I suggest you look up medical efficacy in regard to testing formulas.
I did not conclude this, it was from a NBC news article with other sources. Here you go: https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf
From that (a short read): “While fetal cell lines may be used to develop or
manufacture COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccines themselves do not contain any aborted fetal
cells. A comprehensive list of COVID-19 vaccines in development and any connection to
abortion-derived cell lines is available here.”
And the article has a history of the two fetal cell lines developed 50+ years ago.
Again, I’m a reporter of a story but the fact remains that the vaccines developed do not contain fetal cells.
I’m fine with your criticism, it made me look deeper into the development. Thomas is disgrace who conflated testing with vaccine contents. Whether through ignorance or malice doesn’t matter.
Yes, and despite your protestations, the sky is still blue and water is still wet…
Nowhere in anything you posted is there a claim from Clarence Thomas that the Covid vaccines contain fetal cells. From all I can tell, this is something you made up simply so you could argue the fact that they do not. His claim is that fetal cell lines were used in their development. A fact you do not disagree with.
I wonder how consistent they are in their beliefs. Do they object to all medical treatments that had fetal cells used at any point of their development?
…a list of 30 common medications that used fetal cell lines during research and development. The list includes acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.
So pretty much any OTC painkiller is out.
It would be interesting to see what Clarence Thomas would do with such information if it were presented to him in an amicus brief… which is to say, ignore it completely.
Yes, I was in agreement, though I was more focusing on them, rather than Thomas’s dissent referencing them.
In a just world, you’d be able to get an injunction preventing them from accepting any medical treatment that had fetal cells involved in their development.
I wouldn’t go nearly that far. IMO, in an ideal world, they would swear to never use any of those drugs or treatments, and if they do, they lose their religious exemption.
Fetal cell lines are grown in a laboratory and were started with cells from elective abortions that occurred several decades ago in the 1970s-80s. They are now thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue. None of the COVID-19 vaccines use fetal cells derived from recent abortions.
But–
Tylenol was introduced in 1955.
Pepto Bismol was also invented well before stem cells came around.
The modern form of aspirin was first sold in 1899.
I have heard it said, somewhat casually, that the SCOTUS Roe decision (i.e., Dobbs) was a parallel to the Loving case, that is, the reasons Roe should be overturned are the same reasons Loving should be, and conversely.
I’m certainly not in favor of either of these actions, but has anyone done a point-by-point comparison of both? If they match closely, why not start a movement to overturn Loving? That should get Thomas’ dander up a bit. And if he rejects that, shouldn’t his extreme hypocrisy be pointed out, maybe enough to impeach?
Leaving aside the common legal grounding for Loving and… the whole line of substantive due process cases, before anyone could challenge Loving, a state would have to actually do something along those lines. Some random citizen isn’t going to just be able to petition the court to deny a marriage license.
If you want to attack Loving, you don’t do it by challenging interracial marriage, you do it by actually trying to get married under circumstances a particular state might actually prohibit (polygamy comes to mind, and it certainly has been tried). But even if you get the court to explicitly overturn Loving, that still doesn’t make interracial marriage illegal, until or unless some state has a law on the books saying as much. And you know what? Thomas might just be the type to shrug and say “states rights.” And if states don’t all go out and suddenly make interracial marriage illegal even though the court says they can, well, to Thomas et al you are just proving their point that state legislatures “accountable to the people” are the proper mechanism for government (never mind that it took action from the court to get us to this point).
This isn’t some fucking game of calling the ultra-right’s bluff. Because they aren’t bluffing, and they don’t give two shits if the whole country goes down in flames. If the court acts to pair down our rights, it’s a victory because the Republican Party is led by fascists and don’t give a damn. It’s what they want. If the court acts to pair down rights, but then outraged citizens compel their lawmakers to take action to restore and protect their rights… then the Republican fuckwits and their plants on the Supreme Court get to play the smug intellectual thought-leader and say “See, I told you you could rely on the states to be accountable to their citizens!”
It’s like guns. If the murder rate goes up, it’s because not enough people have guns to defend themselves. Clearly the solution is more guns. If the murder rate goes down, then… what are you complaining about? Clearly people can have all the guns they want.
I will accept a WebMD link over your bare assertion that those drugs haven’t been tested using fetal tissue. If you can find a cite that says they haven’t used fetal cells in testing those drugs, fantastic. Put up or withdraw your claim.
As a verb, pair is used to indicate grouping things into pairs. … Pare, on the other hand, is only used as a verb that refers to the act of trimming or reducing something. (cite)
