Letter from academics to the unvaccinated
A group of Canadian researchers recently published a letter to support those who have decided not to accept the covid-19 vaccine. Control of our bodily integrity may be the last frontier in the fight for the protection of civil liberties, they say. Interview with Dr. Claus Rinner, one of the authors.
The strategy of establishing the mandatory nature of vaccination against covid-19 or the implementation of coercive methods only increase the distrust of the population in these products, which at the moment raise more questions than certainties. Even the World Health Organization (WHO) itself warned about this reality and announced last week that it does not adhere to the obligation of inoculation in any country and clarified that vaccines are not enough in the fight against coronavirus since they must be combined with measures to stop contagions.
In the framework of a fierce campaign in which it is intended to convey that only with the vaccination of all people will we be able to get out of this crisis, now the ailing global health entity clarified that immunizers are only “one of the various tools that we have in our lives. hands “to fight disease. But, given the multiple ups and downs to which he has us accustomed, we do not know if this will sustain him tomorrow.
Meanwhile, in Argentina, the Minister of Health Carla Vizzotti assured in recent days that the national government does not rule out the development of a regulation that favors those who decided to receive the coronavirus vaccine. While the head of the Argentine Industrial Union (UIA) Daniel Funes de Rioja was the target of criticism after his inconceivable statement that companies may consider eliminating the dispensation for workers who decide not to inoculate and, given the impossibility of incorporating them in the workplace, evaluate “stop their remuneration.”
The urgency of dealing with these and other types of pressures recently led a group of Canadian academics to write an open letter in support of those who have decided not to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. “Deciding not to apply the vaccine is to leave room for reason, transparency and responsibility to emerge,” emphasize the authors, who emphasize the voluntary nature of this medical treatment as well as the need for informed consent and individual risk-benefit assessment.
“The control of our bodily integrity may be the last frontier in the fight for the protection of civil liberties” , say the signatories Angela Durante, Denis Rancourt; Claus Rinner; Laurent Leduc; Donald Welsh; John Zwaagstra; Jan Vrbik and Valentina Capurri, all of them doctors in different disciplines.
The letter was posted on the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) website days before the Canadian government announced that it intends to make covid vaccinations mandatory throughout the federal public administration. and that it will require all passengers on commercial airplanes, interprovincial trains and cruise ships to be fully vaccinated no later than October. The text -which we transcribe below- highlights the importance of unity and mutual support among those who have made the decision not to inoculate:
You’re not alone! As of July 28, 2021, 29% of Canadians have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 and an additional 14% have received a dose. In the United States and the European Union, less than half the population is fully vaccinated, and even in Israel, the “world’s laboratory” according to Pfizer, a third of people are still not fully vaccinated.
Politicians and the media have taken a uniform viewpoint, making the unvaccinated scapegoats for the problems that have arisen after eighteen months of scaremongering and lockdowns. It’s time to clear things up.
It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say “no” to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have the right to assert the guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatment if you consider it appropriate. You have the right to say “no” to a violation of your dignity, your integrity and your bodily autonomy. It is your body and you have the right to choose. You have the right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination at school.
You are right to wonder if free and informed consent is possible in the current circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced dysregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harms are unknown as reporting of adverse effects is late, incomplete and inconsistent across jurisdictions. You are the target of the media, government social engineering campaigns, unfair rules and policies, collaborative employers, and the social media mafia.
You are told that you are the problem now and that the world cannot return to normal unless you get vaccinated. Propaganda turns you into a vile scapegoat and others pressure you. Remember that there is nothing wrong with you.
You are inaccurately accused of being a factory for new variants of SARS-CoV-2, when in reality, according to leading scientists, your natural immune system generates immunity against multiple components of the virus. This favors your protection against a wide range of viral variants and cancels the spread to anyone else.
You are justified in demanding independent peer-reviewed studies, not funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies. All short-term safety and efficacy peer-reviewed studies have been funded, organized, coordinated, and supported by these for-profit companies; And none of the study data has been made public or available to researchers who do not work for these companies.
You are right to question the results of the preliminary vaccine trials. The claimed high relative efficacy values are based on a small number of dimly determined “infections”. Furthermore, the studies were not blinded, as the people giving the injections knew or could deduce whether they were injecting the experimental vaccine or the placebo. This is not an acceptable scientific methodology for vaccine trials.
You are right when you ask for a diversity of scientific opinions. As in nature, we need a polyculture of information and its interpretations. And we don’t have that now. Deciding not to get the vaccine is to leave room for reason, transparency and responsibility to emerge. You are right to ask, “What comes next when we give up authority over our own bodies?” Don’t be intimidated.
You are showing resilience, integrity, and courage. You are coming together in your communities, making plans to help each other, and upholding scientific responsibility and freedom of expression, which are necessary for society to prosper. We are among the many who support them.
FEAR AND STUPIDITY
“We are a small group of academics from the region, here in Ontario, Canada, who have written opinion columns in newspapers about the need to reuse the scientific method properly, to assess the risks and benefits of the disease itself. same, look way more scientific the subject of transmission and proportionality of the threat, and many other aspects , “ he explained in an interview with La Prensa Dr. Claus Rinner , professor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University de Ryerson and one of the signatories of the open letter, when asked about the reason that led them to write it.
“Then we saw that something else had to be done and Angela Durante had the idea of writing something to support those who decided not to get vaccinated yet or never do it, due to the pressure that everyone is living socially from family, friends, employers, from the media … “ , added the academic, who since the” pandemic “was declared has turned his analysis into a personal blog and two books ( ” The Coronoia Blogbook “ and ” The Coronoia reloaded “ ).
– To what do you attribute that there is such pressure worldwide for people of all ages to get vaccinated, even when vaccine trials have not been completed, and that even groups that were not included in the vaccines are being encouraged to get vaccinated? studies, such as pregnant women or children?
– It’s a mystery. I don’t believe in theories of a powerful planned pandemic and that sort of thing, although it’s getting harder and harder not to believe in that. But I still think it’s fear and stupidity among decision makers and a little bit of opportunism, maybe. It seems to me that the public health doctors and politicians who are pushing the vaccination campaign truly believe that it is the best option.
– What role does the economic factor play?
– It is obvious that there are profit interests behind the pharmaceutical industry. And it is rare that this is not questioned more by journalists or politicians, in particular right-wing politicians, but ultimately it seems to me that it is not very different from other industries that are driving or trying to boost their profits. It is understandable at a certain point, but because it affects our body, it has more impact and is more problematic and should be more scrutinized by journalists, for example.
– The main messages of the pro vaccination campaign against covid are that these vaccines save lives and that it is an act of social responsibility to be immunized. But, far from being irresponsible who does not get vaccinated, your letter suggests that it might even be wise not to. Is that so?
– I cannot speak from a medical perspective, but I can speak from a logical perspective. I have reviewed the trial documents, the vaccine authorizations in Canada and the United States, and I have read scientific literature, for example on the endpoints in vaccine trials or the purpose of these trials. The vaccines were tested for a reduction in symptomatic covid and the case was counted as a positive PCR test along with a couple of these normal symptoms for a cold, which were reduced after vaccination. The vaccines were found to have an effect on disease reduction but were not even tested to determine if they prevented or reduced transmission between people, they were not tested to see if they reduce the infection itself. It was also not tested whether there were fewer people testing positive, so there were many things that the trials did not even attempt to answer and now seem to be being used to force vaccination. That is simply irrational. It bothers me a bit that people who seem to be rational, who think normally, now get carried away by their fear without understanding simple logic.
Also Read: Battaglia promises a soccer revolution in Boca
– You mentioned in the texts of your blog that every life counts and that this must include those who died from causes associated with vaccination. Are you trying to hide these dead?
– It is very difficult to determine whether an adverse effect – fatal, serious or mild – is actually associated with the vaccine. Therefore, I understand when the media says that it is not known if all these reports of adverse effects are valid or not. But the reports are, for example in the VAERS of the United States, and they are the official way in which the government asks the medical community to report alleged adverse effects. They say this cannot be taken at face value for analysis, but it should be used to raise red flags or safety concerns. There are over one hundred thousand, maybe two or three hundred thousand reported side effects and some of them serious. So it is obvious that there are many red flags that need to be investigated further. Are they being investigated? I’m not sure. The current number of reports is high enough to ask some questions that need to be investigated. There have been some answers, but one of them was to put the risk of myocarditis as one more item in the list of possible adverse effects in the vaccine labeling. It seems to me that this is not enough.
-What do you think have been the big mistakes made in the name of the pandemic so far?
– I trust some of the doctors and health scientists who are critical of this situation and, based on that, I must say that the use of PCR tests seems illogical. It is obviously not suitable for detecting infection in the sense of someone who is sick. It detects the virus whether the person is sick or the virus is simply there present as a leftover from an infection that has already been cured. Everything else starts from that test. Many of the hospitalizations were not due to the covid but when the virus was detected it was counted as a case of covid, the same happened with the deaths, surely. I understand that if a test like that were used for another virus we could create the same scenario because one will find things in the body that will be scary.
– Has the covid-19 meant the death of science?
– I am quite surprised and somewhat disappointed with science. It is difficult to say if it is about science itself or how it is being communicated and used because even in the medical literature if you look for studies on covid and, for example, the use of masks, although you will find those that endorse the use of masks you will also find studies that do not find its usefulness. So I think the science is still working. Being optimistic, it is not science but how science is translated into public knowledge in the media and in political decisions. There are scientists in these roles who say that there are no doubts about both issues, but that is not possible. Science never settles, science asks questions and it should be asking more questions.
– If a friend or relative asked you for advice about the convenience of getting vaccinated against COVID, what would you say?
– I am not a doctor but as a thinking academic I would be concerned about the unknown long-term safety of vaccines, I would also be concerned about short-term adverse effects given that the risk-benefit calculation for most people, especially young people , shows that there is no benefit that outweighs those risks. The risks are very low, based on the numbers, but the benefits are too. Therefore, I would advise to wait and see.