J & J Ranch, Stone Mtn, GA

Taking a Ride on Life's Journey

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 […]

via Covfefe, Little Rocket Man and ‘Stable Genius’: A Year of Trumpisms — Astute News

September 1, 2018

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 […]

Shocking Conclusions from Africa Study Expose Why Big Pharma’s Puppets are Suppressing Ivermectin Data — The Most Revolutionary Act
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. USFSIS footer logo Stay Connected:     Twitter Link YouTube Link Flickr Photo Stream Facebook Link LinkedIn Link Pinterest Link GovDelivery Link RSS Feed Blog Link 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 GovDelivery logo

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!

Well it is:

From:  https://extension.psu.edu/cell-culture-technology-and-potential-impacts-on-livestock-production

  • Home |
  • 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.

Photo by Rob Gonyea from FreeImages

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.

Actions Taken

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.

Bottom of Form

Products That Use Aborted Fetuses

by Andrea Byrnes

https://onemoresoul.com/news-commentary/products-that-use-aborted-fetuses.html

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.

there are some products that use aborted fetuses

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?

nestle coffee creamer

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).[1] 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.[2]

In 2005, Senomyx had contracts to develop products for Kraft Foods, Nestle, Campbell Soup and Coca-Cola.[3] 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.”[4] To that effect, PepsiCo is working with Senomyx on two products developed with Sweetmyx 617, a new Senomyx sweet taste modifier.[5]

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.”

2. Cosmetics

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.[6]

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.[7]

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.”[8]

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.”[9]

Why aren’t the contaminates removed? Because nobody wants a pediatric vaccine that costs a few thousand dollars.[10]

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.”[11]

The Fetal Tissue Marketplace

Much research is currently being done with fetal cells.

scientific instruments

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.[12] 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.[13] 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?

PLOTKIN: Seventy-six.

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.[14] 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.”[15]

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

Bill Clinton signing document
President Bill Clinton

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.”[16]

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.”[17]

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.”[18]

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.

Notes

[1] Melanie Warner, “Pepsi’s Bizarro World: Boycotted Over Embryonic Cells Linked to Lo-Cal Soda.” CBS News Moneywatch. June 3, 2011.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-bizarro-world-boycotted-over-embryonic-cells-linked-to-lo-cal-soda/

[2] Melanie Warner, “Food Companies Test Flavorings That Can Mimic Sugar, Salt or MSG” New York Times. April 6, 2005.

[3] Melanie Warner, “Food Companies Test Flavorings That Can Mimic Sugar, Salt or MSG” New York Times. April 6, 2005.

[4] PepsiCo to Debi Vinnedge Executive Director, Children of God for Life. April 26, 2012.

[5] Christ Young, “San Diego Company’s New ‘Sweetness Enhancer’ Draws Scrunity.” Inewsource. KPBS.Org. October 8, 2015

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/oct/08/san-diego-companys-new-sweetness-enhancer-draws-sc/

[6] Valerie Robinson, “Aborted fetus cells used in beauty creams.” The Washington Times. November 3, 2009.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/3/aborted-fetus-cells-used-in-anti-aging-products/

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] “Dr. Theresa Deisher Guelph, Ontario Canada June 23, 2018.” Vaccine Choice Canada published on YouTube. August 2, 2018.

[10] The National Vaccine Injury Act was signed in 1986 so that manufactures wouldn’t raise the price of vaccines due to injury lawsuits. Robert Pear, “Reagan Signs Bill on Drug Exports and Payment for Vaccine Injuries.” New York Times. November 15, 1986. https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/15/us/reagan-signs-bill-on-drug-exports-and-payment-for-vaccine-injuries.html

[11] “Dr. Theresa Deisher Guelph, Ontario Canada June 23, 2018.” Vaccine Choice Canada published on YouTube. August 2, 2018.

[12] Paige St. John. “Kamala Harris’ support for Planned Parenthood draws fire after raid on anti-abortion activist. Los Angeles Times. April 7, 2016.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-kamala-harris-planned-parenthood-20160407-story.html

[13] DEPOSITION OF STANLEY A. PLOTKIN, M.D.CASE # 2015-831539-DM, JANUARY 11, 2018, COUNTY OF OAKLAND CIRCUIT COURT, FAMILY DIVISION, MICHIGAN. Ricardo Beas — RBWorks© — Natural Law Church of Health and Healing© © Common Law Copyright – All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice.

http://www.cafepeyote.com/files/Plotkin_Deposition_-_Summary.pdf

“King of Vaccines Comes Clean!” The HighWire with Del Bigtree. Youtube. Published. January 17, 2009.

[14] Dr. Theresa Deisher: Moral Vaccine Development. Saint Michael Broadcasting. YouTube. Published March 5, 2011.

[15] Wesley J. Smith. “Adult Stem Cells Now the “Gold Standard.” National Review. March 15, 2019. 2:40 PM.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/adult-stem-cells-now-the-gold-standard/

[16] Robin Toner. “Settling In: Easing Abortion Policy; Clinton Orders Reversal of Abortion Restrictions Left By Reagan and Bush.” New York Times. January 23, 1993.

[17] 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.

[18] 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.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-extends-contract-make-humanized-mice-aborted-baby-parts-another?fbclid=IwAR0NpDMb6W3BVweC0-H4TUza6Ix2aMyjoTn6cOvSmJ9e0YfLk7C6WLueqMwTags: baby body partsstem cell research

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 […]

Covid-19: FDA Set to Grant Full Approval to Pfizer Vaccine Without Public Discussion of Data — The Most Revolutionary Act

To Comply, or Note Comply, that is the question…

To comply, or not to Comply, That should not be the question

COVID TESTERS DON’T GET COVID, DON’T HAVE TO QUARANTINE!!!

Covid Testers Never Quarantine

WE’RE LIVING IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE!!!

We’re Living in the Twilight Zone!!!

Peer Pressure!

Peer Pressure

Protecting Cashiers Everywhere

Cashiers
Biden Harris Team Plans

Riddle of the Week… Great Work1

Biggest Riddle of All Time…

Do covid vaccines contain nanoparticles that self-assemble to build a biocircuitry “operating system” to control your moods and thoughts?

By healthranger // 2021-06-22

https://www.afinalwarning.com/529750.html

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…

Here’s the video where he states this: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/58437760-a8fa-4872-9ad9-0bbba33e5a95

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?

Nobody knows… Learn more in today’s bombshell Situation Update podcast: Brighteon.com/41404368-f451-4c8a-b16b-7d158a81d317 https://www.brighteon.com/embed/41404368-f451-4c8a-b16b-7d158a81d317

Find a new podcast each weekday at: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport

https://www.pexels.com/@kindelmedia

Section 23 Fraud Scheme <section23fraudcase@gmail.com>Stored with zero-access encryption

Inbox 9:57 AMTo:

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.


Thank you. Happy Father’s Day.

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.

Zurcher Farms

Just a Farmer & Farmher, inspiring others to live the homesteading dream!

DogsRealty.com

For Dog Lovers Only

Best Dog Training Tips & Tricks

Dog Training Guidance

Tactical Panda’s Bullet Points

Where we keep you up to date with the latest information in the 2A community!

FightForeclosure.net

Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!

Journey of a reformed man

Change is possible

depolreablesunite

Where Deplorables Hang Out

Benchwarmers

Covering U.S. Federal Appellate Courts

Red Wolves

an animal's eyes can speak a great language

save the wolves!

by not killing them.

Save the Wolves

you reap what sow

Wolf4life

Save The Wolves

Protect The Wolves

Help Protect YOUR Wolves

BlueFeatherSpirit

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money can not be eaten."

Save the wolves

Merry Christmas! @SaveTheWolves

%d bloggers like this: