Also Available in:

RNA Vaccines

Harnessing God’s design to help prevent sickness, but will the new vaccine technology alter our DNA?


Table of Contents

  1. What are RNA vaccines and how do they work?
  2. How do Moderna and Pfizer make their RNA vaccines?
  3. Could an RNA vaccine alter our DNA?
  4. Pros and cons of the new technology
  5. How is an RNA vaccine different from older vaccine technologies?
  6. Other potential concerns
  7. 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.

Historic measles cases in the US before and after the introduction of various measles vaccines. Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States (2003), No. HS-18. Specified Reportable Diseases—Cases per 100,000 Population: 1912 to 2001.

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.

Historic polio cases in the US before and after the introduction of various polio vaccines.

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. We discuss this further in our main vaccination article, under the subheading Adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector vaccines. This technology was spearheaded by the earlier, successful development of an Ebola vaccine. To date, there are no indicators telling us this strategy is dangerous.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The amount of RNA being used is minimal.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 bacteria) 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.

Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) was a creationist and opponent of evolution. His groundbreaking work, including his work on early vaccines, still affects us positively today.

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Evolution of a newer, more deadly virus: The virus is not evolving; it is mutating. We must understand the difference. Also, SARS-CoV-2 is not an influenza virus. Flu viruses tend to change a lot from year to year. Reassortment among viral strains creates new viruses that are new to our immune systems (e.g. H1N1, H3N2, and H5N7). Thus, we need a completely different flu vaccine every year. Unlike the influenza genome, which is broken up into multiple RNA strands, the genome of SARS-CoV-2 is a single, unbroken piece of RNA. Even though recombination among different coronaviruses can occur when an animal is infected with two different viruses at the same time, influenza viruses reassort much more frequently. The threat of a new, more deadly virus arising via recombination among coronavirus subtypes is less than the rise of new influenza serotypes. Also, the history of coronaviruses shows us that they burn hot when they first enter the human population, but then attenuate over a few years. For example, one of the coronaviruses that causes the common cold, OC43, shares a high sequence similarity to a coronavirus that affects cows. Molecular clock estimates place the split between these two viruses about 130 years ago, or about 1890.8 This is the same timeframe of the “Russian Flu” pandemic of 1889–1890 that killed at least one million people. Queen Victoria’s grandson, Prince Albert Victor, died of the Russian ‘flu’, but the virus is almost irrelevant today as far as human health is concerned. In the end, we want the virus to mutate because mutation accumulation is bad for the virus. Yet, we also want people to be aware that it will take a few years before the bug attenuates to the point where it is nothing more than a common cold. Also, while this is occurring, it is possible for a new serotype that our immune system does not recognize to appear. It is also possible, in fact likely, that a version of the virus that spreads faster will emerge. At present, the latest viral strains present the same image to our immune systems as the older ones, although authorities are keeping a careful watch on several strains that have emerged recently. There is, currently, no indication that the vaccines will not work in the future, but vaccine companies are ready to start producing booster shots if necessary. In the end, mutation is generally a bad thing for a virus, but attenuation takes time and mutations can cause mischief as we wait.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

References and notes

  1. See www.astrazeneca.com/covid-19.html. Return to text.
  2. 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.
  3. See www.modernatx.com/modernas-work-potential-vaccine-against-covid-19. Return to text.
  4. See www.pfizer.co.uk/behind-science-what-mrna-vaccine. Return to text.
  5. 1 nanometer (nm) = 10-9 metre. Thus, 1 mm = 1 million nm! Return to text.
  6. cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html. Return to text.
  7. cdc.gov/flu/prevent/how-fluvaccine-made.htm. Return to text.
  8. Vijgen, L. et al. Complete genomic sequence of human coronavirus OC43: molecular clock analysis suggests a relatively recent zoonotic coronavirus transmission event. J Virology 79(3):1595–1604. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

The Coronavirus Catastrophe  tract
by Robert Carter, Lita Cosner
US $0.20
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

Nicholas S.
I have seen the allegation that chimeras (in this case mouse-human) were used in the testing of the Pfizer vaccine. The human cells -not in the vaccine itself but in the chimeras - were said to be from a fetal line. Do you have any comment from an ethical perspective on this issue?
Robert Carter
There is a strain of mouse that has been genetically engineered to express the human ACE2 receptor. This is what SARS-CoV-2 uses to gain entry into human cells, so now researchers can use that mouse for many important experiments. But one cannot consider this a "chimera"; it is just a single gene. The human and mouse genomes have not been commingled, neither are these animals a combination of human and mouse cells. One can also not use this to justify a rejection of all forms of genetic engineering. In fact, I consider these mice to be an application of the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:28. They're just mice. They are not humans, they do not have a soul, and they can be used to help humans. I see no problem with this at all.
Seth K.
Dr. Carter, thank you for your previous reply to me. Yes, I understand that living life requires trust. I trust that my car was designed well enough not to explode while driving it, or that the airplane won't fall out of the sky when I fly. But these have a long history of being trustworthy. So, too, do many vaccines. I've received many of them and I would encourage others to do the same. But like the Boeing 787 MAX that was grounded due to design flaws that left hundreds dead, and frequent safety recalls for automobiles, so, too, can vaccines be problematic. Look no further than the rushed 1976 Swine Flu vaccine that caused more harm than the Swine Flu itself. I also understand human nature. I understand that any opposition to the cult of vaccines is heresy in the eyes of the establishment and could lead to severe repercussions for the scientist who dares speak up. As a creationist yourself, you are well aware that many scientists are simply too afraid to speak in favor of creationism for fear of no longer being able to get published in academic journals, fear of losing grant monies, fear of losing one's job. And when a person has mouths to feed many choose to remain silent. We also see massive censorship in the media. So, you have written several times on this page that "there is no evidence..." whereas what you really should be writing, to be more accurate, is that you "have not seen any evidence." And perhaps you have not seen any evidence for the reasons I have given. Fear of lawsuits, censorship, ridicule, and loss of one's livelihood are strong disincentives for scientists to speak out. This vaccine may be a breakthrough, but the ones pushing it the hardest do not have the best track record for honesty or aptitude in policy making. That should give one pause.
Robert Carter
You raise valid points. My only caution is that there are red flags that pop up when people are not telling the truth. I see little evidence of that, despite the 'powers that be' being involved. Also, it was the 737 not the 787, and it is perfectly flyable now that pilots know how to switch off the MCAS system.
Courtney K.
This is the largest comment section I remember on CMI.
Seth K.
Dr. Carter, thank you very much for your article and responses to comments. I've watched your DVD's and am a big fan of yours. I also think you did the best you could in your article, but there are some issues that were not, and really could not, be addressed. I'd like to share my lingering concerns. We live in an age of informational warfare, where the truth can be nigh impossible to decipher among all of the lies being peddled constantly. My questions to you are, have you personally studied COVID-19 in a lab? And have you personally seen the entire production of these vaccines from start to finish? I'm willing to guess that the answer to both is "no." What you have done, rather, is read all about it in the journals. The authors of these journals are telling you about this virus and about these vaccines, and you have a choice, to believe them at face value or not. As CMI has often said, outside of their field all scientists are lay people. I, too, have a science background, but not in genetics, epidemiology, or medicine, so I am at the mercy of trusting others. There seem to be many scientists, including Nobel winning scientists and others with high pedigrees who have opposing views on these issues. And I'm left, ultimately, to decide who I trust. I, also, am an amateur student of economics and history. And I can confidently say that medicine, more than any other industry, more than the weapons industry, or nuclear power, or finance, is by far the most heavily regulated industry in the world. And the results of these regulations have absolutely devastated our health and well-being for decades. So, I find it extremely difficult to trust the same establishment that constantly lies to us about nearly everything else under the sun, to be honest and correct now.
Robert Carter
Do you not understand that our entire modern world is based on a system of trust? Have you personally been to the oil refinery and followed the path of a slug of petroleum all the way to the pump? Do you regularly visit chicken farms and interview the workers? No, of course not. Yet, when malfeasance is occurring, people leave clues behind. And, as a creationist I am trained to be hypersensitive to those clues. I understand why people struggle with trust issues right now. However, I see no evidence of funny dealings with the coronavirus reporting statistics or the information about the design, testing, and manufacture of the leading vaccine candidates. If you trust CMI to give you good science information about the creation/evolution debate, why would you not trust us to give you good science information about science in general, being that we use the exact same lines of reasoning to assess both?
Denise E.
From J. B. Handley published in 2018 in How to End the Autism Epidemic: “Discussing vaccinations and autism isn’t an explosive topic, it’s thermonuclear.” “Very few people in the world have read every single published study purporting to show that vaccines don’t cause autism. I happen to be one of them.” Drs. Carter and Sarfati have an incredible amount of knowledge and study, far more than most readers of CMI’s articles. But I suggest you not venture so often out of CMI’s main mission.
Robert Carter
One does not need to read every single paper in a field to be well versed on a subject. Instead, one needs to read the critical papers, especially those that review and summarize prior work. Someone who is trained in science should understand that getting outside one's specific area of expertise is dangerous, but they should also be able to handle the subject if they are careful. They also need to be willing to be corrected and they need to be aware that new evidence can always come around that contradicts their position. Yet, these last points are also true for the 'experts'. As far as our main mission is concerned, we are very concerned about human life. If this is a life-or-death scenario then it is absolutely part of our mission, and SARS-CoV-2 has killed a lot of people.
Hannah W.
Could you address the concerns that some have shown over the vaccine and spike proteins as they relate to women being able to conceive? Thanks!
Robert Carter
You will see that I addressed this twice already, although you cannot be faulted for not seeing the answer among the vast number of comments. Search for "syncytin". Short answer: there is nothing to be concerned about. There is a bit of fearmongering going on here. But look for my longer answers.
Bernice G.
You may publish this or not, as you see fit. I would like to take two minutes of your precious time to thank you and the other CMI scientists for continuing my education. Thanks to you and Dr. Sarfati and Dr. Sanford I discovered what a fascinating subject genetics is. Were I 40 years younger I would go back to school to study it. Alas, the memory isn't what it used to be, so I watch CMI's videos and marvel at the intricacy of God's creation. Thank you again for all the work that you do.
Bernice G.
Thank you for answering my concerns from a previous post. Now I would like to tell about an article I read in the Washington Post a few months ago. There was a man in his mid-twenties, in Nevada if I remember correctly, who had a mild case of COVID-19 in April. Then, about a month later, in May, he had another infection, only this time it was severe enough to require hospitalization. Of course the doctors were curious, so they had the genomes from each infection sequenced. They said the second infection had enough significant differences that they concluded it was a new infection, and not a relapse from his first. 1. It is possible to get COVID-19 a second time, but this is rare. It has been reported that your body doesn't produce as many antibodies from a mild infection as from a more severe one. 2. We have been told that the vaccines produce a much more robust reaction from our immune systems. 3. There are different "strains" of the virus circulating in the population. Researchers have claimed that they can identify where the strain that infected you came from--at least when there were fewer cases in the country. 4. From the data released by the manufacturers it looks like their vaccines are effective against most of the strains that the test candidates came in contact with. Only about 5% of them became ill. This may be the chance to really turn the tide against this virus. I hope you will seriously consider getting it.
Robert Carter
Regarding point 3, it is not just that scientists "claim" they can identify different viral strains. I have personally aligned 19,000 viral genomes. Very few were identical. Barring the occasional sequencing error, you can easily tell which strain any sequence belong to. Since these essentially reproduce clonally, any descendant of a virus will contain every mutation in that virus. As more mutations accumulate, each main strain can be broken down into substrains, then subsubstrains, etc. This applies to all circulating strains today, not just those that were around early in the epidemic. Also, to date, there have been few to no mutations that affect the amino acids the immune system 'sees'. Thus, despite the mutations all circulating SARS-CoV-2 viruses are essentially the same, so the vaccine should work against all of them. The 5% who were not protected, therefore, did not have a proper response to the vaccine. Finally, yes, I am seriously considering getting this vaccine when it becomes available to the general public.
Jeremy A.
What about this paper: [link deleted per feedback rules]
Robert Carter
[other readers: the commenter is referring to a recent manuscript that claims to have found evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 genome can be integrated into the human genome]

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.
Lyndell W.
Have you written anything about the other covid vaccines in development? I have heard of a problem with previous attempts at a corona vaccine called "enhanced immunity". From what I understand, they have skipped animal trials with the covid vaccine and I have wondered how they rule out enhanced immunity if they cannot ethically challenge human trial recipients with the wild virus. Do you have any information on this? Many thanks, Lyndell
Robert Carter
See my prior comment on enhanced immunity and why few people see any significant threat from of it these new vaccines. See also my prior comment on why they were able to 'skip' the animal trials (hint: prior work on SARS).
Lyndell W.
Have you written anything about the other covid vaccines in development? I have heard of a problem with previous attempts at a corona vaccine called "enhanced immunity". From what I understand, they have skipped animal trials with the covid vaccine and I have wondered how they rule out enhanced immunity if they cannot ethically challenge human trial recipients with the wild virus. Do you have any information on this? Many thanks, Lyndell
Robert Carter
I have read reports on the phenomenon and how it is related to the new vaccines in several of the world's top journals (e.g., The Lancet, Nature, Nature Communications, and The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) and on several websites (e.g., TheScientist.com). Scientists and regulators are well aware of the potential problem and are looking out for it. However, there is no indication of any problem in humans with the new vaccines. There is also little reason to expect a problem. Yes, problems appeared in several vaccine trials in the past. Specifically, when immunized against one strain of dengue fever some patients had a severe reaction when exposed to another strain. If ADE rears its ugly head with these new vaccines, they will be yanked from the market immediately. The statistics, however, are telling us we have little to fear from it.
Michael K.
Hi Robert, I want to thank you and CMI for taking the time to address this. I also appreciated the comments section and your responses there. Clearly a lot of time has been spent on this. I did want to ask a couple of questions. I saw in the comments where you responded to Jacqueline E. where you said that "cronaviruses in general elicit a weak immune response, so people can catch the same virus multiple times in their life." I was wondering if you saw and had any comments on the recent study posted on Nov 16th, 2020 called "Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for greater than six months after infection". I do not think this one has been peer-reviewed yet, but if I understand it correctly the study finds that immunity after infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a lot longer than previously expected and likely could stretch years, for decades even. Is it worth getting the vaccine if you've already had Covid-19? My second question is regarding vaccine safety in children. In another recently released study (this one was peer-reviewed), published Nov 22nd, 2020 called "Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination" by James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas, they showed that unvaccinated children are "significantly" more healthy and called for further studies. Is this study legitimate? I don't know how to vet these things, but it seems pretty thorough. I'm looking for answers. Many in my family have serious concerns around vaccines (not totally anti though) but I don't yet know what I think. There does seem to be reason to be cautious. I did read the CMI article on vaccines which did answer a lot of my questions, still, this study is recent so I wanted to ask. Thank you for your time!
Robert Carter
Regarding the first paper, I gave it a quick glance just now. This is encouraging news in general. Yet, I would still wonder about the many non-symptomatic cases and the strength of their immune response. I cannot comment on whether of not it is worth getting the vaccine if you have already had the disease as I am not a medical doctor. Personally, with the known history of coronaviruses and the way they fail to generate multi-year immune system protection, I would certainly consider it.

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.
Becky M.
Could you speak to the use of luciferace possibly used in the covid vaccines?
Robert Carter
Yes, I can. My doctoral work was on fluorescent proteins, and as part of that I had to study bioluminescence. The corals I was studying do not glow in the dark, but other cnidarians do. Many other organisms also emit light. The classic example is the firefly. The production of light in fireflies involves a protein called luciferase and a chemical called luciferin. The protein cleaves the chemical and light is released. Fluorescent proteins and the luciferin/luciferase combo are vital tools for genetics. They are used in multiple different ways and your life is much better because of them. Yet, nothing like this is being added to any vaccines. However, these things are used as tools for the development and testing of all sorts of biotechnologies. This has been used in a 'guilt-by-association' plot to discredit vaccines in general and the new vaccine in particular.

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.
David K.
Thankyou for the work and time involved in this article, and also answering the multitude of delusional questions challenging the use of vaccines. 2 points I suggest. 1. The following paper may put flesh on some of the real reasons behind such peoples attitudes. Health Psychology © 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 37, No. 4, 307–315. The Psychological Roots of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes: states the following. Results: In order of magnitude, antivaccination attitudes were highest among those who (a) were high in conspiratorial thinking, (b) were high in reactance, (c) reported high levels of disgust toward blood and needles, and (d) had strong individualistic/hierarchical worldviews. In contrast, demographic variables (including education) accounted for non-significant or trivial levels of variance. Conclusions: These data help identify the “attitude roots” that may motivate and sustain vaccine skepticism. In so doing, they help shed light on why repetition of evidence can be nonproductive, and suggest communication solutions to that problem. 2. Maybe, a suggestion would be that these antivaxers living in first world conditions went to work in some 3rd world country with the common people where disease is rife and death is a regular occurrence, combined that with a non existent health system. When reality settles in (probably after about 2 hours) we might see them having one or two sleepless nights, before they scuttle off to the nearest vaccination clinic to pay for their vaccines and all the other medicines they need. Of course, none of this is available to the common people. But such will never happen as these people are too busy with their careers and 'protesting against vaccination'.
Martin R.
Thank you for explaining how the RNA vaccine works. Hopefully low risk and as successful as you strongly suggest but only time will tell. Many of the concerns I hear though are not really to do with science behind the vaccine but more with how government might manipulate the science of vaccines and fear of this virus to achieve other goals. Look how politicians seized upon Darwins theory as representing the true scientific origins of all life, by and large with ulterior motives and as it is so today indeed. Examples; Will the Vaccine be mandatory even by default. If you cannot fly for instance without the vaccine once it’s available as one airline stated. Maybe no school, as is, no work ,no sport , health care , welfare ass etc. If Mandatory or not , how will you prove that you’ve had the vaccine ? In the event some sort of tracking device I expect, like the phone App (microchip isn’t absurd ) Will there be countries that you are forbidden to travel too or from who don’t have widespread vaccines , even if you’ve been vaccinated ? If you choose to refuse will you and your family members be ostracised ? I also hear from many people usually science backed political, and media driven statements made , that once we have the vaccine everything will be OK ? Surely and you’d know better than me , this is probably unlikely at least for decades and that Covid - 19 is here to stay and will mutate. There will be cases, outbreaks and deaths to come. The fear driven by Covid-19 is the fear of death , which will come to all of us one way or another so nothing new there. 1John ch4v18 there is no fear in love. But perfect Love casts out fear because fear has to do with punishment. In Jesus we overcome Covid, death and punishment. Martin
Robert Carter
I am afraid I cannot comment on any of these political or social concerns. I do not know the future, but I do understand that "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21).

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.
Jay H.
This article is unfortunately terribly misleading, absent of real discussion or critique of the evidence surrounding the concerns members of the public share. The author expects the reader to blindly believe in his frankly biased opinion without a single reference to published literature or actual statistics to support his statements. Take for example vaccines….He claims…“There is no statistical link between vaccination and autism. People continue to peddle this, but it simply is not true” Yet there’s numerous published journal articles available to refute this, particularly with respect to Aluminium (known to be neurotoxic), the most common adjuvant added to vaccines. The literature confirms highly significantly elevated levels of aluminium is found in the brain tissue of autistic individuals compared to non-autistic (it’s the same for Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis sufferers) (Mold et al, 2018; Tomljenovic & Shaw 2011; Exley & Clarkson 2020). It has also been clearly demonstrated in animal models....People have very legitimate concerns about mrna vaccines. Firstly, scientists have never managed to get mrna vaccines past animal trials due to long term side effects associated with the technology. Secondly, others have rightfully pointed out that this new technology has been rushed out, skipped animal trials and has used small sample sizes to test for short term side effects only (Pfizer for example administered their vaccine to only 9500 people, non of which had comorbidities) in populations that are not at risk of COVID 19 complications. You talk about "following scientific protocol" in answers to questions, but attempting to justify the rapid role out of a brand new technology without long term data is categorically stupid and goes against science itself.
Robert Carter
"Terribly misleading"? Hardly, and that would be uncharacteristic of anything CMI produces. Neither is it absent of any critique of evidence for what it was designed to cover. The question of autism via aluminum (I though it was mercury, but see how the goalposts have moved!) was outside the scope of the article and also made moot by the fact that the RNA vaccines do not require preservatives or adjuvants. The 'no animal trials' argument is false. They were able to use prior work on this class of vaccines, in animals, as a basis to go straight to human trials. If there was serious concern over their safety at that stage, the people involved would have shouted in unison that these things are not safe. Why? Because there are good people in the industry that are legitimately trying to help others. Other pillory 'them' by saying 'they' are doing such-and-such, and yet they are the ones closest to the real data and they are generally trying to do the right thing. Finally, people started working on this 'brand new' technology in 1990.
Nicholas S.
Inescapable links between health of a nation and economics of a nation. One is extremely adversely affected the other will be also extremely adversely affected. Interdependent upon the other, being dovetailed together. Covid19 pandemic priority for vaccines. Pragmatism with awareness of the development of vaccines will still be stringent. In this era, litigation is a greater part of legal fraternities’ activities e.g. 7 years ago a former colleague, legal referral, advised me his firm was inundated with damages claims for clients, from malicious facebook posts alone. Certainty of safety and mitigation of side effects of a vaccine, would be just as much a priority as putting the vaccine into use as soon as possible. If one company had a billion damages claims, all the underwriting in the world will not be able to put that company back together again. God has provided all treasures/elements of the earth for benefit to mankind. Jesus, the greatest apothecary, healed the blind man using some of the God given elements of the earth and His power, John 9:1-7. Indication we should use gifts of earth and gifts of our abilities, sources within our biology. We and millions, pray each day for all people. Jesus was described as a man of sorrows, Isaiah 53:3 as His heart was for the grief of all mankind. Our hearts go out to the ill affected nations e.g. United States deaths, January to end of October, about 2.4 million deaths, about 230,000 attributed to Covid19. 10% justifies application of research and vaccine. Unique Covid19 virus has potential to simultaneously attack multiple organs at one time/rapid decay of biological function and/or sustained long lasting severely debilitating effects, has to be justification for new perspectives. Thank you CMI for another brilliant article.
Steve A.
Hello Mr. Carter, if you were given a choice of vaccines, would you have a preference ? I suppose most of us won’t be given a choice, but your advice is much appreciated.
Robert Carter
I am not that kind of doctor and CMI is not in the business of providing medical advice. If I had a choice, however, I would look at cost, safety, and efficacy first. Since the morality of the situation (at least for the Moderna, Pfizer, and Novovax vaccines that do not use fetal cells in the production line) is moot, this is not even a factor.
Lawrence M.
Read this once . Might have to reread a few times if I feel it would be helpful. I have conflicting feelings. One strong feeling I get from this is it repetively argues for the use of vaccines. This makes me uneasy since this is already the pressure we are faced with. A person should freely be able to say no to vaccines or anything else for no reason. They would then face the consequences of their choices. Thats God's design. Governments in North America are mandating various vaccines. Thats not God's design. I hope this explains a little bit why I feel so uneasy about CMI writing such a pro vaccine article without accounting for the abuse of power connected to them. Personally I am pro vaccine. Unfortunately however, beings the vaccine companies have embraced the use of aborted fetal cells I don't trust them anymore. Ths article casts a dark shadow on CMI in my understanding as well since minimizing the use of fetal cells is cause for celebration. The issue is not the amount. The issue(or non issue for others ) is the use of fetal cells at all. I don't believe its God's design to use fetal cells.
Some of my thoughts
Robert Carter
No 'pressure' was intended and in no way did I argue against personal choice. Regarding the use of fetal cells in the vaccine industry, see the relevant parts of the main article. Yet, if you are going to pull out of vaccines over this issue, you may have to pull out of modern medicine altogether and you may have to stop using the majority of products you get from your local grocer or pharmacist.
Rulon D.
Where did Louis Pasteur ever "oppose evolution"? I'd love to see the sources on that. Darwin held him in high esteem, and I am unaware of any allusion to any actual antievolutionism in his work. Pasteur did at one point advise Christians of his time not to pin their arguments on whether or not science could find a natural origin of life (during the biogenesis flap).
Jolanta S.
I read Dr. Carter's article carefully. I am reading the following discussion and I come to the following conclusion: Dr. Carter spoke very intelligently as a scientist who knows the mechanisms of the research community and even the dangers of careless speech resulting in a possibly ruined research career or even a lawsuit. On the other hand, he left many open doors to doubts that, as a biologist, I immediately caught and put together. You have to read this article "between the lines" in my opinion. The author is not blunt in his statements because the etiquette does not "allow" it, but he communicates matters quite legibly. Another difference that brings confusion is that in my opinion Dr. Carter sees things from a bird's eye view, from the perspective of history, and especially the future and scientific development (macroscale). Many people, however, perceive matters in categories related to the threat to the closest people and responsibility towards future generations, as well as our personal moral responsibility towards God for our decisions. I am convinced of the serious dangers of using the vaccine and will do my best not to be part of any test group.
Robert Carter
There was no reason to 'read between the lines'. I wrote as plainly as I could, pointing out the pros and cons as I saw them. I do not know what 'convinced' you about the dangers of the upcoming class of vaccines, and I do not know how you could be 'convinced' through what I wrote unless you only cherry picked my words to suit some preconceived opinion. Vaccines always carry risk, but the risk in this case is demonstrably lower than the risk of catching this highly infectious and often lethal virus.
Jody C.
In follow up to your article: I read a short article, dated 12 December 2020, where it mentioned that a prominent infectiologist, Eric Caumes, head of the epidemiology department at Pitie-Salpetriere hospital in Paris, stated that he had never seen such a high number of side-effects as he has with Pfizer’s corona vaccine. According to the article, he said that the percentage that experienced side effects is extremely high. To him, the side effects are too serious, and he himself would not take the vaccine. Not likely something to ignore!
Robert Carter
I cannot comment with any specifics because I have not read this article. I also cannot comment on one person's anecdotal opinion. The vaccine has been given to tens of thousands of people already. The majority of complaints have amounts to redness and soreness at the injection site, sometime a slight fever, and maybe feeling bad for a day or two. This is not being ignored!
Katie H.
Thank you Dr Carter, for your very clear & factual article. In the UK, the BBC gives nightly updates on the number of COVID-related deaths in the previous 24 hours, & cumulative COVID-related deaths since March are also listed. (This number is now 62,000 or so.)Their website also gives a breakdown of statistics into geographical areas of the country. We must keep in mind that this disease is a killer, like many of the childhood diseases that were rife before the introduction of routine childhood vaccinations. I was a general practice nurse for most of my working life & lived through the UK MMR scare at its height in 1990's. Huge hype by the media over a very poorly-designed & executed study that was completely disproved by subsequent large population studies trying to replicate those findings. We must be very careful to distinguish coincidence from verifiable causal association. I shall be having the COVID vaccine when my turn comes, just as I have had all the preceding annual flu vaccines, Swine Flu, H1N1 etc with minimal to no side effects. We were warned that the Swine Flu vaccine might give a sore arm & sure enough mine was very tender for 3 days & nights. A small price to pay when we're in the business of protecting ourselves & our loved ones from the tragedy of a terrifying, premature death.
Thank you Robert for taking the time and making the effort to explain a concerning, complex issue, in terms that can be easily understood by all. Certainly appreciated.
Leah P.
Can you comment on the concerns that have been raised about a danger to children in the womb or to a women's fertility?
Robert Carter
See my prior comment on this topic. There is no real threat.
David M.
Thank you for this article. From what I have found, correct me if I am wrong, no other RNA vaccines like this have ever been deployed beyond testing and the vaccine for Covid-19, if used, would be the first of this type to reach the market. My concern is in how widely this will be deployed as a new vaccine and a first release of a new delivery method. Some drugs deploy and have bad side effects, but the number of people impacted is small relative to the US population. It seems that some caution should be taken before we give this to so many people, though I hold little hope for that from any government, including the US government. You do mention the risks in this article for this new vaccine, but I was hoping you could comment on if this scale of deployment is reasonable, if you think any efforts will be made to mitigate this risk and what they might be (i.e. portioned rollout)?
Robert Carter
Every time a new type of vaccine was developed in the past, it was the "first time" it was deployed beyond the testing phase. This is inescapable. Yes, some harmful things have, in the past and no doubt in the future, made it past governmental regulators. Yet, risk is being assessed at every stage in the development and deployment of these vaccines. The world is watching and none of the players want to mess this up. It's not like they are going to stick everyone in the arm and tell them to go home and shut up. The first round of vaccines has already been deployed in a handful of countries (not including the Russian and Chinese versions, which I know little about) and the recipients are being tracked. This will give us a baseline way beyond the first set of trials (which already amounted to over 50,000 people). "Regular" people are at the back of the line anyway. If the vaccine is dangerous, we'll see the effects in our doctors, nurses, and first responders, then specific members of the military, then old people, etc.
Irma D.
What about big pharma's control of the narrative? It seems that natural therapies are hard to find and the only solution seemingly is a vaccine. Coronaviruses have been around for generations. What's the big deal? Cows are inoculated against coronaviruses. The fear factor, which is constantly reinforced by the media giants, is over the top! It is "just a bad virus". An elderly doctor recently commented to me that he went to all the Doctor Conferences (free) to learn the newest and best drugs for his patients. He said he was ashamed that he prescribed drugs that turned out to be worthless. He now called those companies "the Drug pushers". Really, are they any different than the drug gangs on the street? Both seemingly hide the symptoms of illness, either physical or mental. I see this whole situation as a global financial reset, in favor of elite banksters, the operation of it hidden by the fear over Covid19. This is the third time the USA went bankrupt, each time the bankers gained surety and hid their work by wars in 1780 and 1858, and depression in 1929. When a country goes bankrupt for the third time, according to the Law of nations (if think) forgiveness is to be granted. Citizens are the surety for the debt since 1933 through the Birth Certificate Prior to that, the state land was given as surety through the creation of Corporate governments.
Robert Carter
Bid Pharma? What about the financial interests of 'Big Alterna'? How do we know that the anti-vaccination advocates are not just out to make a living? Are they all providing their services free of charge? Hardly. If you are going to question one, you must also question the other. Yet, when you do so carefully, the claims of the latter crumble all too quickly.

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.
Nerses N.
RegardIng INFERTILITY see:[link deleted per feedback rules]. Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1 (see Gallaher, B., “Response to nCoV2019 Against Backdrop of Endogenous Retroviruses” - [link deleted per feedback rules]), which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile. To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included. According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol, a woman of childbearing potential (WOCBP) is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and is using an acceptable contraceptive method as described in the trial protocol during the intervention period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention). This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of post-vaccination infertility could be observed.”
Robert Carter
See my previous answer to a similar question. There is no evidence for this being a problem. Not only the the link between spike and syncytin extremely weak, but there is no evidence for increased rates of miscarriage among pregnant women who have caught SARS-Cov-2 (excluding those with extreme fevers, etc.). If you turn the question around, this would mean that those who are advocating 'herd immunity' would then be advocating for the sterilization of a substantial portion of the world's population (if the link between the proteins was true).
Bernice G.
Thank you for your informative article, Dr. Carter. Since it was written, I have been trying to find out whether vaccinated people, who, it is said, can still be infected with the virus but don't get sick from it, would be spreaders the same as asymptomatic people in the general population. This concerns me if that could be true. I happened to catch the tail end of a conversation on TV where a woman thought it was possible. I intend to get the vaccine because I am in that vulnerable demographic where many die from Covid 19. However, I would be very upset to find that I gave it to someone else who subsequently became very ill, or even died. On a different topic, I don't know why my Christian brothers and sisters are so afraid that this is part of the mark of the beast. Go and read the book of Revelation again. The antichrist must first come into power, by which time I believe we will be out of this world, so as far as I'm concerned this fear is irrelevant. If you will indulge me a little further, I believe this mark will be used to access the wages of people that are stored in one world bank. I'm thinking of a virtual currency, like bitcoin, that can be used to buy and sell from anywhere by a simple transfer of funds. We already have the technology for e-transfers of money from one person's bank account to another. I see this as the next logical step that the unbelievers left in the world will embrace without knowing the consequences of what they're doing.
Robert Carter
A vaccine is designed to protect the patient, not others. After being immunized, the person is resistant to that disease. This does not mean that a virus will not try to re-infect a person who has had a vaccine against it. In fact, it is possible for a virus to evade the first-line immune defenses and set up shop a second time in a person's body. If things work as they should, the person's immune system will nip the incipient infection in the bud. Yet, this does not mean that the person produces zero viruses and that it is impossible for the person to give those viruses to others. However, the probability is still very, very low. The chance of catching something from another person depends, in part, on the number of viruses the other person is shedding. Vaccination lowers risk of passing it on considerably as vaccinated people should not be shedding vast amounts of viruses.
Garry W.
If I agreed with science and government I would believe creation and Christ's saving Grace was a lie and I would believe evolution was true, that homosexuality was good and hetrosexualitu was bad. The covid 19 issue is a money maker for far to many hospitals, pharmecutical companies. Do I believe covid is real yep do I believe the statistical numbers nope. I have yet to find a truly unbiased source for that info. The same cdc says most masks don't work either due to incorrect applications or ineffecient filtration media. One side says it is all a lie the other says it is all true, there doesn't seem to be a truly good source of information to access. I guess at the end of the day we will all have to make our own choices.
Robert Carter
At CMI, we advocate not rejecting operational science. It is certain aspects of historical science that we take exception to. If something is a matter of laboratory experiments we can perform today, there is little room for debate. We can argue efficacy and we can wonder about safety of vaccines, but these are things that can be validated and addressed now. I agree that government interference can be a problem in science, and I agree that politics can sometimes poison the scientific process, but this does not mean that a science that is heavily indebted to politics is necessarily flawed. In the end, yes, we all have to make our own choices, but I hope you will trust CMI to give you a straight answer to some of these tough questions.
Charlotte O.
Thank you very much for this helpful article. I personally went from being very pro-vaccine to having very serious concerns about them (which I continue to have in spite of the useful information laid out here). In a response above you state: '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.' I have not read Humphries book but I am aware of who she is. In addition I have not found any sound rebuttal of her views. It is a strong rebuttal of the views of vaccine concerned scientists and medics which would interest me. I don't expect you to deal with this in depth here, but you might consider doing something like this in the future or know of someone who has addressed the issues that concerned you in her writing?
Robert Carter
Yes, we will not do any detailed examination of her claims. However, see our main article on vaccination. This will correct many of the myths.
Jeff B.
Wow! Thank you to the CMI team who authored this well-researched and thoughtful article. And even more so to Dr. Carter for his patient and thoughtful responses to the comments, many of which were ... er, less well-researched and thoughtful. You're a good man, Dr. Carter.
Diane T.
Hi, thanks for the informative article clearing up a number of points. I do have some concerns regarding a statement supposedly coming from one of the manufacturers of the Pfizer vaccine. In the statement they were unsure if it may cause infertility in some woman. If you could clear this up that would be great. Thanks, Diane
Robert Carter
This concern has recently come to light and many other people are also asking about it. It is true that a small section of the spike protein is similar to the syncytin proteins used in the human placenta. But the fears are overblown, for multiple reasons. 1) It is a very small section of DNA, and therefore inconsequential. Many genes that are completely unrelated have sections like this in common, at random. 2) The section is too short to have any relevance to the immune system and the way it makes antibodies. 3) The small similarity might be due to the fact that the proteins are both class 1 fusion proteins. 4) This section would also have to be in a place where the immune system can 'see' the amino acids and build antibodies to it. 5) The immunization is given in the arm, not the uterus. The virus, however, propagates throughout the body. If the spike protein could cause sterility or miscarriage, it would be expected that the virus would be much worse than the vaccine. Yet, there is no evidence for enhanced rates of miscarriage among the many pregnant women who have caught the virus (and did not have extreme symptoms).
Curt U.
With this vaccine, do you think it will be necessary to take it year after year, etc? I'm thinking along the lines of the flu shot. Or, will this be a "one shot" vaccine only needed to be taken once? Thank you for the article. Very informative.
Robert Carter
Influenza contains eight separate RNA molecules. When a person or animal is infected with two different strains, the pieces can 'reassort' and make new combinations (H1N1, H3N5, etc.). Since this is continually happening, new flu vaccines must also be constantly developed. The virus also mutates over time. Changing amino acids in the protein coat means can mean an old virus presents a new appearance to our immune systems. For these two reasons, we have the 'annual' flu vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 is not like this. First, it has but a single RNA strand, so reassortment is not possible. Recombination might be possible, and this explains how many of the different coronavirus strains originated, but no recombination has occurred between SARS-CoV-2 and any other virus to date. Second, mutations to the spike protein can occur, but essentially no mutations that create a 'new' version of the virus, as far as our immune systems are concerned, have appeared. Thus, hopefully, this will be a one-and-done vaccine, perhaps with boosters every 5 to 10 years.
Lisa R.
Can you please speak to the vaccine needing to be given multiple times per year? That seems excessive. Is this a rumor, or the way it will be?
Robert Carter
The protocol calls for two injections with an appropriate spacing between them. Getting a second injection is standard practice for many vaccines and it is after that second round where immunity really kicks in. It will not be given 'multiple times per year'. Hopefully, and the data are pointing in this direction, it will set up a long-term immune system response and will not have to be an annual thing.
Dan P.
Thank you Mr. Carter for your response to my comment. If I may, kindly allow me to point out an error that you have implicitly acknowledged, but which you fail to make explicit to your readers, which I wish you would do, for the sake of accuracy. By your own admission, "Polio exists. This is not a lie. It killed and paralyzed many people. This is also not a lie. It has nearly been eradicated across the world, and one major strain no longer exists. This is also not a lie." I will accept your statement on this. However, if that is true, then this statement which you made near the beginning of your article cannot be accurate: "There is no question that vaccines have eradicated debilitating and deadly diseases such as smallpox and polio." Where are the "strains" mentioned in your original quote, indicating that "vaccines have eradicated debilitating and deadly diseases such as smallpox and polio"? Would you be willing to talk about those other strains which still do exist? Finally, are you willing to acknowledge that my quote of the Chicago Tribune article from March 5, 1961, page 166, stating that, "The definition of polio also has changed in the last six or seven years," coincides exactly with your graph, which you use as a premise to show that polio has been eradicated during that exact same timeline?
Robert Carter
1. Good point. Polio is not eradicated worldwide, yet. I was thinking of the US when I was writing and may have overgeneralized. Yet, we are still on the cusp of eradicating it, and this was only brought about by vaccine programs. 2. I do not wish to sign up for Newspaers.com just to check this story and I would not necessarily trust others to report the words accurately. But let's say this is what was actually written and that the context is appropriate. a) This is the opinion of a newspaper reporter and might not reflect reality. b) Polio was in existence prior to that time but no longer exists in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, etc. today. Analyzing historical data reporting is always difficult, but this does not mean we can learn nothing from it.
Stuart H.
The UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency is on record (Tenders electronic daily, a supplement to the Official Journal of the EU, Supplies - 506291-2020) as having awarded a contract to Genpact (UK) Ltd on 14/09/2020. The contract calls for the development and supply of an Artificial Intelligence software tool "to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed". The reason that this tool is necessary is that "it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine". This information is available on-line but a link cannot be provided directly per CMI's policy. I offer it without comment.
Robert Carter
Ok. So? They are trying to do better with their reporting system. This is commendable. They also do not want to let any adverse reactions slip through the cracks, which is also commendable. Many people have a gut reaction against the phrase "artificial intelligence", but this is just a fancy way to say "lots of computer processing power". They also want to be able to carefully vet the reports to flag false or sensationalist claims, because one bad apple can spoil a whole barrel. This is a very sensitive subject and it looks like the UK government is trying to deal with it effectively and properly. Then again, this is the government...
Dan P.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise on which this article is based. It is deceptive at best. I realize that is not your intention, but rather the opposite, but you are going by flawed data. The following quote from your article is where you clearly have missed the mark. You say, "There is no question that vaccines have eradicated debilitating and deadly diseases such as smallpox and polio." No question? There is a BIG question! Here is a direct quote from the Chicago Tribune from March 5, 1961, page 166: "The definition of polio also has changed in the last six or seven years. Several diseases which were often diagnosed as polio are now classified as aseptic meningitis or illnesses caused by one of the Coxsackie or Echo viruses. The number of polio cases in 1961 cannot accurately be compared with those in, say, 1952, because the criteria for diagnosed have changed." This quote is still available in the Chicago Tribune archives and I encourage you to look it up. I have given you the exact date and page number, you can find it in just a few minutes. This gives the appearance of being a deliberate attempt on the part of the medical establishment to make it appear as though the vaccine was working when in fact it was not -- in order to sell more vaccines. Please, do not buy into this lie.
Robert Carter
By definition, what I wrote cannot be deceptive if any errors were unintentional. Yet, regarding what you wrote, so what? All this means is that there are larger error bars around the pre-vaccine numbers. Actually, I would guess that scientists do not use the same numbers today as they did in the 1960s because people have would done a thorough historical analysis of the relevant data. This is perfect dissertation material and low-hanging fruit like that does not hang around long. Finally, instead, this appears to be a deliberate attempt by the medical establishment to establish proper tracking protocols. Polio exists. This is not a lie. It killed and paralyzed many people. This is also not a lie. It has nearly been eradicated across the world, and one major strain no longer exists. This is also not a lie.
Travis B.
Once again CMI gets outside their wheelhouse and directs the church into a decision that could have great consequences. My advice. Do your own research. Read the vaccine insert before taking. The vaccine insert will lust all ingredients. Look for cell lines used in the production ie.HEK-293, PER.C6, MRC-5. These may be called human diploid cells. Do your research on these cell lines. Pray for God’s wisdom and allow The Holy Spirit to guide your decision, not man.
Robert Carter
"Do your own research." Excuse me, what do you think this article represents? Regarding vaccine "ingredients", cells are not ingredients. One of the reasons I went through the details of how these vaccines are made is so that people would know what went into their making even if these things are not on the label. And yet, we know these cell lines are not used in the production of the Modern and Pfizer vaccines. There's your research.
Steven L.
What a disturbing & disapointing review. I almost felt that I was reading a review by the Rockefeller foundation. So many things ignored. Misinformation red light on high alert here...
Robert Carter
And yet, without any testable statement from your end, I can only assume that you are only reacting emotionally. I stand by what I wrote.
Jan B.
It appears that serious problems are now appearing with these vaccines. Some people are getting severe allergic reactions.
Robert Carter
To date: two people in the UK, and they are fine after medical intervention. This might be overblown reporting or it might be that we have learned something new about this vaccine.
Jacques B.
Croc! I wish I had time to read all the comments! The sheer number of nutcases and clever people astounds me! I do not have a concern about vaccine's for me and my family and are thankful that God use the "ordinary" humans to invent such profound things. We are indeed the "King of the Beasts!" Even though many scientist on the front-lines does not accept Christianity, I am grateful that He can even make the "devil" do His work on earth! (and pay for it!) LOL! As one with an auto-immune disorder, I do wonder if one day the troublesome gene should be knocked out or repaired. It will be interesting to see. In fear of adding fuel to conspiracy theory, I am not particularly overly keen in making my immune system hyper active, as it is my immune system that is a bit ratty. That said, when I am sick from disease, I use the exact same drugs as a healthy person to boost my immune system - so no fear there. But as auto immune disorders come in many varieties, my light affliction may not be true for anyone. I for one would like to see how RNA vaccines play along with auto immune disorders. I personally believe it won't make any difference.
Ian B.
I Cant believe the shear stupidity and blindness from CMI. You should be more responsible as you put out this false information to Gullible Christians, so that they will freely go off and get their RNA vaccines and risk severe and permanent damage. There is so much reputable science based information from scientists more qualified on the subject than you are, that are warning those that would listen, not to take these vaccines. And to say that vaccination works and support it when it is causing a massive rise in Autism in our children, killing and maiming children in India, Africa and other third world countries, and has caused death and injury claims to the VARS in the US of over 4.5 billion dollars, and that's probably only 1-2 % of actual cases, is astounding. Perhaps you should read the latest report from Robert F Kennedy Jnr. of Children's Health Defense, or read the book "Dissolving Illusions" by Dr Suzzanne Humphries. Perhaps you should look at the disaster that resulted from the Sars1, Swine Flu, and H1N1 vaccination programs. Perhaps you should look at the skyrocketing polio cases particularly in Indian children from Bill Gates polio vaccination program. In support of the previous writer, there are no excess deaths around the world with only some small upticks in March April. How is this a pandemic? And the PCR test is definitely useless for testing for COVID. Any uneducated person could find that out. The inventor of the process himself said it should never be used for testing. These are not Conspiracy Theories, they are truth. CMI should be subscribing and broadcasting truth, not the lies of the enemy. I find that i can no longer support your organization, after supporting it for many years, and coming back to faith because of it. Ian Birchall Melbourne.
Robert Carter
I pains me to see so many people in your position. Yet, I can also not see why anyone would pull support for the creation message on a tangential issue like this. I do not need to answer your many points, but I am going to do so anyway in the hopes of a) not losing you entirely, and b) showing people that there are answers to these objections:

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.
The issue of the use of aborted baby cell-lines in growing vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford, Janssen) or in testing vaccines (Moderna) should prohibit any Christian from championing such vaccines. I would submit that it is wrong for CMI to dismiss this fact stating, in its position paper, that because cell-lines mean the “descendants of descendants of descendants of one cell from each of these babies. …(therefore there is a) tenuous connection between vaccines and abortion. However, no new embryos are being generated for the purpose of culturing vaccines—this would be immoral. Rather, these vaccines use the cell lines from a baby already killed decades ago, and that not for the purpose of creating vaccines…” It is immoral period whether the baby was killed today, yesterday or decades ago. Should we not plead the cause of those who were murdered years ago and whose remains are being exploited? It is a very great evil that numbs the human conscious and engenders the continued holocaust (1.5 billion in the last 50 years) against the innocent.
Robert Carter
I understand your concern and I do not 100% disagree with you. However, at this point you will have to withdraw yourself from medicine in general, for I fear that if you keep digging you will find these cell lines are in some way associated with almost everything. I submit to you that organ transplants from murder victims fall into the same moral category, yet nobody is sanctioning murder in order to increase the organ supply. More details are in the vaccine article.
Laura T.
I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed in your response to this. Here are my reasons. Your "science" is flawed. Check out this video. [link deleted as per feedback rules] If, as a Christian organization you support pro-life, then you will want to watch this video. [link deleted as per feedback rules] Laura
Robert Carter
If a video could only solve all the world's problems! Yet, the videos you sent (sorry everybody else, our system automatically strips outside URLs from anything posted here) make a mockery of truth. The first was heavily edited, so it is inadmissible. The second only shows us that people who know nothing about science should not make videos pretending they know what they are talking about. Also, I dealt with how AstraZeneca makes their vaccines in my article.
Ted G.
"Not all the data are pointing to this protocol being effective, so the medical establishment dithers" This is part of the response you gave to a question regarding the usage of the HCQ protocol. The studies carried out by "the medical establishment" were flawed in that they didn't use the entire protocol or it was used on patients in a hospital setting already quite ill with the virus. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko of NY, one of the pioneers of this protocol which he first started publicly talking about in March 2020, said it has to be used early on before the virus has a chance to massively replicate. A few days ago he gave a detailed report to the US Senate committee on Homeland Security about how effective this treatment protocol has been not only in use by him but by other doctors who combined have treated many thousands of patients with exceptional results. If this protocol had been fairly studied then put to use several months ago this "pandemic" would have never reached any where near the level it has now and society could have been spared the destructive lockdowns that have wrecked havoc on the economy, peoples lives and their mental health. You can read his Senate report at the link below, which I know will be deleted, if you want to get the truth about why this highly effective protocol has been suppressed. Thanks for your time and I just want to say I find your articles on creation science very informative, keep up the good work.

[link deleted per feedback rules]
Robert Carter
Politics and science are terrible when mixed together. Yet, HCQ + zinc are not a preventative Neither are they a cure. They might work to reduce symptoms, and I would not doubt that some rigorous future study could demonstrate it. Yet even after that, another study could come along and challenge the first, which is what we are seeing. Science is never settled. The sage of HCQ can serve as a case study for this.
Jonathan G.
This is an outstanding article. I'm left with some suggesting and questions. Suggestions: 1. Please translate to Spanish, not all of us are bilingual. 2. Have people coming in the news or videos providing this information. Questions: 2. If I got Covid and no symptoms I don't really need the Vaccine right? 1. How certain is this rumor going around? The "Vaccine" * is mRNA, it circulates through the blood until it finds an ACE2 enzyme receptor, * which exists mainly in the testicles, a little in the ovaries, and in the myelin of neurons. * The "m" is for messenger, through the receptor, RNA penetrates the cell and rewrites its genetic code. * The cell no longer serves what nature created it for, * it serves to create what laboratories designed RNA for. Theoretically "defenses". * The price is that 97% of inoculated men will be sterile, but also, if they are young children, they will never develop secondary sexual characteristics. * * They will be androgynous, without sexual desire, or very moderate, and probably more manageable and obedient.* * 45% of girls will be sterile. * * Neuronal damage, on the other hand, will affect part of your frontal cortex. * You will be able to work, even drive a car, * but not think deeply. * Perfect slaves of the New Normal.
Robert Carter
Many of our articles have been translated into other languages, but these things take time, and willing volunteers.

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.
David W.
Dr. Carter, I am currently looking at an article by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. His calculation of the current mortality rate from COVID19 is 0.2 to 0.3 percent. Exactly what I said in my earlier response. I can only speak for my state, but the suicide rate is WAY up due to the economic impact of the draconian measures which are being foisted on the population. So, how does that factor in to your argument regarding the damage done by the virus? Are you saying that those who die from the virus are more important than those dying from suicide due to depression from lockdowns? Regarding the vaccine, it has NOT (nor has any vaccine ever) been inert placebo tested, so it is not being properly tested. Vaccines are exempt from this requirement and vaccine manufactures are exempt from liability due to damage caused by their vaccines. Pres. Reagan signed this into law in the 1980s. If vaccines are so safe and effective, why are they exempt from the same testing all other pharmaceuticals require and why do the manufactures need to be exempt from liability? Additionally, how do we know what the impact of this RNA vaccine is going to be 50 years from now on children who are given it? The answer is, we can't know what possible damage could be done by this vaccine after even 5 years, let alone 50.
Robert Carter
First, lots of people try to monkey with the mortality statistics. I prefer the case fatality rate, which = deaths / cases. The only way to change that is to challenge the raw data. Also, a lot of people are claiming the PCR tests yields false positives. If this is the case (which I do not believe) the case fatality rate only goes up. If, as some claim, 90% of the tests are false positives, that would make SARS-CoV-2 the single most deadly virus in history. One is then fighting a losing battle if they want to then claim that many of the deaths were not from Covid-19.

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.

Michael F.
Thank-you for your ministry Dr. Carter, As regards the covid-19 vaccine, and given that misinformation abounds... I have come across articles about Sir John Bell of Oxford who talks about the virus being "unlikely to complete sterilize a population". Is this in-house jargon for something other than preventing conception?
Robert Carter
I'm not sure exactly what this is referring to, but there are a lot of false rumors circulating that the vaccine will cause sterility.
Col M.
Wonderful article thanks Dr Carter. I love CMI's work. A quick question. Prior to your article I was against myself being immunised, currently I am less against it. But recent news reports suggest that A) you can get the virus more than once, and B) immunity may not be permanent. Assuming these turn out to be true, would there be any point in immunisation?
Robert Carter
Excellent questions. Yes, you can get the virus more than one and immunity after catching the virus may not be permanent. The results from the vaccine trials so far, however, look promising. We are seeing a very good antibody production in the volunteers. Yet, it is still early in the process, so there are still some (rapidly shrinking) unknowns.
Dacia C.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but simply an RN that has practiced for 24 years in a variety of areas in medicine. My concern is derived from your 2% death rate you referred to in response to a previous question. In my current practice, I personally know of a respected physician who is in ligation with the state for attributing the cause of death for 8 of his patients to COVID when it was not COVID. In my current position, I prepare patients for surgery. Recently, I spoke with a patient who had his surgeries cancelled because of a positive COVID test. The only problem is that he had not been tested as of yet. This meant rebooking 2 surgeons and causing the elderly patient to wait for treatment. Through the last eight months, I have come across a number of patients who have had a similar experience with getting a letter stating they are COVID positive, when they have never tested. As a medical professional, this is unethical and malpractice. From my personal practice, I have a difficult time trusting the reliability of the numbers.
Robert Carter
Sadly, I have no doubt that there are not some shenanigans happening. Yet, I have no reason to think the entire system is corrupted, for there are a lot of good people in your field who would simply not tolerate cheating. There are definitely paperwork issues and there is a financial incentive for hospitals to mark down 'covid'. Yet this does not invalidate everything. Also, I don't want to get into how government policies distort marketplaces, for economics is a bit outside of our sphere.
Naomi M.
Thank you, I found your article well written and informative. Has it been edited since originally posted? I recall reading information in regards to potential impact on fertility but I can no longer locate the paragraph. Thank you.
Robert Carter
You are very welcome, but, no, besides finding a typo or two there have been on significant updates since it was first published.
Stephanie V.
Thank you very much for this article. I really did not know what to think about this vaccine, also because lots of Christians are against it, for multiple reasons. I don't want to do anything against God's will, but don't have all the knowledge to understand if this vaccine is in correspondence with His will or not.

Your organisation therefore is a great guidance for me.
John P.
Studies have shown that immunity to COVID 19 does not only rely on antibodies, but also on T-cells. Therefore we may be closer to herd immunity than we think based only on antibodies. Perhaps then the need for vaccines may not be as urgent as we are led to believe? [link deleted per feedback rules] Also will antibody-dependent enhancement be a concern with any of these vaccines? [link deleted per feedback rules]
Robert Carter
Yes, there are two arms to immunity: cell-based and humoral. Yet, for lack of anything better, scientists have historically used antibody concentration as a proxy for 'immunity' in general. There have been no signs that anti-body dependent immunity is a concern, but those who know what to look for are certainly watching out for it.
Geoffrey B.
I truly thank God for CMI. He has given you a hunger for him and desire to equip Christians around the world. This article was excellent and clearly laid out for my layman's mind and has given me pause for thought. Finally, "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." So very true.
Jacqueline E.
If the death rate is as low as the cdc states, why is it even necessary to develop a vaccine to combat the virus? Wouldn't natural immunity be effective? We know flu kills many more so I do understand the urgent need for a vaccine. This makes absolutely no sense to me.Some scientists say you cannot catch a virus.They get into us by injection such as via using cat ,dog,shark DNA etc. If true vaccines make no sense to me.
Robert Carter
Fair question. First, at that death rate we are talking about millions and millions of dead people. That's why. Also, it depends on what death rate you are citing. Some people are deliberately downgrading the death rate and other are mistakenly using those fake numbers as a basis for belief. At present, the death rate (after expensive medical intervention) is about 2%. The odds of dying in a car crash in an average year is about 1 in 8,000. Things like airbags, crumple zones, and seatbelts explain why auto accident fatalities are so low. Nobody would drive if 2% of the population died each year in car accidents. With a safe and effective vaccine, the death rate from COVID-19 will drop precipitously.

"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.
Joel L.
Thank you for a very comprehensive and informative article on this subject. I may pass it on to my father. I think in addition to the 'proper' anti-vaccination movement, much of the skepticism surrounding the new vaccines stem from what is now a profound lack of trust in all facets of our media, political and even social media landscape. People don't trust demonstrably untrustworthy sources when those sources may well have alternative agendas for advocating policies that may hurt them. This makes the actions of such sources doubly reprehensible, as it leads to the public disregarding their advice even when it is true. I think your assessment of the cost of lockdowns vs. excess deaths requires nuance. First, the issue with the lockdowns (at least in the US) is that the hardly seem designed with effectiveness in mind. When casinos and movie productions are 'essential' but churches and small businesses aren't another agenda is being served. More than that: Tyranny kills, and without economic freedom, there is no freedom at all. Suppose another strain hit with ten times the death rate in the next year - a year of lockdowns would end small business and the middle class, and leave a population reliant on government stimulus. How likely is it that either side would ever give the arrangement up? There is a danger of what we leave our children that I think must be taken into account. Also, happy holidays (too early for 'Christmas') to all the staff at CMI!
Robert Carter
As I wrote in response to multiple earlier comments, we are not going to wade into the politics of the situation. But, yes, skepticism seems to be driving the majority of public perception.
Joel E.
Oh boy. I can't decide if the article or the comments section is better! The effort here is tremendous, thank you for your work on this. Question though: does all this time spent on comments mean we're going to get fewer episodes of Biblical Genetics? ;]
Susie C.
Dear Dr Carter, I certainly didn’t mean any disrespect toward you, it’s just such a difficult topic to calmly debate. I absolutely love your ministry and have been an avid supporter for over 10 years. If you can please take a look at these websites sent to me by a friend of mine who is part of the federal police and is very mindful about researching from legimate sources as she is careful not to engage with the conspiracy theories that are out there. You don’t need to publish this but I’d like to hear what you think of this. One concern I had was the patent put out as WO2020060606 and cross reference that with revelation 13:16-18. It’s easy to get caught up in some of this. I understand some things are out right ridiculous such as what David Icke has been saying re an alien nation etc. But others need addressing...Regards Susie C [links deleted per feedback rules]
Robert Carter
Forgive me if I came across too bluntly. I've been answering comments for two days now and proper word choice is hard to find sometimes.

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.
Stephen G.
Excellent article and I admire your politeness and generosity towards some of the more hostile responses. I have two questions: (1) Could you expand on your assertion "There is no way to know that the vaccine s have not decomposed" and what this means? (2) The consequences of the lockdown s have been horrific and in many cases entirely foreseeable. The UK is now 2.3 trillion in debt, thousands of businesses destroyed, millions will probably become unemployed, mental health has suffered, people have been denied access to fitness centres and EVEN OUTDOOR TENNIS COURTS etc and churches have been closed down. The unmistakable message is that the authorities have the right to take your freedoms, right to work and socialise, keep fit and healthy UNTIL they find a vaccine for a virus that is moderately worse but not orders of magnitude worse than the flu! C-19 is not a combination of ebola and the measles. We have no reason to believe that we won't be the recipients of another virus from China or elsewhere in the years ahead. (The first half of the 20th century saw not only the Spanish Flu but also two world wars!) Do you not think that people have if not an obligation a strong moral incentive to refuse the vaccine rather than pander to a sub-antiChrist worldview that affirms people have no freedom to live and buy until and unless they receive a vaccine? God bless, Stephen
Robert Carter
One of the concerns is that RNA, because it is such an unstable molecule, could break down during storage. The doctor or nurse administering the vaccine would have no way of knowing. This is especially problematic in the more remote areas of the world.

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.
Michael S.
All, First, thank you for your effort in defending Christianity through science. It is much appreciated by Christians, like myself, who demand that Christianity unite as Jesus Christ Himself prayed for in John 17. Secondly, Scripture is that unifying factor and is sufficient for all instruction as described in John 10. That part of Scripture is where I suggest that we never forget the root of science. The fancy term is Philosophy. We all must ask ALL questions to ascertain all possibilities. I suggest that all of us start our comments with, at a minimum, some sort of statement about not all questions may have been considered in this article or statement. Or if we did our due diligence to consider all questions then state that we are trying to answer all questions, but understand that we may have missed some. Our statements could be more precise, though and an example is provided in the next paragraph. In your article, Robert, you did not state whether or not you have actually sampled one of these RNA vaccines. If not, then your first statement must be that you are basing your analysis on information provided by other scientists. Another avenue I did not see considered is the fact that the coronavirus may have been manufactured. I am not schooled enough to know if that could then introduce a possibility of a subsequently tailored RNA product that could activate something nefarious in the virus or not, but it seems logical with my Bio 101 knowledge. In the light of evil we should consider whether or not the data about Covid deaths is valid. CDC's data showed Covid counts even if it was a secondary or tertiary cause. They admit not knowing for sure that the virus caused certain main causes like heart attacks. We need your views but we need deeper philosphers
Robert Carter
First, of course of I based some of my analysis on the work of other scientists. That’s the way the world works. In the same way, everything you think about this virus has been influenced by things you have learned from others. This is inescapable. But to intimate that my work is somehow suspect because I did not actually isolate and sequence any of these viruses myself is, well, rather insulting. I do not work in a Class-3 laboratory, so how would I be able to do this? If you are suggesting that the virus is somehow not real, the conspiracy to deceive would involve tens of thousands of scientists from universities, hospitals, private laboratories, and governments worldwide. Why? Because I have seen their data. I spent an entire month of my life (September, and half of July) working with the sequences I downloaded from GenBank. It is not like one little group is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Conspiracies, by their very nature, cannot be broad.

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!
Matthew B.
Thank you for the good article on RNA vaccines. I'm probably a little cautious about them, but they were well explained, and hopefully they prove to be safe and more effective than some of the current vaccines for other viruses. (In spite of some of the comments, you’re not alone; a satirical article titled “Researchers Delay Coronavirus Vaccine Until They Figure Out How To Make It Cause Autism” was published recently.) You wrote that “The efficacy of a vaccine is easy to understand. If the rate is "95%", this means it cuts the rate of infection by 95%.” I'm not sure how this agrees with Fauci’s words when he said that a person can get vaccinated with influenza or COVID and he won't get sick, but it won't necessarily prevent him from getting infected. He thought that a vaccine might not even prevent a person from spreading COVID to others (so restrictions would not necessarily end with a vaccine). Is there a misunderstanding here? A recent CBC article was titled “Don't want the COVID-19 vaccine? You could lose access to normal life, says U.K. minister”. Nadhim Zadhawi said that people who refuse a vaccine for COVID-19 could find normal life curtailed as restaurants, bars, cinemas and sports venues could block entry to those who don't have proof that they're inoculated. I am not anti-vaccine, but it seems very inconsistent to me to demand that people who are not vaccinated for COVID be banned from entry when it is (or was) unthinkable to discriminate against people who are not vaccinated against more serious diseases such as meningococcal disease and measles (which spreads more easily). Has panic dulled our consciences after all? Those who are cautious about new vaccine technology might be interested in the Novavax vaccine. It doesn't use human cell strains either
Robert Carter
Fauci's words were unfortunate, at least in the form in which they appeared as they filtered down through the layers of social media. However, this is something most people don't realize. When a person has already had a disease, or when the are immunized against a disease, this does not mean that infectious agent will not try to attack the body again. In fact, it might slip past the general immune defenses and try to set up shop again. The body, if it is functioning properly, will nip the new infection in the bud, but not until after it grows a little. The vaccine, therefore, protects the individual who is vaccinated. In general, it is not thought that an immunized person can spread a disease to others, but this is not a guarantee. At least, this is what I think he was getting at.

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!
M F.
You challenge me Mr. Carter. It is hard to know what to believe in this time. Your track-record of being faithful to Scripture and accurate regarding science is what keeps me looking at what you have said and not dismissing it.
Richard E.
Hello Dr. Carter, As both a physician and a Christian worker overseas (in an Asian country where widespread cultural compliance with simple guidelines such as mask-wearing has resulted in an extremely low COVID infection rate), I appreciate your thorough overview and thoughtful responses. I'm afraid that these recent public "conversations", particularly on social media, have not helped our case when Christianity is seen as anti-intellectual. People are welcome to think we are foolish for believing the incarnate God died and rose again, but we should not muddy the water by spreading fear through unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, as you have noted. I try to be charitable in these conversations but am grieved that many people ignore basic biblical injunctions in our discourse, like letting our reasonableness be known to everyone. I see a lot of anger about infringement of personal freedoms and misinformation but little love or receptiveness to learning. God bless you as you continue in your work.
M K.
Thank you so much for writing this! I have noticed a number in my Christian community having concerns over Covid vaccines and I appreciate this scientific approach from a Christian worldview.
Ovidiu H.
Oh, the enthusiasm of the scientist who wants his and others' bright ideas put into practice on a large scale. Reminds me of the enthusiasm of nylon socks inventors and producers decades ago ( "we won't need cotton anymore"!). Or the "eureka" shout of genetically modified tomatoes inventors ( " boy, we can grow tomatoes in desert and preserve them for longer in markets"). So far, too many of man's tentatives to play with nature and with natural proved harmful in the end. What if in the future we'll realize the RNA vaccine is not a good idea? Will you be there to give account, Mr. Enthusiast Scientist? And one more thing, related to an aspect mentioned in this article: I think the drastic drop in serious consequences of polio and other contagious diseases is largely due to hygiene improvements, not to vaccines. My opinion though...!
Robert Carter
The history of science and technology is filled with false starts and 'good' ideas that turned sour. However, it is entirely unfair to cite only the failures, for the successes greatly outweigh them. If this turns out to be a disaster then, yes, I will eat my hat. However, I believe I worded my article carefully. I did not say, "This is the greatest thing since sliced bread. We are about to eradicate all communicable diseases!" Instead, I tried my best to weigh the pros and cons.

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.
Timothy J.
Hilarious, that you acknowledge that you have benefited from Peer and then dismiss him by providing a response from someone who works in the industry that is under scrutiny. I actually appreciated the information in the article, yet replies like this strengthen the assertion that CMI is overly influenced by pharmaceutical companies, at least, as it concerns vaccines.
Robert Carter
He is a friend and colleague. I value his opinion highly. We have even appeared in two documentaries together. I do, however, disagree with him on this point. My citation of that article was in way of summary. I could have cited all the papers that were referenced in those quotes, but that would have taken too long. Sorry, but I don't see why this is funny, as I do not relish disagreements among friends. If you think my best attempt at a sober analysis is evidence that we are "overly influenced by the pharmaceutical companies" then so be it. However, since we are on record, a strong record, for standing our ground against hostile and persistent opposition in general, I simply must dismiss the claim out of hand. I feel like I have successfully and skillfully threaded my way through a minefield, sweating the whole way, while others are claiming it was because I had a map.
Michael S.
Points (limited to 1800 characters): 1) Too risky to implement unproven medical technology on scale being suggested (i.e. worldwide) by scientists, Bill Gates, et al. They should be humble & recognize they don't know what they don't know about this tech & long term effect on humans. Yes, much of what they THINK could go wrong has been tested to establish the theoretically low risk. Its what we DON'T know that is critical. Never put all our eggs in one basket esp for disease that's easy to spread but not very dangerous to most. Extremely measured approach & limited rollouts of vaccine are critical to determine efficacy+dangers near & longterm. Meanwhile, pop of humans with natural immunity (as God has set up in our bodies) grows by the hour worldwide. Perhaps we can be like China & return to normal (swim parties & in-person schooling) without a vaccine? 2) We're not governed by angels. History is full of examples of sinful humans abusing entire populations- all while naysayers chided those giving warnings as conspiracy nuts. Don't assume we just battle against flesh/blood but actually principalities/powers- aka legit spiritual warfare. Sinful people with bad intentions look like sheep--even sporting white coats (see also: Nazi Drs, M.Sanger, Indiana Experiment, Tuskegee, etc, etc...) or even computer nerds with Malthusian worldviews (Watson, Gates, Hollerith, etc, etc...) 3) Highly politicized disease as basis for high-speed vax dev = recipe for disaster. Remember the vids of Chinese people passing out in streets? Propaganda much? PCR testing (with insanely high CT's) being used to fearmonger everyone--Even PCR inventor said don't use it for this purpose. 4) No legal liability for vax Co's incentivizes bad behavior (all have history of lying in trials & more...
Robert Carter
You make too many sweeping statements for me to deal with here, so I will limit the discussion to but one: "Don't assume we just battle against flesh/blood but actually principalities/powers- aka legit spiritual warfare." Of course not. Yet, we also can't assume that everything is based on conspiracy and spiritual warfare.
Jonathan G.
Can you do a piece on PCR testing, specifically the reasoning behind labs using unusually high CT levels? I have been learning about this and I don't understand the necessity to report every PCR+ test as a "case" other than to inflate the numbers and drive panic. Also - would be curious for you to to look into the effectiveness of HCQ in early treatment of COVID-19. Why has it's use been limited?
Robert Carter
This is a little outside our scope, but I can say that false positives are a concern that have been addressed. With many rounds of PCR testing, false amplifications are always a problem. But, they have done enough quality control and re-testing in the laboratories to satisfy my skepticism, mostly. The reason HCQ and HCQ + zinc have been limited is a combination of politics and science. Not all the data are pointing to this protocol being effective, so the medical establishment dithers. But again, this is a bit outside our scope so I hesitate to say more.
Robert O.
I find it truly discouraging that CMI has taken this position on Covid-19. My discouragement has nothing to do with Anti-Vaccine; it has to do with the fact that Covid-19 has yet to have any consistent code sequence associated with it, it has not been isolated, regardless of the claims, and there are currently in the genbank multiple different code sequences claiming themselves to be Covid-19, as well as a host of other microbiological organisms claiming those self same sequences which are being used as primers and are naturally found in the human body. The fact that viruses can not be isolated in the same manner as bacteria poses unique problems for viral vaccines while attempting to apply Koch’s postulates. But there has been zero attempt at transporting this disease from subject to subject in the same manner that was accomplished with the polio virus. The entire episode with Covid-19 has to do with the RT-PCR tests, which have never been standardized with a “gold standard.” Every diagnosis is based on assumptions about the virus code sequences; and as the PCR tests move across the world, the virus “mutates” from one form to another, indicating not so much a mutating virus, but an erroneous testing procedure that has been foisted on the entire world. This whole Covid-19 episode has been a fraud, and Creation Ministries should be able to discern this. Seeing we have already reached herd immunity against whatever ailment we experienced throughout 2020, and it was no more serious an ailment than any previous normal flu season, what is the purpose of this vaccine? It will either be a placebo, or a witches brew. And to which of the multiple “Covid” sequences is this vaccine going to vaccinate against? 1800 characters is not near enough space to respond here.
Robert Carter
I am glad you had only 1800 characters, for you provided enough in that short space for me to fill a book in reply. I am going to say something rather blunt, then follow it up with an explanation. I am assuming you heard this material from somebody else (because it is not the first time I have seen it) and simply accept it as true. The reason I am doing this is because I know other people are hearing these same things, and I do not want others to fall head-long in this rabbit hole. In my replies below, it is not my intent to belittle you. I am not angry, and I am not offended. I am, however, quite convinced the people who are feeding you this information are wrong. Here's my blunt statement:

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.
Eric A.
Unfortunately the information above is more propaganda and misleading data then science. I am a medical practitioner that has worked in vaccine safety for the past 7 years with multiple local and national medical organizations including Association of American Physicians and Surgens, Physicians for Informed Concent, Childrens Health Defence, MN VAccine Safety Council and more. The above info I have heard over and over for the past many years generally put forth by pharmaceutical lobbyists or medical professionals working or consulting for pharmaceutical companies. It is extremely concerning to see a Creation organization supporting such a wolf in sheep’s clothing especially misleading people about how extensive the abortion industry is tied into the vaccine industry. For real science, data and truth on this issue I suggest referring to one of the websites below [links deleted per feedback rules] I also would highly suggest reading dissolving illusions by Dr Humphries. Revelation 18:23. ....and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by Pharmakeia (from the Greek) all nations deceived."
Robert Carter
You provide no specific information about how this is "propaganda" and how it is "misleading". All you did was cite your credentials and point us to links for further non-specific reading (which, per our website rules were automatically deleted). Thus, you are basically saying, "Trust me, I know." Perhaps you do know, but your comment is not very helpful in that regard. Your only real claim is that the vaccine industry is directly tied to the abortion industry. Yet, we know the provenance of the cell lines that are used (HEK293, etc.), and these are decades old. This is not evidence for a "tie" between the two industries.
Katherine G.
Thank you for writing this, but I have to say it is short sighted. It appears to be overly favorable toward the new vaccines based on incredibly limited knowledge of what the benefits for it could be, and fails to address our God-created immune system and natural sources that can support it. For a virus that the VAST majority of those who have contracted it get over it fine, I would avoid a vaccine that can actually make people sicker than the virus itself. Yes, the virus has sadly killed many, but in 94+% of these deaths in the US, the individuals were also dealing with multiple health issues, and most were in categories statistically known to be deficient in the proper nutrients a typical body should have including vit D and zinc. The vaccine is unnecessary if individuals would just support their immune system with proper nutrients. Of course, those with health conditions they cannot control due to our fallen state have more difficulty in this area, but these individuals are also likely immune compromised, and while the vaccine might help them, it could also potentially hurt them significantly. These trials are being done on healthy individuals, the same population we know already gets over covid just fine. They are not testing this vaccine on the immune compromised, those with T2D, hypertension, obesity, ... the very population who are the highest risk for covid complications. I would hope your organization would look at what God-given natural sources we already have at our fingertips. And we know from SCIENCE that those with proper vitamin D levels reduced covid severity significantly. Let’s look to what God designed for us first, then if we need help beyond that, we can step in with integrated medical support.
Robert Carter
Sadly, I cannot agree with these sentiments. Yes, good nutrition is important for overall health and well being. But, no, even the most well-nourished people are not immune to disease. The fact is that we live in a fallen world, in fallen bodies, with immune systems that were designed for Eden but which have also been exposed to several thousand years of mutation. Thus, "just support [your] immune system with proper nutrients" is actually dangerous advice. There are enough examples of young, athletic, well nourished people who are now dead to see how wrong this advice is. There are simply too many factors at play to make such sweeping claims. Nutrition, prior exposure to similar viruses, recent health issues, personal genetics (which is perhaps the single greatest effect), the initial viral dose one is exposed to, and more, all play a role. So, by all means, take your vitamins. I have D and C on my shelf and am regularly taking them. But in no way do I expect that to prevent the virus or cure me if I catch it.
Stephen N.
Thank you for the article. One key point that is outside the realm of operational science is the question of trust or lack of trust. In a recent article by CMI which I agreed with, it exposed the fraud and deceit involved with climate change alarmism. This may not be directly relevant to the issue of Covid-19 vaccines, but it is indirectly relevant. So called "science" can be falsified to advance a particular agenda. This is always a possibility. One need look no further than the so called "science" supporting Darwinism. Hopefully, we will all be free to decide whether we want to take the vaccine or not.
Norman W.
I would never want to imply you,personally, are exercising blind acceptance of something. I am saying I do not want to just accept things blindly. I have watched many doctors in video testimonials (V-Revealed, The Truth About Vaccines docuseries, etc.) who argue from what they claim are facts that vaccines are not generally effective, necessary, or safe. You present an intellectually convincing argument, but I have difficulty in discerning which of the arguments are either the most valid or the most convincing. I apologize if you thought it was meant as an attack on you or your credibility. I place a great deal of value in Christian scientist's opinions, which I believe are without the taint of arrogant Godlessness. I thank you for your thorough address of the situation. I don't think it has helped me with my decision about whether to accept vaccines as good, but it helps portray them in a better light. Thank you.
Robert Carter
I hope I did not overreact. I actually understand your position quite well. In fact, I don't put much trust in any source of information concerning this topic. Yet, when I examine the claims of the other side, their arguments do not hold up to close scrutiny. I truly feel for the people caught in the middle.
D. Ray E.
I have small quibble about using the the terms "dead" and "live" with a virus. Although a few may debate that viruses could be considered live or alive, currently they are not classified as living or an organism. Using the terms "dead or "live" may seem to express the idea more clearly; however, I would choose to use a more technically correct expression to convey the same idea.
Robert Carter
Yes, 'inactivated' is a better term. I chose to go with a more colloquial word. Viruses certainly are not alive.
Kim J.
heard atra zeneca was using baby tissue, have you looked into that?
Robert Carter
Yes, I believe you are correct. AstraZeneca uses that cell line to grow the viruses. Another company trying to develop a vaccine, Janssen, uses the PER.C6 cell line obtained from an male aborted in 1985 for their vaccine. Moderna and Pfizer do not specifically need human cell culture to produce their RNA vaccines.
John H.
Are fetal cells not part of the baby parts. ? Just asking not trying to be smart ,because I m not in this .thanks
Robert Carter
The phrase "baby parts" is an evocative and pejorative phrase designed to produce a negative, visceral reaction in the hearer. There are no 'parts' involved, although we are talking about cells. Yet, even for those vaccines that are grown in fetal cell culture, the cells are removed via extensive purification steps. Nobody would want a patient to produce an immune response to foreign human cellular components. Thus, even here there are no "parts" (pejorative or otherwise) in the end product. It is a sad fact of history that these abortions happened, and our minds are not put at ease that cells were harvested from the murdered babies. Yet, we cannot fix history and I, for one, and happy that the new technology has moved so far away from requiring the use of these cells. I am also happy that people are clamoring for morally neutral vaccines (even if most religious bodies and ethicists have determined that there is little to no 'moral hazard' here). The powers-that-be are listening.
Gert V.
As one goes through the article and all the comments and your responses, it provides an idea of the amount of work you and CMI went through to produce this FIRST reasoned article on the topic. Since the Wuhan virus manifested itself last December I have collected more than 100 articles on the topic and NONE give a balanced view. They are either 'pandemonium' oriented or tin foil hat. History shows a large supply in both categories. Your degree of probable veracity is extremely high, because there's 'nothing in it for you'. Thank you for this article!
Norman W.
Since God has so miraculously engineered our immune system, is it not better to let our immune systems react to the exposure to the virus and create our own immunity? I'm personally not convinced we cured polio and smallpox. There are so many credible doctors who dispute what actually happened with those vaccines that I cannot just accept, blindly, the statements of the authenticity of what actually happened with regard to those viruses. All I am sure of is, no one can do a better job of dealing with immunizing us (herd immunity) than God. With a virus that has, by in large, had a mortality rate of .05% except in older people who die just as easily or readily from flu, why are we panicked and feel the need to impose the use (or even strongly suggest) of "science" to do what God has already accomplished?
Robert Carter
Sorry, but I cannot agree with these sentiments. See my comments above about herd immunity (and the real risk of never attaining it) and being merciful to the vulnerable (i.e. grandma, who would have lived another decade or two were it not for COVID-19). The 0.5% claim is also a misdirection.

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.
Dave G.
Thank you Dr Carter et al; this clearly took a lot of prayer and time. Among your many points was that we cannot make decisions about how we live life based on fear of the unknown. You're very right about this. I willingly accept God's sovereignty over potential drunk drivers being on the road with me every time i drive, for example. However, to get to the point; aren't you falling for the "bait and switch" by even having the conversation about the vaccine being safe or not? Whether the vaccine is safe or not is irrelevent since we, in reality, simply have no need for a vaccine; especially not in the way the media is presenting a need for it. As you yourself have said, we will either reach heard immunity or the virus will attenuate. Perhaps just as relevant is that there is no proposal at all about anti-body testing; which unless I'm mistaken would render the vaccine further unnecessary as soon as someone tests positive for anti-bodies. If the above statements are correct, then perhaps this should more so be our focus of conversation. If you have the time, I'd greatly appreciate a response. Thank you again for your God given wisdom.
Robert Carter
i appreciate your comments and questions, Dave.

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.
John M.
This is a very helpful article. Thanks for all the time and labor invested in providing it. I plan to forward it on to many people.
Dee M.
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.
Robert Carter
The vaccine will be warmed to room or body temperature just before it is used. The RNA does not decay instantly upon warming. The temperature requirements are indeed a problem. But, as I said in the article, one of the manufactures is claiming its vaccine is stable at normal freezer temperatures for the long term, and at refrigerator temperatures for up to a month. This greatly expands its usefulness as far as remote locations are concerned.
Mark P.
Your analogy that “vaccines attempt to train our immune system by giving it ‘target practice’” and observation that “the body is more closely following what happens during a normal viral infection” bring a question to mind: is this new technology more likely than flu shots to help our immune system continue to hit a moving target as the virus mutates?
Robert Carter
Interesting question. It depends, however, on what mutates. As long as the small portion of the spike protein that our immune system targets does not change, the vaccine should still be effective. With the flu, however, mutation is only one of the problems. The real difficulty, and why the vaccine is too often ineffective, is reassortment. There are eight section of RNA in the flu virus. If a person (or animal, e.g. a pig or duck) is infected with two strains simultaneously, these can get scrambled ('reassorted') as the viruses are being manufactured. Hence, we have H1N1 (1918), H2N2 (1957), and H3N2 (1968). The H1N1 'swine flu' that first appeared in 2009 was very similar, as far as our immune system was concerned, to the old H1N1 that had been circulating in humans since the end of WWI.
Susie C.
Hello, Please consider the adverse reactions through China regarding the mmr vaccine and why Japan and Sweden stopped vaccination before 2 years of age and reported no cot deaths. Also my friend worked for blackmores as a naturopath and says the hpv vax was seriously damaging and in some cases killing the teens in the USA at that time. As a part of the study blackmores was involved with. Also would you not regard the awareness of hygiene and clean water a major factor in improved health over all that may have contributed to the eradication of these diseases? If you spent some time with biomedical Drs /intergrative Drs who also use science to prove the toxicity of these drugs you may come up with a very different answer?I vaccinated my child who got immediate problems and I personally know a few who were completely pro vaccination and their child had adverse reactions therefore we needed to stop doing so and investigate what was happening. Let the God made immune system do it’s job God didnt need help in doing this. It’s really unfortunate that you are advocating for this without working together with many of the cases that have seriously damage or caused loss of life. It would have best if you actually researched this with relevant professionals in this field before making a profound statement. I do not believe that injecting a cocktail of chemicals and by passing the bodies immune system through the neuro pathways is normal to do? The immune system didn’t have a chance to intercept that concoction because of its delivery method?If you are going to write up something like this it is imperative that you research thoroughly every aspect not just what the ‘secular’ science has recorded other the years.There have been many cases. It’s not just a coincidence.
Robert Carter
What makes you think I have not spent time with practitioners of integrative medicine? And why do you use the word "prove" when discussing toxicity? I am sorry that your child was harmed, really I am, but one-off anecdotes cannot be used to make scientific judgments. We need large statistical samples, especially considering we are far more likely to hear the bad stories than the stories with no emotional appeal. As far as the "God-made immune system" goes, you do realize we live in a fallen and sin-cursed world, right? Our immune systems were designed for an Edenic-like state and it is nothing short of a miracle that we survive in this current world, with our decrepit bodies and all. "It would have best if you actually researched this with relevant professionals in this field before making a profound statement." Should I be insulted by this? Maybe it would be best if you went off and got yourself a degree in biology instead of listening to crackpots. Sorry to be so blunt, but if you are bold enough to say that, why should I not push back? "I do not believe that injecting a cocktail of chemicals and by passing the bodies immune system..." OK, but what if your belief is misguided? What if the so-called 'cocktail of chemicals' is a line given to you by people who have an agenda or who simply do not understand the science of medicine? What if those chemicals are at no higher a concentration that are in the foods you consume every day? (Have you ever had that pink Himalayan sea salt? Did you know it has uranium in it?) "If you are going to write up something like this it is imperative that you research thoroughly every aspect not just what the ‘secular’ science has recorded other the years." I am not perfect, but I do have a reputation of being a careful and deliberate researcher. So I turn the statement back on you. Before anyone writes something, it is imperative that a person first educates themselves on all aspects (to the extent possible) of a subject. I am afraid we both have much still to learn, but you have not demonstrated much mastery of this particular subject.
Terell B.
Great article Dr. C. I appreciate the scientific insight from a Biblical worldview. Love your podcast and website. Please, continue to keep us informed by making these complex issues easy to understand, for us lay creationists who believe Genesis literally but have no scientific background. You rock!
David W.
It is very disappointing to see all of the major creationist organizations dismissing the scientifically tested claims of those who oppose vaccination as "non-scientific" because they don't fit your beliefs. This is exactly what the anti-creationists do to creationist research, just dismiss it out of hand as "non-scientific".
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.
Robert Carter
I cannot vouch for the other organizations, but CMI does not label those "who oppose vaccination as 'non-scientific' because they don't fit [our] beliefs." Instead, we reject non-scientific arguments when they are non-scientific. There was no casual, off the cuff, dismissal here. Instead, I labored over the information, digging deeply into the scientific literature and (as carefully and deliberately as I was able) examining the counter arguments. If we did as much testing for the annual flu as we just did for COVID-19, no doubt we would find that many more people test 'positive' than the number who think they have the flu. Thus, the actual rate of death would be much less and your argument reverses itself. Yet, this does not mean that the flu does not kill the same number of people every year or that we do not need to take steps to minimize its spread. You will also note that less than 10% of people taking COVID-19 tests are coming back positive. Thus, this is approaching a randomized sampling of the population, which gives us a better feel for the true number of cases. Concerning heightened death counts, I am glad you see that. Yet, with so many different ways to die, the fact that this one disease is bumping up the rate means it is actually having a measurable effect. How much money did we just spend on taking care of those people and how will this affect the cost of primary care in the future? How many hours of lost wages will families endure? How many years of lost productivity will society lack? How many families experienced the loss of a loved one who, if not for COVID-19, would have lived for several more years or decades? And how can you say the cure is worse than the disease? If you are (as typical) talking about lockdowns, if we lose double the number of people to death this year (0.86% is normal, and by 'doubling' that I am assuming a lower death rate for COVID-19 than we now measure) and if many more times that are injured by the virus, that will have a huge impact on our countries well being. If, on the other hand you are inferring that the vaccine is worse than the disease, this is not couched in any math that can be supported with data. The injury rate from the vaccine will be much lower than the injury rate from the virus. If not, it would already be showing up in the massive trials that are currently underway.
Joseph S.
Dear Mr Carter, Mr. Bates and Mr Safarti, I am writing a personal message and this does not have to be posted on your site. I am not a very eloquent writer but would like to convey why many Christians do not support vaccination. Vaccines are made with and from aborted fetal cells. “Through sorcery the merchants will deceive the nations“. The pharmaceutical corporations are doing this for PROFIT and have ZERO liability in America. Gates $$$ wants to vaccinate the whole world. His father was on the board of planned parenthood. Have you heard of Luciferase? They will inject (mark) you with biometrics and scan you. Just like you have to wear a mask to buy or sell. Look how all the merchants have required the mask. 501c3’s are obeying the same state that teaches evolution and other abominations and cut JOBS. That is a divisive struggle! Your data about illnesses being cured by vaccines can certainly be debated. (Susanne Humphries, Sherry Tenpenny). Robert, are you expecting us and our babies to take an injection for every potential disease we could get? How many diseases r in a fallen world? When would it ever end? Can’t you see it’s a religion? The virus is the sin and salvation is the vaccine A Golden calf! Vacca= cow+nation.. ritual mask and the 6’ death distance to ELDERS. U are using the fact that we are fallen as an excuse but the church closed! Could the ”fallen” be rich rulers who are making money and don’t care about God’s babies? Have you seen Vaxxed? Del Bigtree?RobertKennedy?DrShiva?Parents testimonies? Look at autism and SIDS correlation with HUGE rising vaccine schedule since the 80s and the rise of these spells. Are you okay with these injections being forced on Christians who are against it for religious reasons? Remember the Nuremberg code? Upset!
Robert Carter
Nothing you said is accurate. Before commenting like this, you should have read the information we have already provided on these topics. See CMI, vaccines, and vaccination, which I referenced early in my article. You also need to bone up on your science and your history of science. For example, vaccines are not "made with and from aborted fetal cells". And what's wrong with profit? Is that not the engine of the Western world's productivity and high standard of living? Have I heard of luciferase? Dude, the title of my PhD was Cnidarian Fluorescent Proteins. Yes, I've heard of luciferase! And there is no use namedropping those people. I have seriously studied what they say and found them seriously wanting for accuracy. In the end, however, all you have done is post a misinformed screed. Weight that against my sober study of the subject. I encourage you to take a step back try again.
Franklin H.
I appreciate the thoughtful article and the many concessions such that there are still many unknown risks with these specific vaccines. However, "the risk of the ‘genetic engineering’ of people is extremely small" but there is still a risk of artificial modification and that is significant, particularly for a virus with such a low fatality rate in its live form. My question is this, did you review all the data from the trials? If so, where did you get access to the data? From what I am reading in this article, it appears that you are basing any and all arguments (pro and con) on only the information released by manufacturers. That is not the proper scientific method. There needs to be many, many independent researchers reviewing the raw trial data, especially if these vaccines will be given to billions of people. It is also troubling that these vaccine manufacturers will not be held liable for injuries that may ensue from taking their product particularly if/when they get the emergency approval and I would caution any organization from promoting them as well. I would hate to know that I promoted a product that had devastating long term consequences since there is no "detoxing" or reversing this injection. I fear that once mandating the vaccine happens, all evidence that shows any danger will be labeled as "conspiracy" or "anti-vaxx" or dismissed as "anti-science" and what recourse will the people have?
Robert Carter
Well stated. I understand your concerns. See my answer to a comment where I provided statistics about the number of people that will die and what "1%" of the world's population means.

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.
Peer T.
Dear Rob, Not only HERVs have RT and integrase enzymes but also LINEs, the most abundant TE in the human genome. They become active during cell division, particularly in stem cells and early in embryonic cells. LINE1 is a complex genetic element with two open reading frames: ORF1 and ORF2. The protein coded by ORF2 provides essential enzymatic activities for the reverse transcription, as well as for integration of a newly transposed copy of LINE1. Their enzymatic activity is also found in the cytosol and we simply cannot exclude that viral RNAs delivered by these novel vaccines are put back in the genome. I am very cautious, here. Still I agree, that the odds of integration might be slim and as you say "If this were a real threat, we would see it happening all the time naturally." With the plan of vaccinating millions and millions of people, the absolute number will increase, however. I myself would not take a shot of these novel RNA-based viruses, unless tested 100% negative for DNA integration via RT/integrase. As long everybody is free to decide to take the vaccine, I am fine. Compulsory vaccination programs are, in my opinion, a crime against our freedom. Best regards, Peer T.
Patricia V.
Time to unsubscribe. If this is how throughly you do science it calls into question your work on creationism also. There is plenty of evidence that vaccines cause harm, and you cherry picked your 'evidence'.
Robert Carter
I never said vaccines cause 'no' harm. I do, however, hold that they have done tremendous good.
Bob H.
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.
Beccy G.
Thank you very much for this informative article. As always, you bring a balance of science and God's word together. Much appreciated.
Lindy T.
While I read your article with interest, I remain unconvinced that these rushed vaccines are wise or even neccessary. Several things just don't add up. For instance - a number of doctors and researchers have been publishing articles in the medical journal The Lancet about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating Covid. These doctors are claiming they are receiving death threats just because they are daring to publish their clinical findings in the Lancet. Even here in Australia a doctor faces 6 months imprisonment or a fine of thousands of dollars if he treats a covid patient with hydroxychloroquine. Why are doctors worldwide getting death threats and threats of prison and fines for practising medicine? Another question I have centres around the motivation of the vaccine developers. Bill Gates gave a TED talk about 5 years ago.. He was talking about the need to cull the earth"s population by at least 3 billion people to make the planet sustainable. In his talk he made it clear that vaccination was one means of preventing population growth. In Genesis God said to be fruitful and multiply. He didnt say give people vaccines to make them sterile without their consent to curb population growth. As for the charts which prove vaccination eradicates childhood diseases, I have seen similar charts. Except the charts I've seen have additional information. They show death from childhood diseases like measles and whooping cough steadily dropping from 1839, as inventions like electricity, refrigeration, deep sewerage and clean drinking water improved living conditions. Often only a segment of the graph is used to prove vaccinations work. If the entire graph is considered it is clear these diseases were already on the decline due to improved living conditions.
Robert Carter
People, politics, and money are the bane of science. Yet scientists are people and have the same foibles and temptations as everyone else. I cannot speak to the death threat, but I can say that the data on hydroxychloroquine are inconclusive. Thus, anyone who says it will 'protect', 'prevent', or 'cure' COVID-19 is not following proper scientific protocol. Nobody knows this for certain. I am not a medical doctor so I really should not say whether or not I think it works. It might. Or it may not. I am also not a politician and so cannot say why some jurisdictions have come down hard on using it as a treatment.

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.

Nathaniel W.
Dr. Carter, Would you mind including some examples and citations in part 2 of the cons section?
Robert Carter
I was specifically thinking of thalidomide, which was prescribed to pregnant women to combat morning sickness in the late '60s but was then shown to cause severe birth defects. It was not the drug, however, but the inclusion of the chiral enantiomer that was produced during the manufacturing process that was the problem. Many other drugs have been withdrawn from the marketplace over the years, for legitimate reasons.
Alan Sargent A.
At last!!!
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.
Calvin G.
Very well presented Dr. Carter.
Chris G.
And so, if we are dealing with a virus that for my age group has a 99% survival rate and a vaccine that has been touted as having a 95% efficiency rate (no one has fully explained what this means), I’ll pass. I just trust others will be ok with my decision. Also, don’t be so naive to think people won’t be lining up to get a “tattoo” or other marking if it prevents them from traveling, buying, etc. The acceptance of masks and shutdowns has proven most are listening to a narrative and not merely looking at data and proven science. For example, if masks do what they are touted to do, every time one touches their mask, they must wash their hands or they have just spread the virus to the next thing they touch-these masks are discussing and were never intended for public use as promoted by the literature included in the mask, the CDC and the WHO. Just not seeing the need for another vaccine.
Robert Carter
The need for a vaccine comes from the fact that, even with a (spuriously claimed) 99% survival rate, that is still 1% of the world's population (75 million people) dead. Perhaps a little less than that, given the fact that not every individual will be exposed to this (highly infectious) virus. In the US, 8.3 people per 1,000 are expected to die each year (0.83%). So the virus will just about double the number of annual deaths if it is allowed to run unchecked and if the death rate is as low as 1%. However, people who do not die still pass it to others. Even asymptomatic people have been shown to cause infections in others. Thus, young people who do not get as sick and are not as likely to die serve as a constant pool of infection that spills over into older demographics. This is why a low-risk person should want to get the vaccine - so they don't transmit the virus to the more vulnerable. "Love your neighbor" and all that.

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.
Melvyn F.
Thanks Rob (and CMI) for a straight forward common sense appraisal of this whole debate. Like many others I have been waiting to hear a response to many of the questions and concerns raised by this subject from a reliable source that I know I can trust. Well done to you all and many blessings, Mel Foster.
Linda H.
Thank you, Mr Carter. You have made an 'academic' subject understandable for a lay person like me. It is good to be able to use the information you so willingly give to help people who are fearful of vaccinations of any kind because of ignorance and misinformation. Thank you to all of you at CMI for the good work you do on a daily basis. God bless you.
Peer T.
Dear Rob, I do not agree with you. Our genome is full of transposable and transposed elements (TEs) that code for reverse transcriptase and integrase. So, it is fairly easy to reverse transcribe a foreign RNA molecule into cDNA, especially when it is produced in high amounts such as by saRNA vaccines, and then reinserted back into the genome by integrase activity. The genome contains hundreds of thousands of TEs, so it also contains hundreds of thousands of these genes. 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.

Kind regards, Peer Terborg
Robert Carter

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)
Geoff C. W.
Thanks for a very informative article. Do you have an opinion about the use of hydroxychloroquine to combat the virus?
Robert Carter
I am not a medical doctor, so I hesitate to say anything at all. However, despite the hype, the experimental results seem to be equivocal. We do not yet know, confidently, if it helps, and, if it does, how much.
Paul S.
1. The problem is practice does not always follow theory. Of the people that I know that have had flu vaccinations, around 1 in 3 get the flu with 1 month, and not a mild flu. No, not a big enough sample to be definitive, but many (including JS) say Impossible. Er, it happens... I know a 73yo pastor who does not get annual vaccinations because of what happens to him. I can put you in touch with him if desired (and others). 2. The polio vaccine also introduced HIV by providing a path for SIV to cross over. There is also the autism issue, I know of one personally where a normal baby changed at that time (yes, not a big sample). It warrants investigation. 3. The 'biochips' aren't an issue for EMF radiation; the concern is that it is the mark of the beast, an easily read person identifier which is then open to abuse. On the pro side is that it is clearly not for trading usage now, so how can people be seen to be choosing the beast?
Robert Carter
Paul, my friend, please allow me to clear up a few misconceptions that many people have.

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.