To President Pestello and members of the "vaccination working group", Saint Louis University

On May 7, the administration at Saint Louis University sent an email to students, faculty, and staff announcing that a “working group” will meet this summer to discuss plans for fully reopening the campus in the fall. Part of the discussion will be about the advisability of a vaccine mandate: a requirement that returning students, faculty, and staff be vaccinated against COVID-19. Many colleges and universities have implemented some kind of vaccine mandate, with different methods of enforcement and provisions for medical and religious exemptions.  In the May 7 email, students, faculty, and staff were invited to weigh in on the issue by emailing their comments by May 12. The timing—during finals week—poses challenges and many members of the campus community are too busy to read the email, let alone respond individually. Therefore, we, the undersigned, have chosen to express our concerns in this form.
 
We enthusiastically support the decision to fully open the campus in the fall and return to normal, in-person instruction and socializing; and we appreciate the administration’s concern that this be done as safely as possible. Nevertheless, we object to any mandate that would make vaccination a condition of attendance or full participation in on-campus classes and activities.
 
We object to mandatory vaccination on legal, moral, and medical grounds.
 
ON LEGAL GROUNDS:
 
“The requirement for any individual to be vaccinated against COVID-19 for employment or participation at a university or other institution violates federal law. All COVID-19 vaccines are merely authorized, not approved or licensed, by the federal government; they are Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only…. EUA products are by definition experimental and thus require the right to refuse. Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment.”[1]
 
Moreover, faculty and staff should take note that employers may be held liable if employees experience adverse reactions to COVID vaccines they have been required to take. According to the United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration, if an employer requires “employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment, then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.”[2]

ON MORAL GROUNDS:
 
Each of the vaccinations for COVID-19 now available in the United States, the UK, and Europe, has made use of human fetal tissue in some aspect of their development. Other pharmaceutical companies have vaccines in various phases of testing which do not use aborted fetal cells in production, development, or testing. Several of these are in Phase 3 and we can hope that some of them will soon be approved, thus eliminating the moral dilemma for people who would like to be vaccinated. But, for now, these “abortion-tainted” vaccines are the only vaccines available.[3]
 
The fetal cell lines being used to produce the COVID-19 vaccines currently in use are from two sources: HEK-293: A kidney cell line that was isolated from a female fetus in 1973; and PER.C6: A cell line derived from human embryonic retinal cells, originally from the retinal tissue of an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985.
 
In the development of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, HEK-293 fetal cells were used in product testing. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine used PER.C6 cells to produce the vaccine. The Astra Zeneca (Oxford) vaccine, which has been approved for use in the UK, used HEK-293 cell cultures in development, production, and testing.
 
The HEK-293 line used by Pfizer, Moderna, and Astra Zeneca are Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) cells that were derived in 1973. The number 293 refers to the fact that 292 attempts were made before the experiment succeeded, on the 293rd attempt.[4]
 
In her book Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, biologist Pamela Acker, who worked in the field of vaccine development, explains that many abortions were required to derive the cells.
 
“It doesn’t mean there were two hundred and ninety-three abortions, but for two hundred and ninety-three experiments, you would certainly need far more than one abortion. We’re talking probably hundreds of abortions,” Acker explained in an interview.[5]
 
Acker explains further that the fetuses from whom tissue samples are taken must be alive in order for their cells to be useful.
 
The Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has argued[6] that Catholics may use abortion-tainted vaccines if there are no morally-unambiguous alternatives for preventing or treating the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent, and if the risks associated with contracting the disease pose a “grave danger.” The justification given is that “there exist differing degrees of responsibility of cooperation in evil,” and the individual making use of vaccines is only “passively” and “remotely” participating in the abortions used to create the vaccines.
 
“At the same time,” the Congregation states, “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”
 
That the CDF has decided that Catholics MAY use these vaccines does not exclude the possibility, indeed, the probability that some people will come to different conclusions about the morality of using these vaccines. Nor will everyone even agree that the use of COVID vaccines meets the standards set down by the CDF itself. For example: (1) many doctors have successfully used treatments other than vaccines for preventing and treating COVID (thus the vaccines have not been proven to meet the requirement that there be no other “ethically irreproachable” options) and (2) for many individuals and categories of individuals COVID-19 does not present a “grave danger.”
 
This second consideration is addressed in an April 27, 2021 letter to the Notre Dame Observer[7] written by His Excellency Thomas Paprocki, bishop of the Diocese of Springfield, IL, and adjunct professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School; and Gerard Bradley, professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School, in which they respond to the announcement that Notre Dame will require all students – undergraduate, graduate, and professional – to be fully vaccinated as a condition of enrollment for the 2021–22 academic year. Bishop Paprocki and Dr. Bradley point out that:

"Notre Dame’s experience thus far confirms…what all the science indicates, namely, that college-age students who test positive [for COVID] rarely experience severe symptoms. Many are entirely asymptomatic….
 
Many Notre Dame students will thus reasonably judge that they risk more from the           vaccine than they do from the coronavirus, especially since the vaccines would protect   them only from the severe symptoms (or death) that are scarcely real risks for them. In fact, for a low-risk person like the typical Notre Dame student, the chance of a severe reaction to the vaccine is several times higher than the chance of having one after contracting COVID."
 
The authors advise that, “Notre Dame should respect these students’ voluntary choices.”
 
Besides questioning whether COVID-19 meets the CDF standards of being a “grave risk” or whether abortion-tainted vaccines meet the standard of being the only available treatment option, individuals might also reasonably disagree with the argument from “remote” or “passive” participation in evil. We might make a comparison with organizations founded upon income from the slave trade. Georgetown, Rutgers, Columbia, Harvard, Brown, and the University of Virginia are among the universities that have published reports acknowledging their historic connections with slavery and their responsibility to make some kind of restitution.[8] None of these institutions has excused itself on the grounds that slavery ended a long time ago or that they have used their slavery-tainted wealth to do good things. Likewise, no morally wholesome person would excuse the notorious “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male”[9] on the grounds that the information gained from these "experiments" might have been used to help people with syphilis. Many other examples might be cited of unethical medical experiments that sought to—or happened to—produce “good” results but that no rational, moral person would hesitate to condemn. Indeed, many people today balk at the use of animals in testing products. Surely, a person of good will and sound mind might disagree with the CDF that the sin of harvesting tissue from still-living aborted fetuses, however long ago it happened (48 years for HEK-293 and 36 years for PER.C6), is justified by any benefit gained therefrom.
 
ON MEDICAL GROUNDS:
 
All of the available COVID vaccines have been in use for a matter of months and are, indeed, as stated above, still considered to be in the experimental stage.
 
By the admission of the pharmaceutical companies and the health care industry, there are serious gaps in the data available on short- and long-term effects of the COVID vaccines on specific categories of people.
 
For example, the “Consent for Treatment Form” that patients at Affinia Healthcare here in St. Louis have to sign before they are vaccinated includes the following information:
 
"Are you pregnant or breastfeeding? It is not a contraindication to current COVID 19         vaccination. While there are currently no available data on the safety of COVID 19     vaccines in pregnant people, studies and results are expected soon…Breastfeeding is not a contraindication to current COVID 19 vaccine. Lactating people may choose to be vaccinated. There is no data available for lactating people on the effects of mRNA vaccines."
 
Obviously, it absurd to say at the same time that the COVID vaccine is safe for pregnant or lactating women and that there is “currently no available data” on the question but that such data is “expected soon.” There is no available data because pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from clinical tests. (Pfizer began testing this population only in February of 2021.) Women of childbearing age were not allowed to participate in tests unless they were using an approved method of birth control.
 
It is also worth noting that among the people who participated in the trials for the Pfizer vaccine, “82.1% were White, 9.6% were Black or African American, 26.1% were Hispanic/Latino, 4.3% were Asian and 0.7% were Native American/Alaskan native.”[10] This underrepresentation of non-whites is important because people of different races and ethnicity respond differently to vaccines.[11]
 
There is alarming news available almost daily about adverse vaccine reactions. Although these reports are often downplayed or explained away, indisputable data is available from the US government’s Vaccine Events Reporting System (VAERS)[12] which every Friday publishes statistics on vaccine injury reports. Between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 30, a total of 157,277 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 3,837 deaths, an increase of 293 over the previous week, and 16,014 serious injuries, an increase of 2,467 over the previous week. The VAERS system relies on voluntary reporting by individuals. Other methods of collecting information about adverse reactions to vaccines suggest that the VAERS data represents about 1% of actual incidents.
 
On May 7, the European Medicines Agency’s safety committee (PRAC) called on Pfizer and Moderna to provide additional data about a potential link to heart inflammation and asked Astra Zeneca for data related to Guillain–Barré syndrome. They also recommended Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson update their labels with side effect warnings.[13]
 
On May 3, the Danish Health Authority said it will no longer recommend the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, because “the benefits of using the COVID-19 vaccine from J&J do not outweigh the risk.” The move follows the Health Authority’s decision in April to stop using the Astra Zeneca vaccine for the same reason.[14]
 
Studies continue to be conducted even as people are being coerced into taking the vaccines by employers. Researchers in Tel Aviv have associated onset of shingles with the Pfizer vaccine[15] while another study at Tel Aviv University suggests that people who have been vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine are 8 times more likely to contract the new South African variant of COVID-19 than the unvaccinated.[16] Doctors and patients are calling for clinical studies—studies not made before the vaccines were approved for use—into the effects of the vaccines on menstruation. Women are reporting hemorrhagic bleeding with clots, delayed or absent periods, sudden pre-menopausal symptoms, month-long periods and heavy irregular bleeding after being vaccinated with one or both doses of a COVID vaccine. Readers’ responses to a recent New York Times article[17] on the subject provide an opportunity we don’t usually have of hearing candid anecdotes from people about their vaccine experiences.
 
Obviously, concerns about the safety of the vaccine and the side effects are not all coming from supposed “anti-vax conspiratorialists.” With more information and more studies coming in almost daily, while even governments—with their extensive access to information—debate over and change course on the guidance they give to their citizens, how can employers, schools, universities—or anyone—justify coercing people into taking the vaccine with threats of penalties and exclusion?
 
A COVID vaccine consent form[18] used by one health care provider asks people to sign off on this statement:
 
"I understand that the common risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine include but are not limited to pain, redness or swelling at the site of injection, tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, fever, nausea, feeling unwell or swollen lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy). I understand that the vaccine may cause a severe allergic reaction which can include anaphylaxis (difficulty breathing, swelling of the face and throat, a fast heartbeat, a rash all over the body, dizziness and/or weakness). I understand that these may not be all the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as the vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials. I also understand that it is not possible to predict all possible side effects or complications which could be associated with the vaccine. I understand that the long-term side effects or complications of this vaccine are not known at this time."
 
What is the value of this consent form if the patient signing it has been coerced by his or her employer or university? In what way can a person who is being coerced meaningfully be said to “consent” to assume all these risks?
 
Surely, in such a case, is it not really the institution applying threats and coercion to obtain compliance that is consenting to the risk on behalf of the patient? On what grounds? By what authority? And with what risk to themselves?
 
Finally: it is obviously difficult, if not meaningless, to speak of balancing risks and benefits when by everyone’s admission we don’t really know how effective these vaccines are in preventing people from getting COVID. There are many reports[19] of COVID infection among people who are fully vaccinated. Governments’ policies with regard to quarantine, mask-wearing, and social-distancing reflect the uncertainty about just how long and how well the vaccines work. In February, New York State updated[20] its policy to reflect the latest CDC guidelines, which inform fully-vaccinated people that they no longer need to quarantine if exposed to COVID-19, provided they meet all three of the following criteria: they must be asymptomatic; they must be fully vaccinated; the COVID exposure must have occurred within 3 months of their having received the last dose of the vaccine. The policy obviously reflects doubt about the efficacy of the vaccine and certainly suggests that officials only trust the vaccine to be effective for three months. The COVID FAQs[21] section of the New York State government website is equally unreassuring.
 
"Q: Is it better to get natural immunity to COVID-19 rather than immunity from a vaccine? A: No. While you may have some short-term antibody protection after        recovering from COVID-19, we don’t know how long this protection lasts. Vaccination    is the best protection, and it is safe. People who get COVID-19 can have serious illnesses, and some have debilitating symptoms that persist for months."
 
"Q: How long will vaccine immunity last? A: Researchers do not yet know how long        immunity lasts after vaccination. That’s why continuing prevention practices like wearing a mask, washing your hands regularly and social distancing will still be    important."
 
In other words, we don’t know how long immunity lasts after a wild infection OR with the vaccine, but we are sure that the vaccine is better. This is patently absurd.
 
QUESTIONS OF TRUST:
 
Under the PREP Act, pharmaceutical companies have been granted total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines. Nor can an individual sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use. It’s mildly encouraging that the Department of Labor, as stated above, considers adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine work-related if the employer has made vaccination a condition of employment. This should provide grounds for legal action and universities should take note. In the context of these protections for pharmaceutical companies and the FDA, Congress has created a fund dedicated to help cover lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses for people who have been irreparably harmed by a “covered countermeasure,” such as a vaccine. But it is difficult to use and rarely pays. Attorneys say it has compensated less than 6% of the claims filed in the last decade.[22]
 
If the pharmaceutical companies don’t have enough confidence in their products to be willing to take responsibility if they fail, how can we be asked to trust them?
 
SLU’S POLICY
 
In light of the above, it seems clear that the only legal, ethical, and rational policy that St. Louis University can apply with regard to COVID vaccination is to respect the right of students, faculty, and staff to make their own decisions about vaccination.
 
Other universities that have made vaccination a condition of enrollment for the 2021–22 academic year have allowed for medical or religious exemptions. We suggest that if St. Louis University decides to require vaccination, it also recognize medical and religious exemptions, but based on the “honor system.” Students might be informed that the expectation is that they will be vaccinated but then their well-considered decision NOT to vaccinate should be trusted and respected. With regard to “religious exemptions”—which should actually be termed “moral exemptions,” because religious belief is not the only foundation of ethical decision-making—from whom or where can such documentation be obtained? This must clearly be based on the “honors system.” With regard to medical exemptions: these are notoriously difficult to obtain. There are some conditions that are clearly counter-indicators, but there are others that are less clear-cut and doctors are not always willing to sign an official document attesting that a given condition actually makes vaccination unadvisable. And, again, per the discussion above, there are gaps in clinical data that doctors would need to have filled in order to say with certitude that a patient’s profile contains counter-indications.
 
It should be pointed out that people accepting a COVID vaccine and signing waiver form are trusted when they say they do not have pre-existing conditions that make vaccination unsafe. They are not required to produce a doctor’s note saying, “This person is cleared to take the vaccine.” So why should people declining vaccination be treated as though they are lying unless they produce a doctor’s note to the contrary? This would constitute unfair, unequal treatment and place an unfair, unequal burden on people for whom vaccination is not a safe option.
 
Finally, it should be pointed out that, if the vaccines work, unvaccinated people do not pose a risk to people who are vaccinated. The risk is entirely to themselves. Since everyone on campus is a legal adult, we must be permitted to assume this risk.
 
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. We hope you will take this information and these reflections into consideration when forming your policy for fall re-opening.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
 
 
 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For a full explanation of the relevant law, see https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/CHD-notice-for-EUA-vaccines.pdf

[2] See https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs

[3] For information on use or nonuse of aborted fetal cells in vaccines see chart found here: https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

[4] ATTC (American Type Culture Collection), “a global biological materials resource” which sells HEK-293 cells, list these cells as “tumorigenic” on its product page. “Tumorigenic” means capable of forming or tending to form tumors. https://www.atcc.org/products/all/crl-1573.aspx#characteristics

[5] https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-unborn-babies-used-for-vaccine-development-were-alive-at-tissue-extraction?utm_source=lifefacts

[6] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html

[7] https://ndsmcobserver.com/2021/04/covid-vaccines-at-notre-dame/

[8] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/02/12/colleges-slavery-offering-atonement-reparations/2612821001/

[9] https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history/40-years-human-experimentation-america-tuskegee-study

[10] https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

[11] https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/11/investigative-series/the-johns-hopkins-cdc-plan-to-mask-medical-experimentation-on-minorities-as-racial-justice/

[12] https://vaers.hhs.gov

[13] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-3-6-may-2021

[14] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-excludes-jj-shot-vaccine-programme-local-media-reports-2021-05-03/

[15] https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/advance-article/doi/10.1093/rheumatology/keab345/6225015?searchresult=1

[16] https://www.timesofisrael.com/real-world-israeli-data-shows-south-african-variant-better-at-bypassing-vaccine/

[17] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-vaccines-menstruation-periods.html#commentsContainer

[18] https://www.inova.org/sites/default/files/covid-19/documents/Inova_COVID_Vaccine_Consent.pdf

[19] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/21/metro/health-officials-identify-residents-nursing-homes-chicago-kentucky-who-contracted-covid-19-after-being-vaccinated/

[20] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/testing-is-the-key-cuomo-sets-more-key-reopening-dates-as-some-question-timing/2880880/

[21] https://covid19vaccine.health.ny.gov/frequently-asked-questions-0

[22] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html