Vaccines made fm aborted fetal tissue?..

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Vaccines made fm aborted fetal tissue?..
8
Mon, 09-01-2003 - 10:49pm
I just read Dr. Stephanie Cave's book, "What your doctor may not tell you about children's vaccinations"...and in the back she cites a web site

www.dgwsoft.co.uk/homepages/vaccines/index.html

it then takes you to another site for the US...something www.cog...

Anyhow, this was something new to me. Thought I'd post this and see what the response

is.

-Laura (mother to two beautiful, healthy girls who are vaccine-free).

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 09-02-2003 - 9:19am
Just do a search for MRC-5 and WI-38.

I just did and this was intersting.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/vaxcont.pdf

Avatar for catherina
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 09-02-2003 - 4:52pm
in the early 60ties, 10s of thousands of babies lost their lives to rubella embryopathy - the babies whose cells were immortalized to produce the rubella vaccine probably have saved 100ds of thousands of lives since then. They were not killed by a selfish mother - they were killed by a virus and it is poetic justive that thanks to these babies, we do not need to be afraid of having a baby with rubella embryopathy anymore.

The way that anti-vaccinationist make it sound as if dead babies were ground up at Merck each day to produce the rubella vaccine is truely disgusting!

Catherina

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 09-02-2003 - 10:58pm
Absolutely, Catherina - anti-vax sites make it sound as though fetuses are being aborted daily just to provide the tissue needed to produce vaccines. This is not the case and the tragic irony of using rubella infected fetuses to save lives is very real.

Eve (mother of 2 fully vaccinated and healthy children)

 
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 09-03-2003 - 1:39pm
I looked at the varicella vaccine and it is from an aborted 14 wks male fetus of a 20 ish year old psychiatric patient.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 09-03-2003 - 1:55pm
The WI-38 culture was developed in 1962 from a three-month-old unborn girl aborted in Sweden. The fetus was chosen solely for the purpose of creating a vaccine culture. The parents of WI-38 were married and had the abortion because they felt they had too many children, which in Sweden probably means two.

The second vaccine victim is MRC-5, a fourteen-week-old preborn baby boy aborted in Great Britain in 1966 for "psychiatric" reasons.

In spite of what you may read elsewhere about these vaccines, neither WI-38 nor MRC-5 are "immortal" -- which means one day the cultures will die and need to be replaced. Thus a third culture, known as PER.C6, is currently being tested for use with several new vaccines. PER.C6 is derived from an unborn eighteen-week-old baby aborted in the Netherlands in 1985. The PER.C6 abortion was completely voluntary, and in the words of the scientist who created the culture, performed "simply because the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus."

Development of the rubella vaccine actually involved not one, but twenty-eight abortions. Twenty-seven abortions were performed to isolate the virus and one abortion (WI-38) to culture the vaccine. The live rubella virus was not detected until the twenty-seventh abortion, which indicates the preceding twenty-six abortions were performed on perfectly healthy babies. Yet, in 1962, two separate U.S. research teams isolated the virus without performing a single abortion. In Japan, researchers obtained a live virus by simply swabbing the throat of an infected child. Likewise, alternative vaccines cultured on animal cells or chick embryo are widely available in other parts of the world.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 09-03-2003 - 9:58pm
No matter how you wash it, fetal tissue is used in certain vaccines, and the tissue was not aquired from miscarriages, but from abortions. And yes, eventually, more tissue will be needed if the current methods are continued. For those strongly opposed to abortion for religious or other reasons, this poses a very valid ethical delima.

Similar (not to minimze human life or equate it with other forms of life, for those who take offense at the suggestion, but simply as an example of similar ethical positions) to how the use of animals in vaccine development/culture poses problems for those strongly opposed to the exploitation of aniamls and/or consumption of animal products.

Or how the use of pork gelatin in some MMR vaccines poses a religious quandry for devout Muslims or Jews.

Personally, I do not prefer to ingest/inject ANY such offal into my body/my childrens' bodies, be it from animals, humans, or just poisons like mercury, aluminum, formaldahyde, etc. My rationales are both spiritual/religious and scientific. JMHO. And I respect the rationales of others on this; if they have a problem, fine. If not, fine as well. They should know what they are accepting and decide based on their own views.

Kimberly

Avatar for catherina
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 09-04-2003 - 2:59am
In my eyes, for most people the "aborted fetus" issue is just being used as an excuse not to vaccinate. I have only seen the demand to introduce the Japanese vaccine in the Western world ONCE in all my web studies. This came from parents in England who direly *want* to vaccinate, but feel they cannot because of the abortion issue.

I would go so far as to say that not one of the anti-vaccers on this board who have brought forth the abortion issue would vaccinate their children against rubella if the throat swab vaccine was available...

You would?! Well, let us know so we can accept your abortion argument as sincere

Catherina

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 09-06-2003 - 3:09pm
>>>In my eyes, for most people the "aborted fetus" issue is just being used as an excuse not to vaccinate<<<

LOL! It is, for some of us, one of many "excuses" (REASONS).

For others, it is a valid concern based on religious conviction.

Would *I* vaccinate my children in the absence of the "fetal tissue" issue? No. But I am not one who considers that a primary rationale for my "excuses"/REASONS. LIke saying Would I eat meat if there were no death/suffering of sentient beings involved; I might, but given all the other reasons I abstain, not likely that one factor would outweigh all the rest. JMHO.

Newsflash; we who make an informed decision not to inject our children with vaccines do not require an "EXCUSE" to justify out choice. We are not children trying to get out of class or people doing something wrong and trying to cover it up. No-one is in any position to demand "excuses" from us, any more than anyone is in any position to demand an "excuse" from YOU for choosing TO vaccinate.

Kimberly