How to Evaluate and Respond: Vaccine Scares

A Disclaimer…

The following critique of a Facebook post is focused on the limited statements of the post in the context of the source document on which it purports have drawn conclusion.

I recognize, however, there is a tendency to misread or misinterpret due to preexisting personal biases that most of us bring to much of our reading and analysis.  Can we be mindful of such problems as we assess the veracity of the claims made in this article?

This critique is not intended to address the broader concerns regarding vaccines in general.  Can we leave that issue for another time and place?

Finally, I—like many Christians—believe that critiques should be conducted with care and sensitivity. Our motivation should be rooted in a pursuit of Truth and the ethical practice it demands. Failure to do so undermines our witness as followers of Christ.

I intend to remain open to your responses on this and many other topics.

A Case of Critical Reflection

A friend recently shared an article on Facebook attributed to Frank Bergmann.

A quick browse raised red flags—was it my bias, or had I previously underestimated anti-vaccine claims on social media?

I cautioned my friend: Be careful. Stay critical. Where’s the original report? This seemed to be someone’s interpretation rather than direct evidence. Could we trust it?

The title and tone suggest evidence existed for a spike in deaths due to vaccines, yet I couldn’t find a clear connection in Bergmann’s article.

The (re)posted message that raised “red flags” for me…

The Canadian government has just made an explosive admission by revealing that Covid mRNA “vaccines” triggered a devastating surge in deaths among the general public.

The alarming admission was made in a report from the federal government’s Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).

In a parliamentary response, the PHAC’s report reveals that deaths surged dramatically after each dose of the mRNA injections.

The report notes that mortality rates skyrocketed in individuals who were “boosted” with a third and fourth Covid mRNA “vaccine.”

Citizens who received the so-called “boosters” suffered far higher mortality compared to the unvaccinated, the PHAC response reveals.

A parliamentary inquiry by Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall posed several questions to the PHAC. The questions were regarding delays and inconsistencies in Statistics Canada’s reporting on excess mortality data.

The inquiry also requested statistical information on COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status from June 2022 to September 2022.

In response, PHAC informed MP Wagantall on September 16, 2024, that between June and August 2022, death rates surged among “boosted” citizens.

Deaths were dramatically higher in those who had received two, three, and four doses of Covid mRNA vaccines compared to the unvaccinated, the report (https://parl-gc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/delivery/01CALP_INST:01CALP/12165649990002616?lang=en) revealed.

PHAC previously argued that as “vaccine” effectiveness waned, an increase in deaths among those who had received two doses (the primary series) was expected.

Deeper reading of the data source
As might be expected, few people reading this article will take the time to pull up the document to confirm the “explosive admission” of how “’vaccines’ triggered a devastating surge in deaths among the general public.”  Those who take the time, however, will find the following:

• The PHAC data had been described as “rough data” in the “parliamentary response” from which the Bergmann article draws its interpretations. It cites the following problems with the data::
  • in the early stages of the pandemic, collection of data from the provinces initially had an issue of “changing definitions” regarding the data (meaning, lack of consistency on its meaning, completeness, and possible categorization)
  • there were gaps in the collected data (meaning, it was incomplete)
  • number of people in each category used in analysis is not reliably accounted for
  • maybe most importantly, administration of vaccines in early stages were prioritized for those with existing medical conditions (meaning, for instance, that causes of deaths following vaccines cannot be reliably attributed to the vaccine)
• experts dealing with a broader database than that initial “rough data” explicitly include in the “parliamentary response” that
  • “unvaccinated” were 8 times more likely to die than those reasonably vaccinated
• the prioritization of people provided with vaccinations in the early weeks of the pandemic (i.e., those “over-represented” due to risk of severe disease, for instance as in weakened immune systems and the elderly, were “more likely than the general population” to have:
  • received boosters
  • were subject to severe illness
  • experience greater mortality
• the report makes explicit that the above factors constitute “data bias” which could cause people to mistakenly conclude that “more vaccines lead to severe illness.”
• the report further states that the larger group of people given priority vaccination (for reasons cited above) leads naturally to “more cases” (of death or serious illness) among vaccinated than unvaccinated
• the findings confirm that “despite the higher cases counts” (of those receiving the vaccines during this early period), “vaccinated people are less likely to get very sick or die than those unvaccinated“.

In summary, the document cited as the source for Bergman’s claim that there exists here an “explosive admission” that “vaccines triggered a devastating surge in deaths among the public” simply has no basis in the cited document.

Further concern over choice of image for the article

The picture provided with the article has virtually nothing to do with the subject of the article, but has much to do with invoking “fear” about vaccinating children.

It’s well accepted that such associations (picture and article) carry subliminal messages that are often more powerful than the text itself.  A “picture is worth a thousand words” is not lost on the common marketing crowd, and its use here is highly deceptive.

What conclusion follow regarding the person of Frank Bergman? 

• Is it simply an error in reading and understanding the report?
• Could it be a belief that the referenced PHAC document itself is intended to conceal the truth?
• Is the gross misinterpretation here simply the effect of well-known bias that lurks in the hearts and minds of all who are heavily influenced by “group-think”  of our common “identity groups”?

What lessons are here for all of us?

I suggest that all of us struggle with the temptation conform to our groups when it comes to matters of “truth.”  It is common, whether our identity group is cultural, religious, or even professional.

It takes “guts” to seek and speak the truth when it might hurt (we lose status or may be considered in betrayal).  We commonly choose, often unconsciously to  “selectively” accept as “fact” those things that agree with our preconceptions.  In short, it takes some discipline of the mind to counter tendencies of the heart.

Has my analysis been done with sufficient integrity in a search for truth and error? 

If so, I stand to be corrected.  I will deeply appreciate your critique.

Related…

QS — Essentials of an Ideology

 

This page by: Ron Richmond
First published:  2025/05/15
Latest revision:  2025/05/24