- Nov 11, 2003
- 7,172
- 620
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Hells Pharmacy - Part Two
Joseph Herrin (08-20-09)
Pictured Above: Pharmaceutical Parts Supplier
(Organs; eyes, kidneys, lungs harvested to produce biological material for vaccines.)
It is not hyperbole, sensationalism, or exaggeration to suggest that the worlds largest pharmaceutical companies are using body parts from babies to develop their vaccines. They are then injecting these vaccines that contain the infants DNA into millions of men, women and children, telling them that it will be of great benefit to them.
In part one of this series, found here:
parablesblog: Hells Pharmacy
it was shown that a number of suppliers of Swine Flu vaccine who are under contract to the World Health Organization and the United States government, are developing their vaccines using cell lines developed from aborted babies. In particular, the company Crucell and their cell line PER.C6 were examined. As I have looked further into this subject I have found that this is not a new practice, and to the horror of many, they may discover in this writing that they, or their children, have already received vaccines that were developed from the cells of aborted babies.
In part one of this series I stated that the actions of these companies is sinister and macabre. A standard English dictionary defines the word macabre as:
Macabre: gruesome and horrifying; ghastly; horrible; of, pertaining to, dealing with, or representing death, especially its grimmer or uglier aspect.
In the year 1729, Jonathan Swift wrote a satirical essay titled, A Modest Proposal. The subtitle read, For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public.
What Jonathan Swift proposed in this writing is that the impoverished Irish population might ease their suffering by selling their children to the nobility and the rich. What would the nobility and rich do with these children? They would eat them.
Swifts writing has a shock value because it begins as a very serious piece, describing the impoverished conditions of the poor in Ireland. Then, out of the blue, he suggests his solution to this social dilemma. A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.
One deceit used by Swift to make his macabre proposal sound reasonable, is to describe the Irish infants using the language of animal husbandry. In doing so, he makes them appear less than human.
Once the children have been commoditized, Swifts rhetoric can easily turn "people into animals, then meat, and from meat, logically, into tonnage worth a price per pound."
[Source: A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
What Jonathan Swift did in a work of fiction, America, her government, the medical community, and pharmaceutical corporations have done in reality. They have for years labored to describe a baby in the womb as less than human. John Holdren, an appointee of President Barack Obama, in a book titled Human Ecology, Problems and Solutions, made the following shocking statement:
The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.
People of God, Jonathan Swift may well have used the same title for his satirical work as John Holdren, Human Ecology, Problems and Solutions. Shockingly, however, John Holdrens work was not intended as satire. He was being absolutely serious. The book from which this quote was taken was published the same year that Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. Like the Supreme Court, Holdren used language to describe the unborn baby as less than human, calling it the fetus.
God declares the baby growing in the womb to be much more than a medical pseudonym for a piece of tissue.
Psalms 139:13
For You did form my inward parts; You did weave me in my mother's womb.
Isaiah 44:2
Thus says Yahweh who made you and formed you from the womb, who will help you...
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you...
Yahweh, the God of all creation, declares that He knows the person from the very time in which they are being formed in the womb. Before we are fully formed, He declares that He knows us. Yet man, in his perversity, has described the child growing in the womb as less than human. Barack Obamas TOP science advisor has written and published his own view that a baby will ultimately become a human being if it is given the chance to develop normally in the womb and is then provided years of proper socialization and nourishment.
I can tell you clearly where such reasoning leads, right back to the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. Note that John Holdren does not say that a baby becomes a human being at a certain age. He says that it must be socialized properly to be categorized as a human being. This leads directly to the ultimate result that some men, women and children will be declared less than human if they do not pass the governmental test for proper socialization. If you or I believe, or behave in a manner, contrary to what the government declares to be proper social behavior, we will fall into the category of being sub-human. If you are not human, then it is not murder to kill you.
Do you think this logic sounds extreme? It is the same logic that has been used to justify the slaughter of over 50 million babies in America during the last 36 years. By declaring them less than human, the government has declared it to not be a criminal act to murder a baby while it is in its mothers womb. For much of this time, they have even declared that it is not murder to kill a baby after it exits the womb, as long as the head has not been fully withdrawn. (Or in the case of a breech birth, the baby has not exited the womb further than its navel) This has led to the horrific practice of partial birth abortion, a form of abortion that Barack Obama supports.
Congress twice sought to ban this type of abortion, passing laws against it in 1995 and 1997, but President Clinton vetoed the legislation both times. In 2003 the Supreme Court upheld a ban on the procedure based on the argument that A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. However, there are loopholes in their ruling, and with new appointments to the Supreme Court it is only a matter of time before even this gruesome and inhumane procedure is once more permissible as the law of the land.
By referring to the baby with the scientific terminology, those favoring abortion have employed the same tactics used by Jonathan Swift in A Modest Proposal. They have given people reason to view a child in the womb as something other than a human being. Jonathan Swift suggested that Irish infants should be viewed as merely animals to be harvested for their meat. The government, scientific community, abortion proponents, and medical and pharmaceutical industry have described infants as merely biological tissue and have thereby dehumanized them.
We see now that Barack Obama has given top appointments to those who would go even further in suggesting that a child is not even human after it has been born. It must be properly nourished and socialized for years before being determined to be human. The abominations this type of reasoning will lead to will be seen in the near future.
It is this same perverse and macabre logic that has led to the government awarding contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines that are derived from the organs and cells of aborted babies. In many cases the government has already demonstrated that they will not shrink from declaring such vaccines mandatory. They have been mandatory for years in order for children to attend the public school systems. The following excerpt is taken from the website of the national Right To Life organization.
Cell Lines Originating from Aborted Babies
There are two particular fetal cell lines that have been heavily used in vaccine development. They are named according to the laboratory facilities where they were developed. One cell line is known as WI-38, developed at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA. The other is MRC-5, developed for the Medical Research Council in England. WI-38 was developed by Dr. Leonard Hayflick in 1962, by taking lung cells from an aborted female baby at approximately the end of the third month of pregnancy.
Dr. Hayflicks article published in the scientific journal, Experimental Cell Research states that three cell lines, WI-26, WI-38, WI-44 were all developed from aborted babies. All embryos were obtained from surgical abortions and were of approximately three months gestation. In another journal article (American Journal of Diseases of Childhood) from an international conference on Rubella, Dr. Stanley Plotkin who developed a Rubella vaccine using WI-38, addressed a question as to the origin of WI-38.
Dr. Plotkin stated, This fetus was chosen by Dr. Sven Gard, specifically for this purpose. Both parents are known, and unfortunately for the story, they are married to each other, still alive and well, and living in Stockholm, presumably. The abortion was done because they felt they had too many children. There were no familial diseases in the history of either parent, and no history of cancer specifically in the families.
The origin of the MCR-5 cell line, created in 1966, is documented in an article in the journal Nature by three British researchers working at the National Institute for Medical Research. J.P. Jacobs, et. al. write, We have developed another strain of cells, also derived from foetal lung tissue, taken from a 14-week male foetus removed for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old woman with a genetically normal family history and no sign of neoplastic disease both at abortion and for at least three years afterward...
Hells Pharmacy - Part Two
Joseph Herrin (08-20-09)
Pictured Above: Pharmaceutical Parts Supplier
(Organs; eyes, kidneys, lungs harvested to produce biological material for vaccines.)
It is not hyperbole, sensationalism, or exaggeration to suggest that the worlds largest pharmaceutical companies are using body parts from babies to develop their vaccines. They are then injecting these vaccines that contain the infants DNA into millions of men, women and children, telling them that it will be of great benefit to them.
In part one of this series, found here:
parablesblog: Hells Pharmacy
it was shown that a number of suppliers of Swine Flu vaccine who are under contract to the World Health Organization and the United States government, are developing their vaccines using cell lines developed from aborted babies. In particular, the company Crucell and their cell line PER.C6 were examined. As I have looked further into this subject I have found that this is not a new practice, and to the horror of many, they may discover in this writing that they, or their children, have already received vaccines that were developed from the cells of aborted babies.
In part one of this series I stated that the actions of these companies is sinister and macabre. A standard English dictionary defines the word macabre as:
Macabre: gruesome and horrifying; ghastly; horrible; of, pertaining to, dealing with, or representing death, especially its grimmer or uglier aspect.
In the year 1729, Jonathan Swift wrote a satirical essay titled, A Modest Proposal. The subtitle read, For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public.
What Jonathan Swift proposed in this writing is that the impoverished Irish population might ease their suffering by selling their children to the nobility and the rich. What would the nobility and rich do with these children? They would eat them.
Swifts writing has a shock value because it begins as a very serious piece, describing the impoverished conditions of the poor in Ireland. Then, out of the blue, he suggests his solution to this social dilemma. A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.
One deceit used by Swift to make his macabre proposal sound reasonable, is to describe the Irish infants using the language of animal husbandry. In doing so, he makes them appear less than human.
Once the children have been commoditized, Swifts rhetoric can easily turn "people into animals, then meat, and from meat, logically, into tonnage worth a price per pound."
[Source: A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
What Jonathan Swift did in a work of fiction, America, her government, the medical community, and pharmaceutical corporations have done in reality. They have for years labored to describe a baby in the womb as less than human. John Holdren, an appointee of President Barack Obama, in a book titled Human Ecology, Problems and Solutions, made the following shocking statement:
The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.
People of God, Jonathan Swift may well have used the same title for his satirical work as John Holdren, Human Ecology, Problems and Solutions. Shockingly, however, John Holdrens work was not intended as satire. He was being absolutely serious. The book from which this quote was taken was published the same year that Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. Like the Supreme Court, Holdren used language to describe the unborn baby as less than human, calling it the fetus.
God declares the baby growing in the womb to be much more than a medical pseudonym for a piece of tissue.
Psalms 139:13
For You did form my inward parts; You did weave me in my mother's womb.
Isaiah 44:2
Thus says Yahweh who made you and formed you from the womb, who will help you...
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you...
Yahweh, the God of all creation, declares that He knows the person from the very time in which they are being formed in the womb. Before we are fully formed, He declares that He knows us. Yet man, in his perversity, has described the child growing in the womb as less than human. Barack Obamas TOP science advisor has written and published his own view that a baby will ultimately become a human being if it is given the chance to develop normally in the womb and is then provided years of proper socialization and nourishment.
I can tell you clearly where such reasoning leads, right back to the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. Note that John Holdren does not say that a baby becomes a human being at a certain age. He says that it must be socialized properly to be categorized as a human being. This leads directly to the ultimate result that some men, women and children will be declared less than human if they do not pass the governmental test for proper socialization. If you or I believe, or behave in a manner, contrary to what the government declares to be proper social behavior, we will fall into the category of being sub-human. If you are not human, then it is not murder to kill you.
Do you think this logic sounds extreme? It is the same logic that has been used to justify the slaughter of over 50 million babies in America during the last 36 years. By declaring them less than human, the government has declared it to not be a criminal act to murder a baby while it is in its mothers womb. For much of this time, they have even declared that it is not murder to kill a baby after it exits the womb, as long as the head has not been fully withdrawn. (Or in the case of a breech birth, the baby has not exited the womb further than its navel) This has led to the horrific practice of partial birth abortion, a form of abortion that Barack Obama supports.
Congress twice sought to ban this type of abortion, passing laws against it in 1995 and 1997, but President Clinton vetoed the legislation both times. In 2003 the Supreme Court upheld a ban on the procedure based on the argument that A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. However, there are loopholes in their ruling, and with new appointments to the Supreme Court it is only a matter of time before even this gruesome and inhumane procedure is once more permissible as the law of the land.
By referring to the baby with the scientific terminology, those favoring abortion have employed the same tactics used by Jonathan Swift in A Modest Proposal. They have given people reason to view a child in the womb as something other than a human being. Jonathan Swift suggested that Irish infants should be viewed as merely animals to be harvested for their meat. The government, scientific community, abortion proponents, and medical and pharmaceutical industry have described infants as merely biological tissue and have thereby dehumanized them.
We see now that Barack Obama has given top appointments to those who would go even further in suggesting that a child is not even human after it has been born. It must be properly nourished and socialized for years before being determined to be human. The abominations this type of reasoning will lead to will be seen in the near future.
It is this same perverse and macabre logic that has led to the government awarding contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines that are derived from the organs and cells of aborted babies. In many cases the government has already demonstrated that they will not shrink from declaring such vaccines mandatory. They have been mandatory for years in order for children to attend the public school systems. The following excerpt is taken from the website of the national Right To Life organization.
Cell Lines Originating from Aborted Babies
There are two particular fetal cell lines that have been heavily used in vaccine development. They are named according to the laboratory facilities where they were developed. One cell line is known as WI-38, developed at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA. The other is MRC-5, developed for the Medical Research Council in England. WI-38 was developed by Dr. Leonard Hayflick in 1962, by taking lung cells from an aborted female baby at approximately the end of the third month of pregnancy.
Dr. Hayflicks article published in the scientific journal, Experimental Cell Research states that three cell lines, WI-26, WI-38, WI-44 were all developed from aborted babies. All embryos were obtained from surgical abortions and were of approximately three months gestation. In another journal article (American Journal of Diseases of Childhood) from an international conference on Rubella, Dr. Stanley Plotkin who developed a Rubella vaccine using WI-38, addressed a question as to the origin of WI-38.
Dr. Plotkin stated, This fetus was chosen by Dr. Sven Gard, specifically for this purpose. Both parents are known, and unfortunately for the story, they are married to each other, still alive and well, and living in Stockholm, presumably. The abortion was done because they felt they had too many children. There were no familial diseases in the history of either parent, and no history of cancer specifically in the families.
The origin of the MCR-5 cell line, created in 1966, is documented in an article in the journal Nature by three British researchers working at the National Institute for Medical Research. J.P. Jacobs, et. al. write, We have developed another strain of cells, also derived from foetal lung tissue, taken from a 14-week male foetus removed for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old woman with a genetically normal family history and no sign of neoplastic disease both at abortion and for at least three years afterward...
