‘A hill worth dying on’: Expert explains how aborted baby cells taint COVID vaccines
January 21, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Editor’s note: The following is a rough transcript of LifeSite co-founder John-Henry Westen’s explosive interview with Pamela Acker, a vaccine researcher and expert.
John-Henry Westen: Welcome to this episode of the John-Henry Westen Show, where I am very pleased to bring you Pamela Acker, who is a researcher into vaccines, in fact she's published a new book called Vaccines: A Catholic Perspective. And we are going to get into the most controversial topic going on today, we're going to be talking about what Bishop Athanasius Schneider said, what the actual case is about abortion tainted vaccine, including the COVID vaccines, you're going to want to stay tuned.
Let's begin as we always do at the sign of the cross. In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Pamela Acker, welcome to the program.
Pamela Acker: Thank you very much, it's my pleasure to be here.
Watch the full interview that was banned from YouTube:
JHW: If you can start, just tell us a little bit about yourself, about your background in this area of vaccinations.
PA: I've never liked to be on the cutting edge of anything, so I was excited about vaccines about 20 years ago, before it became a hot COVID topic. But, when I was in high school I was interested in studying biology, and I was particularly interested in studying it because at the time there was some thought that plants could be genetically engineered to deliver vaccines. And there was two things about that that I found very exciting, one was that you could eat something instead of get stuck by something, because nobody likes hypodermic needles. And the other was that this might make it easier to distribute vaccines in third-world countries, because you wouldn't have to worry about special refrigeration or perishable components, you could just grow them on site.
So, I was very excited about that at the time, and I also was interested in the work of Children of God for Life, because that brought to light the issue I think we're going to be talking mostly about today, which is that of the aborted fetal cells that are used in vaccine production. So, I thought that'd be a great ethical alternative if vaccines could be edible. It turns out they can't, the science behind that didn't really work. And, I'm going to refer back to that a little bit today when we talk later about the COVID vaccines, because of their nucleic acid nature, so we've got the mRNA vaccines and the DNA vaccines. And those involve some novel technologies, but there's some parallels that can be drawn to what was trying to be done in the late 90s and early 1000s.
And then, I pursued a master’s degree at Catholic University of America in 2010, 2012, I actually was there for my PhD, but left with a master's because the lab that I got into, which was also involved in vaccine development, was working on a project for HIV vaccines. And the grant funding was under the The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, we had gotten the first stage of our grant, we were ready to apply for the second stage and trying to produce enough results to show that our plan was tenable there.
There was a lab meeting that we were all sitting around at, and my primary investigator said, "Look, everybody's got to get onboard with this particular aspect of the project." Which belonged to a colleague of mine. And so, I turned to her and I said, "What are you doing this part of the project in?" And she said, "HEK-293 cells." And this point most people have heard of these because they are connected with the COVID vaccines, but at that time I hadn't. So, I asked her what HEK stands for, and she told me, "Human Embryonic Kidney."
And then I spent a couple of weeks researching what that meant and what that entailed, and I came across the work of Alvin Wong from The National Catholic Bioethics Center, who wrote an article in... I believe it was 2005 or 2006, called The Ethics of HEK-293. And his work helps me a lot to discern whether I could actually be involved in this project or not. And when I expressed my concerns to my primary investigator, it ended up being the end of my career in his lab.
So, I did not get my PhD, I left with my master's. But, the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines is definitely an issue that's near and dear to my heart, and it's influenced a lot about my life up to this point. But, I also was able to be in the lab for about nine months before that ethical issue was raised, so I have some direct research experience on vaccine development that comes into play. And it has enabled me, I think, to have a unique voice in this argument right now.
JHW: Absolutely. So, eminently qualified to discuss this topic more than most, having worked inside a lab as well on vaccines. Also, someone who has now written a book on this. We're very early into the COVID thing to have already written a book on this, that was quite something, how'd you manage that so quickly?
PA: Again, I don't like to be on the cutting edge of anything, so I started that book two years ago, almost. It was taking the trash out one fateful winter night, and fell and sprained my ankle, and unlike a normal person, I never got better. So, I was laid up on the couch for a very long time, and [inaudible 00:05:25] Kolbe Center had been after me to look into the issue of vaccines for a while. And, when I was on the couch with nothing better to do then read all the things that nobody has time to read, was when I actually started the research for this book.
So, I actually started around April of 2019, so before COVID was ever an issue, hence the reason that the book was so well timed.
JHW: Well, that's really providential. So, we are in an absolutely crazy time because the issue of vaccines, which has been around for many decades now, has taken on an absolutely new urgency with what seems basically like it's going to be forced on everyone. Even though almost everyone's saying, "No, no, we'd never force it." In reality, they're already talking about, "You need to be vaccinated to take a flight, you need to be vaccinated to go into a store." We're already seeing with the mask mandates and the social distancing mandates, the lock downs and everything else, that they are really willing to take draconian measures. So, while you might not be forcibly held down and vaccinated, you're life will become unmanageable if you don't take it.
So, this is our situation. Now, when we're looking at taking vaccines, as a parent we've assessed things like, "Is it necessary? Is it safe? Is it effective?" But also one of the questions is, "Is it moral?" And so, I'd love to address all of those points with you, with regard to the COVID vaccines that are now approved, and what does it mean that they're abortion tainted? So, if we could start right in with the abortion tainted, because I think for most people, one of the qualifying factors to take a vaccine in the first place will be its moral nature. "Is it moral to take this? What are they?" So, why don't we start with the two currently approved vaccines for Coronavirus, for COVID. What are they? And how do they differ?
PA: The two vaccines that are currently approved are the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer vaccine, and they're both mRNA vaccines, and so at a molecular level they're very similar. Both of the vaccines were made using a biotechnology technique that can synthesize nucleic acids in the laboratory. So, a lot of people are trying to argue that they're moral because the mRNA that's made never touches fetal cells. But that's not the whole of the story when you look at the way that these vaccines were developed.
And so, the original research papers document the use of HEK-293 cells in producing these vaccines. And so, they were used in two different ways. One is that the spike protein that the mRNA codes for... can just do a three minute crash biology course. mRNA is messenger RNA, it's the nucleic acid that's a copy that's made of you DNA, and then it's sent out to the ribosomes in the cells and protein is produced using that messenger copy. So, what the vaccine reports to do is to take messenger RNA that codes for the spike protein of Coronavirus and insert that into your cells so that your human cells will then make the spike protein from the Coronavirus.
And the thought is that this is going to be a very effective way to vaccinate you because we found that if you just take the spike protein and inject it into people, it tends to degrade too rapidly for a good immune response. You tend to have some other complications which I'll touch on a little bit later in the interview. But, the thought is that if your body's making it itself, then you can get a prolonged enough exposure to the spike protein that you'll be able to mount an immune response to it. So, that's the basic way that it's supposed to work.
So, the spike protein by itself is, in the words of one researcher, kind of floppy, it doesn't tend to keep its shape very well. And so, scientists genetically engineered a spike protein that will keep its shape, it's got some mutations that cause it to be stabilized. And so, this original design of this protein... so, when they originally mutated it... they needed to see if it would actually keep its shape correctly, if that would correct the floppiness problem. So, they took that genetic information, and they transformed cells to produce the spike protein so that they could purify it and take a look at it using techniques for visualizing the 3D structure of proteins. And that original experiment was done in HEK-293 cells. So, the spike protein that the vaccines code for, was originally developed, effectively, in aborted fetal cells.
And an additional way that aborted fetal cells were used in the project is, before they were going to inject this mRNA into a human being to see if you could get human cells to make Coronavirus spike protein, you would want to test that in cell culture, you would want to test that in a laboratory. Because, it's a lot less expensive and dangerous than testing it in a human being. And so, if you can't even get the cells in a laboratory to make it then you probably can't get a human body to make it. So, the cells that then this was tested in were also HEK-293 cells. And this has all been published in the literature, and I've read a couple of the papers documenting that both of these vaccines used HEK-293 in their testing.
And, a lot of people want to say, "Well, that was just done to develop the vaccine in the very beginning, so the research part... so, it was a one and done kind of thing, it's no big deal." But just recently, Stacy Trasancos posted an article, which is available on Children of God for Life website, and she pointed out... and as a researcher I can confirm she's absolutely right, that these things also have to go through quality control testing. So, every time I make another batch of the mRNA, which is synthesized using a laboratory technique, then I need to test and make sure it's still viable, that's a fairly common thing, to have quality control like that in the laboratory.
So, the testing with these aborted fetal cells may actually be ongoing in the production of these vaccines. Because generally, when you scale up production of vaccine beyond your research and development, you're going to use the same testing procedures to test the scale up that you use to test your smaller batch, unless it's for some reason not feasible. But, this is a very feasible way to test this for these researchers. It's not a moral way, but it's very feasible because these cells have been optimized for use in a laboratory. And they're almost ubiquitous in tissue culture research, unfortunately there's a lot of laboratories around the world that use these HEK-293 cells. And there's specific products that are basically optimized for them to have ideal growth conditions. So, there's a whole industry based on these aborted fetal cells in basic science research that I think people aren't super familiar with.
JHW: So, just to be clear, both the COVID-19 vaccines, both the Pfizer and the Moderna we both, not only developed in its spike protein with HEK-293, the aborted fetal cell line, but also in their initial testing. And now you're telling us, at least from this article from Stacy Trasancos, in ongoing testing currently for new batches.
PA: Yes. As far as I know there is ongoing testing currently for batches. That is not published in the literature per se, because non of the data post the initial clinical trials has been published, but there's substantial reason to think that this is going on.
JHW: Let's stop there for a second and just do a bit of a rewind for people, because I think people have to understand something about HEK-293 and PER.C6 and a bunch of the other aborted fetal cell lines that are at work here. And that has to do with their initial development anyway, because I think a lot of people are under the impression that... not anymore now, since you've already said what you've said with regard to the use of HEK-293. But, I think a lot of people are under the impression, "Well, that was one baby killed way back in the 1970s and it's so remote from that date right now, and that's an acceptable thing we just have to live with because it's saving so many lives." If you can unpack for us, what is HEK-293 exactly? And was it just one baby that accounts for it, and what about all the other fetal cell lines?
PA: There are a number of fetal cell lines in existence right now, and I'm just going to read off a few of them for you here from Children of God for Life. There's WI-38, MRC-5, HEK-293, PER.C6, there's another one that I'm forgetting the name of that was developed in 2015 that's not currently being used in any vaccines, but has a potential to be used in vaccines and is used in other therapeutic treatments. So, there's a number of these cell lines that are currently being used to develop a variety of therapeutics, everything from vaccines to treatments for Cystic fibrosis.
Most people, as you say, hand wavingly dismiss it and say, "Oh well that was one baby that died, we can't go back and undo it, we might as well get something good out of it now." Which of course, violates the principle of the integral good, and the fact that you simply can't use the ends to justify the means. But I'm not a moral theologian, so I'll stick to the science.
For, HEK-293, that was... one of things that I've seen come up a couple of times in articles I've looked at about the ethical considerations that are involved, is that people say, "Well, there wasn't documentation that that was an elective abortion, so it could have been a spontaneous abortion." And this is a bit disingenuous or ignorant on the part of these authors, because in order to produce a viable cell line, there's a number of things that go into that, and it's a very difficult thing to do.
And so, I was doing some research specifically on HEK-293 to prepare for this interview, and the number system that's involved there... the HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney, but 293 stands for this is the 293rd experiment that this particular researcher did to develop a cell lines. And that doesn't mean that there were 293 abortions, but for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion. And we're talking probably 100s of abortions. And, this was done with the collaboration of some hospitals. And there was a group in Sweden that was involved in developing the WI-38 cell line, so a different cell line, but they routinely were aborting babies for the use in trying to develop fetal cell lines.
So, people at this point usually have the question of, "But why? Why a fetal cell line?" And, when you try to grow cells in culture in the laboratory, they go through a process called immortalization, to develop a cell line. And people kind of confuse that, because it sounds like they live forever, with thinking that you can make these cells live forever in a laboratory. You can't. You can make them live a lot longer than primary cell culture, if you were to just take something out of my arm and put it to grow in a Petri dish, it would survive for a few sub divisions, but not very many. But, if you introduce some mutations into it, it can survive for a lot longer. And so that's what you have when you have an immortalized cell line, you have something that's been mutated usually with viral oncogenes. And these are genes that promote cancer actually, and so put a bookmark there too because this is important to something that hopefully we'll discuss a little later in the interview, about some of the dangers of using... just the biological dangers, let alone moral dangers of using the aborted fetal cell vaccines.
The immortalized cell lines are often given cancer promoting genes that disrupt the function of cancer suppressor genes, or tumor suppressor genes. And so, they can grow, not completely indefinitely, but for a lot more generations in a laboratory. If you start with adult cells, you have basically a shorter shelf life, because adult cells have already undergone a certain number of cell divisions, and so that kind of counts towards the total number that they could actually undergo. And so, if you use adult cells in a laboratory, you will have a shorter lifespan for your cell line, you'll have to develop a new cell line sooner, and it's not as commercially viable. If you start with embryonic or fetal cells, you have the maximum lifespan available for your cell line, and so that I think was probably one of the things that was used to justify the use of these aborted fetal cells to begin with.
And then, another question people have is, "Well, why couldn't HEK-293 have been just a spontaneous abortion? Why couldn't it just been a miscarriage? Because, the hospital lost the documentation about this particular baby that was used to develop the cell line, and so we don't really know whether it was an elective abortion or a spontaneous abortion." Well, we have all the reason in the world to think it was actually an elective abortion that was done on purpose, because the researchers who have been involved in this sort of thing have gone on record saying basically that, "You need to get that tissue within about five minutes of the abortion in order for it to be optimally viable, and if you wait an hour, it's useless."
So, if we're talking about a spontaneous miscarriage, this baby dies long before the fetal tissue is removed from the body of the mother. That spontaneous abortion or that miscarriage would not be viable to start a cell line at all, there'd be no way that you could get a living cell line out of dead tissue. So, this had to have been a baby that was aborted and they knew that that tissue was going to be used for research so they could get there within that five minutes to an hour window, preferably within the first five minutes, in order to get that tissue preserved.
JHW: Wow, so that goes right into the baby part scandal that we're dealing with now, where university researchers ask the mother first, "We're looking for a kidney or an arm or whatever to experiment with, so when you're going to have your abortion anyway, can you do this?" And sometimes ask them to wait longer so it's further developed, so that they'll have a better specimen. Absolutely sickening. So, this went on even with the vaccines, that this was not only a planned abortion, this was a planned abortion and extraction of fetal tissue [inaudible 00:20:31] used within five minutes of the abortion. So, the nonsense about it being a miscarriage is totally shown.
PA: I was going to say it's even worse than that because... and this is where I always issue a warning, if there are any little ears listening to me talk on a recording, because it's a lot more graphic even than what I've just described. Because, in a lot of cases, the babies... because it is done on purpose for research purposes, so they will actually deliver these babies via cesarean section, the babies are in some cases still alive when the researchers start extracting the tissue. To the point where their heart is still beating, and they're generally not given any anesthetic because that would disrupt the cells that the researchers are trying to extract. So, they're removing this tissue while the baby's alive, and in extreme amounts of pain, and so this makes it even more sadistic.
And my Pastor just recently gave a sermon likening this to what the Aztecs used to do, when they would consecrate their temples, they would literally rip out the beating hearts of the victims that they were slaying on top of the temples, and then cast their bodies down the side. This is pretty much exactly the same thing that these researchers are doing.
JHW: Yeah. And you had mentioned, we're getting out the Human Embryonic Kidney, HEK, so it's the kidney that they have to access. So, they're cutting open these live babies, just delivered by cesarean section... yes, and they're too young perhaps to live outside the womb by themselves right away, but they're still alive enough, and we already know that they're feeling pain. And then, they open them up to take... that has to be known. Because, I think a lot of the determination of the morality of these things, even morality as separated by years and so it's remote connections, as they call it, I don't think that they took into consideration what this actually is. That's why the science that you're presenting here is so incredibly important, because the people who made those determinations... and we all know...
And let me just explain, that in 2005, the Vatican first, through the Pontifical Academy for Life, came out with a document saying that, the use of such vaccines, if there is no others available, and if your objection to the procedure of how it was developed is known, and if it's needed, is morally acceptable somehow. But, even at that time... this was 2005 and then it was rubber stamped, I guess, in 2008 with the CDF. However, I don't know that these facts were known at that time. And if they were, it's absolutely unbelievable. So please, continue.
PA: Sure. So, since you referenced the document by the Pontifical Academy for Life, I do address that in the book that I wrote on vaccination, and there's some real problems with the science that was presented to the people who were making those decisions. Because, one of the strongest points that they used to justify the position that they take, in terms of, "These vaccines can be permissible if the situation is sufficiently grave," is the incidents of congenital rubella syndrome.
Now, congenital rubella syndrome is no laughing matter, this is when a baby contracts rubella from its mother in utero in the first trimester, and it can result in blindness, deafness, mental slowness, and even stillbirth in the infants, so it is a serious disease. Now, rubella itself is not a particularly serious disease, particularly if contracted in childhood, most people won't even have symptoms. And I think over half of the cases, nobody even makes a trip to the doctor because there's nothing noticeable or going on. And so, this is a very mild disease in children, and it's really only a problem in pregnant women who contract it during their first trimester.
And, the thought was that, "Well, vaccinating for rubella is going to protect these pregnant women, and so therefore it's morally justifiable." But, in a situation... probably pretty analogous to the situation with COVID, when you look at the actual numbers that's not the case. Because, prior to introducing the rubella vaccine, there was approximately 80% herd immunity in the population for rubella. And 80% herd immunity is the threshold at which the disease doesn't circulate particularly well. Obviously it still circulates, people will still contract rubella, but it doesn't spread through the population like wildfire and put lots of people at risk.
So, after using the rubella vaccine, what we now have is roughly 80 to 85% herd immunity. And so, you might say, "Well that's a little better, so maybe it was worth it." But for the first 10 years after this vaccine was introduced, there wasn't a decrease in the cases of congenital rubella syndrome. And in fact, in the first few years after it was introduced, there was a spike in the cases of congenital rubella syndrome, they went up. And they didn't start dropping until abortion became legal. And, there's a pretty good case to be made that the drop in congenital rubella syndrome babies was due to their mothers being informed, "You have rubella, your child is likely to develop congenital rubella syndrome, why don't you just abort it and try again." The drop that we saw in that disease is probably a lot more due to elective abortions than it is to the introduction of the vaccine.
So, now we've got this vaccine that we have, I believe, worldwide. There's 70% uptake of the MMR vaccine, which is the only way you can get vaccinated for rubella. You used to be able to get the vaccine separately, but Merck lumped them all together in the 1990s after the Wakefield scare, that potentially implied that the MMR was connected with the development of autism. And so, Merck just stopped producing the separate vaccines, you can only get it now as the trivalent vaccine with measles, mumps and rubella. Which means that you can't ethically be vaccinated for any of those things because the vaccine is produced in aborted fetal cells. It's produced in the WI-38 cell line, and that cell line took, I believe it was 32 abortions before they got to that cell line. The number 38, again, is the number of experiments that were actually performed, I believe it was 32 individual babies.
And then the virus that's used in the measles vaccine, the attenuated measles virus, instead of just swabbing the throat of a sick child like they did in Japan, US researchers encouraged women who had been exposed to rubella in their first trimester to electively abort their children. They dissected 27 fetuses before they had the virus that is currently in use in the rubella vaccine, and they continued with 40 more elective abortions, isolating a number of different viral strains that didn't ultimately get used in the vaccine. But, if you put all that together, you end up with approximately 99 abortions just for the rubella vaccine.
And keeping in mind that all of them are probably done under the same horrific conditions that we've just described, and in some cases where babies were delivered... the entire amniotic sac was removed from the mother and these babies were either dissected right then and there. And some cases they were stuck in the refrigerator to preserve them slightly so that they could be dissected in a little bit later, the brutality of that and the horror of that is not something that we should gloss over. Yet, your average Catholic parent who goes into the doctors office and is asked, "Do you want the MMR?" Doesn't even know that this is how this was developed.
And so, when Bishop Schneider was talking in the interview he did with you about the moral complicit-ness that's being asked on this grand scale of people to just accept this... this isn't something that's brand new with the advent of COVID, there's already been significant inroads, I think, made in terms of getting people to appropriate evil to use something that has a truly evil origin for their benefit, even though they're not really cooperating in bringing the evil about per se. And that doesn't even get into the fact that continuing to do this then fuels the market for additional cell lines and additional aborted fetal products, and additional vaccines that are made in aborted fetal cells. Because, if we had been refusing the MMR vaccine, we wouldn't have COVID vaccines that are made with aborted fetal cells. That would not have happened.
JHW: I have so many more questions for you I don't know where to start. Let me go, first of all, to get to what you already said. What specifically did the PAV have wrong when they looked at the science, and what were they lacking?
PA: So, they were lacking an understanding of whether the vaccine was even protective or not. So, vaccines in general do have a modest protective effect against the disease that they're trying to prevent, but implementing a vaccine doesn't necessarily just tremendously impact herd immunity that might already exist in a population. And in fact, the chicken pox example is a great example of how disastrous the introduction of a vaccine can actually be to herd immunity. Because, what we've done by vaccinating everybody for chicken pox now is effectively eliminate the natural boosting cycle.
So, my parents got exposed to chicken pox again when I was a child and I got infected with the virus, and so their immune system was given a natural booster to say, "Hey, remember me? I'm the chicken pox virus. Why don't you beef up your immune response a little bit so that you don't develop shingles in a few years?" Because it's caused by the same virus, and once you have the virus it does hang out in your nerve cells, and so if you've had chicken pox you can develop shingles. But, you don't tend to develop it until a lot later in life because of this natural boosting process. Well, we've eliminated this in the population now, so we've basically pushed the average age of shingles lower, so we're seeing more incidents of shingles, we're seeing it in younger people. And we're even seeing it in very young people who've been vaccinated for chicken pox. Because, the live attenuated virus that's used in the vaccine also hangs out in your nerve cells and it can come back later as shingles itself.
So, one of the things that was missing from the Pontifical Academy of Life, in their determination here, is that you can't just say, "Vaccines save lives, therefore this vaccine is a great idea." You have to look at vaccines on a case-by-case basis and see if they're justifiable. And the ones that are using aborted fetal cells, generally speaking, are not, they're not really life saving vaccines, and so, you don't really have a grave matter. Because, in order to participate in remote evil licitly... and as Bishop Schneider made a great case for, we're sort of muddying the waters by even saying that we're remotely participating in evil because the evil of abortion is so intense. But even if it were, the origin is extremely grave, you have to have extremely grave cause in order to actually make it licit. And so, they did not look at the science enough to see that the cause was just not proportionate.
And I think the same thing is true with the COVID vaccines, the cause is simply not proportionate. We're looking at a death rate from Coronavirus, I think it's .2% and the average age of death of a patient who is coded as having died from COVID... because there's some question about whether patients who have comorbidities should even be counted as COVID deaths. The average age of these patients who are being said to die from COVID is around 79 to 83 years old, and the average life expectancy in the US is around 78.7 years. So technically, the average age of a COVID death is higher than the life expectancy in the US.
So, this disease isn't really killing people right and left that weren't probably going to die within [inaudible 00:33:15] anyway. It's remarkable to me that anybody could consider this grave cause.
JHW: Many people think that when they're taking a vaccine, "There's nothing really of aborted babies in them, nothing really... it was tested on it, and it's so remote, there's really nothing there. If there is something even so remotely connected it's like one billionth of a particle in the whole vaccination shot you get." Speak to that for a second, if you would.
PA: With the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines there isn't any aborted fetal material remaining in the vaccines because they're not actually cultured or produced directly in the aborted fetal cells. But with the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for COVID, as well as the rubella vaccine and the chicken pox vaccine, there are remainders of these aborted fetal cells that end up in the vaccines themselves. So, when you get this vaccine, you are actually injecting pieces of this individual who was murdered into your body. And those pieces tend to be remnants of DNA and some protein debris.
But the DNA is particularly of concern, because Dr. Theresa Deisher of Sound Choice Pharmaceuticals, which I think came into existence in the early 2000s. They were also working on solving this problem with ethical vaccines and the availability of ethical vaccines. she has some tremendous work, a lot of it she's summarized in talk on YouTube, where she has looked at the relationship between the increase in use of aborted fetal cell derived vaccines, that corresponds to an increase in autism rates in the countries that she's looked at. And, this has been in some countries in Europe as well as the United States. And she's seen that there's a dose dependent response, so the more aborted fetal cell vaccines that we use, the increase there is in incidents of autism.
So, she said, "Let's take a look at that, let's see if there's any biologically plausible mechanism for that." And so she made the connection that when you put these aborted fetal DNA contaminants into a living human being, something can occur... and this does occur in vitro, in cell culture in the laboratory, called homologous recombination, where the DNA that's being injected into the individual can kind of line up with the DNA that it corresponds to in those individual cells, and then there's some enzymes that can come along and they can swap those two pieces out. So, you end up losing your actual DNA and having the DNA from the aborted fetal cells incorporated into your cells.
And she was saying how this could potentially explain why in some individuals with autism... although not all because autism is a very multifaceted problem and there's no one strict straight answer for why it develops in some individuals and not in others. But, in some individuals you see hundreds of what are called De Novo Mutations, so these are mutations that came out of nowhere, their parents didn't have them, and you shouldn't see hundreds of mutations in a child just from one generation. This child is very young probably still as well, they can't possibly have accumulated all these mutations. Well they can, if this mutated DNA... because if you recall from back at the beginning of the talk, we talked about how in order for cell lines to be immortalized, we're sticking viral oncogenes in them, these cancer promoting genes, these mutations into them in order to keep them growing in cell culture, somewhat indefinitely. The DNA in these cells has definitely mutated, so this could be the source of the mutations that we're seeing in some of these kids that are developing autism.
So, this is one possible mechanism for why we're seeing that. And it's not outside the realm of possibility biologically, but also it makes sense if you think about it, just from natural law. If you're going to do something as heinous as inject into yourself the remains of somebody who was murdered, there's going to be a natural consequence to that. You can't just do that and not have any negative effects, if that makes sense.
JHW: Well, we're definitely into the safety portion of the discussion. And I'd really like to go right into that, especially with regard to what we're seeing right now from some of the people who have already taken the COVID vaccines, either strain of them. We've seen a nurse come out with saying that one side of her face... she was experiencing Bell's palsy, she seems to be paralyzed in one side of her face. We had one nurse take it early on and pass out. We had another doctor take it and apparently die. Could those be related to the vaccine? And what are some of the other safety concerns with the COVID vaccines, the ones that are approved and the ones that are awaiting approval now?
One of the main safety concerns with any of the COVID vaccines that are in development, is that most of them are what is called Nextgen technologies. These are things that have not been done in vaccines in the past, so we really don't know how the mRNA vaccines, we don't know what kind of longterm health effects they're going to have. We don't really know what effects they're going to have in the body even short term. Because, one of the concerns that I have just from thinking about genetically engineering vaccines, way back in the late 90s when they were trying to have these fruits produce vaccine antigens and produce them in appropriate doses. When you would genetically transfect a plant and try to get it to produce, say smallpox antigens, they had a huge problem standardizing the dosage, and this is why the technology eventually got scrapped. Because, they simply couldn't say that, "If you ate one banana then you'd get this much smallpox antigen." Because all the bananas were different. And, bananas are maybe a bad example because bananas are polyploid and so there's some other genetic problems going on there. But none of the plants that they tested were able to be standardized in terms of dosage.
So, when you insert foreign genetic material... and this is just true with the laboratory too. But when you insert foreign genetic material into a living organism, you can't really control exactly how much protein that organism is going to produce based on how much DNA that you give it. And you can sort of guesstimate a range, but when you're dealing with something like the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein... and we know that one of the ways that the pathology and the people who do get really sick is mediated, is through this overactive immune response. You get the cytokine storm, you get everything so amped up that your immune system is actually what's killing your body. We're going to then take genetic information, stick it into your body, not know how much protein you're actually going to produce that causes this overactive immune response, and just say, "Oh yeah, you'll be fine, don't even bother to call me if you have some soreness in your arm."
To me that's mind boggling, because I don't think they have any idea how wildly different peoples responses to this genetic information might be, and thus how wildly different their responses to the vaccine might be. And so, in addition to this general concern, there's also the AstraZeneca and the Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vector vaccines. So, the idea is that we're taking an attenuated virus that normally infects humans, which is adenovirus, and packaging some genetic information in there. And so, that virus vector is going to take that DNA from the Coronavirus to your cells and then put the DNA into your cells. And then at that point, you have even more possible complications because now not only are you sticking genetic information from Coronavirus into your body, but you also have the problem of... with adenovirus' there's... and I don't remember the technical name for it, but there's basically a mechanism whereby adenovirus' can recombine in your body.
So, if you happen to be infected with an adenovirus, which may not even be symptomatic, because some of these viruses are very benign and they don't really cause a whole lot of problems. But some of them are worse and they can cause common cold type symptoms, they can also cause digestive distress, things like that. But, say you're infected with one of these adenoviruses, you get stuck with an adenovirus vaccine, and those two viruses, the vaccine virus and the wild-type virus, they actually recombine in your body and they make something different that we have no idea what it's going to do, or how it's going to react, or how it's going to infect you.
And you can actually end up creating super viruses. And this is one of the reasons that when Coronavirus vaccines were originally being developed, back when SARS was a thing in 2003, 2004, they looked at doing live attenuated viruses. But then they said, "No, we can't do that because you could have this live attenuated vaccine virus recombine with a naturally occurring Coronavirus." Because there're about four that normally infect human beings and cause common cold type symptoms, that's not counting the SARS virus and the MERS virus, and the current SARS-2 virus. But, these four common ones could recombine with an attenuated live vaccine virus, and that could create something that we wouldn't have any idea of how infective or how pathogenic it was. So, this is a concern I think too with the adenovirus factors that hasn't been addressed properly in the public eye.
And then, one of the other things that I found interesting, I was looking at another video that was promoting these next generation technologies and how exciting they were, "Everybody calm down, we've been working on these for decades now, and they're not just out of the box brand new, somebody just thought of this." And as a researcher, hearing that, "We've been working on these for decades." Doesn't mean they're safe, it means we haven't had success in decades on this stuff. That's the actual real message that's being spun in a positive way, it's like, "Oh, we have experience with this in a laboratory." We have experience with it not working, is what we have.
JHW: So, one of the things that happens is, I think most people know but maybe you can address this very quickly, is that the companies that have produced these are indemnified against being sued. So in other words, if someone gets something from the vaccine, it's the tax payer that's going to deal with it, not the company. Yet the company is going to get profits from their making of it anyway, and got profits from their development of it because they were asked to do it under Warp Speed and with millions and billions of dollars. So, there's that, and that fact that... well, maybe address that first. And then I have another question for you in a minute.
PA: So, that's actually... minus the Warp Speed pre-funding, that's actually the situation for all vaccines that are developed in the US. All vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against liability for their products, and it's the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the VICP, that will deal with any claims of vaccine injury. And, I did talk about this a little bit in my book as well. And just crunching some numbers based on the actual number of adverse reports that are actually submitted to VAERS, which is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, based on the fact that that is probably much, much lower than what actually occurs. Because most people don't, A, don't think to file something, B, don't file something because they know that it's impossible to have it temporarily connected, or C in some cases, have know idea that there is a connection to the vaccine.
Because a lot of the adverse events that I talk about in the book is being very commonly or possible associated with vaccines, are very difficult to pin down in terms of their actual chronology, their development, their onset. Because a lot of them are allergic or autoimmune responses because you're inciting your immune response in a very bizarre way actually. When you vaccinate yourself you're not exposing yourself to the pathogen through the normal route, you're going through your muscles instead of through your mouth. You're in some cases giving yourself three, or four, or five or ten diseases at the same time. You would never as a child have measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chicken pox, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis all at the same time, but you might get all those vaccines at one doctors visit.
So, there's a lot of problems in terms of determining just how many adverse events there are associated with vaccines in general. But the vaccine manufacturers are not liable, and I think there's going to be... there's been some sort of special protections extended specifically for the COVID vaccines. Because, if you do obviously rush something to production, I think there is some sort of liability that you might still have, even as a vaccine manufacturer in general. But because this is now an emergency situation where you've been licensed to go ahead and do that, and cut your testing down to... I learned today that Moderna, they solicited adverse reactions for seven days. And I also learned today, that because it's not considered ethical to not give somebody a Coronavirus vaccine if we have a 'working' Coronavirus vaccine, Pfizer is already vaccinating their placebo group with actual active vaccine.
So, we're not going to have anymore data about longterm effects from these vaccines, because we're not going to have anymore placebo group, because they're going to go ahead and get the vaccine. Which, is mind blowing to me as a researcher and it's just... how do you commit that level of... it's scientific fraud, really truly, to just say, "We're just eliminating our control group. We're just completely taking them out of existence, so now we have no way to say how safe this vaccine is in longterm studies."
JHW: One of the other things I meant to ask you, which follows right on what you just said, that is, the connection from when you take the vaccine to when you experience the effects isn't immediate. It's not like what we saw with the [inaudible 00:48:15]... what are we talking here? Is it a day, or two day? Or what is it?
PA: Well, it depends on the kind of reaction that you see. If you have anaphylaxis, which is a reaction that occurs with some vaccines, that's the allergic response where your airways start to closeup and you're in danger of dying from a severe allergic reaction. That happens, supposedly, approximately one in a million doses of your average vaccine. It happens 22 times more frequently than that with the COVID vaccines, so it's one in 45,000 I think. Which is again, not a terribly, terribly high rate, but it's 22 times more than your average, normally developed vaccine. And that should be frightening, because if people are experiencing anaphylaxis, which is the most severe possible reaction you could experience from a vaccine, 22 times more than they're experiencing it from your average vaccine, what's that say about other adverse side effects?
And so, you mentioned Bell's palsy as one of the adverse side effects. We're seeing Bell's palsy, with both the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccine, they saw that more frequently in the vaccinated population than in the un-vaccinated population. Of course everybody wants to downplay it and say, "Most cases of Bell's palsy resolve within six months." But not all do. And the loss of facial muscle control isn't always Bell's palsy, it can also be symptomatic of other more problematic neurological disorders. Like Guillain-Barre syndrome, which everybody is quick to say, "We haven't seen any cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome." Well, how long have you tested for adverse reactions, 28 days? I don't know if you're going to see Guillain-Barre syndrome in 28 days, that's one that takes longer to develop. So, autoimmune conditions, as a general rule, take longer to develop.
And there's some evidence that type-1 diabetes is a possible side effect of vaccination. That can take a year to fully develop, once your body starts attacking your pancreatic cells. [inaudible 00:50:14] can take a really long time to develop. Fibromyalgia can take a really long time to develop.
But then other things, the most common severe adverse reactions, at least for the Moderna, seven and a 7.5 or 8% of people experience fatigue that's severe enough to keep them from going about their average everyday activities. And I think about 6% experience headaches that are that severe. And there were a couple of other things that people were experiencing [inaudible 00:50:44] that would happen within a day or two, or even immediately of the vaccine. So, just depends on the adverse reaction.
The stuff that I'm most worried about is that chronic, longterm downstream stuff. And I have a vested interest in this because my family has very interesting case history of all kinds of autoimmune problems, from my grandmothers generation on down to my sisters children. And, whether these are all associated with vaccines or not, I can't say, and I certainly don't think my grandmothers generation was probably the case because they weren't receiving very many doses back then. But I do know, that if vaccines can trigger autoimmune pathology, and I clearly have the genetics for autoimmune problems, I'm not taking an unnecessary vaccine, that's just not intelligent. But that's the part that concerns me the most, because those things aren't going to show up until we've already vaccinated who knows how many people. If it's going to take six months to a year, to several years for this pathology to really develop, and then it's very hard to tie it back to the original vaccine in some cases.
JHW: The UK government has warned pregnant women not to take it. The FDA and other agencies have warned that those with allergic reactions to vaccine ingredients shouldn't take it. There was a warning that men might consider freezing their sperm before taking it because of some kind of fear of possible effect that way. What have you known of those possibilities and things like that? Is this a concern for fertility as well?
PA: I would love to be able to give you a definitive answer on that, and I can't. And part of the reason I can't is because there is a lot of conflicting information that's being circulated. And even with the expertise that I have, I haven't been able to make sufficient heads or tails of it to be able to say one way or the other. I will say that the British Government is issuing that warning in part, because there hasn't been any testing done in pregnant women. So, you don't give a vaccine to a susceptible group that there's no safety testing on, generally speaking, is the thought there. I don't think that's being done out of a motivation of they know something about fertility that they're not saying, they've come out and said, "There's been no testing done, so we shouldn't do this."
But there was some information that was circulated that was saying, "Don't get it if you're planning to be pregnant within the next couple of months." Which seemed very strange to me, because that's not something that's issued with your average vaccine. And if it does cause fertility issues, it certainly wouldn't be the first vaccine to cause fertility issues.
There's been a number of vaccines that the Word Health Organization has had in development that were on purpose supposed to cause infertility. They've been looking for a birth control vaccine since the 1970s. They have tested uninformed, non-consenting women in Kenya, and the Philippines and Mexico, and I believe a couple other third world countries. And I actually have spoken personally with a doctor in Kenya, who was one of the ones who identified that the tetanus vaccines that were being administered to Kenyan women, and we specifically being targeted to women of childbearing age, were laced with hCG. Which, if you inject that in conjunction with tetanus toxoid, you can render women infertile for an indefinite period of time. So, this is something that has been done in the past, covertly, and I think that's part of the reason why a lot of people are really concerned.
And then Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, is associated with a frightening drop in fertility. And there's a study done on women, I believe, aged 25 to 29 who had or had not received the vaccine, so this wasn't a trial that was done, it was just looking at data afterwards. And, women who had received all three doses of he HPV vaccine were one third as likely to have conceived and borne a child as women in the same age cohort, roughly adjusted for other medical issues that could possibly effect fertility. You had three times as much likelihood of being pregnant if you had never had the vaccine, versus if you'd had all three doses. This is alarming stuff, because you're not told this...
PA: ... when you go in and your doctor says, "Would you like your daughter to get Gardasil?" You're not told she might develop these horrible autoimmune diseases that have been associated with it, including chronic fatigue syndrome and a syndrome called PoTS. And I can never remember what PoTS stands for, but it's horrific to have it, I know some individuals who do and it's very limiting for them, it's a heart condition. And then, you're also not told, "And P.S. you might also never be able to conceive a child."
JHW: Let's touch a little bit more on whether this vaccine for COVID is necessary, and then after that I'll ask you to give some final thoughts.
PA: Did you have a specific question about that or just in general?
JHW: One of those considerations, when you look at vaccines, is about whether it's needed or not. We talked about the safety, we talked about the morality, we talked about the effectiveness, but is it actually needed? And that looks at what our current situation is with COVID right now.
PA: We talked a little bit about the death rate, the death rate is very, very low. The average age of death is higher than the average expected mortality in the US. We're not in a position where it seems necessary, and the safety concerns seem to even offset the benefits, in terms of I think you're more likely to have an adverse reaction to the vaccine then you are to catch COVID, let alone to die from COVID. But also, nobody has claimed... or they very cleverly just not mentioned it while trumpeting other areas of success, but nobody has claimed that [inaudible 00:56:41] of the vaccine will actually cause the virus to stop spreading. The only claims that have been made by both Pfizer and Moderna is that, "If you get the vaccine, you're less likely to get severe COVID symptoms than if you don't get the vaccine." And again, they're looking at a fraction of the cohort that they vaccinated.
So, Pfizer vaccinated 43,000 people and they looked at approximately 200 people who developed symptoms. And then Moderna, same thing, vaccinated 30,000 people, looked at approximetely 200 people who developed symptoms. And then they both made claims that their vaccines were 90 something percent effective, based on the fact that, "Well, the people who developed symptoms, 90% of people who developed the worse symptoms, were in the un-vaccinated cohort." They didn't test for whether these people were positive for SARS Coronavirus, they didn't look at any other symptoms, they didn't look at, "Longterm does this actually keep you from developing symptoms over a longer period of time?" And they looked over a period of just a couple of weeks, as we've said. They didn't test any of the things that they should have tested, in terms of determining whether this vaccine is actually protective or not.
So, we don't have any reason to believe that this vaccine would do anything to slow the spread of the virus. And very high profile people are saying, "Get the vaccine, get the vaccine, but keep wearing your mask because it's not actually going to effect transmission." Why then why am I getting the vaccine?
JHW: Exactly. And how dare you suggest that in order to travel, in order to make society come back to normal, need a vaccine, because then that makes no sense whatsoever.
PA: The only reason I would get the COVID vaccine is for my own benefit for that modest, protective effect against developing the worst possible symptoms. For me, I'm not in a high risk cohort, I don't have comorbidities, there's no reason for me to get that vaccine, it's not going to help my neighbor. It's not 'the right thing to do' or the moral thing to do, or a necessary thing to do for anybody other than myself. And, if it's not necessary for myself, then it's absolutely unnecessary for me to get this shot.
JHW: Pamela, just before I ask you for your final thoughts before we end off, I wanted to thank you on behalf of all of our LifeSite viewers. I know a lot of people have been asking questions, and I have got from you clearer answers than I've ever seen anywhere before, so thank you for that. Your book called Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, is available where?
PA: It's available on the Kolbe Center's website, so that's Kolbe like [inaudible 00:59:21], K-O-L-B-E, C-E-N-T-E-R dot org.
JHW: We'll be linking to it in my blog post and in the description of this video as well. But, give us if you would Pamela, your final reflections on this question.
PA: The short thing is don't get it, it's not good for your soul and it's not good for your body. And I think that we really need to, as Catholics, if we don't stand up now... we're losing the opportunities we're ever going to have to stand up and rectify this wrong that's been going on now for decades. And it's been going on for decades and we're going to be accountable for that. We lived in this time, we had an opportunity to stand up, we had an opportunity to do something, and if we don't, we are going to be held accountable for that at the end. You can't just sit on your hands and say, "Oh well, I'm not going to take it. Oh well, it's not that big a deal." This is a big deal, this is a hill worth dying on.
JHW: Amen. And you have very, very providentially been given to do this work, to start it before it was so evident that it was so extremely needed, and it comes out now as if planned. May God bless you for what you've done and the clarity that you've brought.
PA: Thank you very much.
JHW: And God bless all of you. We'll see you next time on the John-Henry Westen show.