For Your Information and Reference
September 2023
September 2
Ask the CDC: Are Covid injections ("vaccines")
working?
The very fact that this question is present in a very direct way in the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) about Covid-19 "vaccines" on the CDC site (Centers for Disease Control, USA) is an acknowledgment on their part that the public has great doubts about this. Probably those in charge of the CDC believe that people are thinking "too much" and that this thinking initiative needs to be "fixed".
According to the CDC- USA:
If we need an updated COVID-19 vaccine, are the vaccines
working?
Yes. COVID-19 vaccines are working well to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death. However, public health experts are seeing reduced protection over time against mild and moderate disease, especially among certain populations, which is why vaccination recommendations are updated.
Yes. COVID-19 vaccines are working well to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death. However, public health experts are seeing reduced protection over time against mild and moderate disease, especially among certain populations, which is why vaccination recommendations are updated.
Our comment follows.
The success of any human endeavor must be measured in terms of the achievement of the goal pursued. Therefore, the answer to the question "Are the Covid injections working?" should be measured in relation to what they are (or were) supposed to do. So, would not the following answer be more honest?
If we need an updated COVID-19 vaccine, are the vaccines
working?
Overall, No. Public health experts are seeing reduced protection over time —in a few months— against mild and moderate disease, especially among certain populations.
Strong and long-lasting immunity was the primary goal of the Covid vaccines in the first place (1). So, in that sense: No, the vaccines are not working as expected. Still, we are recommending new vaccines, labeled as "updates", which may also have reduced protection after a few months (accordingly, we are not making promises about this (2)).
In order to maintain confidence in Covid vaccines, we have replaced the original goal with a new one that we claim is working well: to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death. We no longer expect people to use the original goal to measure the success of the Covid vaccines. They have been repurposed (downgraded in their purpose) to essentially be a kind of protection (not meaning necessarily immunity) for severe cases, but we still would like you to call them vaccines.
Overall, No. Public health experts are seeing reduced protection over time —in a few months— against mild and moderate disease, especially among certain populations.
Strong and long-lasting immunity was the primary goal of the Covid vaccines in the first place (1). So, in that sense: No, the vaccines are not working as expected. Still, we are recommending new vaccines, labeled as "updates", which may also have reduced protection after a few months (accordingly, we are not making promises about this (2)).
In order to maintain confidence in Covid vaccines, we have replaced the original goal with a new one that we claim is working well: to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death. We no longer expect people to use the original goal to measure the success of the Covid vaccines. They have been repurposed (downgraded in their purpose) to essentially be a kind of protection (not meaning necessarily immunity) for severe cases, but we still would like you to call them vaccines.
The word "vaccine" is a powerful word. A stronghold. A spike that injects in your mind a sense of "security", "predictability", "known ground". Hell would freeze over before they would give up this spear. To this end, the medical dictionary can be rewritten (they will say "updated") as often as necessary – and people will follow them because "they are the experts".
Thought can be shaped through language. Language control is one of the basic building blocks for brainwashing.
For our part, we find that "injections" is a simple and appropriate term for such products (3). No one can argue with us on this. The word "injections" can be used in a natural way in a conversation without the listener feeling aggrieved and, at the same time, we are rejecting an uncritical use of the word "vaccine".
If they cease to be injections and become patches or something else, we are confident that there will be similar appropriate terms that everyone can understand without the use of the word "vaccine", a word that (in the context of Covid) may seem to be an implied endorsement of those "medical dictionary rewriters."
(1) Remember that the goal was "to beat the pandemic"
through "herd immunity". Those who did not want to be "vaccinated" were labeled as antisocial "for
preventing herd immunity from succeeding".
(2) At the time of writing this, the response they give to
the question "How long does
the protection of a Covid-19 vaccine last?" is so evading that
they do not really answer the question. It must be that
the directors of the CDC aspire to sainthood, since, as Escrivá would say, "the road to holiness
is marked by holy
shamelessness".
(3) Other times, we use the word "vaccine" but are careful
to write it in quotation marks. Also: Within quotations (or in hypothetical thoughts) attributed
to others, we maintain the use of the word, for fidelity in reproducing the source (or the line of
hypothetical thought).
Back to This Month's Index
The White House and the Manufacturers, preparing the public
for new injections in autumn
This news is raising a lot of dark expectations. For our part, we cannot predict what will happen, but we have already given our opinion on what Biden would be capable of doing as the visible head of the Pandemic Forever Party (and with this ironic name we are not referring to the Democratic Party, but to something much bigger). For the moment, we limit ourselves to reproduce the key parts of the news.
President Joe Biden on August 25:
“I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress,
a request for additional funding for a new vaccine that is
necessary, that works. And tentatively —not decided finally yet— tentatively, it is
recommended that – it will likely be recommended that everybody
get it no matter whether they’ve gotten it before or not.”
How many funding? According to The Daily Mail, UK, August 25:
Despite warnings over uptake, however, this week the Biden administration put
another $1.4billion into developing new drugs and shots
against Covid.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on August 28:
We are going to be encouraging Americans to stay up to date on their vaccines. ..... We are
prepared for the fall. As the CDC and FDA mentioned, we will have vaccines available by
mid-September. ..... We’re going to continue to encourage
Americans to get their updated [Covid] vaccine, to stay updated on their [Covid] vaccines
more broadly, but also to make sure they get
their RSV and also to make sure that they’re
getting the flu shot.
All this follows to the prior announcement from manufacturers (Source):
On Thursday [15-Aug-2023], Moderna (MRNA.O) said initial data showed its updated COVID-19 vaccine
is effective against the "Eris" and "Fornax" subvariants in humans. ..... Moderna and other
COVID-19 vaccine makers Novavax (NVAX.O), Pfizer (PFE.N) and German partner BioNTech SE (22UAy.DE)
have created versions of their shots aimed at the XBB.1.5 subvariant. ..... Pending approval from
health regulators in the United States and Europe, the companies
expect the updated shots to be available in the coming weeks for the autumn vaccination
season.
Back to This Month's Index
Was Pope John Paul II manipulated by Opus
Dei?
From CM:
Subject: Re: List of cardinals, bishops, and priests in the orbit of opus dei (1)
Hello good morning
Having read your article, I would like to comment on some issues, in my opinion important:
In the first place, I find offensive and unfounded, the statement that Pope John Paul 2 was manipulated by members of Opus Dei and thus they got some cardinals and other purposes, which on the other hand is made to see that they are not good at all, starkly arguing that this entity is not of God.
Secondly, a parallel list of cardinals, bishops and priests of the Society of Jesus is missing, and it would be interesting to have it.
Finally, remember that the law of data protection prevents the disclosure of the same, and that the offenses that constitute a crime or misdemeanor, already have open the judicial channel for their satisfaction.
Kind regards
CM
Having read your article, I would like to comment on some issues, in my opinion important:
In the first place, I find offensive and unfounded, the statement that Pope John Paul 2 was manipulated by members of Opus Dei and thus they got some cardinals and other purposes, which on the other hand is made to see that they are not good at all, starkly arguing that this entity is not of God.
Secondly, a parallel list of cardinals, bishops and priests of the Society of Jesus is missing, and it would be interesting to have it.
Finally, remember that the law of data protection prevents the disclosure of the same, and that the offenses that constitute a crime or misdemeanor, already have open the judicial channel for their satisfaction.
Kind regards
CM
Our Response:
May the Peace of God be with you!
Thank you for letting us know your opinion.
[The sender is referring to our document entitled "Listing of Cardinals, Bishops and Priests in the Opus Dei Orbit"] (1)
Our original paragraph:
Cardinal Wojtyła, cherished by Opus Dei and with a profile suitable for their manipulation, was
skillfully led on his way to the Papacy and during his pontificate. When, at the end of his life,
he realized the reality of Opus Dei, it was too late to rectify, because he had already become,
sick and old, a prisoner of Opus Dei in the Vatican
(source).
Said paragraph is ended with a link to a document where our thesis on John Paul II is illustrated in detail (plus, there are other interconnected documents that we will not list here). We assume that you have no interest in knowing the basis of our assertions, starting with the fact that you make no mention of the linked document. Therefore, we will not invest time in giving you any further explanation regarding John Paul II's issue.
Regarding the implicit suggestion to build a similar list on the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), we fully understand that you do not consider the matter important enough to devote yourself the time and resources necessary to build such a list. If someday you decide to give it more importance, maybe some other Escrivite might want to help you with that, given Escriva's well-known aversion to the Jesuits (2) that you, also, seem to share.
On the legality of publishing this kind of lists: We note that you incite us to publish a list of cardinals, bishops and priests related to the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) when, at the same time, you indicate that this would be against the data protection law of your country. Do you want to incite us to do something that you believe to be a crime? Logically, in the face of such great incoherence, we do not give any credibility to any advice you want to give us on legal matters.
We inform you that the paragraph referred to (about John Paul II) has been improved and replaced by more specific and concrete elements, (3) which will allow each reader to reach the conclusion by himself/herself without the need for us to state it explicitly.
God has shown us that, in this way, truly interested readers will be guided to find the truth, while those who are not interested will still find excuses not to believe but, this time, they will not claim our time with their unproductive lamentations. Since you have not sent us any really constructive comments on this subject, we cannot give you any credit for this; therefore, we just thank God for Him inspiring us to improve the entry about John Paul II through your letter. This improvement has also resulted in a new document (4).
We conclude by asking God to bless you in your personal journey towards God from the point of Faith where you are and to the same extent that you sincerely seek coherence.
Kind regards,
The Administration
(2) Miguel Fisac, about
Escrivá: "He did not love the Jesuits."
Rosario Badules, about Escrivá:
"I heard him speak badly of the Pope, of the bishops, of the
Jesuits, (he called them "the usual ones"). ... But the most hated were the Jesuits. He forbade
any of them to enter a house of the Work."
P.S. (A clarification for readers who will read this response when it is shared)
1. If publishing a list of this kind (1) were a crime, so would be, for example, the lists that Opus Dei itself publishes of bishops and cardinals who have presided at Masses in honor of Escriva. These are public acts in which the protagonists publicly attest to their participation, and this is the type of information we have compiled in our document.
2. As to why we have devoted time and resources to compiling such a list of clerics in the orbit of Opus Dei, but not a similar one related to an institution such as the Society of Jesus, the answer can be found highlighted in the new document (4).
Back to This Month's Index
En Español: Para vuestra Información y Referencia - Septiembre 2023
© Copyright 2023 by The M+G+R Foundation. All rights reserved. However, you may
freely reproduce and distribute this document as long as: (1) Appropriate credit is given as to
its source; (2) No changes are made in the text without prior written consent; and (3) No charge
is made for it.
“Behold, I have told you all things
beforehand”
Introduction for First Visit
Frequently Asked Questions
Home Page English Español Portugues
Search Page Index of Documents
Disclaimer About Us Contact
Back Up Home Page (Mirror Site)
Home Page English Español Portugues
Search Page Index of Documents
Disclaimer About Us Contact
Back Up Home Page (Mirror Site)