The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal scientific advisory committee in the United States that meets three times a year to develop guidelines on the use of vaccines after they have been approved by the FDA. In the past, the recommendations were immediately adopted by the CDC – and thus by insurers, government programs, physicians, and states that adjusted their school requirements. So that is impactful. The CDC director must still formally approve the new recommendations. We are eagerly waiting to see whether, after the meetings on December 4 and 5, that process will go as smoothly as before.
The entire vaccination paradigm has been significantly overhauled in recent days1Slides and handouts will be available at https://www.cdc.gov/acip/meetings/index.html . The ACIP now includes experts such as Robert Malone (who chaired yesterday's meeting), Retsef Levi, Vicky Pebsworth, well-known vaccine critics. But also strong proponents of universal vaccination (universal = for everyone), such as Cody Meissner2Full list of ACIP members: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/membership/roster.html.
It was two full days3Day 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUgXRUpKal4 4Day 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpthhPBFAgI meetings with alternating presentations by Retsef Levi, Aaron Siri, Tracy Beth-Høeg and discussions. A number of meeting participants attended via video connection. It was a bit chaotic at times: replacement chairman Malone still had to grow in his role in terms of agenda sequences and voting procedures, the technology sometimes did not work or slides were not yet ready, things like that.
Notable detail: two days before the ACIP meetings, on December 3, 2025, Tracy Beth Høeg was appointed by the FDA as interim director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the center that approves all vaccines and medicines. The woman who is responsible for the scientific substantiation of new vaccines was therefore advocating for stricter requirements for evidence.
It was as if I was looking at the photo negative of a previous meeting, where the pharmaceutical companies gave extensive product promotions and occasionally some speakers were allowed to formally express their reservations.5Experts advise the FDA: https://virusvaria.nl/experts-adviseren-de-fda-je-broek-zakt-af/, which had no further influence on voting behavior. It wasn't even discussed at the time. Now it was, but here it was the other way around: the proponents did not have the opportunity to give a completed presentation – or had not prepared one. It's a shame that the flow of information was once again so one-sided, even if it was in the other direction. On the other hand, there was room for discussion and that sometimes became heated. The proponents sometimes sounded desperate about this proposed reduction in vaccinations.
At the bottom of the article are some brief representations of some contributions: two proponents and two opponents.
Apart from the valuable exchanges, concrete “Language Votes†were on the program about Hepatitis B vaccination. People first voted on whether the wording was adequate and only then for/against the content. That also led to confusion because Meissner did not agree with the formulation (he also had a point there, I thought) and therefore voted against.
The motions
In America, children receive dozens of vaccinations. Every newborn receives an HBV (HepB vaccination) within 24 hours, regardless of whether the mother is infected. This has been under discussion for some time, I will not go into the content of it now.
The following motions were central, recommending a more targeted HBV approach: first test the mother and only vaccinate newborns in case of positive mothers. This was inspired by the European approach, where this is already being done with excellent results. After selecting women who tested positive, few remain, usually from countries where the disease is common. The pharmaceutical companies will therefore lose a huge market in America if that policy is adopted.
Think of more than 10,000 vaccinations per day. Per day.
The motions:
Hepatitis B vaccination in children born to mothers who test HBsAg negative
Language Vote, 12/4/25
MOTION 1
For infants born to HBsAg-negative women: ACIP recommends that parents, in consultation with a health care provider, individually decide when and whether to administer the HBV vaccine, including the birth dose. (Parents and caregivers should also consider whether there are risks, such as if a family member is HBsAg positive or if there is frequent contact with people who have emigrated from areas where hepatitis B is common.) Parents and caregivers should consider the benefits of the vaccine, the risks of the vaccine, and the risks of infection. For those not receiving the HBV birth dose, it is recommended that the first dose be administered no earlier than 2 months of age. Y/N
MOTION 2
When assessing the need for a subsequent HBV vaccination dose in children, parents should consult with healthcare providers to determine whether an anti-HBs serology test should be offered after vaccination. The serological results should be used to determine whether the established protective anti-HBs titer threshold of ≥10 mIU/ml has been reached. The cost of this test must be covered by insurance. Y/N
The first motion states the same thing three times. I thought it was sloppily worded. We talked about it for a long time, but in the end nothing changed. And if something had changed, it would have caused a delay of days because they had not thought about being able to create a corrected PDF in real time and distribute it to the participants, so that they could go through it quietly.
Opponent Meissner in particular made a point of this. At first I agreed with him, I thought it was strange that they hadn't gotten anything on paper. But I just saw that the motions have been online for a while! When preparing for such a meeting, print it out for yourself... It's difficult, egos.
I didn't watch all 16 hours closely, but it was clear that something historic was taking place. For the first time in more than thirty years, a universal recommendation from the US childhood vaccination schedule was withdrawn.
Highlights for me were the presentations by Levi (2:45 PM day 1) and Siri (9:30 AM day 2), see below. Chairman Malone also had notable contributions and additions, one of which I would like to highlight: The Center for Biological Research and Evaluation has stated that we cannot simply continue to assume that the presence of antibodies translates one-to-one into protection against a disease. Measuring antibodies (the 'titers') is a core value in determining protection and therefore vaccine effectiveness. This turns out to be an assumption that has never been validated… Astonishing. Definitely something to correct first.
Burden of proof: damage or safety?
The ACIP therefore wants to move towards “shared clinical decision-making†with “informed consentâ€: parents and doctors can decide for themselves whether vaccination is useful.
What everything revolved around during those two days was the question: where does the burden of proof lie? I just mentioned “critics†and “proponents†of vaccination, but essentially there were only proponents of vaccination. The “proponents†are committed to universal vaccination: injecting everyone, as much as possible. In the case of Hepatitis B: that is a serious disease and vaccination prevents that disease. It's that simple. The "critics", on the other hand, only want targeted vaccination based on preliminary research, including cumulative effects, risk/benefit considerations and NNTV (how many vaccinations do you need to prevent 1 case).
The “pro-vaxxersâ€: if it doesn't help, it won't hurt, so err on the side of caution. Damage has never been proven.
The “anti-vaxxersâ€: safety must be scientifically proven. Until then: err on the side of caution: don't vaccinate.
For thirty years the dogma was: “Vaccinate unless someone produces hard evidence that it causes harm.†In just two days, that dogma has been shaken at policy level. Problematic, because the hard evidence for safety (huge RCT with saline-placebo, years of follow-up, millions of children) is practically impossible, the pharmaceutical companies are well aware of that.
The following picture emerged from various presentations:
- No study has ever tested the entire child schedule for cumulative effects.
- The trials that exist rarely use real placebos.
- For rare serious side effects, the power is dramatically too low.
- If many reports appear in surveillance, they are "just reports", it does not necessarily have to be due to the vaccine
- If there are worrying statistics, they are brushed aside with “correlation is not causationâ€.
- Mechanistic evidence (autopsies, microbiological evidence): “yes, but in practice it is a rarity, that almost never happensâ€.
The vaccination proponents appealed to “well-established benefitsâ€, “more children will become illâ€, “you should not tamper with a success storyâ€.
Ultimately, the committee voted 8-3 in favor of Motion 1. It is the first time that an official advisory board has said: “The absence of evidence of harm is no longer sufficient to impose a universal shot on all newborns.†In other words, the burden of proof tilts the other way.
Absence of evidence is no longer accepted as evidence of absence.
If this principle is also applied to other vaccines in the schedule in 2026, then “we don't actually know for sure†could become a legitimate reason for no longer making a universal policy.
Universal vaccination was always 'to be on the safe side'. That's now do not vaccinate become. If in doubt: do not overtake.
Atmosphere impression of four contributions
Cody Meissner
During the Hep B discussion on day 1, ACIP member Meissner responded strongly to presentations about potential harms (such as adjuvants and cumulative effects). He interrupted at times, talking over Malone and calling it “not scientific.â€
Kernquotes:
- “I strongly distance myself from each of the proposals… The hepatitis B vaccine is one of the greatest public health successes.â€
- On harms: “There is absolutely no data to support this… The risk of harm is high if we do this.†He warned of more infections and called the discussion based on “speculation and limited evidence – ok, got it!†(/s)
- To a presenter: "I don't think you should have been invited. What you presented is not science."
- “We are causing harm by changing this wording and I am voting 'no'.†He voted against it, calling the COVID recommendations “dishonest and disingenuous†in a separate comment.
He seemed sincere and frustrated. That is only understandable if something you have been proud of for decades is suddenly questioned.
Jason Goldman
Goldman is the official liaison for the American College of Physicians (ACP), not a voting committee member. He is an ACP president and an internist with a focus on infectious diseases, and he spoke during the liaison portion (around 2:20:00 in the Day 1 video).
His heated comment was ad hominem in nature and focused on the process: he called the meeting “political theater†and a “complete waste of taxpayers' money.†He talked through interruptions and attacked Malone as a “fringe leaderâ€.
Kernquotes:
- “This whole meeting is a complete waste of taxpayers' money... You are not addressing real problems, but reopening established scientific issues for ideological reasons.â€
- On the presentations: “The presentations about hepatitis B vaccination are not scientifically substantiated... This is anti-science..â€
- To Malone: ​​“Your leadership here is a farce – you are giving a platform to lawyers and activists instead of experts.â€
- Concluding: “Which stakeholders actually want a change in the current ACIP guidelines? Show me the data, not anecdotes.â€
His comments were hailed in pro-vax circles as a “roasting†of the committee.
Retsef Levi
Retsef Levi, an MIT professor of operations management and data science, is not a newcomer to vaccine debates. He has previously done analysis on COVID safety data, including signals in VAERS and Israeli datasets, where he pointed out potential underreported vaccine harm. Levi is one of the new ACIP members, appointed in 2025, and his contributions during these meetings were crucial.
On day 1, during the discussion about the HBV birth dose, he delivered a “lengthy comment†that set the tone. Levi challenged the committee on the “totality of the evidence.†He argued that many safety studies are dismissed as “low quality†without reanalysis, and called for a reconsideration of universal recommendations in low-risk groups. Specific to hepatitis B, he said: "We don't have robust data showing that the birth dose is necessary for all babies, especially if the mother tests negative. The trials were never designed to measure long-term effects, and surveillance systems like VAERS do not reliably catch rare events."
He referred to his own work, where he applied data-mining techniques to large data sets to find patterns that traditional methods miss – such as clustering of adverse events after vaccination. Later, during the liaison period (where external experts provide input), things escalated. Levi was interrupted with “this is liaison time, not a debate,†but he stood his ground: “If we introduce shared decision-making, we must recognize that current evidence is not sufficient for universalism. The burden of proof is on those who want to impose a jab on all newborns, not on critics to prove harm.â€
Levi's is not an “anti-vaxxer†– it recognizes benefits in high-risk groups – but it insists on methodological weaknesses: small samples, short follow-ups, non-inert placebos. In a broader context, he points to studies such as a 2013 report from the National Academy of Medicine, which confirms that the entire regimen has never been tested for synergistic effects.
Aaron Siri
Aaron Siri, a lawyer with a track record in vaccine lawsuits and anti-mandatory petitions, was the star of Day 2. His presentation “Evolution of the Childhood/Adolescent Vaccination Schedule in the U.S. and Vaccine Schedule Comparison: U.S. vs. Other Developed Countries†(together with Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg) was a masterclass in contextualization.
Siri, who is affiliated with RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense, used slides to show how the US vaccination schedule exploded after the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), from a handful of doses to 20+ in the first few years of life. All thanks to pharmaceutical companies being exempt from damage claims. He compared the US to countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway: "These countries have fewer vaccines, introduced later, and yet lower rates of chronic diseases such as autism, asthma and autoimmune disorders. Denmark, for example, does not universally vaccinate against hepatitis B at birth, and their incidence is comparably low."
Siri pointed to adjuvants such as aluminum: “Cumulative exposure in the first year exceeds EPA limits, but there are no studies testing this for neurological impacts.â€
He cited international data: “In the US the infant mortality rate is higher than in many similar countries with lighter schedules – correlation? Maybe, but it deserves investigation.â€
He advocated personalized schedules: splitting combined vaccines (such as MMRV into separate shots for kids under 4) and more focus on informed consent. Siri's closing: “The schedule has evolved without rigorous security testing – it's time for a reset.â€
This lays a foundation for future adjustments. Siri's approach is legally sharp: he has requested thousands of documents via FOIA, including trials that show biases such as the Healthy Vaccinee Effect (HVE). His presentation was evidence-heavy, with graphs about historical shifts and calls for “patient-centered†policies.
Although we do not struggle with the American Vax idiocy, it is hoped that we will also adopt a more critical attitude towards what we allow to be injected into our bodies and those of our children.
References
- 1Slides and handouts will be available at https://www.cdc.gov/acip/meetings/index.html
- 2Full list of ACIP members: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/membership/roster.html
- 3
- 4
- 5Experts advise the FDA: https://virusvaria.nl/experts-adviseren-de-fda-je-broek-zakt-af/
'For rare serious side effects the power is dramatically too low.' - Huh??
'harms' – harmful effects?
'harms' = injuries, damage, side effects. Serious harms also include death. What is not clear?
My objection to 'harms' is that it is unnecessary English.
'For rare serious side effects the power is dramatically too low.' This sentence is, to me, incomprehensible: 'power dramatically too low'? – What power? Is it about power, strength, power? What does it mean?
Oh so. I don't mind using a commonly used term (in the discussion) every now and then. But I have adjusted it: harmful effectsâ€.
As for the term Power, that's fine: https://chatgpt.com/c/69341f02-8fa4-8331-a39e-4d681f0f7667
Thank you, Anton. Thanks to you, today I consulted an 'AI chatbot' for the first time in my life, and it works fantastic:
The sentence “For rare serious side effects, the power is dramatically too low†means that the statistical power of a study or study is too low to reliably detect rare but serious side effects.
In the context of scientific research, “power†is used to indicate how well a study is able to detect an actual effect or difference if one exists. Low power means the study may not be able to identify rare side effects, even if they do occur. Therefore, there may be a risk that these side effects may go unnoticed in the study.
I think what is meant is that this text contains quite a few English terms that could well have been translated into Dutch. By the way, a 'lawyer' is a champion of something, not a lawyer.
Aaron Siri is a lawyer. Is that what you mean?
Interesting. I didn't have the patience to sit through it all, but it's good that there is openness, and thanks for your summary.
The defenders of the current vaccination schedule do not get very far in terms of logical arguments. It seems a bit 'one size fits all' versus more individual considerations. It is interesting that 'Europe' is cited as proof that without vaccination, HepB is actually not a problem at all. That comment made me take a look at the Dutch vaccination schedule. That has already grown quite a bit. Not yet as extreme as in the US, but babies here also get hepB at 6-9 weeks. But in winter within 2 weeks. And then in a cocktail with 4 other types. Below is a list from the government site. It's starting to become quite a nice list. HPV is even listed there, I didn't expect that.
Do we also have some kind of ACIP here, I wonder? And if those meetings are held, will it be broadcast live?
For children born in 2024 or later
When Vaccination Protects Against
0-2 weeks (or 0-7 months)* RS RS virus
6-9 weeks 1. Rota Rotavirus
2. DPTP-Hib-HepB** Diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, polio, haemophilus
influenzae type b, hepatitis B
3 months 1. Rota Rotaviru
2. DPTP-Hib-HepB Diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, polio,
haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B
3. Pneumococcus Pneumococcus
5 months 1. DPTP-Hib-HepB Diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, polio, haemophilus
influenzae type b, hepatitis B
2. Pneumococcus Pneumococcus
12 months 1. DPTP-Hib-HepB Diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, polio, haemophilus
influenzae type b, hepatitis B
2. Pneumococcus Pneumococcus
14 months 1. MMR Mumps, measles, rubella
2. MenACWY Meningococcal ACWY
3 years MMR Mumps, measles, rubella
5 years DPT (Diphtheria Whooping cough and Tetanus) Diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus
10 years of HPV (2x, 2nd vaccination six months later) Human papillomavirus
14 years 1. MenACWY Meningococcal ACWY
2. DTP Difterie, tetanus, polio
* Babies born from October 1 to March will receive the injection within 2 weeks after birth. Babies born from April to September receive the injection in September or October.
Unfortunately I couldn't get the table to appear properly via this editor.
In winter, RS injection just after birth. Or is that what you mean? The concerns about my grandchildren and perhaps future grandchildren are increasing. A tip: have the fathers go to the child health clinic after consultation with the other parent and, with an occasional female-friendly joke here and there, arrange what you have decided together for your child. And ensure that nothing is recorded digitally. The injections are usually already ready, but “waste†is not an argument either because dad has to discuss things at home first... wear sturdy shoes because tantrums can also occur. My sons-in-law share their experiences with family and friends in scents and colors. Distracting with a question about broccoli or pear can also help. The (mostly) ladies want to tell those, in their eyes, stupid fathers all kinds of things about nutrition (which they know nothing about). Never ask for a leaflet because then you can even get the police at your door, I recently heard. There are few trends from America that would have made me happy if they spread to the Netherlands, but the critical look at all those shots may become policy here tomorrow!
Ik had dat dubbele sterretje achter DKTP-Hib-HepB geïnterpreteerd alsof het een sterretje was. Maar je hebt gelijk: de ** betekent iets anders:
* Baby’s geboren vanaf oktober tot en met maart krijgen de prik binnen 2 weken na de geboorte. Baby’s geboren vanaf april tot en met september krijgen de prik in september of oktober.
** Alleen als de moeder niet is gevaccineerd tegen kinkhoest tijdens de zwangerschap (kinkhoestprik). En in bijzondere situaties. De jeugdarts bespreekt dit met je.
*** Kinderen geboren tussen 1 januari 2016 tot en met 2021 krijgen de 2de BMR-prik op de leeftijd van 5 t/m 9 jaar. Kijk wanneer je kind de 2de BMR-prik kan halen.
Dus het ligt inderdaad anders. Maar wel vreemde regeltjes. Blijkbaar is het normaal dat zwangere vrouwen tegen kinkhoest worden gevaccineerd?
Heb zelf nog in 2019 een paar prikken laten zetten. HepB en Tetanus, voor een tripje Vietnam. Kan me nu niet meer voorstellen dat ik daar toen geen vraagtekens bij had. Moeilijk voor te stellen dat ik er slechts 6 jaar geleden zo anders naar keek. Wat is er ook weer gebeurd in die tijd?
Extremely interesting that this discussion is finally being had thanks to Trump.*
Finally an attempt to arrive at evidence-based vaccination schedules. So this will undoubtedly be hushed up in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe and framed as Trump idiocy.
The discussion clearly shows that apparently the only ones in the Netherlands that are evidence-based are the anthroposophical clinics: read the studies by
1. M. Hobma, Research commissioned by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. (2025). Medical Misinformation Uprooted: The Hague: VWS.
2. Prettner, R. (2025). Shots at Stake: Facilitating Interactions between Professionals and Parents about Childhood Vaccination [Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam]. VU Research Portal. https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/shots-at-stake-facilitating-interactions-between-professionals-an
Here too, we work with real informed consent and information & advice based on the complete context and risk inventory of parents and child/baby. The parents ultimately decide for themselves.
RIVM also knows that this is how it should be, see:
3. RVP (2025). Informed Consent Procedure Guideline. https://rijksvaccinatieprogramma.nl/informed-consent
Only: no one in the regular CBs adheres to this: vaccines are being pushed down people's throats. That is why the frustrations of many parents about the treatment at CBs if you dare to ask questions at all...
In the Netherlands you have it https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/contact/contactgids/college-ter-beoordeling-van-geneesmiddelen-cbg and the https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/ who sometimes make cost/benefit analyzes together with RIVM. But anyone who takes the trouble to study the advice regarding HPV (2007, 2008) and RS virus (2024) vaccines comes to the terrible conclusion that the conclusions do not match the underlying studies that have been conducted. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport takes the conclusions in general. 1:1 left. Understandable in itself. But here too, the broom should be swept through these institutions: far too much influence from pharmaceutical companies!
* Trump has initiated more good things (immigration, finally having talks with Putin, the deterioration of the EU countries, etc.). But his moral compass with regard to ladies (Epstein), Russia, Putin, Ukraine, Canada, Denmark and Venezuela, the election results in 2020, etc. etc. is unfortunately hard to find.
Inderdaad, wij gaan dan ook niet naar de prik-polit, maar naar de antroposofische consultatie..
Kinderen hebben een fantastisch immuunsysteem, dat wetenschappelijk aangetoond door immuunverstorende prikken vernacheld wordt (hogere mortaliteit en gezondheidsklachten) .
Het is niet eens moeilijk om het achteraf, met feiten in de hand, te beredeneren: als je spreekwoordelijke vrachtwagens vol ‘immuuunboosters’ in een kinderarm spuit, dan raakt het algehele immuunsysteem van dat kind voor langere periode ontregeld en verzwakt. Immuunsysteem shock.
We hebben het hier over gateway-drugs (met hele grote winsten op het spel) naar de witte jassen kerk.
Het is goed dat we reguliere gezondheidszorg hebben – puur omdat zij alle andere methoden van de markt verdringen en je soms toch hulp nodig hebt. Maar, als ook bij bijvoorbeeld diabetes is aangetoond dat je statistisch langer blijft leven wanneer je NIET de voorgeschreven medicijnen gebruikt (maar passend eet), dan kan voor mij de enige conclusie zijn: het is een winstmachine en hoe langer wij ziek zijn zonder te sterven, des te langer wij hen blijven betalen.
Of, zoals de Amerikaanse Republikeinen (met wie ik het lang niet altijd eens ben) zeggen: Get off the plantation.
Helemaal mee eens! Onze zorg wordt veel te veel beïnvloed door farmaceuten, ondanks alle “officiële verboden” op (sluik)reclame en reclame voor bijv. vaccins.
Dit is bijv. echt meer dan “productplacement”, wat voor geneesmiddelen ook al verboden is: https://rsvirusinfo.nl/ En via radio en TV word er flink reclame voor gemaakt. Een schande dat dat niet wordt aangepakt. Ik ga maar eens meldingen doen bij de IGJ en reclame commissie……
Dank voor de verwijzingen. Losse aanvullingen:
“de vreselijke conclusie dat de conclusies niet kloppen met de onderliggende onderzoeken” – dat is héél vaak bij omstreden of door dubieuze bronnen (zoals overheid) gefinancierd medisch/sociaal onderzoek. De wetenschap moet m.i. dringend ‘herbronnen’.
“Maar zijn morele kompas t.a.v. dames (Epstein), Rusland, Poetin, Oekraïne, Canada, Denemarken en Venezuela, de verkiezingsuitslag in 2020, etc. etc. is helaas ver te zoeken”
РWat Epstein betreft: Trump was juist degene die hem als ̩̩n van de eersten aangaf bij justitie, omdat Epstein meisjes ronselde bij zijn Mar-a-Lago.
– Wat de 2020 uitslag betreft: als je in de exacte gebeurtenissen verdiept (ipv de Nederlandse kranten interpretatie daarvan), dan zul je ontdekken dat de rechtzaken die fraude aan hadden moeten tonen nooit gevoerd zijn, maar onbehandeld afgedaan. De dienstdoende rechters scheetten natuurlijk in hun toga voor de gevolgen voor hun persoonlijk leven. De rechtzaken waar iedereen het over heeft zijn nauwelijks inhoudelijk behandeld.
Zomaar een gedachtenexperiment (terwijl ik het echt oneens ben met evangelisch rechts en hun invloed op Trump): wat als onze beeldvorming over Trump uit dezelfde Brave New World koker komt als onze beeldvorming over, laten we zeggen, wappies en braaf-prikken?
Nee, niet de wetenschap moet in dat geval herbronnen, de instituten die adviezen schrijven moeten zich consequenter aan evidence based uitgangspunten en resultaten van onderzoeken houden. Dat doen ze niet. Want het ironische is dat die rapporten/onderzoeken op zich dus (waarschijnlijk) wel goed zijn uitgevoerd. Maar men trekt daaruit niet de meest logisch conclusies en gaat naar een doel toe redeneren: wij vinden het het makkelijkste en daarom beste dat gewoon iedereen gevaccineerd wordt tegen alles.
Er is geen deugdelijke beschuldiging richting Trump; zeker waar. Maar de langdurige sociale banden, tegenstrijdige verklaringen en gedragingen van Trump zelf en enkele getuigenverklaringen wijzen er toch wel op dat Trump niet brandschoon is.
Ik ben het zeker met je eens dat Trump hier, maar ook in democratische staten, extreem negatief wordt geframed. Terwijl hij enkele goede dingen in gang heeft gezet. Maar zijn acties richting bijv. Mike Pence zijn m.i. toch wel uitermate dubieus.
De wetenschap als instituut. Er is wel degelijk veel extern geld dat onderzoek financieert. Dat onderzoek heet wetenschappelijk, maar is dan al vaak van A tot Z door belangen meebepaald. Zoniet expliciet, dan wel impliciet, of in de hoofden van de wetenschappers zelf die graag hun baan uitbouwen (zie bijvoorbeeld https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRMAEwsiGFY – beetje populair, maar wel deugdelijk).
En, ja, je hebt gelijk: er is ná het onderzoek zelf nóg een stap: hoe min of meer externe instituten er mee aan de haal gaan. En daarna nog één: hoe de kranten erover berichten. Vooral de dieptestructuur van hun boodschap is m.i. sturend. Ze bepalen door hun zinsstruktuur (aktief/passief, etc.), woordvolgorde en woordkeuze (bijv. ‘familiedrama’ vs. ‘eerwraak’) hoe de lezer zich over het bericht moet voelen.
En dan is het eindresultaat wat mijn schoonvader gewichtig uit de Volkskrant haalt en tegen mij verkondigt .
Wat Trump betreft: zeer weinig politici die zo hoog komen zijn hun hele leven volledig zuiver geweest. Ik vermoed eerlijk gezegd dat de gemiddelde NLse bobo meer op zijn kerfstok heeft. Niet dat dat wandaden zou goedpraten. Maar Russiagate?? Invallen in Mar-a-Lago? Zogenaamde misbruik? (wat ik persoonlijk niet geloof).
Trump is een ultra-kapitalist en dat ben ik niet. De democraten hebben lawfare tegen hem gepleegd met bevooroordeelde rechtspraak.
Over jan 6: Geloof je echt zelf dat Mr. Zombie Biden de allermeeste stemmen op dat moment ooit heeft gekregen, nadat hij meerdere malen eerder faalde (want te weinig populair)? Dat hij populairder was dan Obama?!?
Ik heb zelf de hele nacht de verkiezing live gekeken via verschillende zenders en ik viel toen al spreekwoordelijk van mijn stoel door de totale onwaarschijnlijkheid van wat er gebeurde. Ik denk dat als je je in de belastende feiten zelf zou verdiepen, je zou beseffen dat er wel degelijk iets stinkt aan die verkiezing. Een heleboel. En Pence? Ik vind de acties van Pence richting Trump walgelijk. Wat als die verkiezing wel degelijk gestolen werd? Wat als? Is dat zo ondenkbaar? (maar we dwalen af)
Het eerste deel van je antwoord steun ik.
Ik denk dat je je onvoldoende realiseert dat Biden veel credits had omdat hij eerder vice president was.
Er is veel list en bedrog. Toch denk ik dat in Europa heel wat politici nog redelijke onkreukbaar zijn/waren en ook in NL (Den Uyl, Kok, Balkenende). Maar de verleidingen om uit dat soort posities privé voordeel te slaan is voor velen idd. te groot…..
En om op die plekken te komen, moet je wel een onheus “meebuigen”…..
Ik lees de genoemde rapporten en onderzoeken.
Ik schrik ervan. Dit gaat niet over informed consent, maar over biased coercion (sorry, Hugo: geen dwang, maar drang. Pinokkio.)
Het is m.i. makkelijker een Jehova’s getuige te overtuigen dat God niet bestaat dan deze mensen aan het verstand te brengen dat de reden waarom de overheid – in theorie althans – vaccinatie schade betaalt is, omdat de producenten anders weigeren hun heilige graal nog te maken (vóór halverwege de jaren ’80 waren er teveel suksesvolle rechtzaken door familieleden van beschadigden).
Er kan voor mij maar één conclusie zijn: ga het gesprek niet aan. Het enige wat ze willen is beter leren liegen (en in kaart brengen wie ze voortaan hoe beter kunnen censureren/zoekmaken in een algoritme).
Hello Anton,
ik wil je uitdrukkelijk bedanken voor je snelle actie om “de wereld” op de hoogte te stellen van de discussie in de VS. Voor wie niet op de hoogte is van dat “vaccinatiedebat” is het een uitstekende samenvatting van de belangrijkste issues en van de gebruikelijke argumenten van voor- en tegenstanders, met (de logistiek van toediening van) hepatitis B als voorbeeld van een vaccin waarbij wetenschappelijke onderbouwing ter discussie word gesteld
Een aanrader!
Michael
Jammer dat er in de US zo weinig aandacht is voor de Amish, die hun kinderen niet vaxxen: geen autisme, geen allergieen, geen chronische aandoeningen enzovoort.
Beter niet naar kijken, want daar valt niets te verdienen, denk ik ….
Ander voorbeeld: toen Japan besloot om kinderen pas na hun tweede jaar te vaxxen, verdween ‘wiegedood’ als sneeuw voor de zon.
Daar hebben we de Amish niet voor nodig. Al jaren zijn er groepen in ons land die niet vaxxen. Vaak leven deze mensen ook gezonder dus blijft het gissen en is onderzoek in mijn ogen onmogelijk. De biblebelt is in coronatijd behoorlijk omgepraat en is er wel tegen corona geprikt. De leefwijze is daar weer heel anders en niet persé gezond net als bij mensen die het suikerfeest vieren. Juist weer weinig gevaxten maar zeer veel overgewicht, al bij de kinderen. Het is precies de reden dat ik graag op deze site de cijfers lees en uitgelegd krijg want Anton en anderen nemen wel zoveel mogelijk mee in het rekenen. Alvast fijne feestdagen en alle goeds voor 2026!