On June 15th, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interviewed the founder and president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, Dr. Theresa Deisher, on the use of aborted fetal cells in medical research. Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Deisher covered a wide range of topics including what the existing research tells us in terms of health risks, and what alternatives might be used in place of human DNA. At 12 minutes and 35 second on the video, you’ll learn about the medical use of human fetal cells.
Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute is “a biomedical research institute that focuses on research and information about the manufacturing of vaccines and the public health consequences to our vaccine manufacturing practices. Dr. Deisher obtained her Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University and has spent over 30 years in commercial biotechnology.
The interview was published on on the Children's Health Defense site.
June 15, 2020, RFK, Jr. Discusses Aborted Fetal DNA with Dr. Theresa Deisher
Here is the transcription beginning at 12:35 by Anne Dachel.
Dr. Deisher: When I was originally made aware of the vaccine manufacturing practices…we were asked to bring in alternative vaccines so that people who wanted to vaccinate and who morally or philosophically could not use the human fetal manufactured vaccines, so that they would have an alternative.
In agreeing to take a look at that I began reading about vaccines—I wasn’t a vaccine expert… You can’t miss the vaccine-autism controversy, which as an outsider I found interesting and began reading the scientific papers about that. I received some phone calls about how the manufacturing could impact human health. One call was whether a gene that causes autism could come through the manufacturing process—which is impossible.
In replying to that I did realize there is going to be a lot of human fetal DNA fragments that are going to come through the manufacturing process, and that is potentially very dangerous.
Kennedy explained that his purpose in this discussion was not to focus on the “moral implications of using fetal tissue,” but rather on the science that is provable regarding this issue.
Dr. Deisher: There is not any fetal tissue in the vaccines. They use cell lines that were made from the bodies of electively aborted babies. If they were to use cell lines from placenta, that’s not morally objectionable, the human health consequences would be of concern. Regardless of the source of the fetal cell, the contaminants from the cell line that would be primitive fetal material will be a significant safety concern.
Kennedy: How do those get in the vaccine?
Dr. Deisher: A vaccine is basically a long string of either RNA or DNA, the virus. It’s too long to make economically in a test tube, and so they mimic nature’s way of replicating viruses. They infect cells and the virus grows in the cells. At the end of that process they try to purify the virus away from the cellular material, but most people understand there’s a give-and-take between purity and amount.
If they were to purify away all of the fetal cell line contaminants, the yield of the virus would be so low no one could afford it. It’s that balance between yield and purity that results in actually very high levels of fetal DNA fragments being left in vaccines.
The discussion turned to the dangers in this practice.
Dr. Deisher: The fetal DNA is what’s considered primitive DNA, viral DNA is primitive, fetal DNA is primitive. When I say primitive, DNA is not just ATCG.
(*ACGT is an acronym for the four types of bases found in a DNA molecule: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T).)
It is decorated. It is decorated with sugars, methyl groups, and other additions like nitrosyl groups that are put onto the DNA that regulate how the DNA is used and that decoration is entirely species specific.
So if a chicken cell is used to make our vaccines—we have chicken DNA fragments in the final product, but those are decorated like a chicken, our body will recognize them as foreign and eliminate them.
If they were to get into a human cell they could not incorporate into the DNA, they just cannot. They actually don’t even get taken out to any extent.
Next Kennedy asked about the specific vaccines that contain human fetal cells and why human cells were ever used in vaccines in the first place.
Dr. Deisher: Currently the MMR vaccines, the chickenpox vaccine, one of the shingles vaccines, … all Hepatitis A containing vaccines are made in fetal cells, some polio-containing vaccines and some rabies-containing vaccines.
People can go to our website https://www.soundchoice.org/ and pull down a list of the vaccines.
Interestingly Sanofi just switched the manufacture of their polio and polio-containing vaccines away from human fetal cells to an animal cell. …
Dr. Deisher addressed the question of why vaccine makers started using human fetal cells.
I think it’s complicated. The animal rights movement was very active at that time. For instance chickenpox could have been manufactured in a guinea pig cell line, but there’s quite a bit of objection to using animals for research. The animal activists were definitely driving them to go and use the bodies of aborted babies.
Economically they thought that it would be cheaper. It’s not though because the regulatory aspects are so much higher. It turns out making the virus costs less than 10 cents. Vialing the virus is the cost. That’s 10 dollars. It didn’t end up being more economically for them.
Kennedy: It’s kind of weird to think that the animal rights activists have more clout with the vaccine companies than do the anti-abortion activists.
Dr. Deisher: They do, and what’s really alarming is the lack of outcry over human babies, born alive at five to six months old, so that their hearts can be obtained beating, and they have to be beating to be used in the research that’s being done. If the heart has stopped beating it’s not useful. You cannot use it.
So these babies are delivered alive and their hearts cut out without anesthesia. I wouldn’t do that to a mouse. …
Kennedy: They are live birthed?
Dr. Deisher: Yes.
Kennedy: And they are surgically killed?
Dr. Deisher: Their hearts are cut out or they cut through their faces to get good brain tissue.
Kennedy: That is horrible.
Kennedy next talked about Dr. Stanley Plotkin’s work.
Kennedy: Stanley Plotkin … used about seventy-five fetuses to make the many vaccines he was involved in. He said that they used the entire fetus.
The fetus was aborted and that they were cut into parts. They used the tongues, they used the eyes, they used all the parts of the fetus. Is that true or do they just use the heart and the brain?
Dr. Deisher: They use the baby and certain scientists will purchase the heart, another scientist will purchase the brain. They purchase the legs or the eyes. The body parts are sold for research.
I got a catalogue twenty plus years ago. I’ll never forget the prices. Thirty-two week old baby, that’s a living baby. Early deliveries survive at 21 weeks now so we’re talking about viable babies.
Kennedy: It’s hard not to start talking about this as morally revolting. It is difficult not to talk about the moral implications of this. …
Let’s go back and talk about the science and I’ll try to get over what I just heard.
Kennedy asked Dr. Deisher about the effects of using human cells in vaccines versus animal cells.
Kennedy: A lot of the animal tissues contain retroviruses that were then showing up in the human blood supply and the human genome, like the XMRV virus which causes leukemia. They didn’t know it was in mouse brains, and a lot of the monkey viruses like SV40 which was in all the polio vaccines, which is also a very potent carcinogen. They weren’t able to detect those animal viruses, retroviruses prior to the vaccine being made.
I think one of the justifications to switching to human was that you were less likely to get retroviruses.
Dr. Deisher: It was a complicated issue. …They didn’t know that there were retroviruses in the animal cell lines at that time. That knowledge came later with better detection techniques. With the information they had at the time they thought they were doing the best thing. They debated it for fifty years before they allowed it. We’ve learned so much from gene therapy and immunology that it’s time to take another look.
Kennedy: When you use animal tissue the animal DNA is recognized as a foreign substance by your body, and you reject it and excrete it.
When they started using fetal tissue, the fetal tissue is not recognized as foreign. What are the implications of that?
Dr. Deisher: In a certain number of people it won’t be recognized as foreign because it’s primitive and it has fewer methyl groups on it than a normal person would have or an adult. For example human fetal DNA enters your body and you are most likely going to mount an immune response to it when it’s seen because it’s not self. It’s fetal DNA. It’s primitive.
In people who have a genetic predisposition to have lower methylation of their DNA, hypo methylated DNA like if they have an MTHFR mutation, they will mount a response likely to the human fetal DNA. The antibodies are going to be for hypo methylated DNA and that person has hypo methylated DNA so they would have a high chance of having a cell self attack because of the antibodies that they make to the primitive fetal DNA.
If a person, a child, even an adult has a genetic predisposition so that their own DNA is a more primitive kind of DNA, it has hypo methylated status, then antibodies to the fetal DNA could turn around and attack the person’s own body.
Kennedy: Hypo means less. It means it has less of a methylation capacity and methylation capacity is the capacity to process sugars and proteins …
Dr. Deisher: Methylation controls how genes are used. In a fetal state you’re using lots of your genes, but when you get to an adult state you don’t want to use all of the genes that you used during development because you’re not going through development anymore. You’re a born organism. You’re going to want to turn on other genes.
The fetal genes after birth get more methyl groups put on them so they’re not used. What happens if you use those methyl groups later on is you can get cancer or you could get an autoimmune disease.
Kennedy brought up the susceptibility to vaccine injury of those people who have the MTHFR gene. He added the vaccine industry claim that not enough of the DNA gets into the person being vaccinated to be harmful.
Dr. Deisher: Anyone who says that doesn’t know anything about immunology or virology or they would never make such a statement. I don’t think most people even know how viruses in vaccines work.
Dr. Deisher focused on what happens during pregnancy.
As the pregnancy goes on the placenta breaks down, and what happens is that fetal DNA fragments from the baby end up in the mother’s circulation. When they reach a certain level they trigger an immune receptor. It’s called Toll-like receptor 9. That’s the same receptor that viruses in DNA vaccines trigger.
Kennedy: It’s actually an auto-immune response. You’re notifying your body that the placenta—that placenta is a foreign invader and I need to get rid of it. That’s what causes women to go into labor.
Deisher: Exactly. Antibodies are made and then they see the baby, the placenta and they attack, and that triggers labor.
That’s a massive auto-immune rejection, right? Or immune rejection. That’s how you get your baby and that’s a good outcome.
When we inject infants and young children with the amount of fetal DNA in the vaccines, they have levels in their blood, concentrations higher than the levels that trigger labor.
You can’t tell me that that is not going to cause an immune response. Absolutely it’s going to cause an immune response. Anyone who says different does not know what they’re talking about or they’re not telling the truth.
Kennedy: What you’re saying is you’re putting enough DNA into that baby at that same level, less levels of foreign DNA cause a woman to mount an autoimmune response against the placenta and excrete it.
An even greater level that occurs in a vaccinated individual might be causing actual autoimmunity in those children.
Deisher: It’s going to elicit an immune response absolutely and the presence of that immune response if the person is genetically susceptible to having under methylated, low methyl DNA, then they’re in danger that they could have a later autoimmune response. It could be within days, it could be months down the line. There would have to be exposure of that person’s own DNA. If that was exposed then you’re got antibodies that are going to recognize it as foreign and attack that person’s own organs. It could be 20 years later.
There’s no time frame. As long as those antibodies remain in the body, and antibodies will be around for 10, 20 maybe even up to 30 years, that person, if they have their own DNA exposed, could end up with an autoimmune disease.
Kennedy brought up Dr. Paul Offit’s claim that the amount of the vaccine ingredients is so small it can’t impact the human body.
Actually that vaccine is intended to permanently alter the immune system of that child. That’s how they advertise it. That’s how they sell it.
There’s actually a difference… Autistic kids where they have those particular DNA strands or antibodies, antibody reactions to the DNA can be found in kids with autism and not in other kids.
Dr. Deisher: There are scientific publications that [say] that about 35 to 40 percent of children with autism have an immune response to human DNA. It means they had to have been exposed to human DNA at some point that triggered them to mount a response, whereas typically developing children don’t have those antibodies.
Kennedy: Actually the timing of when they started putting fetal DNA into the MMR vaccine was also perfectly correlates with the first change points for the escalation and climb of autism rates in American children.
Dr. Deisher: It does. About 1979, 1980.
Next Kennedy moved on to talk about cancer.
Dr. Deisher: Some of the human cell lines have been immortalised, but others are just sort of assumed immortal.
Kennedy then talked about cancer.
Kennedy: Just so people know, by immortal we mean that they’re tumorigenic. They’ve been essentially rendered cancerous. They will never die. They continue breeding and living which makes it easier to grow cultures on them.
Dr. Deisher: One has been transformed with Epstein-Barr virus. That’s immortal. It’s called the HEK293 in their cell lines, but the lines used in vaccine manufacture are largely not immortal and they’re reaching the end of their life span. So people are making new fetal lines to replace them. …
They used a portion of Epstein-Barr virus to make the HEK293 cell. The HEK293 cell line isn’t mused to make the vaccine. It’s a line called MRC5 and WI38 that are predominantly used.
Dr. Deisher noted that the fetal cell lines were from babies aborted in the late 1960’s and ‘70’s.
Kennedy: Could these vaccines be causing cancer in children?
Dr. Deisher: The other danger of having the primitive, low methylated human DNA fragments we know about from the field of gene therapy. …
What scientists did was they started using small fragments of DNA to correct gene mutations. They correct the mutations in stem cells, and then they give the stem cells back to the person with the gene mutation.
It turns out that if you give the DNA fragments to the body, we call them invivo, you inject them into a vein, stem cells love to take them up if they’re from a primitive source like a fetus or a placenta or sperm.
If they’re from an adult, they don’t get taken up.
What happens is they readily insert into the genome of the stem cells that take them up. If you do mouse experiments 100 percent of the mice will take up those DNA fragments.
Anytime you have an insertion, that’s a mutation. It turns out from what the gene therapy field learned, …those primitive DNA fragments like to insert in areas of the genome where they give that cell an advantage or a proliferation advantage.
Our blood cell formation is a phenomenal biology. We have trillions of blood cells in our body. Eight parent stem cells typically make all of the other stem cells that give rise to all of those working trillions of blood cells. So you mutate a stem cell, it gets an advantage and it tends to take over and so instead of having eight cells making all the blood cells, you’ll have one, the one that got the survival advantage. We have situations where we have eight blood cells, eight stem cells making all of our blood cells. That’s called oligoclonal blood formation. We have diseases where you have monoclonal. One cell takes over that aren’t cancer. It happens in some forms of heart disease.
If you have an mutation in that one stem cell, because you have an insertion, you’re at high risk to have another mutation, and that becomes cancerous, that’s very dangerous.
We know from gene therapy trial that happened and four of nine of boys got cancer.
Scientists like Dr. Offit and Plotkin, those kind of people estimated that the risk was one to the minus 13. It means we would have to treat more children than exist before we would ever see harm.
The real data said four of nine. They were way off. I wouldn’t listen to anything they say about safety.
Kennedy: So what you’re saying is that the DNA preferentially invades and kind of assists the cells that might be leukemia cells or cancer cells because they have an advantage in proliferation. They’re more likely to spread and to live and survive. They know which cells are immortal, and it goes into those cells. That cells is basically going to cause cancer.
Dr. Deisher: Right. From the gene therapy experts [who’ve] published stacks of papers on this, the fragments are readily taken up by blood stem cells where they’ll insert. They’ll give that blood stem cell a proliferation or survival advantage so that it could take over and become the dominant stem cell making most of our blood cells.
Whenever you have an insertion, that’s a mutation in and of itself, but what commonly happens is that it causes other mutations to occur because it messes up how the DNA is read.
Insertions cause mutations as well.
Kennedy asked about when the cancer might show up in someone at risk.
Dr. Deisher: It doesn’t have to show up immediately. It could show up years later. We know from the gene therapy trials that in some of these young boys who basically got the contaminants of the vaccine, human primitive DNA fragments, and there was a retrovirus in there too, …it took a couple of years in some of them. Some it was weeks, some it was years….
Next the discussion turned to retrovirus damage from the MMR and chicken pox vaccines which are made from animal cell lines.
Kennedy turned to autism.
Kennedy: When you look at autism, do you see an autoimmune disease?
Dr. Deisher: I do. There’s good evidence that a significant number of children have a general brain inflammatory abnormality and could certainly be driven by autoimmunity.
Kennedy asked about the effects of injecting male or female DNA into the opposite sex.
Dr. Deisher: I don’t know because you are not going to get a full gene injected .If you look at people with gender dysphoria, 84 percent of those people are on the autism spectrum. Maybe it’s more due to that generalized autoimmune disease or something….
Kennedy: Have you been following the COVID vaccines at all?
Dr. Deisher: We have, very closely.
Kennedy: How many of those contain fetal tissue?
Dr. Deisher said she wasn’t following that too closely, but she did say that it is going to be very difficult to come up with an effective vaccine against corona virus.
There hasn’t been a successful vaccine made against a corona virus yet. This virus has mutated fairly significantly. The disease has become less severe. That’s a natural lifespan of a virus. We think it may become like seasonal influenza where it’s going to re-emerge seasonally.
Even if a vaccine were to be made that’s safe and effective—the most effective influenza A vaccine is only 45 percent [effective]… We’re focused on a treatment for those who’ll become severely ill. Our focus has not been on vaccines or on anti-virals, but on treating those patients.
Kennedy brought up the safety of the mRNA COVID vaccine.
Dr. Deisher: I think the mRNA vaccines are definitely a better choice than any sort of full length viral vaccine, absolutely. I don’t know how they would compare to the DNA vaccines. They’re new. We’re going to have to see.
They’re rushing these vaccines forward. How are they going to get safety testing? They’re proposing human challenge studies. That is so unethical, that people would actually volunteer to be injected with live coronavirus to see if the vaccine works.
There’s such a panic and a rush. I think we need treatments like we’re developing to treat those most severe while they take a couple years and make a safe and effective vaccine.
Kennedy then asked if officials were more interested in focusing on a patentable vaccine rather than therapeutic drugs.
Dr. Deisher: I think they’re looking at everything. The thing that is attractive in vaccines and it can get people to kind of put blinders on is that it is a cost effective way to protect the world. …It is something you can afford to give to everyone, and sometimes it might seem like they have blinders on.
It’s unlikely we’re going to have an effective vaccine, and 45 percent effectiveness, actually most vaccine experts, you’d use it but they don’t consider that effective. You know effective, it is going to be 80 percent, 90 percent. It’s a cost effective way to try to protect the world, so that’s why people like it.
Kennedy mentioned the Cochrane Collaboration looked at the flu vaccine and they concluded that it was 47 percent effective.
It’s kind of a deceiving number because people say that means out of every hundred people 47 will not get the flu. Actually very few people actually get the flu, maybe five percent.
Cochrane Collaboration said they have to give a hundred flu shots to avert one case of the flu. …
The British Medical Journal, the editor, Peter Doshi, came back and said the same thing. He said flu shots are very, very ineffective. …
There’s no evidence that any hospitalizations or deaths are being prevented. …
Then referencing the coronavirus vaccine, Kennedy said,
They’re testing on these very elite groups who do not look like the American people. They don’t have comorbidities. Fifty-four percent of Americans have chronic disease.
Nobody in the test group has diabetes, none of them are smokers, none of them are vaping, none of them are drinking, none of them have asthma or rheumatoid arthritis. None of them are fragile or elderly.
Even if we could prove that it’s safe in those groups, which so far we haven’t seen or that it’s effective, you’re not proving that you’re actually averting deaths with it.
What I worry about is they’ll test it on those groups, they’ll say it’s safe and effective, and then they’ll give it to everybody. It may have very, very different effects in fragile elderly. It may even do pathogenic priming and make them even more likely to die.
As the vaccine is in circulation you do not see any problems with it. The surveillance system is designed to fail.
Dr. Deisher: I agree. … Effectiveness and efficacy are two different things. One measures do you make antibodies, but making antibodies doesn’t say anything about do you block the disease.
So in many years the vaccines were thirteen percent or whatever, and since not everyone gets the flu, you have to inoculate a lot more people and there’s a lot of other stuff in those vaccines, so I agree.
I think when we get up to the numbers where it’s 45 to 50 percent efficacious, that means they make antibodies that block the influenza, that the scales tip a little bit.
You’re also right, they’re not really preventing deaths, and that’s where we’re focused. We’re focused on a treatment for those people who are going to get severely ill whether there’s a vaccine or antivirals. They’re not being helped.
We focus on those people both for influenza as well as for the coronavirus.