Practices known as HEK 293 are the experiments needed to obtain a working cell line from a human embryonic kidney for vaccine development.
To assist understanding below is an extract from the January 2021 article by A.M. Cardinalli in the Crisis Magazine which explains what it is and why it is relevant to the requests being made.
Although it may be true that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not use any cells derived from abortion in the production process. I.e. no directly injected foetal cells or their engineered descendants are employed (though this fact differs with other manufacturers) the full information is missing.
It is claimed that the abortion-derived cell lines were only used in testing, but it still means that these so-called vaccines depend on the involvement of abortion. Current information is that the cell line used in testing came from one abortion, which took place decades ago.
However, as this extract reveals…
‘ The most prominent cell line, called HEK 293, comes from an abortion performed in the 1970’s. It’s labelled 293 because that’s how many experimental attempts the researchers needed to get a working cell line. Therefore, though the abortion-to-experiment ratio is not precisely one-to-one, hundreds of abortions went into the project, even if they didn’t result in the working line.
HEK stands for human embryonic kidney. To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by caesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out. This must take place without anaesthesia for the child, which would lessen the viability of the organs.
Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and their death, they have organs cut out of them alive. There is no way that a spontaneous abortion could result in the cell line (as the kidneys cannot remain viable past the brief window in which they must be harvested) or that some brilliant researcher found a way for great good to come out of a rare tragedy by making use of a child’s body donated to science after it was aborted.
The deliberate killing of an unwanted child (a little girl, in the case of HEK 293) took place in the tortuous manner it did precisely to obtain her organs for research. The harvest of her organs was the direct cause of her death, prior to which, she was a living child, outside the womb.’
Because of ethical and religious concerns, citizens may wish to write to their elected officials who are promoting these ‘vaccines’ and demand they answer the following:
Can you prove that none of the inoculations currently being offered have had any involvement with the HEK 293 practices?
If your elected official cannot offer such proof, ask them:
What measures will be taken to provide exemption certificates for those citizens rejecting all inoculations/vaccines produced with HEK 293 involvement – on moral and/or religious grounds?
An excellent document written by Pat Swords BE CEng PPSE FIChemE CEnv MIEMA titled ‘Risk Assessment – Travel and Similar Restrictions related to COVID-19’ has a very useful extract (see below) which is relevant and warrants addressing by all politicians and vax promoters.
Extract: (my emphasis)
4.8 Vaccination ‘Directive 2000/54/EC on biological agents in the workplace, in its Article 14 on ‘Health surveillance’, states, “When necessary, effective vaccines should be made available for those workers who are not already immune”.
Although an obligation rests on employers in such circumstances to “take account of the recommended code of practice set out in Annex VII”. This in turn requires that “Workers should be informed of the benefits and drawbacks of both vaccination and non-vaccination”.
Section 4.3 has already highlighted the ‘scientific method’ and its role in drug testing. Despite the pharmaceutical industry employing the best scientific resources, only 20 to 25 new drugs obtain regulatory approval each year and some 70% fail the final Phase III clinical trials.
With conventional drugs, the compound is present in the body for a limited period before natural break down and excretion. The therapeutic effect, and the success thereof or lack of success, are evident over this short period.
Vaccines are inherently different, instead the body’s immune system is stimulated, such that at some time in the future, when it is exposed to the relevant pathogen, a heightened immune response results, which prevents the disease from developing.
In 1798, Edward Jenner (image, above) appeared to discover that cowpox provided immunity to the far deadlier smallpox and hence the principle of vaccination was discovered. However, scientific understanding of the immune system is still at an early stage and while successful vaccines have emerged by ‘trial and error’, there are still considerable unknowns. Not least as unlike conventional drug testing, the impacts, whether beneficial or not, occur over much longer timeframes.
Worst yet, during the current ‘pandemic’ an increasing number of scientists and researchers (as illustrated here) have been questioning the very concept of Germ Theory, itself, suspecting that virology made be founded on error and group think.
In November 2020, a 15-year-old boy won a major financial settlement in the Irish High Court based on having developed narcolepsy (sleeping sickness), following the administration of the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine in 2009. Approximately 80 further cases are outstanding in the Irish courts.
Narcolepsy is a disorder of the immune system and the retrospective analysis of the introduction on the Pandemrix vaccine showed that insufficient knowledge existed of the immune system.
It is not a perfect world, but what is of considerable concern is that many in the medical profession do not seem to have learnt from this episode. In 2009, the Department of Health’s chief medical officer Dr Tony Holohan said that Pandemrix had “a very good safety profile”. He added that it was very important young people in at risk groups are vaccinated as quickly as possible. “We have no hesitation in recommending it”.
Jumping forward to 2021, we find the chief executive of the Health Services Executive (HSE) Paul Reid saying it was “inexcusable” for any healthcare worker, who works with patients, not to take the vaccine. Reacting to an general practitioner, who said he would not administer the vaccine to his patients, Mr Reid said it was “quite shocking” that a doctor would take such a course of action.
The Irish doctor in question, Dr Waters, confirmed he would not administer the vaccine on the basis he believed it untrustworthy and unnecessary. “My problem primarily is that I don’t think the pathogenicity of Covid is sufficiently severe.”
42 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/authorities-insist-on-safety-ofvaccine-1.847977 28 cause lock downs or b) to use a messenger RNA [vaccine].”
43 This is an entirely understandable position, influenza strikes the old and infirm badly, but those younger and fitter suffer limited, if any, impacts and COVID as an influenza variant is no different. As it turned out, the swine flu in 2009, as an influenza, had very limited impact. However, in Sweden where the authorities also promoted Pandemrix, 60% responded by being vaccinated and the Swedish Pharmaceutical Insurance has so far approved 440 of 702 narcolepsy claims, paying out a total of €9.8 million.
44 Just like Pandemrix,45 the current COVID-19 vaccines had a rushed development with emergency authorisation and Government indemnities. Hence, the pharmaceutical companies have immunity from legal claims.
The principal COVID-19 vaccine in use, produced by Pfizer / Moderna, comprises of new mRNA gene editing technology. Like it or not, a giant experiment is ongoing, the outcome which will only emerge in time, as science develops a greater understanding of the body’s autoimmune responses, among which is narcolepsy. Indeed, many who died of COVID-19 did so from a ‘cytokine storm’, in simple terms, overreaction by the body’s own immune system.
As Section 1 pointed out, risk is related to reward, so why take a risk with such a vaccine, if one is in an age group where the impacts of COVID-19 are very limited. This risk reward profile may be different in older age groups, particularly those of 70+. However, with old age, the body’s immune system weakens, vaccinations are less effective and it takes longer to recover from illness. As influenza rapidly mutates, the previous development of flu vaccines was primarily an educated guess of the likely strain to be present the following winter. The success of this was at best 50%.
People die of old age; for which there are multiple reasons. As to vaccines somehow being the elixir, which will prevent this, the evidence to date is limited.’
At Principia Scientific International (PSI) we are generally of the view that we will NOT accept these ‘vaccines’ because:
(a) no gold standard isolate of the virus has been shown by any government (see here)
(b) the PCR test for the virus is unfit for purpose (see here)
(c) the ‘vaccines’ are not approved as such, and are merely licensed for emergency use only (see here)
(d) the ‘vaccines’ are acknowledged not to be very effective (see here)
(e) the drug companies are not legally liable for adverse events (see here)
(f) cheap, alternative treatments are readily available (see here)
At PSI we are natural skeptics of media, government and corporate claims. We recommend trusting no one and doing your own research to become better informed and make your own risk assessments.
As the trusty old saying goes: prevention is always better than cure. Build your natural immunity by following a good diet, regular exercise and consider taking supplements such as vitamins, CBD, etc.