Biblical doctrines Biblical morality Cosmology satan vaccines

Where I now stand

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 (

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.

Dr John Gideon Hartnett 11 March 2021

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 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 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, 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 medically 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

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 Many other studies here: Vaxxed-Unvaxxed-Parts-I-XI (pdf of PPT)

To keep informed on my latest posts and discussions join me on the uncensored platform @GideonHartnett (join my group)

By John Gideon Hartnett

Dr John G. Hartnett is an Australian physicist and cosmologist, and a Christian with a biblical creationist worldview. He received a B.Sc. (Hons) and Ph.D. (with distinction) in Physics from The University of Western Australia, W.A., Australia. He was an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, with rank of Associate Professor. Now he is retired. He has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters and conference proceedings.

9 replies on “Where I now stand”

You know what’s funny about CMI, that I came to them about quantum mechanics, with evidence that the deBroglie interpretation that Sarfati and Humphreys favored is flawed and that the Orthodox plus Quantum Information interpretation is more in line with the evidence. I gave them a list of references to the studies, and the best I got was a second hand response from a senior who literally called my arguments rubbish, even though they were substantiated by the Physics literature to date.
It’s a bitter irony that CMI claims to be against the mainstream evolutionary stronghold and is fighting against censorship against debate, but here they are, unwilling to exercise the very thing they preach and ask the seculars to exercise.

The ministries I have left to turn to are Lisle’s Biblical Science Institute and Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis which so far haven’t pulled this stuff about vaccines that I’m aware off. And they aren’t so restricted on their Answers Research Journal from what I’ve seen.

Be that as it may; I’m glad you came out and spoke your stance, Gideon. You did the right choice.


Thanks, Gideon! The reason that you laid out, particularly in relation to the babies, for parting with CMI seems more than understandable. You sum it up well with your comment: “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.” Amen!!!

Disturbingly, there seems to be so many churches and so many Christian based organisations, running with skewed and ungodly agendas. Good on you for taking a stand and shedding light what is happening. After all, aren’t we exhorted to, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” Eph 5:11


I believe there is truth to your saying that cmi is not open to some ideas. I have had two (or maybe even three) comments blocked from being published on their site. Both were on topic, appropriate and were critical of their views. Of course, I am not familiar enough with their policies to say for sure why they were blocked.

That being said, I also believe your views on conspiracy theories are wrong and some seems like bonkers, even though I have not spent much time on them.


As a reader of CMI of six years, I have been deeply disappointed by the recent developments that have taken place there with their supportive stance on the COVID-19 social policies that the world governments are currently trying to enact. And now after reading your post about their support on using aborted baby tissue in vaccines — which quite frankly I find absolutely abominable — and apparently hiding this part of their vaccine stance from most of their readers for years, I have to say that I have now lost complete trust of this organization and will be staying clear of them from now on.

Thanking you for coming forward and writing this post. May God bless you.

Liked by 1 person

You are right John, using cells or organs from murdered children is very satanic! This is a great example of how deceivers deceive! They make themselves to look as though they were “Christian” when in reality they are very dangerous wolves. I am so thankful that you are doing the hard work that you are to expose them for what they really are. Hopefully it will cause some sleeping sheep to wake up. We who truly believe the word of God must walk in obedience to his word regardless if the whole world rejects it. I will not accept any medicine derived from murdered children, or anyone else.


Comments are closed.