Editor’s note on ‘Forced Medical Treatment versus Human Rights’

Might I begin by observing that I think neither side of the COVID-19 vaccination debate has cornered the market on the type of “fear mongering” Mr. Randolph attributes to the pro-vaccination side. But my focus here is the way certain referenced data is presented toward anti-vaccine conclusions and whether such conclusions are borne out by that data.

Mr. Randolph states that, “Credible sources, such as the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) Voluntary Adverse Effect Reports System (VAERS), give thousands of examples of death and hundreds of thousands of serious side effects from the shots.”

However, a check of the CDC website offers this opening summary of VAERS work: “VAERS is an early warning system used to monitor adverse events that happen after vaccination. VAERS is the frontline system of a comprehensive vaccine safety monitoring program in the United States. It is one of several systems CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use to help ensure all vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, are safe.”

So, obviously the CDC and Mr. Randolph do not draw the same conclusion from the statistics VAERS is reporting regarding COVID-19 vaccine use.

Perhaps a clue as to why might be found at the VAERS website under “Guide to Interpreting” and “Evaluating VAERS data” where it is explained that “When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established,” adding that, “VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”

So, Mr. Randolph’s conclusion that: “The actual numbers of adverse reactions are said to be much higher” might certainly come under dispute – and one might ask, “said to be much higher” by who?

Mr. Randolph also states that, “Because of deficiencies in testing, many cases get reported when there are no symptoms.  Even the CDC admits that 94% of COVID deaths had underlying medical conditions.”

It is known that many healthy people can contract the COVID-19 Coronavirus without symptoms, become carriers and pass the disease on to others who may be more susceptible to severe consequences from the disease. – So, is detecting the disease in an asymptomatic person really “a deficiency in testing”? – I would contend not.

As to a CDC “admission” that 94% of COVID deaths “had underlying medical conditions” one might ask what that proves or doesn’t prove? Is it possible the Coronavirus impacted the pre-existing condition, launching the health consequences of a condition previously stabilized or in remission? I have personally heard several anti-vaccination advocates portray just such a scenario when pre-existing conditions are said to have flared up following COVID-19 vaccinations.

A referenced article Mr. Randloph included during our conversation about his letter, in support of his concerns about the role of pre-existing conditions in COVID-19 deaths was published by Michigan TV network WEYI in September 2020. That article quotes Michigan Department of Health and Human Services representative Lynn Stutfin observing that, “Since the start of the pandemic, older individuals and those with underlying conditions were considered the most vulnerable to this deadly virus and likely to have the most severe outcomes. This recently released CDC data reinforces that information.”

An accurate comparison of data regarding such disease and vaccine interactions with pre-existing conditions might give a more reliable reading of the relative dangers of being vaccinated or not. Does such data exist? Let us know if you believe you have found it, preferably with a medically driven direct cause-and-effect conclusion.

As to Mr. Randolph’s closing question, “Since when do politicians get away with practicing medicine without a license by mandating universal medical treatments?” I would suggest, after a slight rewording of the question – the answer is since contagious public health emergencies have been identified and vaccines to immunize from contagious diseases like polio, among others, have been achievable.

As to the rewording, I would suggest “politicians practicing medicine” would be better phrased as “politicians authorizing medical and public health professionals to proceed urgently toward development of public-health-emergency counter measures, including vaccines believed to be safe, if not tested in the protracted manner of a non-emergency public health situation.”

So, is Mr. Randolph “fear-mongering” in how he presents his data? Probably not, more likely he has fallen into a common trap of interpreting data in a manner that supports one’s pre-conceived notions about a topic. I have attempted to avoid that trap in focusing on what his referenced sources say about the issues raised in his letter. Was I successful? – That is for you readers, and Mr. Randolph, to assess.

I want to close with a look at Mr. Randolph’s root issue of “Forced Medical Treatment and Human Rights” in making public-health-emergency vaccination decisions. Let’s not lose sight that employer vaccine mandates are not forcing someone to get a vaccination against their will, rather they are being asked to do so to continue employment in sectors where contamination of a client base and/or co-workers is an issue. So, whose human rights have precedence – a person to continued employment after declining to be vaccinated or their customers’ and co-workers’, some perhaps particularly at-risk, in seeking maximum assurances they will not be infected with a potentially fatal disease by interacting with that employee?

One would hope that in seeking an answer to that question, both sides in the debate rely on the most verifiable and comprehensive data on the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic and the vaccines developed to fight it.