I’ve seen a recent blog post circulating pretty widely and have had people asking for my opinion on it and thought it would be useful to share the other side, just for those who are interested in having more information to hopefully give a bigger picture of the topics discussed.
I want to start by saying that while my own research has led me to disagree with Dr. Waldron on multiple issues, I mean no disrespect in writing this. I have done a similar blog post in response to Jonathan Sarfati’s (a Christian young earth scientist I deeply admire for his work in disproving the theory of evolution) article on the topic of vaccines. It was a lot of fun and I learned a lot through writing it.
That being said, I do want to say that when it comes to vaccines, doctors are not an ultimate authority. I imagine different programs have different amounts of teaching on this topic, but from what many doctors have admitted, and from looking at the medical textbooks themselves, what they learn is incredibly brief. Very similar to what I learned in nursing school: “Vaccines are an amazing, life-saving tool to prevent disease. They have saved millions of lives and they might be one of the reasons we’ve survived as a species. They’re a small amount of killed or weakened virus or bacteria that your body can create antibodies to and then you’ll be protected from these viruses and bacteria. Here’s the CDC recommended schedule. This is how you administer a vaccine.” No talk about adverse events. No talk about contraindications. No talk about ingredients. And definitely no talk about them being a liability free product whose safety testing is all done by the same pharmaceutical companies who pay the authors of medical school textbooks. 
Please read Dr Waldron’s blog in its entirety before reading on, as I will only be copying and pasting the parts I will be addressing. Having it in full context is important but since copying and pasting the whole thing is a little extreme, I invite you to go read it before coming back here to read what I have to add. I will be operating under the premise that you have already read his words in their entirety, so please do not accuse me of taking things out of context.
He starts his section on vaccines by saying the following:
“There is a common misconception about the diseases of the past. People believe that the danger was that they caused death. Of course, that was some times true, but more often, they just left an individual damaged for the rest of their lives.
Polio weakened muscles, some times to the point that people required external ventilators, called iron lungs. German Measles caused children to be born with severe birth defects. Youth carried hearing and vision loss for the rest of their lives from the remnants of H. Flu meningitis.”
I think it’s actually false to say that these infections caused more individuals “damaged for the rest of their lives,” than those they killed. He doesn’t give a reference for this statement but from the medical literature I’ve read from scientists in the 50’s-80’s (before vaccines were created for most of these infections) the opposite belief was actually held. With the exception of polio of course, and German Measles, which did cause birth defects, but since it was a childhood illness with lifelong immunity, and the time that it can cause defects is only in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, I imagine the actual rate of harm was extremely rare. When 12.5 million people were catching it in one epidemic, the rate of CRS (congenital rubella syndrome) was 0.16% of those infected.  When compared to the entire population, that would be even lower.
Some of these infections do cause lasting harm though. I won’t argue that point too much. But vaccines also cause lasting harm. To focus on only one cause of harm to the exclusion of others is the type of tunnel vision that leads to biased opinions and misses the bigger picture. Just for two examples, I know of a boy named Otto, who will be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life because of the DTaP vaccine. His reaction was confirmed by doctors at Mayo Clinic, by the way. His father started the organization V is for Vaccine after what happened to his son. Colton Barrett developed transverse myelitis after his third dose of gardasil (this condition and other forms of paralysis are mentioned in the post marketing surveillance data section of almost every vaccine package insert, by the way) and was relegated to a modern version of an iron lung for the rest of his short life. His doctor was so convinced it was caused by the vaccines that he will no longer administer this series to boys. You can read his story here. And then when we look at VAERS (the vaccine adverse events reporting system), we find listed 1,237 permanent disabilities from vaccines in the year 2018.  And when using this system (the only one we have access to), one must always take into account that when Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare examined it in order to automate it in 2010, they found that it was capturing less than 1% of injuries. 
He goes on to say:
“As I read posts about vaccines, it is clear to me that there is a large group of people who is more afraid of getting a vaccine than getting the diseases they are designed to prevent.
This says that vaccines have worked. We don’t see people in iron lungs any more from polio. We don’t have members of our community dying from Lock Jaw. We haven’t seen children with Measles related encephalitis. This is not because we have treatments for these infections. We don’t. We just have shots that are remarkably effective at preventing them from happening.“
Saying that the decreasing occurrence of an infection via vaccine decreases the fear factor does not seem true to me. I have seen an extreme increase in fear for each one of these infections as the vaccine is developed. Measles is a great example of this. Dr Langmuir (called “the father of infectious disease epidemiology”) described measles as, “This self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality has maintained a remarkably stable, biological balance over the centuries.” He goes on to say, “To those who ask me, ‘Why do you wish to eradicate measles?’, I reply with the same answer that Hillary used when asked why he wished to climb Mt Everest. He said, ‘Because it is there’. To this may be added, ‘…and it can be done.” 
Does that sound afraid? And if it was so scary, why were people questioning why a vaccine should even be developed? Would that have been a legitimate question asked from so many, if it was indeed a horrifying, crippling disease? Please feel free to contrast that with literally any coverage of measles in articles from the past decade or two. The contrast will speak for itself. The more I read medical literature (and even novels from the 20s and 30s), the less fear I experience toward any of these childhood infections.
The exception being polio. I will not address that topic here. It is far too detailed and long for me to be able to do it justice. I have attempted to cover that topic in two separate blog posts. If you’re interested in that topic, you can start here.
I’ve always been curious if doctors receive any training on recent treatments for VPDs (vaccine preventable diseases), and I guess he answers my question by making the statement that there are no treatments for any of them. He is wrong. Almost all of them have recognized, and effective treatments. I’ll stick with measles, to keep it brief. The WHO (world health organization) says that although we don’t have an antiviral treatment, all children should be given 2 doses of vitamin A, 24 hrs apart. This has reduced the number of deaths by 50%.  Measles rapidly uses up vitamin A stores and replenishing those stores also prevents complications almost entirely.  (this study also found an 82% reduction in mortality in children under 2 when they were given 2 doses of vitamin A.) I would call that a pretty effective treatment and since no vaccine is 100% effective (look up primary and secondary vaccine failure on pubmed for some interesting studies), it’s a shame doctors don’t know how to treat it.
He then says:
“Vaccines do contain preservatives, they contain tiny amounts of formaldehyde and aluminum. This all sounds terrible and many have claimed that they are dangerous. The only thing is that we live in a world that is pretty toxic. A breast fed baby will get more aluminum in a couple of days than is present in any vaccine on the market. Fortunately, our bodies break down the tiny amounts of toxins present in our environment and diet very quickly.“
Aluminum is not a preservative, it’s an adjuvant. Its goal is to create an inflammatory response in the body when added to inactivated vaccines as the virus/bacteria would not even be recognized by our bodies without some sort of trigger to activate our immune systems.
Yes, our world is toxic. And yes, God has made our bodies wonderfully capable of flushing out these toxins. The gut, for example, is an amazing system and gets rid of 97% of aluminum in less than 24 hours, I think. Oddly enough, vaccines bypass this system as they are injected, not ingested. The more we study injected aluminum, the more we realize how faulty it is to take one study of ingested aluminum in water soluble form and apply that study to injected aluminum in completely different form. But this is exactly what the CDC has done. Some people would call that science, but I haven’t been convinced it deserves that label. If you want to get in the weeds on this topic, you can start here.
The “trace amounts” argument is always interesting to me, because the actual amounts are almost never listed. Did you know the FDA has an aluminum limit for neonatal parentarel nutrition? It’s 25 mcg per dose.  In contrast, a single well child visit can be up to 1,700 mcg of injected aluminum in one day. Depending what combination of shots you’re getting, that number might be less or more. The smallest possible amount (if you’re following CDC recommendations) is still close to 1,000 mcg.  And that’s for a 2 month old. 
Given how many of his arguments are very familiar to me, I fully expected him to mention Dr Wakefield and his debunked study when addressing the autism subject, and I find it refreshing that he didn’t repeat that tired line. But his take was instead:
“Temporality Doesn’t Equal Causality.
Children are very prone to magical thinking. They blinked three times quickly and then someone broke a plate immediately afterward and they think they caused it and are careful not to blink again.
Adults are often the same. They got an injection and immediately thereafter they got sick. Their child got an injection and developed an illness.“
Comparing vaccine injury with blinking 3 times and a plate breaking leads me to posit that this doctor does not believe vaccines can cause harm at all. Just as blinking 3 times and breaking a plate is impossible, so is “getting sick” after a vaccine. He may not have meant it this way but his statements completely discredit and deny all vaccine injury. That’s a really hardcore (and dare I say ignorant) stance to take.
He seems to boil all injury down to the above mention of “getting sick” and autism as he goes on to list a study on the MMR that compared vaccinated children against vaccinated children who skipped the MMR. How a study done on one vaccine can be applied to all other vaccines is another thing I don’t label as science, but it really is good enough for most people.
Just for the record, where autism is concerned, we have studied one vaccine (the MMR, given at 12-15 months) out of 16, and one ingredient (thimerosal) out of about 80. If that is “thoroughly researched”, then great. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
He then links a study that claims autism is mostly genetic. I don’t know much about genetics, I’m going to be honest. But it is my understanding that they occur very slowly and do not have sweeping effects on entire populations. It’s hard to impress upon people the vast and horrifying implications of autism. It’s been an epidemic explosion over the past 40 years. Autism was 1 in 10,000 in the 70s and the latest numbers say it’s 1 in 32. If this exponential curve continues, we’ll be at 1 in 2 by 2032. An interesting future awaits if we don’t figure out how to prevent this from keeping on.
He addresses fetal cell lines with the following:
“One of the biggest ethical issues with vaccines has to do with use of fetal cell lines to make vaccines. There are a number of cell lines made with cells taken from babies that were aborted in the 1960s through the 1980s. There are no ongoing abortions done to produce vaccines, and the infants were not aborted for the purpose of making these cell lines, but obviously this taints our view of these particular vaccines.
The vaccines that are commonly used that are grown on these cells are the Rubella (German Measles), Varicella (Chicken Pox), and Hepatitis A vaccines Vaccines Grown on Fetal Cell Lines. I do still recommend using these vaccines. To me, it is akin to organ donation from someone who was murdered. Not using these vaccines will not change the abortion, but perhaps some good can come from the prevention of disease.“
This would be a great way of looking at it if vaccines did not depend upon aborted babies. To be a part of the manufacturing process, the baby must be aborted. That means there’s a market for them. Murder is not a necessary component of organ donation. So that argument does not apply. The articles crying out against Trump’s restrictions on fetal tissue research should speak loudly to the fact that this is ongoing. The zika vaccine was mentioned in one of the articles I read. But no one seems to know about Walvax-2! The MRC-5 cell line is either replaced or will be replaced by this new cell line, harvested in 2015 (from China, via waterbag abortion so the baby was still alive).  I’m not sure if this is just an oversight, or if people willfully ignore this very legitimate study from pubmed. One does wish that more research would go into the firm statement that “there were only 2” and “it was a long time ago” and also “those abortions were going to happen anyway.” None of these statements are true. I cover this topic here if you want a whole lot more science and information.
I have seen statements about the medical system as a whole and a lot of mental gymnastics about the probability of everyone already having used products that were in some ways tested by using fetal tissue from aborted children. If you’ve unwittingly done it before, doing some more now that you know better is okay? Is that really the stance we want to take? I’ve always liked “Know better, do better” more myself. I’ve even seen the statement, “Probably best not to seek hospital care at this point if you are concerned by this sort of testing.” I found it a shocking stance to take, especially from a christian. So we must simply accept this evil then? And is it really that prevalent? Is our entire medical system built on the backs of murdered children? Could that be why we fail so entirely in so many areas? Is that maybe why we’ve been relegated to the third leading cause of death? Can God really bless a system built on such evil?
But then, maybe it’s not as prevalent as we’re led to believe. Is it possible to take responsibility? To research what we take into our bodies beforehand and make sure we don’t become a part of the market for dead baby parts? I really think so. https://cogforlife.org/ is a really great resource when it comes to this topic and the products that benefit from the death of babies. Maybe if more Christians took responsibility for this and made a conscious effort not to partake of these products, there would be less of a demand for them. Who knows. Maybe not. But maybe if we just took responsibility instead of excusing it away, we would be stronger as we live out lives that are actually in alignment with what we believe. Just saying. It’s possible, right?
I’m not going to say more on this topic. It’s literally impossible to address this without coming off judgmental which is why I mentioned it once and have avoided it ever since. It’s when the rationale is based in half truths and lies that I must point out the discrepancies. My stance has always been that there’s no way I can make this decision for anyone, that there’s always arguments I haven’t thought of, and if you’ve found a way of looking at this that gives you peace before God, then more power to you. My problem lies in the fact that the arguments I’m seeing are simply not grounded in truth. Ground yourself in truth, people. Dig deep. Be open. Allow God to speak to you and then if you have peace, go forth in confidence, even if I disagree with you. But just don’t do it based on lies. Basing decisions on lies is so not of God…that’s all I’m saying (with tears here…not in judgment but with entreaty).
Edited to add: someone sent me this article of an interview with John Piper. I really love what he had to say and it describes very well where I stand. Please read if you’re interested in his rationale.
Dr Waldron goes on to talk about the different Covid vaccines and I’m not going to get into the details very much. This is getting long already.
He does say, “I do plan to get a COVID vaccination. The issue to me is not my personal risk from COVID — it is probably small (although we don’t know all of the long term implications of COVID infections). The issue to me is that I could be the conduit whereby someone else gets COVID who does worse than I would. I have seen all too many situations where a younger person gave COVID to someone older. The younger person sailed through unscathed, while the older individual ended up in the hospital and came out weakened.”
I love the compassion I see in this paragraph and I admire the heart behind it. But I do have to point out that his belief that this vaccine is going to prevent him from transmitting this virus to someone he comes into contact with is based on an assumption, not actual data. Even the media has been very open with the fact that we will still need to mask and social distance after receiving the vaccine because halting transmission has not been proven. It is of course his decision to make, but saying he is taking it for other people (and not for himself) at this early juncture is simply not a scientifically backed statement.
I base my qualms with these vaccines more on what we don’t know than what we do. So as I mentioned above, we have no proof it effects transmission, or that it lasts longer than 2 months.  Taking the leap before those two factors are known seems foolhardy to me as I’m not afraid of Rona for myself. I’ve actually already had it, and I’m fine. There are multiple treatments that keep people (even the elderly and those with comorbidities) out of the hospital and I’ve seen people who meet those qualifications recover completely at home, with nothing but supplements and regular breathing treatments (both of which they would be deprived of in most hospitals).
I have this theory that God confounds the wise in medicine and science with tiny little viruses. We simply can’t find pharmaceutical products that work nearly as well as natural supplements. Since vitamins are viewed as useless in the face of a virus by most doctors, they continue on, helpless and limited by only what can be patented. It’s a sad situation, but unsurprising when one accepts complete dependency on pharma alone for solutions to health problems, which many doctors seem to do without question.
I don’t think the vaccine will be our savior. The bar for these clinical trials is set extremely low.  You don’t even have to get into any of the conspiracy theories or crazy claims to be quite convinced that efficacy has not been proven (not even close), and no one can honestly claim safety when the trials have only lasted 2-3 months in humans, and animal testing was skipped entirely for most of these trials. A thing called “vaccine enhanced disease” was a huge concern when we first started talking about creating a vaccine. Peter Hotez even went before Congress with these concerns.  On the last page of the VRBAC document from the FDA committee, they admit “Available data do not indicate a risk of vaccine-enhanced disease, and conversely suggest effectiveness against severe disease within the available follow-up period. However, risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown and needs to be evaluated further in ongoing clinical trials and in observational studies that could be conducted following authorization and/or licensure.”  Knowing that death is the outcome of “vaccine enhanced disease” makes me want to be very sure this question is answered before I sign up for this myself or before I recommend it to anyone else. Taking this vaccine is based on a lot of unanswered questions and a whole lot more assumptions. One has to trust pharma to sign up for this, and that’s just not me.
Ultimately, the risk/benefit analysis is different for each individual and since so much is unknown about these vaccines as far as safety and efficacy are concerned, I feel absolutely confident in telling people it’s far down on our list of tools to effectively combat this right now. Rona does not have to be a death sentence. A 99.8% survival rate is not a death sentence any way you look at it. There are so many ways to treat this and recover completely. There are ways to recover at home and not add to the burden of hospitals. We are not helpless. We are not hopeless. We are not at the mercy of pharma cartels if we don’t want to be. If we take responsibility for our own health, we will find empowerment and freedom on the other side. ♥️
4 thoughts on “A Response to Dr. John Waldron”
Thank you for writing this. I agree with your perspective and it helps me think through all of this.
Thank you for reading! ♥️
Wow, thank you so much for this! I’m appalled at the amount of people that agree with Dr. Waldron.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this rebuttal. I fight nausea each time I read one of his “updates” and leave the computer feeling aghast at the naivety of his followers, some of which are very influencial in our social circle. I pray for the TRUTH to be revealed!