Are We Only Getting Half the Story?
By: Jon Deamicis
Tags: Disinformation, Misinformation, Covid 19, Vaccines, Truth

New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio advertising Shake Shacks free fries with proof of vaccine

Many of us are going through our lives trying to make the best of what we have and trying to achieve a little more each day. We all have our own goals. Some want a healthy family while others want to be a CEO. Each of us is striving towards whatever goal that is, every day, with successes and failures intermixed along the way. We learn from our mistakes, and we aim for our next success. Step by step we endure.

Part of the journey is learning what we can about what is necessary to reach those goals. We learn from experience, research, and discussion with like-minded people. We focus intensely on what is most important and passively on what is not. What is not important to our goals we often outsource our learning to. We listen to friends, read articles or watch videos by people who have made what isn’t important to us important to them. We trust them to do the research and give us the highlights that are important for us to be aware of in the journey to our own goals.

Sometimes, we find that our trust is being taken advantage of. People can lie about what they learned or share selective information that makes us think something is true that isn’t the full story. This has been, and still is, common enough in our society that we have a word for it. It is called propaganda. The main purpose is to convince people to think a certain way. Usually, to think that one thing is better than another regardless of the truth about either.

I’m going to state very plainly that this propaganda is occurring today with much of the story surrounding the pandemic and I’m going to spend the rest of this article proving it. Most of us are not doctors or scientists, vaccine developers or disaster response planners. Most of us are average Americans working towards whatever goal or goals we are trying to reach in this life. The specifics of how this pandemic came about, how it spreads, how to defend against it and what needs to be done about it are not relevant to our attainment of our goals beyond the roadblocks the pandemic sets in front of us. If our goal requires us to go back to the office, then we only need to know what steps are necessary to make going to the office possible. We don’t need to understand how the virus multiplies and survives on surfaces, just that cleaning the surface is what needs to be done to get back to work.

This outsourcing of our knowledge frees up our time to accomplish our goals. If you can pay a plumber to fix your toilet and that frees up four hours for you to sell ten software packages, then outsourcing the plumbing is well worth the step toward the goal of growing your bank account and raising your value within your company as a salesman. This outsourcing of knowledge also opens the door for propaganda, for the sources you trust for information to only give you half the story, or blatantly lie to you while you remain unaware of it. The real disaster occurs when we realize the propaganda is hiding the truth after it is too late, and the consequences are no longer preventable. I am going to attempt to prove that we are only getting half the story from our “trusted sources.” I will also attempt to give the other half of the story; the facts based on my own extensive research through the last year and a half.

The Beginning

We are facing a global pandemic of the transmission of SARS-COV-2 which causes the COVID19 disease. According to mainstream news sources, this is well known and documented and the science is clear. I would argue that the science is not as clear as it is made out to be.

The virus SARS-COV-2 has never been isolated. A company by the name B.E.I. claims to have isolated the virus but further inspection of the documents describing the isolate shows “this product is not suitable as a whole cell antigen preparation because the protein content is largely contributed by the host cell and the fetal bovine serum used during virus propagation.” Using scientific jargon, they state that their isolated virus is not actually isolated. The CDC further confirms this lack of isolated virus with their evaluation of the RT-PCR test.

“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted…”

I’ll have more to say on the RT-PCR test shortly, but we still haven’t isolated the virus to know what it is let alone test for it. In a June 7th response to a Freedom of Information Act request, #21–01075-FOIA, made by Christine Massey to the CDC, the CDC responded with:

“A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. Specifically, the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease apprises that CDC does not purify or isolate any COVID-19 virus in the manner the requestor describes.”

Again, in simplified terms, the CDC is saying “we don’t have one.”

The other half of the story is that no one, including the CDC, can prove the virus exists. Now obviously something exists, people are getting sick and dying. Despite similar symptoms, COVID19 is not a misdiagnosis of the Flu. Influenza legitimately seems to have disappeared and been replaced by a coronavirus. Unfortunately, it is hard to scientifically study how the virus works, it’s effects and a solution to it if you don’t know what it is.

The whole story here is that the science has more unknowns than what the “trusted sources” would lead you to believe. We’re fighting a monster whose face is hidden.

Dangerous

The media has been nonstop talking about how dangerous the virus is and how each new variant is more deadly than the last. Over one and a half years since the first cases of COVID19 were being reported in China, the news still plasters daily case counts and death counts on their daily broadcasts. It makes sense, as one journalist put it, “if it bleeds it leads.” Negative news sells, as is the human condition and the psychological attraction we all have towards bad news. Is it really as bad as the mainstream makes it out to be though?

According to John Hopkins data, 98.3% of all cases of COVID19 survive in the US. Furthermore, 5% of COVID19 fatalities occur without a comorbidity. Put another way, 1.7% of all US COVID19 cases result in death. Of those deaths, 5% do not have a comorbidity associated with them. It gets worse too. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.”

Figure 1: From CDC website on COVID19

I’ll do some science of my own with this data. If you aren’t overweight, don’t have diabetes, cancer, or some other serious health condition you have a 0.085% chance of dying from COVID19. So, if you take care of yourself, exercise regularly, eat right and in general remain disciplined in your care of your body, you are HIGHLY unlikely to die from COVID19. A healthy body has a healthy immune system and an increased resistance to novel diseases. This is not new; we have known this for centuries.

The data for children is even more encouraging. Since the pandemic started, 385 children have died total from COVID19. In over a year and a half, 385 children from 0–17 years of age have died from COVID19. I don’t say this to belittle their deaths but to show how minuscule the risk is to children that are now being encouraged by the “trusted sources” to get an experimental vaccine. Pneumonia is more than twice the risk to children but the media has said nothing about pneumonia. Why?

Figure 2: CDC data on child deaths from COVID-19, pneumonia and influenza 2020–2021 (screen grab taken in August 2021)

Furthermore, tuberculosis is in the top 10 for leading causes of death in the world with a death rate of 14% worldwide. A disease that presents a significantly higher danger to society than COVID19 and has known effective treatments and preventions, receives significantly less attention than the 1.7% (2% worldwide) survival rate of COVID19. One explanation for this is that in the US, where nearly everyone is in the top 1% of wealth in the world, TB is not an issue. It is isolated to mostly poor countries such as the Philippines or Nigeria. Out of sight, out of mind.

Figure 3: WHO Tuberculosis statistics

Is it really about health Part 1

We are being told that we need to protect each other and that by not taking the steps the “trusted sources” recommend, we are endangering people’s lives. “…this is about protecting yourself and others.”. Again, this seems to be only half the story. Where is the other half?

Why hasn’t a single public official stated the importance of a healthy lifestyle, or consistent diet and exercise? Why hasn’t anyone stated the importance of avoiding or reducing your comorbidities which clearly increase your risk of hospitalization and death from COVID19. Why hasn’t anyone addressed the average of 4.0 comorbidities per COVID19 death as its own health crisis? Why hasn’t anyone stated the importance of getting outside in the sun to increase vitamin D levels or supplementing with vitamin D which is proven to strengthen the immune system?

Figure 4: 2013 Study showing the benefits of and risks for lack of Vitamin D

There are active pushes to promote unhealthy lifestyles as a reward for vaccination. Krispy Kreme offers free donuts for 1 year to anyone who receives the vaccine and Delaware discouraged running in a now deleted Facebook post urging people to get vaccinated. New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio ate a burger on television to promote Shake Shack’s free fries with proof of vaccination. There are many such cases of unhealthy incentives to get vaccinated, but almost none suggesting healthier living as protection against the virus.

Figure 5: Now deleted Delaware Facebook vaccine propaganda

Instead, we are told to stay inside, close our gyms, breath recirculated air and eat donuts. This is the antithesis of what the human body needs to be healthy. What purpose is there to focus on the half of the story that limits exposure to the virus and not the half that prepares your body to overcome exposure to the virus? Could it be that a population of healthy minded individuals with strong immune systems are less likely to need pharmaceutical intervention? That’s a leading question, but one that is certainly reasonable to ask given the push to vaccinate people with pharmaceutical drugs and the lack of attention given to the importance of a healthy lifestyle. I’ll come back to this later.

Vaccines

To start giving the full story behind the vaccines, I’ll start with the definition of vaccine. The two most common vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, are not vaccines. Now this can be argued on a technicality. By TODAY’s definition of a vaccine, it is. In 2020’s definition though, it is not.

“A preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”

Somewhere between November of 2020 and today, the definition of vaccine was re-written to include these new experimental drugs which have not a single microorganism or organism involved. They are completely synthetic mRNA.

From an objective standpoint, redefining a word to include an experimental substance that has no approval and highly questionable proof of its effectiveness (I’ll explain this later) does not make sense. We took a word defined by decades of inoculation products that were effective and re-wrote the definition to include a new theoretical inoculation product that has very little data on its effectiveness.

Not so long ago the pharmaceutical companies were power hungry profiteers addicting people to new drugs and charging exorbitant prices for necessary drugs. They were everyone’s enemy and posed a strong argument against crony capitalism. Now they are praised as the saviors of our world. Creating immunity one jab at a time. But is the story really any different? The other half of the story might shed some light on this question.

I’ll start small with Johnson and Johnson. From 1995 to 2013 they were accused of and fined for everything from “destroying documents to cover up an investigation” to “misbranding” and “marketing…for unapproved uses.” It’s clear from just the last 25 years that Johnson and Johnson has not been upfront and honest about their products. One of most recent and expensive charges against the company was the false marketing of Risperdal to children. “Other serious adverse effects from Risperdal reported by the FDA include diabetes mellitus, hyperprolactinaemia, somnolence, depression, anxiety, psychotic behavior, suicide and death.[Emphasis mine]”

AstraZeneca’s track record isn’t much better with a $355 million and a $520 million fine for “Off-Label Drug Marketing.” Sounds familiar. They also have a long rap sheet of safety concerns, overcharging, and discrimination. Just recently AstraZeneca had an ingredients mix up with the J&J vaccine resulting in 15 million contaminated doses that took days to discover.

Let’s move on to Pfizer. Pfizer is known for its record high $2.3 billion settlement for, take a guess, illegal marketing. Misleading and illegal marketing seems to be pretty common practice for pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer also killed 100 people by selling faulty heart valves where the investigation discovered information “suggesting that the company had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards.” So far it sounds like these companies are profit driven, not community health driven.

Finally, Moderna started in 2010 with the sole purpose of creating mRNA-based drugs. Up until 2020, they had NEVER brought a single drug to market. Their first drug was their mRNA based COVID19 “vaccine.” In fact, no company has ever brought an mRNA vaccine successfully to market. Now there are two companies claiming to have effective mRNA vaccines, developed on expedited timelines, on the market. Did they get it right this time?

Dating back to the 1950’s scientists have been trying to develop vaccines for viral infections. In the last 20 years there have been more focused attempts to develop a vaccine for coronaviruses. Some of the most common results from these attempts, dating back as recently as 2016, are the test subjects developing positive antibody responses to the test virus but becoming horribly ill and dying when exposed to the wild virus. This is called antibody dependent enhancement (ADE).

“ADE occurs when the antibodies generated during an immune response recognize and bind to a pathogen, but they are unable to prevent infection. Instead, these antibodies act as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the pathogen to get into cells and exacerbate the immune response.”

When associated with a vaccine, it is sometimes referred to as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED). The distinction being that the “Trojan Horse” antibodies are created by the vaccine and would otherwise not be present in an unvaccinated subject.

Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical companies have not provided any data to suggest they have overcome the possibility of VED occurring with their inoculants. The FDA shows that it remains to be tested (pg.52). They also haven’t provided data to suggest the injections are effective at anything, including preventing COVID19 infection, after 2 months of the final dose. The FDA has documentation on both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that list out what the data does not show. On pages 46 and 48 of the linked documents you will find that neither vaccine has been tested for duration of effectiveness, effectiveness in asymptomatic infection, reduction in transmissibility, or effectiveness in anyone under the age of 16. To top that off, none of these pharmaceutical companies will allow access to the raw data from their studies. Again, why?

It is obvious but necessary to state that no one has had the time to test the long-term side effects of the experimental jabs. Still, early reports are already indicating unexpected outcomes. One study showed that women who receive the final injection during their first or second trimester of pregnancy are at an 82% risk of a miscarriage. The study covers up that data by including women in their third trimester which drops the overall miscarriage rate to 13.9%. There is something about their use of “pregnant persons” throughout the article that is unsettling as well.

According to Lara Prendergast, over 30,000 women in the UK have reported changes in their menstrual cycles after receiving one or both injections. This is paralleled with 140,000 reports of menstrual cycle changes in the US after receiving the jab. Prendergast indicates that the number, which is quite low compared to the total population of vaccinated women, could be higher. Her hypothesis is, “Nobody wants to be thought of as hysterical. Emotional. A tad neurotic…. Who wants to be accused of being a dreaded ‘anti-vaxxer’?” Social pressures can skew the scientific data and the divide between jab or no jab is felt by most of us. Prendergast’s experience is likely one of many such scenarios.

A Japanese study shows the “infamous spike protein of the coronavirus gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination and then accumulate[s] in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands, and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.” The spike protein has now been targeted as the cause of some of the most dangerous symptoms of COVID19 and the jabs are starting to show that they can spread their synthetic spike protein, rapidly, to every organ in the body. The emphasis on the ovaries provides probable cause for the miscarriages and menstrual cycle changes previously mentioned.

Heart conditions, blood clots in the brain, questions surrounding the deaths of senior citizens, and a contaminated supply of vaccine doses — once again showing conspiracy theories are only a few months ahead of their time — are also consistently making headlines as the life of the vaccines extends.

“The ministry said later in the day that the substance that had been mixed in may have been metal. “It’s a substance that reacts to magnets,” a ministry official said. “It could be metal.”

It is still early on the roll out of these jabs so more data is sure to come in, but the push to get everyone jabbed is stronger than ever. A 3rd booster shot has just been approved for the immunocompromised with Pfizer seeking authorization to give booster shots to the general population. Is it really logical to continue injecting people with so many unknowns still to be researched? How many booster shots are we going to need before we can “get back to normal?” Was the first round of injections effective?

Well, was it? Gibraltar reached 99% vaccination status back in June of 2021 and they are seeing a 2500% increase in cases PER DAY. Similar data can be found for Israel and Iceland who are among the highest vaccination rates in the world. In Israel in particular, more than half of the new daily cases are vaccinated. Singapore’s COVID19 positive tests are comprised of 75% fully inoculated individuals.

Painting the bigger picture, there is considerable data on the effectiveness of natural immunity. People with natural immunity to COVID-19 have no need to be vaccinated according to the Cleveland Clinic. Further research shows “the immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.” This is a substantially better result than the waning effects of the vaccines after six months. Data out of the UK suggests a 0.025% chance of “probable” reinfection for unvaccinated persons. Daniel Horowitz put together a list of 15 studies that show natural immunity is superior to the vaccines in preventing infection.

Israel found that natural immunity is up to 13 times more effective than the vaccines in a study described as “the largest real-world analysis comparing natural immunity — gained from an earlier infection — to the protection provided by one of the most potent vaccines currently in use.”

Figure 6: Science Magazine Analysis of Israeli Study

The latest data on the Pfizer vaccine shows a maximum of 41% effectiveness against the Delta Variant, which is declining over time. Natural immunity is in an entirely different category of effectiveness with none of the side effects of the vaccines described above. It is obvious why the push for a booster shot is so strong; the vaccines are undeniably failing when compared to natural immunity. One of the more comical, and unnervingly prescient, memes regarding the booster shot compares them to a subscription service such as Netflix.

Figure 7: Forbes analysis (top) on the effectiveness of Pfizer vaccine against the delta variant of COVID19 and Pfizer+ Meme (bottom)

If you are going to take the risk on the vaccines, it would be reasonable to expect someone to be held accountable in the case of negligence. Unfortunately, NO ONE is liable for negative effects from the jab. The federal government has provided immunity from any liability for negative effects of the jabs. The immunity comes from the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the PREP ACT, which according to Christian Elliot means “vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.”

Before this, the fastest developed vaccine in history took 4 years. Pfizer brought their jab to market in 8 months. They did this with the knowledge that there would be zero liability if they knowingly brought a dangerous chemical to market that would kill millions of people worldwide. Nothing about their previous record suggests they wouldn’t do exactly that either. A leaked version of their contract with Albania states, “Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates…from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses…”

With all this data, all this evidence and all this history that proves the limited effectiveness, increasing risk of the injections and proves no liability for anyone pushing us to take the vaccines, it is clearly rational for people to question and resist the injections. Why would anyone take the risk on these vaccines given the extremely promising data coming forward on natural immunity?

Other Options

To answer why anyone would take that risk, some people’s risk of dying from COVID19 might be higher than the risks presented by the vaccines. Finding data on the risks of the injections is difficult. Few people are doing the studies since, as mentioned before, going against the vaccines is social suicide, and potentially career suicide for doctors. Still, there are promising treatments for COVID19 that utilize well known and tested methods.

Aside from the obvious one of preventing and reducing comorbidities through healthy living, hydroxy chloroquine (HCQ) is a well-known and effective treatment during the early stages of COVID19. In a massive meta-analysis of studies regarding the effectiveness of HCQ in treating COVID19, HCQ has proved to give 64% improvement over control groups in early treatment testing.

“HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 280 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 500 trillion. Treatment is more effective when used early. Very late-stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially when using excessive dosages. 97% of early treatment studies report a positive effect, with an estimated reduction of 64% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.36 [0.28–0.46].”

In a similar meta-analysis on Ivermectin, another drug with a long and well tested history, shows up to a 96% reduction in mortality as a prophylactic.

Figure 8: Ivermectin meta-analysis conclusion

95% is the effectiveness that the FDA found the Pfizer vaccine to have achieved during testing back in December of 2020. Now, I’m not comparing the same thing. Pfizer was 95% effective at preventing symptomatic infection where Ivermectin is 96% effective, as a prophylactic, at preventing death. As I showed earlier though, natural immunity has a more effective, longer lasting resistance to COVID19 and its variants where the vaccines effectiveness is declining. Considering the lack of unknowns in side effects with Ivermectin, its effectiveness at preventing death and it still allowing for your body to build a natural immunity to COVID19, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw that Ivermectin is a safer alternative to the vaccines until the vaccines can be fully tested. At the very least, Ivermectin has been in use since 1981. We know how to dose it, how it reacts to other drugs and what to expect when people take it. All three things that are unknown with the COVID19 injections.

So why isn’t Ivermectin being discussed unless spoken of as a horse de-wormer? HCQ’s results aren’t as promising as Ivermectin’s, but again, there are less unknowns than with the vaccines. So, is it really about health?

Is it Really About Health Part 2?

Earlier I posed the question that if this push for vaccines was about health, then why hasn’t anyone discussed the benefits of healthy living and its effect on fighting off not only COVID19, but all diseases, threatening human lives. I then asked the leading question — could it be about money? An article in Forbes shows just how much money was injected into big pharma over the course of Former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS). A total of $22 billion was dished out to various pharmaceutical companies that were trying to get out of the vaccine manufacturing business. Trying to get out “Because vaccines are only used once or twice — as opposed to medicines that people take daily — they are not profitable.”

Furthermore, the article indicates that nearly every advising member of OWS was a member of a pharmaceutical company.

Figure 9: Excerpt from Nina Burleigh article in Forbes

The government also gave those executives a free pass to profit off of the almost certain boost in stock prices their respective shares were about to receive. Burleigh goes on the write that millions of dollars were made by executives selling shares upon the release of good news such as Pfizer releasing the news of a 90 plus percent effective mRNA vaccine. That earned Pfizer CEO a 15% jump on the 62% of his shares he sold soon after the press release.

Dr. Scott Gottleib, a public figure and federal advisor on COVID19 and Vaccines, was elected to the Pfizer board in 2019. He was the Commissioner of the FDA from 2017 to 2019 before being elected to the Pfizer board. Dr. Gottleib isn’t the only official with apparent conflicts of interest either.

Figure 10:Excerp from Nina Burleigh article in Forbes

If it’s not about health, then what is it about? Based on the evidence, it is about money. The statement quoted above — “Because vaccines are only used once or twice — as opposed to medicines that people take daily — they are not profitable” — says it all. It would also indicate why no one is talking about healthier eating habits, exercise, and vitamin D producing sunlight. If everyone is sick, then everyone buys drugs to make them “healthy.” There is less money to be made in people actually being healthy and relying on drugs in rare circumstances. Given the track record of these companies and the conflicts of interest, is it really that extreme of a conclusion to come to? Money talks and an average of 4 comorbidities per COVID19 death says quite a lot.

RT-PCR Tests

I promised some information on the RT-PCR test earlier. This section will be brief but it’s implications massive. The RT-PCR test has been the gold standard for diagnosing COVID19 cases since the beginning of the pandemic. The other half of the story is that the RT-PCR test was never designed to be a diagnostic tool. It was designed to multiply the number of something to the point where that something can be studied. Here’s Kary Mullis, the winner of a Nobel Chemistry Prize for inventing PCR, stating how it cannot be used as a diagnostic tool. “PCR … is just a process that is used to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick…”

Creative Diagnostics, the manufacturer and supplier of the RT-PCR test, confirms this in their product information sheet. In bold letters, under the title, it states “This product is for research use only and is not intended for diagnostic use.” Even the FDA admits this in their evaluation of the test stating “The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.” Furthermore, the FDA is withdrawing their emergency use authorization for the test due to “The performance characteristics of the test hav[ing] not been adequately established, presenting a risk of false results.”

The reason the implications for this are massive is simple, all the data is unreliable. Everything I presented above is based on a test that is unreliable by the admission of the inventor, manufacturer and authorizer of the test. That means we don’t actually know how many people have died from COVID19 because the test for COVID19 cannot accurately diagnose cases of COVID19. So, 98.3% is likely the wrong survival rate. It could be better or worse, but we can’t know with current testing methods. This also means that the 95% marketed effectiveness of the jabs is based on faulty tests, so that number means nothing (if it didn’t already from the secret and inconsistent data provided by the vaccine manufacturers). Every bit of data surrounding COVID19 is faulty and is further exacerbated by the lack of isolated virus to tune the RT-PCR test to amplify. Unfortunately, there is no other data to use, so we have to go with what we currently have and pray the data is close enough to reality to be useful.

Conclusion

I have presented the other half of the story. The mainstream story of the virus and the vaccines is one of fear and hope. The narrative claims the pandemic is killing everyone and that the vaccines are the only hope. The virus is killing people and the vaccines do seem to have reduced COVID19 hospitalizations, but it isn’t the whole story. The virus is dangerous to very few healthy people and vaccines may reduce COVID19 hospitalizations but with a host of side effects that could lead to non COVID19 hospitalizations. Yet those who do not wish to risk the pharmaceutical approach over their God given immune systems are demonized by society and even the President himself.

The point is this, if you weigh the risk and deem it in your best interest to get vaccinated, you are free to choose. If you weigh the risk and deem it in your best interest to not get vaccinated, you are free to choose. You are responsible for reaching your goals and you know better than anyone what the best decision is to reach your goals. If you do or don’t get vaccinated, there is not enough evidence to claim you are “killing grandma.” Discriminating against the unvaccinated is a dangerous precedent that is being set by our current administration with broad media and cultural support. The evidence against getting vaccinated presents a logical and rational case to remain unvaccinated. The above evidence presents a logical and rational case to remain unvaccinated. It is therefore illogical and irrational to bar from society those who make that choice.