thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
From The Vatican News Source:
To His Excellency
Msgr. José Horacio Gómez
Metropolitan Archbishop of Los Angeles
President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
To Their Eminences and Excellencies
The Archbishops and Bishops of the Dioceses of the United States of America
And, for their competence:
To His Eminence
Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, s.j.
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
To His Eminence
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller
Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
23 October 2021
Your Eminences,
Your Excellencies,
I address you, Archbishop Gómez, as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and to You, Cardinals Ladaria and Müller, for your competence, some serious considerations related to the so-called vaccines against Covid-19.
I believe there are some aspects of the question that now allow for a more complete evaluation of what these drugs are and what effects they cause; this evaluation ought to lead to a collegial stance, in conformity with the Magisterium of the Church and not influenced by biased information or by erroneous news spread by the producers of these drugs or by the media.
1. Subject of the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines was issued last year in the absence of complete data on both the nature of the gene serum and its components. I point out to You that the subject of the Note is limited to “the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted,”[1] and it states that “[w]e do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies.”[2] Safety and effectiveness are thus not the subject of the Note, which in expressing its opinion about the “morality of use” therefore does not even express its opinion about the “morality of production” of these drugs.
2. Safety and effectiveness of the vaccines
The safety and effectiveness of individual vaccines is determined after a period of experimentation that normally lasts for several years. In this case, the health authorities have decided to carry out experimentation on the entire world population, as an exception to the usual practice of the scientific community, international standards, and the laws of individual nations. This means that the entire population finds itself in the condition of being susceptible to suffering the adverse effects of the vaccine, at their own risk, when normally experimentation is done on a voluntary basis and carried out on a limited number of subjects, who are paid to undergo it.
I think it is clear that this is an experimental drug that has not been approved,[3] but only authorized for administration by the bodies in charge; just as I think it is evident that there are medical treatments without adverse side-effects, even though they have been systematically boycotted by the Health Institutions – WHO, CDC, EMA – and by mainstream media. Even if the Church should express a moral evaluation of the different treatments available – some of which are carried out with drugs produced with cell lines that originated in an aborted fetus, like the vaccines – it must be reiterated that there are effective treatments which cure patients and allow them to develop permanent natural immune defenses, something that the vaccines do not do. Furthermore, these treatments do not cause serious side effects, since the drugs that are used have been licensed for decades.
Other recently developed treatments are absolutely effective, inexpensive, and carry no danger for those who receive them: this is the case with the plasma treatment studied and employed with great success by the Italian doctor Giuseppe De Donno.[1]
Treatment with hyper-immune plasma was strongly discouraged and boycotted by pharmaceutical companies and doctors financed by them, because it does not cost anything and renders the analogous therapy useless, which is made in laboratories with monoclonal cells at exorbitant costs.
International standards specify that an experimental drug cannot be authorized for distribution except in the absence of an effective alternative treatment: this is why drug agencies in the USA and Europe have prevented the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, hyper-immune plasma, and other therapies with proven effectiveness. There is no need to remind You that all of these agencies, along with the WHO, are financed almost entirely by the pharmaceutical companies and by foundations tied to them, and that there is a very grave conflict of interest at the highest levels,[2] about which the media are culpably silent.[3] In expressing a moral evaluation of the vaccines, the Church cannot fail to take these elements into consideration, since they cause a manipulation of scientific information, on the basis of which the judgments about their moral liceity by ecclesiastical Authority have been formulated.
3. The experimental drugs are not vaccines in the proper sense
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while not expressing its opinion on the effectiveness and safety of the so-called vaccines, nevertheless defines them as “vaccines,” taking for granted that they actually give immunity and protect people from active and passive contagion. This element is disavowed by the declarations coming from all of the world’s health authorities and from the WHO, according to which vaccinated people can become infected and infect others more seriously than those who are not vaccinated[4] and find that their immune defenses are drastically reduced if not even completely destroyed.
A recent study confirms that the gene serum can cause forms of acquired immuno-deficiency in those who receive it.[5] Therefore, the drugs that are called “vaccines” do not fall within the official definition of a vaccine to which the CDF’s Note presumably refers. In fact a “vaccine” is defined as a medicinal preparation aimed at inducing the production of protective antibodies by the organism, conferring specific resistance against a specific infectious disease (viral, bacterial, protozoal). This definition was recently changed by the WHO, because otherwise it would not have been able to include anti-Covid drugs, which do not induce the production of protective antibodies and do not confer a specific resistance against the SarsCoV-2 infectious disease.
Furthermore, while mRNA serums are dangerous because of the implications they have at the genetic level, the Astra Zeneca serum may be even more harmful, as recent studies show.[6]
4. Proportionality between the costs and benefits of the vaccines
Limiting itself to an evaluation only of the morality of the use of the vaccines, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not take into account the proportionality between the presumed benefits of the gene serum and the short-term and long-term adverse side effects.
Worldwide, the number of deaths and grave pathologies following vaccination is increasing exponentially:[7] in only nine months these vaccines have caused more deaths than all vaccines in the last thirty years.[8] Not only this: in many nations – such as Israel for example[9] – the number of deaths after vaccination is now greater than the number of deaths from Covid.[10]
Having established that the drugs sold as vaccines do not give any significant benefit and on the contrary may cause a very high percentage of deaths or grave pathologies[11] even in subjects for whom Covid does not represent a threat,[12] I do not think that we can conclude that there is any proportionality between the potential damages and the potential benefits.
This means therefore that there is a grave moral obligation to refuse inoculation as a possible and proximate cause of permanent damages[13] or death. In the absence of benefits, there is therefore no need to expose oneself to the risks of its administration, but on the contrary there is a duty to refuse it categorically.
To His Excellency
Msgr. José Horacio Gómez
Metropolitan Archbishop of Los Angeles
President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
To Their Eminences and Excellencies
The Archbishops and Bishops of the Dioceses of the United States of America
And, for their competence:
To His Eminence
Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, s.j.
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
To His Eminence
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller
Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
23 October 2021
Your Eminences,
Your Excellencies,
I address you, Archbishop Gómez, as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and to You, Cardinals Ladaria and Müller, for your competence, some serious considerations related to the so-called vaccines against Covid-19.
I believe there are some aspects of the question that now allow for a more complete evaluation of what these drugs are and what effects they cause; this evaluation ought to lead to a collegial stance, in conformity with the Magisterium of the Church and not influenced by biased information or by erroneous news spread by the producers of these drugs or by the media.
1. Subject of the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines was issued last year in the absence of complete data on both the nature of the gene serum and its components. I point out to You that the subject of the Note is limited to “the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted,”[1] and it states that “[w]e do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies.”[2] Safety and effectiveness are thus not the subject of the Note, which in expressing its opinion about the “morality of use” therefore does not even express its opinion about the “morality of production” of these drugs.
2. Safety and effectiveness of the vaccines
The safety and effectiveness of individual vaccines is determined after a period of experimentation that normally lasts for several years. In this case, the health authorities have decided to carry out experimentation on the entire world population, as an exception to the usual practice of the scientific community, international standards, and the laws of individual nations. This means that the entire population finds itself in the condition of being susceptible to suffering the adverse effects of the vaccine, at their own risk, when normally experimentation is done on a voluntary basis and carried out on a limited number of subjects, who are paid to undergo it.
I think it is clear that this is an experimental drug that has not been approved,[3] but only authorized for administration by the bodies in charge; just as I think it is evident that there are medical treatments without adverse side-effects, even though they have been systematically boycotted by the Health Institutions – WHO, CDC, EMA – and by mainstream media. Even if the Church should express a moral evaluation of the different treatments available – some of which are carried out with drugs produced with cell lines that originated in an aborted fetus, like the vaccines – it must be reiterated that there are effective treatments which cure patients and allow them to develop permanent natural immune defenses, something that the vaccines do not do. Furthermore, these treatments do not cause serious side effects, since the drugs that are used have been licensed for decades.
Other recently developed treatments are absolutely effective, inexpensive, and carry no danger for those who receive them: this is the case with the plasma treatment studied and employed with great success by the Italian doctor Giuseppe De Donno.[1]
Treatment with hyper-immune plasma was strongly discouraged and boycotted by pharmaceutical companies and doctors financed by them, because it does not cost anything and renders the analogous therapy useless, which is made in laboratories with monoclonal cells at exorbitant costs.
International standards specify that an experimental drug cannot be authorized for distribution except in the absence of an effective alternative treatment: this is why drug agencies in the USA and Europe have prevented the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, hyper-immune plasma, and other therapies with proven effectiveness. There is no need to remind You that all of these agencies, along with the WHO, are financed almost entirely by the pharmaceutical companies and by foundations tied to them, and that there is a very grave conflict of interest at the highest levels,[2] about which the media are culpably silent.[3] In expressing a moral evaluation of the vaccines, the Church cannot fail to take these elements into consideration, since they cause a manipulation of scientific information, on the basis of which the judgments about their moral liceity by ecclesiastical Authority have been formulated.
3. The experimental drugs are not vaccines in the proper sense
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while not expressing its opinion on the effectiveness and safety of the so-called vaccines, nevertheless defines them as “vaccines,” taking for granted that they actually give immunity and protect people from active and passive contagion. This element is disavowed by the declarations coming from all of the world’s health authorities and from the WHO, according to which vaccinated people can become infected and infect others more seriously than those who are not vaccinated[4] and find that their immune defenses are drastically reduced if not even completely destroyed.
A recent study confirms that the gene serum can cause forms of acquired immuno-deficiency in those who receive it.[5] Therefore, the drugs that are called “vaccines” do not fall within the official definition of a vaccine to which the CDF’s Note presumably refers. In fact a “vaccine” is defined as a medicinal preparation aimed at inducing the production of protective antibodies by the organism, conferring specific resistance against a specific infectious disease (viral, bacterial, protozoal). This definition was recently changed by the WHO, because otherwise it would not have been able to include anti-Covid drugs, which do not induce the production of protective antibodies and do not confer a specific resistance against the SarsCoV-2 infectious disease.
Furthermore, while mRNA serums are dangerous because of the implications they have at the genetic level, the Astra Zeneca serum may be even more harmful, as recent studies show.[6]
4. Proportionality between the costs and benefits of the vaccines
Limiting itself to an evaluation only of the morality of the use of the vaccines, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not take into account the proportionality between the presumed benefits of the gene serum and the short-term and long-term adverse side effects.
Worldwide, the number of deaths and grave pathologies following vaccination is increasing exponentially:[7] in only nine months these vaccines have caused more deaths than all vaccines in the last thirty years.[8] Not only this: in many nations – such as Israel for example[9] – the number of deaths after vaccination is now greater than the number of deaths from Covid.[10]
Having established that the drugs sold as vaccines do not give any significant benefit and on the contrary may cause a very high percentage of deaths or grave pathologies[11] even in subjects for whom Covid does not represent a threat,[12] I do not think that we can conclude that there is any proportionality between the potential damages and the potential benefits.
This means therefore that there is a grave moral obligation to refuse inoculation as a possible and proximate cause of permanent damages[13] or death. In the absence of benefits, there is therefore no need to expose oneself to the risks of its administration, but on the contrary there is a duty to refuse it categorically.
