Click here to listen to WQPH 89.3

Catholic Radio serving Shirley-Fitchburg MA and the world.

Interview with Pam Acker, Part 2

September 4, 2021

Aired 9/4


Thank you for listening to WQPH 89.3 FM, Shirley-Fitchburg, Queen of Perpetual Help and welcome to another edition of WQPH’s Local Matters. On this week’s broadcast, WQPhHs Mary Ann Harold teams up with sister station WSFI’s Angela Tomlinson, and they talk to scientist and author Pam Acker about the vaccine. This will finish off part one of this series. And following this broadcast WS I Spotlight, also featuring Pam Acker. Please be advised this show may not be appropriate for children under 13.

MAH: What is the most common cause of death from the vaccine?

PA: I think most of it has to do with heart or stroke from what I’m remembering correctly. And I could I could be incorrect about that but most of the reports that I’m looking at are sudden cardiac arrest or blood clotting issues or hypoxia due to to vascular damage, cardiovascular tissue damage. Like I said, my parish has not been particularly covid compliant this whole time. So most of us have actually had Covid at one point or another. It kind of went through the community in about three successive waves, and I know nobody who’s been hospitalized or died from Covid, and I know very few people who have been vaccinated because most of the people that I spend time with are very much on the same page as me about this, but I already know one person who has died from sudden sudden cardiac arrest from the vaccine. So, and we know now, too, there’s some papers that were published in May, that indicate that the spike protein, either the spike protein on what’s called a virus like particle or a viral vector can cause cardiovascular disease. It can cause some of the same symptoms that we’re seeing with the COVID-19 disease. And also that spike protein even not present in a virus like particle can cause some of these symptoms. So we know that there is a valid biological mechanism for the vaccines damaging the cardiovascular system because we know that spike protein by itself can cause cardiovascular damage. And this actually explains why we were seeing such a weird constellation of symptoms at the beginning where doctors and nurses would say these patients who have the Sars-Cov-2, they’re coming in and their lips are blue, but they’re not having any trouble breathing. So their oxygen is obviously low and we’re putting them on a ventilator but that doesn’t seem to be helping, and in fact, a lot of people, I think at the beginning, died from the ventilators because you have to operate a ventilator properly or you dramatically reduce somebody’s ability to survive once they’ve been put on it. And even if you operate it properly, I think only about 40% of people who get put on ventilators survive. So putting people on ventilators was the wrong thing to do and that’s a hindsight 2020 kind of thing. No pun intended. We know now that that was the wrong thing to do and that probably contributed to a lot to the deaths in the beginning. But we also know now that, and this is also probably one of the reasons we’re seeing Covid long haulers, and in some cases, people who get the disease,, they’re continuing to have brain fog and fatigue and other things associated with low oxygen levels. And and it’s probably because these folks are experiencing some residual damage from that spike protein or even some residual virus fragments themselves. The researchers who have been recording on this kind of not sure. Although it would be fairly easy to test. So we know that the spike protein itself, which is our prime vaccine candidate, is actually toxic. That should also lead to us pulling the vaccines that are currently in use and scrapping honestly, the other several 100 vaccines that are currently being developed, which is also kind of horrifying. There’s there’s never been this many vaccine candidates in the pipeline for one disease as far as I know. The average percentage of vaccine candidates that make it from phase one to actually getting into the population Is around 6-10%. And we’ve already got 17 Vaccines in use around the world for COVID-19. That should lead you to believe that about 150 some have been scrapped along the way at least. There’s only been three vaccines that have been pulled at some point during development because of safety concerns and that to me is just absolutely unreal. What that’s telling me is that we’re just passing things through because we’re trying to come up with a quick solution to this problem. And we think the vaccination is the only way to protect people. And we already know that vaccination is extremely ineffective against viruses like the flu. And we know that the corona virus spreads like the flu and and trying to contain the flu via global lockdowns or vaccination, it’s just silly. You can’t possibly protect everyone that way. And what we’re doing I think is actually causing the virus to linger in the population longer and then increasing risk among the vaccinated population, in particular, of having a worse reaction to the next wave of respiratory illnesses in the fall.

MAH: So what about that third booster shot they’re talking about. Is that a plus or a minus.

PA: So I think that’s a terrible idea. In first place, this has never been clinically tested ever. We’re talking about it being imprudent to administer this vaccine to children when there’s never been any clinical testing. Finally they’re doing some clinical testing in pregnant women in the numbers of miscarriages we’re seeing are slightly alarming but the data is not fully there yet, so that percentage may go down over time. It’s disconcerting to me, We really don’t know long term effects on fertility. That hasn’t been tested either. We have no idea what a third shot will do to you. We have no idea what the adverse reaction rate is going to be with the third shot. We do know that the adverse reaction rate is much higher with a second shot. So there’s many more adverse reactions. But they’re also worse adverse reactions. They tend to be grade three or higher or life threatening. So a grade three reaction is one that basically causes you to miss work. You’re so nonfunctional from the reaction that you can’t go about your everyday life activities. And so we’re seeing people with grade three fatigue and grade three headache and brain fog and things like that after their second dose much more often than we’re seeing after their first dose. So I can’t even imagine what we’re going to see after a third dose, and we don’t know when that third dose should be administered. We don’t know what the timing should be in terms of having the lowest reactivity or the highest boost to the immune system. So I don’t think a third dose is a good idea. And I don’t think we’re seeing data to justify that in terms of I don’t think the variants that are circulating in the population right now we’re seeing enough breakthrough infection in vaccinated people from those to really justify a third dose. And if we were seeing lots of breakthrough infection anyway, then you really should start questioning whether the vaccine itself is effective. Not whether you need a third shot or not.

MAH: Let’s say a prayer for our country, for our people that really trust in God, that have suffered through all of this pain and that’s something good can come from all of our suffering. Can you lead us in a prayer?

PA: I love to pray to Our Lady, so you don’t mind me closing in a Hail Mary?

MAH: Yes, I do that.

PA: In the name of the Father and the Son of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Hail Mary. Full of Grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women. and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Our Lady conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee. Amen.

MAH: Thank you for your wonderful witness of faith, and we’ll be praying for you and your journey and awaiting your new book.

PA:Thank you.

MAH: Okay, I hope you enjoyed this candid conversation from the heart from Pam, a splendid woman of integrity and only caring about the truth that God has given us. It’s inside of us. We know where it is. We know when we don’t use it that we feel not happy. Be happy. Say the truth and pray. Till the next time, thank you for listening to WQPH.

This is WSFI Spotlight, a conversation with Catholics living in the light.

AT: Well hello and welcome to WSFI Spotlight. I’m your host Angela Tomlinson, and today we have many co hosts. First and foremost is my sister, Mary Ann,. She is the founder of WQPH in Massachusetts. With her is her colleague, Annette Hinds. She is a volunteer at WQPH, and she also is involved with Catholic Education at the highest level. We also have Michael Manzi, who started his journey as a seminarian, and we’re hoping that in the near future he will be one of our loyal priests.

And our guest today is Pamela Acker. Pamela is a friend of Annette, and that’s how we were lucky enough to get her on WSFI Catholic Radio. She holds a Master of Science in biology from the Catholic University of America. She has taught natural science and a variety of settings from middle school to college since 2008. Pamela conducted research and vaccine delivery using T Bacteria Fage Nanoparticles, which we’ll all find out what that is and has recently written a book entitled, Vaccination, a Catholic Perspective, which is available through the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation and a link for her book will put on our podbean site once we archive this show but you can get it at So welcome everybody to the show. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy day today. It’s the afternoon on today is Tuesday the Feast of Rosa Mystica, so thanks everybody for coming on.

So Pam first and foremost, you’re catholic.

PA: Yes, ma’am. I have been since about a month and a half old.

AT: Since a month and a half old. So you were baptized a month and a half into it. So tell us a bit about Catholicism and a the role that plays in your life.

PA: Sure. So, I actually have been pro life for as long as I can remember knowing what abortion was. And definitely that motivated the research that I did in graduate school. I was looking into developing alternatives to aborted fetal vaccine. So my faith was a huge motivator in this because I understand the sanctity of life. I understand that the human beings are made in God’s image and likeness and that the murder of the most innocent among us as one of the tremendous tragedies and atrocities of our age. I wanted to go to a Catholic school because I wanted to be able to practice my faith without having to kind of fight the current. I went to a secular school for undergrad. It was a really difficult time to be in the biology department there because it seemed like most of the professors, their attitude was sort of the kind of want to almost pat me on the head and be like, oh, you’ll grow out of that religious stuff when you get older. Well, I kind of wish I could come back today and tell them I haven’t grown out of the religious stuff. Gentlemen, I’ve grown into it because certainly I think that my faith is stronger even now than it was it was then because it’s really the guiding principle of my life. I am not perfect by any means, but I definitely strive to live the faith and not just give lip service to it.

AT: So tell me about some of the conflicts that there are in biological science and vaccines with the Catholic faith.

PA: Sure. So I think that there’s a kind of an overlooked conflict that’s really fundamental to the idea of vaccination in general. It’s really based in an incorrect way of looking at the human body, and the way that biological things developed. And it’s very reductionistic in that you’re kind of looking at one tiny piece of the immune system and focusing on that to sort of the exclusion of everything else. And so this isn’t necessarily a moral problem, but if we were doing medicine from an authentically Catholic framework, I don’t think we would choose vaccination as a primary means of protection against disease. I think that we would take an approach that looked more at a human being as divinely designed and the immune system as created to deal with the pathogens that we encounter in our life. And then look at supporting that in. I hesitate to use the word holistic because it’s often co-opted by new age folks, but we’d look at it in a way that dealt with the complexity of the body as a whole rather than one single piece of it. But the conflict that isn’t overlooked for Catholics with vaccination is the use of aborted fetal cell lines to develop vaccines. So this has been a problem. Most people don’t realize it’s been a problem that goes all the way back to the 1930s. When the polio vaccine was being developed, the polio vaccine actually fueled research into aborted fetal cell lines in the first place. And this was done before abortion was legal in hospitals that were involved in forcibly sterilizing women, which was made legal after the Buck vs Bell decision by the Supreme Court that allowed women who were declared feebleminded or in some way in a sort of a burden to society, to be sterilized without their consent, and in some cases they were sterilized and the baby was removed from their womb at the same time. And this is where a lot of the original aborted fetal tissue came from for research into aborted fetal cell lines that was done in the thirties, through roughly the fifties or sixties. Of course abortion became legal.

AT: Where was that done?

PA: Some of those things were done in the U. S. So there was the Bellevue Hospital, I think in Massachusetts, was one of the places they got tissue from the selling from. And the Toronto General Hospital in Canada was another place where the tissue was obtained. And yeah–oh sorry–Bellevue Hospital was in New York. That’s one of the places that they were getting tissue from the in the 1930s. In the 1950s, it was a Toronto General Hospital and kind of throughout the whole thing, The Karolinska Institute, which I think is based in Sweden, has been providing and they still, to this day you can go onto their website and upload your research proposal and as long as you have quote, unquote ethical approval from whatever regulatory board is responsible for this and whatever country you live in, they will ship you freshly aborted fetal tissue, either monthly or bi monthly for your research projects that you’re working on.

AT: So Pam, If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is as early as the 1930s women were being forced, not just to be sterilized, but if they were pregnant, their child was being taken from them and then they profited off of that action by taking that child, by the tissue of that child and using it in experimentation. Are you’re saying that that was the source of the polio vaccine.

PA:It was a source of one of the candidates that was in development at the time by Saban. This is by Albert Saban. I believe it was the Salk vaccine that was ultimately the one that became more prevalent in the US. But the Saban vaccine was injected into a number of people prior to switching over to the Salk vaccine for safety concerns.

AT: Did they disclose it at the time for the people who are receiving the vaccine? The Saban vaccine? Did they tell people,?

PA: I do not know whether that was public knowledge or not. It certainly was printed in the research papers that were released at that time on the development of the vaccines because you can you can look it up in the scientific journals, which is actually where I found it through Children of God for Life because they documented a lot of this, a lot of the history of the use of the aborted fetal cells in vaccine development. I’m not sure if it made the news at the time. I know that people started to become uncomfortable with this around the 60s-ish. And and that’s when people started to get less frank about the way they reported it in the scientific literature even so that it would be a kind of less offensive to people’s ears. So I don’t know if the average person who was getting the Saban vaccine at the time was aware of the connection with the aborted fetal cells or not.

AT: So now fast forward. So you’re saying it jstarted almost 100 years ago and in the United States and also in Canada and also possibly in Europe in Europe.

PA: Yes, yes, definitely in Europe.

AT: Okay, so then what happened,? How did we get from there to where we are now?

PA: There was a particularly successful cell line that was created in 1970s called HEK 293 and HEK stands for human embryonic kidney. And this is actually the cell line that derailed my academic career because the lab that I was working in on the vaccine platform at Catholic University of America was using the HEK 293 cells to develop the antigen to the HIV vaccine that we were trying to to market. And this cell line was produced from tissue from the kidney of a baby. that was aborted and when I found that out, and I realized that my primary investigator was wanting everybody in the lab to kind of work on this part of the project, I was like, I can’t. I can’t actually do that, and I don’t think I can even actually work with things that come from these cells. And I was basically told that if I didn’t check my religious objections at the door, I would never be able to be an effective scientist. So I resigned my position in the lab about a week later and did not continue working on that. But one of the reasons that my primary investigator was so intent on using these aborted fetal cells, because I kind of tried to argue with them and say, look this is a Catholic university, I don’t think this should be going on here. And he basically said, well, we’re under grant pressure because we had received the first part of a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and there was a whole lot of money on the line for the second half of this grant, the second part of this grant. He really didn’t want to do anything that would potentially derail the development of the vaccine. And the HEK 293 was the cell line that most people used in the literature for the development of HIV vaccines. So if we had a problem, or encountered a roadblock making our own antigen, we could go into the literature and say, okay, what did people do in the past when they had the same kind of problem. And so this cell line, because it was so successful, it became super prominent in use in tissue research, in self signaling, in vaccine development and in a number of other areas and so there were a lot of protocols that were optimized for putting DNA into this and getting proteins out of it. It just kind of became a staple in scientific research without, I think certainly without a lot of people in the populist knowing this because I didn’t even know. I was going into biomedical research in 2010, and I didn’t know that this cell line was so ubiquitous. I’ve never actually even heard of this cell line because when my colleague mentioned it in a lab meeting, I said, well what does the HEK stand for? And when I found it was human embryonic kidney, I knew we had some problems. But I think this is one of the things that made this such a ubiquitous issue with the development of the covid vaccine because HEK 293 is one of the cell lines that’s used specifically by Pfizer and Moderna, but also for some other vaccine candidates that are in use now in other places in the world, but also in development.

AT: Walk us through because most of us don’t even understand what a cell, what it means to be a cell line. So how is that baby used by the medical community and why is it immoral? What’s the problem with it? How do they get the tissue?

PA: Sure, sure. So a cell line is made using fresh tissue from an individual that has been separated out into a layer of individual cells and grown in a culture dish. And in order to do that for more than a couple of what’s called passages, so that’s when you take a little bit of the cells from your current culture and you put it into a new plate and let them grow up. And then you kind of can take themselves from that, put them a new plate and let them grow up. This is how you keep cell culture alive in the laboratory. If you took cells straight out of my kidney right now and put them in a petri dish, they’d last for a couple of passages. So you would have to actually genetically modify them in order to create a cell line. This process is usually called immortalization, even though it doesn’t make the cells absolutely immortal. We’ll talk about why that is in a minute. But these cells are usually mutated to either remove a tumor suppressor gene that keeps cancer from developing or to insert an oncogene which is associated with causing cancer to develop. So you’re either basically taking the brakes off or putting the gas on for cancer in order to get a cell line. And that’s how you get these cells to continue to divide somewhat indefinitely in the laboratory instead of just dying out after a couple of passages. When you do this, these cells over time, gradually accumulate other mutations, just like you do in your human body. You have more mutations in your body now than when you were born because as your cells divide the DNA repair mechanism in your body isn’t perfect. And so you gradually accumulate mutations over time. So these cell lines are also going to gradually accumulate mutations over time. And probably to the point where at some point in the future they will no longer be usable in the laboratory because they’re not going to behave appropriately because they’re going to have these mutations that cause damage to them. But there are cell stocks and freezers that go back too much earlier passages. So we could we could have the cell line around for a long time and continue using it for a really long time without having to replace it. But there are older cell lines that have already finessed, which is moved towards that eventual cell death. It aged a lot and the most recent aborted fetal line people was developed in 2015 to try to replace some of those earlier cells. Does that, answer your question a little bit about the lines?

AT: It does. So how do they get the tissue to begin with?

PA: So in order to have living tissue in the petri dish, you have to take living tissue out of the organism that you started with. That’s where I think the most horrific aspect of this comes in because if you have a kidney in a cadaver, that kidney tissue has sustained tremendous amounts of ischemic damage, which is caused by lack of blood flow and that tissue is not viable. So people who’ve studied this a lot more than me, embryologists and other scientists, tissue from a baby that’s been dead for more than an hour is pretty much useless. So the idea that this could somehow have been obtained from a baby that was miscarried is really not viable for two reasons. One is one is that most miscarriages occur long after the baby has died. So the baby’s been dead a week or even two weeks in utero before the body finally expels the dead baby. And also most babies that die from miscarriage have some kind of genetic abnormality. So you really don’t want to start with a miscarried baby’s tissue, even if you could by some crazy chance receive that tissue within minutes of the baby’s death. You would not be able to use it for a cell line because the baby probably died due to some sort of chromosomal abnormality or some other kind of mutation that caused fetal demise.

AT: So the baby has to be alive is what you’re saying?

PA: The baby has to be healthy…

AT: How do they do that?

PA: And yes, the baby has to be alive. So back in the day, they did it through abdominal hysterectomy, which was when they were sterilizing the women in the Bellevue and the Toronto general hospitals, they would just remove the entire uterus and then cut open the sack and remove the baby and place it directly into the refrigerator.

AT: So you’re saying it alive and they put in the refrigerator?

PA: Yes, ma’am. That was actually documented in some of the scientific research papers that I’ve read through.

A: Do you think the women knew? Do you think the women who were having a hysterectomy knew what was happening?

PA: I don’t know. At that time if they were forcibly sterilizing these women, they probably were not obtaining consent for what they were doing with the babies they were pregnant with. Now you have to obtain consent to use the fetal tissue in any kind of biomedical research. I don’t know how detailed that consent is. I highly doubt that they state right there in the open because they don’t even state it in the open and the scientific papers anymore that most of the tissue needs to be harvested while the baby is still alive.

AT: Wow.

PA: So now it’s it’s done through induction abortion. So they basically induce labor and the woman delivers the baby and live delivery was initially considered a complication of some of these methods of aborting later term fetuses. And then, they kind of realized, oh, actually this is an opportunity. An incredibly grotesque opportunity to do some experiments on these babies and there are scientists that have come out and basically said like it would be, almost a sinful waste to just throw these babies in the incinerator because we have this great opportunity to look at what’s going on in living tissue in the brief time where this baby who is “not viable” is in existence. And so they’ll sort of describe the fact that the baby is born alive by saying it’s “not viable” because it can’t survive outside of the womb. But even though it can’t survive outside of the womb indefinitely, babies can survive for several hours and sometimes even several days after after an induction abortion, depending on how old the baby is and how the induction goes.

AT: So, now you’re walking through. So thank you. I think I understand it. That clarifies it. So when you were talking about this cell line, this HEK 293, you’re saying that that baby had to have been alive for thel cells to create a cell line. So the baby was alive?

PA: Right.

AT: Now what would you say to people that said, well, that was a long time ago, and there’s no issue there?

PA: This steps into the statements that were recently made by the USCCB and the Vatican, all those sorts of things, Dignitas Persona and the Pontifical Academy of Life Document from 2005, where they make the argument that it’s only remote cooperation, and it’s only material cooperation because you’re not formally cooperating with the abortion. And I like to leave those arguments to the moral theologians and deal primarily with the two things that I can actually address as a scientist, which is that the fact that the bishops saying that in order for the remote material cooperation to be valid, there has to be a proportionate grave cause. So you have to be doing something that’s tremendously good basically to offset being involved in something this evil even at the distance of 50, 60 years. And also that you need to object to the use of this material with the idea that that will eventually cause it to not be used anymore and will keep this use of these biological materials from contributing to a greater demand for aborted fetal tissue. So I can speak to both the fact that there is not a proportionate grave cause for any of the aborted fetal vaccines that are in existence including the Covid vaccine. And I can also speak to the fact that the use of these vaccines, even if you were to write letters to Congress and the President and the pharmaceutical companies and everybody sort of involved in the regulatory and the production timeline. Even if you were to write these letters and object very strongly to this, the fact that you’re using this material is actually fueling an ever expanding area of Biomedical Research into fetal tissue.

Tune in next week at this time, as we continue with this series. Thank you for listening to another edition of WQPH’s Local Matters. We hope you enjoyed the broadcast and hope you have a blessed week