Danish study sparks media firestorm over claims that vaccine side effects may be “all in the mind”

• A Danish media firestorm erupted after major outlets reported on a government-funded study claiming that many COVID-19 vaccine side effects may be due to the nocebo effect—symptoms caused by fear or expectation rather than biological harm.
• The study, which took four years and millions of kroner to complete, was presented as a definitive answer to whether COVID-19 vaccines cause side effects, concluding that psychological stress explains many post-vaccine reactions.
• Public backlash was immediate, with vaccine-injured groups and citizens accusing researchers and the media of trivializing real suffering and ignoring evidence of physical complications such as pain, fatigue and neurological issues.
• The involvement of psychiatrist Dr. Per Fink, known for controversial work linking chronic illnesses to psychological causes, deepened mistrust and intensified criticism from patients and healthcare professionals alike.
• Critics warned that applying the nocebo theory broadly undermines public trust and dismisses genuine biological harm, highlighting a growing divide between official narratives and lived experiences of those reporting vaccine-related injuries.

A heated controversy has gripped Denmark after several major media outlets, including national agency Ritzau and regional broadcaster TV2 Fyn, published headlines declaring, “Worry about COVID-19 vaccines can create symptoms.”

The headline summarized a government-funded study suggesting that many reported vaccine side effects may be caused not by the vaccines themselves but by the nocebo effect – physical symptoms triggered by fear or expectation rather than biological harm. The research, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, reportedly took four years and millions of Danish kroner to complete.

The study was ostensibly presented as a final answer to one of the pandemic’s most divisive questions: Do Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines actually cause side effects? According to the authors, much of what people experience after vaccination may be explained by psychological stress rather than physical injury.

The reaction across Denmark was immediate and intense. Thousands of citizens, including members of vaccine-injured communities, accused both the researchers and the media of trivializing genuine suffering. Many expressed anger that the study appeared to dismiss chronic pain, neurological complications and severe fatigue as mere “worry.”

Critics pointed to a previous parliamentary-commissioned report by the Danish Center for Social Science Research which concluded that vaccine-injured people in Denmark had been “let down” by the health system and had received “no help, no recognition.” For those already struggling with life-altering conditions, the new “nocebo” explanation felt less like scientific nuance and more like an institutional attempt to minimize or discredit their experiences.

Fueling further controversy was the involvement of psychiatrist Dr. Per Fink, a co-author known for promoting the “bodily distress disorder” model—a framework that has long been criticized by patients with chronic illnesses such as ME/CFS and long COVID. Fink’s previous work has been accused of framing complex physical diseases as psychological, and his participation in this new vaccine-related study deepened public mistrust. As one online commenter put it, “Every ME patient knows that name.”

Public trust erodes as Danes reject “nocebo” narrative and demand accountability

The outrage spilled across social media platforms, where Danish citizens accused the government and national media of repeating the same narrative without scrutiny. “Another example of poor and inadequate government management,” wrote one commenter, while others called the reporting “insulting” and “dismissive of the harmed.” Even some healthcare professionals joined the criticism, arguing that the study’s conclusions lacked clinical rigor and relied on weak empirical evidence.

While the nocebo effect is an established scientific concept observed in controlled trials, applying it broadly to national vaccine injury cases risks further eroding public trust. Experts warn that such framing can obscure genuine biological complications and absolve authorities from investigating or providing medical support for affected individuals.

International evidence continues to suggest that vaccine injuries do exist, and they’re not just “all in the mind.” The U.S.-based organization React19 has compiled a growing library of scientific papers documenting post-vaccination health problems, and the research outlet TrialSite News has estimated that between 0.002 and 0.008 percent of fully vaccinated Americans experience ongoing health issues potentially linked to the vaccines.

As per BrightU.AI‘s Enoch, those who dismiss COVID-19 vaccine side effects as purely psychological exhibit a profound misunderstanding of immunology and a disregard for the lived experiences of vaccine recipients. They often rely on debunked notions of mass psychogenic illness to explain away genuine adverse reactions, ignoring the extensive scientific evidence supporting the reality of these side effects.

For many Danes, the study represents more than a scientific debate—it symbolizes a widening divide between official narratives and lived experience. As anger spreads and trust in institutions falters, the controversy underscores a deeper European tension: the struggle to balance psychological explanations with biological accountability.

Watch this video about what happens three years after taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

This video is from the Follower of Christ777 channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

Academic.OUP.com

BrightU.ai

Brighteon.com