COVID Vax is upon us.  Currently two are available.  As I understand how things lay currently:

Pfizer:  mRNA vaccine.  Developed without the use of fetal tissues.  Tested in fetal cell lines obtained from voluntary abortion in the 1970s(?).  Currently in distribution.  Pfizer vaccine reported ~95% effectiveness which means out of the ~21600 in vax and control groups, 162 in control (placebo) group got COVID and 8 in the vax group got COVID.  Something like 60-70 "severe" reactions in the vax group.  There is a specific definition for this that includes extended hospital stay.  I don't have that definition handy

Moderna:  mRNA vaccine.  Developed without the use of fetal tissue.  Tested in fetal cell lines obtained from voluntary abortion in the 1970s(?).  Currently in distribution.

AstraZenica:  adenovirus vector using Coronavirus proteins grown in and harvested from fetal cells obtained from voluntary abortion.  Tested in fetal cell lines obtained from voluntary abortion in the 1970s(?).  Expected to be available in early 2021, but trials on hold following a severe adverse reaction from a trial participant in Britain.  I believe that this vaccine will contain protein fragments from the embryonic cell line used to culture the virus - similar to how other vaccines include protein from chicken eggs.

GlaxoSmithKline:  "conventional" vaccine using Coronavirus proteins grown in and harvested from animal cells (poultry eggs maybe?).  Not tested in fetal cell lines.  Produced antibody response comparable to recovered COVID patients in subjects 18-49, but diminished immune response in those >50.  Because of the failure with the 50+, not expected to be available until late 2021.  No severe adverse reactions in trials.

Not a doctor, so if there is an expert here, please tighten me up if I am off.

I'm in the wait-maybe category, holding out for the GSK vaccine I think.  No desire to use a vaccine developed or tested using abortion-derived tissue.  Willing to discuss my reasoning, but I'm not out to criticize folks' decisions as to why or why not they are taking the vaccine.  Just curious what you're thinking.

I plan on getting the vaccine soon but honestly you're going to have a tough if not impossible time trying to avoid anything that has been researched using immortalized fetal cell lines (like HEK 293). The cells in question have been pivotal to medical research for pretty much everything in the past 60+ years.

Super unethical IMO regardless of how lifesaving they've been.

Admittedly I haven't paid much attention to this because I didn't have any choice in vaccines while I was on active duty, but I believe most vaccines have options that are not associated with human embryos.  The new shingles vaccine, Shingrix, has an ethical option.

As far as I know, it's only Measles/Mumps/Rubella and Chicken Pox that don't have alternatives.  Vaccinating against Chicken Pox is probably a bad idea because it's typically not harmful to children, but it can be pretty rough later on.  Best to just get it and suffer through the moderate discomfort.

MMR - I don't know.  I think I am too old for that vaccine (53) and probably only got the measles and mumps vaccines separately.

I am just as unsure on this subject as you seem to be.

Here's a chart for most common vaccines:

https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf

Covid:
https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/CovidCompareMoralImmoral.pdf

As for covid, I don't trust anything. I'm not gonna take a vaccine for something which has a 99.x% survival rate.

I don't take vaccines anymore since I got out of the Army. I figured out a way my last few years to con the medics into signing off on my stuff for most vaccines.

When the known, globalist agenda is sterilization and population control... well, consider me a skeptic.

This here.

Thanks for that link. I heard that on a podcast, but I was running while listening and couldn't jot it down.

To muddy the debate even more, we also dont know the long term effects of actually catching Covid.  So, I like many, dont trust the long term unknown effects of the vaccine,  but I also have to worry about the long term effects of not getting the vaccine.

I agree. I've thought of this as well, but for me, the dangers of the former far outweigh the potential danger of the latter.

I think it's both.

In a bit of shameless self-promotion, I'm a physician and I did an AMA over in GD on this over the last few weeks. Granted, it didn't touch much on the lineage of cells or the tech involved, beyond the idea of how mRNA works.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-UPDATED-I-m-a-physician-and-I-just-got-the-Pfizer-COVID-19-vaccine-Ask-me-anything/5-2403942/

The ethical considerations often become very gray and fuzzy depending on how close you look. How far away does it need to get before it's okay? Does 0.001% of the original line or technology make it still part of the poisoned tree? That makes for a good religious discussion.

I will add that, as a practicing Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), our church generally opposed elective abortion, although there are considerations for pregnancy secondary to rape, incest, significant risk to the mother, or a fetus with congenital deformities not compatible with life, and after consultation with a competent physician.

Our leaders have recommended that we follow the counsel of our local health departments as well as the CDC and similar. There is full support for the vaccines currently available. I'm not aware that we have ever objected to the use of vaccines based on any particular technology or cell line.

Also, I am a family physician primarily doing urgent care and ER. I don't hold myself as an expert on the genetics and immunology involved, but I'm glad to take a shot at questions here.

ETA: I see in the news that Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict both received their first dose of vaccine today.

Since our moderator has said we can't just discuss who is getting the vaccine (which is why I started the thread) and need to stick to the morality of the vaccine, I will shift.

Popular culture tells me that I shouldn't buy antique ivory because even that purchase will drive up the price of new ivory, leading to the killing of elephants for their tusks.  How does consuming a vaccine that used cells from an aborted baby dissuade future abortions for medical research?


The government prosecutes people for having possession of decades old child p40n that they didn't make, because every time a video or picture is viewed it re-victimizes the victim.  How is using a line of cells cloned or otherwise reproduced from a baby any different?  It seems like ongoing trafficking of human remains to me.  Now, if someone offered their recently deceased remains of their own free will, I see that differently than seizing them from a living, non-consenting person.




https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-unborn-babies-used-for-vaccine-development-were-alive-at-tissue-extraction

Yeah, I'm not seeing how the two are mutually exclusive, but here we are. I won't be taking the vaccine because I can't reconcile the morality of taking a product that derives from fetuses when I am staunchly against abortion.

So?

I don’t care what Bp. Jorge Bergoglio has to say since he’s an anti-Pope, and as for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who knows if he received anything and if he was even told what it is in truth, etc.

The actions of Popes as men has no bearing on the moral licitness of those actions. If the Pope offers incense to false gods, that doesn’t mean it’s ok for Catholics to do so.

I'm not Catholic, as I've previously stated. My point in adding this is that the leader of a major world religion, considered by adherents (at least some of them) to be the mouthpiece of God, and leader of a religion opposed to abortion, has received the vaccination and has no qualms with it.

I add this as color commentary to the discussion.

(My apologies if Catholics would use a different description than "mouthpiece of God" to describe the Pope. I'm just trying to convey my limited understanding on the Pope.)

Thank you for your reply.

Infallibility has very key limits which are defined in paragraph 9 of the document Pastor Aeturnus from Vatican Council I:


https://sspx.org/en/pastor-aeternus

Essentially, the only time the Pope is infallible is when he specifically defines something by virtue of his office (which is indicated by specific language).

Otherwise, his “magisterium” is considered fallible, meaning he could be wrong. As such, while there is a level of assent granted to him it is only in conformity with known tradition, or knowledge, as in line with the whole context of doctrine.

In other words, we don’t care what he has to say about the price of tea in China.

In the case of a Pope doing something of himself, his actions are not indicative of any path any Catholic must follow.

For example, Pope Marcellinus was reputed to have offered incense to Roman gods during a persecution. He later repented and was admitted back into the Church. But his actions did not mean it was ok for Christians to do so.

Fr. Chad Ripperger explains here why and when vaccines are morally illicit (I apologize for the length):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/a4eJhjenkjaY/

It’s unfortunate the world, and many Catholics, have an “ultramontane” view of the papacy ( impeccability) vs the Church’s teaching of infallibility.

The Church does not and has never taught the Pope is impeccable, but that he is infallible.

The difference between the two is gargantuan, and the recent issue of a Pope, or reputed one, doing something like receiving a morally impermissible vaccine simply reinforces that.

I decided to look around a bit more on this topic, because I was curious. I found this commentary from a Catholic Friar, who is also a professor and PhD biology researcher.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63752/

The same site also had some commentary from a Christian physician.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/11/72753/

These are both papers from "The Witherspoon Institute". I know nothing else about them or these writers/researchers. But I appreciated the points they made.

To be clear,
-I'm not Catholic and have limited knowledge of Catholic doctrine. As a Mormon missionary once upon a time, I did trade a Catholic guy a catechism and another Catholic book (can't remember what) for a Book of Mormon. We both promised to read each other's books, and I did. It was very interesting and I still have the catechism.
-It appears to me that the second article's authors are more mainstream Protestant Christian.
-My own faith, which is generally opposed to elective abortion, does not have any issue with this vaccine, even with the potential association with HEK derived cells. As an aside, our current President (whom we regard as a prophet) is a former cardiovascular surgeon and researcher and very well acquainted with vagaries of medical research.

Both of the articles make the point that, even though the original tissue was derived from a fetus from an abortion (and the exact details are unclear), that this was 50+ years ago. The actual cells from that fetus are long since gone. Any cells being made now are thousands of generations removed from the original and are not directly abortion-derived. While this does not excuse the original abortion, they point out that this does not represent an ongoing or continuing case of evil and it does not cause people to commit new evils. In addition, getting the vaccine and decreasing your risk of transmissibility of COVID to others is a form of loving your neighbor (by not making them sick). I realize those who take the most conservative or strict reading of this will not be swayed by these arguments.

I did read the FDA proceedings from the original introduction of the HEK293 cell line. It was actually pretty interesting, if you like that kind of stuff. The same review article points out that the HEK line of cells have now been used in experiments and studies resulting in over 58,000 scientific papers and journals. The HEK line has been used to study brain receptors and brought about novel treatments for depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, multiple neurological diseases, cancer treatments and other treatments. The HEK cell line is very efficient and consistent in the ability to generate proteins and viruses for pharmacology, including vaccines.

My point of the prior paragraph is that the HEK line has been used to create a huge number of therapies over the last 50 years. Should people want to be consistent in their avoidance of any therapies derived in any way from the HEK line of cells, those people should also not take a large number of very common medications.

I also suspect that some people are have already determined that they don't want to get the vaccine and are now looking for reasons to support their already-made conclusions.

If you'd like to see the original FDA discussion on the HEK-293 line of cells, you can find it here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170516050447/https://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3750t1_01.pdf

This will download a PDF of the FDA meeting minutes. Jump to page 77 for the details.

I've now had two Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines. I feel zero heartburn about this.

The friar’s “sum” is reduced to one can avail themselves of a morally impermissible vaccine if they make sure everyone knows they’re opposed to the situation which led to its ability to be made. That’s retarded. I mean, seriously, think about it. Dominicans aren’t worth a crap these days.

See inside

Personally, I don't find the line of argument "The abortion was 50 years ago.  These aren't the cells from the aborted baby; they are cloned/reproduced cells." very persuasive.  I am not the same set of cells that I was 50 years ago either.  Does that mean that I am not human now?

This is a different argument than "We learned a lot from the experiments Nazi doctors did on concentration camp inmates." because in that case, those people are dead and buried or incinerated.  The evil is not ongoing.

In the case of HEK 293, IMO, the evil is not over while those cells still exist.  It's trafficking in human remains and that human did not consent to their taking, but rather they were seized by an act of murder.



An ends justify the means argument.  Those usually work out well.



Not in my case.  I am open to an ethically produced vaccine such as what GSK is developing, without tie to abortion.

I should add that the "293" in HEK 293 means that it took 293 experiments to get a working line of reproducible cells.  This is more attempts than would be possible from a single abortion, so it took multiple, maybe hundreds, of abortions to get to this cell line.  Given that, it's more accurate to say that the hundreds of abortions that resulted in this cell line took place 50 years ago.

Also, to "harvest" a viable embryonic kidney, the unborn child must have been old enough to have adequately developed kidneys.  This unborn child would have then had to be removed alive from the womb, typically by C-section, and then have his or her kidneys cut out without anesthesia, which would reduce the likelihood of obtaining viable organs.

This means that doctors or researchers performed dozens, if not hundreds, of particularly brutal procedures to produce these cell lines.

I don't know if my conscience will allow me to participate in that process, no matter how temporally removed.

Being opposed to unethical vaccines is different from not trusting a vaccine pushed through with very little testing and “in the wild” data. I fall in both camps for different reasons. But personally my opposition to the Covid vaccine is its immoral reality; if ethical varieties become available I wouldn’t be opposed on moral grounds per the vaccine itself. I would still be prudentially opposed until its long term effects are known. I’m not against vaccines in general, except on moral grounds where applicable.

The idea that specific cells are no longer around and merely their cellular progeny, is a ridiculous argument with a false, unscientific premise. It’s like saying a person is no longer themselves, or is “new”, when all cells in their body have been replaced through a natural process of cellular generation. From an ontological perspective that’s as insane as saying red is blue. Redness is never blueness. And substantially speaking the cells, though new, are still the child’s who was originally aborted.

The fact is the personally possessed “thing” (DNA and cells) is still in existence, which means the theft and immorality continues. Fr. Ripperger covers the ethics of this in a link I provided earlier in the thread.

Per your first response, I DO think it has something to do with the morality of the issue. Ethics don't exist in a vacuum even if we would like to think they do. They are a reflection of society. And yes, I can hear some of you winding up your keyboards to say that some things are absolute. And some things are. But even the ethics of abortion aren't an absolute. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term is unconscionable. Allowing her to choose to do so is ok. If she chooses an abortion, her decision ends the life of the fetus. Now we're into weighing the rights of the mother vs. rights of the fetus.

I had two friends from high school who became pregnant as a result of rape. No date rape, getting drunk with a friend at a party, non-consensual, etc. (I'm not arguing this is somehow "okay". It's not. But I'm presenting the most black and white case here). Sexually assaulted and attacked by a stranger. One chose to carry that child to term and raise him as her child, etc. The other friend could not bear for one moment the thought of have her attacker's seed in her body, to the point of her becoming suicidal. She chose an abortion.

I would argue that both decisions were ethical and appropriate. They are the opposite decision from each other and I think both of them made the right decision. I'm not arguing that this is perfectly equivalent to the ethics of the vaccine discussion.

My point is that it's interesting and perhaps advances the conversation to see the official (and unofficial) positions of major religions. If the Dalai Llama and the International President of the Church of Buddhism (I know that's not a thing) and other groups came out with opinions or statements, and these are people or groups well known to deeply consider ethics, I'm interested to hear how they think about these issues.

Per your second response, I included that comment because I do know some members of our congregation and others who state that they will refuse the vaccine for the reasons in these posts, despite the fact that our leaders have recommended it and even received the vaccine themselves.

And finally, I'm not suggesting that physicians have some exclusive domain over biomedical ethics. We certainly do not. But can having sat in many ethics board meetings in hospitals (especially when I was a hospice medical director), there is often a lot of discussion about hypotheticals and issues presented as black and white, while ignoring that there are very practical situations which must be dealt with. There is a viral disease that has now killed 1 in 830 Americans in the last year (I know there's debate about how cause of death is attributed. I'm using Johns Hopkins numbers here). These vaccines, which have some distant ethical entanglements, may save many many more lives. I get that you can poke holes in my arguments and have a continued discussion, and that's good and the purpose of this conversation. And it would be fantastic if a new, ethically pure cell line could be developed that does everything that the HEK293 line can do. And maybe there will be some day. But there isn't now, and I'm faced with balancing these ethical questions with a possibly life saving therapy for the world. So I'm recommending the vaccine to everyone and have received it myself.

Also (boy, I've gone on too long), my prior post mentioned that there are over 58,000 articles describing studies using the HEK293 line for development of a wide range of life changing therapies.

Are all of you being internally consistent in not taking any medications that were developed using the HEK293 or other genetically questionable cell lines? Are you taking anti-depressants? Have you been treated for cancer? If so, you've very likely used an ethically tainted treatment. This is the shades of gray world we live in.

I will freely admit that I don't know the subtleties and distinctions between Dominicans or Franciscans or Jesuits or other groups or societies within Catholicism.

I do agree that figuratively holding up a sign that says, "I'm opposed to this vaccine on moral grounds and I want everyone to know it because that makes it okay" and still getting the vaccine seems like a lame and weak argument. I would say and do say, "I'm not opposed to this on ethical grounds and I'm getting the shot."
I think the part is red is a completely different conversation and not related to the ethical discussion at hand. I also think it's a valid discussion and worthy of its own topic, although I don't know if it would fall in the Religion forum or not. I'd leave that to Medicamandan to determine.

A question: How much testing and in the wild data would be enough? 100,000 people? A million? A billion? How long for does the vaccine need to be in the wild before it's acceptable? A year? 5 years? 20 years? A lot of people could be saved in those 5 or 20 years if they got the vaccine. For people who already oppose a therapy, they will then look for reasons and data to support their opinion. They're like the flat-earthers. You can give them more and more and more data. It doesn't matter. They will always expand their argument and flawed rationale beyond current data. These people typically have no interest in finding the truth or the best answer. They're interested in having their already formed opinions supported by others.

Regarding redness and blueness:

I argue that the cells now being used are not still the child's who was originally aborted. Scientists have completely sequenced the DNA of the HEK cell line. They can and do clone cells and have now cloned entire animals, like Dolly the sheep. Does the original sheep, whose cells were taken and cloned, have any claim on Dolly? I'm not arguing for perfect equivalence between a sheep and a human. But the argument is similar.

What if I take the entire HEK DNA sequence and produce an entirely new, but identical cell? Is this okay? Does the child from whom HEK was derived, have any claim there? Are my 'new' HEK cells still tainted? Or am I now in the clear?

While some may find abortion to be an absolute, I would count myself as one who falls into the camp that says abortion is almost an absolute.
I fall in line with the Church's official stance on abortion, which allows for two exceptions:

Unintentional abortion
The principle of double effect is frequently cited in relation to abortion. A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may nevertheless remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman's life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the death of the embryo or fetus is a side effect. The death of the fetus is an undesirable but unavoidable consequence.[59][60]

Ectopic pregnancy
An ectopic pregnancy is one of a few cases where the foreseeable death of an embryo is allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion. This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.

Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.

Now, as to the example you provided, which is rape, I do NOT find that as an ethically acceptable rationale for abortion. First of all, it is a disingenuous and/or deceptive example to use. According to the Guttmacher Institute (a Pro-abortion research foundation used by Planned Parenthood)
less than 1% of all abortion cases involve rape. That's 1 percent. The use of a statistically small outlier in order to justify the greater norm is both bad logic and desperate. Moreover, rape as an exception is likewise illogical and indefensible.

After discussing the atrocities of rape, the trauma and pain it causes the individual, you have come to the conclusion that the solution to the horrific occurrence of a rape and the best method to rectify this heinous act, is to murder the innocent child that it created? How is that logical, ethical, or an exemption?
 
Why should the child pay for the sins of the father?

No, let's look at the reality of abortion using the same stats from that webesite, "12% of woman who aborted stated that they were worried about health (their personal decision not one necessarily based on medical opinion)
and, 86% of all abortions were aborted for 'reasons of convenience' according to the women's statements."

Now, the only part of your post that I found to be logical was the last point:
"Are all of you being internally consistent in not taking any medications that were developed using the HEK293 or other genetically questionable cell lines? Are you taking anti-depressants? Have you been treated for cancer? If so, you've very likely used an ethically tainted treatment. This is the shades of gray world we live in."

This does introduce a conflict for one's intellectual congruity. Granted, I have never taken the time to research what common medical practices this would encompass, but I do thank you for giving me something to look into and ruminate.

I'm well acquainted with double effect. When I was a hospice medical director, this was common. When a person is actively dying, especially from cardiac or pulmonary failure, they will become progressively short of breath. Giving them oxygen only helps somewhat. Air hunger, as it's called, is horrible for both the patient and the family who is watching.

We give these people small doses of morphine. This blocks the brain's sensation of air hunger and causes some sedation. This is a good and beneficent thing for a dying person. Morphine also suppresses respiratory drive. In high doses, opioids will make you stop breathing, which is how many opioid overdose deaths occur.

It's well recognized in hospice that giving some morphine both alleviates suffering and may somewhat hasten their death. It is given and monitored carefully, with the intention of providing comfort, not to kill the patient. Classic double effect.
When I was first in practice, I had a pregnant woman come in to our very rural ER. She was 6-10 weeks pregnant and was bleeding like crazy. I did a quick ultrasound and saw a uterus full of blood and maybe some fetal parts. Impossible to tell. This was troubling to me, because the baby might still be alive. I don't perform elective abortions and never have.

However, this woman urgently needed a D&C, which is the procedure to remove blood, clots and tissue from the uterus. The procedure is identical for treatment of a miscarriage or an elective abortion. I called my dad, a rural family physician of many years and talked it over.

I could feel him smiling over the phone as he gave me medical and fatherly counsel:

"Is she bleeding a lot and you can't stop it any other way?" Yes!
"Could she die if you don't do a D&C?" Yes.
"Is there any other option?" No.

"Then you know what to do. I know what you're worrying about here. Quit worrying about it and go save her life!" And I did the procedure and she recovered just fine.

For those who many not know, the Mormon church will and does excommunicate physicians who performs an elective abortion without a clear justification. And yes, those justifications include rape, incest, life of the mother or a fetus with deformities incompatible with life.

I agree fully that most abortions are not the result of rape/incest. I've previously stated my views on abortion in those instances, which is the view of my church as well. My previous statements are not in any way trying to make the case in favor of elective abortion without those specific indications.

As to the red text, I consider that in the case of rape, the pregnancy is NOT the result of the woman choosing to have sex and not her choice to have a child. In my mind, this is the critical element. If a woman chose to have sex and then gets pregnant, she's already made the decision, of her own volition and an abortion in this scenario is not justified.

But to force a woman, who was assaulted and became pregnant, to carry a pregnancy to term, is as heinous as the rape itself. She, and only she, should make the decision as to continue to term or not. The crucial difference for me is intent.

As to the blue text, I have different thoughts on that which probably need their own post.

The gray world in which we live, especially if you have to do something about it, rather than just debate it in a philosophy class.

As to the blue text, may I ask what some of you do for work? A lot of you philosophers out there are very confident from your high places in your assessment of right, truth, and logic. I've stated my positions, argued as I see it and how I practice in the real world.

Finally, here's a picture from our local news station in Salt Lake City. This is my prophet and president, getting his COVID-19 vaccine today. So, there is no question as to our church's position on this.



https://www.ksl.com/article/50090481/president-nelson-and-other-eligible-latter-day-saint-leaders-receive-covid-19-vaccine

I shall bow out and continue to advocate for vaccines, even those from the HEK line.

Remarkable. How can you reconcile the murder of an innocent human being, through no fault of its own, with your Hippocratic Oath?

Oh, but now you would like to know our profession. Are you attempting to argue from a position of authority? Arguments either stand on their own or they do not. Are you trying to imply that your position as an MD provides you with a greater degree of practicality, realism, or insight into universal issues of morality?

People here and elsewhere need to take the time to understand what they’re talking about before they start jumping to conclusions after reading “aborted fetus cell line”. No abortions are being done to harvest these cell lines. They’re self-perpetuating and have existed for a very long time. One could almost make the argument that it would be disrespectful to God’s design and creation to NOT use the cell lines in spite of the reason/method of discovery.

Fair enough. What is the origin of the first fetus cell line?

We know the origin and the timeline. We aren’t dumb, we are opposed. There’s a difference.

https://cogforlife.org/2021/01/07/covid-19-vaccine-hek293-testing-and-production-are-ethically-equal/

For the TL;DR crowd

Yup. It's clear as day.

It's a shame that many Christians, some of the RCC clergy as well, have decided to play mental gymnastics.

I participated in Novavax COVID vaccine trial. 2:1 ratio for vaccine vs placebo. 67% getting the real vaccine. Vaccine is using moth cell generate spike protein. Then the spike protein is injected to generate antibiodies. No genetic material or fetal cells involved. Very traditional way to make vaccine. Similar to hepatitis B vaccine . Very mild side effects. No severe allergy reported.
Novavax is small American company located in Gaithersburg MD area. Many vaccine trials sites across the country. Compensation is generous $1750.

What is your first language?

Hard pass

Same here.

KJV
1 Corinthians 6:19-6:20

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”

“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.”


1 Corinthians 3:16-3:17

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”