Information

Are there any papers arguing against vaccination in French?

Are there any papers arguing against vaccination in French?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Disclaimer: This question is NOT about challenging the safety or efficacy of vaccines. It is only asking for tips on providing credible references that may show harmful effects of vaccination, if any.

In my French class, we were asked to debate an issue in current events. My topic is vaccines in children or adults.

The challenging part is that I was assigned to argue against vaccination, and I have to back up my arguments with credible sources (not blogs) that are in French. Hopefully some of you could point me towards some links to articles or research papers in French.

Please avoid discussion on safety and efficacy of vaccines, including local and global policies on their use. I just need help with this topic for my French class


I wish you good luck, as 99.99% of the anecdotal claims out there that conclude vaccination is bad are based on unfounded rumors.

Note that much of the negative public opinion is based on a fraudulent (and retracted) paper by Wakefield in The Lancet (1998). Unfortunately for you, however, it is in English.

My French is a bit rusty, but if you go to Google Scholar and type in a search term like vaccination results in autism (les résultats de la vaccination dans l'autisme) or Wakefield vaccination autisme something might pop up in French that advocates against vaccination.


The Wakefield study has collapsed as fraud, and there are no credible sources that make persuasive scientific arguments against being vaccinated in today's world -- not even in French.


You will not find good, credible sources arguing against vaccination. However, spewing nonsense is not necessary for winning your debate. You can collect good, credible sources arguing against specific vaccinations and use them to paint the opposing side as pro-vaccination zealots who unquestioningly want to stuff vaccines down everybody's veins.

Vaccines, like other treatments, have to be approved by health authorities, and therefore, the possible side effects are being studied in clinical trials. All you have to do is find a few cases where there side effects were a bit more severe than anticipated.

A good start for your research could therefore be publications about the risks of vaccination. On Google Scholar, "risques vaccination" brings up hits like Risk-Benefit assessment of hepatitis B vaccination in France (in French) that can give you a good basis for gathering material against vaccination.


The only angle I can think of that isn't "Haha, I can't believe these people are allowed to vote" is that the enemy we know is better than the enemy we do not know.

I see no reason why the classic argument of selection pressure doesn't apply. (See Warfrin(spelling?) resistance in rats, the resistant rats required more vitamin-k, thus more time out in the sun, so in a warfrin free environment are at a disadvantage, but thrive in an environment with warfrin)

Unfortunately (fortunately) evidence doesn't really support that, in fact we have eradicated several diseases already entirely and nothing replaced them.

(Long comment sorry)

By the way! Do tell us some of the arguments that come up!


COVID vaccine manufacturers should explore legal action against anti-vaxxers spreading disinformation

Perhaps it’s time for vaccine manufacturers to consider defamation suits against anti-vaxxers who spread false information about COVID vaccines. Lawsuits by voting technology companies against Fox and others over false “rigged” election claims could serve as a template.

As has been widely reported in the media, voting technology companies Dominion and Smartmatic have filed multi-billion dollar defamation lawsuits against Fox News and others over false claims that voting machines were “rigged” to help “steal” the 2020 presidential election. Perhaps it’s time for Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson to follow suit, taking legal action against those who spread disinformation about the safety and effectiveness of their vaccines.

An expert quoted in The Washington Post sees in the pending defamation suits the possibility of curbing the spread of misinformation where other methods (like actions taken by social media companies) have proven impotent:

“We are seeing the way that libel has become a real battleground in the fight against disinformation,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor at the University of Utah. “The threat of massive damages for spreading probably false conspiracy theories on matters of public concern could turn out to be the one tool that is successful in disincentivizing that behavior, where so many other tools seem to have failed.”

Spreading false information about COVID 19, a matter of public concern for sure, is exactly what “super-spreaders” like Joseph Mercola and Ty Bollinger have been doing for over a year. “Disincentivizing” their harmful behavior with legal action targeting their efforts to undermine the public’s confidence in vaccines may be just what the doctor ordered.

With that possibility in mind, we’ll look at how the masterfully-crafted complaints filed by Smartmatic and Dominion could serve as a template for defamation suits brought by vaccine makers against those who endanger the public’s health with their false claims. Although disinformation plagues all vaccine manufacturers, today we’ll focus on COVID vaccines.


Introduction and background

Vaccines are one of the most important measures of preventative medicine to protect the population from diseases and infections. They have contributed to decreasing rates of common childhood diseases and, in some cases, have even wiped out some diseases that were common in years past, such as smallpox, rinderpest, and have nearly eradicated malaria and polio [1]. In fact, according to the World Health Organization’s Polio Global Eradication Initiative, the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) will be used as a backbone for eradicating poliovirus in the next decade. However, there has been a recent rise in anti-vaccination sentiments surrounding beliefs that vaccines cause more harm than benefits to the health of the children who receive them. The premise of the anti-vaccination movement can also be contributed to the demonization of vaccinations by news and entertainment outlets. Voices such as Jenny McCarthy’s have proven to be influential, sweeping fear and distrust into parents’ minds by parading as 𠇊utism experts”. Social media and television talk show hosts, such as Oprah Winfrey, played a big role in this miseducation by giving credence to the campaign. This has caused vaccination rates to sustain a surprising drop in some Western countries [2]. The decrease in vaccinations has led to recent outbreaks of diseases that were thought to be 𠇎liminated”, such as measles. Still, other reasons for the anti-vaccination movement can be due to personal reasons, such as religious or secular views. A drop in immunizations poses a threat to the herd immunity the medical world has worked hard to achieve. Global communities are now more connected than ever, which translates to a higher probability of the transmission of pathogens. The only thing that can protect populations against a rapidly spreading disease is the disease's resistance created by herd immunity when the majority are immune after vaccinations. Given the highly contagious nature of diseases like measles, vaccination rates of 96% to 99% are necessary to preserve herd immunity and prevent future outbreaks [3].


Are there any papers arguing against vaccination in French? - Biology

Researchers at the Pasteur Institute abandoned their top candidate for a COVID-19 vaccine.

PHOTO: CHRISTOPHE ARCHAMBAULT/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

On 25 January, as France's third pandemic wave gathered force, Christophe d'Enfert, scientific director of the Pasteur Institute, appeared on national TV with a grim duty: explaining how the venerable institute, named after vaccine pioneer Louis Pasteur, had given up on its most advanced COVID-19 vaccine candidate. Around the same time, French drug giant Sanofi said its own contenders were delayed—and that it would cut hundreds of French jobs. Today, France remains the only nation on the U.N. Security Council without a viable vaccine. To d'Enfert, it “brings into question our capacity not only to do very high-level fundamental research, but also to transform this into innovation.”

The high-profile failures have cast a spotlight on the problems facing biomedicine in France. Although no one failure could have been predicted, the pattern “is not just bad luck,” says Audrey Vézian, a sociologist of biomedicine at CNRS, France's national research center, in Lyon. “It shows that something isn't working in our innovation process.” Some experts cite a squeeze in basic research funding and scarce venture capital. Vézian also blames a proliferation of bureaucratic organizations that waste resources and add confusion.

Margaret Kyle, an economist at Mines ParisTech graduate school who co-authored a January study by the Council of Economic Analysis (CAE), a government advisory body, says France ought to be well-positioned to do biomedical research—and to commercialize it. Its education system churns out talented scientists, and it has a national health care system, which provides data that can be deployed in medical research. But recent analyses paint a picture of long-term erosion in public biomedical investment. The CAE study found that public spending on biology and health research has shrunk dramatically since 2011, even as it grew in Germany and the United Kingdom (see chart, p. 332).

Bruno Canard, a structural biologist who studies coronaviruses at CNRS in Marseille, has felt that decline firsthand. For instance, he says, France only has three of the cryo–electron microscopes (cryo-EMs) that can reveal molecular structures like that of the coronavirus at near-atomic resolution Germany and the United Kingdom each have about two dozen. And France's national research funding agency, set up in 2005 to provide competitive project-based funding, has seen its budgets drop sharply. Emergency COVID-19 research money has begun to flow, which Canard says has returned his lab's budget to 2003 levels. But by the time pandemic funds were available, he says, “Chinese teams, among others, had already published the first cryo-EM papers in Science, Cell, and Nature.”

Biotech startups, critical in pharmaceutical innovation, are also less well funded in France than in its European peers. Funding through France's public investment bank (BPI) and tax rebates can be generous in the early stages of business development, but private funding is too sparse to enable enough companies to grow significantly at later stages. In 2020, French health tech startups each raised only €8 million in venture capital on average, compared with €12 million in the United Kingdom and €25 million in Germany, according to data compiled by the trade group France Biotech.

In the first 5 years after biotechnologist Odile Duvaux co-founded a startup called Xenothera in 2014, she raised €6 million to develop the company's immunotherapies. Things picked up during the pandemic, when BPI gave Xenothera €5.3 million to scale up production of an intravenous COVID-19 antibody treatment and test it in trials since then, the company raised another €10.3 million and the treatment is being tested in 35 hospitals in France, as well as five other countries.

But Duvaux says those amounts are dwarfed by what U.S. companies are often able to raise. “We're running after nickels and dimes,” she says. “We need preorders. That's what the U.S. government does that's what the U.K. government is doing with [French vaccine company] Valneva: they buy millions of doses before knowing if the products work,” and shoulder the risk. In contrast, French leaders tend to be suspicious of biotech companies or oblivious to them, instead favoring well-established academic centers and pharmaceutical firms, Duvaux says. But neither is as nimble as a startup, she says: “A paddleboat or a petrol tanker can't go fast.”

French organizations, both public and private, lack “mixed expertise”: people with experience with both health and biotech as well as finance, law, and business, according to a 2017 report by the Boston Consulting Group, commissioned by France Biotech. The report blames France's predilection for elite schools that train generalists rather than specialists. France Biotech President Franck Mouthon says administrative burdens and safety procedures, added after health scandals, also weigh down the country's innovation system. “There is money flowing to fund innovation in France, but we need reforms,” he says. For instance, members of ethics committees that examine clinical trials applications are drawn randomly to limit conflicts of interest, but that also means they often don't have the relevant expertise, he says.

Changes are afoot. The current administration pledged to reverse what it calls “decades of underinvestment” with a 10-year plan and reform enacted in December 2020. The plan aims to raise R&D spending from 2.2% to 3% of gross domestic product, in line with Germany's, increasing public spending from €15 billion to €20 billion by 2030. It also intends to make research careers more attractive by boosting meager salaries and creating junior tenure track jobs, a novelty in France. (Some researchers have protested the law, arguing that the budget rises are not enough, and that the junior jobs are a downgrade compared with lifelong state employment.)

Change is coming to the startup world as well. Mouthon says the pandemic has smoothed communication with health authorities, helping startups get clarity on regulatory requirements early on. And last summer, the government induced a group of insurance companies and semipublic institutions to pledge €6 billion in tech investment in France through 33 funds nine of these funds are dedicated to health.

Many scientists hope, cautiously, that the COVID-19 wake-up call will bring lasting improvements. At Pasteur, researchers are pressing on with two other vaccine candidates and other COVID-19–related research, in part thanks to public donations. D'Enfert says the institute is contemplating starting a production unit, like one at the University of Oxford, to make preclinical vaccine batches in house, or adding messenger RNA—the technique behind the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines—to the institute's research portfolio.

D'Enfert hopes the government will beef up research funding and give basic science more “power” and “recognition.” “It shouldn't be just about snapping fingers and putting gas in the engine,” he says. “It has to be sustained in the long term.”


Spin the wheel for ST Read and Win now.

"It is a complaint 'against X', because we have no element against a named person for manslaughter," said Boittin, adding that this "classification can evolve" as the case develops.

The family of the woman, a social worker, "is not in a process of claiming or seeking responsibilities but simply wants explanations and clarifications on what happened," he added.

The woman - who was vaccinated in mid-March due to her work at a centre with disabled people - did not suffer from any particular health problem, added Boittin.

Her health deteriorated shortly after vaccination and she was hospitalised.

She died on March 29 of a blood clot on the brain.

"The objective of this complaint is to obtain an additional investigation - in particular an autopsy within a medico-legal framework - so we can know if this vaccine could have had a causal role in her death", added the lawyer.


Why Catholics should oppose vaccine mandates (both private and public)

Some assorted observations on serious (and often-ignored) legal, medical, ethical, cultural, social, and theological concerns surrounding COVID vaccinations and mandates.

A nurse prepares a dose of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in Fasano, Italy, April 13, 2021. (CNS photo/Alessandro Garofalo, Reuters)

• Most people have heard of Buck v. Bell (1927), in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled lawful a Virginia statute permitting sterilization of the “unfit.” Many know the infamous line of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s ruling: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Many people do not know, however, the sentence that immediately precedes it: “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination (Jacobson v. Massachusetts [1905]) is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” There was a direct connection, at least in the minds of the Supreme Court justices, between compulsory vaccination and compulsory sterilization.

• This connection should give us pause in our present situation, when there is a lot of talk about the need for vaccine mandates for COVID-19. This is a disease which has a >99% survival rate for people under 70 years old (the survival rate is 94.6% for those over 70). Thus, while it seems to make a great deal of sense for those older than 70 and those with exacerbating conditions to receive the vaccine, what are we to say about the tremendous pressure, exerted by both public and private authorities, for absolutely everyone to get vaccinated—even children, upon whom COVID-19 seems rarely to have any effect whatsoever?

• The Church, too, is not unaffected by the present trend. Catholics, and Catholic institutions in particular, are also exerting pressure for universal vaccination. But not only does this program of complete vaccination lack a clear scientific basis, as just noted, exerting pressure in the way it requires arguably looks very much like what is at its core an anti-Christian attempt to control.

• The Buck v. Bell case ushered in an era of state-backed eugenical programs in the United States, leading to things like the North Carolina Eugenics Board, which routinely sterilized minorities and poor people the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which experimented upon black men and anti-miscegenation laws, which, one supposes, were intended to protect people from themselves.

• We’d like to think we are far beyond such horrors, but I very much doubt it. In some sense, we can now exert violent control over human bodies and lives both more broadly and more hiddenly, thanks to the rise of modern technology. And even if we insist that we are beyond temptation here, do we want to test our theory by giving the state, and the corporate oligarchy that works with it, the sweeping powers required to enforce vaccine mandates?

• But let us return for a moment to eugenics. People think it looks exclusively like state-backed programs such as eugenics boards, or Josef Mengele, or the Holocaust. But eugenics is both more and less than these concrete programs: it is a logic.

• The logic of eugenics is a logic of willful control. It is anti-creational. The Christian understanding of creation is that it is a gift: received from Another, animated by a purpose and an order that precede man’s will. Eugenics, by contrast, attempts to reject the gift and is at root a bid by man to assert his will over the order of creation, rather than being steward to it.

Humanae vitae articulates this logic well, though the encyclical stops short of calling it eugenical: “the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that [man] is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life” (2).

• Am I saying this in order to equate the COVID-19 vaccines with forced sterilization? Of course not. I am, however, saying that there seems to be a similar logic at work in both—especially in view of the effort to exert immense public and private pressure on those who hesitate about receiving the vaccine. Again, even the appearance of a logical similarity between forced sterilization and compulsory vaccinations should at least give us pause.

• Let me lay my cards on the table and propose the following thesis: Modern medicine has an anti-woman bias. I say this on account of what I see as its tendency to view women’s bodies as if they were men’s bodies with some inconvenient body parts attached. Modern medicine, in short, does not regard women’s fertility as central to their health, but approaches it as a problem it doesn’t know how to handle. The medical establishment then tries to suppress this problematic fertility with contraception, to jump-start it with IVF, or to erase it all together with sterilization.

• Modern medicine is by nature short-sighted: it is focused on treating symptoms now, rather than on waiting to understand why they are arising and what they can tell us about the whole. For the same reason, modern medicine lacks the patience to understand women and their fertility. This is how we end up with the disasters of thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol. The history of modern medicine is littered with women’s bodies—and the bodies of their children (it is fairly well known that mothers who were prescribed thalidomide for their morning sickness gave birth to children with severe limb deformities it is less well known that the children of mothers who were prescribed diethylstilbestrol are much more likely to have problems with their fertility—and their daughters are at much greater risk for blood clots and cancer. We are now seeing epigenetic effects in the grandchildren of those women who were prescribed diethylstilbestrol).

• Vaginal mesh is another example of the horrors inflicted upon women because of an over-hasty modern medicine directed all too often by the interests of pharmaceutical companies, rather than by the health of the patient. Some types of hormonal contraception increase a woman’s risk of fatal blood clots three to nine times, but this has never halted the production and use of birth control. Jennifer Block’s excellent Everything Below the Waist is a mine of information on these matters, while Caroline Criado Perez’s book Invisible Women documents the phenomenon of the bias against women in both modern medicine and modern science.

• The lesson is this: when modern medicine moves too quickly, women suffer most immediately. Men suffer too—it’s just that their suffering is not as immediate or apparent. How we treat women—and in particular their fertility—is a bit like the canary in the coal mine: it reveals how we approach all of nature (human and otherwise).

• We know that many women are reporting irregularities with their period after receiving one of the COVID-19 vaccines. Given what’s at stake—women’s health, their fertility, and human nature’s capacity to be, literally, pro-creative—why are we barreling ahead with this program of vaccination? Shouldn’t reports like these give us pause? Are we sure that we are not backing ourselves into a logic of violent control that is akin to that displayed in eugenics?

• I am not arguing that no one should take the COVID-19 vaccines. I am arguing that we ignore these kinds of signals about their possible long-terms effects at great risk.

• The biotechnology being used in the vaccines available in the United States has never before been used in vaccination. We do not and indeed cannot have data about its long-term effects. And yet we seem to be barreling forward with a population-level experiment while preparing to take coercive measures against those who would hesitate.

• In April 2020, the New York Times reported that it would likely take us until November 2033 to produce a vaccine. We have rushed this process in an unprecedented way. Why? So that we might attempt to guard ourselves against the possibility of suffering and the very slight possibility of a more immediate death?

• So much for the risk-benefit calculus. But I am also arguing that these vaccines in particular, combined with the pressures being exerted to force it upon everyone, look an awful lot like a form of hasty, eugenics-like control that is totalitarian in spirit.

• To repeat: I am not arguing no one should take these vaccines—it in fact seems prudent that many who are at higher risk should take them. But compulsory universal vaccination looks like an attempt to exert control over every single person on the planet. It thus smells strongly of the logic of eugenics and of its sponsorship by the state and its techno-corporate actors (which, it must be said, stand to profit a great deal from every person being mandated to take the vaccine).

• The Church has always acted as a counterbalance to the (attempted) political and cultural hegemony of the state. It’s one of the reasons Rome murdered Christians en masse.

• By contrast, Catholic institutions, such as universities, that claim to serve the Church, but are also joining the attempt to mandate an experimental vaccine, are not first serving the Church. They are making it clear that they serve the state first by exerting the same pressure upon the people as the state is.

• Many Catholics argue that we should get behind vaccine mandates (or even mandate them ourselves) for the sake of the common good. But public health is not synonymous with the common good. In order for a good truly to be common, it must transcend individual consumption. For a good to be transcendent in this sense, moreover, it must be wholly shareable by many at the same time A cake is not a common good because you and I cannot enjoy the same piece at the same time: by definition it is not common. The same is true of a road, no piece of which you and I can use at once.

• Creation, and its logic, however, is a common good. It is common to all of humanity, past, present, and future. It transcends us, preceding both our existence and our individual will.

• The anti-creational logic of eugenics is by definition also anti-transcendent because it is the assertion of one individual’s (or group’s) will over nature. It says that the individual’s will should supersede the logic of creation. And it does so, as history has shown us repeatedly, at the expense of the most vulnerable.

The COVID-19 vaccines—their hasty development, their unknown long-term effects, the private and public means being used to pressure everyone to get them—represent the assertion of control over nature, over human beings, that looks very much like the logic that is eugenics.

• All of this stands in sharp contrast to the biblical directive to steward nature, not assert our will over it.

• Christ did not ask us to be safe at all costs. He did not ask us never to risk. He asked us to understand that he is the way, the truth, and the life. He asked us to believe—profoundly, to the core of our very being—that our lives are not in our own hands, but they are in the hands of the Father. He asked us to see, protect, and preserve what his Father created.

• We are not given the gift of existence never to die, but so that we might live.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

Related Articles

South Dakota hears pro-life testimony on “discrimination abortion” ban

Washington D.C., Feb 17, 2021 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- As South Dakota&rsquos legislature considers a ban on abortions due to a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, pro-life leaders say the bill would prevent &ldquoa modern-day form of eugenics.&rdquo

Pope Francis meets World Food Program head as agency warns about child hunger

Rome Newsroom, Jan 28, 2021 / 01:00 pm (CNA).- Pope Francis met on Thursday with the head of the World Food Program, as the organization issued a warning that more than 300 million children are going hungry amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Senate pro-life chair: Down syndrome abortions are ‘eugenics’

Washington D.C., Jan 30, 2021 / 11:00 am (CNA).- Down syndrome abortions are &ldquoeugenics,&rdquo the Senate pro-life caucus chair told CNA in an interview this week.

&ldquoThis is eugenics, and we cannot allow this to continue in our coun… […]

32 Comments

Diocesan schools must stop requiring vaccines competely, to the point that they do not require “exemption paperwork.” In addition, parishes should put on notice that Catholic physicians who wish to advertise in the back of the bulletin (or be lectors or Extra Ordinary E.M., etc) that they must not prescription contraception, sterilization, or require vaccination as part of their pediatric practice (it is common for pediatric and family physicians to require vaccination of young children or to dismiss the family from the practice.)
.
Of course, the CDF says that vaccines and other medical treatments that arise from abortion tainted cell lines are acceptable, so that is not likely to happen any time soon.

If we mandate (force) vaccinations on people, it is the same slippery slope we encounter with killing the unborn. Who (or what) comes next? Everyone should have the right and responsibility to decide for or against being vaccinated without any coercion. I will be vaccinated as soon as they offer a shot that has no connection to abortion. The “remote” connection to fetal tissue from an abortion in 1973 is not remote, because taking such a vaccination while protesting its development is hypocritical and will lead to more of the same kind of research and development in the future. I cannot deplore the method while accepting the resulting treatment. The end does not justify the means.

In my case, Dr. Coleman is preaching to the choir, but she’s provided some great ammo for “anti-covidiot” apologetics. The obstinant, stubborn, germaphobic PR out there is truly satanic in light of the facts. I’m sharing this outstanding article far and wide. It should be published in every Christian Sunday bulletin, Catholic and otherwise.

excellent article. well made points that i can use with the multitude of people pushing me to get this vaccine (though i have many concerns about it , both moral and physical)to prove i am a good christian, or unselfish or charitable.

“The COVID-19 vaccines—their hasty development, their unknown long-term effects, the private and public means being used to pressure everyone to get them—represent the assertion of control over nature, over human beings, that looks very much like the logic that is eugenics.”

Nice effort, but I think the comparison to eugenics defies logic rather than being an example of it. There are a number of reasons one might be concerned about, or reject, vaccination for SARS-CoV-2. But asserting that this vaccination is akin to a eugenic practice (images of Nazi forced sterilization practices difficult to avoid)seems to me to be like comparing apples to hippopotamuses.

“Am I saying this in order to equate the COVID-19 vaccines with forced sterilization? Of course not. I am, however, saying…”

To be honest, it seems irresponsible to publish these bullet points to confuse or dissuade readers on this site, trying to link the vaccine to eugenics (‘oh but don’t worry, I’m not even if the whole article is about eugenics in relation to the vaccine’). Don’t tell me the rad-trad attempt to guilt everyone out of getting their vaccine by linking them to abortions failed, so we’re going to the next mortal sin? What’s next, the vaccines will be linked to genes responsible for sodomy and adultery? Will nothing stop those degenerates and their New World Order.

She’s not saying an individual choosing to get the vaccine itself is eugenic, but that the basis used to justify the state/ society *forcing* everyone to get it is similar to the justification of eugenics.

Interesting, informative and long overdue article. IMHO the RCC is playing with fire. The sight of Pope Francis and Benedict taking the jab may well come back to haunt the church in a scandal that will make the clerical abuse one look like a picnic. We simply do not know enough about this illness, its origin or why big names like Gates are getting involved. That the unborn are being used in Nazi style experimentation should be enough pause for thought.

How about more than 4,400 deaths following COVID-19 vaccine injections through this past Monday, more deaths than reported for all vaccines combined over the past 15 years? How about 795 reports related to blood clotting disorders? The data is available from the VAERS reporting system. Or, how about a renowned toxicologist, calling on the U.S. government to halt COVID-19 vaccine distribution?

The deaths reported to VAERS are voluntary and are said to be from ` to 10 percent of the actual number. Check Covid News online. The swine flu vaccine was stopped when 53 people died from it. If only 20 percent of the U.S. population say they are certainly not going to be vaccinated is everyone else just watching television>

Thank you for this article, particularly the presentation of the analogy between the mainstream medical treatment of women’s fertility, and the rollout of the COVID injections (they are not vaccines are they?) It is indeed a shortsighted treatment in both cases, and the former very clearly establishes our understanding of the latter.

I’d like to push back on the idea that there is an “anti-woman bias” in modern medicine however. This strikes me as a sentimental phrase which unnecessarily stokes the emotions and ultimately does damage to your argument. You could just as well talk of an “anti-man bias” when, for instance, birth control chemicals leach into the environment and wreak havoc on the male endocrine system in particular (you may even be alluding to something like this effect when you talk of the long-term ill effects of medicine on men). Yet speaking of “anti-man” anything doesn’t evoke sentiment like “anti-woman” does, even though it has just as much truth to it. Ironically, using the “anti-woman” argument probably gives a boost to your argument in the short-term, but doesn’t run very deep or ring true in the long-term sense, and so very much resembles the short-term solution nature of modern medicine, which argument your present very worthily.

“The Dicastery of Cardinal Turkson has produced a kit (here) for representatives of the Church on the anti-Covid vaccines composed of seven sections that refer to some documents, provide an anthology of speeches (especially by Pope Francis), answer clinical questions…”

This “kit” gives clergy instructions to convincingly and efficiently promote vaccines. According to CBS News, “Fauci said doubters should be encouraged to get vaccines from people they trust.” “You’ve got to match the messenger with the audience,” So here we go, Catholics should be coerced into the global elites cattle drive. This is war!

Pro-vax Vatican creates a kit to indoctrinate priests and the faithful – Daily Compass (newdailycompass.com)

Americans have a big fight on their hands. Globalist are targeting our children and family life. With the Vatican’s unraveling fabric, it is up to faithful Catholics not to “make a mess” but to MAKE A SCENE, to speak up and put on the armor of Truth.

Chelsea indicated that continual advocacy of vaccines should be part of a global program.

“… in November of 2012 Pope Benedict XVI signed a Motu Proprio clarifying what even common sense might suggest, namely that Catholic charitable organisations cannot be funded by “groups or institutions that pursue ends contrary to Church’s teaching.” Now the Vatican is scrapping that directive with impunity!

John Templeton Foundation sponsorship of $700,000 to the conference “… makes it clear why it generously funds the Vatican Health Conference. As Monsignor Trafny candidly admits, the funder also gets to choose the speakers.” John Templeton Foundation funds the contraception mill to the tune of $3 billion a year. B & M Gates are on the same page with Planned Parenthood. There we have it! Serving up balogna such as the recent Health Conference has become a pattern! The Vatican has lost its moorings. The faithful suffer while vaccines, and development of illicitly procured human cell use is promoted at the Vatican Health Conference. Only two members of our Catholic clergy spoke.

read more(copy and past):
Vatican in the pocket of the contraception industry – Daily Compass (newdailycompass.com)

Many bureaucratic organizations self-co-ordinate using ten-year paradigms. This applies to groups within such organizations and groups among such organizations. It stabilizes things for them in having to deal with leaderships changing from time to time, achieves predictability, facilitates budgeting and tracking, sets the promotion process to be run with some known “objective” criteria, builds periodic synergy, avoids sharp changes or shows how change is more imperative, etc. And there’s another side: it affords bureaucrats comfort zones which they can define and carve out for themselves allows them to pursue their own agendas or at least some of the tracks shifts a power balance to them. The co-ordinating can be through formalized plans, practical arrangements, accepted concurrences or informal understandings -or a mix. In these situations it is entirely possible for them to sustain positions and cultures that are contrary to the organizations’ standards, vision, mission and goals.

Typically the 10-year paradigm “hides in plain sight” -the case in most national situations. One glaring open example exists on the international level, the WHO’s relationship with GAVI. This has no basis in international law or the UN charter but the WHO is able to undertake its functions through these alter-arrangements, unchecked. This has to be broken down, held to account and repelled. It can not go on and it is not a precedent for allowing other things like it. Further, in the present insistence of “pandemic” peddled by WHO, the influence is out of all proportion to realities and is utterly contrary to reason, to law and to rule of law. Moreover this particular alliance is demonstrating it has every intention to keep flourishing beyond ten years and to make connections according to peculiarities/abberational quirk-ologies, like “gender” and “population”.

Super-imposing onto this a random multi-lateralism is very negligent and at the same time will cause disruptions in regional outlooks and agendas.

GAVI is not a Russia problem, it is a China problem. The Russia “problem” is by and large a work-up done to divert attention and to make cover for different types of sabotage. It inevitably puts Russia on a defensive and chokes down the development of international relations and global security. You can get a sense who else would be involved, from my comments to Leila Miller’s article “The Church’s ultimate trial: the final unleashing of evil” March 2 2021. Here is the link.


If you have difficulty reaching a vaccination site, you may be able to get an in-home vaccination.

Contact these services to see if they offer in-home COVID-19 vaccinations in your area:

  • Your doctor or health care provider
  • Hotline for Medicare recipients at 1-800-633-4227 (TTY 1-877-486-2048 )
  • Your state health department or call 211
  • Disability Information and Access Line (DIAL) 1-888-677-1199
  • Services for older adults and their families Eldercare Locator or 1-800-677-1116

We want to make COVID-19 vaccination easy and accessible to everyone.

COVID-19 vaccines are free and available to anyone who wants one. We work with partners such as clinics, pharmacies and health departments to provide accurate and up-to-date information about vaccination services in your area.

This page is brought to you by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and VaccineFinder from Boston Children’s Hospital.


Side effects

The overwhelming medical evidence finds that most vaccine side effects among newborns and young children are mild&mdashswelling, redness and a small, hard lump at the site of the injection&mdashand typically pass within a couple of days. A far less common but serious vaccine side effect, occurring in fewer than one in a million cases, is an immediate allergic reaction that can be treated with common medications to ease itching or swelling or, in more serious cases, by administering epinephrine. Rarely, with certain vaccinations there can be other problems. After receiving the first shot of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination, for example, a child has a roughly one in 3,000 chance of developing a fever that leads to a seizure. Such seizures do not lead to any permanent neurological damage. Moreover, they also occur more generally when kids develop high fevers&mdashafflicting up to 5 percent of young children. That does not mean it is not upsetting to see. &ldquoIt's hard to watch your child seize,&rdquo says Paul Offit, a pediatrics professor at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. His own daughter had a seizure after receiving the combo vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis but he says it's important to remember that this type of seizure does not cause long-term consequences. And scientific evidence finds that MMR-related seizures are actually less frequent than ones that occur as a direct result of the measles infection itself.


Overcoming obstacles to mRNA vaccines

In an early proof-of-concept of using gene-based therapeutics to produce the proteins needed to fight disease, published in 1990, scientists reported that in mice, cells successfully produced proteins encoded in injected RNA or DNA. The method was potentially revolutionary: It could, in theory, be used to engineer any protein the body needed to boost immunity against pathogens and fight diseases such as cancer and rare genetic conditions.

I would predict, and others have too, that this will beckon a new era for the application of mRNA towards infectious diseases, particularly as rapid response platforms to help deal with outbreaks.

Despite its promise, there are challenges associated with working with mRNA. Ordinary mRNA produces only low levels of proteins, and the molecule degrades too quickly inside the body to make it suitable as a therapeutic. On top of that, RNA can trigger an immune response that’s independent of the response to the protein it encodes. “If you just inject foreign RNA into people or animals, you can induce a very serious inflammatory response,” Pardi says. He adds that this is our bodies’ defense mechanism against viruses, which can use either DNA or RNA to store their genetic information.

Because of these problems, the uptake of this technology was slow, and many scientists chose to instead focus on developing vaccines with DNA, which is more stable and easier to work with, says Margaret Liu, the chairman of the board of the International Society for Vaccines and a pioneer of gene-based vaccines. (Liu is on scientific advisory board of the University of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, which developed AstraZeneca’s vaccine for COVID-19.)

A few key technological advances have contributed to the success of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech. In the early 2000s, mRNA vaccines got a boost when a pair of scientists at the University of Pennsylvania, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman, discovered that by altering the building blocks of RNA—nucleosides—they could address some of key limitations of the technique. In a seminal 2005 paper, they reported that modified, synthetic nucleosides could both increase protein production from the mRNA and drastically suppress the immune system’s reaction to the mRNA molecules themselves. (Karikó is now a senior vice president at BioNTech.)

“I think pretty much everyone acknowledges this as the big breakthrough [for mRNA vaccines],” says Liu.

Scientists still needed a method to fortify the mRNA against rapid degradation after injection, however. Pardi, along with Karikó and Weissman, helped identify a solution: by encasing mRNA in small bubbles of fat known as lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), they were able to protect the molecule and enhance its delivery into cells.

“The really difficult challenge for the field for the last at least four to five years has been the delivery [of the mRNA],” says Nick Jackson, the head of programs and technology at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), an organization providing funding for many SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, including Moderna’s. “It’s really been thanks to the incredible innovation around LNPs that has finally shown the validation of this platform and opens the floodgates to mRNA potential.”


WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

Given the documented difficulty of communicating with vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-opposing families in a way that addresses their concerns and respects their autonomy, coupled with challenges in communicating the greater good of vaccinations in typical face-to-face clinical encounters, it is time to rethink how health care practitioners, policymakers, and communicators approach vaccine education and communication. From a policy and clinical ethics perspective, this might mean making the informed-consent process more educationally intensive and applicable not only to parents choosing to immunize their children but also, and especially, to those refusing or declining immunizations or requesting a modified schedule. Although findings regarding the impact of educational and messaging efforts on vaccine attitudes and intentions are mixed, one approach worth investigating might be an informed opt-out process in which parents are presented with information regarding what it is like to see one’s child suffer from a vaccine-preventable illness such as measles.75

From a policy perspective, it may mean reevaluating the ease with which nonmedical exemptions are handled, with increased attention toward ensuring that parents are making informed decisions, especially when they opt out of vaccination. The state of California recently passed legislation that removes the option of personal belief exemptions.5 This has led to much public deliberation as to whether the state has overstepped its authority by encroaching on individual parental rights in the name of promoting public health, with some arguing that mandatory vaccinations also violate the Nuremburg Code.76 We disagree with both of these claims. Regarding the former, it is precisely the business of state actors to make these decisions, and the acceptability of such decisions will be adjudicated at the ballot box. Regarding the latter, we fail to see how a 6-decade-old statement crafted after a military tribunal for unethical human experiments applies to the present case.

Given the reality of limited clinical encounter time and the challenges of tailoring large-scale public health media campaigns, it might make sense to illustrate concepts through other means of information transmission. For example, parents of pediatric patients could be directed to online video narratives of individuals describing their experiences with vaccine-preventable illnesses, or to decision-support instruments and educational Web sites that can present information that is targeted or, ideally, tailored to parents’ specific concerns. Researchers are developing and refining such tools.77,78 The timing of information provision could also be fine-tuned, adding prenatal visits as an opportunity for families and providers to discuss childhood immunizations as well as to identify opportunities and resources for vaccine education well before an infant’s first vaccines.

Striking a balance between respecting parental rights and autonomy and maximizing the greater good of herd immunity may seem an intractable problem, especially in the current climate of heated vaccine debates. It undoubtedly calls for a multifaceted set of interventions however, deliberate efforts must be made now. The alternative—permitting opinions and attitudes alone (which may be based on erroneous information or misperceptions) to support behavior—is as great a threat to public health as the unvaccinated population itself. Although this most recent measles outbreak has largely subsided, it is likely that another, potentially worse outbreak will occur. Developing sound policy now will help to reduce the severity of or altogether stop future outbreaks. Thus, as media attention to this subject waxes and wanes, we implore readers to keep the topic of vaccine policy and ethics at the forefront.


Watch the video: Κορονοϊός εμβόλιο: Ανοίγουν τα ραντεβού για την 3η δόση σε άνω των 50 ετών (June 2022).


Comments:

  1. Yozshuhn

    I believe you were wrong. Let us try to discuss this. Write to me in PM, speak.

  2. Shephard

    I apologize, but in my opinion you admit the mistake. Enter we'll discuss it. Write to me in PM, we'll talk.

  3. Janie

    an Interesting variant

  4. Kolten

    I think mistakes are made. I am able to prove it.

  5. Juktilar

    And effectively?

  6. Xavian

    Few are able to make believe.

  7. Ladd

    The sympathetic sentence



Write a message