Tradicat

 + JMJ Introduction  My open letter attracted a fair amount of attention ( see original article here - link ).  My motivation for writing it was, in part, due to the publication of the 'Open Letter by 12 Traditionalists' ( see my critique here - link )  and in the other part my frustration with the bad decisions that I have seen being made across the blogosphere and by friends over the decades. There are a few points that merit a bit deeper dive: Sede-Vacantism Our Duty of State Setting aside St. Thomas due to a perceived 'sensus fidei' Sede-Vacantism Personally, I don't have anything against the sede-vacantists. In fact, some of the ones that I have encountered in the blogosphere have been both extremely polite and intelligent. That doesn't change the fact that I find their reasoning to be flawed and I have seen it played out to its logical end by people who were well meaning but couldn't keep it all together.  I have in mind one person who, within the spac...

 + JMJ  So another set of 'Prominent Catholics' has put forth their opinion on that position of the SSPX on the use of morally tainted vaccines. There are some alarming things in the article, not because of the position of the SSPX, but because of how far from right reason and principles the authors have departed. So ... let's get into it shall we??? Recall the information guiding all arguments and considerations that the novel COVID vaccine in many cases involves the harvesting of cell lines from aborted children(in development and/or testing). According to insider reports, even viable children are taken alive from the womb and dissected alive, without anesthesia(!). In this respect, the clarity of Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider ("cannibalism", "beginning of the apocalypse")must be considered exemplary. The facts are simple, in the mRNA vaccines we cooperate remotely in the act of murder of two separate children. The other acts are related in tha...

 + JMJ Caveat: This is a long and someone convoluted post.  It was originally my original 'part 3' but I realized that as I did the deep data dive, it became way too long and wrote the shorter part 3 that is currently posted.  I didn't want to lose all the work I did, so I've cleaned it up a bit and posted more as a draft copy for the record.  Introduction  This part of the series is by request of a reader who wanted to know more about how I assessed the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Since it has been a number of months, I am going to walk through a redo assessment. In our town's care home and assisted living facility all forty+ residents are immunized and there were no significant adverse reactions and no deaths that resulted.  However, a friend of ours witnessed some major adverse reactions and at least one that seems to result in death(btw: I found an adverse reaction that seem to match in Canada's databse). So while our experiences may differ, t...

 + JMJ   In part 1 of this series (link)   I mentioned that we need to consider 3 factors in considering a vaccine.  The first and most important is the morality. The second is the safety. In Canada we have a couple of resources to assess the 'adverse reactions' from a vaccine. At the high level we have a chart that shows the relative number of adverse reactions to the vaccines available in Canada (link) .  From a serious vs non-serious adverse reaction, the graph is self explanatory. What is not apparent is that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines not only have fewer adverse events but they are also 'less' tainted. To put this in context, there have been 4675 reported adverse events (aka reactions) our of 56,151,862 administered doses.  Which means about 8 adverse reactions per 100,000 shots in the arm. Looking at the Canada vigilance adverse reaction online database (link A) / (Search Page link B) I found that: There is a lag in the data, Vigilance has dat...