Vatican on Vaccines
Holy Little Saint
We will never forget
Posted: Wednesday December 31, 2008 at 4:02 pm EST by Judie Brown
It was shocking when I saw it; I knew it couldn’t possibly be true, and I prayed it was a New Year’s Eve joke! But indeed, it was factually correct and my heart sank. What in the world could be done? Well, here is the story and an invitation to you to get active and do something now.
An action alert from Children of God for Life arrived in my “in box” moments ago. When you read the headline, please note that the word “monovalent” is defined as an entity “having specific immunologic activity against a single antigen, microorganism, or disease,” such as a monovalent vaccine. Following is the action alert:
Manufacturer Stops Sales of Monovalents for Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccines
ATTENTION – all concerned parents and medical professionals – Merck needs to hear from you now!
Without the separate doses for measles and mumps there will be NO MORAL ALTERNATIVES in the US for these vaccines!
In December 2008, the Holy See affirmed in Dignitas Personae, that “everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.” The Vatican further stated that “there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the abortion.
What is really alarming about the decision is that Merck’s announcement was met with a smug – perhaps bordering on arrogant – statement from the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). In the AAFP news account we read,
Doug Campos-Outcalt, M.D., M.P.A., who serves as the AAFP’s liaison to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and is a former member of the AAFP Commission on Clinical Policies and Research, said Merck’s decision was insignificant in terms of public health. He added, however, that some parents likely will be unhappy.
“The use of the single antigen is pretty limited,” he said. “There’s no harm if you need one in getting all three. There are some parents out there that want a delayed vaccine schedule. They want the vaccines spread out over a longer period of time and not so many at once. That’s a lot of hooey. Alternative schedules have never been proven to be superior.”
Campos-Outcalt just doesn’t get it! This is not about whether or not a particular vaccine mixture is superior. Rather, it concerns the fact, clinically proven and obvious to anyone with eyes to see, that the MMR vaccine is tainted with cells from aborted children! That is immoral, and that is why parents clamor for ethical alternatives.
It is incredible, if not demonic, that a mega-pharmaceutical company would act in way that denies parents the opportunity to select a moral alternative for the vaccines in question. In fact, it makes one wonder if perhaps Merck’s strategy is to quell all opposition to its ongoing attempt to show there is nothing morally wrong with providing children’s vaccines that would not exist today if not for aborting a preborn baby years ago.
If that is what their strategy is, they are soon to realize that they have failed. Parents across this nation are going to be as scandalized as I was upon reading this news, and the hope is that they will make their voices heard by commenting directly to Merck.
Debi Vinnedge, founder and director of Children of God for Life, has made the task of communicating with Merck a simple one. Please note her letter to Merck CEO Richard Clark, which states in part,
On behalf of over 610,000 US citizens, physicians and members of the clergy who have petitioned Merck in the Campaign for Ethical Vaccines and are deeply concerned with the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the rubella portion of your MMR II and other vaccines, I am asking you to reconsider your position.
Our organization has written to your Corporate offices many times in the past regarding this issue. We presented these concerns to former Merck CEO, Raymond Gilmartin at your annual shareholder meeting for two consecutive years as a result of the shareholder resolution filed jointly with Human Life International. Over 60 million votes from Merck stockholders confirmed our position that Merck ought to discontinue the use of WI-38, MRC-5 and PER C6 in future vaccine development. I am enclosing copies of the statements presented at those meetings for your review.
You will note that in 2004 we commended Merck for making Attenuvax and Mumpsvax available to the public so that parents could at least protect their children from these diseases without compromising their moral and religious beliefs. When there have been shortages of these vaccines in the past, parents have waited patiently for the doses to become available, even willing to pay the higher costs in order to avoid the “tainted” MMR II. Once again, many of these families are waiting for you to resume production and their children will be unprotected unless you provide the doses. They are already abstaining from rubella and some have even flown overseas to vaccinate their children. That is, in my view, a disgrace to American healthcare.
Mr. Clark, if you would read the hundreds of thousands of letters we have received, you would understand not only the depth of these families’ convictions, but also the serious need to continue to provide the separate measles and mumps vaccines. As the sole provider of these important immunizations in the US, I believe you have a duty to public health and safety to ensure that as many children as possible are able to be protected from infectious disease. Otherwise, it is likely that we will see an increase in measles and mumps outbreaks as we have experienced in recent years when there were shortages.
Please contact Merck and make your voice heard:
Richard Clark, CEO
Merck & Company
One Merck Drive P.O. Box 100
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889-0100
Please send a copy of your letter to
Julie L. Gerberding, Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd
Atlanta, GA 30333