Ex-Swiss Guard Decries Mandatory Vaccination as ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Inhumane’
#1
Ex-Swiss Guard Decries Mandatory Vaccination as ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Inhumane’



The website [i]Renovatio 21[/i] has published an open letter from one of three former Swiss Guards who refused to undergo the mandatory vaccination against Covid being applied to the Pontifical military corps in Vatican City State.
All three of them lost their job, but Pierre-André Udressy wanted to go public and provide some background to his decision.
He began his open letter by explaining that he had no grounds for medical exemption but added that he wanted to think about this choice, not with “pro or anti” vaccine biases in general.
All I wanted to do was understand the implications and the reasons for ‘such a vaccine’ to be ‘administered under such conditions, to such a population, in such a place,’” he wrote.
He paints a picture of considerable injustices being perpetrated within the Vatican, adding that he has witnessed pressure being “progressively and subversively placed on people to convince them to undertake a burden they didn’t want to take.”
Udressy concluded: “What is certain is that, in all this, what we are experiencing has nothing human let alone Christian about it, and it is truly intolerable to see the holy Vatican City come to this point!” (see his 11 points below).
 
[b]A Terrible Choice’[/b]
Since the publication of the letter, Udressy has given an interview, also published in [i]Renovatio[/i], in which he revealed he had contracted Covid in December 2020 and so did not see a medical reason to take the vaccine.
He said in the exchange, published Oct. 10, that the Guards were given the opportunity to take the jab around Christmas last year, but “no one signed up because everyone doubted the vaccine.” This then led to seminars being held to convince them to take it but they did not sway him.
They said that even when vaccinated, the virus was transmitted. They also said that despite the vaccine, restrictions such as masks and social distancing would not go away. It was hard to understand the vaccine’s effectiveness and its usefulness,” Udressy said.
Moreover, he added that the issue of aborted foetal cell lines being used in the production of the vaccine “was only briefly hinted at,” and that the CDF had already addressed it.
I left the seminar dazed,” Udressy recalled, and it gave him “more doubts about the vaccine.”
He added that in August, more pressure was exerted on them to take the vaccine and a deadline to be vaccinated was set for Sept. 15. The commander of the Swiss Guard, who was reluctant to take it as well, summoned Udressy to his office and explained the situation. “Disappointed and distressed that it was a definitive thing,” he said the unvaccinated guards “had to leave.”
In practice, unvaccinated guards could be fired,” he said, and “informed me that the decision came not only from the Secretariat of State, but from the authority of the Vatican.”
Asked by [i]Renovatio [/i]if, by that, Udressy meant the Pope, he replied: “It is so. It was also explained that there was no other option, not even waiting an extra month for a traditional type of vaccine. It was explained to me that taking time to argue was impossible. The decision was made.”
This, he said, left the Guards with a “terrible choice to make, having really no choice. Three resigned and three were fired.”
He said he received a letter saying he had until Oct. 6 to quit or take the vaccine. “After that date, there would be dismissal.”
Udressy said protests were possible on the grounds of the injustice, but “in the end we were very docile.” The majority ended up taking the vaccine “to escape the pressure, to be able to go out, go to the restaurant. Not for medical reasons. For false freedoms.”
On the aborted foetal cell lines issue, he said this was raised before Christmas but after the CDF note was published, “no one spoke about it anymore.”
He said he was more concerned with the other problems associated with the vaccine, but for him it is “fundamentally a question of reason: why accept something that is not reasonable to me? Then there is the political problem: there is a pressure around this thing that is not normal. Then there is the ethical problem.”
He said he found it “scandalous that this thing is imposed in this way for a political reason, when it should be something done conscientiously with a doctor. It is extremely serious that this obligation is extended to the whole world. Above all, the suppression of freedom … and it is even more serious that this happens in the Vatican, even more strongly than in other countries. The Vatican is the center of the Church, it should defend freedom of conscience, freedom in general. For me, a Catholic, it is something inhumane.”
Asked what is the “origin of this evil in the Vatican,” Udressy said the doctors took the decisions, but added there was another issue in play: “The fact that we are no longer trying to defend the truth, but rather trying to adapt to what’s happening outside, and even be the first to apply the changes.”
He says he will now return to Switzerland and readjust to life over there, returning to work as a carpenter which was his profession for five years before signing up to serve as a Swiss Guard.



[b]Open Letter[/b]

Here below is Udressy’s open letter detailing 11 reasons why he didn’t wish to take the vaccine, for which he said he had received compliments from cardinals and priests:

“1. The very principle of taking a vaccine is this: the prevention of an evil by preventing it in order to acquire immunity, [i][b]taking into account the risks and benefits [/b][/i][his emphasis]. “Doubt is the beginning of knowledge.”

2. Every vaccine carries risks and requires caution especially when it’s not been sufficiently tested, according to the urgency or the state of the patient. Unfortunately, one must admit reality and take into consideration adverse events.

The frequency of fatalities after vaccination is “underestimated,” according to the director of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, who adds: “The vaccine is the cause of death in 30-40% of autopsies of recently vaccinated people.” But “the acceptable risk is the one that is accepted.”

3. A danger may have to be accepted for a greater good, no doubt, as general immunity might be.

However, according to Didier Febvrel, director of the Health Service of Marseille, “ensuring that the vaccine presents no danger and that it is the decisive weapon against the virus comes from a utopian and military communication of the last century that coincides with propaganda.”

4. Unfortunately, many times in the history of accidents have taken place precisely because of the politicization of vaccination campaigns, as with hepatitis B, rubella in England, the H1N1 crisis, the POR Walkefield affair, and chickenpox disappeared but for which we continue to vaccinate with deadly risks …

Throughout all of this, the only problem would be that it results in bad publicity for the vaccine! So those who object to it are increasingly every day, to the point of avoiding some vaccines considered important. numerous and some vaccines considered important are avoided…

And the vaccine’s protection is certainly not guaranteed by universally mandating it, an obligation in fact already decided on September 12, 2019 (before the “pandemic”) at the Global Vaccination Summit.

Then we are told that we would have herd immunity with 75% of the population vaccinated, “except that this is not science,” said Dr. Didier Raoult, of the IHU in Marseille, one of the greatest living infectious scientists. “For the same microbe, the contagiousness is different between one strain and another. In fact, the very idea, apparently very logical, that the more a population is vaccinated the less the virus circulates, is not entirely accurate.”

5. Also according to this ideology, one could therefore let part of the population be free not to get vaccinated, but things are not like that, vaccination must be something global, without limits or discernment. But how can we hope for immunity if the vaccinated themselves are carriers of the virus?

“Although vaccination is advancing at an increasing pace, the virus is not going away and patients will need safe and effective treatment,” said Stelle Kyriakides, EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety.

6. So it happened that over the past year, I’d like to point out that all members of the Swiss Guard who tested positive for COVID-19 had been vaccinated, at most, a few months earlier. And what about Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, but then in a very critical pandemic situation?

7. Dear authorities, in response to the pressure that has been put on us, I could have defended myself with medical certificates, declaring that I was immune for having contracted the disease at the end of last year.

Surely one cannot be immunized better than by recovery from the disease itself. I could then have logically been justified in saying that I did not need a vaccine: but this would not have been accepted either!

And it is still preferable for me to testify in full truth, without hypocrisy, what is my duty to testify and thus support all those who allow themselves to think differently, to react with intelligence and avoid with conviction what is not reasonable.

How many of my dear colleagues have unfortunately succumbed to a medical treatment to which they did not give full consent, compelled by force, in order to regain their freedom? For me, it is fundamental to defend Freedom with determination.

Why should I force myself to do something I know to be absurd? Who could force me?

8. In this regard I quote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which on December 21, 2020 said: “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”

What are we to understand? Is this not the indication that comes to us from the Catholic Church?

9. In every way, and especially in the most hypocritical ways, governments have gone so far as to scare people under the guise of prevention. What is really frightening are those who take advantage of this “window of opportunity,” who were waiting for nothing else than for the reconstruction of the world, the abolition of community-based societies, the denaturalization of the human species with the proliferation of specific laws (early abortion, human/animal chimera embryos, PMA/GPA).

What is even more frightening is the neglect of Life where Life should be defended! In such a dramatic situation, people would expect nothing but spiritual support: in such a crisis only Faith could allow them to accept the situation.

Unfortunately, the greatest scandal is right there. [The Catholic hierarchy] has come to suppress spiritual and sacramental support and to abandon people in need. The situation has certainly been difficult to manage: there have been government threats, but in many places Church authorities played it by ear and it is these same ecclesiastical authorities who refused to bring supernatural help to those in need. The Vatican set this example! There would be many anecdotes to report here that would prove the absurdity of the decisions made by men of little faith.

Many times we’ve been told about the history of the Church, the faith of the Early Church Fathers, the commitment of the Holy Church during the great plagues. But nothing can justify the absurdity of the current situation.

How many times have we asked ourselves these questions when admiring so many concrete episodes in the history of Rome and of all Italy. Strangely enough, morality is disguised; it seems that in case of urgency everything is allowed.

10. What about the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cited above? Does it have no bearing, even juridically, in the Vatican?

What about this obligation against the conscience of honest people?

What about the document issued by the Pontifical Academy for Life on June 5, 2005 [on use of vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines]?

This document clearly states that illicit vaccines, prepared from cells from aborted human fetuses, must be combated, while then admitting that in case of need their use could be accepted.

“Doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines13 (if they exist), (cf. John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, n.74), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin.”

So according to the doctrine of the Holy See, certain vaccines are clearly defined as illicit, at least as far as their production is concerned, and although it is tolerated to use them in case of necessity, it is said that the governments that spread such vaccines should be opposed.

“Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.”

Even the Academy’s own July 31, 2017 document, while more permissive regarding the use of such products, does not fail to mention the necessary “joint commitment to ensure that any vaccine has no reference in its preparation to any material of abortive origin.”

Now the Vatican, the institution of the Church, has chosen the Pfizer vaccine, tested on abortive cell lines. What should we think? It even imposes the vaccine on all its employees, although as a sovereign state, it would have the possibility to choose products not contaminated by abortion, which also exist.

As a Catholic who follows the Magisterium, I have a duty to fight against the vaccine choices of the Vatican City? If one reads the documents cited, one must answer yes.

11. Yes, I have followed up to this point the evolution of these restrictions, of the vaccination obligation, and I have endured until today, as a victim, all that we have had to endure.

12. I have witnessed all the pressure that’s been progressively and subversively placed on people to convince them to undertake a burden they didn’t want to take.

I have witnessed situations of injustice, all the more oppressive in that they weighed on people whose situation was more difficult than mine, even though I myself was exhausted. I have endured it all until the end, trying to serve as best I could.

By the intuition of my conscience, and after praying about it, I was moved to discern things in this way, and, once persuaded of my duty, I thus defend Liberty and stand up for those who have been so severely tested.

What is certain is that, in all this, what we are experiencing has nothing human let alone Christian about it, and it is truly intolerable to see the holy Vatican City come to this point!

May St. Michael deign to always protect and defend the Holy City!

[i]Acriter et fideliter[/i]

Pierre-André Udressy
Former Swiss guard and current poor citizen of the Vatican.”



https://edwardpentin.co.uk/swiss-guard-w...y-vaccine/
[-] The following 4 users Like Sed libera nos's post:
  • Ambrosiano, J Michael, joegrane, tucherb
Reply
#2
It is completely insane to require vax just on the basis of the current ineffectiveness against mild infection capable of spreading virus.

Recent study from CA funded by Pfizer says

"Effectiveness against infections declined from 88%... during the first month after full vaccination to 47% ... after 5 months. "

No Significant Difference in Viral Load Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated, Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Groups Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Charlotte B. Acharya et al UC Davis. 9-21
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...21264262v1

Yet a big Israeli study reports big protective advantages for those who have recovered from the virus (natural immunity) in contrast to Pfizer.

"vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection compared to those with natural immunity from prior COVID disease,” says Harvard professor's comments about the Gazit Israeli study.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/natura...udy-finds/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...21262415v1

When you add in the historic numbers of reports of serious adverse events, future threat of antibody dependent enhancement, no long term safety data, the experimental nature due to not being finished the safety trial, and list of available alternatives showing protective benefit this is clearly just evil.
[-] The following 1 user Likes joegrane's post:
  • J Michael
Reply
#3
(10-14-2021, 06:53 PM)joegrane Wrote: Recent study from CA funded by Pfizer says

"Effectiveness against infections declined from 88%... during the first month after full vaccination to 47% ... after 5 months. "

Sorry could not find the edit button to add the link for the quote above

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...8/fulltext
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)