Letter from a Small Town Paramedic in the Mountain West - 1of2
Request for vaccine exemption on scientific grounds
Many Americans are finding themselves at risk of losing their jobs if they do not submit to receiving a Covid vaccination. Others among us find our children’s schools demanding compliance, or find our health care withheld, or find that we cannot enter restaurants or theaters, or cross borders, without proof of vaccination.
Jordan Hayes, a paramedic working for a small town in Wyoming, finds himself in the first category. He has written his employer two letters requesting an exemption from the vax mandate. Both will be published here, the first here and now, the second in 24 hours. The first lays out the grounds by which he requests a scientific exemption. After having written that letter, however, it became clear that he may only pursue an exemption via one of two options:
1. Provide a letter from a doctor detailing why he cannot get the vaccine on medical grounds, or
2. Provide a letter clearly demonstrating that being forced to get a Covid vaccine would violate sincerely held religious beliefs.
It is remarkable that a scientific exemption does not exist. Implicit in this conspicuous absence is the belief that a new scientific result can be “settled” or “certain.” That, of course, is not how science works. These are new medical treatments whose already lengthy list of both adverse events and failed efficacy puts the lie to them being overwhelmingly "safe and effective.” Precluding people from opting out based on a careful analysis of the scientific evidence for their safety and efficacy is, in fact, anti-scientific. Those who would assess the scientific evidence are being bludgeoned by those marching in lockstep, armed with prefab conclusions and a hashtag to #FollowTheScience.
That said, Jordan’s second letter—to be posted tomorrow—lays out a compelling argument for religious exemption. It is his and my sincere hope that his letters may be useful to others.
Author’s Note: From a frontline healthcare professional under threat of losing a job I love— I will not submit to a Covid vaccine mandate. A mandate of these mRNA technologies is empirically bunk, based largely on an illegitimate appeal to authority, unwise, and ethically repugnant. What follows summarizes a perspective arrived at by a nearly two year journey carefully watching the empirical data and direct experience treating Covid patients. Much of this gets technical, but the devil truly is in the details. Maybe you’ll find this letter useful in the battle against any entity trying to inject a set of novel technologies into your body.
January 28, 2022
To Whom It May Concern -
Justification for a vaccine mandate rests almost entirely on the ability of the vaccine to prevent transmission. However, the impairment of viral transmission with these novel mRNA technologies remains unreliable and transitory at best. An Oct. 2021 study of the Swedish nationwide registries found that, in the case of Pfizer, after day 211 from vaccination “no effectiveness could be detected” against infection.Another study published in Oct. 2021 found “no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups,” another from Nov. 2021 that both “vaccinated and unvaccinated might transmit infection”. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency demanding the healthcare mandate, admits in its own documents that “the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent disease transmission by those vaccinated are not currently known”. Pre-Covid any vaccine unable to dramatically reduce viral transmission would have been rightly regarded as a failure. This is the linchpin argument for the purveyors of mandates—if these mRNA technologies do not prevent transmission to a durable and predictable degree, then a coercive campaign pushing a vaccine mandate “to protect others,” or “for the greater good,” fails immediately.
A slew of logical inconsistencies further reveal the illegitimacy of any vaccine mandate, and naturally acquired immunity is the elephant of all inconsistencies. One study of 2.5 million people in Israel, one of the most highly and earliest vaccinated populations, found “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected”.A continuously updated list of 146 studies reinforce the findings in the Israeli study. And the U.S. Federal government’s own CMS admits “[A]bout 100,000 a day have recovered from infection […] These changes reduce the risk to both health care staff and patients substantially, likely by about 20 million persons a month who are no longer sources of future infections.” —Then why the mandate, CMS?!— If we wish to protect our patients from infection then we should support healthcare professionals who have a record of previous infection, or who can prove immunity via antibody or T-memory cell tests.
After the empirical data fails to show durable interruption of transmission, the pro-mandate crowd retreats to the evidence that the vaccines protect against severe disease. So long as the protection lasts this argument has merit for one’s own decisions. But if any person had argued pre-Covid that we should deploy multiple novel medical technologies simultaneously(mRNA, ionized nano-lipids, genetically modified spike, PEG, etc.), that produce at maximum a few months of diminishing protection, they’d have been ridiculed. Now however, unbelievably, in a virtuosic display of goal post shifting this disappointingly temporary reduction in disease, and even less interruption of transmission, is deployed as an argument for boosters with the same, two year out-of-date tech. Then there was Omicron. To be clear, these “vaccines" are designed for a virus no longer in common circulation.
Not yet dissuaded, the pro-mandate army doubles down—‘a vaccine mandate will protect you from getting sick.’ Okay, but my health is my concern. The only situation in which this ethically dubious notion of forced medical treatment has any weight is one in which the healthcare system is failing, but we do not have a collapsing healthcare system—until of course, we artificially cause a health care system crisis by ejecting 10 million healthcare workers from the system.
mRNA Tech Safety
Note the false foundational assumption of pro-mandate assertions—that these novel mRNA technologies have a perfect safety record. We have been repeatedly blindsided by unexpected “side effects.” Several Nordic countries have severely limited the use of Moderna citing unforeseen increases in myocarditis (inflammation of the heart).The all-cause mortality is higher in the vaccinated cohort of Pfizer’s own trial. Vaccination may increase the risk of infection for a 14-21 day period post vaccination, and these people are conveniently labeled “unvaccinated” during this period. Another concern called Original Antigenic Sin (OAS), hypothesizes that the overly specific training imparted by the current mRNA vaccines causes the immune system to produce antibodies too narrowly focused on the original spike protein, and which superimpose on any new better-matched antibodies. If true this means I’m being told to submit to the injection into my body a set of possibly now defunct novel technologies. Worse yet, low-affinity antibodies secondary to waning immunity and/or OAS trigger the risk of Antibody Dependent Enhancement. ADE is a serious problem previously seen in vaccines produced for many diseases including SARS and MERS. ADE is a derangement of the immune system where non-neutralizing antibodies actually help a pathogen invade immune system cells. The non-neutralizing antibodies act as a bridge between the virus and the cell allowing the virus to enter the cell in a potentially pathogenic state. Incidentally ADE is most likely to reveal itself during the decline of antibody levels, which means early vaccine trial data cannot rule out the possible future emergence of ADE. Disastrous outcomes of non-sterilizing vaccines have been seen before—look into Marek’s disease for one example.
Whether these unforeseen events are eventually vindicated is irrelevant for the purposes of this letter. I’m merely pointing out that clear-minded people have ample reasonable doubt upon which to refuse to inject these mRNA technologies into their body based on the evolving safety signal alone.
Appeal to Authority:
“I represent Science”—Dr. Fauci, Nov. 2021
Appeals to authority are logical fallacies and not valid forms of argumentation. People treat the science surrounding Covid as though it is a proven state of affairs as opposed to an ongoing process of discovery. But careful scientists do not start sentences with “Science says.” Rarely do frontline physicians have the time to stay up to date on all the ways a vaccine campaign with novel technologies might go sideways, and their reliance on prepackaged guidance is understandable. Public health officials however—the people packaging the narratives—are not in the business of pure science. They clearly believe they have license to manipulate the behavior of the public by any means. We have been led through this pandemic by unaccountable bureaucrats executing a campaign of manipulation by fear inducing inference hacking. With a look of concern they’ll say "we’re seeing antibody levels fall,” and let you fill in the blank knowing full well every basic immunology book has a graph showing antibody levels fall after fighting any infection. The key to long term immunity by the way is T- and B-memory lymphocytes—we’ve known that for decades.
Plagued by manifest unknowns at the onset of the pandemic we agreed to a bet on the mRNA tech with the understanding that cutting edge empirical data would guide our response, and that no aspect of bodily autonomy would be subjected to coercion. Unbelievably we still have no vaccine safety & efficacy feedback mechanism impervious to corruption, or at least that anyone trusts—the VAERSsystem has become a political football. The empirical data has dramatically shifted with time. Yet sensible medical caution has been replaced by monotonous liturgical incantations—“vaccines are safe and effective” goes the stale refrain. The derangement of our sense-making apparatus requires no interesting conversations in cigar-smoke filled rooms. Most healthcare professionals mean well but a landscape full of competing interests (political, monetary, power, etc.) can easily mislead the well intentioned. Televangelists who pressure others to inject these products into their body but who can only parrot the “authoritative sources” put vigilant well-informed observers on edge. Unknown unknowns bedevil us and we too often resolve the tension by filling the gaps with shaky certainties. Make no mistake: the fog-of-war surrounds us yet. No person has sufficient knowledge to force novel medical treatments on the public.
Following the cataclysm of World War II and the Holocaust, the U.S. courts in U.S. v Brandt delineated a set of ethics principles designed to eliminate coercion into medical treatments. This agreement is now known as the Nuremberg Code. It states “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”Having lived through the horrors of the 1930s and 40s, it was recognized that humans have a knack for constructing expedient rationalizations when faced with frightening circumstances. Are we so unprincipled, so afraid, so ensconced, still, in the post-war daydream that we are willing to cast aside the wisdom of those who lived through the greatest catastrophe in human history?
I volunteer for my local search and rescue team. We frequently perform high angle rescues. In the high angle world we talk a lot about cruxes—the point on the rock that requires a move or set of moves that are the most difficult, often accompanied by an overwhelming sense of an impending fall. Most simply, the crux is the hinge point of the route—whether you get up the rock comes down to one move, and once made there’s no going back—you make it or fall. The latest CMS mandate, which threatens the livelihoods of 10,000,000(!) health care workers, 1/3rd of the total healthcare worker population, is the crux of the moment.
To clarify, let us consider where we’re at:
The current crop of mRNA tech is designed for a version of the virus no longer in circulation.
The mRNA tech does not durably prevent transmission of even the version it was designed for.
The current primary variant (Omicron) is significantly more transmissible than the first variant.
Healthcare workers have been working through the pandemic in high exposure environments for two years already, and most likely have natural immunity.
We know (and now even the CDC is beginning to admit) that natural immunity offers better protection than the mRNA tech.
If the mRNA tech still offers some limited protection against severe disease, then anyone who wants that protection has ample opportunity to get it.
Omicron doesn’t represent nearly the same threat as the original variant.
And yet the executive branch, in completely unprecedented fashion, seeks to force novel medical treatments into my body through a back door unaccountable alphabet agency that the people never intended to have that kind of power? We’re at the crux. We’re at serious risk here. When the stated justifications for a government diktat bear no relation to the actual state of affairs, we must ask “what is the real motive?” We cannot see what lies on the other side of this move. I fear we’ll find nothing to grab. We now have precedent in motion that suggests your body can effectively be regarded as property of the State on absurdly dubious grounds. Our second to last hope, the SCOTUS, has tucked tail, shrugging off their duty to uphold the constitution in exchange for expediency. Now it’s up to us—we must find some solid principles to stand on.
Pounding the Table
I refuse to comply with any mRNA vaccine mandate. But I reserve the right to be convinced. There’s an old saying in law—“if you have the facts pound the facts, if you have the law pound the law, and if you have neither, pound the table.” Vaccine mandates look an awful lot like pounding the table.
To any fellow citizen, medical professional or not, facing these coercive medical mandates, know you’re not alone. To any administrator caught between The Authority and your conscience—I sympathize, but find the courage to do what you know is right. All of us should take a moment to find the line we will not cross. Recognize it will become harder, not easier, to resist. I have no doubt, if 10,000,000 of us healthcare workers and untold numbers of our allies simply say no, we win. They know that. We know that. They want you to feel isolated, but you’re not. Join me in calling their bluff. Perhaps you feel this issue doesn’t concern you—maybe you already have two doses. What will you do when “fully vaccinated” is redefined as only those with three doses of novel mRNA tech, or four? The basis for the redefinition is already being laid. This is the moment the precedent is set. We must hold here.
—Jordan Hayes, Paramedic, Small Town Wyoming
Subscribe for free to receive most posts to your inbox. Paying subscribers can leave comments, and receive audio transcripts of many posts.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-11-05/pdf/2021-23831.pdf (86 Fed. Reg. at 61,615)
See for instance: https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ -and- https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.15.21265753v1 -and-https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563 -and- https://drjessesantiano.com/ten-studies-showing-a-low-risk-of-covid-19-reinfection-among-unvaccinated/
86 Fed. Reg. at 61,604
https://www.t-detect.com -and- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/nordic-countries-are-restricting-the-use-of-modernas-covid-vaccine.html -and- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/myocarditis-and-pericarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination/myocarditis-and-pericarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination-guidance-for-healthcare-professionals -and- https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712 -and-https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135
My sister works as a PA in a hospital in WI. The letter they received has this same wording and more- her letter went further stating the employees should not even attempt an argument against the "science" of the vaccines because that would get them nowhere and specifically not even to call the V experimental, etc. . I kid you not. I read the letter. It also said very few if any religious exemptions would be provided. She tried both a medical (she was just recovering from Lyme disease) and religious exemption and both were denied. She then wrote a more forceful, convicted religious exemption and it was accepted. These letters to these hospitals came down from the CMS with threats to withhold funding unless enforced. I remain utterly baffled on the legality of any of this- particularly based on the science. How is science NOT the ENTIRE argument or even allowed to be the argument? I suppose the answer is simple and in front of us- because there is NO possible way of them winning on the merits of science so they just shut it all down. The product is still EUA. The FDA product is not even available. I honestly think this is against all medical ethics laws. It has to be. WHERE ARE THE GOOD LAWYERS AND JUDGES??
And yet another otherwise healthy person we know aged 50 just had a heart attack...
Bravo. Thanks for your courage, Jordan Hayes, both physical and moral. Looking forward to the next installment and wishing you the best.