THE COVID-19 VACCINE: ASTRA ZENICA – Foetal, fatal or helpful?

THE COVID-19 VACCINE: ASTRA ZENICA – Foetal, fatal or helpful?

Another conspiracy theory relating to the COVID-19 vaccine was added to the already more than 2,000 conspiracies since the outbreak in January 2020.  In a video, presented by a nameless and faceless person, facts are presented that questions the research, integrity and purpose of the COVID-19 Vaccine:  Astra Zenica

The Video


Instead of evaluating the whole video step-by-step it will be of more value to apply one or two principles that will reveal the legitimacy of the presenter, the source, the content and the attitude.


Is she who she claims to be?

The first logical question to ask is: would we place our hard-earned money in the hands of a nameless, faceless stranger or would we rather approach a financial expert?  Obviously the expert.  Then why do we so eagerly put our health in the care of people who have no knowledge or insight into the highly complicated field of virology?  

To start on your career path to become a clinical or a scientific virologist, you need a bachelor’s degree. A clinical virologist then follows the traditional medical school path for four years after completing undergraduate studies. As a scientific virologist, you’ll typically join a Ph.D program for another four to six years, combining coursework, lab rotations and research.   After this, you’ll spend three to five years in post-doctoral research training.  Now you have earned the right to make videos and speak as an expert.

So, is she who she claims to be?  Firstly, there is no introduction, so it is impossible to determine the level of expertise, knowledge or insight.  We can safely assume that if she was a virologist or medical doctor, she would have introduced herself as such.  The presenter does not share her name, her qualifications, her background or even her affiliation.  This immediately raises a multitude of red flags and should encourage the viewer to stop watching.  Any important information that aims to persuade people to make life-changing decisions cannot be presented by a nameless, faceless person who swears in her presentation and simply uses information out of context.  This is highly unprofessional and extremely emotional with far-reaching consequences.  So, the answer is NO, she is not to be trusted, believed or even listened to.

Is she speaking from his field of expertise?

Absolutely not.  To simply go to Wikipedia to get a one-paragraph description with no contextual background is irresponsible and dangerous.  Why believe this lady when you have scores of documents available based on clinical management, laboratory and virology experiments, infection prevention and control, mathematical modelling and seroepidemiology?   Research will not involve a visit to Wikipedia.  Go to the documents and read, read, read.  When we do proper research we will find that the research and development for diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines are based on sound medical values to save lives and prevent the death and further hardship of millions.


What is the nature of the source?

Let’s be very very blunt about this.  If the presenter does not even know what ChAdOx1 stands for, how can she be trusted with any other information?  NO, it’s not “Chad zero times one”, as the presenter explains.  ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is a Chimpanzee (Ch) adenovirus-vectored vaccine (Ad), whose development was led by the University of Oxford (Ox). It has been shown to stimulate an immune response to nCoV-19, the novel coronavirus first identified in 2019.  A limited amount of research would have revealed this.

Still, believe the video?

If a one-liner from Wikipedia is your primary source of information you are probably either very ignorant or simply looking for confirmation biased information.  It is possible to find anything on the internet to prove everything.  It is better to consult sources written by experts in their respective fields.  For a detailed background on the vaccine go to:

Is the source known for its non-biased reporting?

It’s very simple to identify biased reporting (if this video can be classified as reporting):  the presenter has already come to a conclusion and even though she encourages listeners to do their own research, she presents the facts in such a way that there is no room for the listener to come to their own conclusions.  This is the ABC of biased reporting – Assumption, Belief and Conclusion.  This video embraced all three on behalf of the viewer

Can you find the same information somewhere else from a credible source?

No, not from credible media resources.  You can find similar information from the same conspiracy-biased media sources with no credible sources or reporters.


Is the author conveying facts in search of truth or is there an agenda?

There is definitely an agenda.  Let me zoom in on one fact as an example.  The presenter refers to the MRC5 (seemingly with great joy) as a vaccine with a “truckload of s**t” in it because it comes from the foetus of an aborted baby. 

Is this true or false?  It is actually true, but within a specific context.  Scientists have used donated foetal tissues as a source of foetal cells for decades. These cells have been used for research since the 1930s, when it was used to create one of the biggest medical advances of the 20th century: the polio vaccine.  This is not an immoral nor strange practice.  It happens daily and happens within the guidelines and control of various governmental and private ethics advisory bodies. 

Ironically, whoever is presenting this video probably benefited from research being done on foetuses of unborn babies, got her polio vaccine as a child, benefits from medical research but now wants to prevent others from receiving the same.  Information out of context is extremely dangerous 


Is the tone of the author accusing, aggressive, alarmist or does it convey concern, care and anguish?

The tone is aggressive and alarmist.  Sadly, there is no trace of anguish for the thousands of people dying.  This is not a plea to alleviate suffering.  There is not a trace of empathy or a prayer for God to intervene.  You only hear aggression, anger and sense a victim mentality.  Why mistrust those who are making a difference and believe those who slander them


If the content contains any slander (even in the name of truth), if it creates fear (even in the name of truth), if it creates suspicion or division (even in the name of truth) it is NOT from God and should be rejected.

Sadly, this video contains all these elements and therefore I believe that not only are the facts misrepresented but so is the message of Christ.  The fact that the presenter requests that it be shown at Bible studies but then uses swear words in the presentation indicates that she has little or no understanding of who Christ is, our mandate to be His witnesses and our call to reconcile people with Him.

Before passing on messages of this nature, rather consider the Biblical principle of:  (Philippians 4:8) “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”

Also visit:


%d bloggers like this: