Not So Secret Ingredient

Hattip to Paul Zummo, the Cranky Conservative.

Children of God for Life announced today that Neocutis, a bio-pharmaceutical company focused on dermatology and skin care is using aborted fetal cell lines to produce several of their anti-aging skin creams.

“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.

Here is the Neocutis website where they proudly proclaim this.  Shades of the old legends of witches who obtained eternal beauty and youth by bathing in the blood of slaughtered infants.  In the science fiction movie of the Seventies the authorities hid from the people that Soylent Green was made out of human corpses.  Now some in our society feel absolutely no shame or horror in making use of the remains of slaughtered innocents .

15 Responses to Not So Secret Ingredient

  1. BaltoCath says:

    Elizabeth Bathory, call your office.

  2. Dale Price says:

    BaltoCath beat me to it: Bathory revividus. Who knew she simply was ahead of her time?


  3. It’s wrong when babies are used to manufacture a cure for a disease; it’s even more wrong to be used in ANTI-AGING creams.

    Garbage like this makes me look forward to wrinkles.

  4. cminor says:

    Don’t forget “Jew Soap,” Phillip.

    I’d heard of such products having been marketed in Europe for some years; this is the first I’d heard of it being sold here. I always read the labels on skin products for good measure. Ladies of a certain age: if the source of the collagen isn’t specified, beware!

  5. Tito Edwards says:

    Remember what our Dear Leader Obama said, they’re only mistakes.

  6. Phillip says:


    I didn’t know about that one.

  7. Donald R. McClarey says:

    As to “Jew soap” read the speech by Barney Greenwald at the conclusion of the Caine Mutiny post.

  8. Karl says:

    But, don’t we do the same by recycling “slaughtered innocence” in blended families from divorced/annulled Catholic marriages – even when they have been held to be valid yet, laity and clergy alike, welcome those who have slaughtered that innocence and those innocents. And those who have been abandoned are openly “slaughtered” for saying the truth, because we are ignored, over and over and over.

    I do hope you do not ban me for this Mr. McClarey.

    What I say is true, no different than what you said is true. I can name names as well, so can the priests and bishops, but we cannot make them care.

  9. Donna V. says:

    There are degrees of evil, Karl. I would not compare “blended families” – I have a few of those in my extended family – with using the remains of a child to make face cream.

    I use face cream – have since I was a teen because my skin is dry – and am absolutely horrified by this. I have not used any of those products – thank God -and never will. And I am glad to learn of “Children of Life for God” so I can check with them before making any purchases. This is utterly revolting.

  10. Elaine Krewer says:

    As disgusting and immoral as this is, it’s important to be accurate about the nature of this product.

    It is NOT like “Soylent Green” in that it requires a continuous supply of tissue from newly aborted babies. Nor is the use of the product comparable to the atrocities of Elizabeth Bathory, who (according to legend) murdered dozens if not hundreds of young girls in the belief that bathing in their blood would preserve her youthful beauty.

    Rather, the product contains a protein extracted from a line of stem cells, continously perpetuated in the laboratory, that originated with ONE aborted child, who likely died many years ago.

    A similar situation exists with regard to certain vaccines that were cultivated from fetal cell lines. One commonly used cell line for measles-mumps-rubella vaccine originated with a baby that was aborted more than 40 years ago after its mother was infected with rubella. There are other vaccines, however, that use cell lines from animals.

    With regard to the morality of vaccines, Catholic moral theologians are divided. A sampling of their opinions can be found at the Children of God for Life website.

    All of these theologians agree that the degree of moral cooperation in abortion incurred by parents who allow their children to receive such vaccinations is extremely remote, given that the original abortion took place long before the PARENTS, let alone the children receiving the vaccinations, were even born.

    Most (but not all) are also of the opinion that the need to protect currently living children from disease, particularly if no alternative is available, outweighs the miniscule degree of cooperation involved on the parents’ part. Doctors and researchers, however, have a greater ability and therefore a greater obligation to seek alternatives to these vaccines when possible.

    Of course, vaccines against potentially life-threatening diseases are one thing, while cosmetic products which one can easily live without are another. And it goes without saying that the exploitation of even one aborted baby is wrong, no matter how long ago it happened. Plus the fact that the manufacturer would use that as a selling point (probably to promote embryonic stem cell research) is, to say the least, very disturbing. So a boycott of this product is entirely appropriate.

    However, let’s be accurate about what is going on here and not give abortion advocates further reason to ridicule the scientific or medical “ignorance” or misinformation of those opposed to their agenda. Also, don’t confuse this with an urban legend that cropped up back in the 1970s claiming that collagen used in cosmetic products came directly from aborted babies.

  11. Donald R. McClarey says:

    I thought my post was quite clear on that point Elaine, and I don’t think it makes any difference as to the moral culpability of the ghouls at Neocutis. One innocent being “harvested” is one too many.

  12. Donald R. McClarey says:

    “I do hope you do not ban me for this Mr. McClarey.”

    You have an idee fixe when it comes to your divorce Karl. I’m not going to ban you again yet, but I am placing you on notice that I am not going to allow you to turn threads that have no relation to divorce into arenas where you can vent about how you feel you were ill-treated by the Church. Such comments will be deleted by me in my threads.

  13. Elaine Krewer says:

    Don, it wasn’t your post I was concerned about, but some others who raised comparisons to Elizabeth Bathory, Soylent Green, and Nazi lampshades — all of which involved body parts or tissues taken directly from murdered victims, and the first two of which involved continuous, repeated use of such remains.

    And I agree 100 percent that what the company is doing is wrong.

    It should be noted that, according to the Neocutis website, the original cell line appears to have been developed with the intent of using the resultant tissue to treat victims of burns or other severe trauma. That still doesn’t justify its use, however.

  14. Karl says:

    Mine was not a “hijack” attempt. It was just to provoke thought. Thank you.

    With respect to this comment:

    “And it goes without saying that the exploitation of even one aborted baby is wrong, no matter how long ago it happened.”

    This is true but is mostly ignored in this case and in other ways in other situations when this same concept can be applied. Such as this should NEVER go without saying, regardless of the circumstances. It can never be stressed enough.

    To allow profit from an injustice is commonly accepted by priests and clergy and much more often than not encouraged. This “type” of issue needs to be
    adequately addressed but is not. The Catholic Church needs to provide avenues for redress, that is easily actionable through canon law, without expensive canon lawyers, for clergy who encourage such injustices without account. Until such services are available for minimal cost the Catholic Church is actively undermining morality and is sending duplicitous messages. How then can it not expect the same from the faithful?

%d bloggers like this: