To Bloomberg , @Lars Taraldsen , @Naomi Kresge , @Keipp Talbot ,and Statens legemiddelverk (the Norwegian Medicines Agency):
Thank you for the well-written Bloomberg article that we linked below. We appreciate the many aspects of the issue you covered. We also have many questions. Might you be able to answer them for us?
1) THE QUOTE: “Although doctors say it’s possible that vaccine side-effects could aggravate underlying illnesses, they were expecting nursing-home residents to die shortly after being vaccinated because deaths are more common among the frailest and sickest elderly patients.”
OUR QUESTIONS: Why were the frailest and sickest elderly patients vaccinated at all, then? Who determined the risk/benefit to the patient? Were these doses that could have better and more safely benefited stronger and healthier elderly patients? Might the vaccine have hastened the deaths of the patients who died?
***************************
2) THE QUOTE: “ ‘Frail, older adults die, and die often, and I don’t think people realize that,’ said Keipp Talbot, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University who advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine use. ‘My concern was that we would introduce vaccine, and people would think it was killing people.’ “
OUR QUESTIONS: How is that different from frail, older adults dying after being exposed to or even infected by a virus that may or may not result in symptoms/complications?
When someone dies following a viral infection, the virus is considered to be THE cause; when someone dies following a still-experimental vaccine, why is it considered to be a coincidence?
*********************************
3) THE QUOTE: ” ‘It is important to remember that about 45 people die every day in nursing homes in Norway, so it is not a given that this represents any excess mortality or that there is a causal connection,’ Camilla Stoltenberg, head of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said at a press conference on Monday.
OUR QUESTIONS: So how do we figure out the cause of “excess mortality” if a patient with a virus may not have been given the most effective treatment, or was even given a risky treatment that was inappropriate for that patient(like being placed on a ventilator when one has blood clots in the lungs)?
How do we figure out virus-vs.-vaccine excess mortality in nursing homes, when, as we understand it:A) most US nursing homes have a history of not being designed and set up well for infection control;
B) US nursing homes have underpaid, overworked staff doing a job that is EXTREMELY difficult even when there’s no virus ;
C) families of US (and worldwide?) nursing home residents have been locked out and forbidden to see AND HELP the residents for nearly a year;
D) (and this may be exclusive to the US) many nursing homes were required to accept COVID-19-positive patients who had just been discharged from hospital, IN SPITE OF the fact that the nursing homes in question were not set up for infection control?
(Hopefully, the Norwegian nursing home experience is better…)
****************************
4) THE QUOTE: “The reported fatalities are well under 1 out of 1,000 nursing-home patients to be vaccinated, he [Steinar Madsen] said.”
OUR QUESTIONS: What are the reported fatalities per 1,000 nursing-home residents who were NOT vaccinated? We would very much like to see a direct comparison.
********************************
5) THE QUOTE: “The side effects of immunization can, in some cases, ‘tip the patients into a more serious course of the underlying disease,’ Madsen said. ‘We can’t rule that out.’ “
OUR QUESTIONS: So there CAN be an indirect link?
Why aren’t health officials discussing indirect links?
If someone with severe lung damage — like an elderly, lifelong smoker — gets COVID-19 and does not survive, we’re told that the virus is the direct cause of death and that the lifelong smoking was a susceptibility, so smoking is only an indirect link, right?
But if an elderly person with autoimmune or cardiac issues gets a COVID-19 shot and dies a day later, we’re told that there is no direct link, there is NO discussion of potential indirect links, and we’re told not to worry and to trust the vaccine.
We find that very, very troubling.
******************************
The bottom line: we don’t want ANY preventable deaths. Nobody does. Not deaths linked to the virus, not deaths linked the vaccine. It doesn’t MATTER if it’s a direct link or an indirect link.
And of course we don’t want preventable serious illness or complications, either.
We WOULD like to know as much as possible, about the vaccine, about the virus, about our own individual susceptibilities, and about ALL possible ways to prevent and/or treat the virus — and then make up our own minds.
This is not about being “for” or “against” vaccines. We absolutely support developing, offering, and honestly marketing preventative measures against infection.
This is about informed consent.
Many thanks in advance for your answers.