fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[ReasonableFaith]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

In the cases of both Pfizer and Moderna, we are dealing with cases of at least triply remote cooperation in evil with HEK293 cells, which are not morally relevant when considering receiving such a vaccine. Early in the research on COVID-19, some scientists made a purified version of the protein and protein-coding genes using HEK293 cells.

In the case of HEK293 the objection seems to be to the use, in early development and testing, of cells derived from cells derived from cells purchased from a company which derived the cells from fetal nephrotic tissue which may or may not have been sourced from an induced abortive procedure in the 1970’s. 
 

Some, including Wong in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (2006), have argued the tissue should be treated as if it was obtained via an induced abortive procedure. Others make no such assertion or have no objection either way and are content to proceed with the use of the cell line.  As pointed out by Wang and others nearly every medical researcher will have dealt with the HEK293 line at some point during their education or career.  
 

Many Catholic bioethicists, including Wong, advocate for more effort to be directed towards created cell lines which are known not  to be sourced from induced abortive procedures. There seems to be opportunity in this space, but many of those those commenting on the nature of these cell lines seem content to continue the direction of their careers and leave such development to others. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, ReasonableFaith said:

In the case of HEK293 the objection seems to be to the use, in early development and testing, of cells derived from cells derived from cells purchased from a company which derived the cells from fetal nephrotic tissue which may or may not have been sourced from an induced abortive procedure in the 1970’s.

You know what I call that? I call it one hell of a tenuous connection.

It certainly ain't any closer to abortion than buying products from companies that give money to Planned Parenthood, which literally everyone on this site does, both those for-and against the vaccines.

This is really what we have been arguing about? It's ridiculous.

[Anastasia]

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I just never heard them referred to as "theories of atonement".  Maybe that's my own intellectual ignorance (of which I'm sure there's a lot).

To my mind, the word "a thread" (of Salvation) or "an aspect" is far better than "a theory". The early Church Fathers  explored and discussed various "threads" of Atonement; they spoke of healing, debt (but never in a legalistic sense), justice, mercy, love, a  triumph over death and so on. The thread about debt and justice later became predominant in the West (St Anselm). 

Eastern Orthodoxy understands Atonement mostly as a healing of the human nature (and hence all creation) from the disease of the original sin which brought alienation from God = death. Christ, the new Adam via assuming human nature, pulled it through all aspects of a human existence including death, destroying the grip of sin and death. 

We understand sin as a sickness, perversion of a relationship with God and other human beings. 

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I was recently told about how Eastern Catholics view Eucharistic adoration.  In the West, we love adoration because we love being so close to God, but in the East, they view the Eucharist more strictly as Something to be eaten, and so adoration to them, at least from the point of view of the person I was talking to, is a bit like taunting and teasing by dangling food in front of you.  I don't know, I could be misrepresenting based on my own interpretation of what this person said.

Different people will offer you different explanation. I think there are several objective reasons why we do not have Adoration. First, we did not have the Reformation so no need to reinforce the faith in the Real Presence. Second, in the East the holiest things are usually veiled. Third, we have icons which are considered by the Ecumenical Council to be, in a sense, a reinforcement of the dogma of Christological dogmas, the reality of Christ the Man. 
All that being said, I found Adoration to be of a great spiritual benefit to me. To me it is mean of connection with Christ.

[Peace]

@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?

[Ash Wednesday]

8 hours ago, Peace said:

From a theological standpoint how do you even establish that the Moderna vaccine rises to the level of remote material cooperation with evil?

I'm definitely not qualified to answer that question. In the statement below from the CDF, they state that it is remote material cooperation but don't elaborate on specific vaccines or the criteria.

Quote

3. The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]--in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

I think the issue that has been raised isn't exclusively the remoteness from the act of abortion, but rather the unethical testing and manufacturing practices in themselves, and to what extent they should be tolerated.

But this starts to get into the opinions of various theologians or experts on ethical matters from within the Church (I like to call it "Ratzinger vs. Ripperger") and that goes above my pay grade. 

 

[ReasonableFaith]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

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.

A reduction in deaths through vaccination would likely be much higher. The ‘efficacy’ of the vaccines is measured by a vaccinated person’s likelihood to contract and develop systemic infection. The vaccines are highly effective in preventing serious illness from the virus. This level of prevention reaches well in to the minty percent range.  
 

For example those persons over 65 and vaccinated by Moderna of Pfizer seem to be over 90% less likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I'm definitely not qualified to answer that question. In the statement below from the CDF, they state that it is remote material cooperation but don't elaborate on specific vaccines or the criteria.

I think the issue that has been raised isn't exclusively the remoteness from the act of abortion, but rather the unethical testing and manufacturing practices in themselves, and to what extent they should be tolerated.

But this starts to get into the opinions of various theologians or experts on ethical matters from within the Church (I like to call it "Ratzinger vs. Ripperger") and that goes above my pay grade.

Thanks. I think we can call it remote material cooperation. I'd guess the CDF conceded that point for the sake of argument, not to have to detail the specific analysis for each individual vaccine, when ultimately that did not impact the ultimate conclusion it reached.

For Moderna, I suppose we can call it remote material cooperation, but at least from the information I have seen, it seems to be hella remote. Certainly not any closer than me sitting here typing on this Microsoft PC when then company gave money to Planned Parenthood last year.

I'd have to look into it but it seems that one idea is that the "degree" of the connection between the clearly immoral activity and the action has substantial relevance to the ultimate conclusion of whether the action is licit.  That is, the stronger the connection between the immoral activity and the action, the more likely it is that the action is illicit.

So I think it comes down to a bit of a prudential judgment as to where to draw the line in each individual situation.

For example,

1) A doctor at Planned Parenthood performs an abortion (the clearly immoral activity)

2) Planned Parenthood pays the doctor's salary (once removed)

3) Microsoft gives annual donations to Planned Parenthood (twice removed)

4) Peace purchased a PC with Microsoft Windows installed this year (3 times removed)

5) My employer pays my salary, which I used to buy the computer (4 times removed)

6) My employer receives a small-business subsidy from the federal government (5 times removed)

7) @fides' Jack pays his federal taxes dutifully every year (6 times removed)

8) @fides' Jack runs a Catholic bookstore that sells books such as the Catechism and various editions of the Bible to children, the proceeds from which are used to pay his federal taxes. (7 times removed)

Now, depending on where we draw the line, we could say that @fides' Jack selling copies of the Bible to children is a remote cooperation with evil.

But nobody with a sound mind would say that he should be prohibited from doing so because that activity may ultimately generate money that is used to fund an abortion. I'd guess that most reasonable Catholics would say that 1 - 3 above should be prohibited but that 4-8 are too far removed from the immoral activity to be prohibited.

It's the same sort of analysis with respect to the vaccines and their connection to the abortion that "may or may not" have occurred 50 years ago, I think. It seems to be a pretty tenuous connection to me. I just don't see how it is reasonable to conclude that it is immoral to take the Moderna vaccine based on the facts I have seen, unless we are gonna go ahead and say that @fides' Jack has to shut down his Catholic bookstore, and that I have to sell my PC and buy a computer running Manjaro Linux instead.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Peace

[Anastasia]

22 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Many Catholic bioethicists, including Wong, advocate for more effort to be directed towards created cell lines which are known not  to be sourced from induced abortive procedures. There seems to be opportunity in this space, but many of those those commenting on the nature of these cell lines seem content to continue the direction of their careers and leave such development to others. 

Not long before the public learnt that that covid vaccines are abortion-tainted, Sanofi Pasteur stopped producing the abortion-tainted polio vaccine swapping it with the fully ethical one. That was a great achievement that was possible, I am sure, only because there was a huge push to do so by people who find the usage of foetal cells derived from abortion unacceptable.

‘Dignitas Personae’ speaks about a possibility to use the old abortion-tainted vaccines for a vaccination of children in a case when there is no ethical alternatives exist, anywhere, and when a disease is highly lethal, in many cases “a life for a life” so to speak. This is why the usage of such old vaccines did not hinder the search for the new, fully ethical. Something has been done and had to be dealt with/abolished. It could be said “there was a sin/mistake, we must stop it”.

The old vaccines with foetal cells existed when the question of morality arose. The usage of foetal sell was deemed unacceptable hence the need to find an alternative.

The abortion-tainted covid vaccines appeared now. It is one thing to accepts something from the past when there was no other alternatives yet (rabies vaccine) and another – something that was created now. And not just that: there was no need to create abortion-tainted vaccines whatsoever. In other parts of the world the fully ethical vaccines were created as well. Finally, covid is not rabies and even not rubella re: the fatality rate.

The Church’s acceptance of the covid abortion-tainted vaccines ruins the efforts, previous and future, to bring humanity closer to abolishing all unethical vaccines. If the Church finds the abortion-tainted vaccines acceptable:

1) when the fatality rate is very low;

2) when ethical vaccines could be made and were made;

3) when the vaccines are being made now i.e. Church could influence the process stating “we will not accept unethical vaccines”

that means that there is no need to try to come up with the ethical vaccines and to abolish unethical ones. What for? The foetal cells are cheap, convenient and acceptable “for the sake of love for our neighbour” (this new line, of vaccination with abortion-tainted vaccines for the love for our neighbour, actually gives a moral justification to all who are evolve in industry that uses foetal cells: “yea, it is bad to use the abortion material but we do that for the love of our neighbour” etc)

That outcome be easily avoided if the Church said “we screwed up, we are moral cowards, we did not press hard in the beginning – faithful this is what you have, the evil”. That would be honest and far less repugnant than a soulless exercise of calculating the degree of “a remote cooperation” because the former it least human.

As Roman Catholic Bishop Schneider pointed out, if you witness the murder of a baby, the extraction of her organ out of her body, of its preparation would you accept “the vaccine” made by it? He adds “what is the difference if it was done in the past and you did not see it?” But you do not listen to your own Bishops with alive conscience because it is inconvenient.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Anastasia

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Not long before the public learnt that that covid vaccines are abortion-tainted, Sanofi Pasteur stopped producing the abortion-tainted polio vaccine swapping it with the fully ethical one. That was a great achievement that was possible, I am sure, only because there was a huge push to do so by people who find the usage of foetal cells derived from abortion unacceptable.

‘Dignitas Personae’ speaks about a possibility to use the old abortion-tainted vaccines for a vaccination of children in a case when there is no ethical alternatives exist, anywhere, and when a disease is highly lethal, in many cases “a life for a life” so to speak. This is why the usage of such old vaccines did not hinder the search for the new, fully ethical. Something has been done and had to be dealt with/abolished. It could be said “there was a sin/mistake, we must stop it”.

The old vaccines with foetal cells existed when the question of morality arose. The usage of foetal sell was deemed unacceptable hence the need to find an alternative.

The abortion-tainted covid vaccines appeared now. It is one thing to accepts something from the past when there was no other alternatives yet (rabies vaccine) and another – something that was created now. And not just that: there was no need to create abortion-tainted vaccines whatsoever. In other parts of the world the fully ethical vaccines were created as well. Finally, covid is not rabies and even not rubella re: the fatality rate.

The Church’s acceptance of the covid abortion-tainted vaccines ruins the efforts, previous and future, to bring humanity closer to abolishing all unethical vaccines. If the Church finds the abortion-tainted vaccines acceptable:

1) when the fatality rate is very low;

2) when ethical vaccines could be made and were made;

3) when the vaccines are being made now i.e. Church could influence the process stating “we will not accept unethical vaccines”

that means that there is no need to try to come up with the ethical vaccines and to abolish unethical ones. What for? The foetal cells are cheap, convenient and acceptable “for the sake of love for our neighbour” (this new line, of vaccination with abortion-tainted vaccines for the love for our neighbour, actually gives a moral justification to all who are evolve in industry that uses foetal cells: “yea, it is bad to use the abortion material but we do that for the love of our neighbour” etc)

That outcome be easily avoided if the Church said “we screwed up, we are moral cowards, we did not press hard in the beginning – faithful this is what you have, the evil”. That would be honest and far less repugnant than a soulless exercise of calculating the degree of “a remote cooperation” because the former it least human.

As Roman Catholic Bishop Schneider pointed out, if you witness the murder of a baby, the extraction of her organ out of her body, of its preparation would you accept “the vaccine” made by it? He adds “what is the difference if it was done in the past and you did not see it?” But you do not listen to your own Bishops with alive conscience because it is inconvenient.

Where can people receive the Sanofi vaccine? Nowhere, because it is not ready yet.

When a completely ethical vaccine is ready everyone agrees that all of us should take it.

In the meantime 3 million people have died from  Covid-19. I suppose the Church should wait for another 3 million people to die from the virus because certain test samples of Moderna vaccine were tested on a cell line, derived from a cell line, derived from a cell line, that was derived from a tissue sample from 1 child 50 years ago who "may or may not" have been aborted?

Do you realize how ridiculous that actually sounds?

[ReasonableFaith]

3 hours ago, Anastasia said:

The Church’s acceptance of the covid abortion-tainted vaccines ruins the efforts, previous and future, to bring humanity closer to abolishing all unethical vaccines. If the Church finds the abortion-tainted vaccines acceptable:

The church before and after the decision by Sanofi has declared as morally licit the consumption of vaccines tainted by the use of fetal tissue made available thru induced abortive procedures. This allowance has been and is being made in cases where the refusal of such a vaccine would present a significant health risk to the person refusing the vaccine or others. 3.2+ million dead and the many who have or are suffering extreme sickness seem to qualify as a significant health risk.

In the case of pandemics even a seemingly low fatality rate can result in a very large number of deaths and cases of serious illness if the source of the illness, in this case a virus, is particularly contagious (easily transmitted).  Both the contagiousness and death rate need be taken into account to determine the risks of an outbreak. 
 

How could the assertion be made the same teaching under which the Sanofi decision was made now ruins past and future efforts to develop vaccines untainted by induced abortions? Such vaccines have been developed during the time the church has asserted the same teaching it is currently asserting. 
 

For those vaccines using HEK-293 cells it is not definitively known these vaccines are actually ‘tainted.’  Some ethicist assert they should be treated as ‘tainted.’  Perhaps it should be noted if the tissue was made available via a spontaneous abortion or still birth the consent of the parent(s) to use the tissue ought have been obtained. 

[Ash Wednesday]

7 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

For those vaccines using HEK-293 cells it is not definitively known these vaccines are actually ‘tainted.’  Some ethicist assert they should be treated as ‘tainted.’  Perhaps it should be noted if the tissue was made available via a spontaneous abortion or still birth the consent of the parent(s) to use the tissue ought have been obtained. 

"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.

https://cogforlife.org/2021/04/25/cell-lines-from-miscarriages-nonsense/

I say this with a clarification that I accept the CDF's ruling on the instance of remote material cooperation with these vaccines --  but separate from the abortion issue, we do have the medical practice and use of that cell line in itself as a situation that should still be opposed and alternative means advocated for. 

[Ash Wednesday]

12 hours ago, Anastasia said:

That would be honest and far less repugnant than a soulless exercise of calculating the degree of “a remote cooperation” because the former it least human.

Again, I think that you are misunderstanding Thomism and moral theology here. I get that Orthodox view the Catholic approach as being too rationalistic, but in ethics there are scenarios where calculated decisions and situations are allowed (NOT actively supported) in order to mitigate things like as much widespread loss of life as possible, so the intent is anything but devoid of humanity. But reason (along with faith) is an integral part of our moral theology. Reason steers us away from appealing to emotion in order to make moral decisions and form the conscience, because human emotion can cloud judgment. 

It's one thing if you don't think that Covid is serious enough or applies here as far as to what extent lives are lost, but that is a separate argument in itself. 

I do absolutely agree that there needs to be more of an active push for ethical practices.

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Reason steers us away from appealing to emotion in order to make moral decisions and form the conscience, because human emotion can cloud judgment. 

Well, then Jesus did not teach morals well. He appealed to a normal human psyche which judges by heart and mind both, to the whole person, not to someone who has to numb himself first to make "a right decision". An older son with his very sound logic could not understand why his younger brother (the prodigal son) was met with a feast; his father then told him to "switch on" his heart.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Anastasia

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Well, then Jesus did not teach morals well. He appealed to a normal human psyche which judges by heart and mind both, to the whole person, not to someone who has to numb himself first to make "a right decision". An older son with his very sound logic could not understand why his younger brother was met with a feast; his father then told him to "switch on" his heart.

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.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Peace

[Ash Wednesday]

1 minute ago, Anastasia said:

Well, then Jesus did not teach morals well.

Respectfully I disagree with this rebuttal here, because this is related to the question of where we get our Divinely inspired teaching authority today. Though again, best left for a separate 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.