Follow the science say those in authority, but whose science? Wear a mask and then don’t wear a mask! This stuff is scary!
‘Quoting from the results of a study carried out in 1963 by Stanley Milgram, Chuck Colson predicted the kind of C0V1D-19 lockdown authoritarianism that was birthed by Communist Chinese authorities and copycatted all around the world.
The Milgram ‘shock experiment’ was a study into “the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.”
Milgram’s aim was to see how “easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.”
He designed the study to answer questions raised by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, and the defence’s justification that those on trial “were only following orders.” [i]
In 1974, Milgram himself wrote:
“I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.
“Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.”
Colson explained that up to 80% of those who participated in Milgram’s experiment were willing to “inflict painful electric shocks on another person if an authority figure told them to do so.” [ii]
In 2007, Santa Clara University’s, Jerry Burger ‘replicated the experiment, and Burger’s results were nearly identical with Milgram.’
This prompted New York Times’ Adam Cohen to conclude that “ordinary Americans are about as willing to blindly follow orders to inflict pain on an innocent stranger as they were four decades ago.”
Colson, not surprised by the results said, “the two experiments are a huge cautionary tale of how people respond to authority.”
The studies, he said, show that “nothing changes about human nature; we really do blindly follow authority, and very few people challenge it.”
Colson wrote, “when there’s social chaos, people will choose order over liberty. It’s the reason why, if you give a prison guard or a government clerk a little power, they become abusive.”
The “only real barrier preventing people from inflicting pain is conscience,” which Colson explains is our God-given “internal moral bearings” (see Romans 2:15) that have to be nurtured into maturity.
The problem and its cause are, as the Milgram/Burger studies infer, a lack of Godly nurturing, which is the consequence of “the breakdown of the family and moral decay in American life.”
The abdication from nurturing our God-given internal moral bearings blinds us to tyranny and binds us to sinful participation in it.
People will obey a lawful authority without question because there’s no acknowledgement of God; no other authority or power higher than Government fiats and stuffy, bloated Bureaucratic rules.
This is God vs. Government-become-god territory.
Where unjust laws are obeyed because, as Colson argued, “people have lost the concept of a law beyond the law.”
Which, says Colson, leads to a rejection of civil liberties, because “given a choice between order and chaos, Americans will always choose order – even if it shuts down some of our freedoms.”
The act of civil disobedience, he said, also becomes a farce, because “in a morally relativistic era, there’s nothing that kicks in and tells us that something is wrong.”
A docile, conditioned polis simply can’t know what they’re protesting, or find reasons to justify why.
It was a dismal prediction. Now a C0V1D-19 reality.
Atheist, secular humanist Governments following their Communist Chinese counterparts turned neighbour against neighbour. The police were weaponised against the people they’re paid to protect, and fighting the virus became about denouncing people perceived to be lockdown “lawbreakers.”
The highest civic duty was the surrender of civil liberties, wearing a mask, not questioning the mandated medical advice from bureaucrats, applauding their disaster porn, and staying glued to the media’s daily “briefings.”
As Milgram, commenting on the outcome of his experiment noted: “The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
To paraphrase Colson, the only sure-fire way to protect civil liberties, and live out just civil disobedience, is by ‘courageously asserting the law beyond the law’; disobeying unjust laws that are contrary to our internal moral bearings, informed as they are, by the self-revealing God of Grace, and His objective moral law.
Though it may seem like we are being “plunged into the abyss of hell,” Charles Spurgeon once said, “God does not leave us there alone.”
The “star of hope is still in the sky when the night is blackest. Surely out of death, darkness, and despair, we shall yet arise to Life, light and liberty.”’https://caldronpool.com/follow-the-science-obedience-to-authority-vs-personal-conscience/
[i] McLeod, S. 2017. The Milgram Shock Experiment, Simply Psychology
[ii] Colson, C. 2015. My Final Word, Zondervan (pp.58-59)
[iii] Spurgeon, C. Not Left to Perish, Faith’s Checkbook March 3rd
Recently one of our Federal Senators from New South Wales (Concetta Flerra Vanti-Wells) sent out a pdf booklet detailing various subjects ranging from China, Free Speech and Climate Change to name a few. She is unique in that she seems to be a realist and not one that follows the herd just to be accepted. The following is from Page 63.
‘Over the past decade there has been much said and written about man’s contribution to the warming of our planet, much of it characterised by emotive and alarmist language by those pushing their respective agendas. When asked whether you believe in climate change the answer is ‘yes’, because there has always been climate change on planet earth.
In August 2019, the media build-up of an impending hot, dry summer appears to have set the scene for the unhinged, including those with criminal intent, to act. It defies logic that the number of bushfires in different parts of Australia took hold so quickly and apparently all at once, thereby destroying property, livelihoods and wildlife and, in worst-case scenarios, causing the deaths of 33 people.
The history of our sunburnt country suggests that bushfires can start from lightning strikes, downwind spot fires from cinders in high winds, fallen powerlines, carelessness by citizens and, unfortunately, arson attack.
An article by Dr Paul Read, an ecological criminologist and sustainability scientist at Monash University published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 November 2019 that was titled ‘Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-made’. His article provides an excellent synopsis of the facts with respect to bushfires in Australia. It states that there are, on average, 62,000 fires in Australia every year and satellite studies have shown that lightning strikes are responsible for only 13% of all fires. He also cites 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 which indicates that 40% of fires are deliberately lit and another 47% accidental.
Following is the full op-ed piece by Dr Paul Read of 18 November 2019: Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been much maligned by those who fail to acknowledge its importance to the health of our planet.
Plants and trees absorb CO2 and release oxygen. Also, phytoplankton in our oceans absorb CO2 and produce up to half of earth’s oxygen supply. We need the process and CO2 for our very existence on earth. To make informed scientific judgement with respect to climate, it is vital to have academic freedom; and, peer review remains integral to academic freedom. The politicisation of climate science has not only stifled debate but credible scientists have been ridiculed and marginalised for daring to pursue scientific methods and the conduct of peer review. The treatment of Dr Peter Ridd from James Cook University is only one case of how universities are trying to stymie or stop academic debate on climate change. They prefer outcomes that accord with the herd mentality against CO2. For the record, CO2 is not a pollutant.’ Page 63 from a PDF sent via email.
John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
‘New research shows that, when attacked, many plants make chemicals that will give munching insects a bad case of indigestion. They also seem to warn their neighbors about the attack so that they, too, start up their defenses. Some plants even call in air defenses.
Some plants, when attacked by caterpillars, release a scent that scientists simply describe as “green leaf odors.” These odors attract certain female wasps, who home in on the plant. The wasp will sting the caterpillar, leaving him paralyzed. She then lays her eggs in the pest, who remains paralyzed until the hatching young wasps consume it. That “green leaf odor” is a plant’s way of calling in air defenses. It is communication between plant and insect!
Some evolutionary biologists are upset with the intelligence and design in this arrangement. Plants are supposed to be too simple to communicate. As one evolutionist put it, this is “not a defense against anything” … it “just happens.”
I remember trying that excuse as a child. The cookie jar fell to the floor while I was trying to sneak a cookie. “It just happened,” I said, as if the cookie jar had come alive before my unbelieving eyes and jumped to the floor. My mother reminded me that things don’t “just happen.” And science teaches us that things don’t “just happen.” Not only do we see that God exists, we also see a bit of His love in providing for the plant and His intelligence as the author of communication.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/plants-call-in-air-defenses-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=plants-call-in-air-defenses-2&mc_cid=a8880bcf06&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Yeah, this is just what we want to save the world! ‘Boosters assert that the hopeless intermittency of wind and solar will soon be remedied by the addition of giant lithium batteries. Well, that’s the marketing pitch tossed up by renewable energy rent seekers, anyway.
Which, given the article below, may be no bad thing.
How do you Extinguish a Lithium Battery Fire?
Watts Up With That?
4 March 2021
A few weeks ago I asked a fire fighter friend how they extinguish electric vehicle battery fires.
He said “Oh you mean like a Tesla or something? The answer is you can’t. You cordon off the area, and spray a fine mist of water on the fire to try to keep the temperature down until it finishes burning. Takes a few days until it is safe”.
The problem is, besides being highly flammable, lithium is literally the lightest metal. At atomic number 3, it is the first element in the periodic table which is a solid. The two previous elements, hydrogen and helium, are both gasses.
Lithium is so light, it floats on water (lithium density 0.543, half the density of water). Lithium is entirely happy to blaze away while sitting on the surface of a puddle of water.
So if you try to smother a lithium fire with sand, the sand sinks to the bottom, and the lithium floats on top.
Lithium melts at 180C / 356F, and burns at 2000C / 3632F –
almost more than hot enough to melt steel, more than hot enough to destroy most composites and metals like aluminium.
The fumes from a burning lithium fire are highly toxic, capable of causing death or long term dementia like brain injuries – so you need to keep members of the public at a safe distance. Fire fighters need to wear respirators if they approach the flame.
There are chemical extinguishers, but my fire station friend didn’t seem to think much of them, at least not for large lithium fires.
I guess you might be able to smother a large lithium fire by dropping a Chernobyl style sarcophagus made of steel on top of it, or possibly made of some other material which could handle the heat. Then you could fill the sarcophagus with an inert gas like Argon, or just wait for the oxygen to run out. But equipping fire departments with a sarcophagus device large enough to smother an EV fire, and the equipment required to deploy it, would be an expensive exercise.
What does your fire department do when they have to extinguish a large lithium fire? I’d love to know, so I can tell Australian fire departments. Cordon off the area and spray a mist of water at the fire for a few days would be a serious inconvenience or worse, if the burning vehicle was say blocking an important road junction, on the high street, or in someone’s residential or workplace garage or workshop.’https://stopthesethings.com/2021/03/26/bonfire-bonanza-giant-lithium-batteries-literally-ready-to-explode-on-energy-scene/
‘A student who was suspended from his public university’s education program for an Instagram video in which he stated “a man is a man and a woman is a woman” has been reinstated by administrators.
Owen Stevens confirmed Wednesday to The College Fix that SUNY-Geneseo has allowed him to continue his education.
“Universities should be a market place of ideas, not an assembly line for one type of thought,” he told The College Fix via email. “Instead of policing speech on social media platforms, they should be engaging in educating future world leaders.”
SUNY-Geneseo media affairs division did not respond to repeated emails and phone calls Wednesday and Thursday from The College Fix seeking comment.
The crux of the controversy centers on a one-minute November 22, 2020, Instagram video in which Stevens stated in part:
“A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A man is not a woman. And a woman is not a man. A man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man. If I am a man and I think I am a woman, I am still a man. If I am woman who thinks I’m a man, I am still a woman. Regardless of what you feel on the inside is irrelevant to your biological status. It doesn’t change the biology.”’https://www.thecollegefix.com/student-suspended-for-saying-a-man-is-a-man-a-woman-is-a-woman-reinstated-by-university/
‘ENCOUNTERS WITH SCIENCE EDUCATORS reported by our Tasmanian Rep, Craig Hawkins MSc, who writes: While serving at the counter of our tourism business recently I was challenged by a Victorian high school science teacher who had seen creation materials in our gift shop, as to why a place like ours would be associated with such a thing like creationism. I politely responded that as the owner I believed it was a much better explanation of the origins of the universe than the religion of evolution. Well, that was enough to almost witness spontaneous combustion. I briefly, casually explained how there is a complete lack of observable, measurable and repeatable evidence in all the major steps required by evolution, including the Big Bang, life arising from non-living chemicals, and the need for increasing genetic complexity to evolve from amoebas to man. This science teacher, who teaches Aussie children that evolution is a fact, was unable to counter these basic facts and line of argument. In order to try and disregard the line of logic that I had used she resorted, in front of other customers, to argue that it can be theoretically shown that 1 plus 1 does not equal 2, and therefore you cannot always believe what otherwise appears obvious. Worldview suitably challenged; the poor teacher then stormed out. The next customer, a very typical Aussie, came up to the counter and said: ‘Sorry mate but I couldn’t help overhearing all that. As a butcher for many years I can say that if I added 1 kilo of sausages to another kilo of sausages I always ended up with 2 kilos!’
The butcher’s profound summary of the need for real facts properly used and interpreted, was eminently more sensible than vague claims by a science-graduated teacher as to the authority of secular, humanistic “science” over the obvious intricacy of design in creation.
Later that same evening, I was reminded how we achieve science teachers with such narrow understandings of evidence, whilst reviewing my eldest son’s first week science lectures at Southern Cross University. After using all the typical evidences for evolution, including known frauds such as gill slits in human embryos and faked whale transitional fossils such as Rhodhocetus along with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, rock strata etc. the professor said: ‘If you look at the body of evidence for evolution and natural selection as an idea, but as a theory [sic] it’s almost unbelievable that people still argue that creationism is an alternative.’ (Prof. Renaud Joannes-Boyan, Assoc. Professor of Science SCU, Organisms and Environments, Online lecture 8/3/21)
It is important we note that 1) the lecturer used many examples of “evidence” that has been soundly refuted by both non-creationists and creationists over many years, and 2) that science lecturers such as this, all over the country are not only telling young science hopefuls what to think regarding the origins of life but are also basically saying you are an idiot if you believe anything else. Undergraduates face a very daunting situation in daring to question such professors. A young Christian must be very careful in how they phrase their essays or ask questions challenging evolutionary assumptions. It is easy to see how dissent and alternative opinions are crushed at the very outset.
So speaking as someone who has a Master’s degree in Science, I encourage young Christians to take up science degrees at University because evolution is irrelevant to most of the great science you can do, but you will have to put up with the religion of evolution as you do. To succeed, despite the evolutionary brainwashing, keep your eyes on the true Creator Jesus Christ, who will actually strengthen your capacity to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”. (2 Corinthians 10:5).’ An email from https://creationresearch.net/
No, I am not a herpetologist but I know the Creator and the following is an example of His marvelous handiwork.
My wife and I will not take those China virus vaccine’s that use aborted (murdered) baby parts. Dr. Harnett speaks out on this and other important issues in this article so I have put the whole article here.
‘Someone asked me about my current relationship with Creation Ministries International (CMI) because he no longer saw any new articles written by me appearing on their platform (creation.com).
I explained that I no longer contribute articles or work with them. This situation came about through the organisation’s stance on fetal cells used in vaccines.
For a long time I felt that the leadership had an unacceptable element of biased editorial control. CMI says that they promote a biblical creation (not evolution) message and provide the opportunity for peer-review science publications that are free of the secular bias against such writings. But they have adopted certain corporate positions, which seems to fly in the face of free debate even within the biblical creation discussion space.
When some article is submitted that doesn’t fit their current corporate positions it will not be considered. Or if it is marginal it may be discussed in the Journal of Creation but the article would not be displayed on the website front page but in a journal index, and possibly later as a pdf, but not promoted.
Jason Lisle and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)
One of very important issues to the biblical creation community (distant starlight in a young vast universe) has been treated this way since 2001. We will just refer to it as the ASC model. You can find many articles on it on this website. Search “ASC model” or “conventionality thesis” in the search box.
I published many papers on the subject over at least 10 years ending in 2018 when I last published in the Journal of Creation. All my articles on the subject were ever only allowed in the Journal of Creation and never online (which is the much wider audience). See my post Can we see into the past? for an easy-to-understand Powerpoint presentation on the subject.
Jason Lisle originated the answer to the starlight-travel-time problem when he was still a graduate student. His paper was only accepted to be published in the Journal of Creation on this when he first proposed it in 2001 (under a pseudonym Newton, R., Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement, J. Creation 15(1):80–85, 2001 ) because I reviewed the paper and strongly supported its publication. This happened despite the fact that Jonathan Sarfati also reviewed it and rejected it. He didn’t/doesn’t like the idea and the only online web article on it on creation.com is written by Sarfati. He doesn’t understand it and used a strawman argument against it. No matter how much I and others have written on the subject it does not seem to have changed any views of the CMI editorial team.
I was told new ideas are canvassed and discussed in the Journal of Creation and later they may go on the web as they gain acceptance. But this never happened with the ASC model of Jason Lisle. Several of my Journal of Creation papers on it are now available as pdfs on the web but they were never promoted as holding a real answer. In my view, it is the only viable answer to the creationist starlight travel-time problem. I have written on why that is the case.
My own cosmological model, which I developed using Carmeli’s cosmology, has too many problems and I have since abandoned it. Even so it is still promoted as a viable model, even in their premier publication, see chapter 5 of the Creation Answers Book. But Jason Lisle’s model is not mentioned at all. That book may have been last reviewed 10 years after Lisle’s first article.
In January 2019 I wrote to the Australian CEO asking why their is no promotion of Lisle’s ASC model on their website, except one article by Sarfati unjustly critical of it, and why don’t any CMI speakers present it as a viable idea. It had been 18 years since the first publication about it and many other papers (by me) had followed but always only in the Journal of Creation. The CEO told me that he would get back to me on that. One year later I had not heard anything and wrote again in January 2020 asking the same question. Again he said he would find out and get back to me. But alas, crickets.
I have to conclude that CMI is not a free academic clearing house. They are as biased within their own set of decided positions as much as an evolution-promoting secular journal might be within its own position (i.e the evolution must always be represented as a fact). CMI is really a PR organisation not an academic institution open to free debate, even within the context of the biblical worldview.
Fetal cells in vaccines
I tolerated a lot of editorial control (one example explained above) until the issue of fetal cells in vaccines was added to their “vaccine position”.
You may not know but they kept their vaccine position paper non-searchable for many years and the link was only shared if someone asked. Probably because they thought it so divisive that they could lose people over it.
In May 2020 I read a Jonathan Sarfati authored vaccine letter (Vaccines and Abortion, 2012) online at creation.com, which discussed the use of fetal cells as acceptable in making vaccines. I don’t know why I had not noticed that earlier. The acceptance of the practice really flawed me and I could not sleep that whole night. I just couldn’t get the idea out of my head.
Dr Sarfati wrote another article on vaccines in June 2020 and included the same argument. He compared it to organ donations. He wrote: “Would we refuse a life-saving organ that was from a victim of a drunk driver for example who listed “Organ Donor” on the driver’s license, because he was killed in a sinful way?” I could see so many problems with that comparison.
So I researched and wrote an article titled “Using Aborted Babies For Vaccines Is Never Justified“. I sent my paper to the Australian CEO at the Australian CMI office and asked for comment and possibly consideration for publication. After about 3 weeks I had heard nothing. When pressed weeks later on it the CEO said he would respond point by point but he never did. No one at CMI ever responded to me on the issues I raised in that paper. I did have a private email discussion with the former CEO on the issue of the supply of fetal cell lines running low as the reason why new cell lines are needed and that the Chinese in 2015 developed a new cell line. But otherwise no one addressed my points made in the paper.
As a result I published it on my own blog site 1 June 2020. The reason the issue caused me to lose a lot of sleep is because I could not understand a Christian movement condoning use of murdered baby parts for any purpose, vaccine or medicine development. Possibly CMI would also apply their same reasoning to all the recombinant DNA drugs in development (>80) using aborted baby parts under the label of “life saving”. I don’t know.
The world cannot be trusted
It would seem that the editors of CMI publications have bought into the illusion of the global elites’ veracity and trustworthiness. That is, even though we live in a sin-cursed world with the heart of man desperately wicked, they trust in the establishment pronouncements.
They make the point that they are not anti-establishment per se. I agree, we should not be. But when the evidence piles up on the dangers of vaccines, some from the mainstream media but mostly from alternative news sites, due to the massive censorship, we should be more circumspect. We should look “under the hood” and see who is making the medical agents and question their motives.
It also seems that CMI holds a very high view of medical journals, when studies have shown them to be one of worse offenders for publishing fabrications and fraud.
In a commentary published in journal Nature in 2012, scientists from biotech company Amgen found that findings in 90 per cent of the important cancer papers published in significant medical journals could not be replicated, even with the help of original scientists.
In another review, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked back at 67 scientific projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular medicine over the past four years. Of these, they found results from internal experiments matched up with the published findings in only 14 projects, but were highly inconsistent in 43 (in a further 10 projects, claims were rated as mostly reproducible, partially reproducible or not applicable.)
“People take for granted what they see published,” John Ioannidis, an expert on data reproducibility at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California wrote in Nature in Sep 2011. “But this and other studies are raising deep questions about whether we can really believe the literature, or whether we have to go back and do everything on our own.”
While some of the un-reproducable results could be due to sloppy research, it appears that much of it is a result of deliberate misconduct. This was clear from a paper published last year.
Dr Ferris C Fang conducted a detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012. It revealed that only 21.3 per cent of retractions were attributable to error.Source (bold emphases are mine)
There was the now famous paper, on a study involving 96 ,032 hospitalised patients and 81,114 controls, alleging to disprove the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an effective treatment for COVID-19 disease, published May 2020 in the number one medical journal The Lancet. It turned out to be completely fabricated, a total fraud. It is now retracted. There was never any such study ever done.
You might ask, how could the world’s leading medical journal with stringent peer-review not reject such a fraud? How could the Editors approve the fraud? Just look at the journal’s strong links to Big Pharma. Much of its financial support comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the journal editorial team have links via research to Big Pharma. This is a big concern for objective independence. See here for much more on the conflicts of interest and corruption in the medical industrial complex.
I wrote an article a few years ago (2015) that discussed some medical errors of the past and highlighted a new flu vaccine that was given to children in Australia making many very sick. This came about because the company rushed the safety trials to get it to market. See Science the new religion. My paper was more about not trusting too much in the science or those who use the science for financial gain. But CMI would not publish it. It was not part of the controlled narrative that suggests that at least some vaccines are dangerous.
Where I make my stand
My position is to stand against everything that is biblically and ethically wrong. It does not matter what the consequences. There can be no pragmatic view in the realm of abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, and that is what these experimental COVID mRNA injections involve. We must stand only on the Word of God and biblical morality.
But Sarfati of CMI has said that there is no mention of vaccines in the Bible. That is true. Yet we are told that eating the flesh of humans is an abomination to God (Ezekiel 5:7-11, Leviticus 26:27-30, Lamentations 2:16-21, Deuteronomy 28:52-57 are a few references). Injecting another humans cell fragments or DNA seems to be pretty close to cannibalism to me.
Acceptance of fetal cells in vaccines could easily lead to accepting cloned human flesh as a food source. See Salami made from human flesh of famous Hollywood actors. Produced by BiteLabs, who have to be a bunch of the mentally insane. No humans are deliberately killed to make that cloned meat either. Isn’t that also an abomination to God. It certainly is preparing people to accept human flesh, even if lab grown, as normal. What’s next? Soylent green?
This is nothing short of demonic practice. Vampirism! The so-called civilised Western countries have been aborting their unborn children at unprecedented rates. 1.4 million per year in the US and at least 100,000 per year in Australia. And now they are passing laws to murder them right up to full term. Even passing laws to not medical assist the child if born alive in a botched abortion. How heartless and how demon inspired the once Christian West has become.
Satanists also are giving instructions to mothers on the satanic chant to make as they are aborting their babies in the abortion clinics.
In the early days of vaccine development many babies were aborted and their beating hearts were rushed to the research lab, so the researchers could get fresh flesh. Have things changed today? Who really knows what the researchers are doing now? With the abortion industry now on overdrive, the practices will certainly be demonic. Molech worship comes to mind (Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:2-5).
CMI claims only a few babies were aborted to make the cell lines used for vaccine development. That is quite disingenuous. Depending on the vaccine, dozens of murdered babies were used.
In 1962 the Wistar Institute, developed their cell line WI-38 from the 32nd abortion in their development process. That abortion was performed in Sweden and shipped to Wistar Institute, Philadelphia. They used lung tissue from the 3 months gestation, Caucasian female baby.
The attenuated rubella virus, clinically named RA273 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant), was cultivated on the WI-38 aborted fetal cell line. Isolated by Dr. Stanley Plotkin. And 40 more elective abortions were used for rubella virus isolation by T.H. Chang (67 in total).
Therefore 67 abortions were required to produce rubella virus plus an additional 32 abortions to produce the cell line for cultivation which means there was a total of at least 99 elective abortions to create the rubella vaccine alone. The cell line was used also in development of MMR vaccines. See here for more details on other fetal cell lines.
Stanley Plotkin is probably the most famous developer of vaccines; pioneer and father of many vaccines, which used murdered baby parts. Watch this short 2-minute video segment recorded in 2018, where Plotkin is unrepentant and admits he is happy to go to hell for his deeds. The full 9-hour deposition is available on Bitchute.com
There are other arguments here also relating to the environment of using baby parts for any medical experimentation or drug development which most countries now are doing. The sale of fetal parts by Planned Parenthood is a prime example. Where does it end?
Then there is the growing list of vaccine damage which is denied by CMI. See Mainstream media promotes propaganda about vaccine injuries.
And peer-reviewed studies have now been done (though retrospective) that compared the health of unvaccinated children to the vaccinated, finding that the unvaccinated have much lower mortality rates (in the case of the very poor country of Guinea-Bissau) and much lower incidents of many childhood diseases. See the report Unvaccinated are healthier than vaccinated and The Truth About Vaccine Safety‘ https://biblescienceforum.com/2021/03/11/where-i-now-stand/