Why I’m Choosing to Not Get Vaccinated

It is September of 2021. The highly contagious Delta variant is “surging.” According to mainstream news media, anger against “the unvaccinated” is growing. The hope of “ending the pandemic” and a “return to normalcy” is being thwarted by the “stubborn refusal” of people like me who have no plans to get vaccinated. The unvaccinated are now a majority of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The US government and many universities and businesses have implemented, or are planning to implement, compulsory vaccination. Some universities have begun kicking out unvaccinated students.

Some healthcare professionals are beside themselves as they see an already exhausted healthcare workforce now facing a new surge of sick patients who could have easily prevented hospitalization if only they had gotten vaccinated. It’s easy to understand their anger and frustration when the vaccine is widely available, free, and most importantly, “safe and effective.” I can understand how the vaccinated might see the unvaccinated as uncaring, selfish, reckless, misinformed, stubborn, irrational, or just plain stupid.

Coincidentally, as I was writing this, our President gave a speech in which he promised to mandate vaccinations to whatever degree it is in his power to do so. He had this to say to me:

My message to unvaccinated Americans is this: What more is there to wait for? What more do you need to see? We’ve made vaccinations free, safe and convenient. The vaccine is F.D.A. approved. Over 200 million Americans have gotten at least one shot. We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.

In the face of a highly contagious COVID variant that is spreading across the world, is there any good reason to refuse a vaccine that has been proven to be effective in preventing COVID hospitalizations and deaths? For me, as of today, the answer is “yes.”

My reasons for coming out as a “refuser”
I’m not particularly excited about painting a target on my back, as I expect things will get worse for vaccine refusers. I’m not writing this to change anyone’s mind. I’m writing this in the hope of fostering an atmosphere of mutual understanding. If you’re a COVID vaccine proponent, I think I’ve demonstrated that I understand your position. Now I’d like for you to understand mine.

I can tell you (and our President) exactly what information I need to see in order to change my mind. Unfortunately for us all, the scientific data that people like me need does not yet exist. There is no data on the long-term effects of the new gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.

Exasperated news reports about the unvaccinated often paint our reasons for not getting vaccinated as a mystery. Maybe we simply need our questions answered, or we need our misinformation corrected, or we need to be prodded by role models we trust, or we need stronger incentives. Some are even suggesting we need to be punished.

None of those things address the issue for me.

Right off the bat I can tell you that my reasons have nothing to do with Donald Trump, or Joe Biden, or political partisanship, or fear of my DNA being altered, or being injected with a microchip, or a tracking device, or with becoming magnetic. My reasons have nothing to do with the Chinese origins of COVID-19, zombies, or the mark of the beast. And I am not an anti-vaxxer in general. My reasons are based on scientifically informed opinion from credentialed experts in the fields of virology, immunology, and internal medicine. I’m trying to follow the science.

I invite correction in the comment section if you see any illogic, misinformation, or crazy talk in what follows.

My reasons for refusing the COVID vaccine
My reasons are pretty simple. A large number of legit scientists and medical experts share concerns about the new gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. I’m neither a scientist nor a medical professional of any sort, so the best I can do is try to carefully look at all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. I don’t think it’s possible for me (or anyone else) to know who is correct at this point, so I’m choosing to wait until more information is known. I don’t see how that is irresponsible.

There may be only a few actual facts that everyone can agree on at this point. One is that the Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and Europe’s AstraZeneca COVID vaccines are different from any previous vaccines in the history of medicine in that they do not contain attenuated pathogenic particles. Instead they deliver temporary genetic instructions to the recipient’s cells – either via messenger RNA or through a harmless adenovirus. This induces the cells to make spike proteins, which triggers the body’s immune response.

In a nutshell, I am concerned about the long-term effects of these new vaccines.

Many medical experts have expressed a concern: in the development and rollout of gene-based COVID vaccine technology, the possibility has not been excluded that the vaccines will deliver spike proteins to the bloodstream, resulting in damage to the blood vessel lining, and in eventual clotting abnormalities. Spikes will also be distributed widely throughout the body accumulating in organs in which the SARS-CoV-2 virus would not normally appear, such as the liver, spleen, ovaries, and brain. The damaging long-term effects of this could take several years to manifest.

It is a fact that post-vaccine clotting abnormalities have occurred on an international scale, so far in relatively small numbers, but to an extent that several counties stopped their vaccine rollouts for a time. At this point we don’t know if the relatively small number of confirmed vaccine related deaths and clotting abnormalities represent the full extent of vaccine side effects, or if they are a canary in the coalmine portending a future, global medical disaster.

The potential risks described by these doctors are expected to increase with each re-vaccination and with future coronavirus exposures. (See details here.)

I’m not arguing here for the correctness of this position. I don’t know if these guys are right. Honestly, I sincerely hope they are wrong because a lot of people I dearly love have taken the vaccine. But if the long term turns out to prove these docs correct, the result will be a global health crisis potentially far worse than the disease itself. Not only has research not yet ruled out these concerns, according to these doctors recent research confirms their concerns.

So I am left with this. Not getting vaccinated potentially poses a health risk, and getting vaccinated potentially poses a health risk. We are left with weighing the risks with incomplete information. Each person must decide if he or she would rather take their chances with the disease, or with the vaccine. At this point, I would rather take my chances with the disease since I am not at elevated risk.

 “But you’re ruining the recovery for everyone else”
I recognize that we’re all between a rock and a hard place here. While I understand the disgust that some vaccine proponents might feel towards me, my hesitancy is not unreasonable. If these doctors’ concerns turn out to be valid, we will be hospitalizing the vaccinated, particularly those who’ve received booster shots. Talk of a recovery will become irrelevant. 

If this does happen, (and I hope it doesn’t,) the fact that a significant percentage of healthcare workers have remained unvaccinated would then become an upside. (27% unvaccinated as of last month with 15% firmly opposed). Because, practically speaking, if people’s heads start exploding in 2 years, somebody’s gonna have to be around to care for the sick.

“But you’re enabling new and dangerous variants to develop by prolonging the pandemic”
Possibly. But I don’t see how that justifies potentially putting the worldwide population at risk by forcing healthy, low-risk people to take an experimental vaccine. Even if it were ethical to do so, it’s debatable if a vaccinated population will keep the virus from mutating as we now know that some countries are seeing a very high percentage of fully vaccinated people infected or hospitalized with COVID. If the virus is replicating even among the vaccinated, then there will be new mutations regardless.

Some even argue that a virus mutating in a vaccinated host is more likely to produce mutations that evade the vaccines. Others disagree. Who is correct? Beats me.

Furthermore, could it be an upside to the Delta surge that the millions of unvaccinated who recover will likely have developed natural immunity? Is natural immunity better and longer lasting than vaccine immunity? Probably, according to a new study from Israel. (Even so, this does not suggest that anyone should seek to get sick with COVID-19.)

But if one does get COVID, it is noteworthy that three new American studies suggest that our immune systems do recognize COVID-19 and its variants, according to the doctors cited above. This is contrary to what we were told early on, when media was reporting that the vaccine would be our only weapon against the “novel coronavirus.”

Finally, there seems to be a general agreement that as viruses mutate to become more transmissible, they tend to become less lethal. So, yay. Unless they don’t. Detractors argue that this is also not a hard and fast rule, as a virus might be just as happy to spread first and then kill you.

As an uneducated layperson, I conclude from all this that nobody knows what is going to happen.

“But it’s not fair for unvaccinated people to burden the system when they’ve chosen to reject the solution”
Regarding the gene-based vaccines, I would argue that I at least have a plausible health-based reason for my hesitancy, especially given that I only have impossibly conflicting information to go by. By contrast, most of the leading causes of death in America (of which COVID-19 is now at #7-ish) are largely “lifestyle-related diseases”: Heart disease, cancer, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and stroke to name a few. Americans are notoriously obese, sugar-addicted, sedentary, and drug dependent, and we know better.

Fortunately, we seldom hear calls for refusing to care for people whose poor choices helped to land them in the hospital. But we’re hearing it now with regard to the unvaccinated.

Yet something like 95% of those hospitalized and/or dying with COVID have at least one of these same underlying conditions. True, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are not contagious, but do we want to start down the road of choosing which sick people to care for based on whether or not we agree with their choices?

Weighing Risk and Reward

I wouldn’t say that folks who have been vaccinated are gullible guinea pigs. I wouldn’t say that folks who choose to wait are reckless hillbillies. I would say none of us has the benefit of 100% certainty with regard to what is true with this pandemic.

We are well into the vaccination campaign and there are still many unanswered questions. How is it that we are just now beginning to take the effects of the vaccine on women’s health seriously?
Why shouldn’t natural immunity count as immunity? What can one do for early treatment if one contracts COVID-19? Should we vaccinate children?

I hear that I should trust experts who are smarter and more educated than I am, and I do to a certain extent. But which experts? And regardless, stuff still has to make sense to me on a layman level. I know from experience that even smart people are spectacularly wrong sometimes. The bottom line is that I am responsible for my decisions. If I follow advice that turns out to be wrong, that’s still on me.

We are ultimately left with comparing risk. My personal decision to not get vaccinated does not mean that I think no one should get vaccinated. Further information could change my mind about getting vaccinated. What is best for the people around me must also figure into my equation.

This is true for us all. I have a friend who works with cancer patients. He doesn’t need a mandate from his employer to get vaccinated because he doesn’t want to endanger the lives of his vulnerable patients. So even though he is not at elevated risk, his care for others has compelled him get vaccinated. We should all be so considerate.

Similarly, if you are at elevated risk, the equation is different for you than for a low risk person. Because of the science, If I were 10 years older I would probably get the vaccine. If I were obese, a smoker, asthmatic, diabetic, or otherwise at risk, this would shift the equation in favor of getting myself vaccinated. It makes little sense to wait around for the science regarding long-term effects of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines if it is likely that the disease itself will kill you first.

On that cheery note, thanks for listening. I’d love to hear your respectful thoughts below.



Speaking of the future, you can now view my original children’s storybooks on Instagram, page by page! Follow me @ scottfreeman.books

Advertisement

17 comments on “Why I’m Choosing to Not Get Vaccinated

  1. Mark Silvers says:

    Hey Scott, Sounds like you have done your research and are giving wise and sound advice.
    I don’t like how the unvaccinated are being vilified and condemned. I am vaccinated am a 66 year old high school teacher in a high risk situation. How would I feel if I brought COVID home to my wife? The Lord showed me at the beginning of the whole “pandemic” that it is not about me and my opinions. As a follower of Jesus I am called to live a loving, unselfish and sacrificial life towards those whom God places in my path. By the way, today is my 10th day of isolation after testing positive for COVID last Friday. So I am thankful for God’s protection and healing in my life. I will be back in the classroom on Monday doing what I love; hanging out with teenagers, teaching art and loving Jesus out loud every day in my classroom.
    Thanks for sharing Scott!

  2. David Watkins says:

    Many of your assumptions are incorrect. Your choices of expert opinions to attend to have been faulty and their expertise dubious. Much of your claimed “impossibly conflicting information” has been clarified over the past year and a half. Many speculated risks have proven groundless, and others while true have been found to be less likely. Do not let inadequate information of the start of the pandemic and a decision made in ignorance prevent its current revision.

    • Trisha says:

      David, this reader would appreciate you providing point-by-point clarification of concerns Scott posted. A blanket statement saying, basically, “Those questions have been resolved, so don’t be ignorant” is neither helpful, nor convincing. And Scott’s main question as to what the long-term affects are simply can’t be answered yet. That is my main concern as well, especially considering that there has never been a successful corona virus vaccine yet, and this one is seemingly magically “safe and effective.” DDT was touted as that (I know that it’s a completely different thing, but… science. We “know what we know” until we find out new things down the road).

    • Thanks David. I would love to hear specifics as I honestly can’t figure out what you’re referring to in any of your assertions. I think all of my links refer to sources from 2021. None of them were from a year and a half ago. It may be that you weren’t able to see them because the hyperlink color is too close to the background color, making them hard to see. I will take this as a reminder to see if I can change the hyperlink color to something more visible.

      In particular I would like to hear about the “dubious expertise” of my cited experts. Also, It would be helpful for me to see how the “speculated risks,” I mention have been proven groundless as this goes to the heart of my hesitancy. Other than the leaky vessel/blood clotting/bleeding abnormalities (the main concern), the only other sourced risk mentioned was the NPR article on vaccine induced menstrual irregularities. This article was from last month, and the issue is widespread and just now getting attention and the research funding it deserves. So it is neither “less likely” nor “proven groundless.”

      But I do welcome specifics from you. Thx.

  3. Trisha says:

    Scott, as always, I appreciate your insights. I am also concerned with the long-term effects of the vaccine. As someone with an auto-immune disease, I also question the mechanism that “turns off” the production of the spike protein. Since my immune system doesn’t function properly, who’s to say that it will “turn off” when it’s supposed to? And I am also curious why previous infection of the virus rarely enters into the discussion. I successfully battled the virus last year, but natural immunity is rarely mentioned. Also rarely mentioned are preventative methods (Vitamin C, D, Zinc, etc.). I just wish it wasn’t “us” v. “them.” I wish people (especially the “powers that be”) would genuinely want to help protect people and help themselves and others. The best way to fight something/someone is to battle on all fronts. With all the focus on just the vaccine, I think we are missing some valuable information and a front to be fought!

    • Trisha, thanks for sharing. I feel the same way about what you’ve said – strengthening the immune system, why “us vs them”?, why doesn’t natural immunity count? why the sole focus on vaccination?

      On my FB feed I posted a testimony before the Texas senate from a Dr Peter McCullough on why we are waiting to treat COVID infection until hospitalization is required. He makes a pretty good case that the death toll would’ve been much lower if people had been treated early on rather than sent home to wait until they get worse (or better.)

      My post was getting too long so I edited out a paragraph about the news media’s coverage on COVID. I feel like a fear of creating “vaccine hesitancy” has kept them from asking questions that need to be asked. I would LOVE to see some healthy, honest debate from qualified people, rather than censorship and a one-sided narrative.

  4. David says:

    Thanks Scott . I always look forward to your thoughts and insights.

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  5. Kathryn Elder says:

    Scott, I like how you’ve sifted so much data and ideas. I generally agree with a wait-and-see approach myself. And anyone who has concerns about the vaccines should realize that these vaccines do nothing that the virus itself doesn’t do. A virus highjacks your cells to make more of itself just as gene-based vaccines do. An infection would flood your body with spike proteins more than the vaccine does, for instance. It seems to me that some people seem to be weighing getting the vaccine against not getting the virus at all. If I could be sure I wouldn’t get the virus I wouldn’t get the vaccine, of course. I already make that choice with the yellow fever vaccine, for instance. But I work in a school that has been open since the fall of 2020. I think exposure risks factor into many decisions and I’m glad that you don’t seem to feel you’re at much risk of getting the virus. That matters. 🙂 One question though and that I have for many friends who aren’t getting the vaccine: As you’ve balanced the risks of actually getting the virus, does it bother you that this isn’t a natural virus? That it appears to have been created in a Chinese lab? I hear so many analyses based on how natural viruses work and which we know quite a bit about. But this isn’t a normal, naturally occurring virus. I wonder if we really know how it was altered? I don’t think we believe the Chinese have a technology that could create a viral weapon, but do we really know? Will the virus cause effects much, much farther down the line? I don’t see people weighing that in because it wasn’t acknowledged at first. But it worries me a lot. What have you seen to alleviate these concerns? Thanks.

    • Hi Kathy – ‘hope all is well with you all!

      Thanks for taking time to share your thoughts. I only know what I’ve read, so this isn’t necessarily a disagreement – more of a “that’s not what I thought they were saying” comment. You write:

      “…these vaccines do nothing that the virus itself doesn’t do. A virus highjacks your cells to make more of itself just as gene-based vaccines do. An infection would flood your body with spike proteins more than the vaccine does, for instance.”

      1) My understanding is that the gene-based COVID vaccines instruct the cells to make spike protein only; not to replicate the entire virus.

      2) Maybe an infection would flood you body with more spike proteins, but my understanding is that the virus would generally be concentrated in you nose and throat, or if the disease progresses, in your lungs. One of the concerns of doctors4COVIDethics is that with the vaccine, spike proteins will end up in places throughout the body where they wouldn’t appear with an infection – like the blood vessel walls, liver, ovaries, brain – place where an immune response isn’t supposed to be taking place.
      If you click on the link in my post “See details here,” you can read their explanation.

      As for you question about the virus not being natural. That’s also way above my pay grade. But if you want hear an uneducated layman’s guess, I think it must not be all that different. The linked paper I just referred to also explains that there is now new research that proves that our immune systems can indeed recognize and fight the SARS CoV-2 virus. So mad scientists may have messed with the virus, but apparently they didn’t mess with it enough to make it unrecognizable to the human immune system. The paper is saying it’s not a “novel coronavirus” after all.

      • AUTHOR’S NOTE:
        My friend Kathy Elder chose to continue her conversation with me on my Facebook, but her response was important enough that I wanted to post it here as well:

        “Scott, originally I posted on your website but I’m going to continue here with three questions.
        1) Christ’s example was all about sacrifice for others. In large part, I took the vaccine and its risks as a sacrifice for my students and family and even strangers, so that I wouldn’t be the one to infect them with a nasty disease. How do you square your choice with a willingness to sacrifice for others, a willingness I know you DO indeed have? 🙂
        2) As Christians, we don’t hold tightly to this life. So much of this debate seems to reflect great fear of death. For me, the fear of being a disease vector was a stronger fear than dying because I know that to die is gain. Have you thought about whether the sources you’re reading share a fear (or not) of death similar to yours? Or are they flat-out scared in a way you’re not?
        3) Have you talked to Dr. Scott Samuelson about the technical stuff and what that doctor site says? He could answer your concerns with expertise. I can answer them with my rusty biochem degree and one-year-of-med-school knowledge but he has the info. 🙂 But I think the main question is, Would we lay down our lives for others as Christ did? Is getting a new, unknown vaccine kinda doing just that? Hmm.

        • Kathy,
          I concur with Amy Lynn Campbell.
          I don’t think this is as simple as offering to take someone’s place in the firing line, or throwing oneself on a grenade. I think it might be more like the airline stewardess says: put your oxygen mask on first before helping children and the elderly, because if you go unconscious you’re not helping anyone; in fact you become part of the problem.

          You’ve raised a PROFOUND issue; one which I might explore in a future post. For followers of Jesus, Love is the greatest commandment and the very verb that Jesus said would identify us as His followers. I believe my fellow evangelicals should take a hard look at their approach to the pandemic and ask themselves if and when freedom and personal rights took precedence over Love. I think we have to recognize that the secular world currently does not view the “Christian” response as loving. That may be a problem.

          On the other hand this business of getting labeled as “uncaring” or “hateful” is all sounding eerily familiar. “Christians” have just been thru some 12 years of being labeled “hateful” with regard to gender ideology, transgenderism, gay marriage, race, and abortion to name the big ones. I’ve blogged extensively about all of this, and I refuse to wear the “hater/racist/phobic/anti-whatever” label because it’s not true for me. I have a problem with secularists imposing their my-way-or-the-highway definition of love onto me. Disagreement does not equal hatred.

          Now we’re seeing it with the pandemic. Now the conversation stopping label is “misinformation.” Once again, contradicting the “correct narrative” justifies shaming, censorship, coercion, getting fired, getting cancelled, and other punishments. But is it misinformation if credentialed medical experts and scientists disagree with the “correct narrative”? Apparently so, from what I’m seeing.

          Of course, I recognize that many Christians are advocating the “correct narrative” as well, and I am perfectly fine with that. What I’m referring to is big government, big pharma, big tech, big academia, and big media all aligning to enforce the narrative and forbid dissent. Yes, it may be that they are correct and they are merely trying to save the world. I just want to be sure that’s what they’re doing if I’m going to participate.

          i hope it’s understandable that I have my suspicions.

  6. John Kim says:

    Scott –

    I am curious about how you approach other medical decisions.

    Personally, I am well-educated overall, but I have no particular background in medicine or biochemistry. I generally follow the advice of my personal doctor. If I have concerns about my personal doctor, I may get a second opinion – and possibly change doctors. In my case, both of my parents are medical doctors, so they will often give an additional opinion even if I don’t ask for it – and I am fine with that, but it rarely overrides my personal doctor.

    I will do a web search on what my medicine is out of curiousity. However, I have not argued against my doctor’s recommendations on the basis of web search. I may ask questions to clarify, but I cannot recall ever concluding that my Internet reading was more reliable than my personal doctor.

    As a general rule, I have concerns about people with no medical training making medical decisions on their own on the basis of reading the Internet. I feel that while it is their right to do so, it seems fraught with the potential for mistakes. Internet reporting is often misleading – both because of lack of context as well as intentional deception and selective reporting. There are hundreds of thousands of medical doctors in the world, so it is possible to find doctors with dissenting opinions against almost any prevention or treatment.

    I think patients should be curious and involved in their treatment, but they should still rely on professionals with education and experience in the field.

    • Thanks for your thoughts John,

      Ha… well when you put it that way it does sound pretty bad!

      I guess I hadn’t really thought about it in terms of “Internet reporting.” At the risk of stating the obvious, my general response would be: the fact that one is searching the internet does not in and of itself affect the quality of what is sourced. The key is to find credible and sound sources. If I pull up the US Constitution on the internet, I am still reading the US Constitution. Without the internet I’m not sure how else I would have a practical way to read from the CDC, or the NIH, NCBI, or whatever. I’m curious to know if you find any of the sources that I linked in my post to be less than credible, and if so why.

      But as to your specific question, once again it sounds as though we find ourselves in different worlds. There are a few factors that have shaped how I go about making medical decisions. I’ll share them, not by way of recommendation, but only because you asked. Perhaps you, or others, will find it interesting. Or perhaps you will find it appalling.

      First, due to my past career as a struggling fine artist, I have spent most of the past 20 years raising my family below the poverty line. Until very recently I had no health insurance. I don’t think I’ve ever had a personal physician as an adult, (though I did have very regular doctor visits during my upbringing.) When I have needed medical services, because of my financial situation I’ve had to use the community health center for low income families.

      Second, our life experiences do shape us. A number of factors have bent me toward a healthy suspicion of western medicine, the pharmaceutical industry, and institutions like the AMA and FDA. I absolutely believe these institutions all have their place. But I generally disagree with the underlying approach to health and wellness that these institutions tend to represent. Practically, this means that I instead practice a lifestyle focused on a preventative approach, including an emphasis on whole and organic food including local clean meat, exercise, building immunity, and some “alternative” health practices, assuming there is actual science behind them. I am not anti-drug, but I am definitely drug averse. I am not anti-vax, but I am not automatically on board with the new COVID gene-based vaccines just because the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry tells me they have it all figured out.

      Third, and trying to keep this brief, I will just say that my family’s experience has often borne this out. My wife’s mother was misdiagnosed for decades and told by her male physicians that her issues were psychological. She ended up dying from Lupus in her 40s. My wife’s dad spent an entire night in the hospital in cardiac arrest, despite his wife (a nurse) urging staff that something was wrong. My wife herself in our early marriage was plagued by digestive issues, constant bloating, and other weird symptoms which several doctors and more than one emergency room visit could shed no light on. So yes, she was essentially forced to do her own extensive research and self-diagnose. She is healthier today in her 50s than she was as a young woman. (Her issues were diet related, and she at times had doctors giving her advice opposite of what was needed.)

      I could go on with personal examples. I hasten to add that none of this should be taken to be anti-science, anti-medicine, or anti-technology. I’m simply seeking balance and truth, and I am for damn sure going to do my own research. I should also mention that I have had 2 surgeries in the past 15 years – one for a hernia, and one when my appendix ruptured. I am extremely grateful for western medicine and medical technology – it excels at fixing things like that. What I am opposed to is western medicine’s penchant to to treat symptoms with drugs, or remove body parts, rather than to seek to actually heal disease. In fairness, a lot of Americans clamor for this approach – they would rather take a drug than stop eating “food” that is damaging their health, for example.

      I guess you kind of pushed a button there. This is an area of keen interest for me. Regarding the vaccination campaign, there is good reason to question what’s going on. Having said that, I didn’t write this warn people because I don’t know if I’m right. The point, again, was to foster understanding and tolerance of differing opinions.

  7. You pretty much hit the nail on the head, Scott.

    One thing you hardly touched on was the alternate, inexpensive treatments for which many experts advocate and use successfully, verses the anti-alternate-treatment propaganda by those with a clear pecuniary interest in peddling patented drugs.

    “But if the long term turns out to prove these docs correct, the result will be a global health crisis potentially far worse than the disease itself. ”

    One thing’s for certain: Any future health disaster brought about by these drugs will never be attributed to the drugs by the manufactures, the government, and the MSM. If they currently make the dubious claim that ‘there is no connection’ between the vaccine and subsequent deaths and other ill side effects, then they certainly will never admit to their blundering on this issue.

    “Each person must decide if he or she would rather take their chances with the disease, or with the vaccine. ”

    This is a false dilemma for which the vaccine-hesitant shouldn’t fall. There’s no certainty that I will ever get covid (assuming I didn’t already have it and didn’t know it) and face any potential danger to my health. So the real comparison is asking if I’ll even ever get covid (which, being unvaccinated isn’t necessarily placing oneself at risk if we’re never under any conditions to acquire the disease) verses the certainty of being placed at a health risk if I willfully get the vaccine. Why knowingly endanger oneself with a dangerous drug when (1) one may never be under any conditions to acquire the disease and (2) 99+ % percent of infected people survive the disease just fine (3) if one became ill (with covid or anything else) one could simply quarantine oneself to keep others safe, and (4) even if we didn’t know we were infected, why assume we would ever be under conditions where we would infect anyone else? There are a slew of assumptions being made by those who promote covid vaccines, none of which can be said to be known to be true. They are mere assumptions.

    “But you’re ruining the recovery for everyone else”

    Let’s point out the elephant in the room: If the vaccines really work, then those who choose to be “protected” can get the vaccine and not worry about what the rest of us do. If, however, the vaccines do not work, then there’s no point in asking anyone to get vaccinated with a drug that has minimal to no efficacy.

    “I don’t think this is as simple as offering to take someone’s place in the firing line, or throwing oneself on a grenade.”

    Even if it were that simple, does the Bible command that? Jesus certainly commended life-giving sacrifice, but He never issued an imperative to set oneself on fire to keep one’s neighbor warm.

    Finally, on the topic of where the “real” science lies… There is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the natural sciences, its limits, its potential, its ethical duties, its successes and failures, and the character, behavior, and motives of those who have been and are now its practitioners. For some reason the general public has placed blind faith in anything that issues from the mouth of someone wearing a lab coat. Propositions are not de facto true merely by virtue of having been proclaimed by a scientist or consensus of scientists. Scientists are fallible humans with the same sinful tendency to lie and cheat about “research” for fame (perhaps the cover of National Geographic or a spot on the evening news), money (funding for pet projects, financial gain from patented drugs), pride (the praise of others), and power (a la Dr. Fauci). The history of science is riddled with fakes, frauds, errors, and morally abhorrent behavior. So while I’m not suggesting we assume all scientific claims are false prima facie, I’d suggest people look at such claims as they would any other claim coming from a sinful, fallible being with finite knowledge. Try to judge each claim on its own merit. That’ll require some work on our part, but all we can do is weigh whatever information we can find, render the best judgement we can in light of our Biblical duties. Sure, we might err, but it’s better than placing blind faith in mere mortals.

  8. Interesting @frankgrauillustrator

    “I don’t think this is as simple as offering to take someone’s place in the firing line, or throwing oneself on a grenade.”

    Even if it were that simple, does the Bible command that? Jesus certainly commended life-giving sacrifice, but He never issued an imperative to set oneself on fire to keep one’s neighbor warm.

Please share your thoughts...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s