The new sales campaign for vaccinations is ongoing. VWS buys advertising space and uses social media with statements by Ted van Essen. Vws is spreading a number of inaccuracies. Ted van Essen (think crack grass and neutron grains) warns us urgently that we need a remedy and is not corrected. They cannot be called 'inaccuracies' or 'mistakes' because with the billions of budgets that VWS are available, you can assume that they are on top of the latest developments and monitor correct government communication. They deliberately do not tell the (full) truth. That's lying. And in a way that you can later blame a TV doctor, as VWS has been hiding behind misconceptions of advisers for two years.
This is the web page which in turn is shared everywhere.
Below are the numbered headings in the boxes with the, according to VWS incorrect, arguments against taking a repeat puncture. Under each heading, some literal quotes from the vws vaccine promotion are examined. You can click on the mini-screenshots to the right of the headings for context.
VWS: "the vaccine does prevent you from becoming seriously ill"
If that may be said so firmly, may I also proclaim with certainty, together with the authors of this study, that additional booster doses are only useful for the immunocompromised patients.
(The group studied consisted mainly of white men, so according to a prick defender, that may not apply to ladies, children and people of color. People are looking for straws...)
[note-taking chart removed because it didn't apply specifically to repeat]
Incidentally, the data from ONS now indicate that vaccinated people die proportionally more. The vaccine can prevent you from becoming seriously ill, but it also seems to increase the chance of dying, we will come back to that later. Nothing is yet known about how that effect correlates with the amount of.
VWS: "With a repeat injection, the risk of hospitalization is smaller than in people who have only had the basic series."
That's right, the basic series has affected the immune system, an extra prick boosts that a bit. More about this under point 4 because different arguments always come down to the same incorrect thought.
VWS: "A higher age is not the only risk of becoming seriously ill. [...] ... everyone from the age of 12 gets the opportunity to get a repeat shot."
For anyone under the age of 60, a corona jab is a bad idea, unless on medical indication of course.
Among students, the remedy is worse than the ailment, is calculated in this study.
That healthy children can get a jab is like allowing a candy stall in the schoolyard. The only argument that can be made for this is the turnover guarantee issued to the vaccine suppliers.
VWS: "The fact that you didn't get corona before doesn't mean you can't still get very sick... "
The chance that you will still get very sick from corona is minimal.
The number of virus particles in the sewage water has more than doubled in one month.
The number of Covid-19 hospital admissions has increased by approximately 3%. More virus does not always mean: more disease.
The most important factor is not the virus but your age. Vws does not mention that, they sting like that and must be put, up to children!
VWS: "... Also because the protection of a previous vaccination decreases over time."
That the protection of previous vaccinations decreases and becomes negative over time, making you more vulnerable than unvaccinated people, that is indeed a fact, also according to the rivm (Figure 4a below, at point 4). It remains to be seen whether you have to keep pricking every few months for life or whether the immune system knows how to repair itself. It will also have to learn to process "real" other viruses.
VWS: "You can't notice anything about one corona variant and getting very sick from another."
That's right: far fewer people get sick from the latter variants than from the previous ones, about ten times as few. They also get sick less, less than from a regular flu. Why is that? The (group) immunity increases and viruses generally mutate towards less pathogenic and more contagious. Reason to think carefully about the risk balance of a jab about which so much is unknown.
Are you under 60? That chance is high: almost 75% of our population consists of 60-year-olds. Consider that only 4% of all Covid deaths were among that majority.
So three-quarters of the population (the 60-year-olds) generated only 4% of all corona deaths.
VWS: "We know that the antibodies are slowly declining. And that as a result, the chance of becoming seriously ill increases again over time."
About antibodies, their usefulness and specificity is already said by the FDA that they should not be used to measure immunity. The ruling of VWS is therefore explicitly debunked by the FDA.
That the antibodies slowly decline is only partly true. After six months of decline, the protection plummets in a few weeks and the unboosted double vaxxer becomes sicker, sicker and more likely to die.
It gets worse. We've only talked about our resistance to Covid so far. However, after only the basic series, the body is also less resistant to other disorders because the mortality from other causes is higher according to the rivm among people who have only had the basic series, at least after 6-10 months.
Under the age of 50, the risk of death is almost twice as high as without vaccination. Whoever keeps such a product in the market is, in my opinion, not doing a good job.
Unfortunately, rivm does not report how things go after 10 months. The green dots are the boosted ones, which means that the three million double-vaccinated, who have not taken a booster, are kept out of sight. Fortunately, in the youngest group 12-49, the immune system seems to bounce back. Or do you still count as double-vaccinated within a few weeks after the booster shot?
The second green booster ball is also lower than the first. If that indicates a trend, the decline accelerates.
The 6 graphs of Figure 4B (off this study) are not easy to read. The last graph F (bottom right) shows protection after infection, in months. Graph E (bottom left) is the protection after vaccination – but in weeks (!).
In the top two graphs we see the combination infected and vaccinated. Graph B (top right) can be compared to graph F, but with a vaccination after the infection. The acquired immunity is broken down by the vaccination.
In both top graphs, we also see a negative vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 after about 20 weeks, in contrast to the ones with only natural infection in graph F. The natural defenses are therefore thrown into disarray by vaccination. "Slowly declining antibodies" is the understatement of the year.
You often hear: 'The booster should only be given six months after the basic vaccinations' and 'The repeat vaccination does better if it is administered no earlier than six months after the booster.'
The graphs above show where this comes from: after six months, the negative effectiveness of the previous shot sets in. At that time, it must be (temporarily) repaired with a fresh shot. Then we'll see what happens next.
VWS: "We know from research that people who have had an infection and have received a vaccination are better protected than people who have only had corona or have only received a vaccination."
As we have seen above, protection from natural infection is actually broken down by later vaccination. So this claim is also not true – at least it is not consistent with other, international studies. The RIVM shows in their "New reporting" conveniently disregard the unvaccinated. That makes the story simpler: boosters do better than just the basic series, repeat vaccinations do better than boosters. We no longer see the unvaccinated in the comparisons. Maybe they are doing surprisingly well. This is in line with the statement that each follow-up vaccination must repair the damage of the previous one.
VWS: "It is therefore still important for people who have previously had an infection to get vaccinated. The reason for this is that the coronavirus mutates, which means that we can still get sick again."
This is also not true (note: this is government communication!) Especially when the coronavirus mutates, vaccinations work less well than the broader natural immunity. In addition, the 'leaky' vaccines stimulate the mutations. It is also becoming increasingly clear that the immune system is going to react incorrectly, at least to variants. I even heard Maarten Keulemans explain this principle on BNR News Radio.
VWS: "Only a very small part of the population has an allergic reaction to the vaccine. This also applies to the updated vaccines. The differences between the spike proteins are limited."
Who is suddenly talking about allergic reactions? It was about side effects... Allergic reactions are not the problem at all, that was the story with Old School vaccines. The problem now lies in blood and immune system-related disorders. There are also other systemic disorders: neurological, musculoskeletal, organ damage. Diverting the subject to something like "allergic reactions" is a rhetorical trick. The government apparently has to use fallacies to make a point.
The spike proteins are certainly not undiscussed and the places where they are found in the body are certainly not undiscussed. The fact that the differences are small says nothing about their harmfulness. (By the way, mRNA vaccines do not contain spike proteins at all, which our cells make in all places where the mRNA can reach.)
A lame attempt to disprove the side effects objection does not get any further than a hodgepodge of irrelevant and empty statements.
VWS: "In this way [with vaccinations], a resurgence of the coronavirus may be slowed down."
Also incorrect. Vaccinations have a negligible impact on the number of infections. See the course before and after the start of vaccination, indicated by the blue text box in the graph of @SteigstraHerman. Only summer is able to flatten out the upward trend. There are countless studies that show that transmission is hardly affected, not affected or counterproductive. VWS continues to rely on assumptions of the van Essens of this world.
Point 7 is not recommended for other reasons. If you have already decided to get the repeat vaccination, there is certainly a reason not to wait for the next wave. The first weeks after the shot, your immune system is a bit confused. In any case, this can be seen very clearly after the first shot; It is to be expected that a similar effect will also occur with later injections. So it's better to try to get ahead of a wave. It is understandable that VWS does not play this card. After all, then they have to provide insight into one of the less cheerful aspects of the vaccinations: the course of the protection.
VWS: "Compare it to a seat belt in the car."
Shall we compare the risks of vaccination with a seat belt? How many people are sick or died from the side effects of a seat belt? We have NEVER BEFORE compared serious vaccines to a "seat belt that you have to put on every time".
A vaccine is supposed to be a safe protection, an intervention that you only have to apply once. The comparison with a seat belt really makes no sense at all. As if you have to get your swimming diploma every year. Shall we make that comparison too? It is difficult to comprehend the means used to make a point.
Why don't we compare the vaccine with chemotherapy? I see more similarities with that.
VWS: "We have to keep training our immune system"
What is happening here is that our natural defenses, which have dragged us through all kinds of filth for hundreds of thousands, millions of years, are being hijacked by an industry that wants to roll out a new syringe over the world's population for every mutant. The syringe is inferior to a normally functioning immune system that is used to being trained by confrontation with germs – especially when it comes to mutating respiratory (seasonal) viruses. Building up natural immunity is what pushes mutating viruses back to an endemic state. No sweet mother helps with that. The best training for your immune system consists of exercise, socializing, eating and sleeping well, walking, getting acquainted with new viruses, swimming, climbing stairs, cycling, sun, being outside, etc. Some believe in a bracelet, a vibration plate or a syringe. That saves a lot of hassle...
VWS: "It is extremely important to keep repeating the shot to prevent serious illness."
This completely ignores the fact that we did not have to get a shot every six months or even every quarter for the well-known 'real' vaccines. The injections may have been advertised as vaccines, but the most important similarity is the needle in the upper arm. Other than that, they don't look like it. Daily and annual confrontations with viruses are generally excellently parried by our immune system. This may be helped or prepared, provided that the natural effect remains intact and the intervention is risk-free. As far as those unmentioned risks are concerned, I am starting to have doubts: "the benefits outweigh the risks"... What period are we actually talking about?
The pharmaceutical industry's biggest competitor is our innate immune system. A shot that undermines its effect will not be seen as a major business risk.
It is furious that the government is lying so demonstrably hard. Eventually the truth will come to light of course, probably through countries where they sell less nonsense. I can already predict that dementia among politicians will increase acutely to almost 100% given that there are no active memories of the policy measures with regard to Dementia. Corona will be more.
Good story, Anton. Very disturbing. The government itself apparently does not understand how the mRNA 'vaccines' work. Or understands it, but presents it differently. Both scenarios are worrying (I am expressing myself carefully).
This brings me to the following trade-off: We know that human cells produce specific spike proteins, triggered by the 'vaccines'. With the old (Wuhan) syringe, this already caused a lot of misery. But with the 'bivalent vaccines', 2 types of spike proteins will be produced to which the immune system then responds by producing antibodies. The new (bivalent) 'vaccines' have been tested on as many as 8 mice, according to the CDC (source John Campbell). Would no one who gets injected wonder what the consequences are of this new method?
As you also point out, in the first period after vaccinations, people are extra vulnerable. If a single mRNA 'vaccine' can disrupt the immune system, what will happen to the bivalent one?
All this apart from the fact that Omicron is nothing more than a cold for healthy people (I speak from experience).
Thank you very much for this clear explanation! Very useful!
It drives you crazy, this kind of advice, issued by our 'own' government!
In the past, you sometimes read about a village or city in Sicily, where it turned out that the mafia had managed to penetrate the municipal council. Suddenly mafia members were members of the city council, the mafia also provided aldermen and the mayor.
You read that in the newspaper in disbelief. No, then us, here in the Netherlands. We would never let that happen here. Because we were decent, and not corrupt.
And look, who would have thought, the pharma lobby is everywhere! Has already taken over all the institutions that matter, universities, hospitals, medical journals, even governments!
I'm afraid it will take a while before we have kicked them out everywhere.
Thank you very much for your great, tireless contributions, Anton!
Very well performed (again)! Too bad, a number of points stood out to me, perhaps still room for improvement:
– "this table showing that you can get vaccinated at least in the first weeks after the shot" : according to me and it seems, "at least in the first weeks after the FIRST shot". Nevertheless?
– "(The number 0.34 is marked because it is referred to in point 4.)"
A little bit, but not clear, I searched in vain for a specific review. In my opinion, it would be much clearer to omit that sentence and just refer to it in the earlier sentence immediately afterwards: "Before the decline becomes visible (Odds Ratio 0.24 to 0.34), the follow-up shot has already been taken and it boosts the numbers again". This immediately explains that "OR" here means Odds Ratio.
– "Incidentally, the data from ONS now indicate that vaccinated people die proportionally more. The vaccine can then prevent you from becoming seriously ill, but it does increase the chance of dying."
This is probably the case if we assume that it is not mainly people in poor health who were vaccinated; That assumption may be incorrect for younger age groups. And for older age groups, there is little difference. Maybe it's better to slow down a bit? For example, "The vaccine may prevent you from becoming seriously ill, but it does not seem to reduce the chance of dying."
– "also according to the RIVM (Figure 4a)". On my screen, Figure 4a is far out of view and I didn't find it at first. So useful for blind people like me: "also according to the RIVM (Figure 4a below)".
– And is the next sentence still correct? (I'm not sure, but maybe I overlooked something):
"According to the RIVM, mortality from other causes is also increased among people who have only had the basic series, at least after 6-10 months".
Subtly different but perhaps more accurate: "according to the RIVM, mortality from other causes is also higher among people who have only had the basic series, at least after 6-10 months".
– and then this one: "Under the age of 50, the risk of death even doubles as without vaccination." It looks like 6 boxes are 75% and not 100%. Simple correction: "Under the age of 50, the risk of death is almost twice as high as without vaccination."
Hopefully you can do something with this. I will continue to read your posts with great appreciation.
Almost everything carried out, thanks Harald!
1) 2) 4) 5) adopted
3) changed to "it seems to increase the chance".
"That assumption may be incorrect for younger age groups" – RIVM's dot graphs also show one from 12-49 years old. I think that is why the text can stand. But the causality has not been proven, so it does seem to be 'increased'.
6) "75% and not 100%" – the value there is 94%. But I have added "almost".
> 1. The repeat vaccination is useless, you will get sick anyway.
> Counter-argument: With a repeat vaccination, the risk of hospitalisation is lower than for people who have only had the basic series.
You try to label this as "disinformation". Then I expect a strong argument, but putting forward that table makes no sense. The "first shot" situation will no longer apply to almost anyone anyway, and they do not claim at all in this piece that the first shot reduces the risk. Their statement is actually substantiated by the smaller OR at 2+ doses.
The higher risk of a positive test is a negative side, but as long as the risk of admission and mortality is lower (according to the tables) you cannot say that their counter-argument is disinformation.
De referentie naar de eerste studie geeft: “A second booster dose within this study period of 24 weeks would have been unlikely to provide additional protection against severe illness except perhaps among immunocompromised populations, who may have received a benefit as early as 50 days after the first booster dose.â€
Dat is interessant, echter in hoeverre is dit te veralgemeniseren? “the boosted study population comprised predominantly White men†=> oeps.
You have a point. I had lost sight of the fact that this specific point was about repeat vaccinations. The fact that boosters/repeat vaccinations also weaken is not apparent from that table. I removed the entire piece. If something becomes known about that (later), I will keep an eye on it.
I'll add that of those "predominantly white men", that will reassure 😉 women and people of color
Thank you for your feedback.
Thank you for your explanation! I will respond here on a somewhat higher level of abstraction than what I would most like. That's because it makes me so incredibly angry. What I would prefer to write is punishable by law, so I won't. I think I can write that I would like to write things in that category.
It is so horrible that a huge civil service hand in hand with the pharmaceutical industry, hand in hand with non-objective 'experts' always want to persuade us to take that unhealthy shot. They abuse their power, they sow fear and close the ranks to lie together. Data is hidden away, it is really unbelievable. Cool country Rutte. And what I hope so much is that one day that will be seen as extremely punishable. And that there will be really harsh and severe punishments for these criminals. There are so many by the way, where on earth should you leave them, those guys. Maybe all of them are required to vaccinate and booster yourself. I bet there are a lot of secretly still vaccine clean themselves. The comparison with 1789, the storming of the Bastille comes to mind. If the elite drives you to despair and seriously abuses its power, then you will have to do something at some point, right? Well what a situation, unprecedented. Suddenly I also think of that old hit: "you can't run away anymore, I wouldn't know how". I have been trying to figure out for myself for a long time where on earth you can go. Well the sad fact is: I really wouldn't know, I can't think of a country on earth, that's not normal, is it? No way. Unimaginable, right? In two to three years, I have slipped from reasonably successful entrepreneur to refugee. Because yes: I am in the process of leaving the country. Poe how intense right. Apologies for the emotional charge but it is there, but I have tried to keep it very neat.
Totally agree!
The worst thing is, at least that's what I'm afraid of, that it will be decades before that day will come when they will have to be held accountable.
This business is so big, and so many people have a lot of butter on their heads, and there are still so many simpletons who take everything for granted. There is no beginning.
I take into account the possibility that only a new generation will be able to muck out this Augean stable.
You saw that, for example, in Indonesia 1945 – 1949, the 'police actions'. It took at least twenty years before anyone dared to say that there were no 'excesses' taking place there, but war crimes. And then the responsible ministers and generals were now demented old men.
The above does not mean that I accept these matters. I fight for what I'm worth, and I support everyone who does the same.
And to think that in the year 2020, 9 billion was already invested in advertising campaigns for Corona. That only increased after that. With the effect of the vaccines, or measures in mind, I know of many areas where that money could have been better spent.
I myself had omicron in April of this year as an unvaccinated person (I am skeptical as a diabetic because there is a (small) chance that it is due to childhood vaccinations) and I was able to work just because of that. I did take my rest and take supportive vitamins D and C. I now have a cold again and that could just be omicron again. For the "believers" among us: I'm glad I didn't take a vaccine. My body can do it just fine on its own despite (nota bene) underlying suffering.
It seems as if the government is so deep in this quagmire that they don't know a way back and the only way is to go any further. No matter how many victims it may cost