A few weeks ago, the first reports about vaccines that are believed to be suitable for vaccinating the world's population came in, and it is of course very interesting to take a look at the press release at first and then a more detailed article about it, and then look at Pfizer's research results. This will be a Messenger RNA technique, in which not a weakened virus or something similar, which is 'old-fashioned', is injected, but in which the particle is directly constructed in such a way that it stimulates our own cellular mechanism to produce the protein that is normally produced by the virus. And then, because that protein is present in the body, the body starts to form a defense against it. This in itself is a somewhat unpleasant thought, that as a human being you are stimulated to produce a virus protein, a protein that is normally produced by the virus and that makes you so sick. One hopes then, that all this has been very well researched and undoubtedly calculated by computer technology, one wonders if this is possible, that this is done well, but anyway, that is what one finds in the description of the technique of the way the vaccination works, what it consists of, and then there is a study done I believe with 43000 persons. A part is a control group, who did not get a vaccination, but a large part has gotten that vaccination and also a boost, that is a second vaccination to get the whole system up and running. Well, the first report came in the summer, and the second in early November. And, or maybe a little further in November. But what it says then, in that press release, and that's the strange thing, I already said in one of my previous videos, that I can't understand what it says there, it says that at some point of those 43,000 people, participants in the study, 94 finally received COVID-19, after the second boost, they are then just sent home, go into life, and they get sick or they don't, and it is of course the intention that they don't get sick anymore because of that vaccination. But there were still 94 who did get sick, and with an undoubtedly complicated calculation procedure, that is 10% of the total. You can't follow how that happened, how they got to that 10%, but that will undoubtedly be through a calculation method. And then it is true, that that vaccine gives 90% protection. Well that sounds very acceptable. It was expected that the protection would be much less, but I believe Moderna, the second vaccine, even claimed 94%, but that means that of the 100 people who have been vaccinated, 10 (or 6) are still sick. And when you think back to the figures of the World Health Organization, they say well, we estimate that about 10% of the world's population eventually had that COVID-19, 10% that means that if you take 100 people from the world's population, that 10 people still get sick. And I don't see the difference. I really don't see the difference. If you've had a vaccination then 10 out of 100 people still get sick. If you don't do anything, 10 out of 100 people will get sick as well. So then you have to start thinking, yes, but if we do nothing, if we have no measures, then that number is much higher, then it is not 10%, then it is much higher and then we bring that much higher back to 10%. but the confirmed cases of COVID-19 were only 66,729,375 on December 8. That is not 780,000,000. So in fact the natural infection, the chance that you get COVID-19, is only 8 out of 1000. I also heard that the RIVM states that 98% of the population does not get COVID-19. Why vaccinate, that's the big question based on figures alone. And then I would like to assume that I'm overlooking something, and that I don't understand what this is actually about, but I find that very annoying because you have to be satisfied with a press release and also with a scientific article and when a protection of 90% is mentioned there, then it's actually about the 2% in society that gets sick anyway. Because 98% doesn't get it anyway, or doesn't suffer from it. So 2% remains, of those 100% who do get sick, you have to vaccinate 100% to protect 2% of the population, so that of that 2% only 90%, no, only 10% of the population gets sick. So the question is, what is this about? You can look at it in different ways, but whichever way you look at it, I can't figure it out, when I read those articles the big question keeps coming to me: Why vaccinate if there is only such a small disease percentage overall? Suppose it ever becomes 10%, then you have 90% of the world's population doesn't get sick. Then you would have to vaccinate all people to protect that 10%, it would be logical to look at the antibodies before vaccinating, and not vaccinate the people who already have antibodies. That might be too expensive, but that would be a logical thing, so it was done with the rubella. Once it was known that you can get a lot of misery from rubella in pregnancy, it was looked at the titers very early in pregnancy, or actually before you wanted to get pregnant, to see if you had had that as a child. Had you had that, then it was all right, had you not had it, then you were vaccinated. That seems to me to be the right way in this case, as long as it's such a small percentage of the world population that ultimately runs a risk. That's what I meant with freedom. I don't even see freedom as such that you can say: I want to be vaccinated or not. But I see freedom in understanding why you would or would not do it. If you think you understand that there are all kinds of angry intentions associated with that vaccination, you have the right to say I won't do it. If you are convinced that it is right to be vaccinated and you understand that, you think you understand, then you also have the right to say yes and then the other half of the population should not taunt you for having been vaccinated. It is the individual right of freedom that you yourself see the situation and base your actions on it. Even if you may not see it very well. That is your freedom. And now, of course, health is being dealt with. It is said yes, this is something which goes beyond the phenomenon of freedom, here we cannot take into account what people do or do not want to see, we, the state and the globality, we have agreed with each other that it is desirable for the whole world population to be vaccinated and that is sufficient motive for the citizen to follow that because it is about life and death. But then you have to come up with good arguments. Then you really have to come up with figures, of which you can prove to everyone that we are not dealing here with the most mild pandemic since 2000 years, but that we are dealing here with a life-threatening disease. That is not the case. And that is why I do not understand it, and I can of course find certain concepts behind this not understanding very well which allow me to understand it. But that is not my task, I do not feel that way, that I have to say that to you, it seems to me to be the task of everyone, of every independently thinking person, to delve well into the figures, to delve well into what exactly a vaccination is and what kind of protection it offers and to put that next to the seriousness of the pandemic et cetera et cetera. And not to blindly follow what can be read everywhere. You can follow what can be read everywhere, but you have to calculate it yourself. And you have to relate the numbers with each other. When you hear numbers of millions, then that is terrifying but when you start to see millions in relation to billions, then that is no longer terrifying at all. People simply die. For every human being there is at the end of life that great sign of the cross. For the time being we have to resign ourselves to this (death) and science, medical science will undoubtedly do what it can to make life as long as possible for each individual, but when it comes to non-medical institutions juggling with numbers then you no longer understand anything about it and then you wonder: what is going on here?
COVID-19: considerations on vaccination by Mieke Mosmuller