The sequel to Part 1, van eergisteren. Daarin lag de nadruk op de effecten van de georkestreerde overheidscommunicatie op de bevolking. Dit artikel richt zich op de de effecten op zorgverleners en wat dat voor consequenties heeft gehad op de zorg zelf, denk aan behandelingen en patiëntenzorg. Aan instituten die zich opstellen als hoeder van "Kwaliteit van Zorg" met claims als "Goede verzekerde zorg voor iedereen in Nederland, nu en in de toekomst" wordt geen aandacht besteed omdat die geen enkele rol hebben gespeeld - een ander punt dat nog aandacht moet krijgen.
Een extreem zorgelijk punt van de zorg...
Een waarnemend arts die iemand 'dood moet kijken' (zoals ik onlangs leerde hoe een lijkschouwing in vakjargon wordt genoemd), wat moet die invullen bij de doodsoorzaken? "Moest uw moeder hoesten?" "Ja dokter, ze had aan het eind wel een lelijke hoest". "En verhoging?" "Ja in het begin wel maar dat hebben we op een gegeven moment niet meer gemeten."
Wat vul je dan in als waarnemend arts ten tijde van een epidemie waar je uiterst alert moet zijn op een besmettelijke ziekte? Dat is een diagnose die je absoluut niet mag missen, dat zou een blunder zijn die zomaar tot meer ziekte en overlijdens zou kunnen leiden. Dus wat doe je, neem je het zekere voor het onzekere met 'Verdenking van Covid' of laat je het voor wat het is? En zou de eigen huisarts dat dan eigenlijk wel anders hebben gedaan?
Dit effect wordt gemakkelijk onderschat omdat mensen niet alleen overlijden tijdens kantooruren of als de eigen huisarts bezoeken aflegt. Bij een achturige werkdag hangt het bordje "Gesloten" twee keer zo lang voor de deur als het bordje "Geopend".
Het is zo ook niet ondenkbaar dat we door dit sentiment onder artsen meer hospitalisaties hebben gehad. Meer diagnoses, meer verwijzingen, aangepaste medicatie. Bij behandelingen werd in een soortgelijke radeloosheid afgeweken van protocollen of er kwamen inderhaast nieuwe, net zoals er in de politiek wetten en grondrechten werden gebroken met noodwetten en de WHO het pandemie-handboek aan de kant gooide en van tijd tot tijd de definities van "epidemie" en "immuniteit" actualiseerde zodat het beleid weer paste.
Government communications led to abuses
Zo speelt nu bijvoorbeeld de Midazolam-kwestie die (in elk geval in UK) veel levenseindes bespoedigd lijkt te hebben. "End-of-Life" protocollen met hoge doses Midazolam werden ingezet op ouderen met Covid. Het voedt genocide-complotten: "ze wilden van die oudjes af".
Twitter account @Jikkyleaks reported on it earlier.
Terug naar het thema van dit artikel: De zorgverleners wilden echt de pijn verlichten, het zou toch uitzichtloos lijden worden, dus ze volgden de aangepaste protocollen, al zullen er toch zijn geweest die de wenkbrauwen hebben gefronst. Maar ach, waarom het leven nog rekken bij zo'n slopende, onbarmhartige ziekte die toch maar eindigt in een gruwelijke verstikkingsdood - in eenzame isolatie ook nog? En zeker bij die oudjes waar toch al niemand bij mocht... Beter voor iedereen, ook voor de patiënt. (ze kregen trouwens ook geen eten/drinken - maar zie vooral this Tweet, that's pretty much all there is to it.)
In some places, Covid patients were not given antibiotics because that did not help against Covid.
Dit is te zien aan het geregistreerde aantal toedieningen en de inkoop van middelen. De weg naar het overlijden aan een bacteriële pneumonie lag daarmee open. Er zijn bronnen die melden dat gevaccineerden daarentegen wél antibiotica kregen omdat bij hen werd getwijfeld of het echt wel Covid was. Ze waren immers gevaccineerd. Dat zou, afgezien van de menselijke drama's, de survival rate van gevaccineerden flatteren.
That aside, I'm not going to look for the links now either. Informative is this video by Dr. John Campbell about changed protocols.
More about this in a later article.
De vraag is hoeveel minder erg Covid-19 had kunnen zijn, zonder doemscenario's en andere zwaarden van Damocles. En hetzelfde geldt voor LONG-Covid. En vaccinatieschade, als er transparant was gecommuniceerd. Er is sprake van iatrogene sterfte.
Geldt voor diagnose 'vaccinatieschade' hetzelfde?
Ongetwijfeld zullen er patiënten zijn die na vaccinatie ziek zijn geworden waarbij de angst voor bijwerkingen van de vaccins een rol heeft gespeeld. Het grote verschil is wel dat de vaccinaties niet weken-, maanden-, jarenlang door media, overheid en autoriteiten als gevaarlijk zijn afgeschilderd. Integendeel: ze waren nadrukkelijk helemaal veilig. Ik zie nog de wanhoop bij Karoly Ily omdat de woorden hem tekort schoten om uit te leggen hoe veilig het wel niet was. (En ze wisten nog niks toen.) Bijna iedereen beschouwde de negatieve publiciteit rond vaccinaties als wappie-talk, onzin. Artsen die iets anders durfden te beweren liepen het risico hun BIG-registratie kwijt te raken, nou dat doen ze niet zomaar hoor...!
Doctors will also not feel the same urge to label conditions as possibly related to vaccinations, which they themselves have recommended, where they might have a preference to signal a suspicion of Covid.
The Dutch citizens who have really taken the negative publicity surrounding the vaccines - if they have noticed anything at all - seriously, have not been vaccinated. So that imagined vaccination damage does not exist. That was a minority, according to the RIVM.
De meeste mensen hadden en hebben gewoon geen benul, die hadden juist vertrouwen, getuige de triomfantelijke gezichten op social media na het ontvangen van de prik. Als ze ziek werden, zeiden ze "daar zie je aan dat het werkt". Dus dat nocebo-effect bij gevaccineerden... ik weet het niet, het moet een stuk minder zijn. In mijn eigen omgeving heb ik ook ernstige gevallen gezien (een hartfalen in de auto en twee onverwachte hersenbloedingen, waarvan een fataal) waarbij geen enkele relatie met de eerdere vaccinaties werd gelegd door de betrokkenen. Daar praat je ook niet over. Misschien was het ook niet zo - we zullen het nooit weten.
Unfortunately, there was also a group that didn't want to but couldn't do anything else due to all kinds of circumstances. But if you are so convinced of the side effects, you can arrange something. If a family that wants to go on winter sports can buy QR passes on the black market, and hospital workers have been caught injecting with saline solution for a fee, then surely there were options for those who were truly terrified of the jab. However, the vast majority of those who have been jabbed still do not notice anything.
Wat de sterfte betreft zijn er minder twijfels. Obducties tonen duidelijk aan of eventuele schade door het vaccin of door Covid is veroorzaakt, dus daarover hoeft geen twijfel te bestaan - tenminste als men obducties zou doen want dat wordt niet gestimuleerd. Dat is merkwaardig want het zou veel onzekerheid kunnen wegnemen over de dodelijkheid van de vaccins.
What will have caused more mortality: Delayed care, the nocebo effect or vaccinations?
Long Covid data from the ONS (UK CBS)
Last year there was a study, still in the heat of battle, in which of all schoolchildren originally reported as Long-Covid, only 2% were found to actually have Long Covid, after the complaints were compared with the complaints of children who had not experienced Covid-19.
Een professor geeft aan dat die klachten dus kennelijk veel voorkomen bij schoolkinderen, ongeacht doorgemaakte Covid-19 - tenminste als we de testen mogen geloven.
I would add, however, that we may have made those other unpricked children just as sick, purely with horror stories.
About that research in schools:
- Read the full Article on Daily Mail
- In March 2022, Daniël van der Tuin on Twitter a short summary (text below:)
Officiële data van het Britse Office for National Statistics (ONS) laten zien dat "long covid" bij kinderen drastisch overgerapporteerd wordt. Het kwam voor bij 1% van de jongeren onder de 11 jaar. 1/4
The ONS says only one in 100 primary school-age pupils actually has long covid, despite half of parents reporting at least one of the symptoms. 2/4
Since March 2020, 47.5% of children with long-term symptoms have tested positive. However, 46.6% with the same symptoms did not test positive. 3/4
In reactie op de bevindingen zei professor Viner: "Deze gegevens benadrukken hoe vaak symptomen zoals vermoeidheid of hoofdpijn voorkomen bij kinderen en tieners, ongeacht of ze covid-19 hebben of niet." 4/4
The power of the mind.
Very nice to be kept informed of such matters in this way.
Thanks for that Anton
Campbell, too, is a – probably well-meaning – useful idiot, caught in the virus lie. As a result, he doesn't get beyond endless discussion of details that don't matter. After all, viruses do not exist, "infectious disease" is also nonsense. With that, the whole house of cards collapses. But people like him cannot/dare not admit to themselves and the outside world that they have been propagating a lie all their lives. Ego or cognitive dissonance – or both – stand in their way enormously. Critical thinking is impossible for such people, because they always stay well within the paths of government and industry.
Leo, can you post something businesslike, not just psychology of the cold ground? I sincerely hope that you come up with a better model than the one we have to work with now and that offers a reasonable grip on epidemic phenomena. I am asking this question for the third time.
If you're just ranting, I'd kindly ask you to find another outlet for that. It is no longer specifically about a virus – strictly speaking, it has never been about that. It is about the crisis that has been manufactured around it.
Rants... Because I'm preaching something other than usual?
Another model? That's been there for over a hundred and fifty years. Search for "terrain theory" or "terrain model of disease". You'll be surprised.
You're still missing the point: everything in this crisis is based on the virus model.
No, because you're constantly on the same drum and labeling dissenters with mental health issues. I will try to find a brief description of the theory you have in your head via Google and maybe continue from there.
I may be missing the point, but I don't think this crisis is based on the virus model at all. If there is a better model for dealing with disease and death, the commerce kongsi will put aside the virus model and start abusing the new to expand their property and power. You don't necessarily need viruses for that. This could also be done, for example, with water, climate, food, nitrogen, terrain, etc. etc.
I now realize that you can already see something similar happening: Fauci now claims that injecting vaccines can't actually work: it has to be sprayed into the air. So the puncture model is just as easily overhauled.
Bit off-topic: The next round of vaccination is about to be rolled out. All over-60s receive a shingles vaccine. An annoying condition, but very rarely life-threatening. Although pharma and in their wake the media, would have us believe otherwise. https://www.trouw.nl/zorg/60-plussers-krijgen-vaccinatie-tegen-gordelroos~ba987d30/
Shingles is also not caused by a virus, because viruses do not exist. Somewhat similar is the story about herpes, a nice video about it can be found on https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-We-Weren't-Taught-About-Herpes:3.
It is so sad that all these people are injected with poison for nothing.
@Anton: "labels dissenters with mental health problems" – really? If you do have an example of that, I will offer you my sincere apologies, but I do not believe that I have used the term "mental health problems", or anything to that effect. Or do you mean "cognitive dissonance"? If so, that's not a problem, it's a widely recognized psychological mechanism that affects everyone to varying degrees.
And yes, of course I keep beating the same drum – that's what the mainstream media does. Only with repetition can you try to get people who have been brainwashed all their lives out of that "hypnosis".
I agree that different crises such as war, climate, etc. can be used. However, for the past three years and many times in history, the virus model has been used by governments to seize more power and by eugenics to make people they consider waste sick with vaccines, in order to earn money from these victims.
But, you don't mean that because other crises can be used, we don't have to pay attention to the virus model, do you? Don't you think it's terrible that innocent children are vaccinated against something that doesn't exist, just to make them stupid and sick, so that later when they grow up, governments and business have good and obedient slaves?
About another model: a nice summary of the contagion lie can be found at https://www.transitieweb.nl/achtergrond-longreads/de-besmettingsmythe-een-nederlandstalige-samenvatting-van-the-contagion-myth/.
An into in terrain theory can be found at https://balanced-health.nl/germ-theorie-versus-terrain-theory/.
PS: if I occasionally express myself indiscriminately, it is mainly because I am very, very angry with robbery and (pharmaceutical) industry.
Hi Leo,
I'll follow you. I'm reading virusmania. There is no evidence for the causation: virusA causes disease B. Then we have drug C. That in turn gives side effects and so we have to give drug D etc. American children get 78 cocks against 16 diseases. The question is why? Many diseases have disappeared because the environment - terrain theory - changed (clean drinking water, better nutrition). For example, despite the fact that there is no vaccine, we no longer have plague in Europe. There is no evidence that viruses exist in the sense that they cause disease. All we have is the electron microscope. Sars-voc2 is a computer model of a piece of what we call RNA protein. There's a lot to say and research and write about it. It's just that "one"—the science doesn't need it. Because so much money is earned, we no longer look any further and we are stuck in a kind of middle ages in terms of thinking. We suffer from dogmas. Thanks to this crisis, many more scientists and doctors are aware of this. Hopefully we can get out of the stranglehold of the pharmaceutical industry and learn how to stay healthy again. Not through medication but through nutrition, exercise, love etc. (and yes there are also medicines that are needed and work well. But if people are chronically ill, you can't speak of being cured, but rather of keeping sick).
https://www.de-tijd-van-ons-leven.nl/leve-het-leven
I get Leo too. I do wonder if people who live in nature and eat healthy don't get sick and don't know epidemics, because I understand that (from what I've read about it, I'm not good at that matter). And I find it difficult to prove that infections do not exist, just as that healthy living in a healthy environment would make you immune to infections. I believe that Westerners have spread a lot of nasty diseases among Indians, Eskimos and Amazonians. Anyway, my priorities at the moment are elsewhere, apart from the fact that under a different paradigm there is a new stranglehold in the current systems. The system needs to be transparent and humanized, whether they are abusing a virus or something else.
Hi Marlies (unfortunately I couldn't answer directly so I hope you see this answer), how great that you are reading Virus Mania! But, not only is there no evidence for causation, there is no evidence that viruses exist at all. You say "All we have is the electron microscope". Have you ever looked at what needs to be done with a sample before it can be viewed through an electron microscope? Frostbite, poisoning with heavy metals, etc. Apart from that: you can take a picture of something with such a microscope, but how do you know that you are looking at a virus, if you have never isolated it? 😉
This one is nice about how SARS-CoV-2 and everything related to it only exists in computers: https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/The-Digital-Seduction-of-COVID-19-with-Eric-Coppolino:0
Furthermore, you say "And I find it difficult to prove that infections do not exist". If something can't be proven, why assume it exists? If even in 1919 they failed to make people sick with the according to the story oh so contagious Spanish Flu virus (https://sci-hub.tf/10.1001/jama.1919.02610310005002)... So where do you stay? After that, there were never any experiments in which contamination was demonstrated.
@Anton: "We suffer from dogmas.": that is certainly true! Another interesting dogma is the "central dogma of genetics", which has also never been proven... Of course not, because dogmas are by definition unproven. A nice discussion that makes you think can be found at https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/.
" I believe that Westerners have spread a lot of nasty diseases among Indians, Eskimos and Amazonians." – No, that is the story we are told to hide the fact that this was just ordinary genocide. The only thing with which the original peoples were "infected" was Western "nutrition" and "medicine", or vaccines. Only then did they get sick, go figure. And... I get that you too only have 24 hours in a day, but on a rainy Sunday morning you would https://odysee.com/DeBetoveringVerbreken:b of 50 pages should be easy to read. Look for evidence of contamination, you'll be surprised.
About the system: as long as we leave the power to make money with a small group of international bankers, nothing will ever fundamentally change. A great book about that is The Web of Debt (https://odysee.com/The-Web-of-Debt(audiobook):1). Or The Creature from Jekyll Island, which is actually even more exciting (https://odysee.com/griffin-creature-jekyll-island-audio:9ad20b3b73b78c5f6ef39c952dea7e26a5b747ef).
PS: Anton, what does that plugin cost to answer normally? If you set up a Monero wallet, I will make the first donation so that you can finance it. 😉
One thing at a time, I would like to say. In other words, it makes no sense to want to undermine the prevailing theory about viruses as long as there is a goal that is closer to the experience, namely the excess mortality due to the (forced) vaccinations and other very harmful restrictive measures that effectively amount to the deprivation of basic rights. Again: not, in the first instance, wanting to be as pure as possible in the doctrine, but working together against coercion.
One does not have to exclude the other. It's such a shame that people like you can't or won't see big pharma effectively become the fourth pillar of the state, alongside the legislative, executive and "judicial" pillars. That is why it is a fundamentally different issue than arguing about mortality rates or measures. These are all details, derived from the underlying virus model. But there is indeed an even more direct threat that many people do not yet see: the cbdc. It strikes me how incredibly stupid and apathetic the Dutch people are: when you bring up CBDC, the suckers say: "crypto is not for me" or "I have nothing to hide anyway". How one day they will wake up in a nightmare. I would almost say: "just fine, when I warned you you wouldn't listen and you declared me crazy".
Hi Leo, thanks for your reply but wouldn't you want to decide for me whether or not I see things. I've been aware of the dangers you point out for years, but it's a matter of strategy. One thing at a time and not having the illusion that the entire 'army' as a whole can be chopped directly into the pan
"I've been aware of the dangers you've been pointing out for years" isn't really apparent from your initial answer, hence my assumption. "One thing at a time" is not possible anyway: to do things at the same time you need at least two. Apart from that, there is a war against the people on many fronts and we will have to fight back on all fronts at once. Starting with the politicians who make the "rules". At least as important is eliminating the (central) bankers who enable the decline to a technocratic system by financing the psychopaths in politics, media and business. Step by step as you suggest, we are lost. In addition, fighting against the "state" makes no sense, because the "state" is an illusion, created by those same bankers. But of course you already knew that.
You can try to demolish the entire wall around a city to be taken in one fell swoop, you can also try to enter by breaking through a weak spot in the wall. But of course you already knew that