Comments on: Study Confirms Link Between Autism and Use of Cells From Abortions in Vaccines?

By: Deborah Crowe

Deborah Crowe — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:52:44 +0000

so sad, i just did the research on your article. the cells are from aborted babies from 50 years ago. they have been duplicated for a very long time. and they also said, “other cell line” that most likely is hela immortal cells. the cell they have been allowing to grow and dup. has a structure. it came with the original organim cell. it cannot “be” without that structure, which still includes all the information on the first one it came from. that is what tells it to be a cell. so its own cell data base if u will, is still there. if the structure (orginal baby/fetus had palsy, autism, natural vit b intake deficiency.. (they had no way of knowing 50 years ago, and barely do now) it doesnt matter.. when they inject the virus into it.. and grow it.. and put it in our bodies.. they are giving our bodies all those instructions too. mitochondria is a snaphot of our entire being. now we find out they’ve been ‘facted checking the vaccine against helas immortal cell string” (from fifty years ago). now we know the hela cell is the most harmful cancer cell ever. they managed to find the worst case of cancer ever, play with it for all our bodily research for 50 years, and then use it to make vaccines. or test them.. you’ll never get a straight answer on and/ and /or on that one. but, news flash, henrietta lacks the poor decedant they took the tumor cell from.. had a severely autistic child. so. lets recap.. vaccine made from unknown cellular and mitochondria also made and or at least for sure tested with the most dangerous cancer dividing cells ever from a genetically sick woman who had a severely autistic child.. i seethe at the media poking fun of anyone that is willing to be brave enough to question this garbage. i’m sad that all of us were made guinea pigs. what have they done.

By: Deborah Crowe

Deborah Crowe — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:13:57 +0000

for those of us watching our children suffer with autism. especially those children with entire life destroyed low functioning, non verbal, aggressive autism. i implore u to use a more sensitive, open mind when it comes to autism and any research. fine if you want to dismiss someone whom u may think is a cook. but in our world, where everyone so easily dismisses agonizing situations in which we first hand experienced.. i.e. 3 yr with super large vocabulary and is potty trained gets his mmr gets a fever that night and wakes the next day having forgotten his entire vocabulary, and is no longer potty trained and connot remember how to hold a fork.. and just yesterday was sitting on the floor coloring and telling you he wanted a peanut butter sandwhich.. stop being so sure of yourselves. pharma s are owned by ex presidents. pharmas do make mistakes and where money is made, lies are and cosnpiracies and coverups do take place. every autism parent group i go into has such a large swath of ppl with the same story.. my child was fine… the next day, after shots, mentally gone. instead of constantly shutting it down, someone needs to take us srrsly. if it wasn’t the shots, dammit there was a correlation. maybe something we’re missing. but everyones trying so hard to get away from the vaccine scenerilo they are failing children. when it becomes your child or grandchild.. with the exact same story.. you’r gonna punch someone in the eye for so rudlely dissmissing this scenerio. btw, was a hela line used? does anyone ever consider that henrietta daughter was autistic.. that was her child with her genes? and everyone is testing vaccines with her cell? hello? now theres a variable huh? and why on Gods green earth are we celebrating testing anything on a malfunctioned cell line.. b/c we don”t want the extra work of using real non abnormal cells and having to deal with their early death? it is what it is.. but testing on those cells might actually show other results. i’m stunned at the science community.. but even more stunned at the blind media that just herds right along with whatever they throw their way.

By: gregladen

gregladen — Fri, 25 May 2012 19:01:26 +0000

brian, were you looking for some false balance perhaps? We don’t really do that here, sorry!

By: brian

brian — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:35:08 +0000

If there weren’t so many ad hominem attacks and negative labels in this article, I might just take it seriously. It’s far too polarizing and panders to the lowest common denominator.

By: Ben Zvan

Ben Zvan — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:21:13 +0000

Henneberry: There’s no such thing as “aborted baby tissue.” By definition, a baby has been born and can no longer be aborted.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:04:05 +0000

Mu, to report something as “objectionable” just because a limited number of crazy people call it objectionable is unnecessary. Medicine in general is objectionable to a Christian Scientist. Reporters do not use the term “objectionable” when routinely reporting medical events.

By: a henneberry

a henneberry — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:02:42 +0000

Many vaccines use aborted baby tissue
Vinnedge said the rise in autism rates exactly parallels the increase in the use … baby, has produced cancer in mice given the vaccine produced from it. …
http://www.theinterim.com â?º Abortion – Cached

By: Mu

Mu — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:17:43 +0000

“appropriate, effective legal and ethical tissues.”
They can be all that and be still objectionable to someone on moral/philosophical/religious reasons. Take the recent discussion on the HeLa cell line as case in point.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:19:45 +0000

Yeah, I would not call them “objectionable cells” … I would call them “appropriate, effective legal and ethical tissues.”

By: Kamel

Kamel — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:32:56 +0000

I was sent this link recently also. Some vaccines (eg. Havrix) are still grown in ‘objectionable’ cells – MRC-5 cells are still used and derived from fetal lung tissue – but the anti-vaccine types universally fail to mention that the cells were developed once in the 60s and not on an ongoing basis.

Religious objectors to vaccines (Catholics, at least) also fail to recognize the Vatican’s own stance on vaccines: “we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children.” They go even further on the subject of rubella: “parents who did not accept the vaccination of their own children become responsible for the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion of foetuses, when they have been discovered to be malformed.” Source