A Heavy Word from a Heavy Heart
Opinions expressed by columnists, contributors and letter to the editors are those of the author and are not necessarily those of The Standard. The nature of an editorial opinion piece is that it is a topical piece, just like column writers who take an idea and offer a perspective on a concern or interest.
Last week’s editorial, called ‘A Heavy Word from a Heavy Heart’, was intended to address the reason various groups within our overall population may have for abstaining from taking the Covid vaccines in their present form. A viable solution that is also very possible was offered to address this concern that both the government and officials from the medical system were putting forth. Namely, the idea of them removing barriers to people taking one of the various brands of the Covid vaccines.
The solution was to develop a new vaccine strain founded upon the use of actual consenting individuals’ DNA used to produce the RNA spike protein, which is the specific effective component in all of these vaccines. The hope was to give the government and concerned medical authorities the moral imperative to truly remove this barrier so as to enable this portion of the population to take a morally clean Covid vaccination.
If the concern is genuine, and I believe it is, then this is a way through without creating an oppressive conflict with the ‘CHOICE’ of many in our population. Further, it would go along with the desires of those who believe in, as the term is used in ethical thought, ‘CHOICE’. The editorial spoke to the dignity of life ‘CHOICE’ of the conscientious objectors and the protection of the dignity of life. The direction of this solution was demonstrated by those individuals who actually cared enough to use their own ‘CHOICE’ to offer their own DNA, so research could be done to develop a vaccine to defeat Covid.
Because inclusion is the issue to stamp this virus out, then inclusion must also be addressed in the making of vaccines, to remove any barrier to taking the vaccine, thus making it a more thorough tool.
It has been discovered that all four of the vaccines have been created by using aborted fetus’ DNA, they call it fetal cell lines. Two of the four vaccines actually include fetal cell line DNA within the injection. So a person is receiving DNA from another person into their body. This raises the concern along the lines of organ transplant rejection and could account for some of the side effect problems. So the cleaner, the better. The cost to develop the new strain of vaccine would not be prohibitive, as the processes and steps necessary to get to the mRNA spike protein have already been mapped out; all that remains is to go through the steps again to arrive at an ethically sound end result. The steps are already being repeated to develop more quantities of the same vaccines today anyway, so that part is no new cost.
This would also be totally acceptable for others to take, so it would not be limited to use by only a part of the population. Therefore, it would not create any actual moral problem for anyone. And voila, a barrier truly removed! In a world where we claim to be morally inclusive, NOT ambiguous, this solution fits consistently. However, if an alternative somewhere along this thought line is not implemented, then no Government or medical individual may actually make the claim they are doing everything they can to remove barriers to reaching the largest numbers of people with Covid vaccines.
This was the idea and central focus of the article in last week’s newspaper called ‘A Heavy Word from a Heavy Heart.’
In addition, the Standard apologizes for any grammar and layout errors that occurred as well. I hope this clears up any of the legitimate concerns anyone had regarding the focus of the editorial.
A Heavy Word from a Heavy Heart
CONTEXT OF FOCUS
A question has been raised as to why so many people are still resisting taking the Covid vaccinations.
While I cannot address all the issues preventing people from taking the Covid inoculation, I can address a very real concern on the hearts of many out there. Please bear with me as it gets to result oriented thinking at the end.
BACKGROUND OF SUPPORTING MATERIAL
A summary of official lines used to encourage people to take the shot goes something like this. “They are safe and effective; it is important, so barriers are being removed; and we need to consider and protect the lives of others.”
They are safe and effective:
Yet, they require repeated inoculations. We all know the shots are billed as a two round effort. Every version has been shown to need a booster shot after approximately two months. Why would this be needed if they are so effective?
It is important to get inoculated, so barriers are being removed:
This implies the reason people are not getting the shot is because of barriers officials are addressing. Yet the biggest barrier, for those in this group, to taking the shot, is not of access but one of conscience and morality. These inoculations have been produced by using aborted fetuses’ DNA, from 1960, 1970, 1973 and 1995.
Taking the vaccine protects the community, so we must consider the lives of others:
These resistors ARE considering the health of community members; the children yet to be born but who are conceived already. What about the safety of their lives? We fought a world war against Hitler and his lack of respect for the lives of others, to stop this very kind of thing! What’s happened to our thinking?
Properly identified, these are the bodies of people, dignified human beings whose lives also deserve equal protection and consideration. Perceived as fodder, simple DNA, they become directly abused by human hands in the vaccine-development money-making side of the business. Whereas those threatened by Covid are only threatened by the possibility of catching it. Actually, only 3.80% of Canadians have contracted the virus (as of press time). Once caught, there is only the slight possibility of experiencing heavy side effects. If they occur, there is a small chance of there being any permanent changes. And last but not least, there is not a guarantee of dying from Covid, even though there is the possibility. According to the Government of Canada website, of that 3.80% only 1.87% have died (as of press time). That’s a long chain reaction of events to get to a serious end.
Whereas in abortion, children die from it, 100% of the time. There is also the psychological and moral effects of using these little lives who have gone before us, on our society. So, to say, we must consider the lives of others, is not considering the lives of these people, these children; and they qualify as ‘others.’
Let’s look at the whole picture in context. Participating in the use of a product, derived through human DNA experimentation, is certainly not safe for these children. This is the resistance by many to taking these vacines. This is what the medical and governmental officials are out of touch with, when they share the thought that inoculations are safe and effective.
So one may say, “But that was a long time ago. What about now? We are just using replicated cells from these original few, aren’t we?”
Well, that’s the point being proven, right in the question. If these ‘few’ are the ones being used, how many did it take before they settled on these few? And how long will it be before this research field ‘needs’ another new sample cell base, another new child’s body, to get fresh DNA from? How many ‘few’ children are okay to use as material and have their lives so disregarded? Are we trying to ‘Save the Children’ or not? Let’s keep our boundaries straight.
Abortion laws and regulations have been rewritten so craftily as to make it appear; an unborn human being has no more value than a kind of raw material. These carefully worded re-definitions are designed to deceive the conscience and concern of our populations, of those who have no real proper understanding of the value of all people, all children.
‘Others,’ who value the environment and animal species’ survival, treat the unhatched and unborn young with more value than these human lives. We are shocked at the desecration of graves, yet stay silent at the abuse of the bodies of the ones who silently scream behind locked doors while their lives are taken from them, so we can smile and say, with a chilling hypocrisy, “Love Thy Neighbour.” Double standard much?
RE-INDICATION OF FOCUS & POSSIBLE SOLUTION
There are other ways to develop treatments and vaccines without using aborted children’s DNA.
There are those who have lain down their lives, like those who volunteered in Great Britain in hopes a vaccine could be made, who care about their neighbours worldwide. So here is a supply of human cells to use for breeding the virus for research that is new and voluntary. Not brain surgery, to see this as a viable alternative, ready and willing.
However, using the immune system in another human being, except by the express voluntary agreement of that other person, is equal to medical rape and slavery.
So this is just a technological sanitation technique, to bypass the conscience of those who are willing to look the other way and PRETEND they are innocent of ever having taken another’s life to save their own, or of having been complicit after the fact.
Honestly, to be truly concerned for others; just because their screams and pains were muzzled, doesn’t mean there’s no real human feeling. This is not too dissimilar to the captured voices of the children taken for drug and sex trafficking all around the world. There seems to be a slow but real awakening, as of late, over these horrors, although still not enough to stop the pain. Yet! [As in the recent acknowledgement of the deaths of so many indigenous children through or near residential schools.]
We still don’t know what all the long-term effects will be, like other vaccines in the past which had back-lash problems. These resulted in massive jumps in Guillain-Barre Syndrome, neurological defects, Myocarditis and Thrombosis, according to, the CDC and the FDA. In addition, it has long been suspected to have contributed to the increase of ADD and Autism.
When there are commercials about medications, have you heard the long list of side effects, and these are so-called thoroughly medically tested. What down right gall, to suggest problems with side effects from natural cures and treatments.
It looks like the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t know how to stop this very legitimate route for healing. They cannot contain it to make money from it, so they attempt to discredit it, using circular arguments. The circle? Using western medical system jargon to speak to a healing approach based on natural protocol, nutrition, lifestyle and herbal supplements, etc.
There are alternatives, which would also yield safe results. If the medical system would invest in these natural methods and catch up to the experts in this field of healthcare, than monies could help this become mainstream. It’s not a matter of stubborn people waiting it out on both sides. It’s a matter of faith and conscience and this shouldn’t be forced on another, but understood and accommodated for, by good neighbours.
Conscientious objectors were the bread and butter of bleeding heart liberals in many wars gone by. Liberals fought for the right of an individual to decide what their life was used for, and whether they would die because they believed in a cause. Many have lost their jobs due to the pressure of needing to be vaccinated. What a double standard, being pressured to take an inoculation derived from an unborn child, who didn’t get the chance to choose what its “choice” in how its life was used.
BACK TO THE SUGGESTED POTENTIAL SOLUTION
In an effort to cooperate, an opportunity to have blood tested to ensure a person has the immunities for Covid in their system, whether they have been inoculated or not, could be provided under OHIP. The western medical system could discover if there are those out there who have gone through Covid and built the immunities naturally or with the aid of naturopathic protocols. This way, they can be cleared for travel and social exposure, and also to benefit the medical system. They could ask these people if they would like to donate blood for research purposes in order to develop vaccines, which would be morally acceptable to those who resist now. This could solve the barrier problem to a greater extent. [Directly addressing the question and offering a potential answer to help inform officials of a viable answer.]
But maybe, if enough people make the honest effort to see through the veil and look the truth straight in the eye, we will learn to detect ‘SPIN’ in whatever clothing it wears, and stop the effort to place financial gain or protect invested reputation above the value of human life.