or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › aborted fetuses in vaccines????????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

aborted fetuses in vaccines????????

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Hi! I was reading through another thread in the parenting with a babe and someone mentioned that some vaccines are made with aborted fetuses as fillers????? Is this true???
post #2 of 20
yes.

http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...hlight=aborted

http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...hlight=aborted
post #3 of 20
Thread Starter 
That is just completely unbelievable! I'm really at a loss for words here.
post #4 of 20
Yes, so all of you Roman Catholics can now have a religious exemption if you so desire.

I would think the Noahic Laws would apply here for all of us also.
post #5 of 20
if you haven't already, check out www.cogforlife.org or maybe it is .com, i forget.
they are a religious group, and thus anti-abortion, but i do keep up with their efforts to have vaxes made without aborted fetal tissues available in the US. they are constantly harassing Merck about vax availability. not that it does any good, but still, i like that effort.
post #6 of 20
Yes,human fetal cells are used.Cells from fetuses from the 60's and 70's.Just a few lines.The cell line numbers are given in the vaccine inserts.Personally I wouldn't want human OR animal cells injected into my kids or me.
Sara
post #7 of 20

The Roman Catholic Church....

...the largest organized religion in the world.




It's time for action folks,



Ray
post #8 of 20

Cells from fetuses from the 60's and 70's??

What takes place genetically when these cells are cultured again and again?

Asexual reproduction, cloning essentially, no?

What genetic mutations? impossible to control?

Foreign aberrant genetic material injected into developing (NOT developed-- this seems important) children?

If this issue wasn't discussed in the original thread (and from what I have seen it wasn't) can we shed light now?

It's outrageous when you think about it, even before the human genome project--a recent event-- ever since Watson and Crick we have known of the primacy of DNA in determining our special and individual characteristics, there is really no excuse on the part of the drug companies, these processes are absolutely DIRTY and completely and aggressively disregarding of individual health.

Hilary to the rescue?



Ray
post #9 of 20
DD went to Catholic school last year and the ystill say they *require* vaxes. But I said we no longer vax and they said just give an exemption form, no biggie. I assume the prolifes groups are not vaxing but are being kept hush hush. I remember a long time ago seeing a story about a Vatican funded hospital (in Italy) that performed abortions...I grew up Catholic but if you study you will learn that sadly the church is highly political in many aspects...For them to outwardly say no to vaccines would be political suicide. Just think of the implications and lawsuits from people feeling "betrayed" and poisoned by having what they believe are dead baies injected in them...

My Dad considers himself very Catholic but is so misinformed on many counts-and very pro vax.

I also spoke to a Jehovahs witness friend of mine who couldn't answer why the yhave no public/personal outcry/exemption from vaccines but openly beleive blood transfusion and anything similar is against God's law.

Scary, eh?
post #10 of 20

Re: Cells from fetuses from the 60's and 70's??

Quote:
Originally posted by goodpapa
What takes place genetically when these cells are cultured again and again?

Asexual reproduction, cloning essentially, no?
Techniques to propigate cell lines do not involve cloning or asexual reproduction. In very basic terms, the cells are just fed and allowed to grow.
Because human cells won't grow more than one cell deep (generally), they form a layer on the bottom of the "dish." After a while, the cells are divided in portions and each portion starts a new dish.
Fetal cells are used because they do not have a "life span" programmed into them, they are stem cells and are immortal. Ordinary cells will die after 10-30 divisions.
While there is a great possibility of having errors get into the DNA because the repair mechanisms of an organism are not in place, there is no cloning or reproduction going on (reproduction in the sense of creating a new life).
post #11 of 20

Well, Apricot, we're gonna have to get...

...more down and dirty than that.

What is on the Merck description is NOT fetal stem cells, but "human embryonic lung cell"---

specifically cells that have already been differentiated into lung cells. From what I know about babies, and stem cells, they use the umbilical cord blood cells, specifically, for stem cells.

The entire baby is NOT composed of stem cells during development.

When you describe your culture dish scenario, the cells
propigate (sic), not simply grow, they must multiply-- this is a cellular reproduction which regardless of what you attest is cloning. You don't have to make an entire being to clone. Cells can be cloned, ie, reproduced without the introduction of "fresh" , "different" genetic material.

To take it one step further, this is really the problem with human interbreeding, right?? The problem of organisms (ie, humans) intermingling with genetic material too close to theirs. It brings out the recessive.

You DO confirm "the great possiblity of having errors get into the DNA", yet you dismiss this.


I submit that this IS cloning, and IS reproduction (asexual)

BUT THE TERMINOLOGY IS UNIMPORTANT!


What remains is that this aberrant genetic material---because what has NOT been mentioned here is the profound genetic interaction between the virus that is breeding (it's DNA) and the cells themselves (their DNA)----is then injected into the tissue of a developing child.


Ironically, I just got an email from nfcr.org that explained how many cancers are caused by the interaction of viruses and human cells, how the virus programs the cells to replicate uncontrollably thus ensuring the life of the virus.

A needle jabbed into the body, bypassing ALL possible mucosal defense systems, right into the human tissue, right into the cells--

with a virus having the properties of ????!!!!!!!?????


This is madness.


Anyone who wants to play God....


....should be ready to get crucified



Ray
post #12 of 20
Quote:
What is on the Merck description is NOT fetal stem cells, but "human embryonic lung cell"---

specifically cells that have already been differentiated into lung cells. From what I know about babies, and stem cells, they use the umbilical cord blood cells, specifically, for stem cells.

The entire baby is NOT composed of stem cells during development.
Lung cells can be stem cells. Umbilical cord blood is one source of stem cells. The entire baby being made of stem cells is something you just made up.
Quote:
When you describe your culture dish scenario, the cells propigate (sic), not simply grow, they must multiply-- this is a cellular reproduction which regardless of what you attest is cloning. You don't have to make an entire being to clone. Cells can be cloned, ie, reproduced without the introduction of "fresh" , "different" genetic material.
Thanks for pointing out my spelling error. That adds a lot to your argument. I shall refrain from pointing out your errors because that’s not the way I operate.
Normal cellular reproduction through fission is NOT cloning. It is the normal process. It is cellular reproduction, but not asexual reproduction OR cloning, which you mentioned in your first post.
Quote:
To take it one step further, this is really the problem with human interbreeding, right?? The problem of organisms (ie, humans) intermingling with genetic material to close to theirs. It brings out the recessive.
That’s a pretty ridiculous statement. First you talk about introducing no new material, now you are talking about introducing new closely related material.
Quote:
You DO confirm "the great possiblity of having errors get into the DNA", yet you dismiss this.
You’ve got it totally backwards. The whole point of my post was to say that you have the mechanism wrong and the outcome right. There is the great possibility of error, just not through the methods you think.
Quote:
I submit that this IS cloning, and IS reproduction (asexual)
You’re wrong.
Quote:
What remains is that this aberrant genetic material---because what has NOT been mentioned here is the profound genetic interaction between the virus that is breeding in these bred cells----is then injected into the tissue of a developing child.
I completely agree.
post #13 of 20

NO, Apricot YOU said that...

...fetal cells...are stem cells and are immortal. DIRECT QUOTE

Meaning that ALL fetal cells are stem cells.

Now you say Lung cells can be stem cells.

So it's that Lung cells can be stem cells, but sometimes they're not???

YOUR QUOTE: "Normal cellular reproduction through fission is NOT cloning. It's the normal process."

Outrageous, how can you possibly call a petri dish NORMAL??

This cell division is completely outside of the body and fully ABNORMAL, though certainly not admitted by the scientific community as such. Though, IMHO, this will be revealed in this century.


The "cloning" that I'm referring to, since you seem to be missing the point completely, is in the profound, UNNATURAL genetic blending in this
mix between viral cells and cultured human embryonic lung cells (stem cells or not--I'm not diggin for a reference--waste of time on this issue).

The analogy to human interbreeding was just that, an analogy to point out the logical disconnect of a medical science that could allow these outrageously dangerous practices not only to exist but become social mandates enforceable by law.

Actually, the "letter" of your text is far more "correct" than your "spirit."

What I am outlining in the theme of my posts is that this current medical practice-- injecting this aberrant genetic material into a developing child-- is madness.

Do you agree with that?????


Enough with the smoke screens,


Ray
post #14 of 20

NO, Apricot YOU said that...

...fetal cells...are stem cells and are immortal. DIRECT QUOTE

Meaning that ALL fetal cells are stem cells.

Now you say Lung cells can be stem cells.

So it's that Lung cells can be stem cells, but sometimes they're not???

YOUR QUOTE: "Normal cellular reproduction through fission is NOT cloning. It's the normal process."

Outrageous, how can you possibly call a petri dish NORMAL??

This cell division is completely outside of the body and fully ABNORMAL, though certainly not admitted by the scientific community as such. Though, IMHO, this will be revealed in this century.


The "cloning" that I'm referring to, since you seem to be missing the point completely, is in the profound, UNNATURAL genetic blending in this
mix between viral cells and cultured human embryonic lung cells (stem cells or not--I'm not diggin for a reference--waste of time on this issue).

The analogy to human interbreeding was just that, an analogy to point out the logical disconnect of a medical science that could allow these outrageously dangerous practices not only to exist but become social mandates enforceable by law.

Actually, the "letter" of your text is far more "correct" than your "spirit."

What I am outlining in the theme of my posts is that this current medical practice-- injecting this aberrant genetic material into a developing child-- is madness.

Do you agree with that?????


Enough with the smoke screens,


Ray

P.S. The smallpox vaccine currently in use, though begun with cowpox virus, is now a MUTANT form of the orginal virus used-- completely altered by human intervention. No wonder it's causing death at three times the rate anticipated, with the completely unforseen reaction of cardiac arrest.
post #15 of 20

the double posting here...

...was a website malfunction. I'm trying to delete the first one, but am not being allowed access for some reason.


Ray
post #16 of 20
Quote:
...fetal cells...are stem cells and are immortal. DIRECT QUOTE

Meaning that ALL fetal cells are stem cells.

Now you say Lung cells can be stem cells.

So it's that Lung cells can be stem cells, but sometimes they're not???
You need to look more into cellular biology before you get angry with me.
A stem cell is the cell from which all future daughter cells stem from. It is immortal, but the cells that come from it are not. An adult is mainly made up of non-stem cells. A fetus has stem cells in tissues that do not normally have stem cells in adults, such as lung tissue. There are lung stem cells, brain stem cells, blood stem cells, muscle stem cells, etc. So, yes sometimes lung cells are not stem cells, even in a fetus.
Quote:
YOUR QUOTE: "Normal cellular reproduction through fission is NOT cloning. It's the normal process."

Outrageous, how can you possibly call a petri dish NORMAL??

This cell division is completely outside of the body and fully ABNORMAL, though certainly not admitted by the scientific community as such. Though, IMHO, this will be revealed in this century.
We’re going to disagree on this one forever. The cells don’t know they’re in a petri dish, so they behave normally. However, we have fundamentally different view points, so no sense arguing it here.
Quote:
The "cloning" that I'm referring to, since you seem to be missing the point completely, is in the profound, UNNATURAL genetic blending in this
mix between viral cells and cultured human embryonic lung cells (stem cells or not--I'm not diggin for a reference--waste of time on this issue).
Viruses don’t have cells. Beyond that, cloning is a supremely poor choice of word to describe a blending of virus DNA into a cell. Cloning is a word fundamentally rooted in reproduction or an organism or exact replication. Chimera might be a better choice here. I think “altered cells” or “blended cells” or “mutated cells” are both correct and more informative.
Quote:
What I am outlining in the theme of my posts is that this current medical practice-- injecting this aberrant genetic material into a developing child-- is madness.

Do you agree with that?????
I disagree with routine vaccination. I wouldn’t say that this issue is the largest component of why I disagree. However, I cannot stand when misinformation is used to advance an issue, even when I agree with the underlying position. Maybe especially when I agree, as I think it makes the whole group of non-vaxers look like mis-informed kooks.
post #17 of 20

Yeah, Apricot..

...I had a feeling I knew what I was dealing with.

Looks like its mud-slinging now.

"mis-informed kooks" , O.K.

So you cannot stand when misinformation is used to advance an issue???

How outrageous...

...why don't you take on the CDC then-- they started this mess-- not get into semantic issues, that neither YOU nor I are qualified to negotiate completely.

Since you made this personal,

Honestly, from all you've written here, and NOT written here and MORE IMPORTANTLY how you've distinctly qualified what you have written-- especially you're absurdly vague statement:

"I wouldn't say that this issue is the largest component of why I disagree"--- who cares if it's the largest component of your opinion-- certainly you don't, in that you have enough time to spar with me, but don't take the time to elaborate at all on

WHO YOU ARE?? (this largest component would certainly be important at this juncture. NO??)

Yeah, since you made this personal...

...I think ya got blood on your hands


Metaphorically speaking of course,


Ray
post #18 of 20

Re: Yeah, Apricot..

Quote:
Originally posted by goodpapa
Yeah, since you made this personal...
I'm sorry you feel like this is personal, I assure you it's not personal at all. I would hope you could re-read what I have written and see the true intent, which is not malicious at all.

I however am begining to feel like you are attacking me, with statements like "...I had a feeling I knew what I was dealing with" and "I think ya got blood on your hands." I don't think I'll respond any more.
post #19 of 20

Finally, Hilary, you're here...

...the voice of reason. See what happens without you?

When I'm corrected, I demand to be corrected by the best.

No one less will do.

My original post was a process of rhetorical allusion.
The terminology was meant not as specific definitions, ie, "asexual reproduction" , "cloning", but as an associative guide for the main point of "foreign aberrant genetic detail"---

what is in this Varivax vaccine that I find outrageous.

Though I have done alot of research in the past two years, and should have guessed that human tissue was being used, the arrogant disregard that the medical institution demonstrates in this vaccination holocaust becomes evil.

We know nothing about the reproductive process of the double helix when we compare it to what we don't know. But it wasn't enough for allopathic medicine to cut and paste. Now, it is creating an immune--genetic monster out of the masterfully ,exquisitely detailed human body.

NO Assertions about extraction/purification processes/ 99.9%, blah,blah, blah will do.

Vaccines are DIRTY,DIRTY,DIRTY and then there's Thimerosal:

http://www.childscreen.org/geier.pdf

Now we have another live attenuated virus vaccine--relatively new in the weaponry for an

ABSOLUTELY BENIGN DISEASE.

Regardless of what the CDC asserts in its onslaught of misinformation. Take a look at some investigative journalism on the CDC's conflict of interest:

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID...8-012134-4422r


Now see how the pushers keep pushing the poison:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul16.html

The ridiculous irony of the smallpox vaccine is that it is more than likely that it would be useless against a weapons-grade smallpox virus. The fearmongering here in our brave new century here in the U.S. is unconscionable.

I look on another thread and read about women and mothers worried about the chickenpox they would have had, as children, had they been born when I was in the early 60's.
Now they entertain thoughts of getting a vaccine right before they get pregnant because of the fear that they might catch it from VACCINATED children-- a very real possibility. History is supposed to go forward not backward.

It's too much,


Ray
post #20 of 20
goodpapa, take a chill pill. you made it personal, not apricot. she was agreeing with your original point but trying to point out what is actually happening from a biological standpoint. she is a longstanding member of this community, not a troll coming in to demand that we all vax our kids. save your energies for the real bad guys.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › aborted fetuses in vaccines????????