One does, the other doesn't: Robert Malone vs Medical Contact

Last week I read a number of articles that I would have translated last year and put on the site. I don't think most virusvaria readers really benefit from it, they often follow those people themselves, most of them probably have an excellent command of English and the translation option in browsers makes English texts more understandable for Dutch people. So I mainly preach to my own parish. Moreover, I only have about 500 subscribers. The articles have to have subactions. Sometimes this goes exceptionally well, as in the case of '10 reasons to take the jab', which was read more than 50,000 times. In more elaborate pieces, that sharing doesn't go as fast.

Do readers occasionally want to receive a translation of currants from my reading porridge in their mailbox? Let me know, it takes me much less time than researching new topics and insights.

The reason for this was two articles, a blog by Robert Malone and an article that appeared in Medisch Contact. Malone's article was a joy to read, what a quality that man exudes. He makes his point, backs it up with figures and places it in a relevant current context. The article in Medisch Contact is a weak piece with rubbish arguments that largely miss the point, but that doesn't bother the writer of the article, he keeps a low profile. It is merely carrying out its task: to increase the willingness to vaccinate. Or is it "propagating vaccines"? It looks like disguised advertising in the form of an advertorial.

Malone

In America, articles appear about advancing leprosy in Florida and that is the fault of DeSantis. Because there is a leprosy vaccine and DeSantis is anti-vaxxer. In the article, Malone discusses these new attempts at fear.

He shows that leprosy ("Hansen's disease") is easily treatable and hardly contagious. Moreover, the infectivity stops as soon as treatment is started. The number of leprosy patients in all of Florida averages a few dozen per year: travelers and immunocompromised. Last year there were half as many leprosy cases as the year before, there is no structural increase. Malone also explains why it would be a very bad idea to give the BCG vaccine to everyone (the link to the article is further down).

So where does that news come from? This has been caused by journalists who have picked up an unfortunate phrase from a Case Report that was published in one of the corporate magazines of the pharmaceutical industry: BMJ (sorry Peter, this hurts me as well), including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.

It shows how health is used as a means of pressure by an industrial/medical/political power bloc and how the media allow themselves to be used as propagandists. Anyone who sees the opportunity to gain more control and/or make more money can seize health and let journalism work for them.

I thought it was a great article: Leprosy – Angstgegner, facts and fiction
Fifth-generation warfare, public health weaponization, shoddy peer review, and dubious journalism

Some illustrations:

Medical Contact

A little earlier I had read another article, also from a professional magazine: "Medisch Contact". Here, too, the reason is (coincidentally?) The BMJ. No less than three articles have been published (I haven't read them, I'm concerned with the reporting in MC) by one and the same scientist. This scientist is apparently very keen to portray the vaccines in a positive light – and he should, if you think that is the case. But how does he demonstrate that? Henk Maassen's summary in MC already suggests that reading those studies would be a waste of time.

Two of the studies deal with effectiveness, one study the safety aspect of the Covid-19 vaccines. By now, we know enough about studies that focus on one of the two sides while ignoring the other. (Otherwise, read the article on R.F. Kennedy and Stabell-Benn, who looks at it with a more pragmatic view.)

Safety and effectiveness are known from experiments beforehand, and even then the focus is so much that the other side of the coin remains underexposed. In retrospect, after vaccination campaigns, the development of overall mortality is the most important "real-word" measure of vaccine performance. But not for the medics of Medisch Contact.

Henk Maassen summarises three articles. The first article compares boosters to people who have only had the primary series. Then I have all my reservations: it has often been shown that people with only the primary series are in bad shape and that a booster temporarily boosts them. Especially at a time of a high infection rate, this has a somewhat positive effect on those who have been boosted, if you compare both groups. At least, only 'positive' as far as getting sick from Covid is concerned.

Another study cited actually proves the same thing, but then they compare people with a fourth dose with those who are (still) living on their third dose.

Of course, what we really want to know is: how do vaccinated people perform compared to unvaccinated people? But those figures are not given and we will never see them. At most, edited or plausible versions will ever be released. The stakes are simply too high.

This Andersson's third peer-reviewed study in BMJ (he actually poops out one hit after another) shows that there is no increased risk of neurological, cardiovascular, autoimmune, and other serious conditions. At least, within 28 days of vaccination, these insidious processes do not present themselves. But what about myocarditis, that can strike quickly, can't it? Certainly, but this target group was on average 67 years old. Myocarditis mainly occurs in young people (who also exert themselves more often than older people) and in the longer term – but that falls outside the 28 days.

Are there really people who, after such an article in MC, put away their paper with satisfaction: "You see, they really know what they are doing"?

Henk Maassen himself, perhaps, although he avoids the final judgement that he likes to leave to "commentators" Kristine Macartney and Bette Liu. I didn't know these "commentators" so I googled them. In October 2022, Vaccine published The article: "Relative effectiveness of 3 doses compared to 2 doses of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2". Written by these two "commentators". These people are on a mission. Why do I still get the taste of soggy leftovers in my mouth?

According to Maassen, Kristine and Bette believe that these three studies have convincingly demonstrated that mRNA vaccines have a protective effect and have an excellent 'safety profile'.

That unsourced quote then has to justify the following headline:

I don't have anything to do with doctors who sway along with the government narrative in the media. I'd rather not see them again. Doctors who allow themselves to be deceived in this way are in turn misleading the population. And we know very well what a misguided population is capable of.

The armadillo, intermediate host of leprosy