Home

COVID-19 Vaccine Makers Using Aborted Fetal Cells

Leave a comment

 

COGFORLIFE.ORG

For the second time in less than a week, Children of God for Life is calling out the pharmaceutical industry for the use of aborted fetal cell lines in potential Covid-19 vaccines.

On March 25th, the organization exposed Moderna’s use of the aborted fetal cell line HEK 293.

This time it’s Janssen Pharmaceutical, owned by Johnson and Johnson, that is using their PER C6 Ad5 technology, derived from an aborted baby’s retinal tissue. Dr. Alex van der Eb revealed the information on this abortion at FDA hearings in 2001:

So I isolated retina from a fetus, from a healthy fetus as far as could be seen, of 18 weeks old. There was nothing special with a family history or the pregnancy was completely normal up to the 18 weeks, and it turned out to be a socially indicated abortus – abortus provocatus, and that was simply because the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus… what was written down was unknown father, and that was, in fact, the reason why the abortion was requested.”

Adding insult to injury, Dr. van der Eb went on to admit:

PER C6 was made just for pharmaceutical manufacturing of adenovirus vectors… And then pharmaceutical industry standard. I realize that this sounds a bit commercial, but PER C6 were made for that particular purpose.”

Not only are there moral problems with using aborted fetal cells, but the PER C6 Ad5 technology also has safety concerns that have been raised with the FDA as well. More

USDA Makes GMOs Disappear

Leave a comment

Alliance for Natural Health USA

The Pulse of Natural Health Newsletter

Stay informed about what is hot in Washington and the states about natural health

It’s official: the “mandatory” GMO labeling rule will obscure more than it makes transparent. Action Alert!

The USDA has released its final GMO labeling rule, and it’s not good. As we feared when the agency released its proposal earlier this year, the so-called GMO labeling law will apply only to a narrow set of foods. Congress and the USDA have offered a number of loopholes and exemptions to food companies, undermining any semblance of a consumer’s right to know. It’s as if the USDA asked the food industry to write the rule themselves.

The problems start right at the foundation. The agency has decided to use the term “bioengineered”—a term many Americans may not be familiar with—rather than GMO. When the proposal was released, we pointed out that this is straight out of an Orwellian playbook. Many Americans know the term “GMO” and can connect it to the labeling debate—so the government decides to use a different term that sounds more innocuous. If the government was actually concerned with communicating information clearly to consumers, they would simply use the term “GMO” and not other terminology with which Americans may not be familiar.

The problems continue with the definition of “bioengineered.” The final rule defines bioengineered as a food that 1) contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques and 2) for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature”—essentially, combining DNA from two different sources, usually two different organisms.

More

%d bloggers like this: