Did he go on record explaining why he did this?

The article doesn’t appear to mention his reasoning.

This was reported a year ago, it's now made it into The Lancet which (re) stated:

    HIM's hypervaccination occurred outside of a clinical study context and against national vaccination recommendations.

    Evidence for 130 vaccinations in a 9 month period was collected by the public prosecutor of Magdeburg, Germany, who opened an investigation of this case with the allegation of fraud, but criminal charges were not filed.

    108 vaccinations are individually recorded and partly overlap with the total of 130 prosecutor-confirmed vaccinations (appendix 2 p 12). 

His "reasoning" was transactional, he was happy to accept money from others to present for vaccination and give their details to fraudulently record them as "vaccinated".

Criminal charges were not filed because there is no evidence that he sold his vaccine certificates.

As I recall from the reporting almost a year ago the investigation was opened because of a suspicion that he was doing something fraudulent.

The lack of charges and lack of evidence neither negate nor support the suspicion - they just leave it hanging.

If there's any post event interview with the man the gives his side of the story it'd be interesting to read, but even that would have issues as he may initially have thought to sell or pass on certificates to others but since changed his story once an investigation was opened <shrug>.,

The real experiment begins after he decides to stop getting the vaccine.

So .. a full year ago then ?

    The man, [...] reported receiving 217 Covid shots between June 2021 and November 2023.

I don't know but probably a little longer than that. If nothing happens, well good for him I guess.

tldr: He did not suffer from any vaccine-related side effects, his blood and immune system tests were normal, and he did not get infected by COVID.

IMO this is the kinda self-experimentation that we need to fund. He got a shot on average every 4 days.

I am Navin Francis Shajan. I'll ask you the same question you did: Are you a doctor or an ethicists or just a regular armchair philosopher?

-

Is the implication here that you don't think testing vaccines is a good idea?

-

FWiW this wasn't "medical experimentation" by the medical establishment or any routine research lab, this was entirely the work of a single individual who gave themselves consent to take multiple vaccines.

-

> which is why I asked for his credentials on medicine and ethics, . In the absence of such credentials a rigorous essay on the matter would also have been sufficient

Who made you the arbitrar of such things? You come across as someone engaging in bad faith.

There's a wealth of pre existing discussion on the ethics of trials and many many places about the globe that conduct trials, paid trials even. (eg: https://trials.linear.org.au/)

It's not difficult to access ethical philosphers discussing the matter, nor is it difficult to read essays by practicing epidemiologists and others.

Do you have a specific problem with paid clinical trials of novel vaccines?

1. I've participated in clinical trials in the US. Not covid, but drug trials in an MRI machine.

2. If someone wants funding to do an experiment like the one described in the article I'll gladly throw $1,000 in the pot. So will many engineers. There's nothing you can do about this.

3. If you put this on a ballot, I'll vote to spend billions of dollars paying people to test medical treatments. This includes challenge trials. Small price for a large reward. I don't need any credentials to advocate for policies that benefit everyone.

btw I answered your question but you didn't answer mine: Are you a doctor or an ethicists or just a regular armchair philosopher?

I literally explained that I did in #1. Answer my question

Edit: This is my crowd funding offer, I have no idea what this guy is talking about. My email is in my profile lol.

Self-experimentation… it doesn’t take long form writing (or any other disingenuous appeals to authority) to realize that the only serious ethical question is on whether or not it was ethical for the hyper-consenting self-experimenter to consume 216 doses more than necessary. Once they’d done so anyway it would be less-than-ethical for any medical scientist who knew of it to not document their work and its outcomes.