Measels outbreak in Lancaster County

[Soloist]

Yes. That’s factually wrong.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/hayflick-limit

That is a theory. The Hayflick limit is not a fact, and remains VERY controversial.

I believe Hayflick is accepted by most as accurate science. I’d enjoy reading the controversy. I thought the “generations” and specific divisions were different, I appear wrong and misunderstood what I read. I am not an epidemiologist.

That is possible, I’ve seen it mostly used as evidence of it not needing further cell lines and literally trying to say that we are thousands of cell divisions from the original.

[AnthonyMartin]

That is a theory. The Hayflick limit is not a fact, and remains VERY controversial.

I believe Hayflick is accepted by most as accurate science. I’d enjoy reading the controversy. I thought the “generations” and specific divisions were different, I appear wrong and misunderstood what I read. I am not an epidemiologist.

That is possible, I’ve seen it mostly used as evidence of it not needing further cell lines and literally trying to say that we are thousands of cell divisions from the original.

From Google AI.

“When literature refers to "thousands of generations" or "millions of divisions," it refers to cumulative global output or calendar time, rather than a linear chain of cell division”

[Soloist]

From Google AI.

“When literature refers to "thousands of generations" or "millions of divisions," it refers to cumulative global output or calendar time, rather than a linear chain of cell division”

I would say it’s misleading as most people are ignorant of the Hayflick limit anyway.

[Jazman]

I didn’t say it contained. I said it’s on the ingredient list. You and I both know the virus burst the cell none of the cells actually are in vaccines.
https://vaccine.guide/wp-content/uploa ... ummary.pdf
For your reading. Some of this isn’t actually up-to-date anymore and you have to look at the actual FDA approval documents.
As I said, though, you’re welcome to look at my past posts.

Thanks for the resources. I certainly didn’t intend to be misleading. How far removed would it need to be acceptable? I would understand that the cell lines are thousands of cell generations removed from the original fetus. And as you said, no actual cells, many medications are tested on the cell lines, I don’t know that it’s possible to avoid those medications unless you decline all medications ever.

The cell line in question is from a 1962 abortion. This was done for reasons other than making a cell line, and had the tissue not been sent to a researcher, it would have been incinerated. Nobody knew that a human cell line could be developed in that way.

Some here think rejection of vaccines will stop abortions. It will not, if anything it will cause more abortions, due to the possibility of maternal infection, as we have recently seen.

This simplistic "everything is either black or white" thinking may be comforting to some, but to us who may someday be called to comfort a couple who has had a child that dies, or a miscarriage caused by this, it isn't. I am thankful that has never happened in my circles, and pray that it does not.

The line of thinking you're addressing would also seem to suggest that I or anyone else who is marked down for organ donation and/or post-mortem research had better do everything possible to not get murdered or maybe even negligent manslaughter, because any medical benefit accrued from my/our dead bodies, (is?) may be a mortal sin (minutely tracked and accounted for by an exacting perfect God!) - for anyone who ever benefits from the organ or research derived from the tragedy befalling my/our mortal body... Maybe I/we should immediately recuse ourselves from anything like this, in case we cause someone in the future to knowingly/unknowingly sin? in this way...
Maybe this is strawmanning, but I'm not sure how else to interpret the anti-vax reasoning some are using...

[Soloist]

The line of thinking you're addressing would also seem to suggest that I or anyone else who is marked down for organ donation and/or post-mortem research had better do everything possible to not get murdered or maybe even negligent manslaughter, because any medical benefit accrued from my/our dead bodies, (is?) may be a mortal sin (minutely tracked and accounted for by an exacting perfect God!) - for anyone who ever benefits from the organ or research derived from the tragedy befalling my/our mortal body... Maybe I/we should immediately recuse ourselves from anything like this, in case we cause someone in the future to knowingly/unknowingly sin? in this way...
Maybe this is strawmanning, but I'm not sure how else to interpret the anti-vax reasoning some are using...

When you find a baby who signed up to be an organ donor/ cell donor and then got aborted for some other reason let me know!

[JohnH]

The line of thinking you're addressing would also seem to suggest that I or anyone else who is marked down for organ donation and/or post-mortem research had better do everything possible to not get murdered or maybe even negligent manslaughter, because any medical benefit accrued from my/our dead bodies, (is?) may be a mortal sin (minutely tracked and accounted for by an exacting perfect God!) - for anyone who ever benefits from the organ or research derived from the tragedy befalling my/our mortal body... Maybe I/we should immediately recuse ourselves from anything like this, in case we cause someone in the future to knowingly/unknowingly sin? in this way...
Maybe this is strawmanning, but I'm not sure how else to interpret the anti-vax reasoning some are using...

Jazman,

Are you really comparing someone who is an adult and makes a conscious, voluntary choice to donate their organs or body to science, who is then later murdered, to a helpless, tiny baby being murdered for the express purpose of using the tissue?

The WI09 was just that: a couple decided to do IVF, and made more embryos than they needed, with the express wish to "donate" the extra embryos to "science". A 5 to 7 day "excess" embryo was then slaughtered and its stem cells harvested.

Do you really think that's OK?

[ken_sylvania]

As immoral as the abortion was that killed that baby was, the baby was dead. The abortion that killed the baby was done for reasons other than extracting stem cells. Are you saying that that baby still lives? If so, the abortion did not kill it. It is most certainly not "live baby tissue." You are trying to imply that abortions are being done to produce vaccines. That is deceptive. Deception is of the devil.

I'm certainly no scientist, but the little bit of science that I studied in my younger years certainly led me to believe that dead tissues cannot be made alive again.
After a human dies, some of the tissue is still alive - not all human tissue dies at the same rate. I find it rather incredible that scientists would be able to get "not alive" tissue, to reproduce, or that they would use dead cells to produce vaccines.

I also think that it's not a good idea to label ideas that we disagree with as "of the devil."

[Judas Maccabeus]

From Google AI.

“When literature refers to "thousands of generations" or "millions of divisions," it refers to cumulative global output or calendar time, rather than a linear chain of cell division”

I would say it’s misleading as most people are ignorant of the Hayflick limit anyway.

The "limit" may not be so much of a limit as is portrayed. Ever hear of HeLa cells? I worked with them in the late 70s. As of this time, they appear to be immortal and not subject to such limits. They have adapted to life in vitro and replicate furiously, without apparent limits. Now, if it can be determined how they do this, you have an answer.

BTW when my studies were over, it was a requirement that you destroy all remaining cells and sterilize your glassware. IF you follow the logic of some here, I am guilty of murder.

[Judas Maccabeus]

As immoral as the abortion was that killed that baby was, the baby was dead. The abortion that killed the baby was done for reasons other than extracting stem cells. Are you saying that that baby still lives? If so, the abortion did not kill it. It is most certainly not "live baby tissue." You are trying to imply that abortions are being done to produce vaccines. That is deceptive. Deception is of the devil.

I'm certainly no scientist, but the little bit of science that I studied in my younger years certainly led me to believe that dead tissues cannot be made alive again.
After a human dies, some of the tissue is still alive - not all human tissue dies at the same rate. I find it rather incredible that scientists would be able to get "not alive" tissue, to reproduce, or that they would use dead cells to produce vaccines.

I also think that it's not a good idea to label ideas that we disagree with as "of the devil."

it simply is not "live baby tissue," full stop. You cannot kill someone multiple times. It is deliberately deceptive language.

[JohnH]

The "limit" may not be so much of a limit as is portrayed. Ever hear of HeLa cells? I worked with them in the late 70s. As of this time, they appear to be immortal and not subject to such limits. They have adapted to life in vitro and replicate furiously, without apparent limits. Now, if it can be determined how they do this, you have an answer.

BTW when my studies were over, it was a requirement that you destroy all remaining cells and sterilize your glassware. IF you follow the logic of some here, I am guilty of murder.

Hela cells were taken from cancerous tissue from an adult woman from a biopsy.

it simply is not "live baby tissue," full stop. You cannot kill someone multiple times. It is deliberately deceptive language.

Fetal stem cells most certainly are live tissue that is taken from an aborted baby. I mean, the cells are obviously live, and the baby was aborted.

What else would you call it?