The health insurance company filtered their data looking for the following side effects:
- T88.0: (local) infection after vaccination
- T88.1: skin irritation after vaccination
- U12.9: non-further classified side effects after COVID19 vaccination, e.g. headache
- Y59.9: non-further classified side effects after biological active substance
and calculate 2% of the insured had side effects.
That's compared to the Paul Eichlich Instite which reports 0.3% having had side effects. The institute used a mobile app where it was optional after vaccination to self-report. I used it. There's a link in the paperwork you receive at the vaccination center. I don't know any other person who used it.
My opinion: the PEI data is probably underreported. The side effects listed here are harmless (compared to the outcry on German Twitter). Headache, skin irritation. In my family and friends almost everybody had one of the two at some point during their 3 vaccinations.
Personally I'm very fine with 2% or 5% of the population having the listed side effects. I mean, compared to what effects COVID19 has on unvaccinated body.
The insurance company could've filtered and reported severe side effects like myelitis which has classified codes, but didn't.
Their letter doesn't describe how they made the two groups comparable. They must've done something to compensate for differences in income/education/previous health. And how would they compensate for rule differences? Unvaccinated people were barred from dangerous activities such as team sports during much of the period.
If you find this interesting you may want to check out the Best Seller "The Real Anthony Fauci" [1] by Rober F. Kennedy Jr. Your jaw will likely drop while reading it. All the studies and source material is cited at the end of every chapter and you can review much of the clinical data and decide for yourself.
I quickly looked at the author's personality and think it's a guy with the heart in a good place ( he had a role against Monsanto!), but a disturbed view of the world.
I then looked at Faucci's response and he mentioned something similar as my first thoughts.
I then looked at some of the examples and they are just wack and couldn't find proof of it.
> Fauci repeatedly violated federal laws to allow his Pharma partners to use impoverished and dark-skinned children as lab rats in deadly experiments with toxic AIDS and cancer chemotherapies.
It's a heated conspiracy book of a smart person of a well known family with a somewhat turbulent personal life, who benefits from funding money against anti-vaccine measures through his foundation.
The difference is, that he's also trying to do good for the environment, which sounds kinda contradicting and hard to grasp for me. I've never seen that combination before.
The AIDS scandal is in the second half of the book. The first half is the COVID pandemic. The book goes backwards through time following Fauci's rise through government and involvement with the FDA, NIH, NIAID.
The AIDS scandal you mentioned is well documented. The BBC aired a documentary on it known as the Guinea Pig Kids [0][1][2].
I'm not disputing scandals can exist, uncorrelated to this specific case.
I'm disputing direct correlation with Faucci, which is a very different proof to give and this reasoning is highly subjective and much abused with conspiracy theories.
Even here the so called proof by the author is misleading and this was just the first one i even bothered to look up.
This was the main topic in the introduction of the book. I would expect better research instead of misleading one.
Additionally, the first result on Google is literally the site of the author's foundation.
Conspiracy theories are often based on far-fetched theories where the difference between truth and lies are misleading, similar to this example.
---
I'm sorry, but this book didn't pass the smell test.
Although I have to admit, it's a good attempt and it's been a while that I had to search for more than 5 minutes to be sure. Definitely because he actually seems to care about the environment, as mentioned before.
---
One simple trick would be ( from my POV) that the more people are required to work together for a conspiracy-theory to be successfull. The less likely it is.
Just look at the dozens of mistakes that are produced with one "unplanned live-show" orchestrated by a governement who prepared this for 8 years currently.
Those links shared weren't from the book, just a quick search to show that its not a totally fabricated scandal.
I will admit that there may be plenty of outrage, hyperbole, loose play with the facts in the book's AIDS chapters, but it does seem like a fact that (according to the book):
Children of color in the New York foster system were experimented on with a toxic drug often against there will with dubious or missing consent and consent was often granted via the foster system for children that had no parents or guardians.
That much is admitted outright and referenced in your links.
The book does take it further and cover things that don't have official documentation and includes testimony of people who worked at the facilities. Just because there is no official documentation doesn't mean we should discount the the word of the people who worked there.
But as mentioned before, it's still mostly irrelevant.
Even if the event happened, which can be possible. Blaming/Tying it to someone is a totally different thing, that would require totally different proof.
If the proof of the event already starts being doubtful within a couple of minutes of superficial checks. I don't think there is going to be anything left for tieing it to Faucci.
---
This is literally what the creator of the Vera report says when asked about the conspiracy theory of deaths:
> Tim Ross, a lead author of the Vera report, said in a phone interview that those suggesting the clinical trials were the cause of the 25 deaths were “completely misreading what we found.”
> “Our report does not support that claim,” said Ross, now the managing partner of Action Research, a child welfare research group. He noted that children who participated in such trials were “incredibly sick” before the trials.
Which seems pretty logical. People with aids then, didn't have the medical help they can have now.
I agree with your claim that placing the blame on Faucci for the AIDS scandal is unwarranted. I don't think the book makes that claim in its AIDS chapters, only that he was present during this alleged scandal.
He is a large feature of the book (perhaps for marketing?) but it also covers the history of the government health institutions associated with regulating the pharmaceutical industry.
The book is 400+ pages, too much content to summarize in a few comments on HN. I found it a fascinating read, you may as well or you may not.
To be honest. The quick smell test failed on the thing that was mentioned primarily in the book intro. I would've expected much better of this example considering that.
Checking those things constantly is exhausting on a human. We tend to get lost in the details and thereby forgetting the main issue.
And I've got plenty of other things that I need to do, considering I also read HN ( = some procrastination :p ).
The health insurance company filtered their data looking for the following side effects:
- T88.0: (local) infection after vaccination
- T88.1: skin irritation after vaccination
- U12.9: non-further classified side effects after COVID19 vaccination, e.g. headache
- Y59.9: non-further classified side effects after biological active substance
and calculate 2% of the insured had side effects.
That's compared to the Paul Eichlich Instite which reports 0.3% having had side effects. The institute used a mobile app where it was optional after vaccination to self-report. I used it. There's a link in the paperwork you receive at the vaccination center. I don't know any other person who used it.
My opinion: the PEI data is probably underreported. The side effects listed here are harmless (compared to the outcry on German Twitter). Headache, skin irritation. In my family and friends almost everybody had one of the two at some point during their 3 vaccinations.
Personally I'm very fine with 2% or 5% of the population having the listed side effects. I mean, compared to what effects COVID19 has on unvaccinated body.
The insurance company could've filtered and reported severe side effects like myelitis which has classified codes, but didn't.