To all those who read my blog, I want to start with a short explanation. This article definitely strays outside of my typical content, but I needed a web format to respond to controversy that has risen over vaccinations that have been created using aborted fetal tissue cells. I hope it provides an example of how we can engage the world intelligently and respectfully, even when we disagree. Thank you for your patience!
Below is my response to the widely circulated article “Vaccines Do Not Contain Fetal Tissue” by Dr. Jay L. Wile, a nuclear chemist. This article has surfaced many times in support of a moral obligation to vaccinate our children even if that vaccine was derived through unethical methods. With yet another political push to mandate vaccinations and a measles outbreak resulting in hostile feelings and accusations being directed towards parents who oppose them, I felt it relevant to provide a thoughtful and scholarly response to this article. Unfortunately, the political and health fields have propagated contrasting information and viewpoints which has left our nation largely misinformed and confused. This issue is far too complex to address in a few pages, but I hope this response aids individuals in developing a systematic approach when examining information and creating an opinion.
Firstly, the title of this article is “Vaccinations do not contain fetal tissue.” This is not even the main argument from the majority of the populace whom refuse vaccinations on moral grounds. The issue is this: an aborted fetus was used in the process of creating this vaccination and the cells which are currently used to continue culturing the virus for the vaccination have been grown from mother cells extracted from aborted fetal tissue. This is why they are referred to as Human diploid cells, or, “aborted fetal tissue cells” by the medical and science communities. The previous article I posted explains the process of taking the virus grown in cell lines originating from the aborted fetal cells and turning them into a vaccination. What this creates are vaccinations which contain DNA from an aborted fetus. Therefore, the vaccinations contain, even if in minute amounts, the DNA of a child who has been aborted. Of course many, at this point call foul and claim this is not so. However, consider what the FDA said in an official document concerning the matter, “Small amounts of residual cell substrate DNA unavoidably occur in all viral vaccines as well as other biologics produced using cell substrates.”(1)
My second point is this: Notice the asterisk following “Dr. Jay L. Wile’s” name in his article. The accompanying annotation reads as such, “*Dr. Wile is not a medical doctor. He is a nuclear chemist. As a result, he does not dispense medical advice. He simply educates the public about scientific issues. Please consult a board-certified medical doctor before making any medical decisions for yourself or your family.” Where I would perhaps defer to Dr. Wile on issues such as deconstructing nuclear weapons, creating a nuclear power source for a submarine or monitoring radioactivity in the environment, the medical field is not his area of expertise. Where he should be respected as a scientist, a responsible individual researching the issue should require additional input from professionals more closely connected to issue at hand.
In contrast, the article I posted was authored by Dr. Jay Carpenter, M.D. His title reads like this, “Dr. Jay Carpenter, M.D., is a founding member of the Board of Directors for Professionals for Excellence in Health Care, a group of physicians, attorneys, nurses, pharmacists, and related health care professionals dedicated to the ethical treatment of persons, born and unborn. Dr. Carpenter entered into private practice in Internal Medicine in 1984 in Clearwater, FL. In 2013 Dr. Carpenter was chosen by the Vatican to receive Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice—the highest award conferred upon members of the laity by the Holy See.”
The first paragraph of Dr. Wile’s article sets this piece up to be very biased and opinionated. He puts his own professionalism under scrutiny by his blatant insults and accusations of those who oppose his position. Upon reading the article the sentiment is clear. It opens with “Of the many lies told by anti-vaccination advocates…” and then continues to say things like: “…anyone with a modicum of training in biology…”, “Unfortunately, the anti-vaccination movement (and even some naive pro- life groups) will try to convince the uninformed…”, and “This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. Unfortunately, this lie is particularly evil…”. None of these statements is objective or scientific. Wile sets the tone of his article as an opinion piece, not a research paper; and while opinion articles can contain some fact, they should not be solely depended upon when making important informed decisions.
Wile concludes his second paragraph with these words,“…some viruses are so specific that they can only propagate in human cells. The viruses used in the above-listed vaccines (Hepatitis A vaccine, MMR vaccine and the chicken pox vaccine) are that specific. Thus, they must be grown in human cells.” Unfortunately for his argument, this simply is an overstatement and often untrue. Many alternative vaccinations currently exist but are not the mainstream vaccination used or are not available within the United States because of conflicts in patents or FDA regulations.(2) This issue is also dealt with in the original article I posted.
In his third paragraph, Wile goes on to confirm that the vaccines are indeed created by growing the said virus’ in cells originating from aborted babies: “Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions…” In the following paragraph, he goes on to make the claim that “Abortion is murder. A person who claims to be a physician purposefully kills an innocent, unprotected person. That is evil, and there is no doubt about it.” So, in essence he has conceded the point that 1. Abortion is immoral and 2. Some vaccinations are created using cells that originated from aborted babies.
Paragraphs four through six of Wile’s article essentially justify the use of aborted cells arguing the resulting benefit to society and attempt to compare this practice to organ donation. Where superficially satisfactory, this argument is, in reality, fundamentally flawed in its logic. This argument results to the age-old reasoning that the “ends justify the means.” However, history has proven time and again that the blanket use of this form of reasoning can be disastrous for humanity. Was it not Hitler’s reasoning that a supreme race would justify the heinous slaughter that ensued? Please note, I am in no way saying Wile’s reasoning is like Hitler’s; I am simply pointing out that using this form of justification can be dangerous if not thoughtfully and correctly applied.
This, however, is not the only logical fallacy in Wile’s argument. He attempts to parallel a loved one being murdered and having the opportunity to donate their organs to save a life with using cells from these aborted children to provide vaccinations to the masses. Murder, however, is unexpected and universally illegal and condemned in every situation. Also, upon earning your driver’s license in the United States each individual is given the opportunity to choose to be an organ donor. The aborted children whose cell lines are used, however, were documented to be healthy and non-threatening pregnancies, in other words, “electively” aborted because their parents didn’t want any more children. (3) Also, abortion is legal. These children never had a chance to choose to live, let alone to donate their organs in the case of death. A more accurate comparison, using Wile’s illustration, would be to say that you are walking with a loved one downtown. They are suddenly shot and killed. The murderer then stoops down, picks them up and transports them to the hospital where he tells doctors, “I know it was wrong that I killed this person but his heart can now be donated to the patient in the neighboring room who will die without a heart transplant. So really, what I did wasn’t all that bad.” You then show up on the scene, process what is going on and conclude, “Well, it was an evil thing that murderer did but now that it’s over, thank goodness there’s a silver lining!” and you go on to pardon the murderer. Of course this is preposterous. But, for some reason we want to think that it is somehow ok or even heroic when used in the context of abortion.
Paragraph seven discusses the “strict” laws about this kind of situation. For the sake of time I won’t expound much on this except to say that I’ve done significant research on and responded to this issue previously and the fact of the matter is these “strict” laws are all too easily worked around. No one contests that abortion is one of the most unregulated “medical procedures” within the United States, and these laws follow suit. In fact aborted fetal tissue is used for medical and scientific research, for creating some cosmetic products, for export and even in the process of creating some artificial flavors. (4) I hate to breeze over this issue because it really is the crux of the matter. By continuing to consume items that require fetal tissue at some point in their creation, we create a perceived need for abortion and commercialize an industry that many wish did not even exist. (For more information on this and to dialogue with me further please message me. I would love to explore this further with you, but my desire is to provide a timely response so I won’t expound any further here.)
The remainder of this article addresses the Roman Church official stance on the issue. Firstly, as a Christian, my supreme authority is, in no way, the Vatican or the Pope. My moral authority is the Godhead and what He has revealed to us through His holy word, the Bible. Secondly, the article put forth by the Vatican described by Wile is an eight-page response prepared for the pro-life watchdog group Children of God for Life. In it, the Vatican describes, in great detail, their position on vaccinations created using aborted fetus tissue cell lines. One paragraph reads,
“Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccine(if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.” (5)
As mentioned above, many alternative vaccinations not using human cell lines do indeed exist. And, by the standards described by the Vatican, capitalistic style patents and unwillingness by the FDA to further explore vaccines already widely used in places like Europe and Japan do not justify using unethical vaccinations in the United States. In fact, the Vatican tells “doctors and fathers of families” that they have a “duty” to demand alternative vaccines “if they exist.” They did not say, “if they are available within the United States.” Further, they emphasize the need to put pressure on politicians and health systems to make ethical vaccinations available even resulting to “conscientious objection” if necessary.
I hope this article proved helpful for those sincerely seeking to inform themselves on the vaccination controversy and form their own educated opinion. If you are looking to further inform yourself on this matter, I would recommend following this link: http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/1706_IP-FetalCellUse.pdf. This article is published by the Military Vaccine Agency (MILVAX). MILVAX, according to the CDC, “supports all 5 branches of the US Armed Services to enhance military medical readiness by coordinating DoD immunization (vaccination) programs worldwide”6
1 US Food and Drug Administration.. FDA Briefing Document: Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee Meeting ( September 19, 2012)
2 Children of God for Life. USA & Canada – Aborted Fetal Cell Line Products and Ethical
Alternatives ( January 2015). http://www.cogforlife.org/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf.
3 Meredith Wadman, Medical Research: Cell Division, Nature 498, 422–426 (27 June 2013)
4 Shortey, Oklahoma State Legislature. Bill SB 141 (2012). .
5 Pontificia Academia pro vita. Mrs Debra L.Vinnedge (June 9, 2005). Letter. Vatican City.
Note: You may read the original informative article I posted at < http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/efficacious-vaccines-produced-unethically > The article which was used in response to that article, and which I directly respond to in this piece is available at: < http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion >