Bad science in layman literature on the internet

[shunyadragon]

There are excellent sites on the internet on science like phys.org and some very good sites like scitechdaily.com, but I would like to refer to bad sites and the worst like NaturalNews.com and a few of the interesting articles they publish.

Some COVID-19 vaccines are being developed using aborted human babies' cell lines

Some COVID-19 vaccines are being developed using aborted human babies’ cell lines
Sunday, June 14, 2020 by: Isabelle Z.
Tags: abortion, abortions, badhealth, badmedicine, badscience, coronavirus, covid-19, Dangerous Medicine, fetal cell lines, infanticide, Moderna, research, toxic ingredients, vaccine, vaccines

(Natural News) Researchers around the world are rushing to come up with an effective COVID-19 vaccine, but there are lots of concerns that they will suffer from the same major flaws as many of the other vaccines we use these days, whether it’s the presence of heavy metals like mercury or aluminum, a miserable efficacy rate like the flu shot, or both. However, before any of those factors come into play, it’s the very basis of the vaccine that can be extremely questionable – especially when it comes from aborted babies.

A World Health Organization tracker shows that more than 120 vaccine candidates are currently in development, 10 of which have already moved forward to the clinical trial phase where the vaccine candidate’s efficacy and safety are being tested. More of these candidates should reach the trial phase before the close of the year.

Unfortunately, quite a few of the frontrunners are using a human fetal kidney cell line for the development of their trial vaccines. The fetal cell line is known as HEK-293, and it came from the kidney tissue of a baby girl aborted in the Netherlands in 1972. This line is being used in vaccines under development by Moderna, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Oxford University/AstraZeneca, and CanSino Biologics/Beijing Institute of Technology.

A different human fetal cell line is being used by Janssen, the pharmaceutical division of Johnson & Johnson. The fetal cell line PER.C6 was taken from the retinal tissue of an 18-week-old boy who was aborted in 1985 in the Netherlands.

Much of this vaccine development is being funded by grants from the U.S. government. So far, nearly $2 billion has gone to support the development of vaccines for COVID-19 that use fetal cell lines. A lot of this funding is being awarded through a division of the Department of Health and Human Services called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

 

[King Phenomenon]

Prolly a bad idea

 

[Deeje]

There are excellent sites on the internet on science like phys.org and some very good sites like scitechdaily.com, but I would like to refer to bad sites and the worst like NaturalNews.com and a few of the interesting articles they publish.

Some COVID-19 vaccines are being developed using aborted human babies' cell lines

Some COVID-19 vaccines are being developed using aborted human babies’ cell lines
Sunday, June 14, 2020 by: Isabelle Z.
Tags: abortion, abortions, badhealth, badmedicine, badscience, coronavirus, covid-19, Dangerous Medicine, fetal cell lines, infanticide, Moderna, research, toxic ingredients, vaccine, vaccines

(Natural News) Researchers around the world are rushing to come up with an effective COVID-19 vaccine, but there are lots of concerns that they will suffer from the same major flaws as many of the other vaccines we use these days, whether it’s the presence of heavy metals like mercury or aluminum, a miserable efficacy rate like the flu shot, or both. However, before any of those factors come into play, it’s the very basis of the vaccine that can be extremely questionable – especially when it comes from aborted babies.

A World Health Organization tracker shows that more than 120 vaccine candidates are currently in development, 10 of which have already moved forward to the clinical trial phase where the vaccine candidate’s efficacy and safety are being tested. More of these candidates should reach the trial phase before the close of the year.

Unfortunately, quite a few of the frontrunners are using a human fetal kidney cell line for the development of their trial vaccines. The fetal cell line is known as HEK-293, and it came from the kidney tissue of a baby girl aborted in the Netherlands in 1972. This line is being used in vaccines under development by Moderna, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Oxford University/AstraZeneca, and CanSino Biologics/Beijing Institute of Technology.

A different human fetal cell line is being used by Janssen, the pharmaceutical division of Johnson & Johnson. The fetal cell line PER.C6 was taken from the retinal tissue of an 18-week-old boy who was aborted in 1985 in the Netherlands.

Much of this vaccine development is being funded by grants from the U.S. government. So far, nearly $2 billion has gone to support the development of vaccines for COVID-19 that use fetal cell lines. A lot of this funding is being awarded through a division of the Department of Health and Human Services called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Have you found a source that has evidence that can actually debunked their claims?

 

[Heyo]

Have you found a source that has evidence that can actually debunked their claims?

No need to. All you have to read is the headline to know that it is a propaganda piece.

 

[Deeje]

No need to. All you have to read is the headline to know that it is a propaganda piece.

Propaganda for whom?

 

[Heyo]

Propaganda for whom?

For the "anti" crowd, anti-science, anti-vaccination, anti-abortion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Any site that has testimonials from Alex Jones is a bit beyond suspicious.

About NaturalNews.com

 

[Samael_Khan]

Any site that has testimonials from Alex Jones is a bit beyond suspicious.

About NaturalNews.com

Think is, with someone like Alex Jones, he grabs at so many straws that he is bound to find truth in at least some cases.

The Bohemian Grove "ritual" he discovered was interesting.

 

[Deeje]

For the "anti" crowd, anti-science, anti-vaccination, anti-abortion.

I am naturally skeptical about modern medicine at the best of times because of the way the medical system was hijacked by the founders of Big Pharma. So I have reservations about their motives and their medicine.
I have been a reader of Mike Adams for some time. He makes perfect sense if you listen with an open mind.

If the medical profession abides by the oath of Hippocrates which states "first of all do no harm"....then with every drug that carries a warning of dangerous side-effects, they have broken that oath. Patent medicines have only one purpose and that is to make money. There is often a long list of side effects, which is the body's way of showing that the drug being administered is not being tolerated well.
I have no faith in that medical system. I prefer natural treatments to artificially produced chemicals that earn big dollars for drug companies, but yield very little in the way of cures for anything.

I have little faith in vaccinations the way they are currently carried out on very young children.
Young and immature immune systems are assaulted with multiple doses of vaccines that are not tested prior to their administration to see if the child is likely to have a bad reaction to that many vaccines in one does (sometimes up to 6 in one day) or in the worse cases, to be permanently damaged or even to suffer death from them. Monetary compensation is little comfort to a grieving parent.


I am also anti-abortion unless the mother's life is at risk. I do not condone 'convenience' abortions because a pregnancy was produced as an unwanted side effect of someones sex life. Over 17 million abortions are carried out every year.....that is a holocaust of mammoth proportions. There are ways to prevent pregnancy, but drug and alcohol abuse tend to cloud people's judgments about having sex. Is that a good enough reason to terminate someones life?


I am not anti-science, but I am anti-evolution because I believe that at its roots, there is little to demonstrate that what science suggests about the very beginnings of life, is anything but a concocted fairy story. Those are my opinions.
If that makes me "anti" then guilty as charged......just for the record though, you would never see me demonstrating in the streets about it. It is just my personal view and like all the posters here on RF, I like to share and debate about what I believe, and listen to what others have to offer about theirs.

 

[Samael_Khan]

For the "anti" crowd, anti-science, anti-vaccination, anti-abortion.

I kinda don't think that anti-abortion should be chucked in with the rest. That is an ethics issue whereas the other issues have got to do with conspiracy theories and lack of scientific knowledge.

 

[Heyo]

I kinda don't think that anti-abortion should be chucked in with the rest. That is an ethics issue whereas the other issues have got to do with conspiracy theories and lack of scientific knowledge.

I didn't chuck that in, the article did. It is not adding to the scientific discussion that stem cells are used, it is to invoke an emotional reaction, especially when a fetus is called a baby.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I didn't chuck that in, the article did. It is not adding to the scientific discussion that stem cells are used, it is to invoke an emotional reaction, especially when a fetus is called a baby.

OK, they are then chucking it in the wrong category. Even the stem cells problem has got to do with ethics rather than a problem with science.

Mentioning fetus and baby is semantics in the discussion as in general people do not make that distinction when it comes to a child and the two distinctions aren't relevant to the discussion. The problem is why are we allowed to kill a young human when they are in the whom as opposed to outside of the womb, and in what circumstances should it be allowed. The circumstantial cases are fairly clear. The former case, not so much.

What might be added to the stem cell problem is the possibility that people end up aborting babies for profit by extracting stem cells from them. But the stem cell problem is still different to abortion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Think is, with someone like Alex Jones, he grabs at so many straws that he is bound to find truth in at least some cases.

The Bohemian Grove "ritual" he discovered was interesting.

This one - too long to watch unfortunately?:

Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove : Alex Jones : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Heyo]

I am naturally skeptical about modern medicine at the best of times because of the way the medical system was hijacked by the founders of Big Pharma. So I have reservations about their motives and their medicine.
I have been a reader of Mike Adams for some time. He makes perfect sense if you listen with an open mind.

If the medical profession abides by the oath of Hippocrates which states "first of all do no harm"....then with every drug that carries a warning of dangerous side-effects, they have broken that oath. Patent medicines have only one purpose and that is to make money. There is often a long list of side effects, which is the body's way of showing that the drug being administered is not being tolerated well.
I have no faith in that medical system. I prefer natural treatments to artificially produced chemicals that earn big dollars for drug companies, but yield very little in the way of cures for anything.

I have little faith in vaccinations the way they are currently carried out on very young children.
Young and immature immune systems are assaulted with multiple doses of vaccines that are not tested prior to their administration to see if the child is likely to have a bad reaction to that many vaccines in one does (sometimes up to 6 in one day) or in the worse cases, to be permanently damaged or even to suffer death from them. Monetary compensation is little comfort to a grieving parent.


I am also anti-abortion unless the mother's life is at risk. I do not condone 'convenience' abortions because a pregnancy was produced as an unwanted side effect of someones sex life. Over 17 million abortions are carried out every year.....that is a holocaust of mammoth proportions. There are ways to prevent pregnancy, but drug and alcohol abuse tend to cloud people's judgments about having sex. Is that a good enough reason to terminate someones life?


I am not anti-science, but I am anti-evolution because I believe that at its roots, there is little to demonstrate that what science suggests about the very beginnings of life, is anything but a concocted fairy story. Those are my opinions.
If that makes me "anti" then guilty as charged......just for the record though, you would never see me demonstrating in the streets about it. It is just my personal view and like all the posters here on RF, I like to share and debate about what I believe, and listen to what others have to offer about theirs.

I think I got off on the wrong foot in this one. So let me go back and compliment you on asking @shunyadragon for evidence. That was the right way to go and my flippant answer was not.
I should have been more clear in what the evidence is that this article is "bad science". So, to make up leeway, here they are:
1. The article uses unscientific language. Right in the title it talks about aborted babies. You can't abort a baby. You can abort an embryo or a fetus.
2. It uses speculation and outdated information. We don't know how effective the vaccine will be and there is no reason to assume that the efficacy will be as low as with the yearly influenza shots. Mercury and other metals haven't been used as preservatives for years where cooling was available.
3. It doesn't add new information. Stem cells have been used in research for over 50 years. The cell line HEK-293 itself is almost 50 years old. (And we don't know the reason for the abortion. It could have been to save the mothers life.)
4. It doesn't discuss the pros and cons of using stem cells. If the use of stem cells could make the vaccine more save or produced earlier, it could save tens of thousands of lives. That puts the use of a stem cell that already exists for 48 years in perspective.

 

[Heyo]

OK, they are then chucking it in the wrong category. Even the stem cells problem has got to do with ethics rather than a problem with science.

Yep. Bad science, or more precisely, no science at all.

Mentioning fetus and baby is semantics in the discussion as in general people do not make that distinction when it comes to a child and the two distinctions aren't relevant to the discussion.

It is relevant in detecting "bad science" articles. If you want to write about science, use scientific language. And it is not that they wanted to replace a technical term that isn't understood by the layman. Everybody knows what a fetus is. The reason to use "baby" is clearly to make it more emotional.

What might be added to the stem cell problem is the possibility that people end up aborting babies for profit by extracting stem cells from them. But the stem cell problem is still different to abortion.

Think again. One of the cell lines is almost 50 years old. It's not that biologists need constant fresh supplies of stem cells or that there exists a lucrative black market for them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yep. Bad science, or more precisely, no science at all.

It is relevant in detecting "bad science" articles. If you want to write about science, use scientific language. And it is not that they wanted to replace a technical term that isn't understood by the layman. Everybody knows what a fetus is. The reason to use "baby" is clearly to make it more emotional.

Think again. One of the cell lines is almost 50 years old. It's not that biologists need constant fresh supplies of stem cells or that there exists a lucrative black market for them.

It is already noted the bogus emotional sensationalism of stem cell origins of 'aborted babies,'

What is the source of stem cells used in research and medicine?

Myths and Misconceptions About Stem Cell Research

Where do the embryos come from to create stem cell lines?
All the human embryonic stem cell lines currently in use come from four to five day-old embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. In IVF, researchers mix a man's sperm and a woman's eggs together in a lab dish. Some of those eggs will become fertilized. At about five days the egg has divided to become a hollow ball of roughly 100 cells called a blastocyst which is smaller than the size of the dot over an “i”. It is these very early embryos that are implanted into the woman in the hopes that she becomes pregnant.

Each cycle of IVF can produce many blastocysts, some of which are implanted into the woman. The rest are stored in the IVF clinic freezer. After a successful implantation, they must decide what to do with any remaining embryos. There are a few options:

• Continue to paying to store the embryos
• Defrost the embryos, which destroys them.
• Donate the embryos for adoption (this option is rarely taken).
• Choose to donate the frozen embryos for research. These donated embryos are the source of human embryonic stem cell lines.

Some embryonic stem cell lines also come from embryos that a couple has chosen not to implant because they carry harmful genetic mutations like the ones that cause cystic fibrosis or Tay Sachs disease. These are discovered through routine genetic testing prior to implantation. Still other embryos might be malformed in some way that causes them to be rejected for implantation into the mother. Embryos with genetic defects or malformations would have been discarded if the couple had not chosen to donate them to stem cell research.

People who donate leftover embryos for research go through an extensive consent process to ensure that they understand embryonic stem cell research. Under state, national and international regulations, no human embryonic stem cell lines can be created without explicit consent from the donor.

Policies vary as to whether women may be paid or otherwise compensated to donate eggs. CIRM does not fund research where women have received payment to donate eggs. Most jurisdictions allow donors to be reimbursed for direct costs such as travel to the clinic or lodging. Some also allow payments or IVF services to be provided to egg donors.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yep. Bad science, or more precisely, no science at all.

yes. It isn't a science issue.

It is relevant in detecting "bad science" articles. If you want to write about science, use scientific language. And it is not that they wanted to replace a technical term that isn't understood by the layman. Everybody knows what a fetus is. The reason to use "baby" is clearly to make it more emotional.

Well yes. Generally these people are writing bad science articles. Since the problem they have with stem cells is that it comes from young humans then it isn't a bad science issue but an ethics one.

Think again. One of the cell lines is almost 50 years old. It's not that biologists need constant fresh supplies of stem cells or that there exists a lucrative black market for them.

I did think again. If they don't then need constant supplies of stem cells then I don't understand what these people have a problem with.

 

[Samael_Khan]

This one - too long to watch unfortunately?:

Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove : Alex Jones : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I prefer this one:

It isn't so much Alex Jones interpretation of it that I care about, which is probably all over the place from the comments I read on your link, But the fact that people perform such rituals and why they do it.

 

[shunyadragon]

yes. It isn't a science issue.

Well yes. Generally these people are writing bad science articles. Since the problem they have with stem cells is that it comes from young humans then it isn't a bad science issue but an ethics one.

I did think again. If they don't then need constant supplies of stem cells then I don't understand what these people have a problem with.

Stem cells from 'young humans'? Needs clarification, because this is not accurate.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Stem cells from 'young humans'? Needs clarification, because this is not accurate.

I am speaking from the opposition's mindsets, not the scientific classification or aiming for accuracy. They would think that human life starts at conception.