Posted on 08/21/2020 2:36:52 PM PDT by ebb tide
VATICAN CITY, August 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― Pope Francis has backed global elites such as Bill Gates when it comes to a Coronavirus vaccination, saying that it should be “universal and for all.”
In his Wednesday afternoon address, the Argentinian pontiff made his comments in the context of opposing rich countries and people obtaining the vaccine.
“It would be sad if we gave priority for the COVID-19 vaccine to the richest people,” Pope Francis declared.
“It would be sad if this vaccine became the property of this or that nation and was not universal and for all,” he continued.
Vaccine critics, including environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are warning that key parts of testing are being skipped in the push to develop a COVID vaccine. Critics warn about the risks of large-scale injury and other health-related consequences that could result from a largely untested vaccine that is suddenly injected into millions.
Earlier this year, a Canadian inoculations watchdog alerted LifeSiteNews to the dangers of vaccines that are developed too quickly. Ted Kuntz, president of Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), a society founded by families who have suffered from vaccine reactions or injuries, warned in May that Canadians should be concerned about the safety of a coronavirus trial vaccine manufactured by China.
Some authorities, like Professor Giuseppe Tritto, an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology, have warned that developing a single vaccine for a virus for which the original genetic code is being withheld by the Chinese and which has already mutated into a dozen different strains is “extremely unlikely.” This has resulted in many speculating on an ulterior agenda behind the global push for a COVID vaccination.
Some Church leaders, such as Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and U.S. Bishop Joseph Strickland, have urged Catholics to reject COVID vaccines developed using cell-lines from aborted babies.
The Pope began his Wednesday speech by saying that the coronavirus pandemic had revealed the difficult situation of the poor “and the great inequality that reigns in the world.” Although the coronavirus does not make exceptions between people, he said, it had nevertheless found, in “its devastating path, great inequalities and discriminations” and even increased them.
Pope Francis said that there must be a two-fold response to the situation: both a cure for the “little virus” of COVID-19 and a cure for the “big virus,” “that of social injustice, of unequal opportunity, of marginalization, and of lack of protection for the weakest.”
He noted that everyone is worried about the social consequences of the pandemic and that many want to return to “normality and take up economic activities again.” However, the pontiff warned that this “normality” should contribute to social injustice and environmental damage.
“The pandemic is a crisis, and we don’t come out of a crisis unchanged,” he said.
“Either we leave better or we leave worse.”
Pope Francis declared that we should leave better, bettering social justice and the condition of the environment.
“Today we have an opportunity to build something different,” he said.
The Director of the World Health Organization (WHO) publicly echoed the pontiff’s hopes that the world’s poor are inoculated against the virus.
“I couldn’t agree more with Your Holiness @Pontifix,” tweeted Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus yesterday.
“The #COVID19 pandemic shows that we must make health a human right for all and not allow it to be a few. It also gives us an opportunity to rebuild a better, safer, fairer world - together!”
The global organization has invited different countries around the world to join an endeavor called “the COVAX pillar,” an agreement to work together on creating and distributing a successful vaccine so that mass inoculations can take place as soon as possible all over the world.
“The COVAX pillar aims to ensure that every country gets fair and equitable access to eventual Covid vaccines,” a WHO information video explains.
“It does this by acting as an insurance policy, with the largest portfolio of vaccine candidates in the world.”
The WHO hopes that richer countries, currently pouring money into local vaccine research, will pool their resources so as to be able to afford production on a massive scale once a successful vaccine becomes available.
The guiding principle of the scheme is that all countries will have “equitable access” to the vaccine, so that poorer countries who cannot afford to pay for it will not be left behind.
“Two billion doses would be enough to vaccinate health care workers and other high risk groups,” the WHO video states.
“If we start now, we can save hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention trillions of dollars,” it continues.
“It’s not about one country versus another: it’s about one world, protected.”
The WHO director told the media that the WHO wants a two-stage process of inoculation: after the health care workers and most vulnerable throughout the world - estimated at 20% of every country - the competing needs of nations for doses for the rest of their populations will be evaluated.
“In phase 1, doses will be allocated proportionally to all participating countries simultaneously to reduce overall risk,” he said.
“In phase 2, consideration will be given to countries’ in relation to threat and vulnerability.”
Tedros explained that “front line workers in health and social care settings” are top priority because they are “essential to treat and protect the population and come in close contact with high-mortality risk groups.”
However, the WHO director also stated that “no-one is safe until everyone is safe.”
According to Breitbart News, over 168 are in development and 8 of these are in “phase 3” trials.
The good book is clear how this turns out and the recent Yale study affirms how they reach the destination. At this time there is 65%-70% of people who are eager & willing to get the vaccine. Then they employ the psyops to force a significant portion of those still refusing to accept it; companies will no longer allow people who refuse the vaccine to work for them or on site depending on position. Those who then remain will be forced to wear masks identifying them to everyone. The Yale study then showed how to promulgate the masses to insult & discriminate against those still refusing by saying they’re stupid and insensitive to the plights of others. Then those who still refuse shall be beheaded. I have longed believed the current pope Francis to be the false prophet described in the book of Revelation so these statements of his - to *start* - are not surprising and rather expected at this time under these circumstances. The world has changed and it’s not going back. Maranatha!
I’ll die first. Or, those trying to force me will. My choice.
I won’t comply. Will you try to force us?
I don’t take advice from communists pretending to be Catholic.
A Catholic Pope is supposed to talk about Church affairs, Dogma, faith and comfort those in pain.
A Catholic Pope has NO BUSINESS TALKING, DEMANDING, SUGGESTING ANY THING ELSE.
That is a normal Catholic Pope. This Francis is hardly normal. He should be ignored since he prefers not to talk about Catholicism...alone.
You are correct regarding remote material cooperation. Most Catholics are unaware of this principle in Catholic morality.
“Is the Pope Catholic?” is no longer a rhetorical question.
But is there a "proportionately serious reason to do so" when the vaccine does come out? Check out Christoper Ferrara's graphics in the article below.
MASK DELUSION: Why that useless piece of cloth on your face means the end of civil society
Here's just one example:
Pope Francis, the UN and WHO are milking this scamdemic.
Finally, how many various vaccines will be finally available? Will we have a choice? And if it's one, single NWO universal vaccine, who makes that decision? Bill Gates?
But did he say the vaccine should not be derived from the fetal stem cell lines of aborted babies?
I ask because several vaccines are being developed without those cell lines. And the Francis doesn't seem to care. He seems to leave the final decision up to WHO, the same organization who tried to cover-up for China as being the source.
Francis can have it.
Christianity deserves better.
Are you OK with the above? Is there any difference between cannibalism and the utilization of murdered human babies to preserve one's life?
Canessa recalls that he had “already done things that I never in my darkest nightmares imagined I’d have to do” — and he knew he had to do them again.
“And so we took yet another step in the descent towards our ultimate indignity: to eat the body of the person lying next to us. Each of us would have to be stained with this blood if we were to keep the seed of life from withering.”
Measles and mumps both have FDA approved alternatives which were developed using ethical cell lines. Just Rubella that doesn’t have one approved for use in the US. Japan has one available, but it isn’t approved here.
For Catholics, the governing document around vaccines and fetal stem cells is here: https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm
The gist is you have a moral and ethical responsibility to see out vaccines which have not used fetal stem cells in their development. If such a vaccine is not yet available, you must weigh the greater good (is this a vaccine for something that has a high prevalence in your region and is the particular medical risk to you and your loved ones such that not getting it would present a grave danger?) If taking the problematic vaccine prevents a greater harm to you or your family, you are permitted to do so, but then your responsibility becomes advocating for an ethical alternative to be developed, produced, and approved for use.
Strawman argument. “Comply” implies requirement, and I have never advocated for such a thing. You should always make your own decision about what is best for your own personal health and for that of your family.
The information I provided about ethical alternatives was to help inform those who would prefer to have a vaccine available, but who also take issue with the use of fetal stem cells in the development of some vaccines. Would you prefer that those who choose to take an ethically produced vaccine NOT have the option to do so?
First, some context: not everyone else CAN receive vaccines. Many cancer patients, for instance, can't have vaccines because their immune system is so completely destroyed that it a) would do them no good and b) could cause severe reactions because of the specifics of how their cancer treatment is affecting their body. Anyone with an autoimmune disorder may be unable to take them. Pregnant women can't take them. Children under certain ages can't take certain vaccines. Every single medicine ever developed has SOME people who can't take it. Vaccines are no different.
Now, if everyone else except you, plus everyone else who objects to taking it, plus everyone else who CAN'T take the vaccine, is still greater than the herd immunity threshold, then we're still fine. In other words, if the herd immunity threshold is 70% and 10% can't take the vaccine and 5% refuse it, we're at 85%, which is over 70%. However, if the HIT is 85% and 10% can't take it and 10% refuse it, we're at 80%. That's below herd immunity. Now the people who CAN'T take the vaccine (cancer patients, pregnant women, young children, etc.) are at risk for catching the disease. Those people already have compromised immune systems, so they're at much greater risk for complications than otherwise health individuals. So in that case, you and the other 20% of people who haven't had the vaccine can catch and transmit the disease. That is the concern.
Speaking specifically about COVID-19, the upper end of the likely R0 for SARS-CoV-2 is 3.8. HIT is 1-1/R0, so that gives us 73.7%. That's pretty much our worst case scenario for herd immunity. It's likely a bit lower than that (possibly as low as 54.5%.) The specifics of the vaccine(s) approved will tell us how many CAN'T take it. After that, we will have to see how many refuse to take it to see whether that choice leaves enough of a gap that COVID-19 can continue to spread for some people of time before herd immunity is reached. Hopefully, the objections are limited and we very quickly have enough people vaccinated that we hit herd immunity and this whole mess ends. The higher we get our total population immunity percentage, the faster COVID-19 vanishes. I want that. President Trump wants that. I should hope we would all want to see that.
Perhaps I should have elaborated further.
The document (https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm) goes on to state that if an ethically developed vaccine (one free from any use of fetal stem cells in its research and development process) is not available (for either technical or regulatory reasons), one must weigh what is the greater good. If the disease being vaccinated against is a grave threat to the safety and wellbeing of an individual and/or their family, they may decide (within the bounds of Catholic teachings) to take the vaccine, but it then becomes their duty to advocate for the development, production, and regulatory approval of an ethically produced alternative so others may use that instead. Preservation of human life and advancing the availability of an ethical alternative for others together are taken as a greater good.
Now if the vaccine is for athlete’s foot, there is no greater good to be had. One is obligated to avoid it until an ethical alternative is available. If it’s for weaponized smallpox that’s likely going to wipe out your entire family, you should be taking that. In between there is a lot of gray area. That decision is largely considered personal and between you, your conscience, and God. God knows whether you’re making a selfish decision based on preferences or if you’re making the best decision you can based on the evidence before you.
In the US, ethical alternative vaccines exist for everything except rubella and Hep A. There is an ethical rubella vaccine (no fetal stem cells used in its research and development) approved for use in Japan, but it is not approved yet in the US. Measles, mumps, pertussis, influenza, and nearly all others have ethical alternatives available. You just need to ask for them. If your doctor says no, get a new doctor.
More information about the technical side of how and why fetal stem cells are used in the research and development of vaccines is here: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development. The long and short of it is that it’s quicker, cheaper, and easier using human stem cells, and fetal stem cells above all. It’s not impossible to use more ethical methods, and if enough people specifically require ethical alternatives, then basic market forces will dictate that ethical methods become the default choice for future R&D.
You certainly have a valid point, and this should certainly be considered.
What I find in these vaccine discussions is that a black and white view is often presented as/assumed to be fact: that a Catholic is not allowed, under any circumstances, to take any vaccine using fetal stem cells; that a Catholic would be guilty of sin if he/she did so.
I have recently learned that this is NOT what Catholic morality teaches on this topic.
I can’t read the article, so can not comment on it.
You people can shoot up whatever DNA-modifying cocktail you please. You have the “option” to destroy yourselves by whatever means you like. Happy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.