The question of the morality of COVID vaccines: the use of the criminal cell line HEK 293

Posted on October 9, 2021

October 9, 2021

By: Father Joseph O.F.M.

 “If someone, both of the children of Israel and of the strangers dwelling in Israel, offers his son to the idol Moloch, let him be put to death … I will stand against him, I will cut him off from among his people, for having given one of his sons to Moloch, contaminated my sanctuary, and desecrated my holy name” (1)

‘… Those who live conforming in everything to the Divine Law abstain from those remedies that are not ordained by God to healing. Even if they are manifested by the probable healing coming from the use of those remedies, nevertheless they abhor them, as evils and magical arts of the devil. ‘.

These words are taken from the Catechism of the Council of Trent in its explanation of the seventh request of the Sunday Prayer. They lead us to question, in addition to the instinctive reaction of many Catholics, about this genetic information – improperly called vaccines – whose development derives from human cells of an aborted fetus.

That is not in question. Ms. Pamela Acker, in her subsequent interviews on LifeSiteNews and in her book Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective provides us with documentation of the utmost importance on the subject and that we will use for our study, which will essentially limit itself to estimating the morality of acceptance to be vaccinated when the vaccine requires HEK-293 cells in its manufacture (2).

We thank you for also transmitting to us the reflections of Alvin Wong in The Ethics of HEK-293 and for giving us the opportunity to discover other American authors who for almost twenty years have been communicating a theological argument on the question. It must be recognized that Catholics in the United States, in conservative or traditional circles, have taken a strong advantage over us on this issue and that it would be very wrong to neglect their thinking.

In the present work, after describing the origin of the HEK-293 (I) cell line, and explaining its relationships in the manufacture and production of vaccines against COVID (II), we will try to identify and enumerate the sins committed during the preparation of vaccines (III) and then we will propose a moral reflection on the conductivity of sin (IV).

Finally, we will try to estimate at what distance lies the consent to be vaccinated from the sins committed (V).

1) On the origin of HEK-293 cells

‘HEK’ stands for’human embryonic kidney’. There is evidence here that the origin of the cell line bearing this name comes from the kidney of a human embryo.

The number 293 tells us the number of previous experiments that were necessary to lead to the stable and almost immortal development of this cell line.

This does not mean that there have been 293 abortions, but for 293 experiments it takes more than one abortion. We are probably talking about hundreds of abortions” (3).

To give an order of magnitude, we know that for the WI38 cell line, also derived from an aborted fetus, it took 32 abortions. (4)

This proportion is more or less the same in the case of many other lines. If we rely on this proportion, there would have been more or less 246 abortions before that of the fetus aborted in 1972 in the Netherlands and from which the so-called HEK-293 cell line originated.

If it were a miscarriage, there is very little chance of being able to intervene in time. Only abortion allows you to extract the coveted kidney very quickly

In his book The Ethics of HEK-293,Alvin Wong quotes an interview with Dr. Alex van der Eb who was involved in the development of this line and who specifies, as far as he recalls, that the fetus at the origin of this line was perfectly normal. The reasons for this abortion were probably known to him but he does not remember them (5). This fetus was that of a little girl.

Wong provides the many compelling reasons why it is extremely likely that the initial abortion of the HEK-293 lineage was not a miscarriage but a voluntary abortion. It should be noted above all, as Pamela Acker explains, that researchers need to obtain human tissue within five minutes of abortion so that it is certainly usable (6). Removing the kidney an hour after the death of the fetus is no longer useful.

In this logic we understand the desire of researchers that children be brought into the world by caesarean section. It is in fact when they are recovered alive that the chances of extracting the kidney in the best conditions are optimal.

The kidney is then eradicated from a fetal body whose heart often still beats.

The eradication of the organ normally takes place without anesthesia in order not to create cellular disturbances. Pressure can also be exerted on mothers to delay the date of the abortion in order to pick up a more developed kidney.

(2) The use of HEK-293 cells in the manufacture of the COVID ‘vaccine’

To get to the vaccines marketed by laboratories, we must distinguish three different uses from HEK-293 cells.

The first takes place in the design and production phase of the vaccine.

The second takes place in the testing phase of its effectiveness and the third to allow the efficacy tests of vaccine batches before using it.

Let’s briefly explain what conventional vaccines consist of differentiating from so-called messenger RNA vaccines for the design and production phases.

For vaccines based on a viral vector, HEK-293 cells can be used at all stages of their preparation: for the design and production of the vaccine by transfection of said cells.

On the contrary, for the so-called messenger RNA vaccines, even if nucleic acid is produced by biotechnology from the coronavirus karyotype, scientists have been forced to genetically create a spike protein more resistant than the one that exists in nature. However, experiments in order to achieve the desired mutations in the protein were initially conducted in HEK-293cells. Pamela Hacker concludes: “the spike protein encoded by vaccines was originally developed into aborted fetal cells.” (8)

Although the ‘vaccines’ offered by laboratories using HEK-293 cells do not theoretically contain any residue of these human cells, in practice it cannot be said with certainty.

Subsequently, before attempting to inject the vaccine into a human, it started by testing it in cell culture in the laboratory because it is much cheaper and less dangerous than trying to test it on humans. It was therefore possible to verify that the artificially produced mRNA allowed to obtain the desired production of the protein. The same goes for conventional vaccines. Now, these tests have been carried out on HEK-293 cells.

Finally, every time new batches are produced, or very often, its effectiveness on HEK-293 cells is noted for the first time.

We conclude by saying that although the “vaccines” offered by laboratories using HEK-293 cells do not theoretically contain any residue of these human cells, in practice it cannot be said with certainty.

In fact, the purification of vaccines is generally carried out by centrifuge because this process is inexpensive. If you wanted a perfect guarantee of purity, you would have to use much more expensive means.

3) Identification and enumeration of sins committed to lead to the commercialization of “vaccines”.

 We are now able to distinguish, enumerate and identify the series of past and present sins to bring vaccines to market, and those foreseeable in the future to fuel the market.

1) Past sins

  1. Originally, abortions

We hypothesized the plausible interval of the number of abortions needed to obtain the kidney cells in good condition sought: between 240 and 250 and we indicated the reasons for excluding the hypothesis of spontaneous abortions.

If it is true that a single abortion is an abominable crime, the mass grave of children that we discover at the origin of the HEK-293 cell line adds singularly to this horror and underlines the cynicism of the merchants of human flesh, of the regulars to crime.

Although abortions were not decided with a view to obtaining human cells, it is seen that the method used was chosen with this intention.

  1. Vivisection on human beings

Not knowing a more appropriate term, we use here the word that designates the dissections that are made on live animals, but that are in this case practiced on babies who have been torn from the womb.

This butchery on live babies is probably repeated as many times as there have been abortions.

They have one kidney or the other removed, if possible while they are still alive, so that the collected tissue is of better quality.

It is even avoided to proceed with a preliminary anesthesia in order not to risk a breakdown of the cells.

This butchery on live babies is probably repeated as many times as there have been abortions.

  1. Deprivation of both lives

 All these children die without being baptized and go into limbo. Murder deprives them not only of their earthly existence, but also of the hope of heavenly bliss.

At the same time, they deprive God of all those who could have been his children by grace and his worshippers in Heaven.

Whoever looks at things according to Faith must recognize in this third sin the top of the abomination.

  1. Theft and theft of organs

Skinned children obviously did not give their consent to kidney extraction for use in science, research or industry. And, admitting that a mother accepted that her child was handed over alive to the peelers, her consent, after what she gave for the murder of her child, is unjust, worthless.

The indisputable sign of this usurpation lies in the reading of the DNA of any cell of the HEK-293 line. It would infallibly demonstrate that the DNA is that of a unique person, that of this embryo killed in 1972 in the Netherlands.

Would it be permissible for the practice of vivisection to definitively exclude any legitimacy for the recovery of extracts of these kidneys?

There is therefore, at the origin, the criminal theft of human organs. It should be added here that there is not only theft but also usurpation, because there is really an embezzlement of rights over these organs.

The indisputable sign of this usurpation lies in the reading of the DNA of any cell of the HEK-293 line. It would infallibly demonstrate that the DNA is that of a unique person, that of this embryo killed in 1972 in the Netherlands.

If it is true that man has only the usufruct of his body and that his usufruct ceases from his death until the resurrection of the bodies, the remains of this body belong only to God and must be laid on earth. Over the centuries, saprophagous and peelers have been punished with death.

2) Present sins

5. Receiving and unlawful exploitation of human cells:

Receiving is the unjust possession of what does not belong to us. Laboratories in possession of HEK-293 cells are guilty of receiving human cells.  Their activity from these cells remains illegitimate on the basis of the initial criminal usurpation and no prescription can be admitted in this matter.

The triple use that is made of these cells for the design, production and verification of the effectiveness of the vaccine and the quality of its batches placed on the market is therefore illegitimate.

  1. Collaboration in the industrialization of the human body

The laboratories, heirs of criminal thefts, usurpers of human organs, receivers and exploiters of these tissues, are obviously actors in the gigantic enterprise of commodification of the human body.

Despite being actors, they are at the same time accomplices, formally accomplices of this terrifying and multifaceted activity of instrumentalization of the bodies of the weakest human persons and therefore in particular of those still intrauterine.

If it is true that this complicity does not enter directly into the genealogy of the sins that separate the initial abortions from the proposed vaccines, it is still necessary to take it into account.

  1. Injection of a vaccine containing human waste

Laboratories cannot guarantee that vaccines do not contain slag from human cells. There is therefore a risk of an injection of DNA fragments, even if present only in infinitesimal quantities.

It is therefore ultimately a matter of directly exploiting here something of the aborted fetus in the vaccine.

This time it is no longer simply a question of the instrumentalization of the human body at the service of the manufacture of the vaccine but of the injection of human fragments recovered following a murder.

It is easy to understand that we consider here a new kind of gravity. It cannot be argued that human waste is found in infinitesimal quantities, because the smallest strand of DNA is enough to characterize human nature.

  1. Sins to come

      8.Encourage the vicious circle of creating new fetal cell lines:

Although they are qualified as immortal, cell lines are actually not. They do not last indefinitely, and of course, when they run out, laboratories will have to create more. Then the series of the same sins committed begins again and again and again until the protest is felt.

General considerations on the conductivity of moral evil:

Our goal now is to investigate the morality of consent to receive a vaccine that was made using HEK-293 cells. Let’s imagine that there is no other difficulty in receiving this vaccine (which is not true) than that of the series of sins that we have just enunciated: the question is whether it is legitimate to get vaccinated. Can we not say that these are mainly sins that belong to the past, which we must certainly deplore but that the damage is done and that receiving or not the vaccine will no longer change anything?

With an example of easy understanding, we see that it is not because a sin has occurred in the past, without us having taken part in it, that we cannot be morally contaminated by it. Take a man who stole a million euros. He dies. The son – aware of his father’s theft – inherits and does not return the stolen sum. He in turn dies and inherits his son, aware of his grandfather’s theft… I am friends with this nephew who gives me a car bought with this money, warning me of its stolen origin. Am I entitled to receive the car? No. If I accepted it, I would steal. We can therefore clearly see that there is a transmission of past sins that can have a strong impact on the morality of present sins. For certain acts we perform, it takes place as a kind of appropriation of previous acts of others, whose morality redundant on ours.

It may be enough to approve them to make them fall on us. But their resonance in us becomes even more penetrating when we enter into the complacency that comes from the enjoyment of these past acts. If it is a question of sins, the appropriation of these acts risks taking place in a very profound way .However, it seems wrong to speak of cooperation with evil when we want to talk about the connection that is established between an act of the present and an act of the past. In fact, the notion of cooperation presupposes the exercise of a causality, of a real influence on a sin. So it should only be used in case of present or future sin.

Despite this difference between past acts on the one hand and present and future acts on the other, it must be recognized, however, that the distinctions that identify the nature of cooperation and its lawfulness are also useful for analyzing the question of the right to enjoy the fruits of a sin.

Let us therefore remember that cooperation in sin is never possible if it is formal, that is, if the cooperator has made his own the evil intention of the actor of sin. It is also illicit if it is immediate. Immediacy means cooperation in the very act of sin. This immediate cooperation is obviously unlawful, both if it is a formal cooperation and only material, that is, without there being participation in the intention of the main agent, because the action in which the cooperator participates would be a sin. There remains the case of mediated cooperation where an indirect contribution to sin is made and without entering into the intention of those who commit it. Material and mediated cooperation is routinely unlawful, but if remote it can sometimes be lawful for proportionately serious reasons.

But how to know that these proportionately serious reasons exist and are sufficient to admit mediated and remote cooperation? The prudential judgment to be made is delicate and complex. All circumstances must be taken into account and the following criteria must be analyzed.

The reason must be all the more serious:

  • the more serious is the sin we cooperate with,
  • how much the act we cooperate with will cause scandal among the weak,
  • how close the act to which one cooperates is close to sin,
  • how much the sin in which we cooperate would be avoided without our cooperation,
  • how much the obligation to prevent this sin is greater because of the nature of things, the circumstances, the personal situation of the cooperator.

It can be noted that two of these criteria (not committing sin without our cooperation and the obligation to prevent it) are relevant only if it is cooperation. In the event that it is a question of whether one can enjoy the consequences of sin, these criteria no longer come into play since the sins have already occurred.

Finally, we must draw attention to the notion of scandal. It must be called scandalous”every fact, omission, word, any action that has at least a less good aspect and capable of producing in others a moral fault”. If this does not happen, the scandalous event will at least be an occasion for a painful amazement and reprobation. Consequently, every scandal desired or permitted without proportionate reason is, by its nature, a more or less serious sin against Christian charity”(10)

If we do not have to take into account the Pharisaic scandal, which is provoked in others because of their bad personal dispositions, we must take care not to scandalize the weak who, because of their ignorance, can be scandalized even on the occasion of actions that are legitimate in themselves. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while arguing that the flesh that has been consecrated to idols can be eaten unscrupulously, concludes, however, that if this manducation were to scandalize the weak, then one should abstain from it. (11)

Another example, very illuminating, is in the life of St. Paschal Baylon, a franciscan lay brother of the sixteenth century.

While he was the doorman of his convent and had come to warn his superior that they were looking for him, the latter asked him to tell the visitors that he was not present.

We know that this answer is a conventional way of suggesting that the requested person is not available.

But the saint, after trying to obtain another answer, clashing with his superior, ended up telling him: “Father, it would be a lie and therefore a sin, and sin is the offense to God”(12) And for the only time in his life, he did not obey.

To this anecdote it must be added that, if the humble lay brother had not studied, God had given him such a great infused knowledge that the greatest theologians of the time came to consult him and were amazed at the extent and depth of his science!

Which – it must be admitted – does not argue too much in favor of mental restrictions.

Assessment of the existence of a commensurate reason to receive this HEK-293 vaccine

Of the sins we have listed, almost all of them are past sins. We have explained how these sins can contaminate us, even if we have not cooperated in their fulfillment.  One of them, however, is an ever-present sin: it is the receiving of human cells originally stolen by crime.

The same applies to the unlawful exploitation of these cells and in particular, in the case of the COVID vaccine, to the use that has been made of them during the design of production and quality tests when new batches of vaccines are placed on the market, as well as during vaccination.

As we have written, two of the five criteria for judging whether there are proportionate reasons for mediated material cooperation no longer make sense if they are past sins. We will therefore consider these the two criteria only for the sins still present. Let us then examine the five criteria.

1st criterion of judgment: gravity of the sins with which one enters into connection, both of those that have been committed in the past, and of those that continue to be committed.

The first criterion to consider is the gravity of the sins to which one cooperates, whether present or future, or from which one profits, if they are past sins. And it is understood that the greater gravity of sins makes it all the more difficult for it to be lawful to cooperate or draw fruit from them. In fact, the bond that is established with them establishes a sort of connection, of complicity, all the more problematic the more serious the sin.

Now it is obvious that the gravity of the sins with which those who decide to receive this type of vaccine come into connection is extreme.

Let’s think a little about a nuclear explosion, whose irradiation is such that even those who are very far from the epicenter suffer the effects. To ask the question differently: even if it is a question of preserving the greatest goods such as health or life, is it legitimate to accept even the slightest complicity with such sins?

Although this criterion alone does not yet allow, it seems to us, to answer this question, it is sufficient to show already how morally dangerous the acceptance of this vaccine is.

2nd criterion of judgment: evaluation of the scandal caused by the acceptance of the vaccine

Let us put aside the Pharisaic scandal, which seems to us to be absent from the reactions we are witnessing. Two very different reactions are manifested when we learn that ecclesiastical authorities consider the vaccine possible, for proportionate reasons.

The first is a misunderstanding, a revolt, an indignation against the admission of collusion that scandalizes them. Reasoning is of no use at all. The fact that the Vatican has declared itself in favor of the possibility of using these vaccines is today considered, by a considerable fringe of Catholics, a further sign for the refusal of use, so immense is the discredit of conciliar Rome, and not only in traditionalist circles.

Mutatis mutandis, think of the reaction of San Pasquale Baylon… This reaction is already credited by positions in favor of the intransigent line. We add that it is often motivated by other aspects, medical and / or political that we do not address in this article.

On the contrary, the second reaction is a sigh of relief. We can, in conscience, receive the vaccine. Which removes the specter of so many anxieties and a difficult future that we had imagined.

There is a submission to increasingly restrictive dictates that leads men, and Catholics in particular, to have to accept ever greater complicity and to stray from the line of “non possumus”

Has there been a scandalous effect among those who react in this way?

Do you feel in them the fear that morality will one day impose on them something that would make their civic integration very difficult, if not impossible, but doesn’t their desire to always find agreements end up prevailing over moral judgment?

Even if we thought we had to conclude that this vaccine is possible, should we not add, like St. Paul about idolotries, that it is still better to refrain from it so as not to hurt the conscience of those we felt weak? That would be a first reason. But is there not a greater one that pertains to the common good, namely that the worsening of cooperation weakens us more and more and makes us less and less capable of opposing Catholic principles to barbarism?

We will not conclude the debate here yet, although we consider it essential to take account of the scandalous effect.

3rd criterion of judgment: evaluation of the proximity of the consent to the vaccine with the listed sins.

As we said, three sins are current: the prescription of human cells without and against the consent of the usufructuary, the exploitation of these cells in particular in the design, production and implementation of quality tests on vaccines against Covid, and vaccination itself, given the presence of human waste in the vaccine.

With a more eloquent example, imagine a company known to operate on a serious initial theft of materials from which all the products it sells would be made. It seems logical to us that we could buy these products only for very serious reasons and to the extent that we had no other possibility.

We are in a similar situation with these laboratories, except that there is an aggravating factor in their case. It is evident that their theft, their initial usurpation, their current exploitation is not that of materials but of human cells coming from a dissected living child.

Consent to the vaccine would not only link us to a theft, but also to a crime. But at what distance?  Considering the severity of initial abortions and vivisection, the distance in time, space and the unknown of the child has no relevance.

Whether it is a child aborted in 1972 in Amsterdam or a child aborted an hour ago in Paris and whose name is known does not change the matter at all. The notion of moral distance has nothing to do with these factors. The moral distance is that the one who is vaccinated is actually far from the initial act from which he benefits in a mediated and distant way.

On the other hand, however, the distance from sin is much less if we consider the criminal reception and the exploitation of cells. It is from these laboratories receivers and criminals, illegitimate exploiters of human cells, that the aforementioned vaccine comes. If it were only common stolen material, there could be proportionately serious reasons to purchase the products; but no sufficient reason will be found to legitimize the complicity, which is no longer remote – and even less remote – with the crimes of receiving stolen goods and exploitation.

But now we must ask ourselves whether the acceptance of receiving a vaccine that contains fragments of DNA is not constitutive of material cooperation, but immediate, in this “unspeakable” sin that consists in accepting that man makes himself a “consumer” of elements of the body resulting from a crime.

4th and 5th criterion: Hope to avoid sin if you do not enter into connection with it and more or less strict duty to prevent it

Let’s put together these last two criteria, which make us feel harder than others how much sin has invaded the world, since we must recognize both that the individual refusal to receive the vaccine will not prevent laboratories from continuing to develop their immoral activity, and that we feel powerless to oppose it.

This observation must not, however, lead us to the perverse reasoning that would consist in believing that it is therefore useless to oppose it and suffer all the damage that would result from our refusal. Each of us must act according to his conscience formed according to the divine law and not do what is wrong, even if he were the only one in the world to oppose it.

On the other hand, the heroic example that would be thus set would actually have an incomparable exemplary scope, as the history of heroes and saints shows. Finally, let us say that we will not tear down the walls of this Jericho of evil with the utopia of numbers, but with the strength of God and our readiness to be his docile instruments in this struggle.

In this realistic because supernatural light, it becomes clear that a courageous rejection is already shaking the system and helping to weaken the Goliath of iniquity that challenges the Catholic world.

We have not addressed in this article either the medical aspect or the political aspect of vaccination, which would also deserve the attention of morality.

As for the medical aspect, it should be remembered that man, being only the usufructuary of his own body, must not resign himself to being used as a guinea pig by science. Now, distinct and courageous voices such as that of Ms. Alexandra Henrion-Caude, and many more, warn us of the potentially serious consequences of these new uncontrolled gene therapies.

We do not hesitate to write that this manipulation of the genetic heritage constitutes a moral reason to oppose the vaccine, even more serious than that of the use of human cells by sacrificed children

The names of the most illustrious virologists seem to warn us of the genetic changes that will result from mRNA vaccines. At the risk of surprising someone, we do not hesitate to write that this manipulation of the genetic heritage constitutes a moral reason to oppose the vaccine, even more serious than that of the use of human cells from sacrificed children.

It is not difficult, finally, to show that the most determined supporters of this mandatory vaccination, among those who hold financial and political power, are very often at the same time the militants of a zero humanity and forced depopulation.

Moral reflection on these medical and political aspects of vaccination could only strengthen our moral conclusion about HEK-293.

However, in this time of bewilderment of the ecclesiastical authorities, we are well aware that we can express only one opinion. The arguments we have provided are worth as much as they are worth. Other voices concluded differently.

May this article make its modest contribution to the fundamental debate that the gravity of the issue deserves.

Renovatio 21 publishes this essay by Father Joseph, ordained in the Society of St. Pius X in 1993, former Superior of the District of France and now Capuchin in the convent of Morgon, always connected to the work of the Society of St. Pius X. The article was published in the magazine French Civitas and on the Belgian website Médias-Presse Info.

1 Lev. 20; 2-3.
2 Among the laboratories that use these HEK 293 cells, once or several times in the making of vaccines and before their commercialization, we can mention Astrazeneca, Sputnik V, Novavax, mσdernα, pfιzєr.
3 Pamela Acker in an interview conducted by John-Henry Westen of Life Site News and translated by Jeanne Smit, on her blog on 23 January 2021.
4 Ibid.
5 Alvin Wong in The Ethics of HEK-293, The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 2006, p. 274.
6 Pamela Acker, ibidem.
7 As pointed out by several scientific authorities, and in particular by Dr. Alexandra Henrion-Caude, the word “vaccine” is actually inadequate. We should rather speak of “genetic information”. We use the word “vaccine” for convenience.
8 Pamela Acker, ibidem.
9 Available over the counter on the ATCC website, you can add 10 µg of HEK-293 to your shopping cart at the price of 439 €.
10 J.M.Vittrant, Théologie Morale, Beauchesne 1954, n° 150, p.97.
11 I, Cor. VIII.
12 Father Louis Antoine de Porrentavy, Saint Pascal Baylon, Plon 1899, p.142.