Profit of Doom
Dismember
Oops?
CORONA Hospital Staff That Decline COVID Vaccine For Religious Reasons Must Attest To Also Swearing Off Tylenol, Tums, & Other Common Meds
- Thread starter Blacknarwhal
- Start date
marymonde
Veteran Member
Not so fast. The Very Misleading Article By a Priest on Drugs And Abortion Testing
By Dr. Brian Kopp
This article by progressive Patheos Legionaries of Christ priest blogger Fr. Matthew Schneider LC was deliberately intended to confuse or mock conservative/orthodox pro life individuals like Bishop Schneider, Fr. Ripperger and others who opposed Covid vaccines based on their development with or use of fetal stem cells in their testing.
The author simply searched an over the counter or prescription medication name plus “Hek 293” cells and if they came up positively associated in medical or scientific literature, he claimed they too were “ethically tainted” and all us pro lifers had to abandon the use of those drugs too, if we were going to oppose fetal stem cell tainted Covid vaccines on those grounds.
However, when he researched these medications, he failed to distinguish those that were tested on, developed with and/or manufactured with fetal cells before or during their initial introduction, from those that, for academic reasons, years later were tested on fetal stem cell lines.
For instance, he named multiple over the counter as well as prescription drugs that were developed well before 1960. But fetal stem cells were not initially isolated until 1963, and not actually utilized in drug testing and manufacture until years later. (Yes, I personally researched multiple drugs he listed as “examples” of ethically compromised modern medications, because I knew those drugs predated the fetal stem cell lines by which he claimed they were tainted.)
Just because some academic or researcher somewhere subsequently did tests on that drug utilizing fetal stem cells, it does not mean those drugs were ethically tainted in their origin or subsequent manufacture or testing.
Good decent pro life Catholics took his article at face value and 1) wrongly went on a crusade against all the drugs he named and 2) used his article to justify having recourse to the ethically tainted Covid vaccines.
The latter could ONLY be justified when faced with a truly deadly highly contagious pandemic; Covid does NOT fulfill those rigorous demands!
Maybe the liberal priest Patheos blogger was simply an arrogant yet ignorant jerk.
But I suspect he knew damn well he was being disingenuous and gaslighting otherwise good decent pro lifers to mock them and make them look like fools.
From his list:
Tylenol, also knows as Paracetamol or acetaminophen, was discovered in the 1870s and first marketed in the US in 1950.
Ibuprofen’s discovery was the result of research during the 1950s and 1960s to find a safer alternative to aspirin, with a patent application filed in 1961.
Pseudoephedrine was first characterized by German scientists in 1889.
Diphenhydramine was discovered in 1943 and first marketed in 1946.
Dextromethorphan was successfully tested in 1954 and marketed in 1958.
Guaifenesin was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1952.
Tums entered production in 1930.
Maalox was first marketed in 1949.
Sodium docusate was patented in 1937.
Its use for the treatment of constipation was first proposed in 1955.
Senna Glycoside is an over-the-counter medication available whose origins go back centuries – Kayam churna is a traditional Indian laxative that contains senna leaves.
PeptoBismol – bismuth salts were in use in Europe by the late 1700s. At first sold directly to physicians, it was first marketed as Bismosal in 1918.
Phenylephrine was patented in 1927 and came into medical use in 1938.
So at least 13 out of 17 over the counter drugs he listed as “ethically tainted” by fetal cell lines were developed prior to the development of fetal stem cells, which were first obtained from an aborted fetus in 1963.
creativeminorityreport.com
By Dr. Brian Kopp
This article by progressive Patheos Legionaries of Christ priest blogger Fr. Matthew Schneider LC was deliberately intended to confuse or mock conservative/orthodox pro life individuals like Bishop Schneider, Fr. Ripperger and others who opposed Covid vaccines based on their development with or use of fetal stem cells in their testing.
The author simply searched an over the counter or prescription medication name plus “Hek 293” cells and if they came up positively associated in medical or scientific literature, he claimed they too were “ethically tainted” and all us pro lifers had to abandon the use of those drugs too, if we were going to oppose fetal stem cell tainted Covid vaccines on those grounds.
However, when he researched these medications, he failed to distinguish those that were tested on, developed with and/or manufactured with fetal cells before or during their initial introduction, from those that, for academic reasons, years later were tested on fetal stem cell lines.
For instance, he named multiple over the counter as well as prescription drugs that were developed well before 1960. But fetal stem cells were not initially isolated until 1963, and not actually utilized in drug testing and manufacture until years later. (Yes, I personally researched multiple drugs he listed as “examples” of ethically compromised modern medications, because I knew those drugs predated the fetal stem cell lines by which he claimed they were tainted.)
Just because some academic or researcher somewhere subsequently did tests on that drug utilizing fetal stem cells, it does not mean those drugs were ethically tainted in their origin or subsequent manufacture or testing.
Good decent pro life Catholics took his article at face value and 1) wrongly went on a crusade against all the drugs he named and 2) used his article to justify having recourse to the ethically tainted Covid vaccines.
The latter could ONLY be justified when faced with a truly deadly highly contagious pandemic; Covid does NOT fulfill those rigorous demands!
Maybe the liberal priest Patheos blogger was simply an arrogant yet ignorant jerk.
But I suspect he knew damn well he was being disingenuous and gaslighting otherwise good decent pro lifers to mock them and make them look like fools.
From his list:
Tylenol, also knows as Paracetamol or acetaminophen, was discovered in the 1870s and first marketed in the US in 1950.
Ibuprofen’s discovery was the result of research during the 1950s and 1960s to find a safer alternative to aspirin, with a patent application filed in 1961.
Pseudoephedrine was first characterized by German scientists in 1889.
Diphenhydramine was discovered in 1943 and first marketed in 1946.
Dextromethorphan was successfully tested in 1954 and marketed in 1958.
Guaifenesin was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1952.
Tums entered production in 1930.
Maalox was first marketed in 1949.
Sodium docusate was patented in 1937.
Its use for the treatment of constipation was first proposed in 1955.
Senna Glycoside is an over-the-counter medication available whose origins go back centuries – Kayam churna is a traditional Indian laxative that contains senna leaves.
PeptoBismol – bismuth salts were in use in Europe by the late 1700s. At first sold directly to physicians, it was first marketed as Bismosal in 1918.
Phenylephrine was patented in 1927 and came into medical use in 1938.
So at least 13 out of 17 over the counter drugs he listed as “ethically tainted” by fetal cell lines were developed prior to the development of fetal stem cells, which were first obtained from an aborted fetus in 1963.
Not so fast. The Very Misleading Article By a Priest on Drugs And Abortion Testing
By Dr. Brian Kopp This article by progressive Patheos Legionaries of Christ priest blogger Fr. Matthew Schneider LC was deliberately intended to confuse or m
creativeminorityreport.com
Profit of Doom
Dismember
Oh, the visual.
Chance
Veteran Member
. Hi Countrymouse,. I heard from various sources that it changes the DNA. Not the mRNA. The viral mRNA is around forever..designed to not be broken down... but the coded info is Incorporated into the DNA genome. I'll have to look around for that info and get back with that.
bev
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Here’s Patriot Nurse on religious exemptions.
”How I Answer Religious Exemption Questions of the Va× Waiver”
14 minutes
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdtmijG6xo&t=625s
”How I Answer Religious Exemption Questions of the Va× Waiver”
14 minutes
Fair Use
thehill.com
September 18, 2021 - 08:00 AM EDTReligious exemption to vaccine mandates may be difficult to obtain, as Amish case shows.
BY GAYLE TROTTER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
New mandates could force millions of Americans to get the coronavirus vaccine. But exemptions may be available for those who have a medical condition or a sincerely held religious belief that prevents them from getting vaccinated. In our world of bureaucrats gone wild, what counts as a “sincerely held religious belief” is anything but simple.
A recent case, unrelated to the pandemic, illustrates the point. When an Amish community in Minnesota sought a religious exemption from state water control regulations, power-hungry bureaucrats denied the religious exemption, claiming that the group's religious beliefs were not sincerely held.
The Amish don’t live like most Americans. They deliberately lack the modern conveniences we enjoy. Our pop culture celebrates the unshakable Amish fidelity to their cherished beliefs. Anyone knows that from the movie “Witness,” starring Harrison Ford, Weird Al Yankovic’s satirical “Amish Paradise” (a send-up of Coolio’s non-Amish “Gangsta’s Paradise”) or the reality show “Breaking Amish.”
When the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) targeted one of the most traditional Amish communities for failing to comply with a water treatment mandate, it threatened to "[displace] the Amish from their homes, [move] all their possessions, and [declare] their homes uninhabitable" if they did not comply. Far from fighting homelessness, the MPCA tried hard to cause it.
Our nation is founded on principles of religious toleration and free exercise of religion. Our Bill of Rights protects these individual rights, and Congress has enacted statutes to strengthen these protections.
Generally applicable laws and regulations may not govern where they intrude or burden the free exercise of religion. We see the point in a Dilbert comic about jury selection. A potential juror tells the judge, “Your honor, it is against my religion to judge others. Only God may judge.” The judge excuses the juror. Another potential juror, noticing how easily the first candidate was excused, exclaims, “Ooh ooh! I just changed my religion!”
In his commentary, Dilbert creator Scott Adams asks, “Is there any rule that says how long you need to be in a religion?” If so, the Amish would certainly qualify. They trace their origins to a group in Switzerland more than 300 years ago.
The Amish community at the center of this fight is one of the most traditional Amish groups, the Swartzentruber Amish. Swartzentruber Amish don’t use electricity or cars. They don’t use mechanical refrigeration. They don’t have running water for bathtubs or indoor flush toilets or chain saws. They dress in heavy, plain clothes that cover down to their shoes. You will never see a Swartzentruber Amish riding a bicycle or even using Velcro.
In response, the Amish tried to work with the system and offered alternatives to comply with the state water controls. The bureaucrats responded by seeking a court order “authorizing its agents to inspect the inside of Amish homes as part of an ‘investigation’ into what ‘types of modern technologies and materials’ they might be using” to collect evidence that the Amish’s religious beliefs might be insincerely held.
The county bureaucrats did not stop there. They tried to argue that the “Bible commands the Amish to submit to secular authority,” so of course the Amish don’t understand their own religion and should give in to the county’s interpretation of the Amish faith.
After losing in the lower courts, the Amish took their case to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court decision and sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
Justice Neil Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s order. He eloquently explained that the lower court must apply strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that the county regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
The Amish had requested an exemption from the county that would accomplish the goal of the regulation and yet preserve their observance of their faith. Gorsuch called out the county, noting the many exemptions already given under the regulation, including exemptions for hunters and fishers.
Why was this same flexibility not granted to the Amish? Other states also allow the solution proposed by the Amish. Why the double standard and inflexibility of the county when it should be giving even more latitude based on the governing statute protecting religious freedom?
Despite some disappointing decisions on free exercise during the beginning of the COVID-19 disruptions, the current majority of the Supreme Court respects the value of religious liberty. “In this country,” said Gorsuch, “neither the Amish nor anyone else should have to choose between their farms and their faith.”
That is a truth as plain as the clothing of the Swartzentruber Amish. Yet they were forced to spend years in litigation to protect their beliefs. Even now, their fight may be far from over, as their litigation continues.
Your freedoms may depend on a bureaucrat’s discretion to decide whether your religious beliefs are sincere. Power-hungry bureaucrats do crazy things such as claiming that beer is essential but Easter is not or that the Amish are not sincere in their beliefs.
Ultimately, that does not bode well for Americans hoping to demonstrate a sincerely held religious objection to vaccination.
Gayle Trotter is an attorney and political analyst based in Washington, D.C. Follow her @gayletrotter on Twitter and Parler.
Religious exemption to vaccine mandates may be difficult to obtain, as Amish case shows
In our world of bureaucrats gone wild, what counts as a “sincerely held religious belief” is anything but simple.
thehill.com
BY GAYLE TROTTER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
New mandates could force millions of Americans to get the coronavirus vaccine. But exemptions may be available for those who have a medical condition or a sincerely held religious belief that prevents them from getting vaccinated. In our world of bureaucrats gone wild, what counts as a “sincerely held religious belief” is anything but simple.
A recent case, unrelated to the pandemic, illustrates the point. When an Amish community in Minnesota sought a religious exemption from state water control regulations, power-hungry bureaucrats denied the religious exemption, claiming that the group's religious beliefs were not sincerely held.
The Amish don’t live like most Americans. They deliberately lack the modern conveniences we enjoy. Our pop culture celebrates the unshakable Amish fidelity to their cherished beliefs. Anyone knows that from the movie “Witness,” starring Harrison Ford, Weird Al Yankovic’s satirical “Amish Paradise” (a send-up of Coolio’s non-Amish “Gangsta’s Paradise”) or the reality show “Breaking Amish.”
When the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) targeted one of the most traditional Amish communities for failing to comply with a water treatment mandate, it threatened to "[displace] the Amish from their homes, [move] all their possessions, and [declare] their homes uninhabitable" if they did not comply. Far from fighting homelessness, the MPCA tried hard to cause it.
Our nation is founded on principles of religious toleration and free exercise of religion. Our Bill of Rights protects these individual rights, and Congress has enacted statutes to strengthen these protections.
Generally applicable laws and regulations may not govern where they intrude or burden the free exercise of religion. We see the point in a Dilbert comic about jury selection. A potential juror tells the judge, “Your honor, it is against my religion to judge others. Only God may judge.” The judge excuses the juror. Another potential juror, noticing how easily the first candidate was excused, exclaims, “Ooh ooh! I just changed my religion!”
In his commentary, Dilbert creator Scott Adams asks, “Is there any rule that says how long you need to be in a religion?” If so, the Amish would certainly qualify. They trace their origins to a group in Switzerland more than 300 years ago.
The Amish community at the center of this fight is one of the most traditional Amish groups, the Swartzentruber Amish. Swartzentruber Amish don’t use electricity or cars. They don’t use mechanical refrigeration. They don’t have running water for bathtubs or indoor flush toilets or chain saws. They dress in heavy, plain clothes that cover down to their shoes. You will never see a Swartzentruber Amish riding a bicycle or even using Velcro.
In response, the Amish tried to work with the system and offered alternatives to comply with the state water controls. The bureaucrats responded by seeking a court order “authorizing its agents to inspect the inside of Amish homes as part of an ‘investigation’ into what ‘types of modern technologies and materials’ they might be using” to collect evidence that the Amish’s religious beliefs might be insincerely held.
The county bureaucrats did not stop there. They tried to argue that the “Bible commands the Amish to submit to secular authority,” so of course the Amish don’t understand their own religion and should give in to the county’s interpretation of the Amish faith.
After losing in the lower courts, the Amish took their case to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court decision and sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
Justice Neil Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s order. He eloquently explained that the lower court must apply strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that the county regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
The Amish had requested an exemption from the county that would accomplish the goal of the regulation and yet preserve their observance of their faith. Gorsuch called out the county, noting the many exemptions already given under the regulation, including exemptions for hunters and fishers.
Why was this same flexibility not granted to the Amish? Other states also allow the solution proposed by the Amish. Why the double standard and inflexibility of the county when it should be giving even more latitude based on the governing statute protecting religious freedom?
Despite some disappointing decisions on free exercise during the beginning of the COVID-19 disruptions, the current majority of the Supreme Court respects the value of religious liberty. “In this country,” said Gorsuch, “neither the Amish nor anyone else should have to choose between their farms and their faith.”
That is a truth as plain as the clothing of the Swartzentruber Amish. Yet they were forced to spend years in litigation to protect their beliefs. Even now, their fight may be far from over, as their litigation continues.
Your freedoms may depend on a bureaucrat’s discretion to decide whether your religious beliefs are sincere. Power-hungry bureaucrats do crazy things such as claiming that beer is essential but Easter is not or that the Amish are not sincere in their beliefs.
Ultimately, that does not bode well for Americans hoping to demonstrate a sincerely held religious objection to vaccination.
Gayle Trotter is an attorney and political analyst based in Washington, D.C. Follow her @gayletrotter on Twitter and Parler.
Last edited:
Weps
Veteran Member
That only pertains to school exemption for vaccinations.