COVID-19 vaccination

Response to “A Doctor Speaks – Why I Am Refusing the COVID-19 Vaccination”

30 May 2022

16.4 MINS

Editorial Note: The Daily Declaration is committed to free speech and healthy and open debate about the many issues that face our modern world. The author of this article, Kim Beazley, is a trusted and Godly contributor to the Daily Declaration. As we always do, we encourage people to do their own research and come to their own conclusions about these important matters.

~~~

Recently there was an article published in the Daily Declaration titled, “A Doctor Speaks — Why I Am Refusing the COVID-19 Vaccination”. I was surprised to see issues that range from the debatable to allegations and even fabrications, most of them long ago refuted.

Coming as these do from a medical practitioner, I believe this is cause for concern, because as Christians we should have the deepest possible desire and the strongest possible concern to see the truth prevail, because God is the Ultimate Truth. As Francis Schaeffer once said:

“Biblical Christianity is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.”

So, because our focus is centred on “living in the light of that Truth”, we should not be offended by those who correct us when we’ve been in error. An anonymous word of wisdom I recently found sums that up well:

“The people who offend you with truth do not hate you, but the people who comfort you with lies do. So if you prefer a comfortable lie over an offensive truth, then you actually hate yourself.”

Although I’m not a doctor myself, most of the reasons given and allegations made in the article in question do not really require any great level of expertise to tell fact from fiction. And as I mentioned in a previous article, I try to follow my late father-in-law’s life rule:

“It’s not what you know that counts, it’s knowing where to look.”

But let me say up front, as I agree with the first point regarding vaccine mandates (apart from front line health and aged care workers), I am certainly not seeking to tell anyone whether or not they should be vaccinated, and there was a recent article published here where I think the writer, Dr Kurtis Budden, provided a superb outline of the main issues from a Christian perspective. I must also thank Dr Budden for taking the time to recommend a few editorial suggestions, corrections and additions to my original draft.

My only concern here is with the content of the article in question, to hopefully provide clarity where there is error, and even where there is the suggestion that it is done knowingly, because just as nobody should be coerced to get vaccinated, neither should they be coerced by fear not to be vaccinated due to untruths which create a misplaced distrust in those in authority, and as the consequence of that distrust, a misplaced trust in those planting the seeds of distrust.

As Christians, we should always be prepared for the process of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17), whether we are the sharpener or the one being sharpened. Even if we’re merely onlookers, it is always the opportunity to dispassionately use wisdom and discernment free of bias or cynical scepticism.

Pro-life Concerns

The first issue raised in the article is the fact that the three vaccines most frequently used in Australia, Pfizer, Moderna and Astra-Zeneca, have all used fetal cell lines in particular stages of early testing, as the North Dakota State Government reports:

“Early in the development of mRNA vaccine technology, fetal cells were used for ‘proof of concept’ (to demonstrate how a cell could take up mRNA and produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) or to characterise the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.”

Astra-Zeneca made similar use of these cell lines in their research.

In reaching my own conclusion before I was vaccinated, I did a great deal of reading on the issue, and I found the best arguments for and against summarised at the same site, Public Discourse, the Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative Christian think tank at Princeton University:

I was satisfied to go with the view that the benefits far outweighed any lingering moral concerns, so I take the view that in this regard it’s the same as what Paul said regarding meat offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8). Of course, there are those who will take the opposite view. My sole concern here, as I said, is that both opinions have the chance to be examined properly.

But perhaps with the approval of the Novavax, which has avoided the need to make use of these cell lines, this is now resolved for those opposed to the use of fetal cell lines. It seems, at best, unwise to neglect to mention this to those concerned about the COVID vaccines on this ground, and is a serious shortcoming of the article.

Speedy Development

Next comes the claim regarding “the haste in which these vaccines have been created”. The question is a fair one, as most medications take years to develop and gain approval. Yet these were developed, trialled and approved within a year from the beginning of the pandemic.

Probably the greatest difference, though, that set these apart was the fact that there were many billions of dollars of government money made available to the researchers, amounts that they would normally not even imagine in their wildest dreams. Because of this, far larger numbers of participants from around the world were able to be enrolled in the clinical trials. For example, in the all-important Phase 3 trials, which normally involves a few thousand participants, Pfizer had over 43,000, Moderna 30,000, and Astra-Zeneca 24,000.

One of the most respected medical centres in the world, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, gives this rundown of why the vaccines were able to be successfully developed, trialled and approved so quickly:

“The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a method that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic.

China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly, so scientists could start working on vaccines.

The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps, but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster.

Vaccine projects had plenty of resources, as governments invested in research and/or paid for vaccines in advance.

Some types of COVID-19 vaccines were created using messenger RNA (mRNA), which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made.

Social media helped companies find and engage study volunteers, and many were willing to help with COVID-19 vaccine research.

Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the study volunteers who were vaccinated.

Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorisation — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred.”

Adverse Reactions

The next issue raised is that of adverse effects from the vaccines which “give great cause for concerns as to whether the medical benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks of contracting the virus itself. This is particularly so in the demographic of the young and healthy adults, of which I am included.”

There is no question that adverse effects are an issue, but they have been so rare that there is no question that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

For example, shortly after approval, there were a few people died due to a rare blood disorder (11 in Australia) which prompted authorities to restrict that vaccine to those age groups unaffected by the condition. According to the Australian Government’s Department of Health, the risk for those under 50 (the highest risk age group) is 3 per 100,00 people, while the risk of death is 1 per 1,000,000.

To give that some sort of perspective, when you compare this to an everyday activity, driving your car, in Australia in 2018, the risk of death in an accident was 4.5 per 100,000. So, would we all stop driving our cars because of the risk of death?

The other adverse effect most reported has been myocarditis and pericarditis, the risk being greatest for 12 to 17-year-old males after the second dose, that being 10.6 per 100,000.

In fact, as a review by The Lancet found, these heart issues have also been adverse effects of a number of other vaccinations commonly used today, with similar statistics:

“The overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405 272 721 vaccine doses) was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3–72·6) per million vaccine doses, and did not differ significantly between people who received COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 [10·9–30·3], 11 studies [395 361 933 doses], high certainty) and those who received non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7–293·7], 11 studies [9 910 788 doses], moderate certainty, p=0·20).

Compared with COVID-19 vaccination, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher following smallpox vaccinations (132·1 [81·3–214·6], p<0·0001) but was not significantly different after influenza vaccinations (1·3 [0·0–884·1], p=0·43) or in studies reporting on various other non-smallpox vaccinations (57·0 [1·1–3036·6], p=0·58).”

The overall risk of myopericarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is low. However, younger males have an increased incidence of myopericarditis, particularly after receiving mRNA vaccines. Nevertheless, the risks of such rare adverse events should be balanced against the risks of COVID-19 infection (including myopericarditis).”

It’s also the case that the symptoms are “usually mild, and the majority of patients have a good recovery”.

On the other hand, these heart conditions are also a symptom of COVID-19, where they are much more frequent and severe, as at least one major study reveals:

“Whilst myocarditis can be life-threatening, most vaccine-associated myocarditis events have been mild and self-limiting. The risk observed here is small and confined to the 7-day period following vaccination, whereas the lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantial.

Indeed, myocardial injury is very common in persons admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection… Moreover, evidence of myocardial injury, irrespective of whether due to myocarditis or myocardial ischemia, is associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death.”

Unnecessary?

The next point raised is that of “The Lack of Medical Necessity For COVID-19 Vaccination”. This is based solely on what the writer regards as a low infection fatality rate. But why would you make a claim that the vaccines are unnecessary when we routinely vaccinate for a disease like influenza, which has a far lower risk of mortality? Especially when we now know that these vaccines have a far higher protection against infection, even after Omicron, than the average for our seasonal “flu boosters”.

Why make mortality the only consideration? When we consider how much more virulent and contagious COVID-19 is compared to the ‘flu, what of the issue of absenteeism across the whole workforce due to so many people being ill, which has now become an issue in so many industries? Is the impact on the economy, and the subsequent impact on so many people’s lives, not worthy of consideration?

Not to mention the significant long-term health effects from COVID infection which are lessened by vaccination. As further on in his article, he cites the “timeless medical axiom”: “First, do no harm”, which is “drilled into medical students from the first day of school and continues to be re-emphasised at all levels of medical training”, why restrict “harm” to mortality?

As to the claim that they lack efficacy, such a charge is mystifying. Again, Dr Kurtis Budden in his recent article has given us a thorough examination of their overall benefits.

But worse is the claim that “A CDC study also reported that the majority of patients (53%) who were admitted to hospitals for COVID-19 like illness were fully vaccinated”, when it’s actually a study of vaccine effectiveness for people who are immunocompromised, who, according to the study cited in his footnotes “account for approximately 3% of the U.S. adult population”, and who “are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and might not acquire the same level of protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as do immunocompetent adults.”

Trial and Error

He then cites alleged “dubious practices in the trial, such as Pfizer unblinding its trial, and merging the control arm with the vaccine arm after 2 months.” But according to this journal article:

“It has been argued that only trial participants (placebo group) who would be otherwise offered the vaccine outside of the trial [i.e., high risk participants or healthcare workers (HCWs)] should be unblinded and given the vaccine, while all other participants should remain blinded.

We argue that, once proven efficacious, vaccine makers and researchers have an ethical obligation to unblind the placebo groups of COVID-19 vaccine trials and offer them vaccine, based on the four principles of medical ethics.”

That is to say, the unblinding only occurred after efficacy had been determined.

Even more mystifying is the claim that “the world has become unwittingly subject to an ongoing global phase 3 clinical trial.” As I’ve already provided documentation outlining the four phases of these trials, suffice to say that since the independent peer reviews — which are published on the completion of Phase 3, for the three main vaccines in Australia — have been published and freely available since the end of 2020, this shows the claim to be patently false:

This means that the only “ongoing global trials” are Phase 4 post-marketing surveillance:

“Not all Phase IV studies are post-marketing surveillance (PMS) studies but every PMS study is a phase IV study. Phase IV is also an important phase of drug development. In particular, the real world effectiveness of a drug as evaluated in an observational, non-interventional trial in a naturalistic setting which complements the efficacy data that emanates from a pre-marketing randomized controlled trial (RCT).

No matter how many patients are studied pre-marketing in a controlled environment, the true safety profile of a drug is characterized only by continuing safety surveillance through a spontaneous adverse event monitoring system and a post-marketing surveillance/non-interventional study.”

They then provide three reasons for Phase 4 studies:

“It is not possible to study more than a few thousand patients in clinical trials. The economics of the pharmaceutical industry does not allow for more money and time to be spent on pre-launch development than is done currently. Anymore pre-launch spending would make drugs even more expensive than they are today and render them unmarketable and also delay its reach to patients.

A lot of the additional knowledge about drugs comes from scientific, rather than commercial interest, through research done by individual workers in universities and research institutions and by groups of investigators with academic interest in the drug or in therapeutics. Generally, such studies are possible only after the drug receives regulatory approval and becomes commercially available.

Some of the new knowledge about a drug is obtained by serendipity when doctors all over the world use the drug in a wide spectrum of patients, with varied ethnicity, various underlying diseases, and a range of concomitant medication.”

These are precisely the “ongoing global trials” that the COVID-19 vaccines are going through right now until May next year, and in fact that all medications in use today have gone through post-approval.

This is what refutes his claim of a resultant “lack of long-term safety data”, as the Phase 4 post-marketing surveillance does precisely that. This also includes the claim that we cannot know if there will be adverse side effects months or even years after vaccination that will escape detection. But vaccines do not have long term effects on the body. All ingredients, including in this case the mRNA material used to alert our immune systems, are evacuated from the body within a couple of days and leave no residue. Vaccines simply do not manifest any side effects months or years after vaccination.

Stoking Fear

From this point on, the article sinks into issues that take us deeper into conspiracy theory territory, issues that simply do not hold up under the mildest scrutiny.

The first is the claim that there has been a sudden and dramatic unexplained increase in deaths among elite athletes, but this has not been shown by any actual analysis of incidents. In fact, one organisation, Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY), a British charity that funds medical research and supports families of young people affected by heart conditions, has been studying this phenomenon for years. Also, the authoritative Cardiac Research Foundation published an article refuting the claims, by interviewing cardiac specialists and major sporting franchises and governing bodies:

““I think those links are completely false information,” said Jonathan Drezner, MD (UW Medicine Center for Sports Cardiology, Seattle), editor-in-chief of the British Journal of Sports Medicine. “Many of those cases have other diagnosed conditions and even occurred before the pandemic started — so there’s nothing to this.”

Drezner works with the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research, which aims to monitor all cases of sudden cardiac arrest and death among competitive athletes from middle school up through the professional level, and he said “I am not aware of any COVID-19 vaccine-related athletic death that’s occurred.”

Even basic common sense should be sufficient to work out that if the incidence of these heart conditions is so rare in the general population, why would it be so prevalent in the physically fittest members of society?

He then cites early treatment with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. While the evidence for Ivermectin is mixed, I have read a great deal of information on this, and I am satisfied to wait for further more comprehensive trials. But this is not the case for Hydroxychloroquine. In the largest meta-analysis so far, examining dozens of trials, the researchers concluded that “treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine.”

Even if these drugs were effective, they are still treating the disease after the patient has been infected. Considering the overwhelmingly positive data for these vaccines, especially in the case of those in the community most at risk, what does “First do no harm” mean?

Finally, there’s the tangled web of information relating to the Freedom of Information case in the US in relation to hundreds of thousands of pages of detailed documents relating to Pfizer’s vaccine approval by the FDA. It needs to be noted that, contrary to the claims found in most conspiracy theories, Pfizer was not the party sued for release of these documents, as they were not in possession of them. It was the Federal agency which has authority, the Food and Drug Administration.

The doctor, in his article, made this claim: “the recent FOIA of Pfizer trial documents has shown that Pfizer has compiled a 9-page list of side effects of their vaccine. Read that again. That isn’t 9 pages describing side effects — that is a 9-page list of reported side effects. This list totals 1,291 various side effects that were reported over 3 months from 1 Dec 2020 to 28 Feb 2021.”

This is patently false, and again, coming from a medical professional, who should be familiar with such documents, is mystifying. It is patently false to take voluntary notifications to organisations like the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System as clear proof of direct causation. That’s why you see accounts like one that noted one of the adverse effects included in a report is about a child who swallowed a penny after getting the vaccine! As this article reveals:

“Anyone with internet access can add a report to the VAERS list of reports. The public access link to it expressly warns against unwarranted conclusions based on VAERS material because the list only provides a tally of unverified notes about any health event people experience after they are vaccinated.

The list itself cannot be used to prove or quantify, since all it shows is a chronological correlation, not the causal link that would be more difficult to establish. It’s the equivalent of a police precinct’s running ‘blotter’ of reports that may serve as a starting point for police work, not an endpoint.”

In relation to the claim that “These documents also revealed a shocking 1,223 fatalities in the first 3 months of vaccine roll-out”, this, too, is a matter where any doctor should know better. As Dr Gerald Evans, chair of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Queen’s University, Ontario, stated:

“… it’s ‘patently false’ for people against COVID vaccines to use one graph in one document, as proof positive the vaccine isn’t safe.

“The 1,223 deaths were actually amongst approximately 10,000,000 vaccine recipients giving an overall mortality rate of 0.01 per cent or 1 in 10,000 persons,” Dr. Evans wrote to CTV News in an email. “Most were deaths from other causes occurring in persons who happened to have been vaccinated and were not caused by the vaccine itself,” says Dr. Evans.”

There were a number of other minor issues I could have touched on, but I feel that it’s unnecessary to deal with every one of them. I’ve covered the major issues raised in the article, and that should be sufficient.

Seek Truth

As I made clear at the start, my primary motivation was due to the widespread dissemination of so much disinformation and worse among Christians on social media and elsewhere, where Christians who should, of all people, be the most discerning, and those who should be the most ready and willing to research all aspects of every claim presented to them, in practice “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17), are instead uncritically swallowing these fear-inducing fabrications and fraudulent claims, many of them the product of anti-vaccination groups.

In fact, the article under examination here turned up the same day it was published on “The Daily Declaration” on a site called “Truth Warriors”. Its “Experts” page is a ”Who’s Who” of those who have made fraudulent claims against the COVID vaccines, & all of them roundly condemned, and their claims refuted, by the worldwide medical community.

In fact, those claims have been proven to be, if anything, closer to the realm of hoax and conspiracy theory than of simple error. And as there were some articles on that site relating particularly to issues in Singapore, where this anonymous doctor hails from, then it’s not unreasonable to assume that he belongs to this organisation.

In fact, on further investigation, it turns out that “Truth Warriors” are based in Singapore and are currently under criminal investigation by the Singapore Government! This shows just how alert we all need to be in these difficult and complex times, and how important it is to keep an open mind and research every claim from all sides.

Seeds of Distrust

Underlying all of this is what these fraudulent claims evoke in others, which I mentioned at the start — those who plant seeds of doubt in relation to those in positions of authority and subsequently elevate themselves as “whistleblowers”, claiming that they risk their careers or worse, making them the only people worthy of trust.

This is right out of Satan’s playbook. In Genesis 3, when he said to Eve, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” In other words, “Is God really trustworthy?”

In this case, it’s: “Are our political leaders/medical authorities/health officials/the medical profession/anyone advocating the vaccines worthy of trust?”

Now, I’m not advocating for one minute that blind trust is what any Christian should practice, nor am I elevating these authorities to the same standard as God. But the kind of blind cynicism that is giving credence to these rumour mongers and conspiracy theorists is far worse, as it is incredibly damaging to society, and in particular our churches, due to the disunity it fosters.

Many say that the original sin was pride. But that was Lucifer’s, not ours. Humanity’s original sin was doubt in the goodness and faithfulness of God, and fear and distrust of His intentions.

This is the same blind doubt in the trustworthiness of authority I see manifesting among those who have given themselves over to believing the conspiracy theories arising from the misinformation regarding the COVID-19 vaccines, which leads down a deep and dark rabbit hole!

What it does to our witness is far worse, as I recently saw someone on Twitter note this: “If the people of God are spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation, the world has no reason to believe us when we proclaim Jesus as Lord.” That always must be the bottom line: how we represent Christ to the world. As we are instructed in 1 Peter 2:9,

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvellous light.”

So the first thing we need is to understand and live out of our status as those God has ordained as royal and holy priests in His service, fully devoted to His cause and no other. If our focus is fixed on Him, then we will not be “like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind… being… double-minded” (James 1:7-8), but we will be clear-eyed and confident in our faith, possessing true spiritual discernment and the composure of mind that is required to use our God-given rational faculties to thoroughly examine every single claim without fear or favour.

That’s why my sincerest hope is that many will read this and weigh the evidence, as Scripture entreats us to do, and realise where such conspiracy thinking has led them, and come back out of that rabbit hole to the daylight of God’s reason.

___

Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich.

SHARE >

We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.

Fake news and big-tech censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate today.

DONATE

20 Comments

  1. Carol 30 May 2022 at 9:40 pm - Reply

    Absolute drivel. You forget that many of us have a brain and live in this world experiencing those very things you deny. Do not use Christianity to justify your brainwashing

    • Kim Beazley 31 May 2022 at 10:13 am - Reply

      If indeed you have a brain, then you can feel free to show exactly where in the article I haven’t used mine, & where the 30 or so citations, many from independent peer reviewed clinical studies & authoritative medical voices, amount to “brainwashing”.

      Otherwise, all you’re offering is an irrational rant.

      • lemmiwinks 1 June 2022 at 9:15 pm - Reply

        You refuse to believe the evidence of your own eyes. The whole point of a vaccination, in spite of multiple redefinitions by the WHO and CDC, is to protect the recipient from illness and prevent transmission. Given it is an individual benefit, it should be individual choice, never mandatory, especially an experimental treatment.

        The mRNA gene therapies neither prevent infection nor transmission, as amply demonstrated by data from Israel, the UK and everywhere else with high gene therapy rates includingAustralia. No person on earth is vaccinated against sars-cov2 because no vaccine exists.

        What the mRNA injections do primarily is overtrain the individual’s immune system to respond to one part (the spike protein) of a strain (the original Wuhan alpha strain) which is no longer in circulation. This approach drove immune escape as evidenced by the many variants and the double, triple jabbed contracting sars-cov2 multiple times. Many scientists were cancelled early on for saying this.

        Your referenced articles are valueless because “the science” is so thoroughly corrupted as to be beyond use. Indeed the scientific community (along with big tech) cancelled any dissenting voices, the opposite of what true science does.

        If you want to look into it, take a look at all cause mortality in highly jabbed countries (spoiler alert, it doesn’t track sars-cov2 infections) or the vaers data in the USA, or the incidence of myocarditis or Guillain-Barré and other previously rare illnesses pre and post jabbing. The US military had some revealing data on this from their own troops.

        For me, the only good thing about the last two years was that it showed me the error of my ways in placing my faith in science (man) and brought me back to God. Possibly just in the nick of time.

        • Milo Sreck 18 June 2022 at 6:26 pm - Reply

          I wholly agree with LEMMIWINKS. Firstly, the citations you use which backed up. or influenced your stance are not excerpts from peer reviewed articles. They are purely government stats, which you can hang off the local tom cats tail, that’s all it will be worth….after all the illogical and inhumane government stories, threats and shaming….
          Here is some food for thought, if you really are open minded and critical minded :
          -In Melbourne we had many lockdowns across 2020-21. The very last lockdown was entered into because of 4 cases….into lockdown bcos of 4 cases….in a city of almost 5.1 million. Now even more important that after months and months of latest lockdown…we exited lockdown with 2000 cases. So, the logic does not have an answer here. Regardless of vax percentages….we went into that lockdown cos of 4 cases and finished lockdown with 2000. Cases and growing.
          – why were early treatments demonised ….hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were banned and doctors were threatened by loss of medical licence if prescribed for their patients. Now ATAGI in Australia used one study where subjects were given lethal high doses of hydrochloride….where the dose was given higher then ever prescribed historically for malaria. There were +30 studies and peer reviewed articles about the safety and high rate of effectiveness against covid…..so our leaders chose not to read any other article but the faked one. I cannot assume it an honest mistake….no I am a man who will not swallow obvious lies and massive corruption in the highest functions in government.
          – not once was any evidence shown or explained as to why lockdowns why the cowardly governments distanced themselves from actually imposing mandates directly, instead they forced employers and businesses to impose the unlawful rules of the vaccine inquisition.
          The Lord is good and he makes great things out of a bad oppressive situation, I saw that in my personal walk through the valley of the shadow of death and deception en mass.
          – no talk nor open discussion and debate about the covid 19 virus, or the vaccine safety and effectiveness, no topic should be off the table for discussion. The excuse that it may contribute to increasing fear and vaccine hesitancy …their8n lies the problem, do no5 treat us like mental retards who cannot read and do their own educated research. It is not for the government to take a stance that we are not smart enough so they can feed us any manure they deem fits the current narrative.
          Honestly there is no way of sugar coating what is lies deception bribes, treason then finally no justice….you can dress it in whatever costume….you can put a ring on a monkey…the monkey remains a monkey

          • Kim Beazley 16 August 2022 at 2:22 pm

            If you did read my article, then it’s obvious that you read it with blinkers on.

            First, you claim that the citations I used are not from peer reviewed papers, when the overwhelming majority of them are precisely that.

            Second, you rant on & on about lockdowns when they are irrelevant to the issues raised in the article.

            Third, you make the extraordinary claim that ” no talk nor open discussion and debate about the covid 19 virus, or the vaccine safety and effectiveness, no topic should be off the table for discussion”, yet that’s the whole point of my article, which has covered most of the points of contention raised by anti-vaxxers. So when you plead, “do no5 treat us like mental retards who cannot read and do their own educated research”, then it would first help your cause if you actually read what was addressed to you and do some actual research, which requires you to look at ALL sides of an issue, not just those that suit your own bias.

  2. Kim Beazley 2 June 2022 at 9:31 am - Reply

    “Your referenced articles are valueless because “the science” is so thoroughly corrupted as to be beyond use.”

    I have to wonder whether you even read the article, as the majority of the links & quotations are from independent peer reviewed clinical studies & meta analyses, as well as authoritative & independent medical organisations. So please feel free to identify each & every link you deem to be “corrupt”, & why. I await your reply!

    And considering my very first point was a clear cut disagreement with vaccine mandates, it appears more obvious that I’m correct to wonder, or at the least presume that you didn’t approach the article with an honest, open mind.

    After all, what more evidence is needed than the fact that even when you cite the WHO & CDC you get that wrong: “The whole point of a vaccination, in spite of multiple redefinitions by the WHO and CDC, is to protect the recipient from illness and prevent transmission.”

    Yet here’s what they actually say:-

    “COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be safe, effective and life-saving. Like all vaccines, they do not fully protect everyone who is vaccinated, and we do not yet know how well they can prevent people from transmitting the virus to others…Vaccines can stop most people from getting sick with COVID-19, but not everyone. Even after someone takes all of the recommended doses and waits a few weeks for immunity to build up, there is still a chance that they can get infected. Vaccines do not provide full (100%) protection, so ‘breakthrough infections’ – where people get the virus, despite having been fully vaccinated – will occur. (https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection)

    “COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing infection, serious illness, and death. Most people who get COVID-19 are unvaccinated. However, since vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, some people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19. An infection of a fully vaccinated person is referred to as a “vaccine breakthrough infection”…A vaccine breakthrough infection happens when a fully vaccinated person gets infected with COVID-19. People with vaccine breakthrough infections may spread COVID-19 to others.” (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html)

    In fact, it nearly screams out that you didn’t read it at all when you mention the incidence of Myocarditis, which was dealt with in great detail over several paragraphs!

    As for your claim that “No person on earth is vaccinated against sars-cov2 because no vaccine exists”, that is simply too ridiculous for words! You say that science is “corrupted”, but that’s not even remotely true. Modern science is a direct product of the Christian worldview, & as such operates under strict conditions. That’s why the clinical trials (again dealt with at length in the article you didn’t read properly) are double blind & independently monitored & peer reviewed in exactly the same way as every single medication on the chemist’s shelves. As well, the data from the Phase 4 trials, involving now over 20 billion vaccinations worldwide (again dealt with in detail – how could you miss it??) confirms the initial clinical trials.

    So the next time you’re tempted to rant about an article you’ve either not read, or read while wearing your skeptical blinkers, take my advice & think better of it.

  3. Kym in Adelaide 6 June 2022 at 5:44 pm - Reply

    Thanks for a very balanced article without emotion.
    It also reflects http://partnersinprayer.org.au/the-ethics-of-covid-19-vaccination/ this article that is from a Christian Virologist.

    • Kim Beazley 7 June 2022 at 3:20 pm - Reply

      Thanks so much, Kym (by the way, sorry that your parents couldn’t spell properly ;-)). It’s really appreciated.

      I’m also slowly working my way through you link. It’s fantastic!! A wealth of information that I now have at my fingertips!

      • Kym in Adelaide 8 June 2022 at 11:23 am - Reply

        It’s difficult for some to let go of biases/conspiracies etc. and objectively analyze so much confusing information. This is not helped by ‘authoritative sources’ putting out factually incorrect information.

        There is the fear factor being used by everyone.
        This seems to drive behavior and some buy into things without rational thinking. They then end up with conformation bias, often suffering Dunning Kruger effect etc.

        The division in the Church over this issue is the real problem.

        There are clear issues/problems with vaccines (and all medical treatments), but the numbers also show that they have been overall beneficial.

  4. Pearl 8 June 2022 at 7:58 pm - Reply

    Unbelievable…that anyone would support these toxic experimental injections after 2 years of data.
    Shocking…see FLCCC.net

    • Kim Beazley 9 June 2022 at 12:33 pm - Reply

      You didn’t even bother to read the article, did you!

  5. Daryl 13 June 2022 at 2:48 pm - Reply

    1. Your not a doctor.

    2. If it is so safe, why is all liabilty removed from the companies who make it?

    3. Now those who do not take the vaccine have fallen for Satan’s deception and lies.

    4. Those Christians who did take it, loved their neighbours. Those who don’t, don’t live their neighbour.

    5. Hence why churches divide and have separate services/ seating.

    Did you look at the ages of those involved in the original trial (noting the oldest trial partipant was in their low 60’s?

    How effective is the vaccine for people over 80? As the average age of death is 83.

    The WHO and CDA changed the definition of a vaccine in mid 2021.

    The smallpox vaccine stopped the disease from spreading. That was it’s purpose. You didn’t have a small pox vaccine every 3 months.

    Whilst you are entitled to come to your own conclusion, you need to learn to agree to disagree and stop treating those of us who have decided after evaluating the evidence to not take the vaccine that we have fallen victim to conspiracy theories and Satan’s deception.

    Please tell me, if the government really cared about me and my health, then why did they remove the liability from the makers of the vaccine? Why did they sit there and allow hundreds of thousands loose work because of mandates, who are loosing their homes and abilities to provide for their familes?

    The government had to put those restrictions in place to coerce and force people to do something they did not want to do, and then in the next breath you say we should trust them.

    Remember,Doctors used to give out cigarettes as stress relievers and all research showed there were no adverse effects and it was safe until 10 years later. When people started getting cancer.

    You took the vaccine. That’s your choice. I didn’t, that’s my choice. Please stop saying that those who didn’t are victims of Satan’s deception and misinformation.

    • Kim Beazley 14 June 2022 at 4:45 pm - Reply

      “1. Your not a doctor.”

      So what? Neither are you. And as I noted in the article (did you even read it??) “it’s not what you know, but knowing where to look that counts”, & you don’t need to be a doctor for that. That’s why I cited so many peer reviewed clinical papers, not to mention the fact that another “Canberra Declaration” writer who is a doctor proof read the article for me before publication to make sure I had my facts 100% correct.

      “2. If it is so safe, why is all liabilty removed from the companies who make it?”

      I don’t know. But I do know that here in Australia the Federal Government undertook that liability. So to say that nobody has liability would not be true. And I’m sure that if you had read my article you would have found conclusive clinical proof that they are indeed as safe as any other similar vaccine. And besides, how does the issue of liability, which was decided even before there was a single vaccine developed, have any bearing on their safety?

      “3. Now those who do not take the vaccine have fallen for Satan’s deception and lies.”

      Not what I said at all. Outlined below.

      “4. Those Christians who did take it, loved their neighbours. Those who don’t, don’t live their neighbour.

      5. Hence why churches divide and have separate services/ seating.”

      Point 4 is a straw man, & point 5 doesn’t follow from point 4.

      “Did you look at the ages of those involved in the original trial (noting the oldest trial partipant was in their low 60’s? How effective is the vaccine for people over 80? As the average age of death is 83.”

      Absolute nonsense! According to the peer review, for Pfizer 42% were over 55, ranging up to 91, & for Moderna 25% were 65+, & up to 95!

      And as this study of over 75 million in Brazil shows (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00150-2/fulltext), for the elderly above 60 it is much the same till the ’90’s, which is less, but still significant.

      “The WHO and CDA changed the definition of a vaccine in mid 2021.”

      It is actually CDC, not CDA, & it was they who changed the definition of vaccine, as https://www.king5.com/article/news/verify/coronavirus-verify/cdc-changed-vaccine-definition-more-transparent/536-03ce7891-2604-4090-b548-b1618d286834 shows:-

      “A spokesperson for the CDC said the previous definition could be interpreted to mean vaccines are 100% effective. This has never been the case for any vaccine.”

      And it was the WHO that changed the definition of herd immunity, not vaccines.

      “The smallpox vaccine stopped the disease from spreading. That was it’s purpose. You didn’t have a small pox vaccine every 3 months.”

      That’s not actually true. According to https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/7022/ :-

      “Smallpox vaccination provides full immunity for 3 to 5 years and decreasing immunity thereafter. If a person is vaccinated again later, immunity lasts even longer. Historically, the vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated.”

      It’s also worth noting the similarity in the potential for adverse effects, even leading to death:-

      “In the past, about 1,000 people for every 1 million people vaccinated for the first time experienced reactions that, while not life-threatening, were serious. These reactions included a toxic or allergic reaction at the site of the vaccination (erythema multiforme), spread of the vaccinia virus to other parts of the body and to other individuals (inadvertent inoculation), and spread of the vaccinia virus to other parts of the body through the blood (generalized vaccinia). These types of reactions may require medical attention. In the past, between 14 and 52 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated for the first time experienced potentially life-threatening reactions to the vaccine. Based on past experience, it is estimated that 1 or 2 people in 1 million who receive the vaccine may die as a result.”

      “Whilst you are entitled to come to your own conclusion, you need to learn to agree to disagree and stop treating those of us who have decided after evaluating the evidence to not take the vaccine that we have fallen victim to conspiracy theories and Satan’s deception.

      Please tell me, if the government really cared about me and my health, then why did they remove the liability from the makers of the vaccine? Why did they sit there and allow hundreds of thousands loose work because of mandates, who are loosing their homes and abilities to provide for their familes?

      The government had to put those restrictions in place to coerce and force people to do something they did not want to do, and then in the next breath you say we should trust them.”

      Again, I have to wonder if you even read my article, as I made this point VERY clear:-

      “But let me say up front, as I agree with the first point regarding vaccine mandates (apart from front line health and aged care workers), I am certainly not seeking to tell anyone whether or not they should be vaccinated,…My only concern here is with the content of the article in question,…because just as nobody should be coerced to get vaccinated, neither should they be coerced by fear not to be vaccinated due to untruths which create a misplaced distrust in those in authority, and as the consequence of that distrust, a misplaced trust in those planting the seeds of distrust.

      As Christians, we should always be prepared for the process of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17), whether we are the sharpener or the one being sharpened. Even if we’re merely onlookers, it is always the opportunity to dispassionately use wisdom and discernment free of bias or cynical scepticism.”

      “Remember,Doctors used to give out cigarettes as stress relievers and all research showed there were no adverse effects and it was safe until 10 years later. When people started getting cancer.”

      That’s a really silly comparison!

      “You took the vaccine. That’s your choice. I didn’t, that’s my choice. Please stop saying that those who didn’t are victims of Satan’s deception and misinformation.”

      I didn’t. Anywhere. What I DID say was this:-

      “Underlying all of this is what these fraudulent claims evoke in others, which I mentioned at the start — those who plant seeds of doubt in relation to those in positions of authority and subsequently elevate themselves as “whistleblowers”, claiming that they risk their careers or worse, making them the only people worthy of trust.

      This is right out of Satan’s playbook. In Genesis 3, when he said to Eve, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” In other words, “Is God really trustworthy?”

      In this case, it’s: “Are our political leaders/medical authorities/health officials/the medical profession/anyone advocating the vaccines worthy of trust?”

      So what I WAS saying had nothing to do with choosing whether or not to be vaccinated, but it had everything to do with choosing to believe the fraudsters & the quacks pushing the lies I highlighted in my article, which were the ones I found in the previous article I was responding to.

      So even though it does appear that you have read my article, it’s also abundantly clear that you read it with your cynical blinkers on, with a mind closed to the possibility that what I wrote was true. So if you put aside your cynicism & actually read it with an open mind, not to mention the large number of supporting links which are mostly authoritative clinical opinions & studies, then you will discover the truth lies exactly where I showed it does.

      So yes, you have a choice to be vaccinated or not, but you also have a choice to believe lies or truth. So perhaps if you too followed my father-in-law’s advice, & learn “where to look”, you might do better at discerning truth from lies.

  6. Daryl 17 June 2022 at 10:17 am - Reply

    Hi Kim,

    It must be a incredible feeling to know that you are right, have access to the right information and not be deceived.

    The disunity in the body of Christ is being caused by opinions like this. I haven’t seen any churches banning vaccinated or segregating them. Or excluding them from social events.

    I haven’t seen vaccinated loose their jobs due to mandates and coersion.

    I have seen plenty of Christians and church leaders justify the treatment of the unvaccinated though. I have been subject to this myself.

    According to you it is because we didn’t look in the right place for information.

    You shouldn’t have written a rebuttal piece. At 95% apparent vaccination most minds have been made up. The 5 percenters are deceived through Satan’s lies that the medical establishment and as such will end up dying and deserve it.

    Just like the Titanic was unsinkable, so the vaccines are safe and effective.

    We are deceived. Let’s talk again in 10 years…..

    • Kim Beazley 17 June 2022 at 3:27 pm - Reply

      Do you really think that I do this just to get a buzz out of being right? And why do you keep harping on at me about mandates when I have repeatedly shown my own disapproval of them?

      As for churches segregating people, I have not heard of such, & I’m sure that it’s no more common than those like you who are doggedly& cynically holding on to opinions by charlatans & bad faith operators spreading lies about the vaccines & about the integrity of our leaders.

      Anyway, why is it not equally valid to insist on segregating the unvaccinated for the sake of members of the congregation who are frail or elderly? Do you not care for “the least of these”? In fact, regardless of your reasons for not being vaccinated, why would you not actually volunteer to be segregated for their sake? In fact, isn’t this the very kind of situation Christ anticipates in Matthew 7:12, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets”?

      “Just like the Titanic was unsinkable, so the vaccines are safe and effective.”

      That’s another very silly non comparison. The “Titanic” WAS “safe and effective”, if operated correctly. So are the vaccines, & as I clearly showed, equally safe & effective as any other vaccine in use.

      “We are deceived.”

      Yes, it appears that you are, if you cling to the arguments of the doctor who wrote the original article that mine responded to.

      “Let’s talk again in 10 years.”

      Nothing will have changed. After two & a half years of the pandemic & 18 months with the vaccines, we know pretty well everything now. In fact, the more time that passes, the more the allegations of all those anti-vax charlatans can be seen for the lies they were.

      You also say that according to me “it is because we didn’t look in the right place for information”, but that’s not what I said at all. In fact, you’re correct in calling it a “rebuttal piece”, as the entire article was exclusively devoted to that purpose. In fact, right at the beginning I made that purpose abundantly clear, which also addresses your snarky opening line about me being thrilled to be right:-

      “…as Christians we should have the deepest possible desire and the strongest possible concern to see the truth prevail, because God is the Ultimate Truth. As Francis Schaeffer once said:

      “Biblical Christianity is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.”

      So, because our focus is centred on “living in the light of that Truth”, we should not be offended by those who correct us when we’ve been in error. An anonymous word of wisdom I recently found sums that up well:

      “The people who offend you with truth do not hate you, but the people who comfort you with lies do. So if you prefer a comfortable lie over an offensive truth, then you actually hate yourself.””

      So, you’re not really offended at me being correct, but in fact you’re offended at the truths presented in my article. That’s what you really should be dealing with.

    • Kim Beazley 18 June 2022 at 7:16 am - Reply

      Here’s a quote just for you:-

      “One of the most cowardly things ordinary people do is to shut their eyes to facts.”

      – C S Lewis.

  7. Joshua 29 June 2022 at 12:10 am - Reply

    Kim Beazley, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to rebut so much of the misinformation and drivel in circulation around COVID and the vaccines. It is nice to see another Christian who actually understands the science!

    • Kim Beazley 16 August 2022 at 1:37 pm - Reply

      Thanks, Joshua. I missed your comment as it came much later than the rest of the thread, & I just wanted to say that all encouragement is appreciated.

Leave A Comment

Recent Articles

  • 26 November 2022

    3.7 MINS

    International Men’s Day 2022 was marked by people all over the world on 19 November, demonstrating their support for men and boys everywhere. “I'd like to say a massive thank you and give my support to all the men who do their best each and [...]

    READ MORE
  • 25 November 2022

    5.2 MINS

    To understand the diabolical nature of the Davos deities, read this book. This is not the first book to appear in recent times critiquing the Great Reset, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and related matters. Some of these volumes I have already reviewed. But [...]

    READ MORE
  • 24 November 2022

    4.7 MINS

    With the ongoing censorship of health professionals, how can we truly trust their medical advice? I was recently accused of lying. This was a little hard to swallow, as it was over a directly referenced quote. At the same time, I found the accusation understandable. [...]

    READ MORE
  • 23 November 2022

    5.2 MINS

    These two terms sound very similar, don’t they? Nothing could be further from the truth. Today I would like to explore their differences, as well as the danger of one and the importance of the other. Critical Theory Critical theory (CT) can be traced back [...]

    READ MORE
  • 23 November 2022

    5.8 MINS

    by Ruth Burgess Is there a dark side to religious environmentalism? Between 6-18th November, the UN climate conference COP27 was held on the Sinai Peninsula in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. What may not be so well-known is that religious leaders from across the three monotheistic [...]

    READ MORE
  • 22 November 2022

    2.1 MINS

    Great Southland Revival, our latest book telling the story of Australia’s many revivals, has been sent to the printers this week! You are invited to join us for the online Prayer Launch this Wednesday, 23rd November, at 8 pm (AEDT), using this Zoom link. As [...]

    READ MORE
  • 22 November 2022

    1 MINS

    Poll determines the former US President should be allowed back on Twitter. Elon Musk announced the day before yesterday that former President Donald Trump will be allowed back on Twitter. Musk made the announcement after conducting an online poll that attracted more than 15 million [...]

    READ MORE