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) urgently warns us that we need a remedy and remains uncorrected. These cannot be called 'inaccuracies' or 'mistakes' because with the multi-billion budgets available to the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport you can assume that they are on top of the latest developments and ensure correct government communication. They deliberately do not tell the (complete) truth. That's lying. And in a way that you can later blame a TV doctor, just as the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport has been hiding behind the misconceptions of advisors 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: "het vaccin voorkomt wél dat je ernstig ziek wordt"
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 one advocate, this 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: "Met een herhaalprik is het risico op ziekenhuisopname kleiner dan bij mensen die alleen de basisserie hebben gehad."
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: "Een hogere leeftijd is trouwens niet het enige risico om ernstig ziek te worden. [...] ...iedereen vanaf 12 jaar krijgt de gelegenheid om een herhaalprik te halen."
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: "dat je eerder geen corona hebt gekregen, wil niet zeggen dat je niet alsnog heel erg ziek kan worden... "
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: "...Ook omdat de bescherming van een eerdere vaccinatie na verloop van tijd afneemt."
Dat de bescherming van eerdere vaccinaties afneemt en na verloop van tijd negatief wordt, waardoor je kwetsbaarder bent dan ongevaccineerden, dat is wel degelijk een feit, ook volgens het rivm (Figuur 4a hieronder, bij punt 4). Het is nog de vraag of je daardoor levenslang om de paar maanden moet blijven prikken of dat het immuunsysteem zichzelf weet te herstellen. Het zal toch ook weer "echte" andere virussen moeten leren verwerken.
VWS: "Je kunt niets merken van de ene coronavariant en van de andere ontzettend ziek worden."
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 weten dat de antistoffen langzaam teruglopen. En dat hierdoor de kans om ernstig ziek te worden na verloop van tijd weer oploopt."
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. In my opinion, anyone who keeps such a product on the market is not doing the right thing.
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.
We zien in beide bovenste grafieken ook weer na ca. 20 weken een negatieve vaccin effectiviteit tegen Covid-19, dit in tegenstelling tot de degenen met alleen natuurlijke infectie in grafiek F. De natuurlijke afweer wordt dus in de war geschopt door vaccinatie. "Langzaam teruglopende antistoffen" is het understatement van het jaar.
You often hear: 'The booster should only be administered six months after the basic injections' and 'The repeat injection works 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 weten uit onderzoek dat mensen die een infectie hebben doorgemaakt én een vaccinatie hebben gehaald beter beschermd zijn dan mensen die alleen corona hebben gehad of alleen een vaccinatie hebben gekregen."
Zoals we hierboven hebben gezien wordt bescherming van natuurlijke infectie juist afgebroken door latere vaccinatie. Ook deze bewering is dus niet waar - althans het strookt in elk geval niet met andere, internationale onderzoeken. Het rivm laat in hun "New reporting" de ongevaccineerden gemakshalve buiten beschouwing. Dat maakt het verhaal eenvoudiger: boosters doen het beter dan alleen de basisserie, herhaalprikken doen het beter dan boosters. De ongevaccineerden zien we niet meer in de vergelijkingen terug. Misschien doen die het wel verrassend goed. Dat klopt dan wel met de verklaring dat elke opvolgprik de schade van de vorige moet herstellen.
VWS: "Het is daarom ook voor mensen die eerder een infectie hebben doorgemaakt nog steeds belangrijk om zich te laten vaccineren. De reden hiervoor is dat het coronavirus muteert waardoor we toch weer ziek kunnen worden."
This is also not correct (note: this is government communication!) Especially when the coronavirus mutates, vaccinations work less well than broader natural immunity. The 'leaky' vaccines stimulate the mutations. It is also becoming increasingly clear that the immune system will respond incorrectly, at least to variants. I even heard Maarten Keulemans explain this principle on BNR Nieuwsradio.
VWS: "Slechts een heel klein deel van de bevolking reageert allergisch op het vaccin. Dat geldt ook voor de vernieuwde vaccins. De verschillen tussen de spike-eiwitten zijn beperkt."
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 is in blood and immune system-related disorders. There are also other systemic disorders: neurological, musculoskeletal, organ damage. Diverting the topic 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: "Op die manier [met vaccinaties] kan een opleving van het coronavirus mogelijk worden afgeremd."
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: "Vergelijk het met een veiligheidsgordel in de auto."
Zullen we de risico's van vaccinatie dan ook maar vergelijken met een veiligheidsgordel? Hoeveel mensen zijn er ziek of overleden door de bijwerkingen van een veiligheidsgordel? We hebben serieuze vaccins NOOIT EERDER vergeleken met een "veiligheidsgordel die je elke keer om moet doen".
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 moeten onze afweer blijven trainen"
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 for every mutant across the world's population. The injection 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 endemic status. No dear mother can help with that. The best training for your immune system consists of exercise, socializing, eating and sleeping well, walking, getting to know new viruses, swimming, climbing stairs, cycling, sun, being outside, etc. Some believe in a bracelet, a vibrating plate or an injection. That saves a lot of hassle...
VWS: "Het is ontzettend belangrijk om de prik te blijven herhalen om ernstige ziekte te voorkomen."
Hier wordt compleet voorbij gegaan aan het feit dat we voor de bekende 'echte' vaccins ook niet elk half jaar of zelfs elk kwartaal een prik hoefden te halen. De injecties zijn dan wel als vaccins aangeprijsd, maar de belangrijkste overeenkomst is de naald in de bovenarm. Verder lijken ze er niet op. Dagelijkse en jaarlijkse confrontaties met virussen worden over het algemeen uitstekend gepareerd door ons immuunsysteem. Dat mag daarbij weleens geholpen of voorbereid worden, op voorwaarde dat de natuurlijke werking intact blijft en de interventie zonder risico is. Wat die niet genoemde risico's betreft begin ik dan ook te twijfelen: "the benefits outweigh the risks"... Over welke termijn hebben we het dan eigenlijk?
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.”
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