The ‘fire and fury’ of US President Donald Trump has translated into many memorable phrases that have baffled, amused or infuriated observers. RT looks at the top quotes from the first year of his presidency. January 2017: ‘You are fake news’ Trump had famously sparred with the media throughout his campaign. He reserved his ire […]
Starting a business as a senior may feel like a giant hurdle. However, running a successful company has far more to do with strategy than age. Marketing is one of the key aspects of many lucrative businesses. If you are older and plan to open a company, Pro Se Litigation shares these five marketing avenues to incorporate into your business plans.
Before marketing your goods, you need to develop a marketing plan. Without outlining how you intend to advertise your business, you will likely struggle to execute successful marketing campaigns.
The great news is you can develop a comprehensive plan by yourself without having to spend loads of money on an expensive agency. Make sure your plan includes key marketing factors, such as determining your target audience, knowing why consumers should pick your business over competitors and choosing what routes you will use for marketing your company, like print media or online media.
Your plan should also include a section for thorough market research. Market research is gathering facts and statistics about the people and current business trends in your area. The more you know about the audiences and current practices, the better informed you are to make important business decisions. Plus, you will know exactly what locations need your products and services.
2. Social Media
While some earlier generations shy away from social media, embracing it can give you a fantastic, inexpensive marketing tool. A couple of the most popular social media platforms for business owners are Instagram and Facebook. With these sites, you can create a free page with informative business content and intriguing photos to market your company. You can interact with potential customers on your pages via messaging, posts, and likes.
3. Online Directories
Instead of turning to a hard copy of the YellowPages, many consumers now turn to online directories. Like social media, create pages for your business via online directories, such as Yelp, Google My Business or Angi. While some social media sites also support business pages, these sites are created specifically for business information.
As with social media pages, make sure your listing is eye-catching and tells consumers why they should choose you. Additionally, many online directories feature customer reviews. Reviews can make or break a business. One report states that 95% of people turn to online reviews before buying a product or service. Encourage customers to leave reviews. Once you have built a good reputation, you can market your amazing reviews to entice new customers.
Think of your website as your online storefront. If your store is unattractive and difficult to navigate, chances are people will not make a purchase or return. The same goes for your website. No one will stick around to see what you have to offer if your website is boring and clunky. Plus, your social media marketing can direct users to your website, so make sure it is attractive and easy to use.
5. In-Person Gatherings
Fairs, farmer’s markets, and town events are excellent options to set up a booth and market your company. You can sell goods, and this is a great opportunity to get consumer feedback to determine which products are desirable and which are not.
Although it may be intimidating starting a business in your later years, having a plan can make all the difference. By clearly laying out steps to market your company, you give your new business the best chance to succeed.
 A marketing plan is a strategic roadmap that businesses use to organize, execute, and track their marketing strategy over a given time period. Marketing plans can include separate marketing strategies for the various marketing teams across the company, but all of them work toward the same business goals. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/marketing-plan-examples
 Market research is the process of determining the viability of a new service or product through research conducted directly with potential customers. Market research allows a company to discover the target market and get opinions and other feedback from consumers about their interest in the product or service. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-research.asp
 The term social media refers to a computer-based technology that facilitates the sharing of ideas, thoughts, and information through virtual networks and communities. Social media is internet-based and gives users quick electronic communication of content, such as personal information, documents, videos, and photos. Users engage with social media via a computer, tablet, or smartphone via web-based software or applications. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-media.asp
Strengthen my faith, Lord. Forgive my sins, so that I may be clean in your righteousness.
Make me brave, so I can stand and fight the spiritual battles in my life and in our world. Give me your wisdom and discernment so I won’t be caught off guard.
Together, Lord, we’ll win, because in truth, you already have. While evil still roams, the power of Your name and Your blood rises up to defeat and bring us victory against every evil planned against us. While malicious actions may disturb us, we use the armor of God You have given us to stand firm.
You will bring justice in due time for all the harm and needless violence aimed at Your children. Until then, we remain in Your presence, aligned with Your purposes, and we look to You as our Supreme Commander and Protector.
Help us to avoid temptation, and deliver us from evil, Lord. You are the Mighty One, the One Who will ultimately bring all evil to light. With You, Jesus, we are safe. Amen.
When I received one of my first vaccinations it was distributed at school. Yep grade school, and we lined up like sheep to receive the jab. This was back in either the late 50s or early 60s. We lined up a week later so the doctor could inspect our arms for any side effects. We […]
This is a project with currently no public product, no users, and no revenue that is now worth $4 billion dollars “just because.” Perhaps their business model will involve selling covid vaccines to kids or something, who knows.
The stock is currently trading on pure speculation. The vast majority of that trading is coming from President Trump’s main street supporters, the good and decent hardworking Americans who are buying the stock in anticipation of it going even higher if and when a service ever actually launches.
I truly hope and pray that the Wall Street short sellers and hedge funds don’t screw these good people over like they always do, but it appears that Trump Media itself is already doing so with this new billion dollar deal which is reportedly going to massively dilute existing investors. The SEC is now investigating.
Trump Media is now looking to secure a so-called private investment in public equity (PIPE) that would value Digital World shares closer to their recent price, currently hovering around $40, the sources said. It is a departure from most PIPE deals, which are typically done at $10 per share, and would result in a much greater dilution of existing Digital World investors.
We already know from pervious reporting that Rumble changed their terms of service the day Trump joined the platform to ban “hate speech” and “anti-semitism.” In other words, their terms of service now not only mirror that of Big Tech platforms, but take it one step further by explicitly banning “anti-semitism” which means any criticism, humor, mockery, or critique of Jews and Israel.
Needless to say all of this market activity is great for Gab, the leading alternative technology platform and the only true free speech platform on the internet. Based on Truth Social’s market cap (no product, no users, no revenue) and Rumble’s market cap, Gab is now easily a multi-billion dollar company. Unlike both of these projects however; Gab remains the one place on the internet where first amendment-protected political speech is not only protected, it’s encouraged.
Torba said Kushner and his cronies tried to get Torba to “sell out” and “compromise on Gab’s free speech policies,” suggesting that Gab “clean up [their] image,” before President Trump was allowed on. Witzke queried Torba into exactly what people Kushner wanted banned, and Torba revealed that he “specifically had problems with people criticizing Jewish people and Zionism and policies related to Israel”:
Defending free speech at all costs, even at the cost of Trump joining Gab, is why Gab is the number one alternative technology platform on the internet and growing fast. While we have specialized in free speech for five years now, free markets inevitably develop anywhere that free speech is protected. That’s exactly what is happening on Gab right now with our vision for a Parallel Christian Economy.
Our advertising service is currently exploding in growth and thousands of businesses are joining the Parallel Economy on Gab. Our community is thriving and our vision is expanding to include the peaceful noncompliance and exit from the Oligarch systems of control over our lives. We are building something real, something authentic, something important. We’re not out to make a quick buck on Wall Street. We’re here change the world and bring glory to God.
Gab could very easily do exactly what Trump and Rumble are doing and go to Wall Street and raise billions. Many of the same investment bankers, venture capitalists, and hedge funds who are working with Truth Social and Rumble have already gotten wind of Gab’s recent growth and have been reaching out to us in droves. We politely reply telling them to go pound sand. I have no interest in dealing with these people or taking their money because when you raise billions from the Beast, the Beast owns and controls you for life. I am a free man and I intend to keep it that way.
Gab is the only platform on the internet where true free speech lives and no amount of money is worth giving that up. God has always provided more than enough for us to meet our needs and continue to grow. I have faith that He will continue to do so without the need for Wall Street blood money.
Money isn’t interesting to me, free speech is.
This isn’t about money, it’s about the future for my children and yours.
It’s about reclaiming our country and protecting our home.
It’s about getting access to information that the Regime doesn’t want you to access.
Most importantly it’s about the ability for Christians to authentically practice our faith in Jesus Christ without being attacked, smeared, censored, and systematically destroyed for doing so.
That all starts and is only made possible by protecting free speech for everyone.
All the money in the world won’t inspire people. It won’t create something worth fighting for. It won’t innovate. It will make a lot of grifters and hedge funds very rich, but it won’t make a dent in the very real problems facing our society.
Gab’s mission and vision are very clear and stand alone in the market. We are building technology that powers a parallel Christian economy and defends free speech online for all people at all costs. We don’t need Wall Street Hedge funds to make that happen. We don’t need a billion dollars to make that happen. We have The People and our faith in God to make that happen.
In August Gateway Pundit contributor Cassandra Fairbanks broke the story on Dr. Fauci’s use of taxpayer money to torture beagles in barbaric animal testing. Dr. Fauci funded a study in Tunisia where beagle dogs were eaten alive by parasite-infected flies. EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Fauci Used Taxpayer Money to Have Dogs Tortured and Eaten Alive By Parasite Infected Flies […]
Or Hallowe’en, or All Hallows Eve, All Hallows Evening in full. Traditionally 31st October (today) when people celebrate, if that is the right word.
Celebrate what though? Wikipedia says ‘It begins the observance ofAllhallowtide, the time in theliturgical yeardedicated to remembering the dead, includingsaints(hallows),martyrs, and all the faithful departed.’ From
It also says ‘One theory holds that many Halloween traditions may have been influenced by ancient Celtic harvest festivals, particularly the Gaelic festival Samhain, which may have had pagan roots’
Well I don’t think much of the world’s population is too bothered about saints, martyrs and faithful departed. They seem more concerned with horror stories and films, trick-or-treat and toffee apples, and such like. At least in what is called the Western world.
I have never seen the attraction of horror films myself. Being scared witless does boost…
By Nathan Barton It is a theme TPOL has addressed many times, and even the scummy mainstream media constantly point this out. Not just the FedGov but all levels of government here in the States can make life miserable for families on a daily basis. We saw it with families travel this summer as they […] […]
H/T Smithsonian Magazine. Will it still help us older folks with heart disease? The guideline change is based on bleeding risks some may face when taking the blood thinner The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) released a draft guideline on October 12 stating that a daily regimen of low-dose aspirin is no longer recommended as a […]
A prestigious art museum in Chicago fired hundreds of unpaid volunteers and replaced them with paid workers because they were too white.
The Art Institute of Chicago had been able to depend on the help of 122 highly skilled volunteers, mostly older white women, to act as guides to the Museum’s collection of 300,000 works, which they explain in great detail to visitors.
The volunteers also acted as “school group greeters” to help children understand the importance of what they were seeing.
Training requirements for the position were intense, and the volunteers were apparently doing a great job.
But now they’ve now all been dismissed for not being “diverse” enough.
“Many of the volunteers—though not all—are older white women, who have the time and resources to devote so much free labor to the Museum,” reports the Why Evolution is True blog.
“But the demographics of that group weren’t appealing to the AIC, and so, in late September, the AIC fired all of them, saying they’d be replaced by smaller number of hired volunteers workers who will be paid $25 an hour. That group will surely meet the envisioned diversity goals.”
“Paying the replacements will not result in more knowledgeable docents. But they won’t be Caucasian; that’s the important thing,” writes Dave Blount.
Unfortunately for the volunteers, a lack of “diversity” is only apparently a problem at one end of the spectrum.A similar thing happened last month when the English Touring Opera (ETO) kicked out half of its orchestral players in an effort to prioritize “increased diversity in the orchestra.”
The act of musical ethnic cleansing was carried out in the interests of following “firm guidance of the Arts Council,” which is a government-funded body.
Once again, this all underscores the fact that the only form of institutionalized racism that remains not only acceptable, but something to be encouraged, is against white people.
Slate: Facebook Banned Me for Life Because I Help People Use It Less. “If someone built a tool that made Facebook less addictive—a tool that allowed users to benefit from Facebook’s positive features while limiting their exposure to its negative ones—how would Facebook respond? I know the answer, because I built the tool, and Facebook…
AUTHOR: DR. JAMES DOBSON Dear Friends, I must share with you what is gnawing at my spirit today. It is obvious that the mainstream media has decided to “move on” from the tragedy of Afghanistan. They apparently believe it undermines their narrative of what happened and why. Thus, it is likely that there will be […]
by JD Rucker NOQ Report Joe Rogan, Kirstie Alley, and a handful of other celebrities have brought out the anti-Ivermectin wolves in America. Mainstream media is in full attack-mode. Big Tech is censoring posts to the point that people are coming up with creative ways to indicate they’re even talking about Ivermectin so as not […]
I received an email from USDA about commenting on Meat and Poultry Products Derived from Animal Cells?
USDA Seeks Comments on the Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products Derived from Animal Cells The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published today an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments and information regarding the labeling of meat and poultry products made using cultured cells derived from animals under FSIS jurisdiction. FSIS will use these comments to inform future regulatory requirements for the labeling of such food products. Stay Connected: Subscriber Services: Preferences | Unsubscribe | Help | Questions? Contact Us This email was sent using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service · United States Department of Agriculture · 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. · Washington D.C. 20250 · 800-439-1420
After receiving the above email from USDA, I decided that I needed to know what the hell they were talking about. WTF is “Meat and Poultry Products Derived from Animal Cells? Sound totally sickening. Like gag a maggot!
Cell-culture Technology and Potential Impacts on Livestock Production
Cell-culture Technology and Potential Impacts on Livestock Production
Cell-culture based production of meat is expanding in the food industry. Understand the potential impacts to your herd to prepare for this new frontier in meat production.
Updated: October 5, 2018
PLEASE NOTE THAT I DELETED THE PICTURE USED IN THE ARTICLE, SO AS NOT TO BE VIOLATING COPYRIGHTS OF ANYONE, AND INSERTED A PICTURE FROM AN INTERNET SOURCE THAT ALLOWS USE OF PICTURES.
Cellular agriculture has quickly metamorphized from an internet curiosity to a serious policy issue, and producers and consumers alike are looking for greater clarity about what this new technology might mean for their business, as well as their dinner table.
The introduction of cell-culture based food products is likely to bring substantial changes to meat processing and the livestock production agriculture sector. Recently, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have joined forces to share oversight of the cellular based meat industry. These two federal agencies together will regulate cell cultured food products derived from livestock and poultry tissue based on the respective regulatory expertise of the organizations. A joint statement released last month by the two agencies said they would be working together to “foster these innovative food products and maintain the highest standards of public health.” The FDA will be in charge of regulating the collection, banking and growing of the cells used to make artificial meat, while the USDA will work on the production and labeling of food products.
Due to the increasing complexity of modern food production and governance, the conversation around cell-cultured food technology might be confusing. This article will provide you with useful background information on the scientific history and current state of cell-culture technology in food production. In addition, an overview of the implications of this technology on meat product labeling, meat production, and livestock agriculture will be provided.
Current State of Cell-culture Meat Production
The application of cell-culture based food production is possible through utilizing bioengineering processes that have already been well established in both food and pharmaceuticals. Application of cell-culture technology into meat production shares similar objectives with the modern livestock and meat production industries: maximize production and minimize inputs. In traditional livestock production, improvements to efficiency of tissue production has been accomplished through selective breeding, specialized nutrition programs, improved housing facilities, and advanced veterinary care Cell-cultured meat production seeks to further improve efficiency by optimizing the energy and resource expenditures devoted to building fat and muscle, while eliminating the need to fuel growth of other animal tissues that are considered low value food products in the current American marketplace.
The field of cell-cultured tissue production has been well established in the bioengineering and pharmaceutical production. The application of this technology to meat production, however, has emerged only recently. Pioneering efforts in cell-cultured meat production were inspired two Australian bioengineers who showcased this possibility at an art exhibit in the early 2000s. Specifically, production of cell-cultured meat featured in the art exhibit involved the construction of muscle utilizing embryonic stem cells, on specialty scaffolding, and application of appropriate nutrition and stimulation were able to form muscle fibers that make up the meat product. This conceptual demonstration inspired others to consider the possibility of scaling their technique to an industrial level. Small working groups of tissue engineers and meat scientists continued to advance the field from the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s, either through spin-offs projects on medical research grants or through direct funding from private investors and government research agencies. In 2009, it was reported that the first in vitro pork fillet was produced at Eindhoven University in Holland; however, the fillet was not considered to be fit for human consumption. In 2013, a momentous breakthrough occurred when the first ever cell culture-based beef burger was presented to a celebrity chef at a widely publicized taste test. This event drew journalists, scientists, meat processors, and venture capitalists from around the globe, and their contributions ultimately generated hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested in cell-culture based agriculture in recent years. To date, while there are now several dozens of cell-culture based meat production companies, including JUST, Memphis Meats, and Mosa Meats, these companies have yet to roll out a product that is ready for public distribution.
The Issue with Labeling and Regulation
Even though cell-culture based meat products are not yet ready for market, the issue of what to call them has already arisen. Standards of identity and labeling for foods have been a controversial topic for as long as agricultural societies have been marketing food to consumers. A familiar example of this controversy is the presence of numerous dairy and dairy-type products seen in the market place. In addition to ‘milk’ produced by livestock, alternative ‘milk’ products are found from soy, almond, and other alternatives that provide the consumer with numerous choices of nutrient-dense liquids to offer their families. The meat industry is not exempt from this food labeling and marketing paradox. For example, ground beef ‘burger’ patties versus plant-based ‘burger’ patties compete for market share and provide consumers with nutritious choices of similar form. However, the labeling controversy contributes to persistent confusion about nutritional value, production methods, and safety of food products among consumers.
Confusion surrounding nutritional value of food products and food production methods are likely at the forefront of the labeling argument for most producers, particularly given evidence that 64% of consumers do not recognize animal meats as a high-quality source of protein. Producers are also aware that labeling concerns extend to production techniques surrounding food products and consumer goods. Meat production methods, regardless of origin from livestock or cell-culture, are likely to be scrutinized by American consumers; many Americans still hold negative attitudes toward certain technology in food production, with genetically modified foods as the primary example of this aversion. This perception can play a critical role in how newly developed products may be perceived when placed next to traditional food products, particularly from animal sources. This emphasizes the point that labeling is a concern for all involved in meat production, not just livestock producers.
Food product labeling is currently regulated as it pertains to certain methods of production (Certified Organic) or food safety. The current debate about labeling for cell-culture meat products is directly related to food safety. To reference our previous ‘burger’ example, in the ‘burger’ industry, USDA-FSIS enforces the labeling and safety requirements for animal sources of protein, whereas plant sources of protein are regulated by FDA. This dynamic may change when the two ‘burger’ choices exist from the same (animal) protein source. Several names and labels have recently surfaced in the media to describe cell-culture based protein foods that originate from animal muscle cells. Some of the popular nomenclature includes the following: “in vitro” meat, “lab-grown” meat, “cultured” meat, “test-tube” meat, “fake” meat, “clean” meat, and most recently, “cell-based” meat. Labeling a food product as “meat” may also influence the regulatory body that oversees production. Remember, products that are currently labeled as “meat”, that are produced and sold in the United States, are regulated by USDA-FSIS. Some have proposed that “clean” or “cultured” meat products, although labeled as “meat” by companies producing cell-cultured food products, be regulated by the FDA, which traditionally oversees plant-based food items. So how will the new meat product be labeled? And, who should regulate cell cultured meat products? These are important questions to consider when discussing the future of food products that originate from alternative proteins and cell-cultured meat products alike as they progress toward becoming a reality in your local markets.
Regardless of an individual’s personal views on alternative protein foods, this new technology is progressing rapidly, and it may compete for future market share in the meat sector. In an attempt to clarify the “meat” labeling question, the state of Missouri (MO) recently took a step to clearly define that “meat” sold in the state of MO had to come from “livestock or poultry carcass[es] or part[s] thereof” (Senate Bill 627 & 925). This legislation agrees with perspectives shared by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association. While this bit of legislation in Missouri was sparked by plant-based products being labeled as “meat”, the argument on a national level remains to be determined. What will be in a package of beef in the future? Groups opposed to this type of legislation argue that this law is unconstitutional and violates first amendment rights. However, according to the United States government (21 U.S. Code § 601(j)), meat “is made wholly or in part from any meat or other portion of the carcass of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats”. It is this term ‘in part’ that plays a significant role in interpretation of the law, hence the labeling dilemma.
Concerns about regulation and labeling have been emphasized by numerous livestock organizations, not just the NCBA. These organization include: National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), National Chicken Council (NCC), National Turkey Federation (NTF), American Sheep Industry Association (ASIA), and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). In response to a meeting hosted by the FDA on July 12th of 2018, this group of concerned meat and livestock organizations directly addressed the current regulation quandary in a group letter to President Trump on July 26, 2018. This letter indicates the signatories’ support for the USDA to regulate cell-culture based meat products. The group supports current role of USDA in regulation and preservation of fair competition in the meat market place. Through the current role of the USDA in facilitating daily inspection and food safety among current meat production, this group suggests that consistency of this role across all meat products will prevent confusion among consumers from misleading regulations and labeling. In contrast, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) is currently pushing for separate labels altogether to be used on cell-cultured versus farm-raised meat products. The USCA argues that the labeling of cell-cultured products as “beef” detracts from the brand that cattle producers have worked hard to acquire and uphold for their product. Similarly, cell-cultured meat production stakeholders, including Memphis Meats, sent a joint letter to the White House on August 23rd requesting that cell-cultured food products be regulated by FDA during the product development phase, however, it was also requested in their letter to transition monitoring responsibility to the USDA to ensure post-market safety and labeling compliance. Leaders representing the North American Meat Institute supported letters submitted to the current administration from both the livestock and cell-cultured meat production focused groups. The regulatory debate surrounding cell-cultured meat products is quite dynamic; stakeholder alliances that are evolving may indicate that this debate is far from being settled.
Currently, regulation of safe food production is handled between FDA and USDA-FSIS. FDA inspected food is governed by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) whereas USDA-FSIS establishments comply with the Pathogen Reduction Act and HACCP-based inspection. Although complying with these regulatory acts have similar goals in safety, some of the regulatory statutes differ in design and methods of regulatory compliance. Companies producing cell culture-based meat products argue that the food is produced in a sterile environment, and therefore, should not be subjected to USDA-FSIS oversight, hence the verbiage “clean” meat. It should be similarly noted that meat from healthy livestock is also produced in a ‘sterile’ environment. The act of cutting into the carcass, and thus exposing tissue to outside contaminants, is what initiates the risk of food-borne pathogen contamination. Regardless of the environment where cell-cultured meat is manufactured, the product that is being consumed will eventually be exposed to the same packaging materials and storage conditions as traditional wholesale and retail “meat” products. This inevitable exposure would place cell-cultured meat products at similar risks of contamination as meat derived from whole tissue cuts of livestock. Food safety concerns should remain at the top of the list when considering how to handle regulations among all methods of meat production.
Are Livestock in Limbo?
Major meat packers, including Tyson and Cargill, are recognizing the potential market impacts of alternative protein sources through proactive investment in cell-cultured meat companies and technologies. Partnerships with meat packers may expand in cell-cultured meat production, as JUST (a start-up company specializing in plant-based protein and cellular agriculture) plans to issue commercial product licenses to traditional meat processing companies in exchange for royalties and prepayments. Livestock producers, on the other hand, have a distinct, yet potentially overlapping, set of interests with respect to cell-culture meat production technology.
Relationships of livestock producers to meat packers currently takes on a variety of forms. In the poultry industry, many of the birds raised for meat production are owned by the meat packer, such as Tyson or Perdue. This ownership of animals and meat is referred to as vertically integrated. In the pork industry, vertical integration occurs in full ownership or through contracted relationships with meat packers. These integrated relationships may benefit from the support of their integrators, like Tyson, should the packer choose to differentiate between the meat products they offer. However, they may also face further competition within their own supplier system. For pork, this means that the demands for further processed meats, such as sausages and deli products, may be met more so through the utilization of cell-cultured meat products, as sales of whole pork cuts continue to struggle, outside of bacon. The beef industry is largely segmented, in contrast, and traditionally does not utilize an integrated relationship model with packers. This leaves beef cattle producers without an established relationship with a packer are much more vulnerable to market fluctuations and additional competition from products bearing a brand they have worked hard to promote as a quality product (i.e. “beef”). This may be why the NCBA and USCA have been very vocal in the labeling debate, as discussed earlier, in order to protect the associations with a name they have created. This vulnerability to market trends and fluctuations would be similar for less popular meat products, such as sheep, goat, and other exotic meat choices. Regardless, the relationship between meat packers and cell-culture meat product start-up companies will directly affect integrated and partially integrated producers. Conversations among the packers and the poultry and swine producers are necessary to understand the impacts of this investment interest in cell culture-based meat production.
Interest in strategic engagement with the burgeoning cell-culture meat industry is growing among livestock producers. Indeed, new livestock markets may be created in conjunction with cell culture-based meat production. For example, cellular agriculture depends on cell lines from healthy animals. This dependence will continue to mean a reliance on livestock production, but with an emphasis on fewer animals meeting specific needs. Livestock producers who provide cell lines for cellular agriculture companies may therefore open new windows of opportunity for entrepreneurial producers, focusing on the diversity and specialty (genetics, welfare, health, nutrition) of their livestock products over quantity. In such a system, Kobe beef may transition from being a luxury to one of the most widely consumed meat products. Traditional livestock producers may also find economic opportunities in this expanding industry by leveraging their unique knowledge and expertise in product development, consultation, biosecurity, logistics, supply chains, agribusiness management, and sales. Animal feed growers and processors, on the other hand, may find opportunities in providing feedstock for cell culture growth mediums.
The future of cell-cultured meat and food production could signify dramatic changes to global agricultural markets, however, livestock producers have long weathered risk, uncertainty, and fluctuation in the market by embracing change, innovation, and strategic adaptation. To quote Bill Northey, USDA Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, “Farmers are problem solvers, they think outside [of] the box.” To be sure, many questions about the meaning and potential of cellular agriculture for traditional agriculture producers and consumers have yet to be answered. Participation in the conversations being held now, and likely those in the future, will be an important step for producers and consumers to make their voices heard as this discussion moves forward. Penn State Extension is continuing to monitor this evolving industry and stands ready to provide science-based consultation, support, and partnership for all stakeholders.
Do some products contain fetal parts? The short gruesome answer: Yes.
Today’s consumer products are not the soap and lampshades of recycled Nazi concentration camp victims. The new utilitarian use of people is a sophisticated enterprise, not visible to the human eye.
Fetal Parts in Daily Life
Perhaps you are a diligent supporter and promoter of pro-life legislation, only vote for pro-life candidates, avoid entertainment from musicians and actors who openly support Planned Parenthood. Regardless, you may unwittingly be cooperating in aborted fetal cell research by purchasing products that use aborted fetuses, either in the product itself or in its development.
One might take Enbrel (Amgen) to relieve Rheumatoid Arthritis. Your husband was given Zoastavax (Merck), a Shingles vaccine, at his annual physical. Your mother with diabetes and renal failure is prescribed Arensep (Amgen). Your grandfather is given the blood product Repro (Eli Lilly) during an angioplasty. The local school district requires that your grandchildren receive the MMRII (the Merck Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine). Your daughter and son use coffee creamers and eat soup with artificial flavor enhancers (Senomyx/Firmenich) tested on artificial taste buds engineered from aborted fetal cells.
Because of the vagary of FDA labeling, unless you are proficient at reading patents and pharmaceutical inserts you wouldn’t know aborted fetal parts were there without someone to tell you.
Luckily, that someone is the watchdog group Children of God for Life (COG), a pro-life public citizen group which tracks the use of aborted fetal parts. Under the leadership of Executive Director Debi Vinnedge, COG publishes a downloadable list of products that use aborted fetuses currently available in the U.S.
Products That Use Aborted Fetuses
Products related to fetal material can be broken down into roughly 3 categories: artificial flavors, cosmetics, and medicines/vaccines.
1. Food and Drink
To be clear, food and beverages do not contain any aborted fetal material; however, they may be tastier because of it. How is that?
The American biotech company Senomyx has developed chemical additives that can enhance flavor and smell. To do this, they had to produce an army of never-tiring taste testers–that is, flavor receptors engineered from human embryonic kidney cells (HEK 293, fetal cell line popular in pharmaceutical research). These artificial taste buds can tell product developers which products the public will crave. The goal is to do a taste bud “sleight of hand,” creating low-sugar and low-sodium products that taste sweet or salty while actually using less sugar or sodium in the product.
Does your Nestle Coffee-mate Pumpkin Spice refrigerated creamer taste more like autumn? Does your Maggi bouillon taste just like chicken? Thank Senomyx.
The laboratory-created artificial enhancers do not have to be tested at length by the FDA because the Senomyx chemical “flavor compounds are used in proportions less than one part per million” and can be classified as artificial flavors.
In 2005, Senomyx had contracts to develop products for Kraft Foods, Nestle, Campbell Soup and Coca-Cola. However, when it was discovered in 2011 that PepsiCo was using Senomyx to develop a reduced sugar beverage, a boycott ensued that caused Kraft-Cadbury Adams LLC and Campbell Soup cancelled their contracts with Senomyx. In a 2012 letter to Children of God for Life, PepsiCo stated, “Senomyx does not use HEK cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo.” To that effect, PepsiCo is working with Senomyx on two products developed with Sweetmyx 617, a new Senomyx sweet taste modifier.
In November 2018, the Swiss company Firmenich acquired Senomyx, Inc. Firmenich describes itself as “a global leader in taste innovation and expert in sweet, cooling and bitter solutions.”
The fountain of youth…is babies.
Commercially, it’s known as Processed Skin Proteins (PSP), developed at the University of Lausanne to heal burns and wounds by regenerating traumatized skin. The fetal skin cell line was taken from an electively aborted baby whose body was donated to the University.
Neocutis, a San Francisco-based firm, uses PSP in some of their anti-aging skin products. Their website claims the trademarked PSP “harnesses the power of Human Growth Factors, Interleukins and other Cytokines, to help deliver state-of-the-art skin revitalization.”
3. Vaccines and Medicine
The Vaccine Card at the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI) website lists over 21 vaccines and medical products that contain aborted fetal cell lines. The Card is updated yearly, and also lists ethical vaccine alternatives when there are any.
SCPI is a biomedical research organization headed by Theresa Deisher, who has a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford and 23 patents in the field to her name. Dr. Deisher, the first person to identify and patent stem cells from the adult heart, has an insiders understanding of genetic engineering having worked in the industry leaders such as Amgen, Genetech, and Repligen.
Among other things SCPI “promotes awareness about the widespread use of fetal human material in drug discovery, development and commercialization.”
No vaccine product is completely pure: “You will find contaminating DNA and cellular debris from the production cell in your final product. When we switch from using animal cells to using human cells we now have human DNA in our vaccines and our drugs.”
The problem is three-fold. Aborted fetal parts are used for experiments, aborted fetal cell lines are used, and fetal cellular DNA debris are in vaccines and medicines.
But it is not just human DNA that is left over, so are some of the chemical stabilizers that keep the product from degrading, as well as, stimulants to rev up the immune system.
“Vaccines are a virus that have been put into a vial, in a liquid, which is the buffer, which we call excipients, and companies have put in stabilizers so that the virus won’t degrade and other things that kind of rev up your immune system so that they can use lower amounts of the virus and have a greater profit margin. And immune stimulants are things like aluminum and thimerosal, they are stabilizers but they rev up the immunes system, so all of these things are in the final product, including contaminates from the cell lines that are used to manufacture the vaccines.”
Why aren’t the contaminates removed? Because nobody wants a pediatric vaccine that costs a few thousand dollars.
In finance, the yield is inversely related to the price. In chemistry, the yield is inversely related to purity. The price of inexpensive mass-produced vaccines is that the medical establishment accepts that the vaccines contain a high amount of fetal contaminates.
“[I]f they have purified out the containments from the cell lines, the yield would be so low that they wouldn’t make any money, or no one would pay a thousand dollars or ten thousand dollars for a vaccine. And so because of that case remnants from the cell lines, in that case, fetal cell lines are in the final product. And they are at actually very high levels. And in the chicken pox, the fetal DNA contaminates are present at twice the levels of the active ingredient which is Varicella DNA.”
The Fetal Tissue Marketplace
Much research is currently being done with fetal cells.
We know this because, for one, there’s a market for fetal parts. In a series of undercover videos, David Daleiden of The Center for Medical Progress exposed Planned Parenthood abortion clinics selling fetal parts to investigators posing as and medical researchers. And for his efforts his office was raided in 2016 by then California Attorney General Kamala Harris, now a Senator and 2020 Presidential Candidate Harris. Daleiden is currently being pursued in court by current California Attorney General, and former Democrat California Congressman, Xavier Becerra.
We already knew this was happening from the testimony of scientists themselves. On January 11, 2018, professor emeritus Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the lead developer of the Rubella vaccine for the Wistar Institute (Philadelphia) in the 1960s, was deposed as an expert witness on Vaccinology in a Michigan child custody case. Dr. Plotkin was asked how many aborted fetuses he has used in his experiments:
QUESTION: So in your, in all of your work related to vaccines throughout your whole career, you’ve only ever worked with two fetuses?
PLOTKIN: In terms of making vaccines, yes.
But after being presented with Exhibit 41 (Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine), the two fetuses involved in his experiment grows exponentially to 76 aborted fetuses.
QUESTION: So this study involved 74 fetuses, correct?
QUESTION: And these fetuses were all three months or older when aborted, correct? PLOTKIN: Yes.
A true enough response. Fetal cells, for that matter all normal cells, have a finite capacity to replicate following the principle of cellular aging. The vaccine trail needed many cell lines in order to achieve its end.
An interesting aside, during questioning Dr. Plotkin answered affirmatively that some of his subjects for experimental vaccine trials had been children of “mothers in prison,” the mentally ill, and “individuals under colonial rule” [Belgian Congo].
Dr. Theresa Deisher first became aware of the introduction of fresh aborted fetal material in drug discovery in 1996. Fresh fetal parts are a time-saver compared to the days spent washing and prepping animal tissue, like monkey hearts, for laboratory experiments. While it is not legal to sell aborted fetal tissue, it is still available in catalogues and comes with high prices for shipping and handling.
A Better Option
According to Dr. David A. Prentice Vice, President of the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Adjunct Professor of Molecular Genetics at the John Paul II Institute, adult stem cells are the benchmark for research that has led to actual cures for patients.
“The superiority of adult stem cells in the clinic and the mounting evidence supporting their effectiveness in regeneration and repair make adult stem cells the gold standard of stem cells for patients.”
Then why are we still using embryonic cell lines when adult stem cells have become the Gold Standard? There seems to be little excuse for products that use aborted fetuses.
U.S. Policy on Products That Use Aborted Fetuses
On the 20th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 1993, President Clinton signed five abortion-related memorandums which included the reversal of the George H. W. Bush era moratorium on creating new fetal tissue for research, claiming at the time that, “This moratorium has significantly hampered the development of possible treatments for individuals afflicted with serious diseases and disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes and leukemia.”
While a bio-ethics debate transfixed the country in 2006 as to whether the United States would allow the use of new aborted fetal stem cells in research, [see White House Fact Sheet on Stem Cell Research Policy], the medical research community had already decided that the future lay with human-animal hybrids and new aborted fetal cell lines. According to a statement submitted to the President’s Bioethics Council:
“Aborted human DNA in our vaccines is not the end, it is only the beginning, as the creation of human-animal hybrids demonstrates. A new aborted fetal cell line has been developed, called PerC6, and licenses have been taken by over 50 partners, including the NIH and the Walter Reed Army Institute, to use this cell line for new vaccine and biologics production. The goal of the company that created the PerC6 is to become the production cell line for ALL vaccines, therapeutics antibodies, biologic drugs and gene therapy.”
And this has largely come to pass.
In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services granted a second 90-day extension to a contract it has with the University of California at San Francisco that requires UCSF to make “humanized mice” for on-going AIDS research. The human fetal tissue comes from late-term abortions.
CNSNews reported that “according to an estimate it has published on its website, the National Institutes of Health (which is a division of HHS) will spend $95 million this fiscal year alone on research that–like UCSF’s “humanized mouse” contract–uses human fetal tissue.”
See here for news on how the Trump administration limited the sale of fetal parts.
Stop Ebola? Prevent Zika Virus? Cure AIDS? Look for more, not fewer, aborted fetal products in the future.
Writer Andrea Byrnes was the first producer of U.S. March for Life coverage at EWTN Global Catholic Network, which she continued to supervise for seven years. She attended her first HLI conference in 1989, where she first met Servant of God Dr. Jerome Lejeune. She and her husband would later pray for Lejeune’s intercession for her son’s health difficulties discovered before birth, and thanks be to God, he is thriving.
 Melanie Warner, “Pepsi’s Bizarro World: Boycotted Over Embryonic Cells Linked to Lo-Cal Soda.” CBS News Moneywatch. June 3, 2011.
 Theresa A. Deisher, Phd. “Testimony on Conscience Rights related to biologic drug disclosure and alternative drugs.” President’s Council on Bioethics Archive. Georgetown University. September 8, 2008.
 Theresa A. Deisher, Phd. “Testimony on Conscience Rights related to biologic drug disclosure and alternative drugs.” President’s Council on Bioethics Archive. Georgetown University. September 8, 2008.
 “Dr. Theresa Deisher Guelph, Ontario Canada June 23, 2018.” Vaccine Choice Canada published on YouTube. August 2, 2018.
 Robin Toner. “Settling In: Easing Abortion Policy; Clinton Orders Reversal of Abortion Restrictions Left By Reagan and Bush.” New York Times. January 23, 1993.
 Theresa A. Deisher, Phd. “Testimony on Conscience Rights related to biologic drug disclosure and alternative drugs.” President’s Council on Bioethics Archive. Georgetown University. September 8, 2008.
 Terence P. Jeffrey. “HHS Extends Contract to Make ‘Humanized Mice’ With Aborted Baby Parts for Another 90 Days.” CNSNews. March 1, 2019. 5:16 PM.
By Gareth Iacobucci British Medical Journal BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2086 (Published 20 August 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2086 Transparency advocates have criticised the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision not to hold a formal advisory committee meeting to discuss Pfizer’s application for full approval of its covid-19 vaccine. Last year the FDA […]
Today’s Situation Update podcast covers a lot of breaking news on world events, including:
China’s grain shortage and attempted famine cover-up
Espionage – high-level Chinese spy dumps dirt on corrupt US officials
The NSA seems to have declared war on the FBI as a “civil war” erupts inside the deep state swamp
13-Year-Old Boy Dies Three Days After Taking Second COVID Shot; the masses begin to awaken to vaccine dangers
American Airlines is canceling hundreds of flights a day as a 737 pilot shortage worsens… is it the vaccine?
US doctors are suffering under a trance of “mass hypnosis” warns Dr. Peter McCullogh
In addition, the last section of the podcast discusses the “what if” possibility that at least some covid vaccines may contain exotic technology that, once injected into the body, activates a self-assembly process to build a biocircuitry interface using elements from the victim’s own blood.
Although this sounds like science fiction, we seem to be living in a dystopian sci-fi scenario with biological weapons, magnetic nanoparticle “magnetofection” technology, Orwellian surveillance and all-out government propaganda to coerce everyone into taking a depopulation spike protein injection. (So don’t tell me ANY theory is “out there.”
This is 2021. Global depopulation extermination is under way. Our entire reality is now “out there.”) In addition, the Moderna company openly describes their vaccine injections as installing an “operating system,” which by definition means a platform to receive additional commands or instructions for execution. How are those commands received? From external electromagnetic waves?
Dr. Peter McCullogh has described vaccine-pushing doctors as being in a kind of mind-controlled trance. His exact words from a recent interview: (emphasis added)
What we have learned over time is that we could no longer communicate with government agencies. We actually couldn’t communicate with our propagandized colleagues in major medical centers, all of which appear to be under a spell, almost as if they’ve been hypnotized… Good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women. I think when these doctors wake up from their trance, they’re going to be shocked to think what they’ve done to people…
What if it isn’t a spell or a trance but rather a self-assembled, embedded biocircuit that has taken control over their neurology?
What if some vaccines are simple spike protein bioweapons injections, but other vaccines are designed to place people in a kind of “trance” where elements of their neurology are controlled through external signals and commands?
Never forget this published research: Superparamagnetic nanoparticle delivery of DNA vaccine. (PubMed link). It explains: The efficiency of delivery of DNA vaccines is often relatively low compared to protein vaccines. The use of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) to deliver genes via magnetofection shows promise in improving the efficiency of gene delivery both in vitro and in vivo.
That same study reveals the only two elements necessary to create “SPIONS” (magnetic nanoparticles) are Iron and Oxygen, both present in human blood: We describe the production of Fe3O4-based SPIONs with high magnetization values (70 emu/g) under 15 kOe of the applied magnetic field at room temperature… Polyethylenimine was chosen to modify the surface of SPIONs to assist the delivery of plasmid DNA into mammalian cells due to the polymer’s extensive buffering capacity through the “proton sponge” effect.
Although this isn’t the same as a self-assembling nanotech biocircuitry system, it hints at the existence of exotic technologies that are exploring such approaches to controlling neurology via external influences (such as electromagnetic fields).
If such technology exists and is being deployed right now, it would explain the seeming “hypnosis” or “trance” under which millions of people now seem to suffer as they continue to demand more bioweapons injections into children and pregnant women. Perhaps there is a simpler explanation, however.
Perhaps today’s doctors are just brainwashed, gullible cowards who care nothing if they harm or kill billions of people as long as they don’t lose their lucrative medical salaries.
Will people ever wake up from this trance and realize they’ve become vaccine murderers?
As I lay there on the cardboard that I had put down on the floor of the storage unit I had trouble holding back my tears. I knew that I had to put on a happy face because two beautiful young people needed to know that even though we were now homeless and living in a small storage container, having just moved out of the shelter, that we can never lose hope.
I knew that no matter what we were going through we could never fathom the idea of defeat nor surrender. Little did that mean to two little girls as they lay there on the cold hard ground wrapped up in the remnants of their only clothes we were able to grab when we were being evicted at gun point.
The thoughts of what kind of father am I to have my daughter’s sleeping in a cold storage unit when just a while ago they has their own rooms and their favorite toys and stuffed animals safely surrounding them as they lay sleeping.
My daughter’s grew to understand that in order to change the bad in the world we must sometimes make sacrifices. They saw that the people who took their childhood memories were also the same evil wicked beings that made a number of other elderly handicapped seniors homeless.
My name is Mr. Albert Robinson and I uncovered the longest running fraud scheme in the history of the U.S.
Because I reported it the people involved stole our home and my daughters’ memories but my hardest fight, the fight that I battle everyday, is the fight to never give up hope of bringing all of them to justice.
That is my quest and that is what the books and movie are going to be about.
Bill Maher stunned leftists into silence when he attacked them for pushing useless college degrees
June 9, 2021
Bill Maher used to be one of the most influential leftists in the Fake News Media.
But lately he has been sounding more like a conservative as the Left has become more radicalized.
And Bill Maher stunned leftists into silence when he attacked them for pushing useless college degrees.
Just a couple years ago, conservatives absolutely despised Bill Maher.
He is crude and speaks his mind, which used to be filled with nonsensical leftist rants.
Maher would always take cheap shots at Donald Trump’s rhetoric while ignoring his actual achievements and policy goals.
But something has changed recently.
His monologues have gone from promoting leftist causes to calling out their sacred cows.
And his latest monologue had leftists up in arms.
One of the Left’s most cherished institutions is higher education as they control the vast majority of colleges and universities in the country.
So when they heard Maher ripping colleges to shreds they weren’t happy.
Maher first started out by saying that Biden’s American Families Plan believes “that the more time humans spend in classrooms, staring at blackboards, the better.”
He then kicked it into high gear claiming “[l]iberals see more school the way Republicans see tax cuts – as the answer to everything. We imagine going to college as the way to fight income inequality, but actually, it does the reverse.”
He continued, “the unemployment rate of college grads is about half what it is for high school grads. Is it really liberal for someone who doesn’t go to college and makes less money to pay for people who do go and make more?”
Later on in his attack on the Left’s love obsession with higher education, Maher asked “[w]hy is China kicking our ass? Because in 2019, we issued more undergrad degrees in visual and performing arts than in computer and information science or math.”
You can see his full monologue below:
Maher didn’t disappoint with this rant that had leftists’ heads exploding.
Man-monkey hybrid sparks fears of ‘Frankenstein’ creatures
Photo by: Deborah Williams In this undated photo provided by Deborah Williams, a Vervet monkey is seen in Dania Beach, Fla. Williams, is the lead author of a study that determined where a colony of monkeys that has lived for about 70 years in urban South Florida came from. In 1948 a group of monkeys escaped from the Dania Chimpanzee Farm. Most were captured, but some disappeared into the mangrove swamp. The study determined that 41 descendants live in the area today. (Deborah Williams via AP) FILE
By Ryan Lovelace – The Washington Times – Wednesday, June 2, 2021
Researchers conducting human-animal hybrid experiments struck fear into federal lawmakers worried that nightmare scenarios of Frankenstein creatures have become a reality.
Earlier this year, researchers announced a blending of man and monkey.
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, said in April that it participated with a China-led research team in an experiment by injecting human stem cells into monkey embryos. They allowed the resulting creature to live and grow for 19 days before terminating it. The researchers responsible for the technology used in the experiment said their work aided the study of embryonic development.
Sen. Mike Braun, Indiana Republican, said he is worried that such human-animal hybrid experiments will cross ethical boundaries and contravene the dignity and sanctity of human life.
“I mean, any of us could speculate on kind of the Frankenstein concept, let’s put it that way, which that was being referred to as in terms of what this leads to,” Mr. Braun said. “I don’t know. I think that I do believe that there’s a genuine interest in taking so much that we’ve learned through DNA analysis, understanding the genome of not only human beings but other animals, that there’s going to be that [temptation] contagion to go beyond maybe, just the altruistic effort of finding cures for very, very vexing ailments like ALS, like Alzheimer’s, like any of the diseases that are out there that are significant, that we’re not even to the point where we know exactly what causes it, let alone cures.”
Mr. Braun and fellow Republicans seek to outlaw chimeras involving the blending of human embryos with animal wombs and animal embryos with human wombs.
Now that a “chimera” is no longer an ancient mythological creature having parts of a lion, goat and serpent, but an actual human-animal hybrid, Republican lawmakers want to establish baselines for American research rooted in a belief in the dignity of human life.
Mr. Braun and Sens. James Lankford of Oklahoma and Steve Daines of Montana sought to amend the Senate’s massive research and development spending bill last week to block certain human-animal chimeras, but the amendment failed by a 48-49 vote along party lines. Three senators did not vote.
Two absent Republicans — Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — could not have changed the outcome, Mr. Braun said. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, would have blocked a vote on the amendment or ensured that Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who also did not vote, would have joined the rest of the Democratic Caucus, he said.
Mr. Lankford said he thought blocking human-animal blending ought to have passed by a voice vote and was shocked to find Democratic opposition.
“We thought it was important to be able to put a stake in the ground and say, ‘No. The United States does not believe it is right to be able to do the blending of animals and humans for experimentation or to try to develop that and ultimately, as China’s on a path to be able to do, to try to implant and grow to a child,’” said Mr. Lankford. “That’s an entirely different direction.”
Mr. Braun, Mr. Lankford, five other senators, and 25 House members led by Rep. Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican, wrote to the National Institutes of Health last week to raise concerns on the chimera research and request details about any ethical analysis the federal agency is pursuing.
The NIH did not respond to the lawmakers but has sponsored a review of ethical questions involving human-animal chimeras. The NIH and the Dana Foundation funded a study published in April by an ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to examine the ethical, regulatory and scientific issues associated with neural chimeras and neural organoid research.
The ad hoc committee included a member from the Salk Institute, which participated in the human-animal hybrid experiment. Another Salk Institute researcher oversaw the study. The report concluded that human-animal hybrid experimentation held potential benefits, but researchers should use words that do not attract the general public’s attention.
“The term ‘chimera’ is used because it is scientifically accurate, and the committee believes that its connection with the monsters of ancient myths is too remote to warrant avoiding its use,” said the report, titled “Emerging Field of Human Neural Organoids, Transplants, and Chimeras: Science, Ethics, and Governance.” “Research scientists and their institutional representatives can be cautioned to avoid terminology that may court attention but does their work a disservice by stimulating concerns that go far beyond the current state of the science.”
NIH did not answer The Washington Times’ questions about the study it sponsored, but an NIH spokesperson noted in an email the moratorium on federal funding involving chimera research.
The report avoided making recommendations but listed findings of potential benefits of chimera research to include knowledge of brain diseases that had potential application in the treatments of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, psychiatric diseases and other ailments.
The report said some studies of human-animal hybrid experimentation surrounding the brain, involving neural chimeras, created concerns about “animals acquiring attributes that could be viewed as distinctly human, or humans taking on roles that should be reserved for a deity.”
Republican lawmakers who are worried about human-animal hybrids say scientists should not play God. Mr. Lankford said scientific experimentation on animals is one matter but attempting to create new forms of life goes too far.
“There’s a real difference in taking human cells and injecting them into a mouse for cancer research and for other research. That’s been done, and it’s been done for a very long time, and we’ve had time to be able to process that,” said Mr. Lankford. “But trying to be able to create life is a very different threshold for me.”
Democrats say Republican opponents of the experiments are following ideology instead of science. Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat who spoke on the Senate floor last week, said Republican efforts to outlaw chimera research undermine the development of treatments and lifesaving organ transplants.
“If we are serious about bipartisan commitment to American innovation, we’ve got to stop these ideological attacks on medical research and focus on the science and ultimately the health of our patients,” Ms. Murray said.
Mr. Braun, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Daines and Republican Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma proposed the failed amendment outlawing certain chimeras.
Mr. Braun said he does not expect Democrats controlling the Senate to allow the legislation to advance.
If he gets the opportunity, he said, he expects pro-life advocates to help draw attention to the issue of human-animal blending. Senators have touted support for their actions from pro-life advocates at the Family Research Council, the Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and others.
Mr. Braun said he does not expect the Biden administration to listen to his concerns as the NIH reviews restrictions and developments for chimera research, but he wants the agency to know that some lawmakers are watching their moves closely.
It is no understatement to say that the covid 19 phenomenon has been the most momentous event of the 21st century. Bigger even than 911 of 2001, due to its worldwide scope and universal intrusion into the lives of the global population. The world has been forced to conform to its dictates of mask wearing, social distancing and lockdowns, and redefining how we relate to each other on a personal level (for example precluding such basic established human behavior as handshakes). It has effected every aspect of our lives. So its much bigger in scope than the 911 psy-op. 911 was social engineering applied primarily to the US. Covid 19 represents social engineering on a global scale.
And yet the immensity of the event has very little to do with the size of the covid disease threat itself, which in the scheme of the history of pandemics, is not really…
The odds of the Senate approving the legislation expanding background checks passed by the House earlier this year was never good. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia had already said he wasn’t in favor, and there aren’t ten Republican votes in the Senate to pass the bills, much less eleven, which would be the magic number since Manchin’s not on board. Instead, Joe Biden has been betting that talks between GOP senators like John Cornyn of Texas and Chris Murphy of Connecticut would lead to some sort of compromise bill that could get 60 votes in favor, but the Wall Street Journal is throwing some cold water on that idea.
“Progress would probably be overstating it,” Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who has been a key part of the discussions, said of the group’s efforts. Mr. Toomey said that while he might be able to reach a deal with Democrats, he was skeptical they could find nine other GOP votes in the evenly divided Senate. “It’s not clear to me that we get 60 at this point,” he said.
Lawmakers said the recent discussions have centered on expanding background checks to all commercial sales, the focus of 2013 legislation from Mr. Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.). The Senate narrowly blocked that bill, which would have expanded background checks to all commercial sales, including all sales advertised online and at gun shows. Currently, the checks are needed only for sales by federally licensed dealers.
Democrats said they weren’t ready to call a halt to their efforts. Still, at some point, they will have to decide whether to bring legislation to the floor for a vote, even if it hasn’t secured enough support to pass. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has said that the chamber may hold a vote on gun legislation this month. Others involved in the talks said that could slip until later this summer as negotiations continue.