Speaking is Dr. Jona Walk MSc, MD, PhD: "Er is een soort ongeschreven regel in de academisch-medische wereld: je mag nooit iets zeggen ten nadele van vaccins, ook niet als je het wetenschappelijk kunt onderbouwen. Dat mag gewoon niet. Dat is een ongeschreven maar echt een breed bekende regel. Anders loopt je carrière gevaar en zou je zelfs wel ontslagen kunnen worden. Dat mag echt niet. Mensen die het beste met mij voor hadden zeiden dat tegen mij."
A taboo, notes Dr. Ad Verbrugge, host of this conversation. Yet they also have that laughable quality, which we also see on MSM (see the short clip with Jack van Gelder, who confesses his regret). It's actually too embarrassing for words. But the weight of Jonah's words cannot be weighed heavily enough.
Courage
What courage Jona Walk shows here. Science corruption is simply mentioned. That is also about the people around her... They cannot elaborate much further on what that means for the interpretation of the corona policy and the underlying 'science' or for society in general. That seems like a kind of naivety: blind trust in institutions, even among the fiercest critics. They really think that the world is just and governed by science and law. If something goes wrong it is because of a single bad apple in the science basket and everyone else is wise and sensible with a steadfast moral compass. They build on the system that put them in the position they have reached. But we cannot estimate Ad and Jona to be that naive. Let's remember that we are here at De Nieuwe Wereld, on YouTube. You have to be very careful with your words there if you want to stay in the picture. So we are going to provide some explanation here and there.
For example, in response to a question from Ad, Jona indicates that he does not fully understand why omerta is so pronounced with vaccines and not with other medicines. As I estimate her (you can also see her thinking for a moment what she will say) she dances around the hot mush here. It might be for the best because the answer is rather flat, not exactly of an academic level.
That question is not very difficult to answer: vaccines are pharmaceutical products with the entire world population as a target group, for which you do not need to advertise, for which no diagnoses need to be made, free PR through governments and media, with relatively simple large-scale logistics, and a bulk approach to which even children and newborns can be subjected, provided that proper lobbying has been done. Under the banner of 'a vaccine', the admission rules are also milder in terms of research than for other medicines, see also the article Turtles all the way down. This entails relatively low investments. In short: billions can be raised with it. Easy money.
And if an injection does not work so well, you can say that a complete vaccination consists of two injections, which almost doubles your turnover. Not to mention subsequent booster rounds, in case it doesn't work at all the way a vaccine should work, or if it disrupts immune systems. It concerns many, many tens of billions. That is a different matter than a specialized medicine for diseases that only affect a few percent of the (often only older) population. Jona knows that better than anyone, but yes, tell a story like that if you are in that business yourself. There are limits to what you can make.
"Met iemand die kritiek op vaccins geeft, daar willen wij gewoon niet mee samenwerken" she was told and later on Jonah confesses: "Het is mij niet gelukt om in mijn vakgebied te blijven zonder de wetenschappelijke integriteit te compromitteren".
That's deadly. And incredibly brave; I hold my heart for her. It's so brave... as long as she fully realizes what kind of monster she's looking into the mouth. Systems are like reptiles.
Ad calls it "typerend" how people speak and especially remain silent in the medical/academic world, but it is much more than that. It means that we are dealing with a sick, rotten, corrupted and unscientific system, rolled out in society by the media. A system that has been dysfunctional behind the scenes for decades, which we could have seen in the Andrew Wakefield affair in 1998. It is not specifically something of today, although Covid has now pushed the wings. (Thanks to X. It makes sense that social media is so under fire from the dispatchers.)
In the conversation they remain neatly within their own circles: what if Jona's research had turned out positive for the vaccines. "Dan was je nu hoogleraar geweest" jokes Ad. It's actually terrible. You can only conclude from this that there is structural lying and that the world is taking wrong turns as a result.
Vervolgens gaat het gesprek terug naar vragen rond het hoofdthema "academische vrijheid" zoals zij dat zelf ervaren in hun bezigheden. Onbesproken blijft daarbij hoe er zich de afgelopen decennia een wetenschappelijke maffia heeft gemanifesteerd, met alle desastreuze gevolgen, waaronder ontelbare doden, van dien.
You can't cover everything in one episode, but one day I would like to hear whether such a clustering of interests has only developed in the medical industry or whether it always happens where 'independent experts' and 'academia' interfere with tens of billions in profits - or even bigger goals. Consider, for example, the Sustainable Development Goals or the war industry.
Strength
The higher all-governing powers are not science, reason and debate. They are: economy, power and money.
Nor is it about the accidental evil and amoral puppets of that moment who do something wrong or conspire with entangled interests: Fauci here, Koopmans there. Jan Bonte meticulously unravels this, he maps out exactly how the hares walked. That is a wealth of valuable information, also for possible future lawsuits, but the core of the problem is not with those officials, not even with the propagandists. If you leave it to the system, Fauci's successor will do the same thing again.
The real fault lies in that system that we have built ourselves, a system that, just like in politics, keeps pushing those 'immoral' followers to the top. This creates an unstable scientific apparatus that governments are only too happy to make instrumental in expanding their power. It also opens the way to illicit means of power, such as the development of bioweapons, if necessary through NGOs. Then you are talking about immense powers.
Power overpowers the mandate.
A glimpse of the future
Jonah is looking forward to R.F. Kennedy Jr., who wants to tackle that problem. If RFK succeeds, the effect will not only be that people can finally work and think in academic freedom. I can also imagine that a large part of her field and of the scientific literature will have to be overhauled. And who will review that...?
The role of the failing media, willing spokesperson for Big Pharma and therefore crucial in this immense medical scandal, is only discussed in passing in this conversation. Too bad, because scientists (and judges) also read their 'quality newspaper', that's where they get the big picture, for example what society looks like in it. But time is limited and a conversation with a clearly defined topic is also nice.
The New World is a valuable, if not great, platform, despite all the limitations that YouTube imposes. With this conversation, Jona and Ad once again make a valuable contribution to the image surrounding the corona debacle. Step by step, spoon by spoon... If only the pennies could drop a little faster for many people.
At the end of the conversation, they agree that there is one thing that makes the difference: courage.
Jonah shows here what courage looks like. I really hope for a good outcome for her. May more of her colleagues step up!
But above all, see for yourself, Like and donate.
Great reflection, Anton! This is exactly what is going on in medical science. Big pharma decides and disposes, the population consisting of 80-90% sheep follows and obeys. And those few critical minds, who use their brains and see through what is happening, well, we shut them up, don't we? Plenty of money anyway. And that Maarten K., from quality newspaper VK, does support us...
Keep up the good work, Anton, the truth must come out and settle the bill for all the suffering inflicted.
Nice to hear. On X I hear that I have done it again"to churn out another fact free blog about the medical industrial complex"
Kudos to Anton again!
And kudos to Jonah again!
'In response to a question from Ad, for example, Jonah says that he does not fully understand why omerta is so pronounced in vaccines and not in other medicines.'
The answer to this is (in my opinion) as follows: The more unscientifically the usefulness of the product is substantiated, the greater the omerta.
There is not even the beginning of scientific evidence to be found about vaccines. It's hot air from start to finish. And therefore complete omerta.
After vaccines, for example, statins and antidepressants come into the picture. The omerta is slightly less there than with vaccines because there is a little more scientific evidence (but still very little)
Then the other cardiovascular remedies, lifestyle, a number of operations such as appendectomy
Only well-tried medicines, such as painkillers and operations for knee fracture and hip fracture, are not based on omerta and may be extensively criticized because the evidence of efficacy is strong.
It is strange how doctors, whose character is not accompanied by mafia terms such as omerta, still stick to such terms within that family. And maybe it is: they want to belong and stay part of the family. They are each other's amice colleagues.
I myself now consider the medical scientist with the right character to be the consigliere of the family. I could see Jonah Walk as such. Just like Ronald Meester, for example. They say the right things to the family, but they are not listened to... The family does tolerate them. Still... Of course, the question is also how long the consigliere will tolerate the family... There are also those who are done with it and are going to do something else. I can understand that too.
In the end, I think (I hope?) that most of the medical profession is fed up with corruption for the simple reason that it leads nowhere and is completely unnecessary within the system as it is designed, but by design mean games are played by a small group of people who are focused on money and power.
There is nothing wrong with medical science.
However, there is something going on with some medical scientists.
Time for a cleaning. Start with the subsidy. Demand thorough research. Give money to practical subsidy proposals and don't spend a penny on model-based crap and other theorizing. Then the rest will follow automatically.
By the way, I saw that a similar problem occurs in physics with, for example, string theory from which EVERYTHING can be explained (and is therefore a meaningless theory), but this is slightly outside my field.. See the interesting blog Not even wrong about this
I think we agree. Here you describe a system where people of integrity are filtered out. Of course, there is nothing wrong with 'medical science'. The problem is the institutionalization in which the apparatski are promoted and the honest are canceled. So it is not in 'some scientists' who do something wrong. The problem is that they are not filtered out, but rather reach the highest positions.
Agreed. Thanks for your response!
Read somewhere: "There is no shortage of anything, only of courageous people!" Fortunately, I see more and more, discussed here or here. Thanks!
There is a lot wrong with medical science. Since the Rockefellers switched from oil to medicine at the beginning of the last century, things have gone wrong. With their incredible ability, they focused medical schools and determined the curriculum. Since then, Medicine has been called Medicine. That has not changed to this day, all natural remedies were then effectively killed and labeled quackery.
A note about the profitability and easy money of the vaccine industry. In the 1980s, Big Pharma complained that, due to all the lawsuits for side effects and the resulting damages, they could no longer make a profit on vaccines. Instead of providing better products, they sought (and found) the solution in abolishing their liability with regard to vaccines. In 1986 they had bribed enough Senators to get this law through. Since then, it has been a free for all, because scientifically substantiated research into the effectiveness and safety of vaccines has never really been done since. That is one of the points of RFK, that since that time no vaccine has gone through an objective, double-blind trial. And that is why the rMNA product had to be called a vaccine (which it is not at all), because then one is exempt from liability (in the US). In the rest of the world, this exemption is enforced in the (secret) contracts that were concluded with the various countries.
Yep. Nice overview, you are well informed!
Is largely true what you write. A remark: As early as the seventies, the study of medicine was called 'medicine' in the Netherlands. This was much to the displeasure of a number of mainly left-wing students who rightly felt that the study was much more than just writing a prescription. 'I am not a medicine man (m/f)' was a well-known slogan at the time. Eventually, the study was called medicine again. Not that this has helped much.
As long as there is an actual monopoly on 'medicine', namely the academic one, it will not be difficult to always fall into the trap of the fraud we have experienced in the COVID era.
The universities – ideally the independent sources – will never have enough money to validate their discoveries and bring them to the market, which will inevitably lead to "Big this-and-that" leaving the wings, and money and profit will play a leading role.
If insurers can/will assign an equal role to medicines that are now only reimbursed to a limited extent - and which used to be very common/mainstream - in supplementary insurances, then it will already look very different because the freedom of choice for the patient will increase enormously.
So: abolishing the/all obligations of the current monopoly game of and in the current situation
Let the patient choose for himself where he wants to join and finally: He who heals is right from whatever corner that healing comes (and he who does evil should be able to be persecuted).
Charlatans will continue to exist, but, to put it somewhat "alt-fashionably", let the market do its work; clumsy people dig their own grave with this freedom of choice
That's an interesting one. In a sense, the insurers have interests that are opposite to those of pharma. There are opportunities there, you would say.
Well Anton, I lost that hope a few years ago: treatment and therefore illness is their revenue model. And with prevention advice, everyone is bound by the well-known mantras such as fat is bad, sun is dangerous, probiotics have not been proven, etcetera.
Both broadcast and commentary very good and educational. Nice what DNW does, but also happy with Virusvaria:-).
The structures are indeed quite sick. It is useful to think about where that 'groupthink' comes from. Ad and Jona have a nice exchange of ideas about this.
Where does Groupthink come from? There is a very short answer to that: money!
1) Don't forget the follow-up treatments that are needed after being pricked. Returning customers. Kasssa.
2) We didn't build this system ourselves. We have been recruited out of fear of illness and death (pharma) and filled with hatred by others (war). It is the high salaries that have built this and preserve their omerta. Not the common man. He is either not smart enough to see through this stronghold, or has long since been kicked out and into poverty.
3) as long as doctors and politicians are paid (in)directly from the industry, the insurance companies will not stand up and realize that unvaccinated people are almost always healthier and that the real factor of importance has been sanitation and a good own immune system. They also have eye blinds on to stay on the straight and narrow.
Formerly a pastor, now the general practitioner.
1) Yes, too.
By 2) I mean: we build trains without brakes. We set up institutes with yes-men on the supervisory boards, never people with opposing interests, who really dare to be critical and have the necessary distrust. Then politics and media would have to be on top of it, but yes... It was wrong in the first instance and now the question is whether it can still be reversed.
3) If insurers do not want to get into trouble with the aging population, a healthier population would help. seemed to me. On the other hand: it's not their money, they only distribute our money so why should they care.
En ze beleggen het geld wat ze niet uitgeven in winstgevende beleggingen, zoals de farmacie…
Criticism of vaccines etc. is also taboo in the (usually woke) media. On some of its sites, you as a reader are allowed to add a little nuance, but the media themselves remain silent or ridicule the critics, even on GeenStijl. In the old media, you mainly have to rely on a few critical columnists such as the Telegraaf.
Political parties are also quite massively silent. There are no longer any really critical voices from, for example, PVDD, NSC or PVV. It is one big omerta that only becomes more all-encompassing while/because there is more and more evidence that we have been lied to from all sides.