Senator Pan’s Outrageous Vaccine Lies

[F.I.S.T.]

Senator Pan’s Outrageous Vaccine Lies
By Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post
June 23rd, 2015


Nothing is more disappointing, and even disgusting, than to see someone who obviously should know better, especially a duly-licensed professional, make a verifiable dumb-ass out of himself. That’s one thing, but when it cascades back on to others, well that’s a totally different story.

That happened to none other than the propellant for California’s vaccination bill SB277, California State Senator and Pediatrician Richard Pan. The disgustingly sad aspect of SB277 is it takes away all vaccination exemptions, except medical, for California children. Also, that every politician in California believes a lying, and apparently totally vaccine-contents-stupid, medical doctor—Richard Pan.

Pan, even though he introduced SB277, certainly should have done more homework about vaccines because he really blew all credibility for himself as a physician—and even his profession—when he stated on camera that there are no aborted fetal cells in vaccines. Maybe he doesn’t know what diploid cells are? If that’s the case, he’d better turn in his stethoscope! (https://youtu.be/x1JeF7eVVak)

Doctor—should I refer to you as one—how can you dispute the CDC’s online listing of vaccine ingredients and mediums? (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf)

If you can read, will you please scroll to Adenovirus where you will find WI-38 a fetal cell line, commonly referred to as diploid cells. MMR-II has WI-38 cells, too.

Pentacel has MRC-5 human diploid cells. So do Havrix, Vaqta, Twinrix, MMRV, Imovax, and Zostavax!

Varivax contains both WI-38 and MRC-5.

For someone who has degrees from Harvard and Johns Hopkins, one would think that you would understand that lying before a hearing is something akin to plagiarism in college—you just don’t do that if you don’t want to lose what you’ve worked to attain. What possessed you to make a perfect stupid ass of yourself?

Are mandatory vaccines and the removal of religious and philosophical exemptions that vitally important to the pharmaceutical industry that you had to lie before a hearing? Supposedly, you aren’t that stupid since you’ve earned a few prestigious sheep skins.

Personally, I think your either intentional fraud or actual stupidity need to be held accountable because your actions will negatively impact everyone’s health in California.

Furthermore, I strongly suggest that complaints against you be filed with the Medical Board of California for disseminating inaccurate medical information regarding vaccines. Here’s where readers should file their complaints: The Medical Board of California. (http://www.mbc.ca.gov/Consumers/Complaints/)

One of the serious problems with vaccines is that medical doctors and personnel really don’t know the facts about vaccines and promote them willy-nilly-like, as you have proven. That has to stop and the medical profession has to police itself on that grave malfeasance in medical practice, I truly believe.

No more lies, more lies, and damned lies about the safety of vaccines from doctors, especially when they don’t even know what vaccines contain.

Please, do Californians a favor and resign from the state legislature and become a street sweeper. At least there you can’t do too much harm, I hope.

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com. Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook. Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

 

[GRIM]

This article writer lost all credibility. Diploid cells do not have to be from aborted fetus cells.

Shock and awe tactics.

 

[F.I.S.T.]

This article writer lost all credibility. Diploid cells do not have to be from aborted fetus cells.

Shock and awe tactics.

[size=12pt]Heres the list of ingredients from the cdc's own website showing which vaccines in fact do contain fetus cells.........

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf


Here's the list of ingredients in the MMR -II vaccines the author was talking about from the cdc site.....

Medium 199 (vitamins, amino acids, fetal bovine serum, sucrose,
glutamate) , Minimum Essential Medium, phosphate, recombinant human
albumin, neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin, chick embryo cell
culture, WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts


As for diploid cells not being fetus cells,heres the definition listed for them.......

WI-38 is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a three-month-old white (caucasian) female fetus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WI-38)

Not trying to stir the shit brother,only presenting data to the contrary of your statements and to substantiate the authors claims.



Here's more about this......

In order to develop the weakened viral strain, there must be a medium or “cell culture” to grow it in. The virus invades the culture cells, feeds off the cell, matures, and multiplies. The cell cultures are a single type of cell that multiplies itself in a predictable fashion and can be sustained in a laboratory setting for years, even decades. These long-lasting cell cultures are called “cell lines.” The original cells that start these cell lines have been taken from a wide variety of sources, from monkey embryo and kidney cells, to chicken and rabbit embryos, and tragically, from aborted human babies.

The issue of concern is that many common vaccines were developed using cell lines that originally were cells taken from electively aborted babies. The vaccines themselves do not contain fetal cells, but there are significant “residual” biological components from the fetal cells that have been assimilated into the vaccine, including cell proteins and measurable portions of fetal DNA.

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. Hayflick’s article published in the 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.”(1) Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who developed a Rubella vaccine using WI-38, addressed a question at an international conference 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.”(2)

The origin of the MCR-5 cell line, created in 1966, is documented in the journal Nature by three British researchers working at the National Institute for Medical Research. They wrote, “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.”(3) Noting that their research parallels that of Dr. Hayflick’s development of the WI-38 cell line, the researchers conclude, “Our studies indicate that by presently accepted criteria, MRC-5 cells—in common with WI-38 cells of similar origin—have normal characteristics and so could be used for the same purposes as WI-38 cells.”(4)

In both of these cell lines it is quite clear that the aborted children were presumed to be healthy, and that there was no life-threatening condition or other medically-indicated reason for the abortion of these two babies.

There is a more recent cell line, PER C6, developed in 1985, which is being used currently in research to develop vaccines to treat Ebola and HIV. The origin of PER C6 is clearly documented. In direct testimony before the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Dr. Alex Van Der Eb, the scientist who developed PER C6, stated:

“So I isolated retina [cells] from a fetus, from a healthy fetus as far as could be seen, of 18 weeks old. There was nothing special in the 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.”(5)

Currently several vaccines using the PER C6 cell line are in development. Undoubtedly the cells used to establish PER C6 came from a healthy baby, aborted from a healthy mother for social convenience reasons. While many of the common childhood vaccines used today were developed using the WI-38 and MRC-5 fetal cell lines, there are some vaccines available that were developed using animal cell lines. The tables on the following page indicate all U.S. abortion-tainted vaccines, and the available alternatives.

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html[/size]

 

[GRIM]

You are picking and choosing. That is not a standard definition for diploid cells, but a specific one.
Adults are almost all diploid cells.
The CDC also says culture....
A culture usually grows something does it not?

 

[GRIM]

Even your copy paste vaguely states of the research, not sure what is actually used.
Either way don't see an issue at least the fetus would be put to good use.
A diploid cell definition however is not just from a fetus which was my point.
You and me are almost all diploid cells.
Please read that bold. I stopped even reading the article after the authors untrue assertion that all diploid cells are fetus derived. That was my ONLY point. His statement was VERY untrue.

As far as the rest derived research does not equal the cells coming from a fetus. Original research and culture start? Perhaps. Actual cells used? Ummmm NO

Half truths man, you'll believe what you want but those accusations are huge slants and smoke and mirrors from actual fact..

And yet again diploid cells my entire response purpose, we you and me are full of them...

 

[GRIM]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_culture

Seams the article author needs to go back to school.

 

[Hanzo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_culture

Seams the article author needs to go back to school.

'Seems' you do as well. Just kidding. Couldn't resist.

 

[Hogslayer]

And I have a dog in this fight but if you ask for the insert on any vaccines that you take they have to legally give it to you just a matter of time when that's no longer an option take the polio vaccine for instance in the insert it says may give you polio well go ahead and keep that... So when you take the vaccine and it gives you polio they don't call that reaction polio the new term is paralysis alright if there's a lot of typos I'm driving sorry

 

[GRIM]

'Seems' you do as well. Just kidding. Couldn't resist.

lmao auto correct.
I noticed it, but figured wtf 😉
How ya been?

 

[GRIM]

And I have a dog in this fight but if you ask for the insert on any vaccines that you take they have to legally give it to you just a matter of time when that's no longer an option take the polio vaccine for instance in the insert it says may give you polio well go ahead and keep that... So when you take the vaccine and it gives you polio they don't call that reaction polio the new term is paralysis alright if there's a lot of typos I'm driving sorry

Lol no worries on typos damn phones and auto correct are killer.
I know vacinnes can be killer, I know a woman who used to body build paralyzed from flu vaccine.
I just hate misleading and inaccurate articles which this one is full of.
Plus a guy with more than likely no medical education so poorly trying to disprove a Dr with 1/2 truths easily shown to be inaccurate statements with a simple Google. :/

 

[Hanzo]

lmao auto correct.
I noticed it, but figured wtf 😉
How ya been?

;D

Been good grim, hope you have also.

 

[F.I.S.T.]

Hey im no dr or scientist but do tend to believe the data that is put out by all of them regarding this.Maybe they're all wrong as well as all the research about it.Any research you "google" on what diploid cells in vaccines are tells you they are cultured from fetus cells as described in the many articles ive linked.

Here's some of the studies performed for those articles....

References:
1 - L. Hayflick et al., “The Limited In Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cell Strains,” Experimental Cell Research 37, (1965): 615.
2 - “Gamma Globulin Prophylaxis; Inactivated Rubella Virus; Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines,” American Journal of Diseases of Childhood 118, no. 2 (1969): 378.
3 - J.P. Jacobs et al., “Characteristics of a Human Diploid Cell Designated MRC-5,” Nature 227 (1970): 168.
4 - Ibid.,170.
5 - Transcript of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, hearing date 16 May 2001, 91.
6 - Judie Brown, “The Means of Vaccines,” National Catholic Register, April 30-May 6, 2000.
7 - J.C. Wilke, M.D., “Vaccines, Today’s Controversy,” Life Issues Connector, Life Issues Institute, July 2001.
8 - Bernard Nathanson, M.D., “Vaccines OK’d Despite Dark Past,” National Catholic Register, June 18-24, 2000.


But i'll tell you what,regardless of what any says about what vaccines contain or what they don't,theres no disputing that they are deadly to millions and research after research has proven just how viral their ingredients are so thats all I need to know.