Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Aborted Human Cells: The Soylent Green of Vaccines

UPDATE 2015: China develops a new aborted fetal cell line:

"Due to dwindling capacity for existing aborted fetal cell lines to self-replicate, scientists in China have developed a new aborted fetal cell line, WALVAX 2 that will be used for viral vaccine production.

The existing cell lines, MRC-5 and WI-38 are currently used in MMR, Varicella, Hepatitis-A, Shingles, some rabies and some polio vaccines. WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3 month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies.

The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a “water bag” abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation."

UPDATE 2014:  "Dr. Theresa Deisher, a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University, the first person to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells, determined that residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccines may be one of the causes of autism in children through vaccination.
“It is possible that these contaminating fragments could be incorporated into a child’s genome and disrupt normal gene function, leading to autistic phenotypes.”
Article here
Dr. Deisher's study here.


Here is a concise, cited list of cell lines. If you are looking to verify the claim of human cell lines used in vaccine manufacturing and/or want to learn more about the specific humans aborted, this is the link for you:*

It’s a controversial debate. Do vaccines contain human cells derived from aborted humans? In the passionate debate about whether or not it is moral to use humans in vaccine production, people tend to overlook some important questions, such as: IS IT PROVEN SAFE?

Are you wondering if American vaccines contain human cells from aborted humans?

Do you read the warning label on the allergy medication or Tylenol bottle you bought at the store before giving it to your child? Well, why not read the warning label that comes with every single vaccine before vaccinating your child?

There are as of now 10 vaccines licensed in America that use human cells derived from aborted humans:

Varivax (chicken pox)
Havrix (hep-A)
Vaqta (hep-A)
Twinrix (hep-A/hep-B)
Poliovax (polio)
Imovax (rabies)
Meruvax II (rubella)
MR-VAX (measles/rubella)
Biavax II (mumps/rubella)
MMR II (measles/mumps/rubella).

You can see which vaccines your child will receive by looking at the CDC schedule here:

You can verify the presence of human dna from aborted humans in any particular vaccine by reviewing the manufacturer inserts. They are listed here:

Below is one example of how to verify that human cells from aborted humans are present in a vaccine.

Here is Merck's MMRII product insert. If your child is under 7 years of age and you consent to a regular vaccination schedule, your child will receive this vaccine beginning around 12 months:

Right on the first page, Merck admits that their rubella virus is grown in the cells derived from human lungs:

"(Rubella Virus Vaccine Live), the Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts.1,2"

What does this mean? Development of the Rubella vaccine in America actually involved not one, but 28 abortions. Twenty-seven abortions were performed to isolate the virus and one abortion (WI-38) to culture the vaccine. The vaccine's strain is called RA 27/3 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus tested, 3=3rd tissue explanted). The aborted human was a girl.

“The WI-38 human diploid cell line was derived by Leonard Hayflick from normal embryonic (3 months gestation) lung tissue.”

For those looking for more details and a bigger list of references on WI-38:

Another popular cell line found in many of the vaccines on the list is MRC-5.

“Derived from normal lung tissue of a 14-week-old male fetus by J. P. Jacobs in September 1966 (Nature 227: 168-170, 1970)”

For those looking for more details and a bigger list of references on MRC-5:

MRC-5 is in:

Hep A (Vaqta)
Hep A (Havrix)
Hep A/ Hep B (Twinrix)
MMRV (ProQuad)
Rabies (Imovax)
Varicella (Varivax)
Zoster (Zostavax)

Both MRC-5 and WI-38 are in the Varivax (chickenpox) vaccine.

If you want a concise, authoritative history on the development and use of human cell lines, check out this referenced paper:

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) created a list of ingredients divided by vaccine. You can confirm which vaccines contain human cells by looking at their list here.

Rene Levia, MD gives an indepth analysis of the history of human cell lines:

Don't forget about the younger cell line, PER.C6:​hnology%20-%20Cell%20Techn​ology

Human materials are used in other products as well. This website attempts to bring awareness:

Their Facebook page:


1. Since vaccine companies are using these cells lines, doesn’t that mean we can assume they are safe?
The answer to that is no. These cell lines were collected and replicated for research on whether or not they would work in various scientific endeavors, not to find out if they were safe to be injected into our children. Studies were not conducted to review the effects of using these cell lines. Human trials were not run before using them. After all these years of using them, we still have no double blind, longitudinal study proving how they impact the body or observing if they have adverse consequences.

2. Since it was only a couple abortions and it happened a long time ago, is it really that bad?
First, even if only a couple humans were used and even if it happened a long time ago, that doesn’t dismiss the safety issue. Second, if you oppose abortions or the patenting of human body parts, then it doesn’t matter how many were done or when it happened. Finally, by continuing to consent to vaccines that contain patented human cells, you are maintaining market demand for these companies, which sends a strong message to them and will help them in their decision making.

3. We condone the use of blood for transfusions, bone marrow for cancer treatments, hair for wigs, etc so why is this any different?
First, regardless of your stance on abortion, this is different because informed consent is never obtained from the child being injected with these human cells. And informed consent is very rarely obtained from the parents consenting for their child.

Just ask yourself: how many times did your child’s doctor inform you that the vaccine she was about to give your child contained replicated human cell lines? Did she ever mention it? Or give you the package insert to read?

Second, transfusions and other organ transplants are screened for disease and to match the individual’s age, blood type, ethnicity and more. It's easy to understand the importance of matching blood type and marrow type and of matching organ age with the patient's age and health, right? So what do you think the implications are for every child, of every age, weight, health-background, blood type, ethnicity etc receiving the same replicated human cells in vaccines? It's never even been studied. All you can do is speculate.

In a sense, this is one of the biggest GMO experiments in humans up to this point!

In closing, what do we now know according to the CDC and vaccine companies? What are the actual facts?

~Aborted humans were used to test the propagation (growth) of genetically modified viruses to see if they were a sustainable substance for use in vaccine production.
~The human cell lines were patented and thus are now owned by the vaccine companies.
~The cell lines are replicated to continue their use.
~Human cells are present in the finished product.
~The presence of human cells has not been proven safe, nor has the impact of intramuscular injection of human cells into EVERY child of EVERY size, age, ethnicity, health status, etc EVER been studied.

Basically, American children are GMO-children.

And we asked ourselves some questions:

FIRST, even if you do not personally find abortion unethical, does that make human cells in vaccines safe?
SECOND, if something happened a long time ago or only a couple times, does that make it moral?
THIRD, whether or not anyone finds abortion to be unethical, do parents have a right to be informed about the presence of human cells in the product BEFORE their children are injected with it?

These are questions that parents have a right to ask and to answer after their own research. It is my hope that every parent has opportunity to give full and informed consent when vaccinating their children.

Additional reading:

Pro-vaccine information that every parent should know about before vaccinating:

Here is an article addressed to Catholic parents. But it contains a brief history of human cells lines and resources for vaccine exemptions and alternatives, so it is helpful to anyone.

Here is a PDF released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that shows the increase in Autism diagnoses correlates with the introduction of human cells in vaccine production. This is not causation, but food for thought. Many people acknowledge that Autism is an issue of genetic variation. How are genetics changed with the injection of replicated human DNA?

Here is a chart of the available licensed vaccines. It shows a basic ingredient list and manufacturer names/numbers.

Here is the official statement from the Vatican on the moral use of vaccines derived from aborted humans. Notice that using vaccines is considered an extreme case based on the premise that vaccines are necessary and save lives.
PDF version to save:

Mainstream commentary on the issue:


  1. Shaking my head in disbelief and being incredibly thankful that we are non-vaxing.

  2. Thanks, Guggie. I hadn't known how many abortions were done for vaccines (even 1 is too many, in my view, though). I know I was never told about the presence of human cells in the vaccine, though I'd learnt that on my own. I regret that my son did have the MMR. I wrote to the drug company expressing my displeasure at human cells being used, and they brushed me off saying the Church was OK with it since there weren't alternatives out there. They have no incentive to change that, it seems.

  3. I skimmed the McDonald paper and they don't really mention human cell lines in vaccines. Wouldn't the first date back to HeLa and the polio vaccine?

    "I hadn't known how many abortions were done for vaccines."
    It's not like scientists were running around and forcing people to have abortions so they could harvest thier cells. They were trying to get cell culture as a whole on it's feet, so they plated everything they could get thier hands on. Which, rather unpleasantly, includes discarded fetuses.

  4. The only thing is, if we dig into the history of the MMR and the "Rubella Epidemic" we do start to question if doctors were running around forcing or at the very least "recommending" abortions to harvest cells.

    Recall that Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) was scaremongered in the early 60s and that the CDC claims over 20,000 humans were aborted due to suspected CRS. Interestingly, this fear cropped up after scientists applied to produce a Rubella vaccine. YET the kicker is: the CDC did not begin to report CRS cases until AFTER the so-called "epidemic" and AFTER the vaccine was being produced. AND that year, there were less than 100 reported cases. As it has been ever since.

    I doubt women were being tied down and forced into abortions while a nerdy scientist said, "Mwuhahaha" but we have all read stories of women terrified into aborting b/c the doctor said her fetus was severely disabled, in horrific pain or would not survive after birth. I wonder how much of that was flying around when they were drumming up consumer demand for a new vaccine.

  5. On the Medical Students for Life of America National Conference video at (172.51)minutes~ Vaccines and Aborted Fetal DNA Contaminants: Link to Autism?

  6. "The cells that were taken from the two aborted babies were more than 35 years ago. Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus, these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder.

    It is important to note that Federal law is quite specific in the matter of donated fetal tissue. The law does not allow for an abortion to be performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the law even explicitly states that the abortion procedure cannot be changed in order to collect the tissue4. It also prohibits the baby's family or the doctor from profiting from the donation5. Thus, these cells were truly donated, just as any organ might be donated. If a person is an organ donor and he or she is murdered, it is not immoral for you to use those organs. Once again, at least something good will come out of the murder if those organs are used."

    So it is sort of "bitter sweet" in the end really..... Thank you for the article :) I push those to speak to their doctors before believing anything though, talk to someone educated on it is all I recommend, and the choice you make, if it is an informed one, is the right choice no matter what. :)

  7. Ah, I'm sorry, can you show me where pre-born babies are voluntarily choosing to be registered organ donors?

    Even if they are saving lives (and that's debatable) these humans were killed and then their bodies were broken down and patented to be used FOR PROFIT. Companies are profiting off their body parts. That is not comparable to the good act of a person choosing to donate her organs after her death (murdered or not).

    They are selling unproven vaccines and making money. But because it might be saving lives this is okay? Nah, I think you know better. I think deep down you know that the end does not justify the means. You just don't realize yet that NOT vaccinating is a viable option. You think your only option is to accept a for-profit, unproven, vaccine made off the exploitation of innocent humans.

    Since you use the analogy of murder, let me ask you this: if someone murdered your child 30 years ago, does the time lapse make it less wrong? I'm confused as to why "it happened a long time ago" would make something less unethical. Besides which, even if the original act occurred a long time ago, the vaccine companies continue to replicate the cell lines and use them in production annually. So it was not a one-time, isolated incident, but something that continues to this day.

    Besides, they already obtained a new cell line from a newly aborted human. The cell line was obtained and established by Crucell and is called PER C6. The cell line was taken from the retinal tissue of an 18-week gestation baby. They are running trials on the new flu vaccine in my city in fact.

    Your consumer demand drives their unethical business decisions. It's not "the right choice no matter what." Stop pretending that you're helpless to change anything.

  8. Most importantly, I'd like to point out that the moral discussion you focused on does not dismiss the big concerns about safety in regards to using mass-produced human cell lines on every human child in America.

    I'd think anyone, whether they can justify those abortions or not and whether they believe in vaccine theory or not, should be concerned about human DNA residue in vaccines and what they are doing to our children. At least have the self-dignity to demand safety trials on it.

  9. Excellent article! Thanks very, very much. The only vaxes my daughter got were Polio and DTaP, and now that I know better through a lot more research, I don't think my son will even be getting those.

  10. Glad I knew everything I do about vaccines before I had kids. My son is 100% vax-free, and all future children will be also! Thanks for sharing this information with the world. More people need to be aware of what they are putting into their children's bodies, and their own.

  11. Anonymous says....

    "Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder."

    So I guess you are saying that this was all done "for the good of the community"??? Those 2 murdered lives "SAVED" lives??? Is that your claim??? Because you are so wrong! Those 2 children that were murdered have HURT children and taken lives whether it be in death or in never living a normal life!

    I know! I got it! What you meant to say was those 2 murdered children have made big Pharm richer and more powerful as well as the CDC, FDA, and please let us not leave out big brother! NOW I know what you mean!


    Tired of children being used as canaries,
    Tammy McNair

    (I only did anonymous for my post because I forgot my google info!) ;0)