[Goose]

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

Certainly not Aspirin. It was invented in 1890 or so. It is a pretty safe bet that almost anything available before 1970 or so did not use fetal tissue in its development or testing. Please, if you are going to cite products as using fetal cells in some way make an attempt to document that fact. There are many medications that have been developed even after transformed fetal cells were commercially available that did not make use of such cells in development or testing. There is enough intentionally generated misinformation out there as it is. We all need to at least attempt to not increase it unintentionally.

That said, I would argue that if you believe the vaccines are immoral because they used transformed fetal cells in their development or testing, your right to believe that is protected by the Constitution. Your right to not take the vaccine is only protected to a limited extent. Many people who believe war is immoral have attempted not to pay taxes because taxes support the DoD. They don't get very far in court with that argument. The fact the coach was fired is a relatively mild consequence IMHO. Our society imposes some limits on religious freedom. Human sacrifice is not protected by the Constitution. There are some things even football coaches cannot do.

[Goose]

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

Certainly not Aspirin. It was invented in 1890 or so. It is a pretty safe bet that almost anything available before 1970 or so did not use fetal tissue in its development or testing. Please, if you are going to cite products as using fetal cells in some way make an attempt to document that fact. There are many medications that have been developed even after transformed fetal cells were commercially available that did not make use of such cells in development or testing. There is enough intentionally generated misinformation out there as it is. We all need to at least attempt to not increase it unintentionally.

That said, I would argue that if you believe the vaccines are immoral because they used transformed fetal cells in their development or testing, your right to believe that is protected by the Constitution. Your right to not take the vaccine is only protected to a limited extent. Many people who believe war is immoral have attempted not to pay taxes because taxes support the DoD. They don't get very far in court with that argument. The fact the coach was fired is a relatively mild consequence IMHO. Our society imposes some limits on religious freedom. Human sacrifice is not protected by the Constitution. There are some things even football coaches cannot do.

[DC 86]

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

Certainly not Aspirin. It was invented in 1890 or so. It is a pretty safe bet that almost anything available before 1970 or so did not use fetal tissue in its development or testing. Please, if you are going to cite products as using fetal cells in some way make an attempt to document that fact.

Certainly aspirin. It was invented in the 19th century but the currently commercial available versions of aspirin have been tested on the HEK-293 fetal cell line. Simple googling will being up a number of sources. It didn't take long for me to even find an article on a Catholic web site on this subject:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcat...-medicine/

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

[DC 86]

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

Certainly not Aspirin. It was invented in 1890 or so. It is a pretty safe bet that almost anything available before 1970 or so did not use fetal tissue in its development or testing. Please, if you are going to cite products as using fetal cells in some way make an attempt to document that fact.

Certainly aspirin. It was invented in the 19th century but the currently commercial available versions of aspirin have been tested on the HEK-293 fetal cell line. Simple googling will being up a number of sources. It didn't take long for me to even find an article on a Catholic web site on this subject:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcat...-medicine/

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

[teejers1]

Here's an article about the moral issues of non-COVID vaccines that have used cell lines derived from fetal tissue.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/conten...evelopment

The National Catholic Bioethics Center states:

One is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion. The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine. This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them.

and also:

The cell lines under consideration were begun using cells taken from one or more fetuses aborted almost 40 years ago. Since that time the cell lines have grown independently. It is important to note that descendant cells are not the cells of the aborted child. They never, themselves, formed a part of the victim's body.

In total only two fetuses, both obtained from abortions done by maternal choice, have given rise to the human cell strains used in vaccine development. Neither abortion was performed for the purpose of vaccine development.

Millions of Catholics ensure their children get the MMR vaccine, which contains a Rubella component that was developed in cell lines descended from aborted fetuses without fuss.




It's also worth noting that the cell lines were used only in testing during the research and development of the mRNA vaccines.  The actual vaccines themselves are not manufactured using cell lines (of any type), let alone aborted cell types.

BC

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

I've seen this argument a lot, but don't you think the degree of public knowledge about the use of fetal tissue in Product X is a somewhat important fact before you condemn people for using Produce X for Y years (with used fetal tissue in development/manufacture), but only NOW are saying you are morally/religiously opposed?  My sense is that in Age of Internet, more and more is becoming more commonly known.  Don't find this "gotcha!" argument all that persuasive, unless fetal tissue use for aspirin and other things were widely known (and they may have been/be, but I didn't know about it).

But whatever, Goose has a good baseline point, too.

[teejers1]

Here's an article about the moral issues of non-COVID vaccines that have used cell lines derived from fetal tissue.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/conten...evelopment

The National Catholic Bioethics Center states:

One is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion. The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine. This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them.

and also:

The cell lines under consideration were begun using cells taken from one or more fetuses aborted almost 40 years ago. Since that time the cell lines have grown independently. It is important to note that descendant cells are not the cells of the aborted child. They never, themselves, formed a part of the victim's body.

In total only two fetuses, both obtained from abortions done by maternal choice, have given rise to the human cell strains used in vaccine development. Neither abortion was performed for the purpose of vaccine development.

Millions of Catholics ensure their children get the MMR vaccine, which contains a Rubella component that was developed in cell lines descended from aborted fetuses without fuss.




It's also worth noting that the cell lines were used only in testing during the research and development of the mRNA vaccines.  The actual vaccines themselves are not manufactured using cell lines (of any type), let alone aborted cell types.

BC

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

I've seen this argument a lot, but don't you think the degree of public knowledge about the use of fetal tissue in Product X is a somewhat important fact before you condemn people for using Produce X for Y years (with used fetal tissue in development/manufacture), but only NOW are saying you are morally/religiously opposed?  My sense is that in Age of Internet, more and more is becoming more commonly known.  Don't find this "gotcha!" argument all that persuasive, unless fetal tissue use for aspirin and other things were widely known (and they may have been/be, but I didn't know about it).

But whatever, Goose has a good baseline point, too.

[BostonCard]

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

You are right that this thread has ventured into questionable territory, but I haven't done anything about it because I contributed to that (sorry).  If one of the other mods who can be objective looks at this and things the thread has crossed the no politics line, please lock it.

BC

[BostonCard]

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

You are right that this thread has ventured into questionable territory, but I haven't done anything about it because I contributed to that (sorry).  If one of the other mods who can be objective looks at this and things the thread has crossed the no politics line, please lock it.

BC

[DC 86]

I've seen this argument a lot, but don't you think the degree of public knowledge about the use of fetal tissue in Product X is a somewhat important fact before you condemn people for using Produce X for Y years (with used fetal tissue in development/manufacture), but only NOW are saying you are morally/religiously opposed?  My sense is that in Age of Internet, more and more is becoming more commonly known.  Don't find this "gotcha!" argument all that persuasive, unless fetal tissue use for aspirin and other things were widely known (and they may have been/be, but I didn't know about it).

But whatever, Goose has a good baseline point, too.

I agree that public understanding about the role of fetal cell lines in pharmaceutical product research wasn't (and still isn't) widely known, as evidenced by Goose's response, but to the extent that a religious objector to mRNA vaccines becomes aware, are you betting that they will stop taking all of the products listed? highly doubtful.

In any case, my issue isn't with sincerely held beliefs, even if they are sometimes inconsistent, which is human nature. I just think the vast majority of religious exemption requests are insincere. WSU arranged for Rolovich to meet for over an hour with an esteemed infectious disease physician. The doctor said that Rolovich's questions to him were about whether Bill Gates held patents on COVID Vaccines and about side effects, not about objections related to religious beliefs (or by implication aborted fetuses). The plethora of "religious objections" (including Rolovich's) appear to simply be a cover for vaccine hesitancy, nothing more.

---

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

You are right that this thread has ventured into questionable territory, but I haven't done anything about it because I contributed to that (sorry).  If one of the other mods who can be objective looks at this and things the thread has crossed the no politics line, please lock it.

BC

Honest question: you know far more about this subject than I do, is what I posted false?

[DC 86]

I've seen this argument a lot, but don't you think the degree of public knowledge about the use of fetal tissue in Product X is a somewhat important fact before you condemn people for using Produce X for Y years (with used fetal tissue in development/manufacture), but only NOW are saying you are morally/religiously opposed?  My sense is that in Age of Internet, more and more is becoming more commonly known.  Don't find this "gotcha!" argument all that persuasive, unless fetal tissue use for aspirin and other things were widely known (and they may have been/be, but I didn't know about it).

But whatever, Goose has a good baseline point, too.

I agree that public understanding about the role of fetal cell lines in pharmaceutical product research wasn't (and still isn't) widely known, as evidenced by Goose's response, but to the extent that a religious objector to mRNA vaccines becomes aware, are you betting that they will stop taking all of the products listed? highly doubtful.

In any case, my issue isn't with sincerely held beliefs, even if they are sometimes inconsistent, which is human nature. I just think the vast majority of religious exemption requests are insincere. WSU arranged for Rolovich to meet for over an hour with an esteemed infectious disease physician. The doctor said that Rolovich's questions to him were about whether Bill Gates held patents on COVID Vaccines and about side effects, not about objections related to religious beliefs (or by implication aborted fetuses). The plethora of "religious objections" (including Rolovich's) appear to simply be a cover for vaccine hesitancy, nothing more.

---

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

You are right that this thread has ventured into questionable territory, but I haven't done anything about it because I contributed to that (sorry).  If one of the other mods who can be objective looks at this and things the thread has crossed the no politics line, please lock it.

BC

Honest question: you know far more about this subject than I do, is what I posted false?

[Jamesy]

Rolo might have used Ex Lax, but who knows. Hopefully it all comes out in the end.

Hah, I see what you did there...

[Jamesy]

Rolo might have used Ex Lax, but who knows. Hopefully it all comes out in the end.

Hah, I see what you did there...

[BostonCard]

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

You are right that this thread has ventured into questionable territory, but I haven't done anything about it because I contributed to that (sorry).  If one of the other mods who can be objective looks at this and things the thread has crossed the no politics line, please lock it.



BC

Honest question: you know far more about this subject than I do, is what I posted false?

I was only replying to the "this thread will be shut down soon" comment, and only because I think the thread has ventured into the political realm, not because what you said (or what someone else said) was not factual.

To be honest, I don't know what commonly available medications have ever been tested on tissues descended from aborted fetuses.  There is a descent chance that even the people doing the testing don't know.

BC

[BostonCard]

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

You are right that this thread has ventured into questionable territory, but I haven't done anything about it because I contributed to that (sorry).  If one of the other mods who can be objective looks at this and things the thread has crossed the no politics line, please lock it.



BC

Honest question: you know far more about this subject than I do, is what I posted false?

I was only replying to the "this thread will be shut down soon" comment, and only because I think the thread has ventured into the political realm, not because what you said (or what someone else said) was not factual.

To be honest, I don't know what commonly available medications have ever been tested on tissues descended from aborted fetuses.  There is a descent chance that even the people doing the testing don't know.

BC

[Goose]

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

Certainly not Aspirin. It was invented in 1890 or so. It is a pretty safe bet that almost anything available before 1970 or so did not use fetal tissue in its development or testing. Please, if you are going to cite products as using fetal cells in some way make an attempt to document that fact.

Certainly aspirin. It was invented in the 19th century but the currently commercial available versions of aspirin have been tested on the HEK-293 fetal cell line. Simple googling will being up a number of sources. It didn't take long for me to even find an article on a Catholic web site on this subject:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcat...-medicine/

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

The article you cited is quite interesting. It contains references to studies that have been performed on drugs (like aspirin) that use HEK 293. It also points out the cases where such studies were mentioned in the FDA application. Of the 21 drugs listed, 5 had such studies mentioned in their FDA application. The fact that somebody tested aspirin using HEK-293 is irrelevant to aspirin being an approved drug. You or I could go do a study using HEK 293 on any drug tomorrow and get the results published somewhere. Does that somehow taint the drug? I am sure that many modern drugs will probably use HEK 293 studies in their application for approval, but aspirin did not, at least according to the article you cite. I fail to see how somebody doing a study long after a drug is approved using HEK 293 can convert a perfectly fetal-tissue free drug into one that is somehow immoral to use. One might reasonably argue such a study is immoral, but not the drug or usage of the drug itself. Aspirin was in common use long before HEK 293 was even derived. The studies cited were not used in getting any "modern" variants of it approved, at least according to the article you cite. In fact, an "equivalence" argument would be much easier to make and would not require such testing.
I agree we are well into Terry rule territory here so I will end here.

[Goose]

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

Certainly not Aspirin. It was invented in 1890 or so. It is a pretty safe bet that almost anything available before 1970 or so did not use fetal tissue in its development or testing. Please, if you are going to cite products as using fetal cells in some way make an attempt to document that fact.

Certainly aspirin. It was invented in the 19th century but the currently commercial available versions of aspirin have been tested on the HEK-293 fetal cell line. Simple googling will being up a number of sources. It didn't take long for me to even find an article on a Catholic web site on this subject:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcat...-medicine/

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

The article you cited is quite interesting. It contains references to studies that have been performed on drugs (like aspirin) that use HEK 293. It also points out the cases where such studies were mentioned in the FDA application. Of the 21 drugs listed, 5 had such studies mentioned in their FDA application. The fact that somebody tested aspirin using HEK-293 is irrelevant to aspirin being an approved drug. You or I could go do a study using HEK 293 on any drug tomorrow and get the results published somewhere. Does that somehow taint the drug? I am sure that many modern drugs will probably use HEK 293 studies in their application for approval, but aspirin did not, at least according to the article you cite. I fail to see how somebody doing a study long after a drug is approved using HEK 293 can convert a perfectly fetal-tissue free drug into one that is somehow immoral to use. One might reasonably argue such a study is immoral, but not the drug or usage of the drug itself. Aspirin was in common use long before HEK 293 was even derived. The studies cited were not used in getting any "modern" variants of it approved, at least according to the article you cite. In fact, an "equivalence" argument would be much easier to make and would not require such testing.
I agree we are well into Terry rule territory here so I will end here.

[DC 86]

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

Certainly not Aspirin. It was invented in 1890 or so. It is a pretty safe bet that almost anything available before 1970 or so did not use fetal tissue in its development or testing. Please, if you are going to cite products as using fetal cells in some way make an attempt to document that fact.

Certainly aspirin. It was invented in the 19th century but the currently commercial available versions of aspirin have been tested on the HEK-293 fetal cell line. Simple googling will being up a number of sources. It didn't take long for me to even find an article on a Catholic web site on this subject:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcat...-medicine/

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

The article you cited is quite interesting. It contains references to studies that have been performed on drugs (like aspirin) that use HEK 293. It also points out the cases where such studies were mentioned in the FDA application. Of the 21 drugs listed, 5 had such studies mentioned in their FDA application. The fact that somebody tested aspirin using HEK-293 is irrelevant to aspirin being an approved drug. You or I could go do a study using HEK 293 on any drug tomorrow and get the results published somewhere. Does that somehow taint the drug? I am sure that many modern drugs will probably use HEK 293 studies in their application for approval, but aspirin did not, at least according to the article you cite. I fail to see how somebody doing a study long after a drug is approved using HEK 293 can convert a perfectly fetal-tissue free drug into one that is somehow immoral to use. One might reasonably argue such a study is immoral, but not the drug or usage of the drug itself. Aspirin was in common use long before HEK 293 was even derived. The studies cited were not used in getting any "modern" variants of it approved, at least according to the article you cite. In fact, an "equivalence" argument would be much easier to make and would not require such testing.
I agree we are well into Terry rule territory here so I will end here.

I will end here as well, but need to address your assertions above. Over the last fifty years the FDA has issued numerous different approvals for various uses of aspirin (e.g. prevention of heart attacks, reducing risk of TIAs in men, use during a suspected heart attack, etc) based on data obtained in studies using fetal cell lines. It's not as if aspirin was approved prior to HEK 293 and never reviewed again by the FDA. I linked that single article because it was published on a Catholic web site, but a google search will yield many other sources that are more comprehensive, if you are so inclined. But even setting aspirin aside it's inarguable that dozens of the most common over-the-counter medicines used by almost everyone were researched and developed with the aid of fetal cell lines.

Anyway, I don't usually engage on non-sports issues here. I got involved in this thread because I saw Rolovich's religious exemption application as dishonest. Let's close the HEK 293 discussion. Does anyone believe that Rolovich's position was based on a sincere, longstanding moral position as opposed to just vaccine hesitancy? his discussion with the infectious disease specialist was telling.

P.S. Bryan Harsin at Auburn is going down the same path as Rolovich. Alabama's vaccine mandate kicks in in early December, we'll see if he goes all the way as Rolovich did.

[DC 86]

Weren't fetal cell lines also used in the development of aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Preparation H and dozens of other medications?

If the use of fetal cell lines being in nRMA vaccine development is the justification for religious exemptions are we really supposed to believe that these applicants have been consistent by never using any of the aforementioned or other medicines for the same reason?

Certainly not Aspirin. It was invented in 1890 or so. It is a pretty safe bet that almost anything available before 1970 or so did not use fetal tissue in its development or testing. Please, if you are going to cite products as using fetal cells in some way make an attempt to document that fact.

Certainly aspirin. It was invented in the 19th century but the currently commercial available versions of aspirin have been tested on the HEK-293 fetal cell line. Simple googling will being up a number of sources. It didn't take long for me to even find an article on a Catholic web site on this subject:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcat...-medicine/

I assume this thread will be shut down soon, but if what I stated is not factual then perhaps you should "in some way make an attempt to document" your assertions.

The article you cited is quite interesting. It contains references to studies that have been performed on drugs (like aspirin) that use HEK 293. It also points out the cases where such studies were mentioned in the FDA application. Of the 21 drugs listed, 5 had such studies mentioned in their FDA application. The fact that somebody tested aspirin using HEK-293 is irrelevant to aspirin being an approved drug. You or I could go do a study using HEK 293 on any drug tomorrow and get the results published somewhere. Does that somehow taint the drug? I am sure that many modern drugs will probably use HEK 293 studies in their application for approval, but aspirin did not, at least according to the article you cite. I fail to see how somebody doing a study long after a drug is approved using HEK 293 can convert a perfectly fetal-tissue free drug into one that is somehow immoral to use. One might reasonably argue such a study is immoral, but not the drug or usage of the drug itself. Aspirin was in common use long before HEK 293 was even derived. The studies cited were not used in getting any "modern" variants of it approved, at least according to the article you cite. In fact, an "equivalence" argument would be much easier to make and would not require such testing.
I agree we are well into Terry rule territory here so I will end here.

I will end here as well, but need to address your assertions above. Over the last fifty years the FDA has issued numerous different approvals for various uses of aspirin (e.g. prevention of heart attacks, reducing risk of TIAs in men, use during a suspected heart attack, etc) based on data obtained in studies using fetal cell lines. It's not as if aspirin was approved prior to HEK 293 and never reviewed again by the FDA. I linked that single article because it was published on a Catholic web site, but a google search will yield many other sources that are more comprehensive, if you are so inclined. But even setting aspirin aside it's inarguable that dozens of the most common over-the-counter medicines used by almost everyone were researched and developed with the aid of fetal cell lines.

Anyway, I don't usually engage on non-sports issues here. I got involved in this thread because I saw Rolovich's religious exemption application as dishonest. Let's close the HEK 293 discussion. Does anyone believe that Rolovich's position was based on a sincere, longstanding moral position as opposed to just vaccine hesitancy? his discussion with the infectious disease specialist was telling.

P.S. Bryan Harsin at Auburn is going down the same path as Rolovich. Alabama's vaccine mandate kicks in in early December, we'll see if he goes all the way as Rolovich did.

[akiddoc]

If one holds sincere beliefs that using medications developed using fetal cell lines is immoral, then I would contend that the individual has a duty to investigate how every drug is developed prior to taking it. I don't think pointing out prior use of such drugs is a "gotcha" argument. 

The mRNA vaccines could have been developed without using fetal cell lines. It's just much easier to use them when extrapolating how the vaccines will work in humans. Other mammalian cell lines could have been used.

[akiddoc]

If one holds sincere beliefs that using medications developed using fetal cell lines is immoral, then I would contend that the individual has a duty to investigate how every drug is developed prior to taking it. I don't think pointing out prior use of such drugs is a "gotcha" argument. 

The mRNA vaccines could have been developed without using fetal cell lines. It's just much easier to use them when extrapolating how the vaccines will work in humans. Other mammalian cell lines could have been used.