What’s in Your Children’s Vaccines?

News: Commentary
by Paul Murano  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  November 25, 2019   

Questioning the moral and health implications of vaccinations

You are not signed in as a Premium user; you are viewing the free version of this program. Premium users have access to full-length programs with limited commercials and receive a 10% discount in the store! Sign up for only one day for the low cost of $1.99. Click the button below.

The health care and pharmaceutical industries are in unison in their defense of vaccines as being beneficial to society and the surest way to safeguard children from debilitating diseases. Nevertheless, the controversy about their moral implications and health risks has not died.

Among health concerns are their purported links to autism, cancer and auto-immune disease. Despite evidence to the contrary, many parents still believe their children's autism has been caused by their vaccines. While questions linger, virtually the entire medical and pharmaceutical establishment has been debunking these claims and refuting assertions that cell lines from fetal body parts are morally problematic.

Facebook will not allow fundraising for any group that questions the use of vaccines, and it seems Google may be censoring sites that support the claim that there may be a link between vaccines and autism. This in itself may lead one to wonder why there is such an apparent effort to stifle free speech.

The moral problem remains that many vaccines are derived from human fetal cell lines cloned from tissue of babies killed by abortion. Natural law and Catholic teaching are clear that we may never formally cooperate with evil and ought to also avoid benefitting from it. Since abortion is prenatal murder, regardless of the culpability of those involved, as a rule one must seek to avoid vaccines made from fetal cell lines.

The official word from the Vatican came from then-Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), in 2005. Using the language of classic moral theology, the CDF document stated that using vaccines derived from voluntarily aborted babies amounts to "mediate remote passive material cooperation" to the abortion. In short, this means parents "have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist) ... take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection" and to be vocal in opposing vaccines that have no morally licit alternative in order to pressure the drug companies.

After all this has been undertaken in good conscience, the document goes on to say:

As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis.

The problem with this Vatican directive is that many Catholics, including those who run Catholic schools and hospitals, tend to read the last sentence and ignore the context. For example, in the diocese of Seattle, all Catholic schools have mandated that every student must get immunized, and they allow for no personal or religious exemptions.

In a recent event in Washington, D.C., Melkite Catholic priest Fr. Michael Copenhagen, rejecting permissive interpretations of the document, spoke clearly and decisively on its meaning and our moral obligation to avoid cooperating with evil.

There were at least 67 babies electively aborted just to obtain the virus for the rubella vaccine.

The fetal cell lines from which most vaccine viruses today are cultivated are WI-38 (derived from a preborn female child aborted in 1962) and MRC-5 (derived from an aborted male baby in 1966). A list of vaccines and their moral alternatives has been compiled by Children of God for Life (COG for Life) and can be found online.

On the creation of the Rubella vaccine, COG for Life reports:

During the rubella epidemic of 1964, doctors in Philadelphia began advising pregnant women who contracted rubella to abort their babies due to fear of Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) which can affect the unborn child. The aborted babies were immediately sent to the science labs of Dr. Stanley Plotkin who isolated the virus RA273, translated as: R=Rubella, A=Abortion, 27=27th aborted baby, 3=3rd tissue explanted that contained the live rubella virus. ...[It] didn't stop there. In subsequent research papers Dr. Plotkin noted another 40 aborted babies were dissected to obtain further virus samples. This means there were at least 67 babies electively aborted just to obtain the virus for the rubella vaccine.

As for the fetal cell line that was used to culture this virus, COG for Life states:

Before perfecting his work there were 32 elective abortions to produce the WI-38 cell line. In six of the abortions, multiple organs were dissected and numbered, hence the difference between the number of abortions (32) and the WI-38 designation. That's 99 elective abortions for the rubella vaccine alone.

As David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress uncovered from investigating Planned Parenthood, in order to obtain intact baby parts, each prenatal murder must be carefully construed. According to Dr. Peter McCollough in his book The Fetus as Transplant Donor, the harvesting of fetal tissue for cell lines is a deliberate process:

They would puncture the sac of a pregnant woman, put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby's head and attach a suction machine to remove the brain cells. ... At 16 to 21 weeks, they would do prostaglandin abortions where a chemical is injected into the womb, causing the mother to go into mini-labor and pass the baby. Fifty percent of the time the baby would be born alive, but that didn't stop them. They would simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.

While the medical establishment assures us there is nothing to worry about, there are still concerns that DNA fragments from fetal cell lines may deleteriously affect recipients of these vaccines. According to Chiropractic.org, 100 million bits and strands of DNA are allowed per dose; and many scientists believe these DNA codes and genetic strands they carry can be incorporated into the person's DNA.

In 2015 a study was conducted titled "Epidemiologic and Molecular Relationship Between Vaccine Manufacture and Autism Spectrum Disorder Prevalence." Its conclusion, published in Issues of Law and Medicine, was this:

Vaccines manufactured in human fetal cell lines contain unacceptably high levels of fetal DNA fragment contaminants. The human genome naturally contains regions that are susceptible to double strand break formation and DNA insertional mutagenesis. [It] may demonstrate a causal relationship between fetal cell-line manufactured vaccines and ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) prevalence.

It is not surprising, therefore, that in August 2014, after being unaware his discussions with a medical colleague had been taped, Dr. William Thompson of the Centers for Disease Control confessed to literally "trashing" evidence that linked vaccines to autism.

They would simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.

Still others have speculated that inserting loose fragments of female DNA from vaccines into male bodies, and vice versa, may help produce some kind of imbalance or disorder of a sexual nature. More studies are needed, but some speculate this may, at least in small part, account for the apparent uptick in same-sex attraction and gender identity disorder.

Much is still not known about vaccines and their effects on people. The medical and pharmaceudical establishments have assured us there is no evidence for these conclusions, and that the health benefits of vaccines outweigh any minor side effects that may occur. Notwithstanding the arguments, the duty falls on all of us to discern and weigh the balance between protecting children from infectious disease and respecting the dignity of human life.

--- Campaign 31868 ---


Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

We rely on you to support our news reporting. Please donate today.
By commenting on ChurchMilitant.com you acknowledge you have read and agreed to our comment posting guidelines

Loading Comments