Vaccines have been a hot topic at the state and national level this year.
Governor Morrisey issued an executive order which would exempt children when their parents have religious or personal philosophical beliefs against vaccines. Delegate (Putnum County) penned two articles that were published earlier this year in the Moorefield Examiner advocating for “religious freedom” to be vaccine free.
The state legislature debated bills that would have codified Governor Morrisey’s executive order, but failed to pass these bills. The current law states that children must be vaccinated to participate in educational or after school sports and clubs. Governor Morrisey has continued to promote his (or his backers’) agenda and has the court supporting him, in defiance of the legislature’s decision.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, RFK, Jr, has been crusading for years against vaccines. He has now withdrawn $500,000 in funding for vaccine development from federal funds.
All the while, these same politicians are mouthing, “Vaccines are good. We don’t want to take away anyone’s freedom to have vaccines.” etc. I have been puzzling over the claims and inconsistencies over the course of the year. Their rhetoric just seemed to be not talking about the proverbial “bear in the back hollow”.
There are lots of back roads that drive around the topic: how vaccines are tested (the above politicians mostly appeared concerned with the latest development of mRNA vaccines); claims about inefficiency or possibly conspiracies to hide adverse affects of vaccines; expressed interest in “better” vaccines for universal coverage of a pathogen, usually based on 1950’s and 1960’s processes; anger over government over-reach by “mandates” for certain vaccines, for children and during the worst part of the Covid-19 pandemic; and religious freedom.
Driving around these backroads, I was not convinced that any of the arguments were the root problem.
Specifically on the religious freedom position, I found no one who could point out any specific theological reasons to not use a vaccine. Jewish faith prohibits giving vaccines on the Sabbath, but the rest of the week is okay. Muslim faith prohibits vaccines during Ramadan, but the rest of the year is okay. Some Christian denominations advocate faith over modern medicine by their interpretation of various scriptures, but this fits into a broader set of health care practices such as not getting blood transfusions nor requesting certain medical procedures. These generally fit under the idea that “if God want’s me to be ill or die that is his will”. Otherwise, most Catholic and Protestant denominations with governing bodies advocated for children and older adults to get the standard vaccinations. Some specific pastors do not advocate vaccinations, but that is a congregation by congregation issue, not an accepted theological directive based on scripture or church doctrine.
So, I turned onto another back road, investigating the process of developing mRNA vaccines. I think that I found what is hiding in the back hollow: abortions.
In the early stages of testing a new mRNA vaccine, a line of cells derived from a legal abortion (by laws of the time) over 50 years old, is used to check out the response of human cells to the vaccine. Then animal and human subjects are used. However, for some, especially of certain religious beliefs, any scientific experiment that connects to abortions is wrong. It does not mater whether those cells came from an aborted fetus yesterday, or decades ago. The process was wrong and can never be made right.
If I am on the right road, let’s talk about fetal tissue use in science, not vaccines.
I am not a vaccine researcher, but given the many ways of getting cell tissues (e.g. voluntary donations from willing participants to give blood samples, etc) these days, could we not develop a cell line for mRNA testing that does not involve an abortion? Maybe we should be pushing funding this way rather than throwing the vaccine out with the baby’s bath water.
Oscar Larson
Baker, WV
