What exactly is Scientific Integrity? It's in a PDF on the KNAW website, this file. It lists a number of things in an accessible way. The code of conduct is built on the core values:
- Honesty
- Care
- Transparency
- Independence
- Responsibility
I will go through them point by point and check that I have not seen any violations of them recently.
1. Honesty
"... that one does not Unsubstantiated claims does that one does about the research process reports correctly, that one does not have data or sources invented or falsified, that one has alternative visions and take counterarguments seriously, that one is open about Margins of uncertainty, and that one results does not propose more favourable or unfavourable than they are."
Concerns about Honesty
- The claims that hand washing, a distance of one and a half meters (and face masks, although the latter does not so much come from the RIVM tube) work against the epidemic spread of respiratory diseases have been for decades. unsubstantiated basic principles.
- Sources are manufactured using obscure models. Not every model automatically gives an honest picture.
- Alternative views and counterarguments are ridiculed and downgraded on the basis of alleged authority. Even fellow knowledge institutes are ignored through the rivm.
- Inventories of reality and events in the near future are repeatedly - even systematically - presented more unfavourably than they actually are or turn out to be later.
- And let's be honest: is a vaccine really the only thing that helps against Covid?
2. Care
"... optimal precision in the design, execution, reporting and dissemination of research."
Concerns about Due Diligence
Just the up and down fluttering forecastsit confusing infections and positive tests, forgot it first and later: underestimating the seasonal effect virus transmission does not give the impression of great precision. If that is the optimal care that rivm is capable of, the question is justified how things stand with the other National Knowledge Institutes, which are now in the scientific shadow of the praised rivm.
3. Transparantie
"Transparency means, among other things, that the it is clear to others on which dates one has based oneself, how these have been obtained, what results one has reached and by what means, and what the role of external stakeholders has been."
Concerns about Transparency
- failure to comply with explicit disclosure requests
- do not answer specific parliamentary questions
- ignoring peers
- withholding predictive models such as black boxes
- mainly use data from external stakeholders
The blocking of data is only allowed if this has already been indicated and authenticated prior to the investigation, for example with regard to privacy-sensitive information. This is an exception to the strict obligation of transparency. This transparency is not honored. WOB requests are even sabotaged by Min. VWS.
In the House of Representatives, interest has repeatedly been shown in the underlying data and algorithms. Although this is not an officially requested integrity investigation, these are certainly questions that can concern integrity and should have been clearly answered for that reason alone in order to avoid any unwanted appearance.
4. Independence
"... is not guided by extra-scientific considerations (e.g. considerations of commercial or political nature). Formulated in this way, independence includes impartiality."
Concerns about Independence
Interests in test labs, in test lanes, co-authorship of recommended protocols to be applied worldwide, advisory functions at pharmaceutical companies and supervisory board members question marks over impartiality of the advice that the government receives. The rivm (and the OMT it compiles) is of course dependent on the flow of money from the government. It is therefore not inconceivable that a government narrative carries weight in the development of opinions. In the history here are previous examples of to find. We have also already seen how furiously Minister De Jonge reacts to too much doubt or curiosity about the decision-making of rivm. VWS influenced the final advice.
5. Responsibility
"Responsibility means, among other things, that one is aware of the fact that one researcher not in isolation operates, and therefore takes into account the legitimate interests of persons and animals involved in the research, of potential clients and financiers, and of the environment.”
Concerns about Responsibility
The 'environment' is virtually limitless in the event of a supposed pandemic. In measures imposed on the population, the entire population is involved. It is not clear to what extent the research into effective measures has taken into account the population and the effects on public health, nor, for example, effects on the third world, to name but one. These considerations have been systematically shifted to 'politics'. The disaster scenarios predicted from all sides, impact assessmentsand Calculationseven in advance by officials of VWS – rivm should have been able to think of it or at least take it into consideration. At least after the first scare, from April/May 2020.
More descriptions
Later in the document there are other definitions and views against which - at least according to the public communication - has been sinned.
Negligence?
"In gross negligence, sloppy science ('questionable research practices') is more than just a mistake or carelessness, but an issue that also affects the integrity of scientific practice."
KNAW, Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2018
Concerns about Negligence
It is certain that since March 2020, false security has been promoted with the mantra "wash hands and keep a distance of one and a half meters". RIVM failed to substantiate or falsify these socially far-reaching decrees when they were questioned. The effectiveness of lockdowns is debatable to say the least (see the aforementioned report from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Gupta report and the video by Ivor Cummins), and lockdowns were an absolute no go until 2020, strongly discouraged by the WHO. The fact that the measures hardly work is not 'easy to say in retrospect'. Alert scientists knew this much earlier. There are already many scientific objections to the rivm advice in April 2020. Say from the moment the KNMI started knocking on the door of the rivm that something was really not correct in the basic assumptions of the measures. They were not heard. All that exclusion from new, potentially helpful information and scientific insights is very, very negligent.
Common apologies: "You'll just be in that position and have to give advice" – "Do you never make mistakes" – "Yes they didn't mention that but they didn't mention more, you can't mention everything" – "They can't listen to the first dance teacher, can they?" – "People who criticize don't understand science" – "Maurice's predictions never come true, rightly so that they put it aside" – "They do mention ventilation, they really do not make people sick by advising the wrong protection" – "Yes predictions are sometimes wrong." – "A factor of 40 next to it? Where do you get that from, that's not at all said at Op1" – "It's an institution, isn't it? That's not just something!" etc. etc.
Duties of care
Under the heading "Duty of care" the following passage:
"The institution ensures that researchers can work in a safe, inclusive and open environment, in which they feel responsible and approachable, can share dilemmas and discuss mistakes made without fear of the consequences ('blame-free reporting')."
KNAW, Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2018
Concerns about Duty of Care
Jos de Laat (KNMI) said that this inclusive and open environment is not really there. He seriously considered the risk of personal consequences in his consideration of whether or not he would come forward with his charge of violation of scientific integrity. Officially, this must be done at the relevant institute... Then there is no "safe, inclusive and open environment within the Scientific Institutes of the Netherlands, in which they ... sharing dilemmas and discussing mistakes made without fear of the consequences ('blame-free reporting')." as prescribed by the Academy. The Academy seems to assume that one researcher misbehaves and that the institute in question does not want that either.
Violation of scientific integrity, questionable behaviour or minor shortcoming
"In serious cases, non-compliance with one or more standards leads to a violation of scientific integrity: by the researcher and, where applicable, by the supervisor, project leader, research director or supervisor who has incited that non-compliance."
KNAW, Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2018
The clearest examples of violation of scientific integrity are: fabricating, falsifying or plagiarism. Fabricating is making up data or research results and reporting on them as if they were real (standard 19 from chapter 3). Falsification is the manipulation of research material, equipment or processes to modify, withhold or delete data or research results without justification (standard 21). Plagiarism is the use without appropriate recognition of ideas, methods, results or texts of another.
Concerns about fabrication, falsification and plagiarism
- Models fabricate data, that's the whole idea of models. The algorithms used have often been asked. It seems that essential factors such as season and humidity were never taken into account (until a few weeks ago presumably, but that too is guesswork). This has led to the fabrication of incorrect policy-making data.
- The data from the models are nevertheless "real" enough to scare everyone. Orson Welle's 'War of the Worlds' was nothing. After all, it had to be made clear to the population that they really had to adhere to the guidelines. Yet it is precisely this that should be the task of politicians, not of the scientists.
Fear scenarios were hung out of the blue on various graphs, with predictions that were obviously wrong in the eyes of other scientists – and turned out to be so afterwards. Charts are adjusted retroactively including the previously forecasted margins. - Plagiarism is not crediting indebtedness. There are two important predecessors in the concept of aerosols in the Netherlands (Maurice De Hond and to a lesser extent Willem Engel). With the progressive insights of the rivm, they are never mentioned as a source reference or at least thank you for their signal function. That would be appropriate recognition be. Despite the fact that paragraphs on ventilation and aerosols are reluctantly inserted here and there, the measures are still virtually unchanged a year later. The insights on ventilation and aerosols, knowledge of 'outside', in a very unscientific way, are still subordinate to the rivm dogma©
Unexpected scope
The entire code of conduct assumes that a researcher or research group, perhaps a research leader, does not adhere to the code. Not for a moment is it taken into account that an entire institute is in a tube vision with a fear image that is supposed to justify violating scientific integrity. Then, of course, an internal whistleblower procedure does not work either, because the institutional board is also in charge of this.
'If it is assumed that the scientific integrity has been violated, a complaint may be lodged with a committee or official designated for that purpose by the institution. The institution shall ensure a careful and fair procedure for the handling of those complaints and subsequent decision-making. This procedure is also followed if the institutional board itself, independently of a complaint, deems it necessary to investigate possible violation of scientific integrity."
KNAW, Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2018
The rivm is as closed as an oyster and preferably communicates with yes-marbles. Critical voices are kept out – and this code of conduct is also leading for the media. If the judiciary is sought at the last resort, such a legal procedure usually takes long enough to create or amend an emergency law to close any legal gap surrounding a measure. A hermetic stronghold.
It's systemic issues. Making mistakes is allowed, but the correction mechanisms are thwarted and/or fail one after the other: Maintaining scientific integrity, the controlling task of the House of Representatives, difficult questions from critical media. And maybe the judiciary too.
The Academy is responsible for ten national research institutes and three institutes providing infrastructure for research. (The rivm is not one of them.) It makes one think how the responsibility for those 10 institutes is perceived, if the unscientific ruthless obstinacy of Jaap van Dissel was celebrated with an honorary medal on 31 May 2021. A responsible wash.
As a result of this award ceremony, KNAW can be regarded as part of a corrupted system.
There is a need to protect Jaap van Dissel, that much is clear. However, there is also every reason to cut his chair legs – but "corrupt"? I see no indication of that.
[Addendum, October 26, 2021:]
Does rivm not have a Supervisor? Yes, it is. Nominated by - yes - the Academy and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. How can they supervise each other, if they all serve the same interest, why is everything so intertwined? They give each other prizes! Why independent? There's something shameless about it. The dedain is despondent.
(Edit)
Jaap van Dissel, member of KNAW nominated members to the Rivm Supervisory Committee
OMT member Marion Koopmans, member of KNAW who nominates members to the Rivm Supervisory Committee
OMT member Menno de Jong, member of KNAW who nominates members for the Supervisory Committee of the rivm
"Corrupt" in the Netherlands simply means: as an individual bribable or even bribed. "Corrupt" stands for something other than "corrupted", although it is close in emotional value. "Corrupted" describes the failure of a process or system due to outside influences. An institution can be corrupted by interests, incompetence, politics, tunnel vision, budget deficits, you name it. Sand in the machine or kerosene.
It is tempting to call the person in charge of such a corrupted institution "corrupt". Now I often agree with Gideon van Meijeren, but not in this case. People rightly get angry when they notice that a game is being played with them. Then they start shouting themselves over and using wrong words. Gideon has allowed himself to be carried away by the similarity of two words. Jaap van Dissel is not corrupt. Star, dyscalculic, incompetent, all that could be possible, but those qualifications require a thorough diagnosis from a seasoned independent psychiatric team, not by colleagues from the rivm or the ministry.
Yet that's not the problem. People are not perfect. Individuals who exhibit the above corrupting characteristics should still be able to deliver scientific work. They only need to be held to the Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity, as drawn up by the Knaw in the Netherlands.
But that doesn't happen. While WOB requests have been sabotaged, mortality and health data are hidden, scientists are censored (Theo Schetters has now also disappeared from LinkedIn), fraudulent research reports appear to have been approved, rivm models remain under lock and key, repeatedly fiddling with graphs and false predictions and even the sounding board group of the excess mortality committee does NOT have access to the raw mortality data in combination with vaccination status (while that data is just there), Bonten and Koopmans exist to say about their 'scientific practice':
... And they find another 300 scientific colleagues willing to put their signatures on it as well. Put your hand in your own bosom! There is no openness and no transparency and the quality cannot be controlled. People hide behind their own integrity, 'science' and cherry-picked 'evidence-based medicine'.
Not only in the Netherlands
Internationally, scientific alarm bells are also sounded – for 'scientific' deaf ears.
- British Medical Journal is a highly reputable scientific journal that keeps its back straight.
- A January 2021 editorial by Peter Doshi: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now and
- from March 2020 a piece by two scientists from University of Adelaide and California State University, respectively: The illusion of evidence based medicine Well worth reading, also the later review by Robert Malone.
- Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? The basic attitude should no longer be: "the data will be correct, but are the conclusions correct, is the methodology correct?" But: "Are the dates good?"
- The Lancet was with the piece by Peter Daszak before fallen prey to corruption (as a noun of "being corrupted" and influencing it).
- A Research Integrity specialist in the publishing industry also expresses his concerns about the politicisation of science
- Dick Bijl summarizes a book by Peter Gøtzsche: Millions Dead and the End of Academic Freedom – About Now
- Robert F. Kennedy explains in detail how this works in practice in "The Real Anthony Fauci". That this did not lead to defamation charges must have stemmed from the factual accuracy of the unimaginably malicious content.
- When our Dutch media still dared to be pharmacritical (2018), the VPRO broadcast a report about pharma and its mafia practices. Do we think that these influences do not eat into policy bodies and institutions like hyphae? And where did that critical look go? Next to this is the trailer. (The entire 45-minute episode is online here)
Note: the text above is taken almost entirely from an article from exactly one year ago. My blog is being read a bit better now so I'll repeat it, slightly modified.
Will science become an extension of politics and commerce?
The (especially medical) academic world allows itself many mistakes in this time of crisis and that brings science into disrepute. We lose the last most objective beacon of knowledge. Politicization and conflicts of interest are just parts of the evil that underlies the dubious quality that leads to the growing distrust and fueled anger. What matters is the lack of scientific integrity and the dedain with which self-appointed excellent scientists think they don't have to abide by those rules. After all, they have integrity and that is sufficient ground to be allowed to intervene draconian and disastrously.
And then the blatant inaccuracies of course, let's not call it 'lies', liars don't like that word.
Just now, I made a FB post out of it:
Would it make sense to file a complaint with the LOWI?
Just ask.
From: anton@***********.nl <Anton @***********.nl>
Sent: saturday 15 january 2022 16:55
To: Secretariaat LOWI <secretariaat@lowi.nl>
Subject: General questions about Scientific Integrity
L.S.,
Can you refer me to documentation from which I can understand that the scientific integrity of various institutes has not been compromised during the corona crisis? Maybe you have taken (unnoticed) action on it or maybe you cannot take action without 'complaint', in that case I would like to hear that.
For example, I would like to know whether, if a scientific institute obviously violates guidelines, there are any repercussions? Is it 'enforced' and what happens if the enforcer is entangled with the offender? What if a ministry and 'its' knowledge institutes violate those guidelines in the name of 'science'?
You probably already understand where this is going. I expressed my concerns in a blog article on 31 May last year: https://virusvaria.nl/knaw/
This e-mail will not be admissible as a formal complaint and is not intended as such. However, the (what I see as) violations of scientific integrity have had catastrophic consequences for society and for the stature of science in particular. It seems to me that you should also take that into your heart; it goes to the heart of what your Foundation is intended for. It seems to me highly necessary that the supervision of W.I. is better regulated and monitored.
Hopefully you want to think about this as well. I'd love to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Drs. A.E.J.C. Theunissen
From: Secretariaat LOWI <secretariaat@lowi.nl>
Sent: thursday 27 january 2022 12:57
At: ‘anton@antcommunications.nl’ <anton@antcommunications.nl>
Cc: Secretariaat LOWI <secretariaat@lowi.nl>; *********** *********** <***********.***********@lowi.nl>
Subject: RE: General questions about Scientific Integrity
Dear Mr. Theunissen,
I hereby acknowledge receipt of your e-mail of 15 January.
I understand that you have questions about the scientific integrity at institutes during the Corona crisis.
As you yourself point out in your e-mail, the LOWI advisory committee is indeed not authorised to advise or conduct research on its own initiative. Only at the request of a party in a specific complaints procedure does the LOWI issue advice on scientific integrity. An institutional board then gives a final opinion on whether a scientist has violated scientific integrity or not.
The LOWI can therefore not answer your questions.
I trust that I have informed you sufficiently.
Sincerely,
*********** ***********
official secretary LOWI
National Body for Scientific Integrity (LOWI)
The Trippenhuis
P.O. Box 19121
NL-1000 GC Amsterdam
www.lowi.nl
From: Anton @***********.nl <anton@***********.nl>
Sent: thursday 27 january 2022 14:57
At: ‘Secretariaat LOWI’ <secretariaat@lowi.nl>
Subject: RE: General questions about Scientific Integrity
Dear Madam ***********,
Thank you very much for your reply. Indeed, I had already expected this answer a bit. I was hoping for a moral compass against my better judgment.
You may understand that I do not see a gap in filing a complaint with the RIVM or with the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Even WOB requests, parliamentary questions and court rulings are ignored by these institutes. That too is widely accepted, so it seems to me to be a hopeless action.
It's no different.
Sincerely,
Anton Theunissen
Virusvaria.nl
Good work, Anton. It is time for the hidden corrupting structures to be exposed. Science is interpretation of research results, discussion, adversarial hearing. Which of the letter's 300 supporters have looked critically at ALL the results of early treatment, vaccine damage, exaggeration of the danger of covid, harm from lockdowns, etc? And have the debate on this encouraged? I dare say: few or no one. An outrageous display, unworthy of the Netherlands. Mvg, JD
Is it wise to leave the email addresses as is? (Not that I'm a proponent of "lacquering.")
For me yes but you have a point, they are not all public addresses .
That's what I meant.
Good action from you, so be so impressed with your efforts.
An excellent piece, Anton, which I read with admiration.
Every day I experience the damage caused by the press, NOS and related media in the brains of all those who use these institutes as (only) sources of information.
The whole people are being held hostage. Look at the government, too. In the past, misinforming the chamber was a mortal sin and led to the fall of the person concerned or the government. Now it has turned into a daily sin and no one is talking about consequences anymore: unimaginable, but it does happen.
Big thanks for your wisdom and perseverance!
It is very strange that the press and opposition are so massively silent about all the deception that is being poured out on the population. And.. what is very unfortunate is that one of the few parties that do say something (FvD) always brings it in such a way that everyone falls over the form (choice of words), so that the content of their in itself very justified comment is not heard and disappears into the background.
Yes, the virtue-rascals in society prefer to fall over unsavory words rather than unsavory deeds. Be that as it may: because of this not so sensitive attitude of FvD, their words lead to little awakening. I sometimes wonder why they (FvD) keep doing that. Choosing slightly more tactical words and they achieve much more with them. And it is so important that the critical sound finally achieves something.
Strange? Genuine? Or sarcastic? If you find it really strange, read https://deblauwetijger.com/product/gekochte-journalisten-udo-ulfkotte/ Once you agree, you'll understand why. The 1977 article on https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977 also gives you a bit more background on what the media actually is.
About the following 2 publications, I have submitted complaints about the authors working in the Netherlands to the Scientific Integrity Committees at the various institutions. It concerns the reporting of the conspiracy theory about a lab leak hypothesis and the incorrect reporting of "overwhelming evidence" in the publication: Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19.
And without any evidence, without any argument and without reference, naming the "zoonotic transmission" of Sars Cov 2 in the publication: The species Severe acute respiratory syndromerelated coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2 (Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses*)
After the procedures had expired, the LOWI (see LOWI website) came up with the shameful advice: LOWI advice 2022-09 and LOWI advice 2023-14 and 15.
To me, these statements mean that the current system of Scientific Integrity in the Netherlands is demonstrably not working.
Wegens de actualiteit over de lab leak gebeurtenissen ,hierbij het eerste verzoek gedaan op 10-5-2021
Aan de Commissie wetenschappelijke integriteit van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (EUR)
Geachte commissie
Hierbij dien ik een klacht in wegens overtreding van de wetenschappelijke integriteit door het Erasmus Medisch Centrum Rotterdam (EUR) wegens het mede publiceren en ondertekenen van een Statement in de Lancet(19-2-2020) ,waarin onzorgvuldige niet onafhankelijke en onjuiste informatie wordt gepubliceerd.
Het betreft de zin”’we stand together to strongly condemm conspiracy theories suggesting that covid-19 does not have a natural origin””.
In de Statement wordt verder geconcludeerd dat de betrokken personen en instituties uit vele landen“”overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife””.
In dit artikel wordt geen definitie gegeven wat men onder natuurlijke en niet natuurlijke oorsprong van Cov 19 verstaat. Het uitsluiten van een niet natuurlijke oorsprong (door menselijk handelen veroorzaakt )van het covid 19 virus is onterecht omdat bekend is dat door onzorgvuldig menselijk handelen in de afgelopen 60 jaren vaak virussen zijn ontsnapt uit laboratoria.
Ik beschouw het ondertekenen van deze Statement hierdoor als een aantasting van de wetenschappelijke integriteit van de EUR en verzoek hierbij om een onderzoek naar de reden van publiceren in de Lancet en de reden van meedoen van de EUR aan deze publicatie door de commissie wetenschappelijke integriteit van de EUR..
Uit veterinaire laboratoria ontsnapte virussen zijn o.a, mond en klauwzeer in 1984(CDI Lelystad) Ook Bovine Virus Diarrhee in een vaccin tegen Infectieuze Rhinopneumonie in 1999 is vanuit het productie laboratorium van de producent ontsnapt en ook bij de productie van foetal calf serum heeft het laboratorium Bovine Virus Diarrhee bij runderen ziektes doen uitbreken.
Humaan gezien zijn er diverse malen pokken virussen vanuit Engelse laboratoria uitgebroken ,is er Sars 1 ontsnapt vanuit laboratoria in Singapore Taiwan en 4 keer uit een laboratorium in Peking.
In de USA bestaan ook vele gevallen van virus ontsnappingen uit laboratoria ;o.a. Sars en H1N1.
Al deze(en veel meer) ontsnappingen en daardoor gevaren voor de mens zijn de redenen dat laboratoria moeten voldoen aan veiligheidseisen (BSL)
Nu is bekend dat in China onderzoek gedaan wordt bij het Wuhan Virulogisch Instituut (WIV)
naar virussen afkomstig van vleermuizen. Vleermuizen worden 1500 km verwijderd van Wuhan gevangen in de grotten in Yunnan door professionele vleermuisvangers(was zichtbaar op een inmiddels verwijderde video) Het materiaal werd vervolgens opgestuurd naar een of meerdere laboratoria in Wuhan of mogelijk andere plaatsen in China voor nader onderzoek.
In het WIV met aangetoonde slechte “” bio safety levels “” werden virussen uit vleermuizen verzameld ,gekweekt, opgeslagen en andere handelingen verricht ,waarbij er in zeer veel situaties contactmomenten zijn ontstaan van (mogelijk Cov 19 )virus met medewerkers. Dus het ontsnappen van een virus door directe overdracht naar een mens is een plausibele mogelijkheid.
Dit kan men dan als een niet natuurlijke oorzaak van een virus uitbaak definiëren en verdient wel degelijk nader onderzoek.
Het in de Lancet stellen dat een niet natuurlijke oorsprong een “”conspiracy “” theorie is ,is onjuist , onzorgvuldig en niet op feiten gebaseerd.
Een ander aspect van niet natuurlijke oorsprong van het covid 19 virus betreft de ontstaansgeschiedenis. Indien het huidig geïdentificeerde covid 19 virus in de natuur gevonden wordt is de oorsprong natuurlijk (Dit is mogelijk en wordt verklaard door het volgende argument nl: het intensievere contact van de mens door overbevolking met de natuur ,waardoor de huidige pandemie veroorzaakt zou zijn. Argumenten en bewijslast over een dergelijke natuurramp in dit kader zijn er echter nauwelijks)
Het covid 19 virus kan ook door bepaalde technieken door mensen uit andere virussen zijn gefabriceerd. Een bekende techniek is bijvoorbeeld de passage van een griepvirus via een aantal fretten, waarbij het virus, na vrijkomen uit de laatste fret, veel virulenter voor de fret geworden was.
Deze techniek en ook andere technieken om genetische verschillen in virussen te veroorzaken zijn al jaren gemeengoed en produceren niet natuurlijk virussen Het niet natuurlijke virus is geen product wat als als “conspiracy”aangemerkt dient te worden”. De technieken zijn gewoon al jarenlang gangbaar..
In de Statement in de Lancet is de publicatie van Kristian G Andersen (The proximal origin of SARS-COV -2 ) vermeld .
Deze publicatie is toonaangevend betreffende het aangeven van argumenten en bewijslast van een natuurlijke oorzaak van Sars Cov 2.Veel ondertekenaars van de Statement in de Lancet werden door deze publicatie geïnspireerd in de overtuiging van een natuurlijke oorsprong van Covid 19.
Echter , direct na publicatie van het Andersen stuk beweerden bekende en gerenommeeerde wetenschappers (Sorensen,Latham, Ebright ,Quay ,Secreto ) dat er onjuistheden staan in het artikel van Andersen.
Bovendien bestonden er toen(2019/ 2020) ook al publicaties van wetenschappers , waaruit blijkt dat : een door mensenhanden vervaardigd virus als oorzaak van de uitbraak van Covid 19 zeer wel mogelijk en aannemelijk is. Deze wetenschappers hebben een oproep gedaan aan de WHO om vervolg onderzoek naar de oorsprong van covid 19 in China te gaan doen.
Wat zijn de gevolgen:
– Door de Statement in de Lancet van 19-2-2020 is een tweespalt ontstaan tussen wetenschappers
die standpunten innemen ,die voor en tegen een natuurlijke oorsprong zijn van Sars Cov
– De virulogisch medewerkers van de EUR kunnen niet meer met goed fatsoen onderzoek doen
naar de niet natuurlijke oorsprong van Sars Cov 2 (dat is immers conspiracy)
– De zeer grote deskundigheid van de medewerkers van de EUR naar de zoektocht van elke
oorsprongsmogelijkheid wordt niet ingezet om toekomstige pandemieën te voorkomen. Hierdoor
ontstaat vertraging in de zoektocht naar een veiligere werkomgeving van laboratoria ,waar met
virussen gewerkt wordt. ,met als doelstelling de kans op toekomstige pandemieën te
minimaliseren.
– De burgers in Nederland en de wereld verliezen hun vertrouwen in de wetenschap.
– De media in Europa lijken bevooroordeeld te zijn door onjuiste informatie
– ”Conspiracy”” denkers worden beloond.
– Politieke verdeeldheid in de wereld ,aangezien regeringen in de diverse landen verschillende
conclusies trekken en daardoor andere wegen inslaan.
Graag zou ik een onderzoek van uw commissie willen hebben naar de oorzaak van publicatie en betrokkenheid van de EUR over de inhoud van de ze Statement in de Lancet.
Met dank en vriendelijke groet
J.Rodewijk (gepensioneerd dierenarts)
DSM has received millions from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport for the production of (superfluous) face masks. Interestingly, the CEO of DSM at that time was Edith Schippers, former Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. Yes, in times of crisis, the lines between government and business are very short.
Also special was the role of former DSM CEO Feike Sijbesma. Just after the outbreak of the corona 'pandemic', he was appointed special corona envoy. What did he have to do in that role and what did he achieve? It's an unknown! By the way, Sijbesma would have done everything pro bono. He even paid the expenses himself. Of course, that's not how it works in the world of bosses, so Sijbesma really got something in return. But what??? It remains a shady business...
Nice piece Anton. A good example of what scientific integrity looks like can be found at https://www.terraintheory.net/blogs/podcast/episode-126-jamie-andrews-on-ending-virology-control-studies-and-the-peoples-science.