What does it say about “science” if there are such big differences from the United States around vaccinating young children?

Article overview

The opposite stories were not tolerated for the last two years. If you deviated from the dominant narrative, you were anti-scientist or worse. But how to look at the big difference in the approach to vaccinating five-year-olds in the US and here?

Read the full article: What does it say about “science” if there are such big differences with the United States around vaccinating young children?

Reading time: 6 minutes

What does it say about “science” if there are such big differences with the United States around vaccinating young children?

Another story is not possible

One of the topics that has confused me over the last two years has been how poorly the word “science” has been treated by many (professors, politicians and journalists). Because if you did not agree with the dominant story, you were called everything and everything.

I experienced this myself when, on the basis of my analyzes and assessment of the work of physicists in particular, I came to the conclusion that the virus spread differently than WHO and RIVM indicated. Namely, through the air instead of through large drops. A finding that should have major consequences for the way in which one could prevent the spread of the virus.

This article by the head of communications for the KNMG Medical Association after a debate on OP1 between Prof. Voss and me, is characteristic of that approach. I was an “anti-scientist” according to him. A line that was then followed in several media. After all, Van Dissel and OMT were “Scientists,” and if you said anything other than what they stated in their advice, then it was not science.

Gravity

The fascinating thing about it was that it was assumed that the “scientists” in the medical field would know better how droplets disperse than the scientists in the field of physics. Because the latter group immediately said (and also called it that year earlier with regard to influenza) that even a drop greater than 5 microns (the limit maintained with regard to aerosols) remained hovering for a long time. Because it was just the law of gravity. Drops in clouds are about 25 microns and they also remain liquid as we can see almost every day.

But because of that misunderstanding and – I want to say it as clearly as possible – the arrogance of many doctors with regard to their own knowledge, we were confronted with many wrong actions, which all in all have caused much more harm than it would have been . without these measures. A good example of a doctor’s refusal to know more is Minister Kuiper’s statements about hanging fenders when the ‘R’ is in the month and not shaking hands, but giving the “box” to allow for the reduction of virus transmission .

Difference in knowledge

The most penetrating way to show how big the difference in knowledge is between doctors and physicists, I found this explanation by Stephen Petty for a selection on how to protect people in indoor spaces from inhaling harmful substances. He is a specialist in the field and advises on places where people can come in contact with these harmful substances. He indicated the effect of various measures. Ventilation and air filtration were high on his list of effective measures. But he also indicated that the mouth-nose masks now being used en masse provided (almost) no protection. Only the type of equipment divers use would work then, but everything else slipped through too much.

But apparently many doctors believe that they know better and advised to use mouth cap / nasal masks, which we had to wear for a long time in indoor areas and public transport. With even the possibility that it will become mandatory in Germany between October and Easter, as @Welt writes.

Prohibited subject

One topic that was also not really allowed to be talked about for the past two years, and which was regularly removed from social media, was the possible pros and cons of vaccinating with mRNA vaccines.

While at every medical action you have to ask yourself if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages (very often the answer is “yes”), vaccination against Covid-19 was virtually banned. Although it did not (just) lead to a general vaccination obligation, much was done to prevent people from making that decision themselves. And it was done by those who chose not to be vaccinated, which made it difficult (think of the Corona Passport) and portrayed them in the media as “anti-vaxxers” or “wappies”. How dare you oppose “The Science”?

Every effort was made to make the risk of infection with the virus as serious as possible, also for young people, and to describe the risk of vaccination as (almost) non-existent.

Under 60 years

It is worth briefly looking back at what Sam Bokken (from Tegenwind) said in a Belgian talk show in February 2021 about vaccination policy. And what he said about vaccinating people under 60 against Covid-19. These reasonable statements on the grounds led to his dismissal from the folk high school where he worked and no longer worked in Belgium.

These are signs of a situation I so aptly described recently in a tweet from @DrEliDavid:

“Covid is a deadly pandemic. It killed science, logic, evidence-based medicine and common sense.”

It may not be the case that the vaccine is always the least risky choice for any age and for every coronary mutation. And yet, that’s what we’ve been hearing pretty much all along for the last 18 months. It was only at the somewhat younger ages that there was a little more discussion in the Netherlands, but the vaccine was recommended all the way down to 12 years.

And now that we have Omikron as the dominant variant, the advice is in principle still the same as when the previous variants were dominant.

Is there any other “science” in the United States?

Fortunately, people in the Netherlands have not gone so far as to strongly recommend the vaccine to children between 5 and 11 years of age.

And for some age groups and with some vaccines, the vaccine is not recommended in a number of countries. In several countries in Europe, this has long been the case with Moderna for the age groups under 30 years.

But in the United States, they are one or even two steps further. The vaccine is approved there for babies and toddlers between 6 months and 5 years.

I have read the studies and the comments on them, and it is astonishing that the health authorities, on the basis of this, have decided that for everyone in that age group, the risks outweigh the benefits.

But when I saw Rochelle Walensky, Jaap van Dissel from the USA, report yesterday that there was now a safe and effective vaccine for the youngest age group, I did not believe my own eyes. You can read what she says here and you can see it below.

Better today than tomorrow

And from the comments below, I could see that there were also quite a few parents who breathed a sigh of relief and would rather give their child the three vaccinations today than tomorrow. (Research shows that about 20% will definitely do it, and about 25% say they certainly will not).

You know what she’s doing here. She does not say that there can be small children who could benefit from it. No, she recommends that those children in that age group be vaccinated against Covid-19.

And in the FDA poll, the result was 22-0. Apparently, none of the specialists present thought it was a bad idea.

Fortunately, there is no such urgent advice in Europe. Although I see the advice to vaccinate 12-17 year olds, while now Omikron is dominant, in the same way I see this CDC director talking about the under 6 year olds.

But it shows something now that we did not see last year and were not allowed to see. That the dominant history of one country (USA) is different from the dominant history of our country. In fact, when the European position is reported on social media in the United States in response to this vaccination advice, it is widely considered “misinformation”. Florida in particular is being attacked, which was the only state that had not placed an order for the vaccine for the very young.

For apparently, “Science” in terms of vaccination against Covid-19 is something else if you live in the US or in Europe!

open debate

What Science was and should be is that there are differences in views and foundations and that there is an open debate about it. Results in a situation where a citizen, well advised by his own doctor, can form a balanced opinion. And that space is offered in the media for the different views, especially if they are expressed by people who transparently substantiate their views with data and studies.

Because the word “Science” has unfortunately been hijacked in the last two years by members of OMT and adjacent experts, and thus – often very explicitly – space for other views has been denied to third parties. Hopefully, it is not too late for our Minister of Science to acknowledge this and take steps to give science the right place again in both policy making and information to the public. Blindly following the dominant narrative (from that moment) has over the last two years proved not to be the right approach and harms science in the long run.

You just read: What does it say about “science” if there are major differences from the United States in vaccinating young children?

Follow Maurice de Hond TwitterfacebookLinkedInYoutube.

Support our site by providing independent and well-founded information. Click here for an occasional (small) donation.

Leave a Comment