So You're not getting a covid-19 vaccine because it was tested using fetal cell lines

JustSomeBloke · Sep 15, 2021

Occams Barber said:
Medicine is continually looking for new uses for old drugs. Modern testing methods allow scientists to investigate aspects of a drug which were not possible in the past. We also know a lot more about human physiology than we did when aspirin was invented.

This is a page from Google scholar listing a number of investigations into potential uses/characteristics of aspirin. In a few of them you'll see HEK 293 mentioned as a testing medium.

aspirin and hek293 - Google Scholar

OB

Looks like you're agreeing with me. People who take Aspirin for a headache shouldn't be led into thinking that they benefited from fetal cells, because only new and novel treatments since 1973 could be affected. From that point of view, the article is dishonest.

keith99 · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Following on from my previous post.

From the history section of the Wikipedia entry for Aspirin:

By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin and was selling it globally.

From the Wikipedia entry for HEK-293:

HEK 293 cells were generated in 1973 by transfection of cultures of normal human embryonic kidney cells with sheared adenovirus 5 DNA in Alex van der Eb's laboratory in Leiden, the Netherlands.

Hmmmm. So a medication that was first marketed in 1899, is claimed to be heavily dependent on a cell line developed in 1973. And even before commercial, mass manufacture of Aspirin commenced, herbal usage of willow-based products went back at least 2400 years.

Sorry. The article is just totally wrong. It could hardly be more wrong if they tried. My guess is that the author didn't research properly, or thought no one would ever check. Well, they guessed wrongly!

Sorry but the article itself point out the the use of the HEK-293 line cells was for new uses of aspirin. That is being quite transparent. If any tie to fetal cells makes a drug or vaccine 'unclean' than aspirin is tainted too. If it does not then it opens the discussion regarding just what sort of tie matters. And from there one has to ask if they were only used in testing does the taint continue after other testing, including implicit testing as others take it, eventually fade?

It seems that in practice the taint remains forever no matter how remote the tie is for products opposed by Trumps folllowers who have now gone even farther down the road that Trump himself ever did and that it fades quickly for other products.

ThatRobGuy · Sep 15, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
Let me suggest the Pfizer vaccine then. It is not experimental. (The experiment ended late last year.) It is approved for use in those age 16 or over.

I dunno man...I heard this stuff works even better.

And Pfizer isn't apple-flavored. Checkmate Libs!!!

Occams Barber · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Looks like you're agreeing with me. People who take Aspirin for a headache shouldn't be led into thinking that they benefited from fetal cells, because only new and novel treatments since 1973 could be affected. From that point of view, the article is dishonest.

You've misunderstood the article.

The whole point of the article was to point out that many common drugs have links to HEK 293. The author was pointing out that, if people objected to Covid vaccine because of the HEK293 link, to be morally consistent they should also reject these other drugs..

The author supports the idea that these drugs (and Covid vaccine) are morally acceptable given the remoteness of the connection to the original foetal cells.

OB

JustSomeBloke · Sep 15, 2021

keith99 said:
Sorry but the article itself point out the the use of the HEK-293 line cells was for new uses of aspirin. That is being quite transparent. If any tie to fetal cells makes a drug or vaccine 'unclean' than aspirin is tainted too. If it does not then it opens the discussion regarding just what sort of tie matters. And from there one has to ask if they were only used in testing does the taint continue after other testing, including implicit testing as others take it, eventually fade?

It seems that in practice the taint remains forever no matter how remote the tie is for products opposed by Trumps folllowers who have now gone even farther down the road that Trump himself ever did and that it fades quickly for other products.

Where in the article does the author list pre-1973 and post-1973 approved uses for Aspirin and Paracetamol (acetominophen)? Without including that information, the authors are clearly trying to mislead people into thinking that by taking something for a headache, a user is benefiting from fetal cells. You may think that's acceptable, I think it's very untruthful.

hedrick · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Where in the article does the author list pre-1973 and post-1973 approved uses for Aspirin and Paracetamol (acetominophen)? Without including that information, the authors are clearly trying to mislead people into thinking that by taking something for a headache, a user is benefiting from fetal cells. You may think that's acceptable, I think it's very untruthful.

I think the point is that today use of those cells is nearly universal in drug research.

Occams Barber · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Where in the article does the author list pre-1973 and post-1973 approved uses for Aspirin and Paracetamol (acetominophen)? Without including that information, the authors are clearly trying to mislead people into thinking that by taking something for a headache, a user is benefiting from fetal cells. You may think that's acceptable, I think it's very untruthful.

This is getting ridiculous.

The article isn't about aspirin. Its about the connection between HEK 293 and a number of drugs including aspirin. If the author was required to explain the connections/uses in the detail you're asking for it would take a small book to cover the range of drugs mentioned.

Once again - here's a whole page of modern re-evaluations of aspirin looking at other uses/effects.
aspirin and hek293 - Google Scholar

This page clearly demonstrates that scientists are still looking at possible new effects/benefits.

OB

JustSomeBloke · Sep 15, 2021

Occams Barber said:
You've misunderstood the article.

The whole point of the article was to point out that many common drugs have links to HEK 293. The author was pointing out that, if people objected to Covid vaccine because of the HEK293 link, to be morally consistent they should also reject these other drugs..

The author supports the idea that these drugs (and Covid vaccine) are morally acceptable given the remoteness of the connection to the original foetal cells.

OB

You've misunderstood the history of these long-established drugs and the fetal cell line.

There is zero connection for any use of these drugs that was approved prior to 1973. How could there be? That particular cell line didn't even exist until 1973! What are you going to do about that? Claim that approval for headaches was revoked in 1973, and then re-issued following testing using fetal cells? No, I don't think so. No matter which way you or the author try to spin it, someone popping a pill to fix a headache has absolutely no connection to fetal cells.

Occams Barber said:
This is getting ridiculous.

The article isn't about aspirin. Its about the connection between HEK 293 and a number of drugs including aspirin. If the author was required to explain the connections/uses in the detail you're asking for it would take a small book to cover the range of drugs mentioned.

Once again - here's a whole page of modern re-evaluations of aspirin looking at other uses/effects.
aspirin and hek293 - Google Scholar

This page clearly demonstrates that scientists are still looking at possible new effects/benefits.

OB

Yes, it is ridiculous that they've included Aspirin and Paracetamol (acetominophen) on the list. I wonder how many of the others on their list have been in use for a long time before that fetal cell line arrived on the research scene. I can't even be bothered to check the others. I think the authors should rewrite the article to be more honest.

I'm giving up now. If you still don't understand there's no use continuing.

hedrick said:
I think the point is that today use of those cells is nearly universal in drug research.

No, the point of the article was to try and make users of common, long-established drugs feel like hypocrites, by using dishonest, historically illiterate, and illogical arguments.

Hans Blaster · Sep 15, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
And Pfizer isn't apple-flavored. Checkmate Libs!!!

And here I thought the lack of taste buds in my arm was the reason I didn't sense the apple flavor.

chevyontheriver · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Looks like you're agreeing with me. People who take Aspirin for a headache shouldn't be led into thinking that they benefited from fetal cells, because only new and novel treatments since 1973 could be affected. From that point of view, the article is dishonest.

Which makes any participation in evil even more remote if you take aspirin for a headache.

Some might want to boycott aspirin totally. But the purpose would seem to be to deny money to those using fetal cell lines derived from abortion. While that may be noble I think it would be easier to use aspirin made by a company that does not do questionable research. For generic drugs this shouldn’t be so hard to do.

Old meds now available as generics are not highly likely to be morally questionable in this way, even if some companies might be doing questionable research.

Tanj · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Last I heard, only one vaccine is FDA approved, Cominaty, but it's not actually available.

You heard incorrectly.

FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.

camille70 · Sep 15, 2021

Vaccines and fetal cell info:

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www... Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf

JustSomeBloke · Sep 15, 2021

Tanj said:
You heard incorrectly.

FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.

I don't dispute that Comirnaty has been FDA approved. But can you prove that vaccines branded with the Comirnaty name are available for use and being injected? I'm asking because the FDA approval information suggests that there may be a devious bait and switch operation going on here. If you read the FDA information, it states:

The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series. [1]

The footnote referenced by [1] reads as follows:

The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.

Why do you think they want to make the FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) 'legally distinct' from the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

If they're exactly the same, and totally interchangeable, why the need for a legal distinction? I'd suggest the reason might be because granting FDA approval means that complete liability must be taken by the FDA and the vaccine manufacturers. They don't want to have legal liability, so their sneaky workaround is to approve it as Comirnaty, but never supply a single vial as Comirnaty. As you will know, the MSM already did the dirty work of saying that the Pfizer vaccine is now fully approved by the FDA. So now they just sit back and watch as everyone gets injected with a non-FDA approved vaccine, while the FDA and manufacturers have zero liability for any damage caused.

Do you have a better, more credible explanation as to why the two products are 'legally distinct'? And can you prove that anyone has ever been injected from a vial that is labelled 'Comirnaty'? Furthermore, I note that the FDA are saying that Pfizer-BioNTech is still available on emergency use authorisation. It's all rather fishy, isn't it?

I wonder if any people on here reading this, have received a Pfizer vaccine recently, and can say what the labelling on the vial said.

Tanj · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
I don't dispute that Comirnaty has been FDA approved. But can you prove that vaccines branded with the Comirnaty name are available for use and being injected? I'm asking because the FDA approval information suggests that there may be a devious bait and switch operation going on here. If you read the FDA information, it states:

The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series. [1]

The footnote referenced by [1] reads as follows:

The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.

Why do you think they want to make the FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) 'legally distinct' from the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

If they're exactly the same, and totally interchangeable, why the need for a legal distinction? I'd suggest the reason might be because granting FDA approval means that complete liability must be taken by the FDA and the vaccine manufacturers. They don't want to have legal liability, so their sneaky workaround is to approve it as Comirnaty, but never supply a single vial as Comirnaty. As you will know, the MSM already did the dirty work of saying that the Pfizer vaccine is now fully approved by the FDA. So now they just sit back and watch as everyone gets injected with a non-FDA approved vaccine, while the FDA and manufacturers have zero liability for any damage caused.

Do you have a better, more credible explanation as to why the two products are 'legally distinct'? And can you prove that anyone has ever been injected from a vial that is labelled 'Comirnaty'? Furthermore, I note that the FDA are saying that Pfizer-BioNTech is still available on emergency use authorisation. It's all rather fishy, isn't it?

I wonder if any people on here reading this, have received a Pfizer vaccine recently, and can say what the labelling on the vial said.

The amount of fines Pfizer would receive for distributing a non FDA approved drug in place of an approved one is truly staggering. This would be akin to off label marketing, and all 3 of the pharmas I have worked for over the years have been hit with multi billion dollar fines over this, the kind of fines that actually hurt. Your weird liability take is the opposite of what would happen in reality. The only place they would have any liability protection is in providing the correct drug, not for the least of which is that full authorization is a sequential step on from EUA, you cannot have both active at the same time for the same indication, so again, no fishiness to be seen.

At any rate it's quite clear this is a legal issue around branding and name changing. The formulations and manufacture are identical because they are the same thing. We had an identical situation here in Australia when our FDA equivalent allowed AstraZeneca to change the name of their vaccine to Vaxevria, and you will go through the whole thing again when Moderna rolls out it's offical brand name, "Spikevax"

JustSomeBloke · Sep 15, 2021

Tanj said:
The amount of fines Pfizer would receive for distributing a non FDA approved drug in place of an approved one is truly staggering. This would be akin to off label marketing, and all 3 of the pharmas I have worked for over the years have been hit with multi billion dollar fines over this, the kind of fines that actually hurt. Your weird liability take is the opposite of what would happen in reality.

I don't know why you are saying that. It is still perfectly legal in the USA to distribute the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on Emergency Use Authorisation.

Tanj said:
The only place they would have any liability protection is in providing the correct drug, not for the least of which is that full authorization is a sequential step on from EUA, you cannot have both active at the same time for the same indication, so again, no fishiness to be seen.

That is simply not true. The EUA for Pfizer-BioNTech is still active, and even the most cursory glance at the FDA website would show that it is still active. From the FDA news release (my bold):

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals.

Tanj said:
At any rate it's quite clear this is a legal issue around branding and name changing. The formulations and manufacture are identical because they are the same thing. We had an identical situation here in Australia when our FDA equivalent allowed AstraZeneca to change the name of their vaccine to Vaxevria, and you will go through the whole thing again when Moderna rolls out it's offical brand name, "Spikevax"

OK, I'll ask again. Can you prove that a single person has received a 'Comirnaty' branded vaccination from a vial labelled as 'Comirnaty'?

I suspect that the only vaccines on offer will be Pfizer-BioNTech on EUA. But that doesn't matter to the FDA and the vaccine manufacturers, because most of the public believed the MSM when they said the Pfizer vaccine was FDA approved, and they won't realise that there is an important legal distinction between the Pfizer-BioNTech product and the Comirnaty product.

Sparagmos · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Following on from my previous post.

From the history section of the Wikipedia entry for Aspirin:

By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin and was selling it globally.

From the Wikipedia entry for HEK-293:

HEK 293 cells were generated in 1973 by transfection of cultures of normal human embryonic kidney cells with sheared adenovirus 5 DNA in Alex van der Eb's laboratory in Leiden, the Netherlands.

Hmmmm. So a medication that was first marketed in 1899, is claimed to be heavily dependent on a cell line developed in 1973. And even before commercial, mass manufacture of Aspirin commenced, herbal usage of willow-based products went back at least 2400 years.

Sorry. The article is just totally wrong. It could hardly be more wrong if they tried. My guess is that the author didn't research properly, or thought no one would ever check. Well, they guessed wrongly!

How do you know it has never been tested on fetal cell lines? Did you click on the citations in the article, it links to the exact studies. The claim isn’t that it was developed using the cells, but that it has been tested at some point with the cells.

Sparagmos · Sep 15, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Where in the article does the author list pre-1973 and post-1973 approved uses for Aspirin and Paracetamol (acetominophen)? Without including that information, the authors are clearly trying to mislead people into thinking that by taking something for a headache, a user is benefiting from fetal cells. You may think that's acceptable, I think it's very untruthful.

You see the numbers 1 and 2 next to Aspirin? Click on them (in the actual article) PLEASE.

pgp_protector · Sep 15, 2021

keith99 said:
Then start making a list of other vaccines and drugs that are right out for you.

Good luck the next time you get a headache!

If Any Drug Tested on HEK-293 Is Immoral, Goodbye Modern Medicine | Matthew Schneider (patheos.com)

Hospital Asks Staff to Prove Religious Exemption for COVID Vaccine by Refusing Tylenol (newsweek.com)

Don't forget all it's use in the Food & Cosmetic industries.

chad kincham · Sep 15, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
Let me suggest the Pfizer vaccine then. It is not experimental. (The experiment ended late last year.) It is approved for use in those age 16 or over.

I do believe if yiu look into it you’ll find that the approval is to give it a EUA, to go along with all the other experimental vaccines.

That Emergency Use authorization means it’s not approved
In the way you think it is, but is only approved for emergency use while testing continues.

Hans Blaster · Sep 15, 2021

chad kincham said:
I do believe if yiu look into it you’ll find that the approval is to give it a EUA, to go along with all the other experimental vaccines.

That Emergency Use authorization means it’s not approved
In the way you think it is, but is only approved for emergency use while testing continues.

You would be wrong.

The Pfizer vaccine (which now has some stupid drug-company marketing name someone mentioned above) is fully approved by the FDA for persons age 16 and older. This is not an EUA. (For ages 12-15 it still is EUA.)

So You're not getting a covid-19 vaccine because it was tested using fetal cell lines

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

sola dosis facit venenum

Part of the IT crowd

Newbie

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Redefined comfortable middle class

Newbie

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Redefined comfortable middle class

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Noted strange person

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Similar threads