Vanity of Vanities: Attempting to Build a Fountain of Youth Using Aborted Fetuses
“It is absolutely deplorable that Neocutis would resort to exploiting the remains of a deliberately slaughtered baby for nothing other than pure vanity and financial gain,, stated Executive Director Debi Vinnedge. “There is simply no moral justification for this.”
For years Children of God for Life has been a watchdog on pharmaceutical companies using aborted fetal cell lines in medical products and they have received thousands of inquiries from the public on the use of aborted fetal material in cosmetics.
Until now, this was the first time they have encountered any company bold enough to put the information right on their own website and product literature. A quick investigation into the science behind the products revealed the shameless data.
Neocutis’ key ingredient known as “Processed Skin Proteins” was developed at the University of Luasanne from the skin tissue of a 14-week gestation electively-aborted male baby donated by the University Hospital in Switzerland. Subsequently, a working cell bank was established, containing several billion cultured skin cells to produce the human growth factor needed to restore aging skin.
The list of products using the cell line include: Bio-Gel, Journee, Bio-Serum, Prevedem, Bio Restorative Skin Cream and Lumiere. But Vinnedge is calling for a full boycott of all Neocutis products, regardless of their source.
“There is absolutely no reason to use aborted babies for such selfish motives,” Vinnedge said. “It is anti-life, anti-woman and counter-productive as Neocutis is about to find out!”
Children of God for Life is calling on rival cosmetic companies to take advantage of some free advertising by their company.
“We know there are companies using moral sources for collagen and skin proteins. We intend to publicly promote these other cosmetic companies competing with Neocutis that are willing to step forward and contact us.”
Meanwhile Vinnedge advises women who are using Neocutis products to throw them in the garbage and to contact the company to express their concerns.
In addition she advised, “Contact some of these competing companies and ask them to verify their products are morally produced. If they are willing to commit to it in writing, they will get our endorsement.”
3053 Fillmore Street # 140
San Francisco CA 94123
Further Information is published at the following links:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Dear L. Hall:
1) The only ones here who are victims are the aborted babies and the women who have been shamelessly exploited and duped! The information we have provided is straight from Neocutis' own words, from the NIH, PubMed and Science publications.
2) No one who exploits and uses another human being for profit is within any laws of God or man. Are we to believe that God condones using the remains of butchered children to make some woman look more youthful? He can't be serious.
3) They most certainly were involved with the acquisition of the original sample of fetal tissue. You see, Neocutis is - again in their own words: "a spin-off from the Medical School of the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland" - where the original abortion was done.
4) There is nothing in the harvesting of aborted baby body parts that is moral or ethical. Legal, perhaps. Medically correct? You mean of course that the abortion was done in a manner that would ensure the fetus was delivered intact for research purposes. Can't do that with a saline abortion or a D&E method. But prostaglandin abortions cause the woman to go into mini-labor and pass the intact baby. So yes, they did their abortion in a manner that was medically correct for what they needed.
5) How stupid does this person think we are? Does he truly believe we are going to open a jar of one of their skin creams and find fetal tissue and aborted babies in there? Their lysates he mentions, however, are most certainly part of the aborted baby. Here is how the product was developed - again - in their own words:
A cell bank was established starting with a single skin biopsy of fetal skin tissue. The cell bank is stored frozen in liquid nitrogen and can be kept for many years, thereby providing a sustained supply of cells for PSP® production over decades. PSP® (Processed Skin Cell Proteins) is obtained after cell lysis of cultured skin cells originating from this cell bank
Neocutis Bio-restorative Skin Cream with PSP™ (a proprietary cosmetic ingredient developed at the University of Lausanne) is the only product containing the specific natural human growth factors and cytokines associated with natural bio-restoration of the skin. The unique formulation of PSP™ provides skin with the optimal balance of skin nutrients helping to preserve or restore skin when stressed.
In order to produce PSP®, frozen cells from one or several ampoules of the Working Cell Bank are thawed, transferred into appropriate cell culture vessels and then expanded under standard cell culture condition respecting stringent manufacturing procedures. Thereby, cells from one Working Cell Bank ampoule are multiplied to yield several billion cells (Figure 2). These cells are then harvested, carefully washed and prepared for cell disruption. Cell disruption or lysis is realized by several freeze-thaw cycles and allows obtaining a mixture comprising skin cell proteins, called PSP® or ‘Processed Skin Cell Proteins’. Freeze-thawing is a relatively gentle process  and allows the production of a naturally balanced mixture of skin cell proteins present in the cells at the moment of cell disruption. (end of quote)If the lysates did not contain those original intact human fetal skin cell qualities and proteins, they would be worthless!
6) They may not believe that they are guilty of complicity in an immoral act, but the Vatican most certainly does:
From Dignitas Personae (Pope Benedict XVI December 2008)The use of human “biological material” of illicit origin
34. For scientific research and for the production of vaccines or other products, cell lines are at times used which are the result of an illicit intervention against the life or physical integrity of a human being. The connection to the unjust act may be either mediate or immediate, since it is generally a question of cells which reproduce easily and abundantly.
This “material” is sometimes made available commercially or distributed freely to research centers by governmental agencies having this function under the law. All of this gives rise to various ethical problems with regard to cooperation in evil and with regard to scandal. It is fitting therefore to formulate general principles on the basis of which people of good conscience can evaluate and resolve situations in which they may possibly be involved on account of their professional activity.
It needs to be remembered above all that the category of abortion “is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos. This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted in some countries… [T]he use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person”.54 These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave moral disorder.55
35. A different situation is created when researchers use “biological material” of illicit origin which has been produced apart from their research center or which has been obtained commercially. The Instruction Donum vitae formulated the general principle which must be observed in these cases: “The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. In particular, they cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies if their death has not yet been verified and without the consent of the parents or of the mother. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided”.56
In this regard, the criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient. According to this criterion, the use of “biological material” of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation. The criterion of independence is not sufficient to avoid a contradiction in the attitude of the person who says that he does not approve of the injustice perpetrated by others, but at the same time accepts for his own work the “biological material” which the others have obtained by means of that injustice. When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust.57 Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles.
At times, the objection is raised that the above-mentioned considerations would mean that people of good conscience involved in research would have the duty to oppose actively all the illicit actions that take place in the field of medicine, thus excessively broadening their ethical responsibility. In reality, the duty to avoid cooperation in evil and scandal relates to their ordinary professional activities, which they must pursue in a just manner and by means of which they must give witness to the value of life by their opposition to gravely unjust laws.
Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life.
You see Mr. Lemko -There is no "simple response" when it involves profiteering from the destruction of another human being!