If You Consider Yourself PRO-LIFE

If you consider yourself PRO-LIFE… 

Many pro-life individuals do not realize v@ccines are made with aborted human DNA, and those who learn this might dismiss it as I did until I gave it more thought and discovered my misconceptions. I write this for pro-lifers, in hopes of addressing some of the misconceptions:

As a preface:  I believe God is the Creator and that the authority to give life and take life away belongs to him: “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). I believe that to ‘take life away’ from an unborn baby is a form of murder. It is not my intention to debate this point, so if we’re in agreement, please continue reading…

A Logical Consideration of the Arguments Used to Justify the Use of Aborted Fetal Cells in Vaccines

Some are wondering if the new mRNA COVID v@ ccines by Pfizer & Moderna, like other v@ ccines, contain aborted human fetal cells. I do not conclusively know the answer, as the complete list of ingredients has not yet been released to my knowledge, but according to Dr. Daniel Hinthorn, who was interviewed by Focus on the Family (12/18) and testified about the approved COVID v@ ccines by Pfizer & Moderna, “…they are not created from fetal cell lines; however, often these kinds of v@ ccines are checked in fetal cell lines just to see if they work…” If it’s true that aborted fetal cells were used for that part, then I don’t understand how checking the efficacy of these v@ ccines is not considered part of the process of providing vaccines for the public. The process, from the very beginning to the injecting of the v@ ccine into the skin of the recipient, includes safety testing; so if aborted fetal cell lines were used for safety testing, then aborted babies were indeed involved in the COVID v@ ccine, even IF cells are not among the ingredients.

 

This leads to another question: should it matter? I’m not going to give an answer (it’s not for me to decide for you) but hopefully this will help you think through some things you may have not yet considered. When I first learned that v@ ccines are made with aborted human DNA, I dismissed it until I gave it more thought and discovered I had several misconceptions. Perhaps you are a pro-lifer who gets v@ ccines - can you relate with believing any of the rationalizations below? Would you be willing to at least read those?

 

“BUT THE V@ CCINE INDUSTRY DIDN’T COERCE OR PERFORM THE ABORTIONS, SO THEY’RE TAKING SOMETHING BAD AND TURNING IT INTO SOMETHING GOOD, EVEN NOBLE, RIGHT?”

I am under the conviction that the use of DNA from aborted human babies serves to condone, justify, and incentivize abortions. We’re not talking about good coming from accidental deaths that couldn’t be prevented; these aborted deaths are voluntary. We’re talking about scientists who need deaths of healthy babies, ones of a particular gestational age, who are delivered in special ways, whose parts are dissected and preserved in distinct ways. The one who performs the abortion, as well as the other staff, has a conflict of interest interfering with their influence over the mother’s decision to abort. On top of the profit from the procedure itself, they are paid to use specific techniques to kill and remove the child in a manner that will not damage the organs and tissues needed for the v@ ccine study and preserve it accordingly. For the WALVAX-2 “ingredient” (a.k.a. aborted human DNA), “they induced labor using a ‘water bag’ abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation.” (Source: Go to the LifeNews website and search: Scientists in China Create New Va@ ccines Using Body Parts From Nine Aborted Babies, 9/9/15) Additionally, according to Dr. C. Ward Kischer, the scientist must also be present during the abortion because, "in order to sustain 96% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion."

 

THE ARGUMENT: “BUT IT’S JUST A FEW.”

No. Dr. Stanley Plotkin, v@ ccine developer and “pioneer,” testified in this deposition that in just ONE report he used 76 aborted fetuses (summed up at 2 minutes, 32 seconds) (search YouTube for “Stanley Plotkin - abortion’s for v@ ccines - 2018 deposition” on 11/12/18 (but correctly spell v@ ccines).

 

On v@ ccine ingredients lists, each letter-number code represents which number baby DNA was chosen after studying all of the options. For instance, v@ ccine ingredient RA273 represents: Rubella (R), Abortus (A), the 27th baby: the lung of a 3 month gestation aborted baby (27), 3rd tissue explants (3). WALVAX-2 was the 2nd of 9 babies aborted for that study. Cells, cellular debris, protein, and DNA from aborted babies are identified as RA273, WALVAX2, PER C6, HEK293, IMR-90, IMR-91, WI 1-26, WI-38, WI-44, MCR-5, HEK-293, and Lambda.hE1, are found in more than 23 different v@ ccines.

 

“IT’S A FORM OF ORGAN-DONATION AND THAT IS AN INDISPUTABLY GOOD THING. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT?”  It is not comparable to organ-donation because it is not a voluntary choice on the part of the donor (i.e. baby). In organ-donation: 1) the death of the organ-donor is unable to be prevented, and 2) the donation is a voluntary choice on the part of the donor. Neither is true when it comes to the abortion of healthy babies selected for v@ ccine studies/production. The moral dilemma: is it ethical and does it honor God to take a stand against abortion while simultaneously a) supporting an industry that profits from it and b) willingly using the products (i.e. v@ ccines) made from it?

 

“BUT LIKE ORGAN-DONATION AND BLOOD INFUSIONS, DNA FROM ABORTED HUMAN BABIES SAVES LIVES, RIGHT?”  V@ ccine package inserts state that they have not been tested for carcinogenic, mutagenic, or fertility impairing properties. Pause. That can take a minute to sink in. Not tested for carcinogenic, mutagenic, or fertility impairing properties. The MRC-5 human diploid cell line, for example, is from human DNA aborted in the 1960s. It is an “immortalized” cell line (a.k.a. continuous or abnormal cell) with insertions, deletions, and translocations (i.e. rewritten DNA) and is considered oncogenic (i.e. cancer), containing insertional mutagenesis following DNA integration. Unlike human conception, which is a combination of genes from 2 sources to make a new whole, insertional mutagenesis is a corruption from foreign material. (*I can share a link.)

 

[*Human fetal DNA integration leads to mutagenesis and is carcinogenic. Another common v@ ccine ingredient, formaldehyde, is also a carcinogen and mutagen. The herbicide, glyphosate (a.k.a. Round Up, by Monsanto), is also a carcinogen that is found to have contaminated multiple v@ ccine ingredients (I can share the pdf). Many v@ ccine side effects include symptoms that are identical to heavy metal poisoning. Trace amounts of heavy metals contained in v@ ccines add up to be significant amounts when administered in multiple v@ ccines given on the same day, or in the same 6 month time period, or 12 month time period, and it overwhelms the body and the immune system. (Our pediatrician highly recommends the documentary, Trace Amounts.) The heavy metals cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain and tissues more easily when giving Tylenol, which is commonly recommended for the low grade fever and soreness of the injection site. Allergies have become prevalent in our society and v@ ccine ingredients include allergens like egg proteins, gelatin, baker’s yeast, and latex. V@ ccines contain antigens (virus/disease) grown on human and animal DNA, and adjuvants (added ingredients), and they combine to form a dangerous cocktail (or dare I say potion?). The end of Revelation 18:23 says, “…and all nations were deceived by your sorcery.” (“Sorcery” from the Greek word ‘pharmakeia’ means: the use or administering of drugs; poisoning; or sorcery/magical arts.) And John wrote Revelation to warn us of what we are to expect before the return of Jesus Christ. This will happen – if not now, then in the future, and it is wise to be on guard against it.]

 

“WHAT’S DONE IS DONE. WE CAN ONLY MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE’RE NOT SAFE WITHOUT V@ CCINES, RIGHT?”  Studies on carcinogenic, mutagenic, and fertility-impairing properties are not the only studies that are lacking. Safety studies on pregnant recipients are lacking. Studies on long-term safety are lacking. Safety studies on combinations of v@ ccines (multiple injections) administered in a single appointment are lacking. Safety studies on the compounding effects of all of the v@ ccines in the CDC schedule administered at the recommended ages are lacking. Scientific studies with double-blind, inert placebos are lacking. Third-party experimentation with no conflict of interest is lacking. What’s worse is that accountability for v@ ccine safety is lacking: The 1986 National Childhood V@ ccine Injury Act (NCVIA) prevented the v@ ccine industry from being sued directly by the public for v@ ccine injury. So the National V@ ccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was set up as a federal "no-fault" system which, since 1988, has paid out over 4 billion dollars in v@ ccine injury compensation. This “no-fault” system had one condition, established by the Mandate for Safer Childhood V@ ccine clause in December 1987: it legally required the Department of Health and Human Services to submit to Congress biennial reports which are to include detailed Improvements in v@ ccine safety. No such reports have ever been submitted – not once in 30+ years (I can share the link.)

 

PROS OUTWEIGH THE CONS? SACRIFICE “FEW” FOR THE MASSES?  It is my conviction that sacrificing a human life via abortion IS able to be justified (forgiven) by the blood of Jesus but is unable to be justified (made honorable) by good motives, even if it’s in attempt to promote health for the masses. (I say “attempt” because the evidence convinces me v@ ccines do not promote health but actually damage the immune system of the masses, even if the symptoms don’t appear until later and appear in the form of allergies, autoimmune disease, infertility, cancer, Alzheimer’s, etc.)

I WAS PRO-V@CCINES. I have lots of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals in my family and was raised with an allopathic (western medicine) approach to health. I was the last person to want to consider that my doctor, a strong Christian, might not know the ins and outs about v@ccines. 

I have a two immuno-compromised children  and was the last person who wanted to consider that the immunologist’s advice might not be right. I have no medical training and am the last person who wanted the weighty responsibility of managing the health of my children. 

It took me OVER A DECADE  to sift through enough PubMed abstracts, other scientific studies, CDC ingredients lists, VAERS v@ccine reactions database, and hear testimonies from enough medical professionals who turned from being advocates for v@ccines to advocates for v@ccine safety, etc. before my perspective did a full 180. But don’t take my word for it. My intention is not to enter into any kind of debate – I know that no matter a person’s stance on v@ccines, we all share the sincere goal of promoting the best possible health for our loved ones. I do hope, though, that all will investigate the matter and seek to be informed before consenting. 

          The news articles and videos on www.PhysiciansForInformedConsent.org is a good place to 

          start. Beware of censored search engines (Source: Go to winterwatch.net and search “by Mike 

          Adams 2 July 2019 Exclusive”). There are websites and uncensored search engine options that 

          can be used.

May God bless us and lead us in these difficult decisions. I pray for peace, health, and safety for all.

See also:  Statement of Faith Regarding Vaccines

My Assumptions About Va<<ines

  

I was raised with western medicine and when I traveled to a 3rd world country and began having my own children, these were my assumptions about va<<ines:

I thought va<<ines were like pharmaceuticals and were under the same kind of safety regulations while they are actually classified as a “public health measure” and not as a pharmaceutical drug.

I assumed that short and long term safety studies were done before releasing any vaccine onto the market.

I assumed regulatory agencies were third party, eliminating any potential for conflict of interest.

I thought it was the pediatrician’s job, not the parent’s job, to investigate what health conditions or family medical history might be a contraindication for a child to receive a particular va<<ine. I assumed this was the sort of thing a physician would check with the parent (& the child’s medical file) about before administering.

I thought the side effects and adverse reaction warnings for va<<ines included minor symptoms like low fever, itchy/red entry site, and muscle soreness, and did not include things like death, SIDS, life-threatening conditions, hospitalization, encephalitis, seizures, permanent health conditions, autoimmune diseases, etc. I thought that regulatory agencies wouldn’t release a va<<ine to the market and recommend them if such risks existed.

I assumed the hippocratic oath not only applied to doctors but also to pharmaceutical regulators and va<<ine regulators.

I assumed physicians were educated about the va<<ines they recommend and administer, as opposed to just administering what they’re told to (and when) according to the CDC schedule..

I assumed that the elimination of disease epidemics was due to introduction of va<<inations rather than predominately from improved sanitation and hygiene, clean water, etc.

I assumed that the elimination of disease epidemics meant certain diseases were no longer being contracted, not that they had been renamed, like polio, for instance, which now goes under the names: Guillain-Barre syndrome, Reye’s syndrome, Bell’s Palsy, Transverse Myelitis, Aseptic Meningitis, Acute Flaccid Paralysis, Spinal Apoplexy, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Cholera, Multiple Sclerosis, and Inhibitory Palsy.

I thought pediatricians recommended va<<ines because they knew them to be beneficial and not also because they receive financial incentives for high va<<ination rates among patients (i.e. conflict of interest).

I assumed that if any industry had unsafe products on the market, they would be sued and would no longer be able to keep the product on the market. (The National Childhood Va<<ine Injury Act of 1986 shields the vaccine industry from liability.)

I assumed our country would not recommend a va<<ine that is known (and labeled) as having “side effects that were unavoidable” – side effects that include things like death, encephalitis, autoimmune disease, etc.

I assumed that if evidence regarding fraudulent and illegal activity – particularly as it applies to product safety (e.g. va<<ines) – is made public, it would be subpoenaed and presented to a judge.

I assumed that if a va<<ine was found to be dangerous it would be remade, not renamed and sold to another country.

In order to prove efficacy, I assumed safety studies would be conducted rather than testing it on human "guinea pigs."

The United States is thought to be a leader among other countries in medical technology and advancements, so naturally I assumed that medical schools made it a priority to be as current as absolutely possible in order to stay ahead of other countries – NOT that there is an estimated 17 years of lag time before PubMed studies make their way into medical school curriculum. And I assumed va<<ine education was among the topics given a substantial amount of time and detail for med students.

I assumed the physicians who recommend va<<ines and the nurses who administer them are well-versed in all potential adverse reactions so that they are able to identify symptoms that are correlated with va<<ines so that they could report the incidences to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

I assumed any serious, potentially life-threatening side effects would be extremely rare, when in fact over 4 billion dollars in compensation has been paid out since 1990, and between 2006 and 2009 alone, Harvard reported 35,570 adverse reactions in 376,452 recipients (that is nearly a 10% adverse reaction rate). If 1 in 10 isn’t alarming enough, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services themselves admit that “fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported” (to VAERS) and FDA Commissioner, David A. Kessler, stated in a U.S. Congressional Report that it is estimated that VAERS data represents only a fraction of the number of serious adverse reactions actually occur. If 1 in 10 adverse reactions were serious enough to win compensation, and that only represents 1% of va<<ine reactions by the HHS’ own admission, then the risk is obscenely greater than I could have ever imagined and its availability/recommendation to the public is no less than a horrific crime.

I assumed that if medical professionals begin to suspect (based on the evidence they’re seeing with their patients) that something isn’t adding up, they can bring their concerns forward and even be praised for seeking thorough testing for the safety of our children (and adults) without their practices and their very lives being threatened.

I assumed everybody had their kids (& themselves) va<<inated, not realizing the vast number of medical professionals, and people in the know, who don't receive certain shots or allow their children to receive va<<ines.

***Even if a handful of these assumptions are correct and just 1 or 2 are incorrect, is it worth investigating further?