fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[ReasonableFaith]

4 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

It might have been a miscarriage" does not justify the cell line when common belief for all intents and purposes is that it's arguably from an abortion, so this is still problematic, and the Church still treats it as such. Bishops that have discussed specific vaccines related to HEK-293 take the more conservative stand and don't even factor in any possibility of miscarriage when offering guidelines.

‘It might have been a miscarriage’ does not seem entirely removed from ‘it is arguably from an abortion.’  Bishops may take as conservative a stance on the nature of the cell line as they wish. Interestingly, recent church documents have discussed the vaccines using HEK-293, in an early confirmational testing stage, as using a cell line which is ‘morally corrupt,’ using a cell line with a ‘morally illicit source,’ or having a ‘a connection to abortion.’  The same and similar documents refer to other vaccines using cell lines which definitively originate from tissue made available via induced abortive procedures. 
 

The point of the nature of the HEK293 cell line is it can be seen to further remove/mitigate one’s material cooperation with evil. Once again the cells are derived from cells derived from cells...etc..which may or may not have been from an induced abortion.  These cell lines are ‘immortal,’ the single occur have, licit or illicit, will sustain this line in perpetuity. 
 

 In this case some argue the cells should be treated as originating from an induced abortion and the church seems willing to accept this view while not explicitly confirming the origin.  In the end the church teaches it is morally licit to receive any of the vaccines at this time. Everyone agrees when a vaccine definitively know to have no connection to induced abortive procedures becomes available it should be used. 
 

In parting, perhaps a different authority than Trasancos, should be relied upon. He seems to display a misunderstanding of embryonic development. Wong, an actual medical researcher and ethicist, certainly considers the possibility the cell-line was not sourced from an induced abortive procedure. He concludes the circumstantial evidence indicates the cell line ought to be treated as it was in fact sourced from an induced abortive procedure in the early 1970’s. 
 

 

[Ash Wednesday]

45 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

He concludes the circumstantial evidence indicates the cell line ought to be treated as it was in fact sourced from an induced abortive procedure in the early 1970’s. 

Then help me to understand why the miscarriage theory keeps getting brought into these discussions and what the end game is there, because to what extent people do this, they may not be treating it as such. My basic concern here is that when people bring up possible miscarriage, whether or not they are trying to be dismissive of the need to avoid a questionable cell line as opposed to pursuing something with more ethical clarity at the very least. 

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Then help me to understand why the miscarriage theory keeps getting brought into these discussions and what the end game is there, because it seems to me when people do this, they aren't treating it as such. My basic concern here is that when people bring up possible miscarriage, they are trying to be dismissive of the need to avoid a questionable cell line when more ethical means can be used.

I think it is because not all ethicists agree with Wong's conclusion that the evidence is so strong that it warrants a presumption that the cell line is tainted.

There is always a possibility that a particular tissue sample was procured from an abortive procedure, unless the researcher was physically present when the miscarriage occurred and physically tracked the fetus himself from the moment of miscarriage until the tissue sample arrives on his petri dish in the lab. You can never guarantee with 100% certainty that a sample is not tainted but judgment calls are made with respect to a particular sample based on the chain of custody and other evidence.

The fact that we cannot know with 100% certainty does not justify a presumption that a particular sample cannot be used. If that were the case no research could ever occur in any form. What folks do is make reasoned judgments as to the the likelihood that a sample is tainted and proceed accordingly. In this case Wong and others conclude that it is highly likely to be tainted. But others do not reach the same conclusion.

So for the people who have not reached the same conclusion as Wong - it would be perfectly valid to raise the point that it has not been proven that the sample is tainted. Obviously if we are dealing with a sample that is in fact not tainted, then there should be no issue in using it, no?

The thing with this issue is that it always involves drawing an arbitrary line. You say that the evidence in favor of HEK293 being untainted does not rise above the threshold that you have set. That's fine. Let's say that someone comes along and makes another sample HEK240, and the evidence with respect to HEK240 does rise above your threshold. Then it's OK to use right? According to you it is OK to use, but according to Person A who has set a higher threshold than you, HEK240 still cannot be used because it does not meet his threshhold. Maybe you think that the paperwork included with the sample suffices to demonstrate that it is untainted, but Person A requires video evidence of the sample being prepared. Does that then mean that Person A recognizes the need to use untainted vaccines, and you do not recognize the need? Of course not, you just draw the line at a different location based on your own prudential judgment of what evidence is sufficient.

The same sort of line drawing has gone on with respect to HEK293. In this case it does not satisfy your evidence threshold, but this does not mean that someone else who has a lower evidence threshold than you is dismissive of the idea that there is a need to find untainted vaccines. It just means that they have made a different prudential judgment than you and view the evidence differently.

[ReasonableFaith]

1 hour ago, Ash Wednesday said:

opposed to pursuing something with more ethical clarity at the very least.

It seems doubtful many persons are opposed to pursuing the development of cell lines with clearly ethical origins. At worst it seems some persons might be neutral about such an effort. 
 

In regard to the question of why the ‘may or may not have been sourced from an induced abortive procedure’ has entered into such discussion a thorough reply has been made above. 

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm curious, do recipients in the US have a choice when it comes to manufacturers? Some have noted that some US Bishops are more likely to speak out more critically on, for example, the J&J vaccine -- whereas the Vatican doesn't indicate preference, nor do they in England and Wales (where I am). Some have asserted that the Americans are being more conservative, but I suspect it may be due in part because in the UK and Europe, patients on national healthcare systems generally aren't given a choice, at least if they wish to receive a vaccine sooner rather than later. But I'm just wondering if insurance companies currently offer patients in the US a choice. 

[Peace]

On 5/2/2021 at 7:03 PM, Ash Wednesday said:

I'm curious, do recipients in the US have a choice when it comes to manufacturers? Some have noted that some US Bishops are more likely to speak out more critically on, for example, the J&J vaccine -- whereas the Vatican doesn't indicate preference, nor do they in England and Wales (where I am). Some have asserted that the Americans are being more conservative, but I suspect it may be due in part because in the UK and Europe, patients on national healthcare systems generally aren't given a choice, at least if they wish to receive a vaccine sooner rather than later. But I'm just wondering if insurance companies currently offer patients in the US a choice. 

Different places are handling it differently I think. At least in VA it seems that only the cities and counties are distributing the vaccine. When I got a call and I asked them what was available they said that they only had Moderna at the location where I was offered it. I think if you wanted to opt for a different one, you could probably wait or try to sign up for a shot at a different location that had the one you wanted. At least right now in my location it does not seem hard to get a shot. There seems to be oversupply, so if you want a particular brand, I imagine that you could get it if you inquired a bit as to who had it. I think the JNJ one might have gotten nixed though?

[Anomaly]

Here in Florida, vaccines are readily available from Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J.   Only one type is given at a site, so you would have to put in effort to find what they are providing.  It is so available, some places no longer require appointments. 

[little2add]

is the vaccine safe?

 

[little2add]

A prayer when this is over 

When this is over may we never again take for granted: A handshake with a stranger, full shelves at the store, conversations with neighbors, a crowded theater, Friday night out, the taste of communion, a routine checkup, the school rush every morning, coffee with a friend, the stadium roaring, each deep breath, a boring Tuesday, life itself.  

When this ends may we find that we have become more like the people we wanted to be, we were called to be, we hoped to be.  And may we stay that way-better for each other because of the worst. 

 Unknown

[Akalyte]

I for one never trusted vaccines or needles, since I was a kid. They had to strap me down to inject me. The thing is, its not the same for everyone. Some get the vaccine and they are fine, others end up really sick or die. So if I'm a bad guy for not getting the vaccine because people fear the unnvacinated, if I take it or someone in my family takes it and dies, then what? How is that even okay with people?  

[islandanchoress]

On 6/2/2021 at 3:54 PM, little2add said:

A prayer when this is over 

When this is over may we never again take for granted: A handshake with a stranger, full shelves at the store, conversations with neighbors, a crowded theater, Friday night out, the taste of communion, a routine checkup, the school rush every morning, coffee with a friend, the stadium roaring, each deep breath, a boring Tuesday, life itself.  

When this ends may we find that we have become more like the people we wanted to be, we were called to be, we hoped to be.  And may we stay that way-better for each other because of the worst. 

 Unknown

HUGS... This is how I live and have lived for  long whiles now as my  immune system is down and even a vaccine is a danger. Been all but immured for over two years now; all I need Is delivered. It fits with my vocation of anchoress wondrously.   

And I am too old and unwell to cope with social activities... All is well

 

Where I live is utterly quiet and peaceful; small island in the ocean. and my cats are wonderful company . 

Without the internet it would be a very different matter of course. We can stay in touch  

Must be so very hard for all of you out there . 

 

 

[Ash Wednesday]

I wouldn't mind living on a small island in the ocean with cats. Give me a small church on it where I could live out the rest of my life as an old church lady attending mass, arranging the flowers and helping keep the place clean, that would actually be some life goals right there. 

[Didacus]

On 4/23/2021 at 3:03 PM, fides' Jack said:

Yeah, you're just trolling me now.  Good job.

Dust your sandals, walk away.

I shall walk with you.

[fides' Jack]

On 5/2/2021 at 7:26 AM, Peace said:

You have no problem allowing another 3 million people to die while Sanofi produces a vaccine but you call us heartless? The nerve of you!

You had no problem at all "numbing yourself" to the deaths of 3 million people with your long-post about low-death rates. You are being a total hypocrite here.

Do you deny the likely millions of deaths that can be attributed to the shots?  Or the millions that can be directly attributed to the lockdowns?

There's no evidence the shots even prevent infection, let alone save lives.

In many places government studies are showing that people with "vaccines" are contracting covid at far higher rates than those who haven't been "vaccinated".

Peoples' lives are probably better off in every category without the shots.  Many, many more examples continue to come out to show this.

Add to that, the number 3 million is a lie.  Don't believe what the governments tell you.

[fides' Jack]

On 5/1/2021 at 7:16 AM, Peace said:

@fides' Jack I also find this whole line of reasoning that the pandemic does not offer a grave reason to be suspect. Over the past year roughly 3 million people have died from the virus. If we say conservatively that the vaccine has a 66% prevention rate (the actual reported prevention rates being much higher) then having the vaccine would have resulted in roughly 2 million lives saved. How are saving 2 million lives not a grave reason?

Let them die? The bottom line is that our other methods of attempting to lessen the impact of the virus have still resulted in over 3 million people dying.

I mean, if were were talking about some measure that would prevent 2 million babies from being aborted, there would be no disagreement that the reason is grave, no?

I've got some really, really special oil I'd like to sell you.  It can cure ANYTHING!!  It's derived from the venom of snakes, and when properly diluted and special nutrients are added to it, it's completely harmless to human tissue but kills all viruses that we tested it on, instantly.