Login
A Danish media storm erupted this week after national outlets, led by Ritzau and regional platform TV2 Fyn, published headlines declaring: “Bekymringen for covid-vacciner kan skabe symptomer” — translated, “Worry about COVID-19 vaccines can create symptoms.”
The article summarized a taxpayer-funded study claiming that many reported post-vaccination side effects may stem not from the vaccines themselves but from the nocebo effect — that is, symptoms triggered by fear or expectation rather than biological injury.
The research, promoted as definitive after four years of investigation and millions of kroner in funding, was portrayed as answering a politically charged question: Do COVID-19 vaccines cause side effects? The authors’ conclusion: “It’s just worry.”
A nation divided between science and experience
The Danish public reaction was immediate — and heated. Vaccine-injured groups and health advocates accused the study team and media of pathologizing legitimate suffering, reducing years of chronic pain, neurological disorders and debilitating fatigue to “psychological stress.”
Many critics pointed out that Denmark’s own VIVE report, commissioned by the Folketing (Parliament of Denmark), concluded that “Vaccine-injured people were let down. No help. No recognition.”
To them, the new nocebo framing appears less like science and more like state-sponsored dismissal — a convenient way to avoid costly investigations, specialized clinics or compensation.
One LinkedIn commenter, Rikke Mannerup, a Danish nurse and health anthropologist, wrote:
“They forgot a group of people — the unafraid, who are now disabled. Not from nocebo, but from real physical symptoms and diseases following vaccination.”
Who’s behind the research?
The study’s co-author, Dr. Per Fink, is a familiar name to Denmark’s chronic illness community.
A psychiatrist long associated with the “bodily distress disorder” model, Fink’s work has been controversial among myalgic encephalomyelitis/
chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long-COVID patients, who accuse him of reducing complex biomedical conditions to mental phenomena.
For many vaccine-injured Danes, Fink’s involvement only deepened mistrust. As one commenter put it bluntly: “Every ME patient knows that name.”
Chatter online: Public mood turns sour
Across Danish social platforms, the mood was one of anger and disbelief:
- “Another example of poor and inadequate government management,” wrote one citizen.
- “The media are parroting the same narrative,” said another, criticizing national outlets for reprinting Ritzau’s release without scrutiny.
- “It’s insulting to those harmed,” wrote author Bente Jacobsen. “Such conclusions feed distrust in institutions.”
Even healthcare professionals joined in, questioning the study’s “weak empirical foundation” and lack of clinical validation.
Convenient science or careful inquiry?
While the nocebo hypothesis has legitimate scientific relevance in tightly controlled clinical settings, applying it retroactively to a nationwide vaccine safety debate risks not only eroding public trust but also deepening the harm for individuals who have suffered genuine, biologically based injuries from COVID-19 vaccination.
And yes, vaccine injuries exist. React19, the USA’s largest vaccine injury group, has amassed a large repository of papers covering COVID-19 vaccine-related problems. See Scientific Publications Directory.
TrialSite has estimated that about .002 to .008 of persons fully vaccinated in the U.S. may struggle with recurring medical-related problems that may be associated with the jab.
The framing conveniently absolves institutions of responsibility while offering no tangible help to those still ill.
The Danish backlash highlights a broader European tension: the collision between psychological framing and biological accountability. For patients, empathy and investigation — not dismissal — remain the currency of credibility.
Originally published by TrialSite News.
