For
my recent series of articles on the murder of infants to obtain fetal
tissue for vaccine testing and research, I gained key information from
investigative reporter AnnaMaria Cardinalli’s article, “Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine,” in Crisis magazine.
AnnaMaria
agreed to do an interview on this and related subjects. The interview
speaks for itself---and it should provide people a VERY fundamental
reason for rejecting the COVID vaccine.
Q:
It seems you’ve lived at least several lives side by side. You’ve
earned a lofty worldwide reputation as an operatic contralto and
classical guitarist; you’re a licensed private investigator; you carried
out extensive research for the US military in Afghanistan; you own a
private security firm; you donate all your earnings to a Catholic order
which wants to start an orphanage for exploited children. And I’m not
covering all the bases. It’s rather mind-blowing. Before we dive into
the subject at hand, can you speak to this variety and achievement?
A:
Ha! Your question is very flattering and I’m hardly at issue here, but
I’ll be happy to answer. The variety of work I’ve been involved in is so
wildly unlikely that I could have never sat down and come up with it as
a plan! The one factor underlying all it is my incredible fortune to
have been raised soundly in the Catholic Faith by my mom, so despite my
own many failings, I knew enough to put my life completely at the
disposal of God’s will from an early age. I find utterly astounding the
adventures on which He’ll lead a soul when He’s given that
freedom. Making music was always my personal hope, but the rest came as a
natural consequence of responding to circumstances around me with
whatever capacities I had the ability to respond. That’s the very
definition of responsibility (“response ability”), and a real means by
which God guides our lives, don’t you think?
Q: In your wide range of experiences, did medical issues ever pop up on your radar?
A:
Medical issues arose in two ways. On one hand, when I worked for the
FBI and was embedded with the Joint Special Operations Command In Iraq, I
received truly fantastic, cutting-edge training in a collateral duty as
a Tactical Operational Medic. Later, in Afghanistan, I participated in
medical missions to help assess rural tribal community
needs---particularly the medical needs of women and children. Through
these military experiences, I found a passion for emergency medicine. I
recently re-certified as an EMT to better assist my community’s current
medical mission to the homeless (sosvan[dot]org), and I continue to
pursue more advanced certifications.
On
the other hand, I do not approach the issue of the cell line origins as
a practitioner or any sort of medical expert, but as an investigative
journalist, simply seeking out the facts and holding them to the light
of common logic. My thinking is that the factors necessary to understand
the nature of what we put into our bodies must be, at least on a basic
level, accessible and comprehensible to the general population, and one
need not be a medical expert to grasp them. Otherwise, how could most of
us make an informed decision? We can’t allow clear, critical truths to
be obfuscated by the statement, “You’re not an expert. You wouldn’t
understand.”
Q:
How did you become interested in the very specific origin of the fetal
cell line, HEK 293? What made you think it might be important?
A:
I was led to interest in HEK 293 via a long path. My experience in
Afghanistan imparted to me a particular investigative focus on Human
Trafficking. I’ve written and worked extensively on the issue, and the
more I learn, the more I am overwhelmed by its prevalence, both
internationally and on our own soil. In recent years, while the China
Tribunal brought the harvesting and sale of organs belonging to unwanted
citizens into clear focus overseas, the Planned Parenthood expose by
David Daleiden and others brought the same practice to light in the
US. Both these developments solidified the trafficking issue in my mind
not only as one of forced labor or sexual exploitation but of the
complete commoditization of the human person---the viewing of the human
being as a mere collection of occasionally useful parts, lacking any
other value. This should frighten every person, regardless of their
faith background or lack of one, because history shows us over and over
again that it’s when we fail to recognize our common humanity that
atrocities prevail.
With
regard to HEK 293 specifically, for Catholics like myself, it is a
grave moral responsibility to examine whether any action one takes
participates in, perpetuates, or encourages such evil. We are bound to
inform our own individual consciences and act in accordance with
them. So, when the COVID vaccine became available, I sought to find out
all I could about the nature of its origins and was led right back into
the human trafficking concerns that plague me. It was in this research
that I came across the work of the biologist and vaccine developer
Pamela Akers. Her public acknowledgement of the necessary procedure for
ensuring the viability of Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) cells coincided
with what medical professionals had shared with me privately.
For
me, this was enough to raise concern that warranted further
investigation before taking the vaccine. Sadly, the more the matter is
investigated, as it was by the courageous, thorough, and insightful
author of the Gateway Pundit article, the more evidence arises
supporting my worst fear---that a perfectly innocent living child, a
healthy little girl, born alive and outside the womb, was killed for and
by the harvest of her organs, and that this is a practice that may
underlie great parts of the research industry. Believe me, I am longing
to find firm and indisputable confirmatory evidence that this nightmare
scenario is NOT the case. However, your in-depth coverage of the subject
following the Crisis and Gateway Pundit articles seems to continually
contribute direct, expert-based medical evidence of the horrifying
truth. Saddening as it is, I truly appreciate what you are
accomplishing.
Q:
The HEK (Human Embryo Kidney) 293 fetal cell line has been used to test
COVID vaccines. That makes its origin vividly important now. How did
you become convinced that the evidence pointed to the removal of an
alive infant from her mother’s womb, and then the killing of that
infant, in 1972, in the Netherlands, in order to harvest her
kidneys---which would be used to create the HEK 293 cell line?
A:
I reiterate that I had to be convinced by simple logic that anyone, not
medical researchers exclusively, could follow. In fact, the more
specialized the language describing a medical moral issue becomes, the
more it can be used to obscure the facts. I would almost laugh, if not
for the gravity of the issue, at hyper-euphemistic descriptions one
finds in the medical literature. It discusses, for instance, situations
like the finding of electrical impulses in the cardiac tissue of the
POC.
First
of all, “POC?” Product of conception? What a way to talk around an
issue! I’m a proud product of conception and have never met anyone who
wasn’t! Electrical impulses in the cardiac tissue? With fewer
keystrokes, that could be called “a heartbeat.” So, I’m a POC with
intact electrical impulses in my cardiac tissue or, if anyone were
looking to save on ink, “alive.” Please, though, forgive my digression.
I
worked to write very carefully in the Crisis article the simple facts
that concerned me about the origins of the HEK 293 cell line. Rather
than try to summarize that argument in this interview and thus
potentially miss a critical component--may I please direct interested
readers to the article at the link below?
Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine [note: the link to this article is in my blog posting of this interview]
I
became further convinced of the reality following the publication of
the Gateway Pundit exclusive which offered some insightful analysis
taking into account the recent Pfizer whistleblower revelations. I’d
also like to direct anyone interested to that great article with a link
below.
Exclusive: Pfizer’s Nervousness About Its COVID Vaccine’s Origins Conceals a Horror Story [note: the link to this article is in my blog posting of this interview]
It’s not that I don’t want to answer the question, it’s that I want it to be answered as accurately as possible.
Q:
When I read conventional medical literature that describes research on
aborted fetuses, I see no mention of taking the infant from the mother’s
womb, alive, and then killing him/her. Is this a research “open secret”
that is held back from the public and even many doctors? I read a 1975
federal report on medical research using fetuses. It went on for a
hundred pages, and there wasn’t one reference to killing infants in the
process of removing their organs.
A:
I think the first issue here is the extremely removed language typical
of the descriptions of these procedures that I reference above, along
with its tendency to state actions separate from their obvious
consequences. It’s a linguistic tendency that may well reflect the
thinking and training of researchers and abortionists. In Dr. Kathi A.
Aultman’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on March
15th 2016, which you excerpted in your incredibly revealing post of
October 27th, the doctor describes her initial fascination with the
cellular perfection of the little bodies she dissected, and explains
that it was only years later that was she able to overcome her
scientific dissociation to make the intellectual connection that the
tiny perfect bodies were those of people whose lives she had ended.
I
worry our society has removed death so far from life that we don’t even
recognize it, and that is a scary thing. Our grandparents die in
facilities away from home rather than with their hands held in ours. Our
food arrives packaged and devoid of any reminders of the animals from
which it came. Fido moves to a faraway farm, while we play immersive
games where graphically taken lives merely “reset.” Therefore, unlike
any generation prior to ours, most of us can go through life without
regularly witnessing the reality of death, which makes for a very
unnatural understanding of it---one far from the Catholic motto of
memento mori. It’s an understanding that might even allow a scientist to
admire a human body on which she performed a procedure that ended the
function of its “cellularly perfect” organs without grasping that she
was its killer.
I
suspect this kind of thinking in turn produces academic writing in
which it is almost impossible to see anything untoward. Perhaps most
authors themselves can’t see it, aside from the presumably rarer
instances of dedicatedly evil individuals who do see things clearly and
actively choose to obfuscate the reality. Either way, this is why the
literature will never say, as you had difficulty finding, “in the next
step, kill the newborn,” even if it is the obvious consequence of the
procedure described.
If
the doctors involved were capable of that kind of cause-and-effect
thinking, perhaps they would have to first write, “in the next step,
first anesthetize, then kill the newborn.” If some of those doctors
believed themselves Christians, they would have to write “in the next
step, first baptize, then anesthetize, and then kill the newborn.” Even
if they believed themselves merely in possession of basic mammalian
instincts, they would at least have to write “in the next step, first
cuddle and comfort the crying newborn, then anesthetize and kill
him.” Of course, they can’t go there without recognizing the child’s
humanity, so instead, the scientific dissociation of cause-and-effect
remains in place.
This
critical thought barrier is evidenced particularly in the literature
when we see organs harvested from living children outside the womb
referred to as fresh “fetal” or even “embryonic” tissue. The biomedical
research companies requisitioning the tissue make the same linguistic
error and it goes constantly uncorrected. No. The medical term for a
delivered fetus in its first moments and days of life outside the womb
is a neonate. A newborn. Most of these people went to medical school and
know the difference, but they persist in the error.
Perhaps
if we could only require them to accurately use the language of “fresh
neonatal tissue” in their requisitions and reports, some would be unable
to proceed. Requesting a “heart of newborn” for the development of
whatever a researcher might be concocting in the lab might finally sound
to the ears of many too much like procuring the ingredients of a
witch’s brew belonging to horror fiction. It certainly makes “eye of
newt” sound resoundingly tame.
Other
than the issue of logic and language, however, I don’t think the
practice of infanticide by vivisection is particularly secret among
those working closely in the arena of biomedical research, and it’s
certainly known among the abortionists who supply the needs of the
industry, although I agree with you that it’s not something that doctors
whose scope never intersects the arena are aware of any more than most
of us are. It’s simply not brought to our attention in the media. We
focus where the media points us, and there appears some decided silence
on the issue.
A
breakthrough in public awareness of the direct killing of living
unwanted newborns for the sake of biomedical research, which, almost
incomprehensibly, generated far less media attention and public outcry
than it should have, occurred with the David Daleiden hearings. There
many doctors and scientific procurement company representatives spoke
openly of the practice, though often in the detached terms that would
require careful listening. For instance, the CEO of Stem Express
admitted dryly that “fetal hearts were perfused using a Langendorff
apparatus.”
A
Langendorff apparatus serves to preserve the functional viability of
hearts ex-vivo (which means, literally, outside of a living body). That
is, to specify the use of the Langendorff apparatus is to know that a
heart requiring this preservation was, in fact, taken from a living
body. To state the painfully obvious cause-and-effect reasoning
generally left out here, the removal of a functioning vital organ from a
living person (without the replacement of its function) is the direct
killing of that person. No example is clearer than that of a beating
heart. Ask an Aztec.
Dr.
Theresa Deisher, a Stanford University School of Medicine researcher
heavily involved with the use of adult stem cells, describes exactly how
that killing must take place in order for the Langendorff perfusion to
function. Both in her September 19th, 2019 testimony at the Daleiden
trial and in a same-day interview with Lifesite News, she explained that
the individuals performing the vivisection would necessarily “cut open
the baby’s chest and they would take the heart out beating and drop it
in a buffer with potassium. She went on to state with rare clarity, “of
course, if the heart isn’t beating, they can’t get any of these
cells. Nobody wants a stopped heart.”
At
another point in her testimony she explained again that, “some of the
babies had to have beating hearts when they were harvested.” Logic alone
dictates this fact, as she explained “once the heart goes into
contraction, you can’t get it to come out of that position.” It “has to
be beating and be arrested in a relaxed position” to be of use for
research purposes.
Again,
just with the use of basic reason, it goes without saying that not only
are breathing hearts being removed, but that these procedures occur on
living children outside the womb, not within it. The people doing the
dissection are not opening the chest of the child in the sort of
incredibly rare and highly specialized in utero surgery that might be
done to repair a fetal heart condition. The cost and specialization
would be astronomical and nonsensical, as they intend to destroy the
child, not save it.
So,
just by using the single example of hearts on the Langendorfff
apparatus, which is to say nothing of the “embryonic” kidney cells,
(which may more accurately be called “neonatal” kidney cells) used in
the COVID vaccine testing and development, I think I can answer your
question by saying there is no “open secret” regarding infanticide for
medical research. There is no secret at all. I am not revealing anything
that is not already obvious, even to a non-expert, given to looking at
the simple facts.
The
shocking thing, at this point, is not that this is happening, but that
we have yet to react, as a whole, in opposition to it. In fact, we
accept it by welcoming into our lives the “benefits” of the tortuous
murders of innocent children. If we are doing this unknowingly, then
perhaps it is because we have bought into the suspension of
cause-and-effect reasoning like that to which the researchers subscribe.
Your
question leads me, however, to one more point, which I hope provides a
wake-up point if nothing else has. Even more shocking than our
acceptance of this evil is the fact that it is entirely unnecessary. We
could have the same or perhaps greater benefits by other means, but we
don’t pursue the course of action that has proven successful in halting
unethical bioresearch before and redirecting the course of the industry.
Why
don’t we do for our own species what we have succeeded in doing for
animals? Most people recognize that animal advocacy and speaking with
our wallets through the boycotting of unethically-produced products is
genuinely critical because lab animals are innocent creatures who cannot
speak for themselves. Isn’t that true of human “lab babies” too?
Also
in the expert testimony cited above, Dr. Deisher made the point that
using human fetal tissue for research has become more prevalent because
increasing regulations on the welfare of animals have made the use of
humans more convenient. More convenient! In a way, while horrifying,
this is also wonderful news, because it means that animal activists
successfully changed things, albeit with a terrible unexpected
outcome. However, it means that we can do the same for our species too!
Does
that mean that the kind of beneficial research advances which have
previously come from the study of neonatal tissue need to stop? Do we
have to decide on a sacrificial trade off, with improvement in the lives
of those with debilitating illnesses on one hand and the murder of
human babies with less compassion than lab rats on the other? Is that
how science must proceed---in sanitized facilities behind closed doors
that, just in case we become personally in need of its “benefits,” we
prefer not to give much thought?
Here’s
another shocker. Not at all. Adult pluripotent stem cells, obtained
with adult consent and with no need for tortuous murders, actually
negate the necessity of the use of fetal organs for stem cell research,
because they can be cultured into any type of body cell. This technology
exists now, but its use is more costly and less common than the worn-in
ease of the baby butchering business. However, like any emerging
technology, the more its use expands, the lower its costs become.
We
can be the drivers of the expansion of its use, by making unethical
research the expensive and inconvenient option. When I was a little
girl, I was horrified to learn that lipsticks were tested on mistreated
lab rabbits and resolved to never condone that practice with my
purchase. So did every little girl I knew. Now cruelty-free cosmetics
are the expected and affordable norm. Please, if we could ban together
as a caring society to save the bunnies, what should we be willing to do
to save the babies?
~~~
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)
(Follow me on Gab at @jonrappoport)
No comments:
Post a Comment