In April, 2009, a draft report from NVAC raised the question of whether the apparent cause of autism coming from vaccinations was not due to the presence of mercury but instead might be due to the presence of, and an interaction with, the aborted fetus (human) DNA in the vaccine. Teresa Deisher reported:
The NVAC draft report recommends further study of the potential for vaccines to contribute to autism in children who have underlying mitochondrial disease, a worthwhile study given the clinical history of such children developing autism after vaccinations (see Poling case). What the NVAC has overlooked, however, in their recommendations, is that epidemic regressive autism is associated with the switch from using animal cells to produce vaccines to the use of aborted human fetal cells for vaccine production. Now when we vaccinate our children, some vaccines also deliver contaminating aborted human fetal DNA. The safety of this has never been tested.
There is more news coming to light. James Tillman reports further scientific progress;
PHILADELPHIA, PA, June 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Dr. Theresa Deisher, founder of the pro-life Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, presented a study revealing the link between autism and aborted fetal DNA in vaccinations at the International Meeting for Autism Research in May.
“The temporal connection between the introduction of aborted fetal DNA and autism rises is found over decades and across continents,” Dr. Deisher told LifeSiteNews. “This temporal connection is more compelling than any mercury connection,” which, she said, had no temporal connection to rising rates of autism.
As the abstract of the study indicates, autism rates in the US and the UK began to increase around the same time that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine switched from using animal cells to using human cells that had been derived from aborted fetuses.
There is much more to say, and precision is required so that our response is not that of an irrational reactionary, but an honest, Christian pro-life response to a real need which goes ignored. Dr. Deisher (PhD) arrived at this end in her argument’s abstract:
Results: The average human DNA fragment length in rubella vaccine was 220 base pairs. Out of 1145 hotspots in the X-chromosome, 25 hotspots are located in 5 of 15 X-chromosome AAGs, between the transcription start and end sites. These genes are NLGN3 and NLGN4X (neuroligins involved in synapse formation), AFF2 and IL1RAPL1 (involved in X-linked mental retardation), and GRPR (gastrin releasing peptide receptor).
Conclusions: Autism-associated genes in the X-chromosome contain multiple regions where potential insertion of short, non-host homologous DNA can occur. With new knowledge due to the human genome project, particularly in regards to SNPs and epigenetics, further work must be done to understand the implications of integrated residual human DNA to the etiology of autism.
What sits before us is an ethical quandary. First, there are many who feel that, before this was known, that the damage was already done years ago with the use of fetal cells (sometimes obtained via abortion, otherwise via the laboratory) in the development of these vaccines (chicken pox and others). The understanding is that the damage was done long ago and that we benefit today without any further harm being done. (This same argument applied to things like surgery which, in the past, involved some rather gruesome experimentation, and even land ownership as it was taken from the American Indians. But since the present company had nothing to do with either situation, we simply live today and behave properly ourselves and accept our current situation as it is.)
There are also those who reject any vaccine ever made with human material in a situation which involved the unnecessary taking of human life.
But this adds another level to the issue, and not just for the Christian: Shall we continue to dispense vaccines which can be shown to be deficient enough that they will cause problems? This goes beyond the random issues that are involved in individual reactions. This situation is indicated by the presence of foreign DNA that, apparently, should not be in the material, but is seems to minute to filter out. When the technology arrives to filter it out, then we have an improved situation. but until then we are stuck with knowingly dispensing vaccines that are apparently impure and ones which will create problems for some recipients.
The practical person may say that the vaccine still serves the greater good and provides the best benefit to the most people. It is that type of thinking that will, in the practical mind, make us a better race of humans. More fit. Better disease survivability. A stronger race all around.
This is where our Christian pro-life ethic can shine. It is up to us to protect life. The practical people certainly have not been doing it.
June 12th, 2010 | 11:09 pm | #1
It’s pretty well-established that vaccinations don’t cause autism at this point. How do these people deal with that? It’s not just that there’s no mercury connection. There’s no vaccine connection at all, according to pretty much every reputable doctor or scientist who has looked into the issue.
The guy who started the whole vaccine scare turned out to have fabricated all his research and has now been exposed as a complete fraud, with journals now retracting his journal articles. The reason autism diagnoses have increased is because the diagnosis process has gotten better, they’ve noticed variation in the autistic spectrum involving a much wider variety of people, and they’ve therefore been applying the category to people who would have been considered just a little odd until very recently but who now fall into the autism spectrum.
They now have a test that looks at something like 60,000 genes that they know have connections with autism. The last few years have produced study after study showing heritable genes to be involved, not mutations or alterations purely due to environmental effects.
Meanwhile, those who don’t vaccinate their children will ultimately cause the deaths of pre-vaccination-age children who will die of diseases that had pretty much been eradicated but that have returned due to the irresponsible parents who listen to this kind of nonsense. It hasn’t happened yet in the U.S. with the recent string of outbreaks of measles due to non-vaccinated children, but it’s only a matter of time before it does lead to death with some formerly-eradicated disease or other.
As for the life issue, the question should rather be this: which is worse, to kill people by not vaccinating your children, or to use dead matter already killed that happened to belong to fetal human beings who shouldn’t have been killed? The only reason you should choose the second is if you think it’s better to let people die from need of vital organs than to use the organs of organ donors who were murdered.
(I’m not saying this to justify putting fetal matter into the vaccines. Obviously that’s not necessary to have the vaccines, and it should be protested, with pro-life doctors seeking to provide an alternative without the fetal cells. But what I’m saying should apply to those who use the vaccines, given that they are the only ones available.)
June 14th, 2010 | 8:08 am | #2
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Karen Simmons Sicoli, Jeremy Weaver. Jeremy Weaver said: A Post I Liked: Eugenics v Autism http://ht.ly/17JlGt [...]
June 16th, 2010 | 9:53 pm | #3
Jeremy: I was with you until the organ donation thing. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. Do you mean people who were murdered FOR their organs (in which case it’s wrong), or people who happened to have been murdered but were registered organ donors (in which case it’s right)? Anyway, not a good argument.
The good argument is that there is no evidence that vaccines (whether made with animal or fetal DNA) cause autism. And people who rely on a pool of vaccinated people to keep their kids safe are making it less safe for everyone, their kids included.
June 23rd, 2010 | 6:12 am | #4
No, it’s a perfectly good argument, because it’s exactly analogous. If someone gets murdered who turns out to be an organ donor, we take the organs and use them. If an embryo gets killed because the parents discard it, and they have given permission for the stem cells to be used, then we can use those stem cells by the same reasoning, even if it’s murder to discard the embryo.
The people who take the organs are not those who murder the person. The people who use the stem cells are not necessarily those who discard the embryos.
It’s wrong to murder people for organs or embryos for stem cells. But it’s not wrong to use those organs or stem cells just because the death was an instance of murder.
So I’m not seeing why you think it’s a bad analogy. It seems like the moral issues are parallel according to pro-life assumptions.
June 23rd, 2010 | 7:17 am | #5
“This is where our Christian pro-life ethic can shine. It is up to us to protect life.”
Sure, by spreading fears about vaccines and autism. Jeez Colin. Shame on you for associating the Christian ethic with this irresponsible nonsense.
June 28th, 2010 | 10:45 am | #6
Now I’m the last person to get on board with an argument that gives the time of day to discredited studies about connections between vaccinations and autism, but I don’t think that’s fair to Collin. He’s not protecting life by spreading fears about vaccines and autism. He’s pointing out that (on the premise that this study is correct) it shows a further bad consequence of using fetal parts resulting from abortions, beyond the mere wrongness of the abortions themselves. If the (false) premise had been true, that would be a fair point.
I’m also the last person to act as if autism is the end of the world. I have two autistic children. But autism is, other things being equal, an unfortunate thing, and we shouldn’t deliberately do anything that we know will cause it (again, other things being equal; if I had a choice between increasing the risk of autism and increasing the risk of an epidemic of measles, I’d choose the former, although it might depend on how strong the risk was in each case). The issue for me isn’t whether we should seek to avoid increasing occurrences of autism. It’s whether we should believe discredited pseudo-science that there’s any connection between autism and vaccines to begin with, and I think the answer is a clear no.
So I don’t think this argument will succeed, but I think that for empirical reasons. It’s not in principle wrong to recognize a bad effect of a procedure you already believe to be wrong and then use that bad effect to argue that there’s now an additional reason to oppose it, and it’s not fear-mongering about vaccines, because he’s not arguing here not to get vaccines, just that those who make them have done so in an immoral way, and we’re now seeing bad results.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact