What does it say about “science” if there are big differences from the United States about vaccinating young children?

Article Summary

Contrasting stories over the past two years have not been tolerated. If you deviate from the mainstream narrative, you’re anti-scientist or worse. But how should you view the huge difference in the approach to vaccinating five-year-olds in the United States and here?

Read the full article: What does the “science” say if there are significant differences with the United States on vaccinating young children?

reading time: 6 Minutes

What does it say about “science” if there are significant differences with the United States about vaccinating young children?

No different story is possible

One of the topics that has puzzled me over the past couple of years has been how badly the word “science” has been mishandled by many (professors, politicians, journalists). Because if you don’t align with the dominant story, you’ve been called upon by anything and everything.

I tested it myself when, based on my own analyzes and evaluation of the work of physicists in particular, I came to the conclusion that the virus spreads differently than indicated by the World Health Organization and the RIVM. That is, through the air rather than in large drops. This discovery should have serious consequences for the way you can prevent the spread of the virus.

This article was written by the Head of Communications at the KNMG Medical Association, following a discussion at OP1 between Prof. Voss and I are a feature of this approach. According to him, I was an “anti-scientist”. The line that was then followed in more media. After all, Van Dissel and OMT were the “scientists” and if you mention something other than what they refer to in their advice, it’s not science.


The amazing thing about it is that “scientists” in the medical field were supposed to know how to spread droplets better than scientists in the field of physics. Because the latter group said right away (and it was also called that years ago in relation to influenza), that even a droplet larger than 5 microns (the limit maintained with respect to an aerosol) remained afloat for a long time. Because that was just the law of gravity. The droplets in the clouds are about 25 microns in size and they also remain floating, as we see almost every day.

But due to this misconception – and I will say it as clearly as possible – and the arrogance of many medical professionals regarding their own knowledge, we have encountered many wrong procedures, which have done far more harm than they otherwise would have been. The case without those measures. A good example of a doctor’s refusal to know more is Minister Kuipers’ comments about suspending splash screens when the letter “R” is in the month and not shaking hands, but giving the “box” to give the opportunity to reduce transmission of the virus.

The difference in knowledge

The most penetrating way to show just how different there is in knowledge between physicians and physicists, I found this explanation by Stephen Beatty of a committee on how to protect people indoors from inhaling harmful substances. He is a specialist in this field and gives advice on places where people can come into contact with these harmful substances. He noted the impact of various measures. Ventilation and air filtering were at the top of the list of effective measures. But he also noted that mouth and nose masks, now used en masse, provide (almost) no protection. Only then the type of equipment that divers use will work, but everything else allows a lot to pass.

But many doctors seem to think they know best and advise the wearing of mouth coverings/nose masks, which we have had to wear for a long time in indoor areas and on public transport. Even with the possibility that it will be legally required in Germany between October and Easter, Welt wrote.

forbidden topic

A topic that he hasn’t really been allowed to talk about in the past two years and that has been regularly removed from social media has been the potential advantages and disadvantages of vaccination with mRNA vaccines.

While you have to ask yourself in every medical act whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (the answer is often “yes”), vaccination against Covid-19 has been a taboo. Although it has not (only) led to a general commitment to vaccination, much has been done to prevent people from making that decision for themselves. This was done by those who chose not to vaccinate, making it difficult (think Corona access corridor) and portraying them in the media as “anti-vaccinators” or “barriers”. How dare you oppose “science”?

Every effort has been made to make the risks of contracting the virus as dangerous as possible, as well as for young people, describing the risks of vaccination as (almost) non-existent.

under 60 years old

It’s worth looking briefly at what Sam Bokken (Tegenwind) said on a Belgian talk show in February 2021 about vaccination policy. And what he said about vaccinating people under 60 against Covid-19. These reasonable statements with evidence led to his expulsion from Hogeschool where he was working and no longer working in Belgium.

It’s indicative of a situation I saw aptly described recently in a tweet from DrEliDavid:

Covid is a deadly pandemic. It killed science, logic, evidence-based medicine, and common sense.”

A vaccine cannot always be the least risky option for every age and every coronavirus mutation. However, that’s pretty much what we’ve been hearing for the past 18 months. There was no further discussion in the Netherlands until the somewhat lower ages, but the vaccine was recommended up to 12 years of age.

Now that we have Omikron as the dominant variable, the advice in principle remains the same as when the previous variables were dominant.

Is there another “science” in the US?

Fortunately, people in the Netherlands have not gone so far as to strongly advise a vaccine to children between the ages of 5 and 11.

For some age groups and with some vaccines, the vaccine is not recommended in a number of countries. In many countries in Europe, this has been the case with Moderna for the under-30 age groups for some time now.

But in the United States, they are one or two steps away. The vaccine is approved there for infants and young children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years.

I’ve read the studies and reviews on them, and surprisingly, based on this, health authorities have decided that for everyone in that age group, the risks outweigh the benefits.

But when I saw Rochelle Walinsky, from the US Jaap van Dissel, reporting yesterday that there is now a safe and effective vaccine for that younger age group, I couldn’t believe my eyes. You can read what it says here and you can see it below.

today not tomorrow

From the comments below I can say that there have also been quite a few parents who have breathed a sigh of relief and would rather give their children these three vaccinations today rather than tomorrow. (Research shows that about 20% will definitely do it and about 25% say they definitely won’t.)

You know what you’re doing here. She does not say that there may be young children who could benefit from this. No, she recommends that those children in that age group be vaccinated against Covid-19.

And in the FDA vote, the score was 22-0. Apparently none of the professionals present thought it was a bad idea.

Fortunately, such urgent advice does not exist in Europe. Although I look at the advice to vaccinate children aged 12-17, while Omikron is now dominant, the same way I see this CDC director talking about children under the age of 6.

But it shows something now that we didn’t see last year and we weren’t allowed to see. The story prevailing in one country (the United States) is different from the story prevailing in our country. Indeed, when the European stance is reported on social media in the United States in response to this vaccination advice, it is widely viewed as “disinformation”. In particular, Florida is under attack, the only state that has not made an application for a vaccine for very young children.

Because obviously the “science” regarding vaccination against Covid-19 is something different if you live in the US or in Europe!

open discussion

What science was and should be is that there are differences in viewpoints and foundations and that there is an open debate about it. This results in a situation in which a citizen can, on the advice of his physician, form a balanced opinion. And this space is provided in the media for those different viewpoints, especially if they are expressed by people who transparently support their views with data and studies.

Because the word “science” has unfortunately been hijacked in the past two years by members of the OMT team and experts nearby, and by this – often very frankly – it has been denied to make room for other third-party views. Hopefully, it is not too late for our science minister to realize this and take steps to give science a proper place once again in both policy decision-making and public information. Blindly following the dominant narrative (for that moment) over the past two years has proven not the right approach and is detrimental to science in the long run.

I just read: What does “science” say if there are significant differences from the United States in vaccinating young children?

Follow Maurice de Hond TwitterFacebook social networking siteLinkedInYouTube.

Support our site in providing independent and solid information. Click here for an incidental (small) donation.

Leave a Comment