As I begin this article it is looking likely that we will be unable to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for Easter. We are once again witnessing the suppression of the practice of the Catholic Faith in Ireland and this time, it is more diabolical in that it is more deceptive as it is being done under the guise of protecting us from a disease. Many sincere Catholics I have spoken to tell me of their feelings that they are being betrayed by their bishops and so, let us pray for our bishops.
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
There are several themes I would like to address with our readers and I must give a parental warning that the testimony of Dr Stanley Plotkin which follows, may not be suitable reading for young children given the macabre nature of the topic and its connection with vaccine development.
Dr Stanley Plotkin M.D., is the man who is credited with developing the Rubella vaccine in America which is used worldwide. He gave a legal deposition in January 2018, which consists of a nine-hour video recording of his testimony under oath for the trial between Lori Matheson, (formerly known as Lori Ann Schmitt), and her husband Michael Schmitt. The case was between a couple who were separated and divorced. The mother, Lori, did not want her two-year-old daughter vaccinated and her husband Michael did.
The case came to trial because the parents could not agree. One of the mother’s objections was on account of the use of foetal material in the vaccines. Mr Siri, the attorney for Lori Matheson, questioned Dr Stanley Plotkin as an expert witness.
The following extracts from Dr Plotkin’s testimony reveals that they used seventy-six aborted babies, all of whom were at least three months old, in just one particular series of experiments connected to his vaccine research. They sought to identify which cells from aborted babies would have the best potential for use in vaccine development.
“Q. Okay. In your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses have been part of that work?
A. My own personal work? Two.
Q. Two. So, in your, in all of your work related to vaccines throughout your whole career, you’ve only ever worked with two fetuses?
A. In terms of making vaccines, yes. Yes.
Q. I’m going to hand you, I’m going to hand you what’s been marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 41. Okay? Are you familiar with this article, Dr. Plotkin?
Q. Are you listed as an author on this article?
Q. This study took place at the Wistar Institute, correct?
Q. You were at the Wistar Institute, correct?
Q. How many fetuses were used in the study described in this article?
A. Quite a few. But my answer to the previous question was what did I use to make vaccines, and the answer was two…
Q. So I’m going to ask that question again. In your work related to vaccines, how many fetuses were involved in that work?
A. There were only two fetuses involved in making vaccines. When fetal strains of, fibroblast strains were first developed, I was involved in that work trying to characterize those cells; but they were not used to make vaccines.
Q. Wasn’t the purpose of this study to help develop a human cell line or to support the use of human cell lines in the creation of vaccines?
A. The idea was to study the cell strains from fetuses to determine whether or not they could be used to make vaccines.
Q. So this was related to your work?
A. Well, yes, in a sense —
Q. To vaccines, correct?
A. Yes. It was preparatory.
Q. So this study involved 74 fetuses, correct?
A. I don’t remember exactly how many.
Q. If you turn to page 12 of the study.
Q. Seventy-six. And these fetuses were all three months or older when aborted, correct?
Q. And these were all normally developed fetuses, correct?
Q. Okay. These included fetuses that were aborted for social and psychiatric reasons, correct?
Q. What organs did you harvest from these fetuses?
A. Well, I didn’t personally harvest any, but a whole range of tissues were harvested by co-workers.
Q. And these pieces were then cut up into little pieces, right?
Q. And they were cultured?
Q. Some of the pieces of the fetuses were pituitary gland that were chopped up into pieces to –
Q. Included the lung of the fetuses?
Q. Included the skin?
A. I don’t recall, but probably yes.
Q. So I just want to make sure I understand. In your entire career — this was just one study. So I’m going to ask you again, in your entire career, how many fetuses have you worked with approximately?
A. Well, I don’t remember the exact number, but quite a few when we were studying them originally before we decided to use them to make vaccines.
Q. Do you have any sense? I mean, this one study had 76. How many other studies did you have that you used aborted fetuses for?
A. I don’t remember how many.
Q. You’re aware, are you aware that the, one of the objections to vaccination by the plaintiff in this case is the inclusion of aborted fetal tissue in the development of vaccines and the fact that it’s actually part of the ingredients of vaccines?
A. Yeah, I’m aware of those objections. The Catholic church has actually issued a document on that which says that individuals who need the vaccine should receive the vaccines, regardless of the fact, and that I think it implies that I am the individual who will go to hell because of the use of aborted tissues, which I am glad to do.
Q. Do you know if the mother’s Catholic?
A. I have no idea.
A. But she should consult her priest.
Q. If she has a — if she’s, in fact, Christian, I guess, right? In any event, so we have 76 in this study. Would you approximate it’s been a few hundred fetuses?
A. Oh, no, I don’t think it was that many. Probably not many more than in this paper. And I should stipulate that we had nothing to do with the cause of the abortion.
Q. Some of these were for psychiatric institutions, correct?
A. Actually, all I can say is that the fetuses that I personally worked with actually came from Sweden, from a Swedish co-worker. And so I, in no case, was able to determine what exactly the reason for the abortion was.
Q. I’m just asking you, some of the fetuses that you did use did come from abortions from people who were in psychiatric institutions, correct?
A. I don’t know that. What I’m telling you is that I got them from a co-worker; and if it’s stated in the paper, it’s true. But, otherwise, I do not know.
Q. So if it’s in the paper, you don’t contest it, right?
A. I don’t contest it, no.
Q. Okay. Have you ever used orphans to study an experimental vaccine?
Q. Have you ever used the mentally handicapped to study an experimental vaccine?
A. I don’t recollect ever doing studies in mentally handicapped individuals. At the time in the 1960s, it was not an uncommon practice.
Q. So you’re saying — I’m not clear on your answer. I’m sorry. Have you ever used mentally handicapped to study an experimental vaccine?
A. What I’m saying is I don’t recall specifically having done that, but that in the 1960s, it was not unusual to do that. And I wouldn’t deny that I may have done so.
Q. I’m going to read you a sentence from what what’s been previously marked as — (Exhibit Plaintiff-42 was marked for identification.)
Q. Well, in any event, you’re not denying that you, that you — well, there’s an article entitled “Attenuation of RA 27/3 Rubella Virus in WI-38 Human Diploid Cells.” Are you familiar with that article?
Q. In that article, one of the things it says is: 13 seronegative mentally retarded children were given RA 27/3 vaccine?
A. Okay. Well, then that’s, in that case that’s what I did.
Q. Have you ever expressed that it’s better to perform experiments on those less likely to be able to contribute to society, such as children with handicap, than with children without or adults without handicaps?
A. I don’t remember specifically, but it’s possible. And, again, I repeat that in the 1960s, that was more or less common practice. I’ve since changed my mind. But those were, that was a long time ago.
Q. Do you remember ever writing to the editor of “Ethics on Human Experimentation”?
A. I don’t remember specifically, but I may well have.
Q. We’ll mark this. (Exhibit Plaintiff-43 was marked for identification.)
Q. I’m going to hand you what’s been marked as Exhibit 43. Do you recognize this letter you wrote to the editor?
Q. Did you write this letter?
Q. Is one of the things you wrote: “The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential?”
Q. “It may be objected that this question implies a Nazi philosophy, but I do not think that it is difficult to distinguish non-functioning persons from members of ethnic, racial, economic, or other groups.”
Q. Have you ever used babies of mothers in prison to study an experimental vaccine?
Q. Have you ever used individuals under colonial rule to study an experimental vaccine?
Q. Did you do so in the Belgian Congo?
Q. Did that experiment involve almost a million people?
A. Well — well, all right, yes.”
I first came across this testimony in the video recording from the trial, (which you can view on our youtube channel here) and I was deeply affected by it and by the casual way these gravely evil matters were spoken about. They are discussing the use of organs from murdered children and Dr Stanley Plotkin shows no remorse and, at the time of his testimony in 2018, he was still giving presentations around the world despite being 86 years of age. At least one of his lectures was sponsored by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The elites who are planning the “Great Reset” treat of the human race as if we are livestock to be managed and farmed for profit and to serve the interests of these global financial controllers. They believe that there are too many ‘animals’ in the herd and they thus seek to reduce our numbers.
One of the points I have been making in relation to the statements of moral theologians on the permissibility of using abortion tainted vaccines, i.e. that Church statements are being used to defend and promote the abortion pharmaceutical link, is borne out by this interview. Dr Stanley Plotkin, who was born of Jewish parents and is a self-confessed atheist, tells us that the Catholic Church says that Catholics should receive the abortion tainted vaccines.
This is not quite what the Catholic theologians say, but this is what most people seem to erroneously hear “The Catholic Church says that we can take the vaccines”
What the Catholic theologians actually say is, that it is sometimes permissible to have material cooperation in a grave moral evil but there are some caveats.
- There must be no alternative available.
- There must be a public declaration of one’s opposition to the grave moral evil involved.
- There must be a grave necessity.
It is also important to note that there is no moral obligation on Catholics to accept abortion tainted vaccines. Catholics are free to reject such vaccines on the grounds of conscientious objection, and the Church teaches that taking a vaccine should never be mandatory or coerced.
For me, the most chilling part of Dr Stanley Plotkin’s testimony was his declaration that he was prepared to go to Hell for his use of murdered babies in his research.
I urge you to pray, to offer little sacrifices, and to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated for the conversion of Dr Stanley Plotkin. He is now 88 years of age and will face his particular judgement shortly.
Our Lady came to Fatima to urge us to pray for the conversion of poor sinners like Dr Stanley Plotkin. It is sometimes difficult for us to accept that Jesus Christ died in order to save the abortionists, the paedophiles, and other grave sinners. This difficulty is natural on account of our revulsion for these grave sins. The words of the prophet Isaiah are particularly apt in these situations.
“And when you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you: and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear: for your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices from my eyes: cease to do perversely,
Learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge for the fatherless, defend the widow.
And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool. (Isaiah 1:15-18)
In these dark times the words of the prophet Isaiah are comforting, for we are all in need of forgiveness for our sins and through Jesus Christ’s redemptive sacrifice we too can hear the words of Isaiah spoken to us from the cross — “if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool.”
I know of someone who recently attended a meeting of concerned Catholics. There were at least fifteen people present at the meeting. It is astonishing to think that those who attended this meeting to discuss the current situation in Ireland and who drank tea, ate sandwiches and other tasty delicacies, are now branded as being involved in a criminal activity.
Some of the Catholics who gathered recently to pray the Rosary in public were given on the spot fines of €500. Catholics who attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are also branded as criminals. In a Church which is near to where I live, a priest was regularly hearing confessions and giving Holy Communion. One day two Garda showed up to take the names of those who came for the sacraments.
Our bishops do not seem to offer any resistance to this persecution and open intimidation of Catholics by the State. I know a few priests who continue to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with some faithful present, but they do not have the support of their bishops.
One bishop recently invited people to join him for Eucharistic Adoration. I was pleased to see this until I realised that it was going to be live streamed with no faithful allowed to attend. I was tempted to contact the bishop to ask him if perhaps he would invite us to dinner as well and he could set up the camera on his dining table and we could watch him eating.
I understand that this bishop’s intentions are good, but looking at an image of the monstrance on a computer screen does not mean that you are at Eucharistic Adoration. The time would be better spent in a Church where Jesus is truly present.
Our bishops are, hopefully inadvertently, facilitating the normalisation of online worship rather than resisting the unjust State laws and allowing Catholics free access to the sacraments. Our bishops actions will lead to many Catholics not returning to the practice of their faith because our bishops have agreed with the secular state, and in effect they have told us, that the practice of the Catholic Faith is not as essential as going shopping.
For years I have been highlighting the dreadful state of Catholic education in this country. Our Catholic schools are churning out pro-abortion citizens rather than citizens who seek to know, love and serve God, and there are no plans in place to reclaim these once Catholic schools for Christ. Instead our bishops speak of divesting themselves of Catholic schools with seemingly little regard for the salvation of souls, in the name of diversity, so that children can be educated in false ideologies by the secular, child-murdering State.
Some of what I say may appear harsh, but Catholics need to wake up to the signs of the times. It is my firm belief that we are heading into what may possibly be the darkest period of human history ever witnessed apart from the Crucifixion.
I cannot say if we are heading into the times Jesus specifically spoke of in Chapter 24 of St Matthew’s Gospel: — “For there shall be then great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be” — but it would not surprise me.
But this is not the time for Catholics to get sentimental. We need to be courageous and we need to look to the future with Hope and with Courage. Many people, Catholics included, simply want a return to the life they knew before Covid-19. Our new masters may not want to allow this, but, regardless of them, Catholics cannot simply go back to the way we were.
The way we were brought contraception, abortion, divorce, “same-sex marriage”, widespread pornography, and other evils to our shores, all of which undermined the fundamental unit of civilised society — The Family, based on the sacramental marriage of one man and one woman striving to raise the children God sends them as saints for His Kingdom.
We need to re-think and we need to change society with the primary aim of claiming our society for Christ. This will be a long term project whose basis is Catholic families doing what truly Catholic families have always done – raising children in the fear of God.
We must turn away from our sins and we must pray and offer sacrifices for the conversion of sinners. Our current circumstances, where we are deprived of access to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, should make it easier to make a good Lent this year. Let us not waste this opportunity in simply complaining about how bad things are, but let us offer everything to Our Lady for the conversion of sinners both great and small and especially for Dr Stanley Plotkin.