While it is true that aspirin was developed in 1897 …

Comment on Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions by Sean Pitman.

While it is true that aspirin was developed in 1897 (before modern fetal cell lines were produced), it is not true that aspirin hasn’t been tested since this time on fetal cell lines to determine the mechanism(s) of action as a potential treatment for various diseases – treatments that go well beyond its original use to treat fevers, headaches, and the like.

The demonstration that salicylate-based drugs exert beneficial effects on a number of chronic and devastating diseases, such as type II diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and certain types of cancers, suggests that future studies will identify an even more expansive role for salicylates as therapeutic agents. (Link)

The problem is that the use of aspirin to treat such diseases is, in fact, based on fetal cell line studies. This would mean that, if one were to be consistent, that aspirin could not be used to treat such diseases since this knowledge was gained via research that used fetal cell lines.

In this light, I would suggest, given the potential importance of such information to help a great many people, that this knowledge not be discarded or left unused because of its basis in the use of immortal fetal cell lines that were established many decades ago. Rather, I would suggest that laws be made that make it illegal to use deliberately aborted fetal tissues in this manner in the future.

Consider also a bit of history behind one of the most popular fetal cell lines in use today – the HEK293 cell line. The original cells for the HEK293 fetal cell line were transformed and immortalized in January 1973 by a young Canadian postdoc by the name of Frank Graham, who was working at the time in Leiden (in the Netherlands) in the laboratory of Professor Alex van der Eb. Normally, a cell can only divide a limited number of times. However, Graham managed to modify these particular cells so that they could divide indefinitely – creating an “immortal” cell line. This was his 293rd experiment, hence the name of the line (HEK stands for “human embryonic kidney cells”). Now, consider that elective abortion was illegal in the Netherlands until 1984 – except to save the life of the mother. Consequently, many researchers now consider it likely that the HEK cell line produced by the Graham was probably originally derived from a spontaneous miscarriage, not an elective abortion (Link).

Either way, getting rid of this cell line at this point and never using it again to expand medical knowledge would seem to be a serious mistake.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
If the DNA of a person does not get altered by the mRNA vaccines, then, by definition, these vaccines are not “gene therapy”. This is what was noted by Bayer itself in their response to the comments of Oelrich:

The Bayer group tells 20 Minutes that this is “an obvious slip.” “At Bayer, [les vaccins à] mRNA does not come under gene therapy in the sense that is commonly attributed to this expression,” adds the company. (Link)


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Come on now. The “viral genetic information” that is being used is limited to the production of the spike protein. That’s it. The mRNA sequence itself does not alter the DNA of a person – their actual genetic code. This vaccine is therefore NOT “gene therapy”. That claim is just nonsense in any meaningful sense of the term. And Stefan Oelrich never intended to suggest otherwise. He was only talking about future applications of the mRNA technology. He never claimed that the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 function as gene-altering devices.

Bayer has responded noting that Stefan Oelrich was only talking about future applications of mRNA technology – not that the current mRNA vaccines alter the genetics of a person – which clearly doesn’t happen. The suggestion has been made that he misspoke regarding terms that he used, but that he never intended to suggest that the current mRNA-based vaccines modify the DNA of a person.

In any case, if you think otherwise, by all means, do share the mechanism by which this is likely to happen to any significant degree…


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
That would be concerning if it actually occurred, to any significant degree, in white blood cells – like T-cells and B-cells. However, contrary to the suggestion of the authors, this just isn’t the case and there is no reasonable mechanism whereby this might be the case.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I’ve very glad that you survived! Keep spreading the message. Some will listen and more lives will be saved.


Pastor Ivor Myers and Medical Panel Discuss COVID-19 and Vaccines
Dr. Veith is mistaken here because he’s listening more to conspiracy theories rather than looking at the weight of good scientific evidence.


Why Vaccinate Kids Against COVID-19?
Assuming the 90% efficacy figure for the Pfizer vaccine holds up, vaccinating one million 5- to 12-year-old children would prevent 33,600 cases and 170 hospitalizations over 120 days. The CDC puts the figure about 58,000 cases and 226 hospitalizations prevented. During the same period of time, there would be around 21 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis (Link, Link). There is also the argument that the significant majority completely recover from vaccine-related myocarditis/pericarditis without any long-term effects. Recovering from a COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization, however, often results in long-term injuries.


Are mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 helpful or harmful?
I don’t know about Dr. Botha, in particular, but others have made similar claims. Of course, I see no credible evidence to support such sensational claims…


Why Vaccinate Kids Against COVID-19?
While vaccinating children is certainly more of a gray area as compared to vaccinating adults and those with pre-existing medical conditions, there are benefits to vaccinating children that Dr. Martin Kulldorff failed to mention – such as injuries that happen even if a child doesn’t die. These injuries and longer-term problems aren’t exactly rare either – as described in my article above. There is also the issue of children spreading the virus to others who are more susceptible.

Even death, while relatively uncommon among children compared to older adults, is still a problem. Almost 700 children have died from COVID-19 in the US so far. While this might seem to be similar to a normal flu season where between 34-200 children die during a given year, keep in mind that these numbers are affected by flu vaccinations that are given to children every year. Flu shots are widely available to all kids, while no COVID vaccines have been authorized for children under 12. More than half of children, around 60%, get their flu shot each year. This significantly reduces the death rate for children who are vaccinated since the vast majority (~90%) of kids who die from the flu each year are unvaccinated. That means, if you compare apples to apples, the flu death rate for children would be much higher without the annual flu vaccine – which is the reason why a flu vaccine for children has been made available. Why then should we not make a COVID vaccine available for children as well?

“Among children age 1-14, COVID-19 was in the top 10 leading causes of death through August and September 2021. Among children age 5-14, COVID-19 ranked as the number 6 leading cause of death in August and September. Among children ages 1-4, COVID-19’s rank rose from number 13 to number 7 among leading causes of death in August 2021 and held there in September.” (Link)

As far as the known risks of vaccines for children, these risks are still far less than the risks of getting infected by the live virus – for every significant risk one can list.

It is for this reason that the FDA advisory panel unanimously voted, yesterday, to approve the reduced dose Pfizer vaccine for children ages 5-11 (Link).