I did not know about this! I had no idea, not an inkling, not a clue…
If it were not for my Blog Surfing, I would never have found out about this Moral Problem.
I had not visited Shoved to them for a while…and did so today. I came across a Post where aka the Mom received a Recognition, the St. Michael Warrior Award. I’ll let you all read about her experience. It was through her experience that I found out about these vaccines and this site:
Children Of God For Life. This site has a letter from the Vatican along with an English translation of a Study done in regards to “tainted” vaccines.
It is not so Black and White. Not in all of the cases.
The study delves into “licit cooperation of evil.” It speaks of formal and material cooperation. Direct and indirect. Proximate and Remote cooperation. Finally, Active and Passive. You are welcome to go to the site and read the paragraphs for yourself.
Here is an excerpt that denounces the active formal cooperation and even the Guilty “Innocent” Bystander (quick tip of the hat to Fr. Mario):
Firstly, one must consider morally illicit every form of formal cooperation (sharing the evil intention) in the action of those who have performed a voluntary abortion, which in turn has allowed the retrieval of foetal tissues, required for the preparation of vaccines. Therefore, whoever – regardless of the category to which he belongs — cooperates in some way, sharing its intention, to the performance of a voluntary abortion with the aim of producing the above-mentioned vaccines, participates, in actuality, in the same moral evil as the person who has performed that abortion. Such participation would also take place in the case where someone, sharing the intention of the abortion, refrains from denouncing or criticizing this illicit action, although having the moral duty to do so (passive formal cooperation).
The above, are guilty. No ifs ands or buts.
Now, where do we as parents stand? Are we guilty if we didn’t know? Are we guilty if we continue using them? Here is what the document states:
[…] Those who need to use such vaccines for reasons of health, it must be emphasized that, apart from every form of formal cooperation, in general, doctors or parents who resort to the use of these vaccines for their children, in spite of knowing their origin (voluntary abortion), carry out a form of very remote mediate material cooperation, and thus very mild, in the performance of the original act of abortion, and a mediate material cooperation, with regard to the marketing of cells coming from abortions, and immediate, with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells. The cooperation is therefore more intense on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of the vaccines.
[…] Doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines13 (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection 14 with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
[In] regards [to] 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 moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a. proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles15.
In any case, there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically. However, the burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population – especially with regard to pregnant women.
If you have no choice, if there are no alternative vaccines, if it is medically necessary for the health and well-being of your child and it is to save the population, then GO FOR IT! Otherwise, abstain. Do not have your children, or yourselves, vaccinated.
No matter what your situation…You MUST, WE ALL MUST voice our Objection to these morally illicit vaccines. Here is a list of them:
The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:7
A) Live vaccines against rubella8 :
– the monovalent vaccines against rubella Meruvax®!! (Merck) (U.S.), Rudivax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Ervevax® (RA 27/3) (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium);
– the combined vaccine MR against rubella and measles, commercialized with the name of M-R-VAX® (Merck, US) and Rudi-Rouvax® (AVP, France);
– the combined vaccine against rubella and mumps marketed under the name of Biavax®!! (Merck, U.S.),
– the combined vaccine MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) against rubella, mumps and measles, marketed under the name of M-M-R® II (Merck, US), R.O.R.®, Trimovax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Priorix® (GlaxoSmithKline UK).
B) Other vaccines, also prepared using human cell lines from aborted foetuses:
– two vaccines against hepatitis A, one produced by Merck (VAQTA), the other one produced by GlaxoSmithKline (HAVRIX), both of them being prepared using MRC-5;
– one vaccine against chicken pox, Varivax®, produced by Merck using WI-38 and MRC-5;
– one vaccine against poliomyelitis, the inactivated polio virus vaccine Poliovax® (Aventis-Pasteur, Fr.) using MRC-5;
– one vaccine against rabies, Imovax®, produced by Aventis Pasteur, harvested from infected human diploid cells, MRC-5 strain;
– one vaccine against smallpox, AC AM 1000, prepared by Acambis using MRC-5, still on trial.
I found a list of ALTERNATIVE VACCINES on another WP Blog, Umm Muhammad Ahmad’s Blog. Here is a bit of it:
The following vaccines do not use fetal cell lines. L= licensed by FDA UL= not licensed by FDA (I do not know if it is possible to obtain unlicensed vaccines in the US. Please E-mail me if you know about this. Also please let me know if there are any more suitable alternatives and any import companies able to supply them.)
Disease Brand name Company Cell line Polio IPOL (L)
Monkey kidney & calf serum
Monkey Kidney cells
Mumps Mumpsvax (L) Provaccine, Switzerland
Merck Sharpe & Dohme USA
Chick embryo Measles Attenuvax (L) Merck sharpe & Dohme USA Rubella Takahashi Strain (UL) Kitasato Institute Rabbit Kidney Rabies (RVA )(L)
RabAvert (PECE) (L)
Chirion Bering Gmbl & Co
Hepatitis A Aimmugen (UL) Chemo-therapeutic Institute Japan (Kaketsuken) Monkey Kidney Flu All brands (L) All manufacturers Chick embryos Yellow Fever YF-Vax (17D) (L) Pasteur Merieux Connaught Chick embryo Japanese Encephalitis JE-Vax (L) Biken Osaka, Distributed by Connaught Mouse derived Smallpox (L) Supplied by CDC
For Laboratory Workers and Military
Leave a Reply