See video excerpt embedded above
Fuławka, K., Hertwig, R. & Pachur, T. COVID-19 vaccine refusal is driven by deliberate ignorance and cognitive distortions. npj Vaccines 9, 167 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-024-00951-8
This is among the most dangerous articles ever published because (by using cherry-picked pro-vaccine data which overemphasizes the benefits and fails to mention the ultimate risks of vaccination) the authors/journal have created the illusion that anyone who does not enthusiastically accept these "vaccines" is deliberately ignorant and has "cognitive distortions" rendering them intellectually incompetent: this conclusion will be used to enforce mandatory vaccination. No mention of vitamin D, ivermectin, NAC, zinc, etc, thereby strategically limiting the range of options.
Summary of their biased strategy: 1) exaggeration of vaccine benefits, 2) underrepresentation of vaccine harms/risks, 3) zero mention of legitimate and proven options such as vitaminD, ivermectin, NAC.
This is propaganda-driven "research" to condemn anyone who has a differing perspective. The legitimate form of research would have been to present the risks and benefits of "vaccinations" vs vitamin D vs ivermectin vs NAC and zinc (etc) in a blinded manner to allow fair evaluation of the data. Instead, the authors/journal cherry-picked pro-vaccine data to create the illusion that any dissent is illogical.
An important part of the globalist agenda is to convert your "free speech" and nonpropagandized perspective into "hate speech" or "misinformation" or "disinformation" so they will have the excuse to censor, fine, or imprison anyone who disagrees with them.
The authors/journal cherry-picked pro-vaccine data and completely ignored any and all alternatives but then called this "all of the evidence" that could be considered.
The authors use the term "unvaccinated" on one occasion but without defining what that term means, let alone clarifying that in many instances patients were considered "unvaccinated" for the first 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine in order to avoid proper attribution of injuries and deaths to the vaccine. In other situations, people were classified as "unvaccinated" if they had not received 2-3 boosters, etc.
The authors make the grave mistake of using advertisements and propaganda from drug companies as the “truth” and “evidence standard” from which “rational decisions” are to be made—the “proper conclusion” would be complete and enthusiastic agreement with drug company advertisements—even when such “evidence” is obviously biased and has already proven to be inaccurate; for example, the AstraZenca vaccine has already been withdrawn from the market due to adverse effects, even though the company stated that the withdrawal was for reasons of inefficacy.
The authors make extensive and superfluous use of computer-generated graphs, charts, and equations to in an attempt to make their argument appear convincing and scientific; but the facts remain that their core data is flawed because they 1) provided biased and unbelievable information to the participants, 2) under-represented the risks, and 3) provided no comparator, ie, no other option to which their supposed “analysis” of decision-making could be assessed.
The authors/journal systematically 1) underrepresented the risks of the Covid vaccines, 2) exaggerated the benefits, 3) completely failed to discuss reasonable and clinically proven alternatives, then concluded that anyone who does not agree with their biased information is intellectually defective, scientifically illiterate, and incapable or unwilling to make informed decisions, thereby warranting overriding of resistance, ie, justification for mass forced vaccination.
See video excerpt embedded above
Share this post