RNA Vaccines
Harnessing God’s design to help prevent sickness, but will the new vaccine technology alter our DNA?
Table of Contents
- What are RNA vaccines and how do they work?
- How do Moderna and Pfizer make their RNA vaccines?
- Could an RNA vaccine alter our DNA?
- Pros and cons of the new technology
- How is an RNA vaccine different from older vaccine technologies?
- Other potential concerns
- The Christian’s approach to Operational science
Published: 3 December 2020 (GMT+10)

As an organization, Creation Ministries International affirms science. We exist to support the church in proclaiming the truth of the Bible, and thus its Gospel message, mainly by providing real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution. We are also apolitical and non-denominational (as an organization, not as individuals). We try to confine ourselves to matters as defined broadly by our Statement of Faith, and try not to get involved in needless controversies, both within and outside Christendom, no matter how we, as individuals, might feel about them.
Thus, it might be a surprise to some that we argue against conspiracy theory, that we are generally in favor of vaccination, and that we have a detailed statement that weighs the strengths and weakness of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Each of these areas overlaps our mandate even though we would not consider them essential.
However, we definitely get into areas that are not specifically about creation and evolution when they deal with life and death, such as abortion. Thus, if we can help people understand science, and at the same time steer them away from ideas that could be hurtful or even deadly, we feel this is a good use of our time. As Christians, we have a strong desire to help people. As a science advocacy organization, we feel that we should be using our platform to do just that, when the occasion arises. Since we have taken a clear public stand against evolution, we are clearly willing to go against the tide, no matter how strong its pull. People trust us to present the best information and the best arguments for creation, so we ask that you trust us to do the same here.
Since CMI is a pro-life organization, vaccination is one of the tangential issues we deal with. For a long time, we had no official position on our website, but in recent years we have found ourselves answering more and more questions about them. This has forced us to search for answers to those questions, which then precipitated the publication of a position statement (linked above). Please understand that this only came after much deliberation. It took a lot of time and energy for Dr Jonathan Sarfati to write and multiple CMI scientists were involved in the editing process. In the end, however, the fact that vaccines demonstrably save lives was the deciding factor that made us go public with the information.

There is no question that vaccines have eradicated debilitating and deadly diseases such as smallpox and polio. Improvements and advancements in medical science are a good thing, as they help reverse the effects of the Curse, following Jesus’ example of healing the sick. At the most basic level, it is important to understand that vaccines seek to piggyback on our wonderfully designed immune system by simply introducing something foreign to it. The immune system then reacts by building up antibodies to counteract the foreign substance. The production of antibodies is part of the system, designed by God, that helps our bodies to remember how to fight off infections. Vaccines attempt to train our immune system by giving it ‘target practice’. In the event a person gets exposed to the infectious agent later in life, the immune system will ‘remember’ it and deal with it quickly. From birth, our bodies get exposed to literally thousands of antigens (molecules that can elicit an immune response) daily. Immunizations take up but a small percentage of the total capacity of the immune system.

Due to a massive amount of misunderstanding flying around today, on many different subjects, we feel the need to openly discuss the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently in production. We understand this is a passionate subject for some people. From experience, we find that a significant proportion of antivax information does not come from well-informed sources. This is not to say that all of the information is bad, but misleading arguments are constantly doing the rounds. This greatly concerns us, particularly when considering how common such arguments are in Christian circles. Even people who are generally not influenced by conspiratorial thinking have lots of questions about the new vaccines, us included. But we also know that questions and objections can often be answered by simply stating facts that are properly researched. After everything has been considered, people can then make up their own minds as to how they want to act upon the given information. We shall apply a rigorous approach to the question and try to honestly evaluate what was found.
What are RNA vaccines and how do they work?
There are many different COVID-19 vaccines currently undergoing trials. Most of these will never see the light of day. Three, however, are making headlines. Not only are they the farthest along, but they use a new technology that has never been used in humans before. All three attempt to get RNA into human cells and then let our cells manufacture a viral protein. This protein can then be ‘seen’ by the immune system, which will then start to produce antibodies to that protein. If everything works as it should, the recipient should now be immune to the disease.
A company called AstraZeneca1 has developed a vaccine that uses a virus to deliver RNA into the cell. This has people worried about the potential for genetic engineering, yet viruses already deliver RNA or DNA to our cells on their own and we don’t call this ‘genetic engineering’. True, the natural activity of viruses is different from the deliberate activity of vaccine scientists, but they are trying to replicate an important part of the cycle of infection while using intelligently designed systems to ward off future infections. Also, the virus in the vaccine is not competent. It cannot start a wave of infection since it only includes one or two protein-coding genes. However, the application of such transfection techniques to humans is potentially more problematic than producing Golden Rice2 and the like, both morally and with regard to the potential (even if unlikely) unforeseeable long-term repercussions. To date, there are no indicators that this strategy is dangerous, and everything is being done to assess this, but we have no long-term experimental data to go by.
This vaccine is not as far along as the other two, though, so it might not be worth worrying about. One reason it is not as far along is that the vaccine trials were shut down for a time after one of the volunteer participants became quite ill. It was an open question as to why. They acted properly and halted the trial until they could learn more. This is actually evidence that we are not rushing these things through at the expense of human health. The matter has since been cleared up and the vaccine trials are starting again. Events like this happen in all medical trials. And, as larger and larger numbers of people are included in the later-stage trials, it is expected that some people will get sick for reasons that have nothing to do with the vaccination. People may even die of disease or other natural causes. This is expected to happen when tens of thousands of people are involved. It is then up to the statisticians to determine if the number of sick people has anything to do with the vaccine. Please note that shutting down the trial, temporarily, until things can be investigated, is exactly what is supposed to happen. Thus, even if we are working as fast as possible to produce a COVID-19 vaccine, regulators are still demanding (as far as anyone can tell) that all safety protocols remain in place.
Moderna3 and Pfizer4 have developed competing vaccines that, while still ‘RNA vaccines’, use a different delivery system than the one AstraZeneca chose. Instead of a living virus, these other vaccines use RNA that has been encapsulated in nanometer-scale droplets of lipids (fat). No, this is not ‘nanotechnology’. This is simply the scale at which cells operate.5 The idea has also been around since at least the late 1990s and one CMI scientist (Philip Bell) worked on a project that was using lipid droplets to deliver a specific drug to the cell around that time. When those lipid droplets bump up against a cell, they will be ingested, along with whatever is contained inside. Thus, in the case of these RNA vaccines the lipids and the RNA are taken in together, in sort of a Trojan horse strategy.
RNA floating freely in the blood is rapidly degraded. It is not turned into protein and so the body would not make antibodies to the virus. This is one reason the RNA must be wrapped in fats. But free RNA inside the cell can also cause an immune response. When detected, the cell will think it is under attack and will raise a signal on the outer cell membrane. When a T cell sees that, it will burst the cell open, preventing any more ‘virus’ from being manufactured. This programmed cell death (technically called ‘apoptosis’) is an important system of regulation in the body. Because of this, the RNA has been engineered to trick the cell into not seeing it as viral RNA. Many of the uracils (one of the four ‘letters’ of RNA) have been replaced with an analogue for uracil during the manufacturing process. The cell can still use the strand to manufacture protein, but it is technically not ‘RNA’. So, if the lipid droplets are absorbed by the cell, and if the modified RNA escapes degradation, only then will the cell begin to manufacture the desired protein.
Some of that protein will eventually make its way to the outer cell membrane. When seen by the immune system cells, they will begin to make antibodies for that protein. But the body also thinks these cells are infected, so a macrophage (a type of white blood cell) will come along and gobble the cell up. Yes, any cell that ingests the viral RNA strand will die. But considering that this happens in your body constantly, and considering that you have trillions of cells in your body, sacrificing a few in order to produce a protective antibody is inconsequential.
However, this will still be introducing foreign RNA to the human body. Nobody can say that there is a zero percent probability that the RNA in the transfected cells cannot jump to other somatic cells, in which case this might lead to more serious autoimmune complications. On the other hand, we cannot say with 100% confidence that this will not happen naturally when a person is exposed to any virus in the wild. And, if you think about it, the cycle of introducing RNA into a cell, getting the cell to express foreign proteins, and watching the body’s response to those proteins is actually more natural than older vaccine technologies. Proteins are not being injected into the bloodstream. Instead, the body is more closely following what happens during a normal viral infection, which by necessity happens inside human cells.
How do Moderna and Pfizer make their RNA vaccines?
Whether or not they ever reach the stage where they are deployed, the process of manufacturing the new vaccines is still ingenious:
- Scientists start with a DNA code typed into a computer and use a DNA synthesizer (essentially a ‘DNA printer’) to manufacture it. They then insert the DNA segment into a circular piece of DNA called a plasmid and trick E. coli bacteria into absorbing it. As the bacteria grow, they make many copies of it.
- This DNA is harvested and then turned into RNA in a test tube using bacterial enzymes.
- Using a series of chemical reactions, the RNA is wrapped in lipid envelopes, while still in a test tube, and stored at –80°C to prevent the breakdown of the RNA.
- When injected into muscle tissue, the cells ingest the tiny fat droplets, thus bringing in the RNA as well. Protein synthesis begins, but if the cell detects foreign RNA, it commits suicide (apoptosis), through the action of T cells.
- If the RNA escapes cellular detection, it will be translated into protein.
- Some of the protein should make its way to the outer cell membrane, where it will trigger an immune response, the production of antibodies, and the death of the cell via ingestion by a macrophage (white blood cell).
- At least one of these RNA vaccines includes a section of DNA from an alphavirus that codes for self-replication. This “self-amplifying RNA” (saRNA) requires a smaller dose because the cell will make more copies of the RNA after it arrives, but the cell will still be slated for destruction as soon as it starts producing foreign proteins.
The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are now in Stage 3 trials. There are about 60,000 people in each, with about half getting a placebo. Thus, on the order of 50,000 people have received an RNA vaccine to date. No problems (statistically) have been reported so far. We say ‘statistically’ because in any given cohort of that size some people are going to die, get cancer, or become otherwise ill over the course of several months.
Could an RNA vaccine alter our DNA?
Being that this is a brand-new technology, people have serious concerns about safety. On top of the list are questions about genetic engineering. Is it possible that the vaccine could change our DNA? Repeating some of the information above, here is a list of reasons why the probability is vanishingly small:
- Viruses already inject DNA and RNA into our cells. With rare exceptions, this material does not make it into our genome. The HIV virus is notorious for making copies of itself that then get incorporated into our DNA, but they have specific mechanisms and genetic sequences for doing so. The RNA in the new vaccines has none of those features. Even though the wild version of the virus used in the AstraZeneca vaccine can also do this, it is not known to cause any diseases. Even so, the RNA contains but one or two protein-coding genes. This is not enough information to do anything in the cell.
- Our cells produce massive amounts of RNA already. This goes from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, where it is translated into protein. There is no evidence for widespread re-incorporation of RNA into the human genome. In fact, the whole system would collapse if there were not safeguards preventing this from happening.
- The amount of RNA being used is minimal.
- Any cell that takes up the foreign protein gene will be killed by the immune system. At least, this is what is supposed to happen and indeed is what does happen in nearly all cases. A person whose body fails to respond in this way is at a high risk of death from any infection, and the RNA vaccine is not an infectious agent. The immune system is exceptionally complex, and we cannot say that every single person will respond in the same way. But if this is a concern, it should be a concern for all viral infections as well.
- The arm muscles are far from the gonads. So even if some cells incorporate the RNA (in the form of DNA) into their genomes, it will be difficult to pass this to the next generation. Again, nobody can say it is impossible, but there is little reason for considering it to be probable. Then again, we have sometimes been surprised by biology.
Considering all these points together, as a scientist with a strong background in genetics, I believe the risk of the ‘genetic engineering’ of people is extremely small—thus not sufficient to warrant halting these vaccine trials. We can always be surprised, but everything we do know tells us that the new technology should be safe. And that is an important consideration. Even when acting out of an abundance of caution, we have to make final decisions based on positive knowledge, not the fear of potential unknowns. This is something that applies to daily life. If we cannot make decisions based on what we know, we would be paralyzed with fear and unable to do anything. We could not eat for fear of food poisoning. We could not drive for fear of drunk drivers. Thus, the goal is to study this new idea until every significant concern has been addressed. After that we can proceed, cautiously, while re-assessing every serious concern at each step.
Pros and cons of the new technology
The incorporation of any new technology comes with tradeoffs. This is an inescapable fact of human existence. The new vaccines are no different.
Pros:
- No fetal cells are required! Happily, no fetal cells are used for the steps outlined above. However, for testing purposes only, the Moderna vaccine used the HEK293 cell line, which was derived from either an elective abortion or a spontaneous miscarriage in the Netherlands in 1973. HEK293 has become a workhorse in laboratories worldwide. Sub-strains have even been created by genetically tailoring the cells for specific purposes. We cannot change history, but please see CMI’s official position on the situation. That article has been updated with information regarding the new types of vaccines, the current pandemic, and the alarmist arguments about using ‘baby parts’ in vaccines. We also cannot guarantee that these cells were not used somewhere in the supply chain or that some significant advance that allowed the eventual development of the vaccine was not made using these cells. On the other hand, this is an amazing step in the right direction. The use of fetal cells was minimized, and NO BABY PARTS are in the vaccine itself.
- We can now go from a DNA sequence to a viable vaccine candidate in a matter of days. Most of the vaccine development time, therefore, will be in the testing stages. This is amazing progress. It should have clear economic impacts as well.
- The use of adjuvants might be minimized. An adjuvant is something designed to stimulate the immune system.6 Essentially, it wakes the immune system up so that it starts looking for foreign antigens. Currently, aluminum salts are the chosen adjuvant in many vaccines (at physiologically irrelevant levels, btw). Another common adjuvant is squalene, which can be obtained from the livers of certain sharks. The RNA vaccines may require no adjuvants at all, although the lipid coating can be tailored for such purposes, if required. Freely circulating RNA also acts as an adjuvant, making the immune system believe there is an infection taking place.
- The need for preservatives (e.g. mercury) is eliminated. Since RNA is so fragile (it breaks down in water 100 times faster than DNA), it must be stored in very cold temperatures anyway. Thus, adding extra preservatives is made irrelevant.
Cons:
- This is an unknown technology. We will not know what will really happen until we release it into the public arena. However, this is always true with everything we do. Using common sense and past experience, most potential problems can be avoided.
- We do not know that there will be zero long-term problems. There are many examples of pharmaceuticals that passed through every stage of testing, and only on being approved for use were terrible side-effects manifested. Yet, this could be said of any new product in any area of society. There is a difference between a toaster and a vaccine, however, which is why these companies are spending so many millions of dollars in safety testing.
- The temperature requirement means it will be difficult to distribute in many places in the world. The Moderna vaccine, however, is reported to be stable at normal freezer temperatures and lasts for up to a month in a refrigerator.
- There is no way to know if the vaccines have not decomposed. Being that they are so labile (because RNA is such a sensitive molecule), this is a serious concern.
- Note that the vaccine itself will likely produce a slight fever, mild chills, and a light rash near the injection site in some people. It is possible that a patient might feel bad for a day or two after getting the vaccine. However, this is evidence of a robust immune response. The body is mustering its resources to attack a perceived invader and those symptoms are the result. Yet, the symptoms are not COVID-19 itself, for one simply cannot get the disease from the immunization. There will be no virus present.
How is an RNA vaccine different from older vaccine technologies?
Most vaccines utilise killed or weakened organisms. Some of the more recently developed ones use genetically modified yeast or E. coli to grow up a batch of antigens (molecules that can elicit an immune response) that can then be incorporated into a vaccine. The strategy was to inject proteins or sugar chains into a person that could then trigger the production of protective antibodies.
When vaccines were first developed, we did not even know what viruses were. All we knew was that we could take pus from a cowpox scab and inject it into a person’s arm. Yet, this would then protect a person from smallpox. Edward Jenner was the first to do this, in 1798, ushering in the era of vaccination. Louis Pasteur, noted by us for his outspoken belief in creation, also developed attenuated (that is, live, but non-viable/disabled virus) vaccines for anthrax and cholera. Other early vaccines (e.g. tetanus and diphtheria) used bacterial toxins denatured by formaldehyde, making them harmless but still able to produce a strong immune response. These diseases were worldwide scourges, causing untold amounts of suffering and death annually. The early vaccines were used to greatly reduce the disease burden on society, but they would not pass modern safety standards.

In the 1950s, two competing polio vaccines were developed. The Salk vaccine used dead viruses. It was widely used, and highly effective. But it fell into disfavor after two manufacturers failed to properly inactivate the virus, causing multiple cases of polio and even a few patient deaths. The Sabin vaccine that replaced it used live attenuated viruses. At least one version of the polio vaccine was injected into a series of mouse and rat brains. At the end of this serial process, the (now attenuated) virus was no longer able to infect human nerve cells. Today, polio is nearly eradicated worldwide, but we are seeing problems with the polio vaccine. In some places it is popping up after people receive the live attenuated (weakened) virus in the vaccine. Health authorities are well aware of the problem and are doing everything they can to work around it. Using weakened viruses is not always a perfect solution and so we should be looking for new ideas, perhaps like an RNA vaccine.
Historically, the most commonly used influenza vaccines are grown in chicken eggs. This has been true for over 70 years. Both the heat killed (inactivated) and live (attenuated) versions of the vaccines were made from egg-cultured viruses. However, as of 2020, nearly all influenza vaccines will be grown in mammalian cell culture. This is probably VERO (African green monkey) or mouse cells, because using human cells (like HEK293) would produce a virus that could easily infect people. Recombinant flu vaccines also exist. Here, a microorganism (yeast or E. coli) is engineered to express a viral protein, which is then harvested and incorporated into a vaccine.7
All of these vaccine technologies have disadvantages compared to the new RNA vaccines.
Other potential concerns
- Operation Warp Speed (as designated by the US government at the time) raises questions about risks to human health. Are we rushing things? Are we cutting too many corners? Are we moving too fast? These are honest questions that need to be asked. Yet, much of the time historically spent in vaccine development involved massive amounts of paperwork, long periods for governmental review, and things like that. This is not a discussion on free market capitalism, but an advanced society should be able to act efficiently. Any governmental policy that helps to unleash more creative potential should be a net positive. Of course, cutting corners and overall safety are always a concern, but Operation Warp Speed was designed to reduce red tape while not reducing safety. How effectively it attains these goals has yet to be seen. Moderna is a new company and accepted money from the US government to assist in vaccine development. Pfizer used no government funds to develop the vaccine but it did accept a large amount to help build the industrial infrastructure required to quickly produce up to a billion doses.
- Runaway super pandemic: Some people are worried that the vaccine might actually cause a worse disease than it is designed to prevent. Yet, no viral structural proteins are encoded in the RNA. They are targeting one protein only (the spike protein), and it has been modified (in other words, it is not the naturally occurring version). There is no way to make a complete virus from that one gene, and any virus that took up the modified gene would probably be defective anyway.
- Eschatology: Except where it intersects with the book of Genesis, CMI does not maintain an official position on end times theology. However, many people still write in with questions about end times, the pandemic, and the resulting rush to produce a vaccine. We answer as best we can, based upon the facts before us. But this is not something we are going to answer directly because it is simply outside our mandate.
- There are other potential concerns that have nothing to do with the new technology. People are still asking about them, and so the questions tend to get jumbled in our minds. We can quickly dismiss conspiracy claims that this involves Bill Gates, ‘aerogels’, ‘biochips’, or tattooing people with a vaccine. None of this applies to the current vaccine candidates. There is some scuttlebutt circulating about ‘vaccine tattoos’, but even if implemented, public acceptance of such a thing is going to be very, very low. The thought is that one could generate a code in the form of invisible titanium dioxide dots that coat an array of microneedles. When the needle array is applied to the skin, the dots would remain behind and could then be detected for several years afterward. Most middle-aged adults who had a smallpox vaccination as a child still have a small, raised area on their skin. So what? Back then, nobody seemed to be worried that this was some marker that was going to hasten the end of the world. Regarding the ‘biochips’, these are the PIT (passive integrated transponder) tags that are used routinely in animal husbandry and for identifying pets. I even incorporated them into the glue that was holding many of my coral specimens in place while performing experiments in grad school. I was instantly able to tell the colonies apart by simply waving a wand over them and reading the results on a screen. Yes, these are small, and yes, they can be inserted under the skin. But there are physical limits to transmitter and battery technology. They cannot get much smaller than they already are and the tags are passive. They simply cannot transmit any signal on their own. The detectors also do not work when more than a few centimeters away. Either way, I have no plans on getting tagged or tattooed, and I have no reason to fear having this done to me against my will. We have already dealt with questions about the genetic engineering of humans and the use of fetal cell lines.
The Christian’s approach to Operational science
Putting all claims of conspiracy and subterfuge aside, the development of vaccines should be a simple matter of applying operational science to a bad situation. Please read up on why operational science has little to do with the creation vs. evolution debate. We are not arguing over the boiling point of water or the force of gravity. These are matters of operational science that stand on their own merits. Historical science, on the other hand, is intrinsic to the debate. We are definitely arguing over matters that occurred in the past and the degree to which operational science can, or cannot, inform us about past events. We should not mistake these two forms of science. Even if the evolutionary community has consistently done so, this does not mean we should. On the other hand, we should also not fall off the other side of the horse. Just because historical science has been abused, this does not mean we should reject operational science, as the flat-earthers and geocentrists do. If we are to draw a line in the sand, it should be between historical and operational science, neither conflating the two nor jettisoning operational science. This has always been CMI’s position. Our statements to this effect go back decades. We are not anti-science, nor are we being contrarians just for the sake of it.
In the end, we have to understand that foreign DNA and RNA gets into our cells all the time. This is exactly how viral infections work. Yet our bodies almost always fight them off. We are actually bombarded with viruses on a daily basis. It is clear, therefore, that we have a robust way of dealing with them. The new RNA vaccine technology is simply harnessing something that already exists, a system designed by God. In some sense, this is little different from taking vitamins and medicines, since these are designed to work with God’s created biology. The fallen world is imperfect, but we have to do the best we can with what we are given. Harnessing God’s amazing design to relieve human suffering is a good place to start.
Related Articles
Further Reading
References and notes
- See www.astrazeneca.com/covid-19.html. Return to text.
- Golden Rice is a genetically engineered version of Oryza sativa (rice) that produces beta carotene in the endosperm (the starchy part humans like to eat). Rice already produces beta carotene, but only in the leaves. Scientists took a gene from daffodils and another from a bacterium (which was later shown to be unnecessary) and inserted them into the rice genome next to a promoter that controls genes that are only expressed in the endosperm. The result is a strain of rice that produces copious amounts of a substance that is deficient in the diets of a significant portion of the world population. Whether or not this amount of beta carotene will have any positive effect on human nutrition has yet to be determined. Return to text.
- See www.modernatx.com/modernas-work-potential-vaccine-against-covid-19. Return to text.
- See www.pfizer.co.uk/behind-science-what-mrna-vaccine. Return to text.
- 1 nanometer (nm) = 10-9 metre. Thus, 1 mm = 1 million nm! Return to text.
- cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html. Return to text.
- cdc.gov/flu/prevent/how-fluvaccine-made.htm. Return to text.
Readers’ comments
This is an interesting paper, but:
1) It is just a manuscript that has been loaded onto a preprint server. It has not yet withstood the test of peer review.
2) They may or may not have a case, depending on the sensitivity and accuracy of their techniques.
3) Even though they claim L1 elements (common to all humans) are involved, there is also the question of co-infection with HIV, which at least some of their study subjects had.
4) If this is true, why is there not evidence for remnant modern viruses in the human genome? Why have the massive sequencing projects, hundreds of thousands of individual genomes to date, not picked up on them? Why do we not see some people with a viral insertion and some without?
5) However, if L1 elements are involved, this may be a hint that there is a designed system whereby human cells can take up viral nucleic acids and remember them, akin to the CRISPR-Cas9 system in bacteria. The authors suggested that the continual production of viral proteins could act to constantly remind the immune system. This would amount to a self-immunization program built into the human genome.
6) For the record, I note that they used the HEK293 cell line, thus demonstrating how deeply these cells are entrenched in science.
The paper by Lyons-Weiler and Thomas was discussed among us a few days ago. We all decided the paper had major flaws and was basically inadmissible as evidence for anything. Besides the major questions we had with the way they reported data, they failed to factor in human behavior. We highly suspect that parents who did not vaccinate would also be less likely to bring their children to the doctor for other reasons. This alone might explain the different in 'Relative Incidence of Office Visits' between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. This was a report from a single medical clinic, and one is clearly not unbiased in their position on vaccines (anti). Also, with so many parents opting for different levels of vaccinations for their children, there are too many degrees of freedom in the experiment. Thus, their sample size is much too small get any meaningful statistics from the data. In the end, the study shows nothing.
Plus, if a vaccine contained luciferase, nothing would happen. It is a protein. It does not produce light, neither does it fluoresce under ultraviolet light. The body would also see that protein as foreign and would 1) destroy it and 2) produce antibodies to it. Vaccines will also not contain the luciferase gene.
Some people react to the word "luciferase" as if it has some evil connotation, but this only shows their ignorance of the etymology of the root word, which just mean 'light'. We see the root in other places, like the fact that light intensity can be measured in 'lux' and there is a major corporation called Lucent Technologies. There is one place in the KJV where Lucifer is named, but modern translations use phrases like "day star" (Isaiah 14:12). Without that one reference, "Lucifer" is not even in the Bible.
The microchip idea was dealt with elsewhere, but since this is a technological rather than political issue I will reiterate it here: it simply has nothing to do with the vaccines under consideration. Microchips are also too large to implement in standard vaccine needles, they cannot transmit a signal, they contain very limited data, and the scanner must be within a few centimeters to work. Plus, they are easy to detect so it is not like this could ever be done in secret.
And yet, in the not so distant past, travelers needed a vaccine ‘passbook’ to prove that the required vaccinations were up to date. This was a time when you had to provide evidence for the smallpox vaccine. You may still need to prove immunization against yellow fever to visit certain parts of South America (in the form of a certificate stamped by a registered medical doctor). This is a more preferable system than quarantining all incoming travelers.
Some of my thoughts
Coronaviruses have been around for generations, true, but what were they like when they first entered the human population? I just read a paper that claimed the Russian Flu of 1889 that killed well over 1 million people was, in fact, one of the coronaviruses that 'just' causes the common cold today. If this is true, the virus became attenuated, which is great, but only after killing many people, which is terrible. Personally, I don't want to sit back and watch 10 million or more people die from 'natural' causes if we can help it.
I am not going to comment on the political screed, even though I disagree with just about everything you wrote.
1. If RNA vaccines are safe, we would fully support their use You assume they are dangerous, but the statistics are not telling us they are. 2. Children in India are looking forward to longer and healthier lives than at any other time in the history of that country, thanks in a major part to the reduction of vaccine-preventable diseases. 3. There is no statistical link between vaccination and autism. People continue to peddle this, but it simply is not true. 4. Why would you think I have not read the material from Kennedy and Humphries? I have, and the more I dug the more lies, misdirection, and misinformation I found, especially with Humphries. The things they say do not pass any rigorous examination. 5. Perhaps you should look at the very successful vaccination programs, and some of the 'disasters' you cite were not. 6. "Skyrocketing" polio cases? No, polio is nearly eradicated. The world will rejoice, just a few years from now, when the 'scourge of summer' is gone. We are on the cusp, thanks to vaccination programs. 7. Regarding US deaths, there is a clear signal of statistically above-average weekly deaths from March through July of this year in the US. 8. Regarding the PCR test, you are factually incorrect. First, how could you even know that? Second, the data are telling us exactly the opposite. You are in Australia. They have done over 10 million tests. The successful contact tracing program based on the test results was an amazing success story. In fact, all current infections are traceable to a source (almost exclusively travelers from overseas), thank to that test. 9. The inventor of PCR did not realize its full potential, apparently. His opinion does not negate the fact that the tests are specific and sensitive.
[link deleted per feedback rules]
Since the virus, especially in symptomless people, tends to not set up a strong immune response, many people will be able to catch it more than once.
The "rumor" is not just false, it is also nonsensical. The biology is garbled and the terminology is inaccurate. There is no rewriting of the genetic code, and what does "the cell no longer serves what nature created it for" even mean? God created the cell, not nature. And humans are constantly being infected with RNA viruses. There is no reason to think that people will be sterilized with by the vaccine, that they will become 'obedient', or that they will lose normal desires. But it is not just that there is 'no evidence'; there is absolutely no reason to even think such things.
No, I did not figure suicide rates into my arguments. Sociological issues have nothing to do with the effectiveness or safety of vaccines. You use words like "draconian" and "foisted", trying to tar and feather me with an emotional argument.
You are completely wrong about vaccines not being placebo tested. In fact, tens of thousands of people have received saline injections in Moderna and Pfizer's double-blind, stage 3 trials of the RNA vaccines. Did you read my article? I discussed this. You are propagating urban myths, hence misinformation.
Regarding the vaccine injury claims, see the discussion in the vaccination article I linked to in my article. More misinformation.
How do we know about possible damage that might come along in 5 or 50 years? 1. It is not like we have zero understanding of biology. 2. How can anyone prove a universal negative? You are asking for an impossible standard, and a standard that would drive all medical science into the ground.
Your organisation therefore is a great guidance for me.
"Natural immunity" is a bit of a myth. Coronaviruses in general elicit a weak immune response, so people can catch the same virus multiple times in their life. This virus also seems to be creating a tepid immune response, including low antibody numbers and low antibody retention. There are multiple verified reports of people getting it a second time already.
Based on the measurable death rate, the only reason more people have not died of it is that we have done so much testing, social distancing, mask wearing, and contact tracing. If this had circulated as widely as the flu generally does, it would be much more clear how dangerous this virus actually is. Hence, you can't look at the absolute numbers and claim it is less deadly than the flu.
There are a few people claiming scientific credentials that deny viruses exist, that deny the PCR tests are detecting viruses, etc. These people are far beyond the pale and are clearly pushing a false narrative. See my earlier comment where I dealt with so-called Terrain Theory.
Regarding the first link, we don't get into eschatology, as I explained in the article. OK, someone has developed a method to generate cryptocurrency using body motion.
Regarding the second link, I talked about the microneedle 'tatoo' in the article.
Regarding the third link, AI is just a fancy work for "computer processing power". Humans could do the same thing, but it would take us forever. If the UK wants to use AI to search for COVID-19 vaccine side effects, good for them! The resulting reporting will be more accurate, and more timely, and it might reveal something even a good investigator might miss. But it all depends on the skills of the computer programmer.
I cannot speak to the political situation. That is outside CMI's mandate. However, the virus is real, people are really dying, a LOT more people will die if we don't get a handle on it, and effective and safe vaccines appear to be right around the corner. What governments are doing is secondary. Our primary concern is how a Christian should act, given the facts I just stated. Protecting ourselves means we might have more years to serve God. Protecting ourselves also means we are protecting the more vulnerable among us, which is also good. You know, if fewer people were incorrectly contrarian, governments would not be as tempted to act with a heavy hand. By 'incorrectly' I mean many people have their heads full of misinformation and misunderstanding. If we could all think more clearly, the points at which we should be resisting the Nanny State would be more obvious.
Second, when people are not telling the truth, they leave clues behind. As a creationist, I am laser-focused on such clues. I see none here. The virus is real.
Third, I did not talk about the possibility that the virus was genetically engineered because there is no evidence for it. The reason I spent so much time with the data was that I was analyzing the claims of the small group of people who claim it was engineered. Every test I threw at it failed. I was rather disappointed, but this is the nature of science.
Fourth, there is nothing in the viral genome to suggest that something could be “activated” in the virus. I could show you the data, but this is not the place. Plus, your eyes would glaze over after looking at an alignment with 17,000 rows and 29,000 columns filled with nothing but As, Cs, Gs, and Ts.
Fifth, concerning the reporting of mortality statistics, there is nothing to suggest that governmental entities are skewing the data toward higher counts. The fact is, we (the US) were not prepared for instantaneous death reporting. Neither was there a strict standard of reporting across all municipalities. That is being, or has been, corrected. This brings up another oft-misunderstood point: what do people die from? The sudden cessation of breathing? The ceasing of brain function? Heart stoppages? All these happen in cases of cancer, old age, etc. Most deaths are associated with comorbidities. Should a doctor write “COVID-19” or “myocardial infarction” on the form? That’s a tough call. Yet, if someone has COVID-19 and dies, it is almost certain that this is what pushed the patient over the edge. People don’t usually die of diabetes. They die of complications rising from diabetes. If a diabetic patient could have lived for another 30 years, but they caught COVID-19 and died, what killed them? COVID-19!
I cannot speak to the political situation. That is outside CMI's mandate.
Concerning the Novovax COVID-19 vaccine, I did not discuss it because it is not as far along as the others. According to a recent article in Science, they use a baculovirus to insert the spike protein gene into, of all things, moth cells. After the cells start growing the spike proteins, they are collected somehow and mixed with a synthetic, soaplike particle. They add a compound "derived from trees" as an adjuvant. This is their vaccine. May it be safe and may it remain ethically untainted!
Thank-you
There is a lot of misinformation about hygiene vs disease out there. But tuberculosis would not have been eradicated without antibiotics, malaria without watershed management, and polio without a working vaccine. COVID-19 is an excellent example. All the social distancing and hand washing we have been doing over the last 11 months has only slowed it down. In some countries they have managed to eradicate it through strongly applied quarantine and contact tracing. There is no "hygiene" practice that will stop something like this.
Am I an enthusiastic scientist? Yes. Yes I am. Thank you for noticing.
You are being lied to.
I have spent weeks of my life, working morning, noon and night, creating an alignment of over 16,000 SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes. I can tell you with all the confidence I can muster that there is definitely a "consistent code sequence associated with it". It definitely has been isolated, and, no, there are not "currently in the genbank [sic] multiple different code sequences claiming themselves to be Covid-19". Neither are there "a host of other microbiological organisms claiming those self same sequences". I can only assume you have heard this from other people because nobody who has actually looked into the situation could ever say what you are claiming.
No, bacterial sequence data is not "being used as primers" and, no, the sequences used for the primers are not "naturally found in the human body". Those claims are made from whole cloth. You can take the primers and BLAST them against the human genome. They will come up empty. Try it. If you do not know what I am talking about, maybe this is evidence that you should not be talking so confidently. There is not a high bar for entry into the field of genetics and most everything is available to the public, including the primer sequences and the BLAST algorithm.
"The fact that viruses can not be isolated..." Aha! I believe we are getting to the root of the problem. I am not sure yet, but I detect a hint of the demonstrably false "Terrain Theory" here.
"...in the same manner as bacteria..." Well of course, since viruses are not bacteria.
"...poses unique problems for viral vaccines..." A non-sequitur. Different methods are used when working with viruses vs bacteria.
"...while attempting to apply Koch’s postulates." As if this is something codified as law? This is a typical Terrain Theory manta. Yet, it is also wrong because Koch' postulates have absolutely been fulfilled (to the limits of legality, because you can't give a patient something like Ebola and expect not to go to jail).
"But there has been zero attempt at transporting this disease from subject to subject..." False. I know for a fact that it has been "transported" from one cell culture to another (using human and African green monkey cells) and it has been used to infect lab animals. Oh, but you are talking about infecting people. Dude, you can't do that. It's called "murder".
"...in the same manner that was accomplished with the polio virus." Nobody "transported" the polio virus from one person to another. They did, however, culture it in a series of animals, as I discuss in the article.
"The entire episode with Covid-19 has to do with the RT-PCR tests,..." No, you are only referring to the massive testing over recent months.
"...which have never been standardized with a “gold standard.” " I have no idea what 'gold standard' you are referring to.
"Every diagnosis is based on assumptions about the virus code sequences;..." Nonsense! When people are sick with the characteristic set of symptoms, a doctor says, "You have covid," whether or not a test has been performed. Plus, there are also antibody tests that are regularly used.
"...and as the PCR tests move across the world, the virus “mutates” from one form to another..." Completely and utterly false. First, mutation happens regardless of PCR testing. Second, despite the mutation accumulation, no mutations that affect the way the virus presents to the immune system have appeared. Neither are there mutations that should significantly affect the PCR tests, but this is also whey they target three different places in the viral genome.
"...indicating not so much a mutating virus, but an erroneous testing procedure that has been foisted on the entire world." At this point, we lapse from misinformation, to lies, to conspiracy theory. My only advice is to run far, far away from this type of thinking.
"This whole Covid-19 episode has been a fraud,..." Are you denying that the virus even exists? I expect so.
"...and Creation Ministries should be able to discern this." Yes, using a method called "science", something we are very much in favor of.
"Seeing we have already reached herd immunity against whatever ailment we experienced throughout 2020,..." Completely and dangerously false, especially considering that immune memory for coronaviruses is notoriously short lived and we are already seeing people catching COVID-19 a second time (with genetically distinct strains, so we know it was not one long infection).
"...and it was no more serious an ailment than any previous normal flu season..." Tell that to all the people who are now dead. Imagine how bad it would have been had it infected as many people are normally get the flu each year!
"...what is the purpose of this vaccine?" To prevent death. To help people. To avoid the suffering of humanity. Sounds pretty noble to me.
"It will either be a placebo, or a witches brew." So it will either do nothing or it will hurt people? You are rejecting science in its entirely. What about the possibility that it might actually work and it might prevent the early death of millions of more people?
"And to which of the multiple “Covid” sequences is this vaccine going to vaccinate against?" Irrelevant. All currently circulating strains present the same few amino acids to our immune system. As long as they do not mutate, the vaccine will work just fine.
Regarding our so-called perfect immune system, we are fighting diseases that would not have harmed Adam and Eve. Either the diseases had not yet jumped from the species for which they were designed, or they had not yet mutated into their current form. Either way, our immune systems were designed for Eden. The fact that we can still live in a sin-cursed world, with all of its suffering and death, and with our decaying and mutation-racked bodies, is a testimony to God’s providence. Yet, the world is still fallen, and we are not in Eden.
As far as those who doubt the historical effectiveness of vaccines, you called them "credible". After much research into these claims, I am forced to disagree. But it is an error (or an insult?) for you to then insinuate that I would "accept, blindly, the statements" of anyone. In fact, as a creationist, I find it almost comical to have to withstand such accusations. My record says otherwise.
In way of an answer, yes, I expect the virus to attenuate...in a couple of years to a decade. In the meantime, many people will be injured by it or killed by it. And with a fatality rate of (pick a number) 1 to 2%, 'herd immunity' would involve the death of many millions of people. Why would we be OK with that?
Yet, herd immunity also depends on immune system memory and how long antibodies persist in the body. Coronaviruses are notorious for eliciting a tepid immune response. Hence, the 'cold' many people get every six months to a year apart might be the exact same virus. Lifetime immunity is a bit of an urban myth. This applies to many diseases but coronaviruses are among the worst for immune system forgetfulness and we are already seeing people who have caught COVID-19 twice (and sequencing tells us it is sometimes a different version of the virus, so it is not like an unresolved infection simply resurfaced).
Concerning antibody testing, this can already be done. In fact, it is one of the three main types of testing that consumers can access through their medical providers. I suppose a person could go get an antibody test first to see if they need a vaccine, but I think that would create a lot of useless antibody tests. Also, the vaccine seems to cause the body to make more antibodies than the live virus. Hopefully, this means a more lasting protection. We'll have to wait and see about that, though.
Is there any cause for concern on injecting a substance at -70C in to either our blood stream or our muscle tissue? From what is being "reported", the choice of this vaccine may not be viable due to the lack of any way to transport or maintain those temps at locations that would disperse the vaccine.
Perhaps it would be best if you just stayed out of the debate as you do the debates on eschatology and soteriology.
Also, with regard to the "spuriously claimed" 99% survival rate, it is actually MUCH, MUCH higher than that. We are being fed two different narratives and are not expected to ever connect the two. But some actually use logic and critical thinking to determine what the real numbers are. We are told we all need to be wearing masks because a large percentage of people who contract COVID19 are asymptomatic. Numbers as high as 75% to 90% are regularly bandied about to scare us. Then we are told that the mortality rate is >1% but that is only figured based on the actually diagnosed cases. So, if there are 1000 diagnosed cases, and 10 deaths, that is indeed alarming. But if we figure in the 75% (using the low number) of asymptomatic (and thus undiagnosed) cases, you have 10 deaths in 4000 cases which is a mortality rate of 0.25% which is not as bad as seasonal flu. A comment also states that the number of deaths should be almost double what we normally see due to the pandemic. Yet, per the CDC's (US) own data, this is not what we are seeing, the worst week was the week of April 1st and the deaths increased by only 41% (which admittedly is a lot, but no where near 100%). Most weeks are below a 25% increase in deaths. So, COVID19 is dangerous for some people, but the "cure" is way worse than the disease.
Yes, I spent many hours reviewing the trial reports and the reviews of those reports from journals like the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. There was no reason to reference them in this article, however. I also did not save the PDF of every article I read so I cannot fully document my studies.
As far as liability is concerned, the vaccine liability court was set up to protect an important industry from predatory lawyers. The US is very much in need of legal reforms, but, well, that is another subject for another day. See the relevant section in our article on vaccines here.
"Once mandating the vaccine happens": You are assuming much about the future. If, however, people are educated about the topic, I believe vaccine acceptance rates will be much higher. Hence, the government will not be tempted as much to strong-arm people into taking something they do not want. But this cannot happen unless we correct the conspiracy-driven misinformation campaign that is clearly being waged on social media. In my article I tired my best to soberly present data. By doing that the conspiracy bandwagon has less momentum.
You wrote a fantastic article involving semi-technical subject matter in a way that most people, who lack biological training, will be able to comprehend. I want to encourage everyone to share Rob's article. Every Biology teacher should incorporate it into their curriculum......soon. Thank you also for your respectful and thorough response to Dr. Terborg's valid question. And finally, thank you for identifying the great pioneers in immunological science who were also absolutely convinced that God is the source of all "information" that is incorporated into all living organisms, before the FALL.
Regarding Bill Gates, you made a giant lead from his desire to reduce world population to him wanting to sterilize people. This has already been answered in Jonathan Sarfati's comprehensive article on vaccines. In fact, when taken in context, he clearly wants fewer people in the world and feels that increasing vaccination rates will make people want to have fewer children because they will not need to have so many to guarantee that at least a few will survive. I think he is wrong and that he does not understand human nature very well, but saying that he wants to sterilize people is worse than conspiracy theory for it simply is not true.
There is no doubt that improvements in living conditions helped to ameliorate some diseases. Tuberculosis was not one of those. Neither was influenza. Polio was not going to be eradicated purely by providing clean (chlorinated or fluorinated) drinking water. Other examples are not hard to find. Nutrition, fresh air, and exercise are all great for helping to promote a healthy immune system, but they are not cures and one can only ingest a certain amount of vitamins before they have no increased beneficial effect. We must also understand that the data used in such graphs can only go back as far as government efforts to track and quantify them, and the earlier the numbers the less accurate we would expect them to be. In short, yes, some diseases were decreasing in frequency, but there is no scientific reason to believe they were on their way to extinction.
Some commonsense about the COVID19 vaccine and whether it is safe to use.
I really appreciate CMI and the team for their wisdom and guidance. This is in stark contrast to the efforts of our government in the UK and their scientific advisers who have been so wrong in the handling of this outbreak. I suppose we shouldn't expect anything more; whatever governments do has a huge margin/opportunity for error.
Death is also not the only complication from the virus. Many organ systems are damaged by the infection and many people are experiencing long recovery times. This raises health care costs, which come out of your pocket.
The efficacy of a vaccine is easy to understand. If the rate is "95%", this means it cuts the rate of infection by 95%. Say you have 2,000,000 people, half of whom are vaccinated and half of whom are not. If 100,000 of the unvaccinated become infected, you would only expect 5,000 cases among the vaccinated. This sounds like a lot, but, assuming a low 1% death rate, you just cut the number of deaths from 1,000 to 50.
Yes, mask use among the general public is a problem when done improperly. And this is a major reason why they are not as effective as they could be. But there is a giant leap between "protect yourself and other by wearing a mask" and "you need to be a follower of Satan to go to the grocery store." This is not a 'mark of the beast' scenario. Is it a prelude? Who can know? See my disclaimer about eschatology in the article.
Kind regards, Peer Terborg
I hesitate, strongly, to argue with someone of your caliber, especially since you have contributed so much to my own understanding of genetics. I cannot actually say you are wrong. However, there are extenuating circumstances that make the likelihood of RNA integration into the genome extremely unlikely. Just a year ago, Margaret Liu (who works in the industry) published a review article in the journal Vaccines.* She went through the history of using DNA and RNA as vaccine candidates, which date back to the first published results in 1990. In other words, we have had three decades to study things that are only now becoming commercially available. The technology is not 'new'.
Regarding DNA vaccines, she writes, "...significant safety studies were initially required to evaluate the possibility of integration of the plasmid DNA into the host genome. As a result of these studies for both human vaccines [references] and for the licensed DNA vaccines for fish [reference], as well as the many human studies with DNA vaccines that have demonstrated safety, little concern now exists regarding integration." Thus, it is not like people have not looked at the problem of genomic integration.
She then comments on mRNA vaccines, saying, "Comparisons have stated that mRNA offers an advantage because RNA itself cannot integrate into genomic DNA without the presence of the viral elements in a retrovirus that enable such integration (reverse transcriptase and integrase)." As I said in my article, these things are not present in the vaccine.
However, she follows these statements with, "However, HERVs [reference] (human endogenous retroviruses) whose remnants are now permanent parts of human genomes as retrovirus-like sequences comprise up to 8% of the human genome." Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, things have integrated into the genome in the past so there is always a possibility of it happening in the future, given the right conditions. From a creationist perspective, however, how much of this activity do we expect has happened? Not much, and perhaps all the evidence is nothing more than evolutionary speculation. In the cases where it may have happened, specifically designed sequence elements would be required. Thus, as I said in the article, "Our cells produce massive amounts of RNA already. This goes from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, where it is translated into protein. There is no evidence for widespread re-incorporation of RNA into the human genome. In fact, the whole system would collapse if there were not safeguards preventing this from happening." Can RNA be turned into DNA and can that DNA become integrated into the genome? Theoretically, yes, but it does not normally happen in the cell, and it should not happen under the conditions that are present with these RNA vaccines. Unless...
She writes, "In addition, some recipients of mRNA drugs or vaccines may be already infected with a retrovirus (e.g., HIV), thus providing a theoretical means for provision of the proteins needed for integration [references]." This seems to be getting at the root of your objection, and I would add retrotransposons to the list of concerns. Yes, these things exist, and yes, it is a theoretical possibility, but the probability is very small. If this were a real threat, we would see it happening all the time naturally. That is my main counter argument. Where is the evidence of cytoplasmic mRNA for stand-alone genes being integrated into the nuclear genome?
She concludes, "Nevertheless, the risk of integration remains, at this point, extremely unlikely for mRNA, even from a theoretical standpoint, nor is it any longer a significant concern for plasmid DNA." I said similar things in my article, and I had not yet read this review (it was a fun read, at 6 am).
You wrote, "So if you, together with the pharma industry, believe that this will never happen, this should be demonstrated with experiments. This has never been done. So, I find the conclusions of your article premature." First, I do not believe this will never happen, nor do I believe it cannot happen. I do, however, believe that the risk of it happening is vanishingly small and we should see evidence of it happening already if it is a real thing. Second, experiments have already been performed to assess the risk of genomic integration. True, these were not all-comprehensive. They have not sequenced the genomes (in the region of muscular inoculation) of the patients. But background studies have been performed and they did not wave any red flags.
In the end, nobody can know who is right. Yet, we are not sailing 'three sheets to the wind'. There are reasons to believe that the technology is safe, and one cannot prove a universal negative. If I saw reasons to be worried, I would be raising the alarm.
*Liu, M., A Comparison of Plasmid DNA and mRNA as Vaccine Technologies, Vaccines 7(2):37, 2019; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines7020037. (note to readers: this is an open-access paper, anyone can simply copy the text and paste it into a search engine)
1. It is impossible to catch the flu from the vaccine. Period. There is no flu virus present (see also this section of Jonathan Sarfati's article on vaccines). The same cannot be said about the doctors office, where people got to get vaccines! Yet, people can still get the flu after a vaccine a) if they catch it before the immunization has had a chance to start working, b) if the government misses the target and put the wrong strain in the vaccine, c) if they fail to mount a proper immune response to it initially, or d) if they get an early-season vaccine and catch it later in the season (since immunity from the vaccine wears off quickly). This is why it is incorrect to use small sample sizes. Remember when seatbelt laws were first coming into effect (in the US, this started in the 1970s). Everybody knew a story of somebody, who had an uncle, who was t-boned by another car, from the driver's side, and 'would have been killed if he had been wearing a seatbelt'. Anecdotes like this are everywhere, yet they are inadmissible in science. We have to deal in large statistics.
2. Polio, HIV, autism, etc.: There is no proof for any of these claims. They have been investigated, thoroughly, and nothing has been found. The problem is that allegations cling more tightly than their refutations. Also, it gets to the point where the refutation is tasked with disproving universal negatives, which is impossible. Thus, scientists use phrases like, "There is no evidence to suggest...," and, "The data indicate..." We can do nothing else.
3. My comment about biochips was not for fear of EMFs (see Answering question about 5G and COVID-19) but that they cannot transmit, so they cannot be used for remote detection. They also cannot be hidden, so it is not like people are going to be getting them without knowledge or without consent. There are people who are afraid that 'chips' are being added to vaccines. This is why I said there are limits to how small they can be. I was trying to head off people who might think they can be small enough to pass through the tiny inside diameter (generally 0.5 to 0.6 mm) of the needles they use in vaccines. This is physically impossible, but the explanation would entail a discussion on impedance, inductance, resistance, power, latency, and, at that scale, quantum physics. The smallest tags on the market are twice the diameter of a vaccine needle and nearly 1 cm long. They hold maybe 128 bits of data (i.e. a serial number only) and cannot be read unless the detector (which is also a transmitter, that induces a current in a coil within the tag, that then powers up the chip) is within about 4 cm of the tag. They are great for tagging pets, and are really useful in the aquaculture industry, but they have no use for monitoring people, especially in a society where we are already tracked 24-7 by the government, Google, Samsung and Apple.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.