The Immorality of the Covid-19 Vaccination Program – Part I

vaccination, covid, vaccine, vaccinated

By Steven Smith, Alan Moy MD, and Russell Gonnering MD

A number of Church leaders and others have voiced support for individuals to reject covid-19 vaccines based on individual conscience rights.  This is good and laudable, but it is common that at the same time they encourage people to receive the vaccines as an act of charity, or something to that effect.  More concerning are the ranks of Church leaders who do not even support conscience rights.

The thesis of this series of articles is that, by any reasonable standard or precedent, the available vaccines are not safe, not effective, and not necessary.  Therefore, broadly advocating their use, and especially mandating their use, is immoral.

The world is awash in a pro-vaccine mass media campaign that is stunning in its breadth and depth.  This series of articles operates from the assumption that due to the overwhelming propaganda, most people, including the leadership of the Church, are simply uninformed as to the questionable medical nature and poor performance of the currently available vaccines, and are thus unintentionally advocating the use of these medically objectionable gene therapy products.

Obscured by the propaganda is that many physicians, scientists, and health professionals, and much of the general public, are now questioning the legitimacy of the gene therapy vaccines and the increasingly punitive and polarizing mass vaccination program.[1][2][3][4][5]  The immorality of the mass vaccination program is based on the medical facts of the gene therapy vaccines, independent of the issue that the available vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen) are either tested or produced using human fetal cells derived from abortions.  The association of genetic vaccines with abortion only adds to the immorality of the mass vaccination program.

The COVID-19 mass vaccination program is immoral first and foremost because the information necessary for adults to render informed consent to receive these COVID-19 genetic vaccines has never been provided.  Instead, the powers-that-be (government agencies, organized medicine, and media) have grossly misrepresented the safety, efficacy, and necessity of the gene therapy vaccines while suppressing critical information about the availability of safe and effective multi-drug prophylaxis and treatment regimens.  Millions have been vaccinated without a proper understanding of the risk-benefit ratio associated with COVID-19 genetic vaccines; these millions are part of a massive non-consented gene therapy experiment, and now millions more are being coerced into this experiment against their will.

We will take a detailed look at the safety, efficacy, and necessity of the gene therapy vaccines, starting with necessity in this article.  In Part II we will look at safety and efficacy.  In Part III we will take a broader look at the morality of the mass vaccination campaign.

Armed with the body of knowledge represented in this series of articles, Church leaders should desist from advocating for vaccines and instead be advocating for rights of individual autonomy and a thorough and open dialogue that addresses the risks, physical and spiritual, of the current mass vaccination campaign.

Please note: this article touches on much of the vast landscape of covid-19.  The cited references are only representative of hundreds if not thousands of similar reliable references, with new information coming to light each day that supports the positions of this series of articles.  At the same time, mass vaccination propaganda is being generated out of thin air each day – we will address this further in Part III.

About the Gene Therapy Vaccines

All current covid-19 vaccines are available in the US cause vaccine recipient cells to produce the original version of the Sars-CoV2 spike protein (Sars-CoV-2 is the virus that, in some people, causes the disease covid-19).  That version is now essentially extinct, as most of the country is currently being exposed to the Delta variant of the virus.  The vaccines cause our cells to generate the spike protein using gene therapy technology.  The novel DNA vaccines (Janssen) accomplish this with an adenovirus vector delivery system and the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) use a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery platform.  This gene therapy technology distinguishes them from all other vaccine products, including covid-19 vaccines currently in development which are based on traditional vaccine technology.  These gene therapies (or genetic) vaccines have never been used before in human populations. There are no long-term studies of these vaccines in animals or humans.  We are learning as we go – with the entire world population serving as the clinical trial.

Gene Therapy Vaccines Are Not Necessary

We start with an example of the misrepresentation that most induces covid fear – lethality.  Let’s say you’re 50-60 years old and in average health.  You have an approximately 99.8% chance of surviving covid-19.  If you make even a modest effort at taking care of yourself (light exercise and immune system supplements) your odds are even better.  And if you follow any of the proven early treatment protocols your chances of rapid and complete recovery are even better yet.  Thus, with basic self-care and early treatment, your survival is now well over 99.9%.

The necessity of the vaccines is generally anchored in three claims: (1) covid-19 is extremely lethal and caused the death of more than 600,000 people in the US; (2) there is no effective treatment for the disease; and, (3) the vaccines are necessary to stop the spread of the virus (e.g. “you get vaccinated to protect others”).

Covid-19 Is Not as Lethal as Portrayed by the Media

Regarding lethality, the actual number of covid-19 deaths is probably much less than 600,000+, and most important, would have been dramatically lower with proper prevention and early treatment.  First, there is reason to question the veracity of the 600,000+ fatality figures.  In March 2020, the CDC specifically changed the method of attributing and counting covid-19 deaths[6].  While a distinct designation for tracking covid-19 deaths is reasonable, the CDC guidance emphasizes covid-19 in a new and unique way so that the revised rules “are expected to result in covid-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”[7]  It has also been well-documented that there is much greater cost reimbursement for covid-19 designated patients.  In one notably fact-checked assessment, designating a patient with covid-19 vs influenza could increase reimbursement from $5,000 to $13,000 and up to $39,000 if the patient is placed on a ventilator[8].  At this point, it is nearly impossible to determine the number of deaths genuinely caused by covid-19, but if using the counting system that had been employed for 17 years prior to March 2020, and not incentivizing covid-19 designations, the covid-19 mortality data would be little different than any other severe flu season.  Looking at the timing of covid-19 attributed spikes in fatalities confirms elevated fatality rates in parts of the country, notably New England, but doesn’t account for a dramatic distinction between covid-19 fatalities vs influenza.  The covid-19 death count is often defended by the argument that excess deaths have increased by a similar amount; there were approximately 377,000 covid-19 death designations in 2020 and a similar number of excess deaths.  But that number of excess deaths is in range of historical variation and could be explained by factors other than covid-19; for example, in 2017 there were 401,000 excess deaths[9].  Be that as it may, we will proceed with the estimate of 600,000 deaths for simplicity.

For most people, covid-19 is not particularly lethal (little if any different than the flu).  Survival rate estimates from a detailed study in Nature are 99.997% (0-17 years), 99.95% (18-49 years), 99.6% (50-64 years) and only dropping below 98% after 78 years of age[10].  Survival estimates such as this include the vulnerable population in each group (those with obesity, diabetes, etc).  In other words, if you are a healthy person, your likelihood of surviving covid-19 is even higher than those estimates.

There is Covid Prevention and Treatment that is More Effective

Survival and fatality estimates also do not account for people receiving proper prevention and treatment.  This brings us to the second argument for the necessity of gene therapy vaccines – that there is no safe and effective alternative prevention or treatment.  In fact, there are numerous multi-drug protocols (typically featuring Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine) for both safe and effective prevention and treatment of covid-19 that have been well-documented to provide 80-90% effectiveness even among those with a serious infection.[11][12] [13] [14]

Despite these protocols, the standard of care from the CDC is to “sicken at home.”  To this day CDC recommends[15]: “Keep track of your symptoms; Stay home; Take Care of Yourself; and call you doctor if you have trouble breathing.”  There is no mention of early treatment, which is most effective in the first few days of symptoms – the period of time the CDC leaves you to just “take care of yourself.”  Most people who end up sick in the hospital could have avoided that fate by simply starting a safe and effective treatment protocol at home.  “Sicken at home” has never been a standard of care and it is unconscionable that after more than a year and a half the CDC and FDA still offer virtually no guidance on prevention or early ambulatory treatment.

And what happens if you do call your doctor after “sickening at home?”  The CDC and FDA have mounted a powerful disinformation campaign around early treatment with such proven pharmaceuticals as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin so that most doctors will do little more than wait and hope the patient doesn’t need to be hospitalized and intubated.

Necessity Misinformation Example:  Hydroxychloroquine was one of the first covid-19 therapeutics to gain prominence and, as noted above, was quickly shown to be safe and effective.  Despite this, the FDA, CDC and others have mounted a misinformation campaign against its use.  Most of the studies that are referenced to discredit hydroxychloroquine are cartoonishly irrelevant.  They either apply the drug too late in the disease cycle,[16] fail to combine it with complimentary drugs or utilize irrationally high doses[17].  An entire peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet, proclaiming the dangers of hydroxychloroquine, had to be retracted in full, because of inaccuracy and falsehoods (this is unheard of for one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals).[18]

The same irrational attacks are now being leveled against Ivermectin, which is one of the safest and most widely utilized and tested medications in history and has been shown to be a safe and effective component of early treatment.  The World Health Organization (WHO) pharmacovigilance data lists 22 deaths associated with Ivermectin and 1,531 with Aspirin[19] and the WHO lists Ivermectin as an essential anti-infective medicine[20].  Again, the FDA has launched a juvenile and irrelevant scare campaign against Ivermectin and the risks of taking horse-sized doses of the drug[21].  While the rest of the world benefits from the safety and efficacy of the drug[22], the CDC and FDA have shut down its use (along with Hydroxychloroquine) with the result that people who have full knowledge and consent of how to effectively use them to treat covid-19 no longer have access to them.

The one drug approved and most recommended by the NIH, FDA, and CDC, Remdesivir, is very expensive (over $3,000 per dose) and has been repeatedly shown to be associated with a large percentage of serious adverse events (e.g. organ damage and failure) while offering little benefit.[23] [24]

In short, had preventative and early treatment protocols been promoted by the FDA and CDC, rather than the anti-science misinformation campaign, the number of deaths would have been closer to 100,000 than 600,000.  100,000 deaths are no trivial matter, but is on par with the number of fatalities in any severe flu season and thus not cause to shut down the country and implement an ill-considered and dangerous mass vaccination program.  And again, this is starting from the 600,000+ covid fatality count, which is likely a gross overestimate.

Protocols similar to those for early treatment are also effective at treating “long covid” and post covid-19 vaccine syndrome because they share a similar mechanism of spike-protein toxicity.

It should be noted that the vaunted “95% effectiveness” of the gene therapy vaccines is compared with placebo, which is equivalent to the CDC’s “sicken at home” approach.  Had the gene therapy vaccines been compared with reasonable prevention and early treatment protocols there would be no relative benefit from the vaccines whatsoever.

Natural Immunity is the Best Way to “Protect Others”

The third justification for mass vaccination is its necessity to stop the spread of the virus and to protect others.  This will be addressed in Part II of this series where we look at vaccine efficacy, but in short, vaccinated persons are now being found to be significant vectors for disease transmission and mass vaccination is causing the rise of dominant variants, like Delta.

The best way to get covid under control and protect others is through natural immunity.  In the case of SARS-CoV-1, which had a major outbreak in 2003, there is not one well-documented instance of reinfection in someone who had recovered from a prior infection.  17 years later, a SARS-recovered person retains robust immunity[25].  SARS-CoV-2 shares 79% genetic similarity with SARS-CoV-1 and it would be reasonable to hypothesize similar robustness and durability of naturally acquired immunity.  In a recent Israeli study, out of 835,792 covid-recovered persons, there were only 72 claimed instances of reinfection[26].  It is “epidemiology 101” (and simple common sense) that naturally acquired immunity to the actual virus will be more robust than the immunity engendered from an artificially created representation of a single aspect of the virus (the spike protein).  More and more authoritative studies are bearing out this basic principle[27] [28] – it is frankly absurd that there is any controversy over the superiority of natural immunity.  There is also mounting evidence of elevated adverse effects when vaccinated after covid-19 recovery.  The large ongoing ZOE study found that those getting vaccinated after COVID-19 recovery were much more likely to experience whole body side effects (“headache, fatigue, chills and shivers, diarrhea, fever, joint or muscle pains, and feeling sick (nausea”)[29]

As of writing this article, the CDC and FDA are claiming to have a new study showing that people with natural immunity are prone to reinfection[30].  One thing that can be said after a preliminary review is that this is a desk study comparing covid database entries for a few hundred people in Kentucky.  The study appears to be based on covid-19 test results – if someone had a positive covid test it was assumed they had a full-blown covid-19 infection and thus developed natural immunity.  If later, that same person had another positive covid-19 test, it was further assumed that their already-assumed natural immunity failed to protect them.  These types of assumptions should not be based solely on covid-19 tests (which are known to return false-positive results).  Medical determination of an actual covid-19 infection should always be a clinical diagnosis – based on expert assessment of symptoms.  It is unfortunate that such a small and flawed study is being used to undermine the science of natural immunity.

In summary, gene therapy vaccines are not necessary.  People can prevent and treat covid-19 perfectly well without them and, as we’ll see in Part II of this series, without subjecting themselves to the considerable health risks that are associated with the gene therapy vaccines.

[1] Moy, Alan “COVID Vaccine Mandates, Passports are Futile  1: A Basic Understanding” https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/why-covid-vax-doesnt-work-part-1/

[2] Lawler, Phil “The Misuse of Church Authority on Vaccination” https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/misuse-church-authority-on-vaccination/

[3] Childers, Jeff “What the Church Needs to Know About Covid-19”   https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/what-the-church-needs-to-know-about-covid-19-2307dc2a111c

[4] Van Son, Gene “To Vax or Not to Vax – is the Covid Confusion Driving You Crazy?” https://catholicstand.com/to-vax-or-not-to-vax-is-the-covid-confusion-driving-you-crazy/

[5] Seneff S, Nigh J. Worse than the disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19. IJVTPR. 2021; 2 (1), 38-79. Available at: https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Boards/BOH/Meetings/2021/SENEFF~1.PDF

[6] COVID-19 Alert No. 2.  National Vital Statistics System.  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf

[7] Ealy, H., et.al. “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective” Science, Public Health  Policy, and the Law, Volume 2:4-22.   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344753727_COVID-19_Data_Collection_Comorbidity_Federal_Law_A_Historical_Retrospective

[8]Miltimore, J. “Physicians Say Hospitals Are Pressuring ER Docs to List COVID-19 on Death Certificates. Here’s Why”  https://fee.org/articles/physicians-say-hospitals-are-pressuring-er-docs-to-list-covid-19-on-death-certificates-here-s-why/

[9] Preston, S. and Vierboom, Y. “Excess Mortality in the United Sates in the 21st  Century” Proceedings of the  National Academy of Sciences https://www.pnas.org/content/118/16/e2024850118#T1

[10] O’Driscoll, M., et.al., “Age-specific mortality and immunity patterns of SARS-CoV-2”  Nature, November 2, 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0

[11] McCullough, P. et.al., “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection”, The American Journal of Medicine, August 2020.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32771461/

[12] McCullough, P. et.al., “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19),” Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, December 2020.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/

[13] Derwand, R. et. al, “COVD-19 outpatients:  early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin:  a retrospective case series study,”  International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, December 2020.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33122096/

[14] Alexander, P. et.al., “Early Multidrug Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19) and Reduced Mortality Among Nursing Home Residents.”  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8178530/

[15] “What to Do If You Are Sick,” CDC, March 2021.  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html

[16]  Cavalcanti, Alexandre, et al. “Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.” New England Journal of Medicine, July 23, 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32706953/

[17] Axfors, C., Schmitt, A.M., Janiaud, P. et al. Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Nature Communications April 15, 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33859192/

[18] Berry, A.C., et. al, “Unfavorable hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 research associated with authors having a history of political party donations,” Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, March 2021.  https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2021/2153-8174/RCM2020262.shtml

[19] VigiAccess, WHO Collaborating Center for International Drug Monitoring.  http://www.vigiaccess.org/

[20] WHO, “Model List of Essential Medicines, 2019”,  https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325771/WHO-MVP-EMP-IAU-2019.06-eng.pdf

[21] FDA, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19”  https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

[22] Kory, P. et.al, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19”, National Center for Biotechnology Information, April 2021.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34375047/

[23] Goldman, J. et.al., “Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19”  New England Journal of Medicine, November 5, 2020.   https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2015301?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

[24] Mulangu, S., et.al., “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics”  New England Journal of Medicine, December 12, 2019.   https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993

[25] Le Bert, N., et.al., “ SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls.”  Nature 584 (202).    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2550-z

[26] Rosenberg, D. “Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection?”  Israel National News, July 13, 2021.  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762

[27] Le Bert, N., et.al. “SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls.”  Nature, August 2020.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/

[28] Gazit, S., et.al., “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections.”  MedRxiv August 28, 2021.  https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

[29] ZOE Covid Study.  https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-vaccine-data-lancet, accessed 9/2/2021,

[30] Cavanaugh, A., et.al., “Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021.”  CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, August 13, 2021.  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

41 thoughts on “The Immorality of the Covid-19 Vaccination Program – Part I”

  1. Pingback: It’s Still Not an Act of Love - Catholic Stand

  2. Pingback: The Zelenko Protocol Saves Lives -

  3. Pingback: Immorality of the Covid-19 Mass Vaccination Program - Part III - Catholic Stand

  4. Steve, your article is extremely well done and well-sourced. Thank you for doing such a good job explaining and referencing the actual science. Your article is consistent with my own research about the actual severity of the disease and the existence of highly effective and extremely safe therapeutics that make the disease easily treatable for the relative few who are seriously impacted. This coronavirus obviously is no more severe than a mild flu. It is shameful that our public health agencies have become corrupted beyond comprehension.

  5. Pingback: The Immorality of the Covid-19 Mass Vaccination Program - Part II - Catholic Stand

  6. Hey guys, Time to stop arguing about the numbers, percentages, who is right or wrong. That is simply Satan working to divide, confuse and steer you away emotionally and spiritually from this one simple, clear-cut fact. The vaccine mandate IS A VIOLATION OF INFORMED CONSENT GUARANTEED THROUGH THE 1964 HELSINKI DECLARATION. Biden, (or more accurately his handlers, as he appears to be significantly cognitively disabled and was likely chosen for that very reason) is committing treason against the country. Thousands upon thousands of folks have lost their jobs/livelihoods because of him. Thousands upon thousands of folks (including my best friend) have died from the jabs he is mandating, so the blood on his and his handlers’ hands is beyond measure.

    And although Biden is allowed to receive the Eucharist, its sanctifying effects will be blocked by God, Who WILL NOT BE MOCKED!

  7. Thanks for an excellent article. I am very disappointed that Pope Francis and even Catholic bishops are advising Catholics to accept these experimental injections, which have been called a bio-weapon by some. If Covid-19 is dangerous, why have I not contracted it? I will be 77 this month. At the beginning of the “pandemic,” I ordered vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, colloidal silver, and elderberry syrup. I already had vitamin C. I was able to obtain ivermectin about a month or so ago from an animal supply store, but only use it occasionally. I am careful to take a small dose, based on my weight. These Covid injections have not been shown to prevent infection with Covid-19 or to prevent transmission, so to tell people that by getting vaccinated they are protecting others is a lie. It is claimed that the “vaccines” lessen the symptoms if a person does get Covid. Calling them vaccines is deceptive since they don’t create immunity to the disease. The vaccination programs should have been halted long ago because thousands have died after receiving the shots, and others have had severe adverse reactions. My brother-in-law’s sister’s husband had a stroke a week after receiving the shot, and now he can’t walk; my adult granddaughter’s friend had a miscarriage after the shot. I am worried about my children, granddaughters, and other relatives who have had the shots. It seems obvious to me that the vaccination campaigns as well as all the restrictions by governments are about control and maybe even depopulation. In messages to John Leary, visionary, as well as to others, Jesus Christ has warned us not to take these harmful shots.

    1. Please stop taking Ivermectin for veterinary use. Talk to your doctor, and find another solution.

      Steve Smith – do you see what your articles are doing? What spreading your lies is doing? It’s hurting people. This is what you’re culpable for, and I hope you’re happy.

  8. Steve Smith – I wish I could believe that you didn’t block my comment, but I just don’t given that you obviously have no problems with dishonesty. You claim that the mainstream data is “anecdotal” while providing anecdotes to support the conspiracy theories you’re trying to peddle.

    You claim a 99.8% survival rate for the middle ages. So far, approximately 0.2% of the US population aged 50-65 has already died from COVID. So has everyone already gotten it, or are you selling a lie?

    1. Kyle –

      The statement you’re referencing is: “. Let’s say you’re 50-60 years old and in average health. You have an approximately 99.8% chance of surviving covid-19.” And we provided a link to the study in Nature that is the basis for that statistic.

      I’ll also provide a brief response to you answers to Erica’s illuminating quesions:
      1. The CDC’s changes to Covid tracking inflate the number of covid deaths relative to how influenza deaths have been tracked for 17 years. All the CDC had to do was include a new code ID for covid to track it. Instead, they also changed the attribution standards.
      2. Our thesis is that for most people – the risks of the gene therapy vaccines outweigh their benefit – because for most people covid simply isn’t that lethal and vaccines are more harmful than generally reported.
      3. We provided data that shows overall fatalities during covid (excess mortality) is within the range of historical variation.
      4. We’ve presented data that demonstrates the effectiveness (and safety) of HCQ and IVM – you choose not to accept it.
      5. Many of our articles are peer reviewed and from “major” journals (JAMA, NEJM, etc). Not that peer review is the standard it used to be – for example the HCQ “hit piece” that had to be completely retracted from the Lancet.

      Again – we’ve provided substantial data – you have provided mostly anecdotes and personal attacks.

      I really am ready and willing to review whatever statistical data you had intended to submit.

      God bless –

      Steve

    2. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku

      This shows 118,573 deaths for ages 50-64 in the US thus far.

      https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/popest/2020-demographic-analysis-tables.html

      The excel file in this link shows the population of Americans aged 50-64 in the 2020 census was approximately 64 million.

      Do the math and that shows that almost 0.2% of the population aged 50-64 has already died from COVID. Has virtually everyone in this age bucket already had it?

    3. Dear Kyle –
      Thank you for your reply, data and questions. Very helpful.

      For the 99.8% survival rate – we quoted the data from Nature which specifically lists the 50-59 year old age group and does not reflect the error-prone stats from the CDC. That said, if we work with the CDC data for 50-64 age group, they identify survival ranging from 99.82% to 98% with a “best estimate” of 99.4% (which is probably inline with the death and population data you show below). That data includes people 60-64 years old, which skews the survival rate lower. And again, CDC will naturally skew low because the covid attribution process is biased. We’ll stay with reported 99.8% value as a reasonable estimate for our “younger” age group and discounting CDC’s biased attribution. The main point is whether you use 99.4% or 99.8% it includes all people, including those with severe comorbidities, with poor immune system health and with no early treatment. As we note – if you make even a modest effort to improve your immune health and treat a covid infection early (for which the CDC/FDA still give no meaningful guidance!), your survival rate is dramatically improved.

      Regarding your question about excess deaths – we provided a link to the National Academy of Sciences study that showed a similar number of excess deaths as recently as 2017.

      Regarding the dangers of the vaccine – that will come in Part II. Stay tuned…

      Steve

    4. Did you actually read that National Academy of Sciences study? That was showing excess deaths in comparison to European mortality, and I think you know that. That has zero to do with US excess mortality due to COVID. Stop the lies.

  9. A clarification to this statement, “The COVID-19 mass vaccination program is immoral first and foremost because the information necessary for adults to render informed consent to receive these COVID-19 genetic vaccines has never been provided.”
    Before receiving the Moderna vaccine, we were handed an 8 page booklet to read prior to receiving the vaccine that stated clearly ingredients, development, production, and known side-effects to the vaccine so we, as the Medical Providers stated, we can make an informed consent. I also did my own research with the NCBC, CDF, PAL, and colleagues at USAMRIID to make my informed consent with a well-formed conscience.
    Good article, just slightly misleading as Moderna is providing that information.

    1. Dear Dan –

      Thank you for that feedback. Especially because we are endeavoring to avoid hyperbole and misleading statements. Our point is that the inserts, when provided, are woefully vague, leave out critical data, and are read and considered by few (you are an exception).

      Take myocarditis. The insert will describe this as very rare. Which is somewhat true. “Somewhat” because for certain cohorts (especially young men) the occurrence is many times greater than baseline – and the risk is greater than the risk from covid. But that won’t show up in the insert. Nor will that be a talking point from the FDA, CDC or MSM. Instead, the MSM will find the anecdotal case a young person who dies from covid and feature a sentimental story of the parent lamenting not having their child vaccinated.

      So, we’ll maintain that the information for “informed consent” is not being provided, or is inordinately suppressed, by the authorities. But we’ll keep trying to be as careful as we can in explaining our arguments.

      Thank you again for the helpful feedback, Dan.

      God bless –

      Steve

  10. Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  11. Steven Smith, Alan Moy MD, and Russell Gonnering MD, and Erika, and Joe T, and David-Give thanks to God for sending those here who voice disagreement-inter alia, they provide the opportunity for further discussion. “2+2=4” cannot be said enough times; nor can it be said enough that our current totalitarians, a la 1984, say, and demand we believe, 2+2=5. So Deo Gratias! Anyone who would like a free copy of LITTLE LADY FULL COPY send me an email at lamonte0711@gmail.com.

    Erika re: “science,” these – links below – discuss what happens when those who want money for research morph from pure seekers of truth to servants of power and then finally to soldiers of power; e.g., General Fauci. Guy, Texas

    https://catholicstand.com/credo-scientific-dogma-part/
    https://catholicstand.com/credo-scientific-dogma-part-ii-powerism/

    Oh, and this from pre-covid pre-totalitarian times: https://the-american-catholic.com/2019/04/07/vaccines-gambling-with-your-childs-health-life/

  12. Creepy, Demented, Son of Satan, and Holy Eucharist Receiver; United States President Joe Biden, a man who has always been known as one with a third rate intellect has told us the vaccines are safe and effective.
    They are so safe and so effective that they have to be forced on entire poulations by unlawful decrees and have to supplemented with ‘boosters’ for an indefinite period.
    F

    1. David –

      You’ve hit on the progression. First it was “there will be no mandate.” Then we had to have 70% vaxed by the 4th of July. Then it was “our patience wears thin.” And now its “no getting back to normal until 97-98% are injected.” And, yes, there will be no end to the boosters – it is a biological (and political) inevitability. And the more the vaccines fail (and they are failing), the more the rhetoric grows shrill and methods tyrannical.

      God bless –

      Steve

  13. Also, my original comment was once again censored. So thanks for that Catholic Stand.

    You just keep spreading BS misinformation. Just like Church Militant, you’re doing your part to destroy the Catholic Church.

    1. Kyle, I have finally been worn down by the misinformation-spreaders. The chief editor of this site supports articles like this. She has no interest in being impartial or professional. The site has lost all its credibility with me.

      I need a medical procedure which the local hospital has delayed due to the continuing “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. So I am personally affected now, but I’m helpless to do anything about it. All my comments begging people to simply listen to scientists and medical professionals using their God-given skills, and that God has placed in positions of legitimate authority, have been ignored. Because an opthalmologist will confirm them in their ignorance.

    2. Larry, I’m in the same boat. I am sick of the lies. I’ve read some good articles on this site from time to time, but spewing this type of garbage ruins it. I agree that the site has no credibility when they put stuff like this out there.

      And I’m really sorry about your delay. That is a sad situation to be stuck in. I’m frustrated, and I’ve been lucky enough to not experience any acute needs for medical attention during the pandemic. I hope you get the treatment you need soon, and I hope nothing serious happens in the meantime while hospitals are past the point of being able to provide high quality care.

      CaptCrisis – that was a great article. It really highlights the disregard being shown for both people’s own lives and for others.

    3. Dear Kyle, Larry and Capt –

      If you have a respectful and informed objection to our analysis please state it and we can discuss (other than “Fauci says ____, and he’s the head of NIAID and you’re not”).

      Regarding the deferred treatment – I am very sorry about that, but the blame is misplaced. As we will discuss in Part 3 – most of the delay is gamesmanship by the medical establishment and mainstream media. The are willing to defer your care to force people to get the shot. Direct your ire that-aways.

      And regarding the link to “the Cut”. Where to start? How many other articles would you like to link from the Cut? It’s not exactly the voice of reliable journalism and Catholic morality. Be that as it may – I’ll respond to your article. Yes – people tragically die from covid. Just as people tragically die from all sorts of things. The propaganda media, like the Cut, pick anecdotal stories to advance a narrative. Our position is that if everyone was given access to safe and effective prevention and early treatment covid would be little different than seasonal flu – and we presented the data to back that up.

      Why don’t you see the Cut (or any other MSM) print stories like this:
      https://obits.oregonlive.com/us/obituaries/oregon/name/jessica-wilson-obituary?pid=200278331

      Or stories like the heart broken mother who’s perfectly healthy teenage son died of a heart attack soon after getting the shot? I’d link the story, but it’s already been buried so deep by the propaganda media that you can’t find it.

      And that’s why there are entire websites like this: https://1000covidstories.com/

      But you won’t find those stories in “the Cut”.

      We presented serious medical facts about a serious issue and welcome serious discussion, not the anecdotal misinformation of the MSM or the ginned up statistics of compromised public officials.

      I really do regret the your delayed care, but your blame is misplaced.

      God bless –

      Steve

    4. Steve, I meant what I said. You win. I’m not going to argue or debate or reason with people like you any more. You know how to write what looks like a scholarly article with fancy footnotes and all that, but you pick and choose your sources to build the false image you want. You’ll argue in circles against real peer-reviewed science. Whatever those in duly-appointed authority ask for, you’ll find a quack to say exactly the opposite. It’s just bizarre, and I never expected the fringes of society to fray so badly. Screwing up my ability to get necessary medical services.

      My motivation to help you is gone. I won’t be reading your future articles.

    5. Dear Kyle –
      I’ve checked and no comments have been deleted for this article.

      I invite you to resubmit your original comment – I’d be happy to look at whatever data/information you were offering.

      Steve

  14. So we should listen to a doctor who shows up with Church Militant when googled? Or an ophthalmologist? These guys are total quacks. They’re an embarrassment to the medical community.

    Ludicrous.

    1. An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor, not an optometrist or a physician. Why not wait and read parts 2 & 3?

    2. Joe:

      A physician opining outside his specialty is entitled to no deference. In fact it’s professionally irresponsible for him to do so. It would make me think twice before I even went to him with an eye problem.

    3. Dear Kyle and Capt –

      Dr. Moy and Dr. Gonnering are excellent physicians and men of deep devotion and character.

      You are engaging in the classic ad hominem attack, and it is beneath you. We’ve presented medical facts. State your objections to our analysis and we can have a respectful and illuminating discussion.

      Joe – thank you for being open minded.

      God bless –

      Steve

    4. So Biden is a reputable source, but an ophthalmologist is not? A desk-jockey doctor like Fauci is to be believed and revered over doctors literally treating patients? If you disagree with the legitimate science being discussed here, please educate us. However, if you’re just attacking the authors and their credentials with nothing more than mainstream media sound bites, you know where the close tab button is.

      Answer these questions:
      1) Did the CDC change the way deaths were counted to include more cases attributed to COVID?
      2) Are the number of deaths for 2020 or 2021 higher than the average expected deaths for those same years?
      3) Are the CDC’s own statistics bearing out that survivability of this virus is in the upper 90 percentiles for all age-ranges?
      4) Prior to 2020 and 2021 were hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin known as safe, reliable, and essential medications?
      5) Are the scientific references cited at the end of this article from respected journals with respected authors?

      I can answer all those questions, even using mainstream media/medical sources, to assert that the premise(s) in this article are true. If you’re honest, you can as well and perhaps open your eyes to the truth written between the headlines of your favorite MSM source.

      Science is never set in stone or left unquestioned. Even gravity is still technically a theory. Following the science means questioning *everything* no matter who promotes it or what emotional stories are told. Many find science intimidating and cold because it strips the issue of emotion and applies itself to seeking more and more answers despite previous answers being ‘known’.

    5. Steve Smith – I’m a statistician by trade. You blocked my comment that laid out one obvious example of how you’re either manufacturing or manipulating the data to mislead people and weave your lies.

      And you want to claim ad hominem attacks when you block my comments talking about the stats you’re manufacturing and manipulating? You can feign victimhood all you want, but you are the aggressor here. And your games of deceit are horrendous.

      Joe – I appreciate your open mind you try to bring, but I don’t need to wait for parts 2 and 3 when part 1 spreads massive lies. If I read part 1 of a three part series that stated 2+2=8, the white race is inherently better than all other races, and Jews are evil, I wouldn’t need to wait for parts 2 and 3 to make a judgement. This is egregious, and I don’t need parts 2 and 3 to tell that. My assumption is that parts 2 and 3 will be equally egregious. I hope I’m surprised.

      And finally, CaptCrisis is correct. It is wrong to use your designations outside of your area of expertise. I have designations, and I make sure I only use them in my areas of expertise. An epidemiologist is very different from an eye doctor. There is a reason I would not go to an epidemiologist for an eye problem, or a podiatrist for a heart issue. This guy should not be putting his MD behind his quack claims about vaccines and pandemics.

    6. Erika –

      1. Yes, they did. And it was normal and justified. The changes improved the accuracy of our counting. We don’t always get things 100% correct on the first try, and we made an improvement.
      2. The 2020 and 2021 deaths are very much higher than expected. This actually is my area of expertise, and I can say that the deaths are absolutely higher than expectation. And when aligned with COVID death counts, the data shows that we are likely still undercounting COVID deaths rather than overcounting them.
      3. The survival rates vary significantly by age, but they are pretty high at the youngest ages. Keep in mind that mortality is normally very, very low. If you had a 1% chance of your plane going down, would you fly on it? If we had multiple 737’s falling out of the sky each day, would you get on one? The answer is (I hope) no. We spent oodles of resources to make air travel incredibly safe. We did the same thing with road travel. We spent so many resources on making travel safer and also added a ton of regulation about what we can and cannot do on the roads or in the air. And that was to get the deaths down to a far smaller number than COVID is causing. The relative risks versus the resources and regulations being utilized make no sense to me.
      4. Those medications were authorized for use in situations where the benefits outweighed the risks. The data has not shown benefits to using these drugs for COVID, and there is no underlying reason as to why they should work to treat COVID. And as with any drug, there are still risks. So when there is no discernable benefit, the risks will always make the drug a bad idea.
      5. Those links are not peer reviewed or are out-of-date initial findings. As in any profession, there are quacks and people trying to scam other to make a buck. This is also true of the medical profession. The authors of this article submitted some of those “references”. They have not been reviewed and are not credible.

      I hope this helps. Joe Biden is not a source for medical information, but the medical community at large is. And I agree that we don’t know everything, but that doesn’t mean we should buy every snake oil being pedaled either. And these fringe doctors are selling snake oil. They are not truth tellers. They are either liars, or they are deluded.

    1. Correcting myself:

      An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor, not an optometrist or an OPTICIAN. Why not wait and read parts 2 & 3?

  15. Docs-You have courage. There will be several 100s comments here from the prodeathvaxx trolls and shills for Big Vaxx and Big Pharma, and from the co-opted clergy. You hang in there, like Jesus did for us. For interesting reads, that they cannot erase from all the world’s databases-do a patent search re covid 19 and be amazed at the patent applications pending on the covid virus, note well the original filing dates, and the disclosure of vaccines, the methods to make the vaccines, and more. Note the plethora of those applications with only chinese inventors named and with only chinese companies as owners. And if you have time search these interesting terms “graphene oxide” and “vaccine.” You can do this at US PTO search, at EPO search and via each country’s patent office. And a good read: book available on Amazon: LITTLE LADY FULL COPY, G.M.Lamond. God bless y’all in all you are doing. Guy, Texas

    1. Thank you, Guy. The patent issue is an entirely different level of the covid labyrinth. I’m generally familiar with the work of Dr. David Martin in that regard, and also Dr. Breggin. I will keep your references in mind.

      In legal terms, all of this adds to “weight.” The vaccines are simply not justified for mass consumption on the medical merits, or lack thereof – end of story. But then, when you layer on all of the deceit and corruption that swirls about them – it gets worse and worse.

      Thank you for your encouragement and all that you are doing as well – Steve

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.