Does astrology work? Does the position of celestial bodies at the time of our birth say anything about our intelligence, personality, relationships, or how our life will unfold?

Short answer: NO

Long answer: Also NO

In a careful and objective test designed by scientists and astrologers, astrologers performed no better than random guesses. More experience or training in astrology did not improve these guesses.

Read the whole article at Clearer Thinking.

I regularly see posts or comments on social media claiming mRNA vaccines are not vaccines but gene therapy.

Here’s why this is not so.

A vaccine is a biological preparation that primes the immune system to recognise and fight a specific pathogen. This typically involves introducing a weakened or inactive form of the pathogen, or a component of it, into the body. In response, the immune system produces antibodies and T cells that can recognise and fight the pathogen if it encounters it in the future.

mRNA vaccines use a different delivery method from vaccines using older technology. The end result is the same. The immune system responds to the challenge from the vaccine by producing a comprehensive defence against the real pathogen. This includes antibodies: Y-shaped proteins that bind to specific antigens on the surface of pathogens which either neutralise the pathogen directly or mark it for destruction by other immune cells; and T cells. There are two main types of T cells, helper T cells which coordinate the immune response by activating other immune cells, and cytotoxic T cells, which directly attack and kill infected or abnormal cells.

mRNA vaccines are vaccines. They are a biological preparation designed to stimulate the immune system to develop a protective response against a specific pathogen.

OK, but aren’t they really gene therapy?

mRNA vaccines and gene therapy differ significantly in their purpose and mechanism:

The purpose of mRNA vaccines is to trigger an immune response against a specific pathogen. mRNA is not and cannot be integrated into the host’s DNA. It does its job and is quickly broken down. As with many vaccines, depending on the pathogen, the immune response may be temporary and need to be refreshed periodically.

The purpose of gene therapy is to treat or cure genetic disorders by introducing a correct and functional copy of a defective gene. Gene therapy delivers the functional gene into the host’s cells. This gene is integrated into the host’s DNA, providing a long-term solution to a genetic defect.

The key difference is that mRNA vaccines aim to trigger an immune response against a pathogen, a response which may be temporary, while gene therapy aims to correct genetic defects by making a permanent change to host DNA.

mRNA vaccines do not and cannot integrate into the host’s DNA, while gene therapy involves integrating the therapeutic gene into the host’s genome.

While both mRNA vaccines and gene therapy involve genetic material, their goals, mechanisms, and outcomes are distinct. mRNA vaccines are a valuable tool for preventing infectious diseases, while gene therapy holds promise for treating genetic disorders.

But why can’t mRNA get into the cell nucleus and change DNA?

To understand this we need to know a little about gene expression and the differences between DNA and mRNA.

You can imagine DNA as a long, twisted ladder. The sides of the ladder are made up of alternating sugar and phosphate molecules, while the rungs are composed of pairs of nitrogenous bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C).

Genes are specific segments of DNA that code for particular proteins. These proteins are the building blocks of our bodies, performing various functions like transporting oxygen, providing structure, and regulating metabolism.

When a gene is expressed, that is, read and translated into proteins, the DNA sequence is first transcribed into RNA, another nucleic acid similar to DNA but in a single strand rather than a helix, and with uracil (U) replacing thymine (T).

The RNA molecule travels to the ribosomes, cellular structures responsible for protein synthesis. Ribosomes read the RNA sequence in groups of three nucleotides called codons. Each codon is a code giving instructions for building a specific amino acid. As the ribosome reads the RNA sequence, it assembles a chain of amino acids based on the genetic code. This chain folds into a protein with a specific structure and function.

mRNA plays a crucial role in gene expression, but it is not capable of altering the host’s DNA. There are three main reasons for this:

Cellular Compartmentalisation: The nucleus, which contains the DNA, is a separate compartment within a cell, surrounded by a double membrane called the nuclear envelope. This barrier prevents most molecules, including mRNA fragments, from entering the nucleus.

mRNA Function: mRNA’s primary function is to carry information from the DNA in the nucleus to the ribosomes in the cytoplasm, where proteins are synthesized. It is not designed to enter the nucleus and interact with DNA.

DNA Replication and Transcription: The process of DNA replication and transcription, which involves copying the DNA sequence to produce new DNA, is highly regulated and involves specialized enzymes and proteins. Because mRNA is constructed differently from DNA, mRNA cannot insert itself into or alter the double helix structure of DNA.

mRNA vaccines are an efficient way of provoking an immune response to a pathogen. They are not and cannot act as gene therapy.

It is important to read and consider the views of those who think differently from you. I read a variety of news sources, for example, from all sides of politics. The same is true in other matters. I am inclined to the “Oxfordian” theory of Shakespeare – that the works attributed to Shakespeare were actually written by the 17^th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere. This link will take you to some of the reasons commonly proposed in support of that view: https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/top-reasons-why-edward-de-vere-17th-earl-of-oxford-was-shakespeare/  But it is important to read other perspectives. Otherwise we don’t know what all the arguments are, and we can have no confidence in our opinions.

I am inclined to the view that COVID-19 leaked from the lab in Wuhan rather than broke out spontaneously at a nearby market. I think it likely that repeated warnings about catastrophic human influence on global climate are exaggerated, and that any negative impacts can be economically mitigated in ways that are more effective for both humans and the environment. But it is important to read other perspectives. If we do not, we cannot claim to have a full understanding of whatever subject we are considering.

For this reason I have read some of the books written by Naomi Wolf, starting with the Beauty Myth, published in 1990. In that book she claimed that 150,000 women in the USA died each year from the effects of anorexia. The figure is closer to 500. A study published in the journal Eating Disorders in 2004 noted with astonishment that figures Wolf provided in that book are still used in public discussion, and pointed out that 18 of the 23 sets of statistics quoted by Wolf were misquoted or invented by her. On average any figures she provided should be divided by eight to get an approximation of the accurate count. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640260490444619

 You may not be able to access the full article. I have a PDF copy. Message me or comment if you would like to read it, and I will send it to you.

Some errors in her work are simply careless and trivial: In her book Vagina (2012), she wrote that the ancient Greeks had no word for vagina. They did. More than one; koleos and kolpos are just two examples. In Fire with Fire (1993) Wolf claims that the percentage of women in the workforce in the United States had not changed significantly since 1950. This is false. The percentage of women in the workforce increased from 24% in 1950 to 47% in 1990.

Other errors are so serious they undermine her entire argument. The book Outrages was based on Wolf’s assertion that homosexual activity in Victorian England was frequently punished with death. She based this claim on her examination of court proceedings for sodomy where a guilty finding was concluded with the words “death noted.” In reality, these words meant exactly the opposite of what Ms Wolf assumed. It is worth pointing out that sodomy in that context also includes child sex abuse, something we rightfully continue to regard as abhorrent, and that none of the “relationships” considered in the court cases she referred to appear to have been  consensual. In other words, they were cases of homosexual rape or child abuse. The key point, though, is that “death recorded” was a legal term which means the death sentence was not imposed. There is no evidence that consensual homosexual relations were actively pursued by Victorian police or courts. Wolf’s US publishers withdrew the book from sale and terminated their relationship with her. https://www.thefussylibrarian.com/newswire/for-readers/2019/10/22/publisher-cancels-release-of-naomi-wolfs-outrages

Wolf has also claimed recently that much of the New Testament has been mistranslated and that modern English versions do not say what the original languages intended. No doubt she bases this view on her extensive knowledge of ancient Middle Eastern history, languages and culture, and of the history of Biblical translation. No. She has no knowledge or background in any of those things. Her claims are based on looking at some chapters of the New Testament in a dynamic equivalence (not word for word but meaning for meaning) translation alongside an inter-linear Greek – English New Testament, and noting that some words are not translated directly, or sentence structure reproduced. Well yes. This is how dynamic equivalence translation works.

Now she has published a book called The Pfizer Papers. She has another planned for next year called The Moderna Papers. Let’s approach this with an open mind. After all, it is possible that all of an author’s previous works could have been riddled with errors, and indicative of a lack of critical thinking and research competence, but that she has suddenly, on the subject of vaccines, developed a high level of integrity, accuracy and analytical skills.

Fortunately for us, Ms Wolf has not been backward about sharing her thoughts on the secret Pfizer documents. Although we should probably note that there is nothing secret about them.  Full descriptions and results of Pfizer’s testing protocols and results have been publicly available, minus personal and identifying volunteer information, since 2022.

One of her claims was this: “Since the vaccine’s rolled out … a midwife’s seen no normal placenta … they’re all compromised.” This comment from “a midwife,” that is, one midwife, was extended by her to imply that the reproductive system of every women who had been vaccinated was compromised to the extent that every pregnancy was likely to end in miscarriage. “Post 2020 COVID vaxxed women’s plecenta’s (sic) show strange abnormalities” was one claim, along with the assertion, supposedly based on the Pfizer documents, that 44% of pregnant women who participated in the Pfizer trial lost their babies. It is much easier to make claims like this and create scary memes and post them on social media, than it is to refute them. Refuting such claims means taking research seriously, and explaining the results of that research. What does the research say about Ms Wolf’s assertions?

It was very soon pointed out by the hundreds of other people who have reviewed the Pfizer documents that Ms Wolf completely misinterpreted what she had read. You can read a longer analysis of the “44% of pregnant women in the Pfizer trial miscarried” claim here: https://www.opindia.com/2022/08/did-pfizer-covid-vaccine-cause-miscarriage-in-44-pregnant-women-viral-claims/

To summarise, Ms Wolf claimed there were 22 instances of miscarriage out of the 50 subjects who reported pregnancy after dose one of the vaccine. This would make 44%. But this total is incorrect. There are only 11 unique miscarriages listed in the Pfizer document. Wolf counted each miscarriage twice. They appear in two tables: one for all adverse events for all subjects (listing 16.2.7.4.1) and one for serious adverse events for all subjects (listing 16.2.7.5). Ms Wolf apparently thought they referred to two separate groups and added the figures together. Perhaps even worse is that, as the table names make clear, those are the miscarriages reported for all subjects, not just those who received the vaccine, but those who received the placebo as well.

When Ms Wolf was questioned about this, her reply was: “This is primary source documentation — it doesn’t get better than that. This is an internal set of documents released under court order; these are Pfizer’s own documents, right? And they’re analyzed by the most highly credentialed people, and the links are right there. So there is literally no way … this can be misinformation.” Except it is misinformation, because she thought that two tables of data meant two groups of people and counted the numbers twice, and then forgot to mention that these were numbers for all subjects – both vaccine and placebo groups. A closer examination of the data shows there were three miscarriages out of 42 pregnancies in the vaccine group compared with seven miscarriages out of 47 pregnancies in the placebo group (one of the 11 was a procured abortion). More than twice as many in the placebo group. Small sample size means no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from that difference. What can be said with confidence is that figures in the Pfizer data which Wolf claimed showed a dramatic increase in miscarriage show nothing of the sort. This is another analysis of Wolf’s arguments: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/scicheck-covid-19-vaccination-doesnt-increase-miscarriage-risk-contrary-to-naomi-wolfs-spurious-stat/

That is data from the original testing. What do later, real-world figures show about changes in risk for pregnant women who are vaccinated against COVID-19? A meta-analysis conducted in 2023 considered pregnancy outcomes of 17,719,495 women who had been vaccinated.  You can find this study here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.03.038 This study showed no increase in adverse outcomes at any stage of pregnancy associated with any COVID-19 vaccine.

On the other hand, COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is clearly associated with increased adverse outcomes. Meta-analysis shows higher rates of preterm birth, stillbirth, pre-eclampsia, and premature rupture of membranes in infected pregnant women (Wang et al 2022) (https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2022.2033722). Maternal complications include elevated risks of caesarean section, preeclampsia, ICU admission, and death (Muhammad et al., 2023) (https://doi.org/10.58742/bmj.v1i2.41). Fetal and neonatal outcomes are also affected, with increased risks of low birth weight, stillbirth, and NICU admissions (Muhammad et al., 2023). Severe COVID-19 infection is strongly associated with fetal growth restriction and NICU admission (Hamidi et al., 2022) (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100118).

In brief, if you are pregnant or planning to be, for both your sake and your baby’s, get vaccinated!

Just to finish off with, have a look at this article (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781864/Author-Naomi-Wolf-condemned-suggesting-videos-hostages-beheaded-ISIS-aren-t-real.html) which records Wolf claiming that hostage murders of Western journalists by ISIS were faked. In fact, they were well known journalists who were recognisable in the videos of their murders. One of many stories on this is here: https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/index.html Imagine the impact of her comments on their families, whom she accused of being actors.

Ask yourself, in the context of an consistent history of poor research, poor analysis, and repeated misunderstanding of key terms, tables and graphics, is this someone who cares deeply about the truth? Is this someone who is rigorous about accuracy? Is this someone who considers others and the impact of her pronouncements? Someone who does not jump to bizarre and unjustified conclusions?

But she has a PhD, so she must be smart, right. Well, maybe. Her PhD thesis was the basis for her book Outrages, discussed above. See here for a “What the heck?” questioning of how that award was made, by Tim Hitchcock, professor of digital history at the University of Sussex. Hitchcock’s digital archive The Old Bailey Online contained the records misunderstood or misrepresented by Dr Wolf. Professor Hitchcock said her being granted a PhD for a mess in which basic terms were misunderstood to such an extent that the entire thesis was subsequently shown to be false was a “failure of supervision and examining,” and suggested that the unnamed examiners may have had backgrounds in English literature rather than legal history. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/oxford-doctoral-system-criticised-wolf-thesis-finally-released

Naomi Wolf is not a reliable researcher or commentator on any subject, let alone those which require high levels of scientific literacy and analytical skills. The Pfizer Papers continues her legacy of careless and dangerous inaccuracy.

A response to a friend who insisted:

1. All early COVID-19 vaccines were mRNA based

2. COVID-19 vaccines did not help, and killed or harmed millions

Some initial observations: Nothing on social media, including this, should be taken as evidence. Social media posts can be a useful starting point for investigation, as I hope this will be, but should always be questioned – Is that true? Was it true when it was said? What is the evidence for that? How credible is that evidence? How credible are the people promulgating a particular point of view? Do conclusions rely on conspiracy theories, or a belief in widespread corruption, or that “they” are censoring data? Have there been more recent or larger studies with different results? How well does the evidence support the conclusions? Were studies well-designed? Is any statistical analysis appropriate and accurate? Are basic scientific facts accurate?

Answering such questions may not always be easy. In the case of anything involving health and COVID-19, for example, even the most basic understanding rests on even more basic scientific knowledge, at least first year chemistry, physics, biology, and statistics, and a semester of immunology. Those fundamentals begin to tell you what questions to ask, enable you to identify basic errors in fact, and give you some idea how to find well-founded information. I don’t have the immunology, by the way, so you should not take anything I say on the subject for granted!

It is always OK to ask questions. But if we are not experts in a  field, questioning should always be done with a measure of humility, and be a genuine search for knowledge, not silly smart-arsy or “gotcha” pretend questions, which just make the asker look foolish and insincere.

Now onward and upward! References listed in-line, and compiled below. If you are not used to reading scientific papers you may find this heavy going. That’s OK. Take it in stages. Ask questions along the way. Look at the references. Press on regardless! And let us all give thanks for the knowledge and persistence and attention to detail of medical researchers, and the effectiveness of modern pharmaceuticals, which have resulted in humans now living longer and healthier lives than at any time in our history.

Not all early COVID-19 vaccines used mRNA technology. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines used mRNA technology. The vaccines developed by AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and those produced in China, such as Sinovac and Sinopharm, did not. Instead, these vaccines used different approaches, such as using a harmless cold virus (adenovirus) to deliver genetic material into cells, or using an inactivated version of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The most widely used COVID-19 vaccines globally have been the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, known as BNT162b2, and the Moderna vaccine, known as mRNA-1273, both of which are mRNA vaccines. These vaccines have been administered extensively across various countries due to their high efficacy rates and the rapid development and approval processes that characterized their introduction during the pandemic. Studies have reported that the efficacy of BNT162b2 against symptomatic COVID-19 infection is approximately 91.3% (Gálvez, 2023), while the efficacy of mRNA-1273 is reported to be around 93.2% (Gálvez, 2023). Both vaccines utilize messenger RNA technology to prompt an immune response, distinguishing them from traditional vaccine types such as viral vector or inactivated virus vaccines.

The widespread acceptance and deployment of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna is not a result of any nefarious conspiracy, but of the fact that their delivery system allows for a quicker response to emerging pathogens. The mRNA vaccines work by using a small piece of the virus’s genetic material to instruct cells to produce a protein that is part of the virus, thereby eliciting an immune response without causing the disease itself (Soegiarto et al., 2022). Their quick response time and high effectiveness, coupled with low cost, have been pivotal in global vaccination efforts against COVID-19, leading to high vaccination rates in many populations.

A brief discursion into spike proteins. The spike protein of coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, plays a crucial role in the viral life cycle by mediating the virus’s entry into host cells. This glycoprotein is essential for the virus’s ability to infect cells, as it facilitates binding to specific receptors on the host cell surface, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) (Shang et al., 2020). The interaction between the spike protein and ACE2 is a critical determinant of viral infectivity and pathogenicity, as alterations in the spike protein can influence the virus’s ability to evade the host immune response and enhance its transmissibility (Zhou, 2021; Ding et al., 2021). This makes targeting the virus’s spike protein a key element of reducing infection and transmission.

These immunogenic properties make the spike protein a primary target for vaccine development. Vaccines that elicit an immune response against spike proteins in COVID-19and other coronaviruses have been shown to produce high-titer neutralising antibodies, which are essential for preventing infection (Baisa et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2015). For instance, studies have demonstrated that recombinant spike proteins can effectively stimulate robust immune responses in animal models, leading to the production of antibodies that neutralise the virus (Wal et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2015). This has led to the design of various vaccine platforms, including mRNA and viral vector vaccines, which aim to induce a strong immune response against the spike protein (Shen et al., 2021).

The Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine, known as CoronaVac, has been widely used in various countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America. It is an inactivated virus vaccine. That is, it is not an mRNA vaccine. It has been administered extensively in countries such as Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, and Turkey, among others (Uzun et al., 2022). The World Health Organization (WHO) has included Sinovac in its Emergency Use Listing, which has facilitated its widespread distribution and use, particularly in regions with limited access to mRNA vaccines.

A study in Brazil reported that the efficacy of a single dose of CoronaVac was approximately 50.7% against symptomatic COVID-19, while two doses yielded an efficacy of about 67% (Li et al., 2021). Furthermore, research has indicated that while the vaccine is effective in reducing severe disease and hospitalization, its effectiveness against variants such as Delta has been a subject of ongoing investigation (Li et al., 2021). In Turkey, a significant decrease in healthcare worker deaths was observed following the vaccination campaign with Sinovac, underscoring its role in mitigating severe outcomes (Uzun et al., 2022).

Despite its widespread use, the Sinovac vaccine has faced scrutiny regarding its immunogenicity compared to mRNA vaccines. Studies have shown that individuals vaccinated with Sinovac may have lower levels of neutralizing antibodies compared to those vaccinated with mRNA vaccines like Pfizer-BioNTech (Ata et al., 2022). This has raised discussions about the potential need for booster doses, particularly in populations with compromised immune responses, such as cancer patients.

In terms of safety, Sinovac has been reported to have a favourable safety profile, with most adverse reactions being mild and similar to those observed with other inactivated vaccines. Common side effects include injection site pain and mild fever, although the incidence of fever appears to be lower compared to mRNA vaccines (Ata, 2023). Observational studies have also indicated that the vaccine is generally well-tolerated among different demographic groups, including those with comorbidities (Zachreini et al., 2022).

Studies have shown that like inactivated virus vaccines, adenovirus vector vaccines like AstraZeneca have a lower efficacy compared to mRNA vaccines such as Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. The AstraZeneca vaccine has been reported to have an efficacy of approximately 76% against symptomatic COVID-19 after two doses (Toubasi et al., 2022). In contrast, mRNA vaccines have demonstrated significantly higher efficacy rates, with Pfizer-BioNTech showing around 94% efficacy and Moderna around 95% against symptomatic infection (Mahallawi & Mumena, 2021). This disparity in efficacy can be attributed to the different mechanisms of action and immune responses elicited by the two types of vaccines.

Many further studies confirm mRNA vaccines have superior efficacy compared to non-mRNA vaccines like AstraZeneca (Dagan et al., 2021). mRNA vaccines have shown higher effectiveness in preventing severe disease and hospitalization, particularly against variants of concern such as Delta and Omicron, and even amongst patients with significant co-morbidities (Drácz et al., 2022; Bidari et al., 2022). For instance, a nationwide study in Israel reported that the mRNA vaccine was 92% effective in preventing severe disease, compared to lower rates for viral vector vaccines (Dagan et al., 2021).

What about in Australia? The first COVID-19 vaccines used in Australia were the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (BNT162b2), an mRNA vaccine, and the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1-S), which used an adenovirus delivery method. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was granted provisional approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in January 2021, followed by the AstraZeneca vaccine in February 2021 (Dagan et al., 2021). Both vaccines were pivotal in Australia’s initial vaccination rollout, with the Pfizer vaccine being primarily used for younger populations and vulnerable groups, while AstraZeneca was recommended for older adults and those unable to access mRNA vaccines (Varma et al., 2022).

Real-world data from Australia indicated that mRNA vaccines provided better protection against COVID-19-related hospitalization and death compared to AstraZeneca, especially in younger populations who were more likely to receive the mRNA vaccines (Varma et al., 2022; John et al., 2022). This trend has been consistent across various studies, reinforcing the notion that mRNA vaccines are more effective in controlling the spread of COVID-19 and reducing severe outcomes compared to their non-mRNA counterparts (Drácz et al., 2022; Bidari et al., 2022).

Despite what you may have read on Facebook or heard in YouTube videos, evidence consistently confirms that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with lower all-cause mortality rates compared to unvaccinated individuals.

A cross-sectional study conducted across 178 countries demonstrated that higher vaccination coverage correlates with lower all-cause mortality rates, suggesting that immunization efforts have played a crucial role in mitigating the pandemic’s impact (Mendoza-Cano, 2023). This finding is supported by data from the U.S., where a report indicated that unvaccinated individuals experienced substantially higher rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to those who were fully vaccinated (Scobie et al., 2021). Furthermore, a study in Brazil highlighted that vaccination had a significant indirect impact on mortality trends, reinforcing the strong scientific consensus that increased vaccination coverage leads to decreased mortality rates (Percio et al., 2021).

In addition to overall mortality, specific studies have examined the clinical outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients. For instance, a study from India found that vaccinated patients exhibited lower severity of COVID-19 pneumonia, which translated into reduced rates of mechanical ventilation and death compared to their unvaccinated counterparts (Bajpai et al., 2022). Similarly, research conducted in the U.S. indicated that vaccinated individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 had lower odds of requiring intensive care and had a significantly reduced likelihood of death (Sagiraju et al., 2021). These findings underscore the protective effect of vaccination not only against COVID-19 itself but also against severe outcomes that could lead to increased mortality.

A comprehensive observational study in the U.S. reported that counties with high vaccination rates observed more than an 80% reduction in mortality compared to areas with low vaccination coverage (Suthar et al., 2022). This stark contrast emphasizes the critical role of vaccination in enhancing population immunity and reducing the burden of COVID-19-related deaths.

While some social media posts raise concerns about mortality related to vaccination, the overwhelming evidence based on real-world research demonstrates clearly that vaccination significantly reduces the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 (Lytras et al., 2022). For example, a large systematic review highlighted that vaccination is associated with lower infection fatality rates, which is crucial in understanding the overall impact of vaccination on public health (Meyerowitz-Katz & Merone, 2020).

The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 experience significantly lower all-cause death rates compared to those who are unvaccinated.

In the United States, for example, the proportion of COVID-19 deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals has been a significant area of research, particularly as vaccination efforts have ramped up. Studies consistently show that unvaccinated individuals account for a substantial majority of COVID-19-related deaths. For instance, a study by Samuels et al. indicates that unvaccinated individuals were 10 times more likely to be hospitalized and 11 times more likely to die from COVID-19 compared to those who were fully vaccinated (Samuels et al., 2022). Similarly, research by Balian et al. highlights that unvaccinated patients had a significantly higher likelihood of requiring intensive care and experiencing fatal outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.33 for vaccinated patients progressing to mechanical ventilation or death (Balian et al., 2023).

Further supporting this trend, Yavuz and Sezerol found that approximately 77% of COVID-19 deaths in their study population were among unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated individuals (Yavuz & Sezerol, 2023), despite the unvaccinated being a much smaller proportion of the population. This aligns with findings from Havers et al., which reported that a significant proportion of hospitalized patients were unvaccinated, particularly in older age groups where vaccination coverage was high (Havers et al., 2022). The data from multiple large studies confirms that while vaccinated individuals, particularly those with serious co-morbidities, may still contract severe cases of COVID-19, the mortality rate among vaccinated patients is markedly lower.

References

Ata, S., Çil, T., Duman, B. B., & Ünal, N. (2022). Evaluation of antibody response after two doses of the sinovac vaccine and the potential need for booster doses in cancer patients. Journal of Medical Virology, 94(6), 2487-2492. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27665

Baisa, G., Rancour, D. M., Mansfield, K. G., Burns, M., Martin, L., Cunha, D., … & Luke, K. (2020). A recombinant protein sars-cov-2 candidate vaccine elicits high-titer neutralizing antibodies in macaques… https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.20.422693

Balian, S., Bailey, B. A., Abboud, S., Kim, Y., Humphries, D., Kambali, S., … & Haddad, N. (2023). Comparative admission rates and infection severity of covid-19 among unvaccinated and vaccinated patients. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 71(4), 329-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/10815589221149191

Bidari, A., Asgarian, S., Mohammad, A. P., Naderi, D., Anaraki, S. R., Mesgarha, M. G., … & Naderkhani, M. (2022). Immune thrombocytopenic purpura secondary to covid‐19 vaccination: a systematic review. European Journal of Haematology, 110(4), 335-353. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13917

Dagan, N., Barda, N., Kepten, E., Miron, O., Perchik, S., Katz, M. A., … & Balicer, R. D. (2021). Bnt162b2 mrna covid-19 vaccine in a nationwide mass vaccination setting. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(15), 1412-1423. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2101765

Ding, C., He, J., Zhang, X., Jiang, C., Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., … & Gao, Y. (2021). Crucial mutations of spike protein on sars-cov-2 evolved to variant strains escaping neutralization of convalescent plasmas and rbd-specific monoclonal antibodies. Frontiers in Immunology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.693775

Drácz, B., Müller, V., Takács, I., Hagymási, K., Dinya, E., Miheller, P., … & Werling, K. (2022). Effectiveness of covid-19 vaccination with mrna vaccines for patients with cirrhosis in hungary: multicentre matched cohort study. Vaccines, 11(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11010050

Gálvez, J.M.; Pinzón-Rondón, Á.M.; Chaparro-Solano, H.M.; Tovar-Romero, H.V.; Ramírez-Prieto, J.; Ortigoza-Espitia, S.A.; Ruiz-Sternberg, Á.M. (2023) Effectiveness of the Booster Dose in Protecting against COVID-19, Vaccines 2023, 11, 1461. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11091461

Guo, X., Deng, Y., Chen, H., Lan, J., Wang, W., Zou, X., … & Tan, W. (2015). Systemic and mucosal immunity in mice elicited by a single immunization with human adenovirus type 5 or 41 vector‐based vaccines carrying the spike protein of middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Immunology, 145(4), 476-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/imm.12462

Havers, F., Pham, H., Taylor, C. A., Whitaker, M., Patel, K., Anglin, O., … & McMorrow, M. (2022). Covid-19-associated hospitalizations among vaccinated and unvaccinated adults 18 years or older in 13 us states, january 2021 to april 2022. JAMA Internal Medicine, 182(10), 1071. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.4299

Li, X., Huang, Y., Wang, W., Jing, Q., Zhang, C., Qin, P., … & Zhong, N. (2021). Effectiveness of inactivated sars-cov-2 vaccines against the delta variant infection in guangzhou: a test-negative case–control real-world study. Emerging Microbes &Amp; Infections, 10(1), 1751-1759. https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2021.1969291

Lytras, T., Athanasiadou, M., Demetriou, A., Stylianou, D., Heraclides, A., & Kalakouta, O. (2022). Excess mortality in cyprus during the covid-19 pandemic and its lack of association with vaccination rates.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.05.22278487

Mahallawi, W. H. and Mumena, W. A. (2021). Reactogenicity and immunogenicity of the pfizer and astrazeneca covid-19 vaccines. Frontiers in Immunology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.794642

Mendoza-Cano, O., Trujillo, X., Huerta, M., Ríos-Silva, M., Guzmán-Esquivel, J., Lugo-Radillo, A., … & Murillo-Zamora, E. (2023). Assessing the influence of covid-19 vaccination coverage on excess mortality across 178 countries: a cross-sectional study. Vaccines, 11(8), 1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11081294

Meyerowitz-Katz, G. and Merone, L. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on covid-19 infection fatality rates. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 101, 138-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464

Pércio, J., Cabral, C. M., Fantinato, F. F. S. T., Barrera, L. S. G., & Araújo, W. N. d. (2021). Indirect impact of covid-19 vaccination on weekly trends in morbidity and mortality indicators in brazil, 2020 to 2021.. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1146790/v1

Riad, A., Pokorná, A., Mekhemar, M., Conrad, J., Klugarová, J., Koščík, M., … & Attia, S. (2021). Safety of chadox1 ncov-19 vaccine: independent evidence from two eu states. Vaccines, 9(6), 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9060673

Shang, J., Ye, G., Shi, K., Wan, Y., Luo, C., Aihara, H., … & Li, F. (2020). Structural basis of receptor recognition by sars-cov-2. Nature, 581(7807), 221-224. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2179-y

Sagiraju, H. K. R., Elavarasi, A., Gupta, N., Kumar, R., Paul, S. S., Vig, S., … & Bhatnagar, S. (2021). The effectiveness of sars-cov-2 vaccination in preventing severe illness and death – real-world data from a cohort of patients hospitalized with covid-19.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.26.21262705

Scobie, H. M., Johnson, A. G., Suthar, A. B., Severson, R., Alden, N., Balter, S., … & Silk, B. J. (2021). Monitoring incidence of covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, by vaccination status — 13 u.s. jurisdictions, april 4–july 17, 2021. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(37), 1284-1290. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7037e1

Soegiarto, G., Fajar, J. K., Wulandari, L., Anshory, M., Ilmawan, M., Asmiragani, A., … & Harapan, H. (2022). Seroconversion rates among different designs of covid-19 vaccines: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. F1000Research, 11, 299. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.110281.1

Sagiraju, H. K. R., Elavarasi, A., Gupta, N., Kumar, R., Paul, S. S., Vig, S., … & Bhatnagar, S. (2021). The effectiveness of sars-cov-2 vaccination in preventing severe illness and death – real-world data from a cohort of patients hospitalized with covid-19.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.26.21262705

Samuels, S., Niu, J., Sareli, C., Sareli, A. E., & Eckardt, P. (2022). Characteristics, vaccination status and outcomes among healthy younger adults in a large public healthcare system in the south florida region. Journal of Community Health, 47(2), 371-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-022-01062-y

Shen, X., Tang, H., McDanal, C., Wagh, K., Fischer, W., Theiler, J., … & Montefiori, D. C. (2021). Sars-cov-2 variant b.1.1.7 is susceptible to neutralizing antibodies elicited by ancestral spike vaccines.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.27.428516

Toubasi, A. A., Al-Sayegh, T., Obaid, Y. Y., Al-Harasis, S. M., & AlRyalat, S. A. (2022). Efficacy and safety of covid‐19 vaccines: a network meta‐analysis. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 15(3), 245-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12492

Uzun, O., Akpolat, T., Varol, A., Turan, S., Bektaş, Ş., Çetinkaya, P. D., … & İtil, O. (2022). Covid-19: vaccination vs. hospitalization. Infection, 50(3), 747-752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01751-1

Varma, S., Horton, A., Taylor, A., Ditchfield, M., Hope, S., & Rao, S. J. (2022). Myocarditis after covid ‐19 mrna vaccination in australia. Medical Journal of Australia, 217(5), 260-261. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51657

Wal, P., Wal, A., Vig, H., Srivastava, A. K., & Kumar, A. (2022). The structure and mechanism of spike protein, as well as its role in numerous viral diseases. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation, 12(2), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.5530/ijpi.2022.2.24

Yavuz, M. Y. and Sezerol, M. A. (2023). The vaccination characteristics and mortal causes analysis of covid-19 deaths at a district level. Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care, 4(2), 145-150. https://doi.org/10.47582/jompac.1255788

Zachreini, I., Bashiruddin, J., Tamin, S., Priyono, H., Mayangsari, I. D., Supartono, N., … & Manukbua, T. (2022). Covid-19 among indonesian ent specialist and resident after second dose of sinovac vaccination. F1000Research, 11, 1454. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126527.1

Zhou, I. Y. (2021). Link prediction of viral spike proteins and cell receptors using structural perturbation method.. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1038054/v1

Imagine that over the last twenty years China has been sponsoring drug cartels in the Northern quarter of Mexico. With that support, those cartels have grown into a single empire which is well-armed and relentless in its attacks on the USA. In the last year, they have fired more than 8,000 rockets across the border into Texas and California, randomly striking schools, homes, shopping centres and hospitals.

The UN has issued a resolution saying the cartels are a terror organisation, and that Mexico must not permit them to use its territory to attack its neighbours. The Mexican government alternates between claiming it is doing its best to control them, and saying they are welcome guests, and an important part of Mexico’s economy.

The USA has tried every diplomatic measure possible. Over the last few years more than 60,000 Texans and Californians have been forced to leave their homes. As well as a tragedy for them, it leaves the border less defensible, as homes, farms and defence installations are destroyed or abandoned. Over the last few months the cartels have intensified their attacks, and intelligence reports indicate the China is providing them with heavier weapons in preparation for a major attack on towns and cities near the border.

What should the USA do? One of the reasons the US has been slow to respond is that the cartels hide weapons in civilian locations. One scenario would be to make sure the people of Mexico know that the US does not regard them as the enemy – just the cartels, and those who support them in their attacks, whether individuals or countries.

Haifa in Northern Israel.

The US could warn civilians in the North of Mexico that it can not longer tolerate the level of aggression and harm to its citizens, warn them that it intends to conduct targeted strikes against known cartel personnel and locations, and advise them to leave. It could offer to provide support, medical assistance, food and shelter to those who do.

Imagine that having done all this, and begun its push back against the terrorists, the USA is called out as the aggressor, and told to cease its attacks against a harmless neighbour. What would you think? What would you have done?

Now swap China for Iran, Lebanon for Mexico, Hezbollah for drug cartels. If you were making decisions about defending your people, either as the USA or Israel, what would you do?

Some thoughts on justice, and especially the claim that retribution has no purpose beyond mere revenge:

Cesare Beccaria is often regarded as the founder of modern rational theories of justice. It is an amusing conceit to imagine we are wiser, better and more rational than our forebears. A glance at the newspaper including the horoscope column is a salutary counter to such naïve beliefs. The enlightenment was not enlightened, and in many ways, neither are we. Where it and we are really are wiser and more just, this knowledge and forbearance comes as much from those who preceded the enlightenment as from the philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries.

This is true in justice theory as much as in anything else.

Retribution is one of those words, like gay, clue, and peculiar, which has shifted in meaning over time. We think of it as punishment only, revenge for the sake of revenge. But its meaning becomes clearer, especially when trying to understand classical writers, when we consider it in the context of other “tribute” words. Contribute means to give together. Distribute means to give out. Retribute means to give back.

Thomas Aquinas viewed retribution as a crucial aspect of justice, and having a purpose beyond punishment for the sake of punishment.

Like many people now, Aquinas believed serious crime disrupted the moral order of the universe. Some crimes deserve punishment.

For example, a case has been described in Queensland newspapers over the last few weeks in which a two year old girl was tortured by her mother and her mother’s partner. She was chained naked to a toilet, forced to eat her own faeces, and beaten with bamboo rods. Then she was murdered, possibly by being repeatedly hit on the head and neck, and her body buried in a shallow grave.

Most people would be horrified by the thought that anyone who had committed such a crime should not suffer to some extent. They inflicted horrific pain and emotional suffering on a small child who had no way to understand what was being done to her by people who should have nurtured and protected her. Evil of this magnitude creates an imbalance which cries out to be righted. Are most people wrong? Was Aquinas wrong?

Retribution, by inflicting a proportionate punishment on the offender, helps to restore this balance. It pays back the harm caused by the crime, ensuring that justice is served, and seen to be served.

But retribution is not just revenge: While retribution involves inflicting suffering on the offender, Aquinas distinguished it from mere revenge. He emphasised that punishment should be administered by a legitimate authority and be proportionate to the offense, avoiding excessive or arbitrary cruelty. If it was not administered after due process, or was unnecessarily cruel or otherwise inappropriate, then instead of being just, it was merely another crime which itself called out to be remedied.

Beyond restoring balance, Aquinas also claimed retribution had a medicinal function. He believed punishment could deter both the offender and others from committing future crimes, thus contributing to the overall well-being of society. But even further than deterrence, a just punishment, when accepted as just by the offender, was the beginning of redemption for him or her. Aquinas believed that all people were loved by God, even the greatest sinners, and that punishment needed to be directed to moral balance, the good order of society, and the redemption of sinners.

In other words, while Thomas Aquinas believed retribution was necessary to establish and maintain any just and peaceful community, retribution was neither merely revenge, nor without purpose, and could not justly be pursued at the expense of other important goals, such as rehabilitation and the protection of society, and especially, the protection of the poor and those who cannot protect themselves.

The paper Beyond Correctional Quackery by Latessa et al, is itself a perfect example of correctional quackery.

How do I detest thee? Let me count the ways…

The paper starts with a description of a skit from Saturday Night Live. SNL has had some amusing moments, and Steve Martin created more than one of them. But to take a skit about a medieval barber as saying anything useful about medieval history or current correctional practice is an attempt at a “gotcha!” point that fails to make a point.

The Middle Ages are now recognised as a period, not of darkness, but of unparalleled creativity, technical and artistic advances. From polyphonic music to Carolingian miniscule to the great cathedrals, international banking to the heavy plough, watermills, mechanical clocks, three crop rotation, etc, to the explicit development of the scientific method by Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon. To claim, as Latessa’s paper does, that there was a rejection of evidence and objective testing in favour of stupidity and superstition says a great deal about him and his associates, and nothing at all about Medieval thought and history.

Latessa was attempting to suggest that there is a similarity between this alleged darkness and refusal to consider evidence, and modern correctional practice. Quackery in corrections, he claims, is not only tolerated, but maybe even celebrated. Corrections is not professional, because training and professionalism are not encouraged.

Bollocks.

Throughout Australia custodial corrections officers are trained carefully and thoroughly. A large part of this training is in empirically validated communication and de-escalation techniques, and their basis in theory, for example, in cognitive behavioural therapy and trauma informed care. CCOs are also taught the basics of current correctional and rehabilitative theory, including RNR, and are expected to continue relevant training and education throughout their career.

Latessa resents the fact that some correctional staff are sceptical about the constantly appearing new theories from people who have never worked in a prison, or spent any meaningful time talking to either victims or offenders. He acknowledges this is often true, but says it is beside the point. It is not. It is as if you were being offered football strategies by a group of people who have never played football and have never been to a football game but have read lots of papers written by other people who have never been to a football game, and are therefore confident they are experts.

Latessa then rabbits on about how useless boot camps are as an example of how useless corrective services are. He claims there is no evidence to support boot camps, and that they are based on humiliation and threats. But boot camps are rarely used and are not a representative example of corrective thinking or practice. In addition, evidence for their effectiveness is mixed, as it is for every other rehabilitative corrective intervention. They are not based on humiliation and threats, but rather on growing physical fitness, teamwork and discipline, and consequently, developing confidence, listening skills, and the ability to work effectively with others – all of which are vital to successful life on the outside.

He then goes on to list “questionable theories of crime” he claims to have heard from corrective services managers, and which he says motivate current correctional practice. Half of his list is utterly stupid, including, for example, “we just want them to be happy” “they just need love” “they need acupuncture” etc … (it is a long list). I have worked in and around prisons for twenty-five years in total, and have never heard a correctional manager utter a single one of these absurdities. The other half are factors which, regardless of Latessa’s opinion, do need to be taken into account in day to day practice. These include “offenders lack discipline” “offenders have low self-esteem” “offenders lack long term planning skills.” Not all offenders are the same, but most CCOs would agree that these are frequent common features, and that if no attempt is made to address them, prisoners are being short-changed in their chance to succeed in building productive, socially positive lives.

The rest of the paper is essentially an extended hissy fit by academic criminologists that corrective services do not immediately adopt whatever theory is the current flavour of the month. This much is true: corrective services are slow to make change, and to adopt new theoretical models in both management and rehabilitation. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

There is really is, if not a flavour of the month, at least a flavour of every few years when it comes to rehabilitation. There is the sudden rush of enthusiasm – Yay! We have finally come up with something that really works. Then the realisation it doesn’t really work that well, but this is someone else’s fault. Corrective services are not implementing it properly. Then a gradual loss of interest, then the new, super-dooper programme that really will work this time, and for which empirical evidence really does exist, we promise, scout’s honour.

RNR has been around for several years and is currently still the most widely implemented system in corrections worldwide. But Tony Ward’s Good Lives Model (GLM) is increasingly being used, often as a supplement to RNR. Briefly, RNR takes the brakes off by helping prisoners recognise learned scripts and behaviours which lead to crime and almost always to poverty and failed relationships, while GLM pushes the gas pedal to a better future by giving offenders a clear way to envision and plan to achieve the good life they want. Other possibilities are in the pipeline. Trauma Informed Care has significant implications for the way staff interact with prisoners (and sometimes other staff!) and shows promise when explicitly incorporated into programmes. Insights from Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) are also beginning to be used in correctional settings, in particular the insight that a successful life is largely based in the thinking, emotional and communication skills needed to navigate interpersonal and practical goals, frustrations, and temptations. Whether prisoners have the ability or willingness to learn and implement those skills is another question.

The constant flow of new theories is one reason corrective services are slow to take up academic criminology’s latest product. The other is simply that prisoners are not guinea pigs. They, along with their friends, partners, families and the wider community, are people to whom we have a duty of care.

Just a quick note in relation to XY chromosome athletes competing in women’s divisions in the Olympics.

Some of these athletes, including Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, have what is known as AIS (5-alpha-reductase deficiency). In many cases, including his, this means that male genitalia are not visible prior to puberty. In those cases, including his, children are often raised as female.

However, the question is not what he appeared to be, and how he was raised, but what he is now. In most cases of AIS type DSD (disorder of sex development), male genitalia develop and operate normally in puberty. This was the case with Imane Khelif. He was treated as girl his entire childhood, and registered as female at birth. But he always had testes and XY chromosomes, and at puberty, his body developed into an adult male body, with male body shape, strength and speed.

This was immensely confusing for him and for his family. He, and others in his situation, should be treated with care and compassion.

So should everyone else, including female athletes. Care and compassion for female athletes means they should not be in the position of having to compete against males in sports where speed and muscle bulk make a difference, and especially where that difference could result in serious long-term harm.

Pointing this out and making rules clear, as the International Boxing Association has done, is not bullying. It is the only option which is fair and safe, and which recognises the reality of biological differences.

Imagine the following scenario: Someone you know and like, perhaps a Facebook friend, asks you to sign a petition to ban the rhino horn trade in South Africa. Your friend tells you that South Africa is one of the few countries that permits the sale of rhino horn and that if you do not act on this issue you are being silent in the face of evil, and complicit in the deaths of thousands of rhinos. You care about animals and the environment, so this seems like a no-brainer. It is obviously the right thing to do, and you sign.

But was it the right thing to do?

In 2009, responding to immense international pressure, including such petitions, South Africa enacted a complete ban on the taking and sale of rhino horn. Before the ban, farmers harvested the horns of rhinos on their properties, tranquilizing the animals. This caused no harm or pain to the animal, and allowed the horn to grow back. Since the sale of horns was a major source of income in a poor country, farmers protected their rhinos and increased herd sizes through careful management, feeding and breeding programs.

After the ban, the fall in supply caused horn prices to skyrocket. This encouraged poachers, who until then had had no reason to target rhinos. Rhino deaths from poaching rose rapidly after 2009, growing from a few dozen per year before the ban to consistently over one thousand per year by 2013. In the twenty years before the horn prohibition, the white rhino population in South Africa had quadrupled. In the eight years after the prohibition, the  population had fallen by 15%. Poaching was a major contributor, but so was the fact that farmers no longer had a reason to protect and breed them.

Eventually, reality and common sense prevailed. South Africa lifted the ban in 2017, prompting further outcry from environmentalists. Just two years later rhino deaths from poaching had fallen by nearly fifty percent, and the rhino population had begun to recover.

Activism is great. We should all be working to make the world a better place. But activism which is not based on accurate information and careful thought is likely to do more harm than good.

Adapted from an article at https://dusttodust.substack.com

Over the last few weeks I have seen several social media posts from apparently well-meaning Christians beginning with the words “Scientists can’t explain …”

Usually the posts claim that some feature of natural history cannot be accounted for by evolutionary biology. On closer inspection, these posts inevitably turn out to mean, not that scientists can’t explain x, y or z, but that the person posting can’t imagine an explanation, assumes one doesn’t exist, and hasn’t actually asked any scientists.

It is perfectly fine, of course, to claim that your religion requires you to believe certain things. Not so fine, and certainly not a witness to truth, if the things it requires you to believe are clearly contrary to reality. But even that is understandable as long as you don’t go on to claim that doctors, scientists and other researchers are evil and corrupt because they don’t see things your way.

Also not fine is claiming that the “science” done by members of your religious group is the real non-corrupt, objective science, because it conforms to the Bible, or some other religious text. Whatever you think your religion tells you, the earth does not rest on a turtle’s back, the earth is not flat, the rest of the universe does not revolve around it, and it is not 6,000 years old.

Sometimes people who make these claims insist that they do so on the basis of Scripture, and that those who disagree with them are anti-Bible. There are a number of issues with this.

Firstly, as I noted above, it is fine to believe something because you think your religion requires you to. But trying to find evidence to support views you already hold is not science.  Science is open-ended. In science, the evidence comes first, and belief is based on the evidence, and is always open to change. In Biblical or other kinds of fundamentalism, the belief comes first, and then evidence is gathered to support the belief. That is not science.

Second, when people who do this claim to be “trusting the Bible,” or “defending the Scriptures,” they are really doing nothing of the sort. They are defending their way of reading the Scriptures, or their pastor’s, or the sub-group of Christianity they belong to. In particular, they read the Bible as if it was their word, not God’s, and as if God was required to communicate through the methods and styles of writing common to our culture and no others.

In Christian fundamentalism, this generally takes the form of ignoring the almost universal use of story-telling as a way of conveying important truths. You would think this would be obvious to Christians, since Jesus did precisely this when he spoke to His followers in parables. In the late-twentieth century and contemporary West, we rely more on direct instruction, to the point where we regard any other method of teaching as odd, or as not actually teaching at all. But telling stories to teach truths is often very effective. I remember my mother telling me the story of the boy who cried wolf. This impressed upon me the fact that if you lie regularly, eventually people will not believe you when you tell the truth, and did so in a much more powerful and memorable way than if she had simply told me that telling fibs was bad.

Another issue fundamentalists have is that they do not understand differences in forms of expression and figures of speech. When we read that Jesus said of Herod “Go and tell that fox” we know immediately, and without having to be told, that Jesus was describing Herod’s character, not claiming that Herod was in fact a small furry carnivorous mammal with a bushy tail. We know this because we recognise His words as metaphor, a common figure of speech in English, and one we share with some ancient cultures. Other examples you might have heard include she is an angel, the world is a stage, he has a heart of gold. We know without even thinking whoever says this is not suggesting that anyone’s heart really is made of gold. But what if we did not use or know of metaphor?

In that case, some people might say “Well, that’s just silly. We know from history that Herod was a human being, and in any case, animals of any sort do not run human societies. This proves the Bible is full of fairy tales and can be safely ignored.” Others, like people who claim the Earth is flat, or that it is 6,000 years old, might say “I don’t care what lying science and history say. The Bible says Herod was a fox, so he was a fox. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

But hopefully there would be others who looked closely at the languages and cultures of the Bible, and noted that this kind of expression was often used as a kind of comparison, and did not imply that Herod was really a small furry animal, or that someone’s heart was actually made of gold. Sadly, it is also likely that these people would then be accused by others of denying the power of Scripture, and being anti-Bible.

Is this a new way of reading the Bible? Not at all. Through most of history the Church has been careful to try to understand Scripture as the word of God, not simply to be interpreted in the ways that are easiest or most obvious to us, but taking careful note of differences in language and culture, so that we are not blinded by our own narrow perceptions and background.

Origen of Alexandria (185-232), writing about heretics who arrive at their own interpretations of Scripture which vary from the teaching handed down by the Apostles, says:

“Now the reason of the erroneous apprehension of all these points on the part of those whom we have mentioned above, is no other than this, that holy Scripture is not understood by them according to its spiritual, but according to its literal meaning….

Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists and apostles. For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account.”

In other words, while holding to a strong view of the truth and inspiration of Scripture, Origen says that we must be careful of imposing literal meanings on texts whose primary meaning is allegorical, whose truth and power are conveyed in story-telling. Origen goes so far as to say that God permitted things to be written in the Scriptures which appear contradictory, or are counter to what we know of the world, in order to pull us up and make us think more deeply, and not simply to take our first or easy impressions for granted.

Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430), explained why this was so important in a dissertation about the days of creation, which he recognised could not have been literal days: “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?”

Augustine, who is regarded by Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox family of churches as one Christianity’s great teachers, had the same reason for concern about literal interpretations as I do. That is, they make Christians and the Christian faith look either stupid or dishonest because they are not based in sound and careful reading of the Bible, and ignore or distort what we know about the world.

Let’s look at a couple of examples.

First, the claim that all fossils were laid down on Noah’s flood. This floats around Facebook with frustrating regularity. There is no basis in science or reality for this claim. Fossils can be formed in a variety of ways. For example:

Permineralisation: This common type of fossil preservation occurs when minerals dissolved in groundwater seep into the spaces within the organism’s remains. Over time, these minerals crystallise and form a rock-like copy of the original organism. This process often preserves hard tissues like wood, bones, teeth, and shells.

Moulds and Casts: When an organism is buried in sediment, its remains may completely dissolve over time, leaving behind a hollow space in the rock called a mould. If this mould is later filled with minerals or sediment, it can create a cast, a replica of the original organism’s shape.

Carbonisation: This process occurs when an organism is buried and subjected to pressure and heat, tissues to break down and release gases, leaving behind a thin film of carbon. This process often preserves soft tissues like leaves and insects.

Unaltered Preservation: In rare cases, organisms can be preserved in their original state with little or no alteration. This can happen if they are trapped in amber, tar pits, or ice, which prevent decomposition.

Of course, fossils can be formed in flash floods, which deposit layers of sediment on top of rapidly killed plants and animals. But does the fact that such fossils occur around the world prove there was a single, massive, world-wide flood? Not at all. Humans and animals live in higher numbers near sources of water; oceans, rivers, and lakes. Wherever there are sources of water, there are also floods, especially on large flood plains like those of Mesopotamia. This accounts for widespread flood-related fossilisation, and for widespread stories of floods. There is no geological evidence for a single, massive flood which occurred 6,000 years ago and which covered the entire Earth. You can read more about this in this article on the National Center for Science Education website.

Another claim sometimes made by young-earth creationists is that some creatures, or some aspects of their body shape or function, are so complex that they could not have evolved in the time available. Usually this takes the form of suggesting that a function could not work unless a number of features were in place, that the individual parts serve no purpose or have no function on their own, and that they could not all have suddenly appeared via mutation at the same time. Some such features are alleged to be the human eye, the genitals of the male sperm whale, and the flagella or tails that are found in some plant and animal sperm cells and in multiple types of micro-organisms including Helicobacter pylori, the bacteria that causes stomach ulcers.

Another such claim that has recently circulated on social media is that bombardier beetles could not possibly have evolved because their defence mechanism is an example of “irreducible complexity.” Bombardier beetles’ defences consist of spraying from separate glands two sets of chemicals which combine with each other and react to form a hot, irritating jet which can be squirted at predators. You can see how this is used at about 1:25 in this video:

Like many claims by young-earth creationists (people who believe the world is no more than about 10,000 years old) this one begins with the words “Evolutionists can’t explain…” As usual, this simply means they haven’t asked any.

One of the bombardier beetle’s glands contains hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide (sometimes used as hair bleach or in mouth rinses) is a normal metabolic by-product in insects, and various quinones are used to keep insects’ chitin in good condition. These are common to almost all beetles. Many types of beetles have developed a second gland. Duplication of an existing feature is a very common form of mutation, so there is nothing unusual about this. The chemicals stored in those second glands have changed over time so that many can be used as a deterrent to predators. Some beetles, stink bugs for example, can squirt those smelly or irritating chemicals at any perceived threat. It is only a tiny step from there to the chemicals found in the bombardier beetle’s second gland, catalysing enzymes which when mixed with hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone cause a violent exothermic reaction which creates the hot irritating mixture sprayed at approaching predators.

Young-earth creationists claim that the bombardier beetle’s defence system is irreducibly complex because each component is useless on its own and therefore it could only have been created as a complete system. As we have seen, this claim is false. Each component is present in multiple other beetle species, and is useful in its own right. Various combinations of those components occur in other beetles, such as stink beetles. Other creationist claims of irreducible complexity show similar faults; ignorance of related species, of genetics, of how evolution works, or simple rejection of facts which do not fit what they believe to be the Bible world view (a process described by Australian geologist Ian Plimer as “telling lies for God”).

The problem here is not science. Nor is it scientists. No matter what you read on social media, most scientists are people of integrity. Many of them are Christian. Many also belong to other religious groups; Judaism, Shinto, Hinduism, for example. They do not have an agenda to “impose the Darwinist theory.” Nor is the problem mainstream Christians, who know they have nothing to fear from truth, no matter where it is found, and are happy to let science be science. The problem is a tiny group of fundamentalist Christians, a few of whom also happen to have degrees in science, but for whom faith in the Bible, actually faith in their own narrow reading of the Bible, determines their view of everything else.

The tragedy is that fundamentalists’ belief they are standing up for the Bible is entirely mistaken. They are standing up for a minority and very peculiar way of reading the Bible. And perhaps even worse, their commitment to this way of reading the Bible seems to be taken as permission to misrepresent science. Perhaps it is just self-deception. They believe the Bible says X, so X must be the case, regardless of observable reality. But either way it is deception, and deception can never serve the Kingdom of God. As St Augustine noted 1500 years ago, the result is that people come to believe that Christians are stupid or dishonest, or both. Young earth creationism is the very opposite of evangelism.

A little summary of the role and status of local government in Australia, for anyone who is curious or confused:

“Sovereign citizens” claim that local councils have no legal authority because they are not mentioned in the Australian Constitution. Sometimes they use this claim as an excuse not to pay rates or local Council fines. They are wrong.

In Australia, local governments and local councils are established and governed under State legislation, not the Federal Constitution.

Each state has its own Local Government Act which defines the rules and operations of local Councils. Because the Acts vary from State to State, the specifics of their legal status can vary slightly across the country, but some general principles apply.

To put this simply, each state’s Local Government Act serves as the legal framework for local government in that state. The Act outlines their structure, functions, and powers.

Local governments do not have inherent legislative power like State or Federal governments. They exercise delegated power granted by the State Acts, allowing them to make local laws (called bylaws) within their local government area, and within specific areas of law.

Councils are a body corporate, meaning they act as a single entity separate from their individual members (Councillors), and that they are legal persons – a necessity for them to own real property. This does not mean they are “just a corporation.”

Councils generally comprise elected representatives (Councillors) and a dedicated works and administration team led by a General Manager or CEO.

Across all states, local governments usually have three core functions:

• Providing for the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

• Representing and promoting the interests of the community.

• Providing for the peace, order, and good government of their municipal area.

Their rights and responsibilities are wider than just “roads, rates and rubbish.”

Because local Councils are established under State legislation, they are bound by State laws. This means local bylaws cannot contradict or duplicate State or Federal laws.

Various mechanisms exist to ensure local governments operate responsibly, including community consultation, oversight by State Ministers, and the courts. Citizens are welcome to attend Council meetings, and to have input into local government policies and decisions.

Israel: What do we need to do or give you to help you become a peaceful, prosperous neighbour?

PA: Land.

Israel: You already have Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people.

PA: We want more.

Israel: How about we give you the Gaza Strip? There are thousands of greenhouses. All the infrastructure is already in place. The beaches are beautiful. It could be a new Monaco or Singapore.

PA: OK

Israel: Hang on. You are still attacking us.

Hamas: Yes.

Israel: But what about peace?

Hamas: There will be peace when you are all dead.

Israel: That really doesn’t work for us.

UN: Can’t you at least meet them half-way?

Hamas: Sends thousands of bombs and rockets at schools, hospitals, shopping centres.

Israel: Please don’t do that.

Hamas: We will only stop when you are all dead. And not just you, every Jew everywhere.

Hamas: Attacks through massive tunnel network. Kills young people at music festival, burns children to death, kidnaps, tortures, rapes, murders entire families.

Israel: You have passed the line of hate and aggression we can tolerate. Hamas has to go.

Hamas: Hey, you’re not supposed to fight back. That’s racist!

Hamas: Let’s have a ceasefire. We only want peace.

Israel: Will you keep the ceasefire?

Hamas: Yes

Israel: You didn’t keep the ceasefire.

Hamas We meant we will keep the ceasefire once you are all dead. But you have to stop fighting back. It’s not fair.

In no other war, ever, has any state tolerated for so long the relentless attacks of an enemy sworn to its destruction. In no other war ever has any state taken so much care to avoid civilian casualties. In no other war ever has any state continued to provide medical care, water, and food to a group determined to destroy it and murder its people.

Israel’s ongoing aid to Gaza.

Why Israel is winning, and the people of Gaza will be better off when they do.

I have seen a version of this before, but it is worth re-viewing:

We have been lied to. This is the message that went across the Arab world suddenly after October 7th events and the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Suddenly we discovered the Gaza, which is inhabited by 2 million people, has 36 hospitals. There are Arab countries with 30 million citizens and do not have this number of hospitals.

Suddenly we discovered that Gaza was getting water, electricity, gas and fuel for free from Israel. Of course, there is no Arab citizen who does not pay water, electricity and fuel bills.

Suddenly we discovered that Gaza was receiving 530 million a month from Qatar alone, and 120 million a month from UNRWA and 50 million a month from the European Union and S30 million a month from America. There are Arab countries drowning in debt and cannot find anyone to help them, even with 51 million.

Suddenly we discovered that Gaza was not besieged and all goods were entering it as we foreigners and people of foreign nationalities. Its residents were travelling to Egypt and from there to the rest of the world, and there’s many examples for that.

Suddenly we discovered that Gaza was living better than many Arab countries and its people were living better than many Arab peoples.

Suddenly we discovered that our minds were besieged by a propaganda lie about what is going on in Gaza.

Suddenly we discovered that the children in Gaza are not children as we usually think, but children of terrorists with machine guns and suicide belts who underwent special training by Hamas.

Suddenly we discovered that the schools, hospitals and mosque in Gaza are organized by terror headquarters and ammunition warehouse with Hamas underground tunnels.

Suddenly we discovered that in Gaza there is an underground metro of Hamas that stretches for 500 kilometers, which Israel can only invade.

Suddenly we discovered that the supposedly doctors and teachers in Gaza turned out to be active Hamas terrorists.

Suddenly we discovered that rockets and mortars are kept in children’s rooms in Gaza homes.

Suddenly we discovered that Hitler and his book Mein Kampf were very popular in Gaza and its translation into Arabic was in almost every home in Gaza or a portrait of the author.

Suddenly we discovered that Hamas leaders live a life of luxury with multi-storey mansions with swimming pool and premium German cars.

Suddenly we discovered that there is no Israeli siege on Gaza because it still borders its Muslim sister Egypt.

Suddenly we discovered that most of the citizens in Gaza support Hamas and other terrorist groups, elected Hamas in democratic elections and celebrated the massacres on October 7th.

Suddenly we discovered that what is called journalists in Gaza who work for Western media like CNN, AP, Reuters and other turned out to be Hamas terrorists who participated in the massacre on October 7th.

Suddenly we discovered that what is called peace activists and workers of international human rights organizations of the UN, the Red Cross and WHO turned out to be terrorists and corrupt people of Hamas. Other turned out to be Hamas terrorists who participated in the massacre on October 7th.

Suddenly we discovered that most of the leaders of Hamas are a billionaires, some of them richer than President Trump with a net worth of four to S5 billion each, and that most of them do not live in Gaza.

After Hamas started the war on October 7th, moving from its customary daily rocket fire at civilians to a full-scale terror attack on Israel, the wider world has started to discover the truth about Gaza, with much of this information coming from the Arab world.

Hamas doesn’t care for the people of Gaza. Hamas doesn’t care for the Palestinian people. As their own charter has stated from their inception, their sole purpose is the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews everywhere.

If you have half an hour to spare, or even if you don’t, watch this video. It answers a whole range of questions about the Middle East, including why Israel cannot stop its response to Hamas’ horror attacks until Hamas is completely defeated.

There is one section of the video where Douglas and his crew have to stop because of an incoming rocket. Douglas comments “It’s been happening all day.” These are rockets fired from Gaza at random or at civilian targets. This has been happening almost every day since since Gaza was handed to the Palestinians on the promise of peace in 2005. Israel has been under constant attack by Gaza for nearly twenty years.

There is a massive contrast between this ongoing, deliberate, brutal attack on homes, schools, hospitals, and shopping centres by Hamas, and Israel’s leaflet drops, door-knocks and putting its own servicemen and women at risk to avoid civilian casualties. See my earlier article on the recent history of Israel here. But first, watch the video.

This not only sounds nasty, it really could be. A man on an international flight dies from what sounds like some form of hemorrhagic fever. Blood droplets circulate throughout the cabin. Passengers on the same flight then proceed to travel to their destinations around the world… What could go wrong?