(Natural News) Many people don’t know this, but it’s impossible to be both pro-life and pro-vaccine. That’s because “fresh tissue” from aborted human babies is “absolutely essential,” according to vaccine industry scientists, for researching and developing new vaccines.
Speaking before a recent congressional hearing about the alleged need for continued federal funding, Sally Temple, the former president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, made the claim that aborted baby body parts are “unique,” and that there’s no alternative replacement as it concerns vaccine creation.
She contends that “chop shop” fetal remains collected from baby butcher mills like Planned Parenthood are a critical part of the process of developing “models” that encompass “the most complete human immune system.”
“Currently, the best models are the ones that use fetal tissue,” Temple stated plainly before members of Congress.
Vaccine “scientists” are using aborted baby body parts to create mutant test mice
One of the heinous things these unborn baby butchers are doing with aborted baby body parts is splicing them with mice in order to test new pharmaceuticals and vaccines.
Known as Hu-BLT, these “humanized” mutant mice are used in experiments to test the safety and effectiveness of drugs like Truvada (emtricitabine / tenofovir disoproxil fumarate), an HIV medication commonly prescribed for pre-exposure prophylaxis.
“‘These mice have been critical for the development of Truvada,’ said Temple, whose organization advocating fetal and embryo stem-cell work has received $6 million in federal funding over the past three years,” reports GreenMedInfo.
“Truvada is a ‘preventative’ drug for healthy high-risk sexually active homosexual and bisexual men to prevent HIV transmission.”
Aborted babies are still used to create MMR, DTaP-IPV, hepatitis A, and chickenpox vaccines
In addition to Truvada, there are also a whole slew of vaccines for which these mutant mice embedded with aborted human fetal tissue are used for testing purposes. According to Temple, it wouldn’t even be possible to develop vaccines without first aborting human babies and harvesting their tissue.
“The cell lines that are used to make vaccines are valuable, but in order to make the original prototype vaccine, that requires these humanized models in many cases,” she’s quoted as saying.
The two particular cell lines she’s referring to, here, known as MRC-5 and WI-38, are obtained from the lung tissue of “mature” aborted babies. They continue to be used in the development of a number of common childhood vaccines, including those for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio (DtaP-IPV); hepatitis A; and chickenpox.
MRC-5 and WI-38 were actually first collected from the bodies of aborted babies back in the 1960s and 1970s, as a deposition taken this year from vaccine developer Stanley Plotkin revealed that more than 70 aborted babies were needed as part of the “harvest” for just one of the two cell lines.
Planned Parenthood continues to illegally sell aborted baby body parts to Big Pharma for cash profit
Vaccine and pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to obtain aborted baby body parts for their ongoing research projects from none other than Planned Parenthood, which an in-depth, undercover Center for Medical Progress (CMP) sting operation revealed has been illegally profiting from for decades.
While the Trump Administration has somewhat cracked down on the practice since the series of CMP videos was released, there’s still tax money being disbursed for such research, which various conservative politicians are trying to bring to an end.
“What my constituents have a problem with is using their tax dollars to buy baby brains and baby eyes to do research when they find it abhorrent,” stated Representative Mark Meadows, a Republican from North Carolina, at the conclusion of this same congressional hearing.
“Do you not see why we have this issue? You know we spent $25,000 on 30 pairs of eyes and 15 of those were past 20 weeks in gestation. Do you see the conundrum that we are in?”
Sources for this article include: