The Age of Polio: Explosion. Part 7.
Dachel Wake Up: VaXxed Reviews

Where’s the Outrage? Vaccines and Aborted Fetal Tissue.

Where pinkBy Cathy Jameson

I’m sure many of our readers are aware of the vaccine ingredient I’ll mention in today’s post.  Others have already written about the topic and covered the facts well.  Living Whole and Children of God for Life, for example,  have bravely spoken up about the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccine production.  I applaud them.  I wish I could applaud more pro-life groups, but I hardly see them speak up about the topic.

I say that I’m a hardcore Catholic.  But even I’ve yet to take on this subject.  If I were serious about it, I’d have contacted the leaders in my Church about it.  Some leaders have spoken, but their very broad statement seems more of a CYA than anything (and I’m not referring to Catholic Youth Association if you get my drift). 

For whatever reason, “the greater good” that vaccines supposedly benefit seems to trump the act of abortion and the use of this ingredient is justified.  It shouldn’t be.  But it is.  I think that needs to change.  So here goes…

--

I shared this link of vaccine ingredients in a post a few weeks ago.  I’m sharing the link again in today’s post.  I’d like to do that because some of the ingredients that are listed have been on my mind for a few days now.  They’ve actually been on my mind for years, but I haven’t written specifically about them yet.

Someone highlighted the use of aborted fetal tissue use in a screenshot.

that I saw shared on FaceBook not too long ago:

CJ outrage 3

Sitting here reading those highlighted words makes my stomach turn.  

That image doesn’t include it, but do be on the lookout for WALVAX 2.  That’s a newly derived cell line that’s projected to be used in vaccines, or biologics as I have recently heard vaccines being called.

I remember the first time I learned about the use of these aborted fetal cells.  Years and years ago, someone had put the bug in my ear that vaccines weren’t as perfect as I’d been told.  They said that I should read up on them.  They said I should do that before I took Ronan in for his next appointment.  They said that I may change my mind if I do.  They said that’s because there were some questionable ingredients in some vaccines, like aborted fetal cells.  They said, as a Catholic, I might find use of these ingredients somewhat troubling…or unethical…or immoral.  I looked at them like they were nuts and thought, Cancel the next appointment?  Not likely.  And gee, thanks for butting in a private matter, but no thanks.

Who were they to question vaccines?  And who were they to question me!  They were just another parent.  They had no background in the medical field.  No research articles written.  No degree in biology.  No history of formal studying of immunology or anything else related to the human body whatsoever.  Since they were just a parent and not someone I trusted to educate me about vaccines, I felt that I had no need for their commentary.  Thinking them utterly absurd, I smiled, nodded politely and walked away. 

I walked away from that conversation with only one thought – who in their right mind believes that the pharmaceutical industry uses aborted fetal cells in their product?  That’s just gross. 

Human cells from an aborted baby?  Yeah, right.

Since I was still a firm believer in vaccines for my children, I shrugged off the person and their gentle suggestion to ‘read up on those vaccines’.  Ronan’s development hadn’t taken a major nosedive yet, so I carried on with what I knew – which was to keep his next well-baby appointment.  But before that date on the calendar arrived, that bug the other parent put in my ear turned into a scratch that I had to itch.  I didn’t leap into action like I would have today, but begrudgingly, I began to search for information. 

Still a rookie when it came to doing Internet searches, I slowly found my way around the net to some websites that I thought would put this crazy idea to rest.  The more I searched, though – and verified, the more disturbed I became.  Aborted fetal cell lines were indeed part of the process!

CJ Outrage 2

While this is a current screenshot, the practice dates back long before I spent time to look it up.  

The initial Internet searches I did were time well spent.  As disheartened as I was, each time I went back to read more, I learned how much I didn’t know about vaccines.  I also learned that should I continue to agree to them, I faced a dilemma – a moral dilemma. 

As a life-long Catholic, I couldn’t continue to accept the medical products my doctor and society insisted that my children needed.  Backed up against a proverbial wall, I was forced into a having to make a tough decision. 

Still so new at the vaccine research game, I was comforted to a certain degree when I learned that I had some options.  Those were to get the shots (despite my religious convictions), to find an alternative (if one existed), or to skip them completely (and pray to God that my children would be okay without them).  Options were good to have, but I had no idea which one to pick. 

No easy answer

I did know that I couldn’t continue to allow my children to be injected with the vaccines that had anything to do with aborted fetal cells, so I asked around to see if an alternative vaccine existed.  Turns out, alternatives did exist!  But, how on earth would I obtain them?  I wasn’t a doctor.  I didn’t run a medical practice.  I didn’t have an “in” with a pharmaceutical company.  I’d have to find a doctor who would order the other those lots, who would agree to take my children on as new patients and who would administer the vaccines I wanted him or her to special order.  That sounded impossible.  That’s why, as hard as it was to consider, I kept the last option in mind which was to skip the shots that I know knew were questionable to my faith.  That last option was a viable option, but it came with more risks than I wanted to consider. 

Remember as of yet, I was still a firm believer in all things vaccines.  Even with what I was starting to read, which included learning about side effects and adverse events, I couldn’t wrap my head around how I was going to protect my children from what I thought were vaccine-preventable diseases. 

I honestly had no idea.  I was just a Mom trying to do the right thing for her kids.  That meant filling in all those boxes of the shot record, not haphazardly skip over them.  The dilemma I was facing was not just a moral dilemma anymore; it was a dilemma of epic proportions.

Since I needed more time to think things through, I delayed Ronan’s next well-baby exam.  I also inquired about getting vaccines that were not made with aborted fetal tissue.  Those were available and recommended for those parents who found themselves face-to-face with the same decision like I myself was. 

Coming <this> close to securing those doses for my children, as quickly as they were about to be made available to us, we were unable to get them. 

Long story short

What ended up happening?  I opted for the vaccines that I could that were free of the ingredients I did not want to support.  I also skipped the few others we were not able to obtain that Ronan was also “due” to receive.  Was that the right choice?  At the time, I thought yes.  Would I make a different choice today like skip all the shots completely – if you’ve followed my son’s story for any length of time, you know that the answer is yes.  I would.  And in a heartbeat.  I would because as I look at that screenshot of the vaccine ingredients I posted above, I have issues with some of the other ingredients, too.  I may not have had issues with them way back when, but I sure do now.  But I’ll save those thoughts for another post. 

Today’s post was to simply shed light on the use of aborted fetal cell lines found in vaccines.  It was also ask pro-lifers an important question:  Where is the outrage?  Where, I ask you?  Because I don’t see any outrage like I think there would be and should be.

As I know it, to be pro-life means that one takes a stand to value and defend all life from natural conception to natural death in all circumstances.  Period. 

If there was outrage, that defending of all life in all circumstances would be happening.  But it isn’t.  I know this to be true because those who state that they are pro-life would then not knowingly support the science or justify the use of aborted fetal cells lines in vaccines.  And yet they do.  Maybe it’s because they just don’t know.  Heck, for as Catholic as I thought I was, I didn’t know either.

But I do now.  

No matter how uncomfortable or sensitive the information may be, when the topic of vaccines comes up, the practice of using aborted fetal cell lines as an ingredient will also be included in my conversations.  Churches and other pro-lifers may remain silent on the issue, but you have my word that the next time a young mom or dad asks for my input on vaccines, as a practicing Catholic who is ready to defend all life in all circumstances, I will include that fact from now on. 

Will you?

CJ outrage

As seen on the Healthy Momma Talk FB page 

Cathy Jameson is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeannette Bishop

http://vaxtruth.org/2017/06/pro-life-you-cant-be-pro-vaccine/

ATSC

Hans,

RA 27/3 is not strictly speaking a cell line but a virus strain:

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=503157
Attenuation of RA 27/3 Rubella Virus in WI-38 Human Diploid Cells - Stanley A. Plotkin (1969)


But having said that, it would be interesting to know how seed stock from RA 27/3 has been maintained for fifty-two years at the Wistar Institute:

https://www.wistar.org/technology-transfer/rubella-vaccine


Bill Pembry

Hans,

Yes, we have already established that two human cell lines originally derived from tiny amounts of aborted fetal lung tissue 50+ years ago are used to grow viruses for vaccine production. In fact we've pretty much beaten it to death. I'm not sure what your point is.

Hans Litten

For Bill (number1 )

https://realnewsaustralia.com/2016/05/18/8-questions-to-handle-a-pro-vax-assault/

#1 What is MRC-5 and WI-38 and what vaccines are they in?

Aborted Fetal CellsAnswer – MRC-5 and WI-38 are the names of two fetal cell lines derived from aborted human fetal tissue(aka human diploid cells or HDC) and used in the production of the mumps, rubella, measles, MMR, smallpox, polio, hepatitis A, chicken pox and shingles vaccines. RA-273 is another fetal cell line.

ATSC

Eindekker,

"As a matter of correction ATSC RA 27/3 is the rubella virus that was isolated and used to develop the vaccine, not another cell line."

Without RA 27/3 there would be no rubella vaccine. My point was that there were not "2 aborted fetus's half a century old", but scores of abortions performed by doctors like Plotkin and Hayflick who, with tales of the Monster-Maker, coerced vulnerable pregnant women into killing their healthy unborn children. Since then, thousands of fetuses have been used in vaccine research. How many Pro-Life parents vaccinate their children because they believe the lie that there were only "2 aborted fetuses" and they happened a long, long time ago, and don't realise that vaccine research using fetuses is ongoing?


"During the 1962--1965 worldwide rubella epidemic, an estimated 12.5 million cases of rubella occurred in the United States, resulting in 2,000 cases of encephalitis, 11,250 fetal deaths, 2,100 neonatal deaths, and 20,000 infants born with CRS"

Do you know how these figures were calculated? Interesting that you should reword the CDC quote from "11,250 therapeutic or spontaneous abortions" to "11,250 fetal deaths". What percentage of those fetal deaths were therapeutic abortions and how many of those were unaffected? Did anyone look?


"one major Philadelphia hospital reported 1% of live births had CRS during Rubella epidemic years "

I think the report came from Dr Plotkin, working on a vaccine across the road at the Wistar Institute, and it was for the US epidemic year, between April 1964 and March 1965. 1% of the infants born that year had congenital eye and/or heart defects, compared to 0.31% the previous year - surprisingly the only year they had control data for.

Plotkin assumed that the increase in infants born with these defects that year, "0.69%, or about 35 of the 5,200 infants born at Philadelphia General Hospital... were affected by rubella virus". They did not have the classic triad of impairments. He then projected this rate onto the approximate 15,000 negro births in Philadelphia that year and came up with 105 infants, and then doubled the figure by presuming that it only represented half of the children affected by rubella because deafness wouldn't be recognised until later. So much for "No question of misdiagnosis of CRS babies". Cytomegalovirus, Toxoplasmosis and Herpes are among other infections that are associated with birth defects, and hearing loss.

What seems odd to me is the emphasis on African Americans. Was the rate of birth defects in the white and Hispanic population the same and could poor nutrition and lack of Vitamin A during pregnancy have been a factor? Instead of developing another vaccine, researchers might have found out why only a few babies were harmed.


"There is no coming back for these babies born with CRS, they are stuck with mental issues, blindness, deafness or heart defects for life, that's it, all preventable by rubella vaccination."

As John Stone said, "There is no coming back for our children". Unlike Dr Gregg in the 1940s, and Dr Wakefield today, for more than twenty years, doctors have paid no attention to parental reports of children's vaccine-induced regression and life-time brain injury.

Rubella has always been a mild disease so there was never a need to give children this vaccine, and it should not be forced upon them. If women of child-bearing age aren't immune to rubella, they can choose to vaccinate themselves to protect their own future babies.

Bill Pembry

Hans,

You're evoking the Pharma Shill Gambit.

Hans Litten

Barry | June 21, 2016 at 07:09 AM

Barry you are the best - I concur - we are singing from the same hymn sheet .

Barry

no question that CRS can be prevented by vaccination, no question CRS incidence dramatically reduced following vaccination

********

These opinions that you revere as as fact, I regard as bullshit.

My opinions are based on my vaccine disabled son. What are yours based on?

Eindeker

But your moral grandstanding is repulsive. Compared to the original post John which was clearly trying to set a (falsely) higher moral standard than that of the Roman Catholic church?
I was just pointing out factual errors in the piece and more importantly giving the other side of the picture for neonatal health: preventing the awfulness of CRS for 10,000s babies, and their parents by simple vaccination, that hardly qualifies as "moral grandstanding"!

But thank you for your honesty in admitting that you would continue with rubella vaccination

John Stone

Eindeker

Personally, I would support the use of a single vaccine. But your moral grandstanding is repulsive. You care about the reputation of the industry not our children.

Linda1

Hi Eindecker,
Your concern for CRS is touching. Of course, the giant hole in your argument that CRS must be prevented in order to prevent autism is that autism has increased several thousand percent since the autism eradication program via rubella vaccination has been implemented. Not exactly a success story. Incidentally, when my husband's aunt was pregnant with his cousin she had rubella and the baby, his cousin, was born perfectly fine. I am not suggesting that rubella during pregnancy is harmless or a good thing, but I know that it does not adversely affect the baby in every case. Just saying.

Sometimes I think that man is paying the price for doing heinous things like using aborted fetuses to grow viruses to inject into people. The end doesn't justify the means.

Hans Litten

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/will-affected-vaxxed-movement/#comment-182320

Don't laugh - this is not funny (where do you start with ripping this apart?) :

CDC’s Pledge to the American People:
◾Be a diligent steward of the funds entrusted to our agency
◾Provide an environment for intellectual and personal growth and integrity
◾Base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively
◾Place the benefits to society above the benefits to our institution
◾Treat all persons with dignity, honesty, and respect.

Eindeker

John
On this specific article where's your moral compass pointing, encourage rubella vaccination to prevent 10,000's CRS babies or not?? No question of mis-diagnosis CRS babies, no question that CRS can be prevented by vaccination, no question CRS incidence dramatically reduced following vaccination and no evidence of harm to support hypothetical and tenuous risks of small fragments (of mainly single stranded) DNA, this "evidence" presented by was in the form of a non-peer reviewed poster, not a paper

John Stone

Eindeker

Irrespective of the issues raised in this article I would just like to point out that "there is no coming back" for many of our children who are the collateral damage of the health program you advocate. Instead, of a known cause like CRS the medical profession and governments just shrug and pretend they don't know what it might be that's causing all these problems - they are just spontaneous. But the truth is that it is just hit and run.

Hans Litten

Yeah Bill , who is "us" ? What is the money like ? Are you on a pension scheme ?

tripped up there a bit Billy Boy ! Nice catch Barry .

I think your Kuru from vaccination theory is a good one that warrants futher investigation ., its entirely possible (knowing the crazed maniacs behind vaccination as I do) lol

Eindeker

Some of the views expressed in this discussion are just illogical, why?
Autism is a known potential consequence of rubella infection in pregnant women in the first trimester, along with numerous other devastating health consequences for the fetus. Rubella vaccination of girls well before child bearing age has hugely reduced the incidence of congenital rubella syndrome, I know some commentators don't believe anything until they've experienced it themselves, but for example one major Philadelphia hospital reported 1% of live births had CRS during Rubella epidemic years. There is no coming back for these babies born with CRS, they are stuck with mental issues, blindness, deafness or heart defects for life, that's it, all preventable by rubella vaccination.
So why on earth are people questioning the use of rubella vaccine because of cell lines derived from 2 aborted fetus's half a century old??? Are their moral standards higher than those of that collection of men in frocks, AKA the Roman Catholic church?? The RC church has basically said Well we might not like this but it would be immoral not to use rubella vaccination because of the massive saving of life & prevention of suffering Is your moral compass more accurate than theirs ??
As a matter of fact there is no fetal tissue in vaccines, nor has there ever been; cell lines derived from the fetal tissue 50 years ago are used to cultivate the vaccine virus. Degraded remnants of the cell lines are removed during the purification process including the addition of agents to hydrolyse any residual DNA into small fragments.
As a matter of correction ATSC RA 27/3 is the rubella virus that was isolated and used to develop the vaccine, not another cell line.
And Benedetta no Most probably prions are some sort of bio weapon -a foot print of a pathogen. The pathogen that created it might be long gone, but the bio weapon remains prions have been around for a much longer time, as well as Kuru & BSE (known as “Staggers” to UK farmers) Scrapie, the sheep brain prion has been known for centuries, it’s transmitted by sheep eating infected placenta’s in the fields during the lambing season, so no bioweapons there Benedetta !!

ATSC


Sassy-Holly,

You are not alone.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/10/can-feminists-really-be-pro-life-on-abortion-meet-two-pro-life-women-who-are/
Can Feminists Really be Pro-Life on Abortion? Meet Two Pro-Life Women Who Are


Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa and Kristen Hatten:


"When Cosmopolitan magazine tells women their primary value lies in having sex with men, they are feeding the abortion industry. When the feminist Left tells women that a fetus is just a clump of cells with no value, it feeds the idea that sex is a hobby with no attendant responsibilities "

"Sometime before we were born our womanhood was traded for a handful of birth control pills, the “privilege” to degrade ourselves in playboy, and the “right” to abort our children "


http://www.newwavefeminists.com/#!about/c1se
New Wave Feminists


Shannon Epstein

We've gotten far afield of the original point of the article. The pro-life crowd should be outraged about aborted fetuses being used to make vaccines. They all sing together in a loud and mighty chorus when it comes to opposing embryonic stem cell research. The ends do not justify the means, we hear from them. But the exact same ethical conflict arises with vaccines and yet we get either silence, deflection or a very muted response.

ATSC

Bill Pembry,

So, would you eat medicinal pills manufactured from aborted and stillborn babies or not? And if not, why not?


Barry

Benedetta,

When people start contracting kuru from vaccines you let us know.

**********

Who's "us" ?

Bill Pembry

Benedetta,

When people start contracting kuru from vaccines you let us know.

ATSC,

Explain how it would have been better if they had incinerated those 2 aborted fetuses like all the other millions instead of using them for life saving research.

ATSC

Bill Pembry,

"We're talking about 2 human cell lines derived from fetal lung tissue in 1962 (WI-38) and 1966 (MRC-5)"

It seems strange to me that neither the CDC Pink Book nor the article you linked to "Medical research: Cell division" which claims that "Vaccines made using WI-38 cells have immunized hundreds of millions of people against rubella, rabies, adenovirus, polio, measles, chickenpox and shingles" mentions RA 27/3 which is still used today in the manufacture of the rubella portion of the MMR vaccine. WI-38 and MRC-5 were developed from only two abortions, whereas 26 healthy babies were aborted before Dr Stanley Plotkin found what he wanted, one infected with rubella, and I'm almost certain that Dr Paul Offit writes about the illegality of these abortions in his book Vaccinated.

The use of aborted babies in vaccine research dates back to at least 1948, and Paul Offit has been quite up front about it in the last decade:

"On March 30, 1948, Thomas Weller took the arm and shoulder of an aborted human fetus; trimmed the skin, fat and muscles from the arm; minced the tissues with fine scissors; and transferred them to twelve separate flasks containing nutrient broth. Four of the flasks were inoculated with chickenpox (varicella) virus; four, with polio virus; and four, with no virus (to serve as a control)." - The Cutter Incident (2007)

In 1954, Dr Weller was awarded the Nobel Prize, along with Dr John Enders and Dr Frederick Robbins, for discovering how to grow poliomyelitis viruses in "culture". I wonder if the Nobel Prize committee knew exactly how these scientists grew the viruses, and how the general public would have reacted at the time if they'd known. I guess that fewer children would have joined the queues for the polio vaccine.

Is there anywhere that you would draw the line on the use of human remains? How about if scientific research proved that the "medicinal" pills from desiccated and ground up flesh from aborted and stillborn children actually worked, would you be comfortable with them being legitimately marketed? And how would you feel about consuming them yourself?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140702/South-Korea-customs-officials-thousands-pills-filled-powdered-human-baby-flesh.html
China makes “medicinal” pills from aborted babies


Benedetta

Gosh! Hera! You are great!
That was a great article you found that said --- yeah the human DNA is still right in those vaccines.

Copies; LOL
Bill Pembry - I am so sorry, but you are up against it with Hera.

So let me get this straight??? Do you think if you put a bunch of polio virus in a cell, and let them replicate, and make copies of themselves - then those copies will be copies but no longer the polio viruses?

Heeee ,heeee, heeee. Sorry heeee, heeee,heeee -- Oohhh sorry. Okay. Okay I am back

And so with that reasoning we have gone from there is no fetal tissue left in the vaccine to - well there are just copies of human DNA, but what is the big deal.

The big deal would be equal to:
Using left over dead cow parts to make cattle feed ,and feeding it to cows and then being surprised that the cow and the people eating the cow gets a brain eating prion protein. Or how about that kuru from the women and children on some New Guinea Islands eating their dead. Yeap another turning the brain to mush; prion.

What is a prion. I feel I must explain to people that say copies of a human fetus are not the human fetuses' cell.

Prions they have a lot to learn - the medical people do. What they do know is It is a protein that they think turns molecules the wrong way ,so they won't fit into the proper lock and key of building cells. Once they get the cell mechanism to start churning out wrong handed molecules, our own cells just keeps doing it and can't stop, tell we die.

Most probably prions are some sort of bio weapon -a foot print of a pathogen. The pathogen that created it might be long gone, but the bio weapon remains, a thrown wrench into the fine workings of a cell and now our own body makes the wrong handed protein instead of the correct handed protein.

So a bio weapon started and it just keeps going and going - esp in forms of cannibalism.

Bill Pembry

Hera,

I think you just want to believe there is "aborted fetal tissue" in vaccines and you're going to cling to that belief no matter what.

Did you read about congenital Rubella syndrome? It doesn't appear so.

Anthrax vaccination has not been shown to cause birth defects. I shudder to think where you get your information.

Barry

Barry, you know every cell in your body was made from copies of other people's DNA, right?

******************

Not in some mad scientist's petri dish, Bill.

 Hera

Hi Bill; " progeny" Really?
It's the original cell line, placed in petri dishes and encouraged to multiply. If the baby were still alive, those cells would be part of the baby, not
Re rubella; I find it intriguing that while there is an acknowledgement that rubella infection can cause autism prenatally, all brain damage caused by the live vaccine virus, given to very young children, is "co incidence" Well, except for the table injury of encephalitis.

But you picked the wrong person to go after with regard to congenital deformities, Bill. We are living that right now. But it's okay , because anthrax vaccine only damages some peoples babies in utero, right?

Bill Pembry

Hera,

You do like to put words in my mouth, don't you? "Copies" refers to DNA, not cells. The original cells are long gone. The cells are progeny many generations later, though.

cia parker

I think it's important to both recognize the horrors caused by the diseases we vaccinate against as well as the extreme dangers of the vaccines. The choice is going to have to be left up to the parents. I think the best solution would be to deliberately give the natural disease rubella to sixth grade girls at the end of the school year, so they can go through the very mild disease at home and get permanent immunity. Those who don't could be deliberately exposed again. The other solution would be the homeoopathic nosode universally given: it is believed to be very effective. It may be that now mercury is not in many medical products anymore, that the CRS would not be as bad as it was in 1964 even if no one were vaxxed for rubella, but we can't know that for sure.

The Catholic Church has given its blessing to vaccines made using cells of aborted fetuses, and I agree that the lives of future children are more important than those already aborted. I understand that many dangers remain in the vaccines, some known, others unknown, its always being unknown how each individual will react, so it must always go back to the parents' well-informed choice.

Bill Pembry

Hera,

"Ultimately, scientists documented at least 8 elective abortions to produce the rubella vaccine alone."

Did you know that in the U.S. alone there are over a million elective abortions a year? So I'm not sure what your point is. And you should read up on congenital Rubella syndrome. Before the vaccine in 1969 we had almost 100,000 cases/year just in the U.S., and now we have about 10. Would you like to stop checking Rubella titers in pregnant women, Hera, and stop vaccinating altogether? Now there's an ethical issue for you.

 Hera

By the way Bill; by "copy" I assume you mean the cells from the original aborted baby are continuing to be grown and encouraged to multiply in petri dishes. Calling these multiplied cells of the baby "copies" is in my mind, a bit of a stretch.

And this is why some people have moral issues with stem cell lines from aborted fetuses.
Your decision and moral stance on this is completely up to you. But facts should be available for those who may feel differently.

 Hera

If we are going for creepy..

During the 1964 Rubella epidemic some doctors advised rubella-infected pregnant women to abort their children, based on the fear their baby might be born with birth defects. Working along side these doctors, researchers collected the live fetal tissue. Ultimately, they extracted the virus from the 27th aborted baby’s kidney, labeling it RA273. (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th abortion in the study, 3=3rd tissue explanted) This virus was then cultivated on WI-38 (Wistar Institute No. 38) a cell line produced from the lung tissue of a 3 months gestation female baby, electively aborted in Sweden. But prior to perfecting Wl-38, there were numerous other abortions involved in the research. Ultimately, scientists documented at least 8 elective abortions to produce the rubella vaccine alone.


From
http://www.know-vaccines.org/?page_id=250

I realize that you don't have an ethical issue with this Bill, but others may.

Bill Pembry

Barry,

"Jesus, that's even creepier!"

Barry, you know every cell in your body was made from copies of other people's DNA, right? What are you going to do?!

Barry

Hera,

There is no DNA left from the fetus. There are only copies.

***********

So now you're saying that vaccines contain 'copies' of the original fetal DNA???

Jesus, that's even creepier!

You accused someone else here of inciting revulsion to vaccines. But you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

Bill Pembry

Hera,

There is no DNA left from the fetus. There are only copies.

 Hera

By the way Bill,
I am talking specifically about fragments of fetal DNA. If you wish to split hairs and say this is not "tissue" I specifically identified what the study was describing.
I am sure you are more than capable of reading the study for yourself.

 Hera

For Bill Pembry;
and yet, per the science, you are wrong.
The first part of the study I quoted ( and linked to) discussed the amounts of the fragments of fetal DNA that are found in vaccines.
Not wanting it to be true does not make it so.

Bill Pembry

Herra,

"So you are agreeing that there are fragments of aborted fetus DNA in vaccines?"

Dude, how many times do I have to say there is no aborted fetal tissue in vaccines?

 Hera

Bill Pembury;
So you are agreeing that there are fragments of aborted fetus DNA in vaccines?
All the best
Hera

Bill Pembry

Hera,

When Deisher proves vaccines cause diseases in humans by incorporating DNA into our genome let us know.

 Hera

Bill Pembury; What is your response to the study I cited?
Fetal DNA fragments ( derived from an aborted fetus) are indeed present in vaccines.
So; per that study, you are wrong.

The harm they may be causing, again per the study, is also an issue.

But the bottom line is fetal fragments of DNA are in our vaccines, and they came from an aborted baby..
So, it this is a moral issue for you, you can no longer pretend they don't exist.

Bill Pembry

Hans,

"I could go on and on - you know that right?

I have no doubt!

 Hera

For Bill Pembury
Title: Spontaneous Integration of Human DNA Fragments into Host Genome K. Koyama, T. A. Deisher Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, Seattle, WA

From the study

Vaccines manufactured using human fetal cells contain residual DNA fragments (50-500 bp) (Table I). It is possible that these contaminating fragments could be incorporated into a child’s genome and disrupt normal gene function, leading to autistic phenotypes. In this study we demonstrate foreign DNA uptake in human cells and genomic integration by incubating the cells with Cy3-labeled human Cot1 (placental) DNA fragments which represents contaminating residual human fetal DNA in vaccines.

By the way, the rates of disability per the AAP have increased 16% since 2001. Hard to see that as a success, Eindeker. But of course ..its all just better diagnosing. Who knew doctors were so inept in 2001?

Hans Litten

Bill Pembury - will you refute all this also ? or just ignore it as previously

1 .Gardasil has killed many hundreds of young women outright (probably thousands by now).
2. Gardasil has caused the sterilisation of many young teenagers ? (Nazi style-many 000's no doubt)
3. The Swine Flu vaccine caused narcolepsy (as paid out by the UK & Scandi govts)
4. that vaccinations cause tumours (cancers) as admitted by Maurice Hilleman
5. That themiserol is toxic at nano-grams and has been known since 1948
6. That Gerberding admitted vaccination can cause Autism like symptoms (that are in fact Autism)
7. That William Thompson and the CDC faked the safety studies to hide the truth
8. That Poul Thoresen was a total crook (he was the lead author on several safety studies - lies)
9. That the 2 Merck whistleblowers admit the mumps vaccine efficacy is a lie
10. That SIDS is a vaccine injury (murder)
11. That hidden ingredients exist to sterilise whole populations (HCG & estradiol)

I could go on and on - you know that right ?

Bill Pembry

Hera,

I didn't say there is only a small amount of aborted fetal tissue in vaccines - I said there is none.

 Hera

Bill Pembury; if you make something from aborted fetus tissue cell line, then saying there is only a small amount of it present, really does not cut it. For some, buying a product made from an actual aborted baby ( even if only present in very small amounts) is morally reprehensible. If it does not bother you, fair enough. But you don't get to decide that for other people.

Bill Pembry

Barry,

"Does this mean that we should be worried, if we thought some of those(sic) human cell material was still around?"

You do like to move the goal posts, Barry. Again, I'm showing why the premise of the article is wrong - there is no "aborted fetal tissue" in vaccines. Can you not admit you were wrong?

Barry

C'mon, Barry. We're talking about 2 human cell lines derived from fetal lung tissue in 1962 (WI-38) and 1966 (MRC-5). The fetus for WI-38 was at 4 months gestation and the lungs at that time were "each about the size of an adult fingertip" :
http://www.nature.com/news/medical-research-cell-division-1.13273
The fetus for MRC-5 was at 14 WEEKS gestation.
It's kind of like homeopathy when you think about it.

*******

So what you're saying then, Bill. Is the reason we shouldn't worry about this, is that none of that original human cell material is likely still around.

Does this mean that we should be worried, if we thought some of those human cell material was still around?

I thought there was no chance of it getting into the vaccines anyway? Are you now saying that it can it can get into the vaccines?

Hans Litten

Bill Pembury - you have some cheek coming on here telling people that Vaccines don't cause Autism . We are all living proof that the crimino-thorities are lying thieves .
I think its the equivalent of a Nazi Holocaust denier rolling up to a synagogue (I really do) .
You should be ashamed of yourself .

Ten reasons why you shouldn't vaccinate your children :
http://www.naturalnews.com/048151_vaccination_dangers_children_Big_Pharma.html

1) Vaccines don't work.
2)Vaccines have never been proven safe or effective (unsafe and defective)
3) The first vaccine was a complete failure, which the industry tried to cover up
4)Vaccines are highly profitable for drug companies, which aren't held liable for damages
5)All vaccines contain deadly chemical additives
6)Unvaccinated children are generally healthier
7)Vaccines cause lifelong, incurable diseases in some children
8) Vaccines kill children and adults.
9)Vaccine companies can't be sued if you or your child is harmed by vaccines
10)Natural exposure to disease is the best vaccine


Bill Pembry

Barry,
"I have no idea what might be left from that original sample, and neither do you. "
C'mon, Barry. We're talking about 2 human cell lines derived from fetal lung tissue in 1962 (WI-38) and 1966 (MRC-5). The fetus for WI-38 was at 4 months gestation and the lungs at that time were "each about the size of an adult fingertip" :
http://www.nature.com/news/medical-research-cell-division-1.13273
The fetus for MRC-5 was at 14 WEEKS gestation.
It's kind of like homeopathy when you think about it.

Barry

What we do know with absolute certainty Barry is that since the introduction of Rubella vaccination in the US in 1969 10,000's of children have not been born with Congenital Rubella Syndrome:

********

Actually, the only thing you know with "aboslute certainty", is that these are the numbers have been reported. And unlike you, I go more what I see, than by what I read.

I lived through those 'good old days', when everyone had measles, mumps, chicken pox.... and in each and every instance, what I saw and/or experienced could only be described as benign.

I don't remember seeing any deaf & blind babies, because of CRS.

And I definitely didn't see any children with autism.

Linda1

" Do you really want to go back to the good old days of deaf & blind babies because of CRS..."

Talk about deaf and blind.

Eindeker

What we do know with absolute certainty Barry is that since the introduction of Rubella vaccination in the US in 1969 10,000's of children have not been born with Congenital Rubella Syndrome:

Usually a mild rash illness, rubella (also called German measles) can have devastating effects when a pregnant woman is infected, especially during her first trimester. During the 1962--1965 worldwide rubella epidemic, an estimated 12.5 million cases of rubella occurred in the United States, resulting in 2,000 cases of encephalitis, 11,250 fetal deaths, 2,100 neonatal deaths, and 20,000 infants born with CRS, a constellation of birth defects that often includes blindness, deafness, and congenital heart defects.

Since 2004, rubella incidence has been below 1 case per 10,000,000 population, and CRS incidence has been below 1 case per 5,000,000 births.

Now would you like to maintain your sense of moral outrage at using 50 year old cell lines (not "fetal tissue") and tenuous hypothetical risks or actually save babies lives, what would you recommend? Do you really want to go back to the good old days of deaf & blind babies because of CRS, your choice Barry.

Barry

If you look at the MRC-5 cell line, it was derived from lung tissue of an aborted fetus 50 years ago. Why would you, Barry, believe that 50 years later, after thousands of generations of these cells and millions of doses of vaccines produced from them, that there would be anything at all left from the original sample?

**************

I have no idea what might be left from that original sample, and neither do you.

The one thing I do know , Bill, is that the incidence of asthma is astronomically higher now, than it was 50 years ago.

Bill Pembry

Whyser,

The point is if you're going to believe tiny bits of fragmented DNA in synthetic drugs are so dangerous (and you obviously do because you liken them to genetic engineering) then it doesn't matter whether they are grown in bacteria or human cell lines.
And if you think your theory of vaccines causing lupus is correct then publish it.

whyser

Hans Litten,

My name is based on asking the question "why" and hopefully becoming "wiser" because of it, so it's a mashup of both these words. For far too long, I've been on the losing side of the vaccine debate, so I made it a point to actually understand how vaccine and immunology works to a basic degree, and now the danger of vaccines seem very obvious to me.

I said that I probably won't respond to Bill Pembry, should he respond any further. I took a look at his posting history on AoA, and it's obvious that he is one of the voices of dissension on this site. I'm surprised I don't see Orac, Dorit Reiss, John Kwok, Catherina, Orac, Matt Carey, and others, frequent on this board, since they seem to have the time to respond to practically all news sites.

I'm sticking around. I enjoy reading the articles on AoA. I'll be participating here and there.

Hans Litten

Whyser or is it Wiser . Please don't go . I'm listening . And very interested . thankyou
Bill I think we call that a checkmate . Mate

whyser

Bill Pembry,

I don't see your point. Why are you bringing up insulin?

Actually, do you even know how they get bacteria to produce insulin? They inject the DNA sequence required to produce insulin by using a DNA plasmid into the bacteria genome so that the bacteria can express it.

This is yet another example of DNA insertion into host cell (or bacteria, in this case) to express certain proteins. Your attempt to show me how this is not an issue is only further proving my point, that insertion of DNA into a host cell can have consequences.

I said solid evidence, not theoretical ramblings

I did show you evidence. I showed how inserting rac and myc genes into cells can cause cancer. I showed you how excessive extracellular human DNA can cause systemic lupus. I also gave you examples of gene therapy, and DNA vaccines used to modify the host DNA to express different proteins (or infectious agents). Nice of you to simply ignore all that, unless you think that those are all theoretical ramblings too, which you haven't denied.

You also did not attempt to even address my problem with you not wanting to prove a negative. You seem to be okay with not having drugs tested for safety, because that would be trying proving something that isn't known.

I think I won't reply to you after this. It's obvious that I'm simply feeding a troll here.

Bill Pembry

Sophie,

No to all the above.

Shannon,

Hemophilia replacement factor and some vaccines are grown in human cell lines originally derived from aborted fetuses decades ago. If they came from miscarriages instead of elective abortions would you be OK with them?

Grace,

Whether or not I think human cell lines are morally justified isn't the issue. We have them, they contain nothing from the original fetuses, and they're currently the most efficient tools we have to produce life-saving drugs (although I assume you don't think vaccines save lives) - what do you want to do, destroy them? For hemophiliacs should we go back to relying on donor plasma with the risks of hepatitis, HIV, etc?

Grace Green

Bill Pembry, you have expressed your opinion on abortion when you said, "the fetus was going to be aborted regardless" thereby implying that you consider that renders the use of that persons remains in drugs morally justified. The case of hemophilia is different as that is the treatment of an otherwise fatal disease whereas vaccines are prophylactic. Thankfully, I have not been faced with that dilemma but if I were it would be a moral decision as well as considering what was medically best for the child. Many jehova's witnesses would decide against treatment, and would probably have their child taken into care, which would have the effect of relieving them of moral accountability.

Shannon Epstein

The hemophilia drug choice is a false one. Any biologic can be manufactured without human derived cell lines. The alternatives are slightly more expensive, and the manufacturing decisions are made on the basis of cost. Again I refer you to the work of Theresa Deisher.

Bill Pembry

Whyser,

I said solid evidence, not theoretical ramblings. You know we grow insulin in bacteria? Should we go back to harvesting it directly from pig and cow pancreases, or just let kids with type 1 diabetes die in a few months on starvation diets?

Sophie Scholl

Hans Litten has at least demonstrated Bill Pembury is an honest person who at least will not lie when asked a direct question , but pretends not to see it .

Bill , do you accept vaccinihilation is the cause of the Autism Pandemic ?
Do you accept vaccinihilation as the cause of SIDS ?
And likewise the cancer epidemic ? The diabetes epidemic ? the obesity epidemic ? Aids too ?

Sassy-Holly

Thank you for speaking up , I felt like I was the only person who actually tends to lean liberal on many topics but consider myself an independent for reasons like THIS. WAS JUST talking about this with a good friend. The fact that people ignore this sickens me. Hilary!? NO. and my huge reason is her support of planned parenthood after they just seemed to be swept under the rug over this disturbing topic that only they would have been able to pull off not getting thrown in prison for. Because of politics. Thank you! I thought I was the only person on Twitter especially at 25 being a single white female who generally leans liberally who is absolutely against this and is sickened by anyone who makes excuses for them. Pro life forever and thank you for this!

Bill Pembry

Grace,

I haven't expressed my opinion on abortion. My complaint is the unsupported claim that "aborted fetal tissue" is present in vaccines.
Did you know recombinant factors used to treat people with hemophilia are made using human embryonic kidney cells from an aborted fetus? If you had a child with hemophilia would you rather see them bleed to death?

whyser

Bill Pembry,

Not here to prove negatives. If you have any solid evidence it's an issue feel free to link it

I cannot agree with your stance of "not here to prove negatives". That would be the same as saying that there is no point in proving vaccine safety, because, in the same context, that would be also proving a negative. In fact, let's take it a step further, and say that for all medicine, big pharma and the FDA have no reason to prove the safety of ANY medicine.

If you were to go by Primum non nocere (first, do no harm), then by that principle, you MUST ABSOLUTELY prove a negative before you should use it.

As for whether DNA in vaccines can do harm, the FDA already indicated a potential problem: There are several potential ways DNA could be a risk factor. DNA can be oncogenic or infectious; in addition, it can cause insertion mutagenesis through integration into the host genome.

A presentation by Keith Peden, Division of Viral Products, Office of Vaccine Research and Review, showed the following:

https://www.regonline.com/custImages/240000/244811/NCNV%20III/Day%203/Session%209/Keith%20Peden,%20Ph.D..pdf

Keith Peden demonstrated that they were able to inject mice with specific ras and myc oncogenes which was able to induce tumor nodules, especially in immune deficient mice.

The other issue is of infectivity, when the DNA incorporates itself into the host genome (though insertion mutagenesis). Since DNA is used as a roadmap for building proteins, there is a theoretical risk that the foreign DNA being incorporated can cause cells to express potentially toxic proteins and/or viruses.

Sound far fetched? This is already being done. How do you think gene therapy works? How do you think DNA vaccines work? They work by injecting DNA into your own genome. Gene therapy works by trying to fix bad genes by inserting better ones. DNA vaccine work by injecting DNA into your cells so that your own cells produce the target antigen.

So unless you think that gene therapy and DNA vaccines are pie in the sky ideas, then you have to acknowledge that the risk of human DNA in a vaccine pose a potential problem.

One last thing:

The role of extracellular DNA in autoimmunity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19703007

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a prototypic autoimmune disease characterized by the expression of antibodies to DNA. These antibodies form immune complexes that can stimulate cytokine production as well as deposit in the tissues to incite inflammation and damage. For the formation of immune complexes, the availability of extracellular DNA in an immunologically relevant form is essential. While apoptosis has been implicated as the source of this nuclear material in SLE, as shown with in vitro or in vivo systems, extracellular DNA can originate from apoptotic as well as necrotic cells. In experimental models, the release of DNA occurs with the administration of cells induced to die, in vitro as well as the administration of agents to induce cell death in situ. This release can be influenced by the presence of inflammatory cells such as macrophages that can interact with dead and dying cells to modulate the translocation of DNA from the inside to the outside of cells. In vivo, both glucocorticoids and oestrogens can modify the extent of DNA release from the administration of dead and dying cells. Together, these findings indicate that the generation of extracellular DNA in SLE can result from cell death and that steps in this process represent potential targets for new therapies.

This makes sense to me completely. Our immune system responds to tissue and cell damage (The danger/damage model of immunology). This will cause an immunological and inflammatory response. This is exactly how adjuvanted vaccines work, they destroy cells, releasing their intracellular DNA, which results in an inflammatory response. Dendritic cells that are drawn to these areas will sample the environment, and travel back to the lymph nodes, where they present to B and T immune cells the antigen associated with the damage, and what kind of damage is being caused.

If by mistake, our dendritic cells present our own proteins or DNA to the immune system as the antigen, it is possible that this could induce autoimmunity.

Now, let's think about an inactivated viral vaccine.
- It contains viruses.
- It contains DNA from the cell culture.
- It contains aluminum to stimulate the immune system as described above.

Aluminum binds itself to the virus, but it will also bind to other DNA fragments. Since the immune cell responds to the damage that is caused by aluminum, any aluminum bound antigens, proteins, or DNA will be taken up by dendritic cells and presented to the immune system.

If there is sufficient contaminate proteins/DNA in the vaccine, the immune system may consider it to be a serious threat. Just as how it will consider the virus to be a serious threat. The immune system doesn't know the difference... it just knows that damage is being caused and it has to figure out what proteins are causing it.

Grace Green

Bill Pembry, you are entitled to your own personal opinion on abortion, but Cathy makes it perfectly clear in the article that she has a moral objection to abortion, as a catholic believer. And how do you know what were the grounds for the baby being aborted? If it was not for medical reasons - and you don't know that was the case - then those who don't believe in abortion will not believe in the use of human tissue obtained in that way. Would you use a lampshade made from human skin because that Jewish person would have died anyway? Learn what ethics is about - matters of principal.

Bill Pembry

Whyser,

"So yes, you can probably filter out things such as whole cells such that there should be no actual "fetal tissue" in the vaccine..." -- thank you, as that is my main point, but there's no original "aborted fetal tissue" left to filter out 50 years later so it doesn't even matter.

"A little bit of correction here: tiny fragments of DNA from human cells are NOT used to produce vaccines." -- Never said they were but thanks.

"I would reconsider the stance if you still are on the thought that DNA in vaccines is a non-issue. I haven't seen you make any arguments for why you think it isn't." -- Not here to prove negatives. If you have any solid evidence it's an issue feel free to link it.

Hans Litten

Bill Pembury - are you going to answer the direct question or not ?

Are you happy to have foreign human DNA injected into yourself or that of your children\grandchildren ?

whyser

Bill Pembry,

If you want to argue tiny fragmented bits of DNA from human cell lines used to produce vaccines invoke autoimmune diseases, as off topic (and unsupportable) as that is, have at it. My point is that it's simply sensationalism to claim vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue.

A little bit of correction here: tiny fragments of DNA from human cells are NOT used to produce vaccines. The cell lines are (MRC-5 and WI-38, and potentially others) are used in order for the virus to infect an to replicate.

Once enough virus has been produced, the vaccine manufacturers have to purify the vaccine so that what you are left with is the virus.

This however, is impossible to accomplish. The best they can do is to filter out substances that are larger than the virus itself. So yes, you can probably filter out things such as whole cells such that there should be no actual "fetal tissue" in the vaccine, but if there were proteins and DNA from those cells remaining and were about the same size as the virus, it will be extremely difficult to remove them. Therefore, pharma companies hope to just have "trace" amounts.

The FDA had an advisory meeting regarding the usage of immortal human cells in vaccine manufacturing:

Cell Lines Derived from Human Tumors for Vaccine Manufacture
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM319573.pdf

Pay attention to this particular section:

4.2 Residual Cell-substrate DNA
4.2.1 Background: DNA Oncogenicity, DNA Infectivity, and DNA Integration
Small amounts of residual cell substrate DNA unavoidably occur in all viral vaccines as well as other biologics produced using cell substrates. There are several potential ways DNA could be a risk factor. DNA can be oncogenic or infectious; in addition, it can cause insertion mutagenesis through integration into the host genome.

The FDA admits that cell substrate DNA is practically impossible to remove from vaccines, so I don't understand why you think this is "unsupported".

The advisory meeting also states this:

Such treatments as beta-propiolactone (BPL) for inactivated vaccines and benzonase digestion for live vaccines can reduce the infectivity of DNA by more than 100,000 fold. Combining the reduction in the biological activity of DNA afforded by manufacturing steps with lowering the permitted amount of residual DNA to 10 ng per dose or below provides safety factors in excess of 10,000,000

10ng seems pretty small, though keep in mind that the amount of DNA in the entire human genome is 0.007ng.

As well, you have to question whether manufacturers actually stick to this 10ng limit.

Sound Choice Phamaceuticals performed this study:

Computational Detection of Homologous Recombination Hotspots in X-Chromosome Autism-Associated Genes
http://cogforlife.org/SCPIIMFARHR.pdf

They tested to see HOW MUCH DNA existed in some vaccines, and here's what they found:

Murevax II -> ~175ng per vial
Hepatitus A -> 300ng per vial
Varivax -> 2mcg+ or 2,000ng per vial

Remember, the FDA said that the limit should be 10ng, and it's obvious that many manufacturers are going WAY over this limit.

What's the problem with DNA in vaccines?

In a presentation to the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), there were concerns that there was a possibility that this residual DNA could cause autism:

It is possible that human DNA-contaminated vaccines contribute to some cases of autism. One hypothesis presented to us is that the homologous recombination of DNA from another human incorporated in a host's DNA may cause auto-immune reactions and/or subsequent somatic mutations.

Our own immune system destroys altered self which, in this case, is the new DNA incorporated in the host's DNA, a target for altered-self destruction. The autoimmune reaction could result in neurological injury. Emerging research is showing continuous brain inflammation in those with autism.

I would reconsider the stance if you still are on the thought that DNA in vaccines is a non-issue. I haven't seen you make any arguments for why you think it isn't.

Bill Pembry

Grace,

The fetus was going to be aborted regardless, and the reason lung tissue was removed was to try to generate persistent human cell lines. Years later it was found that those lines could produce vaccines.

And no, the point of this article wasn't "the moral and ethical aspect of this practice", it was to incite revulsion to vaccines through a false narrative.

Grace Green

Bill Pembry, the point of this article, as I understand it, concerns the moral and ethical aspect of this practice, in which case your point is irrelevant - at least one fetus was killed in order to produce the required tissue. That, for many catholics (though not the pope) and this quaker for one, is unethical. I don't know enough about DNA but I suspect that could have a permanent effect on the vaccine.

Bill Pembry

Double-check,

If you want to argue tiny fragmented bits of DNA from human cell lines used to produce vaccines invoke autoimmune diseases, as off topic (and unsupportable) as that is, have at it. My point is that it's simply sensationalism to claim vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue.

Hans Litten

Bill , exactly what is your point ? Immortal cell lines or otherwise .
Foetal cells have been used , you agree that ? right - so that's it .

Are you happy to have foreign human DNA injected into yourself or that of your children\grandchildren ?
I bet your family isn't part of the medical experimentation that you so believe in and approve of - just other peoples children . Am I right ?

david m burd

ps: The Title of the Journal Paper is:

Immortality, but not oncogenic transformation, of primary human cells leads to epigenetic reprogramming of DNA methylation and gene expression.
Katrina Gordon, Thomas Clouaire, Xun X. Bao, Sadie E. Kemp, Maria Xenophontos, Jose Ignacio de Las Heras and Irina Stancheva*

(because of some glitch, I don't have the actual Journal Name; but it should be easy to find using all the right key words, including MRC-5)

david m burd

@ Bill Pembry, The critical words here are "immortal" and "immortalized" when referring to foetal lung tissue and the the derivation and production of cell lines originating from MRC-5 cells in the foetal lung tissue. It seems to me it's fair to conclude vaccines include tissue substances originating from foetal MRC-5 cells.

From the Journal Paper: 'To circumvent these limitations and generate a cancer model system amenable to long-term tracking of epigenetic events and further mechanistic studies, we used an established method to transform human somatic cells in vitro using a combination of well-defined factors (13). We established isogenic immortalized and transformed human cell lines derived from primary foetal lung fibroblasts (MRC-5) and followed the temporal changes in gene expression and DNA methylation at gene promoters in these independent, but related to each other, cell populations. Our analyses show that MRC-5 cells, immortalized by expression of human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) catalytic subunit, and transformed MRC-5 cells, expressing hTERT, SV40 large T-antigen (T-Ag) and constitutively active oncogenic H-RASGV12, progressively accumulate extensive changes in gene expression and de novo DNA methylation at gene promoters that become apparent after 50 population doublings (pd) in culture. Remarkably, de novo DNA methylation at gene promoters occurred at specific loci with similar timing in both the immortalized and transformed cell lines suggesting that gain of DNA methylation does not require expression of oncogenes. The accumulation of DNA methylation at gene promoters took place predominantly at genes that were transcriptionally inactive in the parental cell line, but did not correlate with pre-existing Polycomb-dependent H3K27 trimethylation (H3K27me3) previously reported to pre-mark promoters for de novo DNA methylation (14–16). Importantly, immortalized and transformed cell lines displayed different gene expression profiles, indicating that the presence of oncogenes modulates the properties of immortal cells. Our data demonstrate that programmed de novo DNA methylation at specific loci and adaptation of transcriptional output of the genome to a highly proliferative state can occur in diploid human cells without a major input from oncogenic proteins. On the other hand, transforming oncogenes contribute to further modulation of gene expression and promote evasion of apoptosis and anchorage-independent growth, which are essential properties of cancer cells."

Double-check.

Bill Pembry points out that vaccines don't contain aborted fetal tissue. Based on the included graphic, it appears that the more correct phrase might be "vaccines contain cells and proteins derived from aborted fetuses." Ethically, and in terms of the disastrous potential for unintended dna transfer and triggering of auto-immune disease, the difference doesn't matter. But in terms of giving the trolls something to write their blogs about and getting those who are unaware to consider your points with an open mind, it matters.

Bill Pembry

Barry,

The whole premise of this article is that some vaccines contain "aborted fetal cells", so I was hoping someone would explain why they believe that. If you look at the MRC-5 cell line, it was derived from lung tissue of an aborted fetus 50 years ago. Why would you, Barry, believe that 50 years later, after thousands of generations of these cells and millions of doses of vaccines produced from them, that there would be anything at all left from the original sample?

Barry

Barry,

So you don't know either? You want me to prove a negative.

**********

I never asked you to prove anything. I asked you to tell us why you're so convinced that vaccines don't contain aborted fetal tissue

david m burd

@ Sophie Scholl. When you say "contaminants", don't you mean "excipients" (or 'ingredients'?).

Contaminants by their very definition DO NOT belong in any drug or vaccine, though in truth as so well documented by Janine Roberts (and many others) toxic contaminants are in fact unavoidably present in vaccines.

Hans Litten

http://www.naturalnews.com/054337_vaccines_injury_medically_unnecessary.html

Top 9 vaccines you NEVER need and exactly why the CDC has to scare everybody into getting them

The 9 vaccines you NEVER need, that won't protect you from anything, especially the diseases they're labeled to prevent
Chicken pox vaccine (Varicella)

Measles vaccine (or MMR: measles, mumps, rubella)

Zika virus vaccine

Influenza vaccine (flu shot)

Swine flu vaccine (H1N1)

Bird Flu vaccine (H5N1–Avian)

Polio vaccine

HPV (human papillomavirus)

Anthrax vaccine

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not happy with this article because it implies there is such a thing as a good vaccine . There isn't.

Hans Litten

Sophie & Shannon have responded Bill .

http://www.infowars.com/clinton-calls-for-expanding-surveillance/

On Monday presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said she would force tech companies to work with intelligence agencies.

Clinton’s proposal lacked specifics, although she did say the government will compel technology companies to counter online propaganda, track social media accounts, and intercept communications and other data.
----------------------------------
These are the plans that Hitlerary has to defeat those who question Vaccination-Extermination .

Shannon Epstein

Vaccines that are produced using cell lines from aborted human fetal tissue contain residual human fetal DNA. Please study the work of Theresa Deisher, PhD.

Bill Pembry

Barry,

So you don't know either? You want me to prove a negative.

Barry

Hans,

Why do you think vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue again?

******

Why don't you show us, why you're so convinced they don't ?

Sophie Scholl

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/use-of-aborted-human-cell-lines-in-vaccines-linked-to-rise-in-autism/

Researchers from the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute recently published a study showing a correlation with the introduction of human fetal cell lines used as contaminants in childhood vaccines, and the rapid rise of autism. The study was published in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, an open access Academic Journal.

With current bias in academic journals against anything critical published about vaccines, open access journals are one of the few places to find such research. While not as popular as Plus One, another open access collection of peer-reviewed scholarly research which is frequently indexed by the National Institute of Health’s PubMed system, Academic Journals represents a growing new trend in open access peer-reviewed research. Academic Journals has a 12 year history and publishes 111 open access journals covering art and humanities, engineering, medical science, social sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences and agricultural sciences.

Bill Pembry

Hans,

Why do you think vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue again?

david m burd

To understand what Go Trump said using the term NICU: "NICU" means "neonatal intensive care unit" that goes into action when newborns and infants react very badly when given the (insane) HepB vaccine the day of birth along with another (insane) toxic shot of HepB Immunoglobulin, followed by 7 or 8 vaccines at 2 months, again at 4 months, etc. Not to mention the syringe dose for infant vaccines is the same size vaccine dose for 200 pound adults.

It sure is an amazing coincidence that SIDS deaths (about 10 dead a day across the U.S. as Go Trump said) occurs within hours or a day -- some might say an unbelievable coincidence.

And some of us call it CAE: "cause and effect."

Angus Files

Whyser
The muck they have in vaccines has no right to be in any human end -off

MMR RIP

Hans Litten

@Bill Pembry

Yeah right Bill , and the Kenya vaccinations don't contain HCG or estradiol .
(Where is Barack really from - why else is Kenya being used as a testing ground ?)

And the Anthrax Vaccine didn't contain squalene. 500,000+ injured soldiers suggest otherwise.

And the childhood vaccines are mercury free although they test positive for mercury.

And the Polio vaccine given out to at least 120M americans didn't contain sv40 (Maurice Hilleman confessed otherwise however) .

The lies and thievery they call the vaccination industry go on & on endlessly .

Is "Pembury" Bill Gates mothers maiden name ?

Jeannette Bishop

A preemie regression post varicella only, maybe setup by dtap series...

https://www.periscope.tv/AutismMedia/1ypJdnbdbyvKW

and an important testimony of dishonesty or blindness in the system.

Jeannette Bishop

A preemie regression post varicella only, maybe setup by dtap series...

https://www.periscope.tv/AutismMedia/1ypJdnbdbyvKW

and an important testimony of dishonesty in the system.

Whyser

I don't have as big of a moral issue with aborted fetal cells as I do with the implications of it that Tim Lundeen alluded to.

I can understand the reason for the usage of human cells: viruses replicate best in the appropriate environment. For human viruses, they usually replicate best in specific human cells. Cells from other animals may be more difficult to replicate the virus because the way the virus invades a host cell depends on the host cell's surface.

As well, another reason for using these cells is because if they follow the hayflick limit for the number of cell divisions possible, these cell lines can divide about 50 times. From one cell, this could theoretically yield 1,125,899,906,842,624 cells, or
1 quadrillion, 125 trillion, 899 billion, 906 million, 842 thousand, 624 cells. That's a lot of cells, and why it seemly feels like it's "limitless". These cell lines have existed for 50+ years and counting.

I'm not trying to defend the usage here, but I do have a general idea why they continue to use it. Cell stock will last them for a long time and viruses grow well in them.

That being said, the problem I have is the contaminant proteins and DNA in the vaccine. Let's face it, it is impossible to remove all excipient and growth mediums.

These free floating DNA and other contaminate proteins will likely be bound to aluminum adjuvant during vaccine production.

But the problem is that most people don't understand that the immune system memorizes proteins and responds to damage signals. Proteins from disease antigens, dna, etc. The immune system doesn't care if it's disease related or not.

So for there to exist contaminate dna and proteins bound to aluminum, AND if there is sufficient amount of these contaminate proteins in a vaccine, this becomes a perfect recipe for inducing an immunological reaction against these contaminants.

Patience (Eileen Nicole) Simon

Cathy, Thank you for this information! Present day medical "science" is an outrage. When I look for medical information, I go straight to PubMed where all the articles are peer-reviewed. Poking around after reading your post this morning, I suddenly discovered a lot of things I never knew I didn't know.

Did you know, in addition to the autism epidemic, there's currently a breast cancer epidemic? And, having an abortion adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. Birth control pills have long been associated with breast cancer, but how widely known are these risk factors?

Hillary (the science is in) candidate? Now Elizabeth Warren, my senator from MA? I tried so hard to setup a meeting with Warren. The only responses from her have been form letters so similar to those from Obama, about leveling the playing field for all people with disabilities, etc.

Stay true to your faith, and your cause. I have never been a very religious person, but am now more and more grateful for guidance from the Catholic Church.

go Trump

Tragic day in Orlando with the loss of 50+ lives.

As with last week and the week before, I assume the next 7 days will bring another 70 SIDS deaths in the USA.

... Some in the NICU's following the hep b vaccine. Code RED & SIDS following a NICU vaccine remains a mystery... NOT ONE will make the news.

MamaBear

Thank you Cathy for taking a public stand on this issue. You are right that the outrage is not out there, not for the children affected by vaccines, nor for the children whose bodies were used to create those vaccines.

Eddie Unwind

@Bill Pembry

Brevity and fact are not causally linked.

Eddie Unwind

There exists a plain disjunction between how we tend to think of - or even romanticise, particularly the latter - medicine and science. No-one talks about 'the healing powers of science', and if 'in the name of medicine', then from a purely ethical rather than ideological standpoint (as opposed to science).

For us 'developed'-world-types, science is irresistibly linked to notions of progress; it's from here where the problem starts, and thereby adopts the same 'irresistible' momentum of progress-as-ideology.

It's the reason why notions like 'the greater good' crop up, as well as 'herd immunity' (both in the former and revised sense). In retrospect, we realise certain hideous connotations, and so attempt re-definitions , such as substituting 'community' for 'herd'. I am quite certain that 'the greater good' will undergo a similar transformation sometime soon.

But the disjunction remains - it can never actually be smoothed out - a disjunction that continues to be defined by the increasingly dissociative behaviour of children.

Angus Files

The whole world is under attack .It doesn't mater what your denomination is, forget it, its simple divide and rule being used .The vaccine manufacturers are hitting everybody even the ones that develop the vaccines, relatives, family, cannot escape the carnage.
It would be easy to say that the ones developing this sick soup, are attracted by the job, who are answerable to nobody.Attracting "Dr`s" who must be narcissistic control freak`s who enjoy the power the profession gives them over life and death and future populations .
At what point is anyone going to start questioning the unquestionable authorities such as the CDC .Whoever the few are,at the top of this need stopping damn quick.

MMR RIP

Tim Lundeen

It's not just the moral issue: there are concerns about human dna/rna fragments causing autoimmune illness in some recipients, and increasing the risk of autism.

There is epidemiologic evidence to support this: "Autistic disorder change points years are coincident with introduction of vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines, containing fetal and retroviral contaminants, into childhood vaccine regimens. This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells." -- http://thewe.cc/thewe_/_/pdf/environmental-factors-autism-since-1979.pdf

Reader

Similarly, where is the outrage against beliefs that would justify the mass (or ANY) killing of people. Condolences to any lost in Florida massacre. I know this is sort of off topic and yet the convenient ignoring of facts is relevant.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)