I can\u2019t claim to know 100% where the truth lies, but I want\nto share my current thought process. \nGiven that my perspective is in conflict with most media, government,\nand people that I know, this is something that I think about often, research\ndaily, and do my best to approach from a scientific, unbiased angle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I hope that \u2013 even if you don\u2019t find my arguments convincing\n\u2013 you can accept that I have both a strong scientific mind and a solid moral\ncompass and you can respect my thoughts and positions on these issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As I have written before, much of our society is in the grip\nof what I would call the religion of Progress \u2013 a faith in technology and\nindustry to solve our problems \u2013 including those problems directly created by\ntechnology and industry. I experienced\nthis directly during my time as a PhD student, when a vast majority of\nresearchers in my field studiously ignored the obvious fatal flaws that would\npreclude real-world implementation of their research, while a few courageous\nfolks \u2013 mostly nearing retirement or otherwise outside of institutional\nenvironments \u2013 were willing to address reality more honestly. Since then, I have been on the lookout for\nthese \u201cheterodox\u201d voices \u2013 those scientists willing to prioritize the pursuit\nof truth and the scientific method over a religious commitment to pursuit of\nProgress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are many topics to address here, but I would like to\nspecifically consider:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fundamentals<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Vaccine development is a process that generally requires at\nleast five years, and often up to 12 years or more. When considering vaccines using novel\ntechnologies or targeting novel pathogens, fewer than 5% of candidate vaccines\nmake it through this development process to ultimate approval. Therefore we should assume that vaccines\nrushed through development in the absence of long-term safety and effectiveness\nstudies will likely be inferior to fully-researched and evaluated\nvaccines. This doesn\u2019t mean they will definitely\nbe bad, just that we shouldn\u2019t be surprised if they fail to live up to initial\nexpectations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The current crop of vaccines, and especially the mRNA vaccines, confer a high level of short-term immunity against symptomatic and (especially) severe Covid-19.\u00a0 Data are less clear with regard to long-term immunity and protection against asymptomatic infection and spreading of the virus to others, although there is some evidence of a protective effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adverse Effects<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is well-accepted that these vaccines have a higher level of adverse effects than any other vaccines in common use \u2013 to the point that it is common practice to take a day off of work after getting the second shot.\u00a0 More significant effects \u2013 up to and including lasting disability and death \u2013 have been not infrequently recorded.\u00a0 In the absence of an ongoing scientific study tracking vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts (which does not exist), these can all be written off as anecdotal and probably unrelated to the vaccine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System exists to document adverse reactions to vaccines.\u00a0 In a typical year there are fewer than 500 deaths reported following administration of all vaccines.\u00a0 This year, so far, the total stands at 11,405 deaths reported following the Covid vaccines alone (https:\/\/www.openvaers.com\/covid-data<\/a>).\u00a0 This number is frequently \u201cdebunked\u201d based on the fact that there is no proven link between vaccination and death, and indeed some of the reported deaths are almost certainly coincidence.\u00a0 That said, the magnitude of increase is a red flag worthy of investigation.\u00a0 In addition to the deaths a large number of hospitalizations (36,000), heart attacks (4400), and urgent care visits (62,000) have been reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is also a large and growing community of vaccine-injured people online, seeking greater recognition for their symptoms and experiences.\u00a0 Perhaps unfortunately they have only been able to attract attention from conservative-leaning politicians and media, which has paradoxically reduced their credibility in more liberal circles.\u00a0 Facebook and Instagram have repeatedly removed groups set up for sharing side effects and adverse reactions.\u00a0 Most of these people report that their doctors refuse to accept that their symptoms are vaccine-related, despite the fact that they began shortly after vaccination in otherwise-healthy people and that they group into common syndromes.\u00a0 Most doctors are also reluctant to report their patients’ experiences to VAERS, which leads to the possibility that the VAERS numbers are a significant undercount.\u00a0 For some examples of personal experiences, see https:\/\/www.c19vaxreactions.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, it is also fair to look at these numbers in\ncomparison to 625,000 Covid deaths. It\nis quite likely that \u2013 at least for vulnerable groups and people above a\ncertain age \u2013 the vaccine carries a much lower risk than the disease. This, however, presents a messaging\nproblem. If, to use a war analogy, the\nbattle will have casualties, then it is essential that we treat those\ncasualties as heroes rather than ignoring them, denying their very real suffering,\nand sweeping them under the rug. To\ndate, our treatment of those suffering long-term effects from the vaccines has\nbeen more akin to our unfortunate societal abandonment of injured veterans\nreturning from Iraq and Afghanistan than to the hero\u2019s welcome given to injured\nsoldiers returning from World War II. Speaking\npersonally, I would be much more willing to take a personal risk to potentially\nbenefit the whole of society if I knew that society would honor and take care\nof me if I were injured. In the current\nsituation \u2013 in which vaccine manufacturers are legally protected from liability\nand doctors are unwilling to acknowledge real vaccine reactions \u2013 I don\u2019t have\nthat assurance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biotoxic Spike\nProtein<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Much of the damage caused by Covid appears to be connected\nto the biotoxic effect of the spike protein on vascular tissues, as opposed to\nbeing caused by virus-mediated cell death or the human immune response. Researchers at the Salk Institute recently\nconfirmed this effect by injecting inert nanoparticles covered in spike protein\ninto animal models and noting significant tissue damage in response. This raises concern with regard to\nspike-protein-based vaccines. In theory,\nif the spike protein is limited to the muscle where it is injected, this risk\nshould be minimal. However, very limited\nbiodistribution studies were carried out, and those that were are concerning,\nshowing the vaccine nanoparticles and resultant spike protein expression spread\nthroughout the body and concentrated in certain organs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I have also not seen a comparison of the level of spike\nprotein expression following vaccination vs. that experienced in the sort of\nmild Covid infection that is the most common manifestation of the disease. It is often asserted that the disease causes\nlasting damage while the vaccine does not; however I have yet to see conclusive\nscience to back up this claim, and I have read plenty of personal accounts of\nlong-Covid-like syndromes following vaccination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Duration of Immunity<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cGenetic vaccines\u201d \u2013 in which the human body produces a\nviral protein to generate an immune response \u2013 are significantly different from\nconventional vaccines in which the body is exposed to complete but\nnon-infectious versions of the pathogen. \nOne of the risks is that a full immune response \u2013 including both\nshort-term production of antibodies and long-term establishment of \u201cmemory\u201d T\nand B cells \u2013 may not be achieved. There\nis already some concerning evidence in this direction from Israel, the first\ncountry to carry out mass vaccination. \nThose vaccinated prior to late February are currently twice as likely to\ncatch Covid as those vaccinated later, after correcting for age and other\nfactors. https:\/\/www.timesofisrael.com\/hmo-those-who-inoculated-early-twice-as-likely-to-catch-covid-as-later-adopters\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is concerning because if the vaccines require boosters\nevery six months, the overall rate of adverse effects will likely be much\nhigher, and there will also be a risk of cumulative effects following\nre-administration of the same or a closely related vaccine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vaccine-resistant\nMutations<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most common arguments for mass vaccination is\nthat it will reduce the ability of the virus to evolve vaccine-resistant mutations. This could be true, but it is also worth\nconsidering the opposite hypothesis: \nthat mass deployment of a vaccine in the midst of a global pandemic\ncould easily generate<\/em>\nvaccine-resistant mutations, in a manner akin to the development of antibiotic-resistance\nfollowing widespread use of antibiotics. \nOne prominent voice giving this warning is Dutch vaccine researcher\nGeert Vanden Bossche, who has immaculate credentials in this regard: https:\/\/www.geertvandenbossche.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n If we are going to use this argument to advocate for mass vaccination, we should first be sure that it is actually scientifically valid.\u00a0 It is quite possible that a more limited rollout targeting vulnerable groups and healthcare workers might actually help to slow the development of vaccine-resistant mutations, when compared to a population-wide vaccination campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Anti-vax Buzzsaw<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cbuzzsaw\u201d is a concept developed by Dr. Bret Weinstein,\nin his analysis of the breakdown in dialogue in modern society. A buzzsaw, in this context, is a term that\nencompasses a group of people regarded as bad or unworthy of respect, and that\ncan be used as a weapon to discredit more reasonable views. One example is the way that \u201cracist\u201d has been\ndefined as KKK-level bigotry but has been expanded at will to include anyone\nwho questions the importance of black squares on Instagram, or who has ever\nused the N word in any context at any age. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n It has been clear to me, over the past decade, that \u201canti-vax\u201d\nhas been groomed for use as a buzzsaw. Those\nwho opposed standard vaccinations \u2013 many for rather hokey reasons \u2013 were increasingly\nsmeared, vilified, and legally targeted in an effort to shore up childhood\nvaccination rates. The phrase anti-vax\nis now a ready bad-person category to be lobbed at anyone who hesitates to\naccept the Covid vaccines, or even those who oppose giving them to children who\nare at very low risk from Covid. \nImportantly, labeling someone as anti-vax says nothing at all about the\nvalidity of their argument, the truth of their claims, the reality of their\nlived experience of vaccine injury, or the integrity of their character. It saddens me greatly that within the\nmainstream media it seems to be sufficient to simply use that label to discredit\nopposing views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Debasement of Dialogue<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Every mainstream media article I read these days on the\nvaccination issue says a lot about Republicans and conservative strategy and\ndisinformation, as if the only reason one might have to question the Covid\nvaccines is a childish opposition to Democratic leadership and the Biden administration,\nor a lingering loyalty to Trump. And I\nwill say this for certain. Anyone who\nrefuses to be vaccinated because they are a Republican is stupid, but so is\nanyone who believes the vaccines are totally safe and ought be mandated simply because\nthey are a Democrat and stand behind President Biden. As I occasionally check out conservative\nmedia, I can say that much of the vaccine-questioning coverage is indeed\npolitical, but it also covers very real concerns and case studies regarding\nsevere adverse effects, the ethics of vaccinating young children, possible\nwithholding of informed consent regarding risks, and the moral dimensions of\nmandating an emergency-authorized vaccine for which the full risk profile is\nnot yet understood. The response from\nthe left is simply to brush all of this aside as political misinformation, with\nno substantive engagement with the issues. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n An environment in which truth is more political than\nscientific is a dangerous environment in which to encounter true uncertainty\nand potential risk. We must ask ourselves: exactly how many deaths or adverse effects\nwould need to occur before a medical, political, and media establishment that\nis committed to the safe vaccine narrative would begin to pay attention? <\/p>\n\n\n\n My current thoughts<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I made a commitment early on that I would not make a\ndecision regarding vaccination for myself until a year had passed. I very nearly reneged on that commitment back\nin May, when all of my friends were getting their shots, but then the J&J\nwas paused for clotting concerns the day after I decided I would probably get\nthat one, which served as a reminder that there are still too many unknowns and\nsolidified my commitment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On a societal level, I am moderately confident that the\nbenefits of vaccination exceed the risks for anyone at high risk of severe\nCovid-19. I am much less confident that\nthis is true for lower-risk groups, and I strongly suspect that it is false for\nchildren under age 18. Even though long-Covid is a real concern and there can\nbe lingering effects, I feel that we collectively continue to vastly\noverestimate the risk of the virus to ourselves and our communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At present I am leaning toward remaining unvaccinated given\nemerging science regarding limited duration of immunity, biodistribution of the\nvaccine, and biotoxic effects of the spike protein. I will still wait until at least\nNovember-December to make a decision. Should\nthe Novavax vaccine be approved I would be more willing to take that one, as it\nis based on injected spike-containing particles rather than genetic\ninstructions for my own cells to produce the spike, and thereby likely to be\nmore dose- and distribution-regulated. \nBut it still contains the spike protein, and it has accordingly been\nlinked to some of the same heart complications in trials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The current campaign to incentivize vaccinations and shame\nthose who are choosing not be vaccinated is, if anything, hardening my position\nfor the moment. None of that rhetoric\ncontains any of the science which would inform my decision, and it also\ncontains inherent contradictions (such as recommending vaccinations for\npreviously-infected people when real-world studies indicate strong and lasting\nnatural immunity) which lead me to believe that it is more ideology-driven than\nscience-driven. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I do not judge anyone who chooses the vaccines for\nthemselves, and I encourage everyone to make a decision based on their own\nweighing of the risks and benefits. In\nturn, I would ask others to resist the pressure to divide the world into \u201cgood\u201d\nvaccinated people and \u201cbad\u201d unvaccinated people, aided by preexisting political\nfault lines. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We will know in a year or two whether the vaccines were a\ngood idea. I certainly hope that the\nmore serious concerns are unfounded. \nUntil then, let us please not find one more reason to sow distrust,\njudgment, and division among ourselves.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I can\u2019t claim to know 100% where the truth lies, but I want to share my current thought process. Given that my perspective is in conflict with most media, government, and people that I know, this is something that I … Continue reading