Posted on 06/07/2021 5:31:47 PM PDT by ebb tide
Recently, a South Carolina newspaper published an article entitled, “Who is refusing COVID vaccines in SC—and why? Here’s what we found.” A trio of reporters detail numerous reasons: distrust of the government; an “I’m healthy enough” attitude; waiting a bit longer to let others be the “bleeding edge”; and wariness of the rollout. But they didn’t mention moral objections.
There is a split opinion in the Catholic Church about the morality of the vaccines currently in use. Many Catholic scholars and moral ethicists, including leading voices like Professor Robert George, have stated that the connection of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to abortion is so remote as to be acceptable. But some Catholics, such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider, reject this argument and argue that it’s immoral to take abortion-tainted vaccines. Other Catholics argue that it might be morally permissible to receive these vaccines, but it would be a better prophetic witness to refuse them and wait for completely ethical alternatives. But even Catholics who believe it is morally acceptable to receive the current vaccines acknowledge that a completely abortion-free option is the ideal.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
So, what is the status of these ethical vaccine choices? There are three possibilities currently in development, from Inovio, Sanofi, and Novavax.
Inovio claims to have “assembled a global coalition of collaborators, partners and funders” to develop and test their vaccine candidate, INO-4800. Their collaborators include the University of Texas, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Wistar Institute, as well as Université Laval in Quebec, Canada, and Fudan University in Shanghai, China. They report having received funding from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Defense, and they have done clinical trials in South Korea and China. They started phase 2 testing in November 2020, and according to their website they are awaiting “appropriate regulatory guidance and external funding” for “vaccine production and scale-up.” There is no projected date given.
A vaccine candidate seemingly further along in the process is the vaccine of Sanofi and its partner GlaxoSmithKline. Forbes magazine reported that “The joint Sanofi and GSK effort has run into challenges and their program is significantly behind early projections.” But Sanofi-GSK announced May 17 “the results of the Phase 2 trial of their COVID-19 recombinant vaccine candidate which demonstrated strong immune responses across all adult age groups. A global pivotal Phase 3 study is expected to start in the coming weeks.”
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
The Sanofi website shows their adjuvanted recombinant protein-based vaccine candidate currently in a “New Phase 2.” Sanofi is also partnering with Translate Bio to develop a different COVID-19 vaccine—an mRNA-based vaccine—which is still in the Phase 1/2 stage of testing, which started March 12.
Under “Operation Warp Speed,” the government granted Sanofi-GSK $300 million to start developing a COVID-19 vaccine and pre-ordered 100 million doses for delivery in 2020 for $2.1 billion with the option to purchase another 500 million this year. The government also entered into an agreement with Novavax “worth $1.6 billion to complete development, test and produce 300 million doses of its candidate vaccine.”
In April, WebMD reported that “Novavax’s COVID-19 Vaccine May Be Authorized Next.” And a few weeks ago, Politico called the Novavax vaccine “The most promising coronavirus vaccine you’ve never heard of.” The article pointed out that Novavax has never brought a product to market but that it was the dark-horse candidate to bolster supplies in the U.S. and beyond.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
However, on May 11, the New York Times reported that Novavax’s “highly protective vaccine would not be authorized in the United States or Britain until at least July, and that it would not reach peak production until the end of the year.” Novavax’s CEO, Stanley C. Erck, did say, “Nearly all of the major challenges have been overcome, and we can clearly see the light at the end of the tunnel.” That wasn’t good enough for Wall Street: Novavax traded down 17% upon the release of that statement.
On May 22, the stock regained some lost territory when Novavax announced that “it signed a memorandum of understanding to ‘explore the expansion of COVID-19 vaccine activities in South Korea.’” Novavax has been working with SK Bioscience to focus on the South Korean market with its NVX Cov-2373 COVID-19 vaccine, once it is approved, and also on a Covid/flu shot combo.
The Novavax vaccine, 96% effective against the original coronavirus in a global phase 2 study, apparently also is effective against variants. “A preliminary analysis of data from its U.K. Phase 3 trial showed that the vaccine was 89.3% effective and included protection from the U.K. variant B.1.1.7. The company also announced that the vaccine was 60% effective in a Phase 2b clinical trial in South Africa and included protection from the South African variant B.1.351.2.”
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
There is concern, however, that if approved for emergency use by the FDA, the Novavax vaccine will be hard to get in the United States because it will be shipped abroad. Besides the South Korea focus announced by the Maryland-based company, the Observer reports that “President Joe Biden hinted that Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate could be the next to receive emergency use authorization in the U.S. and would be shared with countries in need of aid. Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine is cheaper and easier to store than the mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech. It’s exactly what the world needs right now as the rollout of AstraZeneca’s and Johnson & Johnson’s affordable shots is paused due to safety concerns.”
It may also be what is needed right now by U.S. Catholics with ethical concerns about the existing vaccines.
Ping
There is no way to obtain a living cell line from dead tissue.
I still do not want their stupid vaxes, They lie too much and I would trust them no farther than I can spit.
The living tissue need not be human, especially at the expense of an innocent baby’s life.
I was not aware the Novavax vaccine is “abortion free”.
It also does not use DNA/RNA and the body doesn’t make spike protein to being the immunization process.
Interesting, thanks for posting. I had no idea more vaccines were in the works.
who cares, there is no need for any shot for this at all.
Vitamins, hydration, rest, good food, exercise - get fit, stay healthy and 99.8% chance you will be fine to fight it off.
Shots are a business model. They just keep coming up with more reasons to inject people with crap that the body does not need and is set to do harm.
Thanks for being one of the few to admit that the tissue is harvested from babies while they're still alive.
P I N G
Ghouls will be ghouls even when there is no need to be ghouls.
To paraphrase Reagan: don’t trust even if you can verify.
See https://s27589.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/03.03.21-warp-speed-vaccines.pdf
According to the source above, Novavax is a no.
GSK was still unknown at that time (March), so maybe.
They don’t need all the cells of the living being. An adequate sample for regenerative testing can be taken from a living host capable of full consent.
Yeah, there is that.
Taken from the main article, “ distrust of the government”, maybe because the EU has reported 14,000 deaths from the jabs, the US only 4,000.
...keep in mind these figures are being underreported, and all for a virus that is 99.9 percent survivable.
“Thanks for being one of the few to admit that the tissue is harvested from babies while they’re still alive.”
Years ago what seemed like it might be a dream when it started but I believe was not just a dream because the memory of even vivid dreams fade in time, I found myself inside of a food court at some mall ... lots of my dreams involve food courts, that’s not unusual ... and the patrons sitting around me were speaking in hushed tones of a storm approaching that seemed to be looming out on the horizon.
To go outside and see this better I had to leave through one of the kitchens as there was no direct patron access to the outside from the court. When I stepped on the ground I flinched and leapt into the sky to avoid what my feet encountered.
I then spent the rest of the dream flying here and there looking for a place to stand where the ground was not soaked in blood, but it was even in the houses.
All the while the storm was there looming on the horizon.
When at last standing in a house I realized that this was about abortion I was instantly wide awake and speaking: “Thus says the Lord: shall a bloody nation not have blood from the Lord?” and that was it for that.
Not before or since have those words been said by me unless I was reading Scripture. What I said offered no hope because hope is already revealed in Christ alone and only in His Gospel.
But for those who refuse Grace the blood guilt still remains while they stop up their ears and refuse to hear the call to be saved.
Roman 1:18-32 talks about those who refuse to retain the knowledge of the Lord, and while I believe that mainly revolves around believing He is “Holy, Holy, Holy” at least some of it must involve refusing to accept that children are a blessing from the Lord.
If children are a blessing from the Lord then whose “gift” is abortion?
Consequently you can know who and what they serve who murder the unborn.
Yes. But to trust them that is all they do?
All 3 of the experimental vaccines have used the aborted cell line in some form of manufacture, research, testing or confirmation of their product. Acquiring appropriate T~cells from a voluntary donor would render this argument moot in every aspect and useage.
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.