Marius Kesper

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC28… Om te pinnen

@StassenFrank @bits2read @lucresai @schrieks @rinusredpill Dat is wat ik me altijd afvraag als ik die verhalen lees.

@bits2read @lucresai @schrieks @rinusredpill Is @lucresai een massa-moordenaar? 😳 Gewoon door z'n aanwezigheid?

De prikspijt van de massa is niet alleen fysiek, maar vooral geestelijk zichtbaar. Mensen die hun ziel en gezondheid verkochten voor een restaurantbezoek of een werkuitje zijn veranderd in afgestompte schimmen van wie ze ooit waren. Ze kozen voor het systeem in plaats van hun soevereiniteit en leven nu met de trauma’s van hun eigen zwakte. De waarschuwingen waren luid en duidelijk, maar de drang om te ‘mogen’ was groter dan de wil om vrij te zijn. Triest.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 No you didn't debunk that. You use selective data. You completely ignore the size of the population of the blue graph (for example in 2025 2200 people) and the red graph (in 2025 more than 3.2 million people) and you completely ignore the protection of the vaccine.

@MarKes1900 @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 I just debunked that. You worldview just collapsed. You don't need to try to use selective data like a propagandist. Just stay rational and read that again:

Dan Wilson (aka Debunking the Funk) put together a long video extensively debunking the Henry Ford study dubbed by ICAN as “An Inconvenient Study” and the propaganda video of the same name. It’s a cutting critique of both the study, its purported conclusions, its framing in the video, and the many other anti vaccine talking points present in the video. And one in which its points are quite well explained for the general public. I don’t personally subscribe to some of the personal shots against vaccine skeptics and prefer to focus on the substance, but he gets the massive substantive flaws of the paper right, explains them well, and correctly characterizes them as fatal flaws that prevent the paper from answering the questions it is purported to answer, and correctly states the framing and conclusions are not at all scientifically substantiated. I agree with almost all of the statistical points he makes. I recommend anyone who has watched the video or seen ICAN or other proponents pump up this study to watch this video than accurately conveys many of its key limitations as well of many of the misleading or even fallacious arguments made in the video.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 3 death on 2022 people with measles (ill, most of them unvaccinated) means 2909 people when 3.2 million people get ill from measles against 2 death in 3.2 million who got a vaccin. Yes, you can better get the virus then the vaccin.

@MarKes1900 @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 You're right. A proper RCT would make the vaccinated look even worse, because it doesn't protect 100%, wich I assumed here. ;) Just don't get the measles vaccine again. It causes more deaths than it prevents.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 Underreporting of what? The pain in my arm that i had from a vaccine injection?

@MarKes1900 @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 And this is without accounting for the underreporting rate in VEARS (somewhere between 10-30x). So, yeah. There you have it: getting the measles vaccine increases your risk of dying compared to not getting the vaccine. LOL

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 But if you can't do this test you have other ways to compare but your way is the wrong way of comparing.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 and infect them with measles and see how many measles death each group has and how many death after vaccination there are in the vaccinated group. And yes, i know this type of test is not ethical.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 3 death in 3.2 million (in 2025) who got a vaccin against 2 death in 2200 (look up my previous tweet for the correct number in 2025) proven ill by the measles virus.

@MarKes1900 @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 Right. It reduces the spread. Not by 100%, but pretty well. However, let's look at these numbers again: The average Immunization Rate between 1995-2024 was 91.53%. On average 8.47% choose not vaccinate. That's a factor of 10.81.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 chance not change.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 But there are more vaccinated people who don't get the disease and that is one of the reasons why unvaccinated people have less change to get the disease. If you live in a community and most are vacinated the virus will have a hard time spreading.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 Vaccination is done to reduce serious symptoms. Serious symptoms caused by a measles infection are:

@MarKes1900 @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 Because it's a treatable disease. ;) The vaccine was introduced in 1963 and it didn't reduce the risk as much as other factors.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 Because the population that is vaccinated is protected against measles.

@MarKes1900 @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 Or actually 3*0,7=2,1 deaths. None in the ten previous years. Or 7 in 30 years aka 7/30*0,7=0,16 per annum on average. Risk basically not measurable.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 If you never get infected by a measles virus of course you won't die from mealses. Your maths doesn't work because you don't consider protection from measles by vaccination.

@MarKes1900 @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 No. This is wrong maths. Roughly 70% of hospitalizations occur in children under the age of 5. Let's assume this is roughly the same for deaths. Couldn't find births in 2025, but in the five previous years, 18,16 million children were born. 1,86 million unvaccinated. 3 deaths.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 The average of people dying in a hospital will be higher than the average population.

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 By the way if i were you i wouldn't go to a hospital or a doctor ever, because i think if you do the statistics i think more people die after a doctors or hospital visit then let's say after eating an apple.

@ErikCumps @EdwardDeDerde Vast niet. Maar ik denk dat hij het zelf ook niet begrijpt gezien de wazige manier waarin hij het heeft opgeschreven.

@MarKes1900 @EdwardDeDerde En hebben zijn lezers door wat het verschil is tussen eiwitten aanmaken die antigenen bevatten om je immuunsysteem te leren kankercellen te bestrijden, en eiwitten aanmaken die antigenen bevatten om je immuunsysteem te leren een virus te bestrijden? 🤷‍♂️

"Hoe val ik door de mand?" Een praktische demonstratie door iemand die niet weet wat mRNA is en hoe een cel er gebruik van maakt... 👇

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 3 in 3.2 million and 2 in 2022 people?

@propaganda_nerd @BerryTartlet @jsm2334 It takes 10-12 days before symptoms appear so your immune system has enough time to take care of the virus before you transmit the virus to other people.