Pages

Sunday 29 November 2020

Oxford vaccine update: How UK vaccine compares to US Pfizer and Moderna versions

OXFORD UNIVERSITY'S coronavirus vaccine trial has yielded some early results, with researchers able to conclude at least 70 percent success following their third-phase tests. How does the UK version compare to Pfizer and Moderna in the US?

The Oxford Vaccine Group released preliminary findings from their early tests today, putting another effective vaccine in arm's reach. The university's collaboration with Swedish biopharmaceutical company AstraZeneca yielded results weeks following others from Moderna and Pfizer across the pond. Three vaccines now point to a potential way out of the pandemic, but each presented with different results at first.

How is the UK vaccine different from the US versions?

Moderna and Pfizer became the first companies to cross the vaccine finish line with their mRNA jabs earlier this month.

Both projects produced a 90 percent or more success rate of preventing COVID-19 infection, with following results increasing their effectiveness.

Oxford University announced its results this morning, with reports suggesting it is less effective.

Oxford vaccine update: Oxford University

Oxford vaccine update: Oxford University reported 90 percent effectiveness from its vaccine (Image: GETTY)

Initial headlines led with their mRNA jab being 70 percent effective, but in reality, the results have more nuance.

Phase three interim analysis of the vaccine found it was 70.4 percent effective when "combining data from two dosing regimens".

But the researchers explored results of more than one regimen, and each turned out new findings.

They found one other regimen had 62 percent effectiveness, while a third had up to 90 percent.

Oxford vaccine update: Vaccines in development

Oxford vaccine update: Coronavirus vaccines currently in development (Image: EXPRESS)

The latter regimen of a half and then full dose also provided promising effects for asymptomatic groups.

Scientists found those taking the vaccine had lower rates of asymptomatic infection, which also suggested their jab could prevent COVID-19 transmission.

Results from the most effective dosage regimen match those of Pfizer's.

They initially reported prevention rates of 90 percent, before subsequent analyses saw this grow to 95 percent.

Oxford vaccine update: AstraZeneca

Oxford vaccine update: Oxford made its vaccine in partnership with AstraZeneca (Image: GETTY)

Moderna came forward with initial results of 95 percent as well, meaning it is possible Oxford's efficacy rate could increase.

Professor Sarah Gilbert, Professor of Vaccinology at the University of Oxford, said their project would bring "benefits for the whole world".

She said: "The announcement today takes us another step closer to the time when we can use vaccines to bring an end to the devastation caused by SARS-CoV-2.

"We will continue to work to provide the detailed information to regulators."

"It has been a privilege to be part of this multi-national effort which will reap benefits for the whole world."

No vaccine has yet received full approval for public use, with several stages left.

Once scientists have finalised testing in the UK, they will need to secure a license and Government approval.

The US jabs will need to do the same in America before also passing organisations in other countries.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1363470/Oxford-vaccine-update-UK-how-effective-compared-to-Pfizer-Moderna-vaccine-evg

Covid vaccine: Can I choose which vaccine I get?

 A VACCINE has been hailed as the solution to the coronavirus crisis, but with several showing strong results can you choose which vaccine you receive?

The   being developed by the University of Oxford is highly effective at stopping people developing COVID-19 symptoms according to the latest data. The data shows 70 percent protection, with researchers claiming the figure may be as high as 90 percent effective if the dose is tweaked. But are you entitled to choose which vaccine you get?

There has been plenty of encouraging news about coronavirus vaccines in the past few weeks.

Several successful trials have been reported which has prompted optimism about widespread distribution of the virus to those most vulnerable.

Currently, the vast majority of people are still vulnerable to coronavirus and the restrictions in place are in force to prevent more people from dying.

A vaccine would help one’s body to learn how to fight the infection by stopping a person contracting the virus, therefore making covid less deadly.

What are the different COVID-19 vaccines?

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was the first to publish its results showing more than 90 percent effectiveness.

The UK should receive more than 10 million doses of this vaccine by the end of 2020, with another 30 million ordered.

The vaccine is delivered in two doses, three weeks apart.

It must be kept in extremely cold temperatures of around -70C to be effective.

Covid vaccine: Covid vaccine

Covid vaccine: The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was found to be more than 90 percent effective (Image: GETTY)

The Moderna vaccine works in the same way as the Pfizer vaccine, protecting 94.5 percent of people.

The UK is due to have five million doses by the spring.

The vaccine will be given in two doses, four weeks apart.

Unlike the Pfizer vaccine, the Moderna vaccine is easier to store as it stays stable at -20C for up to six months.

Covid vaccine: University of Oxford

Covid vaccine: The Moderna vaccine is proven to protect 94.5 percent of people (Image: GETTY)

The UK has ordered the highest volume of vaccine doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.

Trials of the Oxford vaccine show it prevents 70 percent of people developing covid symptoms and shows a strong immunity response in older people.

In addition, there is encouraging data which suggests perfecting the dose could increase protection up to 90 percent.

The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is the easiest to distribute because it does not need to be stored at very cold temperatures.

It was made from a weakened version of a common cold virus from chimpanzees and has been modified to not grow in humans.

Covid vaccine: Vaccine lab

Covid vaccine: The UK has ordered 100m doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (Image: GETTY)

There are several other vaccines currently in development which are being trialled.

Data on the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, which functions similarly to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, suggests it is 92 percent efficient.

Janssen's trial is recruiting 6,000 people across the UK, in a total of 30,000 volunteers worldwide, to see if two jabs give stronger and longer-lasting immunity than one.

The Wuhan Institute of Biological Products and Sinopharm in China, and Russia's Gamaleya Research Institute are also in the final testing stages.

A trial in Brazil for a drug developed by the Chinese firm Sinovac was suspended after a “severe adverse incident” which involved a volunteer’s death.

Can I choose which vaccine I get?

The first step in the step to securing a vaccine for all Britons is to get a vaccine approved.

If more than one is approved by regulators, then the priority will be to distribute the vaccine to those who need it the most as quickly as possible.

Vaccines will likely be available at different times and therefore will be given to patients depending on their need and priority,

It is unlikely people will be able to pick and choose which vaccine they receive.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1363549/Covid-vaccine-Can-I-choose-which-vaccine-I-get-coronavirus-vaccine-EVG

Coronavirus vaccine: What vaccine should you have? Is one better than the other?

OXFORD UNIVERSITY is the latest to produce a highly effective vaccine for COVID-19. What vaccine should you have? Is one better than the other?

As the total global cases of coronavirus reaches the 60 million mark, the end of the pandemic is on the horizon, with three effective vaccines now expected to be ready for the end of 2020. The University of Oxford has announced it has completed successful trials of another vaccine which is 70 percent effective.

The vaccine, codenamed AZD1222, was developed at Oxford University with support from the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca.

Only a month ago, no vaccine was expected to be trialled and approved by the end of the year, and it now looks like there could be three different vaccines in out for distribution by the end of 2020.

The invention of such vaccines against a virus identified barely a year ago is a remarkable scientific achievement.

Vaccines are yet to be approved by regulators, but millions of doses are ready to go and the NHS is being prepped for mass delivery.

COVID Vaccine

Oxford Vaccine: The vaccine can be 90 percent effective if delivered in a certain way (Image: GETTY)

COVID vaccine

COVID vaccine: The vaccine, codenamed AZD1222, was developed at Oxford University with support from the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca (Image: GETTY)


AstraZeneca’s chief executive Pascal Soriot said: “Today marks an important milestone in our fight against the pandemic.

“This vaccine’s efficacy and safety confirm that it will be highly effective against COVID-19 and will have an immediate impact on this public health emergency.

“Furthermore, the vaccine’s simple supply chain and our no-profit pledge and commitment to broad, equitable and timely access means it will be affordable and globally available, supplying hundreds of millions of doses on approval.”

Speaking this morning in light of the news, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said: “It is subject to that regulatory approval and I really stress that because the medicines regulator, it’s called the MHRA, is independent, they’re rigorous, they’re one of the best regulators in the world.

“They will be very, very careful to ensure that they look at all the data to make sure that this is safe.

“Subject to that approval, we hope to be able to start vaccinating next month.

“The bulk of the vaccine rollout programme will be in January, February, March and we hope that sometime, after Easter, things will be able to start to get back to normal.”

DON'T MISS
Coronavirus vaccine: Oxford jab to cover 'more people' than Pfizer [REPORT]
Oxford vaccine could be first in WORLD to be rolled out - here's why [INSIGHT]
Coronavirus vaccine: Who will get the COVID vaccine first? [EXPLAINER]

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1363386/coronavirus-vaccine-what-vaccine-should-you-have-which-vaccine-better-covid-evg

‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’ : Former Pfizer VP (updated)

Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory, states that the drive for a universal vaccine has 'the whiff of evil' which he 'will oppose … vigorously.'

(Please read this article with a pinch of salt!)

Mon Nov 23, 2020 - 11:09 am EST

By Patrick Delaney

November 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – While Pfizer pharmaceutical made headlines announcing the imminent release of their COVID-19 vaccine, to much fanfare, a former Vice President and Chief Scientist for the company has flatly rejected the need for any vaccines to bring the COVID-19 pandemic to an end.

In a recent article, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who “spent over 30 years leading new [allergy and respiratory] medicines research in some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies,” and retired from Pfizer with “the most senior research position in this field,” wrote: 

There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.

The British national’s comments come at the end of a comprehensive criticism of the Scientific Advisor Group for Emergencies (SAGE), a government agency of the U.K. tasked with advising the central government in emergencies. SAGE has played a predominant role in determining public lockdown policies in the U.K., including those recently implemented, as a response to the COVID-19 virus.

After pointing out that SAGE lacked essential expertise in the field they are addressing, with “no clinical immunologists” as members, Yeadon highlights two fundamental errors they have made in their presuppositions which cause their overall conclusions to go radically awry leading to the “torturing [of] the population for the last seven months or so.”  

First Fundamental Error: “Ridiculous” presumption of 100% susceptibility

The first erroneous assumption SAGE makes is that “100% of the population was susceptible to the virus and that no pre-existing immunity existed.” 

Yeadon states this notion is “ridiculous because while SARS-CoV-2 is indeed novel, coronaviruses are not. There’s no such thing as an ‘ancestor-less virus’.” Indeed, he points out, there are at least “four, endemic, common-cold inducing coronaviruses … [which] circulate freely in UK and elsewhere.” Those who have been infected by “one or more of these endemic, common-cold producing coronaviruses in the past, have a long-lived and robust [T-cell] immunity, not only to those viruses, but to closely related viruses. SARS-CoV-2 is one such closely-related virus.”

Striking once again at the competence of SAGE, Dr. Yeadon states, “To not expect such cross-over is … to demonstrate the lack of the requisite understanding to build a model reliable enough to use.”

Further, he states, that the common PCR test which is used for detecting COVID-19 “cases,” may come out positive when someone is infected with one of these common cold coronaviruses rendering this test that much less reliable. Of course, based on the final results of these tests, many thousands of individuals have been ordered to disrupt their lives and “self-quarantine” for up to 14 days.

Finally, drawing from the scientific data, Dr. Yeadon concludes that due to previous exposure to common-cold coronaviruses, “a significant proportion (30%) of the population went into 2020 armed with T-cells capable of defending them against SARS-CoV-2, even though they had never seen the virus… SAGE was naively wrong to assume ‘everyone was susceptible’.”

Second Fundamental Error: An “amateur underestimate” of the infection rate

SAGE’s second erroneous assumption is “The belief that the percentage of the population that has been infected can be determined by surveying what fraction of the population has antibodies” developed due to infection with COVID-19.

Because of this assumption, “SAGE believes that less than 10% of the population have so far been infected by SARS-CoV-2.”

However, Yeadon clarifies that it’s “well understood that not every person, infected by a respiratory virus, goes on to produce antibodies. And many people, having prior immunity, never get properly infected anyway.” 

While almost all of those with significant symptoms, who were admitted to a hospital, produce antibodies, those with “milder responses to the virus” do not “all produce antibodies.” Nevertheless, all of those infected have been shown to have “T-cells in their blood, capable of responding to SARS-CoV-2,” and thus they still develop immunity.

Drawing from two independent methods, which arrive at the same general conclusion, Yeadon demonstrates that the real infection rate is “in the mid-20s to low-30’s per cent,” and thus SAGE’s estimate of 7% “is a gross and amateur underestimate.”

Why it matters…“the pandemic is effectively over”

With a false presumption that 100% of the population is susceptible to the virus, along with only 7% having been infected, it is the view of SAGE, that “the pandemic has only just begun.” Yeadon clarifies, however, that this is “palpable nonsense.”

Since it is demonstrable that “around 30% of the population had prior immunity,” and if one includes some young children who are “resistant,” 40%, and while considering that the infection rate is “somewhere [in] the mid-20s to low-30s per cent,” this means that around 65 to 72% of the population currently has immunity to COVID-19. 

And considering the reality of herd immunity, when susceptibility to a virus falls this low, at around 28 to 35%, “that population can no longer support an expanding outbreak of disease,” and thus the virus “wanes and disappears.”

Therefore, Yeadon concludes, “the pandemic is effectively over and can easily be handled by a properly functioning NHS (National Health Service). Accordingly, the country should immediately be permitted to get back to normal life.”

He further stipulates that he is “incandescent with rage at the damage” SAGE has “inflicted” on the U.K., charging that they have “either been irredeemably incompetent” or “dishonest,” and thus “they should be disbanded immediately and reconstituted,” as “they haven’t a grasp of even the basics required to build a model and because their models are often frighteningly useless.”

Concerns with Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine: Severe complications

Despite an estimated 65 to 72% of the population now having immunity to COVID-19, a percentage which indicates a critical level of herd immunityOperation Warp Speed in the United States appears intent to follow the globalist campaign advanced by Bill Gates and vaccinate all 328 million people in the nation with the Pfizerproduct or others emerging for approved distribution in the coming months.

Notwithstanding the fact that no vaccine has ever been successfully developed for any coronavirus, and such an endeavor would normally take years to safely and adequately complete, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has permitted the fast-tracking of this process skipping the standard stage of testing on animals to directly test these vaccines on humans.

Immediate results from some of these trials have included “severe” complications, involving headaches, fever, body aches and symptoms similar to a “severe hangover.” Further, as the New York Times emphasizedPfizer’s initial claim that their vaccine was “more than 90 percent effective,” was “delivered in a news release, not a peer-reviewed medical journal. It is not conclusive evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective.”

Expected ‘high volume’ of adverse reactions

And given the enormous scale of the stated goal, of administering these chemicals to hundreds of millions of people, when there is normally some rate of severe complications to the use of vaccines, the negative results may be significant. For example, one study of influenza vaccines administered to adults over 65 years of age, found a rate of approximately 1% which experienced severe side effects. If a COVID-19 vaccine is merely similar for individuals in the same age bracket (54M in population), that would equate to 540,000 individuals in this age bracket alone who may need medical care in a hospital system which provides less than 925,000 total beds. 

Curiously, there is evidence that at least the United Kingdom is preparing for a high number of adverse effects due to the COVID-19 vaccinations. That government’s Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), posted a bid request stating that “For reasons of extreme urgency,” they seek “an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs).” It goes on to explain that “it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine,” and that this “represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.”

New ‘unproven’ mRNA technology: 20% ‘serious injury rate’

Other concerns about the Pfizer vaccine is that it would be the first to use “an as-yet-unproven technology platform that relies on something called messenger RNA, usually shortened to mRNA.” Moderna, another corporation striving to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, is also venturing to utilize this mRNA platform. In May, Children’s Health Defense reported that clinical trials for Moderna’s vaccine had a 20% “serious injury rate” in its high-dose group.

Debi Vinnedge, executive director at Children of God for Life, a pro-life organization which specializes in the moral evaluation of vaccines, told LifeSiteNews, “[I]f Moderna and Pfizer are the ones supplying the first rounds of vaccines and they mandate it, that could be a disaster. They are both using brand new technology with the mRNA that has never been used in a vaccine before and they are pushing this through in a matter of months of testing, rather than the typical 4-6 years of testing.” 

Mandates and Public Distrust

With a push for vaccine mandates on the rise, and resistance for such invasive measures emerging in response, a recent study indicates a growing discomfort among Americans with vaccines overall. 

report from Civic Science (CS) indicates “a steady decline in the percentage of U.S. adults who say they’re ‘very’ comfortable with vaccines overall.” In fact, CS states, “the monthly percentage of those highly comfortable with vaccinations at large fell more than twenty percentage points since the start of 2020 (69% in January compared to October’s 47%).”

In addition, “only 22% percent of those surveyed say they would get the vaccine right away,” and CS concludes, “it’s clear that hesitancy to receive a future vaccine … is running rampant across the country” and this “sheds light on just how difficult it is for many to trust a future vaccine right now.”

Manipulation of the Public

Serving to counteract this trend, Yale University, in collaboration with the U.S. government, sponsored a study to determine the most effective means of persuading Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study tests a variety of approaches, such as appeals to “Personal freedom,” “Economic benefit,” “Self-interest,” fears of “Guilt,” “Embarrassment,” and actually being a coward. 

While several of the appeals are straightforward arguments, others hint at a willingness to use public shaming to elicit compliance. 

One, for instance, “asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease,” with variants exchanging guilt with anger or embarrassment. Another suggests someone who refuses vaccination “doesn't understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.” Another declares that “those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”

The findings of this study will likely influence the messaging of state officials and academic institutions who have discussed mandating vaccination, as well as advertising campaigns surrounding a vaccine once it is completed.

Coercion of Black Communities and Children 

Other strategies of coercion being developed include the “bundling” of vaccine mandates “with other safety net services,” for the poor, including “food security, rent assistance, and free clinic services” for “vulnerable populations,” with “Black and minority communities” receiving special mention. 

And the District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019,” states, “this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established.”

According to The Vaccine Reaction, “The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents’ knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated.”

The report clarifies, “If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents’ back.”

Pfizer a “convicted serial felon”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, environmental attorney, author, and founder of Children’s Health Defense, has been raising awareness about vaccines injuring children for decades. In addition to the organization’s firm opposition to the DC bill above, Kennedy has singled out Pfizer as one of several vaccine producers with a record of incurring criminal penalties for their products.

In a July debate, Kennedy emphasized that Pfizer, and three other leading developers of coronavirus vaccines, GlaxoSanofiMerck, are “convicted serial felon[s].”

“In the past 10 years, just in the last decade, those companies have paid 35 billion dollars in criminal penalties, damages, fines, for lying to doctors, for defrauding science, for falsifying science, for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans knowingly,” Kennedy said during the debate.

“It requires a cognitive dissonance for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines.”

Following the announcement of Pfizer’s “90 percent effective” coronavirus vaccine, with the anticipation of imminent release, the firm’s stock price rose “15 per cent from $36.40 … to $41.94 per share,” at which point the company’s CEO and Chairman, Albert Bourla, sold 61.8 per cent of his shares in the company “for almost $5.6 million.” The Independent reports that in response to inquiries Pfizer replied that this transaction was an “automated process, set up earlier this year” where “shares are sold provided they go above a pre-agreed price.”

Yeadon: Vaccine proposals have ‘the whiff of evil’

While a government, media and corporate campaign prepares to “inoculate 300 million Americans by spring of 2021,” the voice of Michael Yeadon, along with those of tens of thousands of other medical scientists and practitioners remain suppressed and unheeded. 

“Any such proposals” of universal inoculation, Yeadon writes, “are not only completely unnecessary but if done using any kind of coercion at all, illegal.”

“I would completely understand and would consider accepting early use of a vaccine only if done with fully informed consent and, even then, only if offered to the most vulnerable in our community. Other proposals have, to me, the whiff of evil about them and I will oppose them as vigorously as I have followed the pandemic so far,” he concluded.

 

RELATED:

Cdl. Burke: Forced vaccines violate ‘integrity of citizens’

No, a COVID-19 vaccine is not necessary to return life to normal

Why rushing a COVID vaccine will likely fail to provide a safe and effective immunity

‘Mandatory vaccination is madness’: American doctor

PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus

9,000 medical professionals criticize lockdowns, argue for ‘focused protection’ and return to normal life

US bishop rebukes priest over homily warning against coronavirus vaccine

Doctors lay out plan to ‘punish’ people who refuse coronavirus vaccine: ‘There is no alternative’


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-pfizer-vp-no-need-for-vaccines-the-pandemic-is-effectively-over

*Foreign missionaries prohibited from evangelizing in China: New Bill

New bill in China would prohibit foreign missionaries from evangelizing

Visitors to China would be subject to several significant restrictions regarding their religious activities.
Sat Nov 28, 2020 - 9:06 am EST


SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

BEIJING, China, November 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Foreigners will be unable to speak freely about God in China, should a new communist bill be put into law.

According to AsiaNews.it, visitors to China would be subject to several significant restrictions regarding their religious activities. A draft of the new law entitled “Foreign Religious Activities in the People’s Republic of China” was recently released by the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA). It forbids missionary work and even religious services conducted by foreigners for Chinese nationals.

“To enhance the sense of ‘independence’ and ‘autonomy’ of Chinese religions, religious activities by foreigners can only involve foreigners, even if they can, sometimes and temporarily, use local ‘temples or churches’, and ask Chinese personnel to perform religious services or sacraments (Articles 17 and 20),” AsiaNews reported.

“Foreigners are also not allowed to set up religious groups, engage in activities, or open schools, proselytise among Chinese citizens, recruit followers, or accept donations from Chinese citizens (Article 21).”

The online news magazine also reported that SARA is against any kind of foreign leadership in religions present in China, which most prominently would include the Argentina-born Roman pontiff.

“Under Article 21 (1) of the draft, a foreigner (like the Pope) may not ‘interfere in and dominate the affairs of Chinese religious groups,’” AsiaNews stated.

The proposed legislation contains 40 articles detailing the extent to which foreigners and Chinese may meet, discuss religion, and share religious materials. AsiaNews suggests that the draft treats religious foreigners in China as if they were spies.

“Chapter 4 (Articles 30-36) is impressive because it includes ‘punishments’ under the law and cites laws and regulations governing religious activities and public security and anti-espionage legislation,” the news magazine wrote.

“The proposal seems informed by the view that religious activities by foreigners are part of an ‘espionage’ operation.”

Whereas SARA makes a show of respecting the religious beliefs of foreigners, it regulates their own religious services, even when they remain separate from Chinese nationals.

“Although Article 4 states: ‘China respects the freedom of religious belief of foreigners in the territory and protects the religious activities of foreigners in the territory according to the law’, every individual and group, and every activity must be subject to very strict conditions and must be verified by the Religious Affairs Office at the city, county, province, and national levels,” AsiaNews reported.

Foreign religious communities or chaplaincies for foreigners will be forced to register and wait 20 days for authorization from SARA to conduct religious activities. Oddly, they will have to register in Chinese.

Meanwhile, there will also be a cap on the amount of religious materials foreigners may bring with them into China, for example, only 10 copies of a book, video or brochure. These, too, must receive Chinese authorization. AsiaNews wrote that Article 25 stipulates that to bring the material into the country, “applicants must supply documentation explaining its content, which must not ‘endanger China’s national security’ and must not be contrary to the ‘principle of Chinese religious independence and self-management.’”

The proposed new law envisions “cultural and religious exchanges” between China and the outside world, the foreigners being invited to “conferences, courses or sermons.” However, these would have to guard their tongues and refrain from activities the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) deems “hostile to China,” and also wait for permission from SARA to attend.

“Given such restrictions and red tape, foreign religious groups will struggle to set foot in China,” AsiaNews concluded.

“Interacting with underground Christians will become impossible and illegal. Interacting with members of official Christian Churches without SARA’s monitoring will become harder.”

 David Mulroney, Canada’s Ambassador to China between 2009 and mid-2012, told LifeSiteNews that China’s xenophobic attitude towards religion is particularly noxious to Catholicism.

“China seeks to undermine the universality of religious belief and religious communities, something that strikes at the very heart of Catholicism,” Mulroney said via social media.

“The Communist Party is wary of religious beliefs that transcend national borders, particularly its own,” he continued. “That means … Catholicism, Islam and Tibetan Buddhism are deeply suspect.”

Mulroney also pointed out that China’s attitude towards global religious movements is “ironic” given its participation in international communism.

“The Party’s powerful United Front Work Department uses clandestine means to spread its Marxist gospel around the world,” the former ambassador stated.

One solution to China’s objection of the “foreign” leadership of the Pope might be the election of a Chinese cardinal to the papacy. Given the impact of a Polish pope in the 20th century struggle for freedom in Central and Eastern Europe, the election of a Chinese pope might be ideal. But Edward Pentin, author of The Next Pope, thinks this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

“A Chinese pope is possible but it would require the Pope appointing a bishop from China of considerable stature,” Pentin told LifeSiteNews via social media.

“At the moment there are just two Chinese cardinals, John Hong Ton and [Joseph] Zen Ze-kiun, both emeriti of Hong Kong, but as they’re over 80, both are unlikely to be elected."

Thus, for there to be a Chinese pope, Pope Francis would have to elevate a younger Chinese bishop to the College of Cardinals.

“[I]f he did, he’d undoubtedly choose someone on board with the Provisional Agreement and friendly to the CCP,” Pentin stated. “I don’t see such a cardinal being elected pope in a conclave, at least not at the moment.”

The draft legislation was presented shortly after the renewal of the two-year-old accord between the atheist and communist Chinese government and the Holy See in October. The terms of the accord, which allegedly allows the CCP to choose episcopal candidates, are largely unknown; the document has never been made public. However, the circumstances of religious minorities in China, including Catholics, have only worsened since the accord was signed.

Cardinal Joseph Zen, the Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong and an outspoken supporter of democracy in Hong Kong, has vigorously opposed the agreement.

  ChinaPersecution Of Christians,

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-bill-in-china-would-prohibit-foreign-missionaries-from-evangelizing