The Church Courtyard > The Sacred Sciences

Morality of Covid Vaccine (from a priest friend)

(1/5) > >>

Michael Wilson:
Is it possible for a Catholic to consent to have himself  vaccinated with a vaccine that:
1) can provoke a modification of our genome?  2) has, as one of its vital elements, cells that come from  aborted embryos?
Summary: One cannot consent to have oneself vaccinated by the new  vaccines of the synthetic RNA type, proposed by the government against  COVID, as much because of the functioning of the vaccine (which affects even  the nature of man), as on account of its connection with the crime/sin of  abortion.
If another vaccine came out which did not have these two faults, it would be  up to each person to weigh the pros and cons — the risks and benefits — prior to consenting to its use for oneself or for one’s children.
Moreover, given 1) the extremely serious secondary effects of this vaccine, 2)  the existence of alternative solutions, and 3) the vaccine’s role in the  establishment of the new world order, it is impossible that there would be  proportionally serious reasons that could render consent to the vaccine licit.
Every Catholic, but especially fathers of families, has the moral duty to do  everything in his power to stop the process.
The question of the new type of vaccine divides deeply the catholic world. When the pope said that it is possible  to receive it, in the same time some Bishops (Mgr. Vigano, Cardinal Müller, Cardinal Zen, Cardinal Pujats,  Mgr. Schneider, Strickland) affirm the contrary. Even in the “traditional world”, priests are divided: father  Sélégny (SSPX) think that it is possible, when father Lang, from the same SPPX, wrote said that it is just  impossible.
What follows is an attempt to show that it is not morally acceptable, under whatever circumstances, to allow  one to be vaccinated with the new vaccines presently being proposed for the populace, or with any of the  vaccines that have up to now been proposed for the protection of the people from the COVID epidemic.
At first glance other vaccines now being developed do not present the same defects that the Pfizer vaccine does. Thus, if we have the choice, these could be an option - on the condition that one was certain that the vaccines  absolutely did not possess the denounced defects.
Thus, every time there is a question of a new vaccine, we will specifically discuss this new type of vaccine as it  relates to the subject of our genome and the issue of cells from aborted embryos. The question of vaccines in  general is not broached.
I should make clear right away that I am solely responsible for this study.
The moral question raised by this type of vaccine goes back to the principle of moral cooperation, which holds  that for a real need or utility, and where there is a great necessity, one can sometimes be authorized to do an act  which, while good—or neutral—in itself (since one can never do evil for a good end), would be material,  mediate, negative, and remote cooperation with an evil action.
The utility (or benefit) or the necessity in such a case may be so overwhelming that one is excused from the  obligation of avoiding cooperation with evil. One says in such a case that there is a serious proportional reason  for cooperating.
In order to give an answer to this moral question, one must establish three things:
1
- What this vaccine really is—the manner of its manufacture and the manner of its functioning, as well as  the consequences or side effects (because the question is not limited only to the more or less remote  employment of cells from aborted embryos);
- If, allowing oneself to be vaccinated with a vaccine that uses by one means or another the cells of  aborted embryos, would only be a material mediate negative and remote cooperation.
- And, in such a case, if there exists a serious proportional reason which would authorize us to do so.
The third question will oblige us to place the question of the vaccine in its context. Because the surrounding  circumstances can render evil an act, which in itself is good or neutral. To ignore the circumstances is to set  aside an aspect of the problem, and thus to come to the wrong conclusion.
To give an example: Belonging to a bicycle club is something that is neutral in itself. But if the club was  founded with the avowed goal of making people not go to Sunday mass by having rides on Sunday morning,  membership in such a club is no longer neutral.
I] The Present State of the Issue: The Synthetic RNA Vaccines 
Numerous scientists, some of whom are known around the world, such as the professors Raoult, Perrone,  Alexandra Henrion-Caude, as well as others like the doctors Fouché, Fourtillan or Joyeux, do not hide their  fears about this new procedure, which has not been sufficiently tested, and for which we do not yet know all  of the possible consequences and side effects. Obviously, these experts are less known, being regularly censured  by the mainstream media.
Perhaps it would be useful to briefly recall how this new type of “vaccine” functions.
It’s a matter of injecting genetic code that comes from a virus for the purpose of making our DNA itself produce  the virus — in the hope of making it react and to make it produce the antibody. Our body thus becomes a virus  factory. [More specifically, a foreign Messenger RNA is injected into our body, instructing our body cells to  produce harmless components of the virus, which will produce antibodies that will react when the real virus  infects us. The problem is that this Messenger RNA is a factory to produce elements of the virus in our body.  Professor Perronne says that, on the one hand, the production can get out of control, with unpredictable effects;  and on the other hand, this foreign Messenger RNA may - it is not a certainty but a possibility - encounter an  enzyme that will transform it into DNA, and thus become part of our genetic heritage and be transmitted to our  descendants.]
The first problem is that scientists are quite a long way from mastering this new procedure, and are incapable of  saying with certainty what will be all the consequences, good and bad, which will result. This is so true that for  example in France, doctors who prescribe and laboratories which produce are exempted in advance by the state  from all liability as far as the possible consequences and side effects!
Dr. Fouché compares the procedure to a rape, because it is introduced into the interior of our body in order to  use it, against our will, in the most intimate of the body’s functions.
In fact, it goes much further than a rape because it touches the very structure of our nature, our DNA. In effect,  this type of vaccine can become DNA and integrate itself into our genome. The genome, modified in this  manner, will then, through reproduction, be transmitted to the next generation. Man becomes in his turn an GMO…
All this poses another moral problem, namely, we are not the owner of our body, and we cannot do with it  what we want. For example, we are forbidden to mutilate ourselves (unless this is required for the good of the  body as a whole).
Do we have the right to touch that which is our deep nature, knowing that these modifications (which we  still do not know in all their ramifications) will be transmitted to future generations?
2
II] Is Consenting to Have Oneself Vaccinated With Vaccines Which are Cultivated on Cell  Tissues From Abortion Only Material, Mediate, Negative, and Remote Cooperation?
Let’s start with a few principles and then try to resolve the case.
1) Definition
We call “cooperation with evil” the fact to help a sinner in committing his sin, whatever the assistance be that is  given. In order to be in “cooperation with evil,” the action of the cooperator, by the assistance he has given,  must have some real influence on the evil act.
2) Distinctions To Be Made in Cooperation With Evil:
- Cooperation is called immediate when the cooperator, along with the sinner, carries out the very act of the sin.
- Cooperation is called mediate when the cooperator furnishes that which will serve the sinner (materials, a  necessary act, means, money…) which will permit him or her to do it more easily.
- This mediate cooperation then can be more or less “near” or “remote,” according to whether the assistance  given is more or less influencing for the actual sin committed, or whether it has a more or less greater  connection to the sin.
- Cooperation is said to be negative or passive when one does not prevent or impede an evil action which is  committed—one allows it to be committed.
Moreover, as to one’s intention, we distinguish formal cooperation from material cooperation. - With formal cooperation, the cooperator voluntarily consents to the sin for which he provides assistance.
- Assistance is said to be material when the cooperator does not want the sin, but acts foreseeing that the sinner  will abuse the cooperator’s contribution in order to sin.
3) Principles:
- Formal cooperation is always illicit and forbidden, because it simply takes on to the cooperator’s own account  the sin in whose commission he or she cooperated. The cooperator seeks the sin itself.
- Immediate cooperation, even if is only material, is illicit, because it is an evil action, and most of the time is a  sin identical to that of the principal sinner, because the cooperator’s action directly influences the act of the  sin, which would not be able to be committed without it, or at least not without much greater difficulty.
- Negative (or passive) cooperation is not sinful unless we have a particular duty to prevent the sin in question.
- Mediate material cooperation can be licit or illicit. Ordinarily and most of the time it is illicit, because one  must always try to avoid evil actions and to avoid cooperating in them. However, in order to gain a real utility  or benefit, or for reasons of grave necessity, one can at times do an act which, while good in itself, will be  mediate cooperation with an evil action. One must keep in mind:
* The influence of one’s own act on the evil act. The stronger the influence, the more serious must be the  reason for doing one’s own cooperating act. And when the proximity of one’s own action to the evil act is  too big, no reason can excuse it.
* The utility or the necessity for which one commits the act of mediate material cooperation may be so  powerful that one is excused from the obligation of avoiding cooperation with evil. There is a  proportionately serious reason for lawful cooperation.
4) Position of the Problem
Let us begin by disposing of two errors which are rather generally committed.
- The first error consists in believing that the use of fetal cells themselves is not blameworthy (because they  could have been obtained in a licit manner such as in the case of a spontaneous abortion or a miscarriage). But
3
the fact is they were obtained by an evil act: an abortion.
One must respond to this by saying that man is not the owner of his body, he cannot dispose of it at his pleasure,  even after his death. If the gift of a body to science is tolerated by the Church, it is upon certain conditions,  which are not at all fulfilled in the case of the use of cells from embryos for the vaccine. Thus, this use of fetal  cells is in itself blameworthy and condemned by the Church.
- The second error consists in believing 1) that there but one or two abortions, conducted in the distant past,  whose cells were then cultivated in order to be utilized, and 2) that they are using the cells from embryos only  after the embryos’ death.
The horrible reality is entirely different.
Let us quote a specialist on the question, Pamela Acker.
[Pamela holds a Master of Science degree in Biology from the Catholic University of America. She was involved  in biological research as a whole genome library maker at the Genome Sequencing center at Washington  University in Saint Louis.
She has conducted research in vaccine using T4 bacteriophage nanoparticles and was briefly involved in  researching novel regulation mechanisms in C. elegans.]
In her book, Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, Acker talks about her research in particular on the cellular  line HEK-293, and the reason for the number 293. “HEK” signifies Human Embryonic Kidney and “293”  reveals in fact the number of experiments that a specific researcher made in order to develop this cellular line.  Ms. Acker writes, “This does not mean that there were 293 abortions, but for 293 experiments you would  certainly need quite a bit more than one abortion. We are probably talking about hundreds of abortions.” She  goes on dissolving the myth, according to which cellular lines are created with the aid of spontaneous abortions,  simply by understanding that cells have to be gathered in the five minutes after the abortion. A miscarriage  would simply not furnish cells sufficiently alive for the researchers to be able to utilize them. It is here that  things become very disturbing, because in most of the cases, it is not a question of a “simple abortion,” but  rather, says Acker, “They deliver these babies by C-section. The babies are still alive when the researchers  start to extract the tissue; to the point that their heart is still beating, and they generally receive no anesthesia,  because this would disturb the cells which the researchers are trying to extract. So they take this tissue while  the baby is alive and in the greatest extremity of pain. Hence, this renders it even more sadistic.”
One cannot but think about the human sacrifices of the Aztecs to demons, having to offer a heart still beating….  And who could deny that abortions are the new human sacrifices for which the demon is thirsty for today?
Admittedly, this has not been proven to exist in all laboratories collecting fetal cells from abortions. But that it  does exist is undeniable. There are even abominable videos that show it.
It depends on the countries, and in the countries, on the laboratories... As what is done in the laboratories is very  difficult to know (because they don't talk about it), the solution that remains is: Nullam partem! Not from close  by, not from far away [i.e., a Catholic can’t have any cooperation howsoever remote with such abominable  crime and diabolical evil].
--Let us note a third aspect of the problem that one must take into account in order to finally decide, yes or no,  whether there is here only a mediate material cooperation that is negative and remote.
We have seen that in order to complete their scientific research, the scientists need hundreds of aborted fetuses.
Now, the virus is constantly mutating, and the vaccine, to the extent it is effective, is only effective for one  precise type of the virus. Since the Covid virus has already generated a certain number of mutations, susceptible  in turn of provoking other epidemics (dixit Professor Raoult), one must understand that we are not talking here  about only one vaccine, but about a series of vaccines which will be imposed on us. If one does accept the  vaccine against Covid, whatever the reasons for acceptance might be (not losing one’s job, one’s social life,  thinking that the vaccine will protect us, will protect others, etc.), then you will be looking at 3, 4, 5 or more  vaccines that you will have to accept.
4
We must ask ourselves the question: For each new vaccine, will there be new research, and therefore a new  need for embryos?
Moreover, cells coming from embryos are a vital element of the vaccine even when they are not a part of its  composition (for its stabilization—without the cells, the vaccine would not be viable very long and thus  unusable). Is one absolutely sure that they use cells reproduced from a single abortion and that they don’t  use cells coming from yet other abortions?
5) Application of the Principles in the Case of the Vaccine.
It being understood that:
- On the medical level, Covid-19 is a viral illness whose mortality rate in the world, according to the W.H.O., is  less than .2% thus, similar to that of seasonal flu. The illness is only dangerous for “very elderly persons, the  obese or persons suffering from severe diabetes, serious arterial hypertension, cardio-respiratory or kidney  diseases that are already largely incapacitating.”
- The disease is treated very easily with hydroxy chloroquine and azithromycin, if these medications are being  used precociously. [Also note the very effective preventive treatments: vitamins C and D, zinc, Ivermectin.]
- Little is known about the side effects of the vaccine, but we must state that, with the first vaccinations, they  could have a serious impact on health, up to and including death. Now one of the first axioms that one learns in  medicine is that first, do no harm or make the patient’s condition worse. Prior to prescribing a treatment one  must calculate and weigh the risk and the benefit.
- The results are far from what was hoped for at this time in terms of vaccine efficacy (you can have a look at:  https://www.sante-corps-esprit.com/debacle-vaccinale-en-israel-ce-qu-il-faut-en-retenir/).
- According to Dr. Fouché, after the vaccine, six times more viral particles are released, making you more  dangerous to others, which removes the excuse: “It's not for me, it's to protect my fellow man.” [See Nexus'  interview with Dr. Fouché, December 30: “Arn vaccine & techno-sanitary society: the analysis of Dr. Louis  Fouché, the founder of Réinfo Covid.”]
One must exclude the possibility of taking this vaccine in order to protect oneself or others from Covid.
The remaining question is whether the taking of the vaccine is a material, mediate, negative cooperation, which  is permitted for a grave reason. (Here in this case: in order to have a normal social life or to keep one’s job,  which will permit one to accomplish one’s duties of state as head of family, or also to avoid the State’s seizing  your children in order to place them in receiving families.)
Let us recall that one must take into account the influence of one’s own act on the evil act itself. The stronger  the influence of one’s own act on the evil act itself, the more serious must be the reason for one’s act. And when  there is too much proximity between the two actions, there can no longer be any sufficient reason to excuse  one’s own.
One must then absolutely have a reliable answer to the following question: “Is our acceptance of the vaccine  really without any effect on the number of abortions necessary for the vaccines?”
To do this it is necessary to have a good and certain answer to three other questions prior to accepting the  vaccine:
*Does the manufacture of vaccines require further abortions (for their stabilization)? *For each new future vaccine, will there be new research, and therefore a new need for cells from  murdered embryos?
*To what extent will our acceptance of the vaccine permit and encourage such research and studies,  and, therefore, these abortions?
One affirmative answer for one of the questions would render acceptance of the vaccine mediate, proximate  cooperation, and therefore would not permit acceptance of the vaccine.
5
Until one has answers - reliable this time - to these questions, the most prudent course is to abstain from taking  the vaccine.
Deliberately running the risk of committing a mortal sin is already to sin mortally.
Let’s take an example to illustrate the moral principle of cooperation: Someone steals a jewel. If I am a bus  driver and drive to the scene of the theft which is located on my bus route, and the thief boards the bus, then,  okay, there is only material mediate negative remote cooperation.
But if I buy the fruit of his theft (all the while condemning his sin), I encourage him to continue. I exert a real  influence on his evil act. If no one bought his stolen goods, his thefts would cease. We are no longer in material  mediate negative remote cooperation.
If our acceptance of the vaccine has any kind of impact on the number of abortions, we are like the second  example.
Now, they have lied since the beginning, starting with the number of abortions which the preparation of these  vaccines requires.
- As it is money that is behind all this (one has only to listen to the differing statements of authorized persons, as  in the very interesting documentaries “Mal Soignés” [= Badly Treated].)
They already are warning us that one vaccine will not be enough: The head of the Public Health Services at  Israel’s Ministry of Health, Dr. Sharon Elrai-Price, has given notice that one single dose of the vaccine against  the coronavirus would not offer sufficient protection against infection by the virus.
17% of gravely ill patients who are now hospitalized are patients who have received a first dose of the vaccine  prior to their hospitalization.
4,500 persons have been diagnosed positive for the coronavirus after having received the first dose of the  vaccine, of whom 375 were hospitalized on account of having the virus. 
Among the persons hospitalized, 244 were hospitalized in the first week after their vaccination, 124 during the  second week, and seven more hospitalized more than two weeks after receiving the vaccine.
- And like the law of supply and demand, the less a product is purchased the less there is produced.
- One can think, with some probability, that our rejection of the vaccine can stop the manufacture of the  vaccine, and so also stop new research studies. Then the question resolves itself: One cannot, under any pretext,  accept the vaccine.
There is the easy excuse: It is not because one (i.e., I) refuse will anything change!
And because everyone thinks this way, nothing stops them. They know and play upon this force: the weakness  of good men makes up the force of the evil men.
Solzhenitsyn already noted it. If, when the KGB came to make its first arrest, it had found the population at the  exit, and the tires to its vehicles flattened, the machine would have been stopped. But each person thought: “It is  not me! After all, maybe there is a good reason. And in any case, my family needs me.”
Before there is a really serious proportional cause, let us start by doing everything in our power to stop  the machine!
If tomorrow sufficient numbers of persons mobilized in order to strip away the lies of the media and to open the  eyes of people of good will, would they continue to make new vaccines that would be harder and harder to sell?
So, the solution is not in the acceptance of the vaccine, but in the mobilization against the vaccine. Here again  Dr. Fouché is an example, and while pagan, gives a lesson to many Catholics. On his website, réinfocovid, he  explains how one can act effectively, notably in common actions with others.
If in spite of everything, one judges that the influence exerted upon the number of abortions [by accepting the  vaccine] is weak, and that the gravity of the situation and the certitude of prejudicial consequences in the event
6
of refusing the vaccine could be important, one must then ask oneself the question: Is there a serious  proportional reason [i.e., to take the vaccine]? (Cf. the third part.)
6) Another Moral Aspect of the Vaccine
Next to the question of morality tied to abortions, let us note another moral aspect of the problem: the fact that  we are not the owner of our body, and that we are thus forbidden from using it as it seems good to us. Thus, we  are forbidden from mutilating ourselves, except when it is good for the body as a whole. Or, again, cremation is  forbidden by the Church.
- From an individual point of view, do we have the right to accept a vaccine which touches our DNA and can  modify our genome, with these modifications then transmitted to future generations through procreation?
- Again, from an individual point of view, does one have the right to accept a vaccine of whose side effects one  wonders as of today whether they are not a good deal more baneful than the Covid illness?
- From the point of view of a parent, the question arises as to the responsibility of parents to watch over the  health of their children. Let us recall that negative cooperation is without sin, unless we have a particular duty to  prevent the sin in question. (A police officer who allowed a thief to get away without doing anything would be  guilty.) A father who would allow his child to be vaccinated would be guilty of all the secondary effects  which might come to it, including death.
The question remains open. In my humble opinion, the answer is no, and notably because of the serious effects  and consequences that we can already ascertain:
*Dr. Fouché explains that one of the possible effects might be infertility, for a man as well as for a woman.  See document in appendix.
*It is now public and notorious that many people (and not just one!) have died as a result of this vaccine. *The first videos of people suffering from side effects of the vaccine are starting to come out, and they are  more than frightening.
I quote an extract from an interesting study made by Brother Olivier Nguyen and Roselyne Legall on this new  type of vaccine, published in the newspaper La Nef. (Emphasis where added is my own.)
“It is this production of ‘artificial’ ordered by an exterior code that is precisely the ultimate violence that can be  done to the ribosome, but also to the human cell in general. The nature of the process thus introduces a  before and an after in the very functioning of what is most intimate about the human body: we oblige it to  become, at the level of its cells, a machine, a factory in light of the fabrication of an ‘artefact’ whereas their deep  (or real) nature is to be a marvel of self-regulation which makes them hold up by themselves. This type of vaccine  then brings about an opening towards an anthropological upheaval which is not first of all of an ideological or  moral order but calls attention to even the order of creation, an upheaval about which one might think it will reach  ever more negatively into human psychology or culture by reason of the unity of the human body and of society. I  make a comparison: If contraception is an act—by way of deprivation—of violence upon the nature of natural  processes (the absence of which produces consequences upon the psychology of a woman), one can imagine all  the more that this double violence in an active sense must produce out of the artificial and of the being ordered to  be produced will have effects upon the perception of human nature by humans themselves, and even more so if  the vaccination with RNAm becomes the norm. The reality at hand with this new technique is more profound  than the simple treatment of an epidemic. If the laudable goal of the RNA vaccine is to prevent the illness, its  profound nature is to be the first procedure of transhumanism deployed on a large scale in the heart of a  living being.
III] Is There a Proportional Grave Cause or Reason Which Would Authorize Us to be Vaccinated?
He who says nothing consents says the proverb. There are times when silence equates to approval. One may sin  mortally by staying silent, above all when one is the boss; a father of a family, for example, who would allow a  minority-aged daughter to have an abortion without telling her anything.
This third part will probably make many shoulders shrug. God (and the future) will judge. The duty to speak  when one is a priest, in order to enlighten the faithful, is binding on the conscience. This alone is what counts.
7
1) Context and Circumstances
The third question obliges us to place the question of the vaccine into its context, because the circumstances can  render evil an act, good in itself or neutral. To neglect the circumstances is to set aside an aspect of the problem  and to warp therefore the conclusion.
Let’s take the hypothetical case (I say in no wise that it is about Covid). If an epidemic breaks out, and you  learn that this epidemic has very probably been let loose by those who sell the remedy for part of it, that the  same persons have already made known their intention to suppress a part of the population and to reduce the  other part into bondage by the means of this remedy, do you think that this has no influence on the morality of  taking this remedy? Or of a father of a family to use this remedy for his children? And if this same father  obstinately refused to find out about the remedy before taking his son to take it which might impact him  severely for life (even kill him), would this be prudent? Would the possibility of losing one’s job be a  proportional cause sufficiently serious to render licit the decision to run the risk of having his son seriously  handicapped for life?
Prudence is a moral virtue which must intervene in the judgment one makes as to an appreciation of the  morality of the vaccination. Now, the first stage of prudence is certainly seeking out information.
In order to know therefore whether it is licit to accept the vaccination, it is necessary that we place the  vaccination in its context.
But before doing this it will perhaps be useful to say a word about the virtue of prudence, because our age  makes it its glory to be of a Cartesian spirit which does not adhere to anything about which it does not have  mathematical certitude. By doing this our age judges itself prudent. Nothing is more false (This makes one  think of the attitude of the apostle, St. Thomas, an attitude not especially praised or recommended by our Lord,  Jesus Christ)
The virtue of prudence is composed of three stages:
- First, consilium (counsel): seeking to be informed, as much as one can, about the different means possible  to reach the goal. All the while taking counsel from people with experience or those in whom one has  confidence;
- Secondly, judicium (judgment): one comes to a judgment on these mean. with an eye to making a  decision.
- Finally, imperium: one passes to action.
A person who would successfully navigate the first two stages without passing through the third would not be  prudent.
Now, in order to pass to action, a moral certitude is sufficient, indeed even a simple probability suffices.
To want to have mathematical evidence or certitude about everything prior to making a decision and going on to  action would not be at all prudent! (Imagine a general who would command his troops only when in possession  of certitudes about the enemy camp…)
Certainly, the more serious something is, the more one should expect a higher likelihood before moving on to  action. But to not start acting except when one has attained certitude is to condemn oneself to acting too late in  the majority of cases—and thus uselessly—which can be a very imprudent thing.
Coming back to the vaccine, as regards the morality of its use of cells coming from an aborted embryo, if one  comes to the conclusion that taking the vaccine involves only material mediate negative remote cooperation  with an evil action, this does not mean that you can take it without sin. One must weigh the pro and the con, the  risks in taking it and the consequences if one does not take it in order to judge if there really is a serious  proportional reason (for taking it).
“Furthermore, the impact on our genome is but one of the possible problems. The facilitation of the infection by  the antibodies after the vaccination (Lee, et al., 2020), a phenomenon already observed in the case of a vaccine
8
against the dengue plague (Normile, 2017) and which can lead to more serious forms of the malady, is often  debated. Noteworthy is the fact that if such facilitation of the infection took place the blame would no doubt be  thrown on those who were not vaccinated since they facilitated the circulation of the virus and therefore the re infections. Another risk would be the development of immunity pathologies in cases of re-infection by the virus  after vaccination, a phenomenon observed in mice (Tseng et al., 2012). The risk of autoimmune reactions to  placental proteins, which could cause sterility, was also raised, due to the similarity between certain viral and  placental proteins. The list of possible risks is undoubtedly longer and some doctors consider that the guarantees  provided by the studies carried out by vaccine manufacturers are not sufficient. "Jacques Pollini, Associate  Researcher at McGill University in Montreal. « Les raisons, simples et claires, pour lesquelles je ne me ferai pas  vacciner contre la COVID-19 » [http://jdmichel.blog.tdg.ch/archive/2020/12/21/les-raisons-simples-et-claires-pour lesquelles-je-ne-me-fera-311573.html]
In terms of the new process used, we are not saying that COVID-19 vaccines will necessarily and in all cases  change our genome, or that those who designed them have only this intention. But almost no one has the  technical competence or the legal authority to verify these two points. So, we have only the confidence, whether  or not we trust the decision-makers, and those who developed these vaccines, to guide our decision. So, we have  to look at these people to see whether or not they can be trusted.
All of this necessarily leads us to talk about the context in which this vaccine was created. But in this part, if we  can achieve a certain probability, mathematical certainty is impossible.
2) Analysis of the Context
In the face of a virus that has not been much more deadly than a simple seasonal flu, we are witnessing a set of  measures that are being taken by all governments, most of which are counterproductive, i.e. facilitating the  worsening of the pandemic: confinement, (preventing people from going out and meeting each other, from  taking the air and the sun, from doing sports, and which increases panic fear, exposure to the airwaves because  they are stuck to the screens, extra kilos -and sugar-, etc.), the obligation to wear a mask, the curfew, and  possibly the appearance of a vaccination passport to be able to return to a normal life.
On Thursday, February 4, 2021, the Swedish government announced the development of an electronic certificate  of vaccination against covid-19 for travel abroad. It could potentially be used to access sporting or cultural events.  "With a digital vaccination certificate, it will be quick and easy to prove a complete vaccination," said Swedish  Digital Minister Anders Ygeman.
The day before, Denmark announced its "corona passport" program. This is an online register to check a person's  vaccination status, expected by the end of the month. Copenhagen will make its final decision on the precise uses  of the passport after new studies on the contagiousness of vaccinated people, but it should "contribute to a  gradual and healthy reopening of Denmark". The presentation of this passport could, for example, condition entry  to restaurants.
Since last month, Iceland already offers a vaccination passport to its citizens and allows European tourists to  travel to its territory without being isolated if they have a vaccination certificate.
At the same time, all non-vaccine solutions are sabotaged, those who oppose them are censored and persecuted,  while measures for the future are put in place that heavily impact our lives while repeating to us in every way  that we will no longer return to the life of the past.
The introduction of a population register for the vaccine is publicly debated,
"At the initiative of the French government and a decree signed by Olivier Véran on December 25th (Merry  Christmas...), a file containing information about people vaccinated against Covid-19 should be set up. This file,  named "SI Vaccin Covid" should record the surnames, first names, dates of birth of the vaccinated persons, but  also the model of the vaccine, the place of vaccination or the caregiver who performed the act. The National  Commission for Data Processing and Liberties has validated this file. Its director, Thomas Dautieu, told franceinfo  that the organization's main purpose would be to ensure that the data (deletion) is used only for "managing and  monitoring the vaccination campaign". He also announced that people who do not wish to be vaccinated could  exercise their right to be removed from the file, while making it clear that, conversely, remaining in the file after  being vaccinated makes it possible to better manage risks, particularly in terms of pharmacovigilance and  possible adverse effects.
9
The Ministry of Health, seeking to allay suspicions of widespread filing, explained that the file would not be a tool  to monitor the population (sic), nor to implement an "immune passport" that would prevent non-vaccinated people  from accessing certain places such as airports or cinemas.
Doctors will receive a flat fee of 5.40 euros for each patient added to the "Covid Vaccine" file. Source: le salon beige.
As well as the possibility of putting refractory people in isolation camps. This is still only at the stage of debate,  but the mere fact that it is being debated is already frightening, and finds a beginning of realization with the  mandatory quarantine.
The Canadian federal government issued an Order in Council in June 2020 requiring that anyone entering  Canada be quarantined for 14 days, with the possibility of an extension at the government's discretion. If a person  does not have a safe place to quarantine, the government will direct them to a site, usually a hotel that has been  requisitioned for this purpose. There are 11 such sites across the country. Existing quarantine sites can  accommodate a total of 1,600 people. The Canadian government has announced plans to increase this capacity.  Ten new sites are being considered, as the government believes that these sites could also be used by other  vulnerable people who do not have easy access to a safe place to isolate themselves during their recovery. It should be noted that the quarantine is mandatory and for some people, has been used against their will.
All this is public, and for those who bother to look, can be found easily.
Even accepting that there may be exaggerations, even false videos, false information intended to create a panic  and then discredit any accusation against what is being set up, to believe that all the negative information about  the vaccine is simply coming from brains twisted by conspiracy, is to show a lack of intellectual honesty or  advanced stupidity.
- Who benefits from crime?
- Who is put in prison, in a psychiatric hospital (see the Fourtillan case)?
- Who are the people who are found strangely "suicided" or dead without anything really coming to explain it,  without anything really explaining this "suicide" Cf. the strange death of Brandy Vaughan.
Brandy previously worked as a pharmaceutical sales representative for Merck. She became an activist to expose  the dangers of vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry in a shared video in 2015. She began by revealing that  she was representing Merck's drug, Vioxx. Coincidentally, YouTube deleted this video... She was the founder of  learntherisk.org, a website dedicated to educating people about the risks associated with vaccines. She was  found dead by her nine-year-old son on December 8. Here's what she wrote to her friend shortly before: "The  message I wish I didn't have to write ... But given some of the tragedies over the past two years, I think it's  absolutely necessary to publish these ten facts ... please take a screenshot for the record," wrote Brandy  Vaughan. "If something should happen to me, it is a criminal act and you know exactly who and why - given my  work and my mission in this life."
So let's ask the question: why this fuss? 
Above all, let us ask ourselves the question: will the acceptance of the vaccine really allow us to return to a  normal life, but also and above all, to a Catholic life? Because, basically, this is the only reason put forward as a  serious proportionate cause. Will we be able to keep our schools, our chapels, our Catholic families?
For those who don't believe in a counter-church, and who label as conspirators all those who speak on this  subject, I would like to point out that if, two years ago, they had been told that for a vulgar flu, we would  confine the populations of almost the whole world, that we would ruin countries, that we would impose a 
curfew with patrols or drones to enforce it, that we would impose the wearing of masks everywhere, that we  would close churches, they would probably have smiled. Today?...
If they have not taken the time to read the documented and referenced books on this subject, such as “The Anti Christian Conjuration” by Bishop Delassus, the books of Pierre Hillard, “The Catholic Church in the Face of the  Revolution” by Crétineau Joly, etc., let them at least listen to what the powerful of this world say without hiding  any more:
10
- “And I can tell you a third thing: we will go together towards this new world order. And no one, and I mean  no one, will be able to oppose it.” Statement by Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic, on the  priorities and challenges of France's foreign policy, in Paris on January 16, 2009.
- Jacques Attali in his book, “A Brief History of the Future”, confirms that the Illuminati bankers are imposing a  New World Order on humanity, which is being formed before our very eyes, and that we are unaware of it.  Attali speaks as an Illuminati insider, so he has access to their plans for planet earth. He does not speak in a  vacuum. What he announces for the next 10 years is very enlightening.
- On June 3, 2020, as a result of the "global health crisis", the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Geneva  announced a summit for January 2021 in Davos, Switzerland, whose theme would be "The great Reset". The  WEF press release continued: "The announcement of "The Great Reset" was made by H.R.H. The Prince of  Wales and Professor Schwab in a virtual meeting, followed by statements by UN Secretary General António  Guterres and IMF Executive Director Kristalina Georgieva." Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and President of  the World Economic Forum, made his own statement on the day of the announcement, entitled "Time for a  "great reset"", with the subtitle "In every crisis, there is opportunity". Here are some of his quotes:
- "Covid offers the opportunity to introduce unprecedented social changes through the "Great Zero Reset"  ...many things will change forever... and a new world will emerge."
- "Many of us are wondering when things will return to normal... The answer is short: Never". - "The tools of the 4th industrial revolution will allow new forms of surveillance and new control  mechanisms".
- "The future will challenge us to understand what it means to be human."
And we could multiply the examples.
What is striking is to see that, with the exception of a few details, everything agrees, everything is going in the  same direction. If a few pieces of the puzzle are still missing, enough pieces have been brought together to give  us an overall vision, the overall plan and the proposed goal. Here is how Robert Kennedy explains it very  schematically: confinement - Deconfinement – Mask – Vaccination – Microchip – Digital currency – Human  Tracking – digital human interface - transhumanism.
Without going so far as to say that all are satanic - some are "just" trying to make money through the  pharmaceutical industry - it is becoming increasingly clear that a certain number are seeking to dominate the  world. One may not agree with all the facts cited, nor with all that is revealed in documentaries such as “Hold  Up”, but the accumulation of facts and testimonies makes the version of Bill Gate, benefactor of humanity,  hardly acceptable.
Acceptance of this vaccine is only one step. To avoid provoking too strong a reaction, communism always uses  the same tactic: divide in order to conquer. Therefore they do not present everything in one piece, to avoid  provoking a violent reaction, on the one hand, and to give us hope that by submitting, we will be able to keep  what they want to leave us (for the time being). 
This has the effect of dividing the forces of reaction, which instead of uniting against the common enemy,  discuss and battle among themselves over what course of action to take.
It also has the effect of leading a number of us to make a first compromise. Once we say yes once, it's over. We  put our little finger in the gears. The same reasoning will lead us to say yes a second time, and so until the worst  compromises. Solzhenitsyn analyzes this communist process with brilliance in many of his books, such as “The  Gulag Archipelago” and “The Cancer War”. It is the communist spiral; from concession to concession until
they annihilate us.
It is an illusion to believe that we will be able to maintain the possibility of having a Catholic family or Catholic schools, by accepting this vaccine. In any case, these people want the death of Christian  civilization.
11

Therefore, we have no choice between: losing one's job or taking the vaccine.
But: come in a life of slavery, with more and more compromises until apostasy, or the crown of martyrs.
For those who refuse this conclusion and still think that we have in front of us people who want the good of  humanity, welcome to La La land, you will be decorated with the ostrich medal. Go and get vaccinated, but… good luck!
For others, the solution lies not in accepting, even reluctantly, the vaccine - not even in trying to be forgotten or  looking for a solution to avoid it, but in mobilizing not only against it, but against the process of global  domination that is taking place.
His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre compared our era to that of the Maccabees. Let us fight for the honor of  Christ the King as they fought for the honor of Yahweh!
“In the name of God, the soldiers will fight, and God will give victory!”
“In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”
Father Jean-Baptiste Brocard +
Two documents:
12
13

lauermar:
“Do not use ivermectin products made for animals, warned the Mississippi health department on Facebook. “Animal drugs are highly concentrated for large animals and can be highly toxic in humans. Do NOT take drugs made for animals in any form.”

Ivermectin is not for human consumption. Your advice could hurt someone if they follow it. You probably won't retract it, but I sincerely hope others can see past this and avoid it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/you-are-not-a-horse-fda-s-response-to-vaccine-skeptics-taking-livestock-dewormer-as-covid-treatment-goes-viral/ar-AANA0Kz?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=W011

ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez:

--- Quote from: lauermar on August 22, 2021, 10:27:51 AM ---“Do not use ivermectin products made for animals, warned the Mississippi health department on Facebook. “Animal drugs are highly concentrated for large animals and can be highly toxic in humans. Do NOT take drugs made for animals in any form.”

Ivermectin is not for human consumption. Your advice could hurt someone if they follow it. You probably won't retract it, but I sincerely hope others can see past this and avoid it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/you-are-not-a-horse-fda-s-response-to-vaccine-skeptics-taking-livestock-dewormer-as-covid-treatment-goes-viral/ar-AANA0Kz?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=W011

--- End quote ---

That's a misleading statement, essentially a lie.

Ivermectin is not dangerous to humans.

clau clau:

Heinrich:

--- Quote from: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on August 22, 2021, 02:42:54 PM ---
--- Quote from: lauermar on August 22, 2021, 10:27:51 AM ---“Do not use ivermectin products made for animals, warned the Mississippi health department on Facebook. “Animal drugs are highly concentrated for large animals and can be highly toxic in humans. Do NOT take drugs made for animals in any form.”

Ivermectin is not for human consumption. Your advice could hurt someone if they follow it. You probably won't retract it, but I sincerely hope others can see past this and avoid it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/you-are-not-a-horse-fda-s-response-to-vaccine-skeptics-taking-livestock-dewormer-as-covid-treatment-goes-viral/ar-AANA0Kz?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=W011

--- End quote ---

That's a misleading statement, essentially a lie.

Ivermectin is not dangerous to humans.

--- End quote ---

She works in healthcare. She's told us at least 46 times. Each time makes her more knowledgeable on these things.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version