Dr. Monique Robles is a board certified pediatric critical care physician and bioethicist. She received her Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas, in 2001 and completed a pediatric residency, chief residency, and pediatric critical care fellowship at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (2001-2008). She received a Certificate in Health Care Ethics from the National Catholic Bioethics Center and completed a Master of Science degree in Bioethics in 2018 at the University of Mary, Bismarck, North Dakota.
Dr. Robles is a member of the Catholic Medical Association, the American College of Pediatricians, and is an Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. She is also on the advisory board of the Truth for Health Foundation, the advisory council of Catholics for Preservation of Life, and the advisory board for Advocates Protecting Children.
Last month Dr. Robles addressed the subject of COVID vaccines on her blog, “Human Dignity Speaks”. In a recent interview with CWR, she discussed her “Open Letter to Parents Regarding Pfizer SARS CoV-2 Vaccination of Children”, the principle of informed consent, and mass pediatric vaccination strategies.
CWR: What inspired you to write your “Open Letter to Parents”?
Monique Robles: Initially, my inspiration came from my role as a physician caring for critically ill children. I have a great responsibility to safeguard the health and well-being of the young. This inspiration was further fueled by the concerning initiative to “vaccinate” children with genetic material for a disease in which they are not the susceptible population.
CWR: Your “Open Letter” lays out four principles of “truly informed consent.” Are those principles derived from your background as a physician, or from a bioethics perspective?
Monique Robles: This framework comes from both perspectives.
As a pediatric critical care physician, there are interventions and procedures I perform in which I must obtain informed consent. In order to truly obtain this consent, I must have a strong grasp of these categories as well as the aspects of the intervention(s) in order to convey the information effectively to the parent/guardian. In addition, I must be assured that the consenting party understands what has been communicated.
The awareness of the gravity of obtaining informed consent in vulnerable populations (i.e. children) is heightened by my understanding of this principle as a bioethicist.
CWR: Do you feel the average parent can truly give informed consent to the vaccine for their child right now? In particular, I am thinking of the vast number of parents who have been conditioned to accept a growing number of vaccines for their children as a pre-requisite for school attendance.
Monique Robles: I do not have confidence that parents are able to give truly informed consent.
Vaccines are intended to prevent disease and interrupt transmission. The current anti-SARS CoV-2 injections are not effective at either of these.
Many physicians are relying solely on CDC recommendations without either considering the seriousness of the known risks, such as myocarditis, or simply believing such risks to be acceptable. However, anything above minimal risk should not be authorized in this population because the benefit/risk ratio becomes unfavorable – which can be categorized as an act of malfeasance.
If parents were truly informed, they would likely not consent to receive an injection that offers no significant therapeutic benefit. Furthermore, we as a medical community should not be advocating for it to be given to children.
CWR: You refer to the “great effort to vaccinate a population in which the disease has minimal to nil risk of severe infection.” What do you mean?
Monique Robles: There is a mass vaccination campaign within the medical community targeted towards children (private clinics, hospitals, public health clinics, pharmacies, schools).
When in the history of medicine have we attempted to entice children (and parents) to accept an emergently authorized medical intervention that provides no benefit and then incentivize it by providing monetary compensation as is happening across the country? This is unethical.
CWR: If the push to vaccinate children is not due to the risk of severe infection, what is behind it? Is it to prevent the spread of disease to adults?
Monique Robles: Even if vaccinating children prevented the spread among adults, children should never be considered the safeguards for adults.
At this point, it is unclear the scientific rationale to vaccinate children. We know these products do not interrupt transmission as evidenced by the number of individuals developing COVID after vaccination, and the risk of hospitalization and death is rare in children who develop COVID.
The risk of MIS-C (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children) a rare condition that occurs after a SARS CoV-2 infection may be reduced but it is not guaranteed, and there are case reports of this syndrome post vaccination.
CWR: There is a widespread assumption that new cases are primarily spread by the unvaccinated. This seems to be a reason for the push to vaccinate children. Is this a true assumption?
Monique Robles: It may well be a component of this push. One of the CDC’s proposed benefits of vaccinating children is to increase society’s “confidence” with a safe return to schools. Yet, the children are not the super spreaders of COVID. In Sweden, schools remained open and the children “fared better than children in other countries during the pandemic, both in terms of education and mental health.”
CWR: Even if this were a true assumption, would you still have grave concerns about the Pfizer Sars Cov-2 vaccine that is being offered to children? Are we sacrificing our children for the sake of adults?
Monique Robles: Absolutely. These “vaccines” are unlike any other vaccination on the immunization schedule for children. These products have not gone through the 5-10 years of development that include safety and efficacy trials. The estimated study completion date for the Pfizer mRNA injection is not until May 2023. This is nothing other than experimentation on children because we do not know the long term risks and the amount of related adverse events reported after the injection is being largely ignored.
CWR: You state that the risk of severe side effects from getting the vaccine is much greater than the risk from getting COVID. Can you run the numbers, in a nutshell? Are we seeing children dying from getting the COVID vaccine? Isn’t there always a small number of people who have an adverse reaction—or even die—from getting vaccines?
Monique Robles: The CDC reports 108 deaths (as of 12/8/21) in children ages 5-11 (the current age group to receive EUA) attributed to COVID since January 1, 2020. The details of these deaths and other contributing factors should be made available for we need to know if the the death was due to COVID or with COVID.
As of 12/3/21, the VAERS data for deaths post vaccination in the 17 and under age cohort is 39. All of these deaths deserve to be fully investigated. This is a red flag that the CDC and FDA should not be ignoring. And, as many claim, what is reported in the VAERS database is only “the tip of the iceberg.”
The more an intervention such as a vaccine is administered, the more likely an adverse reaction or death will inevitably will occur. But, when the number of deaths reported in VAERS after the injection of the SARS CoV-2 vaccines exceeds the number of deaths reported from all other vaccinations administered in the past three decades, then there is an urgency to pause and investigate this detrimental trend with due diligence.
CWR: After you published your “Open Letter” you added a sober postscript: “P.S. Myocarditis is Serious and Can Result in Death.” (November 16, 2021) Why did you feel it necessary to add this cautionary note?
Monique Robles: As I was preparing for an appearance in a press conference on the “vaccine” risks in children, organized by the Truth for Health Foundation and presented by LifeSiteNews, I focused on the known increased risk of myocarditis, primarily prominent in young males. I felt that this risk was not being given its due respect.
I began to wonder if there would be a greater caution to vaccinate children with this product if there was a known increased risk of encephalitis or hepatitis. Myocarditis is not benign. My concern is that we will be prematurely ending the life of some children or limiting the lifespan of others due to this condition.
CWR: As a pediatrician, what do you consider the most disturbing aspect of the push for mass vaccination of children?
Monique Robles: The most disturbing aspect of this entire affair is the emergent use authorization (EUA) granted by the FDA when there is no emergency in children. It behooves us to protect children as pediatricians, and this is not occurring when the risks, known and unknown, outweigh any benefits. We have disregarded the fundamental principle of First Do No Harm.
CWR: Your “Open Letter” appeals to parents’ instinct to protect their children’s health, and the practical reasons for refusing the Pfizer vaccine. In an earlier post you addressed moral objections to the currently available COVID vaccines. You made an intriguing reference to Scripture: “With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” How is this verse from 2 Peter applicable to the moral aspect of these vaccines?
Monique Robles: It was the research that you and others did (here and here) into the vaccine history and use of abortion-tainted fetal cell lines that inspired me. As I was reading the liturgy of the hours one morning, this verse from 2 Peter struck me. The rationale of passive remote material cooperation with the evil of abortion to allow acceptance of the tainted SARS CoV-2 vaccines, if a proportional reason exists, did not resonate with me. After all, remote is relative to the situation unless one looks with the eyes and wisdom of God.
CWR: On December 10, ABC News ran an article entitled “With nearly 5 million children getting COVID vaccines, no safety problems have been seen, CDC director says.” The article stated “Crucially, the CDC hasn’t identified any concerns with the temporary heart inflammation known as myocarditis, a potential side effect of mRNA vaccines seen in rare circumstances in teenagers and young adults.”
This was followed by a reassurance by CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky: “We haven’t seen anything yet….We have an incredibly robust vaccine safety system, and so if [problems] were there, we would find it.”
Walensky added “If you want your children fully vaccinated by the holidays, now is the time.”
How can the CDC director make this statement in the face of the evidence you have presented, such as the deaths reported in the VAERS database?
Monique Robles: If one has eyes to see and ears to hear, then one would not make such a bold statement. It is unclear how Dr. Walensky can, on record, mislead parents and it not be labelled “misinformation.” After all, the CDC and FDA are co-managers of the VAERS database, the national EARLY warning system. The VAERS database has revealed well over 20,000 reported adverse events, nearly 700 reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis, and 39 reported deaths (as of 12/3/21). These were in individuals age 17 and under, soon after receiving the Pfizer injections.
Walensky claims the vaccine safety data to be “robust.” Robust is a strong (and inaccurate) term to use when there was not thorough testing of these products in animals prior to their release in clinical trials and the emergent use was authorized based on safety data from original trials lasting less than 3.5 months, and only 2 months in children (ages 5-11).
Myocarditis is not always benign and self-limited. It can result in an arrhythmia and sudden death. Ernesto Ramirez, Jr. unfortunately experienced this, as described by his father.
In my post on myocarditis, I cited a study published in the journal Vaccine. That study revealed that between 1990 and 2018, 99 individuals aged 18 and under were diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination. 55% died as a result.
The mother of Everest Romney, a healthy teen athlete who developed cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after the injection of the initial Pfizer product, claimed that all the doctors were “dismissive” that the “vaccine” could be a cause, despite the temporal association of the injection and the development of his initial symptoms (within 24 hours). This term, dismissive, accurately describes the CDC and FDA, as well, of its own reporting system.
I personally invite Dr. Walensky to refute, with data, these statements I have provided. If there is confidence in the safety of these products, then remove Pfizer’s (and other pharmaceutical companies) immunity from liability and any lawsuits — a protection granted until 2024.
(Editor’s note: This interview was updated and expanded on Dec. 13, 2021.)
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!