of either parent, and no history of cancer specifically in the families.”(2)

The origin of the MCR-5 cell line, created in 1966, is documented in the journal Nature by three British researchers working at the National Institute for Medical Research. They wrote, "We have developed another strain of cells, also derived from foetal lung tissue, taken from a 14-week male foetus removed for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old woman with a genetically normal family history and no sign of neoplastic disease both at abortion and for at least three years afterward.”(3) Noting that their research parallels that of Dr. Hayflick’s development of the WI-38 cell line, the researchers conclude, "Our studies indicate that by presently accepted criteria, MRC-5 cells””in common with WI-38 cells of similar origin””have normal characteristics and so could be used for the same purposes as WI-38 cells.”(4)

In both of these cell lines it is quite clear that the aborted children were presumed to be healthy, and that there was no life-threatening condition or other medically-indicated reason for the abortion of these two babies.

There is a more recent cell line, PER C6, developed in 1985, which is being used currently in research to develop vaccines to treat Ebola and HIV. The origin of PER C6 is clearly documented. In direct testimony before the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Dr. Alex Van Der Eb, the scientist who developed PER C6, stated:

"So I isolated retina [cells] from a fetus, from a healthy fetus as far as could be seen, of 18 weeks old. There was nothing special in the family history, or the pregnancy was completely normal up to the 18 weeks, and it turned out to be a socially indicated abortus, abortus provocatus, and that was simply because the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus.”(5)

Currently several vaccines using the PER C6 cell line are in development. Undoubtedly the cells used to establish PER C6 came from a healthy baby, aborted from a healthy mother for social convenience reasons. While many of the common childhood vaccines used today were developed using the WI-38 and MRC-5 fetal cell lines, there are some vaccines available that were developed using animal cell lines. The tables on the following page indicate all U.S. abortion-tainted vaccines, and the available alternatives.

U.S. approved vaccines from aborted cell lines

Disease
Vaccine Name
Manufacturer
Cell line

Adenovirus
Barr Labs., Inc
WI-38

Chickenpox
Varivax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Polio, HIB
Pentacel
Sanofi Pasteur
MRC-5

Hepatitis A
Havrix
GlaxoSmithKline
MRC-5

Hepatitis A
Vaqta
Merck & Co.
MRC-5

Hepatitis A-B
Twinrix
GlaxoSmithKline
MRC-5

Measles, Mumps, Rubella
MMR II
Merck & Co.
WI-38

Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox
ProQuad
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

Rabies
Imovax
Sanofi Pasteur
MRC-5

Shingles
Zostavax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5

U.S. approved alternative vaccines

Disease
Vaccine Name
Manufacturer
Medium

Diphtheria, Tetanus & Pertussis
Daptacel/Adacel
Sanofi Pasteur
Several

Diphtheria, Tetanus & Pertussis
Infanrix/Boostrix
GlaxoSmithKline
Several

Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis & Polio
Kinrix
GlaxoSmithKline
Several

Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Hepatitis B & Polio
Pediarix
GlaxoSmithKline
Several

Hepatitis B
ENGERIX-B
GlaxoSmithKline
Yeast

Hepatitis B
Recombivax
Merck & Co.
Yeast

Hepatitis B & HIB
COMVAX
Merck & Co.
Several

HIB
ActHIB
Sanofi Pasteur
Semi-synthetic

HIB
Hiberix
GlaxoSmithKline
Semi-synthetic

HIB
PedvaxHIB
Merck & Co.
Several

Polio
IPOL
Sanofi Pasteur
Monkey kidney

Rabies
RabAvert
Novartis
Synthetic

The above list is comprehensive and obtained from the package inserts of FDA-approved vaccines. There are currently no U.S. approved alternatives for Adenovirus, Chickenpox, Hepatitis A, Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Shingles. Merck & Co. announced in 2008 that their Mumps and Measles alternatives, Mumpsvax and Attenuvax, will no longer be produced. The new version of the Adenovirus vaccine is currently only approved for use in military personnel.

Should these vaccines be used? The moral & ethical considerations

The ethical quandary created by the tainting of these otherwise beneficial vaccines is vexing. Parents are justified in wanting to protect their children from potentially life-threatening diseases, and it can be legitimately argued that parents have an obligation to do so. Likewise, as a society, we must take into consideration the morality and cost of failing to prevent widespread outbreaks of disease.

The moral perspective of those opposed to the use of these vaccines is equally justifiable. If these vaccines were merely tested on patients without their consent, similar to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, there would be widespread outrage and those responsible for the violation of patients’ rights would face serious consequences. Yet the researchers in this case not only failed to receive consent from the research subjects, but purposefully took their lives.

When dealing with difficult ethical issues, one of the main questions is how should individuals act in a moral way when they are acting in a world that is filled with immorality? The further away the current act (using a vaccine) and intent (protecting a child from a disease) of an individual are from a previous immoral act (aborting a child), the less that individual is restricted by the immorality of the previous act. While the act of aborting the child was certainly immoral, all of the steps involved with the development and use of the vaccines thereafter did not cooperate with the abortion.

The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, and the U.S. and British bishops conferences have studied the issue in detail and concluded that using the vaccines is morally permissible. However, once a person learns that certain vaccines are morally tainted, there is an obligation to seek out ethical alternatives where possible and to make objections known to health care providers and vaccine manufacturers. In addition, parents are entirely justified in citing a "conscientious objection” to tainted vaccines being used to immunize their children, particularly when the vaccine is not for a substantially threatening illness (Chickenpox). A number of noted prolife activists have weighed in on both sides of the issue. Some have encouraged parents to use and demand nothing less than vaccines obtained through morally acceptable means.(6) Others like Jack Willke, M.D., former National Right to Life Committee president and the late Bernard Nathanson, M.D., prolife activist and creator of "The Silent Scream” have opined that using the vaccines is morally allowable.(7,8)

What is unanimous among all commentators on the subject is that everyone ought to know the facts surrounding the vaccines, and prolife citizens should make an effort to persuade - even pressure - vaccine producers to eliminate their tainted products in favor of ethically acceptable products." http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html