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
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’).
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.”
It was bleedingly obvious that an experimental “vaccine” wasn’t needed for a virus that killed only half as many as a bad flu season and known cures were available but demonised to pave the legal way for the experimental “vaccine’s” rollout.
There are both authoritarian and religious trait expressions running throughout what we call "human nature."
When the two traits are both expressed strongly within any individual, the result is what we see with the "Branch Covidians." Either trait, by itself, may not invariably correlate with dishonesty and compulsion, but together they can be deadly.
Years before the Covid debacle, I first encountered someone that made me aware of this dynamic.
I'd always considered inoculation a very helpful intervention, but was agnostic about any particular compound. If it can be demonstrated to be safe, I reasoned, it'll be a very good thing, but if not, it mustn't be ingested. I had no interest in the "anti-vax movement."
An extremely erudite acquaintance aroused my curiosity with a vitriolic diatribe about Andrew Wakefield, a name I'd heard but knew nothing about. On a whim, I did a shallow dive into the anti-vax literature and discovered several very interesting things.
The first was that there is a spectrum ranging from "maybe we should space the childhood injections a bit farther apart and maybe not combine so many different vaccine products in one large dose," all the way to "they're all pure poison!"
The second thing I discovered was that what made Wakefield such a pariah was that he questioned the combination of vaccines and argued that keeping them separated and spaced apart would provide more accurate safety and efficacy signals. His mortal sin appears to have been calling for more research.
These two discoveries made me curious enough to seek out the data. Remember that this was years before Covid.
When I saw that people die from vaccine uptake in statistically small percentages, I thought to myself that those who died or were injured had made a great sacrifice for the common good. They should be honored by those of us who are helped by vaccines, I felt, and remembered for their sacrifice. Bless them for their service to humanity, was my general sentiment.
When I shared this sentiment with my very learned acquaintance in a publicly-viewable forum, I was met with walls of type, each one ignoring my "should we honor those who gave their lives for us?" question and going on and on and on about "safe and effective," "insignificant numbers of injuries" and other imprecise assertions.
Finally, I argued my interlocutor into a corner and received an admission that any acknowledgement of any death or injury would "fuel vaccine hesitancy."
I mentioned feeling and sentiment above. The feeling was sadness and the sentiment was gratitude, but neither of those are facts. This led to my next discovery, which is the factual part.
I had assumed informed consent, which led to my considering the dead and injured to be a bit on the heroic side, but it tuns out that they were not heroes, they were victims. All they were ever told was "safe and effective." One supposes they died in ignorance and confusion.
My acquaintance was in an influential position. He knew much more about all of these things than I did, and it became obvious to me that I was not having a friendly conversation and frank exchange of ideas, I was confronting a religious faith expressed in an authoritarian fashion.
There were no lengths to which he would not go to prevent informed consent. I found the extremism rather shocking, until I began to look around and realized that it was common among the "experts;" none of them would accept the free will of the masses of people. Everything they uttered about "democracy" and "human rights" was tainted by their authoritarian religious belief in a word. That word is "vaccine."
Anyone familiar with the story of Pavlov's dogs and Skinner's rats has a notion of what adaptive learning is all about. With the vaccine faithful, it requires neither bell nor electric shock to trigger a programmed response. All that is required is a spoken or printed exposure to the magic word.
Now scale my acquaintance upward and across his cohort, the highly educated and influential, and you have the current scenario of kicking dead people to the curb, spitting on their lifeless bodies as they are stepped over and brushed aside on the way to another round of hand-waving "safe and effective!" media circuses.
Fast-forward to the gene expression therapeutics upon which have been bestowed the magic word. My acquaintance is a fundamentally decent person and quite learned, and his vitriol is now aimed to those who are murdering thousands with their deliberate refusal to acknowledge the safety signals that emanated from VAERS and other injury reporting systems from the very beginning of the mRNA deployment. The signal overcome his religious belief and his conscience "kicked in."
The vaccine faithful do not believe in a human right to bodily autonomy or informed consent. They will obscure facts and even go so far as to utter complete falsehoods in pursuit of their authoritarian agenda. As we have observed, they will support violence and incarceration against apostates and heretics.
Ring the bell and some will salivate, apply the shock and some will cower behind the bars of their cage and refuse food, say the magic word and others will kill.
This time, they went too far.
No amnesty.