Skip to content

Why I am (still) not getting vaccinated

 

Support us Click here

Getting sick from coronavirus can result in a serious course of illness and even death. Several studies have shown the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing serious illness and largely preventing hospitalization. So why not get vaccinated?

The answer is as clear as it is unequivocal:

Whether or not to vaccinate is a personal medical consideration

This article is a follow-up to Why I don't get vaccinated (yet)

It is a personal medical choice and you should therefore be well informed before getting vaccinated. It is difficult to understand the reason why this is so poorly understood by a majority of fellow citizens, media, medics and policy makers. The moral blackmail and peer pressure to vaccination is enormous, while group immunity has been abandoned and we now accept that the virus remains among us. So why the pressure to vaccinate? The narrative (story) used from government and media appears to be particularly one-sided.

So below are the reasons why - in my case - I am (still) not getting vaccinated:

1. You do it for yourself

After steadily scaling up the desired vaccination rate, it appears that group immunity can be abandoned. Because the coronavirus will not disappear, mass vaccination does not make sense for that reason. Besides the fact that complete vaccination of the total world population is not feasible (after all, it is a pandemic), it also does not work because the vaccines do not protect 100%. So even with a 100% vaccination coverage worldwide the virus continues to exist, people get sick and continue to monitor infections. However, vaccination can reduce serious illness, hospitalization and death. And so you do that for yourself. This eliminates the very argument for mass vaccination.

Books | Publisher City on a Mountain

Incidentally, therefore, vaccinated people (to a lesser extent equally) 'contagious' (contagious is an ugly word to indicate that the virus can still be passed on). So also the reasoning that you can only work (for example in health care) if you are vaccinated is not valid and even counterproductive; we desperately need our health care personnel. Everyone. And this brings us to something that already has been discussed: if you have symptoms, stay home. Just like with flu. Healthy people do not need to be vaccinated to be considered healthy. In addition, it is expected that a large part of the population already has natural immunity, and is therefore also protected. Correct: protected is; and therefore not: protection gives. For although virus transmission can be dangerous in a certain group (with reduced immune response), it can be transmitted by both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

2. Risks of coronavirus.

Because vaccination is a personal consideration you will need to make a personal risk assessment. In general, you could say that the younger and healthier you are, the less likely you are to get serious illness. As previously written the statistical probability of serious illness with my age and circumstances is 0.034% and the probability of death is 0.0016%. In terms of circumstances, in addition to any underlying disease and living conditions, I am referring to things such as, for example the greater risk in the city because of air pollution where research by Oxford has shown a greater likelihood of serious illness. All the more reason to stay rural :).

But even if you assume singularly the hospital admissions in the Netherlands, it turns out that this in the group of unvaccinated people aged between 30 and 49 years has never been more than 1 in 75,000 from that group per day (The meager research of the RIVM). For children (without underlying disease), the risk is completely decimated to virtually nothing.

3. Risks of vaccination

We must remember that vaccination is about a prescription medicine with accompanying leaflet regarding use and side effects. That is, you have to weigh the risk of serious illness against the risks of vaccination. The Lareb has now 514 reports of death recorded after vaccination. This seems quite conservative, according to what reported should be relative to what actually reported is. Thus all adverse events and deaths after vaccination should be reported (even if they are not attributable to the vaccine) to identify trends. For example, the BOPC2020 already received double the number of reports compared to the Lareb.

Because the serious risks of vaccination by age group are not sufficiently known to me, it is difficult to contrast them with the risk of corona. But there is a risk of serious side effects and death from the vaccine. What risks these are varies by type and brand of vaccine and by target group (age, gender). We are talking about short-term risks. This is because the vaccines have been on the market for a relatively short time and all phase 3 studies will continue for several years before there is a final approval of the vaccines. This is also desirable because you want to know the (medium-) long-term effects. In spite of the fact that media this trivialize we simply do not know yet what the risks may be. There are, however more and more international studies (references episode 1, under "Vaccines") that provide evidence that the risks are greater than initially portrayed.

4. Natural Immunity

But in addition to vaccination, there is also natural immunity. And because current vaccines only activate your immune system based on the spike protein, it is (5 to 7 times) better acquire natural immunity against the entire virus. In addition, this potentially provides lifelong protection, where as with a vaccine less than one year concern. See, for example. this listing of scientific studies confirming protection by natural immunity.

5. Treatment

There are now more than 30 pharmaceutical (medication) interventions that show a positive effect with respect to early treatment and treatment for serious illness (See references episode 1, under "Pharmaceutical Interventions"). Only a very limited number of medications are temporary (1 year) approved. The now patent-free and inexpensive Ivermectin seems to be a very good contender (and is used, for example, in Japan deployed). Why then are these not an alternative to vaccines in the Netherlands and even under penalty of fine (€150,000!) and with the chance of betrayal by the pharmacy prohibited? And why this fine and manner of acting when every physician will act according to the Hippocratic Oath to the best for the patient? The answer seems to lie herein: vaccines receive (conditional) approval only when there are no better treatment options. Approval of well-acting medications would thus eliminate approval of vaccines. Vaccines in which billions have been invested, on which most measures have been grafted, and on which there is a global lobby. Sounds like a conspiracy theory? These are verifiable data on which scientists and connoisseurs of geopolitics have also commented.

6. Changes

Where it's not waiting or the virus will become immune to the vaccine, but when, natural immunity is much less affected by this. Possibly the virus even mutates faster because of vaccination. This means that with vaccination you will always be behind the times (we are now 15,000 mutations further than what the current vaccine is based on). This seems to me to be an argument for letting natural immunity prevail (more). In addition, it means that with vaccination you are probably signing up for multiple doses. The first booster shots are already being given. And that's only because of the decrease in effectiveness; not based on modification of the virus/vaccine. Even satire is not funny anymore, because it cannot keep up with reality.

7. Measures

Vaccinating does not help end the coronavirus. Does vaccinating help to then lift the measures and return to normal life? That seems to be the promise. Actually, isn't it very strange to include this as a topic in this listing about vaccination? Strange; because it does not involve a medical reason. Taking the vaccine in order to 'dance with Janssen', to go on vacation or to get rid of measures is at odds with everything we normally consider when it comes to medical procedures. There is something alienating about peer pressure to get vaccinated 'so the stores can open again'. Are there really people who think this way? I did get vaccinated before a trip abroad. That was for myself; to not get sick with tropical diseases. But to get vaccinated for something in which I myself have no health benefit and I also don't have to do it for the health of others?

And that's where the monkey comes in: the real fight against the pandemic does not concern the virus but from measures taken by governments and agencies against the spread of the virus. It appears that we have not taken the proper measures (think counteract aerosols) and that the measures taken have not been shown to be effective (consider the curfew and mouthguards). Also, for similar countries/demographics with and without measures, it appears that measures taken no difference at all make.

8. Relieve hospital care

And this reason too is not a personal medical reason: we could vaccinate to relieve hospital care and keep ICUs empty. This is so that regular care can continue and the hospital is not full of "unvaccinated corona patients. However, this is crazy: care is scaled down and still government is not committed to scaling up. The virus will not disappear and even vaccinated people can still end up in the hospital (albeit to a lesser extent). The virus also appears to be becoming more contagious, but less deadly. Is it permissible to vaccinate the entire population because care will not be scaled up? In addition, the government's commitment is always based on the number of infections and not at all on the increase of 'corona beds in health care'. Solving a policy and financial issue with a medical intervention? It strikes me as downright bizarre.

9. In Perspective

We must not forget that corona is a virus among many viruses and diseases. It is not the most dangerous disease today. On the top of the list is still dementia. In addition, lifestyle is very important in preventing disease in general, corona in particular. In addition, the numbers surrounding corona are difficult to interpret. For example, I hear first and second hand that anyone who dies with a positive PCR test is a 'corona dead'. Do you then die from or with corona? That appears to be very unclear.

Finally, I must also mention that there is real framing going on. The mainstream media do not hear a word against this. And the figures are exaggerated. This is clear from the IFR that has been adjusted downwards several times by the WHO, which is common practice, but the first figures were far (!) exaggerated based on models. But also reports where the media are doing 'cherrie picking' to be able to (continue to) give off a certain sound. And here too: working with 'worst case scenarios' based on models, which almost never turn out to be correct. About numbers of deaths, about infectiousness, about hospitalizations. Take a look back at the predictions and put the actual data next to them. This is not a new strategy, by the way. I almost fell off my chair when I saw the well-known virologist van Ranst (and Ab Oosterhuis) on the subject of the swine flu this as a strategy (see from approx. 44 minutes). A fear campaign, conflict of interest and industry influence is researched by Daan de Wit and is really unbelievable. As well as the role of the mdia at the time. History repeats itself. This is not an urban legend or conspiracy theory. This is apparently simply how it works in our society.

Conclusion

Where the government - and in its wake the media - call for - and give a platform to - polarization and medical apartheid I want to end this blog as I began: getting vaccinated is a personal medical consideration. There may be good reasons to switch to vaccination, there may be good trade-offs for not doing so. Let's not take each other to task over this.

One final comment: If you are not vaccinated and get sick, is it your own fault? Do you have to pay for it yourself? Because you had the chance to prevent it! Well, along those lines: if you go skiing and you break your leg. Should you then pay for the hospital costs yourself? If you smoke and you get lung cancer? If you are overweight because of lifestyle and therefore suffer from diabetes? If you go on vacation and you cause a car accident there?

I can get particularly excited about the above comments. Many things in life are a risk trade-off. Life can be lived deliberately, but not without risk. That is what we have set up a social system for which I also contribute. In doing so, I contribute to things I don't agree with: most measures, including the closing of the middle class. After all, I contribute financially through taxes to support measures. And the worst one: I don't agree at all with the mass vaccination policy and mouth guard requirement. So much money has gone into that, but I'm paying for it. So should I then also start paying for access and my own healthcare costs? I would say that the one who claims that should be ashamed of himself. That is the decadence and superior solidarity that Orwell described in Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

nv-author-image

Erwin de Ruiter

"One man tries to express himself in books, another in boots; both are likely to fail." - G.K. Chesterton

4 thoughts on “Waarom ik me (nog steeds) niet laat vaccineren”

  1. Thank you for your effort Erwin, to put it in such a structured and substantiated way. Just read the piece on swine flu by Daan de Wit. What is different now I wonder? Cautious answer: big pharma now has almost everyone in its pocket. In any case, all institutions.

    1. Thanks for reading Jeroen! Daan de Wit has done a fine job with his investigative journalism. My two cents (besides a 'Schwabian' motivated ideology): A vaccine is the only pharmaceutical treatment that can be sold to healthy people. And financial gain, historically speaking, often turns out to be a strong motive anyway 😉 .

Leave a comment

en_USEnglish