By Dr. Brian Kopp
This article by progressive Patheos Legionaries of Christ priest blogger Fr. Matthew Schneider LC was deliberately intended to confuse or mock conservative/orthodox pro life individuals like Bishop Schneider, Fr. Ripperger and others who opposed Covid vaccines based on their development with or use of fetal stem cells in their testing.
The author simply searched an over the counter or prescription medication name plus “Hek 293” cells and if they came up positively associated in medical or scientific literature, he claimed they too were “ethically tainted” and all us pro lifers had to abandon the use of those drugs too, if we were going to oppose fetal stem cell tainted Covid vaccines on those grounds.
However, when he researched these medications, he failed to distinguish those that were tested on, developed with and/or manufactured with fetal cells before or during their initial introduction, from those that, for academic reasons, years later were tested on fetal stem cell lines.
For instance, he named multiple over the counter as well as prescription drugs that were developed well before 1960. But fetal stem cells were not initially isolated until 1963, and not actually utilized in drug testing and manufacture until years later. (Yes, I personally researched multiple drugs he listed as “examples” of ethically compromised modern medications, because I knew those drugs predated the fetal stem cell lines by which he claimed they were tainted.)
Just because some academic or researcher somewhere subsequently did tests on that drug utilizing fetal stem cells, it does not mean those drugs were ethically tainted in their origin or subsequent manufacture or testing.
Good decent pro life Catholics took his article at face value and 1) wrongly went on a crusade against all the drugs he named and 2) used his article to justify having recourse to the ethically tainted Covid vaccines.
The latter could ONLY be justified when faced with a truly deadly highly contagious pandemic; Covid does NOT fulfill those rigorous demands!
Maybe the liberal priest Patheos blogger was simply an arrogant yet ignorant jerk.
But I suspect he knew damn well he was being disingenuous and gaslighting otherwise good decent pro lifers to mock them and make them look like fools.
From his list:
Tylenol, also knows as Paracetamol or acetaminophen, was discovered in the 1870s and first marketed in the US in 1950.
Ibuprofen’s discovery was the result of research during the 1950s and 1960s to find a safer alternative to aspirin, with a patent application filed in 1961.
Pseudoephedrine was first characterized by German scientists in 1889.
Diphenhydramine was discovered in 1943 and first marketed in 1946.
Dextromethorphan was successfully tested in 1954 and marketed in 1958.
Guaifenesin was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1952.
Tums entered production in 1930.
Maalox was first marketed in 1949.
Sodium docusate was patented in 1937.
Its use for the treatment of constipation was first proposed in 1955.
Senna Glycoside is an over-the-counter medication available whose origins go back centuries – Kayam churna is a traditional Indian laxative that contains senna leaves.
PeptoBismol – bismuth salts were in use in Europe by the late 1700s. At first sold directly to physicians, it was first marketed as Bismosal in 1918.
Phenylephrine was patented in 1927 and came into medical use in 1938.
So at least 13 out of 17 over the counter drugs he listed as “ethically tainted” by fetal cell lines were developed prior to the development of fetal stem cells, which were first obtained from an aborted fetus in 1963.
September 2, 2021 at 11:38 am
This is great information. Thank you Dr. Kopp!
It’s really sad that anyone – especially someone associated with the Church – would play these infantile mind games. People like that need a lot of prayer …
September 3, 2021 at 9:48 am
Thank you so much for assembling this!
September 3, 2021 at 12:13 pm
The sad thing is that employers mandating the vaccine are using the progressive patheos article to stop the religious exemption process.
I know for a fact this is happening in the Memorial Hermann hospital system in Texas. PLEASE share this article with your nursing friends!
September 3, 2021 at 4:49 pm
Thank you! Fr. Schneider is strangely committed to people using vaccines that are not really necessary.
Of course the correct way to approach his supposed dilemma is to use his free time to persuade drug companies against using aborted fetal cells for any purpose, not to attack ordinary people trying to do the right thing!
September 3, 2021 at 9:55 pm
Thank you for this information! I work at a hospital and our leadership team cited the mentioned article in an attempt to bully people into receiving the COVID vaccine. Anyone requesting a religious exemption from receiving the COVID vaccine are also mandated to sign an exemption form stating that they would not use any of the over the counter, or prescription medication that was listed in the article. Thank you for clarifying!
September 15, 2021 at 11:57 am
The foundational work associated with HEK-293 was actually done in the early 1970s. The cell line was successfully established in 1972 by Dr. Frank Graham, while he was working in Dr. Alex van der Ebb’s lab in Leiden, Netherlands. HEK-293 was first commercially available in 1977. I point this out because Fr. Schneider’s article specifically mentioned this cell line.
I have similarly refuted Fr. Schneider’s article and recently wrote to the medical doctor that supported his ‘research’. His article has caused real damage – people are losing their jobs because their employers are using his article to reject claims of religious exemption. Truly scandalous.
Thank you for speaking out on this.
October 6, 2021 at 12:40 pm
I appreciate this info. I was concerned with the listing of Albuterol, and whether it was developed using fetal cells, but it was patented in 1972, before HEK-293 was available.
September 20, 2021 at 7:48 am
Thank you for this. This is exactly what I found when I researched these so called abortion tainted medicines, they were in existence and use long before foetal cell lines came into being. Just because someone decided to use an already existing product or object in an evil way does not make that product/object tainted. However, if a product/object is purposely created using an evil means it most certainly is tainted. So far all of the current covid vaccines in use have had some involvement with abortion derived foetal cells without which they would not be available or approved for use. But trying to get this pint over to people has been like banging my head against a brick wall!
October 14, 2021 at 10:17 am
Let’s call this what it is – human sacrifice to the gods of science. I think it’s a blood covenant…And if any of this fetal material, even at the residual molecular level, is in the shots (how can we believe anything the liars telling us) Then we have become partakers in our body of the blood covenant sacrifice. An abomination.
September 20, 2021 at 10:21 am
What is the anti-viral cell history of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin? If founded ethically, was the anti- viral effectiveness determined morally?
September 27, 2021 at 8:59 pm
Ivermectin was invented by culturing bacteria on soil samples in Japan. HCQ I’m not sure, but it’s been around much longer than the earliest fetal cell lines.
September 20, 2021 at 11:07 pm
The reason to not take the COVID jab is because it is not a vaccine it is a gene therapy it changes your DNA . It does not prevent you from getting Covid it does not give you immunity it’s still experimental so why would you take an experimental drug.
September 21, 2021 at 10:01 pm
It does not change your DNA.
September 27, 2021 at 9:04 pm
We just don’t really know.
October 14, 2021 at 10:24 am
They say it does not change your DNA, but you can definitely say it changes the cells of your body to respond to man made genetic sequences or recombined vectors to create proteins that it would not have naturally done, unlike being given the naturally occurring attenuated viruses in other flu shots.
Since they lie all the time I’m not sure that it doesn’t change your DNA because there is reverse transcription, nevertheless this is a hard point point to prove, and more easily shot down.
October 5, 2021 at 3:06 pm
This article falls into errors that others had made before. It is refuted here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/09/missing-the-point-about-remote-cooperation-appropriation/
Furthermore, this article is accusing me of not following the standard used in September 2021 to try to say Catholics should not vaccinate (we should in almost every case). However, the article was written in January 2021 so it is only reasonable to look at what the criteria given then were, which indicated ANY testing/connection was immoral. My article and others showed that the standard was untenable so you moved, but you should have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it and use the standards at the time for things written months ago. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/10/a-timeline-those-now-critiquing-my-hek293-post-miss/
October 8, 2021 at 11:02 am
In your article “Anti-Vaccine Catholics Break Moral Theology Principles” of 4 JN 21, you state under The Causal Nature of Testing the following: “… On the other hand, I can see reasons to prefer the vaccines as they are more effective (even the most optimistic tests for the others don’t reach 95% effectiveness) …”
Before extolling the 95% effectiveness of the vaccines in use you might want to educate yourself on the difference between ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE risk.
Just this information and how it has been used to deceive the public should give you pause: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/
Pro-Life in Canada
October 12, 2021 at 5:16 pm
First, absolute risk must be over time as absolute is the relative multiplied by the risk of catching an infectious disease were one not vaccinated. It’s self-evident that in a year more people are going to get infected with any infectious disease than in a month. Relative risks are relatively low but they are always low: they are even lower for diseases that are almost eliminated via vaccination. As Rubella almost completely eliminated, the absolute risk reduction of 40,000 in the whole society not vaccinating would be little more than a rounding error. I use 40,000 as that is about the population being studied (those in the phase 3 trials for these two vaccines). The place where vaccines have a super dramatic effect is when you get a high enough rate to stop transmission in the general population like has happened in most parts of North America where 90-95%+ get their MMR vaccine. The biggest effect is near that threshold where most transmission stops.
Second, we vaccinate not just for ourselves but the whole community especially the vulnerable. Rubella almost never kills (less than 1 per 500,000) except that if a pregnant woman gets infected, it can easily cause a miscarriage. One of the most dangerous populations to die from whooping cough – even before vaccines – was the really young who we don’t vaccinate quite yet.
Third, the risk of COVID is still substantial compared to many other vaccine-preventable diseases. I did a piece comparing COVID vaccines to Rubell and Chickenpox which have a more serious pro-life concern than 96% of US covid vaccines (Moderna & Pfizer – Canada also has AstraZeneca [not in the USA] & Johnson & Johnson, but I have not seen the breakdown by type for Canada). The concern of AZ & J&J is about equal to these previous and widespread vaccines that Vatican has affirmed three times we can use. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/04/comparing-covid-vaccine-to-other-vaccines/
October 20, 2021 at 7:57 am
Fr Schneider, with all due respect I suggest you stick to helping your flock grow spiritually and live their lives for the ends for which God gave them life, and stop giving medical advice. The catechism of the church clearly gives precedence to one’s well-formed conscience in such matters that fall outside the teachings of the church. That’s all that matters in this situation. That’s all that should matter to you or any other priest, including the pope. Many Catholics object to the vaccines and their connection to abortion. Others object to the movement to treat every human being as if we are all the same, this lack of respect for the dignity of the individual, that drives this movement to vaccinate 100% of the world’s population. Additionally, many Catholics object to this strong governmental and societal movement to deny unvaccinated people the ability to work and to provide for their families. All of these conscientious objections are supported by the Catechism of the church in the sections relating the freedoms and responsibility of individual, as well as the right for an individual to employment, specifically Pt III sec 1 chapter 1 & 2, and also sec 2 chapter 2 (the responsibility to one’s family, which is also intimately related to this forced vaccine issue). As.a convert to Catholicism, I am dismayed at those of you clergy who are pushing Catholics, mainly through the use of guilt (vaccinate yourself for the good of your neighbor – an idea not anywhere in the Bible nor in the teachings of the church) , to bow to the materialistic concerns of the world instead of guiding us in matters of the spirit. Please stay in your lane and do a better job helping us to become saints.
October 28, 2021 at 10:04 am
Hello again, Fr. Schneider
I found a video which explains the difference between absolute and relative risk for you, here: https://rumble.com/vobcg5-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction.html
As was stated in the abstract of the article I linked in my first response: ” … Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data ARE POORLY UNDERSTOOD BY HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND THE PUBLIC (my emphasis). The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy … Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT OUTCOME REPORTING BIAS (my emphasis) in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.”
Pro-Life/Pro-Science/Pro-Informed Consent, in Canada
October 28, 2021 at 10:36 am
Regarding your encouragement to heed a Vatican directive stated at the end of your third point– ” … vaccines that Vatican has affirmed three times we can use … ” I urge you to read this article and with the grace given to you by your office as priest, take action:
Pro-Life/Pro-Science/Pro-Informed Consent, in Canada
February 2, 2022 at 1:24 pm
With all due respect, you are the one moving the goal posts on this. You made a statement of equivalence, that the medications you listed were developed and tested in HEK-293 cell lines in the same manner as the vaccines and attempted to support your statement with what can only be characterized as poor and irresponsible research, only to now claim that those who disagree with you have missed the point.
One of the references you cited in support of your aspirin claim actually related to research on proteins that bind to salicylic acid. The reference had NOTHING to do with acetylsalicylic acid. What comes out of the aspirin bottle is acetylsalicylic acid, NOT salicylic acid. Anyone sufficiently familiar with the question at hand and inclined to play it truthfully and down the middle, would NEVER do such a thing.
The references cited for Tums knocks loudly at an unsavory threshold, threatening to cross into the realm of prevarication. Both references examined the utility of nano-structured calcium carbonate in gene insertion research. Neither paper made any mention of antacids, Tums, the digestive process or anything else even remotely connected to acid indigestion. By your logic, the White Cliffs of Dover or the State Capitol building in Indianapolis, IN are indistinct from a roll of Tums with respect to their design and utility. Your implied equivalence (you seem to have trouble with equal signs) is an absurdity, yet it was presented as ‘research’ in support of your argument. Even if one were to accept your observation that the standard was ‘any testing/connection’ (I don’t accept that, by the way), what you offer as authoritative support is nothing more than a swing and a miss.
I have refereed dissertations and journal articles in my time and what you presented as research would have produced a rejection in record time. As one who has pursued post-graduate education, I’m certain you know that.
This irresponsible ‘research’ has caused a great deal of upheaval in the lives of many. Individuals and families have suffered economic harm and great uncertainty because of what you wrote. That is a fact, yet you double down on what is provably false and add condescension to the menu, saying that those who disagree with you just don’t get it.
Admit you’re wrong. It’s good for the soul.
October 11, 2021 at 6:32 pm
I thank you for the information. I’m going through this battle with my employer who wants me to attest to not taking or will ever take the drugs listed to affirm my beliefs.
October 14, 2021 at 8:45 am
The lies surrounding COVID are ubiquitous and the “truth” is ever changing. We are just to “trust the science” which in essence means trust the political spokespersons whoring with big pharmaceutical companies in order to cement their power to strip us of life, liberty, and the ability to resist tyranny.
Since when did a religious belief have to make sense or be supported by scientific facts anyway?
The pervasive lying associated with Covid tells me somethings not right here, that we can’t trust any official sources, and that we have to trust what God is telling us after prayer and reading the word even if we are not scientifically educated enough to know all the details. We don’t have to prove our religious beliefs with science
October 20, 2021 at 3:23 am
What I think Father is also (purposely I don’t know) omitting, when referring to other vaccines, is that COVID, by nature, can transfer to humans from animals and vice versa. Unless you vaccinate every animal in existence, you cannot get rid of COVID-19. The reason you can eradicate disease like polio with vaccines is that they are not transferrable between species in nature. They affect humans only. The COVID “vaccine,” by definition, is not a vaccine at all. That’s actual science. It is an experimental, and yes, still experimental, and not FDA approved, therapy. Then again, even if it was FDA cleared, we see how, years later, drugs that were approved get recalled because of issues like cancer. Additionally, the chickenpox vaccine, for example, uses a live virus. The COVID shots do not. One can look at the history of immunizations and see that they were developed long before fetal cell testing. Rabies vaccine by Pasteur – 1885. Antitoxins and vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, anthrax, cholera, plague, typhoid, tuberculosis, and more were developed through the 1930s. The initial smallpox vaccine was started in 1796. Even the Chinese used immunizations as early as 1000 CE. I think Father needs to do some research. Lastly, COVID-19 is highly survivable and does not merit such an experimental therapy. It’s political and not about human lives. If it was, there would be a push for therapeutics heavily. Instead they are denied to patients.
November 11, 2021 at 10:32 pm
I have a “hybrid concern:”
It is clear that 13 of 17 medicines on Fr. Snyder’s list were not brought to market with the aid of HEK-293 experimentation/testing, as their origins predate HEK-293.
But the pertinent question is: Do the manufacturers/pharmaceutical companies marketing these medicines TODAY do so with the benefit of HEK-293 experimentation/testing?
If so, then although aspirin, tylenol, etc. may have been innocent 60 years ago, TODAY they would all be abortion-tainted.
In other words, I think the jury is still out until/unless someone can further vet Fr. Snyder’s list to demonstrate the companies manufacturing/marketing these medicines are not TODAY tainting them.