I think that's a wildly misleading question that displays an unfortunate ignorance of vaccine manufacture
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @MrCharlieSurf
It's no more aborted baby foetus DNA than I am Ghengis Khan. Most of the cell lines were begun in the 80s. As I said, unfortunate ignorance
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @MrCharlieSurf
Lol. Tediously boring. As I said, cell lines are somewhat different to aborted foetuses. You make it sound like they jam pureed baby into a syringe
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @MrCharlieSurf
What do you specifically mean by synergistic effect? Because there are large epidemiological studies on the vaccine schedules used worldwide
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @MrCharlieSurf
And the issue, of course, is that you're trying to make routine cell cultures seem scary by using the words "aborted foetus DNA". As I said, the cells in a culture line have about the same relationship to an aborted foetus as I do to Ghengis Khan
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
So what is your specific claim? Because having DNA inside you isn't a problem, obviously. I have a bunch of chicken DNA in me right now.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.