Vaccines' Slippery Slope
•
July 19, 2010 11:30 AM
As I’ve written about the medical and pharmaceutical’s industry of death and creation of vaccines from aborted babies, I’ve observed a tangled web that’s arisen over our nation. With a monopoly on vaccines, the traditional pharmaceutical companies aren’t exactly threatened by those desiring to make ethical alternative vaccines, but a current case in the court is trying to change that.
As the founder of two pro-life medical companies, Dr. Theresa Deisher is trying to develop pro-life vaccines and other ethical research. Deisher who founded, AVM Biotechnology and Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), has a reputable and impressive history in cellular research. In part, these companies were founded because “the use of aborted fetal tissue and embryonic cells in the discovery, development, and production of vaccines and pharmaceuticals has increased dramatically in the past decade” (AVM).
When it comes to vaccines, there’s been a surge in development of alternatives in recent years. SCPI, AVM’s counterpart pharmaceutical company, exists to develop safe medicines that are also morally pure. According to the website:
Over the past decade the use of aborted fetal material has slowly, almost imperceptibly, seeped into and become routine at many stages of drug discovery, development and commercialization, to the point where aborted fetal material is now being used to discover new food additives and flavor enhancers. (Source)
SCPI has taken initiative in investigating such thing as the debate on whether vaccines and autism have a tie, such as in this recent paper presented by them.
If you recall from another blog on this issue, this practice of doing research and then founding a biotech company is what has propelled many of the fetal researchers to the top of the financial ballpark—with the cells of aborted babies paving the way. So this is, in essence, the mirror image: Same business principle, different (ethical) goal. Sounds great, right? Not according to Uncle Sam, who’s now being sued by Deisher and a few others.
Back in June, I reported on the issues associated with embryonic stem-cell research and the decisions made in both the Clinton and Obama administrations that eased the restrictions to this practice. At the time I thought I was merely reading political history and showing how it impacted us today. But a week after the stories ran, a United States Court of Appeals in Washington, DC ruled that “doctors doing adult stem cell research have ‘competitive standing’ to sue” because they are potentially competing for funds for their research. Put in simple terms, here’s what’s happening:
In 1995 Congress enacted a ban on human embryo research that either created a new embryo (such as in cloning) or destroyed an existing embryo (as with medical research). Known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, it was a double-edged sword because it also allowed university researchers to take federal money, do their research, then launch biotech companies—then continue previously funded researchwithout federal monies. In theory, at least, this should have allowed federal funding to people doing ethical stem cell research, such as those who use adult stem cells. Deisher and her companies, for example, would then be prime candidates for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding because, in working with adult stem-cell research, no embryos are destroyed.
But ultimately loopholes prevailed. These loopholes, such as the ones Elena Kagan presented to Bill Clinton on cloning or that allowed researchers in the Clinton, and now Obama, administrations to receive funding for research that the Dickey-Wicker prohibited, are what the suit alleges need to be addressed and stopped.
According to the plaintiffs in the suit, a reason we don’t have more ethical medical research is because the government is giving its funding to the unethical researchers, who are actually violating federal law—and receiving government funding to do so. You can read the entire text of the lawsuit. Despite the legal jargon, it’s not too difficult to get the gist: Congress banned federal funding that created new or destroyed existing human embryos. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent of NIH, has been giving funding to those who do embryonic stem-cell research. This violates a federal ban. Therefore, ethical and legal stem-cell research doesn’t get funded; hence, a lawsuit against Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as Secretary of the HHS, the HHS itself, Dr. Francis S. Collins, in his official capacity as Director of the NIH, as well as the NIH.
When President Obama signed an executive order to lift restrictions on human stem-cell research, he indicated it was a lift on the ban for “responsible” stem-cell research. However, the one thing Obama couldn’t do was remove the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, authorized and reauthorized by Congress every year since its initial passage in 1996. In fact, an article in the New York Times, right after Obama’s executive order said:
Yet, people on both sides of the stem cell debate say Mr. Obama’s announcement could lead to a reconsideration of the ban on Capitol Hill, an idea so controversial and fraught with ethical implications that the mere discussion of it would have been unthinkable just a few months ago, when President George W. Bush was in office.
Deisher and other plaintiffs in the lawsuit think it’s unthinkable too. And, seemingly, they have had enough. The plaintiffs include another doctor doing therapeutic adult stem cell research, Nightlight Christians Adoptions, an adoption agency for unused embryos, which asserts the lives of the embryos are in jeopardy by this action, adoptive parents of embryos, and the Christian Medical Association. In cases of the doctors, the suit alleges that “The Guidelines, which unlawfully authorize federal funding of research using stem cells derived from human embryos, will result in increased competition for limited federal funding and will thereby injure… ability to successfully compete for the NIH stem cell research funds.”
The implication of this initially thrown-out lawsuit is massive. It's a challenge to the existing law at a time when many are considering the “use” of Dickey-Wicker’s continued renewal. Our current administration has shown its support for embryonic stem-cell research, and we have seen how tied into vaccines and pharmaceutical creation this is.
If you’re a parent wanting vaccine options for your child, this lawsuit is personal. We saw in the Industry of Death series how so many medical professionals had used this law to found biotech companies and sell patents to pharmaceutical companies that contained drugs made from fetal cells. Now we have a doctor doing this, even founding the pharmaceutical company, for the purpose of not using fetal cells and standing for pro-life medical research, and she and others have to take the battle to federal court—and it took an appeal to let the case even go forward.
We are in dangerous times in the area of Life. When simply creating vaccines not using fetal cells involves court cases to compete for funding, when our president reverses decisions, and nominates to the Supreme Court a woman with a history of supporting partial-birth abortion and cloning, when our laws insist children get myriads of vaccines and yet few will discuss the ethical alternatives, then we are seeing a slippery slope of decline that may cost all of us.
About the Author
Susan Tyrrel is active in Bound4LIFE and works with prayer ministries. She has a Ph.D. in educational psychology from Texas A&M University, and uses her academic skills both inside and outside academia. Currently, she is writing a book on Christian community.
