The Washington Times picked up on the Neocutis horror I posted on a few days ago. Children of God for Life put out a press release on the same:
Neocutis deceptive about aborted fetal material in skin products
(Tennessee) In response to Children of God for Life’s press release October 27, 2009, Aborted fetal material used in anti-wrinkle cream, (See http://www.cogforlife.org/neocutis.htm ) thousands of angry consumers have begun taking action. Many have called or written to Neocutis to complain and unfortunately, they are receiving jaded, if not patently false responses from the company President, Mark Lemcko.
“Neocutis is not being honest with the public about the abortions involved in their skin cream products,” stated Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, who researched the questionable products after they received an inquiry from a concerned consumer.
For example, Neocutis responded to one inquiry that there was only one abortion involved when in fact their own website shows that “The Laboratoire de Médecine Foetale at the Medical School of the University Hospital of Lausanne has worked extensively with fetal cells since 1995 and resulted in several patent applications.”
Neocutis states they were formed in 2002 as spin-off of the University Medical School and began working to protect “the intellectual property of their proprietary technology.”
Yet the abortion used to provide the fetal material for their products was done in 2004.
In what can only be called suspect at best, Neocutis also stated that the 2004 abortion was done because the “pregnancy could not come to term” and that “the mother’s life was in danger.” But Experimental Gerontology 44 (2009 208-218) makes no mention of this at all.
What the research paper states is that the fetal material was obtained from a 14 weeks gestation male baby ‘after pregnancy termination’ in which they ‘obtained informed and written consent. Considering that they dedicated an entire section to the ‘Ethical Aspects of working with human fetal cells’ in which they attempted to sanitize what they were doing, if the abortion was somehow medically needed, it would have been documented as such.
Even more appalling was Mr. Lemcko’s note to another letter writer that he “felt comfortable with his decision” after studying the 2005 statement by the Pontifical Academy for Life, Moral Reflection on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses.
“It is unconscionable that Mr. Lemcko would use the Vatican statement to defend his actions”, Vinnedge stated. “We are talking apples and oranges here – health vs. pure vanity.”
Both the Pontifical Academy for Life and Pope Benedict XVI’s December 2008 encyclical, Dignitas Personae, cautiously noted that parents could use the vaccines in question “on a temporary basis” and in situations of “grave inconvenience” or “considerable danger” to the health of their children and society.
“What do you suppose the Vatican would say about using these cosmetic creams”? asked Vinnedge.
Children of God for Life is urging the public to take action by contacting the company and they have posted an area where people can “sound off” on their website. Further information is available at www.cogforlife.org/neocutis.htm
Washington Times Nov 3, 2009: