My position on vaccines, natural immunity, and masks


On 11 November 2021, I received my first and only vaccination against COVID-19. At that point, I figured I was going to go to South Africa in the first months of 2022, where the Delta variant was still sowing panic. I already understood that the vaccination would not sterilise me against the virus, but reckoned it might alleviate my symptoms if I did get it. It sounded like a reasonable argument for vaccination.

However, I don’t plan on getting a second shot or any boosters. Reason number one is the fact that it is generally accepted that the symptoms of Omicron – which is now the dominant variant – are more moderate. Second reason is because I believe that SARS-CoV-2 has already become part of the family of more than 200 flu-type viruses that plague humanity every year, and that the only reasonable long-term resistance to it is natural immunity. This natural immunity is built up and maintained with repeated exposure to the viruses so that the immune system can make the necessary adjustments against genetic changes that occur continuously in viruses.

To give my immune system the best chance against SARS-CoV-2, I will do my best to stay fit and healthy, including following a healthy diet, enjoying regular fresh air and sunshine, and exercising at least five days a week. The only alternative is injections every four to six months for the rest of my existence.

This brings me to the third reason for my current position on vaccinations. I reckon there is a high probability that national health departments, international health organizations, and Big Medicine are not honest about the side effects of the vaccinations. And mass media and politicians cannot be trusted to make sure the truth sees the light, because of billions of dollars that flow annually from the coffers of Big Medicine to mass media and political leaders with decision-making powers on these matters.

Since we’re on the subject, I wear a mask when I cycle in traffic and don’t want to inhale the exhaust fumes of trucks, buses, cars, and scooters without the protection of some kind of filter. Also, as a teacher in a classroom with children who showed symptoms of flu or cold, I always preferred if they wore masks to prevent them from sneezing and coughing over me and other students. I also understand that doctors and other medical staff wear masks to protect themselves and their patients from bodily fluids containing bacteria and other germs. To be required to wear a mask everywhere in public, including when walking on your own in the park or on the beach while not actually having any type of flu symptoms, is, on the other hand, absurd.


Covid notes: September/October 2021



Main themes of Covid-19/SARS-COV-2 [with text added on Sunday, 20 June 2022]:

1. The deadliness of the virus [Specifically, how deadly is it for people under 18 with no other serious medical conditions? People between 18 and 30 with no other serious medical conditions? People between 30 and 49 with no other serious medical conditions? Between 50 and 65? Over 65?]

2. The source of the virus [Wet market in Wuhan? Lab in Wuhan? A cave somewhere in China possibly months before January 2020?]

3. Lockdowns [Where did the idea of the lockdown come from? Why did governments decide one after another to implement lockdowns? On what did they base their decisions – a very important question since they must have known it was going to have severe adverse consequences for the economy and for the normal functioning of society, including children’s education? Were restrictions and lockdowns seen as legitimate measures to deal with a pandemic in the years before Covid-19, seeing that there had been other pandemics? What other measures had governments already worked out that were shelved when China started their lockdowns?]

4. Masks, social distancing, and other measures to prevent spread [How effective are non-surgical masks in preventing the spread of airborne viruses? What physical and psychological effects does the prolonged wearing of masks day in, and day out have on people, especially children?]

5. Vaccines [How long does it usually take before vaccines are approved? Why does it take this long? Has there ever been cases of vaccines that were initially approved but then pulled from the market after side-effects kicked in that didn’t show up in tests? Does the current batch of vaccines have any side-affects? Are the vaccine manufacturers legally liable for serious adverse health effects caused by their vaccines?]

6. Vaccine mandates and vaccine “passports” [Is it morally justifiable to force people to get an injection if they can provide reasons why they are at higher risk of injury from the vaccine than from the virus itself? Is it morally justifiable to force people to get injections of vaccines that have not gone through the usual procedures to test their efficacy and long-term safety?]

7. “Long Covid” [How do people differentiate between the long-term effects of Covid and other causes, like changes in fitness routine, diet, and other lifestyle habits? How do people know whatever they’re feeling is not just because of negative expectation and confirmation bias?]


Idea proposed by some fairly intelligent people: If 1) there is a massive incentive to cheat in an election, 2) people know there is a high probability of them getting away with it, and 3) there is a variety of ways to cheat, it is almost 100% certain that there will be cheating.

In a similar vein the following questions can be asked: 1) Are there people with access to a variety of resources – from media and capital to political power, with possible international connections – who see themselves as natural leaders of society, regardless of public opinion or public support for them? 2) If such people exist with access to a variety of resources, would it be outrageous to think that they have certain ideas and suggestions for how the population and society in general should be managed? (It is possible that they believe their ambitions would serve the interests of humanity, and in such a way justify it to themselves.) 3) If there are such people with numerous resources and even political power at their disposal, with a particular set of ideas for society, how likely is it that they would pass up the excellent opportunity a global emergency such as a pandemic would present to implement their chosen policies and put certain mechanisms in place?


My position on the Covid-19 vaccine on Friday, 8 October 2021 at nine minutes past ten in die evening: I now have even more questions about the vaccines than last week, and I’m even more sceptical that this is the big solution. On the other hand, I am reluctant to go to South Africa to visit my family (immediate family, ten people who all had Covid with the exception of one niece and all thankfully survived) without being vaccinated first. Why? I still accept that the vaccines will increase the chance that you will experience milder symptoms if the virus does bite you.


A crystallised belief: Getting vaccinated against Covid-19 is a personal choice. To discriminate against someone who makes a personal choice about not getting a vaccine about which there is still uncertainty, that offers limited protection, and that can lead to serious adverse effects, is unreasonable, and unfair. Insisting on knowing someone’s vaccination status before they can enjoy civil rights is a disregard for the person’s civil rights; it is also immoral and should be illegal in any country or community organised according to reasonable laws and principles.


Even the cruellest behaviour and the most senseless policies can be justified



Someone puts a plate with something that’s supposed to be edible in front of you.

You look at the plate and try to work out what it is.

“This is not a banana,” you then declare. “It’s not a piece of meat. And it’s definitely not a potato. I don’t know what it is, but if people claim it’s a banana, a piece of meat, or a potato, they are definitely trying to deceive you.”

[click here if tweet doesn’t load]

Are all these mandates and regulations part of an evil conspiracy to regulate ordinary people with an ever heavier-pressing iron thumb? I don’t know. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that this is not about Covid-19, or people’s health.


The Nazis justified it in academic works at university, sermons in the church, lessons at school and in public speeches, and clearly explained why Jews should be deprived of their German citizenship, and why the government should come up with … a final solution.

For decades, the Soviet government justified why dissenters should be thrown into prison, deported, or executed as enemies of the state.

In South Africa, white governments for decades convinced the public that Apartheid is the only solution for South Africa’s racial relations. Pastors justified it to congregations from the Bible, and teachers explained it to pupils.

In Mao Zedong’s China in the 1960s and early 1970s, teenagers with red booklets in their hands could justify why teachers should be humiliated, and why it was absolutely necessary to kick people’s doors off their hinges in the middle of the night to search for Western musical instruments and books which could undermine the revolution.

Fact is, anything can be justified. Words are extremely useful means of spinning just about anything to make wrong look right, and right wrong.

Be aware of what you are saying. Express, as a matter of principle, the other side’s argument in such a way that that person must admit that you understand it correctly.

Can’t do it, or don’t do it because some crisis currently doesn’t allow the luxury? Then I have bad news for you: Your opponent is also inventing excuses as to why your argument is not worthy of proper consideration.

Do you furthermore find that you increasingly think of your ideological opponent as a caricature, not someone with a complex personality and dreams and fears just like you? Guess what? On the other side of the dividing line are people who make a similar caricature of you.


A reasonable opinion on Covid-19 vaccinations


Everyone these days has an opinion on the Covid-19 vaccination. I’m not convinced it’s safe. Experts differ about safety and efficacy. And there is the common-sense position that any reasonable person should take about things that are injected into your veins that have not yet been properly tested, or that have not gone through the process that vaccinations usually go through. Sceptics also point to numerous examples from J&J, Pfizer, and other pharmaceutical companies that, years after launching products, removed the products from pharmacy shelves due to side effects that did not show up initially. It is also now clear that you can still get Covid-19 even if the vaccine is flowing through your veins.

That said, people who have made a name for themselves as independent thinkers who don’t care much about popular opinion – people like cartoonist and author Scott Adams and journalist Peter Hitchens – have been vaccinated. Adams also makes the point that anyone who is 100% sure about anything regarding the pandemic are not thinking things through properly. Probability is the only reasonable position to take.

It is said that if you are vaccinated you would have milder symptoms after infection, and that you would therefore have a better chance of survival. Supposedly more so if you are over fifty. It is also reasonable to assume that most people will get infected at some point.

That means I will most likely also get Covid-19 at some point. Because I would prefer not to get deadly ill, and because millions of people have received the vaccine so far and have shown little or no side effects, I will get the vaccine as well. That’s the good reason. The bad reason why I would get it is because the government forces you with all sorts of regulations, from how you work to whether or not you can travel. I don’t agree with that at all. Persuade people with reasonable argument. Force them to get an injection, and alarm bells start going off.


Last thing I want to do is write a long piece about vaccinations and Covid-19.

Some questions will suffice:

1. Can SARS CoV-2 still enter your body even if you’ve received two doses of the vaccine?

2. Can you still develop Covid-19 even if you are fully vaccinated?

3. Can you still transmit the virus to other people after you’ve been fully vaccinated?

If the answer is positive to all three of the above questions, then why get the vaccination? Because, say people who are supposed to know, if you are vaccinated and you get Covid-19, your symptoms will be less severe and you’ll have a better chance of making it – especially if you are older and suffering from other ailments.

Now, I accept this view of the vaccine, and since I’ve recently turned fifty, it might be a good idea to increase my chances against the virus (as I explained yesterday).

But what exactly is the argument put forward by governments and their supporters to force people to get vaccinated? Because they care about people and don’t want them to get seriously ill? Isn’t this something people can decide for themselves? Isn’t this why people are “allowed” to drink and smoke as much as they want? Everyone decides for themselves how much cake and coffee and sugar and salt they want to indulge in. And governments don’t force people to exercise at least thirty minutes a day, and to eat enough vegetables and to cut back on red meat.

As it seems to me, the only way that governments could justify forcing people to get vaccinated is if it reduced spread. If it could be proven that the vaccines were highly effective in doing so, you could perhaps understand why there is so much pressure on people.

The only other reason that could make sense is if governments argued that since vaccinated people would get less severe symptoms, they’d have less of an impact on the country’s health services.

Is that the argument? Then why not launch draconian measures to force fat people to lose weight, or to force people to drink less? Adults either decide for themselves about their own health and lifestyle, or the government decides about it. This thing that the government is forcing people to get injections so that they don’t get too sick with a flu-type virus but is otherwise okay with people systematically destroying their lives doesn’t make sense.

Another thing: If you intentionally damage or end someone else’s life, or it happens because of your negligence, you will be and ought to be punished. How do government measures on Covid-19 vaccines fit into this concept, seeing that doctors and nurses inject people with a substance that may cause more harm to that person than it will prevent?

* * *

Here are some links [see dates on the webpages to see when they were last updated]: “At a town hall on July 21, in Cincinnati, President Joe Biden, in stressing the importance of COVID-19 vaccines, made the following statement: ‘If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die.’ The statement is false. Although the COVID-19 vaccines are effective, no single vaccine is 100% effective at preventing infection.” “Some people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will still get sick and have a vaccine breakthrough infection because no vaccine is 100% effective.” “Can fully vaccinated people still transmit the virus to others, including other vaccinated people? While it is possible, Dr. Cardona says that the ability to transmit COVID-19 may occur at a lower rate. … ‘We are still collecting data and doing ongoing research about the vaccine responses in these vulnerable populations.’”


Some questions about the coronavirus


Some questions about the Coronavirus, just to make it clear where one stands:

1. What is the origin of the virus? If the origin is not yet clear, despite the value it will hold to know, and despite technological and human resources available, what is the reason for this?

2. How deadly is the virus? Specifically, assuming a reasonably healthy person in their twenties gets the virus, what is the probability that the person will die from the infection? What is the probability if the person is in their forties, or fifties, or sixties, or seventies, or eighties? What is the probability that a healthy child or teenager will die from a coronavirus infection? How deadly is the virus for people in their twenties who already have other health problems (diabetes, heart problems, asthma, obesity, high blood pressure)? And for people with other health problems in their thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties?

3. How effective are lockdowns in controlling the spread of the virus? How well does it work to close restaurants and other places of entertainment, and to close schools? Has the type of measures the world has seen in 2020 ever been utilised in other pandemics and epidemics? If not, why not? Was the data on which health officials and government leaders based their decisions accurate and complete enough to make such decisions? At the beginning – in February or March – one could understand that there was not enough data available yet, but after more than eight months the picture should be clearer, right?

4. How effective is the wearing of masks by healthy people to combat the spread? Are there any studies that prove that masks make a significant difference between healthy people getting the virus and healthy people not getting the virus? Are there any negative consequences for healthy people if they wear a mask for hours on end – even outside when walking on a beach or in a park?

5. Since lockdown measures were put in place to control the spread of the virus, how many people have died as a result of the measures, and not from the virus itself, for example from cancer and heart problems for which treatment had to be postponed?

6. What is a reasonable projection for the number of people who will die over the next decade as a direct or indirect consequence of poverty caused by measures that have destroyed their businesses or other sources of income?

7. Over the course of 2020, the WHO has made divergent statements on the severity of the virus, on international travel, and on masks. There is also a spectrum of opinions among epidemiologists, medical doctors, and other experts about the virus and the most effective ways to combat it and protect the population. Yet free discussion in the news media and especially on social media is strongly discouraged. Only opinions approved by the WHO and by national governments get the stamp of credibility. Alternative opinions are labelled “Disinformation” or simply banned. Yet it has repeatedly been shown that experts who hold these banned opinions were right, and government leaders and health officials working with governments wrong. Who should the public trust? If free discussion is not allowed, and criticism of approved opinions is punished, how does one arrive at the truth?


Two most important questions:

1. Is SARS-COV-2 the deadliest virus that has hit humanity in the last hundred years? If not, why implement measures that have never been tried on such a large scale, and that even a politician could work out for him- or herself would always have destructive effects on the population, as they are having now?

2. How many people will eventually die as a result of measures intended to save lives?