Immunizations, Human DNA Residuals & Autism

| by Val

A while ago I came upon some information with regard to immunizations being derived from fetal DNA acquired from abortions.

There are all kinds of choices...and all kinds of consequences. Individual choice, community choice, culture choice, and overall societal choice. The point has been reached when society as a whole accepts abortion under many conditions. Society will now begin to discover previously un thought of consequences of such a choice.

As a quick aside - It appears that industries have engaged in profiting from abortion. An important writing details aspects of how clinics allow wholesalers to acquire fetal parts in order to provide them to differing industry. Commercial Markets Created by Abortion (paper link) by Victoria Evans points to the many ways in which clinics are allowing many to profit from abortion via the sale of fetal parts.

Clinics do seem to allow the bartering for - or buying and selling of fetal parts...and decades ago abortions were attended so that fetal cells could be taken immediately after the procedures, in order to develop cell lines for vaccinations/immunizations. I don't assert that the fetal parts have been constantly streaming in to those who develop immunizations and then supply them to our children. It is fetal DNA from some decades' old abortions that prolifically contribute to cell lines used for development of the shots.

So, pharmaceutical companies have developed and then provided immunizations derived from fetal DNA, and the delivery of those immunizations to our children correlates (temporally) to the increase in autism according to one group's research. Even more so, the correlation matches the delivery of the immunizations according to when they were delivered in each country. The use of DNA in the immunizations seems to have lack of FDA approval since the "...levels of residual DNA are well over FDA-recommended limits" (Dr. Theresa Deisher). Essentially our children have possibly been receiving immunizations that would not pass muster under normal considerations for FDA approval. Here is a little about some injected DNA dangers...

From an article (link): "It is known from gene therapy studies that injected naked DNA can be transported to the brain (Wang et al. 2001); that improperly integrated therapeutic DNA has caused cancer in young children (Hacein-Bey-Abina et al. 2008); and that shorter DNA fragments have a higher probability of entering the nucleus [of the cells] (Lechardeur et al. 2002)", noted Dr Theresa Deisher whose company recently received a $500,000 grant from the Murdock foundation for their research.

Dr. Deisher is involved in ongoing research on the matter and she is pursuing; measuring residual human DNA in vaccines, predicting sites of DNA insertion via homologous recombination (HR) and measure insertion rates, modeling brain cell function effects, and epidemiologic study on children injected with vaccines containing the human DNA residuals. I guess the results so far have been pretty eye opening...

There is nothing wrong with looking into this subject. Victoria Evan's paper is an eye opener, and Dr. Deisher's research is not fallacy.

While reviewing this subject it seems that some hang vehemently on to their hope of retaining choice about ceasing life that grows in the womb, and yet the same yell the loudest when the growing industries that seem to profit from the abortions might have actually created an epidemic for our overall society. These individuals are so tuned in to the abortion debate that they reject the idea that science needs to look into the possibility. It seems more important to these people to allude to all who ask

the questions - as anti vaccination groups, or anti choice. No matter what, the hard questions need active pursuit toward a valid conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with asking the questions, especially when those who are asking them are significant in their ability and understanding with regard to the issues. Victoria Evan's and Dr. Deisher are two people who have used their gifts to ask and answer important questions. I would hardly consider myself, or most bloggers for that matter, or even the mainstream media, to be worthy of making final determinations on matters of science or investigations into industry.

I personally appreciate those who go against the tide in order to seek answers that will reap much benefit once answered and dealt with. I find it exasperating that only one group seems interesting in spending time to research the matter. Fortunately Dr. Deisher's group has recieved a significant grant to put science to the test.

Lastly, I don't see a baby as a fetus - I see a baby as a baby. Ultrasound technology has made the idea that life - is life, a more apparent reality. I still use the term fetus because that is what our learned halls have termed life in the womb to be, and in so doing the result seems to be a desensitization of sorts. In some previous writings I have pointed to the destruction of babies in the womb, even if the term doesn't seem so scientific to those who are so much smarter. I just want to say that life - is life, and abortion is the killing of an emerging life; some scientist might even agree with this.