One artifact of the ongoing Corona virus vaccine controversy has been the distress exhibited in various quarters patronizingly worrying about those of us who are thought to be afflicted with the dreaded “Vaccine Hesitancy.” That disparaging characterization implies that anyone who is concerned about allowing themselves to be infected with one of the SARS-CoV-2 so-called vaccines has somehow fallen victim to misinformation, or is unable to make a mature decision because, after all, the conventional wisdom tells us that the vaccines are perfectly safe.
The following comment from an article in Townhall.com is a typical example of the disdainful attitude exhibited by those who have managed to rise above such simple-mindedness:
“I talked to Adam Bruggeman, M.D., a San Antonio physician, and he told me vaccine hesitancy is not the same problem as the logistics of making vaccines available to everyone. He believes vaccine hesitancy is mostly due to poor leadership, inconsistent messaging and hyper-partisanship. To educate those exposed to misinformation about the vaccine he set up a website, GetMyCovidVaccine.org to hopefully set the record straight.” 
So, whatever the reason, according to the good Doctor Bruggeman, the resistance to SARS-COV-2 inoculation is certainly not based on anything like knowledge, logic, prudence, or any sort of rational thinking. We, the unwashed, should stop trying to think for ourselves, and let our intellectual betters tell us what to do.
But just in case there are some citizens out there who still have an open mind, and who also brazenly dare to question the government and medical establishment, here are some simple facts that even a politician or a government bureaucrat, burdened as they are with preconceived “knowledge” which prevents them from seeing the truth, can understand.
1. None of the SARS-CoV-2 experimental vaccines have been fully tested.
The so-called vaccines are actually nothing more than experimental biological agents. They have not been determined to be safe according to the standards required for the completion of the normal vaccine approval process:
“A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution.” 
There simply has not been enough time elapsed to conduct any sort of long term evaluation of the effects of the vaccines. They have only been approved via “Emergency Use Authorizations” (EUA), which the FDA uses to authorize medical countermeasures based on a preliminary risk-benefit analysis.  The initial EUA Review Memorandum for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine cited a safety follow-up time period of “a median of two months.”  That safety follow-up period has not increased with even recent EUA re-issuances.  The Fact Sheet for the June 25, 2021 re-issuance of the Pfizer-BioNtech EUA is remarkable for how weak it is with regard to safety.  It includes no definitive safety declaration – it merely calls the probability of allergic reactions and side effects“remote,” and it warns about a “very low” risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. It does not provide any perspective as to how the clinical trials it references would compare to those normally required for vaccines. To date, this sort of inadequate safety information has been the only information available to assist Americans who have made the decision to receive the COVID-19 inoculation.
2. The corona virus experimental vaccines employ new technologies and therefore represent unknown risks.
Vaccines utilizing mRNA technologies and the Corona virus spike protein never achieved approval for general use prior to this pandemic. [7,8] Further, the interactions of the spike protein within the human body have not been thoroughly studied and completely understood, and there is now evidence that this protein may be harmful.  The inventor of the mRNA vaccines himself has warned of the dangers of the spike protein, [10,11] Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, UCLA Pediatric Immunology, cited multiple studies in December 2020 to warn the FDA that the spike protein produced as a result of the inoculations is dangerous:
“.. . it appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.” 
These vaccines constitute a magnified risk: it is not as if the timeline of a typical vaccine has been accelerated. Risk has been piled upon risk, with an accelerated timeline amplifying the risk of an experimental vaccine technology incorporating new delivery methods and a new type of antigen.
Messenger RNA vaccine promoters like to say that these new vaccines are really not all that new or dangerous. [13, 14, 15] However, responses such as these do not mention that prior attempts to produce Corona virus vaccines have failed, particularly due to the phenomenon of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE), a delayed reaction which may well not appear in accelerated trials:
“Given past data on multiple SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV vaccine efforts have failed due to ADE in animal models . . . it is reasonable to hypothesize a similar ADE risk for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and vaccines. ADE risks may be associated with antibody level (which can wane over time after vaccination) and also if the antibodies are derived from prior exposures to other coronaviruses.” 
Evidence of harmful effects from the vaccines is beginning to emerge: myocarditis and pericarditis, [17,18] amplified death rates from the Delta COVID-19 variant for the vaccinated,  vision disorders including blindness, nervous system disorders, blood disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders.  Initial indications are that adverse occurrences resulting from these vaccines are far greater in scale than has been previously experienced.  The CDC reported that as of June 30th, 5,718 deaths have been reported in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting system following COVID-19 inoculation.  While the CDC will not admit that all of these deaths are caused by the vaccines, when viewed in context this number of deaths is beyond anything ever experienced with prior vaccines. When compared to adverse events following vaccinations for other diseases,
“The number of deaths recorded following the experimental COVID injections now equals the total number of recorded deaths following vaccines for the past 20 years. 
3. This pandemic does not constitute an emergency for the majority of the population.
For roughly two thirds of the population (ages 0–49),  the risk of fatality from COVID-19 is no greater than that of the seasonal flu, which for the 2018-2019 flu season was about 0.1 percent.  Data from the CDC Covidtracker site as of June 28th, 2021 indicates that for this age group, the Case Fatality Ratio is 0.13 percent.  The Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) is even less, since the Case number does not include infections without symptoms that are not recorded. So for this sector of the population, the risk of fatality from COVID-19 is about the same as that of the annual flu season. Yet mass vaccinations incorporating experimental technologies on an emergency basis are not considered necessary for the flu. But in this pandemic the government is aggressively insisting that everyone over 12, a majority of whom have very low vulnerability to the disease, be injected with an experimental vaccine involving a new anti-viral method with unknown long term risks. There is a clear disconnect between the relatively low severity of the disease for most of the population and the drastic measures undertaken to overcome it.
4. The Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) data for this pandemic has been deliberately overstated.
Back near the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC suddenly changed the rules for how fatalities should be listed if a patient had COVID-19.  The new rules required “listing COVID-19 in Part I of the death certificate as a ‘cause of death’ even if COVID-19 was only suspected as being a contributing factor.”  This is a major change: a contributing factor is not necessarily a cause of death. That judgment should be made by the responsible health professionals involved, and should not be automatically determined for all cases. “The end result of this change was to shift what is very likely a large number of fatalities into the COVID-19 tally that would not have been in the tally under the previous standards.”  This means that the foundational data upon which pandemic decision-making and reporting is based is severely flawed, and calls into question both the rationale and the urgency for SARS-CoV-2 mass inoculations.
5. The use of readily available drugs with anti-viral properties was not seriously considered in the U. S as a viable approach for fighting the pandemic.
There is now substantial evidence that drugs like Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin, especially in concert with certain other agents, can be used to effectively treat or prevent COVID-19. As of June 25th, 2021, a database of 311 HCQ COVID-19 studies, “229 peer reviewed, 259 comparing treatment and control groups” showed “HCQ is not effective when used very late with high dosages over a long period,” but that “effectiveness improves with earlier usage and improved dosing”, and “Early treatment consistently shows positive effects.”  A review published on June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics, presented similar conclusions about Ivermectin. 
An article published in the January 2021 edition of the American Journal of Medicine by Dr. Peter McCullough and a large group of associated physicians described how HCQ can be implemented as one element of a comprehensive treatment algorithm.  A similar thought process is reflected in the MATH+ and I-MASK+ protocols using Ivermectin developed by the doctors of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. [32,33] The MATH+ protocol includes Ivermectin as a key component which works in concert with several other powerful medications to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and the I-MASK+ protocol, also employing Ivermectin as part of a detailed program, is targeted toward early treatment and prevention of COVID-19.
These methodologies based on HCQ and Ivermectin demonstrate simple common sense. It is eminently reasonable for physicians to treat patients with the readily available tools and do the obvious things, such as inhibiting the activity of the virus, stabilizing the immune system, and relieving dangerous symptoms such as blood clotting and inflammatory response, using drugs with known capabilities and safety profiles. These comprehensive approaches offered in the face of an aggressive and extremely contagious disease present a stark contrast to the myopically rigid focus on experimental vaccines exercised by the government and medical establishment.
It is puzzling that the United States, the most advanced country in the world, with all of its massive technological advantages, leads the world in COVID-19 fatalities, even when compared with countries with much larger populations.  Is this disparity due to the inflated COVID-19 fatality reporting in the U. S.? Or could it be that other countries successfully fought the disease with repurposed drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin? Consider this:
“Countries where HCQ is widely available, which are typically third world countries that have malaria or citizens who travel to malaria-endemic regions, have 1-10% of the death rates first world nations where HCQ is severely restricted.” 
The trauma of the last year and a half bears the unmistakable stench of progressivism, wherein the populace is browbeaten into submission by the groupthink and scorn of those who obfuscate and manipulate the truth while claiming they have superior knowledge. Vaccine hesitancy is not the problem. Vaccine gullibility is the problem. The American people have been entirely too submissive and unquestioning in their sheeplike response to the government and medical establishment.
That docility is a far greater concern than the pandemic.
But assuming Americans are somehow able to recover at least some of their backbone, then it is essential that the response to the SARS-CoV-2 attack be objectively assessed, and that assessment should recognize that the response was miserably inadequate. The government’s single-minded focus on vaccines worked to prevent successful implementation of therapies using drugs which were readily available at the beginning of the pandemic. A stronger and more vigorous strategy for responding to biological attacks must be developed. Reliance on the hidebound, slow, and bureaucratic processes of the FDA for approval of every use of every drug is not a sufficiently responsive method for developing counters to biological attacks. Let’s face it – we dodged a bullet this time. The virus was not extremely dangerous to the vast majority of the population. What happens when the Peoples Republic of China manages to engineer and deploy a truly dangerous virus which is also extremely contagious? Feeble responses like emergency vaccines with unknown safety characteristics will not do the job. The country must figure out how to harness the tremendous expertise of the entire U. S. medical community – especially front line physicians, and not just drug companies and government bureaucrats – to bring effective therapies to bear rapidly in the event of future attacks.
1. Herrick, Devon. “What’s Behind the Vaccine Slowdown?” Townhall.com. June 1, 2021. https://townhall.com/columnists/devonherrick/2021/05/31/whats-behind-the-vaccine-slowdown-n2590174
2. HOW CAN COVID-19 VACCINE DEVELOPMENT BE DONE QUICKLY AND SAFELY? Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center: Vaccine Research & Development. Accessed June, 2021. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline
3. “Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained” U. S. Food and Drug Administration: Vaccines. Updated November 20, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained
4. “Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer-BionTech COVID-19 Vaccine Review Memo.” fda.gov. https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download
5. “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Letter of Authority June 25 2021.” fda.gov. https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download
6. “FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) IN INDIVIDUALS 12 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER.” U. S. Food and Drug Administration: Press Announcements. June 25, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
7. Siler, Thomas. “A Doctor’s View About the New mRNA Vaccines.” American Thinker. February 15, 2021. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/a_doctors_view_about_the_new_mrna_vaccines.html
8. Gold, Simone, et. al. “America’s Frontline Doctors White Paper On Experimental Vaccines For COVID-19.” America’s Frontline Doctors. Accessed June, 2021. https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/6076e4fd8bde421370729e47_Vaccine-PP.pdf
9. Bridle, Byram. “A Parental Guide to COVID-19 Vaccination: English Summary.” Canadian Covid Care Alliance. June, 2021. https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Guide_to_COVID19_vaccines_for_parents_v5.pdf
10. Redshaw, Megan. “Inventor of mRNA Technology_ Vaccine Causes Lipid Nanoparticles to Accumulate in ‘High Concentrations’ in Ovaries.” The Defender: Children’s Health Defense News and Views. June 17, 2021. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mrna-technology-covid-vaccine-lipid-nanoparticles-accumulate-ovaries/
11. Publius. “Inventor of mrna Tech Says FDA Was Aware of Spike Protein Dangers Before Granting ‘Emergency Use,’ Possible Shot-Related Deaths Skyrocket.” Coronavirus News. June 17, 2021. https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/06/17/inventor-of-covid-mrna-vaccine-platform-says-new-data-shows-danger-blames-lack-of-long-term-animal-trials-full-transcript/
12. Shula. “Covid-19 vaccine & Microvascular Injury.” Talking About The Science:Bringing you the research on the relationship of diet (and toxins) to behavior and health. March 11, 2021. https://www.talkingaboutthescience.com/whelan2020/
13. “Are the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna safe?” GetMyCovidVaccine.org. February 6, 2021. https://getmycovidvaccine.org/are-the-mrna-vaccines-from-pfizer-biontech-and-moderna-safe/
14. Seddighzadeh, Bobak. “How Safe Are the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines? We asked the Experts.” Men’s Health. December 9, 2020. https://www.menshealth.com/health/a34909218/mrna-covid-vaccine-safety/
15. Fiore, Kristina. “Want to Know More About mRNA Before Your COVID Jab? MedPage Today. December 3, 2020. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89998
16. Ricke, Darrell O. “Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.” Frontiers in Immunology. February 24, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7943455/
17. Redshaw, Megan. “CDC finds ‘likely’ link between heart inflammation and Pfizer, Moderna COVID vaccines.” Lifesite News. June 24, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-finds-likely-link-between-heart-inflammation-and-pfizer-moderna-covid-vaccines
18. Redshaw, Megan. “Pfizer vaccine ‘probably’ linked to heart inflammation, Israeli panel of experts concludes.” Lifesite News. June 7, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pfizer-vaccine-probably-linked-to-heart-inflammation-israeli-panel-of-experts-concludes
19. McGovern, Celeste. “Death rate from variant COVID virus six times higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated, UK health data show.” Lifesite News. June 18, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/death-rate-from-variant-covid-virus-six-times-higher-for-vaccinated-than-unvaccinated-uk-health-data-show
20. Solway, David. “Coronavirus vaccines may be the worst mistake we’ve ever made.” Lifesite News. June 30, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/covid-vaccines-may-be-the-worst-mistake-weve-ever-made
21. Chaves, Antonio R. “A massive surge in COVID vaccine deaths.” American Thinker. June 16, 2021. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/a_massive_surge_in_covid_vaccine_deaths.html
22. “Reported Adverse Events.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: COVID-19. Updated June 30, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
23. Shilhavy, Brian. “CDC: 4,178 Americans DEAD Following Experimental COVID Injections – Deaths from COVID Shots now Equal 20 Years of Recorded Deaths Following Vaccines Since 2001.” Vaccine Impact. May 5, 2021. https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/cdc-4178-americans-dead-following-experimental-covid-injections-deaths-from-covid-shots-now-equal-21-years-of-recorded-deaths-following-vaccines-since-2001/
24. “Table 1: Population by Age and Sex:2019. United States Census: Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2019. April, 2020. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/age-and-sex/2019-age-sex-composition.html
25. “Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 influenza season.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Influenza. Last Reviewed: June 2, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
26. “Demographic Trends of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Covid Data Tracker. Accessed July 3, 2021. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics
27. “Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance: Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Desease 2019 (COVID-19).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Center for Health Statistics: National Vital Statistics System. April, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf
28. Hunt, Tam. “How many deaths counted as Covid-19 deaths are actually from the virus?” Tam Hunt. August 12, 2020. https://tamhunt.medium.com/data-quality-issues-and-the-coronavirus-pandemic-db0356373fc2
29. “HCQ for COVID-19.” @CovidAnalysis: Global HCQ/CQ Studies. Accessed July 5, 2021. https://c19hcq.com/
30. Bryant, A. and Lawrie, T. A. “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.” American Journal of Therapeutics. June 17, 2020. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.pdf
31. McCullough, Peter, et al. “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection.” American Journal of Medicine. January 1, 2021. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext
32. “MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19.” Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: Prevention and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. Updated June 30, 2021. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-MATHplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf
33. “IMASK+ PREVENTION & EARLY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PROTOCOL FOR COVID-19. Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: Prevention and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. Updated June 30, 2020. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf
34. “COVID-19 CORONA VIRUS PANDEMIC: Reported Cases and Deaths by Country or Territory.” Worldometer. Data accessed July 2, 2021. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/