Why My Conscience Will Not Allow Me To Take a Covid Vaccine: Part 3
Evidence that the vaccines are contributing to the spread of covid-19.
I recently published two articles explaining why I cannot in good conscience take any of the available covid vaccines. In part 1, I discussed the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the testing or production of the vaccines. In part 2, I explained several ethical concerns I have with the mRNA and DNA technologies. In this part, I will review evidence that shows the vaccines may actually be contributing to the spread of covid as well as the rise of new variants. If the vaccines are indeed having the opposite effect of slowing or stopping the spread, this is yet one more reason I cannot in good conscience take the vaccine.
What about “Stopping the Spread”?
Before addressing the evidence that shows vaccines may be contributing to the spread, it’s important to address one of the chief reasons many people decided to take the vaccine. In the early months of 2021, statements from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and other officials and media personalities hailed the vaccines as the final solution for stopping the spread and bringing the pandemic to an end (see here and here for brief video compilations of many officials who claimed the vaccines would stop the spread). Based on this premise (that vaccines would stop the spread), some claimed taking the vaccine would be the most loving thing we could do for our neighbors, as a vaccine that stops transmission would mean we could not spread the virus to others. For example, the following argument from three leading Christian ethicists was based on the premise that the vaccines stop the spread of covid-19:
It is not possible to properly love a person and to act unnecessarily to jeopardize their health. By this, we mean displaying wanton disregard for the health of others. If by the minimal burden of wearing a mask, we can potentially protect others from grave illness, then it seems we have a moral obligation to wear a mask. The same can be said for COVID-19 vaccinations. If by being vaccinated we can protect others from illness, then we have a corresponding obligation, given our Lord’s command to love neighbors, to be vaccinated. Vaccinations not only protect me, but also protect other vulnerable members of society. At the same time, we acknowledge that the call to love one’s neighbor does not justify—carte blanche—all action taken to lessen transmission or the forfeiture of one’s own conscience (emphasis added).
I wholeheartedly agree that Christians have an obligation to love our neighbors, but as I explained in an article on masks last summer, this does not automatically mean that wearing a mask (or taking a vaccine) is the best or only way to love our neighbor:
All believers are called to love our neighbors, and there are no exceptions to this command. But while the command itself is clear and rightly labeled as essential, the specific outworking of this command may vary depending on the situation and may look different from person to person. In the case of masks, because Scripture does not give any direct command, deciding whether to wear one becomes a matter of conscience (cf. Rom. 14). . . .
All believers should agree with [the] call to love our neighbors, and choosing to take action (in this case wearing a mask) to protect our neighbors is rooted in God-honoring self-sacrifice. But concluding that wearing a mask is the best (or only) way to love one’s neighbor rests on several assumptions: (1) that masks have been proven to be effective in slowing the spread of COVID-19, (2) that there is no risk of increased infection or other harm from wearing masks, and (3) that there are no alternative measures that would be equally or more loving.
As is the case with those who argue that masks are the best (or only) way to love our neighbors, the claim that Christians have a moral obligation to be vaccinated out of love for others also rests on several assumptions, the most important of which is that the vaccine actually protects others by preventing the spread of the virus. Like every argument for or against the use of these vaccines (or other measures to combat covid), we must ensure that the underlying premises of the argument are correct. So what does the evidence show?
The covid vaccines don’t stop transmission (i.e., they don’t stop the spread)
While many public health officials continue to claim that vaccines are the only way to achieve herd immunity (and thus end the pandemic), it became increasingly clear by the end of the summer (2021) that vaccines do not stop transmission. In fact, the failure of vaccines to stop the spread grew so apparent by early August that even CDC Director Rochelle Walensky took to national TV to admit it:
Our vaccines are working exceptionally well, they continue to work well for Delta with regard to severe illness and death, they prevent it, but what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission (emphasis added).
In the months following Dr. Walensky’s candid admission, even more evidence has emerged that the vaccines cannot stop the spread. Consider the following examples:
The tiny territory of Gibraltar has announced a raft of new health updates following a “drastic rise” in Covid-19 cases.
The British-owned peninsula, often referred to as “the most vaccinated place on Earth” for having inoculated the entirety of its adult population, has seen case numbers steadily rise throughout the months of October and November (emphasis added).
(2) USS Milwaukee
USS Milwaukee (LCS 5), a Freedom variant littoral combat ship, remains in port as some Sailors test positive for COVID-19. The crew is 100% immunized and all COVID-19 positive Sailors are isolated on board and away from other crew members (emphasis added).
Eight people are dead and just shy of 100 more have become infected with COVID-19 after an outbreak at a Connecticut nursing home.
The outbreak at the Geer Village Senior Community, a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Canaan, started around the beginning of October when the nursing home was reporting three positive COVID-19 cases.
Now, eight residents have died, and 67 residents and 22 staff members caught COVID-19 sometime in the past month and a half. Nursing home officials said 48 residents and 21 staff members have recovered from the virus.
Of the 89 total infections, 87 people were fully vaccinated, the nursing home said (emphasis added).
All NHL team facilities will be closed from Wednesday through Saturday as the league tries to weather several COVID-19 outbreaks. Players are set to report back to team facilities on Sunday and resume daily testing. The NHL schedule is set to resume on Dec. 27. . . .
It has been a challenging week for the NHL, as 11 teams have suspended operations and the league postponed all games through Christmas that involved cross-border travel between Canada and the U.S. More than 15% of the league's players were in virus protocols as of Monday night. . . .
There is only one player who is not vaccinated in the NHL: Detroit Red Wings forward Tyler Bertuzzi. The NHL and NHLPA have recommended the vaccine booster to players but do not have plans to mandate it this season (emphasis added).
Cornell University reported 903 cases of Covid-19 among students between December 7-13, and a “very high percentage” of them are Omicron variant cases in fully vaccinated individuals, according to university officials. . . .
“Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot,” said Vice President for University Relations Joel Malina in a statement.
As of result, the school has decided to shut down its Ithaca, New York, campus, where it has about 25,600 students. Cornell's overall vaccination rate among students is 99%. . . .
The school has a mandatory vaccination policy for students, with exemptions for religious or medical issues. All unvaccinated students and many vaccinated students are required to take part in surveillance testing. Mask wearing indoors is compulsory (emphasis added).
Nearly four dozen people aboard Royal Caribbean’s Symphony of the Seas cruise ship tested positive for COVID-19 before the vessel docked in Miami on Saturday evening.
According to the USA Today, all passengers aged 12 and older were required to be fully vaccinated and to test negative to board the Symphony of the Seas, which departed from Miami on Dec. 11. Children ineligible for the vaccine were also required to test negative for the virus before boarding (emphasis added).
(7) Next, consider the following document from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms that highlights how the countries and states with the highest vaccination rates have not conquered the virus but are instead struggling with ongoing surges, some of which are worse than at any other point in the pandemic:
(8) Finally, consider the Harvard study discussed on this Substack:
This study was recently published in the European Journal of Epidemiology. The entire article is worth reading in full, but especially consider the following excerpt:
At the country-level, there appears to be no discernible relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.
While the examples above show how covid cases have surged in places with very high vaccination rates, many countries with very low vaccination rates have not faced such a rise in cases. In fact, some of the nations with the lowest vaccination rates also have the lowest case rates per capita. To be fair, this type of correlation does not automatically mean that lower vaccination rates are causing lower rates of covid, nor do higher vaccination rates automatically mean that the vaccines are causing covid cases to spike. You can absolutely have correlation without causation; however, you cannot show causation if there is not any correlation. What does this mean? The vaccines are clearly not causing lower case rates; they are clearly not stopping the spread. But could they actually be contributing to higher case rates? Let’s look at more evidence and data.
How could vaccines contribute to the spread?
It may seem counterintuitive that vaccines could in any way contribute to the spread of a viral illness. Perhaps proponents of the vaccines would be willing to admit that they have not stopped transmission as initially promised, but how could it be possible that the vaccines are making things worse? Again, most people (myself included) may have assumed that while a vaccine may fail to offer protection from infection or illness, surely it would not have a negative impact on the spread of the virus. However, scientists have known for at least two decades that imperfect vaccines (i.e., vaccines that do not strop transmission) can actually lead to an increase in viral spread as well as an increase in vaccine-induced variants. Consider the following evidence:
(1) “Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens,” PLOS Biology (2015).
There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (“hotter”) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so “hot” that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves. Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease (emphasis added).
(2) “Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence,” Nature (2001).
We studied the potential impact of different types of imperfect vaccines on the evolution of pathogen virulence (induced host mortality) and the consequences for public health. Here we show that vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity diminish selection against virulent pathogens. The subsequent evolution leads to higher levels of intrinsic virulence and hence to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals. This evolution can erode any population-wide benefits such that overall mortality rates are unaffected, or even increase, with the level of vaccination coverage. In contrast, infection-blocking vaccines induce no such effects, and can even select for lower virulence. These findings have policy implications for the development and use of vaccines that are not expected to provide full immunity, such as candidate vaccines for malaria (emphasis added).
(3) “Vaccine-driven virulence evolution: consequences of unbalanced reductions in mortality and transmission and implications for pertussis vaccines,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface (2019).
[S]ome vaccines do not prevent infection, but reduce disease-associated mortality and transmission. Both of these factors will alter selection pressures on pathogens and thus shape the evolution of pathogen virulence. . . . Epidemiological (burden of disease) and evolutionary (pathogen virulence) outcomes are both worse when vaccines confer smaller reductions in transmission than in mortality. Furthermore, outcomes are modulated by variability in vaccine effects, with increased variability limiting the extent of virulence evolution but in some cases preventing eradication. These findings are pertinent to current concerns about the global resurgence of pertussis and the efficacy of pertussis vaccines, as the two classes of these vaccines may reduce disease symptoms without preventing infection and differ in their ability to reduce transmission (emphasis added).
Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible [for making the disease worse]. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble.
This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”
He is more concerned about the next generation of vaccines that are being developed against diseases like HIV and malaria. People don’t naturally develop life-long immunity to these conditions after being infected, as they would against, say, mumps or measles. This makes vaccine development a tricky business, and it means that the resulting vaccines will probably leak to some extent. “This isn’t an argument against developing those vaccines, but it is an argument for ensuring that we carefully check for transmission,” says Read (emphasis added).
Reading these studies and corresponding articles should make us stop and consider whether or not the currently available covid vaccines could be contributing to the spread of covid-19 or driving the evolution of new variants. If this is indeed the case, the vaccines could actually be prolonging the pandemic. At the very least, the ongoing use of extremely leaky covid vaccines can never hope to bring about any sort of herd immunity in the population; to the contrary, continued vaccination with these vaccines could spur the evolution of more transmissible (and potentially more deadly) variants ad infinitum. This is not simply a hypothetical scenario. Remember the statement from CDC Director Walensky:
Our vaccines are working exceptionally well, they continue to work well for Delta with regard to severe illness and death, they prevent it, but what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission (emphasis added).
Dr. Walensky perfectly describes a leaky vaccine—it purportedly reduces serious illness and death, but it does not stop transmission. In light of this admission that the vaccines do not stop transmission (along with the many examples set forth above), why have public health officials not paused to consider whether the continued use of these vaccines could be making things worse?
Are the vaccines contributing to the spread? What does the evidence show?
We are clearly dealing with non-sterilizing covid vaccines (i.e., vaccines that do not stop transmission), but is there any evidence that these leaky vaccines are in fact contributing to the spread? Consider the following:
The statistically significant and overwhelmingly positive causal impact after vaccine deployment on the dependent variables total deaths and total cases per million should be highly worrisome for policy makers. They indicate a marked increase in both COVID-19 related cases and death due directly to a vaccine deployment that was originally sold to the public as the “key to gain back our freedoms.” The effect of vaccines on total cases per million and its low positive association with total vaccinations per hundred signifies a limited impact of vaccines on lowering COVID-19 associated cases. These results should encourage local policy makers to make policy decisions based on data, not narrative, and based on local conditions, not global or national mandates. These results should also encourage policy makers to begin looking for other avenues out of the pandemic aside from mass vaccination campaigns (emphasis added).
In a country-level analysis, variation in vaccine uptake was related to the number of new cases, but not in the way you would expect if vaccines prevent transmission and reduce symptoms. . . . Since [9/10/2021], massive and clear evidence has mounted, including the contrasting patterns in Gibraltar vs. Africa. There is no way the relationships seen here should be happening. The best explanation is that the vaccine induces antibodies against the old, original SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that while the body is busy mounting antibodies against the vaccine spike protein, it is oblivious to the viral spike protein from infection.
This phenomenon is called “original antigenic sin”, and has been known in virology since the 1950’s. The vaccine may also induce a short-term immunodeficiency. Further, if thimerosal-containing influenza vaccines are given at the same time as COVID-19 vaccines, further immunodeficiency can result due to inhibition of a protein called ERAP1. I’ve provided references to this literature ad nauseum across social media.
If this is what we’re seeing, then COVID-19 vaccination must stop immediately worldwide - and a systematic program to boost the immune system in everyone - and means of early treatment that I have addressed since March 2020 - especially those popularized by the medical experts - must begin in earnest (emphasis added).
If vaccines are effective at reducing COVID-19, there should be a negative relationship between vaccination effort and COVID-19 cases. . . . If vaccines reduce the rate of transmission, or make the symptoms more mild (fewer diagnoses), we would expect a NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIP (literally a negative sign on the value of a parameter that describes the relationship, as in “-2.4”; more vaccination should lead to a stepwise decrement in COVID-19 diagnosis per unit increase in vaccination. The states with the highest vaccination uptake per capita should have the lowest number of new cases. . . . The most anyone can say about these data with reliability is that something is causing the expected relationship [of vaccines reducing cases] to fail to manifest. There is certainly no evidence in the all-states level data that vaccination contributes to a reduction in the number of new cases[, but there seems to be at least a correlation between higher vaccination rates and higher rates of infection].
Yesterday, I published a mathematical analysis that showed that the Barnstable County, Massachusetts (CDC data) supports the conclusion of negative efficacy (vaccinated people more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19). Earlier, I had published and announced in a public speech (Harrisburg) that the vaccine program had failed, in part based on my findings that the number of new cases was highest in countries with highest vaccine uptake (See article here). The Israeli and UK data showed more cases in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated, and my analysis yesterday should silence the pedestrian response “that’s because there are more people who are vaccinated”. . . .
Now a new study has found the specific mutations by which the SARS-CoV-2 lineages have escaped the vaccine. The study . . . . went well beyond mere correlation of the rise of the vaccine-resistant variants and vaccination rates. Specifically, these authors had previously predicted the precise amino acid location in the receptor binding domain (RBD) at which vaccine escape variation would likely emerge as a result of targeting the spike protein with vaccines. Now that we see those specific amino acid residue positions changing, and, importantly, changing in ways that alter infectivity, the evidence is strong that the rise in these mutations was caused by the vaccination program (emphasis added).
Finally, for those who have time, consider these additional articles and data points that show how covid vaccines are likely contributing to the spread of covid-19 (i.e., making the situation worse):
“AN URGENT WARNING: The world's most mRNA vaccinated countries now have shockingly high Covid infection rates. Hospitalizations and deaths are rising fast too. The mRNA experiment needs to stop. Immediately.”
“Covid infections and deaths SOAR after the first vaccine dose: Stunning figures from Canada show a huge spike in cases after vaccinations; to the Centers for Disease Control and the media, all these deaths are occurring in the ‘unvaccinated.’”
In England, vaccinated adults under 60 have been dying at TWICE the rate as unvaccinated adults.
Some may question the evidence I’ve outlined above, as it contradicts the persistent claims (really the narratives) of Anthony Fauci, the CDC, and others. But I would ask those who would tend to believe the prevailing narratives to carefully review the facts and data before dismissing these articles as conspiracy theories or misinformation. As I’ve explained elsewhere, many of the institutions (public health agencies, papers of record, etc.) we have traditionally trusted have not been forthcoming about the overwhelming evidence that contradicts accepted covid narratives (not just on vaccines, but on masks, lockdowns, and more). And these institutions have not simply failed to acknowledge evidence that contradicts the narrative; they have often actively suppressed such information and have even demonized those who question the official narrative on covid. Because these institutions have proven unreliable (if not completely untrustworthy), we do well to consider ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that has been approved by those in power.
If it is true, as the evidence clearly shows, that the vaccines do not stop the spread of covid-19, there is no legitimate ethical argument to be made that getting vaccinated protects our neighbors from infection. The only potential argument that could be made is that if the vaccines generally prevent serious illness and death (a big “if” when one considers the additional evidence above), then vaccination would presumably lessen the burden on hospital systems and preserve resources for others. But this premise is also questionable, as many who have been vaccinated still become seriously ill, and many of these tragically die. But even assuming the vaccine does prohibit severe illness and death in the majority of those who are vaccinated, in light of the fact that those who are vaccinated are still spreading the virus and may be driving the emergence of new variants, the net benefit to overcrowding in hospitals is marginal at best. What’s more, the continued use of leaky vaccines is arguably making things worse, as the use of such vaccines could actually perpetuate the spread instead of bringing about herd immunity.
For my part, since the evidence shows that the vaccine in no way stops or even slows the spread of the virus, I believe there is no reason on the basis of loving one’s neighbor for me to take the shot. Moreover, since the evidence shows the vaccines may actually be contributing to the spread of covid as well as the rise of new variants, higher vaccination rates will have the opposite effect of bringing about herd immunity and will thus prolong the pandemic (as incredible as that still sounds). Consequently, it would seem that choosing not to be vaccinated might be better for those around me and that contracting the virus and gaining natural immunity would be a better way to love my neighbor (I made a similar argument toward the end of this article from July 2020).
Despite my own personal convictions (and as I wrote in my other two articles), I am in no way trying to constrain the consciences of others. I would never, ever claim that the only way to love one’s neighbor is to forgo these vaccines. Rather, I am simply trying to show that those who choose not to be vaccinated out of a genuine concern that the vaccines could be contributing to the spread are not conspiracy theorists, and they are not relying on “misinformation”; to the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence on which their decisions are based. Moreover, there is not only a great deal of evidence that the vaccines are contributing to the spread of covid; there is also evidence that the vaccines are harmful in many other ways. These additional harms are yet one more reason I cannot in good conscience take any of the available covid vaccines. I will aim to explain these other harms more in the coming days.
Parts 4 and 5 (and many other articles) are scheduled to be released over the next several weeks. Subscribe for free to ensure you receive these updates!