“Well,
I mean, sure, maybe some of the research behind the COVID vaccine
involved aborted fetuses, but that was a long time ago, and really, I
can’t think about that, I need to take the vaccine to protect myself,
and besides, abortion is legal…”
Read on.
Today, I’m featuring the work of journalist Monica Seeley, and her stunning article, “Exploring the dark world of vaccines and fetal tissue research, Part 1,” published at catholicworldreport[dot]com.
Seeley
had considerable help, as she details, from investigative reporter,
Pamela Acker. Acker has weathered attacks from several
quarters---including critics within the Catholic Church structure.
She has stood firm, and deserves high praise for her seminal work on fetal tissue research, vaccines, and medical murder.
It
turns out that much of the best analysis of fetal tissue research,
medical abortions, vaccines, and the medical killing of infants comes
from writers publishing at independent Catholic outlets. Just to mention
one website---Children of God For Life.
These
writers and their publishers obviously take their faith
seriously. They’re not bent on compromise or adjustment to trends of the
times. Unlike the Vatican hierarchy, they have no qualms about exposing
deep medical crimes.
I’m
going to quote from Monica Seeley’s article and add my own comments
along the way. I strongly urge you to read her whole piece.
You
should understand that researchers who extract tissue and organs from
aborted fetuses are using those parts for the development of drugs and
vaccines---including the COVID vaccine.
Abortion
is a religious issue of conscience for many people. When the fetus is
extracted alive, from the mother’s womb, then murdered in the process of
removing his/her organs, the crime is so horrific that people who have
very little conscience at all should be shocked to the core.
Since
these crimes form a significant part of the research-basis for many
vaccines, refusing the vaccines as a matter of conscience and conviction
should be a personal decision for ANYONE.
And now, to Monica Seeley’s article. She reveals these medical crimes stretch back in time:
“…newspapers
reported matter of factly on fetal vivisection, as in this article from
the San Francisco Chronicle, April 19, 1973, entitled ‘Operations on
Live Fetuses’:”
“’Dr.
Jerald Gaull in periodic trips to Finland injects a radioactive
chemical into the fragile umbilical cords of fetuses freshly removed
from their mothers’ wombs in abortions. The fetus in each case is far
too young to survive, but in the brief period that its heart is still
beating, Gaull, chief of pediatrics research at the New York State
Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation on Staten
Island---then operates to remove its brain, lung, liver and kidneys for
study’.”
In
other words, Gaull tortures and murders the infant. But of course, the
Chronicle article doesn’t explore this fact. It’s all “medical,” you
see. So it must make sense. Somehow.
Seeley:
“A 1976 report by drug manufacturer Batelle-Columbus Laboratories
acknowledged the role of live fetal research in four medical advances:
amniocentesis, respiratory distress syndrome, and, significantly for
this article, the rubella and Rh vaccines: ‘It is apparent from a study
of the development of the four selected cases… that research on living
human fetuses played a significant role in each.’ The report recommended
against restrictions on such research.”
The
term “living human fetuses” doesn’t register with many people. And they
certainly don’t realize these infants have been taken alive, from their
mother’s womb, and then stripped of their body parts for
research---killing them. Or if death is not immediate result, the murder
is committed by cutting out their hearts or vacuuming their brains from
their skulls.
Again,
the ensuing research contributes to the development of vaccines and
drugs---including the COVID vaccines (as I’ve covered in previous
articles).
Seeley:
“…seeing a report on cardiac stem cell research in which human fetal
hearts were hooked up to a Lagendorff assembly---which can keep a heart
beating artificially outside the body---I did not at first realize that
these hearts must come from live subjects.”
Yes. The
report, on first reading, comes across as neutral and technical and
medical. But then---WHAT? The heart was taken from the infant while
he/she was ALIVE. ---Aborted, alive, then killed by taking the beating
heart.
Seeley:
“A 1988 article in the Hastings Journal assumed that tissue removal
from live, nonviable fetuses was already taking place:”
“[The
Hastings Journal:] ’Perhaps the most pertinent federal restriction is
the ban on research of any kind on a live nonviable fetus ex utero that
would prematurely terminate the fetus’ life. This ban may be significant
because the procedure required for removing fetal brain tissue
transplantation would hasten the death of a live fetus. Thus, if a
similar restriction were imposed on fetal tissue transplants, it would
prohibit the removal of fetal brain tissue and, potentially, other types
of tissue, from live nonviable fetuses’.”
The
above quote is crucial. By non-viable, the article means a live fetus
removed from the womb that will die very soon. In that short span of
life remaining, researchers want to be able to torture the infant in
many ways, by cutting out parts of the body, killing him/her. And don’t
assume that a 1988 ban on this “research” stopped what was happening and
still happens in closed labs.
Given
the (planned) ignorance on the part of the public, people will say,
“But we need all this vital medical research so our doctors can treat
us…”
To reply, I’ll cite one study out of several I have written about many times in these pages:
Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”; Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000:
Starfield
concludes that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000
people. 106,000 as a result of the administration of medical drugs, and
119,000 from medical errors and mistreatment in hospitals.
That adds up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.
When
I interviewed Dr. Starfield, she said her estimate of deaths was
conservative, and succeeding studies put the number higher.
Her
shocking finding becomes more understandable, when we realize a
significant amount of underlying medical research comes from
professionals who murder infants.
Why would we expect the work of these people to be useful and valuable?
Why would we expect their drugs and vaccines to be safe?
~~~
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)
(Follow me on Gab at @jonrappoport)
No comments:
Post a Comment