AMID THE furore surrounding the covid vaccines – that they were neither effective nor safe – another realm of argument against them

Me: speaking for myself - No to all vaccines, after all, with my free salt water cure, why vaccines in the first place, because my TV or a local Politician said I must - Yes Right, much laughter.

Standing on the shoulders of criminals

By

John Thomas

October 13, 2024

AMID THE furore surrounding the covid vaccines – that they were neither effective nor safe – another realm of argument against them, which was quite prominent at the time of their advent, seems to have been forgotten. It concerns the fact that they were reputedly tested using human material from the abortion industry, in particular, from a female foetus believed to have been aborted in the Netherlands in 1972.

I was more worried about the morality of using aborted human beings than by anything to do with safety and effectiveness, which were not questioned at first. The vaccine was supposed to prevent the death of the ‘most vulnerable’ (the elderly). But the morally repugnant idea that we, the elderly, need more years of our pampered existence at the expense of the entire lives of others, viz abortion victims, is well established in our Western culture.

‘Population control’ and the globalisation of the abortion industry is the fruit of materialism, atheism, paganism and environmentalism (all of which fit together in a unit sometimes referred to ironically as ‘humanism’). Even the Pope and his predecessor have had the vaccination: ‘liberal’ Christianity will allow anything, I fancy, as long as the planet is not threatened.

But could I or anybody live a purely moral life, whatever we do, or refuse to do? Conscientious objectors in the two world wars are now revered. I believe they were thinking too much of their own consciences: by the act of refusing to kill any aggressor (if they had the means), to prevent an innocent unarmed person from being killed by the aggressor, a conscientious objector would be putting his own moral virgo intacta innocence before the possible victim’s life; ultimately, it’s the same ‘I’m all right, Jack’ attitude which allows the living to have their existence sustained and prolonged by those denied any life at all.

But let’s return to the question: could I or anybody live a purely moral life whatever we do, or refuse to do? The vaccines were allegedly tested using the remains of an abortion victim, but if I refused the vaccine on those grounds, does that mean I was morally innocent entirely? I suspect not, for think of all the medical procedures, operations, scans and tablets that I have accepted without a qualm (as have most people in their lifetimes).

And what of the bus fare I have used to get to the hospital for these procedures? Let us take the money first: is it entirely ‘clean’? Has it never had any connection with crime, drugs, pornography, arms-manufacture, abortion, terrorism, etc.? George Bernard Shaw said in Major Barbara that if you track it far back enough, money is always tainted. And medical things? Would there be surgeons, operations, and medicines, if there had not been body-snatchers, vivisectionists, and even experiments upon the living and the poor? Can we be one hundred per cent certain that modern medicine owes nothing to the hideous Nazi experiments? (Maybe some would say that if it does owe anything, at least some good came out of that evil.) It has been said that agents of the pharmacy industry (‘Big Pharma’) almost literally sit beside abortionists with a shopping list of body parts which they claim their research continually needs; ‘the end justifies the means’ would surely be their excuse, or that you can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs. Consider how many technological developments, from which we have all benefited, came about from the wartime race to develop superior weapons. For example, the rockets that took man to the moon (generally thought to be a very good thing, human progress), built upon the Nazi V1 and V2 rockets that devastated London. At the same time the Allies were working to create what we would now call ‘weapons of mass destruction’. During the Nuremberg trials, a young British journalist, Malcolm Muggeridge, is said to have prophesied that it was only a matter of time before the victorious nations, which were then trying the Nazi leaders on the charge of war crimes, would go on to commit something of equivalent evil themselves, as we are now seeing. Can nations which willingly destroy so much human life in any way claim moral superiority over Dr Mengele and Adolf Eichmann?

Am I justifying evil? I hope not. We can perhaps accept and benefit from things that happened in the past (which we can’t change), but not accept things that happen in the present, which we might be able to influence – but then we have to decide what the cut-off date should be.

Of course the human race stands on the shoulders of giants as well as lesser people who together have made things so much better for all of us; but we stand on the shoulders of criminals and evil people just as surely.

A version of this article was first published in my book of essays The Curious case of the Atheist Attitude to Death (2022)

TCW

Me: speaking for myself - No to all vaccines, after all, with my free salt water cure, why vaccines in the first place, because my TV or a local Politician said I must - Yes Right, much laughter.