At the foundation of any person are the core beliefs that hold that person together. The world’s religious population stands somewhere in the neighborhood of 85%, meaning that most people have a core belief grounded in a religious conviction. As a Christian, I ground my core belief in Christianity, which serves as the bedrock foundation of all Western civilization. It also serves as the inflection point of science and religious conviction. Science is a search for the truth of the natural world, and the truth is defined as “the body of real things, events, and facts.”[1] The Christian religion is based on the facts of history and requires Christians to accept the truth of history and the nature of the universe.

            To further qualify my point, Jesus did not demand blind obedience and faith. He qualified and demonstrated who he was via the miracles he performed. Jesus performed 34 miracles during his ministry, and the fact that he performed miracles is not in dispute.[2] While the facts of his ministry could be debated, it is beyond the scope of this paper, with the point being that Jesus gave evidence for his deity. The fact that Jesus gave evidence for his divinity translates to the daily Christian life tasked with constantly testing everything, as expressed in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, 1 John 4:1, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, and Acts 17:10-11.[3] This highlights the natural curiosity and skepticism found in most Christian believers.

            To further qualify the relationship between Christianity and science, we must examine the history of science and Christianity because they are intertwined. As understood in the modern sense, science would not exist without Christianity. While this topic could serve as an entire class, I must keep it brief. Science in the contemporary context directly results from Christianity and the church proper. The roots of modern science can be traced back to the Babylonians through the Greeks, with a brief stint within Islam and finally to the reformation of Europe. In Europe, we typically associate the birth of modern science, and rightfully so because it was only in the Christian West that the roots of modern science took hold. I say take hold because the Christian West was not the only development place for process science. It was the only place where it took root and flourished. This was because the nature of Christianity is found in the search for truth and the expectation that because God, as described in Christianity, is logical and rational, we should assume the universe he created is logical and rational. Only in Christianity, with the twin idea of curiosity and a rational God, did science explode and give birth to the modern world. While Islam was the source for the return of Greek thought, modern science did not flourish because Islam demands obedience, not curiosity. “Science & Religion a Historical Introduction 2nd edition ” for further reading,” by Gary Ferngren.

The Christian faith is in harmony with science because it is the nexus and reason for modern science, which brings us to the issue at hand: the coerced vaccination of Christians to retain their employment. The Bible is very specific about the nature of the body as defined in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:16-20, Ephesians 2:19-22, and 1 Peter 2:5. In these verses, the body is described as a holy temple. One of the core concepts of Christianity is that God is not only worshiped or housed within a specific building but is housed in Christians themselves via the Holy Spirit. This presents a problem with the current state of all COVID-19 vaccines, not because there is something inherently wrong with vaccines but because the science behind the COVID-19 vaccine is problematic. I will present three objections to the COPVID vaccine based on the current scientific understanding of each topic.

1. The testing for isolating COVID is inconclusive
2. An mRNA message is not a weakened form of the virus. A synthetic message is sent to your cells to produce a spike protein.
3. The COIVD vaccines are built using Fetal cell lines, which are cells from aborted babies.

The predominant method for discovering COVID is the use of RT-PCR. What is an RT-PCR test? It is defined as:

A Polymerase Chain Reaction, or PCR, is a laboratory technique used to measure the amount of genetic material from a sample of interest. It has many uses and is widely regarded as one of the most important laboratory techniques ever discovered. Traditional PCR tests measure the amount of genetic material “amplified” after the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has stopped. Amplification, in this setting, refers to the process of isolating a gene or genes of interest and making a lot of copies of them. A PCR test will not yield any “amplified” genetic material if a sample’s gene of interest is absent.[4]

The problem with the PCR test is its generation of false positives, with the FDA recalling the Unauthorized SAR-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.[5] [6] In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) has cast doubt on the PCR test’s veracity, thus throwing doubt into the reliability of the testing.[7] This ambiguity has resulted in four Germans winning a legal battle with Portugal. A false positive resulted in their quarantine and the subsequent lawsuit. The main point is they won their lawsuit because the test was ruled unreliable.[8] The AP ran this story on this same topic with the headline, “WHO did not say PCR test flaw led to overstated COVID-19 cases.”[9] If you dig into the source, you find the WHO documentation, which states:

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect the virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positives increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity. Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis; therefore, healthcare providers must consider any result in combination with the timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, the confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.[10]

While PCR testing is not the only kind, it is typically considered the best and most reliable. UC David Health’s website breaks down the testing into simple-to-understand language. They list four tests: PCR, Antigen, Molecular/PCR Tests, and Antibody tests. All the tests listed have false positive problems, and the CDC does not currently recommend antibody tests to assess immunity.[11] The inaccuracy of COVID testing is highlighted in the court case above when Germans were forced to take action based on an unreliable test. A recent case in Alberta, Canada, serves as further information regarding the unreliability of COVID testing. The primary point of the matter was that the chief medical officer of Alberta could not comply with his request for an Isolated sample of the SARS-Cov-2 virus to warrant the fine levied against the defendant.[12] [13] I have included an interview with the defendant with a link to the court documentation.[14]

            The evidence given above is by no means comprehensive. Still, it catalyzes reasoned, logical questions, with the most pertinent being, why can’t the chief medical officer not produce the evidence requested by the defendant? All the evidence I have presented may be wrong, but the probability of the case is shrinking with each passing day. The small amount of evidence I have compiled is trending in the wrong direction as justification for forced vaccination. The ambiguity surrounding testing directly conflicts with my Christian faith, which mandates that I seek the truth in all things, especially science.

            Therefore, on point one, I respectfully decline any further COVID testing until the ambiguity of the testing is resolved and an isolated sample of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is isolated and thoroughly tested with the requisite test to positively identify SARS-CoV-2 with a false positive threshold below 1%. The low threshold is required because of the life-altering nature of a positive test regarding SARS-CoV-2.

[1] Merriam Webster, s.v., “Truth”, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth.

[2] Christianity.com Editorial Staff, “What Miracles did Jesus Perform,” Christianity.com, June 7, 2010, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://www.christianity.com/jesus/life-of-jesus/miracles/what-miracles-did-jesus-perform.html.

[3] “What does it mean to test the Spirits,” Got Questions, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://www.gotquestions.org/test-the-spirits.html.

[4] Discovery Genomics, “What is an RT-PCR Test,” Discovery Genomics, February 8, 2021, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://discoverygenomics.com/2952/rtpcrtest/.

[5] Kathy Grimes, “CDC Pulls PCR Tests Because they Can’t Differentiate between COVID and Flu; California News Silent,” California Globe, July 26, 2021, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/cdc-pulls-pcr-tests-because-they-cant-differentiate-between-covid-and-flu-california-news-silent/.

[6] “Innova Medical Group Recalls Unauthorized SAR-COV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test with Risk of False Test Results,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, June 10, 2021, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls/innova-medical-group-recalls-unauthorized-sars-cov-2-antigen-rapid-qualitative-test-risk-false-test.

[7] John O’Sullivan, “WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a Problem,” Principia Scientific, December 17, 2020, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem.

[8] Peter Andrews, “Landmark legal ruling finds that COVID test are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it.

[9] Beatrice Dupuy, “WHO did not say PCR test flaw led to overstated COVID-19 cases,” AP, January, 28, 2021, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9913596351.

[10] “Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-COV-2,” World Health Organization, January 20, 2021, from https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05.

[11] “Antibody Testing is not Currently Recommended to Asses Immunity after COVID-19 Vaccination: FDA Safety Communication,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, May 19, 2021, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currently-recommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety.

[12] Stew Peter Show, “Freedom Fighter Court Victory! End Masking, Shots, Quarantine in Alberta (Updated with Legal Documents), Red Voice Media, August 3, 2021, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/freedom-fighter-court-victory-ends-masking-shots-quarantine-in-alberta/.

[13] Stephen Hunt, Tyson Fedor, “No quarantine for COVID-19 after Aug 16 Alberta set to end restrictions,” CTV News, July 28, 2021, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/no-quarantine-for-covid-19-after-aug-16-alberta-set-to-end-restrictions-1.5527222.

[14] Patrick James King vs. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta Justice Civil Litigation, sworn affidavit of Krisztina Grech, Sworn July 16, 2021, accessed August 9, 2021, from https://www.redvoicemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021.08.04-07.49-redvoicemedia-610aef3334bb1.pdf.