Covid vaccine injury causes vaccine hesitancy - new peer reviewed paper finds the bleeding obvious
Also, reported rates of vaccine injury were much higher than expected in survey data
A new peer reviewed paper using survey data from 2, 840 US respondents has found that those who knew someone who experienced a health problem from Covid were more likely to be vaccinated, while those who knew someone who experienced a health problem following Covid vaccination were less likely to be vaccinated.
34% of respondents reported that they knew someone who had developed a significant health problem after Covid infection. 22% of respondents reported that they knew someone who had experienced a severe health problem after Covid vaccination.
The survey, which was conducted over 18-23 December 2021, captured a demographically representative sample of the general US population, and found that the impact of Covid vaccine injury is larger than the impact of Covid illness on vaccination decisions.
The role of social circle COVID-19 illness and vaccination experiences in COVID-19 vaccination decisions: an online survey of the United States population
Subscribe! Go on…
Limitations of the study include: the relatively small sample size; the fact that reported Covid illnesses and Covid vaccine adverse events are not diagnosed in a clinical setting, and self reported survey data being generally considered of lower grade than other methods of data collection.
The study was conducted at the end of 2021, not long after the peak of the Delta wave, and early on in the booster rollout. It would be interesting to revisit survey respondents now to see if the proliferation of milder Omicron variants and the uptake of multiple boosters has any impact on results.
As of 26 Jan 2023, two days after the initial publishing date, an Editor’s Note has been added to the paper:
”Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues."
The note refers to the other main finding from the survey, which was the unexpectedly high reporting rate of Covid vaccine injury and fatalities within respondents’ social networks, leading the author to conclude,
“The large difference in the possible number of fatalities due to COVID-19 vaccination that emerges from this survey and the available governmental data should be further investigated.”
Estimates from the survey indicate that through the first year of the Covid vaccination program there may be as many as 278,000 vaccine induced fatalities and up to one million severe adverse events. This was an important point for the paper to address, because, as mentioned above, the self reported survey data reflects perceptions, not clinical diagnoses. This leaves open the possibility that misinformation about Covid vaccine harms could influence people’s perceptions of random illness as being vaccine related, unless you can triangulate the survey’s findings with findings from other surveys, studies and databases. Igor Chudov has taken up this task, as below.
The author of the paper, Prof Mark Skidmore, of Michigan State University, told Dystopian Down Under,
“A number of studies which challenge the narrative that the vaccines are “safe and effective” have been retracted. I think the senior editor will receive a tremendous amount of pressure from powerful parties. I tried to be very careful in this study to only present the data and analysis in a dispassionate “just the facts” manner. It passed peer review and the managing editor approved it. Is the article perfect? No. Should it be retracted? Absolutely not. Will it be retracted? I don’t know, but it may very well be retracted.”
While Skidmore’s paper has been flagged and may well be retracted, this pile of peer reviewed garbage, by astronomer and purported bioscience entrepreneur Raymond Palmer, remains unflagged and unretracted.
Censorship of politically unfavourable papers, and promotion of papers that advance politically favourable narratives, is a big problem when you consider that many siloed Experts can’t take anything as fact until they see multiple studies confirming the fact to be so, and that these are the people driving public policy (and public perception) on basically everything.
Viki Male, an Immunologist working on pregnancy at Imperial College and Mutton Crew member, is one such Expert from whom we can draw the lesson:
It is astonishing that people would require studies to support the “theory” that a 1/800 serious adverse event rate would cause hesitancy, but some people just need it.
It will be a challenge to get this work funded and published, and to keep it published without retraction. There’s no money to be made in vaccine injury… unless you can sell a drug to treat it (ahem, Moderna’s heart injury ‘vaccine’).
Dystopian Down Under is free to read. Paid subscribers make it possible.
Postnote: Prof Mark Skidmore
Mark Skidmore is Professor of Economics and Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics at Michigan State University.
When asked why he wrote the paper that is the subject of this post, he said,
”I work on the economics of natural disasters, which include pandemics. In my former role as Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, I did a lot of work in the health arena. In addition, I know a number of people who were vaccine injured…I thought to myself if adverse events are rare, why I am I observing quite a few serious adverse events? Due to my interactions with Doctors for Covid Ethics, I was aware of the types of injuries that could occur. So it was a confluence of factors…”
Skidmore is now working on paper using data from the same survey that evaluates factors in support of (or opposition to) Covid policies such as lockdowns, vaccine mandates, digital health passports. He is also working on a paper that uses cross-country data to evaluate the degree to which access to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) helped to reduce Covid fatalities, providing evidence that HCQ saved lives.
Fascinatingly, Skidmore’s Wiki page says that, “In the spring of 2017, Skidmore discovered $21 trillion in unauthorized government spending in the United States Department of Defense's budget.”