Robbert Dijkgraaf staat voor mij model voor de vriendelijke, intelligente, erudiete, geïnteresseerde en beschaafde intellectueel met groot vertrouwen in de instituten waarbinnen hij die overdaad aan talenten heeft weten te verzilveren. Het verband tussen een "hoog IQ" en "hoog vertrouwen in de status quo" ligt voor de hand: vertrouwen in de verdeling van geld, macht, in hoe de overheid dingen regelt. Wie succesvol is in dat Umfeld, is het levende bewijs van gerechtvaardigd vertrouwen. Dat is de basis. Overigens ook terug te zien in het vaccinatievertrouwen, zoals ik previously described.
Now it seems that Prof. Dr. Dijkgraaf recently had a propaganda block with Eva Jinek. I find it difficult to watch those 'talk shows' anymore - and especially such an intelligent, beautiful woman who is so wrong and who also passionately proves it out, together with a courteous, extremely decent scholar like Prof. Dijkgraaf - I don't watch those kinds of programs anymore. (Heart of the Netherlands, that still works. Wierd Duk is often included there 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 doet zijn werk en verdwijnt dan gewoon heel snel, als een snapchat". Nu is 'verdwijnen' van medicatie iets om mee op te passen. Er zijn experimentele therapieën gestopt omdat men er niet begreep waar het medicijn bleef. Ze kwamen er niet achter hoe het omgezet of afgevoerd werd (en ik kan mij herinneren dat er later resten in de hersenen werden teruggevonden). Dus 'floep-en... weg!' dat klinkt te mooi om waar te zijn. Zeker bij artificieel mRNA met een verlengde houdbaarheidsdatum.
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 technology 'worked much better than we did had ever dared to dream'. In short: the effect was a dream, there were no hard guarantees. There were no hard results from solid, independent (possibly peer-reviewed) studies at all. 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.
That the injections rolled out worldwide were experimental, that they had been wrongly classified as a 'vaccine' and could thus avoid the regular requirements for medication and genetically modified products, that Phase 3 research had not been completed and side effects in the (medium) long term were unknown, that they did not stop transmission, all this was contradicted from above. Yet Robbert Dijkgraaf gave a good representation on X of how things really stood. 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
Anyway. The point is that I just saw that Maurice de Hond - who does closely monitor the propaganda channels - saw the interview and wrote an open letter to Robbert Dijkgraaf in response. The vaccines have never been a prominent topic for Maurice and that topic could also hinder the willingness of 'science' to discuss.
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 Prof. Dr. Dijkgraaf wants to get involved in such a vulgar discussion. After all, there is little scientific or honesty about this anymore. This is more likely to go towards the Faculty of Law, the ERVM and Nuremberg. Should that really 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 tricky issue. Precisely because everything surrounding the vaccines in particular has caused the most distrust. People really suffer from this, just like from excess mortality, although they are not (yet) very concerned about it. You could say that most other points are already being forgotten... Jan van der Zanden introduced a third point: the previous, 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 aerosol transmission was 'forgotten' earlier, see point 3), most 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, known long before we started this approach in the Netherlands, was that those who had been 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 still spread the virus. And there are many examples from that time where many people present in a room where access was granted via the Corona admission ticket were still infected.
A striking example is 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 still became infected. That was more than half of those present.
This is also an excellent example of how, by not applying their scientific principles, the experts (scientists from OMT and RIVM) have given advice that unnecessarily placed many people in risky situations and caused many unnecessary victims.
5. The first lockdowns
The lockdowns saved 100,000 years of life but cost 620,000, notes Jan van der Zanden1See Former CBS director points out horrifying figures. €150 billion was paid for those 100,000 years of life, which means more than €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.
The critical Gupta report with similar calculations was published in April 2020. This was immediately refuted with questionable arguments2See Gupta criticism refuted and some more scientific interest in the substantiation of the deviating policies of Sweden and a number of states in the US would certainly have been appropriate.
As far as the vaccines are concerned (point 8), Prof. Dijkgraaf can provide an additional argument that WOO requests have shown that RIVM was also aware in 2021 that there was only a positive benefit/risk ratio for people over approximately 60 years of age.
6. De Omikron lockdown
At the end of November 2021, the Omikron variant emerged near Johannesburg. Almost immediately, the doctors involved reported that the virus was clearly more contagious than the previous variant, but much less sickening. That is, among other thingsreported in mid-Decemberon my website.
While the numbers in hospitals in the Netherlands were declining in mid-December, the RIVM had made a forecast based on their model. They combined the high contagiousness of Omikron with the pathogenicity of the previous variant. And on that basis, a lockdown was recommended because otherwise the hospitals would be overrun at the end of January 2022.
AlsoI have known about this in advance based on the available knowledge from South Africaindicated that this would be a wrong decision with very negative consequences from a lockdown (which ultimately lasted 6 weeks). The Netherlands was the only European country that introduced a lockdown at the time!? And all this based on a RIVM model that could already be shown to be wrong in advance.
How bad the model was can be clearly seen by comparing the model's prediction and the actual figures. This graph shows the RIVM's prediction if the recommended measures were introduced (the other predictions were much more negative). In this graph you can see the real figures from the beginning of 2022 in black.
The forecast for ICU occupancy for the fourth week of January was around 1,700. But the actual number was less than 400... Even when it was 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 publicly addressed. These are precisely the examples that have and continue to seriously undermine public confidence in science. Because thanks to this model, there would have been a 6-week lockdown from just before Christmas until 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 arguments that should bring shame to real scientists. Perhaps to arrive at the desired conclusions. You can read my explanation about the Nivel reportread back hereand forthe report from UMC of Utrecht Universityhere. As a physicist, who can demonstrably think logically, I do not want to deprive you of a brief explanation in this letter.
The report states thatthere is no questionof mortality due to vaccination in the first period after vaccination.
This is “proven” by the fact that in the first three weeks after vaccination the “all cause mortality” is 44% lower 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 states 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 fail to answer the question “How can it be that people die significantly less after being vaccinated against Covid-19 than if that had not happened?“And neither”How can those death rates be so much lower in the first week?”
The explanation is very simple. Those who were expected to die quickly have largely stopped getting vaccinated. So the chance that a vaccinated person would die quickly had become a lot smaller. And the longer the time has elapsed since the time of vaccination, the greater the mortality among those vaccinated.
The fact that mortality was 44% lower in that first week says NOTHING about the possible negative effect of the vaccination. Because the observed 44% lower mortality could be the result of the process of selection of that pre-select during vaccination and death as a result of the vaccination. (for example, due to the selection process, mortality in the first three weeks should have been 55% and it became 45% due to that extra mortality).
I'm not saying this was the case, the numbers are just an assumption. But I'm just saying that the researchers' conclusion that it was 0% is baseless, and a blatantly bad way to conduct and report a study. (As a result, among other things, a minister in the House of Representatives indicated that this research 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 leave the topic of 'vaccines' for a later time. After all, if you start talking about it, you are immediately 'finished'. This would undermine Maurice's unifying tone. So better not in the letter, exclusively for virusvaria readers:
8. Vaccines
People have been unnecessarily injected with a drug because of their immunity (see 2). only under emergency conditions could be administered. (EUA = Emergency Use Authorization. The pharmaceutical companies have now even managed to include the drug in the American child vaccination program, thanks to blackmail with fear and threats.)
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 people at less risk after an injection. After all, the 'do it for someone else' mantra was based on a myth of herd immunity: the inhibition of transmission through 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 prohibited
- the existing and developing immunity was misunderstood
- vaccinations stopped transmission negligibly
- vaccinations only were useful for a limited, easily identifiable target group,
Despite all that, there was still no danger, let alone distress, for the vast majority of the population. After all, everything had been done... Science was not transparent in this and was able to fail unhindered. On this basis, regaining trust is a hopeless mission and science in no way deserves the required trust.
Your chair
If you seriously want to research and teach about the deteriorating relationship between society and science, then you cannot ignore this highly unscientific behavior 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 a disservice to science and society.
And precisely because this action of the scientists has not been officially evaluated and those involved have not openly accounted for the bad advice they have given, that distrust will remain among part of the population. Something I also experience, partly because people have not wanted to debate it in public.
Given your background, your open attitude and your assignment as a professor, I assume that you will absorb this information and provide an answer that will also be in the public domain.
It is necessary to achieve what you want to achieve – bringing science and society closer together again, 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 whereby what has been reported is publicly evaluated, I am afraid that all the lamentations about that increasing gap are just crocodile tears.
But as I said, I think highly of you and expect a good and substantive answer from you.
All that remains is to wish you the best of luck in your new job.
Drs. Maurice the Dog
(including former lecturer in research methods and techniques at the UvA).
(but to add punt 2. Natural immunity and 8. Vaccines by Drs. A.E.J.C. Theunissen), and period 5. The first lockdowns by Jan van der Zanden)
Footnotes
- 1
- 2
Maurice would be a better cast for that “chair”.
Oh that Maurice, that loving steamroller who moves towards his goal so calmly and purposefully, so equanimously. Someone who never wastes emotions (and energy). Someone who still manages to 'absorb' so much untruth, stupidity and deception through talk shows and sometimes takes the invaluable effort to respond in a friendly, critical, but above all very to-the-point manner. So much appreciation for this man. And then Robbert Dijkgraaf... indeed the man who so smoothly represents 'science', but who for me has really fallen through the cracks.
As minister of education, Dijkgraaf represented sdg and wefdoelen and anti-science. The man never wanted anything to do with politics and suddenly appeared as a D66 minister in the most unscientific period of our lives. Someone can hardly get to the bottom of it. Unfortunately, there are far too many unscrupulous people like this. Google his name and you will be amazed.
The trouble is that in my opinion he is not without conscience. He wouldn't hurt a fly.
But “just” a victim of groupthink/tunnel vision. And, like the majority of academics, they firmly believe in the paradigms that Science is debiting in 2025. And unfortunately there are a number of paradigms that are incorrect.
And as a result, as a pawn/cog, he unconsciously partly contributes to bringing misfortune 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 give it a try, Jan? Of course you don't work at a university, would he still want to listen?
For a moment I thought 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, for example, Pfizer was questionable because Pfizer itself investigated it and did not count some deaths and the effectiveness was mainly based on people under 60 who rarely died from corona alone. This was also generally known about flu vaccination, of which it was said about fifteen years ago: The vaccinations (read: immune system and built-up natural immunity) work much better in people under 60 than in people over 60.
Even if the effectiveness of the shots calculated in mid-2020 were somewhat correct, a child knows that the shots can never provide the health benefits in mid-2021. Not only because the weakest people are already largely dead, but especially because other viruses were dominant in the meantime, while everyone received a vaccination based on the Wuhan virus.
Even more important: The effectiveness was calculated in 2020 based on 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 in any case much better protected by that natural infection and, to a large extent, had even more protection because they had had more recent virus variants among their members.
Yet they continued to come up with very positive effectiveness calculations (even in 2022 when over 95 percent were already naturally infected) that matched Pfizer's basic calculations, etc. This is really impossible. Unless, of course, acquired immunity does not exist. A fable, of course: Israeli research already calculated in 2021 that naturally acquired immunity worked 15 to 20 times better than vaccination.
You're absolutely right, you're just blaming the wrong person. The real culprits are the virologists, epidemiologists, pharmacists and pharmacologists. They know better. And they should have opened their mouths because they understand the profession that you (and I) rightly criticize.
Dijkgraaf is a physicist. And he simply believes and trusts his colleagues at the universities. Wrongly, yes. But he just hasn't figured it out yet. I suspect that a conversation with Maurice, if he is open to it, will make the scales fall from his eyes.
The next question is whether he will express that. Because it makes his further life impossible, considering what happened to many others who confessed color...
Of course I don't blame him. He is, to say the least, very naive and gullible. I'm just explaining that anyone who thinks a little logically can figure out that the (invented) calculated effectiveness of the shots can never remain so high if people are only vaccinated with them a year later, etc. etc.. Any study that says that the high effectiveness was there at the time cannot be taken seriously and you therefore do not actually have to investigate further.
For the perpetrators, you forget the uncritical MSM, Google, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter and all kinds of websites that usually did not publish critical opinions about corona policy and often even boycott their writers to this day.
I think Maurice has a better chance of an interview than I do.
It is idk. 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 a very emotional person, but whatever. You can safely hand over your wallet.
But he (still) believes in the statement: all people are good.
Although I suspect that he will not soon enter politics again 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. Perhaps 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 way to get in between the content. Maurice is always portrayed as a non-medical scientist. Unjustified, because he has now proven that he sees many things correctly. But you can't catch someone like Rogier Louwen for that kind of 'gaslighting'.
You have to realize that immunology, epidemiology and virology are not his field.
But as a natural scientist he almost certainly (still) has the illusion that the humanities and social sciences act with just as much integrity and rationality as the sciences. And that is clearly not true.
A few years ago, De Volkskrant took down 70% of such studies, peer reviewed and published in renowned professional journals, because they were either not reproducible or simply clearly incorrect.
What are these reasons why Dijkgraaf would not be unscrupulous? Unscrupulous: without a sense of what is right and wrong. Other definitions of unscrupulous: impudent, irresponsible, etc. What do you mean alphas, gammas versus betas? Of course I hope that Dijkgraaf will be spoken to and convinced before he causes any more problems in his new position. I succeeded to a small extent with a message to someone who was in the media a lot, doctor, scientist, D66 member in an 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 I recently heard in a discussion program was "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 of the diploma due to the extreme erosion of science and the damage that has been done and continues to be done to science, to the university and the professor, but never heard anything again. Thank you that virusvaria continues until the bottom stone (number) emerges!
I was furious about it. At that time I still listened faithfully to Radio 2, where Diederik Gommers was almost a regular guest in the afternoon between 4 and 7 p.m. He once said that people who had already had the disease did not 'actually' 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 Vitae commercial.
I then spoke to people who strongly agreed with me and took the injection anyway...
As for Dijkgraaf: I had enormous respect for him during the time of DWDD, where he was a regular guest. It is incomprehensible that he is now proclaiming such a huge quatsch. He probably took the injections and the contents affected his mental faculties. Very unfortunate and annoying.
Very good idea from you, Cees!
Anton, completely agree. But you forget one crucial one:
It's a very good letter. But it is a shame that the two measures with the greatest impact, financially and in terms of health, are not included:
a. the seemingly endless lock downs, which added 100,000 years of life but cost 620,000. And €150 billion was paid for those 100,000 years of life, 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 in March 2020 at Min. EZK already known. And in April 2020 in the publicity due to the (not 100% reliable, but 50%) Gupta report and deviating policies of Sweden and a number of states in the US.
b. of the vaccines was already known in 2021, even at RIVM, according to WOO requests, that it only had a positive benefit/risk ratio for people over approximately 60 years of age. (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 greater chance of success with people like Dijkgraaf...)
The Corona policy is a shame/scam/etc.
And a disgrace to “Science” and the influence of that science on policy.
Then one more issue is crucial. Why did this actually happen? And worldwide. What mechanism was behind that?
That is no WEF, no conspiracy, no 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, watch/listen/read all the news reports from that time. And you see it happening before you. And if you don't realize it, it will happen again the next time a disaster occurs. And that is also just regular medical-ethical science, but a little further from Dijkgraaf's bedside, I expect.
Good letter, Anton and valuable addition, Jan.
The Rule of Rescue has of course played an important role in the entire reaction, but in my opinion the enormous overshoot and even worse the deliberately spread disinformation does not fully explain it.
Take the aerogenous 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 might help? What happened to “if it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt” which applied to many other measures?
But no, this was a new virus “of which we know nothing 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) This virus seems to have been tinkered with.
Note that if you can make 2) plausible, 1) automatically follows.
I think many virologists realized in '19 that they were caught with their pants around their ankles. The cover-up that followed and the enormous overreaction because they had no idea what they had done is IMHO the result of this.
I wonder if Robbert Dijkgraaf wouldn't be more sensitive to a discussion about this enormous scientific fraud. Although I think that, as noted above, as a true scientist he does not want/cannot doubt the righteousness of other scientists.
I leave open whether this is consciously or unconsciously naive.
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 I think it would be wiser not to confront Dijkgraaf with this at this stage.
Conspiracies and the like are 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 foregoing. Scientifically substantiated with best practices from, among others, marketing. Desmet further specified this with his mass hysteria, but that is actually very old.
4. And finally: returning to normal/progressive insight is psychologically very complicated (ego); That's why this only happens when there really is no other option.
I have expanded the addition, thank you!
I no longer trust science at all when it no longer meets my feelings, intuition and logic. The 'science' does not exist. It is not a physical thing, it is mainly theory and belief and to a very small extent proven. Science is true until proven otherwise. So it is a temporary thing just like faith. Science is a religion, slightly based on reality and largely adapted to the 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 people. 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 formulated in ancient Greece. And that is precisely what a lot of “science” does not meet. And especially the “science” and “scientists” who were speaking and at the wheel during Corona. These are amateurs/tinkerers who went against the basic principles of science.
So your conclusion is far too simplistic. Science is very useful for humanity.
In terms of Robbert Dijkgraaf: perhaps it is naivety, but how can you function for so long, with such effective blinders on? How is it possible to exclude so much, to be unable and unwilling to see so much. Even if it is not your area of expertise.
There have also been so many people who have pointed out side effects, excess mortality, and interesting articles to ministers with honest emails and letters. There were strong arguments in House of Representatives debates by Pepijn van Houwelingen and Fleur Agema (when she was still on the other side). Prof. Dijkgraaf could hardly have missed all that, right?
I thought one of Anton's most interesting articles was 'Decent people don't click'. A recognizable description of how people group themselves socially and professionally and how the establishment is committed to maintaining itself. You have to be very strong and strong-willed or long-retired to consciously violate social and occupational codes. In everyday practice: why Marcel Levi could not participate in a panel discussion organized by Maurice de Hond without endangering his position and the position of colleagues. And possibly also why Robbert Dijkgraaf is not yet willing and able to succumb to the growing pile of evidence for a 'different reality', a different truth.
Why I doubted the good intentions of governments and pharmaceutical companies is the banning of demonstrably effective medicines, the complete ignoring and even 'eliminating' serious side effects and the injection of children. This makes me think that there must be more to it than a temporary error, more than a fatal mistake in the safety and effectiveness of a new 'vaccine'. And that there may also be rather influential parties playing an unsavory role.
I was also surprised in the first year of Covid that people around me did not drop out in droves. After all, there was a 'deadly virus' going around. There were no people in my area who knew people who had died of Covid. They had often heard of deaths further away… through the grapevine.
Covid has made me see many things differently. Also retroactively. I think, for example, of 'Joris Driepinter and 'The disk of five' in which dairy plays such an important role, while one in ten Westerners in fact cannot tolerate milk (products) well. As a child I thought that milk made you healthy and strong. The more the better actually. In retrospect, I see it more as a very successful lobby of the dairy industry.
Then there was the fear of high cholesterol, but thank God there were statins. It was never mentioned how essential cholesterol is in the body. In fact, for a long time I thought that an ideal cholesterol level would be approximately zero. Millions of people in the Netherlands still take their statins with conviction. And the belief is still that you can eat a maximum of two eggs per week. And these are of course the more innocent deceptions.
I mean that I came to see in so many more areas and points that we have been fooled for so much longer and that we have come to believe in things that work out better for the industry and government agendas than for us.
At the beginning of the Covid situation, certain groups of people were mentioned in the media who did not want to be injected. In that group I missed the people who have been looking for other ways to heal from something for a while. For example, people with CFS or fibromyalgia who could not be treated better anywhere else. These people have previously been confronted with the limitations of regular doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. Just as people in former Eastern Bloc countries have come to trust governments less, CFS patients trust the medical world less.
What I also noticed in testimonies surrounding Covid is that people who were homeschooled were less susceptible to framing and propaganda. I think that our schools, universities and society as a whole do not contribute much to critical thinking. And this has been enormously reinforced with the cancel culture and (a)social media. Because you can easily be completely digitally finished in half a day if you dare to doubt certain 'truths'. It is not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of critical thinking, of self-knowledge, of the courage to say something different than the prevailing narrative within your own group.
Only since I fell out of the flow of self-evident 'left-wing thinking' during the Covid period have I noticed how everyone around me immediately and completely agrees with 'left-wing' positions and ideas. In a manner of speaking, it is better not to say that it may not be wise to remove the breasts of a 16-year-old depressed teenager because she certainly thinks she will be happier than a he.
Someone once said: don't shout 'hallelujah' when everyone shouts, nor 'crucify him, crucify him' when everyone shouts. That seems to me to be an important truth.
You yourself are the best proof that your argument is incorrect.
Very sensible and intelligent people can spend years in a deep tunnel of groupthink. You were like that too. And you didn't realize it for a long time. Me, too….
One of Johan Cruijff's “laws” applies here: You only see it when you realize it.
That's literally right.
And T.S. Kuhn already scientifically investigated this principle among scientists in 1962 and wrote it down neatly.
I am curious how Robbert Dijkgraaf will fill this chair.
The chair concerns the relationship between science and society. Dijkgraaf is an excellent physicist. However, he knows no more about society than the average citizen.
In my opinion, such a chair is more something for philosophers and sociologists.
In my opinion, the perverse relationship between science and subsidies by Big Pharma, Big Finance and others should be a spearhead in research. Hopefully the emphasis will not be on the reduced confidence of citizens in science and the fight against so-called "disinformation". But I fear the worst.
Maybe I'm too negative and he will mainly focus on the importance of pure science and how we must ensure that applied science becomes independent again. Also important is the question of how science and politics should relate to each other.
I think it would be useful to establish such a chair. But in the end it's all about the implementation.
I agree with you that there are better candidates for such a chair.
Dijkgraaf is “uber regular” and has never expressed much criticality towards society and common stupid routines. He is too “good”.
Someone like Marcel Levi, who is quite controversial, would be a much better choice for such a chair in that respect. He can really think out-of-the-box. I have never been able to catch Dijkgraaf doing that.
Even better would be Armand Girbes.
What are a high IQ and a professorship worth in practice? After hesitating for a while in 2020, after I discovered that we were being cheated from above regarding Covid, I spoke to some construction workers who were working on a neighboring plot. They had discovered that before. How is that possible? They had (and do not) have any confidence in the government and had become wise on this point early in their lives. How different from a distant cousin, a general practitioner, who assured me in a conversation about this: the government has your best interests at heart. He continued to get injected and advised his children to do so as well. In one of the last messages he said that his daughter, in her forties, had been diagnosed with cancer and he also mentioned other family members who had this happen to them. He made no connection with the boosters. I didn't even mention that possibility. A few months ago he broke off email contact. I think he's sick or already dead. The moral of this story? I don't attempt to write that down. It brings me to tears. The worst thing is that even people with a high IQ fall for it again and again.
It was precisely people with a high IQ who fell for it with butter and sugar, Cornelis! Because: becoming highly educated is done with the approval, sponsorship, etc. of the governments. This is how all those good, highly educated citizens are created.
Those construction workers, on the other hand, will often have to deal with governments in a different way when permits have to be arranged for projects and they experience the stiffness, senselessness of regulations and unwillingness of officials.
I just saw an interesting interview by Tucker Carlson with Dr. Soon-Shiong, including about cancer and its connection to Covid and the vaccinations.
Here's a short cut (11 min.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iisDJ-jKAF8
And here the entire interview (1.45 hours): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgZaT-OriO8
Chilling…
I agree with you on this, but not with the conclusion that you don't need intelligent and scientific people.
I would advise you to imagine a world without all the intelligent people of the past. Then there would have been no wheel, no writing, no brick, no concrete, no steel, no philosophy, no physics, no steam engine, no electricity, no running water, no sewer, no this and no that...
In short, we would be surviving every day in a nature that is very hostile to us... And reach an average age of less than 30 years old.
In short, you and @Cornelis van den Berg draw nonsensical conclusions.
Thank you, Jan.
That opens up a completely different discussion. Who is hostile, us or nature?
Were the Indians unhappy until science arrived?
Are the years of life gained really so happy? Look at how health care costs are distributed: it is doom and gloom in the oldest age groups. Is that healthy for a society?
But we undeniably owe our prosperity to the preservation and accumulation of knowledge. Nature did that too, but if you don't just rely on genetic development and natural selection, things will go a lot faster. But less thoroughly, I suspect…
But we digress. Have you seen this one too? 👇
https://virusvaria.nl/studies-tonen-verband-tussen-iq-en-vaccinatiebereidheid/
Still, just a quick reminder of Jan Bonte's post about research into deaths due to cerebral infarction. Spike proteins found in blood vessels in the brain. I'm sure you read it (on X).
In the context of the Dijkgraaf discussion: one of the biggest lies is that the 'vaccinations' would remain at the injection site. This is not even disinformation but an outright lie. I responded to Jan Bonte's X. Jan says that the mRNAs have been developed to reach all body cells, and as usual he is right. Dijkgraaf, but also Keulemans, Pierik, Osterhaus, de Jonge and all those other prickly figures have officially joined in with the narrative that the pricks would remain in the upper arm.
So this is nonsense (my wife won't let me use that word anymore, but in this case it's appropriate). I would really like to hear someone explain what mechanism is behind this. Instructing those LNPs that they should mainly stay in the upper arm? Can one of those figures who so firmly stated that the injections would remain in the upper arm explain how that works mechanically? I'm curious. In the meantime, can we say that it is clear that it was a lie? Yes, we can.
I don't know if this is the biggest lie. The inflated IFR, the aerosol story, the idiotic models of Ferguson, the deadly WHO protocols, the denial of natural immunity, the completely out of the air effectiveness figures of the 'vaccines', the dramatically poor production processes of the 'vaccines'. It's all a bizarre collection of lies. And if I think about it for a moment, I can make that list much longer. I recently heard the cry of reckless opportunists in the New World. Nice description.