Pastor James Rafferty on Religious Liberty and Vaccines

Back in January (2024) Pastor James Rafferty gave a talk as part of the Religious Liberty Weekend of the Village Seventh-day Adventist Church in Michigan. He discussed the COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccines, government mandates that undermined religious liberty, and the complicity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in these illicit government actions (text of talk). He also presented similar ideas, along with Kenny Shelton, at the 3ABN “Revival of Righteousness” Campmeeting last month (Link).

Many of Rafferty’s claims and accusations have been rather sensational and alarming – and have raised concerns among many as to the validity of what Rafferty is teaching and preaching on these topics. Not surprisingly, I have received requests to review some of his key points.

3ABN Clips:

Separation of Church and State:

Pastor Rafferty began by discussing the importance of a distinct separation between church and state – a concept that is held dear and even fundamental by the government of the United States, being embedded within the Constitution itself.  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects religious liberty and the separation of church and state through the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause (Link). Of course, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has always been in strong support of this concept since it forms the very basis of God’s government of love where the choice to follow God, or not, must be a free-will choice without any coercion.  So far so good.

Lethal Vaccines, Government Mandates, and Religious Liberty:

At this point, however, Rafferty tied in government mandates regarding the COVID-19 vaccinations and suggested that the government was essentially killing people… and that religious liberty was violated with support from the SDA Church. Here are just a few of his claims that I’d like to consider:

  • The emergency use experimental jab lacks solid long-term scientific evidence for preventing infection transmission and has awful adverse reactions, including death in thousands of people. (Link)
  • The vaccinated made up the majority of COVID-19 hospitalizations in a study. (Link)
  • The official comments came out days after a bombshell study revealed that natural immunity or immunity conferred via a previous COVID infection provides superior protection against the virus when compared with vaccines. Natural immunity is superior to vaccination against Delta virus variant, a study showed. And in Medscape, COVID infection provides immunity equal to vaccination, a study showed. According to Ralph Elvis, February 17, 2023 in WebMed. So what we’re seeing here is an unraveling of the lies. (Link)
  • And it was revealed that there were 1,223 deaths and 42,000, over 42,000 adverse events reported to Pfizer from the first day of the Pfizer biotech vaccine rollout, December 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021. That was in the documents that they wanted 75 years to reveal to the public. (Link)
  • We see in America, this same thing happening nationwide with a surge in death in young people ages 18 to 49, state-by-state… among young males after the COVID booster, according to the CDC. And then we see doctors in Australia baffled by this sudden adult death syndrome they called SAGS in healthy young people. (Link)
  • Breaking News CDC admits at least 94% of deaths from COVID-19 were wrong. (Link)
  • One of the reports that was identified as a conspiracy theory was the idea that this virus was developed through gain-of-function research and was leaked out of a lab in Wuhan. It didn’t actually come out of a wet market… But the evidence is in. The truth is coming out that we actually helped fund gain of function research that developed a virus that can infect human beings. And that virus leaked out of this lab and caused havoc in our world in the last two to three years. So I’m not a conspiracy theorist. (Link)
  • Then the FDA was telling people not to take ivermectin for COVID… a very proven Nobel Prize-winning drug that was very effective against COVID… and hydroxychloroquine off-label for COVID-19. (Link)
  • Florida reported the lowest daily COVID-19 cases per capita in the United States. And they had one of the lowest COVID-19 rates in the United States, which shows us the principles of fresh air, of sunshine, of exercise, of trust. (Link)
  • There are no studies that have shown that the wearing of masks has a single helpful effect on COVID-19… We find that states with mask mandates have higher infection rates for COVID-19. (Link)
  • Truthtellers are being mocked as conspiracy theorists. (Rafferty’s “Truthtellers” are conspiracy theorists)
  • Our support of the mandates for the eJAB is simply symptomatic of how far we have strayed from God’s original purpose. In our churches, in our medical and educational institutions, God’s blueprint has been trodden underfoot or completely removed. It is past time to sell our medical institutions before we lose them altogether. (Link)
  • A great evil was perpetuated, perpetrated upon the human race in the years 2020 to 2023. The only way forward is to identify, acknowledge, confess, and forsake the underlying principles that led so many people to abandon the principles of civil and religious liberty of conscience, identified in Revelation 13 and 11 as the lamb-like horns. (Link)
  • I believe this is the way forward for all of us, for any of us, especially for those who have been deceived by pharmakeia, according to Revelation 18:23. (Link)

None of this is accurate. However, I certainly understand how one could honestly come to such conclusions. Such false and conspiratorial theories were very popular on social media sites during the pandemic and continue to this day (Link). After all, sensational stories have always been popular – but not often true. As one looks for truth, the sources should be carefully considered and investigated. And, many of the sources of Rafferty’s information are infamous for spreading false, misleading, and conspiratorial theories.

Beyond all of this, and of particular concern for me, are the accusations against the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church claiming that their words and actions fundamentally undermined religious liberties during the pandemic. What is particularly interesting about this claim is that Rafferty and others who argue along these lines consistently seem to support their position by claiming that the vaccines were very harmful and lethal – not at all helpful to society at large.  So, what does religious liberty have to do with the degree of vaccine effectiveness? I thought that religious liberty was based on a personal conviction regardless of the effectiveness or safety, or lack thereof, of any vaccine or medical therapy.

The Epoch Times:

For example, numerous times Pastor Rafferty used claims that originated from the journal “The Epoch Times“. (Kenny Shelton also cites the same). Note, however, that The Epoch Times is an extreme right-wing political journal, based in New York City. It essentially operates as “a mouthpiece for Falun Gong”. Falun Gong is a religious group (founded by Li Hongzhi) that was persecuted in China. In response, they launched The Epoch Times as a free propaganda newsletter more than two decades ago to oppose the Chinese Communist Party (Link). Currently, it basically functions as a tabloid-style journal that often prints sensational conspiratorial stories in order to gain general popularity and profitability to support its own very strong political agenda.

Consider also that Li Hongzhi is considered to be a God-like figure by his followers. He claims to have supernatural powers, including telekinesis, the ability to see the past and future, and the ability to mend things. He also claims to have a “Great Soul-Catching Method” that can “pull out” a person’s soul. (Link)

A Hypothetical Vaccine that’s 100% Safe and Effective:

I mean, what if, hypothetically, the vaccines had been 100% safe and effective at completely stopping COVID-19 infection and transmission? – with no significant side effects? If this were the obvious case, even to Rafferty, and a group of people still refused to get vaccinated for “religious liberty” reasons, what would Rafferty say then?

I mean, what about real-world situations where people with highly contagious and potentially lethal diseases refuse treatment, yet still think themselves free to roam around in public places? For example, a woman in Washington who refused treatment for tuberculosis and isolation was finally arrested this past July. She was then forced into isolation and given antibiotics to cure her condition by court order.

“A Washington state woman who was arrested after she refused for more than a year to consistently isolate or take medication for tuberculosis has finally been cured of the disease.” (Link)

Would Rafferty cite this public health action, the forcing of a woman to get treatment for tuberculosis against her will, as a violation of her “religious liberties”?  Or, what about the famous case of “Typhoid Mary” (Mary Mallon:1869-1938) who is believed to have infected between 51 and 122 people with typhoid fever? The infections caused three confirmed deaths, with unconfirmed estimates of as many as 50. What would Rafferty say about someone like this today who refused treatment for religious reasons? – yet still wanted to access and work in public places?  Would he say that a government that forced someone like this into isolation and into a treatment plan against his/her will was guilty of violating religious liberties?  It’s really hard to make that argument from a Christian perspective given that the Bible also cites God as being the Source of similarly enforced public health mandates for the Israelites.

So, it would seem, that Rafferty’s entire case against the actions and statements of civil and church governments during the pandemic is based entirely on the presumed reality that the vaccines themselves were actually very harmful to public health rather than helpful.  Because, if the opposite is actually true, if the vaccines actually saved lives and reduced hospitalizations and long-term injuries, and even transmission rates, the Bible itself could reasonably be used to support the actions of civil and church governments during the pandemic.  So, Rafferty basically has to believe that the vaccines were harmful and evil – and that there was a huge government coverup to hide the truth as to how harmful they actually were.  That’s what has to be true for his arguments to hold any water at all – even from a Biblical perspective.  Yet, this isn’t actually true. The truth is that the mRNA vaccines were amazingly effective at reducing hospitalizations, long-term injuries, and deaths. And, that’s the key problem with Rafferty’s position here.

Now, the usual counter I come across to this particular line of reasoning is that the vaccines didn’t actually prevent the vaccinated from passing the virus to others. On top of this, if the vaccines were so effective, why should the government or the vaccinated care about who else is or isn’t vaccinated? Well, first off, those who were vaccinated did, in fact, have a reduced transmission rate – particularly for the earlier pre-Delta variants (Link, Link, Link, Link).  Beyond this, not everyone who was vulnerable could get vaccinated, particularly earlier in the pandemic. And, since the vaccinated were far less likely to be admitted to the hospital, they helped extend medical resources when ICUs around the world were being overwhelmed with the very sick and the dying during the height of the pandemic.  That’s why getting vaccinated was truly an act of love and public service – right in line with Christian ethics and basic morality.

This isn’t to say that honest and sincere people aren’t being taken by the misinformation and conspiracy theories that have convinced Rafferty. I have no doubt that Pastor Rafferty truly believes the serious accusations that he’s preaching against the governments of both church and state.  So, how can I be so confident that Pastor Rafferty is wrong?  Well, let’s consider the claims and see where the weight of evidence actually lands:

Vaccines “Experimental” and Caused “Thousands of Deaths”:

Appropriate Human and Animal Trials:

The claim that the mRNA vaccines are “experimental” and very harmful and deadly is widespread among popular conspiracy theorists. Take, for example, a Facebook reel posted on 26 April 2024 by “Pastor Chris” on his Facebook page with more than two million followers. He also claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are “ineffective and harmful”. In the thread that followed, faith leader and preacher Chris Oyakhilome called COVID-19 mRNA vaccines “terrible”. This was followed by remarks from several individuals (Robert Malone, Sucharit Bhakdi, and Peter McCullough) – all of whom have spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and anti-government conspiracy theories. Bhakdi called COVID-19 vaccines “the greatest experiment that has ever been performed in the history of medicine” (Link).

The problem with these claims is, of course, that the mRNA vaccines were not “experimental” since they went through all of the standard testing, to include randomized placebo-controlled animal and human trials with over 70,000 volunteers (Pfizer and Moderna combined) – with great success with regard to safety and a 95% efficacy at preventing symptomatic infection by COVID-19 (Link). This is based on relative risk reduction as compared to absolute risk reduction (see a very good explanation of this by Dr. Roger Seheult: Link).

Now, it is true that six participants died during the ~44,000-person Pfizer vaccine trial, two of whom were given the vaccine while the other four people received a placebo (Link). Of the two vaccine recipients who died, one had a cardiac arrest 62 days after a second dose of the two-dose vaccination and died three days later, while the other died from arteriosclerosis three days after the first dose of the vaccination. One of the placebo recipients died from myocardial infarction, another from hemorrhagic stroke, and two others from unknown causes. It was similar for the Modern study (Link). Three vaccinated participants died during the study while four died in the placebo group, for a total of 7 deaths (by the cutoff date of November 11, 2020).

mRNA Technology studied for over 30 years:

Beyond this, the mRNA technology itself is not new but has been studied for over 30 years (Link). And, while not 100% at preventing infection or the spread of infection, the mRNA vaccines were able to reduce both the infection rate and the rate of the spread of infection – particularly early on in the pandemic before more virulent variants came on the scene (Link).

The Vaccine Components:

The makeup of the mRNA vaccines is also not at all sinister or mysterious. The ingredients are as follows:

Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), lipids (((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, and sucrose. (Link)

So, in short, we have some lipids, sugar molecules, cholesterol, alkaline buffers, and strands of mRNA. That’s it. There are no heavy metals, “adjuvants”, other “toxins”, or any other organic materials since these vaccines are synthetically produced.

“The mRNA vaccines can be rapidly synthesized in a large scale using a cell-free system in a cost-effective manner.” (Link

Now, once the mRNA strands are taken into the cytoplasm of a human cell (like a muscle cell in someone’s shoulder), the mRNA is decoded to produce a protein, a small modified part of the Sars-Cov-2 virus known as the “spike protein”. The spike protein is modified from the one found on the actual virus in order to make it less bioactive while making it more stable and immunogenic so as to help the body’s immune system more effectively recognize the real thing and react more quickly to an actual infection.  These spike proteins also stay local at the site of injection with the very rare proteins that do make it into the bloodstream being filtered out by the liver (Link).

Compare this to an actual COVID-19 infection where the live virus reproduces itself, resulting in millions of viruses invading the entire body (all organ systems, including the brain), where each individual virus is covered with spike proteins. If one is concerned about the spike proteins produced via mRNA vaccination in a very small region of the body, one should be far far more concerned about an actual COVID-19 infection producing far greater quantities of spike proteins throughout the entire body. How then can the claims forwarded by conspiracy theorists that the vaccine is more dangerous than the actual disease be remotely credible?  By what mechanism?  How does this claim make any sense at all after simply looking at how these vaccines work in a very limited local manner vs. how the SARS-CoV-2 viral infection works throughout the body in a much more extensive manner?

Causation Vs. Correlation:

Also, the claim that the vaccines “killed thousands of people” is flatly untrue (also published by The Epoch Times: Link). This idea is based on a misunderstanding between correlation and causation. In other words, just because someone dies after being vaccinated doesn’t mean that the vaccine caused the death.  Consider, for example, that if I were to simply wave my hand over the foreheads of a population the size of the United States that nearly 8,000 people would die that very same day (Link). Yet, these deaths would not have been caused by the waving of my hand over their foreheads. The same thing is true of those getting vaccinated and the claims that thousands died shortly after getting vaccinated.  The proper question is, was the death rate for those being vaccinated above the “expected” death rate? And, the answer to this question is a resounding no.  The truth is that vaccines against COVID-19 saved almost 20 million lives within just the first year of their use, equating to a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (Link).

So yes, thousands of people most certainly did die after receiving the mRNA vaccines, but at the same rate as those who were not vaccinated – as studies have demonstrated:

“COVID-19 vaccination does not increase all-cause mortality in large populations.” (Link).

This is not to say that the mRNA vaccines were risk-free.  They weren’t and they aren’t.  That being said, these risks were very small compared to the risks of getting infected without having first been vaccinated.  In other words, a COVID-19 infection carries with it a far far greater risk of long-term injury, hospitalization, and death than the mRNA vaccines.

Take myocarditis as a relevant example here.  Fairly early during the pandemic, it was determined as part of a 2021 Israeli study (Link) that the mRNA vaccines were associated with an increased risk of clinical myocarditis, in young men (ages 12-24) at around 2.7 events per 100,000 persons with a 0.7% death rate (Link).  That means, out of 10 million young men vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine an additional 270 myocarditis cases would occur above the expected baseline rate for myocarditis in large populations. Out of these 270 myocarditis cases, less than 2 would die as a result of the vaccine. A December 2023 review showed similar results (Link).

Now, compare this with the risk of myocarditis, in unvaccinated young men, infected with COVID-19. A large Israeli study showed a risk of myocarditis following a COVID-19 infection at 11.0 events per 100,000 persons (compared to 2.7 events per 100,000 in the vaccinated group). Note also that the relative severity of myocarditis was much less following mRNA vaccination compared to myocarditis that followed COVID-19 infection. “Adjusted analysis showed that the postvaccination myocarditis group had a 92% lower mortality risk” (Link).

It is also interesting to note that mRNA vaccination “was substantially protective against adverse events such as anemia, acute kidney injury, intracranial hemorrhage, and lymphopenia” (Link). Clearly, overall, the serious risks of COVID-19 infection far outweighed the risks of vaccination. Here is a list of the relative risks of mRNA vaccination vs. COVID-19 infection:

Again the severity of the myocarditis, in particular, was much less following vaccination vs. a COVID-19 infection (see diagram below). The pattern is fairly clear. Post-vaccine myocarditis has better outcomes than conventional myocarditis, and post-infection myocarditis has similar outcomes to conventional myocarditis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cause of Post-Vaccine Myocarditis:

As a relevant aside, research done by Dr. Carrie Lucas and others at Yale (May, 2023) suggests that the most likely cause of post-vaccine myocarditis is inflammation-mediated.

“We found that activated immune cells like cytotoxic killer cells and myeloid cells are elevated in these patients, which appears to suggest that mRNA vaccine-associated myocarditis is the most consistent with being inflammatory cell-mediated.

Autoimmune-related myocarditis is more difficult to treat. It would be more chronic, because once you trigger an autoimmune response, it’s very difficult to shut it down. For example, if you develop auto antibodies against components of the cardiac muscle, it’s difficult to get rid of those B cells that are secreting those antibodies, creating chronic disease. Whereas inflammation-induced myocarditis is more transient—we actually found that inflammation as well as the immune cell types go back to normal after patients recover. So we know that it’s a resolving kind of myocarditis. We don’t want to diminish patients’ suffering, but this kind of myocarditis is better than other types.

The other thing that’s good is how treatable it is. Something empirically that our clinical colleagues have found is that treatments like NSAIDs or steroids—temporary measures that can calm the inflammation back down—can help these young patients bounce back quickly. Another point is that if you space the dosing of the mRNA vaccines far enough apart, you might allow time for the waning of the inflammatory response and reduce the risk of myocarditis. (Link)

This also fits the finding that higher doses are associated with higher risks of myocarditis. For example, the risk of myocarditis is higher with the Moderna Vaccine (40 cases per 1 million doses administered) vs Pfizer Vaccine (22 cases per 1 million doses administered) – since the Moderna vaccine has about triple the dose of the Pfizer vaccine. (Link)

Lack of Long-Term Scientific Evidence:

It’s been nearly 4 years since the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 became available to the general public. Since then, more than 13.5 billion vaccines have been given (Link). Yet, they have not been associated with an increase in long-term injuries or deaths – both of which have been associated with getting COVID-19.

Vaccinated More Likely to be Hospitalized:

But what about Rafferty’s claim that the vaccinated were more likely to be hospitalized compared to the unvaccinated? This claim originated from an article published by, you guessed it, The Epoch Times (Link):

Well, this is based on a misunderstanding of statistics regarding population groups. For example, in regions with very high vaccination rates, most deaths will be in the vaccinated group – despite being highly protective.  But how can that be?

Consider a situation where 100% of a group of people were vaccinated with a vaccine that gives 95% protection.  Over time, 5 people die.  What percentage of these people were vaccinated?  100% – right?  Is the conclusion, then, that because all of the dead people were vaccinated that the vaccine didn’t work?  No.  It just means that the vaccine wasn’t 100% effective.

The same thing is true, in a given age category, where more than 90% of people are vaccinated (as is true in Israel for those over the age of 60), but have between 12x and 82x the risk of serious infection as compared to someone in their 30s.  Even if the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing severe sickness and death were >90%, you’d still expect that a high relative percentage of the vaccinated would die in such a situation – at least 19% if not higher (see table below).

Jeffrey Morris, Director of the Biostatistics Division at the University of Pennsylvania (August 17, 2021)

What matters for gauging vaccine effectiveness is not the proportion of hospitalized people who were vaccinated but the proportion of vaccinated people who wind up in the hospital. In fact, a high share of vaccinated people among the very sick could just be a sign that a lot of people have been vaccinated. Let’s say that vaccines are 95% effective, reducing someone’s chance of being hospitalized from 1% to 0.05%. And imagine that in a group of 1 million people, 90% were vaccinated. We’d expect 0.05% of the 900,000 vaccinated people — that is, 450 people — to go to the hospital. By comparison, we’d have 1% of the 100,000 unvaccinated people — 1,000 people — in the hospital. The vaccinated would account for about one out of every three hospitalizations (Link). So, when analyzing data like this, one must adjust for the overall vaccination rates within a particular age category and then go from there.

.

As a relevant aside, a nationwide NIH Study (Jiang et. al., February 2023) showed that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of heart attacks and strokes during follow-up. So, getting vaccinated was associated with long-term as well as short-term health benefits.

Natural Immunity Equal or Superior to Vaccination:

So, what about Rafferty noting that immunity based on a COVID-19 infection is at least as good as getting vaccinated?  Sure, it was quickly discovered that “natural immunity” based on the body’s response to a COVID-19 infection was in fact just as good, or even better, for most people, compared to vaccine-based immunity. While true, one must also consider that the risks of getting natural immunity via infection were much much higher than getting immunity via vaccination.  Again, as shown above, the risks of hospitalization, long-term injuries, and death, where much much greater for those getting infected without first being vaccinated compared to those who were vaccinated before infection (Link).

Pfizer trying to hide 1,223 Deaths:

Following the actual human trials, once the vaccine was approved for general public use, Pfizer did collect data on those who took their mRNA vaccines worldwide (~5.55 billion people worldwide had received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by March of 2023). That’s a lot of people. So, out of so many billions, how many were expected to die annually before the vaccines became available? Well, the expected annual death rate is around 800 people per 100,000 in a population. Multiplying 800 by 55,500 (for a population of 5.55 billion) would mean that the expected death rate for all the people vaccinated, per year, would be around 44 million deaths. In other words, as I mentioned above, if I just waved my hand over the foreheads of 5.55 billion people, that same year 44 million of them would die. So, in order to reasonably argue that the mRNA vaccines actually *caused* an increase in deaths, one would have to demonstrate an increased death rate beyond the expected death rate for the vaccinated population. Remember, correlation isn’t the same thing as causation.
.
As far as the 329,000 pages of documents regarding the FDA’s licensing of the Pfizer vaccine, in particular, why did the FDA ask for numerous decades to release all the data? – at only 500 pages per month it should be completed by 2076? Surely they must be hiding something, right? The problem is that releasing this information costs money because the data can’t be released without first removing confidential business and personal privacy information. Like everyone else, the FDA has a budget and didn’t want to use it hiring a whole bunch of extra staff to release 80,000 pages per month. So, that’s why there was a court order, to force the FDA’s hand here. So, yeah, it’s about budgets, not about trying to hide data regarding the mRNA vaccines – which have proven themselves to have been highly protective when it came to significantly reducing hospitalizations, long-term injuries, and deaths compared to the unvaccinated (age-adjusted).
.
CDC data from the end of November 2021 indicated that unvaccinated adults ages 18 years and older were hospitalized with COVID-19 at a rate of about 67.8 per 100,000. By comparison, the rate for fully vaccinated individuals was about 3.9 per 100,000, meaning unvaccinated people were about 17 times more likely to be hospitalized due to COVID-19. Also, during this time, compared to those who were vaccinated, the unvaccinated were about 20 times more likely to die from COVID-19 and 13 times more likely to test positive than people who were fully vaccinated. This changed a bit when the Delta Variant arrived, but still strongly favored the vaccinated with the unvaccinated having 11 times the death rate compared to the fully vaccinated. Also, the vaccinated were 10 times less likely to be admitted to hospital and five times less likely to be infected than unvaccinated people (Link)

Rise in Sudden Death Syndrome:

But what about Rafferty’s claim that there has been a dramatic increase in “sudden death syndrome” associated with vaccination? This claim has been forwarded by conspiracy theorist Peter McCullough in October of 2023 (Link).  Again, however, this just isn’t true.  There has been no increase in sudden death syndrome for any group of people or age category.  This particular claim has been extensively investigated and found not to be true (Link, Link, Link, Link).

“In conclusion, our analysis did not demonstrate increased rates of SCD in young people both during the pandemic and after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination. Causes of SCD in young people, including those who experienced SCD within 30 days of their COVID-19 vaccination, were consistent with prepandemic causes as established by rigorous autopsy.”  (Gaspari, Dec. 2023)

So, aside from the more recent claim by Peter McCullough, where else did this notion come from?  Well, back in June of 2022, the well-known and self-proclaimed “inventor” of the mRNA vaccines, Robert Malone, turned conspiracy theorist, posted a nice-looking graph suggesting that there had been a significant increase in the number of sudden deaths for pilots and athletes who had been given the mRNA vaccine. it is important to note, however, that this wasn’t based on any kind of research study or peer-reviewed published report. It was simply from an anonymous blog registered in Iceland that collects news and media reports of athletes who have collapsed on the field or died (Link).  And, it is inconsistent with actual investigations into these cases which showed no increase in deaths following vaccination.

CDC: At least 94% of deaths from COVID-19 were wrong:

This claim also just isn’t true. It’s from a post (August of 2020) shared thousands of times on Facebook claiming that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “quietly updated” its COVID-19 data “to admit that only 6% of all the 153,504 (U.S.) deaths recorded at that time actually died from (COVID-19).”

In short, this was in regard to those who died with co-morbidities, which did, in fact, put people at greater risk during a COVID-19 infection.

Key to understanding the issues in these posts is that, “If they had not gotten the infection, “they would still be alive.” – Dr. Maja Artandi, director of the Stanford CROWN Clinic for COVID-19 patients (Link)

Beyond this, it is overwhelming that the COVID-19 pandemic really did kill millions of people around the world – more than 6.86 million people (Link).  The all-cause-death rate increased dramatically during the pandemic all around the world. In fact, the overall increase in all-cause deaths was around 20% higher than the deaths that have been “officially” attributed to COVID-19.

US-Funded Wuhan Lab Leak:

This theory has been much debated.  At first, as Rafferty claims, the Wuhan lab leak theory was generally dismissed as a conspiracy theory – but then gained traction as the most likely explanation for the origin of COVID-19 and the resulting pandemic. Regarding the lab-leak theory, by May of 2021, Anthony Fauci testified during a US Senate committee hearing as follows:

“That possibility certainly exists, and I am totally in favor of a full investigation of whether that [lab leak] could have happened…” adding that he was “not convinced” the virus originated naturally. That was a shift from a year earlier when Fauci thought it most likely Covid had spread from animals to humans. (Link)

So, gradually, the lab-leak theory became the dominant theory until recently when the theory of a natural origin for COVID-19 gained new life.  A paper published on September 19, 2024 in the journal Cell reopped the door for the natural origin for COVID-19. (Link) The journal Nature responded with an article entitled,

“COVID pandemic started in Wuhan market animals after all, suggests latest study – The finding comes from a reanalysis of genomic data.” (Link).

So, while the lab leak theory is certainly a possibility, it’s not really as conclusive or truly conspiratorial regarding the government’s suppression of information as Rafferty makes it out to be.

Ivermectin “Very Effective” against COVID-19:

While it was initially hoped that Ivermectin (a “drug” and a “pharmaceutical” by the way) would provide a benefit against COVID-19 infection, this just didn’t turn out to be the case. The evidence is pretty conclusive that Ivermectin just didn’t do what Rafferty claims (also claimed by The Epoch Times: Link).  It just didn’t provide the hoped-for advantage to any detectable degree (Link). The same turned out to be true for hydroxychloroquine as well (Link, Link).

Yet, well-known conspiracy theorists like Dr. Malone continue to promote hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as being effective treatments for COVID-19 – despite the negative results from the largest and best trials (randomized placebo-controlled) that are currently available (Link). These include the Oxford trial known as PRINCIPLE, another at McMaster University in Canada called TOGETHER and one at the US National Institutes of Health known as Activ-6. The PRINCIPLE trial has shown that budesonide shortens recovery time by three days in some patients. And, preliminary results from the TOGETHER trial showed that fluvoxamine was mildly effective, reducing the relative risk of getting worse by 30%. However, in August (2021) the TOGETHER trial showed Ivermectin had no statistically significant effect.

Initially, there was some hope that these drugs might be beneficial in the fight against COVID-19, based on promising results from in-vitro studies. Unfortunately, however, when it came to real-life usage in real human beings, the benefits just weren’t there. This is why places like India and Brazil, countries that heavily promoted the use of ivermectin, in particular, to treat COVID-19, have now removed ivermectin from their treatment protocols – because it just hasn’t been detectably beneficial. In June of 2020, Brazilians purchased 12 million packets of Ivermectin – a year’s worth of the drug in a single month. It didn’t seem to affect the death rate. One Brazilian scientist observed, “The shape of COVID curves did not exhibit any modification when comparing groups of treated and untreated people from the same area.”

Malone’s claim that Japan had good success with ivermectin simply isn’t true – and neither is his claim that Uttar Pradesh, in India, had good success.  The fact is that India stopped recommending the use of ivermectin for the management of COVID-19 in September 2021 – citing a lack of scientific evidence of its benefits. When asked about claims that Uttar Pradesh’s low case numbers were due to ivermectin, Dr. Lee Riley, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California Berkeley, said that there would be no biological reason why the drug would be effective at preventing the disease, but not in treating it, as studies have shown. No other place in the world has shown that ivermectin is effective at preventing COVID-19. Also, different countries and even different regions within countries are not testing or collecting data in the same way.  How then can there be any reasonable scientific comparison? Malone, if anyone, should know this – which makes his claims along these lines particularly disingenuous.

Beyond this, what is also concerning here is Malone’s efforts to promote yet another hidden government conspiracy theory to suppress vital information that would otherwise quell the pandemic:

“There was a specific visit of Biden to [Indian Prime Minister] Modi, and a decision was made in the Indian government not to disclose the contents of those packages that were being deployed in Uttar Pradesh.”

Rogan then asked, “So they were visited by someone in the Biden administration, is that what you’re saying?”

” I just know there’s a meeting between Joe Biden and Modi.”

Rogan: “And you believe that out of that meeting…”

“I don’t know what they said. I wasn’t invited. All I know is that immediately afterwards there was a decision not to disclose the contents of what was being deployed in Uttar Pradesh.”

Rogan: It’s so crazy to imagine that in the middle of a pandemic, there’s one place, one area of India that’s extremely successful in combating the virus, and they’re not going to say how they did it. That’s nuts.

“That’s where my stance in all of this is to say, here are the facts, here are the verifiable data. Draw your own conclusion.”

Again, do such high-level government conspiracies actually make any rational sense here?

The best explanation I can find for Malone’s dark world view is that it’s rooted in a powerfully felt grievance—a grievance about credit that seems to have warped his assessment of both scientific data and human motivation. And sometimes the most powerfully felt grievances are the most valid ones—the ones most firmly rooted in reality. Maybe, in a certain sense, the stronger the evidence for Malone’s claim to be the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, the more suspicious we should be of the things he’s saying about it.

What’s also interesting here about Malone’s promotion of drugs like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is that he’s inconsistent with the data he cites to make his point.  On the one hand, Maline claimed, on the Joe Rogan show, that the CDC is artificially inflating the number of COVID-19 deaths:

The CDC made the determination that they were going to make a core assumption: If PCR positive [if you test positive for Covid using a PCR test] and you die, that is death due to Covid. If a patient comes in with a bullet hole to the head and they do a nose swab, and they come up PCR positive, they’re determined to have died from Covid… that is by definition from the CDC.

Yet, during the very same interview, Malone turned around and claimed that the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine would have saved ~500,000 lives:

There’s good modeling studies that probably half a million excess deaths have happened in the United States through the intentional blockade of early treatment by the US government… That is a well documented number. And it’s a combination of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Ok, just a minute here. On the one hand, Malone believes that the “850,000” number for people who have died of Covid is way, way too high. Yet, on the other hand, he claims that ~500,000 people who have died of Covid would be alive if only they’d been given ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. It only follows then that just about all Covid deaths could have been prevented if only we’d administered ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. And yet, even the claims made for the efficacy of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, by their most prominent supporters, don’t suggest a combined efficacy of anywhere near 100%. In other words: If these “good modeling studies” (which I haven’t been able to locate) indeed found that 500,000 COVID deaths could have been prevented, they must rest on the assumption that the total number of COVID deaths is roughly what the government says it is.  You see, he’s just speaking out of both sides of his mouth hoping no one will notice…

Pastor Rafferty does the same thing.  On the one hand, he presents arguments that the government deliberately released a plague upon the world in the form of the COVID-19 virus that they created in the Wuhan lab – in an effort to reduce population sizes.  Then, on the other hand, he presents arguments that the pandemic wasn’t so bad since the CDC significantly inflated the death rates and that the mRNA vaccines were far worse than the virus itself!  Which is it?

Florida: Lowest COVID-19 cases per capita in the United States:

Florida was #12 as far as the “per capita” COVID-19 death rate suffered in the United States (Link) and #8 regarding the number of cases per capita (Link).  So, again, Rafferty is mistaken here.

Masks Not Helpful Against COVID-19:

Again, this isn’t true. While by no means perfect, the wearing of masks was shown to reduce the rate of COVID-19 transmission and infection – if the proper mask was worn properly (Link, Link).

Pharmakeia of Revelation 18:23

The claim of many, including Rafferty, that the word “pharmakeia” used in Revelation 18:23 is about modern pharmaceuticals or modern medicine in general isn’t true either. This word is best translated as “sourcery” here (Link).

The SDA Church and Government Mandates:

While the SDA Church did officially recommend the use of vaccines (even before the COVID-19 pandemic), the Church also repeatedly recognized the individual right to reject vaccination.

“The Church affirms and recommends the responsible use of vaccines as an important public health measure, especially during a pandemic. At the same time, the Church respects the rights of individuals’ freedom of choice for those who choose not to be vaccinated.” (Link)

“We recognize that some of our members have serious concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccines and are willing to lose their job, if necessary, rather than take the vaccine. Although the Seventh-day Adventist Church sees this as a public health issue, we will provide support to those of our members who see this differently. We respect their conscientious convictions and can support them in the following ways: 1) By praying with them that God will work out a solution to the challenge they face; 2) Assisting them in writing a personal letter to their employer.” (Link)

That being said, the SDA Church does not see the choice to vaccinate, or not, as an inherently moral issue for the Church as an organization – while still recognizing differences in the individual consciences of its members.

“Seventh-day Adventists have historically supported public health policy and vaccines, therefore we do not believe that this is a theological or religious liberty issue for the Church. The statement on immunization was released in April, 2015, long before COVID and immunizations became politicized. The updated document released in 2021 follows our longstanding practice as a Church in supporting immunization. As stated earlier, however, this is not to deny that COVID immunization could be an issue of conscience for individual members with personal convictions and thus a religious liberty issue for them, but the 2021 reaffirmation document recognizes personal choice and offers to provide counsel for those who see this as a religious liberty issue.” (Link)

Principles of Civil and Religious Liberty of Conscience Abandoned:

It is interesting to note that public health policies and mandates are described in the Bible as being enforced, by civil government, at the command of God Himself.  For example, those infected with leprosy during Biblical times were required to be isolated from the general public and to announce their condition by calling out “Unclean!  Unclean!”.  This was enforced by civil power on the pain of death. Jesus even told those that He curred from leprosy to “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” (Luke 17:14).

So, it is quite clear that the God of the Bible is not opposed to the enforcement, by civil authorities, of good general health mandates as a part of living in civil society – as an essential part of the health and happiness of all.  In this light, vaccine mandates have been in place for decades before COVID-19 came on the scene.  In the United States, there are numerous required vaccines for school attendance or for being able to work as health care providers in a hospital or nursing home setting.  Such mandates are not opposed to the claims of God written in the Bible with regard to the function of civil governments and are therefore not, in essence, a basis upon which to make claims of “religious liberty” as a church organization.

Really, then, the only question left is if the individual can rightly oppose the civil government if he/she believes that what is being mandated by the government isn’t really good or effective. Pastor Rafferty clearly believes that the vaccines were far more harmful and not at all helpful, and therefore he cites “religious liberty” as his basis for his opposition to the civil government on this issue.  It seems to me that this is inconsistent. It would be better to claim health concerns rather than religious liberty here since vaccines and general health mandates are not inherently opposed to any Biblical teaching. For further discussion of “Mandates and Religious Exemptions see: Link

Summary:

Pastor James Rafferty has accused the United States government of violating the religious liberties of its citizens by mandating vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the complicity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership.

His entire argument is based on the assumptions that the pandemic wasn’t really that bad and that the mRNA vaccines were not only ineffective but very harmful, even lethal. If these assumptions turn out not to be true, if the pandemic really did kill over 7 million people worldwide and cause the hospitalization and long-term injuries of millions more (Link), and if the mRNA vaccines really were miraculously effective at significantly reducing hospitalizations and deaths, and if they were far safer than getting infected without first being vaccinated, if they reduced transmission to an even moderate degree, even for a while, if they reduced the burden on hospitals and medical providers who were being overrun during the height of the pandemic, then the accusations of Pastor Rafferty are without any merit whatsoever.

I say this even though I was not personally in favor of the government vaccine mandates (I considered them to be counterproductive even though the mRNA vaccines were amazingly effective at reducing hospitalizations and deaths and had a very good safety profile compared to getting a COVID-19 infection without them).

Even if Rafferty happened to be right regarding the nature of the mRNA vaccines, this still wouldn’t be a religious liberty issue since the Bible is not inherently opposed to either vaccines or government health mandates.  As previously noted, Pastor Rafferty clearly believes that the vaccines were and are very harmful and not at all helpful. He therefore cites “religious liberty” as his basis for opposing the civil government on this issue. It seems to me that this is inconsistent. It would be better to claim health concerns rather than religious liberty concerns here since vaccines and general health mandates are not inherently opposed to any Biblical teaching.

After all, it was God Himself who set up the basis for the civil enforcement of general health mandates for the Israelite nation. Religious liberties simply do not apply in civil society if one’s actions put another in harm’s way. And, as it turns out, Rafferty is actually wrong regarding the nature of the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines. He has listened to and believed and promoted the wrong voices – voices who have spoken falsehoods, not the truth. The truth is the opposite of what he claims here – as detailed above. There was, therefore, no valid Biblical basis to paint the civil or church governments/leadership as evil or as trying to undermine valid religious liberties when they were truly just trying to save as many as possible from needless injury and death.

I mean, are we really at liberty, under God, to ignore speed limit or traffic laws? – or road signs? – or refuse to isolate or be treated if we have a transmissible disease like Tuberculosis or Typhoid?  Is it not the God-given responsibility of governments to protect their citizens, in general, from the negligent use of the freedoms of the individual which may put others in harm’s way?

We, therefore, as Christians, have no Biblical basis to act contrary to Romans 13 here.

Romans 13 in the Bible is a primary passage that addresses how Christians should relate to government. Paul’s teachings in Romans 13 include: 

    • Obey the government: God raises up governments, and people should obey them. 
    • Submit to authority: Everyone should be in subjection to governing authorities. 
    • Government’s role: The government should be a “minister of God to you for good”. 
    • Civil authority: Civil authority is empowered to govern by enacting and administering law. 
    • Conscience: Christians should obey because of a higher principle, their conscience before God. 
    • Pay taxes: People should pay taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, and so on.

 

_________________

Dr. Sean Pitman is a pathologist, with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology, currently working in N. California.

Leave a Reply