Skip to content

ARTICLE

Photo: Pixabay

Is Vaccination Complicit with Abortion?

Does having your child vaccinated for measles, mumps, and rubella morally link you to an abortion performed 42 years ago? Some patients think so, but is this perspective reasonable?

by Gene Rudd, MD

Does having your child vaccinated for measles, mumps, and rubella morally link you to an abortion performed 42 years ago?  Some patients think so, but is this perspective reasonable?

Perhaps unknown to many readers of the Annals is a debate in the pro-life community having to do with the cell cultures used in the manufacturing of several commonly used vaccines (e.g., measles, mumps and rubella; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; and varicella).  These cell cultures originated from tissue obtained by abortions done approximately four decades ago.

I first became aware of the issue more than six years ago when I was asked by an attorney to counsel a US Army sergeant who was facing court marshal for his refusal to take a vaccination required for deployment.  The sergeant had been told that aborted embryos were used to manufacture the vaccine.  He had chosen to disobey the order to be vaccinated rather than submit to what he considered an act complicit with abortion.  My research led to the discovery that the sergeant was not the only person who shared this conviction.  The issue is still being debated in certain religious circles and among certain ethicists, but there remains little written in the healthcare literature.  Every month or two I am asked for my opinion by a patient or colleague.  While I share my opinion here to help inform our healthcare colleagues, this is certain not to be the final word.  Passions run deep.

As it turned out, the sergeant’s information was not exactly true.  Aborted embryos are not used in the manufacturing of vaccines – at least not in an ongoing sense.  However, there is little debate about the fact that two particular cell cultures used for vaccine production (MRC-5 and WI-38) were derived from abortions performed years ago.  (The WI-38 cell culture is reported to have derived from an abortion done in 1961.)   With this link to abortion, for those of us who consider most abortions to be morally unacceptable, the question of using vaccines poses a real dilemma.

This is hardly a trivial debate.  Whether or not we in healthcare have personal concerns about the origins of these cell cultures, we must regard the concerns of those patients who do.  Moreover, within reasonable boundaries, we have an obligation to allow patients, and parents of patients, the autonomy to make informed decisions based on their understanding of what is known, filtered through their convictions.  But while we most often defer to this autonomy, this dilemma regarding vaccination is made more difficult by its implications on public safety.  Should our concern for the common good (immunization) trump individual autonomy?  Should we have mandatory vaccination of school children and Army sergeants against their convictions?

Back to the original question: Is it reasonable to conclude that accepting a vaccine manufactured using cells cultured from embryonic tissue obtained from an abortion done many years ago make you complicit with that abortion – or any abortion?  Here is a brief summary of arguments I have heard claiming that there is moral complicity:

  • The end (benefits of vaccination) does not justify the means (abortion).
  • Never do evil that good might result.
  • Accepting the vaccination is cooperation with the original moral act.
  • Accepting the vaccination exhibits tolerance to, if not encouragement for, today’s abortion industry.

Instead, I am persuaded by these arguments:

  1. Medicine’s History In Perspective -- Sadly, the history of medicine has its dark past.  Today we benefit from knowledge and technologies that we advanced via experimentation that should shame a civilized society (e.g., use of information gained from human experimentation by Nazi physicians during WWII).  Would we ever condone such behavior again so that useful knowledge might be gained?  Of course not!  Yet, can we disentangle that knowledge from what is known and applied today?  I think not.  Opposing vaccination because of its sordid past suggests a standard that would be impossible to apply throughout healthcare.
  2. Clarity of Moral Obligations -- In the United States there are no approved alternatives to the vaccines manufactured using these cell lines. To reject these vaccines without satisfactory alternatives would be to expose our families and society to unacceptable disease risks.  When we compare our clear moral duty to care for our children to a much less certain moral duty to reject a vaccine because of potential complicity with abortion, the choice seems clear.
  3. Endorsng Evil -- Unfortunately, some, like the Army sergeant mentioned above, are misinformed about the manufacturing process.  A fresh supply of embryonic tissue is not required to sustain vaccine production.  The cell cultures are self-propagating.  Therefore, accepting these vaccines does not endorse or encourage abortions being done today.  However, one concern is that pharmaceutical companies may seek new uses of aborted embryonic tissue.  Some hope to discourage this by use of a boycott of vaccines.  But unless many participate, a boycott will be futile.  If a boycott were to attract large numbers, public health could be threatened by a shutdown of an industry already operating on small margins.  A far better solution would be to enact legislation against unacceptable practices (e.g., the current federal ban on embryonic stem cell research).
  4. Cost and Benefits of Protest:  Do you recall seeing film clips of individuals burning themselves in protest over some issue?  Perhaps it attracted attention to the cause, but was the sacrifice necessary or effective?  I believe an effective protest against using cell cultures derived from abortion can be made without putting ourselves and our children at risk.
  5. Intent is Important -- It is relevant that those who accept vaccination for themselves or their children do so without any intention of endorsing abortion. The fact that there is a remote association with abortion does not establish moral culpability.
  6. Absence of Intrinsic Evil -- Some protest the use of vaccines for other reasons (e.g., complications), but I found no one in this debate claiming that the vaccination itself is intrinsically evil.  Again, the concern regards linkage to acts done more than a generation ago.
  7. Temporal Relationship with the Act -- In determining complicity, some ethicists distinguish between “immediate and mediate” and “proximate and remote” cooperation with the immoral act.  While at times confusing, these distinctions describe the degree of separation between two events that also separate their moral complicity.  These arguments are supportive of the opinion that someone can remain opposed to abortion without having to refuse vaccinations.  While time does not change the face of evil, it can separate us from being an accomplice.
  8. Applying Redemption -- Since this debate seems mostly focused among those with religious convictions, adding a comment about redemption seems appropriate.  While never condoning evil acts so that good may result, the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches of a loving God Who seeks to make good out of evil.  A Christian does not reject the resurrection (good) because of its linkage to crucifixion (evil).  Though linked, participation in the good does not endorse the evil.  Neither does one need to reject the benefits of vaccination (good) solely because of its past linkage with abortion (evil).

My conclusion that it is morally permissible to accept these vaccinations despite their historical link to abortion does not diminish my concern about the use of cell cultures linked to abortion.  Such concerns should motivate the pharmaceutical industry to find morally acceptable alternatives.

Unfortunately, these arguments were not persuasive to the Army sergeant.  He was court-martialed -- his sentence unknown to me.

21 Comments

  1. Avatar Freedom on February 26, 2019 at 2:55 pm

    The man who created the cell line WI-38( from the 38th baby out of at least 76 that were otherwise healthy infants ripped from their mothers womb), Dr Stanley Plotkin, also admitted under oath during a court deposition, that he tested his rubella vaccine on the mentally retarded, orphans and babies born to incarnated mothers. There is 9 hours of video footage of this deposition available to the public. This man, Plotkin, is an athiest and admits that he doesn’t think anyone should be able to use their religion to exempt from these Frankenstein products. So you have the abortions, and the wickedness of the godless man who immorally tested his “science” on the weak, and doesn’t have any respect for our God given right to abstain from immorality. We have NO OBLIGATION to partake in child sacrifice and sorcery and that is what this is, rebranded as “science” and “medicine”. Wake up, Gene Rudd!

    • Avatar Amy Givler on March 20, 2019 at 4:21 pm

      The tone of this comment does not invite a reasoned discussion. You would make your points far better without relying so heavily on emotion.

      • Avatar Ramon on August 14, 2019 at 10:50 am

        I agree wholeheartedly with Freedom’s comment, and I’m comfortable with the tone.
        Perhaps, if the discussion is too heated for you, comfort may be sought in your ”safe space”.

    • Avatar Stephen G on October 11, 2019 at 2:19 pm

      SInce my first child was born 5 years ago, I’ve studies this topic for probably 250-500 hours…. I will NEVER vaccinate my children or myself or my wife.

      My biggest regret is allowing my first born to get “some” of the vaccines for the first 15 months…He experienced severe food allergies, excema and mild stomach issues. Since we stopped vaccinating he got progressively better and now has no issues.

      By the way… you could be leading thousands of parents to injure or kill their children because of this article. You do know that over $4,000,000,000 has been paid out by the government (from taxpayers) to compensate vaccine injury and death…right?

  2. Avatar LoveLife on March 1, 2019 at 3:13 am

    Ok – So your neighbour murders your daughter and makse a medicine from her to make other children, present and future, healthy. Millions of parents justify using the medicine by minimising your child’s murder. How do you feel ? If you are ok with that – your obviously not a parent – or are a terrible one.

    What is God’s heart? Is He more concerned about our health or our holiness? He HATES hands that shed innocent blood (Prob 6.17)

    I was horrified when I discovered as an adult my parents ignorantly allowed me to have vaccines containing human diploid cells. I didn’t get any choice over that and I feel incredibly disturbed by it. Who are we to make our own children victims of our immoral decisions? I don’t think this is a grey area. Our greatest fear as Christians shouldn’t be disease – it should be dishonoring God.

  3. Avatar Christy on March 19, 2019 at 9:38 am

    This was very helpful. I appreciate your perspective and your processing of a complex issue.

  4. Avatar Amy Givler on March 20, 2019 at 4:36 pm

    My understanding is that it is possible to get a MMR vaccine (or possibly its components, separately) that was not grown on one of these cell lines if you travel to Japan. So if someone is willing to travel to Japan, they could still be immunized if this is the only objection — a true conscience objection — to their getting the MMR. But this leads to the question: If Japan can do it, why can’t we?

  5. Avatar Marilyn McDermott on April 18, 2019 at 5:16 pm

    Aborted cell lines are not the only reason to reject vaccination. Did God make us in his likeness? Are we to inject aluminum along with viruses and other toxins into our bloodstream to make us healthy? This doesn’t make sense to me at all. Are our bodies holy? To be kept pure for the Holy Spirit to reside there? And then there are the deaths from vaccination: every insert for the vaccination has this disclaimer. So do you think any child should be a human sacrifice? Even one? Jesus is the sacrifice for humanity so that we don’t need to be, not in the name of “science” or for the “greater good.” And Dr. Stanley Plotkin in his deposition admitted that they are currently using new cells from newly aborted babies. He first states that 2 aborted babies were used by him in the creation of vaccines. However, many more babies have been used in the studies. Seventy-six fetuses were used in this particular study, which doesn’t include other research done using fetuses. And then it goes on to state that there were countless other studies and that Dr. Plotkin doesn’t remember how many aborted fetuses were used.

    • Avatar John B. on August 12, 2019 at 3:01 am

      These are all incredibly weak arguments. If you’d like to consider a theological position on this, yes Adam was made in God’s image (Imago Dei.) We are made in the image of Adam (from birth), which has original sin. And even when we are saved by accepting Christ, our bodies are still house to indwelling sin. The Holy Spirit’s presence is what makes you holy, not you being holy and cleaning up the house so the Holy Spirit can live there. You have some of your theology backwards, it seems.

      No one is arguing that abortion (including the two referenced in this article) is tragic and should not occur. The argument however, is weak when the realization of the excellent points the author makes – everything from the Mengele experiments on Jews, to various torturous experiments through the ages even not associated with Nazis – have had a dramatic impact on our science of medicine. I’d argue to not use the results of these terrible sacrifices and throwing them away (which we can’t do since it’s woven into our medical fabric now) is far less moral than to use the results and make their lives mean something in retrospect.

      I’d love to see where you’re getting your information about Dr. Plotkin from about current cell lines being developed from recent abortions, as I can’t seem to find anything on them (which leads me to suspect this is hearsay.)

  6. Avatar BB on May 10, 2019 at 2:14 pm

    LoveLife,

    You are concerned about honoring God and being holy, and yet you tell someone that you don’t even know that they are a horrible parent?! God’s word tells us to remove the speck form our own eye before we try to remove the log from our brothers eye. It tells us to be loving, kind, and gentle. I think you can have a good discussion about the matter without being hateful of another person and thus dishonoring God with your lips.

  7. Avatar Steve on May 12, 2019 at 10:46 pm

    I find it interesting that you are always more concerned about the commenter’s tone than you are about the information that they provide. I can only assume that because the facts on never on your side that this is your way of avoiding the reality of the true science that exists in regards to vaccines.

  8. Avatar Naomi on May 14, 2019 at 8:40 am

    I hate how Christians keep falling back on the abortions happened long ago, so it’s ok. Sin entered the world and brought death. Death does not sustain life. Vaccines are not tested for mutagenic or carcinogenic properties, and we know now that the fragments of DNA are worse than actually whole DNA. Cause it can cause mutations. Secondly, research, the newest cell line was created in 2015, called WALVAX-2, for the reason that the previous cell lines are not forever sustainable. Which means new ones have to be made, and are currently in the works. Not only that, but each cell line is picked from multiple aborted babies. Some even using abortions that require the baby to be born alive in the amniotic sac, and then dismembered. Those are my moral objections with vaccines. That doesn’t even touch on the scientific problems with them. No vaccinated vs 100% unvaccinated studies. Control groups being very commonly vaccinated just with different vaccines. Heard immunity can’t truly exist either, because vaccines aren’t 100% effective. Not only that, practically the entire adult population is considered unvaccinated(which is why they are now starting the push into adult vaccines), and we don’t see rampant outbreaks. My other moral objection is some churches are actually requiring vaccines, and not allowing these children in to hear the gospel. Barring children from the gospel, true life and salvation, in the name of a not 100% effective biologic, that has side effects-some the exact same ones as the disease itself-live virus vaccines(encephalitis, deafness, seizures, etc)-(every vaccine has possible death listed as a side effect as well), in the name of herd immunity, that only truly exists with natural immunity. I am reminded of the verse that talks about trying to save your life and losing it. This is what Christians are grasping ahold of. Something man made, instead of trusting in the God who made them. I think that’s why people are so angry when vaccines are attacked, because it’s not the vaccines that they’re upset about, it’s their faith in their vaccines to keep their kids alive and healthy, and not the Lord God almighty that sustains all things, and has numbered our days. I’m not against medicine or science, but I think vaccines are corrupting the natural order of things, and causing long term chronic diseases, cancers, allergies, etc. To try to encourage people who are morally and scientifically opposed to them is wrong.

    • Avatar John B. on August 12, 2019 at 3:09 am

      It is easily arguable that raising your children as little Petri dishes running around exposing people who are immunocompromised (many of whom CANNOT get the vaccines) to what would otherwise be easily preventable diseases is ungodly. God thankfully gave us brains and the ability to create medical science, which has saved billions of lives. Why did people use to have 10 – 12 children? It’s not because they wanted a quiverfull… it’s because 2-4 of them would survive into adulthood, largely because of disease.

      I know people personally with immune issues wherein they literally risk their lives coming to my church because there are a couple “Anti-Vaxx / Anti-Facts” families. Talk about preventing people from hearing the Gospel!

      “The natural order of things” would mean you’re against any kind of medical intervention then, right? Antibiotics, surgery, eyeglasses, etc.? I mean, you’re welcome to live out in the woods by yourself, but even the Amish leave their homes to visit doctors occasionally. (Yes, Amish have lower than normal vaccination rates, but it’s false that they don’t vaccinate their children. However, interestingly, Amish have much higher rates of hospitalization for their children… huh… wonder why?)

  9. Avatar Sarah G on May 27, 2019 at 11:44 am

    Most of this articles entire argument is posited from this position “Aborted embryos are not used in the manufacturing of vaccines – at least not in an ongoing sense.” The creation of vaccines from the aborted is just ramping up in this country and is an ongoing pursuit in genetics. Cell lines are not eternal. The research is ongoing in this country and in our world. The research has not ended. In many ways the research is just beginning. Ask a current geneticist. Watch their interviews online. Listen to them trying to justify 70+ aborted they have personally worked with in the name of vaccinations.

  10. Avatar Wayne on June 25, 2019 at 11:16 pm

    Questions for my Christian Friends who are concerned about vaccinations. Do you send your child or children to public school where they will socialize with bad company, corrupting their morals. Also where they will be taught that God is not real or important? Do you send them because it’s free day care and you love money? Are you as passionate about spreading the gospel as you are about preaching non vaccination?

  11. Avatar Paul on August 6, 2019 at 3:39 pm

    Hold on a second… So what you’re saying is that 76+ aborted babies (regardless if it was 2 years ago or 100 years ago) were not human enough to be considered holy in the eyes of the Lord? Those babies were not God’s children? Does God not say wicked are the ways of man???? Does God not say the devil is father of lies??? These vaccines were created using the blood of these unborn children! You have just stated that it’s okay for Christians to accept these vaccines, regardless of the children that were sacrificed and mutilated in the process.

    If the vaccines are so safe and effective, why does the Pharma cartel spend BILLIONS of dollars on lobbying in congress (Fed level and State level)? Why are thousands of parents speaking out that vaccines hurt or killed their children? Why has there been over $4B paid out in vaccine injury court? Why did the government remove all liability away from the pharma companies? By writing this article trying to persuade Christians that abortion is perfectly acceptable if it’s done in the public’s best interest, you are doing the bidding of the evil one, the same evil one that worked to have our Lord and Savior beaten, mocked, and murdered. Remember, the Jews believed that having Jesus killed was in the best interest of the Jewish community….because the chief priests could not handle the truth that Jesus spoke! Sound familiar? Very influential organizations, politicians & business leaders are trying to silence and censor anyone that comes out with truth using scientific research regarding vaccines (that does not support the safe and effective narrative), including eyewitness testimonies from parents.

  12. Avatar Dean William on August 8, 2019 at 2:39 pm

    The article states that only two cell lines were used in the development of vaccines. There are more than a few vaccines created from cell lines (such as WI-38, MRC-5, HEK-293, PER C6, and WI-26) that were derived from tissue taken from aborted fetuses from the 1960’s through the 1980’s. Update: Another cell line—Walvax-2—was created from an aborted fetus in China in 2015. This most recent cell line, took about 800 aborted children to create. (does this indicate there may have been a Walvax-1?)

    The “dark history of medicine” that is described int his article is cited as a reason for the acceptability of using these vaccines. Yet Josef Mengele’s research was rejected as unethical to use. Using the author’s line of thinking, is it now acceptable for us to use his research because of the age of the experiments? Does the LORD consider length of time between the bloodshed and reaping a benefit?

    It strikes me that the author’s doctoral background may create a bias which overlooks the moral danger of using victims. It appears it may be heavy on doctoral knowledge and perhaps light on theology.

  13. Avatar JANET GERNAND on August 21, 2019 at 3:23 pm

    It needs to be mentioned here that the numbers attached to the initials of these cell lines (ie: WI-38, MRC-5, HEK-293, PER C6, and WI-26)
    specifies how many fetuses were aborted and used in the lab before the right cell line was found. So with WI-38, 38 babies were harvested before the correct cell line was found. In MRC-5, five babies were aborted and harvested before the correct cell line was found, etc..

    Another important fact that needs to be addressed here is that statistics prove that mortality rates of infectious acute viruses, not a chronic diseases, that we now vaccinate for were at a steady decline (and was nearly eradicated) PRIOR to the development and marketing of vaccines. This decline was due to the industrial revolution where sanitation, less crowded living conditions, hygiene, the development and use of antibiotics and refrigeration was becoming common place. Sure, vaccines caused a decline in outbreaks but at what cost to children… increased autoimmune diseases, cancer, allergies, neurological disorders, SIDS, etc.?
    It’s been recently discovered that these once mild childhood viruses actually prime the immune system and help to prevent certain cancers later in life. So in all reality, we’re actually harming children’s immune systems by injecting ingredients (chemicals and DNA) that are known to be carcinogenic and mutagenic.
    Our bodies house the Holy Temple of God. I’m sure that God knew what He was doing when He created the immune system. He does not need sinful man to improve upon it. Through creation, God says through His word that He has given mankind everything it needs in order to stay healthy (fruits, vegetables, herbs). I’m almost certain that God would not approve of doctors contaminating the blood of innocent children, that are made in His precious image, with aborted fetal DNA fragments, animal and insect DNA, animal proteins, formaldehyde, aluminum, Polysorbate 20 & 80, thimerosal, etc..
    To insist that Christians go against their religious convictions and conscience by taking a risk, that could potentially injure or kill their child, in order to protect “the herd”, is truly appalling and unbiblical. Doctors and the pharmaceutical industry are not God and they have no say in the way that the Holy Spirit directs believers.

  14. Avatar Patricia Lee June, MD on November 2, 2019 at 4:03 pm

    Dr. Rudd’s discussion of whether it is sinful to give/receive vaccines grown in cell cultures from long ago aborted fetuses has been complicated in the comments section by a secondary argument on the risks benefits and ethics of giving or refusing vaccines as a whole. To clarify this, let’s first discuss vaccines that do not involve cell lines from aborted fetuses and then separately Dr. Rudd’s comments.

    Vaccines carry risks. So does eating food or walking in the park. How does the risk compare with the benefits, not just for myself or my child but also for my neighbor? We are commanded to “love our neighbors as ourselves” and if my failure to vaccinate my child results in the injury or death of my neighbor’s immunocompromised child by a vaccine preventable disease, have I sinned? In my five years of residency followed by three years as director of an outpatient mission in a developing country prior to the widespread use of vaccines, followed by 35 years of pediatric practice in the US, I have seen only a couple of cases of definite injury from vaccines but numerous deaths and severe illnesses from vaccine preventable diseases such as tetanus, meningitis, and pertussis. Even if alleged but unproven associations between vaccines and allergies, autoimmune diseases, and/or autism, the burden of disease prevented by vaccines far exceeds these risks in my experience.

    No vaccine is the hundred percent protective in every person. If you have not been vaccinated and every person in your community has been vaccinated against disease X and the vaccine is 99% effective, there would be only one person out of hundred who could catch the disease and then give it to you, so your risk of catching a disease X is quite small. However, if 25% of the people had not been vaccinated and someone entered the community with the disease, then both their risk and your risk would be considerably larger. This is how herd immunity works. Actually the percentage of people that need to be vaccinated for effective herd immunity depends both on the efficacy of the vaccine as well as on the characteristics of the disease. For example, measles is spread through droplets so the person with measles who is coughing puts others in the room at significant risk, whereas a disease that requires close contact Is not as easily spread. We count on herd community to protect those too young to be immunized as well as the immunocompromised who cannot receive live vaccines and those whose immune systems do not respond to vaccines. If you choose not to be immunized/immunize your child, herd immunity may protect you. That is, you are counting on others to take the risk for you to receive the benefit. Is this a Christian response?

    There is a dilemma/controversy among physicians on whether to accept patients who refuse to vaccinate, in large part due to the risk of those patients exposing immunocompromised patients in the waiting room to vaccine preventable diseases. Prior to Varivax I observed chickenpox spread in my waiting room. Although I treated patients who refused to vaccinate, I strongly encouraged vaccination, though I would compromise on the timing and I do think some vaccines are more important than others. (I do not think the risk:benefit ratio of HPV vaccine is yet fully determined in a low-risk population.)

    Much more difficult is the question of moral complicity in the use of vaccines whose production involves cell lines from fetuses aborted in the 1960’s. I innocently gave/received the human diploid cell rabies vaccine in the 1980’s, never questioning where the human diploid cells came from. Around 2004 I read of the switch from monkey kidney cells to a cell line from aborted fetuses in oral polio vaccine. In the US we had switched to the killed polio vaccine by then, so it did not apply to us, but further investigation revealed the use of WI-38 and MRC-5 in other vaccines we use and the source of the rubella virus used in Merck’s vaccine from an aborted fetus.
    So where are we now? In the US, the rubella component of MMR, both Hepatitis A vaccines, Varivax and Zostavax (but not Shingrix), and the polio vaccine used in Quadracel and Pentacel (but not IPOL by itself or that used in Kinrix or Pediarix) and one of the rabies vaccines (Imovax but not RabAvert)) are grown in these cell lines. Vaccines are not the only pharmaceuticals implicated. Some drugs used in cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, etc also use these cell lines. for details. The last I have seen, Walvax-2 is not yet used in the US. However, the article describing its development stated that the Chinese government ordered its development due to concerns that the current cell lines were getting too old and near the end of their usefulness and also that the fetuses were aborted by Caesarian section in order to prevent microbial contamination. What is the difference in developing Walvax and the Planned Parenthood selling fetal parts scandal? While the argument of the fetal cell lines currently used in the US were from many decades ago is applicable today, I strongly suspect that this will not be true in a few years.

    Arguing among ourselves about the moral implications of using vaccines from cell lines of human fetuses aborted decades ago is a valid but insufficient response. What action steps can we take now and in the future?
    1. Where there is a choice (the various polio containing vaccines, Shingrix vs Zostavax, and if the health department has more than one rabies vaccine available – frequently one is on backorder and they have no choice), order/administer/request from your physician/health department the version not grown in cell cultures from aborted human fetuses.
    2. Let the vaccine companies/pharmaceutical reps, physicians, etc know why you are using/refusing their products
    3. Commend Glaxo Smith Kline for developing Shingrix from ethical sources and request that they test it in children as an alternative to Varivax. (Note: They need to know that there will be a market for a version of Shingrix that is safe and effective for children because the necessary testing is quite expensive.). These vaccines are for the virus that causes chickenpox and shingles.
    4. Encourage a vaccine company to get the license for the Japanese Hepatitis A and MMR vaccines. (The COG website lists Priorix as a GSK version of MMR also grown in fetal cell lines, but the GSK website lists no such product. If there is such a product in the pipeline, it decreases the probability of GSK being interested – and GSK has a Hep A vaccine made in fetal cell lines so is unlikely to be interested in that license). I do not know if any of the vaccines available in the US are imported currently or if all are manufactured in the US.
    5. If we already import vaccines, then maybe Christians could form a new company to import the Japanese vaccines. It would require a great deal of capital since it would need FDA approval and probably testing here.
    6. Get Christians interested in a research lab to develop human cell lines from ethical sources – possibly placental tissues/umbilical cords from C-sections or induced pluripotent stem cells that would work as cell cultures that could be used in place of current fetal cell lines.

    These suggestions are unlikely to be effective without a large groundswell of support, and the last two would also require people with knowledge, skill, finances and integrity.

Leave a Comment