A hard data analysis, by Herman Steigstra and Schrijver this, deals with the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in the Netherlands on the basis of CBS data, in combination with knowledge gained from previous flu waves. Out mortality and lower mortality in 2020 to 2024 are analyzed in this report, whereby the positive and negative effects of vaccination are weighed against each other.
This is a crucial part for the investigation into possible causes of overdiction, which the parliamentary survey committee is working on. Aging had already lost weight. Another frequently mentioned candidate cause, delayed care, has also been viewed earlier1VV article: delayed care and overdolution https://virusvaria.nl/uitgestelde-zorg-en-oversterfte/ But that went wrong in the initial phase due to too little substance to be able to be the driver of overdolution at all.
The final finding of the analysis is that, Even if only 0.25% of the lost years of life were attributed to vaccination, the damage of the vaccines transcends the benefits. Further independent research is urgently needed to substantiate causality and thus determine the risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccination per age group.
Read or download the report
ResearchGate (English version)
Safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in the Netherlands (PDF)
Safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in the Netherlands (PDF, Engels)
The implications
If this analysis stays up, it has large implications. It means that there has been a very careless person. Very. Early signals, including the trials of the pharmacists, did not exclude a scenario like this. The effectiveness seemed much higher in those trials, but now we know that misclassification, such as ignoring the Healthy Vaccinee Effect2VV: HVE ignored: https://virusvaria.nl/vaccinstudies-herstellen-vertrouwen-in-de-wetenschap/vv: HVE-calculator: https://virusvaria.nl/de-vaccin-effectiviteit-van-een-placebo/, played a major role in that. Experts should have seen that at the time.
In terms of negative effects on mortality, we have seen that the size of those trials was too small to guarantee a low death risk3VV: The safety illusion of vaccine trials https://virusvaria.nl/de-veiligheidsillusie-van-vaccintrials/. Even the enormous negative consequences that now come from this analysis still fall within the uncertainty margins of those trials (!) - but also that risk factor has been accepted, as is always done in studies of traditional vaccines. (That distinction with traditional vaccines must be made because the definition of "vaccine" was stretched, after which this injection could be approved as a vaccine, i.e. with milder requirements.)
That makes the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns the greatest medical mistake in history-as far as we know. The responsibility for this lies with the medical and political authorities who were supposed to act in the interest of public health. If this analysis even cut half wood, it could and should have disastrous consequences for involved institutions, governments and their officials. A potentially extensively disruptive situation that the government will want to prevent at all times. They wish trust.
A pattern in reactions
That puts many striking events in a different light: the disproportionate struggle of the government against Corona protests and "anti-vaxxers". That vaccination decision was not allowed, not a moment. Also consider the issue of Khadija Arib (intended chairman of the PE committee, who had previously shown her teeth) until the capture of Arno van Kessel and the interim police harassment towards leaders such as Willem Engel and Jan Bonte. We saw canceling and Hitpieces in the media (think of Maurice de Hond up to and including FVD, who soon saw what it was like), we followed the Inquisition of the IJG among doctors who prefer to prescribe off-label medication than the injections. We saw completely valid evidence of, for example, Jeroen Pols (virus truth) are crushed under judicial hammers, a fan of inconsistent legal emergency procedures and stagnant postponement, sabotage of WOO requests, we read the trivializing interpretations of CBS, RIVM and NIVALLE.
As soon as something could question the blessings of the vaccines, it was razed to the ground. That is no longer a conviction or science. That fits better with behavior that occurs from the fear of being caught. But caught what? We do not know that exactly: at least a mistake decision or better: a chain of wrong decisions. In the beginning because it was quite realized to have taken a huge gamble (for the good thing) based on no more than talked panic. It was not in the national interest to acknowledge that, that would cause unrest. So that became Double-Downen.
Science enthusiastically participated in investigations that Professor Norman Fenton concluded:
We therefore conclude that all claims about the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine based on these studies are probably a statistical illusion.
Prof. N. Fenton4preprint Fenton: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.09.24304015v2.full
We see that it can be worse in the recently added addendum at the HVE Calculator5Addendum at HVE-Calculator https://virusvaria.nl/de-vaccin-effectiviteit-van-een-placebo.-,Addendum. One refers what, labels something and hopla: a shiny effect appears.
It gradually became clear that this Opake (= not transparent) approach actually cost a shocking number of deaths, apart from side effects. Then nobody could go back. If this were to be known, not only damage claims, but even instability or a popular uprising, were ahead. But the average Dutch person is a meek type. In the current constellation he has far too good to jeopardize his own position, which requires minimal poverty. (The migration and nitrogen/CO2 file are more threatening for that; so patience).
Nobody is responsible
What remains is the accountability. The pharmacists are free of black and white for any damage with signatures from our government officials. Those government officials only have their ministerial responsibility: if it becomes a problem, then that is for the next minister. Now there is a personal liability if there is intent or gross negligence. But yes, compliance with the advice of government experts, the judge will undoubtedly find extremely careful, just like wiping off the table of crucial safety information from other corners.
That impulse will therefore have to come from America because the cover is literally pot-tight in our micro universe of the cackling class. Yet angry will have to be punished - but was it actually "angry"? Or was it a mix of far -reaching incompetence, ambition, control, combined with financial incentives and career perspectives? Or is that perhaps what is meant by "evil" and "malicious"? Glad I am not a committed judge who should judge this.
Before I got bogged down in philosophical reflections: read the report and share it as much as possible. It describes an episode that we will later say "nie wieder."
References
- 1VV article: delayed care and overdolution https://virusvaria.nl/uitgestelde-zorg-en-oversterfte/
- 2VV: HVE ignored: https://virusvaria.nl/vaccinstudies-herstellen-vertrouwen-in-de-wetenschap/vv: HVE-calculator: https://virusvaria.nl/de-vaccin-effectiviteit-van-een-placebo/
- 3VV: The safety illusion of vaccine trials https://virusvaria.nl/de-veiligheidsillusie-van-vaccintrials/
- 4preprint Fenton: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.09.24304015v2.full
- 5Addendum at HVE-Calculator https://virusvaria.nl/de-vaccin-effectiviteit-van-een-placebo.-,Addendum.
Thanks again! In Germany critical articles in the Berlin newspaper. So not only through America. Different types are now clear. I think the worst is the people who still take others and still push the injection. Maarten Keulemans seen with the new world with Marlies? Or read the story of one Jan who had a good conversation with "regret" (after prison sentence) with the responsible person for and/or performer of a lot of suffering one Hugo in the MSM? Because of the WOO pieces we know that the NCTV was and is. Politics, care, media all they walked along and still. See also the reporting in Germany. Now that the new puncture round has begun, the worst again comes up with colleagues, partly out of fear, taking a puncture or not, forced by the home front and the doctor, fear of side effects and then even harder what they have heard about "safe and effective" "millions of lives saved", etc. The exclusion and even harassment is still not over. Hold my heart what the consequences of this puncture round will be. Willem Engel and many others have done everything to warn people and get those poking off the table.
You might think that Maarten really believes in what he proclaims. But he clearly also follows the alternative media. How can a "scientist" not doubt the narative after seeing that information?
Are you so scared
Suspect that belief in the narrative is fed by fear and is not rational. Say the 5% IFR of Maarten's friend, Jaap (in conversation with Marlies, Jaap turned out to be an old friend of Maarten).
EMDR seems to work against fear.
My hypothesis is that if he immediately gets his Coronaprik again, the fear still troubles him.
Against this fear, no herb is washed outside of therapy. On the contrary, it is possible the driving force to keep going to be right: "Corona is a terrible disease and the vaccine is saving:
They are really the media, see article "From campfire to talk show". The great media have the credibility to hunt deep fear and could reassure people again.
Believe in the narrative is fed by the rule of rescue (instead of utilitarianism). Read my many articles about that. Dast makes it clear.
Nice in this context
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-covid-response-was-not-a-mistake-it-was-just-wrong/
The media are indeed to blame both the driving of fear and failure to reassure. But yes, horror sells, not just vaccines.
Politicians have consciously driven fear and knowingly introduced the harmful measures. Sold under the current adage: safety for everything. We protect you (against what we first feared for ashes 😉.
Sealing Rule of Rescue (as VAL) seems to somewhat free politicians. Did there really be something to save? Was it not a fake save and wasn't this already known?
I fear that people knew this.
But the safety myth had to stay upright, further exploited.
The power to check is thus further expanded under the guise of prevention (enter Tapwet, use Palentir)
For what purpose?: Machtwellust, more control (I am able to get a OmicronLockdown for each other in my country (MR), more power for EU and NATO (via NCTV's), increase in inflation - decrease in debts, combi's of this, it remains for me.
Sorry, but then you don't understand what the mechanism of Ror does.
Read one of my articles, or rather, if you read English, the original from Orr & Wolf.
I think Cor understands pretty well. Orr & Wolff are talking about "Where an individual’s life is in immediate peril". It was very quickly clear that there was no direct danger for the entire population at all. The IFR was far too low for draconian measures, let alone experimental, genetically manipulated, temporarily working EU injections under Moftening Vaccin regime.
We already knew in 2021 that only specific risk groups (individuals) would have to be vaccinated because after all it makes little or no matter for the transmission (known from flu -mucosal vs systemic and for COVID not investigated).
After the initial ror there should be reflection.
If censors are committed instead, scientists canceled, information is held in black and data, something else is going on. Early with bright red scientific flags were waved, peaceful demos were crushed as popular uprisings, media used to validate policy.
You can no longer speak of ROR if a reaction of reflection is not forthcoming and instead the population is blackmailed to undergo medical interventions and institutional and even legal persecution is used to smother opposition.
Data is kept hidden or manipulated and statistics are stated in the trivialist; Decision processes are "confidential", woo requests largely black-painted in the critical places-then the "good intentions" is really no longer there. Then the initial rule of rescue has been transformed into rule of control.
As soon as different signals are systematically suppressed, ROR becomes a façade. The "good intentions" then function as narrative to maintain power, no longer as a motivation for policy. There begins the liability for the tens of thousands of deaths, which the national lawyer has already shifted to the healthcare staff who put the puncture. But they didn't know better so they did act with the right intentions ... Once you're high enough in the tower, you can't happen anything anymore. It is not to be out.
Best Anton a Cor,
Thank you for your reactions.
I see that there are two different analyzes here:
Anton's observation about the transition to "rule of control" (phase 3) is sharp and matches what we see: censorship, data back, scientists canceling, legal persecution. That is indeed no longer a ror but conscious power politics. I fully agree.
My point is about something else: how do you prevent this happening at all? And the Orr & Wolff Framework offers the solution there.
The crux of Orr & Wolff is: the ROR-Reflex should never be applied by governments at large-scale crises, not even in the initial phase. That is exactly the point. Individual citizens and doctors may follow this reflex, but not governments - point out.
What happened is that we violated this fundamental rule: the OMT (doctors/virologists with the ROR reflex) received policy-determining power instead of just giving medical-technical advice. There was no rational team that parallel analyzed the total social impact. The MCCB was sidelined.
That was wrong from day 1. Not "understandable in the beginning" - just very wrong. We had protocols that prescribed this, based on WHO guidelines. They were ignored.
What Anton describes - the cascade to control/manipulation - is the result of this fundamental institutional error. By giving doctors policy -determining power, you created a situation in which later adjustment became impossible without loss of face, which led to phases 2 and 3.
Something important comes here: due to the widespread misunderstanding about the ROR dynamics, in my opinion far too often is taken into bad intentions and conspiracy theories to explain the bizarre behavior of governments. Also the phases 2 and 3 of Anton - with denial of evidence, exercise of power, censorship, etc. - also seem to be explained only from evil design.
But with a good understanding of Ror, all of that is not necessary. The Ror dynamics declare 100% the wrong behavior, and was 100% predicted by Orr & Wolff in 2014. As soon as you give doctors (with their rescue reflex) policy-determining power, a psychological lock-in: adjustment means that you were wrong, which means that leads to "double-down" behavior and keep it up.
That is not a conspiracy - that is simply predictable human psychology in the wrong institutional structure.
Whether there were “conscious evil intentions†from the start (I do not believe in it at all), or that good-natured people got trapped in a wrong institutional structure (that is my analysis-based position)- for the future solution that really matters: the institutional guarantees should have been there from the beginning. If they are omitted, the same mistakes will unfortunately be repeated in the future. Whether or not with good or bad intentions.
Many reporting conspiracies and evil intentions of people and, for example, Wef, Bill Gates and the like. It makes a crucial difference whether there were bad intentions or structure errors - because only with the right diagnosis (structural problem) you come to the right solution (institutional guarantees). If you think they were evil intentions, you will prosecute people instead of repairing structures. And I am 100% convinced that that will not help. Despite the fact that there are certainly people (the spouse of Ursula vd Leyden, Sywert van Lienden) and companies (in particular Pharma) enriched themselves as a result of the stupid/wrong behavior of governments. But then it is that government behavior we have to repair. And insofar as it is demonstrably culpable, of course, also the people and companies that have incorrectly enriched themselves. But primary governments have to act better.
I am currently intensively talking to Anton about a revised version that combines his observations about mitigation and control with the Orr & Wolff preventive framework. Your discussion points are very valuable for that.
Response from Miranda Boorsma (Places did not work) to Jan van der Zanden's statement:
Ror will certainly have played an influential role in the advice of the OMT. But other (opportunistic) interests also played. In addition, the OMT was probably also (from an international corner) to advise certain desired measures. If Ror has indeed been the most important explanation for the advice of the OMT, they would never have prohibited ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
But you are right that in our ultra-specialized society problems are usually approached by the specialist glasses of advisory bodies, so that the solution is soon reduced to one or a few target variables that then have to be modernized or minimized. It was thought they could eradicate the COVID19 virus with a maximum rate of vaccination. When that was not possible, they were unable to admit that and choose a different approach.
The same mechanism occurs with the nature, environmental and climate policy. It is completely ridiculous to think that nature and nitrogen reduction can be controlled with far-reaching CO2 and nitrogen reduction. And yet we let specialists decide time and time again when society should be flattened. Politicians evade their responsibility (or they can't handle it) and once deployed policy is never evaluated. Partly because that policy with small chamber majorities is often laid down directly in legislation.
You certainly have a point: I cannot (yet) explain why ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were so hard in the spell, even before the vaccines were approaching. From the fact that that was the case, I understand that an emergency vaccine would not get through when the existence of other means. That is a fairly plausible but still bizarre explanation.
The bizarre vaccine policy cannot be explained by the ROR. In particular, that is more of a combination of strong lobby by Pharma and the certainly experienced need to quickly get out of the (wrong) lockdown narrative. Without admitting that it was narrative anyway. And even without vaccines could have ended immediately and therefore have to be. In particular, this is all part of phases 2 and 3 that were aptly described by Anton.
Jan, those phases do not occur in this article, so you cannot refer to that yet. That piece is still in preparation. Let's keep that for a while until I get it around.
The harassment is not only reserved for the condition regarding the puncture, but to much more. You just have to ventilate a different opinion and you get a whole group against you. BV. say that you find those highway stickers destructive. I also heard that the daughter of an acquaintance has sustained Long Covid. It does exist. She had an enormous burden of stuff and shortness of breath. And she was therefore prescribed off label anti-depressants. So they now have that in the web of the Big Pharma. Then off label is suddenly possible. As long as it can be earned. Ivermectin was not allowed. Kassa has to ring.
I think it's no malice. It is a combination of incompetence, opportunism and poorly informed. The cackling class is primarily a class -chatting class (or better yet: fulfilling class). The elite is selected and trained in this.
In a neo -liberal society (where money and profit are steering), contradiction is by definition inefficient. That contradiction, now that the system seems to be collapsing, will unfortunately be further suppressed with increasing censorship and more and more control.
If you carefully mix incompetence, opportunism and poorly informedness and peak at the correct temperature, malice comes out of the oven. What could help against that is a glass of transparency, but yes, a large part of your ingredients dissolves and you actually have nothing left.
(Sorry, good food yesterday! That will come from that)
Yes Anton, a good meal helps to put things into perspective. With all that negativity around us, it is good to be busy with fine, positive things more often.
To bring some more positivity and transparency in our lives, we have decided to take another puppy. At least dogs are honest and never let you down. And you stay healthy.
Unfortunately, even a dog is being chased by the digital control mafia. Such a small dog must be mandatory.
In the past (for the Coronacrisis) I thought those dog chips were ok, for example to find a runaway dog ​​easier. Now I think differently, unfortunately.
Ha Miranda, read my comments about the Ror above. That is the problem. And therefore also the solution.
Well I think that many people have been carried away in the beginning with the well -kicked way in which it is all put away in the media. And I also do not rule out the fact that it all happened to good faith, but the problem we now have is what learned from?
Because now the dust has fallen down I would think and what lesson do we learn?
Hiding relevant date and rigging committees that want to talk about nothing about anything? Jan Bonte has already made it clear and it also applies to me.
I no longer try and accepts any authority and that is due to the clique to itself.
Not that someone gets along with it, but that is just my lesson that I draw.
Recognizable. We will not be the only ones.
Here an eyewitness report on how malignant was or not.
At Van Haga (see, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ytOUi6fWzLo&t=2696s&pp=ygUQd2lsbGVtIGxpamZlcmluZw%3D%3D Sorry for shamelessly advertising myself ...) I explain my old colleagues (scientists and doctors) as people who want to but can't.
At the beginning of 2020 my Amice colleagues really wanted to show that they were great people and they were allowed to show it. Then they fell through the basket, for example because they did not see that someone who has all the symptoms of a pulmonary embolism has a pulmonary embolism until the contrary has been proven. No, people who had had to and should have had Covid symptoms of pulmonary embolism until the opposite has been proven. The dice/PCR helped to determine the diagnosis of Covid (instead of lung embolism), the rest is history (that is: instead of life -saving anticoagulation, give people on the IC flickers and leave to their destiny). The doctors involved already knew this in May 2020 because I told them. They could not handle this truth and then the wish thinking, "only a vaccine can get us out of this shits show" etc. My former colleagues were sung from reality. I still can't call that malignant, but incompetent.
Now it is true with these people that they have a huge ego and it is difficult to acknowledge that they have seen or did something wrong. In addition: if you start that, what does it end? -Medical error is the cause of death number 3. That also has a reason. Have to experience that you have helped someone to save the destruction with your therapies instead of saving, well ... that will cost you your ego. And not only that: it also costs you (as a doctor) your job if you acknowledge that you have done something wrong. Those kinds of cases must be reported to the Hospital Department of the hospital, after which they take it over from you and you generally never see the patient/relatives back (it will be taken from you).
Who is responsible is the right question. In the medical order, I want to say by sharing the above piece of history, nobody is responsibility when things go wrong. That is in the system.
Very easy. You keep the credits of Mensredder (good for your ego and your bank account), and you have no responsibility when things go wrong.
Otherwise, look back on Teevee how those medical experts were there at that time (tip: turn off the sound) and look at the body language. Determine how they find themselves. My old colleagues behaved like hot air balloons in which only air can be pumped. Baked air usually. Sand bags (skeptics) were quickly thrown out of the balloon. There you are going to float ..
Finally.
For what it is worth. A number of them have at least been so honest to me by saying openly in my face that Covid has not yielded any winners, just losers. They really know what they did. Only they still can't say in public what they have done. Still the problem of wanting, but can't affect them.
Unfortunately this also happened, you are absolutely right about that.
Tunnelenken en Groupthink.
Unfortunately in part driven by government panic policy to stay narrative in that panic to maintain your job ... and otherwise to purchase your BIG registration as a doctor. It really went very far!
But the fundamental problem was in the rule of rescue thinking. See my response about that above. And that has still (almost) not penetrated anywhere, so that that error will be repeated if this ROR lesson is not taught. I haven't read anything about it in the official literature. Sometimes hints there….
That is my last mission that this will penetrate into policy -determining Gremia.
We can see Ros as a mistake, but the enthusiasm with which it was unanimously embraced by the Western world is a sign of a preconceived plan for me. I believe that many did not notice that.
No, that's a wrong diagnosis. And will therefore not lead to an adequate solution. Read my extensive response above.
Note Western, I am not saying that the whole world had this reflex/in the same bubble!
No. I understand what you mean, but in my opinion it is a universal, deep-human reflex. It is like the doctor's hammer on a knee: you give a kick, anyway. There is also no preconceived plan behind that and yet everyone does it.
Anxiety a rudder
Beautiful that image of the knee tendon reflex, Anton. However, this reflex can easily be overruled from the central nervous system with daily exercise. Not every rack on the tendon leads to tensioning the quadriceps. You must also be derived, the leg must be more or less released. It must be "distance".
When hooking a foot behind a branch when walking in the forest, relaxation occurs functionally. So that the crocheted foot can be quickly passed over a branch and placed forward. Tensioning at rack on tendon in such a situation would inevitably lead to a fall.
Almost everyone did it but not everyone! Sweden (I believe with an independent decisive and leading institute) did not show the Ror Reflex and eventually remained as the best.
The question remains why, outside of Sweden, the old familiar WHO guidelines were so massively deviated from.
The conspiracy thinker in me then thinks: NATO has had a finger in the porridge. Where UK took the lead. Sweden has not been able to stay out of play as a member. But WHO has also taken extra power with adjustments, he seized his chance. Fear was widely used as a means.
Governments have not started to prove because of the seductive by me described above "heroic" safety myth with indeed not overruling the ROR Reflex. Nothing do (wu whey) was not an option. Fortunately, the measures to be taken by the NCT safety were soon presented in the Catshuis Consultation, Europeanly coordinated, on a silver platter.
But also the need for governments to get more control over a rebellious population (China, France and UK?).
Yet again a mishmash of dynamic. Organizing themselves organizing interests?
P.S. The question remains, in view of Willem, his observations whether there has been a lot of medical terms. Here too, a lot of (also fatal) damage was caused by missing diagnosis on the basis of raised anxiety (there was also not recognizing and mis treatment of hyperventilation, an anxiety disorder against).
Also in this domain the Ror did not really work due to fear. Remains the worst adviser.
If you look back with the ROR insight interviews and presscas, the fear of getting one Corona dead dominated.
That is why RIVM's wise "herd of immunity policy" was abolished within a week.
That is why about 80% of the ICs had to be reserved for patients who would normally never get to the IC because they would die anyway (Armand Girbes).
In nursing homes, therefore, doctors were instructed not to let anyone die, while they normally came to their end from a certain phase with sedation.
I don't make it up, I speak to many doctors.
That is why (in fact Logen) Asscher and Rutte said that health and economy in each other's extended layers and that a lockdown was very good.
Health economists claimed the utilitarian principles in crisis do not apply. Bizarre!
Normal utilitarianism, which was normally always used by VWS, RIVM, GR, etc., was suddenly put in the coarse dirt.
All the result of Ror thinking.
But if you don't realize it, then you don't see these kinds of signals from Ror thinking. I saw countless, because I soon realized it! Because I had already studied the costs/benefits of health policy and in particular with vaccination policy (it started with HPV in 2009). And I discovered in my lessons that this principle was also applied to Vangraails at RWS and to rail trees at ProRail.
Again: if you don't realize it you don't see it. And conspiracy and evil intention is the only plausible explanation. But really: Diederik Gommers was/is really not a bad person. He was only trapped in Ror thinking. Later he also admitted that more or less in an interview for the radio. Perhaps the insight mainly came from his children. That is why Mona Keijzer soon realized it… ..
Neiling natural immunity also does not fit in the picture of Ror. I have the impression that vaccination had to be regarded as a way out at a fairly early stage. And that everyone had to be vaccinated, including those who had already built up natural immunity. There are opportunistic interests behind that, that is almost impossible to do so (big pharma, shareholders, digital identity ???) The OMT has been tensioned for the cart. That is not that difficult. The population can be hudged, but so do experts and politicians.
Sweden was lucky that they had a very strong rational scientist on their RIVM (otherwise Tegnell), who did not let herself be fooled and just did what he always did: make the benefit analyzes. And do not yield to the ROR call from society and politics. Because he also experienced pressure to go along in Ror. But he refused well substantiated, and it was accepted.
Agree about Anders Tegnell.
The RoR appeal from the public and the media was probably so strong because it was stimulated with the help of nudging techniques. By responding to emotions, the audience can easily be pushed in the desired direction. There is a very active internationally operating BIT network (Behavioral Insights Technology). There is a department within the Dutch government that advises all departments and is affiliated with that network (BIN NL).
It is possible that the Swedish government does or did less in terms of behavioral management (but I don't know enough about that).
Interesting that you write that. In a fairly recent interview with Tegnell, he states that Sweden's national RIVM (although a slightly different role than ours), of which he was the director, enjoys a lot of trust and has always looked at real broad public health. Because there are local institutes that are responsible for individual health. So that is separate if I understand him correctly. And that is completely different in other countries, because the national institutes there (also) look much more at individual health.
That is exactly the institutional separation that Orr & Wolff advocated in 2014.
https://youtu.be/-0X2FnPodLQ?t=68
In the interview he says that he experienced NO pressure from Sweden (sorry for my previous post, that was wrong). But full support. Because he explained his policy well. And his greatest strength is of course that he openly confesses his mistakes (nursing homes). What a breath of fresh air this man…. Our politicians and media are still nowhere near that point. Unfortunately. So there is rightly great distrust against them all!!!