The aborted fetal cell research world you know nothing about

This Crisis article by Monica Seeley: Why the Blackout on Fetal Tissue Research Among Pro-Lifers? offers a useful survey of the use of aborted fetal tissue in Covid vaccines. It's important to tell the truth about how these cell lines are developed and how our medical system is corrupted by them, taking our consciences with them -- to the point that even those opposed to abortion refrain from their mention.

I have posted a lot about this issue (you can see the archive here -- this post has information challenging one common assurance, that DNA from the source does not end up in the vaccine itself).  

There is much more to be done to expose what can only be described as a huge industry, one poised to exceed its already large share of the economy -- the monetization of health in all its aspects. (For more on this, unfortunately behind a paywall in the Wall Street Journal, see "Will We All Soon Live in Cancerland? New technologies promise to help us discover more cancers in time to treat them. But they also risk ushering even the well into an all-encompassing kingdom of the ill.") 

As the populace is overcome by fear of illness, the medical-pharmaceutical-insurance complex stands to gain, especially by offering -- or mandating -- products that manipulate the very genetic processes of our bodies. 

Covid vaccines have provided the pretext for forging ahead into this ghastly realm. Despite protests from self-appointed ethical gate-keepers like Fr. Matthew Schneider, LC, it really is this particular virus and no other that has incentivized aborted fetal tissue. This shift is distilled in a March 16, 2021 -- and the date is significant, as it marks the rollout of the Covid vaccines -- article in the MIT Technology Review: Scientists plan to drop the 14-day embryo rule, a key limit on stem cell research. 

Because this article is technological, not polemical, it contains information that is normally kept away from the public. I urge you to read it, as it reveals a world far from the emotion-laded one we are carefully restricted to when we discuss abortion, the world of difficult choices made by suffering women in hard situations, the world of abortion as a misguided remedy for a personal problem. Instead, it puts us squarely in a different world of trafficking in human flesh, of the life and death of little ones in the clinics and in the labs, for medical research purposes:

Because embryo research doesn’t receive federal funding in the US, and laws differ widely around the world, the ISSCR [International Society for Stem Cell Research, "an influential professional society" that sets voluntary guidelines] has taken on outsize importance as the field’s de facto ethics regulator. The society’s rules are relied on by universities and by scientific journals to determine what kinds of research they can publish...

 The 14-day limit arose after the birth of the first test-tube babies in the 1970s. “It was ‘Oh, we can create human embryos outside the body—we need rules,” says Josephine Johnston, a scholar with the Hastings Center, a nonprofit bioethics organization. “It was a political decision to show the public there is a framework for this research, that we aren’t growing babies in labs.”

The rule stood unchallenged for many years. That was in part because scientist couldn’t grow embryos more than four or five days anyway, which was sufficient for in vitro fertilization.

Note that although the scientists are discussing embryo use, what is really happening, ultimately, is abortion, the deliberate ending of human life.

According to Ishii, new experiments “might ignite abortion debates,” especially if the researchers develop human embryos to the point where they take on recognizable characteristics like a head, beating heart cells, or the beginning of limbs.

During the Trump administration, embryologists endeavored to keep a low profile for the startling technical advances in their labs. Fears of a presidential tweet or government action to impede research helped keep discussion of changing the 14-day rule in the background. For instance, the ISSCR guidelines were complete in December, according to one person, but they still have not been published...

“I agree the rule has to be changed, but it should be done in an incremental manner, on a case-by-case basis,” says Alfonso Martinez Arias, a developmental biologist at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, who thinks researchers should ease their experiments forward a day or two at a time so they don’t lose public support. “My view is opening up too fast could allow very poor science,” he says. “I do worry about getting a flood of experiments that do not help us.”...

“We would have to ensure they develop normally, and to do that you have to study them beyond 14 days,” says Insoo Hyun, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, who has argued in favor of easing the rule. “You need to study that embryo as long as you can.”

You should know that this is just one small corner of this industry. It's so vast, so global, that a dedicated, hidden supply chain exists just to keep it in motion. This is the industrial reality that even pro-lifers are ignorant of, and that apologists for the system shore up (such as, prominently, Fr. Matthew Schneider, LC, whose articles have provided cover to the leaders in the Catholic Church for support for participation in vaccine mandates, and to whom I have conveyed all this information on numerous occasions). 

As Seeley's article makes clear, the use of harvested organs will only grow. The technology to do so is very much in place and has been for a while; as the MIT article demonstrates, it was somewhat restrained by a combination of self-limitation and perceived political pressure. With Covid mandates in place, imposing a demand for gene therapies derived from fetal cells, the financial incentives are bursting the seams of the corporations and institutions that benefit. 

There is only one way to restrain this growth industry that depends on death, and that is to remove the demand. The horrors will stop only when information about what is going on is no longer kept from people of good will, and when they -- we --  are moved to refuse to participate -- to refuse to benefit from evil.