Currently, 15.2 percent of German adults have not even had their first COVID vaccination. A long-term study has recently investigated why some Germans do behave in this way.
Researchers from the University of Erfurt surveyed around 1,200 unvaccinated and 2,000 vaccinated people in Germany. Here is a summary of the findings:
- 74% of the unvaccinated definitely do not want to be vaccinated against Corona
- 6% are willing to get vaccinated
- 37 percent of those who have not been vaccinated against Corona do not want to be vaccinated against anything
- thus, about two-thirds of them are not principled vaccination refusers.
The researchers also asked the unvaccinated Germans about their reasons for deciding against vaccination:
- 56% of the unvaccinated are afraid of vaccination
- 64% of these people cite fear of vaccination consequences and side effects as their reason
- 8% are even afraid of dying from the vaccination
- 38% of the unvaccinated agree with the statement, “I am proud not to have been vaccinated against Covid-19”, while 60% of the vaccinated agree with the sentence “I am proud to be vaccinated against Covid-19.” Unvaccinated people also have much less trust in the federal government and the Robert Koch Institute than vaccinated people.
- 86% of the unvaccinated Germans find the current debate unfair, arrogant, and moralizing.
Based on these findings, the researchers recommend that measures to combat the pandemic should focus above all on maintaining the trust of the majority of those who have been vaccinated. The researchers also advise that attention should be paid to respectful and factual communications, especially by VIPs.
Personally, I find the notion that 56% of the unvaccinated are afraid of vaccination the most interesting finding here. It means we need to communicate the safety aspect much better than we have managed so far. As there is good reason to believe that many of the unvaccinated people are proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – see for instance here and here – a reasonable strategy should probably include making sure that SCAM practitioners inform their patients correctly and responsibly.
How can this be done?
I am not sure that I know the answer. But I know that there are psychologists who specialize in this sort of thing. It would, I think, be wise to create a multidisciplinary team to tackle the problem. Any solutions that could come out of such an exercise would come too late for the current Omicron wave. But there will be more to come, and we should be better prepared, I feel.
61 Responses to What are the reasons for opposing COVID vaccinations?
Leave a Reply to Pete Attkins Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Hi there, could you please direct your safety arguments to Joanna Moncrieff and Peter C. Gøtzsche. Two ideal experts for the multidisciplinary team you’re thinking of!
“Rapid Response:
Evidence does not justify mandatory vaccines – everyone should have the right to informed choice
Dear Editor,
As doctors and health professionals, many of whom work in the NHS, we would like to express our opposition to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination being mandated for any group of people, including health and care workers. We agree with the House of Lords committee that the evidence is insufficient to justify this measure,…Real-world data are not consistent with the trial results, with high case numbers in doubly vaccinated individuals reported from the UK [4] and Israel [5], for example. This suggests either that effects of vaccines wear off quickly, and/or that some bias crept into original trial procedures,….
More alarmingly, third and fourth ‘booster’ shots have not been tested in any randomised trials, and other data on the efficacy and safety of administering further doses are scanty…. meaning there is no secure evidence either way…. and potentially fatal adverse effects occur, such as thrombosis and myocarditis, [8] and that these took months to identify. Long-term harms will be difficult to detect due to the short duration of the randomised trials, and will only become apparent in coming years.
For young age groups,…the harms of taking a vaccine are almost certain to outweigh the benefits to the individual, and the goal of reducing transmission to other people at higher risk has not been demonstrated securely. [11]
Coercing people to have a covid vaccine, either through the threat of legal sanctions or, in the case of mandates for occupational groups, by depriving people of their livelihoods and careers, is not justified due to the prevailing uncertainty about the overall benefits of the vaccines, the unfavourable risk-benefit ratio for many groups, and, not least, the lack of data on long-term harms.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2957/rr-1
Best regards.
please read my post again and tell me where I argue for MANDATORY vaccination
thanks
Dear Edzard, please !
Looks like the authors wrote that screed before the data was out. Also, I don’t recall having seen any calls here on this page for mandatory vaccination.
We know the vaccines are safe, we know that the rates of thrombosis and myocarditis from vaccine are lower than the rates from infection with COVID-19. The vaccines “wear off quickly” – as quickly as any immunity conferred by riskier infection, but vaccines prevent severe symptoms and hospitlization caused by infection without vaccination. Every “point” of question they made has been cleared up by data. Their old letter to the editor has no remaining points of interest in 2023.
I’d advocate for mandatory vaccination for health care workers and providers in shortage areas, especially with the numbers of hospilizations going up again.
“Unvaccinated people also have much less trust in the federal government and the Robert Koch Institute than vaccinated people.”
Bingo: trust.
Why do they have less that trust? Does the government and scientists have a role in this lack of trust? Are they being “unfair, arrogant, and moralizing.”? Or are they innocent in all of this?
good point!
I remember 10 years ago arguing with my medical insurer about their support for homeopathy. One employee got very angry with me, claiming it really works. I remember saying to her, “Just wait until the next pandemic….”
The previous Minister for Health, Jens Spahn opposed even debating state support for homeopathy.
The researchers should have asked how many who oppose vaccination have discussed it with their GP. It’s extremely hard to find a GP in Germany who doesn’t practice some sort of vitalism-based medicine. People have been hearing from their doctors for decades that homeopathy works. They’ll tiptoe around the issue of vaccination, but they’ve already cast doubt on the whole of science. I am not in the least surprised that people have listened to their doctors and learned to distrust science as well.
I’m also not surprised that the government’s sudden U-turn has failed to convince such a large proportion of people– telling them to suddenly trust science after all, ignore their homeopathy practicing GP has told them.
And obviously simply trying to force them to do it undermines trust even further. Utter madness that can’t be changed overnight.
“As there is good reason to believe that many of the unvaccinated people are proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – see for instance here and here – a reasonable strategy should probably include making sure that SCAM practitioners inform their patients correctly and responsibly.”
Emphasis mine
Bingo: SCAM
Does SCAM practitioners have a role in undermining the public’s trust in science? Who is responsible for making sure the SCAM practitioners are behaving responsibly?
If SCAM practitioners started behaving responsibly then they would stop being SCAM practitioners.
E.g. If a naturopath started behaving responsibly then they would stop being a naturopath. See Britt Marie Hermes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britt_Marie_Hermes
https://edzardernst.com/2018/12/canadian-naturopaths-can-no-longer-call-themselves-medically-trained/
good point!
And you pray on that lack of trust, aka stupidity, by flogging your witchcraft to them.
You are chucking rocks behind a glass wall.
to some extent, the lack of trust is created by SCAM practitioners who tell patients that their prescription medicines are dangerous etc.
Yes, SCAM practitioners rely heavily on generating a nocebo reaction in their marks.
1. Identify something that potential marks are likely to be afraid of.
2. Conjure a nocebo reaction in these potential marks.
3. Proffer a service that purges the identified fear.
Example:
1. Many people don’t like to have a stranger approach them with a sharp pointy hypodermic needle!
2. Don’t directly mention their fear of needles because that would serve only to embarrass them. Instead, bait the SCAM hook with a scary nocebo proxy one-liner, such as ‘vaccines are dangerous’. It doesn’t matter if the one-liner is untrue, it works best if it is commonly used, in vogue: an appeal to popularity.
3. Proffer a personalized comforting SCAM service that uses, say, safe self-administered pills or a dropper bottle.
There is no such thing as alternative medicine; it is simply a disguised alternative to medicine: so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Some interesting comments on why some people don’t trust medical doctors. Does this spill over into vaccine hesitancy? Couple that with a decrease of trust in politicians/government and what’s the result?
They need to earn that trust back. “Eliminating” the competition won’t cut it.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-you-not-trust-doctors
Points 21-23 deals with science and trust issues
https://thelogicofscience.com/2022/01/19/debunking-30-bad-arguments-about-covid-vaccines/
I know that there are psychologists who specialize in this sort of thing.
True, and they find it very hard going.> I am not particularly familiar with the medical area but but people like John Cook have been investigating it in the climate change denial area. I’d say with so–so results.
Enough of the nonsense! Please, can we grow up, look at the bigger picture and desist from claiming that SCAM is a significant factor in preventing folks from choosing NOT to get impregnated with a cocktail of synthetic chemicals.
~ Traditional vaccines administered in childhood such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) contain either a dead or ‘non-live’ part of the original virus – meaning the vaccine is only strong enough to teach our immune system how to recognise these viruses in the future. These vaccines do not usually need to be repeated – or BOOSTED – in adulthood. The current crop of alleged ‘vaccines’ do not contain any substance obtained from an original SARS Covd-2 virus.
~ There is a body of opinion claiming that anyone who chooses to be vaccine CAUTIOUS (my description) or vaccine hesitant, means that person is not capable of making a rational, informed decision and needs therapeutic or psychological treatment of some kind to ‘encourage’ them to ‘see the light’ and comply with the herd.
~ There are numerous reports of post-vax side effects (mainly in the uncensored media) and as Ernst requires evidence of any claims, I have included here a link to just one tragic case that was confirmed by a coroner. Some might say the coroner was wrong and the death was just an unfortunate coincidence. But how many of these coincidences do we need I ask?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796
you probably meant: Enough of the nonsense! Please, can we stop drawing conclusions from overwhelming evidence and shut our eyes and ears.
@Mike Grant
Sorry, but you are wrong; please allow me to correct you. Most childhood vaccines do not convey lifelong immunity, and boosters are advised for e.g. tetanus (every 10-15 years), pertussis (for pregnant women) and shingles (mostly for elderly people). And of course influenza vaccination is advised annually. Simply said: every pathogen is different, so vaccines differ too. Ideally, one vaccination should provide lifelong protection, but that only happens with a few vaccines such as MMR (and even that one is initially administered twice, several years apart).
I’m afraid that you misunderstand (bio)chemistry here. An mRNA vaccine contains mRNA that is identical to a particular part of viral mRNA. The fact that it is not harvested from actual viruses is immaterial, just like synthesized vitamin C is 100% identical to vitamin C from plants and does the exact same job. And because production does not involve producing live viruses in cell cultures, it is safer, faster, more efficient and cheaper than traditional vaccine production methods. And oh, several other vaccines (tetanus, diphtheria) also don’t contain any original pathogens or parts thereof; they contain chemically(!) inactivated toxins from those pathogens.
This is simply not true. Almost no-one is capable of making a rational, informed decision about vaccination on their own, simply because almost no-one has the necessary education and knowledge to evaluate all aspects. In other words: 99% of people base their decisions about vaccinations on who they trust, not on any detailed scientific information that they can understand and interpret for themselves. This is not a bad thing; virtually EVERY decision we make is based on implicit or explicit trust in other people – many of whom we don’t know and will never meet. Just think about it: you implicitly trust every bite of food you eat to be safe, and if you board an airplane, you trust the pilot to be properly trained, sober, sane, etc.. This is why our society has experts: each of us is utterly incapable of amassing all the knowledge involved in many daily activities, so each of us is educated in just a small area of knowledge, and we collectively and implicitly trust those specific people (or their institutions) in situations where that particular knowledge plays a role.
People who decline vaccination generally do so based on conflicting information, and decide to reject the information from scientists and other experts. They instead trust the alarming messages from other people – who are generally NOT experts on the subject. Vaccine-hesitant people are not crazy, but they do have a tendency to let personal fears and doubts prevail over the aforementioned more rational ‘expertise principle’. Unfortunately, these people often also tend to be quite vocal, spreading their fears and doubts as far and wide as possible (cf. the Chicken Little and Boy Who Cried Wolf fairy tales).
Sorry, but this is just one big straw man, and a rather paranoid one, at that. Talk about nonsense …
Complying with the herd is usually the sensible and rational thing to do. And you too ‘comply with the herd’ hundreds of times a day, e.g. when obeying traffic rules. Rogues and mavericks are the ones in our society who run a substantially higher risk of getting into trouble and dying at a relatively young age; they are generally not considered to be the smart ones.
And most of these ‘reports’ in ‘uncensored media’ are lies and fabrications, meant to scare ill-informed people and ultimately generate money through their highly contentious clickbait. These are not sources one can trust.
Yes, the AstraZeneca vaccine turned out to have this rare side effect of causing blood clotting disorders. This is why it is not used any more – even though the actual risk of death was in the order of one in a million. Other vaccines do not have this risk – but no vaccine is 100% risk-free. So far, Covid-19 vaccines are known to have caused five (5) deaths in the UK in the past year. Which, incidentally, is the exact same number of people dying in traffic accidents every single day. And oh, the coronavirus itself kills about 10 times this number every single day. But you were saying …?
Anyway, I hope this clears things up a bit.
And 5 vaccine-induced deaths compared with an estimated 120,000 lives saved, countless thousands of hospitalisations and cases of long COVID prevented but, hey, evil big pharma and teh toxins eh, Mike?
And of course the depopulation agenda because we vaccine sheep are all about to start dying next month the way Bill Gates planned although it’s not Bill Gates any more because he was lynched in India and they replaced him with a clone.
And I am not being facetious. All of the above have been claimed on this forum by antivax and AltMed nutters. This is the company you keep, Mike.
Some points to ponder about!
From the EMA assessment report of Comirnaty 19.02.2021:
Novel excipients:
Two novel excipients are included in the finished product, the cationic lipid ALC- 0315 and the PEGylated lipid ALC-0159. Limited information regarding the novel excipients are provided.
Lipid-related impurities have been identified in the finished product and have been characterized. An investigation has been initiated and is ongoing to assess and review potential root causes. The outcome of the investigation shall be provided (SO2).
EMA assessment report October 2021:
Specific Obligation SO2:
In order to ensure consistent product quality, the MAH should provide additional information to enhance the control strategy, including the active substance and finished product specifications.
Due date indicated in Annex II: Juli 2021
Date of submission: 02/08/2021
Current status: NOT FULFILLED
Specific Obligation SO4:
In order to confirm the purity profile and ensure comprehensive qualitycontrol and batch-to-batch consistency throughout the lifecycle of the finished product, the MAH should provide additional information about the synthetic process and control strategy for the excipient ALC-0315.
Due date indicated in Annex II: Juli 2021
Date of submission:06/01/2021/ 26/07/2021
Current status: NOT FULFILLED
Specific Obligation SO5:
In order to confirm the purity profile and ensure comprehensive quality control and batch-to-batch consistency throughout the lifecycle of the finished product, the MAH should provide additional information about the synthetic process and control strategy for the excipient ALC-0159.
Due date indicated in Annex II: Juli 2021
Date of submission:06/01/2021 / 26/07/2021
Current status: NOT FULFILLED
However, there are also no data on the two ingredients ALC 0315 and ALC-0159 with regard to the assessment of toxicity, cf. page 3 of the Safety Data Sheet Pfizer dated 7/12/2021.
Genotoxicity/carcinogenicity
No genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been performed.
PLS take note (!) ONGOING TRIAL:
In order to confirm the efficacy and safety of Comirnaty, the MAH should submit the final Clinical Study Report for the randomized, placebo-controlled, observed blind study C4591001.
Due Date: DECEMBER 2023
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/variation-report/comirnaty-h-c-5735-r-0046-epar-assessment-report-renewal_en.pdf
Between Dec. 27, 2020, and Nov. 30, 2021, a period of only 11 months 1,427 reported deaths after vaccination with Comirnaty, and 16,874 reported serious adverse events in Germany alone, according to the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
The animal studies with Crominaty in rats are questionable to say the least.
It is also interesting to note that BIONTech’s 2019 annual report indicates that the company itself believed it to be entirely possible that market access for these vaccines would be denied. That the company was discarged from their liabilities regarding long term effects, which they don’t rule out, everyone knows.
In the Pfizer “Safety Data Sheet” in the column “Classification according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008” for all (!) ingredients – including the ingredients ALC 0315 and ALC-0159 always the statement “No data available” and the link doesnt work, in case you wanna try:
https://safetydatasheets.pfizer.com/DirectDocumentDownloader/Document
@DanLucas
[snip some pencil-pushing odds and ends + FUD]
Um, no, not really. I’ll gladly leave these administrative details to the experts on this subject. Which you are clearly not, given that you blindly (and selectively) regurgitate excerpts that may sound scary to laypeople but in reality are not important at all.
And this ‘ONGOING TRIAL’ is exactly what antivaccine people always ask for: a long-term study to evaluate the vaccine’s characteristics over several years, including its safety profile. It is just one of multiple studies, many of which have been completed. So I really don’t know why you mention this here, unless it’s yet another thing that you don’t understand. Or perhaps you try to suggest that no safety testing has been completed at all – which would be a very, very stupid suggestion.
All vaccines on the market are extensively tested and found safe, and are approved for use by the EMA and other regulatory bodies worldwide. There are no signs at all that these vaccines cause more or more serious side effects than expected.
About those numbers from the Paul Ehrlich Institute (Germany’s equivalent of VAERS): please stop insulting our intelligence (and especially your own) by using this idiot’s argument. Even you should know by now that the number of adverse events reported AFTER vaccination says nothing about any adverse events CAUSED BY vaccination.
The main thing causing unnecessary deaths is not the vaccines, but people like you, who spread FUD and nonsense, trying to scare people away from vaccination.
Dear Richard,
these facts are serious violations of the law on medicinal products (in my case the AMG) and the standards of „Good Manufacturing Practice“ which are mandatory for all manufacturers in the following legal regulations: European Directive RL 2001/83/EC & European Directive 2003/94/EC
If a substance is not included in the European or German Pharmacopoeia, special requirements are placed on its documentation.
The Annex to Directive 2001/83/EC regulates this under Module 3, Number 3.2.2.4
NOVEL EXCIPIENTS:
If an excipient(s) is (are) used for the first time in a medicinal product or if this is done by a new route of administration, comprehensive information on the manufacture, characterization and controls must be provided, with cross-references to both the preclinical and clinical data on the unsubstantiality in accordance with the active substance format described above, including a document with detailed chemical, pharmaceutical and biological information, toxicity studies with the novel excipient and clinical trials.
You beat me to it Richard!
I am no vaccine expert, but I have basic understating of chemistry and biology. Anyone who is capable of performing a basic google search will find plethora of information about the two ingredients ALC-0159 & ALC 0315. Pages 10 & 11 of this https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997584/COVID-19_mRNA_Vaccine_BNT162b2__UKPAR___PFIZER_BIONTECH_ext_of_indication_11.6.2021.pdf pretty much explains the function of those two scary sounding ingredients. In short, they are Excipients: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excipient i.e. substances used to encapsulate, stabilize and deliver active ingredient, in this case the mRNA present in the vaccine.
It is unfortunate that the manufacturer (Echelon Biosciences) of ALC-0159 & ALC 0315 had to make the following statement: https://www.echelon-inc.com/statement-on-alc-lipids/ that I quote in full below:
Also, if one googles Pfizer “Safety Data Sheet”, the first search result is this https://safetydatasheets.pfizer.com/DirectDocumentDownloader/Document?prd=PF00092~~PDF~~MTR~~PFEM~~EN that DanLucas is referring to but is incapable of providing a functional hyperlink for. A quick review of the said data sheet by anyone with a basic understanding of English language will know that it is a workplace safety data sheet (NOT A VACCINE SAFETY DATA SHEET) that the manufacturer provided (I guess, by law) in case anyone working in the manufacturing plant is exposed to high concentrations of the ingredients.
Here is a note from section 2 of the document:
Section 4 onwards talks about exposure, handling storage, first aid measures, firefighting, hazardous release measures etc. that one would expect in a workplace safety data sheet.
In section 3 ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 are listed under nonhazardous category along with water and sucrose and in the same section lists “No data available” next to both. I do not know why that is, but it is totally irrelevant for a patient who is receiving this vaccine.
DanLucas like most antivaxxer loons takes things out of context, omits a lot of important facts listed and goes on to insinuate that Pfizer is putting harmful ingredients in their vaccines and is hiding something, all the while using a workplace safety data sheet that is not grossly inapplicable when talking about clinical safety of a vaccine.
@DanLucas
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Even though the paperwork on both excipients has not been fully completed, the EMA has approved the vaccine and the use of those excipients:
“Two novel excipients are included in the LNP. Complete information is not provided for both the
cationic lipid ALC-0315 and the PEGylated lipid ALC-0159. In order to assure comprehensive control throughout the lifecycle of the finished product and to ensure batch to batch consistency, further information needs to be submitted regarding the synthetic process and control strategy in line with specific obligations (SO4, SO5).
…
Considering the above and the emergency situation, the characterisation of the active substance and finished product is considered acceptable, and the proposed specifications for RNA Integrity and 5’-Cap are considered to be scientifically justified and acceptable.”
No laws were violated, because the EMA simply granted an exception for some of the paperwork requirements, based on both the emergency situation and the trial data – which showed no problems at all with the vaccine, including its excipients.
Or do you argue that use of the vaccine should have been put on hold until every last administrative detail is fulfilled? That way, we would still be waiting for our vaccines, and another million Europeans would have died in the meantime. Which of course is fine with you, just as long as you can spout your misinformation and nonsense.
Richard, I used MMR as an example of a popular vaccine that most folks are familiar with. I am correct in my description which is supported by the UK Government. As a matter of interest, when were you – or any adult you know – have an MMR jab? Hope that clears things up a bit.
QUOTE:
“The first MMR dose is given at the age of 12 months and the second dose is given at around three years and four months, before starting school. Having both doses gives LONG LASTING PROTECTION against measles, mumps and rubella.”
REFERENCE:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/543379/9867_MMR_A5leaflet.pdf
There is so much garbage here. This might be the most asinine:
“And most of these ‘reports’ in ‘uncensored media’ are lies and fabrications, meant to scare ill-informed people and ultimately generate money through their highly contentious clickbait. These are not sources one can trust.”
VAERS reports are painstakingly verified by the federal government one by one, there’s a lengthy verification process that they go through to do this. Additionally it’s extremely difficult and time consuming (~45 minutes) to create a VAERS report and it’s also a federal offense to falsify one.
Also I’m curious as to why you think “we” the peons cannot make decisions without the help of experts yet the experts, who in your opinion,
“99% of people base their decisions about vaccinations on who they trust, not on any detailed scientific information that they can understand and interpret for themselves. This is not a bad thing; virtually EVERY decision we make is based on implicit or explicit trust in other people – many of whom we don’t know and will never meet.”
Unfortunately all the talking heads are wrong an incredibly high percentage of times; numerous studies have been done on this very topic.
why don’t you show us some?
@edzard, unsure why I can’t reply to you but here’s my reply anyway.
I always wonder why V proponents never respond when I ask about the current VAERS reports. And the few times someone will, they say that it can’t be trusted. I find this so interesting. I mean this system was created by our own Congress, are we to trust the govt supplied and funded scientists, but not the system they put in place to report adverse events? There’s an immense and alarming number of them in response to these new vaccines. Myocarditis alone went from 2 cases in 2019 and 2020 to over 2200 in 2021.
Also, I will dig up the studies on experts, where I filed them is lost on me at the moment. A book though authored by a journalist at the Atlantic (I believe) comes to mind- it’s titled WRONG and it chronicles in many fields how many times experts get things plain wrong, we just forget what they said. Easy to do when there’s a new expert being touted for just about everything, everywhere we go.
I guess I just find this topic interesting. I surely think we could all do a little better by trusting our own experiences a bit more. I don’t think we give ourselves enough credit.
Of course, experts will always be needed. But we rely so heavily on them that we forget that no expert knows the delicate nuances and intricacies of *our* experience, and that should certainly count for something. I’ve been an online entrepreneur for over ten years now and I remember struggling to find the right copywriter, the right person to create adverts, the right everything, for years. An Uber-successful colleague of mine said “Friend, you need to learn this yourself. No one knows your business the way you do and only when you are ‘pretty good’ in each of these areas, should you hire them out.” He was 101% correct.
But maybe there’s different levels of experts🤷🏻
@H Bjork
I seriously doubt your characterization because there is a lot of content out that explaining why VAERS is not the database to look at for vaccine related adverse events.
Dr. Gorski covers VAERS on his blog pretty frequently: https://respectfulinsolence.com/?s=vaers
Here is another resource: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/interpreting-vaers-what-is-the-expected-background-death-rate-for-the-usa-vaccinated-population
Of course, take you time. We will all be waiting with bated breath for you to present your evidence in support of your claims.
.
Funny! a friend of mine used to say something similar and he believed in what he said to the point that he tried to perform open-heart surgery on himself, thinking that he knows his body the way no one else including the so-called expert surgeons. However, he did not survive the attempted surgery on himself. To this day I wonder where we went wrong. Although, I am certain that his heart was in the right place.
@H Bjork
I think you are wrong. Most reports to VAERS are simply accepted without verification or follow-up. Only when a serious adverse event (e.g. death) is reported does the CDC automatically start a follow up to investigate. And in virtually all these cases, the vaccine was not involved in any way.
It certainly is NOT the case that every report in VAERS describes a confirmed vaccine-caused adverse event.
You can make decisions just fine in most of your day-to-day life. But if medical science or another specialist field is involved, then most people lack the knowledge to make a truly informed decision, and that’s when it comes down to whom you trust (or not). In that case, it is by far the best strategy to trust experts on the subject.
When your dog falls ill, you ask an expert for help. If you want to protect your home, you ask a home security expert about the best way to go about it.
But if it’s about their own health, a lot of people all of a sudden behave a bit silly, and start listening to anyone who says what they want to hear, regardless of credentials or knowledge. I find this strange.
@ Richard Rasker
I stumbled across a lovely comment (here an accurate retranslation into English) from the Inventor of the PCR that I don’t want to deprive you of, since you were so remarkably silent after i raised the issue regarding potential misuse, skewed numbers through false positives and the known incentives, etc. (emphases added):
With PCR, IF YOU DO IT WELL, you can find almost ANYTHING in ANYBODY… – I mean, if you can amplify a single molecule into something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, there are very few molecules that you don’t have at least one of in your body….
It allows you to take a very tiny amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it in meetings AS IF IT’S IMPORTANT. See, that’s not abuse, that’s just a kind of misinterpretation….
Tests are all based on things that are invisible, and the results are inferred in a sense. PCR, by contrast, is just a process that is used to make a whole lot out of something; therefore, it DOESN’T tell you that you’re sick, and it doesn’t tell you that the thing that you end up with is really going to harm you or anything like that, it DOESN’T.
Kary Mullis
Inventor of PCR and Nobel Laureate (1944-2019)
“Kary Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for development of the polymerase chain reaction. Mullis disagreed with the accepted, and scientifically verified, view that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, questioned the evidence for human contributions to global warming, professed a belief in astrology, and claimed that he once encountered a fluorescent raccoon that spoke with him.” [My emphasis]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease#Kary_Mullis
See also:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
He was also skeptical about climate change and according to wikipedia he owes largely the PCR to LSD and he was a surfer as well, almost unbelievable. I wonder why Edzard hasn’t questioned the PCR on that basis yet? Edzard?
My quote: “[Kary Mullis] questioned the evidence for human contributions to global warming”
DanLucas: “He was also skeptical about climate change”
😂
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
@DanLucas
Here is a statement from an unknown defense lawyer trying to get his client off the murder charges based on Kary Mullis quote:
Your Honor, the fact that the medical examiner found my client’s DNA under victim’s fingernails doesn’t tell you that my client strangled the victim. With PCR, IF YOU DO IT WELL, you can find almost ANYTHING in ANYBODY. Tests are all based on things that are invisible, and the results are inferred in a sense. PCR test is just such a process that allows the ME to take a very tiny amount of anything and make it measurable and using that accuse my client of murder. No one saw my client strangle the victim; therefore my client is innocent.
@DanLucas
I really have no idea what you are trying to say here. That PCR tests are useless as a diagnostic tool for Covid-19 infections? Well, then you are very obviously wrong. That Covid-19 is not so bad? Then you are also wrong. And I don’t know what silence of mine you are referring to, but I don’t feel obliged to respond to every one of your mostly inane comments.
(And oh, Mullis appears to be a serious case of Nobel disease, but that’s beside the point here.)
Anyway, who is the next crank you want to trot out in your loony parade? Robert Malone? Or perhaps Sherri Tenpenny? Or another one of the dozen or so antivaccine / Covid-denying people who happen to have credentials they are in fact no longer worthy of?
Of course, the EMA has granted an emergency authorization, the whole world knows that, nevertheless, the requirements of § 13 para. 3 p. 1 AMWHV and the AMG as well as the special obligations required by the EMA for the new excipients have not been fulfilled, period. On the basis of § 30 AMG: Withdrawal, revocation, suspension, the competent higher federal authority may 1. withdraw the marketing authorization if incorrect or incomplete information has been provided in the documents according to §§ 22, 23 or 24, etc. What Echelon means is irrelevant from a legal point of view, also a headline that states “non-harzadous” or a R. Daneel belatedly fails to recognize the potential effect of the substances (see 1 & 2).
The alleged negligibility of these new excipients postulated by you experts raises the question why Pfizer has not managed to provide the corresponding “Special obligations” after about one year? And what central role do these components play within the component makeup of LNPs that are highly inflammatory in animal studies?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221014504
“Intradermal and intramuscular injection of these LNPs resulted in rapid and robust inflammatory responses characterized by massive neutrophil infiltration, activation of various inflammatory pathways, and production of various inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The same dose of LNP administered intranasally resulted in similar inflammatory responses in the lungs and had a high mortality rate, although the mechanism is not yet clear….The side effects observed with the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine are likely related to the inflammatory properties of LNPs. LNPs activate various inflammatory pathways that lead to the production of inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β and IL-6, which can trigger and maintain local and systemic inflammation and side effects. The dashed line indicates the possibility that LNPs can also diffuse from the periphery and reach any organs in the body,…Therefore, the PEGylated lipids of LNPs can induce CARPA in humans with pre-existing PEG-specific antibodies (1 & 2). More severe side effects often occur in humans at the second dose.”
At first glance, this is very reminiscent of such effects leading to myocarditis and the autopsy findings, which was often an extreme autoimmune reaction in humans and often strongly causally linked to death by the pathologists.
Of course only at first sight, but the suspicion is justified and requires exactly what Pfizer did not provide as can be seen briefly in Section 11: TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: Toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated, that is Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 = no available data, basically everywhere. What might be the reason why PFIZER cannot offer anything else and fob off the public with a safety sheet for work safety and after ages still does not want to comply with the SOs of the EMA.
No, you guys are not convincing at all. But thanks for proper safety data sheet, indeed!!!
1.Inglut CT, Sorrin AJ, Kuruppu T, Vig S, Cicalo J, Ahmad H, Huang HC.Immunological and Toxicological Considerations for the Design ofLiposomes. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2020;10:190.
2.Mohamed M, Abu Lila AS, Shimizu T, Alaaeldin E, Hussein A, Sarhan HA, Szebeni J, Ishida T. PEGylated liposomes: immunological responses. Sci Technol Adv Mater 2019;20:710-724.
@DanLucas
[sigh]
As I said, I happily leave all those trivial administrative details to the pencil pushers who are paid for it. The facts are perfectly clear: after several billion shots with no serious problems to speak of we can say with great certainty that the vaccine is extremely safe and pretty effective, no matter how much nonsense to the contrary you spout.
And yes, OF COURSE a vaccine produces inflammatory symptoms. This is called ‘immune response’, and it is the whole point of vaccination. You really seem exceptionally dim, even for an antivaccine troll.
Anyway, enjoy the paperwork while I get on with my life.
@ Richard Rasker
You always seem to get worn out pretty quickly. That’s how it is as a reality denier. You seem to live in a fantasy world, where there must be no shades, which is clear from your infantile discussion culture. Seemingly ideology blinded and/ or interest driven and certainly much and quickly ad hominem. It goes without saying, that many people apparently have any side effects so far, but you even display the need to be in denial of proven side effects and those concerns people like Peter Doshi, Peter C. Gøtzsche and many others are expressing, as well as deadly causal effects, which pathologists could practically without doubt attribute to the vaccination. Such an attitude does not harmonize so well with your self-dramatization as a hypermoral advocate of the good.
No, sometimes the harms outweigh the risk as here for instance:
https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/bitstream/handle/10713/16065/Doshi-2021-VRBPAC-OPH-slides-Jun-10.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Take a break, why don’t you crochet some face masks for you and your friends, Richard, otherwise R. Daneel should introduce you to his friendly neighborhood shaman and see if that helps?
your attempt at humor is even worse than that at science.
Going to ask again: have you read the VAERS reports? These are govt-verified (painstakingly), and each one requires its own case number and investigation. Most people have no idea how to file these, medical professionals included- many of whom had never heard of this decades-old system prior to 2021, and it’s also a federal offense to falsify one. No one has ever been charged with attempting to do so either.
So why wouldn’t we look at them with an open-mind? Isn’t that what both sides should be asking of each other here? At the end of the day we all want the most amount of people to live through this, no?
You have no idea about the drug approval process. This is evident from the fact that you take texts out of context and quote them selectively or incorrectly:
The EMA did not grant an emergency approval to the Corona vaccines as you claim but a conditional approval.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/conditional-marketing-authorisation
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_2390
@Dan Lucas
Doshi earned an A.B. in anthropology from Brown University, an A.M. in East Asian Studies from Harvard University and Ph.D. in history, anthropology, and science, technology and society from MIT.
https://faculty.rx.umaryland.edu/pdoshi/
Don’t make me laugh. Peter Doshi has no technical expertise of immunology or drug approval. This can be seen very well in the fact that he talks about long-term side effects of vaccines. However, vaccines do not have long-term side effects.
https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-what-are-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-3-things-to-know#vaccine_side_effects_show_up_quickly
How significant is your opinion when even the producer doesn’t rule them out? Edzard doesnt do so. With such statements you debase your credence. If you had looked at Doshi’s slides, instead of looking at his CV, then I would not have to write this. Myocarditis 4 month later, narcolepsy 9 month later.
Bavaria has now acknowledged the first 4 cases of severe apparently irreversible vaccination damage, 263 applications are assessed in that state. Given that Germany has roughly the same number of adverse effects reported as in Holland, but with roughly five times as much inhabitants raises the suspicion of a lot of underreporting. In Austria, the Federal Office for Safety in Health Care received more than 40,000 reports of sideeffects in 2021. This corresponds to one suspected case of adverse reactions per 360 vaccinations. Compared to the previous vaccinations, the reporting rate is more than 100 times higher, and these are only the official figures.
“I had such strong side effects after the vaccination that I thought at times that I would not survive the year,” says 35-year-old midwife Katharina N., mother of two children. “Now I’m supposed to boost as well. That’s out of the question for me.”
When ppl get boosts every three month, nobody can say what that entails in the long run.
Only as an example: you probably know that adjunctives played apparently an important role with the narcolepsy cases with “Pandemrix” and now, the producer didnt provide any data again for additives, which are already known for having the potential to cause CARPA in humans: “…however, in many cases a major cause, or contributing factor is activation of the complement (C) system. The clinical relevance of…CARPA, lies in its UNPREDICTABILITY and occasional LETHAL outcome.”
10.1016/j.molimm.2014.06.038
So, it doesnt impress me, that somebody states that billions of ppl were already vaccinated, when not following ppl up in order to get a better data set. And at the same time dismissing all data bases like VigiAccess, EMA, etc. and claiming that all these records would point to nothing at all. Sorry, to me that is not very convincing.
May you be well!
“no serious problems to speak”
Ask the 1200 that died during the Pfizer trail.
https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/12/watch-bc-doctor-reviews-shocking-stats-from-released-pfizer-documents/
https://www.eutimes.net/2021/12/injury-overview-reveals-82-of-pregnant-women-in-the-first-or-second-trimester-suffer-spontaneous-abortions/
https://www.flemingmethod.com/the-pfizer-vaccine-blood
https://luis46pr.wordpress.com/2021/07/14/dr-charles-hoffe-mrna-vaccines-will-kill-most-people-through-heart-failure-62-already-have-microscopic-blood-clots/
and one more
https://www.saveusnow.org.uk/covid-vaccine-scientific-proof-lethal/
It’s great when antivax loons continue to torture data to try to make it conform to their delusions whilst willfully ignoring the elephant in the room of the vast disparity in deaths and hospitalisations between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The figures which demonstrate most eloquently the boneheadedness of their position and the effectiveness of the vaccines.
Antivax sentiments are creating nothing more than a Darwinian cull of idiots.
The most recent findings as to why we shouldn’t be injecting patients with mRNA vaccines.
Because they have not been fully tested, and now are evidencing why many have been opposed to the mRNA vaccines. There is new evidence that the mRNA spike continues inside some patients for much more than a few days.
Now we are seeing that there is potential for long term cellular effects of the (mRNA) spike protein, particularly in lymph nodes. that we were told (by the vaccine makers and proponents) would be gone after a few days is certainly not the case for every patient. In fact, from many here at this message forum I was assured over and over that the evidence of mRNA we not persist in the body for more than a few days, this is NOT the case for everyone.
So what we do know is that the spike protein can become a toxin after being present in the body for many weeks. This is the reason that it has been argued here, and around the world that these mRNA covid vaccines are not safe…. even by those like me that are not anti-vax.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/stl8jq/shocking_mrna_and_spike_protein_found_8_weeks/
I think you should read some of the comments on the page that you have linked to.
Ah, a vid on reddit or rather on youtube university. By author Chris Martenson, PhD (Duke), MBA (Cornell), who is an economic researcher and futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion.
You also let yourself be taken in by every nonsense that pseudo-experts spread, and you are proud of it.
Apparently, vaccine bashing is in vouge. Every Tom, Dick and Harry with a camera is publishing video reviews of highly complex scientific research these days, as long as there exists monumentally stupid antivaxxes willing to be duped by their nonsense. Whatever it takes to rake in the YT ad money.
Chris Martenson PHD studies are in neurotoxicology, please provide ALL the facts when you speak. I think he is more than qualified to speak on the subject of mRNA effects, and efficacy. The fact that he now focuses on finances is a side note.
Dr Kyrle – I did read comments as you suggested, I am unchanged in my thinking. Those making the comments you refer to are more qualified than Chris ?
The reality is that Chris demonstrated that the mRNA spike is evident (in some patients) for much longer than than mRNA advocates were accepting. That is the point, because it was predicted from the beginning of the mRNA jabs that this would be the case, and would lead to other medical problems.
Dear
concernedmisinformed and willfully ignorant patientYou conveniently omitted the fact that Chris Martenson completed his PhD in 1997. After completing his PhD, he worked in fields other than what he did his PhD in, as per his LinkedIn profile. Someone with a PhD should know better not to twist and misrepresent scientific studies. However, he is in it for the money and currently vaccine bashing sells and that is exactly what he is doing. What he is squawking resonates with dumb antivaxxers like you who in turn spread the misinformation helping drive traffic to his YT channel.
All you antivaxxers have been screaming bloody murder even before mRNA vaccines were made available to public, yet billions of mRNA vaccines have been safely administered all over the world with very minimal side effects that are severe. If there were major issues, we would have seen them by now. Regardless, the world is moving on, leaving behind dead, diseased, recovering or dying antivaxxers paying lip service to their egomaniacal faux heroes on YT.
R. Daneel
Unfortunately, it’s some of those that got inline with the vaccine program, and took one for the team that will end up diseased and dead. The vast majority of the populations have already been vaccinated or infected with covid now, and immunity to the virus is taking over. You all lash out at those that are pushing back on vaccines. You have not only changed the definition of vaccines, you have changed the definition of anti-vax also. The vast majority of whom you are labeling anti-vax are those that see the lack of safety in the vaccines, and also those that see that individual freedoms of the population at large is more important than the rule of tyranny, and forced medical procedures…. especially the experimental type.
https://principia-scientific.com/nuremberg-code-outlaws-forced-medical-procedures-including-vaccinations/
You say, along with the pharma giants, government and media liars that the vaccines are safe. However, you need not paint those opposing mRNA as anti-vaccine… most are not anti-vaccine, and only protest because they realize that the mRNA vaccines were never studied properly, and the safety statistics from the trials were bent to allow the vaccines to come to market under EUA. Yes, we are seeing the evidence now that the mRNA vaccines do cause subsequent disease in patients.
“Someone with a PhD should know better not to twist and misrepresent scientific studies”
That may be, but there are PhD’s by the thousands upon thousands of MD’s and scientist that are opposing these mRNA vaccines…. and the government overreach. The same encourage front line and early therapeutics and replace dangerous vaccines with safe vaccines. The mRNA vaccines don’t stop the spread and infection of the virus. Vaccines that are effective for as little as two months, and as long as only five months before needing boosters (according to the manufactures).
https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/us-fda-considers-approving-a-second-covid19-booster-shot-wsj-2767800
Chris Martenson must be raking in the dough and making a killing opposing mRNA vaccines….. yeah right, if you believe that I’ve got some swampland for sale. How much is Michael Yeadon and Robert Malone making from the same opposition ? I’m pretty sure it’s costing them rather than making them anything.
“dumb antivaxxers like you who in turn spread the misinformation helping drive traffic to his YT channel.”
Who gets to decide what is misinformation ? …. You ? EE ? … the government ? … the Trusted News Initiative, AMA, FDA, CDC, WHO, Hollywood … Social Media ?
They’ve been guilty themselves of this “misinformation” …. remember where we began ? ….with lockdowns and masking for “fifteen days to slow the spread and flatten the curve” ? We were told take the vaccines and life will return to normal. We were told that virus can live for days upon days on every type of inanimate object. We we misinformed that ventilators would be the solution to a virus of the lungs. Thousands upon thousands people die from this therapy needlessly.
Jon Stuart by the way is a liberal, he sheds some light on the subject.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jon-stewart-defends-joe-rogan-misinformation
@
concerned patientmisinformed and willfully ignorant antivaxxer trollCongratulations for regurgitating all your greatest “hits” in one post. Most of your claims are completely devoid of evidence, and some are outright lies. The nonsense you posted today was already debunked several times by many people here on this blog and yet you keep posting the same bullshit again and again. At this point you sound like a broken record, and your display of willful ignorance is astounding. All you have managed to do is to let everyone know that you are outright gullible, lack a basic understanding of biology and how science works in general.
Congratulations again and keep doing what you do best!
R Daneel
pathetic post, congratulations on nothing
Typical of you and your kind here to discount the sources of the evidence you don’t want to acknowledge, and when that fails you attack the individual.
You are the one with no evidence
LOL! What evidence? You mean the Principia Scientific link?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
Keep deluding yourself that everything you post is evidence.
“What are the reasons for opposing covid vaccines?”
How about fraud?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VbI8gOnUM
You never cease to amuse Old Blob.
Björn’s law: He who quotes Youtube-grifter nurse Campbell confirms own incomprehension.
@Old Bob
Campbell doesn’t know what he is talking about, and, by extension, neither do you. You simply can’t test a vaccine for transmission reduction in a clinical phase IV vaccine trial, unless you are willing to deliberately expose thousands of vaccinated volunteers to the disease in question and then bring unvaccinated people into contact with those vaccinated and previously exposed people. No ethics committee in the world would approve such a trial.
Applied to Pfizer’s Covid-19 phase IV trial:
Out of 21,720 vaccinated volunteers, only 8 (eight) subsequently developed Covid-19. This was not because the vaccine prevented 21,712 cases, but because the trial took place in a larger population that was ~98% immunologically naive at that point in time – only 2% of the greater population was infected at that moment. Still, the unvaccinated group had 162 cases of Covid-19 under the exact same conditions, so the vaccine was 95% effective in preventing the disease.
Now please answer the following question: can you calculate transmission rates based on just 8 infected and vaccinated volunteers of a group of over 20,000 vaccinated people, in a larger population of millions unvaccinated people?
The answer is very simple: you can’t. Transmission rates can only be calculated with large numbers of infected and infectious people, typically thousands or tens of thousands of people or more. This means that the Pfizer trial would have to include at least 5 million people instead of 50,000, and also span a far longer period than the 3 months of this trial. Which would have killed lots more people. All this apart from the fact that transmission reduction is just a bonus of an effective vaccine. The first and foremost goal of every vaccine is reducing the chances of serious illness and death in recipients. Any further advantages are just the icing on the cake.
Antivaccine imbeciles of course have the problem that Covid-19 vaccines are indeed quite effective at reducing illness and death in vaccinated people, so instead they come up with completely vacuous claims of ‘fraud’ or ‘lack of testing’ or other lies about those vaccines.
Anyway, I just registered for my next Covid booster 🙂 Haven’t had Covid-19 yet, and the three vaccines so far had no side effects whatsoever. Better safe than sorry!