“We have disregarded the fundamental principle of First Do No Harm.”

“It behooves us to protect children as pediatricians,” says pediatrician and bioethicist Dr. Monique Robles about COVID vaccinations, “and this is not occurring when the risks, known and unknown, outweigh any benefits.”

(Image: Taylor Brandon/Unsplash.com)
Dr. Monique Robles

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!

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


About Monica Seeley 8 Articles
Monica Seeley writes about life issues from Ventura, California.

19 Comments

  1. “CWR: Isn’t there always a small number of people who have an adverse reaction—or even die—from getting vaccines?”

    Note that Dr. Robles does not directly answer this question. She does say “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” This is just not true. VAERS lists over 200 reported deaths over this time frame (se https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236284/ ). It is true that most are unsubstantiated, but that is also true of the Covid vaccine reported deaths.

    “Monique Robles: The CDC reports 107 deaths [as of the time of this interview] in children ages 5-11 (the current age group to receive EUA) attributed to COVID since January 1, 2020.”

    So, Dr. Robles admits that the disease is at least 3 times more deadly than the vaccine, which shows what public heath doctors have always known: that sometimes doing nothing is doing harm.

    Also, as of 12/08/2021 the CDC reported 202 deaths for the 5-14 age cohort. Did the number basically double since “last month” when the interview took place, or do the vast majority of deaths occur with the 12-14 age subset? Seems unlikely, especially when 230 total deaths were reported in the 0-1 and 1-4 age cohorts.

    • Thank you TomD for the comments and willingness to dialogue.

      In response to –
      “CWR: Isn’t there always a small number of people who have an adverse reaction—or even die—from getting vaccines?”
      Note that Dr. Robles does not directly answer this question. She does say “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” This is just not true. VAERS lists over 200 reported deaths over this time frame (se https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236284/ ). It is true that most are unsubstantiated, but that is also true of the Covid vaccine reported deaths.​

      So my answer to this question was stated: “The more an intervention such as a vaccine is administered, the more likely an adverse reaction or death will inevitably will occur.”

      The number of deaths I was referring to is all deaths thus far reported to VAERS after the SARS CoV-2 injections. As you can see here (https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality), there is a sharp spike in the number of total deaths in the past year after the SARS CoV-2 vaccinations (approaching 20,000), more than all combined reported deaths from all other vaccinations from the beginning of the VAERS database. In addition, there is a strong temporal association as a great percentage of deaths occurred within 48 hours after one of the SARS CoV-2 injection.

      In response to –
      So, Dr. Robles admits that the disease is at least 3 times more deadly than the vaccine, which shows what public heath doctors have always known: that sometimes doing nothing is doing harm.

      No, I am not claiming this at all. The deaths reported in children with COVID are not confirmed to be the result of COVID. As we know, the deaths occurring are typically in patients who are obese and/or have other comorbidities. There has not been enough time to account for deaths in children related to this injection in a temporal fashion or even in months to come. However, the number of deaths reported post injection in children is increasing just as we are seeing in the adult population without a halt in the mass vaccination program.

      Not only public health doctors but physicians who work with critically ill patients, as myself, know that doing nothing when a patient is in need of resuscitation in an emergent situation will lead to harm and likely death. This is not refutable. However, COVID is not an emergency in children and the Pfizer products have not been thoroughly tested in a population that is not suffering from the disease. Given that we do not know the long-term risks of injecting genetic material in a vulnerable population, the risk is considered more than minimal and is thus, unethical.

      In response to –
      Also, as of 12/08/2021 the CDC reported 202 deaths for the 5-14 age cohort. Did the number basically double since “last month” when the interview took place, or do the vast majority of deaths occur with the 12-14 age subset? Seems unlikely, especially when 230 total deaths were reported in the 0-1 and 1-4 age cohorts.​

      No, the number you are referring to includes those 12-14, which is not representative of the cohort, ages 5-11, that I used – the current population in which these injections have recently been authorized. So, no, the number did not “double” in the age range represented in my statement.

      • “there is a sharp spike in the number of total deaths in the past year after the SARS CoV-2 vaccinations (approaching 20,000)”

        And this proves, what exactly? You know that 225,000 people die every month in the U.S. on average, and that would be the VAERS stat if everyone were vaccinated in one month. I also presume that these are primarily elderly – if so why is this pertinent to an article on childhood vaccination?

        “So, no, the number did not “double” in the age range represented in my statement.”

        Then how do you explain how the 5-14 CDC cohort has twice the deaths but only three more years (30% more years) than your cohort? Especially when the previous age cohorts 0-4 also have a significant number of deaths (230)? Unless you show that 50% of the 5-14 deaths are in the 12-14 subset and can explain why the 5-11 subset has less deaths than the age cohorts that bracket it on either side I will remain unconvinced.

        Also, I am frankly disappointed that you repeated the “Died with covid not of covid” meme. My understanding is that a morbidity is the “of” and a co-morbidity is the “with”, and so all these attempts to say that hypertension, diabetes, and other co-morbidities are what the person actually died “of” is an inversion of medical language, and frankly a lie.

        Full disclosure: my daughter almost died of Kawasaki Syndrome at age 9, and Yale linked it to a coronavirus a few years later. I’ve been following the science on these viruses for decades now.

        • TomD, how I read what Dr. Robles has to say, is within the framing of her own timeline of experience and discussion and her overall medical practice. This allows me to identify the consistent reasoning in her thought and positions. It makes sense you know, to do that: for she is not arguing whimsically, nor, alternatively, rationally but on unique grounds. Her positions are well developed and – I concur – would have a general application. And in all cases the assumption would be that within her practice she will nevertheless assess individual patients according to their own situations. I gather I am reading, in the first place, from a physician that respects the patient’s own engagement and informed deliberation; who respects the science of the physician’s practice and of development of general medicine. As she told CWR above, “Vaccines are intended to prevent disease and interrupt transmission. The current anti-SARS CoV-2 injections are not effective at either of these.” Some other stated premises of hers hold true in all situations. Here are samples from her website. Actually they are best read within the sequence of the respective essays where they are presented. You will see how seriously she takes her work and how cogent the processing of it is.

          ‘ Per the CDC, the definition of vaccine now includes “a preparation of genetic material,” which is synthesized messenger RNA in the case of the Pfizer product. This will then be utilized by the individual receiving the injection to produce the protein (spike protein in this case) that will trigger the body to produce an antibody in response to that protein. This is not like any other vaccine on the immunization schedule for children.

          With the roll-out of the vaccine and the subsequent mandates, the principle of informed consent, a crucial element of the profession of medicine, has simply been disregarded.

          Given the oath I have taken to uphold the dignity of humanity, to do no harm, and to heal and restore health, it would be extremely remiss of me to set aside this principle and not present my serious concerns.

          …..

          The occurrence of COVID-19 has not demonstrated an emergency in children. Per the CDC’s own data, children ages 5-11 have a greater than 99.99 % chance of survival if infected by SARS CoV-2. The risk is nil. Children are noted to have a protective factor in their innate immunity that likely contributes to their low risk of severe COVID infection. ….. Never, and I repeat never, should children be a part of an experiment to benefit adults. And, as we have witnessed, the vaccines have not proven interruption in transmission as the induced immunity from the vaccine is not sterilizing. ….. To put it in perspective, the risk of death in the elderly is nearly 1000 fold that of children.

          …..

          The alternative is for the child to not receive the vaccine. If your child has tested positive for COVID-19 or had a viral illness that was not formally diagnosed, then it is reasonable to consider obtaining an anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody to assess the immune response to a prior infection with SARS CoV-2. Another test to assist with detecting previous SARS CoV-2 infection is the T-Detect COVID. However, this is only available for individuals 18 and older at this time. There are now over 100 documented research studies affirming immunity naturally acquired after COVID-19. This is effective immunity.

          …..

          In addition, this pandemic should motivate all of us to take better care of our health and the health of our children, since obesity and chronic medical conditions are known risk factors for development of COVID. By making wiser decisions – healthy eating, exercising more, less screen time, adequate sleep – children will be less likely to suffer severe complications from COVID and other illnesses now and in the future. ‘

          https://humandignityspeaks.com/open-letter-to-parents-regarding-pfizer-sars-cov-2-vaccination-of-children/

          ‘ Yet somehow the validity of these objections has been apathetically dismissed and transformed into an obligation without comprehending the entire landscape of the pandemic and the poor response to controlling it …..

          …..

          In regards to coronaviruses, ADE has been demonstrated in both the SARS CoV and MERS CoV. This phenomenon may exist in SARS CoV-2, which has nearly an 80% genome sequence similar to SARS CoV with a 10-20 times affinity for the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. This viral receptor has been used by SARS-CoV to enter host cells. A vaccine for SARS CoV developed in 2005 was investigated in 2019. “It was found to induce the production of large amounts of neutralizing antibodies (S-IgG) soon after injection. Although these antibodies can effectively reduce the viral load in the upper respiratory tract, they also enhance lung injury.”

          This is a growing concern with the current SARS CoV-2 vaccines. The need to consider further work on developing coronavirus vaccines not dependent on antibody production is imperative, especially as variants are emerging. Vaccines designed to stimulate T-cells may prove to be an effective alternative.

          …..

          Thus, our society was misled to believe that there was no available treatment for COVID-19 and that the vaccine was the only intervention that could save lives. The resultant tragedy – many died, without family present in hospitals, when the early ambulatory multidrug therapy could have potentially saved a significant percentage from ever being admitted to a hospital, let alone die.

          …..

          Forcing mandatory vaccination may lead to a sizable exodus of physicians and healthcare workers who have valid objections. Additionally, the unconscionable idea of prioritizing care for the vaccinated above the unvaccinated has been proposed. This is to assume that being vaccinated is an absolute indication for every individual, which we know is not true. It also elevates vaccination status above the intrinsic dignity of each and every human person. How antithetical is this absurd suggestion to the profession I serve. ‘

          https://humandignityspeaks.com/vaccine-mandates-silencing-objections-and-censoring-of-medical-facts-and-dialogue/

        • First, thank you, Elias Galy, for your understanding of my position.

          TomD, your experience with your daughter is one that many (if not most) parents are unable to fully comprehend. When one’s child is very ill in the hospital, it becomes a life-altering experience for the family. So, thank you for disclosing this.

          In my years of taking care of thousands of critically ill children, my own understanding and how I see life has been drastically influenced and shaped by this experience. I have been with many families at the bedside of children who have died despite all our medical/surgical efforts – which is very humbling. A virus for most parents is seen as a cold. For parents who have experienced what you have gone through with your daughter, viruses must seem as a constant threat to life.

          In no way was this interview conducted with the intent to chastise any individual (or parent of a child) for their decision to receive or not receive these injections. I am presenting a case that is rational, fact-based, and supported by ethical reasoning.

          It is actually disappointing that the profession of medicine, the CDC, and the FDA exclaims that we should “follow the science,” yet it conveniently ignores its own safety monitoring database. With the amount of deaths temporally associated with the vaccine, there has to be an investigation.

          You may know that the 1976 swine flu campaign was halted after a report of 25 deaths and ~ 550 reports of Guillain-Barré. But the current campaign has forged ahead (and coercively mandated) with reports of nearly 20,000 deaths. We cannot ignore this and consider this as no consequence and think that there will be no resultant deaths in children. Not acceptable. Actual data safety monitoring is not occurring.

          In regards to healthy children, once again, the risk of dying with COVID (only) is essentially zero. A review of the literature published in June of this year reveals this – the children that died had comorbidities that compromised their ability to survive.

          The problem with the deaths reported as COVID deaths is that the count is likely not accurate, according to IPAK – https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_165a103206974fdbb14ada6bf8af1541.pdf – as the CDC changed its system data collection and reporting for COVID during a pandemic without input and discussion. So, my comment about dying with or of COVID is not simply a meme, as you claimed. The comorbid conditions are typically listed in Part 1 on a death certificate. Yet, as of March/April 2020, this changed for COVID death reporting, as explained in this article – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/if-covid-fatalities-were-90-2-lower-how-would-you-feel-about-schools-reopening/
          To quote:
          “This March 24th NVSS guideline essentially allows COVID-19 to be the cause of death when the actual cause of death should be the comorbidity according to the industry-standard 2003 CDC Handbook.”

          To mass vaccinate the youth, which is what the current campaign is advocating, represents greater than minimal risk. You know from your experience that Kawasaki’s Disease is not always benign. Severe cases, resulting in coronary artery aneurysms, will need to be followed for years. So, children with significant health conditions, must have the benefits and risks weighed before receiving these mRNA injections. The concern I have is that there has not been enough time to determine the risks.

          For Dr. Walensky to claim that myocarditis is mild and self-limited and not present the spectrum, as in Kawasaki’s Disease, is misleading.

          I will end with the following from Dr. Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology:

          https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/live-stream-event-physicians-alerting-parents

  2. 1. Among the un-vaccinated, medical treatments administered have to assessed and absence of medical treatment has to be assessed.

    2. The number of deaths and the death rate among un-vaccinated would further diminish, according to the progression in development of medical treatments and the dissemination of the information.

  3. It is no surprise that a medical profession that routinely dismembers wiggling, kicking babies sees our children as lab rats.

    The “First, do no harm” ethic of Hippocrates has been abandoned twice by Western medicine: In Germany during the twelve years of the Third Reich, and today.

  4. ‘ The practice of abortion has always been lucrative, and Restell was just the first to parlay the provision of abortion services into a personal fortune of more than a million dollars and a lavish Fifth Avenue brownstone described in the tabloids of the day as the “Mansion Built on Baby Skulls.” She shared the abortion profession with her husband, Charles Lohman, an ex-printer who took the name Mauriceau and advertised himself as a “doctor,” advocating early abortion with “potions and powders” as the “safest” alternative. Lohman specialized in creating abortifacients, which he sold for exorbitant prices. In the extensively researched Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America, author Marvin Olasky writes that “Mauriceau was a brazen Barnum with an audacious sales technique.” ‘

    https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/greed-has-always-driven-the-abortion-industry

  5. The author states:

    “Vaccines are intended to prevent disease and interrupt transmission. The current anti-SARS CoV-2 injections are not effective at either of these.”

    My Commentary: I find the evidence otherwise. The vaccines do both but not perfectly and the imperfection increases with time—especially with regard to nuetralizing antibodies. Still even with this degree of imperfection we still see many reports that per 100,000 individuals who are unvaccinated there are far more cases, hospitalizations and deaths then per 100,000 individuals who are fully vaccinated.

    The author states later:

    “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.”

    Ok, it did not resonate with her. Many have that experience. Humane Vitae does not resonate with many people. But as a Catholic we have this idea of ‘hearing the Church’. The Church through many official organs now has taught us that not only are the vaccine shots morally permissible in the pandemic but they can also be a means of justice, compassion and solidarity.

    Thank you for your consideration,
    Timothy

  6. I say, with regard to both observations by Timothy, on the contrary –

    1. Dr. Robles is constrained not to presume parents can have any informed consent concerning vaccination and children including among other factors drawing inferences from statistics for adults and the absurdity of mandates for children based on absent statistics and contradictory official information; and

    2. Church teaching is never that justice, compassion and solidarity permit accepting levels of the diminishment and relativizing of the absolute and sacrosanct principle of the inviolability of the unborn; meanwhile the concentration in Humanae Vitae is really the defense of sacramental unity and natural order in relations.

    With respect to both points, actually it is an infection of Modernism to label as just and compassionate what is actually unjust and cruel; and Modernism again to compose as a “solidarity” what is levelling and mobbing and unhomogenous, that is best served in the first place a matter for subsidiarity, for painstaking and time-consuming study and for prudential judgment.

    These “many official organs of the Church” ARE NOT “hearing like Church”; and this would mean policy wrangling upholding what is plainly wrong comes into sin.

  7. Dr. Robles’ presentation of her subject matter is targeted and penetrating and open whereas Dr. Spaeder’s discussion is too sweeping and determinative and perambulatory. I hope I can spur Dr. Spaeder to revise her unbalanced approach and time-bound conclusions and take the little criticism here offered, as something more than it appears.

    https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/a-physicians-letter-on-covid-19-vaccines-and-treatments-part-1

    https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/a-physicians-letter-on-covid-19-vaccines-and-treatments-part-2-udecz1uj

  8. Dr. Fauci admits how numbers are off, on hospitalization of children.

    https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1476710278096166917?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1476734214875885591%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fcruz-accuses-fauci-of-playing-politics-with-covid-19-after-recent-comment-about-hospitalized-children

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cruz-accuses-fauci-of-playing-politics-with-covid-19-after-recent-comment-about-hospitalized-children

    • Dr. Fauci is saddled with various “problems” -or, negligences, malpractices and crimes- of his own making:

      1. selective corrections
      2. resting behind the curve
      3. muddling through
      4. headlining
      5. compressing headings
      6. ignoring material
      7. not connecting acknowledged material
      8. & etc.

      If you speak more widely to doctors and scientists a better fuller picture of it will emerge.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. “We have disregarded the fundamental principle of First Do No Harm.” – Catholic World Report – The Old Roman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*