As COVID-19 continues to remain a part of our lives, solutions continue to be sought. There are numerous vaccines in the works, some now approved and being administered to the public. As an elderly woman in the United Kingdom became the first member of the general public to receive the Pfizer vaccine this week, it once again became a major topic of conversation. However, opinion is divided over whether or not the vaccine is truly safe, even when the companies that produce it claim it is. But these companies have also made themselves non-liable for any issues and adverse effects from these vaccines, so can we really trust them?

Vaccines typically take 8-10 years to create. In this way, they are generally safe, and are unlikely to result in any major issues. Sure, those who have them may experience some minor side effects, but nothing that will be especially harmful to them. The vaccines being produced now for COVID-19 were created in less than one year. So what does that say about them? They were rushed. And when something is rushed, a multitude of things can go wrong.

You do not need to look far to see the problems with this. It is reminiscent of the thalidomide epidemic, where the drug was said to be safe, but ended up resulting in the deaths of around 80,000 babies worldwide and deformities of a further 20,000. It has also been associated with a higher occurrence of blood clots and nerve and blood disorders. Yet it is still approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of inflammation from Hansen’s disease and as a chemotherapeutic agent for patients with multiple myeloma.

Then there was the vaccine created by the World Health Organization (WHO) that was used to immunize people in less developed countries against tetanus. In reality, WHO researchers had conjugated the tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). This combination, when administered to a woman, results in the immune system attacking the pregnancy hormones. This led to two possible scenarios when administered to women. If the woman was pregnant, she would lose her baby. If she was not pregnant, she would become infertile. In 2014, it was found that this kind of “birth-control vaccine” was being used in Kenya. Although the WHO denied it, three accredited independent biochemistry laboratories in Nairobi tested samples from the vials of the WHO’s tetanus vaccine and found hCG was present when it should not have been. This was quite possibly an attempt at depopulation, something which seems to be on the cards again now.

Already, there are issues with the COVID-19 vaccine. For example, two UK nurses who received it within the first 24 hours of it being made public developed significant allergic reactions. As a result, the public were warned against getting the vaccine if they suffered from severe allergies. Yet this may only be one of the milder adverse effects of the vaccine. There were also four cases of Bell’s Palsy. The FDA have written up a “draft working list of possible adverse event outcomes” of the COVID-19 vaccines. These include: Guillain-Barré syndrome (which causes paralysis), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, transverse myelitis, encephalitis, myelitis, encephalomyelitis, meningoencephalitis, meningitis, encephalopathy, convulsions, seizures, stroke, narcolepsy, cataplexy, anaphylaxis, acute myocardial infarction, myocarditis, pericarditis, autoimmune disease, other acute demyelinating disease, non-anaphylactic allergic reactions, thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, venous thromboembolism, arthritis and arthralgia/joint pain, Kawasaki disease, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, pregnancy and birth outcomes, vaccine enhanced diseases, and death.

That is a lot of possible adverse outcomes for a vaccine that is supposed to be the world’s saving grace. Those adverse effects are no walk in the park either. Paralysis, heart attack, brain diseases, autoimmune diseases, problems with blood clots; all of these can have life-changing consequences and can even result in death. And then there are the pregnancy and birth outcomes. Already it has been made known that the vaccine may leak through when breastfeeding, and that it may have an effect on fertility. Keep in mind the WHO have done this before. And isn’t it interesting that those who have for years said that the world is overpopulated are now claiming they have a vaccine to save everyone from a virus that has been overhyped by governments, media, and “experts” and has a 99.9% recovery rate? Surely that raises skepticism in any rational human being.

Here are the other important things you need to know about the vaccine (and this is where I’m glad I studied biology). It uses MRC-5, which is code for the cells of an aborted foetus. This creates a significant moral dilemma for those who are against abortion, of which there are many. The Pfizer vaccine, which is already being distributed and administered to the public in the UK and is set to roll out in Canada within the week, also uses modified mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid). RNA is complimentary to DNA. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is a single stranded molecule of RNA which corresponds to the genetic sequence of a gene, read by a ribosome (a particle consisting of RNA and associated proteins found in large numbers in the cytoplasm of living cells) in the process of synthesizing a protein. Now mRNA can be encoded to create certain proteins, and thus in the case of the vaccine, the mRNA to be injected into people would be modified for the purpose of creating an immune response to COVID-19. However, just as mRNA can be modified for good, it can also be modified for malicious purposes. Some vaccines are even exploring the use of DNA, which is concerning, given either of these could result in changes to the genetic makeup of the human body, in turn amounting to any number of health problems, from mutations resulting in cancers to autoimmune diseases. Playing around with genetic material is a dangerous game.

Just to cap it off, there were 6 deaths in Pfizer’s late-stage trial of their vaccine. This was revealed just hours before the vaccine began being administered to members of the public in the UK. Four of these were on the placebo (control), but 2 were given the complete vaccine. The deaths are conveniently being blames on obesity and heart problems. What is interesting is that when it comes to COVID-19 itself, deaths are recorded as COVID deaths even when the patient had another condition that was responsible for their death (eg. Heart problems, cancer, obesity, Alzheimer’s, etc.), which are conveniently ignored. Thereby, it is highly likely that the COVID-19 death tolls are greatly inflated. But when it comes to deaths that are likely attributable to the vaccine, suddenly prior conditions are recognized again. It is highly suspect. Even the testing is off. PCR test kits being used can easily give false positives, so much so that the numbers pertaining to COVID-19 cases are also greatly inflated. This is, of course, to instill fear in the population, so that they will become more subservient to governments and elites.

The vaccine is taken in two shots, spread about 21 days apart, and only provides immunity for around six months. Yet those who get it can still contract the virus and transmit it. And even with the vaccine we are still being told to wear masks and social distance. If the vaccine truly worked well, and was as effective as it has been made out to be, why would these measures still be necessary after distributing it? It doesn’t add up.

So why would any reasonable, rational individual get a vaccine that is 95% effective against COVID-19 when the recovery rate without the vaccine is 99.9%? Why would you get a vaccine that can cause a multitude of debilitating and/or deadly health issues that could either kill you or leave you with a significantly reduced quality of life? Why would anyone who wants to have a family and kids allow a substance to be injected into them that could take away their very ability to do just that? Here is the short answer, they wouldn’t.

Many are already opposed to the vaccine, and with good reason. Many of us who oppose it are labelled as anti-vaxxers or the like. I have been labelled as such myself. Yet I have personally had many vaccines throughout my life thus far. Tetanus shots, annual flu shots, all the meningococcal vaccines, the list goes on. Immunization is important, and I am generally not opposed to it at all. But in the case of the COVID-19 vaccine, I’m concerned, and personally, I would rather wait 5-10 years to see if any adverse effects begin to show (that is how long it can take for some of the health conditions to occur, as it did in the case of the thalidomide epidemic). I would rather not put a rushed vaccine into my body and risk my own health and my future children.

The “cure” may just be worse than the disease.

There has long been an unspoken rule observed by many to “never discuss politics or religion in polite company”. That means refraining from discussing these two topics in the presence of family and friends. This line of thinking serves one purpose and one purpose only: to avoid conflict. But as human beings, how are we expected to learn if not from each other. Yes, it may be uncomfortable at times to discuss religion and politics, but that does not mean they should not be discussed at all. We should be willing to listen to each other and engage in an open dialogue over these matters.

It is only natural that each individual will have their own worldview. Their political views may be shaped by their own personal experiences, by reading, watching various political commentators, or even by what they see and hear in the news. They may also be influenced by what they are told throughout their time in the education system. Ideally, each person will think for themselves and form their own political views. When it comes to religion, some may find their way to a religion on their own, while others may be brought up in one. Either way, it ultimately becomes our own choice to be religious and to follow God.

When it comes to discussing these topics with others, there is always going to be a difference of thought and opinion between us. That is to be expected, considering we are all individuals. Some will be religious, others will not. Some will be Conservative, others Left Wing. This means that there will be various sides to each point discussed. It goes without saying that discourse will undoubtedly arise. It is how we go about having such discourse that matters.

First, it is important to keep the discussion civil. This means no yelling matches. If people are just shouting at each other, no one is going to get their point across. In order to be able to have a civil debate and learn from each other, we must present our point in a clear and collected manner. In the same vein, we must listen to arguments opposing our own so that we may understand the other person’s point of view and formulate a response.

When it comes to making a claim, it is crucial that we are able to back it up. In this way, we can show others that what we say is not just some contrived falsehood but holds its place in reality. We cannot spout conjecture in the hope it changes someone’s mind. (Also, just a note on fact-checking here. Fact-checking websites each have their own biases, some Left, some Right. Thus, it is difficult to determine the accuracy of fact-checks. I say this because family and friends, or anyone for that matter, who are having a political discussion may decide to fact-check a claim.)

There are also several debating flaws that should be steered clear of when having discussions surrounding religion and politics. As mentioned before, it is not beneficial to anyone for those discussing a topic to yell at each other. In addition to this, never resort to insults and personal attacks. These are not arguments. Rather, they are the hallmarks of failing ones. If you find that the only thing you can use to retort someone’s argument is to call them a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a transphobe, a bigot or whatever else (there are far too many to list), that says more about the strength of their argument than the substance of yours. In that same vein, never call your opponent a Nazi. In fact, never insinuate that your opponent’s views are aligned with Nazism (generally this happens more so to Conservatives). As a general rule when it comes to political debates, the first person to invoke the Nazis has lost.

For far too long, politics and religion have been shunned from discussion amongst family and friends at gatherings. It should not have to be this way. Yes, these subjects encompass a wide range of issues, and can be polarizing, but that should not prevent us from discussing them in kind with each other. Isabel Brown of Turning Point USA put it best when she said “Politics and religion are subjects that belong around the dinner table. It’s time to learn how to articulate what we believe and why we believe it.” She is spot on.

We must be able to have these discussions, just as we must be able to have any other discussion with others. We should be able to clearly articulate our views on different issues and explain why we hold them. And most importantly, we must do this in such a manner that is civil and prevents a breakdown of family ties. We should never shun our own family simply because they hold opposing views to our own. That is unnecessary and over-the-top. Religion and politics should not tear families apart, but families should be able to get past political and religious differences and be willing to hold civil discussions with each other on such matters.

When it comes to friendships, it is interesting how friendships that have lasted for years can collapse all because of political differences. Generally, when such a thing occurs, it is a person with Left Wing views that attacks and/or shuns their friend who has made it known they are Conservative. Conservatives are generally more willing to listen to opposing viewpoints and debate them. And while there are some on the Left who are willing to take this approach, there are many who would rather lash out at their friend and have nothing more to do with them. Politics sometimes really shows you who your true friends are (and yes, believe it or not, it is possible for those with opposing views to be friends).

Religion and politics should not be taboo subjects amongst friends and family. They should be discussed openly and honestly so that we can understand each other’s worldviews. Civil discussion and debate are good things. It is healthy to engage in them. After all, these exchanges can be valuable, and give us insight into the lives and thoughts of others. We should bring religion and politics back to the table and allow the discussion to flow.