Managing Editor's NOTE: This charming comment came in from a MD school district...We suggest spelling and punctuation classes, dear. KIM

you fukign retard

.

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

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.

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.

Barry | June 21, 2016 at 07:09 AM

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Bill Pembry,

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

Hans,

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

I have no doubt!

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 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.

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?

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.

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

Talk about deaf and blind.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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?

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,

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.

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.

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, 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 , 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 ?

@ 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."

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?

@ 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.

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 .

Barry,

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

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.

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."

@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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.