Friday, April 18, 2014

Abortion and vaccines (Part 3)

Vaccines used as abortifacients – for birth control (culling the herd)?!

Margaret Sander advocated for abortion and contraception as a way of culling the “herd” of those she deemed undesirable – the poor, minorities, and those with any form of disability.

Since the 1973 there have been efforts at creating vaccines that can be used as “birth control” … but they target beta-HCG, a sub-unit of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin, a hormone that helps support and maintain pregnancy prior to development of the placenta – in other words, after conception of a new and unique human being.

During the 1990's allegations were made that a vaccine against b-HCG was tested in the Philippines, Mexico, Nicaragua – on poor women of color, without their knowledge or consent.

Another target of vaccination as contraception was sperm … with the vaccine to be given to the **woman** of course! The developer of this contraceptive “option” was clear that it's primary target was LDC's (“less developed countries”, a more politically correct term for those Margaret Sanger and her ilk would like to see less of); Chinese researchers worked with Dr. Herr at the University of Virginia in his efforts to create this vaccine – and China's human rights abuses
in the area of “family planning” are well documented.

At a TED talk in ~2010 Bill Gates was quoted as saying vaccines, along with reproductive health care (abortion and birth control) and health care would be useful in reducing population/population growth – the quote was in the context of lower CO2 levels because 
there would be fewer people breathing and using energy. Many who question vaccines 
jumped on this and made the assumption that he wants to use vaccines to either reduce or prevent population growth. I think what he left unsaid (and meant to say) is that one reason parents want children is to support and care for them in their old age, and where infant
mortality is high, parents will have more children in the hopes that some will survive. 
Mr. Gates' statement in the TED talk was very truncated and did not convey his belief that vaccines will prevent infant deaths/increase child survival, and hence lead to people having fewer children because they are more confident their children will survive.

Rather than attempting to increase child survival with injections, a far simpler approach (and one that will help not just children, but everyone) is to make improvements in public health infrastructure – clean water, sanitation (isolating human waste from water sources), and wider availability of energy for refrigeration and cooking.

We are designed to live in freedom … regardless of our skin color/ethnicity, etc.
Economic development generally preceeds spontaneously falling birth rates, but
few seem as committed to helping “LDC's” develop their economies to achieve

It stems from a mind-set of viewing people as the problem rather than acknowledging that people (all of us, 100%) have a problem – called sin, and the solution to sin is the cross of Jesus Christ. But that would also require acknowledging The Creator of us all … Who gave us a mandate to fill the world, and care for it – but if you worship creation instead of The Creator, caring for the world means eliminating people. The ultimate vaccine against people is the 
mindset that people are the problem - this belief drives the motivation to continue creating 
all manner of ways to stop their birth. 

No one should be forced or coerced or manipulated into accepting a vaccine.
The use of coercion in birth control programs (and vaccination) is well documented and 
on-going, and targets the poor and people of color (well, at least abortion and birth 
control - vaccination is equal opportunity and targets us all).

Post-abortion resources for help/healing:

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Abortion and vaccines (Part 2)

DNA from aborted babies in vaccines

There are several vaccines that are manufactured using cell lines from aborted babies (Varivax, Pentacel – among others).

MRC-5 is a fetal cell line (lung, fibroblast) derived from a normal male human aborted in 1966 in England (MRC = Medical Research Council, of the United Kingdom/England;

WI-38 is a fetal cell line (lung) from an electively aborted female baby of about
4 months gestation in Sweden. (WI = Wistar Institute of Philadelphia PA);

PER C6 is a cell line begun in 1985, derived from a retinal cell from a baby electively aborted at 18 weeks. (page 91); 
I think PER.C6 stands for Primary Embryonic Retinal Cell 6, though I was not able to 
confirm this. 

One of the primary reasons this writer holds the opinion that vaccine use should be voluntary and not compulsory (for anyone, child or adult) is that there are too many instances in medical care where people have suffered because we charged ahead with an intervention/procedure (based on theory) only to find out later that the theory was not correct and the intervention had unintended (adverse) effects. I think that is true for vaccines – those who are confident in their safety and efficacy should be free to use them, those who have reservations and want further study/information should be free to decline them.

For example, how many women have been harmed by routine episiotomy (which we now know is more likely to cause larger tears than a spontaneous laceration and the use of this procedure should be restricted to emergencies only), how many women have been harmed by the routine use of electronic fetal monitoring during labor? It was implemented in the early 1970's because it was *believed* that it would reduce risk of a baby developing cerebral palsy which *was thought* to be caused by lack of oxygen during labor – and yet further research has shown that the greatest risk factor for CP is prematurity and antepartal infection, not lack of oxygen during labor – and yet the cat is out of the bag, and there will be no putting it back in, as OB providers have a genuine concern (and risk for) lawsuits, and this is perceived as helping shield them from liability – but it is part of what has contributed to the significant rise in cesarean sections – a real source of risk to childbearing women.

The presence of human DNA from aborted children raises at least two issues:
  1. Safety
I think it remains unknown what effect there may be to being exposed to
foreign DNA from vaccines – whether that DNA is human or animal. We
do not yet fully understand how our bodies (immune system and DNA)
interacts with foreign DNA and what consequences this may have for our
short-term and/or long-term health. This is true for both children and adults
who are exposed to vaccine manufactured using human and/or animal

We know that unborn babies cells can and do cross the placenta and 
integrate into maternal tissues, persisting for decades. 

If this happens during pregnancy why would it not also occur with 
remnants of DNA present in vaccines? 

  1. Ethics
Many people would not want to use a product made (even in part) from
tissue derived from a human being whose life was electively terminated
(regardless of the reason). 

Regardless of the number of people who may have benefited from vaccines
derived from aborted people, the ends do not justify the means. 

The people from whom these cell lines were derived did not consent to the 
use of their bodies for this purpose (much less the sacrifice of their life 
regardless of why their lives were ended). 

Many have benefited (and continue to benefit) financially from these cell 
lines - but have their parents been compensated, have they "benefited" 
from ending their unborn child's life (other than not having to give birth 
to and raise a child they did not want to have). While there are laws 
prohibiting the sale/purchase of human parts there are also ENORMOUS 
loop-holes that make such prohibitions an absolute sham. 

Once again, let me re-iterate that the purpose of raising this issue is not to pour 
salt into an open wound for those who are post-abortive ... if you have had an 
abortion and are hurting and want help please reach out to a local pregnancy 
resource center ( - they can help you find counseling 
to obtain peace.

Other post-abortion resources for help/healing:


(page 91);  

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Abortion and vaccines (Part 1)

Abortion and vaccines (Part 1)

There are several connections between abortion and vaccines. Today's post will explore the irony of “choice” in both abortion and vaccines.

One of the justifications given for abortion is to provide/allow women to have
control over their bodies. In contrast there is very little choice in regards to vaccines – certainly for children, and increasingly for adults (of either sex).

What irony – adults can make the decision to end their unborn child's life (for the sake of greater personal autonomy), but are not able to make decisions regarding
vaccines (for either themselves or their [born] children). The ability to obtain an
exemption from vaccination varies. For the sake of greater autonomy vaccines should be “opt in”, no exemption necessary.

What irony – abortion is framed as being about personal choice for women, when in reality it is seldom about personal choice and autonomy. More than half of abortions (in the United States) are done under duress – in other words, those seeking them did not feel they had a choice! (#1)

Vaccination is not much different – parents vaccinate their children in order to get them into school or to maintain access to healthcare for their children (some pediatric practices will “fire” a patient who does not comply with vaccination or will refuse to accept them as patients … parents of newborns have been threatened with CPS involvement for declining vaccination or have been told they would not be allowed to take their child home), health care workers are coerced into vaccination in order to keep their jobs. (#2), (#3);

If vaccination is mandated for “the greater good” one can only wonder where this ends? What else might be justified for the sake of the “herd”? Will restrictions on diet/food be imposed “for the greater good”?

And are you a part of the “herd” (being managed) or one of its managers, making decisions to maintain the quality of the “herd”?

This writer is painfully aware of how abortion has hurt many women and is a tender and sensitive subject. My intent is not to open any wounds or cause any pain – as a midwife I've cared for many post-abortive women who told me how the decision was made for them.

If you have had an abortion and want/need healing it is available – you can click on this link for more information: