Using aborted baby parts in medical research

Can you really trust science and scientists? Recent revelations by the Center for Medical Progress show how scientists used scalps from aborted babies to create “humanized” mice and rats to study the human immune system. BREAKING: University of Pittsburgh ADMITS Hearts Beating While Harvesting Aborted Infants’ Kidneys – The Center for Medical Progress I looked through the NIH forms for the grants to use baby parts for medical research and wondered about the long chain of experts, from language to enumeration to composing the agreements between NIH and University of Pittsburgh (and I'm sure many others). If I read this correctly, there is great care in assuring that the lab animals received "humane" care. Too bad the babies didn't.

Government-Funded Researchers Sought Aborted Minorities for Organ Harvesting (freebeacon.com)

NIH reverses Trump-era restrictions on fetal-tissue research (nature.com)

Scientists are Growing Aborted Baby Hair on Lab Rats - The DENISE SIMON EXPERIENCE (founderscode.com)

Here's what it reads like in medical, sanitized, safe jargon (I've removed the footnote numbers, but those lead you to other studies): "Humanized mouse models with human fetal-derived hematopoietic system and autologous lymphoid tissues are well-established. Additionally, full-thickness human fetal skin readily engrafts onto immunodeficient mice and develops into adult-like skin due to its high regenerative capability. Furthermore, human fetal skin exhibits low levels of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) I and II expression, which results in reduced immunogenicity compared to adult skin. Thus, human fetal-derived tissues and cells provide a feasible means to develop a humanized mouse model with autologous human skin and immune system."

For longer term studies, rats are used: "Evidence also suggests that nude rats support engraftment and development of full-thickness neonatal foreskin." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71548-z

Who and what is science? Who can you trust?

Most of you who lived through the tobacco cancer linked investigations and pay outs of the 1990s, would react with shock if you were told to trust R. J. Reynolds "science" about lung disease and smoking today. And that's about how unbiased today's scientists are who are taking money from the federal government (NIH) to investigate the novel virus currently causing the lockdowns and mask orders. Even if the NIH funded scientists are not publishing in that field, they will be shut out of research on immune system, or ivermectin or HCQ as a tool in fighting a global pandemic. If they appear as expert witnesses on a cable show or podcast, they risk their careers and funding if their conclusions don't support Big Pharma, CDC and WHO. The host who books them or interviews them, risks being deplatformed or their monetization contract. 

Trust the "science?" No, follow the money.