Exactly. Preparing a larger explanation of this bullshit presently. (Biotechfag here). This slide has been going on for days, an extension of (and distraction from) the abortion laws/PP news IMO. To make us look like retards.
Clears it up how? Where is the primary sauce for this information? A blog making claims is not sauce unless the blog itself sauces its claims. Anyone can make a website and write random crap in it. Anyone can type something up in Word and make a shit-tier rando pdf from it. It is not sauce.
On Fetal Cells, Products, & the Importance of Sauced Claims in Scientific Notables
Genetic Engineerfag explains fetal tissue in research
Re: this attempt to present playing loose with the truth in order to jump to sensational claims:
>>5013923, >>5014002, >>5014036, >>5014068
The claim below is completely
Fake and gay
>A list of products containing HEK cells.
There are no human cells IN THE PRODUCTS THEMSELVES.
You are NOT "eating" baby parts when you drink pepsi. (maybe causing type II diabetes, but that's another story).
While it may be unethical to use fetal cells in ''research,'' that is the only application for them that we have any evidence of. We have no evidence they are used as actual ingredients in the products.
Here's how it works:
Due both to how lucrative the pharma industry is, as well to all the taxpayer subsidies via healthcare, biotech R&D is a highly developed business with contributors at every level of the pipeline. There are research tool developers, and product application developers that use those tools. The earliest, safest way to test products such as food additives or medicines, is in vitro (i.e. a test tube) rather than in vivo (a living organism). A mid-point between those in "in culture" which is to test things in a soup of cells. Of those, the most common and easiest cells to fuck around with are bacteria, because bacteria are hearty and love growing in smelly broths of nutrients. Most "genetic engineering" you hear about happens here, including stuff that will end up for plant use.
But if your ultimate users will be mammals, you can test some stuff in yeast, which is at least a eukaryotic cell like mammals, and thus has a pattern of gene expression more like ours. Yeast are also cheap and hearty and like growing in smelly broths. Most biotech doing early exploratory research never go beyond bacteria and yeast. But, if you afford it, you'll want to test things in mammal cells.
Mammal cells are used to growing as part of a larger organism, not in some smelly brothy soup. They also don't reproduce randomly on their own unless a) they're an embryo or b) cancer, so these are the only types of mammal cells one can "culture" (grow in a soup) so they will self-reproduce into a large enough sample you can see how they do under test conditions .
Mammalian cell culture is an art, they're super sensitive. I began working with them late in my time in pharma, and wew, if you didn't give 'em just the write amount of this and that and just the right time, you'd come in the next day and find 'em all perished. Research tool developers have put tons of time and money into adapting certain mammalian cell lines, and all the conditions and products (their food soup broths etc.) that they'll work under. One such cell line is the HEK 293 cell line, developed from fetal cells, because a fetus still has stem cells that will self-reproduce on their own "timer" rather than wait to be told to reproduce as regular, non-cancer body cells do.
These cells wouldn't even be in the same building as where pepsi is made, much less be in the pepsi itself. Anons, we've got very lazy in using rando blogs as "sauce" without making the sure the blogs themselves have any primary sauce to back their claims.
We need to do better here or we're live bait for shills and look like retards to the very public we're trying to get to trust as as the alternative to Fake News. We have to hold each other accountable to making sure blog's and twats sauce any claims, especially claims in specialized fields that we can't use our own bullshit detector and common sense to check. I'll write some more on that in a subsequent post.
(didn't look at spoiler)
>Yeah, they wouldn’t do that.
Look, I'm NOT saying "they wouldn't do that." We have plenty of evidence cannibalism happens and that the cabal is evil, I put nothing past them.
So why make claims we CAN'T prove rather than focus on the ones we can? ''Why make factually incorrect claims when we have plenty facts to make the case they the cabal is evil?''
>Is there such a thing as cancerous stem cells?
Not that I know of. They are both set on a rapid reproduction internal timer, but do so for different reasons. Cancer cells are body cells with built in stops to rapid reproduction, as well as the ability to be told when they're acting weird or just old and need to commit sepuku (apoptosis, or cell death). Two types of DNA damage must happen in tandem for a cell to become cancerous: the stop on its rapid reproduction breaks, and its ability to be told to commit sepuku breaks. Then you have rapid growth/spread.
more from genetic engineerfag
Another angle you'll here in the "cannibalism" angle is in GMO's. They are developing foodstock animals that can make human proteins. Is that the same as cannibalism? That's a semantics question. But these caps show what a ''sauced blog'' looks like, and what primary scientific sauce looks like.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/biotechs-dark-promise-involuntary-cannabilism-all-1
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/biotechs-dark-promise-involuntary-cannabilism-all-1#_edn4
Thank you. Again, I'm not even saying we should be using these for research, but it's not "babies" in our food.
No prob, thanks muchly baker
>Betcha they use human bones and just call em bovine.
This would have even more impact if it weren't just a "betcha" and you had some evidence to present. We are a research group, not science fiction writers.
Notice this site also doesn't sauce the list, just continues the claim that the cells are used as "flavor"