User Profile: NONCENTS

Member Since: November 10, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [22] January 31, 2015 at 12:10pm


    I worked for years as a microbiologist in a bacterial/virus research laboratory. Am I allowed to speak now?

    “Not only are the cell lines so far removed for those fetuses as to be completely separate culture stocks, the very processing of the vaccine means that there is no cell tissue in it, no DNA, nothing from these cell lines. ”

    If they are “so far removed” as to be completely separate, why are they still being used? There are PLENTY of alternatives out there, some of which have been used in the past. Some that are even cheaper.

    And even if what you say is so, can you honestly assure me that EVERY speck of host DNA has been wiped out of the original cultured viruses used to make these vaccines? Because Merck can’t. And to suggest so is dishonest. Specific viruses require DNA to be recognized by their host, – that’s why all those vaccines using empty capsids were shelved. They didnt work. (I’m assuming you know what capsids are.)

    Simply put, if there MUST be DNA in viruses for them to be recognized, and Pharma is still using these particular offending cell lines even though there are myriad alternatives out there, there’s no way the vacs are clean, even if the virus and offending DNA are dead. They cant even keep out random animal viruses like SV40 and that swine-origin virus in Rotovax. But they’re culture-scrubbing their cells? Don’t count on it.

  • [35] January 30, 2015 at 3:05pm

    I am also qualified to speak on this subject and here is the issue:

    Most of the very well-intentioned medical personnel of which you speak have NO idea of the origins of the medicine they prescribe. They don’t know whether the vaccine or medicine they offer was developed ethically, much less if all of the components that comprises it are ethical in of themselves.

    Would it surprise you to learn that a part the MMR II includes the Wistar-38 cell line (named for Germany’s famous Wistar institute) and therefore is built upon the DNA of over 38 aborted individuals? Would this be acceptable to these dedicated top-notch doctors?Because it isn’t to me, as a “lab rat” and a parent.

    I cannot abide harvesting the unborn for their use in “the good of society.” That is the path to atrocity and it should be stopped. Maybe if more medical personnel took a stand, it would be.

    Responses (4) +
  • [6] January 30, 2015 at 2:45pm

    Especially when we can use the “by-products” of abortions to make more vaccines. Doesn’t get much better than that.

  • [50] January 30, 2015 at 2:40pm

    I’m envious of you. I chose not vaccinate for ethical reasons (no aborted fetal material for me, thank you) and I wish I had those antibodies to give my children.

  • [22] January 30, 2015 at 2:36pm

    Vaccination is FAR from “settled science.” To the list of poisons, let’s also add the cellular material/dna of over 40+ aborted babies that comprise the heart of these vaccines. My personal favorite is the Rubella component of the MMR II which was developed from the infamous Wistar-38 cell line and therefore includes the lung material of “38″ aborted fetuses who ostensibly had mothers that were exposed to the virus. Here’s the link :

    What about those of us who refuse to build the current new-order dystopia on the blood and backs of the innocent? Should we just shut up and eat our poison like a good little slave?

    Responses (1) +
  • April 30, 2014 at 9:33am

    You know what, I was harsh and I apologize for that. I thought you were something you are not. I get a little angry when someone calls me a “blantant” liar. I also get angry when someone uses my words to bash my church.

    Respectful is as respectful does. Will you apologize in turn?

  • April 30, 2014 at 9:28am

    Some of these comments are pretty funny, but in all seriousness, this area has waaaaaay to much geotechnical potential for jokes. It’s a little bit alarming.

  • April 30, 2014 at 9:25am

    Lol, lets throw in a Duck Dynasty beard and headband too.

  • April 30, 2014 at 9:22am

    Awesome! Keep fighting the good fight.:)

  • April 30, 2014 at 9:20am

    You nailed it. An entire vicious cycle of atrocity brought on by sin, which in the end will make us all slaves. Stand for righteousness.

  • [1] April 30, 2014 at 8:17am

    What this woman shows is how abortion isn’t just about murder, – its about women leading their rest of their lives burdened by regret. Why she would want to foist that on someone else, I don’t know. She’s obviously pretty selfish.

    What what’s up with the interviewers “Stigma” comment, – like women should go around parading this stuff as if it’s no big deal? Any time a child dies, its a big deal.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] April 30, 2014 at 8:14am

    All on national tv with a caring, sympathetic and “empowering” interviewer. How far we have fallen.

  • April 30, 2014 at 8:10am

    I know! Where can I get one???

  • April 29, 2014 at 8:01pm

    “You can shove your ignorance comment where the sun does not shine…Some catholics (hypocrites) say ‘Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church’…only to have you tell me it’s irrelevant…?

    Piss off…”

    These words speak way louder than your scripture does.

    May God bless and help you.

  • April 29, 2014 at 2:18pm

    Easy there. The Catholic church is part of the body of Christ, as are all denominations that profess Christ crucified as savior. It exists as it does by God’s will, for His purpose.

    I do think we Catholics could do a little better job outwardly showing that.

  • April 29, 2014 at 12:48pm


    Let me give you a little clue here. What I was referring to was NOT the church’s later catechism but the original intent of the term, as developed by a Jesuit priest in the 1840′s. The information you present on Solidarity was from the 1940′s, over a hundred years later. Secondly, the catechism mentions the term “solidarity” only in passing, because it expects the reader to actually know what the term means. From your previous ignorance, I can only assume you do not, so allow me to explain.

    The Catholic concept of Solidarity was originally outlined in Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum Novarum. The encyclical’s core point was the concept of free association between people, – in particular people who’s social network, shall we say, was less complicated or smaller than that of entities such as governments or corporations. There was also discussion of protecting the rights of workers fair wages and most strikingly, the most hardline defense of private property rights ever published in religious institutional writing. Pope Leo was very much aware of the power of socialist movements and wanted to make sure there was no confusion about his encyclical. Free association and private property are at the heart of it.

    Maybe you should just read it :

    Kind of changes things once you actually know what you’re talking about.

  • April 29, 2014 at 8:39am

    Yes, that word “social justice” does have a progressive ring, doesn’t it.

    The truth is, that word is a very poor substitute for something Catholics should be practicing: Christian Charity. The literal Love of Christ. And, as a Catholic, I’d love to see people higher up in my church stop using inferior, secularized verbiage to cover the truth of what ultimately comes from and is blessed by God. If we could call a duck a duck here, there’d be a lot less confusion. With prayer it will happen.

    Responses (5) +
  • April 29, 2014 at 8:20am

    Lest, I’m also a fellow Catholic, but if you read up on the history of the term “Social Justice” you might find some surprising things. In a nutshell, the Catholic version of the term was coined by Fr Tagliatelli, a Jesuit priest in the 1840′s, which just happened to be right around Karl Marx’s manifesto publication came into being. It seems there were a lot of people interested in the order of man and how he should live, – perhaps a consequence of the age Industrialization that had just taken place,

    Anyway, the good Father’s work was not referring to economic conditions. It was a purely social treatise about how man should be able to interact with his fellow man (it later evolved into the Catholic concept of Solidarity, which states that no social structure of larger organization shall interfere with the workings of a smaller one.)

    Here’s the problem: several anti-Christian “thinkers” during that time, including Marx, were coming up with similar definitions of similar terms concurrently. In fact, it’s a little bit tricky to see who came first, -the Catholics or the non. It may not have been “co-opted” at all. I believe this murky origin is where the confusion comes in.

    Frankly, its a poor choice of words to describe something else that we Catholics should be practicing in it’s place: Christian Charity. This was even gently alluded to in Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate. No way to co-opt a term with the name of Christ at its head. No misunder

  • April 29, 2014 at 7:55am

    You hit this on the head.

    Inequality will always be part of the human condition because scarcity is part of our fallen world. It’s the attitude we display towards it that determines whether or not we’re good or evil.

  • April 15, 2014 at 5:25pm

    Or hypocritical? :D

123 To page: Go