Big Pharma to market its vaccines with contrived emotional appeal...
Already, I hear such nonsense as not vaccinating and 'allowing' mostly non-lethal sicknesses is barbaric. Such sophistry! I guess shooting aborted baby DNA and other equally nasty substances into the bodies of our children and ourselves is more 'civilized'. Dr. Mengele is(?)/would be so pleased.

If so, I reject this society. I refuse to be made another  'pedestrian cannibal'.


Big Pharma to market its vaccines with contrived emotional appeal that utterly ignores facts
Sunday, April 26, 2015 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) At the behest of the World Health Organization (WHO), the so-called "SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy" has put together a report for the United Nations arm outlining new strategies to convince more people to get vaccinated. And in this report, recommendations are made that the vaccine industry market its vaccines in the same way that fast food corporations market junk food products to children -- by appealing to emotion, telling fairy tales and ultimately deceiving consumers.

No matter how much propaganda the vaccine-pushers force into the mainstream media these days, a large segment of the public simply isn't buying it. And this fact has prompted WHO to hire various teams of marketing consultants to come up with new ways to essentially trick people into getting jabbed, a laborious process that led WHO straight to the world's most disingenuous marketing gurus -- junk food companies!

According to, WHO decided that the beset way to sell more vaccines is to enlist the marketing advice of the International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA), whose 11 members include The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Nestle, Unilever, General Mills and McDonald's. Each of these multinational corporations admits to using calculating methods to sway customers to buy their unhealthy products, not the least of which includes appealing to people's emotions rather than providing truthful facts.

Happy Meals, cigarettes, alcohol and now vaccines - how the marketing of poisons has evolved over the years

In the SAGE report, the working group explains how it "explored private-sector approaches to shaping behaviour, as well as strategies used by other organizations to change behaviour." In other words, WHO's goal through SAGE was to develop a foolproof marketing approach that would have the biggest impact in convincing people who question or oppose vaccines to change their minds, regardless of the facts.

Among the group's recommendations are various marketing tactics that have been employed by the likes of cigarette manufacturers, alcohol distributors, fast food chains and other toxic industries over the years to make poisons seem appealing. One of these tactics is to avoid any mention of facts or truth, and instead focus on messages that suggest benefits for a product, whether real or imagined.

Take a look at this hilarious 1931 ad for "germ-proof" Camel cigarettes being recommended by a fictitious ear, nose and throat doctor. The header reads, "Give your throat a vacation...," with the following line referencing "fresh" cigarettes, the implication being that smoking Camels will help you breathe better: :[]

Or how about this ridiculous ad for "vitamin donuts," which shows smiley, rosy-cheeked children chowing down on refined flour rounds "fortified with a minimum of 25 units of Vitamin B1":

The absurdity of both of these ads, the latter of which suggests that children who eat donuts will somehow gain "pep and vigor" (which is an obvious lie), illustrates what the SAGE Working Group means when it says on page 48 of its report that vaccine manufacturers need to adopt the philosophy that "Consumers care about benefits, not supporting facts." Read it for yourself here:[PDF] [https://vaccinefactcheck.files.wordpress..._final.pdf]

This tactic has repeatedly been used by companies like McDonald's to push Happy Meals, by alcohol companies to push hard liquor, by cigarette manufacturers to push "cancer sticks" and soon by vaccine corporations to push chemical-laden poison jabs.

People are dumb, suggests WHO, so win them over to vaccines through emotion rather than facts

Some of the other deceptive recommendations in the SAGE report include the following:

• Focus on "the power of the story" -- make up myths about children dying from polio or something and warn parents that if they don't vaccinate their children, they could be next!

• Appeal to people's emotions rather than reason. When reason is involved, people reach conclusions, which in the case of vaccines will more than likely be that vaccines are highly risky and dangerous. Emotions, on the other hand, lead to action -- or as the report puts it, "change comes from feelings, not facts."

• Use social media to "win the hearts, minds, and now, voice" of the public. In other words, infiltrate people's "friends" and "followers" groups to promote vaccines as a safe and effective way to prevent disease, even though this is a lie.

• Hide the connection between private industry and pro-vaccine propaganda -- convince parents that those pushing vaccines are independent and on their side rather than just trying to make huge profits, or worse, trying to kill their children!

• Identify subject matter that people can relate to or that they want to talk about and tie it in with pro-vaccine agenda -- Do you like cars? Your favorite brand says vaccines are awesome!

• If you have to, present what appear to be facts (but that aren't actually true) alongside your emotional appeal to seal the deal and win another vaccine convert.

• Focus on just one or two "big ideas" to encourage "dialogue back and forth in the context of social media" -- once again, infiltrate people's social circles online and repeat, over and over again, that vaccines are safe and effective, vaccines are safe and effective, vaccines are safe and effective.

• Push pro-vaccination "social norms" -- all the cool people are getting vaccines, and so should you!

• Push school-based programs to indoctrinate children into believing vaccines are good for them.

And on and on the list goes, beginning on page 48 of the SAGE report:[PDF]

The biggest takeaway here is that the mother ship of the vaccine agenda, the United Nations (through WHO), is openly admitting that pro-vaccine science is a myth, and that it doesn't exist. If vaccines really were safe and effective, and the science truly backed this, then WHO wouldn't need a marketing strategy in the first place.

But because vaccines don't actually work and aren't safe, WHO's vaccine division is resorting to the same fraudulent marketing tactics that companies like McDonald's use to promote Happy Meals and Big Macs -- make the product look as good as possible and manipulate people into buying it by appealing to everything other than reason and common sense.



Permalink to this article:

I don't think that was what I intended to post in here, but it seems appropriate so I'll just leave it .
What's that about aborted babies DNA? ???

Ironically, the strategies the site says WHO is adopting sounds very much like C. S. Lewis' devil's strategies fr one to remain atheist. And of course, this is just plain old marketing. Ergo, marketing is from the devil.  :grin:
(04-27-2015, 08:33 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: What's that about aborted babies DNA? ???

Ironically, the strategies the site says WHO is adopting sounds very much like C. S. Lewis' devil's strategies fr one to remain atheist. And of course, this is just plain old marketing. Ergo, marketing is from the devil.  :grin:
  Hmmm. and there are those who claim that they repudiated Catholicism because Chuck Jacobs (or somebody well-known with a similar name) had lots of publicity and an apparently large following.
(04-27-2015, 10:04 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Hmmm. and there are those who claim that they repudiated Catholicism because Chuck Jacobs (or somebody well-known with a similar name) had lots of publicity and an apparently large following.

Who is this fella? And why the existence of a celebrity influences the truth of Catholicism?
(04-27-2015, 08:33 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: What's that about aborted babies DNA? ???

Here's a good article on the subject:

Vaccines, Abortion & Fetal Tissue

pdf version for easy printing

For several years now, information has circulated among prolife groups and individuals regarding the development of very common vaccines through the use of tissue taken from aborted babies. While initially the reports and information were not conclusively documented, further detailed research by several prolife groups has provided direct proof of a connection between aborted fetal tissue and most vaccines. That connection, and its implications for whether prolife citizens should consider using the vaccines, raises some complicated issues. In sorting through those issues, this LifeNotes will address the basic science involved, the documentation of the abortion-vaccine connection, the moral/ethical questions about using abortion-tainted vaccines, and information about available alternative vaccines.

Basic Vaccine and Cell Line Science

The vaccine process works by collecting samples of the actual virus, then growing and altering them in the laboratory to make a weakened strain of the disease. The weakened strain is put into a serum and administered into the body (usually by injection). The body’s immune system is more capable of attacking and destroying the weakened virus, and thus develops the ability to effectively fight off the actual disease should the person ever be exposed to it. The advent of vaccines was a major milestone in medicine, saving millions of lives and saving many others from the devastating effects of diseases like polio and diphtheria.

In order to develop the weakened viral strain, there must be a medium or “cell culture” to grow it in. The virus invades the culture cells, feeds off the cell, matures, and multiplies. The cell cultures are a single type of cell that multiplies itself in a predictable fashion and can be sustained in a laboratory setting for years, even decades. These long-lasting cell cultures are called “cell lines.” The original cells that start these cell lines have been taken from a wide variety of sources, from monkey embryo and kidney cells, to chicken and rabbit embryos, and tragically, from aborted human babies.

The issue of concern is that many common vaccines were developed using cell lines that originally were cells taken from electively aborted babies. The vaccines themselves do not contain fetal cells, but there are significant “residual” biological components from the fetal cells that have been assimilated into the vaccine, including cell proteins and measurable portions of fetal DNA. In some vaccines the level of fetal biologics is well above FDA-recommended standards.

Cell Lines Originating From Aborted Babies

There are two particular fetal cell lines that have been heavily used in vaccine development. They are named according to the laboratory facilities where they were developed. One cell line is known as WI-38, developed at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA. The other is MRC-5, developed for the Medical Research Council in England. WI-38 was developed by Dr. Leonard Hayflick in 1962, by taking lung cells from an aborted female baby at approximately the end of the third month of pregnancy. Dr. Hayflick’s article published in the journal Experimental Cell Research states that three cell lines, WI-26, WI-38, WI-44 were all developed from aborted babies. “All embryos were obtained from surgical abortions and were of approximately three months’ gestation.”(1) Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who developed a Rubella vaccine using WI-38, addressed a question at an international conference as to the origin of WI-38. Dr. Plotkin stated:

“This fetus was chosen by Dr. Sven Gard, specifically for this purpose. Both parents are known, and unfortunately for the story, they are married to each other, still alive and well, and living in Stockholm, presumably. The abortion was done because they felt they had too many children. There were no familial diseases in the history of either parent, and no history of cancer specifically in the families.”(2)

The origin of the MCR-5 cell line, created in 1966, is documented in the journal Nature by three British researchers working at the National Institute for Medical Research. They wrote, “We have developed another strain of cells, also derived from foetal lung tissue, taken from a 14-week male foetus removed for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old woman with a genetically normal family history and no sign of neoplastic disease both at abortion and for at least three years afterward.”(3) Noting that their research parallels that of Dr. Hayflick’s development of the WI-38 cell line, the researchers conclude, “Our studies indicate that by presently accepted criteria, MRC-5 cells—in common with WI-38 cells of similar origin—have normal characteristics and so could be used for the same purposes as WI-38 cells.”(4)

In both of these cell lines it is quite clear that the aborted children were presumed to be healthy, and that there was no life-threatening condition or other medically-indicated reason for the abortion of these two babies.

There is a more recent cell line, PER C6, developed in 1985, which is being used currently in research to develop vaccines to treat Ebola and HIV. The origin of PER C6 is clearly documented. In direct testimony before the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Dr. Alex Van Der Eb, the scientist who developed PER C6, stated:

“So I isolated retina [cells] from a fetus, from a healthy fetus as far as could be seen, of 18 weeks old. There was nothing special in the family history, or the pregnancy was completely normal up to the 18 weeks, and it turned out to be a socially indicated abortus, abortus provocatus, and that was simply because the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus.”(5)

Currently several vaccines using the PER C6 cell line are in development. Undoubtedly the cells used to establish PER C6 came from a healthy baby, aborted from a healthy mother for social convenience reasons. While many of the common childhood vaccines used today were developed using the WI-38 and MRC-5 fetal cell lines, there are some vaccines available that were developed using animal cell lines. The tables on the following page indicate all U.S. abortion-tainted vaccines, and the available alternatives.

U.S. Produced Vaccines from Aborted Cell Lines

Disease Vaccine Name Manufacturer Cell line

Adenovirus Barr Labs., Inc WI-38
Chickenpox Varivax Merck & Co. MRC-5 & WI-38
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Polio, HIB Pentacel Sanofi Pasteur MRC-5
Hepatitis A Havrix GlaxoSmithKline MRC-5
Hepatitis A Vaqta Merck & Co. MRC-5
Hepatitis A-B Twinrix GlaxoSmithKline MRC-5
Measles, Mumps, Rubella MMR II Merck & Co. WI-38
Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox ProQuad Merck & Co. MRC-5 & WI-38
Rabies Imovax Sanofi Pasteur MRC-5
Shingles Zostavax Merck & Co. MRC-5

U.S. Produced Alternative Vaccines

Disease Vaccine Name Manufacturer Medium

Diphtheria, Tetanus & Pertussis Daptacel/Adacel Sanofi Pasteur Several
Diphtheria, Tetanus & Pertussis Infanrix/Boostrix GlaxoSmithKline Several
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis & Polio Kinrix GlaxoSmithKline Several
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Hepatitis B & Polio Pediarix GlaxoSmithKline Several
Hepatitis B ENGERIX-B GlaxoSmithKline Yeast
Hepatitis B Recombivax Merck & Co. Yeast
Hepatitis B & HIB COMVAX Merck & Co. Several
HIB ActHIB Sanofi Pasteur Semi-synthetic
HIB Hiberix GlaxoSmithKline Semi-synthetic
HIB PedvaxHIB Merck & Co. Several
Polio IPOL Sanofi Pasteur Monkey kidney
Rabies RabAvert Novartis Synthetic

The above list is comprehensive and obtained from the package inserts of FDA-approved vaccines. There are currently no U.S. approved alternatives for Adenovirus, Chickenpox, Hepatitis A, Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Shingles. Merck & Co. announced in 2008 that their Mumps and Measles alternatives, Mumpsvax and Attenuvax, will no longer be produced. The new version of the Adenovirus vaccine is currently only approved for use in military personnel.

Should These Vaccines Be Used? The Moral & Ethical Considerations

The ethical quandary created by the tainting of these otherwise beneficial vaccines is vexing. Parents are justified in wanting to protect their children from potentially life-threatening diseases, and it can be legitimately argued that parents have an obligation to do so. Likewise, as a society, we must take into consideration the morality and cost of failing to prevent widespread outbreaks of disease.

The moral perspective of those opposed to the use of these vaccines is equally justifiable. If these vaccines were merely tested on patients without their consent, similar to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, there would be widespread outrage and those responsible for the violation of patients’ rights would face serious consequences. Yet the researchers in this case not only failed to receive consent from the research subjects, but purposefully took their lives.

When dealing with difficult ethical issues, one of the main questions is how should individuals act in a moral way when they are acting in a world that is filled with immorality? The further away the current act (using a vaccine) and intent (protecting a child from a disease) of an individual are from a previous immoral act (aborting a child), the less that individual is restricted by the immorality of the previous act. While the act of aborting the child was certainly immoral, all of the steps involved with the development and use of the vaccines thereafter did not cooperate with the abortion.

The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, and the U.S. and British bishops conferences have studied the issue in detail and concluded that using the vaccines is morally permissible. However, once a person learns that certain vaccines are morally tainted, there is an obligation to seek out ethical alternatives where possible and to make objections known to health care providers and vaccine manufacturers. In addition, parents are entirely justified in citing a “conscientious objection” to tainted vaccines being used to immunize their children, particularly when the vaccine is not for a substantially threatening illness (Chickenpox). A number of noted prolife activists have weighed in on both sides of the issue. Some have encouraged parents to use and demand nothing less than vaccines obtained through morally acceptable means.(6) Others like Jack Willke, M.D., former National Right to Life Committee president and the late Bernard Nathanson, M.D., prolife activist and creator of “The Silent Scream” have opined that using the vaccines is morally allowable.(7,8)

What is unanimous among all commentators on the subject is that everyone ought to know the facts surrounding the vaccines, and prolife citizens should make an effort to persuade - even pressure - vaccine producers to eliminate their tainted products in favor of ethically acceptable products.

1 - L. Hayflick et al., “The Limited In Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cell Strains,” Experimental Cell Research 37, (1965): 615.
2 - “Gamma Globulin Prophylaxis; Inactivated Rubella Virus; Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines,” American Journal of Diseases of Childhood 118, no. 2 (1969): 378.
3 - J.P. Jacobs et al., “Characteristics of a Human Diploid Cell Designated MRC-5,” Nature 227 (1970): 168.
4 - Ibid.,170.
5 - Transcript of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, hearing date 16 May 2001, 91.
6 - Judie Brown, “The Means of Vaccines,” National Catholic Register, April 30-May 6, 2000.
7 - J.C. Wilke, M.D., “Vaccines, Today’s Controversy,” Life Issues Connector, Life Issues Institute, July 2001.
8 - Bernard Nathanson, M.D., “Vaccines OK’d Despite Dark Past,” National Catholic Register, June 18-24, 2000.
(04-27-2015, 10:42 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(04-27-2015, 10:04 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Hmmm. and there are those who claim that they repudiated Catholicism because Chuck Jacobs (or somebody well-known with a similar name) had lots of publicity and an apparently large following.

Who is this fella? And why the existence of a celebrity influences the truth of Catholicism?
Interesting that you should say that. I don't even know that is his real name  40 odd years ago just about everywhere that claimed to be "Christian" had piles of these "comics" free to take.

I don't think he's a celebrity and whether he is or isn't makes not the slightest difference to Christian (Catholic) doctrine.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)