For me, Robbert Dijkgraaf is a model for the friendly, intelligent, erudite, interested and cultured intellectual with great confidence in the institutions in which he has managed to capitalize on this abundance of talents. The connection between a "high IQ" and "high trust in the status quo" is obvious: trust in the distribution of money, power, in how the government arranges things. Whoever is successful in that Umfeld is the living proof of justified trust. That is the basis. Incidentally, this is also reflected in vaccination confidence, as I previously described.
Now prof. dr. Dijkgraaf recently reported that he had a propaganda block with Eva Jinek. I can hardly watch those 'talk shows' anymore - and certainly at such an intelligent beautiful woman who is so wrong and who also peddles it passionately, together with a courteous, extremely neat scholar like prof. Dijkgraaf- I don't watch those kinds of programs anymore. (Heart of the Netherlands, that still works. Wierd Duk is often among them and I think that, just like Kustaw Bessems, a fascinating figure.)
Back to Robbert Dijkgraaf who once described -very modern- mRNA as a Snapchat: "mRNA does its job and then just disappears very quickly, like a snapchat". Now 'disappearance' of medication is something to be careful with. Experimental therapies have been stopped because people did not understand where the drug was. They did not find out how it was converted or disposed of (and I can remember that remains were later found in the brain). So 'floep-en... gone!' that sounds too good to be true. Especially with artificial mRNA with an extended shelf life.
Prof. Dijkgraaf also forgets for a moment that the mRNA is not toxic. That is only the waste it leaves behind in the form of spike proteins, which it allows the body cells to produce. It has now been shown that the spike production of those cells can last for a long time and it was precisely this spike production that was the main task of the mRNA, which would soon disappear afterwards. So something is going completely wrong here. Where did all that wisdom come from, you wonder.
Vaccines were a gamble
Another, later statement by Dijkgraaf was that the mRNA technique 'worked much better than we had ever dared to dream‘. In short: the effect was dreamed, there were no hard guarantees. There were no hard results at all from solid, independent (possibly peer-reviewed) studies. There was also no real-life substantiation, everything was just based on the product brochures of the pharmaceutical companies and the biased reports of those with the same confidence in vaccines as Dijkgraaf. What was produced outside could not be taken seriously.
The fact that the injections rolled out worldwide were experimental, that they were wrongly classified as 'vaccines' and could thus avoid the regular requirements for medication and genetically modified products, that Phase 3 research had not been completed and medium- to long-term side effects were unknown, that they did not stop transmission, all of this was contradicted from above. Nevertheless, Robbert Dijkgraaf gave a good representation of how things really stood on X. I paraphrase:
Wow! It took a while to wait and see, but these vaccines, after administering 200 million(!) shots, seem to be safe and effective! And that is precisely with these innovative vaccines, what a coincidence! What luck! What a success!
Paraphrase of the tweet below
He wrote it more eloquently, like this:
There is no doubt about the experimental nature of the rollout. That feeds the distrust.
But he just has a very nice, composed and scientifically confident appearance. And a beautiful, civilized (may I say: extremely squeaky?) way of speaking, at a calm and reassuring pace, in short, an appearance that makes an impression.
Vaccines are a no go
Finally. The point is that I just saw that Maurice de Hond - who does keep a close eye on the propaganda channels - has seen the interview and has written an open letter to Robbert Dijkgraaf as a result. The vaccines have never been a prominent topic of Maurice and that topic could also seriously hinder the willingness of 'science' to talk.
What I miss in the letter, however, is a very important issue: the misunderstanding of natural immunity by the infection and epidemiology experts. Young people already had it because of their strong (innate) immune system, as did adults and older people who had already been infected (or even infected).
Was that a wrong assumption? Deliberate deception? A lie? A violation of medical principles and of scientific integrity?
I don't think that prof. dr. Dijkgraaf wants to get involved in such a vulgar discussion. After all, there is little scientific or integer about this anymore. This is more likely to go to the Faculty of Law, the ERVM and Nuremberg. Does that really need to be brought closer to society?
Below is Maurice's letter. I have added two key points: Natural immunity, a subject he could well add to his letter and a somewhat more vicious subject: Vaccines. The two cannot actually be seen separately, but those vaccines remain a thorny issue. Precisely because everything around the vaccines in particular has caused the most distrust. People are really bothered by this, as well as by excess mortality, although they are not (yet) much concerned about it. Most of the other points could be said to be already forgotten... Jan van der Zanden brought in a third point: the earlier, also unsubstantiated, lockdowns.
I hope that Maurice will supplement his letter with at least that immunity. The part I added in blue.
Dear Professor,
Your action at theprogram EVA of last Tuesday.was on the occasion of your appointment as professor of "Science and Society in an International Perspective". I sincerely congratulate you on that.
Whenever I hear or see you, I admire your knowledge and the – calm and deliberate – way in which you bring it across. I foundthe episode of Zomergasten met u in 2005one of the most fascinating episodes I've seen.
Your statements during the conversation with Eva and the assignment in your new position triggered me to write this open letter to you. I hope for a response.
Gap
I would like to draw on the growing gap between society and science, which you discussed in that interview. And which will be a key point in your new professorship. In addition, I have the impression that you (just like Eva) ignore the main cause of this or that you are not aware of it.
You rightly indicated that as a society we are increasingly dealing with science. And the Corona period was the highlight of that so far. The population has never been so penetratingly confronted with the knowledge/views of science. After all, through the OMT, scientists had had a very big effect on our society.
From mid-March 2020, the advice of the OMT, which consisted entirely of scientists, was adopted almost one-to-one by the government and parliament. This included lockdowns, the introduction of the 1.5 meter society, keeping healthcare institutions closed, closing schools, etc. etc. Predictions from the RIVM model played a crucial role in this.
Although they claimed otherwise, a large part of the advice was poorly substantiated and there was no room for scientific information, which should lead to other advice/decision-making. Also, if practice showed that the advice was incorrect, the policy was not adjusted. After the Corona period, there has been no independent evaluation of the advice of the OMT and we also do not hear from the scientists involved who they think have made mistakes in retrospect.
This has contributed – strongly – to the decline in trust in science. And it does not seem that people recognize or want to acknowledge this. And from your conversation with Eva, it didn't seem like you recognize it either. And that is especially crucial in the assignment of your professorship.
That is why I will use five penetrating examples to show how much the actions of the experts (OMT) and the RIVM played a crucial role in this. Partly because various OMT members appeared in the media with great regularity and thus also became, alongside Prof. Van Dissel, the face of science in a penetrating time of crisis.
At the time, I regularly wrote articles on my website and pointed out the penetrating information that was already available at the time and that the experts did nothing with. I will show what went wrong on five topics, including the links to the articles in question, so that I will only describe the core in this letter.
1. The mortality risk
While several studies were available in April 2020, such as that ofLos Angeles Countyand about Gangelt, who indicated that the IFR of Covid-19 was close to 0.3%, and that it was mainly the elderly, Prof. Van Dissel reported to the House in May 2020 that the IFR was 5.0%. The decision-making of the OMT was also partly based on this in the summer of 2020.
While it was already clear that Covid-19 had a similar seasonal pattern to the flu, many measures were enforced in the summer of 2020. Because a "second wave" would be imminent. A second wave that only came in the autumn in line with the developments of flu that usually emerges in the course of the autumn.
2. Natural immunity
The disregard of natural immunity by the infection and epidemiology experts has led to unnecessary damage and even death. Young people were already immune because of their still strong, innate immune system. Adults and the elderly who had already been infected (or even infected) also enjoyed protection that was better and longer-lasting than that of the vaccine. Because science only forgot this for a moment (just as the aerosol transmission was 'forgotten' before, see point 3), the majority of the population has lost rights under false pretenses in favor of the incumbent power and -indirectly- the experts.
3. The mode of spread of the virus
At the end of March 2020, the WHO spread the information that it was fake news that the virus was airborne. This was also said by the Dutch scientists. By keeping a distance of 1.5 meters (also outside) and disinfecting and not shaking hands, the infection could be prevented.
But for a long time there had beenInvestigations about influenza have been, which showed that the virus did spread through the air. Especially in rooms with little ventilation and low absolute humidity. If you wish, I can provide you with an extensive bibliography on this subject and have alreadyExtensively written about it at the end of March 2020.
In mid-2020, there was a call from 239 scientiststo recognize the danger of spreading through the air. But both at the WHO and at the OMT and RIVM this fell on deaf ears. Arguments were used and a logic was used, which you as a physicist, like me, should find downright baffling.
A few examples:
- When a choir in Seattle in March 2020 showed that, despite following the measures, a large part of the attendees had contracted Covid-19, it happened because people had been close to each other in the coffee room.
- Including fromthe research in Gangelt, which was published in early May 2020, it turned out that about half of those present at the carnival gathering had become infected, while that was 30% among housemates of infected people. Also, the infected attendees at those carnival gatherings had more symptoms than the infected housemates. If the infection really only arose within a short distance of an infected person, then it is illogical that housemates showed lower rates of infection than those present at a carnival gathering.
- In August 2020, Prof. van Disselthe argument that aerosols do not play a role in the infection, because "we have not taken aerosols into account in our measures, and yet the figures have gone down sharply". I don't have to explain to you what a bad argument this is. After all, by banning gatherings, the possibilities of infection through the air were also significantly reduced. Not to mention the seasonal effect at the end of April/May.
- He also usedthe OMT in May 2020as an argument that people could become infected in the open air by the large outbreak after a Champions League match Atalanta Bergamo against Valencia that was held in Milan. The fact that those infections could have taken place during transport from Bergamo to Milan, and the joint viewing of the match on television in Bergamo was ignored.
In June 2020 I describedthe Delta Plan on Ventilation, where safe spaces could be provided in the autumn and winter, where activities could still take place. But it took until May 2021 for the "ventilation" sign to appear at the press conferences. And even then not with a heavy emphasis on its importance. While the care institutions were closed from April 2020, with the vulnerable residents, precisely due to the lack of ventilation as a precaution, with the windows and doors closed, breathing in that floating Coronavirus for an extra long time. More than half of all deaths due to Covid-19 have been there.
My calculation isthat by refusing to recognize the great importance of the virus that was floating in the air, at least 15,000 Dutch people died unnecessarily from Covid-19 between mid-2020 and the end of 2021. And that because the scientists of OMT and RIVM did not adhere to the basic principles of science.
4. The 3G Corona Access Pass
Between the end of September 2021 and the end of March 2022, you needed the QR code in the Netherlands to enter somewhere. The 3G approach was used. You were only granted access if you had tested negative or in the 6 months after your vaccination or a few months after your Corona infection.
The misconception here was, known long before we started this approach in the Netherlands, that those who were vaccinated could not infect others. So while people pretended to be in a safe space thanks to this system, there were still risks because vaccinated people could spread the virus anyway. And there are many examples from that time where – many – people present in a room where access was given via the Corona admission ticket, were still infected.
A striking example is of an outing by former MPs to Helmond Castle on November 3, 2021.Access was via the QR code, and the regulations were strictly adhered to, but 25 former MPs were still infected. That was more than half of the attendees.
This is also a prime example of how the experts (scientists from OMT and RIVM) by not applying their scientific principles, have given advice that unnecessarily put a lot of people in risky situations and caused many unnecessary victims.
5. The first lockdowns
The lockdowns provided 100,000 years of life but cost 620,000, notes Jan van der Zanden1. For those 100,000 years of life, €150 billion was paid, which means well over €1 million per year of life, while the accepted standard in the healthcare sector is around €20,000 to €80,000 per year of life. All this was already known to the Ministry of Economic Affairs in March 2020.
In April 2020, the critical Gupta report was published with similar calculations. This was immediately vehemently refuted with questionable arguments2 and a little more scientific interest in the substantiation of the deviant policies of Sweden and a number of states in the US would certainly have been in order.
As far as the vaccines are concerned (point 8), an additional argument for Prof. Dijkgraaf may be that WOO requests have shown that RIVM was already aware in 2021 that there was only a positive benefit/risk ratio for people over the age of about 60.
6. The Omicron lockdown
At the end of November 2021, the Omicron variant emerged near Johannesburg. Almost immediately, the doctors involved reported that the virus was clearly more contagious than the previous variant, but much less pathogenic. That is also the casereported on mid-Decemberon my website.
While the figures in hospitals in the Netherlands were falling in mid-December, the RIVM had made a prognosis based on their model. They combined the high contagiousness of Omicron with the pathogenicity of the previous variant. And based on that, a lockdown was advised because otherwise the hospitals would overflow at the end of January 2022.
AlsoI have written about this in advance on the basis of the available knowledge from South Africaindicated that this would be a wrong decision with very negative consequences from a lockdown (which eventually lasted 6 weeks). The Netherlands was the only European country to introduce a lockdown at the time!? And all this on the basis of an RIVM model that could already be shown in advance to be wrong.
How bad the model was can be clearly seen on the basis of the comparison of the prediction of the model and the actual figures. This graph shows the RIVM's prediction if the recommended measures were to be introduced (the other predictions were even more negative). In this graph, you can see the real figures from the beginning of 2022 in black.
The prognosis of the ICU occupancy for the fourth week of January was around 1700. But the actual number was less than 400 at the time... Even when it was already completely clear on January 10, 2022 that the model was completely wrong, it was not yet advised to stop the lockdown and it continued until the end of January 2022.
This has also never been returned to in public. These are precisely the examples that have greatly affected the public's confidence in science. Because thanks to this model, there would have been a 6-week lockdown from just before Christmas to the end of January 2022.
7. The excess mortality studies
But even after the Corona period, scientists show that they make mistakes and set up reasoning that should put real scientists to shame. Perhaps to come to the desired conclusions. You can read my explanation of the Nivel reportRead back hereand forthe report of UMC of Utrecht Universityhere. As a physicist, who is demonstrably good at thinking logically, I do not want to withhold a brief explanation from you in this letter.
The report states that there is nothere is no questionmortality due to vaccination in the first period after vaccination.
This is "proven" by the fact that it is established that the "all cause mortality" is 44% lower in the first three weeks after vaccination than in the following weeks. And, as the authors write, you would expect an increase if it were due to the vaccination.
The report also mentions that in the 1st week after vaccination, mortality was 69% lower than in that period after those 3 weeks, in the 2nd week after vaccination it was 45% lower and in the 3rd week after vaccination it was 25% lower.
The researchers ignore answering the question "How can it be that people die significantly less after being vaccinated against Covid-19 than if they hadn't?" And also not "How can those death rates in the first week be so much lower?”
The explanation is very simple. Those who were assumed to die quickly have -for the most part- not been vaccinated. So the chance that a vaccinated person would die quickly had become a lot smaller. And the longer the vaccination moment was, the more mortality among the vaccinated increases.
The fact that mortality was 44% lower in that first week therefore says NOTHING about the possible negative effect of the vaccination. Because the 44% lower mortality observed could be the result of the process of selecting those pre-selectors in vaccination and dying as a result of vaccination. (For example, due to the selection process, mortality in the first three weeks should have been 55% and that became 45% due to that extra mortality).
I'm not saying that this was the case, the figures are just an assumption. But I am only indicating that the conclusion of the researchers that it was 0% is not based on anything, and a blatantly bad way of conducting and reporting a study. (As a result, among other things, a minister in the House of Representatives indicated that this study had shown that there was no excess mortality due to the vaccine shortly after vaccination).
And – unfortunately – I can come up with more examples.
To bridge the gap between society and science, it is better to postpone the subject of 'vaccines' for a later moment. After all, if you start talking about it, you are immediately 'finished'. Maurice's unifying tone would be violated by this. So better not in the letter, exclusively for virus varia readers:
8. The vaccines
Because of their immunity (see 2), people have been unnecessarily injected with a drug that only under emergency conditions could be administered. (EUA = Emergency Use Authorization. Thanks to blackmail with fear and threat, the pharmaceutical companies have now even succeeded in including the drug in the American childhood vaccination program.)
These required emergency conditions were not met for the majority of Dutch people because they were simply not in danger and did not put their vulnerable at risk less after an injection. After all, the 'do it for someone else' mantra was based on a myth of herd immunity: the inhibition of transmission by vaccination had not even been studied.
Science didn't care about that.
So despite the fact that
- GPs had been sidelined
- Active off-label drugs were banned
- the existing and building immunity was ignored
- vaccinations stopped transmission negligibly
- vaccinations only were useful for a limited target group that can be easily identified,
Despite all this, there was still no danger, let alone need, for the vast majority of the population. They had done everything they could... Science was not transparent in this and was able to fail unhindered. On this basis, regaining trust is a hopeless mission and science does not deserve the required trust in any way.
Your chair
If you seriously want to investigate and lecture about the – deteriorating – relationship between society and science, then you cannot ignore this highly unscientific action by important scientists during the greatest post-war crisis in our country. A crisis in which scientists have played a dominant role and have done science and society no favours.
And precisely because this action of the scientists has not been officially evaluated and those involved have not publicly accounted for the bad advice they have given, that distrust will remain among part of the population. Something I also experience that way, partly because people did not want to debate it in public.
Given your background, your open attitude and your assignment as a professor, I assume that you will take this information to heart and give an answer that will also be in the public domain.
It is necessary to achieve what you want to achieve – to bring science and society closer together, which I wholeheartedly support. Because if even you ignore this information and do not provide substantive answers and/or do not come up with a procedure in which the reported is publicly evaluated, I am afraid that all the lamentation about this increasing gap is just crocodile tears.
But as I said, I hold you in high regard and expect a good and substantive answer from you.
It remains for me to wish you every success in your new job.
Drs. Maurice de Hond
(including former lecturer in methods and techniques of research at the UvA).
(with addendum point 2. Natural immunity and 8. The vaccines by A.E.J.C. Theunissen), and punt 5. The first lockdowns by Jan van der Zanden)
References
- 1
- 2
Maurice would be a better cast for that "chair".
Ah, that Maurice, that loving steamroller who goes so calmly and purposefully, so equanimously towards his goal. Someone who never wastes emotions (and energy). Someone who still manages to 'take' so much untruth, stupidity and deception through talk shows and sometimes takes the invaluable trouble to respond in a friendly critical, but above all very knowledgeable way. So much appreciation for this man. And then Robbert Dijkgraaf... Indeed the man who so smoothly represents 'science', but who has fallen through the cracks for me to the maximum.
As Minister of Education, Dijkgraaf represented SDG and Western Goals and anti-science. The man never wanted to have anything to do with politics and suddenly appeared as a D66 minister in the most unscientific period of our lives. Deeper than that, someone can hardly fall through the cracks. Unfortunately, there are far too many of these kinds of unscrupulous people. Google his name and be amazed.
The misery is that in my opinion he is not unscrupulous. He won't hurt a fly.
But is "just" a victim of groupthink/tunnel vision. And, like the majority of academics, firmly believes the paradigms that Science in 2025 is writing. And unfortunately, there are a number of paradigms that are not correct.
And as a result, as a pawn/cog, he unconsciously partly contributes to putting disaster into the world. And even quite active, because he has a very good reputation.
However, I expect him to be sensitive to arguments. But not through an open letter. But in a personal conversation.
Do you think you can make an attempt, Jan? You don't work at a university of course, would he still want to listen?
I thought for a moment you meant it sarcastically! But I totally agree with you.
This professor calls the shots safe and effective. Janssen, Astra Zenica were soon no longer produced, as were many other alternatives. Furthermore, the calculated effectiveness of e.g. Pfizer debatable because Pfizer itself investigated it and did not count some deaths and the effectiveness was mainly based on people in their sixties who rarely died from corona alone. This was also common knowledge with flu vaccination, of which it was said about fifteen years ago: In people in their sixties, the vaccinations (read: immune system and built-up natural immunity) work much better than in people over sixty'.
Even if the effectiveness of the shots calculated in mid-2020 were somewhat correct, a child knows that the shots can never give the health gain in mid-2021. Not only because the weakest people are already largely dead by then, but mainly because other viruses were dominant in the meantime, while everyone received a vaccination based on the Wuhan virus.
More importantly, the effectiveness in 2020 was calculated on the basis of people who had not yet been ill. But by mid-2021, at least fifty percent and perhaps seventy percent had already been infected one or more times. They were much better protected by that natural infection anyway and had even more protection to a large extent because they had had more recent virus variants.
Yet they continued to come up with very positive effectiveness calculations (even in 2022 when more than 95 percent were already naturally infected) that matched the basic calculations of Pfizer etc. This is really impossible. Unless naturally acquired immunity does not exist. A myth, of course: Israeli research calculated as early as 2021, for example, that naturally acquired immunity worked 15 to 20 times better than vaccinations.
You're absolutely right, only you're blaming the wrong person. The real culprits are the virologists, epidemiologists, pharmacists and pharmacologists. They know better. And should have opened their mouths because they know about the profession that you (and I) rightly criticize.
Dijkgraaf is a physicist. And just believes and trusts his colleagues from the universities. Wrongly, yes. But he just doesn't realize it yet. I suspect that a conversation with Maurice, if he is open to it, will make the scales fall from his eyes.
The question then is whether he will express that. Because it makes the rest of his life impossible, given what has happened to many others who confessed color....
Of course, I don't blame him. He is very naïve and gullible to say the least. I'm just explaining that anyone who thinks a little logically can figure out that the (made-up) calculated effectiveness of the shots can never remain so high if people are only vaccinated with them a year later etc. etc.. Any research that says that this high effectiveness was there at the time cannot be taken seriously and therefore you don't really have to investigate it anymore.
You forget the perpetrators of the uncritical msm, Google, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter all kinds of websites that usually did not publish critical opinions about the corona policy and even often boycott its writers to this day.
I think Maurice has a better chance of a conversation than I do.
It's idd. meant very seriously. I am 99% convinced that he is a thoroughly honest and even sweet man. Admittedly a bit cold and rational and not such a very emotional person, but alla. You can safely hand them over to your wallet.
But he (still) believes in the proposition: all people are good.
Although I suspect that he will not be stepping back into politics anytime soon after his D66 adventure...... I think he has seen ugly things from his colleagues and party members.
That natural immunity was also the trigger for me at the end of 2020. Maybe an idea to have Prof Dijkgraaf debate with Rogier Louwen? Saw his interview with Marlies at DNW this week. Dijkgraaf flies very high over the matter. Perhaps a scientist like Rogier can put Mr. Dijkgraaf back on the ground.
There is no arguing with the content. Maurice is always portrayed as a non-medical scientist. Unjustly, because he has proven in the meantime that he sees many things well. But you can't catch someone like Rogier Louwen on that kind of 'gaslighting'.
You have to realize that immunology, epidemiology and virology is not his field of expertise.
But as a natural scientist, he almost certainly (still) has the illusion that the humanities and social sciences act just as honestly and rationally as the natural sciences. And that is obviously not true.
A few years ago, De Volkskrant undermined 70% of such studies, peer reviewed and published in renowned professional journals, because they were either not reproducible or simply clearly incorrect.
Why these reasons why Dijkgraaf would not be unscrupulous? Unscrupulous: without a sense of what is good and evil. Other definitions of unscrupulous: impertinent, irresponsible, etc. What do you mean alphas, gamma versus betas? Of course I hope that Dijkgraaf will be spoken to and convinced before he causes even more problems in his new position. I succeeded a little bit with a message to someone who was in the media a lot, doctor, scientist, d66 member in important position. In my message I called him unscrupulous, he politely replied that he is still the same person and really wants to help people... And what did I recently hear in a discussion program "he thinks that some things have not gone well". From conformist to thinking for yourself again. Now for the rest. My science children have always continued to think for themselves and lost their (scientific) jobs, one child wrote a spicy letter, about the shame for the diploma due to the extreme erosion of science and the damage that has been inflicted and is still being done on science, to the uni and the professor but never heard anything again. Thank you for virusvaria continuing until the bottom stone (figure) comes to the surface!
I was furious about it. At the time, I still listened faithfully to Radio 2, where Diederik Gommers was a regular guest in the afternoon between 4 and 7 p.m. He once said that people who had already had the disease 'actually' did not need to be vaccinated. "Finally," I thought. Now it's going to happen. Well, not so.
At that time I also heard a commercial about healthy eating and exercise. I then thought: "Finally attention to prevention!" But no, it was a commercial of Vitae something.
I then spoke to people who agreed with me wholeheartedly and took that injection anyway...
As far as Dijkgraaf is concerned: I had a lot of respect for him, in the time of DWDD, where he was a regular guest. It is incomprehensible that he is now proclaiming such an enormous crap. He probably took the injections and their contents affected his mental faculties. Very unfortunate and annoying.
Very good idea of you, Cees!
Anton, I totally agree. But you forget one more crucial one:
It is a very good letter. But it is a pity that the 2 measures with the greatest impact, financially and health-wise, are not included:
a. the almost endless lock downs, which yielded 100,000 years of life but cost 620,000. And for those 100,000 years of life, €150 billion was paid, which means more than €1 million per year of life, while the standard is €20,000 to €80,000 per year of life. And all this was already known to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy in March 2020. And in April 2020 in the public eye because of the (not 100% reliable, but 50%) Gupta report and deviating policies from Sweden and a number of states in the US.
b. of the vaccines were already known in 2021, even at RIVM, according to WOO requests, that it only had a positive benefit/risk ratio for people over the age of about 60. (you had rightly already added this to Maurice's letter, albeit with a completely different approach; but I prefer to base myself on data already known to the government (= RIVM), because that has a better chance of success with people like Dijkgraaf...)
The Corona policy is a shame/scam/etc.
And a disgrace for "Science" and the influence of that science on policy.
Then one more issue is crucial. Why did this happen? And worldwide. What mechanism was behind that.
That's not a WEF, not a conspiracy, not a WHO.
But the disastrous effect of the Rule of Rescue, which is perfect on a micro scale, but leads to disasters on a macro scale. Well-intentioned, but disastrous in its effect. Read Orr & Wolff and my various publications about it. And with that knowledge, look/listen/read all the news items from that time. And you can see it happening in front of you. And if you don't realize it, it will happen again the next time in a disaster. And that is also just regular medical-ethical science, but a little further from Dijkgraaf's bed I expect.
Good letter, Anton and valuable addition, Jan.
The Rule of Rescue has of course played an important toll in the whole response, but the enormous overshoot and worse the deliberately spread disinformation does not quite explain it in my opinion.
Take the aerogenic spread that actually started it for Maurice. If you really want to protect people and limit the spread, why not at least assume that ventilation could help? What happened to "if it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt" that was the case with many other measures?
But no, this was a new virus "of which we don't know anything yet", but we were 100% sure that it was not "airborne".
And the huge cow in the room, or actually two:
1) The virus could have escaped from a lab after all.
2) There seems to be tinkering with this virus.
Note that if you can make 2) plausible, 1) automatically follows.
I think many virologists realized in '19 that they were caught with the pants on their ankles. The cover-up that arose afterwards and the enormous overreaction because they had no idea what they had done is IMHO the result of that.
I wonder if Robbert Dijkgraaf would not be more sensitive to a discussion about this enormous scientific fraud. Although I think that, as noted above, as a right-minded beta he does not want/cannot doubt the integrity of other scientists.
Whether this is consciously or unconsciously naïve I will leave unanswered.
Have you read these two articles, Rob? It wasn't just the virologists. They could never have mobilized NATO and the NCTVs etc. for their business.
https://virusvaria.nl/druppelvirologie-zoonose-en-disproportionele-maatregelen-passen-naadloos-in-elkaar/
and this one:
https://virusvaria.nl/het-is-erger-dan-je-denkt/
But even someone like Jan Bonte continues to refuse this scenario, so it seems wiser to me not to confront Dijkgraaf with this at this stage.
Conspiracies and the like are also not necessary at all to explain the irrational disproportionate behavior.
It is a combination of:
1. Rule of Rescue (lock down and vaccine) explained by Orr & Wolff
2. Groupthink/tunnel vision of scientists explained by T.S. Kuhn.
3. Propaganda, manipulation, etc. Is the result of the previous. Scientifically substantiated with best practices from marketing, among other things. Desmet has further specified this with his mass hysteria, but that is actually very old.
4. And finally: returning to normal/advancing insight is psychologically very complicated (ego); That is why it only happens when there is really no other option.
I have expanded the addition, thank you!
I no longer trust science at all when it can no longer meet my feelings, intuition and logic. There is no such thing as 'science'. It is not a physical thing, it is mainly theory and belief and proven to a very small extent. Science is true until proven otherwise. So it is a temporary thing, just like faith. Science is a religion, a little bit based on reality and for the most part adapted to your wishes and sponsor. So my advice is, work on your health and soul before you surrender to science and faith. These two things are the most abused fabrications to oppress man. Both embraced and canonized by both very smart and stupid people. Blessed are those with a low iq, they are often more human.
Everyone is equally human! But abuse of power must be punished! I hope and think that's what you mean.
And yet science is the basis for all the prosperity and well-being in which we now live compared to before the Enlightenment.
But science that meets the criteria as they were partly already expressed in Greek antiquity. And let that be exactly what a lot of "science" does not meet. And especially the "science" and "scientists" who were speaking and driving during Corona. These are amateurs/tinkerers who went against the basic principles of science.
So you conclude far too simplistic. Science is very useful to humanity.
Qua Robbert Dijkgraaf: misschien is het naïviteit, maar hoe kan je zó lang, met zulke effectieve oogkleppen op functioneren? Hoe lukt het zo veel buiten te sluiten, zo veel niet te kunnen en te willen zien. Ook al is het niet je vakgebied.
Ook zijn er zo veel mensen geweest die bewindslieden met integere mails en brieven hebben gewezen op bijwerkingen, oversterfte, belangwekkende artikelen. Er waren sterke argumenten in Tweede Kamerdebatten van Pepijn van Houwelingen en Fleur Agema (toen ze nog aan de andere kant stond). Dat kan prof. Dijkgraaf toch moeilijk allemaal hebben gemist?
Eén van de interessantste artikelen van Anton vond ik ‘Fatsoenlijke mensen klikken niet’. Een herkenbare beschrijving van hoe mensen zich sociaal en beroepsmatig groeperen en hoe het establishment er alles aan gelegen is zichzelf in stand te houden. Je moet wel heel krachtig en eigenzinnig of langdurig gepensioneerd zijn om de sociale en beroepsmatige codes bewust te overtreden. In de praktijk van alledag: waarom Marcel Levi toch niet kon deelnemen aan een paneldiscussie georganiseerd door Maurice de Hond zonder zijn positie en de positie van collegae in gevaar te brengen. En mogelijk ook waarom Robbert Dijkgraaf nog niet wil en kan bezwijken onder de groeiende stapel bewijs voor een ‘andere werkelijkheid’, een andere waarheid.
Waarom ik twijfelde aan de goede intenties van overheden en farmaceuten is het verbieden van aantoonbaar werkzame medicijnen, het volkomen negeren en zelfs ‘wegwerken’ van ernstige bijwerkingen en het prikken van kinderen. Hierdoor denk ik dat er toch meer aan de hand moe(s)t zijn dan een tijdelijke dwaling, meer dan een noodlottige vergissing in de veiligheid en effectiviteit van een nieuw ‘vaccin’. En dat er wellicht toch ook nogal invloedrijke partijen een onfrisse rol spelen.
Ook was ik in het eerste covidjaar verbaasd dat om mij heen mensen niet bij bosjes neervielen. Er ging immers een ‘dodelijk virus’ rond. Er waren in mijn omgeving geen mensen die mensen kenden die aan covid waren gestorven. Vaak hadden ze wel gehoord van sterfgevallen verder weg… via via.
Door covid ben ik veel dingen anders gaan zien. Ook met terugwerkende kracht. Ik denk dan bijvoorbeeld aan ‘Joris Driepinter en ‘De schijf van vijf’ waarin zuivel zo’n belangrijke rol speelt terwijl één op de tien westerlingen melk(producten) in feite niet goed verdraagt. Als kind dacht ik dat je gezond en sterk werd van melk. Hoe meer hoe beter eigenlijk. Achteraf zie ik het meer als een zeer geslaagde lobby van de zuivelindustrie.
Dan had je de aangejaagde angst voor een hoog cholesterol, maar godzijdank waren er statines. Hoe essentieel cholesterol in een lichaam is werd er nooit bij verteld. Eigenlijk dacht ik lange tijd dat een ideaal cholesterolgehalte ongeveer op nul zou zitten. Miljoenen mensen in Nederland slikken nog altijd vol overtuiging hun statines. En nog altijd is de overtuiging dat je hooguit twee eitjes per week mag eten. En dit zijn natuurlijk de meer onschuldige misleidingen.
Ik bedoel dat ik op zo veel meer terreinen en punten ging zien dat we al zo veel langer voor de gek zijn gehouden en dat we zijn gaan geloven in dingen die beter uitpakken voor de industrie en agenda’s van overheden dan voor ons.
In het begin van de covidtoestand werden er in de media bepaalde groepen mensen genoemd die niet geprikt wilden worden. In die groep miste ik de mensen die al een tijdje andere wegen zoeken om ergens van te genezen. Bijvoorbeeld mensen met CVS of fybromyalgie die nergens beter konden worden gedokterd. Die mensen zijn al eerder geconfronteerd met de beperkingen van regulier gedokter en de farmaceutische industrie. Net zoals mensen in voormalige Oostbloklanden de overheden minder zijn gaan vertrouwen, vertrouwen de cvs patiënten de medische wereld minder.
Wat me ook opviel in getuigenissen rondom covid is dat mensen die thuisonderwijs hebben gekregen minder vatbaar waren voor framing en propaganda. Ik denk dat onze scholen, universiteiten en totale maatschappij niet erg bijdragen aan kritisch denken. En met de cancelcultuur en (a)sociale media is dat enorm versterkt. Want je wordt zo gemakkelijk in een halve dag volkomen digitaal afgemaakt als je durft te twijfelen aan bepaalde ‘waarheden’. Het is geen gebrek aan intelligentie, maar een gebrek aan kritisch denken, aan zelfkennis, aan het lef om iets anders te berde te brengen dan het heersende verhaal binnen je eigen groep.
Pas sinds ik uit de stroom van vanzelfsprekend ‘linksdenken’ ben gevallen in de covidperiode valt me op hoe om mij heen iedereen het meteen en totaal eens is met ‘linkse’ standpunten en denkbeelden. Dat je bij wijze van spreken beter niet kunt zeggen dat het misschien niet zo verstandig is bij een 16-jarige depressieve puber de borsten te verwijderen omdat zij zeker denkt te weten gelukkiger te worden als een hij.
Iemand zei ooit: roep niet ‘halleluja’ als iedereens dat roept en evenmin ‘kruisig hem, kruisig hem’ als iedereen dat roept. Dat lijkt me een belangrijke waarheid.
Je bent zelf het beste bewijs dat je betoog niet klopt.
Heel verstandige en intelligente mensen kunnen jarenlang in een diepe tunnel van groupthink zitten. Dat zat je zelf ook. En je had het dus ook lange tijd niet door. Ik ook….
Hier geldt een van de “wetten” van Johan Cruijff: Je ziet het pas als je het doorhebt.
Dat klopt letterlijk.
En T.S. Kuhn heeft dit principe onder wetenschappers in 1962 al wetenschappelijk onderzocht en netjes opgeschreven.
Ik ben benieuwd hoe Robbert Dijkgraaf deze leerstoel gaat invullen.
De leerstoel betreft de relatie tussen wetenschap en maatschappij. Dijkgraaf is een uitmuntende natuurkundige. Van de maatschappij heeft hij echter niet meer verstand dan de gemiddelde burger.
Volgens mij is een dergelijke leerstoel meer iets voor filosofen en sociologen.
De perverse relatie tussen wetenschap en subsidiëring door Big Farma, Big Finance e.a. zou mijns inziens een speerpunt in het onderzoek moeten zijn. Hopelijk komt de nadruk niet te liggen op het verminderde vertrouwen van burgers in de wetenschap en het bestrijden van zogenaamde “desinformatie”. Maar ik vrees het ergste.
Misschien ben ik te negatief en gaat hij zich vooral bezighouden met het belang van zuivere wetenschap en hoe we ervoor moeten zorgen dat de toegepaste wetenschap weer onafhankelijk wordt. Ook belangrijk is de vraag hoe wetenschap en politiek zich ten opzichte van elkaar zouden moeten verhouden.
Dat er zo’n leerstoel wordt ingesteld vind ik zinvol. Maar het draait uiteindelijk allemaal om de invulling.
Ik denk met jou dat er betere kandidaten voor een dergelijke leerstoel zijn te vinden.
Dijkgraaf is “uber regulier” en heeft nimmer veel kritische zin t.o.v. de maatschappij en gangbare domme routines geuit. Hij is te “braaf”.
Iemand als Marcel Levi, die lekker controversieel is, zou wat dat betreft al een veel betere keuze zijn voor een dergelijke leerstoel. Die kan echt out-of-the-box denken. Dijkgraaf heb ik daar nog nooit op kunnen betrappen.
Nog beter zou Armand Girbes zijn.
Wat zijn een hoog IQ en een professoraat waard in de praktijk? Nadat ik na een tijdje aarzelen in 2020 er achter was gekomen dat wij inzake Covid van hogerhand belazerd worden sprak ik enkele bouwvakkers die aan het werk waren op een naburig perceel. Zij hadden dat al eerder ontdekt. Hoe kan dat? Zij hadden (en hebben) in de overheid geen enkel vertrouwen, waren op dit punt al vroeg in hun leven wijs geworden. Hoe anders dan een verre neef, een huisarts, die mij in een gesprek hierover verzekerde: de overheid heeft het beste met je voor. Hij is doorgegaan met zich te laten prikken, adviseerde zijn kinderen dat ook te doen. In een van de laatste berichten vertelde hij dat zijn dochter, een veertiger, kanker had gekregen en noemde hij ook andere familieleden die dit ook overkwam. Hij legde geen verband met de boosters. Ik heb die mogelijkheid ook maar niet genoemd. Enkel maanden geleden verbrak hij het emailcontact. Ik denk dat hij ziek is of al dood. De moraal van dit verhaal? Ik doe geen poging dat op te schrijven. Ik kan er tranen met tuiten door krijgen. Het allerergste is dat ook mensen met een hoog IQ er steeds weer intrappen.
Juist mensen met een hoog IQ trapten er met boter en suiker in, Cornelis! Want: hoog opgeleid worden doe je met instemming, sponsoring enzovoort van de overheden. Zo ontstaan al die brave hoog opgeleide burgers.
Die bouwvakkers daarentegen zullen best vaak anders geconfronteerd zijn met overheden, wanneer er vergunningen geregeld moeten worden voor projecten en zij de stroperigheid, onzinnigheid van regeltjes en onwilligheid van ambtenaren meemaken.
Ik zag zojuist een interessant interview van Tucker Carlson met dr. Soon-Shiong, onder meer over kanker en de connectie met covid en de vaccinaties.
Hier een korte uitsnede (11 min.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iisDJ-jKAF8
En hier het hele interview (1.45 uur): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgZaT-OriO8
Huiveringwekkend …
Ik ben dit met je eens, maar niet met de conclusie dat je intelligente en wetenschappelijke mensen niet nodig hebt.
Ik zou je adviseren om je een wereld voor te stellen zonder alle intelligente mensen uit het verleden. Dan was er geen wiel, geen schrift, geen baksteen, geen beton, geen staal, geen filosofie, geen natuurkunde, geen stoommachine, geen elektriciteit, geen stromend water, geen riool, geen dit en geen dat geweest…..
Kortom we zouden elke dag aan het overleven zijn in een ons zeer vijandige natuur….. En een gemiddelde leeftijd halen van nog geen 30 jaar oud.
Kortom, jij en @Cornelis van den Berg trekken onzinnige conclusies.
Dank je wel, Jan.
Dat opent weer een heel andere discussie. Wie is er nou vijandig, wij of de natuur?
Waren de indianen ongelukkig totdat de wetenschap er zijn intrede deed?
Zijn die gewonnen levensjaren wel zo gelukkig? Kijk naar de hoe de zorgkosten zijn verdeeld: het is kommer en kwel in die oudste leeftijdsgroepen. Is dat gezond voor een samenleving?
Maar we hebben onze welvaart ontegenzeggelijk te danken aan het bewaren en opbouwen van kennis. De natuur deed dat ook wel maar als je niet alleen vertrouwt op genetische ontwikkeling en natuurlijke selectie gaat het een stuk sneller. Maar wel minder grondig, vermoed ik…
Maar we dwalen af. Jullie hebben deze ook gezien? 👇
https://virusvaria.nl/studies-tonen-verband-tussen-iq-en-vaccinatiebereidheid/
Toch nog even een nabrander naar aanleiding post van Jan Bonte over onderzoek naar overlijdens door herseninfarct. Spike eiwitten aangetroffen in bloedvaten in de hersenen. Vast wel gelezen (op X).
In het kader van de Dijkgraaf discussie: een van de grootste leugens is dat de ‘vaccinaties’ op de plek van injectie zouden blijven. Dit is niet eens desinformatie maar een keiharde leugen. Ik heb op Jan Bonte’s X gereageerd. Jan zegt dat de mRNA’s juist zijn ontwikkeld om alle lichaams cellen te bereiken, en zoals gewoonlijk heeft hij gelijk. Dijkgraaf, maar ook Keulemans, Pierik, Osterhaus, de Jonge en al die andere prikgrage figuren hebben officieel meegebruld met het narratief dat de prikken in de bovenarm zouden blijven.
Dit is dus onzin (ik mag dat woord niet meer gebruiken van mijn vrouw, maar in dit geval is het passend). Ik zou zo graag eens iemand horen uitleggen wat voor mechanisme daar dan achter zit. Die LNP’s instrueren dat ze vooral in de bovenarm moeten blijven? Kan een van die figuren die zo stellig beweerden dat de injecties in de bovenarm zouden blijven, uitleggen hoe dat dan werkt mechanisch? Ben benieuwd. Mogen we ondertussen zeggen dat het wel duidelijk is dat het een leugen was? Ja, dat mogen we.
Ik weet niet of dit de grootste leugen is. De opgepompte IFR, het aerosolen verhaal, de idiote modellen van Ferguson, de dodelijke WHO protocollen, het ontkennen van natuurlijke immuniteit, de compleet uit de lucht gegrepen effectiviteits cijfers van de ‘vaccins’, de dramatisch slechte productie processen van de ‘vaccins’. Het is allemaal een bizarre opeenstapeling van leugens. En als ik even doordenk kan ik dat rijtje nog veel langer maken. Roekeloze opportunisten hoorde ik laatst als kreet bij de Nieuwe Wereld. Mooie omschrijving.