A Set of Arguments Against COVID Vaccine Mandates
I've been deeply troubled by the federal government's attempt to unilaterally mandate the administration of COVID vaccines to over 300 million Americans.
I've likewise been troubled by the seemingly widespread support for these COVID vaccine mandates, especially in liberal cities like Boston (where I reside). The question should be driven by science, but instead is being driven by politics.
We must arm ourselves with a set of ironclad, irrefutable, incontrovertible arguments to educate our friends and family on why we are against COVID vaccine mandates. I believe that the arguments below present a compelling case that, if read in full, have the potential to change the minds of many.
First, a brief note: I am not an anti-vaxxer (though Merriam Webster's new definition says I am). I've received all my childhood vaccines, and when I have children I intend to vaccinate them. I even received a single shot of J&J's COVID vaccine in May of this year.
It's possible to be pro vaccines and anti COVID vaccine mandates.
If you got the jab, but are uncomfortable with COVID vaccine mandates, you are not a contradiction – you are a critically thinking human being who can form intelligent, nuanced opinions.
Without further ado, below are my arguments against COVID vaccine mandates.
1. Natural immunity is significantly stronger and longer lasting; individuals who have already recovered from COVID may not need to be vaccinated.
Studies have shown that, after recovering from COVID, natural immunity is much stronger and longer lasting than any COVID vaccine.
A large Israeli study conducted this summer found that "the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher."
If we weigh the rapid decline of COVID vaccine efficacy (discussed below) against strong and long-lasting natural immunity, it becomes unclear that a COVID vaccine adds significant benefit to individuals who have previously recovered from COVID.
Therefore, if today's COVID vaccine mandates were driven by science, they would include a carveout for anyone who has previously tested positive for COVID. Unfortunately no such carveout exists.
2. Not everyone can take the vaccine.
The decision on whether to take a vaccine should be made in consultation with your physician. In some cases, individuals are physically unable to get the COVID vaccine.
This can occur in certain circumstances:
- Individuals may have a history of adverse reactions to vaccines.
- Individuals may be allergic to one or more ingredients in the COVID vaccines.
- Individuals may have an adverse reaction to the first shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, and therefore be advised by their physicians to avoid further COVID vaccines.
To receive an exemption to the COVID vaccine mandate, individuals typically have to demonstrate "reasonable accommodations" – this typically means disclosing sensitive medical information. Where do we draw the line? Are you comfortable disclosing your medical history to your employer? What about your landlord? The host at a restaurant? There are so many reasons why you should find this problematic and uncomfortable.
Even worse, not all COVID vaccine mandates include exemptions for those who are unable to take the vaccine. Under a nationwide vaccine mandate, this means that these individuals would be ostracized from everyday life.
3. The effectiveness of COVID vaccines rapidly declines.
Studies show that the effectiveness of COVID vaccines dramatically declines over time. This is why booster shots are currently being rolled out.
The below article perfectly sums up the research.
By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.
The effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech, which also employed two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.
And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months.
If vaccines are ineffective after a period of ~six months, and natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting, then why impose a blanket vaccine mandate on the entire population?
One seemingly logical argument is that vaccinated individuals are much less likely to spread COVID, and therefore it makes sense to vaccinate as many people as possible in the hopes that COVID's spread will be slowed. But sadly that is not the case...see #4.
4. COVID vaccines may not prevent transmission. Viral loads appear to be the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
The vaccines, unfortunately, do not appear to prevent the transmission of COVID. No study is necessary to see this; simply observe case counts in areas like Israel and Gibraltar that are almost entirely vaccinated. If the vaccines prevented transmission, then there would be few cases.
This means that both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals can spread COVID.
Okay, but what about the argument that vaccinated individuals have a lower COVID viral load, and therefore are less likely to spread COVID than vaccinated individuals? It seems that our entire COVID policy depends on the vaccine reducing transmission!
Bad news...research shows that there is no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. This is detailed below in a journal pre-print from researchers at the University of California.
We found no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta. Given the substantial proportion of asymptomatic vaccine breakthrough cases with high viral levels, interventions, including masking and testing, should be considered for all in settings with elevated COVID-19 transmission.
This research validates that the vaccines do not prevent the spread of COVID – which we already know from looking at population data from highly vaccinated countries.
More significantly, the research is showing that vaccinated individuals are just as likely to transmit COVID as unvaccinated individuals!
There were no statistically significant differences in mean Ct-values of vaccinated (UeS: 23.1; HYT: 25.5) vs. unvaccinated (UeS: 23.4; HYT: 25.4) samples. In both vaccinated and unvaccinated, there was great variation among individuals, with Ct-values of <15 to >30 in both UeS and HYT data (Fig. 1A, 1B).
Therefore, taking the vaccine should be a personal choice. It is possible that the vaccine will lessen your symptoms and reduce the risk of hospitalization or death. But if the vaccine does not prevent transmission, why are we trying to force it on the population? Your unvaccinated coworker and your vaccinated coworker are equally as likely to infect you.
5. COVID vaccines are causing adverse reactions (especially in young men).
It is incontrovertible that there is a massive uptick in reports of vaccine adverse events. How do we know this? We can look at the VAERS data, which already shows a 1000% increase in adverse events in 2021.
We can argue about the significance of this data – maybe it's due to the sheer number of shots being given, or maybe due to increased scrutiny of the COVID vaccines – but we cannot argue that there has been an enormous increase of VAERS reports since the COVID vaccines were rolled out.
Early on in the vaccine rollout, the J&J vaccine was halted due to the potential of blood clots in rare cases.
But more significantly, there is an ever-growing body of data that the mRNA vaccines (especially from Moderna) are causing heart-related adverse events in individuals under 30 years of age, especially in young men.
This drastic development has led a growing number of countries to ban the Moderna vaccine for younger age groups.
France's public health officials recommended on Monday that adults under age 30 receive the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine instead of the Moderna jab
Officials cite data that shows young people who receive the Moderna shot are five times as likely to develop heart inflammation
Other countries that have also restricted the use of the shot in young people include Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden
Nordic nations cite unpublished data showing the Moderna shot causes rare cases of heart inflammation in young people as the reason for decision
The CDC has warned that heart inflammation is a potential side effect of the vaccine when used in young males
We can spend lots of time arguing over the frequency and severity of COVID vaccine adverse events, and whether the risks outweigh the benefits – but we cannot argue that adverse events are being reported in record-breaking numbers.
It is therefore more important than ever that the decision of whether to receive a COVID vaccination be made in consultation with your physician, based on numerous factors including age.
It is especially troubling, in my opinion, that vaccine mandates may include children as young as 2 years old. The data for young children is messier, and it's possible that the risks do not outweigh the benefits.
6. Booster shots are not reformulated for the Delta Variant.
We have established in Section 3 that the effectiveness of COVID vaccines dramatically declines over time. We have also established in Section 4 that there is no meaningful difference in COVID transmission between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
So why get a booster shot at all? One compelling reason would be if the boosters were re-formulated against the Delta variant – but they are not.
7. COVID vaccine mandates violate the Nuremberg Code and basic human rights.
The Nuremberg Code presents a "new standard of ethical medical behavior for the post World War II human rights era."
Amongst other requirements, this document enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own body.
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision
As detailed below in Sections 8 and 9, COVID vaccine mandates are coercive and are being justified by our leaders with deceit.
8. COVID vaccine mandates are forced vaccination programs when the alternative is loss of your job, access to food, and participation in society.
Most people think of "forcible" as physically pinning down an individual and injecting a shot into their arm. But force does not necessarily mean physical force or violence; force can be applied through other means.
With a nationwide COVID vaccine mandate, individuals must choose between the shot or loss of their jobs. If they lose their jobs, they may not be able to afford their mortgage or rent, or even afford to feed their families. Threatening job loss is a form of brazen coercion and force.
It gets even worse. Countries are beginning to impose greater lockdowns and restrictions targeting the unvaccinated. In Germany, supermarkets can now refuse service to the unvaccinated.
In Lithuania, which requires a digital vaccination pass, the unvaccinated are being banished from society. Please take a moment to read the depressing Twitter thread below.
And now, in New York City, unvaccinated individuals will not be allowed to stand outside and celebrate New Year's Eve. NYC is imposing this mandate on children as young as five years old.
If you are not allowed to participate in society, then COVID vaccine mandates are simply forcible and coercive.
A quick sidebar on NYC – outdoor COVID restrictions fly in the face of everything we know about how COVID spreads. See this article from The Atlantic, for example.
Let’s start with the outdoors. Study after study finds extremely low rates of outdoor transmission. So far, I’m unaware of a single confirmed outdoor-only super-spreading event, even though at least thousands of confirmed super-spreading events took place indoors.
And this excellent Twitter thread.
It's clear that these mandates are not scientific; they are political.
9. Vaccine mandates are being justified with lies.
In addition to being forcible and coercive, COVID vaccine mandates are being pushed on the public through lies and deceit.
Look at this video from Biden, for example, who clearly claims that vaccinated individuals cannot spread COVID. This is obviously untrue.
Lies should never be used to sway the public into complying with a specific policy. These lies about COVID vaccines are stoking a class war between the unvaccinated and the vaccinated, in an attempt to divide the country.
Amusingly, we were told by Biden, Fauci, and the administration that a COVID vaccine mandate would never occur. Watch the full video below.
10. COVID death rates are extremely low.
If COVID death rates were significant – like 5% – then maybe you could ignore all the above arguments. But COVID death rates are low. This chart is telling.
COVID death rates only climb above 0.1% for individuals over 50 years of age, and over 0.5% for individuals over 70 years of age. While significantly higher than the flu, it is really difficult to justify COVID vaccine mandates on young people.
Section #4 demonstrates that vaccines do not prevent transmission. So why are we trying to mandate vaccines on children, when death rates are effectively 0%?
11. It's plausible that vaccines are actually causing the variants.
This is a big one that might destroy your worldview – the vaccines may be causing the variants. This could help explain why widely-vaccinated regions like Israel and Gibraltar are experiencing record-breaking cases.
Let's examine the well-researched Marek syndrome, which occurs in chickens.
But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages.
Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunized flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble.
This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”
“The candidate Ebola vaccines are also foremost in my mind,” he adds. “Some of the monkey trials suggest that they may be perfect, but we need to be very confident that they don’t leak. If they do, and some vaccinated individuals are capable of passing on Ebola, that might lead to the evolution of very dangerous pathogens.”
Sound familiar? Our COVID vaccines do not prevent transmission – they are "leaky." By contrast, traditional vaccines for diseases like mumps and measles are not leaky – they are "perfect." It is plausible that our leaky, imperfect COVID vaccines are actually causing the variants!
If true, this is terrifying.
12. The CDC changed the definition of a vaccine to justify the mandate.
If the COVID vaccines are "leaky" and imperfect, and stand apart from our traditional "perfect" vaccines, then why call them vaccines at all?
Well, funny you should ask – because the CDC recently changed its definition of a vaccine!
Amusingly, Dictionary.com also changed its definition of an "anti-vaxxer." (Even though I am pro vaccines, it appears I am now technically an anti-vaxxer because I oppose coercive vaccine mandates).
13. Vaccine mandates will cause loss of jobs while supply chains are already teetering.
Supply chains are already stretched thin and businesses are already low on workers. We are in the midst of a global supply chain crisis. We desperately need more people back at work, not less.
As of November 15, an estimated 41% of the USA population is not fully vaccinated.
No matter what is mandated by the federal government, a sizable percentage of the population will not get vaccinated. This means that if a nationwide COVID vaccine mandate goes into effect, millions of people in the USA will lose their jobs.
This could cause a recession, or even a depression, due to the already fragile state of our supply chains and global economy.
14. Promising and effective COVID treatments now exist.
Let's not argue over ivermectin.
Since we first started treating COVID with ventillators (which were ultimately not a panacea), we have since developed successful COVID treatment protocols. One example is the use of proning, or pronal breathing. Another example is the growing use of monoclonal antibody treatments.
At a White House briefing at the end of August, Fauci, President Joe Biden's senior medical adviser, implored doctors to use monoclonal antibodies more frequently, noting that they can reduce the risk of Covid-19 hospitalization or death by 70 to 85%.
"This is a very effective intervention for COVID-19. It is underutilized, and we recommend strongly that we utilize this to its fullest," Fauci said. "We want people out there, including physicians, as well as potential patients, to realize the advantage of this very effective way of treating early infection."
Monoclonal antibody treatments are quite effective, and multiple pharma companies are producing them in large quantities.
Furthermore, there are promising new COVID treatments hitting the market, specifically from Merck and Pfizer.
Patients take eight pills a day for five days — which sounds like a lot, but Merck’s most recent clinical trial is encouraging. Unvaccinated patients with mild or moderate cases of Covid who took molnupiravir within five days of developing symptoms had about a 50% reduction in hospitalization and death rates, compared to those who received a placebo pill.
Patients take six pills per day — four Paxlovid pills, and two pills of a common HIV drug called ritonavir — for five days. The ritonavir acts as a booster to help Paxlovid “be in the body, remain active and do its job longer,” O’Donnell says.
According to Pfizer’s clinical trial data, Paxlovid and ritonavir reduce the risk of hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by 89%.
With the widespread availability of effective treatments, it becomes difficult to argue that unvaccinated patients could clog up hospitals and emergency rooms. Unvaccinated patients who come down with severe COVID can be effectively treated.
15. The vaccines are less than a year old, with unknown long term effects. If something goes wrong, the drug companies and FDA have legal immunity.
Is it moral to mandate a vaccine that is less than a year old? It's easy to get pulled into arguments on both sides.
We will continue to find new data about long-term vaccine effects, and even about the validity of the original vaccine trials.
For example, significant research fraud was uncovered this month at a Pfizer subcontractor.
What if more data comes out that demonstrates fraud or negligence? Well...we have no legal recourse!
The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
"It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. “Pharmaceutical companies typically aren’t offered much liability protection under the law."
You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment.
Unfortunately, there will be no way to hold Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, or the FDA responsible due to their legal immunity.
16. Do we want to have to "show our papers" everywhere we go?
I went to dinner in NYC a few months ago, and I was asked to present my vaccine card when entering a restaurant. I regret doing this. I don't want to live in a society where I have to "show my papers" to get into a restaurant or anywhere else.
This is a slippery slope.
17. A sizable portion of the population will refuse to get vaccinated, no matter what. What does a mandate hope to accomplish?
As mentioned in Section 13, only 41% of the USA population is fully vaccinated as of November 15. No matter what the Biden administration mandates, a sizable portion of the population (20-30%?) will refuse.
By supporting COVID vaccine mandates, you are effectively advocating for ~25% of the population to be ostracized from society. You are cheering for them to lose their jobs and lose their ability to feed their families. This is cruel, this is inhuman. This will only further stoke the deep divisions in this country.
18. You are no longer considered fully vaccinated.
In some countries, like Israel, you are no longer considered "vaccinated" with only two shots. Now you must get a booster shot. But where does this end? Today's COVID vaccine mandates are putting us on a path towards mandatory quarterly shots of the latest vaccine cocktail.
This is absolutely unprecedented in modern society – we are not required to get flu shots, for example. Do we want to live in a society where the government works with a small number of drug companies to mandate novel vaccines on a quarterly, or even a monthly, basis? Where those who refuse are barred from society?
It is perfectly okay to be vaccinated, and pro-vaccines, but be against vaccine mandates. You are not a walking contradiction. You are human, and the world is not black and white. It is nuanced.
But if you close your mind to rational arguments, you are making a political decision, not a scientific decision. An extremely polarizing political decision that threatens to further divide us in already-difficult times.
America’s founders fought and died so we could live with freedom. With freedom comes individual responsibility, sovereignty. We have the freedom to choose what we eat, how we educate our kids, what medications we take, who we love, where we live, and what we say.
We are fortunate to have these basic freedoms. Look at China – where if you dare speak up and criticize the government, you'll be arrested and disappeared! Where you are constantly surveilled and scored in an Orwellian social credit system. This is not fantasy – this is everyday life under CCP rule.
Our basic freedoms have allowed the USA to grow into the most resourceful, entrepreneurial, wealthy country in the world. Sure, the American dream is on the verge of crumbling. But it's not yet dead!
We must choose freedom. Do not let our leaders divide us. Do not let our leaders employ fear and deceit to turn us against one another.
We all deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We must never support policies that threaten our basic liberties.
We must stop being afraid.
The only thing to fear is fear itself.