On the one hand there are those who view it in a totally positive light and see it helping to improve the lives of millions of people as its applications (particularly perhaps medical ones) grow and make life easier and safer. On the other hand are those who see it as a clear and present danger to human existence, with the possibility of an ‘extinction event’ occurring in the not too distant future. An article in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal Global Health¹ helps to clarify the issues in non-technical language.    

The authors suggest there are three categories of   threat to human health and well-being from the misuse of AI. Firstly there is the threat to democracy, liberty and privacy. The enhanced ability to process vast amounts of data, develop targeting and mis-information and implement-enhanced systems of surveillance could lead to increased societal divisions and entrenchment of inequalities.

Secondly there are threats to peace and safety caused by the ability to develop and deploy lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that have enhanced lethal capacity together with dehumanisation of use of lethal force.

Thirdly there is the threat to human work and livelihoods as a result of large-scale replacement of work and employment through AI driven automation. The subsequent health outcomes from widespread unemployment are likely to be increasingly adverse for physical, mental and spiritual health worldwide.² 

We also face the existential threat of the emergence of self-improving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This could augment all the problems listed above, disrupt systems we depend on, use up resources we depend on and ultimately attack or subjugate humans.

Apparently the simplistic ‘couldn’t we just turn them off’ solution isn’t tenable – by the time they were an obvious threat we could be too dependent on the continued functioning of multiple networked AI and AGI systems to survive without them.

Another area for concern is how interaction with intelligent machines may affect the emotional development of children.³ Research by Kate Darling⁴ indicates that children who grow up interacting and playing with robotic pets are well aware that the robots are not alive, but they understand them as being ‘alive enough’ to be a companion or a friend. It seems many children develop a new category – or new way of thinking – about their robotic toys.

As one group of researchers wrote: “It may well be that a generational shift occurs wherein those children who grow up knowing and interacting with life-like robots will understand them in fundamentally different ways from previous generations.” ⁵ In other words, how might human relationships become distorted in the future if children increasingly learn about the meaning of love and intimacy from their interactions with machines?

So how do we respond to all this? It is good to remind ourselves that we are all created in God’s image, and that human creativity, imagination, the ability to do science and medicine and develop useful technology like AI all result from our God-given capacity. Unfortunately of course we are not perfect, so the freedom God has given us allows us to do harm as well as good. Our capacity for self-delusion and arrogant pride can also stop us seeing the potentially destructive consequences of what  we may create. 

We face the age-old dilemma of should we do or create something just because we can. History suggests that we almost always choose to do first and only consider the necessary ethical behavioural constraints later. It seems to me that with AGI there must be international monitoring and agreement about boundaries and precautions to limit and control the development of this technology which we are only beginning to grapple with. We need to lobby our elected representatives to press for the setting up of an international AI/AGI monitoring body. This is perhaps especially needed from those of us living in the UK, as our current Prime Minister wants to establish the UK as a key development hub for AI development and regulation.⁵

We can I think take some encouragement from the nuclear industry, where we have an immensely powerful technology that could be used for the destruction of mankind as well as for the (not without risk and problems) powering of electricity generating plants. Knowing the likely outcome, the nations of the world that have the capacity have managed by the grace of God not to use a nuclear bomb in war for the last 78 years. 

There are international agencies actively monitoring the production and use of nuclear materials. Surely we urgently need the same for AI, to ensure we can reap the benefits of this technology whilst minimising the risks and harms. Unfortunately AGI may prove much harder to control than nuclear power, but it is a challenge that as God’s vice-regents on Earth we cannot afford not to meet. 

This post first appeared on the PRIME monthly international email. Reposted with permission.

Images – All images were created by PRIME’s PR & Communications Manager using AI with Vecstock.

References

1. https://gh.bmj.com/content/8/5/e010435
2. Religion as a social force in health: complexities and contradictions. BMJ 2023; 382 doi:      https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076817  
3. https://www.johnwyatt.com/the-robot-revolution-is-comingbut-are-christians-ready/
4. http://gunkelweb.com/coms647/texts/darling_robot_rights.pdf
5. https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-must-seize-opportunities-ai-remain-tech-capital-pm-sunak-2023-06-11/

Dr Huw Morgan is a retired GP Training Programme Director in Bristol, UK and a former PRIME Education Lead and Executive Member. This article is based on a previous personal blog post by Huw Morgan.

Gradually shifting the terms of the debate and hence the questions asked about it in public surveys, from ‘assisted suicide’ to the muddier waters of ‘assisted dying’ was another masterstroke. Resolutely opposed as I am to legalising doctors assisting patients to kill themselves or to intentionally kill them at the patient’s request, when faced with a YES/NO tick box after the question ‘Do you support assisted dying?‘ even I have ticked YES in the past. At that time I used this term to refer to symptom control by palliative care teams during the dying process. If you ask that question you will get a very different set of responses from asking ‘Do you think doctors should legally be able to help patients kill themselves?‘ This is far less ambivalent but campaigners for assisted suicide know it will get far fewer positive responses, so they will never ask it.

Massaging the numbers of supporters is another well-known ploy in campaigning. Nobody likes to be in a minority do they? There are some 195 countries in the world and only 24 jurisdictions in 12 countries* have made assisted suicide (which for obvious reasons I will continue to call it here) legal (or at least decriminalised). Only seven of these (The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Canada, Colombia and Western Australia) have legal euthanasia as well as assisted suicide.

So only around 10% of the world’s countries have legalised assisted suicide, though the number of people with access to assisted suicide in such countries was recently estimated at 200 million, which is around 2.5% of the world’s population.

You would never know this, however from the recent posting by Humanists UK who have taken manipulation of language to new depths in their Mapping Assisted Dying Laws around the World. According to this map, either assisted dying or a form of euthanasia is lawful in 67 countries thus making it appear that over a third of countries allow assisted dying or a form of euthanasia.

How has this trebling of nations allowing legalised assisted dying or euthanasia been achieved?  By including nations which permit what they term ‘voluntary passive euthanasia’. Having spent the last decade educating a generation of students why this misleading term is best avoided, the use of it here perfectly illustrates why it should be dropped. The Humanists’ website does correctly explain in a footnote that ‘“Voluntary passive euthanasia” refers to the cessation or refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment, which will eventually result in death’ but how many readers will understand that this means it is not euthanasia at all?

Stopping or refusing life sustaining medical treatment can often involve difficult ethical issues but it is not a form of euthanasia by definition, in which doctors take action to end patients’ lives by administering lethal drugs. If refusal or cessation of life-sustaining treatment is included in the map, it is no longer representative of a true picture of the extent of global legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia but rather leads to confusion and obfuscation of the true picture. The compilers themselves seem to demonstrate this very confusion by including some countries such as Trinidad and Tobago and UAE, both in the list of countries in which ‘assisted dying is unlawful’ and also in the list of countries which allow ‘a form of voluntary passive euthanasia’.  No further evidence than this is needed as to why the latter term is confusing.

Truth matters, especially when an organisation seeks to ‘make sense of the world through logic, reason, and evidence’. It should be of the utmost importance for Christians, too, who should also attend to such important ways of understanding. The misuse of language in order to obscure the truth is upbraided many times in scripture. ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,’ Isaiah 5:20 warns. But perhaps the most chilling reminder comes from Jesus himself in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘But let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No.” For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.’ (Matthew 5:17).

Trevor Stammers is a freelance author and editor and retired GP and Associate Professor of Bioethics. This article first appeared on the CMF UK Blog and is republished here by kind permission of the author and CMF.

No. Both these vaccines employ molecules called messenger RNA that have been synthesised in laboratories. After immunisation the molecules are designed to enter into cells within the body where they give the molecular instructions for those cells to produce the coronavirus spike protein. This is then released into the bloodstream causing the body’s natural immune mechanisms to generate antibodies and immune cells against the spike protein. As a result the individual becomes immune to the coronavirus. The messenger RNA molecules themselves only survive in the body for a matter of hours following immunisation and they are then destroyed by normal cellular mechanisms.

There is no scientific or biological possibility that the messenger RNA molecules in the new vaccines are capable of changing human DNA. Information flows one way, from DNA (in the cell nucleus), via mRNA, to ribosomes in the main cell cytoplasm where proteins are produced. So when new vaccine mRNA enters cells, it goes straight to the ribosomes to be transcribed into proteins, and never goes near the cell nucleus or the DNA.

There is a completely different class of virus, called retroviruses, which do carry the ability to alter human DNA, and analysis of the human genetic code suggests that a significant part of our DNA originated in ancient retroviruses.

Is it true that the new covid vaccines have not undergone normal safety testing procedures?

No. The new covid vaccines have undergone the same extensive independent testing and scrutiny that all new medications must undergo in developed countries. All the candidate vaccines have been tested in carefully designed large Phase 3 ‘double blind’ studies which investigate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine compared with a harmless placebo. The results of the studies have been analysed by large numbers of independent experts and much of the data have been made publically available to scientists around the world. At the time in December 2020 that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were approved tens of thousands of people had received both vaccines without any serious side effects.

It is true that the vaccine development, testing and approval process has occurred much faster than normal, but this is because there have been extraordinary levels of focussed international scientific effort, massive funding and unprecedented cooperation between experts. Since mass immunisation campaigns started in December 2020 hundreds of thousands of people have already received the vaccine and detailed analysis of possible side effects is continuing. Although no biologically effective medication can ever be regarded as completely safe, the available data indicate that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have excellent safety records, and they are in fact far safer than many medications such as aspirin and ibuprofen which are in common use.  

Is there hidden collusion between Western governments and big pharmaceutical companies to hide adverse effects of the vaccines?

This concern has been amplified by the recent news that the UK Government granted the pharmaceutical company Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine. NHS staff providing the vaccine, as well as manufacturers of the drug, are also protected. It is important to understand that the assessment of safety and efficacy of all new medications is undertaken by a large number of independent and highly experienced academic scientists who are independent of both government control and payment by pharmaceutical companies. All the scientists involved are aware that their integrity and international reputations depend totally on being seen to be honest, truthful and unbiased. If it subsequently became apparent that there had been some dishonesty or deception their careers and reputations would be destroyed. From my personal experience of running a randomised clinical trial that was supervised under the same UK and US regulation I am confident that the information that has been made publically available on safety of the vaccines is as honest and accurate as possible.

The motivation for providing indemnity to the pharmaceutical companies is that literally billions of doses are intended to be given over the next few months. If extremely rare but serious side effects emerge, the potential litigation costs would rapidly bankrupt the companies despite their immense capitalisation. In order to protect their shareholders’ interests the companies would have a duty to halt all vaccination around the world (possibly for months or years) as soon as the first serious side effect was announced. In order to prevent this possibility the UK Government has taken on legal responsibility. So legal protections remain for participants but it is the government (i.e. taxpayers) who will have to pay. In fact according to the Vaccine Damages Payments Act there will be a one-off payment of £120,000 to any person which is permanently disabled or harmed as a result of the vaccine. Similar arrangements have been made for previous vaccines such as the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine.

Is it true that the new covid vaccines contain tissues from an aborted fetus?

No. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines employ messenger RNA molecules which have been synthesised artificially in laboratories. However as part of the vaccine development process the vaccines were tested using a so-called ‘immortal’ cell-line called HEK-293. This cell line consists of continually multiplying cells which have been multiplying for more than 40 years. The original cells were said to have been obtained from a fetus (unborn baby) who underwent a legal abortion for other reasons in the Netherlands in 1973. No further abortions were performed as part of the vaccine development process and the vaccines do not contain any fetal tissue. The use of the HEK-293 cell-line does raise the question of whether the vaccine might be regarded as ‘morally tainted’. This is a complex question which I have discussed in an article called ‘Coronavirus vaccines and Christian Ethics’. The Novavax vaccine which is currently undergoing Phase 3 trials did not use HEK-293 cells or other ethically questionable cell-lines in its development. It is currently not available for routine clinical use.

Is it true that the risks of coronavirus infection have been massively exaggerated for political or other devious reasons?

No. There is a consensus amongst epidemiologists, virologists and infectious disease experts around the world that the current Covid-19 pandemic is the most dangerous global health emergency since the Spanish influenza in 1918/19. There is already clear evidence that 2020 has seen hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that would not have occurred without the pandemic. In addition to the tragic deaths, there is growing evidence of very significant long-lasting complications in some survivors including strokes, heart problems, chronic lung conditions and even long-lasting cognitive impairment. It now seems likely that many thousands if not millions of people will be living with the medical complications of coronavirus infection for years to come.

Is it true that the coronavirus vaccines use covert surveillance techniques created by Bill Gates?

No. None of the vaccines approved by regulatory authorities use covert surveillance techniques. Like many conspiracy theories, this one has its origin in a genuine news item. In December 2019 a group of US researchers who were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published a research paper about a technology that was capable of placing a vaccination record on a patient’s skin using a smart-ink that could then be read by a smartphone. The research was not related to the coronavirus pandemic and the technology has not been further developed or implemented as yet.

Is it true that Western democratic governments are planning to make coronavirus vaccination compulsory?

No. At the time of writing no Western democratic governments have revealed plans to make vaccination compulsory. There are very strong legal and historic protections for individual liberty and conscience in most of these countries, and only totalitarian governments are likely to enforce vaccination. However it is likely that there will be public campaigns to persuade as many people as possible to receive vaccination in order to raise the levels of immunity within the population as a whole.

Is it true that coronavirus vaccination may lead to infertility?

There is no strong scientific evidence to support this possibility. The existing clinical trials excluded pregnant women but this is standard practice in all clinical trials, to avoid the remote possibility that a new medication might cause unanticipated damage to an unborn baby. The current UK advice is that people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or who may get pregnant within three months of their first dose should not receive the vaccine, but this is out of concern for possible risks to the baby, not because of a risk of infertility.

It has been suggested that there is a small overlap in the amino acid sequences of the coronavirus spike protein and an important placental protein called syncytin-1. Hence if the body creates antibodies against the spike protein they might inadvertently attack the placental protein. This is a theoretical possibility that remains entirely speculative and most experts in the area think it is extremely unlikely. If the mechanism turns out to be true then it is theoretically possible that infection with the natural coronavirus might inadvertently lead to later infertility. However there is absolutely no evidence to support this at present.

Is it true that volunteers have died as a result of receiving experimental coronavirus vaccines?

There were two deaths amongst the 21,000 people who received the Pfizer vaccine but after extensive investigation by independent scientists they were determined to be unrelated, chance events. For comparison there were four deaths that occurred by chance in the 21,000 people who received the inactive placebo, so one might conclude that being injected with salt water was more dangerous than receiving the vaccine!

Shortly following the commencement of immunisation with the Pfizer vaccine in the UK two health professionals, who both had a previous a history of life-threatening allergy, developed serious allergic responses to the vaccine. It appears that the two individuals did not suffer lasting ill-effects, but the UK advice was modified following these incidents to recommend that people with a history of very severe allergic responses (called anaphylaxis) should not receive the vaccine. 

Is it true that the virus mutates so rapidly that vaccines will become rapidly ineffective?

It is well known that the influenza virus mutates continuously and hence a new influenza vaccine has to be developed every year. There is growing evidence that new mutations of the COVID-19 virus are arising across the world. Experts hope that the current vaccines will remain active for longer than one year. However because of the use of new vaccine technologies it is relatively easy for manufacturers to adapt existing vaccines as new mutations become widespread. It is likely that, at least for the next few years, there will be a continuing race between the appearance of new mutations and the adaptation of vaccines to combat them.

Is it true that hydroxychloroquine is an effective and safe oral treatment for Covid-19?

Sadly, there is no evidence to support this. In March 2020, the preliminary results of a small study of hydroxychloroquine in 36 hospitalised patients in France were published online. There appeared to be some benefit from the treatment but this was an open-label and non-randomised study, which therefore did not meet the agreed standards for demonstrating safety and efficacy. Following the publication of these results, at a very early stage of the pandemic, it is understandable that many clinicians, faced with desperately sick and dying patients, tried treating them with hydroxychloroquine since it was unlikely to do any harm.

The use of the drug was promoted and encouraged by President Trump. Since then a number of carefully designed randomised trials have been undertaken on hydroxychloroquine, involving thousands of subjects in many countries. These trials have investigated its use both as a preventative agent and as a treatment for the virus. None of these carefully designed and carried out studies have demonstrated any significant beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine.

This article, last updated on 4 February, is reproduced by kind permission from Professor John Wyatt’s website

My personal reflection about death started during my teenage years, after the sudden death of some people close to me, and continued during medical school, specialisation in vascular surgery and coordination of organ harvesting from cadaver donors. In my master’s dissertation in bioethics, I researched the concept of brain death and its medical, ethical, and legal implications. However, the most relevant answers I found on the problem of death were not obtained from philosophers, theologians, sociologists, or health professionals. They were the result of my faith in Jesus Christ, the only one who can declare with all authority that he is alive and has power over death and hell (Revelation 1:17-18).

Martin Luther King Jr wrote shortly before his assassination in 1968: ‘God, through Christ has taken the sting from death, and it no longer has dominion over us. This earthly life is merely an embryonic prelude to a new awakening.’

What is death?

Death is considered a dramatic reality of human existence and the main taboo of our age. It is a unique and irreversible event for each person. The diagnosis of death almost always results from an irreversible cardiorespiratory arrest, whatever the underlying disease or the factor that caused the termination of vital functions.

Death is universal and it is the most egalitarian event of human existence, because it does not discriminate between men and women, between rich and poor, or between celebrities and ordinary people. The time of death is usually unpredictable, although we can influence our longevity by the way we live. Most diseases, such as cardiovascular and oncological diseases (the two main causes of death worldwide) are influenced by behavioural risk factors related to lifestyle. Recent studies have shown that adopting healthy behaviours such as not smoking, controlling weight, exercising, avoiding alcohol consumption, and eating a healthy diet can contribute to a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes, and an increase in life expectancy.

The enormous medical and technological progress achieved in the last decades has led to a considerable increase in the average life expectancy, especially in developed countries. Prevention has contributed more to this increase in longevity than the possibility of treatment of many diseases, through improved hygiene and sanitary conditions, effective vaccination, and generalised access to health services. But despite all the successes in the fight against the disease, sooner or later the moment of death always arrives.

The death that gives meaning to life

The good news is that death is not the end of the human being, because each one of us is a biopsychosocial and spiritual entity, consisting of a body and a soul and/or spirit. The spiritual dimension of the human being is eternal and, therefore, does not disappear nor is annihilated by bodily death.

It is my personal conviction, based on the Word of God, that in the person of Jesus Christ, God made Man, we find the answer to the existential problem of death, considered an enemy that was not part of the original plans of the Creator. The sacrificial and voluntary death of Jesus on the cross of Calvary gives meaning to the lives of all those who, through the centuries, have accepted and followed Him as the promised Messiah and the only way to God. Jesus died to set free ‘those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death’ (Hebrews 2:15).

For Christians, the attitude towards death should be like that of the apostle Paul, who recognised that he was faced with a dilemma: to remain alive and enjoy the fruit of his labour or ‘to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far’ (Philippians 1:22-23). In his letter to his young disciple Timothy, shortly before he was put to death by order of the Roman Emperor, he expresses his unshakeable confidence in the promises of God: ‘For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day – and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.’ (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

Most of us do not know at what moment we will make the last journey and finally will have the opportunity to ‘look death in the eye’. It could be many years from now or in the next few minutes. One thing is certain: the decisions we make today, while we live in this world, limited by time and space, will have eternal consequences. After death, there will not be another opportunity to repent and have peace with God, as we read in the Letter to the Hebrews 9:27: ‘People are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment’.

I found peace with God and the assurance of salvation and eternal life when I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ, repenting of my sins and believing that He died on the cross in my place. From that moment on I have never feared death again because I know where I am going when I die. And you?

Jorge Cruz MD PhD (Bioethics) is a vascular surgeon working in Portugal. He is a member of the national committee of the Portuguese Association of Christian Doctors and Nurses (AEMC).

What is Conversion Therapy?

Most of these therapies should rightly be banned: the list includes aversion therapies, using drugs, enemas, electrical shock treatments and also brain surgery. All these were administered by the medical profession. Not only were they cruel, but there is no evidence that any of them worked. At a time when homosexuality was illegal, individuals were pressurised to have their orientation changed by such methods.

The deliberate untruth, which campaigners frequently tell us, is that, ‘People cannot change their orientation because they are born that way’. This is clearly untrue. No genetic evidence has ever demonstrated this, despite extensive genetic research. Neither is it supported by the study of identical twins. They overlook the fact that many homosexuals admit to being ‘fluid’ in their sexuality. Bisexuality is demonstrated whenever middle-aged adults suddenly declare they are gay, after being happily married for 20 years and having several adult children.

The deliberate confusion is that all these therapies were discontinued over 50 years ago! Nowadays homosexual activity is legal in many countries, along with gay marriage. In the West, only talking therapies are available to those who want help. These include professional counselling, pastoral care, prayer and support from family and friends. In Australia, LGBT pressure groups are now seeking to ban all of these.

The half-truths they promote are that ‘talking therapies’ don’t work and are harmful, causing clients to become depressed and suicidal. Certainly, counselling treatments may well be unsuccessful and are always difficult to evaluate scientifically. You cannot do ‘double blind, controlled, cross-over trials’, as there is no possibility of finding a placebo for counselling.

As for causing harm, homosexuality itself runs a high risk of harm. It is strongly associated with mental illness, alcoholism, drug addictions and a greatly increased risk of catching STDs, which may have life-long, even fatal consequences. These are all good reasons for wanting to move away from homosexual behaviour and culture. Yes, counselling can also be stressful, which is true for treating any addictive behaviour.

Hear what Elton John had to say in his autobiography, ‘Me’. He admits he was addicted to drugs, alcohol, food and sex (pp225/6). He chose to undergo counselling therapy in a residential unit, but he walked out after six days. He said, ‘It was tough…I couldn’t sleep…I had panic attacks…mood swings…depression and anxiety…I felt ill…weak and lonely.’ (pp230/1)

A further deception that campaigners spread, repeating it like a mantra, is that homosexuality ‘is not an illness and therefore cannot be cured’. Both these terms are deliberately misleading. Bereavement, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders and relational difficulties are not ‘illnesses’ that can be ‘cured’. They are, however, stressful conditions for which counselling is often effective in resolving. Such problems are ‘managed’ not cured and they commonly recur if therapeutic techniques are ignored or further aggravating events happen. Counselling rarely ‘cures’ anyone and the therapist may be as important as the therapy in achieving a good result.

Does counselling ever lead to change in a person’s sexual orientation? Yes, though not always or even often, but there is a growing number of people around the world, who now happily identity themselves as being ‘Ex-Gay’. If the identity of LGBT people is to be respected, then so should the identity of ex-gays – LGBTX. Success may depend on a younger age, high motivation and the degree of sexual fluidity.

Is such talking-therapy ethical? Yes. To ban such therapy would be seriously unethical, denying basic human rights – freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom to choose your treatment – while condemning people to live a lifestyle they want to leave.

‘The overall aim of counselling is to provide an opportunity for the client to work towards living in a way he or she experiences as more satisfying and resourceful.’ BACP code of practice.

For counsellors to ban such therapy is a denial of their ‘raison d’être’, the very purpose of their existence. Yet many therapists are now prohibited from helping clients troubled by their sexual orientation. Whether there is a legal ban or not, they will be struck off their professional registers if they offer it.

It is the therapist’s task to stand where their client stands. It is not the therapist’s role to introduce his own agenda and values into the counselling relationship. Ironically, the transgender debate highlights the importance of counselling for those who wish to change their sexual identity. This campaign to ban talking therapies for those who are troubled by their sexual orientation and request counselling should be vigorously opposed.

Peter May is a retired general practitioner in Southampton, United Kingdom

There is nothing new under the sun however; such talk about genetic and AI engineering echoes that of the engineers of the biblical Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9).

The Shenanigans at Shinar

The land of Shinar (v1) is Babylonia and we read that these Babylonian ancestors boast, ‘let us build ourselves a city with a tower that reaches to the heavens.’ (v4) The city was something to make the whole world sit up and take notice.  It was going to be built of kiln-fired bricks – the very best available and far stronger than sun-dried bricks. They would need to be strong too; the Hebrew word tower (migdal} usually refers to a fortress or a citadel and this migdal was to be the centrepiece of the city. It would make the current world’s tallest building, the 828 metre Burj Khalifa in Dubai, look like a candle in comparison.

This citadel was probably a ziggurat – a place of worship of the Babylonian gods –­­ which also served as a staircase for their gods to come down. Whatever its exact nature, the peoples’ motivation for building it is made very clear.  It was all about self – ‘let us build ourselves a city so that we might make a name for ourselves’. Why did Prof He Jangkui announce in 2018 his gene editing of twin girls at a world international conference rather than first publish his work in a scientific journal? Surely it was because, like the citizens of Shinar, he wanted to be the first and he wanted his name to go down in the history books? Which it will, but in a very different way from what he expected as he is now in prison for what he did.

Moreover, the second motivation for building hinted at here is that of fear and insecurity – ‘…otherwise we will be scattered’ (v4) – that’s why they needed a fortress to preserve their identity and control their destiny. As with genomic engineering today, they thought this engineering project would secure their future.

Presumably, the people of Shinar sought to prevent being scattered by some hostile nation but they ended up being scattered anyway by the Lord. It was not a Babylonian god who came down, but the God of heaven (v5). ‘But the Lord came down to see and said, “Let us go down and confuse their language.”’ And so the Lord scattered them (v8). The plural ‘us’ here is interpreted by Jewish scholars as referring to God along with the angelic hosts of heaven but it may also ‘suggest God’s self-reflection as a deity far more complex in personhood than other gods’ (Don Carson).

The consequence of the coming down of this God above all other gods, is confusion on a global scale as the people of Shinar find they can no longer communicate with each other. Though they sought to preserve their pure identity as a race, they ended up as a total divided community.

God’s Gate and the Way to God

The Hebrew in v9 for ‘confusion’ is balal – a word play on Babel – which is the name given to the tower because of the scattering it provoked. Ancient Babylon called itself Babili, which means the Gate of God. Yet as the Bible unfolds, Babylon increasingly comes to symbolise godlessness. It becomes a byword for pride and idolatry. This culminates in the book of Revelation, where it is not Babel’s tower that reaches to heaven, but its sin (Revelation 18:5). The arrogance of humanity seeking to make itself into a master race (v13) ends in the great cry, ‘Babylon is fallen’ (v2). The ‘Gate of God’ becomes the ultimate gate-crash, never to rise again.

In John’s gospel, we read of another occasion when God himself comes down to earth. This time he comes in the person of Jesus Christ who declares himself to be the gateway to God. He is the gate to the sheepfold (John 10:7); he is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6).

In John’s Gospel, we read that The Word (a name John uses for Jesus) ‘became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’ (John 1:14). He did not come in pride and arrogance to make a name for himself. Rather ‘being found in appearance as a man he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross’ (Philippians 2:8) – the most humiliating means of execution imaginable at the time. He did this not to scatter but to gather ‘a people of his own possession’ (1 Peter 2:9) that we might become citizens of a city not made with hands or kiln-fired brick but designed and built by God himself (Hebrews 11:10).

At the end of this first of chapter of John’s gospel we find another interesting connection with the story of the staircase of Shinar which its people hoped would link earth to heaven. In this fascinating passage, Jesus says to Nathanael who is about to become one of his followers, ‘Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man.’ Nathanael, like any good Jewish lad of the time, would have recognised Jesus’ reference here to their ancestor, Jacob. Whilst on the run from Esau, his elder brother, Jacob has a dream (Genesis 28:12) in which he sees a stairway resting on the earth and with its top reaching heaven – just as the Tower of Babel had been intended to do. However, on the stairway in Jacob’s dream, he saw the angels of God ascending and descending on it and God himself above it (v9). Therefore, he called the place Bethel – the house of God (v19) and said, ‘This is the gate of heaven’ (v17).

Jesus is surely indicating to Nathanael that he himself is now the true gate to God; he is the only stairway to heaven. He is the means whereby we are reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-19) and when this happens, we become one people united together with him (Romans 12:5). We will not find perfection in the editing of our own gene pool or through the posthumanist vision of being uploaded to the everlasting hard drive. It is only in Christ that one day we have the promise of perfection together with him (Hebrews 11:40).

Trevor Stammers, Associate Professor of Bioethics at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK.

Vaccines developed from fetal cells lines are not new. Pharmaceutical companies have found fetal cell lines to be perfect for growing vaccines. These fetal cell lines were originally derived in the 1970s and 1980s from two elective abortions that were not performed for the purpose of vaccine development.

Fetal cell lines have already been used to create vaccines for diseases such as hepatitis A, rubella, and rabies. Only two fetal cells lines are being used: HEK-293 – a kidney cell line that was isolated from a terminated fetus in 1972; and PER.C6 – a retinal cell line that was isolated from a terminated fetus in 1985. No other fetal cells from aborted fetuses have been used and no new abortions have been carried out since in order to obtain new fetal cell lines.

No vaccines of any kind contain aborted fetal tissue and of the various Covid-19 vaccines, only live attenuated or inactivated virus vaccines and viral vector vaccines have used fetal cell lines in their production. Some of these have used animal cell lines while others have used human fetal cell lines. Examples are AstraZeneca, CanSino, Gamaleya (Sputnik V), and Janssen. Other DNA, RNA and Protein vaccines do not require fetal cell lines for their development. Examples of RNA vaccines are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. For a full list see: COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-Derived Cell Lines.

For those who are concerned about the moral implications of using vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells, the RNA, DNA, and Protein vaccines will not be a problem. It is only with live attenuated or inactivation vaccines that a potential problem arises.

I believe that Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians of the church offers some wisdom on this issue. From Thomas Aquinas, we learn of the principle of natural law, the principle of totality, and the principle of double effect.

The principle of natural law states that the ‘Natural Law consists of first judgment that good should be pursued and evil avoided’. It means that all moral actions should seek the greater good and not greater harm. What is a vaccine for the greater good? It will give some protection for the vulnerable and those at high risk, especially older people, those with other chronic medical conditions, and those whose immune systems are weak. It will also aim to create herd immunity to protect those who have not yet been infected. Under natural law, we should aim to do good, not evil.

In his second principle, the law of totality, Aquinas noted that ‘the body may be changed only to ensure proper functioning of the whole body’. He pointed out that it is our duty to be responsible stewards not only of our own bodies but also of our neighbours’ bodies. Such vaccines will strengthen the body’s defences against the virus. Aquinas was not aware of vaccination but he was aware of plagues and pestilences.

Aquinas’ third and final principle is double effect. Aquinas taught that ‘the act must be good or at least morally neutral. The moral agent must intend only the good effect and bad effect must not be the means of bringing about the good effect. The good and the bad effect must be proportional.’ He was saying that sometimes a given action may have two outcomes, one good and one bad.

For example, in ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo is implanted not in the uterus but in a fallopian tube, life threatening haemorrhage may ensue and a doctor may have to remove the fallopian tube containing the embryo to save the mother’s life. The baby cannot be saved in any circumstance and without an operation, both mother and embryo will die. The principle of double effect decrees that as the intention was to save the mother’s life in circumstances where the fetus could not be saved, the action was admissible. Another example might be where strong pain relief, which may impair respiration, is given with the primary intention of relieving pain. Suppression of respiration is not intended but it may be foreseen as a risk of adequately easing pain.

This is very different from saying that the end of saving life through vaccines in some way justifies the means of taking early life through abortion. That would be saying that the end justifies the means and that is unethical.

But if a morally wrong act (abortion) can later be turned for good (the making of vaccines) by someone who was not complicit in or approving of the original act that is morally different.  

Aquinas’ teaching may have an impact on how we think about fetal cell lines. These fetal cells line were derived from two abortions done 30-40 years ago. Yet these fetuses have provided a legacy to ensure that others keep on living.

Ultimately, the choice is yours. As I have mentioned, not all Covid-19 vaccines are made from human fetal cells. What is essential is that enough people need to be vaccinated both for their own individual and their neighbours’ protection.

For the Vatican’s directive, see: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines (21 December 2020)

Dr Alex Tang is a Paediatrician and Practical Theologian from Johor Bahru Malaysia. This article is reproduced with permission from his website.

Psalm 91 is sometimes quoted about the current pandemic. It suggests God will protect us and states, ‘Nor will any plague come near your tent’ (v10, NASB)

This beautiful psalm comforts us that we do not face our problems alone. We must not misinterpret it as a magical promise that no Christian will suffer. Nobody thinks it means that if you jump off a building angels will save you (v12). The devil tempted Jesus to do just that.  Jesus reply was curt:

 ‘Again, it is written, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”’

(Matthew 4:7, ESV)

We should not presume upon the protection of God and use this psalm as an excuse not to take steps to protect ourselves. To do so could be to test God the same way that Satan urged Jesus.

God’s protection offered in this psalm is not absolute. It is a spiritual, mental and eternal protection. The same concept is in one of the most famous verses in the Bible which appears to promise at first glance we will never die. Instead, Christians do die. It’s just that when we do our death is not permanent:

‘For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.’

(John 3:16, Good News Bible)

Psalm 91 rightly used gives great comfort and hope but our hope is not for a trouble and sickness free ‘today’ but for a glorious ‘eternity’ to come.  As Jesus himself promised:

‘I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.’

(John 16:33, ESV)

Despite the promises of God’s protection, we must still act responsibly, such as by wearing a seat belt when we get in a car. The use of medicines and vaccines are similar. We should not presume that God will shield us from the consequences of living in a fallen broken world.  

In the time of the New Testament there was a lot of miraculous healing power at work but even the Apostles were not immune to sickness, nor were they able to heal everyone. Paul not only travelled with a personal Physician, Luke, but advocated the use of basic medical remedies to improve his friend’s health:

‘No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.’

(1 Timothy 5:23, ESV)

The idea that God will protect faith-filled Christians from COVID-19 could be called an over-realised eschatology for those who like theological terms.

Some other Christians over-emphasise the sovereignty of God. This can lead to passivity and is another reason some turn down vaccines or other medical help.

COVID-19 vaccination is a life-or-death issue for believers too. In the clinical studies nobody got severe COVID-19, were hospitalised or died more than a few days after their first dose of any of the three main vaccines (Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, or Moderna). 

We do not yet know whether they will prevent all severe disease in people with other co-morbid conditions, and they are likely not to work as well in the immune compromised. Even if you believe that you yourself are not in a high-risk group, others around you are.

Vaccination is not just an act of self-preservation. It is an act of love towards our neighbours to do them good.

Failing to act to protect those who are more vulnerable than ourselves could itself constitute a sin of omission as we might be the direct cause of harm that is preventable. This is the same argument for social distancing and wearing masks. By taking steps to prevent ourselves getting and transmitting COVID-19 we are saving the lives of others less fortunate.

Most Christians do not reject medicines and medical help in general.  There is no reason to reject vaccination wholesale as a non-Christian concept. God has given humans wisdom to create medicines and vaccines and we can accept them as coming from the common grace that he lavishes on all of us whether we follow him or not.

Adrian Warnock is a British psychiatrist, clinical researcher, author and blogger. This article is abridged from his Patheos blog which also includes a summary of the scientific evidence and the biblical ethics of vaccination. 

After almost a year of socio-political disruption caused by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus, some vaccines have received emergency approval for use in the vulnerable and general population. Some countries have received and have begun to vaccinate their people, while others are anxiously awaiting the arrival of the vaccines. Christians and Christian faith communities are facing a new dilemma. Should they and the families receive the COVID-19 vaccination? This is not about being anti-vax or a vaccine resister. This is about making a choice.

First, helping and protecting the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable has always been part of the Christian mandate. In the past few months, most Christians have been part of the public health program acting to contain the spread of infection and treating the infected by participating in lockdowns, hand washing, social distancing, and wearing face masks. These measures in some countries have managed to control the spread of the infection and prevent healthcare facilities from being overwhelmed. It bought time for healthcare measures to be put in place. Though not all Christians agree to these measures, by and large, most are involved and some have sacrificed their lives. Christians count among the numerous deaths of healthcare workers. Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination is one of the most effective forms of public health measures and has achieved a drastic lowering of childhood death rate in the last few decades. Smallpox has been eradicated and polio almost. The COVID-19 vaccine should be perceived as something helpful in public health measures in protecting the vulnerable and the community.

Second, the rapid development of the vaccine is a testimony to international scientific collaboration and funding. There are four categories of COVID-19 vaccines:

1. Vaccine virus (inactivated virus)
2. Protein-based virus (viral particles)
3. Viral vector vaccines (non-replicating viral vector)
4. Nucleic Acid Vaccine (RNA vaccine)

The first three vaccine types are not unknown and are the reasons for the successful vaccination program in primary healthcare. What most Christians and others are concerned about is the RNA vaccine.

The RNA vaccine is produced by totally new technology. One of the concerns is about the short time in development. Research on vaccines for SARS, H1N1 Influenza, and Ebola has been quite advanced for many years. The search for the RNA vaccine did not start from scratch. The scientists just used the SARS-CoV-2 virus with existing technology to produce the vaccine. So, counting existing templates, the development of the vaccine is a few years, not a few months.

The RNA from the RNA vaccine acts outside the nucleus to produce proteins for the body to react and develop immunity against. The RNA does not enter the nucleus and interact with the DNA or cause mutations.

The safety and efficacy of the RNA vaccine is yet to be fully established. In the phase 3 trials involving a large number of people, so far it has been shown to be safe and has remarkable efficacy (more than 95%). These trials are less than three months old so data on long term immunity, prevention of spread in the community, and long-term safety is not yet available. Lacking any measures to adequately protect the vulnerable such as those above 60 years old and the frontliners, the RNA vaccine seems to be an acceptable risk.

Third, the distribution cold chain of the RNA vaccine is a major concern. The Pfizer/BioNTech RNA vaccine needs to be stored at -70° C. There are few places on this planet with facilities to store at this temperature. Dry ice does not work. Any temperature above -70°C even for a short time will inactivate RNA rendering the vaccine useless. Unless there are in place the facilities to maintain the cold chain from the manufacturing plants to the distant rural clinics, there are concerns about using this vaccine. Giving people an inactivated vaccine will create a false sense of security and may do more harm than good.

Fourth, there should be equitable distribution of the vaccine. In the past, high- and middle-income countries tend to get the vaccine first before the lower-income countries. COVAX is a consortium of middle- and lower-income countries formed to ensure fair distribution of vaccines. Its effectiveness remains to be seen as we see already see the rollout of RNA vaccines in the high-income countries but not the low-income ones.

Finally, there are some who teach that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine is receiving the Mark of the Beast. There are numerous ways these teachers arrive at this conclusion, least of these is that CORONA is 666, and Bill Gates of Melinda and Gates Foundation has incorporated microchips in the RNA vaccine. In the Book of Revelation in the Bible, the Mark of the Lamb (Revelation 7:3) preceded the Mark of the Beast. In context, receiving the Mark of the Beast is a conscious choice to turn away from God. It is inconceivable anyone would associate the COVID-19 vaccine with the Mark of the Beast.

Christians are to act well, protect the weak and vulnerable, help the poor, and love their neighbours. The COVID-19 vaccine seems to be a light in a dark COVID year. Christians have one more measure for healthcare and that is prayer. Christians should not neglect the most powerful of these resources. While praying for the vulnerable and concerns about the vaccine, Christians should also consider whether they will choose to be vaccinated and if so, with which vaccine. Furthermore, churches should be considering getting vaccines for the poor and vulnerable in their communities if their government is not providing the vaccine for free.

Dr Alex Tang is a Paediatrician and Practical Theologian from Johor Bahru Malaysia. This article is reproduced with permission from his website.

Is there any scientific possibility that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will change human DNA?

No. Both these vaccines employ molecules called messenger RNA that have been synthesised in laboratories. After immunisation the molecules are designed to enter into cells within the body where they give the molecular instructions for those cells to produce the coronavirus spike protein. This is then released into the blood stream causing the body’s natural immune mechanisms to generate antibodies and immune cells against the spike protein. As a result the individual becomes immune to the coronavirus. The messenger RNA molecules themselves only survive in the body for a matter of hours following immunisation and they are then destroyed by normal cellular mechanisms. There is no scientific or biological possibility that the messenger RNA molecules in the new vaccines are capable of changing human DNA. There is a completely different class of virus, called retroviruses, which do carry the ability to alter human DNA, and analysis of the human genetic code suggests that a significant part of our DNA originated in ancient retroviruses.

Is it true that the new covid vaccines have not undergone normal safety testing procedures?

No. The new covid vaccines have undergone the same extensive independent testing and scrutiny that all new medications must undergo in developed countries. All the candidate vaccines have been tested in carefully designed large Phase 3 ‘double blind’ studies which investigate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine compared with a harmless placebo. The results of the studies have been analysed by large numbers of independent experts and much of the data have been made publically available to scientists around the world. At the time in December 2020 that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were approved tens of thousands of people had received both vaccines without any serious side effects.

It is true that the vaccine development, testing and approval process has occurred much faster than normal, but this is because there have been extraordinary levels of focussed international scientific effort, massive funding and unprecedented cooperation between experts. Since mass immunisation campaigns started in December 2020 hundreds of thousands of people have already received the vaccine and detailed analysis of possible side effects is continuing. Although no biologically effective medication can ever be regarded as completely safe, the available data indicate that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have excellent safety records, and they are in fact far safer than many medications such as aspirin and ibuprofen which are in common use.  

Is there hidden collusion between Western governments and big pharmaceutical companies to hide adverse effects of the vaccines?

This concern has been amplified by the recent news that the UK Government granted the pharmaceutical company Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine. NHS staff providing the vaccine, as well as manufacturers of the drug, are also protected. It is important to understand that the assessment of safety and efficacy of all new medications is undertaken by a large number of independent and highly experienced academic scientists who are independent of both government control and payment by pharmaceutical companies. All the scientists involved are aware that their integrity and international reputations depend totally on being seen to be honest, truthful and unbiased. If it subsequently became apparent that there had been some dishonesty or deception their careers and reputations would be destroyed. From my personal experience of running a randomised clinical trial that was supervised under the same UK and US regulation I am confident that the information that has been made publically available on safety of the vaccines is as honest and accurate as possible.

The motivation for providing indemnity to the pharmaceutical companies is that literally billions of doses are intended to be given over the next few months. If extremely rare but serious side effects emerge, the potential litigation costs would rapidly bankrupt the companies despite their immense capitalisation. In order to protect their shareholders’ interests the companies would have a duty to halt all vaccination around the world (possibly for months or years) as soon as the first serious side effect was announced. In order to prevent this possibility the UK Government has taken on legal responsibility. So legal protections remain for participants but it is the government (ie taxpayers) who will have to pay. In fact according to the Vaccine Damages Payments Act there will be a one-off payment of £120,000 to any person which is permanently disabled or harmed as a result of the vaccine. Similar arrangements have been made for previous vaccines such as the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine.

Is it true that the new covid vaccines contain tissues from an aborted fetus?

No. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines employ messenger RNA molecules which have been synthesised artificially in laboratories. However as part of the vaccine development process the vaccines were tested using a so-called ‘immortal’ cell-line called HEK-293. This cell line consists of continually multiplying cells which have been multiplying for more than 40 years. The original cells were said to have been obtained from a fetus (unborn baby) who underwent a legal abortion for other reasons in the Netherlands in 1973. No further abortions were performed as part of the vaccine development process and the vaccines do not contain any fetal tissue. The use of the HEK-293 cell-line does raise the question of whether the vaccine might be regarded as ‘morally tainted’. This is a complex question which I have discussed in an article called ‘Coronavirus vaccines and Christian Ethics’. At present there is no generally available coronavirus vaccine that has not been developed using HEK-293 cells.

Is it true that the risks of coronavirus infection have been massively exaggerated for political or other devious reasons?

No. There is a consensus amongst epidemiologists, virologists and infectious disease experts around the world that the current Covid-19 pandemic is the most dangerous global health emergency since the Spanish influenza in 1918/19. There is already clear evidence that 2020 has seen hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that would not have occurred without the pandemic. In addition to the tragic deaths, there is growing evidence of very significant long-lasting complications in some survivors including strokes, heart problems, chronic lung conditions and even long-lasting cognitive impairment. It now seems likely that many thousands if not millions of people will be living with the medical complications of coronavirus infection for years to come.

Is it true that the coronavirus vaccines use covert surveillance techniques created by Bill Gates?

No. None of the vaccines approved by regulatory authorities use covert surveillance techniques. Like many conspiracy theories, this one has its origin in a genuine news item. In December 2019 a group of US researchers who were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published a research paper about a technology that was capable of placing a vaccination record on a patient’s skin using a smart-ink that could then be read by a smartphone. The research was not related to the coronavirus pandemic and the technology has not been further developed or implemented as yet.

Is it true that Western democratic governments are planning to make coronavirus vaccination compulsory?

No. At the time of writing no Western democratic governments have revealed plans to make vaccination compulsory. There are very strong legal and historic protections for individual liberty and conscience in most of these countries, and only totalitarian governments are likely to enforce vaccination. However it is likely that there will be public campaigns to persuade as many people as possible to receive vaccination in order to raise the levels of immunity within the population as a whole.

Is it true that coronavirus vaccination may lead to infertility?

There is no strong scientific evidence to support this possibility. The existing clinical trials excluded pregnant women but this is standard practice in all clinical trials, to avoid the remote possibility that a new medication might cause unanticipated damage to an unborn baby. The current UK advice is that people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or who may get pregnant within three months of their first dose should not receive the vaccine, but this is out of concern for possible risks to the baby, not because of a risk of infertility.

It has been suggested that there is a small overlap in the amino acid sequences of the coronavirus spike protein and an important placental protein called syncytin-1. Hence if the body creates antibodies against the spike protein they might inadvertently attack the placental protein. This is a theoretical possibility that remains entirely speculative and most experts in the area think it is extremely unlikely. If the mechanism turns out to be true then it is theoretically possible that infection with the natural coronavirus might inadvertently lead to later infertility. However there is absolutely no evidence to support this at present.

Is it true that volunteers have died as a result of receiving experimental coronavirus vaccines?

There were two deaths amongst the 21,000 people who received the Pfizer vaccine but after extensive investigation by independent scientists they were determined to be unrelated, chance events. For comparison there were four deaths that occurred by chance in the 21,000 people who received the inactive placebo, so one might conclude that being injected with salt water was more dangerous than receiving the vaccine!

Shortly following the commencement of immunisation with the Pfizer vaccine in the UK two health professionals, who both had a previous a history of life-threatening allergy, developed serious allergic responses to the vaccine. It appears that the two individuals did not suffer lasting ill-effects, but the UK advice was modified following these incidents to recommend that people with a history of very severe allergic responses (called anaphylaxis) should not receive the vaccine. 

Is it true that the virus mutates so rapidly that vaccines will become rapidly ineffective?

It is well known that the influenza virus mutates continuously and hence a new influenza vaccine has to be developed every year. At present the evidence suggests that the Covid-19 virus is more genetically stable than the influenza virus and experts hope that the current vaccines will remain active for longer than one year. However there is simply not enough experience with the Covid-19 virus to be able to predict the likelihood of future mutations.

This post originally featured on johnwyatt.com.
Posted with permission.